Scriptural Proof: Mary is Not the Mother of God

[Ben]

Were you once a Protestant?

 

[TomS]

Were you once a Protestant?

Yes. Baptist. Why do you think I have these issues? ;D

 

[Ben]

oh yes your past invlovment in the evils of heresy is obvious. Just confirming the obvious...thanks. And one might wonder why you didnt solve these issues you have with the faith prior to converting.

 

[TomS]

oh yes your past invlovment in the evils of heresy is obvious. Just confirming the obvious...thanks. And one might wonder why you didnt solve these issues you have with the faith prior to converting.

But aren't you judging ME now, friend?

 

[Ben]

No....I am simply asking why you didnt solve your "issues" with the faith prior to converting.

 

[TomS]

No....I am simply asking why you didnt solve your "issues" with the faith prior to converting.

What exact "issues" are you talking about? I would be happy to tell you if you want to define them for me. And I am not being sarcastic here. I really would not have a problem telling you my reasons and views.

 

[Ben]

Huh...why would I know what these issues are...you brought them up.

 

[TomS]

Okay. 'Cause I don't think I have any issues that prevent me from enjoying the full Grace of the Orthodox Church. I am happy in the Church.

 

[Ben]

but sadly you have enough issues to prevent you from attending certain services in the Church.

 

[TomS]

but sadly you have enough issues to prevent you from attending certain services in the Church.

I guess you could say that. My Priest just says that if I have not reached that point in Orthodoxy where I am comfortable with a specific part, then he sees no reason for me to be forced into something that I am not ready to accept.

And he does not see my objection to some of these words (like defined earlier) as critical to my salvation. And isn't THAT what it is about?

Do you feel that you have to accept 100% EVERYTHING the church tells you?

 

[Ben]

I believe the faith is not a buffet, you can not pick and choose. I do believe that one must accept the teachings of the true Church 100%.

 

[TomS]

I believe the faith is not a buffet, you can not pick and choose. I do believe that one must accept the teachings of the true Church 100%.

Then please explain to me the The Age of Iconoclasts. Was the teaching of the Church correct during this period?

 

[Ben]

I was not aware that the Chruch taught iconclasm. I was taught the Church condemned it as heresy at the 7th ecumenical council. Am I wrong???

 

[carpo-rusyn]

Ben

What is this the pot calling the kettle? A buffet??? You pick and chose what you believe. Be fair to Tom. If his priest, his spiritual father says he shouldn't go to the akathist then he shouldn't go. One thing you should be learning with the GOA is the concept of spiritual fatherhood. If you accept the teachings of the EOC 100% then of course you have ceased attending liturgy at the supposedly RC place you go to.

Carpo-Rusyn

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Regarding some of the hyperbole containted in the Akathist I cited, I wonder if some of it may be justified in the following manner:

1. In regards, to Mary being the only "intercessor, comforter, and help", it should be noted that all three of these descriptions are properly ascribed to the Holy Spirit in the NT. Perhaps, since the Holy Spirit "came upon" Mary and the power of the Highest "overshadowed" her in such a unique way in the Incarnation, these exclusive hyperbolic statements may indeed be in acknowledgement of this unique relationship with the Holy Spirit.

2. I understand that Mary was (and still is) regarded as a type of the Church. Therefore, when one says he is seeking Mary's exclusive "guardianship" or "refuge" or "protection", could this be perhaps an acknowledgement of the mystical association between Mary and the Church?


Sorry, if these thoughts are off-base in anyway. Maybe I'm just trying to rationalize how such seemingly idolatrous language is addressed to Mary when Orthodoxy maintains that Mary is NOT to be worshipped, particularly if I may be otherwise convinced that Orthodoxy is the True Church kept from doctrinal error by the Holy Spirit :-

(bump)

Sorry to quote my own post, but it appeared that this thread was straying off topic somewhat. :-

Any comments on my thoughts about how one might be able to justify the seemingly excessive Marian devotion cited above?

 

[Br Max OFC]

Doubting: I'm interested myself.

 

[Ben]

Carpo...I do not pick and choose...for God's sake you don't even know me! I am stuck between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, struggling to find the truth, Tom believes he has already found the truth, he has already chosen to embrace Orthodoxy. And I do not believe one can embrace Orthodoxy or Catholicism and pick and choose what he or she likes and doesn't like. And I never remember Tom saying his spiritual father told him not to attend certain services in the Church.

 

[carpo-rusyn]

Ben

posted by you at 7:52

And I never remember Tom saying his spiritual father told him not to attend certain services in the Church.

posted by Tom at 6:19

My Priest just says that if I have not reached that point in Orthodoxy where I am comfortable with a specific part, then he sees no reason for me to be forced into something that I am not ready to accept.

Remember?

CR

 

[Ben]

What his priest said is WAY different than advising him not to attend.

His priest seems to have just told him if he has a problem with the service he doesnt have to attend, to me, thats different than the priest telling him not to go.

 

[Mor Ephrem]

Can we please stay on topic and keep off-topic conversations for PM or another thread?

 

[prodromos]

DT,

I really appreciated your second point as it is not something I had really considered before. I'm not sure that the words of the Akathist hymn can be understood as speaking of the church, but this clay pot is still pretty dirty on the inside, you may be seeing things a lot clearer than me .

We celebrate Epiphany as one of the times when all three persons of the Holy Trinity were manifest and some time ago it dawned on me that Mary had experienced a similiar epiphany at her annunciation (the will of the Father, overshadowed by the Holy Spirit, conceiving the Son), so now everytime I look at an icon of Panagia with the Christ child I consider myself to be looking at an icon of the Holy Trinity in that sense.

I don't know if this is really pertinent to the topic at hand, its just something I wanted to share.

John.

 

[polycarp26]

MJs?

Through the prayers of the Theotokou, Savior save us.

More honourable than the Cherubim, and more glorious beyond compare than the Seraphim, thou who without stain barest God the Word, oh Theotokos we magnify you.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

DT,

I really appreciated your second point as it is not something I had really considered before. I'm not sure that the words of the Akathist hymn can be understood as speaking of the church, but this clay pot is still pretty dirty on the inside, you may be seeing things a lot clearer than me .

Wow...I certainly don't feel as if I'm seeing things clearly :-, but thanks for the compliment.

We celebrate Epiphany as one of the times when all three persons of the Holy Trinity were manifest and some time ago it dawned on me that Mary had experienced a similiar epiphany at her annunciation (the will of the Father, overshadowed by the Holy Spirit, conceiving the Son), so now everytime I look at an icon of Panagia with the Christ child I consider myself to be looking at an icon of the Holy Trinity in that sense.

I don't know if this is really pertinent to the topic at hand, its just something I wanted to share.

John.

I do think it may be pertinent--thanks for sharing.

DT

 

[antiderivative]

This guy realy messed with history. The whole controversy over calling Mary Christotokos instead of Theotokos really had little to do with Mary. It had to do with the Arian heretics wanting to say that there was a difference between Christ and God. In other words, Jesus was not God, so we should call his mother Christotokos instead of Theotokos.

 

[PeterTheAleut]

This guy realy messed with history. The whole controversy over calling Mary Christotokos instead of Theotokos really had little to do with Mary. It had to do with the Arian heretics wanting to say that there was a difference between Christ and God. In other words, Jesus was not God, so we should call his mother Christotokos instead of Theotokos.

Maybe YOU should get YOUR history straight on this one.  The issue of whether to call Mary "Christotokos" or "Theotokos" was really connected to the Church's battle against Nestorianism.  As the Nestorians taught, "He whom Mary bore is merely Christ's human person, as separated from the divine Person of God the Word; he is not God incarnate, so we cannot call Mary 'Birthgiver of God' (Theotokos)."

