Tag: Mariology

Eastern Orthodoxy · heresy · roman catholicism

Mariology From the Bible, Not Tradition.

Bob SnyderLeave a comment

Here is a list of distinct passages where Mary the mother of Jesus is mentioned, removing the near-duplicates (like where the same story is retold across Gospels, or where multiple verses in sequence are really one scene).

Here’s the condensed list of unique references:

Matthew

  • Matthew 1:16 – Genealogy: “…Mary, of whom was born Jesus…” What is notable here is that v. 16 follows a genealogy leading up the Jesus. We see that repeatedly we are told that this man was the father of this man, except here in v. 16. This v. breaks with the list by telling us that Joseph was the husband of Mary, not that he was the father of Jesus.
  • Matthew 1:18, 20 – Mary with child by the Holy Spirit. This v. tells us that Joseph was not the human father of Jesus in the natural fashion. It also tells us that Jesus was a product of the Holy Spirit.
  • Matthew 2:11 – The Magi visit Mary and the child. In this v. you’ll note that the magi did not fall and worship Mary, but rather Jesus. “…they fell to the ground and worshiped Him…”
  • Matthew 12:46–50 – Jesus’ mother and brothers come while He is teaching. This section of scripture isn’t about Mary. It is about Jesus. This is true of most of the vs. that mention Mary. Note here that his actual mother, and actual brothers are there. Mary did have children with Joseph after the birth of Jesus. Some will argue this point, but they have to do so by ripping this section from it’s context as well as ignoring Matthew 1:25, Mark 6:3, 13:55.
  • Matthew 1:25 (LSB Strong’s) “…but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus…”
  • Mark 6:3 (LSB Strong’s) “…Is this man not the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?” And they were taking offense at Him…”
  • Matthew 13:55 – People identify Jesus as “the son of Mary.” Matthew 13:55 (LSB Strong’s) “…Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?…”

Mark

  • Mark 3:31–35 – Jesus’ mother and brothers seek Him (parallel to Matthew 12).
  • Mark 6:3 – Townspeople call Him “the son of Mary.”

Luke

  • Luke 1:27–38 – Annunciation to Mary (Gabriel tells her she will bear Jesus). There is nothing here elevating Mary. This declaration of what God is going to do glorifies God, not Mary.
  • Luke 1:39–56 – Mary visits Elizabeth; “Magnificat.” Mary is not the focus of this section of scripture. Mary says so, and so does Elizabeth. They are giving the glory to God. This is about Jesus. Mary continuously points to God here, not herself.
  • Luke 2:5–7, 16–19 – Birth of Jesus; Mary treasures events in her heart.
  • Luke 2:34–35 – Simeon’s prophecy to Mary. Again, Simeon is pointing us towards Jesus, not Mary.
  • Luke 2:41–51 – Jesus at the temple at age 12; Mary questions Him. This section is about Jesus’ growth in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men.

John

  • John 2:1–12 – Wedding at Cana; Mary prompts Jesus’ first miracle. This section is not about Mary, but rather Jesus. We can see Him providing wine for a wedding feast. Mary didn’t do it. She is not a miracle worker.
  • John 6:42 – People say, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose mother and father we know?” In this v. we see that the people knew Joseph, and Mary. They knew them as regular people. They did not revere Mary, nor look upon her as a miracle worker, healer, or sinless, perfect, virgin.
  • John 19:25–27 – Mary at the cross; Jesus entrusts her to the beloved disciple.

Acts

  • Acts 1:14 – Mary with the disciples in prayer after the ascension. Again we see Mary in with the group, not as a co-redemptrix, or sinless perpetual virgin. She needs a savior like everyone else.

Galatians

  • Galatians 4:4 – Jesus born of a woman (a general reference to Mary).

As you can see, there are no references in the Word of God to Mary being a co-redemptrix. There are no references to her being a perpetual virgin, quite the opposite. There are no prescriptive sections telling us to pray to Mary, or that she would intervene for us. The Bible does say in 1 Timothy 2:5-6,(LSB Strong’s)
“…For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the witness for this proper time…” Mary was not sinless. Psalm 51, 85, and Romans 5 refute that notion. No person born of a human mother, and father, after the fall is born righteous. Jesus was born righteous because His body was formed in the womb of Mary, a sinner, by the 3rd Person of the Trinity, God the Holy Spirit. This is what made Jesus sinless. Not Mary. She was merely the vessel of the Christ. Jesus is fully God, and fully man, sans the inherited sinful nature. See Romans 5.

The Word of God makes little of Mary. It is the traditions of men that maker her into more than she was. The focus of our faith is Jesus, not Mary. She can do nothing for you. Only Jesus saves.

roman catholicism

Let’s look a little closer at what the RCC believes about Mary.

Bob SnyderLeave a comment

Let’s look a little closer at what the RCC believes about Mary.  Here is a quote from the RCC(Roman Catholic Church) Catechism that was included in a Cripplegate article;

Catechism of the Catholic Church. In Article 9, section 6, paragraphs 966-969, it says: 

966 “Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death.” The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son’s Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians: In giving birth you kept your virginity; in your Dormition you did not leave the world, O Mother of God, but were joined to the source of Life. You conceived the living God and, by your prayers, will deliver our souls from death.

