Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:
The translation becomes literally "Mother of God" and that gets into all kinds of theological troubled waters

---

I mean... that's what theotokos means. "One who gives birth to God" would be woodenly literal, but last time I checked that was completely identical to mother. She is truly Theotokos, because she really gave birth to Christ, and He is fully God and fully Man. I find this confusing.

---

We know Jesus is God, and we know Mary is his mother. So saying Mother of God is a reasonable thing to say. Now imagine what a Jewish person or a Muslim person would think if you said Mother of God. What conception would they have? The automatic implication is mother of our concept of God the Father with assumption that she preexisted Him and played a major role in His existence. That distinction becomes very difficult to explain in some languages, at least according to that Assyrian Bishop.

So while Mary is the mother of God, she's not the mother of God the Father, the Holy Spirit, or the Trinity as a whole. That's why Nestorius (and the far eastern Churches) prefered the term Mother of Christ as a more precise term. This set up a conflict with the Alexandrians in particular, as they were adamantly that Mother of God was traditional and were insulted by any other honorific. So we had the Alexandrians insistently using Mother of God, the Assyrians and far eastern churches using Mother of Christ, and the other Churches being fairly permissive with either but usually prefering Mother of God.

In comes Nestorius, patriarch of Constantinople. He overstepped by trying to say that Mary was only the mother of Christ's human nature and not his divine nature. I'd guess that was to distinguish that she had no part in the creation or begetting of his divine nature, but it was a bridge too far. Trying to separate Jesus' natures caused more problems than it fixed, and it completely neglects the fact that she did indeed give birth to and nurture the divine nature of Christ at the same time as the human nature. So she was still very much the mother to both. The Assyrians rejected Nestorius' formulation, but they refused to condemn him as they thought he was "on their side" to an extent. Much like people will refuse to condemn leaders on "their side" even when they disagree.

So anyway, the Assyrians still prefer to use Mother of Christ as it is more precise and carries less of these other implications that need to be carefully explained. However, when you actually sit these people down and connect the Christological dots, it's all just a matter of terminology. At least according to that Assyrian bishop.

I don't think it's more precise. Christ is God. There are people who do not confess this. Theotokos is a confession of Christ's divinity. Christotokos is not (necessarily).

Yeah well, I don't know how to say "Mother of God the Son" in Greek.

Theotokos and Christotokos are both accurate within the trinitarian understanding, but both have their issues as we've said.

I really think this is still a core issue. Arians agreed He was the Son of God, too. The Word is Yahweh; Mary is the mother of the Word, and the Word was God.

There are other christs mentioned in the bible who are not the Word.

I said "Mother of God the Son" not "Mother of the Son of God". Hard to imagine any Arians going along with calling Christ "God the Son"

Oh I dyslexiad that one right up

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

. I just don't see any way to compare one to another and say "that one is right" and "the rest are all wrong". I mean, if we're going by numbers and Apostolic authority, it's hard to beat the RCC

---

The schism of 1067 was a result of the Pope changing the game, naming himself primary to his fellow Patriarchs, and starting to change things set for a thousand years. When the mutual excommunications occurred, the RCC began moving into others territories. Heck, Eastern Rite Catholics are a result of the RCC doing this very thing. Growing by stealing others parishioners in their own cultural garments and worship styles and gaining territory. Read up on the Crusades. The Orthodox were attacked and murdered along with Muslims. So, numbers aren't everything.

The reason I am Orthodox instead of maintaining the church of my original baptism, the RCC. No changes to doctrine, canon or faith tradition. No controversy of cultural shift influencing the church.

Oh, and no, we can't say where the Holy Spirit is or isn't. I'm not going to point to those other churches, Protestant or Catholic and say that Jesus is not there. I just know where I need to be, to be in the physical life of the church.

"changing the game"

Is that accurate?

Quote:

---

The reason I am Orthodox instead of maintaining the church of my original baptism, the RCC. No changes to doctrine, canon or faith tradition. No controversy of cultural shift influencing the church.

---

That's good and I'm glad you're happy, but every single Eucharistic church would make the same argument. Even the Lutherans felt like they were rolling back innovations and returning to the pure apostolic faith. Of course the other churches I brought up, RCC/Orthodox/Oriental Orthodox/Assyrian, all maintain that they have the same faith in every way as they did when they were founded. With the RCC that claim is a bit ridiculous on its face, but the argument for primacy is not. With all the others, I can't personally find any evidence to contradict their claims in a broad sense

This is going to sound like a gotcha but it isn't intended to be. If that's the case, are you a member of the Coptic, Church of the East, or Orthodox Church?

Zobel said:

---

This is going to sound like a gotcha but it isn't intended to be. If that's the case, are you a member of the Coptic, Church of the East, or Orthodox Church?

---

Not a gotcha at all. For lack of a better description, I'm definitely feeling pulled in that direction from many different angles right now, but I'm incredibly stubborn. I think the main thing bothering me now is the exclusivity aspect. For instance, I've grown up in Baptist churches and have spent a lot of time in those and non-denom churches. I don't always see eye to eye with everyone there, but no one really cares. Most Protestants are cool with very individual faith. So I would feel perfectly comfortable going to my friend's local Baptist Church and taking communion on any given occasion.

If I ended up joining my local Orthodox Church (there are not Assyrian or Oriental Orthodox in the middle of nowhere Texas), I'm worried that an action like that would be seen as wrong, somehow. And that's not really something I can get onboard with. I've been to services like the above, celebrated high holy days with Jews in NYC, went to a black Wesleyan Church in NYC as well, Methodists in Dallas, been to Orthodox services in Dalls, and Catholic Services in Italy. As a Torah observant Protestant who is very familiar with the Apostolic faiths, I feel very comfortable in all these situations and have felt that all were very loving worship in their own way. It would be very hard for me to pick one of these and be told that I could no longer fellowship with any of the rest. I'd rather be an unaligned independent in that case, and that's where my stubborness kicks in

For me at least, universal "Catholic" church, makes sense. Also, the mission, to the ends of the world!

I don't want to start a new thread but this is a good read some might appreciate.

https://www.firstthings.com/article/2019/10/catholicism-made-me-protestant

It's a good article of one man's journey. God bless him. However, by his own words- he was never Catholic.

I point that out, because, many Catholics leave the RCC because for a long time the RCC was hyper focused on administering the sacraments. My grandmother, my mom, and those before them could not cite chapter or verse for some of the most basic tenants of the RCC, such as the holy Eucharist, Reconciliation, not to mention deeper teachings on the Trinity. They believed because they felt a personal connection to Christ through the mass, Our Lady, and the rosary. That is real.

For me, and maybe this editor, more was needed. He sought out some great minds, but by his own admission he never left his Protestant upbringing and approached each with skepticism. Good for him, he found, through Luther, a personal connection that brought him to tears. I really think that experience is what we each seek.

I found that at an early age and it never left me. I have since had many personal experiences while reading the very same theologians he dismisses, Aquinas for example- which by the way he takes out of context- but Aquinas has taken me years to understand.

All this to say that it is a personal journey and not some competition. He took a different route to come back around. I started with what I knew and tried to understand it better. 52 years and I'm still on the journey. +

No argument with any of that. I don't think it's really a competitive sport, by any means, so to speak.

The editor misunderstood Aquinas and the RCC teaching on Predestination... here is a 7 min clip, by Thomistic Institute that gives a better overview: