Mary Sinless?

[MrStain]

except that, other than in reference to Mary, I have NEVER heard "grace" used in that sense.

It IS an unmerited gift, and it is the reason we can recieve sanctification, but to say that grace and sanctification are synonyms just doesn't make sense. They aren't.

Now, I know you are going to ask how I can say that when it is in the dictionary. The answer is simple read definition 1c. The definition contains the word "grace" which makes it not make sense. Grace cannot be "a state of sanctification obtained through divine grace", that's nonsensical and shows how the word has been contorted to fit this doctrine (rather than creating the doctrine with the words and meanings we currently have)...



That's fine, I wasn't arguing that "full of grace" wasn't a proper phrase for that spot. I was saying that using full of grace to describe how she was sinless doesn't fit with the other interpretations that are possible for that phrase and could still be corrected. It is more saying "highly blessed" not "perfect and sinless"...



It wasn't my list. It comes from www.blueletterbible.com... I can't help it if the definition of the word doesn't fit what you are trying to make it say...

and what you describe is closer to what you are doing, not what I am doing. Grace rarely (if ever) means "perfect" or "sinless" it means "unmerited favor" the vast, vast majority of the time. And Mary having a lot of unmerited favor with God does NOT mean she is sinless (although, to be honest, it also doesn't mean its impossible that she was so, it just is absolutely not an evidence that she was)

Happy All Hallowed Eve, Larry. Let us remember the Saints who’ve gone before us.

First things first! I can’t help you didn’t agree with your own source.

That said, Scripture indicates that grace can in fact be a “state”.

· Romans 5:2 - By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.
· 1 Pet 5:12 - By Silvanus, a faithful brother unto you, as I suppose, I have written briefly, exhorting, and testifying that this is the true grace of God wherein ye stand.
· 2 Pet 3:18 - But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.

Even early Protestants agree with this clear teaching from the Bible. Wesley calls it a “state of favour”. Matthew Henry says, “The saints' happy state is a state of grace” and “Into this grace we are brought, which teaches that we were not born in this state.” It’s all about context.

I am glad we agree that grace cannot be separated from the salutation given to Mary by the angel & thank you for stating more than once that it would not be impossible for her to be without sin. Like Mary said, nothing is impossible with God. (Luke 1:37) By the way, did you notice how the angel did not address her as “Mary”, but instead addressed her as “full of grace” as though that were here name? The salutation clearly indicates a characteristic of Mary who must have been graced (or highly favored if that suits you) in the past, but with continuing effects in the present. The biblical reasoning I mentioned earlier still holds true which is we are saved by grace & we can overcome sin if we are under grace. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that Mary, the one who was full of grace, had mastery over sin even before the incarnation.

The only reason I'm saying she wasn't sinless is because if she wasn't sinless it makes Romans 3:23 false. Jesus was sinless because He was God, Mary is not God so for her to not "fall short of the glory of God" would show that verse to be false.

I hear ya, but I just want to point out that no one has declared Mary is on par with the glory of God. It is wrong to assume that just because someone is sinless they must automatically be on par with God. Even at the beginning of creation, when God created Adam, Eve, & His angels without sin, they were still not equal to God. His angels who have remained without sin and the saints in Heaven are still not on par with the Almighty.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

The problem is that the Bible says that all have sinned except God (and Jesus was God)...

The only way anyone other than Jesus could be sinless is if they were God...

Taken literally yes, theologically, no.

The sin of Adam and Even, is passed from human to human, as each new conception is made.

Therefore, in order for Jesus(who was a human born from a human) to be born without sin, he had to be born of a woman, who was also without sin.

Its not a difficult concept for me to accept, but I understand that for non-Catholics, it is difficult.

Jim

 

[larry_boy_44]

Happy All Hallowed Eve, Larry. Let us remember the Saints who’ve gone before us.

First things first! I can’t help you didn’t agree with your own source.

