Was Mary the greatest woman that ever lived?

[narnia59]

I have to say yes as well because she is the mother of JESUS! Of all the women from the time GOD our FATHER created the world untillnow, HE chose mary to give birth unto HIS only begotten SON. She must have been amazing

We also tend to forget that along with giving him birth, she provided his home for thirty years. Three of his years on earth were spent in public ministry with his apostles and disciples, 30 years were spent in the privacy of a home life with Mary. Can it be possible that anyone would know him like she did?

I heard Scott Hahn speak on Mary once. He said, we can only hope to love her as Jesus did, and to love Jesus as she did. That is the essence of Marian devotion.

 

[Breckmin]

Ecumenical Councils didn't declare new dogmas or doctrines, but clarified what had already been believed.

That is what bothers me... they had to do it in a reaction to heresy
and rightly so...but the problem became that they were so busy trying
to figure out how they should define ontological trinity - that they never
stopped to think of whether they should define ontological trinity.

Nestorianism is dead wrong.

EDIT: The below should have been "one hypostasis" NOT one nature.
I made an error in communication.
I believe in one nature NOT two...so I believe that Nestorius was
not exactly the best way to descibe what I believe.. but I am interested
in this.

Why is Nestorius "dead wrong?" Do you understand that he still believed
that Jesus was God?

Clearly there is a big difference between the abberational Sabellius and
Nestorius...and if Nestorius is declared a heretic without fully understanding
his view (or his misunderstanding), then I believe there is something
wrong with the person declaring this as though they are omniscient
about ontological Incarnation and ontological Trinity.

At some point we need to be wise and step back from this and ADMIT
that there is not enough clarity in scripture to make such meticulous
definitions.

 

[magdiel]

Mary is blessed among women. In the same passage Jesus is blessed.
Jesus is most blessed, and Mary is most blessed. If one is than the other is or vice versa, neither. You can't divide the meaning in the passage to suit one and not the other.
Luke 1:42 And she cried out with a loud voice and said: Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.


Luke 1:48 Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid: for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
I do daily.

 

[Breckmin]

she is called the Mother of my Lord in Luke, thats synonymous with Mother of God.

Mother of Jesus is synonymous with Mother of God with your use of the
English. Clearly Jesus is God. He was 100% God.

How do we define ontological Hypostatic Union, though???????

That is the question that is petitio principii regarding whether we "should."

You want to say in the English "Jesus was God, therefore Mary was the
Mother of God" based on the syllogism derived from the Deity of Christ.
The problem is that you have more than "Deity" going on here. You
have "humanity" here also...and you are "isolating" on Deity (one of the
components of fallacies derived from over-analyzing) and applying this
to Mary's humanity.

Here is the question. Was Mary the Mother of His Deity or did this
come from God? Was she the Mother of His humanity and God combined
the 2 into One Nature? These questions are NOT clearly answered in
scripture.

I believe that the best way to differentiate between confusing references
to Mary being the mother of Deity - verses her being the Mother of the
Hypostatic Union of Deity and Humanity into One Nature...is to simply
clarify with a "tag" or additional words after the use of the word God.

You could say "Mary is the Mother of God Incarnate." You could say
"Mary is the mother of Jesus" or "Mary is the mother of Emmanuel."
You could say that "Mary is the mother of God among us."

There are many ways to clarify this rather than saying simply "Mary is
the Mother of God" and then having every body who is thinking about
it with respect to pre-existences disagree.

Why wouldn't they disagree? You've already admitted to Christophanies
in the O.T. before Mary was born. We already know that Jesus is the
"I AM" before Abraham and He used this title. The actuality of eternal
pre-existences is what makes the title "Mother of God" clearly inadequate.

Furthermore, it is NOT dynamically equivalent to Theotokos.

There are more imperfections going on here than just differences in beliefs.

 

[Breckmin]

His Incarnation.

Your right but that's why we know that Mary gave birth to God, because God is eternal and it would be impossible to know everything about God.

Please restate this phrase with respect to omniscience. How does
being impossible to know equal that's how we know Mary did something?

How ever when God chose to become like us. He became knowable to a point, because He is not only God but human and just like us humans he had a human mother who had with in herself God who is eternal.

I agree with this statement 100%...but that does not mean that I believe
the best way to summarize Mary's role is to refer to her as the "mother of
God."

I think this is an inexactism and error of expression because it does NOT
differentiate pre-existences and finite manifestations prior to the birth of
Christ. It is as though you are (over)simplifying rather than clarifying.

 

[Breckmin]

I think it's you who is nitpicking.

On the English phrase "Mother of God" verse "Mother of Jesus who is
God in the flesh" - you bet!!!

 

[Breckmin]

Yet there are those back through the centuries(even now) that need to have that clarified, because the has a mistaken believe about who Jesus is.

This doesn't come as a result of disbeliefs about Mary. This comes as
a result of disbelief in Christ Himself. (If you make references to virginity
or to the Holy Spirit's work in her womb this is still not an issue regarding
Mary's humanity... unless you believe something different than I do about
Mary's humanity).

Is the phrase "Mother of God" used to describe Christ? Or is it used
to describe Mary?

 

[Breckmin]

I have to say yes as well because she is the mother of JESUS! Of all the women from the time GOD our FATHER created the world untillnow, HE chose mary to give birth unto HIS only begotten SON. She must have been amazing

She was amazing by God's grace....and all generations will call her
blessed! She is the greatest woman who ever lived.

 

[Breckmin]

She certainly had the greatest honour - being the mother to the saviour of mankind, but whether she was the greatest woman? We are simply not told enough about her to come to any conclusions.

John the Baptist baptized Jesus and He was considered the greatest
prophet (man) - but I believe this was because of his humility which is
perhaps part of the reason he was honored by God with such a service
to our Lord.

Mary "gave birth to Jesus" and loved Jesus as her son more than any
of us in a direct day to day relationship as mother and son.

Senix,
what do you think of the position that Mary probably did not sin during
her pregnancy with Jesus? Do you believe that Mary was a sinner
committing sin on a daily basis when she was pregnant with God?
(Notice I believe that it is o.k. to say "pregnant with God" but I would
not use the short phrase "Mother of God" - there is good reason).

She had faith and was willing to let God use her to achieve His purposes, but there have been other very faithful women even in our century. Mother Teresa, in my opinion, is about as close to being like God as I've ever seen in my entire life.

I honestly do not believe that Mother Teresa would compare herself to
Mary. I believe Mother Teresa would say that she is not worthy to be
compared to Mary...as would most all women who believe that Mary
was chosen by God's grace to give birth to Jesus.

Only God knows, and from what He has told us, the person who helps out the least of his people will be among the greatest in heaven, and Mother Teresa has certainly done that.

There is a comparison, but remember that Jesus said "done it unto Me."
Mary served Jesus directly by God's grace.

As for Mary, she is dead. She has not been raised, but she's dead awaiting resurrection day with the rest of us when we kick it.

For the record, so is Mother Teresa.

What is the reason you reject the Assumption of Mary as a possibility?
Is it evidence? Is it orthodoxy? Is there no possibility that Mary could
be in heaven with Jesus in a glorified body like He is??

I understand that possibility is often our worst enemy...but I would like
your reason(s) as to why Mary could not be the only woman in a glorified
body?

The problem isn't that Protestants don't show her enough respect, the problem is that Catholics and others show her too much respect that is undeserved.

Isn't it true that all generations will call her blessed? Why is she
underserving?

In fact, Jesus had the perfect chance to declare that Mary was indeed worthy of praise and adoration in Luke 11:27, but his response? Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it. She is not mentioned after the day of Pentecost, she is not given a prominent role or status by the Apostles, so why should we?

She is the mother of our Lord. Isn't it logical to respect the mother of
the King? Isn't it logical to respect the mother of the person you adore
most?

Let me put it to you this way.... "Who is a more successful mother than
Mary?"

And no, she is not a new Eve. Two reasons: a. there is absolutely no Scriptural evidence of this; b. Eve isn't even mentioned in any regard to the fall of mankind. We sin in Adam's likeness, not in Eve's. It is through Adam's sin that sin and death have come to us all.

The symbolism of Mary being the new Eve has to do with a second
birth that comes through salvation. It is true that she gave birth to
Jesus and by doing so she (indirectly through the grace of God) gives
birth to the whole church...sort of like Peter being the rock on which
the church is built or Peter being the first Pope.

This does NOT mean that I would call her "mother" nor should you.
But the symbolism that is inductive can not be denied. We should
love Mary as the mother of our Lord. If we are followers of Christ
then the logic would be to strive for the same degree of love for
Mary that Christ has.

If Mary is special to Jesus, then perhaps she should be special to
us.

This does not mean we should pray to her or hyperdulia her..but
it does mean that we should love her and respect her and recognize
that she had a special relationship to our Savior, Lord, God and King.

