Jesus Repudiates the Mariolatry Volume III

Paul writes:
Romans 11:33-36 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!
34 For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?
35 Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again?
36 For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.

These questions (albeit rhetorical) are asked by Paul. Can Mary answer in the affirmative?
Does Mary know the mind of God?
Is Mary the counsellor of God?
Does Mary give to God without ever being recompensed?

In short, is Mary greater than God? This is the teaching of theotokos when you get right down to the basics. Yes we understand what theotokos means so forget about the comeback: you don't understand it. I have read enough literature on it to understand it, and heard enough of it from the proponents of it on the board to know what it means. It is heresy.

As Bob has stated and/or asked:
Is Mary (and Joseph) the instructors of God?
Are they the Guardians of God?
Do they feed God?,etc.

Your belief in theotokos leads one into two heresies:
Mariolotry, and also into a theology not much different than Mormonism.
Mary becomes a goddess.
St. Anne (supposed mother of Mary--though no proof is offered) becomes a goddess.
Grand-mother of Jesus becomes a goddess.
And on it goes, ad infinitum. The serpent said: "Ye shall be as gods," and the RCC believed it.

 

We'ce covered the above ad nauseam in the preceding two threads and I see little point in revisiting that particular dialogue of the deaf. However, I repeat this from the previous thread:

 

Matt,

What do I make of it? There was at least 1 person committing idolatry in the year 250 AD.

There were probably others as well.

Why would that be a surprise?

Mike

 

I quoted it because the ecclesial world view of many here seems to be that all was well Church-wise until round about 313 when bad old Constantine came along and 'founded' the Roman Catholic Church and then everybody immediately started praying to Mary and dead people, venerating icons and relics, baptising babies and murdering the True Christians(TM). So the quote rather scotches that particular POV.

 

"Mother of God"
"Corrector of God"
"Instructor of God"
"Teacher of God"
"Stronger than God"
"Wiser thand God"

None of those parental roles in procreation for children are described for Mary in scripture. To get them - you need the RCC!

Hence in scripture we find no

"immaculate conception"
"Queen of Heaven"
"Prayers to the dead"
"Prayers to Mary"
"Mary Co-redemptrix"
"Mary sinless like Christ"
"Mary assumed into heaven like Christ"

All the "additional errors" following naturally from the first set of errors -- just not there in scripture - because there is no foundation for them as has been laid in the RCC.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Since this is the 3rd thread with the original title - the original scenario where Jesus gives the "ON THE CONTRARY" response to the "BLESSED BE MARY" observation -- it is only fitting that we include that point here as Skypair gave it for us initially.

The question for the group -- "In those churches that DO a lot of blessed-Mary-Mother-of-God routines in their worship" is anyone responding to that "Blessed be" statement with "ON THE CONTRARY" as Christ did?

Would Christ's form of response even be "tolerated" in those churches?

 

This is a very facinating response from MB not uncommon on the board. Notice the tactic?

1. Not discussing the sticky point directed to the "Mother of God" group and giving as "The reason" that - this same unnanswerable point has been raised numerous times with no objective factually compelling response ever given to date so we should not hold the MOG group accountable to it any more since they clearly can not answer it.

(Where compelling is defined as 'has a ghost of a chance of succeeding with an objective reader not already sold-out for the MOG prior bias on the subject)

It is a unique solution to a point of failure in one's argument -- where the mere fact that the "Mother of God" group has failed to answer this "So many times that it is almost without number" is given as a "proof" that we should no longer bring this unnanswered point up!!

2. MB raises a question about 3rd century observances (as if no error could possibly enter into the church by the 3rd century creating a foundation for the RCC). Suppose the Biblical "sola-scriptura group" flounders in answering MB's question -and so MB keeps raising it -- pointing out our error and failure in solving the problem time after time. Is there some point at which WE then will say "this has already been dealt with ad nauseum so no need to raise it up any more" at which MB will say "you are correct you have thoroughly covered that -- sorry I brought it up again"??

I doubt that this is ever going to be "a satisfactory solution" to an unnanswered point -- but it is interesting to see how often that failed approach is attempted on the board!

However there is ONE context in which that rather hollow solution DOES work. It works with a reader who is a part of the MOG group and who does not have the inclination to dig through the entire history of posts that MB seems to be referring to (since MB gives NO LINK at all -- just a vague reference to the "discussion in general") -- and so that kind of reader might simply "assume" that if research was done - maybe MB's point would have been sustained. It is a response that "relies upon" the fact that no reader is likely to take the time to dig out the facts to SEE IF MB's claim is even true. Those who favor MB's view will simply "assume" he would be proven correct IF the research were done.

Those who doubt MB however will instantly note that IF he had a "Zinger response" to that question he would be more than happy to "hit that home run" every single time we set him up for it -- if he actually had it.


in Christ,

Bob

 

There are two different ways to interpret "ON THE CONTRARY" in reading that scripture.

The first would be that Jesus is saying that "ON THE CONTRARY" Mary is not blessed at all -- rather only those who hear the world of God and keep it are blessed.

The second would be that Jesus is saying that "ON THE CONTRARY" Mary is not blessed because she nursed Jesus, but rather because she heard the word of God and kept it.

If you interpret it the first way as you are, it would mean first of all that Jesus is contradicting Scripture, which clearly records that Mary heard the word of God and kept it -- "Be it done unto me according to your word", and that Mary is truly blessed (from both the words of Mary and Elizabeth"). It would also mean that Jesus publicly dis-honored his mother, which would be in violation of the commandment to "Honor thy father and thy mother".

So interpret it how you wish, but I choose to believe that Jesus neither publicly dis-honored his mother nor contradicted what is clearly taught in Scripture.

 

2. In addition we still wait for the answer to the question as to whether the "ON THE CONTRARY" response IS EVER ALLOWED in the Mariolotry centered denominations -- no matter HOW one wants to state that "ON the CONTRARY" response of Christ in "a nice way".

in Christ,

Bob

 

You can see Jesus 'pointing' in this Scripture? You know he was pointing at those standing around him? The image in your mind could just as easily show him 'pointing' to Mary as he says this you know -- honoring her as the 'example' of believer that all should be following. There is nothing in scripture that could lead one to 'image' this in their minds except their personal desire to believe one way or the other. You see what you want to see.

I would not disagree that he is taking the focus away from the biological role to the believer's role. I would strongly disagree that he is taking the focus away from Mary in the believer's role to the crowd in the believer's role. How many others in the crowd do you think ever had discourse with an angel, agreed to become pregnant by the power of the Holy Spirit (be it done unto me according to your word), ESPECIALLY knowing the extreme personal risk she was assuming to comply with God's will. If Joseph had not stepped up in his role, Mary's choice would have left her to be stoned under Jewish law.

So I'm not sure how you can assume that Jesus is highlighting the faith of this crowd of believers over that of Mary's, rather than using her as an example for them to follow. It is simply that you want it to be a downplay of Mary, so that's how you see it.

Regarding "Mariolotry" centered religions, have you ever reviewed the liturgy for either the Orthodox Divine Liturgy service or the Catholic Mass? These are the principal worship services of the respective churches, and I would like to understand what you see in them as being "Mary" centered.

 

OK, Bob, what do you want to know?

Please re-read my previous post above. In case you can't/won't, allow me to re-state: the reason I linked to that document was to highlight to those here who hold that everything was allegedly fine until Constantine came along and allegedly ruined everything that in fact requests to Mary were being addressed well before Constantine and that these requests are of considerably ancient pedigree

It's pretty darn obvious, Bob; i'm not going to give you links to every single page of the last two threads where this point is mentioned - I do have a life. The earnest reader is of course welcome to do that for his/herself.

So ask the question; I'm not even sure which question you're asking anymore...

 

Because there is no mention of "the blessed one" being there at all. Are you suggesting that "she was there but it was not worth mentioning"?

The one blessing says "Blessed is THE WOMAN" - Jesus says "on the CONTRARY blessed ARE THEY who..."

And your spin here is that we should imagine that Jesus is referring to Mary in the Plural and NOBODY is mentioning that she is even there???

That is "eisegesis" - you are inserting into the text details and that are not listed and even trying to get the plural form "THEY" to apply to "THE WOMAN" AS IF Jesus had said "NO THE WOMAN is to be blessed for reasons NOT connected at all with her parental role - but rather her role as one of these believers!".

But in that case "again" we notice that this reference the GROUP OF BELIEVERS is being contrasted to the "parental role of Mary" and is given as "superior blessing" even in the best of all cases.

IF what you say were even remotely true THEN we would expect the mariolotry centered belief groups to USE this very form of blessing -- so that when we hear "BLESSED is Mary the Mother of God" the group response would be as seen here "ON THE CONTRARY blessed are those BELIEVERS who accept Christ as Messiah" as the "perfect" form of blessing Mary for her PARENTAL role as "Mother of God".

I am sure all here would be happy with that kind of "response"...

If we are ALL about to agree that this is the ideal way to honor Mary -- (as you claim to now accept this response as being perfectly fine for Mariolotyr) then we have reached amazing AGREEMENT.

As I said "IF IT IS TRUE" that the Mariolotry-centered denominations are (or would) gladly responding "ON THE CONTRARY blessed are those people who BELIEVE in Christ as Messiah" as being the PERFECT response to "BLESSED be Mary the MOTHER of God" --

Then I think we are reaching agreement!!

 

My point is that the errors you read in the second group of statements are only made possible in those groups that adopt one or more of the errors listed in the first group of statements.

Surely you would agree-- those are the only groups where those errors can be found.

in Christ,

Bob

 

I agree that anyone claiming infallability for the Christian church until the time of Constantine is missing the boat - particularly since in 1Tim 1 Paul claimed that error was already battling with the church and since in Acts 20 Paul states clearly "after MY departure ... wolves will come in".

My point about the "zinger response" is of this form --

Suppose some one of us had said "Sola Scriptura is applicable only to the NT text of scripture -- only by that should we judge doctrine" and then that same person tried to use Acts 17:11 OR 2Tim 3:16 as a "proof" for sola scriptura.

You would have no end of "pure success" each time they raised that point - as you pointed out that in both Acts 17 and in 2Tim 3 the primary reference to scripture is NOT to as-yet unwritten NT texts -- but to the EXISTING OT text.

I doubt that you would respond "I am not going to answer that point -- I did it before" -- rather you would slam that home run out of the park EACH time you were set up to do it --

Kinda the way I do with that list of mariolotry phrases not found in scripture. One of which is the one you are partial to on this discussion thread.

in Christ,

Bob

 

That pre-supposes that the first group of statements are erroneous; whilst only one (Mother of God) is theologically relevant, the others are all true when applied to Joseph and Mary vis a vis the child Jesus. When Joseph or Mary carried the baby Jesus in their arms, they carried God in their arms. That's precisely what the Incarnation means - what we are going to celebrate in a few days' time. To deny that is to deny the Incarnation - that God became a little baby born of a virgin, Who grew into a small boy, then an older boy, and finally a man Who was crucified for us and our salvation at age 33.

 

Which phrase would that be?

 

From a sermon by Augustine, Bishop of Hippo:

Stretching out his hand over his disciples, the Lord Christ declared: Here are my mother and my brothers, anyone who does the will of my Father who sent me is my brother and my sister and my mother. I would urge you to ponder these words. Did the Virgin Mary, who believed by faith and conceived by faith, who was the chosen one from whom our Saviour was born among men, who was created by Christ before Christ was created in her... did she not do the will of the Father?

Indeed the blessed Mary certainly did the Father's will, and so it was for her a greater thing to have been Christ's disciple than to have been his mother, and she was more blessed in her discipleship than in her motherhood. Hers was the happiness of first bearing in her womb him whom she would obey as her master.

Mary isn't the Mother of God because of flesh and blood but of faith 'do unto me what you have said'. Mary's Fiat (i.e. her participation) was to His Glory and her reward.

 

"Mary the mother of God"

 

No question that these statements applied to the "child Jesus" all apply and if we take out "God" and replace with "the child Jesus" -- nobody complains. It works!

But to replace the clear context "the child Jesus" with "GOD" so that we get

"Wiser than GOD"
"Stronger than GOD"
"Corrector of GOD"
"Mother of God"
"Authority over God"

Then the WRONG meaning is conveyed -- one that leads to "exaulting the human parent" into "QUEEN of the UNIVERSE" and requires such odd inventions of man as "The IMMACULATE conception".

As history clearly shows.

This twist is an invention of the RCC in creating the error above. The idea is to exault the human parents as is clearly seen in the "Wiser than GOD" appelation and then charge that any attack on such an obvious error is "an attack on the deity of Christ".

Such hollow tactics probably worked well in the dark ages when the tradition of man was considered "equal to scripture" and when the language of scripture was hidden from the people.

But such tactics will never work today to dupe the Biblically "informed".

in Christ,

Bob