Evidence for God from Science

I'd never even heard of Theotokos!

I don't know, both it seems.
Maybe it connects somehow to the sinlessness of Mary?

I thought it was such a simple question, too...

RickD wrote:

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.

How about this for #4:
Mother of God is not the best title for Mary, because Christ isn't only God. Christ is fully God, and fully human. So a better title would be one that shows both his human nature and his divine nature.

Jac,

Do you see a difference between "God bearer", and "Mother of God"?

Simple Definition of bearer
: a person who bears or carries something

9 months of carrying God in her womb ... = "Mother of God" and "God bearer"

EssentialSacrifice wrote:

Simple Definition of bearer
: a person who bears or carries something

9 months of carrying God in her womb ... = "Mother of God" and "God bearer"

So, you don't see a distinction. If there's none, then why did the Catholic Church change the translation of Theotokos from God bearer, to Mother of God?

rickd
So, you don't see a distinction. If there's none, then why did the Catholic Church change the translation of Theotokos from God bearer, to Mother of God?

sorry bud, above my paygrade. maybe Bybs can help. God bearer does seem a bit impersonal compared to mom.

As for Jesus human nature, as He was ALSO fully man, there really shouldn't be a doubt about His human nature. As without it, Hebrews 4:15 could not be true - He could not have been truly tempted. But, clearly, Jesus Spiritual nature - the essence of what He IS/AS He is - clearly was and is in charge of His human half's decisions. And His humanity makes us realize that Jesus' understanding of what it is like to have faced life as a human, with all the difficulties of life on earth, at least from an actual experience of being human is not just intellectual or vicarious. But even the value of that experience can't be qualified, as this would mean that Jesus, pre-His Incarnation, was somehow lacking in some area of knowledge. And realizing Jesus willingly suffered as a human - far more than most humans ever do - and WHY He did so, are especially powerful to consider.

philip:
And realizing Jesus willingly suffered as a human - far more than most humans ever do - and WHY He did so, are especially powerful to consider.

yes my friend, imo, so much more important than the how ! i thank God for the why each and every day and, if pressed to it could help explain, (some of the why ?), but as in all things of God, we only gleen what we can, if not in His bible, and will not be privy to the inner workings of our Father until reunited in His world, heaven.

What / Who gives the RCC authority to change/ modify any of GOD's Word. GOD has not changed His mind about His Word since He's given it to us through the Holy Spirit.

Jesus Christ / God's Son / God in the flesh. Mary was Jesus Christ's earthly mother. God chose Mary to be the mother of Jesus Christ. For His own reasons. A once- in- the -history -of -the- world, event.

What can wash away our sins? Nothing but the blood of Jesus. Without the shedding of blood there is No remission of sins. Which is why , in the Old Testament, the priest took the Blood of the sacrificed animal -- yearly to atone for the sins of the people -- to God. In the book of Isaiah, Jesus Christ's birth is predicted. In Luke, He is born. His role is to show us to His Father in heaven. The miracles showed that He was Different -- He got the attention of the people. He came to be crucified / He became the Perfect Lamb of God. He hung on the tree -- for all of us -- He took our sins upon Himself -- died with them -- gave His Life for ours -- He went to hell In Our Place -- and rose again after those three days. We no longer Need to be 'slaves' to our sin nature. Because of the cross, Jesus Christ has become our mediator -- our 'go-between' -- No one else is needed.

RickD wrote:

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?

I would have no problem saying that Mary is the Mother of God and if necessary proceed to defend the case exactly as I and Jac have been doing.

As to your next question, I see no difference at all between mother of God and God-bearer for there is no distinction whatsoever between mother of child and child bearer.

crochet1949 wrote:What / Who gives the RCC authority to change/ modify any of GOD's Word. GOD has not changed His mind about His Word since He's given it to us through the Holy Spirit.

Seriously what the heck are you talking about? Nothing we talked about is decidedly Catholic, it's purely a logical argument. Sheesh, you and phil need to chill with your catholophobia.

That which you refer to as 'purely a logical argument' has a lot of nonBiblical information which the CC apparently teaches as Fact -- very misleading.

Catholophobia? How about 'sharing the Biblical truth'. God's Word being The Authority.

A person's eternal future is pretty important.

crochet1949 wrote:That which you refer to as 'purely a logical argument' has a lot of nonBiblical information which the CC apparently teaches as Fact -- very misleading.

Catholophobia? How about 'sharing the Biblical truth'. God's Word being The Authority.

A person's eternal future is pretty important.

I honestly have no clue what you're referring to. Jac and I have been advancing the same exact logical argument regarding why Mary outght to be called the mother of God. It is worth noting that Jac is as far from being Catholic as anyone can get. If you disagree with our argument and have a counter argument please present it, don't just go off on catholic-bashing tangents.

