Is this blasphemous enough for you?

[DHK]

Sorry DHK the comparision is both of faith and obedience. Apples to Apples.

No it isn't. Abraham was a man called out of an idolatrous nation. He believed God and it was counted unto him for righteousness sake. Where is the comparison? Was Mary the only believer? Was the whole nation (Peter, James, John, etc.) wholly given over to idolatry? There is no comparison. There were many believers at the time of Mary as is evidenced by Joseph himself, Zacharias, Elizabeth, Anna and Simeon, the shepherds in the field, etc. In fact many of the Israelites at that time were expecting the Messiah to come. They were believers.

You've shown that Joshua was participant as was the nation walking around the city.

Totally false. Just because a person is obedient to God (as I am), does not mean I participated in my salvation. That is total heresy. It is salvation by works, and demeans the efficacy of the blood of Christ. Joshua obeyed the Lord. The Lord delivered the Israelites. Joshua had no part in the nation's salvation. Salvation is of God, and of God alone. It was then and always has been since.

Actually, you have no idea. And neither do I. All else is speculation

It is not mere speculation. It is common sense based on the Bible.
Mary and Martha both obeyed the Lord.
Lydia, the seller of purple, obeyed the Lord.
Elizabeth is a fine example of a woman that obeyed the Lord.
Anna obeyed the Lord.
Obviously there were many young virgins that obeyed the Lord as well, as there were people of all classes that did. God never leaves himself without a witness. Your position goes against all common sense and to put it bluntly is plain wrong.

NO one suggested that she was. However, she was chosen.

She was chosen on the basis of God's sovereignty, not on the basis of her obedience as you have stated, which makes your position ludicrous.

She did the will of God. What makes you think she wasn't obedient?

I never said she wasn't obedient. I merely suggested that there were many others that could have been chosen. Many were obedient to God. What makes you think that Mary was the only obedient child of God on the planet???

In fact to suggest that Mary wasn't obedient for the incarnation is ludicrous.

Read carefully. I never said that Mary was not obedient. I said that there were other children of God that were also obedient. Why do you have such a hard time accepting this??

You are only saying that because you don't know.

Don't know what. I have given you Scripture; you give pure speculation.

In fact Jesus had no sin therefore didn't need to even give a symbol of his own salvation by baptism but he does it out of obedience anyway.

You border on heresy. Baptism does not wash away sin as you suggest. It has nothing to do with sin. Jesus had no sin: correct. What has that to do with baptism? Nothing. I am not baptized because my sins are forgiven or in order to wash away my sins--neither one. I am baptized in obedience to the command of Christ to be baptized--Mat.28:19,20.
Christ gives the reason for his baptism--to fulfill all righteousness.

It suggest that he probably offered a sin sacrifice though it was not needed. In order to fulfill the law on our behalf.

There is nothing in Scripture anywhere that suggests that Christ offered a sin sacrifice. Even to think this heresy is a horrible abomination. Christ offering a sin sacrifice??? Are you serious??

Its a reasonable question since it was a community activity as well as a personal activity. It seems you aren't educated in the culture and religion of Jesus day.

When the culture was wrong Jesus condemned the culture.
When the personal activity was wrong Jesus condemned the personal activity. A good example of this is found in Matthew 23. He also cleansed Temple twice! He condemned their activity, not condoned it.
Thus, NO, It is not a reasonable question or even thought to think that Jesus offered a sin offering or sacrifice just because it was the "cultural" thing to do. What kind of garbage do you get this from?

Well, you need to start calling her blessed our you make God into a liar. Do you want to do that?

Judges 5:24 Blessed above women shall Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite be,
It is your theology, not mine. You are the one therefore that needs to start calling Jael blessed according to your theology. It is YOUR theology. I don't act upon your theology.

I doubt it. God chose her not any virgin. God has a higher view of women I think then you indicate here. She was special just like Joseph was special.

God acted according to his divine providence. Here is what the Bible says:

Romans 11:34 For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?
--Why do you presume to know the mind of God as if you counseled him to choose Mary all by yourself. Don't you think that God knows better than you? There were others that were just as faithful as Mary, but it was God's choice, not yours. And when you get to heaven you can ask God why He made the decision that He did.

Yet just like my wife she was chosen specifically. Not any woman can be my wife.

There was nothing stopping you from choosing another wife. Or was your wedding arranged like most Muslim's are. What prevented you from choosing another bride. There are many fish in the sea, as they say.

Not any woman could be Jesus mother but the right one.

