Are Marian dogmas wildly un biblical?

[BryanM27]

On the contrary. Firstly, you are placing much focus upon Mary or otherwise this topic wouldn’t be such a stickler for you and secondly, the fact remains that Mary is not mentioned once past the book of Acts. If that doesn’t say anything to you about the obvious differences between the Bible and Catholic theology, then so be it. It is what it is.

1.) What obvious differences are you referring too?

2.) Revelation 12:1-6 does not specifically mention Mary by name. That is a fact of scripture. However, I wonder how you can interpret that passage to be a reference to anything other than Mary and the birth of Christ.

3.) Which is “most/more” important in the bible: the Gospels or the letters? If not for the information contained in the Gospels, there would be no letters.

4.) As has already been mentioned, Mary is referred too as “favored”, “blessed” and “mother of God” several times in the Gospels, especially in Luke.

5.) Gospel of John 19:26-27
“When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple there whom He loved, he said to his mother, ‘Woman, behold your son.’ Then he said to the disciple, ‘Behold your mother.’”

6.) According to John, Jesus performs his first public miracle at the request of his mother.

7.) Logic: if God is all-powerful and can do anything then He can choose how to enter this world. If he can choose how to enter this world, He can choose to enter as a full-grown man. Instead, He chose to enter through a “natural” birth and maturation process. Thus he was dependent on Mary to provide for him while in her womb, and to care for him as a baby and help him grow. He CHOSE to be dependent on her.

8.) Continuing our logic from #7, if God was dependent on this woman why would he not treat her with more respect than any of his prophets? Is she less important than Abraham or Moses?

9.) Christ is King of Kings. Who among you would approach a king on this earth without first going through an intermediary? If you wouldn’t go to an earthly king without an intermediate, why would you go direct to the King of Kings, who is greater than any on earth, without one?

 

[Good_Fella]

The Catholic church was born on 33 AD? What about the Orthodox church?

The Orthodox church is the result of an 11th century schism. But this is a different topic. Enough said.

PAX :heaven:

 

[PRmerger]

On the contrary. Firstly, you are placing much focus upon Mary

Yup. No one denies that Mary has a pre-eminent position in Christianity as the Mother of God.

or otherwise this topic wouldn’t be such a stickler for you

Actually, it’s “a stickler” for you, not me.

and secondly, the fact remains that Mary is not mentioned once past the book of Acts. If that doesn’t say anything to you about the obvious differences between the Bible and Catholic theology, then so be it. It is what it is.

Again, then you ought to be just as dismissive of Philip and all the other apostles, disciples, martyrs and Christians whose names are “not mentioned once past the book of Acts.”

This criterion of having to be mentioned past the book of Acts is quite curious. Who decided that this is the way of determining one’s importance? And how many times must one be mentioned in order for it to be enough to earn a place of importance?

Indeed, this is another man-made tradition that’s been proferred by those who have divorced themselves from the faith of the Apostles (most of whom are not mentioned, BTW, past the book of Acts. )

 

[pablope]

I couldn’t help but notice the quote from Martin Luther King, Jr., in the last posting. Today, Dec. 1, marks the 55th anniversary of the refusal of Rosa Parks to give up her seat on a Montgomery bus because of the color of her skin. Some suggest that this brave act marked the beginning of the modern civil rights movement.

We often forget that both Martin Luther King, Jr., and his Dad were named after the Augustinian monk who kicked off the Reformation. No further comment, but thought it was worth mentioning, especially on this particular day.

 Okay. One additional 'summary' comment. **Personally, I think it is quite enough that Mary was the mother of Christ and that this alone merits reverence and honor.** I'm not convinced that the Church had to add on a wide variety of other doctrines, some of them like Immaculate Conception (1864) and Assumption (1950) not defined until recent times. I understand how the Church justifies them, but such accretions over the centuries makes Mary seem more like a goddess than a fellow human being. And doesn't the Bible say, more than once, that all humans are sinners? E. g., Romans 3:23 and 5:12.

You stated Personally, I think it is quite enough that Mary was the mother of Christ and that this alone merits reverence and honor.…so, in your own little way, out of the goodness of you heart, what have you done to give Mary such reverence and honor you are stating here? Have you, in all your years of existence, even said a simple “thank you” to here to bearing the Saviour, for bringing Him to the world?

 

[Michael2799]

hello 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.

If followers of Christ were to practice such veneration to Mary, it seems to me that the New Testament letters would be saturated with directives indicating such. Especially convincing is the fact that Paul’s letter to the church at Rome makes no mention of her at all. Don’t get me wrong, Mary was a very special and remakable woman, chosen by God to bear his son. But men have elevated her to a position where she virtually has god-like attributes, this comes strictly from Roman Catholic tradition, not the bible.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

**Newbie Protestants are coming dangerously close to a contempt violation, which is a bannable offense. **
Tone it down now.

 

[Hesychios]

The Orthodox church is the result of an 11th century schism. But this is a different topic. Enough said.

NO.

Not enough said … you are wrong and the conversation will not end there.

