When does Marian veneration and devotion go too far? When is the line crossed?

[Root of Jesse]

What about them?

Those references are extra-biblical. Non-Scriptural. But used as though people knew exactly what they were referring to...

 

[sonshine234]

Nice strawman.

It's not. Maybe you don't believe Christ was fully man then.

 

[Sword of the Lord]

Christ was fully God, too. Mary was fully human and... Fully human.

You don't need to build up Mary to me with strawman posts. I love the Blessed Virgin. Stop being silly.

 

[sonshine234]

Christ was fully God, too. Mary was fully human and... Fully human.

You don't need to build up Mary to me with strawman posts. I love the Blessed Virgin. Stop being silly.

There is no strawman, by your own rules all man must include Christ because the verse says all man period. It doesn't matter that Mary is fully human, God can say anyone where and when He wants even before birth

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Mary was not sinless, Mary was blameless.

God be gracious to me a sinner.

 

[marie alice]

You have not showed any evidence from Scripture that were are to use it alone exclusively.

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works” (Second Timothy 3:16-17).

And before anyone gets all hyper, it does not say that only the bible should be used. It just says that God is the author of the bible! What other reason would you need?

Now is when you step up and show me this other source you seem to believe should be used in conjunction with the bible. And, by the way, please include some reference to it being the infallible word of God.

 

[Sword of the Lord]

That verse would have been speaking of OT writings because the Bible didn't exist at the time. There was no such thing as the NT.

 

[sonshine234]

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works” (Second Timothy 3:16-17).

And before anyone gets all hyper, it does not say that only the bible should be used. It just says that God is the author of the bible! What other reason would you need?

Now is when you step up and show me this other source you seem to believe should be used in conjunction with the bible. And, by the way, please include some reference to it being the infallible word of God.

Saying God is the author does not mean one should use one book alone. The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth not a book. As Mike said that verse is about the OT so if you want to take it at face value you can only use the OT

 

[marie alice]

Saying God is the author does not mean one should use one book alone. The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth not a book. As Mike said that verse is about the OT so if you want to take it at face value you can only use the OT

So when God, as the author, inspired Paul to write that ALL scripture is inspired of Him, that means that God only meant it to refer to the Old Testament? Seriously?

Would this mean that the New Testament isn't inspired of God?

I'm still waiting for that mysterious source, as yet unidentified, that some believe should be used along with the bible. I'm interested especially in the verification that it is the infallible word of God.

 

[mkgal1]

Mary was not sinless, Mary was blameless.

God be gracious to me a sinner.

That's (IMO) a very important distinction.

The Bible says Mary was "full of grace" (Luke 1:28)......isn't grace what purifies all of us when we believe? Isn't that what bridges the gap in order for us to have a relationship with God?

Since Christ literally dwelled within Mary for the 40 weeks.....wouldn't she have to be pure?

Grace is the free and unmerited favor of God, as manifested in the salvation of sinners and the bestowal of blessings.

 

[sonshine234]

So when God, as the author, inspired Paul to write that ALL scripture is inspired of Him, that means that God only meant it to refer to the Old Testament? Seriously?

Would this mean that the New Testament isn't inspired of God?

I'm still waiting for that mysterious source, as yet unidentified, that some believe should be used along with the bible. I'm interested especially in the verification that it is the infallible word of God.

At the time of St. Paul writing this there was only the OT, the NT was not around and there is nothing in the NT to say it was inspired. We believe it was inspired by God because the Church, which is the pillar and foundation of truth, complied the NT and declared it inspired in a council.

There is no mysterious source. Holy Tradition is where the Scriptural canon came from and together with Scripture is the source. The biggest problem with many Protestants is that they cut off Christian history because they assume that the Bible exist in a vacuum and fell out of the sky. They create their own man made tradition of going by the Bible alone with no evidence for such yet blast others who follow orthodox Christianity

 

[Root of Jesse]

So when God, as the author, inspired Paul to write that ALL scripture is inspired of Him, that means that God only meant it to refer to the Old Testament? Seriously?

Would this mean that the New Testament isn't inspired of God?

I'm still waiting for that mysterious source, as yet unidentified, that some believe should be used along with the bible. I'm interested especially in the verification that it is the infallible word of God.

The thing is, even if all Scripture is inspired by God, does that mean that nothing else is inspired by God? Also, that passage doesn't say that only Scripture is worthy.

 

[seashale76]

I doubt that Mary was still a virgin when Jesus was crucified.

