Evidence for God from Science

Jac3510 wrote:

RickD wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:*shrug* Then you are reducing Mary to a surrogate and claiming that Jesus has no mother at all.

For such an intelligent person, you can really say some ignorant things.

Because I don't like using the term, "Mother of God", to you that means I claim Jesus has no mother.

Good Jac. That's really good.

No, not "to me." The logic is necessary and inescapable. You don't accept the translation "mother of God." You accept the translation "God-bearer" or "one who gives birth to God." A person who bears or gives birth, but who is not a mother, is, by definition, a surrogate. If Mary was not Jesus' mother but rather simply His surrogate, then He had no mother. If, on the other hand, Jesus had a true mother, and if that woman was Mary, then since Jesus is God, Mary is the Mother of God. It is absolutely inescapable. The fact that you simply won't accept that makes you an awful lot like Kenny or our resident gappist on this particular subject. Willful blindness and intentional, irrational rejection of a proposition is the worst sort, as you well know.

I guess you didn't read what I actually said. I said that I don't like "using" the term, "Mother of God". Again, for a smart person, you really can be obtuse. You're making this into something it's not.

B. W. wrote:Well, I do not like the term, Mother of God, either as that was not how she is described in the bible but rather as Mary the mother of Jesus.

Mother of God phrase can be traced to Ishtar and Tammuz and was used to wean folks off of the paganism of that era.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tammuz_(deity)

To say that Mary is the mother of God would mean God had a beginning - a mother which begs the questions where did this mother come from and who was the dad and next you are back into paganism of Babylon.

Mary bore the incarnate Jesus into the world so God and man can become reconciled. Great is that mystery!
-
-
-

You don't like the term? You heretic! You're willfully blind! Thus sayeth The Lord Jac!

Christian2 wrote:I understand that Martin Luther and John Calvin used the term "Mother of God" when referring to the Virgin Mary.

Why?

In Martin Luther's case was this a "hold over" from his Catholic upbringing?

How did John Calvin view Mary? As "mother of God"?

I understand that the Virgin Mary carried the Son of God (incarnate Word of God) in her womb, but that Mary had nothing to do with the divinity of the Messiah; she provided His human nature. I understand that since Jesus was the incarnated Word of God, she carried the incarnate Word of God.

I think the term "Mother of God" unfortunate, or misleading, since it implies that Mary carried the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Protestants today do not call the Virgin Mary the "Mother of God." What changed?

What do you guys think?

Thanks.

Well Christian2,

I hope we gave you something to think about. After this thread, I've concluded that while technically, "Mother of God" is correct, the fact that it is so closely associated with the unbiblical Marian beliefs in Catholicism, that I cannot use the term, without qualification.

So, while technically the term is right, the fact that scripture itself never uses the term, "Mother of God" to describe Mary, that should make us think about whether we should use it.

Please show me where scripture says Jesus IS God.

Byblos wrote:Please show me where scripture says Jesus IS God.

Show you where the term, "Jesus is God" is in the Bible? Or show you where the Bible says that Jesus is God, without using the term?

Again Byblos, I'm not arguing that Mary isn't Jesus' mother, nor am I arguing that Jesus isn't God.

My concern is specifically with the term, "Mother of God" used without qualification, precisely because of how the CC has hijacked the term to use it to justify their extra-biblical beliefs/dogma regarding Mary.

I know you don't agree, you're catholic. But at least understand my argument.

RickD wrote:

Byblos wrote:Please show me where scripture says Jesus IS God.

Show you where the term, "Jesus is God" is in the Bible? Or show you where the Bible says that Jesus is God, without using the term?

Again Byblos, I'm not arguing that Mary isn't Jesus' mother, nor am I arguing that Jesus isn't God.

My concern is specifically with the term, "Mother of God" used without qualification, precisely because of how the CC has hijacked the term to use it to justify their extra-biblical beliefs/dogma regarding Mary.

I know you don't agree, you're catholic. But at least understand my argument.

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?

Byblos wrote:

RickD wrote:

Byblos wrote:Please show me where scripture says Jesus IS God.

Show you where the term, "Jesus is God" is in the Bible? Or show you where the Bible says that Jesus is God, without using the term?

Again Byblos, I'm not arguing that Mary isn't Jesus' mother, nor am I arguing that Jesus isn't God.

My concern is specifically with the term, "Mother of God" used without qualification, precisely because of how the CC has hijacked the term to use it to justify their extra-biblical beliefs/dogma regarding Mary.

I know you don't agree, you're catholic. But at least understand my argument.

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?

RickD wrote:

Byblos wrote:

RickD wrote:

Byblos wrote:Please show me where scripture says Jesus IS God.

Show you where the term, "Jesus is God" is in the Bible? Or show you where the Bible says that Jesus is God, without using the term?

Again Byblos, I'm not arguing that Mary isn't Jesus' mother, nor am I arguing that Jesus isn't God.

