Was Mary the greatest woman that ever lived?

[Breckmin]

What criteria are you using to determine "Greatness"?

I've been waiting for this because if I say "the greatest woman in
heaven with the highest reward" THEN many Potestants will definitely
vote "NO, only God knows." {And a Protestant will ask the question -
What is wrong with that? - Logical question with whether or not I
am attempting to manipulate the vote.}

It is not an easy specification.


I would say that "greatness" is somewhat nebulous here regarding what
an individual believes is the greatest thing a woman can do.

If we specified "Which woman served Jesus in all areas of her life
the most?" - most of us would have to answer - "We don't know."

I would suggest that I am perhaps asking the question "Can any woman
be greater than Mary?" Greater in an eternal sense, I guess. Greater
in God's eyes, perhaps? Greater in the eyes of all who will live for
eternity. Greatest in the Kingdom of heaven.

If I was to rephrase the question I could ask "Who could possibly greater
than Mary?" and then look at the reasons for various assertions.

I do not believe any of the women mentioned in this thread are greater
than Mary.

 

[rosenherman]

Who gives a rip?

 

[PaladinValer]

Who gives a rip?

God perhaps? After all, it is His Mommy we are talking about.

 

[watchm@n]

My wife is the greatest woman ever, followed closely by my mom. You should have all known that...

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?

Mary did not rise from the dead, and there is no evidence to say she did.



On a serious note. Mary had to be a great woman for God to choose her to bare our Savior.

 

[pgp_protector]

My wife is the greatest woman ever, followed closely by my mom. You should have all known that...Mary did not rise from the dead, and there is no evidence to say she did.



On a serious note. Mary had to be a great woman for God to choose her to bare our Savior.

Sounds a bit like post #9

 

[Dorothea]

God perhaps? After all, it is His Mommy we are talking about.

I can't imagine standing at His Throne at Judgment and saying "Who cares if your Mother is the greatest woman or not the greatest woman who ever lived," while the Theotokos is sitting to the right of Him and John the Baptist to the left of Him. I can't help but think having such a careless and disrespectful attitude toward His mother, is indirectly (or maybe even directly) disrespecting God Himself. After all, He honored her, so I would think if He did, we should too.

 

[Breckmin]

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

Example.

The apostle Paul was an example for us. John the baptist was an example
for us and the Lord Jesus said there was none greater.

I completely agree with the spirit of your post and questioning. Yes, the
focus should be on Jesus. But this particular sub-forum is called Mariology
and Hagiography for a reason. It is to discuss both Mary and the saints
(like Paul, Peter, John the Baptist, etc).

The poll involving Mary is to question the attitudes regarding whether or
not there "could" be a woman greater than Mary...or if anything could be
greater than giving birth to the Savior.

 

[SeraphimSarov]

Carrying the ineffable, incontainable Lord inside of you for nine months pretty much qualifies you as the greatest woman ever to live, without question. Those who say otherwise must not understand the implications of the Incarnation.

Flame away...

 

[lionroar0]

Carrying the ineffable, incontainable Lord inside of you for nine months pretty much qualifies you as the greatest woman ever to live, without question. Those who say otherwise must not understand the implications of the Incarnation.

Flame away...

Me thinks that we should care about that.

 

[Breckmin]

Flame away...

?
What is there to disagree with?

I believe those who DO think another woman might have been
more faithful in secret wouldnot disagree with the concept you have
given.

I personally know of no greater woman

 

[Breckmin]

Mary did not rise from the dead, and there is no evidence to say she did.

What about the "Liber Requiei Mariae" or the later "De Obitua S. Dominae"
/John the theologian?

You can say there is no evidence, but it is very important to discuss
alleged - so called "evidence" or tradition.

I personally do not believe in the assumption of Mary - but I am very
interested in it for logical reasons.

 

[Breckmin]

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

Once again, why does the Fourth Century get a monopoly on the First
Century orthodoxy? Please be specific.

 

[Breckmin]

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

He did not deny the God-character of Jesus. That is a misunderstanding
of his teaching. He was denying that God would have "a mother." And he
was denying that God could somehow "die."

