Former Catholics - Mary worship

[EIF5A]

Back when I was more Protestant, I too was hesitant about the title “Mother of God”.

But Jesus can’t be half-God, half-man. He is True God, True Man. This has been affirmed by the Church for centuries.

This is a mystery. Mystery because our minds cannot fully fathom.

Mary cannot be Mother of Jesus and not simultaneously Mother of God.

God desired to become one of us through Mary.

We may not understand why. Nor is it really necessary to understand God’s plan, for who can know the thoughts of God?

Since we’re arguing Scripture, it is said that those who humble themselves will be exalted.

Not because the creature can exalt itself but because God chose to do so. Of all created beings, who is greater than the one who gave birth to Our Lord? But all of this God has done, not the created being.

If we deny what God has done because it doesn’t fit nicely into our mindframe (and in Protestantism, one can make twists and turns until something is deemed palatable), then that is an insult to God.

 

[marywarfield]

Mark 3:31-35.

"There came then his brethren and his mother,and standing without,sent unto him,calling him.

And the multitude sat about him,and they said unto him,Behold thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee.

And he answered them saying,Who is my mother,or my brethren?

And he looked round about on them which sat about him,and said,
Behold my mother and my brethren!

For whosoever shall do the will of God ,the same is my brother,and my sister,and mother"

As a former Roman Catholic,I would say that there is no scriptural authority ,whereby the humble Mary ,is uprooted from her God honoured role,as the earthly “mother of Jesus” .

And is then made to appear as the “mother of God” :exalted high into the heavens ;and made to become such a one as is seen in Rev 12,

“And there appeared a great wonder in heaven;a woman clothed with the sun,and the moon under her feet,and on her head a crown of twelve stars”

Catholics may point to and indeed do ,infer that when he is seen providing his mothers earthly(and spiritual) necessities,( at the cross) ,during his absence,Jesus also intended to signify much,much more .
That is more than the immediate sense of his words.

“He saith unto his mother, woman behold thy Son!”

“Then said he to his disciple,“Behold thy mother!” " And from that hour that disciple took her into his own home”(John 19:27&28)

First I would say that Jesus by safely providing for his mother with the disciple " whom he loved"(in a special sense) and this was done first :is seen to uphold the natural biblical order of things where the man is the head of the woman.( In respect to doctrinal truth)1Corinthians 11:8.

For me ,that Jesus addresses his mother by that which signifies the female sex ,as a whole:
“woman” he ,by using this general term,is ,I believe ,pointing to the conclusion of her earthly role and wonderfully submissive role ,as his mother ,in his earthly pilgrimage.

This earthly journey that they both shared ( in a unique way) as mother and Son , was now accomplished; because the eternal Son of God ,was so soon ,to return to is Heavenly Father.

Already in Mark 3 for example ,Jesus had previously shown ,even with the saints on earth, a new and heavenly ( by his cross) order of relationship. “The same is my mother”.

For me then Joel371

I don’t believe ,when I was once a RC ,that I was worshipping “Mary” ; that is Mary of the scriptures .But now I would equate it to a female worship ,that predates Mary the mother of Jesus by a long shot:

Like unto that seen in Jeremiah 44:17
" to burn incense to the queen of heaven"
And like that seen in the NT, where the whole world was seen to be worshipers of the great Diana of Ephesians fame.

Do we not see a great propensity even today of this natural order ,( Paul shows us in 1Corinthians) breaking down and every created ,God ordained human relationships and roles reversed?

Women above the man ; child over both, and lawlessness ruling over all?

you are touching on one of the most ancient of heresies
rejected by both most mainstream Protestant and
Catholic Churches- that of the two natures of Christ.
Most Protestants proclaim and Catholics too that
Jesus was fully man and fully God. It was not a
situation in which part of His life He was God and
part of His life a mere human man. He was both fully
all of the time.
Therefore it is unreasonable to claim that because
He obtained the only thing He couldn’t get elsewhere-a human
flesh- from Mary she was not the Mother of God but
only the mother of a human being.
When she changed Jesus’s diaper she was most
definitely changing the diaper of God.
To say otherwise is to denigrate either His humanity
or His divinity.

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

you are touching on one of the most ancient of heresies
rejected by both most mainstream Protestant and
Catholic Churches- that of the two natures of Christ.
Most Protestants proclaim and Catholics too that
Jesus was fully man and fully God. It was not a
situation in which part of His life He was God and
part of His life a mere human man. He was both fully
all of the time.
Therefore it is unreasonable to claim that because
He obtained the only thing He couldn’t get elsewhere-a human
flesh- from Mary she was not the Mother of God but
only the mother of a human being.
When she changed Jesus’s diaper she was most
definitely changing the diaper of God.
To say otherwise is to denigrate either His humanity
or His divinity.

Dear Mary,

By my rejecting the unbiblical usage of “mother of God”,I was not thereby rejecting this fact:that ,Jesus Mary’s son ,was and is ,the 'eternal "Son of God " ,whose origins are from eternity ( past).
This unlike ,your own phrase,is rooted in scripture: for example,1John 1&2.

"That which was from the beginning,which we have heard,which we have seen with our eyes,which we have looked upon,and our hands have handled,of the Word of life;

(For the life was manifested,and we have seen it,and bear witness,and shew unto you that eternal life,which was with the Father,and was manifested unto us"

Now,could you please “shew unto " us ,where ( in scripture) we find your phrase " Mother of God” being used?

Further more, although I would not label myself as a "Protestant ", I am confident ,that by means of calling upon your Protestant "allies ,in support of your case ,you are very much mistaken: that is,at least , those who where much ,much ,more faithful( to the word of truth) even those of “yesteryear” for whom doctrine to them ,was a matter of life and death(eternal).

For me ,by making ( your) Mary ,an indispensable part of the Salvation ,instead of her herself being a sinner,in need also,of a the saviour( her son),although no doubt,highly honoured and privileged ( in her role) ,you make God dependant on man( woman) instead of man ( woman)
Being dependant on God( and his salvation)

Hence my dislike for the ( unbiblical) term :“Mother of God”.

 

[marywarfield]

Dear Mary,

By my rejecting the unbiblical usage of “mother of God”,I was not thereby rejecting this fact:that ,Jesus Mary’s son ,was and is ,the 'eternal "Son of God " ,whose origins are from eternity ( past).
This unlike ,your own phrase,is rooted in scripture: for example,1John 1&2.

"That which was from the beginning,which we have heard,which we have seen with our eyes,which we have looked upon,and our hands have handled,of the Word of life;

(For the life was manifested,and we have seen it,and bear witness,and shew unto you that eternal life,which was with the Father,and was manifested unto us"

Now,could you please “shew unto " us ,where ( in scripture) we find your phrase " Mother of God” being used?

Why do I need to do that?

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

Since you have now given equal authority to all individuals, your opinion is noted!

Can you explain please? It seems you are saying you didn’t worship Mary but if you were now doing the things you once did you would be in fact worshipping Mary. If this is true what changed? How can what you did in the past not be worship if you currently believe it would have been?

Peace!!!

adf417,

I don’t believe I have given equal authority( by my post) " to all individuals " as you so say.

In the NT ,there obviously was that authority ( in the church) which had (at that period) it’s focus in the “twelve apostles of the Lamb”(Rev 21:14) .
Also seen in the new testament,is order ( or authority) in regards to male ( the head of the woman) and female.

1Timothy 2:11&12, “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.” But I suffer not a woman to teach,nor to usurp authority over the man,but to be in silence"

Now as I have alluded to this previously ,in my experience as a Catholic ,where do we see this NT teaching : in practice?

The woman is predominately ,in the saying of “the Rosary” ,seen to be taking ( above the males,there,present) the vocal and hence more dominant role.

Regarding your other point, adf 417 :There is no mystery.

When a Catholic ,I believed when saying the “Rosary” ,for example,I was praying to Mary as " mediatrix" , like most of the other RC ,teachings I inherited( from my precious ,mother)
I was simply ,without much inquiry ,repeating what I saw others do.

But Now,as I would claim ,my teaching comes directly from the only mediator ( I believe) between God and man ,the man Christ Jesus ,and my instruction has to be rooted and grounded in "the word of truth ".

So I speak from this ( biblical ) point in time ( not as a catholic) when I claim ,the Mary I then was taught to pray to( or worship) was not the Mary ,I was led to believe: who is seen in scripture.
But as Paul says there would be " other Christ’s" not the true one.
Then for me,there would also appear :" other Mary’s",also.

