Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
It is just that people seem to be playing word games with the most sacred concept there is. Just because someone can make a case for stretching the meanings of words so that you can say two things at once and then let people mean whichever one they want in order to have a faux agreement is absurd. Mary is the woman in the Bible which I admire the most. God praised her and blessed her with the greatest of gifts and bestowed on her a most holy purpose. Mary gave birth to Jesus, to His physical humanity but she did not give "birth" to ANY of His divinity. His divinity wasn't born. Therefore, it is a complete misnomer to say that she is the mother of God.Originally posted by natters:
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.
You may be correct. Briefly looking into the entries at New Advent and the relevant passages in the Catechism, that does seem to be the prevaling view. I apologize for my mistatement.Originally posted by JohnB:
Gold Dragon said: "Catholics acknowledge that she sinned in her lifetime. "
Actually, they do not. This is from a Catholic apologetics magazine:
"The Church teaches that Mary was conceived without sin, and that she remained a virgin her entire life, that she remained sinless throughout her entire life, and that she rose, body and soul, into heaven."
http://www.envoymagazine.com/planetenvoy/072104-OurBlessedMother-Ludwig-Full.htm
The Eastern Orthodox Church definitely uses Theotokos since Ephesus is one of the 7 ecumenical councils before the schism that they consider to be authoritative.Originally posted by Bunyon:
You are obviously more educated about the etiology of the Title than I am, but I really don't see the utility of a discussion that does not take into account what the tarditional catholic church is saying whent they utilize this title. They pretty much own the Title, don't they? Does any other church use it?
I am not "proto-Roman Catholic" and disagree with their view of Mary. But the fact remains that this title came into being to emphasize the divinity of Jesus, as I said before, and also that Jesus was not 2 persons but one person, fully man and fully God. I do not go around calling Mary the "mother of God" but I do understand the historical origin of this title. When this title came about, it was understood to mean that Mary was the mother of Jesus, God the Son.Originally posted by JohnB:
Sounds like we have a number of proto-Roman Catholic Baptists here![]()
As a title for the Virgin Mary, Theotokos was recognized by the Orthodox Church at Third Ecumenical Council held at Ephesus in 431. It had already been in use for some time in the devotional and liturgical life of the Church. The theological significance of the title is to emphasize that Mary's son, Jesus, is fully God, as well as fully human, and that Jesus' two natures (divine and human) were united in a single Person of the Trinity. The competing view at that council was that Mary should be called Christotokos instead, meaning "Birth-giver to Christ." This was the view advocated by Nestorius, then Patriarch of Constantinople. 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.
Nestorius' view was anathematized by the Council as heresy, (see Nestorianism), since it was considered to be dividing Jesus into two distinct persons, one who was Son of Mary, and another, the divine nature, who was not. It was defined that although Jesus has two natures, human and divine, these are eternally united in one personhood. Because Mary is the mother of God the Son, she is therefore duly entitled Theotokos.
Calling Mary the Theotokos or the Mother of God (Μητηρ Θεου) was never meant to suggest that Mary was coeternal with God, or that she existed before Jesus Christ or God existed.
http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Theotokos
James was the brother of Jesus, God the Son.Originally posted by Eliyahu:
Is James the brother of Jesus, Brother of God?
You better not say that to a member of the EOC. They would be highly offended.Originally posted by Bunyon:
That is the other half of the catholic chruch. They are the other half of the same Church, if I would have thought of it, I would have included them.
I respectfully but completely disagree. Mary gave birth to his divinity as well, but that doesn't mean that's when his divinity began. It is not word games, just simple fact, imho.Originally posted by Artimaeus:
Mary gave birth to Jesus, to His physical humanity but she did not give "birth" to ANY of His divinity. His divinity wasn't born. Therefore, it is a complete misnomer to say that she is the mother of God.
Luther did not reject the title Mother of God for Mary and is quoted as using it.Originally posted by Bunyon:
Is that so? Why do I hear talk of the Chatholic church wanting to reunite all the time? But you know my point is valid. The were part of the same church and empire in the beginning, and that is why they use the same title. And these two Chatholic entiteis are the only ones who actually use the title.
But you bring up an interesting point. Most of the protestant chruches came out of the Catholic church, and when they did, they rejected this title even as the rejected the Catholic Church who refused to reform. Why?
I would say that the points he is addressing from Artimeaus are much more heretical and was the actual Nestorian heresy that the Council of Ephesus was trying to combat with the title Theotokos.Originally posted by Bunyon:
"Mary gave birth to his divinity as well,"
I think I know what you are trying to say, but at face value, this statement would qualify as heretical.