MARY-Mother of God--Theotókos-God-bearer-The one who gives birth to God

[The_Sentry]

**Does anybody here have a problem with St. Mary being referred to as **“Mother of God”? If so, then why?

No problem at all. The Blessed Virgin **is **the Mother of God - a title which affirms her special role in the Incarnation as well as Christ’s hypostatic union. To deny her this title denies the union of his two natures!

 

[GaryTaylor]

I have no problem with that. I firmly believe our blessed Mother, Mary, is the mother of God, after all, Jesus is her son, and He had two natures: fully human and fully divine, and since He is the second person of the Trinity, yes, He is God, therefore, Mary is mother of God.

blessings, :flowers:

Sounds Great as does the next post.

Though we do seem to come around to a stumbling block with Mary now and again don’t we?

 

[Pythons]

No one should have a problem, since that’s who she gave birth to, the Incarnate World within whom the fullness of the God dwelt (Col 1:19).

Historically, the biggest people who did protest were the Nestorians, who believed Christ was a man chosen to inherit the Word of God (something close, though not entirely similar, to what Muslims believe about Him). They called her Christotokos (“Christ bearer”) rather than Theotokos.

I’ve pondered this myself & after much study and contemplation have concluded…
…Those who fly off the handle with the ‘Mother of God’.
…Do not understand OR simply reject the early Church Councils.

In some Denominations a new meaning has been poured into the Trinity…
…So that the groups who use the term can boast they accept it.
…When after only a short survey of their teachings it can be established they don’t.
…example following.
Seventh-day Adventist Fundamental Belief #2:

1. Trinity:
   There is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three co-eternal Persons. God is immortal, all-powerful, all-knowing, above all, and ever present. He is infinite and beyond human comprehension, yet known through His self-revelation. He is forever worthy of worship, adoration, and service by the whole creation. (Deut. 6:4; Matt. 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14; Eph. 4:4-6; 1 Peter 1:2; 1 Tim. 1:17; Rev. 14:7.)

The above appears to be Orthodox teaching ( at least to me it does ) yet when one looks deeper into SDAism…
…It’s obvious they mean something different, vastly different.
…Example (s) following.
Seventh Day Adventist Review and Herald:

Question to the Editor:

Will you please favor me with those scriptures which plainly say that
Christ is a created being ? J. c.

Answer:

You are mistaken in supposing that S. D. Adventists teach that Christ was ever created. They believe, on the contrary, that he was “begotten” of the Father, and that he can properly be called God and worshiped as such. They believe, also, that the worlds, and everything which is, was created by Christ in conjunction with the Father. They believe, however, that somewhere in the eternal ages of the past there was a point at which Christ came into existence. They think that it is necessary that God should have antedated Christ in his being, in order that Christ could have been begotten of him, and sustain to him the relation of son. They hold to the distinct personality of the Father and Son, rejecting as absurd that feature of Trinitarianisna which insists that God, and Christ, and the Holy Spirit are three persons, and yet but one person. S. D Adventists hold that God and Christ are one in the sense that Christ prayed that his disciples might be one ; i. e., one in spirit, purpose, and labor*. See " Fundamental Principles of S. D.Adventists," published at this Office. Price, 4 cts.

The above affirmation was confirmed explicitly by the denominations “prophet” Ellen G. White…
…Who explicitly stated “God” & Christ were one - Like Christ and the Apostles were one.
Ellen G. White:

Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on Me through their word; that they all may be one; as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be one in Us: that the world may believe that Thou hast sent Me. And the glory which Thou gavest Me I have given them; that they may be one, even as We are one: I in them, and Thou in Me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that Thou hast sent Me, and hast loved them, as Thou hast loved Me." John 17:20-23. Wonderful statement! The unity that exists between Christ and His disciples does not destroy the personality of either. They are one in purpose, in mind, in character, but not in person. It is thus that God and Christ are one. {8T 269.4}

It sort of goes down hill from here into a mass confusion of heresy whereas Ellen White…
…Emphatically states that Christ.
…Could have sinned and lost His eternal Salvation ( permenantly cease to exist ).
…Had lusts of the flesh and denied Himself what He “longed for”.
…Christ existed prior to Incarnation as Michael the archangel
…Etc, etc, etc.

