Posted on 01/11/2012 7:34:56 PM PST by RnMomof7
Mary: Mother of God?
This article is prompted by an ad in the Parade Magazine titled: "Mary Mother of God: What All Mankind Should Know." The offer was made for a free pamphlet entitled "Mary Mother of Jesus" with this explanation: "A clear, insightful pamphlet explains the importance of Mary and her role as Mother of God."
This is quite a claim, to say the least! Nowhere in the Bible is Mary said to be the mother of God. I touched on this subject in a series on "Mary Co-Redeemer with Christ" printed recently.
Question: If Mary is the Mother of God, Who, may I ask, is the Father of God? Does God have a Father, and if He does, Who is His Mother?
The phrase "Mother of God" originated in the Council of Ephesus, in the year 431 AD. It occurs in the Creed of Chalcedon, which was adopted by the council in 451 AD. This was the declaration given at that time: "Born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God according to the Manhood." The purpose of this statement originally was meant to emphasize the deity of Christ over against the teaching of the Nestorians whose teaching involved a dual-natured Jesus. Their teaching was that the person born of Mary was only a man who was then indwelt by God. The title "Mother of God" was used originally to counter this false doctrine. The doctrine now emphasizes the person of Mary rather than the deity of Jesus as God incarnate. Mary certainly did not give birth to God. In fact, Mary did not give birth to the divinity of Christ. Mary only gave birth to the humanity of Jesus. The only thing Jesus got from Mary was a body. Every Human Being has received a sinful nature from their parents with one exception: Jesus was not human. He was divine God in a flesh body. This is what Mary gave birth to. Read Hebrews 10:5 and Phil 2:5-11.
Please refer to Hebrews 10:5 where we see. "...Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me."
The body of Jesus was prepared by God. In Matthew 1:18, "she was found with child of the Holy Ghost."
The divine nature of Jesus existed from before eternity, and this cannot be said of Mary Jesus never called her "mother". He called her "woman".
This doctrine deifies Mary and humanizes Jesus. Mary is presented as stronger that Christ, more mature and more powerful that Christ. Listen to this statement by Rome: "He came to us through Mary, and we must go to Him through her." The Bible plainly states that God is the Creator of all things. It is a blasphemous attack on the eternity of God to ever teach that He has a mother. Mary had other children who were normal, physical, sinful human beings. In the case of Jesus Christ, "His human nature had no father and His divine nature had no mother."
It is probably no coincidence that this false doctrine surrounding Mary was born in Ephesus. Please read Acts 19:11-41 and see that Ephesus had a problem with goddess worship. Her name was Diana, Gk. Artemis. You will not have to study very deep to find the similarities between the goddess Diana and the Roman Catholic goddess, Mary. It should be noted that the Mary of the 1st century and the Mary of the 20th century are not the same. Mary of the 1st century was the virgin who gave birth to the Messiah. Mary of the 20th century is a goddess created by the Roman Catholic Church. A simple comparison of what the Bible teaches about Mary and what the Roman Catholic Church teaches about her will reveal two different Marys. Mary is not the "Mother of God." If she were she would be GOD! There is only one true, eternal God. He was not born of a woman. Any teaching on any subject should be backed up by the word of God. If it cannot be supported by Scriptures, it is false doctrine.
Seriously, do you have a Church? Or do you just make things up as you go along?
It’s a simple question that doesn’t require a miraculous intervention by the Holy Spirit.
What’s going on here? What are you people hiding. We are commanded to ‘Honor God’ by attending Church. I’m simply asking about your church. Do you belong to a secret church. Many people simple get a hold of a Bible & start making things up as they go along. Where is this church that calls Jerusalem its mother?
..maybe because some of the bone-headed things he did as a disciple earned him the nickname “dumb as a box of Petros”...
The question was what in Scripture is definitively interpreted by the Church, the interpretation of which no member can reject or interpret differently from the Church.
The examples I gave, are in fact the doctrines of Christianity which are accepted by Christians, ALL Christians, whether in communion with the Church or not.
For me, it suggests that many don’t know/understand their doctrine.
Many don’t and many are not interested in all the debate about doctrine and such. It is not that they are incapable, but that they are just people of simple faith and have no need to get into all the nuts and bolts.
Marian prayer and intercession is a part of the Catholic church and when one trust that Jesus gave her authority which began with the Apostles and was then handed on throughout the ages, one can accept that Marian prayer is not problematic.
