Why is it wrong to love Mary?

[peary]

Excellent points, Roy.

The early stories of Jesus’ conception and birth are in the latest gospels written, were written by Greeks, who had a rich tradition of gods and man/gods with stories surrounding their birth. These stories would have been in the epistles if they were circulating at the time and were thought to be true. Ditto Mary’s primacy*. It wasn’t there.* NO one can explain this away. Paul and the apostles go on and on about Jesus’ role and nature of salvation, but *not a word *about Mary.

**Now you are challenging the accuracy of Scripture. The early ‘stories’ about Jesus were written by Jews FOR Jews - GREEK-SPEAKING Jews.There is nothing historical which can be construed that the Greek tradition of gods and man/gods were ‘mistaken’ for authentic epistles by the Church. All of the New Testament was written prior to the death of the last Apostle, so you still have the first generation still living at the time.

The Church honors Mary because, as Christ is the mystical Body of His Church, and we make up the the Body of Christ as the Church, Mary becomes our Mother, and that is the understanding, just as the apostles are still our brothers in Christ. All are part of the Communion of Saints - those in Heaven who praise God around the Eternal Throne. It is a family. Christ extended the understanding of family to be all-inclusive. That is why He asks, after someone in the crowd points out that His family is present, “Who is my mother and who are my brethren? Those that keep the Word are my family” which is including all of those present as His immediate family.

Also, the reason the Church finds dignity in Mary has to do with the theological understanding that just as a woman brought sin into the world (Eve), a woman (Mary) brought salvation into the world. God placed a woman (and woman in general) at the center of His plan of Salvation for all of us. Motherhood is raised to a dignified state in life because it is through the woman that life as a gift from God is perpetuated on the earth. As a gift, human life is to be loved, nurtured, and cared for, and extended to other facets of life on earth.

The other matter is that if we were not born, then we would have never known of God’s great love for us through our baptism or His forgiveness of sin. **

 

[1234]

**Now you are challenging the accuracy of Scripture. The early ‘stories’ about Jesus were written by Jews FOR Jews - GREEK-SPEAKING Jews.There is nothing historical which can be construed that the Greek tradition of gods and man/gods were ‘mistaken’ for authentic epistles by the Church. All of the New Testament was written prior to the death of the last Apostle, so you still have the first generation still living at the time.

**

Uh, yeah, I’m challenging the accuracy of the New Testament.

The arguments re necessity of circumcision indicate that early Christianity was preaching to the uncircumcised, ie, the non-Jews. I find it extraordinary that *not one *NT document was written in Hebrew. Why? Because the writers weren’t Jewish. They didn’t know Jesus and may or may not have known the apostles. The earliest gospel, Mark, doesn’t even mention the birth narrative. Only one version, Luke, does. All of the gospels were written after Paul’s epistles, which don’t mention the birth narratives or Mary. I find it astounding that no other writer would have mentioned these stories if they were thought to have been true. And many other gods at that timewere surrounded by the same stories, in Greece and Egypt, as far away as India (birth and life of Krishna). It would seem natural to surround the birth of Jesus with the same sort of events.

The other big problem with the "accuracy of the scriptures"concerns the fragmentary and incomplete nature of the manuscripts that survived. For example, the much-quoted Matt 28:19, exhortation to preaching, baptism and the trinity, which appears only in copies of Matthew which date from the 4th century, but was not in earlier versions, clearly an interpolation.

 

[justasking4]

1234;3350670]Uh, yeah, I’m challenging the accuracy of the New Testament.

The arguments re necessity of circumcision indicate that early Christianity was preaching to the uncircumcised, ie, the non-Jews.

Not so. Read Acts. The church was born in Jersualm which was Jewish.

I find it extraordinary that *not one *NT document was written in Hebrew. Why? Because the writers weren’t Jewish.

Not so. Matthew, Mark and John were Jews. Also read the book of Hebrews which speaks of a person very familar with Jewish customs.

They didn’t know Jesus and may or may not have known the apostles.

Incorrect. John claims to be an eyewitness to the events in his gospel. See John 21:24

The earliest gospel, Mark, doesn’t even mention the birth narrative. Only one version, Luke, does. All of the gospels were written after Paul’s epistles, which don’t mention the birth narratives or Mary. I find it astounding that *no other writer *would have mentioned these stories if they were thought to have been true.

Again you err. Matthew also mentions it in 1:18-2:23

And many other gods at that timewere surrounded by the same stories, in Greece and Egypt, as far away as India (birth and life of Krishna). It would seem natural to surround the birth of Jesus with the same sort of events.

If you are proposing some kind of pagan-myth borrowing you are not on solid ground. Look at the details of the birth and life of Krishna from the primary sources and you will see the differences. If anything the pagan-myths borrowing did not come about until after Christianity was already here.

The other big problem with the "accuracy of the scriptures"concerns the fragmentary and incomplete nature of the manuscripts that survived. For example, the much-quoted Matt 28:19, exhortation to preaching, baptism and the trinity, which appears only in copies of Matthew which date from the 4th century, but was not in earlier versions, clearly an interpolation.

Not necessarily so. We have far more manuscripts for the NT by far than any other ancient work. Its not even close. There are over something like 20,000 manuscripts and fragments of the NT. Compare this with other works of the past and it doesn’t even come close.

 

[Hastrman]

There’s also the little fact that nearly all the New Testament contains Hebraisms, like “He spoke, saying”–they use constructions from their native language.

It’s sort of like, you ever notice you can tell that a website was written by an Eastern European? They say things, for instance, like “it is been” rather than “it has been”–because in Slavic languages “to be” is the auxiliary for the past-perfect, not “to have”. Similarly they drop articles all over the place.

 

[peary]

Uh, yeah, I’m challenging the accuracy of the New Testament.

The arguments re necessity of circumcision indicate that early Christianity was preaching to the uncircumcised, ie, the non-Jews. I find it extraordinary that *not one *NT document was written in Hebrew. Why? Because the writers weren’t Jewish. They didn’t know Jesus and may or may not have known the apostles. The earliest gospel, Mark, doesn’t even mention the birth narrative. Only one version, Luke, does. All of the gospels were written after Paul’s epistles, which don’t mention the birth narratives or Mary. I find it astounding that no other writer would have mentioned these stories if they were thought to have been true. And many other gods at that timewere surrounded by the same stories, in Greece and Egypt, as far away as India (birth and life of Krishna). It would seem natural to surround the birth of Jesus with the same sort of events.

The other big problem with the "accuracy of the scriptures"concerns the fragmentary and incomplete nature of the manuscripts that survived. For example, the much-quoted Matt 28:19, exhortation to preaching, baptism and the trinity, which appears only in copies of Matthew which date from the 4th century, but was not in earlier versions, clearly an interpolation.

**The Gospel of Matthew was written around 70 A.D. or immediately after the fall of Jerusalem. It was probably written in Antioch which had a large mixed population of both Greek-speaking Gentiles and Jews. The tension there between Jew and Gentile converts in Antioch is obviously reflected in Matthew’s gospel. The church of Matthew, originally strongly Jewish Christian, had become one in which Gentile Christians were predominant. His gospel answers the question how obedience to the will of God is to be expressed by those who live after the “turn of the ages,” the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Mark’s gospel was written a bit earlier than that of Matthew since Matthew’s account borrows heavily from Mark’s account. Apart from the ancient heading “According to Mark” in manuscripts, it has traditionally been assigned to John Mark, in whose mother’s house (at Jerusalem) Christians assembled. This Mark was a cousin of Barnabas and accompanied Barnabas and Paul on a missionary journey. He appears in Pauline letters and with Peter. Papias described Mark as Peter’s “interpreter,” a view found in other patristic writers.Traditionally, the gospel is said to have been written shortly before A.D. 70 in Rome, at a time of impending persecution and when destruction loomed over Jerusalem. Its audience seems to have been Gentile, unfamiliar with Jewish customs. Modern research often proposes as the author an unknown Hellenistic Jewish Christian.

Early Christian tradition, from the late second century on, identifies the author of the Gospel of Luke and of the Acts of the Apostles as Luke, a Syrian from Antioch, who is mentioned in the New Testament. The prologue of the gospel makes it clear that Luke is not part of the first generation of Christian disciples but is himself dependent upon the traditions he received from those who were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word. Luke definitely was someone who was highly literate both in the Old Testament traditions according to the Greek versions and in Hellenistic Greek writings.

