Originally posted by EricD
As there is no conspiracy here, this thread might find a better home in BTS.

Eric

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
don't you find it interesting that the virgin Mary is always depicted as a white caucasian. If she had of been born in the middle east. She would surely have more middle eastern features, rather than western features?

Originally posted by silent thunder
But The Virgin Mary is how I know Her, and even leaving aside the rest of it all and her possible earlier incarnations, Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Marianism is fascinating and profound in its own right.

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
the virgin Mary is always depicted as a white caucasian.

Originally posted by silent thunder
the immaculate conception,

Originally posted by helen670
What one may call 'virgin worship' another calls Intercessor!
There is a DIFFERENCE!

Originally posted by helen670
Saints are known to be mediators as well.
It is from the Old Testament....
It is found in the New Testament.
It is found in the LOGOS of God.
It is truth as Scripture testifies this to be true.
The Word of God does not LIE!

Is Veneration of Mary Idolatry?

BECAUSE religion has so much sentiment associated with it many persons shrink from discussing it. But such is a mistake, for how can we be certain we have the truth if we refuse to make comparisons? Rather, we should be willing to do as the apostle Paul counsels: “Test all things; hold fast that which is good.”—1 Thess. 5:21, CB.

Of course, if religious discussion is to be profitable and enlightening, it must be done in a calm, dispassionate, objective manner. We must be willing to reason on the subject in the light of the Scriptures. And especially is this the case when discussing such a controversial subject as, Is veneration of Mary a form of idolatry?—Isa. 1:18.

Catholic theologians emphatically deny that the veneration of Mary is a form of idolatry, insisting that the veneration they accord Mary is not the particular kind of worship they render to God; their “devotion to the Blessed Virgin” is only a “relative” form of worship. Is that position Scriptural?

As Christians we are concerned with pleasing Jehovah God, and in view of his repeated warnings to the effect that he is a God “exacting exclusive devotion,” a “jealous God,” we must be careful lest we give any creature the devotion due only to the Creator. (Deut. 6:15, NW; Rom. 1:25) That it is easy to fall into the snare of idolatry is seen from the fact that Samuel charged King Saul with idolatry because he failed to obey Jehovah’s command. Both Paul and John warned Christians to avoid idolatry; not that these were deliberately giving another the worship due Jehovah, but that inasmuch as they attached undue importance to other persons or things they made for themselves idols.—Col. 3:5; 1 John 5:21.

The veneration of Mary is based on sentiment rather than on the Bible. It is, no doubt, due to man’s tendency to be sentimental regarding his mother and to idealize the virgin state. To the extent that Mary is given devotion and undue importance, to that extent veneration of her becomes idolatry. And Catholic theologians must be taxed with giving Mary undue importance. For example, in the Greek Scriptures we find but some fifty references to Mary, the mother of Jesus, but 1,750 references to Jesus Christ the Son, and 1,850 to God the Father. In fact, there is but a single reference to her in all the Acts of the apostles and she is ignored entirely in all the letters by Paul, James, Peter, Jude and John.

In striking contrast with all this we find in the Catholic Encyclopedia 22 pages devoted to Virgin Mary, but only 14 to God and only 11 to Jesus Christ. In other words, this Catholic authority gives Mary a relative importance 55 times as great as does the Bible in regard to God and 70 times as great in regard to Jesus Christ.

The veneration of Mary is based on the teaching of intercession by saints, regarding which there is nothing in the Scriptures. It developed gradually and was not extensively taught until the early part of the Middle Ages, from the fifth to the eighth century after Christ, nor fully developed until the later part of the Middle Ages, from the eleventh to the fifteenth century.

First in 1854 was “the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary” made a dogma, and that in direct contradiction of the plain Scriptural teaching that all have sinned, that all are sinners, that none are righteous. (Rom. 3:10-12; 5:12) Nothing is said about Mary’s being an exception. Had she been sinless she could not have died a “natural” death.

And it was as late as 1950 that the pope called a secret consistory to vote on making the tradition that Mary had ascended into heaven in her human body a dogma of the church, the “Assumption”; also in direct contradiction of the Scriptures that plainly state: “Flesh and blood can obtain no part in the kingdom of God, neither shall corruption have any part in incorruption.” (1 Cor. 15:50, CB) The fact that some of the princes of the church voted “No” on this matter would seem to indicate that they are not thoroughly convinced that the pope is infallible in doctrine!

Indicating the trend to give Mary ever more importance are the words of John A. Flynn, president of Catholic St. John’s University in Brooklyn, New York. According to him it is not unlikely that Mary will be “proclaimed in a definition of doctrine as Co-Redemptrix of the human race, that next the dogma of Mediatrix of all graces may be promulgated, and that finally the definition of her queenship, as participation with her Son in the power of ruling the World, may be proclaimed. . . . It is likely that all three of these may come to realization before another century passes because the importance of Mary in the universe has come more and more to the fore.”—Time magazine, March 22, 1954.

CO-REDEMPTRIX, MEDEATRIX AND QUEEN?

Again we ask, what do the Scriptures say? Do they support Flynn’s position or do they indicate that such is a form of idolatry?

In introducing Jesus as “the Lamb of of God, who takes away the sin of the world,” John the Baptist said nothing about Jesus’ having a co-redemptrix. Nor did Jesus himself when he referred to his redemptive work: “The Son of Man has not come to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”—John 1:29; Matt. 20:28, CB.

Note also Peter’s unequivocal words in this matter. Referring to Christ Jesus he stated: “Neither is there salvation in any other. For there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12, CB) Those words do not allow for a co-redemptrix. Nor do Paul’s words at Romans 5:17-19 (CB). “For if by reason of the one man’s offense death reigned through the one man, much more will they who receive the abundance of the grace and of the gift of justice reign in life through one Jesus Christ. Therefore as from the offense of the one man the result was unto condemnation to all men, so from the justice of the one the result is unto justification of life to all men. For just as by the disobedience of one man the many were constituted sinners, so also by the obedience of one the many will be constituted just.” In fact, Paul’s entire argument regarding the redemptive work of Christ Jesus falls flat if we include Mary as a co-redemptrix. And further note that the great crowd which John saw in the Apocalyptic vision were saying: “Salvation belongs to our God, who sits upon the throne, and to the Lamb.” Again, not a word about salvation as also being due to Mary.—Rev. 7:10, CB.

And what about Mary’s being the “Mediatrix of all graces”? We are told that “there is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, himself man, Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all.” (1 Tim. 2:5, 6, CB) Jesus himself stated that “no one comes to the Father but through me.” John tells of only Jesus’ being “an advocate with the Father.” The law covenant between God and the nation of Israel did not need a mediatrix, neither does the new covenant which replaced it. Time and again Jesus is termed the mediator of the new covenant but nowhere do we read of a mediatrix of that covenant.—John 14:6; 1 John 2:1.

And finally we ask, Do the Scriptures support the claim Mary will participate “with her Son in the power of ruling the World”? After his resurrection Jesus stated that “all power in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” (Matt. 28:18, CB) He said nothing about his mother’s ruling with him. David, Isaiah, Daniel and others foretold Christ’s glorious reign but nowhere did they indicate that he will have his mother as a co-queen. Paul states that Christ will reign until all things are made subject to his feet, and that this “all things” includes all except Jehovah God. Included therefore is his mother Mary; she will also be subject to him, not reigning as co-queen. Sharing Christ’s rule will be his bride, his church, not his mother.—Rev. 19:7, 8.

Nor can the Apocalyptic vision of a woman clothed with the sun be used to prove that Mary will be co-queen. (Rev. 12:1-6) That woman could not be Mary, for John’s vision applied to the future, and was given a hundred years after Mary had given birth to Jesus. (Rev. 1:1-3) That woman is God’s woman, his organization: “Jerusalem which is above” and “which is our mother.”—Gal. 4:26, CB.

Clearly in view of all the foregoing, the devotion and ever-increasing prominence accorded to Mary is in contradiction of the Scriptures and indicates that veneration of Mary is a form of idolatry.