Is this statement about Mary blasphemous?

[shinbits]

The Church on Mary's Mediation

3) Leo XIII, Encyclical, Octobri mense adventante, Sept 22, 1891, ASS 24, 1891, 196.
"... just as no one can come to the Father except through the Son, so in general, no one can come to Christ except through His Mother."


Jesus said in John 6:44:

"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him..."

So wouldn't stating that we can't come to Christ except through Mary be blasphemous, since this statement puts her in the role of God?

And doesn't putting her in this role (that we MUST go through Mary) give her a godlike status, making her an idol?

Remember this? You know, the post none of you Catholics (or supporters of their Mary doctrine) have been unable to refute? You know, the post that instead of attempting to adress, resorted instead to ad-hominems and thread-derailment?

This proves my point. The fact that RC's (or other supporters of their doctrine) have irrefutable proof that their doctrines about Mary aren't just "veneration", but blasphemous idol worship...yet refuse to give up their erroneous ways....even though they have NO rational defense for what they believe.

Tsk, tsk.

 

[laconicstudent]

Remember this? You know, the post none of you Catholics (or supporters of their Mary doctrine) have been unable to refute? You know, the post that instead of attempting to adress, resorted instead to ad-hominems and thread-derailment?

This proves my point. The fact that RC's (or other supporters of their doctrine) have irrefutable proof that their doctrines about Mary aren't just "veneration", but blasphemous idol worship...yet refuse to give up their erroneous ways....even though they have NO rational defense for what they believe.

Tsk, tsk.

Is there any particular reason you are so hostile towards Roman Catholicism?

 

[boswd]

Just saying it's "whacky" doesn't make it so. Show why.

Of course, you (and everyone else who thinks Mary was sinless) have been unable to back up any of your points, resorting ad-hominems and thread-derailment, so I doubt you'll be able to back up your claims that what I say is wrong.

You think of Mary as just a surrogate, an incubator or a storage locker. That is false teaching.

After the separation caused by the Fall of Adam God created the perfect bridge to close the Gap between the Father and humans. Agreed? That Bridge is Christ. Agreed? Now God could have just beamed Christ down to Earth ready to minister at a ripe age of 30, but he didn't. Have you ever stopped to think why? Simple he wanted to create THE perfect bridge 100% Human 100% Divine. and to show further his love he chose a human to give Christ's his humanity, instead of just "zapping" it to him. Which of course he coud do. But he chose Mary to have the Ulitmate bond. Christ's humanity comes from Mary, God Chose to do it this way to create the Perfect Bridge.
She not only was to give him his humanity but also to nuture, feed, clothe, and protect the Son of God, our Savior,

That isn't something a "Surrogate" does. a Surrogate has now part of the life after the birth. Jesus's human blood came from Mary and to dismiss this not only misses God's total message but it's extremely unorthodox Christian thinking to believe she was nothing more than a vessal.

 

[boswd]

Just saying it's "whacky" doesn't make it so. Show why.

Of course, you (and everyone else who thinks Mary was sinless) have been unable to back up any of your points, resorting ad-hominems and thread-derailment, so I doubt you'll be able to back up your claims that what I say is wrong.

Oh by the way you do know that the biggest name in Protestant History all held to her ever virginity and some even her remaing sinless. From John Welsley, to Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli and gassp Calvin himself.

Interesting you are ignorant of these facts but seem to only attack the Catholic Church.
You should study all of Christian history and try learning what other denominations teach instead of having an unhealthy obsession of a Faith you know very little about but seem to think you know volumes.

And by the way Catherianne explained your OP to a T. Just because you refuse to believe anything else could be an explanation instead of your biased evanglecial pastor told you, is darn shame.

 

[shinbits]

You think of Mary as just a surrogate, an incubator or a storage locker. That is false teaching.

Let's see u explain why.

