metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Yes, to the above, and we all should remember that when we read scripture, we are not reading objective history. I know you're fully aware of that, so I'm not alluding to you.
-
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!
Biblical Mary!
- Thread starter actsfourthirty
- Start date
Give me a break? Are you unaware how the adult Jesus regarded His mother?
Matthew 12:46-49, "While he was still speaking to the crowds, his mother and his brothers were standing outside, wanting to speak to him. Someone told him, “Look, your mother and your brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.” But to the one who had told him this, Jesus replied, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” And pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers!"
Obviously, Mary is clearly not special; just the opposite!
Why do you disagree with all the early Churches? With Luther, even?
Because I believe what Jesus (in the Bible) said regarding His mother. If the early churches and Luther disagree, I believe God's word.
There is a glorification of Mary that is clearly unscriptural, i.e., it disagrees with the Bible, which I consider the standard of truth.
Yes, she gave birth to Jesus Christ, God in human form, and for that she should be honored. However, there is a lot more to the Biblical story, and God's word in general clearly doesn't portray her as the person many people make her out to be. She gave birth to Jesus and (along with Joseph, whom most people ignore) raised Him. Beyond that, as the section of Matthew's gospel that I cited clearly shows, she was not a factor in Jesus in Jesus ministry. He clearly valued His disciples and followers more then His physical mother.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Don't forget that at the wedding at Cana, he obeyed his mom, even though he clearly did not want to do a miracle.
She was at the foot of the cross.
She was there at the coming of the Holy Ghost with the Apostles.
I don't think it's quite as bad as you're making it out to be. I don't think the Tradition would have begun praising her as it does without the Apostles doing so.
And??? Which is more significant? Listening to His mother (and saying "my time has not yet come") or stating "who is my mother" later in His ministry?
There is a need by some people to elevate (worship?) Mary beyond what Scripture says about her.
Your statement about the apostles praise needs evidence.
A 2000 year old Tradition is good evidence.
Not everything needs to be said word for word in the Bible and I am so tired of ny fellow Protestants thinking it needs to be. This is absurd reductionism that not even Calivin believed.
So you think that the Bible is not the source of truth about Mary? That, in summary, proves my point.
What else should be added to Scripture?
You know that Tradition and Scripture go together. The transmission of the Scripture is a Tradition of itself.
Unless you think you can choose your own personal Biblical canon too.
Please read your own sources. And find me scripture alone in the Scripture.
FWIW, the following is excerpted from:
It is a long but interesting article dealing with a debate in which I have no side.
The uncomfortable truth about Mary veneration is that the historical evidence is a lot less black or white than most parties would like it to be. The veneration of Mary started waaaaay earlier than your average Protestant would hope, but it also happened waaaay later than your average Catholic assumes. First and second century Christians would have found any prayers to Mary a totally alien practice, but in the midst of the raging battles against heresy in the 3rd, 4th, and 5th centuries, it started to develop as a way of preserving the same orthodoxy that Protestants and Catholics share today. In the centuries that followed, it continued to grow and intensify, leading to eventual skepticism from Protestants that wanted to go back to the basics. Even though our tradition ceased the practice of Marian veneration (and had a reasonable claim on recovering early orthodoxy in doing so), a study of how the practice came to be can help us appreciate how that veneration helped our theological ancestors cling to orthodoxy at a time when the nature of Jesus was under fire.
It is a long but interesting article dealing with a debate in which I have no side.
Sorry, but I believe the Bible 100%. All kinds of traditions have been added to the Biblical truth, but the Bible stands alone. I am not the one who is choosing to add to what Scripture says, you are.
But who gave you the Bible? There was not one until the 4th c.
Would you not have believed Paul's preaching had you heard it?
Are you joking? There was no Bible until the 4th Century? The Old Testament was written many, many years before Christ's coming, and the New Testament was written in the first two centuries after Christ.
And what is your non sequitur about believing Paul? Are you questioning my faith???
The Christian Bible to which you refer was not compiled until the 4th century and some letters were likely not written until the early 2nd century, as you say.
Would you not agree the Apostles were Christians from the time Christ rose?
