Mother of Jesus?

[Marymog]

Blasphemy is blasphemy. It has nothing to do with decision.

Sooooo do you know blasphemy when you see it?

 

[BreadOfLife]

You are already "explained" it, and you're wrong. I'm not here to be "taught" by a disciple of a "queen mother." I'm exiting this conversation. So go get your last word in. I don't care you hypocrite.

Ummmmm, can you show me WHERE I explained it?
I didn't think so . . .

NOW, I'll explain it to you:
ONLY in John's Gospel will you see Jesus refer to His mother as "Woman". Mary is the fulfillment of the prophecy in Genesis:
Gen. 3:15
I will put enmity between you and the WOMAN, and between your offspring and HER offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.”

Jesus, being not only a good Jew - but the only one to PERFECTLY live the Law - honored His mother as commanded by God.
His reference to her as "Woman" correlates directly to the Woman in Gen. 3:15 and in Rev. 12.

Jesus defeats death on Calvary (Skull place) and fulfills the prophecy in Gen. 3:15 about the offspring of the woman. Mary is present at the foot of the cross while this is happening - and what does Jesus call her in John 19:26? He calls her “WOMAN”, because the prophecy about the head of the serpent being crushed in Genesis is taking place right there on Calvary.

Jesus DOESN'T refer to His mother as "Woman" out of disrespect as YOU would have us believe.
That would make him disobedient to the Father.

And there ends the lesson for the day.

 

[Mattathias]

I only disagree with your statement that the catechism teaches that Jesus is not a human person when clearly it does not.

I’ll quote additional Catholic sources (as well as Protestant sources) which say the same as the Catholic catechist I quoted.

The Incarnation of Jesus Christ | St. Philip Institute does not deny that Jesus was a human person. You are sowing seeds of confusion; as a catechist you should know better.

Would you be willing to write this to her, the Institute and the Bishop?

 

[Mattathias]

No, it’s very conciliatory and modernist

Thanks. I’ll quote the source, with the understanding that you - and possibly other Catholics - don’t believe it to be a reliable source on Catholic teaching.

I’m curious though. Who exactly do you think this source, which says Jesus is not a human person, is seeking conciliation with on this point?

 

[Marymog]

Jesus, on the cross, calls her, "woman," ascribing her as, mother of, the disciple I love. It's blasphemy what you people say and do.

Was He being antagonistic when he called her woman?

 

[Mattathias]

No, it’s very conciliatory and modernist

“Some months ago, after writing ‘Did the Incarnation Cause God to Change?’ I received an excellent follow-up question. Wrestling with my article, one of our readers could not get past how we can say that Christ was truly and fully man and yet not ‘a human person.’ ...”

Is Jesus a Human Person?

 

[Mattathias]

PLEASE do.
In fact - who me ANY Trinitarian teaching that Jesus is not a human - Catholic OR Protestant.

This is a heresy.

From an article titled “Is Jesus a Human Person?”, published in the National Catholic Register,

“... while the traditional formula is that Jesus is a divine person with both divine and human natures, we do not call Jesus a ‘human person.’ ...

No magisterial source I consulted ever referred to Jesus as a ‘human person.’ Always, he is a ‘divine Person’ with a ‘human nature.’ ...”

Is Jesus a Human Person?

This author quotes from the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia,

“This creed of the catechumens gives even the Divinity of the totality, i.e. the fact that the individual Person of Jesus is a Divine and not a human Person. Of this intricate question we shall speak later on.”

Bold is the author’s.

The same author quotes Volume 2 of Ignatius Press’s Fundamentals of Catholicism written by Father Kenneth Baker,

“For, Jesus is not a human person; he is a divine Person who has taken himself a human nature.”

Bold is the author’s.

 

[theefaith]

Thanks. I’ll quote the source, with the understanding that you - and possibly other Catholics - don’t believe it to be a reliable source on Catholic teaching.

I’m curious though. Who exactly do you think this source, which says Jesus is not a human person, is seeking conciliation with on this point?

the church does not teach this, from the apostolic council of Nicaea there is one God (nature) in three persons

the second person of the most blessed trinity is the word made flesh and is fully God and fully man!

1. The Divine and the human natures are united hypostatically in Christ, that is, joined to each other in one Person.
2. Christ Incarnate is a single, that is, a sole Person. He is God and man at the same time.

catholic dogma
From A List Of The Dogmas Of The Catholic Church

 

[Mattathias]

the church does not teach this, from the apostolic council of Nicaea there is one God (nature) in three persons

the second person of the most blessed trinity is the word made flesh and is fully God and fully man!