 

[KathleenGee]

Michael,

If you look at the bible again, what are the books about? See how many are in the Old Testament…it is about the explanations of the origins of creation, then the choosing and emergence of the Jews as the chosen people of God, and the coming of the promised Messiah. The Old Testament is the history of faith of the Jewish people.

Then we have the New Testament. But did the history of the Judeo Christian people then end with the book of Revelations?

No, the history of the Judeo Christian people began with the Church at Pentecost. Our Vatican has the greatest library in the world that contains the history of the Church, the good and bad open to the public.

Do you follow me? Why didn’t Jesus then, pass out Bibles to His apostles? It would be so easy to have a book in hand, and then you have it all…may be…may be not…there is the problem with the veil of language, semantics…same words but people interpreting same words differently.

Jesus came into this world through Mary. Mary has more value than all the buildings and churches in Israel. Without Mary, Jesus would not be human. There would be no salvation and redemption. There would be no buildings and churches in Israel honoring Christ.

Don’t you think that Mary, who raised the Christ Child and was with Him at the crucifixion would also want to participate and support His mission? Do you think it OK that mothers of famous people have more honor and remembrance than the Mother of Christ? Would you think people in ancient times with tight family ties would then displace Christ’s mother, ignore her? It is documented in various forms that the ancient Christians had veneration of Mary. And without any knowledge of our continued faith journey, now in Christ, you do not know of the work of Mary among the Christians all down through the centuries. We have a very rich heritage. We have the communion of saints. Our faith is not the Bible alone, but a gathering of people centered on the sacramental life of Christ.

 

[Hesychios]

That’s fine, but I am not going to let the “not on topic” be used as a lame excuse for someone to make a drive-by shooting and get away with it.

If it is not on topic, he should not have brought it up. If it is relevant to the discussion, than it is not off topic.

We can’t be doing a “it’s this way because I said so” and let people make unsupported claims. If so-and-so wants to make any old absurd claim, such as “the orthodox church started at some time after pentacost”, they had better be able to support that claim right here.

 

[KathleenGee]

The Orthodox Church was the ‘lung’ of the universal church overseeing the Holy Land and Asia Minor…

 

[Good_Fella]

If followers of Christ were to practice such veneration to Mary, it seems to me that the New Testament letters would be saturated with directives indicating such.
Here’s a directive pronounced by Mary herself in the Gospel of Luke (1:48-49).

“Behold, from now on all ages will call me blessed.
For the Mighty one has done great things for me, and holy is his name.”

The Judeo-Christians in Palestine had traditionally venerated Mary, for instance, with the invocation of Daughter Zion, having perceived her to be the archtype of the Church and the fulfillment of the Woman of Promise, the personification of the true Israel in the Spirit, who enjoys God’s favour and whose faith and devotion to God has brought blessing to all the nations on earth together with her own unique restoration in the order of grace, before the evangelist wrote his gospel at least twenty-five years after the Church was born with the descent of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost.

Shout for joy, O daughter Zion! sing joyfully, O Israel! Be glad and exult with all your heart, o daughter Jerusalem!
The Lord has removed his judgment against you, he has turned away your enemies; the King of Israel, the Lord, is in your midst, you have no further misfortune to fear.

*And Mary said, * “My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord, my spirit rejoices in God my savior.
For he has looked upon the lowliness of his handmaid.”

On that day, it shall be said to Jerusalem: Fear not, O Zion, be not discouraged.
The Lord, your God, is in your midst, a mighty savior.

In the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a town in Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph, of the house of David, and the virgin’s name was Mary. And coming to her he said, “Rejoice, O highly favoured daughter! The Lord is with you.” But she was greatly troubled at what was said and pondered what sort of greeting this might be. Then the angel said to her, “Fear not, Mary, for you have found favor with God. Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus. He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give him the throne of David his father.”

He will rejoice over you with gladness, and renew you in his love.

“The Mighty One has done great things for me, and holy is his name.”

He will sing joyfully because of you.

And Elizabeth, filled with the Holy Spirit, cried out in a loud voice and said, “Blessed are you who believed that what was spoken to you by the Lord would be fulfilled.”

At that time I will bring you home, and at that time I will gather you; For I will give you renown and praise, among all the peoples of the earth. When I bring about your restoration before your very eyes, says the LORD.

“Behold, from now on all ages will call me blessed.”

Zephaniah 3, 14-20

Since you have undertaken to complile a narrative of the events that have been fulfilled among us (Sacred Tradition), just as those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning and ministers of the word have handed them down to us (oral tradition), I too have decided, after investigating everything anew, to write it down in an orderly sequence for you (Sacred Scripture), most excellent Theophilus.
Luke 1, 1-4

Especially convincing is the fact that Paul’s letter to the church at Rome makes no mention of her at all.

Look again.

Pax Christu :harp:

 

[mortonsam]

The Orthodox church is the result of an 11th century schism. But this is a different topic. Enough said.

PAX :heaven:

Now hold on here. It isn’t nearly that simple. The Orthodox church wasn’t the result of a schism. It isn’t protestant in nature as defined by the Roman Catholic church. In fact those councils which were responsible for much of the canonization of Scripture did in fact become part of the modern day Orthodox church. East (Orthodox) and West (Rome) were one church until 1054ad.

