In proving that Mary is the Mother of God, Roman Catholic apologist often quote Luke 1:43 where in it says: And how does this happen to me, that THE MOTHER of MY LORD (kuriou) should come to me? As the logic goes, since the word "Lord" is a title for God, and Jesus is indeed God, it follows that Mary is the mother of God. But we have to be clear that the word God in the title "Mother of God" pertains only to Jesus Christ being God the Son.
This is the same logic used by Mr. Cenon Bibe of Tumbukin Natin:
ANO ang IBIG SABIHIN ng "KURIOU"?
[What does "KURIOU" mean?]
Eto ang SABI ng EKSPERTO sa WIKANG GRIEGO:
[Here is what an expert of the Greek language says:]
STRONG'S EXHAUSTIVE CONCORDANCE: Ang "KURIOU" ay "GOD, LORD, MASTER, SIR."
[Kuriou is God, Lord, Master, Sir]
So, ILAPAT NATIN ang KAHULUGANG GRIEGO sa AKTWAL na SINABI ni ELIZABETH.
[So let's apply the Greek meaning to what Elizabeth actually said.]
Ang AKTWAL NIYANG SINABI sa LUKE 1:43 ay "And how does this happen to me, that THE MOTHER of MY GOD should come to me?"
[Luke 1:43 actually said, "and how does this happen to me, that THE MOTHER of MY GOD should come to me?"]
Does this "exegesis" have any merit at all? Is Mary the Mother of God because Elizabeth addressed her as the mother of her Lord?
A passage from Luke would help us debunk the logic:
My mother and brothers are those who hear God's word and put it into practice. Luke 8:21 NIV
The very words of Christ stated that those who hear God's word and put in to practice are His mother and brothers. Applying Mr. Bibe's logic:
Jesus is God.
Jesus' mother is the one who hears the God's word and put it into practice.
Mrs. X hears the God's word and put it into practice.
Therefore, Mrs. X is a mother of God.
If you think that is silly, so is Mr. Bibe's logic. In fact in Galatians 1:19, Paul addressed James as the brother of the Lord and not the brother of God (or if the Roman Catholics prefer, the cousin of God, to adhere to their perpetual virginity of Mary doctrine). When Elizabeth addressed Mary as the mother of her Lord, she was referring to Christ's position of authority. Nowhere in Elizabeth's mind would she equate that Mary is the mother of God. None of the apostles ever acknowledged this title. Neither would they use that logic.
We will leave you with a quote from Augustine in his work from Tract. in Ioannem (VIII,9):
Why, then, said the Son to the mother, "Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come?" Our Lord Jesus Christ was both God and man. According as He was God, He had not a mother; according as He was man, He had. She was the mother, then, of His flesh, of His humanity, of the weakness which for our sakes He took upon Him. But the miracle which He was about to do, He was about to do according to His divine nature, not according to His weakness; according to that wherein He was God not according to that wherein He was born weak. But the weakness of God is stronger than men. His mother then demanded a miracle of Him; but He, about to perform divine works, so far did not recognize a human womb; saying in effect, "That in me which works a miracle was not born of thee, thou gavest not birth to my divine nature; but because my weakness was born of thee, I will recognize thee at the time when that same weakness shall hang upon the cross." This, indeed, is the meaning of "Mine hour is not yet come." . . . How then was He both David’s son and David’s Lord? David’s son according to the flesh, David’s Lord according to His divinity; so also Mary’s son after the flesh, and Mary’s Lord after His majesty. Now as she was not the mother of His divine nature, whilst it was by His divinity the miracle she asked for would be wrought, therefore He answered her, "Woman, what have I to do with thee?"
This is the same logic used by Mr. Cenon Bibe of Tumbukin Natin:
ANO ang IBIG SABIHIN ng "KURIOU"?
[What does "KURIOU" mean?]
Eto ang SABI ng EKSPERTO sa WIKANG GRIEGO:
[Here is what an expert of the Greek language says:]
STRONG'S EXHAUSTIVE CONCORDANCE: Ang "KURIOU" ay "GOD, LORD, MASTER, SIR."
[Kuriou is God, Lord, Master, Sir]
So, ILAPAT NATIN ang KAHULUGANG GRIEGO sa AKTWAL na SINABI ni ELIZABETH.
[So let's apply the Greek meaning to what Elizabeth actually said.]
