Mary Mother of Jesus, not of God.

[prodromos]

it also follows that Mary is the mother of God.

Carnal minds can think so, because it certainly seems rational in a human way.

Au contraire, it is the carnal mind that cannot grasp the mystery of the incarnation.

But Scripture doesn't say so

It does

and it has absolutely nothing to do with being born again, living for God, and attaining to the resurrection of the dead.

If Christ God did not truly become man in every sense of the word, then there is no resurrection of the dead.

And we both know there are many, beginning with them that made up this stuff, who are in idolatry over the 'Mother of God'.

I know no such thing. Yet another strawman you have created.

If it were just a simple error of humanist rationalizing, then it wouldn't be such a big heretical deal in Christianity, overthrowing the faith of many who have corrupted much Scripture to try and believe it and teach it to others.

The heretics were teaching that God did not truly become man, which appears to be what you ascribe to.

Mary was not the mother of Christ, even as Christ was not the son of David:

Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David. He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?

The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus.
He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there will be no end.”

And as Jesus passed on from there, two blind men followed him, crying aloud, “Have mercy on us, Son of David.” When he entered the house, the blind men came to him; and Jesus said to them, “Do you believe that I am able to do this?” They said to him, “Yes, Lord.” Then he touched their eyes, saying, “According to your faith be it done to you.”

And behold, a Canaanite woman from that region came out and cried, “Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David; my daughter is severely possessed by a demon.”

And behold, two blind men sitting by the roadside, when they heard that Jesus was passing by, cried out, “Have mercy on us, Son of David!” The crowd rebuked them, telling them to be silent; but they cried out the more, “Lord, have mercy on us, Son of David!” And Jesus stopped and called them, saying, “What do you want me to do for you?” They said to him, “Lord, let our eyes be opened.”

Most of the crowd spread their garments on the road, and others cut branches from the trees and spread them on the road. And the crowds that went before him and that followed him shouted, “Hosanna to the Son of David! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! Hosanna in the highest!”​

You seem to think that because the Pharisees were not able to comprehend the prophetic word of David's Psalm, that Jesus was denying He was the son of David. Why does He respond to that name and never correct those who call him such if He was not in fact the son of David? You are as blind as the Pharisees.

He was made of a woman in the likeness of sinful flesh, and only according to that likeness was He made of the seed of David.

Paul says "likeness of sinful flesh" because Christ did not sin, even though He had the same flesh as we do. You also ignore that the verse says, "He was made of a woman". It does not say, "His body was made of a woman"

Mary was the mother of a baby boy of flesh and blood called Jesus, and the Son who dwelt in that flesh knew exactly Who and where He was the whole time, and that woman was not His 'Mother' nor mother.
Although she no doubt mothered Him pretty good as a child. But once He began His ministry to the full, she wasn't even that anymore:

That is simply the heretical product of your carnal thinking.

Mary was the mother of a body, which is all any mother brings into the world.

It is only God who makes souls and wraps them in flesh in the womb.

God creates our body and our soul. Mothers give birth to and nurse whole persons, body and soul.

We honor them as mother and father, but we do not honor them as our makers:

Another strawman. God is our maker, not our parents.

Calling any woman mother of God is to make her a maker of God. It's called idolatry.

And here you courageously knock down the very strawman you set up. Congratulations.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Whatever holy 'Fathers' he's talking about, it certainly isn't the holy apostles, who never wrote such a thing in Scripture.

They didn’t have to rely on scripture because they also had the writings of the early church fathers, the students and disciples of the apostles, as a testimony to what the apostles taught as well as the oral teachings that were handed down. Just because it wasn’t written in the scriptures doesn’t mean it wasn’t said or taught by the apostles. I’d be willing to bet that the scriptures don’t contain 1% of what the 15 or so apostles taught over the course of about 60-70 years of their ministry. You can certainly choose not to believe it but you can’t accurately say that the apostles didn’t teach it.

 

[Albion]

Good. We agree. Mary was the mother of a child of flesh, not the Mother of the Second Person of the Holy Trinity.

IF we'd said the same thing, we might be in agreement. We didn't.

 

[BNR32FAN]

It is true that God did not have His beginning from the womb of woman, except to be that of a man of flesh and blood on earth, but it is not true that the woman remained a holy virgin, nor is it true that holy thing born of her flesh was the Word, nor did it make her holy.

Cyril never said she remained a virgin, as for being holy that could be said about any believer according to Colossians 1:22-23. The word holy has many definitions including having been blessed. I’m sure your familiar with the RCC teaching that Mary never sinned but only Rome held to that teaching, the other apostolic churches teach that she may have sinned and was cleansed of her sin before Christ’s incarnation. I’m not sure why you say that “the thing born of her flesh was not the Word” John 1:14 says that the Word became flesh. The Word became flesh thru His birth thru Mary and Cyril defined it as such.

So then he who had an existence before all ages and was born of the Father, is said to have been born according to the flesh of a woman, not as though his divine nature received its beginning of existence in the holy Virgin, for it needed not any second generation after that of the Father (for it would be absurd and foolish to say that he who existed before all ages, coeternal with the Father, needed any second beginning of existence), but since, for us and for our salvation, he personally united to himself an human body, and came forth of a woman, he is in this way said to be born after the flesh

So I’m not sure what objections you have to this definition.

 

[BNR32FAN]

A believing virtuous virgin woman of Israel gave birth to a holy thing: the body prepared for the Word by the Spirit, which the Word came into and was called the Son of God, by name Jesus.

So right here your saying that Mary gave birth to a human body then Jesus entered into that body which is contrary to

“for today in the city of David there has been born for you a Savior, who is Christ the Lord.”
‭‭Luke‬ ‭2:11‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Right here the angel specifically states that the Savior, Christ the Lord has been born which means that He was Christ in the womb. She didn’t give birth to an empty body that Jesus then entered into.

 

[BNR32FAN]

When we think of Christ, we should not be thinking of a son of Mary at all anymore:

Like I said the term was implemented to combat the heresies of Nestorius, not to venerate Mary above her intended status. According to Luke 2:11 the term mother of God is an accurate description of Mary and Christ’s birth. To say that she is not the mother of God implies that the child that was born was not Jesus at the time of his birth which is inaccurate according to the scriptures. So in the same sense that the scriptures do not contain the word Trinity but the idea of the Trinity is supported by the scriptures, that same reasoning applies to Mary the mother of God. The term is not specifically stated in the scriptures but the idea of it is specifically mentioned.

 

[U.S. Grant]

So right here your saying that Mary gave birth to a human body then Jesus entered into that body which is contrary to

“for today in the city of David there has been born for you a Savior, who is Christ the Lord.”
‭‭Luke‬ ‭2:11‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Right here the angel specifically states that the Savior, Christ the Lord has been born which means that He was Christ in the womb.

She didn’t give birth to an empty body that Jesus then entered into.

True. Neither does Scripture says so, nor did I.

The Word entered in the body prepared for Him in the womb at the same time of the preparing.

When Mary was conceived of a body of flesh in her womb by the Holy Spirit, is the same moment, as it were twinkling of the eye, that the Word obeyed the Father's command to come down from heaven and enter therein.

Which brings up a good point about God's omnipotence with the Three working perfectly together as One: The same exact moment of time in which the Father commanded, the Spirit prepared, and the Son entered that holy thing in the virgin's womb.

Mary gave birth to the holy thing of His body, not to the Son of God.

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Mary gave birth to a son, her firstborn son after the flesh only, which was therefore made of the seed of David according to the flesh only.

If the woman Mary had given birth to The Son, was mother of The Son, then the unbelievers would be correct in saying that the Son of God was indeed made of sinful flesh like any other, being born of a woman and made by the sinful seed of her progenitor David.

To say Mary was mother of God is to idolize a woman unto glory on the hand, or to degenerate the Son of God into that of sinful man on the other.

