brother Paul
Member
In the church a debate ensued over Christ bearer and God bearer. What was the reasoning for the phrase mother of God?
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
What does "mother of God" mean...
- Thread starter brother Paul
- Start date
Andrew Mason
Member
I don't know, but my guess would be that it was a reference to Mary, the mother of Christ. However, I don't think it's a pleasing phrase to the Holy Spirit.
brother Paul
Member
Yes it was about Mary...the question was, was the person who was born of Mary, GOD? or just a man....not that she was the progenitor of the eternal deity (her own creator)...
God in human flesh wasn't He?
Colossians 2:
8 Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. 9 For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; 10 and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power.
Philippians 2:
5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men.
Colossians 2:
8 Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. 9 For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; 10 and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power.
Philippians 2:
5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men.
Last edited:
As you state it Paul, it is a Roman Catholic issue, and part of the rules here is that Roman Catholic subjects are forbidden .
The root cause of this word you ask is an attempt by fallible men to explain the mysteries in a way that all can understand. Thus the whole difficulty with the term regarding what to properly call Mary is first and foremost a Christological issue.
It goes back to Theodore of Mopsuestia (c.350-429),who wanted to honor the "God part " of Jesus because he could not believe that "God could suffer" but the result of that is that the human element of Jesus was thus minimized.
In the fifth century. Nestorius was Patriarch of Constantinople from 428–431, and he believed that Jesus Christ was two persons in one body, and that the best picture of that would be a double-yoked egg meaning one body and two distinct persons within the body. Essentially the Nestorian heresy wished to "put a fence around the "God part" of the body of Jesus to such an extent that only the "physical part" of Jesus would suffer and die on the Cross.There was no union on those separate parts of the body of Jesus. As a result, he followed the teaching of Theodore.
With that as background, here is an article snip from Wikipedia
In the 5th century, a dispute arose between Cyril of Alexandria and Nestorius in which Nestorius claimed that the term theotokos could not be used to describe Mary, the mother of Christ. Nestorius argued for two distinct natures of Christ, believing that God could not be born. Therefore Nestorius believed that the man Jesus was born and then assumed the divine nature after birth. The First Council of Ephesus labeled Nestorius as a neo-adoptionist and deposed him. In his letter to Nestorius, Cyril used the term hypostatic (Greek, kath' hypostasis) to refer to Christ's divine and human natures being one, saying, "“We must follow these words and teachings, keeping in mind what ‘having been made flesh’ means …. We say … that the Word, by having united to himself hypostatically flesh animated by a rational soul, inexplicably and incomprehensibly became man.”[8]
Theodore of Mopsuestia went in the other direction, arguing that in Christ there were two natures (dyophysite) (human and divine) and two hypostases (in the sense of "essence" or "person") that co-existed.[9] However in Theodore's time the word hypostasis could be used in a sense synonymous with ousia (which clearly means "essence" rather than "person") as it had been used by Origen and Tatian.
The Chalcedonian Definition agreed with Theodore that there were two natures in the Incarnation. However, the Council of Chalcedon also insisted that hypostasis be used as it was in the Trinitarian definition: to indicate the person and not the nature as with Apollinarius.
Thus, the Council declared that in Christ there are two natures; each retaining its own properties, and together united in one subsistence and in one single person (εἰς ἓν πρόσωπον καὶ μίαν ὑπόστασιν, eis hèn prósōpon kaì mían hypóstasin).[10]
Theodore of Mopsuestia went in the other direction, arguing that in Christ there were two natures (dyophysite) (human and divine) and two hypostases (in the sense of "essence" or "person") that co-existed.[9] However in Theodore's time the word hypostasis could be used in a sense synonymous with ousia (which clearly means "essence" rather than "person") as it had been used by Origen and Tatian.
The Chalcedonian Definition agreed with Theodore that there were two natures in the Incarnation. However, the Council of Chalcedon also insisted that hypostasis be used as it was in the Trinitarian definition: to indicate the person and not the nature as with Apollinarius.
Thus, the Council declared that in Christ there are two natures; each retaining its own properties, and together united in one subsistence and in one single person (εἰς ἓν πρόσωπον καὶ μίαν ὑπόστασιν, eis hèn prósōpon kaì mían hypóstasin).[10]
[8] Gregory of Nyssa, Antirrheticus adversus Apollinarem.
[9] Saint Cyril of Alexandria. St. Cyril of Alexandria: Letters. Trans. John McEnerney. Washington D.C.: Catholic University of America, 1987. Print.
[10] "Theodore" in The Westminster Dictionary of Christian History, ed. J. Brauer. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1971.
Let's go to Scripture (IN CONTEXT) now:
Philippians 2: 4 Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others.
5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name
5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name
You can see the highlighted verse is the key verse. Here it states that Jesus Christ ADDED TO (as opposed to the kenosis or emptying out) Himself a completely different nature to his "godness" and in doing so did not change hiis being 100% God and also 100% man.
