Why don't protestants bless Mary?

[Job8]

Do you agree with Paul that we should hold fast to the traditions, just as they were handed on, whether orally or by letter?

The traditions (also translated as ordinances) mentioned by Paul have no relation to the Holy Tradition of the RCC or EOC. Anything that Paul taught orally would have its correspondence in Scripture. So how did Paul bring Mary into his writings? He did not even name her, but regarding Christ he said that He was "made of a woman" (Gal 4:4).

Since all Christians agree that Paul's epistles are Scripture, and Peter explicitly groups them with the OT Scriptures, we can rest assured that the Holy Spirit prevented Paul from saying anything about Mary beyond what which was absolutely necessary. And it is noteworthy that Christ invariably addressed her as "Woman".

She is never mentioned in any of the epistles at all. Surely, if she was to be venerated (in fact she is worshipped by the Traditionalists) then the Holy Spirit would have caused the NT writers to indicate that somewhere along the way.

 

[patricius79]

The traditions (also translated as ordinances) mentioned by Paul have no relation to the Holy Tradition of the RCC or EOC. Anything that Paul taught orally would have its correspondence in Scripture. So how did Paul bring Mary into his writings? He did not even name her, but regarding Christ he said that He was "made of a woman" (Gal 4:4).

Since all Christians agree that Paul's epistles are Scripture, and Peter explicitly groups them with the OT Scriptures, we can rest assured that the Holy Spirit prevented Paul from saying anything about Mary beyond what which was absolutely necessary. And it is noteworthy that Christ invariably addressed her as "Woman".

She is never mentioned in any of the epistles at all. Surely, if she was to be venerated (in fact she is worshipped by the Traditionalists) then the Holy Spirit would have caused the NT writers to indicate that somewhere along the way.

I think you are sharing your oral traditions.

Do you agree with Paul that we should hold fast to the traditions, just as they were handed on, whether orally or by letter?

How do you know which books are in the N.T. Canon except by the oral Tradition of the historic Church, which holds that Jesus is God, and that Mary is the Immaculate Mother of God?

 

[Fireinfolding]

Do you agree with Paul that we should hold fast to the traditions, just as they were handed on, whether orally or by letter?

How do we know which books are in the Bible, except by the oral Tradition of the historic Church (the Catholic Church), which teaches that our sweet mother Mary is the New Eve, the Ark of the Covenant, the Immaculate and Ever-Virgin Mother of God?

Well, you can Kick that dead horse with someone else as I have taken that up again and again throughout the years, its always the last ditch effort when there is nothing left in the word of God to lean on something in the back pocket must be reached for.

I at least have posted on the same before in various ways, and acknowledge far more then what even you guys have put forth to me. I acknowledge the same in two places in that same epistle where such an example is left for us. I recall way back testing it out, going to a catholic site and asked on the very first one (leaving out any mention of any tradition in some word of mouth deal there) and it flew right over their heads as to what their inability to answer that meant (according to that tradition) well, you know "this secret knowledge" only they know being so not false and all. (according to "sacred Tradition") where Paul said he told them some things in person in 2 Thes 2:5 and no one could answer, nor did they reccognize it, not even being an example of a conveyer of the same, like they werent getting by their not knowing a thing (and not being able to tell) the very verse their churches online always quote (putting themselves out as the one true chruch). Thats all I needed there, I thought, how ironic is that?

Just a bunch of folks pretending to have a leg up on things whose fathers are just as divided on certain things as the others more often then not. Who seem to do nothing more then bring the scriptures into dispute when there is no answer, its the same game played here since for ever.

 

[patricius79]

Well, you can Kick that dead horse with someone else as I have taken that up again and again throughout the years, its always the last ditch effort when there is nothing left in the word of God to lean on something in the back pocket must be reached for.

I at least have posted on the same before in various ways, and acknowledge far more then what even you guys have put forth to me. I acknowledge the same in two places in that same epistle where such an example is left for us. I recall way back testing it out, going to a catholic site and asked on the very first one (leaving out any mention of any tradition in some word of mouth deal there) and it flew right over their heads as to what their inability to answer that meant (according to that tradition) well, you know "this secret knowledge" only they know being so not false and all. (according to "sacred Tradition") where Paul said he told them some things in person in 2 Thes 2:5 and no one could answer, nor did they reccognize it, not even being an example of a conveyer of the same, like they werent getting by their not knowing a thing (and not being able to tell) the very verse their churches online always quote (putting themselves out as the one true chruch). Thats all I needed there, I thought, how ironic is that?

Just a bunch of folks pretending to have a leg up on things whose fathers are just as divided on certain things as the others more often then not. Who seem to do nothing more then bring the scriptures into dispute when there is no answer, its the same game played here since for ever.

I think it is a simple question: do you agree with Paul that we should hold fast to the traditions, just as they were handed on, whether orally or by letter?

As a Catholic I accept 2 Thessalonians 2:15 as the living and effective Word of God, who was born of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Why would I disagree with scripture I have confirmed the same over and over again. Just search my name and run traditions, what I post isnt private and off in some corner.

 

[A greater Hope]

Because ultimately all blessings are to be given and lifted to the King God the father even his Son Jesus. Gatta problem with that let's take it to Jesus.

