Replies

What really bothers me is that no attempt is made to address our concerns. We are insulted, told that we are dancing the same dance, moving the goalposts, extrapolating, blaspheming, not answering their questions, etc. It’s as if they have been taught that when they cannot refute a statement, that the best response is to do anything rather than give a direct response to the specific statement.

I tried to engage you on this topic ... post #656 ... but was ignored.

But I do see the 3 of you talking circles around each other.

Here's my historical/Biblical take on this matter...I'll even quote a Catholic to kick things off:

"In the fourth century a bishop of Constantinople named Nestorious...wanted to call Mary only 'Mother of Christ'; he feared that the title 'Mother of God' would confuse the divine and human aspects of Jesus. The church in the East rose up to reject Nestorius' view. To deny that Mary was the mother of God was to deny either that Jesus is God or that Mary was truly his mother. A general council of bishops at Ephesus in 431 A.D. declared, 'If anyone does not confess that God is truly Emmanuel, and that on this account the holy virgin is the mother of God (for according to the flesh she gave birth to the Word of God become flesh by birth), let him be anathema (condemned)." (Alan Schreck, Catholic and Christian, pp. 175 - 176)

"Nestorious, patriarch of Constantinople, championed the term 'Mother of Christ,' while Cyril of Alexandria favored 'Mother of God. The Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431) decided in favor of Cyril." (Geisler & MacKenzie, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences, p. 299)

So...resettozero...a key historical part of all this was to fend off the Nestorian heresy...and to rightly NOT divide Jesus as to being only human, or being only divine...but that He is both human and divine...in, fact, eternally so.

I'm a Protestant. I've notice how Protestants, especially NOT having carefully reviewed church history, tend to "knee jerk" response to the phrase "Mother of God" primarily (IMO) because we know God the Father and God the Holy Spirit had no mother, and the Son of God, none from eternity past.

The historical church has pointed to the Greek word Theotokos as the original descriptive phrase -- "Mother of God":

"Harold O.J. Brown comments concerning theotokos: 'The term, which means 'God-bearing one' (not precisely 'Mother of God,' as it is frequently translated), originally was descriptive of the man Jesus, born of Mary' (Heresies: The Image of Christ, p. 172). Theotokos, therefore, was designed to say more about Jesus than to glorify Mary." (Geisler & MacKenzie, ibid)

IoW, Christmas is really more about Christ...than any characters in the Nativity. And Who is glorified by Who we focus upon in things like Christmas is really one of the points I was making (especially toward the end) of my post #656 which...btw... was ignored by all the Catholics on this thread.

So while church fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries referenced Mary as the "Mother of God," a more precise meaning of the Greek word has ALWAYS been "God-bearing one" (which may be a difference of no account, but probably at least sounds less provocative to the average Protestant).

And the main point of Post #656 is that guess, what?

We as the church across the board are "god bearing ones!"

For the Holy Spirit indwells us as his flesh-and-blood temple. Yet does that make us the "mother of the Holy Spirit?"

But is this post -- and #656 -- really meant to play down our role (or Mary's role)? I don't think so ... for to be "god bearers" is something of great honor. Of great privilege. Of great esteem.

And yet it's overwhelmingly humbling.

So, yes, Mary is the "god-bearing one" (Theotokos). Why argue that historical reality? 'Cause really it's frankly a settled point.

Let's instead discuss if Mary is overglorified by that reality by some segments of those who call Jesus their Lord.

'Cause, let's face it: We, too, are a collective theotokos. Roman Catholics, I challenge you to your face: Is the Holy Spirit any LESS divine than our Lord Jesus Christ who indwelled Mary?

And, yes I understand "why" when a Catholic book says "The springtime month of May is popularly devoted to Mary" due to it being the month of "Mothers Day" (Greg Dues, Catholic Customs & Traditions, p. 128).

But the rest of the overemphasize upon Mary is frankly bizarre:
* "Just as Sunday had always been devoted to Jesus Christ, Saturday eventually became Mary's Day. This tradition was promoted in Carolingian times by Alcuin (d. 804). A votive Mass in Mary's honor has commonly been offered on Saturday throughout modern times." (ibid)
* "The month of October is dedicated to Mary under the theme of the rosary because of the feast of Our Lady of the Rosary on October 7." (Dues, p. 129)
* And even with the history of the rosary, Dues mentions how "by the early 12th century, Hail Marys were substituted for the Our Fathers..." (p. 128)

5 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, NO ONE can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. (John 3)

My take is that whenever one giving birth is emphasized to the total exclusion of a rebirth -- recognizing that Mary herself was "born of the spirit" (lest not being able to enter our Lord's kingdom) -- imbalance sets in.

IF we are speaking ONLY about Mary, and not her son, then her rebirth is of vital emphasis! Seems clear from Scripture to me, that she confessed being a sinner (Luke 1:46), and she offered a sacrifice for her sinful condition (Luke 2:22). So her rebirth in our Lord is a great celebration!

Otherwise, we, too, as "god-bearers" (of the Holy Spirit) --
--were we to stress His indwelling
to the expense of failing to recognize the necessity of our own rebirth
-- would likewise be as what's deemed imbalanced re: the Roman Catholic approach to Mary.