![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2022\/06\/Mary48.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nLucas Banzoli<\/a> is a very active Brazilian anti-Catholic polemicist, who holds to basically a Seventh-Day Adventist theology, whereby there is no such thing as a soul that consciously exists outside of a body, and no hell (soul sleep and annihilationism). This leads him to a Christology which is deficient and heterodox in terms of Christ\u2019s human nature after His death.\u00a0He has a Master\u2019s degree in theology, a degree and postgraduate work in history, a license in letters, and is a history teacher, author of 25 books, as well as blogmaster (but now inactive) for six blogs. He\u2019s active on YouTube<\/a>.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n The words of Lucas Banzoli will be in\u00a0blue<\/span>. I used\u00a0Google Translate<\/em>\u00a0to transfer his Portugese text into English.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n This is a reply to Lucas\u2019 heretical and blasphemous articles, \u201cMaria \u00e9 m\u00e3e de Deus (Theot\u00f3kos)?\u201d<\/a>\u00a0[Is Mary the mother of God?<\/em>] (9-20-12) and <\/span>\u201cDeus tem m\u00e3e?\u201d<\/a>\u00a0[Does God have a mother?<\/em>] (5-12-13).\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Let\u2019s start with definitions and basic explanations, so readers will know with certainty exactly what the catholic claim is, and what UI am defending. Theotokos<\/em>, the term in question, means literally, \u201cGod-bearer.\u201d Mary is the mother of God\u00a0the Son<\/i>. If someone denies that Mary is the mother of God<\/b>\u00a0(the Son), then they deny that\u00a0Jesus<\/i>\u00a0is<\/em>\u00a0God. <\/i>If, on the other hand, someone denies that Mary is the mother<\/b> of God (the Son), then they deny the\u00a0virgin birth<\/i>, and in effect, also the incarnation.<\/p>\n This resolves the problem altogether. But she is\u00a0not<\/i>\u00a0only the mother of Jesus\u2019\u00a0human nature<\/i>\u00a0(Christotokos<\/em>) because motherhood is about giving birth to persons<\/i>, not natures (or souls, as in our case, when mothers give birth).<\/p>\n Historic Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants all believe that Jesus was God Incarnate: God in the flesh; the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. This title for Mary was specifically intended by the early Church to protect the deity or divinity of Jesus, since some were arguing that she was the mother of His human nature only. It would be odd to argue that human mothers give birth only to the\u00a0bodies<\/em>\u00a0of their sons and daughters, rather than to a person who consists of body and soul. Human beings \u201cco-create\u201d in a sense the bodies of their children (implied by the word \u201cprocreate\u201d), while they have nothing to do with their souls, which are directly created by God.<\/p>\n Likewise, Mary gave birth to Jesus as a human person, even though she had nothing to do with His divine nature (now merged with a human nature), which existed eternally. She gave birth to \u201cthe man Who was God,\u201d so she is the mother of God (the Son). At no time have Catholics or Orthodox thought that Mary was \u201cmother\u201d of God the Father or the Holy Spirit. It\u2019s impossible to find any official Catholic dogmatic document stating that Mary is the \u201cmother of God the Father\u201d or \u201cmother of the Holy Spirit.\u201d It is only from sheer misunderstanding that anything other than this was thought to be implied by \u201cMother of God.\u201d Many notable Protestants have also used the title:<\/p>\n She became the Mother of God, in which work so many and such great good things are bestowed on her as pass man\u2019s understanding. For on this there follows all honor, all blessedness, and her unique place in the whole of mankind, among which she has no equal, namely, that she had a child by the Father in heaven, and such a Child . . . Hence men have crowded all her glory into a single word, calling her the Mother of God . . . None can say of her nor announce to her greater things, even though he had as many tongues as the earth possesses flowers and blades of grass: the sky, stars; and the sea, grains of sand. It needs to be pondered in the heart what it means to be the Mother of God.\u00a0(Martin Luther,\u00a0Commentary on the Magnificat<\/em>, 1521; in\u00a0Luther\u2019s Works<\/em>, Pelikan et al, volume 21, 326)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n On account of this personal union and communion of the natures, Mary, the most blessed virgin, did not conceive a mere, ordinary human being, but a human being who is truly the Son of the most high God, as the angel testifies. He demonstrated his divine majesty even in his mother\u2019s womb in that he was born of a virgin without violating her virginity. Therefore she is truly the mother of God and yet remained a virgin. (Formula of Concord<\/em>, from 1577: one of the Lutheran confessions, translated by Arthur C. Piepkorn: Solid Declaration, Article VIII: \u201cThe Person of Christ,\u201d section 9)The description of Mary as the \u201cMother of God\u201d was and is sensible, permissible and necessary as an auxiliary Christological proposition.\u00a0(Karl Barth,\u00a0Church Dogmatics<\/em>, I, 2, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1963, 138) [see documentation of several other prominent early Protestants using the title \u201cMother of God\u201d<\/a>]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Scripture teaches that:<\/p>\n 1) Jesus is God (many<\/i>\u00a0biblical proofs; Jn 1:1; Col 2:9).<\/p>\n 2) Mary is His true mother (Is 7:14; Mt 1:16,18; 2:11, 13, 20; 12:46; Lk 1:31, 35, 43; Jn 1:15; 2:1; Gal 4:4).<\/p>\n Ergo, \u201cMary is the Mother of God\u201d [the Son].<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Another, less direct, but equally effective way of arguing the point is noting Elizabeth\u2019s exclamation to the Blessed Virgin Mary: \u201cAnd why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?\u201d (Luke 1:43, RSV). The Greek word for \u201cLord\u201d here (as usually in the New Testament) is\u00a0Kurios<\/i>. It\u2019s widely applied both to God the Father and to Jesus, since they are both \u201cLord\u201d and God\u201d and equal as the Father and Son in the Holy Trinity. In fact, in a single passage (Rom 10:9-13), both the Father and the Son are called \u201cLord\u201d (Kurios<\/i>).<\/p>\n John Calvin, the most influential early Protestant leader after Martin Luther, wrote about Luke 1:43:<\/p>\n She [Elizabeth] calls Mary the\u00a0mother of her Lord<\/strong>\u00a0This denotes a unity of person in the two natures of Christ; as if she had said, that he who was begotten a mortal man in the womb of Mary is, at the same time,\u00a0the eternal God<\/strong>. (Harmony of the Synoptic Gospels<\/i>)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Martin Luther also made many affirming statements about\u00a0Theotokos<\/i>. Here are two of the most striking ones:<\/p>\n We, too, know very well that Christ did not derive his deity from Mary; but it does not follow that it must, therefore, be false to say,\u00a0\u201cGod was born of Mary\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0and\u00a0\u201cGod is Mary\u2019s Son\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0and\u00a0\u201cMary is God\u2019s mother<\/strong>.\u201d<\/p>\n Mary is the true, natural mother of the child called Jesus Christ, and the true\u00a0mother and bearer of God<\/strong>\u00a0. . . Mary suckled God, rocked God, made broth and soup for God. For God and man are one Person, one Christ, one Son, one Jesus, not two persons . . . just as your son is not two sons . . . even though he has two natures, body and soul, \u2014 body from you, soul from God alone.\u00a0(On the Councils and the Church<\/em>, 1539)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n James Cardinal Gibbons: a great apologist in the early 1900s, brilliantly explained the doctrine of\u00a0Theotokos<\/em>:<\/p>\n We affirm that the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, the Word of God, who in His divine nature is from all eternity begotten of the Father, consubstantial with Him, was in the fullness of time again begotten, by being born of the Virgin, thus taking to Himself, from her maternal womb, a human nature of the same substance with hers.<\/p>\n But it may be said the Blessed Virgin is not the Mother of the Divinity. She had not, and she could not have, any part in the generation of the Word of God, for that generation is eternal; her maternity is temporal. He is her Creator; she is His creature. Style her, if you will, the Mother of the man Jesus or even of the human nature of the Son of God, but not the Mother of God.<\/p>\n I shall answer this objection by putting a question. Did the mother who bore us have any part in the production of our\u00a0soul<\/em>? Was not this nobler part of our being the work of God alone? And yet who would for a moment dream of saying \u201cthe mother of my body,\u201d and not \u201cmy<\/em>\u00a0mother?\u201d . . . . .<\/p>\n . . . in this sense, and in no other, has the Church called her by that title. (The Faith of Our Fathers<\/em>, New York: P. J. Kenedy & Sons, revised edition, 1917, 137-138)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Nestorius was not a \u201cheretic\u201d. On the contrary, he tried to restore the biblical principle that Mary is \u201cChristotokos\u201d (mother of Christ), while there were people who taught that she was \u201cTheotokos\u201d (mother of God). For him, the issue was not as simple as saying that (1) Jesus is God; (2) Mary is the mother of Jesus; then (3) Mary is the mother of God. <\/span><\/p>\n Then he rejected clear biblical teaching, and inexorable logic. Mary was the mother of Jesus, Who was the Second Person of the Holy Trinity and God the Son.<\/p>\n Proof of this is that, using similar syllogisms, we could conclude that Jesus \u201csinned\u201d because (1) all men sin; (2) Jesus was a man; then (3) Jesus sinned. It is obvious that the Scriptures affirm that Jesus was without sin, but a syllogism similar to the one used by Catholics could show us otherwise.<\/span><\/p>\n This syllogism is a false one, because it has a false premise (\u201call men sin\u201d<\/span>). It is not of the essence<\/em> of man that he must<\/em> sin. Human beings were created good, and before they rebelled and fell, they were sinless. Therefore, \u201call men sin\u201d is false, because Adam and Eve did not sin, pre-fall. The unfallen angels are also creatures (though not human beings) who never sinned. Babies who are murdered in abortion have not ever sinned, yet they are human beings. Mary never sinned, because she was filled with grace<\/a>, by a special miracle of God.<\/p>\n Furthermore, they use other similar syllogisms to prove the other Marian dogmas as well. For example: (1) The pure cannot be born of the impure; (2) Jesus was pure; therefore (3) Mary is immaculate. <\/span><\/p>\n This is not correct Catholic theology. Any Catholic who uses this argument \u2014 though he may be perfectly sincere and pious \u2014 doesn\u2019t know what he is talking about. I explain why the above argument is incorrect in my article, Was Mary\u2019s Immaculate Conception Absolutely Necessary?<\/a>\u00a0[1-5-05; published at\u00a0National Catholic Register<\/em> on 12-8-17]. Catholics say that Mary\u2019s Immaculate Conception was \u201cfitting\u201d (i.e., appropriate and to be expected) but not absolutely necessary<\/em>. And we say that Jesus, being God for all eternity, can\u2019t possibly<\/strong> sin<\/em> (impeccability). This would be the case whether Mary was a sinner or not. Nor could He possibly receive original sin from Mary because He is not among creatures who rebelled against God and fell (since He is<\/em><\/strong> God).<\/p>\n If we read Job 14:4, we see that premise #1 is correct. <\/span><\/p>\n This is proverbial-type language at a very early stage of Judaeo-Christian theology. It can\u2019t be used to determine fine points of very highly developed Christian theology.