Evidence for God from Science

Byblos wrote:

RickD wrote:

Byblos wrote:
Mary bore a child. A child is person. To state Mary bore a person or Mary is the mother of Jesus is utterly uncontroversial, it does not require explaining. Women have been doing that for ages. When the child has a second nature, i.e. God the Son, it is perfectly fitting to then state Mary is the mother of God. This last one requires explaining through the incarnation and the hypostatic union. As I stated, I would have no problem whatsoever with stating Mary is the mother of Jesus who is one person with two natures, one divine and one human, and since the divine nature is one with the triune ... etc etc. It's too long but it conveys the same message. Mother of God is more fitting and more concise and what it lacks (your words) is uncontroversial and implied (she bore a son who is a person), it does not require restating or an explanation.

Thanks Byblos.

So, let me try to understand clearly. To you, The term "Mother of God" entails all of that? Christ's divinity, and his humanity, one person with two natures? You get all that from "Mother of God"?

Absolutely. Simply because that's what being a mother is, it entails giving birth to a person.

I guess it's the Theo part of Theotokos that I'm having trouble seeing representing the human nature of Christ. So, I'm feeling that Theotokos only represents his divinity.

See what I mean?

There is a Godhead = God the Father, Jesus Christ His Son, and the Holy Spirit. Jesus Christ was here on earth as God / but because God is spirit, the 2nd part of the God head is who was seen. And when Jesus was here , He prayed to God the Father who was in heaven. Jesus Christ is the mediator between God and us -- that's why when we pray it's 'Dear Heavenly Father' and we end "in Jesus name we pray, amen'.

When a person accepts Jesus Christ as personal Savior -- the Holy Spirit part of the Godhead immediately comes to indwell the person and keeps our soul 'safe' until the rapture takes place -- that will be Jesus coming in the air for born-again believers -- And God will be bringing the New Jerusalem down from heaven at the very end. Not meaning to be confusing, just trying to show the various roles of the person's of the Godhead.

And, yes, Storyteller asked. You were correct.

I don't see a difference in God-bearer and Mother of God, with one possible exception in what might be a deficiency of "God-bearer." That title might imply that Mary was just something of a surrogate mother and not a real mother. But Mary was really and literally Jesus' mother, not just a surrogate. She did more than "bear" him if "bear" just means "to carry." She conceived Him and bore Him.

And theotokos cannot, by definition, only refer to the divinity of Christ. As you have repeatedly pointed out, the divinity of Christ is eternal, and that is eternal can have no father or mother because fathers and mothers bring into existence what did not previously exist. Therefore, if someone asked me who Mary was and I said, "The mother of God," and they said, "Woh! I thought God was eternal. How could that be?" I'd ask them just to think it through more carefully. If God has a mother, then necessarily, God did so by taking on a human nature. The phrase mother of logically and necessarily entails the full humanity of Jesus. Notice it doesn't just entail humanity, but FULL humanity (as if there were such a thing as partial humanity). A human cannot, by its nature, be the mother of a non-human. In theory, given enough scientific intervention, I guess that perhaps a woman's body could act as a surrogate for a non-human entity. But when we talk about being a mother, we talk about conceiving. And what a human woman conceives is a human. Therefore, if Mary is the mother of ANYTHING, then she is the mother of a human. But if she is the mother of God, then her child, who is God, must also be human. Therefore, I think that "mother of God" is very appropriate for describing the hypostatic union. It is far stronger than a mere "God-bearer." Unless, of course, you take "bear" in the fuller sense of a mother bearing a child (which would imply full motherhood), and in that case, it is completely synonymous with "Mother of God."

Jac wrote:
And what a human woman conceives is a human.

Nuh huh! You forgot about The Nephilim!


Thanks Jac. You've given me more to think about.

Edit-

Any idea why God bearer was changed(if it was changed) to Mother of God?

I have no idea, Rick, why the change was made. Theotokos is Greek. It could have just been a simple matter of translation. "Mother of God" is a legitimate, even if less than woodenly literal, translation. After all, "the one who bears" is the mother, so "Mother" is a perfectly fine rendering. If I had the time or inclination to find the answer, though, I tell you what I would do.

First, I'd get as many articles together as I could about theotokos, christotokos, and Madre Dei (the Latin "Mother of God"). No reason to reinvent the wheel if somebody has already done the work for you. I'd then read through the articles and make notes of any primary sources and prioritize them by age. I'd then look through works like the ante-nicene, nicene, and post-nicene fathers for all of those terms (which would probably always be translated "mother of God" in English, which would require after finding the phrase to get back to the language in when the text was written and then find out the word or phrase used). If I did all of that, I would have a good idea of what phrases were used when, and then if and when I was able to pinpoint when Madre dei was being used rather than theotokos )(or if there was a more literal Latin rendering), I'd see if anyone said anything about why they were using the "mother of" translation.

I'm sure you can guess why I'm not going to do that right now. That's the kind of thing I would do during my seminary studies. No time for all that right now. So I'll just go back to my hypothesis: I bet it was originally just the translation provided when Latin writers started talking about the subject simply because "Mother of God" is a clearer translation than "God-bearer." Am I right? I don't know. It's just my guess.

Jac3510
The comment you made "She 'conceived' Him and bore Him." You italicized 'conceived'. A baby Is conceived and given birth to. Except it was conceived of the Holy Spirit and not Joseph.
It Stilll bothers me to hear the phrase Mary the Mother of God. She was the mother of Jesus Christ. It's almost like people don't want to recognize that Jesus was really a human man while here on earth. The Gospels tell us that He experienced everything that a normal man did except did not sin. Which Also means that we are Capable of 'just saying no' to physical temptations.
So -- we have Mary who gave birth to Jesus Christ -- the Son of ......

I was raised catholic. There are catholics here talking and I'm sure some were raised as a catholic. Which makes me wonder what world you catholics have been living on? Do none of you talk to other catholics about these things? Hear the terms they use to describe Mary and her relationship with YHWH? The veneration that shouldn't be given to any mortal? It doesn't really matter what the CC teaches (even if they are wrong) when you have so many brands of catholicism putting different emphases on CC doctrine. South american catholic? African catholic? European?? The rosary is so unbiblical in its implications it's heretical. Guess what I see from most family members who of Mexican descent with their children in my hospital? Pictures of Mary. Or maybe a statue of her (and the only sight of Jesus is Him being an baby in her arms).

Ever ask a catholic if they are praying the rosary and someone else is across town (and thousands of people are across the world) at the same time, who is Mary listening to? What makes you think she can even hear you when we are told Deuteronomy 18:11. To inquire is to ask them to pray for you... Which is something He asks for us to do only with Him Matthew 6:6-13 (there's another verse I can't find right now where Jesus tells us to direct prayers to the Father [no one else]).

I have the problem with the term 'Mother of God' for I think the same reasons RickD does. I don't have an issue with the term by itself. But how it's understood by catholics , it's a loaded statement. And they don't take the terms strictly, instead adding to it. The great tragedy of the honor of Mary is that she has been used by so many and for so long to take the focus off YHWH. Our El-Elyon. But this is the master craftiness of the catholic church. Always turning people away from Him and our relationship to Him and focusing on other things/people, all of which nicely reflects the old Judaic religious system Jesus came and harshly condemned (do you know how the Sadducees and pharisees were ignoring the 'heftier parts of the law'? Their sins were expressed and enhanced by their religion; the Jewish religion).

Is Mary the Mother of God? Sure, the mother of Jesus who is God (qualifiers). But if you give her that title, you are also making her the mother of the Holy Spirit and the Father, of which they don't have. How can you separate Jesus from YWHW? You can't. She raised and nurtured Jesus, an honor only one woman gets. And she got it. Why there is any emphasis at all with her, in anything, is ridiculous (which is huge in the cc, get your heads outta the sand and get real). After the end of this, I guess I still do have a problem with the term 'Mother of God', because it is NEVER taken strictly (even in most catholic circles), and I see the term failing itself completely as an example in John 14:9 shows. If she is the mother of God (more than the man Jesus), then it follows she is the mother of the Father and Holy Spirit (who are inseperable from Jesus, part of YHWH).

If there's anything I despise more than debating Catholic topics with non-catholics it's debating them with former Catholics. Somehow because they were' raised' Catholic and attended a few sunday masses they feel they are more of an authority on the subject. This is not about you Maltz, obviously I don't know you, it's just a general statement. I have neither the time nor the patience to debate such topics in an open forum. Been there, don't that, wrote the book.

Anyone who has sincere questions can reach out privately or on a difftent forum. I'll leave the debating for others thank you very much.

I hear you Byblos, but in Mallz' defense--and it would be good, I think, or you to be more open about this--most Catholics deeply misunderstand their own faith. That's not surprising given how incredibly nuanced it is. I for one get and deeply appreciate the doctrine of Madre Dei, but how many people are going to put the time into studying it as I have? And more, how many people have the resources to do that? How many even know to ask the questions? And when you ask one question, it just raises another one. That doesn't make it wrong--it just makes it easy to get wrong. So it should be very unsurprising to meet Catholics, but current and former, who are clearly at odds with the official magisterium.

