Protestants: how do you know that your interpretation of the Bible is the right one?

[DavidCatechumen]

Tell that to the Jews who cared for the TaNaKh through the centuries-they were doing it long before there were any Catholics and didn’t claim to need an infallible Magisterium to do so.

ERROR: Straw man/misdirection fallacy. Old Testament == 2(Christian Bible/3) =/= Christian Bible.

Oh wait, you might not be on the best of speaking terms with the Jews at the moment. Sorry. I can see how that fact might have slipped your mind given the circumstances.

ERROR: Ad hominem fallacy.

 

[Always_For_Him]

This one is by broski234:

The word “remembrance” in Jesus’ time doesn’t mean the same as it does today. It means make present. So he is saying to make present his sacrifice, His pure sacrifice (Malachi 1:11). Catholics interpret the Bible, all of the Bible, in a “literal” manner. By that I mean that when we read a passage, we look for the meaning the writer of that passage intended to convey. For example, let’s take the phrase, “It was raining cats and dogs.” The literal meaning is that it was raining very hard. That’s the meaning the writer was trying to convey. Many fundamentalists, evangelicals, non-denominationalists, etc. interpret the Bible in a "literalist " manner. They would interpret the phrase, “It was raining cats and dogs,” if it was in the Bible, as some phenomenon where cats and dogs were falling from the sky like rain. So, you are correct, there are passages where folks are speaking literally, and there are passages where folks are speaking metaphorically and we need to determine which is which in order to properly understand the Scriptures. My question to you is: Why do you get to decide which is which? Why do you get to say that in John 6, Jesus was speaking metaphorically or symbolically, when I say he wasn’t? Is there no way to determine truth in this matter? Why does your opinion carry more weight than my opinion? Than the Church’s opinion? Than the opinion of billions of Catholics over 2000 years? Than the opinion of the early Christians and the Church Fathers?

So, what was the author of John 6 trying to tell us? Was Jesus speaking literally or metaphorically when He said to eat His body and drink His blood? Well, let’s look at the evidence. If Jesus was speaking symbolically, then please tell me what He meant by saying one must eat His body and drink His blood to have eternal life. A symbolic interpretation of these passages, doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.

Plus, if Jesus was speaking symbolically, why did everyone who heard Him speak on that day, the Jews, His disciples…even the Apostles…take Him literally? Why do you, 2000 years after the fact, not take Him literally when everyone who heard him on that day did?

And, if Jesus was speaking symbolically, why did His disciples say it was a “hard teaching?” Do you have the “Lord’s Supper” in whatever church you now attend? If so, is symbolically eating Jesus’ body and symbolically drinking His blood by eating a piece of bread and drinking some grape juice…do you consider that a “hard teaching” as you are saying the disciples apparently did?

Plus, Jesus repeats Himself over and over here saying the same thing. Why didn’t He explain to His disciples that they misunderstood Him (if they did misunderstand Him)? Every other passage in Scripture (every one!) where the disciples don’t understand something He says, He takes them aside and explains it to them. But not here. Why? Because maybe they didn’t misunderstand Him?

And, very important to consider is this: in verse 51, Jesus says He is the “living bread which came down from heaven” and “if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever.” Now, what exactly is this bread that folks must eat? Well, Jesus tells us in the last part of verse 51, “and the bread that I shall give for the life of the world is My FLESH.” Was He speaking symbolically here? When did Jesus give His flesh for the life of the world? On the cross, right? So, is Jesus speaking symbolically here in verse 51? Is He telling us to eat His symbolic flesh that He will give for the life of the world? If that’s your interpretation, then Jesus only gave His symbolic flesh for us on the cross, not His real flesh…according to your interpretation.

I could go on and on, but I think I’ve asked a bunch of questions that you are going to have a tough time answering in a consistent and logical manner. So, just from the Bible…forget about what Christians from the 1st century on have said…just from the Bible, there is ample evidence to show that Jesus was speaking literally in John 6 about eating His body and drinking His blood. Please give me the evidence, from the Bible, to show that He wasn’t speaking literally. With all due respect, your opinion, or the opinion of those who have taught you these things, doesn’t mean anything to me. I’m sorry, but the biblical evidence for the Catholic belief on this point is overwhelming. Please read these passages carefully. I’m not asking you to take my opinion, I’m asking you to look carefully at the Word of God and not just gloss over it.

