Today is the Feast Day of the Blessed Virgin Mary

[Alive in Christ]

I would be more comfortable with *earthly" mother of Christ, or *earthly* mother of the son.

 

[billwald]

>Mary was no different than any one of us. We all have a purpose to perform in this life. It is our duty to find out what that purpose is and do it to the best of our ability.

American egalitarianism at its worst.

 

[Scarlett O.]

The above Churches believe and teach, that Mary, as mother of Christ---who is not only the Son of God, but IS God--- is therefore the Mother of God and the "Theotokos", literally Bearer of God. This sentiment was expressed and affirmed in the Council of Ephesus (431 AD).

It is not Biblical nor logical to refer to Mary as the "M"other of God merely because she bore Christ on this earth and Christ is God.

Calling Mary the "M"other of God is stating that she bore God into existence - that her body created God. Not so. God, Jesus specifically according to John 1, created Mary. Jesus, the Son of God AND God, existed eternally before Mary ever was created.

She did not create His divine nature. She did not create His eternal existence. She is the "m"other only of the man Jesus. She is not the "M"other of Jesus the God. It's a physical, theological, and moral impossibility.

Jesus, the Word - the Son of God, God, and Eternal Lamb slain from the Foundation of the World - did not originate in her womb.

Only Jesus the man - His fleshly abode - originated in her.

The only recorded quote of Mary speaking to ordinary people, is this statement at a wedding feast: "Whatever he (Jesus) says to you, do it."

This we Lutherans take to be the summation of her message to the world. If we listen to her, she will tell us, "Listen to Him. Listen to my Son. Do what He tells you."

Mary cannot speak to us. She is dead. Surely you are not telling us that you commune with her.

When we see Mary we see her pointing to her Son. If our regard for the Blessed Virgin does not have the immediate effect of turning our attention from her to the One whom she carried in her womb for nine months and suckled at her breast, to the Incarnate God, the Word made flesh, then we may be sure that it is not the kind of regard that she seeks.

A right regard for Mary will ALWAYS direct us to Him Who found in her His first earthly dwelling-place.

So to look to Jesus, we have to look at Mary, the Perpetual Virgin, first? I do have regard for Mary - the young girl who found favor with God and who bore Christ. I do not celebrate her nor regard her as instrument to get to Jesus. She was a virgin for very short time in her life and in her marriage.

I refuse to call her the "Blessed Virgin" because virginity is not what caused her to find favor with God. Her virginity isn't what made her a good mother, wife, and servant of God. It couldn't. She didn't have it very long. Endless amounts of young girls were virgins. Mary's faith and obedience caused her to find favor with God.

Yes, the angel said that all nations would call her blessed. God also told the nation of Israel that if they did what He said, that "all nations would call THEM blessed". Does your church have a feast day or a celebration day that exalts Israel as the "Blessed Nation"?

Malachi 3:12
“Then all the nations will call you blessed, for yours will be a delightful land,” says the Lord Almighty.

Protestants of all stripes need to honor and respect the Mother of our Savior, the Mother of God, Mary of Nazareth.

I have a high regard for her, but I also have the same regard for a host of Biblical characters.

And I'm not going to celebrate or exalt her. The Bible does not command me to.

 

[Fred's Wife]

It is not Biblical nor logical to refer to Mary as the "M"other of God merely because she bore Christ on this earth and Christ is God.

Calling Mary the "M"other of God is stating that she bore God into existence - that her body created God. Not so. God, Jesus specifically according to John 1, created Mary. Jesus, the Son of God AND God, existed eternally before Mary ever was created.

She did not create His divine nature. She did not create His eternal existence. She is the "m"other only of the man Jesus. She is not the "M"other of Jesus the God. It's a physical, theological, and moral impossibility.

Jesus, the Word - the Son of God, God, and Eternal Lamb slain from the Foundation of the World - did not originate in her womb.

Only Jesus the man - His fleshly abode - originated in her.




Mary cannot speak to us. She is dead. Surely you are not telling us that you commune with her.



