Unbiblical teachings from the church.

[Adventist Heretic]

My goal is not so much to simply teach Scripture. I also intend to correct much of the false teaching that is prevalent in almost every church building. It is so easy to tell a lie, twist Scripture, 2 Pet 3:16, or teach something out of context but it often takes much time and effort to debunk a lie. But all throughout Scripture many of the key figures also had to correct false teaching. In order for believers to live righteously, according to what Scripture teaches, they have to know what is presented in Scripture, not live their lives based on what preachers say.
I won't mention names because if you like a preacher I was to name, you would ignore or discount what I say. I will just show and give examples of false teaching. This way allows you to recognize when you are hearing a lie or being exposed to false teaching.
The three main reasons for the Reformation were to denounce the unbiblical practices of the Catholic Church, to protest all of the unbiblical things that the Catholic Church was teaching, and to give the common people the ability and right to read Scripture in their native language. For the previous 1000 or so years, otherwise known as the dark ages, the Catholic Church was dominant in matters concerning the bible, faith, serving God, etc. The Catholic Bibles were all in Latin and things read from the bible were read in Latin. The problem was that only the Catholic Clergy and a small number of educated men could read and write Latin. Common people didn't understand Latin. The Catholic Church had outlawed any other translation of the Bible in another language. It was a crime for a commoner to own a Bible. For a period of time, it was the death penalty for an unauthorized person to be in the possession of a bible. Many of the Reformers started off in the Catholic Church and they knew the Catholic Church was misrepresenting Scripture and they wanted the practice to stop. Thus, one of their main themes was "Sola Scriptura," which means, Scripture Alone! One of the main tenets of the Catholic Church, then and now, is that the traditions and teachings of the Catholic Church are superior to Scripture and when a Catholic Church's teaching contradicts Scripture, the teaching of the Catholic church supersedes Scripture. One of the Catholic Church's favorite sayings is, " The Church can stand without the Bible, the Bible cannot stand without the Church."
Since Scripture is God's word to believers, when you are going to teach Scripture, you need to stick with what is in Scripture. When you claim to teach from Scripture, you need to show in Scripture, book, chapter, and verse, where Scripture says such and such. God gave clear command to not add or take away from His word:
Deut 4:2, 12:32
Pro 30:5-6
Rev 22:18-19.
Notice in Proverbs, Scripture states if you add to God's word, you are a liar. This ungodly practice, men adding to or taking away from Scripture has been going on since Old Testament times. This study focuses on adding to God's word, teaching things that sound biblical, but are not found anywhere in Scripture. All of the things taught, but not found in Scripture fall under the category of what is called the "traditions of men." Scripture warns against following the traditions of men or the ignorant things ungodly men say:
Isa 29:13
Mat 15:1-3, 6-9
Mk 7:1-13
Col 2:8
1Tim 6:20
1Pet 1:18

I am now going to list many of the statements made from pulpits and believed by those in the pews that are not found anywhere in Scripture, not found in any translation or version of the bible nor in any Greek manuscript. Most of you will recognize some of these sayings, having heard your own preachers proclaim them. You can search, but you won't be able to locate them.

People have a hole in their hearts or a God-shaped hole in their hearts.
You have a void in your life.
You have a vacuum in your life.
Share the love of God/Jesus.
Share your faith.
Pass your faith on to your children.
Leave a spiritual heritage, legacy
Be the hands and feet of Jesus.
Accept Christ.
Invite Jesus into your heart, life.
Make Jesus your personal Lord and Savior.
Admit you are a sinner.
Give God/Jesus/Holy Spirit control of your life.
Surrender to God/Jesus/Holy Spirit.
You are God's masterpiece.
Lift up the name of Jesus.
Plead the blood.
There is power in the blood.
The work of the cross.
Sinners' prayer.
Praying for another or the lost to "get saved."
Pray for the lost.
Meek means "strength under control.'
Love the unlovable.
Broken people, world.
Those who God uses.
Make yourself available to God.
Let God use you.
Give God permission to work in you, through you.
God is your biggest fan.
God hurts when you hurt.
God won't waste your pain.
Don't put God in a box.
God wants to...
God allows...
Deathbed confession.
Church planting.
Music minister.
Music ministry.
Praise/worship leader.
Praise and worship band.
Radical faith.
Random acts of kindness
Practice the presence of God.
How big is your God?
God is in control.
Affect/change society, culture or the world.
Wilderness period.
Mountaintop/valley experience.
The storms in your life.
The giants in your life.
God will meet you where you are at.
Jesus will change your life.
Prayer changes things.
Prayer walk.
Prayer warrior.
Prayer wall.
Prayer allows God to work in your life.
God will use the adversity in your life.
Sold out to God/Jesus.
Evangelical
Evangelicalism.
Ask Jesus to be the Lord of your life.
Leading people to Christ.
The heart of God/Jesus.
Prayer room.
God has a wonderful plan for your life.
You're going to do great things.
God is going to use you in a mighty way.
There is a great move of God coming.
Stretch your faith.
Standing on the word, promises of God.
Where God guides, God provides.
The God of the second chance.
God loves you so much.
Cheap grace
God is so into you.
Fall in love with God/Jesus.
Fall in love with Jesus.
Giving money allows God to work.
Giving money is a form of worship.
Angels singing.
Let God...
Giving money allows God to work
Giving money shows you aren't greedy.
Believers today are under the tithe.
Jesus is the answer.
An attitude of gratitude.
Stinking thinking.
Anointed singing, preaching.
I see the anointing on so and so.
Powerful preaching, sermon.
Your identity in Christ.
Christian sexuality, masculinity.
Christians living in shame, fear, and guilt.
Jesus massaged your heart.
Blessed means happy.
Discover God's will/plan for your life.
How to discover your spiritual gift.
Treasure in heaven is money you sent ahead.
All in.
Resonate.
Different ministries to reach different groups.
Youth, children's ministry.
Sunday school
Musical groups travel around to perform.
Christian singers or musicians.
Transparency.
Divine appointment.
Senior, lead pastor.
Ushers.
Greeters.
Parking ministry.
Who God created you to be.
Devotionals.
We are here to worship God and enjoy Him forever.
Self-esteem.
Image bearers.
Church planting.
Minister of dance, dancing.
Personal relationship.
Easter.
Christmas.
Lent.
Advent.
Accept God's love.
Christian statesman, thinkers.
Changed lives.
God will take away your desires to sin.
All that God has for you.
Prayer journal.
Spread, advance the kingdom.
God loves you so much.
Reading something from the bible and asking, 'How does this apply to me?"
God gave His all.
You can't outgive God.
God is winsome.
Altar call.
With every head bowed and eyes closed.
Somebody saying to another, "You have something I want."
Seed means money.
"I'm believing God for..."
Life coach.
God loves you the way you are, but He loves you too much to leave you there.
Change agents.
Making an investment into the kingdom.
Help us reach the world.
I'd like to invite you to accept Christ.
God asks, "Why should I let you into heaven, what did you do with Jesus, what did you do with the money, and gifts I gave you?
Jesus invaded Earth.
Jesus was a revolutionary.
A preacher saying, "I think or I believe.'
God adores you.
Trust in Jesus for your salvation.
Jesus came with a message of love.
The bible is God's love letter to us.
The lover of my soul.
The enemy of my soul.
Satan hates believers.
Revivalists.
Psalmist.
This year is going to be the best year of your life.
Are you teachable?
Have you submitted your will to God?
Faith in your faith.
Baby Jesus.
Whomsoever may come.
How big is your faith?
God pursues people.
God is the hound from heaven.
Gifted.
Spiritual failure.
God has a special love for children.
Opening yourself for possession.
Influenced by demons.
Satan whispers in your ear or puts thoughts into your mind.
Satan talks to you.
Lordship.
Applauding the preacher.
The congregation buys gifts for the preacher and his wife.
Long, drawn-out prayers.
Testimonies.
God told me...
Personal stories from the preacher.
Caught, not taught.
Tell people how much God loves them.
Unchurched.
Step into your destiny.
Preachers giving advice on mental health issues.
Hearing God.
Till the whole world hears.
The wooing of the Holy Spirit.
"I receive that."
Speaking into people's lives.
Surrender your life and possessions to God.
Give God your pain.
Forgive God.
Spiritual soul mate.
Ask God who you should marry.
Paul was a terrorist.
Jesus came to change the world.
God knows your potential.
The last thing to get saved is a person's wallet.
Prayer posture.
Go tell people about me and how they can come to know me.
Claiming territory for God.
Asking God/Jesus/Holy Spirit to show up in a church service.
Church service.

