Mary Sightings in History

[mandym]

Pure opinion unsupported by facts...

WM

Mary being the Mother of God is not supported by facts.However the church being the Bride is clear and undebateable in scripture.

 

[Yeshua1]

Westminster - why do you think that not all the messages are false?
And besides why would Mary show herself... The Mary in the apparition is
different from the Mary of the bible who is humble.
The Mary of the Apparition says build shrines in honor of her and to pray to her.
The Mary of the bible prayed with the apostles.
The bible... NT.. is the final message and no other message is needed..
This is the age of deception.

The 'mary" of fatima spewed the nonsense and unbiblical 'truths' of the RCC, so that was NOt the mary of the bible, but another One, from satan!

 

[Yeshua1]

You have no idea what Paul would say if he were here on earth today. You simply have an opinion of what he would say. Don't you guys ever tire of Catholic bashing?

WM

Does your bible still have Romans and Galatians in it?

BOTh books condemn RCC doctrine of salvation as being from another jesus!

 

[Yeshua1]

That would have been BEFORE they wedded. You really should consider a name change there The Biblicist... I mean since you couldn't recognize that most obvious and seminal part of the story AND since you apparently don't understand what constitutes adultery.

WM

NO scripture supports your fantasy!

IF true, jesus was spiritual married to mary, as she is another sinner in the bride saved by grace of God, does the Holy Spirit have another body/bride jesus not aware of?

 

[WestminsterMan]

NO scripture supports your fantasy!

IF true, jesus was spiritual married to mary, as she is another sinner in the bride saved by grace of God, does the Holy Spirit have another body/bride jesus not aware of?

Fantasy? Why not quote me and respond to that. You people get so fired up over such trivialities.

WM

 

[WestminsterMan]

Does your bible still have Romans and Galatians in it?

BOTh books condemn RCC doctrine of salvation as being from another jesus!

No - it is YOUR interpretation of scripture that "...condemn RCC doctrine of salvation as being from another jesus!"


WM

 

[WestminsterMan]

The 'mary" of fatima spewed the nonsense and unbiblical 'truths' of the RCC, so that was NOt the mary of the bible, but another One, from satan!

Well now... that would be your opinion now wouldn't it...

WM

 

[WestminsterMan]

Westminster - why do you think that not all the messages are false?

Why should I believe that they are? Lourdes seems pretty solid to me.

And besides why would Mary show herself...

Perhaps God ordained it. Why don't you ask Him.

The Mary in the apparition is different from the Mary of the bible who is humble.

I don't know... she seemed pretty humble to me.

The Mary of the Apparition says build shrines in honor of her and to pray to her.

Prayer isn't always worship.

The Mary of the bible prayed with the apostles.

Correct - and she was there at Pentecost.

The bible... NT.. is the final message and no other message is needed..
This is the age of deception.

Perhaps. Yet that doesn't preclude God allowing her to do it.

WM

 

[The Biblicist]

Fantasy? Why not quote me and respond to that. You people get so fired up over such trivialities.

WM

Here in Washington state up near Mossyrock in southwest Washington, there is a bulb farm owned and operated by a Catholic family (Deguodes). They built a chapel on the side of the their property for Mary to appear to them several years ago. As far as I can tell they have had no visitation yet.

I used to print their materials for their greenhouse store. I owned and operated a public print shop for about fifteen years.

At that time I researched all the reported sightings and messages of this apparition that claimed to be Mary. It is sad to see so many people so gullible to believe such things.

If this apparition had claimed to be a reincarnation of a cultic goddess, all the responses to her would have been characterized as false worship and condemned by Catholics as demon worship but since she claims the name Mary it is mere veneration. Very amusing!

 

[Yeshua1]

Well now... that would be your opinion now wouldn't it...

WM

Not my view only, but jesus and Apostles, as that mary gave doctrines not in agreement with the inspired texts!

 

[Matt Black]

Mary is NOT the mother of God the Father.

Correct. She was and is though mother of God the Son in the sense that she gave birth to Him.

Mary is the mother of Jesus in the flesh.

Yep. And Jesus is God, That makes Her His mother.

Do you think that God the Father had a mother in heaven that gave birth to Him?

Nope and no Catholic or Orthodox says that either so that's a straw man.

