Is Mary the mother of God?

[tampasteve]

Well I think that I will be like @tampasteve and feel free to agree to disagree with you. We're both Christians with two entirely different views. So what? We both believe that Jesus died and rose again for our sins and that's the most important thing.

I respect that we can all disagree, but it might be a good idea to have a study of some of the foundational beliefs of the church and the natures of God.

To be honest, some of your statements are quite heterodox and concerning. I am not saying you are not a Christian, not at all. What I am saying is that some of your beliefs of the natures of God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not what the Church teaches and are confusing the natures of the Trinity.

I know I quoted you, but that statement really applies to many people in this thread.

Having issue with the title "Mother of God" is one thing, but confusing the natures of the Trinity is another. We don't have to fully comprehend it, but we should know what it is not even if we don't fully understand.

 

[prodromos]

So I will ask one last time for scripture showing what has been claimed about Mary on this thread.

Perpetual virginity
Sinless
Never died

I'll come back to this I promise, as I'm inundated with work ATM, but just so you know, the Orthodox Church celebrates the passing away of Mary on August 15. We do not claim that she never died.

 

[ViaCrucis]

So I will ask one last time for scripture showing what has been claimed about Mary on this thread.

Perpetual virginity
Sinless
Never died

No church that I have ever attended has ever taught any of this. I would be very interested to find a Baptist minster (Australian Baptist I don't claim to know about American Baptists) that believes any one of those claims. Pretty sure if you asked on CF in the Baptist area they won't either.

That's not the subject of the thread. The subject of the thread is "is Mary the mother of God?"

-CryptoLutheran

 

[April_Rose]

I respect that we can all disagree, but it might be a good idea to have a study of some of the foundational beliefs of the church and the natures of God.

To be honest, some of your statements are quite heterodox and concerning. I am not saying you are not a Christian, not at all. What I am saying is that some of your beliefs of the natures of God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not what the Church teaches and are confusing the natures of the Trinity.

I know I quoted you, but that statement really applies to many people in this thread.

Having issue with the title "Mother of God" is one thing, but confusing the natures of the Trinity is another. We don't have to fully comprehend it, but we should know what it is not even if we don't fully understand.

First of all I created another thread trying to understand the Trinity, and second of all I'm not really an Orthodox Christian when it comes to some of my beliefs. I don't really see how that's concerning though. As I'm not saying Jesus isn't God, I'm saying that I don't believe that He is the creator.

 

[James A]

First of all I created another thread trying to understand the Trinity, and second of all I'm not really an Orthodox Christian when it comes to some of my beliefs. I don't really see how that's concerning though. As I'm not saying Jesus isn't God, I'm saying that I don't believe that He is the creator.

Father created all created things through Son so, Son is co-creator and He is as eternal and as immutable as Father

 

[April_Rose]

Father created all created things through Son so, Son is co-creator and He is as eternal and as immutable as Father

Now that I can see.

 

[concretecamper]

I think the end of Cyril's third letter to Nestorius sums it up well.

"Therefore, because the holy virgin bore in the flesh God who was united hypostatically with the flesh, for that reason we call her mother of God, not as though the nature of the Word had the beginning of its existence from the flesh (for “the Word was in the beginning and the Word was God and the Word was with God”, and he made the ages and is coeternal with the Father and craftsman of all things), but because, as we have said, he united to himself hypostatically the human and underwent a birth according to the flesh from her womb. This was not as though he needed necessarily or for his own nature a birth in time and in the last times of this age, but in order that he might bless the beginning of our existence, in order that seeing that it was a woman that had given birth to him united to the flesh, the curse against the whole race should thereafter cease which was consigning all our earthy bodies to death, and in order that the removal through him of the curse, “In sorrow thou shalt bring forth children”, should demonstrate the truth of the words of the prophet: “Strong death swallowed them Up”, and again, “God has wiped every tear away from all face”. It is for this cause that we say that in his economy he blessed marriage and, when invited, went down to Cana in Galilee with his holy apostles.

We have been taught to hold these things by the holy apostles and evangelists and by all the divinely inspired scriptures and by the true confession of the blessed fathers."

 

[SeraphimSarov]

It is damnable heresy to claim that Mary is not the Mother of God. The Church East, West and in between has ALWAYS believed this. I don't understand the revisionism of the past 150 years claiming otherwise. All of the old heresies that were put down thousands of years ago are coming back.

 

[pescador]

John 1:1-4, " In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind."

There is no mention of a mother here. It clearly states that the Word (Jesus) was with God in the beginning. When Jesus was "born" as a human Mary was chosen to deliver Him, but clearly He existed prior to that event.

 

[Albion]

John 1:1-4, " In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind."

There is no mention of a mother here. It clearly states that the Word (Jesus) was with God in the beginning. When Jesus was "born" as a human Mary was chosen to deliver Him, but clearly He existed prior to that event.

The term in question means that Mary gave birth, not existence, but birth as a human and in the usual way, to the being who was God. It does not mean that she created God. Agree with that or disagree, but that's all there is to this.

 

[Dan Perez]

Is Mary the mother of God?

Hi and why does it say in Heb 7:3 Christ is MELCHISEDEC and without Father , without MOTHER and without DESCENT ?

dan p

 

[Hazelelponi]

Is Mary the mother of God?

No...

 

[Lukaris]

Jesus Christ, God, the Son of God is always being ( John 1:1-5, John 8:58 etc.). Yet, He became flesh ( John 1:14) and has a genealogy ( Matthew 1:1-16 etc.). He is before everything and in Him everything exists ( Colossians 1:15-19 etc.).

In the early centuries, the Arian groups denied Jesus Christ was God ( Arianism - Wikipedia). If they prevailed, not knowing Jesus Christ as God would be their damnable, blasphemous heresy ( 1 John 4:1-3).

Who else but God ( who chose to become man) could Mary be the mother of?

 

[Dan Perez]

Jesus Christ, God, the Son of God is always being ( John 1:1-5, John 8:58 etc.). Yet, He became flesh ( John 1:14) and has a genealogy ( Matthew 1:1-16 etc.). He is before everything and in Him everything exists ( Colossians 1:15-19 etc.).

In the early centuries, the Arian groups denied Jesus Christ was God ( Arianism - Wikipedia). If they prevailed, not knowing Jesus Christ as God would be their damnable, blasphemous heresy ( 1 John 4:1-3).

Who else but God ( who chose to become man) could Mary be the mother of?

Hi and Jesus had sisters and brothers written in Matt 13:55 and 56 !!

dan p

 

[Lukaris]

Hi and Jesus had sisters and brothers written in Matt 13:55 and 56 !!

dan p

They were not his blood siblings; in Luke 4:22, people refer to Jesus as, “ Joseph’s son”. The Lord was obviously not the son of Joseph by blood.

 

[Dan Perez]

They were not his blood siblings; in Luke 4:22, people refer to Jesus as, “ Joseph’s son”. The Lord was obviously not the son of Joseph by blood.

Hi and in Matt 1:20 , MARY'S conception was NOT by man , but by the Holy Spirit , which means that MARY just carried Jesus without MIXING blood from her to Jesus , otherwise Jesus blood would be TINTED by her !!

dan p

 

[Lukaris]

Hi and in Matt 1:20 , MARY'S conception was NOT by man , but by the Holy Spirit , which means that MARY just carried Jesus without MIXING blood from her to Jesus , otherwise Jesus blood would be TINTED by her !!

dan p

Ok, I totally agree. Mary is not the mother of God for eternity, or the mother of God the Father, nor the eternal Son of God, or God the Holy Spirit. Yet, she is the mother of Jesus who is God as attested to in John 2; Jesus Christ is both God & man. It is understandable to pause at this title and not all Christians will agree but I think it is important to at least try to understand why how it is understood by some.

