Mary, Mother of God

http://www.catholic.com ^ | October 12, 2013 | Tim Staples

[NKP_Vet]

The most common objection I get to Mary as Mother of God, especially from Fundamentalists, but not limited to them, is, “The words ‘Mother of God’ are nowhere to be found in the Bible. Therefore, I will not accept it as true.”

This line of reasoning fails in dramatic fashion when carried to its logical conclusion when we consider the central mystery of the Christian Faith, the Trinity, is not found in Scripture verbatim as well. And we could go on. The Incarnation would fall by the wayside. Essential terms we use to do theology, like homoousios (Gr.—same nature, Jesus has the “same nature” as his Father), hypostatic union, the circumincessions of the persons of the Blessed Trinity, etc. All gone! The canon of Scripture, the nature of the sacrament of Holy Matrimony, and so much more we believe as Christians would be out the door because none of these things are made explicit in Scripture.

And this is not to mention “justification by faith alone.” Can anyone agree there is just a bit of irony in the fact that the same fellow who tells me he will not accept Mary as “Mother of God” because those words “are not found in the Bible,” will accept justification by faith alone when the only time those words are found in the Bible the words “not by” are right in front of them (cf. James 2:24)?

[ebb tide]

Is Jesus Christ your “Messiah”?

[metmom]

Why?

It didn't work when my two year old pulled that either.

[Uri’el-2012]

Is Jesus Christ your “Messiah”?

His NAME is Yah'shua and He is my messiah.

The NAME Yah'shua in Hebrew means
"YHvH is/be my salvation".

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach

[metmom]

Gregory messed up the calendar.

Jesus didn’t die on Good Friday. That’s only the day Gregory decided that He did.

Jesus told us that He would spend three days and three nights in the earth. Not possible with a Good Friday death and a Sunday morning resurrection.

[ebb tide]

Jesus didn’t die on Good Friday.

So what's your day? Ground Hog Day?

[Uri’el-2012]

And this is not to mention “justification by faith alone.” Can anyone agree there is just a bit of irony in the fact that the same fellow who tells me he will not accept Mary as “Mother of God” because those words “are not found in the Bible,” will accept justification by faith alone when the only time those words are found in the Bible the words “not by” are right in front of them (cf. James 2:24)?

The author seems not to know his bible.

The key text is Habakkuk 2:4,
“But the just shall live by faith”. It is
quoted in Romans 1: 17, Galatians 3: 11
and Hebrews 10: 38.

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach

[ebb tide]

[10]That in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those that are in heaven, on earth, and under the earth: [11] And that every tongue should confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father. Phillipians; Chapter 2

[metmom]

The Good Friday-Easter Sunday Question
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2226464/posts

[BlueDragon]

That's a good passage. Yet please bear in mind, Paul in speaking of what was "taught by us" that was directed to "stand firm to the traditions" of, was speaking of that which had already transpired not towards later arising changes. In fact he was speaking against that very thing --later changes.

For doctrines, teachings, and "novelties" not having discernible presence-- either in scripture itself, or say the first hundred years or so --- that was what he was warning about.

Try reading the whole chapter, while bearing firmly in mind to "hold to the traditions" ALREADY taught, at the time of his writing the very words which you just quoted.

Here's another one

Galatians 1:
8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.

Speaking of himself and other Apostles & disciples; what we have preached, already, not what someone else, even the Roman Catholic Church included, may say or "amend", change, or add to what had at that time already been preached.

Clear enough record of what had been, and what was then being preached, is seen in scripture. What other tradition there was, discernible enough in pattern & practice, is evidenced well enough in the writings of the most primitive of church notables, along with some amount of additional historical source.

If not, if there be some "other" additional "tradition"; be prepared to show some evidence for it, back in that earliest of era, or see all the centuries later arising changes, additions and complications (to "tradition") for what they indeed are; A "different" gospel.

As example; Origin notes that the such idea of "perpetual" virginity being ascribed to Mary, did not surface but some time after the first generation Apostles, and their own first successors were dead and gone, with that "ever" idea, attaching itself to the most certainly otherwise substantiated "virginal conception" and birth, only after introduction of a work of writing now referred to as the Protoevangelium of James, which was purporting itself to having been written by James -- brother of Christ, but was instead a fraudulent work, a pseudograph which itself was rejected for reason of being inauthentic.

