• 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!

Christian: Mary, Mother of God

Scott1

Well-Known Member
rocka21 said:
how many times did Paul mention her in his letter to the churches?
Not really sure.
how many times was mary mentioned after acts 1? ( she was in the upper room filled with the holy ghost speaking with other tounges.)
Not really sure.... none?

If I guess right, do I win something?;)
how are you sure revelations queen is talking about Mary?
I'm not.... it could be "talking" about a few things, one of which might me the Mother of God?

This is fun! Anything else?
 

James the Persian

Dreptcredincios Crestin
sojourner said:
Personally, I find that many RC's ascribe too much to Mary, and that many Protestants dismiss too much.

I ascribe worth to her as the mother of God and the ark or the New Covenant, in that she was faithful to God and bore Jesus. But the immaculate conception and bodily assumption? That's a stretch for me.

Personally, I just wish that English speaking Roman Catholics (and some Orthodox though it's rarer) wouldn't use that awful mistranslation of Theotokos. It does not mean Mother of God (though she undoubtedly was that in all senses but being the mother of Christ's Divinity) and never was meant to mean that. It means, literally, the Birthgiver of God and, as such, is a Christological statement and not an attempt to deify Mary, but the use of that poor translation just cries out for an attack from ignorant Protestants who don't understand that.

Now, I do agree that the RCC goes too far in its Mariology, with Marian dogmas, for instance, but I don't think that most RCs ascribe too much to her. There are some, but they are a fringe (and there's even a tiny set of these in my Church) who almost seem to worship her, but it's by no means the majority and nor is it the official teaching of the RCC (thankfully). You're undoubtedly right that Protestants dismiss too much, though. In fact, unless you want to include High Church Anglicans as Protestant, which would be a stretch, the number who do accord her anything like what she deserves are probably just as tiny as the fringe lunatics in the RCC who seem to practically worship her.

James
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
JamesThePersian said:
Personally, I just wish that English speaking Roman Catholics (and some Orthodox though it's rarer) wouldn't use that awful mistranslation of Theotokos. It does not mean Mother of God (though she undoubtedly was that in all senses but being the mother of Christ's Divinity) and never was meant to mean that. It means, literally, the Birthgiver of God and, as such, is a Christological statement and not an attempt to deify Mary, but the use of that poor translation just cries out for an attack from ignorant Protestants who don't understand that.

Now, I do agree that the RCC goes too far in its Mariology, with Marian dogmas, for instance, but I don't think that most RCs ascribe too much to her. There are some, but they are a fringe (and there's even a tiny set of these in my Church) who almost seem to worship her, but it's by no means the majority and nor is it the official teaching of the RCC (thankfully). You're undoubtedly right that Protestants dismiss too much, though. In fact, unless you want to include High Church Anglicans as Protestant, which would be a stretch, the number who do accord her anything like what she deserves are probably just as tiny as the fringe lunatics in the RCC who seem to practically worship her.

James
I agree with your understanding of "Mother of God." That's how I understand it too. Thanks for that clarification. Although my exposure to Roman Catholicism is admittedly truncated, many of the RC's with whom I've had contact do practically worship her. I guess I should have qualified my statement.
 

rocka21

Brother Rock
after the gospels, mary was mentioned one time. ( acts chapter 1).
why did Paul not mention her not even one time to his letters to the churches. romans, Corinth, Philippians, etc. or to his son in the spirit timothy? Don't you think when he was instructing the early church how to have church ( deacons, pastors, gifts of the spirit, prophesies) he would at lest mention her one time?


i would like to hear the catholic or any answers to this.
 

doppelganger

Through the Looking Glass
rocka21 said:
how many times did Paul mention her in his letter to the churches?
Zero.

rocka21 said:
how many times was mary mentioned after acts 1? ( she was in the upper room filled with the holy ghost speaking with other tounges.)
If you mean "after" in the sense of reading the books in their official canonical order that would also be zero.

rocka21 said:
how are you sure revelations queen is talking about Mary?
Through doublethink or faith.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
rocka21 said:
after the gospels, mary was mentioned one time. ( acts chapter 1).
why did Paul not mention her not even one time to his letters to the churches. romans, Corinth, Philippians, etc. or to his son in the spirit timothy? Don't you think when he was instructing the early church how to have church ( deacons, pastors, gifts of the spirit, prophesies) he would at lest mention her one time?


i would like to hear the catholic or any answers to this.
Remember, Paul addressed specific issues with specific congregations in his letters. If he spouted doctrine, it was with regard to the specific problem. How would Mary have been cogent to those issues?

Also, it may be interesting to note that some of Paul's letters pre-date the gospels.
 

rocka21

Brother Rock
yes , but shouldn't the new testament be the basis for the church? if we were not instructed to pray to mary, through mary, or if she's not even mentioned ......

i guess my point is, did paul , timothy , or james pray to or ( through) mary? did they pray the rosery? was there a statue of mary in the antioch chruch or any of the paul established chruches?
 

rocka21

Brother Rock
yes , but shouldn't the new testament be the basis for the church? if we were not instructed to pray to mary, through mary, or if she's not even mentioned ......

i guess my point is, did paul , timothy , or james pray to or ( through) mary? did they pray the rosery? was there a statue of mary in the antioch church or any of the paul established churches?
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
rocka21 said:
yes , but shouldn't the new testament be the basis for the church? if we were not instructed to pray to mary, through mary, or if she's not even mentioned ......

i guess my point is, did paul , timothy , or james pray to or ( through) mary? did they pray the rosery? was there a statue of mary in the antioch chruch or any of the paul established chruches?
No. The New Testament was not written before the Church was formed. The New Testament is a product of the Church. Christ is the basis for the Church.

The Church has developed many traditions that helps her worship and serve. The rosary is one of them. Statuary is another. The New Testament is another.
 

rocka21

Brother Rock
i guess my point is, did paul , timothy , or james pray to or ( through) mary? did they pray the rosery? was there a statue of mary in the antioch church or any of the paul established churches?

do you have an opinion on this question?
 

writer

Active Member
131 The New Testament was not written before the Church was formed. The New Testament is a product of the Church. Christ is the basis for the Church.
Thas part o' why Christ gave, and "wrote," His NT, 2 Tim 3:16; Heb 9:15-17; 2 Cor 3:6

The Church has developed many traditions that helps her worship and serve. The rosary is one of them.
The NT church never developed "the rosary." Since Christ duzn't particularly need beads

Statuary is another.
God's church isn't for idolatry. She stands against it. Hence, any Church that develops statuary, icons, etc, isn't the church
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Thas part o' why Christ gave, and "wrote," His NT, 2 Tim 3:16; Heb 9:15-17; 2 Cor 3:6
Through men who were members of the Church already.

The NT church never developed "the rosary." Since Christ duzn't particularly need beads
The Roman Catholics seem more "New Testament" than "Old Testament" to me...
In any case, even if Christ doesn't "need beads," apparently many of his followers find them useful. Christ didn't need central heating and air, either...but we like it!

God's church isn't for idolatry. She stands against it. Hence, any Church that develops statuary, icons, etc, isn't the church
Statuary isn't idolatry. Idols have power in and of themselves and are independent of a god. People worship idols. Statuary, as well as icons, rosary beads, crosses, etc. (such as those found in the RC Church) have no power independent of God. People don't worship these items. Therefore, they're not idols.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
doppelgänger said:
What if Paul didn't mention Mary because that wasn't part of the myth yet when Paul was writing?
And where was Peter? With Paul, or Mary?:D
 

writer

Active Member
134 The Roman Catholics seem more "New Testament" than "Old Testament" to me...
that "tradition" duzn't seem any Testament to me

in any case, even if Christ doesn't "need beads," apparently many of his followers find them useful.
i don't

Christ didn't need central heating and air, either...but we like it!
is central heating and air one of what u meant by your "many Church-developed traditions"?

Statuary isn't idolatry. Statuary, as well as icons, rosary beads, crosses, etc. (such as those found in the RC Church) have no power independent of God.
Az Paul realized and taught: idols are nothing, 1 Cor 10:19

People worship idols. Idols have power in and of themselves and are independent of a god.
To the contrary: idols are zero. It's the demons "behind" them that lead to demon-possession. Tho i agree w/ u mebbe that there seems to be a certain seductiveness to worshippin, venerating, praying towards/to, or bowing down to statues, pictures, relics, crosses, etc.
Thanx
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
that "tradition" duzn't seem any Testament to me
Operative word here: seem

in any case, even if Christ doesn't "need beads," apparently many of his followers find them useful.
i don't
Then, by all means, don't use them! Nobody wants to force you to do something that's a hindrance to you.

is central heating and air one of what u meant by your "many Church-developed traditions"?
It's "church-developed," just as the Bible, and the rosary, and the statuary, etc. (Not mentioned in the Bible, but present now).

Az Paul realized and taught: idols are nothing, 1 Cor 10:19
Which is why statuary, beads, icons, crosses, etc. are not idols -- they're not "nothing."

seductiveness to worshippin, venerating, praying towards/to, or bowing down to statues, pictures, relics, crosses, etc.
Thanx
Seduction denotes manipulation. I prefer "drawn." I find no demons in these items -- only Christ -- who is not a demon.
 

rocka21

Brother Rock
so there we have it, the mary doctrine was " church- developed".

here are some interesting bible facts...........
the angle of the lord had to tell mary THREE times about the the birth of christ. why would she question if she was divine? Luke 2

Jesus rebuked her at the wedding.

she was a virgin only at christs birth. after , she had other children ( so... umm .. shes not a virgin).

she was filled with the holy ghost speaking in tongues . Acts 2 - ( sounds like she is a pentecostal).

and no i did not see her in my toast this morning!
 
Top