Historically Mary, mother of Jesus, has been given two different Greek titles. The first, and most ancient one, is the Greek Theotokos (which means “bearer of God”). The second is the Greek Theogonias (which means “generator of God”).
Saying that Mary was the Theotokos is not particularly controversial or exceptional. Both Roman Catholics and Protestants attest that Mary bore Jesus and that Jesus is God. The title alone does not confer any special veneration upon Mary. As late as the 9th century, Photius wrote that the Paulicians believed that Mary was the Theotokos, but they denied her devotion. Augustine (d.430) was the first person in the West to use the Latin Mater Dei (Mother of God) in place of the Greek Theotokos. Modern translators use Dei Genetrix and translate this as “Mother of God” in English.
This leads us to the Sub Tuum Praesidium. This Egyptian Greek manuscript contains the earliest known intercessory prayer, dated to the 3rd (c.250) or 4th century.
Beneath thy compassion,
We take refuge, O Theotokos:
do not despise our petitions in time of trouble:
but rescue us from dangers,
only pure one, only blessed one.
The Greek contains Theotokos, not Theogonias. But what about the translation into Latin?
Sub tuum praesidium
confugimus, Sancta Dei Genetrix.
Nostras deprecationes ne despicias in necessitatibus,
sed a periculis cunctis libera nos semper,
Virgo gloriosa et benedicta
The word used for “Mother of God” here is not Mater Dei, but Dei Genetrix. Thus do the Latin translators alter the text to conform to the newer meaning of Mary as generator of God (Theogonias). Moreover, the word “Virgin” was inserted in the last line. In order to make this prayer about the intercessory nature of the Virgin Mary, the Generator of God, the translator had to invoke the Roman Catholic Axiom and change the original meaning.
Lactantius (c.310) in Divine Institutes, Book IV, Chapter 13, declared that Mary was Christ’s mother because Jesus was the son of Man, not because he was divine: by generation he had no mother and by birth he had no father.
Alexander of Alexandria (c.324) referred to Jesus’ generation of the Father (using “Theogonias”), but used “Theotokos” of Mary in the context of Jesus taking on a physical body.
Even Augustine—who first used the phrase “Mother of God” (Mater Dei) in the West in the late 4th century—claimed that Jesus was [divinely] begotten of the Father without a mother and that Mary was his mother only to the extent that he had flesh.
Other writers such as Athansius (c.339), Gregory Nazianzen (c.381), Pope Gregory (c.600), and others similarly diverged from modern Roman Catholicism.
While the Sub Tuum Praesidium is a Marian intercessory prayer, it is not an example of Marian devotion. Furthermore, it is quite possible that the document is from the 6th or 7th century anyway.
I keep hearing how they dont worship Mary but “revere” her. Okay……but in every Catholic church I’ve been in, states and Europe (Cologne Cathedral) there are statues of her, candles lit in front of said statues. Paryers, Thanksgiving, attestments to her, songs / hymns about her. Feasts and times for Her.
And even in Modern Protestanism……..
Ive sat through so many sermons “here we have a teenage single mom….” and “she raised Him, and had favor with God so we cannot judge single mothers! ”
She is an important aspect in The Bible and this faith. But prayers to her? Revering her? Should we not then be “praying to Eve” as well? Revering her?
I dont get it
Ive sat through so many sermons “here we have a teenage single mom….” and “she raised Him, and had favor with God so we cannot judge single mothers! ”
Mark Driscol is the most famous for saying that, as seen here in later years after ANAKIN NICEGUY in ’09 and DAL in ’11’/12 took him on.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ru6Duevv68M
Jesus Had a Poor, Single Mother – Christians Might Be Crazy
425 views 5 years ago
With just 425 views in 5 years Driscol’s brand of ” faux real MAN Christianity” is neck and neck as popular and ”successful” as its latter-day highly failurous ”rp genius yet always failing leader” cousin that also fails with the kids and old-school Manospherians(St. Deti for the latest example of one tiring of the latter-day ””rp genius yet failing leader” ” faux real MAN Christianity” at current redpillosphere sites) alike.
Remember 2019’s “The Irrelevancy of the manosphere” where I pointed out how unimportant Dalrock actually was?
Try Googling for Dalrock. There are few references left and virtually all of them are from 2020 or earlier. If exposure equates to influence, Dalrock has none.
My kids watch a lot of sports with me. We routinely see the “He Gets Us” advertisements. But nothing is more obnoxious than the ad that called Jesus a refuge.
My teenage sons know enough history to know that Jesus went from one part of the Roman empire to another part of the Roman empire, a thing we typically call traveling or moving.
People will reframe the story of Jesus to fit any narrative they are currently pushing.
Jesus said:
Except he wasn’t talking about Mary the mother of Jesus. He was talking about a sinful woman—presumed to be a prostitute—and later considered by some to be Mary (or Miriam), sister of Lazarus and Martha. In any case, there was one woman who Jesus said everyone would perpetually remembered, and it wasn’t his mother.
[Editor: This is in response to this comment]
I don’t get it either. The closest I get is that I think many folks think it’s godly to protect institutions, more so than the truth or falsity of what they protect. Think face-painter sports fans.
Because they are ignorant of content, they think loving God means protecting Him, and they think protecting God requires saying Mary should be revered/worshipped.
It’s like the street phrase “respect.” They think saying anything but referential to Mary is disrespectful of Jesus, because that is His mother. They then put their emotional beliefs into whatever understanding of the facts.
Such men are often short-tempered and not able to reason. In some ways, it’s good they defend her because to say Mary is a woman who had sex with Joseph would wreck their consciences. They couldn’t grasp what you or Drrek are saying without internally feeling like they are disrespecting God.
I read a few sports blogs, and there is a large minority of fans who just can’t examine or be critical of their team. One guy recently wrote, “the team isn’t doing well but I would rather support them. Go team”
For him, there are only two options, talk about the team’s failures and be an enemy, or shut up and cheer. I don’t understand why he is on a sports blog dedicated to a team, but maybe he really thinks it will be only facts and cheers. Discussion is a bridge too far. Many fans are like that. They aren’t able to discuss a post, but instead jump on folks who say fire the coach or AD. They call them names and call them trolls and don’t respond to the critique except by saying, “if you are smarter than the coach why aren’t you doing it.”
Discussion is painful for many guys. Whether through a life habit or trauma, doing a mental analysis of something dear to them is overwhelming.
This is a Christian blog and so reflection should be expected and then more so given Derek’s proclivities. I was disappointed when BtM and Deti quickly left the post’s about communion. So it is with this post -there probably won’t be anyone leaving a comment defending the Mary reverence and also being able to explain why it’s not worship. If they did, I wouldn’t expect anything more than a gussied-up version of “go team.”
The inability or unwillingness to reason results in childish, emotional, feminine-coded behaviors. They want less debate, not more. To wit:
Or to put it another way, one valuable heuristic is that you can assume which position is correct by whether or not revealing more information and knowledge about a subject is viewed as a threat or welcomed.
My difficulty is that when people refuse to use proper reason, the only way to swat this down is to engage in what appears to be ad hominem. Lately I’ve been doing this in the comment section here. I’ve been trying hard to correct the personal errors without presumption. Assuming it wasn’t sarcasm, I did get one concession.
Jason, going through an addiction means reflection and dealing with the demon of anxiety and powerlessness so folks who feel like strong protectors of God aren’t likely to be able to provide a reflective justification for Mary worship. Unfortunately, we won’t get a chance to “get it” because Catholics don’t seem to visit here.
I understand “tradition” so to speak, and I have heard many a good, upstanding Catholic say “She’s the mother of our Lord and Savior”
And I am not denying that, nor trying to take away from that. My Polish Great Aunt was a deep seated practicing Catholic. Growing up I never saw a picture of Jesus, but lots of statues of Mary here and there about the house, cards with Mary on them. A small garden statue of her in one of the flower beds.
I know she is to be “revered” of or by / for women…..but as an outsider it comes off as “praying to / worshipping her” and I have met and known many a Catholic who probably has a solid heart for Christ but this tradition or trapping does at times seem like worship.
Well, evidently Dalrock is going to be made a “Saint” someday (by whom, the Catholic or Orthodox church?) and his works will Canonized as Scripture in the Bible in the future.
I re-read some of his posts. Some good. A few really eye-opening. Most? Another blogger in a corner of the Internet who talks about everything other bloggers at the time were talking about. A “christian” spin on it and like most Christians they immediately “clasp n grasp” on to someone who takes a stance like this. Remember when Josh Harris’s book came out?
Christians were calling him a Timothy! He wrote with Gods inspiration! Foolproof! Amazing! A Christian solution! And you didnt DARE criticize at the time 😉
“One of many” I guess you could say.
The whole Josh Harris thing makes me shake my head. When he deconverted, he repudiated his works. Meanwhile, the conservative geniuses repudiated his works because he deconverted. Need I even say how illogical this is?
I found “I Kissed Dating Goodbye” to be helpful. Virtually all the haters of that book hate it because it categorically condemned premarital sex. Oh, no, let’s not be legalistic about that! Anything but that!
I read it years after it came out. 2009? 2010?
It just made young christian men and women (professing) STUCK
Everyone waiting for a nudge by “the holy spirit” and everyone more paralyzed by the asking and the accepting. It hurt more than helped in the end.
Well, evidently Dalrock is going to be made a “Saint” someday (by whom, the Catholic or Orthodox church?) and his works will Canonized as Scripture in the Bible in the future.
I re-read some of his posts. Some good. A few really eye-opening. Most? Another blogger in a corner of the Internet who talks about everything other bloggers at the time were talking about. A “christian” spin on it and like most Christians they immediately “clasp n grasp” on to someone who takes a stance like this. Remember when Josh Harris’s book came out?
Yeah, i was amazed when Scott said that too how ”in a thousand years it (& some others in the sphere)would be canonized”and i thought he was not worried that DAL’ wasn’t Orthodox or of the High Churches ”tradition”?
But then i remembered Scott’s last comment from DALS 2nd(it was really his last the other one just said he would keep the site up after thinking it over) to the last post.
Scott says:
January 22, 2020 at 11:29 am
There is no way to overstate the impact these writings have had on my life.
There would be no “Scott and Mychael” as known around the manosphere without it.
Take care.
See Scott is mainly talking about his & Mychaels connection to the sphere when he was talking of the Canonization of DAL writings in 2021/’22/’23 at sf, not just DAL himself.
Swung thru his old stomping grounds a few weeks ago (Scott). I got some gas in Santa Clarita on the way out of LA to Pyramid Lake for the day.