Why do people call her mother of God?

Catholics would say she didn't die but was Assumed bodily into heaven. So when they pray "to" Mary, they're really asking Mary, as someone with great faith and love, to pray for them.

Can't defend that as I think it's ridiculous. I'll have to leave it to the Catholic that was replying. Catholics do believe, though, that Mary was assumed bodily into heaven at the end of her life.

>Mary is not part of the holy trinity

But no one said that She is part of the Holy Trinity.
Don't be dishonest.

Praying to Mary is asking Mary to pray on your behalf.

This is a common explanation, but it doesn't really compare to simply asking a person to pray for you. After all, you are actually praying to that person, communicating with someone through prayer who is no longer upon Earth, who is apparently capable of now hearing the prayers of millions of people (simultaneously?).

Jesus is God, you big dummy.

There is no conflict between "original christianity" and Catholic Marian doctrine because the Marian doctrines are built into Christianity, right from the beginning.

"BEHOLD YOUR MOTHER."

Jesus said that to the beloved disciple, one of His last words on the cross.

In addition: "Woman, behold your son."

What was going on here? Jesus' last-moment arrangement of his domestic matters? While being crucified, the central point in human history?

All Christians are now Jesus's friends; we are all His beloved disciples.

Jesus was describing the spiritual relationship that applies to His disciples: Mary is our spiritual mother, as she was for John.

Jesus was the Second Adam, Mary is the Second Eve.

Eve was the mother of the human race, Mary is the mother of all Christians.

"Behold your mother."

That's Jesus talking... and it sounds like....dare I say it... an order.

Our Lady, indeed.

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=5084

amazon.com/Behold-Your-Mother-Historical-Doctrines/dp/1938983807

Why do you assume she is literally listening, as in using her ears or something?

It isn't an order, beyond "behold" and the attendant duty to "honor thy father and mother". It certainly doesn't include the various Marian dogmas or prayers to Mary. You're just reading something into the text that isn't there.

Would Mary like anime?

I don't recall that the term "hear" is limited to the reception of auditory stimuli.

1. mary didn't die
2. mary wasn't a mere human with a human nature. she was immaculately conceived, carried and gave birth to jesus while still a virgin, lived a life free of all sin, including original sin, and then was taken up into heaven while still alive

It just gets sillier the further you go.

Then why do you assume that she can't 'hear' millions of prayers per day?

The current up-and-coming Marian dogma is that Mary is "co-redemptrix" along with Jesus, meaning that Mary also redeemed humanity. I wonder what Catholics will believe about her in 500 years.

Because it's inhuman, and she is but a human.

Hebrews speaks of the "cloud of witnesses" -- departed souls in heaven WATCHING THE CHRISTIANS ON EARTH WHO ARE STILL "RUNNING THE RACE."

"Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses" Hebrews 12:1

Witnesses both see and hear. Do you think they watch all that is going on, and sit mute, disinterested, with no care for anything -- or do they petition the Father on behalf of those "running the race"?

In Revelation the angels carry bowls full of prayers of the saints to the throne. The virgin martyrs cry out "how long", which is a prayer. Prayer means to petition. It is a channel through which we worship when talking to God and we honor when asking saints, Mary included, to intercede in prayer for us.

The saints are in heaven, alive in Christ. They can hear our prayers and intercede for us, as clearly taught in Hebrews and the Book of Revelation in particular.

See: catholic.com/tracts/praying-to-the-saints

And: catholic.com/tracts/the-intercession-of-the-saints

Both of which explain why prayer to saints is consistent with the Bible, and the teachings of the early Church.

This video provides an *excellent* explanation of the Catholic doctrine of prayer to saints. It presents the Catholic view with great clarity, and soundly rebuts every Protestant objection you can think of.

youtube.com/watch?v=kCqHLPX2MDA&t

'no'

God is and always be but before the year 0 he wasn't born yet and after the year 0 he was.

It's not that hard user.

God the Son is a part of the Trinity: the Trinity is God, therefore Mary is the mother of God as she's the mother of God the Son.

It isn't hard.

