The God Checker

[Mriana]

The God Checker

 

They have many gods and goddesses listed there, but I found this funny:

 

St. Mary

Also known as MARY THE BLESSED VIRGIN (The Visitation of the Blessed Virgin Mary (Anglican/Episcopal Book of Common Prayer, a feast day) is celebrated May 31, which happens to be my B-day and did I mention I can't stand my given name?)

 

The Holy Blessed Mother of JESUS. And, according to the New Testament in the Holy Bible, his brothers and sisters too.

 

She did not become 'The Mother of God' until 431 when a council in a church at Epheus, which claimed to hold her holy remains, decreed it so.

 

By rights we feel she should be the Patron of Virgin Births and Nativity Plays. We're not sure how her parents ANNE and JOACHIM felt about all this publicity.

 

If this is true, then this really puts a cramp in the Christian birth story. I would also change the word "virgin" to miraculous, because the story is just one more miraculous birth story, much like others before it. That and what the story is based of (Isaiah 7:14) the original Hebrew was almah meaning young maiden, not necessarily a virgin. OK so Luke and Matthew wrote after Mark and Mark never makes mention (and it is doubtful that he even knew of) a virgin birth. Paul wrote before Mark (19 to 34 years after J.C.'s supposed death ~ Spong) and never mentioned one word about a virgin birth either. Matt and Luke come along later and take from past mythology, as well as twist Isaiah 7:14, using midrash) and create a new legend. Mark (wrote 10 to 15 years after Paul, according to Spong), depending on which scholar you listen to, wrote 40 (Spong's date) to 50 years after the supposed death of the man called Jesus. The dating, some later than what I just said, depends whether you are talking to a conservative scholar or one who is not ~ Price dates them later that and I have his dating some where here.

 

OK Given what we know 1. there were no eyewitnesses, obviously. 2. They were great writers in their time or they would not have drawn so much attention 3. If Mary was not the Mother of God until after the Church deemed her as such in 431, then um... Who was the mother? Or better yet, this makes it even more obvious it is just a story.

 

However, I have a problem with this site and I rarely say this, but given they have nothing to back it up, what is their source? I click the resource area and go to Biblical Religion. KJV is the worst source, but OK let's move on and we find Encyclopedias Not the best or the worst, but you cannot get all the info you need from a single entry of an Encyclopedia. It's on a summery at best, but we'll go with it for now, since it is the easiest to access on the net, rather than books.

 

Wicked-pedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blessed_Virgin_Mary gives the same info though:

 

The Blessed Virgin Mary, sometimes shortened to the Blessed Virgin or the Virgin Mary, is a traditional title used by most Christians and most specifically used by liturgical Christians such as Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholics, and some others to describe Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ.

 

Since the first century, devotion to the Virgin Mary has been a major element of the spiritual life of a vast number of Christians, primarily in Catholicism. From the Council of Ephesus in 431 to Vatican II and Pope John Paul II's encyclical Redemptoris Mater, the Virgin Mary has come to be seen not only as the Mother of God but also as the Mother of the Church, a Mediatrix who intercedes to Jesus Christ and even a proposed Co-Redemptrix.

 

This is getting more condemning of the Church as we go along and we are finding one lie piled upon another.

 

The Catholic Church starts to damn itself http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm due to three different tradition about her, with no mention of a date for the visitation:

 

The birth of Mary

 

As to the place of the birth of Our Blessed Lady, there are three different traditions to be considered.

 

First, the event has been placed in Bethlehem. This opinion rests on the authority of the following witnesses: it is expressed in a writing entitled "De nativ. S. Mariae" [36] inserted after the works of St. Jerome; it is more or less vaguely supposed by the Pilgrim of Piacenza, erroneously called Antoninus Martyr, who wrote about A.D. 580 [37]; finally the popes Paul II (1471), Julius II (1507), Leo X (1519), Paul III (1535), Pius IV (1565), Sixtus V (1586), and Innocent XII (1698) in their Bulls concerning the Holy House of Loreto say that the Blessed Virgin was born, educated, and greeted by the angel in the Holy House. But these pontiffs hardly wish to decide an historical question; they merely express the opinion of their respective times.

