Mother Mary??

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Living4Him:
For those who argue against Mother Mary, here is a good article with Biblical referrences for the case of The Immaculate Conception

Also see Oral Tradition and Scriptures a wonderful site from a former Jew who is now Catholic

Thanks for posting this. I note that this has not one single Bible reference to the Mother of Mary (who would have been the mother in the case of immaculate conception) or any reference in the Bible speaking of the Birth of Mary "at all".

And "yet" you "claim" this is a Bible based study on the birth of Mary and how she was born sinless at conception.

And of course the non-stop efforts to get Christ to be married to his mother as Adam was to Eve -- is always entertaining - though misguided.

Fascinating!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BalmofGilead]

Hmmm, I've been reading a lot of arguing...disagreements...etc. Maybe arguing is too strong a word and debate may be the better of the two. As for me stating Christians and Catholics rather than Prostestants and Catholics...well here in PA the Catholic Schools went from taking the name of Central Christian to Central Catholic...they've made that distinction here...

And as for Protestant...I'm not one.

BG

 

[BobRyan]

Debate yes - but not over the Movie - the Passion of Christ. Or am I missing something?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[frozencell]

Dear Bob,

Now you're blaming the Church for owning up to it's mistakes.?! Geez......I hate to see you are so comfortable and gleeful with holding grudges. Also, Lateran IV had nothing to say about "extermination" during the Inquisition as far as I can see.

They banned the Bible in anything but Latin, which few ordinary people could read.

And how did you fail to see that this is nothing more than a quick jab at religion from the liberals? Several of us have already explained this to you and others.

"Enraptured by the splendor of your heavenly beauty and impelled by the anxieties of the world, we cast ourselves into your arms, Oh Immaculate Mother of Jesus and our Mother....we adore and praise the peerless richness of the sublime gifts with which God has filled you above every other mere creature, from the moment of conception until the day on which after your assumption into heaven, He crowned you Queen of the Universe. Oh crystal fountain of
faith, bathe our hearts with your heavenly perfume. Oh Conqueress of evil and death, inspire in us a deep horror of sin which makes the soul detestable to God and the slave of hell. Oh well-beloved of God, hear the ardent cries which rise up from every heart in this year dedicated to you. Then tenderly, Oh Mary, cover our aching wound; convert the wicked, dry the tears of the afflicted and the oppressed. Comfort the poor and humble. Quench hatred,
sweeten harshness, safeguard the flower of purity and protect the Holy Church. In your name resounding harmoniously in heaven, may they recognize that all are brothers...Receive, Oh sweet Mother our humble supplications and above all, obtain for us that on that day, happy with you, we may repeat before your throne that hymn which is sung today around your altars. You are beautiful Oh Mary. You are Glory Oh Mary. You are the joy, you are the Honor of
our people." - Pope Pius XII, celebration of the Marian Year in Rome, 1950

I didn't read anywhere that Mary is put above God. Also, she bore Christ, I think that puts her a little above everyone else. She is called Queen; God is still King, and we all know the King is above everyone else. What's wrong with dedicateing a year to Mary? We dedicate days to MLK, presidents, and nature for pete's sake, and none of these people or things did anything even close to what Mary did - accepting God's great and miraculous will for her. The rest is Mary interceding with us to Jesus to intercede for us to God. Nothing unbiblical there. You are narrow-minded in your interpretation and understanding of things.

And of course the non-stop efforts to get Christ to be married to his mother as Adam was to Eve -- is always entertaining - though misguided.

What in the world are you talking about? Once again, narrow-midded for your own purposes. No one wants Jesus to be Mary's husband. A title does not necessarily mean actuality. Now don't misconstrue that like I know you want to. It's an alagorical title.


Balm,

Mary was another vessel that God used. God uses us daily to bring forth His will whether we know it or not. If one drop of Mary's blood would have coarsed through Jesus He would not have been our sinless Saviour. She gave birth to her Saviour...our Saviour!!! God used her as a vessel a means of bringing forth the greatest Man that ever lived! Also, If Mary did as Jesus instructed then she would have prayed to our Father in her own Son's name.

