Is Mary ONLY a Catholic doctrine?

[cj]

You cannot say God did not reside in Mary's womb. It is not motherhood to cause conceptions but to bring them to a point where they can live outside the womb and then give birth to them.

"Do you not know that you are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?"

So Thessalonian, which is greater,..... That which sanctifies the sacrifice or the sacrifice?

Mary, during the time of her carrying the Lord was sanctified by the Lord within her, but after His birth Mary, like all men, became in need of His inward filling in a deeper way.

So which is greater for Mary,.... her time of pregnancy or her time of born-again resurrection?


Yet, which do the religionist attempt to uphold?

The humanity of her pregnancy it seems.

And yes, Mary was human and in no way divine....... Until she later believed and was born-again of the Spirit of Life.

Like all who belever.


In love,
cj

 

[cj]

Oh,.... by-the-way,....... Mary isn't a doctrine, she's a person.

In love,
cj

 

[Orthodox Christian]

You cannot say God did not reside in Mary's womb. It is not motherhood to cause conceptions but to bring them to a point where they can live outside the womb and then give birth to them.

"Do you not know that you are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?"

So Thessalonian, which is greater,..... That which sanctifies the sacrifice or the sacrifice?

Mary, during the time of her carrying the Lord was sanctified by the Lord within her, but after His birth Mary, like all men, became in need of His inward filling in a deeper way.

And this is the gnostic strain found in much of Protestant thinking: that somehow the physical is separate from and inferior to the spiritual. Mary was the prototype of how faith brings forth 'rivers of living water' from, as the Jews would say, from our bowels, our guts, our inner person.

Mary made this literally manifest, physically. You see, it was Mary's salvation by belief in the Word that came to her that enabled Christ to be brought through her. She was saved before Christ was born, and saved when He was born, as it is written "Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety."

So which is greater for Mary,.... her time of pregnancy or her time of born-again resurrection?

There is no such distinction. What was best for her, was best for us, was to see Him resurrected- whether one sees literally with eyes, or sees by faith. She had this faith bfore He was conceived in her, and she had this faith when He who suspended the worlds was suspended on a cross.

The Lord gives the seed of faith. In Mary, it found purchase and brought forth fruit. Christ in us, the hope of glory.

Yet, which do the religionist attempt to uphold?

The humanity of her pregnancy it seems.

And yes, Mary was human and in no way divine....... Until she later believed and was born-again of the Spirit of Life.

"Later."

No!! she heard the word, and believed, saying "I am the handmaiden of the Lord." There is no 'later.' Zecharias believed later. James and Jude believed later. Even Peter believed later. But Mary heard the word and believed, very much like Avram. And out of Avram came many nations. Out of Mary, who believed, came He who is the head of all nations.

I will tell you who is a "religionist"- he who must add words to scripture, like "alone" (faith alone) and "she later believed."

Rubbish.

 

[cj]

OC, are you so blinded by your apostate condition that you cannot see how you place Mary's humanity above God?

And this is the gnostic strain found in much of Protestant thinking: that somehow the physical is separate from and inferior to the spiritual.

God is Spirit.

This truth pretty much rejects your false doctrine.

The physical is weak, and it has always been weak,.... apart from the spirit of a man. This is declared by God's word.

But religionist want to uplift their humanity in and of themselves, as exposed in OC's words.

Mary was the prototype of how faith brings forth 'rivers of living water' from, as the Jews would say, from our bowels, our guts, our inner person.

And yet,..... once again God's word rejects your lie;

Galatians  3 : 7, "Know then that they who are of faith, these are sons of Abraham."

You say Mary,... the bible says Abraham.

Mary made this literally manifest, physically.

Saints, listen to OC blaspheme the Holy Spirit...... OC says...

"Mary made this..."

And watch him continue by attempting to justify his action of blasphemy...

You see, it was Mary's salvation by belief in the Word that came to her that enabled Christ to be brought through her. She was saved before Christ was born, and saved when He was born, as it is written "Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety."

See, in Christ there is no "saved, if",.... just "saved".

Furthermore, Paul is speaking to Timothy regarding believing women, or in other words, a born-again woman will be saved (in her soul-life by the restrictions that childbearing places on her) from her natural desires.

Paul is speaking about the perfecting of a woman who has been saved and not that an unbelieving woman who has children will be saved.

There is no such distinction.

Actually, in fact there is, scripture emphatically declares the distinction as follows....

John 7:39, "But this He said concerning the Spirit, whom those who believed into Him were.... about to receive; for the Spirit was not yet, because Jesus had not yet been glorified..."

And just in case you are weak in yor knowledge of the timing of the Son's glorification, lets read....

Luke  24 : 26, "Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things (incarnation, human living, death, burial, resurrection, ascension) and enter into His glory?"


See OC, you really have little understanding of the truth in scripture.


Mary could not have received the promise because the promise was not yet.

What was best for her, was best for us, was to see Him resurrected- whether one sees literally with eyes, or sees by faith.

And so perhaps unwittingly you have placed all believers on par with Mary.

She had this faith before He was conceived in her, and she had this faith when He who suspended the worlds was suspended on a cross.

And yet, there was still the need of our Lord's death, burial, resurrection, and ascension,.... and His return as the Spirit that must be received by all,..... including Mary.

Yet you would say that Mary already had all that was needed.

And in this you continue to blaspheme the Holy Spirit,... and bring to nothing the death of our Lord on the cross.

The Lord gives the seed of faith. In Mary, it found purchase and brought forth fruit. Christ in us, the hope of glory.

Even to read your words is sickening.

You would deny God by saying that it is Mary from whom the offering of men comes.

Darkened one,.... faith is just the operating Christ,... therefore, what you are saying is that...

"In Mary, it (Christ) found purchase and brought forth fruit. Christ in us, the hope of glory."

"In Mary"...... a child of Adam, God "found" something?

Are you serious.

In none, OC,...... meaning in no one is there anything good, including Mary.

No!! she heard the word, and believed, saying "I am the handmaiden of the Lord." There is no 'later.'

And yet scripture says....

John 7:39, "But this He said concerning the Spirit, whom those who believed into Him were.... about to receive; for the Spirit was not yet, because Jesus had not yet been glorified..."

Zecharias believed later. James and Jude believed later. Even Peter believed later. But Mary heard the word and believed, very much like Avram. And out of Avram came many nations. Out of Mary, who believed, came He who is the head of all nations.

No, out of the Father came the Son.

I will tell you who is a "religionist"- he who must add words to scripture, like "alone" (faith alone) and "she later believed."

Ephesians  1 : 4, "Even as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world to be holy and without blemish before Him in love,"

Yes, even before Mary was created,.... we all (believers, including Mary) were chosen to believe.

And yet, the manifestation of this took place according to God's economy in time.

Additionally, scripture tells us that our "believing" is just the present Christ in us operating as our believing.

Fact is, Mary needed to "believe" as much on the day that she received the Spirit of Christ, after His death and resurrection, as she did on the day of her visitation by God.

Thus to say that she latered believed is not, as you want to put it, to say that she lacked belief, but that her belief was renewed; just as the scriptures declare, day by day.

Rubbish.

Really, its what you constantly speak.


In love,\cj

 

[Orthodox Christian]

OC, are you so blinded by your apostate condition that you cannot see how you place Mary's humanity above God?
I don't place Mary's humanity over anything. It is expressly the weakness of flesh in which He is glorified. It is by faith that He is made manifest

And this is the gnostic strain found in much of Protestant thinking: that somehow the physical is separate from and inferior to the spiritual.

God is Spirit.

This truth pretty much rejects your false doctrine.
"Pretty much." You pretty much are equivocating about your denial of Christ coming in the flesh.

The physical is weak, and it has always been weak,.... apart from the spirit of a man. This is declared by God's word.

But religionist want to uplift their humanity in and of themselves, as exposed in OC's words.
More empty rhetoric. Humanity is lifted up in His Incarnation, a fact you are too proud and thick to apprehend.

[quote="Orthodox Christian":d6362]Mary was the prototype of how faith brings forth 'rivers of living water' from, as the Jews would say, from our bowels, our guts, our inner person.

And yet,..... once again God's word rejects your lie;

Galatians  3 : 7, "Know then that they who are of faith, these are sons of Abraham."
A false dichotomy. You exluded this statement of mine
"But Mary heard the word and believed, very much like Avram. And out of Avram came many nations. Out of Mary, who believed, came He who is the head of all nations."
which made it clear who the father of faith was, and who the mother of He who is the focus of faith. But it was by faith she believed the word (who has believed our report- the report of archangels), and she, like us, issued forth rivers of living water.

You reveal yourself as a malicious liar by making it seem as if I was supllanting Avram with mary. They are counterparts, and you are deceitful.

You say Mary,... the bible says Abraham.
See above, shameless one.

Mary made this literally manifest, physically.

Saints, listen to OC blaspheme the Holy Spirit...... OC says...

"Mary made this..."
again, your malicious lies, quoting out of context. here is what I said
"Mary made this literally manifest, physically. You see, it was Mary's salvation by belief in the Word that came to her that enabled Christ to be brought through her."
BROUGHT THROUGH HER, by whom? Who else? The Name.
I know I'm hitting truth now, for the father of lies is working overtime.

And watch him continue by attempting to justify his action of blasphemy...

You see, it was Mary's salvation by belief in the Word that came to her that enabled Christ to be brought through her. She was saved before Christ was born, and saved when He was born, as it is written "Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety."

See, in Christ there is no "saved, if",.... just "saved".
I bolded the "if" so you could see it for your own self.

