Why Protestants should call Mary, the Mother of God.

[JesusLovesOurLady]

Disclaimer: I am not a Theologian, and do not speak for the Catholic Church. I am merely a layman, here to evangelize, and and to state the obvious, the Our Lady bore God the Son in her womb and gave birth to Him, who is God. Our Lady truly is the Mother of God, and to deny that inevitably leads to error.

As a novice when it comes to apologetics, I have decided to defend one of the easiest Marian dogmas in Catholicism, namely, Mary as the Mother of God. The Dogma of Mary as the Mother of God is quite simple:

Major premise: Jesus is God
Minor premise: Mary is the mother of Jesus
Conclusion: Mary is the Mother of God

It’s that simple. “But wait!” many of you will be saying, “Why must we call Mary THAT!?! Why is that important? Why does this need to be a dogma?” Well the answer is really quite simple, all we have to do is see what the consequences are, for not calling Mary the Mother of God.

We’ll start with the first person who refused to call Mary the Mother of God, Nestorius. Nestorius objected to calling Mary the Mother of God, and when pressed as to why one shouldn’t call Mary the Mother of God, he argued the Jesus human nature, and Divine nature were separated. But claiming that Jesus’ Divinity and humanity are separated logically results in two separate persons, a human Jesus, and a Divine Jesus. Thus, according to Nestorianism, in one Biblical passage, human Jesus does X, and in another passage, Divine Jesus does Y, this totally contrary to the Biblical understanding of Jesus, there is only ONE, Jesus!

Next, we’ll turn to Dr. Roy D. Perkins. I while ago, someone on the OBOB posted a link to the Catholic Blog “Shameless Popery” and a brilliant article simply entitled “The Virgin Mary’s Uniques Role in the Salvation of the World,” (See here: The Virgin Mary’s Unique Role in the Salvation of the World – Shameless Popery) in this article, the blogger posts an excerpt from Dr. Roy D. Perkins’ Book “Without Denomination: a Critique of Church Doctrines” which reads as follows:

“Although Joseph is the father of Jesus, he is actually (sic) the step-father to Jesus. The Pharisees often refer to Jesus as the carpenter’s son as they do not realize that Joseph is not his blood father. Mary is not really the mother of Jesus either. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be a virgin birth. There is no genetic material from Joseph or Mary in Jesus. The blood line does not come from either one of them. This is where Roman Catholicism gets things mixed up. The Catholics call Mary the mother of God. However, she is only a vessel for carrying and nurturing Jesus as an unborn child. We don’t pray to her. […] She is not holy. If Joseph and/or Mary had passed on genetic material to Jesus, the sin nature would have been passed on to Jesus, making him an imperfect sacrifice. The blood of Joseph and Mary does not run through Jesus’s veins. If their blood did flow through his veins, there would be no salvation by Jesus Christ.”
(emphasis added)

Once again, we see someone try and deny Mary as the Mother of God, and end up doing great violence to authentic Christology. (On top of that, if I might add, Dr. Roy D. Perkins unwittingly ends up proving all four Marian Dogmas! But we’re only discussing the Mother of God Dogma, in this thread.) Dr. Roy D. Perkins ends up denying that Our Lord received any human DNA from His Beloved Mother, which is tantamount to denying the coming of Our Lord in the flesh. And we all know what the infallible authority of Sacred Scripture says about denying Our Lord coming in the flesh:

“For many seducers are gone out into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh: this is a seducer and an antichrist.”
-2nd John 1:7 DR​

And this is just two examples, I’m sure there are many more out there. The fact is cannot deny Mary as the Mother of God, without doing great violence to authentic Christology. This is why one must confess that Mary is the Mother of God, one cannot deny this, without also and ending up denying the Holy Gospel of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God.


Objection 1: The term “Mother of God” isn’t in the Bible.

I Reply: Yes it is, although the term “Trinity” isn’t found anywhere on Scripture. Mother of God is found in two passages of the Bible, first, in Isaiah 7:14:

“Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel.”
(Douay-Rheims Version)​

I’m sure most of you know that Emmanuel, in Hebrew means, “God is with us.” The name Emmanuel itself states, that God is going to be with His people, via a virgin mother, and thus the virgin in this passage, is the Mother of God, who is with us. This is why the Council Fathers declared in 431 at Ephesus:

“If anyone does not confess that God is truly Emmanuel, and that on this account the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God (for according to the flesh she gave birth to the Word of God become flesh by birth), let him be anathema.”​

To confess Mary as the Mother of God, is to confess that Emmanuel, Jesus Christ Himself, is truly God!

