Praying to Mary

Isaiah 42:8 I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.

 

Net.....

As the son of the allmighty God, Jesus Christ could have been raised an atheist, hindu, budhist, or mathmetician and it would not have mattered. He was the son of God, even Solomon knew this....

Proverbs 30:4 Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and WHAT IS HIS SON"S NAME, if thou canst tell?

No upbringing could make him NOT the son of God.

 

Hi Bro. Curtis,
But still the big Three Mary the Mother of God, Mary Magdeline and John lived in the same house. From what I understand about history, the early "church fathers" were disciples of St John.
St John said Mary Magdeline ALONE was the FIRST person to see Jesus rise from the dead. It is the word of TWO Marys that makes the whole thing true. Mary, Jesus's mother knows ALONE about the birth and Mary Magdeline, Jesus's wealthy friend, knows ALONE what happened in the grave.
In St John's Gospel (and he would know) Jesus does not seem to say "My god, my god why have you forsaken me" - this seems to imply that this phrase is Hagiographic rather then historically accurate (linking to Psalm 22). We need Church traditions otherwise all we have are texts that don't quite make 100% sense to historians.

 

How arrogant of anybody to say they understand 100% of the Bible. No, wait, how dishonest it is of anybody to say they inderstand 100% of the Bible. They are liars.

All the more reason to reject it. If I was alone on an island somewhere, and all I had was a Bible, it would be all I need, for all truth is held in it's words.

Please don't give me that "I need tradition to understand" garbage. It don't wash, and it's insulting. So many RCC doctrines directly contradict what the Bible tells us, and the answer is always the same. "You need tradition to understand". Baloney. I need only the Holy Spirit to discern.

Psalms 145:15 The eyes of all wait upon thee; and thou givest them their meat in due season.

I use that verse a lot lately.

 

Well spoke Bro. Curtis.

 

Hi,
Well look, each to their own path. Sometimes we intersect and sometimes we don't.

Protestants are always saying: "Catholics believe XXX. XXX is a ZZZ belief so Catholics are ZZZ".
Its not even good set theory never mind good theology.

What I like about Catholic theology on Saints is that to a Catholic theologian we are in communion with ALL the saints - not just those here on earth.

Jesus said about Mary "DEAR woman". John Ch2 v4.

Net.

[ December 24, 2002, 02:49 PM: Message edited by: Netcurtains3 ]

 

Okay, let's get some things straight.

Necromancy...communicating with dead "spirits." The reason this is evil, is because "spirits" cannot really be contacted, for in this, case, we are dealing with the devil. We are communicating with demons, which is obviously wrong.

In the Catholic Church, "saints," in reference to those who have gone before us, are those that we can be sure are in "HEAVEN." Therefore, these are not people in hell, and thus, we're not going to be talking to demons.

Now, why don't we pray to people here on earth? Because they are alive, and prayer is spiritual communication. We don't "NEED" to pray to people on earth, because we can TALK TO THEM without communicating spiritually. Therefore, we can vocally tell them our prayers, they hear us, and they can pray for us.

Those saints who are in heaven can also hear us. Why? Are they not in the very presence of God? Are they not outside of this space-time continum thing that we're in? In Heaven, there is not the same concept of space and time, for life there is eternal, with no beginning or end (no time, as we perceive it). Therefore, they could deal with prayers one at a time, and listen to every prayer, in a matter of a human second, because they are not bound by our time. They are not God, or like God, but they are living in the divine life that is Heaven.

We pray to God. But humans also pray for us to God, and we know that is beneficial because the Word of God says that a the prayer of a righteous person is beneficial. Saints, those alive perfectly in Heaven, are obviously righteous. Therefore, they're prayers for us are especially beneficial.

Look, I'm sorry if you disagree. But the argument of necromancy is getting very old, and it's a poor attempt to disprove it. If you want to say it's not in the Bible, fine. But to call it necromancy is ludicrous, for we are praying to people in Heaven, not wandering spirits or people who are in the pit of hell.

God bless,

Grant

 

I don't even think that your Catholic friends Brother Ed and Grace Saves would agree with all that you posted here. There were many more than just the two Marys that knew both about the virgin birth and about what happened in the grave. You cannot prove what you just said. You have no evidence to give.
Concerning the virgin birth: Did Joseph know? Did Elizabeth? Did Zechariah? Did all the Pharisess know when the accused him of "one being born of fornication." What do you think that they were referring to when they made that statement? It was Mary only that knew about the virgin birth?? That is kind of a preposterous and assuming statement to make.
What about Peter when he came to the grave? Does not the record say that he believed also. And John himself: Did he also have no understanding? How do you know these things?

Quite frankly these individuals that you speak of Mary the mother of Jesus and Mary Magdelene, were guilty sinners, born with sin natures. If they got what they deserved they would spend an eternity in Hell. But by the grace of God, Christ died for their sin also, like He died for the sin of the world. They trusted in Christ like others trusted in Christ. They were saved just as others were saved. We are all unique in this world. God had a special purpose for them in that time in history, as He has for everyone. Everyone, excepting Christ our Lord, is born with a sin nature, and does sin of their own free will. Mary is no exception. She needed a Saviour. It is impossible for her to be our mediator on that grounds alone.
DHK

 

DHK,

Catholics have never claimed that Mary was our "mediator." Do not lie, please.

"Mediatrix" does not mean "mediator." If they meant the same, the same word would have been used. Look it up. I'm sure plenty of people have talked about it.

God bless,

Grant

 

ABG --

I expected this answer. You are among the....ahhh, how shall I say it....typically MISTAUGHT PROTESTANTS. You should be awfully upset with your so called "Bible teachers" that they don't know how to teach you any better than they have.

Christ is indeed a High Priest. In fact, he is the Great High Priest.

Now if God calls Jesus our Great High Priest, then, since words do mean things, we had better find out what a high priest is and what he does, right?

A high priest is a singular and special priesthood among the people of God. The high priest does one thing which NOBODY ELSE IN THE WORLD CAN DO -- he offers YOM KIPPUR for Israel, which is the name of the corporate people of God. Isarel is NOT the Jews nor does it have anything to do with them. They lost that honored and exalted title many, many years ago when Christ destroyed Jerusalem in AD 70.

Have you ever studied the ceremony of YOM KIPPUR, or has your Fundamentalist pulpit pounder kept you in the dark about that also?

Once a year, the high priest entered a place called "the holiest of all" and brought an offering for THE PEOPLE OF GOD. This was NOT an offering for individual sins. It was an offering for the nation -- for the corporate people of God as a group. It was to do two things -- make atonement for the sins of the nation for the past year, and re-establish the covenant of God with them for the next year.

The high priest entered into the "holiest of all" with a rope tied around his ankle. That way, if either he was unworthy or his offering was rejected, his dead carcass could be pulled from behind the curtain of the holiest of all.

Now let's see what happened when Jesus died. The curtain of the Temple was rent in two, presumably by the hand of God Himself. Protestants, for some reason beyond me, have this strange idea that now that this is done, we can go rushing straight into the presence of God's "holiest of all".

Can we?

Heb 9:11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;

12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

Not unless we wish to be struck dead for impertinace. There is STILL A HIGH PRIEST --THE High Priest of God's own choosing. And according to this, He is now in the tabernacle not made with hands, appearing for US (notice the author does not say "ME" but "US" the corporate people of God). to offer YOM KIPPUR in Heaven.

Jesus offers for us the TRUE YOM KIPPUR of which that of the Jews was but a shadow. The Blood of the True Lamb has been shed, taken to Heaven, and appears forever on the altar of God there.

So how does this mean that you don't need a mediator. Jesus is not offering YOM KIPPUR for you or I. He is a High Priest, remember? The High Priest offers CORPORATE SACRIFICE -- YOM KIPPUR -- NOT INDIVIDUAL OFFERINGS. Sacrifices for individual sins are made by mediatorial priests in the regular priesthood.

THAT is why you still need people to pray for you. That is why you still need to confess your sins to a priest. Jesus is indeed still in Heaven, acting as the mediator of the New Covenant -- the NEW COVENANT WITH THE NEW ISRAEL --THE CHURCH!!!!

NOT YOU!!!

Do you "get it" yet, or do I have to bring out the craft paper and crayons for you?

You just cannot put any definition to the Bible and expect that it is the way it works because it is what you want. You cannot take a high priest and make him to be something else.

Protestant "exegesis"

SHEEEEEEEESHHH!!!!

 

Brother Curtis --

You just made my day!! Thanks for the Christmass cheer:

Quote A : How arrogant of anybody to say they understand 100% of the Bible. No, wait, how dishonest it is of anybody to say they inderstand 100% of the Bible. They are liars.

Quote B: All the more reason to reject it. If I was alone on an island somewhere, and all I had was a Bible, it would be all I need, for all truth is held in it's words.

Could you kindly tell me how you could make Quote B after making Quote A?

I'm still laughing over that one!!!

Anyhow, here's a wish for you to have the BEST of Christmasses ever, my noble opponent!!

Brother Ed

[ December 24, 2002, 04:09 PM: Message edited by: CatholicConvert ]

 

I can do one better- How arrogant for one to think that they know the mind of God.

 

Hi Everyone,

When Christians were being battered by the persecution of the Roman Emperors Septimius Severus (193-211) and Decius (249-251), they uttered the Sub Tuum, which is the oldest Marian prayer we currently have from an extant manuscript found in 1917 (and currently in the John Rylands Library of Manchester, England).

The Sub Tuum became part of the Coptic (that is, Egyptian) liturgical office for Christmas in the early 3rd century.

It is as follows:

We fly to your patronage,
O holy Mother of God;
despise not our prayers in our necessities,
but deliver us always from all dangers,
O glorious and blessed Virgin.

Amen!

in communion with the Early Church,

Carson

 

Pure Semantics. It is like saying that some Protestants have never claimed that deaconess and deacon mean the same thing. I have news for you. They do: "servant." Likewise Mediatrix and mediator, whether female or male mean the same thing. I'm sure plenty of people have talked about it. You can look it up.
DHK

 

Tis an absolute lie! "And, behold, thy cousin [suggenes] Elisabeth..." (Luke 1:36) Isn't it also strange how Jesus' "cousins" are always with his mother?

There IS a word for cousin. Adelpohs always means brothers - always! It may be used spiritualy or literally, but it always means brothers.

Not because he had no brothers, but because they were still unbelievers "for neither did his brothers believe in him." (John 7:5)

Netcurtain, why do you in your profile attempt to make people belive that you are a Baptist when you are a Catholic? "Guildford Baptist Church"? What?

[ December 24, 2002, 07:25 PM: Message edited by: SolaScriptura in 2003 ]

 

Hi Sola,

I do not deny that there are separate Greek words for cousin and brother and that both are employed in the NT to refer to relatives of Jesus. How could I or why should I give such a denial?

You should not allow Netcurtain3's misunderstanding to cause you to think that this is only argument in the Catholic explanation - because it isn't even a valid argument to begin with; it has a false basis.

In the culture of Jesus, when one did not have any siblings, his closest relatives (e.g. cousins) were referred to as "brothers".

I can demonstrate from the New Testament that adelphos (the Greek word for "brothers") is employed for one's cousin instead of the Greek word that literally means "cousin".

(1) If I were to demonstrate this for you, would you concede that when the Bible speaks of Jesus having adelphos, these may very well be his cousins? (2) Would you then concede that your argument against the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is not as watertight as you currently believe it is?

As an aside, Netcurtain3 does not try to make people think he is Baptist in his profile. The criteria for this information is "My local Baptist church". The criteria is not "The Baptist church I attend".

God bless you,

Carson

[ December 24, 2002, 07:53 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

Hi Grant,

Lets take a close - and serious look at the subject of praying to the dead to "see" the truth about what is being claimed.

First of all - you are right on the following point.

True - but many/most/all who claim to pray to the departed spirits - (ancestors, spiritual leaders etc) never "claim" to be praying to "Demons".

IF the argument against necromancy is "don't CLAIM to pray to demons" then we have really good news - only the Satanists are "claiming that". The Budhist, Hindus, Catholics etc do NOT claim that they are praying to demons when they pray to the dead (in the case of the Catholics it is the 1Thess 4 - "Dead in Christ").

Indeed the "Dead in Christ" of 1Thess 4 that "rise first .. then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together WITH them".

Hindus, Budhists and Catholics all claim that those to whom the pray *via the incense, candles, images that Represent the dead etc" are in fact IN heaven and very "active" on behalf of the living.

You "appear" to think that demons are really "people in hell". That is not taught in scripture but is pure mythology and superstition.

Did you hear that in Catholic schools?

However - be assured that the Budhist and Hindus ALSO join the Catholics on the point of NOT praying to 'the dead that go to hell'.

Not because they "think they turn into demons in hell" but because it would be like "praying to the dead failures" - kinda pointless.

The argument was against praying to the dead. You seem to be arguing "Yes but we are praying to the right dead guys not the wrong ones".

The devil's spiritist medium was bringing up Samuel - "the Right dead guy". Nothing stops the mediums, spiritists, Budhists, Hindus from praying to "the right dead guys" as you suppose. Scripture shows that they did it in the past and in fact - continue to do so today. (Read Will Baron's book "Deceived by the New age") they pray to Apostles, saints etc -- an entire array of dead people.

I was not claiming that the problem is that Catholics pray to "the wrong dead people". I just said "prayers to the dead" are wrong in general - EVEN though "The Dead in Christ" were some pretty nice people while living on earth - it is still "prayers to the dead".

In Isaiah 8:19 God does not complain that the Jews are praying to the "wrong dead" - rather He argues against contacting the dead at all - it is a general statement about the dead in general. It does not deal with "which of the dead you choose to select"

In Christ,

Bob