Kujo313's Assertions About Catholic Marian Beliefs (Isis!?...Goddess!?)

[kujo313]

thistle:

Where is it written?

Luke 24:27
And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.

Luke 24:32
And they said to one another, “Did not our heart burn within us while He talked with us on the road, and while He opened the Scriptures to us?”

Luke 24:44
Then He said to them, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.”

Luke 24:45
And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures.

Clearly, Jesus told His disciples everything and they told us in their letters and in their actions. If Jesus’ earthly mother was to be honored, admired, adored, worshipped (whatever you want to call it), they disciples would’ve written it down somewhere or it would’ve been mentioned in Acts that they did so. Even Paul would’ve mentioned it in his letters.

Still, none.

With that, I don’t want to be told that I deny Jesus if I deny Mary. Though I cannot deny that a virgin DID give birth according to prophecy. That, along with many other prophetic signs, prove that Jesus IS our Messiah.
I can also understand a mother’s love for her son and a son’s love for his mother. However, overall, we are NOT talking about earthly things.

John 3
11 Most assuredly, I say to you, We speak what We know and testify what We have seen, and you do not receive Our witness. 12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?
13 No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven.

Jesus tried to explain things in a “earthly” manner to Nicodemus so he could better understand God and His Kingdom.

Looking at the “big picture” we’re talking about God, which our minds cannot comprehend. We cannot even see God’s face and live, yet.
God is above kings and parents. But kings and parents are all we know right now so God is explained to us that way.

Why mankind has to go outside that “box” is beyond me.

 

[thistle]

kujo313:

Luke 24:27
And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.

Luke 24:32
And they said to one another, “Did not our heart burn within us while He talked with us on the road, and while He opened the Scriptures to us?”

Luke 24:44
Then He said to them, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.”

Luke 24:45
And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures.

Clearly, Jesus told His disciples everything and they told us in their letters and in their actions. If Jesus’ earthly mother was to be honored, admired, adored, worshipped (whatever you want to call it), they disciples would’ve written it down somewhere or it would’ve been mentioned in Acts that they did so. Even Paul would’ve mentioned it in his letters.

Still, none.

With that, I don’t want to be told that I deny Jesus if I deny Mary. Though I cannot deny that a virgin DID give birth according to prophecy. That, along with many other prophetic signs, prove that Jesus IS our Messiah.
I can also understand a mother’s love for her son and a son’s love for his mother. However, overall, we are NOT talking about earthly things.

John 3
11 Most assuredly, I say to you, We speak what We know and testify what We have seen, and you do not receive Our witness. 12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?
13 No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven.

Jesus tried to explain things in a “earthly” manner to Nicodemus so he could better understand God and His Kingdom.

Looking at the “big picture” we’re talking about God, which our minds cannot comprehend. We cannot even see God’s face and live, yet.
God is above kings and parents. But kings and parents are all we know right now so God is explained to us that way.

Why mankind has to go outside that “box” is beyond me.

So with regard to scriptures Jesus is talking only about the OT as the NT books were not written yet.

 

[Zooey]

I don’t want to be told that I deny Jesus if I deny Mary.

I know you don’t want to be told this. The problem with that is, that it does not make any difference what you want to be told.
The truth does not change in order to adapt to your “wants”. If it did, I would have a new car, the house would be painted, & the property taxes would be in pennies instead of dollars.
Sheesh,since we’re dreaming, add to that, the British would be out of Ireland!!
Assignment: Write on the blackboard, 500 times: “We don’t always get what we want. We don’t always get what we want. We don’t always get (etc, etc, etc…)”

 

[Zooey]

Nicene:

Are you a oneness pentecostal? It’s a yes or no answer is sufficient.

Do you follow the teachings of T.D. Jakes? Again yes or no answer is sufficient.

Your answers to the above should be enlightening.

Peace and God Bless
nicene

I bet you’re right!! That’s what I’ve been trying to think of…That’s what he sounds like!!:nope:

 

[Pryority7]

kujo313:

The word “Christian” was first used in one of Paul’s journeys between 50 - 60 AD (it’s in Acts).

A good 10-20 or more year difference? So what?
If there was a problem with that term “Catholic” then there should have been a historical document stating the issue at the time, and remember, there were still people alive at that time that saw and experienced Jesus because it wasn’t that far off.
Conclusion…there was no negative response to this because everybody got it…the first christians were catholics…Catholics are Christians…Hispanics are Latinos…
Get the picture?

