Mary is the Mother of God

[AnnaM]

Anna...Mary was not the mother of God~That's is heresy.  She was the mother of the Son of God.   God is eternal and cannot be begotten!  That's border line of damable heresy, if it is not. 

RB

Red Baker,

I can't say I'm surprised that you are having trouble with the title: "Mary, Mother of God." You admit that the Mary is the Mother of Jesus Christ but argue that she's not the Mother of God. You don't seem to realize that it's not logically consistent to believe Jesus is God while denying that Mary is the Mother of God. You're actually denying the divinity of Jesus Christ, who is one divine person with two natures.

[TruthScientist]

Red...

avoid vain jangling... hard to do sometimes though I have to admit...

[Red Baker]

Anna...Mary was not the mother of God~That's is heresy.  She was the mother of the Son of God.   God is eternal and cannot be begotten!  That's border line of damable heresy, if it is not. 

RB

Red Baker,

I can't say I'm surprised that you are having trouble with the title: "Mary, Mother of God." You admit that the Mary is the Mother of Jesus Christ but argue that she's not the Mother of God. You don't seem to realize that it's not logically consistent to believe Jesus is God while denying that Mary is the Mother of God. You're actually denying the divinity of Jesus Christ, who is one divine person with two natures.

Anna,

I will answer you in morning, since it's late in the afternoon here, and my wife wants me to come to supper and spend some time with her.   But, in the meantime, would you please explain to me in your own words, or in the words of any pope you desire to use, how that Mary is the mother of God. I am really looking forward to your post with great anticipation, if the the good Lord allows me to awake to see another day.

My friend Catholica is more than welcome to join in, or any other as far as that goes. 

Looking forward to your post.

RB

[Red Baker]

Red...

avoid vain jangling... hard to do sometimes though I have to admit...

I will give her a fair hearing, and than I will give her the word of God, and let us see whose position the scriptures will support.  But, dear soul, thank you for your wise exhortation from the scriptures.

RB

[AnnaM]

Red Baker,

It's right there in the Bible. Jesus is God (John 1:1; John 20:28; John 8:58; etc.) Mary is the mother of Jesus (Luke 1:31; Matthew 1:25). The undeniable conclusion is that Mary is the Mother of God.

Luke 1:31-32: "Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb and shalt bring forth a son: and thou shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be great and shall be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father.

Isaias 7:14: "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son: and his name shall be called Emmanuel [God with us].

Mary is the mother of Emmanuel (which means "God with us.")

Luke 1:43: "[Elizabeth said] And whence is this to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me?"

Elizabeth says that Mary is the mother of the Lord. There is one Lord Jesus, who is God.

Ephesians 4:5: "One Lord, one faith, one baptism..."

John 20:28: "Thomas answered him and said to him: My Lord and my God.

[TruthScientist]

Red...

avoid vain jangling... hard to do sometimes though I have to admit...

I will give her a fair hearing, and than I will give her the word of God, and let us see whose position the scriptures will support.  But, dear soul, thank you for your wise exhortation from the scriptures.

RB

like I said it is hard not to defend the truth...

I had a friend some 15 years ago who practiced catholicism.  We spent lots of time with each other walking around the plant and often had to ride on a golf cart together.  We began to discuss scripture.  He was zealous for the RCC.  We did not get to the communion being waylaid by what he said about the virgin Mary.  This was the first time I had ever been in conversation with a RCC about the bible.  Since then I have come to understand what the matter is.  When I heard one say that there are books beside the bible that give greater light that the bible as the 'writings of the fathers'... 

It was at that point I saw what I was dealing with.  I will still chat with them up to a point as you said and then bow out.

But in the case of my friend I did not know any better and we had some heated discussions on how he saw the Virgin Mary.  Finally I heard what he was saying and nothing he defended praying to Mary was scriptural.  I questioned this and asked if he had a bible and whether he studied it.  He told me that he went to a bible study every wend evening.  I gave him some questions to ask the priest.  The second session after he began to ask questions he was told to remain after class and urged to not be a disruption in the class...  later he was asked to not return to the class. 

[Helen]

Anna, you have said you believe in the Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  They are one God.  Mary is not their mother.  Mary is the mother of the body Jesus used when He was incarnated.  But if you read Philippians you will read that He was in NATURE God.  Mary was NOT the mother of that nature.  She was only the mother of the body that got crucified.  When He was raised, His disciples did not know Him, so evidently the Resurrection body is not the same as the physical body he was born with and grew up in.

So there is no way you can say Mary is the mother of God.  She was a young woman God used.  She is as much a part of creation as you and I are. God is the Creator.  The creation cannot beget the Creator.

[FireSword]

The Eastern Orthodox agree with Protestants.

[HRoberson]

Anna...Mary was not the mother of God~That's is heresy.  She was the mother of the Son of God.   God is eternal and cannot be begotten!  That's border line of damable heresy, if it is not. 

RB

Red Baker,

I can't say I'm surprised that you are having trouble with the title: "Mary, Mother of God." You admit that the Mary is the Mother of Jesus Christ but argue that she's not the Mother of God. You don't seem to realize that it's not logically consistent to believe Jesus is God while denying that Mary is the Mother of God. You're actually denying the divinity of Jesus Christ, who is one divine person with two natures.

Entirely depends on what we mean by "mother of God." To be someone's mother is to be one's source. Mary is not the source of God. She birthed a human baby which was also God, but she did not precede God in existence and is not the source of God.

If what we are trying to say is that she is the unique woman in the history of the world to give birth to the God-Man, then that is as clear as the noses on our faces.

[AVZ]

There are many names and titles given to Jesus in the Bible.
So you can indeed argue that Jesus was God, and therefore Mary was the mother of God...but what the Catholic Church has done is take many of the other names and imputed them on Mary as well.
Somehow the Catholic Church has reasoned that because Mary is the mother, she therefore is spiritually intertwined with the Trinity.

If calling Mary the mother of God would simply mean a biological connection between Mary and the Son of God, then there would not be a huge issue.
But that is definitely not what Catholics say and believe.

What the Catholic Church has done is take Mary, connected her physically and spiritually to the Trinity and made her share many properties and names of the persons in the Trinity.
In addition to that they now venerate Mary as a possessor of those properties, and in some cases even name her the source and medium through which these properties flow.

Where Jesus is King, Mary now is queen. Where Jesus is the Mediator, Mary now is the mediatrix.
Where God is Most Holy, Mary now is most holy. Where God gives grace, Mary now is the mother of divine grace.
Where the Holy Spirit is our Counselor, Mary now is the mother of good counsel. Where the Holy Spirit bears Gods Word, Mary now is the mother of the word
And the list goes on and on.

And that's where the problem is.
Whilst theoretically denying divine attributes to Mary, Catholics practically have elevated her on the same footing as the Trinity...venerating and worshipping her as such.

So, calling May the mother of God is not simply a matter of semantics, it is part of a totally rejectable system that has the goal to absorb divine properties from the Trinity.


Unfortunately this whole name-play is not contained to Mary only.
A similar action has been taken when addressing the Pope.
Names such as "most holy father, most blessed father, father, apostolic lord, supreme priest etc." have no other purpose but to absorb properties of the Trinity and make the lines between divinity and carnality as vague as possible.

And that's why naming Mary "mother of God" should be rejected.

[trifecta]

The Eastern Orthodox agree with Protestants.

As an Eastern Orthodox Christian, let me try to explain this.  We don't really have a problem with the term "Mother of God"
but prefer the term Theotokos, which means  bearer of God.

The controversy over the term, Mother of God, IMHO is a matter of semantics, not theology . . . and frankly all three of us agree in principal.

The term was used in early Christianity with some objections.  The controversy wasn't over Mary, but Jesus.   The problem was
if we only call Mary, the mother of Jesus, then Jesus is only a man, because women give birth only to  humans.  The divinity of Christ is lessened by the term "Mother of Jesus."   The term, Mother of God, clarifies it to ensure that the baby that Mary gave birth to is indeed God, otherwise it is not clear.

I understand the offense of the term, Mother of God, but really, no one thinks that God has a mother, then God wouldn't be preexistent (du-uh).   

Fortunately, the Council of Ephesus resolved this (IMHO dopey) issue, with the term Theotokos, so we no longer have to fight
about it.

The reason I think it is dopey is because there is no real disagreement here.  Jesus is fully God and fully man.  We all agree on that (thank you ecumenical councils for clarifying this).  No one in Christianity thinks God has a mother and no one thinks (anymore) that the baby that Mary had was/is not God.   So, let's not argue over something we agree on.

[AVZ]

The Eastern Orthodox agree with Protestants.

As an Eastern Orthodox Christian, let me try to explain this.  We don't really have a problem with the term "Mother of God"
but prefer the term Theotokos, which means  bearer of God.

The controversy over the term, Mother of God, IMHO is a matter of semantics, not theology . . . and frankly all three of us agree in principal.

The term was used in early Christianity with some objections.  The controversy wasn't over Mary, but Jesus.   The problem was
if we only call Mary, the mother of Jesus, then Jesus is only a man, because women give birth only to  humans.  The divinity of Christ is lessened by the term "Mother of Jesus."   The term, Mother of God, clarifies it to ensure that the baby that Mary gave birth to is indeed God, otherwise it is not clear.

I understand the offense of the term, Mother of God, but really, no one thinks that God has a mother, then God wouldn't be preexistent (du-uh).   

Fortunately, the Council of Ephesus resolved this (IMHO dopey) issue, with the term Theotokos, so we no longer have to fight
about it.

The reason I think it is dopey is because there is no real disagreement here.  Jesus is fully God and fully man.  We all agree on that (thank you ecumenical councils for clarifying this).  No one in Christianity thinks God has a mother and no one thinks (anymore) that the baby that Mary had was/is not God.   So, let's not argue over something we agree on.

Whilst I thank you for the elaboration, it really doesn't solve the issue.

You are correct, God doesn't have a mother...but then again God also doesn't have a bearer.
If God had a bearer, then God would not be preexistent (du-uh). :)

The issue at hand is not the use of the term "mother" but the use of the term "God".
The term "God" implies God the Father. And from Trinitarian point of view it implies God the Son and God the Holy Spirit as well.

Whilst for insiders the term Theotokos would be self-explanatory, for those outside the church it is highly confusing and elusive.
A much better term would have been "Iesoustokos", using Jesus human name in combination with His human bearer.

[Helen]

Excellent post, AVZ.  We are saving it in our files.  Thank you.

[trifecta]

AVZ,

Whilst I thank you for the elaboration, it really doesn't solve the issue.

I thought I had but let me try again.  But first, please, please what does whilst mean?  (We don't use that
term this side of the pond).  How is it different than "while"?

You are correct, God doesn't have a mother...but then again God also doesn't have a bearer.
If God had a bearer, then God would not be preexistent (du-uh). :)

Good one, AVZ!   But a bearer and mother are not quite the same thing.  A mother precedes a child. 
No one thinks Mary preceded God.  Did God have a bearer?  Well, yes, at least on Earth he did.  Note he did not just
pop on earth without a mother--then he would have no bearer.   Instead, he was born as a baby.

The issue at hand is not the use of the term "mother" but the use of the term "God".

No, it's really not.  The term 'mother' offends before it implies her pre-existence to the son,
but I'll agree originally (3rd ecumenical council) the controversy was about the use of "God" instead of "Jesus"
   

The term "God" implies God the Father. And from Trinitarian point of view it implies God the Son and God the Holy Spirit as well.

Well, not really.  The term God in the birth of Christ implies divinity.

Whilst for insiders the term Theotokos would be self-explanatory, for those outside the church it is highly confusing and elusive.

