Why Do Protestants Shun Mary?

[zz912]

Sorry, I don’t think it’s that clear. For one thing, the text itself does not actually say that the Ark was a type of Mary.

The book of Revelations is pretty clear about it:

Rev 11:19 And the temple of God was opened in heaven: and the ark of his testament was seen in his temple, and there were lightnings, and voices, and an earthquake, and great hail. 12:1 And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars:

2 And being with child, she cried travailing in birth, and was in pain to be delivered.

3 And there was seen another sign in heaven: and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads, and ten horns: and on his head seven diadems:

4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to be delivered; that, when she should be delivered, he might devour her son.

5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with an iron rod: and her son was taken up to God, and to his throne.

I didn’t read anything in those texts that describe Mary as our advocate. Even if they did, that still says nothing about veneration. They describe Mary’s role. They give us no insights whatsoever about whether the contemporary church of their times venerated Mary.

To show that the early church venerated Mary, you need to produce a text that describes them doing this–that is, if you want to use the ECF’s writings, which apparently you want to do. Consider Justin Martyr’s description of Sunday worship as an example:

The book of revelations in chapter 5 and 8 describes the saints in Heaven taking our prayers and presenting them before God as intercessors.

 

[Goya]

crai7:

I’ll repeat what I said in response to another:

1.) “My reasoning is that if you read all of those verses in sequence it seems to be referring (firstly) to His biological family - otherwise Jesus contrast in the following verses won’t make sense. He uses His biological family to make a point about how the family of God is now extended to all who believe; which was probably a surprising notion to his audience.”.

2.) Even if you accept a ‘loose’ definition of the term brother, it begs the question - “How can you be certain they were not biological?”. If there were four brothers mentioned in Matthew 13:55 (and an unknown number of sisters in 13:57), what is the probability that they would all be non-biological?

That said, I have no idea why the Catholic church requires that Mary be a virgin after Jesus birth.

Perhaps you can tell us, how you pretend to honor the Lord, by interpreting these passages (and the conspicuous silence on the identity of these supposed blood brothers, and the need for Christ to entrust His mother to a non-blood brother–i.e.–St. John, at the foot of the cross)–as meaning that other, ordinary, unidentified human beings, corrupted the Ark of the New Covenant, by using the very same womb by which the Lord became incarnate, in coming into being.

That’s a far more appropriate question to be asking, than why does the Catholic Church dare elevate the woman chosen by God to serve as His Mother, and to whom was entrusted the care of the only begotten Son of God, for 30 years before He began His public ministry…who was with him during His public ministry…during His passion, and with Him at the Cross…specifically addressed by Him at the Cross (amongst the 7 last words)…and present when He sent the Holy Spirit to her and the (and only the) Apostles…

 

[fred_conty]

crai7:

I’ll repeat what I said in response to another:

1.) “My reasoning is that if you read all of those verses in sequence it seems to be referring (firstly) to His biological family - otherwise Jesus contrast in the following verses won’t make sense. He uses His biological family to make a point about how the family of God is now extended to all who believe; which was probably a surprising notion to his audience.”.

2.) Even if you accept a ‘loose’ definition of the term brother, it begs the question - “How can you be certain they were not biological?”. If there were four brothers mentioned in Matthew 13:55 (and an unknown number of sisters in 13:57), what is the probability that they would all be non-biological?

That said, I have no idea why the Catholic church requires that Mary be a virgin after Jesus birth.

When Angel Gabriel appeared to Mary, after his message, she said that she didn’t understand how she could become pregnant since she was a virgin. And the angel told her that it would be thru the Holy Spirit. Notice the angel didn’t say she should relinquish her virginity…quite the contrary. Mary was not to relinquish her virginity, but then she would sacrifice it after Jesus? She still had her vow she had taken not to know man. She let the angel know that she had this vow, and the angel, in so many words, told her that this would not interfer with her vow, …but later she would have other children who would break that vow?

