Questions on Mary from Protestant 101

[josephdavid]

Ok, that is not a problem for me, but again, you asking Mary to pray for you is not backed up by scripture at all. And then I just wonder why are you doing it? Neither can we know if she`s dead or alive nor is it required to pray to God **through **her. If she died then why are you praying to someone who is dead?

Scripture does not mention the Trinity either? We have never seen God’s face. Then again remember what happened to Moses when he saw the face of God each time in the mountain. So how can a regular lady with no graces be touched by God with out dying?

But anyways I digressed for a moment.

However Paul professed about praying to the Saints in Heaven. Further who was the woman in Revelations 12?

If you say she is dead then is Moses dead? Does not in Psalms say that Angels interced?

 

[pedja]

Scripture does not mention the Trinity either? We have never seen God’s face. Then again remember what happened to Moses when he saw the face of God each time in the mountain. So how can a regular lady with no graces be touched by God with out dying?

But anyways I digressed for a moment.

However Paul professed about praying to the Saints in Heaven. Further who was the woman in Revelations 12?

If you say she is dead then is Moses dead? Does not in Psalms say that Angels interced?

Of course scripture is not mentioning the word Trinity because it comes from Latin (I think so) but the Bible says “those three are one” which is basically the same.

About Moses, well couldnt he not have seen Jesus and not God the Father? But since Jesus is God then he actually saw God. But all of this is another topic I guess.

I dont think Moses is dead. Because its said that nobody ever found his body (which is strange) we assume that God has taken him to heaven. And especially because he and Elijah appeared to the disciples. So you mean because its not mentioned that Moses was taken away (but he actually was) the same applies to Mary?!

 

[CherryBomb]

Scripture yes. Tradition? Whos tradition? Weren`t Jews keeping the tradition as well and exactly because of that Jesus was telling them off?

The Tradition handed down to the Church through Peter and his successors.

Are you talking about things like the money-changers in the temple? I’d say that’s tradition with a t not a T, which is completely different.

 

[pedja]

The Tradition handed down to the Church through Peter and his successors.

Are you talking about things like the money-changers in the temple? I’d say that’s tradition with a t not a T, which is completely different.

So basically youre saying that the Bible alone is not enough, you need the tradition/Tradition as well. And if theres something in the trdition which is not based on the Bible then you`d simply say tradition is important because it is handed down through Peter? So then we again have human tradition against the Bible?

 

[CherryBomb]

So basically youre saying that the Bible alone is not enough, you need the tradition/Tradition as well. And if theres something in the trdition which is not based on the Bible then you`d simply say tradition is important because it is handed down through Peter? So then we again have human tradition against the Bible?

See, this is what I find funny about Protestants. Human tradition is where Sola Scriptura COMES FROM! Jesus didn’t hand out copies of the Bible and say “here ya go, this is all you need, see you later!” Why bother telling Peter he was the rock on which He’d build his church? Was the church only necessary for the time it took to gather the Bible, and now it’s obsolete? You’re okay with tradition when it’s something you agree with, but you don’t like it, suddenly Tradition is a horrible thing. The Bible tells us not to rely solely on scripture (such as 2 Thessalonians 2:15). So is the Bible right or not? Or only right when you like it? Or what? And before you pull out 2 Timothy 3:16-17, don’t forget to read the the 2 lines before it (14-15). The Bible makes it clear that Scripture and Tradition are both important. I don’t know what else to tell you, it seems pretty clear to me.

Now if you want to argue WHO’S Tradition, that’s fine, because it’s not as clear with more than one group claiming apostolic succession.

 

[Protestant101]

He loves everyone greatly to be sure. But if he loved everyone exactly the same he would have treated everyone the same. He didn’t.

While this kind of thing may sound good in some theology circles; it is far from being Biblical.

We are told by our Lord who spoke these Words of hope to the prophet Jeremiah:

Jer 31:3 The LORD hath appeared of old unto me, saying, Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee.

You cannot prove from the Holy Bible that this “everlasting love” is not equally applied to everyone, according to their capacity to receive. Some of us are not willing to let Jesus into every room in our “house,” we only let Him into the front parlor; but He will not lessen this “everlasting love” for anyone. We get the same in that department as did Mary.

While I appreciate seeing such opinions as yours; I would also be interested in seeing you back them up with supporting Scripture. Meaning, in your case, “Tradition” as well.

