The Two Times when Jesus was confronted with "honor Mary Mother of Jesus" statements

Jipsah said:

Neither is "Trinity", and yes, God does have a mother! That is the point! Mary is Jesus' mother, and Jesus is God! Wholly God, wholly man, right? Not kinda sorta part God and part man. There's no theologizing your way out of that.

Click to expand...

Tired comparison using the Trinity example.

Actually, there is no way of theologizing your way out of the fact that YHWH has no mother, is eternal, and pre-existed all of creation, including Mary.

Jipsah said:

I.E., it offends uber-prots who still aren't at all sure about the Incarnation thing.

Click to expand...

Actually, the abuse is by those who venerate Mary, pray to her as if she has some mediator status, address her as "full of grace" which is according to a mistranslation of Scripture, tell us she was and remained sinless, tell us she too had a miraculous birth, and so on... I'm sure you can guess this stuff is not from "prots" nor "uber-prots" who don't customarily make big statues of her holding her little God-Baby.

Jipsah said:

Nice litle ad hominem there, but you gotta go with what you got, right? But Jipsah logic seems to work just fine for most of Christendom who don't share the visceral aversion so many people have to simple truths.

Click to expand...

No ad hominem at all. You're misusing the charge. You allege that those who disagree with your terminology do not believe in the Incarnation. That's an error you've made using your thus failed logic.

I'm sure you can provide statistics for what "most of Christendom" believes. And, since when has some majority been meaningful in a Faith that says it's few who find it and only a remnant will be saved? Your "simple truths" are according to erroneous translations of Scripture, and a logic that you use in only one direction, but fails in another and more clear way - God is eternal and has no mother. Welcome to the truth in dealing with the hypostatic union in a little more depth than your logic allows for.

Whatever you mean by "economy," I'll help by not asking and just respond that my pertinent on the fly Christology understands Jesus in hupostasis as fully God and fully Man, who as a Man was fathered by God's Spirit through a Hebrew woman He chose, and as eternal God, has no mother or father, and pre-existed all of His creation.

I also know that the terminology "theotokos" is not without debate from the very early centuries, which debate has never really ended. And the debate is not just about the hupostasis, but includes concerns such as the portrayal of God having a mother and thus enters terminology "christotokos."

Just because Rome determined something to be meaningful and correct, does mean it is. Just because you determine that rejection of the terminology means rejection of the hupostasis, does not mean you're correct. You're arguing for a tradition. Others continue the argument against it. Both may well have (and I'm pretty sure do have) some or much of the same Christology but see the Mary terminology differently. As such, this seems kind of a pointless debate until the terminology is taken into serious error and that error is fought for, which is normally done by Catholics. Why not just discuss Christology itself and try to better understand the depth and miracle of the hupostasis and the death of YHWH's Christ? Or, did the immortal and eternal God die? Got it all figured out?

Nestorius used the term Christotokos as a way to deny the hypostatic union. He taught that Mary was the mother of the man Christ. He was teaching that Jesus had two separate natures - i.e. “The man Jesus suffered. The divine nature of Jesus did not.” Likewise, they also claimed that Mary was the Christotokos rather than the Theotokos. That debate was in relation to a heresy. The conciliar nature of the Church helped to address heresies including this one. In fact, this was the fifth major Christological heresy in the Church - all which were addressed in councils. (Ironically the Nestorian heresy was likely partially a counter-reaction to Apollinarianism, particularly in regards to using God when describing Jesus Christ and His life, death and resurrection.)

So yes - the term was debated in the early church. In this case, the people against the term theotokos (i.e. Nestorius’ followers) were the ones promoting heresy.

GDL said:

I also know that the terminology "theotokos" is not without debate from the very early centuries, which debate has never really ended. And the debate is not just about the hupostasis, but includes concerns such as the portrayal of God having a mother and thus enters terminology "christotokos."

Click to expand...

(Please note that as someone who previously was Protestant, I am well aware that many who disagree with the term Theotokos or mother of God correctly believe in the hypostatic union, just as saying Mother of God does not mean Mary was the source of Christ’s divinity).

Sitting here looking up words like "hypostatic union" "hupostasis", "christotokos"

I'll just sit this one out

All4Christ said:

Nestorius used the term Christotokos as a way to deny the hypostatic union. He taught that Mary was the mother of the man Christ. He was teaching that Jesus had two separate natures - i.e. “The man Jesus suffered. The divine nature of Jesus did not.” Likewise, they also claimed that Mary was the Christotokos rather than the Theotokos. That debate was in relation to a heresy. The conciliar nature of the Church helped to address heresies including this one. In fact, this was the fifth major Christological heresy in the Church - all which were addressed in councils. (Ironically the Nestorian heresy was likely partially a counter-reaction to Apollinarianism, particularly in regards to using God when describing Jesus Christ and His life, death and resurrection.)

So yes - the term was debated in the early church. In this case, the people against the term theotokos (i.e. Nestorius’ followers) were the ones promoting heresy.

Click to expand...

All4Christ said:

(Please note that as someone who previously was Protestant, I am well aware that many who disagree with the term Theotokos or mother of God correctly believe in the hypostatic union, just as saying Mother of God does not mean Mary was the source of Christ’s divinity).

Click to expand...

Thank you for the input. I'm really not a student of these things, but am aware of some of the history and reasons and uses of the 2 terms. Other than participating on these forums, I've never really involved myself in such discussions.

Are you aware of a 20th century ecumenical resolution regarding the respective use of both terms acknowledging that each denomination now believes in the same Christology and thus acknowledges and respects one another's use of their respective terminology?

As a former Protestant, why do you, if you do, see the continuing importance of using such terminology, which is clearly resolved via Christology, and has been used to whatever extent in unbiblical thinking re: Mary being "full of grace," sinless, venerated, mediatrix, recipient of prayers, etc... Is there just too much history and liturgy to unravel? Would the admission harm the asserted authority of Rome. Why is this important anymore? Would it harm any fair-minded Catholic to make clear their meaning when they speak of Mary as Mother of God, as some periodically do in these discussions, while others make absurd claims few if any bible studying Protestant is going to accept? How many do you think actually know what's actually behind the terminology? Even if they've memorized liturgy, can they explain it?

To be fair, FWIW, I have similar questions regarding a prominent Protestant tradition that comes immediately to mind. Paul was fighting hostile traditions in the first century. Nothing new under the sun with man...

2BeholdHisGlory said:

I'll just sit this one out

Click to expand...

Jump in! Enjoy some fair-minded and some fairly hostile discussion! Nothing new here...

Actually, late here. Tag, you're it!

GDL said:

Jump in! Enjoy some fair-minded and some fairly hostile discussion! Nothing new here...

Actually, late here. Tag, you're it!

Click to expand...

Your a trip lol

Look at the big picture. The world receives salvation through Mary. She is a mediator to her son. From the gitgo.