Some questions about Mary

  • Thread starter Thread starter bajolyn
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Here’s that Immaculate Conception evidence: enjoy!

“I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel.” (Gen. 3:15). My namesake!!!

Let’s analyze this little prophetic verse. In this verse, God is speaking to the serpent, Satan. Everyone, including fundies and evangelicals will agree that “He will strike your head” refers to Jesus defeating Satan. Since Jesus is the woman’s offspring, that makes the woman Mary. Now God puts enmity between Jesus and Satan’s offspring. Now, since we know Jesus was conceived sinless and never sinned His whole life, we can say that this enmity is complete enmity. Complete emnity means Jesus was totally in opposition with evil and sin.

Now notice this enmity that God places between Jesus and evil is the same emnity that God has placed between the woman and Satan. Thus, it must also be complete enmity. Mary is also in total opposition to sin. Mary was conceived without original sin because God has put this complete emnity between her and sin. Thus, she also led a sinlesslife as well.

This is supported by the fact that Jesus often calls Mary “Woman.” See John 2:4 at the wedding feast at Cana. Also see when He was on the cross in John 19:26.
 
40.png
rom323:
You believe that vain repetitions prevented me from becoming a Muslin? How sad that you have such little faith in God and so much in Mary!
Click to expand...
Hmmm. what’s the point ever praying if God’s just going to do it anyway? Yet we all believe prayer is a good thing. I think Paul said something about the prayers of a righteous man being powerful. Hmmm. No non-divine human was as righteouis as Mary.
 
40.png
Genesis315:
Right, He is both God and man. It’s the old hypostatic union. Well, we say Jesus is God. Would you say He is the Trinity? He is one of the person’s of the Trinity, but He is still God. He is divine yet a diffent person than God the Father. If you say God became man, do you mean the Trinity became man? A mother is one who gives birth and raises a child. Mary gave birth to Jesus, who is God. I really don’t see the problem. God became man in the normal way, live birth. Live birth necessitates a mother. Mary was His mother. No one is claiming Mary existed before God.
Click to expand...
It appears that you are having difficulty grasping the problem with calling Mary “the Mother of God.”
**JESUS IS BOTH GOD AND MAN **yet you continue refer to Him ONLY AS GOD! The problem arises because you cannot state that all of Jesus is God, because nothing in Jesus’ humanity can be considered divine! Therefore, you cannot say that Mary is the mother of ALL OF JESUS, but ONLY OF HIS HUMANITY!
The instant you say that Mary is the mother of God, you are affirming that Mary is the mother of deity but not of humanity. In other words, “God” is merely descriptive of ONE of Jesus’ natures. **The *person ***of Jesus isn’t merely God, any more than the *person *of Jesus is merely man. Let’s put it another way, Mary gave birth to a person who is BOTH God and man. She did not give birth to the pre-incarnate form of the Logos. It is proper to call Mary “the mother of Jesus,” but not "the mother of God."
Another objection to the title "Mother of God’ is that it does not properly distinguish between the natures of Christ. By calling Mary “mother of God” and not “mother of man” there is an implicit denial of the humanity of Christ; or a divinization of His humanity–both of which are heresies. **In other words, it affirms that Mary gave birth to ONE nature–namely, deity–stripped of all true humanity. **

What part did Mary play in the incarnation? Clearly, she had a part to play in producing humanity. Was she in any way responsible for producing deity? If not, then is it not more accurate to call her “mother of man”? And is it not even more accurate to call her “mother of Christ”? This is exactly what Nestorius attempted to do by introducing the term *Christotokos, *literally, “Christ-bearing one.”

Do you now see the problem with calling Mary the mother of God?
:love:
 
40.png
Genesis315:
Hmmm. what’s the point ever praying if God’s just going to do it anyway? Yet we all believe prayer is a good thing. I think Paul said something about the prayers of a righteous man being powerful. Hmmm. No non-divine human was as righteouis as Mary.
Click to expand...
Yes we should pray, but to God alone!
🙂
 
Rom323,

The whole “Mother of God/Theotokos” title was hashed out at the Council of Ephesus in the year 431. None of the reformation Protestant denominations repudiated that theology. In fact, R. C. Sproul, my favorite card-carrying sola Scriptura/sola fide Presbyterian, is an eloquent defender of the title “Mother of God.”

That title is about the hypostatic union. Jesus is ONE divine PERSON with TWO natures: human and divine. Mary is the mother of the whole person. The term ‘Mother of God’ does not mean that she is the mother of God the Father.

It’s not like these doctrines are obscure. We are glad to help answer real questions, but when attacks come, like yours, in voluminous barrages, there is no excuse for having no accurate knowledge of the subject.
 
rom232, You don’t come here to learn about anything. I have quoted sacred scripture to you that tells us that LORD refers only to GOD in the NT. EMMANUEL which means God with us. Protestants’ unwillingness to acknowledge Mary as the Mother of God is a radical departure from sacred scripture and the Fathers. It implies the Jesus is either not God, or that he is two persons, both of which are heresies. You use scripture quotes and beleive, but when given true evidence in Luke 1:43 or Mathew 1:23 you deny them. That makes you sound unbeleivable to anyone you are trying to teach. That beautiful creature,Mary the Blessed Virgin, said yes to our Lord when Gabriel came to her, she also said Yes to our Lord at the foot of the cross. Our Salvation was given to us on that cross. What a beautiful and wonderful thing. I shall beleive the truth.

I shall be a defender of Mary.
 
40.png
rom323:
It appears that you are having difficulty grasping the problem with calling Mary “the Mother of God.”
**JESUS IS BOTH GOD AND MAN **yet you continue refer to Him ONLY AS GOD! The problem arises because you cannot state that all of Jesus is God, because nothing in Jesus’ humanity can be considered divine! Therefore, you cannot say that Mary is the mother of ALL OF JESUS, but ONLY OF HIS HUMANITY!
The instant you say that Mary is the mother of God, you are affirming that Mary is the mother of deity but not of humanity. In other words, “God” is merely descriptive of ONE of Jesus’ natures. **The *person ***of Jesus isn’t merely God, any more than the *person *of Jesus is merely man. Let’s put it another way, Mary gave birth to a person who is BOTH God and man. She did not give birth to the pre-incarnate form of the Logos. It is proper to call Mary “the mother of Jesus,” but not "the mother of God."
Another objection to the title "Mother of God’ is that it does not properly distinguish between the natures of Christ. By calling Mary “mother of God” and not “mother of man” there is an implicit denial of the humanity of Christ; or a divinization of His humanity–both of which are heresies. **In other words, it affirms that Mary gave birth to ONE nature–namely, deity–stripped of all true humanity. **

What part did Mary play in the incarnation? Clearly, she had a part to play in producing humanity. Was she in any way responsible for producing deity? If not, then is it not more accurate to call her “mother of man”? And is it not even more accurate to call her “mother of Christ”? This is exactly what Nestorius attempted to do by introducing the term *Christotokos, *literally, “Christ-bearing one.”

Do you now see the problem with calling Mary the mother of God?
:love:
Click to expand...
Ok, here’s your problem. Your mindset is stuck in Cartesian Dualism mode. We are body and soul. Just a body or just a soul is not fully human. These things are inseparable except at death, at which time there is a traumatic separation. Luckily our bodies are reunited with our spirit in Heaven and we become whole again (if you don’t believe in the resurrection of the body, then I can see why you may have trouble with this concept, maybe you should start a new thread on it). Likewise, you can’t separate Jesus’ humanity and divinity. He is one entity, not two. Mary was not called Christ-bearer because that gave leeway (sp?) for the Nestorians to still claim He was in essence two entities. By calling Mary Mother of God, there is no room for any interpretaion other than Jesus is one entity, both human and divine. He was this one human and divine entity when He was in Mary’s womb. She gave gave birth to this one human and divine entity. She is the mother of this one human and divine entity.