I could add more. The point is if you hear any of these statements made, I would ask your preacher to show you where Scripture teaches this. All preachers are accountable for what they say. If something isn't found in Scripture, then it isn't biblical and should not be taught, period! If it isn't in Scripture, it is a lie, it is false teaching!
I am aware that some will disagree with me that these statements are not biblical. And that is okay with me. I'm not here to have people "believe" me or try to persuade people to believe what I say. The only important thing is that Scripture is believed. If a statement is not found in Scripture, then it isn't Scripture. If you think I am wrong and seek to prove me wrong, you must use Scripture and Scripture alone to show any error. Otherwise, it is just your personal opinion or belief, which doesn't mean anything to me.

How old are you

 

[Christopher0121]

Were the Fathers at Chalcedon approving the orthodoxy of the Tome of Leo - or deferring to the teaching authority of the See of Rome as personified by St Leo ?

It seems to me that the answer to the question depends on one’s point of view. That neither answer is the only possible one. That is the trouble with quoting excerpts from the Fathers: they can often be taken in different senses by the disputants in a debate.

And they can legitimately be taken in different senses, which can have vastly different practical results.

Yes, there's always room for disagreement and various perspectives. My point is that this position dates into antiquity, and was widely accepted, before any Protestant criticism of it.

 

[JulieB67]

As I read through Acts, I don't see Peter as head of the church. He was prominent in it for a while, yes, but not head of it.
No one said, "well Peter has the keys of the kingdom, we'd better ask him", or "Peter has more authority than anyone, we need to ask him before we pray for this person/celebrate the Lord's Supper/start a new congregation.

Exactly. And Christ talked about binding and loosing with the others as well after Matthew 16.

In Acts, we see these verses,

Acts 1:2 "Until the day in which He was taken up, after that He throught the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom He had chosen:"

Acts 1:14 "These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brethren."

They all formed the first church, not Peter.

Acts 1:23 "And they appointed two, Joseph call Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias."

Acts 2:1 "And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.

Acts 2:14 "But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, "Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:

Acts 2:42 "And they continued steadfastly in the apostles doctrine and followship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers."

Yes, he spoke but they are in one accord together.

And I think Ephesians 2 really nails down that it's the apostles and prophets with Christ as the rock/Cornerstone,

Ephesians 2:20 "And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone;"


Ephesians 2:21 "In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy Temple in the Lord:"

Ephesians 2:22 "In Whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

That's the the basis of the church that the apostles started.

And when asked who was the greatest, the Lord could have said Peter had the authority over the others and he didn't. Because it wasn't true.

We can't take one verse out of the Bible and base an entire belief system out of it. These verses I just posted show some context that it was the apostles doctrine, not just Peters, etc. that drove the church. And we can't let traditions of men, not God drive our belief system as well.

 

[Christopher0121]

Sometimes what many accuse the Church of being unbiblical about is a matter of interpretation. For example, most Protestants will argue that the spiritual state known as "Purgatory" is unbiblical. However, the Bible actually does lend itself to an expression of purgatorial suffering. A proper understanding of the Catholic position on this teaching is necessary.

In brief, no sin shall enter Heaven (Revelation 21:27). For the believer who dies in friendship with God, and yet is still in need of cleansing from venial sin and attachments to this world, there is an act of cleansing grace historically known as Purgatory which takes place after one's Particular Judgment...

1 Corinthians 3:12-15
New Catholic Bible
12 Now if anyone builds on that foundation with gold, silver, and precious stones, or with wood, hay, and straw, 13 the work of each person will come to light. For the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the worth of each person’s work 14 If what has been built survives, the builder will be rewarded. 15 If it burns down, that person will suffer loss. The person will be saved, though only by passing through fire.