But the big proof-text, for Mary as the Mother of God, is found in the Holy Gospel according to Saint Luke 1:43:

“And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” (Douay-Rheims Version, Emphasis added)​

Here, Elizabeth calls Mary “the Mother of my Lord,” now what does she mean by “Lord?” Does Elizabeth mean “Lord” in the sense of “master” or “rabbi?” No, there is no evidence anywhere in Sacred Scripture that Elizabeth was ever a disciple of Jesus Christ. What about “Lord” in the sense of “King,” that is, the long awaited Davidic Messiah? No, both St. Joseph and (though this may be debatable among Protestants) the Blessed Virgin Mary, are descendants of King David, and none of them have the honor of being called “lord” or “lady,” on top of that -and this leads to the inevitable conclusion of what “Lord” means-, Jesus declares Himself to be the Lord of David. Now, who can be the Lord of King David? Only God Himself, can be the Lord of the Great King David, for God is King of Kings and Lord of Lords!

Objection 2: Nestorius was right! There is a difference between Christ’s Divinity and Christ humanity. God can’t die, only His human side died on the cross, in reparation for the sin of Adam.

I Reply: If all that was needed to pay for the sin of Adam was a sinless human person, then why did the Christ have to be God? Why couldn’t the Christ simply be an immaculately conceived, sinless human being, as the Ebionites claimed Jesus was? God the Son, did in fact die on the Cross, how is that possible? Well it’s actually quite simple, in human beings, death is simply the separation of the soul, from the body, and that’s exactly what Christ experienced. God the Son experienced the pain of having His Soul ripped from His Body on the Cross, He didn’t cease to exist or anything, He simply suffered the same death, that human beings suffered since the sin of Adam.

Objection 3: The Mother of God is simply a bad term, it implies that Mary created God!

I Reply: Who created you? Your mother? Or God? A mother does create her child, God does. God creates and infuses the immortal soul into the child in the mother’s womb. However, the mother does not give birth to the body of her child, but to her child. Mothers give birth to the whole person, not part of the person. The same is true for Our Lady, she did not give birth to Jesus’ body, or Jesus human nature, but the Divine Person Jesus Himself, the Son of God.


Again, my activity here will be very slow, due to College work, so I call on my fellow-Catholics to help me out here, with this very easy dogma. I'm currently working big assignment, hopefully after this week, things will speed up a bit, and I can be more active in these threads.

I'll be back later the evening.

Ave Maria!!!

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

She is not OUR lady,
and she is never called "mother" of God in Scripture.
(and many other fallacies that go along with that)...

It is wrong to say Protestants ought to call her what GOD does NOT SAY to call her, ........
and it is wrong to say anyone should call her what GOD never says to call her....

It is wrong to teach idolatry, always wrong.

 

[Alithis]

Disclaimer: I am not a Theologian, and do not speak for the Catholic Church. I am merely a layman, here to evangelize, and and to state the obvious, the Our Lady bore God the Son in her womb and gave birth to Him, who is God. Our Lady truly is the Mother of God, and to deny that inevitably leads to error.

As a novice when it comes to apologetics, I have decided to defend one of the easiest Marian dogmas in Catholicism, namely, Mary as the Mother of God. The Dogma of Mary as the Mother of God is quite simple:

Major premise: Jesus is God
Minor premise: Mary is the mother of Jesus
Conclusion: Mary is the Mother of God

It’s that simple. “But wait!” many of you will be saying, “Why must we call Mary THAT!?! Why is that important? Why does this need to be a dogma?” Well the answer is really quite simple, all we have to do is see what the consequences are, for not calling Mary the Mother of God.

We’ll start with the first person who refused to call Mary the Mother of God, Nestorius. Nestorius objected to calling Mary the Mother of God, and when pressed as to why one shouldn’t call Mary the Mother of God, he argued the Jesus human nature, and Divine nature were separated. But claiming that Jesus’ Divinity and humanity are separated logically results in two separate persons, a human Jesus, and a Divine Jesus. Thus, according to Nestorianism, in one Biblical passage, human Jesus does X, and in another passage, Divine Jesus does Y, this totally contrary to the Biblical understanding of Jesus, there is only ONE, Jesus!

Next, we’ll turn to Dr. Roy D. Perkins. I while ago, someone on the OBOB posted a link to the Catholic Blog “Shameless Popery” and a brilliant article simply entitled “The Virgin Mary’s Uniques Role in the Salvation of the World,” (See here: The Virgin Mary’s Unique Role in the Salvation of the World – Shameless Popery) in this article, the blogger posts an excerpt from Dr. Roy D. Perkins’ Book “Without Denomination: a Critique of Church Doctrines” which reads as follows:

“Although Joseph is the father of Jesus, he is actually (sic) the step-father to Jesus. The Pharisees often refer to Jesus as the carpenter’s son as they do not realize that Joseph is not his blood father. Mary is not really the mother of Jesus either. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be a virgin birth. There is no genetic material from Joseph or Mary in Jesus. The blood line does not come from either one of them. This is where Roman Catholicism gets things mixed up. The Catholics call Mary the mother of God. However, she is only a vessel for carrying and nurturing Jesus as an unborn child. We don’t pray to her. […] She is not holy. If Joseph and/or Mary had passed on genetic material to Jesus, the sin nature would have been passed on to Jesus, making him an imperfect sacrifice. The blood of Joseph and Mary does not run through Jesus’s veins. If their blood did flow through his veins, there would be no salvation by Jesus Christ.”
(emphasis added)

