How does Marian devotion save?

[ecohlman]

In the N.T. whenever *adelphos *is used of a sibling it’s meant biologically, in a literal sense, not spiritual.

So I looked up the word adelphos in the Intl. Standard Bible Encyclopedia, which is, interestingly a Protestant encyclopedia, and here is the definition…

bruth’-er ('ach; adelphos = kin by birth, from the same parents or parent): Used extensively in both Old Testament and New Testament of other relations and relationships, and expanding under Christ’s teaching to include the universal brotherhood of man. Chiefly employed in the natural sense, as of Cain and Abel (Genesis 4:8); of Joseph and his brethren (Genesis 42:3); of Peter and Andrew, of James and John (Matthew 10:2).

I also looked up the word in several other dictionaries, and all state the same thing, the word is not used to exclusively mean kin by birth.

Hmm, looks like all scholars agree that the word adelphos could mean any type of close relationship, cousin, nephew, etc…

 

[Tomster]

Yes, but Protestants have been arguing for centuries over which bits of scripture the author intended to be mere figures of speech. A certain percentage take the verse ‘This is My Body’ to be entirely allegorical or figurative, in the manner of ‘I am the vine’ etc. Others, using the very same scripture with just as much study and background behind their interpretation, are convinced on the contrary, that there is no mere allegory or figure but Real Presence.

Oh YES there is! If not, explain the following verse:

“He (Paul) writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.” (2 Peter 3:16). It means private individuals CANNOT be trusted to interpet scripture accurately on their own.

The very fact of the Apostles authoritatively pronouncing on the matter of whether Gentile converts were bound by all of the Mosaic law is in itself an exercise of this office of official interpreter of scripture (in this case the OT Levitical codes). That’s what the Apostles were, among other things, official interpreters of scripture!

And their disseminating their judgement among all the Christian communities shows that those communities, too, accepted that there was ONE official interpretation - that which came from the Apostles. And thus an office of ‘official interpreter’, which office the Apostles held. And also that private individuals could NOT just read scripture independently, glean whatever they wanted from it and be OK. No matter how Spirit-filled those private individuals were.

Well, seeing as you do not seem to be at all familiar with the historical background, a background in which even total non-relations are titled ‘brothers’, and so saying Jesus had ‘brothers’ means no more than Paul calling the communities to which he wrote ‘brethren’, perhaps you’d better think about the point you just raised.

Thanks Lily.

Martin Luther, while still a Catholic, made this observation:

“The principle sin of heretics is their pride. In their pride they insist on their own opinions. Frequently they serve God with great fervor and they do not intend any evil; but they serve God according to their own will . . . Even when refuted, they are ashamed to retract their errors and to change their words . . . They think they are guided directly by God . . . The things that have been established for centuries and for which so many martyrs have suffered death, they begin to treat as doubtful questions. They interpret [the Bible] according to their own heads and their own particular views and carry their own opinions into it.”

Once he had become one of those who cause dissensions and offenses contrary to the doctrine they had learned, the Great Reformer had developed an appetite for the advantages and opportunities attendant on the preaching of new doctrines.

But there were accompanying troubles which Luther had not foreseen. He had assumed that those who followed him into revolt would use their “right of private judgment” only to affirm their entire agreement with his opinions, for which he claimed an inspiration from God which put him on a level with the prophets of old. He was mistaken; only eight years after he first propounded his heresies, Luther himself testifis to the utter failure of the cardinal principle of the so-called Reformation, private interpretaion of Holy Scripture.

 

[Lycorth]

Ironic that Luther said that and then went on to do what he did.

The Protestant sophistry on this thread is deafening.

 

[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.

Thanks, again, for your self incriminating explanation. By using such things as concordances, dictionaries, interlinears, various theological works and commentaries, etc., you have shown all of us your need, nay, your dependence on others who claim to be as inspired as you claim to be. You have shown us all you are unable to interpret Scriptures on your own but rely on the extra-biblical traditions of others.

How are you able to determine which of the above extra-biblical tools you use are trustworthy in assisting you to interpret the Word of God? Who in your tradition gives the “imprimatur” on these works?

