Mary Mother of Jesus, not of God.

[Cis.jd]

Why do you quote Luke 1:43? That's Mary's cousin Elizabeth talking about her child, calling Him "my Lord".

Because who is called Lord in the Bible, especially to the Jews?

 

[prodromos]

Not the Father nor the Holy Spirit, as she was Mother to the humanity of Jesus, not His deity!

No one has ever suggested that Mary was mother to God the Father or God the Holy Spirit. We are only ever speaking of Jesus, God the Son. There is a simple concept known as context which seems too difficult a concept for some. We can speak of God as the Trinity, we can speak of God as the Father, we can speak of God as the Son and we can speak of God as the Holy Spirit. Context usually makes it clear which we are referring to when we make reference to God. When talking about Mary as the mother of God, we are clearly talking about her Son, Jesus Christ, who is God the Son. We call Mary, mother of God, because her Son IS God. Her Son is also human BECAUSE He is the Son of a human woman.

I'm guessing you also have some strange idea that mothers create their children?
A mother is a woman who carries a child in their womb. A mother is a woman who gives birth to their child. A mother is a woman who nurses their child through infancy. Mary did all of that to a person who is eternal God. She became His mother then and remains His mother for all eternity.

 

[pescador]

No one has ever suggested that Mary was mother to God the Father or God the Holy Spirit. We are only ever speaking of Jesus, God the Son. There is a simple concept known as context which seems too difficult a concept for some. We can speak of God as the Trinity, we can speak of God as the Father, we can speak of God as the Son and we can speak of God as the Holy Spirit. Context usually makes it clear which we are referring to when we make reference to God. When talking about Mary as the mother of God, we are clearly talking about her Son, Jesus Christ, who is God the Son. We call Mary, mother of God, because her Son IS God. Her Son is also human BECAUSE He is the Son of a human woman.

I'm guessing you also have some strange idea that mothers create their children?
A mother is a woman who carries a child in their womb. A mother is a woman who gives birth to their child. A mother is a woman who nurses their child through infancy. Mary did all of that to a person who is eternal God. She became His mother then and remains His mother for all eternity.

Except when Jesus denied her. Matthew 12:46-50, "While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.”

He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”

 

[prodromos]

Except when Jesus denied her. Matthew 12:46-50, "While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.”

He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”

Mary absolutely did the will of His Father. After Christ, she is the primary example of living in obedience to God. You are also implicitly claiming that Jesus broke one of the 10 commandments, "Honour your father and your mother".

 

[Cis.jd]

Protestants complain about saying Mary the Mother of God makes it sound like she is above God, or preexisted him, however why wouldn't that be the same issue with saying "Mary the mother of Jesus"? Wouldn't that mean she is above him or preexisted Jesus? Unless they view Jesus to be of lesser value than God, which they actually are suggesting if we follow their logic rubric.

 

[Cis.jd]

It means Scripture Alone but you have to understand what is meant by that. And you don't want to do so.

Your reply reminds me of the way that some non-Protestants dissect the term Sola Fide. Oh, they say, "that says Faith Alone, so it MUST mean that we aren't expected to do any good works: they're are unnecessary and possibly even wrong to do because we've got Faith!"

So, they ignore the context when it comes to Sola Fide and give the same retort that you give with regard to Sola Scriptura.

Well, there are so many protestants and each of them describe sola scriptura and sola fide differently.

 

[pescador]

Protestants complain about saying Mary the Mother of God makes it sound like she is above God, or preexisted him, however why wouldn't that be the same issue with saying "Mary the mother of Jesus"? Wouldn't that mean she is above him or preexisted Jesus? Unless they view Jesus to be of lesser value than God, which they actually are suggesting if we follow their logic rubric.

God preexisted creation, and Jesus, through whom all things were made, was with God in the beginning. Mary preexisted Jesus in human form; she gave birth to Him.

 

[pescador]

Well, there are so many protestants and each of them describe sola scriptura and sola fide differently.

So we're not "sheep" like Catholics? Protestant actually think for themselves! Imagine such a "sin"!

Sola scriptura: Sola scriptura, meaning by scripture alone, is a Christian theological doctrine held by some Protestant Christian denominations, in particular the Lutheran and Reformed traditions of Protestantism, that posits the Bible as the sole infallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice.

Sola fide: Sola fide asserts that God's pardon for guilty sinners is granted to and received through faith alone, excluding all "works" (good deeds).

 

[prodromos]

she gave birth to Him.

That's right. She gave birth to "Him", a person. Do you agree that this person she gave birth to is God?

 

[rturner76]

Mary is the mother of a person. She is not the mother of some flesh. The person she is the mother of is God.

Hence the name Mary Mother of God. EL Madre de Dios

 

[rturner76]

Except when Jesus denied her. Matthew 12:46-50, "While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.”

He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”

SO Mary didn't do God's will? Oh wait she did.

 

[hedrick]

That's right. She gave birth to "Him", a person. Do you agree that this person she gave birth to is God?

I think there's some question what you mean by "Jesus." Is there a distinction between Jesus and the Logos? I think de facto a lot of people use Jesus to refer to Christ's human existence, and Christ when the reference is broader.

I think it's fair to say that Mary was the mother of the human being and God in different ways. She was the biological mother of the human being. Jesus had her DNA. Because the Logos was united to the human nature, she bore the Logos, too, but saying that she was the biological mother of the Logos would seem nonsensical.

Thus I don't think it's wrong to maintain some distinction between the sense in which she is Jesus' mother and God's mother.

Christians have been very concerned to maintain the divinity of Christ, but there's an opposite danger, of denying the existence of the human being. I think a lot of Christians in a very real sense deny the existence of Jesus, seeing a body, mind, etc, manipulated directly by the Logos without actually constituting a human being. I don't think that's what Chalcedon meant by saying that Christ is just one hypostasis.

 

[Cis.jd]

So we're not "sheep" like Catholics? Protestant actually think for themselves! Imagine such a "sin"!

No, it just means that you all end up having your own definition/meaning of it.

 

[Cis.jd]

Mary preexisted Jesus in human form; she gave birth to Him.

So Jesus in human form isn't God?

 

[prodromos]

I think there's some question what you mean by "Jesus." Is there a distinction between Jesus and the Logos? I think de facto a lot of people use Jesus to refer to Christ's human existence, and Christ when the reference is broader.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God; all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father.​

No, I don't believe there is a distinction between Jesus and the Logos.

I think it's fair to say that Mary was the mother of the human being and God in different ways. She was the biological mother of the human being. Jesus had her DNA. Because the Logos was united to the human nature, she bore the Logos, too, but saying that she was the biological mother of the Logos would seem nonsensical.

She is His mother. Adding descriptives like "biological" would seem nonsensical as well as being unscriptural.

 

[BNR32FAN]

But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law.

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.

Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh.

Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me.

The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Mary was the believing virgin woman in whose flesh was conceived the body prepared by the Spirit for the Word. He come down from heaven to dwell in that body of flesh among men, to show them the Father as He is.

And it was the Father who called Him the Son of God, not Mary: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

That holy thing was the body of flesh prepared for Him to dwell in. The Word coming down out of heaven to be the Son of God in flesh on earth was not that holy thing.

The second Adam had a body flesh prepared for His soul, even as the first Adam had a body of dust prepared for His soul to dwell in: first the sinless body and holy thing was prepared, then God breathed into it, and Adam become a living soul dwelling therein.

So also, a sinless and holy thing was prepared for the Lord Himself, in which He entered and became the Son of God dwelling therein.

Neither the living soul of Adam nor of Jesus was that body of sinless flesh, which was first made of dust, and then made of a woman.

The Son of God's body was made of flesh of a woman of the seed of David. The Son Himself was neither made nor created ever at all.

The body of Eve was also made of the flesh of Adam, even as that of Jesus from Mary.

The Son Himself and God the Word was no more the 'son' of Mary, than was Eve the 'daughter' of Adam.

Mary was a good and faithful woman of Israel who carried the holy and sinless body of Jesus and gave birth to it, not to God.

