Mariolatry?

[jas3]

No. (besides, that wouldn't work out mathematically either)

Then why would Mary not having given birth to the Father or the Holy Spirit have anything to do with her being the Mother of God?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Then why would Mary not having given birth to the Father or the Holy Spirit have anything to do with her being the Mother of God?

Because Jesus is not the Father or the Holy Spirit and vice versa.

Stating Mary is the Mother of God is stating she pre-existed God and gave birth to Him.

 

[jas3]

Because Jesus is not the Father or the Holy Spirit and vice versa.

That doesn't answer why that fact is relevant, it just restates that fact. You said it yourself: the Son is God. That statement means that the Son having a mother means God has a mother, the Son having been incarnate on earth means God was incarnate on earth, and so on.

Stating Mary is the Mother of God is stating she pre-existed God

No, it's stating that she bore Him in her womb and gave birth to Him. She was "the mother of my Lord" (Luke 1:43). And she is called Jesus's mother in various other places in Scripture (John 2:1, John 2:5, Acts 1:14, etc.) even by the Apostles who confessed Jesus to be God. They saw no implication of Mary pre-existing God in calling her His mother.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

That doesn't answer why that fact is relevant, it just restates that fact. You said it yourself: the Son is God. That statement means that the Son having a mother means God has a mother, the Son having been incarnate on earth means God was incarnate on earth, and so on.

It is because the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are God.

To say Mary is the Mother of God, means she gave birth to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

However, this did not happen. Mary gave birth to a human boy named Jesus, the divinity all came from God as stated in Luke 1:35. Thus Jesus was born both human and divine, but this was only possible because of God's involvement. Mary is not the Goddess of Christianity some make her out to be.

 

[jas3]

It is because the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are God.

They are each God, yes.

To say Mary is the Mother of God, means she gave birth to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

No, not unless the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are parts of God. The thing that distinguishes Trinitarianism from polytheism is the fact that each Person is fully God in Himself.

 

[Jipsah]

Her role was just a surrogate from the family of David the king through Nathan. She is truly blessed amongst women, but she is not deity.

No one here says she is.

 

[Jipsah]

Because Jesus is not the Father or the Holy Spirit and vice versa.

Stating Mary is the Mother of God is stating she pre-existed God and gave birth to Him.

No, and no.

 

[d taylor]

Yes, in the sense that all created things come from God. But we still talk about Jesus having come "from the seed of David" (Rom. 1:3) even though David and his seed ultimately came from God.

Because the Virgin Birth was a miraculous event that would not have come about naturally without the Holy Spirit initiating the Incarnation. The Nicene Creed says the Son "by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary."

-
​

Just saying this was a miraculous event does not explain what the coming of The Holy Spirit role was. So are you saying that The Holy Spirit turned Mary's seed into The Son of God.

If you are going say I am making statements like This would seem to invalidate the typology of the Incarnation:

Then state what happen.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

They are each God, yes.

No, not unless the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are parts of God. The thing that distinguishes Trinitarianism from polytheism is the fact that each Person is fully God in Himself.

It is regrettable that the Athanasian Creed receives so little attention today. It serves as a valuable declaration of two fundamental doctrines that the early Church needed to define precisely to counter heresy: the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation of our Lord, Jesus Christ.

---

“Now this is the Catholic faith: We worship one God in the Trinity and the Trinity in unity, without either confusing the Persons or dividing the substance; for the Person of the Father is one, the Son’s another, the Holy Spirit’s another; but the Godhead of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is one, their glory equal, their majesty coeternal.” The names of the three divine Persons are those by which they are repeatedly designated in the New Testament and in the Tradition of the Church. They are relative names, that is to say, they designate the Persons as they relate to each other with regard to origin, by which they are distinguished. Indeed, “because it does not divide the divine unity, the real distinction of the Persons from one another resides solely in the relationships which relate them to one another.” God “is eternally Father in relation to his only Son who is eternally Son only in relation to his Father,” and the “Holy Spirit is…revealed as another divine Person” in relation to Jesus and to the Father.” [ A New Response of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on the Validity of Baptism ]

 

[Grip Docility]

-
​

Just saying this was a miraculous event does not explain what the coming of The Holy Spirit role was. So are you saying that The Holy Spirit turned Mary's seed into The Son of God.

If you are going say I am making statements like This would seem to invalidate the typology of the Incarnation:

Then state what happen.

You are asking for sacred things that are not discussed to be discussed. Is it not enough to understand that God tended the very bloodline of His Incarnation from Eve to Mary? God literally smited Onan for spilling the Divine bloodline. Onan didn't want to father the child of his brother, who God had also smited for being evil. By Hebrew right, if a brother dies, the of age brother of that man would marry his brother's widow to perpetuate the name of their brother. Their first born male son would be given of the dead brother's namesake. Onan didn't want this, so he interrupted the act of conception by removing himself from Tamar. God smited him for this, because Onan was spilling the seed of the Divine bloodline which God the Son would become flesh through.

This should answer your question without having to discuss sacred things which need not be discussed.

 

[Grip Docility]

If you said that Mary was the surrogate mother of GOD, that would be more in alignment with scripture since He was a child from The Holy Spirit.

Surrogate: "A surrogate, also known as a gestational carrier, is a person who carries a fetus to term and gives birth to a baby for another person or couple. The intended parents are the people who will raise the baby."

