M
mercygate
Guest
Right. Check his profile. He claims he’s an ante-Nicene Catholic. Rather a contradiction in terms.
- Status
Z
Zooey
Guest
Yes, so she is…by the very logic that the poster is trying to use to prove his point, he is actually acknowledging Mary as the Mother of God…
I’ll go
duck now…
L
linus
Guest
No it isn’t. It’s related to the basic Christian/Biblical doctrine of the hypostatic union.
Prior to the 4th Century Mary was called “Christokos” (Christ-bearer). But by the end of the 4th century she was being referred to as “Theotokos” (God-bearer). The appellation at first drew little attention, but in 428 A.D. Anastasius, a presbyter in the church at Constantinople, voiced objections to it and the controversy began. Is Mary the mother of Jesus? Or is Mary, a created being, the mother of God?
Those who do not accept the human reasoning that Mary is the “mother of God” (theotokos) are accused of the Nestorian heresy, i.e., denying the unity of Christ’s two natures - divine and human. But this is not even remotely true. Jesus, in fact, has two distinct natures fused into a single human body. A mystery on the same plane as the Trinity. And like the Trinity man can apprehend the hypostatic union but surely cannot fully comprehend it.
As Theophilus has stated, no true Christian denies that Jesus is God the Son, Second Person of the triune God. And no one disputes that Mary was the mother of the human Jesus, even though she was not the “supplier” of His human soul. Nor is there any dispute over the fact that Jesus was created human in body, soul and spirit. The dispute lies in the extension of the word “mother” to a divine nature that eternally existed and was NOT CREATED in the womb of the virgin Mary. A mother is only the mother of what originates in her womb. The Second Person of the triune God did not “originate” in Mary’s womb. God the Son is, as you well know, eternal - without beginning and end: God.
Jesus had two natures, one created, one eternal, united in a single human body. But only ONE of the two originated in Mary’s womb. For this reason Mary can be called the mother of Jesus but not the “mother of God” (theotokos).
A parallel is found in Scripture with Christ’s relationship to King David. Jesus was often addressed by the Jews as the Messianic title, “Son of David,” based on the Messianic prophecy in 2 Sam 7:12-17. But Jesus Himself drew the line between His deity and humanity when confronting the Pharisees in Matt. 22:41-46:
"Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question, saying, “What do you think about the Christ, whose son is He?” They said to Him, “The son of David.” He said to them, “Then how does David in the Spirit call Him ‘Lord,’ saying, 'The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand, until I put Your enemies beneath Your feet”? “If David then calls Him ‘Lord,’ how is He his son?” And no one was able to answer Him a word, nor did anyone dare from that day on to ask Him another question.”
Continued:
L
linus
Guest
Continued from previous post:
In these verses Jesus clearly draws a line between the human nature and the divine nature of the Christ. David was not the father of God because he is not the father of the second Person of the Trinity. It stand to reason then that this same logic demonstrated by Jesus Himself, i.e., that David is the father of the MAN Christ Jesus only, must be applied to Mary as well. Mary is the mother ONLY of the man Christ Jesus: i.e.,* “Christokos”* (Christ-bearer) but not “Theotokos” (God-bearer). Understood clearly when you insert Mary’s name in the place of David’s:
“Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question, saying, “What do you think about the Christ, whose son is He?” They said to Him, “The son of MARY.” He said to them, “Then how does MARY call him Lord saying, 'My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior” (Luke 1:46, 47). If MARY then calls him Lord, how is He her son?” And no one was able to answer Him a word, nor did anyone dare from that day on to ask Him another question."
Jesus was/is the “theanthropic” Man. The “God-Man.” He is both fully human and at the same time fully Divine. Two distinct natures in one Person. He is not, however, some kind of human hybrid. The human did not take on the Divine and the Divine did not take on humanity. In Him resides two separate and distinct natures. This being the mystery of the hypostatic union.
Through the virgin Mary the “man” Christ Jesus was born into this world. But the Second Person of the of the blessed trinity is eternal, having no beginning and no end. It was the “man” Christ Jesus who as a sin-sacrifice suffered and died on the cross and rose bodily from the dead three days later. It is the resurrected and ascended “man” Christ Jesus who is said to be the mediator between God and men (1 Tim. 2:5). The second Person of the Trinity, however, did not die, cannot die, nor could be put to death. He is in fact eternal.
Jesus Christ, the man, was the son of Mary. But the Second Person of the Trinity is her God, not her son, neither on earth or in Heaven. For He did not originate in her womb. Theotokos is a very unfortunate, non-Biblical appellation which has spawned many false Marian doctrines.
In these verses Jesus clearly draws a line between the human nature and the divine nature of the Christ. David was not the father of God because he is not the father of the second Person of the Trinity. It stand to reason then that this same logic demonstrated by Jesus Himself, i.e., that David is the father of the MAN Christ Jesus only, must be applied to Mary as well. Mary is the mother ONLY of the man Christ Jesus: i.e.,* “Christokos”* (Christ-bearer) but not “Theotokos” (God-bearer). Understood clearly when you insert Mary’s name in the place of David’s:
“Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question, saying, “What do you think about the Christ, whose son is He?” They said to Him, “The son of MARY.” He said to them, “Then how does MARY call him Lord saying, 'My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior” (Luke 1:46, 47). If MARY then calls him Lord, how is He her son?” And no one was able to answer Him a word, nor did anyone dare from that day on to ask Him another question."
Jesus was/is the “theanthropic” Man. The “God-Man.” He is both fully human and at the same time fully Divine. Two distinct natures in one Person. He is not, however, some kind of human hybrid. The human did not take on the Divine and the Divine did not take on humanity. In Him resides two separate and distinct natures. This being the mystery of the hypostatic union.
Through the virgin Mary the “man” Christ Jesus was born into this world. But the Second Person of the of the blessed trinity is eternal, having no beginning and no end. It was the “man” Christ Jesus who as a sin-sacrifice suffered and died on the cross and rose bodily from the dead three days later. It is the resurrected and ascended “man” Christ Jesus who is said to be the mediator between God and men (1 Tim. 2:5). The second Person of the Trinity, however, did not die, cannot die, nor could be put to death. He is in fact eternal.
Jesus Christ, the man, was the son of Mary. But the Second Person of the Trinity is her God, not her son, neither on earth or in Heaven. For He did not originate in her womb. Theotokos is a very unfortunate, non-Biblical appellation which has spawned many false Marian doctrines.
I
Ignatius
Guest
Church Militant:
Church Militant, You never cease to amaze me. This is terrific.
I
Ignatius
Guest
Is it Christian Forums? If so, what’s your handle over there?
I
Ignatius
Guest
linus said:
Now you’ve got it. That is exactly the Nestorian heresy. Congratulations, you resurrected an 1800 year old heresy. Of course your own personal judgment is better than that of the Church Councils anyway, isn’t it?
I
Ignatius
Guest
Why is ante-Nicene Catholic a contradiction? The Catholic Church predated the Council of Nicea by more than 300 years.
K
Knight4God
Guest
Linus,
“theotokos” had nothing to do with origination. That was not the point in the term, and never has been. The term never, ever meant that the divine nature originated in Mary. All it means is that the one person of Christ was carried in the womb of Mary until labor. Therefore, this God-Man person was carried in her womb, so out of her womb came a God-Man person. There can be some division between the divine nature (Jesus knows the future) and the human (he needed to eat). But because he is a united person, there is not in every case reason to make a separation.
As Cyril explained in his letter to Nestorius “we do not say the Word of God dwelt in him as in a common man born of the Holy Virgin, lest Christ be thought of as a God-bearing-man”
The argument is that, “theotokos” prevents one saying it was only a human body that was indwelt by the Word, as opposed to a true incarnation.
Later he explains “the Holy Virgin brought forth corporeally God made one with flesh according to nature, for this reason we also call her Theotokos, not as if the nature of the Word had the beginning of existence in the flesh.”
Which means Theotokos never meant anything like the Son’s eternal nature having origin in Mary, it meant and means that the Word truly became incarnate, and not just a man who was indwelt after birth by the Word.
Your analogy with Matt 22:41-46 would contradict yourself and disprove Christokos also. The question is “whose son is the Chirst?” Not “whose Son is the Word?” anyway. So if we are to take that verse as a negation on calling Mary the Theotokos, then we must also negate calling her Chrsitokos, because it is as “Christ” that is the focal point for Jesus’s question. The point of the passage is not that Mary didn’t “give birth” to the incarnate Word, but to show the people that the Christ is more then a mere man.
God the Son did suffer and “die” on the cross, Acts 20:28, says it was God’s blood that purchased the Church, not just the “man” Christ’s blood. Apparently Paul thought the two natures were close enough to say when one bled the other bled. So when one comes through the womb of Mary, so does the other. This is Perichorisis, a mutual indwelling of not only the Father, Son and Spirit, but also within the hypostatic union.
“theotokos” had nothing to do with origination. That was not the point in the term, and never has been. The term never, ever meant that the divine nature originated in Mary. All it means is that the one person of Christ was carried in the womb of Mary until labor. Therefore, this God-Man person was carried in her womb, so out of her womb came a God-Man person. There can be some division between the divine nature (Jesus knows the future) and the human (he needed to eat). But because he is a united person, there is not in every case reason to make a separation.
As Cyril explained in his letter to Nestorius “we do not say the Word of God dwelt in him as in a common man born of the Holy Virgin, lest Christ be thought of as a God-bearing-man”
The argument is that, “theotokos” prevents one saying it was only a human body that was indwelt by the Word, as opposed to a true incarnation.
Later he explains “the Holy Virgin brought forth corporeally God made one with flesh according to nature, for this reason we also call her Theotokos, not as if the nature of the Word had the beginning of existence in the flesh.”
Which means Theotokos never meant anything like the Son’s eternal nature having origin in Mary, it meant and means that the Word truly became incarnate, and not just a man who was indwelt after birth by the Word.
Your analogy with Matt 22:41-46 would contradict yourself and disprove Christokos also. The question is “whose son is the Chirst?” Not “whose Son is the Word?” anyway. So if we are to take that verse as a negation on calling Mary the Theotokos, then we must also negate calling her Chrsitokos, because it is as “Christ” that is the focal point for Jesus’s question. The point of the passage is not that Mary didn’t “give birth” to the incarnate Word, but to show the people that the Christ is more then a mere man.
God the Son did suffer and “die” on the cross, Acts 20:28, says it was God’s blood that purchased the Church, not just the “man” Christ’s blood. Apparently Paul thought the two natures were close enough to say when one bled the other bled. So when one comes through the womb of Mary, so does the other. This is Perichorisis, a mutual indwelling of not only the Father, Son and Spirit, but also within the hypostatic union.
S
Sherlock
Guest
linus,
You wrote: "Those who do not accept the human reasoning that Mary is the “mother of God” (theotokos) are accused of the Nestorian heresy, i.e., denying the unity of Christ’s two natures - divine and human. But this is not even remotely true. Jesus, in fact, has two distinct natures fused into a single human body. A mystery on the same plane as the Trinity. And like the Trinity man can apprehend the hypostatic union but surely cannot fully comprehend it.
"As Theophilus has stated, no true Christian denies that Jesus is God the Son, Second Person of the triune God. And no one disputes that Mary was the mother of the human Jesus, even though she was not the “supplier” of His human soul. Nor is there any dispute over the fact that Jesus was created human in body, soul and spirit. The dispute lies in the extension of the word “mother” to a divine nature that eternally existed and was NOT CREATED in the womb of the virgin Mary. A mother is only the mother of what originates in her womb. The Second Person of the triune God did not “originate” in Mary’s womb. God the Son is, as you well know, eternal - without beginning and end: God.
“Jesus had two natures, one created, one eternal, united in a single human body. But only ONE of the two originated in Mary’s womb. For this reason Mary can be called the mother of Jesus but not the “mother of God” (theotokos).”
Linus, mothers do not give birth to “natures”, they give birth to persons. Jesus was a person with two natures, one divine, one human. Mary gave birth to the person Jesus, not a “nature”. And yes, you are promoting the Nestorian heresy: clearly, you do so when you separate the two natures of Jesus and have Mary somehow give birth to just one of them, as if “natures” can be given birth to.
You wrote: "Those who do not accept the human reasoning that Mary is the “mother of God” (theotokos) are accused of the Nestorian heresy, i.e., denying the unity of Christ’s two natures - divine and human. But this is not even remotely true. Jesus, in fact, has two distinct natures fused into a single human body. A mystery on the same plane as the Trinity. And like the Trinity man can apprehend the hypostatic union but surely cannot fully comprehend it.
"As Theophilus has stated, no true Christian denies that Jesus is God the Son, Second Person of the triune God. And no one disputes that Mary was the mother of the human Jesus, even though she was not the “supplier” of His human soul. Nor is there any dispute over the fact that Jesus was created human in body, soul and spirit. The dispute lies in the extension of the word “mother” to a divine nature that eternally existed and was NOT CREATED in the womb of the virgin Mary. A mother is only the mother of what originates in her womb. The Second Person of the triune God did not “originate” in Mary’s womb. God the Son is, as you well know, eternal - without beginning and end: God.
“Jesus had two natures, one created, one eternal, united in a single human body. But only ONE of the two originated in Mary’s womb. For this reason Mary can be called the mother of Jesus but not the “mother of God” (theotokos).”
Linus, mothers do not give birth to “natures”, they give birth to persons. Jesus was a person with two natures, one divine, one human. Mary gave birth to the person Jesus, not a “nature”. And yes, you are promoting the Nestorian heresy: clearly, you do so when you separate the two natures of Jesus and have Mary somehow give birth to just one of them, as if “natures” can be given birth to.
M
mercygate
Guest
Indeed. And anyone today not holding the Nicene doctrine of the Trinity can no longer consider himself Catholic.
J
johnshelby
Guest
well, this may sound off topic, but it’s not…
is there a difference in be… blessed, as in God giving us a blessing.
( she is blessed with good health)
and being blessed, as ( blessed Virgin )…?
is there a difference in be… blessed, as in God giving us a blessing.
( she is blessed with good health)
and being blessed, as ( blessed Virgin )…?
M
Mickey
Guest
Sorry Linus, you must do more research. That is the nestorian heresy. Be careful what you attempt to teach.
Peace,
Mickey
L
linus
Guest
Sorry MIckey, but it’s not.
S
Sherlock
Guest
Linus, explain to me how a mother gives birth to a nature: I thought mothers gave birth to persons.
L
linus
Guest
Yes they do, but we are theologically examining the Messiah.
Christ is God in His divine nature and man in His human nature, but in His Person-ality as the God-Man He is neither one or the other apart from the unity which He is. Isolation of either nature from the other is not possible, though each may be separately considered. The divine nature is eternal, but the human nature originates in time. Although, the UNION (not the blending) of the two in the Person of Jesus Christ is itself an event in time, and is destined to continue forever.
Now you explain to me this verse.
MAT 24:36 “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.”
M
Milliardo
Guest
Same point as the verse “The Father is greater than I”? If so, then you might consider this then: Rationalist critics lay great stress upon the text: “The Father is greater than I” (14:28). They argue that this suffices to establish that the author of the Gospel held subordinationist views, and they expound in this sense certain texts in which the Son declares His dependence on the Father (5:19; 8:28). In point of fact the doctrine of the Incarnation involves that, in regard of His Human Nature, the Son should be less than the Father. No argument against Catholic doctrine can, therefore, be drawn from this text. So too, the passages referring to the dependence of the Son upon the Father do but express what is essential to Trinitarian dogma, namely, that the Father is the supreme source from Whom the Divine Nature and perfections flow to the Son. (source: newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm which is the article, incidentally, about the Trinity)
So, as we see in both passages, they point to the Father as the Supreme Source from Whom the Divine Nature flows to the Son. Does that necessarily mean that the divine and human natures of Christ are separate? No, or else as pointed out above, you are holding the Nestorian heresy, which you can deny all you want but in principle you hold by the views you express.
