Are Marian dogmas wildly un biblical?

[CopticChristian]

CopticChristian. Gosh, forgive me if you seem to come across as picky. I think what I wrote several times is perfectly clear. A baby baptized in a Catholic church is viewed and counted as Catholic. Catholic Christian, if you like. All Catholics, of course, are Christian. A baptized baby baptized in a Methodist church is not counted as a Methodist until he/she becomes confirmed as a church member. Now, why does that seem to confuse you? Perhaps you are simply too unfamiliar with Protestantism and its variations.

JL It’s true that the Puritans of Salem got swept up into a witch hunt back in the late 1600s and - what was it, 12 or 13? - a number of women (and one man) were executed. I certainly don’t defend such evil wherever it exists. However, in Europe between 20,000 and 30,000 ‘witches’ (some estimate 50,000!) were murdered by Christians, mostly by the Catholic Church. Protestants and Catholics both have been quite intolerant in the past. Isn’t it ironic that those professing their love of Christ would engage in such evil, when Jesus emphasized loving one another. As I recall the Vatican commended three Inquisitions - against the Cathars, against suspected Spanish converts (formerly Jews and Muslims) in Spain, and against Protestants. Even Thomas Aquinas called for the execution of ‘heretics’. I likely would have been put to death for my misgivings back then.

 This ceaseless bickering over the alleged errors and failings of fellow Christians is nauseating. It ought to cease and we should seek to serve God as brothers and sisters. Jesus said something about judging one another. In this community Catholics and Protestants (and others) work in healthy concert on a number of community projects, among them a soup kitchen, a food distribution center, and ecumenical services during the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity, on Good Friday, and at Thanksgiving. I consider that wonderful - far better than petty carping. The YMCA, condemned by Catholic officialdom years ago because it was founded by Protestant laity, serves as an important catalyst for ecumenical and interfaith cooperation.

  **What has all this to do with Marian doctrines, subject of this thread? **For those who can believe them and feel they are substantiated in scripture, fine. For those who can't, fine. What is so notorious about having different viewpoints? While some insist on conformity. I rejoice in the freedom to believe what we honestly can. Doctrine doesn't save us anyway. Our faith in Christ and our efforts to follow his example do.

  God bless everybody.

Roy,

You may have seen me refer to General Semantics in my threads “The Map is not the Territory”…In this case your map, your paradigm does not equate to mine or for that matter the map of the OHCAC. You ask…what does have to do with Marian Dogma? Everything.

Let me guide you. Catholics are Christians. Protestants are Christians. Invoking the OHCAC understanding of Christian, a Christian commences the journey with Baptism. So far so good.

Christians are followers of Christ. Christ is our older Brother and we are Children of God. OK?

I have a neighbor. I like him. I have a personal relationship with my neighbor and as time goes on I find out that he lives with his mother and father and has brothers and sisters. In time I learn to respect and honor his mother and have a relationship with his siblings maintaining my personal relationship with my neighbor. My experience is enlarged as I am incorporated into the family.

This is the Catholic Church. All Catholics have a personal relationship with Christ, our brother and all his siblings, we honor the Father and the Mother…so when you read Revelation…

19And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail. And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: 2And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.

Mary is the Ark of the Covenant and when you understand that and read further in Revelation…

When you see that Jesus gave his mother to us…

26When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! 27Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.

If Jesus is our brother, then Mary is our Spiritual mother…

This is confirmed in Revelation…

17And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Those baptized into Christ are Christians and those that keep the commandments and have the testimony of Jesus are the remnant of her seed, her children…

So when you understand who Mary is you understand that all Christians have Mary as their spiritual mother. Your paradigm, your map, does not include this paradigm and the OHCAC does…this is what it has to do with it…thank you for your clarification.

 

[TimothyH]

jlhargus

It doesn't trouble me that you have a different point of view, because I firmly believe that Christianity should be wide enough and tolerant enough to permit disagreement. Those early Christians certainly had their differences, and once one position became set in stone those who felt differently often were burned at the stake or perhaps murdered on some torture machine. Sounds like Jesus, doesn't it, the Jesus who told us to love another? Such a stain on the history of the Church!

