If Mary was the mother of God...

[WetCatechumen]

His human nature can, but inasmuch as God being birthed at some point in time, no, however, God decided to be born of a woman in order to save the world from its sins, so in that sense he decided to suffer the human experience of being a human, so that would entail a human nature being conceived borne and also dying a human death. so in the since of borne meaning He at one point did not exist and then came into existance, no God was not borne, but on the other side of the coin God decided to become fully Human, so he was borne as a human, however even before he was born like a human he was still God. and even when he was being borne he was still God

I would like to say that it’s very difficult to discuss the Trinity without risking falling into heresy.

Christ’s human nature does nothing. His so-called “human nature” is merely a description of what he is. Christ is a human being with DNA. He is descended from Adam. He bears the image of God in physical form. These things he gained when he was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary.

He was divine before this moment, the Incarnation. It meant that he had omniscience, omnipotence, eternality, co-equality with God the Father, and consubstantiality. That is to say, he was God, by right, in and of himself. However, there are three persons/hypostases who are God. How is this possible? I don’t know; it’s a mystery. However, it is the truth. We call this state of being God “divine”. Each of the three persons, being God, is divine. Therefore, by nature, they are divine.

When Christ took flesh of the Virgin Mary, he became both divine and human. That is to say, he had the nature of both. He was a man. He was God. He was both. Again, it’s seemingly impossible - but that’s why we call it the mystery of the Incarnation.

The Coptic, Ethiopian, Syriac, and Armenian churches say that Christ is divine and human as well, however, they say that he only has one nature, one that is divine and human.

Both these positions, the first one, which is called the Hypostatic Union (two natures united in one hypostasis) and the other, which is called Miaphysitism (one simultaneously divine and human nature in a single hypostasis), are Orthodox expressions of the facts of the Incarnation.

Hence, since “human nature” and “divine nature” only refer to the state of being of the hypostasis, it would be foolish to say that a human nature or a divine nature does something. This was the alleged error of Nestorious in the fifth century. The viewpoint that there was a Jesus Christ acted in his human nature at one time and his divine nature at others was condemned at the Council of Ephesus in AD 431 because the logical consequence of this sort of thought was that the two natures were held by two different persons/hypostases. This would, of course, remove the point of the Incarnation - God had become a human being.

Christ is divine and human at the same time. Whenever he does something, Christ does something. His so called “human nature” and “divine nature” do nothing. I made this response because I feared that the opening line of your post bordered on Nestorian.

CONTINUED BELOW

 

[WetCatechumen]

His human nature can, but inasmuch as God being birthed at some point in time, no, however, God decided to be born of a woman in order to save the world from its sins, so in that sense he decided to suffer the human experience of being a human, so that would entail a human nature being conceived borne and also dying a human death. so in the since of borne meaning He at one point did not exist and then came into existance, no God was not borne, but on the other side of the coin God decided to become fully Human, so he was borne as a human, however even before he was born like a human he was still God. and even when he was being borne he was still God

Since Nestorianism is patently false and is a faulty understanding of the Incarnation, I’d to exlain more.

Christ’s human nature cannot be borne. He received it from his mother by virtue of his conception. That is to say, the Christ became human when he was conceived by the Blessed Virgin Mary. What an incredible event! The Eternal and Omnipotent God becomes a single-celled organism in the Fallopian Tubes of a Virgin! Personally, I’d like to start a devotion to the “Zygote God”, but we’ll see how that takes off. (I’m totally serious)

Anyways, before the moment of the Incarnation, the Christ was solely divine. That is to say, he was God. When he took flesh as a zygote, he became human. Being Divine, he was immutable. This is another reason why the change in the second person of the Trinity constitutes an unknowable mystery. It is not possible for immutable persons to change, yet he did.

You are on the right track that by virtue of being Divine and by virtue of being human, the Christ was able to behave in certain ways. However, we cannot separate the Divinity from the person, nor can we separate the humanity.

Hence, it is orthodox to say that because Jesus Christ is human, it was possible for him to be conceived, carried, and birthed by the Virgin. It is also orthodox to say that he received his humanity from her. However, while the way that all humans, save Adam and Eve, have received their humanity is from their parents, it is not orthodox to say that she was the mother of his humanity. Mothers and fathers are the source of our humanity, but they are not the “parents” of it. It is by virtue of their parentage, though, that we receive our humanity.

