/christianity/ - Christian Theology & Philosophy

>Is Mary the Theotokos (Mother of God)?

Definitively yes, recognizing that "God" here only refers to the human nature of the second person of the trinity.

>Was Mary immaculately conceived? Is she sinless?

No and no, Romans 3:23.

>Is Mary the Queen of Heaven?

No. This is ancient eisegesis on Revelation 12. It is intended to prop up the Roman Church's system.

>Was Mary's body taken into heaven?

We have no reason to think it was, but it has happened before in scripture.

>Is Mary the greatest creature of God?

No

>Is Mary a perpetual virgin?

No. She married, which entails consumating. The Bible says that she didn't have intercourse until Christ was born. Jesus had siblings.

>Did Mary not feel pain at the birth of Jesus Christ?

Never heard this one, but she was a daughter of Eve so we should presume she did feel pain.

>Is Mary the mother of Christians?

No. There are two persons spoken of as father for Christians, Abraham and God Himself. Nobody is ever spoken of as mother of Christians.

This is another form of eisegesis on Jesus's charge to the apostle that she was his mother now, which really means he is to take care of her as if his own mother. This is a teaching on Christian virtue.

>Is Mary the Mediatrix? Is she the Co-Redemptirx?

One mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus. 1 Tim 2:5

Redemption could only be accomplished by the Son of God. The Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him, Isa 53. Not some iniquity on Mary, all on Jesus.

>Who is Mary?

A wonderful woman who served God faithfully, who I'm also looking forward to meeting in eternity.

Every Romanist marian dogma is predicated on the rejection of scripture as sufficient for all doctrine, which is the unavoidable teaching of 2 Tim 3:17.

Whenever we have these debates they come in here and just assert a position by way of quote from a church document, and couple it with an ancient painting of the madonna as if it is an argument also.

>>8828

let me say that better

>Definitively yes, recognizing that "God" here only refers to the human nature of the second person of the trinity.

She was mother to the human nature of the person Jesus, who is God. She is mother of Jesus, so she is mother of God.

We just need to be careful when we say it so the uninitiated don't think we mean mother to the whole trinity, or even mother to the divine nature of Jesus.

>Is Mary the Theotokos (Mother of God)?

Yes, she gave birth to God incarnate and as such models the ark of the covenant.

>Was Mary immaculately conceived? Is she sinless?

The doctrine of the immaculate conception is a Romanist invention based on the false doctrine of original sin which is a major western heresy held by the Latin sects, the Reformed sects, and the Anabaptists sects. Mary, like all humans, inherited the consequences of Adam's sin, else she would have been immortal. God freely bestowed on her a special grace which did indeed keep her from sin her entire life. Thus she is the new Eve, whereas Eve said "no" to God, Mary said "yes" to God's grace especially at the annunciation.

>Is Mary the Queen of Heaven?

Absolutely. The holy Orthodox Catholic Church is the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus sits on the throne of David and rules over as our King with Mary as our Queen.

>Was Mary's body taken into heaven?

Yes. After he death, God raised her body up and took her into heaven. This is held in the holy tradition of the Orthodox Church, tradition which is from the apostles themselves.

>Is Mary the greatest creature of God?

Yes. God created her specifically to give birth to the Son of God.

>Is Mary a perpetual virgin?

Yes. This is held in the holy tradition of the Orthodox Church which was given to her by the apostles themselves.

>Did Mary not feel pain at the birth of Jesus Christ?

Mary, like all of us, felt pain, for she was a human as us. Again, this belief is derived from the false Latin doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, a doctrine which has no basis in scripture or tradition.

>Is Mary the mother of Christians?

Yes. Christ assigned her this role while he was on the cross (see John 19:26-27)

>Is Mary the Mediatrix? Is she the Co-Redemptirx?

Well, Mary as the new Eve played a significant role in salvation history. Such titles are not found in the Orthodox Church, but they may express true things about Mary.

>Who is Mary?

The Ever-Virgin All Holy Theotokos who gave birth to our Lord and God Jesus Christ.

Yay. The 3,003,267,353,234,345th iteration of one of these threads. I'll get the essentials of how this thread is going to go down:

>Protestants protest that Mary is being given an unhealthy amount of attention, to the point of being a made a de-facto goddess, which flies in the face of scripture and the gospel of salvation.

>Catholics/Orthodox engage in eisegisis, mental gymnastics, use weasel words like "veneration" and "hyper-dulia" instead of worship, post paintings, and appeals to Tradition™ to try to rationalize either their biblically questionable at best, and outright unbiblical at worst, interpretations of Mary's role in Christianity. As well as say outright creepy stuff like "A sigh from the Ever-Virgin Mediatrix Queen of the Universe Mary is worth more than all the prayers of the saints and angels combined; I dedicate my entire being to the most perfect creation ever." that further creeps out Protestants and reinforces their suspicions about such beliefs and practices. Oh yeah, and they'll probably sneak in at least one "Why do you hate Mary?" thought terminating cliche'. Seriously, someone should make a bingo out of this.

/end thread.

>>8827

>Is Mary the Theotokos (Mother of God)?

Yes

>Was Mary immaculately conceived? Is she sinless?

>Is Mary the Queen of Heaven?

>Was Mary's body taken into heaven?

>Is Mary the greatest creature of God?

>Is Mary a perpetual virgin?

>Did Mary not feel pain at the birth of Jesus Christ?

>Is Mary the mother of Christians?

>Is Mary the Mediatrix? Is she the Co-Redemptirx?

Absolutely not

>>8868

>I do believe however it is very important to continually combat these ideas whenever they come up,

Or you could just combat them with scripture, such as by quoting that which goes directly against such false teachings.

Galatians 3:22

But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

>>8869

>Or you could just combat them with scripture

Yes, proper exegetical reading, particularly in the original languages, is obviously the best and most straightforward way to respond. However Catholics believe in other sources of authority such as 'tradition' (which Prots also use but not in the same way) and have a 'magisterium', and enjoy continually pointing to these things for support. Because of this, it is important to show them that things such as the Marian dogmas are not in fact Apostolic traditions, or decisively supported by early patristic sources.

>>8828

/thread

>>8868

All your arguments are just flawed here. For instance it ignores the simple fact that Marian veneration is actually a driving force in the arguments of Christology from the 5th century onwards. And who is to blame for this? Athanasius who practically says that the Commemoration of Mary is useless if Christ didnt have a real human body. No one uses that term to refer to the contents of Scripture and usage of commemoration is often about liturgical commemoration of saints and martyrs as in Cyprian's use of the term earlier. So this means that Athanasius who follows Alexander in using Theotokos, actually draws from a practice he gotten from him too, stretching back veneration of Mary further. So you and that anon is false. The only reason why no one can refute those arguments is really because Catholics are usually lazy to read up the documents themselves which places them at a disadvantage.

The prooftext of Luke by Catholics however doesnt prove Immaculate Conception but it also proves most Protestants wrong on how to take Mary because Mary is actually given a special role in Luke eventhough she is featured more at the beginning. She heralds and announces the plot of the whole Gospel of Luke in the Magnificat. Luke clearly intends Mary to be a significant stage in God's plan of redemption with parallels to Old Testament prophets and key women there. So saying she merely plays an indirect role is false. If any her role has prophetic significance evidenced by how her statements tend to parallel various OT figures which highlights her special role in salvation history. Justin Martyr and Irenaeus didnt use the Mary-Eve typology for nothing. It is done because it is recognized that Mary occupies a special place in God's plan of redemption.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2806061.htm

. And at this also I am much surprised, how they have ventured to entertain such an idea as that the Word became man in consequence of His Nature. For if this were so, the commemoration of Mary would be superfluous. For neither does Nature know of a Virgin bearing apart from a man. Whence by the good pleasure of the Father, being true God, and Word and Wisdom of the Father by nature, He became man in the body for our salvation, in order that having somewhat to offer for us He might save us all, 'as many as through fear of death were all their life-time subject to bondage.' 

Letter 59 also refers to the commemoration of Mary. If that anon's assessment on the early Christian use of Theotokos is correct why did Athanasius essentially refers to the comemmoration of Mary when speaking of Christ, a practice which is essentially about venerating Mary?

This commemoration cannot be what Scripture says because no author during, before and after his time uses the term to refer to a specific Scriptural narrative. When this term is used, it is about liturgical commemoration, naming saints in the liturgical service which as Cyril of Jerusalem, writing close to Athanasius' time makes clear, is done to seek intercession. This is basically a liturgical veneration of saints which hardly any Protestant do.