She had other children than Jesus.

Matt 13:55-56

55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

56 And his sisters , are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?
KJV

Blind post: It is known in churches with Apostolic succession that any brothers and sisters of Christ referred to are via Joseph the Betrothed (who was a widower) and his wife Solomonia. In fact, there were four sons and two daughters in that marriage- the eldest of whom was James. The Apostle James (and brother of our Lord) even accompanied his family on their flight to Egypt. After Joseph was widowed he lived a life of temperance and had been chosen to be the husband and guardian of the Theotokos (who had taken a vow of virginity).

The Theotokos' parents (Joachim and Anna) were elderly and very devout, but had been barren. Even though they were devout and righteous people, they experienced a lot of derision because they didn't have children. They prayed for a child- and were told by the Archangel Gabriel that they would have a daughter who would be blessed and through whom salvation would come. They then promised to have this daughter raised in the temple and dedicate her life to God- which they did when they presented her to Zacharias in the temple when she was three-years-old.

We liken the Theotokos to the Ark of the Covenant as her womb contained the uncontainable God. She is blessed and she is holy. Her entire life and body was set aside for God. She would NOT have had sex after all of this.

Do you seriously think that the Church wouldn't have remembered the reality of the people the scriptures speak of?

 

[mkgal1]

There are Biblical examples of instruction to pass things on to our children verbally. A couple of examples I can think of are:Exodus 12:26:

Then your children will ask, 'What does this ceremony mean?' And you will reply, 'It is the Passover sacrifice to the LORD, for he passed over the houses of the Israelites in Egypt. And though he struck the Egyptians, he spared our families.'" When Moses had finished speaking, all the people bowed down to the ground and worshiped.~Exodus 12:26

And

In the future when your descendants ask their parents, ‘What do these stones mean?’ tell them, ‘Israel crossed the Jordan on dry ground.’ For the Lord your God dried up the Jordan before you until you had crossed over. The Lord your God did to the Jordan what he had done to the Red Seab when he dried it up before us until we had crossed over. He did this so that all the peoples of the earth might know that the hand of the Lord is powerful and so that you might always fear the Lord your God.”~Joshua 4:21-24

Everyone having their own Bible is a fairly recent thing......isn't it?

 

[Rhamiel]

Everyone having their own Bible is a fairly recent thing......isn't it?

yes, in the early Church it would not have been common for every community to have an entire collection of the books (scrolls for them) of the New Testament
this was a persecuted movement

even after Christianity became the dominant religion, books were still very expensive, and literacy was very low.

After the invention of movable type in the mid 1400's making books less expensive, most people were still illiterate in the western world. Though it had been steadily getting better over the centuries, I am not sure when you would say that education became widespread in the West.... I would say that it was within the last 250 years that literacy became wide spread?

 

[marie alice]

The Bible says Mary was "full of grace" (Luke 1:28)......isn't grace what purifies all of us when we believe? Isn't that what bridges the gap in order for us to have a relationship with God?

Mary is said to be ‘highly favored’. That does not translate into full of grace.

Since Christ literally dwelled within Mary for the 40 weeks.....wouldn't she have to be pure?

While I understand the need some have to believe in the IC, nowhere in scripture does it say that the woman chosen to birth God’s only Son had to be other than a virgin.

Scripture tells us that Stephen was a man full of God’s grace and power (Acts 6:8). Would that mean he was pure and sinless?

 

[Thekla]

Mary is said to be ‘highly favored’. That does not translate into full of grace.

perfect passive participle ... a completed/accomplished received inherent state of being
and likewise "blessed" is in the same form (ppp)

While I understand the need some have to believe in the IC, nowhere in scripture does it say that the woman chosen to birth God’s only Son had to be other than a virgin.

Scripture tells us that Stephen was a man full of God’s grace and power (Acts 6:8). Would that mean he was pure and sinless?

says Stephen was "full of faith/pistis and power/dynamis"

 

[Tigger45]

perfect passive participle ... a completed/accomplished received inherent state of being
and likewise "blessed" is in the same form (ppp)

says Stephen was "full of faith/pistis and power/dynamis"

This is a very good reply. Clear, simple and right to the point. Thx sister

 

[Sword of the Lord]

Depends on what text you use. NU Text says Stephen was full of grace.

 

[Sword of the Lord]

Oh, and I'm not arguing the point. In fact, I only came across that because I checked 6:8 for myself in my Orthodox Study Bible and read the alternative reading of Grace.