Are Marian dogmas wildly un biblical? - Page 23

brumano · #**331** Nov 30, '10, 1:55 pm

If Mary were not all and even much more than we as Catholics know her to be, there would be in the Scriptures only very minimal revellation about her, and those scriptures would necessarily define her in limitations, similar to the way that one of the Apostles or one of the Prophets are described for our understanding.
Catholic devotion and contemplation of Mary could no more invent her apart from Scripture then it could the Lord Jesus, not because we have made it so, but because God the Father Son and Holy Spirit has made it so. If not there could be no Scriptural basis for any Marian doctrines at all; how could the Scriptures tell us who Mary is, but somehow according to some others tell us that she is not? The Scriptures do not deceive, nor are they deficient. The Scriptures are sometimes claimed to be deficient in indicating the Mary of the Catholics, but are those Scriptures being read with the awareness of Mary, as being intimately involved and inseperable from the Lord God?
One brief example will surely be agreed upon: in Gen.ch1 we read: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"....in verse 3 He says: "Let there be Light".
In Jn.ch1 we read: "In the beginning was the Word" and through to ch.14..."And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory as the glory of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth".
The name of Jesus is not given in either of these two one in the same beginnings, but we know He is present in God and that all things were created "through Him" (Jn.ch1v3). So needless to say we don't eliminate the Lord Jesus from this Scripture, because we know He is spoken of; and we also recognize Him as "The Light"(Jn.ch1v9).
The name of Mary is not given in either of these two one in the same beginnings, but can we see her? If we haven't seen the Lord as yet we cannot see Mary, but all true Christians will attest absolutely that the Lord has certainly already been seen in both of these Scriptures.
The Scriptures can go deeper, because God already at the beginning of our time immemorial must have seen Mary in order to create all things through His only begotten Son,Jesus. Mary is clearly understood here as the first dwelling place of "the Word that became flesh and dwelt among us". Even in the words of Scripture..."became flesh" speaks of Mary because the Lord became flesh in the womb of Mary.
All of this, and of course there's much more lends tremendous weight to the Doctrine of Mary's Immaculate Conception, and it is all Scriptural.

mark a · #**332** Nov 30, '10, 3:51 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roy5

but could this have been another illustration of the distance between Jesus and his biological family? Read Matt. 12:46-50 once more.

Even James?

**PRmerger** · #**333** Nov 30, '10, 4:30 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by mortonsam

I said that she wasn't mentioned at all beyond the book of Acts. That has a definite bearing upon the subject. The Apostles such as Peter and Paul wrote Epistles of Scripture. I think the whole thing really speaks for itself.

And how many times is Philip, an apostle, one sent by Christ to baptize and die for the Gospel, mentioned "beyond the book of Acts". Does this minimize his contribution to the kingdom?

Good Fella · #**334** Nov 30, '10, 8:17 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by PRmerger

And how many times is Philip, an apostle, one sent by Christ to baptize and die for the Gospel, mentioned "beyond the book of Acts". Does this minimize his contribution to the kingdom?

It was Philip who had to interpret the text of the prophet Isaiah for the Ethiopian enuch in accord with the Apostolic Tradition of the Church. The Bible alone was formally insufficient for him to gain a full understanding of the Messiah and Suffering Servant. The Jews charge us with wild speculation in our interpretations of the text with regard to Christ, just as Protestants do with regard to our perusal of the Scriptures in connection with the Virgin Mary.Both religious groups, however, fail to realize that the Catholic Church would just as much have the fullness of truth in her possession without the Scriptures ever having been written and consulted, for the teachings of the Church originate from the Paraclete and develop over time with the ecclesiastic traditions. Appealing to the Bible alone is a faulty premise which naturally leads to false conclusions, which is evident in Protestant division.

PAX

**PRmerger** · #**335** Nov 30, '10, 9:35 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Publisher

Yes I have....but not in condemnation toward them...but to determine how I measure up in the Light.

Of course.

The salient point is, Publisher, that even though someone professes that he does not use his own yardstick to measure others' walk with God, in truth, all thinking, believing, moral folks do.

For as Chesterton said, "Tolerance is the virtue of a man with no convictions."

moondweller · #**336** Nov 30, '10, 10:20 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by pipper

Many of the Marian teachings are from Holy Tradition which historically preceeds the writting of the NT.

Precede the writing of the N.T.? Proof?

Good Fella · #**337** Nov 30, '10, 11:53 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by moondweller

Precede the writing of the N.T.? Proof?

The Catholic Church was born on the first Pentecost Sunday when the Holy Spirit descended upon Mary and the Apostles circa A.D. 29-33. The first Gospel written was that of Mark circa 65-70 A.D. The last New Testament book written was Revelation circa 90 A.D. That 's a difference of about 40+ years of ecclesiastic tradition before the New Testament was started and about 60+ years before it was completed.

PAX

mortonsam · #**338** Dec 1, '10, 1:18 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by PRmerger

And how many times is Philip, an apostle, one sent by Christ to baptize and die for the Gospel, mentioned "beyond the book of Acts". Does this minimize his contribution to the kingdom?

Absolutely not. But I am not advocating elevating him to near-divine status either. That is the point.

mortonsam · #**339** Dec 1, '10, 1:20 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Good Fella

The Catholic Church was born on the first Pentecost Sunday when the Holy Spirit descended upon Mary and the Apostles circa A.D. 29-33. The first Gospel written was that of Mark circa 65-70 A.D. The last New Testament book written was Revelation circa 90 A.D. That 's a difference of about 40+ years of ecclesiastic tradition before the New Testament was started and about 60+ years before it was completed.

PAX

The Catholic church was born on 33 AD? What about the Orthodox church?

**PRmerger** · #**340** Dec 1, '10, 2:19 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by mortonsam

Absolutely not. But I am not advocating elevating him to near-divine status either. That is the point.

Then you have no objection to the CC's teachings on Mary, for it is clear that she is not near-divine either.

Clearly, your paradigm that someone has to be mentioned beyond Acts in order to have a pre-eminent position in Christianity is nonsense.

mortonsam · #**341** Dec 1, '10, 5:58 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by PRmerger

Then you have no objection to the CC's teachings on Mary, for it is clear that she is not near-divine either.

Clearly, your paradigm that someone has to be mentioned beyond Acts in order to have a pre-eminent position in Christianity is nonsense.

On the contrary. Firstly, you are placing much focus upon Mary or otherwise this topic wouldn't be such a stickler for you and secondly, the fact remains that Mary is not mentioned once past the book of Acts. If that doesn't say anything to you about the obvious differences between the Bible and Catholic theology, then so be it. It is what it is.

**JharekCarnelian** · #**342** Dec 1, '10, 6:13 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by mortonsam

On the contrary. Firstly, you are placing much focus upon Mary or otherwise this topic wouldn't be such a stickler for you and secondly, the fact remains that Mary is not mentioned once past the book of Acts. If that doesn't say anything to you about the obvious differences between the Bible and Catholic theology, then so be it. It is what it is.

You brought up the Orthodox a few posts ago. As a member of a family containing members of both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches I suggest you go and look at how much focus the Orthodox also place on Mary. Certainly they don't share all the same doctrines as we do concerning her but she is highly revered there also. Funny though how those grumbling about Mariolatry etc. never focus on the Orthodox. They seem to slip beneath their radar, you could almost think the whole 'Mariolatry' issue was transplanted to America from Europe..

Roy5 · #**343** Dec 1, '10, 6:56 pm

I couldn't help but notice the quote from Martin Luther King, Jr., in the last posting. Today, Dec. 1, marks the 55th anniversary of the refusal of Rosa Parks to give up her seat on a Montgomery bus because of the color of her skin. Some suggest that this brave act marked the beginning of the modern civil rights movement.

We often forget that both Martin Luther King, Jr., and his Dad were named after the Augustinian monk who kicked off the Reformation. No further comment, but thought it was worth mentioning, especially on this particular day.

Okay. One additional 'summary' comment. Personally, I think it is quite enough that Mary was the mother of Christ and that this alone merits reverence and honor. I'm not convinced that the Church had to add on a wide variety of other doctrines, some of them like Immaculate Conception (1864) and Assumption (1950) not defined until recent times. I understand how the Church justifies them, but such accretions over the centuries makes Mary seem more like a goddess than a fellow human being. And doesn't the Bible say, more than once, that all humans are sinners? E. g., Romans 3:23 and 5:12.

mortonsam · #**344** Dec 1, '10, 6:57 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by JharekCarnelian

You brought up the Orthodox a few posts ago. As a member of a family containing members of both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches I suggest you go and look at how much focus the Orthodox also place on Mary. Certainly they don't share all the same doctrines as we do concerning her but she is highly revered there also. Funny though how those grumbling about Mariolatry etc. never focus on the Orthodox. They seem to slip beneath their radar, you could almost think the whole 'Mariolatry' issue was transplanted to America from Europe..

The Orthodox do have reverance for Mary yes and so do many mainline Protestants, but Orthodox Christians do not follow many of the Marian dogmas that Catholics do such as the IC. That is the real difference.

BryanM27 · #**345** Dec 1, '10, 7:51 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by mortonsam

On the contrary. Firstly, you are placing much focus upon Mary or otherwise this topic wouldn't be such a stickler for you and secondly, the fact remains that Mary is not mentioned once past the book of Acts. If that doesn't say anything to you about the obvious differences between the Bible and Catholic theology, then so be it. It is what it is.

1.) What obvious differences are you referring too?

2.) Revelation 12:1-6 does not specifically mention Mary by name. That is a fact of scripture. However, I wonder how you can interpret that passage to be a reference to anything other than Mary and the birth of Christ.

3.) Which is "most/more" important in the bible: the Gospels or the letters? If not for the information contained in the Gospels, there would be no letters.

4.) As has already been mentioned, Mary is referred too as "favored", "blessed" and "mother of God" several times in the Gospels, especially in Luke.

5.) Gospel of John 19:26-27
"When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple there whom He loved, he said to his mother, 'Woman, behold your son.' Then he said to the disciple, 'Behold your mother.'"

6.) According to John, Jesus performs his first public miracle at the request of his mother.

7.) Logic: if God is all-powerful and can do anything then He can choose how to enter this world. If he can choose how to enter this world, He can choose to enter as a full-grown man. Instead, He chose to enter through a "natural" birth and maturation process. Thus he was dependent on Mary to provide for him while in her womb, and to care for him as a baby and help him grow. He CHOSE to be dependent on her.

8.) Continuing our logic from #7, if God was dependent on this woman why would he not treat her with more respect than any of his prophets? Is she less important than Abraham or Moses?

9.) Christ is King of Kings. Who among you would approach a king on this earth without first going through an intermediary? If you wouldn't go to an earthly king without an intermediate, why would you go direct to the King of Kings, who is greater than any on earth, without one?