Ainesis said:
Pardon me tlf, but although I may understand why some believe this title to be appropriate, it certainly does not mean that I must agree.
We are not talking about what "some" mean by it . . we are talking about what 1.4 BILLION people mean by it!!!
hardly "some" . ..
What I "do know better than" is to accept the beliefs of others that I do not find substantiated in Scripture. So, while we may have different approaches here, please do not assume that my failure to agree with you here means I am not aware of your position on the matter.
We are not talking about accepting the "beliefs" of others . . we are talking about accepting the definition of the word as given by those who created the word . . nothing more . .
You keep trying to redefine it and make your definition the legitimate one . . what are your qualificiations for doing so?
I see 1.4 billion people using this word
IN THE EXACT SAME WAY with the
EXACT SAME UNDERSTANDING as the Early Church who
DEFINED what it meant!
I see "some" christians who keep on "protesting" a false definition of that word, one they made up, one based on misunderstnding . .
Theotokos will
NEVER mean what you say it means ..
EVER .. .. and you can't make it mean something it has never meant and will never mean . .
You, and everyone else too, has one of two choices . .
continue to promote a myth and a lie, perpetuating the misunderstndings between the Catholic Church and Protestant denominations . .
or accept the truth . .. and be a vessel of healing . .
Jesus is both fully God and man. To recognize both aspects of Jesus' inseparable nature is to recognize mary as the mother of the God-man Jesus.
The title of "mother" in no way assumes the attributes of humanity are inherent for even dogs have mothers. Conversely, if mary had been divine, she still would have been His mother.
Yes, but do dogs have
HUMAN mothers?
I made my point above . . and we do not call the
"'mother" of a dog "Mother" . .we call her "a b*tch" . .
It seems that some don't want to give up the false idea that Catholics and Orthodox believe Mary is somehow divine and that we worship her . .
It has been explained before this is not true, and has never been true for the 2000 years of Church history, and will never be true .
There is no divine mother in Christianity . .
There is a human mother, her name is Mary, she can only, humanly speaking, give brith to another human ..
She can only, by divine intervention, give brth to God . .
Mother (human) of God
Christ, fully man, fully God.
The term Theotokos was proclaimed as a CHRISTOLOGICAL WORD to combat hereise that either denied His full humanity (MOTHER) or is full Divinity (of God).
That is the ancient formula and meaning . .
That is what it means today for 1.4 billion people . .
It does not mean what you say it imeans to ANYONE other than those who wish to find fault, even if false, with the Catholic and/or Orthodox Church.
If that is not what you intend when you use the phrase, then great. It would appear then that we agree on what the basis of truth is in terms of who Jesus is. What is all of the fuss about?
We agree on this l . the fuss is that people argue that it means Catholics believe Mary came first, and God came from Mary as if she were the cause of God from all eterninty . . and that we have made her divine ..
When we explain our words and are told we are wrong, that is also a prolbem.
You tell me what all the fuss is about? Why insist on a definition you have been told is not correct?
You are free to refer to mary as you choose. It still does not change the fact that both natures of Jesus are not relayed in that title, even though I understand that you may use it with that implicit understanding. I understand what you say you mean, I am looking merely at what it says.
Thank you, however, I disagree with you . . you are not looking at what it says . . you are looking at what you think it says . .
The ones who drafted it are the ones who get to define what it says .. and they said it is Christological and means Christ was fully man and fully God . .
It is not how "I" use it .. it is how the Church has ALWAYS used it . .
As for this causing a rift, I suppose that is only possible if the title means more to you than the meaning it presumes to convey.
Not at all . .
It comes as the result of people claiming it means something it does not, and thus fostering and perpetuating the idea that Catholics and Orthodox hold Mary in a position equal to God and that we treat her as though she is divine . .
If you understand what we mean by this word now, it would be greatly appreciated if you would work towards helping other Protestants understand what it means as well . .
Thanks.
Peace to all!