And God would choose the right one; not you. But God did have a choice. Why do you put God in a box as if he had no choice. Your God is small and insignificant, while Mary is treated as a god.

If you are a calvinist and hold to Tulip you must agree because any virgin would limit God's supremacy.

1. I am not a Calvinist.
2. Any virgin would not limit God's supremacy, for God cannot be limited in any way. Who are you to limit the hands of God? Can you tie him up and put him in your theological box.

You have to believe then as a calvinist that God specifically created mary to be the vessel of the incarnation. Otherwise its a matter of the draw. Which according to RC Sproul, luck does not exist.

1. I am not a Calvinist.
2. I don't care two hoots about the opinions of Sproul.
3. God created Mary, as he created all of us. He chose Mary (as he could have chosen another) to be the vessel that would bear the body of Jesus.

So in spite of her obedience God chose her? Thats funny. Its not like Mary said no way God! You ain't touching this figure. However, I propose He did choose Mary and set her apart for this very purpose which suggest that not any virgin could do it.

Yes. In spite of her obedience. In spite of my sinful self and my obedience to Him, God chooses to use me in my service for Him. The same was true of Mary. God chooses to use people who yield themselves to him. We already mentioned people like William Carey and Adoniram Judson. And you agreed. God didn't use her because she was obedient, but in spite of her obedience. He still could have chosen another. There were no doubt others that fit the requirements to bear the body of the Savior.

No obsession. Its an easy comparison and it comes to mind

The only comparison is that they were both obedient. Many in the Bible were obedient.

you really need to read Martin to get an idea of a cult. I think you think anyone who has a differing opinion is a cult.

I know what a cult is. It is a cultish thought to believe that Mary was the mother of a nation. It is, in fact, heresy.

How did I lie? In fact. Read it again. I'm just asking a question. What did I say?

Your exact quote was:
" Now you may not have this problem but do you have misogynistic tendencies?"
--The word, " Misogynistic"which means "a man who hates women"
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/thesaurus/american/misogynist#misogynist_3


You were not just asking a question. You were making an implication by means of a rhetorical question and an inference. It is wrong. It is against the rules. To suggest that I am a women hater is out of line and is grounds for discipline. I suggest you think before you type those words out.

Didn't I say that? I'm not putting that on you Just asking if its a problem or not. Many IFB that I've met give that impression with sentiment that women are somehow second class citizens because of being the first tempted. So, I didn't lie now did I? I didn't break any forum rules have I? You've just jumped to a conclusion.

I have jumped to no conclusion. You called me either directly or indirectly, or perhaps by inference, a women-hater, which is an out-right lie from the pit of hell. You can do better.

I've never indicated that salvation wasn't all of God.
Yes it was, but she participated.

Saying that man is a participant in his or her salvation is saying that salvation is not all of God. This you have said numerous times.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

No it isn't. Abraham was a man called out of an idolatrous nation....Where is the comparison?

This is incidental information. The basis is that He (and she) beleived God would do as he said, and He (she) was obedient to it. If you study Judea at the time of Christ you would understand that the Pharisee were a minority people but Majority religious group. In other words between 80 - 90 % of the residents of that nation were secular rather than religious. Also this is incidental information. The spiritual premise is exactly the same Faith and Obedience.

In fact many of the Israelites at that time were expecting the Messiah to come. They were believers.

The fact that many expected the Messiah to come does not make them believers. Remeber John 6 When Jesus expressed what he expected of his followers the majority left. All it means is they were hoping for a militant leader to expell the Romans and to bring back the golden age of Israel. Not the same.

Totally false. Just because a person is obedient to God (as I am), does not mean I participated in my salvation.

You're obviously not understanding what I am saying. Salvation is an operation totally completed by God yet because of his mercy, grace, and love for you he includes you in it. God does not save you because of anything you have done or have merited. God saves you because he loves you and chose you. And because of those same qualities he brings you along side to participate in it. Just like he did with Joshua, Moses, and every other deliverer of Israel. God is the one who completes it but he includes us in participation of it. If I had a better grasp of the english language I could explain it better however this is the best I can do. So in as much as Jesus died for my sins and rose from the dead granting me a new life in him I thank the evangelist who told me the gospel message and participated in my salvation. He didn't give it to me but allowed himself to be used as a vessel for that purpose. God includes us in these things. Look at Abraham. God visited Abraham and then said

Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do? 18 Abraham will surely become a great and powerful nation, and all nations on earth will be blessed through him. 19 For I have chosen him, so that he will direct his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing what is right and just, so that the LORD will bring about for Abraham what he has promised him.

