Early Church Fathers and Reformers Misogynistic Quotes

Moses Medina

Layman
Sep 10, 2012
1,082
307
North Carolina
Visit site
✟45,257.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The point is not that she is not his mother, she is clearly His mother in the biological sense.

The point is Jesus priority. Jesus priority at that young age even, was not to please His earthly parents ABOVE the plan of Redemption that He came here to do and bring to all mankind.

Even at 12 yo, Jesus priority was the Father and being in the synagogue teaching.

As Jesus was talking about His Father, note that He did NOT refer to her at that particular moment as mother. He purposely called her woman so not to confuse her being human, with the Father, being diety.

The point being when religion tries to ddiefy Mary. They are going against Jesus Own teaching

I have to say for one, this has never been an issue until 500 years ago amd even then the early church reformers had no problems at all with the wording of Theotokos.

Also as was said by All4Christ it is a Christological statement, not Maryian. This is also the Lutheran stance as I was before converting over to Orthodoxy.

I get this section is for debate and thus why this topic is here... But i cant seem to grasp why this is being debated. This is the problem (one of them) woth Protestants, always quick to argue over things which had been settled for so long.
 
Upvote 0

ArmyMatt

Regular Member
Supporter
Jan 26, 2007
41,469
20,025
41
Earth
✟1,455,676.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
The point is not that she is not his mother, she is clearly His mother in the biological sense.

The point is Jesus priority. Jesus priority at that young age even, was not to please His earthly parents ABOVE the plan of Redemption that He came here to do and bring to all mankind.

Even at 12 yo, Jesus priority was the Father and being in the synagogue teaching.

As Jesus was talking about His Father, note that He did NOT refer to her at that particular moment as mother. He purposely called her woman so not to confuse her being human, with the Father, being diety.

The point being when religion tries to ddiefy Mary. They are going against Jesus Own teaching

His priority being His Father's will doesn't mean she isn't truly His mother.

and no one is deifying Mary.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

ToBeLoved

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 3, 2014
18,705
5,790
✟322,365.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
I have to say for one, this has never been an issue until 500 years ago amd even then the early church reformers had no problems at all with the wording of Theotokos.

Also as was said by All4Christ it is a Christological statement, not Maryian. This is also the Lutheran stance as I was before converting over to Orthodoxy.

I get this section is for debate and thus why this topic is here... But i cant seem to grasp why this is being debated. This is the problem (one of them) woth Protestants, always quick to argue over things which had been settled for so long.
I’m sorry you see this as argumentative and negative.

I will just leave the thread then and let you all discuss it however the intention was.

God bless.
 
Upvote 0

All4Christ

✙ The Handmaid of God Laura ✙
CF Senior Ambassador
Supporter
Mar 11, 2003
11,682
8,018
PA
Visit site
✟1,013,227.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
The text from the council which confirmed the teaching that Mary is the Mother of God shows how it is a Christological Statement.

1. the only begotten Son, begotten of God the Father according to nature, true God from true God, the light from the light, the one through whom the Father made all things, came down, became incarnate, became man,
2. suffered, rose on the third day and ascended to heaven
.

We too ought to follow these words and these teachings and consider what is meant by saying that the Word from God took flesh and became man. For we do not say that the nature of the Word was changed and became flesh, nor that he was turned into a whole man made of body and soul. Rather do we claim that the Word in an unspeakable, inconceivable manner united to himself hypostatically flesh enlivened by a rational soul, and so became man and was called son of man, not by God’s will alone or good pleasure, nor by the assumption of a person alone. Rather did two different natures come together to form a unity, and from both arose one Christ, one Son. It was not as though the distinctness of the natures was destroyed by the union, but divinity and humanity together made perfect for us one Lord and one Christ, together marvellously and mysteriously combining to form a unity. So he who existed and was begotten of the Father before all ages is also said to have been begotten according to the flesh of a woman, without the divine nature either beginning to exist in the holy virgin, or needing of itself a second begetting after that from his Father. (For it is absurd and stupid to speak of the one who existed before every age and is coeternal with the Father, needing a second beginning so as to exist.) The Word is said to have been begotten according to the flesh, because for us and for our salvation he united what was human to himself hypostatically and came forth from a woman. For he was not first begotten of the holy virgin, a man like us, and then the Word descended upon him; but from the very womb of his mother he was so united and then underwent begetting according to the flesh, making his own the begetting of his own flesh.

