Protestants and Mary

[Justy90]

Furthermore, if you want to be exclusive and have exclusive authority, you will make claims and then say that only you have the authority to make them. Not even the Bible makes these claims but it doesn’t matter to this exclusive institution. It all circular reasoning. It’s not from God, it’s not of God and it certainly isn’t Biblical. God is my authority, not any institution on man or of man. Did you ever wonder why so many Protestant doctrines aren’t set in stone? There’s your answer.

 

[CWBetts]

That’s what the Catholic church says. The Bible doesn’t tell us that nor does anyone else.

The Catholic Church is one: We are a single faith united, loyal to the See of Peter, etablished by Jesus Christ (Matthew 16:18)

The Catholic Church is Holy: Holy means “set aside for a purpose”. We are devoted to the Gospel of Christ and the Salvation of souls. Look at the holiness of the Saints.

The Catholic Church is catholic (universal): The Church is found on every continent, in virtually every country. The liturgy is consistent around the globe with the same readings in each parish, and not a hodgepodge of chaotic services.

The Catholic Church is Apostolic: We can trace the Apostolic succession of our Bishops to the Apostles. You can trace your leadership to a king who couldn’t keep his libido in check.

 

[CWBetts]

Furthermore, if you want to be exclusive and have exclusive authority, you will make claims and then say that only you have the authority to make them. Not even the Bible makes these claims but it doesn’t matter to this exclusive institution. It all circular reasoning. It’s not from God, it’s not of God and it certainly isn’t Biblical. God is my authority, not any institution on man or of man. Did you ever wonder why so many Protestant doctrines aren’t set in stone? There’s your answer.

Is that your excuse for accepting every cultural change that comes along? Pathetic. You want authority? Here it is. Matthew chapter 16.

*17: And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
18: And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.
19: I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
*

“Simon Bar-Jona” indicated Jesus was talking in Hebrew, not Greek.
“You are Peter, and on this rock will I build my church” Jesus clearly establishes Simon Peter as primate among the Apostles.
“the powers of death shall not prevail against it” the church will be everlasting
“I will give you the keys of heaven” this is in reference to the chief steward under Davidic kingship. Peter is the chief steward. When Christ is no longer walking among us, Peter is in charge. I guess that makes him the first Pope.
“whatever you bind in earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose in earth shall be loosed in heaven” This is the clearest possible language to establish the authority of the Church. If this isn’t enough, I have more scriptural evidence for you.

 

[Radical]

Hello again, CWBetts. I didn’t have the time to immediately respond to your one post (way back on page 12 or so…). So here is my response to the bit you produced from Steve Ray to show the “scriptural” support for the Ark-Mary connection. Dokimas has suggested that the ark would represent Jesus, if anyone. Let’s have a look.

The Ark of the Covenant traveled to the house of Obed-Edom in the hill country of Judea (2 Sam 6:1-11)
Mary traveled to the house of Elizabeth and Zachariah in the hill country of Judea (Lk 1:39)

This one is a stretch. “Hill country of Judea” isn’t even mentioned in 2 Sam. Judea is a small area and the hill country makes up a good chunk of it. That two things each happen in the vicinity of a different hill is not remarkable. If this sort of grasping is the order of the day, perhaps we should resort to the likes of: The ark travelled along a road…Mary travelled along a road. Hardly the stuff of a good connection.

David, dressed as a priest danced and leaped in front of the ark. (2 Sam 6:14)
John the Baptist–of priestly lineage–leaped in his mother’s womb at the approach of Mary (Lk 1:41)

This one is a real stretch…worse than the first. First David wore a linen ephod which is something Samuel wore as a boy. The ephod worn by a priest was ornate and the priest wore considerably more than just a ephod. (see Exodus 28) As such, David was not dressed as a priest. David danced and leaped as the ark was moved to Jerusalem. John, leaped inside Elizabeth’s womb. These are considerably different movements and the mere use of “leaped” in both cases does not make a connection. Further, if any connection is to be made it would be the Jesus-Ark connection for 2 Sam twice specifies that David danced in front of the LORD. If the ark represents either Mary or Jesus, then the better case is for Jesus.

David asks, “How can the ark of th Lord come to me?” (2 Sam 6:9)
Elizabeth asks “Why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” (Lk 1:43)

This is also a real stretch and what was said has been fudged to make it look as if a connection should be made. Luke 1:43 And whence is this to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 2 Sam 6:9 reads: And David was afraid of the Lord that day, saying: How shall the ark of the Lord come to me? And he would not have the ark of the Lord brought in to himself into the city of David… David and Elizabeth really ask two totally different things. Elizabeth’s question is an expression about an honour. She wonders why she should be blessed with the presence of the mother of her Lord. David’s question is one of dread. He is afraid and wonders how he can possibly transport the ark…and ends up not wanting the ark brought to him in Jerusalem. These near opposites do not make a connection.

