Great Point! Now if you isolated that verse from the rest of the verses surrounding it…?
Apophasis, or is it Nestorious, I understand perfectly well what you say. It’s not what I want to believe you have said, or maybe you don’t really know what you’re saying.
What I have retained above outlines your entire position: You claim that Mary is the mother of only Jesus’ human nature (his humanity), she is not the mother of one person, Jesus, who has both a divine and human nature. Mothers bear persons, not natures, unless there were two persons - one human and one divine - co-habiting the body of the historical Jesus. This claim is heretical: Nestorianism is a fifth century heresy claiming that there are two distinct persons in the incarnate Christ, one human and one divine. (This form resolves the problem of having a single hybrid being.) The Catholic Church teaches that Christ was and is a divine person who took on a human nature; He did not take on divinity when Mary bore him:
It definitely was a compliment. I would take it as such if it was directed at me.
Yes, only if God informs them. I can agree with that!
Amen.
Amen to that as well. You are one of a few protestants that i have come across that have this understanding.
To believe such a thing would be fundamentally to misunuderstand what motherhood is, since all mothers only carry their children. No mother has ever been the “source” of her child. God is the source of all children. It is God who creates the child in the womb, using DNA from the mother’s egg and the father’s sperm. The child’s soul is created directly by God, in the union of the sperm and the egg.
Just in the same way, our own mothers are not the “originators” of our human nature. We receive our human nature by being created by God, in the image and likeness of God. (Genesis 1:26-27)
Apophasis, of course you do not believe that there were two persons in the one body of Jesus, but this conclusion can be drawn as it was by Nestorious. However, what you believe borders on Nestorianism. You are saying that Mary has no role in the motherhood of the entire person of Jesus. You represent her as if she were only the biological mother of the human nature of Jesus, his humanity, as if motherhood were nothing other than a biological function. You deny that her motherhood of the whole person Jesus also had a formal role. By implication, all mothers simply serve a biological function, with no formal role of motherhood given to them by God over their children.Apophasis, or is it Nestorious, I understand perfectly well what you say. It’s not what I want to believe you have said, or maybe you don’t really know what you’re saying.
“THE CHILD TO BE BORN WILL BE CALLED HOLY, THE SON OF GOD.” {LUKE 1:35)
GOD SENT HIS SON, BORN OF A WOMAN { GALATIANS 4:4 }
Nestorious contended that Mary could not really have been the mother of God, but only the mother of a human being conjoined to God. (For mothers bear persons.) She was the mother of only a full human being conjoined with a full divine being co-habiting one body. The Council of Ephesus condemned the bishop’s heresy in 431 A.D. ( 2 Pet 3:16).
What you have to say above about “the mystery of the hypostatic union” is in accord with Catholic dogma. But it does not support your claim that Mary is only the biological mother of the human nature of Christ and not the mother of one person with two natures. Basically, the question is this: Is Mary the mother of only the human nature of Christ, or is she the mother of the single person of Christ with two natures? Since her motherhood of Jesus is not merely biological - she had a maternal relationship with the divine person Jesus - she is the mother of the Person, not merely the biological mother of his human nature. Let’s not conclude that there were two “full” persons existing together in one body. That is what Nestorious heretically concluded to get rid of the hybrid being. He constructed a human being while preserving a divine being who had entered the world, distorting the Gospel of John:
THE WORD BECAME FLESH. { JOHN 1:14 }
He did not take on divinity, but took on a human nature as one distinct person “born” of the virgin Mary. {Cf. Isaiah 7:14} Born of Mary “God is with us” in the person of Emmanuel.
" AND HOW DOES THIS HAPPEN TO ME, THAT THE MOTHER OF MY LORD SHOULD COME TO ME?" { LUKE 1:43 }
Elizabeth’s use of “mother of my Lord” ( Theotokos) is equivalent to “Holy Mary, mother of God” which Catholics use when addressing Mary in the recitation of the Rosary. Elizabeth used the word ‘Adonai’ which is Hebrew meaning Lord God. The Greek translation is ‘Kyrios’ which means the same: Yahweh.
Obviously, Mary did not conceive the divine nature of Christ. Nor did Mary beget the second Person of the Holy Trinity. He is eternally begotten of the Father. Biologically she is the efficient cause of the human nature of Christ. But she has been given by God the formal role of mother of Jesus Christ, who is one person with two natures: divine and human. She cannot be the mother of only half a person or the mother of two persons in one shell. So it can be truly said that Mary is the Mother of God.
:irish3: “I’ll drink to that!”
“ETERNALLY ‘BEGOTTEN’ OF THE FATHER…HE WAS CONCEIVED BY THE POWER OF THE HOLY SPIRIT AND ‘BORN’ OF THE VIRGIN MARY.”
The Council of Nicea (A.D. 325)
Pax vobiscum
Good Fella
No it doesn’t.
I said no such thing. Rather than cut and paste go back and read it again.
And I never said He was two “persons.”
More accurately, co-habiting one PERSON. His body was part and parcel of His humanity, not His divinity. His body was/is fully human. It suffered pain and death. As I said before, His humanity did not take on divinity, otherwise He would not be fully man.
The Greek word “kurios” is translated “Lord.” “Theos” is translated “God.” The Greek word used for “mother” in Lk. 1:43 is “meter.” Where do you find “theotokos” in Lk. 1:43?
