Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Is Mary ONLY a Catholic doctrine?

Re: GOD MAKES THE RULES: NOT MAN..

MrVersatile48 said:
If the Triune God - Father, Son & Holy Spirit - had wanted us to pray to Mary - or to worship her - the Bible would have told us

But to pray to her - or to worship her in hymns, etc - is blasphemous idolatry...

...I just have time to say that you can access the 'new' RC catechism by searching Vatican site

If you compare each & every distinctive RC dogma & practice witth the Bible, they simply do not stand up to Scripture



This entire post has done nothing to answer the question. I DID NOT ask whether a Catholic Belief was Biblical, or even correct, I was asking about how people view Mary, and if is was in anyway resembling the Catholic way, your answer I guess would be "NO"

Thanks,
Ben
 
Thessalonian said:
I don't think the Lutherans say alot about her. In general it seems most Protestant denominations are almost afraid to talk about her. When I do hear them talk about her it seems like it has to be in the context of comments about Catholicism.

We've belonged to 4 different LCMS churches. It's been our experience that Mary isn't mentioned much. She isn't revered, or prayed to, or spoken much of at all. I'm not saying that's the "official" Lutheran position, just what we've experienced in the LCMS churches.

Lutheran pastors have said that Mary wasn't a perpetual virgin because of the mention of Jesus' brothers. But I haven't delved into it myself to see if there is anything in the Gospels to support or refute that view.
 
Orthodox Christian said:
Not misleading, Daniel-san: instructive. Wax on, wax off.

No religious hopper, misleading is your motive.

Orthodox Christian said:
But since you off-handedly brought up master Po, you would do well to heed his advice
"Evil cannot be conquered in the world...It can only be resisted within oneself." - Master Po

You quote ol' Po so you must agree with his thought, even though it exposes little understanding of truth.

How you love fallen humanity,...... even when it comes in the form of TV scripting.

You're funny OC.

In love,
cj
 
TruthHunter said:
Are there any other denominations who profess in the Queenship, Mary Mother of God, or other veneration of Mary
Babylonian Mystery religion (where Catholicism came from) is the originator of this Mary thing - nothing more than Istar and Isis resurrected for the ignorant and unlearned.

Babylon is alive and well today.
 
Why are you guys having so much trouble talking about Mary and the great things that God did for her? It's in the Bible. YOu have no problem talking about Paul. You almost gag talking about Peter of course, similar to your aversion for Mary. She is the mother of the savior of the world for crying out loud. All of your theology is based on what Catholics say about her. It's sad.
 
Interesting question. When Paul was asked a question about Mary, and he most certainly was, do you suppose he went off on a rant about what the Catholics do? (well since he was Catholic I am sure he didn't).
 
Thessalonian said:
Why are you guys having so much trouble talking about Mary and the great things that God did for her? It's in the Bible. YOu have no problem talking about Paul. You almost gag talking about Peter of course, similar to your aversion for Mary. She is the mother of the savior of the world for crying out loud. All of your theology is based on what Catholics say about her. It's sad.

You are blinded by your anti-Protestant bias. You claim that Protestants have no "theology" about Mary.

Again you are wrong. I have the "Evangelical Dictionary of Theology" edited by Walter Elwell in front of me.

There are several articles about Mary in the dictionary:

  • (1) Mary, the Blessed Virgin by T. Finger. The bibliography mentions another 8 books by Evangelical authors/theologians.

    (2) Mary, Assumption of by W. Kerr

    (3) Mother of God by W. Proctor. It references the book The Mother of Jesus in the NT by J. McHugh

    (4) Mariology (and Theotokos) by T Finger. The bibliography mentions another 11 books by Evangelical authors/theologians.

    (5) Immaculate Conception by T. German
Have you read any of these articles or books?

:)
 
Thessalonian said:
... When Paul was asked a question about Mary, and he most certainly was, do you suppose he went off on a rant about what the Catholics do? (well since he was Catholic I am sure he didn't).

How often did Paul write about Mary? By name?

Please reference ALL the Scripture passages that Paul wrote about Mary.

I will give you a clue. Try Galatians 4:4

Interesting question: How often did Paul write about Christ, Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ our Lord, The Lord Jesus Christ, Christ Jesus, The Lord, Our Lord Jesus Christ, The Lord Jesus, Christ Jesus our lord, Jesus, Son of God, Stumbling Stone, Rock of Offence, His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, The Lord of Glory, The Head, Master, Our Lord, Our Saviour Jesus Christ, Chief Corner Stone, King of kings, Lord of Lords....... plus another 40 other names?

That answer is HUNDREDS of times.

I guess Paul had the balance wrong....

:) :) :)
 
Gary said:
Thessalonian said:
Why are you guys having so much trouble talking about Mary and the great things that God did for her? It's in the Bible. YOu have no problem talking about Paul. You almost gag talking about Peter of course, similar to your aversion for Mary. She is the mother of the savior of the world for crying out loud. All of your theology is based on what Catholics say about her. It's sad.

You are blinded by your anti-Protestant bias. You claim that Protestants have no "theology" about Mary.
Actually, he said your theology is, to paraphrase, reactionary. So are your posts, Gary.

I wonder if Christianity Today exhibited an "anti-Protestant bias" when they said
If the Christmas pageant is not enough, how else can Protestants re-connect, without buying into some of the non-canonical doctrines?
Re-connect to whom? Mary. This is an explicit acknowledgement of a disconnect, Gary, and it wasn't us saying it.

Gary said:
Again you are wrong. I have the "Evangelical Dictionary of Theology" edited by Walter Elwell in front of me.

There are several articles about Mary in the dictionary:

  • (1) Mary, the Blessed Virgin by T. Finger. The bibliography mentions another 8 books by Evangelical authors/theologians.

    (2) Mary, Assumption of by W. Kerr

    (3) Mother of God by W. Proctor. It references the book The Mother of Jesus in the NT by J. McHugh

    (4) Mariology (and Theotokos) by T Finger. The bibliography mentions another 11 books by Evangelical authors/theologians.

    (5) Immaculate Conception by T. German
Have you read any of these articles or books?

:)
To deny the paucity of Mary and sermons about Mary in the Evangelical world is nothing more and nothing less than bold-faced lying, Gary. Out of hundreds of thousands of articles in the Protestant world, you will find untold amounts more about OT figures than about the mother of our Lord. There are a few voices, to be sure, especially those in academia, who are either 1. refuting Catholic doctrines or 2. commenting on how the Catholics and Orthodox actually have something to say on this matter worthy of a listen.

In all the time I was an Evangelical I heard one sermon on the life of Mary, apart from the usual Christmas fare. In this sermon, this wonderful Evangelical pastor took the position that his fellow Evangelicals had outright disrespected Mary in their rejection of all things Roman.

It was a watershed moment for all of us present, for confession is the first step to healing.

It is long since past due for Evangelicals to take another look at Mary, and what she means to all of us.


In response to the subject of this thread, Mary is the preeminent saint among Eastern Orthodox, Coptics, Armenian and Assyrian, Eritrean and Ethiopian Orthodox Christians. We only espouse one Immaculate Conception, the one that occured when the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary. We refer to her as she was described at Chalcedon, the Theotokos, or God-bearer. The focus of this name is upon the Divinity of Christ, both within the womb and after. Think of what this means to us regarding abortion...

We venerate her and icons of her, because she is to us a model of pure Christianity, the first Christian to have Christ within, the prototype. She is the type and figure of the Church, which within its womb nurtures and brings forth Christ (Christ in you, the hope of glory).

We do not worship her, for she was human just like us. It is her triumph of faith that makes her so appealing to us. Anyone who says that glory alone goes to God have not read the 5th commandment. The command is to glory (chabod) your parents.

And so we do.
James
 
The vast majority of speaking about Mary in Protestant circles is in the context of those pagan Catholics. That is a fact. (Gary goes off and does some more web searching, looking for one article that is contrary to what I have said to "prove" me wrong).

I saw your post in OC's so I am still ignoring you.
 
Gary said:
Actually, I brought a whole 1204 page "Evangelical Dictionary of Theology" which showed you were wrong.

Secondly, I have suggested that the Bible also shows that you were wrong. How many times did Paul write about Mary?

Find the answer here:
http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopi ... ht=#220626

:)
This is a red herring, plain and simple. How many times did Paul write about John the Forerunner, or Gabriel the archangel, or Thomas the Apostle?

How many of the OT figures which Paul did not write about are the subject of much Protestant sermonizing? And rightfully so. Start with Elijah.
 
Orthodox Christian said:
Gary said:
Actually, I brought a whole 1204 page "Evangelical Dictionary of Theology" which showed you were wrong.

Secondly, I have suggested that the Bible also shows that you were wrong. How many times did Paul write about Mary?

Find the answer here:
http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopi ... ht=#220626

:)
This is a red herring, plain and simple. How many times did Paul write about John the Forerunner, or Gabriel the archangel, or Thomas the Apostle?

