• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Shouldn't the Trinity include Mary?

I thought Mary was also called The Queen of Heaven according to Catholics, Orthodox Christians and Anglicans and other groups. That alone should let her become part of the trinity.
Thats called 'accretion' ; other, sometimes local , God/esses get incorporated into new ones

Queen of Heaven is , or could be ; Australian Aboriginal - Wallenganda, ancient Egyptian - Nut , Thelemic - Nuit , Kabbalisitc - 'Queen of Heaven', Hermetic - Anima Mundi, or Mater Coeli . . . ad so on

Here is a personal favorite aspect of her of my own

Maryfrch.jpg


an even more defined aspect of her in this aspect ;

mary-star-of-the-sea.jpg
hc-stella-maris-slovenia.jpg



( note, no Jesus , present )

Gnostic prayer : The MOON ; " Lady of night, that turning ever about us art now visible and now invisible in thy season, be thou favourable to hunters, and lovers, and to all men that toil upon the earth, and to all mariners upon the sea. "

In this aspect she is Lunar (as Christ is the polar opposite , Solar ) she is often also depicted standing on the Moon and/or waves.

The sea and Moon are feminine symbols, as is the unconscious and the soul .
 

Thanda

Well-Known Member
I never understood why it was called the Father The Son and the Holy Spirit. I always felt Mary should have been included considering she is supposed to be sinless to Catholics and gave birth to the avatar of God.

I feel like there's no balance when women are taken out of the picture. and monotheistic faiths tend to be heavily male based. I never thought God or the creator was a man or woman but more of an it. But even then, in the trinity, I always thought it would make more sense to call it The Father, The Son and the Mother or The Father, The Mother and the Child. But then I guess they wouldn't be so monotheistic. Even then I thought it'd make more sense that way.

No. When a woman gives birth she gives birth to a body. God fills that body with a spirit. The body with the spirit is a living soul. Mary gave birth to the body of Jesus (or God). That body was a regular body any other woman would have given birth to: nothing special. Having done so her part in the whole matter (of incarnation) was done. God the Father then filled that body with the Spirit of God the Son. This resulted in the living soul we know as Jesus Christ.

So Mary cannot be made a God for doing something any other woman could have done - to give birth.

However she is special in that she must clearly have been a righteous person to have been chosen by God for this great honor .
 
In fact trinities of gods, including father, mother, and son are common in pagan religions. Isis, Osiris, and Horus were an Egyptian triad. I do not believe the Bible teaches the trinity.

yes, but vast majorities of people WANT a theistic family trinity thing .... as your post states.

hence the original question , I have encountered it many times .


Mary is revered more in some Catholic places than others as well ; she is big and specific in Mexico

our-lady-of-guadalupe-jpg.jpg


Our Lady of Guadalupe ..... note the crescent Moon at her feet .
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
Perhaps when Jesus was born women had almost zero importance.
It seems Mary's role was simply a virgin vessel for Jesus.
The O.T. seems not to place much importance on women save for
bearing sons and heirs.
Thoughts?
I don't know a lot about everything and little about anything.:confused::confused:
I believe God loves everyone so both genders are included. It is only culture that sees it differently.
 

omega2xx

Well-Known Member
I never understood why it was called the Father The Son and the Holy Spirit. I always felt Mary should have been included considering she is supposed to be sinless to Catholics and gave birth to the avatar of God.

I feel like there's no balance when women are taken out of the picture. and monotheistic faiths tend to be heavily male based. I never thought God or the creator was a man or woman but more of an it. But even then, in the trinity, I always thought it would make more sense to call it The Father, The Son and the Mother or The Father, The Mother and the Child. But then I guess they wouldn't be so monotheistic. Even then I thought it'd make more sense that way.

All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God---including Mary.
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
I never understood why it was called the Father The Son and the Holy Spirit. I always felt Mary should have been included considering she is supposed to be sinless to Catholics and gave birth to the avatar of God.

I feel like there's no balance when women are taken out of the picture. and monotheistic faiths tend to be heavily male based. I never thought God or the creator was a man or woman but more of an it. But even then, in the trinity, I always thought it would make more sense to call it The Father, The Son and the Mother or The Father, The Mother and the Child. But then I guess they wouldn't be so monotheistic. Even then I thought it'd make more sense that way.
I will give my two cents. The idea of the Trinity is largely a product of its time. We are talking about a largely patriarchal society, and thus it was natural to refer to the Trinity in masculine terms. Its the same reason why historically, many gods, and G-d in general, has been referred to in masculine terms. Patriarchal societies create such an idea, and thus humans write in the manner in which they are taught. That changes from culture to culture, and some do promote more of a feminine quality.

The question then becomes, why hasn't it changed? Well, to a point, it has. We still live in a patriarchal society, but that is changing. Within religious studies, the whole idea of G-d being male has also changed. Back in the 70s actually, there was a movement to coin a term for a gender neutral term that could be applied. It failed, but over the decades, it has become much more popular to refer to G-d in non-gender terms.

The reason for that is because of a different understanding of the Bible. While the Bible often refers to G-d in masculine terms, it is realized that the reason for that is largely because of the manner in which men wrote at that time. At the same time, studies have looked at how G-d is referred to in the Bible, and at times, it is seen that G-d is referred to in feminine terms, and sometimes as a mother. More so, different facets of G-d, such as Wisdom, are generally understood as female, and thus there is an argument that G-d contains both female and male qualities, while transcending both.

The Spirit is one that often is ascribed female qualities as well, so there is an argument for some what of a more balanced view.

As for why Mary is left out, she isn't divine, nor is thought to be divine. Her big contribution really begins and ends with having a child. After that, she largely vanishes.
 

Acim

Revelation all the time
I never understood why it was called the Father The Son and the Holy Spirit. I always felt Mary should have been included considering she is supposed to be sinless to Catholics and gave birth to the avatar of God.

The Son is One. Overall, One with God, but in realigning understandings of God's nature, the Son is One in accurately describing humanity. Mary is (part of) The Son within the Trinity.

Claiming Jesus is the "only Son" is between blasphemy and idolatry.

I feel like there's no balance when women are taken out of the picture. and monotheistic faiths tend to be heavily male based. I never thought God or the creator was a man or woman but more of an it. But even then, in the trinity, I always thought it would make more sense to call it The Father, The Son and the Mother or The Father, The Mother and the Child. But then I guess they wouldn't be so monotheistic. Even then I thought it'd make more sense that way.

There are other ways to understand the Trinity, such as: Parent, Holy Spirit, Child; or Creator, Word, Creation. There all just symbols of a teaching device meant to realign understanding of God's nature, and own divine nature.
 

Theweirdtophat

Well-Known Member
No, it shouldn't. You have completely missed the idea of the Trinity in orthodox Christianity, I'm afraid.

Ok, and how so?

Or are you just going to say I missed it and that's it?

I know enough about Christianity that not all doctrines are true. Just because something isn't included in doctrine, doesn't make it false and just because it is in the doctrine, doesn't make it so.

What are the 3 main parts of the family? Father, Mother and Child? Why not apply this to Christianity? You have the Father and the Son, but no Mother? What sense does that make? How can you ever expect balance with one parent? Mary was supposed to be sinless, which is why she was chosen. Without her, Jesus would not have been born and has been known as the Queen of Heaven, yet she is excluded from the Trinity? Doesn't make much sense.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
The Son is One. Overall, One with God, but in realigning understandings of God's nature, the Son is One in accurately describing humanity. Mary is (part of) The Son within the Trinity.

Claiming Jesus is the "only Son" is between blasphemy and idolatry.



There are other ways to understand the Trinity, such as: Parent, Holy Spirit, Child; or Creator, Word, Creation. There all just symbols of a teaching device meant to realign understanding of God's nature, and own divine nature.

I believe since He is God He can't be one with Him since a joining requires two conceptual parts. He and the Father are one because they are two conceptual parts.

I do not believe Mary is part of the Son but she may well be part of the Paraclete and God in the sense that all believers who are born again are God.

I believe I have no idea how you contrived such a false concept.

I believe this one is incorrect. I would prefer the understanding that God intended.
 

