POPE CELESTINE I (422-432 A.D.) TURNED MARY INTO A "GODDESS" [Archive]

betzerg

July 24th 2005, 12:09 PM

Jude,

What do you say, is Mary the Mother of God?

I think the issue here is that while Mary DID give birth to YEHSUA (actually it was Miriam)...and she was blessed AMONG women...she was not to be elevated to the pagan concept of the "mother of heaven" which was a very prevailent belief.

Mary is blessed. Sarah (abraham's wife) was Blessed. RAchel was blessed...But NONE of these women are "co-redemptrous with Christ" and need to be prayed to.

In fact, the pagan temple in jerusalem (dedicated to Dionysus) was actually converted to a Church...leaving all the statues in tact..just changing the name of the "goddess". This is one very important reason why JEWS laugh at christianity. They see the pagan influences..and honestly..it breaks the very first commandment given to them from HaShem..."the L-rd is ONE."...and the second "you shall have no G-d's besides HIM"...and the third "You shall not make any graven images"....

The greeks had "crying statues"...and "glossilalia"...and many other practiaces that were incorporated into christianity. YIKES!

It's gonna take some REAL scholars...who will forfeit their reputations, their affliations and their peace of mind to get back to the TRUE faith that YESHUA brought.

Still looking,

BETZER

spiritmech

July 24th 2005, 12:45 PM

betzerg

July 24th 2005, 12:50 PM

AcousticJS

July 24th 2005, 01:17 PM

The lack of willingness to call Mary the Mother of God just shows how clueless you are with respect to the history of the church. At bottom it means that you deny that Jesus Christ is God. Furay has it right.

Mary is not the Mother of the Father. She is not the Mother of the Spirit. She is the Mother of Christ and Mother of God. Anything less denies the divinity of Christ.
sm
So scripture denies the divinity of Christ? Because Scripture never attributes to Mary the title "Mother of God" - clearly the authors of Scripture never believed in the deity of Christ then.

I may be clueless with regard to the history of the church, but not everything the church has ever done is correct. We only need to look at things like the crusades and inquisitions to realise that. All that the church has done needs to be evaluated in light of Scripture, and on this particular issue I believe the church in times past made a mistake.

spiritmech

July 24th 2005, 01:23 PM

:ahem:
You told me. Good luck, Mr. Arius.
sm

AcousticJS

July 24th 2005, 01:33 PM

I don't particularly like being called after Arius, since I am not denying the deity of Christ. I find no agreement with anything I have read of what Arius stood for - what he taught clearly denied truth contained in Scripture. I believe that Jesus was 100% man and 100% God - the very incarnation of the 2nd person of the Trinity. I believe He has always existed, even before He was incarnated, and has eternally been co-existent with the Father and the Holy Spirit.

However, neither do I see the elevated position Mary has come to have within the Scriptures. I'm sorry that I do not see this as invalidating my belief in the deity of Christ. I wasn't particularly trying to tell you anything - certainly not in a "you need my correction" sort of way. I was just trying to express the way in which I disagree with you, and why I don't see a contradiction between the deity of Christ and not attributing the title "Theotokos" to Mary.

May God bless you
Jon

Hail Mary

July 24th 2005, 01:34 PM

I think the issue here is that while Mary DID give birth to YEHSUA (actually it was Miriam)...and she was blessed AMONG women...she was not to be elevated to the pagan concept of the "mother of heaven" which was a very prevailent belief.

You didn't answer the question either.

Is Mary the Mother of God?

AcousticJS

July 24th 2005, 01:54 PM

I've just had a thought which might better explain my viewpoint a little bit. It's not that I deny that Mary is the mother of Jesus, who is God incarnate - in that sense the title "Mother of God" is little more than a (IMO) slightly embellished statement of fact.

What I have an issue with is the veneration of Mary that comes into play when you start using labels like "Mother of God" and "Queen of Heaven". I don't see these as attitudes and practices that are warranted by Scripture, and are to my mind actually potentially blasphemous since God alone deserves our worship, and there is no mention of there being a Queen of Heaven at all.

So it's not that I'm denying Christ's deity - I'm questioning the devotion to Mary that is sometimes evident in the use of the titles being discussed here.

furay

July 24th 2005, 03:09 PM

Just curious, but where did jude3b actually say this? Or is it rather you trying to make a point about what you see as the logical conclusion to his argument that Mary isn't the mother of God? If so, it'd probably be better to say so rather than make up a phoney quote that attributes heresy to someone where there isn't necessarily any going on.
I just cut straight through the bull poopy that he wrote and whittled his beliefs down to a single creedal statement. Thought I did a pretty good job too... ah, well... can't please everyone I guess...

Do you not understand the protestant viewpoint that has no problem with saying that Mary was the mother of the Son of God, but that this is a far cry from saying she's the Mother of God. After all, is Mary the mother of the Father? Is she the mother of the Holy Spirit? Obviously not, so she can't be referred to as the mother of God, since God refers to the sum totality of the persons of the Trinity, and they're not summed up by the personal name Jesus - unless you believe in some form of modalism?
No I don't believe in modalism. I can guarantee you that no one has preserved the doctrine of the Holy Trinity better than the Orthodox Church to whom it was entrusted in the first place. I strive to have an Orthodox understanding of the Most Holy and Life Creating Trinity. Let me ask you a couple questions: a) Can the Father be referred to as God? b) Can the Holy Spirit be referred to as God?

God bless
Jon
God Bless you too, Jon.

-Peter

Jezz

July 24th 2005, 09:24 PM

Do you not understand the protestant viewpoint that has no problem with saying that Mary was the mother of the Son of God, but that this is a far cry from saying she's the Mother of God.
Firstly, that is not the Protestant viewpoint. Many Protestants today acknowledge that Mary is the Mother of God. Lutherans and Anglicans, for example. I think it likely that Calvin also confessed this, but I couldn't say for sure.

After all, is Mary the mother of the Father? Is she the mother of the Holy Spirit?
She is never referred to as either in the Orthodox Tradition, and to do so would be heretical.

Obviously not, so she can't be referred to as the mother of God, since God refers to the sum totality of the persons of the Trinity, and they're not summed up by the personal name Jesus - unless you believe in some form of modalism?
This reflects a big misunderstanding of the Trinity. "God" is a personal description. The "sum totality" of the persons of the Trinity is usually referred to as "the Godhead" - not as "God".

Just answer this simple question: Is Christ God or not? If the answer is yes, the fact that Mary is the Mother of God follows. There is no need for you to make it more complicated than that.

I've just had a thought which might better explain my viewpoint a little bit. It's not that I deny that Mary is the mother of Jesus, who is God incarnate - in that sense the title "Mother of God" is little more than a (IMO) slightly embellished statement of fact.
That's definitely an improvement on the above. :smile: It was one of the first steps I made to becoming Orthodox...

But you still have a little way to go... unless you say that it is "embellishing the facts" to call Jesus Christ "God", then it is not an embellishment to call Mary "Mother of God". It is a simple statement of fact.

What I have an issue with is the veneration of Mary that comes into play when you start using labels like "Mother of God" and "Queen of Heaven". I don't see these as attitudes and practices that are warranted by Scripture, and are to my mind actually potentially blasphemous since God alone deserves our worship, and there is no mention of there being a Queen of Heaven at all.
Let us forget about the "Queen of Heaven" title for the moment, because that is not what this thread is about. Let us focus on the title "Theotokos".

How is it "potentially blasphemous" to confess something that is true?

So it's not that I'm denying Christ's deity - I'm questioning the devotion to Mary that is sometimes evident in the use of the titles being discussed here.
In Jewish thinking, the mother of the king is considered to be a queen, and is honoured as such. If you dishonoured the king's mother, it was almost as serious as if you had dishonoured the king himself.

When Bathsheba went to King Solomon to speak to him for Adonijah, the king stood up to meet her, bowed down to her and sat down on his throne. He had a throne brought for the king's mother, and she sat down at his right hand.

There are many very interesting things about this passage:

1. Bathsheba (who was Solomon's mother) went to intercede before the king on behalf of one of his subjects.
2. The king himself venerated his mother.
3. The king's mother sat down at the king's right hand. That's where the queen sits.

Now, Christ is a Jew, and Christ is a king, and Christ is a man. To deny that Christ would show His own mother this sort of honour and veneration as Solomon did for his mother is to deny Christ's incarnate Jewishness. Or even worse, it is to claim that He violated the commandment to "honour your father and mother". If our King shows such veneration for His mother, then we would be insulting Him if we did not accord her the same honour. To see this as some sort of deviation from the Christian faith is to not fully understand the ramifications of the fact that Christ was (and is) fully human, and like other human (Jewish) kings before Him, He has a mother who is honoured by those who are truly faithful to Him.

betzerg

July 24th 2005, 09:53 PM

You didn't answer the question either.

Is Mary the Mother of God?

Oh...so you're looking for a simple yes or no? It sounds like it 's hard for you to discern intent. Perhaps that is why you are having a problem with the three gods who are co-equal and co-existent, but one has a mother, who is co-redemptrous and the mother of heaven. and the other has no beginning or end...and the third has no body or will...and well.....

NO Miriam in NOT the mother of G-d.
But she is the mother of Messiah...and I honor her for that.

Shalom,

BETZER

Keumkang

July 24th 2005, 11:10 PM

This can turn so quickly into a nasty little squabble, wich is sad when the opponents are both firm in their belief in God and devout in their understanding of Him. The more extreme Orthodox devotions to and titles honoring Mary ("our most Holy, pure, blessed and glorious Lady, Theotokos and ever-virgin Mary"..."more honourable than the cherubim, and incomporably more glorious than the seraphim...") seem to be a good direction taken, as most anything can be, too far. Still, the Orthodox tremendous appreciation for Mary has it's roots in their unwavering defense of the doctrine of the Trinity, in this case the Divinity of the Son of God, "For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form." (Col 2:9 NASB) To me, the term "God" does refer to what an Orthodox believer might call "the Godhead," so upon first hearing the title "Mother of God," it sounded downright blasphemous. To a believer in communion with the Roman Catholic or Orthodox Christian faith, it may be a reinforcement of the doctrine that the Son of Man was, is, and will remain the Son of God.

