How does Marian devotion save?

[Tomster]

Glad to hear it. But have they embraced “Christianity” or “Christ?” Embracing “Christianity” is to embrace the religion. But personally believing in the Person of Christ and the redemptive, sacrificial work He accomplished, once for all, on their behalf embraces salvation.I have not read of any huge conversion to belief in Christ for salvation among those Muslims and Hindus whom you say are followers of Mary. When did the gospel message that Christ commissioned to His Apostles change from belief in Him to belief in a perpetual, exalted virgin? I have yet to read in the Scriptures where it’s taught that the way to belief in the Son (for salvation) is through devotion to the mother.

And we have failed to read in Scriptures your interpretation of John 6 and 1 Corinthians 11:23-29.

 

[crazzeto]

Glad to hear it. But have they embraced “Christianity” or “Christ?” Embracing “Christianity” is to embrace the religion. But personally believing in the Person of Christ and the redemptive, sacrificial work He accomplished, once for all, on their behalf embraces salvation.I have not read of any huge conversion to belief in Christ for salvation among those Muslims and Hindus whom you say are followers of Mary. When did the gospel message that Christ commissioned to His Apostles change from belief in Him to belief in a perpetual, exalted virgin? I have yet to read in the Scriptures where it’s taught that the way to belief in the Son (for salvation) is through devotion to the mother.

Firstly moondweller, you incorrectly attribute both texts you respond to as having been written by me. This is false, I only wrote the second text and it was in response to the statements made in the first. It may be a small thing but still…

Now, with regards to to your question about scriptures, you’re incorrect the scriptures are in fact there demonstrating that the Ever Virgin Mary has always pointed the way to Christ even durring his earthly ministry:

From the ESV:

Joh 2:1 On the third day there was a wedding at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there.
Joh 2:2 Jesus also was invited to the wedding with his disciples.
Joh 2:3 When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.”
Joh 2:4 And Jesus said to her, “Woman, what does this have to do with me? My hour has not yet come.”
Joh 2:5 ***His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.” ***
Joh 2:6 Now there were six stone water jars there for the Jewish rites of purification, each holding twenty or thirty gallons.
Joh 2:7 Jesus said to the servants, “Fill the jars with water.” And they filled them up to the brim.
Joh 2:8 And he said to them, “Now draw some out and take it to the master of the feast.” So they took it.
Joh 2:9 When the master of the feast tasted the water now become wine, and did not know where it came from (though the servants who had drawn the water knew), the master of the feast called the bridegroom
Joh 2:10 and said to him, “Everyone serves the good wine first, and when people have drunk freely, then the poor wine. But you have kept the good wine until now.”

“Do whatever he tells you”, indeed she still does this always particularly when you pray the Rosary… “Do whatever he tells you”… Like convert completely to Christ, empty your self of your worldly desires and place your treasure in heaven.

As the scriptures will attest to, the Ever Virgin Mary has always pointed the way directly to Christ.

God bless,

 

[moondweller]

If a man maltreated an image or statue of a king, would any sane man charge him with a crime against the life of the king?

Absolutely. Do you think those who tore down the statue of Saddam Hussein would not have been executed if he was still reigning? It wasn’t all that long ago that to publicly burn an American flag was considered treasonous.

And therefore, if the Eucharist were a mere symbol, St. Paul’s argument would be absurd.

Not at all. Those symbols have substance behind them. We’re to eat and drink “in remembrance” of Him, and as often as we do we “proclaim His death until He comes.” To “eat this bread” and “drink the cup of the Lord” is an expression of personal belief in His sacrificial work. Hence it must not be done in an unworthy manner.

 

[Tomster]

More nonsense stemming from prejudice? Agreed!. But, added to that, there is a mix of ignorance and much fear. Post #552 is a classic example.

Jharek,

In post #552, Moondweller is still having difficulty in understanding that the Church is the prolongation of the Incarnation in time. Hence his difficulty with the Mother of God and the Eucharist.

What must always be remembered about Moondweller’s theology, especially in regards to the Incarnation, is that is extremely limited, and for the most part heretical, because of what he has heard from his preachers and from their writings.

He is very far from being the Sola Scriptura advocate that he claims to be.

