Mary as Aeiparthenos; why?

balshan said:
No it is not the truth, most of it comes from the fake POJ and it is totally man made. The apostles didn't believe it. They are the right example.
Click to expand...
Go ask Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin (early in his career).
Go ask the orthodox churches.
Go ask the early christians.
 
Stella1000 said:
The theologian Fr John Switzer explains it thus...

Scholars of early Christianity are in agreement that interest in the mother of Jesus was mostly initiated by the need to clarify the church’s teachings about the nature of Christ, his relationship with God, and the salvation Christ accomplished. Through Mary the fullness of Christ’s genuine humanity was guaranteed, in opposition to those who argued that Jesus only appeared to be human.

As christology continued to develop, new insights were drawn from St. Paul’s understanding of Christ as the New Adam who completes and perfects creation (1 Cor. 15). A natural correlation was seen between Jesus and Mary, with the latter being understood as the New Eve by second-century theologians like St. Justin Martyr and St. Irenaeus of Lyons. While some early teachers understood Mary as less than perfect, even arguing that she could be ambitious and doubtful, others argued for her sanctification or consecration to God even prior to her birth. Similar ideas abounded for St. John the Baptist, whose conception was celebrated as a feast even before that of Mary.

Doctrinal development in the West, supported by pious fervor, eventually led to Mary’s conception being promulgated as “immaculate” by Pope Pius IX in 1854. The intention was to signify that she had been preserved from all stain of sin (the Latin word for stain being macula) by a unique and singular act of God, based upon the redemptive merits of Christ’s future. In the Roman Catholic Church, the liturgical feast of Mary’s conception, celebrated on December 8th, became the celebration of her “immaculate conception.” Mary is considered sinless in the Orthodox Church as well, though her conception is not described as immaculate because of Eastern hesitancy concerning Western ideas about original sin.

The belief in Mary’s assumption into heaven probably evolved from the tendency in early Christianity to describe her life in ways similar to that of her son. By the fifth century the end of her life was celebrated in various places in a feast of her dormition, or “falling asleep.” In an interesting parallel to Jesus, Thomas the apostle doubts her passing until seeing her empty tomb, from which she has been assumed into glory. Eastern Christans tend to think of her assumption as occurring after her passing, while Western Christians usually understand her passing and assumption as a unified reality.

In 1950 the dogma of the Assumption was declared by Pope Pius XII as a singular gift to Mary and as an anticipation of the general resurrection of believers. Perhaps it is best understood as a dogma of hope extended to all Christians who strive to be faithful to Christ and who embrace his resurrection as their own. The final chapter of Lumen Gentium describes Mary as the most faithful disciple of Jesus. By extension, her fate represents our own longing for life without end.
Click to expand...
just a bunch of words of men.

Jesus and Mary, with the latter being understood as the New Eve by second-century theologians like St. Justin Martyr and St. Irenaeus of Lyons
Click to expand...
more C perversion - so Mary is not only the mother of Jesus but also His wife?

any support for that in scripture? no. it's just made up by the rcc.
 
Lastdaysbeliever said:
What exactly does the dogma of Mary, the mother of Jesus, as "ever-virgin" accomplish? What exactly is the Rcc trying to advance with this demand on its laity to embrace and further declare and deny Mary had other children? To what end?
Click to expand...
ramcam2 said:
it is the truth and not just a man-made dogma. both christians, in the east and west,
Click to expand...
again you can't answer questions asked. It is a man-made dogma.

those would be catholics, not Christians.

as well as leading protestant reformers believed that this dogma is taught in the bible. your questions would be meaningful only if the dogma is false.
Click to expand...
what protestants would those be? they'd be unbelievers.

it is false.
 
mica said:
just a bunch of words of men.


more C perversion - so Mary is not only the mother of Jesus but also His wife?

any support for that in scripture? no. it's just made up by the rcc.
Click to expand...
RCs really don't think through what they post. I mean we are told Mary is the spouse of HS. Adam was married to Eve, Mary is Eve and Jesus is Adam therefor she must be married to her own son.

The only person scripture has her married to is Joseph.

Do their weird myths never end. They wonder why we do not believe their claim about the RCC is the pillar and foundation of truth.
 
mica said:
again you can't answer questions asked. It is a man-made dogma.

those would be catholics, not Christians.
Click to expand...
not according to the majority of christians (east and west) and leading protestant reformers.
mica said:
what protestants would those be? they'd be unbelievers.

it is false.
Click to expand...
therefore luther, zwingli, and calvin are unbelievers. what/who is your authority to say so?
 
Stella1000 said:
The theologian Fr John Switzer explains it thus...

Scholars of early Christianity are in agreement that interest in the mother of Jesus was mostly initiated by the need to clarify the church’s teachings about the nature of Christ, his relationship with God, and the salvation Christ accomplished. Through Mary the fullness of Christ’s genuine humanity was guaranteed, in opposition to those who argued that Jesus only appeared to be human.

As christology continued to develop, new insights were drawn from St. Paul’s understanding of Christ as the New Adam who completes and perfects creation (1 Cor. 15). A natural correlation was seen between Jesus and Mary, with the latter being understood as the New Eve by second-century theologians like St. Justin Martyr and St. Irenaeus of Lyons. While some early teachers understood Mary as less than perfect, even arguing that she could be ambitious and doubtful, others argued for her sanctification or consecration to God even prior to her birth. Similar ideas abounded for St. John the Baptist, whose conception was celebrated as a feast even before that of Mary.