Mary intercedes for us with her Son, this is what the Church teaches. But, no one is compelled to pray to Mary, or to pray the rosary.
When a Catholic claims they do not pray TO Mary one must understand that it is a reaction to the accusation that prayer to her bypasses or supplants those to Jesus.
It is not and the Church never teaches that it is.
The confusion is caused by protestants, not the Church.
I didn’t attempt to name a church. You said the church was your mother and I showed that scripture teaches that the church is not our mother.
>> All you did was quote a passage from the Bible.<<
All I did was quote a passage from the Bible? All I did? Seriously? You discount scripture as a source for truth? Good grief!
>> The Bible you quoted came out of the Catholic Church<<
Oh really? So the writers of scripture was the Catholic Church? Did they just use the names of the apostles etc? Can you quote the verse please that names the RCC and “the church”? I would be interested in seeing that as would many of us I’m sure.
>> The Title indicates a characteristic of the Catholic Church.<<
Well, that’s just wonderful for those who belong to that cult. The rest of us are more concerned with what God has said through scripture.
>> If you don’t belong to a church, I recommend you visit one this Sunday.<<
I belong to the universal church of all believers. No cult memberships for me.
I do want to clarify one thing. Always Catholics read the Bible in the context of Church teaching. Part of that teaching involves schools of Biblical hermeneutics. If you are familiar with the Jesus Seminer that would be an example of a use of a type of Biblical hermeneutics which Catholics may not use. Another example would be the whole modernist school of exegesis that arose from Kantian philosophy and which was expressed by the 19th century German school of Higher Criticism in the writings of such theologians as Schleiermacher.
Bottom line if the Church has spoken the faithful must submit to what the Church has stated is official teaching binding on the faithful. If she has not spoken and my view does not contradict the broader teaching of the Church I am free to interpret for myself.
Of course there were but the focus was no longer on the Jews as a whole because they had rejected Christ.
>>Oh, and nice dodge once again regarding the question as to why Jesus, God, THE ROCK, chose for Simon a name which means rock.<<
I don’t believe anyone really knows but it certainly wasn’t to replace God.
Psalm 18:31, "And who is a rock, except our God."
God even says there is not other Rock.
Isaiah 44:8, "Is there any God besides Me, or is there any other Rock? I know of none."
Paul said there is not other than Christ who the church is built on.
1 Cor. 3:11, "For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ,"
From Leo XIII’s “ON THE STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE”
“A wide field is still left open to the private student, in which his hermeneutical skill may display itself with signal effect and to the advantage of the Church. On the one hand, in those passages of Holy Scripture which have not as yet received a certain and definitive interpretation, such labours may, in the benignant providence of God, prepare for and bring to maturity the judgment of the Church; on the other, in passages already defined, the private student may do work equally valuable, either by setting them forth more clearly to the flock and more skilfully to scholars, or by defending them more powerfully from hostile attack. Wherefore the first and dearest object of the Catholic commentator should be to interpret those passages which have received an authentic interpretation either from the sacred writers themselves, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost (as in many places of the New Testament), or from the Church, under the assistance of the same Holy Spirit, whether by her solemn judgment or her ordinary and universal magisterium(35) - to interpret these passages in that identical sense, and to prove, by all the resources of science, that sound hermeneutical laws admit of no other interpretation. In the other passages, the analogy of faith should be followed, and Catholic doctrine, as authoritatively proposed by the Church, should be held as the supreme law; for, seeing that the same God is the author both of the Sacred Books and of the doctrine committed to the Church, it is clearly impossible that any teaching can by legitimate means be extracted from the former, which shall in any respect be at variance with the latter. Hence it follows that all interpretation is foolish and false which either makes the sacred writers disagree one with another, or is opposed to the doctrine of the Church.”
The Catholic Church and those who follow the teaching of that church are using “images of God” and are practicing idolatry.Look, finally an answer, CynicalBear calls all Catholic's idolators. He also calls those who celebrate Christmas and Easter PAGAN. How odd.
I AM the church, part of it, as all true believers are.
The true church is composed of and comprised of all true believers for all time.
It is NOT an institution, organization, or religion that someone established.
Jesus said He would BUILD His church, not establish it.
By whom and where? The only Scriptural injunction is to not forsake the assembling of ourselves together. It says nothing about having to go to *church* once a week or it's a sin.
