Mary is the Mother of God

[Red Baker]

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


Dear Jimmy, there you have it from their own mouth. 

Dear AVZ, Thank you for your godly input.

RB

[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)

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.

Something that we make is not of the same essence as us. We make a statue. God made man.

A father begets children who are of the same essence as him.

To say that Jesus was begotten says that Jesus is of the same essence as the Father, in fact one being. Father/Son is a relationship of the persons in the Trinity. But as God is eternal, the begetting is from all eternity. There is no "time" when the Son was not just as there is no "time" when the Father was not.

[DaveW]

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. 

Let me refine that a bit.  The child is SPIRIT soul and body. 1 Thessalonians 5:23

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.

Actually, God provides the spirit. It is his breath (ruach, pneuma)  The soul is what is formed when the spirit enters the body.

Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath (ruach) of life; and man became a living soul. (nefesh)

But you are right.  The body is an integral part of who we are.  The idea that the body is ONLY a container for the soul and spirit has its roots in classical gnosticism. It is a heresy.

[Red Baker]

Dear Catholica,

I will answer your post after I read it again, to make sure that I give you a fair hearing and a strong rebuttal, which will only serve to help those reading this thread.  I may want to add a few more questions that will serve to answer some of your points.  If I do not add them, then they will not be heard, and I want to put them forth to make people think and consider their doctrine.  I once held to what I am not speaking against.  It was taught me when I first strated out around forty years ago, until I realized that I was taught a doctrine that was acutally denying the deity of Jesus Christ. 

RB

[Catholica]

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

Being "born of the Father before all ages" in reference to the second person of Jesus doesn't refer to the pre-existence of God the Father to Jesus.  God exists in eternity and there is no before and after as we know them.  It refers, rather, in my limited mind, to the relationship between the first and second persons of the Trinity.  God is as a Father to Jesus, who called God the Father his Father, because of this loving relationship.  God the Father is the lover, Jesus is the beloved, and the Holy Spirit is the love between them.  None can exist without the others, and since God is divine, all that comes forth in this relationship (not in a generative way, but within the Trinity itself) is also divine, thus the Holy Spirit being "the love between" Himself is a "person" of the divine Trinity.

The divine nature is unlike the human nature.  The divine nature is itself simply existence and has no beginning and end.  It is not really an attribute of something that has a beginning or an end, or something that is changeable.  But to help people understand the divine Trinity there are no words apt to the task because it is beyond our comprehension.  Thereby it is the best we can do to say that Jesus was "born of the Father before all ages, God from God, light from light, True God from True God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father, through Him all things were made".  We have to use metaphors like "light from light".  Light is similar to a concept.  You can have two beams of light that are separated by some barrier, but "light" simply is.  In itself it has a single nature which I believe every rational person can conceive.

I am not sure what you mean by "deprived" but God is not propagated, at least in the way that there could be more God.  God just is.  But we still can conceptualize Jesus as being "born of the Father" because that is what we have been given by God to understand Jesus, but all metaphors are lacking, especially ones regarding the divine, because God is not possible to comprehend fully in the human mind.  That's not me throwing my hands up.  I attest to that God is not propagated.  But still there is that Fatherly relationship, which in (simplistic) human understanding can be misconstrued to imply such.  But we can still know that truly it is a metaphor, true but lacking if we stretch it too far.

[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.

Something that we make is not of the same essence as us. We make a statue. God made man.

A father begets children who are of the same essence as him.

To say that Jesus was begotten says that Jesus is of the same essence as the Father, in fact one being. Father/Son is a relationship of the persons in the Trinity. But as God is eternal, the begetting is from all eternity. There is no "time" when the Son was not just as there is no "time" when the Father was not.

The "begetting" implies cause and effect.  You can weasel-word it all you want, but the implication is still there.  It says, by whatever means (creating, begetting, it makes no difference), that the Father gave existence to the Son.  It is an implied untruth.