Furthermore, Paul is speaking to Timothy regarding believing women, or in other words, a born-again woman will be saved (in her soul-life by the restrictions that childbearing places on her) from her natural desires.

Paul is speaking about the perfecting of a woman who has been saved and not that an unbelieving woman who has children will be saved.
It is only you and your particular form of PROTESTANT soteriology that makes savation an event, rather than a process and a relationship. You will deny this and say you've called it a process, but the truth is bourne out in these foolish words of yours. "Saved" is saved. We are being saved. QWe were justified by Him, but justified isn't saved once for all, it is simply the beginning.

There is no such distinction.

Actually, in fact there is, scripture emphatically declares the distinction as follows....

John 7:39, "But this He said concerning the Spirit, whom those who believed into Him were.... about to receive; for the Spirit was not yet, because Jesus had not yet been glorified..."

And just in case you are weak in yor knowledge of the timing of the Son's glorification, lets read....

Luke  24 : 26, "Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things (incarnation, human living, death, burial, resurrection, ascension) and enter into His glory?"


See OC, you really have little understanding of the truth in scripture.


Mary could not have received the promise because the promise was not yet.
Foolish man, what do you think the promise is?

What was best for her, was best for us, was to see Him resurrected- whether one sees literally with eyes, or sees by faith.

And so perhaps unwittingly you have placed all believers on par with Mary.
There was no "unwittingly" about it. Again you reveal the narrow confines of your heart and mind. In God's Kingdom, it is not the competitive little KMart culture that you know and preach. No, Paul is at once the least, and the foremost. Literally, not just spiritual sounding words. Mary is both a preeminent saint, a mother to me, and yet my sister, my peer, a fellow servant. My father was just a man, but the commandent told me to glorify him. You know nothing, and preach less.

The scripture tells us that there were people who walked this earth of whom this world was not worthy- yet they are our equals before God.
This is Kingdom 101, study it.

She had this faith before He was conceived in her, and she had this faith when He who suspended the worlds was suspended on a cross.

And yet, there was still the need of our Lord's death, burial, resurrection, and ascension,.... and His return as the Spirit that must be received by all,..... including Mary.
Yep

Yet you would say that Mary already had all that was needed.
No, quite the contrary. Perhaps if you were quick to listen, slow to speak, you'd hear me:
"What was best for her, was best for us, was to see Him resurrected"
Yep, she needed His obedience just as we did. Then He sent to her what He sent to us- the parakletos, the Holy Spirit to indwell, to tabernacle.
Kingdom 101.


And in this you continue to blaspheme the Holy Spirit,... and bring to nothing the death of our Lord on the cross.
And you continue to make rash, slanderous statement that find no basis in reality.

The Lord gives the seed of faith. In Mary, it found purchase and brought forth fruit. Christ in us, the hope of glory.

Even to read your words is sickening.

You would deny God by saying that it is Mary from whom the offering of men comes.
That's just stupid and distorted. We, as in more than one person- I don't mean we as in me and you- are colaborers with Christ. God came through mary, not from, in the sense that you mean. Likewise, God comes through me, not from. Difference being 1. Mary was first and 2. No one else is giving birth to the Incarnated One.

Darkened one,.... faith is just the operating Christ,... therefore, what you are saying is that...

"In Mary, it (Christ) You inserted Christ, in your continuing campaign of lies and distortions. "it" is seed, as was made abundantly clear. found purchase and brought forth fruit. Christ in us, the hope of glory."

"In Mary"...... a child of Adam, God "found" something?

Are you serious.
As a heart attack.
"Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?"

In none, OC,...... meaning in no one is there anything good, including Mary.
Yeah, except faith, by which Avram was justified. Is this really this difficult for you? We'd like to move beyond the elementary doctrines, but you are not able.

No!! she heard the word, and believed, saying "I am the handmaiden of the Lord." There is no 'later.'

And yet scripture says....

John 7:39, "But this He said concerning the Spirit, whom those who believed into Him were.... about to receive; for the Spirit was not yet, because Jesus had not yet been glorified..."

Zecharias believed later. James and Jude believed later. Even Peter believed later. But Mary heard the word and believed, very much like Avram. And out of Avram came many nations. Out of Mary, who believed, came He who is the head of all nations.

No, out of the Father came the Son.
Not "out of" but FROM.

I will tell you who is a "religionist"- he who must add words to scripture, like "alone" (faith alone) and "she later believed."

Ephesians  1 : 4, "Even as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world to be holy and without blemish before Him in love,"

Yes, even before Mary was created,.... we all (believers, including Mary) were chosen to believe.

And yet, the manifestation of this took place according to God's economy in time.

Additionally, scripture tells us that our "believing" is just the present Christ in us operating as our believing.

Fact is, Mary needed to "believe" as much on the day that she received the Spirit of Christ, after His death and resurrection, as she did on the day of her visitation by God.
I've said as much- but of course, you weren't listening.