 

A second tradition placed the birth of Our Blessed Lady in Sephoris, about three miles north of Bethlehem, the Roman Diocaesarea, and the residence of Herod Antipas till late in the life of Our Lord. The antiquity of this opinion may be inferred from the fact that under Constantine a church was erected in Sephoris to commemorate the residence of Joachim and Anna in that place [38]. St. Epiphanius speaks of this sanctuary [39]. But this merely shows that Our Blessed Lady may have lived in Sephoris for a time with her parents, without forcing us to believe that she had been born there.

 

The third tradition, that Mary was born in Jerusalem, is the most probable one. We have seen that it rests upon the testimony of St. Sophronius, St. John Damascene, and upon the evidence of the recent finds in the Probatica. The Feast of Our Lady's Nativity was not celebrated in Rome till toward the end of the seventh century; but two sermons found among the writings of St. Andrew of Crete (d. 680) suppose the existence of this feat, and lead one to suspect that it was introduced at an earlier date into some other churches [40]. In 799 the 10th canon of the Synod of Salzburg prescribes four feasts in honour of the Mother of God: the Purification, 2 February; the Annunciation, 25 March; the Assumption, 15 August; the Nativity, 8 September.

 

Further more:

 

As to tradition, there is some testimony for Mary's temporary residence in or near Ephesus, but the evidence for her permanent home in Jerusalem is much stronger.

 

Arguments for Ephesus

 

Mary's Ephesian residence rests on the following evidence:

 

(1) A passage in the synodal letter of the Council of Ephesus [111] reads: "Wherefore also Nestorius, the instigator of the impious heresy, when he had come to the city of the Ephesians, where John the Theologian and the Virgin Mother of God St. Mary, estranging himself of his own accord from the gathering of the holy Fathers and Bishops. . ." Since St. John had lived in Ephesus and had been buried there [112], it has been inferred that the ellipsis of the synodal letter means either, "where John. . .and the Virgin. . .Mary lived", or, "where John. . .and the Virgin. . .Mary lived and are buried".

 

(2) Bar-Hebraeus or Abulpharagius, a Jacobite bishop of the thirteenth century, relates that St. John took the Blessed Virgin with him to Patmos, then founded the Church of Ephesus, and buried Mary no one knows where. [113]

 

(3) Benedict XIV [114] states that Mary followed St. John to Ephesus and died there. He intended also to remove from the Breviary those lessons which mention Mary's death in Jerusalem, but died before carrying out his intention. [115]

 

(4) Mary's temporary residence and death in Ephesus are upheld by such writers as Tillemont [116], Calmet [117], etc.

 

(5) In Panaghia Kapoli, on a hill about nine or ten miles distant from Ephesus, was discovered a house, or rather its remains, in which Mary is supposed to have lived. The house was found, as it had been sought, according to the indications given by Catherine Emmerich in her life of the Blessed Virgin.

 

Arguments against Ephesus

 

On closer inspection these arguments for Mary's residence or burial in Ephesus are not unanswerable.

 

(1) The ellipsis in the synodal letter of the Council of Ephesus may be filled out in such a way as not to imply the assumption that Our Blessed Lady either lived or died in Ephesus. As there was in the city a double church dedicated to the Virgin Mary and to St. John, the incomplete clause of the synodal letter may be completed so as to read, "where John the Theologian and the Virgin. . .Mary have a sanctuary". This explanation of the ambiguous phrase is one of the two suggested in the margin in Labbe's Collect. Concil. (l.c.) [118]

 

(2) The words of Bar-Hebraeus contain two inaccurate statements; for St. John did not found the Church of Ephesus, nor did he take Mary with him to Patmos. St. Paul founded the Ephesian Church, and Mary was dead before John's exile in Patmos. It would not be surprising, therefore, if the writer were wrong in what he says about Mary's burial. Besides, Bar-Hebraeus belongs to the thirteenth century; the earlier writers had been most anxious about the sacred places in Ephesus; they mention the tomb of St. John and of a daughter of Philip [119], but they say nothing about Mary's burying place.

 

(3) As to Benedict XIV, this great pontiff is not so emphatic about Mary's death and burial in Ephesus, when he speaks about her Assumption in heaven.

 

(4) Neither Benedict XIV nor the other authorities who uphold the Ephesian claims, advance any argument that has not been found inconclusive by other scientific students of this question.

 

(5) The house found in Panaghia-Kapouli is of any weight only in so far as it is connected with the visions of Catherine Emmerich. Its distance from the city of Ephesus creates a presumption against its being the home of the Apostle St. John. The historical value of Catherine's visions is not universally admitted. Mgr. Timoni, Archbishop of Smyrna, writes concerning Panaghia-Kapouli: "Every one is entire free to keep his personal opinion". Finally the agreement of the condition of the ruined house in Panaghia-Kapouli with Catherine's description does not necessarily prove the truth of her statement as to the history of the building. [120]

 

If you follow the link to the Council of Ephesus you get the date 431 for when it was held. Humm..... Also seems there was a bit of a brew-haha too, with an excommunication.

 

Digging further into an Anglican website http://www.allsaintssanfran.org/Virgin%20Mary/veneration_of_mary.htm More info than you really want to know, even some B.S., but no info concerning 431 C. E.

 

Here is an Episcopal source that mentions the date 431 C. E. http://www.episcopalchurch.org/19625_12821_ENG_HTM.htm

 

Early in church history she was honored and esteemed. Irenaeus called her the New Eve, Athanasius taught her perpetual virginity, and the Council of Ephesus in 431 declared her Theotokos, Mother of God, because of the hypostatic union of divinity and humanity in the one person Jesus Christ. Anglicanism has not generally accepted beliefs concerning Mary's perpetual virginity or bodily assumption to heaven after her death, but some hold these views as pious opinions. In addition to Christmas, feasts associated with Mary include the Presentation, the Annunciation, and the Visitation. Mary the Virgin is commemorated in the Episcopal calendar of the church year on Aug. 15. See Hail Mary.

 

My ending conclusion is that of the Archbishop of Canterbury- the virgin birth story is a legend (AKA myth) and that of Bishop Spong's- a myth. Not to mention the Catholic priest in Bill Maher's "Religulous", who said, "People need their fairy tales". Like J.C., if there ever was a Mary: Mother of Jesus, the story about her is even more fictionalized than John Jake's North and South. She never existed, at least not as presented in the Bible. So throw away your prayer beads and screw the Hail Mary's: http://cathedralsoul.us/rosary.htm Nobody is freaking listening or intervening. It is a waste of time, but um... If you have the rose scented prayer candles, as I do, keep them. They smell soooooo good! And such a scent is too good to throw away, esp when it makes your home smell like roses and without the allergens.

[Shyone]

As Mary gets more and more Holy, we'll have to start praying to some other saint to pray to Mary to Pray to Jesus to Pray to God.

 

I hope they are better at passing messages along than my elementary school class was.

[Vixentrox]

Only thing special about Mary is she is the ficticous girl god raped.

[Mriana]

Yes, this is all true.

 

Check this critique by a Rabbi, who basically states she is a moon goddess: http://www.geocities.com/zanmeiyeshua/STHG-about-Mary.html He shreds the Mary story to bits and shows how it is just more rewritten mythology.

 

And then there is this sick puppy statement, made by an Episcopal Deacon during a homily: http://saintmichaels.episcopaloklahoma.org/worship/sermons.html

 

Mary – a child herself, unmarried, willingly accepting God’s presence in her body, and the shame and disgrace that that entailed from people who did not understand...

 

Now I realize that during the 1st century, females were considered women when they reached puberty, but you would think people would grow beyond this in this day and age, given that we consider females still children (except those who practice Islam) until they are at least 18 years old. Thus, what this deacon stated makes the story so archaic, that it should no longer be considered useful or even relevant in this day and age, regardless if one believes the virgin myth or not. If one still appreciate a child giving birth, then I would assume they have a problem. The problem with this is, the idea of submission. It is easy to make children submit (not sure where I read about Mary and submission, but I saw it some where). However, the Islamic have a similar view of Mary and submission: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_view_of_Virgin_Mary

 

For Muslims she is a symbol of submission to God and piety.

 

Not much difference from what I was reading in a Christian version.

