not exactly the friendliest or most inviting of christmas sermons. but it is christmas. i'll sing me some john lennon and let it pass.

Yes, the protestant church has distanced itself from Mary in the sense that it does not see her as divine unlike the Roman Catholic Church. However Mary unites us in her ministry. It’s a very tender ministry where the vulnerability of a young peasantry girl clashes with the great divine. Her mortality never departs from the reader and we journey with Mary as she flees to Egypt and later watches her Son wither on a Roman cross. The power of Mary is simply in her story.

Thanks Peter and Merry Christmas to all

We do not celebrate the birth of Jesus on Xmas Day. Myth.

"It is believed that Christmas' date was chosen to take advantage of the imperial holiday of the birth of the Sun God Mithras, more specifically Sol Invictus, which coincided with the "return of the sun" after the shortest day of the year." Wikipedia, renowned for the Catholic Church writing what they want in it. Yet this is still there. And confimed by many sources. And a merry old Sol is he! Sound familiar?

This was part of the Roman Emperor Constantine's self appointed gaggle of bishops who were ordered to gather all the documentation from the range of splinter Christian groups that had developed since it started, pre Jesus.

His orders were to cull the doco and produce a coherent tale for all to follow as he appointed himself head of the Christian Church and demanded fealty from all groups. Key ceremonies etc were retained from the larger of these many groups and this date was one such. Nothing to do with Jesus at all.

So do enjoy the birthday of Sun GoD Mithras again. After all, you have all your life so far.

Quite a range of perspectives I see.

My major difficulty with Peters message is this bit:

regarding the Angel Gabriel in Luke

<<His appearance is a sign that we are here in the realm of legend dressed up as history. There are many such instances in the Bible, the creation stories being a prime example. This has been the discovery of the historical critical analysis of biblical texts>>

The assumption here is that such an experience can only be 'legendary'.

Pete's evidence for this conclusion is found in his unquestioning acceptance of "Historical/Critical Analysis of Biblical Texts"

Actually, what he should be saying is "according to those which I've read".. in the sense that he has not embraced any more conservative views.

If one considers that Lukes Gospel is the product of research by a man who by his own testimony:

<<1Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,>>

Now.. the problem for the 'Historical/Critical' analyst is how he/she avoids the simple proposition that Luke simply ASKED Zechariah, who would in all probability still be alive..about the events.

It's not really that hard.

-Investigated 'from the beginning'...
-Orderly account...

I believe this more optimistic view is supported by the many clear evidences in Luke of his attention to detail such as in Chapter 3

<<1In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar—when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene— 2during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the desert. >>

Works for me.

Sells,
An interesting article although, I am afraid, it might attract the usual detractors who cannot accept that there are symbols of the Ultimate Reality they cannot understand, in this case of the yin pole in the Christian understanding and worship of the Unfathomable.

>> But if we Protestants are serious about the Bible we cannot escape the conclusion that Mary is a figure to be reckoned with ... she is not only theotokos, God bearer, she is pre-eminently the icon of the Church. <<

I must agree. "Even those non-Roman churches which have most rigorously criticised the "Mariolatry" they claimed to find in the dogmas of the immaculate conception and the assumption have frequently addressed praises to her in their hymnology that they would have hesitated to express in the prose of their dogmatic theology. Thus, in ways she could never have anticipated, all generations have called her blessed" (Jaroslav Pelikan, Yale professor and Lutheran - later Orthodox - theologian as part of the entry for "Mary" in Encyclopaedia Britannica).

Perhaps you would be interested also in this, from the same author:

" Clearly there was a close correlation between the subjectivity of the devotion to Mary as the Mater Dolorosa and the objectivity of the doctrine of Mary as the Mediatrix. It was not the correlation of paradox, as was the celebration of her under the rubrics of the Paragon of Chastity and the Blessed Mother, but the correlation of complementarity, at least until, in the modern era, the denial of her objective transcendence by many would deprive her of the title of Mediatrix even though the simultaneous rise of subjectivism would continue to find symbolic, if sometimes sentimental, expression in the Mater Dolorosa." ( Mary Through the Centuries, Yale University Press, 1996, p. 136).

I am not a theologian, but I feel that even “Coredemptrix” rather than “Mediatrix” would better reflect the yin-yang (at least psychological) complementarity in our view of the Unfathomable, although I know that this is theologically somewhat controversial.

Dear_George....

<“Coredemptrix” rather than “Mediatrix” would better reflect the yin-yang (at least psychological) complementarity in our view of the Unfathomable.>

Mate... sounds like you are conflating eastern mysticism with Christianity there..but that aside.. why not take the obvious and reasonable and logical approach and limit our view of Mary to that which the Scriptures give us. "She shall be called blessed".....that's 'it'..... indeed she was blessed. But there is nothing more special about her than that she was the human vehicle of the Savior's incarnation.

The "point"....of the incarnation was all about the Savior..not the means.

The 'immaculate conception' idea was an optional belief until the 19c when it was made 'dogma'.. i.e..compulsory.

<The dogma says that, from the first moment of her existence, she was preserved by God from the lack of sanctifying grace that afflicts mankind, and that she was instead filled with divine grace. It is further believed that she lived a life completely free from sin>

Now..that is going WAY outside the bounds of Holy Writ. It is not neccessary for Mary to be sinless, but it IS neccessary for our Lord to be so. What I don't understand about Catholic belief is this.

WHY is is easy to believe that MARY was 'sinless' but not that our Lord, in his physical incarnation was in fact preserved from the stain of sin in humanity?
It is far more reasonable and theologically consistent to maintain that the physical process of conception and birth of the Messiah were protected from the consequences of the Fall, than that Mary herself, a natually born person was.

I think I understand the problem for the Church, and it relates to the idea of 'conception'......

If one of Mary's eggs was fertilized by an act of God...then clearly our Lords nature was genetically connected to natural humanity. If that's so, then he must have inherited the consequences of the Fall.
Thus.. it is reasoned..'this cannot be so'.. so Mary is declared sinless.

It would be more reasonable to declare the conception itself as 'preserved from the stain of inherited sin'..would it not?