Mary, the mother of God
- Thread starter aspen
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
- Status
J
This is still borderline Nestorianism, though, which is heretical. The Catholic doctrine defines it as a Hypostatic union, which is a fancy way of saying Jesus is both God and man. So perhaps I was wrong, there is a third option. And that is Nestorianism, or slicing Jesus in two.
However, does that not weaken the crucifixion? If Jesus' body was a "shell" to borrow your term, what sort of sacrifice is shedding your shell?
Of course Jesus existed before Mary. Christ said, "Before Abraham was, I AM." Father and Son are of the same substance and co-eternal. I would never deny that. What I am denying is that Jesus is separable. As the Incarnation, He was man and God simultaneously. You cannot divide Him like that.
"Mother of God," at least so far as the original term and definition are concerned, means just that: Mary was the Mother of the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Trinity Jesus Christ, who was One Person of A Single Nature and A Single Essence.
That is a mouthful, though, so we say "Mother of God."
However, does that not weaken the crucifixion? If Jesus' body was a "shell" to borrow your term, what sort of sacrifice is shedding your shell?
Of course Jesus existed before Mary. Christ said, "Before Abraham was, I AM." Father and Son are of the same substance and co-eternal. I would never deny that. What I am denying is that Jesus is separable. As the Incarnation, He was man and God simultaneously. You cannot divide Him like that.
"Mother of God," at least so far as the original term and definition are concerned, means just that: Mary was the Mother of the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Trinity Jesus Christ, who was One Person of A Single Nature and A Single Essence.
That is a mouthful, though, so we say "Mother of God."
Pretty sure there will be no resolution on this thread. Great post Lil Rush. I think Jesus knew the problems the future would hold in people worshiping his mother and this is why he said
Matthew 12:46-50 (King James Version)
46While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.
47Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.
48But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?
49And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! 50For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.
I'm certain you've heard this before buth thought i'd post it nonetheless. Jesus knew you'd have issues with this Aspen, so he addressed it.
Much Love & discernment in Christ to all who enter in to this discussion.
Matthew 12:46-50 (King James Version)
46While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.
47Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.
48But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?
49And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! 50For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.
I'm certain you've heard this before buth thought i'd post it nonetheless. Jesus knew you'd have issues with this Aspen, so he addressed it.
Much Love & discernment in Christ to all who enter in to this discussion.
L
I have never heard of nestorianism or hypostatic union until today. I don't spend much time studying fancy doctrines. I just read the Bible. When reading the Bible, I come to the understanding that Mary gave birth to a human being. Period. If people want to make fancy doctrines out of something as simple as that, okay.
God creates the spirit, inserts the spirit into our bodies sometime between conception and birth, and we become a fleshly being with a spirit within us. I am separating nothing by saying this. I never said Jesus was man at one point and God at another. I said Mary gave birth only to flesh, and not to the spirit, because Mary cannot form a spirit in her womb. Only God can. The spirit and the flesh can co-exist, but both are not formed by DNA. Mary is only the mother of Christ's DNA. She is not the mother of His Spirit. (I realize I'm repeating myself, but I feel like if I say it enough in as many different ways as possible, you might get what I'm saying. Maybe not).
You don't have to agree with that, but that is what the bible says. A human cannot create a spirit. Mary cannot create God.
God creates the spirit, inserts the spirit into our bodies sometime between conception and birth, and we become a fleshly being with a spirit within us. I am separating nothing by saying this. I never said Jesus was man at one point and God at another. I said Mary gave birth only to flesh, and not to the spirit, because Mary cannot form a spirit in her womb. Only God can. The spirit and the flesh can co-exist, but both are not formed by DNA. Mary is only the mother of Christ's DNA. She is not the mother of His Spirit. (I realize I'm repeating myself, but I feel like if I say it enough in as many different ways as possible, you might get what I'm saying. Maybe not).
You don't have to agree with that, but that is what the bible says. A human cannot create a spirit. Mary cannot create God.
J
Lil-Rush,
I'm sure you're intelligent and probably enrolled in some sort of post-secondary education, or perhaps you're working. Regardless, it is one thing to just straight read something and another to reflect on it, meditate it, and consider the repercusions of what you read. In short, there is a difference between reading for pleasure (a fine endevour, of course) and reading critically and with the goal to really wrestle with and mull over your material.
