Why not call Mary the mother of God and Queen of heaven

[Orthodox Christian]

You are attributing an affective state to Jesus based upon your culturally and historically influenced reading of a translation. There is no objective evidence to support your statement- only conjecture

Yes, of course, James, and if Jesus didn't slight Mary in the examples given, then I guess we can't be sure of how to interpret anything in the bible?

On the contrary- it is quite clear that when Jesus says forgive your debtors, He means just that. When Jesus says to the Samaritan woman "it is not right to give the children's bread to dogs" we are going to want to know why He said such a seemingly harsh thing, and whether He meant this on an enduring basis.

Turns out "dogs" in the Greek term referred to a pet. While somewhat demeaning, this term is not as utterly insulting as the English would render it. Further, it is imperative to realize that He later releases the gift of salavation and the Holy Spirit to all nations.

Context, language, and history are vital in the interpretation of scripture.

Charles Templeton took this same approach when postulating a 'rift' between Jesus and Mary. This is a common mistake made by those who are not trained to think critically, but in Templeton's case it was simple chicanery.

A man who, in his hour of agony, takes pains (no pun intended) to see to the well-being of his mother is, in any culture, a good son

Who said Jesus wasn't a good son? Who said he didn't care about his mother? He didn't regard her as anyone nearly as special as the later evolving Catholic/Orthodox would warrant. THAT'S the point. Not only that, but she was clearly a source of irritation to him, in the examples given, and he clearly did not regard her, or her position in regards to him, as superior or in any way different than anyone else's.

See my second post, please.

Thanks
James

 

[BradtheImpaler]

Nope. I would object, on biblical grounds, to Paul or any other apostle or prophet being exalted to the position that Mary occupies in the minds of the Catholic/Orthodox.

And what position is that, Brad? The one that you object to, that is

The one that the bible doesn't indicate - i.e., "The Queen of Heaven".

[quote:91f71]I have a parallel question:
As a person who is not a biblical inerrantist, how do you then object to issues on a "biblical" basis? In other words, do you object based upon the fact that something doesn't agree with a part of the bible you actually believe to be genuine? And how do you determine what is genuine, and given the fact that you are discerning between genuine and less than reliable based upon your own criterion, shall we then have any confidence in your results (predicated as they are on liberties you have taken).

If I knew someone was using a measure that they were not confident in, yet were making arguments from the results obtained using said instrument, I'd be inclined to, well, chuckle.
Just curious

[/quote:91f71]

The "veneration" (chuckle) of Mary, along with her supposed sinlessness, permanent virginity, ascension into heaven, etc. are doctrines which evolved after the completion of the scriptures. Whether the scriptures are true about what they DO teach, or whether or not the scripture contradicts itself at any point, has no bearing in the case of something which was ADDED to "what is written". Designations such as the "Queen of Heaven", "Mediatrix", and "Theotokos", and all these titles imply, are extraneous to the scripture.

If the New Testament is not true as to the historical events it preposes, or if it contradicts itself in places, then Christianity crumbles. But I don't have to believe the NT, or believe it doesn't contradict itself, to identify a doctrine or perspective on a character that was obviously not intended by the writers of the NT, whether what those writers DID write is true or not.

Whether the scriptures are perfect or not, your view on Mary goes beyond what it intends.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

You are attributing an affective state to Jesus based upon your culturally and historically influenced reading of a translation. There is no objective evidence to support your statement- only conjecture

Yes, of course, James, and if Jesus didn't slight Mary in the examples given, then I guess we can't be sure of how to interpret anything in the bible?

[quote:e3f73]On the contrary- it is quite clear that when Jesus says forgive your debtors, He means just that. When Jesus says to the Samaritan woman "it is not right to give the children's bread to dogs" we are going to want to know why He said such a seemingly harsh thing, and whether He meant this on an enduring basis.

Turns out "dogs" in the Greek term referred to a pet. While somewhat demeaning, this term is not as utterly insulting as the English would render it. Further, it is imperative to realize that He later releases the gift of salavation and the Holy Spirit to all nations

[/quote:e3f73]

So we can assume Jesus was, at least, "somewhat demeaning" in attitude, to his mother?

My point is substantiated :D

 

[Orthodox Christian]

You are attributing an affective state to Jesus based upon your culturally and historically influenced reading of a translation. There is no objective evidence to support your statement- only conjecture

Yes, of course, James, and if Jesus didn't slight Mary in the examples given, then I guess we can't be sure of how to interpret anything in the bible?

[quote:43c89]On the contrary- it is quite clear that when Jesus says forgive your debtors, He means just that. When Jesus says to the Samaritan woman "it is not right to give the children's bread to dogs" we are going to want to know why He said such a seemingly harsh thing, and whether He meant this on an enduring basis.

Turns out "dogs" in the Greek term referred to a pet. While somewhat demeaning, this term is not as utterly insulting as the English would render it. Further, it is imperative to realize that He later releases the gift of salavation and the Holy Spirit to all nations

So we can assume Jesus was, at least, somewhat demeaning in attitude, to his mother?

My point is substantiated :D

[/quote:43c89]
Of course you're bright enough to realize that His behavior in one context does not 'establish His behavior or affective state in another. At best, it establishes the possibility of a repeat- this is an argument from history.

C'mon Brad, I haven't time for nor patience for fallacious and spurious correlations. Please present a better argument.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

Further, it is imperative to realize that He later releases the gift of SALAVATION and the Holy Spirit to all nations

Thus providing both eternal life AND a remedy for "drymouth" at the same time? :wink:

 

[BradtheImpaler]

Of course you're bright enough to realize that His behavior in one context does not 'establish His behavior or affective state in another. At best, it establishes the possibility of a repeat- this is an argument from history

So then Jesus' behavior, in this context, was somewhat demeaning to his mother - yes or no?

C'mon Brad, I haven't time for nor patience for fallacious and spurious correlations. Please present a better argument

You're the one who made the analogy. Calling Samaritan's "dogs" is demeaning, whether the implication is that they are SOB's or pets. And don't haggle about the Greek word, it is well known what the Jews attitude towards Gentiles or "half-Gentiles" was.

And I don't need a "better argument". You guys constantly try and pull the "burden of proof switcheroo". Look - Jesus "blew off" Mary at every opportunity. He also clearly indicated that she was to be afforded no status beyond that of any other believer. Dat's da fact, Jack.

 

[Orthodox Christian]

Nope. I would object, on biblical grounds, to Paul or any other apostle or prophet being exalted to the position that Mary occupies in the minds of the Catholic/Orthodox.

And what position is that, Brad? The one that you object to, that is

The one that the bible doesn't indicate - i.e., "The Queen of Heaven".

That's a title, not a position. One can infer a position from the title, but I won't make your argument for you.

[quote:33783]I have a parallel question:
As a person who is not a biblical inerrantist, how do you then object to issues on a "biblical" basis? In other words, do you object based upon the fact that something doesn't agree with a part of the bible you actually believe to be genuine? And how do you determine what is genuine, and given the fact that you are discerning between genuine and less than reliable based upon your own criterion, shall we then have any confidence in your results (predicated as they are on liberties you have taken).

If I knew someone was using a measure that they were not confident in, yet were making arguments from the results obtained using said instrument, I'd be inclined to, well, chuckle.
Just curious

The "veneration" (chuckle) of Mary, [/quote:33783]
Stop there. Feel free to disprove that the word which we use for honoring Mary- proskeneo- means something other than veneration.

along with her supposed sinlessness, permanent virginity, ascension into heaven, etc. are doctrines which evolved after the completion of the scriptures.

Incorrect. Her assumption into heaven is found in the protoevangelion of Saint James, a document ultimately rejected as canon because of its lack of apostolic origin. It, and the tradition of the Assumption, predate the Synod of Carthage by at least 200 years. The Ever-virginity of Mary was a widely-held doctrine by the Fathers contemporary to the canonization.
We Orthodox do not hold Mary to be "sinless," so I shan't answer that.

Whether the scriptures are true about what they DO teach, or whether or not the scripture contradicts itself at any point, has no bearing in the case of something which was ADDED to "what is written". Designations such as the "Queen of Heaven", "Mediatrix", and "Theotokos", and all these titles imply, are extraneous to the scripture.

So you're holding us to the sola scriptura doctrine, yet absolving yourself of it? LOL- c'mon Brad, make an atheist's argument or a Fundie's- not both.
WE- meaning the catholics East and West- are not beholden to scriptura sola. Rather, to us scripture is canon- ergo, it is the measure by which we examine doctrine. To us, the title of Theotokos is just as substantiable as the any other Christological doctrine.

If the New Testament is not true as to the historical events it preposes, or if it contradicts itself in places, then Christianity crumbles.

Incorrect again. This is only true if one holds to the Inerrancy doctrine, coupled with sola scriptura. If there are historical errors in the New testament, it changes nothing for the Orthodox. We still see His coming every day in our midst, and we have always regarded faith as faith, not datum.

But I don't have to believe the NT, or believe it doesn't contradict itself, to identify a doctrine or perspective on a character that was obviously not intended by the writers of the NT, whether what those writers DID write is true or not.

Only if you begin with the presuppositions I have already identified. Even then, you're going to need to demosntrate, rather than simply proclaim.

Whether the scriptures are perfect or not, your view on Mary goes beyond what it intends.

Now you've anthromorphicized the entire NT as if it is a narrative piece with an agenda. We personify the Church, not the scriptures- a suitable and workable approach, I believe.

 

[Orthodox Christian]

Further, it is imperative to realize that He later releases the gift of SALAVATION and the Holy Spirit to all nations

Thus providing both eternal life AND a remedy for "drymouth" at the same time? :wink:

Ah, that's what this spell check thing is for.

 

[Orthodox Christian]

Of course you're bright enough to realize that His behavior in one context does not 'establish His behavior or affective state in another. At best, it establishes the possibility of a repeat- this is an argument from history

So then Jesus' behavior, in this context, was somewhat demeaning to his mother - yes or no?

No, and I've already linked the substantiation of this from, again, a non-Catholic source.

C'mon Brad, I haven't time for nor patience for fallacious and spurious correlations. Please present a better argument

You're the one who made the analogy. Calling Samaritan's "dogs" is demeaning, whether the implication is that they are SOB's or pets. And don't haggle about the Greek word, it is well known what the Jews attitude towards Gentiles or "half-Gentiles" was.

You mean to say "Don't tell me what He actually said- I know what He meant."
I did make an analogy to illuminate the point that drawing a secondary assumption from a secondary source- ie, a translation- is errant on your part. Add to this a second logical error on your part, and that is misusing my analogy.

And I don't need a "better argument". You guys constantly try and pull the "burden of proof switcheroo".

Brad, you are the one who postulated Jesus' affective state and attitude towards His mother based upon your particular reading of an English translation. The burden of proof is indeed upon you, sir.

Look - Jesus "blew off" Mary at every opportunity. He also clearly indicated that she was to be afforded no status beyond that of any other believer. Dat's da fact, Jack.

No, Brad, 'dat's' a conclusion, not a fact. I needn't tell you the difference between a fact and a doctrine.
As for Jesus "blowing off Mary:"
fact, or interpretation?

As for status "no greater than any other believer:"
I guess this is true, if "blessed among women" is not "greater." I mean, after all, "greater" is a pretty loaded and subjective term.

I do apologize if my arguments frustrate you, but you seem to laying claim to facts and givens which grant your arguments a great deal more authority and impact than they actually carry.
Regards
James

 

[bibleberean]

The title "mother of God" is never given in the bible. God has no beginning and no end. He alone is God.

You will never find Mary addressed as "mother of God" in the scriptures.

You will never find the biblical Mary addressed as "Queen of Heaven" "Queen of the apostles" Queen of the Universe" "Queen of all nations" or "Queen of anything"

The heathen have always worshipped the "Queen of Heaven" and still do...

Jeremiah 7:17 Seest thou not what they do in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem?

Jeremiah 7:18 The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger.

The Queen of heaven is not new. She is a pagan goddess revived by the harlot churches.

Don't ever believe a word these totally deceived blasphemers say.

Excuse making idolaters are what they are...

 

[Orthodoxy]

BradtheImpaler

Your reply betrays your mindset - why should you believe in my version of Jesus rather than your church's?

Yes. Can you answer that question? First off I do not consider you a "christian" ok so let us not joke ourselves. If you believe Jesus is the Savior of the Church as stated in the Holy Scripture then it is apparent to me that the Identity of this saving Jesus is paramont to ones salvation. Are you implying there are many "jesus" and it does not matter "who" he is? How can anyone have a relationship with someone that dont know nor have any interest in getting to know?

