Leaving off tradition what is more a theologically correct term for Mary

[DamianWarS]

Theotokos is a word that means God-bearer or has traditionally come to be know as "Mother of God". Many seem to be "squeamish" over this term but it actually is about protecting Jesus's divinity since conception and is not about putting Mary in a place that somehow influences or contributes to God. Still this term is largely misunderstood and objected to, but to be honest I can understand.

Mary indeed gave birth to a child that was 100% divine and conceived 100% divine but this isn't the whole story. Christ is fully divine and fully human simultaneously and inseparable. To focus on the divine is irresponsible as Mary also gave birth to a child 100% flesh.

Theotokos is a traditional term and it's not the meaning I object to but instead I challenge the word itself as missing the point. This was all hashed out in the council of Ephesus (431) where the bishop of Constantinople, Nestorius, had felt that Christotokos (Christ-bearer, Mother of Christ) was more theologically correct. This and suggesting Jesus had 2 natures (at the time it was contended Jesus had 1 nature) got him exiled but Nestorius was widely misunderstood. He actually agreed with the meaning of Theotokos he just thought Christotokos was more theologically correct.

There's no concil here to condemn anyone. And for the time being let's leave the tradition out this as the term theotokos is well preserved and untouchable... But what is really more theologically correct? Mother of God or Mother of Christ? I suggest Christ better represents the mysteries of fully divine and fully flesh without having the need to unpack it. Certainly the name Christ fully captures who Christ is and it is this that Mary gave birth to.

 

[Philip_B]

I think you are a little kind to Nestorius, and perhaps the Church was a little harsh, however the Church remained absolutely committed to a definitive understanding of John 1:1-18 - kai ho logos sarx egeneto

 

[Hieronymus]

Theotokos is a word that means God-bearer or has traditionally come to be know as "Mother of God". Many seem to be "squeamish" over this term but it actually is about protecting Jesus's divinity since conception and is not about putting Mary in a place that somehow influences or contributes to God. Still this term is largely misunderstood and objected to, but to be honest I can understand.

Sophia is the mother of YHWH God in a sense, according to gnosticism. Sophia created YHWH according to them.
But Mary didn't bare God, she bore the incarnate Word of God, the unique Son of God, who already existed: "Before Abraham was, I am."

Mary indeed gave birth to a child that was 100% divine and conceived 100% divine but this isn't the whole story. Christ is fully divine and fully human simultaneously and inseparable. To focus on the divine is irresponsible as Mary also gave birth to a child 100% flesh.

Theotokos is a traditional term and it's not the meaning I object to but instead I challenge the word itself as missing the point. This was all hashed out in the council of Ephesus (431) where the bishop of Constantinople, Nestorius, had felt that Christotokos (Christ-bearer, Mother of Christ) was more theologically correct.

It is more theologically correct to call her that.

This and suggesting Jesus had 2 natures (at the time it was contended Jesus had 1 nature) got him exiled but Nestorius was widely misunderstood. He actually agreed with the meaning of Theotokos he just thought Christotokos was more theologically correct.

There's no concil here to condemn anyone. And for the time being let's leave the tradition out this as the term theotokos is well preserved and untouchable... But what is really more theologically correct? Mother of God or Mother of Christ? I suggest Christ better represents the mysteries of fully divine and fully flesh without having the need to unpack it. Certainly the name Christ fully captures who Christ is and it is this that Mary gave birth to.

Fair enough i.m.o.
But it wasn't Mary who provided the divine part of Christ, she provided half of the flesh, as women normally do.
She was chosen for this duty mainly (i.i.r.c.) because of her bloodline to David.

Yes, squeamish...
I do have a problem with suggesting God has a mother.
Mary was certainly a blessed woman, nobody will dispute that.

 

[DamianWarS]

I think you are a little kind to Nestorius, and perhaps the Church was a little harsh, however the Church remained absolutely committed to a definitive understanding of John 1:1-18 - kai ho logos sarx egeneto

how does theotokos represent "the Word became flesh"? All I see is a term focused on the divine with no focus on the flesh.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Theotokos is a word that means God-bearer or has traditionally come to be know as "Mother of God". Many seem to be "squeamish" over this term but it actually is about protecting Jesus's divinity since conception and is not about putting Mary in a place that somehow influences or contributes to God. Still this term is largely misunderstood and objected to, but to be honest I can understand.

Mary indeed gave birth to a child that was 100% divine and conceived 100% divine but this isn't the whole story. Christ is fully divine and fully human simultaneously and inseparable. To focus on the divine is irresponsible as Mary also gave birth to a child 100% flesh.

