Do Baptists Believe in the Virgin Mary?

[Lynn73]

I think I can safely say that Protestants don't accept Mary as the mother of all Christians. Christ living in us has nothing to do with believing Mary is the mother of all Christians. This is isn't in the Scripture. To Protestants Mary is simply the young women God chose to carry the Savior in her womb. Nothing more, nothing less. She's not our mother, she was Christ's earthly mother.

 

[Cright]

Wow..

Questions asked on page one, questions answered on page 1 and 2. thread 23 pages long!

 

[thereselittleflower]

It's not in any historical records like The Bible? Is it oral tradition only?

Hi theseed. Unfortunately, the only historical book in the bible is Acts. . and it doesn't tell us what happened to either John or Mary after Pentacost.



Peace in Him!

 

[theseed]

Hi theseed. Unfortunately, the only historical book in the bible is Acts. . and it doesn't tell us what happened to either John or Mary after Pentacost.

I beg your pardon! The Bible is full of historical books. For starters, if Acts is historical, then so is Luke--they are a two volume set. Also, if Luke is historical, then Matthew, Mark, and John are as well. Which in turn makes much of the OT historical fact, because they contain Christ's ascendants (ancestors).

You are grossly in error. And if all RCC beleive that The Bible is not historical, then call me Baptist

 

[Crazy Liz]

I beg your pardon! The Bible is full of historical books. For starters, if Acts is historical, then so is Luke--they are a two volume set. Also, if Luke is historical, then Matthew, Mark, and John are as well. Which in turn makes much of the OT historical fact, because they contain Christ's ascendants (ancestors).

You are grossly in error. And if all RCC beleive that The Bible is not historical, then call me Baptist

Picky... picky...

Acts is the only historical book that deals with the time period in question.

Edit: Oops! Acts is not the only historical book that deals with this time period. Josephus, Suetonius and even Eusebius do. Acts is the only historical book in the Bible that covers it.

 

[prodromos]

from what I remember reading, Mary went to Ephesus with John

Mary and John also travelled to Cyprus to visit their good friend Lazarus, who became the first bishop on Cyprus. After his death, so many people used to visit the city where the relics of "Twice Dead Lazarus" were kept in a larnax (relic case) in the church, that the city itself became known as Larnaka, as it is still known today.

Interestingly enough, Lazarus is a very popular name in Cyprus .

John.

 

[thereselittleflower]

I beg your pardon! The Bible is full of historical books. For starters, if Acts is historical, then so is Luke--they are a two volume set. Also, if Luke is historical, then Matthew, Mark, and John are as well. Which in turn makes much of the OT historical fact, because they contain Christ's ascendants (ancestors).

You are grossly in error. And if all RCC beleive that The Bible is not historical, then call me Baptist

LOL

What I was speaking of in regards to the books in the New Testament are their genres:

gospel, letter, apocalypse, and historical narrative

There are 4 Gospel accounts which focus on the life of Jesus, his words and acts.

There is one historical narrative . . Acts which documents part of the history of the 1st century Church, but clearly only a part.

Then thereare the epistles . .the letters written to believers, to those already instructed in the faith, to help them mature, or to deal with issues that arose.

Then there is one apocalyptic book, Revelation.


What I was referring to is that Acts is the only book that is intended by the author to be a telling of history . .. The Gospels would be more akin to a biography, not a history book.


They all have historical relevance . . but only one is a historical book.


That was what I was trying to say.


So . . . . you don't have to be Baptist any more (just kidding )


Peace in Him!

 

[Caedmon]

LOL

What I was speaking of in regards to the books in the New Testament are their genres:

gospel, letter, apocalypse, and historical narrative

There are 4 Gospel accounts which focus on the life of Jesus, his words and acts.

There is one historical narrative . . Acts which documents part of the history of the 1st century Church, but clearly only a part.

Then thereare the epistles . .the letters written to believers, to those already instructed in the faith, to help them mature, or to deal with issues that arose.

Then there is one apocalyptic book, Revelation.


What I was referring to is that Acts is the only book that is intended by the author to be a telling of history . .. The Gospels would be more akin to a biography, not a history book.


They all have historical relevance . . but only one is a historical book.


That was what I was trying to say.


So . . . . you don't have to be Baptist any more (just kidding )


Peace in Him!

Hehehe... polylogical discourse...