Mary the mother of God?

The tradition of calling Mary the theotokos, i.e. "God-bearer," predates the Roman Catholic Church. It was established at the Council of Ephesus in 431 that it was appropriate to call Mary the "Mother of God."

This was to counter the heresy of Nestorianism, which claimed that there were two persons in Christ, the man Jesus and the divine Logos. The Nestorians preferred to call Mary the Christotokos ("Christ-bearer") or anthropotokos ("man-bearer"), but refused to call her the bearer of the God-man of orthodox Christology, claiming she could not have been the mother of Jesus' divinity. (Whether the bishop Nestorius actually held to Nestorianism is debatable.)

Calling Mary the "mother of God" was supposed to define something about Christ. Somewhere along the line the Roman church twisted it around into a claim about Mary.

 

Since Jesus is God, then yes, Theotokos is a proper title for Mary.

The following are not proper titles for Mary:
"Mother of God the Father"
"Mother of God the Spirit"
"Mother of the Trinity"

 

In the sense that Christ is God, and that Mary is the mother of Christ the phrase, "Mary, mother of God," is correct.

 

As said by the other posters the term "mother of God" predates the Roman Catholic Church but has it's origins in the Church councils when refuting heretics. The emphasis is actually on Jesus, that He truly is God become Man.

 

Then you must answer the statement by Jesus when he told His "half-brothers", "Behold thy mother".Then a good study of Isaiah 55 should ensue to correct man's thinking on the matter suggested by any of man's councils.

 

is Mary the mother of God? Yes, she is mother of God the Son. She is not the mother of God the Father, or God the Holy Spirit. I think most people who use the phrase understand that difference. Protestants typically don't use the phrase because out of a romaphobic mentality.

I typically don't use the phrase, but I don't get my knickers in a bunch if someone does.

 

Hmmm.

Since God the Son has always eternally existed along with the Father and the Holy Spirit, I am not sure Mary could be called the Mother of God the Son.

She was the human mother of the human incarnation of the Son, Jesus the Christ.

This is, of course, really splitting hairs. But to call her the Mother of God as Catholics do, seems to grant Mary a form of divinity.

 

Mary being called the "mother of God" would mean she was the bearer of God the Son. This is false, as God the Son has always existed. Mary was just the incubator for God the Father. Mary the mother of Jesus is correct.

 

Wait a minute.
Are you saying that Christ was not God the Son?

 

No...but if Mary is the mother of God, she would have existed at the same time as God. She was the mother of Jesus, the Son of Man. Jesus is both 100% and 100% man at the same time. Mary is the mother of only the 100% man.

 

Mary was not just an "incubator." Jesus has always existed, but he has not always been incarnated. When he incarnated -- came in the flesh -- it was through conception by the Holy Spirit and birth from Mary. He had to have human nature in order to redeem us.

To say Mary was not Jesus' mother is to deny his humanity.

I just posted something on this on another thread but can't recall where. A similar discussion is going on there.

 

If she was not an incubator...what was she? Was she something greater than human?

I agree...however, did Mary have a choice in the matter, or was the "seed" planted?

I never claimed this, on the contrary this is exactly what I said.

 

Mary did not predate the second person of the trinity and therefore is NOT the mother of Him. This is the stupidest thread I have ever read. Consider my knickers bunched and my hairs split. Why don't we call the burning bush the progenator of Jehovah. Not one single atom of what Mary gave birth to was, is, or will be God. Mary gave birth to a physical vessel used by God.

 

I think one of the reasons this issue is such a quandry is because of the spiritual differences between Jesus and the typical human. Christ, like us, was fully flesh; fully physically human. However, we humans have a soul/spirit. Christ does not. Christ's spirit is the Godhead. Further confusing the issue is that we do not separate our spiritual selves from the physical selves. While on earth, they are intertwined, and we fail to be who we are without one or the other. Likewise with Christ's existence on earth: His Godhead self and his human self were no more separate than the spiritual/physical us.

Now, would any of us say that our own mothers were simply the egg donors, based on the fact that our soul/spirits come from God? No. But we know the difference between God's contribution to us and our mother's contribution to us. We don't go around accusing each other of heresy when we refer to our moms as our mothers. Yet when referring to Mary, all of a sudden, we find the need to "separate" the natures of Christ. Since there is no need to espouse romaphobia, there is no need for us to separate the naturees of Christ. We can refer to Mary as the mother of God and know what is being spoken of, without fear of heresy or doctrinal compromise.

 

Arti, first, nobody is saying Mary predated the second person of the Trinity. Second, Jesus body was not just a "physical vessel". Jesus was not just God "inside" a man's body.

 

If she was not an incubator...what was she? Was she something greater than human?

I agree...however, did Mary have a choice in the matter, or was the "seed" planted?
</font>[/QUOTE]Mary doesn't have to be "greater than human" to be the mother of Jesus.

Mary was told ahead of time about this and willingly said she would serve God that way. So it was not forced on her.

 

Please, I have never claimed Mary was not the mother of Jesus. She was nothing more than a human incubator for the Holy Spirit. This doesn't mean she was not blessed, she was, but to say she was more special than any other mother on earth discredits the work of God.

Luke 1 doesn't imply Mary willingly did anything.
Luk 1:30 Then the angel told her: Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.
Luk 1:31 Now listen: You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you will call His name JESUS.

 

Please, I have never claimed Mary was not the mother of Jesus. She was nothing more than a human incubator for the Holy Spirit. This doesn't mean she was not blessed, she was, but to say she was more special than any other mother on earth discredits the work of God.</font>[/QUOTE]You keep changing the issue, webdog. You used the phrase "greater than human," which I rejected. I never said that Mary was more special than any other mother. The issue raised here, I thought, was whether Mary was really the mother of Jesus in a human way. That is what I'm responding to. To say she was just an incubator means all mothers are just incubators and I don't think that's true or biblical.

Luke 1 doesn't imply Mary willingly did anything.
Luk 1:30 Then the angel told her: Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.
Luk 1:31 Now listen: You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you will call His name JESUS. </font>[/QUOTE]What about:

And she sounds pretty willing here:

 

Some people seem to think that the title of mother means pre-existence or being greater than. Some husbands older than their wives feel their wives "mother" them so pre-existence has nothing to do with the term mother. Is Alexander the Great's mother greater than Alexander? Greatness has nothing to do with the title mother.

For most definitions the term mother refers to giving birth and caring for someone. That someone was God and thus Mary was the mother of God. Theotokos is an appropriate title for Mary.