The Narrow Path Ministries

As most will agree Jesus pre-existed his human birth and as diety , he is eternal therefore to say God had a mother as in "the mother of God" seems to me to akin to blaspheming God.
Yes Christ was transformed into flesh and He was "born of a women" but really transformed more then born. Mary was really a vessel God used for the transformation from Spirit to flesh, yet this does not make her God's mother IMO.
I find the phrase "the mother of God" distasteful even maybe blaspheming God but i'm not sure, maybe i'm overeacting. It just seems a self serving gimmick by the RCC to venerate Mary at the expense of debasing God.
What are your thoughts?

I think it's a needlessly provocative title to give Mary. But, the fact is, she bore Christ, and Christ is God. Therefore, it's *technically* not wrong to call Mary "Mother of God." But why should we?

Interestingly, you'll never see John the Baptist called, "Second Cousin of God". I decided against mentioning the "brothers of the Lord" because I'm willing to allow for them to have been cousins or step-brothers of Jesus. In fact, I feel it's more than likely they weren't Mary's sons. But that's another discussion.

Therefore, it's *technically* not wrong to call Mary "Mother of God." But why should we?

She is the mother of Jesus yet Jesus was "the Word became flesh" therefore since the "Word" became, it really was a transformation of one being into another. Mary housed the transformation but to say "mother of God" means God had a beginning, or a start. And it deify's Mary because diety begets diety.
God really is a Trinity or maybe Binity so to be called "mother of God" Mary s/b the mother of the Godhead.

i just got a book today from the library by scott mcknight entitled "The real Mary: why evangelical christians can embrace the mother of jesus." i am curious what he has to say about this.

i always thought that evangelicals go to far the other way, and give mary much less than is her due. i do not believe that she was anything more than a godly woman, but one that played a unique role in history.

TK

TK wrote:i always thought that evangelicals go to far the other way, and give mary much less than is her due. i do not believe that she was anything more than a godly woman, but one that played a unique role in history.

I think you're right about that, TK. We just tend not to want to get caught up in "all that Papist claptrap" (Monty Python quote). Or to get accused of getting caught up in it by saying Mary was a special person (if not quote *so* special as the Catholics say).

I went all the way and read Hail, Holy Queen: The Mother of God in the Word of God by Scott Hahn. Of course, I couldn't agree with many of his points, but still enjoyed it. I'm onboard (okay with, that is) the Perpetual Virginity; not so much the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption, though...

The phrase in the orginal language was not "Mother of God" but "God-bearer". If Jesus is God, and Mary bore Him, is not "God-bearer" and appropriate epithet for her?

The phrase in the orginal language was not "Mother of God" but "God-bearer". If Jesus is God, and Mary bore Him, is not "God-bearer" and appropriate epithet for her?


Paidion this is the second really insightful description i've heard from you. Jesus being "diety" was the first and this hits the nail on the head because it allows for a transformation from the Word to the flesh.

Seth--

do you then believe that mary and joseph had no further children, and that the references to jesus' brothers(like james) and sisters means something else? i have always wondered about this myself.

TK

TK wrote:do you then believe that mary and joseph had no further children, and that the references to jesus' brothers(like james) and sisters means something else? i have always wondered about this myself.

Awww...man!!! I wrote like a ten page treatise this morning and it looks like the Forum ate it! Okay, maybe not that long. I guess I must have Previewed, then not posted.

Anyhow...yes. Certainly, there's nothing in the actual text of the NT that would form anything like a strong argument *against* Jesus having no blood siblings. A couple of clues that might swing the other way:

1. Jesus handing the care of Mary to John. If he had other brothers, this seems a bit odd.
2. The so-called "brothers of the Lord" have very common names (James, Joses) and those names are mentioned as being other women's sons in the Gospels (can't give you chapter and verse of the top of my head).
3. Jesus' brothers rebuking him and telling him to go up to Jerusalem. This would be a strange thing for younger brothers to do in a society that prized Firstborns. But if they were *older*, perhaps step-brothers...

One common argument is the facile "Joseph had no relations with her *until* she gave birth" thing. It's just as easy to prove that Michal had children *after* her death, based on 2 Samuel 6:23 ("had no child until the day of her death").

Here's a LINK to the Catholic Answers tract on this subject. It's worth a read for those *most of us* who just dismiss the Perpetual Virginity out of hand.

It's not a hill I'm willing to die on...I actually don't care. But I'm also not willing to reject a teaching just because it's held by Catholics. Calvinists, yes...but not Catholics.

I *do* reject the Immaculate Conception (not the Immaculate Misconception) and the Assumption of Mary, however.

I'm much more comfortable in referring to Christ's mother or brothers than "God's" mother. Yes Christ was God, but Mary didn't contribute to that Godness. In some ways, it was almost like a surrogate. Did Jesus have Mary's DNA? How do we know?
D.