>Hebrews speaks of the "cloud of witnesses"
Which are deceased and outside the range of my communication.
>Witnesses both see and hear. Do you think they watch all that is going on, and sit mute, disinterested, with no care for anything -- or do they petition the Father on behalf of those "running the race"?
I would imagine that they pray and worship God along with everyone else.
>In Revelation the angels carry bowls full of prayers of the saints to the throne.
They "carry prayers to God" whatever you'd like to take that expression as meaning. They don't receive prayers to themselves and then pray to God on my behalf. That isn't proving your point.
>The virgin martyrs cry out "how long", which is a prayer. Prayer means to petition. It is a channel through which we worship when talking to God and we honor when asking saints, Mary included, to intercede in prayer for us.
You're just repeating things at this point.
>The saints are in heaven, alive in Christ. They can hear our prayers and intercede for us, as clearly taught in Hebrews and the Book of Revelation in particular.
You haven't demonstrated that, I'm afraid.

Which statement are you objecting to? With Catholics it can be hard to tell.

I don't think you have a grasp on the Holy Trinity yet.

Mary is unique.

She is the woman seen in Revelation 12:1: clothed with the sun, the moon under her feet, the woman who gives birth to Christ.

She is the Second Eve, just as Christ was the Second Adam.

Eve was the mother of the human race, Mary is the mother of all Christians.

"Behold your mother," Jesus said.

Anyone who's interested in understanding the Catholic position, read this book:

amazon.com/Behold-Your-Mother-Historical-Doctrines/dp/1938983807

Also, watch this video:

youtube.com/watch?v=kCqHLPX2MDA

the term originates from the greek Θεοτόkος, or 'theotokos'; Θεός being the word for deity and τόkος being a noun for the act of childbirth. Since Mary physically gave birth to Christ, it seems like an appropriate title.

Feel free to show how "behold your mother" necessitates any of the Marian dogmas. I'll wait.

>muh dishonesty
Shut the fuck up, cuck.

>You haven't demonstrated that, I'm afraid.

Except scripture plainly demonstrates it:

(i) By calling them "witnesses" -- witnesses both see and hear, or they're not "witnesses."

(ii) The saints in heaven can pray for us, Revelation 5:8:
>And when he had opened the book, the four living creatures, and the four and twenty ancients fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints.

You're just saying NO NO NO, and contradicting yourself -- i.e., when you say the "cloud of witnesses" "are deceased and outside the range of my communication."

But then they wouldn't be "witnesses," would they?

Then God wouldn't be the God of the living, would He?

Anyone who is honestly interested in this subject can check out this book:
>amazon.com/Behold-Your-Mother-Historical-Doctrines/dp/1938983807

And this video:
>youtube.com/watch?v=kCqHLPX2MDA

There is no point in debating the issue with someone who declines to engage the actual argument.

>(i) By calling them "witnesses" -- witnesses both see and hear, or they're not "witnesses."
So let's say that I, and ten thousand other people across the globe would like to communicate with Witness A at the same time. How does this occur?
>(ii) The saints in heaven can pray for us
When have I said that they can't? I've stated that we cannot pray to them.
>But then they wouldn't be "witnesses," would they?
A spirit could witness my actions without me being able to communicate with the spirit. Perhaps I could distinguish between types of hearing, for the sake of argument. A spirit could simply hear what I say because they are "near" or they could be capable of receiving a message from me, that is directed to the spirit, through some spiritual power. I dispute the latter, but I don't think the former is what Catholics believe, is it?

>There is no point in debating the issue with someone who declines to engage the actual argument.
I'm not going to watch an hour long video and read a book before replying to your post. If you want to say something then say it yourself.

I like how every thread about a topic related to Christianity degenerates into christians getting angry over semantics. A perfect mirror of European history.

it's really quite depressing. aside from a few wonks, there's so much more that we have in common...

Arguing about shit is an ancient Christian tradition. Please do not interfere.

good goy

>How does this occur?
Ask the author of Hebrews.

>I've stated that we cannot pray to them.