 

[Breckmin]

she is called the Mother of my Lord in Luke, thats synonymous with Mother of God.

Let's be logical here for a second. Would you call Mary's mother the
"Grandmother of God?"

Please be specifc.

 

[pgp_protector]

Let's be logical here for a second. Would you call Mary's mother the
"Grandmother of God?"

Please be specifc.

Wouldn't her dad also be God's Grandfather then ?

 

[Breckmin]

Wouldn't her dad also be God's Grandfather then ?

You help make my point.

 

[Senix]

Breckmin,

what do you think of the position that Mary probably did not sin during her pregnancy with Jesus? Do you believe that Mary was a sinner committing sin on a daily basis when she was pregnant with God? (Notice I believe that it is o.k. to say "pregnant with God" but I would not use the short phrase "Mother of God" - there is good reason).

Well, she was a sinner so she most likely did commit sin every now and then because she was a human being. More than that I cannot say because I don't know enough about her, but she herself acknowledges her need for a saviour (Luke 1:47), hence, her sinful nature.

I honestly do not believe that Mother Teresa would compare herself to Mary. I believe Mother Teresa would say that she is not worthy to be compared to Mary...as would most all women who believe that Mary
was chosen by God's grace to give birth to Jesus.

Who cares? She was a Catholic who also, as such, had the same unhealthy elevation of Mary, so of course she wouldn't think she was worthy of comparison. Either way, it's irrelevant.

For the record, so is Mother Teresa.

And I said that she wasn't where?

What is the reason you reject the Assumption of Mary as a possibility? Is it evidence? Is it orthodoxy? Is there no possibility that Mary could be in heaven with Jesus in a glorified body like He is??

To the first, I have no idea what you are talking about. If you refer to the ascension of Mary, then no I do not believe that she was taken up into heaven. There is also no hint nor is there any evidence from the Bible that would support that she was.

As for the last, there is no possibility as that will happen on resurrection day.

Finally, with the whole second/new Eve thing you talked about, there is no mention at all of it in the Bible, and only Catholics and other like-minded groups have made this concept.

 

[Breckmin]

The problem isn't that Protestants don't show her enough respect, the problem is that Catholics and others show her too much respect that is undeserved.

My personal believe is that Protestants don't show her enough respect..

but I also agree that hyperdulia is unhealthy in practice because it has
become a form of idolatry with Mary.

My concern is, however, that you say "that is undeserved." This
English word "undeserved" carries with it the connotation of inverse
that someone could say "she deserves NOT to be respected." Now
I know you didn't say this last quote, that is why I am asking you
to clarify your use of the word "undeserved" with respect to the
Mother of our Lord.

You see, I DO believe that Mary deserves love and respect because
Jesus loved and respected her. Also, because God the Father chose
Mary to give birth to God Incarnate in the flesh...God has determined
that Mary should be seen as blessed throughout all generations.

There is a balance here of dulia for Mary - right along side of John
the Baptist, the apostle Paul, Elijah, Peter, Isaiah, David and so forth.

I believe that Protestants have reacted to "down play" the respect
for Mary, the mother of Jesus, because Catholics have perhaps "idolized"
her in their eyes...so ignoring her by Protestants is meant to bring back
some sort of balance.

I do NOT believe that the balance is to react to Catholics' over-emphasis
on Mary. I believe that the balance is to love and respect her as the
Mother of Jesus and the greatest woman that ever lived...because she
gave birth to our Savior.

 

[Miss Elly]

Remember, those who "pray" to saints do exactly what you say is ok...they are only "asking" that saint to intercede for them (like Paul did in Rom 15:30). The word "pray" means to ask. All Catholics, Orthodox, Anglican, etc... who "pray" to saints are only asking those saints to pray with them to the final end---God. It is no different than you asking me to pray for you.

Sorry, I disagree. The saints who are deceased are in heaven being comforted by Jesus Christ and are happy. Why would God want any "problems by people" disturbing their rest. You cannot prove by scipture that any deceased saint is up there praying for anyone. And the bible does say for us (meaning people on earth) to pray for each other.

 

[Miss Elly]

I can't actually believe there are three votes against.

I mentioned this in another thread, I truely believe that there are some Protestant sects that if Mary wasn't so explcit in scriptures that she is Jesus Mother they would just love to see her just disappear.

