This is the answer. /thread
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Mary as "Mother of God", Accurate or Borderline Blasphemy?
- Thread starter Many Sages One Truth
- Start date
This is the answer. /thread
GabrielWithoutWings
Well-Known Member
GabrielWithoutWings
Well-Known Member
??
What does being or not being an adherent have to do with my understanding theology?
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
I'm not convinced anyone knows. That's why it's a mystery. We can't fully divine in what way they are distinct, yet one.
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
Do you believe Jesus' followers in the latter part of the first century prayed to Mary (or through Mary)? Can you offer any evidence whatsoever that this was the case?
Historically, there weren't even any vague traces of the Hail Mary until the 6th century at the earliest, and even the Catholic Encyclopedia admits that "these examples do not warrant the conclusion that the Hail Mary was used as a specific formula of Christian devotion. It states that "there is little or no trace of the Hail Mary as an accepted devotional formula before about 1050."
That alone should give anyone who believes that Christ wanted us to direct any kind of prayers at all to or through His mother. Don't get me wrong; I have the utmost respect, admiration and gratitude to Mary. I just don't believe she is any more capable of answering our prayers (or even channeling them to God) than any other person who has ever lived. And neither did any of the earliest Christians.
Last edited:
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
It just seemed like you were arguing for the Catholic position. If that's your position, too, then it's a different matter.
GabrielWithoutWings
Well-Known Member
We're not arguing from historical records. The OP asked us what our personal opinion was. Off the top of my head, no. The Infancy Gospels were written in the mid 2nd century if I remember correctly.
Doesn't matter, though. I don't seem to remember any tritheistic views before the mid 1800s but that doesn't invalidate them automatically.
I'm simply saying that were I to assume a theistic religious view with a Christian theme, I'd probably view Mary as a goddess since she pretty much is already (in office, not essence).
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
What? I don't understand what you're getting at. Could you please explain?
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
I have a question for Many Sages One Truth, Mister Emu, and The Sum of Awe. All three of you voted for "God in entirety." Could you elaborate on that selection please. If Mary was the mother of God in entirety, who was the Father of God in entirety? Wouldn't that make God His own Father and His own Son?
GabrielWithoutWings
Well-Known Member
I'm making a historical comparison based upon Mormon tritheistic theology.
Many Sages One Truth
Active Member
No because the way I see it the Father and the Son are just titles of particular roles that God exists in. Father is God as the force, the entirity, the thing within all things, while the Son is an expression of the personal side of that force, so it's actually all one force, so I don't really think much of a separation exists between the archetypes of the Trinity.
Also: There are icons of Mary and catacomb drawings of Mary from the late first century, with prayers to her carved around the wall paintings.
I chose it in the understanding the Jesus has the fullness of divinity.
Quiddity
UndertheInfluenceofGiants
A.D. 431 Council of Ephesus - the Catholic Church dealt with this heresy. Nestorian denied that Mary was the Mother of God, because God had no mother. This comes from a misunderstanig of the Godhead which the Church was fighting for the first hundred years
...and then repeated:
468 After the Council of Chalcedon, some made of Christ's human nature a kind of personal subject. Against them, the fifth ecumenical council, at Constantinople in 553, confessed that "there is but one hypostasis [or person], which is our Lord Jesus Christ, one of the Trinity." Thus everything in Christ's human nature is to be attributed to his divine person as its proper subject, not only his miracles but also his sufferings and even his death: "He who was crucified in the flesh, our Lord Jesus Christ, is true God, Lord of glory, and one of the Holy Trinity."
Such objections are not new to us.
Honestly Katz, we aren't going to agree on this without first understanding that we don't see the Godhead (or in your case Gods) the same.
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
My question was to those who said that Mary was the mother of "God in entirety," and not to those who see Mary as the Mother of "God the Son." But since I see that you voted "Other," would you mind explaining your own belief.
Last edited:
Quiddity
UndertheInfluenceofGiants
If I thought it was going to lead somewhere fruitful, I would. I don't say that to be offensive or because I don't think conversation with you goes anywhere, but because I know Mormons' seek clarification on the Trinity all the time and if we can't break it down to the atomic level; we simply won't get anywhere. You are fully aware that we can only explain it so far and it's a mystery of our faith. I'm sure you may find it convenient that the one major thing we disagree on seems to be the one we can't completely articulate. Funny thing isn't it?
I voted "other" because I felt they needed clarification. God in entirety - what does that even mean?
The Word became flesh and dwelt among us.
Jesus was in the world, but the world knew him not.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You can quote John 1:1 and say "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
Saying that Mary is simply the mother of God, possibly can be omitting something that is very important to us Christians.
Jesus was a flesh and blood human being too. One so happy to be born, he lept for joy in his mother's womb.
He could not wait to go into the world to start evangelizing. He did not have tyrannical intentions.
No.
He demonstrated his desire to save people from that which is soon to come.
.
.
.
Jesus was in the world, but the world knew him not.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You can quote John 1:1 and say "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
Saying that Mary is simply the mother of God, possibly can be omitting something that is very important to us Christians.
Jesus was a flesh and blood human being too. One so happy to be born, he lept for joy in his mother's womb.
He could not wait to go into the world to start evangelizing. He did not have tyrannical intentions.
No.
He demonstrated his desire to save people from that which is soon to come.
.
.
.
Last edited:
F0uad
Well-Known Member
Some evidence that he did say those words?
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Muffled
Jesus in me
I spoke those words. It is not evident to you because you do not know me.