Question for Protestants

26,522 Views | 531 Replies | Last: 2 mo ago by dermdoc
Quo Vadis?
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I haven't gotten a good answer on this one yet, but we have some very brains prots on here so I'm expecting a good answer.

In the Old Testament, the "holy of holies" was the name of the inner sanctuary of the tabernacle wherein the word of God dwelled in the ark of the covenant.

My question is, if the room that held the ark that held the word of God was called the "holy of holies" why is it wrong to call Mary "holy".
10andBOUNCE
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I am not sure I understand what the Holy of Holies has to do with Mary. I may need further clarification.

Only those of the tribe of Levi were even allowed into the H of H. Christ himself was not technically qualified to enter and there is no mention that he ever did. However he is now in the true Holy of Holies, sitting at the right hand of God for all eternity. Christ is our Great High Priest forever.
Quo Vadis?
How long do you want to ignore this user?
10andBOUNCE said:

I am not sure I understand what the Holy of Holies has to do with Mary. I may need further clarification.

Only those of the tribe of Levi were even allowed into the H of H. Christ himself was not technically qualified to enter and there is no mention that he ever did. However he is now in the true Holy of Holies, sitting at the right hand of God for all eternity. Christ is our Great High Priest forever.


The holy of holies was holy because the word of God dwelt in it. Mary was the ark of the new covenant where the Word of God dwelled.
10andBOUNCE
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quo Vadis? said:

10andBOUNCE said:

I am not sure I understand what the Holy of Holies has to do with Mary. I may need further clarification.

Only those of the tribe of Levi were even allowed into the H of H. Christ himself was not technically qualified to enter and there is no mention that he ever did. However he is now in the true Holy of Holies, sitting at the right hand of God for all eternity. Christ is our Great High Priest forever.

Mary was the ark of the new covenant where the Word of God dwelled.
I am not sure what this means. Because she was pregnant with Jesus, the Word was in her, so she was "carrying" the Word similar to the AotC?
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
literally yes
Quo Vadis?
How long do you want to ignore this user?
10andBOUNCE said:

Quo Vadis? said:

10andBOUNCE said:

I am not sure I understand what the Holy of Holies has to do with Mary. I may need further clarification.

Only those of the tribe of Levi were even allowed into the H of H. Christ himself was not technically qualified to enter and there is no mention that he ever did. However he is now in the true Holy of Holies, sitting at the right hand of God for all eternity. Christ is our Great High Priest forever.

Mary was the ark of the new covenant where the Word of God dwelled.
I am not sure what this means. Because she was pregnant with Jesus, the Word was in her, so she was "carrying" the Word similar to the AotC?


………….yes……………?
BluHorseShu
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quo Vadis? said:

10andBOUNCE said:

Quo Vadis? said:

10andBOUNCE said:

I am not sure I understand what the Holy of Holies has to do with Mary. I may need further clarification.

Only those of the tribe of Levi were even allowed into the H of H. Christ himself was not technically qualified to enter and there is no mention that he ever did. However he is now in the true Holy of Holies, sitting at the right hand of God for all eternity. Christ is our Great High Priest forever.

Mary was the ark of the new covenant where the Word of God dwelled.
I am not sure what this means. Because she was pregnant with Jesus, the Word was in her, so she was "carrying" the Word similar to the AotC?


………….yes……………?
Yes, that is the correct answer. This is also one reason why she is venerated.
10andBOUNCE
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
This is the first I've heard of this theory.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
It dates to around 80 AD.
10andBOUNCE
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Which epistle is it in?
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The Gospel of St Luke.
CrackerJackAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
10andBOUNCE said:

This is the first I've heard of this theory.


As a Protestant at birth through the first 33 years of my life I can't tell you how many times I made that exact same comment and how I ended up Orthodox.

I find it difficult to believe that anyone with an open heart could remain Protestant after doing research.

I am not implying in anyway that a person cannot be a Christian if they are not Catholic or Orthodox.

Quo Vadis?
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Zobel said:

It dates to around 80 AD.


I miss the 80's
10andBOUNCE
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Zobel said:

The Gospel of St Luke.
Which version of scripture?
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
All of them. St Luke's entire narrative is a riff on the Ark stories of the OT.

Here's a good (but not exhaustive) summary.
https://antigonejournal.com/2022/06/intertextuality-virgin-mary-luke/

This view is picked up over and over again in the writings of the church fathers. It is as much consensus as any topic you'll find.
10andBOUNCE
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I guess to get to the original question, Mary was not an infallible person. The gospel of Luke describes her as "highly favored" and "blessed" so I will stick with that.