Thus to say that she latered believed is not, as you want to put it, to say that she lacked belief, but that her belief was renewed; just as the scriptures declare, day by day.
Again, as I have said- yet you argue. If I said the sky was blue, you'd accuse me of attempting to mislead people by not mentioning that clouds are (appear) white.

Rubbish.

Really, its what you constantly speak.
Paging Pee Wee Herman, paging Pee Wee Herman.
C'mon, drop the I Know You Are But What Am I- it's just childish.


In love,\cj[/quote:d6362]

 

[thessalonian]

Jesus SPOKE about His resurrection. Jesus was resurrected. The Gospels record His resurrection. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John write about His resurrection. Paul writes about His resurrection.

Luke 24:
[27] And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

Now tell me Gary, was Luke 24 written when he did this? Was there any New Testament Scriptures available at this moment? Where in the Old Testament does it speak of Jesus 3 days in the earth?

Matt.12
[40] For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so will the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.


Hmmm. Sounds like allegory to me. But you say, that's an invalid way to interprut scripture Jesus.

I see nothing like that about Mary's so-called assumption.

I highly recommend a new prescription. If you had one you would have seen as Augustine did the parrellel luke draws between Mary and the Ark of the covenant in comparing Mary's visitation with Elizabeth in Luke 1 and David's retrival of the Ark of the Covenant in 2 Sam 6. Then Psalm 132:8 would make more sense in a spiritual way. But men of the flesh do not see the spiritual in the Bible.

Like Paul and all the New Testament writers, I will focus on our Lord Jesus Christ. You obviously think that focus on Mary is as important.

By what do you make such accusations. I talk about Mary in a thread about Mary and you accuse me of such things?

Use whatever analogy you like..... it is man-made and speculation like a lot of the other Roman Catholic dogma.

But Gary's it's as plain as the nose on your face what Luke did with 2 Sam 6. Was he being wicked in decieving Catholics? Give me a reasonable explanation for it. Mere coincidence?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Psalm 132:8 Some Fathers refer to passages like this psalm “in a typical sense to the mystery of the bodily assumption; ‘Arise, O Lord, into thy resting place; thou and the ark which thou hast sanctified,’ †arguing that “the Ark of the Covenant made from incorruptible wood, [was] . . . a type of the incorruptible body of Mary.â€Â

Using verses like this one only confirms the impression that Roman Catholics are grasping for proof texts. First, it is confessedly not a literal interpretation of the text but only an alleged “typical†one which, in this case, boils down to an invalid argument from analogy. Second, the analogy between the ark and Mary is farfetched. Nowhere is any such comparison stated or implied in Scripture.

I am quite certain I presented it to you when I first came on this board and you put your blinders on and said na-na boo-boo it's not true. Giving no reasonable explanation for the clear parrellels between the Ark and Mary.

Nor is Mary’s immaculate conception foreshadowed in the creation of the universe in an immaculate state, nor in Eve, the mother of our race. Creating analogies like these prove nothing, except that one has run out of any real biblical support for the dogma.

No they do not "prove" anything for those who have ears but do not hear. There is no proof for such men. Now where is the Biblical Support for sola scriptura and sola fide?

One could prove almost anything by the same kind of argument.

That's why we have a Church Gary. Protestants do attempt to prove about everything with their wild and fanciful divisive doctrines that have aided satan in the divide and conquer strategy.

Third, the argument is based on another baseless belief that Mary’s body was incorruptible after her death and before her alleged assumption. The
Bible says this was true of Christ (Acts 2:30-31), but it nowhere affirms this of Mary.56 Indeed, the Bible equates death with the corruption of all human beings except Christ (1 Corinthians 15:42 , 1 Corinthians 15:53). Yet most Fathers and theologians of the Roman Catholic church believe that “Mary suffered a temporal death†like other mortals. Why then should we believe she was exempted from physical corruption any more than she was not exempted from physical death entailed by the fall (Romans 5:12)?

Where is Bible alone in scripture Gary? The Bible does not record the destruction of Jerusalem. So apparently it did not happen. Josephus was apparently just writing fanciful stories. It is not dogma of the Church that Mary did not suffer death and that proves nothing. I believe the assumption because the Church teaches it plain and simple. I see the parrellel and that gives implicit support to it. Where is your explicit support for Bible alone? It is in the neurons in your head that tell you it is explicit when it is really only implicit and falsely so at that. You can't tell the difference between authority of scripture and scripture alone.


I see you avoided the question of Geisler's taking liberty with Ott's words. It's down right dishonest. I don't know why Protestants have to be dishonest in the discussions between us? Well yes I do, because without lies and dishonesty they would loose these debates.

 

[AwedbyGod]

OC, are you so blinded by your apostate condition ...