 

[mortonsam]

Yup. No one denies that Mary has a pre-eminent position in Christianity as the Mother of God.

Actually, it’s “a stickler” for you, not me.

Again, then you ought to be just as dismissive of Philip and all the other apostles, disciples, martyrs and Christians whose names are “not mentioned once past the book of Acts.”

This criterion of having to be mentioned past the book of Acts is quite curious. Who decided that this is the way of determining one’s importance? And how many times must one be mentioned in order for it to be enough to earn a place of importance?

Indeed, this is another man-made tradition that’s been proferred by those who have divorced themselves from the faith of the Apostles (most of whom are not mentioned, BTW, past the book of Acts. )

Look PR, I’m not going to get drawn into a knock down drag out argument with you ok. You know what I said and you just simply refuse to acknowledge it. You keep recycling everything back into a circle. I respectfully will decline to discuss this any further with you.

 

[PRmerger]

Look PR, I’m not going to get drawn into a knock down drag out argument with you ok. You know what I said and you just simply refuse to acknowledge it. You keep recycling everything back into a circle. I respectfully will decline to discuss this any further with you.

As you wish.

However, this is the point of the CAFs–a back and forth dialogue, with each poster presenting arguments and others can support or refute these positions.

And, again, I will state that saying that there’s some criterion for having to be mentioned a specific number of times (how many? and who decides?) in order to have importance in Christianity is, well, arbitrary and a man-made tradition.

 

[mortonsam]

If followers of Christ were to practice such veneration to Mary, it seems to me that the New Testament letters would be saturated with directives indicating such. Especially convincing is the fact that Paul’s letter to the church at Rome makes no mention of her at all. Don’t get me wrong, Mary was a very special and remakable woman, chosen by God to bear his son. But men have elevated her to a position where she virtually has god-like attributes, this comes strictly from Roman Catholic tradition, not the bible.

Paul’s letter to the Romans is silent on many things that are very peculiar such as Mary as you mentioned and also Peter being the first pope and his death in Rome.

 

[PRmerger]

Paul’s letter to the Romans is silent on many things that are very peculiar such as Mary as you mentioned and also Peter being the first pope and his death in Rome.

And Paul’s letter to the Romans is silent on the Trinity, the 2 natures of Jesus–divine and human, that God created the heavens and the earth, the virgin birth, the Resurrection .

 

[Good_Fella]

NO.

Not enough said … you are wrong and the conversation will not end there.

First of all, I am right. Church history and theology is on my side. Perhaps we may continue this discussion on another thread. Forum rules, you know.

“The reason for your absence was both honourable and imperative, that the schismatic wolves (contumacious Eastern bishops) might not rob and plunder by stealth nor the heretical dogs bark madly in the rapid fury, nor the very serpent, the devil, discharge his blasphemous venom. So it seems to us right and altogether fitting that priests of the Lord from each and every province should report to their head, that is, to the See of Peter, the Apostle.”
Council of Sardica, To Pope Julius [A.D. 342]

“But I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.”
Luke 22, 32

"Accordingly…“We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Holy Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.”
Pope Pius lX, Apostolic Constitution: Ineffabilis Deus 8 December 1854]

Habetis bona deum. :tiphat:

 

[placido]

On the contrary. Firstly, you are placing much focus upon Mary …

Catholics do not really place much focus upon Mary, at least not as much as as the Fundamentalists allege. I can prove what I say, but you have no prove of what you allege.

… the fact remains that Mary is not mentioned once past the book of Acts.

Someone had to come up with this strange criteria as Plan B. Was revelation written before or after the Acts? Try to answer that question; it will help you discover how miserable your arguments really are.

If that doesn’t say anything to you about the obvious differences between the Bible and Catholic theology, then so be it. It is what it is.

Even if I wanted to take you seriously I can no longer do so after you spoke of “obvious differences between the Bible and the Catholic theology” – what is simply not possible. The Bible is a product of Catholic theology; the books of the New Testament were included in the Bible exactly because they agree with Catholic theology … properly understood.

 

[Good_Fella]

That’s fine, but I am not going to let the “not on topic” be used as a lame excuse for someone to make a drive-by shooting and get away with it.

If it is not on topic, he should not have brought it up. If it is relevant to the discussion, than it is not off topic.

We can’t be doing a “it’s this way because I said so” and let people make unsupported claims. If so-and-so wants to make any old absurd claim, such as “the orthodox church started at some time after pentacost”, they had better be able to support that claim right here.

I’m not the one who raised the subject. I replied to a member who had asked me, “What about the Orthodox church?” I simply answered his question without getting into details because of the topic of this thread. If I believed that it was Rome that separated itself from the Church, I wouldn’t be Catholic. So, honestly, what do you expect me to say?

PAX :harp:

 

[PRmerger]

Catholics do not really place much focus upon Mary, at least not as much as as the Fundamentalists allege.

'zactly.

And how is it that Fundamentalists put “just enough” focus on Mary. How much is “just enough”? Who decides what is “just enough”?

Does the Bible give us directives on this?

(Actually, it does. 1 Tim 3:15. Hebrew 13:17)