Catholic Mary

[Moriah]

Maybe not, but that is really speculation on your part, isn't it. Scripture doesn't say one way or the other. But she certainly seemed exalted when portrayed in Revelation 12:1.
This is not exactly a portrait of the cleaning lady.

You said Scripture does not say one way or the other. The scriptures do NOT tell us to exalt Mary! The scriptures DO tell us what to do, and it is not about going through Mary.

We are not to worship blessed Mary. We are only to worship God. In addition, what does the scriptures say to people who were worshiping the Queen of Heaven.

Jeremiah 44:19 The women added, "When we burned incense to the Queen of Heaven and poured out drink offerings to her, did not our husbands know that we were making cakes like her image and pouring out drink offerings to her?"
Jeremiah 44:23 Because you have burned incense and have sinned against the LORD and have not obeyed him or followed his law or his decrees or his stipulations, this disaster has come upon you, as you now see."

 

[The Biblicist]

This belief is very old. It was and is called Nestorianism and was denounced as heresy at the Council of Ephesus.

You are mistaken. Nestorianism denies that both natures were combined in one Person. We are not denying that He was "born" God and man in one Person. We are not talking about his birth but about what was conceived in Mary. What was "conceived" was flesh but in the womb the Word of God took upon himself that body prepared ("conceived") by God in Mary and "became" flesh and "tabernacled" in the flesh so that what was born was the God man. The conception of humanity by Mary and the union with the Eternal Word with what Mary conceived could have taken place at conception of the flesh.

Hebrews 10:5-8 makes it clear that the body was prepared first through conception and John 1:14 clearly teaches that this body in the womb was the "tabernacle" of divinity so that he "became" flesh and dwelt among us. He called his body "this temple" that could be destroyed but deity could not be destroyed.

At birth he was human and divine in one Person but neverthless the humanity was not lost in the divinity and the divinity was not lost in the humanity. The "child" was "born" but the "Son" was "given" (Isa. 9:6) and the "child" was conceived by Mary but the "Son" was "given" by God to "tabernacle" in the flesh as One God/man Person. Both could have occurred at conception but what Mary conceived was flesh not Divinity.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You are mistaken.

Nope you are mistaken. Nestorius insisted that Mary was the Christokos. That she carried the human Jesus and at birth there became a weird conjunction of the divine Jesus with the human Jesus. The Monophysites then suggested that the humanity of Jesus was swallowed up by his divinity like a drop of water dropped in the ocean. His mistake was that Mary was the mother of one nature. Not one person. A son is necissarily a person.

 

[The Biblicist]

Nope you are mistaken. Nestorius insisted that Mary was the Christokos. That she carried the human Jesus and at birth there became a weird conjunction of the divine Jesus with the human Jesus. The Monophysites then suggested that the humanity of Jesus was swallowed up by his divinity like a drop of water dropped in the ocean. His mistake was that Mary was the mother of one nature. Not one person. A son is necissarily a person.

No, you are mistaken! Nestorius insisted that the human and divine never really united in a single self-conscious personality. The Nestorian Christ is two persons, one divine, and one human. Instead of blending of the two natures into only one self, the Nestorian scheme places two selves side by side, and allows only a moral and sympothetic union between them.

In contrast, I said the union occurred AT conception but WHAT Mary conceived was the humanity and the eternal Word "became" flesh and "tabernacled" among us so what was born was one person both man and God. Isaiah 9:6 makes this distinction by saying a "Son" is GIVEN but a "child" is born. The Divinity preceded the humanity so that the Dieity was "given" a human nature but what Mary conceived was the human nature. Hence, the UNION occured AT conception but what Mary conceived was the human nature. Mary did not conceive God as what is born of flesh is flesh and what is born of Spirit is spirit.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

No, you are mistaken!

What is coming of colleges these days? Everything I've said about Nestorius is correct and you are mistaken.

Nestorius, as well as Theodore, repeatedly insisted that he did not admit two Christs or two Sons, and he frequently asserted the unity of the prosopon....he repeated that he should accept the Theotokos if only it was properly understood. In the same letter he speaks quite correctly of the "two Natures which are adored in the one Person of the Only-begotten by a perfect and unconfused conjunction", but this could not palliate his mistake that the Virgin is mother of one nature, not of the person

the doctrine of Nestorianism survived and served as the basis for Dyophysite teachings in the fifth and sixth centuries, particularly at Nisibis, which had inherited the mantle of Syrian scholarship from Edessa.

 

[The Biblicist]

What is coming of colleges these days? Everything I've said about Nestorius is correct and you are mistaken.

He was right in this regard. Mary is not the mother of divinity as more than Mary was involved in the conception. Even in human birth both the Father and the mother contribute to the DNA make up of the child. Mary contributed nothing more than the human nature while God contributed the divine nature fused into one Person. Mary was not the mother of God but contributed only the human nature while God contributed the Divine nature. God does not come from man and never will come from man unless you want to embrace Mormonism.

 

[The Biblicist]

He was right in this regard. Mary is not the mother of divinity as more than Mary was involved in the conception. Even in human birth both the Father and the mother contribute to the DNA make up of the child. Mary contributed nothing more than the human nature while God contributed the divine nature fused into one Person. Mary was not the mother of God but contributed only the human nature while God contributed the Divine nature. God does not come from man and never will come from man unless you want to embrace Mormonism.

Love to chat but I have to go do errands:smilewinkgrin:

 

[Thinkingstuff]

He was right in this regard. Mary is not the mother of divinity as more than Mary was involved in the conception. Even in human birth both the Father and the mother contribute to the DNA make up of the child. Mary contributed nothing more than the human nature while God contributed the divine nature fused into one Person. Mary was not the mother of God but contributed only the human nature while God contributed the Divine nature. God does not come from man and never will come from man unless you want to embrace Mormonism.

And so we see it.... You do not believe in the hypostatic union and that mary for 9 months carried both the divinity and humanity natures of the person Jesus Christ with in her womb.

Maybe Nestorius was a baptist.......:smilewinkgrin:

 

[Moriah]

This belief is very old. It was and is called Nestorianism and was denounced as heresy at the Council of Ephesus.

Mary was NOT the mother of God the Father. You put Mary above God when you say that. If you make Mary the mother of God the Father, then you are claiming Mary came before God. If you make Mary the mother of God the Father, then you make Mary divine, then you take away the humanness of Jesus. What do the scriptures say about people who do that?
2 John 1:7 Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Mary was NOT the mother of God the Father. You put Mary above God when you say that. If you make Mary the mother of God the Father, then you are claiming Mary came before God. If you make Mary the mother of God the Father, then you make Mary divine, then you take away the humanness of Jesus. What do the scriptures say about people who do that?
2 John 1:7 Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.

Mary is the Mother of the fulness of Jesus Christ. In her womb existed the divine and the human natures of Jesus. Jesus as a person was fully represented in her womb. No one every said anything about the Father.

 

[Jerome]

. . .could be. . . .seems to. . . .could be seen . . . etc. etc. etc.

Second Helvetic Confession

It was adopted by the Reformed Church not only throughout Switzerland but in Scotland (1566), Hungary (1567), France (1571), Poland (1578), and next to the Heidelberg Catechism is the most generally recognized confession of the Reformed Church.

Of course there are always going to be some who claim to "hold" to a religious tradition/Confession yet pick and choose parts to discard or "reinterpret". We've seen this with the vaunted 1689 Confession here on the BB.

 

[The Biblicist]

And so we see it.... You do not believe in the hypostatic union and that mary for 9 months carried both the divinity and humanity natures of the person Jesus Christ with in her womb.

Maybe Nestorius was a baptist.......:smilewinkgrin:

Stop lying! Read what I said and stop inventing something I said.

"Mary contributed nothing more than the human nature while God contributed the divine nature fused into one Person"

Thus fusion occurred IN THE WOMB and AT conception. Mary supplied the HUMAN DNA only because she has no DIVINE DNA! Remember more than Mary was involved in the conception of Jesus in the womb - God was not obtained from Mary's DNA! That simple!

I came back in to turn my computer off! Glad I looked before I hit the button! Gone!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Stop lying! Read what I said and stop inventing something I said.

"Mary contributed nothing more than the human nature while God contributed the divine nature fused into one Person"

Thus fusion occurred IN THE WOMB and AT conception. Mary supplied the HUMAN DNA only because she has no DIVINE DNA! Remember more than Mary was involved in the conception of Jesus in the womb - God was not obtained from Mary's DNA! That simple!

I came back in to turn my computer off! Glad I looked before I hit the button! Gone!

You said Nestorius was correct and thus I just showed that you must agree that:..........

FYI there is just one person totally divine and totally human. Jesus Christ thus. Mary gave birth to Jesus' fulness rather than one aspect. IE... She is the Theotokos rather than Christokos.

Don't forget the milk and eggs.

 

[Moriah]

Mary is the Mother of the fulness of Jesus Christ. In her womb existed the divine and the human natures of Jesus. Jesus as a person was fully represented in her womb. No one every said anything about the Father.

Mary is the mother of the human Jesus. You said no one ever said anything about the Father, Catholics do! Catholics claim Mary is the mother of God. God does NOT have a mother. Catholics call Mary the mother of God. They claim Mary was conceived by Immaculate Conception. Catholics have claimed Mary to be Co-Redeemer! They say Mary is a mediator, and they call her a Mediatrix. Catholics make Mary divine and part of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Mary is the mother of the human Jesus. You said no one ever said anything about the Father, Catholics do! Catholics claim Mary is the mother of God. God does NOT have a mother. Catholics call Mary the mother of God. They claim Mary was conceived by Immaculate Conception. Catholics have claimed Mary to be Co-Redeemer! They say Mary is a mediator, and they call her a Mediatrix. Catholics make Mary divine and part of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

I am Catholic and Catholics do not say anything about the Father being in Mary's womb. You have false in formation. Mary did not give birth to just one nature in one person who was later possessed by the divinity.

Catholics say that the Holy Spirit Overshadowed Mary and God became incarnate or the divine nature and the human nature existed in Mary in a hypostatic union in the person of Jesus Christ. Thus both human and divine at conception. Catholics believe in the Trinity of God. Thus when we call upon God we say "in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit."
So Catholics understand that Jesus is the second person in the Trinity. But that Mary gave birth not to a part of Jesus but to Jesus' fulness.

Also Mediatrix does not make Mary a part of the Trinity. It makes her what she is the obedient handmaid of the Lord. She is mediatrix in the sense that she prays on behalf of those who are being saved. She prays for their salvation. Just like anyone who is a Christian would do for those who are not saved.

 

[Moriah]

I am Catholic and Catholics do not say anything about the Father being in Mary's womb. You have false in formation. Mary did not give birth to just one nature in one person who was later possessed by the divinity.

Catholics say that the Holy Spirit Overshadowed Mary and God became incarnate or the divine nature and the human nature existed in Mary in a hypostatic union in the person of Jesus Christ. Thus both human and divine at conception. Catholics believe in the Trinity of God. Thus when we call upon God we say "in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit."
So Catholics understand that Jesus is the second person in the Trinity. But that Mary gave birth not to a part of Jesus but to Jesus' fulness.

You did not say anything, nor did you deny that the Catholics call Mary a Mediatrix, and a Co-Redeemer. If Mary is a Mediatrix and a Co-Redeemer, then that does make her part of the Divinity.
You did not say anything either about Mary being born by Immaculate Conception. Catholics believe Mary was born by Immaculate Conception herself.
Calling Mary mother of God, that DOES say Mary is the mother of God, and thus makes Mary exalted above Jesus.
No matter how many times you deny it, it does not change the truth.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You did not say anything,

I certainly did and I educated you on the fact that Catholics do not believe Mary Gave birth to the Father. That is your own imagination.

nor did you deny that the Catholics call Mary a Mediatrix, and a Co-Redeemer.

I didn't say anything about Co-redeemer because that is not a doctrine. However, I educated you on how it was to be understood. Not that Mary saved people. But that by her obedience She allowed God to use her in such a way as to bring about our redemption through Christ. Consider Gideon. He was a Redeemer of Israel from the Mideonites. Yet no one confuses him with God. But he did play his role even though it is considered that God saved Israel and used Gideon to do so. So it is with Mary. That says something.

