Mary cannot be Queen. (2)

[Marc15]

No place in the Bible mentions the Trinity, or in fact, the Bible. Using these terms must be heresy

Yeah, but the concept of trinity is in the bible. The Concept of Worshipping Mary, that she is the queen of heaven, is all not biblically and is idolatry.

 

[sunlover1]

I am not afraid.

I already stated that to Rabbitshooter

So you said.
Why not?

Perhaps it's the gun-toting society, but a lot of people from the US talk in terms of 'fear'.

I hate guns

I've heard of Africans having no fear of bullets because they wore magic charms provided by their witchdoctors to protect them. Being unafraid, however, didn't prevent them being shot and killed.

Nice anecdote.
Paul said that to die is gain.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Paul said that to die is gain.

Well then if the Lord said the Lowly would be greater in Heaven, and scriptures tell us how lowly Mary considered herself in this life, the reasoning is - she gained Queenship as per her lot in this life vs the lot in the next.
And the fact her Son is King... and King's mothers are Queen.

We only imitate that which the Lord gave us in matter of kingdoms and He gave them as such so we could see how the Kingdom of Heaven would be.

Therefore, again, another piece of scriptures that tells us the story of Mary's 'gain' - i mean aside from the psalms i already posted.
And she will be called Blessed for all ages.
Blessed is venerable... as were Queens.

 

[WarriorAngel]

One has a license to do whatever one wants to do no matter what doctrine you believe in.
Who are we fooling really?
let me kick this up a notch:

Difference being,
those who are His WANT to do the will of the Father.

See how nicely that works out?

But for some reason, that still bugs ya don't it?
smh

HE WANTED His people to be in ONE Church following HIS One set of doctrines as He set them up for all times.

How many have stayed in that ONE CHURCH HE WANTED TO BE AS ONE AS HE IS ONE WITH THE FATHER?

So, do we really do as He wants?

 

[sunlover1]

HE WANTED His people to be in ONE Church following HIS One set of doctrines as He set them up for all times.

How many have stayed in that ONE CHURCH HE WANTED TO BE AS ONE AS HE IS ONE WITH THE FATHER?

So, do we really do as He wants?

Yes, I do believe that His children DO seek to do His will.... eventually.
There are all levels and stages of maturity though.
Some are babies and want their own way yet.

 

[MamaZ]

HE WANTED His people to be in ONE Church following HIS One set of doctrines as He set them up for all times.

How many have stayed in that ONE CHURCH HE WANTED TO BE AS ONE AS HE IS ONE WITH THE FATHER?

So, do we really do as He wants?

There is only one Church. This would be Christ body and those who are into this body are there strictly from the Grace of God and the blood of Jesus and they are sealed with Gods gaurantee which is the HS in us.. Christ in us the hope for all glory. His doctrines are written for all to see and read in the scriptures. We hear His voice through the scriptures and come to know Him intimatly.. We can cry out Abba Father

 

[WarriorAngel]

Yes, I do believe that His children DO seek to do His will.... eventually.
There are all levels and stages of maturity though.
Some are babies and want their own way yet.

I agree and so they abstain from the Traditions because it becomes a matter of self vs ancient teaching.

If all were to come back to the Church established by Christ Himself, with a 2000 year old line of unbroken [and proven] lineage of ordinations - following the same teachings put down by the Apostles, whether in the writings of their disciples [Bishops] who knew ,or by the many writings that uphold to the same teachings each generation after - we remain broken unless that becomes a reality.
His teachings were not fragmented for each person to chose or decide back then, why is it ok now acceptable?

 

[sunlover1]

There is only one Church. This would be Christ body and those who are into this body are there strictly from the Grace of God and the blood of Jesus and they are sealed with Gods gaurantee which is the HS in us.. Christ in us the hope for all glory. His doctrines are written for all to see and read in the scriptures. We hear His voice through the scriptures and come to know Him intimatly.. We can cry out Abba Father

One church

His teachings were not fragmented for each person to chose or decide back then, why is it ok now acceptable?

Each man will certainly answer to God.

 

[WarriorAngel]

One church


Each man will certainly answer to God.

This is true.

For blasphemy of the Holy Spirit comes with a certain vincible ignorance of the truth.

 

[Standing Up]

I agree and so they abstain from the Traditions because it becomes a matter of self vs ancient teaching.

Old Catholic, EO, OO, P, etc, everyone else, but me and thee, of course

If all were to come back to the Church established by Christ Himself,

The welcome mat is out

with a 2000 year old line of unbroken [and proven] lineage of ordinations

There's no agreement or clarity on the first five bishops of Rome (or anywhere else, except Polycarp).

- following the same teachings put down by the Apostles, whether in the writings of their disciples [Bishops] who knew ,or by the many writings that uphold to the same teachings each generation after

You know about Polycarp don't you? Sixtus of Rome formed a custom and didn't adhere to the same apostolic teachings (Polycarp, Irenaeus, Firmilian).

- we remain broken unless that becomes a reality.
His teachings were not fragmented for each person to chose or decide back then, why is it ok now acceptable?

The welcome mat is out

 

[WarriorAngel]

Old Catholic, EO, OO, P, etc, everyone else, but me and thee, of course



The welcome mat is out



There's no agreement or clarity on the first five bishops of Rome (or anywhere else, except Polycarp).



You know about Polycarp don't you? Sixtus of Rome formed a custom and didn't adhere to the same apostolic teachings (Polycarp, Irenaeus, Firmilian).



The welcome mat is out

Agreement?

Against Heresies (St. Irenaeus) > Book III, Chapter 3



1. It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to the perfect apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.
2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, founded and organized at that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spoke with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.
4. But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time,— a man who was of much greater weight, and a more steadfast witness of truth, than Valentinus, and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics. He it was who, coming to Rome in the time of Anicetus caused many to turn away from the aforesaid heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received this one and sole truth from the apostles—that, namely, which is handed down by the Church. There are also those who heard from him that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house without bathing, exclaiming, Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within. And Polycarp himself replied to Marcion, who met him on one occasion, and said, Do you know me? I do know you, the first-born of Satan. Such was the horror which the apostles and their disciples had against holding even verbal communication with any corrupters of the truth; as Paul also says, A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sins, being condemned of himself. Titus 3:10 There is also a very powerful Epistle of Polycarp written to the Philippians, from which those who choose to do so, and are anxious about their salvation, can learn the character of his faith, and the preaching of the truth. Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles.


Written between the years 115 and 125 AD

 

[WarriorAngel]

Ireneaus was a student of Polycarp BTW...and Bishop of Lyons

 

[Standing Up]

Ireneaus was a student of Polycarp BTW...and Bishop of Lyons

For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, founded and organized at that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

He knew of what he spoke . Inasmuch, only as much, in so far ... IOW, agree, but only if, tradition was preserved. It wasn't, says Irenaeus and Firmilian and Polycrates.

So, we may turn elsewhere.

"But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna ... "

" Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles."

Interesting he only cites Rome for the escape clause. Why was that?

 

[WarriorAngel]

For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, founded and organized at that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

He knew of what he spoke . Inasmuch, only as much, in so far ... IOW, agree, but only if, tradition was preserved. It wasn't, says Irenaeus and Firmilian and Polycrates.

So, we may turn elsewhere.

St Ignatius said no strange taint is found in her [Rome] - and not because he lived there to know this for fact - but fully relied on Christ's position of authority given to Peter and his successors.
As the one to confirm the brethren, ie - to keep all things right...to verify it...[google confirm]
Not Polycarp, not Ireneaus, not Polycrates, but the episcopate of Peter.

SO if anyone disagrees with this episcopate, they are disagreeing with the Lord Who established this Episcopate for the purpose to instruct the others.

IF he is to be agreed with by all the Churches, then it means just that.

Inasmuch as those who are faithful to the TRADITIONS - will do so.
Obviously he is not including those who are unfaithful to the very Tradition of agreeing with that Church - or the whole thing becomes senseless.

"But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna ... "

And did Polycarp ever suggest Rome was wrong?
I see nothing of him saying that.

Clement knew Peter - and St John while still alive during the time the East traveled to Rome to get his advisory of the Pope Clement... not St John.

Polycarp [SAINT]
- Epistle to the Philippians
- The Martyrdom of Polycarp


The only one who disputed with Rome, as is obvious they were not agreeing per Ireneaus, lived 200 years after Polycarp's death and therefore their witness may not be in connection to Polycarp at all, since Polycarp was not involved.
Hearsay was all they had - since Polycarp wrote nothing of the kind they charged.

" Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles."

Interesting he only cites Rome for the escape clause. Why was that?

John went to Patmos Island in exile. And remained there for a long duration of his life.
Prior to that - why would St John send the clergy to Rome to address a situation if John was indeed the the TRUE witness?
John understood the succession of Peter still was regarded above his lot even though an Apostle.

 

[Standing Up]

St Ignatius said no strange taint is found in her [Rome] - and not because he lived there to know this for fact - but fully relied on Christ's position of authority given to Peter and his successors.
As the one to confirm the brethren, ie - to keep all things right...to verify it...[google confirm]
Not Polycarp, not Ireneaus, not Polycrates, but the episcopate of Peter.

SO if anyone disagrees with this episcopate, they are disagreeing with the Lord Who established this Episcopate for the purpose to instruct the others.

IF he is to be agreed with by all the Churches, then it means just that.

Inasmuch as those who are faithful to the TRADITIONS - will do so.
Obviously he is not including those who are unfaithful to the very Tradition of agreeing with that Church - or the whole thing becomes senseless.

And did Polycarp ever suggest Rome was wrong?
I see nothing of him saying that.

Clement knew Peter - and St John while still alive during the time the East traveled to Rome to get his advisory of the Pope Clement... not St John.

Polycarp [SAINT]
- Epistle to the Philippians
- The Martyrdom of Polycarp


The only one who disputed with Rome, as is obvious they were not agreeing per Ireneaus, lived 200 years after Polycarp's death and therefore their witness may not be in connection to Polycarp at all, since Polycarp was not involved.
Hearsay was all they had - since Polycarp wrote nothing of the kind they charged.


John went to Patmos Island in exile. And remained there for a long duration of his life.
Prior to that - why would St John send the clergy to Rome to address a situation if John was indeed the the TRUE witness?
John understood the succession of Peter still was regarded above his lot even though an Apostle.

Not sure I'm following you. John died c95. Polycarp went to Rome c155. John didn't send Polycarp there. Polycarp went to combat various heresies, including Marcionism, which the "pope" there failed to do and continued to fail to do for another 50 years thereafter. So, not sure your point.

 

[Montalban]

Yeah, but the concept of trinity is in the bible. The Concept of Worshipping Mary, that she is the queen of heaven, is all not biblically and is idolatry.

Well you've thrown a few things in there together which only serves to confuse things. You talk of "worshipping" Mary. I don't worship her.

The "Veneration" of the Bible is not anti-biblical, and is in fact suggested in it, given the response of the Angel, of Elizabeth, and of Mary herself who notes that people will call her blessed.

Secondly its strongly suggested by the very fact that NO OTHER WOMAN as ever had that relationship with God.

Calling her "The Mother of God" isn't in the Bible, but it's been ruled by Ecumenical Council - based on the fact she actually was the mother of God - Jesus being her son.

 

[Montalban]

I've heard of Africans having no fear of bullets because they wore magic charms provided by their witchdoctors to protect them. Being unafraid, however, didn't prevent them being shot and killed.

Also, the Boxers were supposed to be impervious to bullets.

They were called as the "Society of Harmonious Fists" but known to Westerners as "Boxers" because of the exercises that they did to make them immune.

 

[Montalban]

So you said.
Why not?

I live in hope, not fear.

I hate guns

We're not big on guns here

Nice anecdote.
Paul said that to die is gain.

Obviously dying didn't work for those Africans

 

[AveMaria_45]

This thread is wrong. Mary is queen of Heaven

 

[Zeek]

Now why should I believe that Ave? One needs to apply some substance to such a statement otherwise it is merely words, and might simply come from things that you have been taught rather than what you know and can substantiate.