Below is a short definition of Apsotasy. I have noticed that you have called OC an apostate on more than one occasion. In what manner do you call him such and by what right? Are you claiming he fell away from your lunatic brand of Christianity? Because, you are quite in the minority with the kind of tripe you spew on these forums.

If you are claiming he fell away from the Church. Which church? Lastly, how do you couch all of these inflammitory accusations with the phrase "in love" and still look at yourself in the mirror with a straight face?

Just curious.

Apostasy (αποστασις, in classical Greek a defection or revolt from a military commander, from απο, apo, "away, apart", στασις, stasis, "standing") is a term generally employed to describe the formal renunciation of one's religion, especially if the motive be unworthy. In a technical sense as used by sociologists without the sometimes pejorative connotations of the word, the term refers to renunciation and criticizing one's former religion. One who commits apostasy is an apostate, or one who apostatises. In older Western literature, the term typically referred to baptized Christians who left their faith. Apostasy is generally not a self-definition: very few former believers call themselves apostates and they generally consider this term to be a pejorative. One of possible reasons for this renunciation is loss of faith, another is the alleged failure of religious indoctrination and/or brainwashing.

 

[cj]

Out of the condition of the heart comes the speaking....

Lets turn our attention to AwedbyGod,...

Below is a short definition of Apsotasy.

What you presented is much of nothing.

Apostasy is simply the state/condition of one who, having heard the truth denies it and chooses to hold to something else.

I believe that OC is saved, but that he is abiding in an environment of deception, fully convinced that it is one of truth.

But it is typical, and I expect no less, for religionists to attempt to make something more difficult to understand than it really is. This is what you have attempted to do with your definition.

I have noticed that you have called OC an apostate on more than one occasion.

You noticed huh?

In what manner do you call him such and by what right?

You sound so uppity Roman.

"By what right...."

AwedbyGod,.... either receive it or don't receive it, its your choice.

Are you claiming he fell away from your lunatic brand of Christianity?

How you sound like the Pharisees now.

Truth is, you all seem quite unable to use scripture to rebut what I say.

Because, you are quite in the minority with the kind of tripe you spew on these forums.

God only choose 300 men from the great multitude that came to fight with Gideon.

Only a small remnant responded to God's call and returned to rebuild Jerusalem.

God is not impressed with numbers.

If you are claiming he fell away from the Church. Which church?

And here we have the real tripe being presented.

AwedbyGod, a saint falls from the way of the Lord

Lastly, how do you couch all of these inflammitory accusations with the phrase "in love" and still look at yourself in the mirror with a straight face?

Its simple really,........ I try not to have an evil motive.

Speaking the truth is proper, and sometimes the spoken truth might seem harsh.

I trust the Lord and His ability to correct where I'm off.

I respect those who He has placed in authority and heed their speaking as best I can.

As for the "love" part, the Lord knows me, even if men don't.

In love,
cj

 

[Orthodox Christian]

OC, are you so blinded by your apostate condition ...

Below is a short definition of Apsotasy. I have noticed that you have called OC an apostate on more than one occasion. In what manner do you call him such and by what right? Are you claiming he fell away from your lunatic brand of Christianity? Because, you are quite in the minority with the kind of tripe you spew on these forums.

If you are claiming he fell away from the Church. Which church? Lastly, how do you couch all of these inflammitory accusations with the phrase "in love" and still look at yourself in the mirror with a straight face?

Just curious.

Apostasy (αποστασις, in classical Greek a defection or revolt from a military commander, from απο, apo, "away, apart", στασις, stasis, "standing") is a term generally employed to describe the formal renunciation of one's religion, especially if the motive be unworthy. In a technical sense as used by sociologists without the sometimes pejorative connotations of the word, the term refers to renunciation and criticizing one's former religion. One who commits apostasy is an apostate, or one who apostatises. In older Western literature, the term typically referred to baptized Christians who left their faith. Apostasy is generally not a self-definition: very few former believers call themselves apostates and they generally consider this term to be a pejorative. One of possible reasons for this renunciation is loss of faith, another is the alleged failure of religious indoctrination and/or brainwashing.

Your direct questions were greeted by CJ's own unique brand of agape.

In his folly, he is assuming that you must be "Roman."
Like a frightened boy locked in a dark cellar, beating the air with his fists.

Regarding apostasy: isn't it amazing that one man reserves the right to label all others apostate. In essence, this is the man in the tinfoil hat, ducking satellites and proclaiming everyone else insane.

 

[Solo]

Mary is dead in the ground waiting for the first resurrection of the body to be joined with the Spirit at the return of Jesus.

Mary was not assumed or it would be in the Word of God, just as Enoch's and Elijah's assumptions were documented. If Mary the mother of Jesus was equal or more than Enoch and Elijah, she too would have been mentioned.

Mary was a women highly favored by God who was in the position of being transferred to the Catholic pagan faith to lift up the pagan queen of heaven.

The devil is in favor of lifting Mary to the place that the Roman Catholic Church has given her.

What a sad state of affairs. No where is this documented in the Bible. It is only within the minds of men where this doctrine originated and remains. It is not in the Word of God.

 

[Orthodox Christian]

Mary is dead in the ground waiting for the first resurrection of the body to be joined with the Spirit at the return of Jesus.
So say you.

Mary was not assumed or it would be in the Word of God, just as Enoch's and Elijah's assumptions were documented. If Mary the mother of Jesus was equal or more than Enoch and Elijah, she too would have been mentioned.
As has been noted, the destruction of the Temple is not recorded inscripture. Nor is the martyrdom of Polycarp, it is a tradition passed down. Just like which NT scripture was authentic- that was established by tradition also.

Mary was a women highly favored by God who was in the position of being transferred to the Catholic pagan faith to lift up the pagan queen of heaven.
What a bunch of hubris. The Catholics have a pagan faith, but you and your bible are pure Semite. As a person who is neither Catholic nor Protestant, but with a clear sense of the historical development of the Church, I cannot tell you how laughable your triumphalism appears to anyone outside your pietistic sect.

The devil is in favor of lifting Mary to the place that the Roman Catholic Church has given her.
You guys speak for the devil and God. Perhaps you should pick one or the other.

What a sad state of affairs. No where is this documented in the Bible. It is only within the minds of men where this doctrine originated and remains. It is not in the Word of God.
The Word of God, capital W, is Jesus. The assumption of Mary is not in the canonical scriptures, that is true- but we've already addressed that.

 

[thessalonian]

Mary is dead in the ground waiting for the first resurrection of the body to be joined with the Spirit at the return of Jesus.

Mary was not assumed or it would be in the Word of God, just as Enoch's and Elijah's assumptions were documented. If Mary the mother of Jesus was equal or more than Enoch and Elijah, she too would have been mentioned.

.

By this logic the temple was not destoryed and there will be no rapture because it is not recorded in the bible.

 

[Solo]

Mary is dead in the ground waiting for the first resurrection of the body to be joined with the Spirit at the return of Jesus.

So say you.

So says the Bible. Mary was alive after Jesus ascended therefore since Mary was a believer, she was one which would be gathered to meet Jesus in the air when Jesus returned, because as Paul writes to the Thessalonians, the dead in Christ Jesus will rise first, after which those who remain alive at Jesus coming will gather together with them meeting Jesus in the air. No where else is Mary depicted as going to heaven.

Mary was not assumed or it would be in the Word of God, just as Enoch's and Elijah's assumptions were documented. If Mary the mother of Jesus was equal or more than Enoch and Elijah, she too would have been mentioned.

As has been noted, the destruction of the Temple is not recorded inscripture. Nor is the martyrdom of Polycarp, it is a tradition passed down. Just like which NT scripture was authentic- that was established by tradition also.

If Mary was such a big deal as the Roman Catholics teach, then her assumption would have been recorded in the Word of God as was Enoch's and Elijah's, but since Mary was a woman who believed like many other mothers, she will be resurrected as are other believers, when Jesus returns. Unless you have scripture references depicting her assumption, then all you have is a guess or man's traditions.

Mary was a women highly favored by God who was in the position of being transferred to the Catholic pagan faith to lift up the pagan queen of heaven.

What a bunch of hubris. The Catholics have a pagan faith, but you and your bible are pure Semite. As a person who is neither Catholic nor Protestant, but with a clear sense of the historical development of the Church, I cannot tell you how laughable your triumphalism appears to anyone outside your pietistic sect.

The only depiction of the queen of heaven in the Bible is a pagan entity worshipped by pagans. The pagan practices that have been taken in by the Roman Catholic Church are widely known. Only those that are blinded by the deception of the enemy can not see it.

You can laugh all you want, but the tears will run down your cheeks when you recognize your mocking the truth of God's Word.

The devil is in favor of lifting Mary to the place that the Roman Catholic Church has given her.

You guys speak for the devil and God. Perhaps you should pick one or the other.

I speak the Word of God, and reveal the lies and deceptions of the devil. Others who speak against the truths of the Word of God, speak for the devil.

What a sad state of affairs. No where is this documented in the Bible. It is only within the minds of men where this doctrine originated and remains. It is not in the Word of God.

The Word of God, capital W, is Jesus. The assumption of Mary is not in the canonical scriptures, that is true- but we've already addressed that.

The Word of God is Jesus, and His Word is Truth, and no where in the Word of God is Mary found to be taken into heaven before her time at the resurrection.

 

[Solo]

Mary is dead in the ground waiting for the first resurrection of the body to be joined with the Spirit at the return of Jesus.