You're very disturbed! I'm protestant and I am very much looking forward to meeting Mary in heaven. She had her part in the plan of God, as all who believe in him do. We can't take her out of the bible, why on earth would we want to. You and others want her put on a pedestal and adored, while such adoration belongs only to our savior. God does not love Mary anymore than any of his other creation. He died for all, INCLUDING Mary, and believe me, she knew this. She is in the arms of God now, enjoying the beauties of heaven because she trusted Jesus as her savior!

 

[Miss Elly]

This is excellent.

However...




Here's the problem.

1. Mary is Jesus' Mother, not His daughter. If we are co-inerhitors with Christ, who is our Brother, that makes Mary not our sister but our mother.
2. With all due respect, for all the sola scriptura that Protestants claim to adhere to, a great deal of you, almost always the Evangelicals, largely utterly ignore the Greek. No one latrias Mary, the archangels, or the Saints. We doulia them. Those words have never been simply picked out of the air; there are found clearly in Scripture and the Church, in united voice, acclaimed and acknowledged their difference and their intended use in the last and Seventh Ecumenical Council.
3. Don't ever ask anyone to pray for you and don't dare pray for anyone else if you don't like people asking their Virgin Mother to pray for them. That's only fair, right?

Except that your agenda is clear. The problem is, as shown above, it is based on ignoring the Greek and using simply English.



Original Sin has nothing to do with biology. What you are implying here, in a sense, is that the material is evil. That isn't orthodoxy; it is Gnosticism/Manicheanism!

Original Sin has to do with soul and nature. The former is admittedly immaterial but our nature is both our material and immaterial. It has nothing to do with actual genetics however. It is our very substance; what makes us actually human. And there is far more to being human than DNA.

Jesus is St. Mary's Son. As such, He naturally has her DNA. That is pure biological fact. To say He doesn't is to imply that she isn't His Mother. That is completely contrary to Holy Scripture.



Just because she may have been born with a "fallen disposition" doesn't mean she actually inclined to it during life. Jesus was human too; He was tempted by the Devil. People like to think He was impervious to such things, yet the holy gospels show that He was tempted. The difference with Jesus is that He is not just 100% humand but 100% God. And St. Mary didn't need any sort of "protection" for that.



Some say that is debatable.



St. Mary was more than a vessel. She is the best example of Christ's mission. She is the epitome of fidel faith. She is the perfect model of virtue and goodness. She is, perhaps above all that (and more), the idea of theosis. God brought His Mother right into heaven, body and all, upon her Dormition. She lived that pure a life. She undergone theosis to such a point during her life that she never had to enter sheol.

I'm not convinced!!!!!

 

[MrPolo]

You and others want her put on a pedestal and adored, while such adoration belongs only to our savior.

If you want to be prudent, you should present your opponent’s position in a way that your opponent would recognize as fair and accurate. What you say here is false. True Marian devotion does not involve adoration due only to our Savior.

 

[PaladinValer]

That is what bothers me... they had to do it in a reaction to heresy
and rightly so...but the problem became that they were so busy trying
to figure out how they should define ontological trinity - that they never
stopped to think of whether they should define ontological trinity.

They had to because of Arianism, Sabellianism, and a host of other hersies. There's the should.

I believe in one nature NOT two...so I believe that Nestorius was
not exactly the best way to descibe what I believe.. but I am interested
in this.

That isn't orthodox, Nicene Christianity. That is Monophysitism.

And before you or anyone turns around and points to the Oriental Orthodox and cries "gotcha!", they aren't Monophysites: they are Miaphysites, a doctrinal position that has been interpreted by the vast majority of Chalcedon-affirming Christians like myself to be within bounds of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, particularly because they do acknowledge St. Mary the Theotokos to be the Mother of God while also acknowledge the Incarnation. That's two natures (and wills), right there. They use admitted some odd ways of describing it, but in the end, it is more of a language issue than a truly doctrinal one.

You can't compare yourself to them. You made up your own dogma right out of thin air (anyone who doesn't believe me can google up "ANT monotheism;" it doesn't exist). It isn't at all compliant with the Nicene Creed.

Why is Nestorius "dead wrong?" Do you understand that he still believed that Jesus was God?

With his mouth, yes. With his actual belief, no. Absolutely not. He denied it if he rejected the Theotokos-nature of the BVM. That's pure, undeniable logic.

I'm not convinced!!!!!

Is Jesus God?

Is the BVM Jesus' mother?

