If you do Not believe that Blessed Mary is the Mother of God, than who do you believe Jesus Christ is?

[Cinette]

Are the Jews that are still waiting for the Messiah, looking for a man, God or the God/Man?

Seems you make quite an assumption saying there’s no doubt Elizabeth believed Isaiah 9:6 was being fulfilled in Jesus and even if she had some idea, that she understood the child would actually be God. People misunderstand all the time: the disciple were told by Jesus that He’d be raised on the third day. They did not understand Jesus even though He was quite clear. They didn’t understand until AFTER the resurrection.

*Assumptions - Speculations - Conjucture - gossip! We have made the case for Elizabeth and Mary. We have read Luke 1:38 onwards and seen the exchanges between the two women. They were not speculating and gossiping. They knew that the baby in Mary’s womb was the Messiah - in fact Elizabeth called the baby “my Lord”.

Come on Dokimas you should realise by now that Mary’s acceptance of the will of God announced to her by the Angel Gabriel was BIG. Her willingness to co-operate was BIG for all of mankind.

Why must you split hairs and speculate? What does it serve? If you were in a court of law the Judge would tell you to stick to the facts or sit down!

*

 

[Dokimas]

The Aramaic word “marya” used in place of the Tetragremmaton (YHWH) throughout the Tanakh Old Teatament is better understood as “MarYah.” It is also a contraction of 2 words; "Mar- Aramaic for “Lord” or “Master” and “Yah”- the short form of the Divine name “YHWH” or “YAHweh.”

The actual Aramaic word is spelled Mem Resh Yodh Alap (marya). None of the letters are capitalized in the Aramaic text known as the Peshitta Tanakh or Syriac Old Testament. Therefore, to write the word as “MarYah” as opposed to “marya” is misleading. It is reading only one’s theology into the word and then teaching it.

Since the word “marya” was used in the Peshitta New Testament in reference to Messiah Yahshua, it means Yahshua is Yahweh (MarYah). That is the result of mistakenly understanding “marya” to mean the Divine Name YHWH as to opposed to it being a title meaning “Lord” or “Master.”

It is often stressed by MarYah proponents since “marya” was used to replace the Tetragammaton in almost 7,000 instances in the O.T. that means it must mean “YHWH.” However, the word “Kurios” was consistently used throughout the Septuagint (Greek O.T.) to replace “YHWH”. Does that make “Kurios” mean “YHWH”? No. “Kurios” is simply a Greek word meaning “Lord” that was used as a substitute for “YHWH.”

“marya” is the Aramaaic substitution for the Tetragrammaton (YHWH). “MarYa” is not the transllteration of “YHWH.” It is a substite used to avoid pronouncing the Name when reading the Aramaic text. This is in keeping with the common Jewish practice of not pronouncing the Name and Place erroneous vowel points around the Tetragrammton. to signal the reader to say “Adonai” (Lord).

If “YHWH” was written in Aramaic letters within the Greek text of the Septugaint. it could have been, and may have been, written in the original Aramaic Peshitta Tanakh as well. It wasn’t, it should have been rather then using “MarYa.”

Very interesting. Thank you for those nuggets of knowledge.

 

[rev_kevin]

Very interesting. Thank you for those nuggets of knowledge.

No problem my friend

 

[rev_kevin]

*Assumptions - Speculations - Conjucture - gossip! We have made the case for Elizabeth and Mary. We have read Luke 1:38 onwards and seen the exchanges between the two women. They were not speculating and gossiping. They knew that the baby in Mary’s womb was the Messiah - in fact Elizabeth called the baby “my Lord”.

Come on Dokimas you should realise by now that Mary’s acceptance of the will of God announced to her by the Angel Gabriel was BIG. Her willingness to co-operate was BIG for all of mankind.

Why must you split hairs and speculate? What does it serve? If you were in a court of law the Judge would tell you to stick to the facts or sit down!

*

Yes the acceptanace by Mary was BIG, that goes without saying.

Now lets take a look at what Mary accepted, since you mentioned it, OK.

The angel told Mary that she was going to hava a SON correct? Correct.
Now the angel also told Mary that her SON was going to be what? The Son of Most High and The Son of God correct? Correct.

