Baptists and Mary

  • Thread starter Thread starter kramerbaby
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
rarndt01:
Once again there is no place in the tradition passed on by the apostles WHERE THEY STATED Mary was made Queen of heaven and reigning alongside the Triune God.
Click to expand...
How many times are you going to make false statements before you stop? Let’s sum up a few:

You claimed that Scott Hahn originated the typology between Mary and the Ark of the Covenant. It was demonstrated this was wrong.

You claimed no early Christian writer used this typology. That was also proved wrong.

You claimed that “co-” always means “equal to.” This was proved wrong.

You claimed that no early Church figure ever said the woman in heaven described in Revelation 12 was Mary. That was proved wrong.

Once again, you make a spurious claim. Devotion to Mary can easily be traced back almost to the Apostolic period itself. Mary’s queenship was a fixed part of Catholic doctrine throughout the Church by the 11th century, and is found even earlier is someplaces (for example, by the 9th century in Ireland).

Likewise, your assertion that Mary had no choice but bear God’s Son is ludicrous. Mary assented to God’s will; she had a choice. God is love, not a rapist.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
40.png
hlgomez:
But does the Bible says she has sinned? If Adam and Eve were created without sin, would God also not able to do it to Mary? Mama Mary is the Father’s perfect masterpiece. She is the one who the Song of Songs points out*–“You are all-beautiful, my beloved, and there is no blemish in you.”(Song of Songs 4:7)*
In another passage it says: “I heard my lover knocking:
"Open to me, my sister, my beloved,
*my dove, my perfect one!” (Song of Songs 5:2) *

AMEN.

Pio
Click to expand...
But does the Bible say she has not sinned? We could go 'round and 'round the ferris wheel with this.🙂

This book, Song of Songs is a giant metaphor for speaking of Christ and his bride, the church.

The Father’s perfect masterpiece? Are you serious? This is the problem people have with the Marian dogmas. It SEEM you are equating the Father’s perfect masterpiece (Jesus, His Son) with his mother who was human as far as I can tell. She was not divine, correct? Then how can she be human and not born with sin nature?
 
It SEEM you are equating the Father’s perfect masterpiece (Jesus, His Son)
Click to expand...
Mary is the Father’s perfect masterpiece HUMAN.
40.png
ahimsaman72:
Then how can she be human and not born with sin nature?
Click to expand...
By the grace of God.
 
Mark Chance

As always, you strive to promote your heresy that the apostles taught the Queenship and rulership of Mary in heaven and that she was the new “ark of the covenant”. Well, if they did, would you PLEASE supply just ONE church father who said Paul or Peter or Luke or Timothy or ANY of the apostles made such claims? Just ONE. What was PASSED ON to the early fathers, by the apostles, was TRUE church tradition and not the kind created in the 9th century Mark.

If you can quote just one church father who said Paul or Peter declared that Mary was Queen of heaven I will accept it as GENUINE church tradition. Otherwise, you are just whistling in the dark.

Ron from Ohio
 
Sarah Jane

I am a Catholic, because I believe in the sacraments. No other church offers these in the way the Catholic church does. But, at the same time being a student of history I know that the modern day Catholic church does NOT entirely teach the APOSTOLIC traditions that the early church held dearly. I am for returning to the simplicity and true doctrines once delivered from the apostles to the church. The Queenship of Mary, not allowing bishops to marry and admitting known homosexuals into the priesthood were not of apostolic church tradition at all.

Ron from Ohio
 
40.png
rarndt01:
If you can quote just one church father who said Paul or Peter declared that Mary was Queen of heaven I will accept it as GENUINE church tradition. Otherwise, you are just whistling in the dark.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:

So, in addition to not actually knowing what the Church Fathers wrote or didn’t write (as has been demonstrated frequently), and in addition bearing false witness against the Church (as has been demonstrated frequently), now it becomes obvious you don’t have a clue about what Apostolic Tradition and doctrinal development mean.

Get thee to a catechism!

Oh yeah, Revelation 12, which does describe Mary (as has been stated by some of those early Church Fathers you “know” so much about) is wearing a crown.

:hmmm:

One more time, Ron: How many times are you going to make false statements before you stop? Let’s sum up a few:

You claimed that Scott Hahn originated the typology between Mary and the Ark of the Covenant. It was demonstrated this was wrong.

You claimed no early Christian writer used this typology. That was also proved wrong.

You claimed that “co-” always means “equal to.” This was proved wrong.

