Then please explain this artwork.
"Assumption of the Virgin Mary" by Peter Paul Rubens, 1626
"Assumption of the Virgin" by Titian, 1516-18
"Assumption of the Virgin" by Annibale Carracci, 1590
"The Assumption of the Virgin" by Botticini, 1475-76
Posted on 05/30/2008 10:21:34 AM PDT by Ultra Sonic 007
Some of you will remember my recent decision to become a Catholic. I suppose I should be surprised it ended getting derailed into a 'Catholic vs. Protestant' thread, but after going further into the Religion forum, I suppose it's par for the course.
There seems to be a bit of big issue concerning Mary. I wanted to share an observation of sorts.
Now...although I was formerly going by 'Sola Scriptura', my father was born and raised Catholic, so I do have some knowledge of Catholic doctrine (not enough, at any rate...so consider all observations thusly).
Mary as a 'co-redeemer', Mary as someone to intercede for us with regards to our Lord Jesus.
Now...I can definitely see how this would raise some hairs. After all, Jesus Himself said that He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and that none come to the Father but through Him. I completely agree.
I do notice a bit of a fundamental difference in perception though. Call it a conflict of POV. Do Catholics worship Mary (as I've seen a number of Protestants proclaim), or do they rather respect and venerate her (as I've seen Catholics claim)? Note that it's one thing to regard someone with reverence; I revere President Bush as the noted leader of the free world. I revere my father. I revere Dr. O'Neil, a humorous and brilliant math teacher at my university. It's an act of respect.
But do I WORSHIP them?
No. Big difference between respecting/revering and worshiping. At least, that's how I view it.
I suppose it's also a foible to ask Mary to pray for us, on our behalf...but don't we tend to also ask other people to pray for us? Doesn't President Bush ask for people to pray for him? Don't we ask our family members to pray for us for protection while on a trip? I don't see quite a big disconnect between that and asking Mary to help pray for our wellbeing.
There is some question to the fact that she is physically dead. Though it stands to consider that she is still alive, in Heaven. Is it not common practice to not just regard our physical life, but to regard most of all our spirit, our soul? That which survives the flesh before ascending to Heaven or descending to Hell after God's judgment?
I don't think it's that big of a deal. I could change my mind after reading more in-depth, but I don't think that the Catholic Church has decreed via papal infallibility that Mary is to be placed on a higher pedestal than Jesus, or even to be His equal.
Do I think she is someone to be revered and respected? Certainly. She is the mother of Jesus, who knew Him for His entire life as a human on Earth. Given that He respected her (for He came to fulfill the old laws; including 'Honor Thy Father and Mother'), I don't think it's unnatural for other humans to do the same. I think it's somewhat presumptuous to regard it on the same level as idolatry or supplanting Jesus with another.
In a way, I guess the way Catholics treat Mary and the saints is similar to how the masses treated the Apostles following the Resurrection and Jesus's Ascension: people who are considered holy in that they have a deep connection with Jesus and His Word, His Teachings, His Message. As the Apostles spread the Good News and are remembered and revered to this day for their work, so to are the works of those sainted remembered and revered. Likewise with Mary. Are the Apostles worshiped? No. That's how it holds with Mary and the saints.
At least, that's how my initial thoughts on the subject are. I'll have to do more reading.
Oh, boo hoo...cheez.
Come on, Dr. E. How does your theology of death explain all these away? Scripturally, now, not that script of satan that you trot out so frequently.
Second posting of this request.
***You toss out stray verses as if they prove some point, none of which is being discussed.***
Examples, please.
***Of course God demands that all people everywhere repent. God hates sin.
But the only men who do repent are those who have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit, according to the will of God.***
So the Reformed God demands that all people everywhere repent but prevents most of them from doing so and condemns them to everlasting death. How can a reasonable human being stomach this theology of death?
***I don’t know. Does it matter here?
Yes it does. A big difference. Unless of course, your “original” Bible was written in English.***
You mean the original KJV that Jesus taught out of?
I think that Petronski has it handled. Do you?
Try the Holy Spirit. The Bible was written under his inspiration. He’s our teacher, comforter, and guide, among other things.
I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Gag.
***Strange? Your Bible ends John 6 at verse 58? No verse 63?
***
Would you care to expand upon your point please?
John 6:
52
The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?”
53
Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
54
Whoever eats 19 my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
55
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
56
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
57
Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.
58
This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.”
59
These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
60
20 Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?”
61
Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, “Does this shock you?
62
What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 21
63
It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh 22 is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
***You have to give them credit. They succeeded in keeping most of mankind in the dark for over a 1000 years.***
Popping in from the nether regions? Welcome.
We kept mankind informed of the word of God. What are you guys informing them of? The latest bulletins from the brightest angel?
Mary, you may want to look again. Post 10106 was directed at Old Reggie. And I was asking him why he was coming down on the side of the Calvinists.
I know that you are not Calvinist; it is part of the reason why I think that we dialogue reasonably well. Not the only reason; there are a small handful of Calvinistas that I can hold a reasonable conversation with - a very small one.
***You know the drill, they interpret it differently. Probably differently than most Methodists, 7th Day Adventists, Baptists, Church of Christ....
You know I can’t name them all.***
When you assume the role of your own Pope, then anything can mean anything else. Alice in Wonderland theology. The beauty of it is that you cannot be held to anything since your theology changes with the emptiness of your stomach, the nagginess of your wife, the thanklessness of your job, the breakdownedness of your car and the imbibedness of hallucinogens.
Ping to post 10930.
With the exception of nagginess of wife; I have no doubt that you are completely nag free.
If the Bible can be used to fan the flames of fear in a soul, to keep that soul in bondage to the system, under threat of hell (or any form of intermediate place of judgment before one can enter Heaven), then fine.
Whenever the same Bible, however, indicates something that could possibly detract from the system's authority, then they must bambooozle the common reader by using the supposed linguistic authority with which the common Bible reader is not equipped to argue. You know that common believers have been mentally conditioned over the past three or four generations to think that anyone who can cite NT Greek references are just the cat's pajamas.
When someone cites a Greek reference, they count on the common man thinking that there is only one Greek text. But there are actually as many varying Greek “authorities” as you will find numbers of English version s in your local Bible book store. These varying texts DON'T all agree. When anyone says, "THE (e.g., singular) Greek says," they are usually speaking out of ignorance or with subterfuge.
When we were working in the Philippines, we distributed a list of seventeen denominations and cults that all use Matthew 16:18, and claim that the church in the passage is THEM. I don't have that list here, but a few are . . . .
1. The Catholic Church based in the Vatican, Rome.
2. The Catholic Church based in the Philippines, otherwise called Aglipay (ah’glee pie).
3. Iglesia Ni Cristo (”Church of Christ”) based in the Philippines.
4. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons). They teach that LDS is a restoration of it.
5. “Landmark” Baptist Churches (We call them Baptist-Briders).
6. Church of Christ (Campbellite)
And at least eleven others. I'm looking for the full list now.
These groups would each respectively have you mentally read the verse this way . . . .
1. “Upon this rock I will build the Catholic Church (Vatican), and that gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Catholic, Vatican)
2. “Upon this rock I will build the Catholic (Aglipai) church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Catholic, Philippines)
3. “Upon this rock I will build the Iglesia Ni Cristo, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
4. “Upon this rock I will build the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
5. “Upon this rock I will build a succesion of Baptist churches, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Landmark Baptist)
6. “Upon this rock I will build the churches of Christ (Campbellite), and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
Now, do you know what the word “gates” means? Most of the people that have a visible church to defend as being the only true church will tell you that “gates” means “authority” or “power.” I'll tell you what I believe “gates” means - - - - it means GATES. Gates that require a key to open. See Revelation 1:18.
Gates meaning gates, I also believe that gates of hell means exactly . . . gates of hell. Not “authority” or “power” of hell, but GATES of hell.
Which one of the six churches listed above is trying to either get into hell, or get out of hell? If the Church of Matthew 16:18 (whatever church it is) is trying to get into hell, then the gates of hell can not prevail against it. It will get into hell. If on the other hand, the Church of Matthew 16:18 is trying to get out of Hell, then the gates of hell cannot prevail against it. It will get out of Hell.
Or, is it that there had already been a Church (an “ekklesia’)locked up in the center of the earth when Christ spoke those words, “captive,” and Christ went to the center of the earth, preached to the spirits in prison (1 Peter 3:19), and when He was Resurrected (”thou shalt not leave my sould in hell” - Acts 2:27; Psalm 16:10) He LED CAPTIVITY CAPIVE (Ephesians 4; Psalms 68), using the the KEYS to get out and take the captives with Him. The Old Testament believers?
More soon.
Heck Mary, you always come in a few days later and batch answer a bunch of my posts..... Makes me have to go back and look at what I actually said to get you rankled.
As I always say when I can’t remember something... “I don’t remember that. I’ve slept since then.”
Thanks for your perspective. Blessings.
Enjoy the peace. It won't last.
“Oh, boo hoo...cheez.”
Let me guess? The Book of Kyle, Chapter 3:7
Under YOPIOS, it might as well be. Making up your own interpretation of Scripture as you go would make it valid for you.
Then please explain this artwork.
"Assumption of the Virgin Mary" by Peter Paul Rubens, 1626
"Assumption of the Virgin" by Titian, 1516-18
"Assumption of the Virgin" by Annibale Carracci, 1590
"The Assumption of the Virgin" by Botticini, 1475-76
I haven’t been on much since Saturday because my cousin from Norway has been visiting us. I snuck in a couple of peeks but nothing much. Love, M
Thank you. I always enjoy your posts. You speak with such reason and authority. Love, M
Next to the spot that says “Trinity.”
That’s a big guffaw if I ever heard one. This post was started by someone who just wanted to get our goats and now has disappeared. HAH!
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.