ALL that is needed background to the OP
brother Paul
Member
Interesting, by Grace, that you call it a "Roman Catholic" issue!
The church universal at that time was legal in the Roman Empire, but Roman Catholic? Weren't most of the supporting Bishops from Constantinople (thus what we would call Orthodox today)? The entire church from the end of the first century referred to itself as "catholic" (not however RCC)...so I did not consider this an RCC issue
Are we ONLY allowed to discuss pre-RCC, Ante-Nicene accepted issues and doctrines? Or only Post-reformation perspectives? If all Christendom after Constantine until the reformers is considered "RCC" then we cannot allow discussion on the "Original Sin" doctrine for example?
Then no talk of Total Depravity which is a misapplied Augustinian view and so on...
Mods or Admins can you weigh in on this? Do you consider this only a RCC concern or issue?
The church universal at that time was legal in the Roman Empire, but Roman Catholic? Weren't most of the supporting Bishops from Constantinople (thus what we would call Orthodox today)? The entire church from the end of the first century referred to itself as "catholic" (not however RCC)...so I did not consider this an RCC issue
Are we ONLY allowed to discuss pre-RCC, Ante-Nicene accepted issues and doctrines? Or only Post-reformation perspectives? If all Christendom after Constantine until the reformers is considered "RCC" then we cannot allow discussion on the "Original Sin" doctrine for example?
Then no talk of Total Depravity which is a misapplied Augustinian view and so on...
Mods or Admins can you weigh in on this? Do you consider this only a RCC concern or issue?
PART TWO
What then shall be the proper term for Mary? It is obvious from her Magnificat. [from the opening phrase in the Latin version, Magnificat anima mea Dominum (my soul doth magnify the Lord) . The section below begins when the last OT prophet, John must have given his mother, Elizabeth a whopping hard kink in her womb. (verses 43-44)
Luke 1: 43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
44 For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.
45 And blessed is she that believed: for there shall be a performance of those things which were told her from the Lord.
44 For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.
45 And blessed is she that believed: for there shall be a performance of those things which were told her from the Lord.
46 And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord,
47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. 48 For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
49 For he that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is his name.
50 And his mercy is on them that fear him from generation to generation.
51 He hath shewed strength with his arm; he hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
52 He hath put down the mighty from their seats, and exalted them of low degree.
53 He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away.
54 He hath holpen his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy;
55 As he spake to our fathers, to Abraham, and to his seed for ever.
56 And Mary abode with her about three months, and returned to her own house.
47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. 48 For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
49 For he that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is his name.
50 And his mercy is on them that fear him from generation to generation.
51 He hath shewed strength with his arm; he hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
52 He hath put down the mighty from their seats, and exalted them of low degree.
53 He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away.
54 He hath holpen his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy;
55 As he spake to our fathers, to Abraham, and to his seed for ever.
56 And Mary abode with her about three months, and returned to her own house.
Here is an excellent Evangelical comment on this passage:
1:46–47 My soul magnifies the Lord. Mary’s hymn of praise (the Magnificat) follows the common form of Psalms of Thanksgiving, which begin by thanking God and then telling why one is thankful. The Magnificat carries echoes of the content and form of Ps. 103:1. my spirit rejoices. Mary’s entire being is caught up in praise to God. God my Savior. Mary herself is not free from sin but is in need of a Savior.
1:48 For indicates that Mary is about to present the grounds or foundation of her praise (vv. 46–47). he has looked. This first ground for Mary’s praise recalls Hannah’s hymn (1 Sam. 2:1–10). humble estate. Cf. Luke 1:52; 1 Cor. 1:26–29. God often uses people who are not great in the world’s eyes to work his great purposes on the earth. from now on. Cf. Luke 12:52; 22:18, 69; Acts 18:6. All generations … blessed recalls Luke 1:42.
1:50–55 The hymn moves from Mary to what her son’s birth means for believing Israelites. fear. Reverent, humble obedience that seeks to please God. The second ground for Mary’s praise is introduced by He has shown strength with his arm, an anthropomorphism for God’s might. has scattered … has brought. Mary’s use of the aorist tense expresses her certainty of what God will do. To Abraham and to his offspring emphasizes the fulfillment of salvation history.
Crossway Bibles. (2008). The ESV Study Bible (p. 1945). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.
However, the thing that really blows my mind about this young girl (perhaps 15 years-old) is that in that magnificat, she packs so much Scripture and stuff from the Psalms, as to defy imagination. Mnay years ago, I fave a sermon on Mother's day about her in which I detailed many different Psalm verse she was referencing in that song of hers. the best esplanation that one can have for her knowledge of all those Scriptures is that she indeed was taught many Scriptures from her youth, and thus she memorized many of them so they could come gushing from her with praise and thanksgiving at that special moment.1:48 For indicates that Mary is about to present the grounds or foundation of her praise (vv. 46–47). he has looked. This first ground for Mary’s praise recalls Hannah’s hymn (1 Sam. 2:1–10). humble estate. Cf. Luke 1:52; 1 Cor. 1:26–29. God often uses people who are not great in the world’s eyes to work his great purposes on the earth. from now on. Cf. Luke 12:52; 22:18, 69; Acts 18:6. All generations … blessed recalls Luke 1:42.
