Mary, Mother of God?

I just wanted to bring this to forefront. ^_^

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...?

This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?

Let me start at the beginning.
Leaving work today, I headed over to St.Margaret Mary's over by UNO. Well, I did make a little detour to grab an Odwalla bar from Wholners but that story is beside the point and the bar is long since been inside my stomach. Anyway, I made it to the church in time to join the beginning of the Eucaristic Procession across UNO campus. Funneling my way into the line, I felt at first a complete outsider. Everyone around me possessed a candle and a song sheet. I only had my green jacket to wrap around me.

Amidst the cold air and slight wind, we made our way to a small makeshift altar set up by Memorial Park by the crosswalk. It was a beautiful sight with the Monstrance at the head of the procession. The Monstrance was complete with a mobile tent carried by four altar servers. There we all knelt before Christ our Lord and prayed for a few minutes before moving along, but it was then a thought came to me.

What do others think? What does it look like we are doing? What are we doing? No really, why am I here? My doubting Thomas had settled in and wasn't about to back off until he had his answers. Whether my mind would wait or not didn't matter. Father had started off the rosary with our creed and general intercessory prayers. Then the group began to move across the crosswalk and into the heart of campus. We began to pray the luminous mysteries of the rosary as we went on our way, so I pulled my sword(rosary) from it's sheath and hoped my mind would catch up with my actions.

While I prayed along, I tried to meditate on the mysteries one after another. First, there was our Lord's Baptism in the Jordan which I can remember pretty well because the back half of the group where I was was just far enough back that we couldn't hear the first half well enough to respond. The next was the Wedding at Cana, where I began to try to seek out my answers.

Who cares what other's think? Really? I don't, I can't, why? because this is who I am, I can't change that.

Then I became distracted because I realized that a pre-designated part of our group was kneeling in the street to allow the procession to continue uninterrupted by traffic. A couple cars were stopped in their tracks by this action. Imagining for a second what we looked like, I think anyone would have their preconceptions shaken by that unexpected sight. There were people kneeling in the street!

Then we meditated on the Proclamation of the Kingdom where Jesus made his sermon on the mount, gave us the beatitudes and announced his divine Davidic Kingship. While I recalled related images and passages, we passed in front of Kaiser Hall. I found myself somewhat giddy, partially because of the cold, but also because such an obviously catholic group had just invaded the dead secularism of UNO. I couldn't even imagine this sight in correlation to UNO. My mind went numb.

The announcement of the mystery of the Transfiguration caught me off guard and I my mind wandered into realms of Moses. Moses and Elijah, both prefigurements of Christ, one of his saving power and the other of his prophetic influence hovered amidst my mind. Then somehow my mind extended back to both Moses and the manna in the desert and Elijah and the cakes he requested. The parallels grew because both were bread-like, life saving and seemingly endless in supply.

Then it hit me like Bam! We were on the mystery of the Institution of the Eucharist. Instead of my mind leaping to the usual images of the Last Supper and various related thoughts, the road to Emmaus strode in unannounced.

My stream of consciousness went approximately as follows.
[Were not our hearts burning within us?
when He opened the scriptures for us...
When He revealed their connections.
But, why then was it in the breaking of the bread that we came to know Him.
This is hard saying, who can hear it?
This is my Body, This is my Blood. Take eat, Take drink.
Do this in memory of me (anamnesis, in doing so, you make it present once again)
Were not our hearts burning within us.
The scriptures bring the passion.
We learn of Jesus in his presence.
But, it was in the breaking of the bread... we came to know Him.
We come to know Him truly in the Eucharist.]

My poor Thomas had his fill, and shut up for the rest of the night. How could he not, there before him stood in full body, blood, soul and divinity the might of Christ veiled only by the appearances of bread and allowing Himself to be humbled to such a lowly, frail position.

My distracted Thomas stepped aside and my Peter, if you will, remembered that in focusing on Christ you too can step on waves. But if at once you remove your gaze and all focus is lost, so are you too. Everything must be about Him.

My mind cleared and I was able to focus on my God before me during the litany of the saints, during which we prayed on bended knee before the student center, and on through the rest of the procession back to the church. Sometimes God grants us the wishes for which we ought to have wished.

