When I started my truck for work the other morning one of the stations that my sat radio goes over is Catholic radio. Anyhow while I was waiting for my sat radio to power up I was listening to one of the more famous Catholic prayers. Hail Mary full of grace etc. It got me to thinking, is this not praying to Mary? And if not then how do you justify this as not praying to Mary?

Prayer ? Where would you see a prayer, it is an intersession asking her to go to Jesus for us.
It is merely asking her to pray for us, just as you may ask members of your church to pray for you

So if that is a prayer to her, then you would be praying to members of your church when you ask them to pray for you for things also

Hail Mary,
Full of Grace,
The Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou among women,
And blessed is the fruit
Of thy womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary,
Mother of God,
Pray for us sinners now,
And at the hour of death.

Donn,

I am Catholic and for me, the Hail Mary is both a prayer that honors Mary and asks for Mary's assistance.

AS in:

Hail Mary full of Grace. The Lord is with Thee. Blessed art Thou among women. And Blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.

Holy Mary Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. Amen

Hail Mary,
Full of Grace,
The Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou among women,
And blessed is the fruit
Of thy womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary,

All of the above is in the Bible.


Mother of God

If she's the Mother of Jesus, and you believe that Jesus is one of the Persons of God, then Mary must be the Mother of God.

Pray for us sinners now,
And at the hour of death.

In the Bible we are encouraged to ask others to pray for us.

So the "Hail Mary" is basically from the Bible

Hail Mary,
Full of Grace,
The Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou among women,
And blessed is the fruit
Of thy womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary,

All of the above is in the Bible.

The last line is not.



Mother of God

If she's the Mother of Jesus, and you believe that Jesus is one of the Persons of God, then Mary must be the Mother of God.

Um, no. She's the mother of Jesus. Jesus was/is the human incarnation of the Son, one member of the triune godhead. "Mother of God" implies - nay, says - that she's the mother of the entire godhead. Unless you want to say that Jesus/the Son is the entirety of God, the logic doesn't track.


pray for us sinners now,
And at the hour of death.

In the Bible we are encouraged to ask others to pray for us.

So the "Hail Mary" is basically from the Bible

Except for the above caveat, I agree. That one part doesn't track for me, but the rest is quite biblical.

I am equating "full of grace" with "holy".

God is one in three persons:
God the Father,
God the Son and
God the Holy Spirit

I am equating "full of grace" with "holy".

Okay, thanks for the clarification.


God is one in three persons:
God the Father,
God the Son and
God the Holy Spirit

Agreed.

...

Um, no. She's the mother of Jesus.

Who happens to be God.


Jesus was/is the human incarnation of the Son, one member of the triune godhead. "Mother of God" implies - nay, says - that she's the mother of the entire godhead.

Unless you want to say that Jesus/the Son is the entirety of God, the logic doesn't track.

Except for the above caveat, I agree. That one part doesn't track for me, but the rest is quite biblical.

Here's the logic.

Jesus is God the Second Person of the Holy Trinity.
Mary is Jesus' mother.

Therefore Mary is the Mother of God the Second Person of the Holy Trinity.

I hope that helps.

Who happens to be God.



Here's the logic.

Jesus is God the Second Person of the Holy Trinity.
Mary is Jesus' mother.

Therefore Mary is the Mother of God the Second Person of the Holy Trinity.

I hope that helps.

I understand the logic. It's just faulty. Jesus is also fully man, therefore there is no reason for Mary to have to be mother of "God," she is simply mother of the human, the catalyst (so to speak) that brought about the hypostatic union. If Jesus were *only* God the Son and had no humanity, then your logic would track. But that's not the case, so it doesn't.

I understand the logic. It's just faulty. Jesus is also fully man, therefore there is no reason for Mary to have to be mother of "God," she is simply mother of the human, the catalyst (so to speak) that brought about the hypostatic union.

Where did the hypostatic union occur? Before or after Jesus came out of the womb?


If Jesus were *only* God the Son and had no humanity, then your logic would track. But that's not the case, so it doesn't.

Yes, it does. Did Jesus die on the Cross?

Because if Jesus died on the Cross and Jesus is God. Then it stands to reason that God died on the Cross.

And the same logic applies to His Birth. If Jesus is was born of Mary and Jesus is God, then God was born of Mary.

There you go.

Thus the impossible divide among those not Catholic, they will admit Jesus is God, and Mary is his mother, but it stops there.

Grew up catholic. Do not practice catholicism now. Am christian.

Christs teachings were about tearing down evil social constructs and seeking social justice.

When we have that cleared, then ill spend time on whether "holy mary" is blasphemous or honorary.

Where did the hypostatic union occur? Before or after Jesus came out of the womb?

To coin a phrase: Huh? I don't see what that question has to do with it.


Yes, it does. Did Jesus die on the Cross?

Because if Jesus died on the Cross and Jesus is God. Then it stands to reason that God died on the Cross.

And the same logic applies to His Birth. If Jesus is was born of Mary and Jesus is God, then God was born of Mary.

There you go.

Do you deny Jesus' humanity, then? Somehow I find it hard to believe that such a view accurately represents Catholic dogma.

Thus the impossible divide among those not Catholic, they will admit Jesus is God, and Mary is his mother, but it stops there.

Agreed. Though I think you meant "between Catholic and non-Catholic." Correct me if I'm mistaken.

To coin a phrase: Huh? I don't see what that question has to do with it.

That's why you don't understand the hypostasis. Jesus was God from the moment He was conceived. God went through the birth canal. God was born of Mary. God sat on Mary's lap. Mary held God in her arms and fed him at her breast. Mary is the Mother of God.


Do you deny Jesus' humanity, then?

The Title, Mother of God, was used to defend the true nature of Jesus, the God man from the Nestorian heresy.


Somehow I find it hard to believe that such a view accurately represents Catholic dogma.

Believe it.

Agreed. Though I think you meant "between Catholic and non-Catholic." Correct me if I'm mistaken.

The Orthodox and all the ancient Churches, the Copts and such, all believe that Mary is the Mother of God. It is the late coming Reformers who changed the Gospel of Jesus Christ thus fulfilling the prophecy:

Galatians 1:8
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

Because if Jesus died on the Cross and Jesus is God. Then it stands to reason that God died on the Cross.

And the same logic applies to His Birth. If Jesus is was born of Mary and Jesus is God, then God was born of Mary.

There you go.

Therefore, if God the Father is God, then Mary is the mother of her father.

There you go.

Therefore, if God the Father is God, then Mary is the mother of her father.

There you go.

On the contrary, Mary is the Mother of God the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, whose name is Jesus.

Dwash, I know well that the "logic" of the argument is "faulty" to some... but keep in mind that the "Catholic" and "Protestant" view of God as "One in Three Persons" is the same.

99% (loosely speaking) of Christians agree with the Doctrine of the Trinity.

Those who believe it should also agree that it is a "Mystery" that we cannot explain fully in human terms.

... But as far as the "bottom line" goes, we should be in agreement: God is One but/and in 3 "Persons":

The Father (God the Father)
The Son (God the Son), and
The Holy Spirit (God the Spirit).

"He came down from Heaven"

Do you deny Jesus' humanity, then?
The Title, Mother of God, was used to defend the true nature of Jesus, the God man from the Nestorian heresy.





Uh, sure, and Docetism is so much better, because that's what you sound like.

On the contrary, Mary is the Mother of God the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, whose name is Jesus.

Well, in that case, Jesus, who existed from all eternity, is older than his own mother.

dwash, I know well that the "logic" of the argument is "faulty" to some... but keep in mind that the "Catholic" and "Protestant" view of God as "One in Three Persons" is the same.

99% (loosely speaking) of Christians agree with the Doctrine of the Trinity.

Those who believe it should also agree that it is a "Mystery" that we cannot explain fully in human terms.

... But as far as the "bottom line" goes, we should be in agreement: God is One but/and in 3 "Persons":

The Father (God the Father)
The Son (God the Son), and
The Holy Spirit (God the Spirit).

"He came down from Heaven"

Rick,
I quite agree. As you say, it's a mystery and I don't pretend to understand it. But there it is, and I'm glad that our shared belief makes you and me brothers.

Those who believe it should also agree that it is a "Mystery" that we cannot explain fully in human terms.

Rick, I agree that's the basic point here. Many articles of faith cannot be explained in human terms. When some persist in trying to "prove" this or that belief, they invariably find themselves tied up in convoluted knots of logical fallacies.

450donn (you who asked the question): what is your thought at this point?

Well, in that case, Jesus, who existed from all eternity, is older than his own mother.

Quite astute deduction. Jesus, the 2nd Person of the Holy Trinity pre existed His Mother.

Motherhood doesn't mean creation of a child. A mother doesn't create any life in her womb. God creates the life and places it there. In Mary's case, God didn't put another life into her womb. He placed Himself in there.

Rick,
You asked so here goes.
Jesus was born a human from a human mother. Mary no more than a human being. Conceived, born lived and died here on the same earth we are walking on. She has no special place or bearing on the trinity. She was a vessel used to carry to term and raise to adulthood the person, Jesus of Nazareth. Who was nothing more than a Jewish carpenter until he went up on the mountain after being baptized in water by John at about age 30. Not until then did he start his ministry. Am I right or wrong so far? So while he was predestined to what happened in his life for the next three years, up until that point he still had free choice. Once he made that choice to follow the path set down for him by God at that point he was transfigured from fully man to fully God?
Sp bottom line, praying to or through Mary is In my opinion not biblical. In my mind it would be like praying to Micky Mantle that you would have an outstanding baseball career.

Rick, I agree that's the basic point here. Many articles of faith cannot be explained in human terms. When some persist in trying to "prove" this or that belief, they invariably find themselves tied up in convoluted knots of logical fallacies.

I don't find myself convoluted or knot-full. I don't 'prove' my beliefs, they have already been proven for some 2,000 years; I merely expose you to those proofs.

That Mary is the mother of God is quite simple logic – children understand it with ease. Christ means the “anointed” (Isaiah 9:6) and Jesus means “Jehovah is salvation” (Isaiah 7:14), put together we have 'the anointed who is God,” i.e. man and God. Even a child can see that Christ is One person with Two Natures. I think names identify the character – just a childish little diversion which you probably already knew.

But, adults put away childish things. So let's prove (without knotting) the hypostatic union of Jesus the man and Christ the God. In the beginning of creation there was the Will or the Word of God (Cf. John 1:1-5). Jesus was conjoined with Christ our God in the form of a servant. (Cf. Phil 2-7). Had Jesus Christ been God transformed into God he couldn't have been killed. (Cf. Acts 3:15).

This hypostatic union can only take place in the womb of Mary at the very instant of conception. If Jesus was made God prior to conception then Jesus Christ is created – God can't be created. If Christ were made God after conception then Jesus Christ was possessed and not truly in a state of union between two distinct beings. Professing One God, who is three Persons, God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, all three must contain one and only one Person. Obviously if God the Son was two Persons with one Nature we wouldn't have a Trinity; we might have to call God the 'quadrupity'. But of course that's silly.

Now the logic gets even simpler to follow. Jesus Christ was born of a woman called Mary. Now the woman who bore JoeT is called the 'mother of JoeT.' And I bet a thousand bucks, that the woman the bore you is called the 'mother of you'. Now what's not funny, is the Mother of Christ is called, theotokos, “the mother of God.” The Child she gave birth to was the hypostatic union of man and God.

To hold the view that Mary was not the mother of God is akin to the error Nestroianism. The Council of Ephesus rejected Nestorianism in 431 A.D. Nestorius (circa 425 A.D.) held the unorthodox view that the essence(s) of Christ were separated into two natures, separate was the man Jesus and separate was the God that that is Christ. In failing to recognize that Mary is the Mother of God, this leads to the rejection of theotokos (Mother of God) replacing it with (Giving Birth to Christ) khristotokos.

To claim that Mary only carried the human nature of Christ is the same error. Mary didn't give birth to the nature of a man; she didn't give birth to the nature of God; she gave birth to the person of Jesus Christ, theotokos .

Catholics hold Mary was born Immaculate. Christ was borne of a sinless woman as part of God's plan foretold by prophesies. God preserved Mary from original sin so that His Justice will prevail; after all the Person to be born was God who abhors the unclean. As he demonstrated in His instructions to Moses. In His infinite mercy God overthrows an infernal serpent through a guiltless Blessed Virgin. Those who eviscerate the Blessed Virgin Mary would subjugate her to Satan; conversely the Catholic faith holds that the Blessed Virgin is singularly preserved, made exempt, from ALL stain of sin original sin or private sin through God's grace.