 

[christian1]

davidcatecumen: He did not do that. He said, “THIS IS MY BODY,” and He meant it. He is GOD, okay? He is NOT subject to His own laws of nature–if he wants the bread to be His Body, then the bread is His Body. This is hard to accept, but read John chapter 6 (which says so )

If it is, then it is. Who am I to doubt the power of God. That it is a symbolic representation of His sacrifice or literal, does not take away from the awesomeness of it. And if it should cause my brother to stumble that I should not consider it literal, then by all means, it is literal. But only in matters of holiness, not sin will I concede such things.

 

[DavidCatechumen]

To davidcatecumen:

you said: I could answer this, if you could tell me where it is in the Bible?

That would be the book of Revelation starting at chapter 2 where Jesus your Lord addresses the Church.

I figured that out on my own and answered your concerns above. But thanks

no duh dude. There isn’t anything in scripture that I have a problem with. My problem lies with your doctrines that aren’t found in it. The assumption of Mary. The evervirginity of Mary, the adoration and devotion to praying her rosary.
…
There isn’t anything in scripture that I have a problem with. My problem lies with your doctrines that aren’t found in it.

Did you read 2 Thess. 2:15?

Apostolic Tradition is as much a part of the Bible as the Bible itself AND THE BIBLE SAYS SO. However, Tradition cannot contradict the Bible, because then it would cease to be Apostolic.

Nothing the Church teaches contradicts the Bible. Once I realized that, I converted.

wow. I’ve never even heard of that before. Seems like just like there are many different beliefs in the protestant religion as their are in the degrees of participation in the many devotions in catholocism.

That’s because you have only begun to explore history. To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant. Keep going!

 

[DavidCatechumen]

**Why did Jesus choose to be baptized? **

He obviously didn’t need it, but He wants us to emulate Him. And that includes by being baptized.

 

[Always_For_Him]

That it is a symbolic representation of His sacrifice or literal, does not take away from the awesomeness of it. And if it should cause my brother to stumble that I should not consider it literal, then by all means, it is literal. But only in matters of holiness, not sin will I concede such things.

Yes it does. Teaching and believing that it is symbolic is NOT biblical, NOT Apostolic teaching, but changed errant teaching/interpretation of man, that is LESS THAN 500 years old, for one. It minimizes it to be just a mere thought, nothing really important, just something to symbolize His sacrifice for us.

 

[christian1]

To AlwaysforHim:

The word “remembrance” in Jesus’ time doesn’t mean the same as it does today. It means make present. So he is saying to make present his sacrifice, His pure sacrifice (Malachi 1:11). Catholics interpret the Bible, all of the Bible, in a “literal” manner.

I was under the impression that you had to be in a certain position to interpret.

By that I mean that when we read a passage, we look for the meaning the writer of that passage intended to convey. For example, let’s take the phrase, “It was raining cats and dogs.” The literal meaning is that it was raining very hard. That’s the meaning the writer was trying to convey. Many fundamentalists, evangelicals, non-denominationalists, etc. interpret the Bible in a "literalist " manner. They would interpret the phrase, “It was raining cats and dogs,” if it was in the Bible, as some phenomenon where cats and dogs were falling from the sky like rain.

I find this to be completely opposite of what we are discussing. I’m saying Jesus meant metaphorically when he used the bread as a symbol of his body and the wine as a symbol of his blood just as you understand there weren’t literal cats and dogs falling from the sky. Do you really think those who truly seek the truth of God are this dense? Or arrogant as to think they should know something without being divinely taught by the Holy Spirit?

you said: So, you are correct, there are passages where folks are speaking literally, and there are passages where folks are speaking metaphorically and we need to determine which is which in order to properly understand the Scriptures.

I wholly agree with this.

you said: My question to you is: Why do you get to decide which is which? Why do you get to say that in John 6, Jesus was speaking metaphorically or symbolically, when I say he wasn’t? Is there no way to determine truth in this matter?

Yes, it’s called comparing it to the rest of the truth in the word. And if there isn’t any to go by, we don’t assume, we say, we don’t know. we shouldn’t create an entire doctrine when the scriptures surrounding it are vague and don’t clearly support such.

you said: Why does your opinion carry more weight than my opinion? Than the Church’s opinion? Than the opinion of billions of Catholics over 2000 years? Than the opinion of the early Christians and the Church Fathers?