[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

Being "born of the Father before all ages" in reference to the second person of Jesus doesn't refer to the pre-existence of God the Father to Jesus.  God exists in eternity and there is no before and after as we know them.  It refers, rather, in my limited mind, to the relationship between the first and second persons of the Trinity.  God is as a Father to Jesus, who called God the Father his Father, because of this loving relationship.  God the Father is the lover, Jesus is the beloved, and the Holy Spirit is the love between them.  None can exist without the others, and since God is divine, all that comes forth in this relationship (not in a generative way, but within the Trinity itself) is also divine, thus the Holy Spirit being "the love between" Himself is a "person" of the divine Trinity.

The divine nature is unlike the human nature.  The divine nature is itself simply existence and has no beginning and end.  It is not really an attribute of something that has a beginning or an end, or something that is changeable.  But to help people understand the divine Trinity there are no words apt to the task because it is beyond our comprehension.  Thereby it is the best we can do to say that Jesus was "born of the Father before all ages, God from God, light from light, True God from True God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father, through Him all things were made".  We have to use metaphors like "light from light".  Light is similar to a concept.  You can have two beams of light that are separated by some barrier, but "light" simply is.  In itself it has a single nature which I believe every rational person can conceive.

I am not sure what you mean by "deprived" but God does is not propagated, at least in the way that there could be more God.  God just is.  But we still can conceptualize Jesus as being "born of the Father" because that is what we have been given by God to understand Jesus, but all metaphors are lacking, especially ones regarding the divine, because God is not possible to comprehend fully in the human mind.  That's not me throwing my hands up.  I attest to that God is not propagated.  But still there is that Fatherly relationship, which in (simplistic) human understanding can be misconstrued to imply such.  But we can still know that truly it is a metaphor, true but lacking if we stretch it too far.

Angels are created beings. There was/is not time associated with their existence either.  It is a failure of imposing upon the spiritual realm the physical reality of physical time.  The man Jesus was indeed begotten of God.  The man Jesus did not exist prior to His birth.  God the Son did.  Mary was the mother of the man Jesus.  She was not the mother of God the Son.  It is a fine line but an important one as false belief in this regard of the Jehovah's Witnesses shows us.

[HRoberson]

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."

These are red herrings. It simply does not matter what other peoples may have done, or similarities between concepts. The question is, "is it proper, or dangerous, to refer to a human as the Mother of God?"

[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)

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.

Something that we make is not of the same essence as us. We make a statue. God made man.

A father begets children who are of the same essence as him.

To say that Jesus was begotten says that Jesus is of the same essence as the Father, in fact one being. Father/Son is a relationship of the persons in the Trinity. But as God is eternal, the begetting is from all eternity. There is no "time" when the Son was not just as there is no "time" when the Father was not.

The "begetting" implies cause and effect.  You can weasel-word it all you want, but the implication is still there.  It says, by whatever means (creating, begetting, it makes no difference), that the Father gave existence to the Son.  It is an implied untruth.

I think Catholica explained it better in the post prior to yours.

[Catholica]

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

Being "born of the Father before all ages" in reference to the second person of Jesus doesn't refer to the pre-existence of God the Father to Jesus.  God exists in eternity and there is no before and after as we know them.  It refers, rather, in my limited mind, to the relationship between the first and second persons of the Trinity.  God is as a Father to Jesus, who called God the Father his Father, because of this loving relationship.  God the Father is the lover, Jesus is the beloved, and the Holy Spirit is the love between them.  None can exist without the others, and since God is divine, all that comes forth in this relationship (not in a generative way, but within the Trinity itself) is also divine, thus the Holy Spirit being "the love between" Himself is a "person" of the divine Trinity.

The divine nature is unlike the human nature.  The divine nature is itself simply existence and has no beginning and end.  It is not really an attribute of something that has a beginning or an end, or something that is changeable.  But to help people understand the divine Trinity there are no words apt to the task because it is beyond our comprehension.  Thereby it is the best we can do to say that Jesus was "born of the Father before all ages, God from God, light from light, True God from True God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father, through Him all things were made".  We have to use metaphors like "light from light".  Light is similar to a concept.  You can have two beams of light that are separated by some barrier, but "light" simply is.  In itself it has a single nature which I believe every rational person can conceive.

I am not sure what you mean by "deprived" but God does is not propagated, at least in the way that there could be more God.  God just is.  But we still can conceptualize Jesus as being "born of the Father" because that is what we have been given by God to understand Jesus, but all metaphors are lacking, especially ones regarding the divine, because God is not possible to comprehend fully in the human mind.  That's not me throwing my hands up.  I attest to that God is not propagated.  But still there is that Fatherly relationship, which in (simplistic) human understanding can be misconstrued to imply such.  But we can still know that truly it is a metaphor, true but lacking if we stretch it too far.

Angels are created beings. There was/is not time associated with their existence either.  It is a failure of imposing upon the spiritual realm the physical reality of physical time.  The man Jesus was indeed begotten of God.  The man Jesus did not exist prior to His birth.  God the Son did.  Mary was the mother of the man Jesus.  She was not the mother of God the Son.  It is a fine line but an important one as false belief in this regard of the Jehovah's Witnesses shows us.

Angels are created beings.  That there was no time associated with their existence doesn't make the comparison similar to what happened within the Trinity.  The triune God is not a created being.  That God the Son, who is Jesus, was "born of the Father from all ages" doesn't mean that he is created.  It refers to their relationship.  The Catholic Faith doesn't teach that God the Son is created.

Is the man Jesus a separate being from God the Son, in your view?

[DaveW]

The man Jesus did not exist prior to His birth.

Have you never heard of a Theophany?

Who ate lunch with Abraham and bargained over the fate of Sodom?
Who was Melchizedek?
Who visited Hagar in the desert?
Who wrestled with Jacob?
Who did Joshua see that identified Himself as the "Captain of the Lord's Armies?"

These were all "pre-incarnate" visitations of Our Lord to His people - AS A MAN. Prior to His birth.

Jesus Christ the same yesterday today and forever.  That means He was fully man back then as well.

[winsome]

The man Jesus did not exist prior to His birth.

Have you never heard of a Theophany?

Who ate lunch with Abraham and bargained over the fate of Sodom?
Who was Melchizedek?
Who visited Hagar in the desert?
Who wrestled with Jacob?
Who did Joshua see that identified Himself as the "Captain of the Lord's Armies?"

These were all "pre-incarnate" visitations of Our Lord to His people - AS A MAN. Prior to His birth.

Jesus Christ the same yesterday today and forever.  That means He was fully man back then as well.

Not to digress (but I am  ) but isn't there a Jewish tradition that Melchizedek was Shem. If you add up the numbers it could be.

As the eldest Son of Noah he was a pre-Levitical priest.

[DaveW]

Not to digress (but I am  ) but isn't there a Jewish tradition that Melchizedek was Shem. If you add up the numbers it could be.

As the eldest Son of Noah he was a pre-Levitical priest.

I have heard that but have seen no documentation on it.

[Catholica]

Dear Catholica,

I will answer your post after I read it again, to make sure that I give you a fair hearing and a strong rebuttal, which will only serve to help those reading this thread.  I may want to add a few more questions that will serve to answer some of your points.  If I do not add them, then they will not be heard, and I want to put them forth to make people think and consider their doctrine.  I once held to what I am not speaking against.  It was taught me when I first strated out around forty years ago, until I realized that I was taught a doctrine that was acutally denying the deity of Jesus Christ. 

RB

Red, just a note, you may want to re-read the last paragraph before you post.  I made some technical changes to things I felt were lacking.

[chosenone]

Jesus has always existed. In the beginning was the Word(Jesus),therefore He cant cant possibly have had a mother. God created Mary, as He did us.

[BlackSepulcher]

Mary is the New Ark of the Covenant. Think about it: Jesus was in the womb of Mary.
This is a good way to describe how Catholicism holds to Mary.