Now the word SON is mentioned 3x’s in Luke 1:31-35, correct? Correct.
Now the angel did not tell Mary she was going to have God, did he? NO.
Now for all Mary knew she was going to have the Son of God as mentioned by the angel, correct? Correct.
So Mary would only believe that her SON would be the Son of God and not God himself, because the angel did not say that, correct? Correct.
The angel did not say:1) God and your Son to be are the same person. 2) That she was going to have God himself. And 3) That God was going to impreganate her with himself, correct? Correct.

So it’s safe to say, with deduction, that Mary would not know she was going to have God himself.

Now it has been mentioned here by myself and by Dokimas that the word LORD has many meanings and we gave the meanings.

Now let’s look at Elizabeth, OK.

When Elizabeth said these words. Mother of my Lord She knew just what Mary knew and that was Mary’s child was going to be special, some kind of leader, the Messiah, which we know means anointed one by God.

Now for a couple of questions.
Did Elizabeth know something Mary didn’t? NO.
Did the angel forget to tell Mary she was going to have God himself and then the HS decided to tell Elizabeth and not Mary? NO.

Now for the conclusion.
With all this deduction its safe to say that Mary nor Elizabeth knew that Mary’s child was God himself.

Deduction my friend, deduction.

 

[Irish_Polock]

The Aramaic word “marya” used in place of the Tetragremmaton (YHWH) throughout the Tanakh Old Teatament is better understood as “MarYah.” It is also a contraction of 2 words; "Mar- Aramaic for “Lord” or “Master” and “Yah”- the short form of the Divine name “YHWH” or “YAHweh.”

The actual Aramaic word is spelled Mem Resh Yodh Alap (marya). None of the letters are capitalized in the Aramaic text known as the Peshitta Tanakh or Syriac Old Testament. Therefore, to write the word as “MarYah” as opposed to “marya” is misleading. It is reading only one’s theology into the word and then teaching it.

Since the word “marya” was used in the Peshitta New Testament in reference to Messiah Yahshua, it means Yahshua is Yahweh (MarYah). That is the result of mistakenly understanding “marya” to mean the Divine Name YHWH as to opposed to it being a title meaning “Lord” or “Master.”

It is often stressed by MarYah proponents since “marya” was used to replace the Tetragammaton in almost 7,000 instances in the O.T. that means it must mean “YHWH.” However, the word “Kurios” was consistently used throughout the Septuagint (Greek O.T.) to replace “YHWH”. Does that make “Kurios” mean “YHWH”? No. “Kurios” is simply a Greek word meaning “Lord” that was used as a substitute for “YHWH.”

“marya” is the Aramaaic substitution for the Tetragrammaton (YHWH). “MarYa” is not the transllteration of “YHWH.” It is a substite used to avoid pronouncing the Name when reading the Aramaic text. This is in keeping with the common Jewish practice of not pronouncing the Name and Place erroneous vowel points around the Tetragrammton. to signal the reader to say “Adonai” (Lord).

If “YHWH” was written in Aramaic letters within the Greek text of the Septugaint. it could have been, and may have been, written in the original Aramaic Peshitta Tanakh as well. It wasn’t, it should have been rather then using “MarYa.”

Peshitta is Eastern Aramaic, is it not Kevin? Whereas, Jesus would have certainly spoke Western Aramaic due to the geography alone; correct?
Is this just a rumor you have researched? It sounds very SDA to me… What makes you think Christ spoke Peshitta anyways Kevin?

Could you do the same research using Qumran Aramaic, Christian Palestinian Aramaic, the Aramaic of the Jerusalem Talmud, or even Samaritan Aramaic,(although, I realize none of these would be the exact dialect of Christ) and compare your research?

 

[GaryTaylor]

If Luke wrote his Gospel in Greek under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and used a word that didn’t mean God (Lord) then that should be good enough for us. Many humans in history where know as ‘lords’ and only one was God in the flesh.

Jews (including Mary and Elizabeth) )were looking for their Messiah but I doubt they were expecting Yahwey to become a Man. They were looking for their Lord to become King and replace the Roman rule, returning all rights and rules to Israel. They weren’t looking for the Isaiah 53, suffering Savior.

