Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Is Mary Worthy of Worship?
Forerunner ^ | June 2003 | David Grabbe

Posted on 04/12/2008 7:19:29 AM PDT by DouglasKC

Is Mary Worthy of Worship?

by David C. Grabbe
Forerunner, November 2003

A major area of doctrine that sets Roman Catholicism apart from the rest of this world's Christianity is its view of Mary, the mother of Jesus. Many weighty schools of thought and doctrine center on the person and function of Mary, and if one examines Roman Catholicism to any degree, the importance Catholics place on the mother of our Savior becomes readily apparent.

These beliefs are not just intellectual. They have led to applications and manifestations that literally fill volumes. For example, when a Catholic prays the rosary, the "Hail Mary" is said nine times as often as the Lord's Prayer. Every Catholic church boasts a statue of Mary, if not an outright shrine, and the graven images of Mary often have more prominence than those of Christ.

This emphasis on Mary caused Mark Twain to observe in The Innocents Abroad, Volume II:

In all seriousness—without meaning to be frivolous—without meaning to be irreverent, and more than all, without meaning to be blasphemous,—I state as my simple deduction from the things I have seen and the things I have heard, that the Holy Personages rank thus in Rome:

First—"The Mother of God"—otherwise the Virgin Mary.

Second—The Deity.

Third—Peter.

Fourth—Some twelve or fifteen canonized Popes and martyrs.

Fifth—Jesus Christ the Saviour—(but always as an infant in arms).

I may be wrong in this—my judgment errs often, just as is the case with other men's—but it is my judgment, be it good or bad.

Just here I will mention something that seems curious to me. There are no "Christ's Churches" in Rome, and no "Churches of the Holy Ghost," that I can discover. There are some four hundred churches, but about a fourth of them seem to be named for the Madonna and St. Peter. There are so many named for Mary that they have to be distinguished by all sorts of affixes, if I understand the matter rightly.

Sources of Doctrine

This past summer, as Pope John Paul II focused his efforts on reviving Catholicism in Europe, he made numerous statements entrusting the future of Europe to Mary. According to the ZENIT News Agency, he "placed Europe in Mary's hands," so that it will "become a symphony of nations committed to building together the civilization of love and peace." In the church of God, we put things in God's hands. Catholics put things into Mary's hands.

In October 2002, an item of controversy that reappeared in the Vatican—as it does on a regular basis—was the part that Mary plays in salvation and redemption. Large numbers of Catholic scholars, theologians, and clergy—including Pope John Paul II—are pushing for Mary to be officially recognized as "Co-Redemptrix," meaning she is a vital part of a Catholic's redemption, although supporters are quick to point out that they never put her on exactly the same level as Jesus Christ.

In God's church, our sole source of doctrinal teaching is the Bible, the inspired Word of God. For Catholics, though, the Bible is only one of the sources of dogma and doctrine—and, of course, they even have their own Bible, which allows them even more liberality when they look for scriptural backing. Another source and foundation of Catholic doctrine is church tradition. This means that if a certain person who meets their qualifications makes a statement, that statement can then be used as a doctrinal reference, just as we would use a scriptural reference. Every so often, one will hear about the Catholic Church canonizing or beatifying someone. In practical terms, this means the new saint is suddenly an authority, and church scholars can now use his or her writings to "prove" their doctrines.

The third source of doctrinal material for Catholics comes from "divine revelation." This can include statements by a Pope when he is speaking ex-cathedra—at which time his words are considered to be infallible—and it can also come from a vision or dream. Very often, church tradition and the associated "divine revelation" outweigh any scriptural basis. The doctrines concerning Mary are prime examples of this.

For instance, Catholics believe in the "Immaculate Conception" of Mary. This major doctrine states that Mary was conceived and born normally, but at the instant when her soul was fused to her flesh, she was protected and exempted from the stain of "original sin." The reasoning is that, for Jesus to be untouched by original sin, his mother, the one who conceived and bore Him, had to be "immaculate" as well.

In the Catholic Encyclopedia article on "Immaculate Conception," the writer admits this cannot be found in the Bible. Under the heading "Proof from Scripture," the article says, "No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture. But the first scriptural passage which contains the promise of the redemption, mentions also the Mother of the Redeemer" (emphasis ours). The rest of the article then explores the "Proof from Tradition" and the "Proof from Reason." In essence, it says that this doctrine lacks scriptural backing, but it has plenty from church tradition and human wisdom. Since Catholics cannot find, or will not acknowledge, any scriptures that disprove it, then it is settled as official doctrine.

The Catholic Encyclopedia's article on "The Blessed Virgin Mary" also never explicitly gives a reason why Mary should be venerated as she is. The best it can do is to say that there is evidence that the early Catholic Church (AD 150-400) venerated her. This grudging admission becomes important later.

Worthy of Worship?

The sole scriptural reference that even remotely suggests that Mary might be worthy of worship can be found in Luke 1:26-30:

Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin's name was Mary. And having come in, the angel said to her, "Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women!" But when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and considered what manner of greeting this was. Then the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God."

While the angel gives Mary a number of high compliments, nothing indicates that she is worthy of worship, let alone being an intercessor between Jesus Christ and His followers, a Co-Redemptrix, sinless for her entire life, or given any other honor aside from being God's chosen vessel for the purpose of the Son of God being made flesh and blood. This is not to denigrate that role in the least, because truly it is a great honor, but God has throughout the ages chosen various people to fill different roles according to His will and purpose—and none of them are shown to be worthy of worship.

In verse 28, Gabriel tells Mary in his salutation that she is "highly favored," and in verse 30, that she "has found favor with God." The Greek word translated highly favored means "to grace," "to endue with special honor," or "to be accepted." The only other place it is used is Ephesians 1:6, where Paul says to the church at Ephesus and to the body of Christ generally, ". . . to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He made us accepted in the Beloved." From this example, we can see that being "highly favored" is not synonymous with being worthy of worship. Everyone in the body of Christ is highly favored because God has accepted us through the justification brought about by Christ's sacrifice.

In verse 30, Gabriel tells Mary that she has found favor with God. "Favor" is the Greek word charis, which means "graciousness of manner or action." It indicates favor on the part of the giver and thankfulness on the part of the receiver. It is most often translated "grace" in the New Testament. Gabriel tells Mary that she is the recipient of charis, of grace and favor by God—the emphasis is on what God is doing. The type of grace bestowed on Mary is implied to be sweetness, charm, loveliness, joy, and delight. Again, we see nothing in this verse to give any indication that Mary should be worshipped. She simply received God's favor by being chosen to fulfill this role.

Blessed Among Women

Mary's cousin Elizabeth is inspired to recognize that Mary's baby is not just an ordinary baby, and she calls both Mary and her unborn Son "blessed":

And it happened, when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, that the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. Then she spoke out with a loud voice and said, "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!" (Luke 1:41-42)

Blessed literally means "to speak well of." It signifies celebrating with praises and invoking blessings upon a person. The New Testament uses it frequently, sometimes in relation to Christ, but often in relation to inanimate objects such as fish and loaves of bread. The Amplified Bible translates it as "favored of God." Again, nothing in the wording indicates that Mary is worthy of worship.

Mary is not the only woman to be given the title of "blessed" in the Bible. In the Song of Deborah, Jael—the woman who invited the fleeing Sisera into her tent, encouraged him to sleep, and then drove a tent peg through his skull—is accorded this same honor: "Most blessed among women is Jael, the wife of Heber the Kenite; blessed is she among women in tents" (Judges 5:24). Here, she is lauded as "blessed"—even "most blessed"—but there is no record of a shrine dedicated to her or of anybody worshipping her. She is simply recognized with a very honorable mention for the part she played in carrying out God's plan.

During Christ's ministry, a woman tries to draw special attention to Jesus' mother, and Christ puts things in the proper perspective for us:

And it happened, as He spoke these things, that a certain woman from the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, "Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts which nursed You!" But He said, "More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!" (Luke 11:27-28)

Jesus agrees that, even though his mother was "happy and to be envied," as the Amplified Bible puts it, even more blessed is anyone who hears God's Word and obeys it. He acknowledges that, yes, His mother was a fine lady—but anyone focusing on the personage of Mary was really missing the point. Christ was interested in the attitude and conduct of people, not their veneration of any human being!

We see a similar phenomenon within mainstream Christianity. Protestants tend to twist the gospel into simply a message about the person of Jesus Christ, and they like to gloss over the message that He actually spoke: "Repent [hear and obey], so you can be in alignment with the soon-coming Kingdom of God!" (Matthew 3:2; 4:17; Mark 1:15). They are so in love with the personality that they cannot hear what He says.

In addition to receiving a unique calling and favor by God, Mary was blessed in other ways. Evidence from the few Scriptural references to her shows that she was poor in spirit, meek, merciful, and pure in heart, and so, according to the Beatitudes of Matthew 5, she was blessed. She was undoubtedly persecuted for righteousness sake because she gave birth to what the world believed to be an illegitimate child. More than three decades afterward, there was still remembrance of Mary being pregnant without being married, when the Pharisees snidely remarked that they were not born of fornication—implying that Christ was (John 8:41). If the people did not believe that Christ was the Son of God—even after seeing Him live a perfect life and perform many miracles—it is unlikely they would have had any reason to believe that Mary was a virgin when she bore Him. She was persecuted and stigmatized because she accepted a responsibility that was anathema to those around her. She knew the truth, Joseph knew the truth, and of course, God knew the truth, and that was enough for Mary. It appears she endured the circumstance without complaining, and so was blessed.

Pagan Origins

The references to Mary in Luke 1 are the core scriptures that Catholic scholars use to try to prove that Mary is worthy of our worship. It is evident that the verses say little more than that Mary was given grace and favor by God, as we all have. They simply cannot be used as a starting point for establishing a doctrine of worship.

Aside from the little that the Bible says about Mary, there are other significant biblical principles that directly contradict a doctrine of Mary-worship. We could also examine a whole host of scriptures relating to human death and resurrection to show that Mary is in the same condition as the rest of the dead in Christ—awaiting the resurrection, without consciousness, and not in heaven (Psalm 146:3-4; Ecclesiastes 9:5; Job 14:12; John 3:13; Acts 2:29-34; I Corinthians 15:12-55). We could look at a vast array of scriptures that show that Mary-worship is indeed idolatry, because only God the Father and Jesus Christ are worthy of our worship (Exodus 34:14; Matthew 4:10). We could delve into the singular role that Jesus Christ plays as Mediator of the New Covenant—a role in which He does not need any help (Hebrews 8:6; 9:15; 12:24). These are not difficult concepts. Nevertheless, there is a vital lesson to be learned from this obviously erroneous doctrine.

The veneration of Mary, like many pagan practices, has its origin in the heathen religious system created by Nimrod and Semiramis, and more specifically, from the worship of the "Mother and Child." Through the millennia, the symbol of the "Mother and Child" has been endlessly repeated; one can find evidence of Mother-and-Child worship in all of the nations in ancient times. Though her characteristics varied from culture to culture, the common element is that the Mother was the Queen of Heaven, and she bore fruit even though a virgin.

In China, Semiramis became known as the "Holy Mother." The Germans named her "Hertha." The Scandinavians called her "Disa." Among the Druids, the "Vigo-Paritura" was worshipped as the "Mother of God." To the Greeks, she was "Aphrodite." To the Romans she was known as "Venus," and her son was "Jupiter." The Canaanites, and sometimes even the Israelites, worshipped "Ashtoreth" (Judges 2:13; 10:6; I Samuel 7:3-4; 12:10; I Kings 11:5, 33; II Kings 23:13), who was also known as "the queen of heaven" (Jeremiah 7:18). In Ephesus, the Great Mother was known as "Diana." T.W. Doane in his book Bible Myths sums it up this way: "Thus we see that the Virgin and child were worshipped in pagan times from China to Britain . . . and even in Mexico the 'Mother and child' were worshipped."

This false worship, having spread from Babylon to the various nations, finally became established at Rome and throughout the Roman Empire. James George Frazer in his The Golden Bough observes:

The worship of the Great Mother . . . was very popular under the Roman Empire. Inscriptions prove that the [Mother and the Child] received divine honors . . . not only in Italy and especially at Rome, but also in the provinces, particularly in Africa, Spain, Portugal, France, Germany, and Bulgaria. (vol. 1, p. 356)

One of the repeated patterns of the Roman church is syncretism, bringing pagan beliefs and practices into the church to keep certain groups happy. This is the same mechanism by which Christmas, Easter, Sunday-worship, and the pagan trinity-god were brought into the Roman church—and which most of mainstream Christianity has accepted without question. The church allowed the pagans within it to continue their practices—in this case, the worship of the Great Mother—only in a slightly different form and with a new name. Many pagans had been drawn to Christianity, but so strong in their mind was the adoration for the Mother-goddess, that they did not want to forsake her. Compromising church leaders saw that, if they could find some similarity in Christianity with the Mother-goddess worship of the pagans, they could increase their numbers by bringing many pagans into their fold. Of course, Mary fit the bill perfectly. So the pagans were allowed to continue their prayers and devotion to the Mother-goddess, but her name was changed to Mary. In this way, the pagan worship of the Mother was given the appearance of Christianity, and the course was set.

We saw earlier that Scripture cannot be used as a starting place for attempting to prove that Mary is worthy of worship. The true beginning for this practice lies with Semiramis and the Babylonian system begun by Nimrod. When the Catholic Encyclopedia presents as proof the historical fact that early Catholics venerated and worshipped Mary, it conveniently leaves out the fact that this adoration started in paganism and was shifted to the personage of the mother of Christ. Once the Roman Church adopted this practice, support had to be found for it, so it "interpreted" Scripture in a way that would lend credence to this practice. However, in these explanations it is apparent that Catholics start with a conclusion and then attempt to find support for it. These Catholic Encyclopedia entries are excellent examples of this.

