Jesus is God Means Mary Is The Mother of God?

[Semper_Fi_1]

Umm, I didn’t say any of that. You’re responding to the wrong post.

yep i know, i was responding to newbie, and when i noticed my error it was too late to edit. my bad bro, i just got off work.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

The title of Mary as co-redemptrix or co-redeemer is a very old Catholic teaching is it not? Maybe not infallibly defined but it is a part of your faith is it not?

In a single word: no. It’s a theory some theologians have, but it’s not official church doctrine or dogma and you don’t need to believe it to be saved – but there’s nothing sinister about the title of ‘co-redemptrix’ when you understand it properly in accordance with Sacred Tradition. It’s a plausible idea, is all.

If understood in the way many Protestants think we believe it to be (i.e. Mary saved humankind or sacrificed herself for the salvation of humankind), it would most certainly be heretical.

 

[Bishopite]

eg: My co-worker happens to be able to promote or fire me. So, obviously, I do not have as equal authority as my co-worker; it is because he is my boss.

Great analogy!
You’ve made me think of John 10:29…“My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all”.
Obviously in context, Jesus isn’t saying the Father is greater, Him being God and Jesus a lesser god, no, Jesus is saying “postionally” the Father is greater NOT in substance nor divinity…of being God in their nature.
I know I just jumped into this thread and someone may have already pointed out that “co” isn’t always used as “equal” and isn’t used that way in Church writing. A classic example of another misunderstood word is the word “anathema” which doesn’t always mean condemned to hell. In fact in Church documents it is used as “ex-communicate” NOT as condemned to hell, since that is reserved to God alone and the Church can’t say who is in hell, only that people who die rejecting God’s love go there. And even my twenty-four year old Baptist Charles Ryrie study Bible makes the same affirmation about the word “anathema” in its footnotes

 

[tassitus]

I don’t think this is at all off-topic, and certainly relates to Mary, Mother of God. Have any of you ever seen anything written up, thoughts, musings, questions, on what differences there could have been between the DNA of Mary and the DNA of Jesus? I had not thought of it before, but something in this thread brought this to mind.

Is this so far into the “unknowable” realm that it should not be given much thought?

'Cause I’m not a betting man, but if I were, I’d say their DNA was/is (dare I say it?)…

…identical?

Any geneticists out there want this one?

Peace all.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Great analogy!
You’ve made me think of John 10:29…“My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all”.
Obviously in context, Jesus isn’t saying the Father is greater, Him being God and Jesus a lesser god, no, Jesus is saying “postionally” the Father is greater NOT in substance nor divinity…of being God in their nature.
I know I just jumped into this thread and someone may have already pointed out that “co” isn’t always used as “equal” and isn’t used that way in Church writing. A classic example of another misunderstood word is the word “anathema” which doesn’t always mean condemned to hell. In fact in Church documents it is used as “ex-communicate” NOT as condemned to hell, since that is reserved to God alone and the Church can’t say who is in hell, only that people who die rejecting God’s love go there. And even my twenty-four year old Baptist Charles Ryrie study Bible makes the same affirmation about the word “anathema” in its footnotes

I always use the analogy of a co-pilot. A co-pilot doesn’t always fly the plane, but at in some point in time he/she may have to. This is true in the case of the holy family. Mary was the Mother of God, and when God Incarnate was an infant, she cared for Him. Does this mean that Mary was God? Absolutely not! It’s just a way of expressing our gratitude for Mary’s role in raising Jesus.

 

[newbie1234]

This is not correct. Mary’s sinlessness and immaculate conception is not based on a passage in scripture. Rather, it was revealed to the Church before Luke’s gospel was even written.

What?
When?
By who
Where?

 

[Bishopite]

I always use the analogy of a co-pilot. A co-pilot doesn’t always fly the plane, but at in some point in time he/she may have to. This is true in the case of the holy family. Mary was the Mother of God, and when God Incarnate was an infant, she cared for Him. Does this mean that Mary was God? Absolutely not! It’s just a way of expressing our gratitude for Mary’s role in raising Jesus.

