Can God have a mother?

[Guest]

I'm much more comfortable in referring to Christ's mother or brothers than "God's" mother. Yes Christ was God, but Mary didn't contribute to that Godness. In some ways, it was almost like a surrogate. Did Jesus have Mary's DNA? How do we know?

Well, we can just ask James Cameron about anything regarding Jesus and DNA...he knows his stuff.


Like Paidion mentioned, the term is God-bearer (theotokos), but there's also a less offensive one, christotokos, which means "Christ-bearer". No denying that one, and it doesn't so easily cause division.

I think one reason Catholics like to use the God-bearer term is because they see the Ark of the Covenant as a type of Mary. Which leads to the Immaculate Conception, since the Ark was holy, Mary would need to be holy, yada yada yada...

[_kaufmannphillips]

Mary housed the transformation but to say "mother of God" means God had a beginning, or a start. And it deify's Mary because diety begets diety.

I'm much more comfortable in referring to Christ's mother or brothers than "God's" mother. Yes Christ was God, but Mary didn't contribute to that Godness. In some ways, it was almost like a surrogate. Did Jesus have Mary's DNA?

Is the epithet of "mother"hood to depend upon begetting and the transmission of DNA? Adoptees worldwide might dispute such a narrow approach.


Shlamaa,
Emmet

[Guest]

I'm much more comfortable in referring to Christ's mother or brothers than "God's" mother. Yes Christ was God, but Mary didn't contribute to that Godness. In some ways, it was almost like a surrogate. Did Jesus have Mary's DNA?

Is the epithet of "mother"hood to depend upon begetting and the transmission of DNA? Adoptees worldwide might dispute such a narrow approach.

I actually have an adopted daughter. That wasn't the point. My point is in the context of Mary possibly being more of a surrogate than the "mother" of the godhead part of Christ. I'm sure He called her "Mommy" and meant it. My daughter means it when she calls me "Dad". But it is a description of our relationship, not literal, biological "fatherhood". We wouldn't call Joseph Christ's "Father" in a biological sense because we know he wasn't. Yet how do we know that Mary was a biological component in Christ's makeup? I don't know that we can know. If Christ didn't share Mary's DNA, then Mary was more Christ's Mommy than God's Mother.
D.

[_kaufmannphillips]

Hello,

Thank you for your response.

My daughter means it when she calls me "Dad". But it is a description of our relationship, not literal, biological "fatherhood".

So the question is: is biology the definitive factor of "mother"hood or "father"hood? Or is it relationship? Or do both grounds constitute sufficient attachment to fairly justify the epithet?

If Christ didn't share Mary's DNA, then Mary was more Christ's Mommy than God's Mother.

Based on semantics that not even all present-day Americans would subscribe to, much less persons of the past. People in the time of Jesus were well-acquainted with adoption as constituting valid parenthood.

If you have legally adopted your daughter, does not the law consider you to be her father, and not just her "Dad"?


Shlamaa,
Emmet

[Guest]

If you have legally adopted your daughter, does not the law consider you to be her father, and not just her "Dad"?

It does. But that recognition doesn't eliminate her birth parents. They too could be called her "mother" and "father". My point is that some would say that since Mary was Christ's mother and Christ was God that Mary was God's mother. A lot of these assume a biological connection that I don't know we can definitively prove. As such, Mary would be "God's Mother" only to the point that Joseph was "God's Father". Yet people don't want to take it that far, and the reason why seems to be based on nothing but an assumption that Mary was more than just a surrogate. Unless it can be proved that Mary and Christ shared DNA, if we are going to call her "God's mother" than we should also call Joseph "God's father". Yes it is semantics, but that was the nature of the topic question.

[_kaufmannphillips]

Hello,

As such, Mary would be "God's Mother" only to the point that Joseph was "God's Father". Yet people don't want to take it that far, and the reason why seems to be based on nothing but an assumption that Mary was more than just a surrogate. Unless it can be proved that Mary and Christ shared DNA, if we are going to call her "God's mother" than we should also call Joseph "God's father".

Some do refer to Joseph as "Father of God," though it is not so common. And in Orthodox circles, James is called "Brother of God" in liturgy and iconography, so the interpretive logic is not confined to Mary.

Interestingly, David is referred to as "Father of God" by John of Damascus and by Dionysius the Areopagite. Which raises attendant issues: if Jesus is neither the son of Mary nor of Joseph, how then is he the son of David, and of the seed of David (cf. Romans 1:3; II Timothy 2:8 )? And regardless, if he is the son of David and of the seed of David, then is not David, at least, his father?


Shlamaa,
Emmet

[_kaufmannphillips]

Hello, Seth,

Like Paidion mentioned, the term is God-bearer (theotokos), but there's also a less offensive one, christotokos, which means "Christ-bearer". No denying that one, and it doesn't so easily cause division.

Of course, the advancement of "Christotokos" by Nestorius led to terrific conflict and the first great schism in the church, ultimately costing the catholic church much of Egypt, Syria, and Persia.


Shlamaa,
Emmet

[_kaufmannphillips]

I'm much more comfortable in referring to Christ's mother or brothers than "God's" mother. Yes Christ was God, but Mary didn't contribute to that Godness.

If we are going to be this anal retentive, then no woman is any "man's" mother, because she did not contribute to his maleness. The Y-chromosome comes only from the father.

Such a dissective approach undermines the unity of Jesus' personhood, and introduces further theological issues. Was there a part of Jesus that was not God? If so, then Jesus was not actually "God," but only "part-God."

(Of course, for my money Jesus was "not God," which avoids all such complication.)

Shlamaa,
Emmet

P.S: edited once to correct an error in the subject heading...

[Guest]

Of course, for my money Jesus was "not God," which avoids all such complication.

Are you sure you're on the right forum?
D.

[_kaufmannphillips]

Are you sure you're on the right forum?

Doesn't "Misc. Theological Topics" cover a lot of ground?


Shlamaa,
Emmet