I have already proven to have been in the dark on the Ark of the New Covenant language. I don't see that spelled out in Luke in the translations of scripture that I use. In addition, Mary is not exalted or instructed to be praised or prayed to in any of the Pauline Epistles nor the rest of the Protestant New Testament.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Doesn't change the fact that she was holy and blessed. St Paul refers to living Christians as holy ones. If anyone is holy, how could the one who gave birth to God, who gave Him his flesh and humanity from her own, not be holy?

Even taking the theological baggage of the word holy aside - if we take that word in its strict scriptural context it means set apart, because sacred, as opposed to mundane or common use. How does that not apply to the Mother of the Lord?
The Banned
How long do you want to ignore this user?
10andBOUNCE said:

I guess to get to the original question, Mary was not an infallible person. The gospel of Luke describes her as "highly favored" and "blessed" so I will stick with that.

I have already proven to have been in the dark on the Ark of the New Covenant language. I don't see that spelled out in Luke in the translations of scripture that I use. In addition, Mary is not exalted or instructed to be praised or prayed to in any of the Pauline Epistles nor the rest of the Protestant New Testament.


I see nowhere in the New Testament that every single thing we believe must be 100% spelled out in the Bible. Is that what you believe?

I see nowhere in scripture that it says if Jesus was married or not. But all mainline Christians believe that. The reaction to the Da Vinci Code was enough to prove that.

Or even sola scriptura itself. The Bible never says the Bible alone is infallible. Yet Protestants believe it.
10andBOUNCE
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Take it to the Sola Scriptura thread
FTACo88-FDT24dad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Zobel said:

Doesn't change the fact that she was holy and blessed. St Paul refers to living Christians as holy ones. If anyone is holy, how could the one who gave birth to God, who gave Him his flesh and humanity from her own, not be holy?

Even taking the theological baggage of the word holy aside - if we take that word in its strict scriptural context it means set apart, because sacred, as opposed to mundane or common use. How does that not apply to the Mother of the Lord?
I'm almost always a big Zobel fan, but I really like this Zobel!

Jesus got ALL of his DNA from his mom. Moreover, consider that mom and baby also share each other's cells during pregnancy. That's right. As early as the second week of pregnancy, there is a two-way flow of cells and DNA between the unborn child and the mother. Cells containing DNA from the child cross the placenta and enter the mother's blood circulation, while cells from the mother cross in the opposite direction and transfer into fetal circulation. Most of the cells coming from the child are destroyed by the mom's immune system, but some persist and become embedded in various organs, and become a part of the parent. This phenomenon is called microchimerism, from the word "chimera," referring to a mythical creature made from parts of different animals. How long does microchimerism last? The child typically transfers more of their cells to the mother than the other way around. This exchange begins as early as the first few weeks of pregnancy.

With that weird back and forth of cells between the mother and the child, Mary would have had some the God-man's cells in her body. They would have become part of her body, integrated into her cells. Perhaps something to think about when evaluating Mary's unique status relative to the rest of us?

10andBOUNCE
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
What's the application then of something like this in our lives? Is it possible that God could have stopped this from happening and sustain both the baby and Mary in a unique way?
AgPrognosticator
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I think the distinction between catholic use and protestant use is semantics.

Growing up protestant, holy always meant "perfect", IE, only God the Father, the Holy Spirit and the Son are truly holy.

I think "holy" can also be used to describe someone or something that is dedicated to God, blessed or sacred. If used in that context, I can understand that Mary would be called "holy". If, however, used in the traditional Protestant context to describe perfection, "Holy Mary" would be incorrect because obviously Mary was far from perfect being a fallen sinner like the rest of us in need a His saving grace.

ETA: All believers can be made "holy", but only by faith in Him. So, would it have been possible for Mary to be truly holy prior to her saviors birth? In that sense, I think not. She, too, was sanctified ONLY by the blood of the Lamb….not because she gave birth to Him.
Faithful Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AgPrognosticator said:

If, however, used in the traditional Protestant context to describe perfection, "Holy Mary" would be incorrect because obviously Mary was far from perfect being a fallen sinner like the rest of us in need a His saving grace.
The bold is definitely a point of disagreement between Catholics and Protestants. We do believe Mary, through a special grace from God, was preserved and kept from any personal sin from her conception. Mary is the most Holy and most Blessed person ever created. Mary was not like the rest of us wicked and sinful people but her will was perfectly conformed to God's will through her son.
AgPrognosticator
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Faithful Ag said:

AgPrognosticator said:

If, however, used in the traditional Protestant context to describe perfection, "Holy Mary" would be incorrect because obviously Mary was far from perfect being a fallen sinner like the rest of us in need a His saving grace.
The bold is definitely a point of disagreement between Catholics and Protestants. We do believe Mary, through a special grace from God, was preserved and kept from any personal sin from her conception. Mary is the most Holy and most Blessed person ever created. Mary was not like the rest of us wicked and sinful people but her will was perfectly conformed to God's will through her son.



Whoa…

For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. I think that's rather clear.

Not trying to argue…just very different than my personal beliefs.

That is very helpful in explaining the elevation of Mary in Catholic teachings.

ETA further commentary: Protestants overwhelmingly condemned the promulgation of the immaculate conception and a sinless Mary as an exercise in papal power, and the doctrine itself as unscriptural, for it denied that all had sinned and rested on the Latin translation of Luke 1:28 (the "full of grace" passage) that the original Greek did not support. Protestants, therefore, teach that Mary was a sinner saved through grace, like all believers.
Faithful Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The understanding and belief that Mary was the exception and that Mary was without the stain of sin goes back to the very earliest Christians. It is why St. Luke presents Mary in the way he does in his Gospel as the Arc of the Covenant. The imagery is direct and intentional. This view of Mary is ancient and was held by Christians from the very beginning.
The Banned
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AgPrognosticator said:

Faithful Ag said:

AgPrognosticator said:

If, however, used in the traditional Protestant context to describe perfection, "Holy Mary" would be incorrect because obviously Mary was far from perfect being a fallen sinner like the rest of us in need a His saving grace.
The bold is definitely a point of disagreement between Catholics and Protestants. We do believe Mary, through a special grace from God, was preserved and kept from any personal sin from her conception. Mary is the most Holy and most Blessed person ever created. Mary was not like the rest of us wicked and sinful people but her will was perfectly conformed to God's will through her son.



Whoa…

For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. I think that's rather clear.

Not trying to argue…just very different than my personal beliefs.

That is very helpful in explaining the elevation of Mary in Catholic teachings.

ETA further commentary: Protestants overwhelmingly condemned the promulgation of the immaculate conception and a sinless Mary as an exercise in papal power, and the doctrine itself as unscriptural, for it denied that all had sinned and rested on the Latin translation of Luke 1:28 (the "full of grace" passage) that the original Greek did not support. Protestants, therefore, teach that Mary was a sinner saved through grace, like all believers.


Don't have time to do a deep dive. Couple points:

- Luther believed in sinless Mary. As father of all Protestants, I don't know you can say Protestants overwhelmingly deny this teaching. Modern denominations, sure. But that's not a historical stance.

- Mary being sinless was not due to her work, but God's. Jesus, being sinless and perfect, would be best suited by a perfect, sinless "vessel" (feels terrible using that word for the Mother of God, but it the easiest to convey the message) so Mary should be sinless. How when all humans sin? The answer: God saved her from sin prior to her birth (we are saved after our birth) but He still did the saving. She still needed God as much as we do. He just acted in a different manner/timeline than He usually does.
Quo Vadis?
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The Marian doctrine takes an interesting philosophical turn regarding his sinfulness that I fear I am poorly equipped to explain.

The Roman Catholic Church and indeed the first 1500+ years of Christianity believe that both Mary and Jesus were perfect, sinless and without blemish in every way. The philosophical difficulty comes in describing a state of subordinate perfection. How can one perfection be greater than another? Jesus' perfection is independent of anyone, it's inherent in his nature whereas Mary's perfection is entirely dependent on Christ.

Duns Scotus has given me the best visualization of this, and I paraphrase saying that essentially all of humanity has fallen into the mud pit of sin, and Christ has lifted us out of it. For Mary, Christ stopped her from falling into the pit, and carried her over without getting her dirty.

10andBOUNCE
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Faithful Ag said:

The understanding and belief that Mary was the exception and that Mary was without the stain of sin goes back to the very earliest Christians. It is why St. Luke presents Mary in the way he does in his Gospel as the Arc of the Covenant. The imagery is direct and intentional. This view of Mary is ancient and was held by Christians from the very beginning.

St Luke was referenced before but I have yet to see the text. Care to share?

Also, if Mary was kept from sin, I would imagine Paul would have made a shout out somewhere in all of his letters, don't you think? Is there any other scriptural evidence in the Bible? Or does this fall under the authority of the RCC traditions?
lobopride
How long do you want to ignore this user?
You are 100% correct.