These "fancy doctrines" are just that. The result of good, godly people trying to understand this awesome God we serve, and his complexity. "'Come, let us reason' says the LORD," is what it says in Isaiah. Theology is just reason and thought and logic, as limited as those things are, applied to Scripture and religious experience. These doctrines don't come from somebody's hat, but rather from centuries upon centuries of debate, discussion, prayer, etc.
See, when I read the Bible, I don't read that Mary gave birth to a human being. I read that, through her, God came into the world as a man. God, the creator of heaven and earth. He formed gravitational constants and the laws of physics, he made the complex systems in our bodies. He's the brain behind miracles like photosynthesis and the water cycle. He made this solar system in such a specific way that this little blue planet would be full of beauty and life.
He is that powerful, and yet He came to us as a human baby, through a young unwed mother. It is unfathomable! The Creator of the Universe manifested Himself as a man, lived with His creation, loved it, walked with it, and bled for it. He accomplished this in a mystical way that still perplexes us.
However, study of Scripture, prayer, and logic have, in my opinion, made it clear that Mary is the Mother of the Incarnation of the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity. The Trinity being a single God in three persons but of one substance. Mary didn't create God, but she bore Him in her womb in an awesome display of the Creator entering his Creation and dying so that it won't. Mary didn't "just bear Jesus" because you can't have "just Jesus." What does the Shema Yisrael say, after all? "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one."
I'm sure you're intelligent and probably enrolled in some sort of post-secondary education, or perhaps you're working. Regardless, it is one thing to just straight read something and another to reflect on it, meditate it, and consider the repercusions of what you read. In short, there is a difference between reading for pleasure (a fine endevour, of course) and reading critically and with the goal to really wrestle with and mull over your material.
These "fancy doctrines" are just that. The result of good, godly people trying to understand this awesome God we serve, and his complexity. "'Come, let us reason' says the LORD," is what it says in Isaiah. Theology is just reason and thought and logic, as limited as those things are, applied to Scripture and religious experience. These doctrines don't come from somebody's hat, but rather from centuries upon centuries of debate, discussion, prayer, etc.
See, when I read the Bible, I don't read that Mary gave birth to a human being. I read that, through her, God came into the world as a man. God, the creator of heaven and earth. He formed gravitational constants and the laws of physics, he made the complex systems in our bodies. He's the brain behind miracles like photosynthesis and the water cycle. He made this solar system in such a specific way that this little blue planet would be full of beauty and life.
He is that powerful, and yet He came to us as a human baby, through a young unwed mother. It is unfathomable! The Creator of the Universe manifested Himself as a man, lived with His creation, loved it, walked with it, and bled for it. He accomplished this in a mystical way that still perplexes us.
However, study of Scripture, prayer, and logic have, in my opinion, made it clear that Mary is the Mother of the Incarnation of the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity. The Trinity being a single God in three persons but of one substance. Mary didn't create God, but she bore Him in her womb in an awesome display of the Creator entering his Creation and dying so that it won't. Mary didn't "just bear Jesus" because you can't have "just Jesus." What does the Shema Yisrael say, after all? "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one."
so Jordan, what of the scripture I quoted? & your condesending tone to LilRush is noted and honestly, she is one who truly questions everything she is taught so to say that she would have come to a conclusion without first spending much time in thought would be an incorrect assessment of who she is as a believer. You can continue in defense of your Holy Catholic Church, thats ok, my husband used to do that as well. What I want to know is what do you and aspen make of Matthew 12?
L
I have nothing against fancy doctrines, and such. I refer to commentaries when studying the Bible, but if I find a doctrine contradicts the bible, I reject it. No matter how many theologians support that belief, I will stick with what the Bible says first before I stick with what some theologians hypothesize.
Theologians, like scientists, can be wrong. Scientist thought the world was flat until it was proven otherwise. Those were all smart, educated, well-respected scientists saying the world was flat, but they were all wrong. This does not mean everything they believed was wrong. It just means they were wrong about that one specific thing. Likewise, theologians can study the Bible and come up with a theory about some point of the Bible, but that does not mean they are right.
