The phrase "Divine Motherhood" means to say that Mary is the mother of Christ's Divinity. I don't think even the most ardent devotees of Mary believe this. I know that the Catholic Church teaches (in accordance with the Scripture) that Mary is the mother of Christ's humanity, not of Christ's Divinity.

Therefore, I think the phrase "Divine Motherhood" is un-Catholic, certainly un-Scriptural, and most certainly un-factual.

But before I edit the phrase "Divine Motherhood" in this article, I shall take three days period to wait. Perhaps the phrase has an intended different meaning, if it does feel free to explain in reply to this my post. Archestrategos (talk) 07:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Watch out for Nestorianism. Nestorius denied this, and he was excommunicated as a heretic. Divine maternity/motherhood is just another name for the Theotokos, it is an English translation of the Greek title. The fact that Mary is Jesus Christ's mother does not at all remove the fact that Jesus Christ is fully man and fully God, according to Catholic teachings. ADM (talk) 20:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the phrase Theotokos has been poorly translated as "Divine Motherhood". Shouldn't it (literally) be "Divine Bearing-hood"?

Theotokos means "Bearer of God", not "Mother of God". There is an important distinction here.

Archestrategos (talk) 21:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe if you take it in a very literal sense, but how can you bear a baby if you are not His mother ? In this case, the baby, Jesus, also happens to be God. That's all the teaching means, really. And no, Jesus did not become God at four months pregnancy, he was God from the very first moment of his conception by the Holy Spirit, he was God even before his conception and before time existed. ADM (talk) 21:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Christ is God before all things. That is why when talking about motherhood in relation to Jesus, it is only correct to say that Mary is the mother of the humanity of Jesus, but not of His Divinity.

So Mary is the bearer of the Divinity of Jesus, and the mother of the humanity of Jesus. The flesh (humanity) of Jesus came from the flesh and blood of Mary. But His Divinity is eternal before all things.

I am saying this, because otherwise those not familiar with the distinction between the term "Divine Motherhood" might construe it to mean that we believe that Mary is the mother of the Divinity of Jesus.

A more accurate term should be found, and used instead of "Divine Motherhood". The Greeks have a term for that in their own language, "Theotokos", and thus avoids misunderstanding.

--Archestrategos (talk) 01:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't entirely wrong on this, Archestrategos. I would like to show you the English version of the Chalcedonian Creed, which solemly declares that Mary is the Mother of God according to Manhood. This is exactly what you were saying, I think. ADM (talk) 01:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach people to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ,

the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood;

truly God and truly man, of a reasonable soul and body;

consubstantial with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood;

in all things like unto us, without sin;

begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of :::the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood;

one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, :::inseparably;

the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, :::and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only :::begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ;

as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the :::Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.

Yes, that's what I mean.

Perhaps it is best to add a section (near the start of the article) "Mother of God according to Manhood" explaining this distinction.

Then subsequent usages of "Divine Motherhood" should be modified to "Motherhood of God according to Manhood".

I think it necessary to avoid misunderstanding of the Incarnation. Unclear usage of "Divine Motherhood" might cause impression of polytheism.

--Archestrategos (talk) 03:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Archestrategos, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and have been reverted. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  Dougweller (talk) 06:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Race of Jesus. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 06:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are adding your own ideas, your own interpretations, and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia reporting what reliable sources (see WP:RS have said about a subject. We call what you are doing original research. Read WP:OR. And before you put your text back, please read WP:3RR. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 06:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't my own idea. It's what we Christians understand the verses to mean (based on the Bible itself). I don't know how to add link, so I just copied and pasted the relevant bits.

It isn't original research. It's mainstream Christian interpretation of Revelation 1:13-16. Are you telling me that I can't quote mainstream Christian interpretation? And why is it controversial that Christians consider Revelation 1:13-16 to be talking about Jesus' Glorified Body?

--Archestrategos (talk) 07:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have something to quote from a theologian, please do (so long it is relevant to the article, but I guess that goes without saying although I've said it). The problem is, that it is, at it stands, 'your' understanding of mainstream Christian interpretation. How would a non-Christian, as an example, verify this to be accurate? Some things are so easy to verify we don't have to, eg New York City is in the United States wouldn't need a citation. But this does. Dougweller (talk) 07:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another question. You changed 'imperial' to 'kingly' on Melkite - do I gather that Dick says kingly then? Dougweller (talk) 09:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did. The root word is "melek" which means "king", not "emperor". I don't know what Dick says about it, but you're welcome to check any Semitic language dictionary on "melek".

--Archestrategos (talk) 09:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that you changed cited text without knowing what the cite says. Given for instance [1] which includes kingly, royal and imperial as possible meanings I have no reason to think Dick didn't say kingly. You need to change the reference to one that says kingly - the one in the link, or one of these [2]. Dougweller (talk) 12:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the cited source is wrong. "Melek" can only mean "kingly" or "royal" (both of which mean the exact same thing, because roi = king, royal = kingly). It doesn't mean "imperial" at all.

I also tried clicking the link, but it directed me to the footnote # 1 at the bottom of the page. When I tried clicking the footnote # 1 at the bottom of the page, it redirected me to the link again. I guess the link should be fixed, and the meaning of "malkiya" should be revised to "kingly" or "royal" (both mean the exact same thing).

--Archestrategos (talk) 01:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly etymologically speaking, "malkaya" means "kingly / royal", it doesn't mean "imperial" at all. However, historically speaking, the term was applied to the sect because they adhered to the Roman Emperor, which I assume was also called "King of Rome", and therefore the term "Melkite" or "Royalist" came to be applied to them.

That is one possibility. Another possibility is that the Arabic or Aramaic language has no equivalent term for "emperor", and thus no word for "imperial". If I am not mistaken, in fact that is what the Semitic people called the Roman Emperor, they called him "the King of Rome".

Again, etymologically speaking, the word "Emperor", being derived from the Latin "Imperator" means "Commander". There is an equivalent Arabic term for that, which is "Al-Amir". But it certainly is not "Al-Malik" which means "King". They are two different words meaning two different things.

Therefore, strictly etymologically speaking, the word "malkaya" strictly means "kingly / royal", and the Melkites were thus termed meaning that they were Royalist Christians adhering to the Roman King (Emperor).

If you want to include "imperial" in the explanation of the origin of the name "Melkite", you will have to explain all these in details, since it is a mistake to say that "malkaya" can mean "imperial" as well as "kingly / royal". It doesn't at all.

--Archestrategos (talk) 02:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean is that the Semitic people of that time did not have an equivalent political office of an Emperor or "Imperator" that the Roman and Byzantine (Second Rome) people had. Therefore they did not coin a specific term in their language to denote such an office, because the office did not exist in their nation back then.

However, strictly etymologically speaking, the term "Al-Amir" would mean the exact same thing as "Imperator". In fact later when the Moslem Arabs possessed imperial power, they designated their Emperor as "Al-Amir", with the military connotation similarly present in the word "Imperator".

However, this has no bearing at all on the origin of the name "Melkite", which was derived from "malkaya", which strictly means "kingly / royal". It was only reasonable that the Semitic people back then, not having a political concept of the imperial office of their own, termed the Byzantine Emperor "King of (Second) Rome", and thus the Melkites came to be known as "malkaya", or "royalists".

So again, the best way to explain the origin of the name "Melkite" would be to start with explaining the strict etymological meaning of the word "malkaya" as "kingly / royal", and then to proceed to explain why "King" was applied to the Byzantine Emperor.

Otherwise, to say that "malkaya" can mean "imperial" is a factual mistake which Wikipedia should not commit.

--Archestrategos (talk) 03:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]