Replies

Mary is highly revered in Islam as well, perhaps more so than Jesus, not to mention the New Agers, who regard her as the Christian face of their earth goddess. Pretty interesting that such a huge chuck of the world's population is ready to accept those apparitions without ever questioning their true source.

I've been thinking about the above while working through my day's chores.

If I understand islam's reverence for Mary, it's because they believe that Jesus is a prophet and thus revere Mary as the mother of a prophet.

Judaism, however, to my understanding, doesn't accept Jesus as anything more than being a Rabbi and Mary is "just" a Rabbi's mom.

If my understanding is correct, as far as it goes, then islam is closer to the truth Christians believe than Judaism, which is interesting to me.

While looking for an Orthodox view of Mary, I found the following quoted from: Who is the Blessed Virgin Mary?, which you probably already knew, but is new to me:

The Assumption of Mary
According to Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox tradition, between three and fifteen years after Christ's Ascension, in either Jerusalem or Ephesus, Mary died while surrounded by the apostles. Later when the apostles opened her tomb, they found it empty and concluded that she had been bodily assumed into Heaven.
This doctrine was present in apocryphal works since the end of the fourth century, and was formally taught by St. Gregory of Tours in the sixth century. The bodily Assumption of Mary seems to have been accepted in both Western and Eastern Churches from the sixth century onwards, and went virtually uncontested until the Reformation.
In 1950, speaking ex cathedra (infallibly) in his encyclical Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII proclaimed the Dogma of the Assumption, in which he stated that "at the end of her earthly course, Mary was assumed into heavenly glory, body and soul."

This confusion between the branches of Christianity about Mary, along with all the arguments about words, translations, practices, who's right/who's wrong and why, which Bible is best or should be avoided, which form of worship is best and what isn't true worship, music or no music, rock concert or quiet contemplation, etc., etc., etc., along with the hostility, persecution and calumniation among and toward brethren followers of the God of Peace and Love is why I think the messages in True Life In God are such an incredible gift to us now.

We are confused and in our confusion we are being picked off one by one and in mass by the enemy. In fact, the three branches of Christianity can't even agree to agree on the day to celebrate Easter!

As an outsider, an observer watching the show, it is really hard for me to take anyone seriously when so few remind me of the One you/we all claim to follow. It's more like watching a never-ending WWF sanctioned mud wrestling championship.

This is why I say, "Thank God for the messages in True Life In God!!!" I've gotten to know our Holy Family, including Mother Mary, through them and now the Bible makes sense to me.

This result I recognize as good fruit, not a bad apple.

I didn't know that. So, my initial impression is that both the Catholics and the Orthodox have more info than the average Protestant, whichever of the many, many different versions out there you might ask.

Roman Catholic and Orthodox (to a lesser extent) have accepted a number of things which have very poor historical support and virtually no Biblical support. If one begins with Scripture, as Protestant theoretically do, there is no justification for the four Marian dogmas currently established by Rome, nor for the fifth that is hoped for among modern Marian devotees. They are:

1. Theotokus: Mary is the Mother of God
2. The Assumption: Mary was taken to Heaven
3. Immaculate Conception: Mary is sinless
4. Perpetual Virginity: Jesus was her only child
5. Co-Redemptrix: Mary is co-redeemer of humanity alongside Jesus

None of these doctrines is stated in Scripture. The closest is theotokus, but not because Mary is the mother of the Trinity, but because she carried Jesus the Son of God in her womb. You mentioned unnecessary and hurtful disputes, and in principle I agree with you. The dispute over theotokus is a classic case of how the family of believers should NOT have conducted a dispute. It was a time when people were arguing over whether Jesus was fully human or fully divine or both. To secure the idea that Jesus was God, some began describing Mary as Theotokus, God-bearer. The purpose was noble, but there was a harmful side-effect, in that some were concerned that calling Mary the mother of God would lead to confusion, treating Mary like a deity, when she was NOT in fact the mother of the Trinity, but only the mother of Jesus with respect to the flesh, i.e., His human nature. The main representative of this view was a fellow named Nestorius. This argument led to great confusion. It turns out that the Chalcedon council which declared on this issue ended up using his teaching (that Jesus is both fully human and fully divine), but rejected him personally, because he used a different set of terms and was horrifically misunderstood. It was truly tragic. The decision was made in anger, the winning party being aided by his political skill and connections, and Nestorius nobly accepting his rejection if it meant the church could come to rest on this issue.

The point I'm making for our discussion is that the decision to use theotokus to describe Mary's relationship with Jesus was indeed a highly questionable decision, and while all who accept Christ's deity would agree that Mary was the God-bearer, calling her God's mother means something else, something quite wrong, and in Scripture no such statement is ever made. She is ether called the mother of Jesus or the mother of our Lord, which was also a reference to the person of Jesus and so no different than the first. As the Holy Spirit determined the wording of Scripture, I see no reason to disturb or challenge that, especially seeing how the later dispute over it caused so much harm.

As for the other doctrines, it isn't that the Roman church knows more than Protestants. It's that evangelicals/Protestants have acknowledged the lack of Scriptural support for Rome's theological conclusions concerning Mary, and have found the supposed histories of her later years lacking authenticity. In short, we have the same facts as Rome, but we have chosen to give the Scriptural data more weight.

In accordance, we will entertain any speculations about her life, as long as it can be supported by Scripture at some level. There is simply no reason to think she was taken to Heaven bodily, and the stories reporting this were very late, quite possibly made up out of thin air. It's hard to base a dogma, something one must believe to be a good Christian, on such a weak foundation.

As for the immaculate conception, again, this is done to supposedly protect Christ from being contaminated with sin at birth, but that was God's work through the Holy Spirit, and doesn't require us to invent a new doctrine He didn't give to us in Scripture. All good Christians everywhere respect Mary for the great blessing God bestowed on her, and no doubt she was a good and very special woman. But we are told by Paul that in Adam all have sinned. Every man woman and child, with only one stated exception, has come into this world in sin and needing a Savior, which fact even Mary herself admits, in Scripture, calling Him her Savior. No one born sinless would need a savior. So we know the argument for the immaculate conception, but have rejected it because, among other thing, it turns the apostle Paul into a liar, which is impossible, because the Scripture, including what Paul wrote, cannot be broken, as Jesus said.

Whether she was a perpetual virgin is also much in doubt, as we know Jesus has brothers and sisters. Some have argued these were mere cousins, but this is a weak and uncertain argument, as the Greek word for cousin is not used, but properly brother an sister. In any event, the perpetual virginity theory apparently evolved in connection with the notion of her sinlessness, but sexual relations with her lawful human husband would not be sin, so the impulse there almost seems to stem from the gnostic influence rejecting sex as good even in marriage. This was because in gnostic belief women were a source of evil, simply because of the sensuality of sex, and to transcend that evil, they had to abandon their sexuality. Hence Mary had to be celibate to be considered good. The doctrine first surfaced in a Second Century forged document called the Protoevangelium of James. I see no reason why faithful Christians should be required to accept any doctrine from so spurious a source. Can it lead to anything but more heartache and schism? These pages on FR bear sober testimony to how much division these apocryphal doctrines have sown among those who should be supporting one another as brothers and sisters in Christ.

As for being co-redemptrix, it hasn't been made a dogma yet. But there are apocalyptic overtones to this one. Some of the apparitions have apparently let it be known that once this dogma is in place, Mary will become the ruler of human hearts. Some expression like that. I don't have the quote in front of me. The point is, this dogma, should it ever become such, would be a direct affront to the uniqueness of the Son of God in providing us all we need for our redemption. Mary served God faithfully and carried Jesus into the world, and we are grateful for that. But she is not my Redeemer, not even by half. It was all God's work in Christ through the Holy Spirit from beginning to end. Mary is my dear sister in Christ, whom I look forward to meeting someday in glory. But there is no Queen of Heaven, only the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, my Savior, Mary's Savior, King Jesus.

Anyway, that's how it is. Hope this helps. I urge you solemnly to consider dropping all those pseudo-prophetic murmurers and stick with God's own certified revelation to all His faithful children, namely Scripture. It will save you a world of heartache in the long run. It's really true.

Peace,

SR