Right you are, iscool--- that's not what anybody has in mind.
This stuff isn't "partial divinizing": nobody is "partially divinizing" Mary. It's honor and veneration, as in "Honor Thy Father And Thy Mother," a commandment which Jesus observed in practice, and which we, her other offspring (Rev. 12:17) also observe in practice.
You quoted verses about God not giving His glory to another, but then what are we to make of this? St. Paul says (Romans 2:6, 10), "God will repay everyone according to his works: eternal life to those who seek glory, honor, and immortality through perseverance in good work,... there will be glory, honor, and peace for everyone who does good, Jew first and then Greek."
This is not stealing glory from God, but rather God's freedom to give glory to those on whom His favor rests. This is a derivative glory, like the light of the moon, which is not independent, but beautifully reflects the light of the sun.
It's also a matter of inheriting glory as joint heirs with Christ:
(Romans 8:16-18):
The Spirit itself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God,
and if children, then heirs,
heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ
if only we suffer with him
so that we may also be glorified with him.
I consider that the sufferings of this present time
are as nothing
compared with the glory to be revealed for us."
(Romans 8:30) And those he predestined he also called; and those he called he also justified; and those he justified he also glorified.
This is what we are taking about. About all believers
Since Jesus was predestined to be the firstborn of many brothers, Mary was therefore predestined to be the spiritual mother of many offspring (Revelation 12:17) --- have a good look at that chapter of Revelation, for she and we her "many offspring" are still, as you will notice, enemies of the Serpent.
There's a lot there. THIS is what God has in mind.
square with;
I say to you that such is an impossibility, regardless of the spiritual imagery witnessed and written about/described by the Apostle John in the Book of Revelation.
And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
Yet now we must call "Mary" our own mother, thinking of her even as a Heavenly, spirit mother?
For the time being you may spare yourself needing present repetition of the foot-of-the-cross;
sort of thing, for I have seen that already and was working towards commenting in reply to that, yet checked back to the thread here before final 'post'.
Instead of going over all the various details again and again and again, wherein each time objection is raised there is reply which turns to yet other aspects of alleged "converging lines of evidence" (as if they can give each other enough cover to fully justify the ways in which the various aspects of Marionist apologetic presents them to be, singularly and by turn) let us instead compare the pair of assertions.
I say this in part for reason that upon examination of the alleged evidences nearly none of them can fully enough stand alone to be "as they are being presented to be". As soon as challenges are raised, after some amount of glossing over the substance of the objections, there's that turning towards making mentions of all the other alleged-to-be converging evidences.
By-passing, or at least momentarily setting aside that painfully time-consuming process we could (should) instead isolate and compare the two highlighted [above] assertions.
Let's take a look at just where we have ended up. What is the result of all that progression from one little Lilly pad of justification (for Marionism) to another? Have we reached a far shore of the pond yet?
To be generous(?) to your own self personally, I will grant that it is not you yourself who originated this dual-track sort of *thinking about Mary* which seemingly is to my own eyes, a having things both ways at once ---- which would lead persons of intellectual integrity and sanity to experience cognitive dissonance when examining and comparing the assertions highlighted [above].
Yet all the apologetic which has been steadily (and rapidly) churned out over the last week or so to justify or else explain Marionism has yet to rectify the two assertions.
And those (highlighted, italicised above) statements are not so much error on your own part as they are fair enough representation of the state of RC theology (and attendant apologetic) in regards to "Mary".
So again (and thank you for this finally being boiled down to it's essence) let us freeze-frame the two competing and logically exclusionary conceptual components that you have presented to us.
Can a circle be squared?
In mathematical methodology, iirc it cannot be done, even in only calculation of area.
One can get close, even exceedingly close, close enough to define parameters far finer than achievable in material realm using presently available machining and methods -- yet still not ever reach finality of exactitude due to inherent mathematical characteristic of π (pi).
Yet we are not speaking towards geometric forms and mathematical calculations here, but instead are speaking of the difference between;
a merely created being (Mary, herself) being able to now "spiritually" give birth from heavenly places (where she is assumed to now be).
AND
the objection that she has not been elevated (by the praises of men) into becoming ---if not fully divine, then some form or semblance of divine, such as possibly expressed as semi-divine or else demi-goddess (not to be confused with Demiurge save in mystical sense of divine motherhood, divine "public worker" perhaps).
Reliance upon scratchings (or else 'mural') from catacombs as some actual form of "converging line of evidence" to make up for the howling wasteland void and lack for there being hyper-ized Marionism extant within history & Church record (other than from Gnostic sources, lol) in the centuries preceding the Council of Ephesus, is to stretch the more basic and original Judeo-Christian construct to a breaking point.
To now attempt to make the case that the earliest centuries Church regarded her as Mother from on High to them all, is as beyond imaginative semi-lunacy as it also incorporation of past paganistic ways of *thinking about* heavenly realms, having progressed from her being Mother of the Incarnate Christ, towards fully making of Mary into being as divine entity --- Our Lady, Our Heavenly Mother (up in the Sky);
"...intercede[ing] before her Son in the fellowship of all the saints, until all families of people, whether they are honored with the title of Christian or whether they still do not know the Saviour, may be happily gathered together in peace and harmony into one people of God, for the glory of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity." [Lumen Gentium § 69]
Tacking on "for the glory of God" sort of thing still does not limit her there from having been promoted to something of rank of Chief Junior Grade, little "g" goddess, ranked lower only to the "persons" of the Trinity, logically, conceptually and theologically speaking.
It seems to me that all which is holding back making Mary fully into divine entity, is something alone lines of that small 2-letter word "as" which I myself employed while speaking of Mary in the paragraph above the quote from Lumen Gentium;
Such a thin cord it is holding that boat to a mooring. My sailor's eye tells me ---enough wind, and that line is a-going to part, for a surety.
All that's left is to finalize the hyper expansion of "regard" and emulation (for Mary).
Mediatrix of all Graces is the next step in progression towards more fully & officially making her a 4th person of the Trinity, if in all but openly declared, clearly defined proclamation and name.
Meanwhile, this same Church(?) whom in past centuries was persuaded that one known as Arius was a danger for merely contemplating (and openly asserting) there was a time when Christ did not exist, now not only countenances increasingly hyper regard for "Mary", but actively promotes it.
Can not there be a difference between one (anyone) being with God the Father (there hid in Christ?) from some point partway, or arising from within eternity -- to then remain with Him into say, the remainder of eternity?
This sort of question also touches upon how within Roman Catholicism there has been (here of late) increasing contemplation of entering into and touching upon "eternity" and thus stepping into a stream which --- in present day imaginations --- seems to not only flow FROM the Temple but is one in which a person could, uh, veritably, swim upstream and be present in "eternity" --- going both forwards and backwards, and yet again standing in any one place, all at the same time.
Should we not leave that sort of Omnipresence to the One Eternal God --- alone?
Yet here we are now --- not residing elsewhere in mystic stream, one in which "Mary" is said to have been (at particular point in "time") assumed up into the heavenlies, and now (after that somewhat late date?) is to be "mother" of all whom would come to the Lord. Herself if Spirit Mother would need to have swum upstream as it were --- to give birth to those "of the church" whom preceded her own creation & existence. Or else say goodbye to Moses and all the prophets, forever discarded for having not been 'born of Mary'.
We need not a Heavenly mother per se, there is simply no place for a Heavenly Mother ----> any more than one was alluded to in the book of Genesis chapter 5 verse 2
Or if one prefers http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/5
Mary cannot be Our Heavenly Mother ---unless --- Mary has now assumed a portion of the role which God the Father Himself, himself having no gender (sexual identity as it were) from the beginning creation of mankind accomplished Creation of all that there is with assistance from --- no one, period, dot.
Just how far
shall we go?
We were born before the wind
Also younger than the sun
Ere the bonnie boat was won
As we sailed into the mysticHark, now hear the sailors cry
Smell the sea and feel the sky
Let your soul and spirit fly
Into the mysticAnd when that fog horn blows
I will be coming home, mmm mmm
And when the fog horn blows
I want to hear it
I don't have to fear itI wanna rock your gypsy soul
Just like way back in the days of old
Then magnificently we will float
Into the mystic
How far can we go before loosing our moorings
premature of the tidal flow we need carry us
safely over the reefs and into the Trades, and those
winds (Spirit) hold, carrying us to the
next harbor
That one truly Safe Harbor
to abide there forevermore after
we actually arrive
There
Isaiah 66 shows it to be Zion, NOT Mary. Zion, the New Jerusalem which is the mother of us all.
Galatians 4:26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. Catholic twisting and corruption of scripture is Satanic in origin.
So you just ignore those scriptures in the O.T.??? Or God was lying??? Or perhaps you don't understand...
God will give us glory but it will not be HIS glory...THAT, he will share with no one...
we who are predestined (as Mary was predestined to be the Woman in enmity against Satan, Genesis 3:17)---
Mary is no where near Genesis...A study of the scriptures will show anyone that the woman is Israel...
Since Jesus was predestined to be the firstborn of many brothers, Mary was therefore predestined to be the spiritual mother of many offspring (Revelation 12:17)
Mary is not in Rev. 12...You again have to trash half the chapter to squeak Mary in there...
have a good look at that chapter of Revelation, for she and we her "many offspring" are still, as you will notice, enemies of the Serpent.
Mary has no spiritual offspring...The church is not an offspring of Mary, spiritual or otherwise...God doesn't have a mother...There is not a God with a mother any where in the scriptures...
