Posted on 12/14/2014 11:57:21 AM PST by ealgeone
The reason for this article is to determine if the worship/veneration given to Mary by the catholic church is justified from a Biblical perspective. This will be evaluated using the Biblical standard and not man’s standard.
Do you really think that because in one place it says Mother of Jesus and in another Mother of my Lord, we are prohibited to connect the dots and call Mary mother of God, Who Jesus is and Who the Lord is? What are we, five-year-olds?
OK, so now what?
No.
Even then -- if that other man be wrong in his own understanding of those scriptures --- it is not the scripture itself which he was speaking of when he talked of corruption.
So again, shame on you for having so readily agreed with that misrepresentation.
But it is this very sort of slippery shiftiness of discourse which makes any real communication with those whom engage in that tactic -- quite difficult, for first -- all that sort of tangling things up and switching around identity of what is being discussed -- needs to be straightened out, before one can logically (and honestly) proceed.
So now...is added yet further misrepresentation of reality, including accusation of superstition -- a "Protestant set" of alleged superstitions...
From what fetid swamp of popish accusatory self-justifications comes this talk of Protestant superstition?
And what would any of that sort of thing have to do with, or bear directly upon the scriptures in question?
It's those sort of rhetorical flourishes ---- which there is no evidence or justification for -- which lead me to conclude your own opinions are simply that, opinions, whose foundations for once examined (if one can get past all the bigotry, and flurry of insult) are seldom what they are initially advertised to be.
All the back-and-forth to bring things into focus, in the past have taken threads running into the many hundreds of comments, all along the way all this additional spewing of bigotries needing be contended with while trying to get to the bottom of the originally expressed bigotries.
Hey, it's all great as defense mechanism, to keep issues from being fully examined -- sort-of like porcupine quills, odoriferous skunk spray, or the brightly colored barbs of lion-fish and similar serve to deter closer inspection for those creatures. But for conversation wherein those not already convinced and accepting of many of the premises held by "Catholics" in regards to what the Church truly is, what history and scripture both can illuminate for us, what these so-called "Protestants" believe and practice, those mechanisms (of both attack and defense) preclude simple conversation, and certainly anything approaching neutral discussion which could be fair to all parties.
“I know that you will come back with a demand that I prove it to you from the Bible. I suggest you contact a theologian. I am not a theologian or Biblical scholar, nor have I ever claimed to be. It’s what I believe and nothing you come up will ever change that.”
Invincible Ignorance (Logic):
The invincible ignorance fallacy is a deductive fallacy of circularity where the person in question simply refuses to believe the argument, ignoring any evidence given. It is not so much a fallacious tactic in argument as it is a refusal to argue in the proper sense of the word, the method instead being to make assertions with no consideration of objections.
“I can only repeat the previous explanation:”
You have fallen into a common problem with Biblical language. Just because you see a word, does not mean it is identical to when the word is used in another instance. I see this problem with people from all different denominations, and especially the cults like mormonism.
“When Elizabeth was speaking and when Luke recorded it, they chose the word that is a direct reference to God according to the language in use.”
This is partly true. Unfortunately, it is a logical fallacy to substitute a partial truth for whole truth. In this case, the Greek word “lord” had many meanings. The two we are discussing are:
It was used to refer to Messiah.
It was used as a substitute word to avoid writing or saying Yahweh.
Which is it here? Only the context can tell you that. The context is God’s announcement that Mary would bear Messiah - and the identical recognition by Elizabeth that Mary was chosen to bear Messiah.
“No different than when I call Mary Mother of God today.”
You have two Biblical choices in this regard, according to the passage:
1. Call Him Messiah.
2. Call Him Yahweh.
The first is correct. The second is false.
Here you slip into the same logical fallacy. All of Jesus is God, but not all of God is Jesus in human form.
For this reason, the Bible never ascribes the title “Mother of God” to Mary. Ever. Mary was the mother of Jesus, who was Elizabeth’s Lord (Messiah), since He was God.
Here I will note that MARY had no trouble in this passage differentiating between Messiah and God. In verse 47, Mary, under inspiration of Scripture refers to GOD using Deos and not kurios.
It would seem that if Mary can differentiate between Messiah and God in the same passage, then we can as well.
“If you can infer that God in Elizabeth’s speech is the Christ,”
You do not need to infer what the Scripture says in language, context, Jewish culture, etc. The Angel and Elizabeth both refer to Messiah. Mary refers to God (v. 47 - Deos)
Neither Mary, nor Elizabeth knew Jesus was eternally God. They were all looking for a human champion, as promised to Israel.
“you should as easily infer that God in my speech is the Christ.”
I am left to infer that despite the passage differentiating between Messiah and God, you (apparently) prefer the later (much later) pagan idea read back into Scripture of Mary as a demigod who birthed a god.
Best.
AKA Already judged and rewarded.
>>or to hell,<<<
AKA Already judged and in punishment.
Matthew 25 and He will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates his sheep from the goats,
According to your hypothesis that has already been done. Why does He need to do it again?
>>Second, the last judgment will be public, seen and understood by the whole world, whereas our particular judgment was private, just between God and ourselves.<<
That doesn't fit with your hypothesis. Catholics claim those saved are already in heaven and know all that's going on here on earth. If you know Mary and the saints are in heave how is that private?
Your entire scenario contradicts what Catholics say they believe about people alive in heaven already who know what is happening here on earth and can intervene. And if unbelievers are already suffering in hell they have obviously been judged and told why they are in hell.
The Catholic Church says they don't know and in fact put out the story that Jesus came down to get her while she was still alive. You need to tell them she died so they can at least get that part of the story right.
I made that statement in love and charity, the fact that you can not accept what I said should not change that.
Then how on earth could you have any standing to criticize them, and their teachings -- if there be no interest in what was being taught by these whom you label "charlatans", how those things were being spoken of by men such as these and yet others --- how that may compare favorably or unfavorably with what the RCC of those eras can be seen to have taught --- oh -- and how not only things were taught -- but how those things were then internalized and understood to be, in practice, by the people who were taught whichever wordings were employed?
Wycliffe was not ignorant, nor were any of the others which I mentioned.
Being that as it may, in that they were correct enough --- the real issue I was driving towards was that these same men (and their views) were often condemned by the RCC for views they held in regards to the Lord's Supper.
Which means --- that the RCC was wrong when they condemned the various propositions, and/or so-called "Protestant" views or expressions associated with this issue (when those were not limited to merely memorial Zwinglian-like understanding, perhaps)
And Romans 3:23? I am asking sincerely.
She is dead. Why is that so hard to understand?
Of course you believe this; but you have no Scripture upon which to base it.
If I'm wrong; I'd be more that glad to see it.
LOL. We do not need the catholic church for anything. The Bible has it all. With everything I have learned on here, I do not want to have anything to do with it. I have never seen so many errors in beliefs as y’all 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.