That said, Scripture indicates that grace can in fact be a “state”.

· Romans 5:2 - By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.
· 1 Pet 5:12 - By Silvanus, a faithful brother unto you, as I suppose, I have written briefly, exhorting, and testifying that this is the true grace of God wherein ye stand.
· 2 Pet 3:18 - But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.

Even early Protestants agree with this clear teaching from the Bible. Wesley calls it a “state of favour”. Matthew Henry says, “The saints' happy state is a state of grace” and “Into this grace we are brought, which teaches that we were not born in this state.” It’s all about context.

I am glad we agree that grace cannot be separated from the salutation given to Mary by the angel & thank you for stating more than once that it would not be impossible for her to be without sin. Like Mary said, nothing is impossible with God. (Luke 1:37) By the way, did you notice how the angel did not address her as “Mary”, but instead addressed her as “full of grace” as though that were here name? The salutation clearly indicates a characteristic of Mary who must have been graced (or highly favored if that suits you) in the past, but with continuing effects in the present. The biblical reasoning I mentioned earlier still holds true which is we are saved by grace & we can overcome sin if we are under grace. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that Mary, the one who was full of grace, had mastery over sin even before the incarnation.

But that state of grace has nothing to do with being sinless, and everything to do with having favour with God. Having favour with God doesn't mean you are sinless, it just means He likes you.

God chose Mary for a special job, but having that special job doesn't mean she didn't sin. It doesn't mean she did either, but I'm not the one declaring doctrines that go against other Scripture (Romans 3:23) here.

I hear ya, but I just want to point out that no one has declared Mary is on par with the glory of God. It is wrong to assume that just because someone is sinless they must automatically be on par with God. Even at the beginning of creation, when God created Adam, Eve, & His angels without sin, they were still not equal to God. His angels who have remained without sin and the saints in Heaven are still not on par with the Almighty.

Romans 3:23. Either she sinned and fell short of the glory of God like every other human, or she is on par with the Glory of God.

One or the other. Have fun picking which one you believe.

As far as the angels and saints being sinless... The saints still fell, and we still don't really know where the angels come from. So either we don't know what they did or we know that they fell and sinned and came short of the glory of God...

But you are claiming Mary (and possibly John the Baptist) did not. Those are your words and your arguments. I'm just bringing them to light in terms of the whole Bible, instead of just one verse.

 

[larry_boy_44]

Taken literally yes, theologically, no.

The sin of Adam and Even, is passed from human to human, as each new conception is made.

Therefore, in order for Jesus(who was a human born from a human) to be born without sin, he had to be born of a woman, who was also without sin.

Its not a difficult concept for me to accept, but I understand that for non-Catholics, it is difficult.

Jim

Except for the fact that for what you say to be true, then Mary had to be born from a mother and father who had no sin as well...

So now you are to two options:

1. Mary's parents were sinless.
2. Mary wasn't born.

And niether of those options are good ones.

 

[calluna]

It always amazes me, that those who can not believe that Mary was sinless

Cannot, or do not?

Does anyone really believe it? No-one has ever proved it, and it's extremely difficult to get a debate on this, as it is for many other such things.

Jesus was conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit.

That's written in the Bible, which is credible.

 

[MrStain]

But that state of grace has nothing to do with being sinless, and everything to do with having favour with God. Having favour with God doesn't mean you are sinless, it just means He likes you.

God chose Mary for a special job, but having that special job doesn't mean she didn't sin. It doesn't mean she did either, but I'm not the one declaring doctrines that go against other Scripture (Romans 3:23) here.

I didn’t declare any doctrine that goes against Scripture. I’ve supported my arguments with Scripture and you just happen to disagree. Sola Scriptura is fun isn't it?

Well, at least we are making some progress here since you are now agreeing with the definition you earlier thought didn’t make sense. Grace can indeed be defined as more that just a gift, but can also be a “state” as I’ve shown you with Scripture. Pretty neat how that works! Now if I could just get you to stop being selective with the workings of God’s grace -- especially when it comes to the Mother of God, the one who God's minister declared to be full of grace.

Romans 3:23. Either she sinned and fell short of the glory of God like every other human, or she is on par with the Glory of God.

One or the other. Have fun picking which one you believe.

Oh. I’ve been having fun! My kids & I just returned with bag loads of candy from trick-or-treating. Good times here in VA.

MrPolo has already given you examples of those who are not guilty of actual sin i.e. little children & the mentally handicapped. Of course you'll probably disagree, but I’ll follow Jesus’ words about the little children when he says, “for of such is the kingdom of God.” (Mk 10:14)

Do you REALLY believe that someone who hasn’t sinned is on par with the Glory of God? You must be kidding! Before the fall of man (Gen 3), you believe the created were on par with the Glory of the Creator? I’m not sure what the name of that heresy is, but I bet we can come up with something. Or maybe you just like beating on a strawman!

As far as the angels and saints being sinless... The saints still fell, and we still don't really know where the angels come from. So either we don't know what they did or we know that they fell and sinned and came short of the glory of God...

But you are claiming Mary (and possibly John the Baptist) did not. Those are your words and your arguments. I'm just bringing them to light in terms of the whole Bible, instead of just one verse.

Wait one second. I need to point out two things. First, I have never claimed in this thread – even possibly – that John the Baptist did not sin. Secondly, I find it a bit rich that you are talking about using the "whole Bible". The only verse I’ve seen you mention in pretty much every one of your posts is Rom 3:23, while a neutral observer of this thread will notice that I’ve been using Scripture throughout this thread as well as offering up various Protestant commentaries to backup my interpretations.

Also to clarify. The saints are not fallen in Heaven. They have been lifted up, become really free of sin (not just covered over, since sin cannot enter Heaven), and are the Church Triumphant!

Lastly, what do you mean we don’t know where the angels came from? Psssstt. Come here. Let me tell you a secret. God created the angels. Remember, through Him all things were made (Jn 1:3, Col 1:16, etc.). Oh. The choirs of angels in Heaven are also without sin & neither they nor the saints are on par with the Glory of God. Imagine that!

 

[larry_boy_44]

I didn’t declare any doctrine that goes against Scripture. I’ve supported my arguments with Scripture and you just happen to disagree. Sola Scriptura is fun isn't it?

Well, at least we are making some progress here since you are now agreeing with the definition you earlier thought didn’t make sense. Grace can indeed be defined as more that just a gift, but can also be a “state” as I’ve shown you with Scripture. Pretty neat how that works! Now if I could just get you to stop being selective with the workings of God’s grace -- especially when it comes to the Mother of God, the one who God's minister declared to be full of grace.

First of all "Mother of God" isn't really accurate. She didn't birth God, she birthed Jesus. I know, I know, its nit-picky, but there is quite a difference between birthing God manifest in the flesh and God Himself.

God's grace <> forgiveness; Through God's grace and Christ's blood we can be forgiven, but it isn't His grace that makes us forgiven purely and by itself. There's more to it.

Oh. I’ve been having fun! My kids & I just returned with bag loads of candy from trick-or-treating. Good times here in VA.

MrPolo has already given you examples of those who are not guilty of actual sin i.e. little children & the mentally handicapped. Of course you'll probably disagree, but I’ll follow Jesus’ words about the little children when he says, “for of such is the kingdom of God.” (Mk 10:14)

Do you REALLY believe that someone who hasn’t sinned is on par with the Glory of God? You must be kidding! Before the fall of man (Gen 3), you believe the created were on par with the Glory of the Creator? I’m not sure what the name of that heresy is, but I bet we can come up with something. Or maybe you just like beating on a strawman!

