Protestants listen up

[meandean]

meandean;5202058:

I already did - 2

posts back.
It’s the doctrine that Jesus’ divinity and his humanhood are united and cannot be separated. He is 100% God and 100% man.

Mary is the Mother of Jesus - who is God - ergo, she is the Mother of God.
She cannot be the mother of only part of him because of the Hypostatic Union, which says his two natures cannot be divided.

Again - Do you believe in the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union?

are you mad at me elvisman? i got a picture of you tying me up and throwing darts at me if i dont answer the way you want. i’m sorry that i didn’t catch your question. and yes this is the first i heard of it. when did this come into being? well, before this, let me say yes to christ. yes, mary was a mommy, but it sure sounds like your elevating her to queen of heaven, is this correct?or big Mom in the sky?or since there is a Father in heaven its only logical to put a Mother there as well? that wasn’t meant as a joke either. i’m curious to ask you what do you mean when you describe mary? remember i am new to this so please eleborate as to why and what you believe.

 

[wmscott]

Here is what really kills me. The MOTHER of JESUS CHRIST cannot pray for us, and her prayers are not that important. But then a sinner can pray (us) for eachother and God listens to those prayers. But will not listen to his own sinless Mother who gave up her life to do Gods will. Kinda blow’s your mind don’t it.

So I guess the Protestant view for many not all, Because alot of Protestants are really learning and accepting the truth, But the view must be what the more you sin, the more God will hear your prayers. But the more you don’t sin the least chance you have of God hearing your prayer. Because thats what they are saying in a way, that when God told Jobs friends to have Job pray for them, he may not punish them, because he listens to the prayers of Job because Job is righteous, that scripture went what? Right out the window? We as Catholics know that the Blessed Mother was righteous so we can be sure she has a loud voice to the ear of God. I am not saying God does not hear all prayers, but like in Job, God said not all are accepted.

It all boils down to the simple fact that if they admit that the Blessed Mother can intercede for us, is to admit that the Catholic Church is right. If the Catholic Church is right on this, which many Protestants cite as unbiblical, then how many more Catholic practices are true that they will have to admit. Before you know it, the fullness of truth is realized and then they are left with a dilemma, what do they do now, convert or continue to deny what is now recognized as the fullness of truth. However, there is always the ability to apply rationalization to each truth so that it fits your personal interpretation.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I certainly agree with you. I’m truly not arguing about salvation but discussing the basis of her assumption. I know a lot of things were not written but that’s not exactly proof either.
“Also, some may claim that it wasn’t written because everyone already held a common belief so there we no need to unless there were disagreement.”
How is that statement proven as a fact? Are there any Catholic official documents that specifically state that claim?
Another problem with that statement is there were writings already about Mary as clearly indicated through the Early Church Father’s writings circulating after 50 years of Jesus’ death if not earlier.
Why would they write about Mary at all in the first place if there was no need to, like you claim, because everyone already held that traditional belief? And since they did write about Mary, why did they chose to disclose information about her ascension and coronation (which I think is worthy ) but mention everything else about her which mirrored the Bible?

Although everything was not written about Jesus as it claims, they highlighted the most critical points about him:

He was born of a virgin
He performed miracles
He was crucified, died for our sins, and buried, and resurrected on the third day
ascended in Heaven and will return

The New testament writers could opt out other accounts behind because it wasn’t entirely necessary to maintain His identity. But anyone of these accounts mentioned above could not have been left out because it was fundamental for the faith. The writers didn’t have to write anything for that matter about Jesus and choose to orally pass it through tradition. But they did! All the Gospels and New Testament writers all agree on one thing: his resurrection which proves his kingship, eternal priesthood, and being the Son of God…

The same applies to Mary. Everything was mentioned except her being a Queen and assuming into Heaven. That is highly necessary as part of her identity as The Queen of Heaven. Like I said, no one in the first 250 years bothers to address that when they could have by simply taking 10 seconds to include it in their epistles and letters.
That’s what I’m curious about.

Well, I guess we need to go to my other example of all that is not written. We’ve shown the typology of a Queen Mother by Solomon, who sat upon the Davidic throne, in scriptures. Yet, that’s not enough. Where is the teaching of sola scriptura? Where does the Bible mention the rapture? Here’s one we should both agree on, even though it’s not written specifically in scriptures, where’s the word Trinity?

With those examples, I need to ask, why is it so important to know the specifics of one belief, but not question the others?

Does a Christian have to pray through Mary, accept her assumption or coronation as a part of their salvation? No, I don’t believe it’s required of all Christians. It reminds me of the writings of St. Paul, where he speaks of milk and meat as an analogy. Christians are at different levels of their spiritual growth. Some can’t take all there is, while others can. As a member of the Catholic Church, I accept and believe all she teaches, including the Marion doctrines. Once one accepts a fulness of truth, they cannot turn away.

As for early writings, maybe it’s as we both agree, the Gospel was of the greatest importance to get out and Christians were being martyred. They priortized the things that pertained to the majority’s salvation. As the years passed and the persecutions slowed, other things could be written. Even if we go through scriptures themselves, there isn’t that much written about Mary and even less about Joseph. If we look at all that is written, that the Lord spoke, how long would it take to read it all? Three, maybe five hours to read all that He said, that is written? Yet, He ministered for three years. How much could He have said and done in three years? Way more than could be written about, evidently, but we don’t doubt He said and did many more wonderful things.

Personally, I can only speculate as to why there isn’t more written. It isn’t that important to one who believes in the infallibility of His Church, through His promises to be with it until the consummation of the world and His promise to send the Holy Spirit to guide it in all matters.

 

[elvisman]

elvisman;5202103:

are you mad at me elvisman? i got a picture of you tying me up and throwing darts at me if i dont answer the way you want. i’m sorry that i didn’t catch your question. and yes this is the first i heard of it. when did this come into being? well, before this, let me say yes to christ. yes, mary was a mommy, but it sure sounds like your elevating her to queen of heaven, is this correct?or big Mom in the sky?or since there is a Father in heaven its only logical to put a Mother there as well? that wasn’t meant as a joke either. i’m curious to ask you what do you mean when you describe mary? remember i am new to this so please eleborate as to why and what you believe.

**I’m not **angry at all. I just get a little frustrated when I ask a question and it gets answered with gibberish that has nothing to do with the question I asked.

As for the Hypostatic Union - I assume you believe it? Again, your answer is a little vague. Please just answer yes or no.

As for Mary being Queen of Heaven - I rsponded to this several posts back to another person, but I’ll explain it again.
The Davidic Kingdon was a model for the Kingdom of heaven as shown in several comparisons, including: Isaiah 20:22/Matt. 16:19, 1 Kings 2:19/Rev. 12:1-6, 2 Sam. 6:9/Luke 1:43.
In the Davidic Kingdom, Solomon’s mother, Bathsheba was the queen - not any of his hundreds of wives. She sat at the throne on his right hand. Solomon instituted this because he was a good servant of the Lord.

Does this help? Can you unsderstand why Catholics believe her to be the Mother of God and Queen of Heaven?

Also - can you answer my question about the Hypostatic Union with a yes or a no?

 

[meandean]

meandean;5202192:

**I’m not **

angry at all. I just get a little frustrated when I ask a question and it gets answered with gibberish that has nothing to do with the question I asked.

As for the Hypostatic Union - I assume you believe it? Again, your answer is a little vague. Please just answer yes or no.

As for Mary being Queen of Heaven - I rsponded to this several posts back to another person, but I’ll explain it again.
The Davidic Kingdon was a model for the Kingdom of heaven as shown in several comparisons, including: Isaiah 20:22/Matt. 16:19, 1 Kings 2:19/Rev. 12:1-6, 2 Sam. 6:9/Luke 1:43.
In the Davidic Kingdom, Solomon’s mother, Bathsheba was the queen - not any of his hundreds of wives. She sat at the throne on his right hand. Solomon instituted this because he was a good servant of the Lord.

Does this help? Can you unsderstand why Catholics believe her to be the Mother of God and Queen of Heaven?

Also - can you answer my question about the Hypostatic Union with a yes or a no?

thank you elvisman. this does help.and it’s where i will start. and what i mean by this is i’m going to study it as far as i can go with it. hey dont get frustrated, we are all like taffy in a sense, being pulled here and tugged there. besides it makes our faith and love grow stronger this way.it sharpens us, right? just to let you know i don’t have as many questions as my wife, but you know i will have some okay? tell you what, it sounds like your an up front, cut and dried kind of guy. give me a couple of days to study and you will have an answer,alright?

 

[Hercules253]

…

Amen to you my brother! I agree…
Salvation is most important to me…I wanted to understand the doctrines of Mary for personal insight. Catholics claim we need her but Protestants say otherwise that was just need Christ…as for me, I can only pray to God for guidance, revelation, and wisdom for truth…and thank you for the opportunity to help me study by the ways…you have been very patient!

 

[AlwaysAsking]

Just to let you know, meandean, I admire your response. Honesty, integrity, humility, faithfulness.

 

[meandean]

meandean;5202192:

**I’m not **

angry at all. I just get a little frustrated when I ask a question and it gets answered with gibberish that has nothing to do with the question I asked.

As for the Hypostatic Union - I assume you believe it? Again, your answer is a little vague. Please just answer yes or no.

