Mary, mother of God/theotokos? What are the Christian objections to Catholic and Orthodox Mariology?

Seat of Wisdom,

Mother Most Pure,

SACRED VESSEL-

MAKE OUR HEARTS LIKE UNTO THINE!!!

My church is right and your church is wrong and my god will burn you alive forever for daring to question my church.


Same old bullshit thats been going on for centuries.

Just pick a god and bash everyone with it.

So which god will you serve?

The catholic god who will burn you alive forever if you dont bow?

The christian rapture tard god who will do the same?

Or the muslim god who also burns people alive forever for refusal to submit?

Or maybe Zeus who wil roast you in hades forever if you displease him?

Or is it the lutheran or baptist god who also is into eternal torture if you dont bow down?

Or maybe its the ancient egyptian god RA who has you tortured forever in the underworld if you stuff up?

Or maybe the first god of eternal torture and death who thought this system up in the first place...Nimrod of ancient Babylon..father of all religions who use torture and fear to control the people..

And his wife Semiramis..goddess..whom the catholics came to know as mary...mother of harlots and abominations of the earth.

See....the ancients knew.

Polybius writes: "Since the multitude is ever fickle there is no other way to keep them in order but by fear of the invisible world; on which account our ancestors seem to me to have acted judiciously, when they contrived to bring into the popular belief these notions of the gods and of the infernal regions."

Seneca says: "Those things which make the infernal regions terrible, the darkness, the prison, the river of flaming fire, the judgment seat, etc., are all a fable."

Livy declares that Numa invented the doctrine, "a most efficacious means of governing an ignorant and barbarous populace."

Strabo writes: "The multitude are restrained from vice by the punishments the gods are said to inflict upon offenders, for it is impossible to govern the crowd of women and all the common rabble by philosophical reasoning: these things the legislators used as scarecrows to terrify the childish multitude."

Are you willing to see?


Then He said to them, "O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken!

"Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into His glory?"

And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.




So he arose and went. And behold, a man of Ethiopia, a eunuch of great authority under Candace the queen of the Ethiopians, who had charge of all her treasury, and had come to Jerusalem to worship,

was returning. And sitting in his chariot, he was reading Isaiah the prophet.

Then the Spirit said to Philip, "Go near and overtake this chariot."

So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading the prophet Isaiah, and said, "Do you understand what you are reading?"

And he said, "How can I, unless someone guides me?" And he asked Philip to come up and sit with him.

The place in the Scripture which he read was this:

"He was led as a sheep to the slaughter;
And as a lamb before its shearer is silent,
So He opened not His mouth.

In His humiliation His justice was taken away,
And who will declare His generation?
For His life is taken from the earth."

So the eunuch answered Philip and said, "I ask you, of whom does the prophet say this, of himself or of some other man?"

Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at this Scripture, preached Jesus to him.

My point was that Orthodox-Catholic history is Protestant history too. A history Protestants, and Evangelicals in particular, are trying to erase whilst still keeping the councils and creeds, and pretending the trinity was deducted through exegetical process. Hence church history not being emphasized in Evangelical circles. It's stricly self-preservation.

That's funny. That's exactly the same thing I think about those that claim 'prima scriptura'.



1) Jesus was accepted as being from the line of David from its mother side, which is the relevant one for Jewish tradition. No one has ever contested this. Keep in mind that not even his enemies contested this. If there was any doubt about his lineage, his enemies would have jumped on this. They didn't.

2) The sacrifice is not the animal. The sacrifice is the spilling of blood, according to OT in Leviticus 17:11, and confirmed on NT in Hebrews 9:22. The species of the animal was never relevant.

3) The Law was not done away with. Paul was very clear that the Law was a shadow of things to come, and Christ himself said that not a dot of it would pass until everything was fulfilled. However, a shadow does not exist by itself. It exists because light is striking a solid, real object, which is the Christian Doctrine in this case. The singular aspects of the Law, as the feasts you cited, are no longer followed because they were nothing but shadows of singular aspects of the Christian Doctrine, which are followed.

