• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Christian: Mary, Mother of God

athanasius

Well-Known Member
MR Writer Said

based on your summary, i don't think i could fairly call him that

My answer

Wow. Again your haughty arrogance comes out. Well if you think you can refute him using your knowledge of the Greek go ahead. But let me ask you this. Are YOU a New testament Greek Scholar? What credentials do you have in Greek? How many years have you studied?

Do you have a Masters or doctorate in New Testament Koine Greek? Have you written books or taught it? What makes you think you can make a better case using Greek than he can if he has far more knowledge of the language than you?? Again this just a example of anti-intellectual fundamentalist boohooing.


Writer also said


if you respect it, feel free to share any of it. If u want

My answer

I will not type six pages worth of info on this board. Father Mateo has demonstrated in 6 pages why this is. If you would like to read it, its in his book “Refuting the attack on Mary” (Pages 20-26). When you read his examples from the Greek in the new testament lets see you refute it with your own knowledge. This I would like to see.


writer also said

Thanks Mr A. But i think you're downright mistaken. I said "kind poster's"---that is, You. Singular. I didn't accuse all Catholics,

My response


Oh, Sorry!!! You just think I Worship Mary! Well, big difference there!!! Again. When Did I ever say I worshipped Mary???????? I never did! So why do you believe I do? This is just sneaky and dishonest wording on your part. YOu(Like most fundamentalist) have the false idea that Catholics worship Mary.

When you said that I did, what you really meant was We(Catholics) do, because I am the one in this debate who is representing the Catholic side. I have already shown you that we do not and have never taught that. And Our Catechsim states this plainly.


Writer said

Catholics do not teach that Mary HAD TO BE to bear Jesus...how much more sinless would you HAVE TO BE to have Jesus..."
So, if i understand u correctly, dear Athanasius, you're teaching what Catholics do not teach?

My response;

Ok, I can admit my wording was not the best for this sentence. The Catholic Church officially teaches(And I assent to their teaching) that Mary didn’t have to be sinless, but Jesus made her sinless(as alluded in Luke 1:28 and Others Passages) because it would be the most "fitting" thing for him to do. Perhaps I should have phrased it this way:

“If the ordinary wisdom of God won’t dwell in a normal Body full of sin(Wisdom 1:4), then it would seem only logical and “fitting” typologically that Jesus (The wisdom of God incarnate(1 Cor 1:24) would gift his mother with this grace, being that he would dwell in her for 9 months literally".



Writer said


Jesus' human nature didn't create His mother. Rather: His mother's human nature, by reproduction, and the Holy Spirit's divine fertilization, created Jesus' humanity.
As God, of course, the Son of God created Mary along with all things


My answer

Thank you for your response. Yes of coarse Jesus Created his mother before he became incarnate. That is not what I am debating here. I simply meant, It would make sense and would seem to be most “fitting” in my mind that Jesus would Honor her and glorify her with this special gift of sinlessness. (the early Christian Fathers of the church who knew Greek thought this too) Think about it.

If you could create your own Mother, would you create her defiled in sin? I sure wouldn’t. The Gospel of Luke (1:28) has been traditionally understood that Jesus didn’t. Jesus being a Jew and the Son of God would have fulfilled the law perfectly.

Part of that law was to “Honor your Mother and father” . In the Hebrew the word for honor literally means to “glorify”. We know he glorified his Father. We also believed he glorified his mother by giving her special grace and creating her sinless(As Luke 1:28 suggest).

We believe he also glorified her and made her the Ark of the new covenant and the New Eve(also as Luke 1 suggest) and the fathers of the Church and Christianity for 2000 years have taught. So sorry but your wrong.


writer said

God didn't create sin, nor sinful humanity. God created man "very good." Sinless. Sin is Satan's own (John 8:44). As you kindly, and accurately, point out: Jesus' mother did not need to be sinless to conceive and deliver Him


My answer

Yes God didn’t create sin! Amen! You are right. But he did make his mother sinless . She did not need to be but we believe(With the church for 2000 years) that he saw that it was “fitting” for her(Since she would fulfill the Old Testament typologies of Eve and the Ark of the covenant) and He glorified her in a way only sons on earth would dream of being able to glorify or honor their mothers. Amen!
 

writer

Active Member
61 Again your haughty arrogance comes out.
'gain? I wuz tryin to respond humbly to u or your friend

if you think you can refute him using your knowledge of the Greek go ahead.
I 'ready did (post 58, 2nd para)

Are YOU a New testament Greek Scholar?
Enuf to refute your kind amigo's nonsense. Tho it takes no Greek to see thru such transparent silliness. No offence, pleze

What credentials do you have in Greek?
I can read that the kechariton in Lk 1:28 has the same root ("charitoo"), and hence the same basic meaning as most or all other uses of "grace" or "favor" in the NT

How many years have you studied?
A few

Do you have a Masters or doctorate in New Testament Koine Greek?
No

Have you written books or taught it?
Jus a little informally. Kinda like i'm doing now

What makes you think you can make a better case using Greek than he can if he has far more knowledge of the language than you??
'cuz whether somethin's true or factual, or not, duzn't depend on the knowledge, and/or purported knowledge, of the speaker. Instead: it depends on whether the particular something's true or not

Again this just a example of anti-intellectual fundamentalist boohooing.
Az i mentioned in my last post to you (60, para 4): i would characterize more as anti-intellectual your apparent attempt to substitute arguments about credentials for arguments on the merits. If by "fundamentalist" you mean someone who takes the Scriptures as God's preeminent and infallible written authority, then i guess that's fair. If you seek to slur me, or mean something else by "fundamentalist," or "boohooing": then mebbe someday u can share what you mean

I will not type six pages worth of info on this board.
Thas why i wrote in my post 60, para 3: ANY of it. But i understand if you're "protecting" your source. I wouldn't wanna pass on gibb'rish, at least publicly, either

Father Mateo has demonstrated in 6 pages why this is. If you would like to read it, its in his book “Refuting the attack on Mary” (Pages 20-26).
Based on your vague summary, i wouldn't advise you or anyone else to waste their time. But, for purposes of debate, if you respect it, by all means, anytime, feel free to share some

When you read his examples from the Greek in the new testament lets see you refute it with your own knowledge. This I would like to see.
If u would, print all or some of his examples here. Thanx

Oh, Sorry!!! You just think I Worship Mary! Well, big difference there!!!
Thanks for apology

Again. When Did I ever say I worshipped Mary????????
55 how much more sinless would you have to be to have Jesus(Wisom Personified) literally dwelling in your body for 9 months?
57 We gladly give glory and honor and praise to her but we never ever worship her.
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. And every creature which's in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and on the sea and all things in them, I heard saying, To Him who sits upon the throne and to the Lamb be the blessing and the honor and the glory and the might forever and ever. And the four living creatures said, Amen. And the elders fell down and worshipped

61 When you said that I did, what you really meant was We(Catholics) do, because I am the one in this debate who is representing the Catholic side.
To the contrary, i wrote, and meant, what i wrote.
Whereas (and i again thank you sincerely for your apology) what you've just written was:
61 Ok, I can admit my wording was not the best for this sentence.
Thanx

