Mary’s devotion to Jesus

[Anthony Pritchard]

If you have prayed the Lord’s Prayer or prayed for others, you are a mediator between God and man.

This is simply false.

Scripture distinguishes intercession from mediation. Intercession is praying for one another; mediation is the means of access to God. Every believer may intercede, but only Christ mediates. That is exactly what 1 Timothy 2:5 teaches, present tense, exclusive, and ongoing: “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” The apostles never prayed to Mary or any departed believer, and Scripture explicitly forbids seeking the dead on behalf of the living. Isaiah 8:19 says, “Should not a people seek unto their God? Should they seek the dead on behalf of the living?” Deuteronomy 18:11 prohibits “a consulter with familiar spirits, or a necromancer.” Asking departed saints for prayer is not apostolic practice; it is later tradition. The New Testament directs prayer to the Father, through the Son, by the Spirit, never through Mary or any departed believer.

 

[Salty]

Excellent point. Catholic devotion to Mary isn’t built on Scripture; it’s built on later tradition. Joseph doesn’t fit that tradition, so he gets sidelined. The usual explanation is that Joseph isn’t Christ’s biological father, but that doesn’t account for the fact that he raised Christ, provided for Him, taught Him, and most likely taught Him a trade. If devotional attention were based on earthly role and faithfulness, Joseph would deserve at least as much recognition. But he doesn’t fit the Catholic tradition, so he gets sidelined..

In addition, Jesus can claim royalty not only thur his (bio) mom but thu his (legal) dad as they both were begat by King David!

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

That’s right, we don’t summon or channel the dead to receive information.

We ask the living saints to pray for us.

Scripture does not define necromancy merely as “summoning or channeling the dead to receive information.” The prohibition is broader. Isaiah 8:19 says, “Should not a people seek unto their God? Should they seek the dead on behalf of the living?” The issue is directing communication toward the dead, not performing occult rituals. Deuteronomy 18:11 prohibits “a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer.” The category is communication with the departed, not only divination.

Calling departed believers “living saints” does not change the fact that they are dead in the earthly sense and absent from this world. The apostles never prayed to Mary or any departed believer, never asked them for intercession, and never taught the practice. The New Testament directs prayer to the Father, through the Son, by the Spirit. Asking departed saints for prayer is not scriptural and not apostolic practice; it is later tradition.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

In addition, Jesus can claim royalty not only thur his (bio) mom but thu his (legal) dad as they both were begat by King David!

Another excellent point!

Both Mary and Joseph descend from David, so Jesus’ royal claim is supported on both sides. Matthew traces Joseph’s line through Solomon (Matt. 1:6), and Luke traces Mary’s line through Nathan (Luke 3:31). That means Jesus’ legal father and His biological mother both carry Davidic lineage. If devotional attention were based on earthly role or royal lineage, Joseph would stand beside Mary. But Catholic devotion isn’t built on Scripture or genealogy; it’s built on later tradition.

 

[Cathode]

This is simply false.

Scripture distinguishes intercession from mediation. Intercession is praying for one another; mediation is the means of access to God. Every believer may intercede, but only Christ mediates. That is exactly what 1 Timothy 2:5 teaches, present tense, exclusive, and ongoing: “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” The apostles never prayed to Mary or any departed believer, and Scripture explicitly forbids seeking the dead on behalf of the living. Isaiah 8:19 says, “Should not a people seek unto their God? Should they seek the dead on behalf of the living?” Deuteronomy 18:11 prohibits “a consulter with familiar spirits, or a necromancer.” Asking departed saints for prayer is not apostolic practice; it is later tradition. The New Testament directs prayer to the Father, through the Son, by the Spirit, never through Mary or any departed believer.

Those in heaven are the living, I don’t think you are getting that.

Conjuring the dead is necromancy, if you read scriptural accounts of it you will see that it is channeling the dead to engage in two way conversation to obtain information.

Asking the saints in heaven to pray for you, definitely is not that.

 

[Cathode]

In addition, Jesus can claim royalty not only thur his (bio) mom but thu his (legal) dad as they both were begat by King David!

In the line of David, the mother of the King was Queen, thus it follows we hold Mary as our Queen because Christ is King.

Joseph we honour as well, he isn’t side lined, all the saints are honoured.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

Those in heaven are the living, I don’t think you are getting that.

Conjuring the dead is necromancy, if you read scriptural accounts of it you will see that it is channeling the dead to engage in two way conversation to obtain information.

Asking the saints in heaven to pray for you, definitely is not that.

Scripture does not redefine departed believers as “the living.” It speaks of them as absent from this world and present with the Lord. Their earthly life has ended. That is exactly why Isaiah 8:19 says, “Should not a people seek unto their God? Should they seek the dead on behalf of the living?” The category is communication directed toward those who have departed this life.

Scripture also does not define necromancy merely as conjuring or channeling the dead. Deuteronomy 18:11 prohibits “a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer.” The issue is directing communication toward the departed, not only obtaining information. Isaiah 8:19 makes that explicit.

The apostles never prayed to Mary or any departed believer, never asked them for intercession, and never taught the practice. The New Testament directs prayer to the Father, through the Son, by the Spirit, never through Mary or any departed believer. Asking departed saints for prayer is not a scriptural or apostolic practice; it is later tradition.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

In the line of David, the mother of the King was Queen, thus it follows we hold Mary as our Queen because Christ is King.

Joseph we honour as well, he isn’t side lined, all the saints are honoured.

Scripture never assigns Mary the role of Queen. The Davidic pattern you are appealing to is not used by the New Testament to establish devotional roles. In the Old Testament, the queen mother had a political function in the royal court of Judah, but the New Testament never applies that court structure to Christ’s heavenly reign. Neither scriptures or the apostles ever call Mary Queen, never give her royal titles, and never assign her any devotional role.

Joseph’s Davidic lineage is fully acknowledged in Matthew 1, and Mary’s lineage is traced in Luke 3. Both support Christ’s royal claim. But Scripture does not elevate either of them to devotional status. The New Testament directs prayer to the Father, through the Son, by the Spirit, and never through Mary or any departed believer. Honoring departed saints is not the same as praying to them. Asking departed saints for prayer is not a scriptural or apostolic practice; it is later tradition.

 

[Cathode]

Scripture does not redefine departed believers as “the living.” It speaks of them as absent from this world and present with the Lord. Their earthly life has ended. That is exactly why Isaiah 8:19 says, “Should not a people seek unto their God? Should they seek the dead on behalf of the living?” The category is communication directed toward those who have departed this life.

Scripture also does not define necromancy merely as conjuring or channeling the dead. Deuteronomy 18:11 prohibits “a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer.” The issue is directing communication toward the departed, not only obtaining information. Isaiah 8:19 makes that explicit.

The apostles never prayed to Mary or any departed believer, never asked them for intercession, and never taught the practice. The New Testament directs prayer to the Father, through the Son, by the Spirit, never through Mary or any departed believer. Asking departed saints for prayer is not a scriptural or apostolic practice; it is later tradition.

“But in the account of the burning bush, even Moses showed that the dead rise, for he calls the Lord ‘the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.’[b] 38 He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive.” Luke 20: 37-38

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

“But in the account of the burning bush, even Moses showed that the dead rise, for he calls the Lord ‘the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.’[b] 38 He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive.” Luke 20: 37-38

The passage you quoted in Luke 20:37–38 is part of Jesus’ correction of the Sadducees, who denied the resurrection. Luke introduces the entire exchange by saying, “Then came to him certain of the Sadducees, which deny that there is any resurrection.” Jesus is not redefining earthly death; He is affirming spiritual and resurrection life. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are physically dead and absent from this world, which is why Jesus uses them as proof of spiritual life, not physical life, and that the dead will rise.

Scripture consistently distinguishes earthly life from spiritual life. Departed believers are spiritually alive in the presence of God, but they are physically dead and no longer part of this world. That is exactly why Isaiah 8:19 says, “Should not a people seek unto their God? Should they seek the dead on behalf of the living?” The category is communication directed toward those who have departed this life.

Deuteronomy 18:11 prohibits “a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer.” The issue is directing communication toward the departed, not only obtaining information. Isaiah 8:19 makes that explicit.

The apostles never prayed to Mary or any departed believer, never asked them for intercession, and never taught the practice. The New Testament directs prayer to the Father, through the Son, by the Spirit, never through Mary or any departed believer. Asking departed saints for prayer is not a scriptural or apostolic practice; it is later tradition.

 

[JonC]

All


Praying to Mary is fine, we ask her to pray for us like asking any believer to pray for us.



If you have prayed the Lord’s Prayer or prayed for others, you are a mediator between God and man.

No, praying to Mary is satanic. Mary is not our Mediator. She is not our Advocate.

No, praying for others is not mediating between them and God. A mediator is one who helps two or more people talk to one another (a bridge between parties). When Christians pray for one another it is petitioning God but not as a mediator (it is for their behalf, but not to be a bridge between them and God). Christ is the only Mediator.

In other words, your prayers are not heard. Many religious people desire, and believe they have communion with God. Unfortunately most do not.

 

[Cathode]

The passage you quoted in Luke 20:37–38 is part of Jesus’ correction of the Sadducees, who denied the resurrection. Luke introduces the entire exchange by saying, “Then came to him certain of the Sadducees, which deny that there is any resurrection.” Jesus is not redefining earthly death; He is affirming spiritual and resurrection life. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are physically dead and absent from this world, which is why Jesus uses them as proof of spiritual life, not physical life, and that the dead will rise.

Scripture consistently distinguishes earthly life from spiritual life. Departed believers are spiritually alive in the presence of God, but they are physically dead and no longer part of this world. That is exactly why Isaiah 8:19 says, “Should not a people seek unto their God? Should they seek the dead on behalf of the living?” The category is communication directed toward those who have departed this life.

Deuteronomy 18:11 prohibits “a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer.” The issue is directing communication toward the departed, not only obtaining information. Isaiah 8:19 makes that explicit.

The apostles never prayed to Mary or any departed believer, never asked them for intercession, and never taught the practice. The New Testament directs prayer to the Father, through the Son, by the Spirit, never through Mary or any departed believer. Asking departed saints for prayer is not a scriptural or apostolic practice; it is later tradition.

I gave you a direct scriptural reference of “the living” , they are “ alive”, which is the entire point I am making and you are directly disputing the scripture.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

I gave you a direct scriptural reference of “the living” , they are “ alive”, which is the entire point I am making and you are directly disputing the scripture.

The passage you quoted in Luke 20:37–38 is Jesus’ correction of the Sadducees, who denied the resurrection. Luke introduces the entire exchange by saying, “Then came to him certain of the Sadducees, which deny that there is any resurrection.” Jesus is affirming spiritual life unto God and resurrection life, not redefining earthly death. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are spiritually alive in God’s presence, but they are physically dead and absent from this world. That is why Jesus uses them as proof that the dead will rise.

Scripture consistently distinguishes spiritual life from earthly life. Departed believers are spiritually alive before God, but they are physically dead. That is exactly why Isaiah 8:19 says, “Should not a people seek unto their God? Should they seek the dead on behalf of the living?” The category is communication directed toward those who have departed this life.

Deuteronomy 18:11 prohibits “a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer.” The issue is directing communication toward the departed, not only obtaining information. Isaiah 8:19 makes that explicit.

The apostles never prayed to Mary or any departed believer, never asked them for intercession, and never taught the practice. The New Testament directs prayer to the Father, through the Son, by the Spirit, never through Mary or any departed believer. Asking departed saints for prayer is not a scriptural or apostolic practice; it is later tradition.

 

[Cathode]

No, praying to Mary is satanic. Mary is not our Mediator. She is not our Advocate.

No, praying for others is not mediating between them and God. A mediator is one who helps two or more people talk to one another (a bridge between parties). When Christians pray for one another it is petitioning God but not as a mediator (it is for their behalf, but not to be a bridge between them and God). Christ is the only Mediator.

In other words, your prayers are not heard. Many religious people desire, and believe they have communion with God. Unfortunately most do not.

Mediator- councillor, broker, ambassador, Intercessor.

Intercessor and mediator are the same thing.

What we are talking about is Christ’s unique mediation on the Cross for all mankind and our subordinate mediation in prayer, otherwise we could not address The Father directly in the Lord’s Prayer by your strange logic.

There is nothing “ satanic “ about asking Mary to pray for us, as we would any other believer.

 

[GentleGospeller]

No you can not Incarnate God of your flesh.

Did I say I could? (*looks back at my own response*) Nope.

Mary is unique not just in a certain way, ...

No, as I said she is unique in a certain way, and explained why that is with other texts.

... but the most certain way.

She is important in her role, for sure. Already agreed to. See response above and just previous.

Garbage, ...

Says, 'you', but 'you' are no authority for me on that matter. I stated the authority for me.

Jesus is the unblemished Lamb of God.

No question. Did I say otherwise? (*looks back at my own response*) Nope.

He did not have sinful nature like fallen man.

Oh, that is where 'you' & Catholicism errs. The scriptures I provided are clear and do not need me to even tell you what it says, they are so plainly stated (Rom. 8:3; Gal. 4:4; Heb. 2:16-17; &c.) Let's read them together:

Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

Gal 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

Heb 2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
Heb 2:17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

Questions to you about those tests.

Where was "sin" "condemned"?

Whose "flesh" was "sin" "condemned" "in"?

Why was "sin" "condemned" "in" that "flesh"?

Can unfallen nature die or be subject to death if such a person has not sinned?

What nature of flesh (Jud. 1:7; 1 Cor. 15:39-40) do unfallen (*ooops I gave it away*) angelic beings have, fallen or unfallen?

What nature of flesh does the "brethren" of Jesus have, fallen or unfallen?

How many of mankind, since the fall of Adam, have had this flesh nature?

In how many things was the Son of the Father "made like unto" in regards "his brethren" amongst mankind?

Another text says that Jesus was "made him to be sin for us" (2 Cor. 5:21) by the will of the Father, and since that is so, How was it so accomplished according to Rom. 8:3?

He was like us in all ways but sin.

That is just exactly what I said, but you are now denying that Jesus did not take "sinful flesh", but instead had sinless / unfallen flesh unlike all His brethren amongst mankind. This is the problem with the "Original Sin" Dogma of Rome. It places sin as being, rather than sin as thought, word or action contrary to God's own character and law (1 Jhn. 3:4; Rom. 7:7,14; Jam. 2:8-13).

So, Jesus was indeed like us, fallen sinful flesh mankind, but without sin (transgression of God's character / law). This is how we obtain like victory. Without such, there is no salvation, no example, for Jesus would have advantage we do not have access to. This is why there is no continual victory in Catholics lives, and they need another thing called the "auricular confessional" and "penances", since they will, by their Dogmas, doctrines, sin until they have a change of their flesh nature, rather than simply accepting the "mind of Christ", the Holy Spirit of Christ, which gives them victory over their fallen sinful flesh natures.

God does not have a sinful nature.

God manifest in "the likeness of sinful (fallen) flesh" does.

1Ti 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

This was why John was so adamant about "the flesh" in regards to Jesus, and what the antichristos / vicarius christi would teach in the place of the truth. Gen. 3:15,21 shows the flesh nature of Jesus, and what He would necessarily have to take to grant mankind another opportunity.

Jesus was the antidote to sinful nature not part of it.

Jesus was the antidote, no question. Jesus lived a perfect sinless life in sinful fallen flesh. Demonstrating that there is no excuse for sin. He condemned sin in His own flesh, the fallen sinful flesh of all humanity, by His sinless life.

If Jesus did not take sinful fallen flesh nature, He could not have died.

Jesus flesh was immaculate of Mary’s immaculate flesh.

That is simply a Roman dogma which is a derivative (follows conclusively from their 'logic' beginnings) of their original error in "Original Sin" dogma.

 

[Cathode]

Did I say I could? (*looks back at my own response*) Nope.


No, as I said she is unique in a certain way, and explained why that is with other texts.


She is important in her role, for sure. Already agreed to. See response above and just previous.


Says, 'you', but 'you' are no authority for me on that matter. I stated the authority for me.


No question. Did I say otherwise? (*looks back at my own response*) Nope.


Oh, that is where 'you' & Catholicism errs. The scriptures I provided are clear and do not need me to even tell you what it says, they are so plainly stated (Rom. 8:3; Gal. 4:4; Heb. 2:16-17; &c.) Let's read them together:

Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

Gal 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

Heb 2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
Heb 2:17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

Questions to you about those tests.

Where was "sin" "condemned"?

Whose "flesh" was "sin" "condemned" "in"?

Why was "sin" "condemned" "in" that "flesh"?

Can unfallen nature die or be subject to death if such a person has not sinned?

What nature of flesh (Jud. 1:7; 1 Cor. 15:39-40) do unfallen (*ooops I gave it away*) angelic beings have, fallen or unfallen?

What nature of flesh does the "brethren" of Jesus have, fallen or unfallen?

How many of mankind, since the fall of Adam, have had this flesh nature?

In how many things was the Son of the Father "made like unto" in regards "his brethren" amongst mankind?

Another text says that Jesus was "made him to be sin for us" (2 Cor. 5:21) by the will of the Father, and since that is so, How was it so accomplished according to Rom. 8:3?


That is just exactly what I said, but you are now denying that Jesus did not take "sinful flesh", but instead had sinless / unfallen flesh unlike all His brethren amongst mankind. This is the problem with the "Original Sin" Dogma of Rome. It places sin as being, rather than sin as thought, word or action contrary to God's own character and law (1 Jhn. 3:4; Rom. 7:7,14; Jam. 2:8-13).

So, Jesus was indeed like us, fallen sinful flesh mankind, but without sin (transgression of God's character / law). This is how we obtain like victory. Without such, there is no salvation, no example, for Jesus would have advantage we do not have access to. This is why there is no continual victory in Catholics lives, and they need another thing called the "auricular confessional" and "penances", since they will, by their Dogmas, doctrines, sin until they have a change of their flesh nature, rather than simply accepting the "mind of Christ", the Holy Spirit of Christ, which gives them victory over their fallen sinful flesh natures.


God manifest in "the likeness of sinful (fallen) flesh" does.

1Ti 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

This was why John was so adamant about "the flesh" in regards to Jesus, and what the antichristos / vicarius christi would teach in the place of the truth. Gen. 3:15,21 shows the flesh nature of Jesus, and what He would necessarily have to take to grant mankind another opportunity.


Jesus was the antidote, no question. Jesus lived a perfect sinless life in sinful fallen flesh. Demonstrating that there is no excuse for sin. He condemned sin in His own flesh, the fallen sinful flesh of all humanity, by His sinless life.

If Jesus did not take sinful fallen flesh nature, He could not have died.


That is simply a Roman dogma which is a derivative (follows conclusively from their 'logic' beginnings) of their original error in "Original Sin" dogma.

Serious error here mate.

Christ did not have a sinful nature, this is blasphemy.

Jesus flesh was immaculate and took on the sins of the world, sinful nature can not redeem sinful nature.

Jesus took on human nature not sinful nature, He is God and God does not have a sinful nature.

I’m shocked man, I am wondering who else here champions the idea that Jesus had a sinful nature. In all my years I’ve never seen a believer spout this garbage.