Acim

Revelation all the time
I believe since He is God He can't be one with Him since a joining requires two conceptual parts. He and the Father are one because they are two conceptual parts.

The last sentence is unclear in what you are getting across. It reads to me, at first glance, as if you are restating what I put forth.

I do not believe Mary is part of the Son but she may well be part of the Paraclete and God in the sense that all believers who are born again are God.

Okay. Your belief is noted. I find it not sensible to identify God's Creation as Holy Spirit, though am open to discussing such understandings further.

I believe I have no idea how you contrived such a false concept.

That's okay, I do. It's good to be Gnostic. Jesus as "only son" is the false concept.

I believe this one is incorrect. I would prefer the understanding that God intended.

I know it to be equally correct. We are after all discussing symbols, at least twice removed from Source.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
The last sentence is unclear in what you are getting across. It reads to me, at first glance, as if you are restating what I put forth.



Okay. Your belief is noted. I find it not sensible to identify God's Creation as Holy Spirit, though am open to discussing such understandings further.



That's okay, I do. It's good to be Gnostic. Jesus as "only son" is the false concept.



I know it to be equally correct. We are after all discussing symbols, at least twice removed from Source.

I don't believe it is. The Father is God out of a body and the Son is God inside a body. Both are God but in different places.

I am not saying that. I am saying that God resides in those who invite Him in.

I believe it is the Biblical concept as opposed to gnostic writings that are contrary to the Bible.

I believe there is no evidence that creation can be obtained from spirit.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Trinitarians are a subset of Abrahamics, and most of those place a lot of significance to the distinction between what is God and what is not.

I don't quite understand why and I don't particularly think they are better off making that distinction, but it is their choice.

Mary, even more than Jesus, is described as very much human, albeit born without the Original Sin that nearly every other human would have at birth (according to Roman Catholic doctrine and perhaps Orthodox doctrine as well - I am not sure). That is the doctrine of Immaculate Conception, which refers to Mary herself, not to Jesus (despite common misunderstandings).

Either way, the bottom line is that traditional mainstream Christianity simply sees Mary as far "too human" to fit the expectations and roles that they attribute to its God.

How significant that is or should be is IMO unavoidably a matter of personal take, although various Churches will make statements on the matter occasionally, with various stances and degrees of authority.
 

Acim

Revelation all the time
I don't believe it is. The Father is God out of a body and the Son is God inside a body. Both are God but in different places.

Oh, I see what you did there. Obviously if you think the body is real, that makes for plausible disagreement we might have, but also makes for idea that they are not One. Since you previously worded it as conceptual parts, I felt you were emphasizing the spiritual over the apparent/physical (or what I'd call illusion).


I am not saying that. I am saying that God resides in those who invite Him in.

Resides? If so, then God can appear in a body. Perhaps our disagreement is just on understanding Sonship, rather than trying to pigeonhole Fatherhood (Supreme Creator). And/or it would be interesting to understand how you think invitation works.

I believe it is the Biblical concept as opposed to gnostic writings that are contrary to the Bible.

The way this reads is "the Biblical concept (that Jesus is only Son of God) is contrary to the Bible." If so I agree.

If not saying that, then this goes back to interpretation. I believe there's very little you can quote from scripture, particularly Gospel, that the Gnostic doesn't find reconcilable with Gnostic understandings. In my experience of discussing scripture with orthodox/traditionalists, I see it is them that are routinely 'adding to the word.' Reinterpreting passages with words that are not explicitly stated, thus the implicit (inner meaning) is where the ongoing debate occurs. Prime example: "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." This is not statement about Jesus. Had Christ wanted to make it about Jesus, then "me" would've been replaced (explicitly) with "Jesus." As the word stands, it applies to All who call themselves Me.

I believe there is no evidence that creation can be obtained from spirit.

Yet again, I'm unclear with what you are stating here. Hence the problem in discussing symbols. God = Spirit (to me). To then fit your assertion, it is saying "there is no evidence that creation can be obtained from God" which is mind-blowing coming from a Christian, but begs the question of where you think creation comes from if not God/Spirit?
 
Top