 

The miracle of the palm-tree

 

The miracle of the palm-tree which is mentioned in the Quran but not in the Bible is an important miracle for Muslims. In this narration, Mary finds herself behind a withered palm-tree in the wilderness and she wishes if she had died before this. The voice of God cries out to her "shake the trunk of the palm-tree toward thee, thou wilt cause ripe dates to fall upon thee" (Quran 19:25)

 

Didn't Jesus curse the fig tree in the Bible? Same song and dance, different words.

 

I can't find what I was reading where even in Xianity she is viewed as the ultimate symbol of submission to God. But this is good enough for evidence:

 

The Immaculate Conception of Mary represents God's saving grace at work, in recognition of Mary's complete submission to His Will.

from http://catholicism.about.com/od/prayers/tp/Prayers_December.htm I know of some Evangelicals who speak of the virgin birth is a similar manner too, but beyond that, they don't hold too much more reverence for her.

 

Submission. Sounds like a term for slavery. In reality, all this submission is to the Church, nothing more and Mary's submission is a just a story for a brainwashing in how to do it, minus the virgin birth of course. BUT for women, they are to stay a virgin until their wedding night, just like the virgin Mary did. Sounds like chastity laws, as well as chains of slavery, with the human male in control of her. This story book woman was meant to be a role model for women, but it shows more patriarchy than anything else.

[Skeptic]

If Mary was not the Mother of God until after the Church deemed her as such in 431, then um... Who was the mother?

 

That would be a great episode of Maury. There would be Mary and some other chick and Maury would try to determine which woman is the mother while they both cuss each other out and claw at each other. Then Solomon would be in the audience and suggest that they just cut Jesus in half. "No! We must crucify him first!" they would say. For the record, I don't watch Maury, I just know that it exists and I know the kinds of crap that they put on that show.

[Mriana]

If Mary was not the Mother of God until after the Church deemed her as such in 431, then um... Who was the mother?

 

That would be a great episode of Maury. There would be Mary and some other chick and Maury would try to determine which woman is the mother while they both cuss each other out and claw at each other. Then Solomon would be in the audience and suggest that they just cut Jesus in half. "No! We must crucify him first!" they would say. For the record, I don't watch Maury, I just know that it exists and I know the kinds of crap that they put on that show.

 

That's too funny.

[mwc]

I'm totally confused. Is the OP written as to say that the idea of Mary and the virgin birth of "jesus" was unknown until 431 CE? I have a text file with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (2nd century) and there were numerous mentions of Mary as the virgin mother of "the lord" as per the gospel narrative (I didn't really read too much more than just do the quick search but it seems that G.Luke is the narrative they took from but I don't want to commit to that).

 

I'm pretty sure if I put more effort into this I'd find more mentions in the 2nd and 3rd centuries as well. Perhaps it is the exact phrasing "mother of god" that I am supposed to be looking for? I didn't find that. I found, according to them, that Mary, a virgin, gave birth to the son of god as per the prophecy in Isaiah.

 

mwc

[Mriana]

I'm totally confused. Is the OP written as to say that the idea of Mary and the virgin birth of "jesus" was unknown until 431 CE? I have a text file with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (2nd century) and there were numerous mentions of Mary as the virgin mother of "the lord" as per the gospel narrative (I didn't really read too much more than just do the quick search but it seems that G.Luke is the narrative they took from but I don't want to commit to that).

 

I'm pretty sure if I put more effort into this I'd find more mentions in the 2nd and 3rd centuries as well. Perhaps it is the exact phrasing "mother of god" that I am supposed to be looking for? I didn't find that. I found, according to them, that Mary, a virgin, gave birth to the son of god as per the prophecy in Isaiah.

 

mwc

 

No, I don't think so. I think what they are saying was she was not recognized by the Church as having any significant roll until 431. Keep in mind that they fought over what books should be canonized also- I think this was later, about a hundred years later. It too was a crazed brewhaha. There were Xians before any of this, but like now, there were several different sects and none or few of them agreed. Thus the Church was formed in order to have a[n] [imposed] consensus of Xianity. I think what we are seeing is basically the same thing with Mary, and like Jesus, they lifted historical fiction into some real historical realm when it never was.