Any non catholic: what is your opinion on Mary the Mother of God?

[larkin31]

The post before does which maybe you didn’t read:shrug:

St. Irenaeus says, "Being obedient she became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race."141 Hence not a few of the early Fathers gladly assert. . .: "The knot of Eve’s disobedience was untied by Mary’s obedience: what the virgin Eve bound through her disbelief, Mary loosened by her faith."142 Comparing her with Eve, they call Mary “the Mother of the living” and frequently claim: "Death through Eve, life through Mary

Yes thats Catholic Church teaching the Coronation of Mary in Revelations.

Yes, this kind of thing I know already. But it is not what I was asking. But thanks.

 

[larkin31]

**What you are failing **to understand is the polyvalent symbolism in this passage. The very same can be said of the failure of many non-Catholics to understand the polyvalent symbolism in Rev. 12:1-2, which points to Mary, Israel and the Church. In short, polyvalent symbolism is when you have multiple prophecies fulfilled in a single type or symbol.

In this way, we see that Gen 3:15 points to more explicitly to Mary with regards to her offspring - then to all of womankind with regards to bearing children.

Just wondering if this is actual Catholic Catechism or rather lay exegesis.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Yes, this kind of thing I know already. But it is not what I was asking. But thanks.

What “exactly” are you asking? Was it not the correlation of Gensis to Revelation?

Pope Pius IX, in his dogmatic bull Ineffabilis Deus, says the following:

These ecclesiastical writers in quoting the words by which at the beginning of the world God announced his merciful remedies prepared for the regeneration of mankind . . . saying, “I will put enmities between you and the woman, between your seed and her seed” taught . . . that his most Blessed Mother, the Virgin Mary, was prophetically indicated; and, at the same time, the very enmity of both [Mary and her Son] against the evil one was significantly expressed.

And Pope John Paul II taught in Mulieris Dignitatem:

It is significant that [in Galatians 4:4] St. Paul does not call the Mother of Christ by her own name, “Mary,” but calls her “woman”: This coincides with the words of the Protoevangelium in the book of Genesis (cf. Gen. 3:15). She is that “woman” who is present in the central salvific event that marks the “fullness of time”: This event is realized in her and through her.

And this event is realized in Revelations:shrug:

 

[GaryTaylor]

So, the Catholic Church teaches what you have been saying here? Is there a Catechism on the idea that the word “woman” in Genesis 3:15 is actually a specific reference to Mary, mother of Jesus, rather than to Eve? And that the “seed” referenced means Jesus?

Is this the question or is there another, and its me missing something here? I’m sorry is there another?

 

[GreggAlvarez]

The Queen of Heaven in the OT is in Jeremiah 7:16-19

16 Therefore pray not thou for this people, neither lift up cry nor prayer for them, neither make intercession to me: for I will not hear thee.
17 Seest thou not what they do in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem?
18 The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger.
19 Do they provoke me to anger? saith the LORD: do they not provoke themselves to the confusion of their own faces?

Thank you! I am so bad with remembering where things are.

This could be the Old Testament type of the Revelations 17. That is just speculation though.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

So, the Catholic Church teaches what you have been saying here? Is there a Catechism on the idea that the word “woman” in Genesis 3:15 is actually a specific reference to Mary, mother of Jesus, rather than to Eve? And that the “seed” referenced means Jesus?

Before I inadequately answer the question, let me just say that I never implied that Eve was not addressed in Genesis 3:15. I am just saying that the prophecy was fulfilled through Jesus. Hence, Mary was the mother of that offspring that was the enmity between the woman and the snake. This not to say that it was not intended for Eve also. This is why the Church calles Mary “the New Eve.” That and the New Adam calls for a New Eve. As far as the “seed” part, this is no “lay exegisis”. I do none of that. I cannot even begin to do any of that. The Church does teach it though. The fact that it is not explicit in the Catechism does not mean she does not teach it. So, to answer your questions:

1. Yes
2. Not Applicable.
3. Yes, but not explicitly

2853 Victory over the “prince of this world” was won once for all at the Hour when Jesus freely gave himself up to death to give us his life. This is the judgment of this world, and the prince of this world is “cast out.” “He pursued the woman” but had no hold on her: the new Eve, “full of grace” of the Holy Spirit, is preserved from sin and the corruption of death (the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of the Most Holy Mother of God, Mary, ever virgin). “Then the dragon was angry with the woman, and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring.” Therefore the Spirit and the Church pray: “Come, Lord Jesus,” since his coming will deliver us from the Evil One.

489 Throughout the Old Covenant the mission of many holy women prepared for that of Mary. At the very beginning there was Eve; despite her disobedience, she receives the promise of a posterity that will be victorious over the evil one, as well as the promise that she will be the mother of all the living. By virtue of this promise, Sarah conceives a son in spite of her old age. Against all human expectation God chooses those who were considered powerless and weak to show forth his faithfulness to his promises: Hannah, the mother of Samuel; Deborah; Ruth; Judith and Esther; and many other women.Mary “stands out among the poor and humble of the Lord, who confidently hope for and receive salvation from him. After a long period of waiting the times are fulfilled in her, the exalted Daughter of Sion, and the new plan of salvation is established.”

I hope this answer your question. The first to sentences of 489 is the better of the two but 2853 has the part of the New Eve

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Colossians 2:9 – For in him dwells the whole fullness of the deity bodily.

John 1:14 – And the Word was made flesh.

With these verses and those people saying that Mary gave birth to just His Body, how is it that Mary is NOT the Mother of God if Scripture clearly indicates that the two are in hypostatic union? You deny one of these passages if you deny Mother of God. That is, if you deny the actual meaning of Mother of God and NOT what non-Catholics think it is.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Colossians 2:9 – For in him dwells the whole fullness of the deity bodily.

John 1:14 – And the Word was made flesh.

With these verses and those people saying that Mary gave birth to just His Body, how is it that Mary is NOT the Mother of God if Scripture clearly indicates that the two are in hypostatic union? You deny one of these passages if you deny Mother of God. That is, if you deny the actual meaning of Mother of God and NOT what non-Catholics think it is.

There a Comprehension problem or Denial! That Flesh being talked about is Marys Flesh that became Jesus.

Truth is Greg, Mary is under attack from satan, just as we have been talking about in this thread. And we shall be here defending the Faith till the Cows come home. And they don’t come home. I believe Pope Leo XIII had it dead right.

“The Rosary is the weapon which will defeat satan”

His vision was on May 13th.

He didn’t say he thinks, or maybe, He said; IT IS! Then 33 years later to the day the Blessed Mother appeared at Fatima on May 13th.

There is no coincidence with Divine Intervention.

 

[Roy5]

If Christians want to venerate Mary and view her as Queen of Heaven as well as the Mother of God, fine. A free country, thank God.

But I have a problem with it. Let me summarize why.

1. God is/was eternal. How could anyone be the mother of God who was mortal, herself born in time? I sense a logical fallacy here. 

2. Mary plays a small role in the gospels, and not always one that suggests that she was the Mother of God. For example, recheck Matt. 12:46-50 and John 2:4. In both of these references Jesus seems to be almost dismissive of her. He asks: "Who is my mother?" And: "Woman, what have I to do with you?" I find these strange questions. 

3. Or, consider the trip to Jerusalem story, when Jesus was 12. Mary and Joseph travel a whole day before noticing that Jesus isn't among them. I know people will defend this, but I find it quite wild. Would the mother of the Lord (or any child of 12) actually travel that distance and not notice her special and only Son was absent? And, when they returned to find him would she scold him if she viewed him as God's Son? Does this suggest either a disobedient and even defiant son or does it suggest irresponsible parents - or both?

4. Then you have Jesus in Luke 11:27-28. When someone says 'blessed is the womb that bare thee; he answered: "Yea, rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God and keep it." 

5. Nowhere in the epistles of Paul or any of the ther epistles is Mary's name even found. The letters of Paul dealt with many topics of a theological nature, yet no mention of Mary? 

6. Those other 'references' to Mary - in Genesis and Revelation - are only inferences, not references. If one already accepts that Mary is the women described, it is an easy jump to attach her to those vague references.

7. It wasn't until 1854 that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was defined. The Bible doesn't even mention the names of Mary's parents, by the way. And it was not until 1950 that the doctrine of the Assumption was defined. Scholars debate the role that Mary played among the earliest Christians. 

8. The Bible clearly states that "all have sinned" - which contradicts the dogma that she lived a sinless life.

9. I know this can offend people, but to millions the veneration of Mary as found within Catholicism appears to be borrowed from the centrality of a major goddess among ancient and mystery religions competing with early Christianity.

10. Why do I doubt if Mary would want all this veneration? She would direct it to Jesus. It seems that some segments within Catholicism put an over-emphasis on Jesus. True, some Protestants go too far in the other direction, but maybe Christians should avoid either extreme. We can honor Mary without insisting that she is "Queen of Heaven" and "Mother of God" - both expressions that (in all honesty) tend to alienate me. Isn't it quite enough that she was the mother of the human Jesus? I think so.  

 God bless all of his children, of every creed, color, culture and country. Let us make religion a bridge rather than a barrier.

 

[elvisman]

1. It wasn’t until 1854 that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was defined. The Bible doesn’t even mention the names of Mary’s parents, by the way. And it was not until 1950 that the doctrine of the Assumption was defined. Scholars debate the role that Mary played among the earliest Christians.

Here is where you completely*** fail***** to understand declarations and decrees as proclaimed by the Church. Declarations are made when there is some challenge or heresy that arises from a certain belief. It DOESN’T mean that these are NEW beliefs. Mary’s Immaculate Conception ALWAYS been believed by the Church and you can read about it in the writings of the Early Church Fathers. The doctrine of the Holy Trinity wasn’t even declared until the Council of Nicaea in the 4th century but it has ALWAYS been believed by the Church and you can read about it in the writings of the Early Church Fathers.**

Jesus’s Hypostatic Union wasn’t declared until the heresy of Nestorianism in the early 5th century but it has ALWAYS been believed by the Church and you can read about it in the writings of the Early Church Fathers.

1. The Bible clearly states that “all have sinned” - which contradicts the dogma that she lived a sinless life.

**This is one of my *****favorite ***Protestant attacks on Mary because it is so easily refutable.
**You say that Rom. 3:10, 23 explicitly states: *“There is no one righteous, not even one; For there is no distinction; all have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God.” *Is that so? How about babies or toddlers below the age of reason? What about those who are mentally challenged and may not have full use of their intellect and will? What about Jesus? **

St. Paul** is speaking about those who trust in the Mosaic Law for their salvation.**
In this passage, St. Paul is actually quoting Psalm 14, where it says, "The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God. They are corrupt…there is none that does good.’” Later in the same Psalm, we hear that “God is present in the company of the “righteous.”

St. Paul** was using* inclusive* language. This would be similar to somebody saying that “everybody in town” came to the carnival last year. He is referring to the mass of mankind but God can and does make exceptions for anybody he wishes.**

 

[elvisman]

1. It wasn’t until 1854 that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was defined. The Bible doesn’t even mention the names of Mary’s parents, by the way. And it was not until 1950 that the doctrine of the Assumption was defined. Scholars debate the role that Mary played among the earliest Christians.

Here is where you completely*** fail***** to understand declarations and decrees as proclaimed by the Church. Declarations are made when there is some challenge or heresy that arises from a certain belief. It DOESN’T mean that these are NEW beliefs. Mary’s Immaculate Conception ALWAYS been believed by the Church and you can read about it in the writings of the Early Church Fathers. The doctrine of the Holy Trinity wasn’t even declared until the Council of Nicaea in the 4th century but it has ALWAYS been believed by the Church and you can read about it in the writings of the Early Church Fathers.**

Jesus’s Hypostatic Union wasn’t declared until the heresy of Nestorianism in the early 5th century but it has ALWAYS been believed by the Church and you can read about it in the writings of the Early Church Fathers.

1. The Bible clearly states that “all have sinned” - which contradicts the dogma that she lived a sinless life.

**This is one of my *****favorite ***Protestant attacks on Mary because it is so easily refutable.
**You say that Rom. 3:10, 23 explicitly states: *“There is no one righteous, not even one; For there is no distinction; all have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God.” *Is that so? How about babies or toddlers below the age of reason? What about those who are mentally challenged and may not have full use of their intellect and will? What about Jesus? **

St. Paul** is speaking about those who trust in the Mosaic Law for their salvation.**
In this passage, St. Paul is actually quoting Psalm 14, where it says, "The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God. They are corrupt…there is none that does good.’” Later in the same Psalm, we hear that “God is present in the company of the “righteous.”

St. Paul** was using* inclusive* language. This would be similar to somebody saying that “everybody in town” came to the carnival last year. He is referring to the mass of mankind but God can and does make exceptions for anybody he wishes.**

 

[elvisman]

1. It wasn’t until 1854 that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was defined. The Bible doesn’t even mention the names of Mary’s parents, by the way. And it was not until 1950 that the doctrine of the Assumption was defined. Scholars debate the role that Mary played among the earliest Christians.

Here is where you completely*** fail***** to understand declarations and decrees as proclaimed by the Church. Declarations are made when there is some challenge or heresy that arises from a certain belief. It DOESN’T mean that these are NEW beliefs. Mary’s Immaculate Conception ALWAYS been believed by the Church and you can read about it in the writings of the Early Church Fathers. The doctrine of the Holy Trinity wasn’t even declared until the Council of Nicaea in the 4th century but it has ALWAYS been believed by the Church and you can read about it in the writings of the Early Church Fathers.**

Jesus’s Hypostatic Union wasn’t declared until the heresy of Nestorianism in the early 5th century but it has ALWAYS been believed by the Church and you can read about it in the writings of the Early Church Fathers.

1. The Bible clearly states that “all have sinned” - which contradicts the dogma that she lived a sinless life.

**This is one of my *****favorite ***Protestant attacks on Mary because it is so easily refutable.
**You say that Rom. 3:10, 23 explicitly states: *“There is no one righteous, not even one; For there is no distinction; all have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God.” *Is that so? How about babies or toddlers below the age of reason? What about those who are mentally challenged and may not have full use of their intellect and will? What about Jesus? **

St. Paul** is speaking about those who trust in the Mosaic Law for their salvation.**
In this passage, St. Paul is actually quoting Psalm 14, where it says, "The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God. They are corrupt…there is none that does good.’” Later in the same Psalm, we hear that “God is present in the company of the “righteous.”

St. Paul** was using* inclusive* language. This would be similar to somebody saying that “everybody in town” came to the carnival last year. He is referring to the mass of mankind but God can and does make exceptions for anybody he wishes.**

 

[elvisman]

1. I know this can offend people, but to millions the veneration of Mary as found within Catholicism appears to be borrowed from the centrality of a major goddess among ancient and mystery religions competing with early Christianity.

This is the biggest crock of all and is nothing but an exercise in ignorance**. It’s only offensive because it is so ill-thought-out.

The charge that Mary’s Queenship or veneration is based on pagan religions and practices is made verylooselyby anti-Catholics who have no understanding of the history of Israel. This ridiculous notion and others spread by staunch anti-Catholics like Alexander Hislop, Loraine Boettner and Jack T. Chick are less rampant today then in the past but are still nonetheless based in an anti-Catholic agenda or an otherwise abject ignorance of history.

**For example, Hislop’s 19th century attack on Christ’s Church, “The Two Babylons”, is an exercise in *****sloppy *****historical research, personal vendetta and false accusations. This book has been debunked, not only by informed Catholics but by Protestants and former Hislop devotees such as Ralph Woodrow in his book, The Babylon Connection? Woodrow debunked the false charges by Hislop that the Catholic Church gleaned their practice of pagan idolatry and goddess worship from the Mesopotamian ruler, Nimrod and his mother, Semiramis (some sources claim she was also his wife).

The Kingdom of Heaven is modeled after the Davidic Kingdom**. We can see this from the references to**** Isaiah 22:20-22 **when Jesus appointed Peter as the bearer of the “keys to the kingdom” (Matt. 16:18-19).

*In the Davidic Kingdom, the wife of the King was notthe Queen – but rather, his mother was elevated to that station. The title Gebirah (Gebira), ***meaning “Great Lady” or “Queen Mother” was a royal title and an office which was bestowed upon the mothers of the Kings of Israel but only to those in the line of David.

 

[elvisman]

1. I know this can offend people, but to millions the veneration of Mary as found within Catholicism appears to be borrowed from the centrality of a major goddess among ancient and mystery religions competing with early Christianity.

This is the biggest crock of all and is nothing but an exercise in ignorance**.**

**The charge that Mary’s Queenship or veneration is based on pagan religions and practices is made very *****loosely ***by anti-Catholics who have no understanding of the history of Israel. This ridiculous notion and others spread by staunch anti-Catholics like Alexander Hislop, Loraine Boettner and Jack T. Chick are less rampant today then in the past but are still nonetheless based in an anti-Catholic agenda or an otherwise abject ignorance of history.

**For example, Hislop’s 19th century attack on Christ’s Church, “The Two Babylons”, is an exercise in *****sloppy *****historical research, personal vendetta and false accusations. This book has been debunked, not only by informed Catholics but by Protestants and former Hislop devotees such as Ralph Woodrow in his book, The Babylon Connection? Woodrow debunked the false charges by Hislop that the Catholic Church gleaned their practice of pagan idolatry and goddess worship from the Mesopotamian ruler, Nimrod and his mother, Semiramis (some sources claim she was also his wife).

The Kingdom of Heaven is modeled after the Davidic Kingdom**. We can see this from the references to**** Isaiah 22:20-22 **when Jesus appointed Peter as the bearer of the “keys to the kingdom” (Matt. 16:18-19).

*In the Davidic Kingdom, the wife of the King was notthe Queen – but rather, his mother was elevated to that station. The title Gebirah (Gebira), ***meaning “Great Lady” or “Queen Mother” was a royal title and an office which was bestowed upon the mothers of the Kings of Israel but only to those in the line of David.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

1. God is/was eternal. How could anyone be the mother of God who was mortal, herself born in time? I sense a logical fallacy here.

The only fallacy is to assume that what you think we mean by “Mother of God” is the Mary preceded God ontological. This is a straw-man. You disagree with the straw-man. Poor little straw-man. Everybody hates him. Anyway, God also became temporal at the miracle of the Incarnation. This is where the doctrine of “Mother of God” was Truth.

1. Mary plays a small role in the gospels, and not always one that suggests that she was the Mother of God. For example, recheck Matt. 12:46-50 and John 2:4. In both of these references Jesus seems to be almost dismissive of her. He asks: “Who is my mother?” And: “Woman, what have I to do with you?” I find these strange questions.

To assume that 20th century rudeness is the exact same as 1st century rudeness is absurd. He was not dismissive. Scriptures (the Word of God) refers to Mary as His mother.

1. Or, consider the trip to Jerusalem story, when Jesus was 12. Mary and Joseph travel a whole day before noticing that Jesus isn’t among them. I know people will defend this, but I find it quite wild. Would the mother of the Lord (or any child of 12) actually travel that distance and not notice her special and only Son was absent? And, when they returned to find him would she scold him if she viewed him as God’s Son? Does this suggest either a disobedient and even defiant son or does it suggest irresponsible parents - or both?

It suggests that Jesus needed to be with His Father.

1. Then you have Jesus in Luke 11:27-28. When someone says 'blessed is the womb that bare thee; he answered: “Yea, rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God and keep it.”