So that anon who thinks Theotokos has no effect on Marian veneration or relation to honouring Mary is just false. Otherwise the practice of such by liturgical commemoration wouldnt be mentioned as part of arguing for Christ's deity and the incarnation

>>8878

In fact I am gonna destroy your arguments in that thread, with even more detail than what I given here to show just how flawed you really are. And to be clear my goals are to,

1)Show that biblical and patristic sources paint Mary higher than how Protestants do to her in general

2)Show that the later councils utilized veneration of Mary in the argument for Christology. This is partially shown here with Athanasius.

3)Show that Mary's role in the salvation economy is such that no one says she merely "indirectly" causes salvation. She does so directly under divine guidance and providence which is Luke's point.

What I am not arguing for:

1)Immaculate Conception.

2)Mary's sinfulness or non sinfulness which is adiaphora to me. What matters is her role in the salvific story and whether one actually regards her as her role in liturgical and devotional life.

Remember this before engaging or else you bring a strawman

>>8828

>The Bible says that she didn't have intercourse until Christ was born. Jesus had siblings.

>No. She married, which entails consumating.

But this doesn't imply that she consummated the marriage afterwards, nor does a marriage entail consummation. It's just a way to tell the sequence of events, not some kind of hint. The siblings of Jesus are Joseph's children from his first marriage.

Joseph died between the Finding in the Temple and the Crucifixion, but his cause of death isn't mentioned, meaning it must have been old age. Church tradition has it that he was around 80 years old when he got betrothed to Mary. Back in those days people married away their daughters out of economic reasons, because they couldn't afford another hungry mouth to feed, so it makes sense that Mary would be given away to a much older Joseph who was able to sustain himself and his family, instead of someone closer to her age who wasn't.

The Orthodox version of Joseph and Mary makes the most sense in the historical context, while the Protestant version is a re-interpretation based on modern circumstances, where people marry for love and leisure.

>>8868

>Again this is completely wrong. Any scriptural support for such an idea is based off of bad treatment of the original Koine Greek and its grammatical rules (such as perfect passive participles), and/or precarious typological analysis to assert Mary is a type for a slew of different OT objects/people.

χαριτόω - I favor, bestow freely on; xaritóō (from xárisma, "grace") – properly, highly-favored because receptive to God's grace. 5487 (xaritóō) is used twice in the NT (Lk 1:28 and Eph 1:6), both times of God extending Himself to freely bestow grace (favor).

In the perfect middle/passive participle, nominative feminine singular, the most literal way of translating would be "one having been favored". >>8877 articulates this better than I could.

I will note that there is some disagreement over Mary's sinlessness in Orthodoxy. Most pious Orthodox would hold her to have been sinless, though we certainly don't regard her as perfect. Other Orthodox hold that Mary was cleansed from all her sins at the annunciation. There is a minority opinion that she did sin afterwards. It's certainly not a dogma of the Orthodox Church, it is a pious tradition which myself and many other Orthodox hold to.

>Absolutely and categorically wrong. The bodily assumption is not an Apostolic tradition, you can produce no proof that the Apostles ever taught this or knew about this doctrine. In fact, you cant even cite a single participant of the Council of Nicaea who affirmed the bodily assumption.

Again, >>8877 articulates this very well. There was little debate over Marian doctrines in the early Church, specifically regarding Mary's dormition. As Orthodox, it is by faith through tradition received in the writings of the Church Fathers that Mary's body was taken into heaven as St. Epiphanus declares so elegantly:

"Like the bodies of the saints, however, she has been held in honor for her character and understanding. And if I should say anything more in her praise, she is like Elijah, who was virgin from his mother’s womb, always remained so, and was taken up, but has not seen death." (Panarios, Section 79 [A.D 375]).

Protestantism lacks faith, and we have certainly seen this through its many fruits. Having been built upon erroneous ideas of reason, it has reduced Christianity to nothing more than a watered down version of itself, having thrown out many aspects of the faith for the bare minimum. This is reflected in its theology, in its liturgy, in its many sects and movements, and in its increasing reach towards secularism.

>>8868

>Again, such typological assertions of Mary are never made by any NT writer or figure, and there are many, many ways in which Mary does not mirror the Ark of the Covenant at all.

>Again, the plain reading of the NT in context, in the original Greek is more supportive of her having had children than remaining a perpetual virgin. Although you can 'read' the NT it in such a way where her virginity is preserved, it is far more unintuitive than the plain reading.

>>Again, this is an egregious and eisegetical reading of the passage. The brothers (or 'kinsman') of Christ were unbelievers. In fact, they had mocked Him in John 7, and would not come to faith in Him until after His resurrection. But more obviously, they were not at the Cross. John was. John, the beloved disciple, and a believing follower of Jesus, would be far closer to Mary as a fellow believer than her natural children ever could be unless they, like her, came to believe in the Messiah. Hence, Jesus’ entrusting of His mother to John is perfectly in line with the New Testament evidence. The idea that Jesus is literally entrusting the Mystical body of Christ to Mary in some form of motherhood is so far from what the plain, contextual reading of the passage suggests.

I'm going to lump these together as they assert a common theme. Once again, that is Protestantisms lack of faith. A "plain" reading of the NT isn't going to get you anywhere, and we see this in the 6 gorillion Protestant denominations, all infighting with each other about the "plain" reading of the NT. We have tradition, we have the Fathers, we have the faith of the holy Orthodox Church to guide us. A "plain" reading of any text is not necessarily the correct reading of the text. If there was only a plain reading of the Bible, many of the Christological prophecies and typologies in the Old Testament would lose their meaning.

>Only indirectly in her capacity of being the earthly mother of Christ! She did not play a significant role in God choosing to freely give himself in that perfect and sufficient work of the cross - in fact she played no role at all in that choice. Proper exegesis definitively yields the result that the ONLY mediator between the Father and mankind is Jesus Christ.

Protestantism has no proper exegesis though, as explained above. You have nothing at your disposal to elicit proper exegesis, the heretical doctrine of sola scriptura is the biggest misunderstanding of the holy texts and the Christian religion. Sola scriptura strips the Bible of its meaning, and it strips Christianity of its faith. It lies in opposition to everything the early Church believed in and taught. Mary gave birth to the Son of God, she accepted what Gabriel revealed to her. Protestantism, as I understand it, generally holds God to be a tyrannical dictator (as fully expressed by the Reformed sects), so its not hard to see why Protestants miss the mark on Mary's great role as the Theotokos, the God-Bearer, who brought our Savior into the world by her womb.

*Note: I apologize for grammar or spelling mistakes, as I am typing this on a phone at work.

>>8890

Sorry but I am not covering the assumption and dormition. An argument for an ante nicene date can be made but that is of secondary concern in comparison to areas like Mary's role in the salvation economy and her veneration. If both of these fail, then the question of dormition or sinfulness or perpetual virginity becomes irrelevant because it is just extra unnecessary baggage.

Now I wont say Protestants are just doing mere surface reading. It would be dishonest for me to claim this when my own understanding on Mary in the bible comes from many of them. They also have faith too. Faith in their own regula fidei which they take as what Scripture says.

In the linked thread, I have provided the documentation of Ephesus in detail and Irenaeus' Mary-Eve typology.

Next I show the 3rd century and after that the real meat of what I want to show, Scripture's view of Mary.

>>8885

>nor does a marriage entail consummation

What? Yes it does. Marriage biblically requires consummation.

Your narrative is conjecture, based on the presupposition that she was ever virgin.

“Most holy, most pure, most blessed and glorious Lady, Mother of God and Ever-Virgin Mary.” Panagia, Achrantos, Theotokos, Aeiparthenos—the titles abound, not only in the private prayers of Eastern Christians but in the public liturgies and offices. A prayer to the Theotokos in Small Compline begins with these words: “O spotless, undefiled, incorrupt, immaculate, pure Virgin, Lady Bride of Christ.” In the Divine Liturgy, after the solemn consecration of the Holy Gifts, we sing the Axion Estin.

It is truly meet and right to bless you, O Theotokos,

Ever-blessed and most-pure mother of our God.

More honourable than the Cherubim,

And beyond compare more glorious than the Seraphim,

Who without corruption gave birth to God the Word,

True Theotokos: we magnify you.

The Blessed Virgin Mary is first among the saints, the most holy and pure, beloved by God above all creatures.

>>8907

See the linked thread.

Those who espoused that Mary had children other than Jesus were condemned, and severed from being able to go to Church, unless they wanted to partake with the small sects which were all severed from the catholics (so, prots). It's also a denial of the Nicene Creed, and the prophecy from Ezekekiel 44:1-3 is on her perpetual virginity*

”It is a truth of the Catholic faith that Mary kept her state of virginity before, during, and after the birth of Christ. Whenever heretics have assailed this truth, the Church has championed it. In the second half of the fourth century, a certain Bishop named Bonoso was denounced to the bishops of Illyricum for having attributed other children besides Jesus to Mary. After they had deprived Bonoso of his episcopal functions, Pope St. Siricius (384-98), writing to Bishop Anysius, of Thessalonica, commended their action against the error:

“..We surely cannot deny that you were right in correcting the doctrine about children of Mary, and Pope Siricius your Holiness was right in rejecting the idea that any other offspring should come from the same virginal womb from which Christ was born according to the flesh. For the Lord Jesus would not have chosen to be born of a virgin if he had judged that she would be also so incontinent as to taint the birthplace of the body of the Lord, the home of the eternal king, with the seed of human intercourse. Anyone who proposes this is merely proposing the unbelief of the Jews saying that Christ could not be born of a virgin. For if they accept the doctrine on the authority of priests that Mary had a number of children, then they will strive with greater effort to destroy the truths of faith“‘ “.

(Letter to Anysuis Bishop of Thessalonica, 392 – The Church Teaches: Documents of the Church in English Translation)

*“Who is this gate (Ezekiel 44:1-4), if not Mary? Is it not closed because she is a virgin? Mary is the gate through which Christ entered this world, when He was brought forth in the virginal birth and the manner of His birth did not break the seals of virginity.” – Saint Ambrose of Milan (390AD)

*“It is written (Ezekiel 44, 2): ‘This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it. Because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it…’ What means this closed gate in the house of the Lord, except that Mary is to be ever inviolate? What does it mean that ‘no man shall pass through it,’ save that Joseph shall not know her? And what is this – ‘The Lord alone enters in and goeth out by it,’ except that the Holy Ghost shall impregnate her, and that the Lord of Angels shall be born of her? And what means this – ‘It shall be shut for evermore,’ but that Mary is a Virgin before His birth, a Virgin in His birth, and a Virgin after His birth.” – Saint Augustine (430AD)

>>8828

No, Theotokos always had a connotation of veneration in the Early Church. Even now, we still genuflect at the mystery of the Incarnation, because it's that profound. Do you not realize how grand it is to have God in your womb for nine months? And if the very ground God stood on before Moses became holy, how holy must that make Mary?

Beneath your compassion,

We take refuge, O Mother of God:

do not despise our petitions in time of trouble:

but rescue us from dangers,

only pure, only blessed one.

(250AD–not only does this show the immaculate view of the Blessed Virgin, they're also praying to her)

O purest one

O purest virgin

where the Holy Spirit is, there are all things readily ordered.

Where divine grace is present

the soil that, all untilled, bears bounteous fruit

in the life of the flesh, was in possession of the incorruptible citizenship,

and walked as such in all manner of virtues, and lived a life more excellent than man's common standard

thou hast put on the vesture of purity

has selected thee as the holy one and the wholly fair;

and through thy holy, and chaste, and pure, and undefiled womb

since of all the race of man thou art by birth the holy one, and the more honourable, and the purer, and the more pious than any other: and thou hast a mind whiter than the snow, and a body made purer than any gold

(Gregory Thaumaturgus, early 3rd century)

>Romans 3:23

Jesus sinned? He is true man and true God. And what of when the Virgin Mary says ALL generations will call her blessed?

1 Corinthians 15:22

Romans 1:29

Romans 15:14

Matthew 2:3

These use "all" in a manner that does not make sense if you take it literally.

>Was Mary's body taken into heaven

Psalm 132:8

Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant.

>until Christ was born

Do you even believe the Nicene creed?

2 Samuel 6:23: “And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to [unti] the day of her death.” Does this mean she had children after she died?

1 Timothy 4:13: “Until I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching.” Does this mean Timothy should stop teaching after Saint Paul comes?

1 Corinthians 15:25: “For he [Christ] must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.” Does this mean Christ’s reign will end? Luke 1:33 says, “[H]e will reign over the house of Jacob forever and of his kingdom there shall be no end.”

>This is a teaching on Christian virtue.

No, the teaching that if you're a disciple of Jesus, you have Mary as your mother. You believe she had earthly children, maybe they should have taken care of her… no?

>which is the unavoidable teaching of 2 Tim 3:17.

You reject the Hippo canon, before that there wasn't even a "Bible"… and many Church Fathers thought books like the Shepherd of Hermas were Scripture.

>>8885

I'm not a fan of the Old Joseph theory (Saint Jerome, Saint Athanasius, and Saint Gregory Nazianzus all teach that he was a perpetual virgin) and it's likely that Mary was a consecrated Temple virgin.

>>8911

Again see the posts I made in the linked thread.

There is good reason to believe that the Council fathers of Constantinople III (AD 681) and Nicaea II (AD 787), which were predominantly Eastern in attendance, taught the immaculate & sinless existence of the Virgin Mary. And not just her present existence in the blessedness of heaven, but of her earthly life. Let’s take a look at some of the evidence that the Council text provides for us.

“Moreover we confess that one of the same holy consubstantial Trinity, God the Word, who was begotten of the Father before the worlds, in the last days of the world for us and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Ghost, and of our Lady, the holy, immaculate, ever-virgin and glorious Mary, truly and properly the Mother of God, that is to say according to the flesh which was born of her; and was truly made man, the same being very God and very man. God of God his Father, but man of his Virgin Mother, incarnate of her flesh with a reasonable and intelligent soul” (Letter of Pope St. Agatho to Constantinople)

That Agatho’s letter was well-received by the Council as an authentic expression of orthodoxy is proven by the Conciliar statements in the Prosphoneticus to the Emperor:

“…The ancient city of Rome handed you a confession of divine character, and a chart from the sunsetting raised up the day of dogmas, and made the darkness manifest, and Peter spoke through Agatho, and you, O autocratic King, according to the divine decree, with the Omnipotent Sharer of your throne, judged.”

In this same address to the Emperor, the Council writes concerning Christ:

“For as the Word, he is consubstantial and eternal with God his father; but as taking flesh of the immaculate Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, he is perfect man, consubstantial with us and made in time. We declare therefore that he is perfect in Godhead and that the same is perfect likewise in manhood, according to the pristine tradition of the fathers and the divine definition of Chalcedon.”

Now, this may entail some flowery language, not intended to really describe Mary as literally sinlessly perfect. This fails to convince given that Pope St. Agatho’s letter uses the very same word to describe the disposition of Jesus Christ:

“From all which it is evident that he [Christ] had a human will by which he obeyed his Father, and that he had in himself this same human will immaculate from all sin, as true God and man.”

And, in the 18th session of the Council Acts, we read:

“For as his flesh is called and is the flesh of God the Word, so also the natural will of his flesh is called and is the proper will of God the Word, as he himself says: I came down from heaven, not that I might do my own will but the will of the Father which sent me! where he calls his own will the will of his flesh, inasmuch as his flesh was also his own. For as his most holy and immaculate animated flesh was not destroyed because it was deified but continued in its own state and nature (ὄρῳ τε καὶ λόγῳ), so also his human will, although deified, was not suppressed, but was rather preserved according to the saying of Gregory Theologus: His will [i.e., the Saviour’s] is not contrary to God but altogether deified.”

>>8913

Why would these 7th century church fathers, in the presence of an Eastern Council majority, be describing the earthly Virgin Mary as “immaculate”, the very same word describing the Lord Jesus Christ? Now, you may think that it was really just Pope Agatho’s letter which stated that Mary was immaculate, and so part of the Western tradition. But the Council had praised the letter of Agatho. And if that didn’t work, a"t the Council of Nicaea II (787 AD), the very Decree of the Council towards the very end, just after the recitation of the holy Nicaene-Constantinopolitan creed, we read:

“With the Fathers of this synod we confess that he who was incarnate of the immaculate Mother of God and Ever-Virgin Mary has two natures, recognizing him as perfect God and perfect man”

Add to this the following statement from the Council’s letter to the Emperor and Empress:

And as the hands and feet are moved in accordance with the directions of the mind, so likewise, we, having received the grace and strength of the Spirit, and having also the assistance and co-operation of your royal authority, have with one voice declared as piety and proclaimed as truth: that the sacred icons of our Lord Jesus Christ are to be had and retained, inasmuch as he was very man; also those which set forth what is historically narrated in the Gospels; and those which represent our undefiled Lady, the holy Mother of God [obviously a description of the earthly Mary]……The things which we have decreed, being thus well supported, it is confessedly and beyond all question acceptable and well-pleasing before God, that the images of our Lord Jesus Christ as man, and those of the undefiled Mother of God, the ever-virgin Mary, and of the honourable Angels and of all Saints, should be venerated and saluted”

But does this provide support for the doctrine of Mary’s Immaculate Conception? Now, I anticipate that the modern day Eastern churches would pitch in that Mary was immaculately conceived just like any other human being, though inflicted with the ancestral curse of death. This is because the East doesn’t always acknowledge the reality of an “original sin” as the Latin dogma has been taught at the Council of Trent. But there is reason for a great misunderstanding between the two traditions here. But I am not here going to explain whether or not the Latin doctrine truly falls prey to the Orthodox objection to an “original guilt” of some sort. What I’d like to address is that these references to Mary as undefiled and immaculate actually do imply something which pertains to a unique conception from her mother. The East would read these as referring to an earthly sinlessness, and not anything with regard to her conception in the womb of St. Anne. Well, I provide some quotations below from some Eastern saints who seem to think that the immaculate-ness of the Virgin’s initial existence was profoundly unique in comparison to the rest of everyone else. It leads the reader asking why they would make a distinctive character for Mary when all are born the same immaculate way [i.e. without the Latin doctrine of original sin].