...Jesus made her sinless(as alluded in Luke 1:28 and Others Passages) because it would be the most "fitting" thing for him to do.
I find it absolutely unfitting, to say nothing of unscriptural, to imagine such a thing b4 He was born. To borrow a thought from JamesThePersian's post 44: such fantasy is Maryological. Not a Christological statement at all. Who is the center of both God's economy, plan; and of all Scripture. And the only One sinless from the womb

If the ordinary wisdom of God won’t dwell in a normal Body full of sin(Wisdom 1:4)
I'll have to look at your book Wisdom 1. But it is not, never was, never has been, never will be, and never could be Scripture. And like the rest of the Apocrypha, contains much junk

It would make sense and would seem to be most “fitting” in my mind that Jesus would Honor her and glorify her with this special gift of sinlessness.
He will and has begun to honor and glorify His entire Body, including all His members, with something vastly and instrinsically superior to sinlessness. That is: Himself. The eternal life. Eventually, in such consummate glorification, entire sinlessness will of course be ours. Perhaps many deceased in Christ, like Mary, even though not yet glorified, already are enjoying that. One reason your above comment makes no sense, and's absolutely unfitting, in my mind, is that Christ's Body is Christ. He's all and in all. And His members equally, in that sense, should and will reflect Him. Not other members

the early Christian Fathers of the church who knew Greek thought this too) Think about it.
Think about whut? i do think o' their superstitiousness or ignorance in that regard

If you could create your own Mother, would you create her defiled in sin?
God (the Word) didn't create man sinful. Adam and Eve He created good. Man fell. That's the situation of inherited sin

I sure wouldn’t. The Gospel of Luke (1:28) has been traditionally understood that Jesus didn’t. Jesus being a Jew and the Son of God would have fulfilled the law perfectly.
Thas why much tradition is incompatible with both God and His book. In any case, there's no law that Jews, or God, must create their mother sinless

“Honor your Mother and father” . In the Hebrew the word for honor literally means to “glorify”. We know he glorified his Father. We also believed he glorified his mother by giving her special grace and creating her sinless(As Luke 1:28 suggest).
Mary sought to correct God incarnate by telling Him "Child, why have you treated us like this? Behold, Your father and I, being greatly distressed, have been seeking You." (Lk 2:48). Jesus, altho nice, of course didn't take her mistaken notion. And used the opportunity to correct them, even though they didn't understand. "And He said to them, Why is it that you were seeking Me? Did you not know that I must be in the things of My Father?" (2:49-50). In any case, He honored them completely and was subject to them (2:51) as a youth. Them. Being subject to His adoptive dad Joseph too. Whom, like Mary, wasn't sinless. As Creator of the universe, Christ is under no obligation to old-create His mother sinless
 

athanasius

Well-Known Member
When told that Luke 1:28 shows that Mary had been “graced” unlike any other, Mr writer said she had not. He also claimed that he took a few years of Greek.

I do not know how Mr Writer thinks that a 2nd or 3rd year student in Greek could possibly take down a New testament Biblical Greek Scholar who has Graduate degrees in Koine and taught Greek a universities, but we will let Mr Writer amuse himself.

He also seemed to ignore the fact that the Fathers of the Church(Who knew Greek first hand) saw Mary as being blessed with a special “grace” of holiness and Sinlessness. He just says that all the Fathers of the church are “Superstitious”. Shame on him. It was these fathers of the Church who were taught by the Apostles themselves and their successors.

It was these fathers of the Church that Mr Writer owes a great deal to(though he won’t admit it) for preserving, teaching, and preaching the Christian faith and giving him the biblical Canon, but we have already seen that Mr writer does not know anything about the canon issue or church history(As my debate with him on Sola scriptura has clearly shown, check it out) so why should this be surprising?

Again how does Mr writer thinks he can interpret the Word of God better than those Christian Fathers who knew firsthand the apostles and their disciples and the languages better than him and have been much closer to the time of Christ than he was.? Simple because he believes in Sola Writer.

Only Writer can correctly interpret the Word of God correctly(Just ask Baerly he’ll tell you), only writer can really know what the Greek says even though he is not a Greek Scholar and the historical fathers disagree with him., Only writer is always right! Sola Writer! Now, as for your comments on Luke 1:28, you said the following to me:

“I can read that the kechariton in Lk 1:28 has the same root ("charitoo"), and hence the same basic meaning as most or all other uses of "grace" or "favor" in the NT”

“Enuf to refute your kind amigo's(Father Mateo’s, a Greek scholar) nonsense. Tho it takes no Greek to see thru
such transparent silliness.”


“to the contrary: it's the same root”


“To the praise of the glory of His grace, with which He graced us in the beloved, wrote Paul”(Eph 1:5-6)


Now My response to your folly:

Wow your in Luck Mr writer. The Verse you quote from (Eph 1:5-6) and the arguments you just made, are the exact arguments that Father Mateo refuted amply in his Book “Refuting the attack on Mary”(Pages 20-26). I will simple type a little of what he had to say about the Greek and its meaning in regards to Mary and the passage you quote.

Here is what the New testament Greek Scholar Father Mateo had to say :

“THE VERB IN EPH 1:6 DOES NOT IMPLY SINLESS PERFECTION, BUT THE FORM OF THE SAME VERB IN LUKE 1:28 DOES, BECAUSE THE TWO VERB FORMS USE DIFFERENT STEMS, EACH EXPRESSING A DIFFERENT MODALITY OF THE VERBS LEXICAL MEANINGS. EPH 1:6 USES THE FIRST AORIST ACTIVE INDICATIVE FORM, ECHARITOSEN, ‘HE GRACED , BESTOWED GRACE’. THIS FORM , BASED ON AN AORIST STEM, EXPRESSES MOMENTARY ACTION, ACTION SIMPLY BROUGHT TO PASS. IT CANNOT EXPRESS ANY FULLNESS OF BESTOWING BECAUSE THE AORIST TENSE DOES NOT SHOW COMPLETION WITH PERMANENT RESULT.

BUT LUKE 1:28 USES THAT PERFECT PASSIVE PARTICIPLE, KECHARITOMENE. THE PERFECT STEM OF THE GREEK VERB DENOTES ‘CONTINUANCE OF A COMPLETED ACTION’ ; COMPLETED ACTION WITH PERMANENT RESULTS IS DENOTED BY THE PERFECT STEM. ON MORPHOLOGICAL GROUNDS, THEREFORE, IT IS CORRECT TO PARAPHRASE KECHARITOMENE AS ‘COMPLETELY , PERFECTLY, ENDURINGLY ENDOWED WITH GRACE. THIS BECOMES CLEARER WHEN WE EXAMINE OTHER NEW TESTAMENT EXAMPLES OF VERBS IN THE PERFECT TENSE.”(FATHER MATEO , REFUTING THE ATTACK ON MARY PAGE 20-21)

Of coarse the early fathers of the church also believe this:


Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom GRACE has made INVIOLATE , free of every stain of SIN."
Ambrose,Sermon 22:30(A.D. 388),in JUR,II:166

This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, Immaculate of the Immaculate, one of the one."
Origen,Homily 1(A.D. 244),in ULL,94

Thou alone and thy Mother are in all things fair, there is no flaw in thee and NO STAIN in thy Mother."
"Ephraem,Nisibene Hymns,27:8(A.D. 370),in THEO,132

We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of GRACE for overcoming SIN in every particular was CONFERRED UPON HER who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin."
Augustine,Nature and Grace,42[36](A.D.415),in NPNF1,V:135


Of coarse Mr writer says these fathers were all just superstitious. Again Mr writer your non-answer to the fathers is exactly where I get the idea that your a anti-intellectual fundamentalist . 