Theotokos is a traditional term and it's not the meaning I object to but instead I challenge the word itself as missing the point. This was all hashed out in the council of Ephesus (431) where the bishop of Constantinople, Nestorius, had felt that Christotokos (Christ-bearer, Mother of Christ) was more theologically correct. This and suggesting Jesus had 2 natures (at the time it was contended Jesus had 1 nature) got him exiled but Nestorius was widely misunderstood. He actually agreed with the meaning of Theotokos he just thought Christotokos was more theologically correct.

There's no concil here to condemn anyone. And for the time being let's leave the tradition out this as the term theotokos is well preserved and untouchable... But what is really more theologically correct? Mother of God or Mother of Christ? I suggest Christ better represents the mysteries of fully divine and fully flesh without having the need to unpack it. Certainly the name Christ fully captures who Christ is and it is this that Mary gave birth to.

Mary is the Mother of Jesus' Humanity, proof that he was also a human being.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Theotokos is the more correct. There are reasons for this and you're right that it was all hashed out in detail.

Anyone who thinks this means Mary somehow preexisted the Holy Trinity or is in any way the mother of God the Father or the Holy Spirit is misinformed.

Many things we (and the Scriptures) say can be misunderstood. That doesn't mean those things are incorrect or should not be said. But we owe it to ourselves to study a matter out and be sure that we understand it before we judge it.

Mary is easily understood to be the mother of Christ's human flesh and nature because she herself is human. That was easy enough for everyone to accept. It was through her that Christ took on human flesh.

What was often misunderstood or tended to be disputed was Christ's divinity, which of course He possesses from eternity and does not derive from nor depend upon the human Mary. So Theotokos, God-bearer, is more correct.

It really shouldn't even be said "Mother of God" because there is another term that means that. Literally Theotokos has more to do with carrying/giving birth to God in the flesh, thus another reason it is more accurate.

But with that said, theanthropotokos says it all, technically.

 

[JackRT]

Mother of Jesus

 

[Tigger45]

I prefer Theotokos (God-bearer) over Mother of God. Its more proper and causes less confusion. My favorite is the biblical phrasing of (mother of my Lord) from Luke 1:43.

 

[Philip_B]

how does theotokos represent "the Word became flesh"? All I see is a term focused on the divine with no focus on the flesh.

John 1:14 references clearly John 1:1, so having established that the Word was with God and the Word was God, we are then told that the Word Became Flesh. the Greek there is sarx egeneto - flesh became.

 

[DeaconDean]

One other alternative not considered.

"καὶ πόθεν μοι τοῦτο ἵνα ἔλθῃ ἡ μήτηρ τοῦ κυρίου μου πρὸς ἐμέ;" -Lk. 1:43 (GNT)

Translated properly:

"And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Messiah should come to me?"

Now lets see how many times I get targeted.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[~Anastasia~]

One other alternative not considered.

"καὶ πόθεν μοι τοῦτο ἵνα ἔλθῃ ἡ μήτηρ τοῦ κυρίου μου πρὸς ἐμέ;" -Lk. 1:43 (GNT)

Translated properly:

"And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Messiah should come to me?"

Now lets see how many times I get targeted.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Why are you translating κυρίου as Messiah instead of Lord? Curious?

Not targeting you btw, but I can see no reason to do so except by extrapolation.

 

[DeaconDean]

Why are you translating κυρίου as Messiah instead of Lord? Curious?

Not targeting you btw, but I can see no reason to do so except by extrapolation.

"κύριος,n \{koo'-ree-os}
1) he to whom a person or thing belongs, about which he has power of deciding; master, lord 1a) the possessor and disposer of a thing 1a1) the owner; one who has control of the person, the master 1a2) in the state: the sovereign, prince, chief, the Roman emperor 1b) is a title of honour expressive of respect and reverence, with which servants greet their master 1c) this title is given to: God, the Messiah"

Source

Any Greek lexicon will show you this.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[~Anastasia~]

"κύριος,n \{koo'-ree-os}
1) he to whom a person or thing belongs, about which he has power of deciding; master, lord 1a) the possessor and disposer of a thing 1a1) the owner; one who has control of the person, the master 1a2) in the state: the sovereign, prince, chief, the Roman emperor 1b) is a title of honour expressive of respect and reverence, with which servants greet their master 1c) this title is given to: God, the Messiah"

Source

Any Greek lexicon will show you this.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Thank you for the reply.

Yes, it is a matter of interpretation then. Christ IS the Messiah, so anything referring to Him could be properly enough inserted "Messiah" or "Christ" or "Word" ... etc.

It's just that κυρίου has a particular meaning (Lord, or Master) so while it is referring to the Messiah in this case, I wondered why you were saying it should be so translated.

Thank you for your reply.

