Questions on Mary from Protestant 101

[Protestant101]

Howdy David - SS would be ‘Sola Scriptura’ :yup:

OK! Now I get it! Thanks. I can be a little “slow” at the end of the day!

 

[Protestant101]

pedja;2125668:

Adventists follow the teachings of Ellen White?! I´m SDA, I follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. I dont know one Adventist who´s following the teachings of EGW. What in the world are you talking about?!QUOTE]

If Adventists do not follow the teachings of Ellen White, why does the Adventist Church publish the Clear Word Bible?

ratzlaf.com/4-17-01%20Deliberate%20Distortions%20in%20SDA.pdf

The Clear Word is published by Southern College Press at Southern Adventist College which is owned and operated by the Seventh-day Adventist Church. It was originally published with the title The Clear Word Bible but is now called The Clear Word with the dropping of the word Bible.

Sincerely,

Maria1212

It is quite typical of Dale to characterize Adventists like this; but it should be duly noted that he has a “ministry” publicly declared to have the sole purpose of attacking the Adventist Church. That alone should be a red flag for Catholics and Protestants. Of course; Dale calls it “reaching out” but many other Christians, including non-Adventists call it other things. Dale’s many pages of diatribe do not worry me much . I know that most Christians I talk to about outfits like his do not enjoy his type of ministry. Dale does a lot of whining. He refuses to give me answers to questions when I ask him for references and documentation. That kind of “ministry” is not hard to figure. And yes; I have his books.

To clarify though, on our use of Ellen G White; I think that many Catholics would enjoy what she has written about Mary in some of her books and writings. If something Ellen White has written about Mary is not Biblical; perhaps we could address that in this thread? I used to sell our Bible books door to door, and I sold many copies of Desire Of Ages to many Catholics. I received no complaints from Catholics about this book. There are some lovely sections in this book about Mary. Her special devotion to her Son is remarkable, and Ellen White’s writings bring this out in a very readable, and Biblical way

I think that some could stand to lighten up on their tirades and cliche’s about Adventists “following Ellen G White.” What we do with her writings is similar to what Catholics do with the Pope’s writings. While it is not always official doctrine; we do accept the concepts written, when they have been compared to the Bible, and proven by the Bible.

 

[LilyM]

OK! Now I get it! Thanks. I can be a little “slow” at the end of the day!

No worries :tiphat: happens to the best of us.

 

[CherryBomb]

I think the whole point of SS/sola scriptura is that they reject tradition as having any authority. Some might use some things that come from tradition, but it’s not considered valid or anywhere near equal to Scripture. So with that in mind, I think what I said stands- if you’re not a SS protestant, it wouldn’t apply

 

[Protestant101]

I think the whole point of SS/sola scriptura is that they reject tradition as having any authority. Some might use some things that come from tradition, but it’s not considered valid or anywhere near equal to Scripture. So with that in mind, I think what I said stands- if you’re not a SS protestant, it wouldn’t apply

No. That’s not the whole point of Sola Scriptura. This is what I was trying to address in my last post. As I was saying; there are two brands of “Tradition” mentioned in the Bible, and the Bible is clear in condemning one kind; and supporting the other. This is a point which must be acknowledged, because that’s how the Bible says it.

You seem to be only referencing “Tradition” from the kind which SS Protestants see as condemned by the Bible. The Bible only supports the kind of Tradition which does not contradict the Bible, nor which adds things which are not in the Bible. “Tradition” as in the kind the Bible supports, is simply one of God’s ways to portray already existing truths; not to cook up new ones. Biblical Tradition, is not in and of itself a doctrine; rather it is a way to illustrate or symbolize a doctrine. The Bible does this most remarkably within the context of the OT sanctuary service; and within the context of the OT Exodus Movement. (for two examples of many).

I would be interested to see you provide us with a short list of official Catholic “Traditions” which you feel illustrate the Biblical principle of symbolizing an already established Bible truth. This list would be a good point for discussion.