As for the gospel of John, the final editing of the gospel and arrangement in its present form probably dates from between A.D. 90 and 100. Traditionally, Ephesus has been favored as the place of composition.

What you need to understand that the biblical writings are the most prolific of any ancient manuscripts and they have been edited and re-edited many times based upon continuing new evidence. But all are rather standard now because of the scholarship involved.

Although there might seem to be a similarity in the presentation of Christ in the clothing of a pagan god, that is totally foreign to the concept of Messiah. If there was any metaphor involved, it was to point out that Jesus WAS God and was the fulfillment of the desires of pagan religion to “know the unknowable God” as Paul says. You give too much credit to “pop theology”, much like Van Daniken’s contention that ancient human monuments couldn’t possibly have been constructed by human culture but only by aliens LOL.

The Bible as we have is as accurate as we will ever have. Some Christian church traditions (in the East) contain more books which we don’t have. Does that make it less effective? Besides, scripture is the memoirs of the Church, and the Church has canonized the matter, so why go on and on about all of the other stuff. We have what we have based on the best available resources to us. Use it to understand your salvation, not use it as a spiritual division within yourself. **

 

[Metaron]

i said ‘some kind’ of ominiscience. catholics dont say it outright, but thats what it logically amounts to: millions of catholics praying to her all at the same time…you’ll need some kind of ‘all knowing’ powers in order to recieve and understand all those simultaneous messages coming long distance from earth.

Uh, time on earth is different than time on heaven, so the saints need not be omniscient. On the other hand, I kind of imagine it like this: Your guardian angel hears your prayers to God and the saints, and when the time comes (when you’re asleep, I guess? An event of angels “reporting” to God is found in Job) to report to God and the saints in heaven, they each file their petitions, and each saint recieves his petition, kind of like our earthly court system. At least that’s the way I see it.

 

[justasking4]

Uh, time on earth is different than time on heaven, so the saints need not be omniscient. On the other hand, I kind of imagine it like this: Your guardian angel hears your prayers to God and the saints, and when the time comes (when you’re asleep, I guess? An event of angels “reporting” to God is found in Job) to report to God and the saints in heaven, they each file their petitions, and each saint recieves his petition, kind of like our earthly court system. At least that’s the way I see it.

How do you know that “time on earth is different than time on heaven”?

 

[peary]

How do you know that “time on earth is different than time on heaven”?

**Uh, because ‘time’ in Heaven is eternal? **

 

[Cathy]

**The Gospel of Matthew was written around 70 A.D. or immediately after the fall of Jerusalem. **

Fr. Brian Mullady, O.P. writes in This Rock, Jan. 1992
catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9201fea2.asp

"New scholarly evidence has come to light, and there is now a significant group of exegetes who hold that Matthew, an eyewitness to all Jesus did and taught was the author of the first Gospel before A.D. 45.

Luke wrote the second Gospel [at] the urging of Paul for the Gentile mission. Though neither Paul nor Luke was an eyewitness to the life of Christ (though theologically Paul’s Damascus experience might be considered as an extraordinary experience of this), they consulted people who were. In the case of the infancy narratives, for example, they consulted Mary.

The third Gospel was that of Mark, who was a disciple of Peter. This reflects a request of the Church for Peter to publicly comment on the concordance of and difference between Matthew and Luke, which he did. Mark is a record of this with some additions. (For a complete treatment of this position, see The Order of the Synoptics, by Bernard Orchard and Harold Riley.) "

 

[allhers]

It could never be wrong to love our dear Blessed Mother. I really liked your prayer Jimmy. I had a very loving and kind Grandmother and Mother and so it was very easy for me to fall in love with Mary when I was a very tiny little girl and she lead me straight to her son, Jesus!!..I am all/hers…just like our dear loving, kind Pope John Paul II was…allhers

 

[justasking4]

**
Originally Posted by justasking4
How do you know that “time on earth is different than time on heaven”?

peary
Uh, because ‘time’ in Heaven is eternal? **

Even if this is the case how does this affect the ability of someone there to hear your prayers here?