At the same time, Mary, who is truly Blessed, does not seem to me to be the proper recipient of our prayers, for mercy, grace, or redemption. And with the checkered past the church has regarding synergism with Pagan culture (yes, I know I'm stepping on toes here, but this is my understanding of church history), such relying on Mary's seemingly divine attributes is suspicious. "By the intercessions of the Theotokos, O Saviour, Save us." While I have a leeeeetle corner of my mind that allows for the possibility of more activity after death (a la intercession) than most protestants would expect, I can cling to Christ only as my Mediator with the Father, and the door to redemption.

PS: Still not quite sure if any of those fonts are Greek, or how to use my own Greek fonts in the posts. :sigh:

Jude3b

July 24th 2005, 11:52 PM

^

JESUS CHRIST IS NOT ONLY MY LORD AND SAVIOR - HE IS ALSO GOD!

Jude3b

Keumkang

July 24th 2005, 11:59 PM

Alithos, Amen.

Jude3b

July 25th 2005, 12:05 AM

Jude,

What do you say, is Mary the Mother of God?

The Word of God answers your question:

Mary was chosen to be the mother of the man who would become the Savior of the World.

Mary is called in the Bible: "the mother of Jesus, the Son of God."

Mary is NOT the mother of God. God does not have a mother. He has always been and always will be. Otherwise He would not be God!

Hail Mary

July 25th 2005, 12:08 AM

Oh...so you're looking for a simple yes or no? It sounds like it 's hard for you to discern intent. Perhaps that is why you are having a problem with the three gods who are co-equal and co-existent, but one has a mother, who is co-redemptrous and the mother of heaven. and the other has no beginning or end...and the third has no body or will...and well.....

NO Miriam in NOT the mother of G-d.
But she is the mother of Messiah...and I honor her for that.

So you believe Jesus was the Messiah, but not fully God, right? The identification of Mary as the Mother of God, is an elegant way of summarizing a person's belief about Christ himself, as well as recognizing the role of our Blessed Mother.

I don't have a problem with the Trinity, so I'm not sure what your talking about in the first paragraph.

Jude3b

July 25th 2005, 12:08 AM

Just curious, but where did jude3b actually say this? Or is it rather you trying to make a point about what you see as the logical conclusion to his argument that Mary isn't the mother of God? If so, it'd probably be better to say so rather than make up a phoney quote that attributes heresy to someone where there isn't necessarily any going on.

Do you not understand the protestant viewpoint that has no problem with saying that Mary was the mother of the Son of God, but that this is a far cry from saying she's the Mother of God. After all, is Mary the mother of the Father? Is she the mother of the Holy Spirit? Obviously not, so she can't be referred to as the mother of God, since God refers to the sum totality of the persons of the Trinity, and they're not summed up by the personal name Jesus - unless you believe in some form of modalism?

God bless
Jon

Dear Jon:

I never said that Jesus Christ is not God. He is not only my personal Lord and Savior, but He is God.

Thank you for asking that question on my behalf. The religionists and romanists amonst us, seemingly cannot debate without telling lies about what I have posted.

Glad to have you posting on TWEB.

Jude3b

July 25th 2005, 12:11 AM

Jude3b

July 25th 2005, 12:14 AM

I just cut straight through the bull poopy that he wrote and whittled his beliefs down to a single creedal statement. Thought I did a pretty good job too... ah, well... can't please everyone I guess...

No I don't believe in modalism. I can guarantee you that no one has preserved the doctrine of the Holy Trinity better than the Orthodox Church to whom it was entrusted in the first place. I strive to have an Orthodox understanding of the Most Holy and Life Creating Trinity. Let me ask you a couple questions: a) Can the Father be referred to as God? b) Can the Holy Spirit be referred to as God?

God Bless you too, Jon.

-Peter

Well why not spit it right out furay. You don't believe the Bible!

Keumkang

July 25th 2005, 12:16 AM

George Blaisdell

July 25th 2005, 12:18 AM

I can cling to Christ only as my Mediator with the Father, and the door to redemption.

That is very Orthodox... Christ IS the Mediator to the Father, and the Door to redemption. Yet the household of God on earth works by intercession, and by working together, and by the Church, which births Her faithful into Christ by baptism, having taught them Christ's commandments, to do them... So that we are all intercessors one for another, to the Son, Who is the Mediator to the Father - Yet the Church has always taught that the Mother of God is the greatest intercessor in our behalf TO THE SON, and this in no measure takes away from the fact that it is the Son Who is the Mediation to the Father...

But it was when Thomas finally made it back from India, after he finally heard that Mariam had reposed, and he asked to see her holy body, and they uncovered her grave, and it was empty, that the Church realized that something had happened, because this has happened only to one Other.

Moses had to veil his face just from having been in the presence of God the Son when he received the Ten Commandments written on stones... Yet Mariam held in her womb the Creator of the heavens and the earth for 9 months... And she was raised in utter piety from her earliest years in the Temple of God... I think she conceived when she was but 16...

So that if you really ponder the events, you can easily see how it is that they add up to much more than just some birth-giver where any would do... The way of Christ's entry into creation as a Person was carefully prepared, and she was a vital part of that preparation... Some believe that she is the only one who is not past the Final Judgement, and is in the Kingdom of Heaven bodily... And Christ of these said, the least in the kingdom of Heaven is greater than the greatest of the Prophets [referring to John the Forerunner]...

So that it is a good idea to suspend judgement on the Church's uncontested veneration of the Mother of God the Son, and the seeking of Her prayers and intercessions on our behalf... The approach that will bear fruit is the approach of faith, and believing the Church, the ground and the pillar of the truth... Whose Head is Christ... The fact that Rome went kinda overboard on the Mary issue in no way denigrates the fact that she is venerated above all except the Christ among those who have walked this earth... And that the Church has venerated her uncontestedly from the beginnings - Had it been the matter that it is alleged to be by those who say that it is a great error, then there surely would have been SOME controversy - There sure was about everything else! But there was none... Not even a little squeek!

PS: Still not quite sure if any of those fonts are Greek, or how to use my own Greek fonts in the posts. :sigh:

If you want greek, just put [greek] in front of the words you want in greek, followed by the same, except with a / between the lead bracket and the letter g. Which is to say, enclose /greek in brackets. I can't do it here to show you, because it will turn everything between the two commands into greek! The fonting on your keyboard is pretty self explanatory - Just do a preview to see if it is coming out OK...

Arsenios

furay

July 25th 2005, 12:21 AM

JESUS CHRIST IS NOT ONLY MY LORD AND SAVIOR - HE IS ALSO GOD!

Jude3b
Ok, so you believe Jesus Christ is God ... this is good! And you believe that Mary is the mother of Jesus Christ... right? Therefore, if Jesus Christ is God and Mary is His Mother, doesn't that make her...*gasp* the Mother of God!? Lemme guess, in grade school you were the kid who went up to the chalk board and wrote: "1 + 1 = 3".

George Blaisdell

July 25th 2005, 12:25 AM

Well why not spit it right out furay. You don't believe the Bible!

Jude, my Brother!

Peace be unto you, my Friend...

The Bible tells us that Christ is God...

And that Mariam is His Mother...

That is all our friend Furay has been affirming...

And it is true...

Your Brother in Christ...

Arsenios

Jude3b

July 25th 2005, 12:29 AM

Jude, my Brother!

Peace be unto you, my Friend...

The Bible tells us that Christ is God...

And that Mariam is His Mother...

That is all our friend Furay has been affirming...

And it is true...

Your Brother in Christ...

Arsenios

No he isn't, he even accused falsely of saying that Christ is not God. That's an outright lie!

furay

July 25th 2005, 12:33 AM

No he isn't, he even accused falsely of saying that Christ is not God. That's an outright lie!
I did nothing of the sort! I may have falsified a quote for the purpose of making a point, but it was all gleamed from your text! Listen, Mary is the Mother of Jesus Christ... this is a fact. Jesus Christ is God... this is a fact. If you say that Mary is not the Mother of God, then you are denying that Jesus Christ is God. It ain't rocket science!

Keumkang

July 25th 2005, 12:39 AM

Aresnios,
Thank you for your thoughts, I'm glad to hear you. Regarding mediation, thgere is no doubt that you believe Christ is our Mediator the same as all the faithful do. I should clarify that I do not see the reason for a mediator to our Mediator. If Christ laid down his life for us, and by death trampled down death, breaking utterly the curse of sin, what more is needed to reach God(or be reached by Him)? I'm not familiar with where the missing body of Miriam is recorded, would you tell me? And yes, your remarks on the astounding mystery that Mary carried in her the One by Whom all things came into being are true. I think many believers on my side of the rift could use a little more appreciation for this mystery. While I don't share your degree of devotion to Mary, I love the beautiful Akathist Hymn to Theotokos...but that's kind of of topic. You cite rightly that the church has held devotion to Mary since (at least near) the beginning, but I am slow to employ devotion I use toward the Lord toward any other, and the church has had many other errors attack it. Gnosticism threatened the purity of doctrine from the beginning, and there have been no shortage of others. Please don't think I mean to compare the outright heresy of gnosticism to Marian devotion, but that the church has not always made the right call on all the issues. Here may be the broad point here we disagree, as I would expect. Now let me fetch some ice for everyones toes... :wink:

PS...And thanks for the font tip!

betzerg

July 25th 2005, 01:06 AM

That is very Orthodox... Christ IS the Mediator to the Father, and the Door to redemption. Yet the household of God on earth works by intercession, and by working together, and by the Church, which births Her faithful into Christ by baptism, having taught them Christ's commandments, to do them... So that we are all intercessors one for another, to the Son, Who is the Mediator to the Father - Yet the Church has always taught that the Mother of God is the greatest intercessor in our behalf TO THE SON, and this in no measure takes away from the fact that it is the Son Who is the Mediation to the Father...

But it was when Thomas finally made it back from India, after he finally heard that Mariam had reposed, and he asked to see her holy body, and they uncovered her grave, and it was empty, that the Church realized that something had happened, because this has happened only to one Other.

Moses had to veil his face just from having been in the presence of God the Son when he received the Ten Commandments written on stones... Yet Mariam held in her womb the Creator of the heavens and the earth for 9 months... And she was raised in utter piety from her earliest years in the Temple of God... I think she conceived when she was but 16...

So that if you really ponder the events, you can easily see how it is that they add up to much more than just some birth-giver where any would do... The way of Christ's entry into creation as a Person was carefully prepared, and she was a vital part of that preparation... Some believe that she is the only one who is not past the Final Judgement, and is in the Kingdom of Heaven bodily... And Christ of these said, the least in the kingdom of Heaven is greater than the greatest of the Prophets [referring to John the Forerunner]...

So that it is a good idea to suspend judgement on the Church's uncontested veneration of the Mother of God the Son, and the seeking of Her prayers and intercessions on our behalf... The approach that will bear fruit is the approach of faith, and believing the Church, the ground and the pillar of the truth... Whose Head is Christ... The fact that Rome went kinda overboard on the Mary issue in no way denigrates the fact that she is venerated above all except the Christ among those who have walked this earth... And that the Church has venerated her uncontestedly from the beginnings - Had it been the matter that it is alleged to be by those who say that it is a great error, then there surely would have been SOME controversy - There sure was about everything else! But there was none... Not even a little squeek!.

Arsenios

Wow...Does Messiah know this? Or should the catholics have left Mark 3:31-35 out of the bible. Yeshua not only refuses to speak with his mother...He actually calls the disicples his "mother and his brethern"....

If Miriam is co-redemptrous, conceived without sin, eternal virgin (opps..what about the brethern..adopted?) and worthy of resurrection...might YESHUA have explain that to his disciples instead of creating this misconception?

Miriam is blessed above women. I thank G-d for her. But she is NOT who the catholic church has created her to be. Just as they have done with YESHUA..they have also done with Miram. Jesus is now man/god...and mary the goddess of heaven.

Shalom,

BETZER

Jezz

July 25th 2005, 10:13 AM

Hey Keumkang. Thankyou for your sincere and thoughtful post.

This can turn so quickly into a nasty little squabble, wich is sad when the opponents are both firm in their belief in God and devout in their understanding of Him.
I agree. I am not questioning anyone's sincerity, least of all yours.

But I'd rather not make this an argument about who is sincere, because what I am far more interested in is who is correct. And unfortunately, being sincere is no guarantee of being correct.

The simple fact is that you can't deny that Mary is the Mother of God without simultaneously denying that Christ is God. No amount of sincerity will change this fact.

The more extreme Orthodox devotions to and titles honoring Mary ("our most Holy, pure, blessed and glorious Lady, Theotokos and ever-virgin Mary"...
I don't see anything too wrong with that. The only thing that a Protestant might question is the "ever-Virgin" part.

"more honourable than the cherubim, and incomporably more glorious than the seraphim...") seem to be a good direction taken, as most anything can be, too far.
"Don't you know that we (the saints) will judge angels?" (1 Corinthians 6:3) If Mary is now glorified as a Saint (which I don't think you'd doubt - what kind of God would Christ be if He could not save even His own mother?), then it follows that she is greater than the cherubim and the seraphim.

It is not taken too far. Too far is to call Mary "God", or to worship her (which no Orthodox would dare do).

Still, the Orthodox tremendous appreciation for Mary has it's roots in their unwavering defense of the doctrine of the Trinity, in this case the Divinity of the Son of God, "For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form." (Col 2:9 NASB)
You got this right. :smile:

To me, the term "God" does refer to what an Orthodox believer might call "the Godhead," so upon first hearing the title "Mother of God," it sounded downright blasphemous.
As it did to me. But I gradually came to realise that the Bible and the early Church never referred to the godhead as "God". In the Bible, the phrase "God" always refers to the Father (with only one possible exception that I can think of). The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob was not an essence - He was a person.

To refer to the impersonal essence as "God" is a mistake that was first introduced into Christian theology by St Augustine.

To a believer in communion with the Roman Catholic or Orthodox Christian faith, it may be a reinforcement of the doctrine that the Son of Man was, is, and will remain the Son of God.
It is actually a reinforcement of the fact that Christ was fully human - and not merely human, but a King. If we really want to take this fact seriously (and I know that you are sincere, so think that you probably do), then we must treat His mother as the mother of a Jewish king should be treated by His subjects - as a queen. You can be sure that Christ honoured her (in obedience to the 4th commandment).

At the same time, Mary, who is truly Blessed, does not seem to me to be the proper recipient of our prayers, for mercy, grace, or redemption. And with the checkered past the church has regarding synergism with Pagan culture (yes, I know I'm stepping on toes here, but this is my understanding of church history),
The irony of that statement is that applying the title of "God" to the impersonal essence of the godhead and not to one of the divine persons is actually the result of synergism with pagan philosophy (neo-Platonism). :smile:

There is much more influence of pagan philosophy in post-scholastic Western Christendom (ie, Roman Catholicism and Protestantism) than there is in Orthodoxy.

...such relying on Mary's seemingly divine attributes is suspicious. "By the intercessions of the Theotokos, O Saviour, Save us."
Intercession is not a divine act. There were plenty of Biblical characters who acted as intercessors before God - Abraham interceded for Lot, Moses interceded for Israel and for Miriam and Aaron, Job interceded for his friends, etc. Indeed, the New Testament actually commands Christians to intercede for one another, and to ask each other for intercessions. And it tells us that intercessorary prayers of righteous people (such as St Mary is) are powerful and effective.

Why does God want us to intercede for each other? Well, only He can answer that question fully, but I suspect that it has something to do with building a community where people love and care for each other. If that was not a good enough answer to satisfy the curious, then one might also ask why an omniscient God needs us to pray at all...

While I have a leeeeetle corner of my mind that allows for the possibility of more activity after death (a la intercession) than most protestants would expect, I can cling to Christ only as my Mediator with the Father, and the door to redemption.
George has already helped you out on this one, so I'll leave it be. The position you have described in this paragraph is not far from Orthodox.

God bless you for your attempts at mediation.

Jawa Man

July 25th 2005, 11:35 AM

Jude3b

July 26th 2005, 03:31 AM

Jude, you realize that no Roman Catholic or Orthodox believer actually thinks that Mary is the mother of the Father or Spirit, don't you? When you get all indignant saying "Mary is NOT the mother of God," you're pretending not to. Why? If the fullness of Diety dwelt in Christ, and Mary was chosen to be His mother, it's not too hard to see how, especially in defense against heresy that Christ was not fully God, the church came to call her "Mother of God." You may contend that it needs clarification, or that another title would be more appropriate and better express her role as mother of the Son alone, but please don't keep shouting about your original statement, as if you have heard nothing said by those who honor her more than you, or you're completely ignorant of the decent reasons for calling her such. The least you can do is acknowledge this, and appreciate the common ground between you and your "opponents," before blasting your them in all CAPS.

Dear Keumkang:

JESUS SAYS... He is the ONLY one that can be your Saviour. "Jesus saith unto him, I AM THE WAY, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, BUT BY ME." (John 14:6).

Please note Keumkang that HE DID NOT SAY... to trust in saints, the pope, or even HIS MOTHER, MARY, to save you. "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is NONE OTHER NAME under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." (Acts 4:12).

Why don't you take heed to what Mary says... "WHATSOEVER HE SAITH UNTO YOU, DO IT." (John 2:5)

If Mary is the "Mother of God" as Romanists teach, why does Mary need a Savior?

"And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord. And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour." (Luke 1:46-47).

Jude3b

July 26th 2005, 03:38 AM

I did nothing of the sort! I may have falsified a quote for the purpose of making a point, but it was all gleamed from your text! Listen, Mary is the Mother of Jesus Christ... this is a fact. Jesus Christ is God... this is a fact. If you say that Mary is not the Mother of God, then you are denying that Jesus Christ is God. It ain't rocket science!

Math skills won't get you into heaven! And if your going to quote me in the future, please quote what I actually write. Don't give your false interpretation.

Let me repeat myself just for you: Mary is the Mother of Jesus.

Jesus is the son of God and He himself is God.

Mary is not the Mother of God. God existed from eternity past and will always exist. Otherwise He would not be God.

Now may I ask you a question? Do you pray to Mary?

furay

July 26th 2005, 03:44 AM

Math skills won't get you into heaven! And if your going to quote me in the future, please quote what I actually write. Don't give your false interpretation.
Fair enough, I'm sorry for putting 'words in your mouth' and I won't do it again.

Let me repeat myself just for you: Mary is the Mother of Jesus.

Jesus is the son of God and He himself is God.

Mary is not the Mother of God. God existed from eternity past and will always exist. Otherwise He would not be God.
I'm not sure I follow you here. When Jesus was in Mary's womb, was He God? When Jesus was wrapped in swaddling clothes, was He God? If He was (and He was) then that makes Mary the Mother of God.

Now may I ask you a question? Do you pray to Mary?
Yes.

George Blaisdell

July 26th 2005, 06:58 PM

Aresnios,
I do not see the reason for a mediator to our Mediator. If Christ laid down his life for us, and by death trampled down death, breaking utterly the curse of sin, what more is needed to reach God(or be reached by Him)?

The Church is the communion of the Body of Christ, Who is its head. The prayers of a righteous man availeth much... Why did Christ not heal Saul's blindness? Why did He send him to Ananias for healing? We are ALL in this together, and intercessory prayers are utterly Biblical - Goodness, just read Paul - He was constantly praying for everyone... He is still interceding for us...

So that what more is needed than "ME 'n' God DIRECT" is the very Church that Christ established upon the earth, the Apostolic Church, established for us and for our salvation. Nowhere did Christ tell us, or does the Bible tell us, that we are to seek our salvation anywhere OUTSIDE the communion of the Church, the pillar and the ground of Truth, against which the gates of Hell shall not prevail. It CAN happen that way, perhaps, but never are we instructed to SEEK God outside His Church... And nowhere are we told that entry into that Church is other than by Baptism following a period of discipling...

I'm not familiar with where the missing body of Miriam is recorded, would you tell me?

Well, that fact is the basis for the Roman veneration of her that borders, by Orthodox standards, on worship of her... I don't have a ready citation for you, but the simple fact that she is venerated by ALL the Orthodox Catholic Churches of the first thousand years should tell you something... And the fact that all STILL seek her intercession before her Son...

I am slow to employ devotion I use toward the Lord toward any other, and the church has had many other errors attack it.

Each error, when widespread or particularly disruptive, has been rejected by anathema by the Church. Perhaps it would help you if you consider Who it IS IN those saints and the Theotokos, that is being venerated by devotion. For Christ is within, to those with a purified heart, who see God... And it is God you are venerating, in His saints, who have passed the torch of faith from generation to generation, that you are affirming in your veneration.

PS...And thanks for the font tip!

Did it work out well for you? Cool!