Many people simple get a hold of a Bible & start making things up as they go along.
Nobody who gets a Bible and reads it has the option of making stuff up as they go along. As far as calling Jerusalem our mother, Paul did that in his letter to the Galatians.
Perhaps you are not familiar with it so I will post it again, with the chapter and verse.... Maybe you didn't recognize it as Scripture, God's word to us.
Galatians 4:26 But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.
It's the only reference in the Bible that calls anyone or anything a believer's mother.
Nowhere is Mary called our mother and nowhere is the RCC even referenced, much less called our mother.
The church is the body of Christ, the Bride of Christ. The bride of Christ is we believers. The *Church* is not our mother as if she gave birth to us.
I don’t know if I understand CynicalBear and other’s take on the humanity of Jesus but it seems to me they are claiming the two natures of Christ human and divine acted separately and were distinct one from the other.
I can’t recall the name of this heresy but am pretty sure it was refuted by St.Anathasius.
Catholics always like to parade out that mantra of how many have agreed with them. May I remind you that there was only one family saved out of the entire world when Noah and his family entered the Ark? The there was Lot and his two daughters who were the only three saved out of Sodom and Gomorrah. That nonsense about who all agrees with the RCC and how large and old they claim that organization to be falls flat in comparison doesn’t it.
***I don’t believe anyone really knows but it certainly wasn’t to replace God.***
So, it was just some superfluous thing that Jesus threw out? He had nothing in mind by doing that? And it is just coincidence that the very next thing He says, in the same sentence, is “and upon this rock, I will build my church.”
The Church does not teach or hold that Peter was to “replace” God. Peter leads the Church on earth after Christ’s ascension and as there is no doubt that the Church still needs leading, his authority as given Him by Christ is handed down through the ages, along with the faith.
Well, at least you gave what seems an honest answer.
****Of course there were but the focus was no longer on the Jews as a whole because they had rejected Christ.****
There were some Jews who rejected Christ and some that did not. Just as there were some Gentiles who rejected Christ and some that did not.
The first disciples were Jews, the first martyr for Christ, a Jew and there were Jews throughout the known world who accepted the Gospel of Jesus Christ and who helped to build His Church with their lives and their deaths.
The Gospel is the same for all of us.
Good post. Glad there’s a few kindred spirits out there. You expressed so well what I wanted to say and saved me the trouble. Awesome!!
Scripture please. The only thing I can find is the assembling together which could be any group of saved people having a picnic. No “church” building or anything. Then there is “where two or three are gathered in my name”. But I can’t find a command to “attend church”.
Which is totally backwards. It puts the wrong thing in authority and makes the wrong thing subservient.
Scripture should be read and interpreted in context with itself.
If Scripture appears to contradict itself, then further study needs to be done with it to determine the actual meaning.
The Word of God is Truth. Putting it in second place to anything opens one up to error.
Only truth can be in authority and can be used as authority.
Now it makes sense. You don’t have what most people would call a ‘real’ church. Apparently, you have a small personal church & you have become the Pope of your Church.
History is full of people that decided they are the Pope of their own Church. & It is impossible to discuss any religious subject when someone seems to ‘make things up’ as they go along.
Bless you! You are reading a Bible & that is a real blessing from God. I recommend you attend a ‘real’ church with a church-building & other Christians. Obviously, I think the Catholic Church is the True Church. But even if you attend> a Protestant Church such as ‘The Big Oak Tree Church where Jesus lives’ is better than NO Church.
With God is the important part of that statement. Or do you believe that God is restricted by time?
It is God who is outside of time not man. Our time is chronos. God’s time is kairos.
God is eternal. Eternal means much more than just lasting forever.
The church is the body of Christ, the Bride of Christ. The bride of Christ is we believers.Yep, like those who call Easter and Christmas pagan? Or those who claim that Catholic's are idolators? Sorry, bzzzt, wrong. Again.
Scripture please. The only thing I can find is the assembling together which could be any group of saved people having a picnic. No “church” building or anything. Then there is “where two or three are gathered in my name”. But I can’t find a command to “attend church”.So why does anyone build a church building? Why do you go to church, or do you?
The Pharisees and Sadducees were also proud of their numbers. Especially when confronting Jesus Christ and 12 disciples of His. And that “little flock” He was gathering. Goliath was proud of his stature and strength, especially when confronting a young lad named David. I bet they laughed and laughed and...laughed...And so it continues. The biggest, the oldest, the strongest..laughing and having a grand old time. With their “We’re Number One” foam fingers waving high in the air, so CERTAIN are they of victory. They are simply TOO BIG TO FAIL. ;)
And you, my child, will be called a prophet of the Most High;And to avoid appearing to give any support to something you feel wrong, you come up with something so lame and devoid of any exegetical support as:
for you will go on before the Lord to prepare the way for him,
77 to give his people the knowledge of salvation
through the forgiveness of their sins,
78 because of the tender mercy of our God,
by which the rising sun will come to us from heaven
79 to shine on those living in darkness
and in the shadow of death,
to guide our feet into the path of peace.”
To Honor God & attend Church is something demonstrated through out the Bible & History. Most Churches of all faiths have either a recommendation or commandment to attend Church regularly.
Bless you. But, I am aware that it is impossible to discuss anything with you as you seem to make things up as you go along. You have become ‘Pope’ of your own church & use scripture for your own purposes.
Please keep reading the Bible.
That refers to the doings of men which of course is restricted in time.
Do you think God is restricted by chronological time? That to Him there is a morning to rise in and evening to sup in and a night to sleep in? Do you think the days are to God as the days are to us? Marked off on a calender and gone once 24 hours has past?
God is eternal. All time is the same to God. To Him there is no past, no present, no future. He exists totally within all times. It is all one to Him.
18. Christianity grew fastest among Hellenistic Jewry of the cities of Asia Minor.
“Consequently there was a substantial Jewish population in virtually every town of any size in the lands bordering the Mediterranean. Estimates run from 10 to 15 percent of the total population of a city—in the case of Alexandria, perhaps even higher.”[Meeks, The First Urban Christians(Yale):34]
“archeological evidence shows that the early Christian churches outside Palestine were concentrated in the Jewish sections of cities” [Stark, The Rise of Christianity (Princeton):63]
“There is recent physical evidence suggesting that the Christian and Jewish communicates remained closely linked—intertwined, even—until far later than is consistent with claims about the early and absolute break between church and synagogue.” [Stark, The Rise of Christianity (Princeton):68]
C. How Christians came in contact with others:
19. Living arrangements, by ethnicity and by trade groupings
“While we have no remains of private homes of Jews or Christians in Rome, it seems clear that the majority of Jews and Christians of necessity would have lived either in tiny apartments several stories above ground floor, in the homes of their masters or former masters, or in tabernae where their shops were located. Did Jewish and Christian families practice religious rituals in such homes? If so, what kinds of rituals did they practice and what did their neighbors think of them? Christian house congregations which met in the homes of believers probably met in the first-floor “deluxe” apartments. If Jews were able to congregate in buildings with other Jews, they would have found it easier to practice the dietary and exclusivity demands of their religion. Jews who converted to Christianity would have found their apartment building a natural place to proselytize.” [Donfried/Richardson, Judaism and Christianity in First-Century Rome (Eerdmans):133]
“The ground floors appear to have been occupied by shops, and the upper levels by prosperous families. The connection of these buildings with the social world of craftsmen and artisans is suggestive in the light of reference to the church in the house of Aquila and Priscilla (Rom. 16:5), whose property must have served as workshop, residence, and meeting place. As yet there has been no excavation of common housing from the days of the early empire in Rome, but the work of J. E. Packer and A. G. McKay on the insulae, or apartment buildings, points to the existence of amorphous blocks of tenements, one budding abutting another, that served the vast majority of people in the capital and other large cities of the Roman Empire…A typical insula contained a row of shops on the ground floor, facing the street, and provided living quarters for the owners and their families over the shops or in the rear. There would be space on the premises for the manufacture of goods sold in the shops, and accommodations for visiting clients, workers, servants, or slaves. The arrangement brought together a considerable cross section of a major group in society, consisting of manual workers and tradespeople. Such households were part of an intricate social network made up of other households to which they were tied by kinship, friendship, professional advantage, and other considerations. The strategy of situating the church in the home was sound, for it provided Christians with relative privacy; a setting where identity and intimacy could be experienced, a ready-made audience as well as a social network along which the influence of the Christian movement could spread. The conversion of households with their dependents helps to account for the growth of Roman Christianity.” [Donfried/Richardson, Judaism and Christianity in First-Century Rome (Eerdmans):209]
“Attention has recently been focused on the significance of the household and the workshop for Paul’s missionary activities. Households were not the private residences of today but were most likely to be large houses which provided shops at the front and living accommodations at the rear. There would also have been room for workshops and living quarters for dependents and visitors. Such an arrangement would have ideally suited Paul’s purposes by both enabling him to finance his mission through his work as a tentmaker (Acts 18:3; 20:34, 35; 1 Thess 2:9) and by providing him with a ready-made platform from which preaching and teaching could be conducted daily among the many who would have been around the workshop. The significance of the workshop has been brought into focus by research into the methods of other itinerant philosophers like the Cynics of Paul’s day. Rather than viewing manual labor as demeaning, the Cynics adopted it as an ideal way of life and as the means by which a teacher could model his philosophy to his disciples.” [Tidball, “Social Settings of Mission Churches”, in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters (IVP)]
Organized settings, by ethnicity (synagogue) and by trade groupings (market)
“…Jews in most places were distributed through the whole range of statuses and occupations…The number of artisans who appear in inscriptions, papyri, and literary and legal texts is especially notable…”[Meeks, The First Urban Christians(Yale):39]
“In all the major centers of the empire were substantial settlements of diasporan Jews who were accustomed to receiving teachers from Jerusalem. Moreover, the missionaries were likely to have family and friendship connection within at least some of the diasporan communities.” [Stark, The Rise of Christianity (Princeton):62]
unbelievers had free access to Christian meetings [Meeks, The First Urban Christians(Yale):106]
“…there is good reason to believe that Paul was initially accepted as a synagogue member in most locations. The thirty-nine lashes were discipline for a synagogue member, not quite the expulsion and ostracism which an officially designated apostate might receive.” [Esler, Modelling Early Christianity (Routledge):123]
http://christianthinktank.com/urbxctt.html
Jesus struggled under the weight of the cross, I would imagine Shaq could have carried it more easily. Here, I think it would be accurate to say Shaq would have been stronger than God, likely taller as well. Unless you don’t agree with the premises above. I’m not sure who would have felt pain less or fear less than God in the garden. We remember that He sweated blood. Likely there were faster runners than God also.
It is central to Christian theology that God choose to become flesh and walk among us with all that entails. Dust could choke, thirst, hunger were real in the desert, temptation was tempting. All of this is important to understand what God Incarnate means.
I’m not sure, but I believe it would be correct to say this was a choice of God’s, to have human strength, the human limitations of body, weaker than some, stronger than others, just like all humans. Just as God chose to incarnate and have a human mother.
Thank you for your honest and thoughtful answer.
So you confess that Shaq is stronger than God? If you cannot divide the divine and human nature of Jesus, how do you divide the triune God? Is Mary the mother of the triune God?
Using Scripture only please prove that the only possible way to interpret the Bible is to come to the conclusion that Jesus is God.
No, that refers to the doings of God. And the restoration of the kingdom to Israel.
Would make her God since only God could beget God.
My soul magnifies the Lord,
And my spirit rejoices in God my Savior.
For He has regarded the low estate of His handmaiden,
For behold, henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
For He who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is His name. And His mercy is on those who fear Him from generation to generation.
He has shown strength with His arm:
He has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
He has put down the mighty from their thrones,
and exalted those of low degree.
He has filled the hungry with good things;
and the rich He has sent empty away.
He has helped His servant Israel, in remembrance of His mercy;
As He spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to His posterity forever.
Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit.
As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen
Magníficat ánima mea Dóminum,
et exsultávit spíritus meus
in Deo salvatóre meo,
quia respéxit humilitátem
ancíllæ suæ.
Ecce enim ex hoc beátam
me dicent omnes generatiónes,
quia fecit mihi magna,
qui potens est,
et sanctum nomen eius,
et misericórdia eius in progénies
et progénies timéntibus eum.
Fecit poténtiam in bráchio suo,
dispérsit supérbos mente cordis sui;
depósuit poténtes de sede
et exaltávit húmiles.
Esuriéntes implévit bonis
et dívites dimísit inánes.
Suscépit Ísrael púerum suum,
recordátus misericórdiæ,
sicut locútus est ad patres nostros,
Ábraham et sémini eius in sæcula.
Glória Patri et Fílio
et Spirítui Sancto.
Sicut erat in princípio,
et nunc et semper,
et in sæcula sæculórum.
Amen.
She became the Mother of God, in which work so many and such great good things are bestowed on her as pass man’s understanding. For on this there follows all honor, all blessedness, and her unique place in the whole of mankind, among which she has no equal, namely, that she had a child by the Father in heaven, and such a Child . . . Hence men have crowded all her glory into a single word, calling her the Mother of God . . . None can say of her nor announce to her greater things, even though he had as many tongues as the earth possesses flowers and blades of grass: the sky, stars; and the sea, grains of sand. It needs to be pondered in the heart what it means to be the Mother of God.
(Commentary on the Magnificat, 1521; in Luther’s Works, Pelikan et al, vol. 21, 326)
I’m just acknowledging your message. But the meaning eludes me. Thank you for the message though.
So you believe God is not eternal and is restricted by chronological time. That passage makes clear that it is man who does not know the time or seasons. God knows because for God there is no such thing as waiting for the future to unfold. He is beyond time.
Is God the same yesterday, today and tomorrow?
Of course it does. As the world religions begin to move together those who are Catholics had better take heed.
ZACKLY.
Of course God is eternal. He deals with man by chronological time. Because while we are on this earth, that is how time is measured. He created the times, the seasons, the days, the nights, the years for man. We are the ones restricted by chronological time.
Does your soul and spirit die when your body quits breathing???
He breathed His last, If you breathe your last what dos that mean happened to you? DUH Gee I don't know, Seriously you are really asking this question?
Here do a test get a defibrillator and shock yourself, get back to me after you self resurrect.
For the Biblically illiterate, and ignorant:
2Peter 3:10
But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
I don't disagree that those who die in Christ are not truly dead.
Many Protestants will have a ‘prayer chain’ & ask people in that church to pray. Catholics believe there is only ONE church & it includes all the Saints in Heaven & all the people on Earth who are in God’s Grace. When Catholics pray, we also ask the >living Saints in Heaven to pray too.
When “saints” is used in the new testament, it always means believers. Is this what you mean? Can Catholics pray to their deceased relatives who died as believers? Would it be ok to make a statue of your own mother, bow down and pray to her if she had died as a believer?
How do you know that deceased Christians can even hear your prayers? If you bow down to a statue of the Pope and pray to him to pray for you, will he hear you? If prayers to the saints is truly the same as a prayer chain, how can they hear you unless they are omnipresent?
I believe it was #683
Catholics really need to understand what their own church teaches before discussing issues they are unclear on. Here, I’ll help you.
The church council that met in Chalcedon in A.D. 451 produced one of the most complete statements of this doctrine. It reads in part: "Our Lord Jesus Christ is one and the same God, perfect in divinity, and perfect in humanity, true God and true human ... Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, manifested in two natures without any confusion, change, division or separation. The union does not destroy the difference of the two natures, but on the contrary the properties of each are kept, and both are joined in one person" (Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity, volume 1, HarperSanFrancisco, 1984).
Please don’t give us the heresy crap.
I’ll tell you what I’m looking for. More and more “Mary apparitions” appearing all over the place. With her usual “Peace and Unity” message. With the accompanying “wonders” and “miracles”. That’s what will bring all religions into one unified satanic organization. The one in Rev. 17. After all, who can argue and dispute a “loving” “Mother” who only wants us to “come together for the sake of peace and love and unity”? Fatima, Lourdes, places in South America, Mexico, USA, Russia, China, India, wherever apostacy reigns and people believe and trust “visions” and “apparitions” because, hey, they MUST be from God. She’s the one to watch. She’s going to be everywhere and people are going to flock together, to please her. And Rome smiles and smiles and lights another candle...
Luk 1:38 And Mary said, Behold, the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.
Luk 1:38 And Mary said, "Behold, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word." And the angel departed from her.
Mary said, “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. May it be done to me according to your word.” Then the angel departed from her.
Here in America this translates to: "Yes".If you are not able to understand something this simple you really need to stay out of these debates
My soul magnifies the Lord,
And my spirit rejoices in God my Savior.
For He has regarded the low estate of His handmaiden,
For behold, henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
For He who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is His name. And His mercy is on those who fear Him from generation to generation.
He has shown strength with His arm:
He has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
He has put down the mighty from their thrones,
and exalted those of low degree.