 I come from a mixed Catholic and Protestant heritage. One person on our family tree was the first Archbishop of Canada (Quebec). What has driven me away from traditional Catholicism is the very dogmatism which is so often expressed here on CAF. I have decided to trust in God alone, trying my best to be a worthy disciple of Jesus, and not worry about heresies, infallible dogmas, etc. The God I believe in isn't totalitarian - one way or the highway. My Lord honors the human mind as it thinks, explores, learns, investigates, weighs and even doubts. I praise God for the gift of an inquiring mind. It is a joy and exciting to have the power and right to think freely.

 God bless everybody.

Roy, when you listen to the Church which Christ established, you listen to Christ.

Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.” (Luke 10:16)

Dogma is just a formal definition of revealed truth, that’s all. When the Church defines dogma, all it is doing is clarifying truth. But that truth comes to us from Christ through his Church. That’s the whole reason why he established a Church.

Nobody says that we can’t have an inquiring mind and ask questions. But at the end of the day, it is good to know that that there is an answer when we can’t figure things out and a guard rail to keep us on the road when the driving gets a little rough.

-Tim-

 

[Roy5]

TimothyH

** While I respect your opinion, over the years I find that I cannot adopt it for myself.** If one reads the Bible with an open mind there are passages that support many and often opposing viewpoints. While we speak of free will, Jesus said that even the hairs on our head are numbered and God knows when every sparrow falls. In many other areas, too, the Bible can be cited. I went to a Quaker college. Quakers don’t believe in taking oaths because of Jesus’s prohibition of 'swearing by heaven or by earth" and many Quakers refuse to fight in wars, quoting Jesus again (‘love your enemies’ etc.).In the Old Testament God is said to have ordered Joshua to murder all the inhabitants o Jericho and commanded Saul to slaughter every surviving Amalekite. Personally, the God I worship would never order such massive and cruel genocide.

As for there being an infallible Bible or an infallible Church, sorry. I guess I'm simply not the sort to give up my privilege to think freely. Traditional Catholics and evangelical Protestants both seem to insist that their church(es) alone has the full truth. 

 It is in the area of Mary veneration that I have a major problem. A sinless life? The Immaculate Conception (defined in 1864) and the Assumption (defined in 1950). I find no justification for any of these dogmas in scripture or in reason or in history. Nonetheless, let us honor Mary as the mother of Christ. That is quite enough incentive to show her enormous respect without seeming to turn her into a virgin goddess, a common object of worship in the ancient world.

 

[CopticChristian]

TimothyH

** While I respect your opinion, over the years I find that I cannot adopt it for myself.** If one reads the Bible with an open mind there are passages that support many and often opposing viewpoints. While we speak of free will, Jesus said that even the hairs on our head are numbered and God knows when every sparrow falls. In many other areas, too, the Bible can be cited. I went to a Quaker college. Quakers don’t believe in taking oaths because of Jesus’s prohibition of 'swearing by heaven or by earth" and many Quakers refuse to fight in wars, quoting Jesus again (‘love your enemies’ etc.).In the Old Testament God is said to have ordered Joshua to murder all the inhabitants o Jericho and commanded Saul to slaughter every surviving Amalekite. Personally, the God I worship would never order such massive and cruel genocide.

As for there being an infallible Bible or an infallible Church, sorry. I guess I'm simply not the sort to give up my privilege to think freely. Traditional Catholics and evangelical Protestants both seem to insist that their church(es) alone has the full truth. 

 It is in the area of Mary veneration that I have a major problem. A sinless life? The Immaculate Conception (defined in 1864) and the Assumption (defined in 1950). I find no justification for any of these dogmas in scripture or in reason or in history. Nonetheless, let us honor Mary as the mother of Christ. **That is quite enough incentive to show her enormous respect without seeming to turn her into a virgin goddess, a common object of worship in the ancient world./**QUOTE]

Roy,

The OHCAC including Oriental and Orthodox do not see Mary as a virgin goddess to be a common object of worship regardless of what you say about the Ancient world. For clarity give me the dates of the Ancient as you speak of it, from when to when?

 

[Roy5]

** I really don’t want to pursue this subject** as my conclusion tends to conflict with Catholic dogma, and I try to view all sincere religions with deep respect. People obviously need faith in this vast and mysterious universe, in our lives that always involve degrees of anxiety and uncertainty.

