Speak lovingly of Mary

[Uphill Battle]

i really dont feel like playing your games. you know exactly what im talking about.

I'd like to forward that if it's so arduous to "play the game" you might want to stay off the playground.

My assertion, despite your vehment and hostile spluttering of such, has never been that I know better than millions of Christians. It is that errors have occurred.

and that much is absolutely proven. For heavens sakes, the two "ancient churches" can't agree on things. They fight tooth and nail over "this is the truth!" and then you expect us to beleive it's impossible that they couldn't have made mistakes on other things. completely lacking in common sense and credebility.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

False? How do you proove that?

Nice try, my good and respected friend....

It's not our dogma - we have nothing to prove.
It's your dogma.
The highest level of certainty and importance.
It's yours to prove.

As a parent, i know you never stop loving your child.

No one ever suggested that Mary stopped loving Jesus.
Or that you have.
Or should.

But that's not substantiation for the late rumors about her - eventually made dogmas by the Catholic Denomination. NO ONE is questioning the sincerity or devotion of you or anyone. But it is possible to be sincerely wrong (as I would note with Mormons, etc.), and just because one is passionate and sincere about something doesn't mean it's substantiated as correct.

I don't, for a second, question your devotion, esteem and love for Our Lady. But that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the DOGMAS of the Immaculate Conception of Mary or Mary Never Has Sex Ever or Mary was Assumed into Heaven upon her Death (Or Was It Undeath?).

No other human can claim to have brought us Jesus...

Are you under the impression that Protestants think Mary was not the Mother of Our Lord? Do you think we have some dogma that someone else was?

Speak of Mary lovingly.

I wholeheartedly and passionately agree!

Thus, we shouldn't spread rumors and gossip about her.
However well intended.




Thank you!


Pax


- Josiah


PS Good to be back chatting with you!



.

 

[jckstraw72]

I'd like to forward that if it's so arduous to "play the game" you might want to stay off the playground.

id like to forward that we're adults and should leave childish games behind.

 

[Uphill Battle]

you're evasion of the real issue is duly noted.

you don't HAVE to talk to me, you know. If you do, don't expect to be coddled, I'm not hear to validate YOU.

 

[Sphinx777]

It's not about putting down Mary. It's about praising Jesus.

What's wrong with showing affection towards Her Majesty?

​

 

[Uphill Battle]

mostly the fact we don't think of her as "her majesty."

 

[Sphinx777]

mostly the fact we don't think of her as "her majesty."

Is she not the mother of a great King?

​

 

[WarriorAngel]

This bears repeating as it seems to have been overlooked.

WarriorAngel, if she has brought you back to Jesus, then she has accomplished her mission. Now how about focusing on Him once again and giving HIM the attention and the glory only HE deserves?

It's not about putting down Mary. It's about praising Jesus.

My focus on Jesus brings me in full circle. [I add its presumptious to say otherwise on where my focus is]

To have Jesus is to find Mary...to have Mary is to find Jesus.

He wants us to immitate Him. He wants us to love and honor her, and when He sends us a message thru her.... to obey her.
All the attributes He Himself possessed while human.

And before you tell me that is absurd, i would prefer [since you do not believe in the Church history and Tradition and apparitions that tell us these things as well as authoritive interpretations of scriptures] that you need to go to Heaven and come back with the answers.

You can't.

BUT I can affirm faithfully that one Church schismed three ways [with one single line of unbroken ordinations] wouldnt agree otherwise if it was not Tradition since the beginning.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Also i want to make a note... to those who say Catholics, Orthodox [et al] do not focus on Jesus because we defend our Lord's Mother - our Mother...
The point of this entire area of theology is to focus on Mary. [and Saints likewise]

AND discuss her importance to us since she is important to God.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Nice try, my good and respected friend....

It's not our dogma - we have nothing to prove.
It's your dogma.
The highest level of certainty and importance.
It's yours to prove.

I can proove it, and not only can i use scriptures... i can also use ecf's as well as Luther.
And catacombs of the 1st Christians.

However; would it be extended back to me - the same historical proof that is counter of these claims?

No one ever suggested that Mary stopped loving Jesus.
Or that you have.
Or should.

But that's not substantiation for the late rumors about her - eventually made dogmas by the Catholic Denomination. NO ONE is questioning the sincerity or devotion of you or anyone. But it is possible to be sincerely wrong (as I would note with Mormons, etc.), and just because one is passionate and sincere about something doesn't mean it's substantiated as correct.

I don't, for a second, question your devotion, esteem and love for Our Lady. But that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the DOGMAS of the Immaculate Conception of Mary or Mary Never Has Sex Ever or Mary was Assumed into Heaven upon her Death (Or Was It Undeath?).

Mormons again.

Well, according to John Smith - who wrote many unproovable [unbeknownst to him we would have the technology] and creative ideas that just cannot be traced in any part of the world of archeology to his fantastic claims about former towns or cities. [To which he claimed he translated about their lives thru the golden writ he found that disappeared]

BUT - the Catholic Church can trace history with proof all the way back to the 1st Century.