 

[Yerusalyim]

P101…ya gotta remember…the Sacred Traditions we speak of existed BEFORE the bible…in fact, it was these very SACRED TRADITIONS that were used to judge which works were worthy of being included in the Canon of Scripture…the CHURCH defined Scripture…Scripture does not define Church…THE CHURCH is the pillar and foundation of truth…

But…Catholicism does not contradict scripture.

Back to what I THOUGHT was the original question at hand…Marian Apparitions…The Church doesn’t ever declare a vision of Mary “bonafide”…the most it will ever say is that it is “worthy of belief” no Catholic is required to believe ANY Marian Apparition…and all apparitions are declared PRIVATE revelations.

 

[Protestant101]

P101…ya gotta remember…the Sacred Traditions we speak of existed BEFORE the bible…in fact, it was these very SACRED TRADITIONS that were used to judge which works were worthy of being included in the Canon of Scripture…the CHURCH defined Scripture…Scripture does not define Church…THE CHURCH is the pillar and foundation of truth…

The Bible has always existed; either in oral form, or in written form, more recently. The oral form was not tradition; it was Scripture. With Catholic theology and doctrine; things other than Scripture have crept into the oral scripture to make what they call “Tradition,” so that it is the Bible, plus other stuff.

I would add to that the Bible most certainly does define the Church:

1Ti 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

The truth referred to is the Bible. Whether you speak it or read it, you must still call it the Bible; for the two forms thereof are interchangeable. Tradition is also defined in the Bible in two ways. One way is condemned, the other supported. The Tradition which is supported in the Bible is simply various things that symbolize already known truths, such as the sanctuary service, the exodus movement, etc.

I wonder if you or others are trying to say that some parts of Catholic beliefs re Mary are “Tradition?” If so, we still have lots to talk about for sure.

 

[MarysRoses]

It is quite typical of Dale to characterize Adventists like this; but it should be duly noted that he has a “ministry” publicly declared to have the sole purpose of attacking the Adventist Church. That alone should be a red flag for Catholics and Protestants. Of course; Dale calls it “reaching out” but many other Christians, including non-Adventists call it other things. Dale’s many pages of diatribe do not worry me much . I know that most Christians I talk to about outfits like his do not enjoy his type of ministry. Dale does a lot of whining. He refuses to give me answers to questions when I ask him for references and documentation. That kind of “ministry” is not hard to figure. And yes; I have his books.

I respect Dale Ratzlaf, I don’t find him “whining” at all. Your characterization of him and his ministry was a deflection from the real point however, that you did not address. The Clear Word does exist. Originally called the Clear Word Bible, it was reissued as just ‘Clear Word’. It is sold in Adventist Book Centers and on the Review and Herald website. While many claim it is just a devotional book, not a bible when challenged, the reality is that many Adventists are using it as a bible. I have personally been in sabbath school studies where many are using the Clear Word edition and even reading from it as scripture without qualification.
The Clear Word contains the teachings and even wording of Ellen white incorporated into the original text without distinction between the original text and the changed/added wording.

To clarify though, on our use of Ellen G White; I think that many Catholics would enjoy what she has written about Mary in some of her books and writings. If something Ellen White has written about Mary is not Biblical; perhaps we could address that in this thread? I used to sell our Bible books door to door, and I sold many copies of Desire Of Ages to many Catholics. I received no complaints from Catholics about this book. There are some lovely sections in this book about Mary. Her special devotion to her Son is remarkable, and Ellen White’s writings bring this out in a very readable, and Biblical way

Ellen White copied (or plagarized) much of the Desire of Ages from other authors. Even the White Estate, caretaker of her writings, has had to admit to this extensive ‘copying’. If Ellen White is not important to Adventist teachings, why should we care what she wrote or copied? As historical fiction, the book is interesting. I doubt seriously any Catholic buyers read the book as inspired writing, if they read it at all. Those big colorful editions sold along with the big blue set of ‘Bible Story’ books often sit on shelves for appearance rather than study.

I think that some could stand to lighten up on their tirades and cliche’s about Adventists “following Ellen G White.” What we do with her writings is similar to what Catholics do with the Pope’s writings. While it is not always official doctrine; we do accept the concepts written, when they have been compared to the Bible, and proven by the Bible.

If Adventists don’t follow Ellen White, why is the “Spirit of Prophecy” part of the statements of fundamental beliefs? Why are her books so widely distributed and quoted? Why are so many resources devoted to defending and interpreting her writings? Would there be an Adventist denomination without Ellen White?

If Adventists don’t need Ellen White why this quote reviewing a new book about EGW? This is from the Ellen White Estate, which proudly carries the heading on their website 'The OFFICIAL Ellen G. White website" (Capitals theirs!).

“The book expresses the view that prophets in the New Testament and beyond generally carry less authority than Old Testament prophets, and that the individual and/or congregation must separate the wheat from the chaff in the messages even of genuine prophets. Such a view confirms people in the human tendency to accept what they like in inspired writings and to reject as “chaff” the things with which they disagree.”

“While the White Estate staff recognizes that Ellen White was fallible and subject to human frailties—not unlike the biblical prophets—we maintain that certain positions taken in the book do not fairly reflect the understanding of Ellen White and her associates regarding her prophetic ministry, and fail to represent fully Ellen White’s prophetic contributions to the Seventh-day Adventist Church.”

whiteestate.org/issues/more-prophet.asp

Continued in the next post…

 

[MarysRoses]

…Continued from previous post

So if I understand your post, We shouldn’t think Adventists follow EGW, but we should check out Ellen’s opinions about Mary in her books. I have no doubt her descriptions agree with your interpretation of scripture, but I still do not see any compelling reason to accept your interpretation of scripture, or hers for that matter. Like all such discussions, it comes down to a question of authority. I’m not even making this statement in a spirit of “my authority is correct and yours is not.” Its a simple statement of fact, we all have various things influencing our personal views and biases, and we all make choices about what we accept as authoritative in our beliefs.

I respect those who say they follow the bible only, even though personally I recognize the role of Sacred Tradition which compliments and reinforces (not contradicts) Sacred Scripture.

But if the Bible text itself contains cultural elements, as most of us agree that it does (language, customs, ideas from the period of time in which it was written), how can we say our interpretation of it is culture and bias free?

I don’t think Jesus meant for his Gospel to be a puzzle, difficult to figure out, with salvation as a ‘prize’ for those who get it right.

Figuring out the “right” day to worship on doesn’t save us. Neither will figuring out the “right” set of “biblical” doctrines regarding Mary either.

The real question is do these things bring us to Christ, or lead us away? So many things, even true things, can be made into distractions instead of assets in our spiritual life.

MarysRoses

 

[Protestant101]

Dear MarysRoses

You have raised atleast 3 other issues that have nothing to do with Mary. I am not sure why you choose to attack the Adventist Church, Ellen White; etc., in a thread which I thought was “Questions ON Mary.”

If there was any “deflection” perceived in my last post, I apologize, as it was not intended to be that. I am trying to keep the focus on things regarding Mary.

Quite frankly, your cliches about The Clear Word, or about Ellen G White are just that. I, for one, have never used The Clear Word, or Ellen White’s writings on this forum; and I have been with you guys for over a year. I was even on the old forum that was hacked. So I am not just pretending here. You need to note that I am not the slightest bit intimidated by all you post from anti-adventist cult sites. I have seen it all so many times; that it really has very little effect on me. I would prefer to continue discussing Catholic Doctrines, not Dale’s doctrines.

I suggested that interested forum members might want to check out what Ellen White says with the sincere desire to further the discussion on Mary. The repeated points from Dale, which you keep bringing up, in almost all topics that I post in are barely worth addressing in my mind. I see no need to address his “message” any further on this Catholic Forum.

As I said; Adventists follow the teachings of Ellen White, as we also do with others, when the said teachings are proven correct by the Bible.

Perhaps we can examine some things Ellen White has stated about Mary? Dale doesn’t talk much about things like that; but this thread is about Mary, so I will post something that Mrs White has said about Mary, and invite discussion.

From the book, Desire Of Ages, we read

"As the eyes of Jesus wandered over the multitude about Him, one figure arrested His attention. At the foot of the cross stood His mother, supported by the disciple John. She could not endure to remain away from her Son; and John, knowing that the end was near, had brought her again to the cross. In His dying hour, Christ remembered His mother. Looking into her grief-stricken face and then upon John, He said to her, “Woman, behold thy son!” then to John, “Behold thy mother!” John understood Christ’s words, and accepted the trust. He at once took Mary to his home, and from that hour cared for her tenderly. O pitiful, loving Saviour; amid all His physical pain and mental anguish, He had a thoughtful care for His mother! He had no money with which to provide for her comfort; but He was enshrined in the heart of John, and He gave His mother to him as a precious legacy. Thus He provided for her that which she most needed,–the tender sympathy of one who loved her because she loved Jesus. And in receiving her as a sacred trust, John was receiving a great blessing. She was a constant reminder of his beloved Master.

The perfect example of Christ’s filial love shines forth with undimmed luster from the mist of ages. For nearly thirty years Jesus by His daily toil had helped bear the burdens of the home. And now, even in His last agony, He remembers to provide for His sorrowing, widowed mother. The same spirit will be seen in every disciple of our Lord. Those who follow Christ will feel that it is a part of their religion to respect and provide for their parents. From the heart where His love is cherished, father and mother will never fail of receiving thoughtful care and tender sympathy." (pg.752).

You can download a number of Ellen White’s books here, including Desire Of Ages.

 

[MarysRoses]

You are saying Ellen G. White and her role in Adventist teachings are not pertinent to the discussion, then you are posting quotes and links to her books. People should know something about the source of what they are reading, or is it your intention to keep them in the dark?

Ellen G. White copied large amounts of her writings from the works of other authors. She claimed divine inspiration for these copied works. Adventists use her writings for study, devotional reading, and guidance in doctrine. She is quoted in books, sermons, church manuals and sabbath school quarterlies. Her prophetic role is one of the fundamental beliefs of the Adventist Church as listed on their official home page. You refer to other writers as having the same influence in the Adventist Church. I’d like you to list them, I did miss out on that as an Adventist.

As far as the passages you pasted, those who can wade through the overwrought Victorian prose without gagging, will note that her interpretation of Jesus’s words from the cross do not reflect the understanding of both the Eastern and Western Church theologians. Why is her opinion of greater weight than theirs?

And thats all it is, her opinion/interpretation (or the interpretation of the original author anyway). You have not established any reason we should accept her authority. What she has to say about Mary is unoriginal and contrary to catholic teaching.

MarysRoses

 

[Protestant101]

You are saying Ellen G. White and her role in Adventist teachings are not pertinent to the discussion, then you are posting quotes and links to her books. People should know something about the source of what they are reading, or is it your intention to keep them in the dark?

Ellen G. White copied large amounts of her writings from the works of other authors. She claimed divine inspiration for these copied works. Adventists use her writings for study, devotional reading, and guidance in doctrine. She is quoted in books, sermons, church manuals and sabbath school quarterlies. Her prophetic role is one of the fundamental beliefs of the Adventist Church as listed on their official home page. You refer to other writers as having the same influence in the Adventist Church. I’d like you to list them, I did miss out on that as an Adventist.

As far as the passages you pasted, those who can wade through the overwrought Victorian prose without gagging, will note that her interpretation of Jesus’s words from the cross do not reflect the understanding of both the Eastern and Western Church theologians. Why is her opinion of greater weight than theirs?

And thats all it is, her opinion/interpretation (or the interpretation of the original author anyway). You have not established any reason we should accept her authority. What she has to say about Mary is unoriginal and contrary to Catholic teaching.