** But let me list some of the ancient goddesses,** many of them much venerated during the days of early Christianity. Some of them were virgins who gave birth miraculously to saviour gods. Check out Isis, Astarte, Aphrodite, Hatha, Demeter, Cybele, Athena. Vesta. Myrrha, Maya, Devaka, Hertha - and many others. Some also were the Queen of Heaven and/or represented by the moon and the stars. Much of this was mixed in with ancient astrology. (I taught a course that included mythology in college some years ago, some of which I have forgotten.)

** Many scholars feel that these pagan deities had a major impact upon the development of Mariology**. As for me, I revere Mary as the mother of Jesus. As I’ve noted already (several times), much Mariology has stretched that enormous honor to picturing her as the supreme female goddess. Fine, for those who can and wish to believe it. Greek, Roman, and Egyptian mythology is full of female goddesses, as is Hinduism even today. I spent time in India and saw this phenomenon. I don’t denounce it, but I can’t accept it either, whether in its Hindu or Christian context. Different cultures, different traditions, different historical developments.
**God bless people of every creed who find strength and stability in their faith**. My concern is when they aggressively believe that their particular creed and religion is the one and only true expression of valid faith and they denigrade all other religions.

 

[CopticChristian]

** I really don’t want to pursue this subject** as my conclusion tends to conflict with Catholic dogma, and I try to view all sincere religions with deep respect. People obviously need faith in this vast and mysterious universe, in our lives that always involve degrees of anxiety and uncertainty.

** But let me list some of the ancient goddesses,** many of them much venerated during the days of early Christianity. Some of them were virgins who gave birth miraculously to saviour gods. Check out Isis, Astarte, Aphrodite, Hatha, Demeter, Cybele, Athena. Vesta. Myrrha, Maya, Devaka, Hertha - and many others. Some also were the Queen of Heaven and/or represented by the moon and the stars. Much of this was mixed in with ancient astrology. (I taught a course that included mythology in college some years ago, some of which I have forgotten.)
** Many scholars feel that these pagan deities had a major impact upon the development of Mariology**. As for me, I revere Mary as the mother of Jesus. As I’ve noted already (several times), much Mariology has stretched that enormous honor to picturing her as the supreme female goddess. Fine, for those who can and wish to believe it. Greek, Roman, and Egyptian mythology is full of female goddesses, as is Hinduism even today. I spent time in India and saw this phenomenon. I don’t denounce it, but I can’t accept it either, whether in its Hindu or Christian context. Different cultures, different traditions, different historical developments.

 **God bless people of every creed who find strength and stability in their faith**. My concern is when they aggressively believe that their particular creed and religion is the one and only true expression of valid faith and they denigrade all other religions.

Roy,

Your assessment of the female figures does not tie into the offspring of these figures. So the question is how do you accept Jesus as not just being one of these ancient myths?

 

[Roy5]

We have the words of Christ in the gospels, certainly one of the evidences that he was a living, historic figure. The details re the events and places outlined in the scriptures are compelling. Josephus also refers to Jesus in his writings. It could be that some things are exaggerated or invented, but I accept the basic story as true.

   The fact that the Christian faith may embrace a certain amount of myth or legend doesn't trouble me that much. The basic thrust of Jesus' message - love God and one another - is inspirational. and in my view true. My Jewish friends obviously reject central aspects of the Christian story, which is fine with me. My interest is more in mutual respect and humility rather than "I have the truth and you don't". Maybe this democratic ethos here in the USA has infected me. If so, thank God for it.

   John Wesley, when he was urged to assail other sects, responded: "Think and let think. If you love God as I do, and seek to serve him, let us join hands and walk together." Those are not his precise words but they were along that line. Amen to that.

 

[CopticChristian]

We have the words of Christ in the gospels, certainly one of the evidences that he was a living, historic figure. The details re the events and places outlined in the scriptures are compelling. Josephus also refers to Jesus in his writings. It could be that some things are exaggerated or invented, but I accept the basic story as true.

** The fact that the Christian faith may embrace a certain amount of myth or legend doesn’t trouble me that much. The basic thrust of Jesus’ message - love God and one another - is inspirational. and in my view true. **My Jewish friends obviously reject central aspects of the Christian story, which is fine with me. My interest is more in mutual respect and humility rather than “I have the truth and you don’t”. Maybe this democratic ethos here in the USA has infected me. If so, thank God for it.

   **John Wesley,** when he was urged to assail other sects, responded: "Think and let think. If you love God as I do, and seek to serve him, let us join hands and walk together." Those are not his precise words but they were along that line. Amen to that.

Roy,

There is always the first step of a journey and to love one another is true. If that was all there was in the context of what Jesus wanted you to know then the NT would have been a paragraph or two.

John Wesley speaks for himself and not the Universal Church or for that matter Christ.

 

[Roy5]

Jharek

** Fair question. I don’t accept everything in scripture as sacrosanct,** because I have studied the Bible sufficiently to become convinced that certain pagan influences crept in before the gospels were written down.

**Several key Marian beliefs can’t be found in the Bible **- for example, that Mary lived a sinless life, the Immaculate Conception (her parents aren’t mentioned in the Bible), and her Assumption (no reference to her death in scripture). I tend to believe that as pagan beliefs influenced early Christianity, these doctrines quite naturally developed, the work of theologians.

 **For those who disagree with my conclusions, no problem**. I have Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Jewish, Sikh, Hindu, Buddhist atheist and others who don't agree with me and we remain warm friends. I happily let God do the judging in keeping with the instructions of Jesus found in Matt. 7:1-2.

** God bless everybody** - of evety creed, color,culture and country. Tragically, religion so often preaches love, humility and peace while so many religious folks exhibit resentment, arrogance and hostility.

 

[jmdavid]

Revelation is not solely the prerogative of records within the Bible… or there would be no need for the Magisterium.

 

[CopticChristian]

Jharek

** Fair question. I don’t accept everything in scripture as sacrosanct**, because I have studied the Bible sufficiently to become convinced that certain pagan influences crept in before the gospels were written down.

****Several key Marian beliefs can’t be found in the Bible ****- for example, that Mary lived a sinless life, the Immaculate Conception (her parents aren’t mentioned in the Bible), and her Assumption (no reference to her death in scripture). I tend to believe that as pagan beliefs influenced early Christianity, these doctrines quite naturally developed, the work of theologians.

 **For those who disagree with my conclusions, no problem**. I have Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Jewish, Sikh, Hindu, Buddhist atheist and others who don't agree with me and we remain warm friends. I happily let God do the judging in keeping with the instructions of Jesus found in Matt. 7:1-2.

** God bless everybody** - of evety creed, color,culture and country. Tragically, religion so often preaches love, humility and peace while so many religious folks exhibit resentment, arrogance and hostility.

Roy,

You are an enigma. You do not accept everything in Scripture as sacrosanct and then you appeal to Scripture concerning Mary. According to you she had no parents and did not die.

 

[Safia]

**Several key Marian beliefs can’t be found in the Bible **- for example, that Mary lived a sinless life, the Immaculate Conception (her parents aren’t mentioned in the Bible), and her Assumption (no reference to her death in scripture).

That’s not true.

Sinless life/Immaculate Conception –

Exodus 25:11-21 - the ark of the Old Covenant was made of the purest gold for God’s Word. Mary is the ark of the New Covenant and is the purest vessel for the Word of God made flesh.

2 Sam. 6:7 - the Ark is so holy and pure that when Uzzah touched it, the Lord slew him. This shows us that the Ark is undefiled. Mary the Ark of the New Covenant is even more immaculate and undefiled, spared by God from original sin so that she could bear His eternal Word in her womb.

1 Chron. 13:9-10 - this is another account of Uzzah and the Ark. For God to dwell within Mary the Ark, Mary had to be conceived without sin. For Protestants to argue otherwise would be to say that God would let the finger of Satan touch His Son made flesh. This is incomprehensible.

1 Chron. 15 and 16 - these verses show the awesome reverence the Jews had for the Ark - veneration, vestments, songs, harps, lyres, cymbals, trumpets.

Luke 1:39 / 2 Sam. 6:2 - Luke’s conspicuous comparison’s between Mary and the Ark described by Samuel underscores the reality of Mary as the undefiled and immaculate Ark of the New Covenant. In these verses, Mary (the Ark) arose and went / David arose and went to the Ark. There is a clear parallel between the Ark of the Old and the Ark of the New Covenant.

Luke 1:41 / 2 Sam. 6:16 - John the Baptist / King David leap for joy before Mary / Ark. So should we leap for joy before Mary the immaculate Ark of the Word made flesh.

Luke 1:43 / 2 Sam. 6:9 - How can the Mother / Ark of the Lord come to me? It is a holy privilege. Our Mother wants to come to us and lead us to Jesus.

