Did Mary know that Jesus was God?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Nemorivaga
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tom_Baum said:
By the way, what I have written concerning Mary and what I believed she knew, I have based on what I believed she knew when she gave her YES to God thru Gabriel.

I very much believe that Mary’s YES was/is the best YES that anyone has or will ever give to God.
Click to expand...
And I think there is every reason to believe that she did know even then. Read my posts here, from the beginning. Do you think she would conceive, without knowing man, through the " Over Shadowing of the Holy Spirit, " a mere man, no matter how great he was to be? And the angel told her that her son would save his people from their sins. Can a mere man forgive sins? And what about what the angel told Zacharia, that John would be precursor to God’s anointed one. Don’t tell me you think John was to be precursor to a mere prophet? And Mary surely knew of this event and could add two and two. And do you think Mary was ignorant of the scriptures which spoke of the coming of a Messiah? And Elizabeth, her cousin, addresses her a few days later as the " Mother of my Lord. " No, I think we must say Mary knew she was giving birth to the Son of God, the Divine God-Man.

Pax
Linus2nd
 
Tom_Baum said:
Peter knew absolutely nothing about Jesus before Jesus was born and that is, as far as I know, the “when” that we are talking about concerning whether or not Mary knew that the Child to be born to her was going to be Almighty God in the flesh.

As far as “after the Resurrection, the Ascension”, that is completely different and as far as the song that some have mentioned, “Mary, did you know?”, this song is also about before Jesus was born and, I am not sure, maybe about when Jesus was very little, wasn’t it?

I, personally believe, that Jesus was as completely helpless when He was born as the rest of us, do you?
Click to expand...
I didn’t know we were restricted to the Annunciation. Be that as it may, I’m certain that she knew she was giving birth to the Divine Son of God, the God-Man, the promised " Holy One " and Redeemer.

Certainly he was helpless as a human infant, why not? That was to be expected.

Pax
Linus2nd
 
Aner said:
Vz

Thanks for the response. I have just been reading in Lk1 re Gabriel and Elizabeth - I do see every indication otherwise, e.g. Jesus is the SON of the Most High instead of the Most High, etc.

Perhaps you would kind enough to provide one specific that we could chew on?

Best,
Aner
Click to expand...
So ruling over the house of Jacob forever does not imply anything to you?
That the title (both literal and figurative) ‘Son of God’ means nothing?
 
Nemorivaga said:
I’m interested in knowing what the Catholic doctrine says on it.
It doesn’t seem that the angel told it to her outright: “Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God. Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the most High; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father; and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever. And of his kingdom there shall be no end.” That’s certainly a very roundabout way of saying: "you will give birth to God."Then there’s also that passage in Mark (Mark 3:21) where Jesus’s family thinks He is crazy, which may or may not include Mary. I’m somewhat confused. Thanks for answers.
Click to expand...
What do you suppose “Son of the most High” could mean?
 
Related question here.

At the marriage at Cana, Jesus perfomed his first miracle, namely changing water to wine.

He did this at the request of Mary, who seeing they had run out of wine, called on her son to do something about it.

Hitherto, Jesus had not worked any miracles. So how did Mary know that Jesus’ calling was to work miracles? Even if she knew he was the Son of God, does that mean she knew he could turn water into wine?

Or is this an indicator that she had more detailed foreknowledge of her son’s calling?
 
vz71 said:
So ruling over the house of Jacob forever does not imply anything to you?
That the title (both literal and figurative) ‘Son of God’ means nothing?
Click to expand...
Vz

Interesting questions.

Ruling over house of Jacob reflects the position that God gave to the man Christ Jesus. Please see Acts 2:36 and probably 20 or 30 other such instances.

Why would ruling over house of Jacob forever have anything to do with Jesus’ essence?

Son of God - Adam is called the son of God. What does this have to do with essence?

Let’s eliminate titles from essence.

Best,
Aner
 
vz71 said:
So when Simon Peter calls Christ this, he really does not mean God?
Click to expand...
Of course not. The appellation “the Son of God” has nothing to do with essence per se. Scripture is clear that this appellation has to do with source. Thus Adam is obviously the Son of God - His direct source was God. Our direct source is our fathers. Jesus direct source is God - thus, He too as Adam is the Son of God.

Here is your text. I would like to come to agreement on this - can we do so based on this clear-cut text in scripture?

Lk 3:38
the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.
 
BTW - you will also find that God refers to Israel as His firstborn son in Ex4:22. Interesting as to who is really God’s firstborn then isn’t it… Israel or Jesus…🙂

Exodus 4:22-23English Standard Version (ESV)

22 Then you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the Lord, Israel is my firstborn son, 23 and I say to you, “Let my son go that he may serve me.” If you refuse to let him go, behold, I will kill your firstborn son.’”
 
Linusthe2nd said:
And I think there is every reason to believe that she did know even then. Read my posts here, from the beginning. Do you think she would conceive, without knowing man, through the " Over Shadowing of the Holy Spirit, " a mere man, no matter how great he was to be? And the angel told her that her son would save his people from their sins. Can a mere man forgive sins? And what about what the angel told Zacharia, that John would be precursor to God’s anointed one. Don’t tell me you think John was to be precursor to a mere prophet? And Mary surely knew of this event and could add two and two. And do you think Mary was ignorant of the scriptures which spoke of the coming of a Messiah? And Elizabeth, her cousin, addresses her a few days later as the " Mother of my Lord. " No, I think we must say Mary knew she was giving birth to the Son of God, the Divine God-Man.

Pax
Linus2nd
Click to expand...
You wrote, “And what about what the angel told Zacharia, that John would be precursor to God’s anointed one.”

“Anointed one” does NOT mean God.

Cyrus, who was not even a Jew, was an anointed one and there were other “anointed ones”, which translates as Messiah in Hebrew and Christ in Greek, before Jesus.

You also wrote, “” No, I think we must say Mary knew she was giving birth to the Son of God, the Divine God-Man."

No, I do not think that “we must say Mary knew she was giving birth to the Son of God, the Divine God-Man”, you can if you want but I sure don’t.

I think that this was something that was not even conceived of by any of the Jews up to that time or any person, Jew or non-Jew, that studied the Jewish writings whether biblical or commentaries on the biblical.

It was through hind-sight that people saw things in the bible, after the “fact”, quite a bit after, of the Incarnation.

I very much think Mary, who was probably somewhere roughly between 12 and 14 years of age, accepted what was told to her purely on faith and believing that Gabriel was from God.

And like it says, “Faith is a gift” from God and I think that Mary’s “gift” in this department was quite a good one and she accepted this “gift” and used this “gift” when answering God thru Gabriel.
 
Linusthe2nd said:
I didn’t know we were restricted to the Annunciation. Be that as it may, I’m certain that she knew she was giving birth to the Divine Son of God, the God-Man, the promised " Holy One " and Redeemer.

Certainly he was helpless as a human infant, why not? That was to be expected.

Pax
Linus2nd
Click to expand...
As far as, “Certainly he was helpless as a human infant, why not? That was to be expected.”

Seems that some think/believe that Jesus was Omnipotent, (which would mean that Jesus was not helpless just like the rest of us), Omnipresent and Omniscient whereas I believe that Jesus, voluntarily, gave up His Omnis in the Incarnation so that He could be “just like us except for sin” like it says.
 
Aner said:
Of course not. The appellation “the Son of God” has nothing to do with essence per se. Scripture is clear that this appellation has to do with source. Thus Adam is obviously the Son of God - His direct source was God. Our direct source is our fathers. Jesus direct source is God - thus, He too as Adam is the Son of God.

Here is your text. I would like to come to agreement on this - can we do so based on this clear-cut text in scripture?

Lk 3:38
the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.
Click to expand...
So Peter’s revelation of Christ being Son of God is not a revelation of Christ being God?
 
vz71 said:
So Peter’s revelation of Christ being Son of God is not a revelation of Christ being God?
Click to expand...
No! There is no basis for such a conception. In contrast, there is significant Biblical basis for the conception that Son of God refers to the source of the entity referenced - whether Jesus, Adam or Israel (the nation) as I provided in the prior posts.
 
Aner said:
No! There is no basis for such a conception. In contrast, there is significant Biblical basis for the conception that Son of God refers to the source of the entity referenced - whether Jesus, Adam or Israel (the nation) as I provided in the prior posts.
Click to expand...
So what exactly is your standard here?

I would think evidence based upon Catholic tradition would be sufficient here.
 
Tom_Baum said:
You wrote, “And what about what the angel told Zacharia, that John would be precursor to God’s anointed one.”

“Anointed one” does NOT mean God.

Cyrus, who was not even a Jew, was an anointed one and there were other “anointed ones”, which translates as Messiah in Hebrew and Christ in Greek, before Jesus.

You also wrote, “” No, I think we must say Mary knew she was giving birth to the Son of God, the Divine God-Man."

No, I do not think that “we must say Mary knew she was giving birth to the Son of God, the Divine God-Man”, you can if you want but I sure don’t.

I think that this was something that was not even conceived of by any of the Jews up to that time or any person, Jew or non-Jew, that studied the Jewish writings whether biblical or commentaries on the biblical.

It was through hind-sight that people saw things in the bible, after the “fact”, quite a bit after, of the Incarnation.

I very much think Mary, who was probably somewhere roughly between 12 and 14 years of age, accepted what was told to her purely on faith and believing that Gabriel was from God.

And like it says, “Faith is a gift” from God and I think that Mary’s “gift” in this department was quite a good one and she accepted this “gift” and used this “gift” when answering God thru Gabriel.
Click to expand...
It is true that we are expressing opinions. So I will stick with mine. I think it is correct for all the reasons I have given. Surely the fact that she would conceive a son without knowing man and was told by Gaberial that it would be by the power of the Holy Spirit and that her son would save his people from their sins would have told her she was not giving birth to a mere man, but one that was both God and Man. I rest my case.

Pax
Linus2nd
 
Tom_Baum said:
As far as, “Certainly he was helpless as a human infant, why not? That was to be expected.”

