Split: Another Marian Debate

  • Thread starter Thread starter julebenn
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Non Catholic argument:
So there is no possibility that Mary bore any other children after Jesus?

Catholic response:
None whatsoever. The belief that she did goes against the Bible, history, reason and propriety, as discussed above. It would not have been fitting for the womb which bore the Savior to bring sinners into the world (which any hypothetical child of Joseph and Mary would have been). Could you imagine someone in Old Testament times using the holy Ark of the Covenant to haul mud? That is what it would have been like had the Ark of the New Covenant bore sinners after Christ!

As the sacred vessels of the Temple could not be put to profane use, so the living Vessel whom God sanctified to bear our Savior could not have borne sinners as well.
 
Damascus said:
The New Ark of the Covenant is Mary. The burden you have is to prove she is not.
Click to expand...
No, I think the burden is on Catholics to prove that Mary is the New Ark of the Covenant. Protestants carry their initial burden of production by pointing out that Scripture does not actually say “Mary is the New Ark”. Since we have met that test, the burden of persuasion shifts to you Catholics. If you going to build a logical argument for this proposition --building block by building block --then you are the ones who need to justify the edifice.
 
Protestants often use Matt 11:11 to argue against Mary.
😦

Catholic response:🙂
Regarding Matt. 11:11, are they saying that John the Baptist is greater than Jesus? Because that is the necessary conclusion if you exegete the verse the way many a Protestant is doing. It says that no one born of woman is greater than John. Does this mean John is greater than Jesus (since Jesus was also born of woman)?
 
rr1213 said:
No, I think the burden is on Catholics to prove that Mary is the New Ark of the Covenant. Protestants carry their initial burden of production by pointing out that Scripture does not actually say “Mary is the New Ark”. Since we have met that test, the burden of persuasion shifts to you Catholics. If you going to build a logical argument for this proposition --building block by building block --then you are the ones who need to justify the edifice.
Click to expand...
I cant prove it to you since you dont accept to be obedient to Jesus Christs Chruch and her teachings and recognize her.

I allow the Holy Mother Church to guide me since its too much work to be my own magesterium without all of the sacraments.
 
Damascus said:
I cant prove it to you since you dont accept to be obedient to Jesus Christs Chruch and her teachings and recognize her.
Click to expand...
This is somewhat circular, isn’t it? You’re correct though. If the validity of your argument arises only from the assertion of an authority that I don’t recognize (the Catholic Church), as opposed to Scripture and Reason (which I do recognize), then ultimately you will not be convincing. I doubt that I am different from most other non-Catholics in that regard.
 
estesbob said:
What ever gave you the idea the doctrine of the assumption dndit exist before the 1950s???
Click to expand...
Estesbob asked a good question, and since it was ignored, I will take it a step farther:

We don’t believe that Mary was assumed into heaven because we can’t find her bones. We believe in the assumption of Mary because that has been the teaching tradition of the Church for 2,000 years. While this teaching is not explicitly found in Scripture, it certainly was prophesied in Psalm 132:8, and made evident to John in his revelation when he sees “the woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under feet and on her head a crown with twelve stars” (Apoc 12:1-2). There is also nothing in Scripture that precludes Mary’s assumption. Indeed, if sin is what leads to death and Mary had no sin, then we can surmise that she was taken up into heaven, body and soul.
 
rr1213 said:
This is somewhat circular, isn’t it? You’re correct though. If the validity of your argument arises only from the assertion of an authority that I don’t recognize (the Catholic Church), as opposed to Scripture and Reason (which I do recognize), then ultimately you will not be convincing. I doubt that I am different from most other non-Catholics in that regard.
Click to expand...
Check my most current post. Let me know what you think.

I believe I am following Holy Scripture by being a Catholic.👍
 
Damascus said:
Estesbob asked a good question, and since it was ignored, I will take it a step farther:

We don’t believe that Mary was assumed into heaven because we can’t find her bones. We believe in the assumption of Mary because that has been the teaching tradition of the Church for 2,000 years. While this teaching is not explicitly found in Scripture, it certainly was prophesied in Psalm 132:8, and made evident to John in his revelation when he sees “the woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under feet and on her head a crown with twelve stars” (Apoc 12:1-2). There is also nothing in Scripture that precludes Mary’s assumption. Indeed, if sin is what leads to death and Mary had no sin, then we can surmise that she was taken up into heaven, body and soul.
Click to expand...
I concede that there is nothing in Scripture that precludes Mary’s assumption. There is also nothing in Scripture that proves it either. My objection here is the Catholic Church mandating concurrence in the belief, as opposed to leaving the question open since neither contention can be proven or disproven by Scripture.
 
Who saw the resurrection of Christ? No one. Yet it is true.