Once again, we see someone try and deny Mary as the Mother of God, and end up doing great violence to authentic Christology. (On top of that, if I might add, Dr. Roy D. Perkins unwittingly ends up proving all four Marian Dogmas! But we’re only discussing the Mother of God Dogma, in this thread.) Dr. Roy D. Perkins ends up denying that Our Lord received any human DNA from His Beloved Mother, which is tantamount to denying the coming of Our Lord in the flesh. And we all know what the infallible authority of Sacred Scripture says about denying Our Lord coming in the flesh:

“For many seducers are gone out into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh: this is a seducer and an antichrist.”
-2nd John 1:7 DR​

And this is just two examples, I’m sure there are many more out there. The fact is cannot deny Mary as the Mother of God, without doing great violence to authentic Christology. This is why one must confess that Mary is the Mother of God, one cannot deny this, without also and ending up denying the Holy Gospel of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God.


Objection 1: The term “Mother of God” isn’t in the Bible.

I Reply: Yes it is, although the term “Trinity” isn’t found anywhere on Scripture. Mother of God is found in two passages of the Bible, first, in Isaiah 7:14:

“Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel.”
(Douay-Rheims Version)​

I’m sure most of you know that Emmanuel, in Hebrew means, “God is with us.” The name Emmanuel itself states, that God is going to be with His people, via a virgin mother, and thus the virgin in this passage, is the Mother of God, who is with us. This is why the Council Fathers declared in 431 at Ephesus:

“If anyone does not confess that God is truly Emmanuel, and that on this account the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God (for according to the flesh she gave birth to the Word of God become flesh by birth), let him be anathema.”​

To confess Mary as the Mother of God, is to confess that Emmanuel, Jesus Christ Himself, is truly God!

But the big proof-text, for Mary as the Mother of God, is found in the Holy Gospel according to Saint Luke 1:43:

“And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” (Douay-Rheims Version, Emphasis added)​

Here, Elizabeth calls Mary “the Mother of my Lord,” now what does she mean by “Lord?” Does Elizabeth mean “Lord” in the sense of “master” or “rabbi?” No, there is no evidence anywhere in Sacred Scripture that Elizabeth was ever a disciple of Jesus Christ. What about “Lord” in the sense of “King,” that is, the long awaited Davidic Messiah? No, both St. Joseph and (though this may be debatable among Protestants) the Blessed Virgin Mary, are descendants of King David, and none of them have the honor of being called “lord” or “lady,” on top of that -and this leads to the inevitable conclusion of what “Lord” means-, Jesus declares Himself to be the Lord of David. Now, who can be the Lord of King David? Only God Himself, can be the Lord of the Great King David, for God is King of Kings and Lord of Lords!

Objection 2: Nestorius was right! There is a difference between Christ’s Divinity and Christ humanity. God can’t die, only His human side died on the cross, in reparation for the sin of Adam.

I Reply: If all that was needed to pay for the sin of Adam was a sinless human person, then why did the Christ have to be God? Why couldn’t the Christ simply be an immaculately conceived, sinless human being, as the Ebionites claimed Jesus was? God the Son, did in fact die on the Cross, how is that possible? Well it’s actually quite simple, in human beings, death is simply the separation of the soul, from the body, and that’s exactly what Christ experienced. God the Son experienced the pain of having His Soul ripped from His Body on the Cross, He didn’t cease to exist or anything, He simply suffered the same death, that human beings suffered since the sin of Adam.

Objection 3: The Mother of God is simply a bad term, it implies that Mary created God!

I Reply: Who created you? Your mother? Or God? A mother does create her child, God does. God creates and infuses the immortal soul into the child in the mother’s womb. However, the mother does not give birth to the body of her child, but to her child. Mothers give birth to the whole person, not part of the person. The same is true for Our Lady, she did not give birth to Jesus’ body, or Jesus human nature, but the Divine Person Jesus Himself, the Son of God.


Again, my activity here will be very slow, due to College work, so I call on my fellow-Catholics to help me out here, with this very easy dogma. I'm currently working big assignment, hopefully after this week, things will speed up a bit, and I can be more active in these threads.

I'll be back later the evening.

Ave Maria!!!

The is denominational specific.
It limits how we can reply.
But the info here is typically ambiguous and has been well refuted oh so many many times.

I will never ever bow the knee to your false queen.as a born again disciple of the Lord Jesus the holy spirit bares witness to my spirit that the term mother of God is blasphemy.
So do not instruct me to Sin against God.

 

[JIMINZ]

Not being Catholic I do revere Mary for the position she was chosen for, as much as those other people throughout the Bible that God used for His purpose.

As a novice when it comes to apologetics, I have decided to defend one of the easiest Marian dogmas in Catholicism, namely, Mary as the Mother of God. The Dogma of Mary as the Mother of God is quite simple:

.
The thing you should understand being a novice, a Dogma cannot be defended, it is a statement of fact by the Church without any evidence of being fact or truth, it is an assumption, a supposition, a belief of the person who first thought of it, and having been accepted by the Church as a possibility, therefore you see a Dogma does not have any place in reality so it is undefendable, it stands by itself, defying Truth, declaring itself to be Truth, without any evidence of it being so.

Would you be offended if I were to tell you to stop believing in Purgatory, if you would, then maybe you should remember that the next time you feel like it is of the utmost importance to instruct a Protestant on his beliefs......Deal?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

The thing you should understand being a novice, a Dogma cannot be defended, it is a statement of fact by the Church without any evidence of being fact or truth

.... without any evidence of being fact or truth.....

Amein, this is right: dwell on this, as Yahweh says test everything. (don't accept what people or organizations say, no matter how often they say it, as dogma and/or other ,
which cannot be defended in any way that makes it true).

 

[JIMINZ]

Ave Maria!!!

.
In your use of the words above, why do you use exclamation points?
When all that is being said is Hail Mary, or in today's terminology,
Hello Mary.

Or does this "Ave" take on some other deeper Religious understanding
as a Catholic?

I ask this because it is rather an odd way of ending a post.
Sounds more like the "Hail" used in this context is worship.

 

[JesusLovesOurLady]

So, as expected, no one is bothering to argue this at all, which is to be expected as this belief can't be rationally refuted, it is logically sound. Instead almost everyone resorts to blasphemy, as if offending God can somehow save them from His Justice, I personally don't think that's a good idea.

So yeah, if you cannot logically refute this belief, don't bother posting blasphemies on here, this is not a thread where one posts blasphemies, this is thread where one posts arguments.

I mean, to be fair, it does help me strengthen my faith, seeing Protestants unable to post rationally arguments and resort to blasphemy. But I don't really need my faith strengthened that much, and I care about what God thinks, seeing His Beloved Mother insulted like that, and His Love for being condemned as sin, I don't think it's to have such things uttered at God.

 

[JackRT]

So, as expected, no one is bothering to argue this at all, which is to be expected as this belief can't be rationally refuted, it is logically sound. Instead almost everyone resorts to blasphemy, as if offending God can somehow save them from His Justice, I personally don't think that's a good idea.

So yeah, if you cannot logically refute this belief, don't bother posting blasphemies on here, this is not a thread where one posts blasphemies, this is thread where one posts arguments.

I mean, to be fair, it does help me strengthen my faith, seeing Protestants unable to post rationally arguments and resort to blasphemy. But I don't really need my faith strengthened that much, and I care about what God thinks, seeing His Beloved Mother insulted like that, and His Love for being condemned as sin, I don't think it's to have such things uttered at God.

I saw absolutely no evidence of blasphemy in the replies above ---- just disagreement couched in polite and respectful language. That is something that you are not doing at the moment.

 

[JesusLovesOurLady]

I saw absolutely no evidence of blasphemy in the replies above ---- just disagreement couched in polite and respectful language. That is something that you are not doing at the moment.

There was in fact blasphemy in those replies, and there was nothing polite or respectful about them, but that's not what we're debating here.

We're debating whether or not, Mary is the Mother of God, and why it is important, who cares whether or not people disagree with it, what matters is whether or not it is true. So far, no one has provided a logical argument against Mary being the Mother of God, so it appears that this belief is true, and thus, anyone who disagrees with it, is not living in conformity with reality.

 

[JIMINZ]

So, as expected, no one is bothering to argue this at all, which is to be expected as this belief can't be rationally refuted, it is logically sound. Instead almost everyone resorts to blasphemy, as if offending God can somehow save them from His Justice, I personally don't think that's a good idea.

So yeah, if you cannot logically refute this belief, don't bother posting blasphemies on here, this is not a thread where one posts blasphemies, this is thread where one posts arguments.

I mean, to be fair, it does help me strengthen my faith, seeing Protestants unable to post rationally arguments and resort to blasphemy. But I don't really need my faith strengthened that much, and I care about what God thinks, seeing His Beloved Mother insulted like that, and His Love for being condemned as sin, I don't think it's to have such things uttered at God.

.
Not being Catholic I do revere Mary for the position she was chosen for, as much as those other people throughout the Bible that God used for His purpose.

