Discussing Mary

[MariaG]

I’m afraid it does.

Respectfully, I disagree.

Most practicing Jews completely disagree that there is any scriptural support for any prophecy that would apply to Christ. They are wrong, it is there, and implicit.

It is the Holy Spirit revealing the truth to Christians that makes it “obvious”.

 

[NotWorthy]

No explicit verses saying Mary is the Queen does not equal no scriptural support.

I’m afraid it does.

Where in Scripture does it say that?

 

[MariaG]

Where in Scripture does it say that?

Good point. If the claim is that something must be explicit in scripture to be true, where does in scripture say that it must be explicit to be true?

 

[HailMary]

I’m afraid it does.

I’m afraid Sola Scriptura is man-made, fabricated doctrine.

 

[heisenburg]

Be careful when making statements of theology as they must be taken to the fullest and complete logical conclusion…

If it is not mentioned in scripture explicitly, that it is anti-scriptural, then

the trinity is anti scriptural as there is no explicit mention of the trinity, but it is implicit

OSAS, a major doctrine for many protestants is anti scriptural because it can only be ‘proven’ implicitly
Scripture alone is anti- scriptural because you can only show it implicitly
Wednesday services are anti-biblical since it is not explicit
Alter calls are anti biblical
Having Jesus as your personal savior is anti-biblical since it is not explicit

Need I go on?

Now, all that being said, obviously you do not believe in explicit mention, otherwise 90% of ALL doctrine of every church, denom, and practicing Christian is anti-biblical

Be wary of the pen you use before taking too broad a stroke…

In Christ

 

[Miserissima]

I’m afraid Sola Scriptura is man-made, fabricated doctrine.

:bowdown: That link is awesome!

 

[NotWorthy]

Good point. If the claim is that something must be explicit in scripture to be true, where does in scripture say that it must be explicit to be true?

Is this the way to the revolving door, ma’am? I’m in the mood for some circular reasoning.

 

[NotWorthy]

I’m afraid Sola Scriptura is man-made, fabricated doctrine.

Please HailMary, don’t confuse Sola Scriptura with Sola Verse-ura. If JA4 were SS, he could understand how the Scriptures teach us of Mary. But since he’s SV, meaning it has to explicitly say it in Scripture to be true, he’ll never get it.

Of course, I wonder how an SV reconciles the Holy Trinity.

 

[NotWorthy]

                 Originally Posted by **MariaG**                     [forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2681986#post2681986)                 
             **Good point. If the claim is that something must be explicit in scripture to be true, where does in scripture say that it must be explicit to be true?**

** And, for goodness sake, what in the world did the Early Christians do before all these Scriptures were written?*

How about another game of Jenga, eh?
*

 

[HailMary]

HailMary
I’m afraid Sola Scriptura

Yes, I was very happy I read the book:
Twenty One Reasons to Reject Sola Scriptura
By Joel Peters
I shared it with many friends that were enlightened by it as well. Share the link!!!

Its the destroyer of Sola Scriptura IMO.

 

[justasking4]

Be careful when making statements of theology as they must be taken to the fullest and complete logical conclusion…

If it is not mentioned in scripture explicitly, that it is anti-scriptural, then

the trinity is anti scriptural as there is no explicit mention of the trinity, but it is implicit

OSAS, a major doctrine for many protestants is anti scriptural because it can only be ‘proven’ implicitly
Scripture alone is anti- scriptural because you can only show it implicitly
Wednesday services are anti-biblical since it is not explicit
Alter calls are anti biblical
Having Jesus as your personal savior is anti-biblical since it is not explicit

Need I go on?

Now, all that being said, obviously you do not believe in explicit mention, otherwise 90% of ALL doctrine of every church, denom, and practicing Christian is anti-biblical

Be wary of the pen you use before taking too broad a stroke…

In Christ

Since this thread is about Mary only can you show me in scripture then where Mary is ever referred to as queen of heaven, prayed to, without sin? All i ask is one verse that shows this.

 

[justasking4]

I’m afraid Sola Scriptura is man-made, fabricated doctrine.

This is not about sola scriptura but what do the the scriptures say. Is there one verse that says Mary is a queen, without sin, queen of heaven etc?

 

[justasking4]

I came across this reference in the catechism of the catholic church.

2677 Holy Mary, Mother of God: With Elizabeth we marvel, “And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” Because she gives us Jesus, her son, Mary is Mother of God and our mother; we can entrust all our cares and petitions to her: she prays for us as she prayed for herself: “Let it be to me according to your word.” By entrusting ourselves to her prayer, we abandon ourselves to the will of God together with her: “Thy will be done.”
Pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death: By asking Mary to pray for us, we acknowledge ourselves to be poor sinners and we address ourselves to the “Mother of Mercy,” the All-Holy One. We give ourselves over to her now, in the Today of our lives. And our trust broadens further, already at the present moment, to surrender “the hour of our death” wholly to her care. May she be there as she was at her son’s death on the cross. May she welcome us as our mother at the hour of our passing to lead us to her son, Jesus, in paradise.

Compare this with Revelations 15:4 which says:
“Who will not fear, O Lord, and glorify Your name?
For You alone are holy;
For ALL THE NATIONS WILL COME AND WORSHIP BEFORE YOU,
FOR YOUR RIGHTEOUS ACTS HAVE BEEN REVEALED.”

Only God is all Holy and not Mary or any created being.

 

[Miserissima]

This is not about sola scriptura but what do the the scriptures say. Is there one verse that says Mary is a queen, without sin, queen of heaven etc?

:newidea:
Wow. This is turning into an Abbott and Costello routine.

Mr. Knox: Cindy Lou who?
Mr. Fox: That’s the girl’s name.
Mr. Knox: That’s whose name?
Mr. Fox: That’s what I’ve been trying to tell you.

or, perhaps a better example, “Who’s on First?” (video) or (transcript).

 

[MariaG]

Since this thread is about Mary only can you show me in scripture then where Mary is ever referred to as queen of heaven, prayed to, without sin? All i ask is one verse that shows this.

You have been given verses that show that the mother of the king of the line of David are called Queen.

You choose not to accept this biblical proof that it is appropriate to refer to THE King of the Davidic line, to call His mother Queen.

Define Pray. Do you insist to say that pray = talking to God or do you think we can pray or ask others for things also? Because you have been shown repeatedly where we are told in scripture to pray for one another.

Without sin, again, you choose not to believe what “full of Grace” means.

Disagreeing with the interpretation of scripture is a far cry from saying there is no scripture.

We have shown you scripture repeatedly. We can not be held responsible for the fact that you do not divide scripture properly.

But good move on not answering the SS question:thumbsup: Entirely appropriate, it was not on thread subject. But I would certainly be interested in your response in a new thread. Why not start one and show us where scripture tells us that something has to explicitly be in scripture to be true as well as one that explains why you accept the Trinity if this is your belief:thumbsup:

 

[justasking4]

:newidea:
Wow. This is turning into an Abbott and Costello routine.

or, perhaps a better example, “Who’s on First?” (video) or (transcript).

The anti sola scriptura argument is being used to refute the scriptures. It really has nothing to do with Mary. 2 separate issues.
Do you believe that the scriptures are inspired-inerrant?

 

[heisenburg]

Just…

With Respect

You missed the point I was trying to say… You make a very broad statement by saying everything must be explicit and that nothing can be implicit.

What I am saying is that such a broad statement brings up theological problems all over the place. You demand explicit, nothing implicit. We can give you implicit left and right, but you will not accept. However, if you cannot accept implicit for this, by your own logic, you cannot accept implicit logic for anything else such as Rapture theory, OSAS, SS, SF, Alter calls, sinners prayers, trinity, etc.

When taken to its final and logical conclusion, your statement actually brings almost all of Christianity to its knees as a falsehood…

Which is why I say…

Be wary of the pen you use before making too broad a stroke

In Christ

 

[justasking4]

MariaG;2682297]You have been given verses that show that the mother of the king of the line of David are called Queen.

You choose not to accept this biblical proof that it is appropriate to refer to THE King of the Davidic line, to call His mother Queen.

Of course i do for a number of reasons. For one the scriptures never make such an argument. Secondly even you own church for centuries never did either as far as i’m aware of.

Define Pray. Do you insist to say that pray = talking to God or do you think we can pray or ask others for things also? Because you have been shown repeatedly where we are told in scripture to pray for one another.

