Mother of God!

[Novocastrian]

What does “fully man” mean in this context? Does it mean G-d Incarnate as a corporeal being drained of His divinity or fully man, warts and all? Since Jesus was sinless, how can He be fully man in the strictly human sense? If it means the former, how can Jesus also be fully G-d, IOW both divine and human simultaneously? Further, did Jesus ever tell His Apostles that He was both fully G-d AND fully man? If not, who determined this?

Christians talk about Christ being fully man because one of the early, heretical ways of articulating Christ’s divinity and incarnation was to suggest that God’s Word animated a human body in lieu of a soul. This, however, would have made Christ less than human; orthodox Christians want Christ to have had a soul as well as a body so that in assuming our nature - physical and spiritual - he redeemed and saved it.

This is one of the ways in which Greek theological terminology is far more precise than Latin. In Latin (and most Western languages) we refer to Christ’s incarnation, the stem being the Latin word for flesh. In Greek, one refers to his ενανθρωπεσις, his becoming human as opposed to just flesh.

 

[Novocastrian]

You’re right. Thanks for the correction.

You’re welcome. Hooray for orthodoxy!

 

[meltzerboy]

Christians talk about Christ being fully man because one of the early, heretical ways of articulating Christ’s divinity and incarnation was to suggest that God’s Word animated a human body in lieu of a soul. This, however, would have made Christ less than human; orthodox Christians want Christ to have had a soul as well as a body so that in assuming our nature - physical and spiritual - he redeemed and saved it.

This is one of the ways in which Greek theological terminology is far more precise than Latin. In Latin (and most Western languages) we refer to Christ’s incarnation, the stem being the Latin word for flesh. In Greek, one refers to his ενανθρωπεσις, his becoming human as opposed to just flesh.

Interesting distinction. Thanks!

 

[meltzerboy]

It should be noted, perhaps, that historical Arians did think that Christ was divine, just not as divine as the Father. And monophysites do not deny the humanity of Christ, they just don’t articulate is clearly. You might be thinking of docetists.

Thanks again for the details.

 

[Della]

You’re welcome. Hooray for orthodoxy!

 

[meltzerboy]

In that he was fully human, yes, but since his human will was completely one with God the Father’s will, it wasn’t really possible. The Scripture tells us he was like us in all things except sin.

Much appreciated, Della.

 

[Della]

Much appreciated, Della.

:tiphat:

 

[Kliska]

Good point regarding sin. One has the potential to sin, however. Did Jesus have the potential to sin since we know He was tempted by Satan?

His will was always to do the will of the Father. In effect, we can look at His verbalization in the Garden of Gethsemane to show us what that is like; not my will but thine. Jesus is a true Person in that He has his own will, but it is always in line with the Father’s will.

Then comes the philosophical question; can God sin? Technically no because He’s the measuring stick. Then how do we know God is good? Because of His triune nature, there is always 2 witnesses to each Person of the Trinity. For example; God the Father has God the Son and God the Holy Spirit as witness to His goodness and righteousness and They testify to that fact. That’s why the Trinity can answer Euthyphro’s dilemma… but that’s for a philosophy thread. lol

 

[meltzerboy]

His will was always to do the will of the Father. In effect, we can look at His verbalization in the Garden of Gethsemane to show us what that is like; not my will but thine. Jesus is a true Person in that He has his own will, but it is always in line with the Father’s will.

Then comes the philosophical question; can God sin? Technically no because He’s the measuring stick. Then how do we know God is good? Because of His triune nature, there is always 2 witnesses to each Person of the Trinity. For example; God the Father has God the Son and God the Holy Spirit as witness to His goodness and righteousness and They testify to that fact. That’s why the Trinity can answer Euthyphro’s dilemma… but that’s for a philosophy thread. lol

Thank you, Kliska. Is this idea of two witnesses (Persons) to G-d’s goodness and righteousness something you interpreted or does the Church say this? Somehow, to me, it sounds too much like separate rather than distinct Persons.

 

[Kliska]

Thank you, Kliska. Is this idea of two witnesses (Persons) to G-d’s goodness and righteousness something you interpreted or does the Church say this? Somehow, to me, it sounds too much like separate rather than distinct Persons.

They aren’t considered separate, but one. I’m not RC, so can’t speak to what they teach. The 3 Persons of the Trinity each fill different roles and functions, and we can see that Jesus, God the Son, is truly distinct from God the Father and God the Holy Spirit. For an example, when we hear God the Father say, “This is my Son in Whom I AM well pleased,” we know that the pleasure is God the Father’s.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

The Lutheran Confessions refer to Mary as the Mother of God, Queen of Heaven who prays for the Church; that is good enough for me.

 

[dronald]

Why not always helpful? Why do you think Mary was given this title at the Council of Ephesus? Was it to give her a pretty title? Or was it to combat the Arian heresy that denied Jesus’ divinity? Of course, it was the latter.

Mary’s position in God’s salvation plan is vitally important. If it were not, God the Son would not have bothered to have a human mother at all. He could have simply appeared in human form, but that would set up all kinds of questions about him being truly human and therefore truly the Lamb of God, the propitiation for the sins of man.

All the Marian doctrines/dogmas are in place to support a teaching about her Son, not merely to give her honor, although, since she was faithful in every respect and full of grace, it does that, as well.

Defining that Jesus is fully God is wonderful, as well as being born of a virgin. Both are clear in Scripture, but I don’t see how it’s helpful now to call her “mother of God.” it’s simply confusing to those who do not understand Catholicism.