Hope this answers your question.

 

[Richard_Feynman]

adf417,

I don’t believe I have given equal authority( by my post) " to all individuals " as you so say.

In the NT ,there obviously was that authority ( in the church) which had (at that period) it’s focus in the “twelve apostles of the Lamb”(Rev 21:14) .
Also seen in the new testament,is order ( or authority) in regards to male ( the head of the woman) and female.

1Timothy 2:11&12, “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.” But I suffer not a woman to teach,nor to usurp authority over the man,but to be in silence"

Now as I have alluded to this previously ,in my experience as a Catholic ,where do we see this NT teaching : in practice?

The woman is predominately ,in the saying of “the Rosary” ,seen to be taking ( above the males,there,present) the vocal and hence more dominant role.

Regarding your other point, adf 417 :There is no mystery.

When a Catholic ,I believed when saying the “Rosary” ,for example,I was praying to Mary as " mediatrix" , like most of the other RC ,teachings I inherited( from my precious ,mother)
I was simply ,without much inquiry ,repeating what I saw others do.

But Now,as I would claim ,my teaching comes directly from the only mediator ( I believe) between God and man ,the man Christ Jesus ,and my instruction has to be rooted and grounded in "the word of truth ".

So I speak from this ( biblical ) point in time ( not as a catholic) when I claim ,the Mary I then was taught to pray to( or worship) was not the Mary ,I was led to believe: who is seen in scripture.
But as Paul says there would be " other Christ’s" not the true one.
Then for me,there would also appear :" other Mary’s",also.

Hope this answers your question.

Woah… Wait a minute.
The verse you quoted in Paul talking about the woman’s submission to man. I think you think that means all women should be subject to all men, which I don’t think is the case. I am subject to my mother. And coincidentally she is a woman. I presume this is the way all Catholics pray to Mary. We respect her because she is our mother. No I could be misunderstanding, but that’s what I thought you were saying (we can’t pray to Mary because she is female.)
And again, prayer is not worship. It’s just a fact that everyone has to accept.
I would also like clarification on you very last paragraph. “So I speak from this ( biblical ) point in time ( not as a catholic) when I claim ,the Mary I then was taught to pray to( or worship) was not the Mary ,I was led to believe: who is seen in scripture.”

Thank you!

Richard Feynman

 

[Dorothy]

The term “Mother of God” is an acknowledgment that the Child in the womb of Mary is God, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, 100% Divine and 100% Human (two natures, One Person.)

Jesus our Lord wants us to love as He loves, and He very much loves His Mother.

Not every detail is in Sacred Scripture. However, our Lord Jesus Christ said this:

John 16:12 “I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now.”

 

[Richard_Feynman]

The term “Mother of God” is an acknowledgment that the Child in the womb of Mary is God, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, 100% Divine and 100% Human (two natures, One Person.)

Jesus our Lord wants us to love as He loves, and He very much loves His Mother.

Not every detail is in Sacred Scripture. However, our Lord Jesus Christ said this:

John 16:12 “I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now.”

I like this. We also can’t directly find the word Trinity in the Bible. I mean… We ARE allowed to infer things. We have reasoning abilities. We are allowed to use them.

 

[marywarfield]

adf417,

I don’t believe I have given equal authority( by my post) " to all individuals " as you so say.

In the NT ,there obviously was that authority ( in the church) which had (at that period) it’s focus in the “twelve apostles of the Lamb”(Rev 21:14) .
Also seen in the new testament,is order ( or authority) in regards to male ( the head of the woman) and female.

1Timothy 2:11&12, “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.” But I suffer not a woman to teach,nor to usurp authority over the man,but to be in silence"

Now as I have alluded to this previously ,in my experience as a Catholic ,where do we see this NT teaching : in practice?

The woman is predominately ,in the saying of “the Rosary” ,seen to be taking ( above the males,there,present) the vocal and hence more dominant role.

Regarding your other point, adf 417 :There is no mystery.

When a Catholic ,I believed when saying the “Rosary” ,for example,I was praying to Mary as " mediatrix" , like most of the other RC ,teachings I inherited( from my precious ,mother)
I was simply ,without much inquiry ,repeating what I saw others do.

