Role of Mary

kimber1 · Aug 18, 2004

*MOD HAT ON
okay folks, now that a cooling down period has gone by, do we all think we can post with grace and charity towards one another despite the differences in our beliefs?
*MOD HAT OFF

RonBa · Aug 19, 2004

Orthodoxyusa said:
She died, and ascended into heaven on the 3rd day.... That's the Orthodox teaching, I'm sure the Catholics agree...

Forgive me...

Where would you find that in Scripture?

nephilimiyr · Aug 19, 2004

Jay2004 said:
I am keeping this poll as simple as possible.
What is your view on Mary and her role..

In the simple way you stated your first option I couldn't vote for it. God couldn't have had a mother because he is deity which means he is independent, self-existent, all-powerful, omniscient, and the source of everything that exists. To say God had a mother is to say he is not self-existent but implies derived existence which would make him fall from being deity.

I took a chance at voteing for your simple second option but feel the need to say that to call Mary a "mere woman" I believe doesn't pay her the proper respect we all should give her.

RonBa · Aug 19, 2004

nephilimiyr said:
In the simple way you stated your first option I couldn't vote for it. God couldn't have had a mother because he is deity which means he is independent, self-existent, all-powerful, omniscient, and the source of everything that exists. To say God had a mother is to say he is not self-existent but implies derived existence which would make him fall from being deity.

I took a chance at voteing for your simple second option but feel the need to say that to call Mary a "mere woman" I believe doesn't pay her the proper respect we all should give her.

I can agree with the first part of your answer and even the second has some merit in it.

Oblio · Aug 19, 2004

God couldn't have had a mother because he is deity which means he is independent, self-existent, all-powerful, omniscient, and the source of everything that exists. To say God had a mother is to say he is not self-existent but implies derived existence which would make him fall from being deity.

Mothers do not create their children. (c.f. Scripture)

Was Jesus God, and did Mary the Theotokos give birth to him, did she nurse him ? Or was his unseperable Divine nature set aside during all these acts of motherhood ? Was Jesus only a man when he was born and nursed ?

Axion · Aug 19, 2004

Lollard said:
Congratulations, you are the very first person in all these forums, I have decided to put on ignore. Even though I would not choose RonBa to speak for me as a non-Catholic, you certainly don't have the right. If a non-catholic were to portray you in a like manner you would have a fit. I am highly offended by your post, and I never wish to read anything else you write. That is pretty sad.

Strange that you didn't take exception to the post I was replying to that claimed that Protestants relied on the pure word of God for their teachings, and Catholics just followed a bunch of invented traditions.

I think that reveals your bias.

nephilimiyr · Aug 19, 2004

Oblio said:
Mothers do not create their children. (c.f. Scripture)

That is not what I said. When it comes to our physical bodies, mothers certainly do play a major role in our derived existence.

We all are made up of three things and that is Body, soul, and spirit. Mothers and fathers by the act of sex do create the body but God creates the soul and spirit. In Mary's case she did not create Jesus's soul or spirit because He is the I AM but she did help create his body but to make the general statement that she is the mother of God implies to me that she played apart in both his body, spirit, and soul. Was Mary the mother of Jesus the Christ, yes she was but she is not the mother of God. Again to say she is the mother of God tells me that God is not deity.

InnerPhyre · Aug 19, 2004

Mary is both woman and mother of God. The answer is both.

Oblio · Aug 19, 2004

Mothers and fathers by the act of sex do create the body but God creates the soul and spirit.

Who knit you in your mothers womb ?

Was Mary the mother of Jesus the Christ, yes she was but she is not the mother of God.

So you are separating Jesus the man from Jesus who is God.

Do you believe that Jesus was 100% God and 100% man from the moment of His conception of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary ?

Mothers give birth to persons, not natures. If she did not give birth to God the Word then our salvation is hopeless.

Hitokiri Shadow · Aug 19, 2004

... Only two choices? That's an over-simplification. I guess I'll have to go with Mother of God, even though she was also a mere woman.

ExOrienteLux · Aug 19, 2004

nephilimiyr said:
That is not what I said. When it comes to our physical bodies, mothers certainly do play a major role in our derived existence.

We all are made up of three things and that is Body, soul, and spirit. Mothers and fathers by the act of sex do create the body but God creates the soul and spirit. In Mary's case she did not create Jesus's soul or spirit because He is the I AM but she did help create his body but to make the general statement that she is the mother of God implies to me that she played apart in both his body, spirit, and soul. Was Mary the mother of Jesus the Christ, yes she was but she is not the mother of God. Again to say she is the mother of God tells me that God is not deity.

Calling the Blessed Virgin Theotokos or God-Bearer/Mother of God doesn't lessen the Deity of Christ. It strengthens His Incarnation by saying that from His very conception, Christ's Divinity and Humanity shared in everything, from growing in the womb, to the act of birth, to the nourishment at His Mother's breast, so on and so forth.

If Christ as God did not undergo everything that we undergo, He did not fully save us.

Since our mothers don't have a part in creating our soul or spirit, I guess that means we can't really call them our mothers, can we? That's what it seems like according to your logic.

+IC XC NIKA+
Josh.

RonBa · Aug 19, 2004

Mary was the mother of the baby that was born, we know that baby to be Jesus Christ.

She was the mother of the human form that grew into manhood.

Mary was not the mother of His divine nature that Jesus did not use on this earth.

His divine nature was never killed, yet Jesus died for each one of us.

No one can kill God, Mary was never the mother of that.

Axion · Aug 19, 2004

nephilimiyr said:
That is not what I said. When it comes to our physical bodies, mothers certainly do play a major role in our derived existence.

We all are made up of three things and that is Body, soul, and spirit. Mothers and fathers by the act of sex do create the body but God creates the soul and spirit. In Mary's case she did not create Jesus's soul or spirit because He is the I AM but she did help create his body but to make the general statement that she is the mother of God implies to me that she played apart in both his body, spirit, and soul.

Mary provided more tha just a body for Jesus. If she had just provided a body then Jesus would not have been fully human. He would have just been diety inhabiting a "shell" of human flesh. And that is a form of the Gnostic Apollinarian Heresy.

In fact Jesus took his human flesh and also his human nature from Mary. These were hypostatically and eternally combined with His divine nature as God the Word, producing the One Person, God the Son, Jesus Christ. Son of God, and Son of Mary.

Was Mary the mother of Jesus the Christ, yes she was but she is not the mother of God. Again to say she is the mother of God tells me that God is not deity.

You are trying to divide Jesus into two persons, one whose mother is Mary, another whose mother is not Mary. This is another ancient heresy, the Nestorian heresy, condemned by the united early church. Jesus Christ is God the Son. Mary is therefore truly mother of God the Son.

Axion · Aug 19, 2004

RonBa said:
Mary was the mother of the baby that was born, we know that baby to be Jesus Christ.

She was the mother of the human form that grew into manhood.

"Human form?" Do you not believe Christ was truly human?

Mary was not the mother of His divine nature that Jesus did not use on this earth.

No one is the mother of a "nature". Mary is the mother of Jesus's whole person, which includes His united human and divine natures.

His divine nature was never killed, yet Jesus died for each one of us.

No one can kill God, Mary was never the mother of that.

These are the exact same arguments used by Nestorius, inventor of the Nestorian Heresy.

There are NOT two Jesus's, one who died and one who didn't! There is one Jesus, fully man and fully God who died to save all men. If this were not so, how could his death save us?

The death of a man could not save the world.
The death of God could not atone for the sins of men.

Only the death of a true man could atone for the sins of men, only the death of a man who was also God would be enough to pay the price for the sins of all men.

Oblio · Aug 19, 2004

His divine nature was never killed, yet Jesus died for each one of us.

katherine2001 · Aug 19, 2004

RonBa, how is a mother only mother to part of a child? She is mother to all of her child, even the parts of Him that came from His father. No parent is parent to only the parts of the child that came from him/her--a parent is parent to all that their child is. No mother creates her child, only God can do that.

As Axion said, Mary provided more than just His flesh--she provided His human nature as well, which Christ still has--His human nature wasn't killed either. Jesus had a human nature and a human will, as well as a divine nature and a divine will. They are distinct, but they cannot be separated. Therefore, Mary is the mother to all of Christ, and God is the father to all of Christ.

Also, are you sure that Jesus didn't use His divine nature on this earth? How about when He healed people, cast out demons, forgave sins, and turned water into wine?

nephilimiyr · Aug 19, 2004

Oblio said:
Who knit you in your mothers womb ?

That all depends on what part of me are you talking about. It was my mother and fathers genes that gave me this body but it was God who gave me soul and spirit. The Father and Mother play no part in our soul and spirit.

So you are separating Jesus the man from Jesus who is God.