MarysRoses

Of course; you are most welcome to your agenda here; but I see no need to address much of what you are saying.

I am trying to say that this discussion can take place just fine using only the Bible; and I posted the above to show that Ellen White does use the Bible to back up her writings about Mary. I have learned much about what the Bible has to say about Mary by reading the book desire of Ages; and I guess I would say to you or to anyone who wants to question that; try reading it for yourself. If there is something not Biblical about Mary in this book, then I will be glad to discuss it here.

You have not yet stated just what it is in the above quote I gave from Desire of Ages that “does not agree with Catholic Teachings.” All you did was to characterize it as “Victorian Prose,” and take a pot-shot at it by saying it makes you gag. What kind of gospel is that? If you have the truth; then please share that. I am interested.

I do want to mention re Mary; that she is not the only one in the Bible that is called “blessed.”

 

[MarysRoses]

Of course; you are most welcome to your agenda here; but I see no need to address much of what you are saying.

I am trying to say that this discussion can take place just fine using only the Bible; and I posted the above to show that Ellen White does use the Bible to back up her writings about Mary. I have learned much about what the Bible has to say about Mary by reading the book desire of Ages; and I guess I would say to you or to anyone who wants to question that; try reading it for yourself. If there is something not Biblical about Mary in this book, then I will be glad to discuss it here.

You have not yet stated just what it is in the above quote I gave from Desire of Ages that “does not agree with Catholic Teachings.” All you did was to characterize it as “Victorian Prose,” and take a pot-shot at it by saying it makes you gag. What kind of gospel is that? If you have the truth; then please share that. I am interested.

I do want to mention re Mary; that she is not the only one in the Bible that is called “blessed.”

 

[MarysRoses]

Of course; you are most welcome to your agenda here; but I see no need to address much of what you are saying.

The topic of this thread was amply covered on both sides in the first few dozen posts. I’m pointing out YOUR agenda, which is to change the purpose of the thread from discussing what Catholics believe about Mary, to what you think Catholic SHOULD believe about Mary.

I am trying to say that this discussion can take place just fine using only the Bible; and I posted the above to show that Ellen White does use the Bible to back up her writings about Mary. I have learned much about what the Bible has to say about Mary by reading the book desire of Ages; and I guess I would say to you or to anyone who wants to question that; try reading it for yourself. If there is something not Biblical about Mary in this book, then I will be glad to discuss it here.

This conversation cannot take place using your definition of “only the Bible” because that is something on which we do not agree. Not in content or in how that content should be interpreted. Of course your interpretation agrees with Ellen White, that is not surprising. What I’ve been trying to point out is how her views influence yours, and that as Catholics, we have different sources influencing our interpretations. Without agreement on authority, there can be no agreement on interpretation.

You have not yet stated just what it is in the above quote I gave from Desire of Ages that “does not agree with Catholic Teachings.” All you did was to characterize it as “Victorian Prose,” and take a pot-shot at it by saying it makes you gag. What kind of gospel is that? If you have the truth; then please share that. I am interested.

I find much of Ellen Whites writings syrupy and emotional, which if you read Victorian era fiction, was a common writing style of the time. Ellen White reduces Jesus’s words on the cross to a mere domestic arrangement for his mother. Mary had relatives in Nazareth, Jesus had cousins, where was she living while he was traveling and preaching? Why would he risk her welfare by waiting until the last minute to make an arrangement for her? Catholic interpretation of those verses, is that like everything said from the cross, is that they had significance beyond the life of John and Mary, and beyond the principle, abundantly taught elsewhere in the bible, that we should care for our parents.

You are free to disagree with that interpretation, but it is just as valid as yours. My point in posting to this thread again was to show others reading the post where you are getting your teachings and influences, and they should judge for themselves if they are interested in reading her writings, and in giving her opinions more weight than hundreds of years of Christian teaching on the subject.

I do want to mention re Mary; that she is not the only one in the Bible that is called “blessed.”

No, but she is Jesus’s only mother.

 

[Protestant101]

The topic of this thread was amply covered on both sides in the first few dozen posts. I’m pointing out YOUR agenda, which is to change the purpose of the thread from discussing what Catholics believe about Mary, to what you think Catholic SHOULD believe about Mary.

The reason I am posting in this topic is that I do not feel this topic has been adequately covered. As a Protestant, I have many points in my meagre brain about what Catholics teach, which do not seem correct. My understanding was that this forum is for non-Catholics to do just what I am doing.

What you have stated about Mary in your above post, is all said by Ellen White in her writings. I only quoted a small exerpt to show that she had some views in common. She has, along with many other Protestants, some views on Mary not in common. Big deal. We are well able to discuss it like adults, I am sure.

You know, I “respect” Dale too, but people need to realize that the man is flat out wrong about Adventists. He does a lot of cheating in his “studies” by using half-quotes, false quotes, elsipses, and the like. Because of my discussions with him; I know he is wrong; for he will not supply references and documentation when I ask. If there is anything that you find he says about Adventist teachings on Mary; I will address that here in this topic for anyone interested.

I am glad that you and I agree that Mary is the only Mother of Jesus! But that does not take away from the fact that the Bible calls many others “blessed” as well.

 

[Protestant101]

You are free to disagree with that interpretation, but it is just as valid as yours. My point in posting to this thread again was to show others reading the post where you are getting your teachings and influences, and they should judge for themselves if they are interested in reading her writings, and in giving her opinions more weight than hundreds of years of Christian teaching on the subject.

Actually; it does not appear that I am “free” to post my perspectives here, without some resort to anti-Adventist cults in a desperate attempt to discredit anything and everything I say. While claiming to be a special authority on Adventists; they are in fact, not that at all. You Can Read More Here I am surprised that some Catholics use such “references” in response to anything. I wonder what the Pope would think of you using Ratzlaf to “spread the truth?”

I have yet to see any real evidence that “hundreds of years of Christian teaching” alone can constitute “truth.” Sometimes, Christians over the years have touted such “revivials” yet sin remains, we remain, and Jesus has not come yet. One has to question; does anyone know what a true spiritual revival is? Obviously “hundreds of years” does not always a truth make. People can do the wrong thing or believe the wrong thing “for hundreds of years.”

Once again, I ask you; produce one thing that Ellen White has said about Mary which is not Biblical. But explain why. Give us some evidence. What I quoted above from her is very Biblical; and if you read the last paragraph of that post, you will see what I mean.

The perfect example of Christ’s filial love shines forth with undimmed luster from the mist of ages. For nearly thirty years Jesus by His daily toil had helped bear the burdens of the home. And now, even in His last agony, He remembers to provide for His sorrowing, widowed mother. **The same spirit will be seen in every disciple of our Lord. Those who follow Christ will feel that it is a part of their religion to respect and provide for their parents. **From the heart where His love is cherished, father and mother will never fail of receiving thoughtful care and tender sympathy." (pg.752).

It is very sad to look around in our world today, and in many Churches, where the opposite actually happens in the majority of families. Ellen White actually brought up a valid point; but if you also read the rest of that passage; she brings up many more.

You appear to be questioning Jesus’ judgment in leaving “till the last moment” this matter of providing for His Mother. I don’t feel that Jesus risked anything; but, rather, I trust His judgment there. It is not just Ellen White that says this; the Bible also says it. So you are questioning both Jesus, and His Word.

Mary was truly an example for us to look to. Ellen White and the Bible are clear on this point.

 

[MarysRoses]

Actually; it does not appear that I am “free” to post my perspectives here, without some resort to anti-Adventist cults in a desperate attempt to discredit anything and everything I say. While claiming to be a special authority on Adventists; they are in fact, not that at all.

