Mary Sightings in History

[Fred's Wife]

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Revelation 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

Jesus Christ is the ETENAL Son of God. As God, He has no beginning nor ending (Alpha and Omega). He never ceased to be God. Jesus Christ is the “seed of the woman” (Genesis 3:15)... “Seed of the woman” is a strange expression, because ordinarily the man is said to have seed, not the woman. In this case it is the woman's seed because it is a prophecy of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ. The seed of the serpent will bruise Christ's heel on the cross, but the Seed of the woman will bruise the head of the serpent on that same cross (Hebrews 2:14).

At the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, there was NO human intervention whatsoever...which means there was no human egg.

Hebrews 10:4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

Hebrews 10:5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:

Here’s a hypothetical question: When your mother conceived you, did she also conceive your sin nature? At what point does a woman become a “mother”? If you say at conception, then it’s impossible for Mary to have been the “mother of God” because His deity was never conceived. The reason His deity was never conceived is because His deity is ETERNAL...as the ETERNAL Son of God, Jesus Christ had no beginning.

Jesus said to the woman at the well in John 4:24:

John 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Luke 1:31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.

Luke 1:32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:

Luke 1:33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

Luke 1:34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

Luke 1:35 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.

Jesus Christ was fully God and fully human at His birth. I don’t believe there were any “gaps”, nor do I believe in this thing you call “adoptionism”. As a matter of fact, I’ve never heard the term before. As God, (God is a Spirit), Jesus had no beginning. In His humanity, Jesus' earthly human existence began in the womb of Mary...and it is this “earthly human existence” which was born of Mary. Therefore Mary cannot be, nor is she the “mother of God”. Mary is never called “mother of God” in Scripture...so why does the Roman Catholic Church/EOC call her “mother of God”? Mary is called “mother of Jesus” in Scripture. (John 2:1, 3; Acts 1:14)

 

[Agnus_Dei]

so why does the Roman Catholic Church/EOC call her “mother of God”?

If you were to read any of the early Ecumenical Councils you would understand that the term “Theotokos” has more to do about who Christ is than Mary…

 

[Fred's Wife]

If you were to read any of the early Ecumenical Councils you would understand that the term “Theotokos” has more to do about who Christ is than Mary…

I don't need to read what the early Ecumenical Councils to understand the term "Theotokos". The term is not biblical and that's all I need to know. The Scriptures tell me who Christ is and who Mary is.

 

[The Biblicist]

If you were to read any of the early Ecumenical Councils you would understand that the term “Theotokos” has more to do about who Christ is than Mary…

Isn't there a little deception going on here? Let us suppose the early Ecumentical Councils put the emphasis on who Christ more than Mary in regard to "Theotokos" but that is not the emphasis now in regard to that term, as there has developed a god like veneration for Mary among Catholics.

As I said before, if you called "mary" by another name "diana" and the very same veneration was given "diana" as it is Mary there would be no question she is being worshipped as a goddess.

 

[Yeshua1]

I think the "some" you are referring to is me. I have conceded that inception of deity at the same point of conception of humanity does harmonize with Isaiah 9:6.

However, the problem with the phrase "Mary Mother of God" is not merely that it is unbiblical but that it conveys bad theology.

Again, I can use the exact same logical steps that you use to defend the use of that phrase to defend that God is mutable. Jesus is God and Jesus grew in wisdom and knowledge and thus God is mutable.

The failure to distinguish between attributes that belong exclusively to the human nature versus the divine nature in ONE PERSON leads to theological errors. This distinction must be maintained with regard to Mary and her completely human nature in contrast to absolute Deity.

The phrase "Mother of God" conveys the theological error that God or Absolute deity can be conceived or has a point of beginning just like anything else conceived by women. It makes no difference if you claim "God" has reference to the Son and not the Father because "God" is equally descriptive of all Three Persons of the Godhead and thus to suggest or claim that "God" can be conceived makes no difference to what Person of the Godhead you apply it to as they all share equally the essence of being "God."

yes, as when non RC hear/read the term of 'god bearer', we do not reguklate to just jesus being incanated in her Womb, but that it means Mary bore/originated the trinity, All persons of the GodHead!

Also, MUST differiate between the twin natures from origin points, as God begot his Son Deity , maryu begot her sons humanity

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Isn't there a little deception going on here? Let us suppose the early Ecumentical Councils put the emphasis on who Christ more than Mary in regard to "Theotokos" but that is not the emphasis now in regard to that term...

