Bibliolatry - the hidden idolatry.

[jgredline]

Re: reply

I believe that Mary was created by God as a pure vessel to bring forth the Word, the new Ark of the Covenant, and we worship the One who "built" her.

Regards

:

 

[francisdesales]

Re: reply

Where is the evidence of this?

Typology found in Scripture.

 

[francisdesales]

Re: reply

:

Forgive me if I choose not to stoop to your level...

Carry on with your persecution

 

[Heidi]

Re: reply

Forgive me if I choose not to stoop to your level...

Carry on with your persecution

Asking for forgiveness implies a wrongdoing that one seeks ro remedy. So are you sorry for "not stooping to his level"? If so, then why do you avoid doing it? :o Another contradiction. :roll: But when one believes the Father of lies, that's all he can do is contradict himself. :wink:

 

[Imagican]

The 'ark' analogy 'sounds good' but in REALITY, the original ark was used to store THAT which had ALREADY been 'created'.

That Mary was a 'special person' is without denial. That she was ANYTHING other than HUMAN is rediculous. For she, like ALL other flesh on this planet was a SINNER. And certainly NOT able to 'forgive sin' nor even ANYTHING but ASLEEP right this very minute as far as WE have ANY proof.

IF she were ALL that the CC claims, then WHY is there NO evidence of this except 'their spoken words'? Those that COMPILED the Bible found NO reason to ADD any such understanding through the use of written words. KNOWING, even at that time that they would most certainly ONE DAY DIE, and EXCEPT through their written words, the truth would be HARD PRESSED to 'live on'. Is there ANY doubt that IF Mary WERE all that the CC teaches, there would be SOME written explanation explaining things of this magnitude of importance.

The Jewish leaders ALTERED what God wished for His people to KNOW in the SAME manor. They claimed that there was MUCH more to the information than what had been recorded by Moses. Claiming that the REST of the information was passed down VERBALLY; thus making it possible to create ALL KINDS of NEW LAWS and 'different interpretations' of the OLD laws. Heck, once they were able to convince the masses of such a concept, they could change ANYTHING at will by simply saying that; 'oh yeah, Moses told us 'this' too..................''.

And not only do we have the Bible to rely on, but we ALSO have the Spirit. And it seems that there has NEED be at least a COUPLE of adherants to SOME denomination that would have been offered this information IF it were needed OR true. Yet I have YET to discover a denomination OTHER THAN Catholocism that teaches or believes this 'Mary' stuff.

MEC

 

[jgredline]

Good post mec, full of truth.

 

[cyberjosh]

Joe, Please bear with the length of this. I tried to make short responses, but there are alot of them.

It is my opinion that it is strange that you would accuse me of blaspheming against God when I said that the Bible contained information about Mary and Jesus.

We are going to go in circles if you don't look at what I said. I called the idea that Mary being in the Bible makes it better is blaspemous. I didn't call you blasphemous. Also I made no definate accusation against you, and I clarified this by saying "Well I did put a question mark at the end of my question" and then asked for your clarification (which for some reason you either didn't see or skipped over in which I asked, "but what then did you mean by "makes it better"? ". I'll wait for you to answer this.

For some odd reason, you thought that was an attack on the Bible - so you accused me of blasphemy.

No I protested to the idea that Mary being in the Bible made it better in some way. But if I misread an insinuation then please answer my inquiry above about what you originally meant.

Apparently, by your defense of your position (rather than stating you misunderstood me and left it at that), you do worship the Bible...

No actually it was quite reasonable and I would never expect you to argue with it:

"And if you believe that the Scriptures were inspired by the Holy Spirit then any degredation to that Word can be considered rejecting the work of the Holy Spirit (the root of the unforgivable sin). "

You made it seem as if you were saying that it was strange in that I defended the Bible in such a way (saying its being inspired by the HS), and as a result that I must worship the Bible. That doesn't make any sense. Surely we had a misunderstanding.

Worshiping this "god" is idolatry. Your defense is making me more certain that you worship a book rather than the God behind the writings of the book. If I am incorrect, please let me know. However, this line of discussion is making me think otherwise.

No I tried to explain above. All I was doing is affirming what the Bible itself says (2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 1:20-21).

Does the Bible judge me? I thought God judges me. See, you are continuing to show how you worship the bible rather than God. This is getting silly.

You missed what I said. I was saying it was wrong to down-play the importance of the Bible because it tells us of the very words with which Jesus will judge us on the last day (John 12:47-48) , thus we must act accordingly. Down-playing it would be blasphemy - though I was not necessarily directing it toward you.

All this will soon be cleared up I'm sure when you explain what you meant when you said "makes it better".

Can you explain what you are talking about? I don't have a clue.

I hopefully cleared this up above. I was merely defending the Bible's inspired authenticity (2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 1:20-21).

And the Pharisees called Jesus Beelzebub. And naturally, if they called Jesus the devil, his followers would be similarly attacked. We can know that a vision or a manifestation is from God IF it aids in our faith or brings about the fruits of the Holy Spirit. Otherwise, it is not from God. I think you are going to have to show me exactly how Fatima has not done that.

This is a bit different, Our Lady of Fatima appeared to be an appiration of sorts - and appeared for a very short period of time. Jesus on the other hand had a very long ministry (comparitivly) and the fact that he died & bled showed that he was very much real and alive - and showed his passion for his ministry. But just like the demon that appeared to Muhammad it was a short visitation and wasn't a validated prophet or voice of God (unlike Jesus - though he was rejected).

On the other hand, I could say that Luther was possessed by the devil because it brought about a split in the Body. Christ prayed that we may all be one. Thus, anything that DIRECTLY breaks this union CANNOT be from God. As a result, we could say the Protestant Reformation was demon-spawned, no?

This evokes a seperate topic, however I must quote Paul here:

"For first of all, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you, and in part I believe it. For there must also be factions among you, that those who are approved may be recognized among you" (I Corinthians 11:18-19).

I'm not making any insinuation as to who was right, just pointing out the fact that there can be divisions. I digress.

I don't think you want to go down this path, Josh. All it is going to do is force us to point accusing fingers at each other. Rather, we should try to come together and discuss these things as mature adults.

Hey, I'm merely stating an opinion based on the fact that Satan appears to people as an angel of light. I would be curious to know though why Mary does not appear to Protestants though. Just as demons don't just appear to anyone but rather those who are partial to it (those in cults) I wonder why appirations of Mary would appear to only Catholics...??? Take note I was trying to be fair by pointing out that Protestants (Radical Pentecostals & Charismatics) have also fallen to noted deceptions as well, so this is not some sort of Catholic attack. I'm attacking the authenticity of the vision/appearance itself - I believe it was a deception (which is not beyond Satan to do) to make people think it was Mary - while infact it was a decieving spirit. That is just my opinion based on the fact that Satan does appear as an angel of light to some.

Again, it takes discernment and time to sort out if such supernatural things are from God or are from the devil. I don't think it is so easy. That is why the Church doesn't give official condonement to such private visions and revelations.

Well take my example of what I gave for Muhammad: I mean who can blame him, he probably was given a supernatural revelation by a spiritual being - only it was a demon. I also personally believe that the ancient pagan polytheistic religions that degraded from the original monotheistic religion of Adam & Eve in Eden actually had credence to their "gods" doing miracles & having power, because demons probably possessed the people to give them supernatural powers, give them visions, and even give them decieveing prophecies. I don't deny supernatural involvement in other religions - only I hold that it is a perversion and subtle deception to draw people's minds away from realizing the truth and absolute Lordship of Jesus.

The most the Church will do, such as Fatima or Lourdes (where hundreds have been healed) is say they are worthy of devotion.

How hard do you think it would be for Satan to take something seemingly innocent like that and mislead worship or veneration? You seem to forget, Satan can, and has used actually good & moral things to, at first, lead believers subtly astray to the more blatantly evil things over time.

If I was to see some sort of miraculous event, I would certainly have to see the long term effects to determine if it was from God. "Does it enhance or build up the Body or not?"

I'm sure some Pentecostals think their collective euphoria experienced in being "slain in the Spirit" edifies the body by putting them in a position to experience God's presence in an extremely intimate way. What do we say to that?

I am cautious. Trust me.