I understood what you said. However, they don't see it that way. They see their history more like... there was Jesus, and then the Apostles, and then a long "wolf" period when darkness reigned, and then light shone again when they were founded.

I agree with you, however, that accepting councils and creeds while pretending they never happened is, to say the least, hypocritical.

You can copy and paste the entire Harry Potter series too, and it still wouldn't give you any scriptural understanding.

43 He said to them, “How is it then that David, in the Spirit, calls him Lord, saying,

44 “‘The Lord said to my Lord,
“Sit at my right hand, Matthew 22:43-45

The psalm quoted here is Psalm 110:1. The first LORD, usually capitalized, is not a translation of the text, but God's name, the tetragrammaton, being substituted.

A Psalm of David. YHWH says to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.”

Here we have YHWH, the Most High God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, adressing someone else, a second person referred to as lord, adoni.

I think they are paid shills, so I choose to ignore them, and engage only those that have demonstrated a minimum level of knowledge. Those I can learn from.

You mean like Jesus himself denied? And Peter, John, Paul, etc?

What does the word "divinity" even mean? Aren't angels divine beings too? Does God ever refer to Himself as "divine"? Why are you even using these words describing ontological attributes when God is a personal God with a personal identity? Sounds more like the kind of subtle semantic tricks a deceiver will do.

Last Edited by Monotheism on 08/06/2016 09:11 PM

Good Response

Ok, guys, got to hit the sack. Good night, all, and may God bless you and guide you towards truth and the righteous path.

Last Edited by Monotheism on 08/06/2016 09:25 PM

Please, don't feed the trolls.

The concept of 'divinity' does not exist in the Bible. There is a concept of 'spiritual beings' and 'wordly beings'. The idea of "divine beings" is pagan in origin, most likely greek or roman. Even Jesus himself despised the idea of 'divinity' as some sort of ontological nature of beings when he claimed that the judges of Israel could be rightfully called 'gods' themselves (John 10:34). The word for 'god' in the OT means nothing more than a mighty person. Such meaning has survived to this day as any dictionary will define god as "an adored, admired or influential person".

Most of the comments on this thread are just verses from the bible which was written at least 50 years after Jesus supposedly died. Of course, all prophecies would come true. I could prophesize about the rise of Hitler in the 1930s and they would come true.

your real question is: how can you explain the mystery of God?

thinking...maybe if we just break it down into small slivers and parts we can create enough labels and philosophies and ideas to quantify the unquantifiable...

and the only answer is: you can't.


you will always lose sight of the forest from the trees...

I was catching up on As I Am's thread, sorry I'm late to this one. Thread: The epistles in the bible are NOT talking about Jesus of Nazareth (Page 5)

I have learned some new words from you guys. My Mariology
statements there may have been more provocative here, I held back on the other Marys.

My objections are merely the lack of female input recorded in ANY of these accounts. Women were at best seen and not heard, or worse merely property. Treatment of women and animals is the most important factor in a society's success. The He-man Woman Haters' Club has edited them all out. Music is the universal language.

My Golden Rule is do Not unto others...Learn to be still, the answers will find you.

Catholics don't worship Mary.

Why do Catholics pray to Mary?

What other people do Catholics pray to?

Why do Catholics pray to other men?

...graven image. The Christian church displays an empty cross, we follow his teachings, and worship the creator.

So they claim.

Who do Catholics say are Saints?

First how many of you actually have READ the Word of YHVH all the way through - even ONCE? If you haven't then you have nothing but an opinion on what OTHERS'S say it says.

Mary was a human born of woman, just like everyone else since Adam and Eve had children. Because of that, she had to offer the sin offering just like everyone else because she was "born in sin" having inherited the sin of Adam.

Of course the Catholics say that she had no sin, which is found NO where in the Word. It only says she was "blessed" because she (an no one else would ever do so for obvious reasons) would bear the promised Messiah, but that doesn't make her "sin free".

Since she was "born of woman" just like everyone else and inherited the "sin of Adam", then any children she would produce from her egg (DNA) would also bear THAT SAME SIN.

Yeshua had no sin and was the spotless Lamb of YHVH. So how could He have no sin and be of Mary's DNA as He would have inherited the "sin of Adam" and would have needed to offer a SIN OFFERING for atonement? Can't be. It is said in Hebrews that he, as our High Priest didn't have to offer a sin offering as the High Priest did because He HAD NO SIN.

YHVH created Adam from the "dust of the earth" with no human mother or father. Then why is it such a leap to think that He could do it again, for the "second Adam" who, unlike the first Adam, had no/did no sin? YHVH could have easily used Mary as a surrogate to grow His Son in, creating a fertilized egg needing NO genetic material from her. It happens all the time now.

The ancient people of the time could not have conceived of it. So if any woman bore a child then it was considered that that child was conceived in the natural normal way. She bore Yeshua who had none of her DNA and people saw Him as HERS, and thereby of HER lineage. Joseph adopted him as HIS, and thereby giving Him HIS lineage (look up ancient near east customs of adoption).

In fact, study the ancient near east customs/thinking (easily googled and several good books and papers on it, John Walton's books are a good start) etc. to keep from forcing the modern, scientific, Greek mindset onto an ancient culture, with no scientific though/process and that has a HEBREW thought pattern.

Religion is made of man. YHVH has HIS WAY which is vastly different than man's controlling, honor stealing ways. There is a difference between Judaism (also, Christianity, Catholicism, and any other) and YHVH's Way. A little study and you can see this - they are all man made RELIGIONS.

Study (do an inductive, in depth) covenant, the Tabernacle/Temple pattern, and READ the Word THROUGH from front to back, EVERY DAY, EVERY YEAR, year after year. Not just read AT IT, but READ IT. The vast majority have not even done this ONCE. They don't have the desire to do so, nor the desire to take the TIME to do so, but want to be seen as "knowledgeable" on it when they do not KNOW what it says. People get soooo offended when you ask this question because they HAVEN'T done so and do not want to be "exposed" as such and they will NEVER ANSWER THE QUESTION. It is easily remedied, just do it, you will be very surprised at what He tells you in it.

Who commenting on this thread has read it at least ONE TIME?

First how many of you actually have READ the Word of YHVH all the way through - even ONCE? If you haven't then you have nothing but an opinion on what OTHERS'S say it says.

Sorry for that typo.

I have read it through and I have studied it closely. And I come up with much different conclusions than you do, as is the case for many others. In fact, the closer you read it, without trying to force the doctrines into the text, the more you see that the standard tale doesn't hold up at all. And regardless of your attempt to differentiate, Christianity is as much a man made religion as the others.

If you want to push for the historical Jesus so hard, since you are touting close study as a key, why not stop over to this thread and apply some or your close study to the myriad examples put forth that speak against your thesis.

Thread: The epistles in the bible are NOT talking about Jesus of Nazareth

Never pushed, defended or differentiate Christianity. I said it is as much a man made religion as the rest.

How is there a difference between "Mother of God" and "God birther" lol? Also I'm Catholic, could write a book about Catholic doctrine on Mary, and I have no idea what Nestorianism or Chalcedon are.

Jesus existed long before Mary in spirit. She gave birth to his human body only.

Why is this even an issue?

Wasn't the deification of Mary just an attempt to get Sophia back in on the act, to acknowledge in some way the divine feminine?

What about the ancient Triple Goddess...

Cyril of Jerusalem, in his Coptic Discourse, mentions the three Marys at the foot of the Cross (Mother Mary, Mary Magdalene, and Mary Salome)