Luke 1:56 / 2 Sam. 6:11 and 1 Chron. 13:14 - Mary / the Ark remained in the house for about three months.

Rev 11:19 - at this point in history, the Ark of the Old Covenant was not seen for six centuries (see 2 Macc. 2:7), and now it is finally seen in heaven. The Jewish people would have been absolutely amazed at this. However, John immediately passes over this fact and describes the “woman” clothed with the sun in Rev. 12:1. John is emphasizing that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant and who, like the Old ark, is now worthy of veneration and praise. Also remember that Rev. 11:19 and Rev. 12:1 are tied together because there was no chapter and verse at the time these texts were written.

Rev 12:1 - the “woman” that John is describing is Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. Just as the moon reflects the light of the sun, so Mary, with the moon under her feet, reflects the glory of the Sun of Justice, Jesus Christ.

Rev. 12:17 - this verse tells us that Mary’s offspring are those who keep God’s commandments and bear testimony to Jesus. This demonstrates, as Catholics have always believed, that Mary is the Mother of all Christians.

Rev. 12:2 - Some Protestants argue that, because the woman had birth pangs, she was a woman with sin. However, Revelation is apocalyptic literature unique to the 1st century. It contains varied symbolism and multiple meanings of the woman (Mary, the Church and Israel). The birth pangs describe both the birth of the Church and Mary’s offspring being formed in Christ. Mary had no birth pangs in delivering her only Son Jesus.

Isaiah 66:7 - for example, we see Isaiah prophesying that before she (Mary) was in labor she gave birth; before her pain came upon her she was delivered of a son (Jesus). This is a Marian prophecy of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ.

Gal 4:19 - Paul also describes his pain as birth pangs in forming the disciples in Christ. Birth pangs describe formation in Christ.

Rom. 8:22 - also, Paul says the whole creation has been groaning in travail before the coming of Christ. We are all undergoing birth pangs because we are being reborn into Jesus Christ.

Jer. 13:21 - Jeremiah describes the birth pangs of Israel, like a woman in travail. Birth pangs are usually used metaphorically in the Scriptures.

Hos. 13:12-13 - Ephraim is also described as travailing in childbirth for his sins. Again, birth pangs are used metaphorically.

Micah 4:9-10 - Micah also describes Jerusalem as being seized by birth pangs like a woman in travail.

…

 

[Safia]

…

Rev. 12:13-16 - in these verses, we see that the devil still seeks to destroy the woman even after the Savior is born. This proves Mary is a danger to satan, even after the birth of Christ. This is because God has given her the power to intercede for us, and we should invoke her assistance in our spiritual lives.

Rom. 3:23 - Some Protestants use this verse “all have sinned” in an attempt to prove that Mary was also with sin. But "all have sinned " only means that all are subject to original sin. Mary was spared from original sin by God, not herself. The popular analogy is God let us fall in the mud puddle, and cleaned us up afterward through baptism. In Mary’s case, God did not let her enter the mud puddle.

Rom. 3:23 - “all have sinned” also refers only to those able to commit sin. This is not everyone. For example, infants, the retarded, and the senile cannot sin.

Rom. 3:23 - finally, “all have sinned,” but Jesus must be an exception to this rule. This means that Mary can be an exception as well. Note that the Greek word for all is “pantes.”

1 Cor. 15:22 - in Adam all (“pantes”) have died, and in Christ all (“pantes”) shall live. This proves that “all” does not mean “every single one.” This is because not all have died (such as Enoch and Elijah who were taken up to heaven), and not all will go to heaven (because Jesus said so).

Rom. 5:12 - Paul says that death spread to all (“pantes”) men. Again, this proves that “all” does not mean “every single one” because death did not spread to all men (as we have seen with Enoch and Elijah).

Rom. 5:19 - here Paul says “many (not all) were made sinners.” Paul uses “polloi,” not “pantes.” Is Paul contradicting what he said in Rom. 3:23? Of course not. Paul means that all are subject to original sin, but not all reject God.

Rom. 3:10-11 - Protestants also use this verse to prove that all human beings are sinful and thus Mary must be sinful. But see Psalm 14 which is the basis of the verse.

Psalm 14 - this psalm does not teach that all humans are sinful. It only teaches that, among the wicked, all are sinful. The righteous continue to seek God.