And so, before I ever turn to theologians and their doctrines, I prefer to read the original source first(ie, the Bible). If I then read a theologian who says otherwise, I know that despite all the evidence they provide, they are wrong.
Theologians, like scientists, can be wrong. Scientist thought the world was flat until it was proven otherwise. Those were all smart, educated, well-respected scientists saying the world was flat, but they were all wrong. This does not mean everything they believed was wrong. It just means they were wrong about that one specific thing. Likewise, theologians can study the Bible and come up with a theory about some point of the Bible, but that does not mean they are right.
And so, before I ever turn to theologians and their doctrines, I prefer to read the original source first(ie, the Bible). If I then read a theologian who says otherwise, I know that despite all the evidence they provide, they are wrong.
Hi lil, I loved your post.
you have Nestorianism, from Nestorius, Arch Bishop of Constantinople (ad428), he separated the 2 natures of Christ, so as to make his unity nearly impossible. he was kicked out, but spent the rest of his life in mission work.
On the other side of the coin you have, 'Eutychianism' Eutyches, was an outspoken opponent of Nestorius. he went so far as to say that while there where 2 natures before the incarnation, there was only one composite nature after it, this is also wrong as it implies a third person. Eutyches was condemned ad 448, However was rather dubiously reinstated ad 449 at Ephesus.
Both these where wrong, so basically the dudes in charge of the churches got together to articulate what was the nature of God incarnate.
They had a council meeting at chalcedon in ad 451, although not agreed upon by everyone at the meeting, it has become the basis of what we believe today.. they called this as Jordan says Hyostatic union (hypostasis).
basically put: the incarnation involved: the union in one person of a full human nature and a full divine nature. Chalcedon expressed this in careful balance: the two natures are united in this hypostatic (i.e, personal) union 'without confusion , without change, without division, without separation'.
You made total sense to me lil
this we do have in common with RC's,.
How Jesus got Hios sinless nature, is a different story and where I believe the RC's Have went unbiblical.
Hope that helps a little bit lil. it probably won't as my spelling and grammer are not the best..
phil
you have Nestorianism, from Nestorius, Arch Bishop of Constantinople (ad428), he separated the 2 natures of Christ, so as to make his unity nearly impossible. he was kicked out, but spent the rest of his life in mission work.
On the other side of the coin you have, 'Eutychianism' Eutyches, was an outspoken opponent of Nestorius. he went so far as to say that while there where 2 natures before the incarnation, there was only one composite nature after it, this is also wrong as it implies a third person. Eutyches was condemned ad 448, However was rather dubiously reinstated ad 449 at Ephesus.
Both these where wrong, so basically the dudes in charge of the churches got together to articulate what was the nature of God incarnate.
They had a council meeting at chalcedon in ad 451, although not agreed upon by everyone at the meeting, it has become the basis of what we believe today.. they called this as Jordan says Hyostatic union (hypostasis).
basically put: the incarnation involved: the union in one person of a full human nature and a full divine nature. Chalcedon expressed this in careful balance: the two natures are united in this hypostatic (i.e, personal) union 'without confusion , without change, without division, without separation'.
You made total sense to me lil
this we do have in common with RC's,.
How Jesus got Hios sinless nature, is a different story and where I believe the RC's Have went unbiblical.
Hope that helps a little bit lil. it probably won't as my spelling and grammer are not the best..
phil
L
Hi lil, I loved your post.
you have Nestorianism, from Nestorius, Arch Bishop of Constantinople (ad428), he separated the 2 natures of Christ, so as to make his unity nearly impossible. he was kicked out, but spent the rest of his life in mission work.
On the other side of the coin you have, 'Eutychianism' Eutyches, was an outspoken opponent of Nestorius. he went so far as to say that while there where 2 natures before the incarnation, there was only one composite nature after it, this is also wrong as it implies a third person. Eutyches was condemned ad 448, However was rather dubiously reinstated ad 449 at Ephesus.
Both these where wrong, so basically the dudes in charge of the churches got together to articulate what was the nature of God incarnate.
