Against Those Who Reject Mary as the Mother of God

[BNR32FAN]

Where does it say that they do? What scripture are you standing on?

I said maybe they do hear their prayers maybe they don’t. You are the one making the definitive statement. Not me.

 

[1stcenturylady]

You just said that. Stated and answered.

 

[Philip_B]

483

Or perhaps stated and demonstrated

 

[BNR32FAN]

You just said that.

All I’m saying sister is we should keep an open mind and not condemn others based on our own assumptions on what we think is true. Only when it’s a direct contradiction of the scriptures can we be certain that our debate is backed by solid evidence.

 

[1stcenturylady]

I said maybe they do hear their prayers maybe they don’t. You are the one making the definitive statement. Not me.

Do you believe what the Bible says? I do. But if we don't have the same foundation, then there is nothing to discuss.

Bye.

 

[1stcenturylady]

All I’m saying sister is we should keep an open mind and not condemn others based on our own assumptions on what we think is true. Only when it’s a direct contradiction of the scriptures can we be certain that our debate is backed by solid evidence.

Do you believe in Santa Clause too?

 

[Philip_B]

Do you believe what the Bible says? I do. But if we don't have the same foundation, then there is nothing to discuss.

Bye.

Luke 1:28

 

[1stcenturylady]

Luke 1:28

That is the REAL Mary. Where is she called by a demon's name in scripture? She's not. Scripture is the only authority, otherwise people believe every wind of doctrine, and this one started in the dark ages.

 

[Kenny'sID]

No because you still haven’t addressed the scriptures I sent that clearly state that Jesus is God and the First and Last and people worshipped Jesus. Exodus specifically says do not worship any other gods.

Jesus said give all glory to God so yes He said pray The Lord’s Prayer. Jesus was subordinate to God The Father. That still doesn’t change what is written in John 1:1.

God sent His son yes but what are you basing His separated entities on? Your basing them on the understanding that everyone and everything that has life has a single entity. But God is unlike anything we have ever encountered. We have a very limited understanding of God. We can’t make assumptions that contradict what the Bible plainly says. There is no interpretation needed to understand that the Bible plainly says Jesus is God several times.

The best way I can describe the Trinity is God, Jesus. and the Holy Spirit is one entity with 3 personalities. I struggled with this also but I had to accept what the Bible says is truth.

I see no point in googling for verses that state that Jesus is not God because there aren’t any. The only thing I would find is people making their own assumptions based on our extremely limited knowledge of God and disregarding what the Bible explicitly says.

God bless you brother Kenny. Please don’t confuse my disagreement with hostility or anger. It is not my intention. I’m focused on unity in Christianity and sharing information to test my own beliefs and further my understanding of God’s Word. I welcome disagreements with my beliefs but I must have difinitive proof that does not contradict the scriptures to change my beliefs. Have a blessed day brother.

No hostility here either, I just know where this is going to end up...in complete disagreement or worse..

I'm well aware they are just alike, if you have seen the father, you have seen the son, I just don't buy that they are the same entity. You say we don't know Gods limits, so they create some oddball ideas about him, and say it must be true because we don't know Gods limits.

I just don't get the same over all idea as some do, and I think the idea that is out there is man made, not biblical, and people put far far to much necessity into believing it.

They say "You either believe this outrageous/strange claim that even we can't explain or you aren't a Christian"...it becomes rather laughable after awhile.

I will believe no such thing, and there is absolutely nothing biblical telling me I have to...only men.

I'll be leaving it with you while this is still somewhat within the bounds of amicable.

 

[Philip_B]

That is the REAL Mary. Where is she called by a demon's name in scripture? She's not. Scripture is the only authority, otherwise people believe every wind of doctrine.

And surely it was guarding against every wind of doctrine that brought about the Council of Ephesus in 431, and the formal understanding that the title that should be ascribed to Mary (yes the Real Mary) was Theotokos because that adequately described her role in bringing to birth the eternal logos in our world in flesh and blood, the Man Jesus, Saviour and Redeemer of humankind, and the purpose of that title was to ensure that we understood the uniqueness of the person of Jesus in this plan of salvation conceived at depth in the love God has for his creation despite the fact that we had gone astray. I know you get that and you said as much when you entered into the thread and couple of hundred posts back.

A lot of what you have been posting might be seen as simply anti-catholic, though in reality what you post against is anti-fake-catholic, because the catholic faith embraces the Nicene Creed (which is a test on this site being the statement of faith), the Holy Scriptures both Old and New Testament (with some minor canonical variances to some of the reformed traditions), The sacraments of the Lord - Baptism and Eucharist well attested to in Holy Scripture, and a faithful connection to Jesus as expressed in a commitment to the Historic Episcopate amongst other things, and we all pray the prayer that Jesus taught us.

I think we need to hear what catholics say, and on this subject I was particularly impressed with the posts here from @thecolorsblend who seemed to have a fairly firm understanding if the issues. As we are approach the 500th post in this thread I realize that it has become a long read, however there is quite a bit of value to review here, except for a few places where the thread has lost its way.

 

[dzheremi]

If someone believes something unscriptural, then I can say that is wrong. It doesn't take a genius to know I'm not speaking on my own authority, but on the Word of God.

"Something unscriptural" like claiming that scripture is the only authority, as you yourself did in post #489? Because scripture calls the Church -- not itself -- the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15), and scripture commands us to hold to both written and oral traditions (2 Thessalonians 2:15), and scripture even admits its own limitations in conveying everything that our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ did (John 21:25),

Therefore, following scripture, we can say that scripture neither contains nor is even meant to contain absolutely everything pertaining to the faith, though of course what is accepted outside of it will vary according to which particular communion you're looking at. Keep in mind, however, that the earliest evidence we have for the now-standard 27 book NT canon does not predate 367 AD (when it was set down in the 39th festal letter of our father HH St. Athanasius the Apostolic, the twentieth Pope of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria), so unless you are meaning to argue that Christianity as a religion somehow had no sources of authority prior to that year, the argument that we all just look to the text of the Bible for the answer to everything we need to know cannot be sustained, because before that time (and even until today, to the extent that the canon will vary according to whether one is Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox) there would have been no commonly-held agreement on what "the Bible" even contains.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I was once sent by God to cleanse an office in Beverly Hills of three witches who all had familiar spirits they swore were dead people giving them advice. One came in the FORM of the dead father of a girl. Another came in the FORM of a dead friend blown up in Vietnam. And the head witch had three. All of these were duped into believing what ever the spirit said. The demonic spirit in the FORM of the dead mother of Jesus has duped many for centuries. These apparitions of "Mary" or "The Lady" even asks the people it appears to to "worship her."

Out of pure curiosity: Which of the twelve Marian apparitions recognized by the Roman Catholic Church told people to worship her?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

That is the REAL Mary. Where is she called by a demon's name in scripture? She's not. Scripture is the only authority, otherwise people believe every wind of doctrine, and this one started in the dark ages.

Nobody calls Mary by a "demon's name". If you are going to make things up to justify your argument, then you have a bad argument.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Historically the Chinese emperors were known as Tianzi, "Son of Heaven" or "Son of God". By the logic that "queen of heaven" was a title for a Pagan Canaanite goddess, and that therefore those who refer to Mary as "queen of heaven" are worshiping a Pagan Canaanite goddess; then we who call Jesus the Son of God are, in fact, worshiping the emperor of China.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[thecolorsblend]

Scripture is the only authority, otherwise people believe every wind of doctrine,

Having access to the scriptures hasn't stopped you from believing ill-conceived doctrines like "sola scriptura".

and this one started in the dark ages.

Veneration of Our Lady goes back farther than that.

 

[1stcenturylady]

And surely it was guarding against every wind of doctrine that brought about the Council of Ephesus in 431, and the formal understanding that the title that should be ascribed to Mary (yes the Real Mary) was Theotokos because that adequately described her role in bringing to birth the eternal logos in our world in flesh and blood, the Man Jesus, Saviour and Redeemer of humankind, and the purpose of that title was to ensure that we understood the uniqueness of the person of Jesus in this plan of salvation conceived at depth in the love God has for his creation despite the fact that we had gone astray. I know you get that and you said as much when you entered into the thread and couple of hundred posts back.

A lot of what you have been posting might be seen as simply anti-catholic, though in reality what you post against is anti-fake-catholic, because the catholic faith embraces the Nicene Creed (which is a test on this site being the statement of faith), the Holy Scriptures both Old and New Testament (with some minor canonical variances to some of the reformed traditions), The sacraments of the Lord - Baptism and Eucharist well attested to in Holy Scripture, and a faithful connection to Jesus as expressed in a commitment to the Historic Episcopate amongst other things, and we all pray the prayer that Jesus taught us.

I think we need to hear what catholics say, and on this subject I was particularly impressed with the posts here from @thecolorsblend who seemed to have a fairly firm understanding if the issues. As we are approach the 500th post in this thread I realize that it has become a long read, however there is quite a bit of value to review here, except for a few places where the thread has lost its way.

I didn't know that Anglicans prayed to Mary too. Wow, you learn something new everyday on these forums.

 

[1stcenturylady]

Veneration of Our Lady goes back farther than that.

Where?

 

[1stcenturylady]

"Something unscriptural" like claiming that scripture is the only authority, as you yourself did in post #489? Because scripture calls the Church -- not itself -- the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15), and scripture commands us to hold to both written and oral traditions (2 Thessalonians 2:15), and scripture even admits its own limitations in conveying everything that our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ did (John 21:25),

Therefore, following scripture, we can say that scripture neither contains nor is even meant to contain absolutely everything pertaining to the faith, though of course what is accepted outside of it will vary according to which particular communion you're looking at. Keep in mind, however, that the earliest evidence we have for the now-standard 27 book NT canon does not predate 367 AD (when it was set down in the 39th festal letter of our father HH St. Athanasius the Apostolic, the twentieth Pope of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria), so unless you are meaning to argue that Christianity as a religion somehow had no sources of authority prior to that year, the argument that we all just look to the text of the Bible for the answer to everything we need to know cannot be sustained, because before that time (and even until today, to the extent that the canon will vary according to whether one is Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox) there would have been no commonly-held agreement on what "the Bible" even contains.

Wow! Do Lutherans pray to Mary too?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Where?

Sola scriptura was instituted as a result of the RCC’s actions during that time period. The teachings of the church were getting far away from biblical teachings. The idea behind sola scriptura was to go back to the fundamental teachings of the Bible. The idea was good but not perfect.

 

[1stcenturylady]

Sola scriptura was instituted as a result of the RCC’s actions during that time period. The teachings of the church were getting far away from biblical teachings. The idea behind sola scriptura was to go back to the fundamental teachings of the Bible. The idea was good but not perfect.

I asked you "where" did the "veneration of Mary" start.