It makes no difference to me who the Catholics claim is a heretic. Debate me here and now, not Nestorian.

The Catholic thing is a red herring: all Christians believe Nestorianism is heresy.

Then do not call Mary the Mother of God.

All Christians have to otherwsie one negates the divinity of Jesus and thus our salvation.

Do not elevate her to the level of God and Jesus. Do not call Mary Co Redeemer and Mediatrix.

No-one here is doing that - another straw man. It woudl help if you would engage with what is being saud rather than what isn't.

 

[Matt Black]

That is heresy. Mary was not the mother of God. She was the mother of Jesus. If she was the mother of God, then she would have eternally existed but she did not. That would meant that God had a beginning - a birth. He did not.

Then you're saying that Jesus isn't God - and that most certainly is a damnable heresy. However, I am sure that you don't really believe that....:smilewinkgrin:

 

[Matt Black]

You will not find the Greek term "theotokos" in scripture. Nor is Mary the mother of God because God has no Mother but is everlasting to everlasting.

What Mary conceived was not God but a HUMAN body with a HUMAN Nature and it was that humanity that The Word of God "tabernacled" in or "TOOK UPON HIMSELF" which came from the humanity of Mary.

Hence, the Deity of Christ is never once mentioned or described as being "born" but a "son was GIVEN and a child WAS BORN." Mary is the mother of what was "born" not the Mother of the Son which was "given" as she did not conceive deity but conceived humanity and Diety "TOOK UPON HIMSELF" that humanity and TABERNACLED in it.

That does not mean I deny the hpostatic union but only deny that conception is when that union occurred. It occurred sometime before birth as deity was never "conceived" by even God much less Mary.

That's a form of Adoptionism - another damnable heresy. How many more are we going to see today? I'm really quite shocked to see these old heresies put forward on a Christian discussion board.

 

[Matt Black]

A few questions:

If Mary was the mother of God and the Holy Spirit is God, was Mary also the mother of the Holy Spirit? How about the Father - who is also God?

If Mary was the mother of God, where God before He was born? A mother is a source of a life - so that means that God didn't exist before He was born.

Was Mary from everlasting?

Walter answered this @ post #74

 

[The Biblicist]

That's a form of Adoptionism - another damnable heresy. How many more are we going to see today? I'm really quite shocked to see these old heresies put forward on a Christian discussion board.

No, it is not! It is not even a "form" of adoptionism. Adoptionism in history refers to the theory that Christ was BORN merely as a man and then some time later AFTER birth (most adoptionists believe it was at his baptism) he was given supernatural powers or the Second Person of the Trinity came to indwell him.

 

[Matt Black]

How is that in anyway different then from your statement that "deny that conception is when that [hypostatic] union occurred. It occurred sometime before birth as deity was never "conceived" by even God much less Mary", apart from an issue of time? It it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a form of adoptionism...

 

[Yeshua1]

Then you're saying that Jesus isn't God - and that most certainly is a damnable heresy. However, I am sure that you don't really believe that....:smilewinkgrin:

NO! She is stating as all the rest of us here are that mary gave birth to the humanity of Jesus, that he already was in nature of god, and mary did NOT originate His diety, did NOT give birth to the trinity!

 

[Yeshua1]

How is that in anyway different then from your statement that "deny that conception is when that [hypostatic] union occurred. It occurred sometime before birth as deity was never "conceived" by even God much less Mary", apart from an issue of time? It it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a form of adoptionism...

SEE # 137, Son of God was eternally begotten from/by God, NOT mary, she gave birth to the Son of man! His humanity from her...

 

[Matt Black]

NO! She is stating as all the rest of us here are that mary gave birth to the humanity of Jesus

...and Him in His divine nature....hence 'Mother of God'

that he already was in nature of god

Agreed (although the Biblicist would apparently disagree with you in his neo-adoptionism), hence 'mother of God'

and mary did NOT originate His diety, did NOT give birth to the trinity!

Correct (although it's spelt 'deity' in English) - but no-one here is putting forward either of those points.

 

[Matt Black]

SEE # 137, Son of God was eternally begotten from/by God, NOT mary

Correct - and?

she gave birth to the Son of man!

And God the Son

His humanity from her...

Jesus was fully God and fully Man so you can't separate out His natures in that way.