what is the REAL reason why protestants reject mary?

[Truthstalker]

But written tradition can be changed or lost - oral tradition cannot. Written tradition passes through the hands of scribes and editors, and can be reinterpreted to mean something else. Look what happened to fairy tales when they began to be written down - we now have the “politically corrected” Cinderella, Red Riding Hood, etc. - when they were transmitted orally, people didn’t think of making them to be “politically correct.”

The Reformation was not a continuation of the Church; it was the invention/establishment of a new religion - in fact, it deliberately fought against all Christian tradition - not just oral tradition, but they also did away with large sections of the Scriptures themselves.

Like we need another Sola Scriptura thread around here.

Actually oral tradition is more fluid in the ways you describe than written information is. You present a great argument for Sola Scriptura. We don’t know the original form of the fairy tales because there is no record of them. We do know that the NT manuscripts are accurate because of the number of them and the consistency through the ages. You seem to be making the case that the church has readily altered written documents for its own purposes throughout history. I doubt you really mean to say that.

The Reformation was intended to bring the church back to what it had been before corruption, in the face of massive Catholic departure from the truth into superstition and corruption. It was an expression of a desire for unity with the true church in all its purity and holiness rather than its decadence. It can be equally argued that the Popes and crew had created a religion for their own interest or that the reformers created a new religion. The reformers saw the Catholic Church as having broken away from apostolic teaching and authority and moved to restore it. Like this has anything to do with this thread.

You seem to like double-edged arguments that can be turned against you.

 

[justasking4]

I can tell you have not read all threw the thred Im going to give you scripture that I have posted 2 times already and have gotten no response so Im going to post it a 3rd. Maybe YOU can tell me how these verse do not mean they can hear our verses. It hasnt been done yet. And if it is what you believe tell me how you can deny what Catholics teach on this in regards to these scripture passages

(Eph 2:19) “So then you are no longer STRANGERS and sojourners, but you are **FELLOW-CITIZENS WITH THE SAINTS, **and the house hold of God.” And what do we do with the citizen here on earth we ask for there prayer. Same for the body of Christ in heaven.

You must assume that the conditions in heaven are as they are here. Secondly, you must also assume that the person you are praying to is not in hell or purgatory. Can a person you are praying to hear your prayers from there?

(Rev. 8:3-4) “the smoke of the incense along with the prayers of the **holy ones **went up before God from the hand of the angel.” Obviously they pray for us in heaven and present our prayers to the Lord.

Where does it say in this passage that anyone is praying directly to the “holy ones” i.e. angels? Where is it showing that the angels are praying to God for us?

Who are these holy ones? And why are the angels handing them to God?

all this passage is doing is describing something that is going on in heaven. It does not tell us why.

If we are only to pray strait to God and if that is all people are doing than the angels would not have any prayers to offer.

Not necessarily. Revelations is highly symbolic and uses word pictures to describe events.

(Tobit 12:12) “I can now tell you that when you, Tobit, and Sarah prayed, it was **I who presented **and read the record of your prayer before the glory of the Lord.” we have an angel presenting a prayer to God!!!

I’m not familar with Tobit so i can’t really comment on it. Who was Tobit and Sarah praying to? was it the angel?

Just as we present prayer for one another here on earth. It has always been Christian tradition that they still do this in heaven.
This doesn’t make it true though. There is no such exhortation in the NT that we should pray to people who have died.

And our loved ones who have gone before us that are equal to the angels pray for us as well.
How do you know a deceased loved one is in heaven and can hear your prayers? Does not the catholic church claim not to know the condition of those who have died?

We are also equal to the angels when in heaven (Lk 20:34-36) and there are countless verses that say angels see us…

That may be true but that does not mean when you die you will be an angel or have the capacity to hear prayers of those in this world. In fact i can’t think of one passage in scripture that when a Christian dies he will continue to have interaction with the living here. Do you know of any?

And if angels can see us and we are equal then those in heaven must be able to see us. And not only do angels see us they help us in our journey to heaven

Would you happen to have some scripture to back this up-“And not only do angels see us they help us in our journey to heaven”?

well Catholics believe the saints in heaven who are equal to the angles help us also threw there prayer.

I’m not aware of anyone in scripture praying directly to angels for help. All prayers are to be directed to God only.

“The prayer of a rightous person availath much.”

