Question About Mary ??

[kujo313]

Funnily enough Paul wasn’t either - AND YET he interceded for people, he claimed to have saved people (secondarily though - remember ‘I became all things to all men that by all means I [Paul] might save some’) and rejoiced in the fact that God saved them (partly) through him [Paul]! He spoke of being victorious and receiving an imperishable crown in heaven.

In fact Christ himself promised the Apostles (probably including Paul) that they would JUDGE the twelve tribes of Israel!

Christ doesn’t whine like a schoolboy when all the attention and all the spotlight isn’t on him - unlike you! HE washed the feet of His apostles and called himself ‘last of all and servant of all’ and ‘meek and humble of heart’ and HE even in heaven is a LAMB!

Actually, Paul almost died more than once for the sake of the Gospel. But you don’t see any religion having statues, paintings, prayer beads, or prayers to Paul.
Yet, you’re gonna say “but his mom…!” or “HOW can you talk about his mom that way?”
Actually, Christ DIED for our attention! How can you give it to anybody else?

 

[LilyM]

Actually, Paul almost died more than once for the sake of the Gospel. But you don’t see any religion having statues, paintings, prayer beads, or prayers to Paul.
Yet, you’re gonna say “but his mom…!” or “HOW can you talk about his mom that way?”
Actually, Christ DIED for our attention! How can you give it to anybody else?

Christ died for our attention? How can you even imply such a thing! You think anyone would have themselves nailed to a cross to get attention? :bigyikes: :dts:

He did it to SAVE OUR SOULS, out of pure self-giving love. Not an ounce of thought of self in it. And I’d bet he did not care a bit who was or wasn’t there to see it or to pay attention to him. Actually most of the Apostles WEREN’T there to see it.

 

[kujo313]

Why do you hate Mary so much?

kujo disapproves of his earthly mother, he disrespects her faith practice and her witness (or better, lack thereof in her case). He has weighed her in the balance, and found her wanting. I think Mary is just getting some of the fallout. He is also angry with her for misleading him by raising him Catholic, because the truth of Christ was not revealed to him until he left the Church.

My mother was almost a nun. she got saved after my dad died. The “Truth” was revealed to me but not in the Catholic religion. The RCC is like being a drone: repeating the same stuff every mass. No relationship with Jesus but repeating the same stuff. I can still recite the things from memory, but there’s no heart into it.
Then there’s rosaries and scapulars. Mary was standing in the background. She did not attract attention to herself. It’s all about Jesus, nobody else. The RCC has put her to a spiritual level that Mary never wanted or was put there by Jesus or His disciples.

 

[kujo313]

{Guanophore}
If it bothers you to spotlight the Mother of God, don’t do it. But it is unwise to berate and accuse those that do.

If you have been adopted by the Father, and grafted into the Promise of God, then Jesus is your brother, and Mary is your adopted mother.

Again, only John took Mary as his “mother”. Nowhere else does it record that any other disciple did it, too. (shrug)
God is called our “Father” in order to show us the relationship HE wants with us. We’re made in the image of God and so we need to reflect HIM. God came to earth to die for us so we can be one with HIM.
It wasn’t meant for mankind to say “mother” when Jesus first said “Our Father”.
Mary, nor anybody else in the NT, ever exploited the “Mother of God” title, neither should anybody.

It’s all about getting to God from here and Jesus is our only Way.

 

[kujo313]

You are right that it is risky to go outside scripture. That is why it is so important to have Apostolic Guidance. Not all the Apostolic teachings are in the scripture, and the scripture itself testifies to this. They are not meant to be separated from each other.

Ok, supposed that some 2nd century guy writes something and mentions one of the disciples. You cannot say that it was “handed down” by that disciple or if the guy wrote it himself. The only true origin is the Bible. That’s tried and true.

 

[kujo313]

Just my opinion,
but I honestly think it’s time we ALL stopped responding to Kujo’s insulting posts. He has more than proven that he is a malicious blasphemer and a self-righteous slanderer who is here on these forums to insult and degrade rather than dialogue.

Christians are under no obligation to continue in such endless disputes with such malicious souls.

Those of you who continue to do so,
are casting your pearls before swine,
and Jesus said not to do that.

God bless you,
In Christ Jesus,
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+

Only blapheming your goddess. If it insults you, then I worry about your Salvation and I’ll just stay here and posting more posts.

 

[Randy_Carson]

“Mother of God” This is what happens when you yank verses not in the Bible.

The Word of God says that God is no respecter of persons.

He obviously respects their free will, however.

