Evidence for God from Science

Byblos wrote:

RickD wrote:

Byblos wrote:

RickD wrote:

Byblos wrote:
Certainly your prerogative.

But what if a Muslim asks you who Mary was, what would you say?

The Mother of Jesus Christ. Are we assuming I've already discussed who Jesus Christ is with this Muslim?

Either way, Mary is Christ's mother.

Lol, ok. So now they ask: who is Christ?

First, if they ask who is Mary, before they ask who is Christ, I'd assume they were Catholic, not Muslim.

If they ask who Christ is, I'd tell them. Do you really want me to go through it with you?

You know where this is going Rick, the logical syllogism necessarily entails Mary being the Mother of God. There is no way around it.

I disagree. Obviously. That's what this whole discussion is about. I can believe Mary is the mother of Jesus Christ. I can believe Jesus Christ is God. But I don't have to believe Mary is the mother of God.

Or as I posted before:

1) Jesus is God (Hebrews 1:8);

2) God became flesh (John 1:1,14);

3) therefore, Mary is the mother of Jesus according to the flesh (Romans 9:5), i.e., Jesus’ physical body

Or in other words, Mary is his mother as far as her contribution to the physical nature.

It may be right to ask ourselves that, since Jesus was not recorded ever offering His mother any special status, should we?
I think that fact that she was blessed above all women is more than enough of a statement.

RickD wrote:Again Jac. Your argument just doesn't hold water. Nestorius didn't use the term mother of God, and he (at least as far as I can see from the site) didn't believe in Christ there are two persons. And as I'm still uncomfortable with the term, so for now at least, I won't use it either. And I'm not Nestorian nor Arian, nor do I believe:

the idea that in Christ there are two persons" and "Christ's nature is an admixture of both divine and human natures such that it is neither one.

Genetic falacy.

RickD wrote:I disagree. Obviously. That's what this whole discussion is about. I can believe Mary is the mother of Jesus Christ. I can believe Jesus Christ is God. But I don't have to believe Mary is the mother of God.

Or as I posted before:

1) Jesus is God Hebrews 1:8);

2) God became flesh (John 1:14);

3) therefore, Mary is the mother of Jesus according to the flesh (Romans 9:5), i.e., Jesus’ physical body

Or in other words, Mary is his mother as far as her contribution to the physical nature.

Then you are unintentionally and unknowningly harboring what is formally called the Nestorian heresy. I understand that you believe that Jesus is one person, not two. But the logic of your position necessarily entails that Jesus is two persons (and by the way, this IS where the history is relevant, because Nestorius was a lot like you--he didn't see the logic of his own position . . . or to make it more modern, Nestorius (and on this issue, you) was a like like Kenny--he said silly things and wasn't able to see the implications of his statements).

Look at the syllogism again. I know you know it. But humor me and look at it.

1. Jesus was God
2. Jesus' mother was Mary
3. Therefore, Mary was God's mother

That is inescapable. The only way to avoid it is to say that Mary was the mother of part of Jesus and not mother of another part (your reasoning quoted above). But mothers are not mothers of parts of persons. They are mothers of PERSONS. That is what makes you a mother--a mother is a woman who gives birth to a person. Now, if Mary gave birth to a human person and not a divine person, but Mary gave birth to Jesus, then it necessarily follows that Jesus the human person is distinct from Jesus the divine person, since we can distinguish them by the fact that Mary was the mother of one and not the other. Therefore, you have the belief that Jesus is two persons.

So on one hand you say that Jesus was one person.
On the other hand, when you say that Mary was not the mother of God, you necessarily say that Jesus is two persons.

You contradict yourself, and the second statement is the so-called Nestorian Heresy. Your continued use of the genetic fallacy amounts to a red herring and only serves to distract your own attention from the error in your thinking. Focus on the argument Byblos and I are making, not one we are not.

1. Jesus was God
2. Jesus' mother was Mary
3. Therefore, Mary was God's mother

Following that:

1. Jesus was human
2. Jesus' mother was Mary
3. Therefore, Mary was human's mother.

??

God, as we Christians understand, it isn't a title like "King".

Qualifiers...

Incorrect, Paul. The conclusion from our syllogism would be, "Mary was a human's mother." And that would be true. Now, you could actually apply that reasoning to mine and get, "Mary was a God's mother." But since there is only one God (by nature and necessarily--ask Byblos to explain it to you: hint, it's because God is His nature (humans are not their natures)), then that conclusion would still reduce to "Mary was God's mother."

And God is not a title. It is a term that signifies essence. And that is exactly why the syllogism not only works, but why it MUST work. To deny that is much worse than Nestorianism. Believe it or not, it actually (necessarily) leads to atheism.

Jac and Byblos,

Not that you don't know already, but I do appreciate you both working through this with me. As of right now, I just don't agree with you. I can't say I definitely disagree, because I'm still not sure where I stand. I'm trying, with your help, to figure it out.

Maybe this is more accurately where I am at the moment(again with qualifiers, can't get past them).

1. Jesus is God
2. God became incarnate
3. Jesus' mother was Mary, as far as her contribution to his human nature

mary was anything but a typical mother as we define the term. She was chosen to carry, give birth to, and raise God incarnate. Since Jesus is both divine and human, she had no contribution to the divine. That's why she didn't have to be sinless, ever virgin, etc. it has no bearing on her part in being Jesus' mother.

Again. I'm working through this. If you both are correct and this is a crucial issue, it's just a matter of time before something turns the bulb on in my head, and gets me to see it. If it's just something that we are free to disagree on without affecting something else I believe, then we may never come to an agreement.

RickD wrote:Jac and Byblos,

Not that you don't know already, but I do appreciate you both working through this with me. As of right now, I just don't agree with you. I can't say I definitely disagree, because I'm still not sure where I stand. I'm trying, with your help, to figure it out.

Maybe this is more accurately where I am at the moment(again with qualifiers, can't get past them).

1. Jesus is God
2. God became incarnate
3. Jesus' mother was Mary, as far as her contribution to his human nature

mary was anything but a typical mother as we define the term. She was chosen to carry, give birth to, and raise God incarnate. Since Jesus is both divine and human, she had no contribution to the divine. That's why she didn't have to be sinless, ever virgin, etc. it has no bearing on her part in being Jesus' mother.

Again. I'm working through this. If you both are correct and this is a crucial issue, it's just a matter of time before something turns the bulb on in my head, and gets me to see it. If it's just something that we are free to disagree on without affecting something else I believe, then we may never come to an agreement.

The implications are profound Rick. Forget the Marian doctrine and Catholicism in general with all its nuances, forget all that. Scripture shows and therefore Christian orthodoxy demands that Jesus is considered one person with two nature. The one-personhood is just as important as the two natures. To deny such is to deny who Christ is (see what I mean when I say the Marian doctrine is Christ-centered?). Personally I don't care one way or the other if you affirm or deny what the term Mother of God means. But if you affirm Christ's one-personhood with two natures then you are explicitely (not implicitly) affirming that Mary IS the Mother of God, whether you want to admit or not. The converse, of course, is that if you do not (at least implicitly) affirm that Mary is the Mother of God, then you are explicitly denying the one-personhood and two natures of Christ. It's one or the other, there is no in between.

Post edit:

RickD wrote:3. Jesus' mother was Mary, as far as her contribution to his human nature

Jac was very clear on this but I think it begs repeating as I think this is precisely where you're going wrong Rick. Mary's contribution to Jesus CANNOT be said to have been only to his human nature because, as jac stated, humans don't give birth (or contribute) to natures, they give birth to persons. And the one-personhood of Jesus necessarily includes both his natures, divine and human. Do you see that?

Byblos wrote:

The implications are profound Rick. Forget the Marian doctrine and Catholicism in general with all its nuances, forget all that. Scripture shows and therefore Christian orthodoxy demands that Jesus is considered one person with two nature. The one-personhood is just as important as the two natures. To deny such is to deny who Christ is (see what I mean when I say the Marian doctrine is Christ-centered?). Personally I don't care one way or the other if you affirm or deny what the term Mother of God means. But if you affirm Christ's one-personhood with two natures then you are explicitely (not implicitly) affirming that Mary IS the Mother of God, whether you want to admit or not. The converse, of course, is that if you do not (at least implicitly) affirm that Mary is the Mother of God, then you are explicitly denying the one-personhood and two natures of Christ. It's one or the other, there is no in between.

Not sure how if I'm not at least implicitly affirming Mary is the mother of God, how I'm explicitly denying the one personhood, and two natures of Christ. You are making the same wrong assumption that Jac made. As of now, I don't at least implicitly affirm that mary is the mother of God. Yet I explicitly, not sure how more explicit I can be , in affirming the one person and two natures of Christ.
It's just not accurate.

Now you could say, and I may agree, that I can explicitly affirm the one person/two natures, while not at least implicitly affirming Mary is the mother of God, BECAUSE I HAVENT PROPERLY UNDERSTOOD THEOTOKOS. And I've already said that is a possibility.

If the rest of what you said is true, then I have all the confidence in the world that I will eventually agree, and come to that conclusion myself.

But then the opposite is true also. If I can hold to Christ being one person with two natures, and don't necessarily have to agree that "mother of God" means that, then I may never come to agree.

While it's something that I'm going to keep looking into, it's not something that's going to keep me up at night. While it's a possible disagreement regarding what "Mother of God" means, it's not a disagreement on who Christ is.

RickD wrote:

Byblos wrote:

The implications are profound Rick. Forget the Marian doctrine and Catholicism in general with all its nuances, forget all that. Scripture shows and therefore Christian orthodoxy demands that Jesus is considered one person with two nature. The one-personhood is just as important as the two natures. To deny such is to deny who Christ is (see what I mean when I say the Marian doctrine is Christ-centered?). Personally I don't care one way or the other if you affirm or deny what the term Mother of God means. But if you affirm Christ's one-personhood with two natures then you are explicitely (not implicitly) affirming that Mary IS the Mother of God, whether you want to admit or not. The converse, of course, is that if you do not (at least implicitly) affirm that Mary is the Mother of God, then you are explicitly denying the one-personhood and two natures of Christ. It's one or the other, there is no in between.

Not sure how if I'm not at least implicitly affirming Mary is the mother of God, how I'm explicitly denying the one personhood, and two natures of Christ. You are making the same wrong assumption that Jac made. As of now, I don't at least implicitly affirm that mary is the mother of God. Yet I explicitly, not sure how more explicit I can be , in affirming the one person and two natures of Christ.
It's just not accurate.

Now you could say, and I may agree, that I can explicitly affirm the one person/two natures, while not at least implicitly affirming Mary is the mother of God, BECAUSE I HAVENT PROPERLY UNDERSTOOD THEOTOKOS. And I've already said that is a possibility.

If the rest of what you said is true, then I have all the confidence in the world that I will eventually agree, and come to that conclusion myself.

But then the opposite is true also. If I can hold to Christ being one person with two natures, and don't necessarily have to agree that "mother of God" means that, then I may never come to agree.

While it's something that I'm going to keep looking into, it's not something that's going to keep me up at night. While it's a possible disagreement regarding what "Mother of God" means, it's not a disagreement on who Christ is.

I honestly don't see a way to reconcile the two, they are mutually contradictory positions. If Jesus is one person and Jesus is God, to state Mary is not the Mother of God is to deny Jesus is God. I'm not sure how else to state it.

