The Cult of Mary

https://christs-disciples.org/rccism.php ^ | me

[zucchini bob]

(2 Peter 1:20) Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. (Isaiah 28:10) For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little: (Isaiah 28:13) But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.

[ealgeone]

But more importantly....when one compares the PoJ, along with the other so called Infancy Gospels, one sees the contradictions between them and inspired Scripture.

Same with the marian dogmas....that's the issue at stake here, af.

[Elsie]

...thought to...

Yet again...

[af_vet_1981]

You're admitting this book was distrusted and rejected...
Yes

..yet Rome built its dogmas upon it.
No

My position stands teachings were not handed down by Paul nor Peter...if they had been the book would not be on the rejection list.

My position stands these teachings were not handed down by Paul nor Peter...if they had been the book would not be on the rejection list.

Church tradition is that the apostles Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome 64 AD. The Protoevangelium was written sometime around 140 AD. Of course they could not hand it down. I don't discern its influence in this dogma which the entire Church believes (though not all the separated brethren and faith communities thereof).

In the 5th century, the Third Ecumenical Council debated the question of whether Mary should be referred to as Theotokos or Christotokos.[8] Theotokos means "God-bearer" or "Mother of God"; its use implies that Jesus, to whom Mary gave birth, is truly God and man in one person. Nestorians preferred the title Christotokos meaning "Christ-bearer" or "Mother of the Messiah" not because they denied Jesus' divinity, but because they believed that God the Son or Logos existed before time and before Mary, and that Mary was mother only of Jesus as a human, so calling her "Mother of God" was confusing and potentially heretical. Both sides agreed that Jesus took divinity from God the Father and humanity from his mother. The majority at the council agreed with the Pope that denying Mary the title Theotokos would either imply that Jesus was not divine, or that Jesus had two separate personhoods, one of whom was son of Mary and the other not. Ultimately, the council affirmed the use of the title Theotokos and by doing so affirmed Jesus' undivided divinity and humanity.

Thus, while the debate was over the proper title for Mary, it was primarily a Christological question about the nature of Jesus Christ, a question which would return at the Fourth Ecumenical Council. Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Lutheran and Anglican theological teaching affirms the title Mother of God, while other Christian denominations give no such title to her.

[ealgeone]

>>..yet Rome built its dogmas upon it.<<

No

It is widely recognized and admitted by Roman Catholic apologists the dogmas originate in the PoJ. It is the source for the dogmas.

Church tradition is that the apostles Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome 64 AD. The Protoevangelium was written sometime around 140 AD. Of course they could not hand it down. I don't discern its influence in this dogma which the entire Church believes (though not all the separated brethren and faith communities thereof).

Of course you don't because if you did you'd have to admit the Immaculate conception and perpetual virginity originate in this document among other infancy gospels.

The PoJ was condemned because of its false teachings.

[af_vet_1981]

Of course you don't because if you did you'd have to admit the Immaculate conception and perpetual virginity originate in this document among other infancy gospels.

False, mind reading notwithstanding

I posted only a small portion, but in the link I don't see any mention of the Protoevangelium, but there is a lot of scripture and reason applied.

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was officially defined by Pope Pius IX in 1854. When Protestants claim that the doctrine was “invented” at this time, they misunderstand both the history of dogmas and what prompts the Church to issue, from time to time, definitive pronouncements regarding faith or morals. They are under the impression that no doctrine is believed until the pope or an ecumenical council issues a formal statement about it.

Actually, doctrines are defined formally only when there is a controversy that needs to be cleared up or when the magisterium (the Church in its office as teacher; see Matt. 28:18–20; 1 Tim. 3:15, 4:11) thinks the faithful can be helped by particular emphasis being drawn to some already-existing belief. The definition of the Immaculate Conception was prompted by the latter motive: Pope Pius IX, who was highly devoted to the Blessed Virgin, hoped the definition would inspire others in their devotion to her.

[af_vet_1981]

The Protoevangeleum is mentioned here, along with a lot of scripture and historical accounts of positions taken.

Of course Jerome does not lean on it as he argues for the Perpetual Virginity of Miriam/Mary:

Jerome “[Helvidius] produces Tertullian as a witness [to his view] and quotes Victorinus, bishop of Petavium. Of Tertullian, I say no more than that he did not belong to the Church. But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already been proven from the gospel—that he [Victorinus] spoke of the brethren of the Lord not as being sons of Mary but brethren in the sense I have explained, that is to say, brethren in point of kinship, not by nature. [By discussing such things we] are . . . following the tiny streams of opinion. Might I not array against you the whole series of ancient writers? Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and many other apostolic and eloquent men, who against [the heretics] Ebion, Theodotus of Byzantium, and Valentinus, held these same views and wrote volumes replete with wisdom. If you had ever read what they wrote, you would be a wiser man” (Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary 19 [A.D. 383]).

“We believe that God was born of a virgin, because we read it. We do not believe that Mary was married after she brought forth her Son, because we do not read it. . . . You [Helvidius] say that Mary did not remain a virgin. As for myself, I claim that Joseph himself was a virgin, through Mary, so that a virgin Son might be born of a virginal wedlock” (ibid., 21).

[ealgeone]

False, mind reading notwithstanding

Let's drop that nonsense regarding "mind reading."

[ealgeone]

There is no Scripture that supports the Immaculate Conception. Not. One.

The IC contradicts Scripture in this matter.

[ealgeone]

I don't think Catholic answers has mentioned the book was rejected....but that would mess up the narrative wouldn't it?

This is why I question a lot of what the writers at Catholic Answers put out. They are very "selective" in how they write on these matters.

[MurphsLaw]

God can’t do “anything”.

He cannot lie, He cannot change,
and He cannot deny Himself.

Well I'll take your word on that...
But thats a bunch of deflection
- which was off-topic by even your standards...
as I was referencing God's miraculous impossibilities
with regard to Virgin Births-
and other pre/post natal possibilities-
AS God's Angel confirmed to Mary.

37 For with God nothing will be impossible.”
38 And Mary said,
“Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord;
let it be to me according to your word.”

The Blessed Virgin submitted to God's Will...
NOT her will,
Not Joseph's will.

[ealgeone]

MM>>God can’t do “anything”. He cannot lie, He cannot change, and He cannot deny Himself.<<

murph>>Well I'll take your word on that...

*****

13Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone. James 1:13 NASB 95

I'll go with what the Bible says.

Roman Catholics are not good at handling the Word.

[MurphsLaw]

That's pretty lame...
Lets see where your DIY Jesus venture is 2000 years from now...

[ealgeone]

That's pretty lame... Lets see where your DIY Jesus venture is 2000 years from now...

Lame? Bro....you've shown a consistent misapplication of the Word in this forum.

[MurphsLaw]

Roman Catholics are not good at handling the Word.

Not good at handling?
Roman Catholic's preserved and gave you the Word you have today.
Even First Protestant Luther praised The Catholic Church
for bringing forth the Word.
Your history is weak.
Handling is not the word you should havs used.

[Just mythoughts]

Not good at handling? Roman Catholic's preserved and gave you the Word you have today. Even First Protestant Luther praised The Catholic Church for bringing forth the Word. Your history is weak. Handling is not the word you should havs used.

What a bunch of donkey dung. The Roman Catholic Church is first in line for Judgment, according to Peter ... course very little of what Peter did and said is in the key shop used down through the ages ... I pray I get a ring side seat when judgment begins.

[ealgeone]

Not good at handling?

Yep.

Roman Catholic's preserved and gave you the Word you have today.

Nope. The Spirit moved the early church to keep the books we have. Rome didn't establish its canon until Trent...and then got the OT wrong.

Even First Protestant Luther praised The Catholic Church for bringing forth the Word.

And Luther is back on the good list. It's amazing how many times he gets on the naughty list and then back on the good list with Roman Catholics.

Your history is weak.

My history is accurate.

Handling is not the word you should havs used.

It's apparent you're not familiar with the concept.

[MurphsLaw]

You're admitting this book was distrusted and rejected.....
yet Rome built its dogmas upon it.

How self unaware can you be.
Your whole Faith Belief is based on a false
man-made notion of "Bible Alone"
that is not found anywhere in scripture
Despite your contortions.
Your entire Faith Belief subcribes to Faith Alone-
another man-made notion actually facilitated by
an editing, addition to already inerrant SACRED scripture
as an intended manipulation of said scripture.

You have other issues to worry about then the Church's usage of the Protoevangelium.

[ealgeone]

How self unaware can you be.

I am very aware of things.

Your whole Faith Belief is based on a false man-made notion of "Bible Alone" that is not found anywhere in scripture.

It is written is noted how many times in scripture?

When Christ was tempted by Satan what did He quote? Scripture.

When Paul was on his missionary trips what did he quote from? Scripture.

When Jesus taught His disciples to pray what did he teach them? The Hail Mary....oh, yeah...no He didn't.

Why was a written word left to us?

Despite your contortions.

I can back my beliefs up. You on the other hand cannot offer one clear verse on the Immaculate Conception. Not. One.

Your entire Faith Belief subcribes to Faith Alone- another man-made notion actually facilitated by an editing, addition to already inerrant SACRED scripture as an intended manipulation of said scripture.

Nothing has been edited. And it is through faith in Christ...and only faith in Christ that saves. No having to go through Mary. No having to go to a priest when I can go straight to God.

Nothing. Else.

You have other issues to worry about then the Church's usage of the Protoevangelium.

Yeah....I have more work to do to illuminate the rejected book Rome has used to build some of its Marian dogmas....which, no where in Scripture do we see any of these. Not. One.

[MurphsLaw]

The Church does not claim Marian Dogmas are explicit in Scripture.
As Tradition and developed doctrine of the Church allows for these beliefs,
it does not require the notion of sole explicitness of scripture.
That is your game.
You must follow that human discipline,
We do not.

[ealgeone]

I think Rome does claim they are in Scripture. Rome also claims their dogmas don’t contradict scripture yet the immaculate conception does. In multiple places.

That is your game.