[wagglebee]

I certainly do see a pagan goddess aspect in what we have today though so the concepts predate Christianity.

How is that any different from saying that there is a "human sacrifice" aspect to the Crucifixion that predates Christianity. As for the history of the anti-Marian rhetoric, I have found no evidence of it prior to the mid-1800's when the Pope defined the Immaculate Conception, though it had been a part of Christianity for centuries (Luther firmly subscribed to it).

[biblewonk]

How is that any different from saying that there is a "human sacrifice" aspect to the Crucifixion that predates Christianity. As for the history of the anti-Marian rhetoric, I have found no evidence of it prior to the mid-1800's when the Pope defined the Immaculate Conception, though it had been a part of Christianity for centuries (Luther firmly subscribed to it).

Because sacrifice to God is part of that dispensation and is fully documented in the bible. A goddess type with some new trimmings and a new name is not part of biblical doctrine for Christianity.

You just described the way that the RCC invents doctrine. The finger was in the air for "centuries" as you stated and then when the political timing was correct, the doctrine was established. But this is not doctrine that comes from the bible anymore than the Heavenly Mother.

[newgeezer]

As for the history of the anti-Marian rhetoric, I have found no evidence of it prior to the mid-1800's when the Pope defined the Immaculate Conception, though it had been a part of Christianity for centuries.

It's certainly conceivable that the supremely-heretical "Immaculate Conception" stuff was the bale of wet straw that broke the camel's back. I can imagine that opened a lot of people's eyes regarding Marianism.