Nora Lozano
Posted on 08/01/2009 1:51:11 PM PDT by NYer
EDE, Netherlands (ABP) -- A Latina theologian says overreaction to Catholic veneration of the Virgin Mary has caused Baptists to miss important biblical teaching associated with the mother of Jesus.
Nora Lozano
|
Lozano, a participant in theological conversations between the Baptist World Alliance and the Vatican, made the remarks in a presentation to the BWA Commission on Doctrine and Interchurch Cooperation at a meeting of global Baptists in the Netherlands.
She noted the Mexican story of the Virgin of Guadalupe -- a purported apparition of Mary to an indigenous peasant in Mexico City in the 16th century -- and how closely it ties the identity of the nation's Catholicism with Mary, who serves as a sort of "demi-goddess."
There are analogous Virgin Mary cults of devotion in other Latin American countries.
Lozano said Mexican Baptists and other Protestants, meanwhile, actively ignore Mary, to the extent of giving the biblical character short shrift.
"It seems that there is a consensus among these Baptists to disregard, neglect or reject the Virgin Mary," Lozano said, speaking of an informal survey she had done of some of her global Baptist colleagues.
And, in countries where Catholics are a majority, she added, "Baptists tend to move back and forth between actively rejecting and simply ignoring Mary."
In those countries, Lozano noted, "This becomes one of the major barriers to relations between Catholics and Baptists."
Because Mary is so perfect in popular Catholic theology in Latin America -- perpetually a virgin, although a mother; blameless, even sinless -- Lozano said she becomes an impossible standard of womanhood. Nonetheless, many men look for this standard in the mother of their children.
On the other hand, Lozano noted, Mary's opposite -- the wanton harlot -- is what many men tend to look for in sex partners. Being forced to choose between the two stereotypes can be deadly for women.
"When these [images of Mary and her opposite] are misused, they become oppressive and a source of suffering for women," she said. "Neither one of these models is a good one for women, because they do not present women as complete human beings."
Lozano said that embracing the "life-giving" aspects of Marian veneration can be both healthy for all women and a bridge between Latin American Protestants and Catholics, she contended.
Lozano pointed to two passages dealing with Mary in the Christmas story as recorded in Luke's Gospel: The angel's announcement to Mary that she would bear Christ (Luke 1:26-38), and Mary's song of praise to God, often called the Magnificat (Luke 1:46-55).
Mary is not a passive presence in those stories, Lozano pointed out, but an active and willing participant in God's work who was "well aware of social injustices," she said.
"She is subject with a strong will and a social consciousness," Lozano noted.
Lozano delivered her remarks on the second day of the BWA's Annual Gathering in Ede, Netherlands. Hundreds of Baptists from around the world came to conduct BWA General Council business as well as observe the 400th anniversary of the Baptist movement, which began in the summer of 1609 in nearby Amsterdam.
The doctrine of the Trinity is encapsulated in Matthew 28:19, where Jesus instructs the apostles: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." To consider each part of the trinity a separate "person" implies a lack of understanding of the concept. The Christian doctrine of the Trinity teaches the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three persons in one Godhead. The doctrine states that God is the Triune God, existing as three persons, or in the Greek hypostases, but one being. Each of the persons is understood as having the one identical essence or nature, not merely similar natures. Since the beginning of the third century the doctrine of the Trinity has been stated as "the one God exists in three Persons and one substance, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."
It was mainly under the influence of the Cappadocian Fathers that the terminology was clarified and standardized, so that the formula "Three Hypostases in one Ousia" came to be everywhere accepted as an epitome of the orthodox doctrine of the Holy Trinity. This consensus, however, was not achieved without some confusion at first in the minds of Western theologians, who had translated hypo-stasis as "sub-stantia" (substance, and see also Consubstantial) and understood the Eastern Christians, when speaking of three "Hypostases" in the Godhead, to mean three "Substances," i.e. they suspected them of Tritheism. But, from the middle of the fourth century onwards the word came to be contrasted with ousia and used to mean "individual reality," especially in the Trinitarian and Christological contexts. With regard to the doctrine of the Trinity, hypostasis is usually understood with a meaning akin to the Greek word prosopon, which is translated into Latin as persona and then into English as person. The Christian view of the Trinity is often described as a view of one God existing in three distinct hypostases/personae/persons. It should be noted that the Latin "persona" is not the same as the English "person" but is a broader term that includes the meaning of the English "persona."
i have a hard time spelling the name too.
Mary recognized that she needed the Savior. The Bible never says that Mary was anyone but an ordinary human whom God chose to use in an extraordinary way. Yes, Mary was a righteous woman and favored (graced) by God (Luke 1:27-28). At the same time, Mary was a sinful human being who needed Jesus Christ as her Savior, just like everyone else (Ecclesiastes 7:20; Romans 3:23; 6:23; 1 John 1:8).
God works in many ways, the path of history was drastically with Guadalupe whether the truth of a vision appearing to a farmer or some magnificient scam, God has still used that in His miraculous power.
I’m sorry, but that is theologically and logically ridiculous.
If our lives display a pattern of perseverance and spiritual fruit, we have not only a confidence in our present state of grace but also of our future perseverance with God. Yet we cannot have an infallible certitude of our own salvation. There is the possibility of self-deception (cf. Matt. 7:22-23). As Jeremiah expressed it, "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately corrupt; who can understand it?" (Jer. 17:9). There is also the possibility of falling from grace through mortal sin, and even of falling away from the faith entirely, for as Jesus told us, there are those who "believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away" (Luke 8:13). It is in the light of these warnings and admonitions that we must understand Scripture’s positive statements concerning our ability to know and have confidence in our salvation. Assurance we may have; infallible certitude we may not.
As the Bible says, I am already saved (Rom. 8:24, Eph. 2:5–8), but I’m also being saved (1 Cor. 1:8, 2 Cor. 2:15, Phil. 2:12), and I have the hope that I will be saved (Rom. 5:9–10, 1 Cor. 3:12–15). Like the apostle Paul I am working out my salvation in fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12), with hopeful confidence in the promises of Christ (Rom. 5:2, 2 Tim. 2:11–13).
Your committee with all its credentials and colleges and expertise is nevertheless mere human interpretation upon which you are relying. So much for the idea of 'one man and his Bible'. You take a great deal on trust.
Benedict XVI is one of the great theological minds of his generation, he can match your Bible College faculty degree for degree. I highly recommend his Jesus of Nazareth - his brilliant thinking and clear exposition (they don't always go together) are beautiful to read. "German theologian" is ordinarily a term that strikes fear into the heart of anybody who actually wants to understand what's being said, but he's an exception. His German is uncomplicated, straightforward and has a frank sweetness about it. He has a splendid English translator as well, who gets both the meaning and the rhythm of the speech - and isn't ashamed to add a parenthetical or a footnote to explain an unclear point. BXVI also is less terrifying for Bible Protestants because he is (1) very scripturally focussed; and (2) much less Marian in his approach than John Paul II.
And as for the Blessed Virgin, of course she needed a Saviour, and she received all her blessings and graces through the will of God, not her own efforts. She just received them a little ahead of time, so that she could be completely 'full of grace' and 'blessed' to receive God in her womb.
See my post #55.
Of course not .... because you are speaking in English. The New Testament was written in Greek but not contemporary Greek. It is believed that parts of it may be translations from Aramaic. It is unknown if or how much of the New Testament had an Aramaic original, but even if none did, Aramaic had a strong influence on it. Probably all the New Testament authors except Luke were native Aramaic-speakers, and much of the dialogue in the Gospels originally occurred in Aramaic. Sometimes the Gospels even tell us the original words (e.g., “Talitha cumi” in Mark 5:41).
This is important because the meaning of the Aramaic word for "brother" (aha) not only includes the meanings already mentioned but also includes other close relations, including cousins.
In fact, there was no word for "cousin" in Aramaic. If one wanted to refer to the cousin relationship, one has to use a circumlocution such as “the son of his uncle” (brona d-`ammeh). This often is too much trouble, so broader kinship terms are used that don’t mean “cousin” in particular; e.g., ahyana ("kinsman"), qariwa ("close relation"), or nasha ("relative"). One such term is aha, which literally means “brother” but is also frequently used in the sense of “relative, kinsman.”
The first Christians in Palestine, not having a word for cousin, would normally have referred to whatever cousins Jesus had with such a general term and, in translating their writing or speech into Greek, it is quite likely that the Aramaic word aha would have been rendered literally with the Greek word for brother (adelphos).
Often claimed, never proved.
I’ve seen the aramaic word for cousin, so yes, they had one. And brother, in BOTH english and greek, can be used in more than one sense. Context determines it.
The NT was written in Greek, and I’ve already provided a list of examples where the writers used the correct term for a cousin or kinsman - so they not only KNEW the word, they used it.
This includes the Gospel writers (at least Luke, Mark and John), who wrote of the brothers and sisters of Jesus. So saying they didn’t use the word for cousin or kin because we use words differently is simply false. They had the word, they knew it, they used it. The same writers.
And as a previous poster pointed out, the context drives brother to mean brother. When Paul writes, “But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord’s brother”, he applying a label to James that is used of no one else - not Peter, and not John. Only James is given the title ‘the Lord’s brother’. And Paul also knew the word for cousin, and used it.
Your argument simply doesn’t hold water.
From reading history of the Middle Ages I beg to differ.
Ok, so the CC forbid the personal reading of the Bible to their flock. Ever read about Tyndale and why he was burned at the stake by the Catholic Church?
In other words, NO. The doctrine of the Trinity must be inferred from the Scripture, so the Arian controversy was really a debate over the meaning of the Scripture, the subsequent controversy caused by Nestorius a debate about the hypostatic Union. The knowledge you have you owe to the Church. Our faith, of course, is our own, and that we do owe to the Spirit.
Hardly. I read it each day. The Tyndale controversy ought to be understood in the light of a rebellious action, the Lollard movement, and of course Luther’s
use of the Bible to promote rebellion against Church authority. Ironically, Tyndale and More were not far apart in their thinking, as is so often the case in matters where we are talking about power rather than truth.
To me it’s the basic John 3:16/17 -
Read more.
What an amazing fantasy.
Of course, in reality, Tyndale was arrested and burned at the stake by Henry VIII.
In John 19:25 we read, "Standing by the foot of the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary of Magdala." Cross reference this with Matthew 27:56: "Among them [at the cross] were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee." We see that at least two of the men mentioned in Matthew 13 were definitely not siblings of Jesus (although they're called adelphoi); they were Jesus' cousins--sons of their mother's sister.
The Bible is simply silent on the exact relationship between Jesus and the other two men, Simon and Jude, mentioned in Matthew 13. This proves two important things. First, it proves that the Greek word for brother is sometimes used to mean something other than sibling, and it proves that Matthew 13:55-56 in no way demonstrates that Mary had other children.
Where did you get the idea that the reading of the bible was EVER prohibited by the Church? What was prohibited were unauthorized translations of the bible from Latin to local languages and dialects.
Just to make this more clear you should state how many languages and dialects there were within Roman Catholic regions at the time and how many of those were written languages. Next you can tell us how many education systems taught in their mother tongues instead of Latin and Greek and let us know what percentage of the people were literate in their mother tongues. Lastly I would like to see some evidence cited as to the prohibition of access to the official Latin bible.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.