Again, thank you for making the Catholic position on this matter so much easier to explain.

 

[LilyM]

That’s because men, both Catholic and Protestant, have allegorized and spiritualized the Scriptures to conform them to their own preconceived ideas. This is especially true in eschatology.There’s no study and background behind their interpretation.

Excuse me, there is 1,500 YEARS of study and background behind ‘their interpretation’ which virtually every single Christian without exception held to prior to the Reformation. Much more stud and background than there is behind any view that His words were merely symbolic or allegorical, which for 1,500 years was only a tiny minority view. I’m not appealing to the majority here, I’m just saying you can’t argue that your view is correct based on superior study and knowledge of background.

Here they take it literally when it is quite obvious Jesus was not at all speaking literally. He was right there with them reclined at table - in His body, alive, with blood running through its veins.

Jesus was GOD. He was, and IS present EVERYWHERE, not just in that frail little shell of a human body that was there in the Upper Room.

The same body, mind you, that broke the laws of nature before that point. It was conceived without a human father, for one. It was transfigured, for another thing, became invisible to His enemies when He wanted to escape from them (how else do you explain His being able to ‘pass through the midst of them’ when they wanted to kill Him?).

And afterwards, of course - while still being a very real human body that could walk and speak and eat, it managed to pass through closed doors, bear the wounds of His crucifixion without any apparent pain or harm, and ascend under its own power to the heavens.

And He ALSO said that same bloodSo the bread, literally, was not His body, nor the cup (wine) His blood. He didn’t say, “this will become My body and this will become My blood,” or, “believe it will become My body and blood and I’ll make it so.” But He clearly spoke symbolically of His substitutionary, sacrificial death for the sins of the world, which was about to take place, and they were to eat and drink in remembrance of it (Him).

.And can you tell me where it is “officially” stated that the Apostles were the “official” interpreters of Scripture?

What, the fact that their authority, and theirs alone, was recognised as binding isn’t enough for you? After all the disputing Christian groups didn’t ask any lesser leaders for an authoritative decision. And that the fact of recognition of their exclusive authority is recorded in scripture isn’t enough?

Sure, I’ll tell you where it’s officially stated, the minute you tell me where it is ‘officially’ stated in scripture that God exists as three co-equal persons, Father, Son and Spirit, while yet remaining only one God.

Or where it is ‘officially’ stated that revelation ended with the last Apostle.

Or where it is ‘officially’ stated that Jesus DIDN"T mean it literally when He said ‘This is My Body …’.

Or where it is ‘officially’ stated that He was only speaking metaphorically when He said ‘if you sin with your hand, cut it off’.

Or where it is ‘officially’ stated that NO person can be infallible in their God-given authority, when on the contrary He told the Apostles that WHATEVER they bound on earth would be bound in heaven, not just what happened to be written in scripture.

Can you produce even ONE commentary written by the Apostles on all the Books of the Bible?

The Gospels are commentary on all the Books of the Bible, being the end point towards which all previous scripture was tending. John and Matthew wrote their Gospels which we accept as infallible truth.

Were the Jewish Bereans in a state of rebellion when they themselves searched the Scriptures to test whether or not what Paul was proclaiming of Jesus was true according to the Scriptures (hence interpreting the Scriptures themselves)?

Well, they sent Paul out of town quick smart, obviously they can’t have thought too much of him if they didn’t want to keep him with them. Yes, Paul’s enemies were stirring trouble but so they did wherever he went. The other Christian communities he visited were surely under equal or worse threat but didn’t waver so in their faith or become so lily-livered with fear. In short - fat lot of good the Bereans searching of scripture did for them.

In the N.T. whenever *adelphos *is used of a sibling it’s meant biologically, in a literal sense, not spiritual. Would you argue that Peter and Andrew were not literal brothers, but rather cousins? How about James and John? They were just spiritual brothers? You, in fact, do not even question it.

Peter and Andrew I don’t know. James and John are mentioned as both being sons of Zebedee and also as having the same mother, so upon THAT basis rather than the use of the word ‘adelphoi’ I know they were biological brothers, and THAT, and not the use of the word ‘adelphoi’, is the reason I don’t question their relationship.

Seriously, ALL the 120 adelphoi gathered in the Upper Room at Pentecost were biological siblings? Couldn’t possibly have even been cousins or more distant relations? Mary being one of them as she was present, I must point out. Clearly SHE was Peter’s biological sister then, by your logic. More bizarrely, she must also have been the biological SISTER (being one of his ‘adelphoi’) of the very same James who you are convinced is actually her SON!!! Curiouser and curiouser.

 

[Tomster]

Ironic that Luther said that and then went on to do what he did.

The Protestant sophistry on this thread is deafening.

It would be laughable if it were not so serious. The Reformers succeeded in implanting an unshakable conviction in the minds of their spiritual heirs that the ever changing religious systems they left behind were based on the Bible. So thorough is the deceit it is not thought necessary to look and see whether any one of them actually is. This illustrates the force of Protestant oral tradition. These considerations suggest the terrifying abyss of errors underlying Protestantism in all its branches, and the lack of freedom of Protestants, especially the Fundamentalist variety, enslaved by a false oral tradition.

 

[anthony022071]

I do deny that they belonged to “the Catholic Church.” If true believers they were baptized by the Holy Holy Spirit into the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13), which is the church (Eph. 1:22-23). It is this church which is called, “catholic.”

How can you deny that they belonged to the Catholic Church when that is what they called it? They did not recognize those who received the Christian baptism outside of the Catholic Church as having been baptized into the Catholic Church,even though the baptism itself was valid for the removal of the guilt of original sin.

I already answered this.

Not really. The Fathers belonged to the one Catholic Church and they held the same doctrines that the Catholic Church of today does. So when did the Catholic Church as it now exists first go wrong in regard to doctrine?

In the beginning there were various independent churches. Each appointed among themselves elders and deacons. They were not “parishes” of the Roman Catholic Church, which did not yet exist.

They were not independent in the sense of being without an earthly head (Cephas means both Rock and Head) who exercized authority over the whole Church. They shared a communion of faith,which means a communion of doctirine. And this requires an infallible earthly head of the whole Church.

 

[Tomster]

And yet here you are trying to fill the role. Yet one more “plain and obvious interpretation of scripture” to throw on the heap with all the other different ones…

Exactly.

Fundamentalism itself is the strongest proof of the impossibility of determining which beliefs are fundamental, and the further impossibility, in the abscence of authority, of holding them.

The Fundamentalist, bac, vehemently disputes on doctrinal grounds Catholic doctrines and practices, the very ones occasionally acknowledged as Apostolic and situated in the primitive Church by some Protestant professors of theology. These, having read the Church Fathers, know, but lack the energy to care. The Fundamentalist’s fervor, on the other hand, exceeds by far his knowledge of Scripture and history.

 

[Tomster]

How can you deny that they belonged to the Catholic Church when that is what they called it? They did not recognize those who received the Christian baptism outside of the Catholic Church as having been baptized into the Catholic Church,even though the baptism itself was valid for the removal of the guilt of original sin.

Not really. The Fathers belonged to the one Catholic Church and they held the same doctrines that the Catholic Church of today does. So where did the modern Catholic Church first go wrong in regard to doctrine?

They were not independent. They shared a communion of faith,which means doctirine.

And thank you very much.

 

[Tomster]

One would interpret the Scriptures the same way one would interpret a newspaper when reading it. You would interpret it literally, which allows for allegories and figures of speech when the author, himself, intended them. You wouldn’t automatically allegorize a newspaper article, would you, Tom? You don’t need an official interpreter to accurately interpret Scripture any more than you need an official interpreter to accurately interpret your morning newspaper. That’s why there’s no such church “office” or “spiritual gift” as “official interpreter” listed in the Scriptures. I already pointed that out to you.

Actually, it’s possible for an atheist or skeptic to accurately interpret the Scriptures if educated in the original Greek and Hebrew, and familiar with the historical background of the Scriptures. He could be accurate but that doesn’t mean he BELIEVES them. Believing what the Scriptures literally say is what matters after an accurate interpretation.I already answered you here. You need some instruction on hermeneutics.

