“Mother” is not the emphasis of the term theotokos: “God-bearer.” As I said previously, the Council did not convene to define the motherhood of Mary (it wasn’t at all about Mary), but to confirm the divinity of the Person she bore. Cross that line and you introduce error. Alas, that line was crossed.
So there are two people, then, Jesus Christ the Man, and God the Son?
“Mother of God” is equally all about the divinity of the Son. If it was in any fashion about Mary then it would’ve been much easier to go for a simple ‘Mother of Jesus’, which would achieve the purpose of glorifying Mary equally well - after all, no-one argues that she WAS his mother, apart from a few numbskulls who seem to think He was conceived in a test-tube or something.
What they argue about, and the crux of the problem with the title, is HIS nature.You need to go back and read my post: One Person two natures. But before you impulsively respond, go back and read it.
Christokos: “Messiah-bearer,” would not have defined His Deity. The Council did not convene to determine His Messiahship, but His Deity.
This is clearly a distinction between separate persons.
AND it convened to determine the nature of Mary’s relationship His divine and human natures as well, which also went along with settling the question of His nature.
Well, brother. Do you believe that the Holy Spirit is God? If so, please show me the verse in the bible.
You call THIS insulting Mary ?
Hi Rumpelstiltskin, the meaning of your name - dwarf of German folklore who spins flax into gold (Grimm). A name aptly describing your dispute on this forum.If bearer means mother, I’d be the mother of my wallet, mother of my watch, mother of my handphone.
Personally, I think the employment of the word (theotokos) is unfortunate. Nevertheless, it was originally meant to confirm the Deity of the Child. Men have corrupted it by putting the emphasis on the woman; the cause of all the extrabiblical Marian doctrines introduced into Christianity by men (“leaven”).
It’s a separation of His two natures. The hypostatic union is a greater mystery than you’re willing to accept. :bowdown:
It does not honor a person by saying things about them that are not true. Even if those things seem “good.”
You are not espousing the hypostatic union. You are espousing Nestorianism. You said that the man Jesus Christ did not exist at a point in time, while the second person of the Trinity did. That is Nestorianism. You’ve separated the person into two people, one divine, and one human, and asserted that Mary is only the mother of the human part.
Actually, I said just the opposite. The MAN Christ Jesus came into existence at a certain point of time, via the incarnation. Whereas the Second Person of the Trinity, God the Son, transcends time, being eternal. No “man” spoke the universe into existence.
No it isn’t. But what you’re espousing is a form of Monothelitism, that the human and divine natures in Christ were fused together.
The Council of Chalcedon declared that Christ had two natures. The Council of Constantinople declared that He had two wills, his human will being subject to His divine will. As for Mary, she had nothing at all to do with His Divine nature. She cannot be the “mother of God.”
Scripture states differently:Luke 1:31 “And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus.”
He did not “add” humanity to His divinity, nor was Divinity “added” to His humanity. The two natures were not blended. He was “fully” human and “fully” Divine.
When you attribute that title to her you corrupt what the Council of Ephesus originally intended by the term: “God-bearer.”
Being servant of god and mother of god are different issues; they are not connected.
I am curious of the queer logic behind Mary being our grandmother. :whacky: where are you going with this?