 

[DamianWarS]

John 1:14 references clearly John 1:1, so having established that the Word was with God and the Word was God, we are then told that the Word Became Flesh. the Greek there is sarx egeneto - flesh became.

there is no question "Theos en ho Logos" (ΘΕΟΣ ΗΝ Ο ΛΟΓΟΣ ). However the incarnation uniquely adds an element of flesh which is missing in theotokos. At best theotokos is ambiguous and can point to the Word of God but even then it is missing the incarnation. Mary is only Mother of God as the logos relates to the incarnation since "God" often represents the entire trinity "Mother of God" could invoke a meaning that is heretical and goes beyond the intended meaning of theotokos. Saying Mary is Mother of God requires it to be qualified, or unpacked, for proper understanding however saying Mary is mother of Christ requires no explanations.

Of course for those who do not believe in the deity of Christ this creates problems as Christ is fully God/Man to orthodox Christianity but to others Christ is only a man. They can of course agree with Christotokos an in that case it strips the deity from Christ. However regardless of heretical belief in Christ, Christ is still Christ and still is the incarnate Word of God. Mary is still Christotokos as she did indeed gave birth to Christ and Christ is uniquely the hypostatic union of divine and flesh at conception. Mary is the Mother of Christ, and Christ is incarnate Word of God.

This isn't about challenging tradition but rather honestly approaching the term and asking does theotokos really capture the incarnation best? It certainly captures the divine but with it's missing assertion of the flesh are we just asking for theotokos to be misunderstood? I know dominate thinking within Islam is that Mary is a goddess in Christianity and the god Jesus is the product of a physical relationship between God and Mary so of course they think we are heretics which is no less of label we could give to such a belief system. Nothing of course is further from the truth but for some reason this lie has carried on for the last 1500 years and it still is dominate thinking. We do them no favours when with a tight fist hang on to terminology that will reinforce this thinking.

 

[DeaconDean]

Thank you for the reply.

Yes, it is a matter of interpretation then. Christ IS the Messiah, so anything referring to Him could be properly enough inserted "Messiah" or "Christ" or "Word" ... etc.

It's just that κυρίου has a particular meaning (Lord, or Master) so while it is referring to the Messiah in this case, I wondered why you were saying it should be so translated.

Thank you for your reply.

Really, I don't want to argue, rather, in the Greek, there are numerous ways in which "kurios" can be rendered.

As I said in another thread:

"The emphasis here in Lk. 1:43 is the reference to Jesus as the "Lord", the Messiah" and not Theos (God).

lord (little l) would apply as one who is "lord and master of his own house, land, servants, etc. He has the power to decide as "master" and/or lord. A prime example would be Mt. 18:26. Note the little l.

Caesar, would be another example of "lord" and rightly so because he was the emperor.

Slaves, upon the master entering his house would greet him as "lord". A prime example is Mt. 10:24. Here is the same word, but with the little l.

Rather in this verse, it is reference to His heavenly "title" as Lord (big L), the Messiah."

That is all I wanted to point out.

I'll bow out now.

God Bless

TIll all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

And please, please don't misunderstand what I'm about to say.

If your beliefs mandate you call Mary the Mother of God, fine, God Bless you.

If your beliefs mandate you to use any of the above "terms" in reference to Mary, fine, God Bless you.

I just cannot myself. Being a Baptist and a "Protestant", I stand by scripture as I'm sure you do in tradition. But I cannot find any reference to the above in scripture.

In a very real sense, yes, Mary was the mother of the "Lord", "Messiah", "God", but as I see it, not in the sense as others.

John Gill theologian of the 1700's puts it this way:

"Thus the virgin is said to be the mother of our Lord, and so may be called the mother of God; because she was parent of that child, which was in union with him, who is truly Lord and God:"

John Gill, Exposition of the Whole Bible, Luke 1:43

Anyway, I've said enough.

I don't want to start contention.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DamianWarS]

Thank you for the reply.

Yes, it is a matter of interpretation then. Christ IS the Messiah, so anything referring to Him could be properly enough inserted "Messiah" or "Christ" or "Word" ... etc.

It's just that κυρίου has a particular meaning (Lord, or Master) so while it is referring to the Messiah in this case, I wondered why you were saying it should be so translated.

Thank you for your reply.

I agree "kurios" is too ambiguous but then again so is "theos". Neither fully represents the incarnate Word of God. "Logos", even more specific, still has no emphasis on the flesh.

theotokos, kuriotokos, logotokos...

all could represent Mary and then by extension Christ but are too broad and do not uniquely identify the incarnation. Christ has to be 100% divine but we miss the point when we fail to include that he also has to be 100% flesh.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I agree "kurios" is too ambiguous but then again so is "theos". Neither fully represents the incarnate Word of God. "Logos", even more specific, still has no emphasis on the flesh.

theotokos, kuriotokos, logotokos...

all could represent Mary and then by extension Christ but are too broad and do not uniquely identify the incarnation. Christ has to be 100% divine but we miss the point when we fail to include that he also has to be 100% flesh.

