The Virgin Mary

[Ginger2]

Qoute Good Fella, “He is dependent on us to faithfully accept and freely respond to his will in love.”

Then how is God effected by those who deny Him? Are unfaithful? Hate Him?

Rom 9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
Rom 9:16 So then [it is] not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
Rom 9:17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

God is not controlling us like puppets. Rather God is in control. We have freewill, but no power to effect God’s plans by what we do.

Rom 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate [to be] conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Rom 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to [his] purpose.

AXION said: “actually Mary is one of the most mentioned personages in the New testament.”

T**hat’s not true, unless you mean the name “Mary” which is used to refer to several different women. ** (I looked it up once)

 

[apophasis]

You want Apostolic here you go:

Manny, would you put a check next to each of the men on your list that was an Apostle? If you need a list of Apostles go to Mark 3:14-19.

If any on your list are not among those in Mark 3:14-19, then what they commented about Mary in their writings that is not supported by Scripture, or not shown to have Apostolic connection (i.e., actually taught by an Apostle), then what you have quoted for us is just their own personal belief about Mary.

Sure, they have a right to believe whatever they want. But it’s when I’m told I must accept as dogma someone else’s personal belief that I, personally, have a problem (as should everyone who calls himself a Christian). The doctrines that support my faith are based on divine revelation, not another man’s imagination or speculation. They’ll have to answer to God themselves for what they taught (James 3:1).

So if I find no check next to any of the names, I’ll assume you found none on your list to be an Apostle.

 

[apophasis]

If you can see this, how is it you cannot see the seeds of the Ark of the Old Covenant full grown in the Ark of the New?

Because I see a Christ centered gospel. The Ark of the Mosaic law with its blood stained mercy seat prefigured the Person and work of Jesus Christ - not Mary. Read Hebrew chapter nine. It won’t take you long. In respect to the “Ark of the Old Covenant,” is Mary even mentioned once?

 

[apophasis]

The Church is where we get the Marian Doctrines - from the teacher that Christ appointed which is the Church.

Thank you. It is from the RCC that you get the Marian doctrines you now embrace. But Christ never appointed that Church as our teacher. Now it is true that God has given to the Church (the Body of Christ) some as teachers for the equipping of the saints, but the Church itself is not appointed our teacher (see Eph. 4:11-14).

They are not extra-biblical, because they are grounded in Sacred Scripture.

I have studied the Scriptures - I cannot agree.

Further, when the Gospels speak of Christ, it begins here on Earth with Mary. When Christ comes into the world, the first person to know is Mary, for she will be His mother. She also is the one who asks for His first miracle. She is mentioned when he is dying on the Cross. The Gospels themselves show how special Mary is to our Savior. These passages can not be described as ‘very little’. If you don’t see this, then you have not been properly taught, in my opinion.

And you have a right to your opinion. But opinions are not always right. Just as historically there have been many opinions held by men and put into writing. But that doesn’t make them right. What was wrong is when those opinions were then taught as dogma.

The Church does what she is supposed to in regards to respecting and honoring His blessed mother - they speak the Truth of her, and only the Church has the authority to declare these things.

No church has any authority to teach as dogma the opinions of men. The leadership of every church has the responsibility to teach Apostolic truth - nothing more.

 

[Good_Fella]

No church has any authority to teach as dogma the opinions of men. The leadership of every church has the responsibility to teach Apostolic truth - nothing more.

To begin with, the Apostolic truth must be definitive and final or else it cannot be the fullness of truth promised by Christ to his apostles: this is dogma. Second, of all the thousands of Protestant denominations and sects, which Church has actually lived up to the responsibilty of teaching the truth? Which can actually be sure of possessing the Apostolic truth? Or is it a matter of getting some things right and other things wrong? If so, why would Jesus even bother sending the Holy Spirit? It make no sense. None of these churches can agree with each other on many essential Christian doctrines. Meanwhile, they all appeal to the scriptures to defend their individual opinions. Go back to the scriptures and you will see that Christ never prophesied this tragic state of affairs. On the contrary, he said he would establish one Church and safeguard her. He spoke of a visible Church which appears in Acts with the Apostles and continues ad finitum with ordained successors by the laying on of hands. This tradition continues in the Catholic Church despite what happened in the 16th century with the emergence of renegade religious free thinkers. There was only One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church before the Renaissance and there still is. Protestantism is quite a work of artificial human art.Come on, face it. Protestantism is a scriptural and historical contradiction. I can recommend some authoritative and accurate Church history books if you care to do some objective study.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Ginger2]

Quote Good Fella,“None of these churches can agree with each other on many essential Christian doctrines.”