 

[justasking4]

It could never be wrong to love our dear Blessed Mother. I really liked your prayer Jimmy. I had a very loving and kind Grandmother and Mother and so it was very easy for me to fall in love with Mary when I was a very tiny little girl and she lead me straight to her son, Jesus!!..I am all/hers…just like our dear loving, kind Pope John Paul II was…allhers

Would it be wrong for someone to love other deceased people like your love for Mary? For example would it be wrong to love the apostle Andrew or Judas like this?

 

[1234]

Not so. Read Acts. The church was born in Jersualem, which was Jewish.

True. It began there, but rapidly spread to non-Jewish areas and populations. The Jews weren’t persuaded by the new religion.

If you are proposing some kind of pagan-myth borrowing you are not on solid ground. Look at the details of the birth and life of Krishna from the primary sources and you will see the differences. If anything the pagan-myths borrowing did not come about until after Christianity was already here

.

There are many gods mainly before Jesus with legends of virgin births and special circumstances surrounding their births, from the Greeks, Romans and Egyptians as well as in ancient South American cultures (I was surprised by the latter-it appears to be a universal phenomenon).

bibleufo.com/worldgod4.htm

Not necessarily so. We have far more manuscripts for the NT by far than any other ancient work. Its not even close. There are over something like 20,000 manuscripts and fragments of the NT. Compare this with other works of the past and it doesn’t even come close.

This may be true; I assume that it is–not surprising.

That doesn’t make them reliable. I am not asked to believe “other works of the past”–but simply regard them for what they are, ancient manuscripts and fragments, with all the inadequacies and failing which these possess.

Fundamentally, one chooses to believe or not to believe, but it is disingenuous to expect others to believe on the basis of the historical and critical evidence.*

 

[1234]

Quote:
What you need to understand that the biblical writings are the most prolific of any ancient manuscripts and they have been edited and re-edited many times based upon continuing new evidence. But all are rather standard now because of the scholarship involved.

Although there might seem to be a similarity in the presentation of Christ in the clothing of a pagan god, that is totally foreign to the concept of Messiah. If there was any metaphor involved, it was to point out that Jesus WAS God and was the fulfillment of the desires of pagan religion to “know the unknowable God” as Paul says. *

The pagan similarities were very foreign to the JEWISH concept of the messiah–but not to the Greek and other non-Jewish concepts, which rapidly came to represent most of the early Christians.

*Quote:
You give too much credit to “pop theology”, much like Van Daniken’s contention that ancient human monuments couldn’t possibly have been constructed by human culture but only by aliens LOL. *

I’m not familiar with him or his writings.

*Quote:
The Bible as we have is as accurate as we will ever have. Some Christian church traditions (in the East) contain more books which we don’t have. Does that make it less effective? Besides, scripture is the memoirs of the Church, and the Church has canonized the matter, so why go on and on about all of the other stuff. We have what we have based on the best available resources to us. Use it to understand your salvation, not use it as a spiritual division within yourself. *

…but it’s not enough, not for what the Roman church claims regarding Mary and the birth narratives.

I must congratulate Peary and Justasking4 on their reasoned posts. No yelling, no letters in DiFeReNt colors, no slams, no ad hominem insults.

 

[Cathy]

justasking4;3350726:

Fundamentally, one chooses to believe or not to believe, but it is disingenuous to expect others to believe on the basis of the historical and critical evidence.

Before I believed, the Church didn’t exactly ask me to believe. It proposed ideas based on historical evidence, and the historical evidence helped give me reason to believe the proposed ideas are true. I asked God to help me believe, and He has given me even more reasons to believe day by day. Based on the historical evidence and my own experience, which for me is historical evidence, I believe Mary intercedes for the Church and for you and me…for all of us for whom her Son died, which is every human being. When I was a Protestant, I believed I had a Father in Heaven through Christ. How wonderful to know that Christ has shared His mother with us as well. He gave her to us as His gift from the Cross: “Son, behold your mother; Woman, behold your son.”

 

[peary]

Would it be wrong for someone to love other deceased people like your love for Mary? For example would it be wrong to love the apostle Andrew or Judas like this?

What kind of relationship do you have with your mother, anyway?

 

[peary]

Even if this is the case how does this affect the ability of someone there to hear your prayers here?

Why should it affect them when we are all part of the One Body of the Lord?