"as it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.""
Romans 3:10-12 ESV
The Banned
How long do you want to ignore this user?
10andBOUNCE said:

Faithful Ag said:

The understanding and belief that Mary was the exception and that Mary was without the stain of sin goes back to the very earliest Christians. It is why St. Luke presents Mary in the way he does in his Gospel as the Arc of the Covenant. The imagery is direct and intentional. This view of Mary is ancient and was held by Christians from the very beginning.

St Luke was referenced before but I have yet to see the text. Care to share?

Also, if Mary was kept from sin, I would imagine Paul would have made a shout out somewhere in all of his letters, don't you think? Is there any other scriptural evidence in the Bible? Or does this fall under the authority of the RCC traditions?


We can joke about going back to the sola scriptura thread, but I have to point out the double standard. The Bible never says the Bible is the only authority, yet you believe it. The Bible never says Jesus was unmarried, but you believe it. Why hold the catholic and orthodox faith to a standard that isn't truly held by Protestants?

Not trying to be a jerk here. This sort of gap makes conversations much more difficult, so it needs to be highlighted when appropriate.
The Banned
How long do you want to ignore this user?
lobopride said:

You are 100% correct.

"as it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.""
Romans 3:10-12 ESV



I'm not the best scriptural quoter, but I'll try:

Luke 1:28, which is often translated as "favored one" now has also been translated as "full of grace". How can Mary be full of grace prior to Jesus' death and resurrection? Because a little later in Romans 3:24-25 it shows the gift of grace came from Jesus atonement.
Faithful Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
There is too much for me to cover this morning on this but there are volumes that have been written.

First, Read 2 Sam 6 starting paying close attention beginning at verse 9. Then read Luke 1:39. The parallels between the two are intentional because St. Luke wanted his readers to know that Mary is the Arc.

When you read the New Testament in light of the Old Testament, with the OT serving as the backdrop, things begin to fall in place. It's called Typology. What is foreshadowed in the OT is revealed in the NT, and the NT fulfillment is always greater than the OT type. For example, Adam is a type of Jesus. Looking for specific proof texts is not how the first century Christians approached scripture, nor did the Church fathers.

What Luke shows us in Luke 1 is undeniable and early Christians understood. It was bold and almost scandalous at the time to Jews because it was so explicit. To us some 2,000 years removed it seems subtle and many have difficulty even making the connection at all. This is not necessarily their fault, but rather is a result of their interpretive tradition.

To continue the idea of Mary being the Arc, let's look at the Glory Cloud or Shekinah. This term in the OT is used to identify when God is dwelling in his tabernacle - the Glory Cloud would overshadow the place of meeting or meeting tent and dwell in the tabernacle (Ex 25). This is precisely what Luke describes about Mary and what the Angel said to Mary.

This is truly just scratching the surface on the subject but I hope it helps a little.
Faithful Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
To add on to this - It would be much more helpful IMO to focus on the question of "Is Mary the Arc" instead of getting into the weeds about the question of "was Mary sinless". If you are able to dive deep into the issue the without allowing the knee jerk reactions and proof texts trip you up it will benefit you greatly.

ETA: So ask yourself about Mary being the Arc and begin there. See where that question takes you. Read what the early church and church fathers said on the subject. Check out the EO hymns and the theology behind it. Don't be afraid because EVERYTHING we believe about Mary is because of Jesus and leads us closer to Jesus. HE is our focus and the object of our worship.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Forgive me, but my observation is that modern protestantism has this tendency to push everything to a flat binary. It produces an over-simplified theology, often to where it is no longer true or useful. The "once saved always saved" effect is a similar feature.

Sin and sins is another example - it actually plays into the similar flatness of salvation in the same framework. If salvation is this one and done saved from sins, then we need a binary condition of needing salvation to go with it. And bam, you have every being a sinner, and since it is binary, everyone is the same level of wretched sinner. But that's not the ancient faith.

Now - do all need a savior? Yes. But we need to talk both about what we're saved from and freed from what we're saved towards and those are not the same things.

At any rate, this is a very bad abuse of the text of Romans 3. As always with the scriptures we need to handle them carefully. Romans is not a theological treatise - it is an letter to a church, written in a particular place and time, struggling with an issue. That issue is the reintroduction of Jewish Christians back into churches after their expulsion from Rome, and tensions between Gentile Christians and Jewish Christians upon that return. The overall theme is unity, with admonitions and encouragement spoken to both groups separately and together.

Romans 3, then is talking about the kind of synthesis of the previous paragraphs where St Paul walked through sin and righteousness as works of evil regardless of the explicit knowledge of the Torah of God, and that merely being one of the people who have the Torah doesn't protect you from unrighteousness. Unrighteousness practiced by a Jew is still unrighteousness. And then we arrive to St Paul's quote of the Psalms - "none is righteous" etc. But what did he say before that? "Are we Jews any better off [than Gentiles]? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, as it is written..." What does "all" mean in Romans 3:9? He tells you - both Jews and Greeks.

So in this narrative, St Paul is saying that having the Torah doesn't make Jews righteous. He says that doing unrighteousness makes you unrighteous. And then that this applies to both Jews and Gentiles. At this point he quotes the scriptures . Which he immediately follows up by pointing out that some of the scripture he just quoted was explicitly pointed toward Israel, therefore it is speaking to the Jews - again affirming that "all" here is both Jews and Gentiles, and that the Psalm doesn't somehow not include Jews. After he says, even further (scandalously to the ears of the Jews) that merely doing the works of Torah will not make you righteous in God's sight.

Sooooo is St Paul making a particular theological point here, that each and every individual person has performed a personal sin? No! He is not! He's saying quite clearly that both Jews and Gentiles are in need of a savior, because having the Torah doesn't make you righteous (because the Gentiles can be a Torah unto themselves), and merely keeping the works of the Torah will not make you righteous (because the Torah brings knowledge of sin).

Then we can see and understand his conclusion - "But now the righteousness of God" - he was just talking about how it doesn't come from having the Torah or merely doing the works of the Torah - "has been manifested apart from the Torah, even though the Torah and Prophets bear witness to it - the righteousness of God through faithfulness in Jesus Christ for all who have faith."

"For there is no distinction" - i.e. distinction between Jews who have the Torah and Gentiles who do not - "for all have sinned" again all is both Jews and Gentiles "and fallen short of the glory of God, and are made righteous by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, to be received by faith."

Just to drive the point home he says - "then what becomes of our boasting?" "Our" here means "we Jews" and he includes himself in the group. "Our [Jewish] boasting [in the Torah] is excluded. By what kind of Torah? By a Torah of works?" he's saying - is there some other Torah of works on top of the Torah we already have? "No, but by the Torah of faith, for we hold that one is made righteous by faith apart from works of the Torah."

How do I know "all" means "Jews and Gentiles"? Because he says it one more - time - "Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of the Gentiles also? Yes, since God is one who will make righteous the circumcised [Jew] by faithfulness and the uncircumcised [Gentile] through faithfulness. Do we overthrow the Torah by this faith? by no means. On the contrary we uphold the Torah."

Now I want to be clear that doesn't make that theological point that each and every human has sinned individually true or not true, but it does mean that using this passage as a proof text for that and saying that St Paul meant it that way, drawn out of context, is a kind of category error.

And even further, St Paul's conclusion is that since all mankind has fallen into sin - even Israel / the Jews - the solution for the problem of unrighteousness is the righteousness of faithfulness to Christ, which is a grace given by Christ Jesus. And, the RCC teaching (I am not RCC and do not hold to it) absolutely affirms St Paul's stance here by explicitly saying that Mary the Theotokos is made righteous not through a personal grace or charism, but grace given by God, through faith in God. So whether you agree with the RCC teaching or not, it is incorrect to say that it is unscriptural and point to Romans 3 or any of the scriptures St Paul quotes as evidence.
FTACo88-FDT24dad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
10andBOUNCE said:

What's the application then of something like this in our lives? Is it possible that God could have stopped this from happening and sustain both the baby and Mary in a unique way?


God is omnipotent and omniscient so I don't know if it's useful to ask if something is possible for God to stop. Why would someone think of this from the perspective of wanting God to do something to prevent micorchimerism in the case of Mary and Jesus?

I think the more interesting question is how the Incarnation informs what micorchimerism might mean in this context. We should think about it in terms of how we understand the full humanity of Jesus. The dogma of the Incarnation is that Jesus Christ was fully God and fully man in all things except sin, without confusion or mixing of his two natures. This is the hypostatic union. So, if microchimerism is part of what it means to be fully human, then it seems not only safe but necessary to assume that it occurred when Jesus was in the womb of Mary.

Perhaps the next thing we should ask is how the Immaculate Conception might relate to the "commingling" of Jesus and Mary's cells and DNA.

 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.