Which “**essential **doctrines” do you believe churches disagree on:

That there is only one God?

That God creator heaven and Earth and all that was, is and ever shall be?

That Jesus Christ is the incarnate God?

That Jesus was crucified, dead and buried?

That on the third day he rose from the dead?

That he assended into heaven?

That he will come again to judge?

I’ve asked before What essential piece of info, concerning salvation, is missing from Scripture?

The answer has been “correct interpretation” but the Scriptures say they don’t need outside interpretation to be understood.

Acts
17:10-12 ….carefully examining the Scriptures daily as to whether these things were so.

Act 18:28 For he mightily convinced the Jews, [and that] publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Nothing ‘essential to salvation’ is missing from Scripture --except that, since Scripture cannot interpret itself, it needs an authoritative interpreter. Since Scripture also tells us that the Holy Spirit is coming to ‘guide us to all truth’ and since Scripture also tells us that “the church is bulwark and pillar of the truth”. . .the inference is that the Holy Spirit will guide us, with the written word, to the Living Word, in whatever the Spirit wills, through the church.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Let’s be careful to look at the Acts passage IN CONTEXT, please.

1

And when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. 2 And Paul, according to his custom, went in unto them; and for three sabbath days he reasoned with them out of the scriptures: 3 Declaring and insinuating that the Christ was to suffer, and to rise again from the dead; and that this is Jesus Christ, whom I preach to you. 4 And some of them believed, and were associated to Paul and Silas; and of those that served God, and of the Gentiles a great multitude, and of noble women not a few. 5 But the Jews, moved with envy, and taking unto them some wicked men of the vulgar sort, and making a tumult, set the city in an uproar; and besetting Jason’s house, sought to bring them out unto the people.

6 And not finding them, they drew Jason and certain brethren to the rulers of the city, crying: They that set the city in an uproar, are come hither also; 7 Whom Jason hath received; and these all do contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, Jesus. 8 And they stirred up the people, and the rulers of the city hearing these things, 9 And having taken satisfaction of Jason and of the rest, they let them go. 10 But the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea. Who, when they were come thither, went into the synagogue of the Jews.

Now these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, who received the word with all eagerness**, daily searching the scriptures, whether these things were so**.

Now, you see, in context, these people were not examining the Scriptures for instruction as to how to live a “Christian” life. (And they were also reading not the New Testament, but the Old.

What they were doing was taking the time and trouble to see if what the apostles were teaching “matched up” with what was actually written in Scripture.

They were NOT interpreting Scripture, but assuring themselves that what the apostles spoke of actually related to what the early, “Old Testament” scripture said.

 

[jabelltulsa]

Thank you. It is from the RCC that you get the Marian doctrines you now embrace. But Christ never appointed that Church as our teacher. Now it is true that God has given to the Church (the Body of Christ) some as teachers for the equipping of the saints, but the Church itself is not appointed our teacher (see Eph. 4:11-14).

This passage speaks to the authority of the Church in unifying all believers under one faith. This passage supports all other passages concerning unity of belief and the roles of the members of the authority of the Church. Only the Catholic Church (East and West) hold Mary in the same regard over the centuries. This is a unifying belief that has stood the test of time. Why is your new interpretation valid, when the teachings of the Church have been repeated for all of the centuries since Christ? Surely you don’t think that Mary plays a small role in the Gospels, and surely you don’t think that the Church just invented these Marian Doctrines at some point. A study of history will show otherwise.

I have studied the Scriptures - I cannot agree.

What should you do, then? Continue to rebel against the authority of the Church, or should you go and ask the Church to guide you?