If Jesus was inside of Mary's womb (and He was) then He had an umbilical cord. Therefore, her blood had to be in Jesus. If not, where did He get it? How did He eat in her womb? The umbilical cord. He was flesh. I'm sure he had to eat.

 

[BalmofGilead]

I read your post and mine and well I'm not sure we're understanding each other...

There has been plenty of debate over the movie on here, some are for it, some are wholeheartedly against it.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by frozencell:
Dear Bob,

Now you're blaming the Church for owning up to it's mistakes.?! Geez......I hate to see you are so comfortable and gleeful with holding grudges. Also, Lateran IV had nothing to say about "extermination" during the Inquisition as far as I can see.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />They banned the Bible in anything but Latin, which few ordinary people could read.

</font>[/QUOTE]No - I use the quote to show that the church IS pointing to the dark ages in which these councils took place and is showing that persecution, torture, forced conversions extermination etc were all part of the game they were playing.

The last part about the Bible burning and Bible banned - is simply a fact of history.

Notice that it is the invention of the printing press and the Bible in the language of the people - that coincides with the reformation.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Bob quotes --

"Enraptured by the splendor of your heavenly beauty and impelled by the anxieties of the world, we cast ourselves into your arms, Oh Immaculate Mother of Jesus and our Mother....we adore and praise the peerless richness of the sublime gifts with which God has filled you above every other mere creature, from the moment of conception until the day on which after your assumption into heaven, He crowned you Queen of the Universe. Oh crystal fountain of
faith, bathe our hearts with your heavenly perfume. Oh Conqueress of evil and death, inspire in us a deep horror of sin which makes the soul detestable to God and the slave of hell. Oh well-beloved of God, hear the ardent cries which rise up from every heart in this year dedicated to you. Then tenderly, Oh Mary, cover our aching wound; convert the wicked, dry the tears of the afflicted and the oppressed. Comfort the poor and humble. Quench hatred,
sweeten harshness, safeguard the flower of purity and protect the Holy Church. In your name resounding harmoniously in heaven, may they recognize that all are brothers...Receive, Oh sweet Mother our humble supplications and above all, obtain for us that on that day, happy with you, we may repeat before your throne that hymn which is sung today around your altars. You are beautiful Oh Mary. You are Glory Oh Mary. You are the joy, you are the Honor of
our people." - Pope Pius XII, celebration of the Marian Year in Rome, 1950

Frozencell responds --

I didn't read anywhere that Mary is put above God.

No argument there - thes appelations do not go beyond that of an infinite God being. Much of what is said is worthy of being said to God - singing before his altar - standing before His throne asking Him for His protection of His church etc.


But instead of going to God - these worshipful messages are directed to the dead.

You say -- "She is called Queen;" But not in God's Word.

You say -- "God God is still King" -- as though God is married to his mother?

And of course the non-stop efforts to get Christ to be married to his mother as Adam was to Eve -- is always entertaining - though misguided.

What in the world are you talking about? Once again, narrow-midded for your own purposes. No one wants Jesus to be Mary's husband. A title does not necessarily mean actuality. Now don't misconstrue that like I know you want to. It's an alagorical title.

Using Genesis 3 to exault Mary as the second Eve to the Second Adam IS in fact arguing for a marriage between Christ and his mother. I am surprised that the RCC would do it.

The fact is - nothing in Gen 3 argues for Mary as the woman.

Christ is the 2nd Adam because Romans 5 says He is.

Mary is never called "the 2nd Eve" in all of scripture.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[frozencell]

The last part about the Bible burning and Bible banned - is simply a fact of history.

Maybe I missed it. Where was it again that mentioned Bible burning?

Notice that it is the invention of the printing press and the Bible in the language of the people - that coincides with the reformation.

Right. The breaking away from the One True Church. And don't forget the part about Martin Luther adding in the word "alone" himself, which was the great contributor to the beginning of the Reformation. This is also just historical fact, maybe not one in your favor, but a fact nonetheless.