As for Mary being Queen of Heaven - I rsponded to this several posts back to another person, but I’ll explain it again.
The Davidic Kingdon was a model for the Kingdom of heaven as shown in several comparisons, including: Isaiah 20:22/Matt. 16:19, 1 Kings 2:19/Rev. 12:1-6, 2 Sam. 6:9/Luke 1:43.
In the Davidic Kingdom, Solomon’s mother, Bathsheba was the queen - not any of his hundreds of wives. She sat at the throne on his right hand. Solomon instituted this because he was a good servant of the Lord.

Does this help? Can you unsderstand why Catholics believe her to be the Mother of God and Queen of Heaven?

Also - can you answer my question about the Hypostatic Union with a yes or a no?elvisman, i have the nelsons new bible dictionary open right now to the queen of heaven. granted it is only one testimony so far, but it says the queen of heaven was a fertility goddess to whom the israelites, especially the women, offered sacrifice and worship in the days before the fall of the southern kingdom of judah( jer.7:18,44:17-19,25) in the time of jeremiah,many people in jerusalem and other cities of judah worshipped the queen of heaven. their worship included burning incense and pouring out drink offerings to her,(jer44:17) this was obviously a form of idolatry, but it is not clear exactly which pagan god was worshiped. the phrase queen of heaven maybe a title for the goddess ishtar( perhaps the same goddess as the bibical ashtoreth) cakes were also baked in honor of the queen of heaven (jer7:18) these cakes may have been in the shape of stars, crescent moons, or the female figure. the worship of this goddess was one of the evils that brought gods judgement upon judah. behold, my anger and my fury will be poured out on this place(jer7:20) i still have your scrpture references in my hand, if this is not the same queen title for mary, then why would you address it too her? god sounded pretty upset there, so far that doesn’t look like a title of honor.back to the studies… email me when you can

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

elvisman, i have the nelsons new bible dictionary open right now to the queen of heaven. granted it is only one testimony so far, but it says the queen of heaven was a fertility goddess to whom the israelites, especially the women, offered sacrifice and worship in the days before the fall of the southern kingdom of judah( jer.7:18,44:17-19,25) in the time of jeremiah,many people in jerusalem and other cities of judah worshipped the queen of heaven. their worship included burning incense and pouring out drink offerings to her,(jer44:17) this was obviously a form of idolatry, but it is not clear exactly which pagan god was worshiped. the phrase queen of heaven maybe a title for the goddess ishtar( perhaps the same goddess as the bibical ashtoreth) cakes were also baked in honor of the queen of heaven (jer7:18) these cakes may have been in the shape of stars, crescent moons, or the female figure. the worship of this goddess was one of the evils that brought gods judgement upon judah. behold, my anger and my fury will be poured out on this place(jer7:20) i still have your scrpture references in my hand, if this is not the same queen title for mary, then why would you address it too her? god sounded pretty upset there, so far that doesn’t look like a title of honor.back to the studies… email me when you can

Hey meandean,

I addressed that queen of heaven in a previous post, and why I thought it was acceptable to grant the title to Mary by using an example from one of Christ’s choosings. Please see post #289. It was only the first part of my response, the second part is in post #290
.

 

[elvisman]

elvisman;5202311:

elvisman, i have the nelsons new bible dictionary open right now to the queen of heaven. granted it is only one testimony so far, but it says the queen of heaven was a fertility goddess to whom the israelites, especially the women, offered sacrifice and worship in the days before the fall of the southern kingdom of judah( jer.7:18,44:17-19,25) in the time of jeremiah,many people in jerusalem and other cities of judah worshipped the queen of heaven. their worship included burning incense and pouring out drink offerings to her,(jer44:17) this was obviously a form of idolatry, but it is not clear exactly which pagan god was worshiped. the phrase queen of heaven maybe a title for the goddess ishtar( perhaps the same goddess as the bibical ashtoreth) cakes were also baked in honor of the queen of heaven (jer7:18) these cakes may have been in the shape of stars, crescent moons, or the female figure. the worship of this goddess was one of the evils that brought gods judgement upon judah. behold, my anger and my fury will be poured out on this place(jer7:20) i still have your scrpture references in my hand, if this is not the same queen title for mary, then why would you address it too her? god sounded pretty upset there, so far that doesn’t look like a title of honor.back to the studies… email me when you can

The whole Ishtar/Semiramis rubbish began with a book by an anti-Catholic in the 19th century named, Alexander Hislop. He was sort of the Jack Chick of his day.
No, the Queen of Heaven moniker as we know it has no roots in paganism.

Let me know when you have an answer about the Hypostatic Union.

 

[elvisman]

elvisman;5202311:

thank you elvisman. this does help.and it’s where i will start. and what i mean by this is i’m going to study it as far as i can go with it. hey dont get frustrated, we are all like taffy in a sense, being pulled here and tugged there. besides it makes our faith and love grow stronger this way.it sharpens us, right? just to let you know i don’t have as many questions as my wife, but you know i will have some okay? tell you what, it sounds like your an up front, cut and dried kind of guy. give me a couple of days to study and you will have an answer,alright?