If I am a Christian from 150AD, who will guide me since I have no book of Sacred Scripture, and no living apostles? I go ask the successors of those apostles. They will teach me. The Church appointed teachers are those who will lead me to Truth. Not my own interpretation.

And you have a right to your opinion. But opinions are not always right. Just as historically there have been many opinions held by men and put into writing. But that doesn’t make them right.

I don’t rely on my own opinion, or yours, for that matter. Christ has given me a living Church to lead me to him. Thanks be to God.

What was wrong is when those opinions were then taught as dogma.No church has any authority to teach as dogma the opinions of men. The leadership of every church has the responsibility to teach Apostolic truth - nothing more.

The Marian Doctrines are defined given the authority granted by Christ himself to His Church (bind and loosen, Keys to the Kingdom).

 

[Ginger2]

I did a Bible study with a woman that didn’t believe Jesus was God. She used Scripture to prove Jesus denied being God.

Through Bible study I cross referenced NT and OT verses. I also read the preceding and following verse to put back in content the claims of this women. We prayed before and after each meeting

In less than a month, this woman’s mind was opened to the Scriptures and accepted Jesus Christ as her lord and savior.

How is it that she was able to understand these things without the RC explanations?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Well, actually, Ginger, “accepting Christ as her Lord and Savior” isn’t exactly in the Bible itself as such. The Bible does not tell us that we shall be saved --or even that we shall be Christians–simply by “accepting Christ as our Lord and Savior”.
(This does not mean that I do not believe Christ is my Lord and Savior. He is. But even the demons know He is Lord. There is much more to being a Christian than an acceptance of WHO Jesus is.)

So the answer is, you used Scripture to interpret the bible for her, regarding the passages about Jesus being God. And she accepted your interpretations, and 'accepted Christ as her Lord and Savior". That’s it. But what ELSE of Christianity does she know, beyond what you told her (to accept Christ as her Lord and Savior)?

 

[Jaypeeto4]

Ginger2,
hi,
I have to say that you and Apophasis crack me up.

Both of you keep asserting, like Joyce Meyer’s robot
( she says, what about me? what about me? what about me?
what about me? what about me? what about me? like a robot to make a point), that there is no scriptural basis for Catholic Marian doctrines.

And then we Catholics, over and over again, give you scriptural evidence for our doctrines, and like Joyce Meyer’s robot, you keep saying over and over again, There is no biblical basis !
There is no biblical basis ! There is no biblical basis ! There is no biblical basis ! There is no biblical basis ! There is no biblical basis !! just like Joyce Meyer’s robot character.

What’s really happening is, that you have YOUR interpretation of the scriptures we provide, and we have OURS. Thing is, is that OURS developed naturally within the church, were prayerfully studied, debated, and examined for centuries before final conclusions were reached. Yours are just your private interpretations. Even the Protestant reformers believed Mary to be immaculately holy and to have been assumpted into heaven, until the day they died. Luther and Calvin wrote beautiful soliloquys in Mary’s honor, long after they had rejected the Catholic Church, and they had scripture to back up their praise of her.

You guys just seem to view Mary as “a nice nobody.”
If that’s your view, go ahead and hold it, we can’t make you change your mind, and a forced conversion is no conversion at all. But a stubborn, smart-alecky attitude toward historic pre-reformation Christianity is not a good attitude to have. It blasphemes all the Christians who lived in God’s favor long before the Reformers were wicked gleams in their daddy’s eyes.
And it amounts to saying “I ALONE am wise.”

Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+

 

[rlg94086]

Acts
17:10-12 ….carefully examining the Scriptures daily as to whether these things were so.

Act 18:28 For he mightily convinced the Jews, [and that] publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.

Ginger2,

Hmm…what about Acts 8:30-31

So Philip rant to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” And he said, “How can I, unless someone guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.

Was Philip wrong to help this man? Shouldn’t he have said, “read it again, and the Holy Spirit will guide you to the right understanding…see ya!” and taken off?

Your misinterpretation is the most common I have heard from non-Catholic Christians. And, they don’t follow their own interpretation. If you truly believe what you say, then you should not study any theological works by Luther, Calvin, etc., since they provide their interpretations. You also should not have a minister teach you their understanding of the gospel. You should do it all on your own. I know absolutely zero non-Catholics who follow this.