Not to the early church.  Once the 3rd ecumenical council decided this one, no one argued about it (except some Nestorians
and later Protestants. Interestingly, the Nestorians of today don't even disagree anymore.)

A much better term would have been "Iesoustokos", using Jesus human name in combination with His human bearer.

No, you're missing my point!  The term Mother of Jesus implies that Jesus has no divinity.  It implies that  Mary
gave birth to a lovely baby boy.  What is divine about that?    The very term "mother of Jesus" was rejected by the
Council of Ephesus because of what you say above Jesus is a human name and his bearer was human--nothing
divine in that.


edited for typos only

[AVZ]

AVZ,

Whilst I thank you for the elaboration, it really doesn't solve the issue.

I thought I had but let me try again.  But first, please, please what does whilst mean?  (We don't use that
term this side of the pond).  How is it different than "while"?

You are correct, God doesn't have a mother...but then again God also doesn't have a bearer.
If God had a bearer, then God would not be preexistent (du-uh). :)

Good one, AVZ!   But a bearer and mother are not the same thing.  A mother precedes a child. 
No one thinks Mary preceded God.  Did God have a bearer?  Well, yes, at least on Earth he did.  Note he did not just
pop on earth without a mother--then he would have no bearer.   Instead, he was born as a baby.

The issue at hand is not the use of the term "mother" but the use of the term "God".

No, it's really not.  The term 'mother' offends before it implies her pre-existence to the son,
but I'll agree originally (3rd ecumenical council) the controversy was about the use of "God" instead of "Jesus"
   

The term "God" implies God the Father. And from Trinitarian point of view it implies God the Son and God the Holy Spirit as well.

Well, not really.  The term God in the birth of Christ implies divinity.

Whilst for insiders the term Theotokos would be self-explanatory, for those outside the church it is highly confusing and elusive.

Not to the early church.  Once the 3rd ecumenical council decided this one, no one argued about it (except some Nestorians
and later Protestants. Interestingly, the Nestorians of today don't even disagree anymore.)

A much better term would have been "Iesoustokos", using Jesus human name in combination with His human bearer.

No, you're missing my point!  The term Mother of Jesus implies that Jesus has no divinity.  It implies that  Mary
gave birth to a lovely baby boy.  What is divine about that?    The very term "mother of Jesus" was rejected by the
Council of Ephesus because of what you say above Jesus is a human name and his bearer was human--nothing
divine in that.
edited for typos only

Hi Trifecta,

Whilst = while

The point of this discussion is not what the name "mother of God" implies to God...but what it implies to Mary.
And besides that, the development of the term "theotokos" shows us that not the property of God was addressed, but the property of Mary.

"Theotokos" is a proper noun which is bestowed on Mary.
It is a consolidation of two Greek words: "Theos" and "tokos"
The Greek word for mother would be "meter"

The proper noun has two parts:
- the property
- the attribute

Here the property is "tokos", which is a property of Mary
The attribute is "Theos"

The two questions are:
- what is Mary? Answer: Mary is a bearer
- What is being borne by Mary? Answer: Theos

So when the Catholic Church wanted to impose the term "mother of God", in Greek that would be "Theometer"
The orthodox Church did not agree, and had this changed to "Theotokos".

So in fact what has been changed was Mary's property. Only the Mary part of the word was changed.
Now this property says absolutely nothing about the attribute.

The only reason why the Orthodox Church reached a consensus with the RCC is that she really didn't want to pick a fight.
It was an acceptable middle ground, a grey area, that could be explained either way.

But besides that, the Bible proves you wrong for using the Greek word "tokos".
Every time the Bible speaks about Mary, she is referred to with the Greek word "meter".
There is no instance whatsoever where Mary (meter) is being used in connection with God (Theos).

So, the terms "Theotokos" and "Theometer" both are unbiblical terms.
The only Biblical term would be "Iesoustokos" or "Iesousmeter", the "bearer of Jesus" and "the mother of Jesus".

But as already argued, the RCC insists that Mary is in heaven and she exercises certain divine abilities there.
The term "Iesoustokos" would have been unacceptable, and hence the birth of "Theotokos".


PS. Please do not forget that Jesus was in fact fully human, and Mary had nothing to do whatsoever with His divinity.

[GCC phils]

 
Mary is the mother of JESUS in the flesh , but not as GOD..Mary has no power, she cannot even save herself, she needs a saviour,
in  Luke 1: 46 and Mary said:" My soul glorifies the LORD and my spirit
rejoices in GOD MY SAVIOUR"
and remember in
1 Titus 2:5 ' For there is one GOD and one mediator between GOD and mankind,
                    the man CHRIST JESUS'

I hope it helps..

[chosenone]

Mary is not Gods mother. God always was, and Mary is human and was born as we all are. She carried Jesus in her womb and gave birth to Him such as a special surrogate. That was it..

[k-pappy]

The concept of the "Mother of God" or "Queen of Heaven" comes from an ancient Sumerian religion that was also practiced by the Babylonians and Assyrians.  Semiramis, or Ishtar as she is more widely known, was the mother of Tammuz.  She was refered to as the Mother of God and the Queen of Heaven.

Jeremiah called his people to account for their worship of Semiramis, who he refered to as "The Queen of Heaven."

[chosenone]

The concept of the "Mother of God" or "Queen of Heaven" comes from an ancient Sumerian religion that was also practiced by the Babylonians and Assyrians.  Semiramis, or Ishtar as she is more widely known, was the mother of Tammuz.  She was refered to as the Mother of God and the Queen of Heaven.

Jeremiah called his people to account for their worship of Semiramis, who he refered to as "The Queen of Heaven."

Well that explains a lot Bond. Thanks.

[Red Baker]

Red Baker,

It's right there in the Bible. Jesus is God (John 1:1; John 20:28; John 8:58; etc.) Mary is the mother of Jesus (Luke 1:31; Matthew 1:25). The undeniable conclusion is that Mary is the Mother of God.