It was not a rebuke. It was an addendum because His mother heard the word of God and “pondered it in her heart.” He did not say, “No, that is wrong. Blessed are those…”

1. Nowhere in the epistles of Paul or any of the ther epistles is Mary’s name even found. The letters of Paul dealt with many topics of a theological nature, yet no mention of Mary?

Because the New Testament is CENTERED ON CHRIST! There was no need to make other theological statements about somebody else other than God. I guess the Incarnation and Crucifixion are not important enough. She was there at those, but ehh… Big deal…

1. Those other ‘references’ to Mary - in Genesis and Revelation - are only inferences, not references. If one already accepts that Mary is the women described, it is an easy jump to attach her to those vague references.

You say “not references” yet give zero reasoning as why it is wrong. Tell us, why is wrong? None of that “But, it aint in the Bible”. Well, neither is “the Bible”.

1. It wasn’t until 1854 that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was defined. The Bible doesn’t even mention the names of Mary’s parents, by the way. And it was not until 1950 that the doctrine of the Assumption was defined. Scholars debate the role that Mary played among the earliest Christians.

Does this make it false? No. Give us a reasons why they are false

1. The Bible clearly states that “all have sinned” - which contradicts the dogma that she lived a sinless life.

No it does not. To assume this is assume that that verse have no exceptions. Jesus was clearly an exception. If you want to use a verse and isolate from the rest of the Bible, then you are admitting that Jesus sinned. If you use that verse in context, then you will find that there is an exception not mentioned in exclusivity. Either Jesus sinned or He did not. Take your pick. The latter itself gives more evidence to Mary’s sinlessness. That and Revelations 12.

1. I know this can offend people, but to millions the veneration of Mary as found within Catholicism appears to be borrowed from the centrality of a major goddess among ancient and mystery religions competing with early Christianity.

So does God existing. Does that make it false?

1. Why do I doubt if Mary would want all this veneration? She would direct it to Jesus. It seems that some segments within Catholicism put an over-emphasis on Jesus. True, some Protestants go too far in the other direction, but maybe Christians should avoid either extreme. We can honor Mary without insisting that she is “Queen of Heaven” and “Mother of God” - both expressions that (in all honesty) tend to alienate me. Isn’t it quite enough that she was the mother of the human Jesus? I think so.

Queen of Heaven and Mother of God are ChristoLOGICAL doctrines. Look at Revelations 12:14. She is only what she is because of Christ and God. As far as veneration goes… The Angel Gabriel, Elizabeth, Simeon (kind of) and the woman in Luke 11:27-8 can do it but we cannot do it? Not to mention God Himself in giving her the wings in Revelations 12:14.

 

[elvisman]

1. Why do I doubt if Mary would want all this veneration? She would direct it to Jesus. It seems that some segments within Catholicism put an over-emphasis on Jesus. True, some Protestants go too far in the other direction, but maybe Christians should avoid either extreme. We can honor Mary without insisting that she is “Queen of Heaven” and “Mother of God” - both expressions that (in all honesty) tend to alienate me. Isn’t it quite enough that she was the mother of the human Jesus? I think so.

God bless all of his children, of every creed, color, culture and country. Let us make religion a bridge rather than a barrier.
10. Why do I doubt if Mary would want all this veneration? She would direct it to Jesus. It seems that some segments within Catholicism put an over-emphasis on Jesus. True, some Protestants go too far in the other direction, but maybe Christians should avoid either extreme. We can honor Mary without insisting that she is “Queen of Heaven” and “Mother of God” - both expressions that (in all honesty) tend to alienate me. Isn’t it quite enough that she was the mother of the human Jesus? I think so.

God bless all of his children, of every creed, color, culture and country. Let us make religion a bridge rather than a barrier.

No, it*** isn’t *****enough that she is the mother of the “human Jesus” because there is no such thing without the divine. She is the Mother of Jesus, who unites to himself 2 natures – FULLY human and FULLY divine. This is the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union which was declared to combat the Nestorian Heresy that you are proclaiming. **

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Know what’s strange? People gagging over ‘queen of heaven’. . but not having any problems with people other than Christ who are referred to in Scripture as "king of kings."

Example: Esdras 7: 12. . .which king Artaxerxes gave to Esdras the priest, the scribe instructed in the words and commandments of the Lord, and his ceremonies in Israel. [12] Artaxerxes king of kings to Esdras the priest, the most learned scribe of the law of the God of heaven,which king Artaxerxes gave to Esdras the priest, the scribe instructed in the words and commandments of the Lord, and his ceremonies in Israel. [12] Artaxerxes king of kings to Esdras the priest, the most learned scribe of the law of the God of heaven,

**Example: Ezechiel 26: 7 **For thus saith the Lord God: Behold I will bring against Tyre Nabuchodonosor king of Babylon, the king of kings, from the north, with horses,

Example: 2 Maccabees 13: 4But the King of kings stirred up the mind of Antiochus against the sinner, and upon Lysias, ,

But NOBODY is wailing saying that those people CAN’T be called King of Kings because that is only a title for Christ.

And NOBODY is saying that because the title “king of Kings” was used for other people in Scripture, it can’t ALSO be a title of Christ.

Yet in ONE scripture reference there is made reference to a specific ‘queen of heaven’ set up at ONE point by a group of people following Baal. . .

**and somehow OMG, that ONE reference means that there can’t ever be a real queen of heaven ever. It can ONLY mean that pagan goddess forever and ever amen. **

---

How bizarre. . .

 

[GaryTaylor]

If Christians want to venerate Mary and view her as Queen of Heaven as well as the Mother of God, fine. A free country, thank God.

A. Thanks, and thats a LOT of CHRISTIANS we are talking about!!!!!

But I have a problem with it. Let me summarize why.

A, This seems to be the same list you posted last week. With a few exceptions, you are seriously on mission to prove the Catholic/Orthodox church's wrong:shrug:

1. God is/was eternal. How could anyone be the mother of God who was mortal, herself born in time? I sense a logical fallacy here. 

 A. Because the Bible in Luke "clearly states the truth" MOTHER OF THE LORD! And who is the Lord?  Well that would be GOD! 

2. Mary plays a small role in the gospels, and not always one that suggests that she was the Mother of God. For example, recheck Matt. 12:46-50 and John 2:4. In both of these references Jesus seems to be almost dismissive of her. He asks: "Who is my mother?" And: "Woman, what have I to do with you?" I find these strange questions. 

  A. Misinterpretation of Christs intention. "TOTALLY" thats why we have the CC and avoid Sola Scipture to avoid grave error like this. Bible isn't about Mary. Why would it shine a light on Mary, Luke's writting are significant though are they not? 

3. Or, consider the trip to Jerusalem story, when Jesus was 12. Mary and Joseph travel a whole day before noticing that Jesus isn't among them. I know people will defend this, but I find it quite wild. Would the mother of the Lord (or any child of 12) actually travel that distance and not notice her special and only Son was absent? And, when they returned to find him would she scold him if she viewed him as God's Son? Does this suggest either a disobedient and even defiant son or does it suggest irresponsible parents - or both?

  A. Humans make human mistakes, such is the world. If theres one perfect let him come foward.

4. Then you have Jesus in Luke 11:27-28. When someone says 'blessed is the womb that bare thee; he answered: "Yea, rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God and keep it."

  A. And the Glory is with God as always in the CC. But Blessed is that womb that bared Jesus Christ nonetheless. :D 

5. Nowhere in the epistles of Paul or any of the ther epistles is Mary's name even found. The letters of Paul dealt with many topics of a theological nature, yet no mention of Mary? 

 A. Actually this is wrong as I mentioned above its in Galations.4:4. Have you read it? "But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law" And God son was God so Its onlu correct mary is the Mother of God. 


6. Those other 'references' to Mary - in Genesis and Revelation - are only inferences, not references. If one already accepts that Mary is the women described, it is an easy jump to attach her to those vague references.

 A. 2000 years of Christs Church in teaching which coincide's with scripture. Just maybe "you" have it wrong:shrug: The Popes thinking is above on this. Matter of fact a few of them. 

7. It wasn't until 1854 that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was defined. The Bible doesn't even mention the names of Mary's parents, by the way. And it was not until 1950 that the doctrine of the Assumption was defined. Scholars debate the role that Mary played among the earliest Christians. 

A. No it was 1400, and the CC rejected it against the will of the majorty of Catholics. It then took another 400 years to approve. But of course you remember we been through this:shrug: 

8. The Bible clearly states that "all have sinned" - which contradicts the dogma that she lived a sinless life.

A. What else does this verse say???? And where in Bible does it state Mary sinned?

9. I know this can offend people, but to millions the veneration of Mary as found within Catholicism appears to be borrowed from the centrality of a major goddess among ancient and mystery religions competing with early Christianity.

A. You mean BIllions the "MAJORITY" Catholic/Orthodox, so basically Christianity your talking about? And actually Paul speaks on this in Ephesians with Diana. Misundestanding by Christians with a very loose understanding of Christs Church, But we all already know all this. And there is no other women in the History of the WORLD more venerated than Mary. 2500 Biographys by all Faiths and the most Venerated in Art by all Faiths?  Lot of people think alot of Mary. Even Luther got this all right. 

10. Why do I doubt if Mary would want all this veneration? She would direct it to Jesus. It seems that some segments within Catholicism put an over-emphasis on Jesus. True, some Protestants go too far in the other direction, but maybe Christians should avoid either extreme. We can honor Mary without insisting that she is "Queen of Heaven" and "Mother of God" - both expressions that (in all honesty) tend to alienate me. Isn't it quite enough that she was the mother of the human Jesus? I think so.

A. Actually no, She is the Mother of God per Bible, maybe all Christians should get in “communion” with Jesus Christs Church with the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ.

And God Bless You also Roy we always want to hear your valued opinion of Mary and how the Church should respond according to you

 God bless all of his children, of every creed, color, culture and country. Let us make religion a bridge rather than a barrier.

Didn’t we go through all this… like Last Week?

 

[elvisman]

1. Or, consider the trip to Jerusalem story, when Jesus was 12. Mary and Joseph travel a whole day before noticing that Jesus isn’t among them. I know people will defend this, but I find it quite wild. Would the mother of the Lord (or any child of 12) actually travel that distance and not notice her special and only Son was absent? And, when they returned to find him would she scold him if she viewed him as God’s Son? Does this suggest either a disobedient and even defiant son or does it suggest irresponsible parents - or both?

WOW. this is so ridiculous - I don’t even know where to begin.

First of all - 1st century travel among caravans is something that you couldn’t possibly begin to understand with your 21st century sensibilities. In that sort of group travel, it was common for the children to be separated from their parents.

**Secondly, to actually say that Mary didn’t know who Jesus was is abjectly ignorant. she was told by the Angel Gabriel who he was. The name Emmanuel means “GOD is with us”. Besides - the only thing she said to Jesus when she found him was, *“Son, why have you done this to us? Your father and I have been looking for you with great anxiety.” ***
Nobody scolded him.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

**This is one of my *****favorite ***Protestant attacks on Mary because it is so easily refutable.
You say that Rom. 3:10, 23 explicitly states: *“There is no one righteous, not even one; For there is no distinction; all have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God.” *Is that so? How about babies or toddlers below the age of reason? What about those who are mentally challenged and may not have full use of their intellect and will? What about Jesus?

St. Paul** is speaking about those who trust in the Mosaic Law for their salvation.**
In this passage, St. Paul is actually quoting Psalm 14, where it says, "The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God. They are corrupt…there is none that does good.’” Later in the same Psalm, we hear that “God is present in the company of the “righteous.”

St. Paul** was using* inclusive*** language. This would be similar to somebody saying that “everybody in town” came to the carnival last year. He is referring to the mass of mankind but God can and does make exceptions for anybody he wishes.

I like this explanation. But, I can already see an objection. I will let it go so as not stir those who do not think of it. The objection is easily refuted anyway.