- There is not one verse in the Bible that says we are look only to the Bible for the Revealed Word.
Actually, your own church points to scripture as the revealed Word, with themselves not claiming to be adding revelation to it, but themselves merely interpreting it. From Die Verbum;
Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation.However, since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.
To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to "literary forms". For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture.
For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another.
That part could have been written by any number of "protestant" scholars. I'll leave it up to you to argue from the next paragraph in that above [sourced] text, which begins with the word "But".
- If you do not have an understanding of the Trinity and the Incarnation you cannot understand Mary.
Who are you trying to convince? Yourself? Is there some vague, poetic understanding running alongside traditional explanations which is attempting to be conveyed? I think I get it, even as I turn from that "extra" gnosticism, difficult to pin down as it is...
- She was not the mother of His human nature, natures do not have mothers. She IS the Mother of God.
More precisely, she was/is mother of Christ our Lord and Savior. Mother of the Incarnate Lord. There is no division of the Hypostasis in that expression, no matter how furiously hard it is attempted to be imposed.
If we could stick to that, some version of "mother of the Incarnate Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior", though taking a few more words and thus less convenient, it would help keep us all from straying into theological error. The idea of "Mother of the Incarnation" must regulate the expression of "Mother of God", for as we all freely admit, Mary herself did not exist prior to Christ, but only of his own Incarnation here on earth. If we then focus upon her now dogmatically proclaimed Assumption, and that she be now in union with the one true God, hid in Christ herself as it could also be said, to pray to her or any other by name is to separate them from the God of Abraham, even if it be done under cover of saying "we ask her to pray for us".
Hear Oh Israel, our God is One. We simple cannot abandon that portion of the Judeo-Christian construct, moving toward doing so when we speak of her as Mother of God, thus inevitably(?), presumptuously promoting her to be Queen of Heaven and the like...
How long until "queen of Heaven" language becomes dogmatic? Hmmm? Perhaps never, for the signs of the times indicate quite strongly there be relatively not much time of this era left, I'm afraid (literally afraid, for I do not wish to myself undergo realization of eschatology not so much spoken of here on this forum, but some version of be soon coming nonetheless).
Promoting Mary to some *special* continuing role, ascribing to her near god-like powers, while simultaneously referring to her as the new Eve, the New Ark (of the Covenant) the church itself, the Mother of the church, etc., produces confusion. So much for extra-biblical "poetry" best leading to truth, eh? Let us not be afraid that truth might endanger truth.
There is no queen of heaven in the OT -- but there is the born of God, as there is also the creation of God (that would be us, or shall we say includes us, with man being formed in image and likeness to God).
Eve was Adam's wife, taken from his own rib. She was not his mother. A new Eve...now the new Adam's mother ?!?
As metmom has repeatedly tried to lead us here to include as proper theological consideration, sin did not enter the world through Eve's own action, but through Adam's, as Paul reminds us. We need not have a new, this time allegedly sinless Eve to somehow complete a requirement for prior damages to be completely undone, or for Eve (and women as part of mankind, with us all as one) to be fully redeemed. It matters little in this that Christian writers from long ago pondered upon possibility for there being need of a new Eve (or they thought they caught glimpse of her) to go along with the new Adam spoken of by inspired writers of scripture (such as Paul) or thought they saw it there in the texts (or could squeeze it in between the lines) --- unless we can truly enough find it there under guidelines as found in the above cited portion [Die Verbum]. For even that which follows the "But" which I mentioned above (lol, AGAIN) is still logically regulated by that which I have here cited from Die Verbum, for if not, then that leaves only extra-biblical sources, and if those be from "tradition" (regardless of adding the word "sacred", or capitalizing the words to give them more verve) and it not be readily enough traceable to have been indeed handed down from the capital "A" Apostles, then what can be concluded but that it come from other sources (not the apostles) particularly when we can well enough uncover traces for that very thing having occurred? Let us have here, some of that "intellectual honesty" so much [elsewhere] mourned over.
I was writing other response to earlier replies of your own...but this continual pouring it on thick and fast, going rapidly from one item of contention to another, then back again, around and around and around, after watching it for years now, makes me wonder what "spirit" drives Romanist apologetic. When it turns now towards Mary, is that one from Ephesus? 'Diana' pushing to re-incarnate her devotions, thus infiltrate and corrupt Christianity? Perhaps it would it be better blamed on canned software previously spoken of (that you cut & paste argument from?) along with flights of fancy and poetic license, with such extra-biblical "poetry" from long ago being the original sources for the now re-encapsulated, in service to Romanism(s) argumentation such as the software you referenced is itself dedicated to doing in defense against Protestant criticisms.
Font from whom blessings flow?