Mary the mother of God?

I simply asked if you thought the Church of the Holy Roman Empire was wayward? I am going in that direction, but buy a different route. So do me the honor.

I suspect I'm being set up. That's usually what is going to happen when people start talking in riddles.

If you have a point, make it.

 

Never mind. I did not see it as a setup, but a way to make a point. Don't want you to feel that way.

 

I still fail to understand why it matters what the Catholic church said about anything at the council of Ephesus in 431.

Contrary to Catholic history books, the Catholic church was NOT universal even in 431. As in, it was not the only church that existed. By that time there were already offshoots who had determined that certain groups were going unBiblical ways. There had already been heresies brought into some churches.

But it really has no bearing on whether or not we ought to call Mary the "mother of God". Personally I believe it implies far too much about the dear lady. She will be one of the first people I hope to meet in Heaven someday, but I do not intend on looking for her sitting at either hand of the Father or of the Son. Everything about Heaven in the Bible indicates that the Apostles have special recognition in heaven, and the saints who were martyred over the ages. Mary is not ever mentioned as having any prominent place in Heaven.

The term "mother of God" has so much meaning within such prominent circles that IF at one time it WAS valid, it is valid no longer. Labels have a lifespan of usefulness, and once one has become too changed it can indeed become more harmful than good.

I just hope that she can't see whats going on down here on earth. She'd be heartbroken.

 

I have begun my study. But I am alarmed right of the bat. You guys said it was ok if we refused to use the title because of an association in our minds with its misuse. But the council of Ephesus places us under an anathoama if we refuse the title.

From the council of Ephesus------------

Anathema I. If anyone will not confess that the Emmanuel is very God, and that therefore the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God (Theotokos), inasmuch as in the flesh she bore the Word of God made flesh [as it is written, "The Word was made flesh"]: let him be anathema.

I can see they may have been dealing with some heresies, but to force folks to use a title that is non-biblical and to place them under Anathama if they don't, well that is terrible. But I am still studying and well hold my final oppinion until then.

 

Read the whole sentence. Note especially as "inasmuch as". I even most here that don't want to use the term "Mother of God" would still confess that she is, "inasmuch as" in the flesh she bore the Word of God made flesh. It's not about the use of the title, but agreement of the concept as described "inasmuch as".

 

I did notice that Natters and figured you would bring that up, but my point was that one could not refuse the title. I don't see that there is enought wiggle room for a conscincetious objector to object on other grounds.

I found this tid bit of info in an article also------

"The emperor finally interposed to terminate that scandalous strife, banished Nestorius and dissolved the council."

Just as I have contended. I beleive at this time the church was compromised to some degree. Here we have the emperor in authority over the church. It does not seem he intervened as an outsider. But I am still studying.

 

I didnt notice that part, Bunyon, and I find that most objectionable as well.

 

By my point is that I don't think your point was the point of the sentence you quoted. But whatever.

Now I don't even understand your point.

 

Natters, perhaps you would just pronounce an anathama on me now. I think what the church ended up doing to floks may have been like what you guys are doing to us. We object to it, we give our bestr reasoaning (like we should have to reason it out anyhow, it ain't in the Bible). Then you start talking deep theology and say we are espousing heresy. If we were in the 400ads, you would have excomunicated us by now!

What I am trying to figure out is how much authority should we give these councils. I read thet the Catholics view them as compeletly authoritative. As I read, I keep reading sentences like Pope leo did this and Emperor Theodusus did this, and it seems that the Emporor/pope marriage was already in full swing by then just as it was in the later Holy Roman Empire we all know and love.

But instead of saying "whatever" why don't you tell us why we should give this council as much authority as you do?

 

Don't play the martyr, and don't tell me what I would do. I personally don't care if you use the term or not. In my mind, it's the meaning that's important - that Mary gave birth to not just a "physical vessel" or "just the human part", but she gave birth to God himself, the Word made flesh.

 

"Don't play the martyr, and don't tell me what I would do."---------------------------------------

I am not trying to offend you pal, put you have accused several people with several lables of heresy so far in this thread. From what I have read, the folks who were given these very same lables in 421 were anathamized and excommunicated.

"that Mary gave birth to not just a "physical vessel" or "just the human part", but she gave birth to God himself, the Word made flesh."-------------------------------------------------------

I understand that Natters. What I am wondering is why we need a title which has resulted in widespred abuse and misuse, and is "man made" to help us acknowledge the diety of Christ when the Bible declared it whithout hardly talking about Mary.

 

Maybe you're thinking of someone else. The closest I came to that was when I said to Artimaus "your position is very similar to one of the early heresies that the early church fought against". His position, as I understand it, is similar to one of the early heresies. I'm not sure what exactly you believe about his birth, I'll go back over this thread later and see if I can find it. However, if certain people do believe certain heresies, it is not wrong to point out their error.

edit: I found what you believe. You said "Mary simply gave birth to the physical human part of Jesus." This is wrong.

We don't need the title. The truth is there whether we label it or not, whether others abuse it or not, whether you personally understand it or not.

 

"edit: I found what you believe. You said "Mary simply gave birth to the physical human part of Jesus." This is wrong."-----------------------------------------------------------------------

My posistion would be that God the Son in the form of Jesus passed through mary's birth Canal, but I would not describe that with the Title, Mary Mother of God. But what I see in statements like yours is what I have seen so far in the council of ephesus. Alot of accusations based on alot of semantic misunderstandings. It seems alot of blood flowed because of Ephesus. The lesson in my mind would be, don't make issues out of non-biblical titles. Or force people to have perfectly theologically correct explainations for things as mysterious as the Word becoming flesh or accuse them of heresy if they can't explain it in a perfect theological manner.

By the way if you asked the simple southern people I went to church most of my life with to give you a theological answer about the nature of the Logos being made flesh, you would get any number of descriptions just as we did on this thread, but none of them are heretics, but according to this council of 421, many would be, and many would have been excomunicated.

But am I right? It seems from my reading that the wedding of Pope/and/Emperor was in full swing already, just as it was in the days of the Holy Roman Empire.

PS one of you guys accused someone of Neostrism directly, if it was not you, I am sorry for thinking it was.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

ok, I don't understand why its wrong to say that Mary gave birth to the physical part of Jesus.

Honest. Please do not take this as a stance on my part. I simply do not understand the objection and would like to have it explained if you will.

I have always seen this statement as meaning that Mary did not contribute in any way to Jesus BEING God. She did not play a part in Him being deity.....she only played a part in Him being human. I don't understand why this is objectionable to some.

 

Bunyon, there is a big difference between being unsure of or unable to explain a doctrine, and denying correct doctrine presented by others. You believe "God the son in the form of Jesus passed through Mary's birth canal"? That's good. But then I don't understand your earlier statement which I quoted. Did you change your view during the course of this thread, or did you simply use bad wording in the past?

bapmom, you are correct that Mary did not contribute to Jesus being God - his deity did not start with Mary at all. What is objectionable is that some believe Mary only gave birth to "the human part" and not to "the God part". The problem is that "the human part" is God - the word became flesh. She gave birth to the Word, even though the Word already existed eternally. I think most here believe that, and/or haven't thought it out fully, and are not espousing heresy. However, it appears there are a few here that think (or thought) that the flesh is not God (but is just a "part" of Jesus, or a "physical vessel" for the deity), and that godless flesh is all that Mary had a part of. That is where objection comes in.

 

I see natters.

thank you.

 

No I did not change my view, but such is the weakness of language. I think everyone would agree with what I said About passing through the birth canal. I would interpret my earlier statement as saying that Christ's flesh originated with from Mary but his divenity did not. But I think in our modern mind and I suspect in the human mind period, the word mother strongly says "source of" much more strongly then it does, "vessel for" or "nurturer for" or anything else. I think the title should have been avoided by the early chruch. And I am not sure why we would want to reclaim it. If someone tells me that they believe Christ was God, but when they try to conceptualize, they see Jesus's flesh as man and the spirit within as God, I don't have a problem with that. I'm not sure we can really conceptualize it, so as long as they believe Christ is God the son in the flesh, I would not worry about it. I have not read all of the council of Ephesus. I read one of Nestorius (sp)letters and I don't think I would have excommunicated him, but I am not done reading.

 

Here's a link to the Orthodox view of Mary. I find myself much in agreement with their view. http://geocities.com/jej89/bvm.html
I believe the Protestant churches should show more honor to Mary. Note I said honor not worship.

 

Nate I think we should use the Bible as our guide. We sould Honor Mary to the degree the Bible does.

As I continue to study, I came accross this in the wykapedia article.

"The Emperor Theodosius II (401–450) was eventually induced to convoke a general church council, sited at Ephesus, which was a special seat for the veneration of Mary, where the theotokos formula was popular."-------------------------------------------------------------------

This seems to suggest that Ephesus was already in the habit of venerating Mary. I get the impression that this council may have been a war declared by Mary venerators against those who did not venerate her as such, and the Title was just a way of putting them on he spot, so to speak. Many heads rolled and according to the writtings, the ruling class was in it up to their ears! Just an impression still reading.

 

I read the article Nate, it is intrestig and make some good points, but it also insists that Mary was always a virgin, and that Jesus had no siblings. It says she should be held above all other creatures. Yet Jesus said there were none born of women greater than John the Baptist.