Who is Mary?

narnia59 · Sep 11, 2020

mindlight said:
Where is the scripture that says that Mary intended to remain a virgin?

Above you speak to what would be St. Joseph’s normal desire for Mary. If you have not yet encountered the “Protoevangelium of James” on your search, you will want to give it some consideration. It provides the details of the story of Mary and Joseph. Mary from an early age was dedicated to the service of the temple by her parents and had chosen to remain a consecrated virgin. But at the time when she began her monthly cycle she could no longer remain in the temple and it was deemed she needed a husband. Joseph, who was an elderly widower with children was chosen for and accepted this role. It was never meant to be what we would consider today a “normal” marriage.

The Orthodox hold that tradition quite highly and seem to accept it as truth. From the Catholic perspective we are certainly open to that possibility, but it not as commonly held to be a certainty.

The primary point is that to assume that Mary and Joseph were a young couple in love, planning to marry and have a family is an assumption not found in Scripture.

And there is evidence in Scripture that supports this view. One is when the angel comes to tell Mary the news that she will bear a son. This same promise is made to other women in Jewish history (Sarah in Genesis 18, Hannah in 1 Samuel 1, and the Shunnamite woman in 2 Kings 4). They all interpret it to mean they will conceive a child with their husband. Mary is betrothed to Joseph, the angel is speaking of a future event, yet Mary’s response is to question how this will happen because she is a virgin. If her plan had not been to remain a virgin in the future, this question makes no sense. She would have assumed she and Joseph were to have a son, and the angel would have had to correct her.

We see the angel telling Joseph to take her as “his wife.” But the word translated in Matthew 1:20 is gunaika, a very generic term for “woman”. It’s the same term Jesus uses when addressing Mary in John’s Gospel.

So we then see Joseph and Mary on the way to Bethlehem after he has taken her as “his wife,” but Scripture still refers to her as his “betrothed.” (Luke 2:5).

And when the angel comes to tell Joseph to take them to Egypt, he does not tell him to take his wife and child. He tells him to take “the child and his mother.” (Matthew 2:13-14). By this point in time they should be living a normal marital life of husband and wife if that’s the intent. Yet she is not referred to as his wife, and his role is to protect the child and his mother.

Then we come to the foot of the cross where Jesus places Mary under the care of St. John. This would not be necessary nor appropriate if Mary had other children to assume her care. Some try to sidestep this by saying his family was not “believers” so he would remove her from their care. This is problematic because if they are correct, then the apostle James that Paul refers to in Galatians 1:19 as the “brother” of the Lord would be the son of Mary. Within 48 hours Christ will be resurrected from the dead, and his brothers, at least this one, becomes not only a believer but among the ranks of the apostles. So there would be no need to separate Mary from her son James and place her under the care of John. As Catholics of course we would understand that there are not three apostles named James at all, and this James is the son of Alphaeus, who is part of the larger “clan” of Christ that would make him a “brother.”

On another note, and this is simply a personal thought -- if Mary and Joseph did indeed have other children, it seems to me that there is another consequence. It would mean that God "inserted" Himself into their marital relationship (they were already legally married through their betrothal) to essentially "borrow" Mary for the purpose of conceiving His son before Joseph would do the same. This is a view that can easily objectify Mary and demonstrate a lack of respect for the marital relationship of Joseph and Mary. In contrast, the Catholic view understands that God entered into a covenant with Mary to become the mother of the second person of the Trinity, and the role of St. Joseph was the protector and guardian of “the child and his mother”.

narnia59 · Sep 11, 2020

mindlight said:
Sinless is in thought and action which is pretty much impossible in a fallen world without Christ. Mary was not always pregnant with the Son of God inside her. Having a sinful mother does not have to mean those sins are inherited in the child and especially when the action of conception inside that woman involved the Holy Spirit of God. What the doctrine of the immaculate conception does is widen the scope of sinless perfection to Mary and by association to the church. It thereby eliminates the distinction between Christ and the Church and grants an authority and devotion to the church which actually belongs only to God.

Totally agree that sinless in thought and action is entirely impossible in a fallen world without Christ. It is Christ who saves Mary from sin, and this is from his merits on the cross. You seem to have a view that he is somehow bound by time and can’t do this at the moment of her conception, which is confusing.

The grace of the Immaculate conception and the grace to follow Christ without fail in Mary’s life does not by “association” move to the Church. Ephesians 4:7 says that “grace was given to each of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift.”

I may not be totally understanding your point however as it pretty fuzzy to me.

FenderTL5 · Sep 11, 2020

mindlight said:
We all accept the third council ruling on the Theotokos but what do you mean by honouring Mary.. Do you honour her specifically cause she was the mother of Jesus?

At the Annunciation, Luke 1:45 "blessed is she that believed: for there shall be a performance of those things which were told her from the Lord."
Also, in Luke 1:48 she says, "He hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed."

Christ Himself clarifies why all generations call her blessed when he responds to a comment concerning His mother in Luke 11:27 a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, “Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts that you sucked!” But he said, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”
So the answer is yes, we honor the Theotokos for being His earthly mother but there's a lot more to it than that. We honor her for her faith, obedience to the call of God and her example for all of us even more.

Do you pray to her and ask her to intercede for you for instance, do you elevate her above other mothers of Christian children.

Yes to the first question. The second one would refer back to what I said above. We honor her for being Christ's earthly mother but there's more to it. Also, the Orthodox Church honors other Godly mothers/women as well, many with their own feast days.

We agree Mary is blessed. The Dormitian or Assumption is a cool story, it is biblically possible, makes sense of certain themes in scripture and I hope it is true. Was this in Ephesus or Jerusalem according to Orthodox tradition and was that in 41AD?

She was in Jerusalem, comforting the infant Christian community. She was living in the house of the beloved Apostle John, later the Evangelist.

mindlight · Sep 11, 2020

narnia59 said:
I’m going to split this into a couple of posts for readability.

I think the idea that if Mary is conceived without sin would make her no longer wish to be a human being is most problematic.

There seems to be a view that this would make Mary somehow “less human,” and a fallen human nature somehow makes us “more human.”

Adam and Eve were created without sin. God’s intent was they would live a sinless life in harmony with him. That was God’s definition of what it means to be “human.” When Adam and Eve freely choose to reject God and follow Satan, they place humanity under the bondage of sin. This is why St. Paul so often refers to sin not as simply acts of wrongdoing, but rather as our cosmic enemy that has enslaved humanity, and over which we have no control (Romans 3:9, Romans 6:6, Romans 6:17).

The “normal” things you mention Jesus would have done as part of being human – those are all true for both him and Mary, as well as Adam and Eve before the fall. But those are completely different than a fallen human nature that is attracted to sin as a “good.” Christ was not enslaved to the powers of sin. He could be tempted, yes, just as Adam and Eve were tempted. At the moment of their temptation though, they were not yet under the bondage of sin. Only when they yielded to Satan do they become enslaved.

Being created without sin simply means Mary is in the same state that Eve was upon her creation. This is why very early in Christian history (before the New Testament was formed, or the dogma of the Trinity developed), the early church fathers recognized Mary as the “new Eve.” There is a strong Scriptural basis for that if you have not explored it.

Eve before the fall had complete freedom of will, was fully human, and had a human experience as God designed. This did not make her “less” human, it made her more so. As with Mary. Being conceived without sin did not mean she was not able to sin any more than Eve was not. It simply means that free from the bondage of sin, she could face the same choices Eve did and choose differently.

Yes Gods initial design was perfect and we were made sinless. This is our default setting not the the condition into which we have fallen. But by human I was not thinking in terms of a freedom to sin or to abuse our humanity. I was thinking in terms of Mary having normal sexual relations with her husband. It is ambiguous in the bible as to whether Adam and Eve ever had sex but if Gods intention was to fill the earth before the account of the fall is given then that would have had to have been part of his original intent for people. So Eve was probably never intended to be a nun and it is therefore not the case that Mary had to be.

Gen 1:28 - Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth

mindlight · Sep 11, 2020

narnia59 said:
Above you speak to what would be St. Joseph’s normal desire for Mary. If you have not yet encountered the “Protoevangelium of James” on your search, you will want to give it some consideration. It provides the details of the story of Mary and Joseph. Mary from an early age was dedicated to the service of the temple by her parents and had chosen to remain a consecrated virgin. But at the time when she began her monthly cycle she could no longer remain in the temple and it was deemed she needed a husband. Joseph, who was an elderly widower with children was chosen for and accepted this role. It was never meant to be what we would consider today a “normal” marriage.

The Orthodox hold that tradition quite highly and seem to accept it as truth. From the Catholic perspective we are certainly open to that possibility, but it not as commonly held to be a certainty.

The primary point is that to assume that Mary and Joseph were a young couple in love, planning to marry and have a family is an assumption not found in Scripture.

And there is evidence in Scripture that supports this view. One is when the angel comes to tell Mary the news that she will bear a son. This same promise is made to other women in Jewish history (Sarah in Genesis 18, Hannah in 1 Samuel 1, and the Shunnamite woman in 2 Kings 4). They all interpret it to mean they will conceive a child with their husband. Mary is betrothed to Joseph, the angel is speaking of a future event, yet Mary’s response is to question how this will happen because she is a virgin. If her plan had not been to remain a virgin in the future, this question makes no sense. She would have assumed she and Joseph were to have a son, and the angel would have had to correct her.

We see the angel telling Joseph to take her as “his wife.” But the word translated in Matthew 1:20 is gunaika, a very generic term for “woman”. It’s the same term Jesus uses when addressing Mary in John’s Gospel.

So we then see Joseph and Mary on the way to Bethlehem after he has taken her as “his wife,” but Scripture still refers to her as his “betrothed.” (Luke 2:5).

And when the angel comes to tell Joseph to take them to Egypt, he does not tell him to take his wife and child. He tells him to take “the child and his mother.” (Matthew 2:13-14). By this point in time they should be living a normal marital life of husband and wife if that’s the intent. Yet she is not referred to as his wife, and his role is to protect the child and his mother.

Then we come to the foot of the cross where Jesus places Mary under the care of St. John. This would not be necessary nor appropriate if Mary had other children to assume her care. Some try to sidestep this by saying his family was not “believers” so he would remove her from their care. This is problematic because if they are correct, then the apostle James that Paul refers to in Galatians 1:19 as the “brother” of the Lord would be the son of Mary. Within 48 hours Christ will be resurrected from the dead, and his brothers, at least this one, becomes not only a believer but among the ranks of the apostles. So there would be no need to separate Mary from her son James and place her under the care of John. As Catholics of course we would understand that there are not three apostles named James at all, and this James is the son of Alphaeus, who is part of the larger “clan” of Christ that would make him a “brother.”

On another note, and this is simply a personal thought -- if Mary and Joseph did indeed have other children, it seems to me that there is another consequence. It would mean that God "inserted" Himself into their marital relationship (they were already legally married through their betrothal) to essentially "borrow" Mary for the purpose of conceiving His son before Joseph would do the same. This is a view that can easily objectify Mary and demonstrate a lack of respect for the marital relationship of Joseph and Mary. In contrast, the Catholic view understands that God entered into a covenant with Mary to become the mother of the second person of the Trinity, and the role of St. Joseph was the protector and guardian of “the child and his mother”.

A lot of that is new to me. I think I would like to read the book you mentioned even though it is not canonical.

I have never heard of a consecrated virgin in the temple service in the context of Judaism. Is there any corroborating traditions for that. Well I mean apart from this book.

Interesting that Mary did not ask if this child would be by her future husband you might have a point there.

I would need to check the biblical words used to refer to Marys relationship with Joseph. That is not an angle I have thought about before. Also if James the brother of the Lord did indeed become the head of the Jerusalem church as Josephus insists then why did he not care for Mary his mother as you say. Mind you Josephus is a problematic source at the best of times and not entirely reliable on lots of things.

So the Jerusalem church chief was not James the Just but James the son of Alphaeus, that is also a new idea for me. Is that only a Catholic tradition or do others also share that. Again more research required on my part.

Also as you say a Virgin birth would not be an intrusion into normal marital relations.

Anyway a lot of food for thought there and things I need to check out further. Thanks for posting

mindlight · Sep 11, 2020

narnia59 said:
Totally agree that sinless in thought and action is entirely impossible in a fallen world without Christ. It is Christ who saves Mary from sin, and this is from his merits on the cross. You seem to have a view that he is somehow bound by time and can’t do this at the moment of her conception, which is confusing.

The grace of the Immaculate conception and the grace to follow Christ without fail in Mary’s life does not by “association” move to the Church. Ephesians 4:7 says that “grace was given to each of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift.”

I may not be totally understanding your point however as it pretty fuzzy to me.

Well I guess with Moses and Elijah, who are heavenly citizens before the cross, you need an explanation on how they could have been received into Gods Living presence and a state of glory before that mechanism was provided by the cross. We know that Moses sinned a number of times so a mechanism of redemption is needed to explain their apparent perfection on the Mount of Transfiguration. Backdating the sacrifice and thinking in God "Eternal time" about this is one way of doing that. If we accept this example then it is at least possible with Mary also. But the difference is she is not in a state of glory at her conception. If the James Protoevangelium you quoted earlier is accurate then there was something special about her convictions and callings but if she had her period she was not in a state of glory like the angels who neither marry or are given in marriage and could have become pregnant by natural means though clearly this is not what happened to her. So we are talking about a pure maybe perfect human girl who struggles with the same stuff that normal human beings do. I still do not comprehend why it would be important that she be sinless though or immaculately conceived. She seems to be someone in whom Gods grace dwelt from the very earliest age, she was indeed blessed among women and an outstanding example of devotion but immaculate conception and an unbroken hymen seem to be unnecessary assertions to me to affirm her purity and blessed state.