Now I assume God had in mind to save Lot and could certainly have done it without Abrahams assistance but what does he do? He allows Abraham to act judiciously in this manner allowing him to participate in Lots deliverance. Certainly, God did not need Abrahams prayer but look at what God does. He brings along side Abraham into his plan and like a child who watches and imitates his father allows Abraham to bring a case for Lot no matter how poorly he executed it. Kind of like a father directing their child. Abraham thus participated in Lots deliverance. That is how I see participation. God bringing us along side giving us the oportunity to do as we see our Father in heaven do. Even as Jesus says he does what he sees the father do. I believe what you're calling (without understanding) blasphemy is actually a greater perspective of Gods relationship with man.

I refute based on my discussion above your statement as invalid and not true when you say

It is salvation by works

Because it obviously is not. As I've already said Salvation is by God alone. To indicate I've said otherwise is wrong and incorrect. Nowhere have I said salvation was not from God alone.

It is not mere speculation. It is common sense based on the Bible.

Actually, it is since the bible doesn't say. You are adding to the bible. A friend shared this with statement with me which is appropriate here with regard to Jesus offering attoning sacrifices. I will post what they said here.

Matthew 17:24-27 when Jesus paid the temple tax (had Peter get the coin out of the mouth of a fish to pay for them both) -- this is "atonement" money as described in Exodus 30:11-16. Virtually every commentary I have links it back. Jesus did this so as not to 'offend' even though he had no need for atonement. Using some's logic would this not prove that he was a sinner since he made an atonement offering?

So your accusation here :

Your position goes against all common sense and to put it bluntly is plain wrong.

it seems is also wrong.

She was chosen on the basis of God's sovereignty

No one has said differently. In fact didn't I just make that point in my previous post? You are not arguing with me but affirming what I've said with this statement. I think you need to clarify what I've said before you support my position. Note I made these statements

she was chosen...God chose her not any virgin...If you are a calvinist and hold to Tulip you must agree because any virgin would limit God's supremacy. You have to believe then as a calvinist that God specifically created mary to be the vessel of the incarnation. Otherwise its a matter of the draw. Which according to RC Sproul, luck does not exist...They are are for specific purpose...

It all shows God's soverenty. So your statement of your perception of my position is also wrong look at what you said

not on the basis of her obedience as you have stated, which makes your position ludicrous

Again you're wrong. You've missed it altogether. I said Mary, Moses, Joshua, and all the others should be honored and venerated for their faithfulness and obedience. Not that their faithfulness and obedience gave us salvation. I think you should attempt to read my post for comprehension rather than read into what I'm saying what you want me to say.

I never said she wasn't obedient. I merely suggested that there were many others that could have been chosen.

To suggest that many others could have been chosen cheapens the soveriegnty of God. God made Mary the vessel for the incarnation just like God made Moses the deliverer of the Jews from the Egyptians. So you are arguing against yourself. On one hand you uphold the soveriegnty of God and on the other any woman or virgin could do lessening the soveriegnty of God. Don't you see how you fail at reason here? Certainly, if you were a virgin God could not use you.

Read carefully. I never said that Mary was not obedient

I am showing your your implication so that you see the failing in your reason.

I have given you Scripture; you give pure speculation.

Actually you haven't. You state beyond what scripture says that Jesus never offered a sin sacrifice. That has to be speculation because the scriptures do not cover it and as my friend suggest and as I've suggested using Johns baptism that its very possible that Jesus did. In that I've used scripture but I admit I came by it through reason based on what scripture says. You suggest that Jesus didn't because of your reasoning of scripture but aren't as honest because you claim its all scripture when scripture does not say one way or another whether Jesus offered sacrifices or not.

You border on heresy

I'm glad you lessen the charge. Thank you.

Baptism does not wash away sin as you suggest

I didn't suggest it at all. I just quoted scripture. Specifically, Peter in Act chp 2.

It has nothing to do with sin. Jesus had no sin: correct. What has that to do with baptism?

Everything because even if you believe it to be symbolic it symbolizes dieing to sin and being raised back to life. Jesus had no need to die to sin.

Christ gives the reason for his baptism--to fulfill all righteousness.

Which means what exactly? Fulfilling God's requirement since we cannot. Just like the law? See how it flows?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

There is nothing in Scripture anywhere that suggests that Christ offered a sin sacrifice.

Actually there is and I've shown it. However, I must say there is nothing in Scripture anywhere that suggest he didn't either.

