Take the 2-minute tour ×
Christianity Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for committed Christians, experts in Christianity and those interested in learning more. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I find the title "Mother of God" for the Virgin Mary confusing. It is clear that she was the mother of Jesus, the Son. But the title suggests (indeed, not literally, but still) that Mary is mother of God as a Trinity. Is that correct?

If so, it creates the problem that a human (or is there reason to say that Mary wasn't (entirely) human?) gave birth to God, while God created mankind. This problem doesn't exist when Mary is only mother of Jesus, because then it could be merely a way of speaking to say that Mary was the one through whom the Word became flesh, which would be the protestant view as described in Why do Protestants not refer to Mary by the title "Mother of God"?.

share|improve this question
Not my downvote, but it's not correct: Jesus is God, so Mary is Mother of God. The Father is God, but Mary is not mother of the Father. But that doesn't stop her being Mother of God, because Jesus is God. See Athanasius –  Andrew Leach Apr 2 '14 at 10:06
Mary is the mother of Jesus in His physical being. Yet He is eternal and only took on flesh. So, Jesus is Mary's Creator, but Mary is the mother of Jesus according to the flesh. –  Narnian Apr 2 '14 at 12:55
There is an athiest argument that says, "God screwed his mother to create himself". As rude as it is, it's an pandora's box to figure out. –  The Freemason Apr 2 '14 at 15:44
@AndrewLeach valid point, thank you. Literally you are right, but still, I think the title at least suggests that Mary is mother of God the Trinity. I edited my question accordingly. –  Camil Staps Apr 3 '14 at 7:47

1 Answer 1

up vote 6 down vote accepted

But the title seems to refer to God the Trinity. Is that correct?

No it does not.

First trinity is not God. Trinity is how God is. That is trinity is not a person, it is a relationship. So Mary cannot be the mother of Trinity.

Secondly it would be nice if you know the context why and when this was declared as a dogma. The problem rose when Aryan said the Mary held within herself only the human Jesus and not divine Christ. That is Mary is the mother of human Jesus. But as we all know mothers don't give birth to "human nature", but to a person. Hence Mary is the mother of a person named Jesus, who happens to be divine in an Hypostatic union. Since Mary is mother of His humanity, she is also the mother of His divinity.

When we say Mary is the mother of God, we do not mean that she is the author of His Divinity. But we mean that she held in herself and gave birth to God and Human Jesus.

share|improve this answer
To be precise, Mary is "the mother of God the Son." That would eliminate the confusion for everyone. –  H3br3wHamm3r81 Apr 3 '14 at 18:25
Wait a second. So you guys are saying that God came to the Earth in the form of a man, who during his lifetime was limited in knowledge and power and openly admitted that The Father was greater than he was. OK, so Mary was the mother of the man Jesus but it's highly misleading to call her mother of God. Because it's obvious God existed before Mary, and the listener may easily apply the property of parenthood that parents predate their children! –  Gregory Magarshak May 28 '14 at 16:18
@GregoryMagarshak knowledge and power is limited to his human intellect not divine. Jesus is 100% Human and 100% divine. Jesus is one person with two nature in hypostatic union. Since mary carried inside her the person of Jesus who happens to be both human and divine, Mary is the Mother of God. –  Jayarathina Madharasan May 28 '14 at 16:57

protected by Community Jul 3 '14 at 17:21

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality answers, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site.

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.