MrPolo gave examples of those NOT RESPONSIBLE for thier sin/sin natures... He didn't give examples of those who have no sin nature/didn't sin. We are guilty the second we are created...

if you want to come up with something, be my guest... But I'll stick with what the Bible says (that all have sinneda nd come short of the glory of God)

Wait one second. I need to point out two things. First, I have never claimed in this thread – even possibly – that John the Baptist did not sin. Secondly, I find it a bit rich that you are talking about using the "whole Bible". The only verse I’ve seen you mention in pretty much every one of your posts is Rom 3:23, while a neutral observer of this thread will notice that I’ve been using Scripture throughout this thread as well as offering up various Protestant commentaries to backup my interpretations.

Also to clarify. The saints are not fallen in Heaven. They have been lifted up, become really free of sin (not just covered over, since sin cannot enter Heaven), and are the Church Triumphant!

Lastly, what do you mean we don’t know where the angels came from? Psssstt. Come here. Let me tell you a secret. God created the angels. Remember, through Him all things were made (Jn 1:3, Col 1:16, etc.). Oh. The choirs of angels in Heaven are also without sin & neither they nor the saints are on par with the Glory of God. Imagine that!

first off, I'm sure it wasn't you who said that about John the Baptist, I was just pionting out that it had been said...

second, there is no score-keeping... Just because you can mutate more scriptures to remotely support your argument than I can name those that clearly and plainly show mine doesn't mean you win...

and the saints in heaven WERE fallen... They DID fall. That is the point. They had fallen, thus they had sinned and fallen short the glory of God, just like Romans 3:23 said.

I know God created the angels... We don't know why exactly or when exactly it was done. We don't know what the purpose for thier Creation was. We don't have those exact statements/ideas given to us in the Scriptures...

and we know the Saints ARE without sin, but they HAD sinned already... Being cleaned is not the same as having never sinned.

And, again, we don't know what the past of the angels is like, we don't know if they ever had will or not... All we know is they are there now...

 

[dinomight]

First of all "Mother of God" isn't really accurate. She didn't birth God, she birthed Jesus. I know, I know, its nit-picky, but there is quite a difference between birthing God manifest in the flesh and God Himself.

Well, I'm not an authority on this subject, but I can explain the "mother of God" concept. The reason the Church defined Mary in this manner was because there were people claiming that Christ and God were not one, thereby lessening who He was. If a person believes that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three parts of one God, then, yes, Mary gave birth to God; not God the Father, but God the Son. Anyway, saying "Mary, mother of God" simply makes it unquestionably clear that we believe Jesus truly is fully God.

And, again, we don't know what the past of the angels is like, we don't know if they ever had will or not... All we know is they are there now...

Actually, we do know that the angels had freewill, otherwise, how could Lucifer have led the rebellion in Heaven? If the angels didn't have freewill, there would have been no fall; further, I'd say that man would not have fallen either, because the Devil would have not been able to tempt him.

 

[larry_boy_44]

Well, I'm not an authority on this subject, but I can explain the "mother of God" concept. The reason the Church defined Mary in this manner was because there were people claiming that Christ and God were not one, thereby lessening who He was. If a person believes that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three parts of one God, then, yes, Mary gave birth to God; not God the Father, but God the Son. Anyway, saying "Mary, mother of God" simply makes it unquestionably clear that we believe Jesus truly is fully God.

And, yet, it still really isn't true... Again, for reasons you stated. Mary is not the mother of the Father or the Holy Spirit, thus she isn't the mother of God, just Jesus.

Actually, we do know that the angels had freewill, otherwise, how could Lucifer have led the rebellion in Heaven? If the angels didn't have freewill, there would have been no fall; further, I'd say that man would not have fallen either, because the Devil would have not been able to tempt him.

we can assume they had freewill, but we don't really know for sure. Why am I not sure? The exact reason you just stated (man wouldn't have fallen if Lucifer weren't there to tempt him, thus in a way isn't Lucifer still doing God's bidding?)...

