Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: B Knotts

I’m surprised to hear that. I don’t read the religion threads (I decided to wander in a bit just to see what it is like, and I think I’m going to stop soon).

Theotokos seems like an easily understood, precise, and biblical concept (literally, the one who gives birth to God). It clearly indicates that Mary is the woman in whom Jesus was conceived, grew, and was born. And it just as clearly limits her involvement to the physical birth of Jesus.

“Mother of God” is more imprecise, is translated from a different greek word as well, and is often misunderstood to suggest that Mary somehow has an eternal relationship. So when someone says “Mary, Mother of God”, you have to ask “do you mean just the physical birth mother, or do you mean some mystical eternal relationship — and some may go so far as to mistakenly think of Mary as the mother of God the trinity, meaning God the Father as well (I haven’t seen anyone make that mistake here).

I can see why someone might fall into the fallacy of believing only the human part of Jesus was in the womb. That would be the alternative error you would derive from an hypothesis of some limitation of God’s power and control, the OTHER error of which is the belief that Mary must have been sinless.

Meaning that there is a belief among some that God could not exist in the womb of a sinful human. Based on that false premise, some conclude Mary must have been sinless, while others conclude God must not have been in her womb.

They are in one sense two heresies based on the heretical premise that God is somehow limited as to where he can take physical form.

As a counter to that error, one must only look at the scriptures which teach that God the Holy Spirit (as much God as the Father and the Son) indwells the believers, who nonetheless are still sinful creatures, although sinless in the eyes of God through the sacrifice of his Son Jesus).


91 posted on 05/20/2008 10:54:30 AM PDT by CharlesWayneCT (Green, but not gullible)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies ]


To: CharlesWayneCT
Meaning that there is a belief among some that God could not exist in the womb of a sinful human.

That is very clearly not the reasoning behind the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

99 posted on 05/20/2008 11:01:52 AM PDT by B Knotts (Calvin Coolidge Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies ]

To: CharlesWayneCT
I don't read the religion threads (I decided to wander in a bit just to see what it is like, and I think I'm going to stop soon)

I would like to encourage you to stay in the FReligion forum longer. Though I do not always agree with what you post, your posts have brought a much needed breath of fresh air to many of the threads you have visited.

Please reconsider.

BTL

104 posted on 05/20/2008 11:36:07 AM PDT by Between the Lines (I am very cognizant of my fallibility, sinfulness, and other limitations.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson