A Marian Challenge!

I think that coming to a point where a Protestant learns to understand and tentatively begin to try Marian devotion can be a journey. Different Protestant churches teach different things about Mary, but most would not seek her help, mercy, intercession, or graces in direct petition. Most would not likely feel comfortable with things like the Litany of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Beginning to understand that Marian veneration pre-dates Nicaea, is in fact very ancient, and is an integral part of Apostolic, pre-Reformation Christianity can take a very, very long time. Just saying, it's a journey that others have gone on.

JesusLovesOurLady said:

I wasn't trying to refute the fact that Christians in a state of grace being a temple of God, as I thought I made clear in my original post.
I was merely showing that there is a difference, between Christians and Christ being a Temple of God, Christians and Mary being a Temple of God and yes, also Mary and Christ being a Temple of God.

Click to expand...

The way you structured it and called it an objection and how you tried to refute the other objections you listed made it seem like were trying to refute it.

The Two Blood types are AB and O, none of which belong to the visionary of Akita, and so cannot be a hoax,

Click to expand...

Who is the visionary of Akita? From what I've read it is chapel where nuns live so it still has the possiblity of being a hoax.

and even if it was, fetal microchemerism is still an established scientific fact Mary had Jesus blood with Jesus' DNA in her, her entire life, which is eternal, but that's a whole other topic for another time. We know that AB is Jesus' blood type, as it is the same blood type that appears in all the Church-approved bleeding Host Miracles, and in the shroud of Turin, O is presumably Mary's blood type.

Click to expand...

I'm skeptical of those miracles and the shroud of Turin, but that's a different topic.

Also you imply that because Mary no longer has Jesus in her womb, she must not be the special anymore.

Click to expand...

I never implied that. I simply said Mary no longer has Jesus in her womb. I don't know how you got that from what I said.

This and the whole Protestant view that Mary's only purpose is to carry Jesus in her womb and after that she isn't important anymore,

Click to expand...

I don't think I've heard any protestant say that was Mary's only purpose.
It may be some protestants view but it is not the whole protestant view as you claim.

brings forth a rotten fruit in Protestantism, I won't say what it is, unless you press me but it's a rotten fruit that greatly effects the Western World today.

Click to expand...

What is the rotten fruit of protestantism?

Really? I haven't seen any reference among the early Church Fathers that the Woman in Revelations 12 is Israel, unless you mean the New Israel.

Click to expand...

No I mean Isreal. The sun, moon, and twelve stars are a clear reference to the Joseph's dream in Genesis 37:9. The eleven stars being Joseph's eleven brothers which make up eleven tribes of Isreal, Joseph being the twelfth tribe so he is the twelfth star in Revelation.

Also the Old Testament refers to Isreal as giving birth.

Like as a woman with child, that draweth near the time of her delivery, is in pain, and crieth out in her pangs; so have we been in thy sight, O Lord. Isaiah 26:17

Now why dost thou cry out aloud? is there no king in thee? is thy counsellor perished? for pangs have taken thee as a woman in travail.
Be in pain, and labour to bring forth, O daughter of Zion, like a woman in travail: for now shalt thou go forth out of the city, and thou shalt dwell in the field, and thou shalt go even to Babylon; there shalt thou be delivered; there the Lord shall redeem thee from the hand of thine enemies. Micah 4:9-10

Most of the early Church Fathers, interpret the Woman in Revelations 12 is the Catholic Church, not because they didn't believe that the Woman was Mary but because being the Woman Revelation 12 was OBVIOUS to them and everyone back than knew,

Click to expand...

Most, meaning not all, meaning if it was obvious all of the early church fathers would have interpreted the woman in Revelation 12 as the Catholic church.

after all shouldn't you be taking the Bible more literally then us Catholics.

Click to expand...

I don't see why I should. Catholics seem to take things more literally than protestants. They think Jesus is speaking literally when talking about the bread and wine being His body and blood, and that the woman of Revelation is a literal woman.

As Garcia Singh pointed out earlier that Mary was special (In fact, apart form her Son, no one ever has or ever will be special).

Click to expand...

Special is subjective. A lot of people would disagree that Jesus and Mary were the only special ones. Maybe not special in the same ways or the same level but still special.

The Church decided to dig deeper and try to figure out what Mary symbolized in Revelation 12, and they came to conclusion that Mary symbolized her daughter; the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church!

Click to expand...

Wait, this makes no sense. If the woman in Revelation 12 is the Catholic church and Mary is her daughter
then Mary can't be the woman of Revelation.
And where is this daughter you speak of mentioned in Revelation?

This reinforces devotion to Mary since we can draw from the Church Fathers that as many have before me, that in order to truly love God we must imitate Our Blessed Mother.

Click to expand...

This is not true, you can truly love God without imatating another human. This is similar to some who claim you are not really saved unless you speak in tounges.

In the binding of Isaac, throughout most of that episode Isaac does clearly foreshadow Christ, carrying his wood up the mountain, as Christ carried His cross. But at the top of the mountain, all of sudden we see a Ram caught in bramble thorns which is sacrificed instead, this Ram, clearly foreshadowed Christ the King crowned with thorns being sacrificed on the Cross, so there is jumping back and forth on in the Binding of Isaac, Isaac does not stay consistently a type of Christ (By the way, Abraham is a foreshadowing of Our Lady of Sorrows, but that's another topic another time).

Click to expand...

Jesus is called the Lamb of God not the Ram of God. Abraham and Issac thought that God would provide a lamb (Genesis 22:7-8) but God provided ram instead when He could have easily provided a lamb.

Here are some parallels Between Issac and Jesus:

Both had a miraculous conception
The father leads his son to be sacrificed
Both accompanied by two men
They leave their “homeland” to go to the place of sacrifice (Abraham & Isaac travel to the mountain, Jesus leaves heaven to come to earth).
Each son is the “one and only son” of his father.
Both sons are descendants of Abraham.
The son carried the wood/cross to the place of sacrifice.
Both had a 3-day experience

As you can see no jumping from person to person. No being Issac but then quoting Abraham, the servants or anyone else. No conveniently changing person to suit the narrative.

Also there is significant and symbolic pattern in the jumping and forth in the Visitation which I'll get to later if I have the time, I've gotta go now.

Click to expand...

I would really like to know what the significant and symbolic pattern is.

JesusLovesOurLady said:

I'm Back! I'll start by continuing with Mary as being the Woman from Revelations 12. First I didn't touch on how Revelations 11 fits into this, I will now, because that's where it states that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant. First, chapters and verses weren't introduced until the Middle Ages, you know, the HEIGHT of Catholicism! So you should be even more skeptical of of chapter distinctions then we are, if your going object to the Ark in Revelations 11 being the Woman in Revelations 12,

Click to expand...

I already knew that and took it into consideration.

you better come up something very strong for this.

Click to expand...

I already posted explanation why it isn't Mary in my last post but I'll add some more.

The sun, moon and stars are a reference to Joseph's dream in Genesis 37:9 and Isreal is described as being like a woman in birth pains.

Also some Catholics don't believe Mary experienced birth pains, so this goes against Mary being the woman in Revelation.

Also Mary remaind a virgin her whole life and had no other children according to the church yet Revelation talks about "the rest of her offspring". So it can't be Mary.

There are four symbolic women in Revelation. The woman, Jezebel, the scarlet women and the bride in Revelation 19.
The Church is never described as a wife but as "the bride" A bride doesn't become a wife until after she is married. Isreal however is described as a wife.

For thy Maker is thine husband; the Lord of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall he be called.. Isaiah 54:5

So the women of Revelation 12 and Revelation 19 cannot be the same. The woman of Revelation 12 is Israel.

Revelation 11:19 talks about flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake and a severe hailstorm. The sun, moon and stars don't usually appear when there is lightning, thunder and severe hailstorm, but this is a vision so this argument is not as good as my others.

Now in regards to the Woman in Revelations 12, the verse explicitly states that the Son she gave birth to will "rule all the nations with a rod of iron..." earlier in Revelations 2:27 and later in Revelations 19:15 it is explicitly stated that Christ is the One who rules with a rod of Iron. Who gives birth to Christ? Mary does!

Click to expand...

Like I said, Israel is described as a woman giving birth. The Messiah came out of Isreal.
Your church says the woman is the church but that would make no sense since the church did not come into existence until Acts after Jesus' ascension. The Church did not give birth to Jesus.

Yes the Church Fathers built off that and applied Mary's mystical daughter the Church in Revelations 12, but you can't ignore the bedrock off which that is built. And if you are going to reject my argument that all the Church Fathers knew it was Mary, and didn't feel need to explain it, than how do you explain the fact that the first three Gospels don't emphasize Christ's Divinity!?! Yes it's there, you can easily find references to Christ's Divinity in the first three Gospels, but it's not explicit, why? Because just as the early Church Fathers didn't feel the need to state that the Woman of Revelations 12 is first, and foremost Mary, so did the authors of the first three Gospels, not feel the need to spell it out that Jesus is Divine, their audiences already know that Jesus is the Son of God! It's only later when Cerinthus, a disciple of Saint John goes heretical on Christ's Divinity, does St. John feel the need to write his Gospel and set the record straight on Christ as the Eternal Word.

Click to expand...

I disagree. It is explicit.

Do you have any evidence for your claim that it was because they felt no need to spell it out that they did not say the woman was Mary?

Also just as quick additional critique to your view of the Woman as Israel. If the Woman is Israel, why isn't she like, rejecting her child or sacrificing Him? The old Israel rejected it's Messiah, and I've already established how how the child is the Messiah the Son of the Living God. So the view of the Woman as Israel doesn't work for this, and a few other reasons, but I'll let you make your defense first, if you want to stick with this.

Click to expand...

Because the nation of Israel as a whole did not ask for Jesus to be crucified neither did they reject Him as a whole. The Gospel was given to the jews first, then the gentiles. There were jews that believed. Jesus and the woman are seperated which parallels Jesus relationship with Israel exactly.

Could you please tell me when was Mary given wings like an eagle and fly into the wilderness away from the serpent?

When did the serpent try to carry Mary away with a flood?

How did the serpent try too make war with her other offspring since Mary had no other children according to the church?

There are a great many things that protestant miss in marian doctrines and scripture.

I will just point out a couple of many to prove a point:

1/ In the original of revelation, it didnt have chapters as it does today.

So the woman of revelations 12, immediately follows the sighting of the "ark of the covenant" in the last verse of chapter 11, so by linguistic convention , revelations 12 IS further reference to the ark of the covenant and indeed Mary IS the ark of the new covenant!

2/ also on the usage of words in ancient language... the word "woman" used, in revelations 12 is the same word used in Genesis and the messianic prophecies, the same in the "woman" of the miracle of Cana, the same words as "woman" at the foot of the cross.
the same word "woman" as revelations 12. There are multiple types at play in various sections of bible, but one of them is clearly Mary as the ark of new covenant in revelations 12 . Her obedience triumphs over the disobedience of the first Eve.

3/ And we know this is Mary because it is stated that the woman "gave birth to a male child" who will "rule the nations with an iron sceptre" - a direct reference back to the messianic prophecy of Isaiah, so clearly that child is Jesus. So the woman is Mary.

4/ We also see later her "spiritual offspring" are those that follow the commandments of Christ, so we know Mary has far greater role than just that of contemporary mother. We see this also in the miracle at Cana "woman what have you to do with me now, my time has not yet come" clearly heralding greater role once his time has come.

5/ But we also see that role heralded in Solomons kingdom, where the "queen" was mother not spouse of a king, given a throne, to whom the king bowed, and said he would do whatever she requested. Jesus did his level best to show his davidic roots because he knew jews would look for meaning there, and that clearly heralds a role of intercessor for Mary, which also justifies the honorary title of "queen" which she is as mother of a davidic king, Jesus' kingdom is heaven, so she is queen of heaven in davidic terms. But then the fathers of the councils, take Ephraim at nicaea, which councils decided both creed and new testament were vociferous in veneration of mary AND her power of intercession.

I can only urge all to read books such as "Behold your mother" by staples, to see how the doctrines and dogmas of mary are clearly heralded by scripture.

As for someone asking "what is the rotten fruit of protestantism"- that is easy. It is the rotten fruit of the false and provably anti scriptural man made tradition that is sola scriptura, where all interpret the bible without authority or history, and so protestants have a myriad of mutually exclusive interpretations of every important doctrine, from eucharist, to baptism, to salvation, to moral issues, the list is actually endless on what protestants disagree on. The rotten fruit is 10000 schisms or more. A "house divided that cannot stand" All the rotten fruit of losing the scriptural referenced authority of "the foundation of truth is the church" with the power to "Bind and loose" vested in apostolic succession, not every Tom Dick and Harry who want to interpret the bible THEIR way. Creating denominantions in the image of Tom Dick and Harry, not the image of christ.

Sad , but true.

Peace be with you.

JesusLovesOurLady said:

By the way, what are your beliefs?

Click to expand...

I believe you to be a generous person to offer Our Lady of Mercy to those in need of Her Love.

I feel great pity and sadness to see this world as it currently is.

I am actually quite shock to see state sanctioned abortions so prevalent in so many countries that used to be the bed rock of Christianity.

I believe that Light will Prevail over the Darkness by God's Will.

That there's no greater Love than to give one's life for one's friends.

JesusLovesOurLady said:

You say you our for Our Blessed Mother, and you seemed to be well versed and Catholic tradition and devotions, yet you identify yourself as "Christian." I mean it's true that Catholics are 100% Christian, but are you Catholic? If so, why label yourself as "Christian?" If not, what's holding you back?

Click to expand...

I come from the Lineage of Christ, that is why the term Christian is used. It's like a surname. A descendent of Christ by faith. People of the Christ. Also the term "Christian" predates the term "Catholic". I consider Catholicism to be a subset of Christianity. There are many branches in Christianity, some filled with Grace, Truth, Virtue, Love and Mercy and others filled with sin, decay, falsehood, death and rotten corruption.

"Christian" - Follower of Jesus Christ - I have to embrace the Blessed Virgin Mary as my Mother because I am a copy cat and copy Jesus Christ in virtually everything from thoughts, to words, to acts through the Word of God through the Holy Spirit.

I encourage you to keep on posting those long Blessed Prayers. They make good reading. I never get bored reading those prayers however long they are. They are like music.

And also to make known the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Mother of God and of all His Loving Children to all the branches of Christianity who live in ignorance of Her. She will enrich their souls and their lives with the Light and Love of Jesus Christ.

May the Blessed Virgin Mary bless you Richly with Great Faith and Endless Graces from the Fountain of Eternal Mercy, the Holy and Blessed Trinity. Amen.

JesusLovesOurLady said:

With all do respect, your comment just reinforces the reason why one should honour and revere Mary! You dismiss my devotion as no big deal, and than nonchalantly accuse me of idolatry! Idolatry is serious sin! the Lord makes it clear in the Old Testament that idolatry is gravely offensive and yet you fling it around as no big deal, just something to mock people over. I'm not judging your soul, but this comment has very, disturbing implication about your relationship with God.

Also if your going to use fallacious accusation against Catholics, for which you have given no evidene to support your accusation, at least be consistent and accuse the ancient Israelites idolatry for revering the Ark.

Click to expand...

Oh good Heavens, if I wanted to accuse you of idolatry I'd have just said so. But you are the one praying to the creation, not me, so ask yourself why me pointing it out offends you so much. Introspection is important.

Also, the Israelites revered the Ark, but they sure as heck never prayed to it. God was very clear about that kind of thing, so you may wish to reassess your analogy a bit.

And I thank you for your concern(?), but my relationship with God is awesome. Life is a beautiful thing. Have a blessed day.

Gracia Singh said:

I think that coming to a point where a Protestant learns to understand and tentatively begin to try Marian devotion can be a journey. Different Protestant churches teach different things about Mary, but most would not seek her help, mercy, intercession, or graces in direct petition. Most would not likely feel comfortable with things like the Litany of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Beginning to understand that Marian veneration pre-dates Nicaea, is in fact very ancient, and is an integral part of Apostolic, pre-Reformation Christianity can take a very, very long time. Just saying, it's a journey that others have gone on.

Click to expand...

I would think that if a Protestant ever begins Marian devotion, that would be the day they'd cease being a Protestant.

Personally, I don't see her as anything more at the moment than any other dead believer.

JesusLovesOurLady said:

I honestly believe that the biggest problem in the world today, is that too few people want to be saints, saints are a key part of the answer (The whole, being God Himself) to all the problems in the world today.

Click to expand...

Do you believe Christians are made saints in baptism?

I'm not a Protestant, I'm an "evangelical catholic", which means I have no bone to pick with you and your choice of devotion. There's nothing wrong with piety, and I don't deny that there have been Roman Catholics that have lead pious lives worthy of respect.

JesusLovesOurLady said:

The rotten fruit I'm speaking of stems specifically from the irreverence Protestants have for Mary. It's not explicit but extremely implicit, I've many stories from Catholic converts who were once Protestant preachers, giving a sermon or two on Mary and then being treated with extreme suspicion afterwards.
Protestants, implicitly, if not explicitly treat Mary is this nice wrapping paper that Jesus comes in and afterwards, can be thrown away. Well this leads to the disrespect in mistreatment of women, women are treated either as baby-popping machines, which in turn leads to that cruel, child-hating, inferiority-complex movement, that Our Lord predicted in Luke 23:27-31, perhaps one of the most chilling passages in the New Testament:

"27 And there followed him a great multitude of people, and of women, who bewailed and lamented him.

28 But Jesus turning to them, said: Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not over me; but weep for yourselves, and for your children.

29 For behold, the days shall come, wherein they will say: Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that have not borne, and the paps that have not given suck.

30 Then shall they begin to say to the mountains: Fall upon us; and to the hills: Cover us.

31 For if in the green wood they do these things, what shall be done in the dry?" (Douay-Rheims Version)

The other side of that is the abominable Porn industry, the Protestant view objectifies Our Lady, and objectifying the New Eve naturally leads to the objectifying of the of all women. This is the rotten fruit, or fruits I guess, that I'm talking about with Protestantism's treatment of Mary.

Click to expand...

So in your opinion, people refusing to pray to Mary leads to misogyny, the breakdown of the family structure, and the rise of pornography? Well, that's a fine example of hyperbole.