The Only Begotten Son of God is the God of Mary

[zarthan]

I think this may be the root cause of this problem for you. The key words in this dogma are Nestorianism and Hypostatic Union. You have to make a decision on them first before you can adequately address on the dogma of Mother of God because it arise from the understanding of these words and it consequently dealt with them.

Definitions regarding the incarnate Word of God always seem to fall short because there is mystery of the incarnate Son of God in his overcoming of temptation. and sacrificial death that can not be defined in words. The Chalcedon creed seems to explain the two natures of Jesus Christ in one person more adequately than others.

Scriptures and certain early church fathers speak of the soul of Jesus Christ suffering in Sheol. On the day of Pentecost the apostle Peter said, “For God raised him up, loosening him from the (birth pangs of death) for it was not possible for him to be held by it.” Then quoting Ps.16, Peter says of the soul of Jesus Christ, “Thou will not abandon my soul in Sheol”.

The apostle Paul, says that Jesus Christ is the firstborn from the dead. In speaking of his resurrection from the dead, Paul quotes Ps. 2:7 “Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.”

Thus, scriptures and certain pre-Nicene church fathers seem to be saying that Jesus Christ suffered the death of our sins not only in his body on the cross, but that his soul was abandoned by God on account of our sins, and suffered spiritual death. That we who believe, are justified by the faith of the Son of God, who said to His Father, “Thou will not abandon my soul in Sheol” .

Out of this trust in His Father, his soul was born again on Easter morning’ and his body was raised incorruptible, as ‘the firstborn from the dead’.

“Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee” thus becomes the way of our own spiritual regeneration. As the writer in Hebrews says, “Though being a Son, he learned obedience through the things which he suffered, and being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey him,” (Hebrews 5:8-9)

 

[PLAT]

Am I the only one seeing this connection?

Jesus - Human flesh, divine nature
Eucharist - Bread and wine substance, Christ’s presence

 

[Reuben_J]

Definitions regarding the incarnate Word of God always seem to fall short because there is mystery of the incarnate Son of God in his overcoming of temptation. and sacrificial death that can not be defined in words. The Chalcedon creed seems to explain the two natures of Jesus Christ in one person more adequately than others.

We know that we even cannot define who and what God is adequately and accurately and yet we have a definition of God. The Church comes out with a definition that takes into account human understanding no matter how limited it is. Are you then espousing that we shouldn’t and be silent on what the Word incarnate means?

Scriptures and certain early church fathers speak of the soul of Jesus Christ suffering in Sheol. On the day of Pentecost the apostle Peter said, “For God raised him up, loosening him from the (birth pangs of death) for it was not possible for him to be held by it.” Then quoting Ps.16, Peter says of the soul of Jesus Christ, “Thou will not abandon my soul in Sheol”.

The apostle Paul, says that Jesus Christ is the firstborn from the dead. In speaking of his resurrection from the dead, Paul quotes Ps. 2:7 “Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.”

Thus, scriptures and certain pre-Nicene church fathers seem to be saying that Jesus Christ suffered the death of our sins not only in his body on the cross, but that his soul was abandoned by God on account of our sins, and suffered spiritual death. That we who believe, are justified by the faith of the Son of God, who said to His Father, “Thou will not abandon my soul in Sheol” .

Out of this trust in His Father, his soul was born again on Easter morning’ and his body was raised incorruptible, as ‘the firstborn from the dead’.

“Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee” thus becomes the way of our own spiritual regeneration. As the writer in Hebrews says, “Though being a Son, he learned obedience through the things which he suffered, and being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey him,” (Hebrews 5:8-9)

I am not sure where you want to get to by saying these but would appreciate if you go direct to the point. Are you advocating Nestorianism or OTOH Arianism, and if that is so you are not taking the position of the Church. That’s why I said you have to make a decision as does the Church too along the centuries.

 

[zarthan]

We know that we even cannot define who and what God is adequately and accurately and yet we have a definition of God. The Church comes out with a definition that takes into account human understanding no matter how limited it is. Are you then espousing that we shouldn’t and be silent on what the Word incarnate means?

I am not sure where you want to get to by saying these but would appreciate if you go direct to the point. Are you advocating Nestorianism or OTOH Arianism, and if that is so you are not taking the position of the Church. That’s why I said you have to make a decision as does the Church too along the centuries.

I did not know what Nestorianism was until after I looked it up online, and even then, how can I know if I am getting it straight from the source? Nevertheless, the Chalcedon creed seems to explain it best.

I only take the scriptures where they take me. “Jesus Christ was sent in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.”
(Romans 8:3-4)

“God raised him up, having loosed him from the (birthpangs of death), for it was not possible for him to be held by it”. ( Acts 2:24) “For thou will not leave my soul in sheol, neither will you allow your holy one to see corruption.” (Acts 2:27) “Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee” (Acts 13:33). “He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead”
(Colossians 1:18)

On the day of his resurrection Jesus said to Mary Magdalene. "But go to my brothers and tell them, “I am going to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.” (John 20:17-18)

This is the only time that Jesus calls his disciples his brothers. It would seem that Jesus Christ is referring to the fact that when he was begotten again out of Sheol, he brings eternal life to his disciples, and now can call them his brothers.

So, I do not advocate any sort of 'ism", I advocate the scriptures. Thus, you explain to me how the Only Begotten of the Father before time became like us, was tempted in every way as we, yet without sin, and died the death of our sins in body and in soul, and was begotten by His Father again on Easter morning? Was it his divinity that was tempted in every way as us? Was it his divinity that suffered in Sheol for our sins? Or was it his humanity? Or was it the hypostatis union? I can tell you that I believe it was his divinity, or both, but I can not explain it.

 

[Reuben_J]

I did not know what Nestorianism was until after I looked it up online, and even then, how can I know if I am getting it straight from the source? Nevertheless, the Chalcedon creed seems to explain it best.

It’s OK, I just want to gauge how deep is your knowledge On this subject because you seem to be adamant about it. Anyway, Nestorianism has been explained to you. Probably you have no way to confirm the source but the Church surely knew what she was doing.

Well, it’s not that bad that you mentioned the Creed of Chalcedon, because it is also known as the “Doctrine of the Hypostatic Union” or the “Two-Nature Doctrine”,adopted in 451. The term Mother of God is clearly stated in this doctrine and this also has been explained to you.

*We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach people to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; …

begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; ….*

You reference the Chalcedon Creed which states clearly that Mary is the Mother of God. So what’s the problem here?

I only take the scriptures where they take me. “Jesus Christ was sent in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.”
(Romans 8:3-4)

“God raised him up, having loosed him from the (birthpangs of death), for it was not possible for him to be held by it”. ( Acts 2:24) “For thou will not leave my soul in sheol, neither will you allow your holy one to see corruption.” (Acts 2:27) “Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee” (Acts 13:33). “He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead”
(Colossians 1:18)

On the day of his resurrection Jesus said to Mary Magdalene. "But go to my brothers and tell them, “I am going to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.” (John 20:17-18)

This is the only time that Jesus calls his disciples his brothers. It would seem that Jesus Christ is referring to the fact that when he was begotten again out of Sheol, he brings eternal life to his disciples, and now can call them his brothers.

So, I do not advocate any sort of 'ism", I advocate the scriptures. Thus, you explain to me how the Only Begotten of the Father before time became like us, was tempted in every way as we, yet without sin, and died the death of our sins in body and in soul, and was begotten by His Father again on Easter morning? Was it his divinity that was tempted in every way as us? Was it his divinity that suffered in Sheol for our sins? Or was it his humanity? Or was it the hypostatis union? I can tell you that I believe it was his divinity, or both, but I can not explain it.

Are you now saying that Jesus is only divine then? Because I think for you to avoid accepting Mary as the Mother of God, Jesus has to be divine only. Well, you can say that but I don’t know where you get that other than yourself. Not even the Scripture. For the Scripture explicitly says he is human too,
“ … rather, he made himself **nothing **
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself …”

 

[zarthan]

It’s OK, I just want to gauge how deep is your knowledge On this subject because you seem to be adamant about it. Anyway, Nestorianism has been explained to you. Probably you have no way to confirm the source but the Church surely knew what she was doing.

Well, it’s not that bad that you mentioned the Creed of Chalcedon, because it is also known as the “Doctrine of the Hypostatic Union” or the “Two-Nature Doctrine”,adopted in 451. The term Mother of God is clearly stated in this doctrine and this also has been explained to you.

*We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach people to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; …

begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God*, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; ….

You reference the Chalcedon Creed which states clearly that Mary is the Mother of God. So what’s the problem here?

Are you now saying that Jesus is only divine then? Because I think for you to avoid accepting Mary as the Mother of God, Jesus has to be divine only. Well, you can say that but I don’t know where you get that other than yourself. Not even the Scripture. For the Scripture explicitly says he is human too,
“ … rather, he made himself **nothing **
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself …”

Of course he is human too. The question in my mind is when Jesus said, “I came down from heaven, not to do my will, but the will of the Father who sent me”. Is he referring to his divine soul that became incarnate? When he says, “As the Father has life in Himself, so too, has He **given **the Son to have life in himself”. Did the divine life of the Son suffer the death of our sins in Sheol? These are questions in my mind, that remain a mystery.

My trouble with the phrase ‘mother of God’ is nothing to do with Nestorianism as I understand it. I just think 'mother of the incarnate God" would be a better explanation.

 

[pablope]

Of course he is human too. The question in my mind is when Jesus said, “I came down from heaven, not to do my will, but the will of the Father who sent me”. Is he referring to his divine soul that became incarnate? When he says, “As the Father has life in Himself, so too, has He **given **the Son to have life in himself”. Did the divine life of the Son suffer the death of our sins in Sheol? These are questions in my mind, that remain a mystery.

My trouble with the phrase ‘mother of God’ is nothing to do with Nestorianism as I understand it. I just think 'mother of the incarnate God" would be a better explanation.

Z…has somebody suggested a book for you to read on your own time…if not, I would recommend this…Hail Holy Queen by Scott Hahn.

 

[zarthan]

Z…has somebody suggested a book for you to read on your own time…if not, I would recommend this…Hail Holy Queen by Scott Hahn.

If it is readily available, I’ll read it, when time is available.

 

[Reuben_J]

My trouble with the phrase ‘mother of God’ is nothing to do with Nestorianism as I understand it. I just think 'mother of the incarnate God" would be a better explanation.

You know what, I completely agree with you that Mary is called the ‘mother of the incarnate God’. The reason why ‘Mother of God’ came about is because the Church is historical.

Through the passage of time she has gone through much challenges and she has to deal with each accordingly. There were heresies and unbelieving societies. In these situations she had to come out and clarified and made clear her belief in order that it would not be sucked into the heresies of the era concerned. Depending on the problem, the Church’s could come out with just a form of teaching or if warranted, a declaration of a doctrine or even a dogma.

Nestorianism was a Christian heresy that held Jesus to be two distinct persons, closely and inseparably united which was taught by Nestorius, a patriarch of Constantinople. It led to the opposition to the use of the title Mother of God for the Virgin on the grounds that, while the Father begot Jesus as God, Mary bore him as a man. This view was in contradiction to the one as held by the Church at that time but nevertheless a series of councils were convened to settle the matter and finally decided by the Council of Chalcedon in 451 that clarified orthodox Catholic doctrine, pronouncing that Jesus, true God and true man, has two distinct natures that are inseparably joined in one person and partake of the one divine substance.

If the Second Person has one divine substance then the term Mother of God would reflects this very reasonably. I can only think of an analogy with the Body as in the Eucharist. We don’t have to receive the two species because the Body contains both the flesh and blood too.

God bless.

 

[benedictus2]

Of course he is human too. The question in my mind is when Jesus said, “I came down from heaven, not to do my will, but the will of the Father who sent me”. Is he referring to his divine soul that became incarnate? When he says, “As the Father has life in Himself, so too, has He **given **the Son to have life in himself”. Did the divine life of the Son suffer the death of our sins in Sheol? These are questions in my mind, that remain a mystery.

And it probably will remain a mystery which we will only understand when we get to the other side of eternity. Unless of course, God chooses to shed more light into the Churches understanding of this mystery.

My trouble with the phrase ‘mother of God’ is nothing to do with Nestorianism as I understand it. I just think 'mother of the incarnate God" would be a better explanation.

I do understand your point, but renaming it will not change a thing. As I said before, what is needed is better explanation.

I hope that with all the explanations that have been put forward you now understand that Mother of God means simply that, mother of Jesus who is God.

Even when we acknowledge that Jesus is God Incarnate, we usually refer to Jesus only as God. After His incarnation, even though He truly became human, at the same time He truly remained God.