Firstly, pagan customs at the time did not elevate women. Secondly, God already chose to elevate her when He chose to become incarnate of her womb, nurse from her breast and allow Himself to be disciplined by her. You honestly think we can compete with that?
I see nothing slippery here. Would you example your
Ok so there were no female heroines of dieties? You did not get my inference as if you have not heard that before (what is the thread topic?)? As I and you have stated, she is elevated by testimony of tradition and scripture, but alas beyond the latter I feel even without worship, and hence our thread topic.
Female deities, yes. Elevation, no. The vast majority were sexual objects or simply there for male heroes and gods to exert authority over. That women were elevated in pagan cultures is modern romantic Wiccan myth.
Can you explain the latter part of that? If she is elevated in Scripture, then why wouldn’t we also elevate her coterminously in tradition?
You just proved my point of the asterisk. Look at all the explaining you had to do. Are we to assume the whole world knows the beautiful details you just expressed ? But like your added thought of "within the family as within the Body . I almost wrote in last post that you and I know what the term signifies and no big deal. But what about the rest of the world that is not part of the body ? I would rather stay away from any stumbling block, and perhaps just say what you stated here so well, without the term “Mother of God” . That is why I mentioned Paul somewhere where it may be OK for us but not for weaker brethren ( the "legal issue of eating meats /unto idols etc or one feast day for one brother/sister but not another)… I wish I could say that such spiritual insight or maturity of sensitivity to weaker brethren or a fallen world were my motivation against the term but that wouldn’t be totally true. A lot has to do with my conviction that much of Marion doctrine is wrong already, and the term is symptomatic of that.
Can you give an example of where anyone has ever interpreted the Christian teaching of Mary Mother of God to mean that she created His divinity?
Agree. I meant deities. I have heard that Jewish culture was still better than surrounding pagan culture towards women, not sure.
Well I did say in tradition also. But yes I feel it is beyond correct scriptural interpretation, and as that happened with evolving history so did practices. And it is still developing
yes thank you and i will acknowledge criticism goes to extremes at times also …coterminuously…cool new word for me. thanks-I did look it up
No no you are copping out. Just the concept of the hypo static union with
No, trinity and mother of God are apples to oranges in that trinity is a better translated than mother of God is. Many admit it is problematic, not terrible, not bad, just problematic. It could be said/translated into English differently unlike trinity. Yet I agree for liturgical purpose “mother of God” has a linguistic flow to it better than “mother of the God incarnate” , or “Mary, our God -bearer”, though the latter are more accurate translations, more accurate to the apostolic tradition and councils etc…Thank you I already admitted “my prejudice within me” as i previously stated, " A lot has to do with my conviction that much of Marion doctrine is wrong already".No no you are copping out. Just the concept of the hypo static union with
Christ requires explanation. We don’t neglect to declare it even so.
The Trinity always throws newcomers into fits and requires explanation. Lots.
In fact a lot more explaining than Mother of God. But we don’t stop using the
term Trinity.
So your objection does not hold water. No it comes from some other
prejudice within you. Jmo.
Oh well let me give you a migraine then.
No, but it may have helped estrange the Assyrians( ?) and Nestorius. Definitely pushed him further away, which might be Providential (if indeed he had it terribly wrong) - is it true the council pretty much had it settled before he even got there ? A bit like Luther, in that if Rome gave in just a bit at the beginning maybe there would be no Lutheranism .That is his 90 something thesis against current practices would not have grown to other critiques or reached to to the heart of the matter. Just wondering…it can not be denied that the English translation of theotokus to mother of God is “sticky”. All it takes is for some to say so and some have. You can not deny their reality. If one tells you they have trouble with it you can not tell them, “no you don’t”. You can say there is no foundation for it, but now it is just one opinion to another. Fact is it is not an exact a literal translation though good liturgically etc. Remember too most ECF and councils didn’t have a translation problem. It was theotokus of which I have no problem with. …A bit like the argument that Jesus spoke in Aramaic so He told Peter , “you are Cephas and on this Cephas I will build my church " and CC apologeticists say the church therefore is built on Peter. But the Greek says, " you are petras and on this petros I will build my church” and the Greek is what is considered inspired and canonized and questions the CC interpretation.(I may have switched the petros /petras forget which was which) Do you get my drift ?
The only time I have ever encountered the idea of
Here are some more but please don’t go to the site, probably not Catholic. Have not read the whole article except this paragraph put forth to add to your list-" St. Antonius (250-350) claimed: ‘All graces that have ever been bestowed on men, all came through Mary.’ St. Bernard (1090-1153) wrote ‘[Mary is called] the gate of heaven, because no one can enter that blessed kingdom without passing through her.’ In the widely read book (still published today) The Glories of Mary , Alphonsus de Liguori (1696-1787) describes how Mary is given half of God’s kingdom to rule. Mary is considered a source of salvation and a mediator between God and man. He also claims that outside of Mary there is no salvation. She rules jointly with Christ and is to be served, "Oh well let me give you a migraine then.
As I just said elsewhere a Syrian Doctor of the Church
said in 350AD: The Mother of God is the Dispensatrix
of All Goods. St. Ephraem. Hehe
And in 373AD he had the audacity to state:
Along with the Mediator, she is the Mediatrix of the
Universe.
Gasp!!! Oh my achin head
This ancient Christianity- what are you gonna do.
Thank you .That is very honest of you . I have heard that Muhammad lived in an area where Judaism and Christianity existed but not so well, that is weak and possibly with compromised doctrines. A good bed for a major deception. He was very close to attributing his "visions’’ as demonic and dismissing them (and you would have no Islam today). Not sure but it has been said his wife talked him out of the idea of demons and attributed the visions to God (Allah), and the rest is history.
He was also in a region where the Collyridian heresy flourished for a time. They worshiped Mary as a goddess.
What a great site! Thank you. And yes very anti catholic
Only by way of the sects that sprung from Calvinism and anabaptist movements. I wouldn’t accuse Calvin of gross Nestorianism. He walked a mighty fine line, though. It came out more in his theology of the Eucharist than in his Christology proper.
I forgot about them thank you Per Crucem.
Thank you