But Mr writer seems to have one more problem up his sola scriptura sleeve. If he disagrees that Mary is given special grace that made her free of sin in Luke 1:28 then not only does he disagree with the early Church but he also disagrees with other Bible only, Sola scriptura Christians such as Martin Luther.

Martin Luther, went by the bible alone. Sola Scriptura. He prayed for grace from God to be able to interpret the Scriptures just like writer would do.
But Luther would interpret Mary to be graced with sinlessness in Luke 1:28; Here is what the reformer himself had to say:

“she is full of Grace proclaimed to be entirely without sin...Gods grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil”(Martin Luther Personal Prayer book 1522)

So what is Mr writer to do with this? He not only avoids the historical interpretation of this passage by the Fathers, but now he avoids the interpretation that uncle Marty gives himself. Remember folks, Martin Luther went by the Bible alone, just like Writer claims to do. Could it be possible that Writer is wrong, and Luke 1:28 does imply the sinlessness of Mary as Martin Luther taught?


Can Mr writer who claims to go by sola scriptura really say that Luke 1:28 doesn’t teach Mary’s sinlessness? If he does then by what authority can he say that? By biblical Authority alone and the Holy Spirit? Martin Luther would say he got his interpretation the same way.

And Yet Mr writer disagrees with him on this important doctrine. If other bible only Christians like Martin Luther can say that this verse teaches Mary’s sinlessness then how can Writer be for sure that he isn’t wrong and Luther’s interpretation isn’t right? Can sola scriptura solve this for us.

This Im afraid is the nail in the coffin for Mr Writer on this issue. He keeps avoiding these types of questions and giving non-answers for them(See my debate on sola scriptura). We have now seen that Mr writer cannot ever really know for sure that Catholics are wrong about the interpretation of Luke 1:28 and Mary’s sinlessness.

He cannot know given that sola Scriptura is his method and sola scriptura has just proven itself to be unworkable as we have just seen. Oh sure he will say Martin Luther is wrong, but by what authority? Biblical? Luther would say the same thing to him. Sola Scriptura cannot give your surety on doctrine.

In the end this is the folly of Mr writer’s argument. It becomes clear that Not only the bible alone is needed for understanding proper doctrine, but also we need to hold fast to those oral Traditions that apostles gave us and handed down to the fathers(2 Thess 2:15). And we need a authoritative Church that Jesus established(Matt 18:15-20) top guide us into proper scriptural understanding(Act 8:30-32). Of coarse Mr writer wouldn’t even have that bible if it wasn’t for the fathers of the Catholic church and her councils and Popes, but he will never admit that(See my debate on sola scriptura)
 

writer

Active Member
63 When told that Luke 1:28 shows that Mary had been “graced” unlike any other, Mr writer said...
Since u seem to want to address your pretend audience rather than me, would u like me to respond dear Athanasius? In the 3rd person?

When told that Luke 1:28 shows that Mary had been “graced” unlike any other, Mr writer said she had not.
To the contrary: Writer wrote that Mary, like all other saints, wasn't sinless.
And that she, like all other members of Christ's Body, has been equally graced in the Beloved in His resurrection (Eph 1:6, post 58). That's the point of a Body. As far as Mary having the unique favor, grace, and blessing of bearing Christ in her womb physically for 9 months as a fetus (post 58): there's no debate about that. Is there Mr Athanasius?

He also claimed that he took a few years of Greek.
To the contrary, post 62 reads "How many years have you studied?" "A few"

I do not know how Mr Writer thinks that a 2nd or 3rd year student in Greek could possibly take down a New testament Biblical Greek Scholar who has Graduate degrees in Koine and taught Greek a universities, but we will let Mr Writer amuse himself.
If u really were interested in knowing how, Mr A, you could feel free to print here any of what your so-called New Testament Biblical Greek Scholar, who has graduate degrees in Koine and taught Greek in universities, says

the Fathers of the Church(Who knew Greek first hand) saw Mary as being blessed with a special “grace” of holiness and Sinlessness.
What "grace" isn't "holiness," Mr A? Which grace isn't sinful? Mr A. What human was uniquely sinless? Jesus Christ (Rom 23; 2 Cor 5:21). Who is the focus of your Bible, even the parts about Mary or Joseph etc, Mr A: Christ or Mary? Who do you think was the apostles' focus, Mr A: God or Mary?
You appear not only to misrepresent the apostles, but also some early postapostolic believers. Some, sorry to say, did have the superstition to which you refer, such as, apparently, Origen, Irenaeus, and Augustine, however and for example, contradict your and their blasphemous superstition where he writes:
"When Mary was urging on to perform the wonderful miracle of the wine, and was desirous before the time to partake of the cup of emblematic significance, the Lord, checking her untimely haste, said, 'Woman, what have I to do with you? My hour has not yet come'" (Iren Against Heresies book 3, ch 15, section 7). Although Iren was mistaken to associate the Lord changing water into wine in John 2 directly with the Lord's Table; he was accurate to point out that the Lord corrected His mom. Similar to how the Lord corrected Mary's improper blame of Him in Luke 2. As mentioned in post 62.
Tertullian, similar to Irenaeus, had no supestition that Mary was sinless. He wrote, against certain heretical teaching, in On the Flesh Of Christ, ch 7: "There is some ground for thinking that Christ's answer denies His mother and brothers for the present...While there is at the same time a want of evidence of His mother's adherence to Him, although the Marthas and the other Marys were in constant attendance on Him. In this very passage indeed, their unbelief is evident. Jesus was teaching the way of life, preaching the kingdom of God and actively engaged in healing infirmities of body and soul; but all the while, while strangers were intent on Him, His very nearest relatives were absent. By and by they turn up, and keep outside; because they do not go in, because, forsooth, they set small store on that which was doing within; nor do they even wait, as if they had something they could contribute more necessary than that which He was so earnestly doing; but they prefer to interrupt Him, and wish to call Him away from His great work...Did not Christ, while preaching and manifesting God, fulfilling the law and the prophets, and scattering the darkness of the long preceding age, justly employ the same form of words, in order to strike the unbelief of those who stood outside, or to shake off the importunity of those who would call Him away from His work?"