As a novice when it comes to apologetics, I have decided to defend one of the easiest Marian dogmas in Catholicism, namely, Mary as the Mother of God. The Dogma of Mary as the Mother of God is quite simple:

.
The thing you should understand being a novice, a Dogma cannot be defended, it is a statement of fact by the Church without any evidence of being fact or truth, it is an assumption, a supposition, a belief of the person who first thought of it, and having been accepted by the Church as a possibility, therefore you see a Dogma does not have any place in reality so it is undefendable, it stands by itself, defying Truth, declaring itself to be Truth, without any evidence of it being so.

Would you be offended if I were to tell you to stop believing in Purgatory, if you would, then maybe you should remember that the next time you feel like it is of the utmost importance to instruct a Protestant on his beliefs......Deal?

 

[JIMINZ]

Hey there JLOL

I'm not going to go through all of your conclusions and hypotheses, or the Dogmas of your Church, and what other people have to say on the subject, because the purpose of this thread is to determine and declare the truth, isn't that correct?

No, I'm not going to give you a rebuttal using what I think or believe on the matter, because what I believe isn't the subject.

I'm only going to post what the Bible says, it will then be up to you to either accept what the Word of God clearly says, or to reject it as untrue, and thereby hold on to your well established Dogma.


I'm going to cut right to the chase.

You wanted an Argument, here is the beginning of mine.

I believe the best way of coming to an understanding, is by using your own terminology (Choice of words).

Luke 1:43
And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

LORD:- GREEK
G2962
κύριος
kurios
koo'-ree-os
From κῦρος kuros (supremacy); supreme in authority, that is, (as noun) controller; by implication Mr. (as a respectful title): - God, Lord, master, Sir.


Below is the rendering of the text from the Greek which you have used


Sorry for the way this came out, but this is the only way I could cut and Paste it from the Greek - English Interlinear Bible online.


LUKE 1:43
kai
G2532
Conj
AND

pothen
G4159
Adv Int
?-WHICH-PLACE
whence ?

moi
G3427
pp 1 Dat Sg
to-ME

touto
G5124
pd Nom Sg n
this

hina
G2443
Conj
THAT

elthE
G2064
vs 2Aor Act 3 Sg
MAY-BE-COMING

hE
G3588
t_ Nom Sg f
THE

mEtEr
G3384
n_ Nom Sg f
MOTHER

tou
G3588
t_ Gen Sg m
OF-THE

kuriou
G2962 - - - Definition for LORD given above.
n_ Gen Sg m
Master
Lord

mou
G 3450
pp 1 Gen Sg
OF-ME

pros
G4314
Prep
TOWARD

me
G3165
pp 1 Acc Sg
ME

 

[DeaconDean]

Hey there JLOL

I'm not going to go through all of your conclusions and hypotheses, or the Dogmas of your Church, and what other people have to say on the subject, because the purpose of this thread is to determine and declare the truth, isn't that correct?

No, I'm not going to give you a rebuttal using what I think or believe on the matter, because what I believe isn't the subject.

I'm only going to post what the Bible says, it will then be up to you to either accept what the Word of God clearly says, or to reject it as untrue, and thereby hold on to your well established Dogma.


I'm going to cut right to the chase.

You wanted an Argument, here is the beginning of mine.

I believe the best way of coming to an understanding, is by using your own terminology (Choice of words).

Luke 1:43
And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

LORD:- GREEK
G2962
κύριος
kurios
koo'-ree-os
From κῦρος kuros (supremacy); supreme in authority, that is, (as noun) controller; by implication Mr. (as a respectful title): - God, Lord, master, Sir.


Below is the rendering of the text from the Greek which you have used


Sorry for the way this came out, but this is the only way I could cut and Paste it from the Greek - English Interlinear Bible online.


LUKE 1:43
kai
G2532
Conj
AND

pothen
G4159
Adv Int
?-WHICH-PLACE
whence ?

moi
G3427
pp 1 Dat Sg
to-ME

touto
G5124
pd Nom Sg n
this

hina
G2443
Conj
THAT

elthE
G2064
vs 2Aor Act 3 Sg
MAY-BE-COMING

hE
G3588
t_ Nom Sg f
THE

mEtEr
G3384
n_ Nom Sg f
MOTHER

tou
G3588
t_ Gen Sg m
OF-THE

kuriou
G2962 - - - Definition for LORD given above.
n_ Gen Sg m
Master
Lord

mou
G 3450
pp 1 Gen Sg
OF-ME

pros
G4314
Prep
TOWARD

me
G3165
pp 1 Acc Sg
ME

One problem, scriptures are considered of a secondary nature.

You have the teachings of the Early Church Fathers. Or, the Traditions of the Apostles.

You have the rulings of the historic Councils.

You have the Catechism of the Catholic church.

You might insert the scriptures here...but I won't say so.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Phil 1:21]

So, as expected, no one is bothering to argue this at all, which is to be expected as this belief can't be rationally refuted, it is logically sound. Instead almost everyone resorts to blasphemy, as if offending God can somehow save them from His Justice, I personally don't think that's a good idea.

