Replies

At the risk of sounding like a broken record (which I know I do at times), Xzin's, PM, and the rest of of you gentlemen/women are missing the point of view that Kosta as an EOC, and myself as a Lutheran, mean about the title "Mother of God". Read the history of why that title was chosen. It wasn't to say that Mary was the "source" of the second person in the Trinity. The Logos was in the beginning, Mary had a birth date at a set time. But she was the mother of God because of who Jesus Christ is. True God and True man. As the opening chapter of the Gospel of John says, the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. God, who exists beyond and outside of time, became flesh and entered into time. Jesus is God, and died on the cross for our sins. Mary, as the mother of Jesus, the incarnate God man, is therefore the Mother of God. Not because she "made" the second person in the Trinity, but because of the Incarnation.

We aren't missing the point. We are objecting to the title because it adds confusion. You have to remember, half the world these days doesn't understand the concept of the Trinity, what salvation is, let alone the incarnation. If one says, for example, Mary was the mother of the Incarnate Christ - I can go with that. It puts her in the role of Mother of Christ, who is God - but takes out the Father and Holy Spirit in her role as mother.

What flew 1700 years ago in terms of understanding, doesn't necessarily fly today. People are as Biblically illiterate today as they were then (with the clergy and scholarly types being the ones most exposed to Scripture); and the term "Mother of God" causes more problems than it is worth. It can be said in a more clear manner and needs to be clarified is what i believe Xzins, myself and others are saying. We are not denying Jesus' deity. We are not denying that Mary was Jesus' mother. We are trying to clarify her title so that it doesn't seemingly negate Christ's eternal preexistance.