[THIS is just something of interest] *Hey did you know that St Luke painted a picture on a [table of sorts] that Jesus put together by hand...? [Its still intact today i do believe]
And did you know St Luke wrote the Gospel thru an apparition of Mary?

And did you know there are catacomb tomb 'stones' [for lack of a better word] that pointedly request Mary pray for them...?

So again, i ask that you not compare the fastasy life of John Smith with the historical and concretely prooven CC.

Are you under the impression that Protestants think Mary was not the Mother of Our Lord? Do you think we have some dogma that someone else was?









I wholeheartedly and passionately agree!

Thus, we shouldn't spread rumors and gossip about her.
However well intended.




Thank you!


Pax


- Josiah


PS Good to be back chatting with you!



.

The importance of Mary - These are not rumors.
Its just your opinion that says this.

And thank you for the kind thots.
Wishing you well and the best of everything in what you need.

 

[lionroar0]

St Luke also wrote the 1st Icon of Mary.

Peace

 

[MamaZ]

To have Jesus is to find Mary...to have Mary is to find Jesus

Well I have Jesus. I haven't even looked for Mary. She is not to be found for she is not here. Jesus found me and now that I have Jesus I have the Father.

He wants us to immitate Him. He wants us to love and honor her, and when He sends us a message thru her.... to obey her.

Sorry but He sends His messages to me through His written word and the Holy Spirit.

And before you tell me that is absurd, i would prefer [since you do not believe in the Church history and Tradition and apparitions that tell us these things as well as authoritive interpretations of scriptures] that you need to go to Heaven and come back with the answers.

You can't.

Now why would I need to go to heaven and come back when I have the living Christ living inside of me through His Spirit?

 

[MamaZ]

Very Very little is even written of Mary. For salvation is not of Mary but of Christ. We do not need to go through Mary to get to Jesus. In fact we do not need to go through anyone to get to Jesus for Jesus lives inside His own People. Very intimate relationship with His very own. Since I have Jesus I can go directly to my Father boldly.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Is she not the mother of a great King?​

​

I know the argument. I don't buy it.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Nice try, my good and respected friend....
It's not our dogma - we have nothing to prove. It's your dogma. The highest level of certainty and importance. It's yours to prove.

I can proove it, and not only can i use scriptures...

Okay.

List all the Scriptures that state (dogmatically) that MARY was assumed into heaven upon her death (or undeath - depending on what form of the dogma you ascribe to).

However; would it be extended back to me - the same historical proof that is counter of these claims?

Non realities cannot be proven. Can you PROVE to me that there are not little fuzzy people living on the Moon of Endore? If not, does that prove that there are? Nice try, my good friend.

No one ever suggested that Mary stopped loving Jesus.

Or that you have. Or should.

But that's not substantiation for the late rumors about her - eventually made dogmas by the Catholic Denomination.

NO ONE is questioning the sincerity or devotion of you or anyone. But it is possible to be sincerely wrong (as I would note with Mormons, etc.), and just because one is passionate and sincere about something doesn't mean it's substantiated as correct.

I don't, for a second, question your devotion, esteem and love for Our Lady.

But that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the DOGMAS of the Immaculate Conception of Mary or Mary Never Has Sex Ever or Mary was Assumed into Heaven upon her Death (Or Was It Undeath?).

BUT - the Catholic Church can trace history with proof all the way back to the 1st Century.

No, it cannot. There's ZERO evidence that there were ANY denominations before the 4th century - much less the specific, particular CATHOLIC one.

And that has nothing to do with what I posted. Read what you quoted from me.


BTW, I hold Our Blessed Lady in highest esteem, as chief among the saints, and IN A CERTAIN SENSE, I revere, adorate and worship her. THAT'S WHY I won't spread gossip and rumors about her - however well intended.




Thank you for the discussion...


Pax!


- Josiah





.

 

[lionroar0]

No, it cannot. There's ZERO evidence that there were ANY denominations before the 4th century - much less the specific, particular CATHOLIC one.

That's just it. There were no denominations. Denominations are a non-apostolic thing.

There was on Church.

And there are three Apostolic Churches that can historically claim that. The Catholic. The Easters and Oriental Orthodox Churces.

There is tons evidence that the CC is an apostolic Church. To say that it's not its stabbing oneself in both eyes in order not to see what's plainly there.

Peace

 

[lionroar0]

BTW, I hold Our Blessed Lady in highest esteem, as chief among the saints, and IN A CERTAIN SENSE, I revere, adorate and worship her. THAT'S WHY I won't spread gossip and rumors about her - however well intended.

Yes and according your logic the Trinity is also a a rumor because it's not explicitly mentioned in the Scriptures.

Peace

 

[MamaZ]

LOL how so with the Trinity? The word may not be in there but the meaning sure is..

