|This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies.|
Locked on 10/13/2013 3:40:25 PM PDT by Religion Moderator, reason:
Skip to comments.Mary, Mother of God
Posted on 10/12/2013 9:34:46 AM PDT by NKP_Vet
The most common objection I get to Mary as Mother of God, especially from Fundamentalists, but not limited to them, is, The words Mother of God are nowhere to be found in the Bible. Therefore, I will not accept it as true.
This line of reasoning fails in dramatic fashion when carried to its logical conclusion when we consider the central mystery of the Christian Faith, the Trinity, is not found in Scripture verbatim as well. And we could go on. The Incarnation would fall by the wayside. Essential terms we use to do theology, like homoousios (Gr.same nature, Jesus has the same nature as his Father), hypostatic union, the circumincessions of the persons of the Blessed Trinity, etc. All gone! The canon of Scripture, the nature of the sacrament of Holy Matrimony, and so much more we believe as Christians would be out the door because none of these things are made explicit in Scripture.
And this is not to mention justification by faith alone. Can anyone agree there is just a bit of irony in the fact that the same fellow who tells me he will not accept Mary as Mother of God because those words are not found in the Bible, will accept justification by faith alone when the only time those words are found in the Bible the words not by are right in front of them (cf. James 2:24)?
(Excerpt) Read more at catholic.com ...
Straw man argument. I know a lot of Fundamentalists, and the fact that the words “Mother of God” does not appear in the bible is not the reason they disagree with Mary worship....oops, I mean “veneration”.
But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? (Luke 1:43)
Unless of course they don't believe that Jesus is God.
Of course, the Fundies I know aren't dumber than a bag of hammers so any Fundies with an earthworm league IQ may see things differently and consider telling lies a normal part of their "Christian witness" facade.
Fundies VS the Cult
I don’t see sufficient Scriptural support for what is usually stated as “justification by faith alone” but the idea of Mary being “Mother of God” is contrary to Scripture in every way.
Naturally the term wouldn’t appear in Scripture.
Using simple logic, that appellation implies that Mirium How blasphemous. Shabbat Shalom
Only if G-d is not the creator of the universe. shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
is the SUPER GOD who created the creator of the universe.
Using simple logic, that appellation implies that Mirium
She did not --- and nobody believes she did.
It means she gave birth to a person who was God: Jesus Christ Our Lord.
Joseph was Jesus' stepfather. Mary was His mother. She gave Him birth. All Christians know that.
If you use that logic to arrive at naming Mary, the Mother of God (Which God Himself does not do)...
...you should just be consistent and also name her the Wife of God, since she bore His child.
Keep going and be consistent...
Mary’s mother should be called the Grandmother of God.
Mary’s father, should rightfully be called the Grandfather of God.
Any sister of Mary should be referred to as the God’s Aunt.
Any brother of Mary should be referred to correctly as God’s Uncle.
What an interesting approach for someone who believes Jesus Christ is God.
Could it be any simpler?
I think the difficulty comes in if someone mistakenly thinks this means that these people were somehow "creators" of God. This is nonsense. God is the creator of everything and everyone, including of His own Mother Mary and all of His ancestors through Mary.
Thus Jesus,our God, had all these relatives and ancestors: on His mother's side.
“I think the difficulty comes in if someone mistakenly thinks this means that these people were somehow “creators” of God. This is nonsense. God is the creator of everything and everyone, including of His own Mother Mary and all of His ancestors through Mary.”
Nor Mary. But consistency demands that if you choose to call Mary the Mother of God, you must follow through.
Of course, none of it is true. Mary is most favored, but the rest of the extra-Biblical nonsense becomes silly.
She gave birth to Jesus, our God. Birth mother, you know? Also genetic mother, lactational mother, social/caregiving mother, and all that. But she did not create Him. Exactly the reverse: He created her, and all things.
I'm not seeing how you could disagree with that.
Not only is it not in the Bible, such a phrase infers meaning where none exists. Mary was the mother of the child, Jesus, after the flesh. After the Spirit, Jesus is the Son of God, having no earthly father.
As Jesus grew to adulthood, at some point He assumed the duties of a son to His earthly mother, Mary, apparently because Joseph died (as he is never mentioned after Christ reaches maturity). On the cross He conferred His earthly responsibilities toward His mother to His trusted disciple John, and ONLY John. He said, “Woman, behold your son.” He did not say sons. From then on Mary lived in John’s house. She did not live with Peter, nor James, nor Paul. She lived with John who also outlived all of the other disciples, being the youngest of them.