 

[prodromas]

I think it was Thomas Hopko that stated somewhere that the Church used to use the term Theotokos in the liturgy for years before (in Fact Origen  is the first documented writer that used the phrase but many other fathers had already used it around the early 3rd century) the controversy was just Nestorius around 400 AD caused a big fuss over not liking the term and wanting it changed to Christotokos.

 

[ytterbiumanalyst]

Protestants always have trouble with this issue. How could the eternal God be born of a temporal woman? Yet they have no problem believing that the eternal Christ was given a human body in the Theotokos' womb. Really, I think they're afraid that the title "mother of God" elevates the Theotokos above God; this is a commendable position insofar as their commitment to keeping the Holy Trinity as the focus of our faith. When they see that the Theotokos can be venerated for her role in salvation without diminishing in any way our dependence on God for our salvation, they generally cease to have a problem with the title "mother of God."

 

[ozgeorge]

this is a commendable position insofar as their commitment to keeping the Holy Trinity as the focus of our faith.

I disagree. I think it is neither commendable, nor keeps the Holy Trinity as the focus of the Christian Faith. All doctrines about the Theotokos are Christological doctrines, and all Christological doctrines are Trinitarian doctrines. We cannot claim to know anything about the Trinity if we don't know the truth about the Second Hypostasis of the Trinity.
To deny the title "Mother of God" is to deny a Christological Truth- namely, the Two Natures in One Hypostasis. To say that "Mary is not the Mother of God" means that the Hypostasis she gave Birth to is not God, but somehow either "became God" later (which is the heresy of Adoptionism or Monarchianism) or that the Hypostasis Mary gave birth to is a different Hypostasis to the Pre-Incarnate Christ (which is the heresy of Nestorianism).
I find nothing commendable in expounding these heresies about Christ and the Holy Trinity.

 

[ytterbiumanalyst]

I understand what you're saying, and I agree with you. I did not mean to say that the position itself is commendable, but rather the desire to keep the Trinity as the focus of our faith. Like many Protestant theologies, their position actually undermines what they're trying to do, but they generally hold that position out of a lack of understanding of the Trinity rather than a desire to deny the Trinity.

 

[Keble]

The term itself is a bit on the polemic; it's a "rub their face in it" to the Nestorians. Therefore it's a bit of a red flag for most Protestants, who have never been run up against the Christological disputes and therefore have no context for understanding that it doesn't really mean what it seems to say on the surface. They put the statement of the Council of Chalcedon in the back of the BCP, so Episcopalians at least have no excuse. 

 

[Myrrh23]

Protestants always have trouble with this issue. How could the eternal God be born of a temporal woman? Yet they have no problem believing that the eternal Christ was given a human body in the Theotokos' womb.

I was told that people, Protestant or not, must realize that Mary's role as "Mother of God" is otherworldly in that She possessed a humility that was not of this sinful world. With Mary, her role as Mother of God is actually one of humility and obedience and love, not of worldly and royal standing... Sorta like Opposite Day, or something...

 

[PeterTheAleut]

I was told that people, Protestant or not, must realize that Mary's role as "Mother of God" is otherworldly in that She possessed a humility that was not of this sinful world. With Mary, her role as Mother of God is actually one of humility and obedience and love, not of worldly and royal standing... Sorta like Opposite Day, or something...

Good point.  In the Gospel reading for the Feast of the Annunciation (celebrated yesterday on the Gregorian Calendar) we read Mary's statement to Gabriel, "Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word." (Luke 1:38)  What greater humility have we then this act of free obedience to God's word?

 

[Cleopas]

I'm in a bit of quandry on how to reply.

I believe Mary was the mother of Jesus who was both human and divine in His one person. So in that respect she is the mother of God, albeit God in the flesh.

Yet, in a biological sense she is only the producer of the humanity of Christ. His divinity is self sustained and eternal, else it is not divinity at all. Thus, in this sense, she is not the mother of God, that is of divinity.