Go back to the original Ark: it was so holy, that any man who so much as carried it the wrong way was marked for death. So how does one suppose their isn't something equally extraordinary of Mary?

She is the descendant of David, and given the seed of the Spirit- she is the highborn of the chosen, who conceived God from God, light from light, and so on.
She is an Ark, how much more needs to be gathered to declare that as the truth?

And if she is an Ark, then she was made holy.

~Holy Mary Mother of God~

[chosenone]

Mary is the New Ark of the Covenant. Think about it: Jesus was in the womb of Mary.
This is a good way to describe how Catholicism holds to Mary.

Go back to the original Ark: it was so holy, that any man who so much as carried it the wrong way was marked for death. So how does one suppose their isn't something equally extraordinary of Mary?

She is the descendant of David, and given the seed of the Spirit- she is the highborn of the chosen, who conceived God from God, light from light, and so on.
She is an Ark, how much more needs to be gathered to declare that as the truth?

And if she is an Ark, then she was made holy.

~Holy Mary Mother of God~

Mary is no more holy that we are. She is only made clean by the blood of Jesus. She herself acknowledges her need of a saviour. I think she would be mortified at what some Christians try and make her to be. She was a sinful human being chosen for a very special purpose. No more and no less and no  where does God tell us any differently.

[BlackSepulcher]

Mary is the New Ark of the Covenant. Think about it: Jesus was in the womb of Mary.
This is a good way to describe how Catholicism holds to Mary.

Go back to the original Ark: it was so holy, that any man who so much as carried it the wrong way was marked for death. So how does one suppose their isn't something equally extraordinary of Mary?

She is the descendant of David, and given the seed of the Spirit- she is the highborn of the chosen, who conceived God from God, light from light, and so on.
She is an Ark, how much more needs to be gathered to declare that as the truth?

And if she is an Ark, then she was made holy.

~Holy Mary Mother of God~

Mary is no more holy that we are. She is only made clean by the blood of Jesus. She herself acknowledges her need of a saviour. I think she would be mortified at what some Christians try and make her to be. She was a sinful human being chosen for a very special purpose. No more and no less and no  where does God tell us any differently.

"Being obedient, she became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race."
~St. Iraneus

The most extraordinary theologian of the 2nd century would be mortified by your statement.

[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.

Greetings Anna...

We reject that Mary is the mother of the eternal God...

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."

Red Baker,

Protestants point out that the divine nature of God is eternal and without beginning. That's certainly true. Since the nature of God is eternal and it certainly did not come from Mary, they argue, Mary cannot be said to be "Mother" of God. This is the main argument that Protestants make on this point. It's a very flawed argument.

The Protestant error on this point stems from attributing to the person of the Son of God only that which belongs to His divine nature. It is to fail to attribute to the person of the Son of God also that which belongs or pertains to His human nature.

Since the Son of God has truly become man, by failing to attribute to Him also that which belongs to His human nature, they actually deny that Jesus Christ is at the same time true God and true man.

The Son of God, Jesus Christ, is one divine person (the second person of the Holy Trinity) with two natures. He is both true God and true man. Jesus Christ is not a man who was united with or inspired by God. No, He is true God who truly became man.

John 1:14- "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us..."

Jesus was not just a special human who had a unique inspiration and connection to the Word of God (the Son of God). No, He is the Word of God made flesh. Therefore, to attribute to the Son of God only that which specifically belongs to His divine nature, and not alos that which applies to His assumed human nature - as Protestants do when they deny that Mary is the mother of God - is to divide Jesus in two different people.

In the 5th century there was a certain heretic named Nestorius. He argued like Protestants of our day on this matter. He held that Mary was not to be called Theotokos (mother/bearer of God), but only Christotokos (bearer of Christ). The Church immediately recognized the heresy of Nestorius and condemned it in 431 at the Council of Ephesus . Nestorius' false view was recognized by the Church to be the heresy which the Bible condemned as the "dissolving" of Jesus and "antichrist." This false idea "dissolves" Christ by separating from His one person that which pertains to His human nature. It results in the division of Jesus into two people, and the position that Jesus was just a man who carried (or was inspired by) the person of God, rather than a divine person who truly became man. This heresy results in the worship of a man and the worship of two sons. The Church clearly saw this for what it was and condemned it.

Second Council of Constantinople, 533- "The holy synod of Ephesus... has pronounced sentence against the heresy of Nestorius... and all those who might later... adopt the same opinions as he held... They express these falsehoods against the true dogma of the Church, OFFERING WORSHIP TO TWO SONS[/u], trying to divide that which cannot be divided, AND INTRODUCING TO BOTH HEAVEN AND EARTH THE OFFENSE OF THE WORSHIP OF MAN.[/u] But the sacred band of heavenly spirits worship along with us only one Lord Jesus Christ."

Council of Ephesus, 431, Can. 5: "If anyone dares to say that Christ was a God-bearing man and not rather God in truth, being by nature one Son, even as "the Word became flesh", and is made partaker of blood and flesh precisely like us, let him be anathema."

Jesus is not two different people. He is ONE DIVINE PERSON with two natures. Therefore, that which happens to His human nature truly happens to His one person. His person was conceived and born in His humanity from Mary.  She is therefore truly His mother, and the mother of God.

The meaning entailed in this truth is staggering. As the Church has always taught, the Son of God, eternal and equal to the Father, had two births. He was born before time, and from all eternity, from God the Father (John 16:28; John 8:42). He was born in time, as man, from Mary, His mother. Only Mary possesses this inscrutable connected to God, to a person of the Trinity. It is from this truth, that she is truly the Mother of God, that all of her other unique prerogatives and privileges come. Bro. Peter Dimond, vaticancatholic.com

[Red Baker]

Mary is the New Ark of the Covenant. Think about it: Jesus was in the womb of Mary.
This is a good way to describe how Catholicism holds to Mary.

Go back to the original Ark: it was so holy, that any man who so much as carried it the wrong way was marked for death. So how does one suppose their isn't something equally extraordinary of Mary?

She is the descendant of David, and given the seed of the Spirit- she is the highborn of the chosen, who conceived God from God, light from light, and so on.
She is an Ark, how much more needs to be gathered to declare that as the truth?

And if she is an Ark, then she was made holy.

~Holy Mary Mother of God~

BlackSepulcher,

You just wrote some of the most blasphemous words (yet, no doubt taught to you from your sect) that a man who confesses to believe in Jesus Christ, can possibly make, when you said these words:

" who conceived God from God, light from light, and so on." 

BlackSepulcher, Mary did not conceive God! She conceived the Son of God, Jesus, of Narareth, the Son of man.  The Word which was God, joined Himself to the tabernacle of Jesus, the only begotten Son of God, and walk among men. 

1 Timothy 3:16~in part

"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:  God was manifest is the flesh"....This verse does not say that Jesus was manifested in the flesh, but God was manifest in the flesh.  Jesus was not the Word in the beginning, per John 1:1, for no where do we read that, men believe that, because that is all they have ever heard.  God is a Eternal Spirit that inhabited eternity, who chose to reveal himself to us in three persons, according to their particular work in creation and the redemption of his elect, yet only one God. Read 1 Corinthians 8:4-7

Paul also said: "seen of angels"~I take that to mean that for the first time the holy angels saw God, when they saw Jesus walking among men!  Remember, God "IS" a Spirit. 

1Timothy 3:16 is only true because that God begot a Son who was made of a woman, and The Highest joined himself to the Tabernacle of his Son, who was the express image of what God is, in word and deed.  Jesus was a complex person fully God, and fully man.  It is indeed a great mystery, but only understood as we speak as the scriptures speak, and not inject our private interpretations, and try to make the scriptures say what we want them to say. 

RB

[AnnaM]

Red Baker,

Here you are denying the divinity of Jesus Christ, and you accuse someone of blasphemy?