Seems that some think/believe that Jesus was Omnipotent, (which would mean that Jesus was not helpless just like the rest of us), Omnipresent and Omniscient whereas I believe that Jesus, voluntarily, gave up His Omnis in the Incarnation so that He could be “just like us except for sin” like it says.
Click to expand...
Certainly he was Omipotent as the Son of God. But he had a human nature and it was in his human nature that he was helpless. Remember the scene when Mary found her son in the temple discoursing with the Teachers. After " admonishing " him for making her and Joseph worry, the scripture said he returned with them and grew in grace and knowledge.

Also, " …he was like us in all things except sin…" That his sacrifice be made perfect he, in his human nature, had to learn and suffer like a man. So while he lived and suffered as a man, he gave up nothing of his Divne nature. He was still the Second Person of the Trinity. One can say that he did not always display his Divinity, his " Omnis, " as you say. But that power was exhibited whenever he worked miracles, forgave sins, read the thoughts of men, or prophesied the future ( " …destroy this temple and I raise it up in three days…" ). These are things only God can do. So there were times when the Divine was not evident and other times when it was evident.

Pax
Linus2nd
 
Linusthe2nd said:
Certainly he was Omipotent as the Son of God. But he had a human nature and it was in his human nature that he was helpless. Remember the scene when Mary found hers son in the temple discoursing with the Teachers. After " admonishing " him for making her and Joseph worry, the scripture said he returned with them and grew in grace and knowledge.

Also, " …he was like us in all things except sin…" That his sacrifice be made perfect he, in his human nature, had to learn and suffer like a man.

Pax
Linus2nd
Click to expand...
You wrote, “Certainly he was Omipotent as the Son of God. But he had a human nature and it was in his human nature that he was helpless.”

Are you saying that Jesus was sort of two different people at once with one being helpless and the other being Omnipotent?

I think that Jesus was either helpless and at the “mercy” of those around Him or He wasn’t helpless and at the “mercy” of those around Him, not both.

You also wrote, “Remember the scene when Mary found hers son in the temple discoursing with the Teachers. After " admonishing " him for making her and Joseph worry, the scripture said he returned with them and grew in grace and knowledge.”

Another writing pointing to God giving up His Omni’s in the Incarnation since how could someone Who is Omniscient grow in knowledge?

I think/believe that the “intergration”, if that is the right word, of True God and True Man in the Person of Jesus in the Incarnation was complete, not that Jesus was independently True God and independently True Man, maybe this is what the “hypostatic union” is speaking about.

I don’t know if that is what the “hypostatic union” is speaking about or not, but it seems to me that many sling around fancy words that no one seems to know exactly what they mean and say this is what happened, in this case, in the Incarnation.

Do you know what the “hypostatic union” means or is it what it seems to be and that being “smoke and mirrors” of someone saying something that sounds mighty fancy.

As far as I am concerned, when it comes to us not knowing something, it is better to just say “I don’t know” rather than hiding behind some fancy made-up theological terminology.

Nothing wrong with saying something to the effect that this is how it might be but also admitting that some things about God are just beyond us in the realm that we live in now.

And sometimes even if one were to “know” something doesn’t mean that that one could get that “knowledge” across to a fellow human being, in other words, some things knowledge-wise only God can reveal.
 
Linusthe2nd said:
Certainly he was Omipotent as the Son of God. But he had a human nature and it was in his human nature that he was helpless. Remember the scene when Mary found her son in the temple discoursing with the Teachers. After " admonishing " him for making her and Joseph worry, the scripture said he returned with them and grew in grace and knowledge.

Also, " …he was like us in all things except sin…" That his sacrifice be made perfect he, in his human nature, had to learn and suffer like a man. So while he lived and suffered as a man, he gave up nothing of his Divne nature. He was still the Second Person of the Trinity. One can say that he did not always display his Divinity, his " Omnis, " as you say. But that power was exhibited whenever he worked miracles, forgave sins, read the thoughts of men, or prophesied the future ( " …destroy this temple and I raise it up in three days…" ). These are things only God can do. So there were times when the Divine was not evident and other times when it was evident.

Pax
Linus2nd
Click to expand...
This part of your post did not appear the first time that I clicked “Quote”,

“So while he lived and suffered as a man, he gave up nothing of his Divne nature. He was still the Second Person of the Trinity. One can say that he did not always display his Divinity, his " Omnis, " as you say. But that power was exhibited whenever he worked miracles, forgave sins, read the thoughts of men, or prophesied the future ( " …destroy this temple and I raise it up in three days…” ). These are things only God can do. So there were times when the Divine was not evident and other times when it was evident."

Or could Jesus have been relying on the Father and the Holy Spirit?

When Jesus said that He did not know the time concerning something, that only the Father knew, I believe that He was telling the truth, do you?
 
vz71 said:
So what exactly is your standard here?

I would think evidence based upon Catholic tradition would be sufficient here.
Click to expand...
Vz - I am not certain what else you need. We have clear cut scripture as to what Son of God means - why are we even asking further questions?

Aner
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top