So to look to Jesus, we have to look at Mary, the Perpetual Virgin, first? I do have regard for Mary - the young girl who found favor with God and who bore Christ. I do not celebrate her nor regard her as instrument to get to Jesus. She was a virgin for very short time in her life and in her marriage.

I refuse to call her the "Blessed Virgin" because virginity is not what caused her to find favor with God. Her virginity isn't what made her a good mother, wife, and servant of God. It couldn't. She didn't have it very long. Endless amounts of young girls were virgins. Mary's faith and obedience caused her to find favor with God.

Yes, the angel said that all nations would call her blessed. God also told the nation of Israel that if they did what He said, that "all nations would call THEM blessed". Does your church have a feast day or a celebration day that exalts Israel as the "Blessed Nation"?





I have a high regard for her, but I also have the same regard for a host of Biblical characters.

And I'm not going to celebrate or exalt her. The Bible does not command me to.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[Alive in Christ]

At the moment that the words "Hail Mary, full of grace"... are spoken, the idolatry has begun.

 

[Wittenberger]

At the moment that the words "Hail Mary, full of grace"... are spoken, the idolatry has begun.

Luke 1:28 - "Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you."

Lutherans do not say prayers to Mary. Period!

We honor her. Period.

 

[DHK]

Could you please be specific, Brother, what did I say exactly that was so heretical?

It is heretical to say that God has a mother.
It is heretical to pray for a feast for Mary, a dead person.

Lutherans do not believe in the Immaculate Conception. Mary was just as much a sinner as you and me, in need of a Savior.

Lutherans do not believe that Mary was sinless during her life.

Lutherans do not believe in the Assumption of Mary. Mary died just like every other human being who has ever lived.

However, Lutherans do believe that Mary had to be one remarkable human being, servant of God, for her to be chosen out of millions if not billions of women to be the Mother of God.

You Baptists are so rabidly anti-Catholic that when you hear the words "Virgin Mary" you start frothing at the mouth.

She was the Mother of God! Show her a little respect!

Your personal attacks are unwarranted. I am not "frothing at the mouth," but pointing out both truth and error. If you read the rules it appears to me that you fit the definition of a "troll" very well. Do you agree?

I will never show the mother of God respect for God has no mother. Maybe you serve another god. I don't know. Possible, perhaps.

Prayer for the Feast of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of our Lord

O God, who chose the blessed Virgin Mary to be the mother of Your incarnate Son: Grant that we, who have been redeemed by his blood, may share with her the glory of your eternal kingdom; through Jesus Chst our Lord, who lives and reigns with you, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, one God, now and forever.

O God, who have taken to yourself the blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of your incarnate Son: Grant that we , who have been redeemed by his blood, may share with her the glory of your eternal kingdom; through your Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, one God, now and forever.

The prayer, ostensibly to God, is a prayer that praises Mary. What kind of prayer is that? When the disciples came to Jesus they said: "Lord, teach us to pray." Then, Jesus said, "Pray after this manner:" Afterward follows what we know as "The Lord's Prayer." It certainly isn't a prayer about Mary. Jesus never taught that, and, in fact, reproved Mary at times. The second part of the prayer seems to assume the assumption of Mary. Doesn't it? "who have taken to yourself the blessed virgin Mary" Is that not a reference to the "Assumption" a heretical doctrine?

Mary deserves no more honor than any other believer, apostle, missionary, pastor, evangelist, or person working for the Lord. She was a vessel used of God at one point in history for one particular purpose.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Heretofore I have not opposed the term "Theotokos" in its original meaning, although I would not use it myself due to its susceptibility to misunderstanding and being taken to the extreme and turned into errors as the Catholics have done. I think there is nothing wrong with the term, rightly understood. However, as with so many other things that the extreme sacramentalists have done, it has been subjected to all kinds of superstition and traditions of men so that the original meaning is obscured. It simply means that Jesus was both God and man, inseparable in nature, and thus Mary bore Jesus the God-man in her womb.

Affirming this, though, is absolutely no excuse for exalting Mary to a position which she does not, should not, and cannot have.