David shouts in the presence of the ark. (2 Sam 6:15)
Elizabeth “exclaimed with a loud cry” in the presence of Mary. (Lk 1:42)

“Editing” is employed with this one to make the connection look better. Here is what David did:
a) celebrated with songs and with harps, lyres, tambourines, sistrums and cymbals
b) sacrificed a bull and a fattened calf every 6 steps
c) danced and brought the ark with shouts and the sound of trumpets
Elizabeth, on the other hand made a declaration with a loud voice. When viewed in their contexts, the shouts of the Israelites and the loud declaration of Elizabeth are not similar acts at all.

The ark remained in the house of Obed-Edom three months (2 Sam 6:11)
Mary remained in the house of Elizabeth three months (Lk 1:56)

again editing is used to make the connection appear stronger. In Luke it is “about three months” vs “three months” in 2 Sam.

The house of Obed-Edom was blessed by the presence of the ark. (2 Sam 6:11)
The word “blessed” is used three times; surely the house was blessed by God (Lk 1:39-45)

Regarding those three uses, “blessed” is applied to Mary and to Jesus in (that part of) Luke and not the house of Elizabeth. The effort to establish a connection gets a little ridiculous. One wonders why Mr Ray didn’t propose: When in the house of Obed-Edom the ark took up space and Mary would have certainly taken up space at Elizabeth’s house.

The ark returns to its home and ends up in Jerusalem, where God’s presence and glory is revealed in the temple. (2 Sam 6:12; 1 Kings 8:9-11)
Mary returns home and eventually ends up in Jerusalem, where she presents God incarnate at the temple (Lk 1:56; 2:21-22)

The ark’s “home” was at Jerusalem whereas Mary’s home was elsewhere. The ark was to sit permenantly in the Most Holy Place (with its contents) whereas Mary wasn’t allowed to come near (let alone enter) the Most Holy Place. Mary visits the outer area of the temple for but a short time and she only carried the Word for a mere nine months. On the hand hand, Jesus as the high priest and like the ark entered the Most Holy Place (Heb 9:12) and he permenantly carries the Word of God. So again, if a connection is to be made, the better connection with the ark is made with Jesus and not Mary.

The ark contained the stone tablets of the Law.
Mary carried the Word of God in the flesh.

The ark contained the urn of manna, the bread from heaven.
Mary had the womb that carried Jesus, the Bread of Life.

The ark had the budding rod of Aaron.
Mary carried the eternal High Priest.

Here again the stronger connection belongs to Jesus. Mary carried Jesus for only nine months…but the ark (and its heavenly counterpart) were designed to permenantly carry the tablets, the manna and the rod. Christ permenantly embodies the Word of God, the Bread of Life and the Highest Priesthood. The ark also had a gold cover and between the angels on that cover is where God would meet with Moses. Jesus, the Word made flesh is how God met with people to establish his new covenant. If anything Jesus is the new ark and not Mary.

Yes Mary, was the Ark of the New Covenant, and there is plenty of Biblical evidenace to support it.

Well I haven’t seen it yet. When one has to fudge the wording of passages to try and build a connection and when it the argument employs a “the word ‘blessed’ appears in both passages” approach…it demonstrates exactly how weak the connection really is. Luke isn’t shy about making the connection between John and Elijah…but somehow I am supposed to believe that he resorted to a fudgy code to indicate that Mary was the new ark?

 

[CWBetts]

The only reason “you haven’t seen it” is because you obviously have problems understanding typology. You dismiss the presented typology without presenting an alternate interpretation. What it comes down to, is that you can’t accept that Catholic doctrine on Mary is sound, and you prefer to blaspheme her than honor her.

 

[Canaus]

Very nicely presented.

 

[Canaus]

oops…that “very nicely presented” was meant for Radical.

 

[lil_flower_luv]

oops…that “very nicely presented” was meant for Radical.

Welcome!

 

[lil_flower_luv]

Well I haven’t seen it yet. When one has to fudge the wording of passages to try and build a connection and when it the argument employs a “the word ‘blessed’ appears in both passages” approach…it demonstrates exactly how weak the connection really is. Luke isn’t shy about making the connection between John and Elijah…but somehow I am supposed to believe that he resorted to a fudgy code to indicate that Mary was the new ark?

Radical~

It’s all a matter of interpretation. You say that you don’t believe Mary was the Ark of the New Covenant, and therefore tear down everything we try to bring to the table pertaining to that.

But, remember in the NT, whenever Jesus spoke to the people, He wasn’t just speaking to those who were gathered to hear Him…He was speaking to ALL of us. Unless you don’t believe that? Was He talking about that one prodigal son, or was He talking about ALL prodigal sons? “Behold, your Mother” He said to His disciple before He died on the cross. Was He really only speaking to John??

