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.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 18 by Elijah John]

No he is not. John did NOT write that Jesus is God (John 1:1) or that he is the same Person (John 10:30) or that he CLAIMED to be God (John 8:58).

These verses have been boldly twisted by clergy and scribes over the centuries, and it doesn't take much research to uncover the travesties of translation.

John 1:1's translators did not follow the rules of translating Greek into English, and had preconceived ideas about Jesus being God. John meant to say---and he DID say it---that Jesus was WITH God, though he was not God but A god. that term "god" meant a powerful, important person in John's day, and the people would understand that, not thinking that Jesus was God Almighty.

John 10:30 can be explained by going to JOHN 17:20-23 where it is clear that Jesus meant that he and the Father were in agreement, and his disciples could also be "one" with them.

John 8:58 is a sorry mess of translation---not really translation but an outright twisting of the words of Jesus. We have shown that he was not referring to Exodus 3:14, but he actually said: "Before Abraham was born, I existed." There are MANY translations that adhere to that rendering, and I have posted them.


John is not responsible for the wrong views of Jesus. It is the men, centuries later, that mess up the rendering of the verses.

[RightReason]

[Replying to onewithhim]

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

Uuummm . . the Bible was completed long after Christ established His Church. It is those Popes who gave us the canon (Bible) that we use today. There is NOTHING taught by the Church that does not 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.

Not true. However, even if it were it wouldn’t matter, because nowhere in the Bible does it say only the Bible is our authority! Christ gave us His Church and told us to listen to her. Since the beginning, Christ’s Church has understood Mary’s beautiful role in salvation history. This is evidenced in Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and historical evidence of early Church writings. Christ’s Church has been around a little longer than the JW’s came onto the scene.


But here is the Biblical evidence that you somehow suggest does not exist regarding what the Church teaches about Mary . . .


Luke 1:35 – the child will be called holy, the Son of God. Mary is the Mother of the Son of God, or the Mother of God (the “Theotokos�).

Luke 1:28 – “Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you.� These are the words spoken by God and delivered to us by the angel Gabriel (who is a messenger of God). Thus, when Catholics recite this verse while praying the Rosary, they are uttering the words of God.

Luke 1:28 – also, the phrase “full of grace� is translated from the Greek word “kecharitomene.� This is a unique title given to Mary, and suggests a perfection of grace from a past event. Mary is not just “highly favored.� She has been perfected in grace by God. “Full of grace� is only used to describe one other person – Jesus Christ in John 1:14.

Luke 1:38 – Mary’s fiat is “let it be done to me according to thy word.� Mary is the perfect model of faith in God, and is worthy of our veneration.

Luke 1:42 – “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb, Jesus.� The phrase “blessed are you among women� really means “you are most blessed of all women.� A circumlocution is used because there is no superlative in the Greek language. Note also that Elizabeth praises Mary first, and then Jesus. This is hyperdulia (but not latria which is worship owed to God alone). We too can go through Mary to praise Jesus. Finally, Catholics repeat these divinely inspired words of Elizabeth in the Rosary.

Luke 1:43 – Elizabeth’s use of “Mother of my Lord� (in Hebrew, Elizabeth used “Adonai� which means Lord God) is the equivalent of “Holy Mary, Mother of God� which Catholics pray in the Rosary. The formula is simple: Jesus is a divine person, and this person is God. Mary is Jesus’ Mother, so Mary is the mother of God (Mary is not just the Mother of Jesus’ human nature – mothers are mothers of persons, not natures).

Luke 1:44 – Mary’s voice causes John the Baptist to leap for joy in Elizabeth’s womb. Luke is teaching us that Mary is our powerful intercessor.

Luke 1:46 – Mary claims that her soul magnifies the Lord. This is a bold statement from a young Jewish girl from Nazareth. Her statement is a strong testimony to her uniqueness. Mary, as our Mother and intercessor, also magnifies our prayers.

Luke 1:48 – Mary prophesies that all generations shall call her blessed, as Catholics do in the “Hail Mary� prayer. What Protestant churches have existed in all generations (none), and how many of them call Mary blessed with special prayers and devotions?

Gal. 4:4 – God sent His Son, born of a woman, to redeem us. Mary is the woman with the redeemer. By calling Mary co-redemptrix, we are simply calling Mary “the woman with the redeemer.� This is because “co� is from the Latin word “cum� which means “with.� Therefore, “co-redemptrix� means “woman with the redeemer.� Mary had a unique but subordinate role to Jesus in salvation.

Luke 2:35 – Simeon prophesies that a sword would also pierce Mary’s soul. Mary thus plays a very important role in our redemption. While Jesus’ suffering was all that we needed for redemption, God desired Mary to participate on a subordinate level in her Son’s suffering, just as he allows us to participate through our own sufferings.


Rev. 12:1 – Mary, the “woman,� is crowned with twelve stars. She is Queen of heaven and earth and the Mother of the Church.

And here is what a couple of early Church Fathers had to say . . .

“For as Eve was seduced by the word of an angel to flee from God, having rebelled against His Word, so Mary by the word of an angel received the glad tidings that she would bear God by obeying his Word. The former was seduced to disobey God, but the latter was persuaded to obey God, so that the Virgin Mary might become the advocate of the virgin Eve. As the human race was subjected to death through [the act of] a virgin, so it was saved by a virgin.� Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V:19,1 (A.D. 180).



“Under your mercy we take refuge, O Mother of God. Do not reject our supplications in necessity, but deliver us from danger,[O you] alone pure and alone blessed.� Sub Tuum Praesidium, From Rylands Papyrus, Egypt (3rd century).

Very little is said about her

The Bible itself is only about 1000 pages, which makes it all the more significant that if something is in the Bible it is something God wanted us to know about. Which other parts of the Bible do you find insignificant?

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

Oops! You have forgotten Paul’s words . . .


I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people— 2 for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. 3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. -1 Timothy 2:1-4


https://www.catholic.com/tract/praying-to-the-saints


Also, there are some verses in Revelation that talk about the prayers of the saints. For example, Revelation 5:8:
And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.

Yes, we are permitted to go thru others to Christ. It’s important to read the Bible as a whole and not be guilty of cherry picking isolated verses in order to justify some personal opinion.

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

John 3:13 does not eliminate the possibility of the Assumption of Mary for four reasons.

1. St. John was quoting the actual words our Lord spoke when he wrote, “No one has ascended into heaven, but . . . the Son of man.� Jesus was merely saying that no one had ascended into heaven by the time he made that statement. That was long before the Assumption of Mary.

2. Jesus cannot be saying that no one else will ever be taken to heaven. If that is the case, then what is all this Christianity stuff about? You know, heaven and all.

3. If one interprets John 3:13 as speaking about Christ uniquely ascending to heaven, that would be acceptable. We would then have to ask the question: what is it about Jesus’ ascension that is unique? Well, the fact that he ascended is unique. Mary did not ascend to heaven. She was assumed. There is a big difference. Jesus ascended by his own divine power as he prophesied he would in John 2:19-21: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up . . . he spoke of the temple of his body.� Mary was powerless to raise herself to heaven; she had to be assumed. The same could be said of all Christians. Jesus raised himself from the dead. Christians will be entirely passive when it comes to their collective “resurrection.�

4. St. John is demonstrating the divinity of Christ in John 3:13. Historically, we know St. John was writing against his archenemy, the heretic Cerinthus, who denied the divinity of Christ. St. John quotes these words from Jesus to demonstrate that the Savior “descended� from heaven and was both in heaven and on Earth as the “only begotten Son� (cf. 3:16) sharing his Father’s nature (cf. 5:17-18). Thus, he was truly God. St. John also emphasizes that even while “the Son of Man� walked the Earth with his disciples in Galilee, he possessed the beatific vision in his human nature. In that sense, his human nature (Son of Man) had already “ascended� into heaven inasmuch as it possessed the beatific vision, which is at the core of what heaven is. That is John’s theme in the text, not whether someone years after Christ could be assumed into heaven or not.

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/onlin ... on-of-mary

It's a shame that the popes didn't read their Bibles....

This is funny. It’s a shame false leaders like Charles Taze Russell felt the need to change/alter and give his personal interpretation of the Bible that was given to him by Christ’s Church without any authority to do so. Whereas the Popes have been given authority by Christ Himself through an unbroken line of Apostolic Succession to safeguard and interpret Sacred Scripture. “He who hears you, hears me . . .� “Whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven him . . .�

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.

Sacred Tradition was emphasized from the beginning. We hear and see this in Scripture itself, but many who broke off from Christ’s Church need to justify their leaving by ignoring the role and authority of Sacred Tradition.


Paul says that much Christian teaching is to be found in the tradition which is handed down by word of mouth (2 Tim. 2:2). He instructs us to “stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter� (2 Thess. 2:15).
This oral teaching was accepted by Christians, just as they accepted the written teaching that came to them later. Jesus told his disciples: “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me� (Luke 10:16). The Church, in the persons of the apostles, was given the authority to teach by Christ; the Church would be his representative. He commissioned them, saying, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations� (Matt. 28:19).