Have you looked at the context in James for this? Its not about anyone in heaven.

please help me I just cant get by these verses there so Catholic

 

[justasking4]

Josh McDowell, in his book Evidence Demanding a Verdict, shows archaeological evidence that the first verse of the Hail Mary prayer was inscribed on the pillars of the Catacombs where the first generation of Christians in Rome met for Mass during the persecutions of that era - so, yes, it seems as though they were praying to Mary, even that early.

** Just because something is on “stone” does not mean that the church of the time endorsed this kind of thing. If anything, it shows that this person had a belief about mary that is not taught in the NT. **

Obviously they would not have prayed to her before she died, but the Book of Acts records that she was present at nearly all of the really important events of the first generation, as well - she was certainly well known to the Apostles, and it seems as though they included her in just about everything.

** This still is not enough to support what the catholic church teaches about her. For example, we have no teaching from her. Not one. In fact, after Acts she is never mentioned again by name. Paul refers to her indirectly in Gal. **

 

[jmcrae]

Like we need another Sola Scriptura thread around here.

Actually oral tradition is more fluid in the ways you describe than written information is. You present a great argument for Sola Scriptura. We don’t know the original form of the fairy tales because there is no record of them. We do know that the NT manuscripts are accurate because of the number of them and the consistency through the ages. You seem to be making the case that the church has readily altered written documents for its own purposes throughout history. I doubt you really mean to say that.

No - but Joseph Smith did, and so did Ellen White, and Charles Taze Russell. The Reformers themselves got rid of seven books of the Old Testament. But first, they got rid of the Oral Tradition.

The Oral Tradition keeps the written Scriptures honest - by getting rid of the Oral Tradition, these particular people were able to alter the Scriptures according to their personal theology, without their followers being any the wiser.

 

[tequilamac]

Can someone please answer this question? I posted it above and I ask again:

How can a Protestant reject the assumption of Mary and the idea of the saints while still believing in the Rapture? Like somehow they are more deserving than the Mother of God of being raptured, body and soul into heaven during rush hour on the freeway, but if Catholics suggest the Holy Mother or the Saints have been raptured into heaven and celebrate Assumption- hey watch out.

 

[Truthstalker]

To continue the construct:

I bolded NO because that is not what the King James version says Funny that you would use a Protestant translation to back up a Catholic argument. Look at the Greek: the word is menoun: on the contrary, rather, indeed, much more: Jesus is denying the premise and substituting another. Blood lines are not what is important; obeying Him is. Mary being His mother isn’t important; whether the believer obeys Him is.

it says “Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God and keep it.”

(Luke 11:28) Jesus respond to a woman who says “ blessed is the womb that carried you and the breast at which you nursed. Jesus response was. “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it,”
Jesus isn’t saying his mother is not blessed we know she is blessed because scripture says she is. Jesus is showing us that Mary was the one obedient to the Lord. Mary says in (Luke 1:38) “May it be done to me according to your word.” That is the message that the author Luke is pertraying. Luke goes on to write that Jesus says blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it. **Keep in mind also that Luke earler says that all generation will call Marry blessed **(Lk 1:48), so Luke would not contradict himself. Jesus is showing that we should do as Mary did. To hear his word and keep it.

To think Jesus would rebuke his mother. Would be saying he broke the 4th commandment. It is saying God commited sin. We know that isn’t true he obayed his mother. He obayed the commandments perfectly.
If your mother errs, what do you do? Do you allow her to keep erring, or do you gently point out, with respect, where you think she might have strayed? Certainly He honored His mother, but that is not a license for unbridled devotion to her, especially in the face of some of the verse about Mary.

says your interpritation but we know you interpritation is wrong. Well, that is what you are trying to prove.

(Rev. 12:17) This verse talking about Mary a woman who brought forth a male child who will rule the Nations with rod in hand” this is Jesus we know this because of (Rev 19:15-16) “He will rule with rod of Iron on his robe will say King of Kings”
verse 17 tells us that Mary’s offspring are those who keep God’s commandments and bear testimony to Jesus. And as Catholics we have always believed, that Mary is the Mother of all Christians. And what shall we do we shall honor our parents. Mary being our spiritual mother whom we should honor. The source of this interpretation is the church: the church is right because the church is right. Revelations 12 has several interpretations: the woman has been variously interpreted as Israel, the church, and I think some other intepretations have been made. The book of Revelations is difficult to interpret, and I think people should hesitate before using it to develop doctrine. And does Mary have two wings like an eagle, and did the earth swallow a flood for her?

