Are Marian dogmas wildly un biblical?

hello :slight_smile: on another thread, a poster, stated that the dogmas relating to our Blessed Mother were “wildly un biblical.” to go into this would have derailed that particular thread, and out of respect to the posters wishes not to pursue this debate, i have decided it would be interesting to hear from anybody at all, Catholic or protestant who believe that the Marian dogmas are un biblical. i myself, do not see them as such. when a side by side comparison is made between Mary and the Ark of the Covenant. there is a very strong parallel. when we read o.t. accounts, about solomon for example, and bathsheba( the queen mother, who had her sons ear) there seems to be a deeper meaning pointing to another Mother and Her Son, and how She would intercede to Him on our behalf. just a few examples. feel free to come up with your own. its wide open. the immaculate conception, the virgin birth, the assumption into heaven. all of it. peace to all of us, and may this be a friendly discussion. :slight_smile:

The virgin birth is in Sacred Scripture and some protestant denominations have taken a vote in their congregations and decided to deny it.

Noncelibate same sex attraction is talked about as sinful in Sacred Scripture. Some denominations deny that as well, hiring homosexual partnered pastors.

Hi ben,
I frankly don’t think they are “wildly unbiblical”. Whether or not they are articles of faith, and the conscience of the believer should be bound to them is another matter, and varies from doctrine to doctrine.

For example,
Holy Theotokos speaks directly to the Incarnation. Very biblical.
Virgin Birth - obviously.
The Assumption - not particularly Christocentric or related to our salvation, but also not contrary to scripture.


Not “wildly”…but most have their basis in non-canonical writings such as the “Protoevanglion of James”…and I would dare say much of the belief of Mary and her titles come from a very pagan influence of the Roman world at the time the doctines and dogmas were being developed…pagans didn’t want to give up their goddesses…Mary solved the problem by giving them a “feminine face to deity”.

I hope I can post a thread link as a reply. I found it to be more effective than cut and paste the actual posts.

*"and I would dare say much of the belief of Mary and her titles come from a very pagan influence of the Roman world at the time the doctines and dogmas were being developed…pagans didn’t want to give up their goddesses…Mary solved the problem by giving them a “feminine face to deity”. *

You dared to say it.

You’re also wrong. Mary was never divine. “Only” the Mother of God.

Like Eve and Adam, she was born without original sin. She was the woman foretold of in Genesis 3.

Mary was never doctrinally considerd part of the divine, or to have divine attributes. If someone claimed that, they were wrong. Even so, this has never been a teaching of the Church. Claiming it is, is a misrepresentation of the teachings, if not an outright lie.

However, Mary is blessed, as is stated twice in scripture, by Mary herself, as well as by the archangel gabriel to Mary. If the bible says she is, then by sola scriptura ( for the sake of argument, since SS isn’t really true ) she must be. Those passages calling her blessed aren’t some obscure references, but direct dialogue of the actual title of blessed.
" From now on All generations shall call me blessed "
" Blessed are you among women. "

I never stated Mary was “divine”…but her devotion filled the “gap” for the Roman worlds need of a “goddess”…Mary’s titles given to her are some of the very titles the Goddesses of ancient Rome…especially Isis and her iconagrpahy.

I did not say Mary devotion was “goddess worship”…but goddess worship influenced her devotees and beliefs to a great extent. Christianity in Rome adapted to their pagan converts…pagan feast days became Christian feast days…pagan goddess titles were approriate for Mary by the church of the day.

:thumbsup: The first three protestant reformers. Martin Luther, John Calvin, and John Wesley even stated their great devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary. After them later reformers merely see Mary at the nativity of Jesus’ birth. Mary is then “forgotten”.

Un- Biblical? No

Biblical, YES
Luke 1:37-38, cf Genesis 18:14
Luke 1:45
Luke 1:48
Luke 2:35

Luke 1:43, John 2:1, John 19:25, cf Matthew13:55

Colossians 2:9

Revelation 12:1-6; 13-17

Just to name a few scripture passages on the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Catechism of the Catholic church (CCC) ISBN: 1574551108
Paragraph numbers:
148 (footnotes:12,13,14)
149 (footnote: 15)
495 (footnote: 144)
722 (footnote: 102, 103)

irrelevent. Everything anyone has ever believed cannot help but have some coincidental connection to some other belief. Besides, its in the scripture, as direct quotes. If anyone did all those other things, they were wrong, and it certainly isn’t Church Teaching.
As far as avoiding anything that might be similar to pagan practices, then I guess we can’t, among other things, tithe, by that standard, because ancient pagans were always donating money to temples. That 20 you threw in the basket last sunday… too pagan.

Pagan converts had a lot more to think about than goddess devotion to Mary.

Like, how to practice Christianity without their throats being slit and how to keep from being fed to lions in the arenas.

P.S. The catechumen process for pagan converts took years depending on the beliefs and understanding of each person.

Poll on the belief of the Virgin Birth:
All adults 61% believe
Catholics 74%
All Protestants 79%
Born-again Christians 92%


"Despite the Roman Catholic Church’s historical emphasis on the theological importance of Mary, Catholics in the poll were somewhat less likely than Protestants to believe in the virgin birth. Theologians attributed this to the doctrine in many Protestant churches that the Bible must be accepted as literal truth."

One of the greatest tragedies in life is the murder of a beautiful theory by a gang of brutal facts -Benjamin Franklin
Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Matthew 7:3

Not by the time Marian devotion was into full swing…Christianity had been established as the “official” state religion by this time. When was the counsel of Ephesus convenened that named Mary “theotokos” or approved her veneration?

How many in the sample were merely nominal or cultural Catholics? ‘Statistics, statistics and damned lies’, as someone once said

Theotokos was in recorded use nearly two centuries before Ephesus which was in 431

does this fall in to the category of “wildly un biblical”?

"She is omnipotent, for the queen, according to all laws, enjoys the same privileges as the king; and since the son’s power also belongs to the mother, this Mother is made omnipotent by an omnipotent Son."-Saint Alphonsus Liguori (September 27, 1696 – August 1, 1787) was an Italian Catholic Bishop, spiritual writer, theologian, and founder of the Redemptorists, an influential religious order. He was canonized in 1839 by Pope Gregory XVI and declared a Doctor of the Church.

St. Bernardine of Sienna does not hesitate to say that: “all obey the commands of Mary, even God himself” -Bernardino of Siena (sometimes Bernardine) (8 September 1380 – 20 May 1444) was an Italian priest, Franciscan missionary, and Catholic saint.

Ah it’s drag out Ligouri time I see. One of the favourite anti-Catholic canards. Notice in your first example her authority is only borrowed and not innate.

‘Statistics, statistics and damned lies’, as someone once said

so i can’t quote from polls or Catholics Saints or a declared Doctor of the Church.

‘Statistics, statistics and damned lies’, as someone once said

so i can’t quote from polls or Catholics Saints or a declared Doctor of the Church.

You can quote but you seem to be quoting in a spirit of bigotry to be frank about it. As I’ve seen looking through your posting history that you’ve used those quotes numerous times and had their context explained in the past as well. All your poll would prove at best is that Cathoics in a particular territory are unaware with or dissent from what their Church teaches, nothing more or less.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit