I refer to Mary as the Lord's mother. You might not be happy about that, but I'm sure the Lord is.
Why Christians Call Mary the Mother of God.
- Thread starter Moonwood
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Here's a link to a site (one of many) that presents a small part of the symbolism connecting the ark to the Lord Jesus Christ. A complete analysis would take a book.
JimKnox
Well-Known Member
You tripped over yourself right from the start.
Acts ch 1:15-26.
Peter tells you by the power of the Holy Spirit the QUALIFICATIONS of an Apostle. This is not presumption. That conclusion is nonsense.
This is not some internet warrior with a code name like david1706 inventing some 20th century nonsense. Peter is one of the twelve AND one of the authors of Holy Scripture. Peter knew the qualifications for an Apostle far more than you.
The Roman Catholics HATE the authority of Scripture. Apparently, so do you?
That's all I got to say to you.
If you're going to be arrogant (and I don't recommend it), you should at least ensure that you are correct...
If those are the necessary qualifications of an apostle (in Acts 1:15-26), then please explain how Paul could be an apostle, since he does not meet the criteria mentioned there and he was definitely an apostle, chosen personally by the Lord (not by lot, from a choice of two, selected by men).
By the way, my moniker is David1701, not "david1706".
I'm protestant David.
But we need to put aside the general attitude that the CC is wrong about everything...this might even be called discrimination.
If we want to say that Mary is not the mother of God...
then we have to say that maybe Jesus is not God.
Here's the problem, as I see it:
We tend to think of Father when we say God.
So it needs to be clarified that the statement does NOT mean that Mary created Father,,,
or that Mary created the Trinity/Godhead.
This would be pretty dumb and Catholicism might have some doctrine we don't agree with,,,
but their theologians are NOT dumb.
It's a simple statement:
MARY IS THE MOTHER OF GOD.
If we reject it...
we reject the divinity of Jesus.
Plain and simple.
You are correct.
Also, Paul is an Apostle and this was accepted by the others.
Ephesians 1:1
1This letter is from Paul, chosen by the will of God to be an apostle of Christ Jesus.
Others were also called Apostle.
Barnabas:
Acts 14:1-3
1The same thing happened in Iconium.a Paul and Barnabas went to the Jewish synagogue and preached with such power that a great number of both Jews and Greeks became believers.
2Some of the Jews, however, spurned God’s message and poisoned the minds of the Gentiles against Paul and Barnabas.
3But the apostles stayed there a long time, preaching boldly about the grace of the Lord.
I believe that the @David1701 might be conflating being an Apostle, with the fact that for writings to be authorized as scripture one of the qualifications was that it had to be written by an Apostle,,,or one immediately connected to an Apostle.
Which fits in fine because Barnabas' writings almost did become scripture.
I do not presume to speak for him,,,
just a thought.
JimKnox
Well-Known Member
Had you been reading your Bible, my friend, you could answer your own question.
Paul said he was an apostle "as one born out of time".
IOW, he DID see the LORD and he intimates that he was taught directly by the risen Christ while he was "three whole years in the desert".
Besides which, Paul was trained by Gamaliel and had spent time in Jerusalem DURING the period of Christ's earthly ministry. He was among those who stoned Stephen.
C'mon. You obviously know these things.
I don't have the attitude that the RCC is wrong about everything. It's their distinctives that are wrong, but there are many of them and some are very serious indeed.
My objections to the expression "Mother of God" (they capitalise "Mother", turning it into a title), are that it gives the impression of elevating Mary to a special status, above everyone except Jesus himself, as well as glossing over the fact that Jesus was God already, before he became incarnate (I know they believe that though), and the Bible does not use the expression.
I know that R.C. theologians are not stupid; in fact, they are often highly sophisticated in their attempts to make it look as if their distinctive teachings do not contradict God's word.
The issue is not that Jesus was God, nor that Mary was his mother (these are incontestable); the issue is the expression itself (especially with a capital "M" in mother), and the their reasons for using it.
Is He one Person or two?
He is ONE Person with two natures.
Mary gave birth to one person...not two.
Scripture has been posted David.
Not much more to say.
There are more than 14 Apostles named in the NT.....
The original 12
Matthias
Paul
Barnabas....that's 15 there and there are more.
Of course I know those things; but, they are irrelevant to this discussion.
Peter's criteria for being an apostle included:
Acts 1:21,22 (KJV)
21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.
Paul had obviously not companied with the apostles; in fact, he persecuted them! There is also no evidence that Matthias was a witness to anyone about anything; but, Paul's witness is in much of the N.T..
This is one reason why it's risky to get your doctrine from Acts, without comparing the epistles: Acts is, primarily, an inspired record of events, not a doctrinal book. The apostles sometimes made mistakes (e.g. Peter had to be rebuked openly for hypocrisy; and there was a sharp contention between Paul and Barnabas, leading to them splitting up their ministry partnership).
Here is list of reasons why Paul is far more likely to have been God's replacement than Matthias.
"Factors Which Question the Actions of the Apostles
(1) The action taken was prior to Pentecost, before the Holy Spirit had come upon the apostles to guide them.
(2) The apostles were “taking action” when Jesus had specifically commanded them to wait, until the Spirit had come on them.
(3) Jesus had chosen all of the other apostles (cf. 1:2), and He had given them no command to choose a replacement for Judas.
(4) While there is a minimal reference to “the twelve” later on, Matthias is never again specifically referred to in the New Testament. Why is so much attention giving to the choice of a man who is then ignored throughout the rest of the New Testament?
(5) The context surrounding this incident does not suggest that it was a decision prompted by a command of the Lord, a biblical imperative, or the guidance of the Spirit. I have mentally labeled this section, “Doing What Comes Naturally.” It seems that the apostles were, along with the rest, acting on their own, apart from any clear imperative or command. In the immediate context, the disciples seem preoccupied, and Jesus had to turn their attention toward things other than what they had in mind. The angels had to spur the group on, rather than to stand on the mount, looking into the sky. The immediately preceding context suggests that the apostles still had things out of focus, while the immediately following context (Pentecost) informs us that the Spirit’s coming was not yet, and thus suggests that the apostles were acting on their own initiative, and not that of God.
(6) The motivation of the apostles might seem suspect, when considered in light of their past thinking and actions. You will recall from the Gospel accounts that the disciples were eager for the kingdom to come, but from a motivation of self-interest, from a desire for position, power, and prestige. They were even competitive with one another. Why then the urgency for the position of the twelfth apostle to be filled? It could be suggested that it was because the disciples felt the kingdom could not come until there were twelve apostles in place, so that there would be twelve thrones filled in order that the twelve tribes could be judged. This would be a reasonable conclusion, based upon our Lord’s words to the disciples in Luke 22:30, spoken shortly before His betrayal, arrest, and crucifixion.
(7) While Peter’s interpretation of the Old Testament Scriptures to which he referred may well have been sound, the inferences he drew from them are possibly more suspect. Jesus Himself linked Old Testament prophecy to His betrayal by Judas. He cited Psalm 41:9 in John 13:18 and 26. Peter seems to allude to the text in Psalm 41:9 cited by our Lord, but he specifically quoted from two passages from the Psalms. The first citation was from Psalm 69:25; the second was from Psalm 109:8. If Peter’s interpretation of these two texts as being prophetic is correct, I am not certain his interpretation necessarily follows from them. In the first citation from Psalm 69, the text Peter cited is this, “LET HIS HOMESTEAD BE MADE DESOLATE, AND LET NO MAN DWELL IN IT.”
(8) Now from the account of the fate of Judas, which Luke has given to us parenthetically in verses 18 and 19, who was it that made the homestead of Judas desolate? It was surely not the disciples nor was it anyone else who consciously did what they did in order to obey this prophecy. God fulfilled this prophecy. And so, when we come to the second statement, “HIS OFFICE LET ANOTHER MAN TAKE,” should we assume that there is anything called for here on the part of the apostles? I think not. If God fulfilled the first “LET …” from Psalm 69, why should the disciples feel obliged to fulfill the second “LET …” from Psalm 109? If the second citation were fulfilled in the same way the first was fulfilled, the disciples would not need to have done anything. I am not certain the Old Testament text requires anything of the disciples, but Peter and the others felt it did.