[chosenone]

Red Baker,

Here you are denying the divinity of Jesus Christ, and you accuse someone of blasphemy?

He is not denying the divinity of Christ, he is denying that a mere created human being is the mother of God who is spirit and who has always existed.
God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit have always been there from the beginning. Mary was like us, born to a man and his wife, sinful, fallible and in inndeed of a saviour, chosen for a special purpose to carry Jesus when He came down to earth in a body.
I am totally appalled at the lengths you will go to elevate Mary to where she was never meant to be,and who would herself be appalled I am sure at what has happened in the RC church with reference to this.

[BlackSepulcher]

Mary is the New Ark of the Covenant. Think about it: Jesus was in the womb of Mary.
This is a good way to describe how Catholicism holds to Mary.

Go back to the original Ark: it was so holy, that any man who so much as carried it the wrong way was marked for death. So how does one suppose their isn't something equally extraordinary of Mary?

She is the descendant of David, and given the seed of the Spirit- she is the highborn of the chosen, who conceived God from God, light from light, and so on.
She is an Ark, how much more needs to be gathered to declare that as the truth?

And if she is an Ark, then she was made holy.

~Holy Mary Mother of God~

BlackSepulcher,

You just wrote some of the most blasphemous words (yet, no doubt taught to you from your sect) that a man who confesses to believe in Jesus Christ, can possibly make, when you said these words:

" who conceived God from God, light from light, and so on." 

BlackSepulcher, Mary did not conceive God! She conceived the Son of God, Jesus, of Narareth, the Son of man.  The Word which was God, joined Himself to the tabernacle of Jesus, the only begotten Son of God, and walk among men. 

1 Timothy 3:16~in part

"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:  God was manifest is the flesh"....This verse does not say that Jesus was manifested in the flesh, but God was manifest in the flesh.  Jesus was not the Word in the beginning, per John 1:1, for no where do we read that, men believe that, because that is all they have ever heard.  God is a Eternal Spirit that inhabited eternity, who chose to reveal himself to us in three persons, according to their particular work in creation and the redemption of his elect, yet only one God. Read 1 Corinthians 8:4-7

Paul also said: "seen of angels"~I take that to mean that for the first time the holy angels saw God, when they saw Jesus walking among men!  Remember, God "IS" a Spirit. 

1Timothy 3:16 is only true because that God begot a Son who was made of a woman, and The Highest joined himself to the Tabernacle of his Son, who was the express image of what God is, in word and deed.  Jesus was a complex person fully God, and fully man.  It is indeed a great mystery, but only understood as we speak as the scriptures speak, and not inject our private interpretations, and try to make the scriptures say what we want them to say. 

RB

'The Word' is 'the breath of God', and that is what 'Spirit' literally means from the Hebrew word 'ruach'. The commencing of the Spirit through the Father sent the Son into flesh; the seed which entered Mary.

Also note that when Jesus ascended, his body went with him.

The Son of God is the Son of God, there is no difference between Jesus and the Son. Your contradiction of that, while also maintaining that he is fully God and concluding it a 'great mystery', is a fallacy of logic.

[Catholica]

Red Baker,

Here you are denying the divinity of Jesus Christ, and you accuse someone of blasphemy?

He is not denying the divinity of Christ, he is denying that a mere created human being is the mother of God who is spirit and who has always existed.
God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit have always been there from the beginning. Mary was like us, born to a man and his wife, sinful, fallible and in inndeed of a saviour, chosen for a special purpose to carry Jesus when He came down to earth in a body.
I am totally appalled at the lengths you will go to elevate Mary to where she was never meant to be,and who would herself be appalled I am sure at what has happened in the RC church with reference to this.

With all due respect, please let Red clarify for himself.  From what I read he may have a novel idea of Jesus, but he needs to clarify that for us.  Don't be so quick to jump to conclusions.

[AnnaM]

Mary is no more holy that we are....

It was Mary herself who declared: "All generations shall call me blessed!" And all generations of Catholics rightly call her blessed, for she alone is the worthy Mother of God.