So yeah, if you cannot logically refute this belief, don't bother posting blasphemies on here, this is not a thread where one posts blasphemies, this is thread where one posts arguments.

I mean, to be fair, it does help me strengthen my faith, seeing Protestants unable to post rationally arguments and resort to blasphemy. But I don't really need my faith strengthened that much, and I care about what God thinks, seeing His Beloved Mother insulted like that, and His Love for being condemned as sin, I don't think it's to have such things uttered at God.

Let me ask an honest question. Are you truly desiring a discussion? Or are you simply stating your beliefs and ignoring any responses to the contrary aside from labeling them blasphemy? It would perhaps help folks know whether they are sowing seed on the walking path or fertile ground.

 

[JackRT]

Blasphemy is an outdated concept that only makes honest disagreements that much worse. One Christian's dogma is blasphemy to another and so it goes with nothing ever being settled and no minds changed. This does not even get into blasphemy in the wider context involving other religions. If you wish to discuss your beliefs with others then discuss them amicably in the full knowledge that some will disagree with you. Terms like "heretic" and "blasphemy" and "anathema" only serve to raise tempers and make communication impossible.

Mario Cuomo said --- "We know that the price of seeking to force our beliefs on others is that they might some day force theirs on us."

 

[JesusLovesOurLady]

Hey there JLOL

I'm not going to go through all of your conclusions and hypotheses, or the Dogmas of your Church, and what other people have to say on the subject, because the purpose of this thread is to determine and declare the truth, isn't that correct?

No, I'm not going to give you a rebuttal using what I think or believe on the matter, because what I believe isn't the subject.

I'm only going to post what the Bible says, it will then be up to you to either accept what the Word of God clearly says, or to reject it as untrue, and thereby hold on to your well established Dogma.


I'm going to cut right to the chase.

You wanted an Argument, here is the beginning of mine.

Thank you for dropping your strawman argument, and actually making a rational argument, I really appreciate that, and find it very respectful.

I believe the best way of coming to an understanding, is by using your own terminology (Choice of words).

Luke 1:43
And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

LORD:- GREEK
G2962
κύριος
kurios
koo'-ree-os
From κῦρος kuros (supremacy); supreme in authority, that is, (as noun) controller; by implication Mr. (as a respectful title): - God, Lord, master, Sir.


Below is the rendering of the text from the Greek which you have used


Sorry for the way this came out, but this is the only way I could cut and Paste it from the Greek - English Interlinear Bible online.


LUKE 1:43
kai
G2532
Conj
AND

pothen
G4159
Adv Int
?-WHICH-PLACE
whence ?

moi
G3427
pp 1 Dat Sg
to-ME

touto
G5124
pd Nom Sg n
this

hina
G2443
Conj
THAT

elthE
G2064
vs 2Aor Act 3 Sg
MAY-BE-COMING

hE
G3588
t_ Nom Sg f
THE

mEtEr
G3384
n_ Nom Sg f
MOTHER

tou
G3588
t_ Gen Sg m
OF-THE

kuriou
G2962 - - - Definition for LORD given above.
n_ Gen Sg m
Master
Lord

mou
G 3450
pp 1 Gen Sg
OF-ME

pros
G4314
Prep
TOWARD

me
G3165
pp 1 Acc Sg
ME

I appreciate and even admire honesty in this response, but, this actually reinforces my argument, that Elizabeth, calling Mary the Mother of God. Kurios, means "Supreme Authority" and who is the Supreme Authority if not God? Like I pointed out in my opening argument, Jesus calls Himself, the Lord of David, and rightly-so, as He is the King of all Kings, including David.

Please, get back to me, if you have more to say, or if there is something I'm missing here.

One problem, scriptures are considered of a secondary nature.

You have the teachings of the Early Church Fathers. Or, the Traditions of the Apostles.

You have the rulings of the historic Councils.

You have the Catechism of the Catholic church.

You might insert the scriptures here...but I won't say so.

God Bless

Till all are one.

No, I think in this argument in particular, the Infallible Authority of Sacred Scripture perfectly suffices to prove my point, as I have just demonstrated above.

 

[JesusLovesOurLady]

Let me ask an honest question. Are you truly desiring a discussion? Or are you simply stating your beliefs and ignoring any responses to the contrary aside from labeling them blasphemy? It would perhaps help folks know whether they are sowing seed on the walking path or fertile ground.

If there were rational arguments presented above my post you quoted, please let me know, because I didn't see any rational arguments above.

 

[JesusLovesOurLady]

Blasphemy is an outdated concept that only makes honest disagreements that much worse. One Christian's dogma is blasphemy to another and so it goes with nothing ever being settled and no minds changed. This does not even get into blasphemy in the wider context involving other religions. If you wish to discuss your beliefs with others then discuss them amicably in the full knowledge that some will disagree with you. Terms like "heretic" and "blasphemy" and "anathema" only serve to raise tempers and make communication impossible.