I hold the opinion of no authority but that clearly written in the word of God. I do not live contrary to what is plainly revealed in scripture. And as I have said, to assume the bread and wine is LITERALLY his flesh and blood, does not, as far as the scriptures reveal (correct me anybody if they know otherwise) an offense to God in anyway.

 

[christian1]

AlwaysforHim you said: Yes it does. Teaching and believing that it is symbolic is NOT biblical, NOT Apostolic teaching, but changed errant teaching/interpretation of man, that is LESS THAN 500 years old, for one. It minimizes it to be just a mere thought, nothing really important, just something to symbolize His sacrifice for us.

You see, I find that unscriptural and this is why. The old testament God used many signs and symbols when wanting His children to remember something great He had done or important.

Are you saying by Him choosing to use symbols and signs in reference to a particular event, that He was minimizing it’s importance?

Can you see now why we might think highly of the event while believing the bread and wine were symbols. To a true believer, it in NO WAY minimizes what He has done for us.

 

[DavidCatechumen]

I hold the opinion of no authority but that clearly written in the word of God. I do not live contrary to what is plainly revealed in scripture.

This is THE misunderstanding that all Protestants must overcome.
Bible Alone/Sola Scriptura IS. NOT. BIBLICAL.

**
Please, please, read 2 Thess. 2:15.: Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.
**

You MUST obey Apostolic Tradition–the oral teaching of the Apostles. That is what the BIBLE says. I know this is hard to accept… but that is the word of the Lord.

And as I have said, to assume the bread and wine is LITERALLY his flesh and blood, does not, as far as the scriptures reveal (correct me anybody if they know otherwise) an offense to God in anyway.

Except that since Jesus is not the one who is holding the bread and saying “This is My Body” at your Protestant service, whoever is doing that needs authority to perform this act on behalf of God.

Notice who was in the room when Jesus instituted the Eucharist at the Last Supper: the 12 Apostles. They are the ones that He commanded to repeat the Eucharist. They have this authority.

Now go read Acts 1.18-26, where the Apostles elected Matthias to replace Judas as a bishop after the order of the Apostles.

So, who elected your minister and gave him power to act on behalf of God?

---

In parting, I just want to tell you that no one here means you any spite or ill will. We are all seeking the Truth in charity. Your challenges to our Catholic Faith makes that Faith stronger, and so we welcome you.

It is very, very hard to follow after Jesus, and He told us that the road would be narrow and hard. But I know He will reward you for following this road as He has promised to do.

God bless you!

 

[rinnie]

There are many Catholics who are born again and thus saved. Then again there are many who are not thus not saved.

Oh Jesus, Joseph, and Mary, Hisalone, you have said some outrageous things,:sad_yes: but this time you out did yourself. How in the world could a Catholic be a Catholic without being Baptised into the faith, therefore being born again. Being born again in Christ is through Baptism.

 

[Always_For_Him]

I was under the impression that you had to be in a certain position to interpret.

We don’t interpret for ourselves because as fallible humans, we will twist the interpretation to our own destruction. It is the best word to use in this conversation. I didn’t write that post though. It was so informative, that I posted it from another list.

You have to remember that ALL NT writings were oral teachings and Sacred Tradition practices that were in being taught and practiced for centuries before all of the writings were collected from all of the different areas and together in one place. These teachings/interpretations had a context when they were written down by the Catholic Church? Are you saying that the Catholic Church didn’t understand what she had been teaching for almost 400 years before determining the canon and or forgot the context after penning the Bible, and that after the Bible was penned that all of the Sacred Traditions that held so much Truth from Jesus, just weren’t needed anymore? Not everything is written down. Sacred Tradition is only one part of Christ’s Deposit of Faith.

Yes, it’s called comparing it to the rest of the truth in the word. And if there isn’t any to go by, we don’t assume, we say, we don’t know. we shouldn’t create an entire doctrine when the scriptures surrounding it are vague and don’t clearly support such.