 

[dinomight]

And, yet, it still really isn't true... Again, for reasons you stated. Mary is not the mother of the Father or the Holy Spirit, thus she isn't the mother of God, just Jesus.



we can assume they had freewill, but we don't really know for sure. Why am I not sure? The exact reason you just stated (man wouldn't have fallen if Lucifer weren't there to tempt him, thus in a way isn't Lucifer still doing God's bidding?)...

Well, I can't really add to my previous defense of Mary, mother of God, but I do understand where you're coming from, and I would agree that she is certainly not the mother of all three parts of the Trinity. I would say it's easy to get into a debate on proper use of wording and so forth, just as the one you had with Mr. Stain about "grace."

Now, your second point on the angels is an extremely interesting idea. It seems that you're implying the possibility that the fall of man was actually somehow within the will of God. I cannot accept that in any way, because I believe that God fully desired for humanity to follow His commandments and live in eternal bliss, serving and worshiping Him. I also don't believe that God's will was for the angels to rebel, and to have to be cast into the lake of fire, along with unrepentant humanity, for all eternity. God loves all of us, and He loved, and I assume still loves, all of the angels; He doesn't want to punish any of us, but He must do so because of His holiness. No, to believe that rebellion was within the will of God does not make sense to me at all.

 

[larry_boy_44]

Well, I can't really add to my previous defense of Mary, mother of God, but I do understand where you're coming from, and I would agree that she is certainly not the mother of all three parts of the Trinity. I would say it's easy to get into a debate on proper use of wording and so forth, just as the one you had with Mr. Stain about "grace."

Now, your second point on the angels is an extremely interesting idea. It seems that you're implying the possibility that the fall of man was actually somehow within the will of God. I cannot accept that in any way, because I believe that God fully desired for humanity to follow His commandments and live in eternal bliss, serving and worshiping Him. I also don't believe that God's will was for the angels to rebel, and to have to be cast into the lake of fire, along with unrepentant humanity, for all eternity. God loves all of us, and He loved, and I assume still loves, all of the angels; He doesn't want to punish any of us, but He must do so because of His holiness. No, to believe that rebellion was within the will of God does not make sense to me at all.

I understand the idea behind "mother of God"... I just think its too dangerous in terms of where it could go to even risk saying something like that...

and I agree with your second paragraph. I wasn't saying the fall of man was in God's initial plan, I was saying the temptation that happened in the garden could have been (giving them a choice)...

and we don't know if God loves the angels or not, we've never been told that He does as far as I know (although, again, that doesn't mean that He doesn't)...

 

[MrStain]

I understand the idea behind "mother of God"... I just think its too dangerous in terms of where it could go to even risk saying something like that...

and I agree with your second paragraph. I wasn't saying the fall of man was in God's initial plan, I was saying the temptation that happened in the garden could have been (giving them a choice)...

and we don't know if God loves the angels or not, we've never been told that He does as far as I know (although, again, that doesn't mean that He doesn't)...

This is why I like discussions on the faith. They start on one subject and it is inevitable they will twist & turn like a drive through Napa valley.

You may may find it interesting to know that the early Church looked at it from an entirely different perspective than yourself. As a matter of fact, they recognized the real danger in not recognizing the truth that Mary is rightly called the Mother of God. Nestorius & his followers just wanted to call her Christotokos, Greek for the "Christ-Bearer" when in reality she was the Theotokos, aka the "God-Bearer." The Church condemned these apostates at the Council of Ephesus.

The Protestant reformers even recognized this title:

• Luther - "She is rightly called not only the mother of the man, but also the Mother of God ... It is certain that Mary is the Mother of the real and true God."
• Zwingli - "I esteem immensely the Mother of God, the ever chaste, immaculate Virgin Mary."

oh snap! Did Zwingli just say immaculate in reference to Mary?

 

[larry_boy_44]

This is why I like discussions on the faith. They start on one subject and it is inevitable they will twist & turn like a drive through Napa valley.

