The Deification of Mary?

[Elijah John]

Over the past few centuries, even dating back to the third, we seem to be witnessing a progression in Marian devotion.

In modern times as in antiquity, people pray to Mary as an intercessor. Parish Churches are named after her, statues are enshrined to her. Litanies are recited, and of course there is the Rosary and apparitions.

Some even refer to her as "co-redeemer".

Consider this summary timeline of Marian veneration, and what led up to all this.

-In 431 at the council of Ephesus Mary was declared "Theotokos", or "God bearer", from whence the Church derived her title "Mother of God".

-In 1854 Pope Pius the IX declared Mary born without original sin, a dogma known as the "immaculate conception"

-In 1950, Pope Pius the XII declared that Mary was transported body and soul into Heaven without tasting death in a dogma known as the "Assumption"

Throughout the ages various apparitions and visitations of Mary have been reported, some considered authentic by the Roman Catholic Church. Among these are Lourdes and Fatima.

Compare this to the progression of Jesus' Deification.

-Starting with the belief in his resurrection and ascension, which led to New Testament declarations that Jesus was "Son of God".

-New Testament accounts include the vision of the ascended Christ to Paul on the road to Damascus.

-The Council of Nicea in 325 AD refutes Arius claim that Christ was a created being, and affirms that Jesus is God, and was always God.

And today, as in ages past, people pray to Jesus, consider him mediator, recite litanies to his name, and enshine statues for his devotion. (sound familiar?)

For debate,:

-Despite Church insistance to the contrary, ("veneration not worship") are we witnessing a progression in Marian devotion that can be considered her Deification? And is this analagous to Jesus' elevation from Son of God to "God the Son"?

-Do you think Mary will become a fourth member of the Godhead in the minds and hearts of devoted Catholics? And according to future Church dogma? Thus completing a Christian pantheon?

If things keep progressing as they seem to be, that is.

[marco]

-Despite Church insistance to the contrary, ("veneration not worship") are we witnessing a progression in Marian devotion that can be considered her Deification? And is this analagous to Jesus' elevation from Son of God to "God the Son"?

-Do you think Mary will become a fourth member of the Godhead in the minds and hearts of devoted Catholics? And according to future Church dogma? Thus completing a Christian pantheon?

If things keep progressing as they seem to be, that is.

Where faith is found, all obstacles can be surmounted, EJ. It is certain that across the centuries Mary has risen in stature from the partially ignored relative of Christ to the Mother of God. Just as the Trinity needed a strong mystery to exist inside monotheism, so the treatment of Mary had to be termed honour, or hyperdulia - above that for saints - rather than latria, worship. But in effect she is worshipped, whatever words are used in opposition. Ordinary folk hardly know what hyperdulia is and ordinary folk pray to Mary as to a goddess. She is a much needed feminine divinity.


Jesus slipped into Godhood by simple comparison with Roman emperors who were deified. Was Jesus of lesser status?


When is worship not worship and when is monotheism not monotheism? By simple, human declaration, defying all signs to the contrary! By Greek and Roman standards, a being that manifests itself from thin air is indeed a god. If Artemis could do it, so too can Mary.

[Elijah John]

-Despite Church insistance to the contrary, ("veneration not worship") are we witnessing a progression in Marian devotion that can be considered her Deification? And is this analagous to Jesus' elevation from Son of God to "God the Son"?

-Do you think Mary will become a fourth member of the Godhead in the minds and hearts of devoted Catholics? And according to future Church dogma? Thus completing a Christian pantheon?

If things keep progressing as they seem to be, that is.

Where faith is found, all obstacles can be surmounted, EJ. It is certain that across the centuries Mary has risen in stature from the partially ignored relative of Christ to the Mother of God. Just as the Trinity needed a strong mystery to exist inside monotheism, so the treatment of Mary had to be termed honour, or hyperdulia - above that for saints - rather than latria, worship. But in effect she is worshipped, whatever words are used in opposition. Ordinary folk hardly know what hyperdulia is and ordinary folk pray to Mary as to a goddess. She is a much needed feminine divinity.


Jesus slipped into Godhood by simple comparison with Roman emperors who were deified. Was Jesus of lesser status?


When is worship not worship and when is monotheism not monotheism? By simple, human declaration, defying all signs to the contrary! By Greek and Roman standards, a being that manifests itself from thin air is indeed a god. If Artemis could do it, so too can Mary.

I agree Marco. In effect, (from our point of view), that's what it is. I say that, (as do you, it seems) with the recognition that the devout do not consider their devotion to Mary to be "worship", nor does the Church consider her progressive devotion to be a process of "Deificiation".

I hope this clarifies so as to not give needless offense or antagonism to Mary's champions.

[brianbbs67]

I will leave this here. Hosea 12:6 Yet YHVH, the God of Hosts, Must be invoked as LORD. (YHVH). h: footnote.: IE, one should not invoke any of the angelic host. So, the rest is moot. We as believers pray and depend on God·(YHVH) alone. We should address Him only. No intercession. That is diefying others.

Brian, I agree that we should go directly to YHVH, with humility, faith, reverence and contrition as our only mediators. But Hosea 12.6 does not read the way you have it presented. Rather, the verse reads:

Therefore turn thou to thy God: keep mercy and judgement, and wait on thy God continually.

.

Waiting on God implies turning directly to YHVH, but does not really say that verbatim.

Were you thinking of another verse from Hosea?

THe way I see it is that using intercessors does not necessarily deify them, but when those intercessors overtake the hearts of the petitioner, and become more important to them than Father YHVH God Himself, then it comes very close to deification. Such seems to be the case with Jesus, who sadly seems to command more devotion in the hearts of the faithful than even Father YHVH, and now with Mary, desipite protests to the contrary.

As I recall, for every ten "Hail Marys" in the Rosary, there is only one "Our Father". And during those recitations of the Hail Marys, one is supposed to focus one's mind on life events of Jesus, (and perhaps only indirectly on the Father). Did Jesus ever teach such a focus? (Rhetorical quesion.)

Now I see where I was going.(Been traveling for about a week)That is the verbatim and footnote from the JPS Tanakh. Stone's Tanakh says,"YHVH is the God of legions; YHVH is His remembrance." NKJ says, in verse five, not six, "That is, the LORD God of hosts. The LORD is his memorable name."(read YHVH here)

So, which is the correct version or even verse? That is hard for me to know with confidence as all have been tampered with to some degree. I do not know enough of Hebrew to see how the different translation is achieved. The JPS and Judiasm seem to make a point out of no intercessory prayer. Did they interject their opinion here? or is it a common understanding of the Jews?

[rstrats]

RightReason,
re: "Did Jesus honor Mary?"

As far as scripture is concerned there are only 3 times mentioned where the Messiah spoke to her. Two of those times He seemed to be a bit perturbed with her, and the 3rd time He merely told her to look at her son.

Also, He only spoke 2 times with regard to what someone said about her and again His response couldn't be considered very flattering.

I think it also interesting that Mary is not mentioned by any of the writers in the New Testament Epistles including the one to the church at Rome and the two by Peter.

[RightReason]

[Replying to rstrats]

As far as scripture is concerned there are only 3 times mentioned where the Messiah spoke to her. Two of those times He seemed to be a bit perturbed with her, and the 3rd time He merely told her to look at her son.

You misunderstand the significance of said Scripture. Did Jesus do exactly what Mary requested at the wedding feast of Cana or not? Not sure what you mean by perturbed? Many have incorrectly interpreted the address of Jesus to His mother as ‘woman’ as some kind of insult, but a proper knowledge of the language and culture debunks that. Jesus also said to His beloved Apostle at the foot of the cross, “Behold your mother� and to Mary, “Behold thy son�. This signifies Jesus was giving His mother to all of us. She is not just His mother, rather we are all her children. Pretty cool and beautiful if you ask me.

Also, He only spoke 2 times with regard to what someone said about her and again His response couldn't be considered very flattering.

“couldn’t be considered very flattering’ is your adopted inadequate interpretation. I should think Scripture revealing to us Mary being referred to as “full of grace� and “all generations shall call her blessed� quite flattering.

I think it also interesting that Mary is not mentioned by any of the writers in the New Testament Epistles including the one to the church at Rome and the two by Peter.

Uuumm . . . you should study history. There are many writings from the early Church fathers and first Christian writings regarding Mary. It was understood, as is evidenced from history that Christ’s Church had nothing but flattering things to say regarding Mary. And don’t forget the Bible did not exist until it was given to the us by the Church. Christ’s Church passed on much via Sacred Tradition. One needs to know and acknowledge history to understand Christianity. There was much written about Mary and her role in the Church . . .


**************


Justin the Martyr (110-165 A.D.) wrote: "For whereas Eve, yet a virgin and undefiled, through conceiving the word that came from the serpent, brought forth disobedience and death; the Virgin Mary, taking faith and joy, when the Angel told her the good tidings that the Spirit of the Lord should come upon her, and the power of the Most High overshadow her, and therefore the Holy One to be born of her should be the Son of God, answered, Be it done to me according to thy word. And so by means of her was he born, concerning whom we have shown so many Scriptures were spoken; through whom God overthrows the serpent, and those angels and men who have become like to it, and on the other hand, works deliverance from death for such as repent of their evil doings and believe in him (Dialogue with Trypho, 100 A.D.)


In the fourth century, St. Epiphanius, wrote "Against Eighty Heresies" where he affirmed: "Eve was called the mother of the living ...after the fall this title was given to her. True it is...the whole race of man upon earth was born from Eve; but in reality it is from Mary the Life was truly born to the world. So that by giving birth to the Living One, Mary became the mother of all living"


We find a myriad of affirmations of Mary in the early Christian writings. Here are a few more: "you are the vessel and tabernacle containing all mysteries. You know what the Patriarchs never knew; you have experienced what was never revealed to the Angels; you have heard what the Prophets never heard. In a word, all that was hidden from preceding generations was made known to you; even more, most of these wonders depended on you. (270 A.D., St. Gregory Thaumaturgus),

"Blessed Virgin, immaculate and pure you are the sinless Mother of your Son, the mighty Lord of the universe. You are holy and inviolate, the hope of the hopeless and sinful; we sing your praises. We praise you as full of every grace, for you bore the God-Man. We all venerate you; we invoke you and implore your aid...Holy and immaculate Virgin...be our intercessor and advocate at the hour of death and judgment...you are holy in the sight of God, to Whom be honor and glory, majesty, and power forever (373 AD, St. Ephem of Edessa).

https://www.catholic.org/mary/maryef.php


The Christian witness of the first centuries of the Church also provides us with examples of direct prayer to Mary as a means of intercession to the graces and the protection of her Son.

For St. Irenaeus, Mary is an "Advocate," or interceding helper, for Eve and for her salvation. (7) St. Gregory Thaumaturgis (d.350) depicts Mary interceding for those on earth from her position in Heaven. (8)

St. Ephraem (d.373), the great Eastern doctor and deacon, directly addresses the Blessed Virgin in several Marian sermons. Direct prayer to Mary is also found in a sermon of the great Eastern Father, St. Gregory Nazianzen (330-389). (9) By the last part of the fourth century and the beginning of the fifth, we have numerous explicit examples of direct prayer to the Mother of God, for example in the writings of St. Ambrose, as well as by St. Epiphanius. (10)

As already referred to, the most complete ancient prayer to the Blessed Mother historically preserved is the Sub Tuum Praesidium (250 A.D.):

We fly to your patronage,
O holy Mother of God,
despise not our petitions
in our necessities,
but deliver us from all dangers.
O ever glorious and blessed Virgin.

Note that by the third century, our early Christian brothers and sisters already accepted Mary under the title of "Mother of God," even though this title would not be solemnly defined for another two hundred years. Further, the early Church realized that direct prayer to Mary did not consist of forms of idolatry or adoration, as is sometimes mistakenly interpreted in our day, but rather as a spiritual communication of love and petition to the Mother of Jesus, who continues to care for the Mystical Body of her Son by her intercession.

Moreover, the Sub Tuum prayer tells us that the early Christian community went to their motherly Advocate especially in times of trial and danger. The acknowledgement of Our Lady's special intercession, especially for the Church in times of danger, continues to our present day. (11)

https://www.piercedhearts.org/hearts_je ... avalle.htm

[rstrats]

RightReason,
re: "Did Jesus do exactly what Mary requested at the wedding feast of Cana or not?"

She didn't request anything. She merely told the Messiah that the wine had run out.



re: "Not sure what you mean by perturbed?"

Irritated.





re: "Jesus also said to His beloved Apostle at the foot of the cross, 'Behold your mother' and to Mary, 'Behold thy son'. This signifies Jesus was giving His mother to all of us."

Oh, come on. You don't know that is what He is saying. He merely tells her to look at her son, and he merely tells her son to look at her.





re: "'couldn’t be considered very flattering’ is your adopted inadequate interpretation. I should think Scripture revealing to us Mary being referred to as 'full of grace' and 'all generations shall call her blessed' quite flattering. "

The Messiah didn't comment on that. I was referring to His comments with regard to what others said about her.





re: "Uuumm . . . you should study history. There are many writings from the early Church fathers and first Christian writings regarding Mary."

Uuumm. . . you should read more carefully because I didn't say that the non-canonical writings said nothing about Mary. I was simply pointing out that Mary is not mentioned by any of the writers in the New Testament Epistles including the one to the church at Rome and the two by Peter. I think that fact is a little thought-provoking.

[RightReason]

[Replying to rstrats]

RightReason,
re: "Did Jesus do exactly what Mary requested at the wedding feast of Cana or not?"

She didn't request anything. She merely told the Messiah that the wine had run out.

Exactly. She told Jesus they have no wine. And what did Jesus do? Ignore her? Hardly! He performed His first public miracle.

re: "Not sure what you mean by perturbed?"

Irritated.

Cute. Though like I said you fail to understand the meaning/significance of Jesus’ words. If He was actually irritated with her, why would He have done something about the matter she was bringing to His attention? Many theologians have suggested He was actually politely bringing to her attention that if He did what He knew she wanted Him to do (provide more wine), was she prepared to accept the consequences of now people knowing He could perform miracles. By choosing the wedding feast as the moment to go public with who He was was to set the ball in motion for eventually Mary to have to witness the crucifixion of her son. He was basically telling her yes, I’m going to do what you would like, but be prepared for what is to follow.

re: "Jesus also said to His beloved Apostle at the foot of the cross, 'Behold your mother' and to Mary, 'Behold thy son'. This signifies Jesus was giving His mother to all of us."

Oh, come on. You don't know that is what He is saying.

Well, the Church, who He gave the authority to interpret Sacred Scripture does tell us exactly that. And we have been told to listen to His Church (“He who hears you, hears me . . .�). And not that it matters, but I am curious -- how exactly would you interpret such words? Clearly, He loved His mother and He was putting her in the care of His beloved Apostle. Also, He clearly loved His Apostle and all of us because His words signify He was giving her to us. You do realize Revelation goes on to describe Mary and how she will be the one to crush the head of the serpent, right? Methinks you ignore what has been revealed to us regarding Mary. I’m just not sure why.

re: "'couldn’t be considered very flattering’ is your adopted inadequate interpretation. I should think Scripture revealing to us Mary being referred to as 'full of grace' and 'all generations shall call her blessed' quite flattering. "

The Messiah didn't comment on that. I was referring to His comments with regard to what others said about her.

What did others say about her?

re: "Uuumm . . . you should study history. There are many writings from the early Church fathers and first Christian writings regarding Mary."

Uuumm. . . you should read more carefully because I didn't say that the non-canonical writings said nothing about Mary. I was simply pointing out that Mary is not mentioned by any of the writers in the New Testament Epistles including the one to the church at Rome and the two by Peter. I think that fact is a little thought-provoking.

Yes, I knew exactly what you were saying, and I was pointing out you are making the mistake that many Christians do. That is you are suggesting it’s only about Scripture, however the Church came before Scripture. We have been instructed by Christ Himself to listen to BOTH Sacred Scripture AND Sacred Tradition. You trust the Church enough to trust she gave us the canon, but not other things she revealed to us about Mary via Sacred Tradition? That doesn’t make sense.

Also, it seems you also don’t seem to fully grasp what the Bible does tell us about Mary – or you at least are saying it is insignificant which is kind of funny considering I wouldn’t think anything in the Bible is insignificant.

It might also be worth pointing out that even Martin Luther who led the great Protestant Revolt had a deep devotion to Mary. He viewed her as the Catholic Church does today and yet most of the branches and off shoots that are credited to him no longer share these beliefs of Christ’s original Church. I find that very thought-provoking.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

EJ: You have done some excellent research. It seems that Mary was deified long after the Bible was completed, by popes that didn't particularly care that their pronouncements didn't jive with the Bible.

Nowhere in the Bible is Mary said to be the mother of God, or that she is to be prayed to, or that she would appear to people on Earth. Very little is said about her, and the only things we can be sure of are that (1) she gave birth to God's Son as a human; (2) she was a faithful woman, and found particular favor with God, to bear His Son on Earth; (3) she believed Jesus to be the Messiah and remained faithful throughout her life, and was taken care of by the Apostle John after Jesus' death.

That's it. Anything further is the imaginations of men (popes) without the favor of God.


Matthew 6:9 instructs Jesus' followers to pray to THE FATHER alone.

I Timothy 6:16 tells us that ONLY Jesus had immortality.

John 3:13 says that NO ONE went to heaven except Jesus himself (for a long time---2,000 years).

I Timothy 2:5 tells us that there is ONLY ONE MEDIATOR between God and men---Jesus.


It's a shame that the popes didn't read their Bibles....or maybe they just didn't care. Indeed, someone started up the myth that a person must go with TRADITION if something pronounced by them conflicts with the Bible! So that's the way they get around contradictions.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 3 by Elijah John]

Haha, the Quartet sounds good . Not sure why that word didn't spring to mind. Personally, I think the whole modern church, including the Seventh Day Adventists, is the beast. Well, sorta, cuz I don't really believe in the beast prophesy. But I believe in the prophesy from 2 Thess that indicates that "someone" will be lifted on high as if he is God and I think that "someone" is the Bible itself. It replaced God and silenced him. Perhaps a separate topic though...

After a great deal of studying and comparing and meditation and studying some more, I have reached the conclusions that:

The Beast is the whole list of worldly governments, and the mark of the Beast is devotion to the politics of any nation ("mark" on the forehead? Thoughts in accord with the nationalism of any government). A "mark" on the hand means that a person is putting his energies into serving the government, rather than God's government.

The Anti-Christ is not an individual person, but is the pervading attitude of religious leaders, especially Christendom, that they are next to God....and they act like they are God himself. (2 Thessalonians 2:2-12) This anti-christ spirit is part of Babylon the Great.

Babylon the Great is not a nation or a literal city, but is the world empire of false religion---all of them. They claim they represent God but belie that idea by what they do. People think it is a particular place---a city perhaps---but it cannot be, as it is said to have an adulterous relationship with the kings of the earth. That is certainly how all religions have behaved since time began. The only religion God recognizes is the one that teaches that His government is the one that will save mankind, His Kingdom under Christ. (Isaiah 9:6,7; Daniel 2:44)

www.jw.org

[onewithhim]

It's not just me. Historical Jesus scholars and Jehovah's Witnesses also do not find the Trinity in those verses.

And why are Trinitarian opinions more valid than ours?

Most Historical Jesus Scholars who say that Jesus did not claim to be God argue Jesus simply didn’t say these things. These scholars say that if Jesus had said such things then that would be him claiming divinity. Instead of contradicting that claim, these scholar say that the statements were later addition which Jesus himself never said.

JW are the only sizable group currently claiming that Bible is inspired by God but that Jesus did not claim to be God. Nearly everyone who studies the Christian scriptures, both theist and non-theists alike, says that their position is an extremely difficult one to hold.

But it is not difficult to hold. If folks paid attention to what JWs post on these threads, they would SEE the validity of the JWs' position. We have shown that John 8:58 does NOT correspond with what God said to Moses at Exodus 3:14; we have presented scholarly conclusions about John 1:1 and many other verses that have been twisted or outright corrupted by additions or exclusions. There is a plethora of scholarly information that supports the JWs' position, if people would just do some deep research. Most people are content to take their pastor's word for everything.

Go to this website if you want to see some good scholarship:

www.jw.org