Exactly, another good analogy. I read Eric Svendsens book Evangelical Answers and his sylligistic deductions on Mary mother of God were irrational. If I get some time soon I’ll post them.
Mary is simply the mother of a person, Jesus who is the hypostatic union, 100% divinity and humanity. God the Father doesn’t have a Mother nor God the Spirit but God the second person of the Most Holy Trinity does.
And what many people simply don’t understand is the Catholic Church defended the theotokos for christological reasons. Those who would say Mary wasn’t the mother of God would attempt to make the case were attacking Jesus’ divinity and by extension the Trinity.

 

[newbie1234]

I always use the analogy of a co-pilot. A co-pilot doesn’t always fly the plane, but at in some point in time he/she may have to. This is true in the case of the holy family. Mary was the Mother of God, and when God Incarnate was an infant, she cared for Him. Does this mean that Mary was God? Absolutely not! It’s just a way of expressing our gratitude for Mary’s role in raising Jesus.

So when Jesus is sleeping Mary can fly the plane as co-pilot. Or is the tern co- pilotrix?
If you think you can get to the kingdom of heaven by faith in Mary or get redeemed by her, please read your bible. I’d like to meet you in heaven some day and Mary won’t get you there.

 

[JonathanKinsman]

Jonathan,

I haven’t read this whole thread so forgive me if this is a question that was answered a few posts ago.

Several popes have refered to Mary as a co-redeemer and co-mediatrix or very similar titles have they not?

If you mean as “co-equal” to Jesus, no.

In December of 2000 Pope John Paul II was given petitions signed by (if I remember correctly) over 40 bishops, hundreds (if not thousands) of religious and lay religious, millions of laity, asking the Pope to meet with the Bishops and declare Mary as co-mediatrix.

This hasn’t happened. It is NOT dogma, but a doctrine that Mary (being the first apostle and the Mother of God) is an important link in mediation for Jesus like you and me and everyone else on this thread “mediates” for Jesus to others. She has been likened to metaphoric language like Jesus and the Holy Spirit and some OT fathers. This doesn’t mean she is EQUAL to Jesus in any way whatsoever.

The Church has never taught that Mary brought salvation to all nations. The Bible is very clear on who the One mediator is between God and us: Jesus.

But that doesn’t mean (like in John) you cannot mediate for someone who you see is sinning by praying for them.

“Mediate” is the English word we use for the Latin words *deprecator, arbiter *and conciliator. When this issue with Mary is discussed, the intent (from the context of what is explained immediately after the word) is that of concilation (“bringing together,” a “gathering”).

I see nothing wrong with that. At the cross Jesus directed his beloved disciple St John to care for Mary (“Here is your mother.”) Which also throws another big wrench in the “Jesus had brothers and sisters argument” used against Mary’s continued virginity after His birth.

 

[thefizzle656]

To deny Mary the title of Theotokos is to fall into the error of Nestorius and seperate Christ into two different hypostases, whether one realizes it or not. As many of the Catholics here have already said, this is the heresy of Nestorianism that was soundly defeated by the Third Ecumenical Council in 431. Either Mary is Theotokos or the Son of God did not really become incarnate, in which case we would all be doomed.

 

[newbie1234]

Not this argument again.

Of course Mary needed a savior, as did all of humanity. Catholic doctrine does NOT state that Mary somehow magically “saved herself”. This, in and of itself would be evelating her to the status of a Goddess. We do not teach this.

God the Father handpicked Mary, singled her out from all generations of holy women and saints and still chose her to be the mother of His Divine Son, Our Lord and Savior.

What surprises me is that most Protestants presuppose that Mary is a sinner, but no where in Sacred Scripture does it document one sin she committed throughout the whole life of Jesus – thought you guys were Sola Scriptura?

Adam and Eve, the first humans, were created sinless. Mary, the new Eve, by virtue of her status as the Mother of God, was preserved from the stain of Original Sin. This does not however take away her own free will; it was still her who said yes to the Lord God when He asked her to be the mother of His Son.

If Mary never sinned why was she bringing doves to sacrifice at the temple luke 2:24?

 

[Zirconia]

I don’t think this is at all off-topic, and certainly relates to Mary, Mother of God. Have any of you ever seen anything written up, thoughts, musings, questions, on what differences there could have been between the DNA of Mary and the DNA of Jesus? I had not thought of it before, but something in this thread brought this to mind.

Is this so far into the “unknowable” realm that it should not be given much thought?

'Cause I’m not a betting man, but if I were, I’d say their DNA was/is (dare I say it?)…

…identical?

Any geneticists out there want this one?

Peace all.

Hi, I have my bachelor’s in biochemistry and am studying for my PhD in cell, molecular, and developmental biology, so I’ll be glad to jump in…

I would say that according to human genetics, that this is impossible, that they cannot be identical, because Jesus is male and Mary is female.

To elaborate, men have a Y chromosome, and a special gene on it (the SRY, for Sex-determining Region on Y) is responsible for activating the development of all male-specific characteristics. Without the SRY, the embryo will “default” to female. Females do not have a Y chromosome at all. Instead, they carry another X chromosome. So the sex chromosome complement for males is XY, and the sex chromosome complement for females is XX.

By the way, embryos with no X chromosome at all do not develop, and embryos with neither an X nor a Y chromosome carrying the SRY gene develop into females, since there is no SRY gene to override the “default” to female.

So at least according to human genetics, saying that Mary and Jesus had identical DNA does not sound very likely at all (and they were both human, correct?)

Zirconia

 

[VociMike]

What?
When?
By who
Where?

When? During the period of general revelation.

By whom? By God, of course.

Where? Why does that matter?

The Church knows what has been revealed to her.

Turning your disbelief around, why would the Church make this stuff up if it weren’t true. And if it were made up, why would the early Church members, who died for the faith in great numbers, accept it without a peep?

 

[VociMike]

If Mary never sinned why was she bringing doves to sacrifice at the temple luke 2:24?

For the same reason that Jesus was circumcised and baptized. To fulfill all righteousness.

 

[tassitus]

… I would say that according to human genetics, that this is impossible, that they cannot be identical, because Jesus is male and Mary is female.

So at least according to human genetics, saying that Mary and Jesus had identical DNA does not sound very likely at all (and they were both human, correct?)

Thank you, Zirconia, for the information. I did take *Human Physiology 101 *in college, but that was a long, long time ago… I can say all that you’ve written is consistent with what I remember.

I suppose my question boils down to the origin of the Y chromosome that was paired with Mary’s X chromosome in her womb to form Jesus. And I think all Christians are in agreement as to that origin.

I also think it must be said that in this area I do not believe we are limited soley to “the possible” or solely to “human genetics”, and I believe you qualified your statements twice in your post to also point this out.

In peace.

 

[MrS]

If you mean as “co-equal” to Jesus, no.

In December of 2000 Pope John Paul II was given petitions signed by (if I remember correctly) over 40 bishops, hundreds (if not thousands) of religious and lay religious, millions of laity, asking the Pope to meet with the Bishops and declare Mary as co-mediatrix.

This hasn’t happened. It is NOT dogma, but a doctrine that Mary (being the first apostle and the Mother of God) is an important link in mediation for Jesus like you and me and everyone else on this thread “mediates” for Jesus to others.
…
…
“Mediate” is the English word we use for the Latin words *deprecator, arbiter *and conciliator. When this issue with Mary is discussed, the intent (from the context of what is explained immediately after the word) is that of concilation (“bringing together,” a “gathering”).

I see nothing wrong with that. At the cross Jesus directed his beloved disciple St John to care for Mary (“Here is your mother.”) Which also throws another big wrench in the “Jesus had brothers and sisters argument” used against Mary’s continued virginity after His birth.

\

Yep, many expected that JPII might have declared the 5th dogma before his death… and he did not.

It is almost humorous what the laity want, or demand. The Franciscans have been studing the question of co-mediatrix for over 500 years… and still studing.

One of their order was interviewed on EWTN a number of years ago (glad I taped it … very interesting) on this topic. Among other things he talked about Mary at the foot of the cross.

Here was the woman who may be the world’s greatest theologian, one who learned about God from God for 30+ years, and now watches Him dying on the cross. She was so in tune with the will of God, and she understood it so well, that the Franciscan surmises that she would not have wished for her Son"s suffering to have not happened. In fact, she would have willed it, knowing it was the Father’s will.

Perhaps her tears at the foot of the cross where not for Jesus… they were for us.

.

 

[Bishopite]

If Mary never sinned why was she bringing doves to sacrifice at the temple luke 2:24?

To show her perfect obedience to Jewish law. Why did Jesus get baptized in Matthew 3:13-15? Did He sin? No, but He did it for an example and perfect obedience. Obviously your argument doesn’t add up.

 

[Fidelis]

The webpage you are referring to is erroneous. I looked at it already twice. If you open up a concordance with Greek words you can do the investigation for yourself.
Much grace or some grace does not mean full of grace.
This is important because the RCC has used the Vulgate translation of Full of Grace to arrive at the conclusion that Mary was sinless. This is erroneous.
So if she is sinless, then there is the immaculate conception, then she becomes co-redeemer and co mediator. Do you see how a simple translation inaccuracy has led to Mary almost being equal with Jesus?

I have addressed each and every one of these statements in replying to your post above, which you are merely repeating without directly addressing what I and others are saying. Repeating the same error over and over does not make it true, my friend. Engage in the conversation and truly discuss, and you will learn.

 

[Bishopite]

Hi, I have my bachelor’s in biochemistry and am studying for my PhD in cell, molecular, and developmental biology, so I’ll be glad to jump in…

I would say that according to human genetics, that this is impossible, that they cannot be identical, because Jesus is male and Mary is female.

To elaborate, men have a Y chromosome, and a special gene on it (the SRY, for Sex-determining Region on Y) is responsible for activating the development of all male-specific characteristics. Without the SRY, the embryo will “default” to female. Females do not have a Y chromosome at all. Instead, they carry another X chromosome. So the sex chromosome complement for males is XY, and the sex chromosome complement for females is XX.

By the way, embryos with no X chromosome at all do not develop, and embryos with neither an X nor a Y chromosome carrying the SRY gene develop into females, since there is no SRY gene to override the “default” to female.

So at least according to human genetics, saying that Mary and Jesus had identical DNA does not sound very likely at all (and they were both human, correct?)

Zirconia

Both fully human, Jesus fully human and fully God (homoosius), hence Mary is the Theotokos, Mother of a God. The problem with this whole scenerio is normal people receive 46 chromosomes in total, 13 from each parent, yet Jesus only had one parent, Mary.
One could make the argument that Jesus’ birth supercedes any normal human development because it being a miraculous event and the normal transfer of DNA to Jesus would be a complete 46, but that doesn’t make sense as you’ve shown. However, it is possible that Jesus being the creator of mankind as it says in John 1…without Him nothing came into being…therefore Jesus created His own perfect DNA. But making a case for Jesus’ divinity on identical DNA (when we are able to test either person) isn’t a very good argument and I’m stretching here of course.

 

[newbie1234]

When? During the period of general revelation.

By whom? By God, of course.

Where? Why does that matter?

The Church knows what has been revealed to her.

Turning your disbelief around, why would the Church make this stuff up if it weren’t true. And if it were made up, why would the early Church members, who died for the faith in great numbers, accept it without a peep?

The immaculate conception was made doctrine in 1854.
Who was it revealed to in the church even before Luke was written?
And where would that be written.
It is no where to be found in the NT.
It is also no where to be found in OT prophecy.