Question to all Protestants

[BjBarnett]

Hello, I was just wondering are there any Protestant denominations that venerate Mary? Just wondering. Thanks in advanced :)

[Bulldog]

Although it is not publicaly encouraged, Lutherans do not condemn veneration of Mary like other Protestant denomonations.

I even believe that there is a Lutheran rosary.

[A. believer]

Hello, I was just wondering are there any Protestant denominations that venerate Mary? Just wondering. Thanks in advanced :)
Hi Bj,

I just noticed your signature quote from Luther, one of the more popular quotes among many Roman Catholics. Just wondering if you're interested in its context or if you're satisfied with just the commonly presumed interpretation of what he must have meant based upon Roman Catholic presuppositions. If the former, just let me know either here, on a new thread, or by PM.

[Church Punk]

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
I don't think it is ok to pray to Mary. She was or should I say is my sister in Christ but also was a sinner like all of us.
Maybe I don't understand the thread.

YBIC

[Flynmonkie]

If you are praying to Mary, "to put in a good word" I personally find serious problems with this if you think she has pull--more than yourself with God.

But interestingly enough when I ask Catholics this question. They say this is not their intent..

They claim it is just a means of support for their faith. It seems to me that each person is different on the intent?

[CCWoody]

Hello, I was just wondering are there any Protestant denominations that venerate Mary? Just wondering. Thanks in advanced :)
Define what you mean when you say "venerate."

ven·er·ate (vhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/ebreve.gifnhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.gifhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/schwa.gif-rhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/amacr.gifthttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/lprime.gif)
tr.v. ven·er·at·ed, ven·er·at·ing, ven·er·ates
To regard with respect, reverence, or heartfelt deference. See Synonyms at revere (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=revere)1.

[Latin venerhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/amacr.gifrhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/imacr.gif, venerhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/amacr.gift-, to venerate, from venus, vener-, love, desire. See wen-1 in Indo-European Roots.]

If that is the extent of your usage of the word, then I should say that all true saints should venerate Mary. Does this mean that we should pray to her, as is the RC custom,....

No!

Thanks,

[opus_dei]

But interestingly enough when I ask Catholics this question. They say this is not their intent..

They claim it is just a means of support for their faith. It seems to me that each person is different on the intent?
It seems many folks get hung up on the phrase "pray for Mary's (or a saint's etc) intercession. The common response from Catholics is generally: do you ever ask a friend, loved-one etc to "pray for you?" At least that's the way that I view it. There is much debate, of course, on Mary's "special relationship" etc, but when Catholics venerate or pray to Mary they are not praying "for her" to solve x, y, z, but merely to bring your prayer's to God. Much the same as praying directly to God and having a friend of yours pray for the same thing. Can't hurt to have more than one voice, right?

But I definitely agree with your last sentence. Ask 100 Catholics, you may get 100 different answers. well, not really, but you get the point. :wave:

cheers.

o.d.

[Flynmonkie]

But I definitely agree with your last sentence. Ask 100 Catholics, you may get 100 different answers. well, not really, but you get the point. :wave:

cheers.

o.d.
I think like I said intent is everything, there is not a Catholic I know that believes that their relationship is not strong enough to go to God directly. It seems that might not be what the "church" teaches...but here in the real world.....

I actually have always viewed it the same as yourself, as a Protestant we ask others to pray for us, It concerned me also. As that we have a direct line with God for our needs. He needs no assistance assessing our issues. So we have no business asking for others to help. It seems to take the Glory from Him. But I think that we do this for not only support, by allowing other Christians to realize as Christians we have problems and delimmas too, they are not alone, but to also remind how much power there is in prayer.

Course, I am not all that educated on many of the various denominations church practices, but My Catholic friends seem to agree and insist that they do not pray to Mary. It is more of a respectful reminder.

I do not know the basis of the Catholic Belief on Mary, my own personal thought is that there was only one sinless - Jesus. However, Mary is his mother I do not believe she was sinless her whole life, I also believe in the immaculate conception unless someone proves otherwise. Again, I have lotts of study to do on this.

[ps139]

Course, I am not all that educated on many of the various denominations church practices, but My Catholic friends seem to agree and insist that they do not pray to Mary. It is more of a respectful reminder.God is the ultimate recipient of all prayers and petitions.
And when we say "pray to Mary," "pray to St. Peter etc" we mean "pray" as in "ask." Most Romance languages have these 2 words as the same verb - there is a distinction in English, but as the Catholic Church has always been based in a Romance-language speaking area, our usage reflects the "pray=ask" terminology.

I suspect that a lot of Protestants equate prayer with worship. Then I can understand where the rest of the misconceptions spring from that.

[ChrisB]

I suspect that a lot of Protestants equate prayer with worship. Then I can understand where the rest of the misconceptions spring from that.

There may be something in this - however prayer usually includes an element of adoration. It is this adoration when directed towards Mary which gives Protestants a problem.

[dsdumpling]

Hello, I was just wondering are there any Protestant denominations that venerate Mary? Just wondering. Thanks in advanced :)
My little Methodist church does not.

[ps139]

There may be something in this - however prayer usually includes an element of adoration. It is this adoration when directed towards Mary which gives Protestants a problem.
The Catholic teaching is that God is the only One to Whom worship is due. This is the belief of all Christians. Prayer to God does involve this worship or adoration. Prayer to Mary does not.
When Catholics pray to Mary we usually say the Hail Mary prayer. The first half is taken verbatim from Scripture. (Luke 1). In the second half, the part not taken verbatim from Scripture, we say "Holy Mary Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death."
By "Mother of God" we do not imply that Mary in any way pre-existed God, only that Mary is the Mother of Jesus. And the last sentence is crucial - "pray for us sinners." Pray to whom? To God. So essentially we are asking Mary to pray for us to God.
I think that the terminology is the main barrier of understanding here.

[daveleau]

Most churches recognize what the Bible says about Mary. We recognize the fact that she was a very devout person and that she was chosen by God to bring Jesus into the world. We recognize that she bore Joseph 4 sons and at least 2 daughters and that Joseph was instructed not to lie with her until after Jesus was born. We recognize that Mary was very distraught when she could not find her Son on a journey from Jerusalem back to their home in Nazareth and that she and Joseph found Him in the temple teaching at age 12. We recognize that she brought those sons and daughters to bring Jesus out of a hut where the Pharisees planned to kill Him for healing on the Sabbath. We recognize that she was there at the Crucifixion and that Jesus gave John the responsibility of looking after her.

We do not believe that Mary was sinless. Jesus said there is none righteous, no not one. If this included Mary, then it would have said, there is none righteous except Mary. We do not recognize Mary's ability to intercede in prayer- only through Jesus and other saints (other Christians on earth) can we intercede We do not believe that she plays any role in today's church. We believe that to do so is to liken yourself after the Gnostics who put too much importance on John the Baptist and inspired God to have John write His gospel. (His, being God's revelation to John that we know as the Gospel of John). We do not have any graven images of Mary. These are all extra-Scriptural traditions based on writings that are non-cannonical.

This goes for all of the churches I have attended: Episcopalian, Penticostal, Baptist, Assembly of God and non-denominational. I do not know of any other church that holds extra-Scriptural ideas of Mary other than the Catholics and the Orthodox churches.

Not only is prayer worship, everthing we do is worship as long as it does not detract from God's message. For all things, do it for the glory of God.
Worship is not just something you do in private or in church. It is a lifestyle.

[bigsierra]

Sometimes I use the term ask, instead of pray to help keep folks from freaking, because of how prayer is used. There is definately a difference when praying to God. "Lord God, you are all holy and worthy of All our worship." I think the "Body of Christ" is bigger than a lot of folks understand and not seperated by death, our "Cloud of Witnesses."
I also talk to my Guardian Angel. Just because you can't see them doesn't mean they aren't there. It seems to be acceptable to talk to them, when they make themselves visible. That's the example of the Bible anyway.

[bigsierra]

Most churches recognize what the Bible says about Mary. We recognize the fact that she was a very devout person and that she was chosen by God to bring Jesus into the world. We recognize that she bore Joseph 4 sons and at least 2 daughters and that Joseph was instructed not to lie with her until after Jesus was born. We recognize that Mary was very distraught when she could not find her Son on a journey from Jerusalem back to their home in Nazareth and that she and Joseph found Him in the temple teaching at age 12. We recognize that she brought those sons and daughters to bring Jesus out of a hut where the Pharisees planned to kill Him for healing on the Sabbath. We recognize that she was there at the Crucifixion and that Jesus gave John the responsibility of looking after her.

Why did Jesus give John responsibility of looking after her, if she had all those kids?

[daveleau]

John was his closest friend and most devout follower. He was the ONLY one that did not forsake Him. Maybe that is why. I do not know. Only He knows. Ask Him.

[BjBarnett]

thanks for all the replys guys.

lets not let this get into a debate on if it is wrong or right to the person who asked me to define venerate i probably should of been more clear on what i was asking. I was wondering if any of the protestant denominations held her in high reguard like us Catholics and the Orthodox church (i think they do it similiarly to Catholics). Thanks again for the great responses guys. If any of you got anymore to add please do :)

[Buccaneer]

Speaking to the dead is necromancy and God hates necromancy. NO ONE ROSE BUT CHRIST. Mary is still in the grave. When you die, you are totally dead. you go neither heaven nor hell but oblivion until the resurection. You cannot prove me wrong and if you can, I shall thank you for the knowledge. "You shall not die" the first great lie and it still exists today indeed.

[Rechtgläubig]

Mary is still in the grave. When you die, you are totally dead. you go neither heaven nor hell but oblivion until the resurection. You cannot prove me wrong and if you can, I shall thank you for the knowledge. "You shall not die" the first great lie and it still exists today indeed.
You kidding around or are you for real?

[Buccaneer]

I'm serious. prove me wrong. I base everything I say from scripture.

[Bulldog]

So you believe in "soul sleep"?

[Buccaneer]

If you want to call it that. and no, im not ajehovahs whitness.

[Rechtgläubig]

SDA?

[Buccaneer]

huh? To say taht the soul doesnt die is to say we already have eternal life. God will give it later.

[Yahweh Nissi]

I'm serious. prove me wrong. I base everything I say from scripture.

Mat 17:1-8
1After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. 2There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light. 3Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus.
4Peter said to Jesus, "Lord, it is good for us to be here. If you wish, I will put up three shelters--one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah."
5While he was still speaking, a bright cloud enveloped them, and a voice from the cloud said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!"
6When the disciples heard this, they fell facedown to the ground, terrified. 7But Jesus came and touched them. "Get up," he said. "Don't be afraid." 8When they looked up, they saw no one except Jesus.[NIV] (Emphasis mine)

Moses and Elijah with Jesus.


Rev 7:9-17
9After this I looked and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and in front of the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands. 10And they cried out in a loud voice:
"Salvation belongs to our God,
who sits on the throne,
and to the Lamb." 11All the angels were standing around the throne and around the elders and the four living creatures. They fell down on their faces before the throne and worshiped God, 12saying:
"Amen!
Praise and glory
and wisdom and thanks and honor
and power and strength
be to our God for ever and ever.
Amen!"
13Then one of the elders asked me, "These in white robes--who are they, and where did they come from?"
14I answered, "Sir, you know."
15And he said, "These are they who have come out of the great tribulation; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. Therefore,
"they are before the throne of God
and serve him day and night in his temple;
and he who sits on the throne will spread his tent over them.
16Never again will they hunger;
never again will they thirst.
The sun will not beat upon them,
nor any scorching heat.
17For the Lamb at the center of the throne will be their shepherd;
he will lead them to springs of living water.
And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes."[NIV]

Rev 11:1-5
1Then I looked, and there before me was the Lamb, standing on Mount Zion, and with him 144,000 who had his name and his Father's name written on their foreheads. 2And I heard a sound from heaven like the roar of rushing waters and like a loud peal of thunder. The sound I heard was like that of harpists playing their harps. 3And they sang a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and the elders. No one could learn the song except the 144,000 who had been redeemed from the earth. 4These are those who did not defile themselves with women, for they kept themselves pure. They follow the Lamb wherever he goes. They were purchased from among men and offered as firstfruits to God and the Lamb. 5No lie was found in their mouths; they are blameless. [NIV]

People in heaven - well before (see below) the dead are raised and judged.

Rev 20:11-15
11Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. Earth and sky fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. 12And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done. 14Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.[NIV]

[Bulldog]

Huh?

"Eternal life" just means salvation.

[Yahweh Nissi]

Hello, I was just wondering are there any Protestant denominations that venerate Mary? Just wondering. Thanks in advanced :)

The Anglican church does, to varying degrees or none. I have heared the Hail Mary said in an Anglican church.

[Buccaneer]

[1 Thessalonians 4:16] For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
We shall not all sleep means we shall not all die, so sleep is a term describing death.
[1 Corinthians 15:51] Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
The Old Testament saints who will awake to everlasting life, are not "dead in Christ" but sleep in the dust.
[Dan 12:2] And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.
Genesis teaches the basic view that people return to the dust when they die, and this theme is continued in scripture.
Genesis 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
Job is hoping to die, and affirms Genesis 3:19... his statement "I shall not be" is that he is hoping to be dead by moring.
Job 7:21 And why dost thou not pardon my transgression, and take away my iniquity? for now shall I sleep in the dust; and thou shalt seek me in the morning, but I shall not be.
Next, is a close parallel of Genesis 3:19, made from the earth/dirt/clay/dust, returning to the dust.
Job 10:9 Remember, I beseech thee, that thou hast made me as the clay; and wilt thou bring me into dust again?
Psalm 104:29 Thou hidest thy face, they are troubled: thou takest away their breath, they die, and return to their dust.
Ecclesiastes continues the theme of how men turn to dust when they die and are like being unconscious, alseep, knowing nothing, and their spirit returns to God.
Ecclesiastes 3:20 All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.
Next, the point is clearly made that the living are in a much better state than the dead. Further, the dead know nothing, not even emotions. This is fitting with the Bible's theme of returning to the dust, and being asleep.
Eccl: 9:4 For to him that is joined to all the living there is hope: for a living dog is better than a dead lion.
5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.
6 Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun.
Ecclesiastes 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God
who gave it.
I ASSUME, yes, assume from the bulk of the scriptures which say the dead are alseep, and know nothing, to be consistent with that... that just as we knew nothing prior to being born when our spirits came from God, going back to God does not imply being awake.
In contrast, those asleep in Christ are NOT perished, as in Eccl 9:6, but note, they are still ASLEEP...
1 Cor 15:17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.
I hope that Thirteen scriptures given above is enough on the concept. And there are 12 more verses below! I believe the example of
Abraham's bosom, which I do not quote, is an example of the ultimate fate of all people once all will finally be raised. Because there is the resurrection of EVERYBODY in due time. Currently however, people are not conscious in the afterlife, but asleep.
There is one story in the Old Testament that I have found quite interesting. Saul, I believe, calls on the departed soul of Samuel. I believe he wakes him up to do it!
1 Samuel 28
15 And Samuel said to Saul, Why hast thou disquieted me, to bring me up? And Saul answered, I am sore distressed; for the Philistines make war against me, and God is departed from me, and answereth me no more, neither by prophets, nor by dreams: therefore I have called thee, that thou mayest make known unto me what I shall do.
Question: For those seven years that the Rapture saints are in Heaven, where are the dead who were not Raptured?
Those who are dead and not raptured are still asleep in the dust. They are not raised to life until AFTER the 1000 years, or until the first resurrection which is at the end of the tribulation.
Rev 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
These two resurrections separated by a 1000 years are spoken of in the following verses which also make the contrasts between good and bad people, but do not mention the 1000 year gap between the two resurrections.
Acts 24:15 And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.
John 5:29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.
Daniel 12:2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.
This last resurrection at the end of the millinnium, at the "great white throne" judgment, shows people coming up.
Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

Question: And where are those who die during the Tribulation?
The saints would be under the altar of God. The others, the masses who die in the wars, the 1/2 of the earth, would not go under the altar of God, but into the dust of the earth, to be resurrected at the end of the 1000 years as we saw.
In Rev 6, again, the theme is still much like sleep, they are told to "rest".
Rev 6:9 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:
10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?
11 And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.
Just as Abel's blood cried out from the ground, so too, do these dead cry out for vengance, even thouth they are asleep in death.
Gen 4:10 And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground.
---------------
I hope I have showed you that there are definitely plans for the dead.
[1 Thessalonians 4:15] For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
[1 Thessalonians 4:16] For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
[1 Thessalonians 4:17] Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
[1 Thessalonians 4:18] Therefore comfort one another with these words.

[Eusebios]

Jesus. However, Mary is his mother I do not believe she was sinless her whole life, I also believe in the immaculate conception unless someone proves otherwise. Again, I have lotts of study to do on this.
Flyin'
I think you are under a common misconception regarding the doctrine of Immaculate conception. This is not the belief that Jesus was immaculately concieved, rather that the THEOTOKOS was. This is a belief perculiar to the RCC. Though we Eo venerate The Blessed and Ever-Virgin Mary, we do not accept the doctrine of IC, and I don't think Protestatnts do either, at least in my many years in EPism I never encountered anyone who did.
His unworthy servant.
Eusebios.
:bow:

[Bulldog]

Flyin'
I think you are under a common misconception regarding the doctrine of Immaculate conception. This is not the belief that Jesus was immaculately concieved, rather that the THEOTOKOS was. This is a belief perculiar to the RCC. Though we Eo venerate The Blessed and Ever-Virgin Mary, we do not accept the doctrine of IC, and I don't think Protestatnts do either, at least in my many years in EPism I never encountered anyone who did.
His unworthy servant.
Eusebios.
:bow:

No, we don't believe in the IC of Mary.

I have not seen a single Bible verse to suppport it.

[Eusebios]

The Catholic teaching is that God is the only One to Whom worship is due. This is the belief of all Christians. Prayer to God does involve this worship or adoration. Prayer to Mary does not.
When Catholics pray to Mary we usually say the Hail Mary prayer. The first half is taken verbatim from Scripture. (Luke 1). In the second half, the part not taken verbatim from Scripture, we say "Holy Mary Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death."
By "Mother of God" we do not imply that Mary in any way pre-existed God, only that Mary is the Mother of Jesus. And the last sentence is crucial - "pray for us sinners." Pray to whom? To God. So essentially we are asking Mary to pray for us to God.
I think that the terminology is the main barrier of understanding here.
Bill,
Good stuff here. I would heartily recommend a book I'm currently reading to help clear up a good deal of the confusion between veneration and worship of the Theotokos. It is Mary Through the Centuries (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0300069510/103-3416937-6099005?v=glance) by Jaroslov Pelikan, Sterling Professor Emeritus of History at Yale University. Although Pelikan's theological orations can be difficult, this work is much more accesible and not a polemic, but a studied historical overview.
Peace,
Eusebios.

[Photini]

When you die, you are totally dead. you go neither heaven nor hell but oblivion until the resurection.
What is your understanding of the parable given by our Lord of the Rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16:19-31?

[bigsierra]

A couple of threads that might answer some questions

The Immaculate Conception (http://www.christianforums.com/t69873)

Immaculate Conception (http://www.christianforums.com/t17762)

This one gets kinda messy, but I remember it having some good responses mix :)
Mary, Theotokos (Mother of God) (http://www.christianforums.com/t103141)

Audio Series, that is FREE, that I'm listening to (the best I've ever heard on the subject)
Hail Holy Queen (http://www.ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/seriessearchprog.asp?seriesID=6668&T1=hail+holy+queen) MP3 Format(may be Real Player - Can't check from here at work) 13 part by Dr. Scott Hahn former Presbyterian Pastor and Dean.

[CMmom]

*sprinting back to the OP* :wave:
According to the earlier definition of venerated, I'd say yes. However, the emphasis placed on Mary in study and worship services is nowhere near the RCC. I believe that all Christian women aspire to be as selfless as Mary was, but I believe that calling her sinless may be a stretch.

[Flynmonkie]

:wave: I guess I am unclear on where in the Bible it refers to Mary being sinless? In my study, I have never come to this relization? Does anyone know the scriptural basis behind this belief?

[daveleau]

I'm serious. prove me wrong. I base everything I say from scripture.
Luk 23:43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

I agree about your main idea, but I do not agree at all with the idea that we shall not rise until Jesus returns.

[daveleau]

*sprinting back to the OP* :wave:
According to the earlier definition of venerated, I'd say yes. However, the emphasis placed on Mary in study and worship services is nowhere near the RCC. I believe that all Christian women aspire to be as selfless as Mary was, but I believe that calling her sinless may be a stretch.
:amen: She was chosen, just as we are chosen in Ephesians (same Greek used to describe us as used to describe Mary when she was called). She was not sinless, and to say so is against Scripture. "There is none righteous, no not one" could not be plainer. It is amazing that people disregard this point blank statemtent. The pope is not sinless, either.

[Svt4Him]

Hi Bj,

I just noticed your signature quote from Luther, one of the more popular quotes among many Roman Catholics. Just wondering if you're interested in its context or if you're satisfied with just the commonly presumed interpretation of what he must have meant based upon Roman Catholic presuppositions. If the former, just let me know either here, on a new thread, or by PM.
I'm interested.

And Mary is blessed, but not the only blessed woman in the Bible. We do respect what she did.

As for how I understand Catholicism, it's a little more than respect.

..."She shared my Martyrdom- and I share her. We hide no pain, no sorrow, from each others eyes. This is my Fathers will."

..."In your bereavement think of this: A multitude of souls were saved by Mary's sharing in My Calvary."

(Clarence Enzler, "Everyman's Way of the Cross", Ave Maria Press, 1970)

New Saint Joseph Baltimore Catechism (p. 45):

"Mary shared in the sacrifice of her Son."


Now to respect her is one thing. But did Jesus venerate Mary?

Mark 3:31Then His brothers and His mother came, and standing outside they sent to Him, calling Him. [/url]32And a multitude was sitting around Him; and they said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are outside seeking You.”
33But He answered them, saying, “Who is My mother, or My brothers?” (qvb://0/anchor/32)34And He looked around in a circle at those who sat about Him, and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! 35For whoever does the will of God is My brother and My sister and mother.”

John 2:4Jesus said to her, “Woman, what does your concern have to do with Me? My hour has not yet come.”

Luke 2:48So when they saw Him, they were amazed; and His mother said to Him, “Son, why have You done this to us? Look, Your father and I have sought You anxiously.”
(qvb://0/anchor/35)49And He said to them, “Why did you seek Me? Did you not know that I must be about My Father’s business?”

Matt 12:While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. 47Then one said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You.”
(qvb://0/anchor/47)48But He answered and said to the one who told Him, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” 49And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! [url="qvb://0/anchor/50"] (qvb://0/anchor/49)50For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.”

[bigsierra]

:amen: She was chosen, just as we are chosen in Ephesians (same Greek used to describe us as used to describe Mary when she was called). She was not sinless, and to say so is against Scripture. "There is none righteous, no not one" could not be plainer. It is amazing that people disregard this point blank statemtent. The pope is not sinless, either.

Has anyone ever claimed the Pope to be sinless? He goes to confession weekly, just like other sinners. It doesn't seem like you're familiar what the Catholic Church teaches on Sin with either Mary or the Pope. I would recommend checking out the Hail Holy Queen series I posted above.

[PaladinValer]

As someone mentioned before, there is a small tradition of Marian devotions within the Anglican Church. I would suspect that it is mainly among High Church Anglicans, although I am not one myself though I am a High Church Anglican.

As for the secondary topic, I understand the afterlife as this, which I've learn is an Eastern Orthodox idea:

When we die,we receive guidance from angels to help us bear with our death (I mean, what a shock! :P). They then guide you on a tour of Sheol, which is divided into Paradice and Hades. Unlike commonly accepted theology, there is nothing stated in the Bible that people zip right into heaven or hell at death. If so, then what use is the Judgment or the Resurrection to come? You then undergo a "particular judgement" as to where you will wait.

Upon death, if a person's soul goes to Paradice, it means you are among the faithful and righteous. While you are there, the main activity is prayer and praise in hope to hasten the Second Coming of the Christ. They pray for themselves, the other dead here in Sheol, and those who are still alive.

If you instead you arrive in Hades, hope is still not lost, because we cannot know God's plan or intention for the souls that await there. This is evident because Jesus descended into Hades (see the Apostle's Creed) upon death and preached to those there. While there, the primary activity is, like in Paradice, to also pray, wait, and hope for the hastening of the Resurrection and the Judgment.

While we are in Sheol, our spirituality and faith continues to develop, although not in the way Mormon or Dante's theology states. We don't "progress" to different levels or circles or anything; it is an internal function only. This also doesn't change our eternal fate. Those fated for hell (if there are any) will decay while those fated for heaven will continue to be transformed.

There is currently noone in Hell; not even the Devil.

Upon the Second Coming, all souls will be Resurrected in their bodies (supposedly perfected) and shall receive the Judgment. Those judged to be worthy will ascend to the News Heavens and New Earth (Heaven) and be with God for the rest of eternity. The rest will (if there are any) shall be thrown into hell with the Devil and his demons. Most in Paradice will probably achieve salvation, although don't forget that not all who say "Lord, Lord" will make it. Similarly, there will be those in Hades who will not go to hell but to heaven.

Only the Grace of God can tell a person's final fate. IMO, it isn't for us to judge or speculate who goes to heaven, hell, paradice, or hades. That isn't our job nor our right; it belongs to the Savior only.

If anyone is curious to see where I learned this from, here is the link: http://www.kencollins.com/question-45.htm. It is the website of a pastor from the Disciples of Christ denomination. He has some excellent other articles.

**Warning!: As usual when I post links, I give this announcement: I do not necessarily agree or disagree with everything else on this website nor possibly some things in the essay directly linked to. Thank you for reading this**

[bigsierra]

Mark 3:31Then His brothers and His mother came, and standing outside they sent to Him, calling Him. [/url]32And a multitude was sitting around Him; and they said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are outside seeking You.”
33But He answered them, saying, “Who is My mother, or My brothers?” (qvb://0/anchor/32)34And He looked around in a circle at those who sat about Him, and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! 35For whoever does the will of God is My brother and My sister and mother.”

John 2:4Jesus said to her, “Woman, what does your concern have to do with Me? My hour has not yet come.”

Luke 2:48So when they saw Him, they were amazed; and His mother said to Him, “Son, why have You done this to us? Look, Your father and I have sought You anxiously.”
(qvb://0/anchor/35)49And He said to them, “Why did you seek Me? Did you not know that I must be about My Father’s business?”

Matt 12:While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. 47Then one said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You.”
(qvb://0/anchor/47)48But He answered and said to the one who told Him, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” 49And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! [url="qvb://0/anchor/50"] (qvb://0/anchor/49)50For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.”



Jesus never sinned. He kept all of the 10 Commandments. He would would always show his mother the honor she deserves. He was simply stating that all believers have a place in his family, as disciples.

John 2:4Jesus said to her, “Woman, what does your concern have to do with Me? My hour has not yet come.”

Mr. McKinsey is adamant that Jesus erred. He used such words to describe Jesus as disrespectful, insolent, unloving, and rude. Is he correct?

As with most Bible critics, Mr. McKinsey is guilty of judging Jesus’ words by what is common in twenty-first-century English vernacular, rather than putting Jesus’ comments in its proper first-century setting. It was not rude or inappropriate for a man in the first century to speak to a lady by saying, “Woman (gunai)….” This “was a highly respectful and affectionate mode of address” (Vincent, 1997) “with no idea of censure” (Robertson, 1932, p. 34). The New International Version correctly captures the meaning of this word in John 2:4: “ ‘Dear woman, why do you involve me?’ ” (NIV, emp. added). Jesus used this word when complimenting the Syrophoenician woman’s great faith (Matthew 15:28), when affectionately addressing Mary Magdalene after His resurrection (John 20:15), and when speaking to His disconsolate mother one last time from the cross (John 19:26). Paul used this same word when addressing Christian women (1 Corinthians 7:16). As Adam Clarke noted: “[C]ertainly no kind of disrespect is intended, but, on the contrary, complaisance, affability, tenderness, and concern, and in this sense it is used in the best Greek writers” (1996).

Then Jesus went ahead and did it. Did he not really know what he thought about the situation? He knew exactly what he was doing. He was also using then terminology of his day.

[rnmomof7]

It seems many folks get hung up on the phrase "pray for Mary's (or a saint's etc) intercession. The common response from Catholics is generally: do you ever ask a friend, loved-one etc to "pray for you?" At least that's the way that I view it. There is much debate, of course, on Mary's "special relationship" etc, but when Catholics venerate or pray to Mary they are not praying "for her" to solve x, y, z, but merely to bring your prayer's to God. Much the same as praying directly to God and having a friend of yours pray for the same thing. Can't hurt to have more than one voice, right?

If that is true, why then are pilgrimages made to places like fatima looking for healing with some water or such? The implication is that spot has some special magic to it.
There are daily Novenas said to Mary and the papers have thank you for prayers answered.


It seems it is saying one thing and doing another

The bible says there is one mediator between God and man and that is Christ Jesus

[rnmomof7]

The Catholic teaching is that God is the only One to Whom worship is due. This is the belief of all Christians. Prayer to God does involve this worship or adoration. Prayer to Mary does not.
When Catholics pray to Mary we usually say the Hail Mary prayer. The first half is taken verbatim from Scripture. (Luke 1). In the second half, the part not taken verbatim from Scripture, we say "Holy Mary Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death."
By "Mother of God" we do not imply that Mary in any way pre-existed God, only that Mary is the Mother of Jesus. And the last sentence is crucial - "pray for us sinners." Pray to whom? To God. So essentially we are asking Mary to pray for us to God.
I think that the terminology is the main barrier of understanding here.

How does mary hear the prayers of millions at the same time? Is she omnipresent?

The simple fact is that there is no scripture to support intercession by those that have died.

if we want to use Luke 1 , perhaps we could quote Mary when she says she needs a savior ( just as do all sinners:>)

[Bulldog]

The bible says there is one mediator between God and man and that is Christ Jesus

Amen.

1Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

[Oblio]

The bible says there is one mediator between God and man and that is Christ Jesus


Indeed, Christ is our Mediator in that He joined human flesh with the Divine and reconciled our flesh and defeated death by death.

Mary the Theotokos, along with all the Saints, and any other Christians we ask either here or who have gone before us, interceed for us in prayer before God.

Neither Orthodox, nor Cathoics believe that Mary or anyone else takes the place of Christ in His Mediation for our Salvation.

[Bulldog]

Mary the Theotokos, along with all the Saints, and any other Christians we ask either here or who have gone before us, interceed for us in prayer before God.

If true, them they become mediators between us and God.

[rnmomof7]

Indeed, Christ is our Mediator in that He joined human flesh with the Divine and reconciled our flesh and defeated death by death.

Mary the Theotokos, along with all the Saints, and any other Christians we ask either here or who have gone before us, interceed for us in prayer before God.

Neither Orthodox, nor Cathoics believe that Mary or anyone else takes the place of Christ in His Mediation for our Salvation.


I do not believe it is the intent of an Christian Church to supplant Christ.. but we are all too human and too often the head says one thing and the heart the other .

I just do not see evidence that those that have gone before us have any other desire than to throw themselves at the throne of God in worship.

Do the EO have a strong history of intercessory prayer?

I thought that it was less a common practice than in the Roman church??

[Oblio]

How does mary hear the prayers of millions at the same time? Is she omnipresent?


The Theotokos is not omnipresent, neither does Communion of the Saints require it.

It might be better to discuss this in one of the Theology fora (for I do not wish to post counter to the rules here) but the Church triumphant exists in the heavenly realm and as such is not constrained by time, space & physics. I would be interested to know the views on this by Protestants who do hold to the doctine of Communion of the Saints.

[Oblio]

If true, them they become mediators between us and God.


Am I a mediator between you and God if I pray for you ?? What am I mediating ??

[Oblio]

Do the EO have a strong history of intercessory prayer?


One of the earliest evidences is the Liturgy written by the Apostle James where he asks for the prayers of the Ever Virgin Mary.


I thought that it was less a common practice than in the Roman church??


I am unsure of how commonplace petitions for intercessory prayer are having never attended a RC Mass or any other service sans Weddings. However, since we were one Church up until 1054 there are bound to be similarities, on the other hand 1000 years is a long time, there are bound to be differences ;)

[bigsierra]

How does mary hear the prayers of millions at the same time? Is she omnipresent?

The simple fact is that there is no scripture to support intercession by those that have died.

if we want to use Luke 1 , perhaps we could quote Mary when she says she needs a savior ( just as do all sinners:>)


Not only do those in heaven pray with us, they also pray for us. In the book of Revelation, John sees that "the twenty-four elders [the leaders of the people of God in heaven] fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints" (Rev. 5:8). Thus the saints in heaven offer to God the prayers of the saints on earth.
Catholic Answers (http://www.catholic.com/library/Intercession_of_the_Saints.asp)

How did the 24 elders get a hold of our prayers to pour out before the Lamb?

[rnmomof7]

One of the earliest evidences is the Liturgy written by the Apostle James where he asks for the prayers of the Ever Virgin Mary.



I am unsure of how commonplace petitions for intercessory prayer are having never attended a RC Mass or any other service sans Weddings. However, since we were one Church up until 1054 there are bound to be similarities, on the other hand 1000 years is a long time, there are bound to be differences ;)

I ask because I have EO acquaintances and they have never indicated seeking prayers from Mary or Saints.

[Oblio]

I ask because I have EO acquaintances and they have never indicated seeking prayers from Mary or Saints.

It is my understanding that intercessory requests are not required on the part of ones personal walk in Christ. They are however a part of all corporate services, but not to a great extent, usually during the dismissal and usually referenced through a petition to Christ, IOW; Through the prayers of the Theotokos and Ever Virgin Mary, Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God have mercy on us and save us. Amen

[Bulldog]

One of the earliest evidences is the Liturgy written by the Apostle James where he asks for the prayers of the Ever Virgin Mary.

Very compelling Oblio..Do you have a link?

[pumpkinsoftruth]

I know baptists dont venerate mary, she was a good and blessed woman who bore christ, but not divine. Even if praying to Mary is valid, I would much rather pray to Christ who died for us all. Simple as that :)

[bigsierra]

I know baptists dont venerate mary, she was a good and blessed woman who bore christ, but not divine. Even if praying to Mary is valid, I would much rather pray to Christ who died for us all. Simple as that :)

Tis good that you don't believe her to be divine. ;) Catholics and Orthodox don't believe her to be divine either.

[pumpkinsoftruth]

Alrite, that good :)

[Bulldog]

Tis good that you don't believe her to be divine. ;) Catholics and Orthodox don't believe her to be divine either.

You don't believe her to be sinless?

[Oblio]

Very compelling Oblio..Do you have a link?

I've got a secondary, but it is an Orthodox apologetic site :).

The primary ECF source at ccel has footnote bugs (it is a standard blessing so the Liturgy indicates it as such and refernces the footnote which is not linked correctly), so I will try to remember to bring the ECF hardcopy home from church.

[bigsierra]

You don't believe her to be sinless?
She was not sinless of herself.
She needed a savior, Jesus Christ.

[Oblio]

She was not sinless of herself.
She needed a savior, Jesus Christ.


In Orthodox Theology, sinlessness does not mitigate the need for Salvation. Not making a judgment on the first sentence, and agreeing with the second.

[bigsierra]

You lost me a bit, isn't that the same thing? This is one description I've seen:

Mary was spared from original sin by God, not herself. The popular analogy is God let us fall in the mud puddle, and cleaned us up afterward through baptism. In Mary's case, God did not let her enter the mud puddle.

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=2694291

[Svt4Him]

Then Jesus went ahead and did it. Did he not really know what he thought about the situation? He knew exactly what he was doing. He was also using then terminology of his day.
Oh, please don't mistake me for someone who hasn't heard this before. It was not a nice feeling of affection, it wasn't rude, it was nothing. That's the point. It conveyed no special connotation at all.

[bigsierra]

Consider how the Old Testament type of the Ark of the Covenant, prefigured the New Testament Ark and the honor the Isrealites gave to the Ark, that was kept in the Holy of Holies, until it was hidden away, leaving the Holy of Holies empty.

[djns9437]

She was not sinless, and to say so is against Scripture.
Hail "Mary" full of Grace?


"There is none righteous, no not one" could not be plainer. It is amazing that people disregard this point blank statemtent.

In the days of Herrod,King of Judea,there was a priest named Zechariah of the priestly division of Abijah;his wife was from the daughters of Aaron,and her name was Elizabeth.Both were righteous in the eyes of God,observing all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blamelessly.

[Bulldog]

In the days of Herrod,King of Judea,there was a priest named Zechariah of the priestly division of Abijah;his wife was from the daughters of Aaron,and her name was Elizabeth.Both were righteous in the eyes of God,observing all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blamelessly.

Theverse is referring to the unregernerate, ehich I;m sure Mary was at one time.

Is there scripture to tell us Mary was sinless?

[FreeinChrist]

You lost me a bit, isn't that the same thing? This is one description I've seen:



http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=2694291
I don't buy that argument you presented earlier. That is adding to scripture.
Why do you refer to a statement in the OBOB for back up for your position - isn't that against the rules?
Please, if you don't mind my asking, of what denomination are you?

[Bulldog]

Please, if you don't mind my asking, of what denomination are you?

Catholic, I'm pretty sure.

[FreeinChrist]

Consider how the Old Testament type of the Ark of the Covenant, prefigured the New Testament Ark and the honor the Isrealites gave to the Ark, that was kept in the Holy of Holies, until it was hidden away, leaving the Holy of Holies empty.
I disagree with that analogy, it is bizarre (Mary = Ark). The Ark of the covenant contained the Law. God was never inside the Ark, but was in a cloud /fire above the Ark. On top of the Ark was the mercy seat of God.
There is no 'New Testamnet ark'.

[FreeinChrist]

Not only do those in heaven pray with us, they also pray for us. In the book of Revelation, John sees that "the twenty-four elders [the leaders of the people of God in heaven] fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints" (Rev. 5:8). Thus the saints in heaven offer to God the prayers of the saints on earth.
Catholic Answers (http://www.catholic.com/library/Intercession_of_the_Saints.asp)

How did the 24 elders get a hold of our prayers to pour out before the Lamb?
Revelation's refer to the 24 elders is prophecy - it doesn't mean they are there now. They are men from every nation, tongue, and tribe who have been redeemed by the blood of the Lamb. As many premillenialists see them as the future raptured church, and so do I.

And again you offer a reference to Catholic Answers. What is the difference between making the arguement yourself and posting a Catholic site to refute a position in this forum.

Do you think our prayers are mediated by 24 redeemed men in heaven - that they must get them first and THEN God hears them?
I beleive the Holy Spirit hears our prayers and also prays for us.
Rom 8:26 In the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for {us} with groanings too deep for words;Rom 8:27 and He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He intercedes for the saints according to {the will of} God.

[bigsierra]

Revelation's refer to the 24 elders is prophecy - it doesn't mean they are there now. They are men from every nation, tongue, and tribe who have been redeemed by the blood of the Lamb. As many premillenialists see them as the future raptured church, and so do I.

And again you offer a reference to Catholic Answers. What is the difference between making the arguement yourself and posting a Catholic site to refute a position in this forum.

Do you think our prayers are mediated by 24 redeemed men in heaven - that they must get them first and THEN God hears them?
I beleive the Holy Spirit hears our prayers and also prays for us.
Rom 8:26 In the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for {us} with groanings too deep for words;Rom 8:27 and He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He intercedes for the saints according to {the will of} God.

Revelations works on many different levels. If you want to limit it because of you premillenial view, that's your prerogative. Eschatology is pretty hotly contested amongst protestant churches, so that seems and odd way to approach it. The premill approach also advocates a 2nd and 3rd coming of Christ, which I find harder to believe. It's generally considered not something to divide over though.

I used the wording from their site, because they stated it well and there are other Early Church Fathers of Renown listed that back up the belief of the early Church. Feel free to take a look at it. ;)

I think Christian in Heaven still pray for us on Earth and rejoice when sinners repent. I wouldn't use the word mediate. Don't you use the word intersession, when asking someone else to pray for you? Mediate wouldn't be correct.

I didn't see your previous posts. I just read newest. I'm on lunch and don't have much more time, but will read them and respond later.

[FreeinChrist]

I realize that there are diferent endtime views, and that is not th topic here. But as you referred to the 24 elders in your post - it did. And no - the premil appraoch does not advocate a 2nd andd thir return of Christ...that is just a phrase that is often used by critics.

I think Christian in Heaven still pray for us on Earth and rejoice when sinners repent. I wouldn't use the word mediate. Don't you use the word intersession, when asking someone else to pray for you? Mediate wouldn't be correct.


They do not hear our prayers. They are not omnipresent.
When I pray for another person here on earth, I am interceding for a living person and praying to God via the holy Spirit. If I pray to those who passed on, including Mary - how do they hear?

I asked in a previous post what denom you belong to. Do you mind answering that? I am not trying to insist and will not ask again.

[CCWoody]

In Orthodox Theology, sinlessness does not mitigate the need for Salvation. Not making a judgment on the first sentence, and agreeing with the second. [emphasis mine]
It is because of statements like these that I think Sola Scriptura was an apt battle cry of the Reformers. They realized that these traditions of the Church were found nowhere in Scriptures and were actually anti-Scriptural inventions, which were easily demonstrable to be against Scriptures:

Mat 9:11-12 GB
(11) And when the Pharises sawe that, they saide to his disciples, Why eateth your master with Publicanes and sinners?
(12) Nowe when Iesus heard it, hee sayde vnto them, The whole neede not a Physition, but they that are sicke.
Please notice that, in a direct response to the Pharisees derision of Christ for eating with SINNERS Christ plainly reveals that those who are whole, i.e. sinless, need no Physician, but only those who are sick. After creating the doctrine that Mary was sinless, I'm sure that at some point, the Church realized that this would mean that she needed no Redeemer. Therefore, they invented this doctrine, found absolutely nowhere in Scriptures, that even the sinless still need a Salvation.

Of course, this calls into doubt the Apostleship of Paul, who gave us these words:
Rom 3:23 GB
(23) all haue sinned, and are depriued of the(t) glorie of God,

Geneva: (t) By the "glory of God" is meant that mark which we all aim for, that is, everlasting life, which consists in our being made partakers of the glory of God.
And, the mere fact that the Church teaches that Mary was a perpetual virgin, demonstrates that she was a transgressor of the natural Law of God, where in a man should leave his father and mother and CLEAVE unto his wife and the two shall become one flesh. Again, it is easily demonstrable from the Scriptures, that this was not the case seeing that it is plainly revealed that Joseph didn't know her UNTIL she has given birth to Jesus (Matthew 1:25). However, I use it to point out that those who wish to believe Mary to be a virgin make her into a sinner.

Might I ask, though, if Mary was sinless: "From what, exactly, did the sinless Mary need a salvation?"

[Oblio]

Very compelling Oblio..Do you have a link?

From one of the litanies of the Liturgy of St. James the Apostle:

.
.
.

For every Christian soul in tribulation and distress, and needing the mercy and succour of God; for the return of the erring, the health of the sick, the deliverance of the captives, the rest of the fathers and brethren that have fallen asleep aforetime;

Let us beseech the Lord.

For the hearing and acceptance of our prayer before God, and the sending down on us His rich mercies and compassion.

Let us beseech the Lord.18

And for the offered, precious, heavenly, unutterable, pure, glorious, dread, awful, divine gifts, and the salvation of the priest who stands by and offers them;

.
.
.

18 [Here an interpolation as follows: "Let us commemorate our all-holy, pure, most glorious, blessed lady, God-mother, and ever-virgin Mary, and all the holy and just, that we may all find mercy through their prayers and intercessions." On which, and like interpolations (the Clementine free from all this), see Scudamore, p. 381.]


From Divine Liturgy of St. James (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-07/anf07-63.htm#P8122_2593853)

For those who have the ECF hardcopy, see Ante-Nicean Fathers - Vol. 7 pg. 542 fn 1

[Oblio]

Might I ask, though, if Mary was sinless: "From what, exactly, did the sinless Mary need a salvation?"


Again, sinlessness does not mitigate need for salvation. To equate any sinlessness of Mary the Theotokos with her being free from needing a Saviour is a Strawman. You are free to ask the question, but (at least to an Orthodox) it has no validity.
For even if one is sinless, even by the Grace of God, they are still born into a fallen world and suffer the consequences of that fall, that is death.

[bigsierra]

I asked in a previous post what denom you belong to. Do you mind answering that? I am not trying to insist and will not ask again.



As I said in my last post, I was at home for lunch and would respond once I got back to work. I don't mind answering at all.

I was brought to repentance by the Holy Spirit back when I was in college. I was baptized in a Non-Denom Charismatic church shortly there after. In 1997, I started attending Presbyterian Church in America and have considered myself a 5 point Calvinist.
After coming to this site, I started seeing problems with the whole Limited Atonment point, because I couldn't really state that God loved everyone. I have heard RC Sproul speak on Gods particular Love and started looking into it. At that time, I started looking at some of the other views on Gods love for man and how deep Original Sin goes. The Catholic view of man, which all the protestant churches recieved is:

27 The desire for God is written in the human heart, because man is created by God and for God; and God never ceases to draw man to himself. Only in God will he find the truth and happiness he never stops searching

29 But this "intimate and vital bond of man to God" (GS 19 § 1) can be forgotten, overlooked, or even explicitly rejected by man.3 Such attitudes can have different causes: revolt against evil in the world; religious ignorance or indifference; the cares and riches of this world; the scandal of bad example on the part of believers; currents of thought hostile to religion; finally, that attitude of sinful man which makes him hide from God out of fear and flee his call.4


This is not "Total Depravity." We are born sinful creatures, but not "Totally Depraved." I would think most, see Total Depravity as even going against experience, with their own children.

I would say this is my current standing on Tulip (http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/tulip.htm).
Anyway, back to the point. I have not been confirmed Catholic, nor attended any classes toward that, at this point. So, right now I am just a Christian: neither Protestant nor Catholic. I do see the Catholic Church as being closest to the faith of the Early Church Fathers, after doing a lot more study of their views. When I become Catholic, I will be changing my little icon :)

[Oblio]

After creating the doctrine that Mary was sinless, I'm sure that at some point, the Church realized that this would mean that she needed no Redeemer. Therefore, they invented this doctrine, found absolutely nowhere in Scriptures, that even the sinless still need a Salvation.


You of course have documentation to substantiate this assertion.

[bigsierra]

Again, sinlessness does not mitigate need for salvation. To equate any sinlessness of Mary the Theotokos with her being free from needing a Saviour is a Strawman. You are free to ask the question, but (at least to an Orthodox) it has no validity.
For even if one is sinless, even by the Grace of God, they are still born into a fallen world and suffer the consequences of that fall, that is death.

Ahh, ok. Thank you. I see what you're saying now. :)

[Bulldog]

Again, sinlessness does not mitigate need for salvation. To equate any sinlessness of Mary the Theotokos with her being free from needing a Saviour is a Strawman. You are free to ask the question, but (at least to an Orthodox) it has no validity.
For even if one is sinless, even by the Grace of God, they are still born into a fallen world and suffer the consequences of that fall, that is death.

But again, Christ said that the healthy do not need a doctor. If she was truly sinless, then she did not need to be saved form anything.

[FreeinChrist]

The problem with the Liturgy that I see is that it is not a direct tranlsation of a liturgy by James.

One, it includes this phrase:
VI. The responsive prayer from the Deacon: The Lord bless us, and make us worthy seraphically to offer gifts, and to sing the oft-sung hymn of the divine Trisagion, by the fulness and exceeding abundance of all the perfection of holiness, now and ever.

The "oft-sung hymn of Trisagion" is from the 5th century. See the explanation here:
http://www.anastasis.org.uk/THE%20TRISAGION02.pdf
So what you are presenting as a liturgy of St. James... has been added to, or changed....very probably not something written by James.

And it also refers to James the Apostle and Brother of Christ.
Well, I believe it was James the Just who was the brother of Christ (and wrote the book of James) and James, the son of Zebedee who was the Apostle.

It also includes this:
XXXIII. The Priest by himself standing: That they may be to all that partake of them for remission of sins, and for life everlasting, for the sanctification of souls and of bodies, for bearing the fruit of good works, for the stablishing of Thy Holy Catholic Church, which Thou hast founded on the Rock of Faith,38 (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-07/footnote/fn83.htm#P8336_2629081) that the gates of hell may not prevail against it; delivering it from all heresy and scandals, and from those who work iniquity, keeping it till the fulness of the time.

In the commentary at that site in regards to the liturgies, I found this:
"There can scarcely be a doubt that they were not committed to writing till a comparatively late day. Those who think that their origin was apostolic allow this."

[Oblio]

If she was truly sinless, it was through the Grace (healing of the Doctor), so yes she needed Christ in that regard. IOW, she had already been fully healed by the Doctor. This leaves aside the fact that Salvation does not save you from bodily death (the first death), for if that were so, all Christians who count themselved saved, are not really saved for even they pass from this physical life.

[FreeinChrist]

As I said in my last post, I was at home for lunch and would respond once I got back to work. I don't mind answering at all.

I was brought to repentance by the Holy Spirit back when I was in college. I was baptized in a Non-Denom Charismatic church shortly there after. In 1997, I started attending Presbyterian Church in America and have considered myself a 5 point Calvinist.
After coming to this site, I started seeing problems with the whole Limited Atonment point, because I couldn't really state that God loved everyone. I have heard RC Sproul speak on Gods particular Love and started looking into it. At that time, I started looking at some of the other views on Gods love for man and how deep Original Sin goes. The Catholic view of man, which all the protestant churches recieved is:



This is not "Total Depravity." We are born sinful creatures, but not "Totally Depraved." I would think most, see Total Depravity as even going against experience, with their own children.

I would say this is my current standing on Tulip (http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/tulip.htm).
Anyway, back to the point. I have not been confirmed Catholic, nor attended any classes toward that, at this point. So, right now I am just a Christian: neither Protestant nor Catholic. I do see the Catholic Church as being closest to the faith of the Early Church Fathers, after doing a lot more study of their views. When I become Catholic, I will be changing my little icon :)
Welll, I am not a 5 point Calvinist either...but I see far too many problems with Catholicism. But that is your choice to make. If you are planning to be Catholic, and you are argueing from a Catholic perspective.....well, I have questions about the rules, but i don't think the moderators care.

[Bulldog]

If she was truly sinless, it was through the Grace (healing of the Doctor), so yes she needed Christ in that regard.

Again,

If she was truly sinless, then she was healthy, and Jesus tells us that the healthy do not need a doctor.


You use the word "Grace". But how would it be Graceful if she never sinned? :scratch:

[FreeinChrist]

Again, sinlessness does not mitigate need for salvation. To equate any sinlessness of Mary the Theotokos with her being free from needing a Saviour is a Strawman. You are free to ask the question, but (at least to an Orthodox) it has no validity.
For even if one is sinless, even by the Grace of God, they are still born into a fallen world and suffer the consequences of that fall, that is death.
As I see it, she was reckoned righteous by faith, as Abraham was, and that her salvation was realized at the cross, when Abraham's was.

[Oblio]

So what you are presenting as a liturgy of St. James... has been added to, or changed....very probably not something written by James.


Of course it has changed, today we use the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom which is an edited, shorter version of St. James' and its descendent St. Basil's. However the original Liturgy of St. James was authored by St. James and most probably did have the petition to the Theotokos, especially considering corroborating petitions in ante-Nicean catacombs. The fact that the text as received was believed by some commentators (Protestant IIRC) to not be recorded at the time of the writing of the Liturgy does not falsify it's authorship either (c.f. much of the Holy Scriptures which were handed down in oral form before being commited to text)

[rnmomof7]

In Orthodox Theology, sinlessness does not mitigate the need for Salvation. Not making a judgment on the first sentence, and agreeing with the second.

I guess I do not understand that position. Why would someone without sin need a saviour?
The scriptures are replete with verses that say that Jesus came for sinners.
Christ kept the law , that man could not keep perfectly so He would become the perfect sacrifice.

What would a sinless person need to be saved from?


This was given me by a pastor one time. Do you disagree with it?



* Salvation from the Penalty of Sin -- Justification.
* Salvation from the Power of Sin -- Sanctification
* Salvation from the Presence of Sin -- Glorification.
Let me recapitulate the five elements we have noted in the New Testament definition of propitiation:

a. It saves us from God's wrath.
b. God Himself provided it.
c. It is not something Christ did, but Christ Himself in what He did.
d. It must affirm both the love and the righteousness of God.
e. It must have the power to make sinners righteous.

[Bulldog]

In Orthodox Theology, sinlessness does not mitigate the need for Salvation. Not making a judgment on the first sentence, and agreeing with the second.


When Jesus was speaning of the helthy not needing a doctor, was He not referring to sin?

[Oblio]

As I see it, she was reckoned righteous by faith, as Abraham was, and that her salvation was realized at the cross, when Abraham's was.


No one said otherwise. Though I disagree with the similarity to Abraham as the Dormition of the Theotokos was after the Resurrection so she was not raised with the captives such as Abraham, Adam and Eve et. al.

All that I have said is that being sinless does not save you. If you are born into this fallen world, you need salvation. Therefore Mary the Theotokos needed Christ for her salavation, sinless or not.

[FreeinChrist]

No one said otherwise. Though I disagree with the similarity to Abraham as the Dormition of the Theotokos was after the Resurrection so she was not raised with the captives such as Abraham, Adam and Eve et. al.

All that I have said is that being sinless does not save you. If you are born into this fallen world, you need salvation. Therefore Mary the Theotokos needed Christ for her salavation, sinless or not.
hmmmm...I disagree.

[bigsierra]

I disagree with that analogy, it is bizarre (Mary = Ark). The Ark of the covenant contained the Law. God was never inside the Ark, but was in a cloud /fire above the Ark. On top of the Ark was the mercy seat of God.
There is no 'New Testamnet ark'.


It's not as bizarre as you think.

"The image will take on new vitality in Christian literature by reason of its correspondence with the Psalm verse from Psalm 132, 'Arise, O Lord, to the place of your rest, you and the ark of your holiness.'" Then it goes on citing some other references, "During the same era Chrysofus of Jerusalem likewise commented on the versicle according to the same sense, 'Mary is the Ark, not of Noah nor yet the one that contained the tables of stone, but that which bore him whom nothing can contain. In her womb he found the repose of which the psalm verse speaks, 'And when he shall rise, the ark of his majesty will rise with him.'"

I won't go into all of it, but here is a link you can study, if you're interested:
MARY, ARK OF THE COVENANT (http://www.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m4/ma.html)

A Baptist minister who became Catholic had this to say

1. As the ark is brought to Jerusalem, King David is overcome with awe saying, "How can the ark of the Lord come to me?" (v. 9)

2. The ark remains three months in the hill country near Jerusalem, bringing great blessings to the house of Obed-edom. (v.11)

3. King David leaps for joy - dancing before the ark. (v. 13)

In today's Gospel, Elizabeth says to Mary, "Who am I that the Mother of my Lord should come to me?" She tells how the babe (John the Baptist) leaped in her womb as she became filled with the Holy Spirit. Finally Mary remains three months with her kinswoman before returning to her home.

Are the parallels coincidental? The Church Fathers did not think so. At the end of the Bible John tells his vision of a heavenly ark. (Rev. 11:19) In the following verse we discover who it is: "a woman clothed with the sun, with moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars." While this woman has a collective significance, representing the Church as the new Israel, she also is an historical person: "She brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations..." (12:6)**

In recent years there has been much interest in the Old Testament ark, even a hit movie based on the search to discover it. But, for all its glory, the ark was a mere image of something to come. I have on my wall several pictures of little girl I am quite fond of. I look at the pictures a few times each day. But if that child were to enter my room, I would turn from the fotos and look at her. I don't need the images any more because the reality is here.
http://www.geocities.com/seapadre_1999/4thAdvent-c.html

Also, check out the link I posted earlier to the teaching of Scott Hahn, called Hail Holy Queen. ;)

[FreeinChrist]

Of course it has changed, today we use the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom which is an edited, shorter version of St. James' and its descendent St. Basil's. However the original Liturgy of St. James was authored by St. James and most probably did have the petition to the Theotokos, especially considering corroborating petitions in ante-Nicean catacombs. The fact that the text as received was believed by some commentators (Protestant IIRC) to not be recorded at the time of the writing of the Liturgy does not falsify it's authorship either (c.f. much of the Holy Scriptures which were handed down in oral form before being commited to text)We do not know that it originally included the petition to Mary or if that was a later addition to it - which could have been quite late, even the fifth century or more. That was the point with the hymm of Trys... (can't rember how to spell it).
Looks to me that it was added to alot.



So I do not believe that the liturgy can be used as 'proof' that the early church petitioned Mary, before or after her death.
So I am sticking with scripture. :)

[Oblio]

Trisagion :)

Comes straight from Scripture. Extra points if you know it ;)

[bigsierra]

Welll, I am not a 5 point Calvinist either...but I see far too many problems with Catholicism. But that is your choice to make. If you are planning to be Catholic, and you are argueing from a Catholic perspective.....well, I have questions about the rules, but i don't think the moderators care.


Are you saying protestants can't believe Marion doctrine in the way Catholics do?

[FreeinChrist]

I won't go into all of it, but here is a link you can study, if you're interested:
MARY, ARK OF THE COVENANT (http://www.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m4/ma.html)
Again , you are posting a site that is Catholic and presents the Catholic view.

You will need to prove it via scripture.

[Oblio]

We do not know that it originally included the petition to Mary or if that was a later addition to it - which could have been quite late, even the fifth century or more. That was the point with the hymm of Trys... (can't rember how to spell it).
Looks to me that it was added to alot.


Your perogative, the same can be said with verses of NT Scripture. Historical documents and archeological findings and lastly (and perhaps least in some eyes) Church Tradition says otherwise.


So I am sticking with scripture.


So do we ;)

[rnmomof7]

From one of the litanies of the Liturgy of St. James the Apostle:

.
.
.

For every Christian soul in tribulation and distress, and needing the mercy and succour of God; for the return of the erring, the health of the sick, the deliverance of the captives, the rest of the fathers and brethren that have fallen asleep aforetime;

Let us beseech the Lord.

For the hearing and acceptance of our prayer before God, and the sending down on us His rich mercies and compassion.

Let us beseech the Lord.18

And for the offered, precious, heavenly, unutterable, pure, glorious, dread, awful, divine gifts, and the salvation of the priest who stands by and offers them;

.
.
.

18 [Here an interpolation as follows: "Let us commemorate our all-holy, pure, most glorious, blessed lady, God-mother, and ever-virgin Mary, and all the holy and just, that we may all find mercy through their prayers and intercessions." On which, and like interpolations (the Clementine free from all this), see Scudamore, p. 381.]


From Divine Liturgy of St. James (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-07/anf07-63.htm#P8122_2593853)

For those who have the ECF hardcopy, see Ante-Nicean Fathers - Vol. 7 pg. 542 fn 1

That is beautiful is it considered inspired infallible teaching like the Scriptures ?

I am on my way to post a couple question on the EO forum ">)

[FreeinChrist]

Are you saying protestants can't believe Marion doctrine in the way Catholics do?Did I say that?
Please go back to see what I was responding to, so that you can see the context and why I might write what I did.

[BBAS 64]

Are you saying protestants can't believe Marion doctrine in the way Catholics do?
Good Day, Bigsierra

I would not say that a protestant can not believe the doctrines of Mary that are posited by the catholic church, just that they are not required to take on that yoke. Error has the abilty to procreate across all theological lines inspite of the historical record of some of these issuse that Rome holds to inspite of repeated correction.


Raymond E. Brown: Some Roman Catholics may have expected me to include a discussion of the historicity of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary. But these Marian doctrines, which are not mentioned in Scripture, clearly lie outside my topic which was the quest for historical knowledge of Mary in the NT. Moreover, I would stress the ambiguity of the term “historicity” when applied to these two doctrines. A Roman Catholic must accept the two dogmas as true upon the authority of the teaching Church, but he does not have to hold that the dogmas are derived from a chain of historical information. There is no evidence that Mary (or anyone else in NT times) knew that she was conceived free of original sin, especially since the concept of original sin did not fully exist in the first century. The dogma is not based upon information passed down by Mary or by the apostles; it is based on the Church’s insight that the sinlessness of Jesus should have affected his origins, and hence his mother, as well. Nor does a Catholic have to think that the people gathered for her funeral saw Mary assumed into heaven—there is no reliable historical tradition to that effect, and the dogma does not even specify that Mary died. Once again the doctrine stems from the Church’s insightabout the application of the fruits of redemption to the leading disciple: Mary has gone before us, anticipating our common fate. Raymond E. Brown, Biblical Reflections on Crises facing the Church (New York: Paulist Press, 1975), p. 105, fn. 103.


Peace to u,

BBAS

[bigsierra]

Did I say that?
Please go back to see what I was responding to, so that you can see the context and why I might write what I did.


Looking back, no that isn't what you said. I apologize. I'm not sure what made me think that. Must be mucho multitasking. :D

[FreeinChrist]

Your perogative, the same can be said with verses of NT Scripture. Historical documents and archeological findings and lastly (and perhaps least in some eyes) Church Tradition says otherwise.


Yet it is not proof. It was added to. This part:
XXIII. Then the Priest makes the sign of the cross on the gifts,19 (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-07/footnote/fn82.htm#P8264_2614387) and,


Here is the footnote:
19 [Strongly censured by Hickes as a superstitious innovation (p. 153), with other evils introduced after the pseudo-Council of Nice A.D. 787, of which this is the least.]

hmmm...

[Bulldog]

Nevermind

[FreeinChrist]

Looking back, no that isn't what you said. I apologize. I'm not sure what made me think that. Must be mucho multitasking. :D
No problem :)

[CCWoody]

Again, sinlessness does not mitigate need for salvation. To equate any sinlessness of Mary the Theotokos with her being free from needing a Saviour is a Strawman. You are free to ask the question, but (at least to an Orthodox) it has no validity.
For even if one is sinless, even by the Grace of God, they are still born into a fallen world and suffer the consequences of that fall, that is death.
The scriptures have already demonstrated your refutation of this invented "straw man" defense to be false:
Mat 9:11-12 GB
(11) And when the Pharises sawe that, they saide to his disciples, Why eateth your master with Publicanes and sinners?
(12) Nowe when Iesus heard it, hee sayde vnto them, The whole neede not a Physition, but they that are sicke.

Rom 3:23 GB
(23) all haue sinned, and are depriued of the(t) glorie of God,

Geneva: (t) By the "glory of God" is meant that mark which we all aim for, that is, everlasting life, which consists in our being made partakers of the glory of God.
Since you attribute the need for redemption from a "fallen world" as you put it, you invalidate the entire Propitiation of Christ. For, He too, was born into this same fallen world. According to you, since "sinlessness does not mitigate need for salvation" and Christ, like Mary was born into this "fallen world," He too, would need a Saviour to redeem him from the "consequences of that fall."

"Strawman" indeed!!!

Okey dokie! Since Mary needed a Saviour to redeem her from the "consequence of the fall," even if that means that she is being unjustly punished for a crime in which she is not guilty and that would seem to make the Father a God without justice, who is the Saviour of Christ to redeem Him from the "consequence of the fall?" Who made Atonement for Him?

[CCWoody]

All that I have said is that being sinless does not save you. If you are born into this fallen world, you need salvation. Therefore Mary the Theotokos needed Christ for her salavation, sinless or not.
Again, seeing that Christ came to redeem the world by Propitiation, and seeing that sinlessness isn't enough, and seeing that Christ, too, was born into this fallen world, who made a Propitiation for Christ?

[bigsierra]

Yet it is not proof. It was added to. This part:
XXIII. Then the Priest makes the sign of the cross on the gifts,19 (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-07/footnote/fn82.htm#P8264_2614387) and,


Here is the footnote:
19 [Strongly censured by Hickes as a superstitious innovation (p. 153), with other evils introduced after the pseudo-Council of Nice A.D. 787, of which this is the least.]

hmmm...

Why would an Anglican Bishop have a problem with The Sign of the Cross?
It's kind of hard to tell what is being refered to here.
The footnote was certainly added later, in about the 19th Century.
Hickes' Christian Priesthood (Oxford, 1847)

[Svt4Him]

Jesus was the only one the Bible makes reference to as being sinless. If someone is without sin, they don't need a saviour. It again is simple for those who want it to be.

[FreeinChrist]

Why would an Anglican Bishop have a problem with The Sign of the Cross?
It's kind of hard to tell what is being refered to here.
The footnote was certainly added later, in about the 19th Century.
Hickes' Christian Priesthood (Oxford, 1847)
I think you misunderstand the footnote, which , of course, was added later.
the point is that the sign of the cross was added later, so part of the liturgy that speaks of it was added later. Just like the part about the hymn of Trys___ (can't spell that thing).
So the liturgy may have started by James but it was added to as the centuries went by. thus it cannot really be used to prove practices of the early church except what is also in scripture.

[thereselittleflower]

I disagree with that analogy, it is bizarre (Mary = Ark). The Ark of the covenant contained the Law. God was never inside the Ark, but was in a cloud /fire above the Ark. On top of the Ark was the mercy seat of God.
There is no 'New Testamnet ark'.
I have a question about this . . .

The Ark contained the tablets, the manna, and Aaron's Rod that budded


Mary's womb contained Jesus . .

Jesus called Himself the Bread from Heaven making a direct comparison between Himself and the manna from heaven (which was contained in the Ark).


Joh 6:31 Our fathers did eatmanna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.


(Joh 6:33)For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.

(Joh 6:51)I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

(Joh 6:58)This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.



The parallel between Jesus and the manna is very easy to see . .

I am just curious why there is such difficulty seeing the parallel between the Ark of the Old Covenant that carried the manna, the bread from heaven, and Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant which, who carried Jesus, the living bread from heaven . .. ?


No debate . . just curious why such a comparison is seen as so absurd or bizarre . .


Peace in Him!

[thereselittleflower]

If she was truly sinless, it was through the Grace (healing of the Doctor), so yes she needed Christ in that regard. IOW, she had already been fully healed by the Doctor. This leaves aside the fact that Salvation does not save you from bodily death (the first death), for if that were so, all Christians who count themselved saved, are not really saved for even they pass from this physical life.
Oblio

Perhaps another way to look at this is with this or a similar analgoy . . Many people get vaccines to prevent an illness . . but they still needed the intervention of the vaccine (and the doctor who gave it) to be saved from that illness . . .


Peace in Him!

[PaladinValer]

**Thinks "sola scriptura" has gone too far**

1. Final authority does reside in the Bible.
2. But holy tradition of interpretations, so long as they make reasonable sense, cannot be ignored.
3. Because there is authority given to the Church, as inspired by the Holy Spirit.

IMO, think of a tricycle: Scripture is the large wheel while Tradition and Reason are the smaller wheels. And you, the rider, Experience all three.

At least, this is the Anglican understanding.

[FreeinChrist]

**Thinks "sola scriptura" has gone too far**

1. Final authority does reside in the Bible.
2. But holy tradition of interpretations, so long as they make reasonable sense, cannot be ignored.
3. Because there is authority given to the Church, as inspired by the Holy Spirit.

IMO, think of a tricycle: Scripture is the large wheel while Tradition and Reason are the smaller wheels. And you, the rider, Experience all three.

At least, this is the Anglican understanding.
"2. But holy tradition of interpretations, so long as they make reasonable sense, cannot be ignored."
And there is a problem with that, IMHO. :)

[PaladinValer]

There is no problem with that.

The Apostles taught the Truth. Then their converts taught the Truth. Only sone generations later, you get the Ecumenical Councils when orthodox interpretations were used to defeat the heretics.

So unless they had the orthodox interpretations, guided by the Holy Spirit, then their quest to defeat the heretics would have failed. They knew the interpretations and they've been handed down through the entire history of the Church.

No orthodox interpretations known in the Early Church = heresies within "orthodox" Christianity today (in other words, we wouldn't know for sure if we were orthodox Christians or not).

And this is a major part of holy tradition. Without it, Christianity would probably so lost today, it would be beyond current recognition.

ps: why the heck is everything bolded recently in this thread?

[FreeinChrist]

I have a question about this . . .

The Ark contained the tablets, the manna, and Aaron's Rod that budded


Mary's womb contained Jesus . .

Jesus called Himself the Bread from Heaven making a direct comparison between Himself and the manna from heaven (which was contained in the Ark).





Joh 6:31 Our fathers did eatmanna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.





(Joh 6:33)For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.

(Joh 6:51)I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

(Joh 6:58)This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.






The parallel between Jesus and the manna is very easy to see . .

I am just curious why there is such difficulty seeing the parallel between the Ark of the Old Covenant that carried the manna, the bread from heaven, and Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant which, who carried Jesus, the living bread from heaven . .. ?


No debate . . just curious why such a comparison is seen as so absurd or bizarre . .


Peace in Him!The Holy Place contains a picture of the Trinity. Remember that the Tabernacle is copied from a heavenly Tabernacle.

On top of the Ark is the mercy seat. This corresponds to the throne of God. It was behind a veil.

A table was to the side of the Ark, before the veil. On it was 12 loaves of shewbread - one for each tribe of israel. They were eaten on the Day of Atonement. This corresponds to Christ, the bread of life.

Across from the table was a 7 candle lamp which burned oil. this corresponds to the "7-fold Spirit of God" - the Holy Spirit.

So I do not see how Mary fits a description of the Ark. The Ark contained manna - because it reminds them that God provided for them. It contains Aaron's staff which had budded - the staff showed that God gave the priesthood to Aaron. And it contained the tablets of the Law - given to Moses by God.

[Photini]

How does mary hear the prayers of millions at the same time? Is she omnipresent?


I ran across this quote today and remembered that you had asked this question a few pages back. Forgive my tardiness.

"How do the saints hear us? They hear us as being one in the Holy Spirit with us--'that they also may be one in Us (John 17:21),'...The saints see and hear us in the Holy Spirit in the same manner as we see and hear with out bodily eyes and ears by means of light and air; but our bodily sight and hearing are very imperfect in comparison to spiritual sight and hearing. At a great distance we cannot see many objects and connot hear many sounds, but spiritual sight and hearing are perfect; not a single movement of the heart, not a single thought, not a single word, intention, or desire escapes them, because the Spirit of God--in Whom the saints dwell, see, and hear us--is all-perfect, onmiscient, all-seeing, and all-hearing, for He is omnipresent." ~from My Life in Christ by St. John of Kronstadt, pg 448-449.

:)

[TasManOfGod]

Hello, I was just wondering are there any Protestant denominations that venerate Mary? Just wondering. Thanks in advanced :)
I have never heard anybody in any church that I have attended consider Mary with any more regard other then that she was chosen to be the mother of Jesus and that she spoke in tongues together with the 120 at Pentecost

[djns9437]

Theverse is referring to the unregernerate, ehich I;m sure Mary was at one time.

Is there scripture to tell us Mary was sinless?
What do you think "Hail Mary full of Grace" means?

[thereselittleflower]

I know that some Lutherans have their version of the Rosary . . Luther venerated Mary . . there are groups within Protestantism that are coming to realize the difference between veneration and worship, and the appropriateness of venerating the Mother of Our Lord. :)


Peace in Him!

[thereselittleflower]

Here are the Protestant Reformers on the issue of Mary:

http://mariology.com/sections/reformers.html


Peace in Him!

[tigersnare]

What do you think "Hail Mary full of Grace" means?

Protestants don't say that much. But I'll answer...

What do I think that means? I think it means the same as

"Stephen, FULL of GRACE and POWER, was doing great signs among the people". Act. 6:8

I mean Mary was full of grace, but Stephen was full of grace and power.


I think I'm onto something here...IC and super human powers!

:rolleyes:

[thereselittleflower]

Protestants don't say that much. But I'll answer...

What do I think that means? I think it means the same as

"Stephen, FULL of GRACE and POWER, was doing great signs among the people". Act. 6:8

I mean Mary was full of grace, but Stephen was full of grace and power.


I think I'm onto something here...IC and super human powers!

:rolleyes:

LOL!

You know what happened in OBOB recently? (I am not going to name names . .but . . I am just as guilty of it in the past . . ) We were talking about this comparison between what the Angel called Mary and wha the book of Acts said about Stephen, and the assumption was that the same root word in both places was the same . .charitoo . .. because the same ENGLISH phrase was used in both places by different translations.

But it is not!!

The Greek words translated by SOME translations in regards to Stephen as "full of grace" are actually two words .. one for "full" the other translated, again by SOME translations as "of grace" . .

But the word translated "of grace" is something completely different that what was used to describe Mary.




Look at this in the King James version:(Act 6:8)

And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles among the people.

The word translated "faith" here and in some other translations as "grace" is not charitoo . . it is:G4102


πίστις

pistis

pis'-tis

From G3982; persuasion, that is, credence; moral conviction (of religious truth, or the truthfulness of God or a religious teacher), especially reliance upon Christ for salvation; abstractly constancy in such profession; by extension the system of religious (Gospel) truth itself: - assurance, belief, believe, faith, fidelity.

And actually has nohing to do with grace at all . ..


The word used of Mary is

kecharitomene

A very interesting word . . used there Luke, no where else, and used in place of her name.


Just thought you might be interested knowing the two are very differnt statements in the Greek. :)


Peace in Him!

[TasManOfGod]

I understand that I cannot remind posters of the rules of this forum however I do reccomend that everybody read them for the forum you post in . What you will find as I have is that different rooms will interpret their own rules either strictly or otherwise.

Wouldn't it be nice if everthing in life was black or white -right or wrong and everybody thought the same right was right and the same wrong was wrong

[tigersnare]

LOL!



Just thought you might be interested knowing the two are very differnt statements in the Greek. :)


Peace in Him!





Go away, I had a perfectly good defense until you shot a big hole in it. :D

Defense #2. I haven't studied greek, and a quick look in a concordance doesn't make me a bonifid translator....nor should it make anyone else. ;)

[BjBarnett]

I understand that I cannot remind posters of the rules of this forum however I do reccomend that everybody read them for the forum you post in . What you will find as I have is that different rooms will interpret their own rules either strictly or otherwise.

Wouldn't it be nice if everthing in life was black or white -right or wrong and everybody thought the same right was right and the same wrong was wrong

its pretty black and white now. if your not non-denominational (ex. myself and you) then dont debate :)

[thereselittleflower]

Go away, I had a perfectly good defense until you shot a big hole in it. :D
RFLOL!!!


Defense #2. I haven't studied greek, and a quick look in a concordance doesn't make me a bonifid translator....nor should it make anyone else. ;)
:P


Peace in Him!

[A. believer]

Go away, I had a perfectly good defense until you shot a big hole in it. :D

Defense #2. I haven't studied greek, and a quick look in a concordance doesn't make me a bonifid translator....nor should it make anyone else. ;)Don't sweat it, tigersnare. Not sure about the Stephen passage, but the same word that Luke uses about Mary is used in Ephesians 1:6 about the entire Ephesians church. Roman Catholic pop apologists try to capitalize on the fact that the Ephesians verse uses a different tense of the verb, so that in Mary's case, it means something different (that she's been "full of grace" since conception, i.e., that she was immaculately conceived.) But even Roman Catholic Greek scholars don't use that argument because it has no basis. Luke uses the perfect tense about Mary, but this has no relevance since the perfect tense doesn't imply any permanent state, but only a current state.

In fact, although there are no other examples in the New Testament of the same word in the same tense (which isn't unusual for specific verbs being used in a specific tense to show up only once), it is used in the apocryphal book of Sirach 18:17, and it has no special significance there like RC pop apologists want to give it in Luke.

The fact is, Greek scholars agree that the translation "full of grace" is not even a good translation, and newer translations, even Roman Catholic ones are getting away from using it.

[BBAS 64]

Go away, I had a perfectly good defense until you shot a big hole in it. :D

Defense #2. I haven't studied greek, and a quick look in a concordance doesn't make me a bonifid translator....nor should it make anyone else. ;)

Good Day, Tigersnare

In addition to what AB said you may what to pick up the Book Mary of the NT by the Roman Catholic Raymond E brown He does address the error in the translation by Jerome and taught the RC scholars of the NT that the "highly Favored" translation was perfectly suitable with in the Latin and was to be perfered By the church of Rome to meet the standard of the intent of the Orignal language Greek.

I would also recommend an other Book "who is my mother" by Eric Svendsen to help you address some of the other issuses that have arisen in this thread. The book is reveiwed by some of the Best Greek NT scholars in the world today.


Bill

[bigsierra]

BBAS, are you referring to this book, Mary in the New Testament: A Collaborative Assessment by Protestant and Roman Catholic Scholars (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0800613457/qid=1083618517/sr=8-27/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i27_xgl14/104-9785406-0228752?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) If the book says Mary wasn't Immaculately Concieved, then it goes against RC doctrine. If a Catholic worked on it and agreed with that position, they they aren't in communion with the Church.

and this one gets a glowing review on Amazon:
Who Is My Mother?: The Role and Status of the Mother of Jesus (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1879737450/qid=1083618792/sr=1-5/ref=sr_1_5/104-9785406-0228752?v=glance&s=books)

Heos Hooah!, March 23, 2004
Reviewer: A reader from Midwest, United States
ES provides irrefutable evidence that Mary was not a perpetual virgin. The Greek phrase "Heos Hou" (Matthew 1:25) is used only in the context of "Until, but not after" in all of the literature of the centuries surrounding the New Testament.

But more has to be taken into account than Matthew 1:25, which isn't a proof-text one way or the other.

Matthew 1:25
Until she bore a son: the evangelist is concerned to emphasize that Joseph was not responsible for the conception of Jesus. The Greek word translated "until" does not imply normal marital conduct after Jesus' birth, nor does it exclude it.
Footnote - New American Bible