Skip to comments.Who is Mary of Nazareth?
Posted on 04/08/2008 3:40:51 PM PDT by annalex
click here to read article
Happy Easter. Christ is risen!
Anti-Catholicism, Hypocrisy and Double Standards
Why I Returned to the Catholic Church. Part I: Darkness
Why I Returned to the Catholic Church. Part II: Doubts
Why I Returned to the Catholic Church. Part III: Tradition and Church
Why I Returned to the Catholic Church. Part IV: Crucifix and Altar
Why I Returned to the Catholic Church. Part V: The Catholics and the Pope
Why I Returned to the Catholic Church. Part VI: The Biblical Reality
His Open Arms Welcomed Me
Catholic Conversion Stories & Resources
My Personal Conversion Story
My (Imminent) Reception into the Roman Catholic Church
Catholics Come Home
My Journey of Faith
LOGIC AND THE FOUNDATIONS OF PROTESTANTISM
"What is Truth?" An Examination of Sola Scriptura
"Have you not read?" The Authority behind Biblical Interpretation
The Crisis of Authority in the Reformation
Our Journey Home
Our Ladys Gentle Call to Peace
A story of conversion at the Lamb of God Shrine
Who is Mary of Nazareth?
Hail, Full of Grace!! All generations shall call you Blessed.
Well at least all generations of those who belong to the Church established and protected by Jesus Christ.
A beautiful tribute to a beautiful person. Thank you for posting. There’s a lot to meditate on here.
Much better, and worthwhile to meditate on Christ, for that is where salvation is. Mary was nothing more than a person, like David, Moses or Abraham.
Fine; let’s contemplate the Incarnation—when the Word became flesh, was the flesh created ex nihilo, or was Mary indeed “the mother of my Lord?”
And this is relevant how???
How is Mary worthy of meditation OVER Christ? Or other than Christ? Or other than aforementioned David, Moses or Abraham?
I believe most good Jews honour their Father and mother.
And do we not seek to be like Christ?
Why such a hostility to a person who occupies a significant part of the Gospel? Did anything prevent you from meditating on David, Moses or Abraham, or on Jesus?
And do we not seek to be like Christ?
So you honor your mother and father. What does that have to do with Mary?
prayers for you. May your unbelief be turned to belief according to the Gospel of St. Luke.
You are aware of it, aren’t you? It would appear that perhaps you are not appraised of the Scriptures therein.
As opposed to Paul or Peter or David or Abraham or Moses.
Those have something(s) to meditate on. They all point to Christ.
"Never apologize for the Blessed Virgin Mary!"
I think you need to read this thread and offer your prayers. (And apology) I totally disown your comments — I think they bordered on rudeness.
Why did Jesus on the Cross say to John, “Behold your mother?”
Was John then bound to honour Mary as Christ did?
**Thus, it is unwise to conclude that the amount of verses devoted to a topic in the Bible is directly linked to its importance. In any case, theres more in the Bible about Mary than is often supposed.**
Very wise man!
My how bold and brave of you to disown MY comments.
“The Archangel was sent from Heaven to cry: Rejoice! to the Theotokos. And beholding You, O Lord, taking bodily form, he stood in awe, and with his bodiless voice he cried aloud to her such things as these:
Rejoice, you through whom joy shall shine. Rejoice, you the Redemption of the tears of Eve.
Rejoice, Height hard to climb for human thought. Rejoice, Depth hard to explore even for the eyes of Angels.
Rejoice, for you are the Throne of the King. Rejoice, for you sustained the Sustainer of all.
Rejoice, Star that causes the Sun to appear. Rejoice, Womb of the divine Incarnation.
Rejoice, you through whom creation is renewed. Rejoice, you whom the Creator is born a Babe.
Rejoice, O Unwedded Bride”
It takes a remarkable perspective, bordering on perversity, to maintain that Christ’s virgin mother does not point to Christ:
My soul doth magnify the Lord
and my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
For he hath regarded
the lowliness of his handmaiden.
For behold, from henceforth
all generations shall call me blessed.
For he that is mighty hath magnified me
and holy is his Name.
27-Then He said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother!" From that hour the disciple took her into (AS)his own household.
I think the real issue is who has MORE honor?
Jesus for Mary as his mother.
Or Mary for Jesus as Messiah
and HER SAVIOR of her sins.
Who does God the Father attribute more honor?
I can see where Catholics could see this verse as a universal statement of the Motherhood of Mary. But I believe it was specific in time to John. Otherwise, this universal principal would have been mentioned elsewhere in the New Testament - but it is nowhere to be found in the teachings of Paul, Peter, or John.
This is plain wrong, -- read the article.
It is mentioned, in Apocalypse 12 Satan is described as waging war on Mary and her children: "the dragon was angry against the woman: and went to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God".
Besides, what you are saying is that one among the last words of Christ on the cross was something temporal and purely economic, without importance to the redemptive work He came to accomplish.
“Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”
But why does that preclude honouring the mother of the Lord as He would?
Theotokos Platytera, Broader than the Heavens
But why does that preclude honouring the mother of the Lord as He would?”
No problem with honoring Mary, but praying to her to intercede with Jesus I have a problem with.
Jesus himself said you pray to the Father in His name
This portrait of Mary is based on scriptures. The Catholic doctrine on Mary goes to the point where you have to do mental gymnastics to try to get around the Biblical Mary. What this shows is you can honor Mary without taking it too far.
Again I have to ask, if Jesus' statement to Mary and John were to be taken universally, then why wouldn't it have been reiterated as a crucial point of doctrine, either implicitly or explicitly, by the apostles throughout the NT?
The Lord’s Prayer, the only prayer Jesus taught as His own, does not include Jesus’ name.
The koine of John 14 indicates that anything asked in Jesus’ name will be granted, not that Christians are forbidden to ask others to ask as well.
Is God the God of the living or the dead?
The koine of John 14 indicates that anything asked in Jesus name will be granted, not that Christians are forbidden to ask others to ask as well.”
No. John 14 doesn’t say you CANNOT ask others to ask, but He says it’s not going to work until you ask HIM
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
No one has to pray for Mary’s intercession.
Mnt Man, Were you just given penance?
For about a week I have been trying to get someone to point me to where Catholic Mariology contradicts scripture. I got plenty on how it contradicts various Protestant theological fantasies, but I did not get an answer. May be you can try?
You asked the question and I answered. St. john the Theologian write the Apocalypse and it makes a reference to Mary’s children as all those who obey the commandments. I don’t care how you interpret that to be about Israel, or Nicaragua or Pittsburgh, PA — I answered your question.
1. Mary was conceived of a virgin. The Bible indicates only Jesus was born perfect and sinless. Catholics want to extend Mary to being perfect and sinless, which in my view diminishes the miracle of Christ.
2. Mary remained a perpetual virgin. Reading the Bible one would conclude Mary and Joseph were married and they had other children. If they were not married, why is Joseph referred to as Jesus's father? Without marriage, Joseph would have no relation to Jesus. And trying to blow off all the references to Jesus brothers and sisters as just being cousins or friends is pretty far-fetched.
3. Other things such as the assumption of Mary or Mary being the co-redeemer is completely made up. The co-redeemer talk in my opinion is blasphemy.
4. Mother of God/Heaven vs. Mother of Jesus. In my view, Mother of God and other titles Catholics want to put on Mary, implies much more than what is in the Bible. Using the concept of trinity does not mean the terms God and Jesus are completely interchangeable. When you do, it establishes conflict.
I am sure you can post pages and pages that 'explains' these and other issues concerning Marian doctrine, but in my view it is only rationalization and falls way short of proof.
How about in addition to Christ, perhaps as His first Saint?
How odd, but your view strikes me as nothing more than rationalizations and falls way short of being any sort of proof.
It is not my doctrine that is rationalized without any Biblical support. It is the Catholic doctrine that is rationalized man-made mumbo jumbo which creates apparent conflicts with Biblical text.
Yes, it is. Applying modern language usages, such as using the brothers and sisters reference as proof that Mary had other children, to Scripture is just false rationalization.
The Bible we can point to as divinely inspired text from known apostles of Christ. For all these Marian doctrines, is their a person whom Catholics point to that this was divinely revealed too? From my limited knowledge, it just appears to be an evolving doctrine over the centuries that has just fairly recently (1800's) been accepted as official doctrine. Catholics point these as being accepted by the 'early church', whatever that means. To me the 'early church' was that of the apostles, not some 2nd to 4th century Church where much of this seem to have its roots from. It is nice that it is old, but there was a lot of bad doctrine created in the early centuries.
I find it hard to believe that old languages did not have words for brothers and sisters. The terms for brothers and sisters may be loosely used for other things, like is quite common in the black community today, but it is a leap to assume that was their usage. Basing entirely man made doctrines that rely on questionable interpretations of text to avoid conflict is not something I would be comfortable with. It appears that Joseph and Mary were married and had children. If Catholics want to believe otherwise, that’s fine. Just don’t let it get to the point where Mary is a divine figure, which I dare say there are some who do.
We did not make anything up. Some of these things are not in recorded scripture, but our Church produced the scripture from the Holy Tradition, which always maintained these things -- they are the knowledge that the Apostles had.
My question was whether 1-4, or anything else in Catholic mariology contradicts scripture. I did not ask if anything is bypassed by scripture. Some is, and some isn't. From that perspective, let me explain 1-4.
1. Mary was conceived of a virgin. The Bible indicates only Jesus was born perfect and sinless.
You probably mean, Mary was conceived free from original sin. We do not teach that she was born of a virgin. She was conceived and born naturally from Joachim and Anna. The Bible does not say that only Jesus was born perfect and sinless, -- you made it up.
2. Mary remained a perpetual virgin.
The Bible allows one to conclude that Joseph and Mary had spousal relations, and it allows one to conclude that they did not. You are familiar, it seems, with the fact that the brothers of the Lord are just as likely to be His cousins, second cousins, and half brothers. It is not my problem that you consider it far fetched. Joseph is, of course, Jesus's adoptive father and to the outside world during His ministry Joseph wa sknown as His natural father also.
assumption of Mary or Mary being the co-redeemer
Both are biblical: Mary is described in heaven waging a battle in Apoc. 12. Mary is of course, a necessary, recorded in the Gospels, instrument of the Incarnation and therefore of salvation.
4. Mother of God/Heaven vs. Mother of Jesus. In my view,...
We are not discussing your views.
Mary isn’t from Nazareth. She’s from Judea, probably near Bethany.
Yes, good point. The author, of course, meant “known to us as she was living in Nazareth”.
>> We can debate the meaning of the woman in Revelation 12 endlessly without coming to agreement on the point. Those who believe the woman is Covenant Israel have strong support from OT prophesy (Genesis 37). <<
Why is it that so many people interpret prophecies in such a way as to say, “No, it can’t mean A because it means B!”? The woman in Revelations is plainly the mother of Christ. That she is described in ways one might describe all of Israel is only a further glorification of her role as mother of Christ. And all of covenant Israel shares in the glory of her role. She is the ends to which the entirety of Old Testament history was directed: the bearing of Christ into the world.
As for a command, how’s this one:
“From age to age, all generations SHALL call me blessed.” Not, “will,” but “shall.” Ask a lawyer what “shall” means.
Which is an assumption on Catholics part. There is nothing that shows the Apostles had any knowledge of today's Marian doctrines. To protestants there are enough apparent conflicts with the Bible not to accept Holy Traditions. You can choose to hold Holy Traditions equivalent to the Holy Bible and adjust your interpretations of the Bible to fit. Protestants choose to put the Holy Bible above Holy Traditions and discount traditions that don't seem to match up. We are never going to resolve these differences, and personally I believe time is better spent on other things. It is an interesting topic, but I don't see it as God's will that we get consumed over these differences. I appreciate your concern that you believe you must change Protestants, but I think your effort is misguided.
No one says that Mary herself was conceived of a virgin. Her parents are Joachim and Anne. I think you are getting the doctirne of the Immaculate Conception (Christ’s redemptive salvation applied outside of time) confused with basic biology.
Jesus was conceived by a virgin. Because the Bible says so. That’s the only one I’m aware of.
It wasn’t biology that confused me, it was what was meant by Mary’s immaculate conception, which I wrongly thought meant was a virgin birth.