How many of the OT figures which Paul did not write about are the subject of much Protestant sermonizing? And rightfully so. Start with Elijah.

One book? Does everyone have a copy of this book? Gary is using exceptions to "defeat" the rule.

You can read all of Paul's letters in an hour or two. He went about preaching for 20 years or so. What did they do put a quarter in him to get the same verses parrotted to them each time. Somebody reads about Mary in Lukes Gospel or says "who was that virgin Isaiha mentioned". They put a quarter in and out comes Romans 3:28? Paul never preached on anything but what he wrote? What Paul wrote about means little. The territory is covered in scripture that I am sure Paul was quite familiar with. He didn't need to write about it because it is found elsewhere by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Gary really needs a good course in debate. His arguements are pathetic to say the least.
 
Thessalonian said:
What Paul wrote about means little.
Spoken like a true Roman Catholic! Much better to SPECULATE about what he preached.

Thessalonian said:
One book? Does everyone have a copy of this book? Gary is using exceptions to "defeat" the rule.
You claimed that "All of your (Protestant) theology is based on what Catholics say about her (Mary)."

I showed that what you wrote was incorrect. Do you know what a "Dictionary of Theology" is?

There are over 1250 articles in the dictionary covering systematic, historical and philosophical theology as well as theological ethics. It is a comprehensive reference work with entries which address significant theological concepts, figures, events and movements.

There are over 200 (two hundred) contributors from diverse evangelical persuasions.

  • EvangeliB00013-l.gif
Christianity Today hailed it as "a work of responsible evangelical scholarship." For 15 years it's provided pastors, teachers, and students with a balanced overview of theological trends. Elwell's dictionary is especially noted for the caliber of its many contributors. In this updated edition, some articles have been revised and many new ones added.

Still so convinced that Evangelicals have no theology?

:) :)
 
Your equivocation is taking on the undeniable appearance of hypocrisy, Gary- at least TN Finger has the integrity to admit
Finally, Luke lists Mary among the earliest post-Easter Christians (Acts 1:14). Traditionally, Catholics have venerated Mary as entirely sinless and as the most glorious of God's creatures. Feeling that this detracts from the centrality of Christ, Protestants have often neglected her unduly. Radical biblical criticism in doubting the infancy narratives' historicity often furthered this neglect. However, the increasing importance of women's issues has spurred new interests in Mary among both Protestants and Catholics alike.

In other words, Protestant theology regarding mary has been reactionary (against Rome) and wrong.

This according to one of your cited scholars in the Elwell book you have highlighted.

I guess it's one thing when we say it, and another when one of your own does.
 
And from the same book, the full entry:

Mary, the Blessed Virgin

Except for the Gospels, the Scriptures make little explicit reference to Mary. Certain OT prophecies have been thought to refer to her (Gen. 3:15; Jer. 31:22; Mic. 5:2-3; and, most clearly, Isa. 7:14). The symbolic drama of Rev. 12 has often been similarly interpreted. Paul mentions Mary specifically once (Gal. 4:4). For anything more, we must inquire of the Gospel writers. Luke presents the most detailed portrait. While Matthew also tells the nativity story, his references to Mary are brief, even though he strongly stresses her virginity (Matt. 1:18-25). Luke, however, vividly describes her encounter with the angel, her visit to Elizabeth, her beautiful "Magnificat," the birth of Jesus, and her trips to Jerusalem with the infant and the twelve-year-old Jesus (Luke 1:26-2:51). Mary appears humbly obedient in the face of her great task (Luke 1:38), yet deeply thoughtful and somewhat perplexed as to its significance (Luke 1:29; 2:29, 35, 50-51).

According to an episode recounted by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Jesus' mother and his "brothers" stand outside the early circle of disciples (Matt. 12:46-50; Mark 3:19b-21, 31-35; Luke 8:19-21; cf. Luke 11:27-28). Elsewhere Jesus complains that he is not without honor save "among his own kin, and in his own house" (Mark 6:4; cf. Matt. 13:53-58; Luke 4: 16-30). John apparently recounts some misunderstanding between Jesus and Mary at the wedding feast in Cana (John 2:1-12). Yet John pictures Mary remaining faithful beside the cross, while Jesus commends her to his "beloved disciple's" care (John 19:25-27).

Finally, Luke lists Mary among the earliest post-Easter Christians (Acts 1:14). Traditionally, Catholics have venerated Mary as entirely sinless and as the most glorious of God's creatures. Feeling that this detracts from the centrality of Christ, Protestants have often neglected her unduly. Radical biblical criticism in doubting the infancy narratives' historicity often furthered this neglect. However, the increasing importance of women's issues has spurred new interests in Mary among both Protestants and Catholics alike.

T N Finger
(Elwell Evangelical Dictionary)

Bibliography
R. E. Brown et al., eds., Mary in the NT; R. E. Brown, "The Meaning of Modern NT Studies for an Ecumenical Understanding of Mary," in Biblical Reflection on Crises Facing the Church; W. J. Cole, "Scripture and the Current Understanding of Mary among American Protestants," Maria in Sacra Scriptura, VI; A. Greeley, The Mary Myth; J. G. Machen, The Virgin Birth of Christ; J. McHugh, The Mother of Jesus in the NT; H. A. Oberman, The Virgin Mary in Evangelical Perspective; R. Ruether, Mary: The Feminine Face of the Church.
 
Mariology

The commonly held teachings of Mariology can be derived from her function as Mother of God (Theotokos), a term first used around 320 and formally approved by the Council of Ephesus in 431. Mariologists argue that Mary, who enabled God the Savior to be born, has a position more exalted than any other creature. She is the Queen of Heaven. Moreover, since her motherhood was indispensable to God's redemptive activity, Mary is essential to the final, spiritual perfection of every creature. Accordingly, although she was not involved in their original physical creation, Mary is, in this ultimate sense, the Mother of God's Creatures. This includes being Mother of Humans, a title found in Ambrose but popularized around 1100, and Mother of Angels, a term first found in the thirteenth century.

Mary's involvement in salvation makes her co - redemptrix along with Christ. Irenaeus contrasted Eve's disobedience, which brought humanity's downfall, with Mary's obedience, which "became the cause of salvation both for herself and the human race." Beginning in the twelfth century references appear to her redemptive work not only in Christ's birth but also at the cross. Most Mariologists insist on both. While Jesus offered his sinless person to appease God's wrath, Mary, whose will was perfectly harmonious with his, offered her prayers. Both atoned for our sins, although Christ's satisfaction was primary and wholly sufficient. Mary's mediatory role includes her present intercession for sinners. This was seldom mentioned before the twelfth century, when popular piety regarded Mary as more lenient than her Son, the Judge.

Mary's exalted role implies Mariological assertions about her life. If Mary had ever been stained by sin, she would have been God's enemy and unfit to bear him. Consequently, she must have been "immaculate" (wholly free from any sin) from the instant she was conceived. The immaculate conception, hotly debated in the Middle Ages and early modern era, was opposed by Thomas Aquinas and his followers. But in 1854 Pius IX declared it an official dogma.

Mary's immaculate conception implies that she possessed a "fullness of grace" from the first instant. Further, she was immune to the slightest sin throughout her life. Mariologists also stress Mary's perpetual virginity. This includes, first, her virginity in partu: that Jesus was born without opening any part of her body; second, that she remained a virgin throughout her life. Though Mary's perpetual virginity, and especially her sinlessness, were challenged by some early fathers, they were generally accepted by Augustine's time. Proponents of perpetual virginity often assumed that anything else would contradict her purity. Finally, Mariologists teach that after her death Mary was assumed bodily into heaven. No clear reference to the assumption of Mary appears before the sixth century. It was not generally accepted until the thirteenth and was promulgated by Pius XII in 1950.

Protestants have criticized Mariology because many assertions apparently lack biblical foundation. Scripture does not mention her immaculate conception or assumption. Her perpetual virginity is challenged by references to Jesus' sisters and brothers (Mark 3:31; 6:3; John 2:12; 7:1 - 10; Acts 1:14; Gal. 1:19; Mariologists claim they were cousins). Moreover, the Gospels do not present Mary unambiguously as sinless and in continuous accord with Christ's will. Protestants have also argued that Mariology exaggerates the contribution that any human can make to divine redemption. Luther and Calvin saw Mary as a human who in herself was nothing; she was enabled to bear Christ wholly through God's grace. Conservative Protestants argue that most Mariological excesses, her roles as Mother of God's Creatures, co - redemptrix, intercessor; her immaculate conception; and her "fullness of grace", spring from overestimating the human role in redemption, which was perhaps already implied by Irenaeus. This ancient theological issue may be the most fundamental one surrounding Mariology.

