Mary Mother of God?

Originally posted by galveston75
So a following question would be to trinitarians, is why wasn't she called the "Mother of God" by the Christians of that time?

21 She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.” 22 Now all this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet: 23 “ Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which translated means, “ God with us.”


Matthew 1-21-23

And who has the prerogative to forgive sin but God

Manny

Originally posted by FMF
Here is the Jehovah's Witness view on the matter:

"Exposed: Six Myths About Christianity

Myth 5: Mary Is the Mother of God

What is the origin of the myth? “Veneration of the mother of God received its impetus when . . . the pagan masses streamed into the church. . . . Their piety and religious consciousness [that of pagans converted to Christianity] had ...[text shortened]... worship of Mary as the Mother of God"

http://www.watchtower.org/e/20091101/article_06.htm

Guess one cult's answer is as good as another.

Originally posted by menace71
21 She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.” 22 Now all this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet: 23 “ Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which translated means, “ God with us.”


Matthew 1-21-23

And who has the prerogative to forgive sin but God

Manny

The Sign of Immanuel
Jehovah remains faithful toward his covenant with David. A sign was offered, a sign will be given! Isaiah continues: “Jehovah himself will give you men a sign: Look! The maiden herself will actually become pregnant, and she is giving birth to a son, and she will certainly call his name Immanuel. Butter and honey he will eat by the time that he knows how to reject the bad and choose the good. For before the boy will know how to reject the bad and choose the good, the ground of whose two kings you are feeling a sickening dread will be left entirely.”—Isaiah 7:14-16.

Here is good news for anyone fearing that the invaders will put an end to the Davidic line of kings. “Immanuel” means “With Us Is God.” God is with Judah and will not allow his covenant with David to be nullified. In addition, Ahaz and his people are told not only what Jehovah will do but also when he will do it. Before the boy Immanuel is old enough to distinguish between good and bad, the enemy nations will be destroyed. And this proves true!

The Bible does not reveal whose child Immanuel is. But since the young Immanuel is to serve as a sign and Isaiah later states that he and his children “are as signs,” Immanuel may be a son of the prophet. (Isaiah 8:18) Perhaps Jehovah leaves the identity of Immanuel in Ahaz’ day uncertain so as not to distract later generations from the Greater Immanuel. Who is that?

Outside of the book of Isaiah, the name Immanuel occurs only once in the Bible, at Matthew 1:23. Jehovah inspired Matthew to apply the prophecy of Immanuel’s birth to the birth of Jesus, the rightful Heir to the throne of David. (Matthew 1:18-23) The birth of the first Immanuel was a sign that God had not forsaken the house of David. Likewise, the birth of Jesus, the Greater Immanuel, was a sign that God had not forsaken mankind or his Kingdom covenant with David’s house. (Luke 1:31-33) With Jehovah’s chief representative now among mankind, Matthew could truly say, ‘With us is God.’ Today, Jesus rules as heavenly King and is with his congregation on earth. (Matthew 28:20) Surely, God’s people have added reason to cry out boldly: “With us is God!”

IP book. Chapter 9 pages 107-109

So if one were to look back at this name and it's use back in Isaiah originally, it was used to describe God's presence or protection he had for his people.
His presence was not a literal in person presence as the Bible clearly says "no human may see God and live" but it was his "looking over" or his pretecting of his people.
So this term " God is with us" means just that in that he is with us either by protecting and guiding us.
This does not mean Jesus is God but instead it would mean he is being represented by Jesus just as others in the past represented God. Moses was one of many examples of ones representing God.

Originally posted by galveston75
The Sign of Immanuel
Jehovah remains faithful toward his covenant with David. A sign was offered, a sign will be given! Isaiah continues: “Jehovah himself will give you men a sign: Look! The maiden herself will actually become pregnant, and she is giving birth to a son, and she will certainly call his name Immanuel. Butter and honey he will eat by the ...[text shortened]... rs in the past represented God. Moses was one of many examples of ones representing God.

blah blah blah.......then why name him that?