If you are Mary, you are the Mother of Jesus
If you are Jesus, you are God
Therefore, Jesus is God
Therefore, if you are Mary, you are the Mother of God.

Rejection of this is rejection of the "God-hood" of Jesus. It is a rejection of a fundamental principle of the Christian religion.

 

[Breckmin]

They had to because of Arianism, Sabellianism, and a host of other hersies. There's the should.

There is clearly a spiritual world of difference between Sabellianism
and Arianism. Arianism is heretical indeed. Sebellianism is just a
misunderstanding of God and abberational.

But my original point stands. They got too specific because of
various beliefs... and Babai the Great and Nestorius and others
were wrongfully deemed heretical rather than seeing it as a slightly
different understanding.

You can't define "ontological Incarnation" and it is somewhat foolish
of us to think that we can know the details of how God became a Man.

ANT monotheism would make statements which would address the
fact that we don't know. "God became a Man - in as much as He
would become a Man." This leaves the definition of Incarnation up
to God while remaining consistent with scripture. Don't get me wrong..
I agree that it is important to counteract heresies...but let's not fool
ourselves into believing we can know more of the details than what is
revealed.

That isn't orthodox, Nicene Christianity. That is Monophysitism.

I was distracted and used the wrong English word. I should have said
"I believe in One Hypostasis" that is "homoousis" rather than two
separate natures which are two hypostases. I edited my post...I apologize
that I miswrote... but the whole point of meaning here - and how detailed
we can get before we start fighting over speculation - is quite axiomatic.

And before you or anyone turns around and points to the Oriental Orthodox and cries "gotcha!", they aren't Monophysites: they are Miaphysites, a doctrinal position that has been interpreted by the vast majority of Chalcedon-affirming Christians like myself to be within bounds of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, particularly because they do acknowledge St. Mary the Theotokos to be the Mother of God while also acknowledge the Incarnation. That's two natures (and wills), right there. They use admitted some odd ways of describing it, but in the end, it is more of a language issue than a truly doctrinal one.

Perhaps there are many semantic issues here rather than doctrinal ones.

You can't compare yourself to them.

Not trying to compare myself to anyone in history.

You made up your own dogma right out of thin air

How is admitting you don't know "dogma?" It is dogma indeed. It is the
dogma that we "CAN'T" know many of the details of ontological Trinity and
ontological Incarnation because these have NOT been revealed to this
detail.

A born-again Christian Theo-Agnostic holds the same position regarding
not being able to know the details of many different positions. ANT
monotheism is Neo-Trinitarianism so of course you can't identify it as
a historical theological position. Neither was APT monotheism.

(anyone who doesn't believe me can google up "ANT monotheism;" it doesn't exist).

This seems to bother you. The position exists whether you acknowledge
its existence or not... The position has existed for the last two decades
whether you have studied it in detail or not. Just as Oneness is slightly
different than Sabellianism - David Bernard's position existed in the 70's
(probably the 60's) before it was heavily published in the 80's.

It isn't at all compliant with the Nicene Creed.

It claims that the Nicene Creed may have gotten most of the details
right..but not necessarily all of them. It claims not to be able to define
ontological Trinity and ontological Incarnation is such great detail.
It proposes other possibilities which are consistent with scripture.

With his mouth, yes. With his actual belief, no. Absolutely not. He denied it if he rejected the Theotokos-nature of the BVM.

There are many who argue Christotokos is superior to Theotokos. For
me personally it is about the translation into the English language.

Mother of Christ or bearer of God Incarnate is superior to Mother of God.

That's pure, undeniable logic.

Is Jesus God?

Yes, but Yeshua Ha Mashiach existed before Mary.

Is the BVM Jesus' mother?

She is the mother of the Baby He became.

If you are Mary, you are the Mother of Jesus
If you are Jesus, you are God
Therefore, Jesus is God
Therefore, if you are Mary, you are the Mother of God.

Your syllogism fails to address connotations in the English that are
related to mothers and father. Just look at "authority" for example.

A mother is an authority over her baby. The scriptures teach us
that children are commanded to obey their parents. (1 example) Mary being
the mother of God carries with it a confusing connotation of "motherhood"
over Deity that does NOT NEED TO EXIST in the English.

Rejection of this is rejection of the "God-hood" of Jesus.

No. It is a rejection of your use of the English language.

It is a rejection of a fundamental principle of the Christian religion.

No. It is the rejection of a poor use of Theotokos that could lead (and
has led) to an unhealthy view of the mother of our Lord whom we love.