But Now,as I would claim ,my teaching comes directly from the only mediator ( I believe) between God and man ,the man Christ Jesus ,and my instruction has to be rooted and grounded in "the word of truth ".

So I speak from this ( biblical ) point in time ( not as a catholic) when I claim ,the Mary I then was taught to pray to( or worship) was not the Mary ,I was led to believe: who is seen in scripture.
But as Paul says there would be " other Christ’s" not the true one.
Then for me,there would also appear :" other Mary’s",also.

Hope this answers your question.

I’m sorry. This makes no sense. Personally
I believe it is obvious that if Christ wanted women seen
and not heard or to teach at all He as God could
easily have been born of a man not a woman, correct?
He also would not have given as much respect to Martha, Mary
and the Magdalene as He did.
He would not have given instructions to the
Magdalene to notify and inform the Apostles
of His Resuurection.

Are you honestly trying to tell us that when Mary
as Christ’s mother taught him not to stick his hand
in the fire or run out into the street in front of oncoming
donkey carts or to honor the Sabbath or potty trained
Him she was out of line?
Is it your proposition that she simply gave birth and
split leaving Joseph to do it all?

Are you proposing when the stewards at Cana asked
her to approach her Son on the lack of wine she and
the stewards were out of line?

 

[adf417]

Thank you for your response Bernard.

adf417,

I don’t believe I have given equal authority( by my post) " to all individuals " as you so say.

In the NT ,there obviously was that authority ( in the church) which had (at that period) it’s focus in the “twelve apostles of the Lamb”(Rev 21:14) .
Also seen in the new testament,is order ( or authority) in regards to male ( the head of the woman) and female.

1Timothy 2:11&12, “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.” But I suffer not a woman to teach,nor to usurp authority over the man,but to be in silence"

Now as I have alluded to this previously ,in my experience as a Catholic ,where do we see this NT teaching : in practice?

The woman is predominately ,in the saying of “the Rosary” ,seen to be taking ( above the males,there,present) the vocal and hence more dominant role.

I really don’t want to take this thread off course into authority. Maybe in another thread.

Regarding your other point, adf 417 :There is no mystery.

When a Catholic ,I believed when saying the “Rosary” ,for example,I was praying to Mary as " mediatrix" , like most of the other RC ,teachings I inherited( from my precious ,mother)
I was simply ,without much inquiry ,repeating what I saw others do.

Sorry if I have asked you this before but do you ascribe to prayer = worship and only worship?

But Now,as I would claim ,my teaching comes directly from the only mediator ( I believe) between God and man ,the man Christ Jesus ,and my instruction has to be rooted and grounded in "the word of truth ".

Does this mean you do not solicit prayers from others? What do you tell people when they ask for your prayers?

So I speak from this ( biblical ) point in time ( not as a catholic) when I claim ,the Mary I then was taught to pray to( or worship) was not the Mary ,I was led to believe: who is seen in scripture.
But as Paul says there would be " other Christ’s" not the true one.
Then for me,there would also appear :" other Mary’s",also.

You lost me on this one. Are you saying there are two literal Mary’s or are you saying you have learned a more deeper meaning of worship? Maybe I’m all messed up here.

Peace!!!

 

[adf417]

…or run out into the street in front of oncoming
donkey carts…

 

[marywarfield]

adf417,

I don’t believe I have given equal authority( by my post) " to all individuals " as you so say.

In the NT ,there obviously was that authority ( in the church) which had (at that period) it’s focus in the “twelve apostles of the Lamb”(Rev 21:14) .
Also seen in the new testament,is order ( or authority) in regards to male ( the head of the woman) and female.

1Timothy 2:11&12, “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.” But I suffer not a woman to teach,nor to usurp authority over the man,but to be in silence"

Now as I have alluded to this previously ,in my experience as a Catholic ,where do we see this NT teaching : in practice?

The woman is predominately ,in the saying of “the Rosary” ,seen to be taking ( above the males,there,present) the vocal and hence more dominant role.

Regarding your other point, adf 417 :There is no mystery.

When a Catholic ,I believed when saying the “Rosary” ,for example,I was praying to Mary as " mediatrix" , like most of the other RC ,teachings I inherited( from my precious ,mother)
I was simply ,without much inquiry ,repeating what I saw others do.