Ang AKTWAL NIYANG SINABI sa LUKE 1:43 ay "And how does this happen to me, that THE MOTHER of MY GOD should come to me?"
[Luke 1:43 actually said, "and how does this happen to me, that THE MOTHER of MY GOD should come to me?"]
Does this "exegesis" have any merit at all? Is Mary the Mother of God because Elizabeth addressed her as the mother of her Lord?
A passage from Luke would help us debunk the logic:
My mother and brothers are those who hear God's word and put it into practice. Luke 8:21 NIV
The very words of Christ stated that those who hear God's word and put in to practice are His mother and brothers. Applying Mr. Bibe's logic:
Jesus is God.
Jesus' mother is the one who hears the God's word and put it into practice.
Mrs. X hears the God's word and put it into practice.
Therefore, Mrs. X is a mother of God.
If you think that is silly, so is Mr. Bibe's logic. In fact in Galatians 1:19, Paul addressed James as the brother of the Lord and not the brother of God (or if the Roman Catholics prefer, the cousin of God, to adhere to their perpetual virginity of Mary doctrine). When Elizabeth addressed Mary as the mother of her Lord, she was referring to Christ's position of authority. Nowhere in Elizabeth's mind would she equate that Mary is the mother of God. None of the apostles ever acknowledged this title. Neither would they use that logic.
We will leave you with a quote from Augustine in his work from Tract. in Ioannem (VIII,9):
Why, then, said the Son to the mother, "Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come?" Our Lord Jesus Christ was both God and man. According as He was God, He had not a mother; according as He was man, He had. She was the mother, then, of His flesh, of His humanity, of the weakness which for our sakes He took upon Him. But the miracle which He was about to do, He was about to do according to His divine nature, not according to His weakness; according to that wherein He was God not according to that wherein He was born weak. But the weakness of God is stronger than men. His mother then demanded a miracle of Him; but He, about to perform divine works, so far did not recognize a human womb; saying in effect, "That in me which works a miracle was not born of thee, thou gavest not birth to my divine nature; but because my weakness was born of thee, I will recognize thee at the time when that same weakness shall hang upon the cross." This, indeed, is the meaning of "Mine hour is not yet come." . . . How then was He both David’s son and David’s Lord? David’s son according to the flesh, David’s Lord according to His divinity; so also Mary’s son after the flesh, and Mary’s Lord after His majesty. Now as she was not the mother of His divine nature, whilst it was by His divinity the miracle she asked for would be wrought, therefore He answered her, "Woman, what have I to do with thee?"
==>GERRY SOLIMAN,
ReplyDeleteHINDI MO MATUTULAN ang PALIWANAG KO tungkol sa LUKE 1:43 kaya GUMAWA KA ng SARILI MONG ARGUMENTO na IKAW RIN ang UMATAKE.
ANO ba yan, GERRY?
Ang LAYO ng HULOG ng INIMBENTO MONG ARGUMENTO.
Ang Luke 1:43 ay DIREKTA at TUWIRANG SALITA ni ELIZABETH na INSPIRED ng HOLY SPIRIT.
Yung PINAGKUMPARAHAN MO ay FIGURATIVE na SALITA ng PANGINOONG HESUS.
NAKAKALUNGKOT naman kung GANYAN ang NATUTUTUNAN MO sa RELIHIYON na ITINAYO ni CALVIN at BINUO ni LUTHER.
Anyway, THANK YOU for the FREE ADVERTISEMENT for TUMBUKIN NATIN.
[Ang Luke 1:43 ay DIREKTA at TUWIRANG SALITA ni ELIZABETH na INSPIRED ng HOLY SPIRIT.]
ReplyDeleteSo Luke 8:21 is not a direct and righteous statement of Christ? Is that what you're trying to imply?
[Yung PINAGKUMPARAHAN MO ay FIGURATIVE na SALITA ng PANGINOONG HESUS.]
Could be, but it nevertheless made use of the same logic.
Would that be all, Mr. Bibe?
PASENSYA KA NA kung PAPRANKAHIN KITA.
ReplyDeleteSTUPID ang ARGUMENTO MO.
Firstly, I said:
"Ang AKTWAL NIYANG SINABI sa LUKE 1:43 ay "And how does this happen to me, that THE MOTHER of MY GOD [KURIOU] should come to me?"
[Luke 1:43 actually said, "and how does this happen to me, that THE MOTHER of MY GOD should come to me?"]
Does this "exegesis" have any merit at all? Is Mary the Mother of God because Elizabeth addressed her as the mother of her Lord?
