Mary cannot be Queen.

[Stryder06]

No teaching is "randomly decided." Where is your support for the assertion that all of these traditions were found in Scripture? Remember, the New Testament as we know it did not exist for 300 years. This is historical fact. There were different versions of the canon floating around, depending on which Early Church Father you talked to.

I know the new testament didn't exist which is all the more reason to look to the OT & the gospels when it comes down to understanding what the disciples would have based their teachings/traditions on. And what do you mean "where's my support"? You guys kill me with this wanting "support" for everything. I find my support in the bible. Test everything, and hold fast to that which is good. I also look to the Bereans as an example of testing everything according to the scriptures. If your traditions go against scripture there is a problem. For instance, the teaching that Mary was sinless is in direct contradiction to the scripture which states that All have sinned...Has the disciples been teaching that during their time they would have had issues. Only way around that is to say that your word is on par with the word of God. And you can throw out "private revelation" thanks to Amos 3:7

Well, besides this being the Old Testament, just because it doesn't specifically mention Tradition doesn't mean that Tradition disappears. Tradition cannot contradict or disagree with Scripture. The reason I question your use of this verse is because in context, the whole thing is a prophecy, not a specific commandment.

I'm sorry, but when you say "besides this being the OT" and then I look back to your previous statement about there not having been a NT for some 300 yrs, I wonder exactly what you think the apostles were using when it came to teaching doctrine. Christ sure enough went right back to the "OT" to teach the two disciples He walked with after His resurrection.

And what does the prophecy have to do with anything? Matt 24-25 is a prophecy concerning the end times, yet I doubt you'd disagree that we ought not take as a "commandment" verses 23,24. We are to rightly divide the word of truth. Just because it's part of a prophecy doesn't mean it doesn't have a constant application. In Isa 8:20 God specifically tells Isaiah how to identify someone who has light or not. That's sola scripture. You said the bible doesn't teach that, but that verse disagrees. Whether you are willing to accept it is another story altogether.

Yeah, and they had no Bible to tell them what was what. Guess who kept things in line? The apostles and their successors.

Yeah, I know this wasn't addressed to me but I hope you don't mind.
There is no mention of the disciples having "successors" as your church describes it. They were to make disciples, so it isn't a strange thing that there were people who were taught by them. And the reason why things stayed inline is because they stuck to the teachings of the scriptures as lived out by Christ. It all points back to the scripture. This is how you would know the correct teachings/traditions, from the wrong ones.

 

[Dark_Lite]

I know the new testament didn't exist which is all the more reason to look to the OT & the gospels when it comes down to understanding what the disciples would have based their teachings/traditions on. And what do you mean "where's my support"? You guys kill me with this wanting "support" for everything. I find my support in the bible. Test everything, and hold fast to that which is good. I also look to the Bereans as an example of testing everything according to the scriptures. If your traditions go against scripture there is a problem. For instance, the teaching that Mary was sinless is in direct contradiction to the scripture which states that All have sinned...Has the disciples been teaching that during their time they would have had issues. Only way around that is to say that your word is on par with the word of God. And you can throw out "private revelation" thanks to Amos 3:7

I'm sorry, but when you say "besides this being the OT" and then I look back to your previous statement about there not having been a NT for some 300 yrs, I wonder exactly what you think the apostles were using when it came to teaching doctrine. Christ sure enough went right back to the "OT" to teach the two disciples He walked with after His resurrection.

The New Testament is a new revelation. There was new doctrine and teaching in the New Testament that wasn't recorded in the Old Testament. Obviously while the Old Testament was used in support of these doctrines, but it was not the full definition of these doctrines. The apostles used oral tradition, with support from the Old Testament, to teach their doctrines.

And what does the prophecy have to do with anything? Matt 24-25 is a prophecy concerning the end times, yet I doubt you'd disagree that we ought not take as a "commandment" verses 23,24. We are to rightly divide the word of truth. Just because it's part of a prophecy doesn't mean it doesn't have a constant application. In Isa 8:20 God specifically tells Isaiah how to identify someone who has light or not. That's sola scripture. You said the bible doesn't teach that, but that verse disagrees. Whether you are willing to accept it is another story altogether.

Please tell me where Isaiah 8:20 says that Scripture is the supreme matter on faith and morals. The closest idea to Sola Scriptura that you will find in the Bible is that things cannot contradict Scripture. That verse, should it even apply in this context, also only says that. "If they do not speak according to this word" does not equal "everything necessary is found in this word," nor does it equal "this word is supreme on matters of faith and morals."

Yeah, I know this wasn't addressed to me but I hope you don't mind.
There is no mention of the disciples having "successors" as your church describes it. They were to make disciples, so it isn't a strange thing that there were people who were taught by them. And the reason why things stayed inline is because they stuck to the teachings of the scriptures as lived out by Christ. It all points back to the scripture. This is how you would know the correct teachings/traditions, from the wrong ones.

