Thank you for your heart efforts very much. What I see - and I in no way intend to denigrate Mary - is that she as a normal human young woman who was brought up well with a knowledge, respect and love for God and who was part of the blessed kingly bloodline of David. I am sure she was a great child growing up, helpful, obedient, respectful. No information came out from her family pertaining to her sinless nature. I wonder about why since this would be quite extrordinary, wouldn't you think? A toddler that didn't scream and shreik NO at the top of her lungs?
Growing up she never lied, always cleaned her room without being asked, never was hurtful to siblings, always shared her toys, obeyed Mom and Dad about averything? This admittedly unusually well behaved girl must have had some talk about her going on. But there's nada. Someone like this would have been unusual for that time yet no manuscripts or letters anywhere mention this phenomenon. Her family never told anybody about her? It just makes me wonder about the Sinlessness of Mary angle, and why it was so important.
It was obviously very important that she be a virgin and God chose her to be the mother of the Christ. She assented to the angel's pronouncement as scared as she must have been, yet her faith in God was greater than her fear. The tiny little embryo was formed from her ova through the miracle of the incarnation. Within her body that baby developed for nine months and God made sure she was norished and protected. Jesus was born from her body and she was the first to hold him in her arms, kiss him, carress his head and nurse his hungry tummy. She did all the things a loving and caring mother would do and she and Joseph made sure Jesus was well educated and raise in the nurture of the Lord.
She stayed with him until he died and even went to the tomb after he was buried. She remained as one of the disciples waiting for him in the upper room at Pentecost. She truly was a remarkable and faithful woman. One we should all look to as an example of faithfulness.
That Jesus was both divine and human in the same person proved he was Almighty God incarnate - in the flesh. That she was/is the mother of the Son of God, of Jesus Christ, of the incarnate Word who is Jesus Christ is undeniable. She is a human mother of a God-Man. The human part, the flesh and blood part that God chose to indwell was living inside Mary and gave forth from her body. I believe that at no time was the divine nature seperate from the human nature even as that developing embryo/fetus. It was still Him.
But because the Son, Jesus, existed from before all time he never had a beginning. He has always been one with the Father. Mary then as his mother was mother to this incarnate Jesus. Jesus is God and he WAS God before he took upon flesh. A deep subject to contemplate, I agree, but I just don't think the title "Mother of God" suits her. She was the bearer of God in the flesh. Mother of the Incarnate God Jesus Christ.
Jesus is God and he WAS God before he took upon flesh. A deep subject to contemplate, I agree, but I just don't think the title "Mother of God" suits her. She was the bearer of God in the flesh, Mother of the Incarnate God Jesus Christ.
Be careful, because you've just asserted the Catholic truth about Jesus AND about Mary and expressed it very clearly, except for the opinion that "Mother of God" doesn't suit her.
Yes, she was the Theotokos (in Greek, God-bearer), a title which refers to Mary as the Mother of God. Nestorius didn't want her to be called that, as he tried to separate the two natures of Christ and turn him into two persons.
Some more background, expressed in a far better way than I can do at this late hour (or any hour, for that matter):
http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2bvm37.htm
By the fourth century, the term Theotókos was frequently used in the East and West. Devotion and theology refer more and more to this term, which had by now become part of the Church's patrimony of faith.
One can therefore understand the great protest movement that arose in the fifth century when Nestorius cast doubt on the correctness of the title "Mother of God". In fact, being inclined to hold that Mary was only the mother of the man Jesus, he maintained that "Mother of Christ" was the only doctrinally correct expression. Nestorius was led to make this error by his difficulty in admitting the unity of Christ's person and by his erroneous interpretation of the distinction between the two natures—divine and human—present in him.
In 431 the Council of Ephesus condemned his theses and, in affirming the subsistence of the divine and human natures in the one person of the Son, proclaimed Mary the Mother of God.
3. Now, the difficulties and objections raised by Nestorius offer us the opportunity to make several useful reflections for correctly understanding and interpreting this title. The expression Theotókos, which literally means, "she who has begotten God", can at first sight seem surprising; in fact it raises the question as to how it is possible for a human creature to give birth to God. The answer of the Church's faith is clear: Mary's divine motherhood refers only to the human begetting of the Son of God but not, however, to his divine birth. The Son of God was eternally begotten of God the Father, and is consubstantial with him. Mary, of course, has no part in this eternal birth. However, the Son of God assumed our human nature 2,000 years ago and was conceived by and born of Mary.
In proclaiming Mary "Mother of God", the Church thus intends to affirm that she is the "Mother of the Incarnate Word, who is God". Her motherhood does not, therefore, extend to all the Trinity, but only to the Second Person, the Son, who, in becoming incarnate, took his human nature from her.
Motherhood is a relationship of person to person: a mother is not only mother of the body or of the physical creature born of her womb, but of the person she begets. Thus having given birth, according to his human nature, to the person of Jesus, who is a divine person, Mary is the Mother of God.