If Mary is a Mediatrix and a Co-Redeemer, then that does make her part of the Divinity

No it certainly does not

You did not say anything either about Mary being born by Immaculate Conception.

What do you think everytime I talk about faith I talk about the Immaculate Conception? Thats ridiculous. I responded to what you said. Not the Immaculate Conception. BTW the Immaculate Conception is about who Jesus is not who Mary is. If Jesus is the second person of the Trinity. Then Mary who carried his presence in her womb would be the Ark of the New Covenant. And was set apart for a specific purpose and was created pure for that reason.

Catholics believe Mary was born by Immaculate Conception herself.

Again wrong. Catholics Believed God made her that way.

Calling Mary mother of God, that DOES say Mary is the mother of God, and thus makes Mary exalted above Jesus.

Then you no nothing of christian history and how the term Theotokos came to be. It affirms the divinity and humanity of Jesus Christ with out making Jesus one or the other.

No matter how many times you deny it, it does not change the truth.

I think you have a hard time with the truth. Try studying Christian history you might understand a bit more.

 

[steaver]

As I watch and read this back and forth about Mary, I can't help but wonder why Christians would allow themselves to get caught up in this extrabiblical doctrine.

From my point of view, if I had to judge if this exalting of Mary is justified from scripture, I would say it is absolutely unfounded. I don't see how any clear thinking Christian could conclude that the early RCC did anything less than create something from nothing.

There is absolutely no mention of Mary after the crucifixion of Christ, none. That speaks volumes to this issue. If Mary was everything the RCC has made her to be surely this would be all throughout the epistles. The Apostles would have spoken about Mary and how she was doing this and doing that. Large crowds would have followed her around just as they did Jesus. Jesus was gone but they had the next best thing, Mary!

Yet not one mention of anyone seeking after Mary in all of the letters and testimonies. So why would Catholics seek her today? The answer can only be that this is what the RCC has told them to do, so it is what they do. I can't see any biblical reason or exhortation to seek Mary for anything at all, nothing, the scripture is silent. It can only be a fabrication born out of pondering minds which were not in oneness with the mind of God.

I will present my prayers to Jesus only, just as the scripture directs. raying:

 

[Zenas]

So you are a Roman Catholic in "beliefs" as you just admitted you are not Baptist in belief? Moreover, the "Baptist" church you belong to does not really teach and practice what they say they believe "they don't really wear on their shoulders"??

So, you do have some beliefs and they are not Baptist beliefs and you are a deacon in the church! Tell me, do you teach any Sunday school class? If so, do you teach what you really believe or do you teach what the Southern Baptist Sunday School literature teaches???

I've notice something about churches. In the 1960's and before, it seemed that people paid a lot of attention to the particular beliefs of the church they chose to join. Not so much anymore. I have probably talked to between 150-200 persons or families about our church and can only recall one instance where the prospective member had any interest in our statement of faith or other practices. The question was about how we did communion. On the other hand, they are all interested in things like the condition of the nursery, the quality and size of the youth program, whether we do small groups, can they sing in the choir, do we have Wednesday night fellowship meals, etc. On the whole, people want a church where they feel comfortable and fit in. And if it means going across the street to the Christian Church or whatever, that's what they will do.

That is the 5th or 6th time you have mentioned that I am a deacon. I'm sorry you can't get that off your mind. I know it is a source of much consternation for you. And yes, I am a Sunday School teacher. People tell me I'm one of the best. We use Lifeway literature and I teach out of it, although I don't really like it. If you read through the Bible, as I know you have, about 95% of it is material about which there is no disagreement. The other 5% is the source of the doctrinal differences, but Lifeway seems to steer away from these topics. Therefore, there is little opportunity to talk about Catholic doctrine in a Lifeway driven Sunday School class. It comes up maybe twice a year and when it does, it tell them what I believe. Most recently, in December 2011, I shared with them my beliefs about the pertetual virginity of Mary. In fact I handed out a sheet substantially like my Post #2 on this thread. They were all pretty impressed because it showed them some things they had never before considered.

 

[DHK]

I shared with them my beliefs about the pertetual virginity of Mary. In fact I handed out a sheet substantially like my Post #2 on this thread. They were all pretty impressed because it showed them some things they had never before considered.

And they should have never heard them at all.