Mariolatry?

[Grip Docility]

Yes, it's already been answered. It's a metaphorical "mother" of Jesus and of the 12 tribes of Israel. Mary did not give birth to all 12 tribes of Israel!

Jesus is God. Mary had painful child birth and Jesus (GOD) was bound to the very DNA of Mary. "Metaphorical"?!?

You are so all over the road map that I'm not certain that you even know where the you are here arrow is, currently. In my opinion.

Either Jesus is God or He's not. Thread history has my back in discussion, involving, WHO Jesus is. <- Link

 

[Grip Docility]

You obviously don't know Protestants or wish to slander them. I don't know of a single Protestant who rejects Jesus being the Word of God made flesh!

You use the word slander, yet accuse an entire group of people of Idolatry. Something isn't adding up. In my opinion. For the record, I was raised one of the most rabid protestant denominations in existence.

Protest against what? Catholic means and implies the entire Invisible Universal Body of Christ, whether in brick and mortar or outside of it. It further is the Mother brick and Mortar of which all offshoots are daughter's of.

This isn't about Denomination.

Is Jesus God? Did the Word that was with God and is God and always has been God become flesh?

Jesus has a Mother, per scripture, who LITERATLLY gave birth to the Fullness of the Godhead bodily. You need to commit to facts and avoid discussional confusion, in my opinion.

 

[Grip Docility]

I've not disputed whether "master" can be applied to God. He is indeed a "master" and a "lord." But the word "Lord" is not always synonymous with "God," no. It is an interpretive fallacy to apply the word "Lord" in the same way in different contexts.

Applying "Lord" to Jesus may indeed be a reference to the lordship of God. But in this matter you are confusing God the Father with God the Son. God the Father was *not* in the womb of Mary!

You apparently don't understand what Arianism was? It viewed Jesus as somewhere between God and Man, but not God Himself. Jesus was God in the form of the Son. The Son, however, was not the Father. That is Modalism.

Yes, Philippians indicates Jesus was the "form" of God--not matter what synonym you wish to use. Do you believe that all synonyms, because they are different words, are not really synonyms?

Not at all. I'm saying the Son is not the Father. Jesus is God's Word made flesh. Jesus is not the Father. Rather, he is God in human form, aka the Son.

Since you don't seem to understand the difference between the Incarnation and Sabellianism, I will cut this short.

The very name Jesus (God the Son, the Son of God) is a Greek transliteration of the Name Yeshua. Yeshua, pre Diaspora was written as YeHOshua. The H and the O denote the very name YHWH. God became Flesh. Yes there is Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but these Three are indivisibly ONE (UNE). We say Jesus Christ to the very Shakina Glory of the Father who is the provider of the Holy Spirit of Christ. The Same God the Holy Spirit in Jesus is the Same God the Holy Spirit in His Father.

Jesus was Born Immanuel (GOD with us), become flesh and bound to the very DNA of mankind, through Mary's DNA... immaculately.

God has a Mommy. IMO
Son of God = God the Father is the Father of Jesus (Immaculately)
Son of Man = God has a Literal MOTHER who's name is Mary. (God didn't tend bloodline from Eve to Mary for show or "Metaphor".

Isaiah 43:11 I, even I, am the LORD, and apart from me there is no savior.

 

[jas3]

What makes you think I don't understand that? I believe the Father and Son are united by divine "substance."

Because you assume that calling Mary the mother of God necessarily implies that she is the mother of the Father (and, I would assume, the Holy Ghost). This assumption mixes up the categories of "person" and "substance."

When God the Father chose to reveal Himself as God the Son He made a distinction between 2 Persons within the Godhead. The Son is the product of God's Word assuming a finite form of Deity.

Surely you don't mean this to say that there was a time when the Son didn't exist as the Son? Or in other words, "there was when the Son was not"?

 

[Grip Docility]

@RandyPNW, I am not posting this as a flex or to say shame on you for breaking the rules... because I think that kind of talk is not Kind and better you be able to discuss this out with FELLOW Believers. I Post this to point out what CF itself has to say on this matter...