Mary was not assumed or it would be in the Word of God, just as Enoch's and Elijah's assumptions were documented. If Mary the mother of Jesus was equal or more than Enoch and Elijah, she too would have been mentioned.

.

By this logic the temple was not destoryed and there will be no rapture because it is not recorded in the bible.

As in the case of Mary, the temple was not important to discuss its demise. Mary's death and resurrection was not as important as the revelation of Jesus being born. Mary will be gathered together with those that are dead in Christ, and those that are alive in Christ when Jesus Christ returns.

If Mary would have been taken into heaven, and was important in the salvation of mankind, the Word of God would have revealed it. Paul never mentions Mary as being in heaven. Peter never mentions Mary as being in heaven. Jesus never mentions Mary in heaven. No where is Mary mentioned after the book of Acts where she is mentioned being with the brethren breaking bread after the ascension of Jesus Christ.

Simple.

 

[Gary]

Mary is dead in the ground waiting for the first resurrection of the body to be joined with the Spirit at the return of Jesus.

Mary was not assumed or it would be in the Word of God, just as Enoch's and Elijah's assumptions were documented. If Mary the mother of Jesus was equal or more than Enoch and Elijah, she too would have been mentioned.

.

By this logic the temple was not destroyed and there will be no rapture because it is not recorded in the bible.

Another false analogy by Thessalonian. Here are the facts.

• (1) The destruction of the temple is not recorded in the Bible
  (2) We make no theological dogma based on the destruction of the temple
  (3) The destruction of the temple is recorded in history and contemporary writings. Read Josephus. You may also want to visit Jerusalem. You may notice that the temple is no longer there!
  (4) The so-called assumption of Mary is not recorded in the Bible
  (5) We make no theological dogma based on Mary's so-called assumption
  (6) Roman Catholics make a theological dogma based on..... hmmm...
  (7) Mary's so-called assumption is not recorded in contemporary writings either

:D :D

 

[TruthHunter]

The devil is in favor of lifting Mary to the place that the Roman Catholic Church has given her.

Why would the devil be in favor of anything which would increase dovotion to jesus?

 

[Gary]

The devil is in favor of lifting Mary to the place that the Roman Catholic Church has given her.

Why would the devil be in favor of anything which would increase devotion to jesus?

Obviously focussing on Mary takes your focus off Jesus. Many of the Roman Catholic prayers have NOTHING to do with Jesus.

Even when the late Pope was shot, he called on Mary rather than Jesus.

There is nothing recorded in the Bible about prayer and devotion to Mary. That is all man-made dogma.

 

[Orthodox Christian]

Mary is dead in the ground waiting for the first resurrection of the body to be joined with the Spirit at the return of Jesus.

So say you.

So says the Bible. Mary was alive after Jesus ascended therefore since Mary was a believer, she was one which would be gathered to meet Jesus in the air when Jesus returned, because as Paul writes to the Thessalonians, the dead in Christ Jesus will rise first, after which those who remain alive at Jesus coming will gather together with them meeting Jesus in the air. No where else is Mary depicted as going to heaven.
The bible does not say that Mary's body lies in the ground, which is what you said that it does. Tradition says that Mary was assumed to heaven. Tradition says that Mark wrote gospel two. Tradition says that Polycarp was unharmed by the flames, and John unharmed by the boiling oil.
[quote="Orthodox Christian":6f79e]

Mary was not assumed or it would be in the Word of God, just as Enoch's and Elijah's assumptions were documented. If Mary the mother of Jesus was equal or more than Enoch and Elijah, she too would have been mentioned.

As has been noted, the destruction of the Temple is not recorded inscripture. Nor is the martyrdom of Polycarp, it is a tradition passed down. Just like which NT scripture was authentic- that was established by tradition also.

If Mary was such a big deal as the Roman Catholics teach, then her assumption would have been recorded in the Word of God as was Enoch's and Elijah's, but since Mary was a woman who believed like many other mothers, she will be resurrected as are other believers, when Jesus returns. Unless you have scripture references depicting her assumption, then all you have is a guess or man's traditions.
"Man's traditions"- apparently you have no idea how scripture came to us, both OT and NT.
There are countless miracles and signs and wonders which occurred in the time of the Apostles, even things done by Jesus which are not recorded in scripture. They are important, but unmentioned- except through Tradition. We have the names of the Seventy- they weren't named in scripture. We know what happened with the Samaritan woman, and her sisters- martyrs all- not mentioned in scripture.

For us Orthodox, these, and Mary's assumption are not dogmatic, but neither are they dismissed

Mary was a women highly favored by God who was in the position of being transferred to the Catholic pagan faith to lift up the pagan queen of heaven.

What a bunch of hubris. The Catholics have a pagan faith, but you and your bible are pure Semite. As a person who is neither Catholic nor Protestant, but with a clear sense of the historical development of the Church, I cannot tell you how laughable your triumphalism appears to anyone outside your pietistic sect.

The only depiction of the queen of heaven in the Bible is a pagan entity worshipped by pagans. The pagan practices that have been taken in by the Roman Catholic Church are widely known. Only those that are blinded by the deception of the enemy can not see it.
Your argument is simply a portion of the atheist's argument. They assure us that our entire faith, and the person of Jesus, are simply recycled pagan myths- and they have pictures that make their point, comparing Jesus with Mithra, and so on.

So if you buy Mary=pagan goddess, then you must also ascribe to Jesus=Mithra.

You can laugh all you want, but the tears will run down your cheeks when you recognize your mocking the truth of God's Word.
I wasn't mocking anything, I was laughing sardonically at your unlearned condescension. But you of course equate my disdain for your false analogies and fault-finding with mocking God's Son. Ironically, it's just this sort of presumption on your part that made me shake my head in the first place- and here you are, redoubling the effort.

The devil is in favor of lifting Mary to the place that the Roman Catholic Church has given her.

You guys speak for the devil and God. Perhaps you should pick one or the other.

I speak the Word of God, and reveal the lies and deceptions of the devil. Others who speak against the truths of the Word of God, speak for the devil.
So now you maintain that all who oppose you are speaking for Satan. Now how can anyone argue with that? :roll:

What a sad state of affairs. No where is this documented in the Bible. It is only within the minds of men where this doctrine originated and remains. It is not in the Word of God.

The Word of God, capital W, is Jesus. The assumption of Mary is not in the canonical scriptures, that is true- but we've already addressed that.

The Word of God is Jesus, and His Word is Truth, and no where in the Word of God is Mary found to be taken into heaven before her time at the resurrection.
Sola scriptura is not found in the bible, yet you (claim to) believe in that. I guess your dogma all seems a little arbitrary and capricious to me.
[/quote:6f79e]

 

[Orthodox Christian]

Mary is dead in the ground waiting for the first resurrection of the body to be joined with the Spirit at the return of Jesus.

Mary was not assumed or it would be in the Word of God, just as Enoch's and Elijah's assumptions were documented. If Mary the mother of Jesus was equal or more than Enoch and Elijah, she too would have been mentioned.

.

By this logic the temple was not destroyed and there will be no rapture because it is not recorded in the bible.

Another false analogy by Thessalonian. Here are the facts.

• (1) The destruction of the temple is not recorded in the Bible
  (2) We make no theological dogma based on the destruction of the temple
  (3) The destruction of the temple is recorded in history and contemporary writings. Read Josephus. You may also want to visit Jerusalem. You may notice that the temple is no longer there!
  (4) The so-called assumption of Mary is not recorded in the Bible
  (5) We make no theological dogma based on Mary's so-called assumption
  (6) Roman Catholics make a theological dogma based on..... hmmm...
  (7) Mary's so-called assumption is not recorded in contemporary writings either

:D :D

The point was that the destruction took place during the time in which scripture was written. This and the siege of Jerusalem was an event of gigantic proportions in the lives of the Christians and Jews both in Jerusalem and abroad. That it remains unreported in scripture demonstrates clearly that the Apostles were not concerned with reportage.

The most laughable thing that you say is "we make no theological dogma based upon the destruction of the Temple."
Good Lord, the Temple's destruction was a watershed moment in the development of the Church, theology, and differentiation with Judaism. Preterists directly create dogma from that event, but partial preterists and the rest are no less shaped by that historical event and its figurative and literal ramifications.

I see nothing written in Josephus of the multitude of miracles performed by the apostles, either.
Yet you speak of false analogies.

 

[cj]

Before responding to OC's other above pathetic response, lets expose his continuing intent to mislead in this one.....

........ In his folly, he is assuming that you must be "Roman."

Not quite foolish one,.... because I drew a comparison to the uppityness of the Roman does not mean that I called AwedbyGod Roman.

So really,..... common to the religionist, the folly actually is with you.

Like a frightened boy locked in a dark cellar, beating the air with his fists.

Thankfully I have never experienced this,.... but I'm sure some of those in your apostate religion have at the hands of the so-called priests.

Regarding apostasy: isn't it amazing that one man reserves the right to label all others apostate.

Still trying to deflect huh.

OC, you are a religious follower of an apostate institution.

What more outward proof of this fallen condition do we need than you admitting to smouching of little pictures.

I don't label you, the abundance of your heart labels you as it speaks throught your writings on these boards.

I just shine a light in the direction of your folly words.

In essence, this is the man in the tinfoil hat, ducking satellites and proclaiming everyone else insane.

You are now simply confirming what I have said for some time,..... you have no problem lying.

You call me a pig's rectum and I am not one, then you declare that I am calling everyone insane when I have not called even one as such.


You are a liar, defeated by your own exposing of your corrupt condition.


Keep speaking OC, you are doing a good job of self-destruction.


In love,
cj