(ps: unless you’re a lady, don’t give me the lovey dovey smiley, you’re weirding me out:D )
 
40.png
rom323:
Please don’t change the Scriptures in a feble attempt to make a point! Elizabeth calls Mary “the mother of my Lord” not the mother of God!
Click to expand...
And you don’t think that the “my Lord” that Elizabeth referred to is not God? – is not Jesus? :rolleyes:
 
rom323,

I’m not saying I’m totally in disagreement with you; protestants and catholics, after all, are never in 100% disagreement; but do yourself - and us a favour - and I beg you to read this article. Here’s a little excerpt:

…

In sum, it was a man and a woman who had sinned and, therefore, it had to be a man and a woman to restore what was lost by sin. It is as logical as that! Anyone therefore who leaves the “woman” out of that redemptive act is only preaching half Genesis 3:15, half the gospel, half the truth—and half-truth is no truth! It was Jesus and Mary.

Redemption had to come from suffering. As Eve gave the fruit to Adam as the instrument for the fall of humanity, Mary gave a body to Jesus as the instrument for the redemption of humanity, the body in which he would live and suffer and die for us. And so, by virtue of giving flesh to the “Word made flesh” (John 1:14), who in turn redeemed humanity, the Virgin of Nazareth uniquely merits the title Coredemptrix. But the climax of Mary’s role as Coredemptrix was at the foot of the Cross where the total suffering of the mother’s heart, “pierced with a sword,” was obediently united with the suffering of the son’s heart in the fulfillment of the Father’s plan of redemption (cf. Gal. 4:4).

As Rev. Cyril Papali, O.D.C., in his book Mother of God, Mary in Scripture and Tradition, also said: “Hers was the most spiritual and the most pure, the most selfless, the most intense, incomprehensible suffering ever known. One solitary creature suffering with God and for God, suffering for all mankind and from them. That was the price of being the Coredemptrix. That is the meaning of being the second Eve.” When therefore the Church calls Mary the “Coredemptrix,” she means that Mary uniquely participated in the redemption of humanity with her son, although in a completely subordinate and dependent manner. As Mark Miravalle, Professor of Theology and Mariology at Steubenville University, Ohio, wrote: “Mary participated in Jesus’ reconciliation of the human family with God like no other created person. Mary’s unique participation in the redemption was scripturally foreshadowed in the prophecy of Simeon in the temple when he said to her: ‘A sword would pierce your own heart, too’” (Luke 2: 35).

Miravalle clearly explained that the term “Coredemptrix” if properly translated means “the Woman *with * the Redeemer.” Undoubtedly, God could have redeemed us on his own, but he willed otherwise. It would not have been perfect. The important point, however, is that Mary could never have redeemed us on her own. Her role was secondary and subordinate. She was the Coredemptrix, and “Co” comes from the Latin “cum” which means “with” and certainly does not mean “co-equal,” but “co-operating with.” I wish to make this abundantly clear because it is of major theological and ecumenical importance. The co-pilot, for example, is not equal but is subordinate to the pilot. Indeed, Mary always knew her cooperative role: “I am the handmaid of the Lord. Let it be done to me according to your word” (Luke 1:38). But it was her “Immaculate Conception” which properly prepared her for and made her worthy of the intimate and unique role she had to play with the Redeemer in the work of salvation. And so, the title Coredemptrix should never be interpreted as Mary having an equal role in the salvation of the world with Jesus. Indeed, it was never at any time in Church history meant to be so interpreted.

We were redeemed on Calvary with the blood of the son and the tears of the mother. Redemption came from this suffering. It was a suffering which stemmed from “love.” Indeed, the Mother of the Redeemer was predestined to suffer with her son. Simeon only confirmed what she already understood before she gave her fiat to Gabriel: “And a sword would pierce thine own heart” (Luke 2:35).

This is not new doctrine. The earliest Christian writers and Fathers of the Church referred to Marian co-redemption with great profundity. For example, the fourth century Church Father, St. Jerome, said: “Death through Eve, life from Mary.” The seventh century Church writer, Modestus of Jerusalem, stated that through Mary, we “are redeemed from the tyranny of the devil.” St. John Damascene (eighth century) greeted her: “Hail thou, through whom we are redeemed from the curse,” and the twelfth century Marian lover St. Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153) preached that “through her, man was redeemed.” He added: “One man and one woman harmed us grievously. Thanks to God, all things are restored by one man and one woman, and that with interest.”