Sorry!

You must take each verse I gave you and interpret it LITERALLY for all of us to see. Quit dodging the question. Obviously you cannot do it. Your pre-programmed, Fundamentalist mindset will not permit it.

 

[anthony022071]

According to Scripture to the church (not the Roman Catholic Church) is given Apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers for the equipping of the saints, for the work of service, for the building up of the body of Christ (Eph. 4). But nowhere does it say He gives “authorized interpreters” of Scripture. Such an office doesn’t exist.

The authoritative interpreter of scripture is the magisterium,meaning,the pope (who is simply the earthly pastor of the whole Church) and the bishops in council when they teach in communion with the pope (as in the first council in Jerusalem).

But let me ask you, has your Magesterium ever published and “official” commentary on all the Books of the Bible? Just how much of the Bible have they actually “officially” interpreted? Truth be told, very little, if any.

There would be no point in having an official commentary of the Bible,since there are many different moral,figurative and allogorical sens insights into scripture by Catholic thologians throughout the centuries. Scripture is inexhaustible in regard to the truths and insights that may be gleaned from it. The Church only needs to officially interpret those scriptures that bear upon doctrine,like “This is my body”. These official interpretations are found in the Catechism,in documents of councils,and in papal encyclicals,where they are used to support official declarations of doctrine.

See posts 425 and 452.

 

[moondweller]

Jesus was GOD. He was, and IS present EVERYWHERE, not just in that frail little shell of a human body that was there in the Upper Room.

Jesus, i.e., God the Son in His humanity (bodily, even glorified) is not present everywhere. A human body can be in only one place at one time. The Man Christ Jesus, bodily, is presently in heaven, at the right Hand of the Majesty on High.

It was conceived without a human father, for one.

True, but it was still fully human.

It was transfigured, for another thing,

Yes, a transfigured human body. The transfiguration didn’t make it omnipresent.

became invisible to His enemies when He wanted to escape from them (how else do you explain His being able to ‘pass through the midst of them’ when they wanted to kill Him?).

The text does not say He became invisible.

And afterwards, of course - while still being a very real human body that could walk and speak and eat, it managed to pass through closed doors,

The text does not say He passed through doors.

bear the wounds of His crucifixion without any apparent pain or harm,

To the contrary, Lily. He suffered a GREAT amount of pain physically, and most especially spiritually (being separated from His Father at the moment He bore your sins in His body, 2 Cor. 5:21)

and ascend under its own power to the heavens.

He ascended, which means His body was not omnipresent.

What, the fact that their authority, and theirs alone, was recognised as binding isn’t enough for you? After all the disputing Christian groups didn’t ask any lesser leaders for an authoritative decision. And that the fact of recognition of their exclusive authority is recorded in scripture isn’t enough?

There’s nothing in Scripture that reveals the office of “official interpreter” of Scripture. The Scriptures themselves hold authority being theopneustos, God-breathed, being the Word of God.

The Gospels are commentary on all the Books of the Bible, being the end point towards which all previous scripture was tending. John and Matthew wrote their Gospels which we accept as infallible truth.

The Gospel records ARE Scripture. Your argument is that there must be an “official” interpreter of those Scriptural Records (as well as all the Books of the Bible). You say only the Bishops of your church are the “official” interpreters of Scripture. But Scripture itself lists no such office or demands such a required position.

Well, they sent Paul out of town quick smart, obviously they can’t have thought too much of him if they didn’t want to keep him with them. Yes, Paul’s enemies were stirring trouble but so they did wherever he went. The other Christian communities he visited were surely under equal or worse threat but didn’t waver so in their faith or become so lily-livered with fear. In short - fat lot of good the Bereans searching of scripture did for them.

You have no idea what you’re talking about here. They sent Paul away for his own protection (Acts 17:14).

Peter and Andrew I don’t know. James and John are mentioned as both being sons of Zebedee and also as having the same mother, so upon THAT basis rather than the use of the word ‘adelphoi’ I know they were biological brothers, and THAT, and not the use of the word ‘adelphoi’, is the reason I don’t question their relationship.

