Posted on 03/27/2015 2:04:10 PM PDT by Colofornian
No.
Spirits don't have mothers. You have to have a human nature to have a mother.
You're kind of missing the whole point of "Theotokos". It was to point out the utter mystery at the heart of the faith: God became man.
Not God became co-located with man, or God indwelt man, or God found a man he really liked, or anything like that. God became man: one divine person, with two natures, one human, one divine.
There are other saints given the title “God-Bearer” (in Greek Theophorus) (for instance, St. Ignatius the God-Bearer of Antioch, as the Third Bishop of Antioch is usually titled) and to the extent that the Holy Spirit dwells in any of us, we too are, indeed God-Bearers.
However, the word “Theotokos”, does not indicate one who bore God in the sense of carrying Him (though that is true of Mary, who is also titled “More Spacious than the Heavens” because she carried the uncontainable God within her womb), but one who bore God in the sense of giving birth to Him. The best, albeit cumbersome, Englishing of “Theotokos” would be “Birth-Giver of God”, which is why we Orthodox Christians tend to just keep the Greek word as the proper title of the Blessed Virgin Mary, rather then Englishing it as either “Mother of God” or “Birth-Giver of God.”
One of the first things I learned, aeons ago when I first began learning a ‘foreign’ language, is that some things JUST DON’T TRANSLATE. I knew I was getting somewhere when I was laughing at the jokes in a comic book, and realized that there was no way I could adequately re-cast the joke in English.
Yes.
Not God became co-located with man...
(And here we thought Jesus' address for 33 years was "Planet Earth")
Spirits don't have mothers. You have to have a human nature to have a mother.
You're kinda missing the point. Here's what I wrote in the article:
Just as Mary simply relented in order to enflesh Jesus, we, too as His Body simply acquiese to "embody" the Holy Spirit...We, too, are a collective theotokos.
Mary was a god-bearer; so is Jesus' Bride, the Church. See: John 14:16-17; 1 Cor. 3:16-17; 6:19; 2 Cor. 6:16; Eph. 3:16; Eze. 36:26-27; 37:14
You're kind of missing the whole point of "Theotokos". It was to point out the utter mystery at the heart of the faith: God became man.
Right. The ultimate Mystery.
But the Holy Spirit is no less divine...so you're not "getting the point": That is Utter Mystery 2.0 (the Sequel)
And that is:
How can The Divine One -- the Spirit -- inhabit mere men? And no, not men He "really liked"...but men redeemed by the blood of the Lamb.
I mean it's wonder enough how the Son of God from eternity became man. (I think C.S. Lewis once compared that to a man becoming a frog to save the frogs of the earth)
With Jesus, He didn't need to assume a body "of sin."
With the Holy Spirit, as He transforms us (2 Cor. 3:18), He is at times "grieved" by us or "quenched" by us. Yet He remains inhabited in us; embodying us.
And, yes, not just "any" body does the Holy Spirit inhabit, but the pluralized, universalized "Body of Christ"
27 Now YOU ARE THE BODY OF CHRIST, and each one of you is a part of it. (1 Cor. 12)
Mystery 2.0
Yes. We embody the Holy Spirit; likewise, Jesus was enfleshed within Mary.
However, the word “Theotokos”, does not indicate one who bore God in the sense of carrying Him (though that is true of Mary, who is also titled “More Spacious than the Heavens” because she carried the uncontainable God within her womb), but one who bore God in the sense of giving birth to Him. The best, albeit cumbersome, Englishing of “Theotokos” would be “Birth-Giver of God”, which is why we Orthodox Christians tend to just keep the Greek word as the proper title of the Blessed Virgin Mary, rather then Englishing it as either “Mother of God” or “Birth-Giver of God.”
Yes. We not only embody the Holy Spirit, but also BEAR His fruit (Galatians 5:22).
38 Whoever believes in me, as Scripture has said, rivers of living water will flow FROM within them.” 39 By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified. (John 7)
This Spirit remains NOT simply contained, but flows FROM us!
“This Spirit remains NOT simply contained, but flows FROM us!”
Yes, but it doesn’t physically gestate within us as a child. Thus, Mary is the mother of God because Jesus is God and she gave birth to Him. The Holy Spirit has never been PHYSICALLY carried by a woman in her womb since the Spirit has no physicality.
#1...The Holy Spirit is not an impersonal "it"...and your reductionism to that level basically convinces me you don't even know Him!!!
