What about Hyperdulia?

[LittleLambofJesus]

*snip*
I can understand your disagreement over the Assumption...... .

So can I

http://www.christianforums.com/t6712549/
The Assumption Of The Blessed Virgin

 

[DD2008]

So saith Thou, the former Catholic. You fulfill the maxim, rather lamentably: "Familiarity breeds contempt."

This is spiritual difference. Your obstinate refusal to recognise that, due to your own embitterment against the Church of Rome, is why.

You presume too much.

The bible is my guidebook. The only thing I have against the Church of Rome is that they are unbiblical in teaching and practice, especially in this regard. That is why I didn't stay in fellowship with them. Worshiping Mary is not taught in the scriptures. Worshiping anything other than God is forbidden. Case closed.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

You presume too much.

The bible is my guidebook. The only thing I have against the Church of Rome is that they are unbiblical in teaching and practice, especially in this regard. That is why I didn't stay in fellowship with them. Worshiping Mary is not taught in the scriptures. Worshiping anything other than God is forbidden. Case closed.

Must we debate that on the GT board?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7352736/
a question for those who think Catholics worship Mary.

 

[Eucharisted]

So can I

http://www.christianforums.com/t6712549/
The Assumption Of The Blessed Virgin

Thanks for the nice comment on my userpage

 

[DD2008]

Must we debate that on the GT board?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7352736/
a question for those who think Catholics worship Mary.

People on their knees in front of a statue of Mary praying "through" her instead of directly to God because they have faith they will actually get better results, giving the statue flowers, kissing it, is worhsip in any book. It is utterly ridiculouse and at the hieght of absurdity to claim it's not. That is why Catholics are always having to talk about that because everyone else in the world worships God or idols in the same way the Catholics say they're not worshipping Mary!

 

[Virgil the Roman]

I have yet to seek a compelling, logical, and substantial reason for rejecting the Early Church Fathers' interpretation of Holy Scripture as opposed to yours, LLOJ or any other particular Protestant today.

 

[DD2008]

I have yet to seek a compelling, logical, and substantial reason for rejecting the Early Church Fathers' interpretation of Holy Scripture as opposed to yours, LLOJ or any other particular Protestant today.

As recorded in the New Testament, even while the apostles were yet teaching false teachers had already went out into the world. Read 2 Peter chapter 2. Why would I trust any man over the clear words of scripture.

Many of those people call ECFs were in deep error. Heresy has always ran deep because the devil hates God.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I have yet to seek a compelling, logical, and substantial reason for rejecting the Early Church Fathers' interpretation of Holy Scripture as opposed to yours, LLOJ or any other particular Protestant today.

Who said I was a Protestant?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7448114-12/#post54283622

 

[Rick Otto]

"Hyperdulia".
It sounds cool & is realy fun to say.

The kinda thing that would fit into a '60s pop song.

 

[Jeronimomoulia]

As Romano Amerio said in his book "Iota Unum", dogms about Mary proceed from her relationship with teandric man. Worship of God would involve a worship of reverence with his mather, the Teotokos.

I´m not going to refuse dogms about Mary: inmaculade conception and glorious assumption to heaven. I refuse relationship between christians and Mary, or any other saint in heaven.

Relationship is a bound between two persons; it involves consecuences for happiness or unhappiness, due to be relationship essential to any soul; we´re images of God. It is so important, that we care much about deals with anyone, with unknown people too.

What relationship can we have with Mary, if she doesnt become manifest to us?

I heard of some catholics that they are faithfull on Mary; but faith is only for God¡ God always can hear me, but Mary is a creature: not in scriptures, nor in dogms there is bases of the believe that Mary devotes every moment to me; it involves that relationship with Mary is at risk to be not much healthy.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

*snip*

As Romano Amerio said in his book "Iota Unum", dogms about Mary proceed from her relationship with teandric man. Worship of God would involve a worship of reverence with his mather, the Teotokos.
.

What I can't quite comprehend is why does the RCC need so many dogmas for Mary

http://www.christianforums.com/t6866068-101/#post43602184
Cardinals Hoping for a 5th Marian Dogma

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I have yet to seek a compelling, logical, and substantial reason for rejecting the Early Church Fathers' interpretation of Holy Scripture as opposed to yours, LLOJ or any other particular Protestant today.

Well would you mind backing up that statement by responding to post #32?

 

[Virgil the Roman]

As recorded in the New Testament, even while the apostles were yet teaching false teachers had already went out into the world. Read 2 Peter chapter 2. Why would I trust any man over the clear words of scripture.

Many of those people call ECFs were in deep error. Heresy has always ran deep because the devil hates God.

I see to recall of those false teachers; they are: Zwingle, Calvin, Luther, Bucer, Beza, Cranmer, Henry VIII, and Ochino; although, during the Protesters' rebellion, are mostly likelihood a whole, multitude more.

Holy Scripture does tell of the "sects of Perdition:"

But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there shall be among you lying teachers, who shall bring in sects of perdition, and deny the Lord who bought them: bringing upon themselves swift destruction. [2] And many shall follow their riotousnesses, through whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.

I, however, do not do as you would ask of me, that is, to privately interprete Holy Scripture:

Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I see to recall of those false teachers; they are: Zwingle, Calvin, Luther, Bucer, Beza, Cranmer, Henry VIII, and Ochino; although, during the Protesters' rebellion, are mostly likelihood a whole, multitude more.

So which ones does your Church/Denomination rely on

2Peter 2:1 There became yet also False-Prophets in the people as also in ye shall be False-Teachers whoany shall be carrying in sects of destruction, and the One buying them, Owner/Master/despothn <1203> disowning-- bringing on them swift destruction.
[Jeremiah 14:14,15/Matt 24:11/Jude 1:4]

Reve 6:16 And they are saying to the mountains and to the rocks 'be falling upon us! and hide us! from Face of the One sitting upon the Throne, and from the wrath of the Lambkin 17 that came the day, the great, of the wrath of Him, and who is able to stand'.
[Hosea 10:8/Luke 23:30]

 

[Frogster]

#1 Mary sinned.
#2 There is no mention of her in the epistles.
#3 There is not mention of her "assumption"
#4 Mary had children.
#5 Statues that show her with blonde hair are wrong.

 

[judechild]

Do you admit the clear text, that man is lower than the angels,like it says?

Because of an inferior relationship, yes. But Jesus was a man, and is above the angels because of His relationship to the Father; Mary also has a close relationship to the Father which is unique since she is Christ's own mother. I find it convenient for you to say that the first part of verse 7 is talking about humanity, simply because they are human, but the rest of the passage speaks of Christ, and not humanity. What is so clear about that distinction?

But your avoiding the simple text. Why did Mary die? The bible does not say that she was taken up? There seems to be alot of omission of her in the bible. The Holy Spirit took the time to talk about Enoch and Elijah, yet no Mary. Why?

I am not avoiding the text; I have attempted to explain it numerious times; you still have not responded to "All Israel will be saved." Do you, according to that text alone, believe that every Jewish person regardless of creed is saved? If there are possiblities in one instance, they are also available in the others. Are you also now acknowleging that Enoch and Elijah did not die?

I don't believe Mary died, because of her sinlessness.

Paul was full of grace, yet he sinned.

Show me the name &#954;&#949;&#967;&#945;&#961;&#953;&#964;&#969;&#956;&#949;&#957;&#951; (it would be in the masculine "&#954;&#949;&#967;&#945;&#960;&#953;&#964;&#969;&#956;&#949;&#957;&#959;") in reference to him and then talk may proceed on that.

Give me something to go on, why I should exempt Mary from the Adamic creation? What other creation could she have been in?

For the second time, when have I said she is not part of creation? Can God extend Graces necessary to prevent Mary from the stain of original sin?

Why didn't Paul omit her from the ALL?

Why didn't Paul omit Jesus from the ALL?

By calling her sinless, you are creating a diety, that the scriptures show a contrary view.

Why do you insist on this? If you expect to change anyone's view, you must first proceed from a perspective of respect; telling someone what they should believe about what they believe is the ultimate insult to a person. The Church opposed Collyridianism, a heresey that sought to actually deify the Virgin Mary.

By calling her sinless, we are acknowledging that her soul does "mangify the Lord" and also "call [her] blessed" because she is "full of Grace." We do not call her a god, goddess, godlette, minor-god, or any other combination of words for deity. She needed her savior (Luke 2:47), but that Grace was given to her before the fact, instead of after.

For the second time, did Jesus honor His mother Mary?

You also mention that there are a lot of "Trinity verses" in your other post; are you speculating with these verses as well?

 

[DD2008]

I see to recall of those false teachers; they are: Zwingle, Calvin, Luther, Bucer, Beza, Cranmer, Henry VIII, and Ochino; although, during the Protesters' rebellion, are mostly likelihood a whole, multitude more.

Holy Scripture does tell of the "sects of Perdition:"

I, however, do not do as you would ask of me, that is, privately interpreting Holy Scripture:

1. Those reformers were attempting to redirect the Church off of it's disasterous course back to the teachings of God recorded in the bible. They also lived 1500 years after the passage I presented was written. 2 Peter 2 was written referencing contemporaries with the author, Peter.

2. The passage you quoted has nothing to do with privately reading scripture.

2 Peter 1:15-21 KJV
[15] Moreover I will endeavour that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance.
[16] For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
[17] For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
[18] And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
[19] We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
[20] Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
[21] For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

The above passage (the one you referenced) is not in reference to the private reading of scripture. It is about the WRITING of scripture. Peter is clear that he is leaving his teachings for us in writing after he dies, under inspiration! You quoted one of the best passages that proves that Peter expected us to read scripture and told us that he has the word of prophecy and he was writing. The RCC apologists twist this passage to their destruction and are guilty of trying to drive people away from the study of the word of God.

 

[Frogster]

Because of an inferior relationship, yes. But Jesus was a man, and is above the angels because of His relationship to the Father; Mary also has a close relationship to the Father which is unique since she is Christ's own mother. I find it convenient for you to say that the first part of verse 7 is talking about humanity, simply because they are human, but the rest of the passage speaks of Christ, and not humanity. What is so clear about that distinction?

the context! it is clearly talking about the creation order. Man is lower than angels, and that includes Mary. No?
Was mary not human?

I am not avoiding the text; I have attempted to explain it numerious times; you still have not responded to "All Israel will be saved." Do you, according to that text alone, believe that every Jewish person regardless of creed is saved? If there are possiblities in one instance, they are also available in the others. Are you also now acknowleging that Enoch and Elijah did not die?

All is very clear in Rom 3:23 and chpt five. Answer me this. If there are exemptions to the "all", then that would mean that they were of another creation? ok..what creation then? There are only 2 headships. Was there some other headship mary was born in? Had Enoch or Elijah had not been taken, they would have died.

Now look at this>>Rom 3:10 as it is written:“None is righteous, no, not one;
That confirms the "all".

Romans 5 repeats "all" a few times too. Paul stressed it, as an imperative, not an indicative.

I don't believe Mary died, because of her sinlessness.

Do you have scriptural proof that she did not die?

Why does the bible mention Enoch and Elijah, but not Mary? Hmmmm.

Show me the name &#954;&#949;&#967;&#945;&#961;&#953;&#964;&#969;&#956;&#949;&#957;&#951; (it would be in the masculine "&#954;&#949;&#967;&#945;&#960;&#953;&#964;&#969;&#956;&#949;&#957;&#959;") in reference to him and then talk may proceed on that.

Diversion! Paul talked of the grace in him, and he sinned, just like mary. Your burden is to show me what other headship she was born under, if it was not Adam.What else was she born under, was there a third Adam?

For the second time, when have I said she is not part of creation? Can God extend Graces necessary to prevent Mary from the stain of original sin?

She was born under law, she sinned. Why did she go to the temple on the day of atonement? Can you show me scripture to show that she was prevented from original sin? The bible says the opposite.

Why didn't Paul omit Jesus from the ALL?

Oh come on. Surely you jest?

Why do you insist on this? If you expect to change anyone's view, you must first proceed from a perspective of respect; telling someone what they should believe about what they believe is the ultimate insult to a person. The Church opposed Collyridianism, a heresey that sought to actually deify the Virgin Mary.

By calling her sinless, we are acknowledging that her soul does "mangify the Lord" and also "call [her] blessed" because she is "full of Grace." We do not call her a god, goddess, godlette, minor-god, or any other combination of words for deity. She needed her savior (Luke 2:47), but that Grace was given to her before the fact, instead of after.

All scripture says that Jesus was the only sinless one. Show me one ..one verse that says there was another sinless one? Then I quess you think that we could be atoned through Mary too? The whole idea was that it says Jesus knew no sin, in 2 Cor 5:21, it does not say Mary. Why did mary need a saviour?

Luke 1:47 and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,

For the second time, did Jesus honor His mother Mary?

Not worship.
In fact..look at this. Jesus put her among all people..

Not exactly the "Queen of heaven" huh?

31 And his mother and his brothers came, and standing outside they sent to him and called him. 32 And a crowd was sitting around him, and they said to him, “Your mother and your brothers are outside, seeking you.” 33 And he answered them, “Who are my mother and my brothers?” 34 And looking about at those who sat around him, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! 35 For whoever does the will of God, he is my brother and sister and mother.”

You also mention that there are a lot of "Trinity verses" in your other post; are you speculating with these verses as well?

Catholics believe in the trinity. Show me sinless Mary verses..how about just one please?

 

[Frogster]

Bottom undisputed line.
There was just Adam before Jesus. What other creation could Mary have been born under, but Adam, who all sinned in?

Was there another Adam we don't know about? hmmmmm.

 

[Polycarp1]

Bottom undisputed line.
There was just Adam before Jesus. What other creation could Mary have been born under, but Adam, who all sinned in?

Was there another Adam we don't know about? hmmmmm.

The issue here is that you're presuming, presuably unconsciously, that God has no power over Time. You and I are saved by the Atomement, that Jesus's self-sacrifice overrides, eradicates the effect of any sins committed by those who give themselves to Him. The Atonement is the cause, our salvation the effect.

But what about the righteous Jews? Those who died before His Atonment? What about a hypothetical person who heard Him in His earthly ministry and believed, then came to his/her death on the original Maundy Thursday, the day before He voided out sin by His Crucifixion? Are not they saved by the retroactive application of His Atonement?

For the Catholic, Mary's being deemed sinless is another instance of this -- in order that she be a fit vessel to contain the Incarnation within her womb, God kept her sinless, not by some special miracle and not by her own merits, but because He applied Christ's Atonement to her retroactively, from the moment of her conception.

It's not a doctrine I accept -- but it's not that hard to grasp. The focus is still on His saving grace.