Mother of God

[popsthebuilder]

Just to be clear - the Catholic Church existed before there was an English language.

Not denying that at all. That has nothing to with my statement or the intentional misdirection by and of the ancient roman catholic Churh

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Not denying that at all. That has nothing to with my statement or the intentional misdirection by and of the ancient roman catholic Churh

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

The words that the Catholic Church chose to use in her teaching were used with Christian meaning even if the language they came from pre-dated the birth of the Church. Words in the English language also come from source langues that are older than Christianity and hence are either pagan or Jewish

 

[Alithis]

So, let me get this straight. You ONLY have a problem with the term, even though it is correct that Mary is the mother of God (Jesus, God the Son) because of the connotations others have applied to it? Not everyone who uses that term elevates Mary as you claim, so shooting it down because of "some people" even though she IS the mother of God is unusual.

the term and the manner in which it is promoted ..interestingly by rome far more then the lord JEsus is promoted .also in brackets you put .."Jesus the son of God " which is indeed correct . For his becoming flesh had a point of beginning- where in contrast God (the father )has no beginning nor End . and therefore cannot have a mother .
and all this coupled with the origins of the mother and child imagery and its differing forms it has morphed over time .
so put it all together beside the truth that the bible never ever gives the mary of the bible any such title . and the conclusion is . the mary that is being exalted and give all these non biblical titles and non biblical attributes and non biblical office ... is simply NOT the mary of the bible .. so who is she ? and why is she being constantly pushed up and elevated with titles that are beyond the station of any created being equal to and over the one true living GOD . why the usurping of a glory that rightful belongs to the LAMB of GOD and NONE other ?.

 

[Alithis]

The title of "Mary - Mother of God" (Matre Dei) is a title, not a practice.

The title affirms two things:
1. Jesus is called God (including in the Bible, since He is divine)
2. Mary bore Him.

To reject the title is to reject one (or both) of those things, rejecting the Bible when it calls Jesus "GOD" and rejecting the Bible when it states that Mary bore Him.



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah

false - for reasons pointed out in my former post .

 

[Alithis]

Yep, that is it, straight forward! We carry no baggage with the term.

not quite correct .,. you may not have realized what was piggy backing in on the luggage ... you know in the bible , used by Elizabeth, is the term "the mother of my lord .. and then through the Lords name all were taught by the lord (JEsus)to pray to the father ..this shows a hierarchy ..also the bible states that the lord Jesus himself at the end of all things is Also brought into subjection.

For HE HAS PUT ALL THINGS IN SUBJECTION UNDER HIS FEET. But when He says, "All things are put in subjection," it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him. 28 When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all. "
So it is plain in scripture that the mother who was given the blessing to bring forth the Son of GOD (not of adam) into the world is not the mother of God from whom christ in the flesh came ..because the lord jesus ,the Christ , is himself brought into subjection .


for this reason alone the bible NEVER gives mary the title "mother of God " because that would be blasphemy .. and even more so in that Jewish setting .

 

[Brighten04]

I find it interesting that in scripture Lord Jesus always addressed Mary by calling her woman. Even when He turned the care of her to John He said woman. He never addressed her as mother.

John 19:26 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!

 

[Brighten04]

:crazy: oops, I made a double post.

 

[Josiah]

Pentecostals are the largest Protestant group, so that alone qualifies as many. In addition you will find that Baptists feel this almost universally. I believe that as a Pentecostal, I have a clear idea what they would believe, just as you might have a clear view of Catholicism.

No. Lutherans are some 70 million, Anglicans nearly 80 million. Even if we combine all the distinctively Pentecostal denomination in the world together, they would not even come near to those.

No. Other than a vague commonality about spiritual gifts, there's nothing that unites Pentecostals. Some are Catholics, some deny the Trinity and Two Natures of Christ; they are pretty much all over the map. And yes, some would use the title of "Mother of God" (the Catholic ones, at least).


"Mother of God" affirms two points: 1) Jesus may be called God, as the Bible itself verbatim does; 2) Mary bore Him, as the Bible itself verbatim declares. To deny the title is to deny one or both of those things. SOME Pentecostals would (those that deny the Trinity and Two Natures of Christ, but most would affirm those two things and thus the title).



Pax



- Josiah

 

[MoreCoffee]

I find it interesting that in scripture Lord Jesus always addressed Mary by calling her woman. Even when He turned the care of her to John He said woman. He never addressed her as mother.

John 19:26 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!

Have you checked the four canonical gospels to see if the Lord Jesus Christ ever calls his mother by any 'title' other than woman and what his use of 'woman' implies?