To address your edit:

RickD wrote:
3. Jesus' mother was Mary, as far as her contribution to his human nature

Byblos wrote:
Jac was very clear on this but I think it begs repeating as I think this is precisely where you're going wrong Rick. Mary's contribution to Jesus CANNOT be said to have been only to his human nature because, as jac stated, humans don't give birth (or contribute) to natures, they give birth to persons. And the one-personhood of Jesus necessarily includes both his natures, divine and human. Do you see that?

I've taken that into consideration. But as I said before, the incarnation of Christ is not typical of anything. It's a one time deal. Humans don't give birth to natures, but humans also don't give birth to God incarnate either. Biologically, A typical father contributes the sperm. And the mother contributes the egg. In this case, there was no human sperm, and who even knows if God used Mary's egg? We can't toss the incarnation in as a normal Mother/Son relationship.

And to add, I understand and agree that the one personhood of Jesus includes both of his natures.
So, I'd have no problem with saying that Mary is the mother of the person, Jesus Christ. With person meaning both natures. But separating it as "Mother of God" at least to me, seems to be leaving out the part of his human nature(if we don't qualify Mother of God).

Byblos wrote:

I honestly don't see a way to reconcile the two, they are mutually contradictory positions. If Jesus is one person and Jesus is God, to state Mary is not the Mother of God is to deny Jesus is God. I'm not sure how else to state it.

That's fine. I just don't see it that way. As I've already made clear. But again, I may see it your way in the future...or I may not.

Just curious, is there a doctrine that shows both of Christ's natures? Theotokos seems to leave out his humanity. His humanity is equally as important as far as the atonement.

RickD wrote:To address your edit:

RickD wrote:
3. Jesus' mother was Mary, as far as her contribution to his human nature

Byblos wrote:
Jac was very clear on this but I think it begs repeating as I think this is precisely where you're going wrong Rick. Mary's contribution to Jesus CANNOT be said to have been only to his human nature because, as jac stated, humans don't give birth (or contribute) to natures, they give birth to persons. And the one-personhood of Jesus necessarily includes both his natures, divine and human. Do you see that?

I've taken that into consideration. But as I said before, the incarnation of Christ is not typical of anything. It's a one time deal. Humans don't give birth to natures, but humans also don't give birth to God incarnate either. Biologically, A typical father contributes the sperm. And the mother contributes the egg. In this case, there was no human sperm, and who even knows if God used Mary's egg? We can't toss the incarnation in as a normal Mother/Son relationship.

And to add, I understand and agree that the one personhood of Jesus includes both of his natures.
So, I'd have no problem with saying that Mary is the mother of the person, Jesus Christ. With person meaning both natures. But separating it as "Mother of God" at least to me, seems to be leaving out the part of his human nature(if we don't qualify Mother of God).

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?

RickD wrote:Just curious, is there a doctrine that shows both of Christ's natures? Theotokos seems to leave out his humanity. His humanity is equally as important as far as the atonement.

Of course, the hypostatic union.

Byblos wrote:

RickD wrote:To address your edit:

RickD wrote:
3. Jesus' mother was Mary, as far as her contribution to his human nature

Byblos wrote:
Jac was very clear on this but I think it begs repeating as I think this is precisely where you're going wrong Rick. Mary's contribution to Jesus CANNOT be said to have been only to his human nature because, as jac stated, humans don't give birth (or contribute) to natures, they give birth to persons. And the one-personhood of Jesus necessarily includes both his natures, divine and human. Do you see that?

I've taken that into consideration. But as I said before, the incarnation of Christ is not typical of anything. It's a one time deal. Humans don't give birth to natures, but humans also don't give birth to God incarnate either. Biologically, A typical father contributes the sperm. And the mother contributes the egg. In this case, there was no human sperm, and who even knows if God used Mary's egg? We can't toss the incarnation in as a normal Mother/Son relationship.

And to add, I understand and agree that the one personhood of Jesus includes both of his natures.
So, I'd have no problem with saying that Mary is the mother of the person, Jesus Christ. With person meaning both natures. But separating it as "Mother of God" at least to me, seems to be leaving out the part of his human nature(if we don't qualify Mother of God).

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.