Are you saying Jesus rbukes the fact that Abraham is our father. I can remember singing father Abraham in sunday School I guess we got it all wrong.

This is silly.

And so do Catholics believe. And so did Jesus when he said “yea rather blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it.” We can be blessed like her

The reformers and yoiu only reject it because it is Catholic you have no scripture to back your claim I gave you plenty of Scripture.

oh and regarding (Lk 8:21)

you got it wrong again

( Luke 8:21) “Who are my mother, and sisters and brothers?,” some Protestants like to use this verse to rebuke Mary. They claim that Jesus is rebuking Mary. But if you read scripture as a whole just before this verse in (Lk 8:5-15) Jesus is showing that Mary has rich soil and bears good fruit. Jesus shows us that we must be like Mary. Who is a perfict example of the parable verses 5-15. Who are my mother and sisters and brothers? Those who do the will of God.
You could just as easily say that Mary was among any of the four groups, and in the context, it would look more like she was one of those who believe and fall away, as she was then not with the disciples but away from them: many people were listening to Jesus, as she had not been, so that she could not get to Him because of the crowd.
\God bless

 

[Truthstalker]

No - but Joseph Smith did, and so did Ellen White, and Charles Taze Russell. The Reformers themselves got rid of seven books of the Old Testament. But first, they got rid of the Oral Tradition.

The Oral Tradition keeps the written Scriptures honest - by getting rid of the Oral Tradition, these particular people were able to alter the Scriptures according to their personal theology, without their followers being any the wiser.

Oral tradition being oral, you have no record of what it was a generation ago. There’s a game children play where you sit in a circle and whisper to your neighbor - it starts out as one sentence and by the time it gets around the circle, it can be very different. Oral tradition can be like that. I would say rather the Scriptures - the written documents - keep the oral tradition honest, or should.

 

[justasking4]

How on earth do you know that your church, your pastor, your Bible study leader, hasn’t perverted the Word of God or anything else they’ve taught you (and I’m sure there’s a fair you’ve been taught that isn’t explicitly in the Bible either) when they passed it on to you?

** You study the scripture yourself. Look what the Bereans did in Acts 17:11. They did not just accept Paul’ teachings without studying the scriptures to see if these things were in line with the Scripture.

Secondly, we must always be on guard against false teachers that will come into the church and deceive. There is no promise in scripture that protects us from them. One of the ways to avoid being decieved is to know the scriptures.

**

 

[Truthstalker]

Can someone please answer this question? I posted it above and I ask again:

How can a Protestant reject the assumption of Mary and the idea of the saints while still believing in the Rapture? Like somehow they are more deserving than the Mother of God of being raptured, body and soul into heaven during rush hour on the freeway, but if Catholics suggest the Holy Mother or the Saints have been raptured into heaven and celebrate Assumption- hey watch out.

Because they find the rapture in the Scriptures but not the other things you speak of. It’s not a matter of deserving but of what God said. And Catholics believe in the parousia of Christ.

 

[tequilamac]

Because they find the rapture in the Scriptures but not the other things you speak of. It’s not a matter of deserving but of what God said. And Catholics believe in the parousia of Christ.

Okay I cannot buy the explanation that it is because the rapture is in scripture but not the assumption. The literal interpretation of the Last Supper is in Scripture and most Protestants do not accept that either. So it must be more than being in Scripture.

 

[tequilamac]

** You study the scripture yourself. Look what the Bereans did in Acts 17:11. They did not just accept Paul’ teachings without studying the scriptures to see if these things were in line with the Scripture.

Secondly, we must always be on guard against false teachers that will come into the church and deceive. There is no promise in scripture that protects us from them. One of the ways to avoid being decieved is to know the scriptures.

**

Amen and so true. People on the Catholic Forums never know when the Protestants well come and try to deceive them. We just can’t be too careful even when we think we are on a Catholic forum. Excellent point. You are correct.
So it is good we know the Scriptures *and *the Catechism.

 

[Truthstalker]

Okay I cannot buy the explanation that it is because the rapture is in scripture but not the assumption. The literal interpretation of the Last Supper is in Scripture and most Protestants do not accept that either. So it must be more than being in Scripture.

The Last Supper is in Scripture and can be interpreted in various ways. It took the Catholic Church until 1250 to figure it out, with various ECFs holding different positions on it. The parallel does not hold.