Besides, to believe that your interpretations are correct because you are guided by the Holy Spirit, is the ultimate in pridefulness. Certainly, the Holy Spirit would not give us contradictory understandings, right? You would need to believe that anyone whose interpretation is different than yours is not guided by the Holy Spirit.

[Edit add] You also should not have instructed the woman you mentioned, because it is not your place to guide her. The Holy Spirit would have brought her to the correct understanding on her own, correct? [Edit end]
Pax,
Robert

 

[apophasis]

jabelltulsa:

Further, when the Gospels speak of Christ, it begins here on Earth with Mary. When Christ comes into the world, the first person to know is Mary, for she will be His mother. She also is the one who asks for His first miracle. She is mentioned when he is dying on the Cross. The Gospels themselves show how special Mary is to our Savior.

Jabell, do you not find it at least a bit curious that after Christ’s bodily resurrection it is not recorded anywhere that He appeared to Mary personally? If we are to understand (as you say), by the Scriptures, how extraordinarily, special Mary was to our Savior (some here go so far as to claim that He is even eternally grateful to her for allowing Him to able to fulfill His redemptive work), then why isn’t it recorded that the very first person He appeared to was Mary? Wouldn’t a Son, supposedly so devoted to His grieving Mother naturally appear FIRST to her? Yet we read of no such personal encounter.

The parent/child relationship is uniquely earthly. There is absolutely no Scriptural indication that such a relationship continues on into eternity.

Jesus Himself graciously severed His earthly mother/son relationship with Mary when just before His death He said to her concerning John, “Woman, behold your son.” And He said to John, “Behold, your mother!” He didn’t say “Behold My mother.” The son relationship He had with Her via the virgin birth ended with His death. Her care was put into the hands of another.

All of the Marian opinions held by men are based on the assumption that the parent/child relationship is eternal (or they never really gave it any thought). Therefore, it is taught that Christianity is at its core a Mother/Child religion (not unlike most ancient, pagan religions). That one of the primary reasons the Son of God incarnated was to gain an earthly mother to escort back to heaven with Him.

But do we get even a hint of such a notion in the Scriptures? When explaining the faith, does Paul teach such a thing in his Epistles? Does Peter? John? James? Has anyone claimed to have eye witnessed the bodily assumption of Mary into heaven, followed by Her alleged coronation as Queen? Please supply me with their names. Or could it all just be the product of some men’s fertile imaginations?

 

[Ginger2]

Tatumergo,

But I never told her Jesus was her Lord and savior.

I read scripture to her (she can’t see). And if she asked questions, I cross-referenced other Scriptures that spoke of the same topic. I did not, to the best of my recollection, tell her what each passage meant. Instead, I read the whole book.

By reading the entire book (starting with John) verses were kept in context. Questions were answered by moving to the other gospel accounts and the OT prophesy.

Even if I shared my thoughts once or twice, she did not accept Jesus because of my interpretation.

The last time we met, I was reading the part about seek, knock, ans ask. As was usual, I paused and asked if she had any questions. She said, “I was just thinking, I don’t know what to ask for.”

We prayed together, but I was not specific about asking God to do anything. I simply asked that God speak to her and tell her what she needed to know and that His will be done.

So, I don’t think I can take any credit, nor blame for what she came to believe.

 

[Ginger2]

jaypeeto4,

Who is Joyce Meyer?

When I witness to non-Christians, I use their “holy” text to demonstrate the truth. They don’t believe the Bible, so why would I try to convince them using something they think is false?

You would do better to use the Scripture to prove your point then to use church fathers who disagree and contradict themselves.

I helped a Muslim understand that the Trinity is not three gods, but One.

Instead of complaining that protestants don’t accept the authority of the RC, why not witness from Scripture - alone.

 

[apophasis]

This passage speaks to the authority of the Church in unifying all believers under one faith.

No it doesn’t. It explicitly states that He gave various ministries (including teachers) within the Church Christ is building to equip the saints (redeemed believers) for the work of service, to the building up of the Body of Christ - which is the Church.

Nowhere does it say “the Church,” corporately, is our teacher, as you claim.

This passage supports all other passages concerning unity of belief and the roles of the members of the authority of the Church.

I will agree that it supports the unity of faith, for the sake that believers "are no longer be children tossed here and there by waves, and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming… growing up in ALL ASPECTS INTO HIM.I agree with unity, but not conformity for the sake of external unity.

Only the Catholic Church (East and West) hold Mary in the same regard over the centuries. This is a unifying belief that has stood the test of time.

Time is not the test of truth.

Why is your new interpretation valid

I’m not giving you an interpretation. I’m questioning the Apostolic validity of certain Marian dogmas sanctioned by both the Latin and Greek churches.

So what I hear you saying is that doctrines are to be accepted based on how they withstand the test of time? Christ led His Apostles to the Scriptures (see Lk. 24:27, 45), the noble-minded Bereans searched them as well (Acts 17:11)

But you say let time be the test?

 

[Ginger2]

rig,

re: Acts 8:30-31

There is nothing wrong with teaching. But we need to teach from Scripture, according to Scripture. Like I did in order to be sure we teach truth and not opinion. When we share our opinions we should also be clear that it is opinion.

Chapter 3:1 Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you realize that we will be judged more strictly,

 

[jabelltulsa]

Jabell, do you not find it at least a bit curious that after Christ’s bodily resurrection it is not recorded anywhere that He appeared to Mary personally? If we are to understand (as you say), by the Scriptures, how extraordinarily, special Mary was to our Savior (some here go so far as to claim that He is even eternally grateful to her for allowing Him to able to fulfill His redemptive work), then why isn’t it recorded that the very first person He appeared to was Mary? Wouldn’t a Son, supposedly so devoted to His grieving Mother naturally appear FIRST to her? Yet we read of no such personal encounter.

Here we have the break in our communication. You asset that all truth is found only in Sacred Scripture. This is not biblical only the Church has the fullness of Truth. The teaching of the Church in these matters goes on today, as indicated in the New Testament.

The parent/child relationship is uniquely earthly. There is absolutely no Scriptural indication that such a relationship continues on into eternity.

Nor is there any evidence that speaks to it being severed. In fact, to think that there is a break in this relationship (Jesus and Mary) seems to elude to a break in Jesus Man and Jesus God, which is heretical.

Jesus Himself graciously severed His earthly mother/son relationship with Mary when just before His death He said to her concerning John, “Woman, behold your son.” And He said to John, “Behold, your mother!” He didn’t say “Behold My mother.” The son relationship He had with Her via the virgin birth ended with His death. Her care was put into the hands of another.

Of course she was put into the care of another, for he was to die on the Cross. He was going to be away from her. Someone needed to take care of her while He was fulfilling His Promise. A soldier going to war who cared for his mother alone would, of course, find someone to take care of her while he was away; if not, what kind of son would he be? He was saying to her, “John will take care of you from now on”. The Church keeps Mary as John did. She (the Church) proclaims her Blessedness for all time, and She keeps Mary’s importance at the forefront.

Mary’s role, and the honor due her, is completely Scriptural. I see that the Church is doing Her part to keep Mary as Christ instructed John to do.

All of the Marian opinions held by men are based on the assumption that the parent/child relationship is eternal (or they never really gave it any thought). Therefore, it is taught that Christianity is at its core a Mother/Child religion (not unlike most ancient, pagan religions). That one of the primary reasons the Son of God incarnated was to gain an earthly mother to escort back to heaven with Him.

So, by your rationale, Christ’s Church was at the core pagan for all these centuries?

But do we get even a hint of such a notion in the Scriptures? When explaining the faith, does Paul teach such a thing in his Epistles? Does Peter? John? James? Has anyone claimed to have eye witnessed the bodily assumption of Mary into heaven, followed by Her alleged coronation as Queen? Please supply me with their names. Or could it all just be the product of some men’s fertile imaginations?

Rev. 12:1 - Written by John, by the way. This was foreshadowed in Genesis 3:15. Who is the woman?

 

[Ginger2]

Quote: "“accepting Christ as her Lord and Savior” isn’t exactly in the Bible "

Perhaps I should have said “acknowledges Jesus as Lord and savior.”

OR
“confesses Jesus.”