T N Finger
(Elwell Evangelical Dictionary)

Bibliography
S Benko, Protestants, Catholics and Mary; L Bouyer, The Seat of Wisdom; E A Carroll, "A Survey of Recent Mariology," MarS 18, and "Theology on the Virgin Mary: 1966 - 1975," T S 37; J B Carol, Fundamentals of Mariology and Mariology; H Graef, Mary: A History of Doctrine and Devotion; R Laurentin, The Question of Mary; G Miegge, The Virgin Mary; T A O'Meara, Mary in Protestant and Catholic Theology; O Semmelroth, Mary, the Archetype of the Church; E Schillebeeckx, Mary, Mother of the Redemption.

Source: http://mb-soft.com/believe/txn/mariolog.htm
 
Thessalonian said:
Orthodox Christian said:
Gary said:
Actually, I brought a whole 1204 page "Evangelical Dictionary of Theology" which showed you were wrong.

Secondly, I have suggested that the Bible also shows that you were wrong. How many times did Paul write about Mary?

Find the answer here:
http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopi ... ht=#220626

:)
This is a red herring, plain and simple. How many times did Paul write about John the Forerunner, or Gabriel the archangel, or Thomas the Apostle?

How many of the OT figures which Paul did not write about are the subject of much Protestant sermonizing? And rightfully so. Start with Elijah.

One book? Does everyone have a copy of this book? Gary is using exceptions to "defeat" the rule.

You can read all of Paul's letters in an hour or two. He went about preaching for 20 years or so. What did they do put a quarter in him to get the same verses parrotted to them each time. Somebody reads about Mary in Lukes Gospel or says "who was that virgin Isaiha mentioned". They put a quarter in and out comes Romans 3:28? Paul never preached on anything but what he wrote? What Paul wrote about means little. The territory is covered in scripture that I am sure Paul was quite familiar with. He didn't need to write about it because it is found elsewhere by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Gary really needs a good course in debate. His arguements are pathetic to say the least.

So you are making up what you think Paul said about Mary, is that correct? Well I can make up my own gospel too. It's easy. :) I can say that Peter had seven wives and after Mary got married to Joseh, she had several affairs. Actually this is more in keeping with the bible than the notion that she was a virgin all her life because the bible says she had other children! So, she slept with 10 men and no one can prove me wrong. And since I have the Holy Spirit in me, this must be true. The catholic church also makes up scripture and it works because dupes many people. This is called; adding scripture and making up false gospels. Again, the devil has a field day with people who like to do that. :evil:
 
Heidi said:
Thessalonian said:
Orthodox Christian said:
Gary said:
Actually, I brought a whole 1204 page "Evangelical Dictionary of Theology" which showed you were wrong.

Secondly, I have suggested that the Bible also shows that you were wrong. How many times did Paul write about Mary?

Find the answer here:
http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopi ... ht=#220626

:)
This is a red herring, plain and simple. How many times did Paul write about John the Forerunner, or Gabriel the archangel, or Thomas the Apostle?

How many of the OT figures which Paul did not write about are the subject of much Protestant sermonizing? And rightfully so. Start with Elijah.

One book? Does everyone have a copy of this book? Gary is using exceptions to "defeat" the rule.

You can read all of Paul's letters in an hour or two. He went about preaching for 20 years or so. What did they do put a quarter in him to get the same verses parrotted to them each time. Somebody reads about Mary in Lukes Gospel or says "who was that virgin Isaiha mentioned". They put a quarter in and out comes Romans 3:28? Paul never preached on anything but what he wrote? What Paul wrote about means little. The territory is covered in scripture that I am sure Paul was quite familiar with. He didn't need to write about it because it is found elsewhere by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Gary really needs a good course in debate. His arguements are pathetic to say the least.

So you are making up what you think Paul said about Mary, is that correct?
No, you have missed the point. The point was made then glossed over, both of which were bypassed by you in your effort to insert words and motives.
Well I can make up my own gospel too. It's easy. :)
I know, I've seen you do it.
I can say that Peter had seven wives and after Mary got married to Joseh, she had several affairs. Actually this is more in keeping with the bible than the notion that she was a virgin all her life because the bible says she had other children!
No, it says Jesus had brothers. There you go making up your own gospel again.
So, she slept with 10 men and no one can prove me wrong. And since I have the Holy Spirit in me, this must be true.
Both statements are demonstrably false- by your standards.
The catholic church also makes up scripture and it works because dupes many people. This is called; adding scripture and making up false gospels. Again, the devil has a field day with people who like to do that. :evil:
Well, that was a whole lot of nothing said at peak volume. Your entire rant was based upon your myopic misperception of a simple premise: Just because Paul didn't write about it, we cannot assume that it was unimportant. I have given specific examples of this, and Thessalonian simply made it clear that Paul did not write exhaustively on every aspect of scripture. This is also demonstrably true.
 
Back
Top