Much of what is said is worthy of being said to God - singing before his altar - standing before His throne asking Him for His protection of His church etc.

Which Catholics do.

You say -- "She is called Queen;" But not in God's Word.

The word Trinity isn't in the Bible, either. Plus, let's think about this for a minute.

God is the Father, which makes Him King of Heaven.
Jesus is the Son, which makes Him Prince of Heaven.
Mary was the mother of Jesus, only makes sense to call her Queen of Heaven.

And this cock-eyed garbage about Mary being married to God is complete and utter ignorance. The relationship Mary had with Jesus and God on earth makes this impossible. No one denies that, but no one is trying to marry them, either. King, Queen, and Prince is a completely "spiritual family" context. To know that you are now limiting God to less of a spiritual family than He gave His Own Church is mind-boggling! Jesus even said, "Those who believe in me are my sisters and brothers and mother." Of course we all understand this to be in the spiritual family context. Technically, I am the mother of Jesus, too, taking Christ at His word. Mary is in heaven, I'm not. Therefore, both titles, Queen of Heaven and Mother of God, are justified. Your implications of Mary and God in relationship to human, mortal matrimony is ridiculous, and shines much light on your willingly narrow scope of who even God is.

Mary is never called "the 2nd Eve" in all of scripture.

Once again. alagorical and spiritually contexted.

Your arguements are seeming more and more masochistic everyday.

 

[neal4christ]

Sorry L4H - I did not mean to imply that you would have admitted to all those details of history - I was merely giving you the credit for pointing out the various councils while ALSO adding some of the deleted data that you probobaly just "forgot" to add in.

I am sure none of us would want to miss anything that wonderful RCC was doing in the dark ages you know.

Bob,

You are a real winner and never cease to amaze me. Instead of apologizing and asking for forgiveness, you try to justify your actions and throw in a few jabs at the Catholic Church. What is your deal with bearing false witness? Do you not mind breaking that commandment? You keep the Sabbath but neglect the other commands of God? I could understand a slip-up occasionaly, but this is a habit for you. How truly sad and what an unChristlike way to go about showing others your "truth." Even if your understanding and interpretations are infallible, your attitude and approach nullifies anything you say.

You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. Exodus 20.16, RSV

In Christ,
Neal

 

[BalmofGilead]

Just a few more thoughts on Mary...

"She is called Queen" WHERE?

And as far as The Trinity, it's not a word used in my church, but do I believe in the triune Godhead? YES. There is evidence of that where it is written that Jesus said I and My Father are one (that's only two, but you get my drift). In the begining was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God.... No where have I ever read any mention of Mary being royalty, sure she's blessed amongst women...WOMEN...not all of mankind.


The Apostles never prayed to Mary, never gave her special recognition or honor and not one of them even mentions her in all their writings. John, into whose care she was committed never mentions her in his epistles or in the Revelation.

Notice some truths put forth by Mary about herself and her Lord:

Mary magnified the Lord, not herself. v46
Mary confessed herself a sinner v47 "God my Saviour." Mary would not need a Saviour if she were not a sinner!
Mary confessed to being a female slave! v48 "the low estate of His handmaiden."
Mary confessed God's holiness! v49 "HOLY IS HIS NAME!"
Mary magnified HIS MERCY ,HIS STRENGTH HIS JUDGMENT, HIS GOODNESS in vs.50-53
Mary knew the Bible promises of God to provide a Saviour and Deliverer "in remembrance of His mercy," as HE SPAKE TUR FATHERS."(vs.54-55) Mary claimed lineage from Abraham. Mary was born with a sin nature just like you and I friend. v55 If we were to ask Mary what she thought of all these doctrines which have been manufactured about her, she could easily point to the Magnificat and say, "MY SOUL DOTH MAGNIFY THE LORD, AND MY SPIRIT HATH REJOICED IN GOD MY SAVIOUR."