Psalm 53:1-3 - “there is none that does good” expressly refers to those who have fallen away. Those who remain faithful do good, and Jesus calls such faithful people “good.”

Luke 18:19 - Jesus says, “No one is good but God alone.” But then in Matt. 12:35, Jesus also says “The good man out of his good treasure…” So Jesus says no one is good but God, and then calls another person good.

Rom. 9:11 - God distinguished between Jacob and Esau in the womb, before they sinned. Mary was also distinguished from the rest of humanity in the womb by being spared by God from original sin.

Luke 1:47 - Mary calls God her Savior. Some Protestants use this to denigrate Mary. Why? Of course God is Mary’s Savior! She was freed from original sin in the womb (unlike us who are freed from sin outside of the womb), but needed a Savior as much as the rest of humanity.

Luke 1:48 - Mary calls herself lowly. But any creature is lowly compared to God. For example, in Matt. 11:29, even Jesus says He is lowly in heart. Lowliness is a sign of humility, which is the greatest virtue of holiness, because it allows us to empty ourselves and receive the grace of God to change our sinful lives.

***Assumption + Coronation – ***

Gen. 5:24, Heb. 11:5 - Enoch was bodily assumed into heaven without dying. Would God do any less for Mary the Ark of the New Covenant?

2 Kings 2:11-12; 1 Mac 2:58 - Elijah was assumed into heaven in fiery chariot. Jesus would not do any less for His Blessed Mother.

Psalm 132:8 - Arise, O Lord, and go to thy resting place, thou and the Ark (Mary) of thy might. Both Jesus and Mary were taken up to their eternal resting place in heaven.

2 Cor. 12:2 - Paul speaks of a man in Christ who was caught up to the third heaven. Mary was also brought up into heaven by God.

Matt. 27:52-53 - when Jesus died and rose, the bodies of the saints were raised. Nothing in Scripture precludes Mary’s assumption into heaven.

1 Thess. 4:17 - we shall be caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air and so we shall always be with the Lord.

Rev. 12:1 - we see Mary, the “woman,” clothed with the sun. While in Rev. 6:9 we only see the souls of the martyrs in heaven, in Rev. 12:1 we see Mary, both body and soul.

2 Thess. 2:15 - Paul instructs us to hold fast to oral (not just written) tradition. Apostolic tradition says Mary was assumed into heaven. While claiming the bones of the saints was a common practice during these times (and would have been especially important to obtain Mary’s bones as she was the Mother of God), Mary’s bones were never claimed. This is because they were not available. Mary was taken up body and soul into heaven.

2 Tim 4:8 - Paul says that there is laid up for him the crown of righteousness. The saints are crowned in heaven, and Mary is the greatest saint of all.

James 1:12 - those who endure will receive the crown of life which God has promised. Mary has received the crown of life by bringing eternal life to the world.

1 Peter 5:4 - when the chief Shepherd is manifested we will receive the unfading crown of glory.

Rev. 2:10 - Jesus will give the faithful unto death the crown of life. Jesus gave Mary His Mother the crown of life.

Rev. 12:1 - Mary, the “woman,” is crowned with twelve stars. She is Queen of heaven and earth and the Mother of the Church.

Wis. 5:16 - we will receive a glorious crown and a beautiful diadem from the hand of the Lord. Mary is with Jesus forever crowned in His glory.

 

[CopticChristian]

***Assumption + Coronation – ***

I appreciate all you posted. With Roy I find it is a losing battle. Revert to his original posting…

Fair question. I don’t accept everything in scripture as sacrosanct, because I have studied the Bible sufficiently to become convinced that certain pagan influences crept in before the gospels were written down.

 

[Safia]

I appreciate all you posted. With Roy I find it is a losing battle. Revert to his original posting…

Indeed.

Which, by the way, Roy, if it is true – not one of us has grounds for being Christian, because then we cannot guarantee that the Gospel writers weren’t pagans influenced by their times.

That’d be lovely, wouldn’t it be?

 

[PRmerger]

Indeed.

Which, by the way, Roy, if it is true – not one of us has grounds for being Christian, because then we cannot guarantee that the Gospel writers weren’t pagans influenced by their times.

That’d be lovely, wouldn’t it be?

Indeed.

And if we we cannot guarantee that the Sacred Scriptures haven’t been corrupted, then how do we know what’s God’s Revelation and what’s not?