Here’s how the church defines Mary the mother of God. The emphasis is that Jesus was God even before His birth. His body was not born then He entered into it nor was He a mere man, He was fully God since His body’s incarnation in Mary’s womb. The term is not intended to venerate Mary its intended to correctly convey how Christ came to be in the flesh. Here’s a letter from Cyril to Nestorius that explains exactly what the term meant and what it didn’t mean as well.

To the most religious and beloved of God, fellow minister Nestorius, Cyril sends greeting in the Lord.

I hear that some are rashly talking of the estimation in which I hold your holiness, and that this is frequently the case especially at the times that meetings are held of those in authority. And perchance they think in so doing to say something agreeable to you, but they speak senselessly, for they have suffered no injustice at my hands, but have been exposed by me only to their profit; this man as an oppressor of the blind and needy, and that as one who wounded his mother with a sword. Another because he stole, in collusion with his waiting maid, another’s money, and had always laboured under the imputation of such like crimes as no one would wish even one of his bitterest enemies to be laden with. I take little reckoning of the words of such people, for the disciple is not above his Master, nor would I stretch the measure of my narrow brain above the Fathers, for no matter what path of life one pursues it is hardly possible to escape the smirching of the wicked, whose mouths are full of cursing and bitterness, and who at the last must give an account to the Judge of all.

But I return to the point which especially I had in mind. And now I urge you, as a brother in the Lord, to propose the word of teaching and the doctrine of the faith with all accuracy to the people, and to consider that the giving of scandal to one even of the least of those who believe in Christ, exposes a body to the unbearable indignation of God. And of how great diligence and skill there is need when the multitude of those grieved is so great, so that we may administer the healing word of truth to them that seek it. But this we shall accomplish most excellently if we shall turn over the words of the holy Fathers, and are zealous to obey their commands, proving ourselves, whether we be in the faith according to that which is written, and conform our thoughts to their upright and irreprehensible teaching.

The holy and great Synod therefore says, that the only begotten Son, born according to nature of God the Father, very God of very God, Light of Light, by whom the Father made all things, came down, and was incarnate, and was made man, suffered, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven. These words and these decrees we ought to follow, considering what is meant by the Word of God being incarnate and made man. For we do not say that the nature of the Word was changed and became flesh, or that it was converted into a whole man consisting of soul and body; but rather that the Word having personally united to himself flesh animated by a rational soul, did in an ineffable and inconceivable manner become man, and was called the Son of Man, not merely as willing or being pleased to be so called, neither on account of taking to himself a person, but because the two natures being brought together in a true union, there is of both one Christ and one Son; for the difference of the natures is not taken away by the union, but rather the divinity and the humanity make perfect for us the one Lord Jesus Christ by their ineffable and inexpressible union.

So then he who had an existence before all ages and was born of the Father, is said to have been born according to the flesh of a woman, not as though his divine nature received its beginning of existence in the holy Virgin, for it needed not any second generation after that of the Father (for it would be absurd and foolish to say that he who existed before all ages, coeternal with the Father, needed any second beginning of existence), but since, for us and for our salvation, he personally united to himself an human body, and came forth of a woman, he is in this way said to be born after the flesh; for he was not first born a common man of the holy Virgin, and then the Word came down and entered into him, but the union being made in the womb itself, he is said to endure a birth after the flesh, ascribing to himself the birth of his own flesh. On this account we say that he suffered and rose again; not as if God the Word suffered in his own nature stripes, or the piercing of the nails, or any other wounds, for the Divine nature is incapable of suffering, inasmuch as it is incorporeal, but since that which had become his own body suffered in this way, he is also said to suffer for us; for he who is in himself incapable of suffering was in a suffering body.

In the same manner also we conceive respecting his dying; for the Word of God is by nature immortal and incorruptible, and life and life-giving; since, however, his own body did, as Paul says, by the grace of God taste death for every man, he himself is said to have suffered death for us, not as if he had any experience of death in his own nature (for it would be madness to say or think this), but because, as I have just said, his flesh tasted death. In like manner his flesh being raised again, it is spoken of as his resurrection, not as if he had fallen into corruption (God forbid), but because his own body was raised again.

