Mary Sightings in History

[Yeshua1]

Well, if that is the best you can do, ok! What I notice is you are real quick to simply label something 'heresy' or 'hogwash' and short on explaining why that is. You simply hate the term 'mother of God' because you think it came about to elevate Mary and you won't even try to understand why the Church found it necessary to even define the term. Here is more of what you will probably label hogwash. In Biblical typology (I know, Baptists have precious little use for typology), in the Old Testament, the Ark of the Covenant is venerated by the Jews. The Ark contained the staff of Aaron, Manna, and Ten Commandments, the word of God; which God's own finger wrote to Moses. In the NT, Mary is a type of Ark. She carried Bread of Life, High Priest, and Word made flesh Jesus Christ.

I already posted the prophecy foretelling of a virgin who shall give birth to a male child, and he shall be called Emmanuel, God is with us. In order to do so, the mother of Jesus must be pure. For whatever God touches becomes sacred or Holy, does it not? Jesus' flesh himself is from Mary. If Mary had sin, it would mean Satan conquered Mary by having her sin. She never sinned. She is always the faithful "handmaid of the Lord." The Bible calls Mary, Blessed, and she is Full of Grace. If you are Full of Grace there is no room for anything else! Before you quote 'for ALL have sinned', let's ask ourselves, are there any exceptions to this (besides Mary) found in the bible. What about Enoch?

You fail to see that from the Bibler, NOT RCC traditions, God bypassed mary sinner nation, via Virgin birth, and allowed Humanity without sin to be received by God the Son, as his humanity in nature was like the first Adam when he was originally created!

there was ONLY one person in all of history who was virgin born , jesus, mary was not! She was just as much a sinner as you and me before saved by grace of God!

 

[DHK]

In the NT, Mary is a type of Ark. She carried Bread of Life, High Priest, and Word made flesh Jesus Christ.

This is wrong. In the NT, the ark is Christ. In 1Pet.3 Noah came through the flood in an ark. The ark saved him. The waters destroyed the world and all humanity. The water represents destruction. The ark represents salvation. Salvation is only through Christ. The ark is Christ, by which we are saved, even his resurrection, as the verse says. Mary is dead in the grave. She has not risen. She is dead.

I already posted the prophecy foretelling of a virgin who shall give birth to a male child, and he shall be called Emmanuel, God is with us. In order to do so, the mother of Jesus must be pure.

Pure conjecture; man's reasoning. It is the sign of weak faith, the denial of the power of God.

For whatever God touches becomes sacred or Holy, does it not?

No, God touches many things.

Jesus' flesh himself is from Mary. If Mary had sin, it would mean Satan conquered Mary by having her sin.

Where do you get these fairy tales from?

She never sinned.

That is your line. It is not in the Bible. It is fiction.

She is always the faithful "handmaid of the Lord."

And Paul always addressed himself as the servant of the Lord. They mean the same thing. So what.

The Bible calls Mary, Blessed, and she is Full of Grace.

The Bible calls Deborah, in the OT, the same thing.

If you are Full of Grace there is no room for anything else!

I was full of the grace of God the day I was saved.

Before you quote 'for ALL have sinned', let's ask ourselves, are there any exceptions to this (besides Mary) found in the bible. What about Enoch?

There are plenty of exceptions.
Every believer, that is every one who is genuinely saved becomes indwelt by the Holy Spirit the day he is saved. As he goes on in his Christian life, he is commanded to be filled with the Holy Spirit. If he is genuinely filled with the Holy Spirit, there is no room for anything else, one might say. I can claim to be filled with the grace of God as well.
I am saved by grace through faith and not of works.

 

[Steadfast Fred]

Matthew 22:42 (KJV) Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David.
43 He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying,
44 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?
45 If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?
46 And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.

Jesus showed the Pharisees that God was not born of the lineage of David when He asked "How is He his son?"


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

And Mary, like David centuries before her, acknowledged the Second Person of the Trinity existed prior to the man Christ Jesus being born in the flesh.