Even though the worship of Mary will likely never be introduced as doctrine in the church of God, there is still an important object lesson here: Each of us has his own preferences, perspective, inclinations, and weaknesses. These things accompany us when we study the Bible. There are things we would like the Bible to say, based on our experiences, perspective, and particular circumstance. Just as the Catholics created a number of major doctrines out of nothing but pagan tradition, so there is also the potential for us to start with a conclusion or a thought of what makes the most sense to us, and then interpret or even twist the Scriptures to fit our worldview.

The pagans brought their inclinations and preferences of the Mother-goddess into the Roman Catholic Church, and the church officials then sanctified the paganism. This can happen to us, too, if we do not seek the "whole counsel of God" first, and then draw our conclusions later. This can happen to us if we are not careful to "prove all things, and hold fast to that which is good" (I Thessalonians 5:21).

It is a great irony that it was Augustine, the renowned Catholic theologian, who said, "If you believe what you like in the Gospel and reject what you do not like, it is not the Gospel you believe, but yourself" (emphasis ours).

Nearing the end of his life, Peter warns of twisting Scripture and of following those who do:

Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures. You therefore, beloved, since you know this beforehand, beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the wicked. (II Peter 3:14-17)

The false doctrine of Mother-goddess worship is propped up by scriptures that have been twisted—and those who have done this have done so to their own destruction, because they have led millions upon millions of people into idolatry. Peter's warning applies to us, too. It is prudent, then, when we are studying, to at all times recognize our limitations, our biases, and our inclinations, so we can see biblical truth without interference from a faulty lens.



TOPICS: General Discusssion; History; Moral Issues; Religion & Culture
KEYWORDS: christ; god; illinformedopinion; mary; worship
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300301-328 next last
To: Petronski
You were caught before then. Post 228 is where you attempt an excuse.

Those who understand the word "component" can judge for themselves. If my intent were to mislead I wouldn't have bothered to include a link, I wouldn't have put down a source and I wouldn't have said "a component of adoration is".

But nonetheless if you saw that as my intent I'll be sure to post all the relevant and non-relevant information next time.

251 posted on 04/13/2008 11:36:48 AM PDT by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies]

To: rwlawrence
So to sum it up Catholics worship Mary ONLY if we accept your personal interpretation of Scripture, only if we accept your definition of worship and only if we accept your personal interpretation of Catholic Doctrine. ?

You don't have to accept anything I say. I'm basically just quoting the bible.

252 posted on 04/13/2008 11:37:55 AM PDT by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: Diego1618

Who adores Mary? Protestants? :)


253 posted on 04/13/2008 11:37:56 AM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
“Your position seems to be that since we don’t have Mary on record (or anyone else for that matter) saying that Mary is sinless, that this doesn’t apply. Let’s do a fer instance. Suppose Mary told someone that she was without sin. Would this scripture than apply to her? She wouldn’t be lying. She couldn’t. She wouldn’t be bragging. She can’t sin. Remember, John makes no exceptions here.”
John was simply not making a statement about Mary.

Sure he was. He was making a statement that everyone sins. Mary is part of the subset of "everyone". And everyone who says they don't sin makes Christ a liar.

Simple. That Paul was not making a statement about Mary. “Again, Paul says that ALL are under sin. None are righteous. Now he specifically says in may places that Christ was without sin. But he never makes an exception for Mary either.”

Here's where it's the most clear.

Rom 3:9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;

Mary was a Jew. She was under sin. She is part of "all". Paul doesn't say "except Mary of course." He didn't say it because he didn't believe it. He didn't think it was true. He never considered it a possibility.

Rom 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

He even quotes the old testament to prove his point. If even one person apart from Christ is sinless, is righteous, than it makes the sacrifice Christ meaningless because it means that the death of Christ didn't have to happen in order to be saved. If God could make Mary sinless without the death of Christ, then he could do that to anyone and this whole thing called Christianity is a cruel joke by a cruel God.

254 posted on 04/13/2008 11:45:32 AM PDT by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]

To: Mercat
First of all, the first half of the “Hail Mary” is a quote straight from the Bible. Luke 1:40. The second half is a request that Mary pray for us.

I watched the timer to see just how much time is involved. Chanted this one non biblical part which is longer than doing it in your head, takes up 10 seconds of each “Hail Mary.” So by my calculation, 10 seconds times the 50 “Hail Marys” equals just about 8 minutes in a ritual which when chanted, takes 30 minutes.>

[Matthew 6:5-7] And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly. But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

255 posted on 04/13/2008 12:04:45 PM PDT by Diego1618
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC

You wrote:

“Sure he was.”

So say you, but your opinion is not worth much.

“He was making a statement that everyone sins. Mary is part of the subset of “everyone”. And everyone who says they don’t sin makes Christ a liar.”

I am not saying I don’t sin. Again, you pretend it says one thing when it says something else.

“Here’s where it’s the most clear.”

Again: http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/03/all-have-sinned-mary.html Couldn’t be clearer.

“Mary was a Jew.”

Mary was also the Mother of God.

“She was under sin.”

She was made sinless by her divine Son.

“She is part of “all”. Paul doesn’t say “except Mary of course.””

He didn’t have to. That wasn’t his point nor was Mary being referred to by Paul.

“He didn’t say it because he didn’t believe it. He didn’t think it was true. He never considered it a possibility.”

Never considered a possibility? Wow, and anti-Catholics always say Catholics are presumptuous?

“He even quotes the old testament to prove his point. If even one person apart from Christ is sinless, is righteous, than it makes the sacrifice Christ meaningless because it means that the death of Christ didn’t have to happen in order to be saved.”

Untrue and here’s the heart of the matter. You clearly don’t even know what the Immaculate Conception is or how it was worked on Mary and so you come up with a caricature of it. Wouldn’t help if you actually knew what you were talking about? Wouldn’t it help?

“If God could make Mary sinless without the death of Christ, then he could do that to anyone and this whole thing called Christianity is a cruel joke by a cruel God.”

Again, we see you making up caricatures rather than dealing with what Catholics actually believe. Mary was made sinless by Christ’s grace. That only resulted from His death. Christ’s death was so momentous a sacrifice that it effects souls before it and after it in time. That’s how Adam, Abraham, Moses and the other patriarchs can be saved even though they all lived BEFORE Christ was crucified. Again, if you’re going to attack what we believe, wouldn’t help to actually know what that is first? Making up straw men and attacking those while claiming to be dealing with actual Catholic doctrines just makes you look foolish.


256 posted on 04/13/2008 12:07:55 PM PDT by vladimir998 (Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ. St. Jerome)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
Making up straw men and attacking those while claiming to be dealing with actual Catholic doctrines just makes you look foolish.

Once one recognizes the nature of The Game, all of this foolishness becomes glaringly, jarringly obvious.

257 posted on 04/13/2008 12:10:09 PM PDT by Petronski (Bitterly clinging to religion and guns here in Penna.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
Once one recognizes the nature of The Game, all of this foolishness becomes glaringly, jarringly obvious.

******************

Unfortunately, friend, you are quite right.

258 posted on 04/13/2008 12:12:08 PM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC
You don't have to accept anything I say. I'm basically just quoting the bible.

And adding your personal interpretation of the verse. You then went further and claimed that your personal interpretation of this single verse from Scripture disproves Catholic teaching on Mary. Given you have yet to show you even understand what the Church Doctrines are(given you repeated assertions that Catholic worship Mary) that was a quantum leap indeed!

259 posted on 04/13/2008 12:22:03 PM PDT by rwlawrence
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
“If God could make Mary sinless without the death of Christ, then he could do that to anyone and this whole thing called Christianity is a cruel joke by a cruel God.” Again, we see you making up caricatures rather than dealing with what Catholics actually believe. Mary was made sinless by Christ’s grace. That only resulted from His death. Christ’s death was so momentous a sacrifice that it effects souls before it and after it in time. That’s how Adam, Abraham, Moses and the other patriarchs can be saved even though they all lived BEFORE Christ was crucified. Again, if you’re going to attack what we believe, wouldn’t help to actually know what that is first? Making up straw men and attacking those while claiming to be dealing with actual Catholic doctrines just makes you look foolish.

Maybe I was mistaken. I was under the impression that Catholics considered that Mary was sinless BEFORE the death of Christ. That she had to be sinless to bear the Christ. But apparently what you're really saying is that Mary is like anyone else. When Christ died on the cross and she accepted his sacrifice that she became sinless in God's eyes, just like happens to all Christians.

That's entirely different. I thought you were saying that God's grace made Mary sinless before she even conceived the Jesus and way before he was sacrificed. This of course would be the situation that would make Christ a liar and Christianity a cruel hoax.

My apologies.

260 posted on 04/13/2008 12:24:37 PM PDT by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC

That Mary was sinless...that praying to Mary is scriptural, etc. etc.

Romans 3:10
As it is written, None is righteous, just and truthful and upright and conscientious, no, not one.
Romans 3:9-11 (in Context) Romans 3 (Whole Chapter)
Romans 3:12
All have turned aside; together they have gone wrong and have become unprofitable and worthless; no one does right, not even one!
Romans 3:11-13 (in Context) Romans 3 (Whole Chapter)


261 posted on 04/13/2008 12:24:59 PM PDT by philetus (Keep doing what you always do and you'll keep getting what you always get.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 243 | View Replies]

To: rwlawrence
You don't have to accept anything I say. I'm basically just quoting the bible.
And adding your personal interpretation of the verse. You then went further and claimed that your personal interpretation of this single verse from Scripture disproves Catholic teaching on Mary. Given you have yet to show you even understand what the Church Doctrines are(given you repeated assertions that Catholic worship Mary) that was a quantum leap indeed!

It wasn't a single verse as pointed out earlier. And I'm not the first or last by any means to make this point. If you don't agree with "my" interpretation than dispute it on a scriptural basis. But I don't accept tradition as authoritative so if you appeal to it I'm only going to go right back to scripture.

262 posted on 04/13/2008 12:29:19 PM PDT by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 259 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC
If you don't agree with "my" interpretation than dispute it on a scriptural basis. But I don't accept tradition as authoritative so if you appeal to it I'm only going to go right back to scripture.

You are only going to go right back to you personal interpretation of Scripture. By what authority do you deem to interpret Scripture for the rest of us?

263 posted on 04/13/2008 1:13:12 PM PDT by rwlawrence
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: rwlawrence
If you don't agree with "my" interpretation than dispute it on a scriptural basis. But I don't accept tradition as authoritative so if you appeal to it I'm only going to go right back to scripture. You are only going to go right back to you personal interpretation of Scripture. By what authority do you deem to interpret Scripture for the rest of us?

Again it's not "my" interpretation. All followers of Jesus Christ have been given his spirit and as long as we let his spirit live in and through us we are merely mouthpieces for the real power and authority that dwells within, Jesus Christ.

264 posted on 04/13/2008 1:35:20 PM PDT by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: untwist; DouglasKC
The basis of your argument is specious as there is no catholic doctrine or practice that includes “worship” or “veneration” of Mary as part of our faith.

Catechism Of The Catholic Church
1192 Sacred images in our churches and homes are intended to awaken and nourish our faith in the mystery of Christ. Through the icon of Christ and his works of salvation, it is he whom we adore. Through sacred images of the holy Mother of God, of the angels and of the saints, we venerate the persons represented.


You really are spreading hate and disunity with this garbage you’re pushing. Judging from most of the posts, your attempts have failed.

Rather harsh language isn't it.

Could it be said you are spreading falshoods concerning the Catholic "veneration" of Mary?

265 posted on 04/13/2008 1:45:57 PM PDT by OLD REGGIE (I am most likely a Biblical Unitarian? Let me be perfectly clear. I know nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC
If you don't agree with "my" interpretation then dispute it on a scriptural basis. But I don't accept tradition as authoritative so if you appeal to it I'm only going to go right back to scripture.

But, they cannot do this.....as their traditions are contrary to what scripture actually says. I posted in #255 [Matthew 6:5-7] about only praying to God.....and not using vain repetitions. This is why it is futile to discuss the subject as tradition....with them....always trumps scripture.

Consequently, they then can only say...."who gave you the right to personally interpret scripture"!

What are we to think when we read that the Lord has commanded us only to pray to the Father? What should we believe when we read that we are not to use vain repetitions in our prayers? Just how can this be misinterpreted to say it's O.K. to fall down on our knees and pray to Mary..... while using vain repetitions?

It's not a matter of misinterpreting. They know this. It's a matter of pressing the point home.....that what they do is in disobedience to scripture! And...this they will continue to deny by accusing you of your own private interpretation.

C'est la vie!

266 posted on 04/13/2008 1:51:29 PM PDT by Diego1618
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: Diego1618

I know. I read that this morning so I am familiar with that passage. So does that mean that we don’t congregate in churches at all? And notice the word “vain” modifying repetitions? So give it your best shot but like a lot of people whom I assume you respect, like the late Bill Buckley and Laura Ingram, I’ll continue to the say the rosary on a regular basis.


267 posted on 04/13/2008 2:15:17 PM PDT by Mercat (I am! I stand at the door and knock.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]

To: Mercat
So does that mean that we don’t congregate in churches at all?

Of course not! It means pray to the Father and do not use vain repetitions.

So give it your best shot but like a lot of people whom I assume you respect, like the late Bill Buckley and Laura Ingram, I’ll continue to the say the rosary on a regular basis.

It's not a matter of respect. I don't know you too well, but I'm sure you are a fine God fearing person. There are many God fearing Catholics on this forum that have my great respect.

[2 Timothy 2:7] Consider what I say; and the Lord give thee understanding in all things.

268 posted on 04/13/2008 2:38:34 PM PDT by Diego1618
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC

You wrote:

“Maybe I was mistaken. I was under the impression that Catholics considered that Mary was sinless BEFORE the death of Christ.”

Mary was always sinless, but she was made sinless by the grace won on the cross by Christ. Christ was Mary’s Savior too, only He saved her FIRST.

“That she had to be sinless to bear the Christ. But apparently what you’re really saying is that Mary is like anyone else. When Christ died on the cross and she accepted his sacrifice that she became sinless in God’s eyes, just like happens to all Christians.”

No. Man are you ever confused. You haven’t gotten this right yet. You flail against this and still don’t even know what it is!?

