Mary - Christian Prototype

[~Anastasia~]

Ask Nestorius. He is known for having violently persecuted those who disagreed with him (St. Cyril is accused of this, but without real evidence IMO).

That might be worth understanding.

Not that I'd agree by any means, but I would like to know what made him feel threatened in this.

Though the works of those rejected by the Church are often not easily researched?

Ah, then again, who am I kidding. I've got much better ways to spend my time than researching Nestorius.

Thanks though.

 

[redleghunter]

Close to the very heart of the Christian story is a woman. She is integrally involved in the birth of Jesus, in a way that leaves the rest of us wondering what it must be like to be so close. She is personally involved in the events at Calvary, and is one of a few people addressed personally directly by Jesus from the cross. She was there at the first miracle in Cana of Galilee.

She is interestingly a source of significant division within Christianity, and regarded by many, not so much as the mother of our saviour as a dead Roman Catholic.

According to the received traditions she lived out her years in Ephesus, in company with John, the Apostle, in what is seen as the fulfilment of Jesus wishes from the Cross. Given the close association with John the Apostle and the Fourth Gospel, it is indeed interesting that John never refers to her by name, and she appears twice in the Gospel, in the Wedding at Cana in Galilee and at the Cross. It is left to Luke to tell us the accounts of the Annunciation, the Visitation, The Pondering, the Birth, The Presentation. Whilst women are more important in Luke's account, they are by no means absent in John's account. Perhaps it was something of a protection of her that lead to John's account not placing her front and centre.

Paul presents the Gospel without any accounting for Mary. Paul's account of the Gospel is clearly and centrally focused on the cross and resurrection. There is no doubt that the Apostolic Church had a hard cutting edge Gospel that was in a sense quite masculine, and indeed at times almost brutal. The early Church fathers saw Mary as a figure in the account rise to a higher level of prominence, and increasingly it was acknowledged that to understand the Cross and the Atonement you had to understand int Incarnation, and at the centre of understanding the Incarnation is the biggest yes in history. Indeed, the prominence of the incarnation in the Prologue of John's Gospel in that sense underlines Mary's role by not calling her out by name.

‘Here am I, the servant of the Lord; let it be with me according to your word.’​

View attachment 190074​

She is for us the very Icon of the Church, she responds in obedience and brings Christ into the world. The role of the Church is absolutely to respond in obedience and bring Christ into the world.

In a very real way she is the prototype for every Christian, as we are all called to respond in obedience and bring Christ into the world.

How is it that this woman who means so much in the outworking of our salvation could be the cause of so much derision and division within the body of Christ - the Church?

Thank you Philip, a wonderful and Biblical account of Blessed Mary.

If we all had an ounce of her love and dedication, these threads would be a much nicer place.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

That might be worth understanding.

Not that I'd agree by any means, but I would like to know what made him feel threatened in this.

Though the works of those rejected by the Church are often not easily researched?

Ah, then again, who am I kidding. I've got much better ways to spend my time than researching Nestorius.

Thanks though.

Nestorius is quite interesting. I find that to understand the great errors of Christianity, we must seek to understand the heresiarchs behind those errors.

In the case of Arius for example, we find a grim, stoic ascetic who appears to fit the descriptions or warnings of the dangers of prelest we encounter in the Philokalia.

 

[-(iconoclast)-]

Yes. We partake of it in every Eucharist.

Just so you understand where we are coming from, we are not saying that Mary gave birth to the entire Trinity or that God in His uncreated divine nature originated from her.

Rather, we are saying that because God the Son took flesh from her, and became man, she is the Mother of God.

So Marys mother therefore must be the grandmother of God

 

[Paul Yohannan]

So Marys mother therefore must be the grandmother of God

Yep. St. Anna.

Conversely however St. Joseph is not the father of our Lord's humanity.

However our Lord does have a maternal grandfather in the person of St. Joachim.

 

[-(iconoclast)-]

Yep. St. Anna.

Conversely however St. Joseph is not the father of our Lord's humanity.

However our Lord does have a maternal grandfather in the person of St. Joachim.

And marys father is the grandfather of God?

 

[-(iconoclast)-]

Yep. St. Anna.

Conversely however St. Joseph is not the father of our Lord's humanity.

However our Lord does have a maternal grandfather in the person of St. Joachim.

This why im a protestant

 

[Paul Yohannan]

And marys father is the grandfather of God?

As I said, one could say that about St. Joachim.

And indeed, St. David and St. Solomon are his ancestors. The Ancestors of God.

God becoming a human and taking on our nature, which He created, by being born of a woman, changed everything. God created humanity, and then put Himself right inside of it.

This belief, in the incarnation of God, that God loves us so much that He would condescend to put on our fallen nature, and take it unto Himself and glorify it through His salvific work on the Cross and His resurrection, differentiates Christianity from every other religion, particularly from Islam or post-Christian rabinnical Judaism, which render "the God of Abraham" into an idol, by rejecting the Trinity and mischaractetizing God as a unitary, impersonal deity, and who in their apologetics even blasphemously challenge the idea of divine omnipotence by claiming the Incarnation is impossible.

The greatest problem with Nestorianism, setting aside the fact that it flat-out clashes with John 1, Luke 1-2, et cetera, is that it renders theopaschitism impossible. A Nestorian could not say "God was crucified for us" because Nestorianism separates the humanity of our Lord from His divinity, in effect dividing them into two different persons in a union of will (Nestorius said two hypostases in a personal union, but this is just as bad).

 

[Philip_B]

This why im a protestant

Interesting - thank you for sharing. I am not exactly sure I follow the logical thread that Mary, Mother of the Lord, having parents would make you a protestant, however I am glad of that for you. Family is important.

I wish you strength for the journey.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Nestorius is quite interesting. I find that to understand the great errors of Christianity, we must seek to understand the heresiarchs behind those errors.

In the case of Arius for example, we find a grim, stoic ascetic who appears to fit the descriptions or warnings of the dangers of prelest we encounter in the Philokalia.

I do agree ... it's just further down my list of priorities. I had studied some of them in brief, and it is sometimes quite fascinating.

What really struck me though are the similarities to many beliefs that crop up today - sometimes touted as "new" but really, they were heresies from long ago.

The personalities ARE interesting though, and sometimes a bit shocking.


But it's interesting you should mention prelest. Montanus (from what little I know of him) springs to mind as a poster child, don't you think?

 

[Paul Yohannan]

This why im a protestant

St. Mary is the mother of God, therefore her father is His assumed grandfather, because He became human. Matthew 1 starts with a geneaology of our Lord; this would be almost irrelevant if it were not for the fact that St. David became, through the incarnation, the ancestor of God.

By becoming man, God inserted Himself into the family tree of these people and thus blessed, saved and sanctified them. God essentially became the new Adam, and took Adam's place, and our place, on the Cross.

Note that Martin Luther and most Anglicans agree with Theotokos, among others. I haven't looked into the Calvinist view on it. Also, all of the great reformers (Calvin, Luther, Cranmer, Wesley) believed in the perpetual virginity of St. Mary.

 

[Wolf_Says]

This why im a protestant

You seem to be struggling with this, and as to why I am not sure. It is an entirely logical thought process.

Jesus, our Lord and Savior, is the Son of God, and is God the Son, therefore He is part of the Trinity.

Jesus was full man and full God.

Mary, is the Mother of Jesus, and Jesus is God, therefore, Mary MUST be the Mother of God. It's very simple, and believing this only enhances the grace of our God, not diminish it which is what I believe many people who struggle with this concept believe.

It seems to me, that people who oppose the title Mother of God, believe that it turns Mary (somehow) into a goddess and takes away from the glory that our God deserves. However, Mary is one of God's creations, and is the highest boast to humanity. She was the new Eve, who with her "yes" played a part in our salvation, all of which was a part of God's master plan.

In all honesty, to reject to term Mother of God, you also reject a major part of what God had planned for our salvation, Jesus' mother.

 

[~Anastasia~]

But "Son of David" seems to be a title no one disagrees with?

 

[Paul Yohannan]

I do agree ... it's just further down my list of priorities. I had studied some of them in brief, and it is sometimes quite fascinating.

What really struck me though are the similarities to many beliefs that crop up today - sometimes touted as "new" but really, they were heresies from long ago.

The personalities ARE interesting though, and sometimes a bit shocking.


But it's interesting you should mention prelest. Montanus (from what little I know of him) springs to mind as a poster child, don't you think?

Yes, poor Montanus was so deluded he believed he was the Paraclete. And Tertullian, who would otherwise have been venerated as one of the greatest Patristic figures, fell for it and became a Montanist.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

St. John of Damascus had this to say on the subject, partially quoting St. Cyril:

"Hence, it is rightly and truly that we call holy Mary
the Mother of God, for this name expresses the entire mystery of the Incarnation. Thus, if she who gave birth is Mother of God, then He who was born of her is definitely God and also definitely man. For, had He not become man, how could God whose existence is before the ages have been born of
a woman? And that the Son of Man is a man is quite
evident. Moreover, if He who was born of a woman is God, then it is quite evident that the very one who in respect to His divine and unoriginated nature was begotten of God the Father, and the one who in the last times was born of the Virgin in respect to his originated and temporal nature His human nature, that is are one. And this means that our Lord Jesus Christ has one Person, two natures, and
two begettings.

However, under no circumstances do we call the holy
Virgin Mother of Christ This is because [..]
Nestorius, invented this epithet as an insult to do away with the expression Mother of God and [...] to bring dishonor upon the Mother of God, who alone is truly worthy of honor above all creation.

And David is 'Christ,' too, and so is the high priest Aaron, because the royal and priestly offices are both conferred by anointing. Furthermore, any God-bearing man may be called 'Christ,' yet he is not by nature God, which is why [...] Nestorius was so insolent as to call Him who was born of the Virgin 'God-bearing.'

But God forbid that we should ever speak or think of Him as God-bearing; rather, let it be as God incarnate. For the very Word of God was conceived of the Virgin and made flesh, but continued to be God after this assumption of the flesh.

And, simultaneously with its coming into being, the flesh was straightway made divine by Him. Thus three things took place at the same time: the assuming of the flesh, its coming into being, and its being made divine by the Word. Hence, the holy Virgin is understood to be Mother of God, and is
so called not only because of the nature of the Word but also because of the deification of the humanity simultaneously with which the conception and the coming into being of the flesh were wondrously brought about the conception of the Word, that is, and the existence of. the flesh in the Word Himself.

In this the Mother of God, in a manner surpassing the course of nature, made It possible for the Fashioner to be fashioned and for the God and Creator of the universe to become man and deify the human nature which He had assumed, while the union preserved the things united, just as they had been united, that is to say, not only the divinity of Christ but His humanity, also; that which surpassed us and that which was like us.

Now, it was not first made like us and then made to surpass us. On the contrary, it was always both from its first beginning of being, because from the first instant of conception it had its existence in the Word Himself. Therefore, while by its own nature it is human, it is also of God and divine in a manner surpassing the course of nature. And what is more,
it possessed the properties of the living flesh, since by reason of the Incarnation the Word received them as truly natural in the order of natural motion."

 

[Paul Yohannan]

@MarkRohfrietsch I would love to get your input on this subject from a confessional Lutheran perspective!

 

[GreekOrthodox]

This why im a protestant

It might interest you to read from the first Protestants this statement from the Lutheran Formula of Concord, which is part of the Lutheran Confessions:

On account of this personal union and communion of the natures, Mary, the most blessed Virgin, bore not a mere man, but, as the angel [Gabriel] testifies, such a man as is truly the Son of the most high God, who showed His divine majesty even in His mother's womb, inasmuch as He was born of a virgin, with her virginity inviolate. Therefore she is truly the mother of God, and nevertheless remained a virgin.

 

[shadowhunter]

Thankyou Paul, I think it is this role, which your holy tradition of faith keeps so alive for us, that is so important, theotokos - which so often translated into Latin as Mater Dei - and then English as Mother of God, where as had we stuck with the Greek, we may well have translated it, The God Bearer which I think is an exceptionally powerful image, and one of the things we as Christians are all called to share in being.

And it would have been better had certain traditions not declared it anathema to reject the title as a mantra. There are many ways to say the same thing, but insisting that theotokos be used, puts more emphasis on the conquering the laity than upon the position of the woman.

 

[Bruce Carr]

Close to the very heart of the Christian story is a woman. She is integrally involved in the birth of Jesus, in a way that leaves the rest of us wondering what it must be like to be so close. She is personally involved in the events at Calvary, and is one of a few people addressed personally directly by Jesus from the cross. She was there at the first miracle in Cana of Galilee.