 

[Symeon]

True enough, she did not give birth to the divinity, which would be blasphemous nonsense. But she did give birth to the divine person of the Word in his humanity, thus mother of God. When we speak of someone being the mother of another, or of bearing that person in the womb, we always look to the individual. The divinity of the Word isn't a personal subject, nor is his humanity. We don't speak of people giving birth to natures, but rather persons.

Anyway, why was this antique of a thread resurrected?

 

[Cleopas]

Anyway, why was this antique of a thread resurrected?

*shrugs*

I just replied to it because it already had a new indicator on it.  :angel:

 

[ozgeorge]

Yet, in a biological sense she is only the producer of the humanity of Christ. His divinity is self sustained and eternal, else it is not divinity at all. Thus, in this sense, she is not the mother of God, that is of divinity.

But in the "biological sense" women don't give birth to "Natures" like "humanity" or "divinity", they give birth to Persons. And the Person Mary gave birth to is God, hence she is the God-Birther (Theotokos) or "Mother of God".

 

[Jimmy]

This is nothing but nestorianism.  He says he is not dividing the person of Christ but he is.  Mary was not the mother of a nature, she was the mother of a person, Jesus Christ who was both God and man.  So, yes, she was the mother of God.  And his denial of this is either nestorian or arian.

 

[katherine2001]

I'm in a bit of quandry on how to reply.

I believe Mary was the mother of Jesus who was both human and divine in His one person. So in that respect she is the mother of God, albeit God in the flesh.

Yet, in a biological sense she is only the producer of the humanity of Christ. His divinity is self sustained and eternal, else it is not divinity at all. Thus, in this sense, she is not the mother of God, that is of divinity.

Mary provided Him with His humanity.  She was not just a vessel or a womb that carried Him without contributing some of herself to Him, as any mother does.  Not to be facetious, but if they'd had DNA testing in those days, there would have been a match if they'd ever done a DNA test on Him.  As said, Mary didn't just provide a womb and  that's it.  If Mary had said "no", we would still be waiting for the Messiah.  God created Mary to be the one to bring His Son into the world in the Flesh.  He created her to be the "New Eve" who would obey God and bring His salvation into the world in the flesh.  A mother is mother to all of her child, including the parts that come from the other parent.  No mother is mother to just the parts of her child that come from her.  If Jesus was divine during His conception, His time in her womb, and afterwards, then she is also mother to that nature as well.  The term "Mother of God" is used to protect Jesus's having always been divine.  Nestorius and others tried to say that Jesus obtained His divinity later (some argue that it was during His baptism). 

 

[Myrrh23]

But in the "biological sense" women don't give birth to "Natures" like "humanity" or "divinity", they give birth to Persons. And the Person Mary gave birth to is God, hence she is the God-Birther (Theotokos) or "Mother of God".

Not only that, Ozzy, but Christ Himself chose not to end her role at His cruxifiction and death, but gave her to Humanity as our Mother. This is further supported at the Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit came upon Mary, as well as the Apostles. Besides...us rowdy human kids need a mother...

 

[Elisha]

I'm in a bit of quandry on how to reply.

I believe Mary was the mother of Jesus who was both human and divine in His one person. So in that respect she is the mother of God, albeit God in the flesh.

Yet, in a biological sense she is only the producer of the humanity of Christ. His divinity is self sustained and eternal, else it is not divinity at all. Thus, in this sense, she is not the mother of God, that is of divinity.

Cleopas,

It seems to me what you and other Protestants have trouble with is that you think by the Orthodox saying "Mother of God" that the Theotokos created Christ and we mean nothing of the sort.  We mean exactly as we have stated - that Christ was conceived of the Holy Spirit, took flesh from the Virgin Mary and was born of her.  She is Jesus's mother, but since he is also God, she is also the Mother of God.  Does this help?