Is this blasphemous enough for you?

Interesting discussion.

Since the birth of Jesus is a singular unique event and a supernatural one at that our earthly language probably does not contain an adequate vocabulary to describe it.

As to your comment, I your child is the product of two others, namely you and your husband, and carries traits of each of you, do you say "I am the mother of his blue eyes and blond hair and my husband is the father of his large muscles and above average height."?

Or are you the mother of the whole child?

Is not then Mary the mother of Jesus in total - even of the nature that she had no part in?

 

In normal child birth the child is not totally a product of the mother but it is totally a HUMAN product.

Isaiah 9:6 carefully threads the needle with the following langauge:

"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given...."

The Scripture is careful in distinguishing between the two. The son was not born but "given" while it was the child that "is born." This is technically correct. The Son of God was not born but "given" while the "child" which shall be called "Jesus" was born. However, the child born is the "Mighty God" and "the everlasting Father."

The Scriptural writers take great care in the details in choosing terms to distinguish the preexistent Son of God in regard to the incarnation. Paul says that God "took upon himself the form" whereas John says the Word "became flesh and dwelt (tabernacled) among us." The writer of Hebrews says "thou has prepared a body..."

The Biblical writers could have simply said "God is born unto Mary" or "Mary gave birth to God" but they not only kept away from such a description of the incarnation but took care to choose their words carefully to completely avoid such a description.

If the Biblical writers were careful to avoid such a description but chose their words carefully so to convey a DISTINCTION between the two natures in regard to ORIGIN then so should we as Paul commands those who have the teaching responsibility to "hold fast to THE FORM of sound words." Rome has disobeyed Paul's command.

"For unto us a child IS BORN, unto us a Son IS GIVEN...."

 

I didn't exist prior to be conceived inside my mother. Jesus did.

Jesus' conception is the most amazing and mysterious event in human history. No person alive today can totally understand it. Eternal God becoming human, the fullness of the Godhead dwelling in a human body, and all of this residing inside a human woman. That is incredible. That is utterly and completely unlike any other event in human history and unlike any other conception in human history. It is a great mystery.

My conception wasn't like it. Neither was yours.

 

:thumbsup:..........................

 

Theotokos as instituted in the Council of Ephesus (431 AD) was originally meant to be a statement to emphasize the dual nature of Jesus being God and human.

Statements that are true within the concept of Theotokos
Mary was mother of Jesus
Jesus is God
Mary was mother of God the son
Mary was mother of God
Mary preceded Jesus the human

Statements that are false within the concept of Theotokos
Mary was mother of God the Father
Mary was mother of God the Holy Spirit
Mary was mother of the Trinity
Mary preceded God the son

When you combine two mind-blowingly illogical concepts that we believe by faith like the incarnation leading to the duality of Christ as well as the Trinity, it isn't surprising that human logic has difficulty making sense of it and people have disagreements on what it means.

 

Here is the site's explanation for why they want to build the sanctuary.

I would say this sanctuary is very focused on Christ being the one who is the saviour and worthy of our worship. Of course I disagree with their idea that Mary somehow facilitates this, but it is clearly not a place to worship Mary.

 

Then why is the focus on Mary?

 

Because of the belief that she can somehow facilitate man meeting with God.

While it is true that Mary helped to facilitate man meeting with God initially through the incarnation, Catholics make the unnecessary extension that this role still continues in a spiritual sense today.

We as Baptists obviously disagree and are right to caution against the extremes of Marian devotion that often border closely to the worship of Mary which is in direct opposition to the official tenets of the Catholic Church. However, we are not right to accuse them of the worship of Mary when they are clearly not doing so.

The distinction between worship and veneration is a debateable one but but I take with face value that Catholics mean what they say when they describe this important distinction. Whether that distinction translates to actual practice among the average parishioner is another point of contention.

 

Its amazing isnt it. And the idolaters are the only ones who dont know they are worshipping a false God. Everyone else can see it...but they have blinded themselves to it.

Incredibly sad.

Of course she isnt.

Thats for sure.

 

>I didn't exist prior to be conceived inside my mother.

Then are you a creationist or a traducian?

 

Catholics are absolutely forbidden to worship anything or anone other thank God Himself. We can state that fact and prove it out fo our Church teachings the YOU want to believe what YOU want to believe. I continually hear Protestants make false accustions against the Catholic Church on this board.

Mary is the Mother of God. The Church understood this from the start of the Church.

 

Lori, how long do you think it will before before someone violates the forum rules and questions your salvation?

 

That is not how Catholics understand the statement that Mary is the mother of God.

I will repeat my previous post.

Theotokos as instituted in the Council of Ephesus (431 AD) was originally meant to be a statement to emphasize the dual nature of Jesus being God and human.

Statements that are true within the concept of Theotokos
Mary was mother of Jesus
Jesus is God
Mary was mother of God the son
Mary was mother of God
Mary preceded Jesus the human

Statements that are false within the concept of Theotokos
Mary was mother of God the Father
Mary was mother of God the Holy Spirit
Mary was mother of the Trinity
Mary preceded God the son

 

Lori4dogs...

Then why do Catholics, and Catholic clergy, regularly WORSHIP the sinner Mary who gave birth to Jesus Christ?

False. We are simply commenting on the goddess worship that takes place regularly in Catholic services.

Except that the accusations are true.

No she is not.

They have been in error since the start of the church.

 

What kind of accusations are these? There are baptist who go to church that are drunk. There are baptist who worship money, food, their things. There are baptist who sleep around frequently. And I would also like to mention there are Church of Christ members in the same boat. Just because there are people who do these things; it does not seem reasonable to accuse the institution of causing it or teaching it. If the institution teaches against it then grant them that. Unless we look at everyone with the same measuring stick.

Mother of God accusations kills me because the people who mention it are ignorant of the history of the term Theotokos. Theotokos does not mean Mary is divine. Thats just stupid. Theotokos does not mean Mary was before God. That is also stupid. Catholics use the term first Mover for God from Thomas Aquinas. It means for you philosophy students that there is nothing before God and he is the original cause of all things. It also means God is immutable. So the term Theotokos (mother of God) is a statement about the deity of Christ. See for you people unkowledgable about history there was a large movement saying that Jesus was a created being. By such people as Arius. There was also a believe that Jesus was a man who became possessed by God. There was also a believe that Jesus just seemed to be a person. Etc.... The term Theotokos was developed to combat these ridiculous ideas. Mary gave birth to the fulness of Christ in his humanity and his deity. Mary in this instance is a vessel for the incarnation. The reason I am harsh with people who make this accusation is because to make it 1) you have shown an ignorance of the history of Christianity which can be found in any Christian book store. And these terms are clearly spelled out. Even Zondervan has a summary of Christian history explaining this consept. 2) You're not being intellectually honest.

 

And if you would get your nose out of the "Church Teachings" you would find that Catholics believe what they want to believe in spite of the RCC Catechism.

1. In Lac-Ste. Anne, AB, Catholics worship the sacred waters of the lake. They join in an ecumenical service with the native aboriginals, a service conducted by a RCC priest (where Catholics worship their God and natives theirs), and both believe that the miraculous waters of the lake will heal any disease that they have.

2. Pilgrims from all over Quebec, and farther, will climb a long flight of stairs (sometimes on hands and knees) to reach a statue of St. Anne (the grandmother of God) and worship her, hoping to receive some miraculous blessing from her.

3. In an Asian country, in a town that I have been to, I have seen RCC citizens of that nation go and offer chickens and goats as blood sacrifices to a statue of Mary. I have pictures that can document it. That is the height of idolatry. That is the extreme.

This is the real world. This is the world that you shut your eyes to. This is what Catholics all over the world do.

 

All of these things are also true of the saints and apostles in Catholicism.

I don't see a problem with naming churches and cathedrals after Mary or the apostles. Do we also have a problem with Moody Church?

Regarding the bowing, Catholics claim that these are not acts of worship to Mary and the saints but instead is "veneration" or respect, sort of like bowing to the Queen. That is the official Catholic stance which I think might be fine except not all run-of-the-mill Catholics actually practice this. Then again, not all baptists hold to correct doctrine either.

Regarding the prayers, Catholics claim that they are not praying to Mary and the saints but are asking them to pray for them, similar to you asking your pastor to pray for you. Again, this is the official Catholic stance which I think might be fine ... blah, blah, blah.

 

I'm not supporting Mariology in this discussion however I must bring up a significant questions. The angel Gabriel said: Luke 1:28

and then later Mary upon hearing her role replied

And even later when visiting her cousin Liz She said this (always accepted prophetically)

So with this in mind is scripture lying when prophetically Mary says "all generations will call her blessed"? I say this because I never hear protestants of any denominations saying this. In fact she's often over looked. Also If Peter and Paul were to be examples and Paul requested that we be like him why not Mary? I mean She was obedient without questioning God and likely understanding the ramifications of having done so like being stoned to death. And the angel of God proclaims that Mary is Highly favored. IT seems to me that Christians favor Israel for God favoring them. It seems to me that Christians favor the apostles because they were favored by God. But God forbid that we favor Mary? Is that the way of it? It seems to me that some Catholics make too much of Mary and Protestants make too little of Mary. And Baptist conviently ignore her altogether. I believe that Mary is to be an example for all faithful and we should follow in her footsteps. So I don't have any more a problem of a church being named after her as churches are named after apostles. However, I consede that baptist churches don't have this problem. Yet to be consistent in our critizism we must critize the presbyterians, anglicans, lutherans, episcopals, etc for giving names to Churches like St. John, or St. Peters, or St. Pauls. Otherwize I find no fault by naming churches.

Also what you fail to understand with Catholics is that prayers are offered to all the saints not Just Mary. Primarily for this reason they hold to the communion of Saints. With the belief that all christians whether present with us or present with God are still apart of the Body. And being such they are participating much like we do on earth with prayers for those who need it. So its not singular with Mary though it seems you've mentioned this as though it were. So then the question seems to be how participative are Christians who are in the presence of God are? And why wouldn't they make petitions for us before God? Are they so self centered that they stopped caring for those here? These are just some questions.

I suggest that some Catholics have made mary into a God though this is not the teaching of the church no more than I know baptist who go to church while fornicators but it isn't the teaching of the Church. To be intellectually honest we must go by what the Catholic Church actually teaches with regard to Mary and they insist she is not a God.