But Now,as I would claim ,my teaching comes directly from the only mediator ( I believe) between God and man ,the man Christ Jesus ,and my instruction has to be rooted and grounded in "the word of truth ".

So I speak from this ( biblical ) point in time ( not as a catholic) when I claim ,the Mary I then was taught to pray to( or worship) was not the Mary ,I was led to believe: who is seen in scripture.
But as Paul says there would be " other Christ’s" not the true one.
Then for me,there would also appear :" other Mary’s",also.

Hope this answers your question.

Here is the problem with trying to do it your way:

“Abraham: He looked up, and there he saw three men
standing near him. As soon as he saw them he ran from the
entrance of the tent to greet them and bowed to the
ground. 'My Lord [singular], he said (Genesis 18:3).
The three men: They [plural] replied, Do as you say (Genesis 18:5c).”

What is this all about? Abraham sees three men.
He speaks to THEM as one- Lord. Not Lords plural
but simply one Lord.

THEY in turn replied.

Most acknowledge this as the depiction of the OT
Trinity. But where are the three men CALLED the “Trinity”?

Thing is God is a fifty center. In other words He
prefers to meet us halfway. He puts the apple on
the tree but He leaves it for us to get off the
couch and pick it if we want to eat it.

His Scripture is no different. If He knew the concept
was too difficult for us He spelled it out.
In all other cases He expected us to use our brains.

 

[YADA]

Dear Mary,

By my rejecting the unbiblical usage of “mother of God”,I was not thereby rejecting this fact:that ,Jesus Mary’s son ,was and is ,the 'eternal "Son of God " ,whose origins are from eternity ( past).
This unlike ,your own phrase,is rooted in scripture: for example,1John 1&2.

"That which was from the beginning,which we have heard,which we have seen with our eyes,which we have looked upon,and our hands have handled,of the Word of life;

(For the life was manifested,and we have seen it,and bear witness,and shew unto you that eternal life,which was with the Father,and was manifested unto us"

Now,could you please “shew unto " us ,where ( in scripture) we find your phrase " Mother of God” being used?

Further more, although I would not label myself as a "Protestant ", I am confident ,that by means of calling upon your Protestant "allies ,in support of your case ,you are very much mistaken: that is,at least , those who where much ,much ,more faithful( to the word of truth) even those of “yesteryear” for whom doctrine to them ,was a matter of life and death(eternal).

For me ,by making ( your) Mary ,an indispensable part of the Salvation ,instead of her herself being a sinner,in need also,of a the saviour( her son),although no doubt,highly honoured and privileged ( in her role) ,you make God dependant on man( woman) instead of man ( woman)
Being dependant on God( and his salvation)

Hence my dislike for the ( unbiblical) term :“Mother of God”.

Well actually the Gospel of Luke Chapter 1: 43 … but for context here are the Verses immediately before and after …

41When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the infant leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth, filled with the holy Spirit, 42cried out in a loud voice and said, “Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. 43And how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord** should come to me? **44For at the moment the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy. 45Blessed are you who believed that what was spoken to you by the Lord would be fulfilled.”

Now the passage may not be rendered exactly as the “Mother of God” … but it is explicitly the Mother of God that is called out … unless you want to argue that* “mother”* above is not referencing Mary … it is clearly and explicitly -it is un arguably Mary that is **mother **here … AND … “of my Lord” is made in reference to the Child in Mary’s womb - Jesus … our [and Elizabeth’s] Lord and Savior … the second person of the Trinity - God - from all eternity - even in His mother’s womb

ERGO … Mary is the Mother of God and it is scriptural

 

[joe371]

Bernard Lyons;11935626]
Now,could you please “shew unto " us ,where ( in scripture) we find your phrase " Mother of God” being used?

Was Jesus both God and man while in Mary’s womb for 9 months? If so then Mary is the mother of God. If not then please show us where ( in scripture) we find the phrase that tells us that Jesus was not God while in Mary’s womb?

