M
mark_a
Guest
Thanks James.
- Status
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
We also have The “Mystical City of God” by Venerable Mother Mary of Jesus of Agreda (1602-1665) is a monumental four-volume history of the life of the Blessed Virgin Mary, as revealed by Our Lady to a 17th-century Spanish nun. The work has been acclaimed by Popes, cardinals and theologians and has inspired readers for over 300 years.
The English translation of this work has the imprimatur of the former Archbishop of Santa Fe.
Here is a link to the chapter on the assumption from the Mystical City of God.
Mystical City of God: CHAPTER VII. BURIAL AND ASSUMPTION OF THE VIRGIN.
Here is the whole reference:
Mystical City of God
James
The English translation of this work has the imprimatur of the former Archbishop of Santa Fe.
Here is a link to the chapter on the assumption from the Mystical City of God.
Mystical City of God: CHAPTER VII. BURIAL AND ASSUMPTION OF THE VIRGIN.
Here is the whole reference:
Mystical City of God
James
M
mark_a
Guest
FYI, You’ll need to do a little tweaking with your argument. Catholics have a very different understanding of Mary as queen. We understand her to be the queen mother as in David’s kingdom.
Have at it!
A
Arglaze
Guest
Please lets post the entire Scripture so it can be read in its right context:
John 16:26-27.
" When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home."
Jesus gave John the responsibility to take care of his earthy mother. He did not give it to the whole world. That is what John understood, and that is what the story says. In fact, in the early church, though Mary cooperated with the disciples in the church there is no reference to her being considered the Queen of God or humanity.
Her mission from God was to be a receptacle for the birth of our Saviour, and to help the furthering of the gospel just like anyone else, nothing more, nothing less. Please, lets not make stuff up.
Mary was not the Queen nor anything more than a faithful servant of God and a woman who’s worthy to be imitated because she put God first. The world needs more women like her. But she’s no where near divine.
Ariel >>
A
Arglaze
Guest
“queen mother as in David’s kingdom”. Who pronounced her queen? Jesus? David? God? or just people?
At the very first reference someone tried to deify or sanctify her more than she deserved Jesus rebuked.
Luke 11:27-28 – “And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked. But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.”
Because Jesus knew people would try to do something like that. He refocused people’s attention in the right direction, not in a mortal person.
Ariel >>
A
Arglaze
Guest
Enoch and Elijah are not assumed to be in Heaven like people do about Mary.
Genesis 5:24 “And Enoch walked with God: and he [was] not; for God took him.”
2 Kings 2:11 “And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.”
I’m sorry, I couldn’t find anything about Mary, may she rest in peace until Jesus comes for her. (1 Thessalonians 4:16)
Ariel >>
M
mark_a
Guest
Then we can agree that the Church is not teaching spiritual incest as you state below:
A
Arglaze
Guest
Psalm 45:9 says “Kings’ daughters were among thy honourable women: upon thy right hand did stand the queen in gold of Ophir”
All I have to say to what you understand in that text is:
WOW!!!
Your eyes must be reading in between the in betweens. Because that is not what the simple song of David says, even if you read the whole Psalm, I really don’t know how you got Mary in there.
God is eternal, Mary is the receptacle through which Jesus became human, but Jesus has existed from eternity, even before Mary was born, so she may be what we call “his mom”, but in the context of the Bible, she is not the Mother of God/Jesus.
The Holy Spirit used her to hide Christ Divinity in humanity.
Please lets not make stuff up about Mary, that Jesus nor his disciples have said about her.
Ariel >>
A
Arglaze
Guest
Of course not, I’m just stating that there’s a reference to Jesus as a King and Mary as a Queen. That is not very Biblical. It sounds more like a paraphrasing of scriptures that makes it look as though He Jesus is our Father, while Mary is married to him therefore making her a mother, and that is absurd.
Its a bad inference. I would rather we keep it as the Bible says, she was the servant of God through which the Holy Spirit hid Jesus’ (who existed before her) Divinity in humanity.
That’s pretty much all there is to Mary, nothing more. She was a good servant, righteous in the sight of the Lord. No reference by Jesus or the disciples to her as Queen or Mother of humanity, or any of that. That is being more religious than God himself adding stuff he doesn’t say.
Ariel >>
And my apologies in regards to that reference, I was a little outraged about it, because I felt the Bible’s being insulted, and what I wrote reflects that, sorry bout that language, that was not very Christian of me. May God bless you all.
M
mark_a
Guest
But this is what you said.
Either you don’t know what the Church teaches or you do know and are misrepresenting what the Church teaches. Which is it?
A
Arglaze
Guest
Jesus is our Father also. But Mary is definetly not the Queen mother, that’s not what Jesus or his disciples teach us.
If they do, please provide scripture for it.
Ariel >>
M
mark_a
Guest
I must have caught you in the edit and had to go back and delete.
By the way, Catholics aren’t big on insulting the bible. Even though many disagree, we consider it ours.
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
I gave you 11 explicit references to scripture that have a bearing on Mary’s unique role and link to a lot more and all you can do is comment on one?
Sorry I am not accepting your strawman:
“But she’s no where near divine.” No Catholic here is taking the position that she is divine - so why do you take a false position?
If you had a deeper understanding of this one scripture than what you are demonstrating here you would know that the expression “Woman” which seems distant and impersonal to us in our western social context is actually a title and an honor.
Here is proof:
John 2:4; 19:26 - when Jesus uses the title “woman” (gnyai), it is a title of dignity and respect. It is the equivalent of Lady or Madam. Jesus honored His Mother as God requires us to do.
Can you not discern the scriptural linkage of the term “woman” to Genesis?
I didn’t think so. So here it is.
Gen. 3:15 - we see from the very beginning that God gives Mary a unique role in salvation history. God says “I will put enmity between you and the woman, between your seed and her seed.” This refers to Jesus (the “emnity”) and Mary (the “woman”). The phrase “her seed” (spermatos) is not seen elsewhere in Scripture.
John 19:26 - Jesus makes Mary the Mother of us all as He dies on the Cross by saying “behold your mother.” Jesus did not say “John, behold your mother” because he gave Mary to all of us, his beloved disciples. All the words that Jesus spoke on Cross had a divine purpose. Jesus was not just telling John to take care of his mother.
Nice try at a strawman though…
James
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
If you think scripture is ALL of God’s word you definately don’t have a clue what you are talking about.
Scripture Alone Disproves “Scripture Alone”. Better study the following verses:
Gen. to Rev. - Scripture never says that Scripture is the sole infallible authority for God’s Word. Scripture also mandates the use of tradition. This fact alone disproves sola Scriptura.
Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:15 - those that preached the Gospel to all creation but did not write the Gospel were not less obedient to Jesus, or their teachings less important.
Matt. 28:20 - “observe ALL I have commanded,” but, as we see in John 20:30; 21:25, not ALL Jesus taught is in Scripture. So there must be things outside of Scripture that we must observe. This disproves “Bible alone” theology.
Mark 16:15 - Jesus commands the apostles to “preach,” not write, and only three apostles wrote.
Luke 1:1-4 - Luke acknowledges that the faithful have already received the teachings of Christ, and is writing his Gospel only so that they “realize the certainty of the teachings you have received.” Luke writes to verify the oral tradition they already received.
John 20:30; 21:25 - Jesus did many other things not written in the Scriptures.
Acts 8:30-31; Heb. 5:12 - these verses show that we need help in interpreting the Scriptures. We cannot interpret them infallibly on our own. We need divinely appointed leadership within the Church to teach us.
Acts 15:1-14 – Peter resolves the Church’s first doctrinal issue regarding circumcision without referring to Scriptures.
Acts 17:28 – Paul quotes the writings of the pagan poets when he taught at the Aeropagus. Thus, Paul appeals to sources outside of Scripture to teach about God.