Why must you have someone else tell you what you should believe? Can't you think for yourself? Or would that be a sin?

I became Orthodox because I thought for myself and rejected after 33 years the protestant brain washing that says the Orthodox Church is part of the Roman Catholic faith. I know who I worship, do you?

All your posts amount to the same thing - your premise that the teaching of your church on all things must be true because it's the true church. This is definately a cultic mindset, because there is no reasoning with you apart from this premise. If your church doesn't have the stranglehold on the truth you think it does, how will you ever find out?

I believe the Church because I cannot personally possess the "manifold wisdom of God" as the protestant would have me believe. I confess the Church because I personally cannot be the "fulness of Him" I trust the Church and its age old wisdom and council over the opinions of men, including you. I have faith in the age old knowledge of the fathers due to the fact leaning on ones own understanding is evil according to the Scripture. I have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ in the Holy Orthodox Church which is His Body according to the Scripture.

Tell me who is Jesus Christ's mother in this verse:

Luke 1:38, And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word.

[quote:1229f]Is this not Mary submitting to the Will of God and doing it? Yes. Mary did the will of God thus she is "the mother" of the Christian faith Jesus was speaking about

I am not claiming she wasn't following the will of God at that point. But the adult Jesus' attitude towards his mother in the gospels, is anything but "warm and fuzzy". If you would read the passges I cited without bias or preconception, you would see that Jesus consistently went out of his way to suggest she was not due any more acclaim than anyone else just because she was his biological mother.[/quote:1229f]

Mary gave birth to Jesus. Rasied Him and taught Him, wiped His butt when soiled, cared for Him, loved Him. The word "woman" was an endearing usage of the word not insulting like american men would think. Jesus loved and protected His mother to the end. He pointed at Mary and said "this woman followed the will of God". That verse Jesus is saying Mary is "the mother of the Church". He is not dissing her what so ever but up lifting her because she did the will of God! Was anyone on the planet doing the will of God up to the event of Mary saying YES to God? NO! Even on the cross giving his mother to John who protected Mary until her death. Why did Jesus commit a sin on the cross by giving His mother to a non blood relation and not one of Mary's other children? (btw, the CHurch NEVER, EVER taught Mary had any other children other than the King of Glory, the gate was shut after the King entered the world)

Well, you are certain of a lot of things you really couldn't be certain of, aren't you?

I am certain the mindset of the roman rebellion and the protestant propaganda perpitrated by rome and believed by the heterodox rebels.

Now you're foaming at the mouth already. What has this to do with me? Where am I comparing myself with anybody? That was quick. At least you realize you have no scriptural or rational argument so open up the "ad hom" powderkeg?

Come come. You know the protestant line of christians all being equal in the Kingdom of God. It is blasphemy in the rebellion to honor Mary above the professed protestant christian. This is not an attack, read some of the posts of the rebellion, they get absolutely freaked out when someone places the Mother of Jesus Christ above them. That is my point. Protestants make people think they are blessed equally with the blessing of Mary. How arrogant is that!

I submit that those that refuse to honor their "mother in Christ" and refuse to "call Mary blessed among women" is neither a friend of the Christian faith nor a friend of Jesus Christ

Who cares what you "submit"? Maybe someday you will realize that everyone else doesn't share the same premise as you - that you're always right because of the Church you belong to? When you and your church mates start doing "greater things than Jesus did" (Jn.14:12) then we'll listen.

You have bothered to investigate the Orthodox Church claims? You find greater things in the rebellion yet judge the orthodox Church not doing "greater things"? I submit that the rebellion would not believe if the dead rose from the grave and danced among them. The Church is right. Why? because it is commanded the Church be "one mind, one confession, one faith, one baptism, one heart. That that rebel against this "mind of Christ" cannot be considered "one with it" for what does light have to do with darkness? I was wrong as a protestant and five years of investigation of the Orthodox faith proved it. What the protestant world teachs is a imitation, a misrepresentation of Christianity but not the "faith delievered by the Saints". Everything I have said is what the Church teaches and is not my own understanding. For me to tell people what I think personally about the Christian faith would be leaning on my own understanding. That according to the Scripture is evil. I will answer people with the answers of the Church and leave my opinion aside or I wont answer.