Jesus is the only one in the bible who is called the son of Mary. Noone else. And nowhere in the bible is she called mother of anyone else. In Lk 4;23 Jesus is called Joseph’s son…but we know he was not Joseph’s son. He only appeared to them as Joseph’s son. In Jn 2;2 it says that the mother of Jesus was there…with no mention of being the mother of any other brothers or sisters to Jesus. Would this have really happened all thru the new testament if she had been the mother of others? That should have been at least one reference to her motherhood to others don’t you think? Even at Cana, when Jesus and Mary were invited along with his disciples. Wouldn’t his brothers have been invited too…why no mention of them when even his disciples were mentioned as there also?

Even on the cross, Jesus gave the care of his own mother to John. Would it not have made more sense to intrust her to his own brothers and sisters if he had them…the real sons of Mary, one of the four brethren mentioned, James and Joseph, Simon and Jude, especially when we consider the closeness of the Jewish families. In fact why would Jesus mention it at all since it would be a “given” that Mary would be looked after by his brothers if he had had any.

In the epistle of Jude, he refers to himself as the brother of James and the servant of Jesus. Why not refer to himself as the brother of Jesus if that were the case? He would have said the brother and servant of Jesus. And we know that James was the son of Alphaeus. That being the case, and Mary was not the spouse of Alphaeus, then James could not have been the blood brother to Jesus.

May the risen Christ fill you with peace.

 

[crai7]

That she held (and there is every reason to believe she still holds) a special power is evident by her persuading Jesus, against his will, to change water into wine at the wedding feast at Cana. If she can intercede for the good of the wedding guests, why should she not be able to intercede for our good today? Is she not still the mother of Jesus? And is she not still our mother, as she was given by Jesus to be the mother of John at the foot of the cross.

I don’t believe she held a special power simply because Jesus agreed to her request - since Jesus also agreed to other peoples’ requests. She did not demonstrate any unusual influence. God in the Old Testament, was also open to petitions and was prepared to change His mind for His faithful servants.

I’ve noticed that there is a strange view amongst certain Catholics that Mary continues to be His mother, and that He listens to her, as a small child would listen to its mother. The artwork in Catholic churches often reinforces this notion.

I don’t know if this is some kind of ‘feminism’ that has crept in somewhere along the way, but it makes no sense once you notice that God has given the same level of attention and favour to others throughout the bible.

When Angel Gabriel appeared to Mary, after his message, she said that she didn’t understand how she could become pregnant since she was a virgin. And the angel told her that it would be thru the Holy Spirit. Notice the angel didn’t say she should relinquish her virginity…quite the contrary. Mary was not to relinquish her virginity, but then she would sacrifice it after Jesus? She still had her vow she had taken not to know man. She let the angel know that she had this vow, and the angel, in so many words, told her that this would not interfer with her vow, …but later she would have other children who would break that vow? .

Matthew 1:25 "… but kept her a virgin until
she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus. … "

Hold on why would the brothers HAVE to be at Cana?

I assume you mean John 19:26-27? Yes this is strange now that I think about this.
I assume that Joseph was either dead, was unavailable or unable for some reason to take care of her. I also assume His brothers were either unable or unworthy for some reason. Whether that then leads to the conclusion that the brothers were not blood relatives needs more research.

Epistle of Jude - don’t know that one. I just know that there is a lot of evidence, both biblical and from extra-biblical sources to suggest that James was indeed His brother. Here is a link: gospelgazette.com/gazette/1999/jun/page5.shtml

May the risen Christ fill you with peace.
And you too.

 

[zz912]

I’ve noticed that there is a strange view amongst certain Catholics that Mary continues to be His mother, and that He listens to her, as a small child would listen to its mother. The artwork in Catholic churches often reinforces this notion.

I don’t know if this is some kind of ‘feminism’ that has crept in somewhere along the way, but it makes no sense once you notice that God has given the same level of attention and favour to others throughout the bible.