1 Cor. 5:9-11 - this verse shows that a prior letter written to Corinth is equally authoritative but not part of the New Testament canon. This disproves Scripture alone.
1 Cor. 11:2 - Paul commends the faithful to obey apostolic tradition, and not Scripture alone.
Phil. 4:9 - Paul says that what you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, do. There is nothing ever about obeying Scripture alone.
Col. 4:16 - this verse shows that a prior letter written to Laodicea is equally authoritative but not part of the New Testament canon. Paul once again appeals to a source outside of the Bible.
1 Thess. 2:13 – Paul says, “when you received the word of God, which you heard from us…” How can the Bible be teaching first century Christians that only the Bible is their infallible source of teaching if, at the same time, oral revelation was being given to them as well? Protestants can’t claim that there is one authority (Bible) while allowing two sources of authority (Bible and oral revelation).
1 Thess. 3:10 - Paul wants to see the Thessalonians face to face and supply what is lacking. His letter is not enough.
2 Thess. 2:14 - Paul says that God has called us “through our Gospel.” What is the fullness of the Gospel?
2 Thess. 2:15 - the fullness of the Gospel is the apostolic tradition which includes either teaching by word of mouth or by letter. Scripture does not say “letter alone.”
2 Thess 3:6 - Paul instructs us to obey apostolic tradition. There is no instruction in the Scriptures about obeying the Bible alone (the word “Bible” is not even in the Bible).
1 Tim. 3:14-15 - Paul prefers to speak and not write, and is writing only in the event that he is delayed and cannot be with Timothy.
2 Tim. 2:2 - Paul says apostolic tradition is passed on to future generations, but he says nothing about all apostolic traditions being eventually committed to the Bible.
James 4:5 - James even appeals to Scripture outside of the Old Testament canon (“He yearns jealously over the spirit which He has made…”)
2 Peter 1:20 - interpreting Scripture is not a matter of one’s own private interpretation. Therefore, it must be a matter of “public” interpretation of the Church. The Divine Word needs a Divine Interpreter. Private judgment leads to divisions, and this is why there are 30,000 different Protestant denominations.
2 Peter 3:15-16 - Peter says Paul’s letters are inspired, but not all his letters are in the New Testament canon. See, for example, 1 Cor. 5:9-10; Col. 4:16. Also, Peter’s use of the word “ignorant” means unschooled, which presupposes the requirement of oral apostolic instruction that comes from the Church.
2 Peter 3:16 - the Scriptures are difficult to understand and can be distorted by the ignorant to their destruction. God did not guarantee the Holy Spirit would lead each of us to infallibly interpret the Scriptures. But this is what Protestants must argue in order to support their doctrine of sola Scriptura. History and countless divisions in Protestantism disprove it.
1 John 4:1 - again, God instructs us to test all things, test all spirits. Notwithstanding what many Protestants argue, God’s Word is not always obvious.
1 Sam. 3:1-9 - for example, the Lord speaks to Samuel, but Samuel doesn’t recognize it is God. The Word of God is not self-attesting.
Gen. to Rev. - Protestants must admit that knowing what books belong in the Bible is necessary for our salvation. However, because the Bible has no “inspired contents page,” you must look outside the Bible to see how its books were selected. This destroys the sola Scriptura theory. The canon of Scripture is a Revelation from God which is necessary for our salvation, and which comes from outside the Bible. Instead, this Revelation was given by God to the Catholic Church, the pinnacle and foundation of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15).
More Here: Sola Scriptura is not Scriptural
James
H
HamtramckSteve
Guest
Jesus already has her with Him.
Ephesians 2:6 And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus.
S
SenorSalsa
Guest
The OT prefigures of Jesus, and in this case Mary as well are generally looked on as imperfect prefigurings of the perfection of Jesus and Mary, so the fact that Solomon killed somebody doesn’t mean anything about the Queenship of Mary, because they were human and sinned. Mary is Queen in Heaven, and having entered the Beatific Vision, can no longer sin
Enoch’s life was written about in Genesis. Mary’s life is not discussed in Scripture, save when her life and Jesus’ intertwine. This does not happen after Jesus ascends to Heaven, so why would we assume the bible to tell us of Mary’s assumption?
