Baptist theology on Mary or lack there-of...

Catholic Cathechism:

969 "This motherhood of Mary in the order of grace continues uninterruptedly from the consent which she loyally gave at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation . . . . Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix."512

47. The RC teaches: Mary is the co-mediator to whom we can entrust all our cares and petitions. (Catechisms 968-970, 2677).

The Bible teaches: Christ Jesus is the one mediator to whom we can entrust all our cares and petitions. I Timothy 2:5, John 14:13&14, I Peter 5:7.

Main Entry: me•di•a•trix
Pronunciation: -'A-triks
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin, feminine of mediator
Date: 15th century
: a woman who is a mediator


http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/pray0685.htm


Prayer to Our Lady, Health of the Sick
Virgin, most holy, Mother of the Word Incarnate, Treasurer of graces, and Refuge of sinners, I fly top your motherly affection with lively faith, and I beg of you the grace ever to do the will of God.

Into your most holy hands I commit the keeping of my heart, asking you for health of soul and body, in the certain hope that you, my most loving Mother, will hear my prayer.

Into the bosom of your tender mercy, this day, every day of my life, and at the hour of my death, I commend my soul and body.

To you I entrust all my hopes and consolations, all my trials and miseries, my life and the end of my life, that all my actions may be ordered and disposed according to your will and that of your Divine Son. Amen.


http://www.justforcatholics.org/a64.htm

Every Christian should consider Mary with respect. She is forever to be called blessed. Yet, I think it is a sign of disrespect when people expect from her things that she cannot give. Why would people pray to her, when the Bible clearly teaches us that we should pray to God and that God alone knows our hearts (1 Kings 8:39)? Why would people ask grace from Mary, when the Bible teaches us that all grace comes from God (1 Peter 5:10)? Why should people call her "our life" and "our hope", when the Bible teaches us that the Lord is our life and hope (Colossians 3:4; 1 Timothy 1:1)? Why would people make her a mediator, when the Bible says that there is one mediator, Jesus Christ (1 Timothy 2:5)? And why should people trust even the hour of their death wholly to her care? Isn't the Good Shepherd of the sheep willing to keep His own and bring them safely to glory (John 10:27,28)?
Sadly, in practice many Catholics worship Mary because they pray to her, trust in her and attribute to her titles and honors, which belong to God alone. May God grant them repentance. Rather than looking unto a creature, we should follow Mary in her godly example and apply to the Lord for salvation and all spiritual blessings.

 

While I certainly repudiate any veneration of Mary for too many reasons to really number, I think we do need to stop for a minute and consider a few things.

Mary was the mother of our Lord...not the mother of God, the mother of our Lord. She also must have been held in high esteem by the first Christians. It just makes sense. However, she was a woman of humility, so it was only others that venerated her into a position of such, err, esteem as she has in the Catholic Church.

I think we should remember something important. Luke's gospel begins with a declaration that he has drawn on, among other things, eyewitness testimony to the events that he records.

When I read the first two chapters of that gospel, I am always struck by the remarkable detail about the events leading up to Christ's birth, including the words exchanged between Elizabeth and Mary and Mary's own attitude and even the very words she said when the angel informed her about her coming pregnancy. Likewise, when I read the account of Jesus in the Temple, it strikes me as only the kind of story a mother would tell. It's not just the content of the story, but the tone of the account. It is as if somebody asked her in an interview, "If you could pick out just one thing about Jesus' life before His ministry, what event would that be?" The Scripture says she "treasured these things in her heart," which says to me that she remembered these things in special details like only a mother could remember such things, and also for a purpose. I think Luke is trying, in his own way, under the Holy Spirit's direction to say that the reason she treasured those things in her heart wasn't just for herself...that would be selfish...but to tell about when that day would come.

I think, and granted its only my opinion, that the first two chapters of Luke are pretty much Mary's words to Luke. I think this because of the tone and content of those chapters. Additionally, Jesus, remember, left Mary in John's hands at the cross. There is a strong tie to John and the church at Ephesus, historically, and, if we assume that Mary would be, along with the Apostles, a key person that the early Christians would seek to protect and provide for as long as she naturally lived, it follows that Mary would probably be with John. While there is no record of her after the resurrection, I strongly suspect that either Luke went to Ephesus and interviewed her as an old woman or Paul met her in Ephesus, got to know her, then told Luke everything he could remember...all done of course, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

I could be wrong, of course. Like I said, it's only a theory, but, I think a plausible one. The point of all this is that we should, at least, thank the Lord for Mary, which we certainly do, and for the account of the birth of our Lord and that account of him at the age of twelve, because likely it is her testimony, which means God not only used her to bring His Final Word into this world, but He also used her, probably, to bring part of His written Word into this world. I for one, hope to meet her one day, if only to say, "Thank you, for being obedient to the Lord."

 

The study of Catholic dogma concerning the Virgin Mary is known as Mariology. It is a branch of theology in that it involves Mary's relationship with God. Compare Biblical Anthropology as a branch of theology (See Lewis Chafer’s Systematic Theology).

 

What I would like to know and I realise that it is impossible to know, is if Mary Egg was used in conception, or if the embryo was created then implanted?

 

Ben that is a good question. There is a huge debate going on between pastors in my area as to whether Christ inherited his humanity from Mary. Their argument is that Christ was God born with mary's flesh but not Joseph's (or any other male). They use the argument that the man's seed carries the "sin gene."

The other side believes that Christ was given flesh from heaven, something I believe mennonites and the amish believe, because no flesh on earth is good or sin free.

What little secular history about Jesus there is is said that Jesus resembled his mother in physical appearence. This could mean that he took on is flesh through her dna (eg her egg). But that is just a speculation.

 

Sorry if this is off-topic for the thread, but there is something I've always wondered about. I apologize for the rambling in advance.

I guess I've always believed that the Holy Spirit caused Mary's egg to be fertilized. What I mean is I think the egg was used and not that the Holy Spirit just dumped all the flesh in the womb.

Anyways, doesn't all the OT prophecy talk about the messiah say that he will be from the lineage of Abrahama and David?

Isn't that what the first part of Matthew 1 is all about, proving the links back to David and Abraham?

Matthew 1:2
Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren;
... etc, etc, etc ...
Matthew 1:16
And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Now, if Joseph had nothing to do with the conception of Jesus (which I of course believe), then why does Matthew seem to 'waste time' giving us the lineage of Joseph? Why not the lineage of Mary?

I mean, since Christ was from her flesh, then what would matter for the OT prophecy was whether she was a descendant of David?

I guess I've always figured that Mary was a descendant from David (fulfillig the prophecy), and that Joseph was too. Maybe because of the patriarchal society, Matthew didn't think it worth mentioning the Mary-David link, but figured his readers would care about the Joseph-David link.

Even with that though, I can't see why Matthew would stress the Joseph-David link when his readers are supposed to believe in the virgin birth and that Joseph had no part in it. I don't care how patriarchal the society was, it seems like 'Jesus born of Mary, not of Joseph' would warrant clear talk about Mary's ancestors instead of Joseph's.

I kinda hate even speculating about this stuff, since when I say "why did Matthew", deep in my heart I know my words are really saying "Why did the Holy Ghost inspire Matthew to"..and that scares me. I have to tell God that I just don't understand, and that I realize I have no right to be critical of how He chose to give us the scriptures.

Any ideas on Matthew's genealogy of Joseph in light of the virgin birth would be appreciated.

As far as the Catholic angle, the whole Mary-worship thing disgusts me so much that I can't really talk about it rationally. I think it's a sad abomination.

Hmmm, Immaculate Conception? As a Southern Baptist kid growing up, I just figured that just meant those Catholics believed that Jesus was born perfect, duh. When I found out later that they meant that Mary was perfect, I felt sick. I mean, heck, why bother with Jesus, if Mary was perfect, just put her up on the cross and be done with it, no need for Jesus.

 

I must agreee with GeneMBridges comments. I think we're so fearful of being associated with anything remotely catholic (or catholic-like) that we'll bend over in the opposite direction to avoid the appearance. Whenever anyone even says "Mary", our "Papal Radar" kicks into action, our feathers get ruffled, and the hair on our backs stands up. Yet, this doesn't happen when you mention, say, "Job", or "Samuel", or "John the Baptst". I think we do the biblical and historical Mary a disservice. We should be able to discuss her as much as we discuss any other biblcal character, and should be able to do so without fear of anyone pointing the "Maryology finger" at us.

 

Close by my house is an RCC seminary--St. Charles. Visiting the library a couple of weeks ago I came across a huge section of books dedicated to Mariology. Baptists seminaries don't have a section like this and rightfully so. As Christians we have Christology--the study of the person of Christ. We have Pauline theology--the study of what Paul wrote concerning Christian theology. We do not have Mariology because Mary's person is not a subject of study in the sense that Jesus is. We do not have Marian theology because Mary wrote nothing concerning Christian theology as Paul did. The RCC's have such a section because they have MADE UP a system of theology regarding her. Sorry, but I don't feel that I'm missing anything.

 

and someone else said

It is a Gnostic doctrine to believe that Jesus did not have human nature and was not really born of Mary's own flesh. This is denying Jesus' humanity. The Bible is pretty clear on this. I will post this and post the Bible quotes next as it not letting me post the whole thing for some reason.

 

Here is one of the Bible quotes I wanted to put in the previous message.

 

I'll never understand technology. Like why sometimes a really long message can be posted and a shorter one can't.

Here is the rest:

From Matthew Henry:

I thought it was standard historical Christian doctrine that we believe that Jesus was born of man and of God. Is not this what the creeds affirm and what has been taught for 2,000 years? My church affirms this.

 

Most unfortunately, details such as these are considered by many on this message board to be irrelevant to the interpretation of the Bible.

 

Jesus certainley was Born of Mary and of God, I dont think that any one here would have any dispute on that. Yet saying that Jesus was born of Mary still does not infer that her egg was used. Only that she gave birth to Him.

To look at the other side of the matter, if we are saying that Marys Egg was used, then it is inferred that the Holy Spirit "was the sperm". I am not comfortable with that idea at all. I dont think that the Bible makes any inference towards that at all.

 

The angel told Mary she would conceive and be the mother. She could not be the mother and Jesus could not be of a human bloodline if it was not Mary's egg.

The HS was not the "sperm" in a sexual sense (as the Mormons believe -- actually they believe that God had relations with Mary); we just know that the HS "overshadowed" Mary. We are not told nor do I think we know exactly what this means. It was not sexual, but in some way it allowed for conception without sex or without a man. It was a supernatural act of God and a miracle (since Mary was a virgin and this whole overshadowing thing is obviously a miracle) that cannot be known or understood by us, IMO.

 

That is not too very difficult to find out. Any high school biology book will supply that information.

 

Here is a point, does the Bible use the word "Concieve"?