Doctines on Mary "not in the Bible."

[Cat_Herder]

First let me start by saying that i was once Catholic and now i am a born again Christian.

I was once a “Christian” and now I am a born again, Catholic, 100% complete Christian. Nice to meet you.

Here are the answers to all of the issues you raise:

1. The Basics: Statues, Mother of God, Nuns, Fathers, and the Whore of Babylon – start here
2. The Communion of Saints
3. Jewish Origins of Catholic Devotions
4. Behold Your Mother - All About Mary

But if you want a personal response, read on…

-The subject about Mary is very heart felt, cause at one time i felt like every Catholic i see defending Mary.

And for good reason. The fastest way to offend any man is to insult his mother. And when the Man in question is the Son of God who will judge the living and the dead, it should be easy to see why we go out of our way to defend the dignity of His Mother. It’s more for your sake than for ours.

I understand their passion, truly i do, but i stress that i now see the truth, and hope to make light of what i see now.

The truth is that the true religion has always venerated a universal mother. For the Jews this was and is Rachel, the mother of Israel and thus the mother of the Jewish people. However God’s plan was always to reconcile all people, not just one race, to Himself by adopting them as His children. To do this He became man so as to ransom the world with His Blood. When He did so He chose to have a mother, who would become a new Rachel , this time as the Mother of the entire human race through the blood of Christ. It’s not that hard to understand.

-I will not bring down Mary to start with, She was a God fearing woman of faith, to imagine being asked to be the mother of our savior, must have been a tremendous honor. Yet thats all that she was.

Don’t be so quick to judge. Genesis 3:15 is a prophecy of a Woman who will bear a Seed who will crush the head of the devil. Notice that both the Woman and Her Seed are at the SAME enmity with the devil. You and I are sinners; we are not at the kind of enmity with the devil that the Seed, Jesus Christ, was, for He was without sin. To be at that level of enmity we too would have to be without sin; we’re not, but Mary, the Woman, is.

-To start off i cannot understand how dogmas contradict the bible. To start of in the bible (Exodus 20:4 quotes"You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me) Yet in the Catholic Catechism you completely void the 2nd commandment and move to the 3rd.

Why did the Jews have a temple full of imagery and statues then? God ordered the making of all of those. Is God violating His own commandment?

• I see the fact that alot of people say Mary remained a Virgin. Now don’t get me wrong i agree she was a virgin and gave birth to Jesus, and he was conceived by the Holy Spirit, but to remain a virgin is not Biblically sound

.

Actually it’s Biblically REQUIRED. One of the prophecies to be fulfilled by the Messiah is:

[BIBLEDRB]Ezekiel 44:2[/BIBLEDRB]

Now there is no special gate in Jerusalem that only Jesus passed through. If Jesus is the Messiah then this Scripture can only refer to Mary’s womb; if She did not remain a virgin then Jesus is not the Messiah and it is that simple.

 

[ClamDigger]

Simple answer: My focus is on Christ and his sacrifice, first and foremost.

I love Catholicism and I want to join the true Church, but my love of Catholicism is not greater than my fear of angering the Lord God Almighty.

But don’t worry, there is already someone who “schools” me every now and then in PM.

That’s understandable, though I don’t see how Mary’s role in Christ’s mission takes away from Christ’s Sacrifice. We won’t discuss this here anyways, since it’s not dogmatically defined and therefore not binding… at least, not yet!

 

[elvisman]

the woman represents the children of God…which isn’t only Israel…so obviously you don’t understand what I am saying

that doesn’t follow…Eve had a future existence after the curse…she didn’t cease to exist at that moment

**When Protestants argue about the Woman in Rev 12:1 - they forget that the Bible wasn’t written in chapter and verse. That came centuries later.

The reference to the the Woman clothed with the Sun comes right after the verse about the Ark in heaven:
Rev 11:19
"Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant could be seen in the temple. There were flashes of lightning, rumblings, and peals of thunder, an earthquake, and a violent hailstorm."

Then, comes the very next sentence:
**"A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. **
She was with child and wailed aloud in pain as she labored to give birth" (Rev 12:1).

You and I - the children of God - are NOT the Ark of the New Covenant (Jesus). Eve was not the Ark.
Mary is the Ark, which is why she was declared Theotokos (God-Bearer) at the council of Ephesus in 431. As Eve was mother of all the living, Mary - the NEW Eve - became the mother of all the living in Christ.

In John’s Gospel, Jesus never refers to his mother as “mother” (John 2:4, 19:26). Whenever he addresses his mother, he calls her “woman”. This correlates directly to the Woman in Gen. 3:15 and in Rev. 12.

Jesus defeats death on Calvary (Skull place) and fulfills the prophecy in Gen. 3:15 about the offspring of the woman. Mary is present at the foot of the cross while this is happening - and what does Jesus call her in John 19:26? He calls her “WOMAN”, because the prophecy about the head of the serpent being crushed in Genesis is taking place right there on Calvary.**

Here’s in interesting side note:
The name in the Aztecan dialect*(Nahuatl)*was “Coatlaxopeuh”, pronounced “Quatlasupe”. The name was corrupted by the Spanish to “Guadalupe”.

Coatlaxopeuh, means “crushed serpent.” Ironically, in the Aztec religion the highest idol and creator of mankind is Quetzalcóatl, which means “Feather-Serpent.”

So Our Lady of Guadalupe who appeared to the Mexican Indian Juan Diego, is “Our Lady of the crushed serpent”, which is exactly what we read about her in Gen. 3:15:
“And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.”

 

[GaryTaylor]

Exactly Elvis

While the apostle John was exiled on the island of Patmos, he wrote something that would have shocked any first-century Jew. The ark of the Old Covenant had been lost for centuries — no one had seen it for about 600 years. But in Revelation 11:19, John makes a surprising announcement: "Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple?’

At this point chapter 11 ends and chapter 12 begins. But the Bible was not written with chapter divisions — these were added in the twelfth century. When John penned these words, there was no division between chapters 11 and 12; it was a continuing narrative.

What did John say immediately after seeing the Ark of the Covenant in heaven? “And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; she was with child” (Rev. 12:1-2). The woman is Mary, the Ark of the Covenant, revealed by God to John. She was seen bearing the child who would rule the world with a rod of iron (Rev. 12:5). Mary was seen as the ark and as a queen.

Catholics tried without success to convert the Aztecs for years. After the presentation of the Tilma. Baptisms were performed daily morning to evening for 10-years!

Radical there is such an abundance of evidence here already is what 4-5 pages. That really at this point your going to have to explain “exactly” how you belive this worked in scripture with corresponding scripture in context, and “exactly” what the purpose and title of the BVM is in context of scripture, if not Mother of God, and New Ark of the covenant. How do you explain Revelations alones which we just talked about in these last two posts?

Maybe you can educate us.

God Bless, Gary

 

[GaryTaylor]

Simple answer: My focus is on Christ and his sacrifice, first and foremost.

I love Catholicism and I want to join the true Church, but my love of Catholicism is not greater than my fear of angering the Lord God Almighty.

But don’t worry, there is already someone who “schools” me every now and then in PM.

Obviously I understand ClamDigger. But hey listen, go at your own speed. Honestly IMHO this is understandable. While I do know Catholics who came to the Church with a great reverence for Mary. More often than not I believe it works exactly as it is working with you.

There is a lot of good information here for a very short thread already. Keep on open mind to it.

What most fail to realize is the BVM didn’t just fall in all our laps. The good majority of us had to research, open our minds, and really listen and think about what was being said.

What I have found most astounding are the many generations who came before me from the East with a profound veneration for Mary. I couldn’t understand the daily recitation of the Rosary. But I also didn’y understand the persecution of their countrys. We have been very fortunate here in the US. We have been blessed in the sense we have avoided these horrific persecutions.

But I have a feeling we’ll see more and more of this in the very near future. As amazing as the consecration to the BVM as Mexico was. Just as amazing was Portugal, Poland, Italy. etc. We have been very fortunate in the US thanks to the will of God here, a very young country. But one quickly moving in error. This life we live here in not acceptable to God. Make no mistake about this.

“I want My Church to…put the Devotion to the Immaculate Heart beside the Devotion to My Sacred Heart” Jesus Christ to Sr Lucy.

God Bless, Gary

 

[Radical]

When Protestants argue about the Woman in Rev 12:1 - they forget that the Bible *wasn’t *written in chapter and verse. That came centuries later.

Nope, I didn’t forget about that at all…what I occasionally forget about is how absolutely unacceptable it is for the venerators to find that Mary is hardly mentioned in the NT after Christ’s birth. From over here it appears that, in order to remedy that omission, they will resort to grasping any possible or manufactured connection so that they can claim that Mary is indeed mentioned (in code) in the NT.

The reference to the the Woman clothed with the Sun comes right after the verse about the Ark in heaven:
Rev 11:19
"Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant could be seen in the temple. There were flashes of lightning, rumblings, and peals of thunder, an earthquake, and a violent hailstorm."

Then, comes the very next sentence:
"A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.
She was with child and wailed aloud in pain as she labored to give birth" (Rev 12:1).

why not grasp on to the thunder instead of the Ark to make your identification of the woman? Wait, I might be on to something there. The Norse god of thunder is Thor…and the first letter of Thor is a “T” which is like a cross…it must stand for Jesus. The “H” would stand for the Holy Spirit and Thor’s Father was Odin…so the “O” stands for the Father…it is about the Trinity and we know I am right on this cause the “R” of Thor is the same letter that starts the words Radical, Revelation and right…So I must be right about the meaning in Revelation…gives yah goose bumps doesn’t it? (I trust that kinda demonstrates how sound I think your connections are)

You and I - the children of God - are NOT the Ark of the New Covenant (Jesus). Eve was not the Ark.
Mary is the Ark, … Any “proof” that I have seen regarding Mary being the New Ark consists of fudging, forcing and fabricating

Here’s in interesting side note:

The name in the Aztecan dialect***(Nahuatl)***was “Coatlaxopeuh”, pronounced “Quatlasupe”. The name was corrupted by the Spanish to “Guadalupe”.

Coatlaxopeuh, means “crushed serpent.” Ironically, in the Aztec religion the highest idol and creator of mankind is Quetzalcóatl, which means “Feather-Serpent.”

So Our Lady of Guadalupe who appeared to the Mexican Indian Juan Diego, is “Our Lady of the crushed serpent”, which is exactly what we read about her in Gen. 3:15:
*****“And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.”*****yep…about as sound as my Thor connection…With this type of free-wheeling style of interpretation it is not a matter of “who, if any one, is the woman of Rev 12?” it is more a matter of, “who if any one, could not be identified (by some forced connection) as the woman of Rev 12?”

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Nope, I didn’t forget about that at all…what I occasionally forget about is how absolutely unacceptable it is for the venerators to find that Mary is hardly mentioned in the NT after Christ’s birth. From over here it appears that, in order to remedy that omission, they will resort to grasping any possible or manufactured connection so that they can claim that Mary is indeed mentioned (in code) in the NT.

Unacceptable? Where is it written that it’s unacceptable, or is that only unacceptable in your own opinion?

Are you trying to assume a position of leadership here?

why not grasp on to the thunder instead of the Ark to make your identification of the woman? Wait, I might be on to something there. The Norse god of thunder is Thor…and the first letter of Thor is a “T” which is like a cross…it must stand for Jesus. The “H” would stand for the Holy Spirit and Thor’s Father was Odin…so the “O” stands for the Father…it is about the Trinity and we know I am right on this cause the “R” of Thor is the same letter that starts the words Radical, Revelation and right…So I must be right about the meaning in Revelation…gives yah goose bumps doesn’t it? (I trust that kinda demonstrates how sound I think your connections are)

It appears to be more of a demonstration of what you refer to as ‘disingenuous’.

Any “proof” that I have seen regarding Mary being the New Ark consists of fudging, forcing and fabricating

Thanks for respecting how we use scriptures to explain the Catholic belief, and thanks for being here to tell us what we really believe with your condescending tones.

yep…about as sound as my Thor connection…With this type of free-wheeling style of interpretation it is not a matter of “who, if any one, is the woman of Rev 12?” it is more a matter of, “who if any one, could not be identified (by some forced connection) as the woman of Rev 12?”

…but that’s not anti-Catholic.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Nope, I didn’t forget about that at all…what I occasionally forget about is how absolutely unacceptable it is for the venerators to find that Mary is hardly mentioned in the NT after Christ’s birth.

How many times is salvation by faith mentioned in the Bible? How many times does it say men will be judged by their works? Then why do you believe the former and not the latter?

why not grasp on to the thunder instead of the Ark to make your identification of the woman? Wait, I might be on to something there. The Norse god of thunder is Thor…and the first letter of Thor is a “T” which is like a cross…it must stand for Jesus. The “H” would stand for the Holy Spirit and Thor’s Father was Odin…so the “O” stands for the Father…it is about the Trinity and we know I am right on this cause the “R” of Thor is the same letter that starts the words Radical, Revelation and right…So I must be right about the meaning in Revelation…gives yah goose bumps doesn’t it? (I trust that kinda demonstrates how sound I think your connections are)

Mary is in the Bible; Thor is not.

yep…about as sound as my Thor connection…With this type of free-wheeling style of interpretation it is not a matter of “who, if any one, is the woman of Rev 12?” it is more a matter of, “who if any one, could not be identified (by some forced connection) as the woman of Rev 12?”

