Non-Catholics, how is Mary not the Mother of God?

  • Thread starter Thread starter rwillenborg
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Dokimas said:
Could you clarify, please?
Click to expand...
If you hold your cursor over the icon you’ll see what that means: “I don’t think so”.

So, it’s not the mods’ job to monitor each poster’s elegance in dialogue.

Posting and then running away is clearly not against forum rules, but I am certainly free to note my thoughts about such behavior. It’s not noble to start a fight and then leave it.

(I do not think of our discussions here on the CAFs as “fights”. It’s just an apt metaphor.)
 
The last couple of principals and assistant principals we’ve had were gossipy, play favorites like you can’t believe, and are just power-mongers who LOVE to be begged and asked and courted for any lil’ ole thing. Plus she’s a huge Dodgers fan which I think is the most telling indicator of personality toxicity LOL!
PRmerger said:
Ooohhh, yes! We need male principals 'cause, as well all know, ***women can’t keep secrets. *** Which provides a good apologia for the CC’s teaching against women’s ordination–how could a woman priest keep the confessional sacrosanct? She’d want to go blab the latest gossip to the other priestesses! (This is actually an explanation my mother has given before. :o)

Note: I am speaking with tongue firmly planted in cheek! 😛
Click to expand...
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
The last couple of principals and assistant principals we’ve had were gossipy, play favorites like you can’t believe, and are just power-mongers who LOVE to be begged and asked and courted for any lil’ ole thing. Plus she’s a huge Dodgers fan which I think is the most telling indicator of personality toxicity LOL!
Click to expand...
Ah. So the problem clearly is not that they’re female but that they’re Dodgers fans.
 
No, it’s both. Take gnosticism. The problems with their priestesses were two-fold: they were women and they believed in gnosticism, the demiurge, other nonsense. Their gender PLUS the heresy. In this case, gender plus the heresy I call Dodgerism that needs a new ecumenical council to eradicate!
PRmerger said:
Ah. So the problem clearly is not that they’re female but that they’re Dodgers fans.
Click to expand...
 
Makes sense to me … 😃 Ah, and that would be the position where you have your tongue…! :D:D

Tom
PRmerger said:
Ooohhh, yes! We need male principals 'cause, as well all know, ***women can’t keep secrets. *** Which provides a good apologia for the CC’s teaching against women’s ordination–how could a woman priest keep the confessional sacrosanct? She’d want to go blab the latest gossip to the other priestesses! (This is actually an explanation my mother has given before. :o)

Note: I am speaking with tongue firmly planted in cheek! 😛
Click to expand...
 
Pat_De said:
Is that what I said? Nope; you are using a poor tactic by addressing a different point than the core issue that was brought up, which is you will not find a reference in Scripture that speaks in the context of “first born” child where there were not any other children unless Scripture states explicitly that it was the first born and only child. Totally different issue you bring up. Most Christians believe that Mary and Joseph had other children based on the Word of God and most specifically Jesus own words. Whether you believe they had other children or not does not change the truth or deny one’s salvation, but it is an indication of one’s ability to comprehend Scripture or possibly an indication that one does not care much for the reading and study of His Word in my opinion.
Click to expand...
“but it is an indication of one’s ability to comprehend Scripture or possibly an indication that one does not care much for the reading and study of His Word in my opinion.”

Maybe it’s because it’s early, but I’m not clear on what you are suggesting here. You had posted about the use of the word firstborn. I posted a scripture verse which i didn’t understand in light of your post, and put those little icons after it to indicate that I was confused, and this leads you to conclude that I am lacking in my ability to comprehend scripture or care about it?
I’m afraid I’m now even more confused, one because you didn’t address the scripture verse I posted, and two, if what I say will simply be written off as not understanding scripture, then probably keeping my mouth shut would be the better idea here.

I’m not using a tactic. I was trying to understand your point of view. 🤷 Your conclusion then that I somehow don’t care much for the reading and study of his Word is, I think, premature. No?

I try not to determine what is truth or fiction based on the majority’s opinion, so, actually, citing what most christians think, isn’t really going to make a difference to me.

I’m not sure if you meant for your tone to be condescending, but it was.
 
Oh, my…All this time, and I have:blush: just now found yet another thread in need of:

[SIGN1]
Coming To a Thread Near You!!!
!!!Nestorius!!!
The Heretic Who Will Not Stay Buried!!!
[/SIGN1]

http://bestsmileys.com/halloween1/13.gif

:oI feel like I’ve been:( slacking, not having done this before now…🤷
 
guanophore said:
Or a woman whose reasoning is not running amok as the result of emotional dyscontrol.

Women reason differently than men. God made men and women differently, so that they could complement one another. Maybe she just needs a good male assistant to give her balance?
Click to expand...
Strange, Guaophore, I have always assumed you were female.
 
Hey, Zooey,

When it comes to TOTALLY OUTRAGEOUS animated clip art … surely there is a prize awaiting you! 🙂

God bless

Tom
Zooey said:
Oh, my…All this time, and I have:blush: just now found yet another thread in need of:

[SIGN1]
Coming To a Thread Near You!!!
!!!Nestorius!!!
The Heretic Who Will Not Stay Buried!!!
[/SIGN1]

http://bestsmileys.com/halloween1/13.gif

:oI feel like I’ve been:( slacking, not having done this before now…🤷
Click to expand...
 