During the first few centuries of the growth of the Church, there arose three Christological heresies which bear on the issue of the divine maternity. Docetism (110 A.D.), while acknowledging the divinity of Christ, rejected the reality of his human nature. Arianism (320 A.D.), on the other hand, accepted Jesus’ humanity but denied that he was the Son of God, the Second Person of the Trinity. Both of these heresies repudiated the dual nature of Christ and the mystery of the Incarnation. If Docetism was correct, Mary could not be called the Mother of God, since she would not be the mother of God the Son incarnate. If Arianism were true, Jesus was not divine, and Mary could not be considered the mother of God. At the First Council of Nicaea (325 A.D.), the first ecumenical council convened by the Church, both of these positions were condemned, and the reality of Jesus as true God and true man infallibly defined. The consequent document is known as the Nicene Creed.

After Nicaea a third Christological heresy arose, called Nestorianism (428 A.D.), which proposed two persons in Christ, rather than two natures in one person. Mary would then be the mother of the human person of Christ only, and therefore not the mother of God. Nestorianism was condemned by the third ecumenical council, held in Ephesus (431 A.D.). In substance, the council infallibly declared that Jesus was “according to his divinity, born of the Father before all ages, and in these last days, according to his humanity, born of the Virgin Mary for us and for our salvation . . . A union was made of the two natures . . . In accord with this understanding of the unconfused union we confess that the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God (, God-Bearer), through God the Word’s being incarnate and becoming man, and, from this conception, His joining to Himself the temple assumed from her.” The foregoing statement is taken from a letter of St. Cyril, bishop of Alexandria (444 A.D.), who presided over the Council of Ephesus. It is known as the “Creed of Union” or the “Creed of Ephesus.”

ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/FR90203.HTM

Since you deny that Mary is the Mother of God and is the Mother of his human nature only, which brand of heresy are you guilty of?

 

[Randy_Carson]

It doesn’t matter whether it dogmatic. Your RCC teaches such blasphemy. That is a false gospel and you know it. You should also know what happens to those who preach a false gospel and it ain’t pretty.

I’ve just done a word search of the terms “scapular” and “brown scapular” and find nothing in the Catechism of the Catholic Church concerning these private devotions that tells me I must believe in them.

Please do not misrepresent the teaching of the Catholic Church.

 

[Randy_Carson]

God cannot be divided as you claim. If Mary is the mother of God then she is mother of the Trinity.

You are correct.

God cannot be divided. Jesus is God and He cannot be divided, either.

It is PRECISELY for this reason that the Fathers of the Church declared Mary to be the Mother of God.

This protects the true understanding of who Jesus is.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[Randy_Carson]

T or F? “whosoever dies wearing this scapular shall not suffer eternal fire”

Believers-

True or False:

1. The Brown Scapular of Our Lady of Mt. Carmel is a PRIVATE DEVOTION.
2. The statement, “Whoever dies wearing this scapular shall not suffer eternal fire” comes from this private devotion and not from any official Church document or Catechism.
3. Catholics are not obligated to practice or believe any private devotion.

I’ll watch for your “true” or “false” answers.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Jesus = Living Bread = Flesh (Jn 6:51)
Flesh = Meat (Jn 6:55)
Meat = Work of God (Jn 6:27, 4:34)
Work of God = Believe on Jesus (Jn 6:28-29)
Believe on Jesus = Have everlasting life (Jn 6:40)

True or False?

1. The context of John 4 and John 6 from your tautology are different.
2. The Greek words for flesh and meat in John 4 and John 6 are different.

I will look for your response.

 

[guanophore]

Actually, Paul almost died more than once for the sake of the Gospel. But you don’t see any religion having statues, paintings, prayer beads, or prayers to Paul.
Yet, you’re gonna say “but his mom…!” or “HOW can you talk about his mom that way?”
Actually, Christ DIED for our attention! How can you give it to anybody else?

It is not like a choice between the two, kujo. We have feast days for Paul and other Saints too. We honor all who have gone before us, marked with the sign of faith. We consider ourselves members one of another, all joined to Christ, who is our head. Shall the hand say to the foot, you are not Christ, so I will not give you any attention? Should the elbow say to the womb, I have no need of you?

 

[guanophore]

My mother was almost a nun. she got saved after my dad died. The “Truth” was revealed to me but not in the Catholic religion. The RCC is like being a drone: repeating the same stuff every mass. No relationship with Jesus but repeating the same stuff. I can still recite the things from memory, but there’s no heart into it.
Then there’s rosaries and scapulars. Mary was standing in the background. She did not attract attention to herself. It’s all about Jesus, nobody else. The RCC has put her to a spiritual level that Mary never wanted or was put there by Jesus or His disciples.