My concern is specifically with the term, "Mother of God" used without qualification, precisely because of how the CC has hijacked the term to use it to justify their extra-biblical beliefs/dogma regarding Mary.

I know you don't agree, you're catholic. But at least understand my argument.

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 inconsistent, 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.

Theotokos was a phrase used to make a point against Nestorianism. It served to highlight an important Christian issue surrounding what to make of Christ's divine and human natures.

Nestorius was much more comfortable with the term Christotokos (mother of Christ). Yet, then such focuses more on Christ's humanity, and the end result of that can be Adoptionist thinking -- that God merely adopted Jesus, a human being, as His Son -- rather than the Son being Divine coming and taking on the the form of man. It should be apparent we ought to reject Adoptionism, since Christ indeed was divine and is attributed with creating all things that were created (John 1). The person that we identify as "the Son" is revealed the OT on many occasions as the "Angel of the Lord" e.g., Moses and the burning bush. The Son therefore didn't only exist once conceived in Mary's womb as Jesus, but was the Son and begotten of God pre-Jesus.

So then, it is true, Mary is Mother of God but only via communicatio idiomatum, which means communication of properties between Christ's divine and human natures. What is true of the Son in his human nature is true of the Son in His divine nature, and then vice-versa. Mary therefore is logically both "Mother of Christ" and "Mother of God", in that God the Son willingly chose to be born in human form as Jesus of Nazareth.

Yet, one should I see carefully unpack what such means, Mary does not share in God's divinity, being divine herself, yet she does share in Christ's humanity since it was in her womb Jesus was conceived and through her that Jesus was born. I personally think there is a correct repulsiveness to be had by the term itself if left unexplained, however such repulsiveness is laid to rest when one unpacks what is actually meant.

A better way to communicate such would be to say Mary is Mother of God, yet did not beget God who is unmade. Perhaps a mixture of Chsito-Theotokos and Nicene Creed saying, Mary is Christotokos, Christ who is the only begotten of God "before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father" and in this way, is Mary correctly called Theotokos.

Byblos wrote:

RickD wrote:

Byblos wrote:

RickD wrote:

Byblos wrote:Please show me where scripture says Jesus IS God.

Show you where the term, "Jesus is God" is in the Bible? Or show you where the Bible says that Jesus is God, without using the term?

Again Byblos, I'm not arguing that Mary isn't Jesus' mother, nor am I arguing that Jesus isn't God.

My concern is specifically with the term, "Mother of God" used without qualification, precisely because of how the CC has hijacked the term to use it to justify their extra-biblical beliefs/dogma regarding Mary.

I know you don't agree, you're catholic. But at least understand my argument.

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.

Jac3510 wrote:

RickD wrote:I deny Mary is the mother of God, yet I don't deny Jesus is one person with two natures. Nor do I deny his divinity.

You, personally, don't deny the unity of Jesus' personhood. Your logic, however, necessarily entails such a denial. In that regard, you are like LS proponents who insist that they think you can have objective assurance of salvation even though their position necessarily denies it. And, hey, better to personally deny a heresy than be logically consistent and affirm a heresy. But better still not to hold a position that logically entails a heresy.

Re: "unity of Jesus' personhood" we must take care not veer off too far in the other direction towards Monophysitism, Oh, the joys of Theology and Christology, there are many heresies at almost every turn.

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.

RickD wrote:

Byblos wrote:

RickD wrote:

Byblos wrote:

RickD wrote: Show you where the term, "Jesus is God" is in the Bible? Or show you where the Bible says that Jesus is God, without using the term?

Again Byblos, I'm not arguing that Mary isn't Jesus' mother, nor am I arguing that Jesus isn't God.

My concern is specifically with the term, "Mother of God" used without qualification, precisely because of how the CC has hijacked the term to use it to justify their extra-biblical beliefs/dogma regarding Mary.

I know you don't agree, you're catholic. But at least understand my argument.

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?

RickD wrote:

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.

Kurieuo wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:

RickD wrote:I deny Mary is the mother of God, yet I don't deny Jesus is one person with two natures. Nor do I deny his divinity.

You, personally, don't deny the unity of Jesus' personhood. Your logic, however, necessarily entails such a denial. In that regard, you are like LS proponents who insist that they think you can have objective assurance of salvation even though their position necessarily denies it. And, hey, better to personally deny a heresy than be logically consistent and affirm a heresy. But better still not to hold a position that logically entails a heresy.

Re: "unity of Jesus' personhood" we must take care not veer off too far in the other direction towards Monophysitism, Oh, the joys of Theology and Christology, there are many heresies at almost every turn.

Just to clarify, when I said that I deny Mary is the mother of God, I meant in the sense that she did not exist before God. Nor is she queen of heaven, etc.

I'm not saying that she is not the mother of Emmanuel.

If I haven't made that clear.

And I know that theotokos isn't saying that Mary preexisted God. But, as I said before, it can be understood that way, so qualifying the term helps.