When the culture was wrong Jesus condemned the culture.
When the personal activity was wrong Jesus condemned the personal activity. A good example of this is found in Matthew 23. He also cleansed Temple twice! He condemned their activity, not condoned it.
Thus, NO, It is not a reasonable question or even thought to think that Jesus offered a sin offering or sacrifice just because it was the "cultural" thing to do. What kind of garbage do you get this from?

Unfortunately, we live in an age where its all about me or the individual. We even have a personal jesus. You forget Jesus lived as part of a community and if you read the bible. That big book on your mantel thats collecting dust (sorry I had to make the jibe out of my sense of humor). But specifically Leviticus. There were community sin offerings and most things were celebrated or done in community. Our culture has taken things to an individual level.

Judges 5:24 Blessed above women shall Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite be,
It is your theology, not mine. You are the one therefore that needs to start calling Jael blessed according to your theology. It is YOUR theology. I don't act upon your theology.

FYI theology is the study of God. My understanding is that we should honor and venerate Jael. Its not theology. But she holds a place of Honor. Even as Mary should hold a place of Honor.

God acted according to his divine providence. Here is what the Bible says:

Romans 11:34 For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?

Though it seems this passage alludes you.

--Why do you presume to know the mind of God

I turn this question back to you.

as if you counseled him to choose Mary all by yourself. Don't you think that God knows better than you?

As a matter of fact I think he does. I didn't choose Mary. He did. I would have chosen Catherine Zeta Jones but thats me.

There were others that were just as faithful as Mary, but it was God's choice, not yours. And when you get to heaven you can ask God why He made the decision that He did.

No I don't think so. I'll be watching him honor Mary. laugh: Sorry I couldn't let that slip by. I can imagine some of you with that African American Shake of the head saying "Oh no you didn't!". At least I have a sense of humor). But more seriously, I uphold the soveriegnty of God as I've shown.

There was nothing stopping you from choosing another wife.

God chose my wife for me. Honestly, any other woman would have ended our marriage in disaster. I blame this lacisdasical attitude on a 51% divorce rate among Christians and clergy.

Or was your wedding arranged like most Muslim's are.

Note they have a better success rate than our faith! However, I believe in submitting to God not grabbing any skirt that walks by.

What prevented you from choosing another bride.

God.

There are many fish in the sea, as they say.

I'm sorry you have such a low view of marriage and women. There may be many fish in the see but this fish is mine.

1. I am not a Calvinist.

Too bad might help you out a bit.

2. Any virgin would not limit God's supremacy, for God cannot be limited in any way. Who are you to limit the hands of God? Can you tie him up and put him in your theological box.

It would mean that God did not prepare before hand his salvation in every detail. It would mean that he was opperating on plan B or C or D or E or F or G ad infinitum. You're view limits the soveriegnty of God and how much control he exerts on our lives.

2. I don't care two hoots about the opinions of Sproul.

As I'm sure you feel about anyone you are in disagreement.

3. God created Mary, as he created all of us. He chose Mary

I've been saying this all along. Get on board!

I know what a cult is. It is a cultish thought to believe that Mary was the mother of a nation. It is, in fact, heresy

Show me. You can't How is saying that Mary's obedience lead to a nation of obedient people is heresy? I think you need to work on your defintion of cult.

Your exact quote was:
" Now you may not have this problem but do you have misogynistic tendencies?"
--The word, " Misogynistic"which means "a man who hates women"
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/thesaurus/american/misogynist#misogynist_3

Note the bold. "Do you" with a question mark indicates a question. An implication is saying "you are misogynistic". I did not imply I questioned it based on your statements. Big difference.

It is against the rules. To suggest that I am a women hater is out of line and is grounds for discipline. I suggest you think before you type those words out.

I again did not suggest it. I questioned it. again big difference and note when I said "you may not" I'm actually comming from the perspective that you are more likely not to have the problem but the question is still asked. Just like I've never called you a heretic or a catholic or the many other things you have called me I've never crossed that line with you. I haven't broken the rules. I've never even questioned your salvation.

You can do better.

Thank you for your confidence.

Saying that man is a participant in his or her salvation is saying that salvation is not all of God. This you have said numerous times

If you read what I've said you would see that is not implied at all. You participate in peoples salvation everytime you preach the gospel and are used of God. But God saves not you.

 

[Jedi Knight]

It doesn't matter whether he was a step father or not...it only matters if he "participated" and was obedient and faithful to God. Joseph did those things, so why not elevate him?