Statement of Faith​

The Nicene Creed​

We believe in (Romans 10:8-10; 1John 4:15)
ONE God, (Deuteronomy 6:4, Ephesians 4:6)
the Father (Matthew 6:9)
Almighty, (Exodus 6:3)
Maker of Heaven and Earth, (Genesis 1:1)
and of all things visible and invisible. (Colossians 1:15-16)
And in ONE Lord Jesus Christ, (Acts 11:17)
the Son of God, (Mathew 14:33; 16:16)
the Only-Begotten, (John 1:18; 3:16)
Begotten of the Father before all ages. (John 1:2)
Light of Light; (Psalm 27:1; John 8:12; Matthew 17:2,5)
True God of True God; (John 17:1-5)
Begotten, not made; (John 1:18)
of one essence with the Father (John 10:30)
by whom all things were made; (Hebrews 1:1-2)
Who for us men and for our salvation (1Timothy 2:4-5)
came down from Heaven, (John 6:33,35)
and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, (Luke 1:35)
and became man. (John 1:14)
And was crucified for us (Mark 15:25; 1 Cointhians 15:3)
under Pontius Pilate, (John 19:6)
and suffered, (Mark 8:31)
and was buried. (Luke 23:53; 1Corinthians 15:4)
And the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures. (Luke 24:1 1Corinthians 15:4)
And ascended into Heaven, (Luke 24:51; Acts 1:10)
and sits at the right hand of the Father. (Mark 16:19; Acts 7:55)
And He shall come again with glory (Matthew 24:27)
to judge the living and the dead; (Acts 10:42; 2Timothy 4:1)
whose Kingdom shall have no end. (2 Peter 1:11)
And in the Holy Spirit, (John 14:26)
the Lord, (Acts 5:3-4)
the Giver of Life, (Genesis 1:2)
Who proceeds from the Father; (John 15:26)
Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; (Matthew 3:16-17)
Who spoke through the prophets. (1 Samuel 19:20 ; Ezekiel 11:5,13) In one, (Matthew 16: 18)
holy, (1 Peter 2:5,9)
catholic*, (Mark 16:15)
and apostolic Church. (Acts 2:42; Ephesians 2:19-22)
I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins**. (Ephesians 4:5; Acts 2:38)
I look for the resurrection of the dead, (John 11:24; 1Corinthians 15:12-49; Hebrews 6:2; Revelation 20:5)
and the life of the world to come. (Mark 10:29-30)
AMEN. (Psalm 106:48)

Notes​

* The word "catholic" (literally, "complete," "universal," or "according to the whole") refers to the universal church of the Lord Jesus Christ and not necessarily or exclusively to any particular visible denomination, institution, or doctrine.

** May be interpreted as baptism is a matter of obedience and not a requirement for salvation or as a regenerating ordinance.

Faith groups and individuals that deny the full, eternal deity of Jesus Christ or His incarnation whereby He, as God, took on human flesh (becoming fully God and fully man in one person), are considered non-Christians at CF.

 

[RandyPNW]

Jesus is God. Mary had painful child birth and Jesus (GOD) was bound to the very DNA of Mary. "Metaphorical"?!?

I didn't say Mary was metaphorical--I said the Woman of Rev 12 was metaphorical!

Either Jesus is God or He's not. Thread history has my back in discussion, involving, WHO Jesus is. <- Link

I've said it many times, and I'll say it again for you now--Jesus is God!

 

[RandyPNW]

You use the word slander, yet accuse an entire group of people of Idolatry. Something isn't adding up. In my opinion. For the record, I was raised one of the most rabid protestant denominations in existence.

Maybe that was your problem, that you were "rabid?" By definition a Protestant is one who is *not* "rabid!"

I did not accuse you or anyone, specifically, of being idolatrous. I said there were 2 options--you are naive about Protestants or you wish to slander them. Pick your poison.

Jesus has a Mother, per scripture, who LITERATLLY gave birth to the Fullness of the Godhead bodily. You need to commit to facts and avoid discussional confusion, in my opinion.

Do you think God the Father has a mother? Or are you unable to answer the question?

 

[RandyPNW]

God has a Mommy. IMO

Are you saying that God the Father has a Mommy? If so, I believe you're in heresy territory. That would be reducing God to something below a human being.

God revealed Himself in the form of Jesus even while maintaining His distinction as eternal God, distinct from anything He has created. One must, to be proper, assert that God remains forever self-existent both before and after He chose to reveal Himself in the form of a man.

As such, God the Father, never had a mother, and can never have a mother. Only in a lesser form of Deity can God be said to have had a "mother." That happened in the Incarnation.

 

[RandyPNW]

Because you assume that calling Mary the mother of God necessarily implies that she is the mother of the Father (and, I would assume, the Holy Ghost). This assumption mixes up the categories of "person" and "substance."

No, I'm properly trying to distinguish between the Persons of God, to *avoid confusing them!* Calling Mary the "Mother of God" works only with the Incarnation--not with God the Father. It's an important distinction because reducing God the Father down to the product of Mary as a child eliminates His eternal origin as the Father. God was Father of Mary long before Mary became mother of Jesus!

Surely you don't mean this to say that there was a time when the Son didn't exist as the Son? Or in other words, "there was when the Son was not"?

This is a more complicated question replete with semantical issues. But I do appreciate the question. The problem is dignified with historical discussion, and I don't run away from discussing it here, though it is, I think, separate from what we've been discussing.

The Son's identity as "God" means that He has existed from eternity in whatever form God had before His Incarnation. It is often said he preexisted his Incarnation as "God's Word" because this is the vehicle whereby God can reveal Himself in different Persons.

I can accept that, except that I wouldn't say that God's Word is less an instrument than it is a Person. God reveals His Person through His Word in order to reveal Himself as more than one Person. He can, in fact, reveal Himself in way more Persons than the Trinity!

Thanks for asking...

 

[RandyPNW]

@RandyPNW, I am not posting this as a flex or to say shame on you for breaking the rules... because I think that kind of talk is not Kind and better you be able to discuss this out with FELLOW Believers. I Post this to point out what CF itself has to say on this matter...

Statement of Faith​

The Nicene Creed​

We believe in (Romans 10:8-10; 1John 4:15)
ONE God, (Deuteronomy 6:4, Ephesians 4:6)
the Father (Matthew 6:9)
Almighty, (Exodus 6:3)
Maker of Heaven and Earth, (Genesis 1:1)
and of all things visible and invisible. (Colossians 1:15-16)
And in ONE Lord Jesus Christ, (Acts 11:17)
the Son of God, (Mathew 14:33; 16:16)
the Only-Begotten, (John 1:18; 3:16)
Begotten of the Father before all ages. (John 1:2)
Light of Light; (Psalm 27:1; John 8:12; Matthew 17:2,5)
True God of True God; (John 17:1-5)
Begotten, not made; (John 1:18)
of one essence with the Father (John 10:30)
by whom all things were made; (Hebrews 1:1-2)
Who for us men and for our salvation (1Timothy 2:4-5)
came down from Heaven, (John 6:33,35)
and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, (Luke 1:35)
and became man. (John 1:14)
And was crucified for us (Mark 15:25; 1 Cointhians 15:3)
under Pontius Pilate, (John 19:6)
and suffered, (Mark 8:31)
and was buried. (Luke 23:53; 1Corinthians 15:4)
And the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures. (Luke 24:1 1Corinthians 15:4)
And ascended into Heaven, (Luke 24:51; Acts 1:10)
and sits at the right hand of the Father. (Mark 16:19; Acts 7:55)
And He shall come again with glory (Matthew 24:27)
to judge the living and the dead; (Acts 10:42; 2Timothy 4:1)
whose Kingdom shall have no end. (2 Peter 1:11)
And in the Holy Spirit, (John 14:26)
the Lord, (Acts 5:3-4)
the Giver of Life, (Genesis 1:2)
Who proceeds from the Father; (John 15:26)
Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; (Matthew 3:16-17)
Who spoke through the prophets. (1 Samuel 19:20 ; Ezekiel 11:5,13) In one, (Matthew 16: 18)
holy, (1 Peter 2:5,9)
catholic*, (Mark 16:15)
and apostolic Church. (Acts 2:42; Ephesians 2:19-22)
I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins**. (Ephesians 4:5; Acts 2:38)
I look for the resurrection of the dead, (John 11:24; 1Corinthians 15:12-49; Hebrews 6:2; Revelation 20:5)
and the life of the world to come. (Mark 10:29-30)
AMEN. (Psalm 106:48)

Notes​

* The word "catholic" (literally, "complete," "universal," or "according to the whole") refers to the universal church of the Lord Jesus Christ and not necessarily or exclusively to any particular visible denomination, institution, or doctrine.

** May be interpreted as baptism is a matter of obedience and not a requirement for salvation or as a regenerating ordinance.

Faith groups and individuals that deny the full, eternal deity of Jesus Christ or His incarnation whereby He, as God, took on human flesh (becoming fully God and fully man in one person), are considered non-Christians at CF.

Raised a Lutheran I repeated the Apostle's Creed for 18 or 19 years--I only occasionally attended Lutheran Church after age 17. And we sometimes repeated the Nicene Creed, as well. I went through catechism for 2 years as a young teenager, and completely agree with the historic creeds, recognizing that they involved issues that were heavily debated and involved different word uses.