If you do not believe Jesus addressed everyone, then you can easily say, “No, He was only speaking to John.” or “No, He was speaking about that one prodigal son.” But, then again, it’s a matter of interpretation.

 

[Radical]

Radical~

It’s all a matter of interpretation. You say that you don’t believe Mary was the Ark of the New Covenant, and therefore tear down everything we try to bring to the table pertaining to that.

I agree, it is a matter of interpretation and as you indicated to JonC, it would seem that your interpretation is determined by your faith in the CC. I would like to think that mine is determined by a proper examination of the texts…but I know that I also have my bias. Regarding “tearing down” what you catholics have offered, it wasn’t that hard…the manner in which Mr Ray bent the texts trying to eek out a connection is really quite easy to demonstrate (IMHO).

Regarding CWBetts’s comment that I can’t understand the typology…I think that I just might have the capability. I am naturally skeptical of any alleged typology that a) does not point directly to Christ or a work of his; b) strains the texts in question; and c) grasps at any word shared by the two texts. As indicated I would favour Dokimas’s opinion that the ark points directly to Christ.

One last note. Mary was blessed among (note, not above) all women. John the Baptist, came along just after Mary and of him, Jesus said: * Among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist;…* John had possessed centre stage, but after Jesus came along John observed: **He must become greater; I must become less. ** Just as the NT speaks to all of us today, I understand that John spoke for all of us at that time. Sadly, from about 150 AD onward much of the history of the Church is a record of Mary’s devotees making Mary greater by giving her greater and greater significance… this conflicts with John’s example and (IMHO) is so obviously wrong…

But, remember in the NT, whenever Jesus spoke to the people, He wasn’t just speaking to those who were gathered to hear Him…He was speaking to ALL of us. Unless you don’t believe that? Was He talking about that one prodigal son, or was He talking about ALL prodigal sons?

all

“Behold, your Mother” He said to His disciple before He died on the cross. Was He really only speaking to John??

yep, just John. Likewise, when Jesus told Peter, “But so that we may not offend them, go to the lake and throw out your line. Take the first fish you catch; open its mouth and you will find a four-drachma coin. Take it and give it to them for my tax and yours.” He was talking to Peter alone…if not, I’d be out at the local pond collecting fish and 4-drachma coins.

 

[Canaus]

Welcome!

Hi lil_flower_luv…thank you for your welcome!

 

[Radical]

oops…that “very nicely presented” was meant for Radical.

Thanks, and welcome to the place.

 

[elvisman]

It’s actually Early Church if you want to be accurate. Catholic being a religious institution claiming to be part of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

And the Early Church IS the Catholic Church. Jesus only established ONE Church.
gnatius of Antioch
Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s sanction. The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).

Sorry, Justy - there is just no getting around the facts.
Your Church was started by an English monarch in the 16th century who wanted a divorce.
Mine was started by Jesus Christ in the 1st Century.

 

[elvisman]

The point being, the Vatican is not in Jerusalem. The RCC started later than the 1st century when the church started in the book of Acts.

PROVE that.

 

[elvisman]

Furthermore, if you want to be exclusive and have exclusive authority, you will make claims and then say that only you have the authority to make them. Not even the Bible makes these claims but it doesn’t matter to this exclusive institution. It all circular reasoning. It’s not from God, it’s not of God and it certainly isn’t Biblical. God is my authority, not any institution on man or of man. Did you ever wonder why so many Protestant doctrines aren’t set in stone? There’s your answer.

**Not even the Bible makes these claims?
**Then you need to take the bible seriously - because all you’re doing now is rationalizing the truth.

Read Matt. 16:15-19, 18:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 16:13-15 & 20 21-23 - then tell me that the Church has no authority granted by God.

 

[elvisman]

Rome is the center for your church.​

It’s your church dogma that says your church goes back to Jesus. Your church was started in the 4th and 5th centuries. It’s called the Roman Catholic Church for a reason.​

I’d be interested where you find ‘catholic’ in the Bible.!?

PROVE that the Catholic Church was started in the 4th & 5th centuries. This is the most ludicrous claim that I hear Protestants make. This myth was prolifereated by the likes of Lorainne Boettner and his almost comical book, "Roman Catholicism".
Sadly, many Protestant ministers still use this heavily debunked pile of rubbish as their anti-Catholic reference guide . . .

**We can trace ourselves all the way back to Jesus, whereas, you can’t go beyond the 15th century. **At the end of the 2nd century, Irenaeus, in his treatise, "Against Heresies" lists all of the Popes for 200 years - starting with Peter and that lists has been updated through the centuries to include our current Pope, Benedict VI.

So, I ask again - PROVE your ridiculous claim.
THIS ought to be good!

