While most Catholics hold tenaciously to the phrase "Mary Mother of God", a lot of Christians have come to argue against that statement and has seen it as largely fallacious that a human could be attributed to be the mother of God thus "exalting" a human above God.

In the 5th century a controversy arose when Nestorius the Bishop of Constantinople argued that Mary could have only been the mother of Christ (the human Jesus) and by so doing isolated the personalities of Jesus, separating his divine nature from his human nature. Eventually in the wake of the controversies that arose, the Council of Ephesus who wouldn't reconcile the splitting of Jesus into two distinct persons officially recognized that Jesus is one person, with two natures; human and divine united in a true union. Hence the Council affirmed that the Blessed Virgin Mary can rightfully be called the Mother of God.

From the biological standpoint, a fetus is formed by the union of the sperm and the ova. But with in vitro fertilization, a fetus can be planted in the uterus after it has been fertilized and such mothers are known as surrogate mothers, though they didn't contribute to the essence of life, they carried and nurtured it to term and that doesn't make them less of a mother.

With the knowledge of surrogacy, we can preserve the human and divine nature of Jesus in one person and agree that the Virgin Mother is a surrogate mother.

dochenaj:
While most Catholics hold tenaciously to the phrase "Mary Mother of God", a lot of Christians have come to argue against that statement and has seen it as largely fallacious that a human could be attributed to be the mother of God thus "exalting" a human above God.

In the 5th century a controversy arose when Nestorius the Bishop of Constantinople argued that Mary could have only been the mother of Christ (the human Jesus) and by so doing isolated the personalities of Jesus, separating his divine nature from his human nature. Eventually in the wake of the controversies that arose, the Council of Ephesus who wouldn't reconcile the splitting of Jesus into two distinct persons officially recognized that Jesus is one person, with two natures; human and divine united in a true union. Hence the Council affirmed that the Blessed Virgin Mary can rightfully be called the Mother of God.

From the biological standpoint, a fetus is formed by the union of the sperm and the ova. But with in vitro fertilization, a fetus can be planted in the uterus after it has been fertilized and such mothers are known as surrogate mothers, though they didn't contribute to the essence of life, they carried and nurtured it to term and that doesn't make them less of a mother.


With the knowledge of surrogacy, we can preserve the human and divine nature of Jesus in one person and agree that the Virgin Mother is a surrogate mother.

by the same reasoning, Joseph can as well be RIGHTFULLY called the Father of God since he is also Jesus' "surrogate" daddy who maybe didnt contribute to Christ's physical "essence of life" yet he carried out the responsiblity of a father to Christ which doesnt make him less of a father to Christ.

are you ready to go down that rabbit hole my good friend?!

MONIKERREVEALER:


by the same reasoning, Joseph can as well be RIGHTFULLY called the Father of God since he is also Jesus' "surrogate" daddy who maybe didnt contribute to Christ's physical "essence of life" yet he carried out the responsiblity of a father to Christ which doesnt make him less of a father to Christ.

are you ready to go down that rabbit hole my good friend?!

Foster Father of God the Son, yes.

Alexandro15:


Foster Father of God the Son, yes.

so why don't you use that same ADDRESS for Mary as well and call her the Foster Mother of God the Son?

the King James Version of the Bible, by the way, recorded that Mary and Joseph were both addressed as the mother and father of Jesus.

the KJV Bible never recorded that they were addressed as the Mother and Father of God!

God the Son has no fleshly Father or Mother as can be seen in the book of Hebrews chapter 7 verse 3. kjv

his physical body was prepared for him before he came into the world through Mary as seen in Hebrews chapter 10 verse 5. kjv

the Word became flesh and dwelled with men. the same Word which was from the beginning with God and which WAS God!

the appellation God, is not of Christ's alone but is the generic nomenclature of the Father, Son and Spirit that make up the Holy Trinity.

if for example your surname is madu and your first name is alex and your father emeka madu is still alive, would it not be a gross confusion for a friend of yours whom you sent to give your mum living with your dad in the village some money to call your father's wife mother of madu when asking after your mum in your village? should not your friend PROPERLY attach your first name alex and ask after alex madu's mum?

call Mary what the KJV Bible called her and that is Mary the mother of Jesus!!!

do NOT add and do NOT remove!!!


EVERYTHING a TRUE Christian requires for life (physical, mental, spiritual and eternal) and godliness is COMPLETELY contained in the 1611 KING JAMES VERSION OF THE BIBLE ONLY!!!

DO NOT READ THE NEW KJV VERSIONS!!!

ANY OTHER BIBLE VERSIONS APART FROM THE 1611 KJV OR ANY EXTRA 1611 KJV DOCTRINE IS OF THE DEVIL!!!

