This doesn't touch the more broad topic of asking the dead to intercede.
(inb4 "It's asking the living to intercede. They're not dead." I'm not arguing their state with that statement. You know what a woman is; you know what I mean by dead.)

I almost find the broader topic unnecessary to address because--of all the dead--Mary is the go-to GOAT, the frequent, the common, the mentioned, the Hail Mary.

I would go so far as to say the broader idea is held fervently primarily for the sake of being able to ask Mary to intercede.

This reminds me of how women love to talk about how special it is to be a mother when all you did was let a dude shoot cum in you and push a baby out 9 months later

She carried a child just like billions of females have. The child is what was special and she played no part. This doesnt mean she wasnt a very devout Israelite. She was. Tte gospel of james strongly atrests to this. Even if it wasnt "inspired", it still pretends to record believed history written at the time she lived. But catholics take it far beyond that and bestow special powers on her

>Only she can truly and accurately be described as the literal portal through which God entered the world and human history.

This is not correct. God walked the earth in many other forms, some very human. He met with Abraham and wrestled with Jacob. Jesus was a particular manifestation he took for a particular purpose, to fulfill a particular prophecy pertaining to the salvation of Israelites who had been cut off.

God cum.

But yes i know that. I was referrimg to normal women, not god-bearers. Youd think being a jizz dumpster was a difficult task

>inherited Human Nature from His literal flesh-and-blood mother

I do not believe this.

>Statements about her, are therefore statements about Him.

No, statements about Mary would not be statements about Christ.

For the sake of argument, let's begin with your claim being true.

If Mary being the portal by which He received His Human Nature makes it so that statements about Mary are statements about Him, then it follows *necessarily* that statements about Mary's mother (and father, but we'll leave that alone for simplicity) are statements about Him, as Mary received *her* human nature from her mother.

And so on the logic *necessarily* flows until you *must* say (by the demand of the logic of the claim, not by the convenient point at which the claim wants one to stop) that statements about even Eve--and every woman from the direct line of Eve to Mary--are statements about Him.

Let's apply the distinction that the previous women were indirect portals while Mary is the direct portal. This suddenly drops the distinction--the inheritance of the human nature--that we said made Mary distinct in the first place (that which she gave to Christ). The logic of the claim rends the claim.

Aside from the beg of "Father, Son, and... ?" the entire wrestling of Mary's nature and the elevation of her status is from trying to satisfy the question of "How is Christ sinless, though born of a fallen person--when that is the same way by which one is said to be in sin? What is different about Christ's state?" The answer is not something special about someone other than Christ--not even Mary.

I trace the reasoning and the answer in the one omni-comment (lol) I wrote to address all above comments in the other fork of this thread, here:

nicecrew.digital/objects/c198b…

Ash (@Ash_Kvetchum@nicecrew.digital)

(In the green text below, I'm not quoting the comment immediately above. I'm quoting the points within this fork of the thread that were in response to my OP as well as the responses to those, in o...

^{nicecrew.digital}

You keep talking about long dead men im not terribly concerned with. Im not citing anyone or repeating anothers opinion. I think that logically the idea that God "inherited" something for Mary is false. The creation doesnt give to the creator.

Im genuinely not trying to be confrontational. I just disagree with things you say from a logical standpoint, based on what the bible does say, not what it doesnt.

This is rather pedantic.

Not sure if serious and requires a response.

I think we are off track. When you said "Mary gave God his himanity" or however you phrased it. it made it sound like she had soemthing he did not. Furthermore it makes it sound like she has something other humans do not (well it has to be Mary yadda yadda).

Yes, a human can "give" God a physical "gift" like a sacrifice, whether it is tangible or not (take this sheep - I will stop drinking). But a human can not "give" God something he doesnt already have, and they definitely cant impart anything on Him. He doesnt "need" us. This is a very jewish way of thinking, as if jews say these sorts of things, not that you are being jewish🙄. Like how they thinl they can trick Him, as if God is a man like you and I and vall fall for guile.

>Survivorship bias is the logical error of concentrating on entities that passed a selection process while overlooking those that did not. This can lead to incorrect conclusions because of incomplete data.

I find this very pertinent in most theological discussions.

I posted am article the other day about rape in ultra orthodoz jewish communities. This rabbi saw a 7 year old boy speared on some dude in a bath house, and he was destroyed for talking about it. These are the people whp control judaism. Now im not saying the early church fathers raped kids, but only that people want to assume their actions were divinely guided without evidence to it. Its Dues ex machina.
>well God made it this way to move the plot forward
Okay...but where is the evidence?
>Well God did it so stop questioning God.

The early church fathers didnt even know enough to understand who the lost Israelite were, even though Jesus explicitly says it, and that He came only for them. Its a basic logic problem. So forgive me if im skeptical about their opinions when built on a faulty foundation. 🤷‍♀️

>spiritual descent from Abraham, through Faith

There is no such thing.

problem with spiritual decent is God made no such promise. He promised Abrahams descendants, his seed.

Now you could argue the part where it says "all families will be blessed". Didn't really specify what that blessing was.

What faith.

Also this is an
>if p then q
Statement. That means it follows rules of logic and has a defined outcome for who is being referenced.

No i know this. And youre a good sport. Im glad we keep it civil and o hope you dont think im beimg an ass. I just dont think thats what it says. The bible isnt all anout 1 people group only then suddenly anout a mystical "body of believers" just because they wanted it to be. In tye same way the edomites couldnt become Israelites by being called "jews."

You have to accept thst there are some groups who literally can never recieve eternal life because it says so so many times.

Hebrews 8:8 says only the house of israel and judah will receive the new covenant. Quoting jer 30:30.

Also
Gal 3
>6 Thus Abraham “believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.” 7 So you see that it is men of faith who are the sons of Abraham

The faith is not YOURS. The faith was Abrahams. It explicitly says this. Again in verse 29

> 29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.

If you belong to Christ, then you are the SEED of Abraham. No one who belongs to Christ is not Abrahams seed. Put differently, if you are not biologically the seed of Abraham, you do not belong to Christ. Full stop. And the word SEED is a biological word. The Greeks had no idea what a "spiritual" seed might be. It is the same word.

You cannot wish your way into a covenant between 2 foreign parties anymore than you can show up at tlmy will reading and ask for money.

"The gentile"

Ive had all these arguments years ago here which is why i generally dont this anymore, but that doesnt say what you think it does. And if it DOES, then Paul contradicts himself frequently and isnt inspired.

I think anyone would agree that there are claims not explicit in the text of scripture but that can (and should) be extrapolated. For example, in the four testimonies Christ doesn't say explicitly the exact words "I am God"--and atheists think that's a trump. But we know that we can extrapolate from "before Abraham was, I AM" and other statements He gives, and we know that God had previously said He would come and gather His sheep scattered, that He would be the good shepherd--and many more points in scripture that clearly support and necessitate that Christ is God. We can extrapolate clearly to the conclusion. And then more conclusions from there, sure.

So it isn't automatically false when someone states something not explicitly stated in scripture, we see--but there must be the basis in scripture *and* it must not contradict other passages of scripture (unless one also claims the specific passage contradicting is a later addition that doesn't belong or was corrupted, whether purposefully or by accident).

No where does scripture explicitly say that Mary was sinless, and no where in scripture is there a passage that implicitly necessitates that she was sinless. It does however say in scripture that none were righteous, that all were fallen, and it does say that the Israelites--and Mary was an Israelite--were condemned to death by the law, as the Bride had been adulterous. These--which are in scripture--would contradict Mary being sinless.

The reason Mary not being sinless matters (in the context of this conversation, not as a whole) is that the claims the RCC makes about her (that she did not die an earthly death and/or that she chose to set aside her life) are only necessary *if* she were sinless.
And we know from scripture that it *cannot be* that she was sinless, as she was 1) of Adam, 2) an Israelite--meaning of the Bride condemned by the law, as told by God through the prophets as we have received through scripture, regardless of a recieved (man-handled) tradition offering a contradiction that's not scripturally based and is an unnecessary exception.

The reason this matters is that this inflation of Mary's nature is the basis for the inflated emphasis of Mary's role or ability in intercession.

I would point out that the beat of "The Father, the Son, and the... " begs for "Mother", and the RCC puts Mary in that role--not going so far as to make her God-- but "Mother of us all," "sinless," "Queen in Heaven," "closest to God for intercession."

A typology of Eve seems diluted and inflated, consumed, lost in the sauce, by a member-of-the-Godhead typology given to Mary by the language and claims of Mary's nature the RCC uses ("sinless," "Mother of us," "Queen in Heaven," "closest to God for intercession," etc.). Granted, of course, not quite a Mother that's part of the Godhead, but approaching closer to that than to only the nature, role, and importance explicitly given in scripture or that which can be extrapolated with a scriptural basis.

(just a good animal for your time)

I read that - thanks for clarifying! I'll post here so I'm not jumping in your convo.

For me, it's a pair of simple thought processes. We're called to pray for each other > The prayers of the righteous are valuable > The saints are living witnesses = It's okay to pray for saints.

Second, we see that Mary has /some/ special place. Being called κεχαριτωμένη, the contrast in typology to Eve seen with her being called "Woman," her lack of earthly death, the way Christ entrusted her to the Apostle John as an adoptive mother suggesting that she is a spiritual mother who cares for us. So, placing her above the other saints seems fitting.

I think it can be taken too far (just like any good thing; a devotion to icons or a focus on the letter of the law). But our belief that she is sinless is more focused on who she is, rather than our desire to have her intercede for us. I don't know that it would really degrade her place as the greatest of saints if she had sinned. The sinlessness really comes from a combination of how the angel addressed her, the typology she represents, and the traditions that followed in the early church. I'd argue that, even if saintly intercession weren't a thing, the idea of Mary's sinlessness would still be a widely-held and fitting concept.

🤍 Thank you for the clarifying question, man.

I'm setting aside one larger categorical objection (praying that saints intercede on our behalf)--assuming a stance that that is fine--for the sake of more specifically addressing the quantitative objection: that Mary is given--among those asked to intercede--an emphasis that I think is misplaced.

Hand-in-hand with this quantitative objection though goes the categorical objection of Mary's sinlessness. It's unnecessary for her to have been sinless.

I just now wrote a more full response to Sulla_Felix in this fork, further clarifying, if you want to look there. If you want to respond there or come back here, keeping them separate, either is fine. 🍻

Weird, the Orthodox you've spoken to may be referring to the idea that she is still subject to the fallen nature of humanity (though not any personal sin), or they may be poorly catechized. Or their churches have been lying to me 😅

Re: Ephesus you said she was "named" and I thought you meant the Council gave her a title, rather than affirming something that had been in use before. No prob.

Obviously there are heretical sects like the Palmarians or various South American "Catholic" groups that take Mary veneration too far. But the apostolic churches all uniformly orient their worship exclusively toward God, and Mary is not the focus of the liturgy/Mass.

When you say "overemphasize" do you mean that there's a fundamental problem with how the church views/allows a veneration of Mary, which leads to some people focusing more on her than God? Or that individuals are performing an acceptable practice and taking it too far? You say things like "overemphasize" but it also sounds like your objections may be more categorical than quantitative, and I don't want to strawman you.

>Where do you get the idea the EO don't go as far as the RCC? Orthodoxy holds to the sinlessness of Mary, I don't think any of the EO churches teach otherwise.

Talking to Orthobros, friend. 🤷 By "Orthodoxy doesn't go as far," I only leave room because--though every Catholic with whom I've talked about this says that Mary is sinless--some Orthodox (whether it may be according to their tradition or not--whether that's specifically Greek, Russian, or what-have-you) have said instead that Mary was not sinless. If they have stated what is counter to Orthodoxy (or their specific branch), then that bears on their point rather than mine.

>Ephesus 431
Have more care with what I am saying. I haven't claimed anyone *began* calling Mary 'Theotokos' at this council (nor did I limit the scope to one council, and I'll say the reason for that in a second--I understand why you have referred to this one, as it's during this one that there's discussion on specifically continuing or altering the used title for Mary).

What I said is that there was choosing what to call Mary based upon views (which isn't a criticism)--and that is true of both a) those at the council trying to call Mary something new and b) those at the council choosing to continue what they had been calling her.

My point was that there was discussion of Mary (her title and her role) that extended directly from discussion of Christ's nature. (The discussion of Christ's nature need not be *during* the council. Nestorius posited the new title for Mary because of discussions about Christ's nature.)
Some also discuss Mary's nature by extension. (I am not limiting the scope of this to councils. Not all claims about Mary were made in councils. Some are made within sects--even the largest ones.)

The reason I left the scope as wide as "councils" rather than naming Ephesus is because these conversations carry from one council to the next, by extensions--even questions not within a previous council, but arising after a previous council, often due to points from a previous council, leading to topics in the next. (Example: We could talk about how the view of Apollinaris addressed long before Ephesus affected the view (like a guard rail) of Nestorius and so affected the topic at Ephesus.) Both views--Apollinaris and Nestorius--were about Christ's nature--and it did lead to discussions about Mary.

All of that aside, remember that the larger (original) point of the post is that there is an overemphasis on asking Mary to intercede and addressing why that is the case--not whether she in the flesh bore Christ in the flesh (as everyone in this thread agrees she did), and not on whether she should be called Theotokos (as the title and the concept--as far as her having born Christ--isn't the concern).

Where do you get the idea the EO don't go as far as the RCC? Orthodoxy holds to the sinlessness of Mary, I don't think any of the EO churches teach otherwise.

Ephesus 431 was answering some questions about Christ's nature, somewhat indirectly. The council determined it was inappropriate to deny the title of Theotokos to Mary. Nestorius preferred the title Christotokos and had some limited reservations about the title Theotokos. The council didn't name her that, it upheld that it was heretical to deny her that title, which was already in use.

>the questions the Council was trying to solve

Which would be... ?

They weren't addressing Christ's nature?--through the centuries, through these councils, extending the conversation from Christ's nature to Mary's part in forming or not forming that nature (as well as discussing which natures)? And then naming Mary in accordance with the stance they held?

And then--later, as Catholicism took the conversation, though not Orthodoxy--extending from Christ's nature to Mary's part in Christ's nature to even Mary's nature?

Yes.
(Examples are above / in parallel forks. Catholics referring to the CCC, quoting about Mary's "sinless" nature.)

This is how it came to be that we have Catholicism saying Mary was sinless--with Orthodoxy not going that full extent.

The reason you and I are not having the same conversation is that your goal is--what exactly? Where are you addressing a point I've pressed? I'm not arguing against the idea Mary gave birth to Him. I'm not arguing against the truth that it was through Mary that God came in the flesh as a man, born by the flesh of a human mother.
My OP is about the overemphasis on asking Mary to intercede and from where that stems. (For some, in the conversation above, the emphasis is due to their stance that Mary was without sin or preserved from temptation.)

For the Orthodox, some would argue that it's her role as His mother and/or (depending on the particular Orthodox branch) her role as the one who bore Him.
And this still does not address the comparative overemphasis (over examples of other figures in scripture I presented) on asking Mary specifically to intercede.

Engage in the topic 🍻 Or go. Whichever suits you.

I am Lord of all Forks, the chaos bringer and sharpener of irons without laying my own whetstone to them.

I am the protogenesis of the Theotokos question in this hell thread, to both my amusement and dismay.

I am... kind of an asshole.

LMAO

😤 Stay in your fork

🤣
Man, I felt the same way about the conversation you and the others were having over there.

It was good to see in your all's fork that people were trying at talking, too