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Yes and according your logic the Trinity is also a a rumor because it's not explicitly mentioned in the Scriptures.

Peace

The point was that the Assumption of Mary IS mentioned in the Bible. I asked for where (and silence was the response). Then our Catholic friend decided to change topics, evading the point and question, to a dogma not in dispute - one that ALL agree is taught in the Bible (even if t he word is not used). It's moot because I didn't ask for a verse that used the verb, I asked for Scriptures that state that this is what happened to the body of Mary upon her death - especially since it was noted that such exists and would be produced. The "replies" are, IMHO, quite revealing.





.

 

[WarriorAngel]

St Luke also wrote the 1st Icon of Mary.

Peace

Yes, that is the painting he made on the wood Christ used.
Showing even then how Jesus regarded her. He wanted His work to have her image...
And as i said - that image is still around today.
Thanks for pointing that out.

Well I have Jesus. I haven't even looked for Mary. She is not to be found for she is not here. Jesus found me and now that I have Jesus I have the Father. Sorry but He sends His messages to me through His written word and the Holy Spirit.

Now why would I need to go to heaven and come back when I have the living Christ living inside of me through His Spirit?

Do you have Jesus fully without the honor He wants for His Mother?

This is just an introspection that I myself have found to be true.

How can we have all of Jesus if we refuse to honor His Mother whom He Himself honors?
Its just something we must pray about.

I know the argument. I don't buy it.

That Christ is King or is not King?

Okay.

List all the Scriptures that state (dogmatically) that MARY was assumed into heaven upon her death (or undeath - depending on what form of the dogma you ascribe to).




Non realities cannot be proven. Can you PROVE to me that there are not little fuzzy people living on the Moon of Endore? If not, does that prove that there are? Nice try, my good friend.

Sure - keep all that I have given you either by word or by mouth.
Also keep the Tradition we have given you.

The Apostolic Church[es] are proof of this very Tradition.

For certainly the Oriental Orthodox [coptic] was schismed and actually due to in part exhile - have kept this Tradition as well.

If it didnt happen - there is no way the CC could have forced this 2000 year old Tradition even on them. And their Saints writing along the same lines....their Patriarchs [et al]

Why shouldn't we look at the Tradition - very similar - in all the schismed Church[es] and ask ourselves...why would they all keep these Traditions?
Since we know they aren't 'speaking' to one another about theology.

Also, besides the OT - John says he has great news to tell them by mouth to mouth [or face to face]
SO if scriptures are so complete...
How come John admits they are not...?
In fact three times he admits the scriptures [Epistles and Gospels] are not complete.

It is because John, as well as the others relied on the word of mouth more than the Epistles and the written.

SO why do we think we have a complete reference?

No, it cannot. There's ZERO evidence that there were ANY denominations before the 4th century - much less the specific, particular CATHOLIC one.

And that has nothing to do with what I posted. Read what you quoted from me.


BTW, I hold Our Blessed Lady in highest esteem, as chief among the saints, and IN A CERTAIN SENSE, I revere, adorate and worship her. THAT'S WHY I won't spread gossip and rumors about her - however well intended.




Thank you for the discussion...


Pax!


- Josiah





.

Thank you for sharing the love you have for her.

LOL how so with the Trinity? The word may not be in there but the meaning sure is..

Precisely.

But because the words are not definitive enough, ppl who are non Trinitarian can back up their theology with scriptures.

So it comes down to personal interpretation. And who has it right. [Absolute Truth has to be somewhere - God wouldnt abandon us]
It seems you agree with Tradition in this respect. The oral teaching of the Trinity....leading to a counsel of the Church to affirm this oral teaching.

But as i said, if we rely on scriptures alone, we miss alot of valuable information. Especially since the OT was hidden for a reason.

In order to get to Christ, the Mother had to be hidden. Her role was hidden. But when you unfold them, it is really clear how God regarded her even before her birth.

Don't be mistaken in thinking the scriptures are so clear. Peter even said to those alive that they couldnt understand Paul [even tho Paul was alive] so how can we without an authority know even more than those who heard Paul speak?
...simply by referring to that which he wrote in his epistles? IF they had trouble with the writings while he was alive and caused divisions...how we supercede their knowledge?

WE - the Apostolic Church[es] rely on Tradition as well as the written which was demanded of Timothy [a Bishop] by Paul - to teach using both.

In absense of Tradition, you have only the written and in that case will or may lose alot of the whole teaching.

Hence how some today refuse to acknowledge the word or idea of the Trinity.
Because it is NOT written out - per fact.

Don't worry tho, Catholics have to deal with the same argument against purgatory when the fact of the written shows it, but it is not a word in the Bible.

SO i guess we continue onwards to disagree what it means... but i will continue to rely on ecf's and Tradition and the Pope [who holds the keys]
Either way - i am sure i will meet you in Heaven, God willing...i may enter.