That is because you/your church doesn’t KNOW the entire, complete, contextual doctrine and doesn’t practice it in the ways that the Apostles taught. Catholics know what to compare with what. ALL protestant churches are separated from Apostolic teachings/Christ’s Church, so they have to compare it for themselves and come up with whatever answer they come up with. That is twisting the teachings to your own destruction. It is not vague for us, WE WROTE IT!!! We understand it in it’s beautiful fullenss and how it connects to all other Scripture.

I hold the opinion of no authority but that clearly written in the word of God. I do not live contrary to what is plainly revealed in scripture. And as I have said, to assume the bread and wine is LITERALLY his flesh and blood, does not, as far as the scriptures reveal (correct me anybody if they know otherwise) an offense to God in anyway.

If you hold an opinion that is contrary to Apostolic teaching, the detailed writings of ALL the ECF’s, the belief of all of Christianity until men changed things through the Reformation, then you ARE claiming some kind of authority to claim/believe/change a teaching to be different. You don’t LIVE by what has ALWAYS been taught that Scripture is saying because you are part of a church that doesn’t teach it. You don’t know everything. Just because YOUR church doesn’t teach it, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. It does, in THE Church founded by Christ, that has been around this WHOLE time to teach it. As you can see from the thousands of threads on this forum, very little seems to be “plainly revealed.” What is one meaning to me is different for you, is different to Joe down the street, thousands of times over.

Jesus founded His Church as the teacher of His Truth and His Way. There is nothing else that you should be considering. Dig deeper into history. Read the ECF’s, they “pretty plainly” detail so much.

 

[WAYNE_LEYDS]

History is a wonderful tool when used correctly.as i understand it thejews used seperate scrolls when in their synagogues some were sep some were hebrew.(i think)jesus did quote alot from the sep.as you can see evidently in the bible.as the early church was advancing our Fathers found that people were sometimes preaching a different Jesus.there were even letters whose origins were questionable!in the early days there were not just 4 gospels circulating,there were many!!and there were many different beliefs about jesus developing.in time the leaders from the different churches met to compile,include,reject,and reach agreements as to what texts were inspired and what were not and what was for good reading.this was done in time in human history by the power of the Holy Spirit!ofcause this was a highly emotional and passionate meeting where the fathers of the different churches debated finally reaching a conclusion!
thus we have our bible!!ofcause as time went by some texts were deemed fake.
this was done in the 1st 500years of Christianity.(many church leaders not just 1 man!)
now the jews decided also to compile there Bible too!!!and conveniently they left out all the texts that pointed to jesus in a very direct way.(including that of Christian catholic Doctrine).this was done around 800 ad.
then came Luther…who 1 day read a passage and thought he had been inspired by the Holy Spirit.(1 man) his belief in personal inerpretation was later discredited by himself.this is in history theres no denying this!!but unfortunatly the damage was done!!and people do not want to admit that their white knight was fundementally wrong!!hence the 30000plus churches today.oh yes and luther for whatever reason forgot or never new why the jews rejcted the sept.and made what the jews used as his old test.

now the Churches authority is evident in the bible when the circumcised debated with the other opostles and peter about circumcision.they debated the issue and reached a verdict on the matter!infact it was the holy spirit that led them to this ground breaking new belief!!
this is the apostolic tradion(part of it)that is still practised today vatican counsel,etc…it is the collective thinking of the Catholic Church through the Holy Spirit that gave us the Bible.1 cannot deny this human-spiritual history.

 

[DavidCatechumen]

For Protestants and others in the audience, “Sep,” “Sept.” and “LXX” are short for the Septuagint, the Greek Old Testament that was in use at the time of Jesus.

 

[Always_For_Him]

You see, I find that unscriptural and this is why. The old testament God used many signs and symbols when wanting His children to remember something great He had done or important.

Are you saying by Him choosing to use symbols and signs in reference to a particular event, that He was minimizing it’s importance? .

Some things ARE symbolistic, but the teaching of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist IS NOT!!! Sometimes HE is a light, sometimes He is a door, etc… BUT, this is entirely different. The response to it is entirely different. The Apostles taught about it!!! They SAID it was REAL. How do you ignore those Scripture writings?

Can you see now why we might think highly of the event while believing the bread and wine were symbols. To a true believer, it in NO WAY minimizes what He has done for us.

