Mary the mother of God?

The second person of the trinity, the Logos, existed prior to the incarnation. He existed in His fullness, 100% intact, omnipotent, omniscicent, and omnipresent. There is not one aspect of that fulness about which it can be said that Mary mothered. She gave birth to that incarnation, she gave birth to the flesh, she did not give birth to the Logos, she did not give birth to that which already existed, which is the fulness of the Godhead. The Word became flesh, she gave birth to the flesh not the Word. This is a unique situation and our normal definitions do not work.

 

So Revelation is wrong?

 

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with this.

Sure there is. AGAIN, "mother of" does not necessarily mean "originator of". Mary became the mother of he who already existed. Jesus is and was God, and Mary is his mother.

 

If the word became flesh, then the flesh she gave birth to was the word.

 

If you take humanity out of the salvation story - you destroy the signifigance of it.

He is not, in your version, the perfect man who resisted temptation and thus sacrificed Himself for all man's sins. He is just playing mind games. He never experienced temptation. The bible lied when it says he was tempted. He never knew what it was like to be man.

You RUIN the signifigance of who Jesus is if you say Jesus is NOT God.

 

OK to set the record straight:

Even though I am not comfortable with and do not use the title of Mary as "The Mother of God"

By doing so, if I am insinuating anything, I am insinuating that she is not the origin of the Trinity.

I believe that Christ is the Alpha and Omega.
I believe that Christ (who IS the Logos) is the Eternal second person of the Trinity. Mary who is not eternal and a created being could not be the origin of the eternal Logos.

I fully affirm the traditional orthodox doctrine of the Hypostatic Union of the human and divine natures of Jesus Christ.

I fully affirm the traditional orthodox doctrine of the Trinity that God is three distinct persons in one divine essence.

You asked a question

I gave you my answer.

Believe what you will and I will do the same, that is our right of Soul Liberty.


HankD

 

Hank,

I seldom use the phrase either because most people add "Holy" to the beginning, and Mary was not Holy. She was blessed.

And I respect those who don't like to use the phrase because of they do not want to attach some form of diety-title to Mary.

I just object to those who turn that into, "Mary is not the mother of God." She is. She is NOT the origin, obviously the Father conceived the child, and since our minds cannot grasp how the son was always part of the father have issues with it, but its still there.

God the Son was always part of God the Father.
And Mary, therefore, was mother to God.

She did not, by birth, create God.

She did, by birth, mother God the Son.

 

I think that's KEY. The Word didn't "fill" the flesh or "join" the flesh. The flesh wasn't just a "physical vessel" for the Word as some here have said. The Word became flesh.

Wow.

 

Texas let me illustrate why I no longer use the phrase "Mother of God" for Mary.

I am a former Roman Catholic (a cradle Catholic so-called), I was saved reading the Bible along with listening to radio preachers while in the military.

When I finally began to think about leaving the Church of Rome, it was a struggle for me for several reasons: shunning by my family and doctrinal matters, but especially the doctrine of Mary.

I simply couldn't bring myself to pray to Mary anymore even though I was still officially a Catholic.

I asked my priest why should I pray to Mary because the Bible teaches that worship is for God alone to receive. His answer: Because she is the Mother of God and she can influence Him.

I objected that the title of "The Mother of God" was nowhere to be found in the Scriptures and his response was "It's the official teaching of the Church which is equally authoritative with the Scripture".

The title of Mother of God was/is the springboard of several other non-scriptural (but official teachings of Rome) elevating Mary with titles such as:

The Co-redeemer with Christ.
The Mediatrix of all the graces of God.
The Advocatrix of God.

To use the phrase "Mother of God" immediately invokes the Church of Rome "Marian dogma" in the minds of almost every Christian.

In today's society I will not use the title because I don't ever want to be associated with or appear friendly to the Church of Rome again as well as my beliefs stated in previous posts.

HankD

 

Hank,

I respect your reasons.
Still, that does not change the fact that she IS the mother of Christ and that Christ IS God.

 

I can say each of those statements.
I can even say that she is the mother of my Lord.
I just can't bring them together and say that Mary is the Mother of God,
a title which is found nowhere in the Scriptures.

While I also respect your beliefs, this is how I resolved this issue years ago, the RC title of "Mother of God" is not found in the Scriptures.

HankD

 

Bunyon said:

Then by your own reasoning, to call Mary, Mother of God would be to call her mother of the whole Godhead.

First you espouse Nestorianism, now you espouse Sabellianism.

If you were actually reading what people said, you would already know this is not our "own reasoning" in any sense. Who here has said Mary was the father of God the Father or God the Holy Spirit? No one has.

 

Artimaeus said:

She gave birth to that incarnation, she gave birth to the flesh, she did not give birth to the Logos, she did not give birth to that which already existed, which is the fulness of the Godhead.

Was the baby Jesus fully God while Mary was giving birth, or not?

 

Is there a doctor in the house? An editor???

 

Amen This is the feeble, finite wisdom being used to justify the incorrect title of Mary, "mother of God".

 

Mary is the Mother of Jesus, she is the Mother of God because Jesus is God, she is the mother of Christ's Humanity.

 

This is going nowhere but in circles.

Some say that Mary is the "mother of God" because Jesus is fully God as well as fully man.

Rebutal: The Logos the Second person of the Trinity is eternal, pre-existed Mary and created her as well, therefore she could not be His mother (Logos) in the sense of pro-creation.
Also it is a title not found in the Scripture.

I will cede somewhat and say she was the "mother" of the Logos in the sense of care and nurturing because of the inseparable Hypostatic Union of the human and divine natures of Jesus Christ.
She could not tend to the human needs of Christ without including the divine in the transaction.

Don't expect me however to use the title "Mother of God". It is not found in the Scriptures as such.

This issue as well as many others which have been "debated" will probably not end well.
In fact some have already been labeled with heretical titles.

Personally, I think we (or I anyway) have reached the point of diminishing returns and will now bow out before it turns to all out war.

Anyway, bless you all.

One last word, I hope the pope doesn't read my cede statement above

HankD

 

HankD, that's not really a rebuttal of our position (for we also deny Mary was the starting point for his divinity). As I understand you, you seem to be saying the same thing as we are, just avoiding the actual term "mother of God" for personal, associative reasons. I don't really have a problem with that.

However, there are some others in this thread that are opposed to the term for other, doctrinal reasons, that have to do with the very nature of Christ, dividing his divine nature from his human nature, and saying things like the flesh is just a physical vessel, that the flesh isn't God, etc. It's those people that I think are in serious error.

That doesn't stop me from believing in, or using the term, "The Trinity".

 

Christ was fully God and Man. Mary was the Mother of Christ humanity.I do not see how this is heresy.

 

Mary was the Mother of Christ humanity.

I wish someone would answer my question.

Was Jesus divine when Mary gave birth to him, or wasn't he?