Does God have a Mother II

Eliyahu said:

If you still believe that Human Syllogy is applicable to the interpretation of Bible I can continue further:

Let us know when you learn what a syllogism is, then we'll consider taking your "arguments" seriously.

 

Bunyon said:

But Trinity does not have a 1500 year history of trouble and abuse to prove that it is more trouble than it is worth.

Tell it to Athanasius, who was expelled from Alexandria twice for defending it.

In fact, pretty much every heretical pseudo-Christian group of note throughout history has attacked the doctrine of the Trinity.

 

I don't call argueing over the nature of the trinity to be trouble of the nature the title is. It has never let to pure pagan practices in the church. As fare as disputes, there is very few things that have not been disputed.

"If you still believe that Human Syllogy is applicable to the interpretation of Bible I can continue further:'-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hey, I think syllogy is a good word or perhaps sillygy:laugh:

 

How many people were burnt because of this Silly Syllogism?

Do you even know what a "syllogism" is, or are you just using a big word to sound impressive?

 

I think he's now in "babble mode".

 

For what it's worth, here's some quotes from before the Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431):

Irenaeus, A.D. 189:
"The Virgin Mary, being obedient to his word, received from an angel the glad tidings that she would bear God" (Against Heresies, 5:19:1).

Hippolytus, A.D. 217:
"[T]o all generations they [the prophets] have pictured forth the grandest subjects for contemplation and for action. Thus, too, they preached of the advent of God in the flesh to the world, his advent by the spotless and God-bearing (theotokos) Mary in the way of birth and growth, and the manner of his life and conversation with men, and his manifestation by baptism, and the new birth that was to be to all men, and the regeneration by the laver [of baptism]" (Discourse on the End of the World 1).

The Sub Tuum Praesidium, c. A.D. 250:
"We fly to your patronage, O Holy Mother of God, despise not our petitions in our necessities, but deliver us from all dangers, O glorious and blessed Virgin!"

Gregory, A.D. 262:
"For Luke, in the inspired Gospel narratives, delivers a testimony not to Joseph only, but also to Mary, the Mother of God, and gives this account with reference to the very family and house of David" (Four Homilies 1).

Gregory, A.D. 262:
"It is our duty to present to God, like sacrifices, all the festivals and hymnal celebrations; and first of all, [the feast of] the Annunciation to the holy Mother of God, to wit, the salutation made to her by the angel, ‘Hail, full of grace!’" (ibid., 2).

Methodius, A.D. 305:
"While the old man [Simeon] was thus exultant, and rejoicing with exceeding great and holy joy, that which had before been spoken of in a figure by the prophet Isaiah, the holy Mother of God now manifestly fulfilled" (Oration on Simeon and Anna 7).

Methodius, A.D. 305:
"Hail to you forever, you virgin Mother of God, our unceasing joy, for unto you do I again return. . . . Hail, you fount of the Son’s love for man. . . . Wherefore, we pray you, the most excellent among women, who boast in the confidence of your maternal honors, that you would unceasingly keep us in remembrance. O holy Mother of God, remember us, I say, who make our boast in you, and who in august hymns celebrate your memory, which will ever live, and never fade away" (ibid., 14).

Peter of Alexandria, A.D. 305:
"They came to the church of the most blessed Mother of God, and ever-virgin Mary, which, as we began to say, he had constructed in the western quarter, in a suburb, for a cemetery of the martyrs" (The Genuine Acts of Peter of Alexandria).

Peter of Alexandria, A.D. 324:
"We acknowledge the resurrection of the dead, of which Jesus Christ our Lord became the firstling; he bore a body not in appearance but in truth derived from Mary the Mother of God" (Letter to All Non-Egyptian Bishops 12).

Cyril of Jerusalem, A.D. 350:
"The Father bears witness from heaven to his Son. The Holy Spirit bears witness, coming down bodily in the form of a dove. The archangel Gabriel bears witness, bringing the good tidings to Mary. The Virgin Mother of God bears witness" (Catechetical Lectures 10:19).

Ephraim the Syrian, A.D. 351:
"Though still a virgin she carried a child in her womb, and the handmaid and work of his wisdom became the Mother of God" (Songs of Praise 1:20).

Athanasius, A.D. 365:
"The Word begotten of the Father from on high, inexpressibly, inexplicably, incomprehensibly, and eternally, is he that is born in time here below of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God" (The Incarnation of the Word of God 8).

Epiphanius of Salamis, A.D. 374:
"Being perfect at the side of the Father and incarnate among us, not in appearance but in truth, he [the Son] reshaped man to perfection in himself from Mary the Mother of God through the Holy Spirit" (The Man Well-Anchored 75).