 

[A greater Hope]

Mary is bless as said the word in regard to have been chosen by God to conceive Holiness her Lord and to believe on him but besides that there no need to get hung up on Mary who is but Flesh, when there is eternal life to be gain freely to all who believe in Christ Jesus the King.

 

[patricius79]

Why would I disagree with scripture I have confirmed the same over and over again. .

I'm glad we agree that we should hold fast to the traditions, just as they were handed on, whether orally or by letter.

I don't know how we could know which books are in the N.T. Canon without the oral traditions which Paul refers to.

Likewise, Scripture tells us that Mary is the Mother of Jesus, our Savior and God.

 

[Fireinfolding]

I dont have any problem with the scriptures as they are written

 

[patricius79]

I dont have any problem with the scriptures as they are written

How do we know which books are in the N.T. Canon, when the Bible doesn't tell us that?

And how do we determine whether the Protestant oral traditions about Mary are true, or whether the Catholic oral traditions about the Mother of God are true?

I find that people who favor the Protestant oral traditions about Mary often don't accept John 6:54 or John 6:55.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Not interested patrcius

 

[JLB777]

How do we know which books are in the N.T. Canon, when the Bible doesn't tell us that?

And how do we determine whether the Protestant oral traditions about Mary are true, or whether the Catholic oral traditions about the Mother of God are true?

I find that people who favor the Protestant oral traditions about Mary often don't accept John 6:54 or John 6:55.

Have you ever eaten the literal flesh of Jesus Christ?

Have you ever drank the literal blood of Jesus Christ?


JLB

 

[JLB777]

Where does the Bible say that? Since Jesus is God, how can Mary--"the mother of Jesus"--not be the Mother of God?

The Lord Jesus was the only begotten of the Father, before the foundation of the world, as He created all things.


In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made... and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
John 1:1-3,14

The Word became flesh.

He became, or was made a little lower than the angels.

But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that He, by the grace of God, might taste death for everyone. Hebrews 2:9


Mary gave birth to the flesh and blood man, named Jesus Christ.


The Son of God [God the Son] had His existence and was begotten of the Father, long before Mary was born or before the foundation of the world.

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. Colossians 1:15


The Son of God created all things.

16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. Colossians 1:16-17


He, The Lord Jesus, as God, created Adam from the dust of the ground and breathed the Spirit of Life into Him.

And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. Genesis 2:7

Mary came from Adam.


The Body that was prepared for Him, came from Mary's womb.


Therefore, when He came into the world, He said:

“Sacrifice and offering You did not desire,
But a body You have prepared for Me.
6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin
You had no pleasure.
7 Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come—
In the volume of the book it is written of Me—
To do Your will, O God.’”
Hebrews 10:5-7


Mary gave birth to the flesh and blood body that all the fullness of the Godhead dwelt in.

Mary did not give birth to God.

Hopefully you can rightly divide the Word of truth here and see that Mary gave birth to the Man Jesus Christ, who died on the cross for our sins.

15 But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. Romans 5:15


JLB

 

[patricius79]

Have you ever eaten the literal flesh of Jesus Christ?

Have you ever drank the literal blood of Jesus Christ?


JLB

John 6:51, John 6:53, John 6:54, John 6:55.

Yes, I have. Do you believe Christ's words, and that Mary's Son is God?

 

[patricius79]

Mary gave birth to the flesh and blood body that all the fullness of the Godhead dwelt in.

Mary did not give birth to God.

I hear you saying that "Mary did not give birth to God". Where does the Bible say that Jesus is not God?

 

[JLB777]

I hear you saying that "Mary did not give birth to God". Where does the Bible say that Jesus is not God?

Where does the bible say Jesus was not flesh and blood man?

 

[JLB777]

Yes, I have.

Please produce the scripture that shows His disciples eating His literal flesh and drinking His literal blood.

No one has ever eaten the literal flesh, nor drank the literal blood of Jesus Christ.

His body was Resurrected intact to heaven where he sits at the right hand of God.


JLB

 

[patricius79]

Where does the bible say Jesus was not flesh and blood man?

It doesn't. Where does the Bible say "Mary did not give birth to God", or that Jesus is not God?

Or where does it say that John 6:53 and John 6:55 are false?

 

[patricius79]

Please produce the scripture that shows His disciples eating His literal flesh and drinking His literal blood.

No one has ever eaten the literal flesh, nor drank the literal blood of Jesus Christ.

His body was Resurrected intact to heaven where he sits at the right hand of God.


JLB

Yes, His body is Resurrected intact in heaven. Do you think you see some conflict between that fact and the most-insistent teaching of Christ that we must "munch" His flesh and drink His Blood?

When you say "Scripture", how do you know which books are in the N.T. Canon, except by the oral Tradition (2 Timothy 2:2) of the Catholic Church, which venerates Mary as the Immaculate Mother of God?

 

[JLB777]

John 6:51, John 6:53, John 6:54, John 6:55.

Yes, I have. Do you believe Christ's words, and that Mary's Son is God?

26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave t to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.”

27 Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. Matthew 26:26-27

The bread and the wine "represented" His Body and Blood.


and again -

23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same manner Healso took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”

26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.

Examine Yourself
27 Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 1 Corinthians 11:23-27

Eating bread that represents His body, not literally eating His flesh.



JLB