Mary - The Mother of Our Lord

[FredVB]

Elizabeth said that all generations will call Mary "blessed." They did - until a couple of hundred years ago when it became fashionable to think of Mary as little more than a forgettable baby factory.

Yes, she was humble, faithful, obedient, sacrificial.... reasons to honor her, not ignore her.

There's nothing in the Bible that states Mary had other children (or ever had sex).

While it's possible to surround Mary with ... well.... things not known to be true; possible to honor her TOO much or for things inappropriate, the opposite is also true (such as calling her a non-virgin and suggesting she was nothing but an unwilling baby factory).

I don't know anyone, and it really would not be me, that would suggest that Mary Jesus' mother was forgettable, unwilling, or simply a baby factory, such as pro-abortion people like to say pro-life people have as a view of pregnant women, nor are any ignoring her.

Saying she was not continually a virgin is not saying she had always been a nonvirgin. Recognizing who Jesus is involves recognizing he was born from a virgin, so Mary was a virgin then. But she was a married woman then, and the Bible says she remained a virgin until Jesus was born, it doesn't say she, as a married woman, remained a virgin any longer than that, and remaining a virgin is not expected of any married women.

The Bible shows Jesus had four named brothers, and sisters besides, I don't see anything compelling me or others to understand it differently when Mary came with them to seek Jesus. That was when they were going to take him back with them, they believed he had lost his senses. So for one thing I don't see it needed for it being said in the Bible whether Mary had sex with her husband or not, I don't have reason from it to understand the sense of Mary coming with the brothers of Jesus differently, though you would, but not just from the text. For a second thing that is not an event which those who think so highly of Mary would want remembered. She needed the savior too, and as a human with fallen nature she did not always recognize him for who he is. Two of the brothers at least converted to follow him, at least after the resurrection, and wrote epistles to churches, which we have in the Bible. Both are known distinctly as brothers of Jesus. One was James the brother of Jesus, a founding leader of the early church, in Jerusalem.

 

[JRT]

At a very early date the Christian church developed the theory / dogma of Original Sin based largely on the mythology of the creation as found in Genesis. Not realizing any better, they accepted the story as literal history. We all know, or should know, that the theory of Original Sin is based on the notion that we are a fallen race, unworthy of God because of the sin of our primeval parents Adam and Eve. St Augustine further developed the theory by stating that the stain of the Original Sin was passed on to the children through the seed of the father.

This concept further confirmed the notion in the early church that sex was inherently evil and to be discouraged except for procreation. What is interesting as well is that Genesis is a Jewish scripture and the Jews never developed the theory of Original Sin. Moreover, the rather earthy Jewish attitude toward sex lacks entirely the Christian distaste for it.

The notion that Original Sin was passed on through the father's seed, somewhat like a spiritual HIV virus, turns out to have been inherently flawed. We must realize, that at that point in history, it was believed that the father, and the father only, contributed what we would today call the genetic make up or DNA of the child. What they called the male seed was regarded as containing an entire nascent human being. As a consequence, they regarded any wastage of the seed as tantamount to murder. This explains why masturbation, coitus interuptus and even homosexual acts were considered to be serious sins. The role of the woman was solely that of providing the warm nurturing environment for the developing child. She had no genetic contribution to make. Since she contributed nothing to the make up of the child, she could, of course, not be the agency through which Original Sin was passed on. Of course the mother herself was cursed with Original Sin but this flaw in her was not felt to have any bearing on the state of the child.

Now when we link these notions to the Nativity story we get further complications. Mary was believed to have become pregnant through the agency of God. God of course contributed the seed (genetic material) and Mary's role for the next nine months was as a nurturing womb. Jesus was born sinless because of course God was sinless. The stain of the Original Sin did not afflict him. It did not matter that Mary was afflicted with the sin.

This entire theory fell apart several cemturies ago when it was discovered by microscopic studies that the mother did indeed contribute genetically to the child. She of course supplied the egg cell to be fertilized by the male sperm.

This realization seems to have provided a good deal of the impetus for the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. If Mary through her egg contributed to the genetic make up of Jesus then she too could pass on Original Sin. The Immaculate Conception solved this problem quite neatly by stating that Mary herself must have been concieved immaculately (without sin) through the agency of the grace of Jesus somehow applied retroactively.

 

[Josiah]

Opening post....

I wrote and posted this at "the-website-that-shall-not-be-named" 10 years ago, part of what make me so hated there (my view on Mary was the basis for why staff was so dismayed by me). It created quite a heated reply from Catholics toward me at the time at that site. I re-post it here (10 years later)


Mary - the Mother of Our Lord


What God's Holy Scriptures tell us:

Matthew 1:23/Isaiah 7:14
Mark 3:31-35; 6:1-6
Luke 1:27, 31-33, 39-55
Luke 2:1-24, 49
John 2:4
John 19:26-27
Acts 1:14


Immaculate Conception:

No Scripture remotely confirms it.
No Scripture clearly denies it (although some make it problematic)
Which leaves an unnormed but traditional opinion.
IMHO: Not dogma, not heresy. Permitted opinion.
Recent dogma in the Roman Catholic denomination, but largely embrace by Eastern Orthodox Christians, too (although not dogma there)


Perpetual Virginity:

No Scripture remotely confirms it.
No Scripture clearly denies it (but some verses may make it problematic)
Which leaves an unnormed but tradtional view.
IMHO: Not dogma, not heresy. Valid opinion.
Dogma in the Catholic Church, official teaching in the EOC. Embraced as pious opinion by some Anglican and Lutheran Christians.


Divine Maternity: ("Matre Dei" "Theotokos")

Scriptural support for the divine nature of Christ is solid. Since Mary is the mother of Jesus and Jesus has a divine nature, in THAT sense, this is normed.
Tradition affirms this interpretation.
IMHO: Accepted as a title but potentially misleading.
(Not dogma anywhere)
Title is used in the Roman Catholic and Easter Orthodox churches, and at times among Anglicans and Lutherans.


"Queen of Heaven":

Related to above; in ancient Jewish culture, the mother of a king often had this title. It's not dogma but a title for Mary. As such, it is fitting.
IMHO: Accepted, but potentially misleading.
(Not dogma in the CC) Title is found in Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. Rarely among Protestants.


Assumption of Mary:

Nothing in Scripture confirms this.
Nothing in Scripture denies this.
Which leaves an unnormed but opinion with some tradition behind it.
IMHO: Not dogma, not heresy. Opinion.
Newly dogma in the CC; not dogma but generally embraced in the Eastern Orthodox Church
I find this entirely baseless and of no importance, but not hereticl


Coredemptrix:

Nothing in Scripture remotely confirms this.
Nothing in Scripture clearly denied this, although several verses make it problemmatic.
Which leave an unnormed and I think fairly new viewpoint.
IMHO: Not dogma, probably not heresy. Opinion. Very little tradition behind it.
(Not dogma in the CC but expected to be declared so soon)


Mediatrix of all Graces:

Nothing in Scripture confirms this.
Nothing in Scripture clearly denies this, although 1 Tim. 2:5 may make this problemmatic.
IMHO: Not dogma, not heresy if property understood. Opinion.
(Not dogma in the CC)




Some quotes:

Pope Pius IX Eneffabilis Deus (1854), "Let the most dear children of the Catholic Church hear these words and with more ardent zeal of piety, religion and love, proceed to worship, invoke and pray to the most Blessed Virgin Mary."


Pope Pius XII Coronation at Fatima (1948), "Mary is indeed worthy to receive honor and might and glory. She is exalted to hypostatic union with the Blessed Trinity. Her Kingdom is as great as her Son's and God's."


While I won't quote them, it's clear that Martin Luther used the titles for Mary of "Mother of God" and "Ever Virgin Mary." Early on anyway, he accepted the Perpetual Virginity of Mary (although not as dogma) and rejected the Immaculate Conception of Mary and Assumption of Mary - then not dogmas as they are now. Of course, for Protestants, Luther was just a student of the Bible - fully accountable and subject to it. His words carry no more authority than any other man's.




Some Misc. thoughts....

1. God focused very little on Mary in His holy written Word to the church - the Scriptures. Like Mary, its focus is on Christ.


2. While Catholics DO speak of a certain "worship" of Mary, they make it very clear they do not worship her as divine. "Mary belongs to the offspring of Adam and is one with all human beings in their need for salvation" (Vatican II) In modern English, "worship" has taken on that meaning it didn't have until recently. NONE of the current Marian dogmas in any sense or manner embrace Mary as The Lord God or divine in any way; the words often used in relation to her (respect, adore, revere, venerate, worship, esteem) are admittedly all words that (rarely) are applied to the divine but that's not the case with Catholics (or Protestants or any other Christians).


3. At one time, Protestants (especially Lutherans and Anglicans) shared a certain veneration of Mary nearly the same as Catholics. As Catholics have become far more focused on Mary (note the dates of the quotes above, the Immaculate Conception was not declared dogma until 1854, the Assumption of Mary not until 1950), Protestants have moved away - in what I consider foolish and tragic - it seems just so as to not see "Catholic."


4. One cannot help but be amazingly moved by Luke Chapter 1. Here is a woman, probably yet a teenager, with a humility, faith and devotion that are beyond the ability of words to convey. That she might be considered chief among all saints is something I wouldn't challenge. Luke 1 and the story of Abraham and Issac about to be sacrificed are accounts that immediately spring to my mind when I think of what faith and discipleship mean...


5. IMHO, the DOGMAS that the Roman Catholics have declared (some very recently) have had an unfortunate consequence, they've actually served on REDUCING the esteem Christians have for Mary and meaning that FEWER now regard Her as 'blessed.' The irrelevant and abiblical DOGMAS have become the focus, as as people have so often rejected them, Mary has largely gotten "lost" as a result.


6. In my Catholic days, I saw a FEW (really a tiny percentage) of Catholics who were ... well, let's say WEIRD when it came to Mary, they just seemed to go way overboard. This bothered many Catholics. Unfortunately, what they say and did at times became known to Protestants who THINK such is common among Catholics. There are Mary wackos in the Roman Catholic Church and Catholics often will admit that. I think too a FEW (a tiny percentage) of Catholics have a very emotional relationship to Mary (consider a teen in love, LOL) and this IMHO at times causes them to say and do things that maybe are hard to objectively understand (just like teens in love, LOL). In my Catholic days, I could easily cut these people some slack. On the one hand, if this relationship to Mary gives them comfort and strength - good. On the other hand, if they use it to base some superiority over others or in some divisive way - bad



- Josiah


.

 

[FredVB]

At a very early date the Christian church developed the theory / dogma of Original Sin based largely on the mythology of the creation as found in Genesis. Not realizing any better, they accepted the story as literal history. We all know, or should know, that the theory of Original Sin is based on the notion that we are a fallen race, unworthy of God because of the sin of our primeval parents Adam and Eve. St Augustine further developed the theory by stating that the stain of the Original Sin was passed on to the children through the seed of the father.

This concept further confirmed the notion in the early church that sex was inherently evil and to be discouraged except for procreation. What is interesting as well is that Genesis is a Jewish scripture and the Jews never developed the theory of Original Sin. Moreover, the rather earthy Jewish attitude toward sex lacks entirely the Christian distaste for it.

The notion that Original Sin was passed on through the father's seed, somewhat like a spiritual HIV virus, turns out to have been inherently flawed. We must realize, that at that point in history, it was believed that the father, and the father only, contributed what we would today call the genetic make up or DNA of the child. What they called the male seed was regarded as containing an entire nascent human being. As a consequence, they regarded any wastage of the seed as tantamount to murder. This explains why masturbation, coitus interuptus and even homosexual acts were considered to be serious sins. The role of the woman was solely that of providing the warm nurturing environment for the developing child. She had no genetic contribution to make. Since she contributed nothing to the make up of the child, she could, of course, not be the agency through which Original Sin was passed on. Of course the mother herself was cursed with Original Sin but this flaw in her was not felt to have any bearing on the state of the child.

Now when we link these notions to the Nativity story we get further complications. Mary was believed to have become pregnant through the agency of God. God of course contributed the seed (genetic material) and Mary's role for the next nine months was as a nurturing womb. Jesus was born sinless because of course God was sinless. The stain of the Original Sin did not afflict him. It did not matter that Mary was afflicted with the sin.

This entire theory fell apart several cemturies ago when it was discovered by microscopic studies that the mother did indeed contribute genetically to the child. She of course supplied the egg cell to be fertilized by the male sperm.

This realization seems to have provided a good deal of the impetus for the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. If Mary through her egg contributed to the genetic make up of Jesus then she too could pass on Original Sin. The Immaculate Conception solved this problem quite neatly by stating that Mary herself must have been concieved immaculately (without sin) through the agency of the grace of Jesus somehow applied retroactively.

Original sin is a term alien to the Bible. It can be misleading, but it could correspond to the correct understanding that since the fall of humanity in the beginning, all human beings come into the world with a fallen nature, a nature to sin against the will of God for us.

The incarnation of Logos the Word with God who is God is an exception to this, like humanity before the fall Jesus Christ had no need to sin against the will of God. Though tempted in any of all ways that people are tempted, and though struggling through it, Jesus never gave in to temptation to sin against the will of God.

That we have such a mediator who endured whatever there was such as we are tempted with makes him effective for empowering believers to turn from sin and to not keep commiting those sins.

There are those things that groups of believers say about Mary the mother of Jesus. Sure, most of those things are not heretical. But it is contrary to what the Bible says to claim Mary coredeems with Christ. Christ redeems people himself, Mary his mother is not involved with that, she was fallen, at least for a time she didn't even know him for who he is, and she was needing the savior too. To say she coredeems is heretical.

 

[FredVB]

It is funny how argument that scripture does not deny something is used. Jesus spoke against traditions of men, which many gave the weight of the word of God. That is unjustified, nothing of tradition should be thought to have that weight, to be doctrinally taught to others. If the teaching of tradition can be criticized, so be it.

 

[Josiah]

It is funny how argument that scripture does not deny something is used. Jesus spoke against traditions of men, which many gave the weight of the word of God. That is unjustified, nothing of tradition should be thought to have that weight, to be doctrinally taught to others. If the teaching of tradition can be criticized, so be it

I'm not sure Jesus was talking about this kind of issue..... But PERHAPS one could interpret it as establishing DOGMA (either in teaching or practice).

But there are MANY things we hold by tradition that the Bible never expressly says. Do you hold that Jesus was married or single, for example. Do you hold that the books you have in your Bible are the books of Scripture (no less, no more) is yet another. There are many.

There are things virtually all Christians believe and/or do - and have for 1700 to 2000 years - that can't EXACTLY, VERBATIM be proven true or correct in any book anyone regards as Scripture (including regarding things as Scripture). In my opinion (and maybe we disagree), it's not wrong to vote in a nations elections simply because the Bible ever specifically states to do that. Nor is it dogmatically forbidden to do so simply because the Bible never forbids it. Indeed, if we visited 10 American churches, we'd likely see that MUCH (nearly all?) of what they do is never once mentioned in the Bible as good or bad, right or wrong, required or forbidden.

I hold that there is "middle ground." There are things we can clearly state are right or wrong, good or bad. And things we can't. In classic theology, this is called "adiography" literally, "no word." Is it COMMANDED to celebrate Jesus' birthday on December 25? No. Is it FORBIDDEN by a verse in the Bible to do this on December 25? No. It's neither dogma or heresy, neither a commandment or a sin. I see a lot of Marian views falling into this category: nothing to support affirmations of DOGMA and nothing to support condemnations of HERESY. To insist, "THIS Scripture proves this teaching is divine dogma" OR "THIS Scripture proves this is demonic heresy" are probably both claims that cannot be substantiated. For 2000 years, Christianity has allowed this "middle" ground.




.