 

[U.S. Grant]

Like I said the term was implemented to combat the heresies of Nestorius, not to venerate Mary above her intended status. According to Luke 2:11 the term mother of God is an accurate description of Mary and Christ’s birth. To say that she is not the mother of God implies that the child that was born was not Jesus at the time of his birth which is inaccurate according to the scriptures. So in the same sense that the scriptures do not contain the word Trinity but the idea of the Trinity is supported by the scriptures, that same reasoning applies to Mary the mother of God. The term is not specifically stated in the scriptures but the idea of it is specifically mentioned.

Like I said the term was implemented to combat the heresies of Nestorius, not to venerate Mary above her intended status.

Like I said, that is exactly the result of it. To deny that, is to deny the Roman Catholic Church since it's founding as the new state religion of Rome.

And that Roman Catholic Church was adulterated by using one heresy to combat another.

The founders of the Roman church were the same ones that declared Scripture alone, Sola Scriptura, was not adequate to defend itself against alll heresies, and so they then were able to bring in the 'Sacred' tradition outside of Scripture, ever-virgin Mary and Mother of God, to 'combat' Arain's heresy.

They were also the same ones that went sliding on down that slope to the point of declaring Sola Scriptura was not adequate for the doctrine of Christ itself, and the gospel of Jesus Christ was incomplete with their 'Sacred' unscriptural traditions.

Hence, the good new of Mother Mary and the Immaculate Conception preparing the way for the virgin birth of Jesus Christ.

The ever virgin Mary of Sacred Womb was the purposed Christianizing of the ever-virgin Vesta of Sacred Fire, while the Bishop of Rome became the first Pontiff and Pope, when the last Pontifex Maximus was cast out with the Old Roman religion.

The term is not specifically stated in the scriptures but the idea of it is specifically mentioned.

The 'idea' is the carnal minded false interpretation of what Scripture does say:

For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.

And blessed is she that believed: for there shall be a performance of those things which were told her from the Lord.

If Scripture is saying Mary is the mother of the Lord the Son of God, then she is also the mother of the Lord the Spirit of God, as well as the Lord the Father, for that Three are One.

For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

A son was born to a virgin woman after the flesh, a firstborn son of others to come.

The Saviour and Christ and Lord was born of The Father only, when the Word obeyed the commandment of the Father and entered into the body prepared of the Lord in the virgin, and thus was born a Saviour into the world, the only begotten Son of God.

He was begotten and born only of God, not of woman.

The Trinity is a term used of men that is the proper 'idea' of Scripture, though not specifically mentioned.

 

[U.S. Grant]

Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

The unbelievers were correct in speaking of the man Jesus, whose mother was called Mary. They rejected Him as the Christ to come.

They were concerned only of his manhood in the flesh: the carpenter's son.

Them that want a Mother of God to be called Mary, are only concerned with the idolatry of womanhood.

Mary was indeed mother to Jesus the man, not to Christ the Word in the flesh.

If Mary is indeed to be called the mother of God, by virtue of bearing a son in the flesh, then the brothers and sisters of that son, born in the flesh of the same mother, must also be called the brothers and sisters of God.

Also, if she were mother of the son and of the Son of God, then she was also wife of God the Father.

This is why the heretics refuse Scripture of truth, in that Mary was ever-virgin in this life, and so did not also has sons and daughters by Joseph.

Mariology is the Christianized version of Old Roman Vesta, being rid of the paganism of the family of gods.

Any one wanting to speak of the mother of God, must also speak of the wife, brothers, and sisters of God, even as the pagans of old, or show their inconsistent reasoning to be hypocritical.

The reasoning of one must apply to the others: if God in the flesh born of a woman is mother of God, then brothers and sisters of God in the flesh are brothers and sisters of God.

She gave birth to God and to brothers and sisters of God. And if that status is still true, then God still has His personal mother and brothers and sisters: hello paganism of old healed of the deadly wound made by the sword of the Spirit in Christ Jesus long, long ago. (Rev 13)

And Joseph is God's stepfather by virtue of being husband to His mother. As well as incestuous brother in law to God the Father.

 

[Albion]

If Mary is indeed to be called the mother of God, by virtue of bearing a son in the flesh, then the brothers and sisters of that son, born in the flesh of the same mother, must also be called the brothers and sisters of God.

Wrong. The basis for calling Mary the Mother of God is that the child she bore IS God as well as having the nature of a human. That cannot be said of any of Jesus's brothers.

Also, if she were mother of the son and of the Son of God, then she was also wife of God the Father.

Also wrong. If she is the mother of the Son, it's because she literally gave birth to her baby. No marriage took place between her and any other divinity.

This is why the heretics refuse Scripture of truth, in that Mary was ever-virgin in this life...

Well, on that one, there isn't anything that would suggest or prove that Mary was ever-virgin.

This IS one of those cases of admirers over the centuries heaping honors upon honors on the object of their admiration, that's all.

Any one wanting to speak of the mother of God, must also speak of the wife, brothers, and sisters of God, even as the pagans of old, or show their inconsistent reasoning to be hypocritical.

There's a reason no one does that. It's explained above.

 

[U.S. Grant]

Wrong. The basis for calling Mary the Mother of God is that the child she bore IS God as well as having the nature of a human. That cannot be said of any of Jesus's brothers.


Also wrong. If she is the mother of the Son, it's because she literally gave birth to her baby. No marriage took place between her and any other divinity.


Well, on that one, there isn't anything that would suggest or prove that Mary was ever-virgin.

This IS one of those cases of admirers over the centuries heaping honors upon honors on the object of their admiration, that's all.


There's a reason no one does that. It's explained above.

OK. I understand your reasoning.

And plainly you are not ensnared by the idolatry of it.

I suppose the mother of God after the flesh wouldn't be too much for me to choke down.

But Mary was the mother of the son, not of the Son.

The eternal God was never born of a woman.

 

[Albion]

OK. I understand your reasoning.

And plainly you are not ensnared by the idolatry of it.

I suppose the mother of God after the flesh wouldn't be too much for me to choke down.

But Mary was the mother of the son, not of the Son.

Yes, but the whole issue with this title (Theotokos) is that Mary was the mother of the son WHO HAPPENED ALSO TO BE God. It's a misunderstanding when people think--and then react to--the idea that this title means Mary gave existence to God.

The eternal God was never born of a woman.

As I was just explaining.

 

[enoob57]

For me the whole Mary issue is plainly seen as placing the created equal or above the Creator >which is idolatry<... It was Lucifers downfall as he placed himself in this error
Isaiah 14:14 (KJV)
[14] I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
I teach my children how can a being that began be like a being that has existed without end?

 

[Albion]

I teach my children how can a being that began be like a being that has existed without end?

But this ^ is not what the teaching that you oppose is all about!

The correct meaning of that concept has been posted repeatedly on these forums.

 

[Fidelibus]

So here it is again, more Bible Alone believing Protestants disagreeing on scripture passages, and Christian beliefs. In this case, whether or not Mary is the mother of God. These Protestants are identifying as Anglican, Baptist, Non-Denom, and some identifying as just Christian, which could mean any of the thousands other Protestant churches or sects.

So, as a non-Protestant, I'd like to ask any of those listed above. Since you all are having different beliefs and understanding if Mary is or is not the mother of God, to who or what authority within Protestantism can you turn to decide who is correct and who is in error?

Have a Blessed day!

 

[pescador]

So here it is again, more Bible Alone believing Protestants disagreeing on scripture passages, and Christian beliefs. In this case, whether or not Mary is the mother of God. These Protestants are identifying as Anglican, Baptist, Non-Denom, and some identifying as just Christian, which could mean any of the thousands other Protestant churches or sects.

So, as a non-Protestant, I'd like to ask any of those listed above. Since you all are having different beliefs and understanding if Mary is or is not the mother of God, to who or what authority within Protestantism can you turn to decide who is correct and who is in error?

Have a Blessed day!

God is the supreme authority.

Mary was Jesus' mother; she gave birth to Him (and His siblings) and raised Him to be a functioning adult, and she witnessed His crucifixion. That's it; nothing more.

 

[Fidelibus]

God is the supreme authority.

That's not what I asked.

What I did ask was, what I.... as a non-Protestant would like to know is, when we have (like we see on this thread) two, three, or more Bible Alone believing Protestants disagreeing on scripture passages, and Christian beliefs. In this case, whether or not Mary is the mother of God, to who or what authority within Protestantism can Protestants turn to decide who is correct and who is in error? Especially if these Protestant churches, sects and individuals are claiming to be guided by the Holy Spirit?

Mary was Jesus' mother; she gave birth to Him (and His siblings) and raised Him to be a functioning adult, and she witnessed His crucifixion. That's it; nothing more.

Are you aware all of the early Protestant Founders like Martin Luther, John Calvin, Huldreich Zwingli, Heinrich Bullinger, and John Wesley (Founder of Methodism) accepted Mary's perpetual virginity as truth, and even wrote of it? Their writings are very easy to find, just google "Early Protestant Founders writings/beliefs of Mary's Perpetual Virginity."

So pescador, maybe you can help me out here, since these early founders of Protestantism obviously believed in Mary's Perpetual Virginity, could you point or show me to whom within Protestantism, the date it was decided what your Protestant Fathers believed of her perpetual virginity to be in error?

Could you also inform me how whatever church, sect, or person it was, that made this decision received the authority to do so?

And if you cannot, why are you in such opposition and disagreement to what your Protestant Reformers believed and wrote about?

Have a Blessed Day!

 

[BNR32FAN]

She didn’t give birth to an empty body that Jesus then entered into.

True. Neither does Scripture says so, nor did I.

The Word entered in the body prepared for Him in the womb at the same time of the preparing.

When Mary was conceived of a body of flesh in her womb by the Holy Spirit, is the same moment, as it were twinkling of the eye, that the Word obeyed the Father's command to come down from heaven and enter therein.

Which brings up a good point about God's omnipotence with the Three working perfectly together as One: The same exact moment of time in which the Father commanded, the Spirit prepared, and the Son entered that holy thing in the virgin's womb.

Mary gave birth to the holy thing of His body, not to the Son of God.

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Mary gave birth to a son, her firstborn son after the flesh only, which was therefore made of the seed of David according to the flesh only.

If the woman Mary had given birth to The Son, was mother of The Son, then the unbelievers would be correct in saying that the Son of God was indeed made of sinful flesh like any other, being born of a woman and made by the sinful seed of her progenitor David.

To say Mary was mother of God is to idolize a woman unto glory on the hand, or to degenerate the Son of God into that of sinful man on the other.

Your forgetting that the church teaches that Mary was without sin at the time of His incarnation. The Roman church will claim that she never sinned while the Orthodox Church will claim that she most likely did sin but was cleansed of it before His incarnation. So in either case Jesus would not have inherited man’s sinful nature.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Like I said, that is exactly the result of it. To deny that, is to deny the Roman Catholic Church since it's founding as the new state religion of Rome.

That was the result of it for Protestants 900 years later when the Reformation began. It wasn’t a problem for people who understood it correctly. The reason it became a problem is because it was something that could be twisted out of context to falsely accuse the church of venerating Mary, a desperate and despicable deceptive tactic for those who know the history of the term and understand how and why is was used.

 

[Albion]

Your forgetting that the church teaches that Mary was without sin at the time of His incarnation. The Roman church will claim that she never sinned while the Orthodox Church will claim that she most likely did sin but was cleansed of it before His incarnation. So in either case Jesus would not have inherited man’s sinful nature.

That could be argued, but Original Sin is believed to be the fate of all mankind, thanks to Adam's sin (barring divine intervention if anyone wants to believe in the Immaculate Conception), and all humans are descended from Adam. It's not something that's inherited genetically.

The reason those churches you mentioned say that Jesus was sinless is because he did not lose his divine nature by taking on human nature, and God does not and cannot know sin.