 

[Tomster]

Absolutely. Do you think those who tore down the statue of Saddam Hussein would not have been executed if he was still reigning? It wasn’t all that long ago that to publicly burn an American flag was considered treasonous.Not at all. Those symbols have substance behind them. We’re to eat and drink “in remembrance” of Him, and as often as we do we “proclaim His death until He comes.” To “eat this bread” and “drink the cup of the Lord” is an expression of personal belief in His sacrificial work. Hence it must not be done in an unworthy manner.

We eat and drink the Body and the Blood of the Lord as St. Paul has explained to us and the Corinthians.

By the words, “this do in remembrance of me,” Christ established the Eucharist as an everlasting ordinance in the Church. What Church might this be Moondweller? Some invisible Church as you believe in?

Did those who pulled down Saddam Hussein’s statue down pull Saddam himself or a statue down? Puhleeese. Besides, a key phrase in my sentence if you had read it through is “sane man”.

 

[Tomster]

I will provide you with the words of St. Paul, regarding the Eucharist. Please refer to 1 Corinthians 11:23:29.

The doctrine of the real presence in the Eucharist is greatly corrobororated by St. Paul’s text. In conjunction with the texts from St. John’s Gospel, chapter six, we may add this: St. Paul declares that “whosoever shall eat the bread or drink the cup unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.” Now, these words can mean nothing else than that any indignity offered to the Eucharist is the same as though offered to the body of Christ which men saw upon earth. A crime against the Eucharist is against the life and Person of Jesus Christ. This is not to say that an unworthy communion is equivalent to the crime of Judas, but that both are in the same species of crime: they are both a crime against the life and Person of Jesus Christ. The very purpose of St. Paul’s argument is to convince the Corinthians that their unworthy treatment is not exercised upon a mere symbol. For this purpose he relies not on his own authority: he goes back to the words of Jesus which he received not from men, but from the Lord. By the power of these he proves to his hearers that the Eucharist is the real body and blood of Christ; and then he draws the conclusion that their sin is not against a symbol, but against the very body and blood of Christ.

If a man maltreated an image or statue of a king, would any sane man charge him with a crime against the life of the king? And therefore, if the Eucharist were a mere symbol, St. Paul’s argument would be absurd.

Sorry, Moondweller, your fallible intepretations regarding the Eucharist are false.

Moondweller,

Re-read this V-E-R-Y S-L-O-W-L-Y.

 

[Tomster]

An idea? You have an idea?

I have an idea. Interpret the list, RIGHT NOW!

A person, such as yourself, should have no problem interpreting that list infallibly since you have previously proclaimed yourself to be illumined by the Holy Spirit.

The only delusion I have witnessed on this thread is your own self-delusion thinking you can interpret all of the Scriptures infallibly and expecting us to believe any of it.

Still waiting! :hey_bud:

And that would be the literal interpretation only as your sect has taught you to do.

 

[moondweller]

Firstly moondweller, you incorrectly attribute both texts you respond to as having been written by me. This is false, I only wrote the second text and it was in response to the statements made in the first. It may be a small thing but still…

I don’t know what you’re referring to here. Sorry.

“Do whatever he tells you”, indeed she still does this always particularly when you pray the Rosary… “Do whatever he tells you”… Like convert completely to Christ, empty your self of your worldly desires and place your treasure in heaven.

As the scriptures will attest to, the Ever Virgin Mary has always pointed the way directly to Christ.

God bless,

Well, I don’t see where the Scriptures even say she was/is “ever” virgin. And you’re reading an awful lot into “Whatever He says to you, do it..” I don’t think those words were meant metaphorically. What He literally told them to do was to fill the water pots with water. They did. That’s all that’s to it. It doesn’t say that her intent was to lead them to personal belief in Christ. Or even to believe that He was the Jewish Messiah and Savior of the world. Nor does Scripture go on to say that her message from that day on was “Whatever He says to you, do it.” In fact, there is no evangelical message by Mary recorded in Scripture. I’ve read about some of the alleged visions of her, and so far none of them say the woman who appeared (she never actually identified herself as “Mary,” the mother of Jesus, from what I’ve read) said concerning Jesus, “Whatever He says to you, do it..” But the woman who supposedly identified herself as “The Immaculate Conception,” - not “Mary”) did instruct that a shrine should be built to her.

 

[moondweller]

Still waiting! :hey_bud:

And that would be the literal interpretation only as your sect has taught you to do.

Are you waiting and holding your breath as well?

