• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Christians: the doctrines of Mary

-Peacemaker-

.45 Cal
Hey guys. I'm back after getting in a little trouble with the Mods. I apologize for being a little too obnoxious with my tone. I didn't realize it would be such an issue. Let's try doing this again.

Some of the doctrines on Mary that Protestants fear border on idolatry are her alleged sinlessness as well as her being a perpetual virgin. The real question is do we as Christians sometimes elevate her beyond a mere human servant of JC? Is this especially the case given the fact there is strong scriptural support for refuting both the doctrines mentioned?
 
Last edited:

JacobEzra.

Dr. Greenthumb
Hey guys. I'm back after getting in a little trouble with the Mods. I apologize for being a little too obnoxious with my tone. I didn't realize it would be such an issue. Let's try doing this again.

Some of the doctrines on Mary that Protestants fear border on idolatry are her alleged sinlessness as well as her being a perpetual virgin. The real question is do we as Christians sometimes elevate her beyond a mere human servant of JC? Is this especially the case given the fact there is strong scriptural support for refuting both the doctrines mentioned?

Mary as "Theotokos" and other names are ancient and a part of Christianity. I do not think Mariology is bad. But I also do not believe in Sola scriptura, since that would mean the centuries before a common bible, there was no Christianity.

I think Protestants who fear it borders idolatry are confused about what exactly believed and thought of this Ever Virgin, Blessed Mother.
 

Me Myself

Back to my username
Hey guys. I'm back after getting in a little trouble with the Mods. I apologize for being a little too obnoxious with my tone. I didn't realize it would be such an issue. Let's try doing this again.

Some of the doctrines on Mary that Protestants fear border on idolatry are her alleged sinlessness as well as her being a perpetual virgin. The real question is do we as Christians sometimes elevate her beyond a mere human servant of JC? Is this especially the case given the fact there is strong scriptural support for refuting both the doctrines mentioned?

I was raised a catholic and I must tell you she was always refered to as the "slave of God" and the great servant. She has always been looked at as a great moral role model, and somebody that can be just besides you and understand you if things go bad or are hard.

Personally I was never taught that she was greater neither than christ nor God, and she was always depicted as reminding us how to pray and show devotion love and good catholic virtues.

I felt confort in her more than once :) It´s nice to have more than one symbol to come to for comfort. Is like, even when you technically only need Jesus, we as humans still have more people in hour life, while Jesus was not regarded in any way as less important Mary was like a second mother figure and is good to know you have more than one guy(and even a caring mother) rooting for you up there, knowing that trying to remain pure ain´t as easy as it sounds and smiling at you for trying.

I can just talk for the way I was tught and the symbolism it have me, it was a nice support.
 

Pegg

Jehovah our God is One
Mary as "Theotokos" and other names are ancient and a part of Christianity. I do not think Mariology is bad. But I also do not believe in Sola scriptura, since that would mean the centuries before a common bible, there was no Christianity.

I think Protestants who fear it borders idolatry are confused about what exactly believed and thought of this Ever Virgin, Blessed Mother.


do you think Mary remained a virgin all her life?
 

JacobEzra.

Dr. Greenthumb
do you think Mary remained a virgin all her life?

Yes I do.

And before you quote scripture, all I have to say, is words have more then one meaning. Such as when it says St. Joseph did not know her until...

Or the brothers quote.

Brother and until do not mean only one thing which is common in english, and the greek shows that. So I come to my conclusion of the purity of the interpretation of the church because of the teachings of Apostolic Fathers and Early Church Fathers.
 

-Peacemaker-

.45 Cal
My biggest question would be what is the point of Mary, a married woman, remaining a virgin all her life? There are no doctrines pivotal to Christianity/salvation that hinge upon it.
 

JacobEzra.

Dr. Greenthumb
My biggest question would be what is the point of Mary, a married woman, remaining a virgin all her life? There are no doctrines pivotal to Christianity/salvation that hinge upon it.

There is not. But she played a part in the story of salvation. She has historically been linked to a New Eve as Jesus in his humanity is the New Adam. As well as Mary being the New Ark of the Covenant. These are related to biblical typology.

Id also like to point out, that she did carry Jesus in her womb. With such a holy event, why would St. Joseph want to still have carnal relations with her? The Holy Spirit conceived in her womb, the Word incarnate. This makes her not a normal women, and not a women who's womb is tainted.
 

Pegg

Jehovah our God is One
Yes I do.

And before you quote scripture, all I have to say, is words have more then one meaning. Such as when it says St. Joseph did not know her until...

Or the brothers quote.

Brother and until do not mean only one thing which is common in english, and the greek shows that. So I come to my conclusion of the purity of the interpretation of the church because of the teachings of Apostolic Fathers and Early Church Fathers.

So you base this belief off the claims of apostolic fathers. Do you realise that the idea did not get any mention among the 2nd century apostolic fathers?... these are really the only ones who have any claim to personally knowing or being taught by the apostles and they dont mention it. It is quite a late doctrine for the church...certainly not one that we find in scripture as you have already stated... how do you know its accurate?
 
Last edited:

Pegg

Jehovah our God is One
Id also like to point out, that she did carry Jesus in her womb. With such a holy event, why would St. Joseph want to still have carnal relations with her? The Holy Spirit conceived in her womb, the Word incarnate. This makes her not a normal women, and not a women who's womb is tainted.

I am not asking this for the purpose of debating it, I'd just like to know how Mary making a sin offering to the temple fits into the picture


lukes gospel reports that in accord with the requirement of the Mosaic Law, 40 days after Jesus’ birth, Mary offered at the temple in Jerusalem a sin offering for purification from uncleanness. Luke 2:22-24 Also, when the days for purifying them according to the law of Moses came to the full, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to Jehovah, 23 just as it is written in Jehovah’s law: “Every male opening a womb must be called holy to Jehovah,” 24 and to offer sacrifice according to what is said in the law of Jehovah: “A pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons.


would this sin offering not indicate that Mary had inherited the same sinful condition passed onto all mankind through Adam?
 

Kathryn

It was on fire when I laid down on it.
I think that passage simply means that she was following the Jewish traditions and rituals related to giving birth. I don't think it proves or disproves anything.
 

JacobEzra.

Dr. Greenthumb
So you base this belief off the claims of apostolic fathers. Do you realise that the idea did not get any mention among the 2nd century apostolic fathers?... these are really the only ones who have any claim to personally knowing or being taught by the apostles and they dont mention it. It is quite a late doctrine for the church...certainly not one that we find in scripture as you have already stated... how do you know its accurate?

Its recorded in the Protoevengelium of James which is believed to be the oral tradition of belief, and was written by Early christians. And both Catholic and Orthodox believe the tradition.

And Mary as the New Eve, is an Apostolic belief
4. In accordance with this design, Mary the Virgin is found obedient, saying, “Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word.”But Eve was disobedient; for she did not obey when as yet she was a virgin. And even as she, having indeed a husband, Adam, but being nevertheless as yet a virgin....having become disobedient, was made the cause of death, both to herself and to the entire human race; so also did Mary, having a man betrothed [to her], and being nevertheless a virgin, by yielding obedience, become the cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race. And on this account does the law term a woman betrothed to a man, the wife of him who had betrothed her, although she was as yet a virgin; thus indicating the back-reference from Mary to Eve, because what is joined together could not otherwise be put asunder than by inversion of the process by which these bonds of union had arisen;so that the former ties be cancelled by the latter, that the latter may set the former again at liberty

And thus also it was that the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. For what the virgin Eve had bound fast through unbelief, this did the virgin Mary set free through faith.

ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus | Christian Classics Ethereal Library
 

JacobEzra.

Dr. Greenthumb
I am not asking this for the purpose of debating it, I'd just like to know how Mary making a sin offering to the temple fits into the picture


lukes gospel reports that in accord with the requirement of the Mosaic Law, 40 days after Jesus’ birth, Mary offered at the temple in Jerusalem a sin offering for purification from uncleanness. Luke 2:22-24 Also, when the days for purifying them according to the law of Moses came to the full, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to Jehovah, 23 just as it is written in Jehovah’s law: “Every male opening a womb must be called holy to Jehovah,” 24 and to offer sacrifice according to what is said in the law of Jehovah: “A pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons.


would this sin offering not indicate that Mary had inherited the same sinful condition passed onto all mankind through Adam?

What sin offering? This not a sin offering.

Lev. 12
[6] And when the days of her purification are expired, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring to the door of the tabernacle of the testimony, a lamb of a year old for a holocaust, and a young pigeon or a turtle for sin, and shall deliver them to the priest: [7] Who shall offer them before the Lord, and shall pray for her, and so she shall be cleansed from the issue of her blood. This is the law for her that beareth a man child or a maid child. [8] And if her hand find not sufficiency, and she is not able to offer a lamb, she shall take two turtles, or two young pigeons, one for a holocaust, and another for sin: and the priest shall pray for her, and so she shall be cleansed.

Anytime a Women had her period, she would have to be purified.

Lev 15
. [19] The woman, who at the return of the month, hath her issue of blood, shall be separated seven days. [20] Every one that toucheth her, shall be unclean until the evening.

[21] And every thing that she sleepeth on, or that she sitteth on in the days of her separation, shall be defiled. [22] He that toucheth her bed shall wash his clothes: and being himself washed with water, shall be unclean until the evening. [23] Whosoever shall touch any vessel on which she sitteth, shall wash his clothes: and himself being washed with water, shall be defiled until the evening. [24] If a man copulateth with her in the time of her flowers, he shall be unclean seven days: and every bed on which he shall sleep shall be defiled. [25] The woman that hath an issue of blood many days out of her ordinary time, or that ceaseth not to flow after the monthly courses, as long as she is subject to this disease, shall be unclean, in the same manner as if she were in her flowers.

[26] Every bed on which she sleepeth, and every vessel on which she sitteth, shall be defiled. [27] Whosoever toucheth them shall wash his clothes: and himself being washed with water, shall be unclean until the evening. [28] If the blood stop and cease to run, she shall count seven days of her purification: [29] And on the eighth day she shall offer for herself to the priest, two turtles, or two young pigeons, at the door of the tabernacle of the testimony:
 

Pegg

Jehovah our God is One
What sin offering? This not a sin offering.

Lev. 12


Anytime a Women had her period, she would have to be purified.

the scripture you quoted says:

"This is the law for her that beareth a man child or a maid child. [8] And if her hand find not sufficiency, and she is not able to offer a lamb, she shall take two turtles, or two young pigeons, one for a holocaust, and another for sin: and the priest shall pray for her, and so she shall be cleansed.



Mary offered 'two' pigeons. One for a holocaust, and the other for 'sin'

If she was without sin, she would not have needed to offer two pigeons...perhaps only one for the holocaust... but surely not the 'other for sin'
 

JacobEzra.

Dr. Greenthumb
the scripture you quoted says:

"This is the law for her that beareth a man child or a maid child. [8] And if her hand find not sufficiency, and she is not able to offer a lamb, she shall take two turtles, or two young pigeons, one for a holocaust, and another for sin: and the priest shall pray for her, and so she shall be cleansed.



Mary offered 'two' pigeons. One for a holocaust, and the other for 'sin'

If she was without sin, she would not have needed to offer two pigeons...perhaps only one for the holocaust... but surely not the 'other for sin'
If women had to pay for the sin, why would it not prescribe a sin offering at first?
 

JacobEzra.

Dr. Greenthumb
im not sure what you mean.

Im sorry I read something wrong.


But I do not think it was for sin, as in doing wrong, but for purification. As you can see in the verse i showed you, the menstruation was impure and a women needed to be cleansed.

Id also like to point out that, for Mary to be the New Eve, she had to be obedient to the law. In which the law prescribed her to give up a sin offering as well as a holocaust offering. AS Bede said;
BEDE; If you diligently examine the words of the law, you will find indeed that the mother of God as she is free from all connection with man, so is she exempt from any obligation of the law. For not every woman who brings forth, but she who has received seed and brought forth, is pronounced unclean, and by the ordinances of the law is taught that she must be cleansed, in order to distinguish probably from her who though a virgin has conceived and brought forth. But that we might be loosed from the bonds of the law, as did Christ, so also Mary submitted herself of her own will to the law.

Thomas Aquinas: Catena Aurea, Luke
 

Firstborner

Active Member
Yes I do.

And before you quote scripture, all I have to say, is words have more then one meaning. Such as when it says St. Joseph did not know her until...

Or the brothers quote.

Brother and until do not mean only one thing which is common in english, and the greek shows that. So I come to my conclusion of the purity of the interpretation of the church because of the teachings of Apostolic Fathers and Early Church Fathers.

Not only do the earliest Church Fathers not mention anything about the perpetual virginity doctrine, they explicitly speak of Jude and James being the Lord's brothers by the blood. Since the only blood shared would have been Mary, she could not have remained a virgin. That fact alone kills the theory that the term "brothers" was indicative of a further relationship.

The argument based on HeOs Hou (until) in Matthew 1:25 is extremely weak, especially since if it did not mean he had relations with her afterwards, it would have been a perfect chance for Matthew to declare, "and he never had relations with her." Especially this would have been written in this case if it was such an important doctrine to be held.

The debate about Mathew 1:25 is really
 

JacobEzra.

Dr. Greenthumb
Not only do the earliest Church Fathers not mention anything about the perpetual virginity doctrine, they explicitly speak of Jude and James being the Lord's brothers by the blood. Since the only blood shared would have been Mary, she could not have remained a virgin. That fact alone kills the theory that the term "brothers" was indicative of a further relationship.
When did it say explicitly that they were his blood brothers in the modern sense? And the word brothers could have ment cousins, or fellow Jews. Would not be the first time the word "brother" would have been used like that in the bible.

Also, I would say, the Early Church Fathers did in fact deny what you claim they said.
St. Jerome said:
And when they are mistaken in His Father, no wonder if they are also mistaken in His brethren. Whence it is added, “Is not his mother Mary, and his brethren, James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us?......................
Those who are here called the Lord’s brethren, are the sons of a Mary, His Mother’s sister; she is the mother of this James and Joseph, that is to say, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and this is the Mary who is called the mother of James the Less.

St. Augustine said:
No wonder then that any kinsmen by the mother’s side should be called the Lord’s brethren, when even by their kindred to Joseph some are here called His brethren by those who thought Him the son of Joseph.

Catena Aurea - Gospel of Matthew | Christian Classics Ethereal Library
The argument based on HeOs Hou (until) in Matthew 1:25 is extremely weak, especially since if it did not mean he had relations with her afterwards, it would have been a perfect chance for Matthew to declare, "and he never had relations with her." Especially this would have been written in this case if it was such an important doctrine to be held.

The debate about Mathew 1:25 is really

Gospel authors could have also declared alot of other things to. And?

What Early Church Fathers said...
St. Jerome said:
Helvidius is at much superfluous trouble to make this word “know” refer to carnal knowledge rather than to acquaintance, as though any had ever denied that; or as if the follies to which he replies had ever occurred to any person of common understanding. He then goes on to say, that the adverb, ‘until,’ denotes a fixed time when that should take place, which had not taken place before; so that here from the words, “He knew her not until she had brought forth her first-born Son,” it is clear, he says, that after that he did know her. And in proof of this he heaps together many instances from Scripture.

To all this we answer, that the word ‘until’ is to be understood in two senses in Scripture. And concerning the expression, “knew her not,” he has himself shewn, that it must be referred to carnal knowledge, none doubting that it is often used of acquaintance, as in that, “The child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem, and His parents knew not of it.” [Luke 2:43]

In like manner, ‘until’ often denotes in Scripture, as he has shewn, a fixed period, but often also an infinite time, as in that, “Even to your old age I am He.” [Isa 46:4] Will God then cease to be when they are grown old? Also the Saviour in the Gospel, “Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of this world.” [Matt 28:20] Will He then leave His disciples at the end of the world? Again, the Apostle says, “He must reign till He has put His enemies under His feet.” [1 Cor 15:25]

Be it understood then, that which if it had not been written might have been 58 doubted, is expressly declared to us; other things are left to our own understanding.

[ed. note: In other words, “till,” need not imply a termination at a certain point of time, but may be giving us information up to a point from which onwards there is already no doubt. Supposing an Evangelist thought the very notion shocking that Joseph should have considered the Blessed Virgin as his wife after he was a witness of her bearing God the Son, he would only say that the vision had its effect upon him up to that time when it was no longer necessary. Just as if, in speaking of a man like Augustine, one said, that, in consequence of some awful occurrence, he was in the habit of saying prayers till the time of his conversion, no one would suppose that he left them off on being converted.]

So here the Evangelist informs us, in that wherein there might have been room for error, that she was not known by her husband until the birth of her Son, that we might thence infer that much less was she known afterwards.

St. John Chrysostom said:
As one might say, ‘He told it not so long as he lived;’ would this imply that he told it after his death? Impossible. So it were credible that Joseph might have known her before the birth, while he was yet ignorant of the great mystery; but after that he understood how she had been made a temple of the Only-begotten of God, how could he occupy that? The followers of Eunomius think, as they have dared to assert this, that Joseph also dared to do it, just as the insane think all men equally mad with themselves.

St. Jerome said:
Lastly, I would ask, Why then did Joseph abstain at all up to the day of birth? He will surely answer, Because of the Angel’s words, “That which is born in her, &c.” He then who gave so much heed to a vision as not to dare to touch his wife, would he, after he had heard the shepherds, seen the Magi, and known so many miracles, dare to approach the temple of God, the seat of the Holy Ghost, the Mother of his Lord?

St. John Chrysostom said:
It may be said, that “know” here signifies simply, to understand; that whereas before he had not understood how great her dignity, after the birth he then “knew” that she had been made more honourable and worthy than the whole world, who had carried in her womb Him whom the whole world could not contain.


St. Jerome said:
From the words, “her first-born Son,” some most erroneously suspect that Mary had other sons, saying that first-born can only be said of one that has brethren. But this is the manner of Scripture, to call the first-born not only one who is followed by brethren, but the first-birth of the mother.
 

Many Sages One Truth

Active Member
Hey guys. I'm back after getting in a little trouble with the Mods. I apologize for being a little too obnoxious with my tone. I didn't realize it would be such an issue. Let's try doing this again.

Some of the doctrines on Mary that Protestants fear border on idolatry are her alleged sinlessness as well as her being a perpetual virgin. The real question is do we as Christians sometimes elevate her beyond a mere human servant of JC? Is this especially the case given the fact there is strong scriptural support for refuting both the doctrines mentioned?

Which Protestants fear it borders on idolotry? What about venerating Mary is idolotry? We have no problem venerating Jesus who also partly man.
 
Top