1. The Divine and the human natures are united hypostatically in Christ, that is, joined to each other in one Person.
2. Christ Incarnate is a single, that is, a sole Person. He is God and man at the same time.

catholic dogma
From A List Of The Dogmas Of The Catholic Church

The Church taught it to my wife in the Catholic High School she attended.

You didn’t answer my question: Who exactly do you think Catholic Answers (whom you believe is misrepresenting what the Church teaches) seeking conciliation with on this point?

Also, are you aware of the Church taking any action against Catholic Answers for (allegedly) misreporting to their audience what the Catholic Church teaches?

 

[BreadOfLife]

From an article titled “Is Jesus a Human Person?”, published in the National Catholic Register,

“... while the traditional formula is that Jesus is a divine person with both divine and human natures, we do not call Jesus a ‘human person.’ ...

No magisterial source I consulted ever referred to Jesus as a ‘human person.’ Always, he is a ‘divine Person’ with a ‘human nature.’ ...”

Is Jesus a Human Person?

This author quotes from the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia,

“This creed of the catechumens gives even the Divinity of the totality, i.e. the fact that the individual Person of Jesus is a Divine and not a human Person. Of this intricate question we shall speak later on.”

Bold is the author’s.

The same author quotes Volume 2 of Ignatius Press’s Fundamentals of Catholicism written by Father Kenneth Baker,

“For, Jesus is not a human person; he is a divine Person who has taken himself a human nature.”

Bold is the author’s.

As I explained in post #38 - the Hypostatic Union doesn't negate Jesus's humanity. It states that His divinity and humanity are united in ONE Person, who is God.
This doesn't meant that He isn't a human person - unless you are still trying to separate His 2 natures as Nestorius did. Hew isn't a divine Person - AND a Human Person. He is ONE Person who unites to Himself TWO natures.

Moreover - my original argument was against the idea that He isn't human.

 

[Mattathias]

As I explained in post #38 - the Hypostatic Union doesn't negate Jesus's humanity. It states that His divinity and humanity are united in ONE Person, who is God.
This doesn't meant that He isn't a human person - unless you are still trying to separate His 2 natures as Nestorius did. Hew isn't a divine Person - AND a Human Person. He is ONE Person who unites to Himself TWO natures.

Moreover - my original argument was against the idea that He isn't human.

See the trinitarian sources I’ve quoted. I’ll be quoting additional trinitarian sources, Catholic and Protestant, which clearly state that trinitarianism teaches us that Jesus is not a human person.

 

[Mattathias]

The following is from a Protestant (Southern Baptist) source.

“The orthodox doctrine of the incarnation promulgated at the Council of Chalcedon is emphatic that in the incarnate Christ there is one and only one, undivided person who has two distinct natures, one human and one divine. That one person is the second person of the Trinity, the Son is therefore divine. He is not a human person, nor is there another person who is Christ and is human. That would be the heresy of Nestorianism, positing a plurality of persons in Christ. There is only one person who is Christ, and that person is divine. Thus, there is no human person named ‘Jesus of Nazareth.’ Jesus is a divine person, and medieval theologians were careful never to refer to Jesus as a human person.”

Is Worship of Jesus Idolatry?

 

[Mattathias]

Moreover - my original argument was against the idea that He isn't human.

No one has expressed the argument in this thread that Jesus is not human. Certainly none of the trinitarians I’ve quoted have said or believed that Jesus is not human. None of the trinitarians I’ll be quoting say that Jesus is not human. They all say that Jesus is not a human person.

The trinitarian argument is that Jesus is only one person: a divine person, not a human person.

 

[WaterSong]

Why is mother of Jesus acceptable but mother of our savior and mother of our salvation and mother of God is not acceptable by most who claim the name of Christ?

I believe it is correct Mary would be mother of Emmanuel as he was born from her body. Being Jesus was God I don't think those who refer to Mary as the mother of our savior is wrong for the same reason.
I would disagree she is mother of our salvation. She is not. Our salvation is born through the grace of our father, God. Who would rightly be identified as the father of Mary when speaking in terms of source, creator. And in parlance with the scriptures that refer to we in the faith as sons and daughters of God, the father.

 

[WaterSong]

That's just plain false. Every encounter between Jesus and his mother since his youth is antagonistic.

Please share with me the scriptures that support your point.

 

[Bartholomew Jones]

Please share with me the scriptures that support your point.

I'm not looking them up: 1) Jesus at adolescence left behind at the temple. 2) Jesus turns the water to wine against his will 3) his mother and siblings ask for Jesus when he hadn't eaten much
This should be sufficient. Read the accounts.

