Transfiguration

Carl Emerson said:

However attributing titles such as the Queen of Heaven and Mother of God to Mary are provocative to say the least given the lack of scriptural backing for descriptions.

Click to expand...

"Mother of God" is fully backed by Scripture.

Carl Emerson said:

The title is never mentioned.

Click to expand...

Who is "Lord" to Elizabeth?
Do you not understand that "Mother of God" is not about who Mary is, but is about who Christ is?

Carl Emerson said:

However attributing titles such as the Queen of Heaven and Mother of God to Mary are provocative to say the least given the lack of scriptural backing for descriptions.

Click to expand...

"Queen of Heaven"isn't a term I use. "Mother of God" is, IMO, indisputable. Jesus Christ is God Incarnate. Wholly Man, wholly God. He has a mother, the Blessed Virgin.

The GP Protestant line is that the BV is the Mother of Jesus but not the Mother of God. Best case that's simply Nestorianism. But I have a different dynamic on that being bi-racial. To me it's like telling me that Haeyang is only the contributor of insignificant bits of genetic material but otherwise she doesn't signify. Yeah, I got her eyes and hair and inability to give up on anything without a fight, but otherwise I'm a Tennessee white boy, so she can't really be my Mother. It doesn't work like that.

Jesus is God, yes? The BVM is Jesus' mother, yes? QED

Carl Emerson said:

The title is never mentioned.

Click to expand...

Oh, please! Just for drill:

And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David 5To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child. 6And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered. 7And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.

The role of motherhood in the incarnation is established

Click to expand...

One would hope.

but the pre-existance of Jesus from eterenity past in fellowship with the Father and the Spirit has no relationship with Mary before her birth.

Click to expand...

And we were just talking about trying to jam God into human timelines, weren't we? Come on, you know better.

No disrespect - she stands as an outstanding humble servant.

Click to expand...

And however distasteful, and how horribily and intolerably Catholic it seems to most Protestants, the BVM is still the Godbearer, the Mother of God. How can that be possible? I dunno, kinda like stuffing camels through needle's eyes, maybe. Like speaking a universe into existence. Like saying "before Abraham was I Am" and having it make sense. How can God have a mother? Makes no sense.

But He does.

Did she create Him? No. (But neither does any mother create her child.) He created her.

How? Dunno. I reckon it'll make sense when we get home. Until then...[/quote][/quote]

prodromos said:

Do you not understand that "Mother of God" is not about who Mary is, but is about who Christ is?

Click to expand...

There's the key right there. Thank you!

Carl Emerson said:

How ever these are very contentious matters that are likely better left to personal opinion.

Click to expand...

WADR, I think that objection to calling the BVM the Mother of God actually does rise from a Nestorian view of our Lord's nature that is more common than not amongst Protestants. "Oh, Mary is only the mother of Jesus's human body." No! It doesn't work like that. But for the most part American Protestantism has cast aside the Creeds, and so any real understanding of the Incarnation has largely been lost. Jesus is too often understood to be an avatar of God, sort of a flesh suit that God wore while He was visiting here, rather than God Himself. Hence the objection to the idea of "Mother of God".

Carl Emerson said:

Well I am definitely not Nestorian.

Jesus fully man fully God - no problem.

Click to expand...

And Mary is His mother, right? It is because Mary is fully human that her Son is understood to be fully human.

Where I have a problem is the term Mother of God, if not understood in it's right context elevates Mary to being part of the Godhead, or superior to God Himself.

Click to expand...

Nonsense! The right context has been explained constantly on these forums and yet people still make these claims. You have to have some very wrong ideas to think it makes Mary superior to God or part of the Godhead. Is your mother superior to you? Are you and she not of the same nature? Did she create you in her womb or did God create you?
I believe the issue for many Protestants is they don't want to sound Catholic.

We have no hard scriptural evidence to support this serious claim but the title is pushed, worn like a badge by some as if their own identity depends on defending this position.

Click to expand...

I asked before but you did not answer. Who is "Lord" to Elizabeth?

As we are called to maintain the Unity of the Spirit in the Bonds of Peace it is unwise to push such contentious titles, we are not to be protagonists.

Click to expand...

This 'title' put an end to a serious heresy that was tearing at the Church. It was all about bringing about the end of division.

Mary was the "mother of God" in the physical sense in that her Son, Jesus Christ, was God in the flesh.

Obviously she's not part of the godhead or trinity, but I do think she has an exalted role. My old Protestant pastor said to me once about Marian apparitions (which the church takes some trouble to check) that "There's been a lot of them" and "I think they're a judgement on a divided church".

If we venerate Mary, she in turn points us to her Son and implies "Do whatever He tells you". I think Protestants undervalue her importance, and the saints for that matter. To quote my old pastor again, "They're (saints) doing something up there!"

If an archangel turns up and tells you you're blessed, you've got a role to play, and it won't stop with death. When Christ spoke to John and said "Behold, your mother!" and to Mary "Behold, your son!', he was standing in as proxy for the whole lot of us.

Getting back to the OP's original point about the transfiguration, I take it in the literal sense - that Moses and Elijah turned up and conversed with Christ while Peter, James and John looked on, while nobody else could see what was going on as they were hidden by a "cloud". At the time Christ went so far as to tell them not to tell anyone what they had seen until He had been raised from the dead.

For the same reason I don't have any trouble in believing in Mary's assumption to heaven - Elijah was seen riding a fiery chariot and Moses's body couldn't be found. I think he was assumed, which was why they could not find his remains. In due course he and Elijah were at the transfiguration representing the law and the prophets.

I think the three main figures of Jewish theocratic history were all assumed into heaven, representing the law, the prophets and the birth of Christ, ushering in the new covenant.

It was a "vision" in the sense that the three core disciples of Christ's team could literally see it.