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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Not really sure.rocka21 said:how many times did Paul mention her in his letter to the churches?
Not really sure.... none?how many times was mary mentioned after acts 1? ( she was in the upper room filled with the holy ghost speaking with other tounges.)
I'm not.... it could be "talking" about a few things, one of which might me the Mother of God?how are you sure revelations queen is talking about Mary?
sojourner said:Personally, I find that many RC's ascribe too much to Mary, and that many Protestants dismiss too much.
I ascribe worth to her as the mother of God and the ark or the New Covenant, in that she was faithful to God and bore Jesus. But the immaculate conception and bodily assumption? That's a stretch for me.
I agree with your understanding of "Mother of God." That's how I understand it too. Thanks for that clarification. Although my exposure to Roman Catholicism is admittedly truncated, many of the RC's with whom I've had contact do practically worship her. I guess I should have qualified my statement.JamesThePersian said:Personally, I just wish that English speaking Roman Catholics (and some Orthodox though it's rarer) wouldn't use that awful mistranslation of Theotokos. It does not mean Mother of God (though she undoubtedly was that in all senses but being the mother of Christ's Divinity) and never was meant to mean that. It means, literally, the Birthgiver of God and, as such, is a Christological statement and not an attempt to deify Mary, but the use of that poor translation just cries out for an attack from ignorant Protestants who don't understand that.
Now, I do agree that the RCC goes too far in its Mariology, with Marian dogmas, for instance, but I don't think that most RCs ascribe too much to her. There are some, but they are a fringe (and there's even a tiny set of these in my Church) who almost seem to worship her, but it's by no means the majority and nor is it the official teaching of the RCC (thankfully). You're undoubtedly right that Protestants dismiss too much, though. In fact, unless you want to include High Church Anglicans as Protestant, which would be a stretch, the number who do accord her anything like what she deserves are probably just as tiny as the fringe lunatics in the RCC who seem to practically worship her.
James
Zero.rocka21 said:how many times did Paul mention her in his letter to the churches?
If you mean "after" in the sense of reading the books in their official canonical order that would also be zero.rocka21 said:how many times was mary mentioned after acts 1? ( she was in the upper room filled with the holy ghost speaking with other tounges.)
Through doublethink or faith.rocka21 said:how are you sure revelations queen is talking about Mary?
Remember, Paul addressed specific issues with specific congregations in his letters. If he spouted doctrine, it was with regard to the specific problem. How would Mary have been cogent to those issues?rocka21 said:after the gospels, mary was mentioned one time. ( acts chapter 1).
why did Paul not mention her not even one time to his letters to the churches. romans, Corinth, Philippians, etc. or to his son in the spirit timothy? Don't you think when he was instructing the early church how to have church ( deacons, pastors, gifts of the spirit, prophesies) he would at lest mention her one time?
i would like to hear the catholic or any answers to this.
No. The New Testament was not written before the Church was formed. The New Testament is a product of the Church. Christ is the basis for the Church.rocka21 said:yes , but shouldn't the new testament be the basis for the church? if we were not instructed to pray to mary, through mary, or if she's not even mentioned ......
i guess my point is, did paul , timothy , or james pray to or ( through) mary? did they pray the rosery? was there a statue of mary in the antioch chruch or any of the paul established chruches?
Through men who were members of the Church already.Thas part o' why Christ gave, and "wrote," His NT, 2 Tim 3:16; Heb 9:15-17; 2 Cor 3:6
The Roman Catholics seem more "New Testament" than "Old Testament" to me...The NT church never developed "the rosary." Since Christ duzn't particularly need beads
Statuary isn't idolatry. Idols have power in and of themselves and are independent of a god. People worship idols. Statuary, as well as icons, rosary beads, crosses, etc. (such as those found in the RC Church) have no power independent of God. People don't worship these items. Therefore, they're not idols.God's church isn't for idolatry. She stands against it. Hence, any Church that develops statuary, icons, etc, isn't the church
And where was Peter? With Paul, or Mary?doppelgänger said:What if Paul didn't mention Mary because that wasn't part of the myth yet when Paul was writing?
sojourner said:And where was Peter? With Paul, or Mary?
Operative word here: seemthat "tradition" duzn't seem any Testament to me
Then, by all means, don't use them! Nobody wants to force you to do something that's a hindrance to you.in any case, even if Christ doesn't "need beads," apparently many of his followers find them useful.
i don't
It's "church-developed," just as the Bible, and the rosary, and the statuary, etc. (Not mentioned in the Bible, but present now).is central heating and air one of what u meant by your "many Church-developed traditions"?
Which is why statuary, beads, icons, crosses, etc. are not idols -- they're not "nothing."Az Paul realized and taught: idols are nothing, 1 Cor 10:19
Seduction denotes manipulation. I prefer "drawn." I find no demons in these items -- only Christ -- who is not a demon.seductiveness to worshippin, venerating, praying towards/to, or bowing down to statues, pictures, relics, crosses, etc.
Thanx