I have no fear of being in compliance with the Forum. Only cowards resort to "moderator control," particularly when they use slander to achieve that. I advise you to show where I have *not* complied with any of the creeds. Denying a particular use of "Mother of God" is not a case in point. As I said, the term can be used to show the legitimacy of the Incarnation, which I accept. Or, it can be used to glorify Mary, which I do *not* accept.

Mary was not a super-human, sinless figure designated "Queen of Heaven,* who we should pray to and use as a religious incantation. If anything, this kind of thing should be suspended long before there is any debate suspended on what "Mother of God" means!

 

[Grip Docility]

I didn't say Mary was metaphorical--I said the Woman of Rev 12 was metaphorical!

I've said it many times, and I'll say it again for you now--Jesus is God!

Yet, the very Womb and Dna that Immanuel was born through that woman was Mary. It's scriptural fact. Mary is the God Bearer. Scripture testifies of this.

Amen to saying Jesus is God.

 

[Grip Docility]

Maybe that was your problem, that you were "rabid?" By definition a Protestant is one who is *not* "rabid!"

I did not accuse you or anyone, specifically, of being idolatrous. I said there were 2 options--you are naive about Protestants or you wish to slander them. Pick your poison.

Do you think God the Father has a mother? Or are you unable to answer the question?

The Father is not the Son, The Holy Spirit is not the Father, Nor the Son. Yet, God the Son, Incarnated of His Father and his Mother, was born the Fulness of the God Head Bodily, per scripture.

God with us, born of the Blessed Virgin Mary, who gave birth to the very Desire of all Hebrew Women, The Messiah, has a Mother. God, now has a Mommy.

 

[Grip Docility]

Are you saying that God the Father has a Mommy? If so, I believe you're in heresy territory. That would be reducing God to something below a human being.

God revealed Himself in the form of Jesus even while maintaining His distinction as eternal God, distinct from anything He has created. One must, to be proper, assert that God remains forever self-existent both before and after He chose to reveal Himself in the form of a man.

As such, God the Father, never had a mother, and can never have a mother. Only in a lesser form of Deity can God be said to have had a "mother." That happened in the Incarnation.

Where the Holy Spirit is, so are the Father and the Son. Where the Son is, so is the Father and the Holy Spirit. Where the Father is, so there is the Son and the Holy Spirit. The Trinity is indivisible.

Father is not Son. Holy Spirit is neither Father nor Son. God is UTTERLY UNE, yet These Sacred Three Testify.

Jesus is the fulness of the Godhead bodily. God was born of a woman. Creator joined with Creation in the Flesh of Jesus Christ.

 

[Grip Docility]

Raised a Lutheran I repeated the Apostle's Creed for 18 or 19 years--I only occasionally attended Lutheran Church after age 17. And we sometimes repeated the Nicene Creed, as well. I went through catechism for 2 years as a young teenager, and completely agree with the historic creeds, recognizing that they involved issues that were heavily debated and involved different word uses.

I have no fear of being in compliance with the Forum. Only cowards resort to "moderator control," particularly when they use slander to achieve that. I advise you to show where I have *not* complied with any of the creeds. Denying a particular use of "Mother of God" is not a case in point. As I said, the term can be used to show the legitimacy of the Incarnation, which I accept. Or, it can be used to glorify Mary, which I do *not* accept.

Mary was not a super-human, sinless figure designated "Queen of Heaven,* who we should pray to and use as a religious incantation. It anything, this kind of thing should be suspended long before there is any debate suspended on what "Mother of God" means!

Only God is Good. Mary was imperfect in comparison to God. This is true. However, by being the God Bearer, she is the Mother of God and if you desire to challenge this, you can take it up with God.

I specifically wrote this in the quote before the creed: " I am not posting this as a flex or to say shame on you for breaking the rules... "

You don't want to call Mary the mother of God... that's on you. Jesus is God. Mary is the BIOLOGICAL mother of Jesus.

1 plus 1 ought to equal a rational 2.

Jesus is God. Mary is the BIOLOGICAL mother of Jesus. Visa vi... Mary is the God Bearer. However many times that you argue in favor of your OP, you are in perpetual exposure to this biblical truth about the Living Truth.

 

[jas3]

No, I'm properly trying to distinguish between the Persons of God, to *avoid confusing them!*

But that's not a danger if the relationship between "person" and "substance" is properly understood. The historical Nestorian argument against calling Mary "theotokos" wasn't that it would imply she was the mother of the Father, it was that "Christ" is (according to the argument) a combination of the divine Son and a man, Jesus, whose will was perfectly conformed to the divine will and who is glorified as divine because of his perfect cooperation with God the Son, and that Mary was therefore the mother of Jesus the man, or at best Christ the combination, but not God the Son. There was never a thought of the term being applied to either of the other two divine Persons, because the issue was how the term applied to the divine substance through its application to the Son.