 

[crazzeto]

I don’t know what you’re referring to here. Sorry.Well, I don’t see where the Scriptures even say she was/is “ever” virgin.

Ever Virgin is the constant, Apistolic teaching… That is, the teaching comes directly from the Apostles and this can be bore out from the earlist writings of the Christians whom the Apostles them selves taught through to this very day and age. Are you suggesting that the Apostles them selves, who lived with and knew Mary? In fact Scriptures directly state that Mary lived out the remainder of her earthly life with John, the Apsotle who’s head lay on our saviours breast in the final hours before his passion. His direct students wrote about the Ever Virgin Mary, Mary who is the second Eve, and the Ark of the new Covenant.

Are you suggesting that the Apotle John taught it wrong? Do you believe that his direct students had no contact with the Ever Virgin Mary?

And you’re reading an awful lot into “Whatever He says to you, do it..” I don’t think those words were meant metaphorically.

And yet it remains a part of the story recorded for our instruction, as the Evangalist and Apostle him self would write later in his Gosple:

30 Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book.
31 But these are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God: and that believing, you may have life in his name.

The Ever Virgin Mary’s final words were written for good reason, because her role has always been to bring Christ too us, first by bareing him, then by constantly pointing us to him.

What He literally told them to do was to fill the water pots with water. They did. That’s all that’s to it. It doesn’t say that her intent was to lead them to personal belief in Christ. Or even to believe that He was the Jewish Messiah and Savior of the world. Nor does Scripture go on to say that her message from that day on was “Whatever He says to you, do it.” In fact, there is no evangelical message by Mary recorded in Scripture. I’ve read about some of the alleged visions of her, and so far none of them say the woman who appeared (she never actually identified herself as “Mary,” the mother of Jesus, from what I’ve read) said concerning Jesus, “Whatever He says to you, do it..” But the woman who supposedly identified herself as “The Immaculate Conception,” - not “Mary”) did instruct that a shrine should be build to her.

You read very selectivly moondweller, I already posted the whole story but I’ll post it again (doay this time)

Joh 2:1 And the third day, there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee: and the mother of Jesus was there.
Joh 2:2 And Jesus also was invited, and his disciples, to the marriage.
Joh 2:3 And the wine failing, the mother of Jesus saith to him: They have no wine.
Joh 2:4 And Jesus saith to her: Woman, what is that to me and to thee? My hour is not yet come.
Joh 2:5 His mother saith to the waiters: Whatsoever he shall say to you, do ye.
Joh 2:6 Now there were set there six waterpots of stone, according to the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three measures apiece.
Joh 2:7 Jesus saith to them: Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim.
Joh 2:8 And Jesus saith to them: Draw out now and carry to the chief steward of the feast. And they carried it.
Joh 2:9 And when the chief steward had tasted the water made wine and knew not whence it was, but the waiters knew who had drawn the water: the chief steward calleth the bridegroom,
Joh 2:10 And saith to him: Every man at first setteth forth good wine, and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse. But thou hast kept the good wine until now.
Joh 2:11 This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee and manifested his glory. And his disciples believed in him.

Red = Christ’s Words, Bold/Under/Italic = Ever Virgin Mary

Notice how the story is told, it was the Ever Virgin Mary who pushed Jesus to turn water into wine. What if she hadn’t exhorted him? Would he have performed the miricle anyway? Perhaps not, what is his first response to her? “Woman, what is that to me and to thee? My hour is not yet come.”.

But confidently (as St John Chrystisom would write) the Ever Virgin Mary tells the servantes “Whatsoever he shall say to you, do ye.”, her final recorded words in the Bible. How can you try and minimize her role, when the story would never have happend with out her?

 

[Tomster]

Are you waiting and holding your breath as well?

Actually, the last time I checked, I found myself still breathing.

INTERPRET THOSE VERSES !

 

[Tomster]

I don’t know what you’re referring to here. Sorry.Well, I don’t see where the Scriptures even say she was/is “ever” virgin. And you’re reading an awful lot into “Whatever He says to you, do it..” I don’t think those words were meant metaphorically. What He literally told them to do was to fill the water pots with water. They did. That’s all that’s to it. It doesn’t say that her intent was to lead them to personal belief in Christ. Or even to believe that He was the Jewish Messiah and Savior of the world. Nor does Scripture go on to say that her message from that day on was “Whatever He says to you, do it.” In fact, there is no evangelical message by Mary recorded in Scripture. I’ve read about some of the alleged visions of her, and so far none of them say the woman who appeared (she never actually identified herself as “Mary,” the mother of Jesus, from what I’ve read) said concerning Jesus, “Whatever He says to you, do it..” But the woman who supposedly identified herself as “The Immaculate Conception,” - not “Mary”) did instruct that a shrine should be built to her.

And there you have it! The final word on the topic! :bowdown:

 

[Tomster]

You’re showing your ignorance, Tom. A “literal” interpretation doesn’t mean everything in Scripture applies to everyone for all time. What was instructed by God to be done by the Jews under the Law does not apply to the believer today who is not under law (the principle of), but under grace (the principle of). A literal interpretation recognizes historical contexts, and takes into consideration figures of speech and allegories, which themselves have a literal meaning. What it does not do is randomly allegorize (spiritualize) the Scriptures to fit one’s preconceived ideas. For instance, Jew means Jew, Gentile means Gentile, church means church and Israel means Israel. The reader allows Scripture to communicate its own inherent, inerrant, truth.Such things as concordances, Greek/Hebrew dictionaries, Greek-English Interlinears, various theological works and commentaries, etc. Have you not read in the theopneustos Scriptures that:Eph 4:11-15 '…He gave some {as} apostles, and some {as} prophets, and some {as} evangelists, and some {as} pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ. As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all {aspects} into Him who is the head, {even} Christ,"God raises up teachers in the body of Christ. But nowhere does it say He raises up infallible men to govern over all the churches of Christendom. But we’re warned by Peter that false teachers will rise up among us, so all teachings of men must be tested by the Scriptures.I already told you. I use the literal, historical, grammatical method of interpretation. It’s called the “normal” method of interpretation.

Moondweller,

You really should be careful when you use the word ignorance. Malachi in prophetic contemplation of that future creation cries out; “For from the rising of the sun even to the going down of the same my name is great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense and a pure oblation are offered to my name: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts.” (Malachi 1:11) This pure oblation can be nothing else but the Eucharist, which is offered daily in every place. All of the ancient liturgies concur in calling the Eucharist a pure oblation, recognizing therein the fulfillment of Malachi’s prophecy. It was the nature of the Old Law that all its rites were typical of the realities of the New Law. Hence its rites and sacrifices were types of truths of Christianity. But if the bread and wine which constitutes the sacrifice of the New Law be only symbols, then it were verified that the elements of the New Law were weaker types than even those of the Old Law. If the bread and wine are only symbols, then Melchisedech’s sacrifice is equal to the sacrifice of the New Law; nay more, all the other typical sacrifices are equal. This is opposed to the nature of the New Law, which is the fulfillment of the preceding types.

Again, the appointing of an entity to be a figure of another is not an event demanding the solemnity and mystery that in the New Testament invests the Eucharist.

 

[Tomster]

Are you waiting and holding your breath as well?

As an aside, did I say I was holding my breath? No, I said I was waiting.

You know, you really have to try and try hard not to read into things things that are not there. You really do get into a lot of trouble doing that as evidenced by your attempts to interpret Scriptures.

 

[Tomster]

Like all good little heretics, he picks and chooses what he likes. But when confronted with the “hard sayings” he runs for cover refusing to answer.

 

[moondweller]

Ever Virgin is the constant, Apistolic teaching… That is, the teaching comes directly from the Apostles

Can you give me a direct quote from the Apostles that Mary was “ever” virgin? Or can you quote for me someone who was taught by the Apostles directly quoting an Apostle stating that Mary was “ever” virgin?

and this can be bore out from the earlist writings of the Christians whom the Apostles them selves taught through to this very day and age.

Which students of the Apostles quote the Apostle’s teaching on Mary’s perpetual virginity? Give me the names and the quotes please.

Are you suggesting that the Apotle John taught it wrong?

I have seen no proof that the Apostle John ever taught that Mary was "ever

" virgin.

Do you believe that his direct students had no contact with the Ever Virgin Mary?

I have no idea if they did. Nor do you. Can you quote a student of his who quotes Mary telling him that she is “ever” virgin?

The Ever Virgin Mary’s final words were written for good reason, because her role has always been to bring Christ too us, first by bareing him, then by constantly pointing us to him.

I know, based on that account, that she pointed some waiters to Him for instruction.