“O blessed loins of Joachim, whence the all-pure seed was poured out! O glorious womb of Anna, in which the most holy fetus grew and was formed, silently increasing! O womb in which was conceived the living heaven, wider than the wideness of the heavens” (St. John of Damascus, Homily on the Nativity 2: Patrologia Graeca 96, 664 A)

If each human being is born in the same sinless manner, what purpose would St. John to describe her as the “all pure seed”? Seems like it would be an ordinary description of even St. John’s conception himself, had he believed that everyone was born immaculate.

>>8914

“Today that [human] nature, which was first brought forth from the earth, receives divinity for the first time; the dust, having been raised up, hastens with festive tread toward the highest peak of glory. Today, from us [Anne’s humanity] and for us [humanity], Adam offers Mary to God as first-fruits, and, with the unpoisoned parts of the muddy dough, is formed a bread for the rebuilding of the human …Today, pure human nature receives from God the gift of the original creation and reverts to its original purity. By giving our inherited splendor, which had been hidden by the deformity of vice, to the Mother of Him who is beautiful, human nature receives a magnificent and most divine renovation, which becomes a complete restoration. The restoration, in turn, becomes deification, and this becomes a new formation, like its pristine state“

(St. Andrew of Crete, Homily 1 on the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary in PG 97:809D-812)

In the above citation, St. Andrew is speaking in a homily of the Nativity, so one might try and point out that it is possible these divine interventions were pertaining to the moment of exit from the womb of St. Anne, and not pertaining to the fetal development from conception to delivery. Well, the next citation from St. Andrew would seem to make this observation completely invalid:

“Death, natural to men, also reached her; not, however, to imprison her, as happens to us, or to vanquish her. God forbid! It was only to secure for her the experience of that sleep which comes from on high, leading us up to the object of our hope…No man lives, says Scripture, who will not see death. But even though the human create we celebrate today [Mary] must obey the law of nature, as we do, she is superior to the other humans. Therefore, death does not come to her in the same way that it comes to us. Instead, it comes in a superior way, and for a reason higher than the reason that obliges us to surrender totally to death” (Homily 1 on the Dormition, PG 97, 1052 C-1053 A)

Now, St. Andrew makes clear that Mary’s bodily death was unique to all other human persons. Might this include sinless infants? The saying “Death, natural to men, also reached her…not, however…..as happens to us”. Does the “us” there include infants? If so, then St. Andrew would be distinguishing Mary’s death from even sinless infants, thereby making her whole existence unique even from conception.

Even for the most ardent skeptic, even if these statements do not fully express a detailed formula stating the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary, they definitely go a long way in revealing what the undivided Church believed in the 7th & 8th century, and, in particular, what the Eastern fathers believed.

>>8913

>>8914

>>8915

I beg you to stop this. A more detailed look in Scripture and the Fathers to reply to that anon has been posted. And it is not finished.

>>8870

>Yes, proper exegetical reading, particularly in the original languages, is obviously the best and most straightforward way to respond.

It's also the specific way taught in God's word to respond.

>However Catholics believe in other sources of authority such as 'tradition' (which Prots also use but not in the same way) and have a 'magisterium', and enjoy continually pointing to these things for support.

It's just one less thing I have to respond to as there is no authority there.

There is only authority in one, God's word. With it, you are able to reach truth thanks to God's help.. Without it, you're just going in circles privately interpreting some fallible claims.

>>8900

>Marriage biblically requires consummation.

source?

>>8966

Genesis 2:24 NASB — For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.

>>8981

>>8877

(2/?)

>So saying she merely plays an indirect role is false. If any her role has prophetic significance evidenced by how her statements tend to parallel various OT figures which highlights her special role in salvation history.

>Show that Mary's role in the salvation economy is such that no one says she merely "indirectly" causes salvation. She does so directly under divine guidance and providence which is Luke's point.

No, its not false, please refer to what I said earlier in the post. Mary had absolutely no causal efficacy or influence in God choosing to freely give himself for his people - the perfect and complete work that Jesus accomplished on the cross is wholly his, and was eternally determined. Mary did NOT share in it. To suggest Mary had direct causal efficacy in the salvational work of Christ is to utterly rob Him and diminishes His work, so I have to disavow strongly. She bore Him, she raised Him, but she did not play a direct role in causing salvation. In regards to the typological stuff, that is a whole other dispute, which I will address below.

>Justin Martyr and Irenaeus didnt use the Mary-Eve typology for nothing. It is done because it is recognized that Mary occupies a special place in God's plan of redemption.

Justin Matyr and Irenaeus are not infallible, and the idea that this type of typological analysis of Mary as the new 'Eve', or new 'Ark' was the accepted and dominant exegetical interpretive conclusion of scripture in the early Church is simply false. I can list sources in the patristic period that did not see Mary in Revelations 11 and 12, or see her in Genesis 3:15. But lets look at how the Mary-Eve typology makes no sense anyway. So Paul calls Christ a type of Adam, but no NT type for Eve is explicitly mentioned. Does Mary or the Church fit better as a type for Eve though? Lets find out:

>Eve was the bride of Adam. Mary is not the bride of Christ, the Church is.

>Eve is our physical mother. Mary is not our spiritual mother, the Church is.

>Adam brought forth Eve. Jesus brought forth the Church.

I think it is difficult to say Mary is better than the Church as a typological fit for being the "new Eve". The problem with typology is that if you have no standards for

>Letter 59 also refers to the commemoration of Mary. If that anon's assessment on the early Christian use of Theotokos is correct why did Athanasius essentially refers to the comemmoration of Mary when speaking of Christ, a practice which is essentially about venerating Mary?

Can you show me that Athanasius when he talked about the commemoration of Mary in fact meant the same thing as veneration insofar as you understand it?

>>8981

1)Not disputing whether Marian veneration played a role in Christology

Then stop misleading people in that thread you linked where you said:

>The title 'Mother of God' or 'Theotokos' in the original greek meaning 'God-bearer' was first used by Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria in the 4th century AD, and was meant to say something about Jesus, not Mary, and was used in a christological sense to defend the truth of His absolute deity

https://8ch.net/christian/res/821112.html#821257

Making a statement like that easily creates an impression that in your view, you don't think the issue over Theotokos or it's usage does not have any relation to Marian veneration. Even if it is just a reference to Alexander who first used the term. As I have posted evidence against this and you have clarified, I leave those posts as a testimonium to how later patristics used Marian veneration in defending Christology. My posts and reference to that is to prevent any James White tier understandings of the controversy. If that is not your point then good. At least we can leave the later period alone as my point is simply to show that in the Christological controversies from Athanasius(who got it from Alexander) onwards, veneration of Mary do play a role.

2)Use of Theotokos before Alexander

Simple. Luke does it for us already which I have extensively covered in the linked thread. Even the 3rd century papyri with the prayer to Mary uses the term. And to note this reply, everyone who uses the title or label of Theotokos knows Mary's motherhood of Jesus doesn't entail that Mary birthed the godhead(a concern of Nestorius as Cyril mentions in Against Nestorius). Saying that this entails that there can be no honour or exhalation of Mary due to this. Just as the Ark is simply just a mere box, yet due to the divine presence, that object itself is given honour and dignity. Narrativewise given the descriptors of Mary receiving God's presence as the Tabernacle and from verse 42 and 43, a clear indication due to the intertextual link to 2 Samuel 6:9 and in verse 42, the use of ἀνεφώνησεν which is essentially used in the Greek OT in cultic contexts and mostly in relation to the Ark of the Covenant, it's hard to escape the fact that the author intends some exhalation of Mary. The song of the Magnificat and links to prominent OT women only further adds to this.

The Early Fathers like Irenaeus and Justin are aware of this, which is why there's the New Eve typology with Irenaeus even going so far as to cast Mary as co-recapitulator, a casting you consider false. That the early Church during this time considers Mary as someone exhalted and honored, is proven by the existence of the Protoevangelium which is not a heterodox document but has affinities with orthodox Syriac documents such as the Syrian Didascallia on ascetism and marriage.

