Lets Obey Mary

[BobRyan]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Carson Weber:
I encourage everyone to begin to read John's Gospel in light of the Genesis creation narrative, which is the backdrop behind John's narrative. John presents the salvation wrought by Jesus Christ as a New Creation. In the Genesis narrative, after Creation, we encounter a marriage. John, by presenting the Wedding Marriage at Cana, is showing that Jesus, the Bridegroom, is bringing about the long awaited marriage with his Bride (of whom Mary, the New Eve [i.e. "Woman"], is exemplar)

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

Bob said

Nice Spin Carson.

#1. In the Genesis "account" - Creation week is 7 days - not 6.

#2. In the Gensis "account" - Adam has no "mother".

#3. In John's Gospel "account" of the Messiah (Christ) - Jesus is not "married to his mother".

#4. In "your version" Adam is married to his mother.

I find that "odd".

Did the RC members ever try to support their "story" about the Mother of Christ and the WIFE of the first Adam being such that Mother and Wife are equated in the RC rationale?

No?

Must have been a "detail" they needed to avoid.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Harley4Him]

Originally posted by 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

Well Bob Lyan, how long has it been since you accused me of only posting sources relating to the voting habits of black protestants? What, a few hours? And lo and behold! A link to me quoting from the preface to the KJV!

The reason you despise my sources is because they actually say what I tell you they say. This is a world of difference from the way you post your delusions and back them up with quote that never say what you claim they do. Who do you think you're fooling? Plagiarism worked for your spiritual master Ellen White, but you have to do better than that for the rest of us.

 

[Harley4Him]

oops, double post! no, I wasn't doing the Bob-3-in-a-row-thing!

 

[D28guy]

I never realised until recently that the "Woman" who was "clothed with the Sun" in Revelation 12 was none other than...MARY!

Never would have dreamed. I guess one has to do what one has to do to somehow manufacture support for all of this Mary buisiness in the CC.

The "woman clothed with the sun" is Mary. Whew...

Mike

 

[Meercat]

D28guy-

You can take a "chill-pill", because Mary is but one of the interpretations of Revelations 12, the other is Israel, and oh yeah, another is the church. These are all acceptable "interpretations" based on HISTORICAL interpretations of the Bible. No one is trying to "push" anything on you 'dude', so just relax.

I hope that doesn't sound harsh, as I don't mean it too. That's the problem with writing, you can't always interpret the meaning a person has behind his or her words, but you get the picture, and no, my comment is NOT meant in any way to undermind the Sacred Scriptures. ' k? - God bless! - Meercat

 

[D28guy]

Meercat,

"You can take a "chill-pill",..."

Ha ha! I pretty much stay in "chill pill" mode all the time.

I thought the laughing guy emoticon would get that across, but I guess not.

"...because Mary is but one of the interpretations of Revelations 12, the other is Israel, and oh yeah, another is the church."

Actually, your last 2 are the only ones with any legitimacy at all.

"These are all acceptable "interpretations" based on HISTORICAL interpretations of the Bible."

But only the last 2 have any chance of being true.

"No one is trying to "push" anything on you 'dude', so just relax."

Nobody could push the Mary interpretation on me, even if they tried. And believe me, I stay relaxed. If I didnt know I lived in beautiful Kentucky I'd swear I lived in California!

"I hope that doesn't sound harsh, as I don't mean it too."

No problem...it didnt.

"That's the problem with writing, you can't always interpret the meaning a person has behind his or her words, but you get the picture, and no, my comment is NOT meant in any way to undermind the Sacred Scriptures. ' k? - God bless! - Meercat"

God bless you right back!

Grace and peace,

Mike

 

[D28guy]

Meercat,

ROTFL!!!

I just saw that you are from (((California.))) I had no idea!

Maybe you'll get a tickle out of my "California" comment in that post.

God bless,

Mike

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Meercat:
D28guy-

You can take a "chill-pill", because Mary is but one of the interpretations of Revelations 12, the other is Israel, and oh yeah, another is the church. These are all acceptable "interpretations" based on HISTORICAL interpretations of the Bible. No one is trying to "push" anything on you 'dude', so just relax.

The Church is the only one that works - but it is the "church" in the SAME form as you see in Romans 11. Here BOTH the Jewish AND the Gentile forms are united in ONE historic structure that spans BOTH OT and NT. And JUST as that is the case in Romans 11 so it is also the case in Rev 12. The 1260 year period of persecution described in Rev 12 as occuring to the church in the dark ages - fits very well when using thatt Romans 11 model.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[tamborine lady]

Hi there once again!

I posted this in hopes that someone could give me an answer,(someone like Carson Weber), but I got no response.

So here it is again:

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 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.