 

[thistle]

Pryority7:

A good 10-20 or more year difference? So what?
If there was a problem with that term “Catholic” then there should have been a historical document stating the issue at the time, and remember, there were still people alive at that time that saw and experienced Jesus because it wasn’t that far off.
Conclusion…there was no negative response to this because everybody got it…the first christians were catholics…Catholics are Christians…Hispanics are Latinos…
Get the picture?

Early Church (Catholic) Fathers taught by the Apostles.

Clement was a disciple of Peter and Paul.

Polycarp was a disciple of John.

Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp.

Ignatius o Antioch was a disciple of Peter and John.

 

[Church_Militant]

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God,” 2 Tim. 3:16

But no one is questioning the inspiration of the scriptures. My point is that it appears that the Blessed Virgin was a source for the inspired text from the information given. Why would God need to mystically and miraculously put it in the author’s minds when they had access to the witness right there with them as both the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles tells us that they did? Why else would St. Luke say this in chapter 2 verse 51 “And his mother kept all these words in her heart.”

As I was searching for that one, I also found this one, "And that from a child you have known the holy scriptures, which are able to make you wise to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus

"

Has nothing to do with what we are talking about, but very powerful testimony I must say. True, but still directly refers to the Old Testament, and as you say irrelevent to this discussion.
Pax tecum,

 

[RyanL]

kujo313:

…If Jesus’ earthly mother was to be honored, admired, adored, worshipped (whatever you want to call it), they disciples would’ve written it down somewhere or it would’ve been mentioned in Acts that they did so. Even Paul would’ve mentioned it in his letters.

Still, none.

No response to post #329, huh?

willful blind·ness
Function: noun
: deliberate failure to make a reasonable inquiry despite suspicion or an awareness of the high probability of its existence
*
NOTE: Willful blindness involves conscious avoidance of the truth and gives rise to an inference of knowledge

• http://www.flexwareinnovation.com/images/blindfold.gif

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[montanaman]

Originally Posted by kujo313
…If Jesus’ earthly mother was to be honored, admired, adored, worshipped (whatever you want to call it), **they disciples would’ve written it down somewhere or it would’ve been mentioned in Acts ** that they did so. Even Paul would’ve mentioned it in his letters.

Still, none.

Says who? Since when do you know the minds of the apostles? That’s a pretty brave sentiment from someone who comes from a creed that regularly edits the Bible.

 

[MrS]

valient Lucy:

He’s right. There’s no biblical evidence that Christ told his desciples what he wanted them to write down in the Gospels. If anything, He seemed far more concerned with them starting the Church than writing anything down. Check out the end of Mattew’s Gospel.

The Gospel according to kujo:

"… go therefore and teach all nations with the canon of 66 books as interpreted by protesters from the 16th century onward. You may start as many churches as there are interpreters if you at least say you are the ONE that **I **started. Ignore the example and wisdom of those close to me and those whom they will teach without a book, especially those who will be called early Church Fathers or ‘Blessed’.

Believe in yourselves and try to find your beliefs in the future written word…
… for now… sola long!"

 

[Church_Militant]

kujo313:

Clearly, Jesus told His disciples everything and they told us in their letters and in their actions.

Not so and so stated in the Gospel of John chapter 21:25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.

If Jesus’ earthly mother was to be honored, admired, adored, worshipped

(whatever you want to call it), they disciples would’ve written it down somewhere or it would’ve been mentioned in Acts that they did so. Even Paul would’ve mentioned it in his letters.Don’t patronize…What part of our explanations are not getting through to you? You are the only one here making such unfounded statements and that is based on nothing but your personal prejudice. I have already shown you that there is evidence that The Blessed Virgin did indeed assist in the writing of at least two Gospels since the information that they contain could not have been witnessed first hand by the authors themselves.

John 3:11 Most assuredly, I say to you, We speak what We know and testify what We have seen, and you do not receive Our witness.

12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?
13 No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven.

Jesus tried to explain things in a “earthly” manner to Nicodemus so he could better understand God and His Kingdom.The very same could well be applied to you since I am pointing out that the Blessed Virgin did indeed offer witness of things considered by God important enough to include in the inspired Canon of the New Testament, and yet you reject even that?

Looking at the “big picture” we’re talking about God, which our minds cannot comprehend. We cannot even see God’s face and live, yet.
God is above kings and parents. But kings and parents are all we know right now so God is explained to us that way.

Why mankind has to go outside that “box” is beyond me.

None of this really has anything to do with the fact that the Blessed Virgin helped the apostles write parts of the Gospels and as for your point about the silence of the NT about Mary after this I would offer something that also makes very good sense

You will notice that there is no record of Mary’s death or where she went after the day of Pentecost, though we do know that she went home to live with St. John after Our Lord’s death right? We know that St. John was the last of the apostles to die and that at one point he was miraculously saved by God when being boiled in oil for his faith…yet he never mentions Mary in his letters but there’s just no way that he wouldn’t have known her fate…that just doesn’t make any sense.