You are free to post your perspectives, you have to expect you will be challenged. Dale Ratzlaff is not my source for questioning Ellen White’s credentials as a ‘prophet’. Your own denomination has had to admit to the ‘copying’ and try to give an explanation for some of her writings that are obviously false and no longer followed. Any one can google the keywords and choose what sources they want to read and consider credible.

I have yet to see any real evidence that “hundreds of years of Christian teaching” alone can constitute “truth.” Sometimes, Christians over the years have touted such “revivials” yet sin remains, we remain, and Jesus has not come yet. One has to question; does anyone know what a true spiritual revival is? Obviously “hundreds of years” does not always a truth make. People can do the wrong thing or believe the wrong thing “for hundreds of years.”

So you are saying Jesus did not keep his promise to the Church that the gates of hell would not prevail against it? That there is no way to know who’s interpretations are correct except by subjective feelings of ‘I believe’?

**Once again, I ask you; produce one thing that Ellen White has said about Mary which is not Biblical. ** But explain why. Give us some evidence. What I quoted above from her is very Biblical; and if you read the last paragraph of that post, you will see what I mean.

It took less than five minutes to find several:

“Mary often remonstrated with Jesus, and urged Him to conform to the usages of the rabbis.”

“At times she wavered between Jesus and His brothers, who did not believe that He was the Sent of
God;…” DA pg. 90

Curious, where is this in scripture? The bible never says what Mary is thinking or what her motives were.

“Yet she would have been more than human if there had not mingled with this holy joy a trace of
the fond mother’s natural pride. As she saw the many glances bent upon Jesus, she longed to have Him
prove to the company that He was really the Honored of God. She hoped there might be opportunity for
Him to work a miracle before them.” DA pg 145

Where in the bible does it say Mary asked Jesus to do this first miracle out of pride?

“Yet Mary did not understand Christ’s mission.” DA Pg 56

Actually, there are 30 pages or more commenting on the ‘silent’ years of Jesus’s youth and childhood. A time about which scripture makes only a few words of comment. So exactly how is she being ‘biblical’? Obviously, she is drawing on extra-biblical sources, her imagination or both. You are welcome to believe her if you want to but it hardly carries the weight of scripture.

A little gem I just can’t pass up an opportunity to mention, is Ellen’s little temperance lecture which she adds to the miracle at cana story:

“The wine which Christ provided for the feast, and that which He gave to the disciples as a symbol of His own blood, was the pure juice of the grape.”

Pure supposition on her part and in contradiction to the context of the story.

It is very sad to look around in our world today, and in many Churches, where the opposite actually happens in the majority of families. Ellen White actually brought up a valid point; but if you also read the rest of that passage; she brings up many more.

I don’t question we are obligated to our parents, I question her interpretation of that passage. I still do.

You appear to be questioning Jesus’ judgment in leaving “till the last moment” this matter of providing for His Mother. I don’t feel that Jesus risked anything; but, rather, I trust His judgment there. It is not just Ellen White that says this; the Bible also says it. So you are questioning both Jesus, and His Word.

The bible records his words, the interpretation is your own. Or do you consider questioning you or Ellen’s interpretations to be the equivalent of questioning Jesus?

Mary was truly an example for us to look to. Ellen White and the Bible are clear on this point.

Mary is the first Christian and our Mother, and is truly our example. Ellen’s depiction of Mary though, is that she is weak, confused, prideful and sinful, whatever other flowery descriptions she uses when saying some positive things. If you choose to believe Ellen’s descriptions and interpretations, no wonder you cannot understand Catholic teaching about Mary.

"

MarysRoses

 

[Protestant101]

A little gem I just can’t pass up an opportunity to mention,

MarysRoses

I rest my case…

 

[Mary3]

The Bible nowhere justifies any kind of exaltation, honoring, or worship of Mary such as we can see in the Catholic Church Catechism, and other Catholic writings. Mary is not once, in the Bible, shown to be a dispenser of grace; but only a receiver of grace, just like all other human beings. I see most of the Catholic teachings on Mary as stemming from pagan concepts, and Apocryphal legends, which have grown to be called “Tradition,” by the Catholic Church. The only trouble, is that this is not in the Bible. The Bible does not say that Mary dispenses grace; only that she received it, like us.

Catholics read and understand the Bible in a different way than you may be familiar with. One concept we follow is that the new testament is concealed in the old, and the old testament is revealed in the new. We also understand and view the whole Bible as a single story, with Jesus being represented via typology all the way through. For example, we would agree that David was a “type” of Jesus. (David was an imperfect foreshadowing of Jesus.). Solomon, Moses, Adam, Melchizadek,etc. are likewise ‘types’ predicting Jesus. Jesus fulfilled all that those ancestors imperfectly represented.

So too, we see typology in the OT regarding Mary. Read again the story of David’s death and Solomon’s ascension to the throne of Israel found in 1 Kings 2 biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=11&chapter=2&version=49 Notice this typology regarding the mother of the king of Israel. Adonijah appeals to the king’s mother (Bathsheba) to intercede with the king. Solomon’s first act recorded as king was to rise to greet his mother, to have a throne placed for her at his right side, and to hear her appeals for the people.

This is not a one-time event. Whenever a new king of Israel is crowned, there is notation immediately of the name of his mother. The queen of Israel was the king’s mother, not any of his wives, and her role was to intercede with the king for the needs of the people. We see Jesus as the fulfillment of the Davidic Kingdom and the ultimate King. And so we view Mary as the King’s mother, the Queen of Heaven and Earth, and the intercessor for our needs who sits at the right hand of the King. We believe there is Biblical precedence for this view of Mary.

As far as NT Biblical basis for exaltation of Mary, see Revelation 12. biblegateway.com/passage/?search=revelation%2012;&version=49;
Who else could this woman be: the one crowned in heaven, who bore a male child to rule the nations and to be borne up to the throne of God? This woman’s other children are at war with the dragon, and her other children are defined as those holding to the testimony of Jesus. Who else could this woman be, if not the mother of Jesus?

 

[Mary3]

Hello, Prot 101.

The Bible has always existed; either in oral form, or in written form, more recently. The oral form was not tradition; it was Scripture.

That’s an interesting explanation I don’t believe I’ve heard before. It seems to imply that those things that were taught by word of mouth were Scripture, as long as they were ultimately written down(?). The logic follows that things not ultimately written down and ‘canonized’ are not Scripture…therefore not legitimate or binding? Please correct my understanding if this in not what you mean. That concept itself seems to contradict the written Scriptures:

2Thes 2:15 " So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.

And

John 21:25 “And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.”

would add to that the Bible most certainly does define the Church:

Chronologically and historically, this just doesn’t work. The Church existed from the time of Pentecost. It was nearly a generation before any of the teachings were documented in writing. And everything that was written or spoken was not included in what we now know as the Bible. So, someone must have decided which writings to exclude and which to include. There were some popular writings that were excluded, though widely revered by early Christians (the Letter of Clement to the Corinthians). The Bible’s ‘Table of Contents’ was determined by the Church in a process that took about 400 years for the New Testament. Here’s a nice summary of the process of finalizing the canon of Scripture. newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm

The Tradition which is supported in the Bible is simply various things that symbolize already known truths, such as the sanctuary service, the exodus movement, etc.

I wonder if you or others are trying to say that some parts of Catholic beliefs re Mary are “Tradition?” If so, we still have lots to talk about for sure.

P101, all of these discussions about sola scriptura always come down to “authority”. Who has authority to teach and to interpret Scripture? While you may not be able to cross- index every Catholic doctrine or dogma against a chapter and verse of the Bible, you can find Biblical support and consonance for every teaching of Catholicism. This is true about the Holy Mother of God, and all other teachings. The extra-canonical writings serve as a translation guide, so that we can view how the earliest and subsequent Christians understood the teachings passed on to them, both oral and written.

Pax vobiscum!