To an elevation of praying to and worship of him? That's a perversion and not true worship that's due to God alone.

 

[Dr. Walter]

A couple of questions. First, I never said that she was immaculate. However, along the lines of my discussion my questions to thee are thus. 1) Was Abraham not special when he obeyed God and believed God?

Election is unto salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and BELIEF of the truth (2 Thes. 2:13). Note the order (1) election (2) unto salvation (3) through sanctification of the Spirit (4) and belief of the truth. Belief of the truth is consequential rather than causal in this order. Abraham's faith was "of grace" (Rom. 4:16) thus the consequence not the cause of favor with God. The same is true with "obedience." You are reversing the Biblical order by making the consequences the cooperative cause of being special when indeed its God's grace that produces (Eph. 2:10 "unto" good works) those consequences not vica versa. Works are always the product of grace not the cause of grace. I am not denying that "good works" occur or that we are responsible for obedience (Philip. 2:12), I am simply stating that our good works are consequences of grace (Philip. 2:13) rather than the cooperative cause of grace. Good works (obedience) are the product or consequences of special grace (Eph. 2:10; Tit. 3:10; Philip. 2:13). Abraham's faith was "of grace" (Rom. 4:16) or without a cause in him (Rom. 3:26 "freely by grace"). The birth of Isaac was not due to His obedience as his attempts to perform the promise was sin (Ishmael). God waited until Abraham could not participate in brining about Isaac's birth (Rom. 4:18-21).

2) Did not Mary submit to the will of God and in such a manner participate in the incarnation like Joshua participated in the felling of Jericho?

No! The conception was without the consent or cooperation of Mary as it was announced to her as an already accomplished fact not as something to cooperate in obtaining. In contrast Joshua was given specific instructions that he personally carried out in obtaining the goal. In regard to Mary it was something done to her WITHOUT HER CONSENT but in the case of Joshua it was something to be done in cooperation with God.

3) Do you believe Jesus never gave a sin offering and complied with the Laws of the 1st Covenant irrelevant of his status of being sinless?

Can you provide a single instance where it is recorded that Jesus offered up any sin offering for himself? He repeatedly challenged anyone to find sin in him whereas sin offerings are for sinners. If he offered up a sin offering it would be an admission that he was a sinner as sin offerings were for sinners. If you cannot produce a single recorded instance then why imagine it?????

4) Did she not say all generations shall call her blessed?

There are other women in the scripture called "blessed" and other women who would be remembered for something done besides Mary. Hence, there is no uniqueness in simply being called "blessed." Moreover, there are two different Greek terms translated "blessed" in conjunction with Mary. One means to be consecrated unto God for use (eusebius) while the other simply means to be regarded as "happy" or "blessed" (makarios). It is this latter word that is used in the instance you are referring to. All future regenerations will regard her as a "happy" and "blessed" person for that particular use by God but all children of God are regarded by God as "makarios" of "blessed" by God as well (Mt. 5:3-12). All children of God are "eusebius" or consecrated to God in general and in particular in regard to special use and calling. This was Mary's particular special use and calling. She is no more blessed or consecrated than any other child of God that is used by God for a particular calling. Now, in regard to this particular calling (child birth) she is consecrated for God's use above all other women.

Finally, because of her obedience to the will of God did not Christ become incarnate through her?

Where does it say that "because of" her obedience she was chosen for this particular calling? Instead the scripture says "thou has found FAVOR (charis) with God (Lk. 1:30]. This term "charis" never refers to MERITED favor but always UNMERITED favor whenever it is used of sinners. In this same context she confesses a relationship with God based upon redemption "God MY Savior" (v. 47). God did not choose her due to anything in her that merited that choice but chose her out of pure grace - unmerited favor.

And as such since he established his kingdom can we not say that she participated in obedience much like Joshua did?

Again, Mary was simply notified of an action already performed in her by God that she had absolutely NO CHOICE in performing. She simply became the incubator of an action already performed WITHIN her. She was the object of an action performed solely by God. In contrast, Joshua was not the object of God's action but the participant in bring about an action OUTSIDE of his own person.

Or more specifically Abraham? And if through Abraham's obedience a nation was born why not a nation born of Mary's obedience the nation of Christianity?

Romans 4:16-21 demonstrates clearly that Abraham in no way participated in bringing about the birth of Isaac and thus the nation of Israel. Indeed, Abraham's participation in attempting to accomplish that promise was regarded as sin (Ishmael) which brought about the perpetual enemies of God's people. Instead, God waited until it was impossible for Abraham or Sarah to participate in bringing about the birth of Isaac through whom the nation of Israel would come.

Second, you are confusing natural birth with spiritual birth. Both Abraham and Mary gave NATURAL BIRTH but neither gave spiritual birth. Isaac was physcially conceived as a sinner from birth and needed to be born from above just as did Nicodemus (Jn 3:6-7). Jesus was born sinless and never needed rebirth at all.
The promised nation ultimately depended upon spiritual birth in addition to natural birth. Neither Abraham or Mary could birth a spiritual nation. Hence, Abraham is only the father of all who believe in the sense of a MODEL (Gal. 3:6-8; Rom. 4:11) but not in the sense of their actual birther whether physical or spiritual. Mary is only the mother of Jesus but is not in any sense the birther of God's children whether physical or spiritual.

 

[Zenas]

Do you think Luke coming up with the same phraseology in connection with Mary that 2 Samuel used in connection with the ark was mere serendipity? .

I made this statement early in this thread in response to Amy and Annsni making light of my conclusion that Luke borrowed language from 2 Samuel to portray Mary as the ark of the covenant. I have read these passages again and am even more convinced that Luke was borrowing his phraseology. In 1 Samuel 6:20 we read:

The men of Beth-shemesh said, "Who is able to stand before the LORD, this holy God? And to whom shall He go up from us?"

Then in Luke 1:19, the angel says:

"I am Gabriel, who stands in the presence of God."

It's like Gabriel is answering the long forgotten question made by the men of Beth-shemesh. Luke did not use these words by accident.

 

[annsni]

I made this statement early in this thread in response to Amy and Annsni making light of my conclusion that Luke borrowed language from 2 Samuel to portray Mary as the ark of the covenant. I have read these passages again and am even more convinced that Luke was borrowing his phraseology. In 1 Samuel 6:20 we read:
Then in Luke 1:19, the angel says: It's like Gabriel is answering the long forgotten question made by the men of Beth-shemesh. Luke did not use these words by accident.

There are THOUSANDS of instances of similar phraseology in Scripture, I'm sure. You cannot take two different phrases and say "See the connection??" Honestly, that's the sort of thing that even cult leaders do.

 

[Zenas]

There are THOUSANDS of instances of similar phraseology in Scripture, I'm sure. You cannot take two different phrases and say "See the connection??" Honestly, that's the sort of thing that even cult leaders do.

All right. Compare the opening lines of Hannah's song to the opening lines of Mary's Magnificat. Do you think that is a coincedence also? Note that all these "coincidences" come from Samuel (one book in those days) and they are being used by Luke.

I'm not a cult leader and I'm not a mystic. In college I majored in biology and chemistry so I tend to draw conclusions from what I observe. A few months ago I was reading the manuscript of a new novel as a favor for a friend and came across a paragraph that contained a single phrase that I kept going back to because it was familiar. Later I remembered that phrase had been in another novel I read about 20 years ago. I confronted my friend with this and he admitted he had ripped it off from the other book. That's what Luke was doing here--ripping off phraseology from Samuel. I realize coincedences happen but in this case there are too many of them to be mere coincedence.

 

[matt wade]

To an elevation of praying to and worship of him? That's a perversion and not true worship that's due to God alone.

You misunderstand my statements. I don't elevate anyone but Christ. Go back and read more of what I said. I was simply asking Thinkingstuff, why if he elevates Mary does he not also elevate Joseph.

 

[Jedi Knight]

You misunderstand my statements.

I did and thought you were asking that question for yourself. My apology!:wavey:

 

[lori4dogs]

I didn’t notice anything blasphemous in either of the links you posted. The first one appears to be the sanctuary in a Catholic church with the altar in the foreground. In the background is the tabernacle, made to resemble the ark of the covenant. Behind the tabernacle stands an image of the Virgin Mary with her hands outstretched as she is portrayed in the majority of her images. The portrayal of her immaculate heart is also fairly common. The most unusual aspect of this portrayal is that Mary is shown in her red tunic, without her traditional blue outer garment. Most depictions of Mary will show her dressed in blue, with only a small portion of the red tunic visible beneath it. Perhaps they chose to put Mary there to identify her with the ark of the covenant, a concept that is solidly grounded in scripture.

She is not, however, a goddess nor is she the object of worship. When people come and kneel before this sanctuary, they are not kneeling in honor or Mary. Rather, they kneel before the tabernacle which they believe contains the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ in the form of the blessed sacrament. Catholics do in fact worship and adore the blessed sacrament, a topic that has been discussed recently on this forum.

The material in the second link is about the plans of the parish to erect a sanctuary in downtown Chicago near the Kennedy Expressway. True to church tradition, the role of Mary is to point people toward God. For example, “Our Lady, the tabernacle that so long ago concealed the Holy of Holies, continues her apostolic mission to make Jesus known, loved and served and to gently and tenderly, gracefully and mercifully remind a wandering people that they, too, are known, loved and served by a living God.”

Now the part that Amy quoted, “[T]he Blessed Virgin Mary has requested that a sanctuary be built . . .” is somewhat bizarre. While I believe the evidence is strong for Marian apparitions, there is no mention of an apparition in the material published by the parish. So one is left to wonder just how she made the request. However it is no more bizarre than what I often hear from evangelists, both on and off television, that God has told them to raise a lot of money, or God has told them to build a church, or whatever.

Thank you, Zenas, for an intelligent response to a typical protestant misunderstanding of the role of the Blessed Mother.

 

[lori4dogs]

To an elevation of praying to and worship of him? That's a perversion and not true worship that's due to God alone.

And who is advocating or suggesting that Joseph, Mary, John, Matthew, Mark, Luke, etc. shoud be worshipped? Asking one of the saints to intercede for me is no different than if I were to ask you to intercede for me.

 

[annsni]

And who is advocating or suggesting that Joseph, Mary, John, Matthew, Mark, Luke, etc. shoud be worshipped? Asking one of the saints to intercede for me is no different than if I were to ask you to intercede for me.

Sure there is. They can't hear you.

 

[Alive in Christ]

Lori4dogs...

And who is advocating or suggesting that Joseph, Mary, John, Matthew, Mark, Luke, etc. shoud be worshipped?

The Catholic false "church" of Rome does this all the time.


*Whenever they teach people to bow befor a statue of Mary, and expect her to intercede for them as God does.



*Whenever they teach people to put a statue of a christian who is (hopefully)in heaven now on their dashboard so they will have a safe trip.


*Whenever they teach their people to light a candle, and expect that a loved one who is sick will get better.


*Whenever they teach people to kneel and engage in a long, drawn out ritualistic series of prayers that are directed to Mary 10 times to every 1 time God is adressed.


These hellish things are just the tip of the iceberg regarding how the Catholic "church" of Rome teaches their people to engage in false worship.

All of these things...and so many others...are blasphemous idolatries

AliveinChrist/Onedog

 

[lori4dogs]

Sure there is. They can't hear you.

Ann, I believe Revelation 5:8 indicates they are aware of our prayers and are interceding for us.

 

[lori4dogs]

Lori4dogs...



The Catholic false "church" of Rome does this all the time.


*Whenever they teach people to bow befor a statue of Mary, and expect her to intercede for them as God does.



*Whenever they teach people to put a statue of a christian who is (hopefully)in heaven now on their dashboard so they will have a safe trip.


*Whenever they teach their people to light a candle, and expect that a loved one who is sick will get better.


*Whenever they teach people to kneel and engage in a long, drawn out ritualistic series of prayers that are directed to Mary 10 times to every 1 time God is adressed.


These hellish things are just the tip of the iceberg regarding how the Catholic "church" of Rome teaches their people to engage in false worship.

All of these things...and so many others...are blasphemous idolatries

AliveinChrist/Onedog

The Catholic Church DOES NOT TEACH their people to light a candle and expect a loved one to get better or that placing a statue of a saint on the dash of a car will insure a safe trip. These 'teachings' are untrue and of course you won't be able to find a single document to support your false accusations. You continually post nonsense such as this with no documentation.

 

[Alive in Christ]

Lori...

The Catholic Church DOES NOT TEACH their people to light a candle and expect a loved one to get better or that placing a statue of a saint on the dash of a car will insure a safe trip.

Yes, they do Lori. These are normal practices in Catholicism. You might be forgetting...I was raised Catholic and these things were clearly and consistently presented to us by the hierarchy... (You know, the hierarchy that gives the "church" its supposed "infallibility") as being legitimate aspects of Catholic spirituality.

These 'teachings' are untrue...

You dont have to tell ME that. :laugh:

and of course you won't be able to find a single document to support your false accusations. You continually post nonsense such as this with no documentation.

Lori, are actually going on record as saying that all of the icons, statues, prayer beads being prayed to Mary and all the other assorted rituals and practices have been dreamed up by the laity and are not presented TO the laity by the hierarchy of the Catholic "church"???

 

[annsni]

Ann, I believe Revelation 5:8 indicates they are aware of our prayers and are interceding for us.

So all of the dead are represented by the 24 elders?? Where do you find that in Scripture?

 

[Alive in Christ]

Lori...

Reading Icons

Let's take a look at the icon of Our Lady of Perpetual Help (also called "Our Mother of Perpetual Help" and "Virgin of the Passion") to get an idea of how to read icons. But first, a little history, because the story of this icon is so interesting.

No one is sure about the origins of the icon, but it came from Crete and is a "Hodegetria" style icon (see below). A merchant there heard of many miracles surrounding the icon and, wanting it for himself, stole it and took it with him in his travels. He ended up in Rome, and on his deathbed, told a local Roman about how he'd acquired the icon and asked him to take it to a church where it could be enjoyed by many. The Roman's wife, though, had other ideas and kept the icon in her bedroom.

Mary appeared to the Roman many times in visions, asking him to take the icon to a church. When this didn't happen, Mary appeared to the Roman's six-year old daughter and told her the icon should be taken to St. Matthew Church. The Roman family obeyed, and there the icon remained, venerated by many who came to contemplate its message, until 1798 when Napoleon's army invaded Rome and Napoleon (what else?) ordered the destruction of churches. The icon disappeared.

Around 50 years later, a sacristan in a church in France told an altar boy that the painting that had hung in their own church for almost a half-century was very old and used to hang at St. Matthew's church in Rome. It had been saved from destruction and secretly carried to their parish church, and he wanted the boy to remember this so someone would know the story.

More years pass, and the altar boy had become a Redemptorist in Rome. His Order took over an estate that just happened to include the old St. Matthew church, and while researching the history of the place, they learned of the beautiful icon that had disappeared. The former altar boy remembered what the sacristan had told him and relayed the story to his Brothers. The Redemptorists appealed to Pope Pius IX, reminding him that it was Mary's own wish that the icon be hung at St. Matthew's church. The Pope intervened, restoring the icon to its now rightful place, and telling the Redemptorists to make Our Mother of Perpetual Help their mission, spreading knowledge of her and her icon throughout the world. This they have done.

Mary's gaze is aimed directly at you, as though she wants you to meet her eyes and ponder. The Greek letters above -- MR QU -- tell us that she is the Mother of God, and, against a background of gold (divine light), she wears a dark blue robe (faith, humility) with a green lining (Holy Ghost) and a red tunic (beauty).

Baby Jesus, identified by the letters "IC XC," doesn't look at His mother or at us in this icon; instead, He is looking away, having seen something that made Him afraid -- so afraid that He ran to His mother fast enough that He lost one of His little sandals. What does He see? His destiny, symbolized by the angels bearing the instruments of His Passion. The angel to the left, Michael, carries the lance that will pierce His side, an urn filled with gall, and the reed and sponge which will carry it to His lips. The angel to the right, Gabriel, bears a Cross and four nails. His earthly comfort, and ours, is in His mother, and as He clings to her, she, with her gaze, invites us to do the same.

This says a lot...

Baby Jesus, identified by the letters "IC XC," doesn't look at His mother or at us in this icon; instead, He is looking away, having seen something that made Him afraid -- so afraid that He ran to His mother fast enough that He lost one of His little sandals. What does He see? His destiny, symbolized by the angels bearing the instruments of His Passion. The angel to the left, Michael, carries the lance that will pierce His side, an urn filled with gall, and the reed and sponge which will carry it to His lips. The angel to the right, Gabriel, bears a Cross and four nails. His earthly comfort, and ours, is in His mother, and as He clings to her, she, with her gaze, invites us to do the same.

http://http://www.fisheaters.com/images.html

 

[lori4dogs]

Lori...



Yes, they do Lori. These are normal practices in Catholicism. You might be forgetting...I was raised Catholic and these things were clearly and consistently presented to us by the hierarchy... (You know, the hierarchy that gives the "church" its supposed "infallibility") as being legitimate aspects of Catholic spirituality.



You dont have to tell ME that. :laugh:



Lori, are actually going on record as saying that all of the icons, statues, prayer beads being prayed to Mary and all the other assorted rituals and practices have been dreamed up by the laity and are not presented TO the laity by the hierarchy of the Catholic "church"???

No, I remember you were once a Catholic. However, you have the protestant misunderstanding of what statues, icons, etc. are all about. Didn't pay very close attention in catechism.