#2...In the article itself, I reference this phrase of Jesus: "Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit" (John 3:6)
How can your "physical" comment blunder past such a basic spiritual distinction Jesus makes? IoW, why would you even expect that who is Spirit would automatically generate some physical manifestation?
It's as if we were talking about the tri-unity components of water: Flowing water, vapor, and ice. All is water. But ice isn't vapor. And flowing water isn't (usually) ice.
You might zero in upon all the manifestations of ice. I might highlight how the same things apply to vapor.
But if you then said, "But vapor doesn't CONCRETELY PHYSICALLY..." XYZ, I'd say, "Duh! It's vapor! Nothing 'concrete' about vapor!"
The Holy Spirit has never been PHYSICALLY carried by a woman in her womb since the Spirit has no physicality.
Okay, God's choice of Mary's womb was unique. We won't see a 6-foot-tall Jesus-like miracle replicated in any womb.
But guess what? The body of Christ has expanded:
Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. (1 Cor. 12:27)
Once who was localized in the Middle East, is now universalized. Once who was singular, is now plural. "Christ in you, the hope of glory," Jesus told the Colossians (1:27)
Jesus isn't simply in heaven. He is omnipresent. He promised to be with His followers "even unto the end of the age." (Matt. 28:20)
So the new (spiritual) "womb" -- is the Church. The Holy Spirit flows from her (John 7:38-39).
“#1...The Holy Spirit is not an impersonal “it”...and your reductionism to that level basically convinces me you don’t even know Him!!!
What it convinces you of is meaningless. My point still stands. The Holy Spirit has no body. Can you refute that?
“#2...In the article itself, I reference this phrase of Jesus: “Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit” (John 3:6)”
All you’re doing is proving that my original point is unassailable. Thanks.
“How can your “physical” comment blunder past such a basic spiritual distinction Jesus makes?”
No blunder is made or needed. The Holy Spirit has no body. Jesus does.
“IoW, why would you even expect that who is Spirit would automatically generate some physical manifestation?”
If the issue is “Mary ‘Mother of God’=Church ‘Mother of Holy Spirit?’(Are we not god-bearers-’theotokos’-too?[Vanity]” then the defining aspect will be whether or not a physical person can give birth to a non-physical being. And that answer is no.
“It’s as if we were talking about the tri-unity components of water: Flowing water, vapor, and ice. All is water. But ice isn’t vapor. And flowing water isn’t (usually) ice.”
The problem with your analogy is that it is no analogy at all. We are not talking about “tri” aspects of Mary for there are none. Also, there are no “tri-unity components of water”. Flowing water, vapor and ice are all water, not components of water.
“You might zero in upon all the manifestations of ice. I might highlight how the same things apply to vapor.”
And NONE of that has anything to do with Mary’s motherhood.
“But if you then said, “But vapor doesn’t CONCRETELY PHYSICALLY...” XYZ, I’d say, “Duh! It’s vapor! Nothing ‘concrete’ about vapor!””
Your analogy fails again, because vapor is still matter, not Spirit. Vapor molecules are still MOLECULES. That’s physical matter. Spirit is not matter.
“Okay, God’s choice of Mary’s womb was unique. We won’t see a 6-foot-tall Jesus-like miracle replicated in any womb. But guess what? The body of Christ has expanded:”
Not His physical body. His mystical body, yes. Best examinations on the scriptures on this:
“So the new (spiritual) “womb” — is the Church. The Holy Spirit flows from her (John 7:38-39).”
I would rather put it this way:
“God…has established one sole order composed of two parts: nature exalted by grace, and grace vivifying nature. He has not confused these two orders, but he has coordinated them. One force alone is the model and one thing alone the motive principle and ultimate end of divine creation: Christ…All the rest is subordinated to Him. The goal of human existence is to form the Mystical Body of this Christ, of this Head of the elect, of this Eternal Priest, of this King of the immortal Kingdom and the society of those who will eternally glorify Him.” L’enciclica del 8 dicembre by Matteo Liberatore, S.J. (La Civiltà Cattolica, VI, i, 1865, pp. 287-288)
Whether the Holy Spirit is impersonal or Personal is meaningless?
That you could be that ignorant of the Bible and presume to then try to convey much of worth from it is meaningless?
The problem with your analogy is that it is no analogy at all. We are not talking about “tri” aspects of Mary for there are none.