Pat_De said:
Chapter and verse please “Mother of God”!

As for your last statement, the very thing was said of Jesus (first born of Joseph and Mary) and we know He had brothers and sisters and anyone who knows Scripture knows it is consistent and the statement you bring up explicitly implies there will be other children unless the Bible states otherwise as I have already shown from Scripture. Why can’t you just admit you are wrong rather than arguing against the truth? I can answer that.
Click to expand...
In the time that Jesus lived on earth as God Incarnate it was very common to refer to cousins as brothers and sisters. There is also the possibility that Mary was Joseph’s second wife and that he had children from his previous marriage. The Bible is silent on this.

The Bible was not written in twentieth century English. It was written in Hebrew and Greek. Anyone who knows Scripture knows this!! “Explicit implication” is not the same as proof.
.
Why should the Bible state otherwise? The Bible is silent on many issues including polygamy. That doesn’t mean polygamy is acceptable. The Catholic Church has the gift of Apostolic Tradition. God didn’t hand the Bible to Peter in wrapping paper with a bow on top. It was accumulated and consolidated by the One True Church. The Apostles taught by talking. It was difficult to write things down. How many people were even literate?

It appears that you are relying solely on Scripture which is a mistake. Even John stated the following:
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. [John 21:25, Douay-Rheims]
Click to expand...
Shouldn’t EVERYTHING that Jesus did be taken into consideration? Or should we just rely on one part that was recorded on papyrus or whatever? The Bible is the word of God and is extremely important. But without an authority who understands Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic the way they were spoken and used in the time of Jesus here on earth, has a vast knowledge of history, geography, etc. and really knows what they are doing, anyone can pick up the Bible, pick out a verse and decide what it means. Which is what you are doing.

The Church has the Authority. We know that what that Authority tells us is true because Jesus Himself gave that authority to Peter and it has been with us for 2,000 years.
 
Pat_De said:
Is that what I said? Nope; you are using a poor tactic by addressing a different point than the core issue that was brought up, which is you will not find a reference in Scripture that speaks in the context of “first born” child where there were not any other children unless Scripture states explicitly that it was the first born and only child. Totally different issue you bring up. Most Christians believe that Mary and Joseph had other children based on the Word of God and most specifically Jesus own words. Whether you believe they had other children or not does not change the truth or deny one’s salvation, but it is an indication of one’s ability to comprehend Scripture or possibly an indication that one does not care much for the reading and study of His Word in my opinion.
Click to expand...
If you read a verse in the Bible and believe with all your heart that you are being guided by the Holy Spirit and I read a verse in the Bible and believe with all my heart that I am being guided by the Holy Spirit, and our two interpretations differ, who has the correct interpretation?
 
Hang on a minute Pat De,

You are playing fast and lose with the facts here! :eek: So, let’s slow down and see what we really have here. 😃
Pat_De said:
Is that what I said? Nope; you are using a poor tactic by addressing a different point than the core issue that was brought up, which is you will not find a reference in Scripture that speaks in the context of “first born” child where there were not any other children unless Scripture states explicitly that it was the first born and only child.

Really? And, what do you use to back up that statement? The mother of John the Baptist, Elizabeth, had no other children of record - but, that term was not used. In the Old Testament the mother of Samuel, Hannah, had no other children to our knowledge, this term was not used. So, tell me, what are your references?

Totally different issue you bring up. Most Christians believe that Mary and Joseph had other children based on the Word of God and most specifically Jesus own words.

Really? I seem to recall Martin Luther to be quite convinced that Mary was Ever Virgin - and preached this and wrote about it. Actually, for all of Luther’s faults, he did seem to have a devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary. If you want to say anything that boardoers on accurate, how about, “Many Protestant denominations believe Mary had other children.” NO CATHOLIC TEACHING even comes close, io saying there is any accuracy in this - in fact, it is condemned.

Whether you believe they had other children or not does not change the truth or deny one’s salvation, but it is an indication of one’s ability to comprehend Scripture or possibly an indication that one does not care much for the reading and study of His Word in my opinion.
Click to expand...
Really? You know, one of the biggest problems many people have experienced is that the Bible was not written in English, Christ and the Apostles probably did not speak Greek or Latin when they spoke to one anohter, and (hold on to your hat, here…) private interpretation is specifically condemned! (2Peter1:20). There are PROFOUND limitations you must face if you lack the Magisterium that is guided by the Holy Spirit to keep it from error so that the Gates of Hell do not prevail (Matt 16:18).

I saw nothing wrong in what the poster wrote that you have taken such exception at. Take your time and count to ten or something - but, please remain calm.

God bless
 
Zooey said:
Oh, my…All this time, and I have:blush: just now found yet another thread in need of:

:oI feel like I’ve been:( slacking, not having done this before now…🤷
Click to expand...
Better late than never! It is long overdue. 😃
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top