Now does this prove the NT necessitates having to pray or venerate Mary? Of course not but it certainly shows that in the early church, Mary is someone revered and seen in a manner much more than you do. The NT also does this as I had shown with Luke's example in the linked thread.

>>8981

3)Mary in the Bible in general

That Mary's mention in the NT is sparse doesnt entail that she isnt considered with some honour or reverence, as Luke shows in his birth narrative. I will even allow the fact that some of these mentions indicate that Mary is not perfect and have flaws as a normal human would(i.e Mark). However the significance of Mary comes from how some of these mentions are used and their location. In Luke the narrative of Jesus' birth essentially has an anticipatory function where Mary is portrayed as the nexus of the coming of the New Covenant as she is essentially a vessel bearing the Lord of Israel inside her. The first mention of Jesus as Yahweh or Lord, happens in the 1st chapter. The Magnificat essentially sums up what this Lord will do for Israel which is a summary of the Gospel and the Most High overshadowing her? That also anticipates Acts where the Holy Spirit will "overshadow" the disciples and Pentecost. Such things are significant narrativewise in the story of God's plan of establishing his new covenant and kingdom.

Judaism even at the time of the NT honours the OT figures and they play a crucial role in the religious identity of the Jews even when Yahweh alone is worshipped. The reason for this is simple, those figures play a key role in the narrative story of Israel and aren't just some passive thing moved. They are active characters which God uses and for that they are deemed as significant to Israel's identity. Mary's position in the NT follows this as I had shown with Luke. Sure the details are sparse but the way some of these are used, is narratively significant.

Let's take the marriage at Cana in John as another example. Now I wont be saying this proves Mary intercedes for us but that event is narratively in John's gospel significant. It's the first instance of Jesus performing a miracle after his baptism by John in the 1st chapter. It also anticipates later section of the Gospel from Christ's Atonement(i.e John 2:4=My hour hasnt come) and images the eschatological banquet that the OT refers to through the wine and wedding. Like it or not, instrumental to Jesus performing the miracle there is the faith of Mary which is shown by her expectation that Jesus will do as she ask and reliance on him to solve the issue of a lack of wine. This tendency has instances in the OT such as with Jacob in Genesis 32:26-30, Moses in Exodus 33:12–34:9; the Shunammite woman in 2 Kgs 4:14–28; Elisha in 2 Kgs 2:2, 4, 6, 9 and Elijah in 1 Kgs 18:36–37, 41–46. So even though Mary's character isn't "fleshed out" in detail, from such basic pattern after these OT examples, we can see more depth even if the descriptors are limited and this adds to more significance to Mary's role.

The reply of Jesus here has been interpreted in a variety of manners even amongst those who venerate Mary. Augustine considers the remark to be Jesus signalling to Mary that much more important than biological ties is true discipleship hence the distance. In Chrysostom who venerates Mary in his own liturgy(there is evidence of his direct involvement in it through the use of some key epithets for God which only Chrysostom himself uses), this is Jesus' way of making Mary humble by dispelling any thought of her boasting in this. However Jesus' negative response could be a way to emphasise the greater importance of his mission or to Mary's ignorance as it is a common Johanine motif. What is also clear is Mary heralds Jesus' public ministry and does so instrumentally with a hint for the reader of the work of the Isaiahnic servant.

Now again, this doesnt entail Mary is sinless or that she is now a figure venerated. Rather it shows that her role is much more than you make her up to be.

>>8982

1)Mary had absolutely no causal efficacy to influence God

Except no one considers Mary's role as that. Even Irenaeus' co-recapitulator role of Mary subordinates it to Divine action. However to then infer from this that Mary merely "indirectly" cause salvation is false even by Biblical standards given her location in the narrative of John as shown prior and Luke. In the Second Temple background to the NT, although Yahweh's actions is primary and the sovereign, that doesnt take away from the fact that the OT prophets and figures like Moses and Abraham have a role in the narrative story of Israel and Mary's role and her "causing" Salvation(to use Irenaeus' own language) follows this logic.

To deny this narrative logic is to essentially deny the genuineness of the actions of the Biblical figures and to stress a sort of occassionalism whenever God is acting through his prophets or human figures. The New Testament denies this view because eventhough God's acts enables human action, it doesnt destroy the reality of the human act itself. Paul still worked and watered but God gives the growth. Paul nevertheless watered and worked despite the fruits of growth being caused by God and can only be so due to him.

2)Mary is not the New Ark, Irenaeus and Justin are wrong

They arent because their typology is coherent with Luke's own portrayal of Mary as a Type of Ark. The specific verses he uses indicate this motif yet they are also clear as in what way the type works, the function of the Ark and Tabernacle in the OT which matches what Luke has used. Just because no records of the Early Church listed it down, does it entail this is false. Also the New Eve typology is a dominant early patristics strand like it or not. Just because some see the woman in Revelations as the Church does it entail that she cannot be seen as also Mary or Israel. This is evident when we see Luke's own description of the Spirit overshadowing Mary. It isnt merely just a catchword to a particular but a general concept that like the manifestations of the presence of God in the OT like in the Tabernacle or Mt Zion, now Mary is this location of such level of manifestation. With the anticipatory link to Acts, that also means that Mary is a "type" of the disciples as what happens to her, will also be imaged in the coming down of the Spirit to the church in Pentecost.

Such symbolism doesnt operate by the rigidity you seem to imply by your argument but by fluidity which is a common way to see symbols in the OT

3)Athanasius' Commemoration of Mary

I already shown it>>8878

>>8982

See >>8878

>>8998

I thought I add a bit more to the issue of Mary as New Eve rather than point out the error of your approach to Typology and how to interpret Biblical symbolism. Mary's role as New Eve is due to the proximity she has with the New Adam by bearing him and giving him the human nature required for the New Adam to be truly a New Adam and human. No other character can say their flesh is what gives Christ his humanity. Only Mary. This relation is why Mary instead of the Church is the New Eve. Because no other human has the same biological closeness to Christ as Mary. Adam and Eve clearly have a very close biological affinity, shown by the fact that she is made from Adam's ribs. Although Mary is not paired to Christ ala Adam and Eve, the two have the closest if not the same level of biological closeness that makes Mary a better fit.

Secondly, the act of Eve signals and heralds the coming of death and sin into the world by being tempted by the Serpent. In Luke, Mary heralds the solution to that problem and obeyed the Divine commands. The other Gospels also shows this, though in Mark and Matthew by focus on birth of the Messiah rather than a prophetic summation of what the Messiah would do and the future gifts to the Church or heralding Christ's earthly ministry.

So the woman in Revelations can be the Church. She can be Israel. But she also can be Mary as Mary herself in Luke, is potrayed as in a sense 'representing' Israel.

>>8990

Actually none of the Fathers agree with you on Scriptural sufficiency and primacy because when they give Scripture the highest authority, that doesn't mean Sola Scriptura. In fact even if they say Scripture is sufficient, it doesnt make them Sola Scriptura, otherwise Aquinas who actually believes Scripture is sufficient, would be a sola scripturist as well because it is known that the highest authority in Aquinas' writings are Scriptures then the Fathers then reason. That isnt Sola Scriptura. In fact the notion that Scriptures Alone are the infallible authority isnt even Sola Scriptura at all. But to make it easier, why these people differ from Sola Scriptura is due to,

1)Differing exegetical techniques

2)Lack of the requirement of doctrinal unity-Prots don't even agree on Sola Fide

3)Creeds and rules of faith as not being sufficient(Cyril of Jerusalem who said all Tradition must abide by Scripture says this)-Those are clearly insufficient. Only Scripture

4)Lack of the requirement of antiquity and continuity-Evident when one actually reads the Fathers as they are

5)Past customs and theological concepts that are handed down as essentially a matter of picking and choosing-Evident in Calvin where Augustine is the hero who preaches predestination on one hand but is ignored when he uses "synergistic" language, rejection of ancient liturgical custom by some Prots

Let's face it, even i am more Sola Scriptura than you because I ultimately take Scripture at its word seriously and what I provided here and in the linked thread may hopefully show this whereas you haven't besides your own explanation on what "Graced" is in Luke, doesnt really go beyond any engagement with the text.

>>9003

>>9001

Make a thread about sola scriptura if you want to argue about it, this thread is about Mary. I only made a brief comment about it to summarily clarify what it was.

>Actually none of the Fathers agree with you on Scriptural sufficiency and primacy because when they give Scripture the highest authority, that doesn't mean Sola Scriptura.