Yes, I can see. It is a mystery that is VERY hard to wrap your brain around. I myself for a very long time didn’t “get it” either. When you do finally get it, YOU WILL be AMAZED!!! It is Jesus’ beautiful gift to us if we remain in Him. The grace is absolutely beautiful. I now have faith that Christ MEANT it, that He has the power to do it even if I don’t completely understand how. It is that leap of faith that if you believe that all things in Christ are possible, this is ONE OF THEM!!! Please open your heart and pray for the understanding. Your current belief of it as sybolic is new and less than 400-450 years-old.

There is a great book by Scott Hahn called The Lamb’s Supper. You should read it. It explains SO much more than any of us could. In the end, you may not agree with it, but you WILL enjoy the read. I am bettin’ that you will get it!!! I will say a prayer that you open your heart without any bias to receive this knowledge!! Again, did I say, IT IS SO BEAUTIFUL???

 

[christian1]

To Davidcatechumen
you said: Revelation 2-3 are warnings to the churches to repent of sin. The lampstands being extinguished is the loss of the grace of God (i.e. mortal sin) and thus, loss of the Holy Spirit. This is further evidence for the Catholic/Orthodox soteriology and against the Protestant understanding of “say the sinner’s prayer and you are eternally secure.”

This is NOT a broad protestant view. My view is biblical. The bible is plain if you read it carefully searching not to fulfill your own lusts. It’s faith with works plain as day.

you said: The Church has always consisted of sinners and saints, so I do not see how this is evidence against the catholicity and authority of the Church.

because MEN, just as it has always been, are appointed in authority. And as you admitted of past popes and priests, they are susceptable to sin. In matters of doctrine as well. You have no scripture to prove that he cannot teach error. If you try and say that error cannot be taught in the body of Christ, then why for crying out loud did Christ and his disciples spend so much time warning us of such things???

You said: And I think that brings up the kernel of the debate. Christian1, can you answer, with citation to Scripture:

Is the Bible free of errors?

what sort of errors?

Who has authority to interpret the Bible?

Whoever has the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Let me ask you with reference to scripture. Who can, and how does one receive the Holy Spirit?

davidcatechumen
Since you were raised a Protestant, this sets off a ton of alarm bells. But take a deeeeeeep breath and stay cool.

you said: The Bible commands us to pray for one another to the Lord our God.

But that is not what your doing when you say: Mary, pray for us sinners in a prayer to her. You are in fact praying to her asking her to pray for you.

It never said pray to one another and ask them to pray for you. Not alive or dead. Nowhere in scripture. In fact IT CONTRADICTS how Jesus said we should pray. To God, through him. I can pray to God through Jesus in your behalf, but you can’t pray to me asking me to pray to God for you. That is what is happening when you pray to Mary to pray for you.

And what about the saints question I asked a while ago. If saints are made perfect in heaven, then why was paul referring to believers alive, as saints?

 

[christian1]

Please, please, read 2 Thess. 2:15.: Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.

**ARE YOU FOR REAL??? DONT YOU THINK I HAVE? DON’T YOU SEE??? **

That’s what I’m doing by obeying the traditions taught and oral statements of the letters of the first apostles!!! And that is STILL NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR YOU???

If there was nothing ever more than what our brothers of the new testament taught us, IT WOULD BE ENOUGH. There is NO MORE to be added to it, don’t you understand?
If I am doing NOTHING contrary to what they have written, what sin have I committed.

THIS IS NOT SOLA SCRIPTURA!!!

This is ME reading and learning from the first apostles of Christ, who EXPOUNDED the truths and TAUGHT the church. ARE THEY NOT QUALIFIED???

But your popes and priests cannot deny me the rights to God and His Holy Spirit simply because I do not adhere to doctrines that were not in existance concerning Mary.

I find it scripturally blasphemous, the emphatic devotion placed upon her and for somebody with that much importance, I WOULD THINK THE FIRST APOSTLES MIGHT HAVE MADE MENTION OF HER IMPORTANCE DON’T YOU THINK???

As it stands, the scriptures that prove she wasn’t ever virgin are dismissed, particularly the one that clearly states that her husband had relations with her AFTER her FIRSTBORN son!!!

"He did not know her UNTIL she bore her ‘FIRSTBORN’ son.

On both accounts it clearly shows he had relations with her and at what time he did. Why, I must know, is it so important to have a queen of Heaven? Could this be the practice Christ mentioned in revelation about the teachings of baal.