After the separation caused by the Fall of Adam God created the perfect bridge to close the Gap between the Father and humans. Agreed? That Bridge is Christ. Agreed? Now God could have just beamed Christ down to Earth ready to minister at a ripe age of 30, but he didn't. Have you ever stopped to think why? Simple he wanted to create THE perfect bridge 100% Human 100% Divine. and to show further his love he chose a human to give Christ's his humanity, instead of just "zapping" it to him. Which of course he coud do. But he chose Mary to have the Ulitmate bond. Christ's humanity comes from Mary, God Chose to do it this way to create the Perfect Bridge.
She not only was to give him his humanity but also to nuture, feed, clothe, and protect the Son of God, our Savior,

The flaw in your line of reasoning, is that Mary was a virgin when she concieved. You're trying to say that God wanted to use the human way of bringing Christ into the world, because that indeed made him human: but the fact that Jesus wasn't concieved disproves the notion that God needed to bring Christ into the world through some tangible human way.

Understand? That's why your point doesn't work.

That isn't something a "Surrogate" does. a Surrogate has now part of the life after the birth. Jesus's human blood came from Mary and to dismiss this not only misses God's total message but it's extremely unorthodox Christian thinking to believe she was nothing more than a vessal.

If Jesus didn't get any traits from a human father, why would he get traits from a human mother? Understand where I'm going with this? The reason why Jesus didn't have a father, is because humans are sinful, and that would've passed the sin nature on to Christ, the same way the sin nature passes on to all humans who are concieved. It's for this same reason, that Jesus didn't get traits from Mary: because she's a sinner, just like the rest of humankind. That's why she's merely a surrogate.

But of course, this is why the other doctrine which contradicts the Bible arose: that Mary is supposedly "sinless", even though the Bible makes it clear that no human is sinless. This is yet another doctrine that RC's and the like, can't defend.

 

[shinbits]

Oh by the way you do know that the biggest name in Protestant History all held to her ever virginity and some even her remaing sinless. From John Welsley, to Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli and gassp Calvin himself.

I'm non-denominational, so this point is useless.

Interesting you are ignorant of these facts but seem to only attack the Catholic Church.
You should study all of Christian history and try learning what other denominations teach instead of having an unhealthy obsession of a Faith you know very little about but seem to think you know volumes.

Being non-denominational, I don't follow teachings of men, but teachings of God, which are recorded in Scripture, by men whom God used as tools to do so.

And by the way Catherianne explained your OP to a T. Just because you refuse to believe anything else could be an explanation instead of your biased evanglecial pastor told you, is darn shame.

If her argument doesn't stand up to simple and rational scrutiny, then she's made no point at all. I adressed her "explanation", with very elementry points, which she was unable to argue against.

 

[boswd]

Let's see u explain why.


The flaw in your line of reasoning, is that Mary was a virgin when she concieved. You're trying to say that God wanted to use the human way of bringing Christ into the world, because that indeed made him human: but the fact that Jesus wasn't concieved disproves the notion that God needed to bring Christ into the world through some tangible human way.

Understand? That's why your point doesn't work.


If Jesus didn't get any traits from a human father, why would he get traits from a human mother? Understand where I'm going with this? The reason why Jesus didn't have a father, is because humans are sinful, and that would've passed the sin nature on to Christ, the same way the sin nature passes on to all humans who are concieved. It's for this same reason, that Jesus didn't get traits from Mary: because she's a sinner, just like the rest of humankind. That's why she's merely a surrogate.

But of course, this is why the other doctrine which contradicts the Bible arose: that Mary is supposedly "sinless", even though the Bible makes it clear that no human is sinless. This is yet another doctrine that RC's and the like, can't defend.

I disagree with that because Jesus's Father is God, His Father's traits are his divinity, his human traits are Mary's. Mary is his Mother . God chose Mary to combine her humanity and his divinity to become God incarnate in Christ. 100% Human (Mary) and 100% Divine (God)

 

[boswd]

I'm non-denominational, so this point is useless.


Being non-denominational, I don't follow teachings of men, but teachings of God, which are recorded in Scripture, by men whom God used as tools to do so.


If her argument doesn't stand up to simple and rational scrutiny, then she's made no point at all. I adressed her "explanation", with very elementry points, which she was unable to argue against.

I think you are missing my point. On almost daily basis you single out the Catholic Church to attack on Doctrines you don't agree with but don't say peep on other Christian Faiths that have similiar if not exactly the same doctrines.

see what I'm getting at? Disagree with Doctrine is always what is going to separate us and where on GT we can all bring it out, but why focus on one Christian Faith with doctrines you disagree with and not others who you would also disagree with?


As to your second part, she argued admirably and supplied all the rational behind the doctrines. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean she didn't prove her point. She did and very well I might add.
But let's be honest you weren't looking for an explanation, you're mind was already made up on the issue so nothing anyone would say will change your position or at least an understanding of it.

 

[shinbits]

I disagree with that because Jesus's Father is God, His Father's traits are his divinity, his human traits are Mary's. Mary is his Mother . God chose Mary to combine her humanity and his divinity to become God incarnate in Christ. 100% Human (Mary) and 100% Divine (God)

See, this is what I mean. You started off with using rationale to defend your position, but then when simple logic refutes what you said, you resort to logically fallacious assertions.

You disagree that Jesus didn't get his traits from Mary...and your reasons are because God "chose" her to give Jesus human traits?

Doesn't it bother you that you're using circular reasoning?
Better yet, doesn't it bother you that your doctrines about Mary are based on circular reasoning?

 

[shinbits]

I think you are missing my point. On almost daily basis you single out the Catholic Church to attack on Doctrines you don't agree with but don't say peep on other Christian Faiths that have similiar if not exactly the same doctrines.

see what I'm getting at? Disagree with Doctrine is always what is going to separate us and where on GT we can all bring it out, but why focus on one Christian Faith with doctrines you disagree with and not others who you would also disagree with?

Because RC's are the only ones I know of that hold to this doctrines. RC's are also the most well known. But it doesn't matter, because my points are meant to refer to ANYONE who believes these fallacious doctrines about Mary.

As to your second part, she argued admirably and supplied all the rational behind the doctrines. Just because you dont' agree with it doesn' mean she didn't prove her point. She did and very well I might add.

No. She did what you did, and resorted to fallacious logic after her arguments didn't stand up to sound theological scrutiny.

 

[boswd]

See, this is what I mean. You started off with using rationale to defend your position, but then when simple logic refutes what you said, you resort to logically fallacious assertions.

You disagree that Jesus didn't get his traits from Mary...and your reasons are because God "chose" her to give Jesus human traits?

Doesn't it bother you that you're using circular reasoning?
Better yet, doesn't it bother you that your doctrines about Mary are based on circular reasoning?

where did I ever say Jesus didn't get any traits from Mary? I clearly said he got his humanity from her.

What I was disagree with you about is you said Jesus did not get any tratis from Mary because he didn't have a human Father to give him his traits.

I disagreed on that point because HE DID have a father it's God.

It's not circular reasoning. Human traits= Mary Divine Traits= God
It was God greatest Gift .

Question for you , do you believe Christ was 100% human and 100% Divine?

 

[boswd]

Because RC's are the only ones I know of that hold to this doctrines. RC's are also the most well known. But it doesn't matter, because my points are meant to refer to ANYONE who believes these fallacious doctrines about Mary.



No. She did what you did, and resorted to fallacious logic after her arguments didn't stand up to sound theological scrutiny.

It's not fallacious logic, it's been orthodox Christian teachings for the past 2000 years even right through the reformation this was always believed about Mary and her role with Christ.
It wasn't until the Anababtist and the Baptist in the early days of colonial America that Mary was shoved into the closet. Even the Reformers held to most of the beliefs of Mary.

actually what seems to be your theolgoy borders on Nestorianism.

 

[laconicstudent]

Um, Roman Catholics are not the only one's who believe that Mary is the Mother of God. In addition, the Anglicans, Orthodox, Lutherans, Presbyterians......

 

[Thekla]

Putting words in my mouth is just another tactic as bad as the ad-hominems that have been thrown at me.

Christ was human. It's just that his existence on earth wasn't dependant on Mary, the way our existence on earth is dependant on our mothers. If my father concieved with any woman but my mother, I wouldn't be here, someone else would be here. No so with Christ; he would still have come to earth and died for our sins, if another woman was chosen besides Mary.

The reason, is simple: Mary isn't really God's mother. Just a surrogate.

So Christ fed Himself as an infant ?

Would you argue that He walked at birth, and was self-sufficient.

Do you hold that there was no placenta ?

The Gospel of Luke records that Mary conceived and became pregnant.

 

[Unashamed Jesus Freak]

Mary is not God's mother! God does not have a mother! God has always been. He is the Alpha and the Omega.

Mary was just a vessel to bring forth the Savior, nothing more. If God had not chosen her, He would have chosen another woman.

 

[shinbits]

where did I ever say Jesus didn't get any traits from Mary? I clearly said he got his humanity from her.

Oh, wow. smh.

What I was disagree with you about is you said Jesus did not get any tratis from Mary because he didn't have a human Father to give him his traits.

That's EXACTLY what I said. That you disagree with me that Jesus DIDN'T get his traits from Mary.

On top of circular logic, your reading comprehenshion seems to be lacking.

Go back and reread my post.

 

[Thekla]

I agree - God is without beginning.

But the Holy Scriptures attest that the pre-eternal Logos, the second person of the Trinity became man (the body, which is part of creation, is matter). The method of this, described in the Gospel of Luke, is by conception. So yes, the God-man Jesus Christ is fully God (pre-eternal) and fully man (has a body, and bodies are conceived and have a beginning as part of creation).

If Mary was only a vessel, then Luke is mistaken to use the word conceive.

 

[boswd]

Oh, wow. smh.


That's EXACTLY what I said. That you disagree with me that Jesus DIDN'T get his traits from Mary.

On top of circular logic, your reading comprehenshion seems to be lacking.

Go back and reread my post.

Please answer my question from before, do you believe Christ was 100% Human 100% Divine?

And you could tell us what "church" you belong to?

 

[shinbits]

It's not fallacious logic, it's been orthodox Christian teachings for the past 2000 years even right through the reformation this was always believed about Mary and her role with Christ.
It wasn't until the Anababtist and the Baptist in the early days of colonial America that Mary was shoved into the closet. Even the Reformers held to most of the beliefs of Mary.

actually what seems to be your theolgoy borders on Nestorianism.

My theology is based on the Bible. The Bible says that all humans descended from Adam are sinners. Your theology says that Mary is sinless.

Seems like your theology is the one that's dead wrong. The problem with RC's is that they don't do like the Bereans, and check the word for themselves to see if what is taught is true. Instead, they have believed fallacious teachings, even though what the Bible says is clear.

It doesn't matter what group of people believed what. What matters is what the Bible says. Why else did Paul warn that there would be false teachers? Why else does the Bible make a point about commending the Bereans for checking the Scriptures for themselves?

Stop going by what man or groups of people say. Be like the Bereans, and go by the Word.

 

[Thekla]

My theology is based on the Bible. The Bible says that all humans descended from Adam are sinners. Your theology says that Mary is sinless.

Seems like your theology is the one that's dead wrong. The problem with RC's is that they don't do like the Bereans, and check the word for themselves to see if what is taught is true. Instead, they have believed fallacious teachings, even though what the Bible says is clear.

It doesn't matter what group of people believed what. What matters is what the Bible says. Why else did Paul warn that there would be false teachers? Why else does the Bible make a point about commending the Bereans for checking the Scriptures for themselves?

Stop going by what man or groups of people say. Be like the Bereans, and go by the Word.

The Holy Scriptures state that Mary conceived, the Holy Scriptures refer to Mary as "the child's mother" (Luke).