Nevertheless, while no one saw Mary assumed into heaven, John saw her in heaven as he writes in the book of Revelation. While he writes about the “souls” in heaven before the throne of God, he also writes about a woman clothed with the sun, on her “head” a crown of 12 stars, and under her “feet” the moon. This means a woman with a body, not just her soul.

let’s see if you can come up with a father or doctor of the Church who says it is NOT Mary.
 
rr1213 said:
I concede that there is nothing in Scripture that precludes Mary’s assumption. There is also nothing in Scripture that proves it either. My objection here is the Catholic Church mandating concurrence in the belief, as opposed to leaving the question open since neither contention can be proven or disproven by Scripture.
Click to expand...
see post 127.
 
Mary is described as the Ark because she contained the eternal Word of God. Of course Mary is not an ark of wood, but Jesus (being the Word) was not stone tablets either. If the word of God became incarnate, then His ark can be of flesh as well.

The Holy Scriptures are also lifeless if not guided by the Holy Spirit.
:eek:

BTW- Catholics DO use reason and are encouraged to. Fides et Ratio!
 
rr1213 said:
This is somewhat circular, isn’t it? You’re correct though. If the validity of your argument arises only from the assertion of an authority that I don’t recognize (the Catholic Church), as opposed to Scripture and Reason (which I do recognize), then ultimately you will not be convincing. I doubt that I am different from most other non-Catholics in that regard.
Click to expand...
Then see if you can apply your reason to this:

On Honoring Mary as Imitators of Christ

Jesus was a good Jew who obeyed the Law of Moses perfectly, and a key component of the Law is known as the Ten Commandments. The first commandment that deals with our relationships with others states, “Honor your Father and Mother.”

As a dutiful Jewish son who obeyed the law perfectly, Jesus fulfilled this commandment by honoring His Mother. The Hebrew word for “honor” actually means “glorify”. So, Jesus bestowed glory on his mother, Mary.

We as believers are called to be imitators of God (Ephesians 5:1). At the annunciation, the angel of the Lord called Mary “full of grace”. Through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the Word of God declares that “from now on all generations will call [Mary] blessed”. Consequently, we honor Jesus’ mother in our own generation.

The Catholic Church was not the first to honor and glorify Mary; Jesus glorified her first, and we simply imitate Jesus by recognizing the glory He gives to her.

+++

Tell me, my Protestant friend, how will you honor Jesus’ mother as you imitate Him?
 
rr1213 said:
No, I think the burden is on Catholics to prove that Mary is the New Ark of the Covenant. Protestants carry their initial burden of production by pointing out that Scripture does not actually say “Mary is the New Ark”. Since we have met that test, the burden of persuasion shifts to you Catholics. If you going to build a logical argument for this proposition --building block by building block --then you are the ones who need to justify the edifice.
Click to expand...
I don’t believe it has to be how one proves what;we simply try to makes sense of what the scriptures read.I’m certain that we all can grow by sharing opinions. From my understanding of what I’ve read within this thread, myfavoritmartin didn’t mean to dishonor any catholics but simply showed his personal concern on how we view Mary, the mother of Jesus, which to him, seems idolatrous; just as a Jehovah’s witness will find our belief in Jesus idolatrous, or as we might find the Islamic elevation of Mohammad over Jesus as being sinfully wrong as well. We are **all ** guilty of sin, and the sin of idolatry is not a sin too great to be forgiven.

Now, concerning how we catholics view the role of Mary in the Church, we can start with the book of Genesis.
Within we find the central theme as to why humanity needed salvation. The story of Adam and Eve; if only a new Adam was to be given to humanity in order to reverse the curse of the disobedience done in Eden, then why would the inspired writer of Genesis find the role of Eve important enough to be revealed? I shall put emnity between you and the woman; this woman (mother of the seed) is refered elswhere in scriptures such as in the book of Revelation and the prophet Isaiah, who speaks of her giving birth while still a virgin, a prophecy being fulfilled in the person of Mary according to the gospel. Therefore, if the woman in Isaiah was fulfilled in the person of Mary, my question to our protestant brothers and sisters would be why do they refuse to recognize her in Genesis and Revelation?

Andre
 
I know that many Protestants don’t believe in saints very much but lets suppose we all think some people like Mother Theresa are saints.

Lets play another what if. If we could choose the top saint of all time lets place the woman who suffered with her son seeing him on the cross.

First place is all I can see for the Virgin Mary. Is there any reason she isn’t number one behind her son? But as someone else said we are not saying she is divine not even remotely is a creature divine only a beautiful work of the creator. All glory is His.

Sounds like we can put Pauls words to work what ever is Good think on these things. We are thinking on Mary as after her son she may well be the greatest good wonderful thing ever to happen on earth.

John Buttrey
 
myfavoritmartin said:
Yours the mother of God, sinless, omnipotent, mediatrix, queen of heaven, and in my opinion a work of satan in that she draws attention away from Christ.
Click to expand...
Oh yeah ! one example of this is when Mary said at Cana, " do whatever He tells you . "

If Mary was an attention seeker, she would have said do whatever I tell you.

Don’t you see how Mary was able to change the heart of her son before his time, didn’t Jesus complain that His time hadn’t come ?

Mary had great influence on Jesus when He was on earth, and no less influence on Him now that she is In Heaven, someday we shall see that truth in reality.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top