So then you would question the biological relationship between Peter and Andrew since you don’t know the name of their father. Interesting.

The point I made, Lily, is that in the N.T. “adelphos” is used either in a spiritual sense (i.e., spiritual brethren), or a biological sense, for siblings. Every place in the N.T. it’s used biologically it refers to siblings. As inMark 6:3 "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?" And they took offense at Him."The ONLY reason you refuse to accept a plain, normal interpretation of this is because it would run contrary to your Mariology. IOW, you don’t accept what the Scriptures plainly reveal about Mary: That after the birth of Jesus God blessed Joseph and Mary with all the normalcy of marriage, especially with the joy of biological children between them (Matt. 1:25). The Mary of the Bible just does not seem to correlate with the Mary men formed out of their own tradition.

Seriously, ALL the 120 adelphoi gathered in the Upper Room at Pentecost were biological siblings?

Seriously, no. Never even hinted to such a thing. But Acts 1:14 does state that Mary, with His brothers (siblings, Mary’s children) were also in the room. The text does not at all demand a spiritual context to the “His brothers.” In fact, it would render it nonsensical.

 

[moondweller]

Maybe you should read your bible a bit closer. These same “siblings” are mentioned in the account of the cruxifiction, as sons of Mary, wife of Cleophas. We know that this Mary is not the mother of our Lord because this Mary was watching from a distance, and we know that Mary the mother of Jesus was up close where he could talk to her and give her to the care of his disciple.

Some women were watching from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome. 41In Galilee these women had followed him and cared for his needs. Many other women who had come up with him to Jerusalem were also there. Mark 15:40-41

There is nothing in scripture that suggests that Mary had additional children.

James and Joses (or Jacob) were common names among the Jews. As was “Mary.” As you can see there were THREE Marys present at the crucifixion. Why, even among the 12 disciples there were two Judas’, two James’, two Simons.

James, the Less, and his brother Joses are not the sons of Mary, the mother of Jesus. According to a normal interpretation of the Scriptural account Mary did indeed have additional children. In fact, both male and female children (Mk. 6:3)

In fact if you begin to study types between the old and new testament, you would know that these words:Then said the LORD unto me; This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the LORD, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut. Ezekiel 44:2
are a foreshadowing of the birth of Christ, and that the gate of his entrance is Mary, that gate was shut.

Eze. 40-44 is a prophetic description of the future Millennial Temple. It’s a REAL building (Temple) that will be erected at the time of Christ’s future, Millennial reign on earth. It’s not a spiritualization of Mary or her womb. The gate is a real gate, not a woman’s womb.

 

[anthony022071]

How does being “closer” to Christ save you?

Obviously,if one is close to Christ in spirit,he is standing in his grace and obedient to him and and partaking of his divine nature. Obedience is pleasing to God,and God saves those who are pleasing to him. There is nothing mechanical or judicial about how grace saves us. Grace is the Holy Spirit in person,who leads us to holiness and purifies us,so that we may be made worthy of salvation.

And just how does devotion to someone other than Christ, like Mary, bring someone “closer” to Him?

Mary is the mother of grace. She is full of grace,as the angel Gabriel called her. Devotion to her releases grace. As the chosen Mother of God,her prayers for us are especially powerful. As scripture says,the prayers of a righteous man are very powerful.

 

[anthony022071]

Why not just devote one’s self to Christ. As the Apostle Paul said:
Gal 2:20 “I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the {life} which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me.”

Phil 1:21 “For to me, to live is Christ…”
Paul, nor any of the Apostles, ever taught devotion to Mary, of themselves or others. If a man wanted to get closer to his wife, shouldn’t he devote himself to her directly rather than, say, his mother-in-law?

Paul was writing at a time when Mary had not yet left this world. And Paul made a point about teaching only what was most essential,Christ and his crucifiction. It would have distracted from Christ and his crucifiction if the apostles had also taught everything about Mary to all the new converts. It would have been too much to bear,and confusing,for those who had only recently learned the gospel. It would have been a hindrance to evangelization and may have led to heresy. But after the time of the apostles,as the Church and its teachings about Christ became more firmly established throughout the world,it became more and more safe and necessary for the doctrines about Mary to be made known and for devotion to her to be practiced. Devotion to Mary helped to sustain people’s faith in Christ and their perseverance in holiness and in times of danger,and to defeat heresies. Mary is known in the Church as the destroyer of heresy. She nourishes and protects the Body of her Son.

