Mother of God!

  • Thread starter Thread starter aidanbradypop
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, how long have Church’s been saying “Mother of God” and not “God bearer” then? Who and when is the earliest?
How early in the history is early enough? “Trinity” did not come about till later and you use it to describe the one true God right?

IMO the question should be, and maybe this could be added to the OP, at what point in time did the term “Mother of God” or “God bearer” become an issue with protestants? It wasn’t a problem for the early reformers. I’m pretty clear when the issue with the Trinity became a problem w/ modern Christianity - look no farther than the origination of the JWs, but “Mother of God”, not too sure.

Peace!!!
 
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.
This should, of course, read μητηρ θεου…
 
How early in the history is early enough? “Trinity” did not come about till later and you use it to describe the one true God right?

IMO the question should be, and maybe this could be added to the OP, at what point in time did the term “Mother of God” or “God bearer” become an issue with protestants? It wasn’t a problem for the early reformers. I’m pretty clear when the issue with the Trinity became a problem w/ modern Christianity - look no farther than the origination of the JWs, but “Mother of God”, not too sure.

Peace!!!
I’m sorry but that was a cop out and didn’t answer my question. Someone’s got to know.
 
I’m sorry but that was a cop out and didn’t answer my question. Someone’s got to know.
The term Mother of God is merely the Latinized version of the term God bearer. It’s one and the same thing expressed differently in different languages, that’s all.
 
I’m sorry but that was a cop out and didn’t answer my question. Someone’s got to know.
Your question is simplistic but not unanswerable. You are asking in the mindset of a post-Enlightenment, post-literacy, post-printing press 21st century person. Most historians will tell you just because something does not appear in “print” does not mean it the words or the concept did not exist prior.
The ancient world was a world dominated by oral tradition and communication. Reading and writing were rare. You also have to take into account the different languages of the ancient world and the Greek language, which had a word for every shade of gray.
Nevertheless, the term Mother of God appears very early on, here are some referances:

Irenaeus

The Virgin Mary, being obedient to his word, received from an angel the glad tidings that she would **bear God **(Against Heresies, 5:19:1 [A.D. 189]).

Hippolytus

[T]o all generations they [the prophets] have pictured forth the grandest subjects for contemplation and for action. Thus, too, they preached of the advent of God in the flesh to the world, his advent by the spotless and God-bearing (theotokos) Mary in the way of birth and growth, and the manner of his life and conversation with men, and his manifestation by baptism, and the new birth that was to be to all men, and the regeneration by the laver [of baptism] (Discourse on the End of the World 1 [A.D. 217]).

Gregory the Wonderworker

For Luke, in the inspired Gospel narratives, delivers a testimony not to Joseph only, but also to Mary, the Mother of God, and gives this account with reference to the very family and house of David (Four Homilies 1 [A.D. 262]).

It is our duty to present to God, like sacrifices, all the festivals and hymnal celebrations; and first of all, [the feast of] the Annunciation to the holy Mother of God, to wit, the salutation made to her by the angel, “Hail, full of grace!” (ibid., 2).

Peter of Alexandria

They came to the church of the most blessed **Mother of God, and ever-virgin Mary, **which, as we began to say, he had constructed in the western quarter, in a suburb, for a cemetery of the martyrs (The Genuine Acts of Peter of Alexandria [A.D. 305]).

Methodius

Hail to you forever, you virgin Mother of God, our unceasing joy, for unto you do I again return. . . . Hail, you fount of the Son’s love for man. . . . Wherefore, we pray you, the most excellent among women, who boast in the confidence of your maternal honors, that you would unceasingly keep us in remembrance. O holy Mother of God, remember us, I say, who make our boast in you, and who in august hymns celebrate your memory, which will ever live, and never fade away (Oration on Simeon and Anna 7 [A.D. 305]).