A
Arglaze
Guest
I gave you 11 explicit references to scripture that have a bearing on Mary’s unique role and link to a lot more and all you can do is comment on one?
Sorry I am not accepting your strawman:
“But she’s no where near divine.” No Catholic here is taking the position that she is divine - so why do you take a false position?
If you had a deeper understanding of this one scripture than what you are demonstrating here you would know that the expression “Woman” which seems distant and impersonal to us in our western social context is actually a title and an honor.
Here is proof:
John 2:4; 19:26 - when Jesus uses the title “woman” (gnyai), it is a title of dignity and respect. It is the equivalent of Lady or Madam. Jesus honored His Mother as God requires us to do.
Can you not discern the scriptural linkage of the term “woman” to Genesis?
I didn’t think so. So here it is.
Gen. 3:15 - we see from the very beginning that God gives Mary a unique role in salvation history. God says “I will put enmity between you and the woman, between your seed and her seed.” This refers to Jesus (the “emnity”) and Mary (the “woman”). The phrase “her seed” (spermatos) is not seen elsewhere in Scripture.
John 19:26 - Jesus makes Mary the Mother of us all as He dies on the Cross by saying “behold your mother.” Jesus did not say “John, behold your mother” because he gave Mary to all of us, his beloved disciples. All the words that Jesus spoke on Cross had a divine purpose. Jesus was not just telling John to take care of his mother.
Nice try at a strawman though…
James
- on “Woman” yes, of course, I didn’t think Jesus disrespected her in any way. So we both agree on that.
- “Behold your mother”. You’re still taking those three words away from the context of the whole text, and the previous one. The prior text says Jesus said to Mary, “Woman behold thy son” and was making reference to John, and then he looks at John and said “Behold your mother” in reference to Mary. Then the Bible goes ahead and explains John took her into his own home. Of course Jesus said to John specifically, “John, behold your mother” in different words. That’s what the Bible says, unless you doubt the Sacred Record.
The statement “Behold thy mother” as if Jesus was saying that to the whole world is not in the context of the scripture.
I’m not selling this to you, I’m just reading what’s written.
Ariel >>
S
sola_scriptura
Guest
You cite passages & then don’t even provide the text from the passages itself – but rather your own synopsis of its message? None of the passages you point to say that a church may contravene scripture? You’re arguments have no intellectual worth, they’re simple rhetoric.
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness (2 Tim. 3:16).
Of course when Paul wrote this the New Testament wasn’t completely written yet – so he is speaking of the Old Testament. However, the Gospels have become Scripture and as such fall under this same rule Paul enumerates.
If that’s not enough I would gladly take a single Catholic typology of Mary (for instance) – Mary as the Ark of the Covenant; and debunk it using solely Old Testament text.
However, it won’t matter – someone will invariably come out of left field and say Luther was mentally unstable – or some other red herring (and that will be the crux of their argument – because of course there is no theological argument that can effectively win the day for these imaginary typologies).
A
Arglaze
Guest
I can see how you could reach to that conclusion, but look at the text carefully.
Ephesians 2:6 “And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus”
If you read it in the context of the verses before and after, you’d see more clearly that the reference to us being raised and sit together in heavenly places, refers to Jesus representing us in front of his Father. Not us physically being there, but in spirit in Jesus. That’s why it says “in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus”.
We will literally be there after He comes again for his people, and after the resurrection like 1 Thessalonians 4:16-18 says:
“For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Wherefore comfort one another with these words.”
How can you be sitting at his right hand if you’re in the grave dead in Christ waiting for his return? the answer is simple, you’re dead or alive here on earth till he comes for us.
Ariel >>
M
mark_a
Guest
Now that’s humble!!!
- Status