Did you even read my comment on what the positive and negative claims of Sola Scriptura are though? When did I ever say that not only Sola Sciptura was a formal doctrine before the reformation, but was believed as such by the early Fathers? You would be hard pressed to find an early patristic source who denied the Primacy and Innerancy of scripture (as defined by my previous post >>8990). There are also many who positively affirmed either/or both the Sufficiency of scripture and Perspicuity of scripture (as defined in the referenced post).

>That isnt Sola Scriptura. In fact the notion that Scriptures Alone are the infallible authority isnt even Sola Scriptura at all.

You seem to want to just make up definitions of what this doctrine is. You do not get to define what sola scriptura means.

>1)Differing exegetical techniques

Lol, of course there are going to be differing exegetical techniques. Scholars and theologians in different epochs and ages have access to different information, manuscripts, languages, sources, translations etc. Plenty of figures in Church history - Aquinas being one of them made arguments about doctrine using what we now know to be erroneous and fraudulent documents as support.

>2)Lack of the requirement of doctrinal unity-Prots don't even agree on Sola Fide

Difference =/= opposition.

>3)Creeds and rules of faith as not being sufficient(Cyril of Jerusalem who said all Tradition must abide by Scripture says this)-Those are clearly insufficient. Only Scripture

Right. I dont know what your point is here.

>4)Lack of the requirement of antiquity and continuity-Evident when one actually reads the Fathers as they are

What is the requirement of antiquity and continuity? Not quite sure what you mean here.

>5)Past customs and theological concepts that are handed down as essentially a matter of picking and choosing-Evident in Calvin where Augustine is the hero who preaches predestination on one hand but is ignored when he uses "synergistic" language, rejection of ancient liturgical custom by some Prots

Right, we believe that these people were not infallible and had some ideas that were in harmony with scripture, and some that weren't or are surplus to the gospel. We are not arbitrarily picking and choosing concepts which fit into some preconceived doctrine. Theologians need to hold all of their peers to this standard.

>Let's face it, even i am more Sola Scriptura than you because I ultimately take Scripture at its word seriously and what I provided here and in the linked thread may hopefully show this whereas you haven't besides your own explanation on what "Graced" is in Luke, doesnt really go beyond any engagement with the text.

I have no idea what you are talking about when you say you take 'scripture at its word seriously', and I dont care how much more 'Sola Scriptura' you proclaim to be compared to Protestants. My explanation of the Greek in Luke 1:28 isnt simply my own, but shared by many scholars of Koine.

Just so you know, im done with these threads and wont be replying for a long time if at all. I have wasted way too much time arguing about this and have better things to do (the same probably applies to you). If you think Protestants are in danger of being, or are excluded from the body of Christ because they dont believe certain things about His earthly mother, thats your prerogative.

>>9003

Here I will address the most substantive argument which is the response to my argument for why Mary rather than the Church should be the New Eve.

1)Biological closeness is not convincing because of the thematic arc of the Bible

This does not prove your point as eventhough the Fall is a key part of the Bible's thematic arc, it fails to realise a key aspect of this theme, the physicality where everyone is related to Adam and Eve. Since everyone is related to Adam and Eve, for Christ to be one of us, He must have what is from the physical lineage of Adam and Eve and this is done through Mary who is essentially the guarantor of Christ's humanity. Christ's humanity is fundamental to His Atonement as Hebrews shows and because no one else possesses this proximity but Mary which verges on the same proximity as Adam and Eve's, that entails that Eve's counterpart in the NT is none other than Mary, as no one else has this proximity at all.

Your argument also fail to consider the necessity of Christ's humanity in the entire Biblical logic of Scripture. Why? Because in order for us to be renewed in Christ, Christ must put on our flesh. Again Hebrews is the most plain Biblical form of this. This act is the starting NT point of Christ's arrival to us and signals the first movement to Salvation just as Adam and Eve's transgression are the first movements to sin and death in Genesis. That must happen first before we are ingrafted into Christ by Baptism. And again, only Mary's actions in light of this narrative framework comes close to Eve as her act of faith is part of the starting point for Christ's arrival and action to save us.

This makes more sense not downplaying the necessity for Christ's humanity and physicality contra what we know of Genesis and our lineage to Adam and Eve.

>>8967

Nah, that doesn't imply that every marriage must be consummated.

>>9004

1)I did not say Sola Scriptura was a formal doctrine before the Reformation, only Primacy, Sufficiency and Inerrancy

If so, then take what I provided as a statement to make clear those beliefs doesnt entail Sola Scriptura.They certainly dont hold to the perspicuity of Scripture as you do because their perspicuity is one where Scripture is read with the correct lens and principles aka as Florovsky notes, Tradition. Only with that framework is Scripture clear.

2)Making up definitions, I have no right to say what Sola Scriptura is

My point is simple. Maybe I phrased it wrongly so I will phrase it more properly this time. What I want to convey is that even the belief that Scripture Alone is the sole infallible authority, doesnt necessitate one to take the position of Sola Scriptura as defined and practised by Protestants. Although let's be honest, Sola Scriptura in practice is really just the same way as Scripture and Tradition or Tradition guiding Scripture. Just the Tradition and regula of whatever denomination of Protestantism one holds to

3)Difference isnt opposition

Not in the mind of the Early Church,at least on where it matters and well we all know what happened with Puritans and when Reformed electors in Germany took over Lutheran territories.

And is it opposition? Yes! Because clearly not every Prot thinks Baptismal regeneration is true, Some even consider it "works"! Not all say Salvation cannot be lost. Not all are predestinarian…etc

6)Tradition must be in harmony with Scriptures

True, but as we all know in practice, it is cherry picking as Calvin examplifies. The problem is, the mind of the Fathers and the basic rules must be followed to critically assess the Fathers or Traditional customs.

>>9006

You're seriously arguing here?

Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

– 1 Corinthians 7:5

<Defraud ye not one the other,

So in other words to commit to marriage and then to defraud your spouse by not doing what they expected except by consent for a time is considered fraud toward them.

Does it happen? Yes, but it's fraud in those cases. A sin which should be forgiven, but a sin nonetheless.

>>9007

>What I want to convey is that even the belief that Scripture Alone is the sole infallible authority, doesnt necessitate one to take the position of Sola Scriptura as defined and practised by Protestants. Although let's be honest, Sola Scriptura in practice is really just the same way as Scripture and Tradition or Tradition guiding Scripture. Just the Tradition and regula of whatever denomination of Protestantism one holds to

I'm not even that guy (and I know that guy probably isn't coming back) but I agree with this as far as protestants are concerned. You can expand the statement to include any state-church that practices paedobaptism. And thereby adds new traditions to doctrine, thus overwriting/overriding it.

I don't believe in some latin phrase as you've chosen to define it. Just in the actual fact that the word of God is definitionally infallible. That's where you're confused if you think otherwise.

>their perspicuity is one where Scripture is read with the correct lens and principles

The correct lens is by being saved and having the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. So yes, there is required no less than the assistance of God to gain any understanding. No man can possibly replace God in this respect either, either you have Him and access to his teaching and help (Ephesians 2:18), or you don't. 1 Corinthians 2:13-14.

>Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

>But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

So get saved.

>Because clearly not every Prot thinks Baptismal regeneration is true, Some even consider it "works"! Not all say Salvation cannot be lost. Not all are predestinarian…etc

Same goes for all state churches. They can't agree despite what they always claim to be. This already demonstrates how the concept of state church fails reality. That's why there's ten thousand offshoots of the state church. But local New Testament churches, those do agree within themselves. They are Biblical. They adhere to the word of God without adding to it but neither removing from it and this then leads to unity in the church.

>>9006

Yes it doesn't imply it, it's an explicit statement

"They shall become one flesh"

That's a euphemism for sex

>>8827

The answer to all questions is yes.

Bumping a good thread

Mary is Wisdom and necessary for salvation.

>>11494

>Mary is wisdom

Are you some kind of gnostic?

The only sense in which Mary is necessary for salvation is that she gave birth to Jesus. There is no way that you have to believe some certain thing regarding Mary, a human, to be saved.

Who says that Mary is not the Mother of God, is a Nestorian or an Arian, no matter the mental acrobatic. He denies the divinity of Christ which is Arianism, or sets up an internal division within Christ into two persons which is Nestorianism.

The Catholic Church's mariology is inerrent.

>>11524

You are completely missing the possibility that one who says "Mary is not the mother of God" is mistaken in understanding that God here refers to the father, who Mary is not the mother of.

Besides this, the debate around the theotokos controversy is not only "is Mary the mother of God or is she not?", there's also the nuanced "what is the best of all correct terminology?"

The Roman Catholic church's doctrine around Mary is only as true as far as it can be argued from the Bible, which is almost everything. The major point that the RCC way oversteps is declaring the immaculate conception and the ascension of Mary, which should instead be viewed as plusible but not doctrine.