[quote:1229f]Since you demand I am not scriptural (which btw is silly since I quoted specific verses)

Hey, I quoted specific verses too - verses which plainly illustrate that Jesus did not regard Mary as anyone special.[/quote:1229f]

Do you think your mother is special? if yes then why do you see Jesus as needing to be different from you in this respect? If Jesus Christ was disrespectful and dishonorable as you have stated then He sinned. If as you say Jesus was dismissive of His mother in saying "woman" then He is nothing more than another in a long line of sinners claiming to be a savior of man. Certainly Jesus is lesser than you in respect for motherhood, correct?

[quote:1229f] please show me "sin" commited by Mary recorded in the bible. The protestants demand Mary is just a dead ol sinner below you. Since the bible is the "final authority" to the rebellious protest and contains all knowledge and instruction, please show me Mary's sin because if it is not in the bible, it did not happen

Well, I seem to remember a verse about "ALL" having sinned and "fallen short of the glory of God", but here you are again taking a side road. I said that Jesus "dissed" Mary on more than one occasion. THAT is my point. He didn't elevate her as you do. Prove otherwise in the examples I provided.[/quote:1229f][/quote]

All have sinned including your Jesus it appears. Or is Jesus not included in your "All"? Stop being coy and evasive.....Show me a specific sin Mary committed that the heterodox have condemned impure and stained? if it is not in the bible then all you have is the generational curse of death to lay on Mary and she died, the orthodox do not deny that. Mary died due to Adam's sin wages. Mary's acceptance of Jesus Christ as her personal Lord in Luke 1 is not suffient to save her but your confession of a 20th century Jesus saves you? Interesting hypocritical stance.

If Jesus Christ is not in your "all" then is Enoch also excluded? Other "blameless" ones are not in the "all" like Elizbeth who bore John the Baptist? Who else do you exclude from this "all" list? yer self?

All you have proven is your version of Jesus Christ dishonored His mother, Mary, thus becoming a sinner like the rest of us that is in need of salvation.

Orthodoxy

 

[Orthodox Christian]

The title "mother of God" is never given in the bible.

Neither is the expression 'fully God, fully man' found in the scriptures- yet it is clear that, if Jesus truly was God, He was also in the womb. Therefore, Mary is the bearer of God. Her title as Mother of God/Bearer of God is to highlight and confirm the Divinity of her Son.

God has no beginning and no end. He alone is God.

Yes, this is the faith that we delivered to you, summed as follows
I Believe in One God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible. And in One Lord, Jesus Christ.."

You will never find Mary addressed as "mother of God" in the scriptures.

You repeated yourself here.

You will never find the biblical Mary addressed as "Queen of Heaven" "Queen of the apostles" Queen of the Universe" "Queen of all nations" or "Queen of anything"

This is a third repeat of the same argument, followed by a series of non-sequiturs....

The heathen have always worshipped the "Queen of Heaven" and still do...

Jeremiah 7:17 Seest thou not what they do in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem?

Jeremiah 7:18 The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger.

The Queen of heaven is not new. She is a pagan goddess revived by the harlot churches.

And round and round we go.

Don't ever believe a word these totally deceived blasphemers say.
Excuse making idolaters are what they are...

So says the apostate...consider the source.

 

[Orthodoxy]

The title "mother of God" is never given in the bible. God has no beginning and no end. He alone is God.

You will never find Mary addressed as "mother of God" in the scriptures.

You will never find the biblical Mary addressed as "Queen of Heaven" "Queen of the apostles" Queen of the Universe" "Queen of all nations" or "Queen of anything"

The heathen have always worshipped the "Queen of Heaven" and still do...

Jeremiah 7:17 Seest thou not what they do in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem?

Jeremiah 7:18 The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger.

The Queen of heaven is not new. She is a pagan goddess revived by the harlot churches.

Don't ever believe a word these totally deceived blasphemers say.

Excuse making idolaters are what they are...

are you blind?

the righteous Elizabeth addressed the Virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit with these words: "And whence is this to me, that the Mother of my Lord should come to me?" (Luke 1:43). Who is this "Lord" of which Elizabeth speaks-? It is Jesus Christ, the Lord God.

Do you understand that the Holy Spirit must be lying when He spoke through Elizabeth? Why are you attributing the work of the Holy Spirit in this pronouncement of Lordship of Jesus Christ to satan? Maybe it is because you deny the divinity of Jesus Christ? Maybe Jesus is merely a creation to you thus God cannot have a "mother" in humanity. Certainly this proves you a heretic at best, a heathen or a publican at least. Matthew 18.

I do not believe the Orthodox use that verse as a prophesy of Mary in the Old Testament. The Roman Church may use that verse for Mary but we do not as far as I know. Thus you set a red herring against the Church and proclaim is the devil. Mary is the "queen of heaven" because she sits on the right hand of her Son being placed there by Jesus Himself. The greatest man according to Jesus Christ prophet St. John the Baptist on His left and His mother on the right. I assume you want this lofty position for your self, eh?

Listen to this pal. Jesus Christ is Lord. Jesus Christ is King and Savior of my life. I accept Jesus Christ and confess Him by the Holy Spirit. Your silly condemnation of the Orthodox Church is meaningless tripe. An outright assault on the Holy Spirit. You cannot condemn me for "I believe". According to your final authority "I believe with my heart and confess with my mouth Jesus Christ is Lord" then I am saved. Your rules I live by!

You remind me of the story when the disiples wanted to cast fire on the head of those preaching the name of Jesus out of thier pharisitical style. Cast your infernal fire some where else for you know not what spirit you are of in doing so.

Orthodoxy

 

[BradtheImpaler]

Orthodoxy/James,

It occurs to me to ask myself why am I arguing with you guys over what the bible says or doesn't say when the bible is not your foundation, but rather, what the Orthodox Church says the bible says or doesn't say? Anyone who will believe, for example, that Jesus didn't have brothers and sisters because of their church's teaching, when the scripture plainly refers to such, demonstrates they have another foundation which supercedes the bible. I am not condemning you, everybody ends up believing what they choose, I just don't understand how you became convinced that this particular institution has such a stranglehold on truth that you must look to them to interpret the truth for you?

 

[thessalonian]

Orthodoxy/James,

It occurs to me to ask myself why am I arguing with you guys over what the bible says or doesn't say when the bible is not your foundation, but rather, what the Orthodox Church says the bible says or doesn't say? Anyone who will believe, for example, that Jesus didn't have brothers and sisters because of their church's teaching, when the scripture plainly refers to such, demonstrates they have another foundation which supercedes the bible. I am not condemning you, everybody ends up believing what they choose, I just don't understand how you became convinced that this particular institution has such a stranglehold on truth that you must look to them to interpret the truth for you?

The Church does say Jesus had brothers and sisters. What it doesn't say is Mary had other children. Can you find for me the verse that says "Mary's son bob", or "Mary's daughter Lorretta". I don't see that verse, do you?

My Bible says "trust not in your own understanding, but rely on the Lord".

It says "I will give you shepherds after my own heart who will give you knowledge and understanding". Jer 3:15. Now where are those shepherds? My bible doesn't say that every Christian is supposed to reinvent the wheel and figure it all out for himself, or that the scriptures alone are going to get him to all truth. My Bible says that the CHURCH is the pillar and support of the truth (1 Tim 3:15). It also says that Christ built a Church from which we are to find the shepherds after his own heart who will give us knowledge and understanding. (Matt 16:18). It says we MUST worship in SPIRIT AND IN TRUTH (john 4). So someone better corner the market on this thing called truth. :o

Seems you must have a different Bible than me for the way you talk.

God bless

 

[thessalonian]

[oops

 

[thessalonian]

oops

 

[thessalonian]

To add to Orthodoxy's fine post regarding Mary as the mother of God,

The title "mother of God" is never given in the bible. God has no beginning and no end. He alone is God.

You will never find Mary addressed as "mother of God" in the scriptures.

The Hebrew term generally tranlated Lord (Elizabeth said "how is it that the MOTHER OF MY LORD should come to me") is YHVH, translated Adonai. It means God.


http://www.revelations.org.za/NotesS-Name.htm

THE TETRAGRAMMATON


The Sacred Name appears in the Hebrew Scriptures as four Hebrew letters Yud, hey, vav, hey, which is closest represented by the letters YHVH. This format is known as the Tetragammaton. According to Jewish tradition it is regarded as 'not to be uttered' in order never to profane it in any way. In Judaism it is therefore pronounced as 'Adonai', meaning 'Lord'. Notwithstanding this prohibition, the Sacred Name is acknowledged in its usage as part of the names of many Biblical characters, as referred to above - and as any Bible concordance or reference book will provide.



