Some questions about Mary

[Lorarose]

Are you now saying that Mary rose from the dead?

What do you think the assumption means?
Her soul was reunited with her body.
Her body and soul were assumed into heaven.
If that isn’t a resurrection…then I don’t know what resurrection is.

In other words, Mary always points the way to her Son, Jesus, as is evidenced in the doctrine of the Assumption and the Marian saying of “to Jesus through Mary.” The assumption is about Jesus sharing His graces with His mother, our mother, the Blessed Mother

We see in scripture that Mary did point the way to her son…“do whatever he tells you…”
I have heard the term “to Jesus through Mary” - it refers to exactly what we see in scripture - that she points to her son and asks us to “do whatever he tells you.”
So…in the end - it still about Jesus and doing whatever He tells us.

Please don’t insult me with your intellectual dishonesty! Has the resurrection of the dead occured? Did I and the rest of the world miss it???

That wasn’t the question and you know it.
Talk about intellectual dishonesty!!

You claimed that Mary’s assumption elevates her to the status of the creator.
Well…what exactly do you think is going to happen with ALL OF US SOMEDAY???
Do we not - as christians - believe that we will also be resurrected? That we will also receive glorified bodies? And that these glorified bodies will be assumed into heaven?

So…if we are going to believe in the resurrection of the dead - and you do not consider that “elevating” ourselves to the status of the Creator, then why are you insisting that Mary’s assumption elevates her to the status of the creator?
Her assumption merely illuminates the fate that awaits all of us.

 

[prodromos]

rom323:

Please don’t insult me with your intellectual dishonesty! Has the resurrection of the dead occured? Did I and the rest of the world miss it???

Elijah was taken up into heaven without tasting death. Moses died. Yet both were there talking with Jesus at His transfiguration on Mount Tabor. What about the saints who rose from their tombs when Jesus died on the cross in Matthew 27:52-53?

Certainly there is the general resurrection of the dead at Jesus second coming, but clearly God has made exceptions to this and is free to do as He wills.

The facts of the matter are that while the church has in her possession the relics of most of the saints, she has no relics of Mary the mother of Jesus, and no relics of the Apostle John.

John.

 

[TamaraS]

Of course we don’t HAVE to mediate through Mary, but why should anyone care if we choose to? I know that while having my husband that I love it does not take away my love for my mother, and loving and devoting myself to my children doesn’t diminish or take away from my relationship with my husband. They actually remind me of one of the reasons why I love my husband. My love and devothion for Mary does not take away Jesus my Lord and Savior, that is a childlike view. Just because I pray a rosary or talk to Mary doesn’t mean that I’m not ever praying directly to Christ. My whole life is a prayer to him. If I need prayers then I pray to God my self, then I ask my family to pray for me also. I also ask the saints in heaven and our Blessed Mother to pray for me too because I believe in the commuion of saints and nothing seperates us.
Romans 8:37-39—“No, in all these things we conquer overwhelmingly through him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor present things, nor future things, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

 

[wcknight]

Most or all of the questions about Mary from our Protestant critics want to discredit the Church because of the high honors that we (and Jesus) attribute to her.

We have seen from scriptures that God on many occasions has shown favorable and unusual treatment of those whom He considers his closest friends.

God granted extraordinary powers to his prophets, he allowed Elijah into Heaven without experiencing death.

My question to all of these critics is, why would Jesus NOT grant such favors to His own mother ???

Who among us here, if we were Kings or emperors would not grant high honors to our own mothers (with the few exceptions of those who have no relationship with their mothers or whi may have been abused) ???

Catholics do NOT make Mary out to be divine, she is NOT raised to the fourth person of the Trinity. She is NOT God.

BUT if Jesus were to make such a proclamation in Heaven, would you seriously consider going down to Hell in protest ???

Jesus is God, Almighty, can He not do as He pleases ??? Who are we to say what He can and can not do ?

Do you hate Mary so much that you would risk eternal damnation to spite her ???

Lucky for you, no such proclamation has been made … yet.

Christ’s Peace.

