Catholic Mary

When you think about it, it's not normal at all. The man hanging on the cross was the second person of the Godhead. IF James, Joses, Jude and Simon were unbelievers at that time, and we don't really know when they became believers, Jesus knew full well that 40 days hence they would be with Mary and the apostles praying in the upper room. So that argument doesn't hold up.

It wouldn't hold up anyway. I have four brothers. If I were dying and called in my friend next door and said for him to care for my mother when I'm gone, I'm sure he would be willing to do it. But he couldn't do it because my brothers would appear and say, "She's our mother too, just as much as she was the mother of our dead brother. You have no right to do this. You can't do this, we are taking her with us." My friend would have to acquiesce to their demands.

 

You mean like the peasants in the Soviet Union should never have read Doctor Zhivago? Or the Holy Bible for that matter?

 

Again, John was "the beloved disciple," one that Christ could depend on.
The brothers of Jesus were not saved. Evidence?

John 7:2-5 Now the Jews' feast of tabernacles was at hand.
3 His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest.
4 For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world.
5 For neither did his brethren believe in him.

John 7:10 But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret.

This event is speaking of the immediate family of Jesus. He is at his home. His own brethren, half-brothers, taunt him, especially in verse 3.
"Depart; Go into Judea, that your disciples can see your works!" (Ha Ha)
In verse 4: Go, show yourself to the world!
And of course in verse 5: His brothers did not believe in him.
--This is a clear statement of the unbelief of his brothers.

 

Look be honest with yourself. If you or going to worship your ancestors, set out food for them, believe that their spirits will take that food and as a result protect your food, then join Shintoism. Go and move to Japan, where the religion is rampant. But don't teach it as truth here.

If you go to a Baptist Church then don't be a hypocrite and teach the heresies of the RCC. Go and join a Catholic Church and teach them. Why the hypocrisy? Don't pretend to be a Baptist when you are teaching Catholic doctrine. Jesus warned that there would come wolves in sheep's clothing. But do they have to teach our children?

 

Yes I know they did not believe early in His ministry but we are not told the time when they became believers. Maybe they were at the time of the crucifixion, maybe not. But my point is that Jesus, the son of God, would have known they would be coming around in 40 days or less. Then that reason for giving Mary to John would disappear.

 

Why do you just assume I teach children? I teach adults all over 40. Do you not have adult Sunday School? And my job is fairly safe because teachers, good or bad, are hard to come by. I have offered to resign for two years in a row, not because I felt that I should resign but because I want to be free to do other things. But both times the pastor and Sunday School director have come to me and begged me to stay. They did this because they can't find anyone else willing to spend four or five hours every week preparing for a lesson. Like I said in my post to the Biblicist, today's church member is more concerned with being fed than with understanding the nuances of Christian doctrine.

And your comment about a wolf in sheep's clothing is way off base. It depends on who is the wolf and who is the sheep. I believe Baptists are dead wrong going to places like Mexico and Brazil and enticing people away from the Catholic Church.

 

Jesus was both fully God and fully man at conception;
Mary was the mother of Jesus;
Since Jesus was and is God;
Mary is the Mother of God!

WM

 

I totally disagree, the foreknowledge of God does not make reality disappear. John was trusted in the moment, Jesus' brethern were not.

 

You cannot acurately make this satement for it is misleading and disceptive. God is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. To be acurate and true, we must not blur this fact ecspecially towards unbelievers who themselves know that a God would not have a mother by whom He was created. It's just a very poor statement at the least.

 

Does anyone here know how it is determined that these apparitions that are seen are Mary? Does the apparition speak to the seers? Does a voice from Heaven declare her? Just wondering how they determine it is Mary.

 

What? It's simple logic. Further, do you deny that Jesus was both fully God and fully man? Mary being the mother of Jesus and hence the Mother of God doesn't necessitate that Mary created Jesus. Did your mother create you? No! Yet she is still your mother...not just the mother of the physical you, she is the mother of the entire you. And just as your mother is the mother of the entire you, so Mary is the mother of the entire Jesus...both fully God and fully man. Hence her title as the mother of God.

WM

 

Mary was a sinner like us. She sinned. She was no better than most of us; in fact she had a sin nature. She was simply a vessel chosen by God to bear the fleshly body of Jesus. God used her for that purpose and we stop there. She was not the mother of God.

Not so. Physically she is the mother of half of me, contributing only half of the genes, while the other half come from my father. With Jesus it was not so. Christ was conceived of the Holy Spirit.

Again not true. If true, then why do I only bear half her genes, and why do people say I resemble my father more than I do my mother?

 

Then you don't believe in the Great Commission.
Let the Hindus be Hindus and die and go to Hell. I can see where you are coming from, because Mother Theresa said the same thing.

I go to foreign mission fields, and work among different communities: some Muslim, some predominantly Catholic. In one Catholic Community there was a revival where many were turning to the Lord. We were going from house to house presenting the way of salvation, and with joy they accepted it. What we found out later was that a Catholic priest was following us going into the same houses offering them a bribe to stay Catholic, stay with the Catholic Mission. But even just after being saved, they would not renounce Christ for money.
They were baptized and there is still a growing Baptist church in that area. Very few Catholics, if any remain. It is a testimony to the power of the gospel and the grace of God. BTW, the church is completely indigenous, not having anyone from North America working with them.

 

Mary was a creature just like us. However, she was not just a vessel any more than your mother is only a vessel. Go tell her that she is only a vessel. Sounds like heresy to me.

You have two sets of genes. Christ didn't. Ohhh... Yeeaahhhhh!

WM

 

The birth of Christ was miraculous. He was the incarnate God. The Bible says that he was conceived of the Holy Ghost, not of Joseph. What does that leave room for? I am not speculating. I don't know. I just know that he was fully man and fully God at the same time and came via a virgin birth, a miraculous entry into this world. I resign myself to realize that a finite mind cannot understand all there is to know about an infinite God. I accept the truths of the Bible by faith, even if I don't understand them all. The Bible is not a book of science. It does not explain to me Einstein's theory of relativity, nor many other matters dealing with science. At the same time I know that the Bible is scientifically accurate. I believe it by faith. That is good enough for me.

 

Dr. J. D. Fulton: The Lady of the Jesuits is not even an invention of Jesuitism, but an adoption of a pagan conception which cursed Babylon, the prototype of the modern Babylon, centuries before Christ appeared as the son of Mary. Pictures of the mother and child were then worshiped. In almost all the devotional books of the Roman Catholic Church, the mother of God is crowned, sceptred and enthroned as the Queen of heaven. ["She has been appointed by God to be the Queen of heaven and earth", Pius IX, 1854, but not made "official" till 1954 by Pius XII.] "I can never," said the Rev. M. Hobart Seymour, in his Evenings with the Romanists, page 254, "forget the shock I received when I first saw in their churches in Italy, the Virgin Mary crowned as Queen of heaven, seated on the same throne with Jesus crowned King of heaven. These were the God-man and God-woman enthroned alike. There was nothing to distinguish the one above the other."

The origin of this idolatry had its root in ancient mythology. Astarte of the Assyrians, Ashtoreth of the Sidonians and Bowaney of the Hindoos held the place that Mary occupies in the church of Rome. Greece had her Venus and Rome her Juno. The Diana of the Ephesians was a female, from whose body in every part there seemed to be issuing all the various animals of creation, symbolizing the conception and creation of all things.

The Egyptians on the one hand and the Etrurians on the other had their Isis, the same symbol, a female divinity whom they regarded as "the mother of the gods." Jeremiah describes the Jews who had rebelled against God as making cakes to "the queen of heaven" (Jer 7:18; 44:17), the title given to Juno in the Scandinavian theology. Rome has adopted this element of heathenism, this product of the carnal heart. In all its essential elements the Roman Etrurian and the Romish Mary brought from Babylon and adopted by papal Rome are in accord - Romanists are idolaters. In their churches are pictures of the Virgin that are worshiped because of the wonderful things professedly done by them. In St. Peter's is a picture of the Virgin bearing the inscription that it had miraculously shed blood when struck by a stone. A picture of the mother and child is at Lucca, of which it was affirmed that when some one flung a stone at the face of the child she transferred the child to the other arm and thus saved it from injury. The Jesuits defend this.

It is claimed by Romanists that the mother and child sustain the same relation in heaven which they have assigned them on earth, and that Jesus is more the mediator with Mary than Mary is the intercessor with Christ. From Babylon, this worship of the mother and child spread to the ends of the earth. In Egypt, in Assyria, in China and in Greece and elsewhere, this form of worship suited to the carnal heart gained sway. Circe, the daughter of the sun, taken from Pompeii, has the nimbus or circle surrounding the head in the very same way as the head of the Roman Madonna is at this time adorned in the pictures given of this mistress of Rubens, this lady of the Jesuits. Can any one believe this coincidence accidental?

Mariolatry encourages sinners.

Christ's worship is built on the teachings of the Scriptures. To obtain forgiveness of sins through Christ there must be a change of heart, a new birth, a new life. Old things must pass away, all things must become new. Romanists believe that they can be saved more easily through Mary. Christ requires repentance, Mary devotion. Faith in Christ demands submission to the will of God, reformation of life, and devotion of heart as required by the gospel; while devotion to Mary consists in prayers to her or some external practices in her honour. Liguori teaches that damnation is impossible where there is devotion to the Virgin. Hence the worship of Mary encourages sinners and multiplies sins. Pio Nono (Pius IX), after decreeing the Immaculate Conception, made the cornerstone of the Romish faith to believe and to teach that salvation is received solely and alone through Mary. It is ours to refute this blasphemous assumption by proclaiming Christ as the way, the truth, and the life.

When Mary gave birth to Jesus Christ her [unique] mission ended. The dream that haunted the imagination of the Jewish maiden was fulfilled; Mary had given birth to Jesus. The world worshiped the being born, not the one who gave birth to the Son of man and the Son of God. They did it then. True believers do it now as they will do it in heaven. Mary will walk with the redeemed in white. "The assumption of Mary" [bodily into heaven, Pius XII, 1950] is a Popish assumption, and it is nothing more. Mary has not risen and will not rise until the trump shall sound, when she will come forth and cast her crown at the feet of Christ, with the countless throng that no man can number. Mariolatry, the perpetual virginity of the virgin, is a popish lie and calculated to deceive millions, while it is an insult to our Lord and Saviour. It declares that Christ lacks compassion, is wanting in knowledge and depends for information upon Mary, and is without willingness to help and save the lost.

As a virgin, Mary became the medium through which the ever blessed Christ came into the world. Because of this she was blessed among women. She was not worshiped by those who knew her in the flesh, and she is without any claim to worship at this time, or any time.

http://www.albatrus.org/english/religions/pagan/pagan_origin_mary_worship.htm

 

You are making loose associations that aren't true. You might as well believe what Zeitgeist teaches about Jesus. After all gospel events can pertain to pagan religions long before Jesus Christ and like Mythras who has similar mythology is a babylonian religion. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZFV6WxaVSA You are taken in by the same type of fraud as is proposed by Zeitgeist.

 

Let's give you the benefit of the doubt for a minute, and say that his source is irrelevant for the time being. Suppose that to be the case.

What case do you have for all the mythical inventions that do surround Mary that are entirely unsupported by the Bible. For example:
The Assumption of Mary
The Immaculate Conception of Mary
The Perpetual Virginity of Mary
That Mary is able to Intercede for us

There are many more. Those are the ones that immediately come to my mind, and these cannot be supported by the Bible. They are myths. Don't give me Tradition. If you say tradition; I will tell you lies from the devil. They are myths; unsupported from the Bible. If you cannot substantiate them from the Word of God, then they should be thrown out.

I teach students in third world nations that come out of other religious backgrounds. If their former beliefs or even culture cannot be supported by the Bible, it is thrown out. The Bible remains our final authority in all matters concerning faith and practice.

 

where in the bible does it say Trinity, hypostatic union? Where in the bible does it mention alter calls? Where in the bible does it mention supralapsarian? Where in the bible does it say its the sole source of authority? Where in the bible does it say rapture?

Where in the bible does it say its the final authority in all matters concerning faith and practice? Do you throw out these items because its not explicit in the bible?

 

Same old garbage questions. They are inane. Can't you come up with something more original?
Where in the Bible does it say "theology" [study of God]?
Or have you given up on the study of God because it is not found in the Bible?

Seek and ye shall find.