Why not call Mary the mother of God and Queen of heaven

[Henry]

Why not call Mary the mother of God and Queen of heaven?

Why not, I mean she was the mother of Jesus and he is God, so logically she is the mother of God and therefore the Queen of heaven right?

Well, I do not believe that and would not see mary in such a lofty way, never the less they use the same circular arguments and reasoning that prodestants do for pastors, buildings and tithes.

All these things are equally as unbiblical as calling mary the queen of Heaven. Yet here we are...

Funny to me that when I was a prodestant I though how different we are from the catholics but now that I have joined the biblical church, I see that they are more alike then different.

The mask be different but the game is the same, control and money.

The bible does not teach a pastor, the tithe is not for today and church building is a mockery to God and NO ONE can show these to be biblical at all.

 

[Orthodox Christian]

Why not call Mary the mother of God and Queen of heaven?

Why not, I mean she was the mother of Jesus and he is God, so logically she is the mother of God and therefore the Queen of heaven right?

Let us first deal with the title 'mother of God'- which is historically rendered 'Thetokos,' or bearer of God. Did she bear the child who we call Immanuel? Indeed.

Now let us deal with 'Queen of heaven:'
This title is in fact tied to the other, but not vice/versa. It is essentially allegorical.

Well, I do not believe that and would not see mary in such a lofty way, never the less they use the same circular arguments and reasoning that prodestants do for pastors, buildings and tithes.

Please demonstrate the circularity of the argument. It is fair to say that the reasoning involved in seeing Mary as Theotokos is derived from logic, as opposed to explicit scripture, justas the designation of God as Holy Trinity is.

As for tithes, these were never ordered for NT Christians, though anyone who does not give over and above a tithe can be presumed to have some relational problems with both God and their fellow man (where your treasure is, there is your heart)

As for pastors, we see a clear pattern in the NT scriptures and history of presvyteros and deacons assisting bishops in the governance of the Church. Calling the guy 'pastor' is just a way to be distinctive from Rome, yet not.

As for buildings, these are not discussed in the NT- either for or against. History demonstrates that Christians gathered in buildings when it was safe for them to do so, which is why you have some early converted houses (2nd century) that served as Church buildings.

Funny to me that when I was a prodestant I though how different we are from the catholics but now that I have joined the biblical church, I see that they are more alike then different.

And from where I stand, you sound like a Protestant with just a few more gripes, but the same basic ethos.

The mask be different but the game is the same, control and money.

The bible does not teach a pastor, the tithe is not for today and church building is a mockery to God and NO ONE can show these to be biblical at all.

Dude, when Christians start loving on people, including each other, and living with purity of heart and without malice, then we can gripe about buildings and tithes. In the mean time, this argument seems to me to be a major on the minors.

 

[Soma-Sight]

Dude, when Christians start loving on people, including each other, and living with purity of heart and without malice, then we can gripe about buildings and tithes. In the mean time, this argument seems to me to be a major on the minors.

Good post!

Personally I am more against large building funds when the money could be spent in more productive ways.... but like you said this is a minor league argument... or maybe even AAA league. :

 

[bibleberean]

Dude, when Christians start loving on people, including each other, and living with purity of heart and without malice, then we can gripe about buildings and tithes. In the mean time, this argument seems to me to be a major on the minors.

Good post!

Personally I am more against large building funds when the money could be spent in more productive ways.... but like you said this is a minor league argument... or maybe even AAA league. :

Is it a minor issue? Do you include "Sabbath keeping" in this category? ;-)

 

[cj]

Dude, when Christians start loving on people, including each other, and living with purity of heart and without malice, then we can gripe about buildings and tithes. In the mean time, this argument seems to me to be a major on the minors.

Dude? You go OC..... break out of that box...... kidding.

OC, see if we can agree,

When Christians "start loving on people, including each other, and living with purity of heart and without malice," it will be as a result of the perfection of Christ in us, which means the full application of the cross in our being.

When this happens there will simply be a spontaneous living out of Christ and thus there will be no need to "gripe about buildings and tithes."

Or more to the truth, gripe about the apostate man-instituted culture regarding buildings and tithes.

I'm still concerned you're trying to walk the walk by your strength alone, or even a mixture of your strength an His. Its just not His way.

In love,
cj

 

[BradtheImpaler]

Why not call Mary the mother of God and Queen of heaven?

Why not, I mean she was the mother of Jesus and he is God, so logically she is the mother of God and therefore the Queen of heaven right?

Let us first deal with the title 'mother of God'- which is historically rendered 'Thetokos,' or bearer of God. Did she bear the child who we call Immanuel? Indeed

The title, "Mother of God", insinuates that this mother is, herself, DEITY. No, I know that's not what you believe, but YES, the appellation itself DOES insinuate that.

Doesn't the term at least need an "asterisk" next to it, like Roger Maris' 61 homers (in a longer season than Ruth) or Mark McGuire's, Sammy Sosa's, and Barry Bond's exploits achieved, most likely, with chemical "helpers"?

 

[Orthodox Christian]

Dude, when Christians start loving on people, including each other, and living with purity of heart and without malice, then we can gripe about buildings and tithes. In the mean time, this argument seems to me to be a major on the minors.

Dude? You go OC..... break out of that box...... kidding.

OC, see if we can agree,

When Christians "start loving on people, including each other, and living with purity of heart and without malice," it will be as a result of the perfection of Christ in us, which means the full application of the cross in our being.

When this happens there will simply be a spontaneous living out of Christ and thus there will be no need to "gripe about buildings and tithes."

Or more to the truth, gripe about the apostate man-instituted culture regarding buildings and tithes.

I'm still concerned you're trying to walk the walk by your strength alone, or even a mixture of your strength an His. Its just not His way.

In love,
cj

I agree that when people start walking out the gospel, most issues seem to settle themselves- after all, Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would guide and protect the Church, and that the gates of Hades would not prevail against Her. This does not mean that the Chruch would go through history unscathed, but rather, without being utterly overcome.

And thank you for your concern, but I know who is the source of everything that I do. I can add no strength to His- only obedience.

In Him- In Him- we live and move and have our being.
James

 

[bibleberean]

One good reason not to call Mary the "Queen of Heaven" is because the bible never once refers to her by that title.

The only person given that title is a devil goddess in the Old Testament.

Search the scriptures! Does the word of God teach us to pray to and worship Mary?

Is there a Queen of Heaven in the scriptures?

Yes, there is!

Jeremiah 7:17 Seest thou not what they do in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem?

Jeremiah 7:18 The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger.

Jeremiah 7:19 Do they provoke me to anger? saith the LORD: do they not provoke themselves to the confusion of their own faces?

You see! There is a queen of heaven in the bible. God is not pleased when His people worship this devil!

The prophet Jeremiah warned the people not to worship this goddess but the people refused to listen!

Jeremiah 44:16 As for the word that thou hast spoken unto us in the name of the LORD, we will not hearken unto thee.

Jeremiah 44:17 But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes, in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem: for then had we plenty of victuals, and were well, and saw no evil.

Today the cult of Rome will not repent of the fornication it promotes!

The church that Rome built is not the church that Jesus Christ built!

Leviticus 26:1 Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone in your land, to bow down unto it: for I am the LORD your God.

 

[Orthodox Christian]

Why not call Mary the mother of God and Queen of heaven?

Why not, I mean she was the mother of Jesus and he is God, so logically she is the mother of God and therefore the Queen of heaven right?

Let us first deal with the title 'mother of God'- which is historically rendered 'Thetokos,' or bearer of God. Did she bear the child who we call Immanuel? Indeed

The title, "Mother of God", insinuates that this mother is, herself, DEITY. No, I know that's not what you believe, but YES, the appellation itself DOES insinuate that.

Doesn't the term at least need an "asterisk" next to it, like Roger Maris' 61 homers (in a longer season than Ruth) or Mark McGuire's, Sammy Sosa's, and Barry Bond's exploits achieved, most likely, with chemical "helpers"?

I hear what you are saying (in a manner of speaking)- I happen to be of the belief that it is important when using the title 'Theotokos' to be aware that this is a title intended to lift up the divinity of Christ, not necessarily the station of Mary.

Most of the wrangling over this term has come in the context of arguing over tradition between Protestants and Catholics (Orthodox also), which is causing the argument to drift away from the original intent. You seem to be suggesting that the title itself would serve to make the argument drift, also. This argument of yours is not without merit.

Simply calling Mary 'the mother of Jesus' has a parallel concern, and that being that people would believe that Christ's divinity is somehow separate from His humanity. There is a strong thread of this type of Nestorianism in the apologetics of many modern Protestants/others.

As for the notion of placing an asterisk on Mary's title as Theotokos:
Maris' record was in some ways diminished in impact by the shortness of season. We don't realize how incredible his performance was, because we live in a world where a baseball season is 162 games. Likewise, we don't recognize how incredible Mary's response to God was, for we live in a world where single mothers are commonplace, relatively accepted, assisted by the government, and so forth. Not so, in her day.

Faith- this is what made Avraham great, this is what made Mary great- and this is why they are in our hall of fame. (which is an extension of Hebrews 11)

 

[BradtheImpaler]

I hear what you are saying (in a manner of speaking)- I happen to be of the belief that it is important when using the title 'Theotokos' to be aware that this is a title intended to lift up the divinity of Christ, not necessarily the station of Mary

I don't know, James - sounds like a bit of a stretch? Like saying calling Christ the Son of God was actually intended to exalt Jesus' Father for having raising up such a good Jewish boy :roll: I feel a person's title would indicate said person's "station".

Most of the wrangling over this term has come in the context of arguing over tradition between Protestants and Catholics (Orthodox also), which is causing the argument to drift away from the original intent. You seem to be suggesting that the title itself would serve to make the argument drift, also. This argument of yours is not without merit

Let's reduce the situation to basics. You've never heard of Christianity before and someone tells you that they believe in a saviour, who is God, and that this Saviour/God had a mother. Agreed, it would only be sensible to call this mother the "Mother of God" - if she were ALSO GOD (or, another God) How can the Mother of God be LESS than God herself? The title, to the uninitiated, would certainly imply deity to Mary.

So, why the title, when it was never given her in the scripture, UNLESS there is an underlying motive to exalt her to that logical position, without admitting to such?

Simply calling Mary 'the mother of Jesus' has a parallel concern, and that being that people would believe that Christ's divinity is somehow separate from His humanity. There is a strong thread of this type of Nestorianism in the apologetics of many modern Protestants/others

But the scripture DOES indeed call Mary "the mother of Jesus" without a asterisk/footnote (Jn.2:1/Jn.2:3/Acts.1:14) Apparently the writers didn't feel the same "concern"?

Why was/is it necessary that the title "Mother of God/God Bearer" be added in tradition? SOMETHING extra-biblical is being suggested. I feel it is pretty obvious?

As for the notion of placing an asterisk on Mary's title as Theotokos:
Maris' record was in some ways diminished in impact by the shortness of season. We don't realize how incredible his performance was, because we live in a world where a baseball season is 162 games

You mean Ruth's record? I'm not sure Maris' record was all that incredible. He was a dead pull hitter and deposited a lot of balls just a few feet over the 296 ft. short right field spot in Yankee Stadium. It was "made" for him. Ruth had the same short right field fence but most of his shots were WAY beyond that.

Did you know that Mantle's home run percentage that same year per times at bat was BETTER than Maris', but his leg malfunctioned (again) and he didn't finish the season?

Likewise, we don't recognize how incredible Mary's response to God was, for we live in a world where single mothers are commonplace, relatively accepted, assisted by the government, and so forth. Not so, in her day.

Faith- this is what made Avraham great, this is what made Mary great- and this is why they are in our hall of fame. (which is an extension of Hebrews 11)

To only list Mary AMONG what can be referred to as the "Hall of Fame" heroes of faith, sounds mich more like a Protestant take than a OC/RCC viewpoint. There is no question Mary is emphasized much more than Abraham, for instance, in your Church? The nature of this emphasis is the point, and I believe it doesn't really have to do with her faith but with the fact that it is believed that God Himself emanated from her womb (not just the "human nature of Christ" as fundies would infer) and that that belief has inevidably got to make her SOMETHING more than just human, even if it is not admitted to, in so many words?

 

[cj]

I agree that when people start walking out the gospel, most issues seem to settle themselves....

Hmmmmm, vague.

Jesus, who is the full and living Gospel, is not vague.

What I gather you're saying is that this "gospel" can be "walked out" even if it is not complete.

But this can't be true. The gospel is not half or three-quarters of the gospel, it is the whole gospel, and nothing less.

And, not to go all crazy on you, but this is where a real error is being upheld by apostate institutions. These that teach another gospel.

The truth is, the gospel, which is to say, the Gospel, solves ALL problems. Or its simply not the Gospel.

.... - after all, Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would guide and protect the Church, and that the gates of Hades would not prevail against Her.

And He does, and the gates do not prevail, as gates are for locking in, but the Lord has already opened them, first on the day of Pentecost so that the Jewish believers could enter the kingdom of the heavens (Acts 2:38-42), and in the house of Cornelius thegate was opened open so that the Gentile believers could enter (Acts 10:34-48).

This does not mean that the Chruch would go through history unscathed, but rather, without being utterly overcome.

Absolutely. And the Church has not been overcome, by God's great mercy, and not of any man's doing.

And thank you for your concern, but I know who is the source of everything that I do. I can add no strength to His- only obedience.

Knowing is one thing..... God;s adversary also knows. But applying is another.

In Him- In Him- we live and move and have our being.

So Paul stated in His opening words to the Thessalonians.


In love,
cj

 

[Orthodox Christian]

Orthodox Christian wrote:
And thank you for your concern, but I know who is the source of everything that I do. I can add no strength to His- only obedience.


Knowing is one thing..... God;s adversary also knows. But applying is another.

You have misread and misresponded to this statement of mine. I did not use 'know' in the sense of an intellectual state. I used it in the sense of knowing interpersonally. To clarify: "I know He who is the source of everything..."

Orthodox Christian wrote:
I agree that when people start walking out the gospel, most issues seem to settle themselves....


Hmmmmm, vague.

Jesus, who is the full and living Gospel, is not vague.

What I gather you're saying is that this "gospel" can be "walked out" even if it is not complete.

I said nor implied nothing of the sort. The gospel is complete; our apprehension of it is not. To 'walk out the gospel' is to obey in faith what is taught in the scripures and given 'yes and amen' in our own spirit.

In point of fact, Jesus was often 'vague,' using difficult illustrations and cryptic phrases to make His point. Unless the Holy Spirit illumines one to the Truth, one remains in the dark. And tightly turned phrases and spiritual-sounding words will not accomplish this.

And, not to go all crazy on you, but this is where a real error is being upheld by apostate institutions. These that teach another gospel.

Being as I am not part of an "apostate institution," I'll have to take you word for that.

I have observed a more pronounced apostasy among those who claim to be separated from 'apostate Christianity' than those who simply live out their Christianity where they will:
The sin of pride and self-righteousness.
There is no individual orthodoxy.

The truth is, the gospel, which is to say, the Gospel, solves ALL problems.

Has it solved all of your problems yet, CJ? You do mean "the Gospel will solve all problems," don't you? Cuz I can point out a great many problems that He who is the Gospel has yet to solve through and in us.

Orthodox Christian wrote:
In Him- In Him- we live and move and have our being.


So Paul stated in His opening words to the Thessalonians.

Actually, Paul spoke those words on Mars Hill in Athens, speaking to a crowd of pagans, quoting one of their poets (Aratus, ca 3rd century BC).

James

 

[cubedbee]

Let's reduce the situation to basics. You've never heard of Christianity before and someone tells you that they believe in a saviour, who is God, and that this Saviour/God had a mother. Agreed, it would only be sensible to call this mother the "Mother of God" - if she were ALSO GOD (or, another God) How can the Mother of God be LESS than God herself? The title, to the uninitiated, would certainly imply deity to Mary.

Let's say you've never heard of the Greeks and someone tells you they believe in a man named Alexander, who is Emperor, and that this Emperor has a mother. Aer you saying that it's only sensible to call her "Mother of the Emperor" if she were also an Emperor? I don't think that's sensible at all. God is a tiltle held by the Supreme creator of our universe, just as Emperor is a title held by the supreme ruler of an Empire. Neither the mother of God nor the mother of an Emperor herself has those titles.

 

[Orthodox Christian]

I hear what you are saying (in a manner of speaking)- I happen to be of the belief that it is important when using the title 'Theotokos' to be aware that this is a title intended to lift up the divinity of Christ, not necessarily the station of Mary

I don't know, James - sounds like a bit of a stretch? Like saying calling Christ the Son of God was actually intended to exalt Jesus' Father for having raising up such a good Jewish boy :roll: I feel a person's title would indicate said person's "station".

It's not a "stretch"- rather, it is a matter of historical record. Such was the matter of discussion at Chalcedon: Was Jesus God while He was in Mary's womb, or did He become so at birth or some later date. If He was God within the womb, then truly Mary was the mother(one who bears forth) of God, and truly she was the Theotokos.

Jesus is not called the Son of God as a title, but rather as a (metaphorical) description

Most of the wrangling over this term has come in the context of arguing over tradition between Protestants and Catholics (Orthodox also), which is causing the argument to drift away from the original intent. You seem to be suggesting that the title itself would serve to make the argument drift, also. This argument of yours is not without merit

Let's reduce the situation to basics. You've never heard of Christianity before and someone tells you that they believe in a saviour, who is God, and that this Saviour/God had a mother. Agreed, it would only be sensible to call this mother the "Mother of God" - if she were ALSO GOD (or, another God) How can the Mother of God be LESS than God herself? The title, to the uninitiated, would certainly imply deity to Mary.

You make it sound as if this is the only potential theological misperception that we have to be concerned about. The list is nearly endless. We are not looking for shallow converts, but fully trained disciples.

So, why the title, when it was never given her in the scripture, UNLESS there is an underlying motive to exalt her to that logical position, without admitting to such?

I've already covered your misperception of this matter

Simply calling Mary 'the mother of Jesus' has a parallel concern, and that being that people would believe that Christ's divinity is somehow separate from His humanity. There is a strong thread of this type of Nestorianism in the apologetics of many modern Protestants/others

But the scripture DOES indeed call Mary "the mother of Jesus" without a asterisk/footnote (Jn.2:1/Jn.2:3/Acts.1:14) Apparently the writers didn't feel the same "concern"?

In fact, as I have already stated, the concern came to a head in the early 5th century. The Christological concern had existed nearly from the beginning of the Church, being manifest in heresies ranging from Gnosticism to Arianism to Marcionism to Nestorianism.

Your assumption that the scriptures are a self-contained and exhaustive manual by which all matters theological may be reduced to scripture quotes is a Protestant assumption, one I do not share. The scripture is kanona, a measure by which all truth must be measured. Did the fetus John in fact jump within Elizabeth's womb? Indeed, and one may then safley assume that the Son of God was nascent within Mary.

Why was/is it necessary that the title "Mother of God/God Bearer" be added in tradition? SOMETHING extra-biblical is being suggested. I feel it is pretty obvious?

