Replies

Then she couldn't have been His mother - AS GOD. She was His mother as MAN. He had no mother as God. She was mother to Him as human.

The fact that the Second Person of the Trinity pre-existed Mary (and in fact created her) is perfectly compatible with her being the mother of the Second Person of the Trinity. The Person that came from her womb was the Second Person of the Trinity. Yes He pre-existed her and created her. But nevertheless, He came forth from her womb. And hence it is true that she is the mother of the Second Person of the Trinity. Moreover, since the Second Person of the Trinity is God, it therefore follows that she is the mother of God.

To call her mother of God implies that God had a beginning -

Only to ignorant and untrained ears.

-A8

No matter which side we take in this debate, I think it should be clear that with the Incarnation, who Mary and who Jesus is become inherently entwined.

We are late to this debate, it's been going on since the beginning of our faith. And we shouldn't pretend that we don't need to concern ourselves with what Nestor or Arius said or taught centuries ago. Because heresy, like Orthodoxy is renewed or rejected with each generation.

We can take different sides, however, I think we cannot say the debate and the doctrine is not important or that its history is of no value to us today.

Not to ignorant and untrained ears. To natural ears. You change the definition of Mother to get where you are getting. I don't mean to be crude here which is why I'm taking it out of the Mary context. Here is a story for you. September 1726: The Woman Who Gave Birth to Rabbits
Mary Toft
18th-century depiction of Mary Toft
Mary Toft, a young woman in the town of Godalming located in the south of England, began to give birth to rabbits. Her condition soon attracted the attention of medical doctors who watched, to their amazement, as she produced one rabbit after another. The King sent his personal physicians to witness the phenomenon, and they reported back that it was not a fraud. Mary was transported to London, but under constant supervision she failed to produce any more rabbits. Sir Richard Manningham declared that he should surgically examine her to determine where the rabbits were coming from, and at that point she confessed that she had been putting them there herself when no one was looking. Remarkably, a year later she reportedly gave birth to a healthy human baby, despite the damage that she must have done to herself in the course of the rabbit deception.

Now this incident was obviously a hoax (and a very sick one at that); and I will admit that it is an awful illustration to try to make my point (but please take it for the point that I'm trying to make not for the crudity of the illustration). The rabbits were already rabbits before they were in her body. But, because they passed through her body, does this make her the Mother of the Rabbits? Of course not. First, she placed them there (whereas the Holy Spirit placed the incarnate Christ into Mary's womb through miraculous means). Second, she contributed NOTHING to their being rabbits or beginning (Just a Mary contributed NOTHING to Jesus's deity which existed before he was ever in her womb). Mary's womb was a vessel that God chose to dwell in for 9 months. In that way, it was no different than a house for God. However, in the miracle of the incarnation God became a Man. This aspect of his nature is what Mary contributed to. Not his deity. She gave him no beginning. She gave him not one shred of His deity. She contributed NOTHING to His being God. He passed through her birth canal to become a man. She contributed to His humanity. As God, he needed no physical nourishment. As man, he took nourishment from her blood supply in the womb and from her body outside of the womb. Yes, her Son was indeed God - but the emphasis should eternally be upon Him and not on Mary. If you want to say that Mary is mother of Jesus who was God - I have no objection. To take the emphasis off of Christ, however, and use a phrase like Mary mother of God, I do take issue.