Sorry, stay focused if you're going to enter a conversation addressing a specific target: Review post #7 of yours: "Mary" was not where you entered the conversation; instead, the child was: Or do I have to remind you?
...it doesn’t physically gestate within us as a child. -- and then you added -- also focusing on the Holy Spirit and the internal womb: "The Holy Spirit has never been PHYSICALLY carried by a woman in her womb...
So the greater focus of my response to you was to use an analogy addressing where you entered the conversation -- and that was to zero on who was being enfleshed.
Flowing water, vapor and ice are all water...
Yes, as the Holy Spirit, the Father, and the Son are all divine...
And NONE of that has anything to do with Mary’s motherhood.
Again, stay focused upon where you initially entered the convo. You didn't come out talkin' 'bout Mary; you addressed the "gestated child," one being "carried," and the residency of a child (womb).
Your analogy fails again, because vapor is still matter, not Spirit. Vapor molecules are still MOLECULES. That’s physical matter. Spirit is not matter.
It wasn't meant to be a molecule-for-molecule perfect analogy! (You would be the type to take issue with Jesus parables or hyperboles, and would get wrapped up in lecturing Jesus that a camel just wouldn't be able to physically trudge molecule-for-molecule thru the eye of a needle!)
Not His physical body. His mystical body, yes.
(Except His mystical body is made up of physical people. So I guess given what you've said in the post, I have to remind you that this "mystical body" is stretch with billions & billions & billions of molecules!)
“Whether the Holy Spirit is impersonal or Personal is meaningless?”
Where did I EVER SAY THAT? I said this: “What it convinces you of is meaningless.” Do you see what is referred to as meaningless there? “WHAT IT CONVINCES YOU OF IS MEANINGLESS.” Do you see that now?
That was in regard to YOUR STATEMENT: “#1...The Holy Spirit is not an impersonal “it”...and your reductionism to that level basically convinces me you don’t even know Him!!!”
Now, are you going to deal with what I ACTUALLY SAID or are you going to make up things I never said and suggest I said them?
“Sorry, stay focused if you’re going to enter a conversation addressing a specific target:”
What an incredible statement - and terribly hypocritical - considering you just made something up I never said and suggested I said it.
“You didn’t come out talkin’ ‘bout Mary;”
REALLY? Here is what I wrote: “Yes, but it doesn’t physically gestate within us as a child. Thus, Mary is the mother of God because Jesus is God and she gave birth to Him.”
Did you see the word “Thus”? Do you know what that means? My SECOND SENTENCE in the thread mentions Mary and “Thus” indicates the second sentence’s content is directly related to the content of the first. So don’t now tell me some nonsense like “You didn’t come out talkin’ ‘bout Mary;”
Seriously, why are making things up?
“It wasn’t meant to be a molecule-for-molecule perfect analogy!”
Your analogy wasn’t even an analogy of kind. It fails as an analogy. All analogies have limits but yours is completely unworkable.
“(You would be the type to take issue with Jesus parables or hyperboles, and would get wrapped up in lecturing Jesus that a camel just wouldn’t be able to physically trudge molecule-for-molecule thru the eye of a needle!)”
Actually, no. I can see why you would make something up like that since that’s what you’ve been doing so much of lately, however.
“(Except His mystical body is made up of physical people.”
But the defining aspect of our sharing in the mystical body is our soul, not our body. That is how we remain in the mystical body even after the death of our physical body while we await the resurrection. Surely that has occurred to you before hasn’t it?
“So I guess given what you’ve said in the post, I have to remind you that this “mystical body” is stretch with billions & billions & billions of molecules!)”
Actually souls have no molecules. And even though we are talking about people with bodies your point is meaningless since Jesus’ physical body does not change (we do not add to it in any way) and His mystical body has no mass or volume precisely because IT IS MYSTICAL.
You said in post #9: The problem with your analogy is that it is no analogy at all. We are not talking about “tri” aspects of Mary for there are none.
My analogy wasn't primarily a response in post #7 to Mary. So why did you make it that? Why would you even expect that, given what you wrote in post #7?