He just says that all the Fathers of the church are “Superstitious”. Shame on him.
Thank u for your help, dear Mr A. But to the contrary, if you're capable of shame: my post 62 reads: "the early Christian Fathers of the church who knew Greek thought this too) Think about it." "Think about what? Their superstitiousness or ignorance in that regard? I do." I specified superstion, here, only in THIS REGARD. And, as seen partially from the paragraph above: only in regard to some early believers, unlike Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Augustine, who had such a superstition

It was these fathers of the Church who were taught by the Apostles themselves and their successors.
To the contrary: no apostle ever taught sinlessness of Mary from her mom's womb
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
Just a recommendation athanasius and writer: Try using the forum buttons and features to enhance clarity. It makes it easier for others to follow along when things are different colors and are quoted. Play around with it to get comfortable with it. :)
 

writer

Active Member
63 THE VERB IN EPH 1:6 DOES NOT IMPLY SINLESS PERFECTION, BUT THE FORM OF THE SAME VERB IN LUKE 1:28 DOES, BECAUSE THE TWO VERB FORMS USE DIFFERENT STEMS, EACH EXPRESSING A DIFFERENT MODALITY OF THE VERBS LEXICAL MEANINGS.
Thank you Mr A. You Did print some of your Greek "scholar's" arguments. I'm sorry I didn't notice them till the end of your post. Please accept my apology. Here's my response.
Since grace, ultimately, is God Himself; In Christ; As Spirit; of course grace is "sinless." But according to the apostle's teaching in 1 John 1:8-2:2----"If we say that we do not have sin, we are deceiving ourselves, and the truth is not in us...If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us...He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for those of the whole world"----although grace is sinless: for anyone such as believers in Christ to be graced doesn't mean that they themselves are sinless, or that sin has been eradicated from their flesh or their being. Such a thing is impossible until the resurrection or glorification of the believers' physical bodies (cf Eph 1:4); or perhaps in decease. And, offhand, I'm aware of no NT use of "grace" in that explicit regard. Certainly not Luke 1:28. So regardless of prefixes or suffixes, tenses or modalities, nothing can alter the root meaning(s) of the NT word "grace." Certainly not Mr Mateo's gibberish or babbling. Highly-favored, highly-graced simply means what it says. Highly-favored. Highly-graced. It does not mean "sinlessness." Grace is one thing. Sinlessness is merely one, eventual, result. And a different, separate, word

EPH 1:6 USES THE FIRST AORIST ACTIVE INDICATIVE FORM, ECHARITOSEN, ‘HE GRACED , BESTOWED GRACE’. THIS FORM , BASED ON AN AORIST STEM, EXPRESSES MOMENTARY ACTION, ACTION SIMPLY BROUGHT TO PASS. IT CANNOT EXPRESS ANY FULLNESS OF BESTOWING BECAUSE THE AORIST TENSE DOES NOT SHOW COMPLETION WITH PERMANENT RESULT.
Luke 1:28 says no such thing as "fullness of grace." It simply says "graced." "Highly-graced." In addition, to depreciate Paul's blessing as the introduction to one of his highest works, concerning Christ and the church, shows how nonchristian or poor Mr Mateo's thought, revelation, or understanding of Christ and salvation may be in general. "Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus through the will of God, to the saints who are in Ephesus and are faithul in Christ Jesus: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with EVERY spiritual BLESSING in the heavenlies IN CHRIST, even as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world to be holy and without blemish before Him in love, predestinating us unto sonship through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, with which He graced us in the Beloved." God's eternal. His salvation, His gracing, is of course eternal. It's even predestinated. That's part of His grace. Of course it hasn't been completed yet. This is much more than a physical pregnancy for 9 months. Mary's grace in Lk 1:28 was "completed" because she was chosen to be the conduit through which God became flesh. That's all Lk 1:28 refers to. And Mary's grace in Lk 1:28 is not her end. It's not the end. It's not an end in itself. It's for the grace of salvation available thru Christ to all humans. It's for God's predestination unto sonship. It's for Mary's (and my, and all other believers') grace in Ephesians 1. God the Father's choosing before the foundation of the world; His predestinating through His Son; and His gracing in His Beloved (Christ); is, contary to your Mr dear Mateo's evil and superstitious phrasing: extremely full

BUT LUKE 1:28 USES THAT PERFECT PASSIVE PARTICIPLE, KECHARITOMENE. THE PERFECT STEM OF THE GREEK VERB DENOTES ‘CONTINUANCE OF A COMPLETED ACTION’ ; COMPLETED ACTION WITH PERMANENT RESULTS IS DENOTED BY THE PERFECT STEM. ON MORPHOLOGICAL GROUNDS, THEREFORE, IT IS CORRECT TO PARAPHRASE KECHARITOMENE AS ‘COMPLETELY , PERFECTLY, ENDURINGLY ENDOWED WITH GRACE.
To the contary: the simple past, "graced," will do. And does do. Mr Mateo seems to be wanting to use Mary's "graced" to try and turn her into a goddess. Mary's grace in Lk 1:28, 30; somewhat like Paul's "grace" in Eph 1:2 ("Grace to you and peace"); is completed because it refers to a certain transaction. A particular event. Again, this duzn't in the least suggest eternal or static sinlessness, or glorification, on the part of the recipient from that instant onward

THIS BECOMES CLEARER WHEN WE EXAMINE OTHER NEW TESTAMENT EXAMPLES OF VERBS IN THE PERFECT TENSE.”(FATHER MATEO , REFUTING THE ATTACK ON MARY PAGE 20-21)
Feel free to share 'em. It's one thing to talk about words. It's another to turn 'em into fantasies

Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom GRACE has made INVIOLATE , free of every stain of SIN.
Mary was a virgin when conceiving and delivering Christ. However, it's demonic to suggest, if Ambrose or anyone were to do so, that Mary's conception and delivery of her later 4 sons and 2 or more daughters by Joseph her husband, is in any way something "defiled." In addition, Ambrose grossly misrepresents both God, the Bible, the apostles, and Mary by claiming she was sinless

This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, Immaculate of the Immaculate, one of the one."
Az i mentioned in my post above, Origen's both superstitious and mistaken, and not taught of the apostles, in this regard

Thou alone and thy Mother are in all things fair, there is no flaw in thee and NO STAIN in thy Mother."
This approaches blashphemy if putting Mary on a plane with Christ

We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of GRACE for overcoming SIN in every particular was CONFERRED UPON HER who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin.
In this statement, however well-intentioned, Augustine was both wrong and demonstrates at least the germ of the seduction of idolatry

Mr writer says these fathers were all just superstitious.
In that one regard at least: Absolutely. It's sad

Again Mr writer your non-answer to the fathers is exactly where I get the idea that your a anti-intellectual fundamentalist.
Rom 3:23; Lk 2; Jn 2; and Mk 3 (among other writings of the apostles) pre-refuted, and pre-answered, your "fathers" on this subject; just like i have in all my previous posts. Which makes your accusation of "non-answer" on my part demonstrate either your own dishonesty, or your own inability to read posts of those who u debate w/

Martin Luther, went by the bible alone. Sola Scriptura. He prayed for grace from God to be able to interpret the Scriptures just like writer would do.
But Luther would interpret Mary to be graced with sinlessness in Luke 1:28;
That's one point, Mr A: Martin Luther didn't go by the Bible, nor by the Bible alone, on this superstition. Since the Bible's not superstitious. He, sorry to say for him, was mixed with a goofy tradition on this one

she is full of Grace proclaimed to be entirely without sin...Gods grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil
To the contrary: Neither Luke 1:28, nor anywhere else in the Bible, proclaims (nor implies) Mary "entirely without sin" anytime she was alive. Indeed, 1 John 1:8-10; Romans 3:23; and simple sense say just the oppostite. As would Mary if or when you ask her

So what is Mr writer to do with this?
Whut i just did with it, above?