Fair enough.

 

[meandean]

Hey meandean,

I addressed that queen of heaven in a previous post, and why I thought it was acceptable to grant the title to Mary by using an example from one of Christ’s choosings. Please see post #289. It was only the first part of my response, the second part is in post #290
.

thank you. i’m on it.

 

[meandean]

meandean;5202633:

The whole Ishtar/Semiramis rubbish

began with a book by an anti-Catholic in the 19th century named, Alexander Hislop. He was sort of the Jack Chick of his day.
No, the Queen of Heaven moniker as we know it has no roots in paganism.

Let me know when you have an answer about the Hypostatic Union.
hey thanks, i never heard of any one of those guys. i gotta check out prodigal son1 first though. alright? cool-

 

[elvisman]

elvisman;5202802:

hey thanks, i never heard of any one of those guys. i gotta check out prodigal son1 first though. alright? cool-

Alexander Hislop wrote a really historically sloppy book in the 19th century called, "The Two Babylons". In it, he claimed all sorts of bizarre things about the Catholic Church that have been debunked many times over the years.
A former adherent to his teachings, Ralph Woodrow, finally saw the light and wrote a harsh critique of this book called, "The Babylon Connection?" Although he is still a Protestant, Woodrow defends the Catholic Church and chides Hislop for the shoddy work.

Another “gem” of the early part of the century was a guy named, Lorraine Boettner who had an axe to gring with the Catholic Church. He wrote a book filled with anti-Catholic whoppers called, "Roman Catholicism", which is still used by many Fundamentalists and Evangelicals to this day. It’s a real doozy filled with garbage - such as the notion that the Roman Emperor Constantine was the first Pope! (Where do othey get this stuff??)

Finally, during the sixties and seventies, a guy named Jack Chick, who hates the Church as much as his two predecessors published dozens of anti-Catholic “tracts” and comic books spreading some pretty vile filth about the Church. One of my siblings actually left the Church because of Chick’s wicked rumor-mill.

It’s no wonder that many Protestants grow up despising the Catholic Church when you’re weened on his kind of fertilizer. That’s why forums like this and Catholic Answers are good places to find out the facts about the Church and filter out the garbage.

 

[meandean]

Hey meandean,

I addressed that queen of heaven in a previous post, and why I thought it was acceptable to grant the title to Mary by using an example from one of Christ’s choosings. Please see post #289. It was only the first part of my response, the second part is in post #290
.

hey prodigal1, i was checking out your post and i need to know who is the bride of christ? now you have mary on the throne with jesus right? i wanna make sure i read that right.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

hey prodigal1, i was checking out your post and i need to know who is the bride of christ? now you have mary on the throne with jesus right? i wanna make sure i read that right.

The Church is the bride of Christ.

 

[meandean]

The Church is the bride of Christ.

is mary ever referred to being the church?

 

[Jamison97]

Indeed! If we can move closer to the Blessed Virgin, we can come closer to Christ Our Lord.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

hey prodigal1, i was checking out your post and i need to know who is the bride of christ? now you have mary on the throne with jesus right? i wanna make sure i read that right.

In Old Testament Israel the mother of the king became the Queen Mother. This was started by king Solomon, who sat upon the Davidic throne, established by God.

1Ki 2:19 Then Bethsabee came to king Solomon, to speak to him for Adonias: and the king arose to meet her, and bowed to her, and sat down upon his throne: and a throne was set for the king’s mother, and she sat on his right hand.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

is mary ever referred to being the church?

Rev 12:1 And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.
Rev 12:2 And being with child, she cried travailing in birth: and was in pain to be delivered.
Rev 12:3 And there was seen another sign in heaven. And behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns and on his heads seven diadems.
Rev 12:4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven and cast them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to be delivered: that, when she should be delivered, he might devour her son.
Rev 12:5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with an iron rod. And her son was taken up to God and to his throne.

Haydock Commentary:

Rev 12:1 A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet. By this woman, interpreters commonly understand the Church of Christ, shining with the light of faith, under the protection of the sun of justice, Jesus Christ. The moon, the Church, hath all changeable things of this world under her feet, the affections of the faithful being raised above them all. — A woman: the Church of God. It may also, by allusion, be applied to our blessed Lady [the Virgin Mary]. The Church is clothed with the sun, that is, with Christ: she hath the moon, that is, the changeable things of the world, under her feet; and the twelve stars with which she is crowned, are the twelve apostles: she is in labour and pain, whilst she brings forth her children, and Christ in them, in the midst of afflictions and persecutions. (Challoner) — On her head…twelve stars, her doctrine being delivered by the twelve apostles and their successors. (Witham)