Oh, and the "blessed Virgin Mary" was a blessed virgin only up to the time that she conceived the siblings of Jesus. Afterward, she was still blessed but no longer a virgin. Any Catholic attempts to wrest the scriptures here is a bunch of hooey.

 

[MichaelNZ]

Luke 1:28 - "Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you."

Lutherans do not say prayers to Mary. Period!

We honor her. Period.

The term "full of grace" in Greek is πλήρης χάριτος (pleres charitos). It is found once in the New Testament (twice if you count the Alexandrian variant of Acts 6:8) in John 1:14. The Greek word used in Luke 1:28 is κεχαριτωμένη
(kecharitomene) which comes from the verb χαριτόω (charito'o). According to Liddel's dictionary, χαριτόω means 'to show grace to any one' or in the passive 'to have grace shown one' or 'to be highly favoured'.

When the Greek New Testament was translated into Latin, κεχαριτωμένη was rendered "gratia plena" which means "full of grace". The Roman Catholic Douay-Rheims version of the Bible, which is a translation of the Latin Vulgate, translated the relevant portion of the verse as "Hail, full of grace". The Knox version, produced in the 20th century, renders it as "hail, thou who art full of grace". The reason that the Hail Mary prayer begins "Hail Mary, full of grace" is that it is a rendition of the Latin Vulgate, not the Greek text. To my knowledge, no Protestant version (nor the RC New Jerusalem Bible or New American Bible) renders the phrase as "full of grace".

Oh, and the "blessed Virgin Mary" was a blessed virgin only up to the time that she conceived the siblings of Jesus. Afterward, she was still blessed but no longer a virgin. Any Catholic attempts to wrest the scriptures here is a bunch of hooey.

Another attempt to reconcile the perpetual virginity of Mary to the siblings of Jesus is to state that the brothers and sisters of Jesus are the children of Joseph by a previous wife. The apocryphal Gospel of James (the consensus on which is that it was composed in the 2nd century AD) states that Joseph was old when he married Mary and already had children. This "Gospel" also mentions temple virgins in the Jerusalem Temple in a similar fashion to the Vestal Virgins in Rome.

 

[WestminsterMan]

At the moment that the words "Hail Mary, full of grace"... are spoken, the idolatry has begun.

"Hail Mary full of grace, the Lord is with thee;
Blessed are thou amoung women, and blessed is the fruit of thy wonb Jesus;
Holy Mary mother of God pray for us sinners now and forever;
Amen!"

WM

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I don't see anything wrong with feast days in and of themselves. Anglicans have a calendar of saints as well as Roman Catholics.

Mary is not the Mother of God because God existed forever - long before Mary was even born. The only title that can be applied to her is Mother of Christ.

That was Nestorius' heresy which made Jesus an amalgamation of Humanity possed by the Holy Spirit rather than being fully God and fully human at the incarnation.

FYI. Mother of God does not mean Mary Created the creator. Mary is a creaton. It does however put into perspective who Jesus Christ is. And since Jesus is God and Homoosious with the Father she gave birth to God. She didn't create God. That is how that term "Mother of God" came to be. To put that into question; questions the very nature of Jesus Christ.

 

[mandym]

It does however put into perspective who Jesus Christ is.

No it doesn't.

And since Jesus is God and Homoosious with the Father she gave birth to God.

Did she give birth to God the Father and God the Spirit?

To put that into question; questions the very nature of Jesus Christ.

And absurd claim with no foundation.

 

[The Biblicist]

That was Nestorius' heresy which made Jesus an amalgamation of Humanity possed by the Holy Spirit rather than being fully God and fully human at the incarnation.

FYI. Mother of God does not mean Mary Created the creator. Mary is a creaton. It does however put into perspective who Jesus Christ is. And since Jesus is God and Homoosious with the Father she gave birth to God. She didn't create God. That is how that term "Mother of God" came to be. To put that into question; questions the very nature of Jesus Christ.

More mental gymnastics!! Where does God's Word give her such a title? Answer? Nowhere! The title is MISLEADING and therefore deceptive and leads to idoltry which is self-evident in Roman Catholicism. It is MISLEADING because the technical truth is that God has no beginning and God preexisted the birth of Mary and so Mary cannot possibly be PROPERLY called "The Mother of God" without some mental gymnastics.