>>11531

>>Gods graces dispensed through mary

>Then what was the purpose in his son? A odd joke?

27As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said, “Blessed is the womb that bore You, and blessed are the breasts that nursed You.”

28But He replied, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.”

>>11524

Christ is both True God and True man in one person. It's in the nicene creed.

>Is Mary the Theotokos (Mother of God)?

Saying it this way is intentionally imprecise in order to create confusion. She's the mother of Christ, and Christ is God, but by giving her the title "Mother of God" the Catholic Church hopes to lead people astray into superstition and idolatry.

>Was Mary immaculately conceived? Is she sinless?

No. Saying that she was denies the need for Christ.

>Is Mary the Queen of Heaven?

No. The only place that title appears in the Bible is referring to a pagan goddess that the Israelites turned from God to worship. Catholic laity may not know that, but the priesthood absolutely does and that is absolutely intentional.

>Is Mary the greatest creature of God?

No. Mary was born of a woman, so John the Baptist is greater than her at a bare minimum.

>Is Mary a perpetual virgin?

No, she married and obeyed God's purpose for marriage as she obeyed His will that she should carry His Son.

>Did Mary not feel pain at the birth of Jesus Christ?

She did.

>Is Mary the mother of Christians?

No.

>Is Mary the Mediatrix? Is she the Co-Redemptirx?

No.

>Who is Mary?

A great woman whose faith and obedience to God are a model for us all, but a woman and a sinner in need of a savior nonetheless.

>>8832

>God freely bestowed on her a special grace which did indeed keep her from sin her entire life

Why didn't God just do this for Eve and prevent the whole mess?

Things that we can rationally and scriptural-ly presume about Mary:

Mary was a virgin at the conception and birth of Christ

<"Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." Isaiah 7:14

<"But the angel said to her, 'Do not be afraid, Mary; you have found favor with God. You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.' 'How will this be,' Mary asked the angel, 'since I am a virgin?'" Luke 1:30-34

<"Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit." Matthew 1:18

<"But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit." Matthew 1:20

Mary was blessed and full of grace

I know that Prots freak out about the "full of grace" translation, but there is more than significant evidence to suggest this is the right translation. The word kecharitōmenē appears only in this context and Ephesians 1:6, and in the latter, it is often accepted to be translated as grace, not favor. Regardless, isn't grace the favor of God, a sanctifying gift freely given, anyway?

<"And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women." Luke 1:28

<"And she cried out with a loud voice, and said: Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb." Luke 1:42

<"Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid; for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed." Luke 1:48

<"And it came to pass, as he spoke these things, a certain woman from the crowd, lifting up her voice, said to him: Blessed is the womb that bore thee, and the paps that gave thee suck." Luke 11:27

Mary was the mother of God

Jesus was God incarnate, was born in flesh of a woman, and that woman, His mother, was Mary.

<"Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost." Matthew 1:18

<"And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God." Luke 1:35

<"And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth." John 1:14

<"For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily…" Colossians 2:9

<"This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God…" 1 John 4:2

<"Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory." 1 Timothy 3:16

1/4

Mary was sinless in deed

Sin is sin and relativism does not excuse it. Because Jesus was sinless, Mary was necessarily sinless in deed, for it is a sin to disobey one's parents and Jesus was fully man with a real human parent. If Mary had, through her parental authority, commanded Jesus to sin, Jesus would be forced into sin by either obedience or disobedience. It was right for God to give Jesus a sinless mother who would never, through her free will, burden the Messiah with the possibility of sin.

<"'Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.'"Exodus 20:12

<"For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’" Matthew 15:4

<"Hear, my son, your father's instruction, and forsake not your mother's teaching…" Proverbs 1:8

<"The eye that mocks a father and scorns to obey a mother will be picked out by the ravens of the valley and eaten by the vultures." Proverbs 30:17

<"Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord." Colossians 3:20

<"Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right." Ephesians 6:1

Mary played an important role in the Church of Christ

In addition to Mary being chosen by the Father, overshadowed by the Spirit, and having given birth to the Son of God, Mary is present throughout Jesus' life and ministry. She raised the infant Christ and took Him to the temple in Jerusalem. She had Him presented ceremoniously. She was present among His friends and instructed Jesus to perform His first public miracle. She was with Him as He taught the crowds. She was present at the carrying of the cross and Jesus' crucifixion. She lived with the Apostle John in his household. She was with the Apostles, praying with them at Pentecost.

<"When the time came for the purification rites required by the Law of Moses, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord…" Luke 2:22

<"Every year Jesus’ parents went to Jerusalem for the Festival of the Passover. When he was twelve years old, they went up to the festival, according to the custom." Luke 2:41-42

<"On the third day a wedding took place at Cana in Galilee. Jesus’ mother was there, and Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding. When the wine was gone, Jesus’ mother said to him, 'They have no more wine.' Jesus replied: 'Woman, why do you involve me? My hour has not yet come.' His mother said to the servants, 'Do whatever he tells you' …" John 2:1-2

<"After this he went down to Capernaum with his mother and brothers and his disciples. There they stayed for a few days." John 2:12

<"Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene." John 19:25

<"'Behold, your mother!' And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home…” John 19:27

<"They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers." Acts 1:14

2/?

Mary is the Queen of Heaven

Jesus is the Prince of Peace and King of Kings. Jesus' kingdom is in Heaven. Jesus' is therefore the Prince of Heaven. The mother of a prince or a king is a queen. Mary is the mother of Jesus. Therefore, Mary is the Queen of Heaven. Furthermore, Christ is the Davidic King and rules over the Davidic Kingdom. Biblically, the mother of the king – called the Queen – had a place of distinction, even a thrown, in the royal court. In the Old Testament, the queens of the Judean kings were their mothers — with one exception of the queen being a grandmother. Christ sits at the right hand of God and Mary sits at the right hand of Christ, just as Solomon's mother sat at his right hand.

<"For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace, On the throne of David and over his kingdom, To establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness From then on and forevermore The zeal of the LORD of hosts will accomplish this." Isaiah 9:6-7

<"After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God." Mark 16:19

<"He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David; and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end." Luke 1:32-33

<"They will make war on the Lamb, and the Lamb will conquer them, for he is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those with him are called and chosen and faithful." Revelation 17:14

<"Jesus said, 'My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.'" John 18:36

<"So Bathsheba went to King Solomon to speak to him on behalf of Adonijah. And the king rose to meet her and bowed down to her. Then he sat on his throne and had a seat brought for the king’s mother, and she sat on his right." 1 Kings 2:19

Mary was the Arc of the New Covenant

The Arc of the Old Covenant was a vessel said to contain the essence of God. Inside the Arc was kept the word of God in the form of the stone tablets, the shepherd staff of the high-priest Aaron, and the mana from Heaven that sustained the Israelites in the wilderness. The Arc of the New Covenant, Mary, contained God Himself – Jesus, who was the true Word of God, the Good Shepherd, the High Priest, and the Bread of Life. The same verb used to describe how the glory of God overshadowed the stone tablets on Sinai and overshadowed the Arc of the Covenant in the Old Testament is used to describe how Mary was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit when she conceived Jesus. David asked how the Arc of the Covenant should come to him and Elizabeth asked how the mother of the Lord should come to her. The Arc blessed Obed's household for three months and Mary blessed Zechariah's household for three months. David, clad in fine linen leapt for joy at the presence of the Arc; John, later to be clad in camel's hair, leapt for joy in the presence of Mary.

<"Behind the second curtain was a room called the Most Holy Place, which had the golden altar of incense and the gold-covered ark of the covenant. This ark contained the gold jar of manna, Aaron’s staff that had budded, and the stone tablets of the covenant." Hebrews 9:3-4

<"Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has ascended into heaven, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess." Hebrews 4:14

<"I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd glays down his life for the sheep." John 10:11

<"Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.'" John 6:49-51

<"So David was afraid of the LORD that day; and he said, 'How can the ark of the LORD come to me?'" 2 Samuel 6:9

<"But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" Luke 1:43

<"The ark of the LORD remained in the house of Obed-Edom the Gittite for three months, and the LORD blessed him and his entire household." 2 Samuel 6:11

<"Mary stayed with Elizabeth for about three months and then returned home." Luke 1:56

<"When those carrying the ark of the LORD had advanced … David, wearing a linen ephod, leapt and danced with all his might before the LORD …" 2 Samuel 6:14

<"When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit." Luke 1:41

3/?