It's an important distinction because reducing God the Father down to the product of Mary as a child eliminates His eternal origin as the Father.

Nobody uses the term to say that Mary was even the eternal begetter of the Son, much less the Father.

The Son's identity as "God" means that He has existed from eternity in whatever form God had before His Incarnation. It is often said he preexisted his Incarnation as "God's Word" because this is the vehicle whereby God can reveal Himself in different Persons.

I can accept that, except that I wouldn't say that God's Word is less an instrument than it is a Person.

This explanation seems correct; God the Son did eternally preexist the Incarnation, and He is identified with God's Word, without Whom "was not any thing that was made" (John 1:3). My concern was that you used terms like "made" and "product" in referring to God the Son, which sounded like you envisioned Him as having been created at some point, either through creation ex nihilo or through some change in the Word in the Incarnation.

 

[Jipsah]

God the Father with God the Son. God the Father was *not* in the womb of Mary!

So we're back to Arianism/Nestorianism, or at worst, simple polytheism.

Here's the Athanasian Creed agan:
Thus the Father is God; the Son is God; the Holy Spirit is God: And yet there are not three gods, but one God.
Thus the Father is Lord; the Son is Lord; the Holy Spirit is Lord: And yet there are not three lords, but one Lord.
As Christian truth compels us to acknowledge each distinct person as God and Lord, so catholic religion forbids us to say that there are three gods or lords.

You don't get to pick the Trinity apart. Jesus is God, and He had a Mother.

You apparently don't understand what Arianism was? It viewed Jesus as somewhere between God and Man

Oh, sort of a form of Deity, right?

, but not God Himself.

Which differs from what you believe? You've done nothing in this thread but try and make Jesus "God but...", and then "explain" why He's God but not that God.

Jesus was God in the form of the Son. The Son, however, was not the Father.

And you're implicitly sy that either Jesus and the Father are
Thus the Father is God; the Son is God; the Holy Spirit is God: And yet there are not three gods, but one God.
The Creed says
As Christian truth compels us to acknowledge each distinct person as God and Lord, so catholic religion forbids us to say that there are three gods or lords.

Yes, Philippians indicates Jesus was the "form" of God--not matter what synonym you wish to use.

Another opportunity to play "God but..." and pick the Trinityu apart. No worky.

Not at all. I'm saying the Son is not the Father

Thus the Father is God; the Son is God; the Holy Spirit is God: And yet there are not three gods, but one God.

. Jesus is God's Word made flesh. Jesus is not the Father. Rather, he is God in human form, aka the Son.

Thus the Father is God; the Son is God; the Holy Spirit is God: And yet there are not three gods, but one God.

Since you don't seem to understand the difference between the Incarnation and Sabellianism, I will cut this short.

And you apparentlly can't tell the difference the Trinity and polytheism. I can see why you'd want to cut and run.

So which is it, Nestorian, Arian, or both?

 

[Jipsah]

No, but she gave birth to God. What you and @d taylor seem to be missing is the concept of the Persons of the Trinity being homoousios - "consubstantial" or "of the same essence." This is how the Son can be God and the Father can be God without the Son being the Father, and without the Son or the Father being only "part of God" or three gods.

And I probably say it as shouldn't, technically being a Protestant myself, but Protestants in general have a tough time with that. They often think of the Trinity in either tri-theist and/or modalist terms

 

[Jipsah]

You obviously don't know Protestants or wish to slander them.

Technically I still am one. <Laugh>

I don't know of a single Protestant who rejects Jesus being the Word of God made flesh!

How many will agree with this? Thus the Father is God; the Son is God; the Holy Spirit is God: And yet there are not three gods, but one God.

 

[Jipsah]

What makes you think I don't understand that?

Roughly everything uyou've said.

I believe the Father and Son are united by divine "substance."

At the same time I don't believe Mary gave birth to God the Father.

The Son is God.

When God the Father chose to reveal Himself as God the Son He made a distinction between 2 Persons within the Godhead. The Son is the product of God's Word assuming a finite form of Deity. He is infinite in His origins, but finite in his human expression.

Made up from whole cloth.

 

[George95]

I am beyond confused as to how some in this thread cannot understand that the term of Mother of God is used to protect the Incarnation and the two natures of Christ.