Why do so many Christians dislike Mary?

[Nightingale]

The Church is the New Eve, not Mary. Irenaeus was wrong. Christ is the New Adam, and the Church is his bride. To call Mary the New Eve even sounds kinda incestuous.

Is not Mary part of the Church, and thus the Bride as well? That's like saying it sounds transsexual to call the Church a Bride when there are men in the Church.


As to nikolai, I would still say the Mary brings life into the world because she brought Christ into the world and Christ is the Life.

As for honoring Mary, this is justified by Scripture when Mary says, "My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, for he has regarded the low estate of his handmaiden. For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed; for he who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is his name." (Lk 1:46-49)

Her soul magnifies the Lord yet how useful is a stained magnifying glass? The glass must be clear in order to magnify anything as she does. Her spirit rejoiced in God her Savior because He is the source of all the graces she receives. And finally all generations will call her blessed (or at least they ought to) because the Lord has done great things for her.

Tradition cannot be completely disregarded for how do you even know what books constitute the Bible if not for a Tradition? You can say that love of Mary came from some syncretism involving goddess worship but that will not account for St. Irenaeus who came well before the legalization of Christianity.

"In the matter of sin, it is my wish to exclude absolutely all questions concerning the holy Virgin Mary, on account of the honor due to Christ. For since she conceived and brought forth Him who most certainly was guilty of no sin, we know that an abundance of grace was given her that she might be in every way the conqueror of sin."

[Obsidian]

Is not Mary part of the Church, and thus the Bride as well? That's like saying it sounds transsexual to call the Church a Bride when there are men in the Church.

*Sigh* No, because the church is a collective. The Church is the bride in the same way that Israel was the bride in the OT (or I remember one passage where God had two brides, Israel and Judah, although I forget exactly what chapter and I don't feel like looking it up.)

But yes, Mary is part of the church -- as am I. Could you please start saying some prayers to me? I promise to answer a good percentage of your requests, as long as you ask them with a pure heart.

As to nikolai, I would still say the Mary brings life into the world because she brought Christ into the world and Christ is the Life.

Rahab and Ruth and Solomon helped bring Christ into the world. Why don't you worship them? At least Solomon wrote some good books, too. Honestly, he seems like a better choice for a cult-following than Mary. If I weren't so monotheistic, I think I'd go start my own Church of Solomon right about now.


edit -- my bad, I'm not sure if Solomon was one of his ancestors or not. I guess substitute "David" for the god of my new church

[Thersites]

The Church is the New Eve, not Mary. Irenaeus was wrong. Christ is the New Adam, and the Church is his bride. To call Mary the New Eve even sounds kinda incestuous.

Why can both not be true? Why can Eve not be a type of Mary, and Mary a type of the Church?

[Obsidian]

Because there's no where in the Bible that describes Mary as having characteristics resembling Eve. She doesn't produce our eternal life (as Eve did our death), she's not married to the New Adam, she's not the "mother of all" (the definition of "Eve"). If anything, Sarah is more our mother than Mary is, because we're called children of Abraham.

[Thersites]

Because there's no where in the Bible that describes Mary as having characteristics resembling Eve. She doesn't produce our eternal life (as Eve did our death), she's not married to the New Adam, she's not the "mother of all" (the definition of "Eve"). If anything, Sarah is more our mother than Mary is, because we're called children of Abraham.

That depends on your interpretation of certain verses (e.g. the passage from John at the foot of the cross)

[Obsidian]

Well he also said not to call anyone "Father" because only God is our Father. I guess that could still leave room for Mary...if she were married to God

[nikolai_42]

• Edited by a Moderator •

[Thersites]

Well he also said not to call anyone "Father" because only God is our Father. I guess that could still leave room for Mary...if she were married to God

So who's your daddy?

In all seriousness, I think most people take this verse way too far (and, at the same time, not far enough) in application

[Thersites]

• Edited by a Moderator •

Elizabeth was pretty happy to see Mary.

In John's epistles, he makes passing references to a "chosen sister"- given the passage in John's Gospel which has been previously mentioned, it might make sense that this woman is Mary. If we accept this, it seems that there was a certain level of reverence toward Mary in at least some communities.

[Obsidian]

He also says, "The children of your chosen sister greet you" (v. 13), suggesting that not all Christians are children of that particular "sister," whoever/whatever she is.

[nikolai_42]

As to nikolai, I would still say the Mary brings life into the world because she brought Christ into the world and Christ is the Life.

Thus, she is no more responsible for life than any woman for the life of her child. She is a vessel only - like any of us are. Her uniqueness comes in the fact that she had a unique "ministry" to carry out. Any believing woman who knew she was to bear the promised Messiah - the Son of God - would consider it an immense honor and would rightly feel unworthy to do so.

As for honoring Mary, this is justified by Scripture when Mary says, "My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, for he has regarded the low estate of his handmaiden. For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed; for he who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is his name." (Lk 1:46-49)

Absolutely! Such an honor! No merit, no standing of herself before God (again, like anyone else) and He uses her to bear the Savior of the World! No wonder all generations would call her blessed! She was blessed! She was given a great role to play. But none of that implies any sort of inherent worth or standing of her own before God. Merely God's Grace and Mercy to her. No implication that she was perpetually a virgin - though she was when she gave birth to Jesus - but an implication that she would be called (to use a thoroughly modern phrase) "lucky!". But none of that claim has any implication in elevation of status of anyone but God Himself. That He should stoop to such a level and so include a woman in the plan of the ages is all the more incredible - but tending only to glory to God and not to Mary. Her own words elevate Him and her own words admit her "low estate". Nothing in that statement does anything but to make her look as having received umerited favor.

Her soul magnifies the Lord yet how useful is a stained magnifying glass? The glass must be clear in order to magnify anything as she does. Her spirit rejoiced in God her Savior because He is the source of all the graces she receives. And finally all generations will call her blessed (or at least they ought to) because the Lord has done great things for her.

I would change that last phrase to "...because the Lord has done great things through her.". A "stained magnifying glass" is very useful in the hands of God. Obsidian well mentions Rahab - a lying prostitute who was praised as a woman of faith! Her sinfulness did not affect the faith she followed. Paul spoke of man's weaknesses tending to God's praise. David said even the wrath of man will praise God. The point being that man's requirements are not God's. The Pharisees charged Jesus with being born "of fornication". His lineage was quite a colored line - Judah being quite a rough character himself. Jesus was pristine and brought out of an entire line tainted by sin - all the more elevating Him and making man as nothing. Nothing God did tended to elevate Mary's inherent worth. Like anyone else, Mary's worth is measured by her faith and does not make her an intercessor (or anything like it) or an object of adoration - certainly no more than the other sinners who made up the apostleship, for example.

Tradition cannot be completely disregarded for how do you even know what books constitute the Bible if not for a Tradition? You can say that love of Mary came from some syncretism involving goddess worship but that will not account for St. Irenaeus who came well before the legalization of Christianity.

Certainly, Roman influence started long before Constantine. But it only became wide in influence around then. Tradition erodes any "sure word" by adding to what scripture has already said. But I think we're treading on another topic's territory.

[nikolai_42]

Elizabeth was pretty happy to see Mary.

In John's epistles, he makes passing references to a "chosen sister"- given the passage in John's Gospel which has been previously mentioned, it might make sense that this woman is Mary. If we accept this, it seems that there was a certain level of reverence toward Mary in at least some communities.

Again, I don't see that. All I see is a woman who was, indeed, highly favored by God so that He allowed her to carry the Savior for 9 months (assumption, there) and then be the earthly mother. Nothing in "chosen" implies anything beyond that God blessed her. Nothing inherent in Mary, certainly - but once she bore Jesus Christ, she certainly would be an object of much interest. Reverence towards Mary? No. Reverence for what God was doing in and through her? Absolutely. But nothing that would elevate her above any other believer - past, present or future.

[Thersites]

He also says, "The children of your chosen sister greet you" (v. 13), suggesting that not all Christians are children of that particular "sister," whoever/whatever she is.

But it says "children," right? Not just "child". So obviously John didn't see Jesus as just having given Mary to John as his own mother, but as mother to the community of Christians.

[Thersites]

Again, I don't see that. All I see is a woman who was, indeed, highly favored by God so that He allowed her to carry the Savior for 9 months (assumption, there) and then be the earthly mother. Nothing in "chosen" implies anything beyond that God blessed her. Nothing inherent in Mary, certainly - but once she bore Jesus Christ, she certainly would be an object of much interest. Reverence towards Mary? No. Reverence for what God was doing in and through her? Absolutely. But nothing that would elevate her above any other believer - past, present or future.

What was it about Mary that made God ask her to be the mother of Jesus?

[Little Shepherd]

What was it about Mary that made God ask her to be the mother of Jesus?

Made Him?