The title of God is most often used in scripture to refer to the Father or to all three persons of the Godhead simulateously. My point is that Mary IS NOT the mother of God the Father, nor is she mother to God the Holy Spirit. Though Jesus is God in the fullest sense, yet He is not the only person of the Godhead. Therefore, it is accurate to describe Mary as the mother of Jesus, but it is inaccurate to describe her as the mother of God.
This is the simplest of logical fallacies which is the fallacy of division. If there is one black swan in a lake and some white swans also, it would be wrong to say the swans in the lake are black.
Further, Christ existed before Mary. And He was her Lord and Savior. This is the same theological dilema which the pharisees could not comprehend about Christ being the son of David and yet David calling Him “Lord”. (See Matthew 22:41-46.)
I accept the confirmed authority of the apostles and the words that came directly from their lips and preserved for us on the pages of scripture. I reject the self-proclaimed apostolic authority that meets none of the criteria for apostleship specified in scripture by the apostles. Christ commends those who test those who say they are apostles and find them to be liars. (See Revelation 2:2.) Paul defends his apostleship and tells us what the qualifications are which include having seen the risen Christ, having been personally instructed by Him, and having confirming miracles. Such apostles universally condemn the use of idols, yet the Catholic church claims unfounded apostolic authority and claims we should ignore this commandment to supposedly honor Mary by making images of her supposed likeness and bowing to it and making offerings to it and directing our prayers toward it, and invoking blasphemous names such as “mother of God” upon it. No holy angel or apostle ever accepted men bowing to them but all outright forbad it (though Satan saught for Christ to bow to and worship him, and wicked Herod received worship from his audience for which he died).
Add not to His Word lest you be found a liar.
Of course they must be lying to say the first of act of the current pope was to bow to an image of Mary’s supposed likeness, and to pray to it and to offer flowers on an altar to that image, right?
Am I supposed to believe that Catholics do not do this, or am I supposed to believe there is no possible danger of committing the abomination of idolatry during these acts?
Christians are our own worst enemies. We spend all of our time trashing each other over our slight differences rather than embracing each other in love, as Christ instructed. A pox on the lot of you that always have to bash other Christans without identical beliefs.
Such folks are worshiping their own Most High and Holy Self, an idol if there ever was one, but their own pride and enthroning of their Self keeps them from recognizing the strong delusion they're under.
An idolater accusing others of idolatry is the epitome of spiritual blindness.
Mediatrix of all Graces
"God has committed to her the treasury of all good things, in order that everyone may know that THROUGH HER are obtained EVERY hope, EVERY grace, and ALL salvation. For this is His will: That we obtain everything through Mary." Pope Pius IX"
Thus the Catholic does not need the Lord Jesus Christ anymore but Mary alone according to Pope Pius IX.
You changed it from "Christ and Christ Alone". Why would you want to worship anyone else?
“I’m not seeing how you could disagree with that.”
I only disagree with giving Mary, that faithful woman, a title that God Himself never gives her. He Himself praises her in many ways, but that is not something He ever says or inspires in His Word.
The word "Lord" is used in a number of different ways in Scripture, but in this instance Elizabeth is NOT using "Lord" to mean her husband, or a member of the aristocracy, or a landowner. She is using it as it applies to Jesus in His true dignity, as St. Thomas said, "My Lord and My God."
This is not just a title, but a reality. It's not like a polite term of address what was fetched out of thin air. It comes from the Gospel, as you can see.
The difference is that if I am committing idolatry or in danger of dong so I do want to be corrected for it. The fool hears not reproof, not unlike the supposedly infallible but truly indefensible positions being promoted in the name of Mary and the Church.
“as preached and taught by those who who pretend the anti-Christ, anti-Chistian, Pharisee Approved Luther Subset of Scripture is the complete Bible and by doing so assert that while the Holy Spirit cannot and did not protect the Word of God”
Catholics don’t generally use the Bible to defend Catholic doctrine, as I have found repeatedly here. Occasionally they use it as a springboard but never build their arguments around its authority because they always come back to the Catholic church being a higher authority than the Bible. The Bible itself declares there are people who add to and take away from scripture. If the Catholic church was the means of preserving God’s written word, then the church would not have maintained two sets of books so to speak.