 

[wcknight]

rom323:

Please don’t insult me with your intellectual dishonesty! Has the resurrection of the dead occured? Did I and the rest of the world miss it???

YES, you missed it, your in H***

just kidding, but IF it did already occur how would you know for certain it didn’t already happen without you.

wc

 

[rom323]

Lorarose:

First of all…I don’t find the notion that Jesus WOULD or COULD perform such a miracle to be disturbing at all.
We know that Enoch and Elijah were treated differently by God - and God had the power to do with them whatever He chose.

Notice that these two events ARE recorded in Scripture!

Second…while I believe that everything in scripture is true - I do not believe ALL TRUTH is in scripture!
In fact…John tells us so at the end of his gospel doesn’t he?
Doesn’t he admit that he did not include everything Jesus said and did?
This automatically means there were things that Jesus said and did that were remembered by the Apostles, but not written down.
This is what the Church means concerning Sacred Tradition.
That the “Word” consists of those writings declared to be divinely inspired…PLUS the oral tradition passed onto the Apostles.

In the 3rd or 4th century a church was built in Mary’s honor.
They wrote to the Church of Jerusalem requesting her body be moved to this new church.
The church of Jerusalem responded that they could not honor this request as the body of Mary had been assumed into heaven by her Divine Son. They responded they could send some of her clothing - but that there was no body to send.

So…why is it important to me? Because I believe it is true.
Why is it so important to you that she WAS NOT assumed into heaven?
Do you doubt Jesus’s ability to do so?

Interesting you would mention John - the author of the book of revelation.
He did describe an interesting woman in heaven who gave birth to a male child. She was wearing a crown of twelve stars.
Hmmm…

It is obvious that you know little about biblical interpretation. The book of Revelation is 404 verses, 278 of which are direct allusions to Old Testament passages. It is a book of symbols not riddles. The Woman in Rev. 12 is no more Mary than the Woman in Rev. 17 is. The symbol refers to Gen. 37:9 which records the dream of Joseph. It is the nation of Israel or to be more precise, the people of God from whom came the Messiah… It has nothing to do with Mary! Notice that “the Woman” cries out in pain giving birth. In Catholic Theology Mary is sinless and did not experience pain in childbirth!

 

[wcknight]

rom323:

It is obvious that you know little about biblical interpretation. The book of Revelation is 404 verses, 278 of which are direct allusions to Old Testament passages. It is a book of symbols not riddles. The Woman in Rev. 12 is no more Mary than the Woman in Rev. 17 is. The symbol refers to Gen. 37:9 which records the dream of Joseph. It is the nation of Israel or to be more precise, the people of God from whom came the Messiah… It has nothing to do with Mary! Notice that “the Woman” cries out in pain giving birth. In Catholic Theology Mary is sinless and did not experience pain in childbirth!

This show you don’t know anything about Catholic Theology, being sinless does NOT mean she never experienced pain.

AND the reference in Revelations IS Mary, clothed in the Sun moon and the stars.

And now I suppose you’re trying to claim that Mary didn’t give birth to Jesus ???

WC

 

[wcknight]

Rom323,

You know that not everything is recorded in Scriptures. The books were written almost 1900 years ago.

You don’t see any airplanes mentioned, there are no computers, no cars or trains…

I suppose they don’t exist because they aren’t listed anywhere.

BTW show me where it says that God is 3 persons in one God. Show us what passage mentions the Trinity.

It isn’t in there because the Church made these declarations a hundred years or more AFTER the scriptures were written.

wc

 

[Scott_Waddell]

Ahhh yes, Rev. 12. Great for exposing the absurdity of the anti-Catholic polemic.

Anyone not ideologically-addled reads this passage concludes that the son is Jesus, natually the mind says that if the son is Jesus, then the mother is Mary. The Catholic of course is permitted to go beyond that and suggest that the woman is also symbolic of Israel among pehaps other interpretations.

What does the anti-Catholic say? It’s Israel ***and nothing else! * **. This is amazing when you consider that Catholics are always accused of being forbidden to interpret Scripture.

Scott

 

[Tantum_ergo]

WCKnight, be careful. You’ll get the “Jesus told them to go forth and baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit”.

The names of the Trinity are there. What is not explicitly set forth in scripture itself is the relation of the Trinity. . . that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three divine persons in one God. There is absolutely NOWHERE in Scripture that states the last. The Holy Spirit is spoken of as the Paraclete, and the Comforter, but is not equated with either the Father or the Son.

Let rom chew on THAT. Where did the Trinity come from, as it is understood. . .three divine persons in ONE God???

Show us the Scripture that says exactly that, rom.

 

[john_doran]

rom323:

Again I ask, where in Scripture does it say that Mary was assumed into heaven?If you are intellectually honest you will respond honestly and say that Scripture does not say that Mary was assumed into heaven and does not even hint at that conclusion. Using circular reasoning does not help your cause.

it’s not circular reasoning.

your claim is that we should not believe something unless it is (explicitly?) affirmed in scriptures.

it follows from that you should also not disbelieve anything unless it is (explicitly?) denied by scriptures.

so. while it may not actually state “mary was assumed into heaven” in the NT, it also does not actually state “mary was not assumed into heaven”.

which means, at the very least, that you should ***neither ***believe nor disbelieve in the assumption; i.e. that you should just withhold belief.

if you want to be consistent, that is, and not just arbitrary…

 

[Lorarose]

Ahhh yes…no one would deny that the male child in the book of Revelation is Jesus - but the Mother!! Oh no…that has NOTHING to do with Mary!

And of course Mary IS a symbol of Israel is she not?

The jewish religion gives birth to the christian religion.
The jewish mother gives birth to the messiah.

Oh, certainly absolutely NO connection whatsoever!

 

[john_doran]

rom323:

Modern scholarship has dismissed the translation “full of grace” as a nonviable rendition of caritow.

references, please - which modern scholars, precisely, have thus dismissed that translation?

rom323:
This word occurs in the same form in Ephesians 1:6. Should we then conclude that all believers are without original sin?
not quite right, i’m afraid. i posted this on the last page, but i’ll post it again here…

the greek word used in the passage - from which all of these translations were made - is kecaritomene, or kecharitomene.

the root word is charitoo caritow], which means “to grace” (used in the NT only of the root noun charis, which means “grace”, and then only of divine charis).

the prefix ke ke] and the suffix mene mene] together make the word used by gabriel a perfect passive participle.

what ***that ***means is:

1. kecharitomene is used as a name, in the sense that using a common word as a name indicates superlative possession by the one so named of the property used as the name - like calling mary “miss grace” to indicate her special possession of grace in the way that we would call someone like wayne gretzky “mr. hockey”; and
2. it indicates an action that has been done to mary, and which has been completed or perfected with a permanent result.

it is a greek verb only found one other time in the new testament - at Ephesians 1:6, and there it uses a different stem and is in the aorist active indicative echaritosen], which denotes merely ***momentary ***action rather than enduring action.

here’s a couple of quotes for you :

“It is permissible, on Greek grammatical and linguistic grounds, to paraphrase kecharitomene as completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace.” (Blass and DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament).

“Luke 1:28…kecharitomene is a quite rare Hellenistic verb (only found elsewhere in the NT at Eph. 1:6 in the active) Etymologically it should mean 'To be furnished with Grace” (Word Biblical Commentary, volume 35A, Pg 50, Nelson, 1989 ) - Protestant Greek scholar, John Nolland

 

[TamaraS]

In revelation 12 when it talks about the Woman giving birth to her son, I can see symbollically how we might say the Woman is the church because of verse 17 “Then the dragon became angry with the woman and went off to wage war with the rest of her offspring, those who keep God’s commandments and bear witness to Jesus”. But first and foremost I believe the Woman is not the church, but a certain woman and that Woman is Mary for several reasons:

First- The church did not give birth to Christ, but Christ started the Church.
Also- when you look at Chapter 12 you can plainly see that the Woman and the dragon are enemies and after the dragon tries to pursue the Woman, then it decides to go after the rest of Her Offspring, those who bear witness to Jesus.
Now- look at Genesis 3:15 “I will put emnity between you and the Woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel”. I really do not believe that this is Eve. This sounds like what is going on with the 'Woman in revelation 12.
This is also why in John’s gospel Christ always referrs to her as “Woman” . Everything that Christ did and said had a special reason and I honestly do not think that he would address her in such a way as to diminish her importance in his life, you should treat your parents with great respect. Think about it.
When on the cross- John 19:26-27–When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved, he said to his mother “Woman, behold, your son.” Then he said to the disciple “Behold, your mother”.And from that hour the disciple took her into his home. Why did he word it that way if he just was telling John to take care of her for him? And why would John always refer to himself as the disciple whom Jesus loved? Wouldn’t that be weird for John to think that He’s the only one that Jesus loved? We are all that disciple. I think that John wrote that way for a reason. He also writes in that same style in Revelation.

I realize that scripture can mean something symbolically, but first it needs to read at it’s face value.
God Bless, Tamara

 

[jimmy]

rom323:

The Latin Vulgate is not an accurate translation of the bible. It is a translation of a translation. **Please tell me how Genesis 3:15 reads in your **Douay-Rheims bible?

Modern scholarship has dismissed the translation “full of grace” as a nonviable rendition of caritow. This word occurs in the same form in Ephesians 1:6. Should we then conclude that all believers are without original sin?

You are very wrong. In Luke 1 where the angel speaks to Mary he uses the word kecaritwmenh. This is a perfect passive participle in the vocative case and it is singular. Which means that it is what the angel is calling Mary. It is an address. It also is expressing something that is completed but it is in the present tense. So what that means is it expresses something that has been done to Mary in the past that continues to affect her. The word translates to English to mean “grace”. It translates directly as “hail, one who has been graced”. Jerome was correct to translate it as gratia plena.

In Ephesians 1;6 we have the word ecaritwsen which is a verb in the 3rd person singular indicative mood in the active voice in the aurist tense. This means that it is something that God has done. Indicitive means it is something that is real. Aurist tense is past tense and it is completed. This means that it has nothing to do with the present. It would translate as “he graced”.

I would relate the two tenses here in the sense of a glass that has been filled. In the case of the one with Mary in Luke. The glass has been filled in the past, but it is still full. In the case of Ephesians it would be like saying the glass has been filled in the past and now it is empty. The one in Ephesians, the aurist, is something that is in the past and is independant of the present. The one in Luke, the Perfect tense, the action is in the past but it continues into the present so that the effects are still going, like in the glass that is still full.

These two words are not the same and they can not be confused in meaning. Modern scholarship has not dismissed it. If so, please give the source. If they have dismissed it, then they are probably wrong since Jerome was around 1600 years ago and his Greek is probably more accurate than James Whites if that is who is dismissing it.

 

[rom323]

wcknight:

This show you don’t know anything about Catholic Theology, being sinless does NOT mean she never experienced pain.

Catholic Theology has long taught that Mary did not experience the pain of childbirth because she was sinless, are you now trying to rewrite history?

AND the reference in Revelations IS Mary, clothed in the Sun moon and the stars.

Obviously you are no bible scholar! The book of Revelation is a book of symbols. The woman clothed with the sun…is a reference to Genesis 37:9 which records the dream of Joseph. The woman represents the nation of Israel or more accurately, the people of God from which comes the Messiah. When you compare this woman to the antithetical woman of Revelation 17, you find that both represent collective entities–the former consists of the “city of God”, whereas the latter consists of the “city of the beast.” Also, the description in Revelation 12 does not fit the Gospel portrayal of the events surrounding the birth of Jesus.

It may be helpful for you to read Jer.4:31, Isiah 26:17, 66:7, Micah.4:9.
And now I suppose you’re trying to claim that Mary didn’t give birth to Jesus ???

No, I’m saying that the SIGN (woman) is not Mary, it’s a symbol for something else and that something else is the people of God!

