God-bearer?

[Robbie_James_Francis]

May I please ask what the Lutheran position is on the title "Mother of God" given to Mary? Do Lutherans believe that the Natures of Christ-Human and Divine-can be seperated after the Incarnation and therefore that Mary only bore Christ' Humanity, and not His Divinity, into the world, as Nestorius thought?

Thanks! I'm not arguing about the title, I'm really just wondering what the Lutheran position is on this.

Thanks! :) :hug:

[MORTANIUS]

We don't exactly use the same terminology as the Roman Catholic or Orthodox Church.
We do however acknowledge who Mary is. The only difference is that we don't acknowledge the unsupported stories or "myths" that surround Mary outside of the Bible in many instances.

If we are to understand God-Bearer as the woman chosen to deliver the Messiah onto the world, then it is an accurate statement.

I think people are just not comfortable with certain terms and expressions for fear of accepting something that can mean more than at first glance.

God-Bearer = (in Greek) theotokos. I suppose if you want to get fancy you could use the Greek term to really make people react with hesitation lol

I think we should not be fearful of terms, but of their meaning.

In this case, its not an error to use such an expression when identifying Mary the Mother of Jesus.

As for a direct answer to the inquiry, How did Jesus enter this world? In complete humanity and divinity.

I think you will find that Lutheranism and Roman Catholicism are very much alike except when it comes to certain usages of terms.

[Ron_the_Nazarene]

... when women are born, they already possess all of the eggs they'll ever have the chance of ferilizing. This means that the egg that would become Jesus was already in her body when she was born.

As well .... when we're born, we bring with us, into this world, two sets of chromosomes: 22 from our mother ... 22 from our father. We know where Jesus' maternal chromosomes came from. But where would His father's come from? If the answer is from God or the Holy Spirit ... then we're saying God (or the Holy Spirit) possesses the same genetic make up as us. This cannot be, because the Bible says God is a spirit.

Any other thoughts or ideas on this?

[MORTANIUS]

... when women are born, they already possess all of the eggs they'll ever have the chance of ferilizing. This means that the egg that would become Jesus was already in her body when she was born.

As well .... when we're born, we bring with us, into this world, two sets of chromosomes: 22 from our mother ... 22 from our father. We know where Jesus' maternal chromosomes came from. But where would His father's come from? If the answer is from God or the Holy Spirit ... then we're saying God (or the Holy Spirit) possesses the same genetic make up as us. This cannot be, because the Bible says God is a spirit.

Any other thoughts or ideas on this?

Fertilized eggs from God. The mystery is that we don't know how Mary was impregnated except through the Holy Spirit. I agree with you on this.

I refuse to examine this Scientifically for fear that doing so would try to define what really can't be defined.

For example, the 6 days of Creation. Is Gods genetic material part of all of Creation? If so, we cannot define it to specifics, just as with the conception of Jesus in Mary.

I'm curious why you brought this scientific element into the discussion? Its sort of interesting, but not easily approached.

[Protoevangel]

...This cannot be...
:scratch: Be careful how you limit God. The Holy Scriptures do not speak og genetic material and such, the minutiae of how it happened is beside the point.

[Protoevangel]

May I please ask what the Lutheran position is on the title "Mother of God" given to Mary?
The titles Mother of God and Theotokos are not officially taught, but neither are they officially shunned. Much like Ever-Virgin, the Lutheran is free to use or not use the term. It is not central to Justification, nor to our understanding of Theology. I for one, use Theokotos, but am undecided on Ever-Virgin. I have no particular desire to define whether I believe in Ever-Virgin or not; it does not interest me to intrude myself upon the bedchamber of my mother.

Do Lutherans believe that the Natures of Christ-Human and Divine-can be seperated after the Incarnation and therefore that Mary only bore Christ' Humanity, and not His Divinity, into the world, as Nestorius thought?

Thanks! I'm not arguing about the title, I'm really just wondering what the Lutheran position is on this.

Thanks! :) :hug:
Nestorianism is considered heresy in the Lutheran church as well.