Protestants, namely Evangelicals, describe this as being a general judgment before the "Judgment Seat of Christ" where believers are rewarded for righteousness and suffer loss for sin. This is said to take place in Heaven after the alleged "Rapture" as the earth is in "Great Tribulation". It is preparation for the Millennium.

However, the Catholic understanding, and oldest interpretation of this passage, is that it depicts what awaits the imperfect believer following what is known as the, "Particular Judgment". This is the judgment each person is appointed to after death. For the SAVED Christian this judgment will try one's works of the soul and burn up that which isn't of God, leaving only a purified saint of God. And they will be saved... yet so as by fire. This state of purification and cleansing is theologically called "Purgatory".

So, as the reader can see... if read as Catholics read this, Purgatory is indeed perfectly biblical. The Evangelical interpretation of an after Rapture "Judgment Seat of Christ" is not found until modern history and is a development within the Dispensationalism movement. Ironically, each view still has the purification of the believer taking place. However, the Evangelicals fear calling it "purgatorial" as that would validate the Catholic Church's teaching on the matter.

All in all, Purgatory is an act of God's grace, purifying the unprepared believer in preparation of Heavenly glory. The unsaved go immediately to Hell after their Particular Judgment and have absolutely no hope of redemption.

P.S.

If memory serves me correctly, even though the Orthodox do not use the term "Purgatory" for this state, they do understand this state as being an aspect of what they call, "Final Theosis"... and essentially serves the same purpose.

​

 

[Adventist Heretic]

Did the OP ever make a follow up post?

 

[prodromos]

Did the OP ever make a follow up post?

Nope.

 

[Adventist Heretic]

Nope.

that is funny

 

[timothyu]

Is the Bible the word of God or not?

Sure and everything points to His Kingdom, His will over the will of man, the point He has been trying to get across since the beginning.

 

[timothyu]

Did the OP ever make a follow up post?

That's never stopped anybody

 

[jamiec]

Outside of American Evangelicalism, there were theologians in the early 20th century who spoke in provocative ways to make a point. For example, that in a sense Christ is the end of religion, that Christ has dethroned all would-be gods, etc. The general sense is not that Christianity is "is a relationship, not a religition", but rather the sense given is that in Christ something better than religion has come, Christ is the telos, the end, the consummation of all religious hope and anticipation and all man-made attempts to worship or respect the divine is shown to be nothing more than idolatry.

Here's how Fr. Herbert McCabe says it,

"In Jesus, says the Christian, we do not understand God but we can watch God understanding himself. God's understanding of God is that he throws himself away in love, that he keeps nothing back for himself. God's understanding of God is that he is a love that unconditionally accepts, that always lets others be, even if what they want to be is his murderers. God's understanding of God is that he is not a special person with a special kind of message, with a special way of living to which he wants people to conform. God's understanding of God could not appear to us as someone who wants to found a new and better religion, or recommend a special new discipline or way of life - a religious code laid upon us for all time because it is from God. God's understanding of God is that he just says: 'Yes, be; be human, but be really human; be human if it kills you - and it will.' The Law of God is a non-law; it has no special regulations. The Word just says: 'I accept you as human beings; what a pity you have such difficulty in doing this yourselves. What a pity you can only like yourselves if you pretend to be super-humans or gods.' God could never understand himself as one of the gods; only as one of the human race." - Fr. Herbert McCabe, God Still Matters, pp. 104-105

-CryptoLutheran

I somewhat doubt that the "Christianity-is-not-a-religion" bunch are going to read McCabe. He is making a rather different point, I think, from the one that interests them. It seems never to occur to them that their position, by trashing religion (including Christianity), leaves one with nothing, if ever the relational aspect of the Christian life is eclipsed. They are making the best the enemy of the good, and preparing Christians for atheism.

 

[timothyu]

leaves one with nothing

Living a way of life 2/7 (as the Way did) is far more beneficial to all than a hierarchical religious governance.

 

[Strong in Him]

It is actually customary to take a bow when hailing royalty. This is why so much of the most ancient art depicting the Annunciation depicts Gabriel taking a bow before Mary.

Gabriel didn't bow, or bend the knees, to Mary.
It doesn't matter how many paintings show it; it's not in the text.