By protecting God’s word, do you mean burning people at the stake like William Tyndale because the Catholic church was protecting people from learning the scriptures in their own language? Did the Catholic church try to stop that simply because it was the wrong time? And is now it okay that the Catholic church has an English version of the Bible which had nothing to do with Tyndale and other heretics seeing the need for the common man to be able to learn God’s word in their own language? Please tell me. I am trying to comprehend.
Tyndale was a pharisee so the Catholic church had to burn him a the stake just like Jesus taught and showed in the way He treated Pharisees, right? Just like Jesus did to Nicodemus and Paul, who were Pharisees, right?
And I should not be offended that the Catholic church burned Tyndale and many other heretics at the stake and never acknowledged and repented of this as sin, right?
How many hail Mary’s does it take to atone for burning people at the stake anyway?
By “Pharisee Approved Luther Subset of Scripture is the complete Bible” do you mean Textus Receptus (the received text) as opposed to the single non-contradictory text preserved by the Catholic church? Which ONE would that be? The Latin Vulgate? Codex Vaticanus? Codex Sinaiticus? Codex Alexandrinus?
So I am an idolater BECAUSE I will not bow to Rome or Mary?
I thought I had heard all the arguments before, but that is new.
“I know a lot of Fundamentalists, and the fact that the words Mother of God does not appear in the bible is no reason to lie and accuse others of “Mary worship””
On the other hand, the fact that you guys bow before her altar, offer incense to her statues, and pray to her, and exalt her as a spotless, sinless human being who can save you from your sins, is no reason to deny that you don’t worship Mary, and doesn’t give you the right to accuse others of lying about what you do.
God must be thrilled to see all his Christan followers constantly infighting in his name. Good going folks. Keep it up.
Elizabeth likely recognized Mary's baby as the promised Messiah. Jews did not believe Messiah would be God - still don't. For this reason, TC's commentary rightly says, "the Bible never ascribes the title "Mother of God" to Mary." It's earliest usage appears to be from Origen in about 250 AD.
By Lord Elizabeth meant Jesus, not the entire Godhead. Jesus is God, but not all of God is Jesus. Consequently the Bible never ascribes the title Mother of God to Mary. She was the mother of Jesus, who was Elizabeths Lord, since He was God. This usage does not necessarily imply that the person using it believed that Jesus was God. Elizabeth apparently meant that Jesus was the Messiah at least. Luke evidently used the term Lord frequently because for Greek readers Christ or Messiah had little meaning. The pagan Gentiles referred to Caesar as Lord Caesar meaning that he was their divine sovereign. Lord had the same connotation for Lukes original readers. Jesus is the divine sovereign for Christians. - TC
... to be complete.
Your second example of Thomas’ statement “My Lord and My God.”
He is saying Master (Messiah) and God. Never ascribed to Mary. Jesus Christ, you bet!
John 2:1 On the third day there was a wedding at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there.
John 2:3 When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to him, They have no wine.
Acts 1:14 All these with one accord were devoting themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers.
Scripture is clear in calling her *mother of Jesus* not *mother of God*.
Holy Spirit - 3
Catholic church - 0
That's a bunch of hogwash because it focuses the attention on Mary, not Jesus.
It confers divinity to her, it does not correct doctrine about Jesus.
Because the Holy Spirit calls her mother of Jesus.
My soul magnifies the Lord,
And my spirit rejoices in God my Savior.
For He has regarded the low estate of His handmaiden,
For behold, henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
For He who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is His name. And His mercy is on those who fear Him from generation to generation.
He has shown strength with His arm:
He has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
He has put down the mighty from their thrones,
and exalted those of low degree.
He has filled the hungry with good things;
and the rich He has sent empty away.
He has helped His servant Israel, in remembrance of His mercy;
As He spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to His posterity forever.
Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit.
As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen
Magníficat ánima mea Dóminum,
et exsultávit spíritus meus
in Deo salvatóre meo,
quia respéxit humilitátem
Ecce enim ex hoc beátam
me dicent omnes generatiónes,
quia fecit mihi magna,
qui potens est,
et sanctum nomen eius,
et misericórdia eius in progénies
et progénies timéntibus eum.
Fecit poténtiam in bráchio suo,
dispérsit supérbos mente cordis sui;
depósuit poténtes de sede
et exaltávit húmiles.
Esuriéntes implévit bonis
et dívites dimísit inánes.
Suscépit Ísrael púerum suum,
sicut locútus est ad patres nostros,
Ábraham et sémini eius in sæcula.
Glória Patri et Fílio
et Spirítui Sancto.
Sicut erat in princípio,
et nunc et semper,
et in sæcula sæculórum.
She became the Mother of God, in which work so many and such great good things are bestowed on her as pass man’s understanding. For on this there follows all honor, all blessedness, and her unique place in the whole of mankind, among which she has no equal, namely, that she had a child by the Father in heaven, and such a Child . . . Hence men have crowded all her glory into a single word, calling her the Mother of God . . . None can say of her nor announce to her greater things, even though he had as many tongues as the earth possesses flowers and blades of grass: the sky, stars; and the sea, grains of sand. It needs to be pondered in the heart what it means to be the Mother of God.
(Commentary on the Magnificat, 1521; in Luther’s Works, Pelikan et al, vol. 21, 326)
Straw man argument. I know a lot of Fundamentalists, and the fact that the words Mother of God does not appear in the bible is not the reason they disagree with Mary worship....oops, I mean veneration.Is it English that troubles you, or logic?
The most common objection I get to Mary as Mother of God, especially from Fundamentalists, but not limited to them, is, The words Mother of God are nowhere to be found in the Bible. Therefore, I will not accept it as true.How is that a "strawman"?
Clarification: who’s TC?
Now that's my point exactly. Even if the exact phrase "Mother of God" (or more probably "Theotokos") was not used until 250 AD as far as we know, it's a restating, and a logical corollary, of what was already stated by Elizabeth, and even by the Angel Gabriel.
One can use a phrase that isn't ever used in the Holy Bible. "The Holy Bible", for instance is not found in the Bible. "My personal Savior" is never found in the Bible. "The Blessed Trinity" is never found in the Bible. These are certainly, however, Biblically based truths. Same as "Mother of God."
< The real point here is that one is a mother of a person, not of a nature. Jesus has two natures (Divine and human) but is only one Person --- a Divine Person, who existed from before all ages of ages, co-eternal with the Father and the Holy Spirit. His mother --- which is to say, the one who gave him birth --- not "gave Him existence," but "gave Him birth"--- in that stable in Bethlehem--- was Mary.
Hence she is the Theotokos, the Birth-giver, of Him who existed for all eternity before she did.
Amen. Total agreement here.
The problem isn’t so much the phrase “Mother of God,” since, even though it has no basis in the scripture, people saying it can understand it as meaning the mother of Jesus, and not of His divinity. However, the problem with the way the RCC uses it, is they, in practice, make her the mother of His deity too, and thus put the Mother on equal grounds with the son; nay, perhaps on a superior level, since she is able to save people from His wrath, who He Himself would not have saved unless she stepped in and placated His anger. Thus the RCC use the term to prop up their idolatry.
And around we go!
I mean, when we say "Jesus," how many people are we talking about here? Are Jesus and God two people? Jesus is God, One Person, One Divine Person, one of the Trinity, existing before time even existed, co-eternal with the Father and the Holy Spirit.
At a point in time, approx 2000 year ago, He was born in Bethlehem. Who gave this Person birth? Mary. She conceived and gave birth to a person. She did not make Him, or create Him, or originate Him. She birthed Him.
Would I make it a little clearer if I called her the "birthmother"? I'm sure you wouldn't deny that. I don't think any Christian could.
Is that to say you no like-ee this latest of a long line of holy hand grenade, threads of the day?
That was excellent!
I don’t get why some of you bother. Elizabeth called her the “mother of her Lord” in the Bible. The Bible is (supposedly) inspired by God. Therefore God Himself has called her the Mother of the Lord (aka Mother of God).
Really, this is simple folks.
I grieve every time we Christians eat our own daily.
"The problem isnt so much the phrase Mother of God... "
Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!
"...since, even though it has no basis in the scripture, people saying it can understand it as meaning the mother of Jesus, and not of His divinity."
And four times over, thank you. That is exactly what we mean.
"...However, the problem with the way the RCC uses it, is they, in practice, make her the mother of His deity too, and thus put the Mother on equal grounds with the son; nay, perhaps on a superior level,..."
Not true, This would be idolatry. It would be making a creature equal with the Creator, which is impossible.
"... since she is able to save people from His wrath, who He Himself would not have saved unless she stepped in and placated His anger. Thus the RCC use the term to prop up their idolatry."
You have a pretty comprehensive misunderstanding of what you are saying. Mary's ability to pray as intercessor is the same as your, my, or anybody's ability to help others by intercessory prayer. Greater than mine, though, because of her great holiness: "Behold, all generations will call me blessed."
Find me in the Catechism where it says that she intervenes to save some "who[m] He Himself would not have saved unless she stepped in and placated His anger."
You may have encountered this in some genre of mystical writing, meaning, something reported as 'private revelation,' but this is not a part of Catholic doctrine. Quite the contrary, Mary is the Lord's handmaid, not the director (or corrector) of the Savior!
Glad you gave the the opportunity to clarify the non-doctrinal status of purported 'private revelation'.
“You have a pretty comprehensive misunderstanding of what you are saying. Mary’s ability to pray as intercessor is the same as your, my, or anybody’s ability to help others by intercessory prayer.”
That’s impossible since I cannot hear you praying to me, nor can I hear millions of Catholics praying to me (if they decided to do so for whatever reason) even if I wanted to, since it would require me to be personally present with each individual at the same time, and have the cognitive abilities to comprehend them. By definition, if you are praying to Mary and she can hear you, then she is omniscient and omnipresent so that she can hear all of these simultaneous prayers. And not only that, but she knows the personal history of each of these people, the state of their heart and their devotion, and is thus able to decide whether to answer or not to answer. Thus, she has the powers of divinity.
Also keep in mind I am not a Catholic (anymore), and so when I see Catholics bowing at her statue, offering praise, exaltation, even incense to her, I, like anyone else in the world, would recognize that as indistinguishable from worship for a deity, even though she might be lower in the pantheon than, say, Jove.
Now as to the Roman Catholic teaching on the matter:
From the Secret of the Rosary, endorsed by your Popes:
One day the King fell seriously ill and when he was given up for dead he found himself, in a vision, before the judgement seat of Our Lord. Many devils were there accusing him of all the sins he had committed and Our Lord as Sovereign Judge was just about to condemn him to hell when Our Lady appeared to intercede for him. She called for a pair of scales and had his sins placed in one of the balances whereas she put the rosary that he had always worn on the other scale, together with all the Rosaries that had been said because of his example. It was found that the Rosaries weighed more than his sins.
Looking at him with great kindness Our Lady said: As a reward for this little honor that you paid me in wearing my Rosary, I have obtained a great grace for you from my Son. Your life will be spared for a few more years. See that you spend these years wisely, and do penance.
When the King regained consciousness he cried out: Blessed be the Rosary of the Most Holy Virgin Mary, by which I have been delivered from eternal damnation!
After he had recovered his health he spent the rest of his life in spreading devotion to the Holy Rosary and said it faithfully every day.
People who love the Blessed Virgin out to follow the example of King Alphonsus and that of the saints whom I have mentioned so that they too may win other souls for the Confraternity of the Holy Rosary. They will then receive great graces on earth and eternal life later on. They that explain me shall have life everlasting life.  Ecclus. 24:31
Another story on how saying rosaries can earn you salvation:
Later on, when she was at prayer she fell into ecstasy and had a vision of her soul appearing before the Supreme Judge. Saint Michael put all her penances and to her prayers on one side of the scale and all her sins and imperfections on the other. The tray of her good works were greatly outweighed by that of her sins and imperfections.
Filled with alarm, she cried out for mercy, imploring the help of the Blessed Virgin, her gracious advocate, who took the one and only Rosary she had said for her penance and dropped it on the tray of her good works. This one Rosary was so heavy that it weighed more than all her sins as well as her good works. Our Lady then reproved her for having refused to follow the counsel of her servant Dominic and for not saying the Rosary every day.
As soon as she came to herself she rushed and threw herself at the feet of Saint Dominic and told him all that had happened, begged his forgiveness and promised to say the Rosary faithfully every day. By this means she rose to Christian perfection and finally to the glory of everlasting life.