Manny

His name is Jesus (Y'shua or whatever you prefer) but it isn't Immanuel. Guess the fiction writers otherwise known as the authors of the gospels couldn't even get that right.

Originally posted by menace71
♥♦♣♠



Manny

OMG I've created a MONSTER!!

Originally posted by galveston75
The Sign of Immanuel
Jehovah remains faithful toward his covenant with David. A sign was offered, a sign will be given! Isaiah continues: “Jehovah himself will give you men a sign: Look! The maiden herself will actually become pregnant, and she is giving birth to a son, and she will certainly call his name Immanuel. Butter and honey he will eat by the ...[text shortened]... rs in the past represented God. Moses was one of many examples of ones representing God.

Isaiah 9:6

For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Stop making everything complicated.

Originally posted by divegeester
Isaiah 9:6

For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, [b]Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Stop making everything complicated.[/b]

A more accurate translation is from the Stone edition of the Tanakh.

For a child has been born to us, a son has been given to us, and the dominion will rest on his shoulder; the Wondrous Adviser, Mighty God, Eternal Father, called his name Sar-shalom.

Shar-shalom is correctly translated as prince of peace but that is to be his name.

Originally posted by Phil Hill
His name is Jesus (Y'shua or whatever you prefer) but it isn't Immanuel. Guess the fiction writers otherwise known as the authors of the gospels couldn't even get that right.

It says He would be called Immanuel, which means "God with us". Well, we Christians do call Him "God". He is referred to as "God in the flesh" and that is the same as calling Him "God with us". The angel told Joseph that the name of Mary's son should be called Jesus, which is Yahshua, meaning "God saves". So in both cases He is called "God with us".

P.S. We also call Him the Prince of peace.

Originally posted by galveston75
Why was this term never used in reguards to Mary, Jesus's mother while he was on earth?

How do you know it wasn't?

Originally posted by menace71
blah blah blah.......then why name him that?



Manny

It wasn't his name but it was a name that was used in the past to show God's attention was there or that someone was representing him.

Originally posted by Conrau K
How do you know it wasn't?

It was never written down in the Bible once. So one would think if it had been said by anyone it would be there. If you know of it written in the bible, show me.
For trinitarians it is a major issue and something that is BIG so to say. But yet that BIG doctrine that Mary had "Almighty God" or a part of him as a baby is totally missing from the Bible.
Again as has been discussed over and over is that yes, Jesus can be called a God in the sence of the power and position he has been given. Satan has been called a God. It is just a name or title of position that a spirit or even a human is given to show their power over humans.
But "nowhere" is Jesus ever called the ALMIGHTY GOD....ever.

Originally posted by divegeester
Isaiah 9:6

For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, [b]Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Stop making everything complicated.[/b]

Truth is not a complicated thing, and there is nothing untrue about the scripture you just quoted. So what is the issue with it?

God's son was born. True.
A government will be on his shoulders. True. It is a position he earned and one his Father gave him to rule over.
He will be called wonderful councelor. True again.
He is a Mighty God. True again. But he is not "Almighty God" and never will be. Only his Father Jehovah is called Almighty.
Everlasting Father. True again. He has been given the position by HIS Father Jehovah to guide us, teach us, and to be a Father figure to us especially within the 1000 year time he rules the Kingdom that HIS Father has given him to rule. At the end of that 1000 years he will hand that Kingdom back ti HIS Father who he is in "subjection" too.
Prince of Peace. Very true again.

So nothing complicated there.

Originally posted by Phil Hill
A more accurate translation is from the Stone edition of the Tanakh.

For a child has been born to us, a son has been given to us, and the dominion will rest on his shoulder; the Wondrous Adviser, Mighty God, Eternal Father, called his name Sar-shalom.

Shar-shalom is correctly translated as prince of peace but that is to be his name.

Bwahahahahaha!

You think it's all hooey anyways, so we should take YOUR word on what translation is "more accurate"?

I don't think so.

Originally posted by divegeester
Isaiah 9:6

For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, [b]Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Stop making everything complicated.[/b]

From what I gather on these boards, you don't believe in the Trinity either, so what exactly is this about? Why argue for the Trinity now?