Results 1 - 8 of 8
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Theological Term: Theotokos | Luke 1:31 | DocTrinsograce | 155987 | ||
Hi, WOS! Yes, those were the Nestorians. They held to a heretical belief that Jesus was two distinct natures: one God and one man. However, they believed that distinct meant completely separate. If the Creed were to to refer to Mary as Christotokos than that distinction would be affirmed. Instead, the definition of Chalcedon reflected what had been understood as the teaching of the Apostles, and clearly stated in the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds before them. Very good observation, WOS! By studying the heresies of from history, we begin to understand why it is so important that we state things clearly and precisely. Ambiguity fosters error. The wolves seeking to prey upon the sheep thrive on ambiguity! In Him, Doc |
||||||
2 | Theological Term: Theotokos | Luke 1:31 | Dalcent | 156029 | ||
I have to correct you. The party of Nestorius held that Christ was two distinct persons - divine and human. He very much has two natures according to historic Christology (not confused, not confounded, etc.). Otherwise Doc, you stray into the Monophysite heresy when you suggest an amalgamation of divine and human natures into one. This really is the ABC's of classical Christian doctrine. It is alleged, with some validity, that those who do not accept that Mary is the Mother of God are reviving the Nestorian heresy. (It is generally accepted by scholars that 'Nestorianism' as commonly understood is an oversimplication, another story). Historic orthodoxy understands that Jesus is one person and it would be entirely inappropriate to say that Mary is the Mother of his humanity only. A person is a single unit. Catholics talk of the 'communication of idioms' when referring to Mary as the Mother of the Person of Jesus. He only had one mother. The title of Mary, Mother of God, sets important Christological boundaries, if you accept the title Theotokos you should not err in understanding who Jesus really is. Mary is of course, Mother of God the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity, not the Father and this in no way should be understood, or misrepresented, as saying she existed before God. It is most incorrect to refer to Catholics as Roman Catholics as it is a perjorative coined by the English Reformers. It is not on the level of 'papist' 'Romish' and 'popery' but is a perjorative nevertheless. You of course are at liberty to address anyone by a perjorative to make a point but it is certainly not accepted by Catholics, nor do Muslims like being called Mohammedians as the old books say. On the otherhand, you can claim the moniker catholic , small 'c' for yourself, I am of course a baptist, a pentecostal, orthodox etc. in the non-denominational senses of the word. When you call a Catholic a Roman Catholic you are telling him in no uncertains terms "I do not accept the claims of your Church to be the Church Christ founded, the only Church which goes back to the Apostles, you are just one of many denominations." The Church Fathers referred to themselves as Catholic, not Roman Catholics and their writings shows they held distinctively Roman doctrine. Read the Ante-Nicene Fathers if you disagree, you can get them on e-sword for free. You probably would not do better then reading J.N.D. Kelly's Early Christian Doctrines, which everyone gives amazing reviews on Amazon. It is a masterpiece of erudition. Dalcent MA Catholic Theology |
||||||
3 | Theological Term: Theotokos | Luke 1:31 | mark d seyler | 156032 | ||
Hi Dalcent, Something about your post troubles me greatly. When you say that it is inappropriate to refer to Mary as the mother of Jesus' humanity only, are you then saying that Mary is the mother of the Deity of God the Son? We know that Jesus did not originate at His incarnation. Jesus pre-existed Mary, and as we use the word "mother" we refer to a person who pre-existed their offspring. The incarnation of Jesus was a unique and singular event, as God entered human flesh. How can we possible refer to this amazing event by reducing it to such a level as saying this, now making Mary the mother of God Himself? And why would we ever want to? |
||||||
4 | Theological Term: Theotokos | Luke 1:31 | Dalcent | 156034 | ||
Hi there, You wrote 'When you say that it is inappropriate to refer to Mary as the mother of Jesus' humanity only, are you then saying that Mary is the mother of the Deity of God the Son?' No I am not. Essentially, Mary is the mother of Jesus period. Natures don't have mothers, people do. Everything that is said about Jesus is said about him as a single unit. Mary is the mother of Jesus. The mother of the carpenter, the mother of the baby, the mother of everything that can be said about Jesus. Because he is one person. When you write 'We know that Jesus did not originate at His incarnation. Jesus pre-existed Mary,' I fully agree but when you say 'we use the word "mother" we refer to a person who pre-existed their offspring' then I would disagree for no other reason than the case is exceptional. A mother is the one who bears us, is the legal definition even if she is a surrogate carrying a fertilised egg that is not her own (this is the law in my country), usually they are human and their offspring are simply human without a pre-existent Lord of the Universe element. In this singular case something very peculiar is occuring, the entry of God into the world. You said 'And why would we ever want to?' If we can forget worrying about Mary being over-emphasised then it is easy to answer this. It is virtually impossible to hold most of the Christological errors that arose in the early Church (let us say Spirit Christology, a modern heresy too - that Jesus only became the Christ, when he was "adopted" at his baptism). Mary is properly Mother of God, this is virtually stated in Scripture in Luke 1, i.e. who am I that the Mother of my Lord should come to me... If you want to go into this deeply here you may wish to look over the documents of the Third Ecumenical Council where Nestorius was condemned. You can find it here, but I can't post the link properly as the forum doesn't alllow certain syllables. http://www.victorclaveau.com/ |
||||||
5 | Theological Term: Theotokos | Luke 1:31 | mark d seyler | 156037 | ||
