Posted on 12/25/2014 12:25:15 PM PST by Jan_Sobieski
Notice ‘A Son’ NOT ‘the Son’.
We are not allowed to debate a priest?
Mary's role in Christianity or catholicism??....because she is apparently different in the two.
The reading of the Word is pretty clear for most folks.
The Greek does require study and training.
I checked some catholic seminaries for their language requirement. Some required a semester of Greek and/or Hebrew while others emphasized Latin.
One even had a course in Mariology! A whole course devoted specifically to Mary! So of course a catholic priest will/should know the catholic Mary.
Depending on denomination, some non-catholic seminaries require two classes in Greek and two classes in Hebrew. I really wish there was more of an emphasis on the Greek and Hebrew as these would help clear up a lot of the misunderstandings of the Word.
To who?
Theoretically.
In what the scholastics termed "the cathedral of the mind" but in actual practice --- the "fine precision" and distinctions lead to nothing less than for many (though perhaps not all) the hyper-dulia afforded "Mary" alone, above and beyond any other person perceived as being a saint, inclusive of directing prayers towards her and others, not in practice restricted to asking "her" to "pray for them" (as the apologetic so often attempts to fig-leaf cover-up) results in going fully towards hailing "Mary" as a kind of heavenly mother, a Queen of Heaven, fully capable of ministering to persons directly.
Meanwhile, as is written in Genesis, "male and female created He them" with there no need for an additional "heavenly" or "spirit" mother, for God has both attributes well enough within Himself, being beyond gender or "sex" as it were, Himself...
I've seen recent writings (I wish I presently had the link) wherein a recent, formerly "protestant" convert had mentioned to a RC priest that as he had been ministered to by the Holy Spirit, he sensed something feminine about the way the love that was being poured over himself "felt" or came across.
The convert was told -- that was "Mary" instead of the Holy Spirit.
It is those kind of things which lead myself to be able to say that a great many Roman Catholics seem to make "Mary" as a fourth member of the Trinity, in all BUT openly declared name only.
So go and "report" that.
Tell it to --- who?
The Knights of Columbus, maybe? What would they do? Hit me with their swords?
How about reporting everyone here to the office of the Inquisition, which name was changed to "The Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office" and in 1965 changed name again to "Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith"?
It used to be that if one was reported to them quite often the precise charges would not be stipulated, nor would the accuser or accusers be named --- but then if one were accused they would still face examination, which if they failed the tests of (in the judgment of those 'prosecutors' bot formulating and giving the tests) then an individual would face summary loss of his property, with the lands (if any) going to the Office of Inquisition.
But that office no longer has the power to take an individual's possessions, lands, and even life from others for reason of some disagreement of conscience.
So who to "report" a person here to --- now?
to "Mary" herself, who's angels are said (by *some* Roman Catholics) to stand and wait for her slightest expression of disapproval?
Go ahead. "Report" away. I seriously doubt she would be upset over anyone insisting that prayer be directed to the most High God, the Creator of the Heavens and the earth, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob -- the God of the Israelites (when those Israelites were not backsliding and whoring after other 'gods').
I'll stand here and walk around a pile of wood, pouring water on it, and mock you, asking you why her avenging angels have not come down to slay those whom would dare criticize Roman Catholic Church doctrines and teachings concerning "Mary", and it's twisted up double-talking "fine distinctions" theological statements (of which it is said all must kneel down before -- or risk HELLFIRE itself!)
Why no response from on high, why have not these critics been put to fiery death --- is she in the loo, powdering her nose? (1 Kings 18:27-29)
Meanwhile, I will continue as in times past, to look again towards the times when I shall again be graced with the seeming ability to "pray the spirit down" as it were, so that the presence of Him can be at times palpably sensed by even those whom are strangers to Him ---by which I mean even those having themselves not been baptized in the Holy Ghost. For such has occurred in my own life, over and again, though I don't know why, other than God does keep His own promises.
Do you expect God to keep the "promises" and or "words" of the Roman Catholic Church? Do you confuse the voices, that the voice or 'mind of the Church' (and by that I mean the Roman Catholic ecclesiastical body) is the same as the mind of God?
If so -- that is confusion City.
He is not us -- and we are not Him. "Mary" is not Him, either!!! (wake up!)
He may visit His presence upon some there, now and again -- and I would hope that He would.
Yet those visitations (among those within RCC environs) are not any more confirming of all RCC doctrines than His presence and visitations of His Spirit unto myself would make all which I have been preached to about Jesus outside of the narrower confines of the RCC, be entirely true (some things are true enough -- some have proved not)
Yet my own life and experiences with the Lord by way of His Spirit do disprove many RCC claims towards exclusivity, and when doing so show also the various claims towards infallibility (often expressed that the RCC alone out of all ekklesia) never have been mistaken or in error) -- to be false teachings, even LIES.
So sue me? Sic "Mary" on me? Go ahead. Tell God the Father I have little to no respect for Marionism as that has puff by little puff over the centuries inflated into becoming --- and see if He actually cares.