…
 
…

It is true that Christ would have been adequate, since all our sufficiency comes from him, but it was not good for us that it should be a man alone. It was more appropriate that both sexes should take part in our reparation, since both had wrought our ruin. But her *cooperation * means much more than this. It implies the true dependence of the whole work of redemption on her free will because God himself willed it to be *conditioned * by her consent. Redemption in its entirety is her *cooperative * work also and for that reason alone she deserves to be called Coredemptrix.

Indeed, it is against this rich Christian foundation that twentieth century Popes and saints have used the title Coredemptrix for Mary’s unique role in human redemption. Pope Benedict XV (1914-1922) in his 1918 apostolic letter wrote: “To such extent that she (Mary) suffered and almost died with her suffering and dying son, and to such extent that she surrendered her maternal rights over her son for man’s salvation, …we may rightly say that she together with Christ redeemed the human race.”

…
 
40.png
rom323:
And is it not even more accurate to call her “mother of Christ”? This is exactly what Nestorius attempted to do by introducing the term *Christotokos, *literally, “Christ-bearing one.”

Do you now see the problem with calling Mary the mother of God?
Click to expand...
Mary is mother of God the Son, second person of the Trinity, and Savior of the world. St John Damascus said, " The Word did not take His divinity from Mary, but the Word who had been with the Father from all eternity took flesh from her when the time of the incarnation had come".

Therefore, when the Word became flesh, Mary became Theotokos (God-bearer) because you cannot separate the divine and human nature of Jesus Christ. (hypostatic union) This was accepted by all of Christianity many centuries ago. (except by those who adhered to the nestorian heresy). SO ARE YOU SAYING THAT YOU PREFER TO FOLLOW THE BELIEFS OF NESTORIAN BY DENYING THAT MARY WAS THEOTOKOS? You seem to subscribe to “Christotokos”. That IS the nestorian heresy! Funny how heresies repeat themselves.
 
40.png
Genesis315:
Ok, here’s your problem. Your mindset is stuck in Cartesian Dualism mode. We are body and soul. Just a body or just a soul is not fully human. These things are inseparable except at death, at which time there is a traumatic separation. Luckily our bodies are reunited with our spirit in Heaven and we become whole again (if you don’t believe in the resurrection of the body, then I can see why you may have trouble with this concept, maybe you should start a new thread on it). Likewise, you can’t separate Jesus’ humanity and divinity. He is one entity, not two. Mary was not called Christ-bearer because that gave leeway (sp?) for the Nestorians to still claim He was in essence two entities. By calling Mary Mother of God, there is no room for any interpretaion other than Jesus is one entity, both human and divine. He was this one human and divine entity when He was in Mary’s womb. She gave gave birth to this one human and divine entity. She is the mother of this one human and divine entity.

(ps: unless you’re a lady, don’t give me the lovey dovey smiley, you’re weirding me out:D )
Click to expand...
amazing how allowing Sola Scriptura can bring back armies of old, defeated heresies, eh? :rolleyes:
 
40.png
mrS4ntA:
amazing how allowing Sola Scriptura can bring back armies of old, defeated heresies, eh? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
 
40.png
rom323:
It appears that you are having difficulty grasping the problem with calling Mary “the Mother of God.”
**JESUS IS BOTH GOD AND MAN **yet you continue refer to Him ONLY AS GOD! The problem arises because you cannot state that all of Jesus is God, because nothing in Jesus’ humanity can be considered divine! Therefore, you cannot say that Mary is the mother of ALL OF JESUS, but ONLY OF HIS HUMANITY!
The instant you say that Mary is the mother of God, you are affirming that Mary is the mother of deity but not of humanity. In other words, “God” is merely descriptive of ONE of Jesus’ natures. **The *person ***of Jesus isn’t merely God, any more than the *person *of Jesus is merely man. Let’s put it another way, Mary gave birth to a person who is BOTH God and man. She did not give birth to the pre-incarnate form of the Logos. It is proper to call Mary “the mother of Jesus,” but not "the mother of God."

Another objection to the title "Mother of God’ is that it does not properly distinguish between the natures of Christ. By calling Mary “mother of God” and not “mother of man” there is an implicit denial of the humanity of Christ; or a divinization of His humanity–both of which are heresies. **In other words, it affirms that Mary gave birth to ONE nature–namely, deity–stripped of all true humanity. **

What part did Mary play in the incarnation? Clearly, she had a part to play in producing humanity. Was she in any way responsible for producing deity? If not, then is it not more accurate to call her “mother of man”? And is it not even more accurate to call her “mother of Christ”? This is exactly what Nestorius attempted to do by introducing the term *Christotokos, *literally, “Christ-bearing one.”

Do you now see the problem with calling Mary the mother of God?
:love:
Click to expand...
You are correct, Jesus is both man and God. But, that does not affect the fact that Mary is the mother of God. Jesus was God, not 30% God, not 50% God, you couldn’t say he is 95% God. Jesus is 100% God and 100% man. Jesus by nature is a man and is God at the same time. Mary gave birth to Jesus, Elizabeth called her “the mother of my lord”, so she is the mother of God. By denying Mary the title of “mother of God”, you unwittingly deny the incarnation of God. In the 5th century there was a heresy called the nestorian heresy. They claimed that Jesus was not God untill his baptism and the Spirit desended upon him. They refused to call Mary the mother of God on this account. In like AD 431 the council of Ephesis condemned this heresy. They anathematized those who refused to call Mary the mother of God because those who refused it denied the incarnation of God, in the Arian heresy and in the nestorian heresy.

Mary is the daughter of God the Father, the mother of God the Son, and the spouse of God the Holy Gost.
 
I wish that people could understand that there is not some finite, limited amount of “love” in each individual, and in the universe. These poor deluded souls thus think that any “love” given to a saint, (including Mary), or to another human being, detracts from “love” given to God.

I use the word “love” instead of “worship” because what I as a Catholic Christian offer to Mary is love indeed, NOT worship, as worship is reserved to God alone. Since God demands that we love Him, AND that we love our neighbor–that is, any other human–as we love ourselves, how can I NOT offer love to Mary and to all the saints–living on earth and LIVING IN HEAVEN?

Jesus came to us in His incarnation through Mary. God did not “have” to do it “that way”, but He did. God is changeless–yesterday, today, and tomorrow. If Jesus came to us through Mary once, He comes to us through Mary for all time. If God chose Mary as the mother of Jesus (I trust, rom, that you accept that she is mother of Jesus?) once, He chose her for all time. In fact, He chose time. He created time. He transcends time, and we will find that out as we step out of time (at our death) and into eternity, whether our ultimate destination be heaven or hell.

God honored Mary as mother of Jesus once; therefore He honored her through all time and into eternity, not for some 33 year old period in finite time and then, chuck, into the wastebasket like a worn out rag.

God is our Father and Jesus our Brother. Who then is our mother? Is not the mother of our brother our mother as well? If we, human creatures, are elevated by God to be His sons and daughters, His family, why is it so difficult to picture that Mary too is not elevated? She is, like us, a daughter of the Father. She is Mother of the Son (Jesus). She is spouse of the Holy Spirit (Luke 1), by whom she became the mother of the Son. Mary has a unique relationship in her motherhood and her espousal of the Second and Third Persons of the Trinity, but the SAME relationship that we all do to the First Person. That makes her still a creature just like us, but also something “more”–not divine, but “higher”, as a human king is higher than a human non-king. No one would argue that King David had not only a higher status than even his prophets, like Nathan, but had as well higher responsibilities. It was the sins of the king which not only had an impact on him but on his ENTIRE KINGDOM. We tend to forget that even now the kingdom is hierarchical. There are some who are “closer” to God than others. We know that there are those in the kingdom who will be “seated at His right and left hand”–that is, put in positions of authority, acknowledged as being more “important”. . .the “greater” and the “greatest” in the kingdom of heaven as opposed to the “least”. . .this is all Biblical. . .
Why is it so hard to think of Mary as being, by virtue of her motherhood of the Savior and her “fiat” to God and her relationship with the Trinity, as being “Queen Mother”, a honorable position brought about by BIRTH, ceremonial and powerful yet BY NO MEANS equal to kingship and in fact only received through the kingship of the male involved (Jesus). Why is honoring the mother of Christ considered worship? Esther, who saved her people from Haman, is honored as queen, but not worshipped. People don’t wish to deny her an honor she deserves (queendom) or say that acknowledging her role in ASKING THE KING TO PROTECT HER PEOPLE somehow TAKES AWAY the fact that it was GOD who was responsible overall for the safety of his people, and that it was Esther whom He CHOSE for their deliverance.