Luke 1:31-32: "Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb and shalt bring forth a son: and thou shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be great and shall be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father.

Isaias 7:14: "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son: and his name shall be called Emmanuel [God with us].

Mary is the mother of Emmanuel (which means "God with us.")

Luke 1:43: "[Elizabeth said] And whence is this to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me?"

Elizabeth says that Mary is the mother of the Lord. There is one Lord Jesus, who is God.

Ephesians 4:5: "One Lord, one faith, one baptism..."

John 20:28: "Thomas answered him and said to him: My Lord and my God.

Greetings Anna,

I am going to answer you, but it will take several post, for I want to be as plain as possible, so that it will not leave any one wondering what the word of God teaches on such as important doctrine as this.  I will go after a very important corner stone of Catholicism, of Jesus being a begotten god.  Let us consider some points of interest.

1.  You started out your post by saying this: "Red Baker, It's right there in the Bible. Jesus is God (John 1:1; John 20:28; John 8:58; etc.) "

Anna, Every true child of God believe this, and this is not what we are considering.  Jesus being the true God, and the everylasting Father, is the record of heaven sent down to us to know and believe, and we DO.

We reject that Mary is the mother of the eternal God.  If that sound too much like a paradox, then please hear us out very carefully, until we are finished. Do not tune us out, as we will very carefully consider and digest very word spoken by you, in order to carefully and with scriptures answer you.

2. You made a very serious blunder (and I might add, very common one, even among those who are not of your faith,) when you used John 1:1 as a proof text to prove that Mary was the mother of God.  That verse, when very carefully considered, will not support what you want it to say. 

John 1:1

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

John 1:14

"And the Word was MADE FLESH (not conceived) and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the father,) full of grace and truth."

The Word that was God, was made flesh, or JOINED flesh, or was manifested in human flesh, but never conceived. Jesus was indeed the only begotten MAN in human flesh that God did conceived, or begotten. His humanity was begotten. The Word JOINED the tabernacle of the Son of God, and dwelt among men, according to 1 Timothy 3:16.  Thereby, Jesus was a complex person~fully man, and fully God. 

Before I start with my full answer to you, I want to give you my confession of whom Jesus Christ is, it is no different from Peter's in Matthew 16, but much different than Catholicism.

......As the "Son of man"~He is the Son of God, begotten in the womb of the virgin by the power of the Highest, the Holy Ghost.  He is thereby the only, begotten of God, begotten in time, not in eternity past, or else, Mary could not have been his mother, and she was, base upon Luke's account, and Matthew's. His human nature was that which was begotten~His DIVINE NATURE, was the Word that was in the beginning with God, that had NO beginning and shall have no end.  In and by his Divine nature, all things were created, that are in heaven, in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, powers:  all things were created BY HIM and FOR HIM.  He is before all things, and by him all things consist. Colossians 1:16-17;  He made all the worlds, and the stars also.  Hebrews 1:2 When we shall see God, it will be Jesus Christ, the Son of God, whom his Father made higher than the kings of the earth, for he is KING of all kings and LORD of all lords, he will be the ONLY ONE that we shall see~For God is a Spirit that shall forever dwell in eternity~that NO MAN will ever see, nor can see.  Jesus Christ is the True God, and eternal life. 1 John 5:21........."

We earnestly contend that the human nature of Jesus was generated/conceived by the power of the Highest in the womb of Mary, his mother~NOT HIS ETERNAL DIVINE NATURE WHICH IS THE I AM THAT I AM! Emmanuel was not conceived, Jesus was, the Son of God.

To be continue..

RB

[Red Baker]

Questions for Anna, or her friends to answer:

1. "Can TRUE Divinity be derived or propagated?"  The very thought of this in a positive way is blasphemy against the God of the holy scriptures.  What is real Divinity of the Most High God?  The following attributes have ever been conceived as essential to it: Self-existence, Infinity, Independence, Omniscience, Omnipotence, Omnipresence, Immutability, eternal both ways, and Infinite in every way possible that is imaginable to the human mind."

Waiting for you answer, and I have around nine more.

RB

[winsome]

The concept of the "Mother of God" or "Queen of Heaven" comes from an ancient Sumerian religion that was also practiced by the Babylonians and Assyrians.  Semiramis, or Ishtar as she is more widely known, was the mother of Tammuz.  She was refered to as the Mother of God and the Queen of Heaven.

Jeremiah called his people to account for their worship of Semiramis, who he refered to as "The Queen of Heaven."

Where did you get that stuff from? Alexander Hislop?

According to the Encyclopaedia Brittanica (one of the most respected Encyclopaedias in the world), Tammuz became identified with various gods.

As a pastoral god his mother was the godess Duttur. As the god of cattle herders his mother was identified as the goddess Nisun (Lady Wild Cow). Semiramis is not mentioned.

Moreover the cult of Tammuz goes back to over 2000 BC. The Encyclopaedia Americana and The Encyclopaedia Britannica say Semiramis (or Sammu-ramat, as she was called by the Assyrians) was the wife of Shamshi-Adad V who reigned 823-811 BC. (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/520556/Sammu-ramat)

[k-pappy]

Hislop has been discredited as far as I know...well, maybe not "discredited" but his work is not given the weight it once was.

That being said, while Semiramis (or Summurumat) was an ancient queen, it was also one name (the Akkadian name) of many for Ishtar (the Babylonian name).  Duttur (Sumerian name) is another name for Ishtar.  Tammuz (also called Damuzi - Sumerian name) was worshipped by Assyrians, Babylonians, Sumerians and Akkadians.

[winsome]

Hislop has been discredited as far as I know...well, maybe not "discredited" but his work is not given the weight it once was.

Utterly discredited.

That being said, while Semiramis (or Summurumat) was an ancient queen, it was also one name (the Akkadian name) of many for Ishtar (the Babylonian name).  Duttur (Sumerian name) is another name for Ishtar.  Tammuz (also called Damuzi - Sumerian name) was worshipped by Assyrians, Babylonians, Sumerians and Akkadians.

And your sources for that?

[winsome]

Questions for Anna, or her friends to answer:

1. "Can TRUE Divinity be deprived or propagated?"  The very thought of this in a positive way is blasphemy against the God of the holy scriptures.  What is real Divinity of the Most High God?  The following attributes have ever been conceived as essential to it: Self-existence, Infinity, Independence, Omniscience, Omnipotence, Omnipresence, Immutability, eternal both ways, and Infinite in every way possible that is imaginable to the human mind."

Waiting for you answer, and I have around nine more.

RB

[Christ Jesus,] who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Phil 2:6-11)


A question for you RB

Did God die on the cross?

[Red Baker]

Questions for Anna, or her friends to answer:

1. "Can TRUE Divinity be deprived or propagated?"  The very thought of this in a positive way is blasphemy against the God of the holy scriptures.  What is real Divinity of the Most High God?  The following attributes have ever been conceived as essential to it: Self-existence, Infinity, Independence, Omniscience, Omnipotence, Omnipresence, Immutability, eternal both ways, and Infinite in every way possible that is imaginable to the human mind."

Waiting for you answer, and I have around nine more.

RB

[Christ Jesus,] who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Phil 2:6-11)


A question for you RB

Did God die on the cross?

We will answer, no problem whatsoever, but first, I am not going to allow you, or Anna, or anyone one else, to skip over my post, with some statements that are made and questions presented to Anna, who started the thread to me;  and to her friends, who may want to help contribute in her aid and defense.

I will give you a hint~God cannot die, yet there is a biblical sense, that he did indeed purchased the church with his OWN BLOOD~Acts 20:28.  I do not believe that your sect have enough truth to trap any believer who is filled with the Spirit of God, and has true understanding given to him by God., specially one that is an elder in the gospel of Jesus Christ. 

RB

[Jimmy]

Questions for Anna, or her friends to answer:

1. "Can TRUE Divinity be deprived or propagated?"  The very thought of this in a positive way is blasphemy against the God of the holy scriptures.  What is real Divinity of the Most High God?  The following attributes have ever been conceived as essential to it: Self-existence, Infinity, Independence, Omniscience, Omnipotence, Omnipresence, Immutability, eternal both ways, and Infinite in every way possible that is imaginable to the human mind."

Waiting for you answer, and I have around nine more.

RB

[Christ Jesus,] who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Phil 2:6-11)


A question for you RB

Did God die on the cross?

Not God the Father, nor God the Holy Spirit.  And Mary is not the mother of God the Father, nor of God the Holy Spirit.  Speaking of Mary as the mother of God, without the designation of God the Son, Jesus, is, I believe, intellectually dishonest.  While technically true, it is very misleading.  Most people, when they speak of God, are referring to God the Father.

[winsome]

Questions for Anna, or her friends to answer:

1. "Can TRUE Divinity be deprived or propagated?"  The very thought of this in a positive way is blasphemy against the God of the holy scriptures.  What is real Divinity of the Most High God?  The following attributes have ever been conceived as essential to it: Self-existence, Infinity, Independence, Omniscience, Omnipotence, Omnipresence, Immutability, eternal both ways, and Infinite in every way possible that is imaginable to the human mind."

Waiting for you answer, and I have around nine more.

RB

[Christ Jesus,] who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Phil 2:6-11)


A question for you RB

Did God die on the cross?

We will answer, no problem whatsoever, but first, I am not going to allow you, or Anna, or anyone one else, to skip over my post, with some statements that are made and questions presented to Anna, who started the thread to me;  and to her friends, who may want to help contribute in her aid and defense.

I will give you a hint~God cannot die, yet there is a biblical sense, that he did indeed purchased the church with his OWN BLOOD~Acts 20:28.  I do not believe that your sect have enough truth to trap any believer who is filled with the Spirit of God, and has true understanding given to him by God., specially one that is an elder in the gospel of Jesus Christ. 

RB

You asked the question seperately from the other post so I expect you to answer it seperately from the other post. Is that unreasonable.

However I await your answer.

[winsome]

Questions for Anna, or her friends to answer:

1. "Can TRUE Divinity be deprived or propagated?"  The very thought of this in a positive way is blasphemy against the God of the holy scriptures.  What is real Divinity of the Most High God?  The following attributes have ever been conceived as essential to it: Self-existence, Infinity, Independence, Omniscience, Omnipotence, Omnipresence, Immutability, eternal both ways, and Infinite in every way possible that is imaginable to the human mind."

Waiting for you answer, and I have around nine more.

RB

[Christ Jesus,] who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Phil 2:6-11)


A question for you RB

Did God die on the cross?

Not God the Father, nor God the Holy Spirit.  And Mary is not the mother of God the Father, nor of God the Holy Spirit.  Speaking of Mary as the mother of God, without the designation of God the Son, Jesus, is, I believe, intellectually dishonest.  While technically true, it is very misleading.  Most people, when they speak of God, are referring to God the Father.

The definition of Mary as Theotokos (literally "God bearer") at the Council of Ephesus in 431 was made in response to a fifth century heresy called Nestorianism which said that Mary did not carry God but only carried Christ's human nature in her womb.

The definition of Ephesus was not to glorify Mary but to affirm that Jesus' two natures – divine and human were united in one divine person.

Merely to say that Mary is the mother of Jesus is to miss that point and to put into question Jesus' divinity – as Trifecta has already explained.

Therefore it is not dishonest to call Mary the Mother of God.

[Red Baker]

Questions for Anna, or her friends to answer:

1. "Can TRUE Divinity be deprived or propagated?"  The very thought of this in a positive way is blasphemy against the God of the holy scriptures.  What is real Divinity of the Most High God?  The following attributes have ever been conceived as essential to it: Self-existence, Infinity, Independence, Omniscience, Omnipotence, Omnipresence, Immutability, eternal both ways, and Infinite in every way possible that is imaginable to the human mind."

