Rejecting Mariology

Two-Edged Sword ^ | February 05, 2007 | Lee

[Mrs. Don-o]

More dumb word games. Obviously the Bible does not forbid "service" per se --- what bad news for all the people in the service industries!

"Words mean things" --- Amen, words mean lots of things. Most words have a semantic range beyond definition 1. That's why the Oxford English Dictionary takes up four feet of shelf space and weighs 150 pounds.

In particular it's a mistake to define a term at variance to the definition already set out by the speaker or writer.

Please pay attention to context, context, context.

[ealgeone]

Please pay attention to context, context, context.

My prayer for roman catholics everywhere!! If only they would use context it would clear up so much of the false teachings of rome.

[CynicalBear]

>>Please pay attention to context, context, context.<<

I was paying attention. Catholics trying to change the meaning of words in an attempt to justify corruption of scripture is clearly shown by looking at the original use of the ancient Greek. Giving to Mary what belongs to God alone will not turn out well for Catholics.

[RnMomof7]

"And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to bear a child, that he might devour her child when she brought it forth; she brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron [i.e. Jesus] [...] Then the dragon was angry with the woman, and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus. (Revelation 12:4,17)

I thought Catholics were not allowed their own PERSONAL interpretation of scripture ?? Because the idea that the woman in Rev was Mary is precisely that . John never called the woman Mary or Mamma ..He called her a SIGN

Rome has never given an INFALLIBLE interpretation of that scripture

The one given by the US conference of Bishops does not agree with you ...How about that ??

http://www.usccb.org/bible/revelation/12

[verga]

The phrase/ title “Mother of God” appears nowhere in Scripture.

Neither does Trinity, Sola Sciptura; Once Saved always Saved, Sola Fide, etc...

Were you trying to make a point?

[daniel1212]

But some so-called church "fathers" saw marriage and its relations as unclean.

And that mentality is still alive and well in the RCC. Not much has changed over the years, has it?

And then they try to justify requiring basically all her unscriptural "priests" to have the gift of celibacy, despite marriage being normative for Scriptural clergy (presbuteros), and with good fatherhood being a positive preparation for being shepherds. (1Tim. 3:1-7) And with all the apostles save for two being married, and the two that were not still had freedom to marry, not being under some vow of celibacy. (1Co. 9:4) One RC even excluded that text from being Scripture.

[daniel1212]

...and Revelation 12 says that she is the mother of "those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus". No Christian would refuse to count himself among that number... or do you reject what the Bible says, here?

Again, you are not simply interpreting a text in Rev. 12 which even Rome has not infallibly defined, and Scripturally is not Mary, but also making another text to teach that Mary is the unique mother of all Christians, not simply John, and not Peter (which is what would be consistent with the RC papa theology). And which Scripture does not teach, but instead what the Lord actually did and said was,

But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother. (Matthew 12:48-50)

Thus, provided with a perfect opportunity to elevate holy Mary as the most holy of all saint, etc., instead the Lord equated her to be one of many mothers, and thus contrasted her to the fabricated Catholic Mary . For the Mary of Catholicism in its totality simply does not exists in Scripture, but essentially neither does the church of Rome.

The heavenly Jerusalem is the only entity said to be "the mother of us [believers) all," (Gal. 4:26) and Mary is only one mother and sister of disciples, as whoever shall do the will of the Father which is in heaven

[ealgeone]

>The phrase/ title “Mother of God” appears nowhere in Scripture.<

Neither does Trinity, Sola Sciptura; Once Saved always Saved, Sola Fide, etc... Were you trying to make a point?

Neither is papacy; indulgences; cardinal; archdiocese; etc

Difference between the two is that Christians don't assign false titles to Mary nor do we worship Mary.

[CynicalBear]

>>Re: latria, dulia, etc.: please do remember that Catholics do not obey the artificial, man-made tradition known as “Scripture alone”.<<

No kidding? First I ever heard of it!!

Make up whatever you want. I'll stay with Paul's admonition to consider anyone who teaches something they didn't to be accursed.

[paladinan]

Mary’s name is not mentioned once in Revelation.

And why, exactly, is that relevant? The mother of Jesus is most certainly mentioned; do you know of any other womn who gave birth to Jesus, aside from Mary?

That claim is not valid as it cannot be supported by Scripture.

First of all: are you suggesting that, since the exact NAME of Mary isn't mentioned in the passage, therefore "it cannot be supported by Scripture"? That's a pretty tight standard (which most of Protestant theology would fail). Second, that's obviously raw opinion... and it's also based upon the flawed tradition of men known as "sola Scriptura"... which cannot be supported by Scripture.

In short: given that the woman obviously gave birth to Jesus, and since Revelation does NOT clearly identify the woman with anyone else, it simply makes sense to go with the plain meaning of Scripture--i.e. that this is Mary, in Revelation 11:19-12:17.

[CynicalBear]

>>Obviously the Bible does not forbid "service" per se<<

I showed you how "hyperdulia" contradicts what scripture says should be done. It's not me playing word games.

[ealgeone]

In short: given that the woman obviously gave birth to Jesus, and since Revelation does NOT clearly identify the woman with anyone else, it simply makes sense to go with the plain meaning of Scripture--i.e. that this is Mary, in Revelation 11:19-12:17.

This is comical....a roman catholic, who denies mary had other children in spite of numerous places in the text noting Jesus had siblings, is calling for a "plain reading" of the text.....through catholic lenses.

LOL

[CynicalBear]

>>My prayer for roman catholics everywhere!! If only they would use context it would clear up so much of the false teachings of rome.<<

Catholics making comments about context is almost humorous.

[paladinan]

[Mrs. Don-o]
Christ her Son is King of Kings; that makes her Queen Mother by relationship alone.

[eagleone]
Then Paul and Peter must be princes in the kingdom???

Where do you get that? (It's true, in one sense... but certainly not in the sense that Mary is Queen Mother [Heb: gebirah].) The biological mother of the king is the Queen mother (see my previous post, re: 1 Kings 2, etc.); there is no apparent blood tie to Sts. Peter and Paul, anyway.

This business of trying to equate earthly realms to those of Heaven must really stop. It's quite embarrassing.

With all due respect: the fact that it doesn't meet with your personal tastes is no reason to suppose that it's either incorrect or inappropriate. "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matthew 16:19) certainly sounds as if Jesus is fine with linking the earthly with the Heavenly, for example.

Other than catholic "tradition" and a lot of gee it sounds nice, it must be and it stands to reason.....do you have any Scriptural support for this. And keep it in context.

Perhaps you might show me where, in Scripture, the Bible requires this (i.e. show me where the Scriptures clearly and unequivocally teach 'sola Scriptura')? It's not unreasonable for us to ask that an arguer hold his arguments to his own standards, at very least...

Please, no more one verse theology.

:) Hm. Does that apply to the Protestant side, as well? (I'm thinking of the relentless Protestant appeals to John 6:63 in a desperate attempt to cancel out the entire remainder of John 6, and the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist...)

[RnMomof7]

But to your point: no omnipotence is needed. Mary, and all the Saints, are in Heaven... which is beyond time (and space) completely. There is no past or future; there's only an eternal "now". Mary, for example, doesn't need to handle "millions of prayers per second" (those are scare quotes, not direct quotes, BTW); she has all eternity in which to respond to them. There's no "rushing" or "waiting", etc., in Heaven.

And we "know" this how?? Who has returned to tell us this??

If it is true than God Himself could shelf that attribute right?? Just not necessary ..

[CynicalBear]

>>John never called the woman Mary or Mamma ..He called her a SIGN<<

The torturing of that scripture by Catholics in an attempt to put Mary in heaven is painful to watch.

[redleghunter]

Well let's post that up to make sure it sinks in. The UCCB interpretation of Revelation 12: Dragon and the Woman:

[12:1–14:20] This central section of Revelation portrays the power of evil, represented by a dragon, in opposition to God and his people. First, the dragon pursues the woman about to give birth, but her son is saved and “caught up to God and his throne” (Rev 12:5). Then Michael and his angels cast the dragon and his angels out of heaven (Rev 12:7–9). After this, the dragon tries to attack the boy indirectly by attacking members of his church (Rev 12:13–17). A beast, symbolizing the Roman empire, then becomes the dragon’s agent, mortally wounded but restored to life and worshiped by all the world (Rev 13:1–10). A second beast arises from the land, symbolizing the antichrist, which leads people astray by its prodigies to idolize the first beast (Rev 13:11–18). This is followed by a vision of the Lamb and his faithful ones, and the proclamation of imminent judgment upon the world in terms of the wine of God’s wrath (Rev 14:1–20).

* [12:1] The woman adorned with the sun, the moon, and the stars (images taken from Gn 37:9–10) symbolizes God’s people in the Old and the New Testament. The Israel of old gave birth to the Messiah (Rev 12:5) and then became the new Israel, the church, which suffers persecution by the dragon (Rev 12:6, 13–17); cf. Is 50:1; 66:7; Jer 50:12. This corresponds to a widespread myth throughout the ancient world that a goddess pregnant with a savior was pursued by a horrible monster; by miraculous intervention, she bore a son who then killed the monster.

http://www.usccb.org/bible/revelation/12#74012001-a

The bishops even dabble in some mythology to boot.

[paladinan]

Additionally, those words [Mary saying, "Do whatever He tells you"] were spoken to the servants at the wedding, not the church as a whole.

:) Good grief, FRiend...

So, by that reasoning... your prior appeals (in other threads) to Scriptural injunctions "not to add or subtract from Scripture" do not apply to us, since they are safely relegated to their specific audiences (e.g. "not to go beyond what is written" addressed specifically to the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 4:6, and not to us)? Heavens... by that standard, many of the important Biblical injunctions would be neutralized for us!

[paladinan]

That's some pretty poor philosophy there...

:) That raw opinion is duly noted.

Time may be meaningless to Mary but it's pretty important to people on earth praying to her...

...and so, therefore... what? Can you clarify your objection? Why would the importance of time to us be any difficulty to the idea of "having all eternity to sort out temporal things"?

[ealgeone]

>Other than catholic "tradition" and a lot of gee it sounds nice, it must be and it stands to reason.....do you have any Scriptural support for this. And keep it in context.<

Perhaps you might show me where, in Scripture, the Bible requires this (i.e. show me where the Scriptures clearly and unequivocally teach 'sola Scriptura')? It's not unreasonable for us to ask that an arguer hold his arguments to his own standards, at very least...

If the Word is not the standard against which we measure false teaching, then all bets are off and any source can be claimed as legitimate.

The Mormons claim the Book of Mormon is on par with the Bible. Would you agree with that?

They take one verse from the NT and use that to justify their "belief" that Jesus took a detour to North American and appeared to the Indians.

Regarding, sola scriptura, Jesus, when arguing with the Pharisees, would say, "it is written....". He was referring to the OT. He also, on more than one occasion, dismissed the "traditions" of the Pharisees that had gone beyond the text.

Paul told us to compare someone's teachings with the Scripture to see if it measured up.

Now the catholic will immediately scream, "but they didn't have the NT". True, but the principal of using Scripture to measure a teaching was established by Jesus and Paul.

The bottom line is that the roman catholic doesn't want to rely upon the Bible as the ultimate source to measure teachings as so many of theirs are repudiated by the Bible.