Your clever but in away I am but not on how you imply that I am. Let me put it in another way, Mary was the Mother of Jesus's body but she was not the mother of Jesus's soul and spirit. She is no more the mother of Jesus's soul and spirit as my mother and your mother is the mother of our soul and spirit. In my humble opinion to say she is the mother of God is saying she is the mother of all three aspects of Jesus's being and in that way it makes Jesus not deity but divinity which means he had derived existence.

Do you believe that Jesus was 100% God and 100% man from the moment of His conception of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary ?

It all depends on how you want the word "man" to mean. I believe Jesus was 100% human and 100% deity at the time of his conception...to a virgin mother

Mothers give birth to persons, not natures. If she did not give birth to God the Word then our salvation is hopeless.

Well if you want to look at it that way I can see what your saying but in the way I look at it and the way I believe I should continue to look at it is, again, saying Mary is the mother of God is saying Jesus's soul and spirit did not exist before his conception which makes him not deity.

nephilimiyr · Aug 19, 2004

katherine2001 said:
RonBa, how is a mother only mother to part of a child? She is mother to all of her child, even the parts of Him that came from His father. No parent is parent to only the parts of the child that came from him/her--a parent is parent to all that their child is. No mother creates her child, only God can do that.

So what your saying is that your soul and spirit didn't come from God but your parents? I'm sorry but I totally disagree with this theology.

nephilimiyr · Aug 19, 2004

ExOrienteLux said:
Calling the Blessed Virgin Theotokos or God-Bearer/Mother of God doesn't lessen the Deity of Christ. It strengthens His Incarnation by saying that from His very conception, Christ's Divinity and Humanity shared in everything, from growing in the womb, to the act of birth, to the nourishment at His Mother's breast, so on and so forth.

The OP, because of it's over simplification, didn't express what your saying at all. If the OP question was about Mary being a "God bearer", a phrase I didn't see in the question, I would've voted for it.
However in the language that the OP used I felt I had no choice to either not vote at all or to take the chance at voteing that Mary was a mere woman even though like I had stated above, I believe Mary deserves more respect than calling her nothing but a "mere woman".

In that respect I hope you all realize that all I'm doing is disagreeing with the phraseology not the concept of Jesus being 100% man and 100% God.

nephilimiyr · Aug 19, 2004

Axion said:
Mary provided more tha just a body for Jesus. If she had just provided a body then Jesus would not have been fully human. He would have just been diety inhabiting a "shell" of human flesh. And that is a form of the Gnostic Apollinarian Heresy.

In fact Jesus took his human flesh and also his human nature from Mary. These were hypostatically and eternally combined with His divine nature as God the Word, producing the One Person, God the Son, Jesus Christ. Son of God, and Son of Mary.

I'm haveing a hard time understanding this. I see flesh and blood and human nature as being one and the same. I really wish you would clarify your comments for me.

Now if your going to quantify this "human nature" as being separate from our flesh and blood how do you see your own human nature as being original from your own parents? What is human nature? Is it a tangible thing, a spiritual thing, or a concept? If it's a spiritual thing wouldn't that fall under the spirit that God gives us? And if that's true wouldn't that bring us back to the idea that human nature is nothing but a concept?

I'm really just trying to understand you.

You are trying to divide Jesus into two persons, one whose mother is Mary, another whose mother is not Mary.

No I don't believe that I am. All I'm saying is that for all of us, including Jesus Christ, we are made up of three thing which is body, soul, and spirit. You and I have all three of these things but in no way does that make us three persons yet our mothers did not have anything to do with giving our soul and spirit life...only God can do that. Likewise when it comes to Mary and Jesus, Mary gave life to Jesus's body (which isn't deity but flesh and blood like the rest of us) but she did not give his body his soul and spirit because only God can do that and since Jesus was fully God then that means he pre-existed which means Mary could not have been the mother of God but only his body.

This is another ancient heresy, the Nestorian heresy, condemned by the united early church. Jesus Christ is God the Son. Mary is therefore truly mother of God the Son.

Yet when we read the opening passage in John we see that God the Son existed long before Mary ever did and in fact is the I AM.

Role of Mary

Role of Mary

She is the Mother of God

She was only a mere woman

mean people suck

Active Member

I've Been Keepin My Eyes Wide Open

Active Member

Creed or Chaos

Senior Veteran

I've Been Keepin My Eyes Wide Open

Well-Known Member

Creed or Chaos

Well-Known Member

The thread killer

Active Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Creed or Chaos

Veteran

I've Been Keepin My Eyes Wide Open

I've Been Keepin My Eyes Wide Open

I've Been Keepin My Eyes Wide Open

I've Been Keepin My Eyes Wide Open

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency