Replies

Another great Biblical post. Bears repeating--MAYBE with a tad of Quixicated editorializing:

For me, the issue goes to the importance of a name and most especially, a Name of God.

After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. - Matthew 6:9

The Names of God are so important, He specifically warned us never to diminish them:

And ye shall overthrow their altars, and break their pillars, and burn their groves with fire; and ye shall hew down the graven images of their gods, and destroy the names of them out of that place. Ye shall not do so unto the LORD your God. - Deuteronomy 12:3-4

That, btw, is why the Jews type G_d instead of God - so they do not accidentally erase a Name of God.

And it is why the Jewish mystics refer to God the Creator as Ayn Sof which literally means "no thing." The point is that any time we sincerely use a word to describe God, we reduce Him in our own minds to the limits of our language. Or to put it another way, no mortal words can define God and when we use them that way then we are mentally creating a reduced false image of a 'god' who is not God, an idol.

Another example, though not in the language of words but of art is the beautiful albeit woefully misleading Michaelangelo painting "The Creation of Adam" showing Adam and God touching fingers. It presents God as an old gray-haired man on a cloud. That is not God but a reduction of Him.

Which brings me back to the titles given to creatures in an attempt to reveal Who God IS by description of the creature.

The title "Mother of the Incarnate Word" does not require a footnote in the mind of the hearer because God the Creator's Name is Word and the phrase "mother of the incarnate" further defines Mary, a creature.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. – John 1:1-4

The title "Mother of God" on the other hand requires a footnote, because taken as a phrase it reduces the Name of God, God, by suggesting that God has a mother whereas God's Name is I AM and Alpha. There is no one before Him.

I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. - Revelation 1:8

And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. – Exodus 3:14

Remember the former things of old: for I [am] God, and [there is] none else; [I am] God, and [there is] none like me, - Isaiah 46:9

Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. – John 8:58

As another example, meditate concerning the title Vicar of Christ v. Vicar of God, which evidently Nicholas III used.

So just like admiring the beautiful Michaelangelo painting with a younger requires us to then explain that God is not an old gray-haired man on a cloud, using the title "Mother of God" with a younger requires us to explain that there was no thing and no one and no time before God. Otherwise the younger may walk away with a reduced image of God, a false 'god' of his own imagining.

Good name in man and woman, dear my lord, Is the immediate jewel of their souls: Who steals my purse steals trash; 'tis something, nothing; 'Twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands: But he that filches from me my good name Robs me of that which not enriches him And makes me poor indeed. - Shakespeare (Othello, Act III)

Therefore, I prefer the title "Mother of the Incarnate Word" Arius notwithstanding.

God's Name is I AM.

6,498 posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2010 12:13:01 PM by Alamo-Girl