He not only avoids the historical interpretation of this passage by the Fathers, but now he avoids the interpretation that uncle Marty gives himself.
How could i "avoid" it if you only just posted it in your last post, Mr A? Do i "avoid" your arguments in advance just becuz i can't read your mind? In any case, since you began listing some of your "fathers" absurd statements, i've done just the opposite of "avoiding" them. I've Responded to them. Even quoting them first
 

writer

Active Member
66 This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God,
This's good and not superstitious. Although she, like all other Christians, is made worthy thru the blood of the lamb


21 did Jesus sin? If not, how is this possible for him, but not his mother?
Becuz He was conceived of the Holy Spirit (Mt 1:18, 20; cf 1 Cor 11:12). She wasn't


21 If not, how is this possible for him, but not his mother?
59 Catholics do NOT teach that Mary “HAD” to be sinless for her to bear Jesus in her womb.
Is Mr A indicating that Mr Scott (poster 21, 1) is not Catholic? Or that 21's not teaching that Mary had to be sinless? Thanks


59 you believe in Sola Writer.
Iz that the same thing as declaring one's own teaching, or one's job, infallible? Or declaring in 1854, comically, that Mary was sinless, officially? Thanks


ONly writer is right on all things.
To the contrary: i, like the apostles and Mary, neither said i was, nor am i. It's kinda sad and funny at the same time if the very "things" you or your religion believes in becomes your criticism and false accusation against me, dear A



you didn’t have the God given authority passed down from you to the apostles to be able to interpret the written word correctly.
To the contrary, as Peter indicated in 1 P 1:10-12 and elsewhere: believers in Christ are born of His Spirit. Thus possessing, in their spirit, the very Authority who breathed-out His Scriptures (2 Tim 3:16; Jn 6:63; etc)


like The Eunuch needed(Acts 8:30-32).
To the contrary: u and i have what the eunuch got. Their very meeting and conversation recorded: Acts 8:27-39


You also lack the hindsight of 2000 years of Christian tradition to guide you.
To the contrary: i can read @ least as well as u


Again its sola Writer.
kindly don't attribute to me the kind of ridiculousness u mite attribute to infallible Popes


you have no idea if what you believe is the correct interpretation of Baptism in the bible.
To contrary: i possess both the Author, His book, His Spirit, and can read it as well as various interpretations of it


You say you go by sola Scriptura.
Where? What exactly do you mean by sola Scriptura, since you introduce the term here? Thanks


So does Baerly. And yet you both disagree with each-other on what Titus 3:5-7 means and what baptism is. You say you are teaching the truth of the bible. Well so does Baerly.
And, i believe, so Pope (az to your last 3 sentences)


You see how you cannot really ever know doctrine based on sola scriptura.
To the contrary: i hope to base anything i teach on the Bible


If you say he’s wrong then by what authority can you?
By the Scripture. Certainly neither by my infallibility or Pope's


By Scriptural Authority?
Yes


By the Holy Spirit Guiding you?
He contradicts not His word thru apostles 'n prophets in Scripture


That won’t work cause he will just say the same thing to you?
To the contrary: i find what He says "works." And in this particular case, what you say doesn't


You’ll quote scripture. He will quote scripture.
So too Satan (Mt 4:6). In Scripture


Both of you think your interpreting it correctly
And, evidently, so do u, as well as Pope. Pope, however, like nonchristians Jim Jones or Brigham Young, may have "advantage" of having himself, or a predecessor of his, declarin himself infallible. Mebbe he thinks thas correk too

But you can only guess. You can only give it the old college try.
Then i guess it's fair to say you may also


Sola scriptura is not practically workable.
To the contrary: all Scripture's God-breathed, wrote the apostle, and profitable for teaching, conviction, correction, instruction in righteousness, is able to make one wise unto salvation, and that the man of God may be complete, fully equipped for every good work (2 Tim 3:14-17). In addition, i find it alot more "workable" than superstition or fancy


Really it becomes Sola Writer.
To the contrary: the Bible has an objective existence and history outside of, and way before, me


Wow, What a arrogant statement [i recommend you, and he, read the New Testament]. Shame on you Mr writer
Duz this mean that you, or Catholicism, prefer people either not read, or not recommend, the Scriptures? If so, that fits in with much of Roman Catholic history. Such as the murder of William Tyndale for the crime of translating the Bible well and into current English of his day. Thank the Lord, such persecution's criminal in the USA currently


Father Mateo...read and studied and preached on the New testament constantly for years until his death
Than i'd think he might've been more familiar with it than your postings seem to indicate


I am a theology student and also have read and prayed and studied the New Testament too. Your remark is just plain arrogant. Shame on you again.
for recommending the Scriptures? Can't never stop doin so

Repent!
amen


just like there was 3 different types of priesthood in the old testament, there are 3 different types in the new. And we also do not hold the middle ministerial ordained priesthood
According to the church of the apostles, and the apostles' and High Priest's teaching as recorded in their New Testament Scriptures: there is no such thing as a "middle ministerial ordained priesthood." There is an evil teaching of clergy/laity, of the "Nicolaitans" (Nico-conquer/laity-people) in the apostle's teaching (Revelation 2) which the Lord hates. I believe that is what u may exalt


I really think your the one who needs to read his bible more often.
I welcome, take, and accept your advice. Since that's my same advice to everyone. In any case, in reference to the last point, and since you call yourself student: Where in the apostles' teaching of the NT would u claim to find such a nauseaus thing as "middle ministerial ordained priesthood?"
Thank u
 

athanasius

Well-Known Member
Sorry Victor, I have tried to use the color coating but my computer won’t do it. I have a Mackintosh so maybe thats why? I am not computer savvy. Wow. Well folks we have once again come to the end of another debate between myself and with Mr Writer.

Mr writer has written about 3 pages of things attacking Myself, the Catholic church, and Our blessed Lady. I am a college student and currently have studying to do so I will not have alot of time to address all 3 pages. I will try to hit on what I feel are the salient points and the errors he makes.

It's really hard to discuss theology with someone like Mr writer, because he, as you may have witnessed is extremely anti-Catholic. Being Anti-Catholic is very dangerous because being against the Church Christ founded in turn would be being anti-Jesus according to(Luke 10:16).

Mr Writer said:
“ 'Woman, what have I to do with you? My hour has not yet come?(Jn 2:4-5)”

My answer;
Mr Writer somehow thinks this passage denies the Immaculate Conception. He thinks that Jesus is correcting Mary. ON the contrary. Lets look at this passage. Jesus is not correcting Mary, rather he making a few extremely important implicit hints that connect to this doctrine of the immaculate conception and our Lady’s intercession.

To begin with Jesus calls his Mother “Women”. This is a important implicit hint. Why? Because 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.


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.

The early Christians who were taught by the apostles and their disciples saw this connection. For example

"In accordance with this design, Mary the Virgin is found obedient, saying, 'Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word.' But Eve was disobedient; for she did not obey when as yet she was a virgin.

And even as she, having indeed a husband, Adam, but being nevertheless as yet a virgin (for in Paradise 'they were both naked, and were not ashamed,' inasmuch as they, having been created a short time previously, had no understanding of the procreation of children: for it was necessary that they should first come to adult age, and then multiply from that time onward), having become disobedient, was made the cause of death, both to herself and to the entire human race; so also did Mary, having a man betrothed [to her], and being nevertheless a virgin, by yielding obedience, become the cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race.

And on this account does the law term a woman betrothed to a man, the wife of him who had betrothed her, although she was as yet a virgin; thus indicating the back-reference from Mary to Eve, (Irenaeus,Against Heresies,3:22 A.D. 180)


The fathers of the church saw the connection between this Women Eve and this Women Mary. Mary was Eve’s typological biblical fulfillment as Jesus was Adams.

