The Virgin Mary

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ginger2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Joey, What is your response to the Scripture?

Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord? 1 Cor 9:1

And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. 1Cr 15:8

Paul say he saw Jesus.
 
Ginger2 said:
Joey, What is your response to the Scripture?

Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord? 1 Cor 9:1

And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. 1Cr 15:8

Paul say he saw Jesus.
Click to expand...
Yet Luke says he did not. Do you believe Luke or do you believe Paul. Conflicting accounts? Or was Paul just speaking figuratively and/or rhetorically?
 
Ginger2 said:
Joey, What is your response to the Scripture?

Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord? 1 Cor 9:1

And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. 1Cr 15:8

Paul say he saw Jesus.
Click to expand...
seen…

http://www.greekbible.com/i.php?t=ὁράω,v {hor-ah’-o}
  1. to see with the eyes 2)** to see with the mind, to perceive, know 3) to see, i.e. become acquainted with by experience, to experience** 4) to see, to look to 4a) to take heed, beware 4b) to care for, pay heed to 5) I was seen, showed myself, appeared For Synonyms see entry 5822
In light of what Luke wrote…
 
apophasis said:
Then it must be demonstrated, somehow, somewhere, within those writings that assert those non-Biblical, Marian doctrines. NONE do. So far what I see is that your church just embraced those doctrines (personal opinions) as dogma and by its own self-proclaimed, Apostolic, authority branded them “Apostolic.” But no proof, whatsoever, was ever provided. Could such a claim hold up in a court of law? Hardly!
Click to expand...
This is the most arrant nonsense! Yopu keep demanding written documents proving oral teachings. The fact that they were passed down without dissent from the Apostolic period is their verification.
.Actually I think that was first expressed by Constantine.
Click to expand...
Where did you get this fron? Dan Brown? Constantine was not a Christian writer.
Mary’s IC wasn’t something understood over time. The doctrine was later taught by men and by means of eisegeses, Lk. 1:28 was used to support it. It wasn’t accepted as dogma until the 1800s.
Click to expand...
You are confusing two things.
  1. Mary’s sinlessness. Taught since the times of the early church.
  2. The doctrine of the IC, which defines HOW Mary’s sinlessness comes about. What was defined in 1800 was a DETAIL of the always taught sinlessness of Mary.
Rev. 12 was said to support the post-Apostolic doctrine of Mary’s heavenly coronation. But the text does not reveal “the woman” to be in heaven at all. Neither the text or context of those two passages can help anyone to more fully “understand” those two Marian dogmas. They’re read into the text.
Click to expand...
Evangelicals should know about reading things into a text!
Actually Revelation 12 is quite clear. It takes a great deal of squirming and rationalisation to get round it.
 
sandusky said:
I’m curious, where did Luke say that?
Click to expand...
Acts Chapter 9

4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?

5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.

7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

8 And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened,** he saw no man**: but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus.

9 And he was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink.
 
Joey, Your last post demonstrates what I meant by "nit-picking.

Are you saying that if God speak to me directly in a human voice, it is not as valid as if he appear in an image such as, oh let’s say a burning bush that is not consumed by the flame?

Is God’s word only good if you see something along with it?

And if Paul/Saul did not see the light then how did he know a light shown all around him?

Please state the verse containing Peter’s quote. I vaguely remember it, but not where it is.
 
Ginger2 said:
Joey, Your last post demonstrates what I meant by "nit-picking.

Are you saying that if God speak to me directly in a human voice, it is not as valid as if he appear in an image such as, oh let’s say a burning bush that is not consumed by the flame?

Is God’s word only good if you see something along with it?

And if Paul/Saul did not see the light then how did he know a light shown all around him?

Please state the verse containing Peter’s quote. I vaguely remember it, but not where it is.
Click to expand...
Acts 9:3 And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:

Paul saw a light. That was all. Nothing more and nothing less. IMHO I am sure if Paul had actually seen the visage of Christ, Luke would have recorded it as so. I would agree that if Paul did see Christ, it was with the mind’s eye and not the physical eye.
 
JoeyWarren said:
Acts Chapter 9

4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?

5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.

7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

8 And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened,** he saw no man**: but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus.

9 And he was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink.
Click to expand...
OK; so you’re being “hyper-literal.” That’s what I figured. :rolleyes:
 
Below Paul compares his meeting Jesus on the road to the way other Disciple saw Jesus after the resurrection:

1 Cor 15: 8 Last of all, as to one born abnormally, he appeared to me.
 
When Paul arose he saw nothing - because he was blind!

But the light surrounded them first. Paul fell to the ground and then heard the voice. At least if you think this was written in cronological order.

Why would Paul fall to the ground before hearing anything if he had not seen something?
 
Joey, Don’t beat around the bush. Spell it out. What is your point?

And where is the verse that Peter says Paul did not see Jesus?
 
Ginger2 said:
When Paul arose he saw nothing - because he was blind!

But the light surrounded them first. Paul fell to the ground and then heard the voice. At least if you think this was written in cronological order.

Why would Paul fall to the ground before hearing anything if he had not seen something?
Click to expand...
Yes why would Paul fall to the ground? Jesus appeared to others and these others did not fall to the ground. Maybe Paul fell to the ground because he was blinded by the light a micro-second after he was aware of it. Falling to the ground is a natural tendacy after losing one’s sight unexpectedly. One feels safer when they are touching ground after being blinded. Believe me, I’ve been there.
 
Ah-hah! Then you admit Paul saw the light!

Where is the verse from Peter?
 
Ginger2 said:
Joey, Don’t beat around the bush. Spell it out. What is your point?

And where is the verse that Peter says Paul did not see Jesus?
Click to expand...
Peter? I said Luke.

The point? Just think about it real hard, even better, go look at some of your comments in this thread.

Here is a second point I will give freely.

On given matter of question, A Catholic if he knows better will look to Jesus first to see what he said about an issue and then in that light look to what Paul said.

Now the Protestant on the other hand has the tendacy to look first to see what Paul has to say and then try to shoehorn in what Jesus had to say about an issue.
 
Joey said: "On given matter of question, A Catholic if he knows better will look to Jesus first to see what he said about an issue and then in that light look to what Paul said.

Now the Protestant on the other hand has the tendacy to look first to see what Paul has to say and then try to shoehorn in what Jesus had to say about an issue."

I look to God first. And compare what humans say to what God says. Jesus taught this and so did the disciples. Search the Scriptures to see if it is true.

Where did Like say such a thing? I remember it being Peter, but maybe my memory is faulty. Or maybe it is because there was tension between Peter and Paul and that is why I think that.
 
Well, I already responded to that.

Do you only respect the word of God if you see what you want to see or is it OK for God to appear in whatever form He chooses?

Paul said he saw the risen Jesus. He said he saw him after the other disciples saw him.

Would you make the Bible a contradiction? Obviously your personal interpretation is faulty.
 
JoeyWarren said:
Peter? I said Luke.

The point? Just think about it real hard, even better, go look at some of your comments in this thread.

Here is a second point I will give freely.

On given matter of question, A Catholic if he knows better will look to Jesus first to see what he said about an issue and then in that light look to what Paul said.

Now the Protestant on the other hand has the tendacy to look first to see what Paul has to say and then try to shoehorn in what Jesus had to say about an issue.
Click to expand...
Huh? Do you have a couple of examples of this?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top