Any non catholic: what is your opinion on Mary the Mother of God?

[Esdra]

Know what’s strange? People gagging over ‘queen of heaven’. . but not having any problems with people other than Christ who are referred to in Scripture as "king of kings."

Example: Esdras 7: 12. . .which king Artaxerxes gave to Esdras the priest, the scribe instructed in the words and commandments of the Lord, and his ceremonies in Israel. [12] Artaxerxes king of kings to Esdras the priest, the most learned scribe of the law of the God of heaven,which king Artaxerxes gave to Esdras the priest, the scribe instructed in the words and commandments of the Lord, and his ceremonies in Israel. [12] Artaxerxes king of kings to Esdras the priest, the most learned scribe of the law of the God of heaven,

**Example: Ezechiel 26: 7 **For thus saith the Lord God: Behold I will bring against Tyre Nabuchodonosor king of Babylon, the king of kings, from the north, with horses,

Example: 2 Maccabees 13: 4But the King of kings stirred up the mind of Antiochus against the sinner, and upon Lysias, ,

But NOBODY is wailing saying that those people CAN’T be called King of Kings because that is only a title for Christ.

And NOBODY is saying that because the title “king of Kings” was used for other people in Scripture, it can’t ALSO be a title of Christ.

Yet in ONE scripture reference there is made reference to a specific ‘queen of heaven’ set up at ONE point by a group of people following Baal. . .

**and somehow OMG, that ONE reference means that there can’t ever be a real queen of heaven ever. It can ONLY mean that pagan goddess forever and ever amen. **

---

How bizarre. . .

I think Protestants have problems with the “queen of heaven” because Catholics often call Mary like that. Many Protestants think that Catholics “worship” Mary. - Just like the Jews did in Jeramiah 5 (see above).
King of Kings has always been the title of the kings of the East (Babylonian, Assyrian, Persians, even of the Sassanides! In Persian this’d be Shah-an-Shah.)
Btw, it says nowhere that the Jews worshipped these king of kings, right? But they did worship the “queen of heaven” (Which is probably the Goddess Astarte) - and God was not happy at all when they did so…

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I think Protestants have problems with the “queen of heaven” because Catholics often call Mary like that. Many Protestants think that Catholics “worship” Mary. - Just like the Jews did in Jeramiah 5 (see above).
King of Kings has always been the title of the kings of the East (Babylonian, Assyrian, Persians, even of the Sassanides! In Persian this’d be Shah-an-Shah.)
Btw, it says nowhere that the Jews worshipped these king of kings, right? But they did worship the “queen of heaven” (Which is probably the Goddess Astarte) - and God was not happy at all when they did so…

But we don’t worship Mary.

We also don’t worship any king of kings but Jesus. . .but people ‘worshipped’ Nebuchadnezzer and the kings of the east.

The thing is, Jesus is the fulfillment of Judaism. And Jews had kings, prefiguring the ‘true’ King (Jesus). And those kings had a queen. . .who was not their wife, but their MOTHER.

Since Jesus is the King, he is king of heaven and earth. Since He is a King of the Jews, the Jewish system would be that his MOTHER would be queen of heaven and earth, not as some ‘goddess’ but as MOTHER OF THE KING.

Q.E.D.

 

[Esdra]

But we don’t worship Mary.

We also don’t worship any king of kings but Jesus. . .but people ‘worshipped’ Nebuchadnezzer and the kings of the east.

The thing is, Jesus is the fulfillment of Judaism. And Jews had kings, prefiguring the ‘true’ King (Jesus). And those kings had a queen. . .who was not their wife, but their MOTHER.

Since Jesus is the King, he is king of heaven and earth. Since He is a King of the Jews, the Jewish system would be that his MOTHER would be queen of heaven and earth, not as some ‘goddess’ but as MOTHER OF THE KING.

Q.E.D.

I see. Thanks for sharing.

I just tried to answer your question!

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I see. Thanks for sharing.

I just tried to answer your question!

Thank you . .

I think what you’re saying is that some Protestants see “queen of heaven” and think it can ONLY refer to a bad evil ‘goddess’ as found in Jeremiah. And that anybody who calls Mary “queen of heaven” must somehow think of her as a goddess and worship her, because in the ONE reference in Jeremiah, people who spoke of “A” queen of heaven did worship that false god(dess).

But what I wanted to explore was the Scriptural fact that many people (as you note) in history were referred to as “king of kings” and were in fact worshipped by their people. (see “Daniel”).

The fact that these people were worshipped as gods was the problem, but the ‘title’ itself was not.

If the ‘title’ were wrong, then every time this title was used except for Christ, there would be terrible things happening to these men.

But. . that doesn’t happen. In fact, God rewards many of these ‘king of kings’ for their fidelity to Him.