Yes. Yet she conceived and gave birth to a son who was divine - a mystery.
Yet the Son who was born to her is - a mystery.
Actually, He’s the “only” begotten of the Father (Jn. 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18).
I agree. And Joseph was given the role as His father (Lk. 2:33; 48).
You were doing well. You should have stopped when you were ahead. It is true that Jesus is ONE Person with TWO natures, but Mary is biologically connected to only one of them. Hint - she’s not divine.
I didn’t ask you to do that at all. Why would I ask you to do the impossible??? There are no passages in Scripture that explicitly, or even implicitly, teach Mary’s IC, perpetual sinlessness, perpetual virginity, bodily assumption into heaven or her heavenly coronation as Queen once she arrived there. ALL the aforementioned Marian doctrines developed over time AFTER the Apostolic age and long AFTER the N.T. Scriptures were written. Although many have tried to prove her IC by pouring that fully developed doctrine into one Greek word: ketcharitomene (Lk. 1:28). And the fully developed doctrine of her heavenly “queenship” into a few verses in Rev. 12 where the woman mentioned there is never even seen in heaven but remains on earth.
Again, those doctrines aren’t in the written Text. What I’m asking for is proof that they truly were part of the original “deposit of faith”:Jude 1:3 "Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was (past tense) once for all (not continually) handed down to the saints.So, to which Apostle(s) was it revealed that Mary was IC’d?
I am not debating with you the validity of sola scriptura.
Well, if they were to be silent, then you’re right, “who knows?” And if they were instructed by Jesus to keep silent, are you then suggesting the Apostles went against Christ’s orders? GF, you’re just speculating all over the place. You’re not presenting REAL arguments here.
I don’t know what’s written on those walls. I’ve never been there. But if I take for granted what you say is true, when were they actually written? Many had access to those tunnels throughout the centuries. But still, how do you know they’re not just the misguided sentiments of those people. You can’t just assign Apostolic origin to them. Are you suggesting that Christian doctrines are to be formed from writings found on tunnel walls?
Of couse divinity has no mother in the sense that it does not have a source from which it is derived. But the person in Mary’s womb was a divine person who took a human nature. Jesus if fully God. Mary carried God in her womb for nine months, Mary gave birth to God, and Mary nursed and raised God. Therefore, she is logically the mother of God. Our souls are not created by our mothers nor is its source our mothers. Do we say then that our mothers are only the mothers of our bodies? No.
No it can’t. Only if you’re trying real hard to make me a heretic.
No it doesn’t. Two persons vs. two natures are not remotely the same.
I said no such thing.
What you fail to understand, GF, is that Jesus functioned as a MAN while on earth, not as God. He willfully submitted Himself to both His earthly mother and father (Lk. 2:51), and walked His entire human life on earth in complete obedience to His heavenly Father, even obedience to death on a cross (Phil. 2:5-8).
The Child that Mary conceived and developed in her womb was both fully human and fully divine.
Mary carried a male child in her womb and gave birth, nursed and raised a male child.
She was logically the mother of a male Child.
Mysteriously the eternal Son received His humanity (body, soul and spirit) through the virgin birth. Christ’s body is a part of His humanity, not His divinity. The incarnated Son was miraculously born fully Man to which Mary was biologically connected.
That is a form of the heresy of monophysitism: that Christ had one nature—divine. That’s what happens when one places undue emphasis on Christ’s divinity, to the overshadowing, or exclusion of His humanity.
Actually, that’s logically inconsistent. The scriptural testimony is that Jesus is fully God, and fully man, and that His mother is Mary; therefore, the consistent statement is that Mary is the mother of Jesus, who is fully God, and fully man.
Are you stalking me!That is a form of the heresy of monophysitism: that Christ had one nature—divine. That’s what happens when one places undue emphasis on Christ’s divinity, to the overshadowing, or exclusion of His humanity.
Actually, that’s logically inconsistent. The scriptural testimony is that Jesus is fully God, and fully man, and that His mother is Mary; therefore, the consistent statement is that Mary is the mother of Jesus, who is fully God, and fully man.
Now* that’s *a straw man. Have I said that Jesus only has one nature? Of course I know Jesus is fully God and fully man. Mary is the mother of the God-man. What I said was that it was a divine person that took upon a human nature, not a human person who became divine. There is only one person, not two persons in Christ. That would be the heresy of Nestorianism. The two natures are united in one person (i.e. hypostatic union). You don’t give birth to a nature. You give birth to a person. Mary gave birth to a divine person with a human nature. Mary gave birth to God. Last time I checked, the person who gives birth to you is, biologically speaking, your mother.Yes, and that male child is God. God took on a human nature, but He did not cease being God. Jesus was God prior to being conceived in Mary’s womb, He was God at conception, He was God during the nine months in Mary’s woman, He was God when she gave birth to Him, and He was God when Mary nursed and raised Him like any good mother would do. He was fully human, but He never ceased being God. Jesus is a divine person who took a human nature, not a human person who took a divine nature. Nor are there two separate persons within Christ.
:yup:
You’re doing it again, Mike.
Where was Christ’s divine nature, when Mary was carrying Him in her womb and giving birth to Him, and nurturing Him and raising Him?
Agreed. But it was His humanity that needed the milk from her breasts, to grow in strength and wisdom [Lk. 2:40), and to learn obedience from the things He suffered (Heb. 5:8), not His deity.