Role of Mary

artofwar said:

so why is Mary seem to be exalted above every other and Joseph isnt? i see no prayers to joseph and doesnt the Catholic church deem Men above women ? then why is Mary above Joseph?

Click to expand...

And I'd also ask, why does Mary seem to get more attention than Jesus? At least it seems that way to me.

Lynn73 said:

And I'd also ask, why does Mary seem to get more attention than Jesus? At least it seems that way to me.

Click to expand...

Honestly I believe that's only a presumption. I am an ex-catholic and in my experience's within the church nowhere did I ever get the sense that Mary was exalted above Jesus or was given more attention then Him.

neph!!!!!! i didn't know you used to be Catholic!!!

nephilimiyr said:

Honestly I believe that's only a presumption. I am an ex-catholic and in my experience's within the church nowhere did I ever get the sense that Mary was exalted above Jesus or was given more attention then Him.

Click to expand...

Thanks!

kimber1 said:

neph!!!!!! i didn't know you used to be Catholic!!!

Click to expand...

Yep, I'm even confirmed!!! surprise, surprise, surprise

I must say I didn't really leave the church for any major theological difference's but because I wanted more "fire and brimestone" being thrown my way. I wanted more excitement in the worship service etc., etc.

Of coarse if I can't resolve this little difference I'm haveing now with the members here maybe I do have some major difference's??? I don't really think so though because like I said, to me it's only a phraseology problem I have.

GO MATT KENSETH GO!!!!!!!


LOL!

I believe she is both. Although she was a mere woman, God decided to use her to be the mother of the Messiah. What an incredible blessing!

nephilimiyr said:

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.

Click to expand...

Our human nature is what makes us human, our mind, our attitude, our human instincts, attributes and intellect. This is separate to the mere flesh. Without this, as Saint Augustine says: the Lord would have taken "an animal with the form of a human body"

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.

Click to expand...

No mother gives a child its soul, but she is still her child's mother.

Mary gave Jesus not only his body, but his Human Nature, which was then eternally united with His divine nature. There is therefore only one Jesus. Arguing that Mary is mother only of part of Jesus is arguing that there are two persons to Jesus - which is the Nestorian heresy.

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.

Click to expand...

No-one denies this. God the Word pre-existed Mary. Your DNA pre-existed your parents. However at the Incarnation, God the Word became man. He didn't pretend to be a man, or briefly occupy a man's body. He became a real man by being born a human, and uniting Himself permanently with humanity as a true son of Mary and descendant of David.
As God the Son, fully human and fully Divine, He is the Son of Mary, and Mary is Mother of God the Son.

Axion said:

Our human nature is what makes us human, our mind, our attitude, our human instincts, attributes and intellect. This is separate to the mere flesh. Without this, as Saint Augustine says: the Lord would have taken "an animal with the form of a human body"

Click to expand...

What you discribe is what makes up our soul and spirit and in which brings us back to saying what you mean about "human nature" is more a concept than anything else.

What is the evidence of our soul and spirit? Isn't it our intellect and our instincts? What I see you saying is that our human nature is the same as our soul and spirit and I have already said that these things can only be given by God. Mary as well as all our mothers helps form our personality to a certain degree and if you want to quantify personality as being human nature I would've agreed with that, to a certain extent, but our personalities aren't shaped by only our mothers but our fathers, brothers and sisters as well as all of our enviroment including neighbors and so forth.

I'm sorry but I'm still haveing problems understanding what your trying to say. I don't mean to dismiss the rest of your post but I have to go for now! Sorry...

nephilimiyr said:

Yep, I'm even confirmed!!! surprise, surprise, surprise

I must say I didn't really leave the church for any major theological difference's but because I wanted more "fire and brimestone" being thrown my way. I wanted more excitement in the worship service etc., etc.

Of coarse if I can't resolve this little difference I'm haveing now with the members here maybe I do have some major difference's??? I don't really think so though because like I said, to me it's only a phraseology problem I have.

GO MATT KENSETH GO!!!!!!!


LOL!

Click to expand...

WOW!!
you remember i used to be Baptist when we first started tlaking in the good ol nascar thread?
okay i won't derail the thread any further, carry on y'all!! and neph anytime you want to tlak about those phraseology probs you know where to find me
GO JR GO!!!!

kimber1 said:

WOW!!
you remember i used to be Baptist when we first started tlaking in the good ol nascar thread?
okay i won't derail the thread any further, carry on y'all!! and neph anytime you want to tlak about those phraseology probs you know where to find me
GO JR GO!!!!

Click to expand...

LOL!

I don't think you can ever lose that loveable charm you have! I pray you don't

Oh and actually I have faith in my fellow members to help me understand even though I'm at the point of still being confused...
Nothing keeping you from joining in the conversation you know

aww! nevah!!

i'm playing catch up. y'all go around me and i'll chime in soon

nephilimiyr said:

What is the evidence of our soul and spirit? Isn't it our intellect and our instincts? What I see you saying is that our human nature is the same as our soul and spirit and I have already said that these things can only be given by God.

Click to expand...

No. Our human Nature, our intellect, and our soul are not the same. This is getting highly theological, but the Soul is from God, but other facets of our nature are passed down through the human line from Adam and Eve. These include our mind, intelligence, instincts which act on the Soul. Our human nature is what makes us human and gives us a capacity to reason.

The human nature was so defined by the early Christian Church in the great councils on the Nature of Christ and of the Incarnation which all Christians must accept.

Mary as well as all our mothers helps form our personality to a certain degree and if you want to quantify personality as being human nature I would've agreed with that, to a certain extent, but our personalities aren't shaped by only our mothers but our fathers, brothers and sisters as well as all of our enviroment including neighbors and so forth.

Click to expand...

I think you are confusing what affects us after our conception and birth, with what is innate within us, and inherited from our parents.

I'm sorry but I'm still haveing problems understanding what your trying to say. I don't mean to dismiss the rest of your post but I have to go for now! Sorry...

Click to expand...

What I am trying to say is

Jesus did not just inherit a shell of flesh from Mary as you seem to suppose.

He inherited the essence of what it is to be human, human attributes, instincts, thoughts and a rational mind. He inherited the descent from a human line, his humanity, Jewishness, and descent from David.

All of this was eternally united with His Divine Nature to produce one person with 100% human qualities and 100% Divine qualities. This is the INCARNATION, and is the essence of Christianity.

So Jesus is fully the Son of Mary - ALL of Him, because he cannot be re-divided into two again.

So to deny that Mary is Mother of God the Son is to deny the Incarnation.

Axion said:

No. Our human Nature, our intellect, and our soul are not the same. This is getting highly theological, but the Soul is from God, but other facets of our nature are passed down through the human line from Adam and Eve. These include our mind, intelligence, instincts which act on the Soul. Our human nature is what makes us human and gives us a capacity to reason.

The human nature was so defined by the early Christian Church in the great councils on the Nature of Christ and of the Incarnation which all Christians must accept.

Click to expand...

All christians must accept this? Does this mean that if I don't accept the churches understanding of the human nature I will burn in hell? Man I sure hope not and I pray to Jesus the Christ that he doesn't let the church do this to me because I can't accept this. I really see no need for me to continue with this discussion because all that has been said we still don't see eye to eye.

I think you are confusing what affects us after our conception and birth, with what is innate within us, and inherited from our parents.

Click to expand...

That part of us that is innate within us is our soul and spirit...not human nature. Human nature to me is discribing the nature of the soul and spirit which makes it the same thing.

Jesus did not just inherit a shell of flesh from Mary as you seem to suppose.

Click to expand...

I believe that's exactly what he did. Jesus recieve his body through the genes of his mother Mary but that's all he recieved from her. He didn't recieve a soul or a spirit from her. That would be totally impossible because his soul and spirit already existed and has always existed. Jesus didn't need any help from a human mother to give him his intellect because he already and always had it. Jesus didn't need to recieve from a human mother his insticnt becauses he already had it and always did have it. Jesus didn't need any help from a human mother to recieve his ability to reason because he already had it like he always had it.

To me "human nature" is nothing but a concept of man to explain the attributes of the soul and spirit. That doesn't mean that the human nature is all of a sudden a new thing, a new attribute. it's just a way for man to explain things.

He inherited the essence of what it is to be human, human attributes, instincts, thoughts and a rational mind. He inherited the descent from a human line, his humanity, Jewishness, and descent from David.

Click to expand...

So what your saying is that God never would've known what it is to be human unless he became one himself? Isn't that calling God dumm? By how I see you stating this your saying if God didn't become human he wouldn't have ever experienced to idea of being rational, of haveing a rational mind.

All of this was eternally united with His Divine Nature to produce one person with 100% human qualities and 100% Divine qualities. This is the INCARNATION, and is the essence of Christianity.

Click to expand...

