To: MurphsLaw
Show us through God’s Word that your myths are true. Can you show us scripture that plainly supports this Maridolatry.? If you can we will not call it man-madeup mythology. But if you cannot show scripture plainly supporting this Mary stuff, who is the idolator, who is the denier of truth?
305 posted on
12/16/2021 3:13:24 PM PST by
MHGinTN
(A dispensation perspective is a powerful tool for discernment)
To: MHGinTN
Show us through God’s Word that your myths are true. Can you show us scripture that plainly supports this Maridolatry.? If you can we will not call it man-madeup mythology. But if you cannot show scripture plainly supporting this Mary stuff, who is the idolator, who is the denier of truth?
Who is the idolator?
I have never used that term nor have I suggested you are an "idolator" if that is your assertion to me. It's not a word a Catholic would use anyway, and it's a stupid word to use for anyone who believes in the Resurrected Christ. "Dualist" is probably a more accurate term there.
Given that, I don't give a rats rump in being called an idolator anyhow... If God holds me accountable for loving the Mother of our Lord- who God Chose to fill with Grace- and to be thankful to God for his Will in having prepared her as the purest vessel possible to Bring Christ into our World- he will know it is out of Love that I hold Mary the same way she held our Lord...
You know I can show you the infusputabke OT typology of Mary prefigured as the Ark of the New Covenant, a Holy womb like no other. Her pre-figurement as The Ark to bear Christ is as strong as any, and parallels Isaiah's prophesy for John the Baptist to herald and Baptize those into his Coming.
But lets be honest, that holds no consideration for you- Does it?
Your mary-stuff.. mythology poking recalled a time when I worked with an Atheist some years back. "Prove to me Jesus wasa real person- and not a made up myth"...
Well, the Bible of course" ! I said...
"Well the Bible is just full of unproven stories that has no verifiable evidence!"
Well he was right of course... there is no proof...until I learned about Tacitus. (Or maybe I already knew, it was a some time ago...) Anyway I did not realize the full impact of the historical Christian evidence I was certain to win the day with.
Christ(us) is mentioned as we can confidently point to there, but beyond that...whoops:
Tacitus
Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations,called Christians by the populace.
Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.
Now I ask you.... would you have a problem being called by the pagans of that time.... "Christians,... HATED for their Abominations...and a "MISCHIEVIOUS SUPERSTITION" temporarily "checked" by Nero's homicidal persecution thereof??
I think the evidence is pretty clear of the Truth in our Christian " superstition"... Maybe it wasn't so rational back in those first decades after the Crucifixion as we like to tell ourselves.
I say, Guilty as Charged.
327 posted on
12/16/2021 10:45:31 PM PST by
MurphsLaw
("Behold a virgin shall be with child, and bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel")
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson