Luke 1:43

[Sparko]

Remember that he also holds the view that Jesus' human nature was not added to himself. Rather he holds the unorthodox view that Jesus had two natures before the incarnation, a divine nature and a placeholder nature that turned into a human nature at his incarnation.

yeah, but that doesn't really change anything regarding the birth and whether Mary can be called "the mother of God" in the sense that Catholics use the term.

Personally I think the title is a bit presumptive, I think Mary would be too humble to consider herself "the Mother of God"

But I understand what they mean by the title. They are not claiming that Mary is higher than God, or created God.

[One Bad Pig]

yeah, but that doesn't really change anything regarding the birth and whether Mary can be called "the mother of God" in the sense that Catholics use the term.

Personally I think the title is a bit presumptive, I think Mary would be too humble to consider herself "the Mother of God"

But I understand what they mean by the title. They are not claiming that Mary is higher than God, or created God.

I'm pretty sure that every single person who is venerated as a saint would be too humble to consider themselves such.

[Adrift]

yeah, but that doesn't really change anything regarding the birth and whether Mary can be called "the mother of God" in the sense that Catholics use the term.

Right. I was just pointing out how error compounds upon error. His Christology was already on shaky ground. It's no surprise it gets messier the deeper you dig.

Personally I think the title is a bit presumptive, I think Mary would be too humble to consider herself "the Mother of God"

But I understand what they mean by the title. They are not claiming that Mary is higher than God, or created God.

Agreed.

[Sparko]

I'm pretty sure that every single person who is venerated as a saint would be too humble to consider themselves such.

yeah I have a problem with "sainthood" for the same reasons.

[One Bad Pig]

yeah I have a problem with "sainthood" for the same reasons.

On a far more mundane level, if your firm honored you with "Employee of the Year" would you turn it down because you didn't feel worthy of the honor?

[Sparko]

On a far more mundane level, if your firm honored you with "Employee of the Year" would you turn it down because you didn't feel worthy of the honor?

That's a fair point. But I wouldn't like it if they said "Now that you are employee of the year, we will put your picture up on the wall and people will pray to it and expect you to help them all because that's your new job"

[One Bad Pig]

That's a fair point. But I wouldn't like it if they said "Now that you are employee of the year, we will put your picture up on the wall and people will pray to it and expect you to help them all because that's your new job"

When someone asks me to pray for them, I don't consider that as a job assignment.

[tabibito]

Would a saint really indulge in false humility?

[Sparko]

When someone asks me to pray for them, I don't consider that as a job assignment.

It just seems way too conveniently like rewriting the whole pantheon of Gods into Christianity to me. Instead of a god/goddess of such and such you have a saint for it.

[One Bad Pig]

Would a saint really indulge in false humility?

No. A saint would be truly humble. The closer one gets to God, the more one's faults are visible. Knowing that I'm a sinful man doesn't prevent me from praying for others, however.

[tabibito]

I'm pretty sure that every single person who is venerated as a saint would be too humble to consider themselves such.

Seems to me that a saint would likely know what he was - and would be unlikely to deny it.

[One Bad Pig]

It just seems way too conveniently like rewriting the whole pantheon of Gods into Christianity to me. Instead of a god/goddess of such and such you have a saint for it.

That's actually an ignorant way to look at things, AFAICT. There were gods pagans prayed to for various things, but it's not like there's a saint of trees or the ocean or love or whatnot. It's sort of human nature to go to, e.g., a famous sailor for help with sailing. In Christianity, it is improper to believe that the saint actually does the curing, and any saint can intercede for any problem. That's a completely different concept than needing to go to a particular god for that god to exert its powers in a certain situation.

[One Bad Pig]

Seems to me that a saint would likely know what he was - and would be unlikely to deny it.

From the saint's point of view, because he is so close to God he can see the faults we can't see - so he could truthfully say that he is a sinner. Again, it's largely beside the point; he'd still intercede regardless.

[37818]

In short - you're saying that Jesus of Nazareth had been God, and would be God after his resurrection ... but he sort of temporarily retired from being God for the duration and became a man.

No. The Son of God's Godhood would throughout remain unchanged. God does not change.

[Sparko]

That's actually an ignorant way to look at things, AFAICT. There were gods pagans prayed to for various things, but it's not like there's a saint of trees or the ocean or love or whatnot. It's sort of human nature to go to, e.g., a famous sailor for help with sailing. In Christianity, it is improper to believe that the saint actually does the curing, and any saint can intercede for any problem. That's a completely different concept than needing to go to a particular god for that god to exert its powers in a certain situation.

I don't know about in Orthodoxy but in Catholicism you have "Patron" saints of various things from AIDs caregivers to Zoos.