God I really hope so. I hated seeing the deception of my roommate of being sucked into the claimed authenticity (claiming to be from God) of "being slain in the Spirit", which he had experienced several times.

I believe Fatima is worthy of further exploration.

Perhaps, but visions are not supposed to edify just one part of the body, but this must have ramifications for the universal Church, including saved Protestants, if it really was important or had any significance whatsoever. And take note that visions and prophecies are not to be added to the Bible, lest we also tack Ellen G. White to the end of Revelation.

Eighty thousand people saw something supernatural in 1917,

Oh I do not doubt it was supernatural, I already explained my thoughts on this.

and you dismiss it out of hand.

I doubt it as being godly in origin.

People began to pray for the fall of Communist atheist Russia at the request of the Blessed Virgin

Why at her request? I begin almost all my prayers by saying "Dear Jesus" or "Dear Father"

and it happened...

This seems more like a historical element which must be examined in more detail, lest we also say that everythign that happens over in Israel was a direct answer of God also.

I would say their is very strong evidence this was from God. Yours is not a very consistent attitude for someone in search of the Truth.

Oh I search for truth, but I also keep a watch out for deception in keeping with Peter's warning:

"Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour" (1 Peter 5:8).

And Paul:

"for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light" (2 Corinthians 11:14).

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[francisdesales]

The 'ark' analogy 'sounds good' but in REALITY, the original ark was used to store THAT which had ALREADY been 'created'.

Typology does not claim to make a perfect match with the reality that it portrays.

The Ark of the Covenant is in many ways a foreshadowing of what Mary would become. Certainly, God had in mind His plan of salvation from the beginning and it just remained for God to execute it in time. The OT Ark, according to Hebrews, contained the manna, the Ten Commandments, and the High Priest's staff. The NT Ark, Mary, contained the Bread of Life, the New Covenant Law which fulfils the OT, and the High Priest Himself. Thus, in this way, it is reasonable to see Mary as the NT Ark, a perfect creation not only made by the order of God, but made by God Himself.

That Mary was a 'special person' is without denial. That she was ANYTHING other than HUMAN is rediculous.

Who says Mary was something other than human? It is from her humanity that our savior drew His flesh, His human nature.

For she, like ALL other flesh on this planet was a SINNER.

Wrong. Being of flesh does not necessitate being a sinner. Christ proved that, as did Mary. Adam and Eve also had the choice - they were not forced to disobey. Thus, we have four beings who were made sinless, four of flesh who had not sinned. It is their forms that we are destined to possess. It is a mistake to say that human nature is sin, because then Jesus did not take on the form of man to save us.

And certainly NOT able to 'forgive sin' nor even ANYTHING but ASLEEP right this very minute as far as WE have ANY proof.

No Catholic says that Mary has the power to forgive sins. That was given to the Apostles and their successors. As to Mary being asleep, apparently, you have forgotten that God is a God of the living, not of the dead.

IF she were ALL that the CC claims, then WHY is there NO evidence of this except 'their spoken words'?

There is plenty of evidence. The problem is that you have not discerned it. Or you refuse to consider it. What sort of evidence would satisfy you? What sort of evidence would have satisfied the Pharisees of the Christ? Take on the faith of a child, trust in God, and you will discover the truth.

Those that COMPILED the Bible found NO reason to ADD any such understanding through the use of written words. KNOWING, even at that time that they would most certainly ONE DAY DIE, and EXCEPT through their written words, the truth would be HARD PRESSED to 'live on'. Is there ANY doubt that IF Mary WERE all that the CC teaches, there would be SOME written explanation explaining things of this magnitude of importance.

The Church has written much more than the Bible. We have lots of written material that discusses our belief and practice regarding Mary.

The Jewish leaders ALTERED what God wished for His people to KNOW in the SAME manor. They claimed that there was MUCH more to the information than what had been recorded by Moses. Claiming that the REST of the information was passed down VERBALLY; thus making it possible to create ALL KINDS of NEW LAWS and 'different interpretations' of the OLD laws. Heck, once they were able to convince the masses of such a concept, they could change ANYTHING at will by simply saying that; 'oh yeah, Moses told us 'this' too..................''.