It is sad that you had a “drone” experience of Catholicism. I did myself as well. It has only been more recently that I left fundamental pentacostalism and returned to the Sacraments.

Do you disrespect your mother for wanting to to be a nun, then, is that why you are so hateful about mothering? The RCC did no exalt Mary, God did that when He chose her. When you look in the book of Revelation, you can see an image of how she appears in the heavenly realm.

 

[guanophore]

Again, only John took Mary as his “mother”. Nowhere else does it record that any other disciple did it, too. (shrug)
God is called our “Father” in order to show us the relationship HE wants with us. We’re made in the image of God and so we need to reflect HIM. God came to earth to die for us so we can be one with HIM.
It wasn’t meant for mankind to say “mother” when Jesus first said “Our Father”.
Mary, nor anybody else in the NT, ever exploited the “Mother of God” title, neither should anybody.

It’s all about getting to God from here and Jesus is our only Way.

Yes, Jesus is our only way to the Father, in Him is found eternal life. We can follow in the footsteps of many who have gone before us. No one is “exploiting” the Theotokos.

God’s reflection can be seen in both male and female. Gen 1:26-27
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them."

He chose both to represent His image.

Scripture teaches us that we are all members one of another, and members of the same family. If you refuse to adopt us, kujo, are you really a member of Christ’s body? If you refuse to accept His mother as your mother, are you really his brother?

Mark 10:29-31
"Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or lands, for my sake and for the gospel, 30 who will not receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions, and in the age to come eternal life.

Ok, supposed that some 2nd century guy writes something and mentions one of the disciples. You cannot say that it was “handed down” by that disciple or if the guy wrote it himself. The only true origin is the Bible. That’s tried and true.

I think you are forgetting that the canon was not closed yet in the 2nd century. ALL the writings were “some guy”. Some were determined to be inspired, some were not. There are just as many tests applied to Apostolic Teaching and the writings of the early fathers as there are to the scripture. If you can trust the Church to determine which books can go in your bible, how can you not trust her accuracy in matters of faith and morals? it is a mystery to me, and off topic in this thread.

Only blapheming your goddess. If it insults you, then I worry about your Salvation and I’ll just stay here and posting more posts.

I think not, kujo. I think making insulting comments about our faith is a violation of the forum rules. If you keep it up, you will probably get yourself banned.

 

[Allweather]

Ok, supposed that some 2nd century guy writes something and mentions one of the disciples. You cannot say that it was “handed down” by that disciple or if the guy wrote it himself. The only true origin is the Bible. That’s tried and true.

The Bible is true and correct in every jot an tittle. But Kujo’s private interpretations are not. It is very evident that Kujo has seriously defective interpretations of the Bible, and therein lie his errors regarding Mary.

I hope Kujo doesn’t get banned before he gets a chance to answer the question posed to him in #528 of this thread, which restated is: Where does Kujo get his authority as an infallible interpreter of Scripture?

And another: If Kujo is an infallible Scripture interpreter, then can I also be an infallible interpreter? And if so, why would Kujo’s infallible interpretations be better than mine?

 

[Stephen_C]

Only blapheming your goddess. If it insults you, then I worry about your Salvation and I’ll just stay here and posting more posts.

You see this is what really gets my goat. She is not a Goddess, She is not God. We Catholics do not see her as one. I could care less right now what you really think. You are so full of hate towards the Catholic Church…and it really shows. Shines right through every post you make. I don’t have a problem if you disagree with us but…but you keep disagreeing with what we do not believe or teach. We tell you what we believe…you say no that is not what you believe…this is what you believe…It kinda of a circle thing…

 

[Church_Militant]

Only blapheming your goddess. If it insults you, then I worry about your Salvation and I’ll just stay here and posting more posts.

Hello…what part of “Hey! Catholicism does not teach that Mary is a Goddess” do you not comprehend?

If you can prove that the Catholic Church really does teach that then perhaps we might have a problem, but since you cannot, (because I already know that that is not the case) all you are doing is talking out your hat.

Furthermore, the forum rules that you agreed to when you joined us here do indeed specify

CONDUCT RULES

1. Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of personal attacks, threats, and crude or sexually-explicit language, rude comments and innuendo.
2. Do not use abbreviated terms such as “Prots” or “radtrad” etc. that may be offensive to the group to which they refer. Full names are best.
3. Do not use character substitutions in proper names, such as “Amerikkkans” or “Demonrats” or “Repubicans” etc.
4. Inappropriate or offensive graphics, links, or profile entries are not permitted.
5. Messages should be short. Do not post lengthy replies (especially replies that consist largely of quotes from an earlier message).
6. Do not view the discussion area as a vehicle for single-mindedly promoting an agenda.
   7. Non-Catholics are welcome to participate but must be respectful of the faith of the Catholics participating on the board.

