Why worship Mary?

Eloy Craft said:

Do you know we are talking about Eve now? the mother of all the living. She is an archetype...The jewish culture was very aware of that.

Click to expand...

regardless. A woman brings forth men by natural conception.

The Times said:

regardless. A woman brings forth men by natural conception.

Click to expand...

Except for Jesus' conception. That's the topic right?

Eloy Craft said:

Do you read posts to you that give sound argument to your accusations?

Click to expand...

Sound arguments like God told OT Israel to create images to “replace” Him? Sorry, that is not a “sound argument”. He did no such thing.

Eloy Craft said:

It seems to me no matter how well reasoned are the explanations that counter your accusation of idolatry, and lets not mince words, you accuse me of idolatry,

Click to expand...

Actually, I have not accused you of idolatry. I have only referred to the practice itself and have never once said you personally do any such thing.

Eloy Craft said:

no matter how soundly your accusation is opposed you are unable to directly address the reasoning and cling to your straw man. You understand much less thanyou give yourself credit for.

Click to expand...

Again, no sound argument, from Scripture, has been presented to support bowing down to images, icons or statues of “Mary.”

Perhaps I understand far more than you would like to believe I do.

Eloy Craft said:

His Resurrected Body still has the wounds of the cross. Are they just imitations or are they the real wounds? Same body.

Click to expand...

They are the very wounds by which we are healed.

Eloy Craft said:

You project modern thinking intothe past. If it were offensive would Jesus call His mother that? Ok scrap the second line. But you are an either /or thinker and mysteries are solved by both/ and thinking. Considering the Virgin birth I would say it would be an offense for Jesus to call His mother woman according to the married woman definition.

Click to expand...

Jesus would not call Mary Woman, unless she has married, meaning has been with a man. To call a female a woman, when she has no sexual marital affiliation with a husband is offensive.

How befitting that Jesus calls her woman in a wedding feast and he refers to his own spiritual marriage as the bridegroom of his Church.

amariselle said:

Sound arguments like God told OT Israel to create images to “replace” Him? Sorry, that is not a “sound argument”. He did no such thing.

Click to expand...

You should read more carefully.

amariselle said:

ctually, I have not accused you of idolatry. I have only referred to the practice itself and have never once said you personally do any such thing.

Click to expand...

You accuse my Church of practicing idolatry.

amariselle said:

Again, no sound argument, from Scripture, has been presented to support bowing down to images, icons or statues of “Mary.”

Perhaps I understand far more than you would like to believe I do.

Click to expand...

again, you should read more carefully.

amariselle said:

They are the very wounds by which we are healed.

Click to expand...

No argument there. But then that wasn't the argument. You claimed that the Resurrection body wasn't the same body as the one He was born with.

As a general point on how to read texts, I think what John Piper says here is very incisive...

Eloy Craft said:

Except for Jesus' conception. That's the topic right?

Click to expand...

Mary would not be called woman for Jesus miraculous conception, because the term implies sexual union, resulting in natural conception.

Please answer the question quickly.....

Does miraculous conception make Mary a woman from a girl, within the Jewish context of culture?

You will find a girl becomes a woman after sexually consummated in marriage, irrespective if a child results.

amariselle said:

I did not once say any of you “in this discussion” worships Mary, now did I?

Click to expand...

So you are telling Catholics what we believe (we worship Mary), despite our not believing it, despite our saying we don't believe it, because somewhere somewhen some hypothetical person or persons went a bit too far and did something that to you looks like worshiping Mary. Despite rather clear and accessible Catholic teaching in the Catechism among other places that we do not worship Mary.

If you want to remind Catholics that we ought not worship Mary as some sort of precaution for such hypothetical people, then fine. Refer them to official Catholic teaching that Mary ought not be worshiped. But it comes off that you have an animus towards us all, and you want to attack our (us Catholics) common faith so we can all become Protesters like you.

Your position against Mary as the Mother of God is a serious misunderstanding that leads to a heretical conclusion that Jesus is not God. Most Protestants get it that for Jesus to be God, and be born of a human mother, that mother gave birth to God. It's a necessary conclusion, a simple bit of logic. You misunderstand, however accidentally or on purpose, that we are talking about Mary before all time birthing the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. You are again telling us what we believe, despite our not believing it, despite our saying we don't believe it, where nowhere in Catholic history has anyone ever thought that, nor does our teaching even allow for it.

I have to ask whether you have a bitterness towards the Catholic Church, or towards some Catholics in your life? Something that needs resolution totally outside of this particular discussion?

Eloy Craft said:

You should read more carefully.

Click to expand...

Oh I read it.

Eloy Craft said:

You accuse my Church of practicing idolatry.

Click to expand...

I am permitted to have my own beliefs about such a practice and to express them. And I also explained why I believe as I do, from Scripture. There has been no argument presented that explains how bowing down to statues, images, icons or shrines of Mary is not what God condemns in His inspired word.

Eloy Craft said:

again, you should read more carefully.

Click to expand...

Again, I have. I definitely read what you posted.

Eloy Craft said:

No argument there. But then that wasn't the argument. You claimed that the Resurrection body wasn't the same body as the one He was born with.

Click to expand...

What I said was His resurrection body is no longer mortal or perishable. It is incorruptible, immortal and imperishable. He is the “First Fruits” of the resurrection. What about that do you disagree with exactly?

chevyontheriver said:

So you are telling Catholics what we believe (we worship Mary), despite our not believing it, despite our saying we don't believe it, because somewhere somewhen some hypothetical person or persons went a bit too far and did something that to you looks like worshiping Mary. Despite rather clear and accessible Catholic teaching in the Catechism among other places that we do not worship Mary.

Click to expand...

I have been addressing the actual Catholic practice and prayers offered to Mary. I am permitted to do so and to disagree with them and I have shown, from Scripture, why I do so.

That is my firm belief and I am free to have it. As you are free to have yours.

chevyontheriver said:

If you want to remind Catholics that we ought not worship Mary as some sort of precaution for such hypothetical people, then fine. Refer them to official Catholic teaching that Mary ought not be worshiped. But it comes off that you have an animus towards us all, and you want to attack our (us Catholics) common faith so we can all become Protesters like you.

Click to expand...

Again, since you seem to have failed to notice, I actually referred to Catholic prayers and practices, not “Protestant” sources.

chevyontheriver said:

Your position against Mary as the Mother of God is a serious misunderstanding that leads to a heretical conclusion that Jesus is not God.

Click to expand...

False. And I have no “position against Mary”. I give her all of the honour and distinction Scripture gives her and not a bit more. Many Catholics believe this equals hating and insulting her, it does not. We always do well to firmly adhere to the inspired word of God and refrain from going beyond it.

chevyontheriver said:

Most Protestants get it that for Jesus to be God, and be born of a human mother, that mother gave birth to God. It's a necessary conclusion, a simple bit of logic. You misunderstand, however accidentally or on purpose, that we are talking about Mary before all time birthing the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. You are again telling us what we believe, despite our not believing it, despite our saying we don't believe it, where nowhere in Catholic history has anyone ever thought that, nor does our teaching even allow for it.

Click to expand...

Right, God has no mother. So we can agree then.

chevyontheriver said:

I have to ask whether you have a bitterness towards the Catholic Church, or towards some Catholics in your life? Something that needs resolution totally outside of this particular discussion?

Click to expand...

Nope. No bitterness. A common accusation. I love Catholics.

The Times said:

Mary would not be called woman for Jesus miraculous conception, because the term implies sexual union, resulting in natural conception.

Click to expand...

Just sexual union eh? Ishshah wasn't a word used to mean sexual union. That word became the name of the woman we call Eve. But her name became woman because she was mother of all the living.

The Times said:

Does miraculous conception make Mary a woman from a girl, within the Jewish context of culture?

Click to expand...

No. Jesus said and did very little in the context of the Jewish culture of His time. He was establishing a new and radical culture. Jesus' use of the word would have that context not necessarily the ontxt of the culture at the time.

amariselle said:

What I said was His resurrection body is no longer mortal or perishable. It is incorruptible, immortal and imperishable. He is the “First Fruits” of the resurrection. What about that do you disagree with exactly?

Click to expand...

This was the question:

The Person who was in the womb of Mary, is this the same person who sits at the right hand of the Father in heaven now?

This was your answer:

As God, absolutely. He always was and always will be. From everlasting to everlasting. In terms of His body? No. He was raised incorruptible, no longer does He have a mortal, perishable body, just as one day we will also receive our immortal, incorruptible, imperishable bodies. He is the “first fruits” and the very hope of the resurrection.

All that you reposted were reasons you used to argue that they were not the same body. The part you didn't repost was the substance of your post. Oy Vey! Apparently you even need to read what you post more carefully.

Eloy said
The Person who was in the womb of Mary, is this the same person who sits at the right hand of the Father in heaven now?

Your answer:

In terms of His body? No.


So many things wrong with that. Human nature=body and soul.= person

amariselle said:

I am permitted to have my own beliefs about such a practice and to express them.

Click to expand...

If I say the faith that you practice is idolatry, am I calling you an idolater? Of course I am. C'mon, you mince words endlessly in this discussion. Just because you won't admit it doesn't change that fact.

Eloy Craft said:

This was the question:

The Person who was in the womb of Mary, is this the same person who sits at the right hand of the Father in heaven now?

This was your answer:

As God, absolutely. He always was and always will be. From everlasting to everlasting. In terms of His body? No. He was raised incorruptible, no longer does He have a mortal, perishable body, just as one day we will also receive our immortal, incorruptible, imperishable bodies. He is the “first fruits” and the very hope of the resurrection.

All that you reposted were reasons you used to argue that they were not the same body. The part you didn't repost was the substance of your post. Oy Vey! Apparently you even need to read what you post more carefully.

Eloy said
The Person who was in the womb of Mary, is this the same person who sits at the right hand of the Father in heaven now?

Your answer:

In terms of His body? No.


So many things wrong with that. Human nature=body and soul.= person

Click to expand...

So, you don’t believe His body is no longer mortal? You don’t believe He was raised incorruptible, immortal and imperishable?

Eloy Craft said:

If I say the faith that you practice is idolatry, am I calling you an idolater? Of course I am. C'mon, you mince words endlessly in this discussion. Just because you won't admit it doesn't change that fact.

Click to expand...

You are free to speak of any practices or traditions as you choose and to support them with Scripture as I have done.

What is not permitted is to personally address anyone here and call them an “idolator.” And I have not done so.

amariselle said:

So, you don’t believe His body is no longer mortal? You don’t believe He was raised incorruptible, immortal and imperishable?

Click to expand...

You habitually create straw man arguments. I believe it is the same body that was Him during His earthly life. You said it wasn't. I think Paul said and I paraphrase; This tent must put on incorruption" Not another tent but 'this' tent.

amariselle said:

What is not permitted is to personally address anyone here and call them an “idolator.” And I have not done so.

Click to expand...

Logical fallicy: appeal to authority.

Didn't Jesus have siblings?!

Red Sky at Morning said:

Didn't Jesus have siblings?!

Click to expand...

If He did He didn't fulfill the Law when He put His mother in the care of someone who was not of her blood.