Byblos wrote:

I would have no problem saying that Mary is the Mother of God and if necessary proceed to defend the case exactly as I and Jac have been doing.

Ok. But I guess what I'm trying to get at, is that while you'd say Mary is the Mother of God, isn't there more to it? Let's see if I can explain.

Someone asks you who Mary is. You say she's the Mother of God. The next question would probably be along the lines of, "Whoa! Mother of God? I thought God was eternal, how could God have a Mother?"

Then you'd have to qualify what you mean, right?

It seems like maybe there should be another term which shows Mary was the mother of Jesus who is fully God, and fully man.

It just seems to be confusing an already difficult thing for people to grasp. Some say the incarnation is even more difficult to grasp than the Trinity.

That's at least part of the issue I'm trying to work out.

Storyteller wrote:I'd never even heard of Theotokos!

I don't know, both it seems.
Maybe it connects somehow to the sinlessness of Mary?

I thought it was such a simple question, too...

Annette,

I don't think I've ever heard of Theotokos before this discussion. But I've always associated "Mother of God" with Catholicism.

So, you thought the Trinity was tough to grasp? It's got nuthin on the incarnation!!!

Byblos: Seriously what the heck are you talking about? Nothing we talked about is decidedly Catholic, it's purely a logical argument. Sheesh, you and phil need to chill with your catholophobia.

Um, Byblos knows very well that some of the key things I have brought up, teachings which the CC asserts to be valid, are not found in Scripture AND they originated within the hierarchy of the church and its popes. NO, I am not Catholic-phobic, but I am very much against some of the CC's key teachings. But I also agree with much of what Catholics believe. But those few areas I find problematic are VERY problematic, even dangerous. A further problem is that many Catholics consider themselves Christians merely because they are Catholic, or because they were baptized at whatever days old as babies. Of course, this is no different than many Protestants whom have attended church all of their lives, but yet are not Christians.

Further, I would say that the CC definitely teaches a "Jesus-plus" requirement for salvation - which is the sacrament of BAPTISM: “Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude . . . ," (CCC 1257).

And, I'm not in any way picking on ONLY the Catholic Church, but on any Christian-asserting organization that teaches things that either are not clearly found in Scripture or that are in serious conflict or outright contradictions as to what can be found in Scripture. And ANY organization claiming the authority to add or subtract teachings to Scripture, or claiming it to be a further and authorized (by God) illuminations not found in Scripture - I'd have the very same problems. Do you not realize that when the Emperor Constantine declared Christianity to be legal (313), and further when he began to support it, what did he do but promote many former bureaucrats into the offices of the State. By doing so, He controlled the church of Rome, its officers, and MONIES incurred. So, in this way, while there were certainly many true Christians involved with the Church, many others were appointed by the state, to the point that they became inseparable entities and highly political. And thus, with such political appointments to key positions of church leadership, the corruption of the state entered the church of Rome.

While Christianity became embraced by Constantine in 313, let's not forget that he also legalized other religious groups and as late as 321 he was still encouraging and validating sun worship. In fact, (per Wikipedia) "when he dedicated the new capital of Constantinople, which became the seat of Byzantine Christianity for a millennium, he did so wearing the Apollonian sun-rayed Diadem; no Christian symbols were present at this dedication." So, it is very doubtful that this (at least former) pagan was a Christian, and didn't view adopting/co-opting Christianity as an opportunity to the state. Later, as the Church claimed authority to add teachings to what could already be found in Scripture, the danger for false doctrine grew exponentially. This idea had strongly taken hold, especially since the period of the Counter Reformation, and culminated in (1869) the assertion of "Papal Infallibility": The "dogma of the Catholic Church that states that, in virtue of the promise of Jesus to Peter, the Pope is preserved from the possibility of error "When, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church."" Now, how could this "infallibility" be true, as popes had long contradicted each others' teachings AND those found in Scripture?

Do people not understand the grave danger when a giant organization teaches that a mortal man, post the Apostolic era, is considered infallible in what he asserts???!!! Do people not realize that the politics originally driving church appointments were made by former (and likely, STILL) pagans, of which many were simply political/bureaucratic additions made by politicians - and absolutely RUTHLESS ones, as the empire and her conquests spread? When you look at those this supposed "unbroken line from the Apostle Peter" did and taught - one should be extremely wary of how this supposedly "Jesus-mandated" authority was wielded, what has been taught, and the great corruption of popes down through the ages. Thus, there were many examples of church corruption as to why Martin Luther rebelled - purgatory, indulgences, etc. Is it any wonder that the CC once owned one-third of the land in Europe - the continent's largest land owner. Of course, Martin Luther was no saint, himself!