But it looks to me that it’s you and others who don’t understand that are putting the emphasis on Mary…the ones that are defending the term “Theotokos” are in fact putting the emphasis on Christ and who He is…

 

[The Biblicist]

But it looks to me that it’s you and others who don’t understand that are putting the emphasis on Mary…the ones that are defending the term “Theotokos” are in fact putting the emphasis on Christ and who He is…

That is not true when it comes to the practice of Roman Catholics. As I said before if you simply substituted the name "Mary" for "Diana" and looked at the way Catholics speak and act toward her it would be clearly seen for what it is - idolatry.

 

[Matt Black]

I think I can agree with that after some more mature reflection on this whole argument.

Can you agree that it would be improper to attribute growth in wisdom and knowledge to God simply because Jesus who is God in the flesh is said to "grow in wisdom and knowledge"? If you can, then you should just as easily agree that it would be just as wrong to call Mary the "mother of God" simply because the baby in her womb was both man and God. The error is same in kind as attributing growth to God simply because Jesus was both God and man. Both errors fail to distinguish what attributes belong to humanity versus what attributes belong to deity. Mary is not deity and therefore to attribute to her to be the "mother" of deity crosses that line as technically what she conceived or contributed to the birth of Christ was not deity at all but only humanity. That terminoloy is not only lacking scripture but conveys a falsehood.

That brings us on to another essential feature of the Incarnation: kenosis. Now that is found in the bible: Phil 2:6-8 (v.7). Being careful in steering away from the one Christological heresy of Nestorianism one has always to be careful to avoid falling into the opposite one of Eutychianism-Monophysitism; nevertheless, kenosis allows for Jesus in His Personhood, fully divine and fully human, to grow in wisdom and knowledge; His Divinity, whilst being fully present was nevertheless limited by self-emptying (kenosis in Phil 2:7) to enable Him to experience all the features of being fully human: learning to walk, to talk, to become continent, to gain human knowledge etc.

 

[Matt Black]

This is theologically correct in every sense of the word

Uh...oh!

It is here where his logic broke down as well as his theology. It is here where RCC logic breaks down as well as their theology.

Failure to distinguish between the two natures within the one Person with their distinctive attributes is error as to deny Jesus was God in the flesh.

You have yet to respond to my example concerning the statement that Jesus "grew in wisdom and in knowlege"! Applying the RCC rationale to justify Mary as the "Mother of God" to this statement we can argue equally that God is mutable because Jesus is God and therefore God grew in wisdom and knowlege. Get my point? The rationale does not theologically justify the conclusion.

Both conclusions based upon that same rationale are theological errors. This is precisely why the Scriptures never call Mary the mother "of God" as that would convey a theological error equal to claiming God is mutable based upon the fact that Jesus grew in wisdom and knowlege.

Kenosis deals with this.

As a further aside: these questions were answered and settled perfectly well more than 15 centuries ago by Christians; why are (a)they being asked again now and (b) the answers already given so hard to comprehend?

 

[Matt Black]

yes, as when non RC hear/read the term of 'god bearer', we do not reguklate to just jesus being incanated in her Womb, but that it means Mary bore/originated the trinity, All persons of the GodHead!

Also, MUST differiate between the twin natures from origin points, as God begot his Son Deity , maryu begot her sons humanity

Would you care to rephrase that in English, please?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Would you care to rephrase that in English, please?

It seems Yeshua is holding to a modalist view of God.

 

[The Biblicist]

Uh...oh!




Kenosis deals with this.

As a further aside: these questions were answered and settled perfectly well more than 15 centuries ago by Christians; why are (a)they being asked again now and (b) the answers already given so hard to comprehend?

Kenosis does not answer the problem at all but supports exactly what I said. Kenosis demonstrates a clear distinction in natures found in One Person. Emptying himself of the manifest glory of God does not mean deity can change or become mutable. Deity does not grow in knowledge and wisdom. It was the human nature in Christ that grew in knowledge and wisdom.

I know you want to sound scholarly but really?!?

 

[The Biblicist]

It seems Yeshua is holding to a modalist view of God.

Pleeeaase! I know you like to sound scholarly but at least be honest with his statement. He simply said that when non-Catholics hear the phrase "God-bearer" what comes to their mind is the whole essence of God and therefore it comes across as a claim that Deity can be conceived by a human being, regardless which Person of the Godhead because all equally share the same absolute deity.