Do you recall the old testament ‘queen of Heaven’?

And even today you retain the hot cross buns in your celebrations that was derived from that ancient pagan practice when the then ‘queen of heaven’ son, tamuz was deemed a god. And the mother, the queen of heaven. they made bread with a T in the center to represent and honor his name.

Why do we not separate ourselves from such abomination?

The area that tells of his brothers and sisters is conveniently explained away that there was a generic word for cousin. therefore it MUST HAVE BEEN THAT. Never do they consider the possibility along with the weight of othe scripture, that perhaps HE DID have brothers and sisters, seeing as that COULD have meant JUST THAT!!!

 

[christian1]

Except that since Jesus is not the one who is holding the bread and saying “This is My Body” at your Protestant service, whoever is doing that needs authority to perform this act on behalf of God.

And this, only your catholic Church can give. God does not go out of that boundary.

 

[tobinatorstark]

Seeing how you have erroniously interpreted 2 Peter 1:20 if I were you Id be concerned with how your own faulty interpretation.

In what ways do you see our interpretation fault and we erronously interpret 2 Peter 1:20???

 

[WAYNE_LEYDS]

Except that since Jesus is not the one who is holding the bread and saying “This is My Body” at your Protestant service, whoever is doing that needs authority to perform this act on behalf of God.

And this, only your catholic Church can give. God does not go out of that boundary.

your question lacks the depth of understanding of Christian history.like many protestants,its like 1 denying his boyhood history and at once being a man.

 

[WAYNE_LEYDS]

Please, please, read 2 Thess. 2:15.: Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.

**ARE YOU FOR REAL??? DONT YOU THINK I HAVE? DON’T YOU SEE??? **

That’s what I’m doing by obeying the traditions taught and oral statements of the letters of the first apostles!!! And that is STILL NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR YOU???

If there was nothing ever more than what our brothers of the new testament taught us, IT WOULD BE ENOUGH. There is NO MORE to be added to it, don’t you understand?
If I am doing NOTHING contrary to what they have written, what sin have I committed.

THIS IS NOT SOLA SCRIPTURA!!!

This is ME reading and learning from the first apostles of Christ, who EXPOUNDED the truths and TAUGHT the church. ARE THEY NOT QUALIFIED???

But your popes and priests cannot deny me the rights to God and His Holy Spirit simply because I do not adhere to doctrines that were not in existance concerning Mary.

I find it scripturally blasphemous, the emphatic devotion placed upon her and for somebody with that much importance, I WOULD THINK THE FIRST APOSTLES MIGHT HAVE MADE MENTION OF HER IMPORTANCE DON’T YOU THINK???

As it stands, the scriptures that prove she wasn’t ever virgin are dismissed, particularly the one that clearly states that her husband had relations with her AFTER her FIRSTBORN son!!!

"He did not know her UNTIL she bore her ‘FIRSTBORN’ son.

On both accounts it clearly shows he had relations with her and at what time he did. Why, I must know, is it so important to have a queen of Heaven? Could this be the practice Christ mentioned in revelation about the teachings of baal.

Do you recall the old testament ‘queen of Heaven’?

And even today you retain the hot cross buns in your celebrations that was derived from that ancient pagan practice when the then ‘queen of heaven’ son, tamuz was deemed a god. And the mother, the queen of heaven. they made bread with a T in the center to represent and honor his name.

Why do we not separate ourselves from such abomination?

The area that tells of his brothers and sisters is conveniently explained away that there was a generic word for cousin. therefore it MUST HAVE BEEN THAT. Never do they consider the possibility along with the weight of othe scripture, that perhaps HE DID have brothers and sisters, seeing as that COULD have meant JUST THAT!!!

1 shouldnt find similarities in our actions with pagans but should seek to see to whom we give praise!!jesus Christ!!and our lady in her aparations does not preach a different jesus or another gospel but pleads with human kind to listen to her son.and to give us his messages.
if i as a human being on this world can pronounce the good news about jesus how much more can His mother who is in heaven now with Him.God loves us so much that He is pulling all the stops holding nothing back using all avenues to lead us back to Him!!and jesus has said that if you doubt then you should test the spirits!!see if they believe in jesus as savior.and that is exactly what Mary does…she infact still has her mission as the handmaid of God still calling us to jesus!!