Really?
Looks like SOME Catholics bow to statues of Mary.
You can deny it all you want but your credibility tanks severely when you deny what is patently obvious to anyone who can see.
Posted on 12/10/2014 6:32:20 AM PST by marshmallow
They like their dream cult and won’t leave it just because of things such as facts and the Truth. They’ll make really stupid agruments in their most educated terms of babble.
Rahab is in the lineage.
It’s getting close to supper time.
I’d better do some work around here!
You said that Jesus did not get His divine nature from Mary. You said He got is human nature from Mary. Only God is divine. Jesus did not get His divine nature from Mary. Mary is not the mother of His divine nature. Ergo, Mary is not the mother of the divine God.
Been fixin’ broken computers and nursing an sinus-infected wife who is sleeping through the afternoon.
C U
R2z
If Mary died and was buried, where is her tomb? Where is the corpse?
We have the tomb and the bones of St. Paul and St. Peter. In the columns of the baldacchino in St. Peter’s are the bones of about 15,000 Roman martyrs. The early Christians treasured and preserved the tombs and relics of saints.
Not only are there no tomb and no relics of Mary, there is no evidence that there ever were. And there is no evidence that anyone ever CLAIMED to have them.
The total absence of even a FALSE claim is evidence that EVERYONE—even potential fraudsters—knew that such a claim would be believed by NO ONE.
The only reason that NO ONE would believe such a claim is proof that EVERYONE in the early Christian community believed that no one COULD have such relics.
What is your explanation for the fact that NO ONE in history ever claimed—even falsely—to have the body of Mary or any part of it?
Mary is not the origin of the eternal Word, the Second Person of the Trinity. No one ever believed or said that she was.
Mary IS the mother of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the incarnate Word, the Second Person of the Trinity.
Because Jesus Christ is the Second Person of the Trinity, who is God, Mary is called the “Mother of God.”
Tagline.
My point is that if His Son is to be perfect, it makes no sense for Him to derive sick flesh, sick blood, a sick mind from a sick mother.
The OT analogy or foreshadowing would be the way the Ark of the Covenant prefigures Mary. It is to be plated entirely with gold; four rings of gold are to be attached to its four feet; the staves which carry it are overlaid with gold; A golden cover, a kapporet adorned with golden cherubim, is to be placed above the Ark. The Ark is finally to be placed behind a veil (full description at Exodus 25 or thereabouts) and treated with the greatest reverence. One might not even casually touch it, lest he die.
This is an image of the perfection and purity of the vessel carrying the mysterious Presence of the Lord.
In the Old Testament, the Ark of the Covenant, overshadowed by the the Spirit of God, was the instrument through which God came to dwell among men; in the New Testament, Mary, overshadowed by the Holy Spirit, is the instrument through which God came to dwell among men. That's why this Mary-Ark prefigurement makes sense.
Of any ordinary woman, we would naturally assume that the woman is a sinner. That is a given. I think we should not be justified in saying anything different of Mary, EXCEPT that the Angel of God sees it and says it otherwise. At no point is Mary called "full of sin." She is called "full of grace."
Tried looking on Patmos? John was taking care of her as his mother before he was imprisoned and he was a pretty smart fella...just as you are.
He might have thought of the possibilities of veneration of Mary after her death and taken precautions that a son might for his mother.
It's JESUS and the Holy Spirit who intercede for us with the Father.
We don't need Mary to and Mary is not interceding to Christ on our behalf because we don't need someone to intercede for us with Christ, we need someone to intercede for us with GOD.
Romans 8:26-27 Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words. And he who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.
Romans 8:33-34 Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us.
Hebrews 7:25 Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.
Where any of them graven images?
I'm staying with scripture. :-)
Really?
Looks like SOME Catholics bow to statues of Mary.
You can deny it all you want but your credibility tanks severely when you deny what is patently obvious to anyone who can see.
“What say you vladimir998?”
I say that you don’t know what unanimous consent of the fathers means:
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/11/unanimous-consent-of-church-fathers.html
Which, by Catholic admission, is the only nature of Jesus that is divine. Mary is not the origin (aka mother) of the divine God.
“Nothing you typed NEEDED to be refuted; as anyone could see that boast and bragging were all you had left in your arsenal.”
What I posted is true - and that’s why no one from the usual Protestant anti-Catholic crowd here will deal actually address your erroneous beliefs about “sleep” in the Bible.
Well, now...we move from discussing the biblical support for veneration of Mary to the origin of the biblical library and the sufficiency of those texts. That is an interesting jump. And, it is a discussion I would enjoy immensely. May we take this up on the next round of our visits? (Incidentally, there are no "Gospels"...check your Greek texts. The manuscripts read, "According to Matthew", "According to Mark", et al. The publishers of nearly all English translations think we really need their help to understand the Scriptures).
But, in all sincerity, I appreciate your frankness. It is clear from your response that there is no biblical support for those positions with regard to Mary. No question, there is extra-biblical support for them...that is how Rome came to believe them. But, as you tacitly acknowledge, you are dependent solely, wholly upon tradition for support. Witness the barrage of "The tradition Paul is talking about is OUR tradition." remarks. Really? The same letter Paul wrote to Timothy tells us the Scriptures are adequate (II Tim. 3:16,17)
But, if you are correct, and the tradition of your party members is to be followed, then you will be found to be right when this is all over. If you are incorrect, and the acknowledged absence of biblical support is evidence of a departure from the pure good news of Jesus Christ, then your dependency upon Rome beyond the Bible may have other consequences. Evidently, we shall have to wait and see.
Until then, hopefully you won't mind us biblicists pouncing upon ever opportunity to point out to other FReepers that most of the Romanist view is comprised of "tradition" manufactured between the end of Scriptures (circa 90AD) and the current day. It clearly does not derive from textual support.
“Has Vlad ever read the book?”
Probably more often than you have.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.