Paul said -- hold fast to the traditions, which you have been taught, speaking to an audience in the first century A.D., not what will or may be taught later, where and when such teaching, even "tradition" differs.

Paul is setting the clock, freezing developments, fixing the Gospel message as it was at that time, as opposed to what anyone, himself and other Apostles included, along with angels from heaven too, being able to say anything different, anything contradicting, anything changing the order of Spirit and truth -- that should be listened to.

So we should all run as fast as we can, from such as;

"...Yet, since Mary carries it over all in holiness and union with Jesus Christ, and has been associated by Jesus Christ in the work of redemption, she merits for us de congruo, in the language of theologians, what Jesus Christ merits for us de condigno, and she is the supreme Minister of the distribution of graces. Jesus "sitteth on the right hand of the majesty on high" (Hebrews i. b.). Mary sitteth at the right hand of her Son - a refuge so secure and a help so trusty against all dangers that we have nothing to fear or to despair of under her guidance, her patronage, her protection. (Pius IX. in Bull Ineffabilis). "

and

15. These principles laid down, and to return to our design, who will not see that we have with good reason claimed for Mary that - as the constant companion of Jesus from the house at Nazareth to the height of Calvary, as beyond all others initiated to the secrets of his Heart, and as the distributor, by right of her Motherhood, of the treasures of His merits, - she is, for all these reasons, a most sure and efficacious assistance to us for arriving at the knowledge and love of Jesus Christ. Those, alas! furnish us by their conduct with a peremptory proof of it, who seduced by the wiles of the demon or deceived by false doctrines think they can do without the help of the Virgin. Hapless are they who neglect Mary under pretext of the honor to be paid to Jesus Christ! As if the Child could be found elsewhere than with the Mother!

for those concepts were not at all introduced in scripture to the very least degree, nor was any mention of such ongoing role and position of influence such as Mary being supreme Minister of the distribution of graces made mention of by ANYONE for many long centuries, which shows that it be some "other" gospel, which we were warned about.

[redleghunter]

Matt. 5:48 - Jesus says, “be perfect, even as your heavenly Father is perfect.” We are only made perfect through purification, and in Catholic teaching, this purification, if not completed on earth, is continued in a transitional state we call purgatory.

Thanks for the list of verses and commentary. None of which are within context.

One of the interesting concepts of purgatory is how it is a lot like the Prot version of easy believism. Someone can be a drunk, adulterer thumb their nose at God while on earth and then "do time" in purgatory like it's the county lock up and then they are good to go. The problem with your quotes are they are out of context pluckings. Truly take an honest look at them again. The verses do not support the commentary.

Based on your commentary above...Who/What purifies? Is it our works on earth and then purgatory? Or is it Christ as evidenced in the NT?

“Do not let your heart be troubled; believe in God, believe also in Me. 2 In My Father’s house are many dwelling places; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you. 3 If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself, that where I am, there you may be also. 4 And you know the way where I am going.” (John 14)

Jesus did not tell His disciples some of them were going to be flogged before taking them to His Father's House.

The NT is clear "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment.(Hebrews 9)

I did ask in my previous post about indulgences. You gave me Bible references and opined about purgatory. Are you saying RCs can still pay the purgatory tax here on earth?

[redleghunter]

Straw man argument. I know a lot of Fundamentalists, and the fact that the words “Mother of God” does not appear in the bible is not the reason they disagree with Mary worship....oops, I mean “veneration”.

I agree. I am evangelical and understand how RCs derive "mother of God." I think the more accurate 'title' would be "mother of Jesus Christ." Jesus Christ tells us Truly Man, Truly God. It's mincing words and frankly does not matter much when it come to God's Plan of Salvation. It DOES matter Jesus Christ was born of a Virgin. It was great it was a woman like Mary and she is to be respected and referred to blessed among women.

This "Queen of Heaven" titles and mass worship or veneration is what I have issues with. The Bible is clear we are to set our sites on Jesus Christ.

[Arthur McGowan]

You have cited texts emphasizing the importance of Scripture. None of them teaches sola scriptura.

[WVKayaker]

... The appellation leads to confusion; and who is the father of confusion ?

[redleghunter]

Unless of course they don't believe that Jesus is God.

Nah, no one is making that claim except you. The question should be is the use of Lord mean Jehovah or Adonai. The latter being lord, master, etc. Elizabeth could have meant both! That is why I have no issues with the term "mother of God." If we want to be more accurate mother of Jesus Christ is the best. That covers God and Man.

The post you were answering to did not argue the mother of God title, it argued the veneration/worship.

[WVKayaker]

[metmom]

Has God REALLY said......

[WVKayaker]

Has God REALLY said......

[NKP_Vet]

“For the most part, it’s because of the Jews who wrote the NT that we heard of Him, eith the possible exception of Luke”.

Jews didn’t determine what would be compiled in the New Testament. Catholics did. With the inspiration of the Holy Spirit Catholic scholars determined what would go into the Bible and what would be left out. What was “divinely inspired” and what was not.

The Catholic Church came before the Gospels, not the other way around.

[NKP_Vet]

“And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart”

The “Word” you are referring to is the ORAL WORD,
not the written word.

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”. ~ John 1

Sola Scriptura is unbiblical nonsense. The Bible was not around forever. And before the Bible was THE WORD. Which are traditions passed down through the ages. WORD OF MOUTH.

[redleghunter]

Of course, the Fundies I know aren't dumber than a bag of hammers so any Fundies with an earthworm league IQ may see things differently and consider telling lies a normal part of their "Christian witness" facade.

LOL, you are such a cheerful Catholic:)

Well you have to admit Mary veneration or worship can get a bit out of hand after a casual look.

Take this article:http://www.csicop.org/sb/show/grilled-cheese_madonna/

Grilled-Cheese Madonna Investigative Files Joe Nickell Volume 18.3, September 2008 Since it came to light in 2004, it has become the quintessential holy image to appear on an item of food: the face, many say, of the Virgin Mary on a grilled-cheese sandwich. While it has sparked little piety—the Catholic church has not sanctioned it as divine—it has become the subject of controversy and ridicule and has even suffered insinuations of fakery. I once had custody of the curious item, and I was actually able to photograph and examine the image under magnification (figures 1–2). Here are my findings. Background The image reportedly appeared ten years earlier in the Hollywood, Florida, home of Gregg and Diana Duyser. Mrs. Duyser, fifty-two, said she had grilled the sandwich without butter or oil and had just taken a bite when she noticed—staring back at her—the image of a woman’s face in the toasting pattern. She perceived it as the face of “The Virgin Mary, Mother of God” and, placing it in a plastic box with cotton balls, kept it enshrined on her night stand. Duyser was impressed that the sandwich never molded. However, toast and hardened cheese that are kept dry naturally resist molding. The Duysers received $28,000 when they auctioned the sandwich on the Internet site eBay. The site had initially pulled the item—which supposedly broke its policy of not allowing “Listings that are intended as jokes”—but the couple insisted that the item was neither a joke nor a hoax. Soon the “‘Virgin Mary’ sandwich” was back, attracting bids. It was purchased by an online casino—GoldenPalace.com—whose CEO, Richard Rowe, stated that he intended to use the sandwich to raise funds for charity (“Virgin Mary” 2004). Simulacra The image-bearing sandwich received—possibly outdistanced—the notoriety accorded other sacred food icons. They include Maria Rubio’s famous 1977 tortilla that bore the face of Jesus, also in the pattern of skillet burns; a giant forkful of spaghetti pictured on a billboard in which some perceived the likeness of Christ; and the image of Mother Teresa discovered on a cinnamon bun (see Nickell 2004). Queried by the Asso­ciated Press during the holy-grilled-cheese brouhaha, I explained that such images are nothing more than evidence of the human ability—termed pareidolia—to interpret essentially random patterns, such as ink blots or pictures in clouds, as recognizable images. The most famous example is the face of the Man in the Moon. Perceived pictures of this type are called simulacra, and many are interpreted as religious images (a female face becoming “Mary,” for example). These are perhaps most often associated with Catholic or Orthodox traditions, wherein there is a special emphasis on icons or other holy images (Nickell 2004; Thompson 2004). In the wake of the grilled-cheese image came others, one on a fish stick hailed as “the son of Cod” (“It’s” 2004), another a pair of images on a pancake. A woman interpreted the latter duo as Jesus and Mary, while her mother, the actual flapjack flipper, thought it resembled a bedouin and Santa Claus (Nohlgren 2004). The grilled-cheese icon even helped inspire an entire book: called Madonna of the Toast (Poole 2007), it treats both “Secular Sightings” (e.g., Myrtle Young’s famous collection of pictorial potato chips) and “Forms of Faith” (including the previously mentioned Mother Teresa “Nun Bun”—missing since it was stolen in 2005).