<\/p>\n However, this does not mean that conclusion (3) is right, since, by the same logic, Mary (pure) could not be born from someone impure either;<\/span><\/p>\n This is untrue. Mary\u2019s immaculate state has nothing whatsoever to do with her mother, since it came from a special supernatural act of grace: she was filled with grace from the time of her conception. That has nothing<\/em><\/strong> to do with 1) Mary\u2019s free will choice, or 2) her mother.<\/p>\n therefore, by the same syllogism we arrive at the conclusion that Mary\u2019s mother is also immaculate.<\/span><\/p>\n If so, then this would be an example of being right for the wrong reasons.<\/p>\n But it doesn\u2019t stop here. If Mary\u2019s mother is immaculate and the pure cannot be born from the impure, then Mary\u2019s grandmother is also immaculate. And so on: great-grandmother, great-great-grandmother\u2026 until Eva\u2026 all without blemish! It is evident, therefore, that those who arrive at the \u201cconclusion\u201d that Mary is the mother of God by the simple syllogism demonstrated above, incur the same fallacy presented in the other points.<\/span><\/p>\n No one other than Mary has to be immaculate in order for her to be,. It has nothing to do with her ancestors. It\u2019s all about God and what He<\/em><\/strong> chose to do.<\/p>\n In addition, syllogisms similar to those used by Catholics can also be used to turn against themselves. For example: (1) Mary is not the mother of the Father; (2) The Father is God; therefore (3) Mary is not the mother of God. <\/span><\/p>\n That means that Mary is not the mother of God the Father, which is true. \u201cMother of God\u201d only refers to being the mother of God the Son<\/em>. There are distinctions even in the Trinity. The Father and the Holy Spirit do not become incarnate and take on flesh. They are immaterial spirits.<\/p>\n Also: (1) Mary did not beget the Holy Spirit; (2) The Holy Spirit is God; therefore (3) Mary is not the mother of God. <\/span><\/p>\n It\u2019s the same error again, based on not understanding what Theotokos<\/em> means in the first place<\/em>. This is carnal<\/em> reasoning, that Paul talks about with regard to the Corinthians and their pagan Greek philosophical background.<\/p>\n Interestingly, the syllogisms used by Marian fanatics are turned against themselves when we analyze them carefully.<\/span><\/p>\n Not at all. The one confused here is Lucas<\/em>, not Catholics (and the Orthodox and Martin Luther and many Protestants who agree with us), as shown.<\/p>\n And that was exactly the question that Nestorius addressed: to say that Mary is or is not the mother of God is not as simple as that syllogism, but we must go into deeper terms if we want to reach a more certain conclusion. For, apparently, there is no problem with the Catholic syllogism; however, when we look more closely, we find like Nestorius that: <\/span><\/p>\n (1) One is only the mother of that which generates. <\/span><\/p>\n (2) Mary did not generate Christ\u2019s divinity, but humanity. <\/span><\/p>\n (3) Therefore, Mary is the mother of Jesus as a man, and not of God. <\/span><\/p>\n In other words, Mary is the mother only of Christ\u2019s humanity, and not of his divinity, which existed long before Mary. Therefore, the conclusion we come to is that Mary is the mother of Christ (Christotokos), and not the mother of God (Theotokos), as Catholics say.<\/span><\/p>\n This is just silly. As some of my citations above note, our mothers are not the mothers of our souls, which are directly created by God. But we don\u2019t say that they are mothers only of our bodies. They are our<\/em> mothers, and we are composed of both body and soul.\u00a0 \u00a0Likewise, Mary is the mother of Jesus Christ the Person, Who has a Divine and Human Nature (neither of which Mary brought about through reproductive biological processes. What she did was participate in the ineffable joy of bearing the incarnate God: being a necessary and glorious part of the incarnation.