Arsenios

Hail Mary

July 26th 2005, 11:33 PM

George Blaisdell

July 26th 2005, 11:57 PM

Well, that fact is the basis for the Roman veneration of her that borders, by Orthodox standards, on worship of her... I don't have a ready citation for you, but the simple fact that she is venerated by ALL the Orthodox Catholic Churches of the first thousand years should tell you something... And the fact that all STILL seek her intercession before her Son...

Specifically, what do you think is veneration that borders on worship?

Oh, probably the same kind of veneration that you can find in some of the Orthodox faithful!

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by the basis for 'Roman' veneration, but we certainly venerate her on the same basis as the Orthodox, she is the Mother of God.

I could be in error on this one, but the basis that I am understanding is the one that proceeded not from her maternity so much as that which proceeded from the fact of her bodily assumption. And this came later, when Thomas found only an empty and undisturbed grave, with no body in it. She travelled with the Apostles, was taken care of by them, and died in their care, for she was Christ's mother, after all, and Christ had 'given' her to the beloved disciple, John, at the Cross. Yet I really don't think that it was until they found her empty grave that the apostles and the Church began to figure out the greatness of her role in the incarnation, beyond the basics of providing Christ's body... But the bottom line is that hers is one of the great unwritten Mysteries of the Church, and I think that the dawning of this understanding came with Thomas and her empty tomb.

As well, I am trying to remember if she appeared to Thomas in India after she had died, and told him to come back to bid her farewell, or if someone was sent to India to tell him. History is not my strength...

Now the veneration of the Theotokos in the Orthodox Tradition has always been an oral tradition, and certainly not a matter of dogma. And the Orthodox ask her intercession to the Lord, with Whom she has enormous intercessive aegis, in formal requests, by her title. We seldom address her as Mary, or even as Mother of God, but as Theotokos, [eg God Birther]...

We hold the dogma of Mary's bodily assumption into heaven, but this is based on pre-East/West-Split beliefs, including the Transitus Mariae, which I believe was originally written in Greek.

Well, we have always kept her close to our hearts outside of dogmatizing her assumption.

Arsenios

Jude3b

July 30th 2005, 05:30 AM

Fair enough, I'm sorry for putting 'words in your mouth' and I won't do it again.

I'm not sure I follow you here. When Jesus was in Mary's womb, was He God? When Jesus was wrapped in swaddling clothes, was He God? If He was (and He was) then that makes Mary the Mother of God.

Yes.

Dear furay:

Point of fact: A mother is only the mother of what originates within her womb.

2nd point of fact: The second person of the blessed trinity did not originate in Mary's body. He is very God. He is without beginning - has always existed - and has no mother.

3rd point of fact: Jesus had 2 natures - one created and one eternal - united in a single human body. Only one of those two natures orignated in Mary's womb.

"And Mary said: My soul magnifies the Lord. And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior." (Luke 1:46 & 47).

Conclusion- Jesus Christ the man is the son of Mary. The second person of the trinity is her God, not her son, for he did not originate in her womb.

Next topic, Should we pray to Mary? Who should we pray to?

"Call unto me, and I will answer thee, and shew thee great and mighty things, which thou knowest not." (Jeremiah 33:3).

"Give ear, O Lord, unto my prayer.... In the day of my trouble I will call upon thee: for thou wilt answer me." (Psalm 86:6,7).

"Cast thy burden upon the Lord, and he shall sustain tee: he shall never suffer the righteous to be moved." (Psalm 55:22)

"Be careful for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God." (Philippians 4:6).

So furay, will you pray to Mary or will you obey the Holy Scriptures and direct your prayers to God?

"As for me, I will call upon God; and the LORD shall save me." (Psalm 55:16) AMEN!

Jezz

July 31st 2005, 10:06 AM

Point of fact: A mother is only the mother of what originates within her womb.
Correct.

2nd point of fact: The second person of the blessed trinity did not originate in Mary's body.
This is misleading. The divine nature of the second person of the Trinity did not originate in the womb of Mary. But His human nature did.

He is very God.
Correct.

He is without beginning -
Correct.

has always existed -
Correct.

and has no mother.
Incorrect.

Y'see - you left one thing off your list. The second person of the Trinity is very God, but He is also very human. The second person of the Trinity is a human being. Human beings have mothers. Christ has a mother.

3rd point of fact: Jesus had 2 natures - one created and one eternal - united in a single human body. Only one of those two natures orignated in Mary's womb.
Correct.

"And Mary said: My soul magnifies the Lord. And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior." (Luke 1:46 & 47).
Correct.

Conclusion- Jesus Christ the man is the son of Mary.
Correct.

The second person of the trinity is her God, not her son, for he did not originate in her womb.
Incorrect. Jesus Christ and the second person of the Trinity are the same person. There are not two different people - one called "Jesus Christ" and another called "the second person of the Trinity". There is only one person here - the second person of the Trinity, whose name is Jesus Christ, who is both God and man. Mary bore this Person in her womb.

betzerg

July 31st 2005, 12:17 PM

Incorrect. Jesus Christ and the second person of the Trinity are the same person. There are not two different people - one called "Jesus Christ" and another called "the second person of the Trinity". There is only one person here - the second person of the Trinity, whose name is Jesus Christ, who is both God and man. Mary bore this Person in her womb.

This is actually a very good thread because it show the ridiculousness of the concept that a human being gave birth to G-d. We all know instinctively...from information picked up in scripture that G-d is something "other". That he is not ONE of Three PERSONS. Can't you see how the terminology PERSONS makes the concept of the trinity blaspheomous...anti G-d...opposed to the very first commandment given to Israel from HaShem.

You struggle with the idea that Miram gave birth to G-d..and that she is the MOTHER OF G-d...because you KNOW.

If YESHUA is fully G-d and Miriam gave birth to him...then Miriam gave birth to G-d and she IS the MOTHER of G-d. But this just doesn't SEEM right..because we all know that G-d is NOT JESUS CHRIST...but something "other"....and we must redefine the "fully G-d" of the pagan doctrines we have adhered to.

Shalom,

BETZER

furay

July 31st 2005, 06:07 PM

betzerg

July 31st 2005, 09:04 PM

Sorry, betzerg but this section of the forum is for Christians only. If you want to be Jewish, be so. If you want to become a Christian the Angels in Heaven will rejoice! But right now your lukewarm mish-mashed distorted amalgam of Judaism and Christianity just ain't cutting it.

I was hoping to sound alittle more passionate..."lukewarm"...darn.

I thought a theological debate was open forum for any religion as long as respect was included. Is this is getting too distrubing for you? It is very hard to realize that the paganized rendition of the gospel of our Messiah is a distorted version of the REAL teachings of YESHUA. But if I don't tell you...who will?

I think it is fairly apparent that salvation is FROM the jews. That G-d grafted the gentiles into the common wealth of Israel (just as many non-jews joined with israel throughtout history) to make one FAITH. All the early believers in YESHUA MESSIAH were JEWISH. For the first 30 years or so...they were all Torah observant jews who worshipped in temple and observed sabbath. The faith that Messiah brought was a contination of judaism...a fulfillment.

It's hard to know this. I didn't choose to know this...or to even dispute my original faith..but G-d has lead me to this and I must follow HIM wherever I am to go.

So, if this forum is to discuss issues with ONLY those who believe as you do...then kick me out. If you're AFRAID to face other view points than your own...maybe you should be reading Torah instead of posting on the internet.

Shalom,

BETZER

furay

July 31st 2005, 10:22 PM

I was hoping to sound alittle more passionate..."lukewarm"...darn.
I didn't mean to imply that you weren't zealous or passionate. Rather, by lukewarm I meant you've infused Judaism and Christianity to the point where you aren't Jewish (go ask the gentlemen in the Judaism forum here what they think about your "Jewishness") and you certainly aren't Christian (denying the All Holy Trinity).

I thought a theological debate was open forum for any religion as long as respect was included.
It is... in certain prescribed areas. This sector of the boards, however, is clearly denoted as "Christian only" and since you aren't a Christian you can't post here without special permission. If you've obtained permission to post in this thread already from the powers that be, ignore my previous post.

Is this is getting too distrubing for you? It is very hard to realize that the paganized rendition of the gospel of our Messiah is a distorted version of the REAL teachings of YESHUA. But if I don't tell you...who will?
Some other Judaizer... they seem to be quite plentiful on the internet.

I think it is fairly apparent that salvation is FROM the jews.
Salvation is from Christ; not the Jews.

That G-d grafted the gentiles into the common wealth of Israel (just as many non-jews joined with israel throughtout history) to make one FAITH. All the early believers in YESHUA MESSIAH were JEWISH. For the first 30 years or so...they were all Torah observant jews who worshipped in temple and observed sabbath. The faith that Messiah brought was a contination of judaism...a fulfillment.
That Faith continues today uninterupted and uncorrupted in the Holy Orthodox Christian Church.

So, if this forum is to discuss issues with ONLY those who believe as you do...then kick me out. If you're AFRAID to face other view points than your own...maybe you should be reading Torah instead of posting on the internet.

I couldn't kick you out if I wanted to (which I don't by the way), you are more than welcome to post in the sections of Tweb that are not designated "Christian Only".

betzerg

July 31st 2005, 10:44 PM

I didn't mean to imply that you weren't zealous or passionate. Rather, by lukewarm I meant you've infused Judaism and Christianity to the point where you aren't Jewish (go ask the gentlemen in the Judaism forum here what they think about your "Jewishness") and you certainly aren't Christian (denying the All Holy Trinity).

I suspect the early believers in yeshua had the same problem...not fitting into judaism of the day...does that make them wrong? In fact up until 325 there were groups of NEtzarim that observed judaism and had faith in Messiah. Of course, contantine had them put to death with the jews..for not being "christian" enough to renouce the "perpetual observances" G-d degreed for the jews.

It is... in certain prescribed areas. This sector of the boards, however, is clearly denoted as "Christian only" and since you aren't a Christian you can't post here without special permission. If you've obtained permission to post in this thread already from the powers that be, ignore my previous post.

Who defines "christian"...I believe the words of YESHUA, I just don't believe he is G-d. In the first century...with YESHUA's disciples..I wouldn't have had a problem

Some other Judaizer... they seem to be quite plentiful on the internet.

what is a "judaizer"...someone wanting to require more from the gentiles than what was already established...namely the noahide laws. But for jews...complete Torah observance was required. Paul took a Nazarite vow...circumcized timothy , observed the sabbath...it just was not required for gentiles to do so.

Salvation is from Christ; not the Jews.

John 4;22 says salvation is from the jews.

That Faith continues today uninterupted and uncorrupted in the Holy Orthodox Christian Church.

Not the faith of Abraham, Issac and Jacob. You might as well be muslem if you think G-d negates HIs covenants with one people group to create another...G-d's promises are eternal. Orthodox christian faith...from when? Not the first century.

I couldn't kick you out if I wanted to (which I don't by the way), you are more than welcome to post in the sections of Tweb that are not designated "Christian Only".

How very convenient to keep "christian Only" with your own definition of christian as a guideline...it keeps things safe. Is that what you want? Are you afraid to let people think for themselves. I have no ill will towards trinitarians.I was one myself for 20 years...I only wish to find what is true about the G-d we both wish to serve.

shalom,

BETZER

furay

August 1st 2005, 12:02 AM

Who defines "christian"The Church.
How very convenient to keep "christian Only" with your own definition of christian as a guideline...it keeps things safe.I didn't make the rules here and I certainly can't enforce them. However, what I will now do is report your post to the moderators so that they can do as they see fit.

betzerg

August 1st 2005, 12:11 AM

The Church.
I didn't make the rules here and I certainly can't enforce them. However, what I will now do is report your post to the moderators so that they can do as they see fit.

The word "church" is a taken from the angleo-saxon word "kirch"...a pagan place of worship. The word used as "church" in the old and new covenant scriptures (IE: the church in the wilderness OT...the body of christNT) is simply a word meaning "called out" "singled out"....called. Israel was called by G-d. She can be considered the church. The followers of YESHUA are called out...they are the church. Which "church"...do you mean? And if a "church" decrees something that is not found in scripture...or that contradicts scripture...is it still intrusted with definition?

Shalom,
BETZER

VFarris01

August 1st 2005, 06:03 AM

... and you certainly aren't Christian (denying the All Holy Trinity).The "Trinity" is a concept made up by the "church" from a very broad interpretation of the Bible; I believe it it to be a true concept... just barely. To not believe JC is part of "God" does not make one not "Christian." Belief JC died for our sins makes us "Christian."

I think it is fairly apparent that salvation is FROM the jews.Salvation is from Christ; not the Jews.You are not taking this with betzerg's intended meaning. Without the Jews there would be no JC... ergo, salvation is from the Jews.

Who defines "christian"The Church.:lol: What "church" furay? Yours, mine, betzerg's, the RCC, the EOC, the Morman's, LDS, JW, the "Holy Orthodox Christian Church?" Which "church" exactly? Let us leave this one up to God; shall we?

This all is outside the scope of this thread... How about starting a new one if you all would like to discuss it.

Jezz

August 1st 2005, 11:35 AM

The "Trinity" is a concept made up by the "church" from a very broad interpretation of the Bible; I believe it it to be a true concept... just barely.
Further proof that the more rigidly one adheres to "Sola Scriptura", the more likely one is to dismiss fundamental dogmas of the Faith. :shrug:

How can something be "just barely" true? Either it is true, or part of it is true and part isn't, or none of it is true.

VFarris01

August 1st 2005, 12:16 PM

The "Trinity" is a concept made up by the "church" from a very broad interpretation of the Bible;Further proof that the more rigidly one adheres to "Sola Scriptura", the more likely one is to dismiss fundamental dogmas of the Faith. :shrug:Take it to another thread Jezz; like I suggested.

I believe it it to be a true concept... just barely.How can something be "just barely" true? Either it is true, or part of it is true and part isn't, or none of it is true.Having trouble with context today (again), eh, Jezz? I am questioning my belief in the validity of the Trinity doctrine not the doctrine itself. Although, someone (like you), with the need to attack Sola Scriptura, could take it the way you suggest. But, as I recommended, "Take it to another thread."

themuzicman

August 1st 2005, 12:31 PM

At my Protestant church we have pastor appreciation day where a ton of people say a lot of good things about the pastor. Man does it feel good to do so. And of course people ask for his prayers nearly every day. So even a man who has not encountered God like Mary did can be praised without any fear of doing the wrong thing.

If you had a pastoral figure guy raise you up from non-belief to belief, and then edify and help correct you, would you not love him? Would you also not tell him how much he means to you? I told my youth pastor that I only praise him when I speak about him with others. I tell people I owe him my soul, just like it says in one of Paul's letters. I said in my college entrance essay that if he were Catholic, I'd expect him to be canonized. I can only praise him when I talk about him, and I know it is not dishonoring God, but rather honoring God out of appreciation for the servant he sent to make me a mature Christian.

In the same way the Church praises Mary. The Church appreciates all she has done for them; giving birth to GOD. That is amazing. A woman gave birth to the Infinite (in all ways!) God! Who wouldn't deserve praise for doing such an amazing thing? In the same way that my youth pastor is the reason I am a Christian, Mary is the reason we are all Christians, because she was the vessel for that changing moment in time, where the Uncreated became created.

7 "And which of you, having a servant plowing or tending sheep, will say to him when he has come in from the field, `Come at once and sit down to eat'? 8 "But will he not rather say to him, `Prepare something for my supper, and gird yourself and serve me till I have eaten and drunk, and afterward you will eat and drink'? 9 "Does he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded him? I think not. 10 "So likewise you, when you have done all those things which you are commanded, say, `We are unprofitable servants. We have done what was our duty to do.' "

Was Mary not like the rest of us in this respect?

Michael

themuzicman

August 1st 2005, 12:33 PM

Specifically, what do you think is veneration that borders on worship?

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by the basis for 'Roman' veneration, but we certainly venerate her on the same basis as the Orthodox, she is the Mother of God.

We hold the dogma of Mary's bodily assumption into heaven, but this is based on pre-East/West-Split beliefs, including the Transitus Mariae, which I believe was originally written in Greek.

There was a statue supposedly of Mary that reportedly cried at some time that came into the area (forget the name.. Our Lady of...???) and the TV news folks showed people actually BOWWING DOWN BEFORE THE STATUE AND PRAYING.

How is that not worship?

Michael

VFarris01

August 1st 2005, 12:50 PM

There was a statue supposedly of Mary that reportedly cried at some time that came into the area (forget the name.. Our Lady of...???) and the TV news folks showed people actually BOWWING DOWN BEFORE THE STATUE AND PRAYING.

How is that not worship?They are not worshiping the statue because they say they are not worshiping the statue. :lol: Come on Mike, get with the program! What it looks like and what it is are two different the same thing. :lol:

furay

August 1st 2005, 08:36 PM

I'm officially done with this thread. Peace be with you all.

VFarris01

August 1st 2005, 08:59 PM

I'm officially done with this thread. Peace be with you all.The truth must R E A L L Y hurt, huh, furay?

Jude3b

August 1st 2005, 10:21 PM

Correct.

This is misleading. The divine nature of the second person of the Trinity did not originate in the womb of Mary. But His human nature did.

Correct.

Correct.

Correct.

Incorrect.

Y'see - you left one thing off your list. The second person of the Trinity is very God, but He is also very human. The second person of the Trinity is a human being. Human beings have mothers. Christ has a mother.

Correct.

Correct.

Correct.

Incorrect. Jesus Christ and the second person of the Trinity are the same person. There are not two different people - one called "Jesus Christ" and another called "the second person of the Trinity". There is only one person here - the second person of the Trinity, whose name is Jesus Christ, who is both God and man. Mary bore this Person in her womb.

Dear Jezz:

Mary only bore Jesus her human son. Jesus, who is God and has always been God does not have a mother.

Therefore Mary is not the "mother of God" - she is the mother of Jesus and yes Jesus is God.

I know this is a fine line. However, if you do not see the significance of it, you could very easily enter into Maryolatry, just like the Roman Catholics do. Maryolatry is idolatry.

George Blaisdell

August 1st 2005, 10:58 PM

Dear Jezz:

Mary only bore Jesus her human son. Jesus, who is God and has always been God does not have a mother.

Therefore Mary is not the "mother of God" - she is the mother of Jesus and yes Jesus is God.

I know this is a fine line. However, if you do not see the significance of it, you could very easily enter into Maryolatry, just like the Roman Catholics do. Maryolatry is idolatry.

Hey Jude, my Brother!

Would you be comfortable with the understanding that Mariam is the Mother of the Only Begotten Son of God? I mean, you have to give her the fact that she is the mother of God in the flesh. Because it is she who gave God birth in the flesh into the world... And the Holy Spirit spoke through her when she prophesied: "And all generations shall call me blessed..."

Now I understand your concern about idolatry, yet to be a part of the generations that call her blessed would seem to me to be a very Biblical thing for you to want to do. And if some go oveer the line of calling her blessed, and fall a little into idolizing her, let that be theirs to have as a problem, yes?

God bless you, my Brother!

Arsenios

Alden

August 2nd 2005, 01:15 AM

Jude3b

August 2nd 2005, 02:38 AM

Hey Jude, my Brother!

Would you be comfortable with the understanding that Mariam is the Mother of the Only Begotten Son of God? I mean, you have to give her the fact that she is the mother of God in the flesh. Because it is she who gave God birth in the flesh into the world... And the Holy Spirit spoke through her when she prophesied: "And all generations shall call me blessed..."

Now I understand your concern about idolatry, yet to be a part of the generations that call her blessed would seem to me to be a very Biblical thing for you to want to do. And if some go oveer the line of calling her blessed, and fall a little into idolizing her, let that be theirs to have as a problem, yes?

God bless you, my Brother!

Arsenios

Dear George/Arsenios:

While I agree that Mary is "Blessed" in that she bore the baby Jesus and surely was blessed in being the mother of Jesus; I remember that even Jesus did not go overboard like religionists do in worshipping Mary.

Do you remember this? When a woman came to Jesus and attempted to exalt Mary, look how the Lord responded:
"...a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked. But he (Jesus) said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it." (Luke 11:27-28).

And God spoke all these words, saying: "I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. YOU SHALL HAVE NO OTHER gods BEFORE ME." You shall not make for yourself a carved image - any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God...."
(Exodus 20:1-5a).

themuzicman

August 2nd 2005, 10:37 AM

Jezz

August 2nd 2005, 11:49 AM

Dear Jezz:
Dear Jude,

Mary only bore Jesus her human son. Jesus, who is God and has always been God does not have a mother.

Therefore Mary is not the "mother of God" - she is the mother of Jesus and yes Jesus is God.

I know this is a fine line. However, if you do not see the significance of it, you could very easily enter into Maryolatry, just like the Roman Catholics do. Maryolatry is idolatry.
Indeed, Maryolatry is idolatory. But calling St Mary what she is - how can that be idolatory?

Come, let us reason together... Let me try a slightly different tack here.

Strictly speaking, "Mother of God" is not a correct translation of the Greek word "theotokos". The Greek literally means "God-bearer" - that is, "the one who bore God in her womb".

So let's forget about the title "Mother of God" for a minute. Let's concentrate on the actual Greek title for St Mary: theotokos.

You and I both agree that St Mary bore a Person in her womb, yes?
You and I also both agree that this Person was divine - He was (and is) God. Correct?
If the Person whom St Mary bore in her womb was God, then doesn't that by definition make her "bearer of God"?

Jezz

August 2nd 2005, 12:17 PM

I think the issue isn't so much whether Mary gave birth to Christ, who is God,
So you agree that it is appropriate to call St Mary "theotokos" then?

...but that the relationship between the two is exactly like any other Mother-Son relationship, including that Jesus would somehow give favors to Mary that He might not do for others, because she's His mother.
That's not a 100% accurate representation of the Orthodox view of intercession, but it will do for now. You're getting into intercession, which is a different topic than appropriate titles for St Mary.

There's just a lot of weird theology that comes out of this particular statement.
You betcha there's some weird theology that comes out of it. It's called Incarnational Theology. The fact that God became a man does have some really weird consequences. Whoever heard of God being crucified, for crying out loud? How can the Immortal die? How can the Eternal grow old? How can the Provider of all things be totally dependent on His mother and stepfather to provide for His basic needs? How can the One Who Is wider than the heavens fit into Mary's womb? The offenses to common sense, experience, and human wisdom introduced by this theology are endless. This is just one more.

The fact of the matter is, that if Christ dishonoured His mother then He would be sinning. But He does not sin - He is obedient to His mother as any Torah-abiding Jew should be. Unless you suggest that either St Mary was not His mother, or that Christ would break the Torah by dishonouring her, then you are left with the conclusion that Christ honours the requests that His mother makes of Him.

Of course, you're not the first person in history to question the wisdom of such theology. It is a stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to the Gentiles. And yet, this is exactly what the Incarnation means - and if we want to take the Incarnation seriously, then this is what we must preach, teach and confess.

themuzicman

August 2nd 2005, 12:49 PM

So you agree that it is appropriate to call St Mary "theotokos" then?

From a sematic POV, yes.

That's not a 100% accurate representation of the Orthodox view of intercession, but it will do for now. You're getting into intercession, which is a different topic than appropriate titles for St Mary.

True enough. I was just trying to bridge the reasoning behind the objection to the title, although one might question why she has a title at all.

You betcha there's some weird theology that comes out of it. It's called Incarnational Theology. The fact that God became a man does have some really weird consequences. Whoever heard of God being crucified, for crying out loud? How can the Immortal die? How can the Eternal grow old? How can the Provider of all things be totally dependent on His mother and stepfather to provide for His basic needs? How can the One Who Is wider than the heavens fit into Mary's womb? The offenses to common sense, experience, and human wisdom introduced by this theology are endless. This is just one more.

However, from a scriptural perspective, these things are clear.

The fact of the matter is, that if Christ dishonoured His mother then He would be sinning. But He does not sin - He is obedient to His mother as any Torah-abiding Jew should be.

Jesus is still Torah abiding? What happened to becoming a High Priest in a NEW Priestly order with a NEW LAW? (See most of the book of Hebrews for reference.)

Unless you suggest that either St Mary was not His mother, or that Christ would break the Torah by dishonouring her, then you are left with the conclusion that Christ honours the requests that His mother makes of Him.

Or if Christ isn't subject to the Torah. Can we assume that He still sees the High Priest every year to present the grain sacrifices and to tithe?

Of course, you're not the first person in history to question the wisdom of such theology. It is a stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to the Gentiles. And yet, this is exactly what the Incarnation means - and if we want to take the Incarnation seriously, then this is what we must preach, teach and confess.

That the worship of Mary is necessary from the incarnation of Christ is quite a stretch.

Michael

George Blaisdell

August 2nd 2005, 06:25 PM

Dear George/Arsenios:

While I agree that Mary is "Blessed" in that she bore the baby Jesus and surely was blessed in being the mother of Jesus; I remember that even Jesus did not go overboard like religionists do in worshipping Mary.

Do you remember this? When a woman came to Jesus and attempted to exalt Mary, look how the Lord responded:
"...a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked. But he (Jesus) said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it." (Luke 11:27-28).

And God spoke all these words, saying: "I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. YOU SHALL HAVE NO OTHER gods BEFORE ME." You shall not make for yourself a carved image - any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God...."
(Exodus 20:1-5a).

Well then, my Brother, perhaps you would joyfully join your Orthodox brethren each Liturgy when they sing:

Blessed art thou O Virgin Theotokos
Through the One Who was incarnate of thee.
Hades was chained
Adam revived,
The curse wiped out.
Eve set free,
And death put to death.
And we ourselves
Were brought back to life

That is why
We cry out to thee.
Blessed art Thou
O Christ our God

This is a normal and ordinary part of the utterly extraordinary worship service of Christians for 2000 years now...

Your role, as a believer in the Bible, and in the inspiration of the Holy Spirit through Mariam's lips recorded thererin, is to call her blessed, for she is the God-birther/bearer [Theo-tokos], and she is the Mother of our God, Jesus Christ, in the flesh.

And welcome to the Mystery of the Christian Faith...

Arsenios.

Jude3b

August 3rd 2005, 02:38 AM

Well then, my Brother, perhaps you would joyfully join your Orthodox brethren each Liturgy when they sing:

Blessed art thou O Virgin Theotokos
Through the One Who was incarnate of thee.
Hades was chained
Adam revived,
The curse wiped out.
Eve set free,
And death put to death.
And we ourselves
Were brought back to life

That is why
We cry out to thee.
Blessed art Thou
O Christ our God

This is a normal and ordinary part of the utterly extraordinary worship service of Christians for 2000 years now...

Your role, as a believer in the Bible, and in the inspiration of the Holy Spirit through Mariam's lips recorded thererin, is to call her blessed, for she is the God-birther/bearer [Theo-tokos], and she is the Mother of our God, Jesus Christ, in the flesh.

And welcome to the Mystery of the Christian Faith...

Arsenios.

Dear Arsenios:

Looks like another topic that we will wind up disagreeing on. I do call Mary the Mother of Jesus - "Blessed" and she is. The Bible and I agree on that point.

But I can never agree with false - anti-Bible teachings about Mary, the mother of Jesus!

History shows that it was not until the Council of Ephesus (431 AD) that Mary started to be called "the mother of God" (Greek, theotokos) as you have shown.

That sure made the idol-makers happy! They lost none of their business. They had once made statues of Diana, the Ephesian goddess (Acts 19:28-35). Now they made statues to Mary, supposedly "God's mother."

These Mary-worshipers were Roman Catholics - not Christians! Not members of the church of God - the body of Christ.

After 431 AD, The Roman Catholic system had its own: Counterfeit leader - the pope. It had its own counterfeit Mary to worship. It had its own counterfeit Jesus wafer god.

Satan was clever. He couldn't stop the church of God - the body of Christ by killing Christians. No he couldn't - so instead he joined the visible, but counterfeit church - the Roman Catholic church.

Church people became superstitious and religious - instead of Christian. The Roman Catholic priests ruled over the people like little gods.

The popes made everyone worship the fake Mary - or else! From Constantine to Celestine, true members of the church of God - the body of Christ were heading for the hills. Hence it is said that the church fled into the wilderness.

Millions of true Christians were slaughtered, century after century by the armies of the pope. Bible believing Christians were tortured and burnt at the stake and Ignorance was rampant in Roman Catholic nations.

For a thousand years after Pope Celestine I things waxed worse and worse as Satan ruled much of the religious world through his Roman Catholic religion.

Jezz

August 3rd 2005, 10:45 AM

From a sematic POV, yes.
What do you mean, "from a semantic POV"? That's just playing semantic games!

Either St Mary is theotokos, or she isn't.

If she isn't, then it is inappropriate to call her that.
If she is, then it is appropriate call her that.

Take a side, Michael. Stop playing games.

True enough. I was just trying to bridge the reasoning behind the objection to the title, although one might question why she has a title at all.
She has a title because that's what she is.

Eve is called the Mother of All Living, because she was the mother of all living.
Abram is called Abraham, because he was the father of many nations.
Jacob is called Israel, because he wrestled with God.
Moses is called the Law-giver, because he gave God's Law to Israel.
Melchizedek is called priest of the Most High God, because he was priest of the Most High God.
St John the Baptist is called the Forerunner, because he was the forerunner to Christ.
Simon son of Jonah is called the Rock, because of his rock-solid confession of Christ.
St John the Evangelist is called the Beloved Disciple, because he was the one whom Christ loved.

Are you seeing a pattern here? Note how many of these titles specify the relationship of the person to God/Christ, and their role in the plan of salvation.

St Mary is called "God-bearer" and "birth-giver of God" because she bore God in her womb and gave birth to Him. That is her relationship to Christ, and her role in the plan of salvation. An extremely important role, don't you think?

In answer to your question: Why does she have a title? She has a title, because that's what she is - and to deny that's what she is is to deny a very important truth about the Incarnation. Why are you so frightened to confess the truth?

However, from a scriptural perspective, these things are clear.
And it is equally clear from a scriptural perspective that St Mary is the mother of our Lord and King.

It is also clear from Scripture that the command to honour your father and mother is timeless, and did not become obsolete when the Torah was abolished (eg, 1 Timothy 5:4). To break this commandment would be a sin.

It is clear from Scripture that Christ is sinless.

It follows directly from the above that Christ honours His mother. If we want to be imitators of Christ - ie, Christ-ian - we need to honour His mother too. If we dishonour His mother, we dishonour Him. If you don't think that the mother of our King is worthy of honour, then you don't understand what Biblical kingship is all about, or what it means that Christ is our King.

Jesus is still Torah abiding? What happened to becoming a High Priest in a NEW Priestly order with a NEW LAW? (See most of the book of Hebrews for reference.)

Or if Christ isn't subject to the Torah. Can we assume that He still sees the High Priest every year to present the grain sacrifices and to tithe?
Congratulations - in true Pharisaical fashion, you strained out the gnat and swallowed the camel. :ahem:

Let me first deal with the gnat: I will grant that Christ is not still Torah abiding.

Now, please deal with the camel: will you grant that the NEW LAW (see most of the book of Hebrews for reference) includes a commandment to honour your father and your mother? Assuming that your answer is yes, will you not also grant that the Sinless One obeys this commandment?

That the worship of Mary is necessary from the incarnation of Christ is quite a stretch.
I would say it is more than just a stretch - it is a non-sequitur.

In stark contrast, that it is necessary for you to burn strawmen like this (or strain gnats like above) rather than deal with the issue is strikingly apparent...

Jezz

August 3rd 2005, 10:58 AM

Dear Arsenios:
Dear Jude, I hope you don't mind me butting in, but you didn't answer my last post.

Looks like another topic that we will wind up disagreeing on. I do call Mary the Mother of Jesus - "Blessed" and she is. The Bible and I agree on that point.
:thumb:

But I can never agree with false - anti-Bible teachings about Mary, the mother of Jesus!
:thumb: Neither can I!

History shows that it was not until the Council of Ephesus (431 AD) that Mary started to be called "the mother of God" (Greek, theotokos) as you have shown.
This isn't true, Jude. Mary was already called theotokos before the Council of Ephesus. The problem was that a bishop by the name of Nestorius couldn't believe that God would undergo the humiliation of coming into this world as a child. He refused to believe that. He argued that Word of God assumed the man Christ into His divine nature later on in His life. So, he argued that the man to whom St Mary gave birth was not divine, but merely the man Christ. Hence, he argued, Mary was not theotokos, but merely Christotokos. It was this heretical teaching that sparked the Council of Ephesus.

You are also wrong to think that Pope Celestine was the main driving force behind the Council of Ephesus. The pope was not in attendence at the Council - the Council was convened and run by St Cyril - bishop of Alexandria. He more than anyone else is the man most responsible for defending the already-existing usage of the phrase "theotokos".

That sure made the idol-makers happy! They lost none of their business. They had once made statues of Diana, the Ephesian goddess (Acts 19:28-35). Now they made statues to Mary, supposedly "God's mother."
Christians did not start making statues until medieval times, AFAIK.

themuzicman

August 3rd 2005, 11:00 AM

What do you mean, "from a semantic POV"? That's just playing semantic games!

Either St Mary is theotokos, or she isn't.

If she isn't, then it is inappropriate to call her that.
If she is, then it is appropriate call her that.

Take a side, Michael. Stop playing games.

She has a title because that's what she is.

Eve is called the Mother of All Living, because she was the mother of all living.
Abram is called Abraham, because he was the father of many nations.
Jacob is called Israel, because he wrestled with God.
Moses is called the Law-giver, because he gave God's Law to Israel.
Melchizedek is called priest of the Most High God, because he was priest of the Most High God.
St John the Baptist is called the Forerunner, because he was the forerunner to Christ.
Simon son of Jonah is called the Rock, because of his rock-solid confession of Christ.
St John the Evangelist is called the Beloved Disciple, because he was the one whom Christ loved.

Are you seeing a pattern here? Note how many of these titles specify the relationship of the person to God/Christ, and their role in the plan of salvation.

St Mary is called "God-bearer" and "birth-giver of God" because she bore God in her womb and gave birth to Him. That is her relationship to Christ, and her role in the plan of salvation. An extremely important role, don't you think?

As long as the title is only in existance to recognize her role, and not to endow her with authority over God, sure.

[quoet]In answer to your question: Why does she have a title? She has a title, because that's what she is - and to deny that's what she is is to deny a very important truth about the Incarnation. Why are you so frightened to confess the truth?[/quote]

It's not this fact, but the contrived theology that follows it that is scarey.

I have no objection to the title as a title.

And it is equally clear from a scriptural perspective that St Mary is the mother of our Lord and King.

It is also clear from Scripture that the command to honour your father and mother is timeless, and did not become obsolete when the Torah was abolished (eg, 1 Timothy 5:4). To break this commandment would be a sin.

1 Tim 5:4 talks about children caring for their parents and grandparents, rather than making the church do it.

It is clear from Scripture that Christ is sinless.

It follows directly from the above that Christ honours His mother. If we want to be imitators of Christ - ie, Christ-ian - we need to honour His mother too. If we dishonour His mother, we dishonour Him. If you don't think that the mother of our King is worthy of honour, then you don't understand what Biblical kingship is all about, or what it means that Christ is our King.

Honor, yes. Worship, no. I do find it interesting that you think that Mary has authority over God.

Congratulations - in true Pharisaical fashion, you strained out the gnat and swallowed the camel. :ahem:

Let me first deal with the gnat: I will grant that Christ is not still Torah abiding.

Now, please deal with the camel: will you grant that the NEW LAW (see most of the book of Hebrews for reference) includes a commandment to honour your father and your mother? Assuming that your answer is yes, will you not also grant that the Sinless One obeys this commandment?

Not in the same way that 'honor your father and mother' was rendered via tradition in the OT. The only place where children are commanded to obey their parents, the term 'child' is specifically used. Thus, when a child becomes an adult, they are no longer obliaged to do so.

I would say it is more than just a stretch - it is a non-sequitur.

Well, it's good to see that the EO hasn't jumped off the deep end like the RCC has,then

In stark contrast, that it is necessary for you to burn strawmen like this (or strain gnats like above) rather than deal with the issue is strikingly apparent...

As much as you wish for this to be a gnat, there is a significant change from the Old Covenant to the New. In the New, parents are cared for, and are to be obeyed when one is a child, but there is no adult mandate to obey your parents.

Perhaps you see this as a gnat, because it is a problem, you want it to be a small one.

Michael

Jezz

August 3rd 2005, 12:01 PM

As long as the title is only in existance to recognize her role, and not to endow her with authority over God, sure.
You just can't help yourself, can you? You've always got to qualify your response. The above is an "appeal to consequences" fallacy. One should first determine whether or not St Mary is theotokos, and then conclude that

Just answer the question: Do you believe that St Mary is the theotokos? If so, then answer: "Yes, I believe that Mary is the theotokos." No wiggling, no ifs, buts or maybes.

I predict that you will either ignore or dodge this question. You will not answer it with a simple "Yes, I believe that Mary is the theotokos." I pray that you to prove me wrong.

It's not this fact, but the contrived theology that follows it that is scarey.

I have no objection to the title as a title.
We can deal with the "contrived" theology elsewhere. Deal with the topic of this thread first.

1 Tim 5:4 talks about children caring for their parents and grandparents, rather than making the church do it.
And caring for them is honouring them, no?

Honor, yes. Worship, no.
You feel the need to burn the "worship" strawman again. I think the member nations of the Kyoto protocol might be onto you about all the excess greenhouse emissions your contributing with all this straw burning.

I do find it interesting that you think that Mary has authority over God.
And another one! My, you'll need to by CO2 credits from some 3rd world nations at this rate!

Not in the same way that 'honor your father and mother' was rendered via tradition in the OT.
Really? In what way is it different?

The only place where children are commanded to obey their parents, the term 'child' is specifically used.
Can you please provide a reference?

Thus, when a child becomes an adult, they are no longer obliaged to do so.
No longer obliged to obey? Maybe. But they are still obliged to honour them!

Your whole argument is an from silence. Nowhere in the NT does it say that this commandment was abrogated when the Torah was abrogated. But in keeping with the commandment, we do find plenty of statements indicating that young people should be submissive to their elders (eg, 1 Peter 5:5). Unless you claim that children are older than their parents (ooooh, look - I used the English word that specifically means "child" - I guess I didn't mean for my statement to apply to adults! :ahem:), then this means that

Indeed, the commandment to honour your parents (like the commandment against murder) was in effect long before the Torah was instituted (see Genesis 9:20-27). There is every reason to suspect that it is still in effect now even though the Torah is abrogated, and no reason to suspect that it isn't. Other than the fact that it makes your argument all the more easy.

The context of the NT world and extra-Biblical testimony is completely against your interpretation here. No pious person would entertain the idea that they weren't obliged to honour their parents. Their world is a far cry from the Western world were kids rebel, curse and spit at their parents and leave home as soon as they can. Even today, Orthodox will generally live with their parents until they are married (at whatever age that is), and will gladly take in their parents when they are too old to live by themselves. Respecting our elders is only one of many areas where our contemporary Western society has gone down the toilet.

Well, it's good to see that the EO hasn't jumped off the deep end like the RCC has,then
Of course not. The Church doesn't jump off the deep end.

As much as you wish for this to be a gnat, there is a significant change from the Old Covenant to the New. In the New, parents are cared for, and are to be obeyed when one is a child, but there is no adult mandate to obey your parents.
Indeed. And one of the things that didn't change significantly (except for the Sabbath command) was the 10 commandments. Pretty much all the rest of the Old Covenant was thrown away. Which of these two categories does the command to "honour your father and mother" fall into? Much as you might want to wish for this command to be abrogated, it isn't (see, I can play psychologist too...)

As I pointed out above, the command to honour your parents came before the Old Covenant was instituted (as did all of the 10 commandments, excluding the Sabbath command). It is therefore independent of the Old Covenant (and independent of its passing).

Perhaps you see this as a gnat, because it is a problem, you want it to be a small one.
Perhaps you like to resort to psychoanalysis when you can't make your point using logic. :shrug:

Really, the fact that you have been reduced to trying to argue that we don't have to honour our parents should be a wake up call for you. It is disgraceful. Do you not feel yourself obliged to honour your parents? The people who brought you into the world, gave you life, fed you, clothed you? Assuming, of course, that your parents did these things and acted honourably... I can understand your hesitancy if you had a rough childhood. But ordinarily, this is a command that should be obeyed - and if your parents are loving and caring, there is no excuse for disobeying it.

themuzicman

August 3rd 2005, 01:55 PM

Just answer the question: Do you believe that St Mary is the theotokos? If so, then answer: "Yes, I believe that Mary is the theotokos." No wiggling, no ifs, buts or maybes.

Yes.

I predict that you will either ignore or dodge this question. You will not answer it with a simple "Yes, I believe that Mary is the theotokos." I pray that you to prove me wrong.

Bzzzzzzt.

And caring for them is honouring them, no?

Yes, that's part of it.

And another one! My, you'll need to by CO2 credits from some 3rd world nations at this rate!

Sorry, I guess I should have pointed out the logic:

If honoring your parents means that you do what they say, and If Christ is still obligated to honor Mary IN THIS WAY, then Mary has authority over Christ, who is God, so she has authority over God, right? (See my original statement and your reply at the end of this post)

Really? In what way is it different?

Can you please provide a reference?

No longer obliged to obey? Maybe. But they are still obliged to honour them!

And there you have it, maybe.

20 Children, obey your parents in all things, for this is well pleasing to the Lord.

Your whole argument is an from silence. Nowhere in the NT does it say that this commandment was abrogated when the Torah was abrogated. But in keeping with the commandment, we do find plenty of statements indicating that young people should be submissive to their elders (eg, 1 Peter 5:5). Unless you claim that children are older than their parents (ooooh, look - I used the English word that specifically means "child" - I guess I didn't mean for my statement to apply to adults! :ahem:), then this means that

You cut off again.

Either way, who has been in existance longer, God or Mary? Who is the "elder"?

Furthermore, you've already conceded my argument that Christ is no longer under the Torah, so whether it was abrogated or not is irrelevant.

What remains from that particular commandment is for adult children to care for their elderly widows.

Indeed, the commandment to honour your parents (like the commandment against murder) was in effect long before the Torah was instituted (see Genesis 9:20-27).

:lmbo:

You GOTTA be kidding me! Of COURSE we're supposed to treat our parents with the respect they deserve! That hardly rises to the level of Christ having to obey Mary today!

There is every reason to suspect that it is still in effect now even though the Torah is abrogated, and no reason to suspect that it isn't. Other than the fact that it makes your argument all the more easy.

Yeah, that whole "new priesthood, new law" thing was just someone speaking out of turn, then?

The context of the NT world and extra-Biblical testimony is completely against your interpretation here. No pious person would entertain the idea that they weren't obliged to honour their parents.

The real problem isn't honoring, per se, but what does that 'honoring' entail? Respect? Yes. Care for them when they age? Sure. Obey? No.

Their world is a far cry from the Western world were kids rebel, curse and spit at their parents and leave home as soon as they can. Even today, Orthodox will generally live with their parents until they are married (at whatever age that is), and will gladly take in their parents when they are too old to live by themselves. Respecting our elders is only one of many areas where our contemporary Western society has gone down the toilet.

Agreed.

Indeed. And one of the things that didn't change significantly (except for the Sabbath command) was the 10 commandments. Pretty much all the rest of the Old Covenant was thrown away. Which of these two categories does the command to "honour your father and mother" fall into?

False dichotomy. You already admitted THREE categories:

1) Some of 10 commandments affirmed in the NT
2) Sabbath NOT affirmed in the NT
3) The rest of the torah

Why not a 4th category:
4) Honor your father and monther limited to care when they get old and respect that is due them as elders.

As I pointed out above, the command to honour your parents came before the Old Covenant was instituted (as did all of the 10 commandments, excluding the Sabbath command). It is therefore independent of the Old Covenant (and independent of its passing).

:rofl:

1) There is no COMMAND in Genesis 9:20-27.
2) That was a case of disrespect toward a parent, specifically Noah.
3) Two men died for failing to bear children for their brother (remember the story of Tamar?) Is that a COMMANDMENT, too? :lol:

You're really stretching, here.

Really, the fact that you have been reduced to trying to argue that we don't have to honour our parents should be a wake up call for you.

OK, you're pushing my position to the opposite extreme, where I have not gone. You're going to need to buy some of those CO2 credits, now.

It is disgraceful. Do you not feel yourself obliged to honour your parents? The people who brought you into the world, gave you life, fed you, clothed you? Assuming, of course, that your parents did these things and acted honourably... I can understand your hesitancy if you had a rough childhood. But ordinarily, this is a command that should be obeyed - and if your parents are loving and caring, there is no excuse for disobeying it.

Let's not forget my original statement, here. You seem to be trying to expand my position from what I originally stated to believing that I have no obligation to honor my parents:

I think the issue isn't so much whether Mary gave birth to Christ, who is God, but that the relationship between the two is exactly like any other Mother-Son relationship, including that Jesus would somehow give favors to Mary that He might not do for others, because she's His mother.

To which you said:

That's not a 100% accurate representation of the Orthodox view of intercession, but it will do for now.

Perhaps you could explain further whether Jesus has an obligation to give favors to Mary, because she is His mother.

Michael

George Blaisdell

August 3rd 2005, 05:55 PM

Of COURSE we're supposed to treat our parents with the respect they deserve! That hardly rises to the level of Christ having to obey Mary today!

Well, Biblically, at the Marriage in Cana, Christ's mother brought the issue of the wine having run out to a very adult Christ, Who replied to her that it was none of their business, and then turned water into wine... At her INTERCESSION...

And my question to you, dear Michael, is the following: IF the Theotokos [God-birther] today were to ask her Son for something for someone else - If the Theotokos were to intercede on someone's behalf to her son - Today - What do you think her Son, our Lord and Master, will do? Will He ignore her? Or will he receive her supplication on our behalf?

We do NOT worship Mary - But you can rely on the fact that we reverence and love her absolutely, and constantly ask her intercession for us all... As Christ's holy Body, the Church, has done from the very early beginnings... Without any controversy whatsoever... Except from 16th century and later breakaways [Protestants] from the very apostatic Roman Church... Some of whom live in an almost rage of betrayal because of what they see as their Church's having betrayed them... And who have a very understandable agenda of payback for that perceived betrayal...

Christ honors His mother, dear Michael... Even to this day... That is the undivided consensus of the Church from the beginnings - He honored her as a child, and at Cana, and from the Cross... And He is not about to stop there... Her remains were simply not there, in the grave, to everyone's surprise, when Thomas came to see them, to venerate her... Like Christ's body, they just were not there. She is the first to get into heaven, past the Last and Dread Judgement day that we all will face in the future...

The "wierd theology" you are up against is Roman, not Orthodox - But by attacking the importance of Christ's holy mother in the Church, you deny the Church its Biblical role as the ground and pillar of truth, the very body of Christ, Who is its Head. The mother of God IKONS the Church... It is a mistake to let one's anti-Roman feelings determine one's understanding of the truth...

This is a pretty good discussion!

Arsenios

themuzicman

August 3rd 2005, 10:04 PM

Well, Biblically, at the Marriage in Cana, Christ's mother brought the issue of the wine having run out to a very adult Christ, Who replied to her that it was none of their business, and then turned water into wine... At her INTERCESSION...

And my question to you, dear Michael, is the following: IF the Theotokos [God-birther] today were to ask her Son for something for someone else - If the Theotokos were to intercede on someone's behalf to her son - Today - What do you think her Son, our Lord and Master, will do? Will He ignore her? Or will he receive her supplication on our behalf?

As a believer in Christ, if you were to pray to Christ - Today - What do you think He, our Lord and Master, will do? Will he ignore you? Or will he receive your supplication?

My answer is that Mary would receive no more or less an audience or consideration than any member of the body of Christ.

We do NOT worship Mary - But you can rely on the fact that we reverence and love her absolutely, and constantly ask her intercession for us all... As Christ's holy Body, the Church, has done from the very early beginnings... Without any controversy whatsoever... Except from 16th century and later breakaways [Protestants] from the very apostatic Roman Church... Some of whom live in an almost rage of betrayal because of what they see as their Church's having betrayed them... And who have a very understandable agenda of payback for that perceived betrayal...

Is that why people come from miles around to bow before a statue of Mary as it tours the country? Do you need a statue in order to ask for her intercession?

Christ honors His mother, dear Michael... Even to this day... That is the undivided consensus of the Church from the beginnings - He honored her as a child, and at Cana, and from the Cross... And He is not about to stop there... Her remains were simply not there, in the grave, to everyone's surprise, when Thomas came to see them, to venerate her... Like Christ's body, they just were not there. She is the first to get into heaven, past the Last and Dread Judgement day that we all will face in the future...

And this is recorded... where?

The "wierd theology" you are up against is Roman, not Orthodox - But by attacking the importance of Christ's holy mother in the Church, you deny the Church its Biblical role as the ground and pillar of truth, the very body of Christ, Who is its Head. The mother of God IKONS the Church... It is a mistake to let one's anti-Roman feelings determine one's understanding of the truth...

Mary is never called 'holy' in scripture. In fact, she stood outside with Christ's brothers and sisters, demanding to speak with Him while He spoke in the temple, and He denied her request, saying that his disciples were his "brothers, sisters, and mother."

Michael

George Blaisdell

August 3rd 2005, 10:45 PM

As a believer in Christ, if you were to pray to Christ - Today - What do you think He, our Lord and Master, will do? Will he ignore you? Or will he receive your supplication?

He will receive it, of course, or ignore it, according to the state and purpose of the heart of the person making the supplication. When Charlie Manson prays for drugs in prison, God pays less attention than when a pious Christian prays for strength in resisting sin.

And I am sure you are aware of the Biblical fact that the power of the prayers of the righteous far exceed the potency before God prayers of the unrighteous... And in terms of righteousness, meaning right relationship with God, you will be hard pressed to find, and indeed you will not find, ANYONE more righteous than the Theotokos... Her relationship with Christ-God if far and above any relationship you or I will ever have, for we do not and cannot and will not carry Christ in our womb in the flesh...

My answer is that Mary would receive no more or less an audience or consideration than any member of the body of Christ.

Well, if you actually believe that, then you disagree with God when he said that for the sake of ONE righteous man he would spare a city...

Is that why people come from miles around to bow before a statue of Mary as it tours the country? Do you need a statue in order to ask for her intercession?

You do not find statuary in Orthodoxy, my friend... Your rage, if that is what it is, is with Rome, not Orthodoxy...

And this is recorded... where?

I am not sure... Maybe I will find it for you...

Do you really only believe what is recorded and thereby provable according to what is written? It is the universal teaching of the Church, and the Church is the ground and pillar of truth, yes? You DO believe the Bible when it tells you that, yes?? So hopefully I will be able to find you something written on paper... There were no pictures taken, for sure... No news cams, or sat-coms...

Mary is never called 'holy' in scripture.

Yet she is so universally in the Church of the first 1500 years... So who you gonna believe? The Church that Scripture tells you is the ground and pillar of truth? Or some Bible reader outside the communion of the Church some 1500 years after the Bible was wri