So the fact that a title is used of a person or a false god does not mean** that this title can never be claimed by the TRUE God or by the true ‘person’ who actually IS the representative of the title.**

We had many ‘king of kings’ (fine men some of them), but only one person is the true, ultimate DIVINE “King of Kings”.

We had ‘a’ queen of heaven who was a false goddess. but we have one person who is the true, ultimate, “God-GIVEN” “Queen of Heaven” by virtue of her Son’s being the King of Heaven. . .and that’s Mary.

**I mean, pagans talked of ‘gods’ all the time. . .the fire good, the god of war, the god of love. . .but that didn’t mean that we non-pagans could never use the term ‘god’ because the pagans used it first, right? Or because the pagans had ‘false’ gods, the title of ‘god’ could not be taken by the True God? **

I do understand that if some (not all) Protestants fail to examine Scripture in context or to understand Jewish history, they might become confused over a title. . .except that it is just this One title that seems to upset them, not the “king of Kings” being used. . . and in worship yet! for mere men. . .

 

[larkin31]

Before I inadequately answer the question, let me just say that I never implied that Eve was not addressed in Genesis 3:15. I am just saying that the prophecy was fulfilled through Jesus. Hence, Mary was the mother of that offspring that was the enmity between the woman and the snake. This not to say that it was not intended for Eve also. This is why the Church calles Mary “the New Eve.” That and the New Adam calls for a New Eve. As far as the “seed” part, this is no “lay exegisis”. I do none of that. I cannot even begin to do any of that. The Church does teach it though. The fact that it is not explicit in the Catechism does not mean she does not teach it. So, to answer your questions:

1. Yes
2. Not Applicable.
3. Yes, but not explicitly

2853 Victory over the “prince of this world” was won once for all at the Hour when Jesus freely gave himself up to death to give us his life. This is the judgment of this world, and the prince of this world is “cast out.” “He pursued the woman” but had no hold on her: the new Eve, “full of grace” of the Holy Spirit, is preserved from sin and the corruption of death (the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of the Most Holy Mother of God, Mary, ever virgin). “Then the dragon was angry with the woman, and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring.” Therefore the Spirit and the Church pray: “Come, Lord Jesus,” since his coming will deliver us from the Evil One.

489 Throughout the Old Covenant the mission of many holy women prepared for that of Mary. At the very beginning there was Eve; despite her disobedience, she receives the promise of a posterity that will be victorious over the evil one, as well as the promise that she will be the mother of all the living. By virtue of this promise, Sarah conceives a son in spite of her old age. Against all human expectation God chooses those who were considered powerless and weak to show forth his faithfulness to his promises: Hannah, the mother of Samuel; Deborah; Ruth; Judith and Esther; and many other women.Mary “stands out among the poor and humble of the Lord, who confidently hope for and receive salvation from him. After a long period of waiting the times are fulfilled in her, the exalted Daughter of Sion, and the new plan of salvation is established.”

I hope this answer your question. The first to sentences of 489 is the better of the two but 2853 has the part of the New Eve

Thanks.

This confirms my thoughts. The “woman” in Genesis 3 is Eve, not Mary.

Of course, Mary–and any other human on the planet after Eve–would, if you are a traditionalist, be progeny of Eve eventually. That was not in question.

And, it appears, there is no Catholic Catechism teaching otherwise.

 

[Nicea325]

1. God is/was eternal. How could anyone be the mother of God who was mortal, herself born in time? I sense a logical fallacy here

.

So Jesus is only human?

2

. Mary plays a small role in the gospels, and not always one that suggests that she was the Mother of God. For example, recheck Matt. 12:46-50 and John 2:4. In both of these references Jesus seems to be almost dismissive of her. He asks: “Who is my mother?” And: “Woman, what have I to do with you?” I find these strange questions.

The Bible was written by ancient authors (different beliefs,cultures,etc)not modern writers were explicitly is almost given when dealing with specifics.

1. Or, consider the trip to Jerusalem story, when Jesus was 12. Mary and Joseph travel a whole day before noticing that Jesus isn’t among them. I know people will defend this, but I find it quite wild. Would the mother of the Lord (or any child of 12) actually travel that distance and not notice her special and only Son was absent? And, when they returned to find him would she scold him if she viewed him as God’s Son? Does this suggest either a disobedient and even defiant son or does it suggest irresponsible parents - or both?

Cannot apply 21st century Western ideologies and principles. Jesus was a 1st century Jews from Palestine.

1. Then you have Jesus in Luke 11:27-28. When someone says 'blessed is the womb that bare thee; he answered: “Yea, rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God and keep it.”

Huh?

1. Nowhere in the epistles of Paul or any of the ther epistles is Mary’s name even found. The letters of Paul dealt with many topics of a theological nature, yet no mention of Mary?