You have just invalidated every trace of the lineage of Jesus Christ with 28 words, insinuating that the Incarnation was a test tube child. I highly recommend rethinking your statement.

 

[Grip Docility]

Really? And where, may I ask is that title found in Scripture?

God the Son, the Son of God, Immanuel, God with us, The WORD which was with God, was God and BECAME Flesh, was born fully the ONLY BEGOTTEN Son of God. His Father was God the Father, through the miraculous, immaculate work of the Holy Spirit. His Full Blown, Biological Mother, of sacred tended bloodline traced from Eve to Mary all throughout genealogies in the OT, given for this very specific purpose was/is Mary.

 

[Grip Docility]

She was only a vessel to bring the Son into the world, hence a surrogate. She agreed to the childbirth from another.

So, our Lord, God and Savior, The Precious Incarnation, Who is the Fullness of the Godhead bodily and the WORD/Logos (God) become Flesh, is no more than a test tube child?

Please rethink this.

 

[Grip Docility]

Untrue.

Scripture is clear, she had to agree to the childbirth from another first instead of her husband she was pledged to, hence a surrogate.

Either Jesus is God or isn't. If you state that Jesus, God the Son, the Son of God, the Fulness of the Godhead bodily was not born God incarnate, through the literal bloodline of Mary, then you are unknowingly stating that the Old Covenant still has Power over us and the New Covenant is not instituted.

Hebrews 2:14 and all of Hebrews 9

God the Son, the fulness of the Godhead, as is His Father and Their Holy Spirt the fulness of the Godhead, became flesh.

Jesus is not "a god". Jesus is not "a lesser aspect of God". Jesus was born "Immanuel, which means God with us".

The Son of Man (Mary is His full blown biological mother)
The Son of God (God the Father, through the work of the Holy Spirit, is His full blown Spiritual Father)

 

[Grip Docility]

The body was the sin offering to The Father, then glorified as our bodies shall be.

"The Body"?

You mean the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON of God, God the Son, don't you?

 

[Grip Docility]

The Father is God
The Son is God
The Holy Spirit is God

The Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit
The Son is not the Father or the Holy Spirit
The Holy Spirit is not the Father or the Son.

True

Since the Father and the Holy Spirit are not the Son, and Mary only gave birth to Jesus, the Theotokos doctrine falls apart.

God the Son. Immanuel. This isn't saying that God was pre-dated by Mary, nor that Mary is Deity. It's saying that Mary Gave birth to God the Son, the only Begotten Son of God, God with us, the Fulness of the Godhead Bodily. To say that "Theotokos" is false is to say that the Incarnation is not God.

Jesus is or is not God.

Mary gave birth to God, or she gave birth to not God. It's binary. There is no in-between.

Paganism worships a goddess, so pointing the finger with three fingers pointing back just is what it is.

God is utterly ONE. You can't divide the Substance of the Trinity! God isn't 3 Gods. God the Son is literally written to be the "Fulness of the Godhead, Bodily". He is the Logos become FLESH.

 

[d taylor]

You are asking for sacred things that are not discussed to be discussed. Is it not enough to understand that God tended the very bloodline of His Incarnation from Eve to Mary? God literally smited Onan for spilling the Divine bloodline. Onan didn't want to father the child of his brother, who God had also smited for being evil. By Hebrew right, if a brother dies, the of age brother of that man would marry his brother's widow to perpetuate the name of their brother. Their first born male son would be given of the dead brother's namesake. Onan didn't want this, so he interrupted the act of conception by removing himself from Tamar. God smited him for this, because Onan was spilling the seed of the Divine bloodline which God the Son would become flesh through.

This should answer your question without having to discuss sacred things which need not be discussed.

-
​

Why are you giving you opinion to a question I asked another poster. I am looking for his reply.

 

[Grip Docility]

Her role was just a surrogate from the family of David the king through Nathan. She is truly blessed amongst women, but she is not deity.

Nobody here, and I mean nobody here says that Mary is Deity. This is gross misrepresentation of siblings in Jesus that is rooted in the Protest against the Mother Church. Just because the Protest happened, doesn't mean that the truth about The Living Truth should be scrapped.

"Surrogate"..... No

Biological Mother..... Yes

Why is the Old Testament full of lineage and the book of Luke clear about Mary being the Blood lineage of David and Eve?

 

[Grip Docility]

-
​

Why are you giving you opinion to a question I asked another poster. I am looking for his reply.

Because it's not necessary to specify sacred things of this nature. The word's Biological Mother of God the Son, the Son of God Who is the Fulness of the Godhead bodily should answer your question.

Bloodline of Jesus Christ denotes Biological matter. Do we really have to spell out what is obvious? This is a sacred matter. Saying Biological Mother denotes the obvious.

 

[David Lamb]

The Bible includes a letter known as "Romans," directed to the Christians in Rome, which clearly indicates that the Roman church was established in the first century. It is futile to consider your claim when the most evident proof is within the Bible itself, the very text that Protestants regard as the sole infallible authority of faith.

I think it is a great stretch to suggest that because there was a local church in Rome, and the New Testament includes Paul's letter to that local church, somehow proves that the Roman Catholic denomination was established in the first century. We don't read anywhere in the bible that the local church at Rome had any authority over any other local church, or that its pastor was some kind of proto-pope.