You may may find it interesting to know that the early Church looked at it from an entirely different perspective than yourself. As a matter of fact, they recognized the real danger in not recognizing the truth that Mary is rightly called the Mother of God. Nestorius & his followers just wanted to call her Christotokos, Greek for the "Christ-Bearer" when in reality she was the Theotokos, aka the "God-Bearer." The Church condemned these apostates at the Council of Ephesus.

The Protestant reformers even recognized this title:

• Luther - "She is rightly called not only the mother of the man, but also the Mother of God ... It is certain that Mary is the Mother of the real and true God."
• Zwingli - "I esteem immensely the Mother of God, the ever chaste, immaculate Virgin Mary."

oh snap! Did Zwingli just say immaculate in reference to Mary?

I don't consider AD 431 all that early, tons of damage could have been done in the 400 years after Christ's death to there...

as far as Luther or Zwingli, again, I agree, it makes sense, but at the same time is isn't *REALLY* true because she didn't give birth to God (as the title at face value implies), rather she gave birth to God manifest in flesh...

I think the biggest difference is that Jesus existed before He was born, we didn't... if that makes sense... So Mary didn't give birth to the eternal thing (God), but the human thing (Jesus)...

 

[MrStain]

I don't consider AD 431 all that early, tons of damage could have been done in the 400 years after Christ's death to there...

It is true that in AD 431 the Church affirmed at the Council or Ephesus the title God-bearer, but they didn't just decide to make it up out of thin air. The term and/or teaching had already been in use for hundreds of years. For example:

• Ignatius of Antioch informs us that "our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary in accord with God's plan" ~ AD 110
• Irenaues of Lyons refers to the "The Word Himself, born of Mary". He also wrote "The Virgin Mary, being obedient to his word, received from an angel the glad tidings that she would bear God." ~ AD 189

It's important to remember that Ignatius of Antioch (where we were 1st called Christians) was ordanied by the Apostles and Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp who tradition tells us learned from the Apostle John. This is a very early witness to the attitude of the early Church to Mary and so the Council in 431 just affirmed this truth for proper understanding of Jesus' Divinity.

as far as Luther or Zwingli, again, I agree, it makes sense, but at the same time is isn't *REALLY* true because she didn't give birth to God (as the title at face value implies), rather she gave birth to God manifest in flesh...

I think the biggest difference is that Jesus existed before He was born, we didn't... if that makes sense... So Mary didn't give birth to the eternal thing (God), but the human thing (Jesus)...

This can be a complicated subject for sure, but if you're not careful you may be heading toward the heresy of Nestorianism with a belief that Jesus is somehow two persons (the man Jesus & the divine Son of God).

Holy Cow, it's late! Goodnight.

 

[larry_boy_44]

It is true that in AD 431 the Church affirmed at the Council or Ephesus the title God-bearer, but they didn't just decide to make it up out of thin air. The term and/or teaching had already been in use for hundreds of years. For example:

• Ignatius of Antioch informs us that "our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary in accord with God's plan" ~ AD 110
• Irenaues of Lyons refers to the "The Word Himself, born of Mary". He also wrote "The Virgin Mary, being obedient to his word, received from an angel the glad tidings that she would bear God." ~ AD 189

It's important to remember that Ignatius of Antioch (where we were 1st called Christians) was ordanied by the Apostles and Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp who tradition tells us learned from the Apostle John. This is a very early witness to the attitude of the early Church to Mary and so the Council in 431 just affirmed this truth for proper understanding of Jesus' Divinity.

niether of those called her "Mother of God" they said that her son was God, there is, again, a bit of a difference between the two.

God exists and was whether or not Jesus was born, Jesus was just the human manifestation/incarnation of God...

This can be a complicated subject for sure, but if you're not careful you may be heading toward the heresy of

Nestorianism with a belief that Jesus is somehow two persons (the man Jesus & the divine Son of God).