St. Paul suggests; “For as by the disobedience of one man [the original sin of Adam], many were made sinners” (Rom 5:19), consequently any man born has this original sin. Christ being man as well as God should have inherited original sin if born of woman. "Behold the Lamb of God. Behold him who takes away the sin of the world" (John 1:29), the Paschal Lamb, the perfect sacrifice. As a result, there can only be solution to this apparent dichotomy, Christ was born of a new Eve whose original sin had been removed. Furthermore, Christ was born of a renewed Eve who hadn't known sin because to reside within her womb.

For the Lord hath created a new thing upon the earth: A WOMAN SHALL COMPASS A MAN” we see God's mystical plan, rightly we should conclude that Mary was Immaculate, protected from knowing the sins of Adam, protected from knowing the sins of men. But, how does one COMPASS Christ the man without ENCOMPASSING the God that is the Messiah? At the moment Christ was conceived God was infused; at that same moment Mary's Womb would have been spiritually cleaned; as clean as any ritual cleansing of the Tabernacle of Moses. [It's important that we perceive this as an infusion opposed to a junction or injection of God into man.] Thus the Blessed Virgin Mary's womb became the dwelling place of God, a Holy of Holies, the Ark of the Covenant. This Ark would remain pure as did the Virgin Mary in her life of celibacy. Nestorius believed that that God incarnate with man was a "junction", rather than enosis, that is a ”unification."

You may recall Moses was ordered by God to build a Tabernacle. It contained an outer court and inner court. Along with Ooliab they built the first tabernacle; tradition had every tabernacle built thereafter built in a similar manner. Looking at the Tabernacle from outside towards the inside a wall surrounds the Holy of Holies and the inner courts. Only one gate faces the east, a narrow gate; prefiguring Christ's warning, “Narrow is the gate of righteousness.” The Ark of the Testimony (Exodus 25:16, 22; 26:33, etc.), the Ark of the Testament (Exodus 30:26), the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord (Numbers 10:33; Deuteronomy 10:8, etc.), the Ark of the Covenant (Joshua 3:6, etc.), the Ark of God (1 Samuel 3:3, etc.), the Ark of the Lord (1 Samuel 4:6, etc.) was one and the same Incarnate Word of God; all of which were to reside in the womb of Mary. Judaism nor Catholicism would suggest that God reside in an unholy place.

Mary, a walking talking Tabernacle, is the birthplace of the Christian faith. We shouldn't be much surprised when we hold that with Christ's birth, another wondrous birth occurs; the birth of God's Kingdom on earth.

Interestingly, St. Jerome would suggest that both Mary and Joseph were sinless,

…that Joseph himself on account of Mary was a virgin, so that from a virgin wedlock a virgin son was born. St. Jerome, The Perpetual Virginity of Mary

Where did the Holy Spirit put the New Covenant word? Christ, the New Covenant, was placed in the Ark of the New Covenant, the womb of Mary. God was infused into man to become Christ. At the very moment of conception, within the womb of Mary, Christ, became man. Christ was one person with two natures, one of God, the other of man. Thus after the proper time, Christ was born of Mary as according as foretold by the angel; “Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb and shalt bring forth a son: and thou shalt call his name Jesus. (Luke 1: 31-33) Eventually, He passes through the veil; it's not rent, but passes like light passes through a window. Christ now becomes like the Menorah (light) of the world, whose Word fell on the Altar of Incense to rise pleasingly to God, whose light fell on the loaves of proposition (The Twelve). Like Noah the Blessed Virgin Mary carries the spotless sacrificial lamb across the waters of death and sin to land our salvation on the shores of a Renewed Kingdom. The Holy Spirit conceived the Church of Jesus Christ. Any less immaculate and Christ could not be considered a spotless, sinless, the Paschal Lamb Jewish tradition demands. Mary being literally full of Grace, we hold that this Tabernacle will never be desecrated.

Mary had to be sinless for the Messiah to be born. More important, failing to recognize the Blessed Virgin Mary as immaculate, as Ever Virgin, as the Mother of God injures the Creed most Christians profess One God, with three Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. To say that Mary was born with sin means that the 'Perfect Sacrificial Lamb' resided in filth and thus having contact with sin couldn't be 'perfect' preventing every Jew of the day from recognizing Christ as God. Dismiss Mary's virginity is to say that God came from the seed of man and to logically consider God needing to be 'created' is too much for logic to bear.

So, yes Mary is the Mother of God. Gosh, I don't think a knotted a single verse of Holy Scripture.

JoeT

Am I right or wrong so far?

More wrong than right at the point you asked the question below. I'll break down your errors.


Rick,
You asked so here goes.
Jesus was born a human from a human mother.

But that doesn't mean that He wasn't God when He was conceived in Mary's womb.


Mary no more than a human being.

True. But that doesn't mean that she was created in sin. Neither were Adam and Eve any more than human, but they were created immaculate.


Conceived, born lived and died here on the same earth we are walking on.

She was conceived, born and lived here on this earth. But like Enoch and Elijah, she may have been transported to heaven before she expired. However, that is only speculative.


She has no special place or bearing on the trinity.

I don't exactly know what that means. So I don't know if it is an error or not.


She was a vessel used to carry to term and raise to adulthood the person, Jesus of Nazareth. Who was nothing more than a Jewish carpenter until he went up on the mountain after being baptized in water by John at about age 30. Not until then did he start his ministry.

Actually, He started His ministry at her prompting at the wedding of Cana.


Am I right or wrong so far?

More wrong than right as I pointed out.


So while he was predestined to what happened in his life for the next three years, up until that point he still had free choice.

He had free choice all His life and still does. He is God.


Once he made that choice to follow the path set down for him by God at that point he was transfigured from fully man to fully God?

Jesus Christ was fully man and fully God from the moment of His conception.


Sp bottom line, praying to or through Mary is In my opinion not biblical.

The Bible recommends it and gives us examples:

An angel praised her.

Luke 1:28 (King James Version)

28And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

A saint praised her.

Luke 1:42 (King James Version)

42And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.

And Scripture recommends that we all praise her.

Luke 1:48 (King James Version)

48For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.


In my mind it would be like praying to Micky Mantle that you would have an outstanding baseball career.

I don't think Mickey Mantle has been canonized yet. But you might want to start the process. I believe proof of three miracles by his intercession are required.

