From the biblical point of view it is important and not after the schisms but also among the first Christians, it is a lighter of life
, it is not heresyWas Mary Sinless?
- Thread starter randyk
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
, it is not heresy
Sorry, what is the "it" that you say is important, and is a lighter of life and not heresy?From the biblical point of view it is important and not after the schisms but also among the first Christians, it is a lighter of life
Well I mean that it is not heresy to believe in the mother from conception, the first Christians already made him they did from it, I consider him sinful not believing
The first Protestants had schism mainly because of their figure in Christianity, but many of them were worshipers of Sat since they later began to support LGBT rights as in the British Anglican Protestant as well as various Mormon branches
Those are not the real Christians
I do believe that Mary was the mother of Jesus.
I don't understand what you men by, "the first Christians already made him they did from it."
I also don't understand what you mean about the first Protest-ants having schism because of their figure in Christianity. Most, if not all Protestants believe that Jesus Christ is the central figure in Christianity.
By no means all who are Protestants support LGBT rights.
I agree that Mormonism is not a Christian group, but what have Morons got to do with what we are discussing?
Greetings! Perhaps I can clarify the issue. The bodies of the Reformation such as Anglican, Lutheran and the Reformed all affirm that Mary is the Mother of God, in accordance with our doctrine of Christ. It is confessed in the Formula of Concord, part of the Lutheran Confessions. So we do not denigrate Mary, but we also do not attribute things to her that are at best not revealed in Scripture. Such things as the Immaculate Conception, the perpetual virginity, Mary as the mediatrix of all graces, etc..
12] 7. Hence we believe, teach, and confess that Mary conceived and bore not a mere man and no more, but the true Son of God; therefore she also is rightly called and truly is the mother of God.
Concordia Triglotta—English: The Symbolical Books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Electronic ed., Northwestern Publishing House, 1996, p. 821.
24] On account of this personal union and communion of the natures, Mary, the most blessed Virgin, bore not a mere man, but, as the angel [Gabriel] testifies, such a man as is truly the Son of the most high God, who showed His divine majesty even in His mother’s womb, inasmuch as He was born of a virgin, with her virginity inviolate. Therefore she is truly the mother of God, and nevertheless remained a virgin.
Concordia Triglotta—English: The Symbolical Books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Electronic ed., Northwestern Publishing House, 1996, p. 1023.
yes, this is exactly how the Reformers handled Mary—honoring her without going beyond Scripture. The title Mother of God is not about elevating Mary; it’s about safeguarding the doctrine of the Incarnation. If Jesus is truly God and truly man in one person, then the one who bore Him is rightly called Theotokos—the God‑bearer. Lutherans, Anglicans, and the Reformed all kept that language because it protects the unity of Christ’s person. At the same time, they refused to build doctrines where Scripture is silent. They honored Mary as blessed among women, affirmed her role in salvation history, and defended her title as Mother of God, but they stopped short of dogmas like the Immaculate Conception or universal mediation because those lack biblical grounding. So your clarification is exactly right: the Reformers didn’t diminish Mary—they simply refused to attribute to her anything that would obscure Christ’s unique role as Savior and Mediator
While not mentioned by name, Mary is mentioned in 8 verses in John. Also, she is sort of alluded to in Galatians 4:4.
Just as a side note, it might be interesting see what scripture has with regard to the Messiah's attitude toward her.
There are only 3 times mentioned where He spoke to her. And He seemed to be a bit perturbed with her 2 of those times. The 3rd time He merely told her to look at her son.
Also, He only spoke 2 times with regard to what someone said about her and again His responses couldn't be considered very flattering. There never seemed to be any warmth shown between them.
And then, as touched on, there is the fact that other than Galatians 4:4 - previously mentioned - saying that the Messiah was born of a woman, none of the epistle writers ever mention her in any of their letters, including the one to the church at Rome and the two by Peter.
Galatians 4:4 says:
NKJV Gal 4:4 But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law,
"Sort of alluded to" surely wouldn't be enough if we were supposed to treat her as an important figure in Christianity. The Christians in Galatia weren't even told her name!
Agreed.
Perhaps your comment that "...it is remarkable in the extreme that she is only mentioned in the first three gospels..." may have been more clear as to the intent of your comment if you had added "by name" after "mentioned".
Jesus’ recorded interactions with Mary are few, and that in two of them He corrects her (Luke 2:49; John 2:4), but I confess that His corrections are not irritation or distance; they are the same kind of redirection He gives to anyone who tries to relate to Him according to earthly categories rather than His divine mission. When He says, “Woman, what is that to Me?” He is not diminishing her; He is asserting that His messianic timetable is governed by the Father, not maternal expectation. When He says, “Who is My mother?” He is not rejecting her; He is teaching that the kingdom is defined by obedience, not biology. And when He entrusts her to John at the cross, He is performing an act of covenantal care, not cold detachment. So I reject the idea that Jesus lacked warmth toward Mary or treated her dismissively; the New Testament simply refuses to elevate her beyond her role in redemptive history. The epistles do not mention her because their focus is Christ, His gospel, His church, and His return—not because Mary lacked honor, but because the apostles refused to build a Marian theology Scripture never gives.