Evidence for God from Science

Theotokos; where's Christ's humanity?

1. Mary is not the mother of God because her son Jesus is not God. Instead, Jesus is just a human. This, though, is a serious heresy.
2. Mary is not the mother of God because her son Jesus is neither God nor man, but something that is half-god/half-man (that is, Jesus is a demi-God). This, though, is a serious heresy.
3. Mary is not the mother of God because she is the mother of the human "part" of Jesus but not the divine "part." But since we give birth to persons and not parts, then this is to say that the human part is a person (again, to be very clear, that must be said on this view because Mary gave birth to a person!); and so by the same logic, the divine part would also be a person. And since the divine part is a person and the human part is a person, then either these two persons are identical (which would make Mary the mother of God again) or else they are not identical and are thus distinguished by the fact that Mary gave birth to one and not to the other. And thus you have two persons in Christ, not one, which is a serious error.

Or there's a #4, because none of those three are what I'm saying.

There is no number four. Those three categories are exhaustive. That is, they cover absolutely all conceivable possibilities.

Either Jesus is God or not.
A. If Jesus is not God, then He is either a demigod or a human
B. If Jesus is God, then either He is either human or not
--1. If Jesus is not human, then He is only God
--2. If Jesus is human, then He is fully God and fully man

That is absolutely exhaustive. There are zero other logical possibilities. (A) is reflected in (1) above. Both (B1) and (B2) are reflected in (3) above.

So, again, there is no fourth option. If you think there is, then tell me, because the only thing you've offered is that Mary is the one who contributes the human genetic material. But that's not what "being the mother of" means. And even if we accepted that definition, Mary would still be the mother of God. Because unless God created His human body ex nihilo (like He did with Adam), then Mary contributed the human genetic material to Jesus. And since mothers are the moms of persons, and since Jesus is a person, then the mom who contributed His genetic material would be Mary; and since Jesus is God, then Mary contributed God's genetic material, still making her His mother.

RickD wrote:Theotokos; where's Christ's humanity?

In Jesus' human nature. Theotokos says that Mary is the mother of Jesus. If Mary is a mother, then BY DEFINITION she has a human child. Therefore, in order for theotokos to be true, Jesus must have a fully human and fully divine nature. If Jesus does not have a fully human nature, then theotokos cannot be true, because then Jesus could not have been born at all.

RickD wrote:

Byblos wrote:

RickD wrote:Byblos,

Just thought of something.

Thinking in terms of a discussion about the atonement, and why Jesus is the only one who can atone for the sins of the world, who would you say Jesus is if someone asked you?

Not sure where you're going with this Rick but I have a feeling it's going to end up with a discussion on assurance. To answer your question though, my view of Jesus is no different than traditional orthodox Christianity as outlined by the Nicene creed.

No, not assurance. That has nothing to do with this. It has to do with Theotokos. I know what your view is. I want you to say what you'd tell someone if you were to answer the question. It's leading somewhere. It's not earth shattering. I just want to see something about the doctrine.

Jesus is God the Son of the triune God, who was incarnated and became man through a virgin and the Holy Spirit. He offered himself as a final sacrifice on the cross in order to free us from sin and reconcile us to the Father. The wages of sin is death. His resurrection was the final nail in death's coffin. He conquered death once and for all.

Pretty basic, really.
Is this what you were looking for?

Jac3510 wrote:

RickD wrote:Theotokos; where's Christ's humanity?

In Jesus' human nature. Theotokos says that Mary is the mother of Jesus. If Mary is a mother, then BY DEFINITION she has a human child. Therefore, in order for theotokos to be true, Jesus must have a fully human and fully divine nature. If Jesus does not have a fully human nature, then theotokos cannot be true, because then Jesus could not have been born at all.

Wait, what?
Theotokos says Mary is the Mother of Jesus?

I thought Theotokos meant Mary is the mother of God? Literal translation, God-bearer.
That's why I mentioned to Byblos earlier that I think a better term would've been something that showed Christ's human nature, as well as his divine nature.

And Byblos jokingly suggested TheoChristotokos.

You and Byblos, and everything I've read, says that Theotokos refers to Mary mother of God. Doesn't it mean God-bearer, or Mother of God?

I'm not trying to argue semantics. But there's a difference between Mother of God, and Mother of Jesus. I've said umpteen times that I have no problem with Mother of Jesus, or Mother of Christ.

Edit---Important-

Now I think we're making progress. Found this from Wikipedia.

Theotokos /ˌθiːəˈtoʊkoʊs, ˌθeɪə-, -ˈtɒ-, -kəs/;[1][2] Greek: Θεοτόκος [θeoˈtokos], transliterated (Greek) Theotókos, translation (Syriac-Aramaic): ܝܳܠܕܰܬ ܐܰܠܳܗܳܐ‎, transliterated (Syriac): Yoldath Alloho) is the Greek title of Mary, the mother of Jesus used especially in the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Eastern Catholic Churches. Its literal English translations include "God-bearer", "Birth-Giver of God" and "the one who gives birth to God." Less accurate translations include the primarily Catholic title "Mother of God" (Latin: Mater Dei).[a]

Its literal translation is God-bearer. Less accurate translations include the primarily Catholic title, "Mother of God".

Aha, aha, aha!!!

I have no problem with saying Mary is Theotokos, if it means, "God-bearer". No problem whatsoever. But I do have a problem with "Mother of God". And it seems "mother of God" isn't really accurately translating what Theotokos is!

So, my problem is not with Theotokos! It's with a less accurate translation!

Thoughts?

Byblos wrote:
Jesus is God the Son of the triune God, who was incarnated and became man through a virgin and the Holy Spirit. He offered himself as a final sacrifice on the cross in order to free us from sin and reconcile us to the Father. The wages of sin is death. His resurrection was the final nail in death's coffin. He conquered death once and for all.

Pretty basic, really.
Is this what you were looking for?

Not all of that, but yes. Just who Jesus is.

Let's just take what you said in the first sentence:

Jesus is God the Son of the triune God, who was incarnated and became man through a virgin and the Holy Spirit.

If someone were to ask you who Jesus is, and you told him that, you're telling the person that Jesus is God, and became a man. And if you needed to go further, you'd explain that Jesus is fully God, and fully man, right?

So next, if someone asked you what Theotokos means, what would you tell them? Maybe the literal translation? Something else?

What exactly would you say?

Byblos,

See my edit to my response to Jac above. I think I'm getting to the issue.

I still dont get why you hesitate with Mother of God.

(sorry)

Tell you what though, this is fascinating!

And I still have other questions :0

Storyteller wrote:I still dont get why you hesitate with Mother of God.

(sorry)

Tell you what though, this is fascinating!

And I still have other questions :0

I'm not totally sure why, myself. That's why I'm trying to work through this to find out.

But now, if the best translation of Theotokos is God-bearer, and "Mother of God" is a less accurate translation, primarily used by Catholics, then it may be coming more clear.

Jac3510 wrote:

IceMobster wrote:Wait, I didn't get it. What exactly leads to atheism? Can you explain, please?

Any view that implies parts in God is necessarily atheistic, because any "God" with parts is not, by nature and definition, God. So to say that the term "God" doesn't refer to an essence but instead just to a particular being, then you are saying that this being called "God" is composed of essence and existence (and, in this case, for technical reasons, also of form and matter). Such composition means that you are not talking about God at all, and since "God" would be the subject, then you are literally saying that there is no being that is identical with Being Itself. And since theism requires the idea that God is Being Itself, then that position says that no God exists. It is, in a word, atheistic. Now, I packed a LOT into a very tight space there, so if you need that expanded, let me know.

I don't since I've read so in your book.
Just didn't notice the connection you made...

Thanks.

rick?

Cant quote, on kindle.

So are you saying for you there is a distinction between God bearer and Mother of God?

Storyteller started a new thread here. We've been discussing this subject, if you want to join the party.

thanks rick, too tired to stay last night. here's what i wrote to you in the other thread.

es:
i hope you can see, imo Jesus is God, My Lord, My Savior, My Prince of Peace, my ...on and on, but i want you to understand, it's just not that important a composite of my faith. IMO, She lays claim to all his titles as "The Mother of" ... she can lay claim to it because when God changed the rules and allowed himself to be human, everything changed. God is no longer just a Father in heaven, he is now the author of salvific life here on earth though his son. who had to be born human for the eventual and tragic sacrifice to be meaningful. And to be born human requires a human mother. That hypostatic, manGod union was birthed simultaneously ... she is the Mother of God in a purely earthly, human way. and also, IMO, that Ark of the New Covenant had to be pure because i cannot imagine the God of the universe, already bowing down, lowering Himself for humanity, knowing just how much he hates sin, could or woud ever allow himself to bath or wallow in the original sin of "The Woman", sin in all it's impurity, which caused all the trouble in the first place.

I have always had a harder time with the duality (?) of Christ (one person two natures, human and divine) than i do with the Trinity. I mean, God can do anything so i get that he can be 3 persons in one. It wasn't until i heard of the hypostatic union that it dawned on me the closeness of that union. as close as the molecules of Capt. Kirk when he calls Scotty to beam him aboard. He is one person and because that person is God and He is sinless.

when physically (?) birthed, Jesus was all man and all God (hypostatic union) and that's why the title "Mother of God" works for me.

So, God influencing the "man" of the duo, if he isn't capable of taking away man's nature to sin by force (loss of man's free will), then how is it happening ? imo, God's grace alone saves, and by His grace Jesus the man could not sin because he was "steeped" in grace. So much grace that sin was not even an after thought let alone a daily, moment by moment possibility as it is with us... no, His grace filled the life of the man in the union. Full to overflowing.

Luke 1:28-30

now, perhaps my thoughts on the sinlessness of Mary are at least better defined for you. truly, my brother.

Or...

Christ the man couldnt sin because He is God.

I posted some thiughts about the sinlessness of Mary on the other thread. Would love your thoughts x

Storyteller wrote:rick?

Cant quote, on kindle.

So are you saying for you there is a distinction between God bearer and Mother of God?

I see a distinction. I'm trying to work through it still.


1) does Theotokos mean "God-bearer", "Mother of God", or is either acceptable?

2) if Theotokos translated literally, means "God-bearer", then why was it changed to "Mother of God"?

3) maybe I don't really have a problem with Theotokos. It could be that my problem lies with the specific translation, "Mother of God".

I'm trying to work through at least those three.