Waiting for you answer, and I have around nine more.

RB

[Christ Jesus,] who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Phil 2:6-11)


A question for you RB

Did God die on the cross?

Not God the Father, nor God the Holy Spirit.  And Mary is not the mother of God the Father, nor of God the Holy Spirit.  Speaking of Mary as the mother of God, without the designation of God the Son, Jesus, is, I believe, intellectually dishonest.  While technically true, it is very misleading.  Most people, when they speak of God, are referring to God the Father.

Greetings Jimmy,

We can only speak, as the testimony of God reveals to us the proper use of our words when describing the Sonship of Jesus Christ.  Mary was the mother "of" God's Son.  As this thread unfolds you will see why we are carefully using our words.  The Catholic have a corner stone doctrine whereby they believe that the Word in the beginning was Jesus as the Son of God, and that he was eternally generated/begotten by God the Father, which leaves Jesus as a begotten god, a doctrine supported by the Jehovah Witnesses; a doctrine that robs him at once of his deity, as the I am that I am.  God the Son, implys that Jesus the Son of man was God's Son in the beginning, before the record of his birth in Luke 1!

RB

[Jimmy]

Questions for Anna, or her friends to answer:

1. "Can TRUE Divinity be deprived or propagated?"  The very thought of this in a positive way is blasphemy against the God of the holy scriptures.  What is real Divinity of the Most High God?  The following attributes have ever been conceived as essential to it: Self-existence, Infinity, Independence, Omniscience, Omnipotence, Omnipresence, Immutability, eternal both ways, and Infinite in every way possible that is imaginable to the human mind."

Waiting for you answer, and I have around nine more.

RB

[Christ Jesus,] who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Phil 2:6-11)


A question for you RB

Did God die on the cross?

Not God the Father, nor God the Holy Spirit.  And Mary is not the mother of God the Father, nor of God the Holy Spirit.  Speaking of Mary as the mother of God, without the designation of God the Son, Jesus, is, I believe, intellectually dishonest.  While technically true, it is very misleading.  Most people, when they speak of God, are referring to God the Father.

Greetings Jimmy,

We can only speak, as the testimony of God reveals to us the proper use of our words when describing the Sonship of Jesus Christ.  Mary was the mother "of" God's Son.  As this thread unfolds you will see why we are carefully using our words.  The Catholic have a corner stone doctrine whereby they believe that the Word in the beginning was Jesus as the Son of God, and that he was eternally generated/begotten by God the Father, which leaves Jesus as a begotten god, a doctrine supported by the Jehovah Witnesses; a doctrine that robs him at once of his deity, as the I am that I am.  God the Son, implys that Jesus the Son of man was God's Son in the beginning, before the record of his birth in Luke 1!

RB

Good morning Red,

I could be wrong but I don't think the Catholic view is that Jesus was eternally generated/begotten of God the Father.  As you say, that removes the deity from Jesus and I don't think that is Catholic teaching.

[winsome]

Questions for Anna, or her friends to answer:

1. "Can TRUE Divinity be deprived or propagated?"  The very thought of this in a positive way is blasphemy against the God of the holy scriptures.  What is real Divinity of the Most High God?  The following attributes have ever been conceived as essential to it: Self-existence, Infinity, Independence, Omniscience, Omnipotence, Omnipresence, Immutability, eternal both ways, and Infinite in every way possible that is imaginable to the human mind."

Waiting for you answer, and I have around nine more.

RB

[Christ Jesus,] who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Phil 2:6-11)


A question for you RB

Did God die on the cross?

Not God the Father, nor God the Holy Spirit.  And Mary is not the mother of God the Father, nor of God the Holy Spirit.  Speaking of Mary as the mother of God, without the designation of God the Son, Jesus, is, I believe, intellectually dishonest.  While technically true, it is very misleading.  Most people, when they speak of God, are referring to God the Father.

Greetings Jimmy,

We can only speak, as the testimony of God reveals to us the proper use of our words when describing the Sonship of Jesus Christ.  Mary was the mother "of" God's Son.  As this thread unfolds you will see why we are carefully using our words.  The Catholic have a corner stone doctrine whereby they believe that the Word in the beginning was Jesus as the Son of God, and that he was eternally generated/begotten by God the Father, which leaves Jesus as a begotten god, a doctrine supported by the Jehovah Witnesses; a doctrine that robs him at once of his deity, as the I am that I am.  God the Son, implys that Jesus the Son of man was God's Son in the beginning, before the record of his birth in Luke 1!

RB

Good morning Red,

I could be wrong but I don't think the Catholic view is that Jesus was eternally generated/begotten of God the Father.  As you say, that removes the deity from Jesus and I don't think that is Catholic teaching.

The English version of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed that we use at Mass changed a couple of years ago to more faithfully reflect the Latin.

The earlier version said "We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father...."

The new translation says "I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages....".


The International Consultation on English Texts translation, says:
"We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father,"
Oh, BTW that's printed in the Lutheran Book of Worship and The book of Common Prayer (Episcopal)

[AVZ]

Questions for Anna, or her friends to answer:

1. "Can TRUE Divinity be deprived or propagated?"  The very thought of this in a positive way is blasphemy against the God of the holy scriptures.  What is real Divinity of the Most High God?  The following attributes have ever been conceived as essential to it: Self-existence, Infinity, Independence, Omniscience, Omnipotence, Omnipresence, Immutability, eternal both ways, and Infinite in every way possible that is imaginable to the human mind."

Waiting for you answer, and I have around nine more.

RB

[Christ Jesus,] who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Phil 2:6-11)


A question for you RB

Did God die on the cross?

Not God the Father, nor God the Holy Spirit.  And Mary is not the mother of God the Father, nor of God the Holy Spirit.  Speaking of Mary as the mother of God, without the designation of God the Son, Jesus, is, I believe, intellectually dishonest.  While technically true, it is very misleading.  Most people, when they speak of God, are referring to God the Father.

The definition of Mary as Theotokos (literally "God bearer") at the Council of Ephesus in 431 was made in response to a fifth century heresy called Nestorianism which said that Mary did not carry God but only carried Christ's human nature in her womb.

The definition of Ephesus was not to glorify Mary but to affirm that Jesus' two natures – divine and human were united in one divine person.

Merely to say that Mary is the mother of Jesus is to miss that point and to put into question Jesus' divinity – as Trifecta has already explained.

Therefore it is not dishonest to call Mary the Mother of God.

This is what happened.
The Nestorians were declared heretics and they were excommunicated.
The Catholic Church split up.

1600 years later both sides realize that what they had done was arguing over semantics.
The Nestorians -> "Christotokos"
The Roman Catholics -> "Theotokos"

In fact BOTH these terms are wrong!

Christ is a title that refers to the divine part of Jesus.
Calling Mary either "mother of Christ" or "mother of God" makes no difference...she is neither.

The only person that Mary bore, the only part that she influenced was the human person and part of Jesus.
The only valid term that can be applied to her is "Iesoustokos" or "Iesousmeter".

Once again, "mother of Jesus" is the only combination found in the Bible.
The term "mother of God" is an extra-biblical term.

And here again we see the RCC being the cause of schism by excommunicating people and declare them to be anathema.
About 1200 years later the RCC would find her in another battle over extra-biblical theology...and again she would use excommunication, schism and anathema to reach her goal.

[Jimmy]

Questions for Anna, or her friends to answer:

1. "Can TRUE Divinity be deprived or propagated?"  The very thought of this in a positive way is blasphemy against the God of the holy scriptures.  What is real Divinity of the Most High God?  The following attributes have ever been conceived as essential to it: Self-existence, Infinity, Independence, Omniscience, Omnipotence, Omnipresence, Immutability, eternal both ways, and Infinite in every way possible that is imaginable to the human mind."

Waiting for you answer, and I have around nine more.

RB

[Christ Jesus,] who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Phil 2:6-11)


A question for you RB

Did God die on the cross?

Not God the Father, nor God the Holy Spirit.  And Mary is not the mother of God the Father, nor of God the Holy Spirit.  Speaking of Mary as the mother of God, without the designation of God the Son, Jesus, is, I believe, intellectually dishonest.  While technically true, it is very misleading.  Most people, when they speak of God, are referring to God the Father.

Greetings Jimmy,

We can only speak, as the testimony of God reveals to us the proper use of our words when describing the Sonship of Jesus Christ.  Mary was the mother "of" God's Son.  As this thread unfolds you will see why we are carefully using our words.  The Catholic have a corner stone doctrine whereby they believe that the Word in the beginning was Jesus as the Son of God, and that he was eternally generated/begotten by God the Father, which leaves Jesus as a begotten god, a doctrine supported by the Jehovah Witnesses; a doctrine that robs him at once of his deity, as the I am that I am.  God the Son, implys that Jesus the Son of man was God's Son in the beginning, before the record of his birth in Luke 1!

RB

Good morning Red,

I could be wrong but I don't think the Catholic view is that Jesus was eternally generated/begotten of God the Father.  As you say, that removes the deity from Jesus and I don't think that is Catholic teaching.

The English version of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed that we use at Mass changed a couple of years ago to more faithfully reflect the Latin.

The earlier version said "We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father...."

The new translation says "I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages....".


The International Consultation on English Texts translation, says:
"We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father,"
Oh, BTW that's printed in the Lutheran Book of Worship and The book of Common Prayer (Episcopal)

But that does imply that Jesus is a created being and hence not divine and not God.  I don't understand how you can accept that.

[Catholica]

Red Baker,

It's right there in the Bible. Jesus is God (John 1:1; John 20:28; John 8:58; etc.) Mary is the mother of Jesus (Luke 1:31; Matthew 1:25). The undeniable conclusion is that Mary is the Mother of God.

Luke 1:31-32: "Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb and shalt bring forth a son: and thou shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be great and shall be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father.

Isaias 7:14: "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son: and his name shall be called Emmanuel [God with us].

Mary is the mother of Emmanuel (which means "God with us.")

Luke 1:43: "[Elizabeth said] And whence is this to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me?"

Elizabeth says that Mary is the mother of the Lord. There is one Lord Jesus, who is God.

Ephesians 4:5: "One Lord, one faith, one baptism..."

John 20:28: "Thomas answered him and said to him: My Lord and my God.

Greetings Anna,

I am going to answer you, but it will take several post, for I want to be as plain as possible, so that it will not leave any one wondering what the word of God teaches on such as important doctrine as this.  I will go after a very important corner stone of Catholicism, of Jesus being a begotten god.  Let us consider some points of interest.

1.  You started out your post by saying this: "Red Baker, It's right there in the Bible. Jesus is God (John 1:1; John 20:28; John 8:58; etc.) "

Anna, Every true child of God believe this, and this is not what we are considering.  Jesus being the true God, and the everylasting Father, is the record of heaven sent down to us to know and believe, and we DO.

We reject that Mary is the mother of the eternal God.  If that sound too much like a paradox, then please hear us out very carefully, until we are finished. Do not tune us out, as we will very carefully consider and digest very word spoken by you, in order to carefully and with scriptures answer you.

Hi Red,  In our dialog I hope that we can come to mutually better understanding.  I think that no one is going to profit by addressing perceived beliefs which aren't true.  We need to look at actual beliefs and take those for face value.  I will look at yours if you will look at mine (which to the best of my ability, I strive to match those which the Catholic Church teaches).

In response to what you wrote, we reject that Mary is the source of the eternal God.  But being a mother is not being a source.  That seems to be a common thread among objections here, not only yours, so let's look at that.

Is a human mother the source of her child?  Yes and no.  These are the facts of human mothership:

1) An act by the mother was part of the cause that brings forth a child.
2) An act by the father was part of the cause that brings forth a child.
3) A co-act by God is necessary to bring forth a child.