This is a hard teaching, who can listen to it?

You have the words of eternal life Lord:
"I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh." "I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst. " John 6

Go and Set the World on Fire

Techno Waif Ramblings

What is love? (Why do I even find myself thinking about this?) I mean its not like it should be all that complicated. I rather like the thought of keeping it simplistic, and keeping love as love, but then which love am I really talking about? Do I have what it takes essentially to profess the real form of self-sacrificing love for anyone? Or will I stumble and fall. I mean, philia, the format of love that deals with friendship, yeah, that’s easy. I can pass into that form of caring rather quickly, but to step into the danger zone of agape love, the format of love that Jesus most exemplified, yeah right.

The problem is expressing the forms of love in English. I can’t even properly do it in Japanese. Something in me, screams that I should express philia in words in English… but who can really turn to their buddies (either male or female) and say “I love you guys” ? I mean, do you realize how completely facetious that sounds? Or on the other hand it could be misinterpreted in various ways as a form of sexual attraction which can and should be differentiated from eros, which is the format of love pertaining specificially to the human experience of romance. Romance, of course, is not wholly devoid of a sexual love, but far from being the focus, it acts a singular aspect of Love (eros).

So, I guess what it comes to is this: English cramps my style. Seriously, the greeks had philia(friends), agape(sacrificial), eros(romantic) and storge (I like pizza). All we’ve got is “Love” and “like”. Oh and most of the time it is typical to use Love the same way we use “like”, so we effectively only have one way of expressing love. Does it come down to a need for actions to speak louder than words? I hope not, there just has to be a way to express it.

I propose a modification of a certain quote:
The greatest single cause of atheism in the world today is Christians
Who acknowledge Jesus with their lips and are armed by their lifestyles.
That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable.

That is only slightly different from the original but I think it emphasizes more the onus for consistency and example to come from us Christians. We are armed by our lifestyles in the true mantra of St. Francis: preach always, when necessary use words. A teaching well reflected in 1 Peter 3:15.

What it comes down to is this.
φιλια We need to love our friends (philia)
στοργε We need to let go of our love of things (storge)
αγαπε We need to die to ourselves and live for God (agape)
εροσ We need to love otherworldly based in our walk in this life (eros)

Love is patient and kind; love is not jealous or boastful; it is not arrogant or rude. Love does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends; 1 Cor 13:4-8 (All of these “Loves” are Agape)

Then note that this is Jesus’ most explicit commandment:
John 15:12 “This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.”
But what you don’t know because of English is that He is asking us to (Agape) love. Meaning he is asking us to sacrifice for others, not just (philia) love. He did it on the cross for all of us, maybe we can too learn to take up our yoke. After all, He tells us that His “yoke is easy and (his) burden light.” (Matt 11:30)

Go and set the World on Fire. /_0\/3 4/_/_

I think I got it memorized...

あなたがたの抱いている希望について
説明を要求する人にはいつでも
弁明できるように備えていなさい。
　　　ぺトロ　一　　３：１５

I actually don't know what I planned to write today at all. I just think this verse sums up a lot of what I've been wondering about, but it is elaborated just as well in a DC Talk song:

"The greatest single cause of atheism in the world today
Is Christians who acknowledge Jesus with their lips
Then walk out the door and deny him by their lifestyle.
That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable."

Our examples must be a shining light.

Go and set the world on Fire

Angry Figure

Just one short thing on Anger and Figs. Apparently, a non-fruit bearing fig tree can be justifiably the victim of righteous wrath.

Seriously, can anybody read the story of the Fig tree and completely understand it the first time? I mean, it makes you wonder which side of the bed Jesus got up on that day? It's just a fig tree! Don't you think he over-reacted? Not really...

Matt 21:18-19 "In the morning, as he was returning to the city, he was hungry. And seeing a fig tree by the wayside he went to it, and found nothing on it but leaves only. And he said to it, "May no fruit ever come from you again!" And the fig tree withered at once."

Our preconceptions, I think are, of course, the problem. We hear fig tree and we think we know about trees so we think we understand. In this case, we imagine an object as "only a fig tree" when really it symbolizes something more. Perhaps it is obvious to some but given the general sub-theme concerning Jesus' condemnation of Israel as unfaithful and unfruitful, do you think this might be relevant? I think so, and following a hunch, I found something interesting.

Figs are the flowers of the tree. They aren't the fruit, the vegetable or the nut. Although, they kinda are the seeds... This only matters because my experience has shown me that flowers grow alongside the leaves on deciduous plants. The fig tree just happens to be deciduous too. Fig tree pictures on the net also seem to confirm this theory.

Although, having never grown a fig tree, I really can't confirm or deny this, but I suspect that seeing a fig tree with leaves on it is the same as seeing it in some stage of bearing fruit. If that was the case then seeing a fig tree with leaves but no fruit, not even budding ones or, as in this case, just leaves alone would have been exceptionally unusual. It would be much like encountering "God's chosen people" and instead of seeing people turned towards God, encountering people who have hardened their hearts. Which is, of course, the main message here.

Although the following verses do certainly show that faith can kill fig trees just as effectively as it can move mountains. (tongue in cheek guys, tongue in cheek!)

Be the spark, Go and set the world Ablaze.

Change over?

To grow is to change: To be perfect is to change often
~Cardinal Newman

I forget which great philosopher it was that foolishly tried to define humanity as "change," but while he was obviously off the mark, he was definitely on to something. Change exists as an important factor in our lives. However, it is not what we are, but what we do. I mean, just think about how much you have changed just recently. Can you even imagine how you would go about explaining that you are the same person you were ten years ago? However, that's just it, you are the same entity but at the same time very different.

I love the above Cardinal Newman quote, but because it can easily be misconstrued, I would add but one thing to it: Change for the better, not change for change's sake!!

Custom without truth is just old error.
~Cyprian

Which is, of course, to say that Custom with truth is only eternal reality..

But from this it must follow that I extrapolate to the Bible. After all, even the beginning church experienced its own pains from change. One such example is found in Acts. Read if you will, Acts 2:44-45 "And all who believed were together and had all things in common; and they sold their possessions and goods and distributed them to all, as any had need. "

What? When? How? Out of context, doesn't it sound like a bunch of socialists?

Then read Acts 6:1-6. Shortened version: Now in these days when the disciples were increasing in number, the Hellenists murmured against the Hebrews because their widows were neglected in the daily distribution.... "It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables. ...we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word." And what they said pleased the whole multitude, and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit... and they prayed and laid their hands upon them.

I don't know about you, but some sort of movement from an initial small community sharing everything to a more role-oriented community seems to have occurred here.

Do one thing every day that scares you.
~Baz Lermin

I'm sorry but just thinking about what kind of things this quote might inspire me do actually scares me. So, I think that means that I have done my that scares me for today. I'll have to now think about something I can actually do tomorrow.

Life is a bridge. Cross over it, but build no house on it.
~ Indian Proverb

Positively, the best advice you could get for a Christian from a secular source. Just think, it is as simple as LUKE, one, two, three, four (12:34) "For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. " Life is simply fleeting, and therefore the focus must be beyond this world.

Still dabbling with pilot lights? Go and set the world Ablaze, already!

(FYI: The above non-biblical quotes were taken from the book "God, I have issues")

Something Burns

I think I slipped up
I should have stepped down,
instead I stepped up.
Lost without a sound

Trying to make out the words
is like catching live birds.
They float, they flitter, they splat.
it's pitter patter pat.

I think I fell down
I should have stood up
instead I sat down
Lost into the ground

Something fell from the blue sky
What is that I do spy?
Images twist, criss and cross
For words, I'm at a loss

I think I woke up
I should have slid by
Instead I froze up
Lost without a sigh

Something red burns around me
From it I can not flee
A pilot light, sparks, wanes, bursts
Maybe this is the worst

I think I failed hard
I should have gone next
Instead I hit hard
Lost without the text

Trying to escape the sand
I can not see my hand
Effervescent, float, rise, sink
Vanish into the drink

I think I started left
I should have thought right
Instead I turned left
Lost without a fight

A beat from within my soul
something cries, "It was stole--"
Internal mind, thump, bump, blaze
so begins happy days.

~ NoR3450N ~