Now, because his Divinity cannot be separated from him, there was only a single person who was birthed by the Blessed Virgin - Jesus Christ, both divine and human. There are certain things that being Divine entails. Jesus Christ has all of these things. To be God, or to be Divine, does not mean that one cannot have a mother. It does mean that your ultimate origin is eternal and unknowable (to humans), as the Son’s origin is. It does mean that you do not take your existence from a created being, as the Son does not. However, it does not mean that you cannot be conceived, carried, and birthed by a human woman.

Clearly, when Jesus Christ was born, while it was only possible by virtue of his humanity, it did not mean that he ceased to have his Divinity. A simultaneously Divine and human person came forth from the Holy Womb. Hence, a man was born, but God was too, because when we say God, we mean persons who are God, and not necessarily “the attribute of being Divine”. Hence, while the Nestorians are right when they say that, “To be Divine means not to have a temporal source to your Divinity!”, they are correct. However, they are wrong when they say, “To be Divine means that you cannot have a mother!”, because, clearly, one Divine person did have a mother.

Hence, what you mean to say is orthodox, but your terminology could be better.

Summary: Jesus Christ is Divine and human. He can behave in certain ways because he has both qualities, but he is a single person who acts as a single person.

 

[autdrew]

:clapping:
:tiphat:

 

[JRKH]

and God is your Father, does that not make Mary your GRAND MOTHER ???

Serious answers only please.

Sounds like the old song “I am my own Grandpa”

OK - Seriously.
The problem with applying this is that you are trying to apply purely human names to something that is not purely human and defies our humble and simple conventions.

Mary is the Mother of Jesus, who is a part of the Triune Godhead, distinct in person but completely one in essence with The Father.
As such she is the Mother of God.
She is NOT the mother of “The Father”, she is the mother of “The Son”.
As such she is not our “Grandmother”

Peace
James

 

[HickmanJosh]

I agree, you cannot crucify a spirit. Our discussion is not so much on whether he was man. He certainly was.

Our discussion is whether it is right to call Mary the mother of God since God cannot have a mother (being the Alpha & the Omega).

Christ Chose to be a man as you have said, how can He be a man if He does not have a mother?

Just answer me this. Can God be borne?

God is God, and for us(humans) to put restrictions on the what the Almighty can and can’t do seems a little crazy:whacky: for the simple fact that through God ANYTHING is possible because for God nothing is impossible, there are certainly things He wont do (because of His Love) but that in no way makes anything impossible for Him…, unless acting against His Love is impossible for Him because He is Love…that would make anything He can do against His Love impossible…maybe?

 

[st_lucy]

Just answer me this. Can God be borne?

I am very confused here? Are you a Christian? The fundamental belief of Christianity is believing that God the Son, Jesus, was born to the virgin Mary, and became man. So yes apparently God can be born, because that is what He chose to do to save you and me.

I think that you need to go back and study the basics on Christianity, before you try to tell your brothers and sisters in Christ that they are wrong.

 

[Matt_CL]

We use human language in our descriptions of God and His mysteries because we have finite minds which can never accurately describe the Infinite.

Mary is the Spouse of the Holy Spirit, and she is our spiritual mother in the order of grace.

 

[cradlecatholic5]

St Ann is our grandmother. She’s the mother of our Blessed Mother Mary.

 

[Rumpelstiltskin]

We use human language in our descriptions of God and His mysteries because we have finite minds which can never accurately describe the Infinite.

Mary is the Spouse of the Holy Spirit, and she is our spiritual mother in the order of grace.

Matt, I’m not trying to sound offensive here, but that to me is not acceptable.

How can Mary be the Spouse of the Holy Spirit (who is God)??? AND…you also say she is the mother of Jesus who is also God.

Let’s look at it on a purely logical perspective. Can your mother be your mother and your wife at the same time?

Its totally unacceptable. Don’t try excusing it on grounds ‘mysteries’ etc etc. We don’t make claim for something and then when asked to explain, conveniently say its ‘mysterious’. That would be extremely lame.

 

[Rumpelstiltskin]

I am very confused here? Are you a Christian? The fundamental belief of Christianity is believing that God the Son, Jesus, was born to the virgin Mary, and became man. So yes apparently God can be born, because that is what He chose to do to save you and me.

I think that you need to go back and study the basics on Christianity, before you try to tell your brothers and sisters in Christ that they are wrong.

The Bible says clearly that God is a Spirit. Did Mary give birth to the Spirit of God ? Yes or No ?

The clear answer is a NO. If so, how then can she be the mother of God ???

.

 

[LilyM]

The Bible says clearly that God is a Spirit. Did Mary give birth to the Spirit of God ? Yes or No ?

The clear answer is a NO. If so, how then can she be the mother of God ???

.

God is indeed a spirit. Jesus, clearly is not JUST a Spirit. He is both Spirit and flesh. Rmember all human beings are both spirit and flesh. And our spirit is the same breath of God that was breathed into Adam’s nostrils.

When your mother bore you she became the mother of Rumpel the whole person - mother of your spirit as well as your flesh, since spirit and flesh together form the person of whom she is mother.

Same with Mary. She bore Jesus the whole person, not just bits and pieces of Him. As I said earlier, that she BORE Him doesn’t mean she created His Spirit. God breathes a soul into EVERY child, after all, a soul that its mother doesn’t create. Doesn’t stop her being mother of that soul.

 

[Roy5]

I haven’t read all the postings, but I recently completed a book which focused on the development of Christian doctrine. Much attention was given to the church councils. I had been vaguely aware , but the book went into great detail about the various hostile theological factions, the influence of emperors, political considerations, one church center against another (e.g., Alexandria vs Rome vs Constantinople, etc.) Lots of unChristian skullduggery.

Strange as it sounds, I found myself somewhat sympathetic to those who strongly opposed the 'Mother of God' concept. Wasn't God the Creator of everything? Didn't he create Mary and everyone else? There is something amiss about having a human woman be called the Mother of God. Mother of Christ, who became the incarnate God, perhaps. Mother of Christ's human nature, perhaps. Certainly the physical mother of the physical Jesus. But - Mother of God? Um!  It troubles me. 

 As for St. Anne, mentioned above, she is not found in the Bible, of course. She is found in literature that was considered unauthentic enough to be omitted from the canon by the Church. All sorts of miracles attached to her, too - and to her husband, Joachim.

 Am I too skeptical - or even heretical - to post such ideas here on CAF? I do appreciate the opportunity. I like to be challenged intellectually, and also 'think and let think'. Was it John Wesley who wrote: "If your heart is right, if you love God as I love God, let us join hands and walk together"?  Or, words to that effect. Sounds like a reasonable opinion - and maybe a guide to proper Christian behavior, also.

 

[Wesley7]

Blessed Virgin Mary is the Mother of God confirmed by the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus. .

 

[LilyM]

Strange as it sounds, I found myself somewhat sympathetic to those who strongly opposed the 'Mother of God' concept. Wasn't God the Creator of everything? Didn't he create Mary and everyone else? There is something amiss about having a human woman be called the Mother of God. Mother of Christ, **who became the incarnate God**, perhaps. Mother of Christ's human nature, perhaps. Certainly the physical mother of the physical Jesus. But - Mother of God? Um!  It troubles me.

Christ didn’t BECOME God, Christ was ever and always God. Before, during and after His incarnation in Mary’s womb. That’s the point. His humanity was never divorced from His divinity such that one could say Mary was mother (which is not to say Creator, after all our mothers don’t create our God-given immortal souls) of the one but not the other. Just like our souls aren’t divorced from our bodies such that one can say OUR mothers are mother only of the one but not the other.

 

[swariffin]

and God is your Father, does that not make Mary your GRAND MOTHER ???

Serious answers only please.

Sounds like the arguments from the Muslim, based on various posting written by them in this forum.

 

[Biedrik]

The Bible says clearly that God is a Spirit. Did Mary give birth to the Spirit of God ? Yes or No ?

The clear answer is a NO. If so, how then can she be the mother of God ???

.