Popes on the sure and most efficacious means for help from heaven:
We constantly seek for help from Heaven - the sole means of effecting anything - that our labours and our care may obtain their wished for object. We deem that there could be no surer and more efficacious means to this end than by religion and piety to obtain the favour of the great Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, the guardian of our peace and the minister to us of heavenly grace, who is placed on the highest summit of power and glory in Heaven, in order that she may bestow the help of her patronage on men who through so many labours and dangers are striving to reach that eternal city. Now that the anniversary, therefore, of manifold and exceedingly great favours obtained by a Christian people through the devotion of the Rosary is at hand, We desire that that same devotion should be offered by the whole Catholic world with the greatest earnestness to the Blessed Virgin, that by her intercession her Divine Son may be appeased and softened in the evils which afflict us. And therefore We determined, Venerable Brethren, to despatch to you these letters in order that, informed of Our designs, your authority and zeal might excite the piety of your people to conform themselves to them. (ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO XIII ON DEVOTION OF THE ROSARY)
A decree to perform them:
We decree and order that in the whole Catholic world, during this year, the devotion of the Rosary shall be solemnly celebrated by special and splendid services. From the first day of next October, therefore, until the second day of the November following, in every parish and, if the ecclesiastical authority deem it opportune and of use, in every chapel dedicated to the Blessed Virgin - let five decades of the Rosary be recited with the addition of the Litany of Loreto. (SUPREMI APOSTOLATUS OFFICIO, ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO XIII ON DEVOTION OF THE ROSARY)
The importance of the Rosary to a Pope:
With these words, dear brothers and sisters, I set the first year of my Pontificate within the daily rhythm of the Rosary. Today, as I begin the twenty-fifth year of my service as the Successor of Peter, I wish to do the same. How many graces have I received in these years from the Blessed Virgin through the Rosary: Magnificat anima mea Dominum! I wish to lift up my thanks to the Lord in the words of his Most Holy Mother, under whose protection I have placed my Petrine ministry: Totus Tuus! (ROSARIUM VIRGINIS MARIAE OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF JOHN PAUL II)
Obviously, when you have Mary depicted as being more merciful and knowledgeable than the son, and devotion to her specifically saving this person from the punishment of Christ, you’ve another rival deity who is more approachable, foresighted and merciful than Christ Himself. You also deny Christ’s work on the cross.
>>How is that a “strawman”?
Because it is probably an inaccurate portrayal of reality. He gave us the one objection that he could respond to in a way that would give the Protestants no answer. He said, “The most common”. OK. Where are his numbers? What is the basis of his polling to prove the veracity of those numbers?
I do know English...and I know logic...and I know statistics. And I know BS.
As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy. 45 Blessed is she who has believed that the Lord would fulfill his promises to her!
So she uses Lord to mean Jesus and then uses the same exact word a sentence later to mean something different entirely....God.
Thank you for that! And still they deny their worship of Mary. Unbelievable beyond words.
As someone pointed out upthread, the Holy Spirit is God as well as the Father.
By saying *mother of God*, it makes no distinction between the different members of the Trinity.
The excuse of using the term as a means of correcting erroneous teaching about Jesus isn’t a very effective one.
If there was erroneous teaching about the divinity of Jesus which needed correction, the better method would have been to address the teaching itself rather than renaming Mary, which is no more than treating a symptom at best, while leaving the illness uncured. The problem is that it doesn’t inherently lead to better teaching about Jesus. It opens the door wide to yet more erroneous teaching, and that concerning Mary. It solves nothing.
Renaming Mary as the *mother of God* is not an improvement as it really says a different thing than *mother of Jesus* argument about His divinity notwithstanding.
By that weak argument, of saying that.....
Mary is the mother of Jesus.
Jesus is God.
Therefore, Mary is the mother of God.
Then one could argue that....
Mary is the mother of God.
The Holy Spirit is God.
Therefore, Mary is the mother of the Holy Spirit.
Mary is the mother of God.
The father is God.
Therefore, Mary is the mother of the Father.
If the Holy Spirit thought that naming Mary as the mother of God would ensure that correct teaching about Jesus, that it would be the result, surely He would have used the term in the first place.
I see no reason to *correct* the work of the Holy Spirit, as if what He did was lacking or inadequate, which is what whoever made that decision is saying.
I’m going to save your post to Mrs. Don-o. It was perfect. If someone can argue with THAT, there’s no helping them. Not in this world. Thank you!
“Because it is probably an inaccurate portrayal of reality.”
Really? First, he did NOT pose a “strawman” as that argument is often used - even here on this thread (see post 28). Second, that negates your argument here that it is an “ inaccurate portrayal of reality.” - again, since even here on this thread, it IS reality.
Finally, in the body of his position statement, he acknowledges that this is simply, “The most common objection ...”, NOT the only one.
ANOTHER great post regarding Mary! WHO can argue with this and walk away with a straight face?!