Rick, I agree that's the basic point here. Many articles of faith cannot be explained in human terms.

Many is not all. It isn't even most.


When some persist in trying to "prove" this or that belief, they invariably find themselves tied up in convoluted knots of logical fallacies.

Some is not all either. And some can explain their beliefs without any convoluted knots. Joe777 for example.

The Bible recommends it and gives us examples:

An angel praised her.

Luke 1:28 (King James Version)

28And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

The last line is not in the original Greek text. The King James is in error here.



A saint praised her.

Luke 1:42 (King James Version)

42And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.

The word simply means "well spoken of," i.e. of good reputation. There's nothing particularly spiritual or exceptional about it.



And Scripture recommends that we all praise her.

Luke 1:48 (King James Version)

48For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.


You seem to think that the word "blessed" in the King James means praised in a similar way that God is praised. But this is a different Greek word even than the other passages. This one just means "happy."

You haven't made a case here.

I'm only going to address one thing that Joe said here, though the whole Tabernacle thing is so much of a stretch it's almost humorous. But JoeT777 said:


To claim that Mary only carried the human nature of Christ is the same error. Mary didn’t give birth to the nature of a man; she didn’t give birth to the nature of God; she gave birth to the person of Jesus Christ, theotokos .

This is a straw man. Nobody in this discussion has suggested such a thing, so I would ask you to please respond to what we actually say rather than taking this kind of approach.

The last line is not in the original Greek text. The King James is in error here.

1. You fail to consider that God sent the Angel with a message of praise for Mary. Therefore, it is God who is praising Mary through the Angel.

2. You also faith to consider that God could have given Mary His message directly. But He willed that an Angel speak those words. Thus it is God's will that the Angels praise Mary.


The word simply means "well spoken of," i.e. of good reputation. There's nothing particularly spiritual or exceptional about it.

1. You fail to consider that the Scripture, the Word of God, says that the Holy Spirit inspired St. Elizabeth to say those words.

2. Since Scripture is the Word of God and since the Holy Spirit is God, it is clear that it is God's will that men praise Mary.

Not to mention that God is Spirit and anything He says is therefore exceptionally spiritual.


You seem to think that the word "blessed" in the King James means praised in a similar way that God is praised. But this is a different Greek word even than the other passages. This one just means "happy."

Again, because you read the letter and not the spirit, you fail to recognize that those who are called blessed in Scripture, that is, "happy" are happy because they are holy and blessed of God.

Genesis 30:13
And Leah said, Happy am I, for the daughters will call me blessed: and she called his name Asher.

Job 5:17
Behold, happy is the man whom God correcteth: therefore despise not thou the chastening of the Almighty:

1 Peter 4:14
If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye; for the spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you: on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified.


You haven't made a case here.


On the contrary, my case is very strong.


I'm only going to address one thing that Joe said here, though the whole Tabernacle thing is so much of a stretch it's almost humorous. But
JoeT777 said:
Quote:
To claim that Mary only carried the human nature of Christ is the same error. Mary didn’t give birth to the nature of a man; she didn’t give birth to the nature of God; she gave birth to the person of Jesus Christ, theotokos .

This is a straw man. Nobody in this discussion has suggested such a thing, so I would ask you to please respond to what we actually say rather than taking this kind of approach.

Not a straw man at all. We keep telling you that Jesus was human and Divine in the womb. Therefore, Mary is the Mother of God.

I have a question.

Did Jesus prayed to Mary?
Did Jesus praised Mary? (I consider praise and blessing two different things)
Did Jesus prayed to anyone besides his Father?

I'm fully aware that I don't know everything that is in the bible and I could very well have missed those things.

Thank you.

I have a question.

Did Jesus prayed to Mary?

Yes. The word "pray" simply means "request". Therefore, some people may still be heard saying something on the order of, "I pray you, would you pass me the salt?"

Jesus, being Mary's little boy, requested of her love, protection and sustenance just the same as any little boy does his mother.

He in fact, entrusted Himself to Mary. And this is something which we imitate as Scripture can be summarized as a manual on the "imitation of Jesus".


Did Jesus praised Mary? (I consider praise and blessing two different things)

On the highest order. He selected her to be His Mother.


Did Jesus prayed to anyone besides his Father?

The word, "pray" has more than one meaning. We, Catholics, use everyone of them. In this instance, I think you mean to ask, "Did Jesus adore anyone besides God the Father?"

To which I must answer that Jesus prayed to Joseph and Mary because they were his earthly parents. But he adored no one but the Father because He is one with the Father and the Holy Spirit, one God forever and ever. Amen!


I'm fully aware that I don't know everything that is in the bible and I could very well have missed those things.


If you missed those things it is because you are reading the Bible according to the letter and have not learned to discern the spiritual meaning of the words. Scripture says:

2 Corinthians 3:6
Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.


Thank you.

I hope that helps.

Sincerely,

De Maria

1. You fail to consider that God sent the Angel with a message of praise for Mary. Therefore, it is God who is praising Mary through the Angel.

2. You also faith to consider that God could have given Mary His message directly. But He willed that an Angel speak those words. Thus it is God's will that the Angels praise Mary.

And you fail to consider what I said: the phrase is NOT part of the actual Bible. It's something that somebody erroneously added later, so it doesn't matter whose mouth it's put into, nobody actually said it.


1. You fail to consider that the Scripture, the Word of God, says that the Holy Spirit inspired St. Elizabeth to say those words.

2. Since Scripture is the Word of God and since the Holy Spirit is God, it is clear that it is God's will that men praise Mary.

Not to mention that God is Spirit and anything He says is therefore exceptionally spiritual.

Huh? I pointed out what the term means, and you give me this mishmash. I do believe you're making this up as you go along. And playing games with the word "spiritual" just looks like a dodge, because you know exactly what I meant.

Is Mary well-spoken of, i.e. does she have a good reputation? Of course. But that's something very different than what you're claiming, and your claim won't hold water because it's simply not biblical.


Again, because you read the letter and not the spirit, you fail to recognize that those who are called blessed in Scripture, that is, "happy" are happy because they are holy and blessed of God.

Genesis 30:13
And Leah said, Happy am I, for the daughters will call me blessed: and she called his name Asher.

Do you also pray to Leah then?