 

[lil_flower_luv]

Mary was blessed among (note, not above) all women. John the Baptist, came along just after Mary and of him, Jesus said: * Among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist;…* John had possessed centre stage, but after Jesus came along John observed: **He must become greater; I must become less. ** Just as the NT speaks to all of us today, I understand that John spoke for all of us at that time. Sadly, from about 150 AD onward much of the history of the Church is a record of Mary’s devotees making Mary greater by giving her greater and greater significance… this conflicts with John’s example and (IMHO) is so obviously wrong…

The greater significance that is never exaggerated. It is the significance she deserves, because she said fiat (yes) and we now have a Savior because of that. We need to say fiat like Mary. We look to her example of total submission to God’s will.

yep, just John. Likewise, when Jesus told Peter, “But so that we may not offend them, go to the lake and throw out your line. Take the first fish you catch; open its mouth and you will find a four-drachma coin. Take it and give it to them for my tax and yours.” He was talking to Peter alone…if not, I’d be out at the local pond collecting fish and 4-drachma coins.

It is not right to say that Jesus spoke to all of us some times, and only a few of us other times. No, it is His Word that gives us strength to be His children and His servants (like Mary). Why would it even be in the Bible if He wasn’t addressing all of us?? There is a lesson all of us can learn from every story in the Bible! Why? Because we always need correction in our lives. There are always places in our lives that can be changed.

Looking at your example: Hey, Jesus is the miracle worker, is He not? You can learn from that story that if you listen to God, the impossible will happen. The coins in a fish? A miracle. He tells us never to doubt Him. In Him, great things happen.

 

[lil_flower_luv]

Hi lil_flower_luv…thank you for your welcome!

My pleasure.

God Bless you all!
Therese

 

[Radical]

It is not right to say that Jesus spoke to all of us some times, and only a few of us other times. No, it is His Word that gives us strength to be His children and His servants (like Mary). Why would it even be in the Bible if He wasn’t addressing all of us?? There is a lesson all of us can learn from every story in the Bible! Why? Because we always need correction in our lives. There are always places in our lives that can be changed.

Looking at your example: Hey, Jesus is the miracle worker, is He not? You can learn from that story that if you listen to God, the impossible will happen. The coins in a fish? A miracle. He tells us never to doubt Him. In Him, great things happen.

Obviously I didn’t communicate very well. I agree we can all learn from what Jesus said to Peter and to John, but Peter was the only one (not us) directed to go and get that fish with the drachmas and John (not us) as the only one directed to treat Mary as his mother. We can always listen and learn, but is doesn’t mean that we are to carry out the 2000 year old directions that were suited for the particular circumstances way back then.

 

[elvisman]

Obviously I didn’t communicate very well. I agree we can all learn from what Jesus said to Peter and to John, but Peter was the only one (not us) directed to go and get that fish with the drachmas and John (not us) as the only one directed to treat Mary as his mother. We can always listen and learn, but is doesn’t mean that we are to carry out the 2000 year old directions that were suited for the particular circumstances way back then.

I agree with you that Jesus wasn’t always addressing everybody. Case in point, John 6:70:
"Did I not choose you twelve? Yet is not one of you a devil?"

However, there is simply too much evidence pointing to the fact that Mary was considered "the Mother of all the living in Christ" - just as Eve was called "the Mother of all the living."
Your arguments usually discount sacred Tradition as developmental errors when Scripture clearly proves you wrong (2 Thess 2:15, 2 Thess. 3:6, 2 Tim. 2:2, 1 Cor. 11:2, 2 Tim. 1:12-14).

Jesus’ words to John from the cross point to this. IF Jesus had uterine siblings as Protestants charge - he couldn’t and wouldn***'t* have handeed his mother over to a non-family member. He knew well in advance how and when he was going to die and would have tied up loose ends concerning his mother way before he was dying ion the cross.**
**In John’s Gospel, Jesus never refers to his mother as “mother” (John 2:4, 19:26). Whenever he addresses his mother, he calls her “Woman”. The anti-Catholic will point to this as proof that there was not much special about Mary or that Jesus didn’t hold her in very high regard. This couldn’t be further from the truth. **
This correlates directly to the Woman in Gen. 3:15 and in Rev. 12.
Jesus defeats death on Calvary (Skull place) and fulfills the prophecy in Gen. 3:15 about the offspring of the Woman. **
Mary is present at the foot of the cross while this is happening, and what does Jesus call her in John 19:26? He calls her “WOMAN”, because the prophecy about the head of the serpent being crushed in Genesis is taking place on Calvary.

**Your false assumption that the Holy Spirit interprets the Scriptures for each individual without a teaching authority is evidenced by the tens of thousands of constantly-splintering sects with differing interpretations. **
Can they ALL be right? NOPE.