Mariolatry?

[Xeno.of.athens]

I have encountered various posters who like to claim that their view is what the "majority of professing Christians" also holds.

I never understood why someone needs to make claims like that in discussions about Christian doctrine. If you are confident about what you believe in, you don't need to make appeals like that.

My appeal was directed to the ancient churches, which encompass the majority of professing Christians. Consequently, it is likely that these Christians adhere to the teachings of their churches. This is less of an argument and more an observation of reality. The evidence can be found in earlier posts that include historical and biblical references. While I am uncertain of your acceptance of this evidence, the demographic data are noteworthy. They may not confirm the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, but they do indicate the number of believers in this teaching.

 

[David Lamb]

Those acquainted with Jesus and his blessed mother affirm her perpetual virginity, as the entire Church has consistently professed since its inception that Blessed Mary remained ever virgin.

The entire church certainly has not done so. To give just one example - no baptist church I know of has ever held to the perpetual virginity of Mary. Also, where do those acquainted with Jesus and His mother affirm her perpetual virginity? The apostle John doesn't:

“After this He went down to Capernaum, He, His mother, His brothers, and His disciples; and they did not stay there many days.” (Joh 2:12 NKJV)

Nor did Matthew:

“24 Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, 25 and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name JESUS.” (Mt 1:24-25 NKJV)

 

[David Lamb]

Point one is contradicted by Matthew 1:23. Point two is imaginary. Thus, the conclusion is based on false premises and is unreliable.

But Matthew 1:23 just says:

“"Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel," which is translated, "God with us."” (Mt 1:23 NKJV)

These were some of the angel's words to Joseph, spoken before Jesus had been born. Indeed, the very next words are:

“24 Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, 25 and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name JESUS.” (Mt 1:24-25 NKJV)

So there is nothing in that passage to indicate that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The entire church certainly has not done so. To give just one example - no baptist church I know of has ever held to the perpetual virginity of Mary. Also, where do those acquainted with Jesus and His mother affirm her perpetual virginity? The apostle John doesn't:

“After this He went down to Capernaum, He, His mother, His brothers, and His disciples; and they did not stay there many days.” (Joh 2:12 NKJV)

Nor did Matthew:

“24 Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, 25 and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name JESUS.” (Mt 1:24-25 NKJV)

The Baptist Church did not exist at the beginning of Christianity. The affirmation of this doctrine can be found in Matthew 1:23, the canons of the Second Council of Constantinople in 553 A.D., and the Protoevangelium of James, a text from the late 2nd century. The Lateran Synod of 649, led by Pope Martin I, further highlighted Mary's virginity as being intact before, during, and after the birth of Christ. During the Reformation, this doctrine was enshrined in documents such as the Lutheran Smalcald Articles (1537) and the Reformed Second Helvetic Confession (1562).

 

[David Lamb]

The Baptist Church did not exist at the beginning of Christianity. The affirmation of this doctrine can be found in Matthew 1:23, the canons of the Second Council of Constantinople in 553 A.D., and the Protoevangelium of James, a text from the late 2nd century. The Lateran Synod of 649, led by Pope Martin I, further highlighted Mary's virginity as being intact before, during, and after the birth of Christ. During the Reformation, this doctrine was enshrined in documents such as the Lutheran Smalcald Articles (1537) and the Reformed Second Helvetic Confession (1562).

As I said in an earlier reply, Matthew 1:23 says nothing about her remaining a virgin after Jesus had been born. The words were spoken to Joseph before the Incarnation. As for your other sources, none of them is the bible, God's Word.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

But Matthew 1:23 just says:

“"Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel," which is translated, "God with us."” (Mt 1:23 NKJV)

These were some of the angel's words to Joseph, spoken before Jesus had been born. Indeed, the very next words are:

“24 Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, 25 and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name JESUS.” (Mt 1:24-25 NKJV)

So there is nothing in that passage to indicate that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus.