Remember... I'm reading this through the lens of ancient customs the reader would have recognized instantly. You're ignoring such things and running with an interpretation that is no older than the 1500's.

I'm reading the text which was written in the 70s or 80s A.D.

Again, you have to read this like an ancient Jew living in 1st Century Palestine. This was VERY VERY big.

The text does not indicate that Gabriel bowed to Mary or hailed her as Queen.
The NT does not indicate that Jesus, or anyone else, recognised, and addressed, Mary as "Queen of heaven."

In fact, the mere thought of a king being born initiated Herod's Slaughter of the Innocents which was the reason why the Holy Family fled to Egypt.

Jesus was king, yes - that doesn't mean Mary was queen.
That's putting 2 + 2 together and making 5.

I think you're missing the point again. Jesus tells Mary it isn't His time. However, Mary tells the servants to do whatever Jesus says... and leaves. lol

Where does the text say that Mary left?

Now, every Jewish family knows that that means! LOL Mother has spoken. LOL

You're saying a 30 year old man with his own ministry, who was the Son of God and did not do anything unless it was God's will, had to do what his mother told him?
Even at the age of 12 Jesus asked her why she didn't understand that he had to be in his Father's house.

This is LOVE. This highlights a loving Son who will not allow His Mother's request to go unmet. This illustrates a relationship... not necessarily a principle.

This is reading into the text.
Mary commented to Jesus that the wine had run out; she did not say, "can you provide some more?" It was not Mary's need that Jesus was meeting, and he did not act only because she had asked him to - because she didn't.
Elsewhere, when Jesus was told that his mother and brothers were outside, wanting to meet him, he did not say, "I must go to my mother because she is my mother, and the queen of heaven", he said "who are my mother and my brothers?" Yes of course he loved Mary - but she did not dictate his life or Ministry.

I know in Protestantism, things are always tied to principles, like spiritual laws of physics or something.

Like what?
Are you saying that Protestants are incapable of recognising relationships??

For the ancient Christians... we, they didn't believe this relationship ended upon Christ's ministry, His death, or His ascension. Nor did they believe this relationship ended upon Mary's own assumption into Heaven.

We are not told that Mary had an "assumption into heaven." We do not hear of Mary after Acts 1, where she is praying together with the disciples.
You would have thought that someone would have been keen to tell us about "the queen of heaven". How long did she live? How many churches did she found? Did she go around telling everyone what Jesus was like as a boy, and when he first recognised his ministry?" What sort of ministry did she, herself, have?
But we don't hear very much at all about her. Why not? Jesus saves, Jesus is King, Jesus died for us and the Gospel was all about Jesus, not his mother.
From what I see of Mary's response to Gabriel, she was humble enough, and committed enough to God to realise this. I don't believe she would ever have claimed something special for herself or boasted of her status.
I actually think she would be horrified if she came to earth now and saw how much some people were honouring her and asking her to intercede for them.

leading not only to Mary's coronation as implied in Revelation 12,

Implied in Rev 12, not stated. It does not say "then Mary was crowned queen of heaven."
Such a clear, unambiguous teaching of Scripture would leave no one in any doubt about Mary's status - but it's not there. Even if it had said that - and I know you'll argue that it does; what does that mean, if anything, for the church?
Jesus is our only Saviour - Peter said that.
Jesus, through his Spirit, prays for us - Paul says that.
Jesus will return again in glory as King - Jesus, Peter and Paul say that.

This means that while many argue we don't read much about Mary's involvement in the early Church... the very texts they are reading were compiled with perhaps more assistance from Mary than any other figure.

Yes; so?
No one said she was unimportant, or had nothing to contribute. She was an amazing woman and said "yes" to God, even though that meant hardship, and a life threatening situation. She had to travel all the way to Bethlehem while pregnant and to Egypt soon after giving birth. I've no doubt there were whispers about her being pregnant and unmarried. And years later she saw her Son being killed.
I am just saying that we do not see, from Scripture, that she had the important, and almost divine, status that she has today. The apostles in the early church were all sent by Jesus; all equal. No one gave special honour, privilege or the best leadership roles to any of his family. (Though I know you don't concede that he had siblings.)