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

Working for Jesus,

Tam,

 

[eschatologist]

Then Jesus told them, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed"(Jo.20:29).

As the original poster stated about those who here the word and keep it being blessed, we also have a clear and concise statement here by Jesus that those who have not seen Him and believed are more blessed than those who saw Him and believed. We fall into the category of those who have not seen Him and believe, Mary falls into the group that saw Him and believe. So then putting this equation into proper perspective-- we are more blessed than Mary!

Knowing the customs regarding women in the first century, it was stated to Mary: "Blessed are you among women." Can this possibly mean than even Mary may not have been in a higher order than those leading men-- the disciples of Jesus? If her statue was greater than even all those men could not the angel have said, "Blessed are you among men"(mankind)? In no way am I stating or believe that a saved woman is regarded any less than a saved man, I am just saying what was quoted in this first century inspired document.

What I am doing is agreeing with the original post, in that this unnecessary and certainly unbiblical deification of Mary is unwarranted.

 

[BobRyan]

Since the normal biological process is for humans to "procreate" humans and in that context "motherhood" is defined -

And since Mary did NOT procreate God - Mary is not the "Mother of God".

This is posted for one of our slower members(or younger - I am not sure which) reading (and ranting on) this thread at times.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Born Again Catholic]

"And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? "

 

[BobRyan]

The Mother of "our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ" which is God the Son's incarnat name - indicates that Mary DID pro-create the HUMAN nature of Christ.

But the RC tactic is to "spin that around" and have Mary ALSO pro-Create God Himself!

But of course - that is a twist brought to us by man-made tradition. The text "Whence is it that the mother of My God has come to me" is not found in scripture. For that you need a few centuries of RC mythology to bake it and feed it to the confused masses of the dark ages. It is classic bait and switch.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Born Again Catholic]

Bob

Your mother did not create your soul according to your logic that would mean that she is not your mother?

 

[BobRyan]

As stated. The concept of pro-creation is that human parents DO have the God-given-ability to pro-Create another human being - a person - a brand new person - conception and development of the entire being.

We can speak of the Mother and the Father of that PERSON - because they are in fact pro-CREATED by their parents.

This is "obvious" even for Catholics (usually).

The RC "tactic" historically has been to "bait and switch" on this point - at first "admitting" that the birth of Christ is NOT a case of simple "pro-creation" but is in fact "Incarnation" of a pre-existing PERSON - God the Son. But then they "switch back" to "pro-Creation" calling Mary "the Mother of God" -- AS IF they forgot that they JUST got through insisting that this is INCARNATION of God the Son and NOT pro-Creation of GOD the Son.

As in other cases - there is a kernel of truth behind each masterpiece of RC error.

They "pretend" that if you don't commit the "pro-creation of God" error calling Mary "Mother of God" then you MUST commit the error of denying the divinity of Christ. However - they are wrong. We can admit to the INCARNATION of Christ without the error of assigning Mary the role of Pro-Creation of God.

So we are not fooled by the RC attempt to "use one error to back the peasants into another error" as they employed it in the dark ages.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Harley4Him]

Bob, I hope you don't mind if I edit your quote a bit to make what you said true.

Originally posted by BobRyan:
But the RC tactic is to "spin that around" and have Mary ALSO pro-Create God Himself!

But of course - that is a twist brought to us by ... Bob

(really, I'm laughing with you.)

 

[music4Him]

Ok I don't see where this "procreating" has to do with obeying Mary?

Didn't she say....
John 2:5 "whatsoever He saith unto you, do it."

Music4Him

 

[BobRyan]

Mary as pro-creator of God - (Read Mary Mother of God) leads to "Mary Queen of the Universe" and it is a short step from "Queen of the Universe" to "lets obey Mary".

If you eliminate the "Mother of God" error - all the fallacies of the RCC regarding Mary seem to unravel.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[music4Him]

Ooooooh..... Well howdy, learn something new everyday.
Even in the scripture that Tam mentioned I seen something.....it kinda puts a different spin on things.
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
John 2:1-
1
And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there:
2
And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage.
3
And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine.
4
Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.
5
His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.
6
And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece.
7
Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim.
8
And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they bare it. 9
When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew the governor of the feast called the bridegroom,
10
And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now.
11
This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
I don't know if this is a bunny trail? And why I started thinking this way I have no idea, (must of been looking at parallels last week?)but could it be a deeper meaning to something else? Like when you get married its ok to multiply/ procreate? I don't know...it may or may not be, but its just a thought..... What do ya'll think?

Music4Him

 

[BobRyan]

I am thinking that it "is ok to procreate" when you get married.

"Ok for Mary to do it as well".

But no one can "pro-Create God" for Christ was not "procreated" He was "incarnated" instead.

In Christ,

Bob