Sort of like "Sola Scriptura"? That is a perfect example of a "tradition of men" because it is an invention of man that leads people away from God. Marian devotions have the sole purpose of bringing people to her Son.

And not only do we have the Bible to rely on, but we ALSO have the Spirit. And it seems that there has NEED be at least a COUPLE of adherants to SOME denomination that would have been offered this information IF it were needed OR true. Yet I have YET to discover a denomination OTHER THAN Catholocism that teaches or believes this 'Mary' stuff.

There is only ONE Spirit, ONE Church, ONE faith. Those who separate themselves from this are merely rejecting what God has established, chasing after whatever tickles their fancy. The Truth is not dependent upon the Protestant's acceptance of it.

Regards

 

[cyberjosh]

Joe, I've just posted a new reply to you. I hope we get some things cleared up.

~Josh

 

[francisdesales]

We are going to go in circles if you don't look at what I said. I called the idea that Mary being in the Bible makes it better is blaspemous.

Josh,

I plead with you to go back to what I first wrote. You are putting words into my posts that I NEVER said. I never said that the Bible is better BECAUSE Mary is in it... I said the Bible is better because it relates the life of Jesus and Mary in written form.


Here it is, one more time... :roll:

Josh, I wrote: However, a disinterested bystander in a Protestant worship service could easily come away with the idea that the Bible is worshipped rather than Jesus Christ. .

You responded: But Joe, the Bible tells us about Jesus - Mary doesn't. May 21, 9:37 post

I responded: The Bible tells us about both. That makes the bible better, in a sense May 25, 4:54 post.

What I have strived to tell you is that from this post, I see the Bible better because it tells us about Jesus and Mary. I never said that the Bible is better because of Mary! Also, I went on to disagree with you that Mary didn't tell us anything about Jesus.

However, Mary is a "school" for millions of Christians throughout the ages, especially in the days before literacy was common among people. A devout Chrisian could learn in the "school" of Mary's obedience, humility, and contemplation on God's Word, following our Lord and Savior to the Cross. Her example on how to follow Christ speaks in many ways to those of us who prefer to learn from example rather than reading. Thus, Mary is a large part of people's devotions in parts of the world. same May 25 post.

I have tried to explain this. If you cannot accept that, well, I guess all I can do is throw my hands in the air with exasperation... :

No I protested to the idea that Mary being in the Bible made it better in some way. But if I misread an insinuation then please answer my inquiry above about what you originally meant.

Now, I ask you, why would the Bible not be a better instrument for NOT mentioning the Mother of God? Where are you going with this, Josh? In the Protestant's effort to trip over themselves in distancing themselves from Mary, they tend to go to the opposite extreme of being totally indifferent to her at the best, practically casting hatred on her in the worse case. Is this how we treat the one whom is spoken "ALL generations (yours, too, Josh) will call me blessed"?


I didn't insinuate that the Bible was made complete or made better BECAUSE Mary was mentioned in it. But what I find strange, now that you continue down this path, is WHY do you fight against what God has put forward as His plan of salvation? Are you insinuating that the Bible WOULD have been better WITHOUT Mary?

This conversation has no positive point. Accept that I meant nothing bad by what I said, and let's move on.

No I tried to explain above. All I was doing is affirming what the Bible itself says (2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 1:20-21).

What does the Bible say about itself, Josh? That it is useful? So is fasting, almsgiving, and prayer. So are pastors and evangelists who teach God's People. I would dare to say that prayer is more important than bible reading in our walk in Christ. What are your thoughts?

I never questioned the Bible's inerrancy or inspiration. I am Catholic. The Bible cannot intercede for you, nor can it pray to God for you. That was what I was saying, in comparison to a living saint. That doesn't make the Bible a second-rate instrument.

Our Lady of Fatima appeared to be an appiration of sorts - and appeared for a very short period of time. Jesus on the other hand had a very long ministry (comparitivly) and the fact that he died & bled showed that he was very much real and alive - and showed his passion for his ministry. But just like the demon that appeared to Muhammad it was a short visitation and wasn't a validated prophet or voice of God (unlike Jesus - though he was rejected).