St. John Damascene: We proclaim that the Holy Virgin is properly and truly the Mother of God; for since He that was born of her is true God, she that bore the true God, incarnate of her, is true Mother of God. For we hold that God was born of her, not as if the Divinity of the Word took the beginning of His existence from her, but that God the Word, who was begotten of the Father timelessly before all ages, and who subsisted with the Father and with the Spirit eternally and without beginning, in these last days took His abode in her womb for our salvation, and without change took flesh of her and was born. For the Holy Virgin did not bear mere man but true God, not naked but incarnate, not with a body brought down from Heaven, not passing through her as through a channel, but homoousios with us, having taken flesh from her, though subsisting in Himself.

[Red Baker]

BlackSepulcher You said: "The Son of God is the Son of God, there is no difference between Jesus and the Son." You are so confused, that you cannot even follow what I am saying.  I agree with that statement, show me where I have even hinted that there is a difference between Jesus and the Son of God.   This has never been mention, until you just brought it up.   Get some sleep and come back.

RB

[AnnaM]

Red Baker,

Here you are denying the divinity of Jesus Christ, and you accuse someone of blasphemy?

He is not denying the divinity of Christ, he is denying that a mere created human being is the mother of God who is spirit and who has always existed.
God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit have always been there from the beginning. Mary was like us, born to a man and his wife, sinful, fallible and in inndeed of a saviour, chosen for a special purpose to carry Jesus when He came down to earth in a body.
I am totally appalled at the lengths you will go to elevate Mary to where she was never meant to be,and who would herself be appalled I am sure at what has happened in the RC church with reference to this.

With all due respect, please let Red clarify for himself.  From what I read he may have a novel idea of Jesus, but he needs to clarify that for us.  Don't be so quick to jump to conclusions.

Catholica,

Who's jumping to conclusions? Red Baker: "Anna...Mary was not the mother of God~That's is heresy." He is denying the divinity of Jesus Christ.

[Red Baker]

Red Baker,

Here you are denying the divinity of Jesus Christ, and you accuse someone of blasphemy?

Anna, you are just as confused as your friend BalckSepulcher.  My posiiton on the Incarnate Sonship of Jesus Christ, is the only position that protects his Deity, as being the I am that I am.

I first must answer my friend Catholica, and then your other post.  So I will stop. 

RB

[Catholica]

Red Baker,

Here you are denying the divinity of Jesus Christ, and you accuse someone of blasphemy?

He is not denying the divinity of Christ, he is denying that a mere created human being is the mother of God who is spirit and who has always existed.
God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit have always been there from the beginning. Mary was like us, born to a man and his wife, sinful, fallible and in inndeed of a saviour, chosen for a special purpose to carry Jesus when He came down to earth in a body.
I am totally appalled at the lengths you will go to elevate Mary to where she was never meant to be,and who would herself be appalled I am sure at what has happened in the RC church with reference to this.

With all due respect, please let Red clarify for himself.  From what I read he may have a novel idea of Jesus, but he needs to clarify that for us.  Don't be so quick to jump to conclusions.

Catholica,

Who's jumping to conclusions? Red Baker: "Anna...Mary was not the mother of God~That's is heresy." He is denying the divinity of Jesus Christ.

It depends on what one means by "mother" as well, does it not?  Here are two statements:

Mary was not the mother of God.
Mary was not the mother of God.

The second denies the divinity of Christ.  The first calls into question what one perceives it to mean to be one's mother.

In any case he seems to go back and forth in my reading, but I am assuming that he is not, which just means that I think we should seek clarification before anyone starts calumniating him.

No one wins an argument unless we all seek the truth.  Accusations get us nowhere.  By seeking the truth we all win.

[Red Baker]

Red Baker,

Here you are denying the divinity of Jesus Christ, and you accuse someone of blasphemy?