We are to pray for each other here and ask that others here in this world pray for us. Praying to the deceased is an entirely different matter. As i have repeatedly shown the scriptures never command such a thing but always point us directly to God-Christ.

Without sin, again, you choose not to believe what “full of Grace” means.

Look it up in a greek lexicon of the NT. It says nothing about being without sin for her entire life.

Disagreeing with the interpretation of scripture is a far cry from saying there is no scripture.

I have looked at many catholic interpretations that are used to support marian doctrines and it doesn’t work when you take the context into consideration.

We have shown you scripture repeatedly. We can not be held responsible for the fact that you do not divide scripture properly.

What makes you think you are interpreting correctly? Has your church interpreted these verses?

But good move on not answering the SS question:thumbsup: Entirely appropriate, it was not on thread subject. But I would certainly be interested in your response in a new thread. Why not start one and show us where scripture tells us that something has to explicitly be in scripture to be true as well as one that explains why you accept the Trinity if this is your belief:thumbsup:/

Starting a thread right now would not be a good thing on my part. I think already i have made plenty of enemies out here. The mocking comments is enough to stomach for now.
However i can answer your question about something being explicit in scripture to be true. The scriptures don’t make such a claim. However, by studying the scriptures we can see what they do teach. The Trinity is a case in point. Some things though are not as clear and some can be rejected out of hand like the marian doctrines.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Okay, here goes.

I would agree with this statement. God Choose Mary through whom Christ would be born and Christ is absolutely essential to my salvation.

Harder to say if I agree or not because I am not on that forum so I have no idea if the statement is objectively true.

Do I believe Mary is the New Eve? Yes. There are writings from the Early Church that indicate this as well as scriptural typology.

Dispenatrix - I could not find this word in any Catholic dictionary nor the dictionary at all. Probably meant to use the term Mediatrix?

Mediatrix is not a term I like to use. It is a term that brings up immediate thoughts that are incompatible with Christianity. When defined, it is not, but I think the term is misleading and do not care for it. If you wish to get into the definition of the term, I will, but I think you are just trying to see if I agree with this person, yes?

I agree with this statement. Mary is not dead. No saint is dead. Scripture tells us this. (Lazy, and rushed, but will provide scripture if you like )

Not sure what he is defining as “essential role” so can’t say.

I disagree with this statement. I know that I knew Jesus before I understood Mary.

I do believe however, that as scripture says, understanding Mary is only magnigying the Lord. (Luke “My soul magnifies the Lord”)

I do think it is a shame when Protestants do not give the Mother of our Lord respect, to seemingly distance themselves from anything Catholic.

Scripture prophecies that all generations will call Mary blessed. There is nothing wrong with doing so, although I find it interesting that usually the same ones who do not believe Catholics are Christians, never use the term blessed, so if it weren’t for the “non-Christians” in their eyes, this prophecy would not have been kept:shrug:

I do not need a mediator except Christ. That is my immediate reaction to that statement. Even though there is valid Catholic theology, with scripture that I could provide to explain that statement, I think this is not an effective way to explain the Catholic position. I don’t care for that statement since I feel it needs too much explanation to make it valid with non-Catholic Christians.

I disagree with this statement. I think that there are many Catholic Christians who don’t care for his statement since it has misleading implications that are long and laborious to explain. We are not embarrassed by the traditional Catholic position. We just do not use the same words because we are completely aware of what the non-Catholic “hears”.

This statement is false. A person can be a canonized saint without every word they ever wrote being aproved as “correct”. St. Augustine is a perfect example. He was a “doctor” of the Church yet there are things that he espoused that the Church disagrees with. Examples can be provided if you wish.

Hi,

Thank you so much for getting back to me. Yes I just wanted to know your basic initial reactions to this persons comments. I think he may be a rogue catholic throwing stuff out there that he doesnt fully understand.

 

[NotWorthy]

The anti sola scriptura argument is being used to refute the scriptures. It really has nothing to do with Mary. 2 separate issues.
Do you believe that the scriptures are inspired-inerrant?

How in the world is the anti-sola Scriptura argument being used to refute the scriptures?

Is that what you think we are doing, refuting the Scriptures?!?!?