Because of these prohibitions, translations of the original Hebrew scrolls have, throughout the ages, replaced the Tetragammaton with 'the LORD' (in capital letters) and the Sacred Name, in so doing, became 'lost' for many centuries.

I don't know how you can argue with scripture. Elizabeth calls Mary the Mother of Adonai which is the Mother of YHVH. The Messiah. Unless Jesus wasn't God in her womb and became God later I don't know how you can deny that she was the Mother of God. You will try however.

Blessings

 

[Orthodox Christian]

Orthodoxy/James,

It occurs to me to ask myself why am I arguing with you guys over what the bible says or doesn't say when the bible is not your foundation, but rather, what the Orthodox Church says the bible says or doesn't say?

The bible does not interpret itself. The bible is always understood through culture, history, cohort influences, and ESPECIALLY language. In that sense, no one has the bible as their foundation.

But this is not what you're saying. You're attempting to discredit a group (us) who actually admit that they have a set of influences, as opposed to the liars who claim that they are based upon bible alone.

Though you disagree with their conclusions, you still employee their fallacy. I wonder why? because essentially, in truth, the Reformation contains within it the seeds of nihilism. But that's another story.

You, sir, have a reading of scripture which is little more than an eclectic blend of Reformed theology, Modalism, and a few other bits and pieces.

But back to us, meaning the Eastern Orthodox:
We do indeed have the holy scripture as our canon, our guide, or measure. We have the Apostles and prophets as our foundation, with Jesus Christ as the Chief Cornerstone. We are not 'people of the book,' we are people of the Lord.

Anyone who will believe, for example, that Jesus didn't have brothers and sisters because of their church's teaching, when the scripture plainly refers to such, demonstrates they have another foundation which supercedes the bible.

LOL
This is your proof text? C'mon Brad, the exegesis of the relevant passages does not reveal Christ to have had flesh and blood siblings. Don't even try to argue adelphia with me, you'll lose.
Further, that Christ would commit the care of His mother to John is all the evidence one needs to see that Mary remained a Virgin. The protoevangelion of St James, ca early 2nd century, explains the matter satisfactorily- if not authoratively.

Anyone who can read the New Testament and see final authority in a book or in an individual reading of same, as opposed to within the Church, is someone whom I would not suggest as having the bible as 'their foundation.'

I am not condemning you, everybody ends up believing what they choose, I just don't understand how you became convinced that this particular institution has such a stranglehold on truth that you must look to them to interpret the truth for you?

My counter-question to you is at what point in life did you decide that you were smarter than the Fathers and Mothers of the Church?

Contained within your question is a curious clause "how you became convinced."
You see, even there you confirm that my Orthodoxy is not mindless conformity, but a cognitive, intentional decision.
The Orthodox Church is an institution to you, to me we are Church, pure and simple. My fealty to my Orthodox brethren does not involve me being in lock step with every single iota of what the Church says. Rather, I agree on the critical points, and obey in the matters I'm not sure about. Since the Holy Spirit guides the Church, we don't need to clear everything through James.

No, Brad, I'm smarter than most folks I meet; smart enough to know my limitations, and smart enough to see something greater than myself. What is greater than me? We.

You might just as well ask how the bible got such a stranglehold on truth that we look to it to interpret everything for us.

And now I've opened up a new conflict.

Thanks for not condemning, Brad, it's not my intent to condemn or demean you, either.
Regards
James

 

[BradtheImpaler]

The Church does say Jesus had brothers and sisters. What it doesn't say is Mary had other children. Can you find for me the verse that says "Mary's son bob", or "Mary's daughter Lorretta". I don't see that verse, do you?

"Is this not the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? Are not his sisters here with us?" (Mark.6:3)

Why would you assume that these brothers and sisters mentioned were not the children of Mary? Shall we assume that anywhere brothers and sisters of anyone are mentioned, they are not blood-brothers and sisters? No, you assume it because you ALREADY believe that Mary was a virgin "pre" and "post" Jesus. You interpret the bible in accordance with your church's dogmas.

And where did this "ever virgin" dogma come from anyway? Sex within marriage is certainly not a sin, so you can still have a "Holy" Mary with other children. Could it be that the Church had such a sexual hang-up that they could not stomach the thought of Mary having intercourse?