First of all, let's not get caught up in apparitions vs. our Lord and Savior's Passion and Death and Resurrection. We both agree that Jeus' Paschal Mystery is the work of our salvation and these apparitions do not compare.

Are you saying that because Mary's Fatima presence was short-lived, it must have been demon-inspiried? Ridiculous. Lourdes has lasted for many years, longer than Jesus Christ's earthly life. You'll have to find another means of supporting your theory. We judge such things based on long-term effects. Fatima, Lourdes, and Guadaloupe all have proven themselves long-term to have good fruits for the sake of the Body.

"For first of all, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you, and in part I believe it. For there must also be factions among you, that those who are approved may be recognized among you" (I Corinthians 11:18-19).

You think Paul is approving of dissension by this verse???

Read the letter in context.

Well, I got to go. I'll try to answer the rest later. Fear not, all will be explained in due time.

Regards

 

[ÃÂoppleganger]

You are truly deluded and a false prophet francis!

 

[Guest]

Re: reply

Typology found in Scripture.

Can you be more specific?

 

[cyberjosh]

What I have strived to tell you is that from this post, I see the Bible better because it tells us about Jesus and Mary. I never said that the Bible is better because of Mary!

Alright, that's all I wanted to hear. The rest was just responses bourne of confusion over this issue. Nonetheless even as I look back on it it still seems awkwardly worded. Perhaps you could be more mindful of your wording in the future to avoid silly confusion like this? Sorry for any misunderstandings.

Also, I went on to disagree with you that Mary didn't tell us anything about Jesus.

I have tried to explain this. If you cannot accept that, well, I guess all I can do is throw my hands in the air with exasperation...

You see though, you aren't necessarily directing this towards just me but rather Protestants as a whole because no Protestant I know of (atleast no one on this board) would honestly believe that Mary appears to people and teaches them. If she appeared to the Protestants as well perhaps we might think of venerating her as well for some exalted role, and no doubt this would make us ask other questions such as "Well if a departed saint such as Mary can appear to us then cannot also the Apostles or any of the Prophets of old do so also, such as when Elijah and Moses appeared to Jesus during his Transfiguration?" That would actually be quite exciting to commune actively with such famous appearing prophets.

Now, I ask you, why would the Bible not be a better instrument for NOT mentioning the Mother of God? Where are you going with this, Josh? In the Protestant's effort to trip over themselves in distancing themselves from Mary, they tend to go to the opposite extreme of being totally indifferent to her at the best, practically casting hatred on her in the worse case. Is this how we treat the one whom is spoken "ALL generations (yours, too, Josh) will call me blessed"?


I didn't insinuate that the Bible was made complete or made better BECAUSE Mary was mentioned in it. But what I find strange, now that you continue down this path, is WHY do you fight against what God has put forward as His plan of salvation? Are you insinuating that the Bible WOULD have been better WITHOUT Mary?

I wasn't fighting against Mary - Mary was indeed blessed, I don't deny that. I just apparently misunderstood what you were trying to say (just a problem with how you worded it - but you have explained your intentions in saying it - so I understand now).

This conversation has no positive point. Accept that I meant nothing bad by what I said, and let's move on.

No prob. Simply a matter of confusion. I never meant to make anything big out of it. I just thought you said something you didn't mean to convey.

What does the Bible say about itself, Josh? That it is useful? So is fasting, almsgiving, and prayer. So are pastors and evangelists who teach God's People. I would dare to say that prayer is more important than bible reading in our walk in Christ. What are your thoughts?

Oh man, there is so much to say here. I may come back to this.

Are you saying that because Mary's Fatima presence was short-lived, it must have been demon-inspiried? Ridiculous. Lourdes has lasted for many years, longer than Jesus Christ's earthly life. You'll have to find another means of supporting your theory. We judge such things based on long-term effects. Fatima, Lourdes, and Guadaloupe all have proven themselves long-term to have good fruits for the sake of the Body.

Wait now I made other points such as how you mentioned an edifying experience, and I gave you a counter-example of some Pentecostal's "edifying-experiences" with being "slain in the Spirit". I also mentioned how a demon may have appeared to Muhammad and decieved him while indeed probably appearing beautiful to match his claim to be Gabriel. If you can clear up how you think the "Fatima" occurance was different on critical points here I would be more inclined to see some reasonableness in the claims. I must measure any such claims against the backdrop of previous similar claims which proved to be deceptions. Surely you must atleast respect my personal caution and desire to "test the spirits"?

