what is the REAL reason why protestants reject mary?

  • Thread starter Thread starter 6glargento
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Dancelittleewok said:
\

I’d say its unbiblical (and a moot point) to say that Jesus “needs no mommy.” Jesus, the Second Person of the Trinity came us through Mary; He indeed had a mother! Does not St. Paul tell us in Gal. 4:4 that the Son of God was born of a woman?

P.S. I’d also suggest that you pray and mediate on upon the Joyful Mysteries since they focus on the Incarnation.
Click to expand...
Please read it again.
 
KnightforChrist said:
I always wonder regarding various things in life, what makes people think this way or that…What makes them tick…The magic question right ???

But regarding Mary, since we belive, as Christians that scripture is the inspired word of God, why do so many christians reject Mary and thus cast a blind eye toward the parts of scripture which show her special place in God’s plan ???

She is a person who was referred to as blessed and having found favor with the Lord, and the mother of our Lord…

Why then, would anyone want to cast her aside as someone who is unimportant or not worthy of our love after the references that have been made to her in sacred scripture ??? :confused: :confused:
Click to expand...
then you, too, misrepresent my words. Protestants do NOT reject Mary, they reject the catholic Mary. She obeyed God’s request, and she completed the responsibility she accepted.
This was prophesied of her in the OT, no more. But very remiss of the FATHER not to lay a solid foundation for the catholic Mary.
 
tequilamac said:
If you do not accept Mary as your mother like St. John the apostle and disciple, and Mary herself as a disciple of her Son,
Then yes, I am fully disciple and no, you are not fully a disciple. That is just the bottom line and has been since 33AD.

:gopray2: :gopray2: :gopray2: :gopray2:
Click to expand...
Sorry, but that one got my funny nerve. I’ve never been called an un-fully disciple. I’ll make a note of it.

I’m sure you can eisegete some scripture verse to suit your contention.

Sheep have I that are not of this fold, said Jesus, and I’m sure He’s willing to include you.
 
CherokeeBrave said:
Sorry, but that one got my funny nerve. I’ve never been called an un-fully disciple. I’ll make a note of it.

I’m sure you can eisegete some scripture verse to suit your contention.

Sheep have I that are not of this fold, said Jesus, and I’m sure He’s willing to include you.
Click to expand...
An unfully disciple is one who does not participate in the fullness of Christ. Unless you accept all of the New Testament and the actions of the early Christians, you cannot be considered participating in the fullness of Christ. Therefore you are sort of a disciple and sort of not. And the fact is not only does Jesus have incredibly sharp words for the lukewarm, I find the lukewarm sort of disciples, distinctly unfunny.
From his own words I cannot act with presumption upon His knowledge, wisdom and mercy to state definitively that He is willing to include you in your present lukewarm state. Sorry.
 
CherokeeBrave said:
then you, too, misrepresent my words. Protestants do NOT reject Mary, they reject the catholic Mary. She obeyed God’s request, and she completed the responsibility she accepted.
This was prophesied of her in the OT, no more. But very remiss of the FATHER not to lay a solid foundation for the catholic Mary.
Click to expand...
I think He did. But I forget that Catholics follow the Bible and take that as our authority along with the traditions of the Apsotles and the earliest Christians. since they agreed with our “catholic Mary” and apostolic teaching on the subject has not changed since 33 AD., I would have to say we have the religion fully while you are living only a part. A nice part to be sure, but only a part.

Others such as the Protestant can pick and choose what parts of the Bible and early fathers they follow- we are not allowed that luxury.
 
ALLFORHIM said:
Good Morning everyone:wave: ,

I am very saddened with how this thread is turning out so I have to humbly bow out.I am starting to take some of this personally and I dont want to go down that road. The responses that were made after I left last night were less then charitable. I like all of you and I dont want that to change. When I logged off last night I kept thinking about how I can prove my side. This morning the Holy Spirit has convicted me about the fact THAT IT IS NOT ABOUT ME AND WHAT I WANT TO PROVE. 😦 It is about GLORIFYING GOD. I am not doing that on this thread. In the privacy of my home and the safety of being behind a computer I am simply trying to make you see the truth. Well, you know what, that is not my job, that is God’s job. Honestly I have been sinful because the way I am thinking about preaching God’s TRUTH. I have been making it about me.😦 Shame on me. I am humbly telling you this because I didnt just want to stop posting. I think that would be rude.

We will all know the truth someday soon and all of this bickering and trying to prove our side is right and your isnt will be over.😉 I, personally cant wait:D

I would like to thank Truthstalker and Cherokee for stepping in last night.👍

I still love you all as my brothers and sisters in Christ. I would like to thank you for challenging me and reminding of Scripture I had forgotten. It was like a mini bible study for me.😃

God Bless all of you

P.S. Please remember that you praise a Holy God with the same mouth you condemn a man/woman. That my dear friends is sinful.😦
Click to expand...
I agree with ALLFORHIM. This thread has gotten too nasty to be a profitable or pleasant discussion. I’m disengaging.
 
Isn’t that the way though? Whenever Protestants on this forum are confronted with Catholics who know the faith and explain the truth to them, they claim injury and foul. It never fails. Like somehow telling someone the truth is uncharitable or mean. Most extraordinary.
 
CherokeeBrave said:
then you, too, misrepresent my words. Protestants do NOT reject Mary, they reject the catholic Mary. She obeyed God’s request, and she completed the responsibility she accepted.
This was prophesied of her in the OT, no more. But very remiss of the FATHER not to lay a solid foundation for the catholic Mary.
Click to expand...
Let me ask you what part of the Catholic Mary do you reject. I just think there is some misunderstanding on you part our Mary is your Mary what we belive is to be true about her. I have to believe unless you give some sort of a claim. No one here has refuted anything I have said from scripture and no one has used scripture to refute what we claim.

Who goes by the bible?
CherokeeBrave said:
I’m sure you can eisegete some scripture verse to suit your contention.
Click to expand...
The funny thing is I have given you verses and what do you do you forget about them. Do not believe she cares for us? Do you not think she and everyone else in heaven pray for our safe journey to heaven? This is the Catholic Mary. So I would have to conclude your Mary does not care for us neither does anyone in heaven and that they dont pray for us. Is this correct? If it is I have given verses to suport our claim how about read them and tell me what you think this time. instead of just telling us we have two different kinds of Mary going on.
 
glargento:

Sexism.

Femininity and divinity produce unreasonable conflicts to their conscience. The idea that any feminine being could perform a role in the salvation of a “man” is repugnant.

AndyF
 
tequilamac said:
I think He did. But I forget that Catholics follow the Bible and take that as our authority along with the traditions of the Apsotles and the earliest Christians. since they agreed with our “catholic Mary” and apostolic teaching on the subject has not changed since 33 AD., I would have to say we have the religion fully while you are living only a part. A nice part to be sure, but only a part.

Others such as the Protestant can pick and choose what parts of the Bible and early fathers they follow- we are not allowed that luxury.
Click to expand...
I would like to see some proof that since 33 ad there has been a belief in the assumption of Mary, the immaculate conception, etc.

As far as scripture goes, you know full well no scripture speaks of Mary being assumed into heaven or that she was sinless. While you and others may read into scripture what you want in light of your tradition, you won’t find many of your traditions in scripture, at least not explicitly, such as the immaculate conception.

I think this is the sticking point for most non-Catholics. You guys seem to believe you have the fullness of faith by adding tradition and we think you have gone to far with your tradition.
 
Reformed1 said:
I would like to see some proof that since 33 ad there has been a belief in the assumption of Mary, the immaculate conception, etc.

As far as scripture goes, you know full well no scripture speaks of Mary being assumed into heaven or that she was sinless. While you and others may read into scripture what you want in light of your tradition, you won’t find many of your traditions in scripture such as the immaculate conception.

I think this is the sticking point for most non-Catholics. You guys seem to believe you have the fullness of faith by adding tradition and we think you have gone to far with your tradition.
Click to expand...
your still within sola scriptura land and have a false assumption that all beliefs must be explicitly derived from scripture completely forgetting that if it wearn’t for extrabiblical tradition you wouldn’t even have a recognized canon of scripture to begin with. as for historical evidence

here is someone writing about it in 337ad

“If the Holy Virgin had died and was buried, her falling asleep would have been surrounded with honour, death would have found her pure, and her crown would have been a virginal one…Had she been martyred according to what is written: ‘Thine own soul a sword shall pierce’, then she would shine gloriously among the martyrs, and her holy body would have been declared blessed; for by her, did light come to the world."
Epiphanius, Panarion, 78:23 (A.D. 377).

yes i know that 377 AD is over 200 years removed from 33AD but sola scriptura was universally unheard of until 1517AD so if you are going to reject the assumption because of lack of histroical support then you MUST reject sola scriptura for the same purpose.
 
Reformed1 said:
I would like to see some proof that since 33 ad there has been a belief in the assumption of Mary, the immaculate conception, etc.

As far as scripture goes, you know full well no scripture speaks of Mary being assumed into heaven or that she was sinless. While you and others may read into scripture what you want in light of your tradition, you won’t find many of your traditions in scripture, at least not explicitly, such as the immaculate conception.

I think this is the sticking point for most non-Catholics. You guys seem to believe you have the fullness of faith by adding tradition and we think you have gone to far with your tradition.
Click to expand...
It took a while before the doctrine of the Trinity was adequately explained. There was much prayer and study, and, also much disagreement ensued over it.

Same thing with the Marian doctrines. It was too much too soon to be able to have everything all thought out and correctly explained.

I am thankful for the Holy Spirit guided Magisterium of the Church.
 
6glargento said:
your still within sola scriptura land and have a false assumption that all beliefs must be explicitly derived from scripture completely forgetting that if it wearn’t for extrabiblical tradition you wouldn’t even have a recognized canon of scripture to begin with. as for historical evidence

here is someone writing about it in 337ad

“If the Holy Virgin had died and was buried, her falling asleep would have been surrounded with honour, death would have found her pure, and her crown would have been a virginal one…Had she been martyred according to what is written: ‘Thine own soul a sword shall pierce’, then she would shine gloriously among the martyrs, and her holy body would have been declared blessed; for by her, did light come to the world."
Epiphanius, Panarion, 78:23 (A.D. 377).

yes i know that 377 AD is over 200 years removed from 33AD but sola scriptura was universally unheard of until 1517AD so if you are going to reject the assumption because of lack of histroical support then you MUST reject sola scriptura for the same purpose.
Click to expand...
I don’t doubt that the various Marian beliefs go back a good ways but I don’t think there is any evidence that they belief(s) can be traced back to either Jesus or the apostles themselves, which is what the other poster seems to be claiming.
 
Dorothy said:
It took a while before the doctrine of the Trinity was adequately explained. There was much prayer and study, and, also much disagreement ensued over it.

Same thing with the Marian doctrines. It was too much too soon to be able to have everything all thought out and correctly explained.

I am thankful for the Holy Spirit guided Magisterium of the Church.
Click to expand...
There are plenty of books out there that discuss the Trinity and how to explain, defend, and understand it using only the scriptures. I believe that during a debate on sola scriptura with James White, Fr. Pacwa conceded the point that the doctrine of the trinity is found in scripture.

The various Marian doctrines seem to be lacking this scriptural support and MUST have tradition added to the scriptures to validate the various dogmas regarding Mary.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top