A feminism creep at least 1500 years in the making. Marian devotion was so prevalent in the Church at least by the 500’s that Mohammed incorrectly thought that Mary was one of the Persons of the Trinity instead of the Holy Spirit.

And no, God has not given the same level of attention and favor to others in the Bible.

 

[fred_conty]

Crai7,

Matthew 1:25 "… but kept her a virgin until
she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus. … "

“until” can be used in different ways. For example, consider the following:

1. Jesus said that He will be with us until the end of the age. Does that mean He’ll abandon us after that?
2. 2 Sam 6:23 – talking about David’s wife and Saul’s daughter, Michal, this verse says that she remained childless until the day that she died, implying giving birth after death?
3. Luke 2:37 - Anna was a widow until she was eighty-four years old. And she was still a widow after that.

4)Luke 1:80 - John was in the desert “until the point of his manifestation to Israel.” Read the book and you’ll find he was still in the desert for quite some time after that.

1. Deut. 34:6 - “until today” no one knew Moses’ burial place. They started knowing it on that day?
2. 2 Sam. 6:23 - Saul’s daughter Micah was childless “until” her death. She was not with child until her death.
3. 1 Macc. 5:54 - not one was slain “until” they returned in peace. They were not slain after they returned in peace

But also the phrase “kept her a virgin until she gave birth” could also mean in the eyes of her relatives and friends, that they considered her no longer a virgin since she gave birth. Just as Joseph was considered in the eyes of others to be the real father of Jesus when people said, “isn’t this the son of Joseph!”.

May God’s love embrace you.

 

[Goya]

crai7;12880535]

I don’t believe she held a special power simply because Jesus agreed to her request - since Jesus also agreed to other peoples’ requests. She did not demonstrate any unusual influence. …

Yeah? You got any examples of God being OBEDIENT to any of these other people?

How about an arch-angel (or any angel) showing any of these people reverence?

Matthew 1:25 "… but kept her a virgin until
she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus. … "

Hold on why would the brothers HAVE to be at Cana?

I assume you mean John 19:26-27? Yes this is strange now that I think about this.
I assume that Joseph was either dead, was unavailable or unable for some reason to take care of her.*** I also assume*** His brothers were either unable or unworthy for some reason. Whether that then leads to the conclusion that the brothers were not blood relatives needs more research.

Again I ask…how do you honor the Lord, by interpreting scripture in such a way as to affirmatively declare that other ordinary, sinful human beings came of the same womb as our Lord?

I’m not saying it would be a deal breaker (by any stretch)…but sans persuasive evidence, it seems far more fitting, that such a womb would be reserved for the Lord, and no one else.

Epistle of Jude - don’t know that one. I just know that there is a lot of evidence, both biblical and from extra-biblical sources to suggest that James was indeed His brother. Here is a link: gospelgazette.com/gazette/1999/jun/page5.shtml.

Your “evidence” is flimsy at best, based on assumptions and conjecture upon assumptions and conjecture–and runs contrary to the greater salvation narrative, especially to the Trinitarian (again…a bunch of ordinary human beings…born of the same womb as God/Emmanuel…that poses such a potential for Satan, that it is next to impossible to conceive that he would not avail himself of such easy pickings as to claim divinity through his own puppets via such a blood line).

Sorry…no. The “evidence”–both biblical, and extra-biblical–does NOT support your interpretation–which btw, serves only dishonor our Lord.

 

[clementVII]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Because of the teaching on this^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

“For there is one God, and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus”
(Douay-Rheims Bible in 1Tim2:5)
.

Preach it, brother! There’s also the verse in Hebrews 1 that talks about “when He had by Himself purged sin.” There’s absolutely no warrant from Scripture to make one believe that we need a mediator (-trix) between us and Jesus.

 

[fred_conty]

crai7;
in the webpage that you listed, here is a brief analysis of brothers.

James the son of Zebedee and brother of John and an apostle (Matthew 4:21; 10:2; Mark 1:19; Luke 5:10)

John was not the son of Mary, so this James is eliminated from being a brother to Jesus.

James the Less, son of Alphaeus and also an apostle (Matthew 10:3; Acts 1:13)

Since Alpheeus was not married to Mary, this James is eliminated.

and James the brother of our Lord Matthew 13:35

there is no reference to James in 13:25. This this is an obvious mistake.

Mark 6:3 “Is he not the carpenter, the son of Mary, and the brother of James and Joseph and Judas and Simon…”

In Matthew 4:18, “…he saw two brothers, Simon who is called Peter, and his brother Andrew, casting…”
If Simon was mentioned as a brother to Jesus, then why not his brother Andrew too? Anticipating the answer to be “it was a different Simon”. But if it was a different Simon, where is that passage indicating that?
This passage also links James as the brother of Simon, which if Peter is clearly wrong.

This is a very similar problem with all the Marys that are mentioned…trying to identify who is who. Sometimes it comes down to just guessing and not really knowing for sure. The same names are used for several people and in many of these instances they are unconnected to blood parentage. It makes it impossible to know which is which and who is who.

Galatians 1:18, 19). "I did not see any of the other apostles, only James the brother of the Lord.

and

Jesus had three other brothers in addition to James. They were Joses, Simon and Judas (Matthew 13:55).

In the passages where James is mentioned as brother, it doesn’t say who his parents are. It fails to say that they are sons of Mary or that they are sons of Joseph, or give any other parentage. So this James could have been anyone’s son which means that he could have been the son of James the Less or of Alphaeus.
There is nothing that indicates otherwise.

To sum it up. There are two James who are mentioned in Scripture. There is "James " the brother of John, whose father is Zebedee, and James who is called the brother of the Lord --whose father is ALPHEUS. Not Joseph.

Mary is mentioned in Scripture as the wife of Joseph, the carpenter. She is never mentioned as the wife of Zebedee or the wife of Alpheus.

So how can James be the brother of the Lord? James’ mother is not Mary and his father is not Joseph.

Now, Alpheus could be the brother of Joseph. He could be the brother-in-law of Mary (married to a sister). He could be a nephew of Joseph (or even Mary) or a cousin of either. Any one of those relationships could have led to Alpheus’ son being called a ‘brother’ to the Lord.

It is a spaghetti bowl of names. Just who is on first and who is on third? And if you understood all that I just said, I will pin a medal on you myself.

In addition, Aramaic had no word for “cousin,” so the word for brother was used in its place.

May God be kind to you and give you peace.

 

[clementVII]

For example where does Jesus say He is God-explicitly?

“Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”

Reference back to how God identifies Himself in the O.T. Plus, it implies His pre-existence long before Abraham.

Jesus said to them, “I am He.”Judas, who betrayed him, was standing with them. When Jesus said to them, “I am He,” they drew back and fell to the ground. So He asked them again, “Whom do you seek?” And they said, “Jesus of Nazareth.” Jesus answered, “I told you that I am He."

In the Greek, it doesn’t say “I am He,” but merely “I am.” Which explains the reaction of the guys drawing back and falling to the ground: the mere mention of His unique name is full of divine power, sort of like a blast furnace (cf. “then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming.”).

“You shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of the power of God.”

God says He will share His glory with no man, yet Jesus sits at His right hand. Again, an indication of His being God.

They say that we are all saints. I have to admit I don’t understand this mentality well.

Paul addresses all believers as saints; the RCC changed the Biblical meaning. A saint is someone set apart for God’s use, and being sanctified.

As for the word “vessel,” the Bible uses it as a word showing high esteem, viz. “If any one purifies himself from what is ignoble, then he will be a vessel for noble use, consecrated and useful to the master of the house, ready for any good work.” Seems like that description fits Mary to a T, no?