Martin Luther and John Calvin and the term "Mother of God"

[RickD]

Kurieuo wrote:
A better way to communicate such would be to say Mary is Mother of God, yet did not beget God who is unmade.

That's exactly what I've been trying to say. The term should be used with qualifiers. Simply saying "Mother of God", can be understood as saying the eternal God has a mother, who existed before eternity. Which makes no sense. We need to qualify, not because we don't understand the term, but because those to whom we are speaking, may not understand.

Granted. In that case you ought to be qualifying it rather than refusing to use it on emotional grounds.

Isn't that what I've been saying? I will not use it without qualifiers.

Sheesh! Some people love to make people into heretics!

[Byblos]

Kurieuo wrote:
A better way to communicate such would be to say Mary is Mother of God, yet did not beget God who is unmade.

That's exactly what I've been trying to say. The term should be used with qualifiers. Simply saying "Mother of God", can be understood as saying the eternal God has a mother, who existed before eternity. Which makes no sense. We need to qualify, not because we don't understand the term, but because those to whom we are speaking, may not understand.

Granted. In that case you ought to be qualifying it rather than refusing to use it on emotional grounds.

Isn't that what I've been saying? I will not use it without qualifiers.

Sheesh! Some people love to make people into heretics!

Good. Just as long as you qualify the Trinity on the same grounds and with the same veracity.

[RickD]

Kurieuo wrote:
A better way to communicate such would be to say Mary is Mother of God, yet did not beget God who is unmade.

That's exactly what I've been trying to say. The term should be used with qualifiers. Simply saying "Mother of God", can be understood as saying the eternal God has a mother, who existed before eternity. Which makes no sense. We need to qualify, not because we don't understand the term, but because those to whom we are speaking, may not understand.

Granted. In that case you ought to be qualifying it rather than refusing to use it on emotional grounds.

Isn't that what I've been saying? I will not use it without qualifiers.

Sheesh! Some people love to make people into heretics!

Good. Just as long as you qualify the Trinity on the same grounds and with the same veracity.

I have always had to qualify the trinity when speaking about it to those who don't hold to the doctrine. When has the Trinity not needed an explanation to those who don't understand it?

[Kurieuo]

In a way, I feel Nestorius was setup via the language used. It'd be good to read his writings, but sadly, like many ideas considered heretical, they were destroyed.

He would have been better accepting the term Theotokos, but then focusing on a Marian doctrine that defined her own nature rather than Christ's nature. Unless of course, he was an Adoptionist. I only have a shallow reading of him.

It's sad such falling out, like many other of the time, couldn't have been more civil amongst Christians. I have no doubt a lot of politics were at play, especially Roman. These are certainly not silly matters, but many Christians were persecuted for their ideas by other Christians, but together they all played an important role in coherently defining many important Christian doctrines taken for granted today.

[RickD]

You said you have an issue with the term 'Mother of God' because it is not FOUND in scripture, not inferred, found. So yes, I am asking you to show me where the term 'Jesus IS God' in scripture. If it is not found, then I wonder why you dont give that the same weight as you do Mother of God. Why the inconsistency?

Why? Have you read this thread? And how after thinking about the issue, I said that while I believe that "Mother of God" is technically correct, I have my reason for not wanting to personally use the term without qualification?

Have you taken the same obtuse pill that Jac has been prescribed?

So you are content not answering questions, being inconsistemt, perpetuating a heresy detrimental to the faith (though admittedly you dont believe it yourself) all because you are uncomfortable with being associated with Catholicism. Clearly it is nothing but an emotional argument and to that I simply say...whatever.

What question did I fail to answer?

How am I perpetuating a heresy? I told you that the term is technically correct. Explain how that's perpetuating a heresy.

I suppose, that since I personally don't drink alcohol, then that means I'm perpetuating the belief that drinking alcohol is wrong?

For the last time, it is technically correct to say that Mary is the mother of God. I'm agreeing with you. I just don't want to personally use that term! It is not wrong for Christians to drink alcohol. I just don't personally want to drink.

Edit***

And yes, I've said in this thread, that I believe it may be an emotional argument on my part, due to how it is used as part of Marian beliefs in Catholicism.

What I'm not doing, is telling Christians not to use the term themselves. It's technically correct.

I'm not making an argument for not using the term. Use it. Don't use it.

I hope that clears things up at least a little.

Clarity is not the issue, it is consistency. You know very well there are sects who claim to be Christian but deny the Trinity and the divinity of Christ on the same grounds that it is not found in scripture and that it was a Catholic invention.
Though you believe in the Trinity, why is it that you do not have the same reservations using the term Trinity as you do Mother of God?

Because I haven't noticed that the term "Trinity" is used almost exclusively by Catholics, like "Mother of God" is.

Just google "Mother of God". How many links that aren't catholic, use it? When searching the term, the hits are almost exclusively catholic.

[Philip]

Perhaps because, while technically correct, the term MOG is widely misunderstood and misused by vast millions - and so Rick, like me, doesn't like to use terminology that encourages or may gloss over such false belief - wherever and whatever entity it comes from. At FACE value/per very common understandings of the term, it communicates something false. So, those arguing with long pedantics over the technicality of various theological terms, oftentimes get so obsessed over explaining the technicalities, yet without addressing the false beliefs of millions using certain terminology. Again, the issue far transcends just teachings of the CC.

Even speaking of the Trinity, I may not typically use that term unless it necessary to what is being discussed or asserted. When speaking to those of various unScriptural beliefs, we have to be careful in using terminology that they think means one thing, but which from your point of view, means quite another. Of course, if so much hyper Mary stuff did not abound in the CC, people wouldn't be as wary. Is that Catholic prejudice? No, it's prejudice or disagreement based upon what ever TEACHINGS one has a problem with, and regardless of what group, large or small, is teaching it. So, accusations of "Catholic prejudice" (or "____________ prejudice," are often a red herring!

[B. W.]

Let me state that it is a personal reason why I do not like the use the term, Mother of God.

I hold no ill will toward anyone who chooses to use it, nor will I condemn those who use it which ever Greek language term they use. If it helps them understand Philippians chapter two, so be it.

The bible is however clear, God alone is worshiped, none other. With that said, is said.

Have a nice day all...
-
-
-

[RickD]

Let me state that it is a personal reason why I do not like the use the term, Mother of God.

I hold no ill will toward anyone who chooses to use it, nor will I condemn those who use it which ever Greek language term they use. If it helps them understand Philippians chapter two, so be it.

The bible is however clear, God alone is worshiped, none other. With that said, is said.

Have a nice day all...
-
-
-

I sure am glad I'm not the only heretic here! Looks like Philip may be too. We can all be stuck in Parricide together.

[RickD]

Byblos and Jac,

I'm sorry for getting you guys all riled up over this issue. To show there are no hard feelings on my end, today I went out and got a Mother of God tattoo.


When my hair grows back, it'll cover her up. But I'll still know she's there.

[Jac3510]

Pshhh. Not good enough, Rick. Unless you get a MoG tattoo on your entire back like I did . . .



Then you clearly haven't TRULY believed the gospel, you hellboundheretic.




fakeedit:

Can you imagine how that's going to look in thirty years?!? No wonder God hates tattoos . . .

[RickD]

I couldn't get a MoG back tattoo. My back is reserved for Star Wars.

Jac wrote:
Can you imagine how that's going to look in thirty years?!? No wonder God hates tattoos . . .

How can God hate His own mother as a tattoo?

[Kurieuo]

For you Ricky: https://youtu.be/KLpIexoF-1A?t=15s

[Jac3510]

Obviously because it doesn't do justice to the perfection and utter beauty that is the righteous woman, the Mother of God. Her depiction in mere blue and white on the temporary canvas of human skin cannot begin to compare with her eternal heavenly glory and the reality that is hers by the eternal and pretemporal grace of God to choose, and to even perfectly fashion, the one who would be fit to conceive, carry, and bear God Himself in the womb. Why, if Moses' face shown after spending but a moment in the presence of God, how must not Mary's countenance have lifted even the saddest and most destitute of all human spirits with but a moment in her wonderful and unspeakable conversation? Oh, but a favorable look from her must compel the God of the Universe to long for the salvation of that object so dearly the their election is all but assured, nay, as assured as the election of Christ Himself!

So a tattoo? In thirty years? Nah. Totally not worth it.

[RickD]

For you Ricky: https://youtu.be/KLpIexoF-1A?t=15s

[RickD]

Obviously because it doesn't do justice to the perfection and utter beauty that is the righteous woman, the Mother of God. Her depiction in mere blue and white on the temporary canvas of human skin cannot begin to compare with her eternal heavenly glory and the reality that is hers by the eternal and pretemporal grace of God to choose, and to even perfectly fashion, the one who would be fit to conceive, carry, and bear God Himself in the womb. Why, if Moses' face shown after spending but a moment in the presence of God, how must not Mary's countenance have lifted even the saddest and most destitute of all human spirits with but a moment in her wonderful and unspeakable conversation? Oh, but a favorable look from her must compel the God of the Universe to long for the salvation of that object so dearly the their election is all but assured, nay, as assured as the election of Christ Himself!

So a tattoo? In thirty years? Nah. Totally not worth it.

K,

I think you meant that song for Jac. I think he's officially lost his marbles. All of them.