Mother of God

[BNR32FAN]

The problem is the inference of an undivided human and divine nature of Mary. Obviously, like begets like and if Mary were merely an ordinary human sinner like the rest of us she could never have begotten God.

How can we say she was without sin if she was born from man? Was she immaculately conceived?

 

[bbbbbbb]

It is because Mary is human that her Son is human. It is because He is also God that Mary is the mother of God. There is no inference of an undivided human and divine nature of Mary.

Perhaps you failed to understand the post to which I responded.

"The reason for this doctrine of Mary as the mother of God was to refute those who wanted to split Christ into two, one physical and one divine. But Christ's divine and human natures are united."

 

[bbbbbbb]

How can we say she was without sin if she was born from man? Was she immaculately conceived?

A certain denomination has a dogma (something which must be believed in order to be saved) that insists that Mary was immaculately conceived. This denomination has numerous churches called, "Immaculate Conception".

 

[prodromos]

Perhaps you failed to understand the post to which I responded.

"The reason for this doctrine of Mary as the mother of God was to refute those who wanted to split Christ into two, one physical and one divine. But Christ's divine and human natures are united."

I understood it fine. Perhaps you haven't understood mine.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I understood it fine. Perhaps you haven't understood mine.

That might be true. Would you care to clarify it for me?

 

[XRho]

Mary is the Mother if God the Word. St. Joachim and St. Anna are the ancestors (grandparents) of God. Christ became truly human (will remaining truly divine). He was not just a God walking in the appearance of man. He wast truly man. And truly God. This of course Mary is really the mother Of God

 

[FireDragon76]

Of course, Mary is the mother of God. In the end, this is a Christological doctrine.

Luke 1:43 has Elizabeth saying "But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?""

 

[Kalboon]

I am gathering from this thread that Mary is attributed mothership of God owing to emphasising that she biologically conceived God the Son Jesus Christ.

I also gather from scripture that God the Son was conceived of God the Holy Spirit and that God the Father declares him His Son.

The miraculous conception is the hypostatic union of God and Man. However, the pressing question is who willed and initiated the Hypostatic Union?

Mary would be informed that her child is conceived of God the Holy Spirit and yet her will in this regard was required in which she responded let God do what he pleases with his servant.

When taking into account these pertinent facts, Mary is not the initiator who made the Hypostatic Union happen. This implication brings us to the concluding fact find that Mary is not the mother of the Hypostatic Union.

The miraculous birth is God’s doing and Mary humbled herself as a servant to allow God to come into the world by his own miraculous hand.

Mary can not be credited for the Hypostatic Union because she neither willed it nor originated it as a natural flesh and bone mother. Mary would be credited for being a biological mother of Jesus only.

Disclaimer: Humanity created in the Image of God is not tied down to flesh for we received our humanity from the Hypostatic Union before the Hypostatic Union came into the world in flesh. Our humanity is never ours to begin with for it was his all along and he created us after his likeness in what we are he was always as the uncreated LOGOS/Word. This requires wisdom for understanding that the Hypostatic Union before the incarnation was, he was and never changed natures or was never separate in natures as Nestoros taught.

If Mary is the mother of Jesus biologically and we all agree, how can one when emphasising a natural woman to a biological reproductive system be credited the miraculous conception of the Hypostatic Union as an Author?

Note, Mary is not the Author of the Hypostatic Union, but we know that if she is to rightly be explained as the mother of God theologians need to prove that Mary authored the miraculous birth herself and thereby making her the author and mother of the Hypostatic Union.

The Nicene Creed declares the members of the Trinity coequal and coeternal and are uncreated.

Does that make the miraculous Hypostatic Union of the Living Word of God Jesus Christ a created being biologically speaking?

Absolutely not!

So as the Nicene Creed states Jesus the Living Word is uncreated and is God of God and Light of Light.

So the Hypostatic Union is of an uncreated being and since we must hold to the Nicene Creed, the Hypostatic Union does not have a mother or a father from a natural and/or biological perspective.

I am trying to work out what can be credited to Mary without obfuscating people in any way.

The Hypostatic Union is uncreated and is God of God and Light of Light, because the Living Word is the same from before the world was created, even forever and ever.

The Hypostatic Union cannot be thought of theologically as anything to do with the natural biology or natural reproductive system of a woman and or the definition of the concept of beginning because anything with a beginning is a created being having a father and a mother from a reproduction system.

The Hypostatic Union is uncreated and does not have a beginning and the logic that has previously been used by theologians may be breaking the Nicene Creed.

Theologians are saying since Jesus is the Hypostatic Union of God and Man, then Mary is the mother of The Hypostatic Union, implying that the Hypostatic Union is Created and has a beginning and this in itself produces a dilemma because God is uncreated and has no beginning and to say that God was separate having two natures at any given point in time before and after the miraculous conception of our Lord Jesus Christ, then this falls in line with Nestorianism, which unwittingly places two natures separate before the incarnation implying that something before and after were separate is a Nestorian heresy and is against the Nicene Creed which declares the Living Word as uncreated.

So the logic of Mary being a mother of the Hypostatic Union implies by logic a Nestorian Heresy that goes against the Nicene Creed.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

But Jesus Christ is God? Yes?

Yes, but what is finite can't give birth to what is infinite.

plus, God is triune(Father, Son, Spirit).

 

[bbbbbbb]

Yes, but what is finite can't give birth to what is infinite.

plus, God is triune(Father, Son, Spirit).

Picky, picky, picky. Mary is also the mother of Love, because God is love, and Jesus Christ is God, and Mary is the mother of Jesus Christ. Mary is also the mother of all creation, because Jesus Christ is the Word, and the Word created all that there is. In fact, there is hardly anything at all of which Mary is not the mother.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

Picky, picky, picky. Mary is also the mother of Love, because God is love, and Jesus Christ is God, and Mary is the mother of Jesus Christ. Mary is also the mother of all creation, because Jesus Christ is the Word, and the Word created all that there is. In fact, there is hardly anything at all of which Mary is not the mother.

cool story bro..

 

[Kalboon]

I am gathering from this thread that Mary is attributed mothership of God owing to emphasising that she biologically conceived God the Son Jesus Christ.

I also gather from scripture that God the Son was conceived of God the Holy Spirit and that God the Father declares him His Son.

The miraculous conception is the hypostatic union of God and Man. However, the pressing question is who willed and initiated the Hypostatic Union?

Mary would be informed that her child is conceived of God the Holy Spirit and yet her will in this regard was required in which she responded let God do what he pleases with his servant.

When taking into account these pertinent facts, Mary is not the initiator who made the Hypostatic Union happen. This implication brings us to the concluding fact find that Mary is not the mother of the Hypostatic Union.

The miraculous birth is God’s doing and Mary humbled herself as a servant to allow God to come into the world by his own miraculous hand.

Mary can not be credited for the Hypostatic Union because she neither willed it nor originated it as a natural flesh and bone mother. Mary would be credited for being a biological mother of Jesus only.

Disclaimer: Humanity created in the Image of God is not tied down to flesh for we received our humanity from the Hypostatic Union before the Hypostatic Union came into the world in flesh. Our humanity is never ours to begin with for it was his all along and he created us after his likeness in what we are he was always as the uncreated LOGOS/Word. This requires wisdom for understanding that the Hypostatic Union before the incarnation was, he was and never changed natures or was never separate in natures as Nestoros taught.

If Mary is the mother of Jesus biologically and we all agree, how can one when emphasising a natural woman to a biological reproductive system be credited the miraculous conception of the Hypostatic Union as an Author?

Note, Mary is not the Author of the Hypostatic Union, but we know that if she is to rightly be explained as the mother of God theologians need to prove that Mary authored the miraculous birth herself and thereby making her the author and mother of the Hypostatic Union.

The Nicene Creed declares the members of the Trinity coequal and coeternal and are uncreated.