 

[prodromos]

Hi and in Matt 1:20 , MARY'S conception was NOT by man , but by the Holy Spirit , which means that MARY just carried Jesus without MIXING blood from her to Jesus , otherwise Jesus blood would be TINTED by her !!

dan p

So you believe that God did not use Mary's flesh when she conceived God in her womb, but that Jesus' flesh was a completely new creation?

God created Adam from the clay, but then Eve was created using Adam's flesh. Every person since that time has been created by God using flesh from both the mother and the father. The only exception is Christ, whose flesh was taken only from His mother Mary. If Jesus was not formed from Mary's flesh, then Jesus does not share our flesh, and His death and resurrection would not have redeemed our flesh. There will be no resurrection of the dead because our flesh will still be bound in Hades.

I also have to wonder at what your understanding is of what makes someone a mother?

If a woman carries a child in her womb for nine months, gives birth and nurses that child as he matures, is not that woman the childs mother? If that child also happens to be God, doesn’t that make the woman God's mother? If not, why not?

Do you understand that calling Mary the mother of God, is defending the fact of Jesus' being man while also God? Do you understand that denying Mary being the mother of God, implicitly denies His humanity?

 

[coffee4u]

So you believe that God did not use Mary's flesh when she conceived God in her womb, but that Jesus' flesh was a completely new creation?

God created Adam from the clay, but then Eve was created using Adam's flesh. Every person since that time has been created by God using flesh from both the mother and the father. The only exception is Christ, whose flesh was taken only from His mother Mary. If Jesus was not formed from Mary's flesh, then Jesus does not share our flesh, and His death and resurrection would not have redeemed our flesh. There will be no resurrection of the dead because our flesh will still be bound in Hades.

This part we can agree on. Most protestants believe Mary's flesh was used, that Jesus' humanity came from Mary, not that she was an untouchable incubator. That view "which means that MARY just carried Jesus without MIXING blood from her to Jesus" that belief is not the norm. I would be interested to know which church teaches that or if that is just that posters own understanding.

I also have to wonder at what your understanding is of what makes someone a mother?

If a woman carries a child in her womb for nine months, gives birth and nurses that child as he matures, is not that woman the child's mother? If that child also happens to be God, doesn’t that make the woman God's mother? If not, why not?

No, it makes her the mother of his flesh, of his humanity. As God he always existed. He existed as God before he came into her womb.

Do you understand that calling Mary the mother of God, is defending the fact of Jesus' being man while also God? Do you understand that denying Mary being the mother of God, implicitly denies His humanity?

That isn't how we see it. Every time we hear that all we can hear is that you believe God needed a mother. We do not separate them. When we say God we mean God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.
You may not mean it that way but that is how we hear it. If someone came up to you and said "God the Father has a mother" how would you feel? That is how we feel.
Edit for spelling.

 

[prodromos]

No, it makes her the mother of his flesh, of his humanity. As God he always existed. He existed as God before he came into her womb.

This is the error of Nestorianism. It divides Christ into two persons. Jesus Christ is one person who is both God and man. Mary is the mother of the undivided person of Jesus Christ. It doesn't matter that He existed before His incarnation. He now, and for the rest of eternity, has a mother.

That isn't how we see it. Every time we hear that all we can hear is that you believe God needed a mother. We do not separate them. When we say God we mean God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.

But you often don't. When you say that Jesus is God, you never say it to mean that Jesus is the Father and the Holy Spirit, do you.

You may not mean it that way but that is how we hear it. If someone came up to you and said "God the Father has a mother" how would you feel? That is how we feel.

That isn't our problem though, is it. You choose to deliberately hear the statement the wrong way despite demonstrating that you are capable of hearing it the right way when you want to.
In the historical background of the Church's defense against christological heresies, the term, "mother of God" is a clear and unambiguous defense of Jesus' humanity while at the same time acknowledging that He is God. Some seem to think that it elevates Mary to some sort of demigodess status, when in fact it is referencing her complete humanness to defend against attacks on Jesus humanity.
I honestly believe that Protestant refusal to accept Mary as mother of God, really boils down to an anti-Catholic bias. I'm happy to be proven wrong.