YOU THINK that ELIZABETH was SPEAKING FIGURATIVELY?
WRONG!
ELIZABETH, GUIDED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT, was STATING A LITERAL FACT.
WHY LITERAL?
Because MARY was LITERALLY CARRYING the INFANT JESUS IN HER WOMB.
COMMON SENSE will TELL YOU that A WOMAN CARRYING a CHILD IN HER WOMB is LITERALLY THAT CHILD'S MOTHER.
YOU DON'T NEED EXEGESIS to GET THAT.
ALL YOU NEED is AN OUNCE of BRAIN.
Now, you cited Luke 8:21.
A passage from Luke would help us debunk the logic:
My mother and brothers are those who hear God's word and put it into practice. Luke 8:21 NIV
The very words of Christ stated that those who hear God's word and put in to practice are His mother and brothers. Applying Mr. Bibe's logic:
Jesus is God.
Jesus' mother is the one who hears the God's word and put it into practice.
Mrs. X hears the God's word and put it into practice.
Therefore, Mrs. X is a mother of God.
The WORDS of JESUS in Luke 8:21 is ALSO a FACT. BUT, are those LITERAL FACT or FIGURATIVE FACT?
Again, AN OUNCE of BRAIN will TELL YOU that THAT IS FIGURATIVE.
Why?
Because IF YOU TAKE Luke 8:21 LITERALLY, then ANY WOMAN or MAN would become JESUS'S LITERAL "MOTHER AND BROTHER" BOTH AT THE SAME TIME.
HOW can ONE PERSON be BOTH MOTHER and BROTHER to ANOTHER PERSON, IN THE SAME CONTEXT, AT THE SAME TIME?
I KNOW YOU ADMIT to being "A SIMPLE APOLOGIST," but being SIMPLE is NOT THE SAME AS "SIMPLETON" or IGNORANT PERSON.
Again, I'M SORRY but YOUR REASONING is NOT THAT of a SIMPLE PERSON but that of a SIMPLETON--GROSSLY LACKING in LOGIC.
I DO NOT WISH to be HARSH but YOUR INSISTENCE on DEBUNKING OUR ARGUMENTS USING STUPID REASONING is DANGEROUS. What if ANOTHER DUMB PERSON READS YOUR REASONING and BELIEVES YOU BECAUSE YOU THINK THE SAME?
YOU WOULD be TAKING SOMEONE ELSE WITH YOU TO HELL.
Now, THAT DOES NOT MEAN YOU CANNOT PLAY APOLOGIST. OF COURSE YOU CAN.
But FIRST, STUDY. STUDY BIBLICAL HISTORY. STUDY SOUND HERMENEUTICS and EXEGESIS. And MOST IMPORTANT of ALL, DEVELOP COMMON SENSE.
Thank you.
I'm really "overwhelmed" with the harsh words you sent me. Please be guided by 1st Peter 3:15 accordingly, Mr. Bibe. Your top local apologists like Mr. Siy and Mr. Gitamondoc are following this, so should you.
DeleteBefore we begin I'd like to clear something first.
[YOU THINK that ELIZABETH was SPEAKING FIGURATIVELY?]
Please note that it's not my position that Elizabeth was speaking figuratively. So don't try to misrepresent me nor insist that this is my argument.
You said Luke 1:43 was literal. Fine, no problem with that. For me, Mary is literally Jesus' mother by virtue of humanity.
You said that Luke 8:21 is figurative. I believe it is more exact to say that it pertains to a spiritual relationship. However, the logic of the argument remains. Still, you don't address each other as brother of God (even in a "figurative" sense), or "spiritual" mother of God. Do notice that in the Bible, there are instances where fellow Christians call each other as brothers and sisters because they have a spiritual relationship with Christ. You even address your priests as "father". So all the more my argument has merit.
By the way, do you address James as the "cousin" of God (Galatians 1:19)?
Now if you don't like that, I'll give another approach to your "superb" argument. In John 20:28, Thomas addressed Christ as his Lord and God. Since Jesus is Lord and the Lord is God, was Thomas being redudant here? Why can't he just say either one, "My Lord" or "My God"? What does he mean when he said, "My Lord"? You're answer to that, applies also to the "Lord" in Luke 1:43.
I hope to hear from you, Mr. Bibe.
Once again, very impressive display of reason from you Mr. Soliman.
