Was Mary the greatest woman that ever lived?

[PaladinValer]

There is clearly a spiritual world of difference between Sabellianism
and Arianism. Arianism is heretical indeed. Sebellianism is just a
misunderstanding of God and abberational.

There is however the same common theme: a rejection of the Trinity as understood by orthodoxy.

But my original point stands. They got too specific because of
various beliefs... and Babai the Great and Nestorius and others
were wrongfully deemed heretical rather than seeing it as a slightly
different understanding.

Nestorius was a heretic; he denied the actual God-character of Jesus by denying St. Mary the title of Theotokos.

You can't define "ontological Incarnation" and it is somewhat foolish
of us to think that we can know the details of how God became a Man.

The point is, He is 100% Human. How isn't the issue; the importance lies in the results.

ANT monotheism

snip

No such thing exists.

I was distracted and used the wrong English word. I should have said "I believe in One Hypostasis" that is "homoousis" rather than two
separate natures which are two hypostases. I edited my post...I apologize
that I miswrote... but the whole point of meaning here - and how detailed
we can get before we start fighting over speculation - is quite axiomatic.

Jesus is one Person of two natures and wills: God and Human; perfectly and equally both. I don't care how it came to be other than it occurred via the Incarnation by the power of the Holy Spirit and the cooperative and voluntary will of the BVM.

Perhaps there are many semantic issues here rather than doctrinal ones.

There is: Miaphysites don't deny the BVM her rightful and GOD-GIVEN TITLE of Theotokos. You do.

Not trying to compare myself to anyone in history.

It was a preemptive as much as it was a goodwill gesture to the good Oriental Orthodox who do post here. I had to make it perfectly clear, to them and to you, for different reasons, why I don't consider them Monophysites.

How is admitting you don't know "dogma?" It is dogma indeed. It is the dogma that we "CAN'T" know many of the details of ontological Trinity and ontological Incarnation because these have NOT been revealed to this
detail.

Again, the issue of how has no bearing on all this. The issue of its essence; its result, is.

A born-again Christian Theo-Agnostic holds the same position regarding
not being able to know the details of many different positions. ANT
monotheism is Neo-Trinitarianism so of course you can't identify it as
a historical theological position. Neither was APT monotheism.

Not another made-up theological school of thought.

This seems to bother you. The position exists whether you acknowledge its existence or not... The position has existed for the last two decades whether you have studied it in detail or not. Just as Oneness is slightly different than Sabellianism - David Bernard's position existed in the 70's (probably the 60's) before it was heavily published in the 80's.

There have been literally thousands of books on the theologies and points-of-view that came about from the 80's; even some rather obscure ones. Name me one that deals with your "ANT Monotheism." Name a major proponent. Give us something that shows that you aren't making it up.

I'm a historian by education and trade. I'd be more than happy to investigate anything you bring up.

Come on. I think you're far, far smarter than this. I really do.

It claims that the Nicene Creed may have gotten most of the details
right..but not necessarily all of them.

STOP RIGHT THERE.

CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG.

YOU JUST IMPLIED THAT THE NICENE CREED GOT IT WRONG IN THE ABSOLUTE SENSE. MOST=NOT ALL. MOST=SOME SOMETHING CONTRARY.

AM I CORRECT?

There are many who argue Christotokos is superior to Theotokos. For me personally it is about the translation into the English language.

Mother of Christ or bearer of God Incarnate is superior to Mother of God.

It isn't superior.

Yes, but Yeshua Ha Mashiach existed before Mary.

False. False false false.

Your comprehension of "Incarnation" is flawed.

Incarnations occur at a specific point in time.

Before there was Jesus, who is the Incarnation of God the Son, there was no Jesus, just the pre-Incarnate God the Son, whole in Who He Is yet not yet taken on the nature and will of humanity. Thus, it is absolutely fundamental for a Christian to believe that, while God the Son is absolutely eternal, there was a point in time when Jesus was not. Otherwise, we arrive at a fundamental redefinition of Incarnation; one that is completely outside 2000 years of Christian (and pre-Christian for crying out loud!) definition and understanding. Also, and more importantly so, a redefinition which would be utterly contrary to the Nicene Creed and to orthodoxy.