If so, they were not reading any NT and were unlikely to be able to read the OT.
I am not questioning your faith, I just want to understand how you justify Sola Scriptura. I am an Anglican and have Prima Scriptura, and your version of Sola Scriptura seems to be a more modern Evangelical take, which is fine, but I wonder how you explain that with regard to the above.
This may help:
The Shape of Sola Scriptura - Wikipedia
The different traditions of how SS has been understood are enumerated. Yours sounds more like what is called Solo Scriptura. Here is what the Reformers believed (not the Radical Reformers):
1. "Tradition I" - espoused sole, one-source revelation (Scripture alone); Mathison argues that this was the position taken by the Magisterial Reformers who wanted to take the position of the early Church; they believed that the Canon was compiled by the early Church to prevent its tradition from meandering from orthodoxy; Canon is to be final infallible authority; "although Scripture is the sole infalliable authority, it must be interpreted by the Church within the boundaries of the ancient rule of faith or regula fidei" (Mathison 147); tradition is in subordination to Scripture and it must coincide with Scripture (e.g. the Ecumenical Creeds).
This seems to be yours:
Tradition 0 (Nuda Scriptura) is the view of most "evangelical", fundamentalist and non-denominational churches. This view is called "solo scriptura" to distinguish it from Tradition I (sola scriptura). This view rejects the ancient creeds and any concept of tradition. The Bible is the only source of authority and is interpreted by each individual. Tradition 0 is responsible for the multitude of churches and denominations in the United States.
This is the 'Radical' position.
Compiled is different than "written". People decided on the canon of Scripture, although that varies depending on the branch of Christianity.The Christian Bible to which you refer was not compiled until the 4th century and some letters were likely not written until the early 2nd century, as you say.
Would you not agree the Apostles were Christians from the time Christ rose?
If so, they were not reading any NT and were unlikely to be able to read the OT.
I am not questioning your faith, I just want to understand how you justify Sola Scriptura. I am an Anglican and have Prima Scriptura, and your version of Sola Scriptura seems to be a more modern Evangelical take, which is fine, but I wonder how you explain that with regard to the above.
This may help:
The Shape of Sola Scriptura - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
The different traditions of how SS has been understood are enumerated. Yours sounds more like what is called Solo Scriptura. Here is what the Reformers believed (not the Radical Reformers):
1. "Tradition I" - espoused sole, one-source revelation (Scripture alone); Mathison argues that this was the position taken by the Magisterial Reformers who wanted to take the position of the early Church; they believed that the Canon was compiled by the early Church to prevent its tradition from meandering from orthodoxy; Canon is to be final infallible authority; "although Scripture is the sole infalliable authority, it must be interpreted by the Church within the boundaries of the ancient rule of faith or regula fidei" (Mathison 147); tradition is in subordination to Scripture and it must coincide with Scripture (e.g. the Ecumenical Creeds).
This seems to be yours:
Tradition 0 (Nuda Scriptura) is the view of most "evangelical", fundamentalist and non-denominational churches. This view is called "solo scriptura" to distinguish it from Tradition I (sola scriptura). This view rejects the ancient creeds and any concept of tradition. The Bible is the only source of authority and is interpreted by each individual. Tradition 0 is responsible for the multitude of churches and denominations in the United States.
This is the 'Radical' position.
Where does your statement that "the Apostles were Christians from the time Christ rose" come from? The answer is obvious (not counting Paul, of course, who became an apostle afterwards).
Sola scriptura is one of the five "solas". There are many conflicting teachings among the various denominations, therefore I consider the Bible to be the basis of truth. My belief is somewhere between "tradition 0" and "tradition 1". I believe that the Bible is the foundational truth, but of course it must be read and interpreted by people. "Correct" interpretation depends on the reader's spiritual state. Its meaning can be easily distorted if a person decides in advance what s/he wants it to say, rather than what it actually says.
Last edited:
They were Christians before the Gospels and Epistles were written. If they can be Christians without those things, why do you propose the Bible as the ultimate source if they hadn't access to it as the NT hadn't been written?
It's not a trick question, I would like to know.