I AM DONE WITH THIS MATTER PERMANENTLY AND YOU ALL HAVE BEEN WARNED!!!

Religion is Pneumatology.
Pneumatology is The Study of The Spirits of Arts and Science in Instruction & Wisdom; Direction & Knowledge and Discernment & Understanding.
In other words, there was Religion(Spiritology or Pneumatology) before Arts & Science. So your topic and writeup is subsumed.

Joseph had Dream in which he was told he didn't own The Pregnancy in Mary.

How is Jesus the Son of David, definitely not through Joseph

Also Isaiah 7: 14 say a virgin shall Concieve and bear a Child.
Conception is the union of a sperm and an ovary. So definitely Jesus has Marys DNA

MONIKERREVEALER:


so why don't you use that same ADDRESS for Mary as well and call her the Foster Mother of God the Son?

the King James Version of the Bible, by the way, recorded that Mary and Joseph were both addressed as the mother and father of Jesus.

the KJV Bible never recorded that they were addressed as the Mother and Father of God!

God the Son has no fleshly Father or Mother as can be seen in the book of Hebrews chapter 7 verse 3. kjv

his physical body was prepared for him before he came into the world through Mary as seen in Hebrews chapter 10 verse 5. kjv

the Word became flesh and dwelled with men. the same Word which was from the beginning with God and which WAS God!

the appellation God, is not of Christ's alone but is the generic nomenclature of the Father, Son and Spirit that make up the Holy Trinity.

if for example your surname is madu and your first name is alex and your father emeka madu is still alive, would it not be a gross confusion for a friend of yours whom you sent to give your mum living with your dad in the village some money to call your father's wife mother of madu when asking after your mum in your village? should not your friend PROPERLY attach your first name alex and ask after alex madu's mum?

call Mary what the KJV Bible called her and that is Mary the mother of Jesus!!!

do NOT add and do NOT remove!!!


EVERYTHING a TRUE Christian requires for life (physical, mental, spiritual and eternal) and godliness is COMPLETELY contained in the 1611 KING JAMES VERSION OF THE BIBLE ONLY!!!

DO NOT READ THE NEW KJV VERSIONS!!!

ANY OTHER BIBLE VERSIONS APART FROM THE 1611 KJV OR ANY EXTRA 1611 KJV DOCTRINE IS OF THE DEVIL!!!

I AM DONE WITH THIS MATTER PERMANENTLY AND YOU ALL HAVE BEEN WARNED!!!

You do not have to sound uptight about this whole issue. You have a right to your opinion and I have a right to mine too.
Yes, and just another addition. Mary was called the Mother of Our Lord in the Bible.
Luke1:43. " Why should I be honoured with a visit from the Mother of my Lord?"

See? You should read your Bible more often.
Yeah, and I find your example inappropriate and out of point.
Don't you think it funny that you call any translation of the Bible demonic apart from that that suits your perceived interpretation? I find it funny because KJV came out in, was it the 16th or 17th century? So before it was translated, we were reading what, the Koran? Seriously!
I don't want to argue about the authenticity and canonicity of the Bible with you. But I can tell you this much: there are many good versions of Bible out there, especially the ones translated by the Catholic Church. You know how organized and meticulous we Catholics are, devoting years to studying Greek and Hebrew just to understand the Bible and spending years in the biblical and historical places to understand the culture of the people and studying scriptures. You have to admit that we have the most correct translation of the Bible of all Christians.( Did you also know that the original manuscript of the Bible is being kept by the Catholic Church?)

Alexandro15:



You do not have to sound uptight about this whole issue. You have a right to your opinion and I have a right to mine too.
Yes, and just another addition. Mary was called the Mother of Our Lord in the Bible.
Luke1:43. " Why should I be honoured with a visit from the Mother of my Lord?"

See? You should read your Bible more often.
Yeah, and I find your example inappropriate and out of point.
Don't you think it funny that you call any translation of the Bible demonic apart from that that suits your perceived interpretation? I find it funny because KJV came out in, was it the 16th or 17th century? So before it was translated, we were reading what, the Koran? Seriously!
I don't want to argue about the authenticity and canonicity of the Bible with you. But I can tell you this much: there are many good versions of Bible out there, especially the ones translated by the Catholic Church. You know how organized and meticulous we Catholics are, devoting years to studying Greek and Hebrew just to understand the Bible and spending years in the biblical and historical places to understand the culture of the people and studying scriptures. You have to admit that we have the most correct translation of the Bible of all Christians.( Did you also know that the original manuscript of the Bible is being kept by the Catholic Church?)

the mother of my Lord is correct because the title "Lord" has always been associated with Christ from the beginning.

ALL the Gospels address him as Lord.

Yet in Genesis you see the Godhead being addressed as God with the Father being the greatest among the Three.

As I said, nothing stops Joseph, according to your logic, from being addressed as the Father of God. Why then do you catholics not address him as that?!

Show me just one verse in your catholic bible where Mary was addressed as the Mother of God! Stop avoiding the question!

And when it comes to issues concerning the Bible there is nothing like having an opinion. It's either you are on the side of the Truth or you are not! No grey areas!

The things revealed (1611 KJV Bible) are for the sons of men and the things not revealed belong to God! (paraphrase of Deuteronomy 29 verse 29 kjv)

I don't know what you mean by that you find my example as inappropriate or what example exactly you mean.

The 1611 KJV has NEVER been edited and the so-called New KJV (NKJV) is of the devil!

You catholics can keep on revising and editing the bible to suit your ever evolving doctrines and dogma yet the Word of God as completely contained in the 1611 KJV is immutable, irrefutable and unimpeachable!!!

trinity, always causing fight

MONIKERREVEALER:


the mother of my Lord is correct because the title "Lord" has always been associated with Christ from the beginning.

ALL the Gospels address him as Lord.

Yet in Genesis you see the Godhead being addressed as God with the Father being the greatest among the Three.

As I said, nothing stops Joseph, according to your logic, from being addressed as the Father of God. Why then do you catholics not address him as that?!

Show me just one verse in your catholic bible where Mary was addressed as the Mother of God! Stop avoiding the question!

And when it comes to issues concerning the Bible there is nothing like having an opinion. It's either you are on the side of the Truth or you are not! No grey areas!

The things revealed (1611 KJV Bible) are for the sons of men and the things not revealed belong to God! (paraphrase of Deuteronomy 29 verse 29 kjv)

I don't know what you mean by that you find my example as inappropriate or what example exactly you mean.

The 1611 KJV has NEVER been edited and the so-called New KJV (NKJV) is of the devil!

You catholics can keep on revising and editing the bible to suit your ever evolving doctrines and dogma yet the Word of God as completely contained in the 1611 KJV is immutable, irrefutable and unimpeachable!!!

My dear man(or woman), we call Joseph the Foster Father of Jesus the son because he, though not being the biological father of Jesus, played the very role of a father to Jesus. He took care of his Mother, he was present at his birth, he named him Jesus; it was the duty of Fathers to name their sons in the biblical times. That was why the angel appeared to him and told him that the Son will be called Jesus. He protected him from Herod's wrath. He provided for his family. He loved him as a son. But very importantly, he gave him an identity. Do you know what might have happened if Joseph was absent as a father figure? Mary would have been stoned to death by the Jewish law for adultery. Jesus would have been termed a bastard and that would have marred his ministry. I could go on and on.
So, even though Joseph is the Father of Jesus the Son, The term FOSTER must be added as a prefix because it was obviously not biological.

But then , it is quite different for Mary, see? She on the other hand is the biological Mother of Christ. I understand where you are coming from; that She is Mother of Jesus the Man and not Jesus the God. But you see, there is just a little problem with that. It sounds as though Jesus was born, and then later divinity descended into the body of Christ. Whereas we all know that THE WORD TOOK FLESH, AND DWELT AMONG US. Understand? God fashioned a body for himself out of the womb of Mary and was born as both GOD AND MAN. Those identities, though distinct, are inseparable. By taking flesh and being born of Mary, Mary became the Mother of Jesus who is both God and man.
Strange paradox, isn't it? You bet it is
But that is how the things of God mostly are you cannot understand them all. St Augustine once was thinking about the mystery of God near the sea shore. He then noticed a Child taking water from the sea and pouring it into a hole. Interested, he approached the child and asked what He was doing. The child told him he was trying to empty the sea into the hole. Exasperated, Augustine told him it was impossible to do that. The child replied," so is it impossible for you to understand and grasp the mysteries of God while still attached to this body in the present life.

Yes. What else?
As for the Bible I have already had my say.

Funny how we should be amicably discussing this today of all days. It's no coincidence.
Happy solemnity of the annunciation to all Catholics!

Alexandro15:


My dear man(or woman), we call Joseph the Foster Father of Jesus the son because he, though not being the biological father of Jesus, played the very role of a father to Jesus. He took care of his Mother, he was present at his birth, he named him Jesus; it was the duty of Fathers to name their sons in the biblical times. That was why the angel appeared to him and told him that the Son will be called Jesus. He protected him from Herod's wrath. He provided for his family. He loved him as a son. But very importantly, he gave him an identity. Do you know what might have happened if Joseph was absent as a father figure? Mary would have been stoned to death by the Jewish law for adultery. Jesus would have been termed a bastard and that would have marred his ministry. I could go on and on.
So, even though Joseph is the Father of Jesus the Son, The term FOSTER must be added as a prefix because it was obviously not biological.

But then , it is quite different for Mary, see? She on the other hand is the biological Mother of Christ. I understand where you are coming from; that She is Mother of Jesus the Man and not Jesus the God. But you see, there is just a little problem with that. It sounds as though Jesus was born, and then later divinity descended into the body of Christ. Whereas we all know that THE WORD TOOK FLESH, AND DWELT AMONG US. Understand? God fashioned a body for himself out of the womb of Mary and was born as both GOD AND MAN. Those identities, though distinct, are inseparable. By taking flesh and being born of Mary, Mary became the Mother of Jesus who is both God and man.
Strange paradox, isn't it? You bet it is
But that is how the things of God mostly are you cannot understand them all. St Augustine once was thinking about the mystery of God near the sea shore. He then noticed a Child taking water from the sea and pouring it into a hole. Interested, he approached the child and asked what He was doing. The child told him he was trying to empty the sea into the hole. Exasperated, Augustine told him it was impossible to do that. The child replied," so is it impossible for you to understand and grasp the mysteries of God while still attached to this body in the present life.

Yes. What else?
As for the Bible I have already had my say.

Funny how we should be amicably discussing this today of all days. It's no coincidence.
Happy solemnity of the annunciation to all Catholics!

brother

I asked you a simple question. where in your catholic bible was Mary called the Mother of God?!

why have you refused to answer that straightforward question? is that how you catholics go about evangelising to the unbelievers?

now, considering the bolded parts of your submission. where in your catholic bible was it categorically stated that Mary was the BIOLOGICAL mother of Jesus Christ?!

ALSO where was it categorically stated that Joseph was NOT the BIOLOGICAL father of Jesus Christ?!

if you go strictly by the 1611 KJV you will discover that it is Joseph who has a BIGGER claim to the biological parenthood of Christ than Mary has because the books of Matthew and Luke both trace Jesus' lineage to David and then to Abraham through Joseph (as was supposed to be his father) and NOT through Mary!!!

as I told you, Jesus' body was prepared for him BEFORE he came into the world (Hebrews chapter 10 verse 5).

when exactly and how God prepared Jesus' body is left alone to Him yet the Bible clearly says that Christ was made of the Seed of David according to the flesh (Romans chapter 1 verse 3a kjv). by this scripture, Joseph should be the parent with a BIGGER claim of BIOLOGICAL relatedness to Jesus Christ than Mary!

so, you catholics saying that Joseph is a foster dad and Mary is not a foster mom has no scriptural backing!

do not add and do not subtract from the scripture as contained in the 1611 KJV brother!!!

MONIKERREVEALER:


brother

I asked you a simple question. where in your catholic bible was Mary called the Mother of God?!

why have you refused to answer that straightforward question? is that how you catholics go about evangelising to the unbelievers?

now, considering the bolded parts of your submission. where in your catholic bible was it categorically stated that Mary was the BIOLOGICAL mother of Jesus Christ?!

ALSO where was it categorically stated that Joseph was NOT the BIOLOGICAL father of Jesus Christ?!

if you go strictly by the 1611 KJV you will discover that it is Joseph who has a BIGGER claim to the biological parenthood of Christ than Mary has because the books of Matthew and Luke both trace Jesus' lineage to David and then to Abraham through Joseph (as was supposed to be his father) and NOT through Mary!!!

as I told you, Jesus' body was prepared for him BEFORE he came into the world (Hebrews chapter 10 verse 5).

when exactly and how God prepared Jesus' body is left alone to Him yet the Bible clearly says that Christ was made of the Seed of David according to the flesh (Romans chapter 1 verse 3a kjv). by this scripture, Joseph should be the parent with a BIGGER claim of BIOLOGICAL relatedness to Jesus Christ than Mary!

so, you catholics saying that Joseph is a foster dad and Mary is not a foster mom has no scriptural backing!

do not add and do not subtract from the scripture as contained in the 1611 KJV brother!!!

Hello again.
If after reading all what I wrote, you are still asking me these same questions ( questions that I have done my best to answer), then am sorry I can't help you.
Thanks.

Alexandro15:


Hello again.
If after reading all what I wrote, you are still asking me these same questions ( questions that I have done my best to answer), then am sorry I can't help you.
Thanks.

don't worry yourself. other readers will go through our head to head and come up with their own conclusions.

your refusal to answer my questions wholeheartedly has made you redundant.

have a pleasant rest and stay sharp till we meet.

shalom!!!

MONIKERREVEALER:


don't worry yourself. other readers will go through our head to head and come up with their own conclusions.

your refusal to answer my questions wholeheartedly has made you redundant.

have a pleasant rest and stay sharp till we meet.

shalom!!!

He cannot give you the straight answer.
Catholics are scammers, they fooled.