Discussing Mary

[Tantum_ergo]

I’m still waiting for the definitive Protestant scriptural passage that gives the names of the books to be in the Scriptural canon, as well as the passage that proclaims that all Christian teaching is to be found ONLY in Scripture.



I’ve asked this of several Protestants in this forum, in various threads. Not one has answered me thus far.

 

[NotWorthy]

Is there any record that she was called Queen by anyone when she was alive or even 200 years after her death?

Is there any record of a mother of the King in ancient Israel not being called the Queen?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Why an arbitrary 200 years? And just how would one go about ‘proving’ it, should the title have been given verbally, silently or spoken, perhaps by the many early Christian martyrs praying in the catacombs or before being sent to death? After all, most often the verbal precedes the written.

The Subtuum prayer reveals that Mary offers ‘patronage’.

Pope John Paul tells us that a fragment of a homily by Origin deals with St. Elizabeth calling Mary, “her Lady”. With Christ as Lord and King, that certainly indicates Mary was seen as Lady and (as the mother of a king), a queen.

 

[jburgherr]

Is there any record of a mother of the King in ancient Israel not being called the Queen?

Even if the mother of the King (Queen Mother) was not called queen, she wielded higher authority than even the King’s own wife.

Notice that in in 1st Kings: King David has just died and made Solomon King. Bethsheba was sought out by others to place their petitions before the King (as the King would surely not refuse his own mother). When Bethsheba comes before her son Solomon, does Bathseba bow before Solomon?: NO…quite the contrary happens. Solomon gets up off his throne and bows to her. He then escorts her to a throne at his right (the seat of power). Reference 1st Kings 2:13-19

How then would the King of Kings treat his own mother? Jesus well knew the 4th Commandment. Why would he not honor his mother?

Hail, Holy Queen! We place our petitions before you and pray that you bring them before throne of your most Holy Son, Jesus Christ. Surely, he will not refuse his own mother!
Have a great Solemnity of the Assumption today!

 

[NotWorthy]

Even if the mother of the King (Queen Mother) was not called queen, she wielded higher authority than even the King’s own wife.

Notice that in in 1st Kings: King David has just died and made Solomon King. Bethsheba was sought out by others to place their petitions before the King (as the King would surely not refuse his own mother). When Bethsheba comes before her son Solomon, does Bathseba bow before Solomon?: NO…quite the contrary happens. Solomon gets up off his throne and bows to her. He then escorts her to a throne at his right (the seat of power). Reference 1st Kings 2:13-19

How then would the King of Kings treat his own mother? Jesus well knew the 4th Commandment. Why would he not honor his mother?
Hail, Holy Queen! We place our petitions before you and pray that you bring them before throne of your most Holy Son, Jesus Christ. Surely, he will not refuse his own mother!Have a great Solemnity of the Assumption today!

Amen!

And don’t forget Jeremiah. God has Jeremiah address the King of Judah and his mother. “Say this to the King and his Mother. I will remove their crowns… they have failed as shepherds…” A little paraphrasing going on, here, but God acknowledges the queenship and authority that is behind it in the Gebira (the Queen Mother!).

 

[justasking4]

No. Because of the typology of the OT. I.e., Circumcision is a type of baptism, like Moses was a type of Christ.

Huh? How can this be when the requirements for both are different?

 

[davidv]

Huh? How can this be when the requirements for both are different?

How are they different? Nothing in their essence.
Why was circumcision required? To initiate one into God’s family.
Why is baptism required? To initiate one into God’s family.

 

[justasking4]

Why an arbitrary 200 years? And just how would one go about ‘proving’ it, should the title have been given verbally, silently or spoken, perhaps by the many early Christian martyrs praying in the catacombs or before being sent to death? After all, most often the verbal precedes the written.

The Subtuum prayer reveals that Mary offers ‘patronage’.

Pope John Paul tells us that a fragment of a homily by Origin deals with St. Elizabeth calling Mary, “her Lady”. With Christ as Lord and King, that certainly indicates Mary was seen as Lady and (as the mother of a king), a queen.

The catholic church is making the claim that Mary is a queen. If she was, then we should see this not only in Scripture but throughout church history i.e. documents etc. It should not matter if its 10, 50 200 or 1000 years we should see it.

 

[justasking4]

davidv;2588275]How are they different? Nothing in their essence.
Why was circumcision required?

Circumcision was for males only and not female
No profession of faith was required since for the most part it was done to infant males only.

Baptism is for all and requires a profession of faith.

To initiate one into God’s family.
Why is baptism required? To initiate one into God’s family.

Would you happen to have a passage for this?

 

[justasking4]

I’m still waiting for the definitive Protestant scriptural passage that gives the names of the books to be in the Scriptural canon, as well as the passage that proclaims that all Christian teaching is to be found ONLY in Scripture.



I’ve asked this of several Protestants in this forum, in various threads. Not one has answered me thus far.

There is none in the scriptures themselves. Do you believe that the scriptures alone are inspired-inerrant?

 

[davidv]

Would you happen to have a passage for this?

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations,** baptizing** them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, Mt 28:19

 

[justasking4]

jabelltulsa;2583414]Yes, but only the successor of Peter is infallable - The Keys to the Kingdom were given only to him (and his successors).

If you look up this passage you will see nothing about any “successors”.

So, by your logic, since as Baptized people, we are part of the Church, and therefore we are all wrong, because at least one of us throught time has been wrong. Ok, I see how you get to that conclusion.

Not sure what you mean. Can you clarify?

Tell me, then, who is infallable?

No one is. We are all fallen sinners.

I believe that the Marian doctrines are infallable, because the successor of Peter (the Vicar of Christ) declared them.

You can claim this but it cannot be sustained just because your church says so. For it to be true it must correspond to the facts and the facts of scripture do not support the claim.

This infallability is spoken of in the Sacred Scripture as being attributed to Peter first and the Apostles.

Who do you think is infallable, and why?

There has been only one human being and that is the Lord Jesus because only He was the God-man.

 

[HailMary]

If you look up this passage you will see nothing about any “successors”.

check out history (and Isaiah 22). Jesus doesn’t do things for no reason.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Protestants believe that what Mary really meant to say was “All generations shall call me totaly depraved and infested with sin”.

 

[jabelltulsa]

You can claim this but it cannot be sustained just because your church says so. For it to be true it must correspond to the facts and the facts of scripture do not support the claim.

There has been only one human being and that is the Lord Jesus because only He was the God-man.

First, the Bible is not Fact based on Science, So your theory falls short. The Bibles requires Faith for it’s contents to be taken as True.

Second, do you understand that the Church believes the Popes infalliability when speaking on matters of Faith and Morals comes from Christ, They do not believe he is infalliable of his own nature…

J-bells Fiancee

 

[jabelltulsa]

If you look up this passage you will see nothing about any “successors”.

Note that in Luke 10:16, Christ, speaking to His apostles, says “He who hears you, hears me”. This is just one of the Scriptures that supports that what the Church leaders “SAY” we should follow, because we are actually listening to Christ. (example, Marian Doctrine)

Now, that power is passed down in many Scripture verses, but for an example of one, see 2 Timothy 2:2.

" 1You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. 2And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others."

Not sure what you mean. Can you clarify?

No, forget it.

No one is. We are all fallen sinners.

Then, the gates of hell have prevailed? True that we are sinners (Except for Mary and Jesus), but Christ promises that there will be no victory over His Church - infallibility.

You can claim this but it cannot be sustained just because your church says so. For it to be true it must correspond to the facts and the facts of scripture do not support the claim.

This is just one of the many areas that we differ on, you and I. I believe that The Church says so, and it is Truth, because Sacred Scripture says so (Pillar of Truth)

Can we agree that the Apostles were infallible?

If so, then Mark 28 says that they should teach ALL that He commanded them.

There has been only one human being and that is the Lord Jesus because only He was the God-man.

But, the apostles spoke for Him. See my earlier reply in this post about Luke 10:16

 

[Tantum_ergo]

From Tantum Ergo

I’m still waiting for the definitive Protestant scriptural passage that gives the names of the books to be in the Scriptural canon, as well as the passage that proclaims that all Christian teaching is to be found ONLY in Scripture.

I’ve asked this of several Protestants in this forum, in various threads. Not one has answered me thus far.

From Justasking

There is none in the scriptures themselves. Do you believe that the scriptures alone are inspired-inerrant?

Wait a minute here. So you are telling me that you teach that the Bible is made up of certain books, but the authority and the notation of those books “in Scripture” isn’t there in the actual Bible itself.