When the man Christ Jesus was born, he had within him two natures. That divine nature, the second Person of the Trinity did not originate within the womb of Mary, He existed from everlasting to everlasting.

Mary was not the 'mother of God, just as God was not David's son.

*** For a simple explanation, read this article.

 

[Zenas]

Ancient Church and tradition is not inspired and full of the sources of myriads of all kinds of heresies. We have the inspired Word of God to establish us in doctrine.
1Tim.3:15 says nothing about Mary. Nilch! Nada! Zero!
You fail completely.

No, 1 Timothy 3:15 doesn't mention Mary, but that is a non seqitur. It vouches for the veracity of the church and the church teaches the Immaculate Conception. Therefore, if you believe the Bible you have to believe in the Immaculate Conception.

 

[Yeshua1]

No, 1 Timothy 3:15 doesn't mention Mary, but that is a non seqitur. It vouches for the veracity of the church and the church teaches the Immaculate Conception. Therefore, if you believe the Bible you have to believe in the Immaculate Conception.

paul had NO idea there would even be the RCC, much less refer to it here! he was referring to individual saints like we all are called in Christ, who are the church!

If NOT in the Bible, doesn't matter who holds to it, as its not from god that viewpoint!

 

[annsni]

A few questions:

If Mary was the mother of God and the Holy Spirit is God, was Mary also the mother of the Holy Spirit? How about the Father - who is also God?

If Mary was the mother of God, where God before He was born? A mother is a source of a life - so that means that God didn't exist before He was born.

Was Mary from everlasting?

 

[DHK]

No, 1 Timothy 3:15 doesn't mention Mary, but that is a nonseqitur. It vouches for the veracity of the church and the church teaches the Immaculate Conception. Therefore, if you believe the Bible you have to believe in the Immaculate Conception.

1 Timothy 3:15 but if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how men ought to behave themselves in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

We will consider the true meaning of this verse in a minute.
But first:
1. The RCC did not come into being until the 4th century, so it is certain that Paul never had that in mind.

2. It is ridiculous even to think of "Tradition" as this letter was written ca. 60 A.D. and Christ died ca. 30 A.D., a time span of about 30 years. According to the RCC encyclopedia 30 years is not enough time to build up what would fit into their definition of "tradition." What tradition would they have in 30 years? "Tradition" used in the Bible always referred to the truth of the Bible as it was taught in the Bible. And there was nothing in the Bible taught about the Immaculate Conception. Even to imply such is absurd, and heretical. It goes against Scripture that Mary was a sinner, and even offered a sin-offering on her own behalf.
Why fight Biblical truth with RCC fables??

3. In the NT times there was no such thing as "the Church". The word ekklesia means "assembly." The concept of universal church was unheard of. Every time ekkesia is used it means assembly. Check Young's Literal Translation, or Darby's Translation. You will find the word translated "assembly" every time it is used. It is impossible to have an unassembled assembly. Therefore, for the word to either refer to the RCC as "church" or to refer to the "church universal" makes it an impossible translation.

4. So then, what does the verse mean?
The church is the pillar and ground of the truth.
Timothy is the recipient of this letter. Timothy is also the pastor of the church at Ephesus. Paul was referring to the local church at Ephesus. Architecturally he may have had the Temple of Diana in mind, referred to in Acts 19. This was in Ephesus, and was considered one of the wonders of the world at that time. Huge columns or pillars held up the porch of this temple.

In a much greater way the local church was to be built on the pillar of truth. As that pillar held up a huge porch, the pillar of the local church held up something of greater value--the truth of the Word of God. Everywhere we go we go proclaiming the truth, the gospel. That is the duty of the local church. They are to be a pillar of the truth--holding it up, proclaiming it everywhere, for all to hear.

They are also to be a ground of the truth. Look at 1Cor.3:11
1 Corinthians 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
--Every local church must have Jesus Christ as its foundation.
Jesus said: "I am the way, the truth and the life."
He is the truth. Our foundation must be built on him. We uphold the truth and we stand on the truth--the truth of the Word of God in whom Christ is found. We stand upon him, and we proclaim him. Every Bible-believing local church will be doing this.

But alas the RCC is far from this. It has nothing to do with this.
It disdains the very principles that allows local churches to carry out this commission: sola fide, sola scriptura, and even soul liberty.

 

[Zenas]

paul had NO idea there would even be the RCC, much less refer to it here! he was referring to individual saints like we all are called in Christ, who are the church!

If NOT in the Bible, doesn't matter who holds to it, as its not from god that viewpoint!

Evidently you only believe those parts of the Bible with which you agree. Looks like you just rejected 1 Timothy 3:15 by placing a lot of phony qualifiers on it. The OHCAC is the only church Jesus established and it is still spreading the only true gospel in the world today, just like Peter, Paul, John, etc.

 

[Yeshua1]

Evidently you only believe those parts of the Bible with which you agree. Looks like you just rejected 1 Timothy 3:15 by placing a lot of phony qualifiers on it. The OHCAC is the only church Jesus established and it is still spreading the only true gospel in the world today, just like Peter, Paul, John, etc.

the ONLY church jesus established was thatone in which the christians were called to be saints and priests to God! Church NOT a building/group/church as you redefine it in being the RCC, but its actually the indivdual chrsitians that meet somewhere in a group/church building!

And the Apostles did NOT preach the Gospel of Rome, as paul would call that another/flase Gospel, one that is not really even one!

 

[Zenas]

1 Timothy 3:15 but if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how men ought to behave themselves in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

We will consider the true meaning of this verse in a minute.
But first:
1. The RCC did not come into being until the 4th century, so it is certain that Paul never had that in mind.

That is not a true statement. If it were true, I would probably be taking your side in this debate. The plain unvarnished truth is that the OHCAC came into being on the day of Pentecost and has continued to be the only true church up to this present day. Granted, the headquarters wasn't always at Rome. Rome became the headquarters upon the arrival of St. Peter about 60 A.D.

2. It is ridiculous even to think of "Tradition" as this letter was written ca. 60 A.D. and Christ died ca. 30 A.D., a time span of about 30 years. According to the RCC encyclopedia 30 years is not enough time to build up what would fit into their definition of "tradition." What tradition would they have in 30 years? "Tradition" used in the Bible always referred to the truth of the Bible as it was taught in the Bible. And there was nothing in the Bible taught about the Immaculate Conception. Even to imply such is absurd, and heretical. It goes against Scripture that Mary was a sinner, and even offered a sin-offering on her own behalf.
Why fight Biblical truth with RCC fables??

Tradition is the whole teaching of the Church, i.e., the deposit of faith. See Jude 3. It is what St. Paul was talking about in 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15. Note that the Thessalonians letter expressly refers to unwritten teachings--NOT in the Bible. DHK I fear you have been carried away with false teaching.

3. In the NT times there was no such thing as "the Church". The word ekklesia means "assembly." The concept of universal church was unheard of. Every time ekkesia is used it means assembly. Check Young's Literal Translation, or Darby's Translation. You will find the word translated "assembly" every time it is used. It is impossible to have an unassembled assembly. Therefore, for the word to either refer to the RCC as "church" or to refer to the "church universal" makes it an impossible translation.

Of course when you limit the "church" to a local congregation you have a lot of difficulty with Acts 9:31 and all of Ephesians 5, as well as 1 Timothy 3:15. This is another of your Baptist peccadilloes, DHK, that you believe the church in the Bible always refers to a local congragation. Oh well, I guess that's all right. If you believed otherwise, you would lose one of your Baptist distinctives. I would just point out that the Baptist Faith & Message recognizes that the church refers to both a local congregation and to the whole Christian faith.

This was certainly not an instruction to Timothy to preserve truth (although it would have been a good instruction); it was an instruction as to how to act in the church and a declaration that the church was already the pillar and foundation of the truth.

 

[Zenas]

the ONLY church jesus established was thatone in which the christians were called to be saints and priests to God! Church NOT a building/group/church as you redefine it in being the RCC, but its actually the indivdual chrsitians that meet somewhere in a group/church building!

And the Apostles did NOT preach the Gospel of Rome, as paul would call that another/flase Gospel, one that is not really even one!