This has gone beyond ridiculous, and you are just pulling stuff out of the ether because it's clear you don't understand how to interpret Scripture. Again, I offer you the last word, because you keep taking us way off the original question. I ask you if the sun is shining and you describe your car to me. (That's a metaphor, in case you didn't catch it.) So fire away.

In answer to the original question, there's nothing inherently wrong with the prayer; there's really nothing inherently wrong about asking someone, even someone who's already dead and with the Lord like Mary, to pray for you. But if you're not comfortable with the idea, don't do it. Nothing at all hinges on you saying or not saying that prayer.

I was thinking more along those lines:

Matt 6:6
But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

Jesus didn't taught us to pray to anyone besides the Father. Not to Moses, not to Abraham, not to David... he made reference to them, if I remember well, in some of the passages however.

I would rather not mix 'request' and 'pray'. I consider pray as being a means of communication where one prepares his heart, soul and mind to 'meet' with a person he considers of highest importance to his life, where the person is ready to kneel down, bow down, be at peace with himself and tells what he has on the heart.

Well, this is my definition, and I don't think it's the proper definition... it needs more 'refining', I know.


In answer to the original question, there's nothing inherently wrong with the prayer; there's really nothing inherently wrong about asking someone, even someone who's already dead and with the Lord like Mary, to pray for you. But if you're not comfortable with the idea, don't do it. Nothing at all hinges on you saying or not saying that prayer.

I'll second that :)

And you fail to consider what I said: the phrase is NOT part of the actual Bible. It's something that somebody erroneously added later, so it doesn't matter whose mouth it's put into, nobody actually said it.

That's the type of assertion that needs to be proven. Every Bible I've read has it and its hard to believe that everyone is fooled but you.


Huh? I pointed out what the term means, and you give me this mishmash. I do believe you're making this up as you go along. And playing games with the word "spiritual" just looks like a dodge, because you know exactly what I meant.

Huh? All you're doing is objecting without providing one bit of substance to your objection. That's called a say so argument and it carries no weight.


Is Mary well-spoken of, i.e. does she have a good reputation? Of course. But that's something very different than what you're claiming, and your claim won't hold water because it's simply not biblical.

Its right there in the Bible and every Christian knows that the Bible is the Word of God.


Do you also pray to Leah then?

There's nothing preventing me. But I only pray to the Saints of the Catholic Church, since there is not one hundred percent assurance that Leah is in heaven. Although, of my own personal mind, I believe she is.


This has gone beyond ridiculous, and you are just pulling stuff out of the ether because it's clear you don't understand how to interpret Scripture.

I understand how to interpret Scripture. What you fail to understand is that there are different methods of interpretation. I follow the Catholic method which is taught in Scripture.

Whereas, you follow the Protestant method which is in contradiction of Scripture.


Again, I offer you the last word, because you keep taking us way off the original question. I ask you if the sun is shining and you describe your car to me. (That's a metaphor, in case you didn't catch it.) So fire away.

In answer to the original question, there's nothing inherently wrong with the prayer; there's really nothing inherently wrong about asking someone, even someone who's already dead and with the Lord like Mary, to pray for you.

If that's what you have been arguing, I apologize. I certainly didn't get that understanding from your denials that Mary is the Mother of God.


But if you're not comfortable with the idea, don't do it. Nothing at all hinges on you saying or not saying that prayer.

The Church teaches that prayer to Mary is really prayer with Mary, who is the consummate Just Man:
James 5:16
Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

Sincerely,

De Maria

And you fail to consider what I said: the phrase is NOT part of the actual Bible. It's something that somebody erroneously added later, so it doesn't matter whose mouth it's put into, nobody actually said it.That's the type of assertion that needs to be proven. Every Bible I've read has it and its hard to believe that everyone is fooled but you.

Who said it's just me? The New International Version doesn't have it, nor does the New American Standard or the New Revised Version. Pick up any recent version of the Greek text and you'll see that it only appears on much later, inferior manuscripts and is clearly a late addition and not part of what Luke originally wrote.

Maybe you're just reading the wrong Bibles, or not enough different ones, because your knowledge and experience in this regard are sorely lacking.

I was thinking more along those lines:

Matt 6:6
But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

Jesus didn't taught us to pray to anyone besides the Father. Not to Moses, not to Abraham, not to David... he made reference to them, if I remember well, in some of the passages however.

That's funny, Christ says to pray in the closet and you take it to mean that we can't talk to our saintly brothers and sisters asleep, those alive in Christ. Where in the above verses does it say we can't ask another to pray for us?

The Catholic is a member of the Kingdom of God, the Church of Jesus Christ. Her members consist of those on earth, The Church Militant, those in purgatory, the Church suffering, and those saints in heaven, the Church Triumphant. TOGETHER, we in the Kingdom of God are one body, as Christ is one with the Father. Just as you might go to your neighbor and say, “pray for me,” we ask the same of all those saints who have gone before us during the past two millennia to pray for us. They are either alive in Christ or not - aren't they? Why wouldn't my saintly grandmother pray for me? How (or why) can I expect less from the Holy Mother of God?


I would rather not mix 'request' and 'pray'. I consider pray as being a means of communication where one prepares his heart, soul and mind to 'meet' with a person he considers of highest importance to his life, where the person is ready to kneel down, bow down, be at peace with himself and tells what he has on the heart.

Which is precisely what prayer is, starting with prayers and acts of praise, then to thanksgiving, and finally our petition. The difference between us might be that while you are alone when you pray, presumably in your closet, the Catholic is bond in a community prayer, like an army, it moves together, those still marching, the militant and those triumphant adding to the strength of the Mystical Body of Christ in prayer.

JoeT

I'm making a difference between praying 'to' and asking a prayer 'for'.

Asking someone to pray for us:
Does it require us to bow down before that person, close our eyes and talk to him or her what we have on the heart?

I don't think so. That person is our brother/sister in Christ, and as such, does not require all those preparations. As you said, you can just request him or her to pray for you.

Like one of the themes of the year, my Church had, the previous year, 'Passion for God; Compassion for People'. I consider prayer as the 'ultimate' means of communication and for me, I will pray to God only. I consider Mary, David, Moses, etc as important people in history but need I know them the way I should know God? In the same way, should I talk to them the in the same way I talk to God? If that is so, then, to me this means they are the equal of God, but this I cannot dare think about. :(

Who said it's just me? The New International Version doesn't have it, nor does the New American Standard or the New Revised Version. Pick up any recent version of the Greek text and you'll see that it only appears on much later, inferior manuscripts and is clearly a late addition and not part of what Luke originally wrote.