Also I had one final point which I mentioned about how if the vision had any real significance then shouldn't its edifying work have been equally presented to Protestants? You don't build up just one part of the body. I worded it alot better in my last post though. I said:

"Perhaps, but visions are not supposed to edify just one part of the body, but this must have ramifications for the universal Church, including saved Protestants, if it really was important or had any significance whatsoever. And take note that visions and prophecies are not to be added to the Bible, lest we also tack Ellen G. White to the end of Revelation. "

I would appreciate a sincere response to these objections, because I must be cautious.

You think Paul is approving of dissension by this verse???

Approving: No. Permitting: Yes.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[francisdesales]

You see though, you aren't necessarily directing this towards just me but rather Protestants as a whole because no Protestant I know of (atleast no one on this board) would honestly believe that Mary appears to people and teaches them.

I never said that Mary "teaches people" by appearing to them!!! Here it is again... :roll:

Mary is a "school" for millions of Christians throughout the ages, especially in the days before literacy was common among people. A devout Chrisian could learn in the "school" of Mary's obedience, humility, and contemplation on God's Word, following our Lord and Savior to the Cross. Her example on how to follow Christ speaks in many ways to those of us who prefer to learn from example rather than reading. Thus, Mary is a large part of people's devotions in parts of the world.

I never said that Mary appears to anyone in that post. I said that by looking to Mary's example found in Scriptures, by meditating on her actions, we learn about how to follow Christ.

Wait now I made other points such as how you mentioned an edifying experience, and I gave you a counter-example of some Pentecostal's "edifying-experiences" with being "slain in the Spirit". I also mentioned how a demon may have appeared to Muhammad and decieved him while indeed probably appearing beautiful to match his claim to be Gabriel. If you can clear up how you think the "Fatima" occurance was different on critical points here I would be more inclined to see some reasonableness in the claims. I must measure any such claims against the backdrop of previous similar claims which proved to be deceptions. Surely you must atleast respect my personal caution and desire to "test the spirits"?

You based your discernment on whether something was good or evil based on the LENGTH of the apparition, not on its long-term effect. Something can be of very short duration and have very good long-term benefits for the Church. The length of the apparation's duration is meaningless in determining whether something is good or not.

I believe Fatima was of good purpose because it has brought people to pray for the re-evangelization of Russia, which was, at the time, turning Communist, an atheistic form of government. Now, we see that Communism has fallen and the Orthodox and Catholics can again pray to God without fear of being killed. Where is the evil in that?

Similar claims do not aid us in discerning the specifics of THAT event. For example, do we discount the Resurrection because of the similar claims of the Egyptian sun god that rose from the dead? I think we need to look at something based on its own merit, not because it appears like something that was "proved false" before.

Also I had one final point which I mentioned about how if the vision had any real significance then shouldn't its edifying work have been equally presented to Protestants?

!! Because Protestants don't care to speak with Mary. !! They "love" Jesus so much that they "hate" His mother!!! (yes, this is sarcastic)

If Protestants were more open to God speaking through others, perhaps they would hear God's voice when He does.

Approving: No. Permitting: Yes. {You think Paul is approving of dissension by this verse???}

I would have to say "permitting" is not the intent of Paul. He is "accepting of the reality", although he fights to change that. This does not make it "permitting".

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Re: reply

Can you be more specific?

It wouldn't convince you because you have already decided what Mary's role in salvatin history was and are not open to another point of view found in Scriptures. As you know, typology is subject to interpretation. It can be readily denied. The Jews and Christians argued over the meaning of OT Scriptures and their supposed references to Jesus Christ or not. In no case could the Christians PROVE that the typology refered to anything other than the original intent. That is why few Jews converted, relatively speaking. They held to a single interpretation of the Bible and were not open to another interpretation. If you are not open to it, you won't see it. If you are open to the possibility, it will be difficult to miss it.

You will do the same with Mary. I see Mary spoken of in Genesis, in the Song of Songs, in Isaiah, and so forth. I see her in the book of Revelation. I see her as the Ark of the New Covenant. You probably will not. Especially considering that you still cannot see that the Bible ALONE does not explicitly say that Mary was a virgin after Christ was born.

Regards

 

[Guest]

Re: reply

It wouldn't convince you because you have already decided what Mary's role in salvatin history was and are not open to another point of view found in Scriptures. As you know, typology is subject to interpretation. It can be readily denied. The Jews and Christians argued over the meaning of OT Scriptures and their supposed references to Jesus Christ or not. In no case could the Christians PROVE that the typology refered to anything other than the original intent. That is why few Jews converted, relatively speaking. They held to a single interpretation of the Bible and were not open to another interpretation. If you are not open to it, you won't see it. If you are open to the possibility, it will be difficult to miss it.

You will do the same with Mary. I see Mary spoken of in Genesis, in the Song of Songs, in Isaiah, and so forth. I see her in the book of Revelation. I see her as the Ark of the New Covenant. You probably will not. Especially considering that you still cannot see that the Bible ALONE does not explicitly say that Mary was a virgin after Christ was born.

Regards

You are right, maybe you will not convice me - but is that any reason NOT to share the specifics?

 

[stranger]

Hi aLoneVoice,

The central thought about the content of the ark (and old covenant) is contained in the following prophesy:

Ezekiel 11:19-20

19"And I will give them one heart, and put a new spirit within them And I will take the heart of stone out of their flesh and give them a heart of flesh,
20 that they may walk in My statutes and keep My ordinances and do them Then they will be My people, and I shall be their God.


As to content of the old ark:

a jar of manna - bread for just a day
tablet of law - stone tablets Moses brought down the mountain
Aarons rod that flowered.

cf content of the new ark (Mary):

Jesus Christ

Jesus is: the High Priest, and Good Shepherd (Moses' shepherd staff was Aarons priestly staff) and of course the bread of life.

v20 Circumcision of the heart is the sign of the new covanent

I think the difficulty is in the word 'Mary'. In Galatians 4:4-5 Mary is simply called the woman:

4But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law,
5so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.

All that is being said about Mary being the ark of the new covenant is that Mary is the woman! Of these things I hope we can be of one heart.

 

[cyberjosh]

You based your discernment on whether something was good or evil based on the LENGTH of the apparition, not on its long-term effect.

Your point is made, I already tried to move past this by bringing up my other two points on "edification" and how some appearances (such as the Fatima event) have previously been seen to be decietful (as with Muhhammad). I would appreciate it if you would reply to those two points as well.

I laid it out better though in my last post:

I made other points such as how you mentioned an edifying experience, and I gave you a counter-example of some Pentecostal's "edifying-experiences" with being "slain in the Spirit". I also mentioned how a demon may have appeared to Muhammad and decieved him while indeed probably appearing beautiful to match his claim to be Gabriel. If you can clear up how you think the "Fatima" occurance was different on critical points here I would be more inclined to see some reasonableness in the claims.

As I said, if you can help me answer those above points, perhaps I would be more inclined to see some reasonableness in the claims.

!! Because Protestants don't care to speak with Mary. !! They "love" Jesus so much that they "hate" His mother!!! (yes, this is sarcastic)

We don't hate Mary. There is no reason why Mary couldn't or shouldn't have appeared to us also.

Also did I not have a point when I said:

"Well if a departed saint such as Mary can appear to us then cannot also the Apostles or any of the Prophets of old do so also, such as when Elijah and Moses appeared to Jesus during his Transfiguration?"

What is your view on that?

If Protestants were more open to God speaking through others, perhaps they would hear God's voice when He does.

First I have to see it for myself in order to be able to believe it or even hear such speaking. (Doubting) Thomas doesn't set up an absolute example so that we shouldn't ever question things if we can't see them. And even then you must evaluate what it really was (even Muhhamad lacked discernment on that issue) that you saw.

~Josh

 

[francisdesales]

Re: reply

You are right, maybe you will not convice me - but is that any reason NOT to share the specifics?

To be honest, ALoneVoice, I am trying to disengage somewhat from this forum for awhile. I am being sent on a work detail to Florida from Arizona, and I do not think I will be able to be as active on these threads. Thus, I will have to measure which posts are worth responding to.

Not to say you are not worth responding to, but this is going to turn into a long conversation as you shoot down all the typology I will give you, no doubt. I do not wish to start another topic of conversation right now. Perhaps once I am settled in Florida.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

I made other points such as how you mentioned an edifying experience, and I gave you a counter-example of some Pentecostal's "edifying-experiences" with being "slain in the Spirit". I also mentioned how a demon may have appeared to Muhammad and decieved him while indeed probably appearing beautiful to match his claim to be Gabriel. If you can clear up how you think the "Fatima" occurance was different on critical points here I would be more inclined to see some reasonableness in the claims.

As I said, discernment of "edifying experiences" is subject to long-term discernment. The devil will not mind giving up a yard of ground if he can take a mile of ground next year. He's in no hurry to drag us to hell. Discernment is thus a long-term process. And even IF the Church sees it as worthy of belief or devotion, it NEVER requires us individually to believe this as we do with public revelation as given in the Bible or Apostolic Tradition. Thus, please keep that in mind when we discuss apparitions. I am not required to believe that Fatima or Lourdes was from God.

Now, on the Pentacostals. It appears that there are short-term benefits to the Body through these workings of the "spirit" (I set in quotes because they are an as yet unknown spirit). I have not really analyzed the long-term effects, or even the short-term ones, of this group, so I cannot say if they are from the devil or from God's Spirit. From the Pentacostals that I know, they appear holy and saintly enough. If they also participate in these "spiritual experiences", maybe there is something to be said positively about them. I as a Catholic do not hold to some doctrine that the Spirit only works within our visible community. I have strained to show otherwise.

As to Islam, that is probably more easier to define as from the devil. While I believe God works through this devilish heresy of Catholicism to continue to call some Muslims to God, to love their neighbor and so forth, the religion itself does not save and the Koran is not sacred scriptures. The long-term discernment of Mohemmed's life points to the fact that he was not exactly a holy man. And the doctrines of Islam, which rely on the concept of a continuation and improvement on Judaism and Catholicism, are in actuality a major step BACKWARDS in theological thought on many fronts. Thus, it appears to my humble thinking that Islam is not from God.

We don't hate Mary. There is no reason why Mary couldn't or shouldn't have appeared to us also.

YOU don't hate Mary, I believe that. "We", that's another story. Some people spend a lot of time attacking anyone who praises her, not exactly a sign of love for her.

To hear someone, you have to listen with your heart. I don't think many Protestants bother to try to speak with her and pray with her and ask for her to intercede to her Son for us. That's my guess why Mary doesn't come to Protestants, ordinarily. However, you might be surprised that Mary HAS come to whom God wills, as she appeared to atheists for their conversion before. Who can say what God has in store regarding these apparitions.

"Well if a departed saint such as Mary can appear to us then cannot also the Apostles or any of the Prophets of old do so also, such as when Elijah and Moses appeared to Jesus during his Transfiguration?"

What is your view on that?

I agree. There are reliable witnesses who have had John the Baptist come to them, as well as some other female saints in preparation for something else. Jesus Himself also appears to people. Perhaps you have seen the Divine Mercy painting of Jesus. It is pretty common, taken from an alleged appearance to a Polish nun in the 1930's. At the bottom of the picture, it says "Jesus I trust in you". Have you seen that?

First I have to see it for myself in order to be able to believe it or even hear such speaking. (Doubting) Thomas doesn't set up an absolute example so that we shouldn't ever question things if we can't see them.

Why do you believe in Jesus' resurrection, which NO ONE saw, but not in Marian apparitions that thousands saw? "Blessed are those who believe and did not SEE..." Sure, we should test everything. But we should ALSO not set the bar so high that it cannot pass that test! We should apply rigid rules of historical veracity to the event. But we should set the same rules we would apply to any other historical event - Julius Caesar's death at the hands of Brutus, and so forth. We should be consistent in how we apply our tests, don't you think?

If you did, I think you would find that Fatima is a worthwhile belief.

Joe