I beg your pardon. What you call the "gospel of Rome" is the only true gospel. All the others are cheap imitations of the gospel. All the others distort the truth of scripture and totally ignore those they cannot distort.

 

[DHK]

I beg your pardon. What you call the "gospel of Rome" is the only true gospel. All the others are cheap imitations of the gospel. All the others distort the truth of scripture and totally ignore those they cannot distort.

Zenas, why do you list yourself as a Baptist?

 

[annsni]

I beg your pardon. What you call the "gospel of Rome" is the only true gospel. All the others are cheap imitations of the gospel. All the others distort the truth of scripture and totally ignore those they cannot distort.

This saddens me so much. The Gospel of the Scriptures is not what the Catholic church teaches. To say that the Biblical Gospel is a "cheap imitation" and "distort the truth" is downright blasphemous.

 

[Steadfast Fred]

It is Rome that has distorted the Gospel.

They have taken Mary, the humble handmaiden of the Lord and exalted her to a position above God.

They have taken Mary, the humble handmaiden of the Lord and given her the title of a pagan goddess

They have taken Mary, the wife of Joseph and made her to be an adulteress

Rome has perverted the Word of God so as to fabricate a deity of their own vain imaginations..

 

[Zenas]

Zenas, why do you list yourself as a Baptist?

I'm still a member and regular attender of a Southern Baptist church. I will probably convert soon. The only problem is that I really love the people I go to church with and I don't particularly like some of the people in the local Catholic church.

 

[Zenas]

This saddens me so much. The Gospel of the Scriptures is not what the Catholic church teaches. To say that the Biblical Gospel is a "cheap imitation" and "distort the truth" is downright blasphemous.

If only you could see the truth. You won't permit yourself to examine the evidence with a searching heart for fear of the consequences.

 

[DHK]

I'm still a member and regular attender of a Southern Baptist church. I will probably convert soon. The only problem is that I really love the people I go to church with and I don't particularly like some of the people in the local Catholic church.

What then would give you the motivation to convert?

Isn't what you see part of the evidence of what Christianity is?

John 13:34 A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another; even as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Jesus Christ is the ETERNAL SON OF GOD! He has NO beginning and has NO ending...the Alpha and Omega. Mary is NOT the mother of His deity....deity has NO mother. Mary did NOT conceive His deity.

Luke 1:31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS

Note: That verse (31) does not say that Mary would "bring forth God", but it says that Mary would "bring forth a son".

Luke 1:34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Mary is the mother of Jesus' earthly human existence...not His eternal deity as the Son of God.

You are totally missing the point and totally not understanding the issue. No one is saying Mary conceived the deity of Jesus. But unless you divide His two natures, you must admit that she BORE Him in His completeness -- and that includes His deity.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Wow! Do y'all know what Nestorianism is? It 'emphasizes the disunion between the human and divine natures of Jesus. Nestorius' teachings brought him into conflict with some other prominent church leaders, most notably Cyril of Alexandria, who criticized especially his rejection of the title Theotokos-Mother of God-for the Virgin Mary. Nestorius and his teachings were eventually condemned as heretical at the First Council of Ephesus in 431 and the Council of Chalcedon in 451',

I find it quite ironic that some of those on here who have called me heretic, apostate, and worse, are now proclaiming and defending one of the most ancient heresies. Amazing!

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Okay, after reading the rest of the thread, I need to make something crystal clear: I deny and do not believe any of the Mariolatry of the RCC; it is simply superstition and paganism with absolutely no basis in scripture whatsoever.

But I also deny Nestorianism -- separating the two natures of Jesus -- which the Baptists on here are defending. One can deny Nestorianism without buying into all the RCC false teachings about Mary. One can even use the term "Mother of God" without buying into those teachings. The only thing that the term means is that since Jesus was both fully deity and fully human, Mary bore His humanity and deity -- NOT conceived His deity, but BORE it!!! If you deny that, you deny the full deity of Jesus. Some of you seem unable to grasp that.

And just to think: some have called me a heretic -- what a hoot!