The loss of meaning in the Greek translation goes way back to Augustine, Jerome, and so forth. Nothing new, Its a common problem which arose very early. And Scripture was good enough for God to start. Of course evil corrupted that too. So the CC must also defend truth there also. Nothing new.

The Jews are also coming to understand exactly what Isaiah spoke about through God. Ever read Isaiah 53? The Jews chose to follow the “political leaders” which proved to be a terrible mistake. And Gods Will and time will correct that. Fact is 70% of the Jews have been waiting so long for a Messiah who already came they gave up. Judo-Christianity isn’t populating that land for no reason.

 

[rev_kevin]

Peshitta is Eastern Aramaic, is it not Kevin? Whereas, Jesus would have certainly spoke Western Aramaic due to the geography alone; correct?
Is this just a rumor you have researched? It sounds very SDA to me… What makes you think Christ spoke Peshitta anyways Kevin?

Could you do the same research using Qumran Aramaic, Christian Palestinian Aramaic, the Aramaic of the Jerusalem Talmud, or even Samaritan Aramaic,(although, I realize none of these would be the exact dialect of Christ) and compare your research?

If you want to debunk my research then you do the research and let me know the results.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Luke 1:34-35
34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

 

[GaryTaylor]

And how do we know satan was expert with Scripture? That is also in Scripture. The devil quotes verbatim from the Septuagint translation regarding Psalms 91: 11, 12. Jesus also used scripture to prove that Psalms 91: 11, 12 was being misapplied by satan.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

The CC disagrees with the post from Wikipedia?

How should I know? I do not care about Wikipedia nor do I intend to research it. I just do not believe that to be a source in an intellectual conversation, especially when anybody could mess with the information there.

In any case, I am not saying my Church disagrees. Nor am I saying it does. I am just saying that the Wikipedia post from Gary Taylor (I think or maybe somebody else) and your Wikipedia post are clearly at odds with each other. That fact enhances my point. Hence, my vague answer to your sincere question that the Catholic Church is my source for Truth.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Yes the acceptanace by Mary was BIG, that goes without saying.

Now lets take a look at what Mary accepted, since you mentioned it, OK.

The angel told Mary that she was going to hava a SON correct? Correct.
Now the angel also told Mary that her SON was going to be what? The Son of Most High and The Son of God correct? Correct.

Now the word SON is mentioned 3x’s in Luke 1:31-35, correct? Correct.
Now the angel did not tell Mary she was going to have God, did he? NO.
Now for all Mary knew she was going to have the Son of God as mentioned by the angel, correct? Correct.
So Mary would only believe that her SON would be the Son of God and not God himself, because the angel did not say that, correct? Correct.
The angel did not say:1) God and your Son to be are the same person. 2) That she was going to have God himself. And 3) That God was going to impreganate her with himself, correct? Correct.

So it’s safe to say, with deduction, that Mary would not know she was going to have God himself.

Now it has been mentioned here by myself and by Dokimas that the word LORD has many meanings and we gave the meanings.

Now let’s look at Elizabeth, OK.

When Elizabeth said these words. Mother of my Lord She knew just what Mary knew and that was Mary’s child was going to be special, some kind of leader, the Messiah, which we know means anointed one by God.

Now for a couple of questions.
Did Elizabeth know something Mary didn’t? NO.
Did the angel forget to tell Mary she was going to have God himself and then the HS decided to tell Elizabeth and not Mary? NO.

Now for the conclusion.
With all this deduction its safe to say that Mary nor Elizabeth knew that Mary’s child was God himself.

Deduction my friend, deduction.

Matthew 1:23 **“Behold, the virgin shall be with child and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel,” which means “God is with us.” **

He IS “God is with us”! Joseph knew this. Do you really think he did not tell his own wife? You do not give their intelligence too much credit.

In any case, Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit according to my Bible. She knew the Truth. Why would she not know Her Son was God? As for me, I am not saying “my Lord” MEANS “God”. I am just saying that Elizabeth clearly knew to whom she was referring. In this case, Elizabeth’s Lord IS God and God IS her Lord. We do not equate Lord with God as you all seem to presume.

Do not forget the whole Bible when looking at a particular passage.

Context my friend, context.

 

[Irish_Polock]

If you want to debunk my research then you do the research and let me know the results.

