Replies

I think that the problem A8 has with you statements, is that you are saying that Mary is the Mother of God (since Jesus is God and Mary was His mother, though the second person of the Trinity existed before Mary), and then saying you don't believe what you just said you believe (which is BTW the standard definition of Mary as the Mother of God).

What you are saying, is that Mary is not the mother of the divinity of the second person in the Trinity. Which she is not, but that wasn't what the term "Mother of God" was developed to explain.

In short, you both are speaking the same words in different manner. Both are right, and both are wrong, depending on what the emphasis is.

I don't believe Mary, Mother of God is a correct title to use for Mary. I do believe she was the mother of the human part of Jesus, but not the divine part. Yet, unlike Nestorius, I believe that Jesus's divinity and humanity were a unity. He was one person with two natures unified within Himself. Mary gave birth to a man who was also God, but she didn't give Him His Godhood. She gave him His manhood. When I say this, I am accused of Nestorianism as if I believe that Jesus had two Separate natures and Mary was the mother of one of these Separate natures. Jesus is who He was. He was fully divine. He was fully human. They would imply that if I believe that Mary is not the mother of the divinity, that I am speaking heresy and denying Christ's divinity. Such is not the case. Like the doctrine of the trinity, I believe fully in Jesus as God-Man. And, I believe Mary was the mother of Jesus. But believe it is improper to call her mother of God because God entails more than just the person of Jesus. It entails the person of the Holy Spirit and the Father. She isnt' the mother of the Holy Spirit or the Father and can not be the mother of God the Son as God - else, God is divisible. So, I call her what the Bible calls her. Mother of Jesus, blessed among women.