They had a council meeting at chalcedon in ad 451, although not agreed upon by everyone at the meeting, it has become the basis of what we believe today.. they called this as Jordan says Hyostatic union (hypostasis).
basically put: the incarnation involved: the union in one person of a full human nature and a full divine nature. Chalcedon expressed this in careful balance: the two natures are united in this hypostatic (i.e, personal) union 'without confusion , without change, without division, without separation'.
You made total sense to me lil
this we do have in common with RC's,.
How Jesus got Hios sinless nature, is a different story and where I believe the RC's Have went unbiblical.
Hope that helps a little bit lil. it probably won't as my spelling and grammer are not the best..
phil
you have Nestorianism, from Nestorius, Arch Bishop of Constantinople (ad428), he separated the 2 natures of Christ, so as to make his unity nearly impossible. he was kicked out, but spent the rest of his life in mission work.
On the other side of the coin you have, 'Eutychianism' Eutyches, was an outspoken opponent of Nestorius. he went so far as to say that while there where 2 natures before the incarnation, there was only one composite nature after it, this is also wrong as it implies a third person. Eutyches was condemned ad 448, However was rather dubiously reinstated ad 449 at Ephesus.
Both these where wrong, so basically the dudes in charge of the churches got together to articulate what was the nature of God incarnate.
They had a council meeting at chalcedon in ad 451, although not agreed upon by everyone at the meeting, it has become the basis of what we believe today.. they called this as Jordan says Hyostatic union (hypostasis).
basically put: the incarnation involved: the union in one person of a full human nature and a full divine nature. Chalcedon expressed this in careful balance: the two natures are united in this hypostatic (i.e, personal) union 'without confusion , without change, without division, without separation'.
You made total sense to me lil
this we do have in common with RC's,.
How Jesus got Hios sinless nature, is a different story and where I believe the RC's Have went unbiblical.
Hope that helps a little bit lil. it probably won't as my spelling and grammer are not the best..
phil
J
Lil-rush,
That is great and I don't think you'll ever meet a good Christian who does otherwise. The problem is that people can come to different conclusions from the same Scriptures, and have been doing so for centuries. You say that the Marian dogmas contradict the Bible, and I say they don't. Yet we read the same Bible and the same Gospels, which suggests that genuine people can come to different conclusions.
@ Imoss,
I've never taken a "tone" with lil-rush, or not intentionally. I wasn't trying to infer that she didn't meditate over and critically study God's Word. I was merely saying that these doctrines emerged from people doing just that. The Bible is a complex book written over centuries and across continents, and many of the writers never even met. Because of this, some language is poetic, some is literal, some is parable, etc. We cannot just straight read the Bible, because if we do, the Word contradicts itself. Therefore, we've got to critique it. That's all I was saying to Lil-rush
This brings me to my next point quite nicely, actually. Regarding the tail-end of Matthew 12, here is another example of why we must think about what we read. The Bible calls Mary Jesus' mother multiple times. (Matthew. 1:18; 2:11, 13-14, 20-21; 12:46; Luke. 1:43, 2:33-34, 43, 48, 51; John 2:1, 3, 5; 19:25-26; Acts 1:14.) Is the Bible contradicting itself? Of course not. Mary is Jesus' mother.
The kinship Jesus was speaking of was spiritual kinship, as opposed to physical. Mary, as a godly woman and as Jesus' mother, was fortunate to be his mother in two ways then, we might say Jesus is simply teaching the crowds that ties of grace in the Body of Christ are greater than ties of blood in ones natural family.
That is great and I don't think you'll ever meet a good Christian who does otherwise. The problem is that people can come to different conclusions from the same Scriptures, and have been doing so for centuries. You say that the Marian dogmas contradict the Bible, and I say they don't. Yet we read the same Bible and the same Gospels, which suggests that genuine people can come to different conclusions.