1:50–55 The hymn moves from Mary to what her son’s birth means for believing Israelites. fear. Reverent, humble obedience that seeks to please God. The second ground for Mary’s praise is introduced by He has shown strength with his arm, an anthropomorphism for God’s might. has scattered … has brought. Mary’s use of the aorist tense expresses her certainty of what God will do. To Abraham and to his offspring emphasizes the fulfillment of salvation history.
Crossway Bibles. (2008). The ESV Study Bible (p. 1945). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.
So what I have done above was to make the case for he "speciality" of Mary, but how do we best describe her? Elizabeth does makes a case for "Mother of God" when she calls Mary, "mother of my Lord". But doed that actually mean that Mary is the mother of God? I think not, and I am condensing the reasons for that, by Elizabeth's usage of the word "Lord" is more
of a salvific reference to Jesus, rather than an accolade to Mary.
One nature of the Christian and Jewish God is that He us unchanging (immutable). To call Mary the "Mother of God" is to have a changing God. He would be a shape changer as well as an essence changer. None of those are accurate descriptions describe God.
Indeed Mary was privileged to have Jesus the God-man dwelling in her, but she was also a sinner needing salvation. Therefore it is that reason, should not be given any other special status. But simultaneously, we must honor her as that one person who made so much of a difference in the lives of all living today.
It is for that reason that I believe that the term theotokos is the best one. She carried God Jesus Christ in her womb. Therefore the word theos meaning God must be a part of her descriptive title. and the tokos (meaning gave child birth to) is an appropriate statement.
To add to that term or to take away from that therm is, in my opinion are equal and opposite errors.
Thank you for reading this rushed essay.
Please read part 2 before commenting further
I simply stated that AS YOU STATED IT it was a RC issue. That is because the term is indeed used in the RC church, and in that church, she is given status not in keeping with Scripture,
In stating what I did, I am trying to take the OP in a direction other than RC history, and gave a short theological history lesson.
Regarding Augustine, have you read the book City of God? I have.
Having read that, it is my belief that Augustine was more "proto-Protestant" than a saint for the RC church,
Discussion of Catholic doctrine is limited and will only be allowed in the One on One Debate Forum and End Times forum only. RCC content in the End Times forum should relate to End Times beliefs. Do not start new topics elsewhere or sway existing threads toward a discussion or debate that is may be viewed as ‘Catholic’ in nature.
Eugene can you help out here?
Eugene can you help out here?
brother Paul
Member
By Grace...I 100% agree with your part 2, I was not trying to imply anything other
So you would agree, this is Catholic doctrine as in RCC...fine! We will have to be careful where to draw the line then. So much of Reformed Doctrine is based on their interpretation...
So you would agree, this is Catholic doctrine as in RCC...fine! We will have to be careful where to draw the line then. So much of Reformed Doctrine is based on their interpretation...
brother Paul
Member
Sorry...yes I hope Eugene weighs in...I do not believe the idea of the church being "catholic" and the denomination Roman Catholic are the same so I would be informed as to the limitations as I do not find this issue really discussed (no animosity, just do not want to violate)...
No animosity with me, either!
However, given the sensitivity of the issue here (mostly due to the history of the board) I deemed it best to make sure that neither of us stray into the "forbidden territory" of discussion of RC theology, and involve moderation at the start.
The whole Roman Catholic Doctrine discussion and prohibition has so far been avoided (in my opinion). Let's keep it that way. It's a fine line so this thread may yet be closed. Mercy (Grace) triumphs over judgment, right?
1 Cor. 4:6 said:
Last edited:
Jethro Bodine
Member
What does 'mother of God mean'?
It means I hit my thumb with the hammer.
It means I hit my thumb with the hammer.
Jethro Bodine
Member
Thank you for the vote of confidence.
IMHO it is nearly impossible to post on any historical doctrine without touching, even tangentially the doctrine of the RCC.
As a guideline, would you and the admins agree to a post-Reformation prohibition? I say that because there was only one church before Jan Hus, Wycliffe and others translated the Bible into the vernacular so the common people could hear and understand what it meant when it was read to them.
Yeah, I am a trouble maker!
brother Paul
Member
Well what confuses me here is that the controversy over this term happened in the east...in Syria and Turkey...the church in Rome had no official dogma regarding this phrase until after the consensus reached at Ephesus in 431 A.D. (also in the east though western Bishops attended some from Rome but the main arguments in favor of the phrase came from Alexandria...