One may interpret the texts as not affirming the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, while others may perceive it differently. Individual opinions do not determine the truth, except perhaps for the individuals themselves.

I offer you this thought:
Matthew 1:24 And Joseph awoke from sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, taking his wife to himself;
25 and he had not known her when she bore a son, her first-born, to whom he gave the name Jesus.✻

The text here is more literally rendered ‘he knew her not till she bore a son’; but the Hebrew word represented by ‘till’ does not imply that the event which might have been expected did take place afterwards. (Cf. Gen. 8.7, Ps. 109.2, Dan. 6.24, I Mac. 5.54.) So that this phrase does not impugn the perpetual virginity of our Lady. Nor is any such inference to be drawn when our Lord is called her ‘first-born’ Son, which refers to his position as redeemable under the old law (Lk. 2.23).​

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

As I said in an earlier reply, Matthew 1:23 says nothing about her remaining a virgin after Jesus had been born. The words were spoken to Joseph before the Incarnation. As for your other sources, none of them is the bible, God's Word.

See post Mariolatry?

 

[The Liturgist]

-

​

I know one thing, you think you know more than what I do, about what i believe. People who put tradition above The Bible sure have high opinions of themselves and their beliefs.

I would say you clearly think you know more about my beliefs than I do, since you assert that I put tradition above the Bible, which is not true, and which I have denied on multiple occasions.

But meanwhile, the fact remains that you have made statements that appear to be Eutychian. I have not accused you of being Monophysite, but rather have been trying to advise you that there is a parallel between what you are saying and the error of Eutyches.

The Bible teaches that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully Man, in John 1:1-17. It does not teach that He is a hybrid of the two, which is what you are implying when you deny that the Virgin Mary gave birth to God incarnate as a man and instead declare that she gave birth to a “God-man.”

This view is deeply problematic, and is arguably inconsistent both with Sacred Scripture and with the Nicene Creed.

 

[Always in His Presence]

The Baptist Church did not exist at the beginning of Christianity.

Neither did the Roman Catholic - the church was not Romanized for hundreds of years later -

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Neither did the Roman Catholic - the church was not Romanized for hundreds of years later -

The Bible includes a letter known as "Romans," directed to the Christians in Rome, which clearly indicates that the Roman church was established in the first century. It is futile to consider your claim when the most evident proof is within the Bible itself, the very text that Protestants regard as the sole infallible authority of faith.

 

[Grip Docility]

Neither did the Roman Catholic - the church was not Romanized for hundreds of years later -

The formation of the first seven churches occurred under Roman Rule. Jesus walked among Roman Rule. This validates that all writings that trace the Roman Catholic Church back to Christ are theologically accurate. To suggest that the Church wasn't originally under Roman rule is to miss a very important point in scripture, IMO.

Acts 22:25 As they stretched him out to flog him, Paul said to the centurion standing there, “Is it legal for you to flog a Roman citizen who hasn’t even been found guilty?” 26 When the centurion heard this, he went to the commander and reported it. “What are you going to do?” he asked. “This man is a Roman citizen.” 27 The commander went to Paul and asked, “Tell me, are you a Roman citizen?”​

“Yes, I am,” he answered.​

​

It is entirely one thing to be Protesting against the Mother Church, but it is entirely another to miss that the church was formed under Roman rule. If anything, the rule of Constantine, which is so abhorred by many Protestant bodies (306AD - 337AD) actually stilled the hand of Roman persecution of Christians and instituted an All things to All Men approach that grew the Invisible Universal Body, much more rapidly.

The Roman Catholic Church is the Mother of all Brick and Mortar, historically and scripturally. Whatever a person's stance, the flowcharts that trace schism all lead back to her.

 

[d taylor]

I would say you clearly think you know more about my beliefs than I do, since you assert that I put tradition above the Bible, which is not true, and which I have denied on multiple occasions.

But meanwhile, the fact remains that you have made statements that appear to be Eutychian. I have not accused you of being Monophysite, but rather have been trying to advise you that there is a parallel between what you are saying and the error of Eutyches.

The Bible teaches that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully Man, in John 1:1-17. It does not teach that He is a hybrid of the two, which is what you are implying when you deny that the Virgin Mary gave birth to God incarnate as a man and instead declare that she gave birth to a “God-man.”

This view is deeply problematic, and is arguably inconsistent both with Sacred Scripture and with the Nicene Creed.

-
​

It has been well established from past discussion that we do not agree on basically anything. So i do know we do not agree.

So in the context of Mary is the mother of God, define the word God.

 

[Grip Docility]

-
​

It has been well established from past discussion that we do not agree on basically anything. So i do know we do not agree.

So in the context of Mary is the mother of God, define the word God.

"In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God... The Word Became Flesh."

"He is the Fulness of the Godhead Bodily"

"Isaiah 43:11 I, I am Yahweh, and there is no other Savior but Me."

"Immanuel, which means GOD with us"

"Hear oh Israel The Lord God is One"

"These 3 Testify"

1 Corinthians 10:3,4 All of them ate the same spiritual food, and all of them drank the same spiritual water. For they drank from the spiritual rock that traveled with them, and that rock was Christ.

For one more assist, here is a large portion of some of the most sacred TriUnity verses in Scripture, placed in order, yet void of commentary. HERE <- Link

 

[The Liturgist]

"In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God... The Word Became Flesh."

"He is the Fulness of the Godhead Bodily"

"Isaiah 43:11 I, I am Yahweh, and there is no other Savior but Me."

"Immanuel, which means GOD with us"

"Hear oh Israel The Lord God is One"

"These 3 Testify"

1 Corinthians 10:3,4 All of them ate the same spiritual food, and all of them drank the same spiritual water. For they drank from the spiritual rock that traveled with them, and that rock was Christ.

For one more assist, here is a large portion of some of the most sacred TriUnity verses in Scripture, placed in order, yet void of commentary. HERE <- Link

Very correct.

 

[d taylor]

-​

Ok so you have posted that before, which still does not define how the word God and its meaning is being used. When used in the statement Mary is the mother of God.

God is a Trinity: Father Son Holy Spirit

​

 

[jas3]

God is a Trinity: Father Son Holy Spirit

Yes, but the flip side of that is that each Person is God fully in Himself. Jesus Christ is God - full stop. Not "part of God," not part God part man.

 

[Grip Docility]

-​

Ok so you have posted that before, which still does not define how the word God and its meaning is being used. When used in the statement Mary is the mother of God.

God is a Trinity: Father Son Holy Spirit

​

Do you believe that God died on the cross for humanity? Do you believe that God the Son, the fullness of the Godhead Bodily, died on the Cross?

Or, would you say that only “the man died”?

 

[prodromos]

Ok so you have posted that before, which still does not define how the word God and its meaning is being used. When used in the statement Mary is the mother of God.

God is a Trinity: Father Son Holy Spirit

​

So it is fine to say Jesus is God, without having to clarify that Jesus is NOT the Father and NOT the Holy Spirit, but if we say Mary is the Mother of God, common sense goes out the window?

The double standard involved here is astonishing.

 

[d taylor]

So it is fine to say Jesus is God, without having to clarify that Jesus is NOT the Father and NOT the Holy Spirit, but if we say Mary is the Mother of God, common sense goes out the window?

The double standard involved here is astonishing.

-
​

Did mary give birth to The Son of God.

 

[prodromos]

Did mary give birth to The Son of God.

She gave birth to the Son of God who is God.
She did not give birth to the Father who is God.
She did not give birth to the Holy Spirit who is God.

Is it really that hard for you to understand?
For nearly 2000 years there has been absolutely no confusion amongst Christians as to the meaning of "Mother of God" regarding who it was Mary gave birth to. It is only a small portion of Western Christians who now cannot seem to wrap their heads around it.