 

[joe371]

Well actually the Gospel of Luke Chapter 1: 43 … but for context here are the Verses immediately before and after …

Now the passage may not be rendered exactly as the “Mother of God” … but it is explicitly the Mother of God that is called out … unless you want to argue that* “mother”* above is not referencing Mary … it is clearly and explicitly -it is un arguably Mary that is mother here … AND … “of my Lord” is made in reference to the Child in Mary’s womb - Jesus … our [and Elizabeth’s] Lord and Savior … the second person of the Trinity - God - from all eternity - even in His mother’s womb

ERGO … Mary is the Mother of God and it is scriptural

:yup:

 

[PeaceInChrist]

Well actually the Gospel of Luke Chapter 1: 43 … but for context here are the Verses immediately before and after …

Now the passage may not be rendered exactly as the “Mother of God” … but it is explicitly the Mother of God that is called out … unless you want to argue that* “mother”* above is not referencing Mary … it is clearly and explicitly -it is un arguably Mary that is mother here … AND … “of my Lord” is made in reference to the Child in Mary’s womb - Jesus … our [and Elizabeth’s] Lord and Savior … the second person of the Trinity - God - from all eternity - even in His mother’s womb

ERGO … Mary is the Mother of God and it is scriptural

Immediately thought of this passage, too. Baffling to me that someone could miss it or disassociate Jesus’ Divinity and His Lordship. I wonder what Protestants think sometimes when I read the first and second chapters of Luke. Like in the visitation, when the Holy Spirit fills Elizabeth at the sound of Mary’s greeting, and then deny that the Holy Spirit would work through Mary (even though He has before, at this moment, the Incarnation itself, and many others in Scripture).

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

Woah… Wait a minute.
The verse you quoted in Paul talking about the woman’s submission to man. I think you think that means all women should be subject to all men, which I don’t think is the case. I am subject to my mother. And coincidentally she is a woman. I presume this is the way all Catholics pray to Mary. We respect her because she is our mother. No I could be misunderstanding, but that’s what I thought you were saying (we can’t pray to Mary because she is female.)
And again, prayer is not worship. It’s just a fact that everyone has to accept.
I would also like clarification on you very last paragraph. “So I speak from this ( biblical ) point in time ( not as a catholic) when I claim ,the Mary I then was taught to pray to( or worship) was not the Mary ,I was led to believe: who is seen in scripture.”

Thank you!

Richard Feynman

Hi Richard,
I was not trying to suggest that gender was the reason I disagreed with this RC practice and that ‘devotion’ to ‘Mary’ was wrong because she was female.

If Joseph was given the same veneration as we see Mary getting ; because he ,for instance,as head of the woman( and house) 1Cor11:3, was as such , responsible for making that final decision preserving ‘Mary’ ,and for her being in a continuous state of virginity and that throughout all her married life: ( you claim) And so the Rosary ( or an equivalent ) was said ‘through’ Joseph instead of Mary: I would still object the same:

Because there is no biblical injunction to do so,I would still disagree as much with a ‘Joseph’,
as a ‘Mary’.

Talking of subjection: my context was intended to refer to that order, seen within the ‘church’ borders,and even extending to the ‘male’ ( head) within his own home.( even if he is a non believer)

1Peter 3:1&2 "Likewise,ye wives,be in subjection to your own husbands;that if any obey not the word,they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;

While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear"

1Corinthians 14:35. “And if they will learn anything,let them ask their husbands at home:for it is a shame for woman to speak in the church”(KJV)

Regarding your last point Richard,I may have been unnecessarily complicating things,sorry.
My point simply was :I don’t believe the Catholic Mary is THE MARY of Scripture.

Hope this deals with any ‘confusion’.

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

Thank you for your response Bernard.

Sorry if I have asked you this before but do you ascribe to prayer = worship and only worship?

Does this mean you do not solicit prayers from others? What do you tell people when they ask for your prayers?

Peace!!!

Hi adf 417,

Acts 7:42&43. " Then God turned,and gave them up to worship the host of heaven;as it is written in the book of the prophets,O ye house of Israel,have ye offered to me slain beasts and sacrifices by the space of forty years in the wilderness?"

Yea,ye took up the tabernacle of Molech,and the star of your god Remphan,figures which ye made to worship them:and I will carry you away beyond Babylon."

This quote taken from Amos 5::25-27, shows ,I believe, that in the wilderness ,Israel was in fact sacrificing appropriately,that is ,according to Moses command ,they also had the true tabernacle in the wilderness ; but such was the state of their hard hearts of unbelief,the LORD ,deems it to be in fact ‘worship’ to Remphan,and “the tabernacle of Molech”.