So… if you think that being offensive and rude is an appropriate form of “witnessing” then I suggest that you have not shown us Christ-like love in your posts. I personally do not respond well to that kind of “evangelism” because it smacks of too much of the individual’s carnal ego and too little of the Lord Jesus Christ and I can get that from any unbeliever anywhere along the way.

Maybe you should rethink your posting style here at CAF and perhaps even your style of “witnessing” in general. The Word of God does say that “he who wins souls is wise”, (Proverbs 11:30) but that path to wisdom is certainly derailed by egotistical and offensive rhetoric.

 

[kujo313]

Denomination means division and that title is granted exclusively to those who decided their understanding of Scripture is THE ONLY correct one and started a new church. Seems to me you’ve made quite the idol of your intellect and your own denomination’s interpretation of Scripture.

Hey! You just described the RCC! If you want to know what a TRUE Church is, try going to

ATrueChurch.com

Thank you for looking into the mirror and describing yourself.

 

[kujo313]

He obviously respects their free will, however.

During the first few centuries of the growth of the Church, there arose three Christological heresies which bear on the issue of the divine maternity. Docetism (110 A.D.), while acknowledging the divinity of Christ, rejected the reality of his human nature. Arianism (320 A.D.), on the other hand, accepted Jesus’ humanity but denied that he was the Son of God, the Second Person of the Trinity. Both of these heresies repudiated the dual nature of Christ and the mystery of the Incarnation. If Docetism was correct, Mary could not be called the Mother of God, since she would not be the mother of God the Son incarnate. If Arianism were true, Jesus was not divine, and Mary could not be considered the mother of God. At the First Council of Nicaea (325 A.D.), the first ecumenical council convened by the Church, both of these positions were condemned, and the reality of Jesus as true God and true man infallibly defined. The consequent document is known as the Nicene Creed.

After Nicaea a third Christological heresy arose, called Nestorianism (428 A.D.), which proposed two persons in Christ, rather than two natures in one person. Mary would then be the mother of the human person of Christ only, and therefore not the mother of God. Nestorianism was condemned by the third ecumenical council, held in Ephesus (431 A.D.). In substance, the council infallibly declared that Jesus was “according to his divinity, born of the Father before all ages, and in these last days, according to his humanity, born of the Virgin Mary for us and for our salvation . . . A union was made of the two natures . . . In accord with this understanding of the unconfused union we confess that the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God (, God-Bearer), through God the Word’s being incarnate and becoming man, and, from this conception, His joining to Himself the temple assumed from her.” The foregoing statement is taken from a letter of St. Cyril, bishop of Alexandria (444 A.D.), who presided over the Council of Ephesus. It is known as the “Creed of Union” or the “Creed of Ephesus.”

ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/FR90203.HTM

Since you deny that Mary is the Mother of God and is the Mother of his human nature only, which brand of heresy are you guilty of?

So you have to go all the way to the year 444 A.D. to quote people? Let’s just stick to the years 6 B.C. to about 33 A.D. Maybe even another 30 years afterward. From 2nd Century and beyond the people who wrote stuff couldn’t ask the origional witnesses if it was true or not.

 

[kujo313]

Hello…what part of “Hey! Catholicism does not teach that Mary is a Goddess” do you not comprehend?

If you can prove that the Catholic Church really does teach that then perhaps we might have a problem, but since you cannot, (because I already know that that is not the case) all you are doing is talking out your hat.

FONT]

First of all, even if I DID prove it without a shadow of a doubt, you’d still not believe it. Even if it was proven that your denomination’s beliefs and traditions was off, you’d make up something anyway.

angelfire.com/realm2/amethystbt/MaryIsis.html

Yep, farfetched:

In the Book of the Dead Isis was described as:

She who gives birth to heaven and earth,
She who knows the orphan,

She who seeks justice for the poor people,
She who seeks shelter for the weak people

Some of Isis’ many other titles were:

Queen of Heaven,
Mother of the Gods,
The One Who is All,
The Brilliant One in the Sky,
Light-Giver of Heaven,

I see the catholic religion as saying to the people “hey, we have that, too”.
Isis followers, Lutherans, etc.
To Isis followers, the RCCs “Mary” is too similiar in many ways. To Luther, the RCC said “ok, we won’t sell indulgences.”

ANYTHING to get people back. Lately, it seems that the RCC is experiencing Pentecost. Why? To get the Pentecostals?

God is an unchanging God. Mankind bends the rules instead of simply preaching the Gospel.