Originally posted Oct 2, 2009 as a response to Random Bible thoughts of August 22, 2009
Hello Xavier.
Did you talk to your father about this one? :-)
I did not get this teaching from any theological school, teacher or books. I arrived at this conclusion independently through the study of Scripture. It is in Scripture that my assumptions are based.
If you reread my post, you will find NONE of the following assumptions: personhood begins at birth; Jesus' divinity and humanity are incompatible; Jesus could not be both God and man simultaneously, but would have to switch between the two. Indeed, I refute all three of these premises, and still arrive at the same conclusion.
How is this possible? I refer you to the following assumptions, which I apparently failed to set forth clearly before:
1) Mary was the mother of the Lord Jesus Christ, who was simultaneously both fully God and fully man.
2) The phrase "Mother of God" is not found in Scripture, and can therefore be considered apocryphal-- i.e. that it is an invention (at least as a phrase).
3) Personhood begins at conception.
4) Before his physical conception as a human, the Lord Jesus Christ was in existence in the world as the sole, eternal, omnipotent Creator God.
5) Mary could not have contributed to God's existence as set forth in Claim 4, because God existed in the world before she did-- as HER OWN Creator.
I doubt that you would deny claims 1, 3, or 4. But what do you think of claims 2 and 5?
If you are honest with yourself and take claim 2 at face value, I think you will agree with it in principle-- despite its strong wording. All this point asks you to concede is that the *phrase* is an invention of man, which cannot be found in Scripture. Therefore it lacks ultimate theological weight.
Also, in response to your comment, I'll raise a new claim. :)
Claim A: Though not incompatible, the two concepts of Godhood and manhood are separable and individually distinct.
Rationale: Suppose that you reject Claim A. Then Godhood and manhood are not individually distinct. Then, because all men certainly possess manhood, all men also possess Godhood*. Thus, to reject Claim A is clearly blasphemous and against the teaching of Scripture.
*[Go ahead and try to refute this conclusion under the assumption that Claim A is false. You'll see what I mean.]
This is called proof by contradiction, and is a familiar logical progression to math-heads like myself. Let me know what you think!
Peace. --Jacob
P.s. While reviewing the virgin birth, I ran across another passage you might enjoy: Luke 1:68-75.
My response is as follows:
Cute: Did I talk to my father about this one? Which one? ^_^
May I be so bold as to ask: Why do you take pride in that you are flying solo? I try, yet often fail to admit my weakness and seek to learn through the help of others. Remember, I too believe it necessary that faith be in accord with the scriptures.
That said, you have failed to understand what it was that I was stating as I too failed to understand you as well. Let me try and clear the air a little:
I think that the assumptions that are causing conflict for us are in the implications that motherhood holds for our faith. I assume motherhood to be a status or position especially with regard to a maternal connection. Correct me if I am wrong, but you assume motherhood implicates the total "begetting" of that to which she gives birth.
I do believe I can actually agree with four of your points. With Point 2, however, I must clarify that the I do not understand what you mean by apocryphal because none of the definitions of apocryphal that I am aware of are relevant in this situation. The title Mother of God is most certainly not erroneous or without authorship. I offer one place where the concept is at the very least expressed: Luke 1:42 “And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?”
As to what you're really getting at, which is the "solo scriptura" belief. I'll say it now and clearly, I find that unscriptural. So, no doubt you know the implications of what I am saying. Scripture and Tradition (not to be confused with traditions of men) are two sides of the same coin and as such any attempts to separate the two lead to dire consequences.
In summary, I'll try and state the Catholic Church's views on this:
Mary because she is the Mother of Jesus Christ she is the Mother of God but, most agreeably for you, she is not the one to beget His existence. The Catholic Church condemns the notion of Mary pre-existing God. However, (English strikes again) the Catholic Church maintains Mary's title of mother of God as the most near translation for the word “Theotokos” (God-bearer/Mother of God) because it best maintains the expression of Mary's maternal connection to the person Jesus Christ. Not because it says Mary created God or some other preposterous notion.
Also, try and look into the church fathers sometime, they are hardly silent on the matter of Mary as mother of God. I recommend St. Cyril of Jerusalem especially.
Finally, Claim A? Actually, I see you're syllogism lacking but I don't know the most tactful way to express that. Your Claim A is lacking clarity concerning in what way and in what respect Godhood and manhood are separable and individually distinct. It is on that tiny piece of information that the rest of your argument hinges.
That said, I don't think I have anything to disagree with you on Claim A regardless, but I will clarify by saying that the two natures of Christ, Godhood and Manhood, are separable and distinct but that the person of Christ is not separable. As an extension of this thought, the person's of the Holy Spirit, God the Father, and Jesus Christ are separable and distinct but All three are the same God, the Trinity.
Continue Ablaze bro
P.S. So confused @_@ How are Zecharias's words related...?
No comments:
Post a Comment