Mary is the co-redemptrix

Just to be clear, Jesus is the redeemer of humanity; Mary is not. Unfortunately, in English co-redemptrix sounds like co-chair or co-captain, implying that Jesus needed to split the office of Redeemer with someone else because the task of dying for the sins of the world was just a little too much for him. Rather, the “co” in co-redemptrix refers to a “cooperator” or “collaborator” with the Redeemer. The Word of God never places Mary on a level of equality with Jesus Christ. She is co-redemptrix by virtue of the singular role she played in redemption unlike any other person in history. Without Mary, Jesus, the Redeemer would not have been born. Mary shared in the suffering of Jesus and gave Him over to all humanity. While a hot brick warms, it receives its warmth from something other than itself — a heat source like a furnace. While the furnace is the “warmer,” the brick warmed by the furnace mediates the furnace’s heat to others. In this sense, the brick can be called a “co-warmer.”

<"Then Mary said: 'My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior!'" Luke 1:46-47

<"Then Simeon blessed them and said to Mary, his mother: 'This child is destined to cause the falling and rising of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be spoken against, so that the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed. And a sword will pierce your own soul too.'" Luke 2:34-35

Mary was immaculately conceived

If Jesus Christ was perfect in every way, never subject to the stain of sin, and sin is imparted to humans ontologically, then Mary must be completely free of sin because all of Jesus' humanity comes from Mary. Jesus was without a human father – born to a single parent from whom He derived all of His human nature. Therefore, if Jesus' perfect divine nature was entirely of the Son of the Godhead, then Jesus' perfect human nature must have come entirely from Mary, His mother, and it logically follows that if Jesus' human nature was perfect and free from sin, then the human from whom He received this nature was also perfect and free from sin. God could impart human nature to Christ without the need of a mother (as He did when he created Adam), but He chose to come through a Woman. Just as the Arc was instructed to be built as wood coated in pure gold, so Mary's nature – which would have been imparted to her by her sinful mother – was shrouded in purity at her conception, for God cannot abide sin and destroys the sinful. If God cannot suffer evil to even touch His Ark irreverently, then how much more would He be unable to tolerate being engulfed in an evil vessel for 10 months, sharing it's blood that would later become the blood of the New Covenant that would be spilled for the sins of the world? How could Jesus' blood be tainted in that way and still be an appropriate offering for sin?

<"Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned." Romans 5:12

<"Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me." Psalm 51:5

<"Next Bezalel made the Ark of acacia wood—a sacred chest 45 inches long, 27 inches wide, and 27 inches high. He overlaid it inside and outside with pure gold, and he ran a molding of gold all around it." Exodus 37:1-2

<"When they came to the threshing floor of Nachon, Uzzah reached out and took hold of the ark of God, because the oxen had stumbled. And the anger of the LORD burned against Uzzah, and God struck him down on the spot for his irreverence, and he died there beside the ark of God." 2 Samuel 6:7-8

<"Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity: wherefore lookest thou upon them that deal treacherously, and holdest thy tongue when the wicked devoureth the man that is more righteous than he?" Habakkuk 1:13

4/?

Mary was assumed bodily into Heaven

I'm okay deferring to the Church Fathers without scriptural evidence on this one for a few reasons. First, most early Christians believed this. Second, she clearly died after the last canon of the Bible was written, so we shouldn't expect to find her Assumption in scripture. Third, because of her role in scripture and in Christ's life, we should expect to find relics, a holy site dedicated to her, a tomb/grave, or some real account of her death like we do for all of the other apostles and martyrs who were far less significant. Paul advised Timothy to take as his norm the sound words that Paul spoke to him. Timothy knew that even if a particular teaching was not written down, Christians were still expected to abide by it and to defer to the authority of Church leaders. The only way a person could know what these unwritten binding traditions were was to keep their ear to the mouth of the Church. It's not so hard to believe, especially since we believe that we will all be assumed into Heaven eventually, as well. If anyone deserves to be assumed early, it's Christ's mother.

<"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us."

<"After that, we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will always be with the Lord." 1 Thessalonians 4:18

Mary was a perpetual virgin

When Mary was told by the angel Gabriel that she was chosen to be the Mother of the Messiah, she asked how it could be because she was a virgin. This question makes no sense unless Mary had a vow of virginity because Mary presumably knew how babies were made. This indicates she was not planning on the normal course of events for her future with Joseph, otherwise she would have not wondered at the prophecy. Additionally, Jesus gave his Mother to the care of John even though by law the next eldest sibling would have the responsibility to care for her. It is unthinkable that Jesus would take his Mother away from his family in disobedience to the law.

We must understand that the term "brother" has a wide semantic range in Scripture. In Genesis 13:8 and 14:12, we read of one example of brother being used to describe an extended relationship: Abraham and Lot. Though they were actually uncle and nephew, they called one another “brother.” If we examine more closely the example of James, one of these four “brothers of the Lord” mentioned in Matthew 13:55, we discover him to be a cousin of Jesus rather than a brother. Galatians 1:18-19 informs us: “I [Paul] went up to Jerusalem [and] I saw … James the Lord’s brother.” There are two apostles named James among the apostles. The first James is revealed to be a “son of Zebedee.” The second James is revealed to have a father named Alphaeus. The Church has always understood passages dealing with James and Joseph as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary. James and Joseph, “brothers of Jesus,” are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ, whom St. Matthew significantly calls “the other Mary.”

But what about Matthew 1:24-25, and the claim Jesus was Mary’s “firstborn son” and that Joseph “knew her not until” Christ was born? The “firstborn” were not given the title because there was a “second-born.” They were called “firstborn” at birth due to the consecration commanded by God. Jesus being “firstborn” does not require that more siblings be born after him. Scripture’s statement that Joseph “knew [Mary] not until she brought forth her firstborn” would not mean they did “know” each other after she brought forth Jesus. "Until" is often used in Scripture as part of an idiomatic expression similar to our own usage in English. Does 2 Samuel 6:23 – "And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to until the day of her death." – mean she had children after she died? There are many more examples.

<"'How will this be,' Mary asked the angel, 'since I am a virgin?' The angel answered, 'The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.'" Luke 1:34-35

<"'Behold, your mother!' And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home…” John 19:27

<"…and James, the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James…" Mark 3:17

<"…Matthew and Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon called Zelotes…" Luke 6:15-16

<"After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb." Matthew 28:1

<"The Lord said to Moses, 'Consecrate to me every firstborn male. The first offspring of every womb among the Israelites belongs to me, whether human or animal.'" Exodus 13:1-2

5/?

Mary is God's greatest creature

For all of the reasons above and also the fact that God placed humanity above all creation. Among mankind, you and I would agree that the greatest among us is the one who loves God the most, and that each is given according to their virtue. A mother's love is self-sacrificial and beyond description, so who could possibly love God with more fervor than His own mother? Honoring Mary as God's greatest creation does not detract from God's glory anymore than a great is artist is detracted from by the admiration of his greatest work of art. Rather than detract, the veneration of the great work exalts the artist, and God is no more jealous of Mary's praise than da Vinci was jealous of the Mona Lisa.

—

Thank you, brothers. I know the chance of you reading all I typed up is very low, but I am glad you compelled me to spend my day in defense of my Holy Mother. I love to grow in understanding of the Holy Family of my Savior.

>>8828

>Definitively yes, recognizing that "God" here only refers to the human nature of the second person of the trinity.

nestorianism detected. you are splitting the human and divine nature. she bore Jesus christ that was fully man and fully god

>>8827

>Was Mary immaculately conceived? Is she sinless?

No

>Is Mary a perpetual virgin?

Yes

t. traditional Reformed

>>11549

>27As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said, “Blessed is the womb that bore You, and blessed are the breasts that nursed You.”

>

>28But He replied, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.”

Weird how in all this talk of Mary this is blatantly ignored.

>>12487

These jokes are always dead on arrival. The punchline is destroyed by the entire premise, i.e. virgin birth

Is Mary the Theotokos (Mother of God)?

No. Being the mother of God necessitates the she is prior to God, which is blasphemous.

Was Mary immaculately conceived? Is she sinless?

No and no.

Is Mary the Queen of Heaven?

No (Jer. 44)

Was Mary's body taken into heaven?

No.

Is Mary the greatest creature of God?

No.

Is Mary a perpetual virgin?

No. (Matt. 1:25)

Did Mary not feel pain at the birth of Jesus Christ?

No.

Is Mary the mother of Christians?

No.

Is Mary the Mediatrix? Is she the Co-Redemptirx?

No and no.

>>11578

You argue that Jesus was never commanded to sin by Mary.. But wouldn't that then also require MARY'S PARENTS to be sinless and never commanded for her to sin?

If not, then why does Mary need to be sinless to never command Jesus to sin?

Also: Matthew 10:

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.

You are obligated to RESIST SIN even if your parents command you to do so. "Honor your parents" does not mean "Always obey your parents".