Seeing as there was new information in the New Testament, but no actual New Testament for 300 years, the teachings had to be maintained orally, albeit supported by the OT. If there was nothing new in the NT, then there would be no need for the NT at all.

 

[Lulav]

Did Israel suffer birth pangs? No it didn't. Mary gave birth to Jesus by the will of God.

Revelation 12 speaks of Mary.

Revelation 12:2
2 And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.

Did Israel flee into the wilderness after the birth of the Christ? No it didn't. Mary fled through the wilderness into Egypt.

Revelation 12 speaks of Mary.

Revelation 12:6
6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred[ and] threescore days.

Taken out of context you can make your point but if you include the verse right before 6 you will see it doesn't make any sense

Revelation 12:5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.

If the woman were Mary this shows that she fled into the wilderness after the man child was caught up to heaven to G-d and his throne. Which doesn't jive with the fleeing to Egypt story. Not to mention is she childless in verse 6 but also husband-less (where's Joseph?)

You asked: Did Israel flee into the wilderness after the birth of the Christ?

And answered: No it didn't.

After the man-child was taken up to G-d this is what he prophesied would happen and warned his followers to do:Mark 13:9-19

The man child came forth from Israel, no other nation.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Jesus is fully God and fully man. You can't ever have them separate. That's Nestorianism (I think).

John 4
24God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

How can Mary be the mother of the spirit which is God? God is the Alpha and the Omega.

The Word became flesh: Mary's flesh did not become the Word.

John 6
63It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Mary's flesh profiteth her nothing, so saith the LORD. Mary is not the mother of God, for God is a spirit. Her flesh body was the vessel for the spirit which became the flesh body, the Lord Jesus, but it was not her flesh that became the Word (which is God) and her spirit did not bear the spirit of God, but magnified the spirit that is God that already was.

Since the flesh profiteth nothing and it is the spirit that quickeneth (giveth life) the flesh of Mary, her egg, could not become Jesus and give life. However, Jesus' flesh was the Spirit God manifested, so it does profiteth, in eternal life.

 

[Stryder06]

The New Testament is a new revelation. There was new doctrine and teaching in the New Testament that wasn't recorded in the Old Testament. Obviously while the Old Testament was used in support of these doctrines, but it was not the full definition of these doctrines. The apostles used oral tradition, with support from the Old Testament, to teach their doctrines.

What new revelation and what new doctrine? Your tradition tells you that the disciples used oral tradition. Don't get me wrong, I won't say one way or another if the disciples didn't institute some doctrines, I will however say that whatever they may have instituted, that it was directly in line with and did not contradict the scriptures.

Please tell me where Isaiah 8:20 says that Scripture is the supreme matter on faith and morals. The closest idea to Sola Scriptura that you will find in the Bible is that things cannot contradict Scripture. That verse, should it even apply in this context, also only says that. "If they do not speak according to this word" does not equal "everything necessary is found in this word," nor does it equal "this word is supreme on matters of faith and morals."

When did we start talking about faith and morals. I thought we were talking about teachings, doctrine, etc? The bottom line is that your traditions can't trump scripture, and when/if they do, you need to take a step back and reconsider what it is your believing. Your church holds tradition up against tradition instead of holding tradition up against the word of God.

Seeing as there was new information in the New Testament, but no actual New Testament for 300 years, the teachings had to be maintained orally, albeit supported by the OT. If there was nothing new in the NT, then there would be no need for the NT at all.

Not at all, the new testament was necessary to deal with issues that were arising thanks to those who did not believe in Christ and were trying to maintain a system of works. The NT harmonizes with the OT. Your traditions, at least some of them, do not. That's where the problem comes in. If it weren't for that you would hear a thing from me. And again, what "new" teachings?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

So what does that have to do with Mary being Queen

Does it have to? this is CF!

 

[laconicstudent]

And this doesn't count as worship?

Nope.

The cheribum and seraphim cry Holy Holy Holy Lord God Almighty. They count themselves unworthy to look upon or tread the ground before His presence.

Yes?

Are you telling me seriously that its ok to "Magnify" a created being?

Definition of MAGNIFY

transitive verb
1
a : extol, laud b : to cause to be held in greater esteem or respect

2
a : to increase in significance : intensify b : exaggerate <magnifies every minor issue to crisis proportions>

3
: to enlarge in fact or in appearance


Well, yes.

 

[Dark_Lite]

John 4
24God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

How can Mary be the mother of the spirit which is God? God is the Alpha and the Omega.

The Word became flesh: Mary's flesh did not become the Word.

John 6
63It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Mary's flesh profiteth her nothing, so saith the LORD. Mary is not the mother of God, for God is a spirit. Her flesh body was the vessel for the spirit which became the flesh body, the Lord Jesus, but it was not her flesh that became the Word (which is God) and her spirit did not bear the spirit of God, but magnified the spirit that is God that already was.

Since the flesh profiteth nothing and it is the spirit that quickeneth (giveth life) the flesh of Mary, her egg, could not become Jesus and give life. However, Jesus' flesh was the Spirit God manifested, so it does profiteth, in eternal life.

Yep, Nestorianism: Nestorianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It was condemned as heresy at the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon.

The traditional Christological view is that Jesus has two natures that are united in one essence. This is called the hypostatic union: Hypostatic union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by LittleLambofJesus So what does that have to do with Mary being Queen

Does it have to? this is CF!

Perhaps the "Mariology" board is so full, that they have to post the threads here on the GT board

http://www.christianforums.com/f726/
Mariology & Hagiography

 

[ivebeenshown]

heresy

Then how am I a heretic? The Holy Spirit, God, became flesh. Jesus Christ was the Spirit manifest in the flesh.

Christ was truly flesh but his flesh was not the flesh of Mary. For it is written, The Word became flesh, and not, flesh became the Word.

Because the Spirit had become flesh, the flesh was also the Spirit. Jesus was, by flesh and Spirit, God the Son.

 

[Secundulus]

Then how am I a heretic? The Holy Spirit, God, became flesh. Jesus Christ was the Spirit manifest in the flesh.

Christ was truly flesh but his flesh was not the flesh of Mary. For it is written, The Word became flesh, and not, flesh became the Word.

Because the Spirit had become flesh, the flesh was also the Spirit. Jesus was, by flesh and Spirit, God the Son.

You deny that Christ was human in the same way that we are human. You deny even Genesis 3:15. In short, you have fallen into error out of the pride you hold in your own individual ability to discern the faith over everybody who has gone before you.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Then how am I a heretic? The Holy Spirit, God, became flesh. Jesus Christ was the Spirit manifest in the flesh..

I share in yer pain dear friend

http://www.christianforums.com/t6504805/
What are we? Heretics? Lost? Brothers/Sisters?

 

[ivebeenshown]

You deny that Christ was human in the same way that we are human. You deny even Genesis 3:15. In short, you have fallen into error out of the pride you hold in your own individual ability to discern the faith over everybody who has gone before you.

I am the same kind as Adam, who had no flesh mother -- human. Christ was the last Adam, and the same kind as me. Thus, Paul writes, the first man Adam was earthen but the last Adam a quickening spirit.

I seek the truth of Christ, as Christ has spoken: search the scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life. I have no individual ability to discern the faith; it was the workings of God's Holy Spirit that drove me into baptism. I wish to be immersed in the truth of the Spirit.

Consider this: The seed of the woman meant EVE's seed. She named EVE because she was the mother of all living. As Adam meant 'man', Eve meant 'life'.

Eve: "Chavvah" from "chavah"
Strong's Hebrew Dictionary: 2332. Chavvah

The "seed of Eve" is the "seed of life", which becomes the root of Jesse, and the BRANCH, which came to fruit through Christ (the firstfruits) and is coming to fruit for harvest at the end of the world.

These words are truth: Jesus is the seed of life, and the life-giver: he is the gospel, the Spirit, and the truth. He is the way, the life, the resurrection, and the light of the world. Wheat and tares.

As Jesus was the Gospel, the Spirit -- the Word became flesh and the flesh was the Son of God, but flesh did not become the Word. Because the flesh was also in itself the Spirit, Mary's flesh did not become the Word -- for the Word is not become of anything.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Heretic, its a word that means to choose .

in context of the one faith of Paul and the Apostles .

it means .. you choose to believe that .

today the word heretic is as subjective as media bias .

 

[Secundulus]

According to Protestantism as it is being presented here, Jesus was the original test tube baby.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

According to Protestantism as it is being presented here, Jesus was the original test tube baby.

Oh how dare you call the Holy Spirit a test tube ..

 

[Secundulus]

Heretic, its a word that means to choose .

in context of the one faith of Paul and the Apostles .

it means .. you choose to believe that .

today the word heretic is as subjective as media bias .

It is only subjective when you have foregone any objective standard.

 

[Secundulus]

Oh how dare you call the Holy Spirit a test tube ..

Not me, but thee.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Heretic, its a word that means to choose .

in context of the one faith of Paul and the Apostles .

it means .. you choose to believe that .

today the word heretic is as subjective as media bias .

Interesting. So how does either Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxism or Protestism determin who is a heretic today [tho I still don't know how that applies to the topic of the thread concerning Mary being queen]

A heretic is a person who committed heresy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heresy

Heresy is a controversial or novel change to a system of beliefs, especially a religion, that conflicts with established dogma.[1] It is distinct from apostasy, which is the formal denunciation of one's religion, principles or cause,[2] and blasphemy, which is irreverence toward religion.[3] The founder or leader of a heretical movement is called a heresiarch, while individuals who espouse heresy are known as heretics. Heresiology is the study of heresy.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Oh how dare you call the Holy Spirit a test tube ..

Is that a Roman Catholic thang?