 

[Illuminator]

I'm not looking them up: 1) Jesus at adolescence left behind at the temple.

Jesus was doing the will of the Father and there is no mention of siblings, unless you believe that Mary and Joseph hired babysitters for the trip to Jerusalem for the TRADITIONAL Passover.

2) Jesus turns the water to wine against his will

3) This is absurd. "What have you to do with me?" is not antagonistic, it is a Hebrew idiom that means deference to (her) authority.

his mother and siblings ask for Jesus when he hadn't eaten much

Jesus had no biological siblings. It is a doctrine of demons because it diminishes the uniqueness of the Incarnation. It openly defies the teachings of the early reformers, and before the mid 18th century, no Protestant church on the planet taught these lies.

This should be sufficient. Read the accounts.

You are reading INTO the accounts what isn't there. Your 200 year old man made traditions don't cut it.

 

[BreadOfLife]

The following is from a Protestant (Southern Baptist) source.

“The orthodox doctrine of the incarnation promulgated at the Council of Chalcedon is emphatic that in the incarnate Christ there is one and only one, undivided person who has two distinct natures, one human and one divine. That one person is the second person of the Trinity, the Son is therefore divine. He is not a human person, nor is there another person who is Christ and is human. That would be the heresy of Nestorianism, positing a plurality of persons in Christ. There is only one person who is Christ, and that person is divine. Thus, there is no human person named ‘Jesus of Nazareth.’ Jesus is a divine person, and medieval theologians were careful never to refer to Jesus as a human person.”

Is Worship of Jesus Idolatry?

No one has expressed the argument in this thread that Jesus is not human. Certainly none of the trinitarians I’ve quoted have said or believed that Jesus is not human. None of the trinitarians I’ll be quoting say that Jesus is not human. They all say that Jesus is not a human person.

The trinitarian argument is that Jesus is only one person: a divine person, not a human person.

If that is my only choice - then MY bad.
HOWEVER - that makes YOUR original argument completely bogus.

In the OP - @theefaith asked the following question:
"Why is mother of Jesus acceptable but mother of our savior and mother of our salvation and mother of God is not acceptable by most who claim the name of Christ?"

In post #6 - YOU responded with the following:

Jesus himself is a human person. (Note: Trinitarianism teaches us that Jesus is not a human person.)
God himself isn’t a human person.
A human person having a mother isn’t a controversial concept. God himself having a mother is a controversial concept.

YOUR injection of the argument that He is a divine Person is irrelevant here because of His Hypostasis.

If Jesus is 100% human and 100% God - then there should be absolutely NO problem with calling Mary the "Mother of God".
There is nothing that s "controversial" about this statement - IF you believe that Jess is FULLY Man and FULLY God. She is not the Mother of the Trinity - and nobody is making that claim.

In fact - the ONLY way this is "controversial" is if Jesus is ONLY God and NOT human.

 

[Mattathias]

If that is my only choice - then MY bad.
HOWEVER - that makes YOUR original argument completely bogus.

In the OP - @theefaith asked the following question:
"Why is mother of Jesus acceptable but mother of our savior and mother of our salvation and mother of God is not acceptable by most who claim the name of Christ?"

In post #6 - YOU responded with the following:

YOUR injection of the argument that He is a divine Person is irrelevant here because of His Hypostasis.

If Jesus is 100% human and 100% God - then there should be absolutely NO problem with calling Mary the "Mother of God".
There is nothing that s "controversial" about this statement - IF you believe that Jess is FULLY Man and FULLY God. She is not the Mother of the Trinity - and nobody is making that claim.

In fact - the ONLY way this is "controversial" is if Jesus is ONLY God and NOT human.

Jesus is a human person. I’ve quoted Catholic and Protestant scholarship which says that he isn’t a human person.

 

[Bartholomew Jones]

Jesus was doing the will of the Father and there is no mention of siblings, unless you believe that Mary and Joseph hired babysitters for the trip to Jerusalem for the TRADITIONAL Passover. 3) This is absurd. "What have you to do with me?" is not antagonistic, it is a Hebrew idiom that means deference to (her) authority. Jesus had no biological siblings.

The article fails because the author only mentions Marks account, where two Mary's are named at the crucifixion. The discrepancy is settled by Johns account which names the three, that one absent from Marks being, guess? Mary Magdelene, the sister of Lazarus, the disciple whom Jesus loved.

It is a doctrine of demons because it diminishes the uniqueness of the Incarnation. It openly defies the teachings of the early reformers, and before the mid 18th century, no Protestant church on the planet taught these lies.

So says the pope.

Point number 3 is a separate point from the point about Jesus' youth. You're treating it as the same point.