Hi Dalcent, I wonder if I may have been misunderstood in my post. What I meant do ask was "are you saying Mary was the mother of the Deity we know as God the Son?" Does that affect your answer? I also wonder at your capitalization of words associated with Mary. Do you think of her as somehow intrinsically "better", or "elevated over" other believers? Regarding the "over-emphesis of Mary", we know that Jesus did not teach any special recognition of her, and in fact, taught the opposite: Mar 3:32 And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee. 33 And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren? 34 And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! 35 For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother. The Bible says, (Col 2:9) "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." I disagree with you that Jesus is simply the Man who was born to Mary. Jesus was born with more than just "Divine Nature". Jesus was the incarnation - putting into flesh - of the Almighty and Eternal God, Who does not have a mother, but Who is Self-existant: "I Am that I Am." As you mentioned the case of a surrogate mother, she is the mother of the child in a purely mechanical sense, carrying the one who is in fact the offspring of another. In that sense I might think of Mary as the mother of God, carrying to term the Child that has no progenitor, that was placed inside her by divine agency, for the care and nurture of a human baby, a baby that would die for her sins and mine, and would call her, and me, to salvation. Love in Christ, mark |
||||||
6 | Theological Term: Theotokos | Luke 1:31 | Dalcent | 156043 | ||
Hi Mark, If mothers hypothetically gave birth to attributes then you and I would agree Mary is not the mother of Christ's deity. However, mothers give birth to persons. If a white woman has a black man's child she is that person's mother. Not the mother of the whiteness but not of the blackness; this is a bit odd; I am not quite sure why Jesus is being chopped up here; he is a person he had a mother. We admit the relevant caveats regarding his pre-existence, godhood etc. I think have only capitalized Mother of God, the Christological title , not for she, her, etc. which is a proper title, like Doctor or Master of Ceremonies. As I'm sure you subscribe to the exact formula of the Trinity (defined at the 1st Ecumenical Council) and the dual natures of Christ (human and divine) presumably exactly as articulated at the 4th Ecumenical Council. It would be inconsistent if you don't seem to be going with the 3rd Ecumenical Council. The 4th was very much related to tying up questions raised by the 3rd. The Scripture does say "all generations" will call Mary "blessed". Furthermore, I believe Luke 1 deliberately compares Mary with the Ark of the Covenant: both were vessels which carried God! 2 Sam 6 Verse 2 David “arose and went†…to bring up from there the ark of God … Verse 9 So David …said, "How can the ark of the LORD come to me?" Verse 11 Thus the ark of the LORD remained… “three months†… in the Judean hill country. Verses 6:14, 16 David danced for JOY in the presence of the Ark, indeed he LEAPED Now, look how Luke undeniably parallels 2 Sam 6 Luke 1 Verse 39 Mary “arose and went†in a hurry to the hill country, to a city of Judah, “arose and went†occurs TWICE ONLY IN THE NT Verse 43 "And how has it happened to me, that the mother of my Lord would come to me? verse 44 For behold, when the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby leaped in my womb for JOY. Verse 41 When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby LEAPED in her womb Verse 56 And Mary stayed with her about “three monthsâ€, and then returned to her home. I’m sure you can work out the statistical improbalities of this being no more than coincidence. Clearly Mary is no less than the New Testament’s Ark of God. And, the OT Ark was just a humble vessel of wood, etc, before God dwelt in it. You said that you disagree 'that Jesus is simply the Man who was born to Mary.' I am saying that Jesus is the God-Man who is born to Mary: her son. I'm fairly certain the Reformers and historic Baptists hold to the Marian title: Mother of God In His Name Dalcent |
||||||
7 | Theological Term: Theotokos | Luke 1:31 | Wild Olive Shoot | 156044 | ||
Well, Let’s get this all out in the open. Theotokos: Mother of God : Mary's son, Jesus, was fully God, as well as fully human, and that Jesus' two natures (divine and human) were united in a single person of the Trinity. It was defined that although Jesus has two natures, human and divine, these are eternally united in one personhood. Mary being mother of God the Son is therefore duly entitled Mother of God. Christotokos: Mother of Christ: The intent behind calling her Christotokos was to restrict her role to be only the mother of "Christ's humanity" and not His Divine nature. Nestorianism: that Jesus had two persons, the man Jesus and the divine Son of God, instead of one unified person. (Christotokos) Monophysitism: Christ has only one nature, as opposed to the Chalcedonian position which holds that Christ has two natures, one divine and one human. There are two major doctrines that can undisputedly be called monophysite: Eutychianism: the human nature of Christ was essentially obliterated by the Divine, "dissolved like a drop of honey in the sea". Apollinarianism: Christ had a human body and human "living principle" but that the Divine Logos had taken the place of the nous, or "thinking principle", analogous but not identical to what might be called a mind in the present day. Scripture, time and time again makes reference to Mary as the mother of Jesus. This Jesus, is / was God incarnate. He was always God, but not always human until the incarnation. Holding both positions, after His incarnation, He never left either until his death. To say Mary is the mother of God in His humanity “only†is to separate Him from His divinity (which would indicate that while He was human He was not God, which did not happen). Jesus was always divine. He was fully Human while remaining divine. You cannot separate one from the other. Mary is rightfully the mother of God. Does that make her any better. Not necessarily. It simply shows that she was in God’s favor and the one chosen to give birth to the Savior. I think the doctrine emphasized that. The big words confuse me… Can’t we keep it simple. WOS Now for the backlash… |
||||||
8 | Theological Term: Theotokos | Luke 1:31 | DocTrinsograce | 156046 | ||
Dear Brother WOS, Thank you for posting a clear explanation! Well done. In Him, Doc |
||||||