 

[justasking4]

Amen and so true. People on the Catholic Forums never know when the Protestants well come and try to deceive them. We just can’t be too careful even when we think we are on a Catholic forum. Excellent point. You are correct.
So it is good we know the Scriptures *and *the Catechism.

do you think its possible that your catechism could be wrong at certain points? Do you some of your leaders in the past have deceived your church?

 

[Truthstalker]

Amen and so true. People on the Catholic Forums never know when the Protestants well come and try to deceive them. We just can’t be too careful even when we think we are on a Catholic forum. Excellent point. You are correct.
So it is good we know the Scriptures *and *the Catechism.

I hope you know the Scripture and the Catechism, with all the priests and RCIA instructors, not to mention the liberal bishops and laity, who don’t. There are many teachers in the Catholic Church leading Catholics astray. And you are told that because it is a Catholic teacher, it is right and protected by God from error. Arrogance, spiritual pride, presumption and complacency are uniquely safeguarded within a church that does not teach its people to test everything against Scripture but instead insists on its own authority.

 

[tequilamac]

I hope you know the Scripture and the Catechism, with all the priests and RCIA instructors, not to mention the liberal bishops and laity, who don’t. There are many teachers in the Catholic Church leading Catholics astray. And you are told that because it is a Catholic teacher, it is right and protected by God from error. Arrogance, spiritual pride, presumption and complacency are uniquely safeguarded within a church that does not teach its people to test everything against Scripture but instead insists on its own authority.

I absolutely agree that Catholics need to know their scriptures. Simply because we never know when a Protestant will come and lead us astray. In fact, we had a Lutheran teaching RCIA for the teen confirmation class. But even the kids thought there was something kind of wierd about it. She had them all doing a meditative contemplative exercise that as my kids said was one of the wierdest things they have ever had to do. Plus she made them say only the Our Father, and no hail mary and no doxology as they had been taught to do.
They do not yet know their scriptures, but they know when they have met a false teacher. My daughter, who was 12 at the time, demanded an immediate explanation from Father who was somewhat surprised himself. But he was new in the parish so didn’t really know. Needless to say she has been replaced.
Nevertheless, I wonder how my daughter and the other kids knew?

 

[tequilamac]

do you think its possible that your catechism could be wrong at certain points? Do you some of your leaders in the past have deceived your church?

No. But I would say you are working overtime on it.:angel1:

 

[tequilamac]

The Last Supper is in Scripture and can be interpreted in various ways. It took the Catholic Church until 1250 to figure it out, with various ECFs holding different positions on it. The parallel does not hold.

That is the most incorrect statement I have ever heard about the Church yet. Which just goes to show how correct you protestants are when you say that catholics must protect themselves from you by knowing the scriptures and the catechism. Absolutely.

The parallel holds as you obviously have no idea what I was talking about, do you? Don’t feel bad though. It is a wonderful question Catholics ask because no Protestant has ever been able to explain why they accept everything that is in the Bible except the Eucharist. I love asking it.

 

[Dorothy]

I hope you know the Scripture and the Catechism, with all the priests and RCIA instructors, not to mention the liberal bishops and laity, who don’t. There are many teachers in the Catholic Church leading Catholics astray. And you are told that because it is a Catholic teacher, it is right and protected by God from error. Arrogance, spiritual pride, presumption and complacency are uniquely safeguarded within a church that does not teach its people to test everything against Scripture but instead insists on its own authority.

It is not individual Catholics that are protected from error. It is the teaching authority (Magisterium) of the Church that is protected from teaching error with regard to faith and morals.

Catholics have to be on their guard as to what some priests and/or Catholic teachers are teaching. They have to avail themselves of what the Church authentically teaches against what some individual Catholics teach.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The Last Supper is in Scripture and can be interpreted in various ways. It took the Catholic Church until 1250 to figure it out, with various ECFs holding different positions on it. The parallel does not hold.

1250? This is an anti-Catholic claim I have not heard before, and I need it for my collection. Please explain.

 

[Dorothy]

The Last Supper is in Scripture and can be interpreted in various ways. It took the Catholic Church until 1250 to figure it out, with various ECFs holding different positions on it. The parallel does not hold.

Yes, without the Bread of Life Discourse in John 6:22-59, the Last Supper can be interpreted in various ways.

The Bread of Life Discourse makes it quite clear.