Mario Cuomo said --- "We know that the price of seeking to force our beliefs on others is that they might some day force theirs on us."

I prefer obeying the commandments of Jesus Christ the Son of God, who commanded us to love God above all else, and to baptize all nation in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Cassidy Bennett]

Disclaimer: I am not a Theologian, and do not speak for the Catholic Church. I am merely a layman, here to evangelize, and and to state the obvious, the Our Lady bore God the Son in her womb and gave birth to Him, who is God. Our Lady truly is the Mother of God, and to deny that inevitably leads to error.

As a novice when it comes to apologetics, I have decided to defend one of the easiest Marian dogmas in Catholicism, namely, Mary as the Mother of God. The Dogma of Mary as the Mother of God is quite simple:

Major premise: Jesus is God
Minor premise: Mary is the mother of Jesus
Conclusion: Mary is the Mother of God

It’s that simple. “But wait!” many of you will be saying, “Why must we call Mary THAT!?! Why is that important? Why does this need to be a dogma?” Well the answer is really quite simple, all we have to do is see what the consequences are, for not calling Mary the Mother of God.

We’ll start with the first person who refused to call Mary the Mother of God, Nestorius. Nestorius objected to calling Mary the Mother of God, and when pressed as to why one shouldn’t call Mary the Mother of God, he argued the Jesus human nature, and Divine nature were separated. But claiming that Jesus’ Divinity and humanity are separated logically results in two separate persons, a human Jesus, and a Divine Jesus. Thus, according to Nestorianism, in one Biblical passage, human Jesus does X, and in another passage, Divine Jesus does Y, this totally contrary to the Biblical understanding of Jesus, there is only ONE, Jesus!

Next, we’ll turn to Dr. Roy D. Perkins. I while ago, someone on the OBOB posted a link to the Catholic Blog “Shameless Popery” and a brilliant article simply entitled “The Virgin Mary’s Uniques Role in the Salvation of the World,” (See here: The Virgin Mary’s Unique Role in the Salvation of the World – Shameless Popery) in this article, the blogger posts an excerpt from Dr. Roy D. Perkins’ Book “Without Denomination: a Critique of Church Doctrines” which reads as follows:

“Although Joseph is the father of Jesus, he is actually (sic) the step-father to Jesus. The Pharisees often refer to Jesus as the carpenter’s son as they do not realize that Joseph is not his blood father. Mary is not really the mother of Jesus either. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be a virgin birth. There is no genetic material from Joseph or Mary in Jesus. The blood line does not come from either one of them. This is where Roman Catholicism gets things mixed up. The Catholics call Mary the mother of God. However, she is only a vessel for carrying and nurturing Jesus as an unborn child. We don’t pray to her. […] She is not holy. If Joseph and/or Mary had passed on genetic material to Jesus, the sin nature would have been passed on to Jesus, making him an imperfect sacrifice. The blood of Joseph and Mary does not run through Jesus’s veins. If their blood did flow through his veins, there would be no salvation by Jesus Christ.”
(emphasis added)

Once again, we see someone try and deny Mary as the Mother of God, and end up doing great violence to authentic Christology. (On top of that, if I might add, Dr. Roy D. Perkins unwittingly ends up proving all four Marian Dogmas! But we’re only discussing the Mother of God Dogma, in this thread.) Dr. Roy D. Perkins ends up denying that Our Lord received any human DNA from His Beloved Mother, which is tantamount to denying the coming of Our Lord in the flesh. And we all know what the infallible authority of Sacred Scripture says about denying Our Lord coming in the flesh:

“For many seducers are gone out into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh: this is a seducer and an antichrist.”
-2nd John 1:7 DR​

And this is just two examples, I’m sure there are many more out there. The fact is cannot deny Mary as the Mother of God, without doing great violence to authentic Christology. This is why one must confess that Mary is the Mother of God, one cannot deny this, without also and ending up denying the Holy Gospel of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God.


Objection 1: The term “Mother of God” isn’t in the Bible.

I Reply: Yes it is, although the term “Trinity” isn’t found anywhere on Scripture. Mother of God is found in two passages of the Bible, first, in Isaiah 7:14:

“Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel.”
(Douay-Rheims Version)​

I’m sure most of you know that Emmanuel, in Hebrew means, “God is with us.” The name Emmanuel itself states, that God is going to be with His people, via a virgin mother, and thus the virgin in this passage, is the Mother of God, who is with us. This is why the Council Fathers declared in 431 at Ephesus:

“If anyone does not confess that God is truly Emmanuel, and that on this account the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God (for according to the flesh she gave birth to the Word of God become flesh by birth), let him be anathema.”​

To confess Mary as the Mother of God, is to confess that Emmanuel, Jesus Christ Himself, is truly God!