Well ... that's what I mentioned before. Mary is obviously a human person so there was no real debate that the flesh Christ received from her was human.

The question was whether she carried His Divinity within her - or more precisely, whether He Himself possessed that Divinity in conjunction with His physical body from an early point - such as prior to birth even.

THAT is why she is called Theotokos - the bearer of one who IS God.

I understand the discomfort it can cause especially to modern Protestants who are wary of the excess of devotion demonstrated by some in communion with Rome. I was a good Baptist for many years myself and understand that and sympathize with it.

I think the problem with the question is that it would seem to be an attempt to reinterpret the question based on this end of history and our sensibilities today. I understand that desire. It's just that I would vote instead to go back to the Apostolic beginning and take on THAT understanding, and correct whatever needs to be corrected due to our modern sensibilities and concerns.

The Church has already existed for 2000 years. If we were to constantly reinterpret according to the current age, it would be in a terrible muddle by now (and some parts of Christianity are, since one can find pretty much any doctrine and it's contra taught by SOMEone, and sometimes broadly taught). Many denominations are flailing and folding under current social and scientific pressure. (And I'm not talking about evolution, I'm talking about the "impossibility" of miracles like a virgin birth and the resurrection of a dead man.)

I do understand your point. But it's not really about Mary, and it's not really about Christ's human flesh. Those things should be settled already, is all I'm saying. But I do understand the desire for a nice tidy term to sum it all up in, and that would not be theologically incorrect. It simply should be theologically unnecessary, with a proper foundation.

No arguments intended - forgive me if I've accidentally come off that way. That is not my purpose at all.

 

[~Anastasia~]

And please, please don't misunderstand what I'm about to say.

If your beliefs mandate you call Mary the Mother of God, fine, God Bless you.

If your beliefs mandate you to use any of the above "terms" in reference to Mary, fine, God Bless you.

I just cannot myself. Being a Baptist and a "Protestant", I stand by scripture as I'm sure you do in tradition. But I cannot find any reference to the above in scripture.

In a very real sense, yes, Mary was the mother of the "Lord", "Messiah", "God", but as I see it, not in the sense as others.

John Gill theologian of the 1700's puts it this way:

"Thus the virgin is said to be the mother of our Lord, and so may be called the mother of God; because she was parent of that child, which was in union with him, who is truly Lord and God:"

John Gill, Exposition of the Whole Bible, Luke 1:43

Anyway, I've said enough.

I don't want to start contention.

God Bless

Till all are one.

No worries - I'm not at all looking to argue and I'm usually very slow to take offense. I have folks trying to offend me on a regular basis.

In thinking about it, I suppose it's translation style - whether one translates exactly directly or does a wee bit of interpreting at the same time. Both methods have their place, though the trick is whether or not you trust whoever is doing the interpreting. In studying Greek, I've stumbled upon a number of cases of bias that had crept into the translations that I wasn't aware of before I knew the source text. But sometimes such interpretations can be immensely helpful. For myself, I'd prefer them inserted as footnotes, but some readers really do better to have their translation done in that way.

I really was merely curious. And no intent to argue.

And I can understand the Baptist balking at such a title. I felt the same way initially until I became familiar with the early discussions, etc. It is worth noting these objections somewhere for the sake of those who would be unable to read those, so that they don't come away with a wrong understanding either. It really is a shame that we are not all one, all teaching truth, and preventing such things from potentially leading anyone into error one way or another. May God have mercy on us all.

 

[DeaconDean]

And I can understand the Baptist balking at such a title. I felt the same way initially until I became familiar with the early discussions, etc. It is worth noting these objections somewhere for the sake of those who would be unable to read those, so that they don't come away with a wrong understanding either. It really is a shame that we are not all one, all teaching truth, and preventing such things from potentially leading anyone into error one way or another. May God have mercy on us all.

Thank you for the kind words.

Like I said, we all have a certain clinging to "traditions", beliefs, practices, etc. That is why I said if you belief mandates ______________ fine, God Bless you.

I was also unaware of some things until I took Greek in seminary. In fact, I was told I interpreted to strict. (Literally word-for-word)

Just take solace that one day we indeed will be All are one. (And I don't mean Catholic, or EO, Or Baptist, or anything).

I'm looking for that day when we will be "All are one in Christ".

God Bless

Till all are one.