Z
Zooey
Guest
I think that this is where the problem lies. Along with, apparently, a lot of other folks, he is denying the Person of Christ is God.
Linus, you’re speaking heresy here. I’m sorry, but that’s what this is. You’re denying that Jesus Christ is both 100% God, and 100% man.
I don’t think :nope: you realize that, but it’s heretical…
L
linus
Guest
Not at all. In fact my argument is for Christ being 100 percent God and 100 percent man. I am not arguing “double Person-ality”. He did not become 50 percent divine and 50 percent human (i.e., a blending of divine and human). The one divine Person who possessed a divine nature from all eternity assumed, through the incarnation, a human nature, and now has BOTH. Of course, as I pointed out before, the doctrine of two natures in one Person transcends human reason but, nevertheless, like the Trinity: three Persons - one God, is a true mystery: two natures - one Person.
As a result of the incarnation the divine Savior could be ignorant and weak, be tempted, suffer and die. Not in His divine nature, but by virtue of His possession of a human nature. The properties of both the divine and human natures are now the properties of the Person of Christ and are therefore ascribed to Him. That’s why He can be said to be almighty, omniscient and at the same time called a “man of sorrows,” limited in knowledge and power and subject to human frailties.
However, anything peculiar to the divine nature was NOT communicated to the human nature, or vice versa. Rome erroneously teaches an interpenetration of the two natures, resulting in the false notion that the divine is humanized and the human is deified (this being the fundamental error of the Marian title theotokos). But in truth, deity cannot share in human weaknesses, nor can man share in any of the essential perfections of the Godhead (Note: This being the fundamental error behind Rome’s doctrine of “transubstantiation” where the divine attribute of omnipresence is ascribed to the material, human body of Christ).
Zooey, if divine attributes were ever communicated to the human nature, that nature, as such, would cease to exist. But Jesus is truly 100 percent human and 100 percent divine. Truly a mystery unique to the second Person of the Godhead by virtue of the incarnation. And based on this truth Mary cannot rightfully be called the “mother of God.”
What I express concerning Christ (not Mary) and His incarnation is no different than what was confimed at the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon in A.D. 451:
"Following the holy fathers, we unanimously teach one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, complete as to His Godhead, and complete as to His manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting; consubstantial with the Father as to His Godhead, and consubstantial with us as to His manhood; like unto us in all things, yet without sin; as to His Godhead begotten of the Father before all worlds, but as to his manhood, in these last days born, for us men and for our salvation, of the Virgin Mary, the mother of God (obviously added as a “dig” against Nestorius); one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, known in (of) two natures without confusion, without conversion, without severance, and without division; the division of the natures being of no wise abolished by their union (i.e., not blending); but the peculiarity of each nature being maintained, and both occuring in one person and hypostasis" (emphasis mine).
I also find it quite interesting that the council held in 431 A.D. took place in the very city that worshipped and championed the “light and life dispensing” virgin goddess Diana: Ephesus (Acts 19). A despicable council that was far more political than theological. The Christology of Nestorius needed to be “tweaked” but his excommunication and exile were strictly political.
A friend of mine wrote this insightful statement in his article on the subject:
"Mary was the point of entrance for the divine to enter humanity and that is as far as Scripture takes her. According to the Bible, Jesus Christ is fully man and fully God and we must leave that divine mystery alone. We must not tamper with it by trying to explain it through Mary…which is impossible. The unbiblical title “theotokos” falls far short of describing the wonder of this miracle, but instead introduces “leaven” of another kind - the license to elevate Mary beyond what the Holy Spirit revealed in His inspired writings. Once the Church bestowed on her a title not revealed or sanctioned by Scripture, nothing could hold back the subsequent inventions of carnal men who then proclaimed them as “orthodox.”
M
Mickey
Guest
linus said:
AHHHH! Now i understand. You are sympathetic toward Nestorius! In essence you are nestorian. This explains everything. There is no longer any point trying to convince a nestorian that he subscribes to the nestorian heresy.
Peace to you linus,
Mickey
- Status