“That’s entirely different. I thought you were saying that God’s grace made Mary sinless before she even conceived the Jesus and way before he was sacrificed.”

Yes. Jesus sacrifice on the cross was so momentous that it was not restricted by time.

“This of course would be the situation that would make Christ a liar and Christianity a cruel hoax.”

No, this would simply show how powerful Christ really is. His death was so powerful it saved those who came before Him as well as those who came after Him.

“My apologies.”

Not accepted. Deliberately creating straw men - here again really - shows you are not interested in honest debate. Mock apologies simply don’t cut it.


269 posted on 04/13/2008 3:08:31 PM PDT by vladimir998 (Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ. St. Jerome)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE

I had frankly tired of this post and hadn’t followed it since yesterday. You are obviously of the same mind as the one who started this polemic yesterday. It is those who use the Bible as the book of quotes for purposes of division and hate who will ultimately fail in regressing us to the divisions of the past. You are doing the same by twisting the meaning of our catechism. I use the name untwist because I am used to pointing these distortions out to liberals, not presumed friends on FR.

I don’t need to tell you since you bothered to poke into the catholic catechism, that if you wish to understand Mary’s place in the church it is explained in great detail in Catechisms 964 - 975. Since you want to stir this pot and try to reopen old wounds by using distortion, look at Catechism 972:

“After speaking of the church, her origin, mission, and destiny, we can find no better way to conclude than by looking to Mary. In her we contemplate what the Church already is in her mystery on her own “pilgrimage of faith,” and what she will be in the homeland at the end of her journey. There, “in the glory of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity,”, in the communion of all the saints, the church is awaited by the one she venerates as Mother of her Lord and as her own mother.”

I know you don’t want to accept that our belief is that Mary’s place in the faith is as Mother of our Lord. As such, she is Mother of our Church. I understand that you are a far smarter catholic than I am, but I can only tell you what is real and experienced in my 47 years of faith. She indeed serves as a model, an icon if you wish, of what faith and sacrifice are all about. We follow her model of veneration - she venerates God, in the persons of the Holy Trinity. We do not venerate Mary, we do work to follow the model and venerate our Lord through her example.

Let me just add another important point. Whatever faith we choose, or no faith, we as believers in conservative principles have some very critical problems at hand. I believe that the unity of conservatives that sees the way to electing strong protestants like Reagan, who brought us the great catholic supreme court justice like Scalia, followed by other protestants like the Bushes who brought catholics Thomas, Roberts and Alito, are our hope. Let the divisive Clintons bring us the Breyers and Ginsbergs and their ilk. We need to embrace what brings us together. The islamofascists really don’t care about protestant vs. catholic doctrines. We’re all infidels in their eyes and they want us all dead. I believe in the best of what we are as a society and this thread is a real disappointment because it only highlights the worst.

My best wishes to you.


270 posted on 04/13/2008 3:18:44 PM PDT by untwist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies]

To: untwist
Was I mistaken that you posted this?

The basis of your argument is specious as there is no catholic doctrine or practice that includes “worship” or “veneration” of Mary as part of our faith.

I have no idea what caused you to accuse me of distortion and then morph into a political diatribe.

You were mistaken. Catholic doctrine does call for the "veneration" of Mary. It's as simple as that.

If you want to discuss politics you are on the wrong thread. Goodbye.

271 posted on 04/13/2008 3:45:25 PM PDT by OLD REGGIE (I am most like that you posly a Biblical Unitarian? Let me be perfectly clear. I know nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC

“Is Mary Worthy of Worship?”

No.


272 posted on 04/13/2008 3:46:55 PM PDT by Grunthor (http://constitutionparty.com/join.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC
Again it's not "my" interpretation. All followers of Jesus Christ have been given his spirit and as long as we let his spirit live in and through us we are merely mouthpieces for the real power and authority that dwells within, Jesus Christ.

But our interpretations differ! How do we resolve this? If the Spirit leads us why has he been peddling different, often contradictory, versions of the truth since the "reformers" came along. Is God the author of confusion?

273 posted on 04/13/2008 4:18:39 PM PDT by rwlawrence
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 264 | View Replies]

To: Diego1618
Consequently, they then can only say...."who gave you the right to personally interpret scripture"!

A question you have studiously avoided answering. Why should we accept your interpretation of scripture over that of say the Mormons, or the Jehovah Witnesses or the Seventh Day Adventist or any of the other thousands of Protestant denominations, all peddling different version of the truth?

274 posted on 04/13/2008 4:23:59 PM PDT by rwlawrence
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: joseph20
http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2687

To Whom Should We Pray

Q. To whom should we pray? A fellow Christian recently explained that all prayers should be directed only to God the Father or the Trinity. She said that there are very few "ancient" prayers addressed to Jesus Christ and none to the Holy Spirit. I am having trouble with this. I believe that all 3 persons of the Trinity are present when I pray and all 3 hear and respond, no matter which Person I address. I have frequent prayers to Jesus. I ask the Holy Spirit's guidance in my faith life. When I pray, I pray to Jesus. And I can see nothing wrong in this. The Bible and the catechism have no restrictions.

A. In answer to the question "To whom should we pray," Luther's Small Catechism with Explanation (Concordia Publishing House, 1986) clearly answers: "We should pray to the true God only, Father, Son and Holy Spirit." According to Scripture and the historic teaching of the Lutheran Church, Christians may offer their prayers to any or all of the three persons of the Trinity, each of whom is "true God." This is a clear and indisputable teaching of Scripture and of the Lutheran Church.

http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2687

Prayers for the Dead

Q. I would appreciate knowing our official LCMS doctrinal position on prayers for, or on behalf of, the dead, specifically those who have died (as far as we know) in the faith.

A. Question 201 of Luther's Small Catechism with Explanation (Concordia Publishing House, 1991 edition) answers the question "For whom should we pray?" as follows: "We should pray for ourselves and for all other people, even for our enemies, but not for the souls of the dead." Hebrews 9:27 is cited in this connection: Since individuals are judged by God immediately after their death and enter either heaven or hell, there is no reason to pray for them. Those in hell cannot be helped by prayer, and those in heaven have no need of our prayers.

275 posted on 04/13/2008 4:36:21 PM PDT by xone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: rwlawrence
A question you have studiously avoided answering. Why should we accept your interpretation of scripture over that of say the Mormons, or the Jehovah Witnesses or the Seventh Day Adventist or any of the other thousands of Protestant denominations, all peddling different version of the truth?

Okay! I'll take the bait. Please give me your interpretation of [Matthew 6:5-7] And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly. But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

What....in your opinion do these verses say to the Christian reader?

276 posted on 04/13/2008 4:53:11 PM PDT by Diego1618
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 274 | View Replies]

To: Diego1618
I don't have a personal interpretation. I would not presume to interpret Scripture for anyone.
277 posted on 04/13/2008 5:19:19 PM PDT by rwlawrence
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 276 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
“Maybe I was mistaken. I was under the impression that Catholics considered that Mary was sinless BEFORE the death of Christ.”
Mary was always sinless, but she was made sinless by the grace won on the cross by Christ. Christ was Mary’s Savior too, only He saved her FIRST.

She couldn't have been always sinless, at least if you believe scripture.

Rom 5:11 And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.
Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

That is exactly what John was addressing here:

1Jn 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
1Jn 1:9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
1Jn 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His Word is not in us.

Mary could not have been created sinless. It's impossible. I've quoted multiple scriptures to show this is so. She could not be made sinless without the sacrifice of Christ. If she did, then Christ was a liar. He did not die for our sins.

You're saying that she was sinless BEFORE Christ was ever sacrificed. You're saying that the sacrifice of Christ was a done deal, there was no doubt it was going to happen, there was no gamble because God went ahead and made Mary sinless BEFORE it happened. Again that makes his sacrifice into a show, a sham. If there wasn't a possibility he could fail (and there wasn't under this theology) then Christ is meaningless. God could have had a cow sacrificed and then extended salvation to everyone because he had already determined that it was going to work by making Mary sinless.

1Jn 3:5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.

He was manifested to take away our sins. Mary's sins weren't taken away BEFORE he was manifested.

What you're espousing is at best created, man centered logic that has no basis in scripture and at worst outright heresy.

“My apologies.” Not accepted. Deliberately creating straw men - here again really - shows you are not interested in honest debate. Mock apologies simply don’t cut it.

I am very interested in honest debate and don't believe that I'm creating a straw man argument about Marian worship...and especially not about Mary having no sin.

278 posted on 04/13/2008 6:17:30 PM PDT by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies]

To: rwlawrence
Again it's not "my" interpretation. All followers of Jesus Christ have been given his spirit and as long as we let his spirit live in and through us we are merely mouthpieces for the real power and authority that dwells within, Jesus Christ.
But our interpretations differ! How do we resolve this? If the Spirit leads us why has he been peddling different, often contradictory, versions of the truth since the "reformers" came along. Is God the author of confusion?

Not at all. Therefore the confusion that exists within traditional Christianity must be due to something else. The church of God was being subverted and confused even in biblical times:

2Co 11:13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
2Co 11:14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
2Co 11:15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

One only needs to examine the state of Christian churches today to see the fruits of deception that has taken hold. Homosexual bishops, unrepentant adulterers, church sanctioned gambling, child abuse, the list goes on and on.

279 posted on 04/13/2008 6:26:43 PM PDT by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies]

To: big'ol_freeper
The first pontiff of the Catholic Church was Peter.

Constantine was never Pope.

Christians were worshiping on Sunday well before Constantine. In fact we know that from the New Testament and from other documents, that are not part of the canon of Sacred Scripture, that the very first generation of Christians worshiped on Sunday.

Jesus’ sacrifice created a New Covenant and authority to loose and bind (are you intellectual enough to even understand what that means?) was given to Peter and the Apostles to establish His Church, which they did, to include Sunday worship. You can protest all you want, but you are wrong and can’t refute that the first Christians DID worship on Sunday...it is irrefutable.

If you were familiar with History you would know that Pontiff and Pontifex Maximus was an office of the
high priest of Pagan religions back as far as Babylon, where "chief bridge builder" was the person who
negotiated with Satan over the souls of the dead.
The title later moved to Pergamus as the seat of Satan was given to the King of Pergamus. (see Rev 2:13).
The title was later seized by the Roman Emperors, thus the reference to Constantine in 325AD long after the life
of Peter. Thus Peter would never have been a Pontiff of anything except as a figment of someone's imagination.

There is no scriptural proof that Peter was ever in Rome. There is lot's of man's Tradition of such.

Peter was the Apostle to the Jews not the Gentiles; scripture says Peter went to Babylon where
there was a very large population of Jews outside of the Land.

All of the New Testament scriptures which are G-d breathed point out that followers of the Christ
followed His Holy Word and worshiped on Shabbat not on Sun Day, the Pagan day of worship.
They celebrated Shabbat as Yah'shua taught in the scriptures.

A clear reading of the Gospels show Jesus teaching
how to celebrate the Shabbat. What Jesus is doing
is rebuking the then Religious Leaders who have replaced
YHvH's commands with man-made Traditions for the
celebration of Shabbat.

They as followers of the Christ continued to celebrate the Feast Days as commanded by YHvH.

Binding and loosing comes with the giving of the Keys, which is future tense in Matthew 16
as Yah'shua still has possession of the Keys in Revelation 1:18.

The New Covenant was for the Jews only, as outlined in Jeremiah 31:31.

YHvH blinded the Jews as a temporary measure so the gentiles could be grafted into Abraham
as a wild branch of olive into the root of YHvH. (see Romans 11)

Jesus' Name in Hebrew is Yah'shua which means YHvH is my salvation
also see:

Exodus 15:2; Psalm 18:2; Psalm 27:1; Psalm 62:1; Psalm 62:2; Psalm 62:6;
Psalm 62:7; Psalm 118:14; Psalm 119:174; Isaiah 12:2; Isaiah 46:13;
Isaiah 49:6; Isaiah 51:5; Isaiah 56:1; Isaiah 19:20; Isaiah 43:3;
Isaiah 43:11; Isaiah 45:21; Isaiah 49:26; Isaiah 60:16; Hosea 13:4

Ekklesia is not a corporation located in Rome.

The word Ekklesia in the LXX is the whole camp of Israel.

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai
280 posted on 04/13/2008 6:36:20 PM PDT by Uri’el-2012 (you shall know that I, YHvH, your Savior, and your Redeemer, am the Elohim of Ya'aqob. Isaiah 60:16)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: trisham

Once one recognizes the nature of The Game”

What is “The Game”?


281 posted on 04/13/2008 6:37:53 PM PDT by philetus (Keep doing what you always do and you'll keep getting what you always get.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC

God also created rocks, which serve His purposes well. This doesn’t mean worshiping rocks is what He has planned for us.


282 posted on 04/13/2008 6:41:44 PM PDT by Cvengr (Fear sees the problem emotion never solves. Faith sees & accepts the solution, problem solved.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rwlawrence
I don't have a personal interpretation. I would not presume to interpret Scripture for anyone.

Okay....that's good. I don't either so let's just read the salient points in the Greek and see what they say!

[Matthew 6:5] But when you pray (4336 proseuchomai (pros-yoo'-khom-ahee) to pray to God, i.e. supplicate, worship) do not be like the hypocrites (5273. hupokrites (hoop-ok-ree-tace') an actor under an assumed character (stage-player), i.e. (figuratively) a dissembler ("hypocrite") for they love to pray standing in front of the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men.

The above verse very plainly tells us prayer should be a private thing....not a public display.

[Matthew 6:6] When you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father (3962. pater (pat-ayr')apparently a primary word; a "father" (literally or figuratively, near or more remote) who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

Again, we see that private prayer to Our Father is reinforced instead of any kind of public display.

[Matthew 6:7] And when you pray, do not keep on babbling (945. battologeo (bat-tol-og-eh'-o) to stutter, i.e. (by implication) to prate tediously; use vain repetitions) like pagans (1482. ethnikos (eth-nee-kos') national ("ethnic"), i.e. (specially) a Gentile; heathen (man), for they think they will be heard because of their many words.

