Byblos wrote:RickD wrote:Byblos wrote:Well I think we're finally making headway, how about this then: Mary is the mother of the person, Jesus Christ who is both God and man. Would you affirm that at least?
Of course. I've already said as much in different words. When you asked me what I'd tell a Muslim about who Mary is, that's what I meant when I said, Mary is the mother of Jesus Christ.
I could go on further breaking it down into smaller parts to get to the logical conclusion that Mary is the mother of God but you know what Rick, I think you can work that out on your own. I am quite content leaving it right here as I don't see major differences in our respective positions. It's just a matter of semantics and refinement.
But the problem is not the Rick does not affirm the hypostatic union properly stated. I know he does. No one questions that. The problem is that he is denying that Mary is the mother of God. Why is that a problem? Because that position logically entails something that Rick denies, insofar as it logically entails either that Jesus is not God or else it entails that Jesus is two persons, one God whom Mary did not give birth to and one man whom Mary did give birth to. Now, both views are wrong on very deep levels. Rick does not get to affirm an error because he explicitly denies the conclusion of that error. That is called the taxicab fallacy. (Google it, Rick!)
I want to go back to the idea that Mary gives birth to the human nature of God. Rick says that we can say that in this one case because this one case is so special. I deny that. On that view, you can justify anything and say, "Well, logic doesn't apply in this case, because it's so special." You can justify Arianism. In fact, Rick, let me use that as an example.
I say, "Jesus is a created being."
You say, "No, He is not. He is God."
Me, "Yes, I agree. He's God."
You, "You cannot affirm both. If Jesus is created, He is not God."
Me, "But in this case it is different. The incarnation never happened before and it will never happen again."
You, "What does that have to do with anything?
Me, "Because since it never happened, then we can say things that are illogical otherwise."
Now, obviously, you wouldn't put the your statement as blunt as that last line, but that's what your statement boils down to. So I expect that you agree that the uniqueness of the incarnation does not give us permission to make illogical statements. So I have to conclude that you don't understand sufficiently what a nature is as compared to a person, because if you did, you could not suggest that Mary was the mother of Jesus' human nature! I'll focus on that.
So why can't we say that. Because, as we well know, women are mothers of persons, not mothers of natures. If you think about that much, you'll see it is obviously true. Mary was not the mother of humanity, but of this particular person. All persons are body/soul composites, which is why we give birth to persons (who have bodies--obviously, you cannot give birth to that which has no body!). And from there, it is straightforward. If you say that Mary was not the mother of God, then at best you are saying that Mary was not the mother of Jesus' divine nature. But we've seen that you don't give birth to natures but to persons. Therefore, you are saying that Mary was not the mother of Jesus the Divine Person, but that she was the mother of Jesus the human person. And there you have it, two persons.
Now, to be charitable, what I think you are TRYING to say is that Mary did not
originate the divine nature. And that is fine. Saying Mary is the Mother of God is not saying that she originated the divine nature. That's not theotokos. That would be heresy itself! But you have to remember that "mother" does not mean "the one who originated the human nature." Mothers don't originate
natures. Carry and birth
persons. Go back to the meaning of nature, and human nature in particular. Mary couldn't even originate the human nature of Christ because no human originates NATURES. We originate this person, and a person by definition is a nature with a body (a body/soul composite).
So what did Mary originate if not a human nature? Obviously, a human person. And that human person was
also a divine person. But Mary was the mother of the
person--we can't say she was the mother
part of the person. That wouldn't even make sense. We say she was the mother of the person Himself. Since that Person is God (in virtue of His divine nature), then she is both the mother of a man and the mother of a god; and since there is only one God (that is, since God is just His nature), then she was also the mother of God.
I could say more, but let me stop here. Again, the important thing for now is to recognize that women do not give birth to natures--nor can they--but they give birth to persons. If we can't agree on that, then we won't be able to move forward.