We call it pro-creation, not creation, when a man and a woman come together to conceive a child.  However we must consider the whole child.  A child is not only a body, but is also a soul.  These body and soul are, while life exists in the child, inseparable.  They are both "the child" in one unified whole.  A person is not a soul trapped in a body.  The body is as part of what constitutes a person as does his soul.  Yet God has to provide the soul.

Even though God provides the soul, we still call the child's female parent who gave birth to that child his "mother".  And now Jesus was a special case.  Jesus existed before Mary, as the Word.  But yet it was Jesus who took flesh in Mary's womb as part of her "fiat" her "let it be done to me" act.  And so we see in scripture that Mary is often called "Jesus' mother".  Mary is the mother of Jesus just as much as any mother is the mother of her child, not as someone who created the child, but someone who took part in that child's way into the world, someone who maintains a particular parental relationship with that person.

2. You made a very serious blunder (and I might add, very common one, even among those who are not of your faith,) when you used John 1:1 as a proof text to prove that Mary was the mother of God.  That verse, when very carefully considered, will not support what you want it to say. 

John 1:1

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

John 1:14

"And the Word was MADE FLESH (not conceived) and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the father,) full of grace and truth."

The Word that was God, was made flesh, or JOINED flesh, or was manifested in human flesh, but never conceived. Jesus was indeed the only begotten MAN in human flesh that God did conceived, or begotten. His humanity was begotten. The Word JOINED the tabernacle of the Son of God, and dwelt among men, according to 1 Timothy 3:16.  Thereby, Jesus was a complex person~fully man, and fully God. 

This was no blunder by Anna, but a testimony to her own belief that the person Jesus was God.  And we know that Mary gave birth to Jesus, which makes Jesus his mother.  Again, it is wrong to think that a mother is the creator of her child.  God is always involved, and God the Father was involved in sending Jesus through Mary, as was the Holy Spirit who is also God.  That takes nothing away from the fact that Jesus too was God, and Mary was his mother.

The purpose of giving Mary the title of "Mother of God" or "Theotokos" at the council of Ephesus was because certain heretics were saying that Mary gave birth to a human person, and then at some point after that, God made that person God.  But that is not how God operates.  God doesn't use a person and steal their body from them.  And the person of Jesus, God made flesh, was always that same person, a complete God-man, from the moment of his conception.  God from all eternity, but God-man from his conception and within the womb or Mary.

And so we agree that Mary did not generate God from eternity.  We agree that God became flesh in Mary's womb.  But that still makes Mary Jesus' actual mother, and since Jesus IS God, that makes Mary the Mother of God.

I think the other problem we find, the misconception, is that when some people use the word God they think of only God the Father.  Or they think of Jesus as God as somehow separate from his body (once he became flesh).  This is not so.  The purpose of calling Mary the Mother of God, which was not only true, but also had a purpose, was to defend the fact of the incarnation and the dual nature of Christ.

Before I start with my full answer to you, I want to give you my confession of whom Jesus Christ is, it is no different from Peter's in Matthew 16, but much different than Catholicism.

......As the "Son of man"~He is the Son of God, begotten in the womb of the virgin by the power of the Highest, the Holy Ghost.  He is thereby the only, begotten of God, begotten in time, not in eternity past, or else, Mary could not have been his mother, and she was, base upon Luke's account, and Matthew's. His human nature was that which was begotten~His DIVINE NATURE, was the Word that was in the beginning with God, that had NO beginning and shall have no end.  In and by his Divine nature, all things were created, that are in heaven, in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, powers:  all things were created BY HIM and FOR HIM.  He is before all things, and by him all things consist. Colossians 1:16-17;  He made all the worlds, and the stars also.  Hebrews 1:2 When we shall see God, it will be Jesus Christ, the Son of God, whom his Father made higher than the kings of the earth, for he is KING of all kings and LORD of all lords, he will be the ONLY ONE that we shall see~For God is a Spirit that shall forever dwell in eternity~that NO MAN will ever see, nor can see.  Jesus Christ is the True God, and eternal life. 1 John 5:21........."

We earnestly contend that the human nature of Jesus was generated/conceived by the power of the Highest in the womb of Mary, his mother~NOT HIS ETERNAL DIVINE NATURE WHICH IS THE I AM THAT I AM! Emmanuel was not conceived, Jesus was, the Son of God.

To be continue..

RB

I don't think that we have too much difference on what you have just written, at least that which matters for the conversation, except for this key point, and that is that people don't "give birth" to a nature.  A "nature", philosophically (which I am not a philosopher so this will be a hack but one that I believe is accurate) is akin to something about a living being which describes what that living being can do.  A dog has a dog nature.  A dog barks, runs on four legs, and wags his tail when he is happy.  A person laughs, eats, works. 

God is the author of all natures, including human nature.  Mary didn't give birth to Jesus' human nature. It is through becoming a person that a person is granted a human nature.  Mary gave birth to a person who was a real 100% human person who was both human and divine.  Human nature is derived from the human generative process. We believe that Jesus obtained his humanity from his mother, Mary, because if he hadn't he would not have been ethnically Jewish.  We also believe that Jesus was already of the divine nature when he took flesh in Mary's womb.  But it is wrong to separate the two, that is, to separate the divine person and the human person in Jesus.  Jesus became incarnate and so became the God-man, one integrated person, human and divine.  Not a divine spirit entrapped in the shell of a human body, which would be similar to the belief that a regular person is not a soul trapped in a human body, but rather a fully integrated person.  And that person Mary gave birth to and raised.  And that makes Mary the Mother of Jesus, and since Jesus is God, she is the mother of God in this fashion that I have just described.

Perhaps you can tell me now, how what I have written conflicts with what you believe is true about Jesus?  And what about this understanding of Mary as the Mother of God, conflicts with what you believe to be true?