She is interestingly a source of significant division within Christianity, and regarded by many, not so much as the mother of our saviour as a dead Roman Catholic.

According to the received traditions she lived out her years in Ephesus, in company with John, the Apostle, in what is seen as the fulfilment of Jesus wishes from the Cross. Given the close association with John the Apostle and the Fourth Gospel, it is indeed interesting that John never refers to her by name, and she appears twice in the Gospel, in the Wedding at Cana in Galilee and at the Cross. It is left to Luke to tell us the accounts of the Annunciation, the Visitation, The Pondering, the Birth, The Presentation. Whilst women are more important in Luke's account, they are by no means absent in John's account. Perhaps it was something of a protection of her that lead to John's account not placing her front and centre.

Paul presents the Gospel without any accounting for Mary. Paul's account of the Gospel is clearly and centrally focused on the cross and resurrection. There is no doubt that the Apostolic Church had a hard cutting edge Gospel that was in a sense quite masculine, and indeed at times almost brutal. The early Church fathers saw Mary as a figure in the account rise to a higher level of prominence, and increasingly it was acknowledged that to understand the Cross and the Atonement you had to understand int Incarnation, and at the centre of understanding the Incarnation is the biggest yes in history. Indeed, the prominence of the incarnation in the Prologue of John's Gospel in that sense underlines Mary's role by not calling her out by name.

‘Here am I, the servant of the Lord; let it be with me according to your word.’​

View attachment 190074​

She is for us the very Icon of the Church, she responds in obedience and brings Christ into the world. The role of the Church is absolutely to respond in obedience and bring Christ into the world.

In a very real way she is the prototype for every Christian, as we are all called to respond in obedience and bring Christ into the world.

How is it that this woman who means so much in the outworking of our salvation could be the cause of so much derision and division within the body of Christ - the Church?

No, Jesus is the Christian prototype. We are to be like Christ not like Mary

 

[Brian Mcnamee]

It is not the question of respecting her as the prototype of Christianity. It is in praying to her, as one prays to God, as one prays to a false god, as one prays to an idol, that we derive the division. My question to you is this: is it really a division within the church? Will Christ return and call unto himself those who, like Eve, took what belonged to God and gave it to a woman?

at every doctrinal intersection there is the potential for division so such as is communion transubstantiation? is there purgatory? once saved always saved? should we speak in tongues and so on? So the division over Mary should be discussed in the context of Mary and how people view her. My church highly reveres her as a great example of faith. We have not elevated her to co redemptress or mediator of all grace. We do not believe the apparitions are Mary sent from heaven with further revelation. Mary in these appearances like Fatima is 1st announced by an angel of light. Then these kids get the secret message to devote to the Rosary and Russia will be converted. The scriptures show the 7 year tribulation did not happen in 70AD. The Catholics call heretics those who believe Jesus will return and save the Jews and the world from a time of 7 years under the antichrist and set up a kingdom on earth for a literal 1000 years. The Catholics are believing that world peace and unity is coming and this pope is actually trying to unify the worlds religion to attain this goal. Those who see these events as future point out that world government is in place when the Jews are back in the land and eventually get the return of the sacrifices which is central to the antichrist committing the abomination of desolation. The backdrop for the literal fulfillment is set up like dominoes ready to fall in the specific sequence.
You see Mary is not mentioned as being immaculately conceived or assumed into heaven in scripture. Her role as prominent is for the large part silent. The idea of her being perpetual virgin is dismissed as scripture says
2 So all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying: 23 “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.”
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.
Joseph certainly knew her as a person before Jesus was born as they were on the way to register the census when delivery had come. It is clear he took her as wife and knew her as normal married couples. You see Mary was the woman the promise in Genesis is the seed of the woman. The seed is the male who impregnates the egg. The seed of Jesus is of the Holy Spirit. Jesus is the one who crushes the head of the serpent not Mary. She is Like Esther who was told by Mordecai that she was raised up for a time like this and if she would not go to the king God would send another. Mary too was obedient and raised up to this and she is blessed among women. There is only one mediator between God and man Jesus. If you use Mary or any other saint that is using another mediator to go to Jesus and not right.