This question is for Protestants only. What do you have against Mary?

[AbideWithMe]

+JMJ+

Congratulations, you are now in St. Thomas Aquinas’ position on the immaculateness of Mary He didn’t believe in the Immaculate Conception, but he was of the opinion that Mary had to be clean of any taint of sin some time before she became pregnant with Jesus.

When I was a teenager I was going to name a horse after Aquinas.

I’m not sure if St. Thomas would have been pleased with that.

But he was a good horse.

 

[PRmerger]

But again, Jesus does not derive His divinity from Mary,

And this is very Catholic of you to say.

Therefore it is a testament to the reality of His humanity that Christ was contained by a woman no different in origin from any other woman.

Sure. That’s exactly what a Muslim would conclude.

Christ’s unique conception, on the other hand, marks Him as someone unprecedented in all of human history – i.e., if anyone could claim to be divine as well as human, He could, thanks to his spiritual conception.

Absolutely. Very Catholic.

Another example, and hopefully one not too vulgar: There are some who believe that Mary’s physical virginity remained intact during the birth of Christ, as some apocryphal literature does say. But I ask you: What does it say about Christ’s humanity if He had passed through the birth canal of the Virgin Mary as if He were some sort of phantom? Despite how it may delight us to think that the Virgin Mary was not merely a virgin by activity but additionally a physical virgin, that physical intactness would be a testimony to the unreality of Christ’s flesh and a counter-witness to His being truly Man as well as God. So in this case, which do you prefer: That the Virgin Mary be elevated even though it brings Christ’s humanity into question, or that Christ’s humanity be affirmed even though it might bring His Mother closer to us rank-and-file groundlings?

I don’t believe Mary retained her “physical” virginity. In fact, I believe that those who propose this are only reflecting a medieval (or older) view of virginity.

So I can’t really attend to your question–it requires me to consider something I don’t believe. As if you were saying, “There are some who believe that Jesus’ resurrection only occurred in the minds and hearts of his disciples. How does this diminish his earthly ministry if he didn’t really physically rise?”

My answer to that would be: it doesn’t diminish his earthly ministry. But it’s just not true that Jesus didn’t physically resurrect.

 

[PRmerger]

first came into Christianity as a Southern Baptist and am most familiar with their doctrines, so how about taking that for example? In what ways has disbelief in Catholic doctrines concerning the Virgin Mary diminished the Southern Baptists’ understanding of Christ?

I’m not that familiar with Southern Baptist theology, so let me google and come back to you.

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

When I was a teenager I was going to name a horse after Aquinas.

I’m not sure if St. Thomas would have been pleased with that.

But he was a good horse.

Once some friars tease him saying that a horse was flying over their priory. Thomas, who was hurrying to courtyard for his physical exercises, ran to the window to see the flying horse. When he asked where the flying horse was, they laughed at him saying: “if you were not so childish, you could never believe that a horse could fly.” Then in simplicity Thomas replied: "I thought it was easier for a horse to fly than for a friar to utter a lie.”

Nah, I think he would have been very pleased indeed. Heck, maybe your horse flew when you were not looking

 

[Kristin234]

In response to the original question, I have absolutely nothing against Mary. I don’t hate her nor do I cringe every time I see a picture of her. I think she was a very brave and godly woman. She had enough faith in God to trust Him with her future. She is a great example of putting your faith in God and letting His will be done, and I strive to be like that everyday. I have a great amount of love and respect for her, just like how I have a great amount of respect for Joseph, who also put his faith in God and took Mary as his wife even though the baby wasn’t his.

I may not request things of Mary and I may not have pictures and statues of her in my house, but that absolutely does not mean I, nor anyone that I know, has anything against her.

 

[AbideWithMe]

+JMJ+

Once some friars tease him saying that a horse was flying over their priory. Thomas, who was hurrying to courtyard for his physical exercises, ran to the window to see the flying horse. When he asked where the flying horse was, they laughed at him saying: “if you were not so childish, you could never believe that a horse could fly.” Then in simplicity Thomas replied: "I thought it was easier for a horse to fly than for a friar to utter a lie.”

Nah, I think he would have been very pleased indeed. Heck, maybe your horse flew when you were not looking

What a great story!

 

[x1980x]

Mennonites have no “beef” against Mary. We consider her a sinner who, through the grace of her Son, served God and was honored by him.

But the key to Protestant thought is that Mary is no different than your pastor, Uncle Leroy the missionary, or your own mother who raised you to honor God. All of them stand beside each other. Mary does not get a special spot above you, your mom, or Charles Spurgeon.

 

[stewstew03]

Mennonites have no “beef” against Mary. We consider her a sinner who, through the grace of her Son, served God and was honored by him.

But the key to Protestant thought is that Mary is no different than your pastor, Uncle Leroy the missionary, or your own mother who raised you to honor God. All of them stand beside each other. Mary does not get a special spot above you, your mom, or Charles Spurgeon.

Except neither Uncle Leroy, your mom, or your pastor were greeted by an Angel from heaven – an angel, by the way, who expressed Mary’s highly favored status with God.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Mennonites have no “beef” against Mary. We consider her a sinner who, through the grace of her Son, served God and was honored by him.

But the key to Protestant thought is that Mary is no different than your pastor, Uncle Leroy the missionary, or your own mother who raised you to honor God. All of them stand beside each other. Mary does not get a special spot above you, your mom, or Charles Spurgeon.

Why were Enoch and Elijah (and possibly Moses) assumed into heaven, when Uncle Leroy and Pastor Bob are not, despite being just as “special” as the assumed prophets?

 

[Cat_Herder]

I first came into Christianity as a Southern Baptist and am most familiar with their doctrines, so how about taking that for example? In what ways has disbelief in Catholic doctrines concerning the Virgin Mary diminished the Southern Baptists’ understanding of Christ?

Jesus is the Christ. “Christ” is how you say “Messiah” in Greek. The “Messiah” is the One who is prophesied to fulfill the prophesies in the Old Testament Scriptures (the Hebrew Tanakh). Jesus must be the fulfillment of ALL of these Scriptures, otherwise He is not the Christ and Christianity is not a legitimate successor to Judaism.

Open your Bible to all those books in the OT you’ve never thought were important until now. In Ezekiel chapters 40-44, that prophet gives the description of a new Temple to be built after the destruction of the original one. A Second Temple was indeed built after the Israelites returned from exile, but that one cannot be the one that Ezekiel describes, because as he prophesied:

[BIBLEDRB]Ezekiel 43:4-7[/BIBLEDRB]

But the Second Temple, the one built by Herod, was destroyed in AD 70 by the Romans. Because God had promised through Ezekiel that the new Temple would stand FOREVER, the Second Temple was NOT the fulfillment of Ezekiel’s prophecy.

Shortly before Jesus is crucified in the year 33 AD, He says:

[BIBLEDRB]Mark 14:58[/BIBLEDRB]

Again, the Second Temple was destroyed in 70 AD and it has never been rebuilt. The Scripture here specifically says that the new Temple is one that Jesus will construct. Jesus did not build an earthly Temple after rising from the grave. Instead, He sends the Holy Spirit upon Mary and the Apostles and creates the Church. The Church is the new Temple, a Temple not made by hands.

But there is something else. The Holy Spirit had already come upon Mary. The Holy Spirit came upon Her at the Annunciation, when She conceived Jesus in Her womb:

[BIBLEDRB]Luke 1:35[/BIBLEDRB]

Now, look at Ezekiel again:
[BIBLEDRB]Ezekiel 44:1-3[/BIBLEDRB]

There is no special gate through which only Jesus passed through in the earthly Second Temple. This “gate” is a gate of the Church which only Jesus could ever pass through. Of course, since the new Temple is the Church, it is made of living stones:

[BIBLEDRB]1 Peter 2:5[/BIBLEDRB]

The Gate, then, must be a person. Since only Jesus passes through this Gate, the Gate can only be the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary. And since no one else can pass through this Gate, Mary must be ever-virgin.

It is that simple. But you desire to make it complicated: You think that because it says “until” that means that at a later time, She must have brought forth other children. Elsewhere the Bible says:

[BIBLEDRB]1 Corinthians 15:25[/BIBLEDRB]

So if you are going to say that Mt 1:25 means that Mary was not ever-virgin, you must also conclude that 1 Cor 15:25 says that Jesus will only be Lord for a little while until His enemies are tidied up, and then He would no longer be Lord. Well, that’s baloney. He will reign forever.

Likewise with Matthew 1:25, which states that Jesus is the first-born son of Mary. That does not mean that there are other children. First-born is a legal term with a specific meaning in the Mosaic law:
[BIBLEDRB]Exod 34:20[/BIBLEDRB]

But if Mary is set aside for a consecrated purpose as part of the new Temple, which She clearly is, then it would be even more sinful to defile Her as it would be to defile some article of the lesser earthly Temples, like say, the Ark of the Covenant, which killed anyone who touched it:

[BIBLEDRB]2 Samuel 6:2-8[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[stewstew03]

Jesus is the Christ. “Christ” is how you say “Messiah” in Greek. The “Messiah” is the One who is prophesied to fulfill the prophesies in the Old Testament Scriptures (the Hebrew Tanakh). Jesus must be the fulfillment of ALL of these Scriptures, otherwise He is not the Christ and Christianity is not a legitimate successor to Judaism.

Open your Bible to all those books in the OT you’ve never thought were important until now. In Ezekiel chapters 40-44, that prophet gives the description of a new Temple to be built after the destruction of the original one. A Second Temple was indeed built after the Israelites returned from exile, but that one cannot be the one that Ezekiel describes, because as he prophesied:

[BIBLEDRB]Ezekiel 43:4-7[/BIBLEDRB]

But the Second Temple, the one built by Herod, was destroyed in AD 70 by the Romans. Because God had promised through Ezekiel that the new Temple would stand FOREVER, the Second Temple was NOT the fulfillment of Ezekiel’s prophecy.

Shortly before Jesus is crucified in the year 33 AD, He says:

[BIBLEDRB]Mark 14:58[/BIBLEDRB]

Again, the Second Temple was destroyed in 70 AD and it has never been rebuilt. The Scripture here specifically says that the new Temple is one that Jesus will construct. Jesus did not build an earthly Temple after rising from the grave. Instead, He sends the Holy Spirit upon Mary and the Apostles and creates the Church. The Church is the new Temple, a Temple not made by hands.

But there is something else. The Holy Spirit had already come upon Mary. The Holy Spirit came upon Her at the Annunciation, when She conceived Jesus in Her womb:

[BIBLEDRB]Luke 1:35[/BIBLEDRB]

Now, look at Ezekiel again:
[BIBLEDRB]Ezekiel 44:1-3[/BIBLEDRB]

There is no special gate through which only Jesus passed through in the earthly Second Temple. This “gate” is a gate of the Church which only Jesus could ever pass through. Of course, since the new Temple is the Church, it is made of living stones:

[BIBLEDRB]1 Peter 2:5[/BIBLEDRB]

The Gate, then, must be a person. Since only Jesus passes through this Gate, the Gate can only be the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary. And since no one else can pass through this Gate, Mary must be ever-virgin.

It is that simple. But you desire to make it complicated: You think that because it says “until” that means that at a later time, She must have brought forth other children. Elsewhere the Bible says:

[BIBLEDRB]1 Corinthians 15:25[/BIBLEDRB]

So if you are going to say that Mt 1:25 means that Mary was not ever-virgin, you must also conclude that 1 Cor 15:25 says that Jesus will only be Lord for a little while until His enemies are tidied up, and then He would no longer be Lord. Well, that’s baloney. He will reign forever.

Likewise with Matthew 1:25, which states that Jesus is the first-born son of Mary. That does not mean that there are other children. First-born is a legal term with a specific meaning in the Mosaic law:
[BIBLEDRB]Exod 34:20[/BIBLEDRB]

But if Mary is set aside for a consecrated purpose as part of the new Temple, which She clearly is, then it would be even more sinful to defile Her as it would be to defile some article of the lesser earthly Temples, like say, the Ark of the Covenant, which killed anyone who touched it:

[BIBLEDRB]2 Samuel 6:2-8[/BIBLEDRB]

Come on, Herder of Cats, this is poppycock. You can’t believe every word in the bible, can you?

I mean, when Jesus says that whoever believes AND is baptized will be saved, he doesn’t really mean that baptism has any effect on the soul, right? It’s not like water actually washes away sin – so I think we can throw out Acts 22:16 as well.

And let’s be honest, the Great Commission doesn’t really mean that Christians should be baptized, right? It’s just symbolic. And symbols/ceremonies don’t really mean anything. Of course, there is the idea that a marriage ceremony wipes away the sin of fornication – but even marriage is a flexible idea. Jesus didn’t really intend for marriage to last a lifetime between a man and a woman… or whatever variation.

And the Eucharist? Jesus didn’t really mean it was his body and blood. Besides, it’s just symbolic, and has no impact on my soul. I can still go to heaven if I never eat crackers and grape juice; and I can still go to heaven if I never confess my sins. So we could probably throw out 1 Cor 11:27 as well.

In fact, given that we have scripture, we really don’t need the church. And given that we don’t need the church, I think each of us can determine what Christianity is or isn’t! There’s no infallible man or woman who can tell me what Christianity is or isn’t. There is no infallible interpretation of the bible, so I can decide for myself what’s in the canon. So I might as well throw out Acts 22 and 1 Corinthians, and any other b/c/v that doesn’t fit my world view.

Seems reasonable…

 

[pablope]

=x1980x;10077567]Mennonites have no “beef” against Mary.

We consider her a sinner who, through the grace of her Son, served God and was honored by him.

How do you know Mary was a sinner? So you know better than those who Early Fathers who professed belief in such? And you know better than a church council and those bishops of the early church, who established the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity and sinlessness?

So the HS spirit guided that church council and the HS is now guiding you differently?

**Mary does not get a special spot above you, your mom, or Charles Spurgeon./**QUOTE]

How do you know that? Has this been revealed to you?

 

[batman1973]

How do you know Mary was a sinner? So you know better than those who Early Fathers who professed belief in such? And you know better than a church council and those bishops of the early church, who established the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity and sinlessness?

So the HS spirit guided that church council and the HS is now guiding you differently?

How do you know that? Has this been revealed to you?

If I may, the Bible says in Romans chapter 3 verse 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. The only person to ever live without sin according to Scripture is Jesus Christ. So as you can see, to the Protestant, the idea that Mary was sinless is simply unscriptural.

 

[Woody87]

I did not read the many pages of answers to your question.

Here is mine I don’t have a problem with Mary. She was a good woman who was blessed more than any other woman in history. Most protestants probably don’t have any problem with Mary but they probably misunderstand what catholics believe about her.

To remain succinct on the subject I think Inefilbluis Deus is wrong (I know this is spelled wrong). I don’t mean to start an argument I just don’t agree with what the writer wrote.

 

[stewstew03]

If I may, the Bible says in Romans chapter 3 verse 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. The only person to ever live without sin according to Scripture is Jesus Christ. So as you can see, to the Protestant, the idea that Mary was sinless is simply unscriptural.

So then Paul didn’t mean “all”?

 

[stewstew03]

I did not read the many pages of answers to your question.

Here is mine I don’t have a problem with Mary. She was a good woman who was blessed more than any other woman in history. Most protestants probably don’t have any problem with Mary but they probably misunderstand what catholics believe about her.

To remain succinct on the subject I think Inefilbluis Deus is wrong (I know this is spelled wrong). I don’t mean to start an argument I just don’t agree with what the writer wrote.

You may not agree with it, but that doesn’t mean it’s wrong.

 

[batman1973]

On a final note, this thread should really be closed. All we have are people wresting the scriptures and just trying to pick fights that don’t need to be. The question has been answered. Protestants don’t have a problem with Mary. The OP Hasn’t even responded lately so I’m guessing that in his or her mind, the question has been answered.

 

[stewstew03]

On a final note, this thread should really be closed. All we have are people wresting the scriptures and just trying to pick fights that don’t need to be. The question has been answered. Protestants don’t have a problem with Mary. The OP Hasn’t even responded lately so I’m guessing that in his or her mind, the question has been answered.

Just curious - why are you still actively participating in the thread if you believe it should be closed…?

 

[mpartyka]

The Catholic position is not that it was NECESSARY. But that it was FITTING.

This sort of goes back to one of my original questions. If the following three things are true:

1. God hates sin.
2. Original Sin provokes people to actual sin.
3. God can prevent a sexually-conceived person from inheriting Original Sin.

Isn’t it fitting that God would prevent all of mankind, not just Mary, from inheriting Original Sin?

 

[mpartyka]

But if Mary is set aside for a consecrated purpose as part of the new Temple, which She clearly is, then it would be even more sinful to defile Her as it would be to defile some article of the lesser earthly Temples, like say, the Ark of the Covenant, which killed anyone who touched it

Are you arguing that having sex with one’s lawfully-wedded spouse is a defilement? That married people defile themselves when they consummate their marriages? That may actually make sense, since St. Augustine argued that lust’s involvement in every sexual coupling (for it takes lust to activate a man’s physical ability to couple with a woman) is what transmits original sin. Perhaps that’s from where the source of the difference between Protestants and Catholics regarding Mary’s perpetual virginity springs – Protestants see no sin involved in the sexual coupling of husband and wife, but Catholics do?