narnia59 · Sep 11, 2020

mindlight said:
Yes Gods initial design was perfect and we were made sinless. This is our default setting not the the condition into which we have fallen. But by human I was not thinking in terms of a freedom to sin or to abuse our humanity. I was thinking in terms of Mary having normal sexual relations with her husband. It is ambiguous in the bible as to whether Adam and Eve ever had sex but if Gods intention was to fill the earth before the account of the fall is given then that would have had to have been part of his original intent for people. So Eve was probably never intended to be a nun and it is therefore not the case that Mary had to be.

Gen 1:28 - Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth

Again, sexual relations between married people is a good thing. It's not the choice between a good or bad thing, it's the choice between a good thing and perhaps an even better thing.

From this passage in Revelation "It is these who have not defiled themselves with women, for they are chaste; it is these who follow the Lamb wherever he goes; these have been redeemed from mankind as first fruits for God and the Lamb" (Revelation 14:4), St. Augustine writes "The Lamb walks the way of virginity. Follow him there, you virgins, for on this count you follow him wherever he goes....The masses of the faithful, unable to follow the Lamb to this blessing, will rejoice with you, but they will not be able to sing that new song which is for you alone."

Just as the old covenant has "typologies" that point us to the new, within the new there are those signs that point us on to heaven. Consecrated virginity is one of those signs, for there will be no marriage in heaven. They are the "firstfruits" of our redemption.

Jesus speaks of this when he say that there are those who will make themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heave (Matthew 19:12).

While it would be unusual from married people to take that route, St. Paul certainly doesn't seem it to be an impossible thought. "36 If any one thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his betrothed, if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry—it is no sin. 37 But whoever is firmly established in his heart, being under no necessity but having his desire under control, and has determined this in his heart, to keep her as his betrothed, he will do well. 38 So that he who marries his betrothed does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better. (1 Corinthians 7:36-38)

If there ever was a person who would perhaps be "firmly established in his heart, being under no necessity but having his desire under control, and has determined this in his heart, to keep her as his betrothed," I think St. Joseph would be the one. And if there were ever a "firstfuit" of our redemption, then I believe that would be Mary.

BNR32FAN · Sep 11, 2020

mindlight said:
Being born an Anglican with a more Protestant than Catholic outlook and brought up with a high veneration of scripture I have always been intensely sceptical of Catholic and Orthodoc views of Mary and generally dismissed them as Marianity and a distraction from true religion. But recently I have been challenged by some of my readings of the Early Church Fathers who clearly had radically different views to Protestants today. I guess I wanted to use this thread to sift fact from fiction about Mary and to see what is solid and what is not. So I have a list below of assertions people make about Mary. Some of which are directly supported from scripture and some of which have been dominant in tradition. There is also a quiz. I would be really interested to hear how you approach the question of who is right and who is wrong about Mary on the individual assertions below.

1) Parents: Joachim and Anna a barren woman - based on tradition. a descendant of David?
2) Immaculate conception : so she was born without sin - tradition and Catholic doctrine 1854
3) Virgin conception of Jesus by Holy Spirit - Matthew and Lukes gospel, Council of Nicea 325
4) Bore Jesus in her womb leading to her description as the God bearer (Theotokos) or Mother of God as others emphasise - Third Ecumenical Council (Ephesus) 431 refuted Nestorius who said she was only birth giver of Christ not God
5) Virgin after birth process ie hymen did not break - Constantinople 553
6) Bore other children after Jesus - Josephus mentioned Jesus had a brother James, The bible apparently mentions brothers and sisters. But Catholics suggest these were half brothers from Josephs previous marriage or cousins.
7) Was present during Jesus ministry - mentions in Temple when a child, in Wedding Feast of Canaan, at cross, in room before Pentecost
8) Died in Israel or Ephesus - conflicting traditions
9) Assumed into heaven. Revelation 12:1;5-6 "woman clothed with the sun" - Catholics 1950
10) Visitations and miracles through history. Are these real?

The Catholics seem most devoted to Mary and have most to say about her. But Barth described this devotion as the biggest heresy of the Catholic church

What do you think?

Mary was immaculately conceived and the mother of God but her perpetual virginity and assumption are just that. They are assumptions not supported by scripture.

narnia59 · Sep 11, 2020

mindlight said:
A lot of that is new to me. I think I would like to read the book you mentioned even though it is not canonical.