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.

Scripture also implies her sinlesness in other areas “If the ordinary wisdom of God won’t dwell in a normal Body full of sin(Wisdom 1:4), then it would seem only logical and “fitting” typologically that Jesus,The wisdom of God incarnate(1 Cor 1:24) would gift his mother with this grace, being that he would dwell in her for 9 months literally".

Again Scripture even more implies her sinlessness when you look to how scripture shows her as fulfillment of the ark of the new covenant(As Luke shows in his Gospel).

Mr writer said

“on the contary: the simple past, "graced," will do. And does do. Mr Mateo seems to be wanting to use Mary's "graced" to try and turn her into a goddess”

“Mary's grace in Lk 1:28, 30; somewhat like Paul's "grace" in Eph 1:2 ("Grace to you and peace"); is completed because it refers to a certain transaction. A particular event. Again, this duzn't in the least suggest eternal or static sinlessness, or glorification, on the part of the recipient from that instant onward “

My answer

This is simply false. Mr writer here has not dealt with Father Mateo’s Argument from the Greek. Mr writer only says he is wrong and then tries to slander him as a Mary worshipper. But Father Mateo went into deep grammatical explanation from the Greek using the stems and examples from Eph 1 to prove the point.

A point that Mr writer, not being a New testament Biblical Greek Scholar like Father Mateo was, doesn't seem to understand. Mr writer has only taken a few years of Greek. Remeber the Jehovhas Witnesses bible was written by a person who had only a few years worth of Greek and we know what a bad translation that was.

Father Mateo was a New testament Greek Biblical Scholar and had far more knowledge of the language than Mr writer. Mr writers trying to correct Father mateo would be the equivalent of me trying to correct my Psychiatrist on a diagnosis because I have taken 2 years worth of psychology Classes. Simply amazing!

The real problem he has is that Mr Writer has no real way to have certainty that he is right about his interpretation of Scripture. He goes by the bible alone and he believes that Mary isn’t sinless. Well, Martin Luther coined the Scripture alone theory and he was a Doctor of Scripture who went by the bible alone, and he read scripture (Luke 1:28) and believed it to teach the sinlessness of Mary as I have shown.

Mr writer says that Martin Luther is just wrong about his interpretation. Martin Luther would have said the same thing to Mr writer? Who’s right? All Mr writer can rely upon is his own personal gut feeling about a passage. Oh sure he will say he knows the bible and is just quoting it.

But so would alot of other sola scriptura protestants and they like Luther would disagree with him on all kinds of issues. He says the Holy Spirit guides him. Well, so do the other protestants who use the bible alone. He really has the weaker position here. All he can do is give it the old college try.

The Catholic by comparison has a much surer and stronger position to know the truth on this issue and any biblical issue. The Catholic can look to scripture as a whole and see how it was interpreted by those Fathers whom the apostles ordained in the early church.

So we have 2000 years of hindsight. We also have the gift of the Church who by Christ command has the ability to speak for him(Luke 10:16) and the Power to bind and loose(Matt 18:15-20) and help interpret scripture(acts 8:30-32).

Of coarse this Catholic Church which Christ founded also recognized and authoritatively declared the Canon of the bible to all Christians(382 Ad Council of Rome, 393 Council of Hippo) so if it were not for the Catholic church Mr writer would not have his new testament canon today as he knows it. Of coarse he denies this which just makes him look historically uneducated. For a full refutation and explanation of this please see my post # 246 in the sola scriptura section.

So in other words he goes by the bible,that the Catholics gave him essentially, but yet he tries to interpret it apart from that church and its traditions that gave it to him. This is where he goes wrong. I as a Catholic do not have to just rely on my best college try to interpret a passage about Mary.

I can look to New testament Greek Scholars like father Mateo, I can look to the tradition of the Fathers, I can even look to other bible only protestants like Luther and I can look to the Infallible church to see weather there is good reason to believe in this marian Dogma of her sinlessnes. Mr writer can only look to himself.

He makes himself to be infallible. Even other sola scripturaist, like Martin Luther cannot go against his “Interpretation” of Luke and Mary’s sinlessness. So its really sola writer.

Please everyone who is reading this look to the points which we both have raised and ask your self if you think writer has the ability to know what the bible teaches when other bible Christians disagree with him, when the Father disagree with him, when Scripture itself implies her sinlessness, when Greek new testament Scholars disagree with him, you be the judge.
 

writer

Active Member
69 writer has written about 3 pages of things attacking Myself, the Catholic church, and Our blessed Lady.
To the contrary: i think i've been debating u and your Catholic Church insofar as u represent her teachings. I have to fairly call your accusation that i've "attacked Mary" an untruth on your part, tho i guess i've "attacked" your or Catholicism's misrepresentation of her. Lastly, i've only responded directly to "attacks," if u want to call them that, of yours. Even quoting them. If you'd prefer me not to address everything u write: please, by all means, say what's off-limits dear A

he, as you may have witnessed is extremely anti-Catholic.
For disagreeing with many, most, of your particular teachings here?

Being Anti-Catholic is very dangerous because being against the Church Christ founded in turn would be being anti-Jesus according to(Luke 10:16).
Christ Jesus founded not the "Catholic Church"

Writer said: “ 'Woman, what have I to do with you? My hour has not yet come?(Jn 2:4-5)”
Actually, Jesus Christ said that. In post 64, para 5 i quoted Irenaeus quoting Jesus

He thinks that Jesus is correcting Mary.
Irenaeus duz. Since he wrote "the Lord, checking her untimely haste, said, Woman, what have I to do with you? My hour has not yet come" in his Against Heresies book 3 chapter 15 section 7

Jesus is not correcting Mary,
To the contrary, Jesus corrects her here as He does as a 12-year-old boy in Luke 2:49, and as a man in Matthew 12:48-50; Mark 3:31-35.
As also Tertullian wrote.
Your mother and your brothers and your sisters are outside seeking You. Who's My mother and My brothers? And looking around at those sitting in a circle around Him, He said, Behold My mother and My brothers!
Child, why have You treated us like this? Behold, Your father and I, being greatly distressed, have been seeking You. And He said to them, Why is it that you were seeking Me? Didn't you know that I must be in the things of My Father?

Jesus calls his Mother “Women”. This is a important implicit hint. Why? Because Jesus is making a connection between Mary and Eve .
"Woman." Not "Mother." Because the spiritual's much more important than the natural (Mark 3:31-35; Mt 10:37; Mk 10:30; Jn 1:12-13; 3:6). Which may be some of the gist of my whole friendly-i-hope debate with u, dear Athanasius
Additionally, Jesus calls His mom "woman" becuz she IZ a woman. Jesus is not attempting to identify Mary with Eve; nor pointing out that Mary is human, Eve's seed; nor that He's seed of the woman (although He is) per Genesis 3:15. All that is obvious since the beginning of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Becuz Mary DID bear Him and Mary Is female

Jesus Identifies Mary as this “Women” spoken of in (Gen 3:15),
As Mr Athanasius admits the paragraph above: not explicitly. The 'woman' in Genesis 3:15 is explicitly Eve in Genesis 2-4. Jesus' every use of the word 'woman,' including that in Jn 2:4, is not, merely by virtue of the word 'woman,' a reference to Genesis 3:15 or to His crucifixion in which Satan bruised His heel and He crushed the serpent's head (Jn 3:14; etc)

Jesus who would crush the serpent the Devil.
Amen

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).
To the contrary: Rv 12:1-17's woman is Jesus corporately. Namely: His Body. Just as in Rv 19:7-8; 21:2. Which is the point of the entire Bible (cf Isa 54:5; Ephesians 5:32; 2 Cor 11:2). Mary didn't flee into the wilderness for 1,260 days (3 1/2 years) after her firstborn ascended (Rv 12:6). Christ Jesus didn't ascend as a baby after He was born (12:5). The man-child in 12:5 is not Christ Jesus individually. Hence that woman isn't Mary individually. This woman's child, like the woman, is a corporate entity. Here: the stronger part of Christ's mystical Body. Hence: 'man-child.' Taken, while the woman, the weaker part (please, no offence), is left on the earth for 1,260 days. This is seen in 2:25-27 of the same book. "He who overcomes and he who keeps My works until the end, to him I will give authority over the nations; and he will shepherd them with an iron rod, as vessels of pottery are broken in pieces, as I also have received from My Father; and to him I will give the morning star. He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches"

Mary was Eve’s typological biblical fulfillment as Jesus was Adams.
To the contrary regarding Mary and Eve: Mary, as the young woman, "virgin," of Isaiah 7:14, is directly spoken of in the OT. Not spoken of typologically. Genesis 3:15 is also a plain word. And hint that God will enter the human race through a woman. But Eve is not a type of Mary. Mary, herself, is not the test of whether one's Christian or not. Jesus, her son, God's Son, is. Eve typifies the church, the Body of Christ. Because she was taken out of Adam's side when he was "put to sleep" (John 19:34). Then became his wife in resurrection, one flesh with her husband (1 Corinthians 15:45; 6:17; Ephesians 5:22-32). As Paul, the apostle (not Tradition, nor weak interpretation), in the NT writes: "Christ is Head of the church, He HImself being the Savior of the Body. Husbands love your wives even as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her. That He might present the church to Himself glorious. No one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, even as Christ also the church, because we are members of His Body. For this cause a man shall leave his father and his mother and shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall be one flesh. This mystery is great, but I speak with regard to Christ and the church." Likewise with Isaac and Rebekah, and Joseph and his wife, typifying Christ and His Body, His Bride, His wife for eternity and now. In other words, talking about our Christian sister Mary, Jesus' mother: her position as member and part of the Wife of Christ is much more important, profound, blessed, graced, and significant than her role of bearing Christ physically, His mother. Both for Christ, and for her, and for us. Which isn't to downplay her physical, old-creation role at all. But is rather to simply state fact

The real problem he has is that Mr Writer has no real way to have certainty that he is right about his interpretation of Scripture.
To the contrary: Scripture speaks for itself. As should those spiritual ones who interpret it properly.
A certain woman out of the crowd lifted up her voice and said to Him, Blessed is the womb that bore You and the breasts at which You nursed. But He said, Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it (Luke 11:27-28). 11:27-28 does not contradict Lk 1:42, 45. Rather 1:42, 45 exemplifies 11:27-28 and is FOR 27-28

Martin Luther...Who’s right?
God. Scripture. As Christ and His apostles said and wrote: "It's written" (Mt 4:4, 10; 11:10; 21:13; 26:24, 31; Mk 1:2; etc etc etc; Rv 1:3, 11, 19; 2:1, 8, 12, 18; etc; 19:5; 21:5; 22:18-19)

2000 years of hindsight.
Alot of this (certainly not all, by any means), sorry to say, i'd have to call blindsight

he tries to interpret it apart from that church and its traditions that gave it to him. To the contrary: the church and "traditions" that gave me the NT are the ones who wrote it

Mr writer can only look to himself.
To the contrary: Mr Writer dint write the New Testament. Nor Old. He reads 'em

He makes himself to be infallible.
Uhhh, no. Please don't lie about me sir. Please. Nor put your Pope's words in my mouth

Please everyone who is reading this look to the points which we both have raised and ask your self...you be the judge.
I thot u jus got done statin u're against individuals, or believers, being the judge, Mr Athanasius?
Thanx. Take care
 

athanasius

Well-Known Member
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

Active Member
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

Active Member
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.
 

athanasius

Well-Known Member
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

Active Member
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
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
writer said:
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

Yes I do. But not in worship as you see it.
writer said:
YOU in Heb 2:12 is the ONE in 2:11. The "one origin" is the one Person: God
Sorry, I believe in the Trinity which consists of three persons, ONE Nature.

One example of truck load of others:
See, in short you have it that the Father is one, the Son another, and the Holy Spirit another; in Person, each is other, but in nature they are not other.(The Trinity 4:1–2 [c. A.D. 515]).
writer said:
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)
Lord please help Victor not be afraid either. God forbid I be afraid after 8,000+ posts. :shout It consists of the Communion of the Saints.

"See that you do not despise one of these little ones; for I tell you that in heaven their angels always see the face of my Father who is in heaven" (Matt. 18:10).

"the twenty-four elders [the leaders of the people of God in heaven] fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints" (Rev. 5:8).

I'd list some early christian writers but you apparently have no interest to hear them out.

writer said:
Uh oh. Another question: care to provide his quote, or at least cite?

Wonderful! So you do care to hear the early Christians. You had me confused there for a second. Here are some examples.

Agustine:

"A Christian people celebrates together in religious solemnity the memorials of the martyrs, both to encourage their being imitated and so that it can share in their merits and be aided by their prayers" (Against Faustus the Manichean [A.D. 400]).

"There is an ecclesiastical discipline, as the faithful know, when the names of the martyrs are read aloud in that place at the altar of God, where prayer is not offered for them. Prayer, however, is offered for the dead who are remembered. For it is wrong to pray for a martyr, to whose prayers we ought ourselves be commended" (Sermons 159:1 [A.D. 411]).

"At the Lord’s table we do not commemorate martyrs in the same way that we do others who rest in peace so as to pray for them, but rather that they may pray for us that we may follow in their footsteps" (Homilies on John 84 [A.D. 416]).

"Neither are the souls of the pious dead separated from the Church which even now is the kingdom of Christ. Otherwise there would be no remembrance of them at the altar of God in the communication of the Body of Christ" (The City of God 20:9:2 [A.D. 419]).

writer said:
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
What a cheap shot that brings nothing to the dialogue. Either try to understand us or continue in your ignorance. Your choice.
writer said:
Praise the Lord, Athanasius. So'd i
What a surprise. Catholics worship God alone! :eek: ......:areyoucra
writer said:
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
Not sure how this discredits Mary at all. Perhaps you can clarify.

Peace be with you,
~Victor
 

athanasius

Well-Known Member
Thank you Victor for the help. Your knowledge is very helpful and you brought alot of good info to this debate. I would definitely agree with you.

Now its time to Answer Mr writer about his false statements.

Mr writer said
“R u saying u bow before Mary”

My answer
Yes I would have no problem bowing before the Virgin Mary. Why would you? Biblically it ok to honor and bow to another human, as I have shown(1 Kings 2:19-20) as long as no worship is given to them.

The Catholic church doesn’t teach us to worship Mary and I give no worship to her. So what’s your problem with that? I would especially bow to her because she, Like Bathsheba is the typological fulfillment of the Royal Davidic queen Mother.

And she is Our Queen, the Queen of the apostles(Rev 12:1) and the Mother of the Apostles(Jn 19:26-27) and the Mother of all who name the name christian(Rev 12:17).

So let me ask you this? I have received Jesus as my personal Lord and Savoiur. But have you received Mary as your personal Mother(Rev 12:17)?

Mr writer said

“YOU in Heb 2:12 is the ONE in 2:11. The "one origin" is the one Person: God”

My answer

I agree with Victor. God is not One Person. God is a Trinity. There is one God but 3 divine persons all co-equal. But I think you meant to discredit me on giving praise to other human beings. Ok so I will just quote another passage that shows that we CAN give praise to other People and not just to God. How about this one:

“I PRAISE you because you remember me in everything and Hold fast to the TRADITIONS, just as I handed them on to you.”(1 Cor 11:2)

So here we see St Paul giving “Praise” to another human being. Paul is not giving worship to them, but he is giving praise to them. For this reason I would gladly give veneration and praise to Mary with no problem.

Of coarse this passage also mentions that pesky buzz word bible christians hate “Tradition” which I think would give you a sola scripturaist big problems. Oh well I guess I just killed 2 birds in one stone.


Mr writer said

“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)”

My answer
Our veneration, the veneration of the church, would consist of remembering Mary and honoring her with feast days which honor “what God has done for her” in salvation history in the bible by creating her immaculate and Assuming her into heaven, and making her the queen Mother. No worship at all, just veneration and honor.


Mr writer said

Uh oh. Another question: care to provide his quote, or at least cite?

My answer

Yes indeed. You find this in Augustines letter Against Faustus the Manichean [A.D. 400]).. In the beginning of that letter He mentions the veneration we give to the saints and martyrs at Mass and later on in the same letter he mentions that the type of honor they give to the saints is different from the worship we give to God alone.

He makes a distiction between (Latria) or Worship and adoration given to God alone, and (Dulia) or veneration and honor given to saints.


Mr writer said
'Im 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”

My answer

This is just a inflamatory remark and has no berring on real conversation. You really seem to have great digust for me and disrespect for my faith. This is unprofessional and sad becuase you reject the Catholic faith that Christ himself founded and that gave you the New testament as you know it today. In by doing so your unknowingly rejecting Christ (See Luke 10:16). thank God for his Mercy.


well There you have it Mr writer I hope I have answered all your questions on Mary. I m sure you’ll have more for me.

God bless you always in Jesus through Mary

Athanasius
 

writer

Active Member
Hello dear Victor

77 Yes I do
Physically bow before statues?

Sorry, I believe in the Trinity which consists of three persons, ONE Nature.
Why r u sorry?
By "sorry" do u mean to say that God is not a person, dear Victor?

What is He? A nature? A He?

the Father is one, the Son another, and the Holy Spirit another; in Person, each is other, but in nature they are not other.
By "another" i hope and pray that u do not mean Father, Son, and Spirit are separate.
Becuz that's polytheism, multiple Gods. And God the person is one. Three persons in one

afraid
Afraid of what, V?

their angels always see the face of my Father who is in heaven. golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints
Matthew 18:10 mentions not prayers, except maybe to imply little ones' prayers to their Father. Not to Mary.
Revelation 5:8 mentions prayers (golden bowls) to the praying Lamb on the throne.
Not prayers to Mary!

A Christian people celebrates together in religious solemnity the memorials of the martyrs, both to encourage their being imitated and so that it can share in their merits and be aided by their prayers
What does "celebrated memorials" mean?
Assuming it means something religious or superstitious: that's Augustine's and those with hims' problem. Not mine.
And certainly zero to do with the apostles' or Christ's words or pattern.
Regardless: this particular quote of yours, dear Victor, says nothing about praying to the deceased. Does it? If so: where?
If that's what your point's tryin 2 b

There is an ecclesiastical discipline, as the faithful know, when the names of the martyrs are read aloud in that place at the altar of God,
There is no such Scriptural ecclesiastical discipline as this. Nor is such a thing binding on any Christian. Thank the Lord. Tho it's nothing particularly to forbid, either.
I think this quote of yours may answer my question above: What "celebrated memorials" means. Maybe. Maybe i can look up the quote myself to c what "place" the brother refers to. The "altar of God" in the New Testament is Christ Himself, with His cross. Not a physical altar, or piece of furniture in a physical structure on earth. Contrary to how Christianity, both Protestantism and Catholicism, may loosely speak.
Which is also an example of how Christianity, religion in general, tends to Judiaize. Rather than practice the spirit

where prayer is not offered for them.
Good. Nor should prayer be offered To deceased. Since that resembles the sin of witchcraft or divination

Prayer, however, is offered for the dead who are remembered.
Christ, preeminently, should be "remembered." Since He's living and amongst us.
Anyway: prayer offered For the dead iz completely useless. Since they're dead. Such nonsense's also absent from God, Christ's, the Spirit's, and Their prophets' and apostles' teaching in the NT and O

For it is wrong to pray for a martyr, to whose prayers we ought ourselves be commended.
Dear Victor. Back to your main point: to be honest and fair to you i must point out again that Augustine, here, again, in this particular quote, speaks of prayers From the deceased. That's fine. That's true. That's Scriptural. That's accurate.
But Augustine, whom U yourself quote, here says Zero about the physically alive praying to the deceased.
Zero.
Right?

At the Lord’s table we do not commemorate martyrs in the same way that we do others who rest in peace so as to pray for them, but rather that they may pray for us that we may follow in their footsteps.
Praying for the deceased's completely contrary to God's thought, and His words, in the NT and O.
This quotes sounds like Aug's sayin that his, and others', "commemoration" of certain deceased may communicate to those deceased; or somehow Cause those deceaseds' prayers?
Deceased in Christ need no help, nor suggestions, to pray. Any thot of communicatin, or tryin to, between physically living and physically deceased, in the Bible, is divination, fraud, or resembles those 2 things

Neither are the souls of the pious dead separated from the Church which even now is the kingdom of Christ. Otherwise there would be no remembrance of them at the altar of God in the communication of the Body of Christ
In the NT, and in the apostles' and their Lord's pattern and teaching, there's no such thing, nor any thot of such thing, as "remembrance of them at the altar."
There's no current physical altar in the church's practice.
Of course the dead in Christ are not separated from His church, His kingdom, His Body. They need not talk, nor be able to talk, to us; now we to them; to be in the fellowship, communion, of the Body of Christ
 

writer

Active Member
77 What a cheap shot that brings nothing to the dialogue.
How's that a "cheap shot" Victor?
Duz not suggestin that Mary can hear and know oodles of "prayers" offered to her from all over the earth and time indicate some kind of practical omnisicience, or quasi-omniscience?

Either try to understand us or continue in your ignorance. Your choice.
Then i'd hav to respond that's your choice too. Victor


Not sure how this discredits Mary at all. Perhaps you can clarify.
Thanks. I will try. Why would you even think that Paul the apostle's "God's shut up all in disobedience that He might show mercy to all (Romans 11:32)" discredits Mary? Mary, like the rest of us sinners, is credited with righteousness by simple faith into Christ (Romans 4:5). Her faith's accounted as righteousness. Just like Abraham's.
Paul calls this: justification.
Thanks
 
Top