You read very selectivly moondweller, I already posted the whole story but I’ll post it again (doay this time)

I’ve read the account many times in my own Bible.

Notice how the story is told, it was the Ever Virgin Mary who pushed Jesus to turn water into wine.

She states nothing about turning water into wine. She instructs Jesus on nothing.

What if she hadn’t exhorted him? Would he have performed the miricle anyway? Perhaps not, what is his first response to her? “Woman, what is that to me and to thee? My hour is not yet come.”

He kindly rebukes her. But His acquiescence states nothing about Mary’s perpetual virginity or men’s devotion to her for salvation.

But confidently (as St John Chrystisom would write) the Ever Virgin Mary tells the servantes “Whatsoever he shall say to you, do ye.”, her final recorded words in the Bible. How can you try and minimize her role, when the story would never have happend with out her?

Neither that account or any account in Scripture ascribes to Mary a “role” in directing the resurrected Christ. Certainly men believe it, but it’s not a belief based on Scripture.

 

[PRmerger]

NWhy is it strange?

23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us."[/indentN]otice it’s a virgin that shall be with child and** it’s a virgin that brings forth a son**.
​

Actually, the Scripture does not say, “it’s a virgin that brings forth a son”. That’s the Catholic Tradition you’re subscribing to.

The only phrase that’s attached to virgin is “shall be with child”, as in, “conceived by the Holy Spirit, not Joseph”.

It seems that you are either adding to Scripture, or you are in conformity to Sacred Tradition.

At any rate, your paradigm has a weird version of a marriage in which a married man can not have relations with his pregnant wife. Why? Why oh why would this be in Scripture?​

 

[LilyM]

Notice how the story is told, it was the Ever Virgin Mary who pushed Jesus to turn water into wine. What if she hadn’t exhorted him? Would he have performed the miricle anyway? Perhaps not, what is his first response to her? “Woman, what is that to me and to thee? My hour is not yet come.”.

Exactly - in His comments and actions at Cana He seems to be going out of His way to clarify that He is performing the miracle purely to please her and because she requested it, and not for any other deeper or ulterior motives. Even, it appears, at some cost/inconvenience/discombobulation to Himself.

In none of His other miracles is He shown to be SO openly willing to act merely to please a person whom He held dear to Him. And for what? Because she felt for the poor couple and wanted to spare them the embarrasment of running out of wine and appearing to be poor hosts?

Hardly compares with curing people of disease and demonic possession, raising them from the dead, or even supplying a real need such as food (which He did with the 5,000). And yet even the least of her concerns became His, and He went out of His way to grant her request, merely because it was her doing the asking.

 

[moondweller]

Actually, the Scripture does not say, “it’s a virgin that brings forth a son”. That’s the Catholic Tradition you’re subscribing to.

The only phrase that’s attached to virgin is “shall be with child”, as in, “conceived by the Holy Spirit, not Joseph”.

It seems that you are either adding to Scripture, or you are in conformity to Sacred Tradition.

I’m not adding anything:23 "Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us."As I stated previously, as a virgin she’s with child, as a virgin she brings forth a Son. IOW, she conceives as a virgin and gives birth as a virgin. This correlates with Matt. 1:25 which states that Joseph “kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son;”.

At any rate, your paradigm has a weird version of a marriage in which a married man can not have relations with his pregnant wife. Why? Why oh why would this be in Scripture?

After the birth of the Christ Child obviously Mary and Joseph had a normal marital relationship having children of their own. The Scriptures name the males and mention the females.

You’re getting quite creepy with your mantra, PR.

 

[PRmerger]

I’m not adding anything:23 "Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us."As I stated previously, as a virgin she’s with child, as a virgin she brings forth a Son. IOW, she conceives as a virgin and gives birth as a virgin. This correlates with Matt. 1:25 which states that Joseph “kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son;”.After the birth of the Christ Child obviously Mary and Joseph had a normal marital relationship having children of their own. The Scriptures name the males and mention the females.

Virgin is attached to “shall be with child” not to “shall bring forth a son”. That’s the Catholic Tradition you’re affirming.

You’re getting quite creepy with your mantra, PR.

I know! Your paradigm that Joseph couldn’t have relations with his married wife IS creepy!

Unless, of course, you affirm that Mary was to be exalted and understand that which she was set apart for.

You’re a better man than most if you’d dare to plant a seed where the Divine Word Made Flesh dwelled.