This from a Catholic website....
"The Bible calls her by her name, "Mary," and by her title "mother" while the passage calls Jesus by the title "child," which puts him in relation to her at the very moment the Magi worshipped him (as God). The Bible was trying to teach us who Mary is in relation to Jesus (God). This appears to be confirmed when Elizabeth said "Who am I that the mother of my Lord would come to me?" (Lk 1:43). Catholics think the title "Mother of God" is very Biblical."
Except that the title "Mother of God" is not Biblical at all since Jesus never once claimed to be Almighty God. Mary's cousin Elizabeth also knew through divine revelation who Mary would give birth to. (Luke 1:36; Luke 1:40-45) Like Sarah, she was carrying a divinely given child as well. Why is she not given special mention?
"In a special way, she is mother of the incarnate God, who is fully God. Jesus didn't become divine some time later in life. He was always God, and Mary gave birth to him as such. The Magi kneeled down and worshiped Jesus, while Mary, his mother, was holding God in her arms. Today, Catholics don't have a problem kneeling in Mary's presence either. She is as much with Jesus today, as she was on that day when she held him, while the Magi kneeled in her presence to worship of him. When we kneel in the presence of Mary it is because she is with her Son, Jesus."
Do Catholics worship a pagan goddess in the disguise of Mary?
Is any of that true? Jesus was born as a human through the vessel that God chose to be his earthly mother.
The magi who came to bring gifts to the child that they had divined through the stars, were pagan astrologers who did not come to "worship" Jesus as God, because Yahweh was not their god. God revealed the birth of his son to Jewish shepherds who came to Bethlehem to see for themselves this wonderful event.
The magi came to honor a child "born to be King of the Jews"....a custom that the devil played on to put Jesus' life in jeopardy. The star that guided the astrologers, led them first to Jerusalem and a jealous King. It was not sent by God, but by the devil in an attempt to have Jesus killed before he could even grow up. By the time the magi showed up, Jesus was about 2 years old, living in a house with his parents. The "star" that led the astrologers to Jesus stopped above the very house where Jesus was....so why did it first lead them to Herod?
We acknowledge that the doctrines of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary are not found in the NT, they are held as consonant with the picture in Luke of Mary as the first one to believe and with the picture in John where she is especially honored as Jesus hang on the cross. We believe there is one mediator, Jesus.
Because Jesus' siblings had not yet accepted him as the Christ, (no, Mary was not ever virgin...that is a trait of the mother goddesses) as firstborn, he gave the care of his mother over to the apostle John because her spiritual welfare was of primary importance to him. This was a son taking care of his mother, as any Jewish son would have.
Mary was as sinful as any other human, so was Joseph who would raise the boy as his own. They made sin offerings at the Temple at the prescribed time. They offered two turtledoves....the offering of the poor. If the magi had been at the stable as many nativity scenes imply, then they had expensive gifts that could have been offered. It would have been cheating the system to offer the two small birds....something they never would have done.
I don't recall you ever quoting non canonical gospels, why is that?
They are non-canonical....meaning that they are not recognized as part of the inspired scriptures. God chose the books that would make up his inspired word, not the church.
And you should try the eastern form of meditation, reconcile your head with your heart. But you would have to let go of your preconceived ideas.
There is no need to borrow ideas from pagan religions....Jesus never did, and Paul said we were not to fuse them with our worship because God saw them as spiritually "unclean". (2 Corinthians 6:14-18) That also makes Christmas and Easter things that God tells us to steer clear of.
We reconcile our beliefs with scripture...that to us is more important.
Why is it that your not quoting Jn 1:1-18? which presents the Incarnation of Jesus the Christ, the Word made Flesh.
Actually it doesn't. If you read it in the Greek, you will see two distinct personages mentioned...both divine, but only one is Almighty God.
John 1:1 states...
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made."
In the Greek, there is no word for the one Almighty God of Israel because Greeks were polytheistic. Their gods all had names and were collectively just called "the gods". Since the Jews had stopped using the divine name and instead substituted titles like "Lord" and "God" there was no way to distinguish the one true God of Israel from any other god (or divine mighty one).
They instead used the definite article "THE" (ho) so that John 1:1 reads....
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with (the) God, and the Word was a god." (or a divine mighty one.)
Verse 14 says that it was "the Word" who became flesh, not "the God". Two separate beings.
Verse 18 plainly says
"No man hath seen God at any time: the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."
Interesting that in Greek the word for God is "theos" so we have John 1:1 saying that the Word was "theos" and in verse 18 it says "Son". The correct rendering of verse 18 is...
."the only begotten god (theos) who is in the bosom of the Father hath declared him". So why say "God" in the first verse but then change the same word to "Son" in verse 18? Can God be "begotten"?
The trinity is a lie. Jesus is divine, but he is NOT God Almighty. No amount of fiddling with the words will make it so.
This is why we need to study the Bible....you can trust it to explain itself.