Against Those Who Reject Mary as the Mother of God

[Theophan]

It is true that your mother is the mother of Theophan, but we can't say that your mother is the mother of human even though you are a human, since it is a generalization.

Theophan is the name of a human. My mother was the mother of a human named Theophan.

Jesus is the name of the Word of God, the Christ, God Himself. Mary was the mother of the Word of God named JESUS.


You and I are defining motherhood differently.

 

[Lily of Valleys]

Theophan is the name of a human. My mother was the mother of a human named Theophan.

Jesus is the name of the Word of God, the Christ, God Himself. Mary was the mother of the Word of God named JESUS.

Your mother being a mother of a human is correct, but your mother being a mother of human is incorrect. Can you tell the difference?

 

[Theophan]

Your mother being a mother of a human is correct, but your mother being a mother of human is incorrect. Can you tell the difference?

Yes, the difference is that the latter definition is a false definition of what a mother is. You seek to ascribe the same traits of God the Father to how we explain Mary to be the mother of God, the Theotokos. This is not how we explain mother of God.

1) The Holy Trinity is the Creator of all things. God created Mary.
2) Mary did not create God.
3) The Father begot the Son before all ages.
4) The Father and the Son are both co-eternal, uncreated, immortal, and fully God, as well as the Holy Spirit.
5) The Father did not give birth to the Son like women give birth to their children. He begot the Son, but there was never a time in which the Son did not exist. This is a Divine mystery which cannot be adequately captured with words.
6) There was a time in which the Word of God was not made flesh.
7) There was a time in which Mary was not alive.
8) When the Word of God became flesh, that is, fully human, He retained His divine nature. Thus, He is fully man and fully God.
9) The Word of God was born of a virgin, of Mary.
10) Mary gave birth to JESUS, the Son of God.
11) Mary was the Mother of God.
12) I have nothing else to say... I just wanted twelve points for the twelve apostles.

 

[Lily of Valleys]

I think it's clear that Mary could never be and is not the mother of God, the Father.

But she did conceive and give birth to God the Word and Son, the Second Person of the Trinity, by the Holy Spirit.

This does not make her the creator or originator of the Second Person of the Trinity, but does make her God's mother in an historical, incarnational, and social sense.

As I understand it, the title Mother of God does more to point to the deity of Christ than it does to imply or infer that Mary is in any way the originator of God. No way! But as Christ is God, not simply like God, similar to or near to God but truly God in His reality and nature, it does make sense to say that the woman who gave birth to Jesus of Nazareth is truly the Mother of God.

We shouldn't call Mary the mother of God for the purpose of correcting a heresy, since it results in another heresy with the phrase "Mother of God", which is misleading in itself.

 

[Theophan]

We shouldn't call Mary the mother of God for the purpose of correcting a heresy, since it results in another heresy with the phrase "Mother of God", which is misleading in itself.

Words are arbitrarily defined. Just because you define the title "Theotokos" in a way that is heretical, does not mean that we preach this heresy, nor does it mean that this title inherently possesses this definition since, as I have just said, words are arbitrary. The title is misleading only because you do not want to understand it in its proper sense.

 

[anna ~ grace]

We shouldn't call Mary the mother of God for the purpose of correcting a heresy, since it results in another heresy with the phrase "Mother of God", which is misleading in itself.

No, it doesn't. See, historically, interestingly, Mother of God is not heretical.

In fact, it pre-dates objections to the phrase which gave rise to the Nestorian controversy, which brought up some of the issues you raise. It was resolved and dealt with at the Council of Ephesus. Check it out.

Council of Ephesus - Wikipedia

 

[Theophan]

Yes, the difference is that the latter definition is a false definition of what a mother is. You seek to ascribe the same traits of God the Father to how we explain Mary to be the mother of God, the Theotokos. This is not how we explain mother of God.

1) The Holy Trinity is the Creator of all things. God created Mary.
2) Mary did not create God.
3) The Father begot the Son before all ages.
4) The Father and the Son are both co-eternal, uncreated, immortal, and fully God, as well as the Holy Spirit.
5) The Father did not give birth to the Son like women give birth to their children. He begot the Son, but there was never a time in which the Son did not exist. This is a Divine mystery which cannot be adequately captured with words.
6) There was a time in which the Word of God was not made flesh.
7) There was a time in which Mary was not alive.
8) When the Word of God became flesh, that is, fully human, He retained His divine nature. Thus, He is fully man and fully God.
9) The Word of God was born of a virgin, of Mary.
10) Mary gave birth to JESUS, the Son of God.
11) Mary was the Mother of God.
12) I have nothing else to say... I just wanted twelve points for the twelve apostles.

One more thing. Theophan is part of the human race. I am one with the human race. I am a human. My mother gave birth to me, Theophan, a human person, one with the human race.

Mary gave birth to the Word of God, Jesus Christ, a person of the Holy Trinity, who is One with the Father and the Holy Spirit.

 

[Lily of Valleys]

Yes, the difference is that the latter definition is a false definition of what a mother is. You seek to ascribe the same traits of God the Father to how we explain Mary to be the mother of God, the Theotokos. This is not how we explain mother of God.

I don't think there is any difference in the definition of mother in both cases. The difference is, "mother of human" implies mother of all humans, while "mother of a human" is limited to only being Theophan's mother.

Similar to the case with "mother of Jesus" and "mother of God". The incarnate God was named Jesus during His mission on earth. Calling Mary the "mother of Jesus" is limited to only being Jesus' mother, within that specific time frame; in contrast to mother of God, who is the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, in eternity, from the beginning to the end.