Maybe you're just reading the wrong Bibles, or not enough different ones, because your knowledge and experience in this regard are sorely lacking.

Please quote the verse you are talking about. Because the verse I quoted is in every Bible.

I'm making a difference between praying 'to' and asking a prayer 'for'.

To me, that doesn't make sense. Because even when you "pray for" something, you must direct the "prayer to" someone.

So, I will assume the difference you are trying to express is "prayer of adoration" and "prayer of request". Both of those can be addressed to God.

But prayer of adoration can not be addressed to man, whether he be in heaven or on earth.


Asking someone to pray for us:
Does it require us to bow down before that person, close our eyes and talk to him or her what we have on the heart?

Is that required even of adoration to God?


I don't think so. That person is our brother/sister in Christ, and as such, does not require all those preparations. As you said, you can just request him or her to pray for you.

Correct.


Like one of the themes of the year, my Church had, the previous year, 'Passion for God; Compassion for People'. I consider prayer as the 'ultimate' means of communication and for me, I will pray to God only.

That is certainly your choice. We are simply explaining why we pray to the Saints and especially to the Mother of God.


I consider Mary, David, Moses, etc as important people in history but need I know them the way I should know God?

No.


In the same way, should I talk to them the in the same way I talk to God?

No.


If that is so, then, to me this means they are the equal of God, but this I cannot dare think about. :(

But none of us are telling you to think of them or communicate with them the same as you do with God.

We are telling you that there is a difference between adoration for God and reverence for His Children, the Saints.

Please quote the verse you are talking about. Because the verse I quoted is in every Bible.

*yawn* Go back and read it. I said every time that the PHRASE is not there. The PHRASE in question is "blessed are you among women." I said several times, and made it as clear as humanly possible, that this PHRASE is not in the original Bible, and is not in the translations I mentioned. Now you're trying to switch it to a verse. That as much as anything else tells me about the games you play. Or are you now trying to claim that the "spirit" of my comments, rather than the "letter," meant the whole verse? You claim to know the "spirit" of the Word better than anyone else here, but basically that shakes out to be "it means what I want it to mean, and if that doesn't coincide with what it actually says, tough."

Go through the thread and count the number of times, since this came up, that I said the PHRASE I was talking about isn't in the original. Maybe instead of trying to manipulate the "spirit" of things to fit your preconceived notions, you should pay a little more attention to what things actually SAY.

And now I really am out of this discussion.

Motherhood doesn't mean creation of a child. A mother doesn't create any life in her womb.

This is news to the world of reproductive biology.

There is no child without the contribution of the mother. To say motherhood does not mean the creation of a child is to use words in ways they were never intended to be used.


God creates the life and places it there. In Mary's case, God didn't put another life into her womb. He placed Himself in there.

No one is saying that God is not the author of all life. Your use of it here simply obfuscates the issue. In this sense, then, ALL children are older than their mother, and every mother, at the same time, is older than her child.

Logical conundrum, anyone?

I don’t find myself convoluted or knot-full. I don’t ‘prove’ my beliefs, they have already been proven for some 2,000 years; I merely expose you to those proofs.

Your first logical fallacy - the argument from authority. (Someone else says something, therefore it is true).


That Mary is the mother of God is quite simple logic – children understand it with ease.

Your first non-sequitur.


Christ means the “anointed” (Isaiah 9:6) and Jesus means “Jehovah is salvation” (Isaiah 7:14), put together we have ‘the anointed who is God,” i.e. man and God.

That's an interpretation - not a proof.


Even a child can see that Christ is One person with Two Natures. I think names identify the character – just a childish little diversion which you probably already knew.

No, I didn't know that, but you're correct - it's childish and hardly a proof.


But, adults put away childish things. So let’s prove...

Yes, please do. So far, you're not doing very well.


... the hypostatic union of Jesus the man and Christ the God. In the beginning of creation there was the Will or the Word of God (Cf. John 1:1-5). Jesus was conjoined with Christ our God in the form of a servant. (Cf. Phil 2-7). Had Jesus Christ been God transformed into God he couldn’t have been killed. (Cf. Acts 3:15).

This hypostatic union can only take place in the womb of Mary at the very instant of conception. If Jesus was made God prior to conception then Jesus Christ is created – God can’t be created. If Christ were made God after conception then Jesus Christ was possessed and not truly in a state of union between two distinct beings. Professing One God, who is three Persons, God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, all three must contain one and only one Person. Obviously if God the Son was two Persons with one Nature we wouldn’t have a Trinity; we might have to call God the ‘quadrupity’. But of course that’s silly.

You've muddled this somewhat but I know what you're trying to say.


Now the logic gets even simpler to follow.

Dear God, let's hope so.


Jesus Christ was born of a woman called Mary. Now the woman who bore JoeT is called the ‘mother of JoeT.’ And I bet a thousand bucks, that the woman the bore you is called the ‘mother of you’. Now what’s not funny, is the Mother of Christ is called, theotokos, “the mother of God.” The Child she gave birth to was the hypostatic union of man and God.

The fallacy here is called "tautology" - an attempt to prove a conclusion by restating the premise.


To hold the view that Mary was not the mother of God is akin to the error Nestroianism. The Council of Ephesus rejected Nestorianism in 431 A.D. Nestorius (circa 425 A.D.) held the unorthodox view that the essence(s) of Christ were separated into two natures, separate was the man Jesus and separate was the God that that is Christ. In failing to recognize that Mary is the Mother of God, this leads to the rejection of theotokos (Mother of God) replacing it with (Giving Birth to Christ) khristotokos.

These are statements, not proofs.


To claim that Mary only carried the human nature of Christ is the same error. Mary didn’t give birth to the nature of a man; she didn’t give birth to the nature of God; she gave birth to the person of Jesus Christ, theotokos .

You have misused "theotokos" here. It refers to Mary, not Jesus. But that may be just a typo. You say, "...she didn't give birth to the nature of God..." Exactly my point.