(i) The Bible directs us to invoke those in heaven and ask them to pray with us. Thus in Psalms 103, we pray, "Bless the Lord, O you his angels, you mighty ones who do his word, hearkening to the voice of his word! Bless the Lord, all his hosts, his ministers that do his will!" (Ps. 103:20-21). And in Psalms 148 we pray, "Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord from the heavens, praise him in the heights! Praise him, all his angels, praise him, all his host!" (Ps. 148:1-2).

(ii) Not only do those in heaven pray WITH us, they also pray FOR us. In the book of Revelation, we read: "[An] angel came and stood at the altar [in heaven] with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne; and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God" (Rev. 8:3-4).

(iii) And those in heaven who offer to God our prayers aren’t JUST angels, but HUMANS as well. John sees that "the twenty-four elders [the leaders of the people of God in heaven] fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints" (Rev. 5:8).

The simple fact is, as this passage shows: The saints in heaven offer to God the prayers of the saints on earth.

This likewise addresses your further objection regarding the cloud of witnesses, i.e., "A spirit could witness my actions without me being able to communicate with the spirit."

On the contrary, Rev 5:8 shows that the saints in heaven - the twenty-four elders - intercede on behalf of the saints on earth by offering God their prayers.

As for the "mechanics" of this, which you repeatedly mention, it is rather like asking me how Peter could heal a lame man. I can't explain how that occurs -- it's the power of God. It's admittedly mysterious. We are told that the elders offer up "golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints." Why golden bowls, and not silver? Who made the bowls? Why bowls at all? Why incense? Where did they manage to find incense in heaven? Is there an incense store in heaven?? Moreover, how can there even *be* incense (a material rather than a spiritual substance) in heaven?

A standard fedora-tipper objection to the Virgin Birth is how did Mary, a virgin, become pregnant? Well -- by the power of the Holy Spirit. That's all we know. We can't peer into the "mechanics" of it beyond that.

By your logic, my inability to explain how the Virgin Birth occurred should somehow obviate or negate what scripture plainly states -- that a virgin gave birth. But it doesn't, in the case of the Virgin Birth, or in the case of intercessory prayer to the saints in heaven. In both cases, we will never fully understand the "mechanics" this side of paradise.

>Ask the author of Hebrews.
Wonderful.
>(i) The Bible directs us to invoke those in heaven and ask them to pray with us.
It seems obvious to me that these generalized imperatives to angels or ministers are of a different sort than issuing a direct prayer to a deceased person to do some thing.
>(ii) Not only do those in heaven pray WITH us, they also pray FOR us.
Again, I haven't said otherwise.
>(iii) And those in heaven who offer to God our prayers aren’t JUST angels, but HUMANS as well.
>The simple fact is, as this passage shows: The saints in heaven offer to God the prayers of the saints on earth.
Is "offering our prayers to God" all that you are saying that prayer to a saint consists of? Like the first example,I think offering a human's prayer to God is different from issuing a prayer directly to a deceased person to then take some action on my behalf.
>This likewise addresses your further objection regarding the cloud of witnesses, i.e., "A spirit could witness my actions without me being able to communicate with the spirit."
>On the contrary, Rev 5:8 shows that the saints in heaven - the twenty-four elders - intercede on behalf of the saints on earth by offering God their prayers.
My objection is the same, that the passage does not say what you are saying that it says.
>As for the "mechanics" of this, which you repeatedly mention, it is rather like asking me how Peter could heal a lame man. I can't explain how that occurs -- it's the power of God. It's admittedly mysterious.
What we're talking about isn't a person performing a miraculous action through the power of God, but the deceased seeming to become something miraculous in themselves, don't you think? They seem to be granted divine attributes.
>A standard fedora-tipper objection to the Virgin Birth is how did Mary, a virgin, become pregnant?
This seems to me the same sort of situation. Mary carried God in her womb but she did not become a miraculous existence. Perhaps there's a connection here, with the various Marian dogmas that continually raise her existence above that of a normal human. There seems to be an awareness, perhaps subconscious, that the things being ascribed to her render her inhuman.

Jesus still has his human body in Heaven. Also Jesus is fully human, and fully God. So since she's mother of Jesus's human body, she is technically the Mother of God also.