 

[Roy5]

CATHOLICISM - A CULT TO OUTSIDERS?

 Roman Catholicism has a choice to make. 

 (1) It can be a reasonable religion which regards much scripture as symbolic as well as instructive in many respects. This permits those who become versed in history, literature, psychology, etc. to remain part of the Church. 

 Or, (2) it can be literalist when it comes to scripture and attach to this a number of extra-Christian doctrines and practices re Mary, transubstantiation, a literal purgatory, adulation of countless saints, veneration of relics, etc - and gradually lose out in a world increasingly educated and less and less likely to believe the unbelievable. 

   I am one of those who hopes and prays for the former. Catholicism can be a beautiful faith that leads us toward a reverence for God, Christ, the natural order, all living creatures, etc. It can hold on to many of its ancient traditions and rites as long as the faithful are not required to subscribe to tenets that are untenable.

 

[peary]

CATHOLICISM - A CULT TO OUTSIDERS?

 Roman Catholicism has a choice to make. 

 (1) It can be a reasonable religion which regards much scripture as symbolic as well as instructive in many respects. This permits those who become versed in history, literature, psychology, etc. to remain part of the Church. 

 Or, (2) it can be literalist when it comes to scripture and attach to this a number of extra-Christian doctrines and practices re Mary, transubstantiation, a literal purgatory, adulation of countless saints, veneration of relics, etc - and gradually lose out in a world increasingly educated and less and less likely to believe the unbelievable. 

   I am one of those who hopes and prays for the former. Catholicism can be a beautiful faith that leads us toward a reverence for God, Christ, the natural order, all living creatures, etc. It can hold on to many of its ancient traditions and rites as long as the faithful are not required to subscribe to tenets that are untenable.

**The Church is only a ‘cult’ to those who are bigoted and anti-Catholic. In fact, there is nothing cultish about the Church at all - everything is out in the open. It does not apologize for the Faith which has come down from the apostles themselves and protected/preserved by the Holy Spirit.

Anyone who has taken the time to read the development of any doctrine will immediately understand that it comes out of the Church’s Scripture and an integrated understanding of those scriptures. There are no ‘extra’ doctrines. They only appear as ‘extra’ to those who do not possess the fullness of Faith.
Once you begin rejecting bits and pieces of the Faith then you begin to lose it, and your understanding becomes incomplete and, in many cases, warped and wrong.**

 

[Jimmy_B]

A lack of repect for Mary “the mother of God”, leads to other false doctrines, held by many non-Catholic Christians.

“If one does not acknowledge Mary as Theotokos, he is estranged from God.” - Saint Gregory (Epist. 101).

Saint Gregory spoke these words nearly a thousand years before any “Protestant” religion. To deny or reject the “Divine Nature of Christ” and that Mary bore Jesus, “who was both fully divine and fully human” was heretical in ancient times (early Christian Church) and it is heretical today.

Luke 1:43 Elisabeth speaking to Mary - “And how does this happen to me, that the **mother of my Lord **14 should come to me?”

• By Jimmy Brousseau

=

“Roman Catholics believe in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary (explained here). Some non-Catholic, “Protestant” Christian’s and “Born Again” Christian’s deny the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. This is a Hugh difference in belief, and it is non-biblical.
+
We were all warned about this difference, in Luke 2:34-35
+
34" and Simeon blessed them and said to Mary his mother, “Behold, this child is destined for the fall and rise of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be contradicted35 (and you (Mary) yourself a sword will pierce) 11 so that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.”
+
The thoughts and hearts of those “against Mary” were and are “revealed” and one might question; Is it possible to truly love Jesus and not love His mother Mary?..

Many so-called “Christians” today, show an utter contempt and disrespect for Mary the “Mother of God” (Theotokos) and get downright up-tight at the mere mention of her name. By their actions we know, based on early “Christian” heretics and on the words spoken in Luke 2:34,35 ,that they are also apposed to Jesus Himself.

Note: Theotokos, Greek: “Theo” means “God” and the word “tokos” means “carrier or bearer in the womb”, in English “Mother of God”. Mary was the mother of the Second Person of the Holy Trinity “

• By Jimmy Brousseau

More here: “Biblical Evidence (in context) that Proves that Jesus did not have Biological Brothers.”