We, therefore, confess one Christ and Lord, not as worshipping a man with the Word (lest this expression “with the Word” should suggest to the mind the idea of division), but worshipping him as one and the same, forasmuch as the body of the Word, with which he sits with the Father, is not separated from the Word himself, not as if two sons were sitting with him, but one by the union with the flesh. If, however, we reject the personal union as impossible or unbecoming, we fall into the error of speaking of two sons, for it will be necessary to distinguish, and to say, that he who was properly man was honoured with the appellation of Son, and that he who is properly the Word of God, has by nature both the name and the reality of Sonship.

We must not, therefore, divide the one Lord Jesus Christ into two Sons. Neither will it at all avail to a sound faith to hold, as some do, a union of persons; for the Scripture has not said that the Word united to himself the person of man, but that he was made flesh. This expression, however, “the Word was made flesh,” can mean nothing else but that he partook of flesh and blood like to us; he made our body his own, and came forth man from a woman, not casting off his existence as God, or his generation of God the Father, but even in taking to himself flesh remaining what he was. This the declaration of the correct faith proclaims everywhere. This was the sentiment of the holy Fathers; therefore they ventured to call the holy Virgin, the Mother of God, not as if the nature of the Word or his divinity had its beginning from the holy Virgin, but because of her was born that holy body with a rational soul, to which the Word being personally united is said to be born according to the flesh.

These things, therefore, I now write unto you for the love of Christ, beseeching you as a brother, and testifying to you before Christ and the elect angels, that you would both think and teach these things with us, that the peace of the Churches may be preserved and the bond of concord and love continue unbroken amongst the Priests of God. Send greetings to the brothers who are with you.

Those who are with me send greetings in Christ.

 

[BNR32FAN]

The whole controversy comes down to that line in red and how it is understood by the reader. It reflects what almost always is said in one fashion or another when this debate gets going.

The truth is that Mary bore the baby who already existed as God. No problem there. But she did not "give birth to" God in the usual sense of that expression, which would be to say that she originated God.

Yes and the church has always taught it that way as you said here.

 

[YeshuaFan]

She conceived and gave birth to a Person, not a nature. She is the mother of Jesus. That makes her the mother of the Divine Person, the Son and Logos, Jesus Christ. She is not mother of His humanity, she is not mother of His Deity, she is mother of Him.

-CryptoLutheran

Not of God, as he is eternal!

 

[Cis.jd]

So IMO. One of the biggest wrongs in Protestantism is their lack of respect for St. Mary.

I think it is important and should be a key doctrine/belief to all christian denominations that Mary is the mother of all Christians, this has been taught by the early church and scripture (John 19:25-29; 12:17).

She was given a title ever since Genesis: the Woman. She was constantly called this by Jesus in reference to that Gen 3:15 verse, and Revelations recites that title. Scripture has honored her in such a way that is strange that protestants do the same. The 1st miracle happened because of her intercession.

Instead they ignore her and indirectly diminish Jesus while doing so with the whole disagreement with the Theotokos term. She can be called Mary the mother of Jesus but not Mary the mother of God, why, is Jesus of lesser meaning or value than the word "God"? Saying the name Jesus has the same amount of value and authority as saying "God", because that is who he is . If you don't like the term "mother of God" because it is if it is saying she pre-exists him or is above him, then you should feel the same way when calling her "mother of Jesus", because that would imply the same thing too if you believe Jesus is God.
There is so much confusion in Protestant understanding that they don't realize that they are dancing around Nestorian heresy which has lead to many people being confused about Jesus, and it has opened the doors for cults such as mormonism and JW's that eventually just ended up denying his divinity.

 

[Cis.jd]

Not of God, as he is eternal!

So is Jesus, he is eternal. You have to look at God and Jesus as the same, which you are indirectly denying to be so.
Jesus is God, saying the word Jesus is saying the name of God. When you say Jesus drank water, got baptized, ate food, cried, got crucified, you are also saying God.