Some of my purpose here is to see for myself just what Catholics do believe, on an official basis; and to share comparisons to my current understandings of this topic. I will appreciate any help you can give me.

May God bless you; and keep you; and make His face to shine upon you.

Can you picture, just for a moment, what Mary’s face must have looked like when the angel had finished visiting her, and telling her that she was going to have Baby Jesus? I’ll bet it was the same look that was on the face of Moses when he came down from the Mount, or that Stephen had when he was martyred.

It is a very special thing today to meet a Christian who has this same kind of countenance, because they have been with God; and to know that others see this in you; because you have been with God.

I don’t know that I look like that, with this kind of holy countenance; but I have a few times had people, complete strangers, approach me and say: “You look like a Christian.” The last person who did this, did it in a hospital where I was working, and the reason they said it was because their Mother was dying of cancer, and to put in her words: “We want you to come out and read the Bible to our Mom, she is dying, and she is scared.”

Still, to this day; I don’t know why they thought I “look like a Christian;” but I can see the Lowly Mary, walking down the street in Nazareth, and I’ll bet everyone who saw her said to themselves: “She looks like a Christian.” This is worth focusing on, as we discuss our differences. Mary had a very special purpose for God/with God; and for this, Christians on both sides of the fence can be grateful.

The reason Luke wrote his accounting of Mary and her experiences is so that

“…thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.” (Luke 1:4).

Christians today can also be filled with the Spirit, and do mighty things for God!!

 

[Protestant101]

Hi Protestant 101,
I know Adventists find Catholic teaching on Mary incorrect because you personally do not see it spelled out explicitly in Scripture. But when you one reads the Bible using the above method, Mary`s special role is clearly revealed in the Old Testament, as in the New Testament.

I am not trying to change your mind, but rather show you where our beliefs come from. This is not possible for me to explain if you do not understand the way Catholics read the Bible. We read it as a whole and see the Old Testament fulfilled in the New Testament.

Sincerely,

Maria1212

Hello Maria1212

We do not disagree on everything! Let me try to explain.

To me, the mystery of Bethlehem is incomprehensible; and yet, it is a positive fact. That a body (Mary) should be formed for the Son of God by the over-shadowing of the Holy Spirit; and that the Holy Spirit should dwell in Christ of Bethlehem, is such a miracle of divine power!

And this same Spirit will even now come and dwell in the bodies of sinful men and women is the supreme “mystery” of God’s grace; we are “the temple of the Holy Ghost.” (1 Cor.6:19-20). Elizabeth would be no exception, as she gave birth to a baby “in her old age.” She conceived her child 6 months before Mary.

A once and for all filling of the Spirit is not taught in the Bible. We must note the various purposes for which people were filled with the Spirit in Apostolic times:

A) For witness – (Acts 2:4)
B) For answering objections – (Acts 4:8)
C) For speaking boldly God’s Word – (Acts 4:31)
D) For serving tables – (Acts 6:2-3)
**E) **For suffering persecution and martyrdom – (Acts 7:55)
**F) **For exposing evil – (Acts 13:9-10)
G) For praising or giving thanks – (Eph.5:18-20)

The last item I have listed is certainly applicable for both Mary and Elizabeth. Their wonderful testimony to one another is all the proof I need of their infilling of the Holy Spirit.

It is true that when a person is truly “filled” with the Spirit, that they do not just get filled once, and then that’s it. Jesus said:

**Joh 7:38 **He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. **Joh 7:39 **(But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

The Holy Spirit is signified in Scripture by “living water” and by “rivers of living water.” Every river must have an outlet, or it ceases to be a river. The inflow depends upon the outflow.

The Bible in reflecting upon redeemed people today, shows that a Christian is a channel through which the Holy Spirit may touch other lives; either that, or a person simply becomes a great dam, blocking the work of God’s Spirit.

By His reference to the flow of “rivers of living water;” Jesus “spake of the Spirit” which they that believe on Him should receive. I am glad that Jesus made this so plain. I am glad that Mary & Elizabeth both accepted this infilling of the Spirit in their pilgrim journey, along with all the other faithful of the ages. Miracles of divine power - the same as what touched the life and heart of Mary, are possible in the believer today. No; we don’t literally give birth to The Son of God again; but WE CAN BE BORN AGAIN; and that is a miracle!

1Pe 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

Joh 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

 

[onenow1]

HI,
All I can say is Mary made one giant leap for mankind.
One more thing! I think it’s a travesty to limit God’s word to the scriptures. The word was made flesh.

Luke 1: 46-56 a good read.

Peace, One Now1

 

[pedja]

HI,
All I can say is Mary made one giant leap for mankind.
One more thing! I think it’s a travesty to limit God’s word to the scriptures. The word was made flesh.

Luke 1: 46-56 a good read.

Peace, One Now1

All I can say is that we are trying to figure out how that is supported by the scripture, however nothing convincing has come up so far.

 

[josephdavid]

All I can say is that we are trying to figure out how that is supported by the scripture, however nothing convincing has come up so far.

It is supported in both Scripture and Sacred Tradition handed down by the Holy Apostles.

 

[pedja]

It is supported in both Scripture and Sacred Tradition handed down by the Holy Apostles.

No, it`s not. You simply read too much into it.

 

[josephdavid]

No, it`s not. You simply read too much into it.

Can you show me where I read too much into it?

I would assume I read too much in to John 6 too?

 

[CherryBomb]

If we’re all supposed to interpret the Bible individually, then what’s the issue? Using tradition or the church is a big no no, apparently, so there’s nothing left to go on.

 

[onenow1]

No, it`s not. You simply read too much into it.

Mark 12: 26, Now about the dead rising again, have you never read in the book of moses in the passage about the burning bush how God spoke to him and said.

I Am the God of Abraham the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob?
He is God of the living, not of the dead.You are very much mistaken.

COMMENT: Jesus honored his mother at Cana, certainly he would honor her at death, dontcha think ?

Peace, OneNow1

 

[The_Truthinator]

^ Interestingly enough, one might have it said that at Yeshua’s death on the Cross, he actually gave up the last thing he had–his Mother–by entrusting her to John … But yes, a lot of Protestants are of the opinion that John was preserved solely for the sake of Miriam, as well. This is tradition, but it is also clear reasoning. Sola Scriptura doesn’t mean that those distinguished from the Catholic Church ignore history simply because it wasn’t recorded in the Scriptures.

Miriam was highly honored. There everyone’s in agreeance. Being raised in a Baptist church, I can say from experience that no one thought it at all odd to refer to her as “the Mother of God.” Clearly, she’s not the source of his divinity, but nonetheless, that doesn’t detract from the honor of being the Bearer of the God-man. “From now on all generations will call me blessed.”

Miriam is the subject of controversy for a lot of reasons. But let’s skip right to it: What is often known as Mariolatry … Adoration of the Virgin. This is an international issue, and to what degree of severity we are at right now, I couldn’t say. Nevertheless, it’s important to remember that the Catholic Church doesn’t come close to allowing veneration to cross into the realm of adoration, despite many who have been led astray.

 

[Maria1212]

No, it`s not. You simply read too much into it.

This point has been made many times on other threads but I will repeat it again here. The Bible is a Catholic book. The New Testament was written, copied, collected, and preserved by Catholic Christians. The official canon of the books of the Bible was authoritatively determined by the Catholic Church in the 4th century. It is from the Catholic Church! Apart from the Catholic Church, there is no guarantee that what is in the Bible is the genuine word of God. Hence, to trust the Bible, is to trust the authority of the Church. It is a contradiction for Protestants to accept the Bible, yet reject the same authority (the Catholic Church), that gave us the Bible. From a logical standpoint, how can Protestants quote the Bible as authoritative, if they reject the teaching authority of the Catholic Church?

Adventists follow the teachings of Ellen White, which is human tradition. But by rejecting the authority Christ left the Catholic Church is rejecting Christ and his Gospel. Arguing that the Bible alone is the authority in matters of faith does just this. The Bible tells us that Christ left a Church with divine authority to govern in his name. (Matthew 16:13-20, 18:18, Luke 10:16). Christ promised that this Church would last UNTIL THE END OF TIME. (Matthew 16:18, 28:19-20, John 14:16). The Bible also tells us that Sacred Tradition is to be followed alongside Sacred Scripture.

Sincerely,

Maria1212

 

[The_Truthinator]

The Bible was copied and passed on through Catholics, true. But the writers were not Catholic, per se. They were simply Christians … The Catholic Church wasn’t officially established until later times.

Also note that just because the Councils which met and conferred upon the current Canon of Scripture may have been Catholic does not mean Catholics are responsible for the Word. God is … He simply used the church as an instrument to preserve and pass on his Word to the future generations. He can use whatever means he likes to do his will. One way or another, it’s going to be done.