Well.....I don't believe there is too much we can say about verse 7 except.....God doesn't pay much attention to folks who just "prate tediously"....especially when they're not talking to Him!

Now I realize that you are going to say....That's just your interpretation". You're right! God gave me a brain and the ability to think things out.

Here is some various translations of [Matthew 6:7]. I'm certain you will agree that all say the same thing.

Here is the Douay....pretty much the same as the others.

[John 5:39] Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

Our Lord commands us to search Him out through the Holy Scriptures. We don't need a Magesterium to see what he is saying!

283 posted on 04/13/2008 6:45:04 PM PDT by Diego1618
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 277 | View Replies]

To: Diego1618
Our Lord commands us to search Him out through the Holy Scriptures. We don't need a Magesterium to see what he is saying!

So why are there several different thousand Protestant denominations.?

284 posted on 04/13/2008 6:47:34 PM PDT by rwlawrence
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 283 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC
One only needs to examine the state of Christian churches today to see the fruits of deception that has taken hold. Homosexual bishops, unrepentant adulterers, church sanctioned gambling, child abuse, the list goes on and on

Oh my-you mean THERE ARE SINNERS IN THE CHURCH!!???.

285 posted on 04/13/2008 6:49:20 PM PDT by rwlawrence
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 279 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC

You wrote:

“She couldn’t have been always sinless, at least if you believe scripture.”

Sure she can and nothing in scripture contradicts that. Again, what you keep ignoring because it ruins your arguments: http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/03/all-have-sinned-mary.html

“That is exactly what John was addressing here:”

Neither were discussing the Virgin Mary. Again: http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/03/all-have-sinned-mary.html

“Mary could not have been created sinless. It’s impossible.”

Something is impossible for God?

“I’ve quoted multiple scriptures to show this is so.”

No, you have misused scripture in an attempt to overturn truth while assiduously ignoring evidence against your claims.

“She could not be made sinless without the sacrifice of Christ. If she did, then Christ was a liar. He did not die for our sins.”

Yet another straw man!!!!!!!!! Who here is claiming that Mary was sinless WITHOUT Christ’s sacrifice? Who? I have never, EVER, claimed any such thing. I really don’t take it personally that you disagree with orthodoxy. I do take it personally when you flat out lie about what I have said or about what Catholics believe. Why lie? And here’s the proof: multiple times I have said Mary was sinless because of Christ’s death on the cross, His sacrifice. Multiple times I have said this! See the following examples AGAIN:

Post #269: Mary was always sinless, but she was made sinless by the grace won on the cross by Christ. Christ was Mary’s Savior too, only He saved her FIRST.

Post #256: Mary was made sinless by Christ’s grace. That only resulted from His death. Christ’s death was so momentous a sacrifice that it effects souls before it and after it in time.

Post #249: Christ saved Mary from sinfulness with His grace.

Post #240: We are not making Mary sinless. CHRIST’S GRACE made Mary sinless.

So far you have tried multiple straw men, quoting only half a statement to make it look like it supports you and now you’re just flat out lying. And yet, incredibly, you wrote:

“I am very interested in honest debate and don’t believe that I’m creating a straw man argument about Marian worship...and especially not about Mary having no sin.”

Incredible. Then why lie about what I said and what we believe? Christ saved Mary. He saved her through the grace He won on the cross. His sacrifice was so perfect that it is timeless and helps those in the past and in the future for God has no time!


286 posted on 04/13/2008 7:00:19 PM PDT by vladimir998 (Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ. St. Jerome)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies]

To: rwlawrence
So why are there several different thousand Protestant denominations.?

Don't ask me.....I'm not a Protestant. I don't know why those folks do some of the things they do! You either....for that matter!

287 posted on 04/13/2008 7:06:18 PM PDT by Diego1618
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 284 | View Replies]

To: rwlawrence
One only needs to examine the state of Christian churches today to see the fruits of deception that has taken hold. Homosexual bishops, unrepentant adulterers, church sanctioned gambling, child abuse, the list goes on and on Oh my-you mean THERE ARE SINNERS IN THE CHURCH!!???.

You missed the larger point. There are churches that do not recognize these things as sin and instead embrace them.

288 posted on 04/13/2008 7:25:40 PM PDT by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 285 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
Yet another straw man!!!!!!!!! Who here is claiming that Mary was sinless WITHOUT Christ’s sacrifice?

You are! You claim that she was made sinless BEFORE Christ's sacrifice. Without any scriptural proof or justification you then throw out a statement saying that the sacrifice occurred before it occurred to make Mary sinless. Kind of like a weird back to the future episode. It's like me saying that the action of me going to the store and buying eggs today made it possible for eggs to show up in my refrigerator 30 years ago. It's nonsense.

Post #269: Mary was always sinless, but she was made sinless by the grace won on the cross by Christ. Christ was Mary’s Savior too, only He saved her FIRST.

An opinion and a theory totally unsupported by scripture.

Post #256: Mary was made sinless by Christ’s grace. That only resulted from His death. Christ’s death was so momentous a sacrifice that it effects souls before it and after it in time.

An opinion and a theory totally unsupported by scripture.

Post #249: Christ saved Mary from sinfulness with His grace.

An opinion and a theory totally unsupported by scripture.

Post #240: We are not making Mary sinless. CHRIST’S GRACE made Mary sinless.

An opinion and a theory totally unsupported by scripture.

So far you have tried multiple straw men, quoting only half a statement to make it look like it supports you and now you’re just flat out lying. And yet, incredibly, you wrote:

This is interesting spin. Totally false, but an interesting glimpse into your character.

Incredible. Then why lie about what I said and what we believe? Christ saved Mary. He saved her through the grace He won on the cross. His sacrifice was so perfect that it is timeless and helps those in the past and in the future for God has no time!

And here's the crux of the matter. You present your opinion and theory as fact without any type of scriptural support whatsoever and then you take umbrage and call people names when they appeal to scripture to show that this theory is false.

289 posted on 04/13/2008 7:39:58 PM PDT by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 286 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC
You present your opinion and theory as fact without any type of scriptural support whatsoever and then you take umbrage and call people names when they appeal to scripture to show that this theory is false.

They gotta do it, Doug. They have not a leg to stand on with regards to scripture.... so they must spin fairy tales to back their tradition....which then trumps scripture!

290 posted on 04/13/2008 8:08:47 PM PDT by Diego1618
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 289 | View Replies]

To: Diego1618
They gotta do it, Doug. They have not a leg to stand on with regards to scripture.... so they must spin fairy tales to back their tradition....which then trumps scripture!

I know I know. 99% of the time I won't even attempt debate with rc's because we are coming from totally different reference points on what constitutes final authority.

291 posted on 04/13/2008 8:21:36 PM PDT by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 290 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC

You wrote:

“You are!

There you go lying again. Show me the exact post where I ever claimed “Mary was sinless WITHOUT Christ’s sacrifice”. When you fail miserably - and you will - what will you do then? Will you come up with another straw man?

“You claim that she was made sinless BEFORE Christ’s sacrifice.”

Now you’re saying the issue is “BEFORE” whereas a minute ago you were claiming I said Mary was sinless “WITHOUT” Christ. BEFORE and WITHOUT are two different words and represent two different things. Jesus’ sacrifice is - in case you didn’t know - so powerful that it transcends time and space. It produced the grace that saved Moses. And Adam. And Abraham. And Mary. Yes, Jesus’ grace saves people who walked the earth before Christ became man and died on the cross. If you’re saved, it’s because of Christ’s grace. The same grace that saved Moses - even though you’re seperated by 3,000 years. Didn’t you know that? God’s grace saves men in the past and the future. This is so for two reasons: 1) Christ’s sacrifice is so perfect and great, and 2) God sees all as present and He has no past or future.

“Without any scriptural proof or justification you then throw out a statement saying that the sacrifice occurred before it occurred to make Mary sinless.”

Another lie from you. I never once, NEVER ONCE, claimed that Christ’s sacrifice “occurred before it occurred to make Mary sinless.” I said this:

Post #256: Christ’s death was so momentous a sacrifice that it effects souls before it and after it in time.

Yet, now you are claiming I said something I never, EVER, said. Again, I don’t mind you disagreeing with orthodoxy, but why lie about what I said?

“Kind of like a weird back to the future episode. It’s like me saying that the action of me going to the store and buying eggs today made it possible for eggs to show up in my refrigerator 30 years ago. It’s nonsense.”

So Moses is damned? Abraham damned? Adam, David, Solomon - all damned? The simple fact is that Christ’s grace can be applied to anyone he chooses to do so. He is sovereign and all powerful. If you ran into Moses in heaven would you deny that he should be there simply because he died 1,000 BEFORE Christ died on the cross? Is it news to you that Christ’s grace helps those who lived BEFORE He became man?

“An opinion and a theory totally unsupported by scripture.”

No, a fact - taught by the Church whose authority to teach is attested to by scripture.

An opinion and a theory totally unsupported by scripture.

Again, so Moses is damned? Are you doubting this: “Christ’s death was so momentous a sacrifice that it effects souls before it and after it in time.” Moses was BEFORE Christ’s death. Are you saying he is damned?

“An opinion and a theory totally unsupported by scripture.”

No, it’s a fact - taught by the Church whose authority to teach is attested to by scripture.

“An opinion and a theory totally unsupported by scripture.”

No, it’s a fact - taught by the Church whose authority to teach is attested to by scripture. And thanks for tacitly admitting that you lied when you said I was supporting this: “Who here is claiming that Mary was sinless WITHOUT Christ’s sacrifice?” The quotes I posted showed I said the exact opposite. You knew that to be the case so you simply ignored that fact that you lost that point and said they were unsupported by scripture even when that meant shooting your own argument in the foot. Gee, smart.

“This is interesting spin. Totally false, but an interesting glimpse into your character.”

Wow. Let’s look at this again. Here’s what you said I supported: “Who here is claiming that Mary was sinless WITHOUT Christ’s sacrifice?” You said I was. I pointed out the following: Post #269: Mary was always sinless, but she was made sinless by the grace won on the cross by Christ. Christ was Mary’s Savior too, only He saved her FIRST. Post #256: Mary was made sinless by Christ’s grace. That only resulted from His death. Christ’s death was so momentous a sacrifice that it effects souls before it and after it in time. Post #249: Christ saved Mary from sinfulness with His grace. Post #240: We are not making Mary sinless. CHRIST’S GRACE made Mary sinless.

You said - point blank - that I said Mary was saved WITHOUT Christ’s sacrifice. I demonstrated that that was a flat out lie. Can you prove otherwise? No. I have repeatedly said AND HAVE ALWAYS BELIEVED that Mary was saved by Christ’s sacrifice.

“And here’s the crux of the matter. You present your opinion and theory as fact without any type of scriptural support whatsoever and then you take umbrage and call people names when they appeal to scripture to show that this theory is false.”

Wrong. You lied about what I believe and what I said. Remember, I asked this: “Who here is claiming that Mary was sinless WITHOUT Christ’s sacrifice? Who?”

You responded with: “You are!” That is a flat out lie.

Christ saved Mary with His grace that He won on the cross. His sacrifice works both forward and backward in time. That’s how Moses and Adam and David can go to heaven as well as you and me.


292 posted on 04/13/2008 8:41:24 PM PDT by vladimir998 (Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ. St. Jerome)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 289 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC
99% of the time I won't even attempt debate with rc's because we are coming from totally different reference points

That's a big "Ten/Four"! It does seem futile......but maybe now and then a lurker will open the book and read it because of something you said.

293 posted on 04/13/2008 8:43:05 PM PDT by Diego1618
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC
My Church doesnt-hasnt for 2,0000 years and counting.
294 posted on 04/13/2008 8:47:51 PM PDT by rwlawrence
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 288 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC
I know I know. 99% of the time I won't even attempt debate with rc's because we are coming from totally different reference points on what constitutes final authority.

Exactly -in your case the final authority is YOU. In our case the final authority is the Church.

295 posted on 04/13/2008 8:50:33 PM PDT by rwlawrence
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies]

To: Diego1618
That's a big "Ten/Four"! It does seem futile......but maybe now and then a lurker will open the book and read it because of something you said.

What book is that? Scripture? The book codified by the Catholic Church and the book that has been central to our worship for 2,000 years? The book that our separated brethren have been arguing about for over 500 years and still cant agree what it says?

296 posted on 04/13/2008 8:54:11 PM PDT by rwlawrence
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 293 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998; DouglasKC
His sacrifice works both forward and backward in time. That’s how Moses and Adam and David can go to heaven as well as you and me.

[Acts 2:29-34] Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand.

[John 3:13][Acts 13:36][1 Timothy 6:14-16]

297 posted on 04/13/2008 8:54:23 PM PDT by Diego1618
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 292 | View Replies]

To: rwlawrence
What book is that? Scripture? The book codified by the Catholic Church and the book that has been central to our worship for 2,000 years? The book that our separated brethren have been arguing about for over 500 years and still cant agree what it says?

The canon was established by the Jews.....long before you folks showed up! Scripture had been read in Christian assemblies from the day the Apostles began to write it down. Your claim to canon responsibility is spurious. Frankly, I don't understand why you folks even attempt to defend that position. You don't pay any attention to scripture anyway!

298 posted on 04/13/2008 9:00:50 PM PDT by Diego1618
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 296 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

Discuss the issues all you want, but do NOT make it personal. The word “lie” indicates the intent to deceive which is attributing motive, i.e. “making it personal.”


299 posted on 04/13/2008 9:07:19 PM PDT by Religion Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 292 | View Replies]

To: rwlawrence

WRONG.

Rubber History texts don’t count.

Try 1600 years.

Many of them awful examples of any decent organization, much less Christianity.


300 posted on 04/13/2008 9:18:16 PM PDT by Quix (GOD ALONE IS GOD; WORTHY; PAID THE PRICE; IS COMING AGAIN; KNOWS ALL; IS LOVING; IS ALTOGETHER GOOD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 294 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300301-328 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson