Immaculate Conception of Mary by her mother??, Assumption of Mary into heaven??

[FenderTL5]

Because sadly - you said this --

"Regarding Immaculate Conception, in post 17 I said, (1) "the Immaculate Conception as taught in the west is unnecessary in Orthodox teaching" I see no need to address this further. "

which makes it appear that either you do not know what the Catholic church teaches or why we would notice what they are teaching, or you do know it but you don't think we should be paying any attention to any denomination other than the Eastern Orthodox church.

I wanted to assume you were not doing the latter. Giving the benefit of the doubt to you.

I do know what Catholics teach concerning Immaculate Conception and I know why it differs from ours. I don't want to discuss Orthodox teaching in the midst of a protestant polemic on Catholic doctrine.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Because sadly - you said this --

"Regarding Immaculate Conception, in post 17 I said, (1) "the Immaculate Conception as taught in the west is unnecessary in Orthodox teaching" I see no need to address this further. "

which makes it appear that either you do not know what the Catholic church teaches or why we would notice what they are teaching, or you do know it but you don't think we should be paying any attention to any denomination other than the Eastern Orthodox church.

I wanted to assume you were not doing the latter. Giving the benefit of the doubt to you.

Honestly, why are you so obsessed with what others believe; worry about your own faith.

 

[BobRyan]

Honestly, why are you so obsessed with what others believe; worry about your own faith.

So this is your first time visiting "Denomination Specific Theology" section of the board?
Are you thinking all these threads "are mine" ? or that I am the one that created this subforum?

It is not clear to me what you are asking.

 

[BobRyan]

I do know what Catholics teach concerning Immaculate Conception

ok well hopefully some of the references, quotes and links will assist you.

and I know why it differs from ours. I don't want to discuss Orthodox teaching in the midst of a protestant polemic on Catholic doctrine.

you are free to discuss or not discuss anything you wish.

My part is to create my own threads and add the OP for my own threads.

It is the job of other people to decide if the topic is one that they have interest in.

Everyone has free will.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

We are all tired of it.

 

[BobRyan]

We are all tired of it.

Check out the OP before responding and you will see that I never say anything in the OP along the lines of "you must reply to this thread even if you are not interested in the details of this topic".

I think we can all see that easy and obvious detail.

Someone with an actual lack of interest in the subject would not post (as we probably both know) so in your case there must be something else about this topic that you are drawn to. Either way it is fine with me.

 

[BBAS 64]

Immaculate Conception
Which is defined as - the Immaculate Conception of Mary by her mother-- Mary born sinless like Christ.

Assumption of Mary into heaven
Mary taken bodily to heaven without dying --or--- Mary resurrected at her death then bodily assumed into heaven.

I don't find any NT author commenting/admitting/stating the above.
I don't find any mention of this in Christian documents for more than 200 years after Christ.

Question:

Without any scripture support and without any early church documents in first or second century showing that Christians all believed in it - how did it come about?

On what basis could either of these teachings be considered mandatory, required or even true??

Good Day, BobRyan

"Raymond E. Brown, S.S., born in 1928 and ordained in 1953, has been recognized by universities in the U.S.A. and Europe by some twenty honorary doctoral degrees. He was appointed by Pope Paul VI to the Roman Pontifical Biblical Commission, and with church approval he has served for many years on the Faith and Order Commission of the World Council of Churches. Time magazine once described him as 'probably the premier Catholic scripture scholar in the U.S.,' and he is the only person to have served as president of all three of these distinguished societies: the Catholic Biblical Association, the Society of Biblical Literature, and the Society of New Testament Studies."

He teaches on the 2 dogmas with in His denomination.

Raymond E. Brown: Some Roman Catholics may have expected me to include a discussion of the historicity of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary. But these Marian doctrines, which are not mentioned in Scripture, clearly lie outside my topic which was the quest for historical knowledge of Mary in the NT. Moreover, I would stress the ambiguity of the term “historicity” when applied to these two doctrines. A Roman Catholic must accept the two dogmas as true upon the authority of the teaching Church, but he does not have to hold that the dogmas are derived from a chain of historical information. There is no evidence that Mary (or anyone else in NT times) knew that she was conceived free of original sin, especially since the concept of original sin did not fully exist in the first century. The dogma is not based upon information passed down by Mary or by the apostles; it is based on the Church’s insight that the sinlessness of Jesus should have affected his origins, and hence his mother, as well. Nor does a Catholic have to think that the people gathered for her funeral saw Mary assumed into heaven—there is no reliable historical tradition to that effect, and the dogma does not even specify that Mary died. Once again the doctrine stems from the Church’s insight about the application of the fruits of redemption to the leading disciple: Mary has gone before us, anticipating our common fate. Raymond E. Brown, Biblical Reflections on Crises facing the Church (New York: Paulist Press, 1975), p. 105, fn. 103.

In Him,

Bill

 

[David Kent]

Immaculate Conception
Which is defined as - the Immaculate Conception of Mary by her mother-- Mary born sinless like Christ.

Assumption of Mary into heaven
Mary taken bodily to heaven without dying --or--- Mary resurrected at her death then bodily assumed into heaven.

I don't find any NT author commenting/admitting/stating the above.
I don't find any mention of this in Christian documents for more than 200 years after Christ.

Question:

Without any scripture support and without any early church documents in first or second century showing that Christians all believed in it - how did it come about?

On what basis could either of these teachings be considered mandatory, required or even true??

Mary's grave is in Jerusalem, marked on the map as the tomb of the blessed virgin, near the St Stephen stoning chapel.

Mary was the mother of Jesus, not the mother of God. She is nowhere in the bible called either the mother of God, or the virgin Mary. She was a virgin until after Jesus was born.

Act 1:14
These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Mary's grave is in Jerusalem, marked on the map as the tomb of the blessed virgin, near the St Stephen stoning chapel.

Mary was the mother of Jesus, not the mother of God. She is nowhere in the bible called either the mother of God, or the virgin Mary. She was a virgin until after Jesus was born.

Act 1:14
These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.

To deny that Mary is the Mother of God is to deny the divinity of Jesus Christ.

 

[trophy33]

To deny that Mary is the Mother of God is to deny the divinity of Jesus Christ.

The title is not biblical, the title is not needed, the title is dangerous because many people misunderstand it and fall into idolatry regarding Mary.
Overall, the exaggerated position of Mary in Catholicism is not biblical. The New Testament has no specific teaching about Mary after the cross and does not incorporate her in the faith in any way.

Not using the title is not denying anything. Its just apostolic Christianity.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

The title is not biblical, the title is not needed, the title is dangerous because many people misunderstand it and fall into idolatry regarding Mary.
Overall, the exaggerated position of Mary in Catholicism is not biblical. The New Testament has no specific teaching about Mary after the cross and does not incorporate her in the faith in any way.

Not using the title is not denying anything. Its just apostolic Christianity.

Actually, she is mentioned a lot in the NT so it is no stretch to see that there are things that God wants us to know, and sets her as an example for us to emulate and to honor. Here are a few that are mentioned; The Annunciation, the Visitation, the Nativity of our Lord, the Purification of Mary, at the crucifixion "behold your mother"; many events that the Church (small c) catholic continues to commemorate.

So, what is her relationship to the indivisible divine nature of Jesus, but Mother. It also seems that she may well have been a matriarchal figure to the apostles. Likewise, as we often see when a good friend calls their grand mother grand-ma; we may also call her grandma.

I have no issue with calling Mary Mother as she is the mother of my most beloved Lord Jesus Christ.

It is way less dangerous to give her the honor she is due, than to willfully disregard her and her part in the birth and life of our Lord. If we are a bit over the top, it is better than falling short. Do what you like, I will continue to Honor our Lord Jesús the Christ, and His mother of both His natures; blessed is she above all women!

 

[trophy33]

Actually, she is mentioned a lot in the NT so it is no stretch to see that there are things that God wants us to know, and sets her as an example for us to emulate and to honor. Here are a few that are mentioned; The Annunciation, the Visitation, the Nativity of our Lord, the Purification of Mary, at the crucifixion "behold your mother"; many events that the Church (small c) catholic continues to commemorate.

So, what is her relationship to the indivisible divine nature of Jesus, but Mother. It also seems that she may well have been a matriarchal figure to the apostles. Likewise, as we often see when a good friend calls their grand mother grand-ma; we may also call her grandma.

I have no issue with calling Mary Mother as she is the mother of my most beloved Lord Jesus Christ.

It is way less dangerous to give her the honor she is due, than to willfully disregard her and her part in the birth and life of our Lord. If we are a bit over the top, it is better than falling short. Do what you like, I will continue to Honor our Lord Jesús the Christ, and His mother of both His natures; blessed is she above all women!

After the cross, the apostolic Christianity of the New Testament does not mention her in any significant way, no honors, no theology about her. Silence.

So, there is no need to focus on her like the RCC does.

 

[David Kent]

The title is not biblical, the title is not needed, the title is dangerous because many people misunderstand it and fall into idolatry regarding Mary.
Overall, the exaggerated position of Mary in Catholicism is not biblical. The New Testament has no specific teaching about Mary after the cross and does not incorporate her in the faith in any way.

Not using the title is not denying anything. Its just apostolic Christianity.

Exactly. Neither is the queen of heaven. Which was a pagan title, Jeremiah 7:18 and 44:17-19

 

[concretecamper]

Exactly. Neither is the queen of heaven. Which was a pagan title, Jeremiah 7:18 and 44:17-19

The Bible doesn't tell us the Gospel of Matthew is inspired. You believe it because of sources outside the Bible.

Just pointing out how inconsistent your logic is.

 

[Valletta]

After the cross, the apostolic Christianity of the New Testament does not mention her in any significant way, no honors, no theology about her. Silence.

So, there is no need to focus on her like the RCC does.

Revelation 12: [a]And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; 2 she was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery. 3 And another portent appeared in heaven; behold, a great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems upon his heads. 4 His tail swept down a third of the stars of heaven, and cast them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to bear a child, that he might devour her child when she brought it forth; 5 she brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne, 6 and the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, in which to be nourished for one thousand two hundred and sixty days. RSVCE

 

[Valletta]

Exactly. Neither is the queen of heaven. Which was a pagan title, Jeremiah 7:18 and 44:17-19

In the Davidic kingdom, starting with Solomon, the mother of the king is the queen. So says the Bible.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

After the cross, the apostolic Christianity of the New Testament does not mention her in any significant way, no honors, no theology about her. Silence.

So, there is no need to focus on her like the RCC does.

Good reason to forget her. Following that logic, our Lord is not mentioned after Revelation in the Bible either; are we to forget Jesus Christ for this same reason? (most of the world has BTW).

 

[David Kent]

In the Davidic kingdom, starting with Solomon, the mother of the king is the queen. So says the Bible.

Queen mother.

 

[Valletta]

Queen mother.

​

1 Kings 2:19-20 So Bathshe′ba went to King Solomon, to speak to him on behalf of Adoni′jah. And the king rose to meet her, and bowed down to her; then he sat on his throne, and had a seat brought for the king’s mother; and she sat on his right. Then she said, “I have one small request to make of you; do not refuse me.” And the king said to her, “Make your request, my mother; for I will not refuse you.” RSVCE

The important role of the queen mother is clear. And remember Mary is not just the queen mother, but the mother of God as well.

 

[David Kent]

​

1 Kings 2:19-20 So Bathshe′ba went to King Solomon, to speak to him on behalf of Adoni′jah. And the king rose to meet her, and bowed down to her; then he sat on his throne, and had a seat brought for the king’s mother; and she sat on his right. Then she said, “I have one small request to make of you; do not refuse me.” And the king said to her, “Make your request, my mother; for I will not refuse you.” RSVCE

The important role of the queen mother is clear. And remember Mary is not just the queen mother, but the mother of God as well.

Scripture calls her Mary, the mother of Jesus,