Be it ever so scriptural in character,as you know,Christ looks at the heart,where true worship is in spirit and in truth. To answer your question then : true 'worship '( in truth) is also a state of 'heart.as saith the scripture " a new heart and a right spirit within".

Prayers from a brother who is yet living,on ones behalf ,does not ,I believe,equate with praying with ,or through the dead.

 

[Richard_Feynman]

Hi adf 417,

Acts 7:42&43. " Then God turned,and gave them up to worship the host of heaven;as it is written in the book of the prophets,O ye house of Israel,have ye offered to me slain beasts and sacrifices by the space of forty years in the wilderness?"

Yea,ye took up the tabernacle of Molech,and the star of your god Remphan,figures which ye made to worship them:and I will carry you away beyond Babylon."

This quote taken from Amos 5::25-27, shows ,I believe, that in the wilderness ,Israel was in fact sacrificing appropriately,that is ,according to Moses command ,they also had the true tabernacle in the wilderness ; but such was the state of their hard hearts of unbelief,the LORD ,deems it to be in fact ‘worship’ to Remphan,and “the tabernacle of Molech”.

Be it ever so scriptural in character,as you know,Christ looks at the heart,where true worship is in spirit and in truth. To answer your question then : true 'worship '( in truth) is also a state of 'heart.as saith the scripture " a new heart and a right spirit within".

Prayers from a brother who is yet living,on ones behalf ,does not ,I believe,equate with praying with ,or through the dead.

What do you think happens when you die? This is a legitimate question. The saints are alive in heaven… Right? I mean that’s what the Church teaches. So we aren’t praying to dead people, but people that are alive. I think I mentioned this earlier, you should skim the Catechism section on The Body And Soul.

Richard Feynman

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

Immediately thought of this passage, too. Baffling to me that someone could miss it or disassociate Jesus’ Divinity and His Lordship. I wonder what Protestants think sometimes when I read the first and second chapters of Luke. Like in the visitation, when the Holy Spirit fills Elizabeth at the sound of Mary’s greeting, and then deny that the Holy Spirit would work through Mary (even though He has before, at this moment, the Incarnation itself, and many others in Scripture).

Dear PeaceinChrist,

Matthew 11:2-4 "Now when John had heard in the prison the works of Christ he sent two of his disciples.

And said unto unto him,Art thou he that should come,or do we look for another?

Jesus answered and said unto them.Go and shew John again those things which ye do hear and see"

Now in Luke 7:28, The ‘Lord’ says of "the Baptist :

“For I say unto you,Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist :but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he”

Greater than his mother perhaps ,who was also born of a “women” ?

I don’t doubt that ‘YADA’ ,in response to my challenge has ALMOST( but not quite) in my opinion,come up with the goods( good verse).

What ever may be true in regards to Elizabeth’s “my Lord” ( Luke 1:43) and what she herself understood by it ,I don’t believe,is so clear.

Consider these words spoken by Elizabeth :verse 44 " For lo,as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears,the babe leaped in my womb for joy."

The baptist ,yet still in his mothers womb ,was also apparently ,affected by the same Holy Spirit ,that so 'filled" his mother.

Since the giving of the Holy Spirit ( the Comforter) awaited the Son,s departure( after the resurrection) then at this juncture ,the same Spirit of Truth ,in regards ‘the Lord’,had not evidently ‘lead’ Elizabeth ,and dare I say,John ,“into all truth”.That is in respect to him being the eternal Son of God;and that ‘Son to be the Saviour of the world’( 1john4:14)

For one ,his own disciples did not of know of his suffering pathway ,through the cross at Golgotha ,that is their Lord and Saviour,until after he had risen from the dead.

But more importantly while awaiting is end ,it in prison,John is still to fully recognise the Lord
Or the ministry of Christ.

In regards to your own point 'peace in Christ" ,although not a Protestant by profession,I would object to what I have attempted to explain of my belief;and how a ‘former Catholic’ might view the Mary of scripture,as denying the presence or work of the ‘Holy Ghost’ .

This is certainly ,mightily seen ,in the opening chapters of Luke:

Both with Zachariah and Elizabeth and also Joseph and his wife Mary.