ReplyDeleteI am impressed with your last reply to Cenon Bibe.
Catholic exegesis in Luke 1:43 never assert that Elizabeth was meaning that Christ is also God when she called him Lord. It is true that kuriou can be Lord, God, or both, but in that passage, Catholic exegesis obviously understands that it's simply Lord. Why, because New Testament theology is not very clear on the divinity of Christ. It is only a later development especially in the post-apostolic time, although, John, being the youngest, was already slowly theologizing on the divinity of Christ.
hence, Elizabeth could not have known that the son of Mary is God. What she know, through the inspiration of the HS, is that the child in Mary's womb is the long-awaited Messiah.
However, although kuriou in Luke 1:43 is not God, I don't see any logical flaw in the inference that Mary is the mother of God from mother of my Lord. Although, INCs, rightly may reject the inference, you who believe that Christ is God, ought to agree also with the inference.
Regarding the syllogistic analogy you gave (Luke 8:21), the conclusion "Mrs. X is a mother of God" is also logically correct, that is, in so far as the formal laws of logic is concerned. It is also materially correct in so far as Mrs. X is a mother of God in the sense meant by Christ in his statement in Luke 8:21. But of course, it is not materially correct in the same sense that we call Mary is the mother of God.
I don't know if you are knowledgeable of a topic in Logic called "Supposition of Terms". The two syllogism cannot be parallel because they are of different suppositions. Hence, you can conclude that the former (syllogism in Luke 1:43) is absurd since the latter (syllogism in Luke 8:21) appears to be absurd.
I hope that you got my point.
Regarding your question: "do you address James as the "cousin" of God?"
My answer is we may. There's nothing wrong with that in as much as we understand that Christ is God. We can also say "John the Baptist was the playmate of God" (when they were still kids).
There is nothing special or mysterious in the phrase "Mary is the mother of God". It is simply a simple logical extension from "Mary the mother of Christ who is God". What is special in the phrase is that it professes explicitly and beautifully the great mystery that Christ, God, assumed flesh and was born of the Virgin Mary.
Of course, Mary is only the mother of Christ in His humanity, but there's nothing illogical in calling Mary as the mother of God.
Thus, you and all protestants should now start calling Mary as the mother of God. As long as you believe that Christ is God, I don't think that there's a single protestant doctrine that is compromised because of that.
Unfortunately, debate on this topic continue to rage because many catholic apologists fail to explain well the reason for the use of the phrase because they have not completely understood the dogma of the Divine Maternity of Mary and the dogma of the Incarnation.
I am commenting here in your blog, because I can see that your worth it.
[Regarding the syllogistic analogy you gave (Luke 8:21), the conclusion "Mrs. X is a mother of God" is also logically correct, that is, in so far as the formal laws of logic is concerned. It is also materially correct in so far as Mrs. X is a mother of God in the sense meant by Christ in his statement in Luke 8:21. But of course, it is not materially correct in the same sense that we call Mary is the mother of God.
DeleteI don't know if you are knowledgeable of a topic in Logic called "Supposition of Terms". The two syllogism cannot be parallel because they are of different suppositions. Hence, you can conclude that the former (syllogism in Luke 1:43) is absurd since the latter (syllogism in Luke 8:21) appears to be absurd.]
The consistency of the application of the syllogism is being tested here.
[Regarding your question: "do you address James as the "cousin" of God?"
My answer is we may. There's nothing wrong with that in as much as we understand that Christ is God. We can also say "John the Baptist was the playmate of God" (when they were still kids).]
That's just giving consolation prizes. Of course you can say that but you can't elevate that to a normal teaching like Mary's title as Mother of God.
[There is nothing special or mysterious in the phrase "Mary is the mother of God". It is simply a simple logical extension from "Mary the mother of Christ who is God". What is special in the phrase is that it professes explicitly and beautifully the great mystery that Christ, God, assumed flesh and was born of the Virgin Mary.
Of course, Mary is only the mother of Christ in His humanity, but there's nothing illogical in calling Mary as the mother of God.]
It's not as simple as that. While it is fair to say that Mary is the mother of Jesus who is God, it is not the same as calling Mary as Mother of God. Although it is just as fair to say Mary is the mother of Jesus who is human, you don't call Mary as Mother of Man. Even if you do call her Mother of Man, it is not equal with the title Mother of God. "God" in that title is so confusing.
we can also call Joseph the foster-father of God. :)
ReplyDelete-Red