[Robbie_James_Francis]

Thank you all! :hug: :clap:

Nestorianism is considered heresy in the Lutheran church as well.

Ah...that's really the heart of the matter. Thanks for clearing it up in such a concise way. :thumbsup: :hug:

May I ask...you say Lutheranism doesn't officially teach the title Mother of God. Must Lutherans still accept the theology behind this title, if Nestorianism is considered a heresy? Or is one allowed to accept heresies on matters that are not necessary for justification in Lutheranism? :confused:

Thank you! :thumbsup:

Peace be with you,
Rob

[Protoevangel]

May I ask...you say Lutheranism doesn't officially teach the title Mother of God. Must Lutherans still accept the theology behind this title, if Nestorianism is considered a heresy? Or is one allowed to accept heresies on matters that are not necessary for justification in Lutheranism? :confused:

Thank you! :thumbsup:

Peace be with you,
Rob
No, no, no. It is just only the title that is not either "officially" required or rejected. The Lutheran Church certianly teaches the orthodox position (but much leniency is given in the ELCA for "progressive" teachings).

[Robbie_James_Francis]

No, no, no. It is just only the title that is not either "officially" required or rejected. The Lutheran Church certianly teaches the orthodox position

Oh, I see. Thanks. :)

I guess it's a little like the Eastern Catholic position on the Filioque for some, then? "When push comes to shove" they accept the theology of it as Truth, but they'd sooner chop off their right arm than profess it in the Creed? ;)

(but much leniency is given in the ELCA for "progressive" teachings).

I take it that you're LCMS/WELS then? ;)

[IowaLutheran]

May I please ask what the Lutheran position is on the title "Mother of God" given to Mary?



"[W]e believe, teach, and confess that Mary did not conceive and give birth to a child who was merely, purely, simply human, but she gave birth to the true son of God. Therefore, she is rightly called and truly is the Mother of God."

Formula of Concord, Epitome, Article VIII.

[Robbie_James_Francis]

"[W]e believe, teach, and confess that Mary did not conceive and give birth to a child who was merely, purely, simply human, but she gave birth to the true son of God. Therefore, she is rightly called and truly is the Mother of God."

Formula of Concord, Epitome, Article VIII.

Thanks!! :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[KagomeShuko]

I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord.
He was conceived of the Holy Spirit
And born of the virgin Mary.

We believe that Christ is fully God and fully man - 100% God and 100% man, none of this 50/50 stuff that some try to pull. . .

Mary is the Mother of our Lord.

I do not care if she is ever-virgin or not. What does it matter if not a virgin after Christ was born?

As for science, it doesn't belong in faith. . .though faith can belong in science. We are not to limit God, so the whole conception thing really doesn't matter. If God wanted, He could make a woman who had a hysterectomy pregnant. If God wanted, He could make a man pregnant.

Stein Auf!
Bridget

[Qoheleth]

... when women are born, they already possess all of the eggs they'll ever have the chance of ferilizing. This means that the egg that would become Jesus was already in her body when she was born.

As well .... when we're born, we bring with us, into this world, two sets of chromosomes: 22 from our mother ... 22 from our father. We know where Jesus' maternal chromosomes came from. But where would His father's come from? If the answer is from God or the Holy Spirit ... then we're saying God (or the Holy Spirit) possesses the same genetic make up as us. This cannot be, because the Bible says God is a spirit.

Any other thoughts or ideas on this?



Genesis 3:15

"And I will put enmity between thee and the woman and between thy seed and her Seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise His heel."

Women do not have "seed", i.e. sperma From the Greek. This is prophetic concerning Mary the ever virgin Mother of God.


Q

[ByzantineDixie]

Lutherans do not (or at least need not) shy away from the term "Mother of God"! The term was accepted by the Church as an outcome of the 3rd Ecumenical Council. Further the term "mother of God" is used in the Lutheran Confessions...as evidenced by the Epitome reference presented by IowaLutheran and in this reference from the Solid D.