967 By her complete adherence to the Father’s will, to his Son’s redemptive work, and to every prompting of the Holy Spirit, the Virgin Mary is the Church’s model of faith and charity. Thus she is a “preeminent and . . . wholly unique member of the Church”; indeed, she is the “exemplary realization” (typus) of the Church.

968 Her role in relation to the Church and to all humanity goes still further. “In a wholly singular way she cooperated by her obedience, faith, hope, and burning charity in the Savior’s work of restoring supernatural life to souls. For this reason she is a mother to us in the order of grace.”

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.”

In the first sentence we see that Rome claims Mary was not born with a sinful nature like all other humans were after the fall.  This is false.  Mary did have a sinful nature just like the rest of us.  The RCC also claims that Mary was taken up body and soul instead of awaiting the resurrection and the judgment, and that she is the “…Queen over all things…” reasoning that in so being she would be more conformed to the likeness of Christ.  This means that she is more like Christ than any other Christian could ever hope to be.  Many in the RCC insist that the, “Assumption of the Blessed Virgin” means that she did not die, but rather was taken up like Enoch.  This is also wrong as witnesses in the first century were at her funeral and recorded it in writing.  Many other Catholics believe that she died, and here body was taken up.  “we must remember that the Patristic Fathers defended the Assumption on two counts: Since Mary was sinless and a perpetual virgin, she could not suffer bodily deterioration, the result of original sin, after her death. Also, if Mary bore Christ and played an intimate role as His mother in the redemption of man, then she must likewise share body and soul in His resurrection and glorification.”1 Much more erroneous is the insistence that this assumption was part of Christs resurrection and that of Christians who would die after them.  Regardless of whether she initially died or not, they believe that she was bodily alive either by resurrection, or not dying to begin with, when she ascended to heaven.  We read this NO WHERE in scripture.  It is solely a doctrine of man created by the RCC.  We know from the record of scripture that Christ had younger siblings sired by Joseph with his wife Mary.  This is not debatable.  The RCC claim that she remained a virgin after the conception, and birth of Christ is completely fallacious, and without merit.  They misunderstand what it means to be the mother of Jesus, and place an import on it that corrupts proper Christocentric theology, and conflates the role of Mary with that of the Savior.  This is evident by the next claim that it is her prayers that, “will deliver our souls from death.”

Understanding that they believe Mary to be perpetually sinless it follows that they would also believe that she accomplished, “complete adherence to the Father’s will, to his Son’s redemptive work, and to every prompting of the Holy Spirit,”  This ignores that Biblical fact that she was sinner, and needed a Savior just as much as the rest of us.  It is yet another contrived tradition of the RCC.  Because of this doctrine they elevate her to the model of faith and charity, thus supplanting Christ, and robbing Him of His due glory.  To further elevate her the catechism states, “preeminent and . . . wholly unique member of the Church”; indeed, she is the “exemplary realization” (typus) of the Church.  In other words when the Church is referred to in the Bible as the bride of Christ, Mary is to be understood as the fulfillment of that type instead of the Church itself, thus ostensibly setting up some incestuous relationship between Mary and Christ, equating in blasphemy. 

If these blasphemous heresies were not enough, they go even further into their doctrines of the devil by stating this, “968 Her role in relation to the Church and to all humanity goes still further. “In a wholly singular way she cooperated by her obedience, faith, hope, and burning charity in the Savior’s work of restoring supernatural life to souls. For this reason she is a mother to us in the order of grace.”  This is blatantly and abjectly satanic!  The glaringly obvious and grievous error of attributing Mary with regenerative work quickening the human soul, replaces the Holy Spirit with a mere mortal woman!  In this heresy she becomes our mother due to her regenerative work.  What happened to being sons and daughters of God, through adoption?  I guess now, Mary is the wife of her son and God.  Notice the switch from, “For this reason” referring back to her, “work of restoring supernatural life to souls” to being, “mother to us in the order of grace.”  The switch is explicit in line 969.  It completely disregards the earlier clause, “for this reason” which made clear that it was addressing her regenerative work in regards to the soul.

The annunciation is the RCC tradition that surrounds the Biblical account of the angel Gabriel informing Mary of her coming conception, and motherhood to Jesus.  According to the catechism, because of her consent to this (as if she had a choice)  Evidently, due to her being the mother of Jesus, she suffered as He did during the crucifixion which earned her merit with God, and apparently still suffers until all the number of God’s elect come in.  The next sentence leaves me bewildered how anyone can read it, affirm it, and claim to be Christian.  “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”  Wow!  Who knew Mary had a saving office, and made manifold intercession?  Here I always thought there was one intercessor between God, and man, and that being the Lord Jesus Christ Himself!  Of course then there is a, “therefore” and we must ask what it is there for?  “Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix.”  According to the RCC catechism because she is our intercessor, and savior, she must be blessed and recognized as our advocate, helper, benefactress, and mediator.  Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t at least a couple of those attributes of the Holy Spirit?  Just sayin’…  Come on Patrick!

Having unpacked all of that, I’m wondering how the jam pack such a small statement with so much heresy?  I am also pretty sure that is why people don’t refute it more often.  It would take them forever to get through it all.  If you obfuscate epochally enough the pile of manure you’d have to dig through to get to the bottom of it would be so large it would become its very own repellant to discovering the true extent of their lies.