Holy Cow, it's late! Goodnight.

Definately not saying that. Simply saying that although Jesus was God manifest in the flesh, God existed without Mary birthing Jesus, thus Mary didn't birth God, but rather Jesus...

That's the difference. And, to me, its a big one because "Mother of God", to me, signifies that she birthed God Himself on the whole, not just God's human incarnation...

 

[MrPolo]

If God can just *POOF* and make it dissapear, there's no reason to do that with Mary so Jesus doesn't have it, because He could have just done it with Jesus.

There is absolutely no reason to choose to have Mary be sinless as well...

Again He did not "need" to do it. Jesus could have been sinless without her being sinless. The Church does not teach otherwise. But it is a great sign because she can only be so because of the future work of her son. The glory is Christ's. If you can see it that way, then your wrapping your mind around it. Mary remains a window into Eve, the Ark, the spotless Church joined to Christ (all which remain her types), and reveals the will of God. It is a communication on His part to humankind. If you don't want to believe it, that's fine. But assigning God criteria in which He must operate is not to receive Him, but place parameters on Him.

 

[calluna]

Mary remains a window into Eve, the Ark, the spotless Church joined to Christ (all which remain her types), and reveals the will of God.

If Catholics wrote only what they had proved, they would never write anything.

 

[MrStain]

niether of those called her "Mother of God" they said that her son was God, there is, again, a bit of a difference between the two.

A son is conceived by whom? Who bears a child? The answer to both is obviously the Mother. So even if the two quotes I mentioned did not use the exact phrase, “Mother of God”, it is quite clear that is their meaning. Did you notice how Irenaeus said she would “bear God”? This is precisely what is meant by the term Theotokos (God-bearer).

God exists and was whether or not Jesus was born, Jesus was just the human manifestation/incarnation of God...

Here are some additional quotes on the topic from the early Church -- before the Council of Ephesus:

· Alexander of Alexandria - "We acknowledge the resurrection of the dead, of which Jesus Christ our Lord became the firstling; he bore a body not in appearance but in truth derived from Mary the Mother of God" (Encyclical Letter to All Non-Egyptian Bishops 12 [A.D.324]).
· Ephraim - "Though still a virgin she carried a Child in her womb, and the handmaid and work of his wisdom became the Mother of God" (Songs of Praise 1:20 [A.D. 338-373]).
· Athanasius - "The Word begotten of the Father from on high, inexpressibly, inexplicably, incomprehensibly, and eternally is he that is born in time here below of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God" (On the Incarnation of the Word of God 8 [A.D. 365]).
· Cyril of Jerusalem - "The Father bears witness from heaven to his Son. The Holy Spirit bears witness, coming down bodily in the form of a dove. The Archangel Gabriel bears witness, bringing the good tidings to Mary. The Virgin Mother of God bears witness” (Cat-echetical Lectures 10:19 [A.D.350]).
· Gregory of Nazianz - "If anyone does not agree that Holy Mary is Mother of God, he is at odds with the Godhead. If anyone asserts that Christ passed through the Virgin as through a channel and was not shaped in her both divinely and humanly, divinely because without man and humanly because in accord with the law of gestation, he is likewise godless" (Epistle to Cledonius the Priest 101 [A.D. 382]).
· Epiphanius - "For this is the Holy Savior who came down from heaven, who deigned to fashion for our salvation in a virginal workshop . . . who did not change his nature when he took on humanity along with his divinity . . . who took on human flesh and soul. Being perfect at the side of the Father and incarnate among us, not in appearance but in truth, he reshaped man to perfection in himself from Mary the Mother of God through the Holy Spirit" (The Man Well-Anchored 75 [A.D. 374]).
· Theodore of Mopsuestia - "When, therefore, they ask, `Is Mary mother of man or Mother of God?’ we answer, `Both!’ The one by the very nature of what was done and the other by relation. Mother of man because it was a man who was in the womb of Mary and who came forth from there, and the Mother of God because God was in the man who was born, not in him in a circumscribable way according to nature, but existing in him by intention of will" (On the Incarnation 15 [A.D. 390]).
· Jerome - "Do not marvel at the novelty of the thing, if a Virgin gives birth to God" (Commentaries on Isaiah 3:7:15 [A.D. 408-410]).
· John Cassian - "Now, you heretic, you say, whoever you are who deny that God was born of the Virgin, that Mary, the Mother of our Lord Jesus Christ, cannot be called Theotokos, that is, the Mother of God, but Christotokos, that is, the Mother only of Christ [the man] and not of God. For no one, you say, gives birth to one older than herself. And of this utterly stupid argument, wherein you suppose that the birth of God [at the Incarnation] can be understood by a carnal intellect and believe that the mystery of his majesty can be resolved by human reasoning, we will, if God permits, offer a refutation later on. In the meantime, however, let us prove by divine testimonies both that Christ is God and that Mary is the Mother of God" (On the Incarnation of Christ Against Nestorius 2:2 [A.D.429]).
· Cyril of Alexandria - "I have been amazed that some are utterly in doubt as to whether or not the Holy Virgin is able to be called the Mother of God. For if our Lord Jesus Christ is God, how should the Holy Virgin who bore him not be the Mother of God?" (Epistle to the Monks of Egypt 1 [A.D. 423-431]).

Definately not saying that. Simply saying that although Jesus was God manifest in the flesh, God existed without Mary birthing Jesus, thus Mary didn't birth God, but rather Jesus...

That's the difference. And, to me, its a big one because "Mother of God", to me, signifies that she birthed God Himself on the whole, not just God's human incarnation...

I’m pretty sure I know where you are coming from since I once had the same reservations. I presume you worry that by saying Mary is the mother of God or God bearer that some will believe that she -- the created -- was somehow before the Creator of the universe. That belief of course would be false and would have to be forcefully condemned. However, as was explained already that is not what is meant by these terms at all. The purpose of using the terms God-bearer and Mother of God are precisely to protect the true teaching on the Divinity of Christ & the unity of God. As the ancient Creed says, Christ is “God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father.”

Your statement, “Mary didn’t birth God, but rather Jesus” is exactly why the early Church had to address the Christological controversies. Jesus is in fact “My Lord and My God” (Jn 20:28)

 

[dinomight]

I don't know about the rest of you, but I am really enjoying this discussion. We're definitely working our way through a good deal of controversial topics, and I feel like I'm learning a lot by reading these divergent perspectives.

It seems to me that one of the biggest reasons Catholics and Protestants have trouble understanding one another is that so much misinformation has been handed down over the last several centuries since the Reformation. On the Protestant side, it's pretty much come down to painting the Catholic Church as one filled with pagan idolaters who don't know the real Jesus Christ. No, that's not what my church teaches, but I'd say that is an attitude that I see kind of weaving itself through various Protestant circles.

We've come to think that Catholics worship saints, angels, and the Virgin Mary by the very fact that they pray to them. The more I talk to people and read about it, though, I realize that the Catholic Church does not consider these saints to be a substitute for or addition to the price Christ paid for us. It's just that it is beneficial to have others praying for us, particularly when they're already in Heaven and can do so unceasingly as they worship the Lord. It would be blasphemy to worship anyone but God, or to say that anyone is equal to God; I remember in Revelation when John bowed to the angel, but the angel told him to worship God.

Now, I'm sure there are those who would take Catholic teachings and turn it into a type of pagan system of worship, but it seems that the Church is careful to eliminate those problems before they lead to a great corruption.

 

[Kat8765]

Thanks Dinomight, for your statement. I wish all Protestants could have this understanding as you do. Maybe one day we can all (Protestants and Catholics alike)realize that we all want to give God all the glory and just put our differences aside and stand together as Christians! That would be nice.