Doctrinal development in the West, supported by pious fervor, eventually led to Mary’s conception being promulgated as “immaculate” by Pope Pius IX in 1854. The intention was to signify that she had been preserved from all stain of sin (the Latin word for stain being macula) by a unique and singular act of God, based upon the redemptive merits of Christ’s future. In the Roman Catholic Church, the liturgical feast of Mary’s conception, celebrated on December 8th, became the celebration of her “immaculate conception.” Mary is considered sinless in the Orthodox Church as well, though her conception is not described as immaculate because of Eastern hesitancy concerning Western ideas about original sin.

The belief in Mary’s assumption into heaven probably evolved from the tendency in early Christianity to describe her life in ways similar to that of her son. By the fifth century the end of her life was celebrated in various places in a feast of her dormition, or “falling asleep.” In an interesting parallel to Jesus, Thomas the apostle doubts her passing until seeing her empty tomb, from which she has been assumed into glory. Eastern Christans tend to think of her assumption as occurring after her passing, while Western Christians usually understand her passing and assumption as a unified reality.

In 1950 the dogma of the Assumption was declared by Pope Pius XII as a singular gift to Mary and as an anticipation of the general resurrection of believers. Perhaps it is best understood as a dogma of hope extended to all Christians who strive to be faithful to Christ and who embrace his resurrection as their own. The final chapter of Lumen Gentium describes Mary as the most faithful disciple of Jesus. By extension, her fate represents our own longing for life without end.
Click to expand...
The ECFs often wrote much that is true, but not always and some of what they wrote was their opinions or conjecture. We must remember one thing--they were not infallible, and what they wrote cannot be considered infallible, as the Bible and especially the NT are considered infallible. Paul never said didly-squat about Mary being the "new Eve." His focus was entirely on Jesus Christ and the Bible. Marian dogmas in the RCC take that focus off Jesus and put it on His mother--which must delight Satan no end. Anything that takes our focus off Christ and puts it on someone or something else makes him happy. Sadly.
 
ramcam2 said:
not according to the majority of christians (east and west) and leading protestant reformers.
Click to expand...

Since when is a majority the litmus test for the truth?
ramcam2 said:
therefore luther, zwingli, and calvin are unbelievers. what/who is your authority to say so?
Click to expand...
Luther's attitude towards Mary changed, the deeper he got into Scripture. In fact, he once wrote that in the RCC, the Babe was almost entirely forgotten in favor of the mother. He wrote that if one should be forgotten, it should be the mother, not her Baby. However, he did believe in Mary's PV, but that is considered pious opinion in our church, and not something one MUST believe to be a Lutheran in good standing or necessary for salvation. I personally think Luther was wrong about that. I don't know what Zwingli or Calvin taught about it.
 
Bonnie said:
The ECFs often wrote much that is true, but not always and some of what they wrote was their opinions or conjecture. We must remember one thing--they were not infallible, and what they wrote cannot be considered infallible, as the Bible and especially the NT are considered infallible. Paul never said didly-squat about Mary being the "new Eve." His focus was entirely on Jesus Christ and the Bible. Marian dogmas in the RCC take that focus off Jesus and put it on His mother--which must delight Satan no end. Anything that takes our focus off Christ and puts it on someone or something else makes him happy. Sadly.
Click to expand...
You aren't infallible either. When searching for truth by faith Christians are drawn to the forebears who have authority like the Apostles. It was the sure antidote against heretical cults.
 
Stella1000 said:
You aren't infallible either.
Click to expand...

Never said I was. But I do have some discernment.
Stella1000 said:
When searching for truth by faith Christians are drawn to the forebears who have authority like the Apostles. It was the sure antidote against heretical cults.
Click to expand...
But those post-Apostolic authorities, while they certainly did some good in condemning heresies, also allowed some to creep in. Especially the later "authorities" like that pope who declared that being subject to the pope was necessary for salvation...what a stupid and unbiblical thing to declare!
 
Lastdaysbeliever said:
What exactly does the dogma of Mary, the mother of Jesus, as "ever-virgin" accomplish? What exactly is the Rcc trying to advance with this demand on its laity to embrace and further declare and deny Mary had other children? To what end?
Click to expand...
Has it occurred to you that maybe they actually believe these things to be true?

What are they trying to advance? The Truth.

At least what they believe to be true.
 
Stella1000 said:
Sick? Ad hominem after ad hominem. These threads get so bo-ring!
Click to expand...
Then report it, or go away.
FWIW, Adam was married to Eve. And,
Gen 4:1 [CPDV] Truly, Adam knew his wife Eve, who conceived and gave birth to Cain, saying, “I have obtained a man through God.”

So your Masters never considered the implications of calling Mary "the new Eve"? Then again, such relationships are seen in paganism...
 
Stella1000 said:
edit
Click to expand...
No, Stella1000, I don't hate you. I pity you for being so caught up in the RCC and its lies. I'm sorry that the god of this world has blinded you and your co-religionists to the light of the Gospel.

I do dislike and despise what the RCC has done to Christianity under the guise of being the pillar and foundation of the truth. I also try to differentiate between Roman Catholics (RC) and the Roman Catholic Church (RCC).

Remember, there is always "ignore" if you cannot stand me any more.

--Rich
 
Last edited by a moderator:
DeSanto said:
Has it occurred to you that maybe they actually believe these things to be true?

What are they trying to advance? The Truth.

At least what they believe to be true.
Click to expand...

So do mormons, and JW's, and Oneness Pentecostals, and Buddhists, and shintoists, etc. but there is only one truth. One. And your conclusion doesn't make mariolatry true.

There is no reason for the EV accept to set the foundation for making Jesus' mother what she isn't, giving her titles she does not deserve and placing her in the active role of salvation. This is idolatry 101.

John 14:6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top