Rumpelstiltskin, I simply ask you to logically refute what I am going to say. If you can, then I will completely believe you. So, here we go:

All humans are born of woman
The woman that gives birth to them is their mother
Jesus has human nature
Therefore, to have that human nature he must have been born of a woman
Since he was born of a woman, he must have a mother
If he was not born of a woman, then he could not be human, just as he could not be human without having a body
So, Jesus must have been born of a woman.
Therefore, he must have a mother.

So, unless you can disprove the logic of this, you cannot claim that Mary was not the mother of Jesus. If you can somehow disprove my logic, then I will fully agree with you.

 

[mark_a]

The Bible says clearly that God is a Spirit. Did Mary give birth to the Spirit of God ? Yes or No ?

The clear answer is a NO. If so, how then can she be the mother of God ???

.

The clear answer is yes: From Luke:
41 When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the infant leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth, filled with the holy Spirit, 42 cried out in a loud voice and said, "Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. 43 And how does this happen to me, that **the mother of my Lord **14 should come to me?

 

[AndrewA]

The Bible says clearly that God is a Spirit. Did Mary give birth to the Spirit of God ? Yes or No ?

The clear answer is a NO. If so, how then can she be the mother of God ???

.

You know, we don’t believe our souls come from our parents.
We believe our souls are created by God.

A human being is body and soul.
Jesus was not simply a man possessed by God.

The spirit of God became flesh.

Nobody here thinks god was created by Mary, that is just a little rude to suggest.

 

[Rumpelstiltskin]

Rumpelstiltskin, I simply ask you to logically refute what I am going to say. If you can, then I will completely believe you. So, here we go:

All humans are born of woman
The woman that gives birth to them is their mother
Jesus has human nature
Therefore, to have that human nature he must have been born of a woman
Since he was born of a woman, he must have a mother
If he was not born of a woman, then he could not be human, just as he could not be human without having a body
So, Jesus must have been born of a woman.
Therefore, he must have a mother.

So, unless you can disprove the logic of this, you cannot claim that Mary was not the mother of Jesus. If you can somehow disprove my logic, then I will fully agree with you.

Biedrik, 1 + 1 only = 2 when they are separate entities.

But here, 1 + 1 is NOT = 2 because the order is not sequential and one “1” is in the other “1”.

To say that Jesus is in the Father God, and the Father in Him, and then say that the son came about through the mother with the help of the Father is totally wrong because before Mary was, Jesus was (since Jesus Himself said He was even before Abraham). Mary therefore is something that only existed BECAUSE of Jesus. Not the other way around. Note the order here.

Remember, the Bible clears says that nothing in this world is made without Him. So, Jesus came about NOT because of Mary but Mary came about because of Jesus! What role then does Mary have in the conception of Jesus? Nothing more than just a ‘bearer’ or ‘point’ of emergence.

Therefore to call Mary, the mother of God is in-accurate and not right.

.

 

[LilyM]

What role then does Mary have in the conception of Jesus? Nothing more than just a ‘bearer’ or ‘point’ of emergence.

In other words a MOTHER - which is what a person’s ‘bearer’ IS. The person who bore you is your mother. The person who bore me is my mother. The person who bore Jesus is HIS mother.

Therefore to call Mary, the mother of God is in-accurate and not right.

.

It’s only inaccurate and not right either:

a) If Jesus is not God. Impossible, because Jesus IS God. OR

b) If Mary didn’t bear Him (and thus isn’t His mother). Again incorrect - He is her son.

And being in her womb (as her son) He is at one and the very same time Elizabeth’s Lord. And Mary is thus the ‘mother of my Lord’. Lord meaning God.

In His humanity as Elizabeth’s cousin’s son, Jesus had no ‘Lordship’ over her in any sense of the word. Not even headship of the family - that office would belong to Zechariah or Joseph or someone. It is ONLY as Elizabeth’s GOD - which He was EVEN while borne in Mary’s womb, as her son - that Jesus is ALSO Elizabeth’s Lord.

So ELIZABETH is the first to call Mary ‘mother of God’ in calling her ‘mother of my Lord’. The words ‘Lord’ and ‘God’ are in this sense completely the same thing. So the title ‘Mother of God’ is right there in scripture!