 

[Romanos]

Woman in that time was an honorable title.

 

[popsthebuilder]

The words that the Catholic Church chose to use in her teaching were used with Christian meaning even if the language they came from pre-dated the birth of the Church. Words in the English language also come from source langues that are older than Christianity and hence are either pagan or Jewish

Catholisism is the only thing parading around as the father of Christianity while actually being of pagan origins. I don't care how you slice it and dig it out, but the deep seeded root of corruption that still lies in Catholic traditional practice needs to be dealt with if any are to ever move forward in unity under God through Jesus.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Catholisism is the only thing parading around as the father of Christianity while actually being of pagan origins. I don't care how you slice it and dig it out, but the deep seeded root of corruption that still lies in Catholic traditional practice needs to be dealt with if any are to ever move forward in unity under God through Jesus.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

Not as the Father but rather as mother of the faithful being the bride of Christ as the holy scriptures say.

The Spirit and the Bride say, 'Come!' Let everyone who listens answer, 'Come!' Then let all who are thirsty come: all who want it may have the water of life, and have it free. (Revelation 22:17)​

So the faithful say come all who thirst may drink of the water of life without paying for it.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Woman in that time was an honorable title.

Indeed it was and it still is; for the woman that God gave to his Son to be his bride is the Church of the living God who he bought with his own blood.

 

[Alithis]

Woman in that time was an honorable title.

..... hmmm is that why the lord used the term with the "woman " caught in adultery .. "Then Jesus stood up again and said to the woman, "Where are your accusers?

seems he treated her equally . .so there is no "specific " honor implied when he used it with mary more then one time .

 

[Alithis]

repeating info for good reason. the scripture is the final authority and God does not contradict himself .

Quote Originally Posted by Lämmchen View Post
So, let me get this straight. You ONLY have a problem with the term, even though it is correct that Mary is the mother of God (Jesus, God the Son) because of the connotations others have applied to it? Not everyone who uses that term elevates Mary as you claim, so shooting it down because of "some people" even though she IS the mother of God is unusual.

the term and the manner in which it is promoted ..interestingly by rome far more then the lord JEsus is promoted .also in brackets you put .."Jesus the son of God " which is indeed correct . For his becoming flesh had a point of beginning- where in contrast God (the father )has no beginning nor End . and therefore cannot have a mother .
and all this coupled with the origins of the mother and child imagery and its differing forms it has morphed over time .
so put it all together beside the truth that the bible never ever gives the mary of the bible any such title . and the conclusion is . the mary that is being exalted and give all these non biblical titles and non biblical attributes and non biblical office ... is simply NOT the mary of the bible .. so who is she ? and why is she being constantly pushed up and elevated with titles that are beyond the station of any created being equal to and over the one true living GOD . why the usurping of a glory that rightful belongs to the LAMB of GOD and NONE other ?.

Quote Originally Posted by Josiah View Post
The title of "Mary - Mother of God" (Matre Dei) is a title, not a practice.

The title affirms two things:
1. Jesus is called God (including in the Bible, since He is divine)
2. Mary bore Him.

To reject the title is to reject one (or both) of those things, rejecting the Bible when it calls Jesus "GOD" and rejecting the Bible when it states that Mary bore Him.

Thank you.


Pax

- Josiah

false - for reasons pointed out above

you know in the bible , used by Elizabeth, is the term "the mother of my lord ".. and then through the Lords name all were taught by the lord (JEsus)to pray to the father ..this shows a hierarchy ..also the bible states that the lord Jesus himself at the end of all things is Also brought into subjection.

For HE HAS PUT ALL THINGS IN SUBJECTION UNDER HIS FEET. But when He says, "All things are put in subjection," it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him. 28 When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all. "
So it is plain in scripture that the mother who was given the blessing to bring forth the Son of GOD (not of adam) into the world is not the mother of God from whom christ in the flesh came ..because the lord jesus ,the Christ , is himself brought into subjection .


for this reason alone the bible NEVER gives mary the title "mother of God " because that would be blasphemy .. and even more so in that Jewish setting .

 

[Romanos]

..... hmmm is that why the lord used the term with the "woman " caught in adultery .. "Then Jesus stood up again and said to the woman, "Where are your accusers?

seems he treated her equally . .so there is no "specific " honor implied when he used it with mary more then one time .

Did her call her woman specifically? And I doubt he would insult his mother with that tone.