I have already debunked whomever’s research that was. The fact that you believe that Jesus spoke a Eastern Dialect is odd to me Kevin, form what I know of you anyways. So think about it, do you honestly feel Jesus spoke this dialect of Aramaic? Or did you go to a SDA service this past Saturday? Mind you kevin, this is the same argument that the SDA - whom I feel, tend to go OUT OF THEIR WAY TO BE DISHONEST, especially concerning apologetics with Roman Catholics - have given me on this very subject.

The burden of proof is yours Kevin, you have made the claim that Christ Spoke this Dialect; now I am demanding that you give us at least some evidence that supports your theory.

 

[Reuben_J]

AGAIN, you have completely ignored the evidence I presented to you in Post 554.

**I am NOT **talking about the Suffering Servant in Isaiah 53. I am talking about the Glorious Savior mentioned in **Isaiah 9:6, **which explicitly calls the Messiah, “GOD”.
Since you have dodged this post over and over - I will present it to you again:

NIV
**For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

NASB
**For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.

KJV
**For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

There is NO doubt that this verse calls the Messiah, “God”. Elizabeth was the wife of a temple Priest (Zechariah) and would have KNOWN this. The inescapable truth here is that Elizabeth, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit proclaimed the child in Mary’s womb to be MarYa=Yaweh/God.

Your argument and Scriptural acrobatics are dead in the water because of this fact.

At the rate that this passage is understood here, Mighty God , could be very well translated as Mighty Lord . I don’t know how they would interpret ‘the everlasting Father’ though.

 

[Cinette]

Yes the acceptanace by Mary was BIG, that goes without saying.

Now lets take a look at what Mary accepted, since you mentioned it, OK.

The angel told Mary that she was going to hava a SON correct? Correct.
Now the angel also told Mary that her SON was going to be what? The Son of Most High and The Son of God correct? Correct.

Now the word SON is mentioned 3x’s in Luke 1:31-35, correct? Correct.
Now the angel did not tell Mary she was going to have God, did he? NO.
Now for all Mary knew she was going to have the Son of God as mentioned by the angel, correct? Correct.
So Mary would only believe that her SON would be the Son of God and not God himself, because the angel did not say that, correct? Correct.
The angel did not say:1) God and your Son to be are the same person. 2) That she was going to have God himself. And 3) That God was going to impreganate her with himself, correct? Correct.

So it’s safe to say, with deduction, that Mary would not know she was going to have God himself.

Now it has been mentioned here by myself and by Dokimas that the word LORD has many meanings and we gave the meanings.

Now let’s look at Elizabeth, OK.

When Elizabeth said these words. Mother of my Lord She knew just what Mary knew and that was Mary’s child was going to be special, some kind of leader, the Messiah, which we know means anointed one by God.

Now for a couple of questions.
Did Elizabeth know something Mary didn’t? NO.
Did the angel forget to tell Mary she was going to have God himself and then the HS decided to tell Elizabeth and not Mary? NO.

Now for the conclusion.
With all this deduction its safe to say that Mary nor Elizabeth knew that Mary’s child was God himself.

Deduction my friend, deduction.

*You make some good deductions Rev because the doctrine of the Trinity was only understood, developed and declared doctrine at Nicea. At the time of Elizabeth and Mary’s visit there was no understanding of there being three persons in one God.

What this thread is about is that Mary is the Mother of God and Jesus her son - not a mere vessel. When Elizabeth said Mother of my Lord she was saying Mother of God. Mary’s response showed that she too was filled with the Holy Spirit and understood that her role was to be Blessed.

I know that non-Catholics do not attribute the reverence and love we have for Our Blessed Lady, our Mother. It takes time to understand.

When I pray my first thoughts are towards Jesus. I address almighty God. I then ask our Blessed Mother to remember us in her prayers. The same with the Rosary. While we are praying the Hail Marys of the decades we are contemplating the Gospels - Annunciation, Visitation, Birth of Jesus, Presentation in the Temple etc. Also the Death, Suffering and Resurrection etc, The Mass is also God-centered.

Our Blessed Mother has always pointed to Jesus. She is part of the Holy Family.

