If the title Mother of God meant that Mary is God’s originator, then of course, it would wrong. But, that’s not what it means. The Greek term is “Theotokos” which means “God-bearer” or “the one who bore God.”
Our Lord is God. Mary is the mother of our Lord. It’s pretty clear.
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?
Well stated.
We believe Jesus is God but also man. His human side came from Mary, his mother.
Sure, and I would say it’s lawful to say such, but not always helpful.
Judaism, to my understanding, doesn’t necessitate a person sin to be human. Does it? He was fully human, real human body, DNA and all. Truly human, in other words; kin to us.
God incarnate; He struck up a tent in human flesh and dwelt among us. You are physical and also have a spirit/soul, not either/or.
This is the mystery of the hypostatic union. Jesus is one person, with two natures. He has a divine nature and a human nature. Those who say that Jesus is a human person with no divine nature are known as Arians, such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Those who say that Jesus has only a divine nature are known as Monophysites. Arianism and Monophysitism are both heresies as considered by the Church today. Ecumenical Councils called early in the history of Christianity settled these Christological questions and established the mystery that we know today. The “how” is part of the mystery which we acknowledge cannot be fully explained in human terms.
Well, θεοτοκος is the term dogmatically defined by Cyril and the synod which met at Ephesus, but the Greek church will often use the term μετερ θεου in iconography. The Latin Church will go even futher in referring to her not only as mater dei, but also as sancta dei genetrix.
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.
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.
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?
Thank you for this information, Elizium.
No, it was to combat Nestorianism. It’s about the hypostatic union, to defend the proposition that Mary gave birth to the second person of the trinity, rather than the heretical idea that she gave birth to a human person who just kind of happened to be somehow joined to the second person of the trinity.
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.
You’re right. Thanks for the correction.
