Replies

Question (Q): So why didn’t the Holy Spirit inspire the writers to call her “mother of God”?

Response (R): Throughout the Gospels, the writers used the term Jesus when referring to Him. Jesus went, Jesus said, Jesus prayed, etc. In the same way, the writers referred to Mary as the mother of Jesus.

Q: So you can separate the nature of God but not the nature of Jesus the man?

R: This is the central mystery of our faith. How there is one God but three separate and distinct persons, each of whom is God, whole and entire. Are you not doing the reverse, separating the nature of Jesus but not of God?

Q: You say you are looking for answers but I’m sensing you looking more to re-inforce prior beliefs.

R: What I am looking for is an understanding of how someone can hold that Mary is not the mother of God. Admittedly, it has reinforced my beliefs.

It appears that the Nestorian doctrine is at play, but I can’t figure out how, with Jesus being God whole and entire, it can be said that Mary is the mother of the Son of God without also saying that Mary is the mother of God.

Maybe an answer to the following would help.

Matthew says that the angel of the Lord told Mary that she will give birth to Jesus because he will save his people from sin. This took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel” (which means “God with us”).

Luke tells us that the angel Gabriel told Mary that she will conceive and give birth to a son who will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High and will be called the Son of God.

Does this mean we can say that Mary is:

the mother of the one who will save his people from sin?
the mother of Immanuel (God with us)?
the mother of the Son of the Most High?
the mother of the Son of God?

If not, why not?

>> In the same way, the writers referred to Mary as the mother of Jesus.<<

Well, that was a non answer.<<

>>This is the central mystery of our faith.<<

I can see that it is.

>>Are you not doing the reverse, separating the nature of Jesus but not of God?<<

Just as I do the three natures of God. Separate and distinct persons just as your statement God is three separate and distinct persons. But you claim Jesus does not have separate and distinct persons. Catholicism says they cannot be viewed as separate and distinct thus they claim Mary to be the "mother of God". Jesus said God had forsaken Him on the cross. Did God forsake the God part of Jesus? In other words, did God forsake part of Himself?

>>What I am looking for is an understanding of how someone can hold that Mary is not the mother of God.<<

Yeah, so I thought.

>>but I can’t figure out how, with Jesus being God whole and entire, it can be said that Mary is the mother of the Son of God without also saying that Mary is the mother of God.<<

Yet you can make the statement "there is one God but three separate and distinct persons". The disconnect in your thinking is striking.

>>the mother of the Son of God?<<

Then my mother can also say she is the mother of "the son of God".

Galatians 3:26 for ye are all sons of God through the faith in Christ Jesus,

Would you say my mother is the "mother of God"? I am after all a "son of God" per scripture. Your line of logic would say she should be.

Throughout the Gospels, the writers used the term Jesus when referring to Him. Jesus went, Jesus said, Jesus prayed, etc. In the same way, the writers referred to Mary as the mother of Jesus.

That response doesn't even begin to address the question CB asked.

This is the central mystery of our faith. How there is one God but three separate and distinct persons, each of whom is God, whole and entire. Are you not doing the reverse, separating the nature of Jesus but not of God?

IOW, it makes no sense and contradicts Scripture so well teach it anyway and call it a *mystery*.

So what's the heresy called when you deny the humanity of Jesus?

If Jesus is God, whole and entire, where's His huamnity?