 

[MartinJordan]

Defining that Jesus is fully God is wonderful, as well as being born of a virgin. Both are clear in Scripture, but I don’t see how it’s helpful now to call her “mother of God.” it’s simply confusing to those who do not understand Catholicism.

Its only confusing to those who aren’t really interested in understanding development of historical Christianity. Imho.
MJ

 

[concretecamper]

Defining that Jesus is fully God is wonderful, as well as being born of a virgin. Both are clear in Scripture, but I don’t see how it’s helpful now to call her “mother of God.” it’s simply confusing to those who do not understand Catholicism.

The Catholic Church has been down playing truth for over 50 years…the only confusion that has happened is with Catholics. Btw, I am not close to 75

 

[SyCarl]

What is to be made of the following quotes from Augustine of Hippo and Ambrose of Milan. I don’t think either of these men could be accused of not holding Mary in high esteem.

But He rather admonishes us to understand that, in respect of His being God, there was no mother for Him, the part of whose personal majesty He was preparing to show forth in the turning of water into wine….Nor, again, should we be moved by the fact that, when the presence of His mother and His brethren was announced to Him, He replied, “Who is my mother, or who my brethren?” etc. But rather let it teach us, that when parents hinder our ministry wherein we minister the word of God to our brethren, they ought not to be recognized by us.

Augustine (A Treatise on Faith and the Creed, Chapter 4, Paragraph 9)
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf103.iv.iv.v.html

He was in an extraordinary manner begotten of the Father without a mother, born of a mother without a father; without a mother He was God, without a father He was man; without a mother before all time, without a father in the end of times…9. Why, then, said the Son to the mother, “Woman, what have I to do with you? mine hour is not yet come?” Our Lord Jesus Christ was both God and man. According as He was God, He had not a mother; according as He was man, He had. She was the mother, then, of His flesh, of His humanity, of the weakness which for our sakes He took upon Him.

Augustine (Tractates on John, Number 8, Paragraphs 8-9)
newadvent.org/fathers/1701008.htm

He it is Who is without mother according to His Godhead, for He was begotten of God the Father, of one substance with the Father; without a father according to His Incarnation, for He was born of a Virgin; having neither beginning nor end, for He is the beginning and end of all things, the first and the last.

Ambrose (On The Mysteries, 8:46)
newadvent.org/fathers/3405.htm

(emphasis added)

I have no problem calling Mary Theotokos, as the Council of Ephesus did, but I do have concerns with Mother of God which is a loose translation of the Greek term used by the Council…

It would seem to me that if the Council had meant Mother of God they would have said so clearly rather than using the more awkward the who gave birth to God or God-bearer.

I would agree that Mother of God is confusing and requires too many caveats such as it doesn’t mean Mary existed before God, that Mary didn’t have to be divine to be mother of Divinity or that she contributed to Jesus’ divinity. It would appear to be especially confusing to those who are not Christians and not properly familiar with Christian doctrine.

The Islamic Quran seems to think that for Christians the Trinity is Father, Mother and Son.

And (remember) when Allâh will say (on the Day of Resurrection): "O 'Īsā (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary)! Did you say unto men: ‘Worship me and my mother as two gods besides Allâh?’ " He will say: "Glory be to You! It was not for me to say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, You would surely have known it. You know what is in my inner-self though I do not know what is in Yours, truly, You, only You, are the All-Knower of all that is hidden (and unseen).

Sura 5;116
quranexplorer.com/quran/?Sura=5&FromVerse=116&Translation=Eng-Dr. Mohsin&Script=Usmani

I would expect the title Mother of God contributed to this impression and I don’t want to place any possible roadblocks in the way of non-Christians coming to Christianity.

 

[adf417]

Defining that Jesus is fully God is wonderful, as well as being born of a virgin. Both are clear in Scripture, but I don’t see how it’s helpful now to call her “mother of God.” it’s simply confusing to those who do not understand Catholicism.

This is understandable dronald but please note that what is confusing to some today was common understanding well into the 16th century. This confusion you speak of can be easily cleared up by looking back no farther than the reformers. There was no confusion in Christianity on this subject prior to that.

Peace!!!

 

[dronald]

This is understandable dronald but please note that what is confusing to some today was common understanding well into the 16th century. This confusion you speak of can be easily cleared up by looking back no farther than the reformers. There was no confusion in Christianity on this subject prior to that.

Peace!!!

Well, how long have Church’s been saying “Mother of God” and not “God bearer” then? Who and when is the earliest?

 

[petra22]

Love the conversation!

 

[Sam_777]

I cannot imagine myself calling her other than these titles even if I became a Catholic one day.
1) Virgin Mary.
2) Mother of LORD JESUS.
3) Mother of Nuns.
4) The handmaid of the LORD. (Luke 1: 38)

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

I cannot imagine myself calling her other than these titles even if I became a Catholic one day.
1) Virgin Mary.
2) Mother of LORD JESUS.
3) Mother of Nuns.
4) The handmaid of the LORD. (Luke 1: 38)

If you became catholic you would accept that God entered into humanity, you would accept that God in all his glory saw our feeble state and took it upon himself to correct it. He didn’t do it in a way which was distant, just snapping the fingers and making us perfect, he showed his compassion and love by taking on a lesser nature. Not that he changed his divine nature, not that the divine nature ceased to be divine in anyway but rather he took on the additional lesser nature of man and that will forever be with him. In doing this he demonstrated not only that mankind could be saved but that he thought it worthy his creation should and must be saved by such a method. He used a young woman called Mary for this task to bring glory into the world, himself into the world.

With such an understanding as a Catholic, how could you not call her Theotokos?