I don’t expect you to understand because I know that non-Catholics (not all) look upon Mary as a mere “vessel”. We have been given free will and we Catholics opt for the interpretation of the Catholic Church in whom the “Deposit of Faith” lies. We do not claim to understand everything. Faith is about trusting God and believing in His mysteries. St Augustine said something like this (I am paraphrasing) - it is not necessary to understand in order to believe, but believe in order to understand. I remember how at one time I felt I needed to understand everything in the Bible but then someone quoted that to me and I stopped in my tracks and knew that I had to place my trust in God and believe what he says. Like the Eucharist. We do not understand fully but we believe because we trust. What is Faith after all?

*

 

[Cinette]

If you want to debunk my research then you do the research and let me know the results.

*I think he made a very good point rev and why should he debunk your research? His response is something you need to research - now, now don’t be lazy rev, it is in your interest to research his statement not the other way around!

*

 

[Dokimas]

How should I know? I do not care about Wikipedia nor do I intend to research it. I just do not believe that to be a source in an intellectual conversation, especially when anybody could mess with the information there.

In any case, I am not saying my Church disagrees. Nor am I saying it does. I am just saying that the Wikipedia post from Gary Taylor (I think or maybe somebody else) and your Wikipedia post are clearly at odds with each other. That fact enhances my point. Hence, my vague answer to your sincere question that the Catholic Church is my source for Truth.

As you like it.

 

[Cinette]

As you like it.

*Hey Dokimas Wikipedia is by no means comparable to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It is also true that the information is not 100% reliable as someone above pointed out.

By the way I wish to state that I am just a kindergarten Catholic, having left the CC for 27 years. Now that I have returned I find the CC most exciting and I know I can trust the CC because it is the Church Jesus Christ founded and Jesus always keeps his promises (He promised to be with us always and that th HS would guide us). The CC has the Deposit of Faith and it makes sense. The Church is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. Jesus knew that we had to have a Shepherd on Earth and the Church (or rather the Shepherd and the Magisterium) is doing a good job. There is only one true interpretation.

All other interpretations emanate from traditions of man.

*

 

[Irish_Polock]

As you like it.

Dokimas,

I have learned - in my little experience at apologetics - that one can use Wiki to find generalized info on a certain subject, but when referencing an article (especially on an apologetics forum) I would not use the Wiki page, although Wiki does give some great citations, if you know what I mean?

 

[GreggAlvarez]

As you like it.

Whether or not I like it is irrelevant.

 

[rev_kevin]

*You make some good deductions Rev because the doctrine of the Trinity was only understood, developed and declared doctrine at Nicea. At the time of Elizabeth and Mary’s visit there was no understanding of there being three persons in one God.

What this thread is about is that Mary is the Mother of God and Jesus her son - not a mere vessel. When Elizabeth said Mother of my Lord she was saying Mother of God. Mary’s response showed that she too was filled with the Holy Spirit and understood that her role was to be Blessed.

I know that non-Catholics do not attribute the reverence and love we have for Our Blessed Lady, our Mother. It takes time to understand.

When I pray my first thoughts are towards Jesus. I address almighty God. I then ask our Blessed Mother to remember us in her prayers. The same with the Rosary. While we are praying the Hail Marys of the decades we are contemplating the Gospels - Annunciation, Visitation, Birth of Jesus, Presentation in the Temple etc. Also the Death, Suffering and Resurrection etc, The Mass is also God-centered.

Our Blessed Mother has always pointed to Jesus. She is part of the Holy Family.

I don’t expect you to understand because I know that non-Catholics (not all) look upon Mary as a mere “vessel”. We have been given free will and we Catholics opt for the interpretation of the Catholic Church in whom the “Deposit of Faith” lies. We do not claim to understand everything. Faith is about trusting God and believing in His mysteries. St Augustine said something like this (I am paraphrasing) - it is not necessary to understand in order to believe, but believe in order to understand. I remember how at one time I felt I needed to understand everything in the Bible but then someone quoted that to me and I stopped in my tracks and knew that I had to place my trust in God and believe what he says. Like the Eucharist. We do not understand fully but we believe because we trust. What is Faith after all?

*

I’m not saying that Jesus isn’t God because today we know he is but back then I don’t think they knew that.