You’re also telling me that a definitive Scriptural passage which proclaims that all Christian teaching is to be found ONLY in Scripture ‘isn’t there either.’

You are claiming that we have to find the exact words like “Queen” ‘right there in Scripture’ or you can’t believe this as a Christian teaching. . .yet you are using books which themselves are not listed ‘as Scripture’ in Scripture, and claiming a doctrine that “it has to be in Scripture to be a teaching” when there is no such Scriptural passage which claims this.

Don’t you see the disconnect here?

You are guilty of exactly what you condemn in us–you are claiming something as a truth which is not ‘found in Scripture’. And you are even more guilty because you are then demanding that anything we say ‘must be found in Scripture’; holding us to a standard you yourselves do not observe.

Have you any explanation as to why you are not bound by the same rules you seek to bind us with?

 

[LilyM]

From Tantum Ergo

From Justasking

Wait a minute here. So you are telling me that you teach that the Bible is made up of certain books, but the authority and the notation of those books “in Scripture” isn’t there in the actual Bible itself.

You’re also telling me that a definitive Scriptural passage which proclaims that all Christian teaching is to be found ONLY in Scripture ‘isn’t there either.’

You are claiming that we have to find the exact words like “Queen” ‘right there in Scripture’ or you can’t believe this as a Christian teaching. . .yet you are using books which themselves are not listed ‘as Scripture’ in Scripture, and claiming a doctrine that “it has to be in Scripture to be a teaching” when there is no such Scriptural passage which claims this.

Don’t you see the disconnect here?

You are guilty of exactly what you condemn in us–you are claiming something as a truth which is not ‘found in Scripture’. And you are even more guilty because you are then demanding that anything we say ‘must be found in Scripture’; holding us to a standard you yourselves do not observe.

Have you any explanation as to why you are not bound by the same rules you seek to bind us with?

This is what I was trying to say. If Peter or Paul erred in ANY of their teachings, then it follows they were equally capable of error when writing or dictating the Scriptures. They were the same teachers teaching the same truth in both situations. Either all their teaching is protected by the Holy Spirit and infallible, or else none of it, since Jesus didn’t promise only to guide and protect the compilation of scripture.

So - either all official teaching (provided it is taught by Christ’s Church) is infallible or it isn’t. If you believe part is fallible then all, including the Scriptures themselves, must necessarily be fallible, and your faith is built on quicksand.

 

[justasking4]

jabelltulsa;2588779]Note that in Luke 10:16, Christ, speaking to His apostles, says “He who hears you, hears me”.

What is the context for this passage?

This is just one of the Scriptures that supports that what the Church leaders “SAY” we should follow, because we are actually listening to Christ. (example, Marian Doctrine)

The problem with your interpretation is that the context does support it. The church did not exist at this point in time.

Now, that power is passed down in many Scripture verses, but for an example of one, see 2 Timothy 2:2.

" 1You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. 2And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others."

Do you think Paul meant this was to be only to church leaders?

No, forget it.

Then, the gates of hell have prevailed? True that we are sinners (Except for Mary and Jesus), but Christ promises that there will be no victory over His Church - infallibility.

*t depends what you mean by this. Certainly evil-hell has prevailed at times in the catholic church at times. The current priest scandal is one such example and there are many others. Since these facts cannot be denied does that mean the catholic church has lost all its authority? *

This is just one of the many areas that we differ on, you and I. I believe that The Church says so, and it is Truth, because Sacred Scripture says so (Pillar of Truth)

You need more than this. A person cannot be justified in believing what you say if what they teach is false. As i’ve shown from the scriptures and history the leaders of your church and all churches is composed of men and women who can and do err because we are all fallen.

Can we agree that the Apostles were infallible?

Only in their writings i.e. the scriptures. Even as apostles they were capable of error in other areas of life.

If so, then Mark 28 says that they should teach ALL that He commanded them.

You must mean Matthew 28. That is true.

But, the apostles spoke for Him. See my earlier reply in this post about Luke 10:16

This is true. Notice that none of these apostles ever taught what the catholic church teaches about Mary though. Keep in mind that they knew her best.

 

[HailMary]

Only in their writings i.e. the scriptures. Even as apostles they were capable of error in other areas of life.

This statement proves you don’t understand what infallibility is.