Yes the incarnation, body, soul, and spirit. That's how I understand it.

So Jesus is fully the Son of Mary - ALL of Him, because he cannot be re-divided into two again.


So to deny that Mary is Mother of God the Son is to deny the Incarnation.

Click to expand...

In my Webster's New World Dictionary there are many definitions to the word mother, one of which is; That which gives birth to something, is the origin or source of something. Now with that I will say Mary was the source of jesus's body but was not the source or the origin of his soul and spirit.

Yes the incarnation, body, soul, and spirit. That's how I understand it.

Click to expand...

This is however, incorrect. The root of Incarnation is the word carnal, or of flesh. Incarnation is literally the taking on of flesh.

In my Webster's New World Dictionary there are many definitions to the word mother, one of which is; That which gives birth to something, is the origin or source of something. Now with that I will say Mary was the source of jesus's body but was not the source or the origin of his soul and spirit.

Click to expand...

But you are picking and choosing definitions to find one that offends your Protestant sensibilities. If the Christological/Theological usage of the the phrase Mother of God confuses you or leads you to false assumptions, I suggest that the precise term Theotokos might be more appropriate in your case.

Wow. This is certainly an interesting discussion. In another thread recently, someone tried to assert how hypothetical syllogism proves that mary is the mother of God. I think, however that it does not show this based on the following:

The person used the following equations to prove this:

J->(M^G)......Premise 1
Ma->(J)........Premise 2
Ma->(M^G)...Premise 1 + Premise 2, hypothetical syllogism

J=Jesus
M=Man
G=God
Ma=Mary

The first point that needs to be made is that as this person indicated, the correct and Scriptural logic that can be seen using hypothetical syllogism is Ma->(M^G). The second thing to notice is that Ma->(M^G) is not the same as Ma->(G). These are not equal statements.

For example, you cannot take 6=(4+2) and then say 6=2. In order for the statement to be true, both elements within the parenthesis must be reflected or the statement becomes false.

Although they correctly states the logic behind Jesus' relationship to mary in the above equations, there are only 3 ways in which this conclusion could be true:

1. J->(G)
2. J->(G)->(M)
3. J->(M)->(G)

The first option is clearly incorrect because Jesus is both fully God and fully man. The second and third options are not possible either, because Jesus was both God and man in one person, these two aspects of His being resided together since His incarnation and cannot be separated one from the other.

While I do not think it is accurate on its face, calling mary the mother of God is not a big concern of mine especially since the main purpose of this title was to be a descriptor of Jesus' personage and not Mary's. The only problem I have is that although the phrase "mother of God" was primarily Christological, IMO it is used primarily to elevate Mary and attribute divinity to her (i.e. being somehow the wife of God, playing a role in our salvation...).

I think my position would be that Jesus received His humanity from Mary, but I have to admit that nephilimiyr has given me much to consider here. Also, somone else brought up how Jesus is referred to in genesis as the woman's seed; well, women don't have seed. The woman provides the egg and the man provides the seed. I guess this could indicate that there were elements to Jesus' humanity that was provided by God.

Further, if all of Jesus' humanity is provided by Mary, then how was He born without sin? It is certainly possible for God to do anything, but I could see how this position poses a problem in that area. I guess this is why people insist that Mary was without original sin or did not commit any sin ever?

All of this has caused me to look up the word humanity, which means "The quality of being human; the peculiar nature of man, by which he is distinguished from other beings."

Do not we in fact inherit our nature from our parents, even though the originator of the human nature was God when He breathed into Adam and made him a living soul? As such, how can we say that Jesus did not inherit His nature from Mary? Yet, does Jesus without sin and being referred to as the "seed" of the woman indicate that He also received elements of His humanity from God the Father, who is the Creator of the human nature?

I dunno (I know, BIG help!).

Would you consider it an accurate statement to say that Scripture indicates that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Ghost and Mary, but that it does not say how exactly? That is the most I could say on the subject without feeling as if I am adding more to this event than what is revealed.

nephilimiyr said:

All christians must accept this? Does this mean that if I don't accept the churches understanding of the human nature I will burn in hell? Man I sure hope not and I pray to Jesus the Christ that he doesn't let the church do this to me because I can't accept this. I really see no need for me to continue with this discussion because all that has been said we still don't see eye to eye.

Click to expand...

In order to be regarded as a Christian in any mainstream Church, you MUST accept the Creeds and the Incarnation. If one cannot accept these things, one goes outside the bounds of being a Trinitarian Christian. You can't just make up your own religion.

That part of us that is innate within us is our soul and spirit...not human nature. Human nature to me is discribing the nature of the soul and spirit which makes it the same thing.

Click to expand...

What it is to YOU is not important. How it is defined by the Christian Churches is what is important here. [/quote]

I believe that's exactly what he did. Jesus recieve his body through the genes of his mother Mary but that's all he recieved from her. He didn't recieve a soul or a spirit from her. That would be totally impossible because his soul and spirit already existed and has always existed. Jesus didn't need any help from a human mother to give him his intellect because he already and always had it. Jesus didn't need to recieve from a human mother his insticnt becauses he already had it and always did have it. Jesus didn't need any help from a human mother to recieve his ability to reason because he already had it like he always had it.

Click to expand...

Well. This is denying the Incarnation. Since you are saying that Jesus only received a body from Mary, and not His full humanity, This is the Gnostic heresy of Docetism. I would advise you to study the matter more deeply with an experienced Christian advisor from a Mainstream Church.

So what your saying is that God never would've known what it is to be human unless he became one himself? Isn't that calling God dumm? By how I see you stating this your saying if God didn't become human he wouldn't have ever experienced to idea of being rational, of haveing a rational mind.

Click to expand...

God has a rational mind vastly superior to the human mind. However he took on a human nature and rationale which were united with His divine bature. he didn't do this for new experiences, but in order that He as a man might atone for the sins of men.

In my Webster's New World Dictionary there are many definitions to the word mother, one of which is; That which gives birth to something, is the origin or source of something. Now with that I will say Mary was the source of jesus's body but was not the source or the origin of his soul and spirit.

Click to expand...

Mary is the source of Jesus's body and Human nature. She is not the source of His divine nature. However she is mother of the whole person of Jesus. just as your mother may not be the source of all your traits but she is still the mother of all of you.

Let me give an example of what axion is talking about when he says that your mother is still your mother, even though she's not the source of all of your traits.

I have a stocky build, very dark blond hair, green eyes, a wide nose, and a jaw that's somewhere between square and pointed. My mother has very dark blond hair, blue eyes, a slighter build, a smaller nose and a more pointed jawline. Where did I get the traits that I don't share with my mother? From my father, of course. However, this doesn't lessen the fact that I'm my mother's son and that she's the mother of those parts of me that didn't come from her. For this reason, she's the mother of Josh, even though Josh is also the son of his father.

In the same way, the Virgin is the source of all that Christ shares in common with the rest of humanity (ie. a physical body, a human mind, a human will, et cetera) and the Father, as the Source of all things, is the Source of Christ's Divinity. However, the Virgin is the Mother of the whole Person of the Incarnate Christ, even of those parts of His Person that did not come from her. For that reason, she is the Mother of God.

And you said you have trouble with the actual phrase "Mother of God" and have less trouble with "God-Bearer"? Well, the actual term that was used in the Council of Chalcedon was Theotokos , a very specific Greek term that's rather difficult to translate (just like most Greek terms are), but that carries both the meanings of "Mother" and "Bearer" of God. That's why almost all English-speaking Orthodox Christians prefer to use the more exact term of Theotokos rather than Mother of God or God-Bearer.

However, on icons of the Theotokos, she is called Mater Theou , or literally, "Mother of God", so it's not an uncommon title for her. It's just less exact than Theotokos.

I feel like I'm missing something. It's probably the fatigue caused by mindless bank work that's doing thatt.

+IC XC NIKA+
Josh

Josh, thanks for explaining that so clearly. As an Anglican raised a Methodist, I have a discomfort with so much focus on Mary. She deserves honor (and the Catholics and Orthodox deserve our thanks for fulfilling the prophecy "All generations will call me blessed" when the rest of us were carefully avoiding unnecessary mention of her).

But I find no problem in saying "the Theotokos" of her, because of its Christological point (and it's worth remembering that the title was given her in answer to Nestorian cavils based on their false distinction between Christ's human and divine natures) -- and some of the fulsome titles extended her by Catholicism and to a lesser extent Orthodoxy tend to make the residue of my Protestant upbringing uneasy. In particular "Big Al" Liguori's prayer that gets quoted by anti-Marian folks regularly seems like it's mistaking the bearer for the One Borne (and Born) by her. And any Catholic or Orthodox will tell you that Marian devotion is appropriate only insofar as it points to Christ -- what she did to enable Him to bring about our salvation.