For those who do not understand what the Catholic Church teaches about Mary, I recommend reading “Hail Holy Queen” by Scott Hahn. It explains every place she is mentioned in scripture. Mary is not divine but she was preserved as the perfect holy tabernacle for the real Bread of Life. You wouldn’t put God in an impure, sinful vessel. She was chosen. Had she not said yes, we would not have our salvation because Jesus would not have come in the way that he did.
@@nightshade99 Scripture can be interpreted a million ways. you can twist Scripture to fit your poor understanding of anything. so tell me, how do you know what the correct way to interpret Scripture is?
@@brandonvaz YOU: Scripture can be interpreted a million ways. ME: It sure can, and that is why only the Holy Spirit delivers the perfect interpretation. YOU: you can twist Scripture to fit your poor understanding of anything. ME: Hence, the RCC. YOU: so tell me, how do you know what the correct way to interpret Scripture is? ME: Excellent question! If you are guided by the Holy Spirit and what you say cannot be refuted or contradict scripture, then that is the truth. God is not a God of confusion.
Jesus said “I and the Father are One.” And “If you’ve seen me, youve seen the Father.” Mary, though fully human, was and is the Mother of God and our Mother, too.
@@nightshade99 you cannot argue that i am creating a straw-man argument, when you started with a straw-man argument. you are choosing to voluntarily ignore what we mean by “Mother of God.” this title isn’t something we’re making up now cause we think it’s cool and epic, this is something that has been believed since the very beginning of the church. denying mary is mother of God is not a matter that ends on mary, it’s a matter that ends on Christ and who He is. if you deny mary is the mother of God, you are inherently denying Christ is God.
@@brandonvaz YOU: you cannot argue that i am creating a straw-man argument.. with a straw-man argument. ME: You falsely accused me of saying something I never said and then attacked that statement. On the contrary, I never did the same with you. Do you even know what a straw man argument IS, Brandon? YOU: you are choosing to voluntarily ignore what we mean by “Mother of God.” ME: All I did was address the singular statement. If there is more context to it, I'm all ears. YOU: this title isn’t something we’re making....something that has been believed since the very beginning of the church. ME: Truth in a statement or belief is not cemented due to its longevity. Doctrinal beliefs are proven by facts only, not sustained error. YOU: denying mary is mother of God is not a matter that ends on mary, it’s...Christ and who He is. ME: Exactly. Jesus had both a human and divine nature. Mary was mother to His human nature, not His divinity. YOU: if you deny mary is the mother of God, you are inherently denying Christ is God. ME: Incorrect. You stating that Mary was any MORE than Jesus's human mother is blasphemous.
@@nightshade99 YOU: "You falsely accused me of saying something I never said and then attacked that statement. On the contrary, I never did the same with you. Do you even know what a straw man argument IS, Brandon?" ME: you are falsely accusing the RCC of claiming the Holy Trinity has a mother, something that has never been said, and then attacked the statement. YOU: "All I did was address the singular statement. If there is more context to it, I'm all ears." ME: actually, there is tons more context which keeps on being explained to you in this comment section but you choose to not listen, which means you're actually not all ears. YOU: "There is not any truth in a statement or belief due to its longevity. Beliefs are be proven by facts, not sustained error." ME: saying mary is the mother of God is not a "sustained error." it is literally affirmed by Scripture. YOU: "Mary was mother to His human nature, not His divinity." ME: where in Scripture does it say that? i would love to know
The belief that Mary is the Mother of God is actually derived from the scriptures. No "twisting" of scriptures is necessary in order to arrive at that conclusion
@@nightshade99 Thomas referred to Jesus as "My LORD and my GOD" (John 20:28). Mary was referred to as "Mother of MY LORD" (Luke 1:42 - 43). How then is that title any different from "Mother of MY GOD" ? To say that the title "Mother of MY LORD" is not the same thing as as "Mother of MY GOD" implies that Jesus is Lord and NOT God , which would contadict John 20:28 When we say that Mary is "Mother of God", we are NOT saying that she is Mother of the Heavenly Father of Jesus Christ. It is simply an admission of the fact that Jesus can rightly be referred to as GOD in the same way as His Heavenly Father is referred to as GOD, because He has the EXACT SAME divine nature as His Father in heaven (Hebrews 1:3)
@@jerome8950 YOU: Thomas referred to Jesus as "My LORD and my GOD" (John 20:28). ME: Correct YOU: Mary was referred to as "Mother of MY LORD" (Luke 1:42 - 43). ME: It was verse 43 only. Here, this unborn Child in Mary's womb is referred to as Elizabeth's "Lord." The literal Greek term kyrios can refer to a master or be used in place of the English word "sir." In context, Elizabeth is celebrating Jesus as her Messiah and Savior (Luke 2:11; John 20:28). She realizes that the Messiah her own son, John, will proclaim, is growing inside of Mary's body at that very moment. YOU: How then is that title any different from "Mother of MY GOD" ? ME: Because Mary was mother to the human Jesus, not Jesus's divinity. YOU: To say that the title "Mother of MY LORD" is not the same thing as as "Mother of MY GOD" implies that Jesus is Lord and NOT God , which would contradict John 20:28 ME: Jesus IS God, but Mary was blessed to bear the Christ-child, nothing more. If you want to use the term as some sort of play on words, go ahead, but it can be quickly taken out of context by idol worshipers that you are promoting Mary as divine, which she isn't.
@@nightshade99 You are making the same mistake that Nestorius made in the 4th century of Christianity. You are trying to DIVIDE Jesus into TWO distinct PERSONS: the HUMAN Jesus and the DIVINE Jesus, and you are essentially saying that Mary is the Mother of the HUMAN Jesus ONLY. But Jesus is ONE person -- He is not divided into MORE THAN one person (1 Corinthians 1:13). Jesus is ONE person with TWO natures: the nature of God and the nature of Man. He is NOT made up TWO persons. Throughout scripture, He always referred to Himself using SINGULAR, not PLURAL. For instance, He always referred to Himself using the SINGULAR pronouns "I" or "Me". He never used the words "we" or "us" when referring to HIMSELF because He is ONE person. Secondly, a woman can only be the Mother of a PERSON, not the NATURE of a person. When my mother gave birth to me, she didn't give birth to a NATURE, she gave birth to a PERSON. That is how motherhood is defined -- it is defined in relation to a PERSON and not a NATURE. So the fact is this: it is either that Mary is the Mother of that PERSON called Jesus Christ or she is not. She can't simply be the Mother of one NATURE of the person and not be the Mother of the other nature of the SAME person. The Bible has always referred to Mary as "Mother of Jesus" (John 2:1; Acts 1:14). It has never referred to her as simply "Mother of the HUMAN Jesus" or "Mother of the HUMAN nature of Jesus". Besides, did the Bible ever say that it is forbidden or unacceptable for a DIVINE person to have a HUMAN Mother? Again, who told you that a HUMAN being has to become DIVINE in order to have a child who is a DIVINE person? Referring to Mary as "Mother of God" doesn't NOT (I repeat, doesn't NOT) imply that she is somehow a DIVINE being
For those who do not understand what the Catholic Church teaches about Mary, I recommend reading “Hail Holy Queen” by Scott Hahn. It explains every place she is mentioned in scripture. Mary is not divine but she was preserved as the perfect holy tabernacle for the real Bread of Life. You wouldn’t put God in an impure, sinful vessel. She was chosen. Had she not said yes, we would not have our salvation because Jesus would not have come in the way that he did.
Follow Jesus, not men's opinions
Beautifully said! And, I appreciate your promotion of Scott Hahn - he is a great "go to" for those wishing to go deeper into the 'eternal' depths.
@@brianback6136 Scripture reigns supreme over's men's interpretations.
@@nightshade99 Scripture can be interpreted a million ways. you can twist Scripture to fit your poor understanding of anything. so tell me, how do you know what the correct way to interpret Scripture is?
@@brandonvaz YOU: Scripture can be interpreted a million ways.
ME: It sure can, and that is why only the Holy Spirit delivers the perfect interpretation.
YOU: you can twist Scripture to fit your poor understanding of anything.
ME: Hence, the RCC.
YOU: so tell me, how do you know what the correct way to interpret Scripture is?
ME: Excellent question! If you are guided by the Holy Spirit and what you say cannot be refuted or contradict scripture, then that is the truth. God is not a God of confusion.
Jesus said “I and the Father are One.” And “If you’ve seen me, youve seen the Father.” Mary, though fully human, was and is the Mother of God and our Mother, too.
Blasphemy
She called Jesus her savior
God does not have a mother
so you’re saying Jesus isn’t God? blasphemy.
@@brandonvaz Incorrect. You are creating a straw-man argument. Reread my original statement with more focus.
@@nightshade99 you cannot argue that i am creating a straw-man argument, when you started with a straw-man argument. you are choosing to voluntarily ignore what we mean by “Mother of God.” this title isn’t something we’re making up now cause we think it’s cool and epic, this is something that has been believed since the very beginning of the church. denying mary is mother of God is not a matter that ends on mary, it’s a matter that ends on Christ and who He is. if you deny mary is the mother of God, you are inherently denying Christ is God.
@@brandonvaz YOU: you cannot argue that i am creating a straw-man argument.. with a straw-man argument.
ME: You falsely accused me of saying something I never said and then attacked that statement. On the contrary, I never did the same with you. Do you even know what a straw man argument IS, Brandon?
YOU: you are choosing to voluntarily ignore what we mean by “Mother of God.”
ME: All I did was address the singular statement. If there is more context to it, I'm all ears.
YOU: this title isn’t something we’re making....something that has been believed since the very beginning of the church.
ME: Truth in a statement or belief is not cemented due to its longevity. Doctrinal beliefs are proven by facts only, not sustained error.
YOU: denying mary is mother of God is not a matter that ends on mary, it’s...Christ and who He is.