He is not denying the divinity of Christ, he is denying that a mere created human being is the mother of God who is spirit and who has always existed.
God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit have always been there from the beginning. Mary was like us, born to a man and his wife, sinful, fallible and in inndeed of a saviour, chosen for a special purpose to carry Jesus when He came down to earth in a body.
I am totally appalled at the lengths you will go to elevate Mary to where she was never meant to be,and who would herself be appalled I am sure at what has happened in the RC church with reference to this.

With all due respect, please let Red clarify for himself.  From what I read he may have a novel idea of Jesus, but he needs to clarify that for us.  Don't be so quick to jump to conclusions.

You are indeed a very gracious person, and that is why I labor to be just as gracious to you.  I must stop for today since my little bride is calling me to supper.  The next couple of hours belong to her. 

RB

RB

[BlackSepulcher]

In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with (or pertained to) the Mighty One, and the Mighty One was the Logos.

That is the direct translation of John 1:1.

"Logos" is exactly what it sounds like: Logic, or principle. In a less specific sense, it is a 'chord'- for example, one could see a letter in the alphabet as a 'logos'.

But John is not declaring a logos, but THE LOGOS. It's the shining principle of God, which as John states, is also God. The seed of the Logos enters Mary, and that is why Jesus was born a man while also preexisting in Deity.


One is ultimately faced with the conclusion that Mary was the vessel of the Logos, and that makes Mary the New Ark of the Covenant. When you go back to the time of Moses and the Ark, you will see the same paradigm- the Ark was the vessel of the Covenant, which means it presumably had the Ten Commandments literally inside of it.
You see, it contained the Logos, or principle.

And so the dogmas of Mary are well placed. And notice the good use of the Bible (for all those Bible-only folks out there). It's not so 'extra-biblical' as non-Catholics try to put it.

[Jimmy]

Mary is the New Ark of the Covenant. Think about it: Jesus was in the womb of Mary.
This is a good way to describe how Catholicism holds to Mary.

Go back to the original Ark: it was so holy, that any man who so much as carried it the wrong way was marked for death. So how does one suppose their isn't something equally extraordinary of Mary?

She is the descendant of David, and given the seed of the Spirit- she is the highborn of the chosen, who conceived God from God, light from light, and so on.
She is an Ark, how much more needs to be gathered to declare that as the truth?

And if she is an Ark, then she was made holy.

~Holy Mary Mother of God~

Mary is no more holy that we are. She is only made clean by the blood of Jesus. She herself acknowledges her need of a saviour. I think she would be mortified at what some Christians try and make her to be. She was a sinful human being chosen for a very special purpose. No more and no less and no  where does God tell us any differently.

"Being obedient, she became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race."
~St. Iraneus

The most extraordinary theologian of the 2nd century would be mortified by your statement.

Let him be mortified.  His was a very stupid statement.  Mary, like so many others before her, was an instrument in God's hands of bringing salvation to the whole human race.  She was most definitely not the cause of salvation.  It is surprising, or perhaps not, to read of such immaturity of thought from one held in such high esteem by so many.

[Helen]

OK, if Mary was the mother of God, then Anna (traditionally Mary's mother) was the grandmother of God. In  fact, it would seem God had grandparents, great-grandparents, great-great grandparents, aunts and uncles and cousins and brothers, and possible sister, and nieces and nephews....

That does seem a little silly, doesn't it? 

Shouldn't at least Anna and God's stepfather, Joseph, also be venerated? 

[HRoberson]

OK, if Mary was the mother of God, then Anna (traditionally Mary's mother) was the grandmother of God. In  fact, it would seem God had grandparents, great-grandparents, great-great grandparents, aunts and uncles and cousins and brothers, and possible sister, and nieces and nephews....

That does seem a little silly, doesn't it? 

Shouldn't at least Anna and God's stepfather, Joseph, also be venerated? 

They are.
St. Anne
St. Joseph

[Helen]

What about Mary's father?  What about her grandparents?  What about Mary's brother, Joseph of Arimathea? 

I mean, isn't there this 'family of God' that has nothing to do with Christianity?