(9) The process used to choose Judas’ replacement seems somewhat suspect. At best, one can say that the selection of Matthias was carried out in an Old Testament fashion by the casting of lots. This method was never given to the disciples, nor is it ever found again in the New Testament as a means of determining who God has chosen to hold any office. The casting of lots allowed for a decision to be reached totally apart from divine intervention. Of course God can and does determine the outcome of the casting of lots (Proverbs 16:33), but is this the way God intended this decision to be made? The candidates were nominated, and the two candidates put before the Lord were chosen by the group, based on the requirements they themselves determined. They allowed God to choose between the two candidates. Somehow this seems sub-standard to me. The method employed by the group seems to put God in a box and to limit Him to the options men have placed before Him.
(10) Luke’s argument in Acts seems to challenge this action, because in Acts Paul’s apostleship seems to be affirmed at the expense of that of Matthias. Paul constantly stressed that his apostleship was the sovereign will and purpose of God, and not of man. He also spoke of himself as an equal with the rest of the apostles.3 And remember, Paul was also a witness of the resurrection of Christ, for he was stopped short by a vision of the Lord Himself, risen from the dead. If Paul’s apostleship is affirmed and Matthias’s apostleship is ignored, there is good reason to question the legitimacy of Matthias’ apostleship. There is at least some evidence to challenge the action taken by the apostles due to this emphasis on Paul’s apostleship."
BreadOfLife
Well-Known Member
- Jan 2, 2017
- 22,698
- 3,835
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
I don’t think you even know what a “Straw man” argument is.
What I gave you is an explanation of Catholic teaching based on Scripture and Linguistics. Unfortunately, YOU see everything through a 21st century English lens.
"Co-Redemptrix" doesn't place MAry on even keel with Jesus. She - and WE - work WITH Him for the sake of the good of the Body. We cooperate with God's grace . . .
Co-worker/Cooperator
Συνεργοσ - soon-er-gos'
1) a COMPANION in work, FELLOW worker
2) 1) to WORK TOGETHER, HELP in work, be PARTNER in labour
3) to put forth power together with and thereby to ASSIST
1 Cor. 3:9
We are COWORKERS belonging to God. You are God’s field, God’s building
2 Cor. 6:1
Now because we are FELLOW WORKERS, we also urge you not to receive the grace of God in vain.
Rom. 8:27-29
And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes on behalf of the saints according to God’s will. 28 And we know that all things WORK TOGETHER for good for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose, 29 because those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his
Maybe not.
In trying to resolve the problem that is created by stating that Mary is NOT the mother of God....
some have proposed an interesting solution.
It is this:
Mary is the mother of the human part of Jesus...
but not the divine part of Jesus.
This means that Jesus is two persons and not one.
A human person.
A divine person.
So,,wrong solution.
THIS is the solution.
Mary is the mother of God.
Good question.
So do we go with that
or with what scripture states?
YOU are the one presenting all sorts of problems with the CC because it does not use scripture but adheres to its own teachings.
You are doing what you accuse the CC of doing.
Scripture states that Matthias was chosen as an Apostle.
Acts 1:21-26
21“So now we must choose a replacement for Judas from among the men who were with us the entire time we were traveling with the Lord Jesus— 22from the time he was baptized by John until the day he was taken from us. Whoever is chosen will join us as a witness of Jesus’ resurrection.”
23So they nominated two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. 24Then they all prayed, “O Lord, you know every heart. Show us which of these men you have chosen 25as an apostle to replace Judas in this ministry, for he has deserted us and gone where he belongs.” 26Then they cast lots, and Matthias was selected to become an apostle with the other eleven.
° They chose from among those who were with the Apostles the entire time of traveling with Jesus.
° They all prayed. Prayer was always offered to God...not just after Pentecost.
° Matthias was selected to become an Apostle with the other eleven.
Skimmed through.
It does not have to be a choice between Paul and Matthias.
It could be both.
I have never said that Mary is not the mother of God (in the sense that Jesus is God and man). That, as I've explained, is not the problem that I have with the R.C. expression "Mother of God".
Similar threads