He has filled the hungry with good things;
and the rich He has sent empty away.
He has helped His servant Israel, in remembrance of His mercy;
As He spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to His posterity forever.
Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit.
As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen
Magníficat ánima mea Dóminum,
et exsultávit spíritus meus
in Deo salvatóre meo,
quia respéxit humilitátem
ancíllæ suæ.
Ecce enim ex hoc beátam
me dicent omnes generatiónes,
quia fecit mihi magna,
qui potens est,
et sanctum nomen eius,
et misericórdia eius in progénies
et progénies timéntibus eum.
Fecit poténtiam in bráchio suo,
dispérsit supérbos mente cordis sui;
depósuit poténtes de sede
et exaltávit húmiles.
Esuriéntes implévit bonis
et dívites dimísit inánes.
Suscépit Ísrael púerum suum,
recordátus misericórdiæ,
sicut locútus est ad patres nostros,
Ábraham et sémini eius in sæcula.
Glória Patri et Fílio
et Spirítui Sancto.
Sicut erat in princípio,
et nunc et semper,
et in sæcula sæculórum.
Amen.
She became the Mother of God, in which work so many and such great good things are bestowed on her as pass man’s understanding. For on this there follows all honor, all blessedness, and her unique place in the whole of mankind, among which she has no equal, namely, that she had a child by the Father in heaven, and such a Child . . . Hence men have crowded all her glory into a single word, calling her the Mother of God . . . None can say of her nor announce to her greater things, even though he had as many tongues as the earth possesses flowers and blades of grass: the sky, stars; and the sea, grains of sand. It needs to be pondered in the heart what it means to be the Mother of God.
(Commentary on the Magnificat, 1521; in Luther’s Works, Pelikan et al, vol. 21, 326)
That does not support your contention that there will be no oxygen and atoms, for the glorified bodies of the resurrected.
Rev 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
We have no idea what is coming with Christ when He comes.
1 Cor 2:9 But as it is written, Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God has prepared for them that love him.
Claims by some otherwise is unScriptural.
And, of course, all this is again another rabbit for me to chase, rather than remaining focused on the discussion, i.e. the reality of the resurrected body of Jesus.
Scripture says, in fact Jesus says, “It is I, Myself, touch me and see.”
That Jesus’ body was not truly resurrected is not a new heresy.
That Jesus ascended bodily to the Father is truly found in Scripture.
So, what happened to Him? Where is He now?
And, more importantly, how is that one can so misunderstand the purpose of the Incarnation, which is the uniting of the Spirit, which is God, with the flesh, which is man.
That union was Jesus, the perfect uniting of God and Man; and when we believe on Him and follow Him and abide in Him, we too will have life everlasting.
You are correct, but so is the RC.
Some info on the Imprimatur: http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/08/imprimatur-watch-what-youre-reading-my.html
“As far as I have been able to document, only seven passages of Scripture have had their senses partially (not fully) defined by the extraordinary magisterium. These definitions were made by the Council of Trent…”
“The liberty of the Scripture interpreter remains extensive. Taking due consideration of the factors that influence proper exegesis, the Catholic Bible interpreter has the liberty to adopt any interpretation of a passage that is not excluded with certainty by other passages of Scripture, by the judgment of the magisterium, by the Church Fathers, or by the analogy of faith. That is a great deal of liberty, as only a few interpretations will be excluded with certainty by any of the four factors circumscribing the interpreter’s liberty” — Jimmy Akin, Catholic Answers http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0101bt.asp)
Robert Sungenis: In fact, most of what Catholics believe and practice today has never been stated infallibly. Most of our faith and morals comes from the Ordinary Magisterium, and the Ordinary Magisterium is rarely singled out as infallible dogma. There have been only two definite instances of the exercise of papal infallibility. Of course, the Church could go back and analyze various teachings of past popes in order to decide whether one or the other was teaching infallibly on a given issue, but she has never done so, and thus there is no list of infallible papal teachings. — http://www.catholicintl.com/articles/Dave_Armstrong_Teaching_Falsehoods_About_Galileo.pdf
But at least they don't get as physical about Bible verses as compared to what their interpretation my allow: 
he Battle of Bethlehem: 100 rival priests clash at church built to mark birth of Jesus.
I agree with you. I appreciate the clarification as I had misunderstood you.
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.