Does God have a Mother?

Where is the clamoring and complaining about non-Catholic Christians not calling Joseph "Teacher of God" or "God's teacher" among all non-Catholic Christians?

Where are all the supposed defenders of Christ's divinit falling on their swords over failure of Bible writers and all Christians known to mankind failing to call Christ's brothers the "brothers of God" or Joseph the "teacher of God" or David the great "ancestor of God"??

Why is there no fuss stating that if you only say "of Jesus" then you are "denying His divinity" in these cases?

Nobody gets slaughtered by the RCC in the dark ages for boldly "refusing to call Joseph the teacher of God" --- (By contrast to the the Mariolotry problems they were having)

Oddly there is total and complete silence there - among those who make that same complaint when it comes to only using the Bible terms for "Mary mother of Jesus".

Hmmm now "What do you suppose the agenda is there"??

hmmmm that is a hard one!

In Christ,

Bob

 

Interesting question. Why is it so important to try and get folks to advocate the use of the title?

 

"Cyril and his minions". NICE......

Yeah, he comes across just so evil and devious and tyrannical in his defense of the unity of Christ.
(But I guess you won't be deterred in your demonization of an orthodox Christian)

 

"Cyril and his minions". NICE......


I thought you knew all about Ephesus. Evey account I read said Cyrill was a very bad and aggresive political appointee. Buy you err. He is not technically a defender. He is a porsecutor. He tried to force Nestorius to use the title. All the other stuff only got discussed because nestorius was forced to defend himslef for not useing the title.

But what can I expect from a guy from Rome. LOL

 

Because this was never a source of heretical speculation involving the unity of the person of Christ. However, I'm sure that the orthodox would agree that in a sense Joseph was a "teacher of God"--of God in the flesh, since that's who Christ is. They could appropriately call Joseph that, knowing full well that God in his divinity is omniscient, since the Person of God Incarnate had a teachable human nature as well. Christ is ONE PERSON. Just as Paul was justified in saying "they crucified the LORD OF GLORY"--1 Corinthians 2:8. Though divinity cannot in its nature be crucified, the Divine PERSON was indeed crucifed.

Denying that Mary was the "Theotokos" ("birthgiver of God", a title ascribed to Mary at least 200 years before the Council of Ephesus) implied that the one she gave birth to was merely a man that God the Word assumed. In other words, it implies they are two separate hypostases thus weakening the unity of Christ. The fact is that the Man Jesus is the very same hypostasis of God the Word made flesh. So contrary to what you have expressed, terms like "Theotokos" or "Mother of God" were used to defend the truth of the INCARNATION as the One PERSON that Mary gave birth to was God and man even at conception. If you actually read the accounts surrounding Ephesus you'd see that this would be the case...but I guess that wouldn't be consistent with your agenda of demonizing orthodox Christians as "Mariolaters".

 

I'm not surprised, since by now it is evident that the "accounts" you have read appear to be nothing more than revisionist pseudo-historical polemics.

 

"Denying that Mary was the "Theotokos" ("birthgiver of God", a title ascribed to Mary at least 200 years before the Council of Ephesus) implied that the one she gave birth to was merely a man that God the Word assumed."----------------------------------------------------

My understandind is the title was very rare in the liturature before Ephesus. Ephesus was a victory for the Mary cult. Don't you know that Ephesus was the capital of the world for Godess worship in the ancient world. There was a Mary cult there. Why do you think Cyrill forced Nestorius to come to Ephesus for his hanging? Why do you think political appointees are capable of determining orthodoxy? You do realize they were both political appointees don't you. By this time real Christians were probably running for the hills.

 

"I'm not surprised, since by now it is evident that the "accounts" you have read appear to be nothing more than revisionist pseudo-historical polemics."----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry, but they were not. And they all agreed. It is just plain history. And it is very obvious.

 

Doubting Thomas, you take on the name of a doubter, but you are clearly incapable of doubting Ephesus. Do you give it infallible authority like the Catholics do?

Tell the truth. You are really a Catholic seminary student with nothing better to do, huh?

Just kidding you. Hope the ice Storm did not get you. Off the see Narnia again. Take care.

 

I believe I was mistaken on the thread that I posted about Catholics not being allowed to post.

There is apparently no such rule on the message board and there is also no policy question about allowing Catholics to post as long as they keep to the board rules.

I had the wrong impression and assumed that there might be a policy question where there is apparently none.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Well, yet again, your understanding is not correct.

(More johnny-come-lately conspiratorial pseudo-history. Move over, Dan Brown--here comes BUNION! )

No the real Christians were defending the truth at Ephesus. Just as they did 20 years later at Chalcedon and 50 years earlier at Constantinople..and 106 years earlier at Nicea.

Too bad the real Christian historians, such as JND Kelly and Jaroslav Pelikan, would disagree with you and your "accounts". Of course, the primary sources disagree with you too...but don't let that stop you.

Not even close. I'm not even Roman Catholic, but I do consider myself "little 'c' catholic"

 

The old "guilty-by-association" fallacy. Well, if it's any consolation I do reject the 449 AD "robber council" of Ephesus.

 

#1. WAs it "heresy" for the Bible writers to ONLY hold out the claim "Mary mother of Jesus" instead of the RC claim "Mary Mother of God"???

Was it "heresy" for Christians to STICK WITH the Bible writer's example and NOT go to the RCC extremes?

#2. When you say that "Joseph the Teacher of God" is never questioned or never used to question Christ's divinity are you saying that as long as a group is trinitarian they need not claim "Mary is the Mother of God" just like the Bible writers made no such claim???

(Or are you saying the RCC should put words into their mouths if they are trinitarians who do not claim Mary as the "Mother of God" but just stick to "Mary mother of Jesus" -- like the Bible writers did?)

Fine then if we ask "Who was God's teacher" They would gladly say "Joseph taught God"???

And that "exaults God"?? Or Joseph??

So when speaking of the "GOD" Attributes -- (like omniscience) then it is NOT correct to say that "God was taught by Joseph"??

How in the world can you admit to such an obvious point while denying it in the case of Mary?

If their roles with respect to Christ were NOT applicable to HIS GOD ATTRIBUTES (No beginng, omniscience etc) then why DELIBERATELY mix them in AS IF "at the command of Mary all obey - even God"...

In other words if you can admit to yourself that it is in the area of His "God attributes" that these title DO NOT apply (so Joseph is NOT the teacher of the ALL KNOWING GOD) why can you not admit to the same thing in terms of PROCREATION vs INCARNATION?

BTW - When I speak of "Mary all powerful like Christ" and "Mary sinless like Christ" and "At the command of Mary ALL obey EVEN GOD" and "worship at Mary's altars".. (Just the usual and customary Mariolotry) I am only quoting RC sources.

In Christ,

Bob

 

The info on Ephesus is well established and widely diseminated. It is not historical revisionism. The facts are clear. You are desparate now, because all you can do is claim the history is wrong and has been revised. Deep down you realize what Ephesus was. You know it was the world capital for mother God worship. You also know there was a mary cult there. You also know both parties were political appointees. You also know Cyrill did not just pop up and present evidence that Nestorius was a heretic. He tried to force Nestorius to allow the title, and then picked an argument over it, just as you do.

Just because you keep trying to claim pseudo history does not change the clear history. It is there for anyone to read.

And the bottom line is your sylogism does not work unless you can get folks to agree to limit the word mother. We don't agree, therefor it don't work. Take it somewhere where nearly 90 percent of the members don't disagree with you as nearly 90 percent don't here on BBoard.

 

"The old "guilty-by-association" fallacy. Well, if it's any consolation I do reject the 449 AD "robber council" of Ephesus."------------------------------------------------------------------

So you expect folks to believe that cyril choose ephesus, the world capital of virgin godess worship, for his attack over a mother of God title because the air was nice?

 

It was heresy to later deny that the ONE Mary gave birth to was indeed God, despite the fact that the word "theotokos" is not found in the Bible. Just as it was a heresy to deny Christ was consubstantial with the Father, even though the word "consubstantial" is not in the Bible. It is also a heresy to deny the truth of the Trinity even though the word "Trinity" is not in the Bible.

Nice try, Bob, but, again, no dice.