As far as I know He'd more likely be giving me a two thumbs up, "hey, way to go, thanks". My conscience is clear in this regard -- and no -- I am not causing anyone actual harm, unless challenging superstitious beliefs is hurtful to anything other than the superstitions themselves...
Concepts such as;
do not equate with having other Gods gods and goddesses, individuals in overall effect be allowed promotion to being like unto "little gods" in station and in conceptualization for reason they are not "before" but considered "beside" or even "under" the God who is One.
Gather all ye "Mary" witchy-witchies together, gather 'round and curse me to High Heavens! I dare you to.
I could use a good jolt from above, though I'll not be figuring on calling fire down on the wet wood, myself, 'cuz that "trick" is what I expect a chief minister, false prophet to anti-Christ to eventually do (in imitation of a true prophet) before this "world" is all done. Yet meanwhile "Mary" won't be sending down fire-bolts, anytime soon.
God the Father on the other hand -- I would advise all to step lightly when anywhere near His presence, because He can be awfully frightening when He gets His dander up. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of an angry God. Have you even heard Him speak...or as I have, even "yell" as it were? There is no one beside Him. He is The One, period.
But go ahead, tell "Mary" and every saint and angel you may know the name of just how bad I and others are for resisting 'Marionism', preferring and holding up Christ instead. Call every Roman Catholic the world over. Have them all pray for the earth to open and swallow me, in sight of everyone. Pray as hard as you can to have fire come down from Heaven to light little candles to burn "to Mary". I dare you, I dare all of you.
So who again are you going to be reporting this so-called "anti-Catholic bigotry"?
Check your own bigotries at the door of that Poleece station way up yonder. They've heard it all before...
All those statues, worshiping a statue of Jesus.
Mary was betrothed to Joseph. She was told she was going to have a baby. If she expected to be having relations with Joseph, she would NOT have wondered HOW she was going to have a baby.
Yet, she asked: “How can this be, since I know not man?”
It is not speculation that Mary was committed to virginity. It is a logical implication right there in her question to the angel.
As for Mary’s perpetual virginity: It was the universal belief of the Church from the beginning. That is proof that it is true, because Christ promised that the Church would be preserved in the truth.
There is NO assertion anywhere in the NT that Mary ever had relations with Joseph, or that she ever bore any child but Jesus.
Horsefeathers.
That is to accept writings such as what is known today as the Protoevangelium of James as having been accurate, instead of a bunch of tongue wagging rumor and supposition.
It became discovered that it was not written by James as that writing represented itself to be.
It was a fraud from the first sentence.
And here, you perpetuate the theological error (if not outright crime!) of that...
Fewer courses in mariology and more in Greek would be recommended for catholic priests based on your reply.
Who is the “woman clothed with the sun,” in John’s vision?
As for Leo XIII’s extravagant passages about Mary, it remains the case that the Catholic Church has never taught that praying the Rosary or having a devotion to Mary is necessary for salvation. Leo’s statements are about what is highly recommended.
Nope....Leo said no one comes to Christ except through Mary. You can spin this blasphemy all you want but it is what he said. It is official teaching of the Catholic Church. Sorry you don’t like it
Just as easily it could have been revealed to her that she would conceive forthwith of the Annunciation -- which apparently she did? And that an eventual marriage to Joseph, that seeming have, according to Luke was in the offing -- could have been scheduled for sometime yet months distant.
Not really, for as Origin noted -- talk of Mary being not simply the Virgin, but even ever Virgin did not enter into patristic thought & expression until after the psuedographical Protoevangelium of James (which Origin identified by yet another name, I do not recall precisely which). I do not recall at this moment what (secular) ancient writing speaks of James being either summoned to or having gone to and been entertained as witness to one of the Roman Emporers -- and that Roman being highly impressed with James, but there is yet more other ancient historical account which expresses the opinion that one of the reasons the Romans eventually overthrew the Temple in Jerusalem is that the Jews there, in rejection of Christ and this "new" religious sect, had among other things put James to death.
That was kind-of the last straw in a way...according to some historical write-ups dating back to near that era, and a bit afterwards.
I was referring to whether devotion to Mary is necessary for salvation. No, it is not.
On the other hand:
DOES anyone come to Jesus except through Mary?
The Incarnation came about only AFTER Mary had been asked for her consent, and had given it. The flesh of the incarnate Word came from Mary.
In that sense, no one DOES come to Jesus except through Mary.
If you consider that blasphemy, complain to St. Luke.
I’ll tell you one thing. More Christians worldwide share the same beliefs for the Virgin Mary than your non-beliefs in the Mother of God. You lose. Get over the bitterness.
John -- who?
John the Apostle, who also wrote what can be referred to as the Gospel of John?
The same John (isn't it?) who he wrote of (writing of himself) in John 19: 26-27
That John, correct?
This vision...perhaps many years after Mary herself having "fallen asleep" as the euphemism for death or dying would have it, came how long after Christ was actually born? AD 90 some place the book of Revelation to have been written, though some push for earlier, I don't know why...
Would not John -- who witnessed the Christ directly with his own eyes, seeing Him in the flesh, and the risen Christ too(!) know that "Mary" was not in heaven struggling in the travails of childbirth?
