 |
When St. Elizabeth greets Mary the Mother of Jesus, she says:
Luke 1 43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
I believe she is recognizing that Jesus is God and therefore means Mother of my God.
What do you think she means?
Lord simply means a person in authority. It's use is not exclusive to God. If you want to see someone refer to God, look at what Thomas said:
John 20:27-28
28 And Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!"
NKJV
If "my lord" meant "My God", then Thomas would not have added the "My God" comment. But He did because it is important to note that Jesus is not just Lord (which could mean that He was just a man with authority), but He is also God.
Mary is referred to as "mother of my lord", not "mother of God" or "mother of my God". She was the mother of Jesus in the flesh, not the mother of His divinity. Jesus' divinity pre-existed Mary and therefore she could not have been the mother of God.
Yes I agree with Tj. 1 Pet 3:6 speaks of Sarah calling her husband Abraham "Lord" but I'm sure she didn't think he was God. It was a sign of respect and recognision of authority as Tj mentioned.
That is a Hebrewism. Thomas is simply emphasizing that Jesus is God.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Why else would she speak of the child in Mary's womb as a person in authority?Quote:
Mary is referred to as "mother of my lord", not "mother of God" or "mother of my God". She was the mother of Jesus in the flesh, not the mother of His divinity. Jesus' divinity pre-existed Mary and therefore she could not have been the mother of God.
Are you saying that Elizabeth is denying that Jesus is God?
Sincerely,
De Maria
Does anybody think that Abraham is God?Quote:
Originally Posted by Moparbyfar
What do people mean when they say, "Jesus is Lord!"?
Sincerely,
De Maria
That is your assumption.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
The Jews, in Hebrew use the word "YHWH" which has been translated as Lord in the OT in many Bibles. It is, however, not the only word translated as lord, which is why you find that when it is YHWH that is translated as "lord", most Bibles put it in capital letters as "LORD".
In the NT, you will see that God is often referred to as lord, but so are others who are not God. That is why we find frequently use of the term "Lord God" to designate who is being referred to. We also find other indiactions when it is God. But lord does not always means God in either the OT or NT. Examples of exceptions are:
2 Sam 24:3
3 And Joab said to the king, "Now may the LORD your God add to the people a hundred times more than there are, and may the eyes of my lord the king see it. But why does my lord the king desire this thing?"
NKJV
Note the contrast between the submission to the lordship (authority) or God versus the lordship (authority) of the king? This is not suggesting that the king was God or thought to be a god, but rather it refers to the authority.
Matt 25:19-20
19 After a long time the lord of those servants came and settled accounts with them. 20 So he who had received five talents came and brought five other talents, saying, 'Lord, you delivered to me five talents; look, I have gained five more talents besides them.'
NKJV
Again, the lord of the servants - basically their boss.
The same is true of the House of Lords in Britain - are they all gods? Or is it with reference to their authority? Any person can be a lord, but there is only one who can be called "My Lord and My God".
Let's look at the dictionary definition:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lord
1. a person who has authority, control, or power over others; a master, chief, or ruler.
2. a person who exercises authority from property rights; an owner of land, houses, etc.
3. a person who is a leader or has great influence in a chosen profession: the great lords of banking.
4. a feudal superior; the proprietor of a manor.
5. a titled nobleman or peer; a person whose ordinary appellation contains by courtesy the title Lord or some higher title.
6. Lords, the Lords Spiritual and Lords Temporal comprising the House of Lords.
7. (initial capital letter) (in Britain)
a. the title of certain high officials (used with some other title, name, or the like): Lord Mayor of London.
b. the formally polite title of a bishop: Lord Bishop of Durham.
c. the title informally substituted for marquis, earl, viscount, etc. as in the use of Lord Kitchener for Earl Kitchener.
8. (initial capital letter) the Supreme Being; God; Jehovah.
9. (initial capital letter) the Savior, Jesus Christ.
10. Astrology. A planet having dominating influence.
–interjection
11. (often initial capital letter) (used in exclamatory phrases to express surprise, elation, etc.): Lord, what a beautiful day!
—Idiom
12. lord it, to assume airs of importance and authority; behave arrogantly or dictatorially; domineer: to lord it over the menial workers.
(Source: Dictionary.com)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice that every definition refers to a position of authority. Only 8 and 9 are specific to God, and even then it only refers to how Bibles choose to translate a present the text with all capitalization when, for example, YHWH is translated to LORD in the Old Testament.