I think that the NT is so silent about the Blessed Virgin because they all agreed to protect her. Can you imagine the PR blitz that would’ve occurred if the Jews or Romans could have found and tortured and killed the mother of this Jesus? Whew!

One could think of it as a sort of apostolic witness protection program since I have no doubt that John took Jesus’ commission of responsibility for the Blessed Virgin very seriously as would all the rest of the apostles as well.
Pax tecum,

 

[MrS]

kujo313:

Which part of John 6 are you referring to?

!

sorry I did not get back to your question, Kujo…

Actually I said John 6, because I meant John 6… all of it.

and… especially the FOUR times our Lord included His OATH on what he is saying…

but as I already suggested… you may be alergic to Lamb. And solid Catholic teaching shows that we have to eat the lamb.

 

[mtr01]

Church Militant:

But no one is questioning the inspiration of the scriptures. My point is that it appears that the Blessed Virgin was a source for the inspired text from the information given. Why would God need to mystically and miraculously put it in the author’s minds when they had access to the witness right there with them as both the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles tells us that they did? Why else would St. Luke say this in chapter 2 verse 51 “And his mother kept all these words in her heart.”

It seems to me that YahShuaMessiah has a basic flaw in his (her?) understanding of inspiration, CM. He seems to insist that the Holy Spirit implanted all necessary facts into the inspired authors’ minds before writing (something akin to the “dictation theory”). However, there is ample evidence to refute such claims from Scripture itself. Take for instance 1 Cor 1:16:

16] (I did baptize also the household of Steph’anas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any one else.) (RSV)

Now one would expect that Paul should have remembered who he baptized, especially if he was being inspired by the Holy Spirit, right? However, if Paul couldn’t remember, and God didn’t just implant the necessary knowledge in him before he began writing, why should we assume He did it for Luke? Considering Luke would have easy enough access to the Blessed Mother to get her story and write it down, it seems exteremely reasonable that he did so (especially considering that the first two chapters of his gospel exhibit a Semitic style of prose not evident in the rest.)

 

[havemercy]

I think Kujo is a fake user. I can’t take him seriously.

 

[Philthy]

YahShuaMessiah:

How about, God. The Holy Spirit?

I find the above difficult to accept. Wouldn’t a more plausable and Christian deduction be made that God, throught the indwelling Holy Spirit of the writers, gave the writers not only the knowledge but instruction as to what to write?

You seem to be implying that somehow God operating through the actual minds and hearts of the authors of the Gospels is less “divine” than some mysterious form of consciousness which you propose. I can only assume that such a deduction comes from a lack of appreciating how “very good” the human mind and body is in the sight of God when it is united to His will. Never forget: God chose to actually become man to effect our salvation - could he not have simply willed it as well? This is something you might wish to reflect upon: why did God chose humanity?

YahShuaMessiah:

The writers held the pen(feather/whatever) but the Spirit is what made the men write what God wanted them to write?

Again, attempting to set up a dichotomy between the physical “men” and the “holy spirit” where none is necessary. Do you not realize that we are the temples of God and that his spirit dwells within us?

YahShuaMessiah:

Plus, is this deduction backed with any sort of proof? That indeed the writers of the two Gospels you refer to, went to Mary for information in order to write the Gospels.

Im pretty sure the beginning of Luke specifically addresses the fact that - in an entirely mundane manner - Luke is recounting the testimony of witnesses. Yup, here it is, the intro to Luke:
Since many have undertaken to compile a narrative of he events that have been fulfilled among us, just as those who were eyewitnesses from the BEGINNING and ministers of the word have handed them down to us, I too have decided after INVESTIGATING everything…to write it down in an orderly sequence …so that you may realize the certainty o f the teachings you have received.

Sounds very much like a reporter investigating something. Is that too “human” for you? If Im not mistaken, humanity is the very crown of all of creation - it is nothing to belittle.
It was not “revealed” to him in some mystical way - he was moved to INVESTIGATE EVERYTHING and to write it down. Investigating EVERYTHING includes the “eyewitnesses from the beginning”. It is more logical to assume that Mary was a part of the investigation than to assume that she was not. This in no way lessens the result - that is a very anti-body mode of thought - it sounds kind of Docetist to me…

YahShuaMessiah:

I find this more an example of “Mary Worship” than anything else I have read. I say this with all charity. But to undermine the power of the Holy Spirt - to move the writers of those Gospels - to pen what God wanted them to pen, but instead give the credit to Mary?