Ambrose of Milan, A.D. 377:
"The first thing which kindles ardor in learning is the greatness of the teacher. What is greater than the Mother of God? What more glorious than she whom Glory Itself chose?" (The Virgins 2:2[7]).

Gregory of Nazianz, A.D. 382:
"If anyone does not agree that holy Mary is Mother of God, he is at odds with the Godhead" (Letter to Cledonius the Priest 101).

Jerome, A.D. 401:
"As to how a virgin became the Mother of God, he [Rufinus] has full knowledge; as to how he himself was born, he knows nothing" (Against Rufinus 2:10).

Jerome, A.D. 409:
"Do not marvel at the novelty of the thing, if a Virgin gives birth to God" (Commentaries on Isaiah 3:7:15).

Theodore of Mopsuestia, A.D. 405:
"When, therefore, they ask, ‘Is Mary mother of man or Mother of God?’ we answer, ‘Both!’ The one by the very nature of what was done and the other by relation" (The Incarnation 15).

Cyril of Alexandria, A.D. 427:
"I have been amazed that some are utterly in doubt as to whether or not the holy Virgin is able to be called the Mother of God. For if our Lord Jesus Christ is God, how should the holy Virgin who bore him not be the Mother of God?" (Letter to the Monks of Egypt 1).

Cyril of Alexandria, A.D. 430:
"This expression, however, ‘the Word was made flesh’ [John 1:14], can mean nothing else but that he partook of flesh and blood like to us; he made our body his own, and came forth man from a woman, not casting off his existence as God, or his generation of God the Father, but even in taking to himself flesh remaining what he was. This the declaration of the correct faith proclaims everywhere. This was the sentiment of the holy Fathers; therefore they ventured to call the holy Virgin ‘the Mother of God,’ not as if the nature of the Word or his divinity had its beginning from the holy Virgin, but because of her was born that holy body with a rational soul, to which the Word, being personally united, is said to be born according to the flesh" (First Letter to Nestorius).

Cyril of Alexandria, A.D. 430:
"And since the holy Virgin corporeally brought forth God made one with flesh according to nature, for this reason we also call her Mother of God, not as if the nature of the Word had the beginning of its existence from the flesh" (Third Letter to Nestorius).

Cyril of Alexandria, A.D. 430:
"If anyone will not confess that the Emmanuel is very God, and that therefore the holy Virgin is the Mother of God, inasmuch as in the flesh she bore the Word of God made flesh [John 1:14]: let him be anathema" (ibid.).

John Cassian, A.D. 429:
"Now, you heretic, you say (whoever you are who deny that God was born of the Virgin), that Mary, the Mother of our Lord Jesus Christ, cannot be called the Mother of God, but the Mother only of Christ and not of God—for no one, you say, gives birth to one older than herself. And concerning this utterly stupid argument . . . let us prove by divine testimonies both that Christ is God and that Mary is the Mother of God" (On the Incarnation of Christ Against Nestorius 2:2).

John Cassian, A.D. 429:
"You cannot then help admitting that the grace comes from God. It is God, then, who has given it. But it has been given by our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore the Lord Jesus Christ is God. But if he is God, as he certainly is, then she who bore God is the Mother of God" (ibid., 2:5).

 

You are funny Natter, HALF OF YOU QUOTES ARE NEAR EPHESUS AND ARE CONTEMPERARY WITH THE CONTROVERSY. And almost all of them are very late, 300AD or after. It is clear to me from you post and other readings that it never had common usage until after Ephesus.

Check this out.

" He hardly seemed a likely candidate for sainthood. Vitriolic, tactless and despotic, Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria wielded as much power in Egypt as the Pharaoh themselves. He would stop at nothing to retain that power, even rousing mobs to lute and murder his enemies. Yet this man is remembered as one of the greatest teachers of the church. After his death his writings became canonized as the ultimate authority on the doctrine of Christ.
As a nephew of all powerful Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria, Cyril was assured a good career in the church. The previous century and a half had seen successive Bishops of Alexandria, Demetrius to Athanasius, become more and more powerful. Theophilus had completed the process, becoming on of the most ruthless Church politicians in history. He had destroyed the great library of Alexandria, persecuted origenist, sent Armies of storm trooper into the monasteries to root out his enemies, and engineered the exile of his chief rival in the eastern empire, Bishop John Chriysostom of Constantinople. In Egypt his power was total. Within 3 days of theophilus death in 412, Cyrill had himself installed in his place, amidst riots between his supporters and opponents. It was an inauspicious beginning to an episcopate that would be almost as ruthless as his uncle. Cyril must have wanted to establish his authority as bishop quickly after the riots. His first act was to close down the chruches of a scismatic sect known as a Novatians. This was something the civil authority could normally do. So it seem that the bishop of Alexandria was now a secular ruler as well as a spiritual one."
From- "The History of Christian thought"

Nasters, you just learn to discern history for your self. The catholic church gives Ephesus infallible authority and made Cyril a saint. Yet he was clearly a despot bent on control and power. The account of Ephesus is just more of Cyril's power plays. The only reason the title has an standing at all is because Cyril one and his folks controlled the Church for the next 1000 years. But you are free to see things for what they were.

