Siam:
I'm afraid things may not be as simple historically, as they seem now.....Its my understanding that the Chrisitian creeds were developed in opposition to other equally valid creeds---it just so happens that the creeds that won politcally (not scripturally) are the ones dominant now.......
So the "Mother of God"--"theotokos" was developed because there was an opposing concept---that of "christotokos"---"Mother of Christ"
I have to disagree with you there, bro. This particular issue was not a political issue; it was STRICTLY theological.
Check it out...
----I agree that the debate itself was theological---the party that became mainstream was for politcal reasons rather than doctrinal superiority....
Since mainstream Christians understand Jesus Christ as both fully God and fully human, they call Mary Theotokos to affirm the fullness of God's incarnation. The Council of Ephesus decreed, in opposition to those who denied Mary the title Theotokos ("the one who gives birth to God") but called her Christotokos ("the one who gives birth to Christ"), that Mary is Theotokos because her son Jesus is one person who is both God and man, divine and human. (Some Protestants still insist that Mary cannot be truly Theotokos, but only Christotokos.) Cyril of Alexandria wrote, "I am amazed that there are some who are entirely in doubt as to whether the holy Virgin should be called Theotokos or not. For if our Lord Jesus Christ is God, how is the holy Virgin who gave [Him] birth, not [Theotokos]?" (Epistle 1, to the monks of Egypt; PG 77:13B). Thus the significance of Theotokos lies more in what it says about Jesus than any declaration about Mary.
---I agree here also, however, such nuance escapes the average worshipper---particular those average worshippers of the time who were practically illiterate......
Canons 1-5 of the Council of Ephesus speak against
Nestorius's belief...
Shortly after his arrival in Constantinople, Nestorius became involved in the disputes of two theological factions, which differed in their Christology. Nestorius tried to find a middle ground between those that emphasized the fact that in Christ God had been born as a man, insisted on calling the Virgin Mary Theotokos (Greek: Θεοτόκος, "God-bearer"), and those that rejected that title because God as an eternal being could not have been born. Nestorius suggested the title Christotokos (Χριστοτόκος, "Christ-bearer"), but did not find acceptance on either side.
Please note that last part. Nestorius' view had NEVER been fully accepted as viable by EITHER SIDE of the debate. So, the rejection of his doctrine was not politically motivated at all. It was simply THEOLOGICALLY wrong...to all concerned.
Just for clarity.
----That may be so....as I am myself unfamilair with the nuance of these things----but as far as my understanding, Historically---up until the 7th century--the present understanding of the Trinity was not mainstream in that there were competing understanding of the nature of Christ....and much of the creeds (including nicea) were formulated in opposition to these other understandings of the scripture/doctrine.
*******************************************************
Siam:
There are Catholics that end up worshiping the "Mother of God" and if you see the language of the CCC---you will see why----refer to CCC484-511 and CCC963-975
Lemme just say this: The Roman Catholic church, by their doctrines, practically made the VENERATION of Mary (allowable) into virtual WORSHIP of Mary (non-allowable). This has NEVER been a problem with any of the Eastern churches, if you note. Even so, it is still
NOT the case that official Roman Catholic theology says that 1) Mary is a member of the Trinity or 2) Mary is the mother of God in some eternal sense. That's what matters.
---I agree
********************************************
Siam:
I think you need to refine your ideas further YO....
"The Gospel of John has been seen as aimed at emphasizing Jesus' divinity, presenting Jesus as the Logos, pre-existent and divine, from its first words, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God".[John 1:1] John also portrays Jesus Christ as the Creator of the universe, such that "without him nothing was made that has been made."[John 1:3]
Basically, nothing would be made with out the "Word/Memra" of God the Father. God creates and sustains all things by his Word. This Word antedates Creation, thus IS uncreated AS God the Father...and this Word is eternally WITH God the Father."
Everything is made/created by the "Word" but "everyhting" is not God. So why should Jesus Chrsit(pbuh) be any different?
This is very important to understanding. The human nature of Jesus (both incorporeal and corporeal aspects) is FULLY CREATED...just like any other human. So, the human soul and body that Jesus had were of the created order. At the same time the "Word/Memra" of God that incarnated into the human soul and body is FULLY UNCREATED. The only thing that makes Jesus in any sense "fully God" is the fact of the Uncreated "Word/Memra" of God the Father takes on the created human nature, becoming a single human being. This is why Christian theology says that Jesus has TWO NATURES, human and divine. Please remember the "atom" analogy and it's two natures (wave and particle). I really think that helps understanding!
----I will address this issue in a minute
*******************************************
Siam:
WHY? YO....why an incarnation in the first place?
Eastern Christianity believes that the incarnation was primarily due to God's loving desire to 1) reveal Himself to humans in human terms and 2) be in complete identification with his beloved Creation. If you notice, one of the main things Christians say about the Incarnation is that, because of it, we KNOW that God has "walked a mile in our moccasins". We have an God that KNOWS the perils of human flesh and emotion...because he has freely chosen to IDENTIFY with our human struggle.
