Mother Mary??

Thanks for posting this. I note that this has not one single Bible reference to the Mother of Mary (who would have been the mother in the case of immaculate conception) or any reference in the Bible speaking of the Birth of Mary "at all".

And "yet" you "claim" this is a Bible based study on the birth of Mary and how she was born sinless at conception.

And of course the non-stop efforts to get Christ to be married to his mother as Adam was to Eve -- is always entertaining - though misguided.

Fascinating!

In Christ,

Bob

 

Hmmm, I've been reading a lot of arguing...disagreements...etc. Maybe arguing is too strong a word and debate may be the better of the two. As for me stating Christians and Catholics rather than Prostestants and Catholics...well here in PA the Catholic Schools went from taking the name of Central Christian to Central Catholic...they've made that distinction here...

And as for Protestant...I'm not one.

BG

 

Debate yes - but not over the Movie - the Passion of Christ. Or am I missing something?

In Christ,

Bob

 

I read your post and mine and well I'm not sure we're understanding each other...

There has been plenty of debate over the movie on here, some are for it, some are wholeheartedly against it.

 

</font>[/QUOTE]No - I use the quote to show that the church IS pointing to the dark ages in which these councils took place and is showing that persecution, torture, forced conversions extermination etc were all part of the game they were playing.

The last part about the Bible burning and Bible banned - is simply a fact of history.

Notice that it is the invention of the printing press and the Bible in the language of the people - that coincides with the reformation.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob quotes --

Frozencell responds --

No argument there - thes appelations do not go beyond that of an infinite God being. Much of what is said is worthy of being said to God - singing before his altar - standing before His throne asking Him for His protection of His church etc.


But instead of going to God - these worshipful messages are directed to the dead.

You say -- "She is called Queen;" But not in God's Word.

You say -- "God God is still King" -- as though God is married to his mother?

Using Genesis 3 to exault Mary as the second Eve to the Second Adam IS in fact arguing for a marriage between Christ and his mother. I am surprised that the RCC would do it.

The fact is - nothing in Gen 3 argues for Mary as the woman.

Christ is the 2nd Adam because Romans 5 says He is.

Mary is never called "the 2nd Eve" in all of scripture.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob,

You are a real winner and never cease to amaze me. Instead of apologizing and asking for forgiveness, you try to justify your actions and throw in a few jabs at the Catholic Church. What is your deal with bearing false witness? Do you not mind breaking that commandment? You keep the Sabbath but neglect the other commands of God? I could understand a slip-up occasionaly, but this is a habit for you. How truly sad and what an unChristlike way to go about showing others your "truth." Even if your understanding and interpretations are infallible, your attitude and approach nullifies anything you say.

You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. Exodus 20.16, RSV

In Christ,
Neal

 

Just a few more thoughts on Mary...

"She is called Queen" WHERE?

And as far as The Trinity, it's not a word used in my church, but do I believe in the triune Godhead? YES. There is evidence of that where it is written that Jesus said I and My Father are one (that's only two, but you get my drift). In the begining was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God.... No where have I ever read any mention of Mary being royalty, sure she's blessed amongst women...WOMEN...not all of mankind.


The Apostles never prayed to Mary, never gave her special recognition or honor and not one of them even mentions her in all their writings. John, into whose care she was committed never mentions her in his epistles or in the Revelation.

Notice some truths put forth by Mary about herself and her Lord:

Mary magnified the Lord, not herself. v46
Mary confessed herself a sinner v47 "God my Saviour." Mary would not need a Saviour if she were not a sinner!
Mary confessed to being a female slave! v48 "the low estate of His handmaiden."
Mary confessed God's holiness! v49 "HOLY IS HIS NAME!"
Mary magnified HIS MERCY ,HIS STRENGTH HIS JUDGMENT, HIS GOODNESS in vs.50-53
Mary knew the Bible promises of God to provide a Saviour and Deliverer "in remembrance of His mercy," as HE SPAKE TUR FATHERS."(vs.54-55) Mary claimed lineage from Abraham. Mary was born with a sin nature just like you and I friend. v55 If we were to ask Mary what she thought of all these doctrines which have been manufactured about her, she could easily point to the Magnificat and say, "MY SOUL DOTH MAGNIFY THE LORD, AND MY SPIRIT HATH REJOICED IN GOD MY SAVIOUR."


Mary was a remarkable person. The angel who came to Mary with the announcement that she would bear the Son of God said that she had “found favor with God” ( Luke 1:30 ). God honored her above all other women by choosing her to become the virgin mother of the Messiah. However, the biblical accounts do not emphasize her role as the mother of Jesus. In fact, nowhere in the Gospels does Jesus even call her “mother.” (In a direct sense to her face)

Although the Gospels portray her motherly concern, they clearly show her subordination to her son. In John 2:4 , Jesus called her “woman” (which wasn’t as harsh an expression in Greek as it would be in modern English), apparently to gently show her that His relationship to her as Savior must take precedence over that of son.

The Bible nowhere refers to her as the mother of God or implies in any way that she was born without sin. In fact, she herself recognized her need of a Savior ( Luke 1:47 ). She was qualified to give birth to the sinless Son of God because God chose her and miraculously caused her to conceive by the “overshadowing” of the Holy Spirit( Luke 1:35 ). While it is right to honor her as the mother of Jesus Christ, there are no biblical grounds for placing her in a position of mediation between ourselves and our Lord.

 

If you don't like what is written, just try and discredit the source. Right? Is it called guilt by association? Or smear campaign? "Jack Chick wavelength" Surely you can do better than that.
Let's look at another wonderful quote from the same source, that uses the Old English word, "Romanist," a common term to refer to the Catholics a few years back.

Now, in case you didn't notice: Samuel Morland wrote his history in 1658. If he got any of his information from Jack Chick, I would be quite interested in knowing how he he did it??
DHK

 

So then, your idea of a good refutation is a smear campaign? 'I don't agree with what you say therefore I will belittle your sources.' This is what you mean to say??

 

And I would add, that the Church has always maintained that Jesus was fully Divine AND fully human. There had to have been a genetic link between Jesus and His mother...

 

All Good points!

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob,

You are a real winner and never cease to amaze me. Instead of apologizing and asking for forgiveness, you try to justify your actions and throw in a few jabs at the Catholic Church.
In Christ,
Neal </font>[/QUOTE]Apparently there are some facts stated in the RC documents listed that Neal DID want to "cover up" and he appears to be very upset that the facts associated with the councils have been brought to light.

Neal - history is history. These facts are highlighted by your own historians and by Vatican press accounts quoting RC authorities and scholars.

Apparently these RC sources are not "pleasing to you" -- I regret that you are so upset by seeing them quoted here.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I have a question. When the short summary list of the church councils is posted and RC details are found to associate with each council - instead of "Dealing with the history" -- there are those who simply want to "sidetrack" off the topic of the history of the councils and what the RCC's own scholars are saying about those events of history.

IS it because you view the RCC actions in the dark ages as an embarassment EVEN if it is your own scholars that are being quoted on those subjects?

If so - why would you think that a non-RC message board like this - would join you in "not wanting" to see full disclosure on what the RCC has been saying about those events? How do you get to that assumption?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob,

You just don't get it, do you? Is your heart that hard? Are you that obsessed with the Catholic Church? I am not even Catholic and you act like I want to hide things! That has nothing to do with it! You misrepresent others and you don't even repent.....you attack. I DON'T CARE ABOUT WHAT YOU POSTED CONCERNING THE RCC! I care about you sorry attitude and blatant breaking of God's command while at the same time condemning others, doing it all in Christ's name.

In Christ,
Neal