God used, in a similar capacity, people like Martin Luther and William Tyndale to preserve the truth of the Word by bringing it to the common people, to let them investigate it for themselves … Without such efforts, the Medieval Church would have continued to distort the Truth for its own interests. Historically speaking, it is readily agreed on by most learned men that the power hungry church had indeed corrupted the doctrines it presented to the people time and time again … That it was less than infallible, corrupted even, seems agreed upon by history herself. Honestly, the Catholic Church we have today has made numerous, wonderful reforms … It just refuses to admit past mistakes, which is really a shame to me, simply because that denies them the opportunity to receive the credit they so deserve.

In any case, my thanks to the Catholic Church for preserving the Word as God asked. I have great faith in the Spirit which guided them. And everyone, after all, has a direct, apolistic link to the Historical Church instituted by Christ himself sitting in our homes–maybe on a bookshelf, dusty and unused, maybe not. The Bible, whose words were written and orated by the apostles themselves, is that link which we all share, and if we’d only put aside our biases and sit and look at its contents, and “search wholeheartedly,” we might find truths we’ve overlooked for centuries that have been staring right at us all the time.

Who knows?

 

[Mannyfit75]

The Bible was copied and passed on through Catholics, true. But the writers were not Catholic, per se. They were simply Christians … The Catholic Church wasn’t officially established until later times.

The Church then was universal so yes it was Catholic. They are Catholic Christians. For St. Ignatius of Antioch said, “Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” This was written around 107-110 A.D

 

[Mannyfit75]

Also note that just because the Councils which met and conferred upon the current Canon of Scripture may have been Catholic does not mean Catholics are responsible for the Word. God is … He simply used the church as an instrument to preserve and pass on his Word to the future generations. He can use whatever means he likes to do his will. One way or another, it’s going to be done.

God still use His Bride the Church. So yes, the Church preserved the Bible.

God used, in a similar capacity, people like Martin Luther and William Tyndale to preserve the truth of the Word by bringing it to the common people, to let them investigate it for themselves … Without such efforts, the Medieval Church would have continued to distort the Truth for its own interests. Historically speaking, it is readily agreed on by most learned men that the power hungry church had indeed corrupted the doctrines it presented to the people time and time again … That it was less than infallible, corrupted even, seems agreed upon by history herself. Honestly, the Catholic Church we have today has made numerous, wonderful reforms … It just refuses to admit past mistakes, which is really a shame to me, simply because that denies them the opportunity to receive the credit they so deserve.

William Tyndale’s translation contain many translation errors. He did not preserve the truth context of the Bible. In doing so, the Catholic Church oppose it.

The Medieval Church did not distort the Truth. In the Middle Ages there were two clases of people, the one who can read Latin, and those who do not. The Gospel was preached at the Church through Missals use for the liturgy.

The priest preached the Word of God so the people would know the God. Pictures and images in the Statues were use to explain certain contents of the Bible.

I can attest to this since there were many Medieval saints at the time. How did they know Christ then? Through the Mass, where the Gospel was preached in the Liturgy.

In any case, my thanks to the Catholic Church for preserving the Word as God asked. I have great faith in the Spirit which guided them. And everyone, after all, has a direct, apolistic link to the Historical Church instituted by Christ himself sitting in our homes–maybe on a bookshelf, dusty and unused, maybe not. The Bible, whose words were written and orated by the apostles themselves, is that link which we all share, and if we’d only put aside our biases and sit and look at its contents, and “search wholeheartedly,” we might find truths we’ve overlooked for centuries that have been staring right at us all the time.

Who knows?

Indeed, the Church did.

 

[The_Truthinator]

The Church then was universal so yes it was Catholic. They are Catholic Christians. For St. Ignatius of Antioch said, “Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” This was written around 107-110 A.D

If the Church then was universal, wouldn’t that make them catholic Christians, not “Catholic”?

This sort of reminds me of the whole Muslim conception of the patriarchs and Christ being “Muslims” because they submitted to the Will of God. Historically though, it doesn’t really seem to hold up.

Paul was thrilled, amazed, by the opportunity to be called by Yeshua’s Name. That … was enough. Wasn’t it? To be a part of that Communion, not fully understanding exactly how it works, but just being thankful for the opportunity? It’s the same today … Isn’t it?