Mary is the only one who fits. You want the Church to be the Woman but to say that the Church gave birth to Jesus is as absurd as trying to fit Thor into the Bible. So you make the Woman Israel instead, but Israel didn’t give birth to Jesus either (rather, Israel crucified Him, although they didn’t know what they were doing and are forgiven). Thus if the Woman was Israel we would not see the Woman protecting Her child.

Beyond that we see from the first verse of chapter 12 that the Woman is in heaven. Elsewhere the same book tells us that nothing unclean (sin) can dwell there. Before Calvary the only people in heaven are Enoch, Elijah and maybe Moses. Israel like all other races was not redeemed until Calvary as their sacrifices could not atone for the guilt of their sins (read Hebrews).

Mary is the only logical fit.

 

[ClamDigger]

Nope, I didn’t forget about that at all…what I occasionally forget about is how absolutely unacceptable it is for the venerators to find that Mary is hardly mentioned in the NT after Christ’s birth. From over here it appears that, in order to remedy that omission, they will resort to grasping any possible or manufactured connection so that they can claim that Mary is indeed mentioned (in code) in the NT.

So is the Holy Ghost… Guess he must not be that big a deal, right?

why not grasp on to the thunder instead of the Ark to make your identification of the woman? Wait, I might be on to something there. The Norse god of thunder is Thor…and the first letter of Thor is a “T” which is like a cross…it must stand for Jesus. The “H” would stand for the Holy Spirit and Thor’s Father was Odin…so the “O” stands for the Father…it is about the Trinity and we know I am right on this cause the “R” of Thor is the same letter that starts the words Radical, Revelation and right…So I must be right about the meaning in Revelation…gives yah goose bumps doesn’t it? (I trust that kinda demonstrates how sound I think your connections are)

Seeing as how Thor is not in the Bible and none of the people in the Early Church saw this in the text, this makes no sense. On the other hand, Mary is in the Bible and the Early Church did see Mary in the Woman of the Apocalypse. But, way to try to make a vituperative, though illogical, mockery of Catholicism.

Any “proof” that I have seen regarding Mary being the New Ark consists of fudging, forcing and fabricating

How so? Did Mary not bear the New Covenant of God within her body in the same way that the old Ark of the Covenant bore the symbols of the Old Covenant of God?

yep…about as sound as my Thor connection…With this type of free-wheeling style of interpretation it is not a matter of “who, if any one, is the woman of Rev 12?” it is more a matter of, “who if any one, could not be identified (by some forced connection) as the woman of Rev 12?”

Well, all of your comparisons are moot and you haven’t bothered to rebut our assertions with any type of logical argument, so I’d have to guess that you’re the one who is forcing yourself to identify the Woman of Revelation who gives birth to Christ with the Church that Christ gave birth to.

 

[josephback]

Mary is in the Bible! Revelation Chapter 12. It’s a fulfillment of Micah 5:1-3. The fact that the woman is IN HEAVEN is interesting to say the least…

 

[elvisman]

Simple answer: My focus is on Christ and his sacrifice, first and foremost.

I love Catholicism and I want to join the true Church, but my love of Catholicism is not greater than my fear of angering the Lord God Almighty.

But don’t worry, there is already someone who “schools” me every now and then in PM.

**That’s great. Mary’s focus is also on Christ and as Catholics - OUR focus is on Christ. **

**Catholicism is not about Mary - it’s about Jesus. BUT, because Jesus honored his mother so much, we also honor her. God endowed her ****completely, perfectly and enduringly with grace. This is why the Angel Gabriel called her - NOT “Mary” - but “Kecharitomene”, which means *"*completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace.” Complete and full of grace from the beginning. **

---

Just as the Ark of the Covenant in the OT, which had to be pure, blessed and undefiled because it carried symbols of God within it - Mary had to be all the more pure because she actually carried GOD Himself in her womb. NT fulfillments are ALWAYS more glorious than their OT types.

---

**In Scripture, whenever somebody’s name was changed by God, it was because he was setting them up for a very important leadership role - which ALWAYS pointed to Christ. **Just as God changed Abram’s name to Abraham and Jacob to Israel, he called Mary, “Kecharitomene”.

---

For us to honor Mary for bringing Jesus to us is not taking our focus off of him. It only served to deepen our focus on Christ.**

 

[onenow1]

Exactly Elvis

While the apostle John was exiled on the island of Patmos, he wrote something that would have shocked any first-century Jew. The ark of the Old Covenant had been lost for centuries — no one had seen it for about 600 years. But in Revelation 11:19, John makes a surprising announcement: "Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple?’

Hi, Gary,
The similitude is so obvious, it boggles the mind how some folks do not see, how John ties it all together.

God Bless