It is more like Mary herself is representative of Israel, daughter of Israel, and this "woman clothed with the sun" being far beyond just Mary alone, though she be hid in this as was the early Church also, and all those whom had come before her in bringing this eventual arrival of Jesus Christ to pass -- and the continuing battle in the heavenlies concerning this longing of the Spirit to be born within the hearts of men (and women, mankind, if you will).
' If all this later arising " Mary" stuff, this focus upon her be so important (to the extent that has inflated far beyond what Scripture itself shows) then why did writers such as John who did know her and Christ both -- not make it more plain?
Why leave this needing to read in-between the lines, and needing do so while other spiritual principles (illuminated in a vision) were being shown?
The first patristic writer who expanded beyond what Paul wrote, spoke of his own opinion -- for he did not relate that any Apostle had taught himself that "Mary loosed the knot of Eve's [alledged] disobedience".
When we turn back to the book of Genesis, we see there that God instructed Adam to not eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, but if we were to there take things in order of the writing, see that Eve had not yet been taken from Adam's own side at the time of that instruction.
She herself was quite possibly not told by God directly to not eat of that fruit, yet obviously she must have known of the prohibition. Let's say -- perhaps Adam had told her? Who else could it have been? The scriptures do not show God having told Eve the prohibition.
Then, after Eve was deceived by the serpent's smooth talking (up until then -- had she ever encountered a LIAR?) and then only after Adam had eaten also, it is written that both of their eyes were opened.
God does not charge Eve there with the crime -- even though He did ask -- what have you done? God tells here what her difficulties in the future shall be (difficulty in childbirth) and that her desire would be for her husband.
Yet to Adam God does lay charge of disobedience. Adam of course tried to blame it all on Eve, but that's the first case of blame-shifting to go along with the ah, first sin on record.
As Paul wrote, by one man sin entered the world. Paul did not write that by Adam and by Eve sin entered the world. Paul wrote that by one man -- Adam -- sin entered the world. That was the Hebrew theology of the day...
Paul put Christ as a "new Adam" but did not write of 'Mary' as a "new Eve".
That would have been awkward.
Here's Mary, the earthly mother and bearer of the Son of the Most High, having not conceived of this son of her own by way of the usual means, but by having been overshadowed by the Spirit (as it is written) be wife to her own son?
Let's have none of that sort of thing...
To perhaps help solve these sort of difficulties & mysteries, the words of Christ at Matthew 22
29 Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God[b] in heaven. 31 But concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God, saying, 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’?[c] God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.” 33 And when the multitudes heard this, they were astonished at His teaching.
... 41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, 42 saying, “What do you think about the Christ? Whose Son is He?”
They said to Him, “The Son of David.”
43 He said to them, “How then does David in the Spirit call Him ‘Lord,’ saying:
44 ‘The Lord said to my Lord,
“Sit at My right hand,
Till I make Your enemies Your footstool”’?[f]45 If David then calls Him ‘Lord,’ how is He his Son?” 46 And no one was able to answer Him a word, nor from that day on did anyone dare question Him anymore.
goodbye
There are more Muslims I believe than non catholics. Your point?
Yeah, it’s very, very close and maybe not noticeable to non-believers, but that subtle distinction between “a” and “the” enables him to sound like a Christian while not professing Christ as God as a Christian would.
Sneaky, Obama, very sneaky, but not sneaky enough.
Totally a misleading statement not backed up by scripture.
Please site chapter and verse where Mary was asked for her consent.
In that sense, no one DOES come to Jesus except through Mary.
Over veneration and idolation/devotion of/to Mary.
Christians (with out all the pharisaical extraneous extra-Biblical confusion) know that no one comes to Jesus EXCEPT through the Holy Spirit, Jesus and the Father.
Mary was a simple handmaiden of the Lord who happened to be chosen to bear the man child Jesus.
If you consider that blasphemy, complain to St. LukeThe only statements that even come close to blasphemy are yours, except for the first one in the post that this reply is directed towards.
BTW, Jesus sees all. Even your confusion about Luke of the Bible.
I imagine Jesus and Luke will get a little chuckle over that!
Re-read Luke 1:28-37 again. Keep events in context and don't read into the text what's not there. Drop any preconceived understandings of the account.
The plain meaning of the text is clear.
Bogus! the ECFs were all over the board on this as they are on all the other topics the rcc clings to.
It's already been shown time and time again through Scripture that Joseph and Mary had other children.
Catholicism has had to twist the plain meaning of scripture(which they are very good at) to say otherwise.
Matthew 1:18-25 - Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together..."knew her not till" clearly discloses that Joseph DID know her after Jesus was born.Matthew 1:25 - And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
Matthew 1:20 - But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife...
Matthew 1:18 - Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
God gave His blessing upon the marriage of Joseph and Mary. If he wanted them married, would He deny them the joys of marital bliss, ie "knowing" each other in the Biblical sense?
No, He is a loving God and Mary and Joseph were believers whom God used in a mighty way, but at the same time were able to enjoy a human life and all that implies for married couples.
Now here is a disclaimer which I post occasionally.
I have no problem if you wish to believe what you believe, but please don't try to foist it upon born again non Catholic Christians.
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.