You claimed that no early Church figure ever said the woman in heaven described in Revelation 12 was Mary. That was proved wrong.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
Mary’s complete exemption from actual sin is confirmed by the Council of Trent (Session VI, Canon 23): “If any one say that man once justified can during his whole life avoid all sins, even venial ones, as the Church holds that the Blessed Virgin did by special privilege of God, let him be anathema.” Theologians assert that Mary was impeccable, not by the essential perfection of her nature, but by a special Divine privilege. Moreover, the Fathers, at least since the fifth century, almost unanimously maintain that the Blessed Virgin never experienced the motions of concupiscence.
 
This verse explicitly establishes a link between Mary as bearer of the New Covenant and the Ark of the Old Covenant. The Gk. word for “overshadow” (“episkiasei”) was used of the bright cloud at the Transfiguration of Jesus Christ (Mt 17:5; Lk 9:34) and is reminiscent of the Shekinah of the OT, which represented God’s Presence (Ex 24:15-16; 40:34-8; 1 Ki 8:4-11). Mary became like the Holy of Holies in the Temple, where God dwelt. God gave extremely detailed instructions on constructing the ark, since it was to contain His Law (Ex 25-30 and 35-40). Mary had to be that much more holy, since she was to carry the Word of God in the flesh (Job 14:4). Further parallelism between Mary and the Ark is indicated in comparing Lk 1:43 with 2 Sam 6:9, Lk 1:44 with 2 Sam 6:14-16, and Lk 1:39-45,56 with 2 Sam 6:10-12.

Mary had to be sinless in order to be in such close proximity to God Himself. The whole Bible teaches this (e.g., Ex 3:5; Deut 23:14). God’s Presence imparts and requires holiness (1 Cor 3:13-17; 1 Jn 3:3-9). The Jewish high priest entered the Holy of Holies (where the Ark and God’s Special Presence were) only once a year, under threat of death if God’s instructions were violated (Lev 16:2-4,13). The Ark itself was so holy that only a few were allowed to touch it (Num 4:15; 2 Sam 6:2-7). Thus, Mary, due to her ineffable physical and spiritual relationship with God the Son, the Holy Spirit (as “Spouse”), and God the Father (as “Daughter of Zion”), necessarily had to be granted the grace of sinlessness from conception, just as we all will be cleansed utterly in order to be present with God in heaven (Rev 21:27). Seen in this light, the Immaculate Conception, though still technically a deduction from the Bible, is a very biblical doctrine indeed.
 
mayra hart:
This verse explicitly establishes a link between Mary as bearer of the New Covenant and the Ark of the Old Covenant. The Gk. word for “overshadow” (“episkiasei”) was used of the bright cloud at the Transfiguration of Jesus Christ (Mt 17:5; Lk 9:34) and is reminiscent of the Shekinah of the OT, which represented God’s Presence (Ex 24:15-16; 40:34-8; 1 Ki 8:4-11). Mary became like the Holy of Holies in the Temple, where God dwelt. God gave extremely detailed instructions on constructing the ark, since it was to contain His Law (Ex 25-30 and 35-40). Mary had to be that much more holy, since she was to carry the Word of God in the flesh (Job 14:4). Further parallelism between Mary and the Ark is indicated in comparing Lk 1:43 with 2 Sam 6:9, Lk 1:44 with 2 Sam 6:14-16, and Lk 1:39-45,56 with 2 Sam 6:10-12.

Mary had to be sinless in order to be in such close proximity to God Himself. The whole Bible teaches this (e.g., Ex 3:5; Deut 23:14). God’s Presence imparts and requires holiness (1 Cor 3:13-17; 1 Jn 3:3-9). The Jewish high priest entered the Holy of Holies (where the Ark and God’s Special Presence were) only once a year, under threat of death if God’s instructions were violated (Lev 16:2-4,13). The Ark itself was so holy that only a few were allowed to touch it (Num 4:15; 2 Sam 6:2-7). Thus, Mary, due to her ineffable physical and spiritual relationship with God the Son, the Holy Spirit (as “Spouse”), and God the Father (as “Daughter of Zion”), necessarily had to be granted the grace of sinlessness from conception, just as we all will be cleansed utterly in order to be present with God in heaven (Rev 21:27). Seen in this light, the Immaculate Conception, though still technically a deduction from the Bible, is a very biblical doctrine indeed.
Click to expand...
As a Convert, I, too have struggled with the Marian doctrines – and often still do. “I believe; help my unbelief” is a frequent prayer. But this post, Mayra, has opened my eyes to a critical point that I had not registered before. If, as you observe, sinlessness is required in order to be present with God – ‘nothing unclean will enter the heavenly City’ – then it stands to reason that for Heaven to enter Our Lady, she had to be perfectly clean, perfectly sinless.

Thank you, Mayra! This alone was worth slogging through all the blood and guts of this thread. May God reward you for sharing these holy insights!
 
michance

OK wise guy, you braggart. Here is your chance. You believe in apostolic church authority? Give me just ONE quote from an early church father who quotes ONE OF THE APOSTLES that ever said that Mary was made Queen of heaven and is ruling alongside the Triune God . If you can produce just one who quotes one of the apostles that said this, I will publicly apologize calling you a big mouth braggart, who doesn’t know squat about apostolic tradition. So put up or shut up once and for all.

Ron from Ohio
 
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, and he will rule over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end." (Luke 1:31-33)

Aside from the prophetic types present in the Kingdom of Judah, there is also the text of Psalm 45, which when speaking of the Kingdom of God also speaks of its Queen.

[6] Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre. [7] Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. [8] All thy garments smell of myrrh, and aloes, and cassia, out of the ivory palaces, whereby they have made thee glad. [9] Kings’ daughters were among thy honourable women: upon thy right hand did stand the queen in gold of Ophir. [10] Hearken, O daughter, and consider, and incline thine ear; forget also thine own people, and thy father’s house; [11] So shall the king greatly desire thy beauty: for he is thy Lord; and worship thou him. (Psalm 45:6-11, KJV) santa maria madre de dios ruega por nosotros pecadores ahora y en nuestra muerte …amen
 
You have a problem with the teachings. Mary was the product of the Immaculate Conception…which means she was conceived without sin. She had no original sin when she came to this earth, yet she still retained free will. She was the same as Eve…and she has even been referred to as the 2nd Eve…the only difference is that our Blessed Mother did not give in to sin…she remained true to God and her integrity is in tact. To dispute this is not possible.
40.png
ahimsaman72:
But does the Bible say she has not sinned? We could go 'round and 'round the ferris wheel with this.🙂

This book, Song of Songs is a giant metaphor for speaking of Christ and his bride, the church.

The Father’s perfect masterpiece? Are you serious? This is the problem people have with the Marian dogmas. It SEEM you are equating the Father’s perfect masterpiece (Jesus, His Son) with his mother who was human as far as I can tell. She was not divine, correct? Then how can she be human and not born with sin nature?
Click to expand...
 
rarndt01It is true, … Jesus Christ is DIVINE and not human
Click to expand...
Did we all miss this, our was this just a typo error.

**rarndt01, **Before you jump into concepts about Mary, shouldn’t you first start with CHRIST. Your statement is close to Gnosticism.

Christ IS the word made flesh. Christ IS human. But Christ has two natures: one divine, one human. This is called the incarnation. (implicitly derived from scripture). Christ cannot BE our savior unless he IS HUMAN.

The reason there is limited historical writings about Mary in the first few centuries is because the church was still trying to define doctrines about GOD (good vs evil GOD, who he is, ect) and CHRIST (is he human, is he divine, his natures, ect). That is what the Nicene creed is all about. Try reading to creed sometime. After that was achieved, doctrines on Mary began to be focussed on by the Catholic church.
rarndt01 http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/statusicon_cad/user_offline.gif http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon1.gif Re: Baptists and Mary

Now did God HAVE TO choose Mary as the ONLY vessel to give birth to his son? Was God so desperate to find a young, Jewish woman that he pleaded with her. No, God NEEDS NO ONE. We need him. God didn’t ask Mary, he TOLD HER. Read the text carefully. If was already decreed of God]
Click to expand...
You are wrong, GOD did actually need MARY. HE needed it so bad HE even asked for it!!

GOD respects freedom of religion, he respects our free will. That is why he gave free will to us. We can freely choose to reject HIM. MARY freely chose to ACCEPT him. “FIAT”.
GOD did not force MARY to be cooperative to his demands. MARY accepted cooperation with HIS will.
You cannot force someone to love you…
MARY was the world’s FIRST love.

Mary did not receive the special privledge (immaculate conception) for HER sake, it was was for HIS sake.

Religion is alot easier if you just let the Catholic church do all the interpreting for you. After all, The church is infallable.
 
Good stuff…I agree with what you have to say. Keep it coming.
40.png
RMP:
Did we all miss this, our was this just a typo error.

**rarndt01, **Before you jump into concepts about Mary, shouldn’t you first start with CHRIST. Your statement is close to Gnosticism.

Christ IS the word made flesh. Christ IS human. But Christ has two natures: one divine, one human. This is called the incarnation. (implicitly derived from scripture). Christ cannot BE our savior unless he IS HUMAN.

The reason there is limited historical writings about Mary in the first few centuries is because the church was still trying to define doctrines about GOD (good vs evil GOD, who he is, ect) and CHRIST (is he human, is he divine, his natures, ect). That is what the Nicene creed is all about. Try reading to creed sometime. After that was achieved, doctrines on Mary began to be focussed on by the Catholic church.

You are wrong, GOD did actually need MARY. HE needed it so bad HE even asked for it!!

GOD respects freedom of religion, he respects our free will. That is why he gave free will to us. We can freely choose to reject HIM. MARY freely chose to ACCEPT him. “FIAT”.
GOD did not force MARY to be cooperative to his demands. MARY accepted cooperation with HIS will.
You cannot force someone to love you…
MARY was the world’s FIRST love.

Mary did not receive the special privledge (immaculate conception) for HER sake, it was was for HIS sake.

Religion is alot easier if you just let the Catholic church do all the interpreting for you. After all, The church is infallable.
 
40.png
rarndt01:
If you can produce just one who quotes one of the apostles that said this, I will publicly apologize calling you a big mouth braggart, who doesn’t know squat about apostolic tradition. So put up or shut up once and for all.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:

I’ll get right on that after you explain how it is you became the authoritative source for what is and is not acceptable Catholic doctrine.

Back to my question: How many times are you going to make false statements before you stop? Let’s sum up a few:

You claimed that Scott Hahn originated the typology between Mary and the Ark of the Covenant. It was demonstrated this was wrong.

You claimed no early Christian writer used this typology. That was also proved wrong.

You claimed that “co-” always means “equal to.” This was proved wrong.

You claimed that no early Church figure ever said the woman in heaven described in Revelation 12 was Mary. That was proved wrong.

Now you’re huffing and puffing about Mary’s title of Queen of Heaven, regardless that you obviously don’t understand what it means and that you ignore the fact that, in Revelation 12, Mary is described as (drumroll, please) a queen.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
:banghead: ::

Oh, dear… I give up! :banghead:

:gopray:

Hail, Holy Queen,
Mother of Mercy
Hail, our life, our sweetness and our hope
To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve
To thee do we send up our sighs,
mourning and weeping in this valley of tears.
Turn, then, most gracious Advocate,
thine eyes of mercy towards us.
And after this – our exile –
show unto us the blessed fruit of thy womb,
Jesus,
O clement, o loving, o sweet Virgin Mary…

Help of Christians, pray for us… :gopray2:
Queen of Apostles, pray for us… :gopray2:
Queen of all Saints, pray for us…
Queen conceived without Original Sin, pray for us…
Queen assumed into Heaven, pray for us…
Queen of the most holy rosary, pray for us…
Queen of Angels, pray for us… :gopray2:
Mediatrix of all graces, pray for us… :gopray2:
Exterminatrix of heresies, pray for us… :gopray2:
Our Lady of Mt Carmel, pray for us…
 
Peace be with you!
40.png
mlchance:
You seem overfond of making untrue claims. Epiphanius, for one, linked the woman of Revelation 12 to Mary. Mary’s sinlessness was held by luminaries such as Jerome and Augustine. Sixth century Christian liturgies refer to Mary as the Ark of the Covenant, which certainly predates Mr. Hahn, whom you falsely credit with the origin of the typology between the Blessed Virgin and the Ark.

Feel free to admit that you were wrong.

– Mark L. Chance.
Click to expand...
The Bible doesn’t say that Mary has come from heaven, while saying:

“Now if He were on earth, He would not be a priest at all, since there are those who offer the gifts according to the Law;
who serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things, just as Moses was warned by God when he was about to erect the tabernacle; for, “SEE,” He says, “THAT YOU MAKE all things ACCORDING TO THE PATTERN WHICH WAS SHOWN YOU ON THE MOUNTAIN.”” ( Hebrews 8:4-5 )
So everything in the Temple was a copy and shadow of HEAVENLY things, not an earthly human like Mary.

Jesus says:

“No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man.” ( John 3:13 )

In Love,
Yaqubos†
 
40.png
YAQUBOS:
The Bible doesn’t say that Mary has come from heaven, while saying… So everything in the Temple was a copy and shadow of HEAVENLY things, not an earthly human like Mary.
Click to expand...
As my students would say: Huh?
40.png
YAQUBOS:
Jesus says: “No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man.” ( John 3:13 )
Click to expand...
Obviously, Jesus didn’t mean what you think he means. Elijah ascended to Heaven.

These observations aside, you’re off the point. Ron (who apparently thinks he is the final arbiter of what is and is not acceptable doctrine) said that no early Church writer equated the woman described in Revelation 12 with Mary. I merely pointed out that he was wrong about this.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top