And let's me clear about the magisterium, too. This isn't just a matter of paying attention to your priest, because while there certainly may be areas that everyone agrees (say the Mother of God--I don't know, I haven't talked to many priests about this), you know very well that there are schools of thought within the priesthood and bishopric itself that point to deep divides. The bishop over my area borders of vitalism . . . I can tell you that he discourages the completion of Advances Directives and Living Wills (to say nothing of POLST orders, DNR/Pluses, etc.). There are liberal priests, especially in the West . . . you know their debate with the last three popes.

Now, if your priests are getting it wrong and aren't willing to submit to historical Catholicism, you ought not be surprised when current and former Catholics have wrong ideas about the faith. I'm not at all using that as an argument against the faith (although I do think it does support my central argument against it that you've heard a million times and that I won't repeat here). That would just be an ad populum fallacy. But I am saying that, from a strictly apologetic perspective, perhaps you would do well to start with the admission and even assumption that most Catholics get it wrong. Perhaps there is more reformation due in your church to put a greater emphasis on teaching doctrine (and philosophy, since that is so important to the Church) to the masses. I don't know the solution. What I DO know is that a lot of terms you all use--and even terms that Protestants have taken from you (e.g., "Christ is fully man and fully God"; "One God susbsists in Three Persons," etc.) are very apt to be misunderstood. How many non-Catholics get the Trinity wrong? Omnipotence? Omniscience? How many churches have split over election?

People get stuff wrong because it's nuanced. A problem rather unique, though, to Catholicism is precisely due to the fact that you have such an old faith with such a very long and very strong intellectual tradition. It has become very, very, very open to misinterpretation.

Just some thoughts for whatever (little) their worth.

From looking over this thread there seems to be two camps; those that are looking at the term 'mother of God' from a literary and theological perspective and those that are delving more into the subsequent religious doctrines that are contrived from an understanding or misunderstanding of the term.
I don't think they are seperate.
From one determines the other. Which is why I think there is somewhat a mismatch of thoughts. But both valid.
I don't think the issue is as such the terminology but rather the meaning.
We know Mary is the mother of Jesus. Jesus is God so therefore Mary is the Mother of God.
To query further is semantics.
But I don't think that's the case.
And I think scripture shows us why.
The terminology mother is a no brainer, to bear a child and give birth. Which to our understanding is bearing a new life. A new beginning.
But we know that the Son Jesus is eternal. The Alpha existing with The Father before creation.
Which is the very valid point that God is eternal, always within existence without beginning nor end.
At that time ordained by God by His will Jesus was born into this world.
"But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law"
Mary by the blessing of God fulfilled prophecy and fulfilled the will of The Father and Son to bear the fulfilment of the law.
The law is the fulfilment of Gods plan.
Scripture never once alludes to Mary being the Mother of God. It clearly states she is blessed but one cannot give life to an eternal, everlasting being. She fulfilled, within her womb the fulfilment of prophecy by the earthly incarnation of Jesus.
Christ' Divinity by earthly standards is something He made clear was not the type of lineage He came from.
This is a theme within scripture which is clear.
"Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question, saying, “What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?” They said to him, “The son of David.” He said to them, “How is it then that David, in the Spirit, calls him Lord, saying,

“‘The Lord said to my Lord,
“Sit at my right hand,
until I put your enemies under your feet”’?
If then David calls him Lord, how is he his son?” And no one was able to answer him a word, nor from that day did anyone dare to ask him any more questions.

Jesus was talking of His lineage. Ordained by God but Jesus was not physically tied to such but rather to His spiritual family from where He came.
This is obvious when Jesus said controversially;
He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother"

You cannot bear life to that which already exists.
Mary fulfilled God's purpose. She did not bear new life. She bore a promise that existed long before she was conceived.
She didn't create she fulfilled.
Which is a blessing beyond any woman ever born. She was clearly exceptionally special, blessed beyond what we could imagine. Handpicked and chosen for the most splendid fulfilment of Gods plan.

If there's anything I despise more than debating Catholic topics with non-catholics it's debating them with former Catholics. Somehow because they were' raised' Catholic and attended a few sunday masses they feel they are more of an authority on the subject. This is not about you Maltz, obviously I don't know you, it's just a general statement. I have neither the time nor the patience to debate such topics in an open forum. Been there, don't that, wrote the book.

