Mary the mother of God?

Mother is not only defined the way you define it. It commonaly brings a more involved picture to folks minds than the way you define it in this thread Nate. Of course if you go through alot of trouble to make sure you are defining mother in a limited way, and get every one on board with that definition, than you got no problems. But that is hard to do because the common definition of mother involves being the originator of or source of.. Of course in a very stringent theological framwork and system, Mary mothered God. But it does not communicate well, and that is why we had a massive Scisim at Ephesus, and why it is so problamatic now.

However, as we observe at Ephesus. There was alot more to calling Mary mother of God than just some theological construct designed to point out Christ divinity. This was the sight of the Temple of Artimis, on of the seven wonders of the world. There was an ancient history of Goddess worship here it did not just end when Constintines church showed up, it just put on new clothes. And 451ad was not very far removed from the pagan heyday. It is very clear that Nestorius did not claim that christ was not God. We are dealing with a very abstract mystical mystery in the incarnation. At ephesus, the title was at issue, and Nestorius was forced into a logical trap just as you tried to froce Bapmome into one. Buy all accounts Cyrill his oppressor was a power monger. The ruling class was in it up to there ears appointing bishops for the church. This was a compromised church, because all the church officials were appinted by the ruling class. When you read about what happened at Ephesus and how Nestorius was condemned you see there was no fairness about it, it was a politically motivated event. This title was nothing more than a tool for Cyrill to distroy his political enemies. This tread has, in a way, been a mini epheuses in that folks who really do believe that Christ was God were accused of not believing it because of a logical techneicallity. We have every reason to avoid the Title and no reason I can see for resurecting it.

Let me ask you this. Is the Title so important that you would be willing to have the church split into, because that is what happened at Ephesus. This fact and the Marian abuses tells me it is not worth it.

 

Bunyon, again you're playing the martyr.

As I have said before, it is the meaning and not the title that is important to me. I also believe that it was not the title itself that was the cause of the schism, but disagreement about what it was intended to declare - that the flesh that Mary bore was not just "the human part" of Jesus or "the physical vessel" for his divinity, but rather the flesh itself was God - the Word became flesh, not the Word filled up or joined some flesh. The flesh Mary bore was God himself, not just some "human part" of the incarnation.

I think that despite the negative aspects of this thread, there has been a huge benefit - some people needed to be aware of this important difference in understanding what the flesh of Jesus actually was.

 

My readings all agree that Nestorius did not say Christ was not devine. He got caught up in the issue just like we did here and was accused of doubting Chrsit divinity based on his dialouge over this title. Given the Pagan godess worship that was common at the time, one can not blame him for his reluctance to use the title.

My honest conclusion so far is that this was political attack and nothing more. All sources agree that the political leaders were involved in this totally, they also agree that Cyrill was a political bulldog who did not hesitate to consolodate power and deal with rivals. They all agree that there was politcal revalry between the two regions involved in the council. When I read about how this went down, I see that the main goal was to crush the eastern bishops, the Title was only a tool to do this. They did not accuse him directly of denying Christ's diety. They could only claim it base on the dialouge they started over his refusal to use the title. He was attaked by Cyrill based on his refusal to use the title.

I don't know way you are saying I am playing the martyr. Look just a few post prior to this and you will see that Bapmom was very directly accused of not beliving christ is God, for no other reason than for her take on this arcane and confusing title. This is exaclty what went down at Ephesus, only it is not a political powerplay as it was there.

If good christians like the one's on your side are willing to accuse Bapmom of denying the diety of Christ because of this title, well I think that really underscores everyting I am saying about Ephesus and this post.

But you are right, we are more aware and more educated. I have already admited that and thanked you for that.

 

The following information comes from the Wycopedia article on the Earth Godess Cybele who was the forrunner of Artemis at Ephesus. Do you see any similarities with Mary? Especially these two sentences. -----------------------------1. "She is a life-death-rebirth deity. Her consort, whose cult was introduced , is her son Attis." 2. "She was associated with the mystery religion concerning her son, Attis, who was castrated and resurrected."

One can easaly see where the zeal in Ephesus came from for calling Mary, Mother of God. Cybele was mother of God also, and her son was resurected also.


"Originally a Phrygian goddess, Cybele (Greek Κυβέλη, sometimes given the etymology "she of the hair" if her name is Greek, not Phrygian, but more widely considered of Luwian origin, from Kubaba; Roman equivalent: Magna Mater or "Great Mother") was a manifestation of the Earth Mother goddess who was worshipped in Anatolia from Neolithic times. Like Gaia or her Minoan equivalent Rhea, Cybele embodies the fertile earth, a goddess of caverns and mountains, walls and fortresses, nature, wild animals (especially lions and bees). Her title "Mistress of the Animals" (potnia theron) which is also associated with the Minoan Great Mother, alludes to her ancient Paleolithic roots. She is a life-death-rebirth deity. Her consort, whose cult was introduced , is her son Attis.