Mary was a remarkable person. The angel who came to Mary with the announcement that she would bear the Son of God said that she had “found favor with God” ( Luke 1:30 ). God honored her above all other women by choosing her to become the virgin mother of the Messiah. However, the biblical accounts do not emphasize her role as the mother of Jesus. In fact, nowhere in the Gospels does Jesus even call her “mother.” (In a direct sense to her face)

Although the Gospels portray her motherly concern, they clearly show her subordination to her son. In John 2:4 , Jesus called her “woman” (which wasn’t as harsh an expression in Greek as it would be in modern English), apparently to gently show her that His relationship to her as Savior must take precedence over that of son.

The Bible nowhere refers to her as the mother of God or implies in any way that she was born without sin. In fact, she herself recognized her need of a Savior ( Luke 1:47 ). She was qualified to give birth to the sinless Son of God because God chose her and miraculously caused her to conceive by the “overshadowing” of the Holy Spirit( Luke 1:35 ). While it is right to honor her as the mother of Jesus Christ, there are no biblical grounds for placing her in a position of mediation between ourselves and our Lord.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by frozencell:
As this has been so clearly proven to the contrary on the John 6 thread I am shocked you even had the guts to put such a blatent lie up in here. This being said, the rest of the post doesn't even deserve an answer as it is on the same "Jack Chick" wavelength. I cannot take seriously anything that refers to the RCC as "Romanists". Come on, at least have common courtesy if not intellect.

If you don't like what is written, just try and discredit the source. Right? Is it called guilt by association? Or smear campaign? "Jack Chick wavelength" Surely you can do better than that.
Let's look at another wonderful quote from the same source, that uses the Old English word, "Romanist," a common term to refer to the Catholics a few years back.

Samuel Morland wrote a history of the Evangelical Churches of the Valleys of Piemont in the year 1658. In his introduction he writes of the antiquity of the Catholic Church.

The truth is, I deny not but they may challenge some sort of antiquity for their religion, and that a great part of their traditions have been a long-time practiced in the world, whereby they have beguiled many millions of poor souls: which I cannot better express than by that subtilty of the Gibeonites, who when they had designed to betray the men of Israel, and to make them believe that they came from a very far country, they did work wilily, and made as if they had been ambassadors, and they took old sacks upon their asses, and wine-bottles old and rent, and bound up, and old shoes clouted upon their feet, and old garments upon them, and all the bread of their provision was dry and mouldy; and in this posture, they went to Joshua unto the camp at Gilgal, and said unto him, and to the men of Israel, ‘We be come from a far country, now therefore make ye a league with us.’ So say I, these Gibeonitish Catholics have taken the old sacks of Jewish ceremonies, and the old clouted shoes of Paganism, together with the dry and mouldy bread of the Arian Heresy, whereof they have made a medley of religion; and now to the end that they may daily gain more and more proselytes, they pretend with confidence, yea and would fain make us believe, that these traditions are derived from Christ and his Apostles, whereas the contrary is as clear as the noon-day.

Now, in case you didn't notice: Samuel Morland wrote his history in 1658. If he got any of his information from Jack Chick, I would be quite interested in knowing how he he did it??
DHK

 

[frozencell]

I didn't say you got your sources from Jack Chick. I said it was Jack Chick-esque in it's hatred and lies. I know that there were plenty of "Jack Chick's" before good ol' Jack himself came along.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by frozencell:
I didn't say you got your sources from Jack Chick. I said it was Jack Chick-esque in it's hatred and lies. I know that there were plenty of "Jack Chick's" before good ol' Jack himself came along.

So then, your idea of a good refutation is a smear campaign? 'I don't agree with what you say therefore I will belittle your sources.' This is what you mean to say??

 

[Jude]

Originally posted by frozencell:
If Jesus was inside of Mary's womb (and He was) then He had an umbilical cord. Therefore, her blood had to be in Jesus. If not, where did He get it? How did He eat in her womb? The umbilical cord. He was flesh. I'm sure he had to eat.

And I would add, that the Church has always maintained that Jesus was fully Divine AND fully human. There had to have been a genetic link between Jesus and His mother...

 

[frozencell]

I'm not the one on a smear campaign here. There are obvious lies in your sources, and you refuse to acknowledge that. Some of the things in your sources were already disproven and shown otherwise earlier, which makes the rest of the source suspect. If I used a source against Baptists and there was one blatant falsity in it, you would be acting the same way. I made my point with the Bible and the sources you used on me. You didn't like it so now you are offering me someone's anti-Catholic opinion and hatred as a source. I don't buy it.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by BalmofGilead:
Just a few more thoughts on Mary...

"She is called Queen" WHERE?

...
Nowhere have I ever read any mention of Mary being royalty, sure she's blessed amongst women...WOMEN...not all of mankind.


The Apostles never prayed to Mary, never gave her special recognition or honor and not one of them even mentions her in all their writings. John, into whose care she was committed never mentions her in his epistles or in the Revelation.

Notice some truths put forth by Mary about herself and her Lord:

"God my Saviour." Mary would not need a Saviour if she were not a sinner!
...

The Bible nowhere refers to her as the mother of God or implies in any way that she was born without sin.

All Good points!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by neal4christ:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Sorry L4H - I did not mean to imply that you would have admitted to all those details of history - I was merely giving you the credit for pointing out the various councils while ALSO adding some of the deleted data that you probobaly just "forgot" to add in.

I am sure none of us would want to miss anything that wonderful RCC was doing in the dark ages you know.

Bob,

You are a real winner and never cease to amaze me. Instead of apologizing and asking for forgiveness, you try to justify your actions and throw in a few jabs at the Catholic Church.
In Christ,
Neal </font>[/QUOTE]Apparently there are some facts stated in the RC documents listed that Neal DID want to "cover up" and he appears to be very upset that the facts associated with the councils have been brought to light.

Neal - history is history. These facts are highlighted by your own historians and by Vatican press accounts quoting RC authorities and scholars.

Apparently these RC sources are not "pleasing to you" -- I regret that you are so upset by seeing them quoted here.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I have a question. When the short summary list of the church councils is posted and RC details are found to associate with each council - instead of "Dealing with the history" -- there are those who simply want to "sidetrack" off the topic of the history of the councils and what the RCC's own scholars are saying about those events of history.

IS it because you view the RCC actions in the dark ages as an embarassment EVEN if it is your own scholars that are being quoted on those subjects?

If so - why would you think that a non-RC message board like this - would join you in "not wanting" to see full disclosure on what the RCC has been saying about those events? How do you get to that assumption?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[neal4christ]

Apparently there are some facts stated in the RC documents listed that Neal DID want to "cover up" and he appears to be very upset that the facts associated with the councils have been brought to light.

Neal - history is history. These facts are highlighted by your own historians and by Vatican press accounts quoting RC authorities and scholars.

Apparently these RC sources are not "pleasing to you" -- I regret that you are so upset by seeing them quoted here.

Bob,

You just don't get it, do you? Is your heart that hard? Are you that obsessed with the Catholic Church? I am not even Catholic and you act like I want to hide things! That has nothing to do with it! You misrepresent others and you don't even repent.....you attack. I DON'T CARE ABOUT WHAT YOU POSTED CONCERNING THE RCC! I care about you sorry attitude and blatant breaking of God's command while at the same time condemning others, doing it all in Christ's name.

In Christ,
Neal

 

[frozencell]

"God my Saviour." Mary would not need a Saviour if she were not a sinner!
...

The Bible nowhere refers to her as the mother of God or implies in any way that she was born without sin.

Actually, Luke 1:43. Sounds like Mother of God to me. I would be interested in your personal interpretation, though.

And Mary is human. She did need a Saviour. God saved her from sin in that He prepared her for carrying Jesus in the womb. She had to be sinless to carry Jesus; a "pre-emptive strike", as it were. No one said she didn't need a Saviour.

Nowhere have I ever read any mention of Mary being royalty, sure she's blessed amongst women...WOMEN...not all of mankind.

you honestly can't believe that she is the most blessed person ever after carrying and giving birth to Jesus as a virgin??? Huh.

"She is called Queen" WHERE?

Please refer to my post a little bit ago about the Queen thing. It's a spiritual family.