Gimme a break. What makes you think you have any knowledge to offer me? Do you think you could do better than Abbots of a Benedictine Seminary? Highly esteemed men who spend half their year in Rome? Your right, you don't know me, or my resources, or my knowledge. So leave your disregarding fallacies to the side when you paint your picture.

Mallz wrote:

If there's anything I despise more than debating Catholic topics with non-catholics it's debating them with former Catholics. Somehow because they were' raised' Catholic and attended a few sunday masses they feel they are more of an authority on the subject. This is not about you Maltz, obviously I don't know you, it's just a general statement. I have neither the time nor the patience to debate such topics in an open forum. Been there, don't that, wrote the book.

Gimme a break. What makes you think you have any knowledge to offer me? Do you think you could do better than Abbots of a Benedictine Seminary? Highly esteemed men who spend half their year in Rome? Your right, you don't know me, or my resources, or my knowledge. So leave your disregarding fallacies to the side when you paint your picture.

It's a good thing then that my post wasn't addressed to you, oh wise one.

Jac3510 wrote:I hear you Byblos, but in Mallz' defense--and it would be good, I think, or you to be more open about this--most Catholics deeply misunderstand their own faith. That's not surprising given how incredibly nuanced it is. I for one get and deeply appreciate the doctrine of Madre Dei, but how many people are going to put the time into studying it as I have? And more, how many people have the resources to do that? How many even know to ask the questions? And when you ask one question, it just raises another one. That doesn't make it wrong--it just makes it easy to get wrong. So it should be very unsurprising to meet Catholics, but current and former, who are clearly at odds with the official magisterium.

And let's me clear about the magisterium, too. This isn't just a matter of paying attention to your priest, because while there certainly may be areas that everyone agrees (say the Mother of God--I don't know, I haven't talked to many priests about this), you know very well that there are schools of thought within the priesthood and bishopric itself that point to deep divides. The bishop over my area borders of vitalism . . . I can tell you that he discourages the completion of Advances Directives and Living Wills (to say nothing of POLST orders, DNR/Pluses, etc.). There are liberal priests, especially in the West . . . you know their debate with the last three popes.

Now, if your priests are getting it wrong and aren't willing to submit to historical Catholicism, you ought not be surprised when current and former Catholics have wrong ideas about the faith. I'm not at all using that as an argument against the faith (although I do think it does support my central argument against it that you've heard a million times and that I won't repeat here). That would just be an ad populum fallacy. But I am saying that, from a strictly apologetic perspective, perhaps you would do well to start with the admission and even assumption that most Catholics get it wrong. Perhaps there is more reformation due in your church to put a greater emphasis on teaching doctrine (and philosophy, since that is so important to the Church) to the masses. I don't know the solution. What I DO know is that a lot of terms you all use--and even terms that Protestants have taken from you (e.g., "Christ is fully man and fully God"; "One God susbsists in Three Persons," etc.) are very apt to be misunderstood. How many non-Catholics get the Trinity wrong? Omnipotence? Omniscience? How many churches have split over election?

People get stuff wrong because it's nuanced. A problem rather unique, though, to Catholicism is precisely due to the fact that you have such an old faith with such a very long and very strong intellectual tradition. It has become very, very, very open to misinterpretation.

Just some thoughts for whatever (little) their worth.

I hear you Jac, I really do. If you go back to my earlier posts I was the first to clearly state that the doctrine is largely abused, no doubt about that. To an extent lack of education on the part of the church is also to blame. But at what point do we as believers take responsibility for our own actions and misunderstandings? That's why I always emphasize and I know you agree with me that criticism ought to be leveled at the doctrine itself, not its abuses.

As for me personally, even though I've lived in the U.S. for the better part of my life, I come from a competely different theological world where some of these so-called abuses are totally foreign to me. I made it my life's mission to not only understand other beliefs (hence my long presence here) but also to immerse myself in the doctrines of my own faith. It was either that or abandon belief altogether for nothing else made sense. So please forgive my lack of enthusiasm at the prospects of debating such topics any more, I've don't it for far too long.

For what it's worth Byblos, I have the greatest respect for you and how you present your faith.

This thread has been illuminating and fascinating.

Another question...

Holy Communion.

For me would be such a personal connection with Christ, yet unless I become a practising Catholic I can't receive it.
I believe that the Church can, in some cases, grant it, if certain criteria are met.
So why do I have to a practising Catholic?

It's a good thing then that my post wasn't addressed to you, oh wise one.

Only by paragraph/context association, oh graceful one