Does God have a Mother?

Excellent, excellent post, and a great, simple, clear explanation of the term "Mother of God".

 

"Mary was no more an incubator that I was for my son or any other mother who bears and gives birth are for their children. She was the mother of Jesus. Jesus was totally 100% man as well as being totally 100% God. To try to "downsize" Mary's role as his mother attacks the humanity of Christ."-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But were you the mother of their soul and spirit?
Trying to unduly elevate Mary is feminism in my opinion.

 

"Therefore, Mary is the mother of (conceived, carried, gave birth to) God"--------------------------------------------------------------------

She concieved God???? Really???? Oh, where would we be without her, we would have no God!

 

"...for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost"

Wrong. AGAIN, his conception was not his origin, but rather his incarnation.

 

"It's really quite simple:
Mary is the mother of (conceived, carried, gave birth to) Jesus.

Jesus is God

Therefore, Mary is the mother of (conceived, carried, gave birth to) God"------------------------------------------------------------------

NO, this only works if you limit the definition of mother, which the vast majority don't do naturally. So you are insisting on a title that is only logical with a forced limit on the term mother. You also must force a limit on the term God, because the term is naturally taken to refer to the whole Godhead. It take to much effort and is troublesome, why bother. If we did not call Mary Mother of God, are we in danger of seeing Christ as less than God. What purpose does it serve?

 

"...for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost"--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, you change the the plain meaning of the text. Note: it say "conceived in her", not conceived by her.

 

It serves the purpose it was intended to serve: to combat the false idea that the flesh Mary carried was only the "human part" of him. Rather, that flesh was God - the Word became flesh, not the Word joined up with or filled the flesh.

 

So his conception had nothing to do with Mary?

"And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."

"And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS."

 

"It serves the purpose it was intended to serve: to combat the false idea that the flesh Mary carried was only the "human part" of him. Rather, that flesh was God - the Word became flesh, not the Word joined up with or filled the flesh."---------------------------------------

The purpose it served was for Cyrill to hang a rival who never said Christ was not God. He simply did not want to use the title in a world that was full of pagan virgin mother God worshipers, like Artemis.


But you must not have really seen Ephesus for what it was. An attack by one political power against another. It is clear Nestorious did not think Christ was not God by his plane speech. Cyrill force the conclusion based on a problematic logic argument, and Nestorious never actually had a hearing. In the same way you accuse others of things like Nestorism based on this confusing logic based on limited definitions that folks don't even know you are using until it is too late to avoid your accusation.

 

Regardless of any politics involved, the doctrinal issue of the divine status of the flesh Mary carried still stands and remains an issue to this day.

 

BTw, natter. How are you doing? How are things? Hope you and your family are well. Hope you have a great Christmas.

Just thought I take a moment to be a christian.

 

Fine, thanks. Same to you.

 

Actually, the theological purpose was to protect the UNITY of Christ (as well as His deity), politics notwithstanding.
There is one personal subject in Christ, not two.

 

Eliyahu, stop the prooftexting it isn't helping your case. Hebrew 7:3 can not be understood outside of the context of scripture. You are attempting to set up a false dicotomy. It is true that the divine nature has no ancestry, but with the incarnation there is ancestry scripture is quite clear on that fact. You are attempting to seperate the divine from the human just like the heretic Nestorius. You cannot do that, if you do that then you gut the person of Christ and you end up with a false God or calling God a liar. There are two natures in the person of Christ, one divine and one human, but only one person. They are inseperable and unconfused. What is said of one nature is said of the whole person. You have seperated them by claiming Hebrew 7 nullifies the beginings of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke and all of the prophecies concerning the line of David.

Some of the others were right in stating that while Mary is not the source of the divine nature she is the source of the human nature and did give birth to Jesus, who by very nature is God.

The title, "Mother of God" is short hand for the above.

No Christian would ever claim that Mary is the source of the divine nature, nor would any Christian seperate the two natures of Christ.