It’s like a metaphor I heard from Catholic apologist Jesse Romero: let’s say someone gave you a pizza and said, “There’s been some fecal matter that’s been mixed into the sauce. Not sure how much. Or which slice. But enjoy the pizza nonetheless! Because some of it may be good, right?”

Why would you accept something that’s been corrupted and you’re uncertain as to what parts are pure and what’s been ca-ca’ed?

 

[GaryTaylor]

** Fair question. I don’t accept everything in scripture as sacrosanct,** because I have studied the Bible sufficiently to become convinced that certain pagan influences crept in before the gospels were written down.

**Several key Marian beliefs can’t be found in the Bible **- for example, that Mary lived a sinless life, the Immaculate Conception (her parents aren’t mentioned in the Bible), and her Assumption (no reference to her death in scripture). I tend to believe that as pagan beliefs influenced early Christianity, these doctrines quite naturally developed, the work of theologians.

Yet it existed in other writtings before the Bible was ever completed Roy. You seemed to have deemed specific individuals as worthy of belief while disgarding others. How do you gauge this? Would you say St Mark, James and Andrew are believable?

All mid 1st Century

East: Patriarch St. Mark I the Apostle of Alexandria 60-AD [Liturgy of St. Mark the Evangelist], “Most holy, immaculate, and blessed Mother of God, and ever Virgin Mary.” Latin: “Sanctissima, immaculata, et benedicta, Deipara et semper virgine Maria.”

East: Bishop St. James the Just Apostle of Jerusalem. [Liturgy of St. James], “Most holy, most glorious, immaculate, Mother of God and ever Virgin,” and that Mary is “in every respect out of the range of sinful men.”

The holy St. James, brother of the Lord, taught that Mary was not a sinner, i.e., she never contracted original sin or committed venial or mortal sin.

East: Bishop St. Andrew the First-Called Apostle of Byzantium. says in 62 [Acts of Andrew]: “And therefore, because the first man was created of immaculate earth, it was necessary that of an immaculate Virgin should be born a perfect man, that the Son of God should restore that eternal life which men had lost.” Latin: “Et propterea, quod ex immaculatâ terrâ ereatus fuerat primus homo, necesse erat ut ex immaculatâ Virgine nasceretur perfectus homo, quo Filius Dei, qui antè condiderat hominem, vitam æternam quam perdiderant hominess, repararet.”

Though the book The Acts of Andrew is not part of the Biblical Canon, it is historically accurate; one can see from the myriad lives of the saints published in the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Of course this continues on through the centurys. However should you deem the Bible as the as the only source and ignore Oral and Written Tradition, then here, you find yourself in the situation you remain in.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Sinless life/Immaculate Conception –

Well structured Biblical verse/post. Becomes difficult to ignore in light of the early church teachings and ECFs.

Seems unfortunate that since the refornation in 1500, men have deemed only scripture as the final word, And in many situations incorrectly.

I see no way around the early oral/written tradition of the church. Otherwise it leads to heresy and there were many in the 1-2nd century which are just as obvious today.

 

[Safia]

Well structured Biblical verse/post. Becomes difficult to ignore in light of the early church teachings and ECFs.

Seems unfortunate that since the refornation in 1500, men have deemed only scripture as the final word, And in many situations incorrectly.

I see no way around the early oral/written tradition of the church. Otherwise it leads to heresy and there were many in the 1-2nd century which are just as obvious today.

Glad you thought so. It’s all thanks to this!

 

[Zenkai]

We have the words of Christ in the gospels, certainly one of the evidences that he was a living, historic figure. The details re the events and places outlined in the scriptures are compelling. Josephus also refers to Jesus in his writings. It could be that some things are exaggerated or invented, but I accept the basic story as true.

   **The fact that the Christian faith may embrace a certain amount of myth or legend **doesn't trouble me that much. The basic thrust of Jesus' message - love God and one another - is inspirational. and in my view true. My Jewish friends obviously reject central aspects of the Christian story, which is fine with me. My interest is more in mutual respect and humility rather than "I have the truth and you don't". Maybe this democratic ethos here in the USA has infected me. If so, thank God for it.

   John Wesley, when he was urged to assail other sects, responded: "Think and let think. If you love God as I do, and seek to serve him, let us join hands and walk together." Those are not his precise words but they were along that line. Amen to that.

You think the Holy Spirit would allow myths in His Word?