/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>589819

That's not a specifically Catholic doctrine. It's a high church one. Orthodox and Lutherans I know specifically grant her the title. I imagine Anglicans do as well. As far as Lutherans go, it's in the Formula of Concord:

>On account of this personal union and communion of the natures, Mary, the most blessed Virgin, bore not a mere man, but, as the angel [Gabriel] testifies, such a man as is truly the Son of the most high God, who showed His divine majesty even in His mother's womb, inasmuch as He was born of a virgin, with her virginity inviolate. Therefore she is truly the mother of God, and nevertheless remained a virgin. [VIII.24]

>>589834

He didn't say Catholics alone call Mary the "Mother of God". What is it with you protestants seeing "alone" everywhere it isn't? And Lutherans only do it because they were one of those denominations (like Anglicanism and Orthodoxy) that are only one schism removed from the Catholic Church.

I would argue that it is a non-negotiable truth of the Christian faith that Mary is called the "Mother of God". A denial of this truth is a denial of a Trinitarian understanding of Christology. This is the thinking of the Church Fathers, at least.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Ephesus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theotokos

You have to accept Mary as Theotokos to post on this board, its part of the chalcedonian formula.

This has been known since the third century. If you deny Mary is the Mother of God, you don't belong on this board.

ITT: People denying the eternal pre-existence of Jesus, using various excuses to justify themselves

>>589984

What?

>>589989

They think that Jesus Christ is a created being, that's what all of this is really about. But that amounts to a denial that He is the Son of God. I don't care how you try to justify it or what you turn to, that is wrong. Scripture clearly attests against this.

>>589854

The issue is that the title is easily misunderstood. While "Mother of God" is appropriate because Mary was the mother of Jesus, who is God, it can very easily be misinterpreted as a claim that Mary created God.

Matthew 22

42 Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The son of David.

43 He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying,

44 The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?

45 If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?

46 And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.

>>589993

>They think that Jesus Christ is a created being

And where are the proofs of this? I, for one, don't, and neither does the Catholic doctrine.

Please explain why Mary being mother of God means that Jesus was created.

>>590002

Because your mom gives birth to you and Mary is infinitely younger than Christ. Also >>590001 Jesus says how even though he descends from David and he calls himself the son of David he technically isn't.

>>590000

So far I haven't seen any Catholic do this.

The only sources where I can find such a misinterpretation are Protestants talking about how (supposedly) easy it is to think like this.

>>590005

Just asking but do you guys call David, Adam, Abraham, Jacob etc.the Father of God? Because Jesus also descends from them.

>>590004

>Because your mom gives birth to you and Mary is infinitely younger than Christ

And yet she gave birth to Christ.

>Jesus says how even though he descends from David and he calls himself the son of David he technically isn't.

This is an exceptionally weak argument, considering how Matthew 1:1 (you can check in KJV if you want) claims that He is son of David precisely due to being his descendant. I don't know how to interpret the verse you posted, but its meaning is less clear and obvious than that of Matthew 1:1, so it must be interpreted in light of that latter verse.

>>590006

It would be technically correct and I suppose you can find some Catholic hymn or prayer which refers to one of these people as such, but Mary is a more appropriate person to be called such, first because she is His immediate biological mother, second because she brought him up. Analogically, using biblical terminology you could use the term "mother" to mean your grandmother or some other female ancestor, but your biological mother would still be the most appropriate to bear such a title.

>>590018

>your biological mother would still be the most appropriate to bear such a title.

According to Luke 8:21, this is not true. I think this whole concept is difficult for someone who only thinks in terms of the flesh, like many do. Jesus is physically the son of David and son of Mary, but biological relation is obviously not the most important relation according to what Jesus taught all along – it's just one kind of relation that carries certain meanings, but not the most important, which is spiritual relationship (2 Cor. 4:18, Rom. 8:5, Heb. 7:3). And in this regard Jesus Christ the Son of God is begotten of the Father and there is no equivalent there. Which is why David calls Him Lord.

>>590018

She gave birth ti his flesh, not his soul.

He literally says in Mattew 22 that he isn't technically David's son, even though he calls himself that.

>>589819

>>589834

>Orthodox and Lutherans I know specifically grant her the title.

And some traditional Reformed Christians.

<"I esteem immensely the Mother of God" - Ulrich Zwingli

<"The Virgin Mary… completely sanctified by the grace and blood of her only Son and abundantly endowed by the gift of the Holy Spirit and preferred to all… now lives happily with Christ in heaven and is called and remains ever-Virgin and Mother of God." - Heinrich Bullinger

>>590031

I don't understand? Do mothers give birth to souls as well?

>>589899

Apparently this board is also for Arian's and nestorians…

>>590059

I don't know of any Reformed theologian that denied her the title.

>>590006

Yes. Jesus calls himself the Son of Man after all

>>590031

So Jesus' human body was separate from his human soul?

>>590031

>He literally says in Mattew 22 that he isn't technically David's son

You wanna run that by me again champ? Because the book of Matthew literally makes it a point in the first sentence to establish that Jesus is the Son of David.

>>590063

I think Calvin might have been a little uncomfortable with it, but did not expressly denounce those who use it.

I could be wrong though.

>>589899

>Literally stating Rule 3

>Gets warned

We got Arian mods now?

>>590067

IIRC that was ever-virgin

I wonder if "theotoce" could be a good Anglicization for theotocos.

Also Christotoce and anthropotoce.

I'm no theologian but even after the watching of the video it all still seems like competitive avowal of faith by the early church patriarchs. Nestorians disliked using it because it implied she was the mother of God the Father. Even if it could be substantiated theologically, the creation usage of such a term was probably unnecessary and caused more division and strife than help.

>>590076

It would not

>>590087

Any reason?

>>590031

So she gave birth to him like mothers do. Ok then

>>590094

Well, for one thing the C would be pronounced S and the E would be silent.

>mary isn't the mother of God

>hence, you deny Jesus is God

boom.

done.

heretics, deal with it.

>>590031

so you deny that Christ was True Man? What was He then? Hercules?

>>590101

and because we all know Jesus is God, Our Lady is the Mother of God.