What is, perhaps, not obvious to you, is the traditions and assumptions that we ALL carry. These are all 'extra-biblical.' The question is wheher such assumptions are biblically derived and/or established, or whether they are unbiblical. Mary as Theotokos is biblically derived, and vital to the understanding of who Christ was- and thusly, to redemption and to soteriology.

Likewise, we don't recognize how incredible Mary's response to God was, for we live in a world where single mothers are commonplace, relatively accepted, assisted by the government, and so forth. Not so, in her day.

Faith- this is what made Avraham great, this is what made Mary great- and this is why they are in our hall of fame. (which is an extension of Hebrews 11)

To only list Mary AMONG what can be referred to as the "Hall of Fame" heroes of faith, sounds mich more like a Protestant take than a OC/RCC viewpoint. There is no question Mary is emphasized much more than Abraham, for instance, in your Church? The nature of this emphasis is the point, and I believe it doesn't really have to do with her faith but with the fact that it is believed that God Himself emanated from her womb (not just the "human nature of Christ" as fundies would infer) and that that belief has inevidably got to make her SOMETHING more than just human, even if it is not admitted to, in so many words?

Indeed Mary- and Paul, and Peter, and others- were at once simply human, and on the other hand something quite more than human. To be a 'son of God' as scripture says that God gives us who believe the power to be- is something a bit more than your ordinary human.

Oddly, you on one hand complain that I/we overstate Mary's prominence by giving her a title, and then you complain when I refer to her in plain terms (hero of faith). Of course we think of Mary as greater than Avraham- just as we think her greater than John the Baptist. Jesus made it clear that John was the greatest among those born of women, but the least of the Kingdom was greater than he.

I find it marvelously refreshing that in a faith so patriarchal as Christianity is, here is the proto-Saint, a woman. And not just one woman, but legions of women saints, many who are referred to in our tradition as "equal-to-the-Apostles." (eg Mary Magdalene, St Fotini aka the Samaritan woman, her sisters, Sts Katherine and Barbara the great martyrs)

James

 

[cj]

Actually, Paul spoke those words on Mars Hill in Athens, speaking to a crowd of pagans, quoting one of their poets (Aratus, ca 3rd century BC).

Actually.......

If you were perhaps a little less quick, you may have understood what I said.

Paul says in his opening to the church of the Thessalonians....

"Paul and Silvanus and Timothy to the church of the Thessalonians.... in.... God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace."

The church is only "IN" Him.

The rest is just vanity.

In love,
cj

 

[bibleberean]

Excerpts from,

Mary Worship?

A Study of Catholic Practice and Doctrine

Mary Ann Collins
(A Former Catholic Nun)

June 2001

http://www.catholicconcerns.com/MaryWorship.html

QUEEN OF HEAVEN -- God has exalted Mary in heavenly glory as Queen of Heaven and earth. ("Catechism" 966) She is to be praised with special devotion. ("Catechism" 971, 2675)

Psalm 148:13 says, "Let them praise the name of the Lord: for his name alone is excellent; his glory is above the earth and heaven." This makes it quite clear that only God’s name (not Mary’s) is to be exalted. (In Catholic Bibles the numbering of the chapters and verses of some of the Psalms is slightly different.)

When people tried to give Mary special honor and pre-eminence because she was His mother, Jesus corrected them.

"And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked. But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it." (Luke 11:27-28)

In chapters four and five of the Book of Revelation, we are given a quite detailed picture of Heaven. God is seated on the throne, surrounded by 24 elders and four living creatures. The Lamb (Jesus) is standing in the center of the throne. Thousands upon thousands of angels circle the throne, singing God's praises. And Mary is not in the picture at all".

Jeremiah 7:18 The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger.

 

[Diaconeo]

Let's reduce the situation to basics. You've never heard of Christianity before and someone tells you that they believe in a saviour, who is God, and that this Saviour/God had a mother. Agreed, it would only be sensible to call this mother the "Mother of God" - if she were ALSO GOD (or, another God) How can the Mother of God be LESS than God herself? The title, to the uninitiated, would certainly imply deity to Mary.

Let's say you've never heard of the Greeks and someone tells you they believe in a man named Alexander, who is Emperor, and that this Emperor has a mother. Aer you saying that it's only sensible to call her "Mother of the Emperor" if she were also an Emperor? I don't think that's sensible at all. God is a tiltle held by the Supreme creator of our universe, just as Emperor is a title held by the supreme ruler of an Empire. Neither the mother of God nor the mother of an Emperor herself has those titles.

Brad and I have don't agree in all things, but I have to agree that in the basics he is correct. God, in order to have a Mother would mean of necessity that she herself is God. Your argument about Mother of Emporer would not necessarily mean that the Emporor's mother was an Emporor, but from the point of deity, the Mother of God would logically lead one to assume the deity of the Mother of God.

Mary was not the Mother of God, nor was she even the mother of the Son of God, but rather the mother of the human man named Jesus. Yes, while Jesus was both very man and very God, he was also distinctly very man and very God. The problem with the title Mother of God is the very fact that she was not the mother of God, but the mother of Jesus, a man. I like the title that OC gave her, God carrier, for that is what she did while pregnant with Jesus, she carried the God/man. But she did not give birth to God, for He is with out lineage and has neither father nor mother. The Son of God is the same way, having no father or mother, thus Mary is not even the Mother of the Son of God, only the Son carrier.


In Christ,

Matthew

 

[bibleberean]

Nice post Matthew... well said...

 

[CatholicXian]

Mary was not the Mother of God, nor was she even the mother of the Son of God, but rather the mother of the human man named Jesus.

Luke 1:35 (KJV)
"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."

"Son"="υἱός"="uihos"
"of God"="θεός"="theos"

Luke 1:43 (KJV)
"And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?"

"mother"="μήτηρ"="mētēr"
"Lord"="κύριος"="Kyrios"

 

[cj]

Luke 1:35 (KJV)
"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."

Check again if including the words "of thee" are according to proper translation.

In fact, when taken with the other scriptures we have been given by God regarding this matter we will find that "of thee" actually means "out of thee". And "thee", referring to Mary, could only be referring to her humanity. Thus we can know that the humanity if Jesus was through Mary, as prophesied.


Additionally, consider the description "holy", for holiness is of God alone.

John  6 : 69

"And we have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God.

And not..... the Holy One of Mary.


And yet one more way we can understand the truth regarding this matter is found in the following verse

Matthew  1 : 20

"But while he pondered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary your wife, for that which has been begotten........ in........ her is of the Holy Spirit."

This verse confirms and clarifies this matter absolutely, as it tells us that Jesus had been begooten in Mary, thus showing that Mary was simply a willing vessel, used of God in His begetting of His Son.

Mary provided a womb in which God Himself could knit together the humanity which He created and creates, filled with His own divine essence.

Mary, as with all men, did not participate in the conception and forming of Jesus, for it is God who gives life to that which He has caused to be made.

Additionally, divinity is only of God, not of man, and therefore Mary had no part in the divine essence in the God-Man, Jesus.



For a believer to take the scriptures you quoted and attempt to glorify fallen man with them is nothing short of blasphemy.

Luke 1:43 (KJV)
"And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?"

"mother"="??´???"="me¯te¯r"
"Lord"="??´????"="Kyrios"

Common sense should be enough to tell us that man cannot participate in divinity, other than through the giving of divinity to a man.

Divinity is not man's to give, but is God and of God.

Consider this verse, John  20 : 28,

"Thomas answered and said to Him, My Lord and my God!"

Why would Thomas seperate the two statuses of Jesus?

And more, Acts  2 : 36,

"Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made Him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you have crucified."


Tell me, why would Elizabeth not said "the mother of my God" instead of "the mother of my Lord"?


In love,
cj