And how was this to be done? By preaching, by oral instruction: “So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ� (Rom. 10:17). The Church would always be the living teacher. It is a mistake to limit “Christ’s word� to the written word only or to suggest that all his teachings were reduced to writing. The Bible nowhere supports this.
https://www.catholic.com/tract/scripture-and-tradition


And finally, anyone who honors Mary is not doing anything that Jesus didn’t already beat them to. Jesus honors His mother and we are called to imitate Christ. Also, remember Jesus gave us His mother at the foot of the cross when He said, “Behold thy mother�. What does the 4th commandment tell us? Honor thy mother and father. By honoring Mary, we are honoring God. End of story!

[marco]

There are MANY translations that adhere to that rendering, and I have posted them.


John is not responsible for the wrong views of Jesus. It is the men, centuries later, that mess up the rendering of the verses.

You correctly say: "rendering". When we translate we try to capture any ambiguities in the original so that readers can make their own minds up. Renderings are fine, but not infallible. Yes, we can examine the entire corpus of NT teaching and conclude Jesus wasn't God - I don't think he claimed to be - but that does not mean that John thought along similar lines. He possibly did, but his phraseology lends itself to the conclusion that the word was God, which is what John says. We can minimise this to "The word was divine" which also makes sense.


John does bear a big responsibility. Perhaps had he been more circumspect, he would have anticipated certain incorrect renderings of his theology. But on the general point, I'm with you on Christ's status.

[rstrats]

RightReason,
re: "Exactly. She told Jesus they have no wine. And what did Jesus do? Ignore her?"

No. He asked her what her concern had to do with Him; that His time had not yet come. Seems like a mild rebuke.


re: "He performed His first public miracle. "

Apparently His pre-planned time for His first miracle had come at some point between Mary's comment and His changing of water to wine . You had asked if the Messiah did what Mary requested at the wedding feast. I was simply pointing out that scripture doesn't say that it was a request. She was merely making a comment. Just trying to keep you honest.



re: "If He was actually irritated with her, why would He have done something about the matter she was bringing to His attention?"

Apparently His time had come to perform His first miracle - not because Mary made the comment.



re: "Well, the Church, who He gave the authority to interpret Sacred Scripture does tell us exactly that."

I was merely pointing out that scripture doesn't say that (just in case someone thinks that it does).




re: "(“He who hears you, hears me . . .�). And not that it matters, but I am curious -- how exactly would you interpret such words?"

At face value.



re: "You do realize Revelation goes on to describe Mary and how she will be the one to crush the head of the serpent, right?"

Wrong. I realize no such thing.




re: "What did others say about her?"

Matthew 12:46-50 and Luke 11:27,28. These are the only 2 times where the Messiah was involved.



re: "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..."

Yes, my comments have been only about scripture and what it does and doesn't say about Mary where the Messiah is involved. I've said nothing about the validity of extracanonical writing.

[onewithhim]

There are MANY translations that adhere to that rendering, and I have posted them.


John is not responsible for the wrong views of Jesus. It is the men, centuries later, that mess up the rendering of the verses.

You correctly say: "rendering". When we translate we try to capture any ambiguities in the original so that readers can make their own minds up. Renderings are fine, but not infallible. Yes, we can examine the entire corpus of NT teaching and conclude Jesus wasn't God - I don't think he claimed to be - but that does not mean that John thought along similar lines. He possibly did, but his phraseology lends itself to the conclusion that the word was God, which is what John says. We can minimise this to "The word was divine" which also makes sense.


John does bear a big responsibility. Perhaps had he been more circumspect, he would have anticipated certain incorrect renderings of his theology. But on the general point, I'm with you on Christ's status.

But John does NOT say that Jesus was/is God. That is what I have been trying to say. Many translations render John 1:1c as "the Word was a god." It is definitely that, if the translators follow the rules for translating Greek into English. At the time of John, his audience would not have had any difficulty in understanding his phrase to mean that the Word was an important, powerful individual, and different from the "God" that he was with. In those days "god" was a title that referred sometimes to angels and even men, such as judges (as Jesus brought to the Pharisees' attention at John 10: 34-36).

I doubt that it ever crossed John's mind that people down the road would misunderstand what he was saying about the Word being "a god." It was a common title for individuals other than God Almighty.

Besides that, I am glad you do agree with me on Jesus' status. Thank you. It is heartening to see people who think clearly about the matter.