The Instigator
Thorwald
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
CatholicTraditionalist
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

Mary is not the Mother of God.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
CatholicTraditionalist
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/22/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,033 times Debate No: 36946
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

Thorwald

Pro

God and His only begotten Son (The Lord of Hosts) existed before any humans were created on earth. Jesus was begotten 'without a mother'.

Jesus Christ is referred to in scripture, as 'Emanuel' (God with us). When Jesus (The Lord of Hosts) took on flesh, The Lord of Hosts was not 'killed off'. He simply became The Lord of Hosts 'in the flesh'.

The scriptures tell us, that 'God was in Christ' and 'Christ was in God' (The Godhead per Isaiah 44:6).

If you note, Christ stated, "If you see me, you see The Father (The Lord God Almighty)". Scriptures tell us that Jesus was begotten 'in the express image' of His Father. The physical appearance of Mary did not have any impact on the appearance of Jesus, as Son of Man. This could only happen, if The Lord of Hosts was implanted in Mary, as an embryo/fetus.
CatholicTraditionalist

Con

To make my case, I first must submit a few questions to the Pro.

1. Was Jesus both God and man 'or' was Jesus a man that God only dwelt within, and therefore Jesus himself was not actually God?

2. If you answered question#2 by saying Jesus is God and man, then was Jesus still God when he walked on the Earth?

3. Again, if you answered question#2 by saying Jesus is God and man, then was Jesus still God when he was being ripped by the Romans soldiers?

4. Once again, If you answered question#2 by saying Jesus is God and man, then was Jesus still God when he was being nailed to that cross?

5. If you answered question#2 by saying Jesus is God and man, then was Jesus still God when he had risen from death?

6. Lastly, when you as a "Christian" refer to Jesus Christ as your Lord, then are you referring to him as your God 'or' instead do you refer to him only as your master, just as the Jehovah Witnesses do? Note: The Jehovah Witnesses do not believe that Jesus is God.
Debate Round No. 1
Thorwald

Pro

God and His only begotten Son (The Lord of Hosts) existed before any humans were created on earth. Jesus was begotten 'without a mother'.

Jesus Christ is referred to in scripture, as 'Emanuel' (God with us). When Jesus (The Lord of Hosts) took on flesh, The Lord of Hosts was not 'killed off'. He simply became The Lord of Hosts 'in the flesh'.

The scriptures tell us, that 'God was in Christ' and 'Christ was in God' (The Godhead per Isaiah 44:6).

If you note, Christ stated, "If you see me, you see The Father (The Lord God Almighty)". Scriptures tell us that Jesus was begotten 'in the express image' of His Father. The physical appearance of Mary did not have any impact on the appearance of Jesus, as Son of Man. This could only happen, if The Lord of Hosts was implanted in Mary, as an embryo/fetus.

CatholicTraditionalist,
This is weird. When I try to respond with a new 'argument', my previous posting appears. In response to your posting, this is what I believe the scriptures are 'telling me';

Jesus, as LORD OF HOSTS, was begotten 'without mother'. His Father (The Lord God Almighty) included Jesus in the 'GODHEAD' (Isaiah 44:6). In order for Jesus to become 'The Christ' (Son of Man), Jesus was implanted in Mary as an embryo/fetus. The body of Mary was simply used for the gestation period until the embryo/fetus reached the point, in order for The Lord of Hosts to be born as a human child. There was absolutely no change made to The Lord of Hosts as He had been begotten, in the beginning. Mary was still not 'The Mother of God'. Mary was the 'Mother of the human form taken on by God.
CatholicTraditionalist

Con

Pro, I see that you have chosen to ignore each one of my questions, which is evidence that you are of bad will. Also, the title of this debate is "Mary is not the Mother of God", so I would appreciate it if we focus on debating that. Instead you seem to want to focus on Jesus having existed before Mary. This debate has nothing to do with the preexistence of Jesus prior to the creation of his mother, Mary. All Catholics and other Trinitarians accept the fact that Jesus eternally existed prior to his incarnation(which means took on flesh and therefore had a human nature). None of us believe that Mary created Jesus.

So, since you failed to answer my simple questions on the faith, then I have no choice but to work with the heretical things you have said so far.
Pro said, "Jesus was implanted in Mary as an embryo/fetus. The body of Mary was simply used for the gestation period until the embryo/fetus reached the point, in order for The Lord of Hosts to be born as a human child."

What you have just stated, Pro, is not found in the Bible. You are simply making it up. Jesus was not some lab experiment implanted inside of a lab rat. You are denying the Christian doctrine of the "incarnation" which is a miracle, not a science project and/or Sci-fi movie.
Also, you still have not answered my original questions, so I will ask my questions again. If you are an honest person and of good will, then you will answer my simple questions....

1. When Jesus came to us 2000 yrs ago, after his incarnation, then was Jesus both God and man 'or' was Jesus a man that God only dwelt within, and therefore Jesus himself was not actually God?

2. If you answered question#2 by saying Jesus is God and man, then was Jesus still God when he walked on the Earth?

3. Again, if you answered question#2 by saying Jesus is God and man, then was Jesus still God when he was being ripped by the Romans soldiers?

4. Once again, If you answered question#2 by saying Jesus is God and man, then was Jesus still God when he was being nailed to that cross?

5. If you answered question#2 by saying Jesus is God and man, then was Jesus still God when he had risen from death?

6. Lastly, when you as a "Christian" refer to Jesus Christ as your Lord, then are you referring to him as your God 'or' instead do you refer to him only as your master, just as the Jehovah Witnesses do? Note: The Jehovah Witnesses do not believe that Jesus is God.
Debate Round No. 2
Thorwald

Pro

CatholicTraditionist,

I answered your questions in my original posting. I have stated the reasons for my 'interpretation' of how the scriptures have to be looked at, and 'joined together' so they cannot be contradicted in any way.

Yes, JESUS IS PART OF THE GODHEAD (Isaiah 44:6).

Jesus has 'TWO' functions (for a lack of a better way of saying it).
1) He is 'God' in terms of both He and His Father (The Lord God Almighty), together working in unison, are The Godhead. Together they both created all things (The 'us' in Genesis 1:26).

2) Jesus is our saviour, as Son of Man (CHRIST). He was the only one who was pure enough, to offer Himself as an 'unblemished LAMB'. Mary is only the MOTHER of Christ. For anyone to say that Mary is the mother of God, God would have had to been destroyed/killed, and then 're-created' again as 'Son of Man AND GOD'. THIS DID NOT HAPPEN.

3) As I have posted previously, the physical appearance of Jesus as Son of Man, was still 'in the express image' of The Lord God Almighty. The physical appearance of Mary (her genes, and so on), had no effect on the physical appearance of Jesus. This could ONLY have happened, by The Holy Spirit implanting The Lord of Hosts (Jesus) in Mary, as an embryo/fetus. This allowed Jesus to remain in His original 'appearance' as He was as Lord of Hosts. It also explains the teachings of Jesus, as written in The Bible. There are no 'contradictions' in Christ's teachings. There are, however, contradictions, if I use YOUR theories.
CatholicTraditionalist

Con

Again, the title of this debate does not say "Mary does not have the DNA of Jesus" and it does not say "Mary is not the creator of God". So why is the Pro attempting to debate on irrelevant arguments that have nothing to do with the actual title of this debate which says "Mary is not the mother of God". I accept that Mary may not have the DNA of Jesus, and I've already said that no true Christian believes Mary created Jesus. For all those viewing this debate, ask yourself this question, ' Is a child who was given birth and raised by a mother from infant, to child, to teenager to adult not one's mother, even if the DNA is not exactly the same? ' Is the Pro also going to claim that Joseph was not the father? Even step parents are looked upon by the one they raised as being his or her parents, hence mother and father. Are not step parents called "mom" and "dad" by those who they raised? Of course they are.

Also Pro, again you have shown yourself to be of bad will by not having directly answered my simple questions. I am therefore left with no alternative but to extrapolate from what you have stated to refute your own argument.

Pro said, "1) He is 'God'..."
Pro said, "Jesus Christ is referred to in scripture, as 'Emanuel' (God with us)."
Pro said, "2) Jesus is our savior,...."
So, by the Pro's own admission, "Jesus Christ is God" and "Jesus Christ is our Savior". Therefore since Pro claimed that Mary is the mother of Jesus Christ and that Jesus Christ is God, then Mary is the mother of God.

Here is the math...

God is Jesus and Jesus is God ,,, Therefore 'Mary is the mother of Jesus who is God'. Another way of saying it is 'Mary is the mother of God who is Jesus.'

Jesus is God.
Mary is Jesus' mother.
Therefore, Mary is the Mother of God.

We also see in Scripture that Mary is called the mother of God. I'll use to King James version bible since that is what most of you non-Catholic protestants use.........

Luke 1:41-43 - "And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: and she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. and whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?"

Luke 1:46-47 - Mary responds to Elizabeth by saying, "My soul doth magnify the Lord, and my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Savior."

So, since the Pro has already stated that the Lord and Savior is God, then Mary is being called the mother of God in Luke 1:43. Plus if anyone dismisses Luke 1:43, then Mary makes it clear in Luke 1:46-47 that this Lord that she is carrying in her womb is God her savior. Therefore Mary is the mother of God.

There is more evidence in favor of Mary being the mother of God on these web pages............

http://www.catholic.com...

http://catholiclane.com...

http://www.encyclopedia.com...

http://avemary.org...
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by MrJosh 4 years ago
MrJosh
ThorwaldCatholicTraditionalistTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Ouch, just ouch. Conduct to CON for actually acting like he was in a debate; arguments for actually making proper arguments (which PRO didn't even bother with); sources for using sources.
Vote Placed by Mikal 4 years ago
Mikal
ThorwaldCatholicTraditionalistTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I have no idea what pro was attempting to achieve with using those type of semantics, but he failed miserably. Cons arguments were must stronger and pro derailed some of his points he made.