 

[Dorothea]

Mary was selected to give birth to Jesus Christ so that does make her very blessed and the fact that she was chosen was indeed an honor. Mary is my sister in christ, not someone to be worshiped or prayed to. I admire many people in the bible, Moses, Abraham, King David. They were all of God's chosen. I believe that if Mary were here she would say, Jesus Christ is the savior of the world, not me. Do not worship ME, worship him. He died for you, I did not. This is not disrespecting Mary to say this.

Also, I don't believe Jesus had any of Mary's DNA because if he did, he would have inherited Adam's fallen state. He was the second Adam. Mary was obedient to God, but she had sin's fallen nature. She was born into it just like we all were. Satan wants to get our minds off of the true redeemer, Mary was the vessel to carry God's son because God chose her to be. Whether anyone believes this or not is up to you. But let's obey the first commandment, Thou shalt love GOD with ALL of your heart.

Honoring Mary focuses us right back to Christ. You honor her, you please Christ/God.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

the dogma of the Assumption holds that Mary ascended directly to heaven without tasting death at all.

(I haven't finished reading the thread, sorry if this has been answered)

Permit a distinction here: The dogma of the Assumption of Mary does not state that Mary did not die. It says that she was taken (assumed) into Heaven by Jesus. While certain other people who have been taken directly into Heaven like Elijah and Enoch did not die, it is usually believed that Mary did die first and then was raised from the dead three days later. It is a minority belief among Catholics that she did not die. They usually state that because she did not sin, she should not have to bear the consequences of that sin, which is death. However, Christ was certainly sinless and He died.

Also, the Dormition (falling-asleep, earthly death) of the Theotokos has a major feast for a long time among the EO. The EO have exactly the opposite issue -- they believe that Mary died (like anyone else) and it is a common belief (though not dogma) that she was raised from the dead and taken into Heaven.

The Assumption of Mary is important because it reminds us how we will be joined body and soul in Heaven at the Final Judgment, just like she already is.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

I grew up in a household where one side of the family is Catholic so I have a pretty good idea on the views of Mary.

Aha! That it explains it. I had been thinking here and elsewhere, "This is the most Catholic Methodist I've ever met..."

I grew up in the Free Methodist denomination. What denomination are you in?

 

[Dorothea]

I really wish folks who aren't from the ancient church would actually do Church and Christian history to learn about the councils, the heresies they fought against and such. This would help emmensely, I think. Ignornance on their own Christian history, where they came from, what are correct and incorrect (heretical) teachings would certainly clear up all these misunderstandings. Ugh.

 

[narnia59]

I really wish folks who aren't from the ancient church would actually do Church and Christian history to learn about the councils, the heresies they fought against and such. This would help emmensely, I think. Ignornance on their own Christian history, where they came from, what are correct and incorrect (heretical) teachings would certainly clear up all these misunderstandings. Ugh.

I heard a former Anglican (of the more evangelical branch) speaking the other day and he said his eyes were opened when trying to debate a Jehovah's Witness on the concept of the Trinity from Scripture alone. He came to understand how much he accepted of Christian teaching about the nature of Christ was because of being under the umbrella of those original councils, whether he recognized it or not. I thought that was an interesting way to put it.

 

[Dorothea]

I heard a former Anglican (of the more evangelical branch) speaking the other day and he said his eyes were opened when trying to debate a Jehovah's Witness on the concept of the Trinity from Scripture alone. He came to understand how much he accepted of Christian teaching about the nature of Christ was because of being under the umbrella of those original councils, whether he recognized it or not. I thought that was an interesting way to put it.

Yes, indeed.

 

[SuperPhil]

what the heck? why do we care if Mary was great? That only takes the focus away from Christ!

 

[boswd]

I really wish folks who aren't from the ancient church would actually do Church and Christian history to learn about the councils, the heresies they fought against and such. This would help emmensely, I think. Ignornance on their own Christian history, where they came from, what are correct and incorrect (heretical) teachings would certainly clear up all these misunderstandings. Ugh.

Hear Hear!!!!!!

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Just for the record, I voted no........

 

[narnia59]

what the heck? why do we care if Mary was great? That only takes the focus away from Christ!

So when St. Paul instructs the Romans that if someone is owed honor they should give it to them, was he leading them astray? Was he telling them to take the focus away from Christ?

Mary said 'yes' (she was not forced) to become the mother of Christ. She knew the risk she was undertaking -- if Joseph had not stood by her, she would have been stoned under Jewish law.

And as his mother, Christ honored her.

The concept that loving someone or honoring someone takes away from the place of another denies what loving and honoring really mean. True love and honor cannot diminish someone else.

Yet the real truth is this. No matter what honor we may choose to give to Mary, it will never compare to the honor God himself gave her when he chose her to be the mother of Christ. It's a shame that so many attempt to diminish and ignore that reality, instead of acknowledging and embracing it.

We can only hope to love Mary as much as Christ does, and to love Christ as much as Mary does.

 

[boswd]

what the heck? why do we care if Mary was great? That only takes the focus away from Christ!

How does that take the focus off of Christ?
Why do people think Mary is the Greatest Woman? Because she gave birth, and raised who?

CHRIST!

Don't understand the logic

 

[Dorothea]

It's strange to me as well. The Theotokos and all the Saints remind us of GOD and point to GOD. His mercy, power, miracles, and goodness. Geez.

All of the confusion from those who are not inside the Church. I have begun to see why it's important to be a member of the Church because it's stedfast and will prevail and helps lead us towards salvation on our journey towards salvation. When people are disconnected from the teachings of 2000 years, they can easily be misled, which has been witnessed here as well as from my own good friends which I found out recently which was very disheartening. How she got so far off the path, I see why now. No guidance from the Church. The Devil plays these people easily. He is always trying to mislead, and it's easier when one doesn't have the tools and weapons by being a member of the Church. JMO and what I've seen.

 

[boswd]

Just for the record, I voted no........

I wonder if the "no" votes would turn into "yes" votes if the Catholics didn't think so highly of Mary.

Just wondering

 

[Mobiosity]

I say, yes. Absolutely. And I am not Catholic.

In what ways should Protestants show more respect to the Mother
of Jesus?

Is Mary the "new" Eve? The Eve that did not fail Jesus (the second Adam).


One more question: Do you believe that Mary is the only person
who rose again from the dead like Jesus did?

Did Mary rise from the dead, and what evidence do you use to support
this belief?

What criteria are you using to determine "Greatness"?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I wonder if the "no" votes would turn into "yes" votes if the Catholics didn't think so highly of Mary.

Just wondering

The Muslims also think highly of Mary, but no, that wouldn't change my vote.

I do have an interesting perspective on the 2 "Women" in Revelation though

http://www.christianforums.com/t7408906/

 

[boswd]

The Muslims also think highly of Mary, but no, that wouldn't change my vote.

I do have an interesting perspective on the 2 "Women" in Revelation though

http://www.christianforums.com/t7408906/

What I find ironic and bizarre is that the Muslims show Mary a much higher respect and honor than the Fundamentalist Evangelican's AND they don't even think of Christ's as the Messiah.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

What I find ironic and bizarre is that the Muslims show Mary a much higher respect and honor than the Fundamentalist Evangelican's AND they don't even think of Christ's as the Messiah.

Neither do the Jews

[I decided to bump this thread ehehe]

http://www.christianforums.com/t5615012-36/#post36126961
Jesus Christ, was he sent for all mankind?

 

[lionroar0]

I wonder if the "no" votes would turn into "yes" votes if the Catholics didn't think so highly of Mary.

Just wondering

I was wondering the same thing.

 

[PaladinValer]

I wonder if the "no" votes would turn into "yes" votes if the Catholics didn't think so highly of Mary.

Just wondering

That's quite a "wondering"!

Perhaps we should test the hypothesis?