Does that make the miraculous Hypostatic Union of the Living Word of God Jesus Christ a created being biologically speaking?

Absolutely not!

So as the Nicene Creed states Jesus the Living Word is uncreated and is God of God and Light of Light.

So the Hypostatic Union is of an uncreated being and since we must hold to the Nicene Creed, the Hypostatic Union does not have a mother or a father from a natural and/or biological perspective.

I am trying to work out what can be credited to Mary without obfuscating people in any way.

The Hypostatic Union is uncreated and is God of God and Light of Light, because the Living Word is the same from before the world was created, even forever and ever.

The Hypostatic Union cannot be thought of theologically as anything to do with the natural biology or natural reproductive system of a woman and or the definition of the concept of beginning because anything with a beginning is a created being having a father and a mother from a reproduction system.

The Hypostatic Union is uncreated and does not have a beginning and the logic that has previously been used by theologians may be breaking the Nicene Creed.

Theologians are saying since Jesus is the Hypostatic Union of God and Man, then Mary is the mother of The Hypostatic Union, implying that the Hypostatic Union is Created and has a beginning and this in itself produces a dilemma because God is uncreated and has no beginning and to say that God was separate having two natures at any given point in time before and after the miraculous conception of our Lord Jesus Christ, then this falls in line with Nestorianism, which unwittingly places two natures separate before the incarnation implying that something before and after were separate is a Nestorian heresy and is against the Nicene Creed which declares the Living Word as uncreated.

So the logic of Mary being a mother of the Hypostatic Union implies by logic a Nestorian Heresy that goes against the Nicene Creed.

Disclaimer: Humanity created in the Image of God is not tied down to flesh for we received our humanity from the Hypostatic Union before the Hypostatic Union came into the world in flesh. Our humanity is never ours to begin with for it was his all along and he created us after his likeness in what we are he was always as the uncreated LOGOS/Word. This requires wisdom for understanding that the Hypostatic Union before the incarnation was, he was and never changed natures or was never separate in natures as Nestoros taught.

 

[prodromos]

I am gathering from this thread that Mary is attributed mothership of God owing to emphasising that she biologically conceived God the Son Jesus Christ.

I also gather from scripture that God the Son was conceived of God the Holy Spirit and that God the Father declares him His Son.

The miraculous conception is the hypostatic union of God and Man. However, the pressing question is who willed and initiated the Hypostatic Union?

Mary would be informed that her child is conceived of God the Holy Spirit and yet her will in this regard was required in which she responded let God do what he pleases with his servant.

When taking into account these pertinent facts, Mary is not the initiator who made the Hypostatic Union happen. This implication brings us to the concluding fact find that Mary is not the mother of the Hypostatic Union.

The miraculous birth is God’s doing and Mary humbled herself as a servant to allow God to come into the world by his own miraculous hand.

Mary can not be credited for the Hypostatic Union because she neither willed it nor originated it as a natural flesh and bone mother. Mary would be credited for being a biological mother of Jesus only.

Disclaimer: Humanity created in the Image of God is not tied down to flesh for we received our humanity from the Hypostatic Union before the Hypostatic Union came into the world in flesh. Our humanity is never ours to begin with for it was his all along and he created us after his likeness in what we are he was always as the uncreated LOGOS/Word. This requires wisdom for understanding that the Hypostatic Union before the incarnation was, he was and never changed natures or was never separate in natures as Nestoros taught.

If Mary is the mother of Jesus biologically and we all agree, how can one when emphasising a natural woman to a biological reproductive system be credited the miraculous conception of the Hypostatic Union as an Author?

Note, Mary is not the Author of the Hypostatic Union, but we know that if she is to rightly be explained as the mother of God theologians need to prove that Mary authored the miraculous birth herself and thereby making her the author and mother of the Hypostatic Union.

The Nicene Creed declares the members of the Trinity coequal and coeternal and are uncreated.

Does that make the miraculous Hypostatic Union of the Living Word of God Jesus Christ a created being biologically speaking?

Absolutely not!

So as the Nicene Creed states Jesus the Living Word is uncreated and is God of God and Light of Light.

So the Hypostatic Union is of an uncreated being and since we must hold to the Nicene Creed, the Hypostatic Union does not have a mother or a father from a natural and/or biological perspective.

I am trying to work out what can be credited to Mary without obfuscating people in any way.

The Hypostatic Union is uncreated and is God of God and Light of Light, because the Living Word is the same from before the world was created, even forever and ever.

The Hypostatic Union cannot be thought of theologically as anything to do with the natural biology or natural reproductive system of a woman and or the definition of the concept of beginning because anything with a beginning is a created being having a father and a mother from a reproduction system.

The Hypostatic Union is uncreated and does not have a beginning and the logic that has previously been used by theologians may be breaking the Nicene Creed.

Theologians are saying since Jesus is the Hypostatic Union of God and Man, then Mary is the mother of The Hypostatic Union, implying that the Hypostatic Union is Created and has a beginning and this in itself produces a dilemma because God is uncreated and has no beginning and to say that God was separate having two natures at any given point in time before and after the miraculous conception of our Lord Jesus Christ, then this falls in line with Nestorianism, which unwittingly places two natures separate before the incarnation implying that something before and after were separate is a Nestorian heresy and is against the Nicene Creed which declares the Living Word as uncreated.

So the logic of Mary being a mother of the Hypostatic Union implies by logic a Nestorian Heresy that goes against the Nicene Creed.

Mary is the mother of the person, Jesus the Christ, who is also the 2nd person of the Holy Trinity. She is not the mother of the hypostatic union.

 

[Kalboon]

Mary is the mother of the person, Jesus the Christ, who is also the 2nd person of the Holy Trinity. She is not the mother of the hypostatic union.

Right and thanks! She is not the mother of the Hypostatic Union.

The Hypostatic Union is uncreated (Nicene Creed) and is the personhood of the second member of the Trinity (The LOGOS/Word) who breathed HIS Humanity into Adam, so that we bore his Humanity.

The Hypostatic Union is there in the Garden and in person as the Living Word. Walking in the Garden and talking with Adam and Eve.

The Hypostatic Union existed before the Incarnation and He is uncreated, God of God and Light of Light (Nicene Creed).

The Hypostatic union is God and Humanity, that is one nature inseparable and is not tied to flesh (terrestrial man of the Earth).

The Hypostatic Union is the second member of the Trinity unchanged from before the Creation of the World.

The Hypostatic Union is the same person Jesus the Christ.

 

[Cis.jd]

I am waiting for the next two threads. The first will be that Mary is the Mother of Love. The logic is crystal clear. Jesus is God and God is Love. Scripture explicitly states the latter, thus Mary is the Mother of Love.

The second is not quite as clear, although equally logical. Mary's Son was blind. This is a little-recognized fact. This is because Jesus is God, God is Love, and Love is blind.

I guess based on your arguments. Love = Pain. So God is the God of Love, that means God is the God of Pain.,

 

[bbbbbbb]

I guess based on your arguments. Love = Pain. So God is the God of Love, that means God is the God of Pain.,

Yep, that makes Mary the Mother of Pain, as well.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Yep, that makes Mary the Mother of Pain, as well.

Yet not Scripturally. And not in the life abiding in Jesus.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I guess based on your arguments. Love = Pain. So God is the God of Love, that means God is the God of Pain.

As written in Hebrews, "for our sake" so to speak - God uses pain and suffering to wean us away from religion to wean us away from all of man's ways of thinking, to wean us away from selfishness,
to start thinking the way God wants us to think.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Yet not Scripturally. And not in the life abiding in Jesus.

Very true, but Scripture plays a much smaller role in Catholic theology, as I am sure you know, than Tradition does.

 

[Cis.jd]

As written in Hebrews, "for our sake" so to speak - God uses pain and suffering to wean us away from religion to wean us away from all of man's ways of thinking, to wean us away from selfishness,
to start thinking the way God wants us to think.

i think you didnt get my post. you take things way too literally.