Read Revelation 12: 13-17 and then explain how this is Mary!
WC

 

[rom323]

wcknight:

Most or all of the questions about Mary from our Protestant critics want to discredit the Church because of the high honors that we (and Jesus) attribute to her.

Please show where Jesus honored Mary the way Catholics do? Why did Jesus never call Mary mother? Why did Jesus rebuke the person who attempted to praise her? Why did Jesus say to John at the foot of the cross, “behold your mother” and not behold MY mother? Why does it seem that Jesus distance Himself from Mary when the crowd tells Him that His mother and brothers are looking for Him?

We have seen from scriptures that God on many occasions has shown favorable and unusual treatment of those whom He considers his closest friends.

You have made my point–FROM SCRIPTURE!

God granted extraordinary powers to his prophets, he allowed Elijah into Heaven without experiencing death.

As recorded in SCRIPTURE!

My question to all of these critics is, why would Jesus NOT grant such favors to His own mother ???

WHY SHOULD HE?

Who among us here, if we were Kings or emperors would not grant high honors to our own mothers (with the few exceptions of those who have no relationship with their mothers or whi may have been abused) ???

You seem to forget that Jesus is God and as God He has no mother!

Catholics do NOT make Mary out to be divine, she is NOT raised to the fourth person of the Trinity. She is NOT God.

Catholics have elevated Mary to a position that is blasphemous!

BUT if Jesus were to make such a proclamation in Heaven, would you seriously consider going down to Hell in protest ???

The point is, HE HAS NOT yet you act as if He has!

Jesus is God, Almighty, can He not do as He pleases ??? Who are we to say what He can and can not do ?

He has revealed what he has done in the Scriptures and elevating Mary is not what He has done!

Do you hate Mary so much that you would risk eternal damnation to spite her ???

First of all I do not hate the Mary of the Bible! She was a humble servant of God who has no higher status than any other true believer in Jesus Christ. In fact I believe that if God has allowed Mary to see what Catholics have done to her, her heart would be broken.

Please tell me where it is stated that I risk eternal damnation for giving Mary the honor that belongs to God alone? This shows how small you have made God and how big you have made Mary. She is a mere creature just like you and I yet you treat her as if she were a half-step below God!

Lucky for you, no such proclamation has been made … yet.

If you are wrong about your Marian beliefs you are guilty of blasphemy and idolatry!

Christ’s Peace.

I pray that God will open your heart and mind to the truth.

In Christ Alone

 

[rom323]

wcknight:

Rom323,

You know that not everything is recorded in Scriptures. The books were written almost 1900 years ago.

You don’t see any airplanes mentioned, there are no computers, no cars or trains…

I suppose they don’t exist because they aren’t listed anywhere.

BTW show me where it says that God is 3 persons in one God. Show us what passage mentions the Trinity.

It isn’t in there because the Church made these declarations a hundred years or more AFTER the scriptures were written.

wc

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." 1 Tim. 3:16-17 Can the same be said of “Tradition”? God has given us all we need in the Scriptures!

 

[rom323]

wcknight:

Rom323,

You know that not everything is recorded in Scriptures. The books were written almost 1900 years ago.

You don’t see any airplanes mentioned, there are no computers, no cars or trains…

I suppose they don’t exist because they aren’t listed anywhere.

BTW show me where it says that God is 3 persons in one God. Show us what passage mentions the Trinity.

It isn’t in there because the Church made these declarations a hundred years or more AFTER the scriptures were written.

Try these on for size!

2 Cor. 13:14. “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all.”

1 Peter 1:1-5. “Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen 2 according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, that you may obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in fullest measure. 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4 to obtain an inheritance which is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, 5 who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.”


wc

 

[antiaphrodite]

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." 1 Tim. 3:16-17 Can the same be said of “Tradition”? God has given us all we need in the Scriptures!

true, but it did not say “only Scripture”. are not prayer and evangelizing essential too? and paul said in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 “so then, bretheren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by, us, either by word of mouth or by letter.”