Undermining the holy Spirit? Are you serious? It was by the very power of the holy Spirit that Christ was born of Mary - they are not in opposition to one another. Again, God chose to be born of Mary by the power of the holy Spirit - it is impossible to imagine that Luke asking Mary, “Hey what happened - tell me the whole story.” and his writing down that which only she could know - is somehow undermining the holy spirit.

 

[TobyLue]

Philty you quoted from Luke

, I too have decided after INVESTIGATING everything…to write it down in an orderly sequence …so that you may realize the certainty of the teachings you have received.

Isn’t the claim that many Protestants use in direct opposite of what Luke did? Luke didn’t say “They Holy Spirit told me”. These are the words that many, many hold firm to and refuse to investigate. No matter how much evidence is provided to them as to what the Church teaches “so that they may realize the certainty of the teachings”, they use the old “The Holy Spirit told me” routine. In reality, it may be a holey spirit in their own minds that is leading them astray.

 

[valient_Lucy]

kujo313:

But we can see the tree and worship God.

That is exactly what Catholics believe about Mary. How much more beautiful is the Woman who gave birth to our redeemer than a tree! She is God’s greatest creation!

 

[pirate87]

BlackKnight:

Wrong! You forget this passage.
Matthew 3:13: Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to John, to be baptized by him.
14: John would have prevented him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?”
15: But Jesus answered him, “Let it be so now; for thus it is fitting for us to fulfil all righteousness.” Then he consented.
16: And when Jesus was baptized, he went up immediately from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and alighting on him;
17: and lo, a voice from heaven, saying, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.”

No one was in less need of baptism that Christ yet he, like his mother considered it “fitting for us to fulfil all righteousness.” Since at that time she was still Jewish.

Her Maginificat’s rejoicing in God her savior simply points out that she knew even then that her unique status in human history was the work of God and not herself. Especially since she’s speaking under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

One of the biggest problems that I have with n-C discussions of the Blessed Virgin is how they turn a blind eye to the total uniqueness of Mary and the implications of all that surrounds her. Next to Christ Himself she’s gotta be THE most unique soul since Adam & Eve, but n-Cs just seem to insist that they minimize all that. Fullfilled prophecies…the whole 9 yards…Sheesh! :banghead:

I didn’t see the sky open up for Mary when she got purified!

 

[kujo313]

pirate87:

I didn’t see the sky open up for Mary when she got purified!

Mary was soooo important and “God’s Greatest Creation” that everywhere Jesus went… nothing. “God’s Greatest Creation” was never introduced, never spoken of highly at all.

Jesus said that ALL women who hear God and obey ARE His Mothers! Jesus also put more emphasis in God than anybody else.

You don’t hear in the Bible of people seeing Jesus and saying, “Hey! Ain’t that His mother?” and then gathering around her.

Sure, she backed off from attention. Jesus was (and is) the reason.

Why do you give her all of this attention and titles when God didn’t?
You can admire and adore her all you want, but those who don’t are not damned to Hell if they don’t accept her. People are damned to Hell if they don’t accept Jesus.

 

[LilyM]

kujo313:

Mary was soooo important and “God’s Greatest Creation” that everywhere Jesus went… nothing. “God’s Greatest Creation” was never introduced, never spoken of highly at all.

Jesus said that ALL women who hear God and obey ARE His Mothers! Jesus also put more emphasis in God than anybody else.

You don’t hear in the Bible of people seeing Jesus and saying, “Hey! Ain’t that His mother?” and then gathering around her.

Sure, she backed off from attention. Jesus was (and is) the reason.

Why do you give her all of this attention and titles when God didn’t?
You can admire and adore her all you want, but those who don’t are not damned to Hell if they don’t accept her. People are damned to Hell if they don’t accept Jesus.

How did Mary back off from attention when she was ordering servants around on Jesus’ behalf at Cana? And when she was standing right at the foot of his Cross with him? Angel Gabriel and Elizabeth didn’t say ‘your son is blessed among all men, but you’re of no importance at all save as an incubator’ and Mary didn’t say ‘all generations will call my son Saviour but totally ignore me’, neither did Jesus say to John ‘son, this is … some supremely insignificant woman who just happened to have me in her womb for nine months … but feel free to ignore her’.

If you confined yourself to merely ignoring Mary you possibly wouldn’t go to hell, but when you insult Jesus’ mother and those who respect and admire her as he also did (clearly! look at the wedding at Cana!) then you’re hardly gonna get into heaven either.