Catholics hold Mary was born Immaculate. Christ was borne of a sinless woman as part of God’s plan foretold by prophesies. God preserved Mary from original sin so that His Justice will prevail; after all the Person to be born was God who abhors the unclean. As he demonstrated in His instructions to Moses. In His infinite mercy God overthrows an infernal serpent through a guiltless Blessed Virgin. Those who eviscerate the Blessed Virgin Mary would subjugate her to Satan; conversely the Catholic faith holds that the Blessed Virgin is singularly preserved, made exempt, from ALL stain of sin original sin or private sin through God’s grace.

Here you are arguing a point not in discussion. That's called a "strawman" argument - another logical fallacy.


St. Paul suggests; “For as by the disobedience of one man [the original sin of Adam], many were made sinners” (Rom 5:19), consequently any man born has this original sin. Christ being man as well as God should have inherited original sin if born of woman. "Behold the Lamb of God. Behold him who takes away the sin of the world" (John 1:29), the Paschal Lamb, the perfect sacrifice. As a result, there can only be solution to this apparent dichotomy, Christ was born of a new Eve whose original sin had been removed. Furthermore, Christ was born of a renewed Eve who hadn’t known sin because to reside within her womb.

For the Lord hath created a new thing upon the earth: A WOMAN SHALL COMPASS A MAN” we see God’s mystical plan, rightly we should conclude that Mary was Immaculate, protected from knowing the sins of Adam, protected from knowing the sins of men. But, how does one COMPASS Christ the man without ENCOMPASSING the God that is the Messiah? At the moment Christ was conceived God was infused; at that same moment Mary’s Womb would have been spiritually cleaned; as clean as any ritual cleansing of the Tabernacle of Moses. [It’s important that we perceive this as an infusion opposed to a junction or injection of God into man.] Thus the Blessed Virgin Mary’s womb became the dwelling place of God, a Holy of Holies, the Ark of the Covenant. This Ark would remain pure as did the Virgin Mary in her life of celibacy. Nestorius believed that that God incarnate with man was a "junction", rather than enosis, that is a ”unification."

You may recall Moses was ordered by God to build a Tabernacle. It contained an outer court and inner court. Along with Ooliab they built the first tabernacle; tradition had every tabernacle built thereafter built in a similar manner. Looking at the Tabernacle from outside towards the inside a wall surrounds the Holy of Holies and the inner courts. Only one gate faces the east, a narrow gate; prefiguring Christ’s warning, “Narrow is the gate of righteousness.” The Ark of the Testimony (Exodus 25:16, 22; 26:33, etc.), the Ark of the Testament (Exodus 30:26), the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord (Numbers 10:33; Deuteronomy 10:8, etc.), the Ark of the Covenant (Joshua 3:6, etc.), the Ark of God (1 Samuel 3:3, etc.), the Ark of the Lord (1 Samuel 4:6, etc.) was one and the same Incarnate Word of God; all of which were to reside in the womb of Mary. Judaism nor Catholicism would suggest that God reside in an unholy place.

Mary, a walking talking Tabernacle, is the birthplace of the Christian faith. We shouldn’t be much surprised when we hold that with Christ’s birth, another wondrous birth occurs; the birth of God’s Kingdom on earth.

Interestingly, St. Jerome would suggest that both Mary and Joseph were sinless,

…that Joseph himself on account of Mary was a virgin, so that from a virgin wedlock a virgin son was born. St. Jerome, The Perpetual Virginity of Mary

Where did the Holy Spirit put the New Covenant word? Christ, the New Covenant, was placed in the Ark of the New Covenant, the womb of Mary. God was infused into man to become Christ. At the very moment of conception, within the womb of Mary, Christ, became man. Christ was one person with two natures, one of God, the other of man. Thus after the proper time, Christ was born of Mary as according as foretold by the angel; “Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb and shalt bring forth a son: and thou shalt call his name Jesus. (Luke 1: 31-33) Eventually, He passes through the veil; it’s not rent, but passes like light passes through a window. Christ now becomes like the Menorah (light) of the world, whose Word fell on the Altar of Incense to rise pleasingly to God, whose light fell on the loaves of proposition (The Twelve). Like Noah the Blessed Virgin Mary carries the spotless sacrificial lamb across the waters of death and sin to land our salvation on the shores of a Renewed Kingdom. The Holy Spirit conceived the Church of Jesus Christ. Any less immaculate and Christ could not be considered a spotless, sinless, the Paschal Lamb Jewish tradition demands. Mary being literally full of Grace, we hold that this Tabernacle will never be desecrated.

Mary had to be sinless for the Messiah to be born. More important, failing to recognize the Blessed Virgin Mary as immaculate, as Ever Virgin, as the Mother of God injures the Creed most Christians profess One God, with three Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. To say that Mary was born with sin means that the ‘Perfect Sacrificial Lamb’ resided in filth and thus having contact with sin couldn’t be ‘perfect’ preventing every Jew of the day from recognizing Christ as God. Dismiss Mary’s virginity is to say that God came from the seed of man and to logically consider God needing to be ‘created’ is too much for logic to bear.

So, yes Mary is the Mother of God. Gosh, I don’t think a knotted a single verse of Holy Scripture. JoeT

Gosh, you sure did. All of the last section quoted does nothing to support your conclusion. You describe, at length, Mary's sinlessness, her Immaculate Conception, you even managed to get Moses in there - none of which is the issue at hand. Then you make a leap to "So, yes Mary is the Mother of God".

Joe, believe what you will, but trying to "prove" issues of faith is a fruitless task. That's why they call it "faith".

Many is not all. It isn't even most.

Some is not all either. And some can explain their beliefs without any convoluted knots. Joe777 for example.

If you prefer "some" articles of faith cannot be explained in human terms, that's fine with me.

No doubt some beliefs can be explained without any "convoluted knots", but Joe's example is not one of them. See my reply to Joe above.

This is news to the world of reproductive biology.

There is no child without the contribution of the mother. To say motherhood does not mean the creation of a child is to use words in ways they were never intended to be used.

Excuse my error. I was a bit careless with the language. Although the second part of that thought still stands. Here is what I said:


Originally Posted by De Maria View Post
Motherhood doesn't mean creation of a child. A mother doesn't create any life in her womb.

The first part of that is false and I withdraw it. However, it is still true that mothers do not create any life in their womb.

There are many women who long for children and if they knew how to create it themselves, they would. But the creation of children is not a human technology. It is a privilege granted by God. It is God who creates life in the womb.



No one is saying that God is not the author of all life. Your use of it here simply obfuscates the issue. In this sense, then, ALL children are older than their mother, and every mother, at the same time, is older than her child.