He chose Mary to bear His Son. Funny, by denying her even the smallest respect as the choice of God, it appears that you are denying respect to God Himself.

Who is really the one denying God honor, power and glory–the one who honors God’s choice of Mary as Mother of the Son, or the one who sneers at God’s choice and attempts to paint her not even as an “ordinary” human, but as an evil goddess-wanna-be?

Hmmm, looks like the latter one is the one at fault.
 
Please don’t change the Scriptures in a feble attempt to make a point! Elizabeth calls Mary “the mother of my Lord” not the mother of God!
Click to expand...
Rom323,

How do you understand what Elizabeth has said in calling Him “Lord”? Remember that Elizabeth was “filled with the Holy Spirit” when she exclaimed those words to Mama Mary–so don’t even try to make a febble attempt to discredit the meaning of Scriptures!

Lord simply means in Hebrew “Adonai.” If you put it more clearly, it means “Yahweh,” but Lord is preferred by the Jews because they fear even the mentioning of the words "YHWH."

**You are actually trying to rationalize the words that came out of Elizabeth’s mouth–that mainly comes from the Holy Spirit. **Are you then to say something like this to Mary; “How could this be, that the mother of my (human) Lord should come to me?” This is Nestorionism, trying to separate the One Person of Christ. Mary was the Mother of the Person, not natures.

Of course we are not trying to say that the Eternal Word made flesh, who was from eternity to eternity God, was made into existence in Mary’s sacred womb. That’s a very irrational argument. Being the Mother of the Eternal Word does not mean that mary “created” Him in her womb–because God is uncreated.

If you look at yourself for example, are you then to say you are a son of your mother only in nature, not person? Such that we would say, Rom323 was not the son of his mother, but Rom323’s nature was?

God Bless,

Pio
 
Mary is the daughter of God the Father, the mother of God the Son, and the spouse of God the Holy Gost.
Click to expand...
No wonder she was addressed by our Lord Jesus as “Woman” not Mother, because of her relationship with the Trinity!

She is the “Woman” in Genesis, the Gospels and Revelation.

Pio
 
Bajolyn:

I’ve noticed that you used the NIV & NASB a lot. They’re OK translations - I use the NIV instead of an defanged New Revised Standard Version that I bought a little over a year ago.

Now, I’m nothing if not cheap (the NIV was given to me). So might I suggest that you trip over to the Vatican website and check out the New American Bible? I disdained it in a rebelious moment when Bible shopping last year (thought the language was too “utilitartian” for my "precious"ears). Was that ever a mistake! It’s actually pretty good, and it’s very accurate (about as accurate as the original RSV which used to be the Gold Standard - but is overall a better translation).

As i said, the Vatican maintains an online copy, with concordance, for the grand sum of $0.00. The only thing missing is the Book of Psalms:

vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_INDEX.HTM

If the Vatican online NAB had the Book of Psalms, I’d get rid of the Large-print NRSV tomorrow, and keep the pocket sized NIV for travelling.

One thing you want to remember when talking to us Catholics, the Bible didn’t just spring full grown out of the head of God. God had to use the Church to first write the books (and a whole lot of others) and then to discern which books were Scripture and which ones weren’t.

Although almost of the books of the New Testament were WRITTEN within two generations of Jesus Death and Resurrection (50 years - 85 AD,; John’s Gospel was finished by 110 AD by one or more of his disciples, although he wrote the first draft as an old man around 90 AD), the Church didn’t fully agree on the list we all know as the New Testament until the Council of Chalcydon. And, there was still some controversy about the Book of Revelation until Ephesus.

At the same time, you have to remember the Nicene Creed, which is considered the backbone statement of our faith, even by many Protestants, isn’t the product of Scripture, but the product of two Ecumentical Councils, the product of the Catholic Church, just as the Scriptures described above.

Blessings and Peace, Michael
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top