Cyril of Jerusalem

The Father bears witness from heaven to his Son. The Holy Spirit bears witness, coming down bodily in the form of a dove. The archangel Gabriel bears witness, bringing the good tidings to Mary. The Virgin Mother of God bears witness (Catechetical Lectures 10:19 [A.D. 350]).
 
The term Mother of God is merely the Latinized version of the term God bearer. It’s one and the same thing expressed differently in different languages, that’s all.
It might function in such a way, but it’s also true that mater dei and dei genetrix do literally mean different things to θεοτοκος, and that of them only the term θεοτοκος was canonised at Ephesus.
 
The term “mother of God” reflects the reality that Jesus is God. Jesus had two natures - He was both fully human and, at the same time, fully divine. God Himself became flesh for us - this is the mystery of the Incarnation.

I always go back to the explanation I heard a priest use in a homily: “If Jesus is just a man, then just a man died on the cross and we’re not saved. If Jesus is just God, then nobody died on the cross, because God can’t die, and we’re not saved.”
 
It might function in such a way, but it’s also true that mater dei and dei genetrix do literally mean different things to θεοτοκος, and that of them only the term θεοτοκος was canonised at Ephesus.
To put a fine point on it, but the teaching is essentially the same. 🙂
 
Mary is not mother of God but mother of Jesus…

İf Jesus is Son of God and incarnate of God(?) than Mary is not to be mother of God but mother of human side of jesus (God). İn all occassion Mary is not mother of God. Mary does not get grace, honor only by being mother of God in fact Mary was/is most grace and honorful of world womans.

(42. Behold! the angels said: "O Mary! Allah hath chosen thee and purified thee- chosen thee above the women of all nations. Quran, Al-İmran: 42).
 
Jesus is God, and Mary raised Jesus so it does make sense to give her this title. However, Mary is not actually God’s mother because God doesn’t have a mother, so in that sense it doesn’t make sense.
Actually God does have a mother. Mary bore God in her womb, nursed God and raised God. She is his mother.

Your confusing mothering with creating. They are very different.

Even a woman today cannot create a baby. The baby is created by the male seed joining with her egg. The mother than nurtures and grows and aids the baby. She never created it though.

So too with Jesus. He is God, the Alpha and Omega. Not ever created, but placed in Mary’s womb, taking on physicality and raised by a mother he chose for the special task.
 
Jesus is God, and Mary raised Jesus so it does make sense to give her this title. However, Mary is not actually God’s mother because God doesn’t have a mother, so in that sense it doesn’t make sense.
Jesus is God, and Mary raised Jesus so it does make sense to give her this title. However, Mary is not actually God’s mother because God doesn’t have a mother, so in that sense it doesn’t make sense.
Actually God does have a mother. Mary bore God in her womb, nursed God and raised God. She is his mother.

Your confusing mothering with creating. They are very different.

Even a woman today cannot create a baby. The baby is created by the male seed joining with her egg. The mother than nurtures and grows and aids the baby. She never created it though.

So too with Jesus. He is God, the Alpha and Omega. Not ever created, but placed in Mary’s womb, taking on physicality and raised by a mother he chose for the special task.
 
Jesus is God, and Mary raised Jesus so it does make sense to give her this title. However, Mary is not actually God’s mother because God doesn’t have a mother, so in that sense it doesn’t make sense.
A mother does not create a baby. She gives birth to a baby. I did hear this wrong interpretation of motherhood even worse, somebody saying something like " mother of God, you see people invented God…". All creation is God’s creation.
 
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!!!
Depending on how precise we want to be, there apparently was confusion of this even in the early Church, hence the need for the council to define her as Theotokos. But that aside, you may be generally correct except for the Lutheran Reformers, who never wavered from the belief, and included it in our confessions:
On account of this personal union and communion of the natures, Mary, the most blessed Virgin, bore not a mere man, but, as the angel [Gabriel] testifies, such a man as is truly the Son of the most high God, who showed His divine majesty even in His mother’s womb, inasmuch as He was born of a virgin, with her virginity inviolate. Therefore she is truly the mother of God, and nevertheless remained a virgin.
Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord

Jon
 
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.
👍 Kliska
 
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.

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

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

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.
Therein lies the rub: it isn’t too awkward, in Greek (or in Romanian, as I understand it, and possibly some other languages). But to literally translate theotokos into English as “Birthgiver of God” is very awkward.
 
I have noticed on other threads that some non Catholic faith traditions are not happy with such a title of Mary. I, as an Episcopalian, believe Mary is the Mother of God.

How can one not believe this if we believe Christ is God incarnate?
Because it started with the Catholics, those darn Papists! :rolleyes:

Common non-Catholic Christian thought is that the Catholic Church is wrong.

The Catholic Church began using that title “Mother of God,” therefore must be bad too.

Many non-Catholic Christians also don’t like giving Mary too much attention, to many she’s just a surrogate womb God used to bring Jesus into the world.

Catholics are often charged with things like Idolatry and especially Mary worship.

People will focus solely on Jesus and PUSH(!) Mary of to the side, not understanding that Mary has a definite role in God’s plan, still that is, even now.

“Yes Yes, Mary was a beautiful person, gave birth to Jesus, BLAH BLAH, now let’s move on, shall we?”

God bless ever non-Catholic who isn’t uncomfortable or ashamed to confess that Mary is the Mother of God.
 
=Judas Thaddeus;11591273]Because it started with the Catholics, those darn Papists! :rolleyes:
The teaching started long before the issues of the papacy.
Common non-Catholic Christian thought is that the Catholic Church is wrong.
Not for Lutherans, not on this issue, not today and not in 1580
The Catholic Church began using that title “Mother of God,” therefore must be bad too.
*On account of this personal union and communion of the natures, Mary, the most blessed Virgin, bore not a mere man, but, as the angel [Gabriel] testifies, such a man as is truly the Son of the most high God, who showed His divine majesty even in His mother’s womb, inasmuch as He was born of a virgin, with her virginity inviolate. Therefore she is truly the mother of God, and nevertheless remained a virgin. * - The solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord. This is most certainly true.
Many non-Catholic Christians also don’t like giving Mary too much attention, to many she’s just a surrogate womb God used to bring Jesus into the world.
Such a sad commentary. 😦
Catholics are often charged with things like Idolatry and especially Mary worship.
Sadly so, and its not true.
People will focus solely on Jesus and PUSH(!) Mary of to the side, not understanding that Mary has a definite role in God’s plan, still that is, even now.
Agreed.
“Yes Yes, Mary was a beautiful person, gave birth to Jesus, BLAH BLAH, now let’s move on, shall we?”
And looked for him at the Temple, and calling on Him at the wedding in Cana, and stood at the foot of the cross as He suffered and died, and was there for His resurrection. One can’t “move on” in the life and ministry of Christ without her being there, in the background
God bless ever non-Catholic who isn’t uncomfortable or ashamed to confess that Mary is the Mother of God.
God bless and forgive us all for the times we don’t act on our justification as we should.

Jon
 
The teaching started long before the issues of the papacy.
Yeah, but some, maybe many, anti-catholics will say it anyway.
Not for Lutherans, not on this issue, not today and not in 1580
First, I did say “Common non-Catholic Christian thought”, not just Lutheran. Second,
Luther is only the first step, technically, away from the Catholic Church, so of course
we would expect commonalities. Third, Lutherans do not think nor have every thought
that the Catholic Church is wrong (Doctrinally)? Deuterocanon, Papal Supremacy, I’ll
be happy to hear approval on that from the Lutheran side.
And looked for him at the Temple, and calling on Him at the wedding in Cana, and stood at the foot of the cross as He suffered and died, and was there for His resurrection. One can’t “move on” in the life and ministry of Christ without her being there, in the background
I hope you understood that the “quote marks” were indicat-
ing what I infer from anti-marian people, not my own words.
God bless and forgive us all for the times we don’t act on our justification as we should.
Amen. 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top