I have never heard of a consecrated virgin in the temple service in the context of Judaism. Is there any corroborating traditions for that. Well I mean apart from this book.

Interesting that Mary did not ask if this child would be by her future husband you might have a point there.

I would need to check the biblical words used to refer to Marys relationship with Joseph. That is not an angle I have thought about before. Also if James the brother of the Lord did indeed become the head of the Jerusalem church as Josephus insists then why did he not care for Mary his mother as you say. Mind you Josephus is a problematic source at the best of times and not entirely reliable on lots of things.

So the Jerusalem church chief was not James the Just but James the son of Alphaeus, that is also a new idea for me. Is that only a Catholic tradition or do others also share that. Again more research required on my part.

Also as you say a Virgin birth would not be an intrusion into normal marital relations.

Anyway a lot of food for thought there and things I need to check out further. Thanks for posting

I think that for God to in a sense "borrow" Mary from Joseph would most definitely be a intrusion into normal martial relations, even if they had not commenced. That entire concept seems to be problematic to me for many reasons.

I had looked for references to the concept of virginity in Judaism before and had not much luck, but I did find this reference recently that I bookmarked. Haven't read it, but if you want to and report back, it could save me some time :oldthumbsup:

https://ecommons.udayton.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2537&context=marian_studies

I have been told that there are references that once Moses encountered God at the top of the mountain he refrained from relations with his wife and became celibate and that can be found in Jewish sources. The depth of that encounter with God changed him in a profound way. I can't imagine that Mary's encounter was not even more profound.

And you see a hint of that in Exodus when the Israelites are given instructions to come to the base of the mountain for their encounter with God and they're instructed to abstain from sexual relations to prepare for that meeting (Exodus 19:15). I do not believe that is because God was indicating that sexual relations betwen married people was in any way "bad" but rather than it is something to be set aside when encountering the divine.

I don't think Scripture is absolutely clear on which apostles James headed up the Jerusalem church but I think most scholars agree it was James the son of Alphaeus because James the Just is killed very early (Acts 12).

BNR32FAN · Sep 11, 2020

mindlight said:
Ok that sounds like the Catholic line. The fifth Ecumenical called her "ever virgin". Pope Martin interpreted that 100 years,later in terms of perpetual virginity before during and after birth.

The main struggles I have with the Catholic view is that the level of their devotion contrasts with the paucity of scriptural references and goes well beyond them. Also there was no real affirmation from early church fathers about this perpetual virginity theme till Tertullian at end of second century and people of that time seemed somewhat ascetic in their ideas of purity. I do not see impurity in a faithful wife or mother who has had sex with her husband and given birth, so cannot see the necessity of virginity after birth in Marys case. Also it seems like a distraction from Christ to say she too was without sin when He is the One who redeems us not her, it was he who went to the cross not her, it is that brings God and Man together in one person

Also why would Jesus need a perfect mum to be without sin. Sin is an activity not a state. So does it distract from the themes of incarnation to suggest that the humanity he inherited from his mother gave him struggles that he overcame perfectly

Re the assumption , no real issues with that cause there is a biblical example in case of Moses. But not sure we can say for sure.

Is the fruit of Fatima a growth in Gods Kingdom and in true devotion

The third council in Ephesus battled Nestorius who asked questions like how could God have a mother. I did not agree with his answer but it was a fantastic question. We cannot dismiss that special contribution Mary made. She was Jesus's mother but she was not there before Creation and nor was she there before God.

The thing about Mary’s alleged perpetual virginity is it would’ve been downright improper and utterly inconceivable for someone to inquire about a married woman’s virginity especially amongst the Jews and I honestly can’t imagine Mary ever boasting about something so private. So I just can see any way that any sort of evidence could possibly exist to support this idea. So while I do doubt it’s validity at the same time I don’t exactly hold it to be false. I do however feel it is quite irresponsible to make such claims without sufficient evidence to support it. So I remain neutral on the subject and tend to lean towards her having a normal relationship with her husband as any Jewish wife would aside from consummating the marriage on their wedding day. I think it’s possible she could’ve remained a virgin afterwards but highly unlikely.

mindlight · Sep 11, 2020

narnia59 said:
the “Protoevangelium of James”

There appear to be two main issues with this text:

1) It claims to have been written by James but was composed in mid second century in Egypt in a culture in which Platonic idealist thinking was commonplace. So its pseudobiographical and it is unclear how reliable the source information is.

2) The idea that Mary was a consecrated virgin in the temple is not something at all mentioned in Jewish customs of the time although there was a lot of diversity so its possible.

But the book itself is a good read, adds a lot of detail including miracles relating to Anna having a child and also the way in which Joseph was selected to be Marys husband by lot. It all sounds plausible despite the above. I find myself wanting it to be true but have no good reason to believe it.
http://www.asu.edu/courses/rel376/total-readings/james.pdf

narnia59 · Sep 11, 2020

mindlight said:
Well I guess with Moses and Elijah, who are heavenly citizens before the cross, you need an explanation on how they could have been received into Gods Living presence and a state of glory before that mechanism was provided by the cross. We know that Moses sinned a number of times so a mechanism of redemption is needed to explain their apparent perfection on the Mount of Transfiguration. Backdating the sacrifice and thinking in God "Eternal time" about this is one way of doing that. If we accept this example then it is at least possible with Mary also. But the difference is she is not in a state of glory at her conception. If the James Protoevangelium you quoted earlier is accurate then there was something special about her convictions and callings but if she had her period she was not in a state of glory like the angels who neither marry or are given in marriage and could have become pregnant by natural means though clearly this is not what happened to her. So we are talking about a pure maybe perfect human girl who struggles with the same stuff that normal human beings do. I still do not comprehend why it would be important that she be sinless though or immaculately conceived. She seems to be someone in whom Gods grace dwelt from the very earliest age, she was indeed blessed among women and an outstanding example of devotion but immaculate conception and an unbroken hymen seem to be unnecessary assertions to me to affirm her purity and blessed state.

Christ's sacrifice is what saves all people from all time, and yes the mystery of the timelessness of God is at work. There is an passage in Hebrews Chapter 11 that I have always found interesting when it gives the great "role call" of Old Testament saints. But then it says in Hebrews 11:39-40 that "39 And all these, though well attested by their faith, did not receive what was promised, 40 since God had foreseen something better for us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect." "Apart from us" is a reference to the body of Christ, and their perfection comes from their union with Christ. Even though they died long before he was born.

As I said, all Marian dogmas speak to both the divinity and/or the humanity of Christ. One passage that the early church fathers took to support the perpectual virginity of Mary was from Ezekiel 44:1-2 -- "Then he brought me back to the outer gate of the sanctuary, which faces east; and it was shut. 2 And he said to me, “This gate shall remain shut; it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter by it; for the Lord, the God of Israel, has entered by it; therefore it shall remain shut." They understood that to mean that no other would be worthy to come into the world by the same "gate" used by God.

And then there is the question of Christ's humanity. As you have pointed out, he has very human needs and desires. He also is under the Mosaic law, and follows it perfectly. One of his commandments is to "honor your mother." As son, he fulfills this as all the commandments perfectly. As God, he has the power to keep sin from touching her.

One thing I read that always remained with me is that Jesus had witnessed the destruction caused by Satan and the bondage of humanity to sin. He was willing to give his life to redeem us and he did, including her. But he did not have to let her fall under the bondage of sin. And with his son's heart, he stood firmly between Satan and his mother and said "not her." That speaks quite profoundly to his humanity.

mindlight · Sep 11, 2020

FenderTL5 said:
At the Annunciation, Luke 1:45 "blessed is she that believed: for there shall be a performance of those things which were told her from the Lord."
Also, in Luke 1:48 she says, "He hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed."

Christ Himself clarifies why all generations call her blessed when he responds to a comment concerning His mother in Luke 11:27 a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, “Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts that you sucked!” But he said, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”
So the answer is yes, we honor the Theotokos for being His earthly mother but there's a lot more to it than that. We honor her for her faith, obedience to the call of God and her example for all of us even more.
Yes to the first question. The second one would refer back to what I said above. We honor her for being Christ's earthly mother but there's more to it. Also, the Orthodox Church honors other Godly mothers/women as well, many with their own feast days.
She was in Jerusalem, comforting the infant Christian community. She was living in the house of the beloved Apostle John, later the Evangelist.

Agreed with most of that, but do not know why people pray to Mary or saints when they could go straight to God. I notice your silence on immaculate conception, perpetual virginity and Assumption.

mindlight · Sep 11, 2020

BNR32FAN said:
The thing about Mary’s alleged perpetual virginity is it would’ve been downright improper and utterly inconceivable for someone to inquire about a married woman’s virginity especially amongst the Jews and I honestly can’t imagine Mary ever boasting about something so private. So I just can see any way that any sort of evidence could possibly exist to support this idea. So while I do doubt it’s validity at the same time I don’t exactly hold it to be false. I do however feel it is quite irresponsible to make such claims without sufficient evidence to support it. So I remain neutral on the subject and tend to lean towards her having a normal relationship with her husband as any Jewish wife would aside from consummating the marriage on their wedding day. I think it’s possible she could’ve remained a virgin afterwards but highly unlikely.

According to the ProtEvangelium of James it was done by a lady called Salome after she had been told by Marys midwife that she remained a virgin after birth. Salome went to the stable to check. So there were two witnesses according to the book.

Chp 19:18 - 20:11
And the midwife departed from the cave and met Salome and said to her, "Salome, Salome, I have to describe this new miracle for you. A virgin has given birth, although her body does not allow it." (19) And Salome said, "As the Lord my God lives, unless I insert my finger and investigate her, I will not believe that a virgin has given birth." CHAPTER 20 (1) And the midwife went in and said, "Mary, position yourself, for not a small test concerning you is about to take place." (2) When Mary heard these things, she positioned herself. And Salome inserted her finger into her body. (3) And Salome cried out and said, "Woe for my lawlessness and the unbelief that made me test the living God. Look, my hand is falling away from me and being consumed in fire." (5) And Salome dropped to her knees before the Lord, saying, "God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, (6) do not expose me to the children of Israel, but give me back to the poor. (7) For you know, Lord, that I have performed service and received my wage from you." (8) Suddenly, an angel of the Lord appeared, saying to her, "Salome, Salome, the Lord of all has heard your entreaty. (9) Stretch out your hand to the child and lift him up and he will be salvation and joy for you." (10) And Salome went to the child and lifted him up, saying, "I worship him because he has been born a king to Israel." (11) And at once Salome was healed and left the cave justified.

But this sounds the more fanciful part of the account and a little contrived like it was answering the question you raised rather than giving an account of what actually happened. I am not convinced of the necessity of perpetual virginity, can see no good biblical grounds to accept it and it neither adds nor detracts from my respect for Mary. I am inclined to accept the assumption but on a provisional basis, it is biblically possible and there is a strong early tradition for it. But again with Immaculate conception really do not see the necessity of it and can find no strong case for it. Even in the Gospel of James which is a pro Mary as you can get the doctrine is not obvious in the text.

dzheremi · Sep 11, 2020

mindlight said:
Agreed with most of that, but do not know why people pray to Mary or saints when they could go straight to God.

¿Porque no los dos?

^^^ This is the standard format for the intercessory prayers (Copto-Arabic Hiteniyat) prayed in the Coptic Orthodox tradition. As you can see and hear, they are prayers directly address to God: "Through the prayers of ____ (saint's name; it will always start with the Theotokos St. Mary, as there is no saint greater than her), O Lord, grant us the forgiveness of our sins."

BNR32FAN · Sep 11, 2020

mindlight said:
According to the ProtEvangelium of James it was done by a lady called Salome after she had been told by Marys midwife that she remained a virgin after birth. Salome went to the stable to check. So there were two witnesses according to the book.

Chp 19:18 - 20:11
And the midwife departed from the cave and met Salome and said to her, "Salome, Salome, I have to describe this new miracle for you. A virgin has given birth, although her body does not allow it." (19) And Salome said, "As the Lord my God lives, unless I insert my finger and investigate her, I will not believe that a virgin has given birth." CHAPTER 20 (1) And the midwife went in and said, "Mary, position yourself, for not a small test concerning you is about to take place." (2) When Mary heard these things, she positioned herself. And Salome inserted her finger into her body. (3) And Salome cried out and said, "Woe for my lawlessness and the unbelief that made me test the living God. Look, my hand is falling away from me and being consumed in fire." (5) And Salome dropped to her knees before the Lord, saying, "God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, (6) do not expose me to the children of Israel, but give me back to the poor. (7) For you know, Lord, that I have performed service and received my wage from you." (8) Suddenly, an angel of the Lord appeared, saying to her, "Salome, Salome, the Lord of all has heard your entreaty. (9) Stretch out your hand to the child and lift him up and he will be salvation and joy for you." (10) And Salome went to the child and lifted him up, saying, "I worship him because he has been born a king to Israel." (11) And at once Salome was healed and left the cave justified.

But this sounds the more fanciful part of the account and a little contrived like it was answering the question you raised rather than giving an account of what actually happened. I am not convinced of the necessity of perpetual virginity, can see no good biblical grounds to accept it and it neither adds nor detracts from my respect for Mary. I am inclined to accept the assumption but on a provisional basis, it is biblically possible and there is a strong early tradition for it. But again with Immaculate conception really do not see the necessity of it and can find no strong case for it. Even in the Gospel of James which is a pro Mary as you can get the doctrine is not obvious in the text.

Ok but we know that the protoevagelium of James wasn’t written until around 140AD which would make James being the older step brother of Jesus we’ll over 140 years old when it was written. I think the protoevangelium of James is a false apocryphal writing.

BNR32FAN · Sep 11, 2020

mindlight said:
According to the ProtEvangelium of James it was done by a lady called Salome after she had been told by Marys midwife that she remained a virgin after birth. Salome went to the stable to check. So there were two witnesses according to the book.

Chp 19:18 - 20:11
And the midwife departed from the cave and met Salome and said to her, "Salome, Salome, I have to describe this new miracle for you. A virgin has given birth, although her body does not allow it." (19) And Salome said, "As the Lord my God lives, unless I insert my finger and investigate her, I will not believe that a virgin has given birth." CHAPTER 20 (1) And the midwife went in and said, "Mary, position yourself, for not a small test concerning you is about to take place." (2) When Mary heard these things, she positioned herself. And Salome inserted her finger into her body. (3) And Salome cried out and said, "Woe for my lawlessness and the unbelief that made me test the living God. Look, my hand is falling away from me and being consumed in fire." (5) And Salome dropped to her knees before the Lord, saying, "God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, (6) do not expose me to the children of Israel, but give me back to the poor. (7) For you know, Lord, that I have performed service and received my wage from you." (8) Suddenly, an angel of the Lord appeared, saying to her, "Salome, Salome, the Lord of all has heard your entreaty. (9) Stretch out your hand to the child and lift him up and he will be salvation and joy for you." (10) And Salome went to the child and lifted him up, saying, "I worship him because he has been born a king to Israel." (11) And at once Salome was healed and left the cave justified.

But this sounds the more fanciful part of the account and a little contrived like it was answering the question you raised rather than giving an account of what actually happened. I am not convinced of the necessity of perpetual virginity, can see no good biblical grounds to accept it and it neither adds nor detracts from my respect for Mary. I am inclined to accept the assumption but on a provisional basis, it is biblically possible and there is a strong early tradition for it. But again with Immaculate conception really do not see the necessity of it and can find no strong case for it. Even in the Gospel of James which is a pro Mary as you can get the doctrine is not obvious in the text.

Yeah without conclusive evidence either way I can’t base a belief either way. So I remain neutral on both her assumption and her perpetual virginity.

BNR32FAN · Sep 11, 2020

mindlight said:
Agreed with most of that, but do not know why people pray to Mary or saints when they could go straight to God. I notice your silence on immaculate conception, perpetual virginity and Assumption.

Paying to Mary & the saints is from what I can see more of a trusting that they are alive and well and able to offer prayers of supplication for others much like we would ask any living person here in this world to pray for us. In that situation we could also just pray directly to God ourself but many people do ask friends and family for prayers of supplication. So I see it as a kind if exercising that faith that Mary and the saints are very much alive and well, although I have personally never done it myself.

prodromos · Sep 11, 2020

mindlight said:
Agreed with most of that, but do not know why people pray to Mary or saints when they could go straight to God.

When people make this statement, I have to wonder if they ever ask anyone to pray for them?
The Scripture states that the fervent prayers of a righteous man are powerful and effective. Humility would have us consider ourselves the worst of sinners so while we always do pray directly to God, we don't consider our own prayers to be that of righteous men so naturally we ask the prayers of those whom God has revealed to be righteous.

I notice your silence on immaculate conception, perpetual virginity and Assumption.

The latter two we believe, the former denies Mary's virtues and sets her apart from the rest of humanity. This we do not ascribe to.

prodromos · Sep 11, 2020

BNR32FAN said:
Ok but we know that the protoevagelium of James wasn’t written until around 140AD which would make James being the older step brother of Jesus we’ll over 140 years old when it was written. I think the protoevangelium of James is a false apocryphal writing.

The Protoevangelium is based on Orthodox Tradition, not the other way around.

Who is Mary?

Who was Mary? Choose the one nearest to your own view

Mary was immaculately conceived, a perpetual virgin, assumed in heaven and the Mother of God

Mary was a blessed woman and a great example to us all and the Mother of our Lord

Mary was just another woman

Other, Please explain

Regular Member

Regular Member

Κύριε, ἐλέησον.

See in the dark

See in the dark

See in the dark

Regular Member

He’s a Way of life

Regular Member

He’s a Way of life

See in the dark

Regular Member

See in the dark

See in the dark

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian

He’s a Way of life

He’s a Way of life

He’s a Way of life

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Similar threads