Why Christians Call Mary the Mother of God.

[David1701]

You sound most intellectual.

I'm sure Jesus is most happy at how you refer to HIS MOTHER.

I refer to Mary as the Lord's mother. You might not be happy about that, but I'm sure the Lord is.

 

[David1701]

You won't get any argument from me.

There is literally too much to say about this.
Here is what some Father's stated:

Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296–373) was the main defender of the deity of Christ against the second-century heretics. He wrote: “O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O [Ark of the] Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides” (Homily of the Papyrus of Turin).

Gregory the Wonder Worker (c. 213–c. 270) wrote: “Let us chant the melody that has been taught us by the inspired harp of David, and say, ‘Arise, O Lord, into thy rest; thou, and the ark of thy sanctuary.’ For the Holy Virgin is in truth an ark, wrought with gold both within and without, that has received the whole treasury of the sanctuary” (Homily on the Annunciation to the Holy Virgin Mary).

The Catechism of the Catholic Church echoes the words from the earliest centuries: “Mary, in whom the Lord himself has just made his dwelling, is the daughter of Zion in person, the Ark of the Covenant, the place where the glory of the Lord dwells. She is ‘the dwelling of God . . . with men’” (CCC 2676).


Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant:

Golden Box: Ark of the Old Covenant	Mary: Ark of the New Covenant
The ark traveled to the house of Obed-edom in the hill country of Judea (2 Sam. 6:1-11).	Mary traveled to the house of Elizabeth and Zechariah in the hill country of Judea (Luke 1:39).
Dressed as a priest, David danced and leapt in front of the ark (2 Sam. 6:14).	John the Baptist – of priestly lineage – leapt in his mother’s womb at the approach of Mary (Luke 1:41).
David asks, “How can the ark of the Lord come to me?” (2 Sam. 6:9).	Elizabeth asks, “Why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” (Luke 1:43).
David shouts in the presence of the ark (2 Sam. 6:15).	Elizabeth “exclaimed with a loud cry” in the presence of Mary (Luke 1:42).
The ark remained in the house of Obed-edom for three months (2 Sam. 6:11).	Mary remained in the house of Elizabeth for three months (Luke 1:56).
The house of Obed-edom was blessed by the presence of the ark (2 Sam. 6:11).	The word blessed is used three times; surely the house was blessed by God (Luke 1:39-45).
The ark returns to its home and ends up in Jerusalem, where God’s presence and glory is revealed in the temple (2 Sam. 6:12; 1 Kgs. 8:9-11).	Mary returns home and eventually ends up in Jerusalem, where she presents God incarnate in the temple (Luke 1:56; 2:21-22).

Inside the Ark of the Old Covenant	Inside Mary, Ark of the New Covenant
The stone tablets of the law – the word of God inscribed on stone	The body of Jesus Christ – the word of God in the flesh
The urn filled with manna from the wilderness – the miraculous bread come down from heaven	The womb containing Jesus, the bread of life come down from heaven (John 6:41)
The rod of Aaron that budded to prove and defend the true high priest	The actual and eternal High Pries

source: Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant

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.

Topical Bible: Ark of the Covenant: A Type of Christ

 

[JimKnox]

1st: They listed the two whom they PRESUMED were qualified to take the place of Judas.
2nd: The casting of lots was an O.C. method of seeking God's will, before the Holy Spirit was given to indwell all believers.
3rd: They had only given God the choice of two people(!), so, of course the lot fell on one of them.
4th: None of the apostles had been chosen this way.
5th: Jesus did not cast lots to choose his disciples.
6th: Paul was chosen by personal encounter with the Lord (as all the others had been).
7th: Matthias is never heard from again.
8th: Paul wrote much of the N.T., and we hear a lot about him in Acts.

You presume your doctrine, beyond what God has described (to proscribe is to prohibit...).

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.

 

[David1701]

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".

 

[GodsGrace]

I refer to Mary as the Lord's mother. You might not be happy about that, but I'm sure the Lord is.

Is the Lord God?

 

[GodsGrace]

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.

Topical Bible: Ark of the Covenant: A Type of Christ

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.

 

[GodsGrace]

You are in error.
1st: they listed who was QUALIFIED to take the place of Judas.
2nd. They cast lots which was the fore ordained method for seeking God's will in a course of action.
3rd. The lot fell on Mathias.

You presuppose your doctrine beyond what God has proscribed.

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.