The "Mary" of Rome is the pagan "QUEEN OF HEAVEN" which is another title Rome gives her which comes from the same pagan cult that worshipped the "QUEEN OF HEAVEN" as the "Mother of God" or the mother of Baal!

The "Mary" of Rome is a pagan mistress, a harlot who requires the same kind of worship IN FORM that belongs only to God.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The "Mary" of Rome is the pagan "QUEEN OF HEAVEN" which is another title Rome gives her which comes from the same pagan cult that worshipped the "QUEEN OF HEAVEN" as the "Mother of God" or the mother of Baal!

All you are doing is making assertions without any historical evidence or knowledge of the matter. You think you are making a relation to something but you are revealing your historical ignorance. You are making a case against Jesus Christ himself and against Christianity. Do you think Jesus is the first God who is believed to be raised from the dead? Long before Jesus there was Horis the Egyptian God who was killed and raised from the dead. Long before Jesus there was Mythras who was also raised from the dead. Are you too a pagan because it can be said bagans worshiped a God who raised from the dead?

"Both Mithras and Christ were described variously as 'the Way,' 'the Truth,' 'the Light,' 'the Life,' 'the Word,' 'the Son of God,' 'the Good Shepherd.'...Mithras is often represented as carrying a lamb on his shoulders, just as Jesus is. -Gerald Berry, Religions of the World

That is the same logic and ridiculous reasoning you are applying to Mary being called the Mother of God. Actually study some history!

Arians taught that Christ was a created being. To refute this and other points, Nestorius argued that the Godhead joined with the human rather as if a man entered a tent or put on clothes. Instead of depicting Christ as one unified person, Nestorius saw him as a conjunction of two natures so distinct as to be different persons who had merged.Nestorius refused to call Mary the "Mother of God." Her baby was very human, he said. Jesus' human acts and sufferings were of his human nature, not his Godhead. To say Mary was Mother of God was to say God had once been a few hours old. "God is not a baby two or three months old," he argued.... Nestorius' refusal to use the term "theotokus," Mother of God, led to a big argument. He pointed out that the apostles and early church fathers never employed the word. But he could not resolve the issue so as to bring into focus the Jesus we know from scripture who is completely and truly both God and man. In part because of the Nestorian controversy, the church created a formula to describe Christ's person at the Council of Chalcedon in 433. The assembled bishops declared Christ was two natures in one person. "We all with one voice confess our Lord Jesus Christ one and the same Son, at once complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, of one substance with us as regards his manhood, like us in all things, apart from sin..." - www.christianity.com/ChurchHistory/11629695/

a protestant source btw. Here is another Non Catholic Source

the time of his elevation in 428(Nestorius), Mary was increasingly known by the epithet θεοτοκος (theotokos), meaning “Mother of God”. Rather early in his tenure, Nestorius appears to have taken offense at this and refused to use this title. He used, instead, the epithet ξριστοκος (christokos), meaning “Mother of Christ.” Nestorius believed that theotokos compromised Jesus’ divinity; asserting that God had been born of a woman made God the equivalent of a human being.

His opponents, mainly led by Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria, objected, claiming that — by doing this — Nestorius created a false distinction between Jesus the man and Jesus the divine. In other words, they concluded, Nestorius was dividing Jesus into two beings. - www.earlychristianhistory.net/nestorius.html

And that is the real underlying truth and issue. And don't go around calling Nestorius baptist because he held to Catholic teaching in every other area. But it show how the term came to be used and is to be understood and thus your rant has no premise or the same premise as any other athiest might hold of all of Christianity to include you.

 

[Walter]

All you are doing is making assertions without any historical evidence or knowledge of the matter. You think you are making a relation to something but you are revealing your historical ignorance. You are making a case against Jesus Christ himself and against Christianity. Do you think Jesus is the first God who is believed to be raised from the dead? Long before Jesus there was Horis the Egyptian God who was killed and raised from the dead. Long before Jesus there was Mythras who was also raised from the dead. Are you too a pagan because it can be said bagans worshiped a God who raised from the dead? That is the same logic and ridiculous reasoning you are applying to Mary being called the Mother of God. Actually study some history! a protestant source btw. Here is another Non Catholic Source And that is the real underlying truth and issue. And don't go around calling Nestorius baptist because he held to Catholic teaching in every other area. But it show how the term came to be used and is to be understood and thus your rant has no premise or the same premise as any other athiest might hold of all of Christianity to include you.

This deserves a re-post,
G. K. Chesterton wrote:

"If the Christian God made the human race, would not the human race tend to rumors and perversions of the Christian God? If the center of our life is a certain fact, would not people far from the center have a muddled version of that fact? If we are so made that a Son of God must deliver us, is it odd that Patagonians should dream of the sudden God? When learned skeptics come to me and say 'are you aware the Kaffirs have a sort of incarnation?' Speaking as an unlearned person, I don't know. But speaking as a Christian, I should be very much astonished if they hadn't."

 

[Michael Wrenn]

The term "full of grace" in Greek is πλήρης χάριτος (pleres charitos). It is found once in the New Testament (twice if you count the Alexandrian variant of Acts 6:8) in John 1:14. The Greek word used in Luke 1:28 is κεχαριτωμένη
(kecharitomene) which comes from the verb χαριτόω (charito'o). According to Liddel's dictionary, χαριτόω means 'to show grace to any one' or in the passive 'to have grace shown one' or 'to be highly favoured'.

When the Greek New Testament was translated into Latin, κεχαριτωμένη was rendered "gratia plena" which means "full of grace". The Roman Catholic Douay-Rheims version of the Bible, which is a translation of the Latin Vulgate, translated the relevant portion of the verse as "Hail, full of grace". The Knox version, produced in the 20th century, renders it as "hail, thou who art full of grace". The reason that the Hail Mary prayer begins "Hail Mary, full of grace" is that it is a rendition of the Latin Vulgate, not the Greek text. To my knowledge, no Protestant version (nor the RC New Jerusalem Bible or New American Bible) renders the phrase as "full of grace".



Another attempt to reconcile the perpetual virginity of Mary to the siblings of Jesus is to state that the brothers and sisters of Jesus are the children of Joseph by a previous wife. The apocryphal Gospel of James (the consensus on which is that it was composed in the 2nd century AD) states that Joseph was old when he married Mary and already had children. This "Gospel" also mentions temple virgins in the Jerusalem Temple in a similar fashion to the Vestal Virgins in Rome.

I try not to get into Catholic bashing here, as I know how it feels to be the brunt of attacks, and the Catholics here have treated me better than some. I have strong disagreements with the RCC, and I believe they have serious errors, but, as I said, I feel the same about Calvin and his "system".

However, what I bolded is an absurdity and another example of contortions aimed at finding a basis for a doctrine that has no scriptural support whatsoever.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I try not to get into Catholic bashing here, as I know how it feels to be the brunt of attacks, and the Catholics here have treated me better than some. I have strong disagreements with the RCC, and I believe they have serious errors, but, as I said, I feel the same about Calvin and his "system".

However, what I bolded is an absurdity and another example of contortions aimed at finding a basis for a doctrine that has no scriptural support whatsoever.

Just a note for your parousal. Not really making a defense here because the Protoevangelium of James is Psuedopigraphical. However, among the Essenes (from what was discovered at Qumran) that; that community did practice celebacy and it seems that early Christian thought and culture was somewhat influenced by that group. And some supect that John the baptist may have been raised by that community as his parents may have died when he was relatively young. Given the location he preached at. - Dr. David Flusser was a professor of Early Christianity and Judaism of the Second Temple Period at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

 

[The Biblicist]

Do you think Jesus is the first God who is believed to be raised from the dead? Long before Jesus there was Horis the Egyptian God who was killed and raised from the dead. Long before Jesus there was Mythras who was also raised from the dead.

These are unsubstantiated MYTHS! The resurrection of Christ is a historically documented fact with documented eyewitnesses. No comparison. However, your "Mary" is as mythical and as pagan as Horis and Mythras.