In a similar way we say that he suffered and rose again, not that the Word of God suffered blows or piercing with nails or any other wounds in his own nature (for the divine, being without a body, is incapable of suffering), but because the body which became his own suffered these things, he is said to have suffered them for us. For he was without suffering, while his body suffered. Something similar is true of his dying. For by nature the Word of God is of itself immortal and incorruptible and life and life-giving, but since on the other hand his own body by God’s grace, as the apostle says, tasted death for all, the Word is said to have suffered death for us, not as if he himself had experienced death as far as his own nature was concerned (it would be sheer lunacy to say or to think that), but because, as I have just said, his flesh tasted death. So too, when his flesh was raised to life, we refer to this again as his resurrection, not as though he had fallen into corruption–God forbid–but because his body had been raised again.So we shall confess one Christ and one Lord. We do not adore the man along with the Word, so as to avoid any appearance of division by using the word “with”. But we adore him as one and the same, because the body is not other than the Word, and takes its seat with him beside the Father, again not as though there were two sons seated together but only one, united with his own flesh. If, however, we reject the hypostatic union as being either impossible or too unlovely for the Word, we fall into the fallacy of speaking of two sons. We shall have to distinguish and speak both of the man as honoured with the title of son, and of the Word of God as by nature possessing the name and reality of sonship, each in his own way. We ought not, therefore, to split into two sons the one Lord Jesus Christ. Such a way of presenting a correct account of the faith will be quite unhelpful, even though some do speak of a union of persons. For scripture does not say that the Word united the person of a man to himself, but that he became flesh. The Word’s becoming flesh means nothing else than that he partook of flesh and blood like us; he made our body his own, and came forth a man from woman without casting aside his deity, or his generation from God the Father, but rather in his assumption of flesh remaining what he was.This is the account of the true faith everywhere professed. So shall we find that the holy fathers believed. So have they dared to call the holy virgin, mother of God, not as though the nature of the Word or his godhead received the origin of their being from the holy virgin, but because there was born from her his holy body rationally ensouled, with which the Word was hypostatically united and is said to have been begotten in the flesh. These things I write out of love in Christ exhorting you as a brother and calling upon you before Christ and the elect angels, to hold and teach these things with us, in order to preserve the peace of the churches and that the priests of God may remain in an unbroken bond of concord and love.

We “dare to call the holy virgin, mother of God, not as though the nature of the Word or his godhead received the origin of their being from the holy virgin, but because there was born from her his holy body rationally ensouled, with which the Word was hypostatically united and is said to have been begotten in the flesh.”
 
Upvote 0

All4Christ

✙ The Handmaid of God Laura ✙
CF Senior Ambassador
Supporter
Mar 11, 2003
11,682
8,018
PA
Visit site
✟1,013,227.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Can you explain that further?

Edit: Nevermind as I am leaving the thread and do not want to cause conflict. God bless
@ToBeLoved I just posted it above; perhaps you could read it anyways even if you leave the thread? For the record, I’m not offended. I’m just sharing the reasons why and explaining our view. You’re more than welcome to stay.
 
Upvote 0

~Anastasia~

† Handmaid of God †
Dec 1, 2013
31,133
17,452
Florida panhandle, USA
✟922,745.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Can you explain that further?

Edit: Nevermind as I am leaving the thread and do not want to cause conflict. God bless
Hi there -

Just wanted to say I don't think you've offended anyone. You're more than welcome to stay. :)

And this section was created specifically so that people who want to can debate questions and issues - I don't think any faith community on CF allows debate otherwise, but the EO wanted to allow it. That doesn't mean we think you are debating. But it does tend to mean we aren't offended.

I think the comment was an observation by someone who is starting to see where debates come from - not that anyone has a problem with you asking.

Do feel free to stay, or read, or ask or reply as you might like. You are welcome here. :)

God be with you.
 
Upvote 0

buzuxi02

Veteran
May 14, 2006
8,608
2,513
New York
✟212,454.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
It's amazing that after 1500 years people are still espousing the Nestorian heresy. And still dont comprehend the Hypostatic union.

The second person of the Trinity assumed humanity taking on flesh from Mary and making it His very own in a real union.
Dividing up His flesh and spirit and natures into parts is nonsensical as we point to the Person who the apostles saw, beheld , dined with, and walked upon this Earth. That historical cohesive person is our starting and ending point Christ our God.
 
Upvote 0

buzuxi02

Veteran
May 14, 2006
8,608
2,513
New York
✟212,454.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
The point being when religion tries to ddiefy Mary. They are going against Jesus Own teaching
It's not to deify Mary, it's to deify her Son from those that deny his divinity.
The acceptance of the term by the Alexandrians would have been nonsensical if Arius was correct. Likewise its incorrect to claim the man Jesus was just a temporary receptacle to house the divine nature. Christ is a hypostatic union of God and man.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Moses Medina
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Tutorman

Charismatic Episcopalian
Jun 20, 2017
1,637
1,349
52
california
✟103,246.00
Country
United States
Faith
Episcopalian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
There's a REASON, that back in the day.. that area was most commonly referred to as "General Heresies", around here!! :eek:

That is still an appropriate title for that place
 
Upvote 0

Tutorman

Charismatic Episcopalian
Jun 20, 2017
1,637
1,349
52
california
✟103,246.00
Country
United States
Faith
Episcopalian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
It's amazing that after 1500 years people are still espousing the Nestorian heresy. And still dont comprehend the Hypostatic union.

It is seemingly that much Protestantism invites heresy
 
Upvote 0