See post 456.

 

[Tomster]

Sorry!

You must take each verse I gave you and interpret it LITERALLY for all of us to see. Quit dodging the question. Obviously you cannot do it. Your pre-programmed, Fundamentalist mindset will not permit it.

Moondweller,

We are still waiting for your interpretations of the Scripture verses I gave you.

 

[Tomster]

That’s because men, both Catholic and Protestant, have allegorized and spiritualized the Scriptures to conform them to their own preconceived ideas. This is especially true in eschatology.There’s no study and background behind their interpretation. Here they take it literally when it is quite obvious Jesus was not at all speaking literally. He was right there with them reclined at table - in His body, alive, with blood running through its veins. So the bread, literally, was not His body, nor the cup (wine) His blood. He didn’t say, “this will become My body and this will become My blood,” or, “believe it will become My body and blood and I’ll make it so.” But He clearly spoke symbolically of His substitutionary, sacrificial death for the sins of the world, which was about to take place, and they were to eat and drink in remembrance of it (Him).Peter, by no means, states here that “private” individuals “cannot” be trusted with interpreting Scripture. He states nothing in respect to such a prohibition - nothing! That itself is a distortion, and he does state in that verse who distorts Scripture.And can you tell me where it is “officially” stated that the Apostles were the “official” interpreters of Scripture? Can you produce even ONE commentary written by the Apostles on all the Books of the Bible? Were the Jewish Bereans in a state of rebellion when they themselves searched the Scriptures to test whether or not what Paul was proclaiming of Jesus was true according to the Scriptures (hence interpreting the Scriptures themselves)?It states NOTHING of an office of “official interpreter.” That interpretation itself is a distortion, and you know who Peter said distorts Scripture.In the N.T. whenever *adelphos *is used of a sibling it’s meant biologically, in a literal sense, not spiritual. Would you argue that Peter and Andrew were not literal brothers, but rather cousins? How about James and John? They were just spiritual brothers? You, in fact, do not even question it. In the same way, one cannot question what is stated here:Mark 6:3 "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?" And they took offense at Him."These are the sons and daughters of Mary. The reason you reject the normal, plain interpretation of this verse is because it doesn’t fit YOUR Mariology.

Moondweller,

In the Gospel of St. John, chapter 6, verse 66, we read: “After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went with him.”

What was the reason for this? Why did some of his disciples leave Him at this point? What was it that Jesus said that caused them to leave?

Also, please give us your fallible opinion on the meaning of 1 Corinthians 11:27-28

 

[moondweller]

Paul was writing at a time when Mary had not yet left this world.

Oh, so you know the date of Mary’s alleged assumption into heaven?

And Paul made a point about teaching only what was most essential,Christ and his crucifiction. It would have distracted from Christ and his crucifiction if the apostles had also taught everything about Mary to all the new converts. It would have been too much to bear,and confusing,for those who had only recently learned the gospel. It would have been a hindrance to evangelization and may have led to heresy. But after the time of the apostles,as the Church and its teachings about Christ became more firmly established throughout the world,it became more and more safe and necessary for the doctrines about Mary to be made known and for devotion to her to be practiced. Devotion to Mary helped to sustain people’s faith in Christ and their perseverance in holiness and in times of danger,and to defeat heresies. Mary is known in the Church as the destroyer of heresy. She nourishes and protects the Body of her Son.

See post 456.

This is quite an intimate insight into Mary and Apostolic evangelical strategy. What’s your original source, Anthony? Or was this personally revealed to you? In a dream, perhaps? A vision?

 

[moondweller]

Moondweller,

We are still waiting for your interpretations of the Scripture verses I gave you.

Good.

 

[Tomster]

Good.

Are they forthcoming or haven’t you found a suitable extra-biblical reference yet?