ME: Exactly. Jesus had both a human and divine nature. Mary was mother to His human nature, not His divinity.
YOU: if you deny mary is the mother of God, you are inherently denying Christ is God.
ME: Incorrect. You stating that Mary was any MORE than Jesus's human mother is blasphemous.
@@nightshade99
YOU: "You falsely accused me of saying something I never said and then attacked that statement. On the contrary, I never did the same with you. Do you even know what a straw man argument IS, Brandon?"
ME: you are falsely accusing the RCC of claiming the Holy Trinity has a mother, something that has never been said, and then attacked the statement.
YOU: "All I did was address the singular statement. If there is more context to it, I'm all ears."
ME: actually, there is tons more context which keeps on being explained to you in this comment section but you choose to not listen, which means you're actually not all ears.
YOU: "There is not any truth in a statement or belief due to its longevity. Beliefs are be proven by facts, not sustained error."
ME: saying mary is the mother of God is not a "sustained error." it is literally affirmed by Scripture.
YOU: "Mary was mother to His human nature, not His divinity."
ME: where in Scripture does it say that? i would love to know
Such scripture twisters!!! 🙄
The belief that Mary is the Mother of God is actually derived from the scriptures. No "twisting" of scriptures is necessary in order to arrive at that conclusion
@@jerome8950 It is not in scripture
@@nightshade99 Thomas referred to Jesus as "My LORD and my GOD" (John 20:28). Mary was referred to as "Mother of MY LORD" (Luke 1:42 - 43). How then is that title any different from "Mother of MY GOD" ? To say that the title "Mother of MY LORD" is not the same thing as as "Mother of MY GOD" implies that Jesus is Lord and NOT God , which would contadict John 20:28
When we say that Mary is "Mother of God", we are NOT saying that she is Mother of the Heavenly Father of Jesus Christ. It is simply an admission of the fact that Jesus can rightly be referred to as GOD in the same way as His Heavenly Father is referred to as GOD, because He has the EXACT SAME divine nature as His Father in heaven (Hebrews 1:3)
@@jerome8950 YOU: Thomas referred to Jesus as "My LORD and my GOD" (John 20:28).
ME: Correct
YOU: Mary was referred to as "Mother of MY LORD" (Luke 1:42 - 43).
ME: It was verse 43 only. Here, this unborn Child in Mary's womb is referred to as Elizabeth's "Lord." The literal Greek term kyrios can refer to a master or be used in place of the English word "sir." In context, Elizabeth is celebrating Jesus as her Messiah and Savior (Luke 2:11; John 20:28). She realizes that the Messiah her own son, John, will proclaim, is growing inside of Mary's body at that very moment.
YOU: How then is that title any different from "Mother of MY GOD" ?
ME: Because Mary was mother to the human Jesus, not Jesus's divinity.
YOU: To say that the title "Mother of MY LORD" is not the same thing as as "Mother of MY GOD" implies that Jesus is Lord and NOT God , which would contradict John 20:28
ME: Jesus IS God, but Mary was blessed to bear the Christ-child, nothing more. If you want to use the term as some sort of play on words, go ahead, but it can be quickly taken out of context by idol worshipers that you are promoting Mary as divine, which she isn't.
@@nightshade99 You are making the same mistake that Nestorius made in the 4th century of Christianity. You are trying to DIVIDE Jesus into TWO distinct PERSONS: the HUMAN Jesus and the DIVINE Jesus, and you are essentially saying that Mary is the Mother of the HUMAN Jesus ONLY. But Jesus is ONE person -- He is not divided into MORE THAN one person (1 Corinthians 1:13). Jesus is ONE person with TWO natures: the nature of God and the nature of Man. He is NOT made up TWO persons. Throughout scripture, He always referred to Himself using SINGULAR, not PLURAL. For instance, He always referred to Himself using the SINGULAR pronouns "I" or "Me". He never used the words "we" or "us" when referring to HIMSELF because He is ONE person.
Secondly, a woman can only be the Mother of a PERSON, not the NATURE of a person. When my mother gave birth to me, she didn't give birth to a NATURE, she gave birth to a PERSON. That is how motherhood is defined -- it is defined in relation to a PERSON and not a NATURE.
So the fact is this: it is either that Mary is the Mother of that PERSON called Jesus Christ or she is not. She can't simply be the Mother of one NATURE of the person and not be the Mother of the other nature of the SAME person.
The Bible has always referred to Mary as "Mother of Jesus" (John 2:1; Acts 1:14). It has never referred to her as simply "Mother of the HUMAN Jesus" or "Mother of the HUMAN nature of Jesus".
Besides, did the Bible ever say that it is forbidden or unacceptable for a DIVINE person to have a HUMAN Mother?
Again, who told you that a HUMAN being has to become DIVINE in order to have a child who is a DIVINE person? Referring to Mary as "Mother of God" doesn't NOT (I repeat, doesn't NOT) imply that she is somehow a DIVINE being