On the contrary, because God creates the child in their womb does not lead to the conclusion that the children are older than their mom.

It leads to the simple conclusion that Mary did not create God in Her womb. But God did become flesh in her womb as that was His will.


Logical conundrum, anyone?

Sorry for the first error. I hope that clears things up.

Sincerely,

Excuse my error. I was a bit careless with the language.

I accept your apology.


Although the second part of that thought still stands. Here is what I said:

The first part of that is false and I withdraw it. However, it is still true that mothers do not create any life in their womb.

Au contraire. Unless you mean the mother ALONE. Obviously, the father makes a contribution.


There are many women who long for children and if they knew how to create it themselves, they would. But the creation of children is not a human technology.

It isn't? Are you familiar with sexual reproduction? I'm sure you are, hence my surprise at this statement.



It is a privilege granted by God. It is God who creates life in the womb.

That very well may be, but here you are moving from a logical proof to the realm of faith. This discussion was/is about the logical inconsistency of Mary being the mother of God


On the contrary, because God creates the child in their womb does not lead to the conclusion that the children are older than their mom.

The conclusion was not that children are older than their mothers, it was that both children AND their mothers are each older than the other. THAT is the logical conundrum.


It leads to the simple conclusion that Mary did not create God in Her womb. But God did become flesh in her womb as that was His will.

Faith, not logic.


Sorry for the first error. I hope that clears things up.

Clear as mud.

I accept your apology.

Au contraire. Unless you mean the mother ALONE. Obviously, the father makes a contribution.

But neither the father or the mother reach into the womb and knit the child. It is God who does that.


It isn't? Are you familiar with sexual reproduction? I'm sure you are, hence my surprise at this statement.

Sexual reproduction is not a human technology. It was not invented by humans. God put that capability in our nature. And even though we have the capability to unite in the act of sex, we do not have the capability even then of making certain that every time we do so, we will conceive a child.

There are millions of couples who want children but have not been able to conceive.


That very well may be, but here you are moving from a logical proof to the realm of faith. This discussion was/is about the logical inconsistency of Mary being the mother of God

Faith does not contradict logic. Mary is the Mother of God because God was enfleshed in her womb. She then gave birth to Him and nursed Him at her breast. Therefore, Mary is the Mother of God.

Your contention that she is not the Mother of God is illogical if you believe that Jesus is God.

If you don't believe that Jesus is God, then your contention becomes logical, but false because it is revealed in the Scriptures that Jesus is God.


The conclusion was not that children are older than their mothers, it was that both children AND their mothers are each older than the other. THAT is the logical conundrum.

I have no idea where you got that. But it certainly wasn't from my explanation.


Faith, not logic.

Faith and logic.


Clear as mud.

That's OK. Jesus used mud to open the blind man's eyes.

Your first logical fallacy - the argument from authority. (Someone else says something, therefore it is true).

Your first non-sequitur.

That's an interpretation - not a proof.

No, I didn't know that, but you're correct - it's childish and hardly a proof.

Yes, please do. So far, you're not doing very well.

You've muddled this somewhat but I know what you're trying to say.

Dear God, let's hope so.

The fallacy here is called "tautology" - an attempt to prove a conclusion by restating the premise.

These are statements, not proofs.

You have misused "theotokos" here. It refers to Mary, not Jesus. But that may be just a typo. You say, "...she didn't give birth to the nature of God..." Exactly my point.

Here you are arguing a point not in discussion. That's called a "strawman" argument - another logical fallacy.

Gosh, you sure did. All of the last section quoted does nothing to support your conclusion. You describe, at length, Mary's sinlessness, her Immaculate Conception, you even managed to get Moses in there - none of which is the issue at hand. Then you make a leap to "So, yes Mary is the Mother of God".

Joe, believe what you will, but trying to "prove" issues of faith is a fruitless task. That's why they call it "faith".

There is a lot of ridicule but no real response. If Mary isn’t the Mother of God, how did Jesus the man come to being? How was it that God come to be this man? What is Mary and who is she?

There is a lot of ridicule but no real response. If Mary isn’t the Mother of God, how did Jesus the man come to being? How was it that God come to be this man? What is Mary and who is she?

Mary was only a young woman who was a willing vessel to carry a child to term in her womb. I do not understand how you or anyone can logically claim that Mary was the mother of God? God is eternal is he not? Mary was not eternal. She was born, raised by her parents, betrothed to a man, Joseph, married him while pregnant, gave birth to her first child, Jesus. She subsequently had other children by Joseph and eventually died and is buried here on earth. She is Not some deity, nor is she some saint, or idol that should be worshiped. She is fully and wholly human.

Mary was only a young woman who was a willing vessel to carry a child to term in her womb. I do not understand how you or anyone can logically claim that Mary was the mother of God? God is eternal is he not? Mary was not eternal. She was born, raised by her parents, betrothed to a man, Joseph, married him while pregnant, gave birth to her first child, Jesus. She subsequently had other children by Joseph and eventually died and is buried here on earth. She is Not some deity, nor is she some saint, or idol that should be worshiped. She is fully and wholly human.

I completely agree with this statement :)

Well she is a "saint" reconised as such by the Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, some Lutherans *** so bascily the majority of all christians see her as a saint. Along with other great Christians leaders

And of course the "facts" her her other children has no more proof than other traditions.

Mary was only a young woman who was a willing vessel to carry a child to term in her womb. I do not understand how you or anyone can logically claim that Mary was the mother of God?

If you believe that Jesus is God, then the logic is inescapable. If you don't, then I can see why you can't understand that logic.


God is eternal is he not? Mary was not eternal.

We don't claim that Mary created God. We recognize the revealed fact that Mary carried Jesus in her womb and gave birth to Him. And Jesus is God.


She was born, raised by her parents, betrothed to a man, Joseph, married him while pregnant, gave birth to her first child, Jesus.

Who is God from all eternity enfleshed in her womb.


She subsequently had other children by Joseph

Nope.


and eventually died and is buried here on earth.

Whether she actually died or not, is not known. But the Tradition holds that she was assumed into heaven body and soul.


She is Not some deity, nor is she some saint, or idol that should be worshiped. She is fully and wholly human.

She is not a deity, nor an idol. However she is fully and wholly human and definitely the holiest of the Saints. Second only in holiness to God.