But the big proof-text, for Mary as the Mother of God, is found in the Holy Gospel according to Saint Luke 1:43:

“And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” (Douay-Rheims Version, Emphasis added)​

Here, Elizabeth calls Mary “the Mother of my Lord,” now what does she mean by “Lord?” Does Elizabeth mean “Lord” in the sense of “master” or “rabbi?” No, there is no evidence anywhere in Sacred Scripture that Elizabeth was ever a disciple of Jesus Christ. What about “Lord” in the sense of “King,” that is, the long awaited Davidic Messiah? No, both St. Joseph and (though this may be debatable among Protestants) the Blessed Virgin Mary, are descendants of King David, and none of them have the honor of being called “lord” or “lady,” on top of that -and this leads to the inevitable conclusion of what “Lord” means-, Jesus declares Himself to be the Lord of David. Now, who can be the Lord of King David? Only God Himself, can be the Lord of the Great King David, for God is King of Kings and Lord of Lords!

Objection 2: Nestorius was right! There is a difference between Christ’s Divinity and Christ humanity. God can’t die, only His human side died on the cross, in reparation for the sin of Adam.

I Reply: If all that was needed to pay for the sin of Adam was a sinless human person, then why did the Christ have to be God? Why couldn’t the Christ simply be an immaculately conceived, sinless human being, as the Ebionites claimed Jesus was? God the Son, did in fact die on the Cross, how is that possible? Well it’s actually quite simple, in human beings, death is simply the separation of the soul, from the body, and that’s exactly what Christ experienced. God the Son experienced the pain of having His Soul ripped from His Body on the Cross, He didn’t cease to exist or anything, He simply suffered the same death, that human beings suffered since the sin of Adam.

Objection 3: The Mother of God is simply a bad term, it implies that Mary created God!

I Reply: Who created you? Your mother? Or God? A mother does create her child, God does. God creates and infuses the immortal soul into the child in the mother’s womb. However, the mother does not give birth to the body of her child, but to her child. Mothers give birth to the whole person, not part of the person. The same is true for Our Lady, she did not give birth to Jesus’ body, or Jesus human nature, but the Divine Person Jesus Himself, the Son of God.


Again, my activity here will be very slow, due to College work, so I call on my fellow-Catholics to help me out here, with this very easy dogma. I'm currently working big assignment, hopefully after this week, things will speed up a bit, and I can be more active in these threads.

I'll be back later the evening.

Ave Maria!!!

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove. Protestants believe Mary is the mother of Jesus too. We just don't place as much emphasis on it.

Jesus did not behave the way people expected him to, including his mother. He was not concerned with DNA type of family.

Jesus replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”

 

[DeaconDean]

I appreciate and even admire honesty in this response, but, this actually reinforces my argument, that Elizabeth, calling Mary the Mother of God. Kurios, means "Supreme Authority"

Here is where your wrong.

From the Greek "κυρίου". (Lk.1:43; GNT)

"κύριος,n \{koo'-ree-os}
1) he to whom a person or thing belongs, about which he has power of deciding; master, lord 1a) the possessor and disposer of a thing 1a1) the owner; one who has control of the person, the master 1a2) in the state: the sovereign, prince, chief, the Roman emperor 1b) is a title of honour expressive of respect and reverence, with which servants greet their master 1c) this title is given to: God, the Messiah"

Source

Show me in the above definition "Supreme Authority".

And, let me point out, there are two Greek words that you have not considered.

Kurios (lord) and Theos (God).

The emphasis here in Lk. 1:43 is the reference to Jesus as the "Lord", the Messiah" and not Theos (God).

lord (little l) would apply as one who is "lord and master of his own house, land, servants, etc. He has the power to decide as "master" and/or lord. A prime example would be Mt. 18:26. Note the little l.

Caesar, as shown above, would be another example of "lord" and rightly so because he was the emperor.

Slaves, upon the master entering his house would greet him as "lord". A prime example is Mt. 10:24. Here is the same word, but with the little l.

But in the verse your using, does not say anything about "Supreme Authority" which I agree he had.

Rather in this verse, it is reference to His heavenly "title" as Lord (big L).

Sorry, the Greek in the sense you take it, does agree in the grammer usage.

In reality, yes it would be proper to call the mother of God, but in the sense that was His parent:

"Thus the virgin is said to be the mother of our Lord, and so may be called the mother of God; because she was parent of that child, which was in union with him, who is truly Lord and God:"

Source

A proper rendering that also would have been right would have been "And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Messiah should come to me?"

Sorry.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[JesusLovesOurLady]

I need to take a break from debating today, I'm angry at someone on here for his dishonesty and dirty conduct. I have calmed downed now, from earlier today, but I think it's wise to wait until tomorrow before I continue defending this easy and obvious truth about Our Lady.