@ Imoss,
I've never taken a "tone" with lil-rush, or not intentionally. I wasn't trying to infer that she didn't meditate over and critically study God's Word. I was merely saying that these doctrines emerged from people doing just that. The Bible is a complex book written over centuries and across continents, and many of the writers never even met. Because of this, some language is poetic, some is literal, some is parable, etc. We cannot just straight read the Bible, because if we do, the Word contradicts itself. Therefore, we've got to critique it. That's all I was saying to Lil-rush
This brings me to my next point quite nicely, actually. Regarding the tail-end of Matthew 12, here is another example of why we must think about what we read. The Bible calls Mary Jesus' mother multiple times. (Matthew. 1:18; 2:11, 13-14, 20-21; 12:46; Luke. 1:43, 2:33-34, 43, 48, 51; John 2:1, 3, 5; 19:25-26; Acts 1:14.) Is the Bible contradicting itself? Of course not. Mary is Jesus' mother.
The kinship Jesus was speaking of was spiritual kinship, as opposed to physical. Mary, as a godly woman and as Jesus' mother, was fortunate to be his mother in two ways then, we might say
Jesus is simply teaching the crowds that ties of grace in the Body of Christ are greater than ties of blood in ones natural family.
Lil-rush,
That is great and I don't think you'll ever meet a good Christian who does otherwise. The problem is that people can come to different conclusions from the same Scriptures, and have been doing so for centuries. You say that the Marian dogmas contradict the Bible, and I say they don't. Yet we read the same Bible and the same Gospels, which suggests that genuine people can come to different conclusions.
@ Imoss,
I've never taken a "tone" with lil-rush, or not intentionally. I wasn't trying to infer that she didn't meditate over and critically study God's Word. I was merely saying that these doctrines emerged from people doing just that. The Bible is a complex book written over centuries and across continents, and many of the writers never even met. Because of this, some language is poetic, some is literal, some is parable, etc. We cannot just straight read the Bible, because if we do, the Word contradicts itself. Therefore, we've got to critique it. That's all I was saying to Lil-rush
This brings me to my next point quite nicely, actually. Regarding the tail-end of Matthew 12, here is another example of why we must think about what we read. The Bible calls Mary Jesus' mother multiple times. (Matthew. 1:18; 2:11, 13-14, 20-21; 12:46; Luke. 1:43, 2:33-34, 43, 48, 51; John 2:1, 3, 5; 19:25-26; Acts 1:14.) Is the Bible contradicting itself? Of course not. Mary is Jesus' mother.
The kinship Jesus was speaking of was spiritual kinship, as opposed to physical. Mary, as a godly woman and as Jesus' mother, was fortunate to be his mother in two ways then, we might say Jesus is simply teaching the crowds that ties of grace in the Body of Christ are greater than ties of blood in ones natural family.
That is great and I don't think you'll ever meet a good Christian who does otherwise. The problem is that people can come to different conclusions from the same Scriptures, and have been doing so for centuries. You say that the Marian dogmas contradict the Bible, and I say they don't. Yet we read the same Bible and the same Gospels, which suggests that genuine people can come to different conclusions.
@ Imoss,
I've never taken a "tone" with lil-rush, or not intentionally. I wasn't trying to infer that she didn't meditate over and critically study God's Word. I was merely saying that these doctrines emerged from people doing just that. The Bible is a complex book written over centuries and across continents, and many of the writers never even met. Because of this, some language is poetic, some is literal, some is parable, etc. We cannot just straight read the Bible, because if we do, the Word contradicts itself. Therefore, we've got to critique it. That's all I was saying to Lil-rush
This brings me to my next point quite nicely, actually. Regarding the tail-end of Matthew 12, here is another example of why we must think about what we read. The Bible calls Mary Jesus' mother multiple times. (Matthew. 1:18; 2:11, 13-14, 20-21; 12:46; Luke. 1:43, 2:33-34, 43, 48, 51; John 2:1, 3, 5; 19:25-26; Acts 1:14.) Is the Bible contradicting itself? Of course not. Mary is Jesus' mother.
The kinship Jesus was speaking of was spiritual kinship, as opposed to physical. Mary, as a godly woman and as Jesus' mother, was fortunate to be his mother in two ways then, we might say
Jesus is simply teaching the crowds that ties of grace in the Body of Christ are greater than ties of blood in ones natural family.
Now this is where me and you will most definately disagree, according to your Marianne dogmas.
We Evangelicals will agree that Mary is the honoured Mother of Jesus, God incarnate, but that is basically as far as it goes.
So you never answered my question, How did Jesus get His sinless human nature?
Phil
- Status