24 On account of this personal union and communion of the natures, Mary, the most blessed virgin, did not conceive a mere, ordinary human being, but a human being who is truly the Son of the most high God, as the angel testifies. He demonstrated his divine majesty even in his mother’s womb in that he was born of a virgin without violating her virginity. Therefore she is truly the mother of God and yet remained a virgin.
Tappert, T. G. (2000, c1959). The book of concord : The confessions of the evangelical Lutheran church. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

(Wow...note what the Solid D. admits...that the birth of Jesus did not violate the blessed Mother's virginity! You know what that means!)

I wonder what is going on in the Lutheran church that would make Lutherans uncomfortable with using this term? Especially since it is clearly used in the Lutheran Confessions. Nothin' a little catechesis couldn't overcome.

[Robbie_James_Francis]

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

:hug:

Rob

[filosofer]

He demonstrated his divine majesty even in his mother’s womb in that he was born of a virgin without violating her virginity. Therefore she is truly the mother of God and yet remained a virgin.[/i]
Tappert, T. G. (2000, c1959). The book of concord : The confessions of the evangelical Lutheran church. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

(Wow...note what the Solid D. admits...that the birth of Jesus did not violate the blessed Mother's virginity! You know what that means!)

I wonder what is going on in the Lutheran church that would make Lutherans uncomfortable with using this term? Especially since it is clearly used in the Lutheran Confessions. Nothin' a little catechesis couldn't overcome.

Hi, Rose. Just for clarification, which term are you asking why Lutherans might have trouble with? If it is Mother of God term? Lutherans don't have a problem with it.

If, however, you are referring to "ever-virgin" term, then that is an entirely different matter. I think that is pushing what the statement says. Note that having a child does not change the virginity of something, and the text certainly does not support ever-virgin. That is, she was a virgin when God impregnated her, she was a virgin even after giving birth to Jesus. But it does not go further than that.

[ByzantineDixie]

Hi, Rose. Just for clarification, which term are you asking why Lutherans might have trouble with? If it is Mother of God term? Lutherans don't have a problem with it.

If, however, you are referring to "ever-virgin" term, then that is an entirely different matter. I think that is pushing what the statement says. Note that having a child does not change the virginity of something, and the text certainly does not support ever-virgin. That is, she was a virgin when God impregnated her, she was a virgin even after giving birth to Jesus. But it does not go further than that.


The term "Mother of God". I got the impression from previous posts that some didn't see this term as fully acceptable or at least were a little uncomfortable with it.

I will not discuss ever-virgin. You all know where I stand on the issue. Me, Marty and the Latin version of the Smalcald Articles...we are "in think" as my French boss says.

[Protoevangel]

The term "Mother of God". I got the impression from previous posts that some didn't see this term as fully acceptable or at least were a little uncomfortable with it.
:doh: I hope it was not my posts that made that impression. Mother of God is not only acceptable, but it is absolutely accurate and true. The only point I attempted to make is that as useful as the term is, it is not central to our Theology.

[ByzantineDixie]

:doh: I hope it was not my posts that made that impression. Mother of God is not only acceptable, but it is absolutely accurate and true.
Well, I have to admit, in part it was, the "not officially taught" statement tugged at me...because it was officially taught to me when I studied Lutheran doctrine. But there were other comments as well.

The only point I attempted to make is that as useful as the term is, it is not central to our Theology.
See, I don't necessarily agree with that either. Mary being the Mother of God is key to our understanding of the Incarnation. It is actually more of a statement about Jesus than about Mary.

[filosofer]

See, I don't necessarily agree with that either. Mary being the Mother of God is key to our understanding of the Incarnation. It is actually more of a statement about Jesus than about Mary.

Rose, that is an excellent point and a vital distinction. Our theology is Christocentric not Mary-centric, which helps distinguish how we differ from RCC/EO on this point. We elevate Christ.

[Qoheleth]

Our theology is Christocentric not Mary-centric, which helps distinguish how we differ from RCC/EO on this point. We elevate Christ.


and the EO elevate Mary above Christ??? Is this what you are saying?

Q

[Protoevangel]

Well, I have to admit, in part it was, the "not officially taught" statement tugged at me...because it was officially taught to me when I studied Lutheran doctrine. But there were other comments as well.

See, I don't necessarily agree with that either. Mary being the Mother of God is key to our understanding of the Incarnation. It is actually more of a statement about Jesus than about Mary.
What other comments?

I am saddened that you didn't directly challenge me on anything I said that was wrong. Friends don't let friends teach error, do they? ;) We are still friends, aren't we? :hug: You know that I will admit my error when I am wrong. In fact, this is one of those times. Considering the quote that IowaLutheran posted, and you also referenced, after going back and reading it in depth, I repent of my original answer. The true Lutheran Church does indeed oficially teach that Mary is the mother of God. As my previous posts indicated, I, myself, never questioned that Mary is indeed Theokotos, but I did not remember the reference in the confessions. My comments reflected my poor memory, and what I have read from other sources. I should know better.

[Robbie_James_Francis]

Our theology is Christocentric not Mary-centric, which helps distinguish how we differ from RCC/EO on this point. We elevate Christ.and the EO elevate Mary above Christ??? Is this what you are saying?

No objection to the statment that we Catholics do the same, then? ;)

[ByzantineDixie]

What other comments?

Well, since you asked and because it's you....

We don't exactly use the same terminology as the Roman Catholic or Orthodox Church....

I think people are just not comfortable with certain terms and expressions for fear of accepting something that can mean more than at first glance.

God-Bearer = (in Greek) theotokos. I suppose if you want to get fancy you could use the Greek term to really make people react with hesitation lol

The only thing that bothered me about the term Theotokos is I hadn't heard it pronounced until my professor said it and I was a little embarrased that all the time prior in my mind I was pronouncing it "Thay O' ta kus" rather than "Thay o TOE' kos"

I am saddened that you didn't directly challenge me on anything I said that was wrong. Friends don't let friends teach error, do they? ;) We are still friends, aren't we? :hug: You know that I will admit my error when I am wrong. In fact, this is one of those times.

Oh Dan...of course we are still friends. :hug: I should have known I could have safely challenged you directly. Please forgive me.

But I am a bit weary and a bit keyboard shy these days. It seems that so much of what I believe and understand to be Lutheran...from reading the Confessions and the works of the reformers and the writings of some knowledgeable contemporary theologians is not what most modern day Lutherans believe. And you have to know that seeing this bipolar disorder (the then and now) that has manifested itself in the Lutheran church has taken its toll on me. It surely affects how I post...but it also affects much, much more than that.

Thank you for calling me on this.

[SPALATIN]

But I am a bit weary and a bit keyboard shy these days. It seems that so much of what I believe and understand to be Lutheran...from reading the Confessions and the works of the reformers and the writings of some knowledgeable contemporary theologians is not what most modern day Lutherans believe. And you have to know that seeing this bipolar disorder (the then and now) that has manifested itself in the Lutheran church has taken its toll on me. It surely affects how I post...but it also affects much, much more than that.

Thank you for calling me on this.

Rose,

Just ignore the contemporary theologians. They don't know what they are talking about. ;). Weedon is not contemporary. He is old school.

[filosofer]

Rose,

Just ignore the contemporary theologians. They don't know what they are talking about. ;). Weedon is not contemporary. He is old school.


He was a young whipper-snapper classmate of mine at seminary. (I was already third-career by the time I went to seminary ;) )

[Protoevangel]

Well, since you asked and because it's you....

The only thing that bothered me about the term Theotokos is I hadn't heard it pronounced until my professor said it and I was a little embarrased that all the time prior in my mind I was pronouncing it "Thay O' ta kus" rather than "Thay o TOE' kos"

Oh Dan...of course we are still friends. :hug: I should have known I could have safely challenged you directly. Please forgive me.

But I am a bit weary and a bit keyboard shy these days. It seems that so much of what I believe and understand to be Lutheran...from reading the Confessions and the works of the reformers and the writings of some knowledgeable contemporary theologians is not what most modern day Lutherans believe. And you have to know that seeing this bipolar disorder (the then and now) that has manifested itself in the Lutheran church has taken its toll on me. It surely affects how I post...but it also affects much, much more than that.

Thank you for calling me on this.
:blush: I thought you meant other comments I made. That resulted in me completely misunderstand the rest of your post. I am sorry about that Rose! You have done nothing to need forgiveness for (in this context, anyway ;)). Love you, sis!

[MORTANIUS]

:groupray: I feel a group hug coming on

[Protoevangel]

http://www.zionluthcamas.org/images/15392946.lemer21J.jpgAwww!

[SPALATIN]

He was a young whipper-snapper classmate of mine at seminary. (I was already third-career by the time I went to seminary ;) )


So does that make the rest of us tadpoles? ;)

[KEPLER]

"[W]e believe, teach, and confess that Mary did not conceive and give birth to a child who was merely, purely, simply human, but she gave birth to the true son of God. Therefore, she is rightly called and truly is the Mother of God."

Formula of Concord, Epitome, Article VIII.

Excellent point! I'm pretty sure that in this passage in the Latin translation (in the Triglotta), "Mother of God" is NOT translated as "Mater Dei" (the standard latin phrase for "Mother of God") but as "deipara" which is the EXACT latin equivalent of "theotokos": God Bearer.

On the other hand, I don't have my triglotta in front of me, so I can't be sure. But I KNOW that the term "deipara" is used somewhere...pretty sure it's this passage.

Cheers

EC

[ctobola]

Ron,

You may not be aware of it, but you are embracing some of the gnostic ideas that physical and the spiritual are opposing, ontologically different and contrary forces -- one bad and the other good.

Remember that God created both. Paul uses the terms flesh and spirit to contrast worldly and Godly natures: that dichotomy is a useful illustration, but don't take it too far. The most "fleshy" parts of our lives (sexual relations with a spouse, a good beer, romance, dancing with an attractive member of the opposite sex) are wonderful gifts from a gracious God.

In Christ, -Cloy



... when women are born, they already possess all of the eggs they'll ever have the chance of ferilizing. This means that the egg that would become Jesus was already in her body when she was born.

As well .... when we're born, we bring with us, into this world, two sets of chromosomes: 22 from our mother ... 22 from our father. We know where Jesus' maternal chromosomes came from. But where would His father's come from? If the answer is from God or the Holy Spirit ... then we're saying God (or the Holy Spirit) possesses the same genetic make up as us. This cannot be, because the Bible says God is a spirit.

Any other thoughts or ideas on this?

[ctobola]

I'd say that happens more frequently than we care to admit.
In my experience, the garden statues of Mary outnumber of the statues in Jesus in this area.
-Cloy

and the EO elevate Mary above Christ??? Is this what you are saying?

Q

[ctobola]

Filo,

I do have to take a minor issue with your statement that Lutherans don't have a problem with the term "Mother of God." Although the term is technically correct, for many of us it sets our teeth on edge to use it -- at least without defining its implications -- because of the confusion it has caused.

Nestorius was right -- and the charges against him were exaggerated -- because we called her "Mother of God," many people have assumed that she is mother of all three persons of the Trinity and that she existed before God. (Gosh, this sounds like more of Mormon belief than a Christian one.)

I think we've seen that frequently occur in the RC, Eastern and Anglican denominations. In this region of the US, there is a large annual event called the "Marian Eucharistic Congress." Just that title says something about the pecking order.

I think LuthersRose raises an important point when noting that...
"It is actually more of a statement about Jesus than about Mary." I believe that failing to keep that in mind has caused a lot of mischief.

Just my 2 cents.

In Christ, -Cloy




Hi, Rose. Just for clarification, which term are you asking why Lutherans might have trouble with? If it is Mother of God term? Lutherans don't have a problem with it.