This are LOGICAL objections.

You can differentiate between Son of Man and Son of God and the titles
Christ used to identify Himself as...and the roles in which they played.

If Theotokos is understood as "bearer of God Incarnate" - THEN perhaps
he (Nestorius) wouldn't have as much as a problem with it....because
God Incarnate= Jesus.

 

[Breckmin]

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

Yes...but what exactly does Ontological Hypostatic Union really mean?

What does 100% human and 100% God actually mean?

I am NOT disputing these.... I am demonstrating a certain degree of
logical "I don't know" into the answer.

Christ said that the Son of Man must die....He didn't say "Son of God"
must die. We must question the logic of whether or not God can somehow
die...and what would it mean for God to die.

Clearly, Jesus died...and Jesus IS God in human flesh.

 

[Breckmin]

No such thing exists.

ANT monotheism is the belief that ontological Trinity can not be adequately
defined beyond the temporal.

ANT monotheism is the agreement with economical Trinity and the
questioning of the ability to know ontological Trinity to such a meticulously
defined degree.

ANT monotheism was a reaction to St. Gregory's assertion of "the
co-naturality of three infinites." ANT monotheism says that this
*MAY* not be the best way to describe the Trinity.

ANT monotheism is Agnostical Neo-Trinitarian monotheism.

If it does not exist...then I have been discussing something with
university professors at Christian colleges via email that doesn't
exist....

Belief structures DO exist... especially once you define them.

ANT monotheism was around before the adjective "agnostical"
was considered a legitimate word. You can create ANY word
and use it - as long as you can define it. This is how words get
created....

ANT monotheism gives the "ant" analogy..that we are too intellectually
small to define God this way or define His Ontological Existence.

ANT monotheism is opposed to Oneness doctrine...but NOT to Trinitarian
doctrine. It considers the possibility that Classical Trinitarian definition
may be guilty of over-defining the Trinity...outside of temporal existence.

Perhaps this post does not exist.

Here is a link to ANT monotheism:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7405278/
"What is ANT Monotheism? How is it opposed to Oneness Misunderstanding?"

which was posted three weeks before this discussion.

 

[Breckmin]

it occurred via the Incarnation by the power of the Holy Spirit and the cooperative and voluntary will of the BVM.

Did Mary really "volunteer" for this? Was this "her choice?" Or God's
Choice?

Do we need a poll on this basic?

 

[Breckmin]

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

First,
how is this a God given "title"? Rather than a word to describe her
role in bearing the Savior? Why does Mary 'need' a title?

Second,
I DO NOT deny the term "Theotokos" as being dynamically equivalent
to the "bearer of God Incarnate" or "one who would bear God."

This is slightly different than all of the connotations that are carried
by saying "Mother of God" in the English.

I only deny that "Mother of God" is the best translation of Theotokos.

 

[Breckmin]

RE: 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?

No. I implied that the Nicene Creed "may" have gotten it wrong in
an absolute sense.

The operative word is "may" which implies possibility or probability.

Plus,
this is general and doesn't deal with anything specific stated in the
Creed. We would have to examine the specifics of what the ANT monotheist
position would claim is *possibly* wrong.

 

[Breckmin]

It isn't superior.

It is superior because there is no connotation of a Mother/child relationship with respect to Deity.

Mary is NOT an authority over God - the way in which a mother is
an authority over her children.

Being pregnant with God does NOT give the connotation of authority.

It also gives the connotation of "beginning" in the English... whether
creative or in birth.

There are BETTER ways to describe Mary then to call her "The mother
of God" in the English language.

 

[Breckmin]

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.

Perhaps orthodoxy needs to be polished when we translate it into the
English.

You are separating Jesus from God the Son in the English here...as though
they are two different states of existences. The danger in this - is that
it leads to the one thing you said was heretical - Nestorianism. You have
a beginning for Jesus..but NOT a begining for God the Son which is under-
standable by what we think you mean...BUT there are many who would NOT
separate the name "Messiah" or "Deliverer" from God the Son.