Of course we understand that ANY historian that takes a negative view of Rome is "unqualified" and "ignorant" of history. That is precisely how the ignorance and the cult of Romanism defends its paganism intellectually.

But it show how the term came to be used and is to be understood and thus your rant has no premise or the same premise as any other athiest might hold of all of Christianity to include you.

What I said stands! God has no beginning and therefore it is not only MISLEADING but deceptive as well as UNBIBLICAL to give Mary the title "Mother of God." However, it is completely Biblical to identify and give the name "Queen of Heaven" to your cultic Mary because that is precisely who she is.

 

[The Biblicist]

This deserves a re-post,
G. K. Chesterton wrote:

"If the Christian God made the human race, would not the human race tend to rumors and perversions of the Christian God? If the center of our life is a certain fact, would not people far from the center have a muddled version of that fact? If we are so made that a Son of God must deliver us, is it odd that Patagonians should dream of the sudden God? When learned skeptics come to me and say 'are you aware the Kaffirs have a sort of incarnation?' Speaking as an unlearned person, I don't know. But speaking as a Christian, I should be very much astonished if they hadn't."

Rome represents the pagan version not the Christian version. Find "Cardinals" or a "college of Cardinals" in the Bible??? Find a "pope" in the Bible?? Find the office of "preists" in the New Testament???? Find the "Queen of heaven" in the New Testament? Find a sinless Mary in the New Testament? Find the title "Mother of God" in the New Testament? Find sacraments in the New Testament??? Nowhere to be found except in the mental gymnastics of the minds of heretics.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

These are unsubstantiated MYTHS!

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Do you mean that the religions of these deities are myths or that what I've shown you they believe are Myth. If you mean the religions are Myths then I agree whole hartedly with you but then that is my point. Using the same logic of Atheist against Christians you invalidate you whole faith because by saying Mary is a Catholic Deity because the Babylonians worshipped Ishtar is no different than saying Jesus is a myth because Horis and Mythras are myths and they all have similarities with each other.

The resurrection of Christ is a historically documented fact with documented eyewitnesses. No comparison. However, your "Mary" is as mythical and as pagan as Horis and Mythras.

Historically documented by what? Christian Scripture? The same can be said of Mythras and Horis. Ie they are historical fact because the book of the dead speaks to the resurrection of Horis and the Babylionian Mythras Scripture text document the fact that Mythras rose from the dead. What unbias doucment states that Jesus rose from the dead? None. Now I agree Jesus rose from the dead and that is a fact and the Gospels are based on fact rather than Myth but I am a biased observer in that I believe in Jesus and his resurrection. This is not a document that an athiest would appeal to. So certainly there is comparison. Your argument suggesting Mary is a pagan deity is as baseless as an atheist suggestion that Jesus is a pagan deity.

Of course we understand that ANY historian that takes a negative view of Rome is "unqualified" and "ignorant" of history.

No only those historians that are revionist in their motivation. Historians that deal with actual facts are acceptable.

That is precisely how the ignorance and the cult of Romanism defends its paganism intellectually.

No. Its just the truth. Your accusations are baseless and not historically accurate. You live in a make believe world where history is pliable and can be formed to meet your preferrence. Kind of like the White supremisist and Neo-Nazis, and Iranian Muslim leaders who say the Holocaust never occured.

What I said stands!

Nothing of your accusation stands as I have shown. It remains just that baseless accusation that reveals your lack of historical education.

God has no beginning

No Catholic or anyone on this site aruges against that point we support it!

and therefore it is not only MISLEADING but deceptive

No it speaks to the nature of Jesus Christ that he was fully God as he is fully man.

as well as UNBIBLICAL to give Mary the title "Mother of God."

The bible attest that Mary gave birth to Jesus who is God! Therefore Mary is the Mother of God. not his creator but the mother of Jesus who (Jesus that is) is God and man. She gave birth to her creator.

However, it is completely Biblical to identify and give the name "Queen of Heaven"

The bible give "queenly imagry to mary in the book of Revelation

to your cultic Mary because that is precisely who she is.

Again Mary is no more Ishtar than is Jesus Horis or Mythras.