Secondly, he said, it is error to fail to distinguish between the two natures in the One Person of Christ.

You fellows remind me of lions who got a taste of blood and so you are in a feeding frenzy biting at everything imaginable.

 

[The Biblicist]

That brings us on to another essential feature of the Incarnation: kenosis. Now that is found in the bible: Phil 2:6-8 (v.7). Being careful in steering away from the one Christological heresy of Nestorianism one has always to be careful to avoid falling into the opposite one of Eutychianism-Monophysitism; nevertheless, kenosis allows for Jesus in His Personhood, fully divine and fully human, to grow in wisdom and knowledge; His Divinity, whilst being fully present was nevertheless limited by self-emptying (kenosis in Phil 2:7) to enable Him to experience all the features of being fully human: learning to walk, to talk, to become continent, to gain human knowledge etc.

You misunderstand Kenosis. Kenosis does not confuse or confound the human with the divine nature but distinguishes it. Kenosis is the self-imposed restriction or emptying of manifest glory in the person of Jesus Christ. It does not mean deity changes or becomes mutable but only that its glory is self-restrained.

It is not the deity or divine nature that grew in knowledge and wisdom but it is the human nature. There must be a distinction between the human and divine natures even though they are found in one Person. For example, the physical material substance of humanity is not God as God is "a spirit" and yet within the one Person of Jesus Christ both humanity and divinity are united WITHOUT CONFUSION of nature.

Using the same line of logic to justify Mary as "the mother of God" the growth of knowledge and wisdom of Christ could be argued to prove a mutable God. Yes, that would be a Christological error that confuses the two natures of Christ and so also is the logical conclusion that Mary is "the mother of God" equally error based upon the very same kind of logic.

Kenosis does not justify the mutability of God but only the self-imposed restrictions of the manifest glory of God in regard to the Divine nature. Kenosis does not justify the idea that God grew in wisdom and knowledge but only that Jesus in regard to his humanity grew in knowledge and wisdom. Neither does mary bearing Jesus demand she is the "mother of God" but merely the mother of Jesus as the term "mother" involves the complete bearing process from conception to birth and Deity was never conceived but is eternal. Hence, she can be called the "mother of Jesus" and she is called that in scriptures but she cannot be called "the mother of God" (and she is not called that in scriptures) based upon the logic used to argue for that, any more than Deity can be claimed to be mutable because Jesus grew in knowledge and wisdom. The logical is erroneous because it concludes in a false teaching both ways.

 

[Matt Black]

I'm afraid you're conflating Person with Nature there.

 

[Yeshua1]

It seems Yeshua is holding to a modalist view of God.

No, to the classic trnitarian view on there being but ONE God, but with him are 3 seperate beings, each distinct, yet also all 3 equally God!

just saying when I hear 'god bearer", and read the various titles/works RCC ascribes to mary, just see the RCCseeing her as literally bearing ALL of the truine godhead, not just jesus!

Also, it seems the RCC wants mary to BOTH bear and originate both natures of jesus!

 

[Yeshua1]

I'm afraid you're conflating Person with Nature there.

Are you sure that the RCC isn't?

 

[The Biblicist]

No, to the classic trnitarian view on there being but ONE God, but with him are 3 seperate beings, each distinct, yet also all 3 equally God!

just saying when I hear 'god bearer", and read the various titles/works RCC ascribes to mary, just see the RCCseeing her as literally bearing ALL of the truine godhead, not just jesus!

Also, it seems the RCC wants mary to BOTH bear and originate both natures of jesus!

You have to be careful here. It is not three "beings" but one Being or one divine essence manifested in three co-equal, co-eternal Persons. I know that is what you intended but you are among wolves who will rend you to peices

 

[The Biblicist]

I'm afraid you're conflating Person with Nature there.

I know you believe there is a distinction between "person" and "nature." Within one Person there are two distinct natures that cannot be confused. You are on the verge of confusing the two.

 

[The Biblicist]

I'm afraid you're conflating Person with Nature there.

The real truth is that RCC believes in a Quadrinity rather than a Trinity. Of course they deny that. However, their pragmatic theology demands it. They treat Mary EQUAL to God both in their terms to describe her, their words and actions toward her, her supremacy over all other humans in heaven and on earth. She is a CO-redemptrix and a CO-mediator and receives all the worship God receives but that same worship is merely called "veneration" to avoid being defined for what it is - idolatry.