In post 7, this was the order of what you talked about:
a. "it" (Holy Spirit)
b. comparison to a gestated child (also internal)
c. Mary as mother
d. Jesus as (preborn/born) child
e. Holy Spirit (& whether He's been) carried by a woman
f. the womb (also internal)
So, in your 48 words in post #7, you essentially address these six subjects -- all of which (except c.) focus on the internal: a child in gestation, a child's preborn place of residency (womb), a child to be born & is born, the one being carried by a woman, and two references to the indweller (Holy Spirit). In contrast to that, only ONE reference to Mary.
So then because you didn't recognize that my analogy was geared to that Indweller, you suddenly thought I should have responded to your single Mary reference & would have ignored most of what you said!
Come on now. If somebody's 83.4% of their mere 48-word 3 sentences zero in on the child, the internal dimension, the Indweller, & then you complain how the analogy doesn't fit the "Mom" -- your 16.6% of the subject matter -- & then when that's all pointed out to you, you fall back on, "Whaddya mean I didn't talk about Mary? She's right there in the second sentence?" As if a single reference would trump 2 references to the Indweller, a gestated child, a baby being carried, a baby's place of residency (womb), & Jesus as preborn/born child?
And I have to spend all this time explaining to you what you somehow have seemingly forgotten (or choose to ignore) what you wrote? Are you kidding me?
Between these statements ... along with how you think you can reference the Holy Spirit as an "it" and then, when called on that, just slide right on by with an "oh, what does that matter? type of comment in post #9: "What it convinces you of is meaningless. My point still stands." essentially sizes up your weasel approach to conversations.
“So, in your 48 words in post #7, you essentially address these six subjects...”
No, I essentially address TWO.
1) Yes, but it doesn’t physically gestate within us as a child.
2) Thus, Mary is the mother of God because Jesus is God and she gave birth to Him.
1) The Holy Spirit has never been PHYSICALLY carried by a woman in her womb since the Spirit has no physicality.
So your math is as off as your analogies which are as bad as the false things you make up.
“And I have to spend all this time explaining to you what you somehow have seemingly forgotten (or choose to ignore) what you wrote?”
I forgot nothing. But if I were to forget something that would only be forgetting something rather than making up something no one said or did (which seems to be your MO).
“Are you kidding me?”
Nope.
**Yes, but it doesn’t physically gestate within us as a child. Thus, Mary is the mother of God because Jesus is God and she gave birth to Him.**
The Son of God doesn’t even mention a woman when speaking of his physical beginning. He gives God the credit: “Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body thou hast prepared me.......Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.” Heb. 10:5,7
God is invisible, and God is in Christ. Jesus told you that.
John told you that. Paul told you that. But, you seem determined not to believe that.
Is Jesus Christ the Son of God? (Go ahead, you can answer it. It’s not a trick question. That way you can answer something, since you probably won’t respond to the rest.)
“The Son of God doesn’t even mention a woman when speaking of his physical beginning.”
The Holy Spirit did. Luke 1:31. Gabriel was speaking for the Lord too don’t forget.
My point was who was being credited for supplying the Son with a body. As per Heb. 10:5, the Son credited God with preparing him a body.
In Luke 1:31, God told Mary what God was going to do. Mary said, essentially: yes sir.
Mary is the mother of Jesus humanity ... nothing more.
I sometimes thing you all are on the precipice of arguing she is the mother of His deity as well.
Here is a very short part of what we chanted for an hour and a half last night at church:
“The Archangel was sent from Heaven to cry: Rejoice! to the Theotokos. And beholding You, O Lord, taking bodily form, he stood in awe, and with his bodiless voice he cried aloud to her such things as:
Rejoice, you through whom joy shall shine. Rejoice, you the Redemption of the tears of Eve.
Rejoice, Height hard to climb for human thought. Rejoice, Depth hard to explore even for the eyes of Angels.
Rejoice, for you are the Throne of the King. Rejoice, for you sustained the Sustainer of all.
Rejoice, Star that causes the Sun to appear. Rejoice, Womb of the divine Incarnation.
Rejoice, you through whom creation is renewed. Rejoice, you whom the Creator is born a Babe.
Rejoice, O Bride Ever-Virgin”
Here’s a link to the entire chant almost all in English. If anyone wants to know and understand what in fact The Church believes about the Most Holy Theotokos, this will provide that knowledge. Lex orandi, lex credendi!
http://lent.goarch.org/akathist_hymn/listen/
You obviously didn’t even read the article
Such a thing is asserted only by those who fail to recognize the one holy, catholic and apostolic catholic church. It is never asserted by those who do recognize the one holy, catholic and apostolic church.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.