 

[Alithis]

Did her call her woman specifically? And I doubt he would insult his mother with that tone.

fair question..-you made me double check haha . :thumbsup:

yes it appears in english in john ch 2 speaking with mary.. then in the english in john chapter 8 speaking to the woman caught in adultery he refers to them both as "woman"

-however - im always open to corection and honesty. so ..

in the greek with mary its gunai he uses
and with the other is gunh.. but both are translated as "woman " in english.

we would need an objective greek expert to give fair definition of the variance in those terms . As i honestly have no idea

 

[MoreCoffee]

..... hmmm is that why the lord used the term with the "woman " caught in adultery .. "Then Jesus stood up again and said to the woman, "Where are your accusers?

seems he treated her equally . .so there is no "specific " honor implied when he used it with mary more then one time .

He said to the women, "Where are your accusers?" the Lord did not say "woman" in that passage.

 

[Alithis]

He said to the women, "Where are your accusers?" the Lord did not say "woman" in that passage.

New International Version
Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"

New Living Translation
Then Jesus stood up again and said to the woman, "Where are your accusers? Didn't even one of them condemn you?"

English Standard Version
Jesus stood up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

King James Bible
When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

however it is far from the point ..
it is a distraction.. the point is .. the mary promoted by the rcc

and the mary of the bible are not the same person
in the bible , used by Elizabeth, is the term "the mother of my lord ".. and then through the Lords name all were taught by the lord (JEsus)to pray to the father ..this shows a hierarchy ..also the bible states that the lord Jesus himself at the end of all things is Also brought into subjection.

For HE HAS PUT ALL THINGS IN SUBJECTION UNDER HIS FEET. But when He says, "All things are put in subjection," it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him. 28 When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all. "
So it is plain in scripture that the mother who was given the blessing to bring forth the Son of GOD (not of adam) into the world is not the mother of God from whom christ in the flesh came ..because the lord jesus ,the Christ , is himself brought into subjection .


for this reason alone the bible NEVER gives mary the title "mother of God " because that would be blasphemy .. and even more so in that Jewish setting .

you see if the son is in the final of all things made subject the father from whence he came and to whom he always was subject .. then the mother of our lord cannot be the mother of the most high god who has no beginning and no end .

the mary of the bible is
NOT a perpetual virgin - she went on to have children (you have to twist plain scripture to say otherwise on any of these points )
NOT divine being born from flesh and of flesh
NOT sinless being born of the blood line of adam
NOT a mediator between man and God .. there is none but the lord JEsus (plain scriptural TRUTH )
NOT able to save
NOT the queen of heaven
NOT the mother of God

conclusion.. the mary presented by rome is a completely different creature who stole her name .

 

[Josiah]

and the mary of the bible are not the same person
in the bible , used by Elizabeth, is the term "the mother of my lord "..

Good support for the theology of: "Mary - the Mother of God"

for this reason alone the bible NEVER gives mary the title "mother of God " because that would be blasphemy

So was Thomas guilty of blasphemy in John 20:28 where he specifically calls JESUS "GOD?" Was Jesus guilty of blasphemy to not condemn him for this but actually praise Thomas for using that title, for referring to Him as specifically "GOD?"

If Mary is not the mother of Jesus (whom the BIBLE calls "GOD"), who was? Who bore Jesus if not Mary?

the mary of the bible is
NOT a perpetual virgin - she went on to have children (you have to twist plain scripture to say otherwise on any of these points )

As a Protestant, I believe you have NO MORE confirmation for your position here than the EOC and RCC have for their position that Mary was a perpetual virgin. You have NOTHING in Scripture that says she HAD sex, and the RCC has NOTHING in Scripture that says he did NOT have sex. You - by your dogmatic statement - are simply doing the identical thing the RCC does, you are simply condemning yourself for doing exactly what the RCC does: dogmatically proclaim a specific about Mary's private sex life after JEsus was born that you CANNOT confirm as true.

And don't quote the bit about Jesus' brothers: they could have been children of Joseph (especially since there is no word for "step-brother" in koine Greek), and the Bible often points to entirely unrelated persons as "brothers" (indeed, biblically, YOU are my brother - doesn't mean we were born of the same biological mother). And don't use the "until" point since the force of the Greek IN NO WAY implies that atfter Jesus' birth Joseph did have sex with her - that point MIGHT, MIGHT be remotely implied in the ENGLISH but not in the original. You have NOTHING to prove Mary had sex..... you are simply doing the identical thing you rebuke Catholics for: making a dogmatic statement about Mary for which you have no confirmation.

NOT the mother of God

So, do you reject the divinity of Jesus (making the Bible, and Jesus, liars) or do you reject that Mary bore Jesus or do you reject both of those? I think rejecting EITHER of them makes you clearly unbiblical.




Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah