Christian: Mary, Mother of God (Jesus Christ, Earth, gospel, grace) - Page 8

athanasius · #71 09-27-2006, 05:30 PM

Hello again. Once again I am sorry my computer will not seem to write with the color. I have a few spare hours so I thought I would complete my study on Mary and her Immaculate conception. This may take a few installments. Please be patient with me. I would like to first off look at the some of the errors that Mr writer makes.

Writer said:
“Christ Jesus founded not the "Catholic Church"
My response:
This just shows Mr writers lack of historical knowledge. Protestant early church historian JND Kelly shows that the Catholic church was indeed the church founded by Christ Jesus. Kelly list all the Popes, from Peter in the Gospels to John Paul II and gives a history for each of them in his book “The Oxford dictionary of Popes”.

Mr writer simply ignores this and says it can’t be true. So Mr Writer, yes sorry, the Catholic church really was the church that Jesus founded historically. And yes therefore Luke 10:16 applies to Mr writers anti-Catholicism, which in God’s eyes is the same as rejecting Jesus.

Of coarse Mr Writer also has another historical problem. He bites the hand that feeds him. Its a historical fact as I have shown in my other post on sola scriptura that the New testament Canon that Mr writer attempts to use to debunk the marian dogmas was given to him by this same Catholic church he hates, Popes and all.

He simply denies this and obviously has never studied the history of the canon. I would deny it too if I were him because it is a huge problem for him and his anti-Marian position. He claims to go by the word of God in the Bible alone.

And he claims to be able to interpret the word of God correctly. But how can he interpret the Word of God correctly if he is interpreting it apart from the historical Catholic Church that gave him the new testament? He needed the Catholic church, her Church fathers(Which he thinks are all wrong) and her Popes to give him the New testament to begin with.

What makes him think that he can ever read the bible without reading it in harmony with the infallible Church and her apostolic traditions that gave him that infallible canon? So why should we trust “His” interpretations of the Bible at all? Wouldn't we want to historically trust the Catholic church that Christ founded and that gave us the bible? wouldn’t that make more sense?

So that is our first problem with his interpretations of Scripture. Writers interpretations don’t biblically or historically line up. They don’t line up with the Church that gave us the bible. This Church Jesus gave authority to speak in his name(Lk 10:16, Matt 18:15-20 Matt 16:13-19).

Why else should we believe his interpretations if other bible only protestants disagree with him on the Marian doctrines. We have already showed that Luther disagreed with him on the immaculate conception. Luther(A non Catholic ) read Luke 1:28 and believed it to mean Mary had special grace and was sinless.

How do we know that Luther wasn’t right. He went by the bible alone, he knew greek, he was a professor of Scripture, and yet he came to a different conclusion that Mr writer does about Mary. All writer can say(If he goes by sola scriptura) is “Well He was wrong and I am right and scriptures says so”.

This is no real way to get to the bottom of biblical doctrine or revealed truth. This why Catholics have the advantage by having Apostolic tradition (2000 years of hindsight) and the Authority of the Church to help us interpret properly.

Writer said
Jesus calls His mom "woman" becuz she IZ a woman. Jesus is not attempting to identify Mary with Eve;

My answer

This not correct. Not only does my own personal interpretation of this show that Jesus was alluding to Mary as the New Eve(as rev 12:1-17 show), but also the 2000 year old teachings of those men who were taught by the apostles did as I have shown the Fathers did consider Eve a type of Mary. I will repeat myself very shortly.......Jesus is making a connection between Mary and Eve .

Eve is the “Women” of (Gen 3:15) whose offspring would crush the serpent. Jesus Identifies Mary as this “Women” spoken of in (Gen 3:15), as Mary who would be the “Women” whose offspring is Jesus who would crush the serpent the Devil.

This comes out clearly in the fulfillment of all of this in (Rev 12:1-17). In Rev 12 we see this “women” (clearly Mary as Jesus hints to ) give birth to a son(Jesus) who will crush Satan (the dragon). Hence Mary fulfills this Prophecy in Genesis and since Jesus is Considered the New Adam, then Mary is the New Eve as the early Fathers of the Church all Spoke of.

Mr writer wrongly says that the Church or the body of Christ is the women only in rev 12 and not Mary. He is wrong. Scripture is polyvalent( one passage can have many levels of meanings). Its true that the women in Rev 12 is the Church, but its also true that the women in Rev 12 is Mary the New Eve, and quite plainly so.

A good example of Polyvalent scripture besides Rev 12 is (Isaiah 7:14) which initially prophesied the birth of King Hezekiah . The gospel writer Matthew(Matt 1:23) also saw this scripture as being polyvalent and believed it to be addressing not only King Hezekiah but also the birth of Christ through Mary’s virginal womb. So scripture can have many levels of meaning and one of them for Rev 12 is clearly our Blessed Lady as the Fathers historically taught.

For example, In Genesis 3 you had one women(Eve) who is disobedient to God and one man(Adam), one angel(fallen, Satan) and one tree of life, and one food that would lead to destruction(the fruit) by eating of it. In the new testament you have the same thing but in a redemptive way .

In Lukes gospel he shows that one Women(Mary) is obedient to God(Luke 1:38) and one Man(Jesus) and one Holy Angel(Gabriel). Jesus would die on a tree(cross) and give us life and the eternal food of life, holy communion(John 6:48-58). Hence Scripture shows Jesus fulfills the new Adam and Mary the new Eve.

This fact that Mary is a fulfillment of Eve also hints to Mary’s sinlessness because in Gen 3:15 God puts enmity between the devil and the women and her seed. This women is revealed as Mary in the new testament(Rev 12, and Luke 1).

And therefore if Mary had enmity between her and Satan then this would allude to her sinlessness. No sinful person can have enmity between themselves and Satan. Also remember, that all biblical typological fulfillment's in the new testament were more powerful and stronger than their old testament types.

Eve was created Immaculate, sinless before she fell. If Mary is Eves fulfillment as Rev 12:1-17, Luke Chapter 1 and 2 and John 2 and 19 allude to, then Mary would be sinless too. No fulfillment is inferior to their old testament type.

The bible implies her sinlessness, not only in her being biblical fulfillment of Eve, but also in being a biblical fulfillment of the ark of the Covenant, which the Scripture and the Fathers of the Church also show plainly.

Now if you also keep in mind that the fathers of the church(those who were first and second hand taught by the apostles) Also made these connections and saw mary not only as New Eve but also as Ark of the covenant then you really have strong evidence to believe in the immaculate conception.
Mary was seen by the early Christians as being a fullfillment of the ark of the covenant.

Biblically this is obvious. The old Ark carried 3 things. The manna, the rod of Arron.and the Word of God or ten words(Ten commandments). Jesus is the Word of God incarnate(Jn 1:1), the New Manna(Jn 6:48-49), and Jesus rules with the Rod of Iron (rev 12:5). Naturally Mary carried Jesus in her womb for 9 months. Mary would be the ark of the new covenant.

The Gospel writer Luke actually shows us that Mary is the Ark of the covenant. For example Luke Makes direct parallels between Mary and the ark in his Gospel.

Compare 2 Sam to Luke 1

David arose and went(2 sam 6:2) Mary arose and went(Lk 1:39)

Both went to the hill country Judah

How can the Ark of the Lord come to me(2 sam 6:9)

Why is this Granted me that the Mother of my Lord should come to me(LK 1:43

almost verbatim language)

The ARK remained on the hill country for 3 months(2 Sam 6:11)

The same amount of time Mary spent with elizabeth(LK 1:56)

So we see that Luke himself compared Mary to the ark of the new covenant using similar language to reflect it. Also we see John explicitly shows Mary to be the new ark in Revelation. In Rev 11:19 we see the Ark of God’’s covenant appear. Who was this Ark?

The next verse tell us it was Mary(Rev 12:1). Remember when the scriptures were written there were no chapters and verses. This would have read immedialtely in context. Thus showing Mary to be the new Ark. Mr writer wrongly thinks that Mary’s arkness was just temporary for 9 months.

Even though Mary did have Jesus after 9 months, She was still considered the new ark. Remember Mary is depicted as the New ark in the book of Revelation which shows the future of the heavenly liturgy. She is even in the future in heaven still considered the ark. This is why the Fathers of the church called her the new ark.

Why does this matter in the immaculate conception? Simple. Mary fulfills The typology of the Ark. And the Ark was so holy that anyone who touched it had to be sanctified from sin. Then Mary who was the new Ark and carried the New covenant would most certainly be sanctified from sin even more than the old testament type of her.

Thus Scripture implies the immaculate conception. This is why the early fathers of the church believed her to be sinless. They were not superstitious in this regard. They were just guarding the deposit of faith that was handed down to them in tradition and scripture(2 Thess 2:15).

writer · #72 09-27-2006, 06:59 PM

71 Hello again.
Hello

would like to first off look at the some of the errors that Mr writer makes.
That's kind of u 2 try

“Christ Jesus founded not the "Catholic Church" This just shows Mr writers lack of historical knowledge.
I find it shows some of my, admittedly limited, historical knowledge

Protestant early church historian JND Kelly shows that the Catholic church was indeed the church founded by Christ Jesus.
JND Kelly shows not that the Catholic Church was the church founded by Christ Jesus

Kelly list all the Popes, from Peter in the Gospels to John Paul II and gives a history for each of them in his book “The Oxford dictionary of Popes”.
Peter was not a Pope. Later, much postapostolically, many people, contrary to Scripture (Mt 23), called themselves, or worse yet, were called, "popes or Popes" AD 300s to 400s. Since the singular word simply means "father." Do Mr A, or Mr Kelly, claim that the so-called "apostolic seats," leading ones, of Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria; are in their list? If not, why not Mr A?

Mr writer simply ignores this and says it can’t be true.
How could Mr Writer ignore this if he says it can't be true? That's one mystery.
Both here and elsewhere Mr Writer directly addresses this nonsense (as in paragraph above) and denies that Christ; the One who hates the work and teaching of the "Nico-laitans;" established evil worldly, religious, political, hierarchy as anything to do with Himself. Which He didn't

the Catholic church really was the church that Jesus founded historically.
Christ did not "found" an objective institution. He became, and came into, His own, chosen, living, Body (Cf Jn 12:23; 14:2, 23; etc; Ac 9:4). Whose "succession" is principally: Him

rejecting Jesus.
To the contrary: I receive all genuine Christians within Catholicism as my, and Christ's, genuine brothers and sisters, fellow-members of His only Body. But i completely reject, as Christ does, the institution and system we'll call "the Catholic Church" (Rv 17:1-6; 18:4; 2:18-29)

the New testament Canon that Mr writer attempts to use to debunk the marian dogmas was given to him by this same Catholic church he hates, Popes and all.
To the contrary: Catholicism as we know it, with it's kind of illegal and usurping "rule" over the West, did not come into being until near AD 600, from the times of Justinian's related laws, and Gregory political ability. In later history it's curious too why Catholicism would seek to destroy John Wycliffe, William Tyndale and their efforts to publish and spread the New Testament. Even to the point of physical force and killing. But maybe that's only something a mind like yours, Mr A, can adequately reconcile

has never studied the history of the canon.
I feel our earlier discussion of this, in the other thread, debunks your bunk. No offence

he claims to be able to interpret the word of God correctly.
Unlike your Pope or David Koresh, one thing i would never, could never, and would never want to claim, is "infallibility." Oddly, however, i'm the one you've accused of arrogance. For recommending folks read the apostles.
This is another mystery. Maybe it's somethin, reprehensible, folks get taught in Catholic seminaries

how can he interpret the Word of God correctly if he is interpreting it apart from the historical Catholic Church that gave him the new testament?
I appreciate any efforts "Catholicism" has done to preserve, copy, and spread the Bible. I depreciate, greatly, all efforts she's done to subvert or limit its preservation and spread. But the Catholic Church didn't write the Bible. Paul, Peter, John, Matthew, Mark, Luke, James, and Jude did. The NT

Church fathers(Which he thinks are all wrong)
Your word "all" here is a lie. Mr Athanasius. Not worthy of u. I only reject things at odds with the Bible. It's a falsehood to state that everything folks like Ignatius, Clement, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, etc, wrote are "all" wrong.
In any case, to be fair, if u were to be fair: i'm not the one disagreeing with brother Irenaeus over the passage in Jn 2, water into wine, with Mary, which u 'n i've been discussin. R not U?

...the infallible Church
What would u like me to understand by this phrase of yours, dear Mr A? R u suggesting that u r infallible, or that your arguments r here?
Then u shoulda said that in the 1st place. I wouldnta dared debate u. Thanks

So why should we trust “His” interpretations of the Bible at all?
Cuz i'm not your Pope? I don't believe in Potpourri. Even tho u said i was infallible earlier

Luther(A non Catholic ) read Luke 1:28 and believed it to mean Mary had special grace and was sinless.
The same Luther your institution excommunicated (thankfully), labelled "heretic," and whose death sought? Mebbe that wuzn't sin either. George Orwell called this kind of thing something. Doublespeak? Triplespeak?

Luther...went by the bible alone, he knew greek, he was a professor of Scripture, and yet he came to a different conclusion that Mr writer does about Mary.
To be precise (which u, the student,'s posts make me wonder if whoever's teachin u teaches u): this particular, unscriptural, superstious, odd, unnecessary, religious teaching concernin Mary is only one thing purportedly about Mary. And, in this, Martin Luther, as in a few other things, sorry to say, most definitely was not "Bible-alone."
That mite've been because Luther, unlike the Pope in the 1800s, never either claimed, nor pretended, to teach infallibly (thank God)

writer · #73 09-27-2006, 09:28 PM

Mr writer simply ignores this and says it can’t be true.
How could Mr Writer Ignore this if he says it can't be true? That's one mystery.

writer · #74 09-27-2006, 09:29 PM

we love U

athanasius · #75 09-27-2006, 11:32 PM

While we are on the subject of refuting Mr Writers false claims about the Doctrines of Mary in the Catholic church,lets look at another example where he goes wrong in his responses with me.

Mr Writer thinks that I, Father Mateo, and the Catholic church Worships Mary. When I asked him about why he thinks I worship Mary he responded by suggesting that I shouldn’t give Glory and Honor and praise to another human being.

He(Writer) then said:
“The four living creatures give glory and honor and thanks to Him who sits upon the throne...Worthy is the Lamb who's been slain to receive the power and riches and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and blessing.”

My response to this is:

Again this is where Mr writer shows us his lack of biblical knowledge. Its true that We Give Glory and Honor and Praise to God. However, its also true that we can give Glory and Honor and Praise to other human beings as the Scripture shows and its not a form of worship but rather Veneration for a Person.

Here are some Scripture Verses Mr writer obviously overlooks:

“Hesekiah rested with his fathers , and they buried him in the upper tomb of the sons of David; and all Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem GAVE HIM GLORY AND HONOR at his death.”(2 Chron 32:33)

“And you shall make holy garments for Aaron your brother, for GLORY and for beauty.”(Ex 28:2)

“Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of DOUBLE HONOR, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching;”(1 Tim 5:17)

“He himself went on before them, BOWING himself to the ground seven times, until he came near to his brother”. (Gen 33:3)

“So Bathshe'ba went to King Solomon, to speak to him on behalf of Adoni'jah. And the king rose to meet her, and BOWED DOWN to her”(1 Kings 2:19-20)

“For he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified have all one origin. That is why he is not ashamed to call them brethren,
[12] saying, "I will proclaim thy name to my brethren,
in the midst of the congregation I will PRAISE THEE."(Heb 2:11-12)

“Judah, your brothers shall praise you”(Gen 49:8)

These are just a few examples of the many of scriptures that clearly show that Human beings can be given Glory, and Honor, Praise and even have people bow down to them without worshipping them. This is called Veneration. Which differs from worship.

In Worship you attribute Deity and adoration to something. In veneration you give thanks and respect and honor for that persons office or holiness, but no Deity or worship is ever given to the person.

St Augustine spoke of the difference of Honor we give to Mary and the saints and the Worship we give to God alone. Its completely biblical as I have shown. Catholics do not and never have worshipped Mary as a Goddess. Our Catechism makes this clear. We worship God alone.

Mr Writer assumes that Because we believe Mary to be sinless then we must mean she is a Goddess. He is simply wrong. She is no Goddess. Eve and Adam before the fall were sinless, and they were not Gods or Goddesses.

Again We do not teach that Mary is or was a Goddess. We simply teach that Jesus made her sinless. She does not have ability on her own to be sinless, its all because of Jesus.

So saying that Mary is sinless is not the same as equating her with a Goddess and writer would be dishonest if he said otherwise.

again this is something that permeated the early Christian Church. the Catecombs of the early christians are great examples that show images and words of veneration given to Mary as Mother of the Church and New eve. And veneration to Mary was being practiced centuries befoe the New testament Canon was even decided and formally proclaimed.

writer · #76 09-28-2006, 02:34 PM

75 “He himself went on before them, BOWING himself to the ground seven times, until he came near to his brother”
Altho u never answer my questions, and i've answered most of yours (mebbe that's another thing they teach u): i'll try once more.
R u saying u bow before Mary? Before her statues?
That's a simple question. Like all of my others: it's not a trick

“For he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified have all one origin. That is why he is not ashamed to call them brethren,
[12] saying, "I will proclaim thy name to my brethren,
in the midst of the congregation I will PRAISE THEE."(Heb 2:11-12)
YOU in Heb 2:12 is the ONE in 2:11. The "one origin" is the one Person: God

These are just a few examples of the many of scriptures that clearly show that Human beings can be given Glory, and Honor, Praise and even have people bow down to them without worshipping them. This is called Veneration. Which differs from worship.
In Worship you attribute Deity and adoration to something. In veneration you give thanks and respect and honor for that persons office or holiness,
Thanks for your help. Here's another nontrick question: what practically duz your "veneration" to the deceased Mary consist of? (Lord, please help Mr Athanasius not be afraid to answer or try to answer my questions)

Augustine spoke of the difference of Honor we give to Mary and the saints and the Worship we give to God alone.
Uh oh. Another question: care to provide his quote, or at least cite?

Catholics do not and never have worshipped Mary as a Goddess.
I'm glad to hear that. And I'm glad that you speak for all, and all who've ever, called themselves "Catholic." Maybe you're omniscient, or the "Queen of Heaven," like Mary

We worship God alone.
Praise the Lord, Athanasius. So'd i

Eve and Adam before the fall were sinless, and they were not Gods or Goddesses.
Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord, Stephen was full of grace, John the Baptist was greater than all born before him; and they weren't sinless or Gods either.
As the apostle wrote in Romans 11: God's shut up all in disobedience (naturally excepting Himself) that He might show mercy to all.

Take care A

Victor · #77 09-28-2006, 05:08 PM