Mary, Mother of God

The Sacred Page ^ | December 29, 2015

[Elsie]

As usual, you are only partially correct but you assume you are 100& right.

Aren't we ALL like this?

I know that I am!

[Elsie]

...and then He provided a method to do so...the Catholic church....

That worked out well!

[Elsie]

Everyone has a father, unfortunately, not everyone has a daddy.

And we silly taxpayers put up with subsidizing more and more of them.

---

And then we wonder why our culture(s) are a mess!

[Elsie]

Yup. Who new Catholics, Muslims AND Mormons had SOOOOOO much in common!!!

"I Will Be a Second Mohammed"

In the heat of the Missouri 'Mormon War' of 1838, Joseph Smith made the following claim,

           "I will be to this generation a second Mohammed, whose motto in treating for peace was "the Alcoran [Koran] or the Sword". So shall it eventually be with us: "Joseph Smith or the Sword!" [1]

It is most interesting that a self-proclaimed Christian prophet would liken himself to Mohammed, the founder of Islam. His own comparison invites us to take a closer look as well. And when we do, we find some striking and troubling parallels. Consider the following.

• Mohammed and Joseph Smith both had humble beginnings. Neither had formal religious connections or upbringing, and both were relatively uneducated. Both founded new religions by creating their own scriptures. In fact, followers of both prophets claim these scriptures are miracles since their authors were the most simple and uneducated of men.[2]

• Both prophets claim of having angel visitations, and of receiving divine revelation to restore pure religion to the earth again. Mohammed was told that both Jews and Christians had long since corrupted their scriptures and religion. In like manner, Joseph Smith was told that all of Christianity had become corrupt, and that consequently the Bible itself was no longer reliable. In both cases, this corruption required a complete restoration of both scripture and religion. Nothing which preceded either prophet could be relied upon any longer. Both prophets claim they were used of God to restore eternal truths which once existed on earth, but had been lost due to human corruption.

• Both prophets created new scripture which borrowed heavily from the Bible, but with a substantially new spin.   In his Koran, Mohammed appropriates a number of Biblical themes and characters, but he changes the complete sense of many passages, claiming to 'correct' the Bible. In so doing he changes many doctrines, introducing his own in their place. In like manner, Joseph Smith created the Book of Mormon, much of which is plagiarized directly from the King James Bible. Interestingly, the Book of Mormon claims that this same Bible has been substantially corrupted and is therefore unreliable. In addition, Joseph Smith went so far as to actually create his own version of the Bible itself, the 'Inspired Version'  in which he both adds and deletes significant portions of text, claiming he is 'correcting' it. In so doing he also changes many doctrines, introducing his own in their place.

• As a part of their new scriptural 'spin', both prophets saw themselves as prophesied in scripture, and both saw themselves as a continuation of a long line of Biblical prophets. Mohammed saw himself as a continuation of the ministry of Moses and Jesus. Joseph Smith saw himself as a successor to Enoch, Melchizedek, Joseph and Moses. Joseph Smith actually wrote himself into his own version of the Bible by name.

• Both prophets held up their own scripture as superior to the Bible. Mohammed claimed that the Koran was a perfect copy of the original which was in heaven. The Koran is therefore held to be absolutely perfect, far superior to the Bible and superceding it. In like manner, Joseph Smith also made the following claim. "I told the Brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding its precepts, than by any other book." [3]

• Despite their claim that the Bible was corrupt, both prophets admonished their followers to adhere to its teachings. An obvious contradiction, this led to selective acceptance of some portions and wholesale rejection of others. As a result, the Bible is accepted by both groups of followers only to the extent that it agrees with their prophet's own superior revelation.

• Both Mohammed and Joseph Smith taught that true salvation was to be found only in their respective religions. Those who would not accept their message were considered 'infidels', pagans or Gentiles. In so doing, both prophets became the enemy of genuine Christianity, and have led many people away from the Christ of the Bible.

• Both prophets encountered fierce opposition to their new religions and had to flee from town to town because of threats on their lives. Both retaliated to this opposition by forming their own militias. Both ultimately set up their own towns as model societies.

• Both Mohammed and Joseph Smith left unclear instructions about their successors. The majority of Mohammed's followers, Sunni Muslims, believe they were to elect their new leader, whereas the minority, Shiite Muslims, look to Ali ibn Abi lib, whom they consider Divinely appointed, as the rightful successor to Muhammad, and the first imam. (Ali was the cousin and son-in-law of the Islamic prophet Muhammad). Similarly, the majority of Joseph Smith's followers, Mormons, believed their next prophet should have been the existing leader of their quorum of twelve apostles, whereas the minority, RLDS, believed Joseph Smith's own son should have been their next prophet. Differences on this issue, and many others, have created substantial tension between these rival groups of each prophet.

• Mohammed taught that Jesus was just another of a long line of human prophets, of which he was the last. He taught that he was superior to Christ and superceded Him. In comparison, Joseph Smith also made the following claim.

"I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him, but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet." [4] In light of these parallels, perhaps Joseph Smith's claim to be a second Mohammed unwittingly became his most genuine prophecy of all.

---

[1] Joseph Smith made this statement at the conclusion of a speech in the public square at Far West, Missouri on October 14, 1838. This particular quote is documented in Fawn M. Brodie, No Man Knows My History, second edition, (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1971), p. 230-231. Fawn Brodie's footnote regarding this speech contains valuable information, and follows. “Except where noted, all the details of this chapter [16] are taken from the History of the [Mormon] Church. This speech, however, was not recorded there, and the report given here is based upon the accounts of seven men. See the affidavits of T.B. Marsh, Orson Hyde, George M. Hinkle, John Corrill, W.W. Phelps, Samson Avard, and Reed Peck in Correspondence, Orders, etc., pp. 57-59, 97-129. The Marsh and Hyde account, which was made on October 24, is particularly important. Part of it was reproduced in History of the [Mormon] Church, Vol. III, p. 167. See also the Peck manuscript, p. 80. Joseph himself barely mentioned the speech in his history; see Vol. III, p. 162.

[2] John Ankerberg & John Weldon, The Facts on Islam, (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1998), pp.8-9. Eric Johnson, Joseph Smith & Muhammed, (El Cajon, CA: Mormonism Research Ministry, 1998), pp. 6-7.

[3] Documentary History of the [Mormon] Church, vol.4, pp.461.

[4] Documentary History of the [Mormon] Church, vol.6, pp.408-409.

[Elsie]

(who is Russian Orthodox. Of all things!)

equally yoked?

[Elsie]

No...

...the words of the prophets...

Where ARE those words?

[Elsie]

There is probably a LOT of that going on behind these screens that we are not aware of!

[Elsie]

Mark 2:7

“Why does this fellow talk like that?

This is blasphemy! Only God can forgive sins!”

[BlueDragon]

And what would "Mother of Jesus" tell anyone? That Mary gave birth to a son?

Sure, why not? She gave birth to Jesus, didn't she? How about going about establishing the Jesus was; God with us, a begotten son of God (not merely 'adopted' or "as a son", or "like a son" in some hazy philosophical sense) but was truly both God and fully man at the same time, using other means of description which; adhere more directly to scripture, and does not introduce yet other contemplation which must be hedged against by yet more talk and instruction?

One cannot go from, as place of beginning, describing Mary as "Mother of God" in order to establish to nearly anyone who does not already know the story as it is written -- that the one we call Jesus was (and is) God. Doing it that way is not only kind-of backwards, what's worse is that if those who are told of Mary as quote-unquote (and capitalized, no less) "Mother of God" are not well versed in how the relationship is actually written in scripture -- and that in yet fuller context ---can begin to create in their own minds inflated role for Mary, which appears to be so much in parallel with a variety of pagan 'goddess' myths, Greek myths, Egyptian myths, Mesopotamian myths, in ending results conceptions of Mary becomes as a chaste Inanna & Diana combination, all dressed up in Christian clothing.

That would be remarkable to... no one.

The birth of Christ, the Messiah of Israel was a miraculous event, far outside of more ordinary occurrence, even though life itself and life processes are something of a miracle all on their own, too.

The fact that Mary gave birth to the Second Person of the Trinity, in the Flesh of Jesus, is what makes the birth of Jesus remarkable.

Well look-ee here. You're having to explain it with additional information! So much for the phrase being entirely workable, short-hand description which does not need many times over additional words in order to keep it straight. One may as well have stuck with speaking of Mary as mother of the incarnate Christ, and then add sufficient additional explanation such as; Christ was in the heart of the Father from the beginning, etc.

Without extra explanation and reasonable limitations put on the phrase -- to make certain that when speaking about "Mother of God" were are not talking about Mary being capital "M" Mother of God, uh, woops, I meant the First Person of the Trinity (to fully import the 'style' which you were utilizing) then there is still the need to backtrack and qualify the phrase. Or else Mary becomes the one who gave birth to God, thus an Uber-God-ess (potentially greater than the Eternal for having, uhm, er, pre-existed eternity.

That it was a virgin birth itself, and the conception brought about by her being 'overshadowed' by the Spirit of God, those aspects singularly and together are what matters.

This is the significance of the title, "Mother of God."

But the title given her at Ephesus was not quote-unquote "mother of God".

A term which would have denoted that more precisely could have been coined, but it was not. The term Theotokus used slightly in the 3rd century, used a bit more widely (in an influential, much copied Liturgy) in the 4th century, and finally adopted more formally in the 5th century (but adopted amid notes of violence, at some cost of schism) translates more directly as "God Bearer", indicating there was still some degree of deliberate avoidance of use of the Greek word for mother to be coupled with the word Theos to be used as descriptive term for Mary.

It points to the Incarnation.

In application, it appears to also point away from Christ while the attention (devotions & prayers) are aimed not towards the Heavenly Creator, but to her, instead.

Some people go so far, when referring to "Mary" as to capitalize the word "Her" in mid-sentence.

What "pointed towards the Incarnation" prior to the crib-notes short-hand version widely adopted some four hundred years after the birth of the incarnate Christ?

What did the early, most primitive church call Mary? I'm persuaded they thought highly of her --- yet still did not phrase her relationship with Jesus as herself being capital M Mother of God --- even though that very same most primitive church obviously taught that Jesus was the begotten son of God, and under Hebrew religious traditions that would make Jesus equal to God & thus God. Some of the Jewish people who rejected Him when He told them that He was (literally!) the son of God tore at their garments in outrage -- "blasphemer!" they shouted. Yet Jesus spoke no blasphemy, but instead spoke the truth.

[The Cuban]

Where is the inner any table of contents Elsie?

[Elsie]

As in don't bogart da' kine....

Wouldn't think of it!

Elsie is available to all!

[Elsie]

Exactly is a big word.....let's just say they do not contradict each other on matters of faith and morals..........ever.

They just fuss over who should be the TRUE leaders of "The CHURCH" that Christ established.

[Elsie]

It all comes down to basic logic. Mary is the mother of Jesus, Jesus is God, therefore Mary is the mother of God.

I see...

All humans; born of normal human parents; are sinners.
Mary was born of normal human parents.
Therefore; she was a sinner.

---

It all comes down to basic logic after all.

[kinsman redeemer]

I guess it’s hard to keep track of all that crap...

[Elsie]

Meaningless ritual in Her case....but, of course, she had no way of knowing that she had been born without sin.

Really?

"Ya know, {insert Mary's mother's name here}, that little girl of yours NEVER seems to get into trouble.

What is your child raising secret?"

[BlueDragon]

It's still the application which is the error. Otherwise, we'd leave it at Timmy the fireman, and his mommy.

It's only partial error, but it's enough.

I see you just won't step away from this hobby-horse though, not matter how many ways it's been shown (from a year or more ago?) to not be a good fit for the sought for application.

It's the syllogism itself which is the problem -- because it does not reflect the actual truth of the matter, but instead is an oversimplified version of the relationship (more on par with how strictly human relationships go, not fully God and fully human relationship).

[Elsie]

It certainly is....and granted DIRECTLY by Christ.....

To whom?

[Elsie]

Whatever, I'll stick with the church's version....chances are that I'll be O.K. with that.

I doubt it.

Otherwise Mary would NOT have been needed to make SO many earthy appearances to correct and modify the behavior of the members of the church that her son established.

[Elsie]

You and I and everyone else can see that you cut my sentence in half.

And I trim the excess fat off of meat when I cook it; too.

---

If it'll make ya happy...

... A woman cannot have a son who is a fireman, and at the same time not be the mother of a fireman.

[Elsie]

So, thanks for giving up!

No; thank YOU for choosing NOT to answer the questioning your sentence provoked.