>It seems obvious to me that these generalized imperatives to angels
They're not "generalized imperatives," they're quite specific. Scripture sets forth the example of humans communicating with the angels in heaven, and asking them to do something.

>of a different sort than issuing a direct prayer to a deceased person to do some thing
The saints in heaven are not "deceased," they're alive in Christ.

A crowd of dead or "deceased" bodies is not a "crowd of witnesses" -- a "crowd of witnesses" is obviously alive.

As for "communicating directly," see Rev 5:8.

In your post, you wrote:
>They don't receive prayers to themselves and then pray to God on my behalf.

Rev 5:8 squarely addresses and refutes that claim.

To wit: the elders - the deceased but alive-in-Christ saints in heaven - have the prayers of the saints on earth, to present to God.

If they have those prayers, it stands to reason that they heard the initial prayers as well, or at least were granted knowledge of them in some fashion: ultimately through the power of God, and that they are now acting as intercessors, middle-men, if you will between the prayers offered up on earth, and God in Heaven. Rev 5:8 teaches that the saints in heaven are aware of our prayers and, based on them, intercede with God on our behalf. They act as intercessors and intermediaries.

That's what scripture teaches. You can accept it or reject it.

Scripture doesn't specify the "mechanics" here any more than it does in the case of Peter healing the lame man, or the Virgin Mary becoming pregnant.

>They seem to be granted divine attributes.
No, it's simply a matter of intercessory prayer.

Your closing remarks about the Virgin Birth are very strange. You entirely skip the point of my even mentioning this by dropping non sequiturs about "a miraculous existence" (where did I claim or allude to such strange thing?), and the Catholic Marian dogmas, which are not at issue here. Much less did I suggest that "the things being ascribed to her render her inhuman." What?!

Your remarks here are very far removed from a fair reading of what I wrote:

>Rev 5:8 shows that the saints in heaven - the twenty-four elders - intercede on behalf of the saints on earth by offering God their prayers.

>As for the "mechanics" of this, which you repeatedly mention, it is rather like asking me how Peter could heal a lame man. I can't explain how that occurs -- it's the power of God. It's admittedly mysterious...

>A standard fedora-tipper objection to the Virgin Birth is how did Mary, a virgin, become pregnant? Well -- by the power of the Holy Spirit. That's all we know. We can't peer into the "mechanics" of it beyond that.

>By your logic, my inability to explain how the Virgin Birth occurred should somehow obviate or negate what scripture plainly states -- that a virgin gave birth. But it doesn't, in the case of the Virgin Birth, or in the case of intercessory prayer to the saints in heaven.

>They're not "generalized imperatives," they're quite specific.
No, they're quite generalized. They're addressing groups in their totality, rather than specific members.
>The saints in heaven are not "deceased," they're alive in Christ.
Their bodies have ceased to function and their souls have separated from their bodies. Yes they are alive in a spiritual sense but they are also quite dead. I'm not going to pull the "prohibition of necromancy" card, though, so don't worry.
>If they have those prayers, it stands to reason that they heard the initial prayers as well, or at least were granted knowledge of them in some fashion...
You're reading this into it. It isn't stated. Also, do you believe they are simple middle-men that ferry prayers to God? Am I sending a prayer directly to the saint who then intercedes for me, or I am praying to God and the saint ferries the prayer to God? The text confirms the latter but the former. Your interpretation is a certain literalistic eisegesis which I commonly see in Catholic apologetics, such as with Peter and the keys. You interpret the text in a wooden fashion while demanding it say something that it doesn't. It never ceases to be strange.
>That's what scripture teaches. You can accept it or reject it.
This type of rhetoric doesn't accomplish anything, as I'm sure you know.
>No, it's simply a matter of intercessory prayer.
This analogy is ridiculous, as I stated here >Your closing remarks about the Virgin Birth are very strange ...
If you didn't understand it then don't worry about it. If you're going to compare prayers to saints to "simple intercessory prayer" then it's pointless to continue down that road.

Anyway, it's getting late for me so I'll be going to sleep soon. If you reply and I can't get to it tonight I'll try to reply tomorrow if the thread is still up.

>taking anything in Revelation literally when it's literally "please be nicer to us, Romans, if you're not bad things will happen lol" the book and steeped in metaphor and hidden meanings so the author(s) could stay away from persecution

>this entire post

What? You don't got any arguments?
Everything there is the truth.

It's literally all non-biblical unfounded speculation

I just got in this thread, I'd bet someone has said this already and I'll say it again:
Sola Scriptura is dumb.

>going by the word of God rather than the teachings of humans who are highly fallible and prone to lying, hyperbole, and error is dumb
Ok kid

Catholics should be genocided tbqh

Does is she considered a, literal, "virgin"?
I had read an explanation but i can't remmember it.

>Catholic Church follows the teachings of humans
>proceeds to put up the Bible
>"yeah, you're welcome, guys"
>Luther comes in and fucks everything up
>claim to follow only the word of God
>protties remove seven books from the word of God

Where's the Gospel of Thomas, Mr. Catholic?

>Gospel

You are not reading in the text something which has always been interpreted as such.

The only incorrect part is the assumption that she didn't die a natural death. That part was never defined and it's even hinting that she did.
No, that's held by some and it has plenty of opposition.

Ancient Greeks also argued that the true parent is the father, and the mother is "only" carrying the child. I'm not sure how much of it is trying to reaffirm the patriarchy and how much is psychological. There was a post a couple of weeks ago how both the Bible and Freud both said God is your father, referring to two different things, but not really. This is because your mother loves you just because you are, but your father actually has expectations of you, and he is the one who makes you into a man, whether your earthly or heavenly father, or whoever the father figure of your life is.
So basically, and are kind of right. Moms are nicer than dads. They love you, but they feel like home way too much, and home is to comfortable, you cannot become a man until you satisfy your father. You can argue which parent is more important.

Mary's the mother of Jesus; who, in turn, got Mary pregnant so she'd give birth to himself.

Tradition, nothing else. Hell, she's barely mentioned in the Bible. She spits out Haysoos and that's the last we hear of her. Probably never existed as described.

The Holy Spirit (which is God) filled Mary's vagina and gave birth to a man who was of the same nature as his "father" (God). Since Jesus was technically God in human form, and since Mary carried Jesus in her womb for nine months, this /technically/ makes her the "mother of God."

But you're correct to assume that Christians who worship Mary and ask for her intercession are wrong in their ways.

Because they're fucking retarded.

Well at least you understand how it goes instead of going HURR JUST A NORMAL WOMAN.

To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand The Bible™

depends on what you mean by mother, depends on what you mean by god. who is "they" by the way?

She was actually evil for being a f*male and the church deciding to venerate this cunt only proves they're in on it.

the force is female

Not him but you made me look up the Gospel of Thomas.
Turns out it's just a collection of quotes from Jesus. Some are pretty sick:

>18 The disciples said to Jesus, "Tell us, how will our end come?"

>Jesus said, "Have you found the beginning, then, that you are looking for the end? You see, the end will be where the beginning is. Congratulations to the one who stands at the beginning: that one will know the end and will not taste death."

>™
Please go back to plebbit

please show some fucking respect to the holy virgin
in my book she's cool

no idea what you're talking about

fuck you heretic

Because her cunt spat out the son of God who was part of the trinity, are you a fucking idiot or something?

When she became pregnant with Jesus, she was a virgin. Later in her life, she laid with her husband Joseph and bore him children.

If a Christian ever tries to tell you otherwise, tries to tell you that Mary was a virgin her whole life, hit them with Matthew 13:53-58:

>When Jesus had finished these parables, he moved on from there.
>Coming to his hometown, he began teaching the people in their synagogue, and they were amazed. "Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?" they asked.
>"Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?
>Aren't all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?"
>And they took offense at him. But Jesus said to them, "Only in his hometown and in his own house is a prophet without honor."
>And he did not do many miracles there because of their lack of faith.

It's also worth noting that Matthew was one of the original twelve apostles who walked, talked, broke bread with and learned directly from Jesus. His gospel carries weight. If Matthew says that Jesus had brothers and sisters, then he probably did.