Have you ever asked your self where the medieval Catholic Church was born. All you have to do is see where this church, in its state church form, began. It began with Constantine and was realized in its fullness by the evil doings of men like Cyrill. The title is not worth the time of day. It only has a few spread out usages prior to the 5th century, and Cyrill, who canonized it only for the purpose of murder and mayhem and power, made it standard. It is as clear as day for those who would discern.

 

Ummm...who was it that wrote that particular "history"?

Pot...kettle...

 

DT, I think you would have appreaciated Cyril very much.

The "History of Christian Thought" was written by Johathan Hill who earned a frist-class degree from in philosophy and theiolgy from Oxford and also a M.Phil. in theology from Oxford.

The book was printed by intervarsity press.

 

Bunyon said:

HALF OF YOU QUOTES ARE NEAR EPHESUS AND ARE CONTEMPERARY WITH THE CONTROVERSY.

Sure . . . as long as by "half" you mean "a quarter" and by "contemperary" you mean "from 30-300 years earlier."

(I'm also assuming that by "contemperary" you mean "contemporary," but I'm not going to split spelling hairs.)

 

So, in other words, he's not a historian. (That's what I thought...)

 

I think you guys have shown your true natures. Cyril would have been proud of you. It is standard history. You can't discount it just because it shed light on the issue in a way that is not favorable to your cause, Oh, wait you can as you have proven.

By my count he only has about 14 quotes from before the time of Cyril. That does not seem to be enough to me to say it was standard before the 5th century. But if you insist on seeing it that way no amount of reason will dissuade you.


But of course you know this, or you would not have felt the need to pad your list with 6 quotes from the actual antagonist of Ephesus themselves, Cyril and his supporters.

More importantly, you have no quotes from the first century or second century. The majority are after Constantine.

So for the entire history of the church prior to Constantine's edict which sold out the church, you can only scrape up 8 quotes in 300+ years.

Sorry, no cigar! I mean it took a full 189 years for the early church to even make mention of it. That is telling.

I think now that you have shown your intransigence and desperation I'll leave you to your title.

 

Bunyon, I simply posted quotes from before A.D. 431 to illustrate that the term didn't originate at the Council of Ephesus. 18 of the quotes are from before Cyril's time. I was not making any other point.

Wow, looks like I hit a nerve. Let's see - I post relevant, historical, verifiable information, and you post irrelevant, incoherent alliteration - and I'm the one posting garbage? Right.

 

If you want to look at it that way, I could rebut by saying that there are zero accounts of any Christians rejecting the term until almost half a millennia after the church was founded. 8 (or 18) is infinitely larger than 0. It's all in how you want to spin it, right?

 

Ummmm.....no.

And Irenaeus lived when?

 

Ok, one quote from the second century. And it took 189 years to happen. Oh, now I am impressed. One quote for the entire first 200 years of the church. Excuse me, I'm just going to go to some other threads and start recruiting folks to join the Mother of God club.

Not!

You can't change the history of Constantine and his church and Cyril and his time or what came after. It is standard history and you can't change it no matter how much you whine about it.

I see the events of Ephesus for what they were.

Natters--- "If you want to look at it that way, I could rebut by saying that there are zero accounts of any Christians rejecting the term until almost half a millennia after the church was founded. 8 (or 18) is infinitely larger than 0. It's all in how you want to spin it, right? "------------------------------------------------

How conveniently you forget, Natters. Ephesus was not because some used it, it was because some would not use it. Cyril force the issue with Nestorius because his folks did not want to use it. And, apparently, it was very rarely used prior to the 5th century, so I don't know why there would be a need for a rebuttal.

Now, if you guys are through with your petty contradictions, I would like to leave the thread now.

 

Where did I say that?

Or, perhaps, nobody saw the need to rebut it.

Which contradictions specifically are you referring to? If I have made any, I would appreciate you identifying them before you leave.

 

I'm just going to go. We have talked it into the ground. But I learned alot