Sometimes, what isn't written is just as important as what was written.

No, if something isn't in Scripture, it isn't there. We don't need to know it; it's not important for God's plan, our salvation, our relationship with him and our future.
That's why we have lots of cults - people have said, "I have this personal revelation; God himself said to me ....." Their leader's personal and subjective revelation is more important than what's written in God's word - or at least, they try to persuade converts that it is.

To be continued - maybe.

 

[Hmm]

Interesting debate but I can't help wondering as a complete layman whether the underlying question - which particular church has exclusive authority? - makes any sense. Wasn't the whole point of the incarnation and atonement that God has come to us directly so that we can now approach Him directly, as our Father, without needing any person or institution standing between us?

Tying to interpose anything between us and God seems to be going backwards into the religion of the Temple which needed high priests to go into the holy of holies because the ordinary people couldn't get close to God and survive the experience. It seems to reject the closeness of the relationship with our "Abba" which Jesus was encouraging us to embrace.

If God literally and spiritually tore down the curtain which separates us from Him when Jesus died, what sense does it make that He would go on to hang up a new curtain with its own high priests controlling access? And I include all churches in this, not just the Catholic church. Shouldn't we just learn from the combined example and wisdom of all Christians everywhere and make our own response? We won't all think identically but who says we should do?

 

[ViaCrucis]

I somewhat doubt that the "Christianity-is-not-a-religion" bunch are going to read McCabe. He is making a rather different point, I think, from the one that interests them. It seems never to occur to them that their position, by trashing religion (including Christianity), leaves one with nothing, if ever the relational aspect of the Christian life is eclipsed. They are making the best the enemy of the good, and preparing Christians for atheism.

I sincerely doubt they're reading McCabe either. But I think that the "Christianity is not a religion" is perhaps a perverted echo of older, better theology. My hypothesis is that the good subversive theology of early 20th century theologians reacting against both Liberalism and Fundamentalism (especially in light of the contemporary horrors two world wars, the rise of fascism, the Holocaust, etc) good things got said; and I suspect that there is, as I said, a kind of "perverted echo" of that in contemporary "Christianity is not a religion" language. The problem is that what earlier theologians were trying to communicate was the ways in which the Incarnation, the Gospel, and the Church function subversively; that Christ did not give us a new religion, but in a sense gave us a "non-religion". Jesus didn't just come and give us a new code, a new moral, a new system--He came to turn the world upside-down.

The irony, then, is that very often the "Christianity is not a religion" language today is precisely just more vain religiosity; there's nothing subversive in it. Nothing is being challenged, no thinking is being provoked. Instead, it has become the mantra of spiritual laziness: "I don't have a religion, I have a relationship" is a great way to defend oneself from actually taking Christianity seriously. After all, if it all boils down to some interior sense of the Divine, entirely separated from the Incarnation, the Gospel, the Sacraments, the Scriptures, etc--well, then God can be anything -I- want God to be.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[timothyu]

Was the original Christianity, 'The Way' a religion or way of life built upon what Jesus taught about God's will being done rather than man's

 

[jamiec]

It is actually customary to take a bow when hailing royalty. This is why so much of the most ancient art depicting the Annunciation depicts Gabriel taking a bow before Mary. It was customary to bend the knee when speaking such a greeting, especially if the one hailed is seated. It's to elevate them, you never speak it while standing higher than they are. Remember... I'm reading this through the lens of ancient customs the reader would have recognized instantly. You're ignoring such things and running with an interpretation that is no older than the 1500's.

You're making my point. Gabriel would see her as the Holy Gebirah (Queen Mother) on account of what she was chosen to do, which was to give birth to the King of Kings. Again, you have to read this like an ancient Jew living in 1st Century Palestine. This was VERY VERY big. In fact, the mere thought of a king being born initiated Herod's Slaughter of the Innocents which was the reason why the Holy Family fled to Egypt. The story is scandalously seditious. Even a Roman reader knowledgeable of Jewish custom would read this and realize Gabriel was hailing Mary as Queen, and informing her she was giving birth to a new and enduring King.



I think you're missing the point again. Jesus tells Mary it isn't His time. However, Mary tells the servants to do whatever Jesus says... and leaves. lol Now, every Jewish family knows that that means! LOL Mother has spoken. LOL And the next thing we see is Jesus instructing them to go and fetch water, and here He works His first miracle of turning water into wine. This illustrates the loving relationship Jesus has with His Mother, Mary. Though it wasn't His time, the time He determined, her request laid before Him provoked Him to act... even though it wasn't a part of His own determined timeline. This is LOVE. This highlights a loving Son who will not allow His Mother's request to go unmet. This illustrates a relationship... not necessarily a principle. I know in Protestantism, things are always tied to principles, like spiritual laws of physics or something. Here we see the depth of love and relationship between Jesus and His Mother.

For the ancient Christians... we, they didn't believe this relationship ended upon Christ's ministry, His death, or His ascension. Nor did they believe this relationship ended upon Mary's own assumption into Heaven. In fact, based on the Church Fathers and early Christian writings, including etchings and iconography found in first and second century catacombs, early Christians believed this relationship deepened... leading not only to Mary's coronation as implied in Revelation 12, but also affirming the value of Mary's intercession for the Church. I understand you don't embrace this understanding. My point is... this understanding is a valid historical Christian understanding dating back to the earliest days of the Church.



This means that while many argue we don't read much about Mary's involvement in the early Church... the very texts they are reading were compiled with perhaps more assistance from Mary than any other figure. In fact, our theology takes into account the story behind the stories, not just the stories themselves. Sometimes, what isn't written is just as important as what was written.



The very notion of a "king" is an earthly practice. Again, you have to read the text through the lens of an ancient reader. These things jump out all over the place when you do. The Protestant method of interpretation is divorced from all historic and cultural realities that would have been self-evident to the ancient reader. Why? Because Protestantism's view is 1500 years after the fact. This more ancient understanding prevailed for 1,500 years until Reformers broke away from it in order to establish their own authority outside of the Church under the umbrella's of their earthly kings who assumed full authority over their Protestant churches. Acknowledging all these things as applying only to Christ... one is actually protected from falling under human civil authority.



In Revelation 12 we read...

"1 A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon beneath her feet, and a crown of twelve stars on her head. 2 She was with child and about to give birth, crying aloud in the anguish of her labor.
3 Then another sign appeared in heaven: a huge red dragon with seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems crowning his heads. 4 His tail swept away a third of the stars in the sky and hurled them to the earth. The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that it might devour her child as soon as it was born. 5 She gave birth to a son, a male child who is destined to rule all the nations with an iron rod. And her child was taken up directly to God and to his throne." (Revelation 12:1-5, New Catholic Bible)​

Symbols in the Revelation often have expansive realities. Here we clearly see a woman who gives birth to Christ. Therefore, we cannot deny that this symbol is St. Mary the Mother of God. Now, she also serves as a fitting example of Zion, and even the Church according to some. But St. Mary is clearly the chosen symbol embodying all of these things. And not only is she depicted here as giving birth to the Messiah under Herod's threat to kill the Christ Child (the desire of the dragon to devour her child), she's... crowned. The crown has 12 stars. This two has a double meaning. There were 12 tribes of Israel and 12 Apostles. And so, to be crowned with 12 stars is to be crowned with royal authority over God's covenant people as a whole. Since all authority comes from God, this crown was clearly given to her by God Himself (Father, Son, and Spirit). And so this text clearly presents Mary coronated as Gebirah, or Queen Mother, of Heaven. In addition, let's look at the last few verses of this chapter...

Revelation 12:17
New Catholic Bible
17 Then the dragon became enraged at the woman and went off to wage war on the rest of her offspring, those who keep God’s commandments and bear witness to Jesus.​

So here we read that Satan becomes enraged at the woman, Mary, and intensifies a war on "...the rest of her offspring, who keep God's Commandments and bear witness to Jesus." This is VERY powerful. Notice those who keep God's commandments and bear witness to Christ are regarded as... "her offspring". In other words, she is the Mother of the Church. She is your mother, my mother, our mother. We are her offspring. This is huge. Ponder it quietly and reflect on the text. She's our Mother. This is also a reference going back to the protoevangelium in Genesis where God speaks to Satan saying...

Genesis 3:15​

New Catholic Bible
"15 I will establish hostility
between you and the woman,
between your line and her line.
Her offspring will crush your head
and you will bruise his heel.”

We are her offspring, her line. Christ is her offspring, who crushed Satan. She is our Mother.



Actually, if you examine the points made above... Scripture does affirm Mary's Queenship as it relates to Christ's Kingship. This is the oldest interpretation of the text and was embraced by the Fathers of the Church and every Christian prior to the Reformation. Again, that's 1,500 years of Christian history.



You're right, we don't keep Jewish customs. However, we are informed by them. Through the Jewish mind we can reconstruct the lens whereby the original readers understood the Scriptures.



As stated above, the text demands it. The woman in Revelation 12 clearly gives birth to Christ, and so she is Mary. And she is crowned, therefore, she was coronated. This is the foundation of the symbol present, regardless of any expansive meaning. We can't deny Mary is seen giving birth to the Christ child as Satan seeks to destroy the child (Herod's slaughter of the Innocents). We can't deny she's crowned with 12 stars denoting her authority over God's covenant people.

As stated above the earlier 1st and 2nd Century Christians left iconography and writings on stone where they gathered to break bread in secret, including the Catacombs. There are etchings in stone and symbols depicting St. Mary calling her "Theotokos". There are prayers and petitions etched on walls near her iconography. Her adoration is recorded in the Church Fathers, and is affirmed by the Councils.

Though you might not embrace it... this is the most ancient interpretation and practice of the Church concerning Mary. Your minimizing view of her didn't begin until 1500's.

The pre-Reformation commentators on Rev 12 understand the Woman as the Church. Some of them understand the Woman as both the Church, and the BVM. Only since the Ref. has Latin Catholicism taken the Woman to be the BVM exclusively. The much-quoted Haydock Bible of 1812-14 (reprinted 1859) interprets the Woman as primarily the Church.

Whether the Woman is either the Church or the BVM, is another matter. In my humble opinion it is neither of them, but is instead Judah. I think that both the Woman of 12 and the Woman of 17 are one and the same figure, at different stages in its existence, in contrast to the heavenly Jerusalem, which “comes down from God”.

Modern US Catholic apologetics does not reflect Catholic tradition on this matter, but only a limited segment of it.

Nothing is being taken from the BVM in pointing out any of this. There is no reason whatsoever why the BVM should be referred to in the book of Revelation; it is not about her - it is about Christ. As the book points out.

 

[DragonFox91]

Not what I was expecting this thread to be about at all. I was expecting things like dress-code

 

[timothyu]

I was expecting things like dress-code

Why would there be a dress code?

 

[DragonFox91]

Why would there be a dress code?

Exactly

 

[jamiec]

I sincerely doubt they're reading McCabe either. But I think that the "Christianity is not a religion" is perhaps a perverted echo of older, better theology. My hypothesis is that the good subversive theology of early 20th century theologians reacting against both Liberalism and Fundamentalism (especially in light of the contemporary horrors two world wars, the rise of fascism, the Holocaust, etc) good things got said; and I suspect that there is, as I said, a kind of "perverted echo" of that in contemporary "Christianity is not a religion" language. The problem is that what earlier theologians were trying to communicate was the ways in which the Incarnation, the Gospel, and the Church function subversively; that Christ did not give us a new religion, but in a sense gave us a "non-religion". Jesus didn't just come and give us a new code, a new moral, a new system--He came to turn the world upside-down.

The irony, then, is that very often the "Christianity is not a religion" language today is precisely just more vain religiosity; there's nothing subversive in it. Nothing is being challenged, no thinking is being provoked. Instead, it has become the mantra of spiritual laziness: "I don't have a religion, I have a relationship" is a great way to defend oneself from actually taking Christianity seriously. After all, if it all boils down to some interior sense of the Divine, entirely separated from the Incarnation, the Gospel, the Sacraments, the Scriptures, etc--well, then God can be anything -I- want God to be.

-CryptoLutheran

All of that makes a lot of sense. It also sounds very Lutheran - not so far removed from what Rudolf Bultmann might say.