<\/p>\n About Nestorius being accused of \u201cheresy\u201d by the Council of Ephesus (431 AD), we must, first of all, emphasize that infallibility does not come from the councils, but from the Bible. <\/span><\/p>\n That teaching is never in the Bible, while the Bible does teach that the first Christian council, at Jerusalem (Acts 15) was indeed infallible, since the decision was described as follows:<\/p>\n Acts 15:28-29<\/strong> (RSV) For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: [29] that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n 1 Timothy 3:15 also teaches<\/a> that \u201cthe church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth\u201d (not just Scripture) is infallible<\/p>\n If councils were infallible and inerrant, then there would be no argument as to which councils are valid, for they would all be valid equally. Proof of this is that Roman Catholics accept 21 councils, while the Orthodox adopt only seven.<\/span><\/p>\n People disagree because not all men arrive at truth in equal measure. Look at the multiple hundreds of Protestant denominations to see that. But because a lot of falsehood is floating around, it doesn\u2019t follow that there is not one truth (and one divinely protected Church). Nestorius is heretical based on what the Bible teaches, before we ever get to what an ecumenical council (correctly) said about him.<\/p>\n Tertullian was considered a \u201cheretic\u201d by the Church of the time, he was excommunicated, joined the Montanists and then created his own religious segment, and Catholics and Evangelicals still cite abundantly the writings of the great theologian Tertullian in all his teachings.<\/span><\/p>\n This is nonsense through and through. Wikipedia (\u201cTertullian\u201d<\/a>) noted: \u201ctoday most scholars reject the assertion that Tertullian left the mainstream church or was excommunicated\u201d [citing source:\u00a0Tertullian and Paul<\/em><\/a>, by Todd D. Still & David E. Wilhite, A & C Black, 2012]. Co-author Wilhite observed:<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n The past half-century of scholarly investigation into the life of Tertullian has formed an overwhelming consensus that Tertullian was not a Montanist schismatic. (p. 46)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Wilhite noted (p. 47) that St. Jerome (De virg. vel<\/em>. 53) was the first to claim that Tertullian had formally left the Catholic Church and committed schism. He was born (c. 343) about 113 years after Tertullian died (c. 225), so that obviously didn\u2019t occur during Tertullian\u2019s own lifetime, and they believe that there was \u201ca complete lack of evidence that Tertullian was a schismatic\u201d (p. 47).\u00a0 Wilhite asserts:<\/p>\n Tertullian remained, and repeatedly referred to himself as, within the church. (p. 48)<\/p>\n I have contended that dismissing Tertullian\u2019s views as \u201cMontanist\u201d is premature . . . (p. 49)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n So (I\u2019m extremely curious) what scholarly source does Lucas draw from, where he learned that Tertullian was 1) called a \u201cheretic\u201d by the Church in his lifetime, and 2) was excommunicated?<\/p>\n Therefore, condemning Nestorius as a heretic for the simple fact that part of the Church of the time and a council considered him to be so, is at least an act of immaturity, committed by novice and amateur \u201capologists\u201d, who think that the Church in the 5th century (Nestorius\u2019 time) preached all the harmonic doctrines as found in the Scriptures! <\/span><\/p>\n Yes, we believe in ecumenical councils, which are infallible in some of their proclamations, following the scriptural model of the council of Jerusalem. Nestorius was formally and rightly declared to be a heretic by the ecumenical Council of Ephesus in 431.<\/p>\n Furthermore, the fact that the Church did not have an \u201cofficial\u201d position on this is evident, and that opinions were divided, which we can evidence in the Council of Ephesus itself. Bishop Celestine of Rome joined the side of Cyril, who took charge of the Council, opening the discussions without waiting for the arrival of the long-delayed entourage of Eastern bishops from Antioch, who were in favor of Nestorius. Therefore, they condemned Nestorius without giving the defense due opportunity and to hear both sides. <\/span><\/p>\n However, as the Council progressed, John I of Antioch and the eastern bishops arrived and were furious to learn that Nestorius had already been condemned. They gathered in a synod of their own and deposed Cyril. Both sides appealed to the Emperor and he initially ordered both of them exiled. However, Cyril eventually returned after bribing several members of the imperial court! This story is not told by them, for they only tell half of the story, hiding fundamental truths that belie their ploy.<\/span><\/p>\n Lucas obviously wants to emphasize the disagreements, but in his selectivity, neglects to point out that ultimately John I of Antioch and Cyril were reconciled (against Nestorius). The Protestant McClintock and Strong Biblical Cyclopedia<\/em> (1880: \u201cNestorius\u201d<\/a>) stated:<\/p>\n Nestorius saw himself deserted by many of the bishops of his party; and though John of Antioch and a number of the Eastern bishops stood firm for a time, John and Cyril were ultimately brought to an agreement, and both retained their sees.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n So yes, there was significant agreement, which is why both Catholics and Orthodox agree that Nestorianism was heretical and that Theotokos<\/em> is a good and proper title. Nestorianism barely exists today in a formal sense. Encyclopaedia Britannica<\/em> (\u201cNestorianism\u201d<\/a>) noted:<\/p>\n The modern Nestorian church is not Nestorian in the strict sense, though it venerates Nestorius and refuses to accept the title\u00a0Theotokos\u00a0for the Blessed Virgin.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The article continues:<\/p>\n In 1551 a number of Nestorians reunited with Rome and were called\u00a0Chaldeans, the original Nestorians having been termed Assyrians. The Nestorian Church in India, part of the group known as the\u00a0Christians of St. Thomas, allied itself with Rome (1599) and then split, half of its membership transferring\u00a0allegiance\u00a0to the Syrian Jacobite (monophysite) patriarch of Antioch (1653).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n On the second issue, Luke 1:43 says absolutely nothing about Mary being \u201cthe mother of God\u201d. To affirm this is to go beyond what is written (1 Cor.4:6). The biblical text only says \u201cmother of my Lord\u201d, not mother of God. In Greek, the word used for \u201cLord\u201d is \u201cKyrios\u201d (kuriou). This term, applied to Jesus in Luke 1:43, is not used to refer to God alone. Let\u2019s look at some references to \u201cLord\u201d (kuriou) in the New Testament without being specifically to Jehovah:<\/span><\/p>\n 1st Owners of property are called Lord (Mt. 20:8, kurios is \u201cowner\u201d \u2013 NIV).<\/span><\/p>\n 2nd The owners of houses were called Lord (Mk. 13:35, owner = kurios).<\/span><\/p>\n 3rd The owners of slaves were called Lord (Mt. 10:24, lord = kurios).<\/span><\/p>\n 4th The husbands were called Lord (1 Pet. 3:6, lord = kurios).<\/span><\/p>\n 5th A son called his father Lord (Mt. 21:30, lord = kurios).<\/span><\/p>\n 6th The Roman Emperor was called Lord (Acts 25:26, His Majesty = kurios).<\/span><\/p>\n 7th The Roman authorities were called Lord (Mt. 27:63, lord = kurios).<\/span><\/p>\n So if anyone claims that Luke 1:43 is some \u201cproof\u201d that Mary is \u201cthe mother of God,\u201d he is at the very least a gross immaturity and a blatant lack of biblical knowledge.<\/span><\/p>\n Kurios<\/em> can indeed be used in a wider, \u201cnon-God\u201d sense. But we know that both God the Father (Mt 11:25; 21:42; Mk 13:20; Lk 4:18; 1 Tim 6:15) and Jesus (Lk 2:11; Acts 7:59; 10:36; 1 Cor 12:3; Phil 2:10-11; Heb 1:10; Rev 17:14; 19:16) are called Kurios<\/em> in the sense of LORD (= God). The Father and the Son are both called \u201cLord\u201d in one passage (Mt 22:41-45; Rom 10:9-13). God the Father is called \u201cLord\u201d (Kurios<\/em>) and\u00a0\u201cGod\u201d (Theos<\/em>) in one passage many times (Mt 22:37-38; Mk 12:29-30; Lk 1:32, 46-47, 68; 20:37; Acts 3:22; Rev 18:18). Likewise, Jesus is called\u00a0 \u201cLord\u201d (Kurios<\/em>) and\u00a0\u201cGod\u201d (Theos<\/em>) in one passage (Jn 20:28-29; also true of Hebrews 1:8 and 1:10, if seen as one passage in the larger context; and God the Father uses both words for Jesus). See all of these passage and more fully written out in my paper, \u201cDeity of Jesus: Called \u201cLord\u201d (\u201cKurios\u201d) and \u201cGod\u201d (\u201cTheos\u201d)\u201d<\/a>.<\/p>\n \u201cMother of God\u201d doesn\u2019t rest scripturally only<\/em> on Luke 1:43 anyway. It can easily be shown through straightforward deduction:<\/p>\n 1) Mary is the mother of Jesus (Mt 1:18; 2:11, 13-14, 20-21; 12:46; 13:55; Mk 3:31-32; Lk 1:43; 2:33-34, 48, 51; 8:19-20; Jn 2:1, 3, 5, 12; 6:42; 19:25-26; Acts 1:14).<\/p>\n 2) Jesus is \u201cGod\u201d \/ Theos<\/em>:<\/p>\n Matthew 1:23\u00a0<\/b>\u201cBehold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel\u201d (which means,\u00a0God\u00a0with us).<\/b><\/p>\n John 1:1, 14\u00a0<\/b>In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with\u00a0God, and the Word was\u00a0God.. . . And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us . . .\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n John 20:28-29<\/b>\u00a0Thomas answered him, \u201cMy\u00a0Lord\u00a0and my\u00a0God!\u201d [29] Jesus said to him, \u201cHave you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.\u201d<\/p>\n Titus 2:13\u00a0<\/b>awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great\u00a0God\u00a0and Savior Jesus Christ,<\/b> 2 Peter 1:1<\/b>\u00a0. . . in the righteousness of our\u00a0God\u00a0and Savior Jesus Christ:<\/p>\n 1 John 5:20\u00a0<\/b>And we know that the Son of\u00a0God\u00a0has come and has given us understanding, to know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true\u00a0God\u00a0and eternal life.<\/p>\n 3) Therefore, Mary is the Mother of God [the Son: Jesus].<\/p><\/blockquote>\n And finally, on the third question, there is no historical evidence (I repeat: no evidence!) that goes back to the apostles and that tells us explicitly that Mary was the mother of God. <\/span><\/p>\n I just provided biblical proof, which is<\/em> from the apostles. There is quite a bit of corroborating evidence from Church fathers prior to 431<\/a> as well.<\/p>\n The first and largest historical source that refers to the apostles that we have today is the New Testament, which makes 39 mentions of Mary as being \u201cmother of Jesus\u201d (Christotokos), but absolutely none of her being \u201cmother of God\u201d (Theot\u00f3kos).<\/span><\/p>\n It\u2019s an inexorable deduction, as shown.<\/p>\n The first who preached Theot\u00f3kos was Irenaeus of Lyon, at the end of the 2nd century AD. Opinion in the Church was not uniform in this regard, and we have no apostolic or 1st to early 2nd century AD evidence to show that Christians at the time believed in Theotokos. <\/span><\/p>\n It\u2019s in the Bible itself, as shown, and that is apostolic, first-century, and inspired, infallible revelation.<\/p>\n I always ask Catholics: \u201cDid God die on the cross\u201d? <\/span><\/p>\n Yes He did, because Jesus was God. God the Son died on the cross. God the Son alone became man. God the Son alone atoned for the sins of mankind by His sacrificial death on the cross.<\/p>\n The answers are always divided, most of the time dubious and contradictory, and not infrequently confusing. <\/span><\/p>\n That\u2019s because there are apologists with differing degrees of knowledge answering.<\/p>\n The truth is that they themselves resist saying that God died on the cross, because to say that God dies is the height of blasphemy, nor does the devil believe in such a thing. <\/span><\/p>\n The Bible says both that Jesus died on the cross and was raised \u201cfrom the dead\u201d (Mt 17:9; 27:50; 28:7; Mk 9:9-10; 15:37; Lk 23:46; 24:46; Jn 2:22; 19:30; 20:9; 21:14; Acts 3:15; 4:10; 10:41; 13:30, 34; Rom 5:6, 8; 6:8-10; 8:34; Rom 14:9, 15; 1 Cor 8:11; 15:3; 2 Cor 5:15; Gal 2:21; 1 Thess 4:14; 5:10; 1 Pet 3:18; Rev 1:18; 2:8; see many more<\/a>) and that He was God \/ Theos<\/em> (see seven Bible passages not far above). So now the Bible<\/em> is blasphemous?<\/p>\n But if God does not die, <\/span><\/p>\n God the Father and God the Holy Spirit don\u2019t die, because they don\u2019t have bodies. God the Son dies.<\/p>\n that means that Jesus died on the cross as a man. <\/span><\/p>\n He died as the incarnate God-man. This is all carnal thinking. Lucas just doesn\u2019t get<\/em> it. And that\u2019s sad. Most historic Protestants have<\/em> understood this.<\/p>\n And if the Jesus who walked here on earth was a man like all of us, then Mary is the mother of the human Jesus, not of God.<\/span><\/p>\n No; she is His mother, period, and He is God and man both. Mothers give birth to people<\/em>, not natures or souls.<\/p>\n Did God die on the cross? <\/span><\/p>\n Yes, God the Son<\/em> did.<\/p>\n Can God have a mother? <\/span><\/p>\n God the Son<\/em> can, yes. And that\u2019s what Theotokos<\/em> refers to. Only the willfully ignorant or consciously heretical person could fail to see that.<\/p>\n The answer to both questions is a resounding \u201cNo\u201d! <\/span><\/p>\n The answer to both questions is a resounding \u201cYes\u201d!<\/span><\/p>\n In this way, we see that the Catholic claims to support the Marian dogma that Mary is the mother of God are nothing more than deception, with only an \u201cappearance of wisdom\u201d (Col.2:23), but that, when analyzed more closely, we see that they are \u201cingeniously invented fables\u201d (2Pe.1:16).<\/span><\/p>\n Then I eagerly await Lucas\u2019 answers to this article. The real \u201cfun\u201d and challenge in theological debates comes in the second round and after, where people are subject to cross-examination and counter-reply. I\u2019m here, waiting, and will defend all that I wrote, or retract if shown to be wrong.<\/p>\n Now onto Lucas\u2019 second<\/em> article on the topic: \u201cDeus tem m\u00e3e?\u201d<\/a>\u00a0[Does God have a mother?<\/em>] (5-12-13).<\/span><\/p>\n Today, May 12, 2013, is Mother\u2019s Day, and, as it could not be otherwise, an old discussion comes to the fore again: does God, the Eternal Creator and First Cause of everything, also have a mother? <\/span><\/p>\n No; God the Father obviously does not. No one with an IQ higher than a slug ever said otherwise.<\/p>\n Without wanting to delve too deeply into the subject, which I have also addressed<\/span> here<\/a>, here<\/a> and<\/span> here<\/a>, I have elaborated the following ten points that clearly indicate that no, God does not have a mother:<\/span><\/p>\n 1st Because, in the first place, to be considered a \u201cmother of God\u201d we must take into account the trinitarian concept of God. God is not limited to just the Father, just the Son or just the Holy Spirit, but the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is the one true God. Therefore, for Mary to be considered as \u201cmother of God\u201d she would also have to be mother of the Father and the Holy Spirit. <\/span><\/p>\n That\u2019s not true at all. Each Person of the Holy Trinity is fully God, but there are a few differences between them (only the Son is incarnate and takes on flesh; the Spirit proceeds from the son: filioque<\/em>). What is said of any of them is said of God. Again, Lucas is thinking in carnal terms, not spiritual, biblical terms. Theology and spirituality do not reduce merely to Greek logic. It\u2019s not philosophy. It\u2019s a religious faith. And biblical \/ Hebraic \u201cboth\/and\u201d thought is very different from Greek, secular \u201ceither\/or\u201d (and too often, Protestant) thinking. Lucas here and throughout these two papers reasons<\/em> like an atheist, not a believing trinitarian Christian.<\/p>\n Otherwise, we could use exactly the same syllogism used by Catholics against themselves:<\/span><\/p>\n a) Mary is not the mother of the Father;<\/span>\n
\n
\n
\n<\/b>
\nHebrews 1:8<\/b> But of the Son he says, \u201cThy throne, O\u00a0God, is for ever and ever, the righteous scepter is the scepter of thy kingdom. [God the Father calls God the Son, \u201cGod\u201d; The larger passage cites Ps 102:25-27, which is applied to God]<\/p>\n