So, No, despite your claim, "My Lord" does not mean the same as "My God"
They can mean many things. Some do not believe that He is God and are simply referring to His authority which they claim is simply delegated by God. Others speak of His authority as God. But in both cases, it is in reference to His authority, not His nature. Unless we had the specific indication in scripture that he is God, if all scripture said was that Jesus is a "lord", we would be hard pressed to claim, as a doctrine that He is God. The reason that we know for a fact that Jesus is God is because, from Genesis to Revelation, we are told that Jesus is God.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
All:Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Holding the view that Mary was NOT the mother of God is akin to the error Nestroianism. Nestorius (circa 425 A.D.) held the unorthodox view that the essence(s) of Christ were separated into two natures, the man Jesus and the God that was Christ. In failing to recognize that Mary is the Mother of God, this leads to the rejection of theotokos (Mother of God) replacing it with (Giving Birth to Christ) khristotokos. The Council of Ephesus rejected Nestorianism in 431 A.D.
To claim that Mary only carried the human nature of Christ is the same error. Mary didn't give birth to the nature of a child; she gave birth to the person of Christ.
Concluding, we see that by holding Christ as God, then Mary is the Mother of God. Hence, St. Elizabeth being in the presence of God, exclaimed to Mary, “…the mother of my Lord should come to me?”
JoeT
No it is not. No one is saying that Jesus is separated into two natures, but rather accepting the reality that Jesus is God and always was God who took upon Himself human flesh. He is therefore fully God and fully human, but was not always human. This doctrine is summarized in scripture:Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
1 Tim 3:16
16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:
God was manifested in the flesh,
Justified in the Spirit,
Seen by angels,
Preached among the Gentiles,
Believed on in the world,
Received up in glory.
NKJV
On the other hand, to claim that Mary is the mother of God expresses, in essence, 3 heresies:
1) Denial of the Trinity
If one argues that Mary is mother of God by giving birth to Jesus because Jesus is God, then the argument actually also by default says that God is Jesus. The second is a heresy because it omits the truth that God is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
2) Denial of the Eternal pre-existence of God
The claim that Mary is mother of God presumes that she pre-existed God. If she is in fact the vessel through whom jesus entered the world in the flesh, it expresses the Biblical truth that the eternal son of God also became man when born of Mary.
3) Exaltation of Mary to Godhood
If Mary was the mother of God, she also had to be God.
If you say that she gave birth to Christ, are you saying that Jesus was not Christ prior to His birth?
It is amazing how the same word can merely mean a person in Authority, so that is all Jesus is to you all, a person in authority?
And is it not the same wordas used in Luke 1:25, when he was speaking of God, or perhaps some other man of authority did all the works in Luke 1.
How silly one will not take the obvious use of the bible because the doctrine of your denomination refused to accept the bibical teachings of the Catholic Church.
1. About the most silly teaching, because Mary gave Birth to Jesus, that denies the entire trinity??Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
No, it means to many of the newer man created doctrines wishes to put limits on Gods power by defining a limit on what God can do in the creation of the Trinity, and of course forget that it is the Same Catholic church that helped in the defining of the Trinity. So in no way would they deny the trinity. What it does mean is that if the Trinity does exisit ( and it does) then that baby was Jesus , was God and was the Holy Spirit, and the baby had to be born,? So what else is Mary but the mother to all.
2. And again, there was not always a baby in her womb, it was created and Mary gave birth, he was not hatched, he was not beamed down, So Mary gave birth to Jesus, and thus ends that silly idea
3. Mary is honored and the bibie itself says she is blessed above all women, No one calls her a God,
Trying to show it as heresies merely goes to show the false nature of your claims to be any catholic expert at all, and in fact proves somewhat a false advertising since it is obvoius you know nothing of the true meaning and faith.
To believe in anything other than Theotokos is to believe that Jesus Christ was made and not begotten:
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible, and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God, begotten of his Father, that is, of the substance of the Father; God of God, Light of Light, Very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made, both those in heaven and those in the earth. Who for us men and for our salvation, came down, and was incarnate, and was made man. He suffered, and rose again the third day. He ascended into the heavens, from thence he shall come to judge both the quick and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost: But those that say, There was a time when he was not, and, before he was begotten he was not, and that he was made of that which previously was not, or that he was of some other substance or essence; and that the Son of God was capable of change or alteration; those the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes. Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431)
And
If anyone says that the Emmanuel is true God, and not rather God with us, that is, that he has united himself to a like nature with ours, which he assumed from the Virgin Mary, and dwelt in it; and if anyone calls Mary the mother of God the Word, and not rather mother of him who is Emmanuel; and if he maintains that God the Word has changed himself into the flesh, which he only assumed in order to make his Godhead visible, and to be found in form as a man, let him be anathema. . Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431)
JoeT
You missed what I said. I was quite clear about the nature of Jesus. Scripture is also quite clear. I also do not think that scripture errs in the description that is given of Mary's role.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck
Let me try an analogy for you. If you ran a packaging company and you were sent widgets to package, would it be correct to call you the manufacturer of the widgets because you put the widgets in the final packaging? Of course not, and a similar situation is true here. Jesus did not change - He was, and is and always has been, and always will be God. Mary was the vessel through whom He entered the world in the flesh.
Scripture is right to call her "mother of my lord" rather than "mother of God".
I have no denomination. I stand by what God's word says and that is why I reject the doctrine - it has nothing to do with what denomination put forward the doctrine. I would reject the doctrine on the basis of what scripture says regarding of whether your denomination says it, or Baptists, or Lutheran or any other denomination. The authority of God's word overrides any denominational authority. That is because God is Lord.Quote:
How silly one will not take the obvious use of the bible because the doctrine of your denomination refused to accept the bibical teachings of the Catholic Church.
Is God limited to being just Jesus? That is a form of modalism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck
That is right - the baby (flesh) that Mary gave birth to was created. God was not. Mary therefore cannot be the mother of God.Quote:
2. And again, there was not always a baby in her womb, it was created and Mary gave birth, he was not hatched, he was not beamed down, So Mary gave birth to Jesus, and thus ends that silly idea
Mary was indeed honoured to be chosen by God to be the vessel through whom Jesus entered the world. And whether anyone calls her God, if she is the mother of God, that effectively makes her God. One of the doctors of the RCC, Alphonse Liguori gives Mary the attributes of omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence. He says that she must be worshiped and that even God bends His knee to Her. Sounds pretty much like he is making her God.Quote:
3. Mary is honored and the bibie itself says she is blessed above all women, No one calls her a God,
Jesus was careful to keep the distinction between Himself and the Father clear. While on Earth, he BECAME man, the firstborn among MANY Brethren.
Rom 8:29
29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
(KJV)
Jesus did no works or teaching other than by the anointing of the Holy Spirit.
Luke 4:18-19
18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.
(KJV)
If He needed the anointing of the Spirit of the Lord, then He was not functioning as God, therefore Mary is not the mother of God, but of the Lord Jesus Christ.
In Matthew 13:55 we see the clansmen of Christ, called brothers and sisters as was the custom, who were children of Mary of Cleophas, sister of the Ever Virgin Mary: refer to Matt 27:56, and John 19:25. With proper Hermeneutics we see in the Old Testament the word “brother” to express a broad kinship or clanship as well as the word indicating siblings. Following are selected thought from St. Jerome who argued vehemently that to hold that Christ had siblings was an error:Quote:
Originally Posted by Galveston1
17. I say spiritual because all of us Christians are called brethren, as in the verse, Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity. … Shall we say they are brethren by race? … Again, if all men, as such, were His brethren, it would have been foolish to deliver a special message, Behold, your brethren seek you, for all men alike were entitled to the name … Just as Lot was called Abraham's brother, and Jacob Laban's, just as the daughters of Zelophehad received a lot among their brethren, just as Abraham himself had to wife Sarah his sister, for he says, Genesis 20:11 She is indeed my sister, on the father's side, not on the mother's, that is to say, she was the daughter of his brother, not of his sister. St. Jerome, Against Helvidius.
If we were to argue for the literal interpretation of brother so as to insist on Jesus having siblings in this instance, then wouldn’t that redefine John 19:26-27? Jesus says to John, “Behold thy Mother.” Being redefined in our errant insistence on a literal interpretation would add John to James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Jude as siblings of Christ; which of course is nonsense.
Given the verse, Jeremiah 31:22 How long wilt thou be dissolute in deliciousness, O wandering daughter? for the Lord hath created a new thing upon the earth: A WOMAN SHALL COMPASS A MAN we must conclude that Mary was Immaculate, protected from knowing the sins of Adam, protected from knowing the sins of men. How does one COMPASS Christ the man without COMPASSING the God that is Christ? At the moment Christ was conceived God was infused; at that moment Mary’s Womb would have been spiritually clean; as clean as the ritual cleansing of the Tabernacle of Moses. Thus Mary’s womb became the dwelling place of God, a Holy of Holies. This Tabernacle would have remained pure as did Mary in her of life celibacy. Being literally full of grace, would we, could we, expect less.
I’ll go a step further, not only was Mary Ever Virgin, so was Joseph.
… Mary was a virgin, so that from a virgin wedlock a virgin son was born. For if as a holy man he does not come under the imputation of fornication… the conclusion is that [Joseph] who was thought worthy to be called father of the Lord, remained a virgin. St. Jerome, Against Helvidius.
Mary is Ever Virgin.
JoeT
Joe,
You are posting on the wrong thread.
Tom
I agree my post was a bit off topic. But, I was responding to Galveston1 comments.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
JoeT
I don't see the relationship.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
Why else would she speak of the child in Mary's womb as a person in authority?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Are you saying that Elizabeth is denying that Jesus is God?
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:48 AM. |