Lets Obey Mary

[CatholicConvert]

You argue that we are ALL on thrones - to make your point about "Mary Queen of the Entire Universe" - so "how many queens"? ALL of us? ALL the women? Just Mary?

No I did not. You are reading that into the text. Go back and read again.

I DID say that we will ALL bear rule and authority one day and I backed it up with scripture. But there will only be ONE KING. And there will also be ONE QUEEN. That is the nature of a kingdom.

Just one of each.

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

 

[tamborine lady]

Well, I am still waiting for an answer to my question about Romans 1-25: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

By the way, since I can't access the link that Carson posted, I can't comment one way or the other. If it was really that good I would appreciate someone just picking the high points and giving me a quick synopsis of it. Other wise, it's like the question of " if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it is there any sound"? As long as I and maybe some others can't hear it, it's as if nothing happened!!
-----------------------------------------
Then there is Catholic Convert. You said:

Therefore, why is it a stretch to believe that the Blessed Virgin Mary does not do the same thing now that we will do someday with Him and in Him? Why should She not be the Queen of Heaven, seeing that there must be a Queen for every King in a kingdom family?

----------------------------------------------

Well, you can have Mary be your queen of heaven if you like, but as for me, I think NOT!!!

Let's lokk at Jer 7-17 Seest thou not what they do in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem?
18 The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger.
19 Do they provoke me to anger? saith the LORD: do they not provoke themselves to the confusion of their own faces?
20 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, mine anger and my fury shall be poured out upon this place, upon man, and upon beast, and upon the trees of the field, and upon the fruit of the ground; and it shall burn, and shall not be quenched.

verse 18 says -----to the queen of heaven--- , and if you go over and read Jer 44-17 thru 22 you will find her mentioned a few more times and I must say those consequences are not for me.

Also, I really do agree that there is no need to post Catolic drivel from books the the Christion readers don't recognize.

Tam,

 

[Todd]

Hi Todd,

You wrote, "We find ... Christ's clear rebuke of His mother for her misunderstanding of His "ministerial timeline""

Did you listen to the mp3 I provided a link to above?

Carson, no I didn't, and thanks for not replying to the sound exegesis to the exposition of Christ's first miracle in Cana that I provided. The reason that I didn't listen to your professor's mp3 is because I don't have to - the original Greek will do for me thank you. I must admit though, I'm starting to figure you out. Everytime I back you into an "exegetical corner," you start quoting your professors, your pope, or the heretical doctrine of some of the early church fathers. I'll keep this in mind from now on. Note to self: When Carson knows he's whipped, he'll start quoting some extra-biblical sources.

 

[Hamtramck_Mike]

Now you know, Tam why I, growing up all my childhood in that fantasy-land they call a church thank the Holy Spirit for pulling me out of there!

Many more will "come out of her" (Rev 18:4) before all is said and done I am sure! We have to hold our ground here and "stand fast" (Gal 5:1)

 

[Todd]

is this thing working now?

 

[Carson Weber]

Todd,

Then you didn't read my response.

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi Todd,

Carson, no I didn't [listen to the mp3 you provided] ... thanks for not replying to the sound exegesis

The mp3 was my reply.

The reason that I didn't listen to your professor's mp3 is because I don't have to - the original Greek will do for me thank you.

Then why would you listen to my response? Essentially, your reasoning rules out any having to read what I wrote to you in this thread.

I encourage you to listen to the mp3 with an open heart and mind. Unless if you're scared, of course.

 

[Brother Adam]

The Baptist Board has entered the twighlight zone...

 

[Carson Weber]

The Baptist Board has entered the twighlight zone...

Oops.

 

[BobRyan]

Todd said

Carson, no I didn't, and thanks for not replying to the sound exegesis to the exposition of Christ's first miracle in Cana that I provided.

If you can "get him" to pay attention to the "details" of "sound exegesis" you are doing better than I Todd.

Good luck. -- keep trying.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Todd:

Any of the following are exegetically incorrect and hermeneutically impossible assumptions about the meaning of the text:

1. That Mary didn't receive a rebuke from her Son for her lack of understanding (regardless of what your professor teaches in local basements). Clealy Jesus chided His mother for her lack of understanding.
2. That Mary somehow became co-Mediatrix for the human race because she recognized the human need.
3. That Mary somehow became co-Redemptrix because she actively participated in the meeting of that need, acting as the "mother of God."
4. That Christ performed His first miracle as an act of obedience to His mother, apart from His own good purpose.

[/QB]

Maybe the RCC wants us to think that each time they pray to Mary - and she goes to God with a request - He says to her "Woman what in the world do I have to do with You?".

Maybe...

In Christ,

Bob

 

[tamborine lady]

Well, I haven't seen an answer to Romans 1-25, or the queen of heaven thing.

So I guess that means that we don't need to do what the RCC says, but whatever Mary says to do. She said to follow Jesus and do whatever He said.

Have a great day. JESUS is LORD!!!!

Working for Him,

Tam,

 

[Harley4Him]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
If you can "get him" to pay attention to the "details" of "sound exegesis" you are doing better than I Todd.

Translation:

If you can "confuse him" to pay attention to the "fantasies" of "my cut-and-paste meandering" you are doing better than I Todd.

 

[Meercat]

Harley4him-


Huh? You would have us to believe that the KJV (as much as I love the language style) is an IMPROVEMENT of the "real" interpretation of the Bible that didn't come along until 1500 centuries AFTER Christ's resurrection is somehow more credible than all of the extant versions beforehand? Please explain and provide documentation/sources. - Thanks and God bless! - Meercat

 

[BobRyan]

Meercat - you don't go to Harley asking for "documentation and sources" on anything significant. So far he has limitted his "proof" to subjects like "how do 9 out of 10 black protestants vote" on the subject of abortion.

What you are asking is "over the top".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Harley4Him]

Originally posted by Meercat:
Harley4him-


Huh? You would have us to believe that the KJV (as much as I love the language style) is an IMPROVEMENT of the "real" interpretation of the Bible that didn't come along until 1500 centuries AFTER Christ's resurrection is somehow more credible than all of the extant versions beforehand? Please explain and provide documentation/sources. - Thanks and God bless! - Meercat

Um, no. In fact, if you want to know what I think of KJVO, check out THIS THREAD.

Pay no attention to Bob Lyan's claim that I can't find a source; every time he's challenged me I produce a source it says, oh, exactly what I claim it does. When Bob is asked for a source he cut-and-pastes two or three hundred lines of semi-related stuff that never actually supports his point, then tells you that you're too stupid to understand the "details" (which, btw, he almost always puts in quotes for some reason.)

Anyway, THIS THREAD is about KJV versus KJVO and actually has a quote from the KJV preface. (Bob Lyan for some reason doesn't count the KJV as a legitimate source. Don't ask me why)

 

[BobRyan]

What is your "non-source" for that Harley?

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Tam said

Well, you can have Mary be your queen of heaven if you like, but as for me, I think NOT!!!

Let's look at Jer 7-17 Seest thou not what they do in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem?
18 The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger.
19 Do they provoke me to anger? saith the LORD: do they not provoke themselves to the confusion of their own faces?
20 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, mine anger and my fury shall be poured out upon this place, upon man, and upon beast, and upon the trees of the field, and upon the fruit of the ground; and it shall burn, and shall not be quenched.

verse 18 says -----to the queen of heaven--- , and if you go over and read Jer 44-17 thru 22 you will find her mentioned a few more times and I must say those consequences are not for me.

Good point and excellent source Tam!

The "details" in that quote support your point perfectly.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Harley4Him]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
What is your "non-source" for that Harley?

Bob

My source in the link is a book you may not know much about - the bible

 

[BobRyan]

I was referring to the source that would support your accusation. You know, some wild tale about how the KJV is not a "legitimate source"?

Maybe you simply had no quote to back it up.

Bob