Ahhhhh…I thought it was about Jesus?

1. Those other ‘references’ to Mary - in Genesis and Revelation - are only inferences, not references. If one already accepts that Mary is the women described, it is an easy jump to attach her to those vague references.

Nope! Apparenty you do not understand typology.

1. It wasn’t until 1854 that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was defined. The Bible doesn’t even mention the names of Mary’s parents, by the way. And it was not until 1950 that the doctrine of the Assumption was defined. Scholars debate the role that Mary played among the earliest Christians.

Yep and the Trinity in 325 A.D.-so it was merely iinvented 300+ years after Jesus?

1. The Bible clearly states that “all have sinned” - which contradicts the dogma that she lived a sinless life.

Really? Infants,toddlers and mentally challenged people fit the bill of your definition?

1. I know this can offend people, but to millions the veneration of Mary as found within Catholicism appears to be borrowed from the centrality of a major goddess among ancient and mystery religions competing with early Christianity.

Ignorance can rear its ugly head much to often.BTW: The U.S. government is modeled off the Roman Republic, I guess that makes us pagan citizens?

1. Why do I doubt if Mary would want all this veneration? She would direct it to Jesus. It seems that some segments within Catholicism put an over-emphasis on Jesus. True, some Protestants go too far in the other direction, but maybe Christians should avoid either extreme. We can honor Mary without insisting that she is “Queen of Heaven” and “Mother of God” - both expressions that (in all honesty) tend to alienate me. Isn’t it quite enough that she was the mother of the human Jesus? I think so.

Mary is the mother of the ‘human’ Jesus? I thought Jesus IS God?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Thanks.

This confirms my thoughts. The “woman” in Genesis 3 is Eve, not Mary.

Of course, Mary–and any other human on the planet after Eve–would, if you are a traditionalist, be progeny of Eve eventually. That was not in question.

And, it appears, there is no Catholic Catechism teaching otherwise.

It appears you just want to “refuse” to accept this is Catholic teaching. That it doesn’t appear in the catechism doesn’t reduce the fact it appears in “two” bulls by two Popes, the last being the one who wrote the catechism. Which also have been listed for your viewing pleasure. Its a matter of understanding the catechism for what it is. Its not an in-depth view of the Catholic Faith but a “summary”. But being that you have a understanding of the Catholic faith, I would “assume” you already understood this?

 

[GaryTaylor]

If one cannot understand the boundless Mercy God has given each and every one of us. How then can we begin to understand the love God has for Mary?

All this continues to do on a perpetual basis, is show the glaring difference between our Nature and Gods. And a glaring indifference to what is truly of value to God.

 

[larkin31]

It appears you just want to “refuse” to accept this is Catholic teaching. That it doesn’t appear in the catechism doesn’t reduce the fact it appears in “two” bulls by two Popes, the last being the one who wrote the catechism. Which also have been listed for your viewing pleasure. Its a matter of understanding the catechism for what it is. Its not an in-depth view of the Catholic Faith but a “summary”. But being that you have a understanding of the Catholic faith, I would “assume” you already understood this?

The bulls don’t answer in the affirmative what I ask about. Of course I understand that other Catholic teachings might apply.

 

[elvisman]

Thanks.

This confirms my thoughts. The “woman” in Genesis 3 is Eve, not Mary.

Of course, Mary–and any other human on the planet after Eve–would, if you are a traditionalist, be progeny of Eve eventually. That was not in question.

And, it appears, there is no Catholic Catechism teaching otherwise.

**Common sense tells us that Eve is not the Woman.
God says that HER offspring (the Woman’s) will crush the serpent’s head.

**Last time I checked - Jesus was Mary’s offspring - NOT Eve’s . . .

Are you the offspring of your ancestors - or your parents?**

 

[larkin31]

Common sense tells us that Eve is *not *the Woman.
God says that HER offspring (the Woman’s) will crush the serpent’s head.

**Last time I checked - Jesus was *Mary’s ***offspring - NOT Eve’s . . .

Are you** the offspring of your ancestors - or your parents?

I must assume. I have no proof, actually.

You missed my point.

 

[Dokimas]

Are you** the offspring of your ancestors - or your parents?

What’s the Jewish mind on this subject?

 

[elvisman]

I must assume. I have no proof, actually.

You missed my point.

How did I miss your point? It is a logical conclusion that Eve is NOT the Woman being spoken of in Gen 3:15 who will give birth to the Savior.

 

[larkin31]

How did I miss your point? It is a logical conclusion that Eve is NOT the Woman being spoken of in Gen 3:15 who will give birth to the Savior.

AND, I added that the CC does not teach this, either. And THAT has been my only point and position in this.

 

[GaryTaylor]

AND, I added that the CC does not teach this, either. And THAT has been my only point and position in this.

And we have showed you the Bulls by “two Popes” which “is” Catholic Church teaching:shrug: I’ll assume you meant to say Catechism above

Pope Pius IX, in his dogmatic bull Ineffabilis Deus, says the following:

These ecclesiastical writers in quoting the words by which at the beginning of the world God announced his merciful remedies prepared for the regeneration of mankind . . . saying, “I will put enmities between you and the woman, between your seed and her seed” taught . . . that his most Blessed Mother, the Virgin Mary, was prophetically indicated; and, at the same time, the very enmity of both [Mary and her Son] against the evil one was significantly expressed.

And Pope John Paul II taught in Mulieris Dignitatem:

It is significant that [in Galatians 4:4] St. Paul does not call the Mother of Christ by her own name, “Mary,” but calls her “woman”: This coincides with the words of the Protoevangelium in the book of Genesis (cf. Gen. 3:15). She is that “woman” who is present in the central salvific event that marks the “fullness of time”: This event is realized in her and through her.

And this event is realized in Revelations

 

[larkin31]

And we have showed you the Bulls by “two Popes” which “is” Catholic Church teaching:shrug: I’ll assume you meant to say Catechism above

Pope Pius IX, in his dogmatic bull Ineffabilis Deus, says the following:

These ecclesiastical writers in quoting the words by which at the beginning of the world God announced his merciful remedies prepared for the regeneration of mankind . . . saying, “I will put enmities between you and the woman, between your seed and her seed” taught . . . that his most Blessed Mother, the Virgin Mary, was prophetically indicated; and, at the same time, the very enmity of both [Mary and her Son] against the evil one was significantly expressed.

Interesting! Now we are getting somewhere! Whose editorial insertions are those? And what is removed from the ellipsis? Did you do that editing?

The second quote is not on my point.

 

[Peter_John]

Common sense tells us that Eve is *not *the Woman.
God says that HER offspring (the Woman’s) will crush the serpent’s head.

**Last time I checked - Jesus was *Mary’s ***offspring - NOT Eve’s . . .

Are you** the offspring of your ancestors - or your parents?

LAst I knew I was the offspring of my parents, and their parents, and their parents, ad infinitum, or at least back to the first parents.

 

[Peter_John]

Common sense tells us that Eve is *not *the Woman.
God says that HER offspring (the Woman’s) will crush the serpent’s head.

**Last time I checked - Jesus was *Mary’s ***offspring - NOT Eve’s . . .

Are you** the offspring of your ancestors - or your parents?

Part of the point of saying "Her " offspring, instead of Their offspring, is that the specific offspring referred to would only be born of woman, not man,

 

[elvisman]

What’s the Jewish mind on this subject?

I know what I’ve read so why dont you enlighten us, Doki.**

I can tell you this: Eve wasn’t Jewish so your position on the matter is irrelevant.

 

[elvisman]

AND, I added that the CC does not teach this, either. And THAT has been my only point and position in this.

That is patently false. This has always been taught from the Early Church on:

In about 155 AD, Justin Martyr (in his Dialogue with Trypho) made the Mary-Eve parallel by saying:**
**“Christ became a man by a virgin to overcome the disobedience caused by the serpent …For Eve, a virgin and undefiled, conceived the word of the serpent, and bore disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy when the angel Gabriel announced to her the glad tidings that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her and the powers of the Most High would overshadow her, for which reason the Holy One being born of her would be called the Son of God. And she replied: ‘Be it done unto me according to thy word.” **

(This is the Woman who is spoken of in Gen. 3:15)

Ireneus,** circa 180-199 AD wrote, “Against Heresies”. In it, he wrote of Mary:**
**“Consequently, then, Mary the Virgin is found to be obedient, saying: “Behold, O Lord, your handmaid; be it done to me according to your word.” Eve, however, was disobedient; and when yet a virgin, she did not obey…. having become disobedient, was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless still a virgin, being obedient, was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race…. Thus, the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith.” **

**Tertullian **wrote in his “The Flesh of Christ” in about 208-212 AD:
“For it was while Eve was still a virgin that the word of the devil crept in to erect an edifice of death. Likewise, through a Virgin, the Word of God was introduced to set up a structure of life. Thus, what had been laid waste in ruin by this sex, was by the same sex re-established in salvation. Eve had believed the serpent; Mary believed Gabriel. That which the one destroyed by believing, the other, by believing, set straight.”

From this you can see that the idea of Mary as “the mother of all living in Christ” was something that the Church interpreted from the Scriptures from the very beginning, and would not have been alien to a First-Century reader at all - especially if they had John’s Gospel in front of them.

**Just because something isn’t explicitly mentioned in the Catechism - doesn’t mean that it is not taught by the Church. **