 

[Theophan]

I don't think there is any difference in the definition of mother in both cases. The difference is, "mother of human" implies mother of all humans, while "mother of a human" is limited to only being Theophan's mother.

Similar to the case with "mother of Jesus" and "mother of God". The incarnate God was named Jesus during His mission on earth. Calling Mary the "mother of Jesus" is limited to only being Jesus' mother, within that specific time frame; in contrast to mother of God, who is the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, in eternity, from the beginning to the end.

You do well to say that God is One, the Holy Trinity.

You do not do well in saying that you cannot refer to God without referring to the rest of the Trinity.

Jesus is the Son of God, the second person of the Trinity, consubstantial with the Father and the Holy Spirit.

Jesus Christ is God.
The Father is God.
The Holy Spirit is God.

You say, "God, who is the Father, the Son, and the Spirit."

What, do you have a problem distinguishing the persons of the Trinity? Do you have issues with simply calling Jesus Christ God? Or do you only have the ability to refer to God as the Trinity?

What then will you say to Thomas, who said, "My Lord and my God." ?

Who did Mary give birth to? Who was she a mother to? Jesus! Just say it, for God's sake! Just admit that Mary was the mother of Jesus, who is very God Himself. Why is that a problem for you?

 

[betterorworse]

Is it safe to say that is a fleshly debate?

 

[Theophan]

I don't think there is any difference in the definition of mother in both cases. The difference is, "mother of human" implies mother of all humans, while "mother of a human" is limited to only being Theophan's mother.

We don't say that Mary created God. Mothers do not create. God creates.

Just because you say it implies something, does not mean that is how we define mother.

But let's confute your argument anyway.

Mother of human, you say, is meaning to say mother of all humans. In other words, all humans have their origin in this mother. Your problem is that you do not take into consideration that Christ had two natures. One divine, the other human. The Word of God joined Himself to flesh, which we received from His human mother, Mary. His Divinity, He did not receive from Mary. He already existed as God. But in His person, He became both God and Man. He was born of Mary, not the Holy Spirit. He was conceived by both, but not born by both. Mary gave birth to God, who was already God before Mary, but who became Man also. Thus, she is the Mother of Jesus, who is God, and she is the Mother of God.

 

[Theophan]

Is it safe to say that is a fleshly debate?

I don't know. Do we judge? Or do we defer that right to God alone?

 

[Lily of Valleys]

We don't say that Mary created God. Mothers do not create. God creates.

Just because you say it implies something, does not mean that is how we define mother.

But let's confute your argument anyway.

Mother of human, you say, is meaning to say mother of all humans. In other words, all humans have their origin in this mother. Your problem is that you do not take into consideration that Christ had two natures. One divine, the other human. The Word of God joined Himself to flesh, which we received from His human mother, Mary. His Divinity, He did not receive from Mary. He already existed as God. But in His person, He became both God and Man. He was born of Mary, not the Holy Spirit. He was conceived by both, but not born by both. Mary gave birth to God, who was already God before Mary, but who became Man also. Thus, she is the Mother of Jesus, who is God, and she is the Mother of God.

My point is, the phrase "Mother of God" has implicit meanings that imply Mary is something that she simply is not. Therefore, this phrase should not be used to describe Mary. We should call her Jesus' mother instead, which is how she has been described in the scripture. Everything else is irrelevant.

 

[betterorworse]

mark 3:33-34

 

[anna ~ grace]

mark 3:33-34

True, but this is no more or less Scripture than "hail, full of grace", "all generations shall call me blessed", "who am I that the mother of my Lord should come unto me?", "a sword shall pierce your own soul, too", "they have no wine", "do whatever He asks you", "at the foot of the Cross stood...", and "behold your mother".

To say nothing of the Marian implications of the Woman Clothed with the Sun of Revelation.

Really, we just see these verses differently. One approach is minimal, one is maximal. Marian maximalism, spiritually, is one way that Catholics argue we can draw even closer to Jesus, through Mary. Not simply just by knowing she exists, but by seeking her help to follow Christ.

 

[ViaCrucis]

And even as mother of Jesus, it was only from the time He was born and till He died on the cross.

Exactly why would Mary stop being the mother of Jesus at the cross? Jesus didn't stop being Jesus, He's still Jesus, He's always going to be Jesus. Mary will always be His mother, and He will always be her Child.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Lily of Valleys]

Exactly why would Mary stop being the mother of Jesus at the cross? Jesus didn't stop being Jesus, He's still Jesus, He's always going to be Jesus. Mary will always be His mother, and He will always be her Child.

That question had already been addressed in Post #142

 

[ViaCrucis]

That question had already been addressed in Post #142

So Jesus stopped being the biological offspring of Mary when He gave John charge to take care of her? I don't think that's how biology works.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Francis Drake]

Okay... so Mary was the Mother of God because Jesus is God. Do you deny that Jesus is God?

This is a silly straw man argument, as nobody on either side has claimed that Jesus is not also God.
If you have to resort to straw man arguments, then it shows how shallow your stance is.

Do you deny that when He became flesh He was also fully God and yet a babe?

But never in a million years was God a babe, was He? Your foolish claims belittle God.

If not, then you cannot deny that Mary gave birth to Christ our God.

She certainly gave birth to Christ, but not to God.

 

[ViaCrucis]

But never in a million years was God a babe, was He? Your foolish claims belittle God.

Jesus was conceived in Mary's womb, and was born as an infant to her. So, yes, God was at one point an infant.

-CryptoLutheran