Cybele was supposed to have been born on Mount Ida in Asia Minor; this is the source of her epithet Idaea.

Cybele's most ecstatic followers were males who ritually castrated themselves, after which they were given women's clothing and assumed female identities, who were referred to by contemporary commentator Callimachus in the feminine Gallai, and who other contemporary commetators in ancient Greece and Rome reffered to as Gallos or Galli. Her priestesses led the people in orgiastic ceremonies with wild music, drumming, dancing and drink. She was associated with the mystery religion concerning her son, Attis, who was castrated and resurrected. The dactyls were part of her retinue. Other followers of Cybele, Phrygian kurbantes or Corybantes, expressed her ecstatic and orgiastic cult in music, especially drumming, clashing of shields and spears, dancing, singing and shouts, all at night."

 

Although I may agree with certain comments of other posters, I am not on any "side" - I simply comment for myself as I understand things.

I do not accuse bapmom of denying the deity of Christ at all. On the contrary, I have seen her affirm his deity, I have been in agreement with much of what she has said, and also have not seen her make any statements I would consider even remotely heretical.

 

I did not mean to paint you with a broad brush, sorry if it came off that way. My appologies. My intiention is not to accuse anyone. My point is this is what happens with this sylogism about Mary being God's mother based on an agreed upon limit on the definition of Mother. I see some similarities with The concil of Ephesus in how this discussion goes and in how it was used for political advantage at Ephesus. You have proven to me that you can use the title without being logically wrong. But although it can techneically be used in a logical and orthodox manner it is never apparent unless a great deal of effort is made to explain how the terms are defined, so I think it is , in a practicle sense, too difficult to institutionalize the title for widespread use.

You guys have tought me a few things and forced me to learn some things I did not know, and that is always good. And I will continue to study, but this is where I am at at this time.

 

I see your point!

 

Bunyon said:

that is why we had a massive Scisim at Ephesus

There wasn't a "massive" schism at Ephesus. The Nestorian church was, and is, a fringe movement within Christendom.

 

"There wasn't a "massive" schism at Ephesus. The Nestorian church was, and is, a fringe movement within Christendom."---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am not getting that impression in my readings on the Council of Ephesis, but I'll keep reading. But if that is so, I don't necessarly think that was bad. I have discoverd that the cult of Mary was very strong at Ephesus at the time of the council. It was only 100yrs or so since Constintines Edict and paganism is still very evident and is clearly mixing in with the state church. And it was very much a state church, both the main players at Ephesus were political appointees. The state clearly considered itself to be in authority over the church and this council and the attack on Nestorius is clearly politically motivated. This church had played the harlot for over 100 yrs at ephesus and was completely compeimised. It is an instructive and important discussion on christology, but nothing more. I give it no eccleseastical authority. Although it is possible to come up with a strict sylogisim that says Mary is God's mother, it is clearly not wise to push it now as it was not wise then. And it serves no purpose as we don't need it to help us understand that Christ was God.

 

Bunyon said:

I have discoverd that the cult of Mary was very strong at Ephesus at the time of the council.

But the majority of bishops attending the Council were not residents of Ephesus, were they? The Council of Ephesus was the Third Ecumenical Council - the delegates represented the whole Church. You don't think that as they arrived, they all converted to the cult of Mary for the duration, do you?

 

it was the whole church within those groups, Ransom.

There were quite a few others not represented there at Ephesus.

 

No but one article I read by a PhD (see the link) suggested that the reason Ephesus was chosen was for that very reason. Think about it. Cyrill wants to crush the eastern Bishops, he is using the Title as leverage, and where does he force them to come, the home of a very active paganish Mary faction in the church. Have you read the details of how the council went down. Nestroius wanted to wait for his other bishops who had not arrived yet. Cyrill would not let him, and tried to force the proceedings. When Nestorius refused, they quickly pronounced the anathomas and nailed them to the door of the house he was staying in. It truely was a lynching.

 

Here is an intresting article that backs up my take on it. It is a special by U.S.News and World report. We can agreet they would be an unintrested objective third party, Yes?

In an article entitled "Behind the Cult of Mary"
it says....." 'Ancient people needed a feminine figure in their worship,' Boss says. 'they were used to having Godesses.' Moreover, vergin births of gods figured prominently in many ancient myths. And pioneering Christians often piggy-backed on paganism to speed conversion..............Marian devotion went into overdrive in the Roman west in 431, after the Council of Ephesus agreed that Mary should be called Theotokos (Mother of God) rather than Christotokos (Mother of Christ).

The impetus behind the Title was and is to elevate Mary. The fact is that the Mary cult "went into overdrive" after the Council of Ephesus Ok'ed the use of the Title and the Title was pushed by Christized pagans who had worshiped pagan Gods with virgin mothers. This stamp of approval split the church and gave the christianized pagans an unstoppable momentum in there effors to diefy Mary. The deification Mary in the church began at Ephesus. The title is unecessary and has cause endless problems for the church.

 

Well, I'm not sure I totally agree (although that may have been somewhat of a factor), simply because deification of Mary also has always been considered heresy in the church.

 

Some misunderstanding about Nestorius or Nestorian in the absence of such group is not right, I believe, because any false accusation in the absence of the person or his supporters is a kind of coward behavior. Nestorians were very much powerful in preaching the Gospel in East Asia such as China, Korea, Japan, Manchuria, and Mongolia, probably in Middle East too. Their ministry influenced very much on Tang dynasty of china as Emperor Tae-Jong became a born-again Christian, some generals under Genghis Khan had the names of Mark, Philip, John and so on, and Riao Dynasty in Manchuria and Balhai dynasty of Northern Korea had many Christians most of whom were Nestorian too. However, there are also, a lot of evidences that support the Christianity reached there before Nestorian preached there, which dates back to 86AD.
North Korea discovered the Christian village formed during 3 century: pre-nestorian.
Now back to Nestorius, as far as I know, Nestorius didn't claim 2 persons existed inside one person. He just claimed Jesus had 2 personality, divine and human personality as one person, and that human personality was from Mary(Myriam). Throughout the eternity, Jesus was Son of God, and during the short period among the eternity, Maria was Mother of Jesus for his human personality, which was believed by Nestorius.

That idea might be right to some extent, but I doubt that Mary mothered Jesus biologically, because Bible doesn't say so in Mt 1:20
Mt 1:20 must be reviewed thoroughly:
το γαρ εν αθτη γεννηθεν εκ Πνεθματοσ εστιν Αγιου
which interprets word to word:
The one in her is born out of Holy Spirit.
KJV used "conceive" because there was no understanding about the fertilization between Ovum and Sperm at that time.
As you may know Gennao is used for "beget, give birth to" only, never for conceive anywhere.
It means that Jesus was born out of Holy Spirit already before He was born out of Mary.

The details were discussed in the other thread of Christian debate titled "Was Mary's Ovary Tube used?" I explained there why Mary cannot mother Jesus, but just remained as surrogate mother.

Some of the Eastern Church story is found in the following:
http://www.edessa.com/history/monument.htm

[ December 06, 2005, 08:05 PM: Message edited by: Eliyahu ]

 

It is clear to me that Nestorius was totally orthodox in his Christology. He never denyed the divenity of Christ. He was manuverd into a poor posistion by a logic argument dealing with a mysterious and abstract concept that starts with Mother, and then limits the definition unepectedly. He was a victim of his political rival.

 

Nestorian in China, Korea, were called King-Gyo about whom Japanese sites are as follows as Japanese called them Keikyo.
http://keikyo.com/
Also, some messianic Jews were granted by Ssoong Dynasty so that they may use the family name of Kings family "Ssoong" and they were good at commerce. In Korea, people presume they were specialized in Ginseng trade.

 

Bunyon, I fully agree with you! thanks!
Problem is Mother concept includes 1) Give birth to, Produce, 2) Pre-existence.
No one has ever existed before God is.( as Jn 8:58) Jesus had lived before Abraham was and still lives.
When Elisabeth called Mary Mother of Lord, it was spoken in Hebrew as "Adonai". Adonai is used when someone call anyone superior to that person as we can see when the servant of Abraham called Abraham as Adonai"(Gen 24:many times translated as Master, but it is Adonai in Hebrew). When Elisabeth called Mary, Mother of my Adonai, did she recognize her as Mother of God? or did she recognize the unborn child is Son of God? Even if she could recognize the baby was Son of God, did she intend to call Mary as Mother of God? Throughout the Bible nobody called Mary as Mother of God. Why? Jesus called her simply "woman"Jn 2:4, Jn19:26. Paul mentioned her simply as woman. He should have mentioned "God sent forth his Son, made of Mother of God", Mary, Holy Mother"in Gal 4:4, but he didn't do so. Moreover, Act 1:13 states Mary after the other women which shows the sequence of the importance.
1) Does God want us to call Mary as Mother of God?
2) Colossians 1:16 All things were created by him(Jesus) and for him(Jesus)which means even Mary was created by Jesus and for Jesus. Is it right that we call the creature as the Mother of the Creator?
3) Hebrew 7:3 "Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life"was the nature of Mechisedec similar to Son of God, which indicates Son of God doesn't have mother either.

4)2 Cor 5:16 though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.
5) Ephesian Council or Calcedon Council were very much corrupted and we should not be based on them, but the Bible is the only basis.

Problem with some people is that they cannot recognize Jesus as Son of God, without calling Mary Mother of God. I can still recognize the deity of Jesus without calling her Mother of God since she was mother of Jesus only for a short period among the eternity

 

Heb 7:3 He is without father or mother or genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest forever.
Eliyahu, thanks for pointing that out
If God's Word says He was without mother, and Jesus never referred to Mary as mother, but "woman", who are we to call Mary the "mother of God"?

 

We were pagan virgin mother god worshipers in the 400ads and before, that is what was behind it all IMHO.