But although Jesus had earthly siblings, that doesn't mean he was the same as an earthly man. He was a man, but he is also God. He's God, if God was a man. He has a dual nature. It may be completely fucking insane, but it's not really that complicated.

t. cunt slaves crowing

The first thing to understand is that the term brother (Gk. adelphos) has a broader meaning than uterine brothers. It can mean a biological brother, but it can also mean an extended relative, or even a spiritual brother.

Take Genesis 13:8 for example. Here the word brother is being used to describe the relationship between Abraham and Lot, who were not biological brothers but uncle and nephew:

“So Abram said to Lot, “Let’s not have any quarreling between you and me, or between your herdsmen and mine, for we are brothers” (Gen 13:8, NIV; see also 14:12).

>James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?
These “brothers” are never once called the children of Mary, although Jesus himself is (John 2:1; Acts 1:14).

James and Joseph (also called Joses), who are called Jesus’ “brothers” (Mark 6:3) are indeed the children of Mary—Just not Mary, the mother of Jesus.

After St. Matthew’s account of the crucifixion and death of Jesus, he writes:

“There were also many women there, looking on from afar, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him; among who were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.” (Matt. 27:56; see also Mark 15:40).

I appreciate your response, but do you seriously believe that Mary and Jospeh never banged? They were husband and wife.

>These “brothers” are never once called the children of Mary
Well no shit, the New Testament is about Jesus not Mary. Women were hardly ever mentioned in the Bible. The only time any of them gets any screen time is when she's popping out a kid or getting blamed for something.

t. angry homosexual

stop arguing about your silly fanfictions
the holy virgin is the perfect waifu
dealwithit.jpg

t. cunt slave

so what?

But did she conceive Jesus through anal sex?

The catholic church actually believes she was a human born without sin.

Isn't everyone born without sin?

I thought the controversial thing about Mary was that she supposedly never sinned at all.

>has faith in hebrew mythology
>bickers about Mary

You gave up on the truth and logic game when you placed hebrew mythology on a pedestal and cast everything else aside.

brainlet user, before jesus died people were born with original sin.
Mary is considered to have also been born without original sin and yes she also has not sinned either.

*and she can shoot lazers from her eyes

She's the fourth part of the trinity and the earthly emboidiement of the feminine form of the Godhead.

However you do not learn this stuff until you get esoteric.

The mother, the father, the child, and the holy spirit that bind them together. This is a complete unit, without Mary it's a broken home.

People are still born with original sin after Jesus. The only difference now is that someone can repent through the holy light of the Son rather then being utterly damned to follow the Law to the letter.

Yeah, but doesn't original sin just mean that they're predisposed to sinning naturally?

I understand that God blocked that trait from affecting Mary, though.

God is comprising the father, the son, and the holy spirit.

Mary gave birth to the son, thus was impregnated by the father; upon baptism, the son received the holy spirit.

"Mother of Jesus" would be more accurate.
She's not the "Mother of God".

"Call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven" (Matt. 23:9).

"But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him." (Matt. 6:7)

>do you seriously believe that Mary and Jospeh never banged?
Hey. It is another thing we have to believe in.
Yeah, even some high level Catholics believe they banged.
But it is another act of faith, just the same as believing in God.

What constitutes banging?

Could mary have given a hand job? What about oral? Would a titty job count? What about anal, her snatch is still not touched?

Also does yuri count as sex? I personally think that's the most likely answer because it's pure and without sin. Joseph might have masterbated while he watched Mary and the other Mary go at it.

6/10

So is there any conceivable way Marian veneration could have produced revenue in some manner? By the time of the writings of the Desert Fathers, María/Maryam had a prominent position in Christian worship. Maybe it and rosary prayers were a great way to give women something to do. It also seems that other cults with feminine deity veneration had been a hit in the ancient Mediterranean.
Don't know how credible it may be but the female empowerment spiritual activist writer Sera Beak claims that Mary was originally depicted in artwork with red garments but it was later changed by the Jesuits to blue and the previous color was relegated to Mary Magdalene.

this is why

Because God the son in his divinity assumed flesh and consequently assumed his human nature. He was fully God and fully human and was conceived by Mary who carried God the son inside her.

Non-canon. How difficult is that for you to understand?