 

[Pythons]

A couple quotes to demonstrate the severity of the SDA theological condition.
Ellen White Review Herald January 14:

We are to be partakers of knowledge. As I have seen pictures representing Satan coming to Christ in the wilderness of temptation in the form of a hideous monster, I have thought, How little the artists knew of the Bible! Before his fall, Satan WAS, next to CHRIST, the highest angel in heaven

Ellen White SDA Bible commentary volume 5 page 1128.4:

Be careful, exceedingly careful as to how you dwell upon the human nature of Christ. Do not set Him before the people as a man with the propensities of sin. He is the second Adam. The first Adam was created a pure, sinless being, without a taint of sin upon him; he was in the image of God. He could fall, and he did fall through transgressing. Because of sin his posterity was born with inherent propensities of disobedience. But Jesus Christ was the only begotten Son of God. He took upon Himself human nature, and was tempted in all points as human nature is tempted.** He could have sinned**; He could have fallen,

Ellen White:

In the smallest as well as the largest matters, the first great question is, What is God’s will in the matter; for His will is my will. “To obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams” (1 Sam. 15:22). Who is he that will harm you, if ye be followers of that which is good? One man may be required by God to do a work and stand in a position that is peculiarly trying and taxing. The Lord has a work for him to do and he risks his life, his future eternal life, in standing in that place. This was the position Christ occupied when He came to our world, entering into conflict with the rebel leader of the fallen angels. God devised a plan, and Christ accepted the position. He consented to meet the foe singlehanded, as every human being must do. He was provided with all the heavenly powers to aid Him in this great conflict; and man, if he walked in the way and will of God, is provided with the same keeping power. The same heavenly intelligences minister unto those who shall be heirs of salvation, that they may overcome every temptation, great or small, as Christ overcame

So, after reading Fundamental Belief #2 of the SDA Church one could NOT understand why calling the Blessed Virgin ‘Mother of God’ would be a problem. However, after reading the materials used to theologically feed SDA’s it easy to see how and why an SDA would go Rain-Man over calling Mary “the Mother of God”. It’s simply that Jesus, in their view, is NOT God like Christians who accept the Chrisitan Councils view God.

Well, that’s my .02 on the subject.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Fascinating. Thanks for sharing, Pythons

 

[XinMinny]

Hi. As a former Catholic, I would like to add a comment. I do not write in the spirit of argument at all. I am taking the question at face value: “Who would have an issue with this expression?”
In my experience, there are many who would. The average person who has chosen not to study deeply into the Catholic doctrine of the trinity and Mary’s situation reads the expression “Mother of God” and is left with the impression that somehow Mary is receiving credit for the existence of God in the universal sense (I mean His existence, not His existence on earth, in a human body). I know that is not what is meant by the expression: I have learned what the terms mean. But the average non-Catholic on the street doesn’t, and that is where the problem is. Then, there is the problem of somehow getting someone’s ear to explain all that to them - it becomes a nightmare, as you all know.
Perhaps this is extraneous information. If so, I am sorry. I just felt that I wanted to add a perspective to the discussion…
X

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Hi. As a former Catholic, I would like to add a comment. I do not write in the spirit of argument at all. I am taking the question at face value: “Who would have an issue with this expression?”
In my experience, there are many who would. The average person who has chosen not to study deeply into the Catholic doctrine of the trinity and Mary’s situation reads the expression “Mother of God” and is left with the impression that somehow Mary is receiving credit for the existence of God in the universal sense (I mean His existence, not His existence on earth, in a human body). I know that is not what is meant by the expression: I have learned what the terms mean. But the average non-Catholic on the street doesn’t, and that is where the problem is. Then, there is the problem of somehow getting someone’s ear to explain all that to them - it becomes a nightmare, as you all know.
Perhaps this is extraneous information. If so, I am sorry. I just felt that I wanted to add a perspective to the discussion…
X

Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut, Xin. I’ve actually encountered a bit of that myself, even from friends I consider to be otherwise educated and well read.

In this circumstance, it would simply be prudent to gently educate the person in question what Theotokos really means, and how it was a term developed before the various Marian dogmas became developed to what we know them today as. Likewise, educate them how it simply refers to Mary’s role in the Incarnation, not any special power given to her.

 

[Pythons]

The first Christian Council I believe was recorded in Acts 15…
…That Council laid down certain teachigns which were either accepted or rejected by early Christians.

Subsequent to that Council we can read about well intentioned people who, apart from Apostolic Authority…
…Went off in another direction.
…Of course all the while thinking they were right.

When someone says Mary was / is the Mother of God that in and of itself is a theological statement…
…That affirms that Jesus IS God.
…Something that the heresies we read about were totally against.

The Scriptures, in speaking of Christ, long prior to the Incarnation boldly state…
…That “God Himself” would come and save us.
Isa 35:

**Say to the fainthearted: Take courage, and fear not: behold your God will bring the revenge of recompense: God himself **will come and will save you

If A = B & B = C then A = C

IMHO this is just one example out of countless ones that show Catholicism understands the Sacred Scriptures…
…In much greater depth then do the various Prot sytems.

 

[Izdaari]

Theotokos, the God-bearer, is the just right term IMO: Mary was obviously and undeniably the mother of Jesus, the Christ, but not the mother of God the Father or of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Pythons]

Theotokos, the God-bearer, is the just right term IMO: Mary was obviously and undeniably the mother of Jesus, the Christ, but not the mother of God the Father or of the Holy Spirit.

I don’t believe there exists any Catholic teaching which affirms Mary was…
…Besides, “God Bearer” - the one who bore God is another way of saying Mother.

 

[Araninski]

Sup

Can you give birth to something that always was? No

Mary gave birth to Jesus’s flesh, He already existed, His flesh didn’t, Mary is the earthly mother of Jesus. Is Jesus my brother? Yes, is Jesus Mary’s brother? yes. Through the Word everything was created. You can’t give birth to something that always is.

Yahweh bless.

 

[Pythons]

Sup

Can you give birth to something that always was? No

Mary gave birth to Jesus’s flesh, He already existed, His flesh didn’t, Mary is the earthly mother of Jesus. Is Jesus my brother? Yes, is Jesus Mary’s brother? yes. Through the Word everything was created. You can’t give birth to something that always is.

Yahweh bless.

Was your mother the mother of a “nature” or a person Araninski?
…Jesus was / is a Person with **two natures **perfectly united.

The “Incarnation”, to boil it down for the purpose of this discussion…
…Is simply that God became man w/out ceasing to be God.

One can claim otherwise however they are forced to pour in a new & alien meaning…
…To the already well established word Trinity.
…Something certain groups have no problem doing.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Sup

Can you give birth to something that always was? No

Mary gave birth to Jesus’s flesh, He already existed, His flesh didn’t, Mary is the earthly mother of Jesus. Is Jesus my brother? Yes, is Jesus Mary’s brother? yes. Through the Word everything was created. You can’t give birth to something that always is.

You bring up an interesting point of discussion, although I think Pythons answered it sufficiently to a large degree. The Virgin Mary did not simply give birth to a man in the flesh named Jesus. Christ was, as Pythons pointed out, fully man and fully God. Within the Person of the Son was the fullness of the Godhead. In this manner, she was Theotokos. No, she did not give birth to God as in God was created, but rather she gave birth to the incarnate Word, who was the fullness of God.

Remember that the Nestorians differentiated between the human and divine natures of Christ as well. As discussed earlier in this thread, that is why they preferred to call her Christotokos (Christ-bearer) rather than Theotokos.

 

[ndismyhome]

Sup

Can you give birth to something that always was? No

Mary gave birth to Jesus’s flesh, He already existed, His flesh didn’t, Mary is the earthly mother of Jesus. Is Jesus my brother? Yes, is Jesus Mary’s brother? yes. Through the Word everything was created. You can’t give birth to something that always is.

Yahweh bless.

You are right, in a sense… Jesus did pre-exist Mary (Before Abraham was, I am). However, to say that Mary only gave birth to Jesus’s flesh divides the Person into two things: The Word and the meat puppet which He inhabits. This is what Nestorius’s thought led to: division in Christ. The Church Fathers understood the redemption of man in the following way: what is not subsumed (of man) is not redeemed. If Jesus only put on our flesh, how could He truly save and redeem us? What about our minds, hearts, souls, etc.?

 

[Pythons]

Which is why the Blessed Virgin is considered to be the destoryer of heresies…
…Simply because those who adopt and promulgate heresy can’t stand.
…Mother of God being a title for Mary.
…It has NOTHING to do with Mary and everything to do with Christ.