Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | When did the catholic church go wrong? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 26889 | ||
Demonstrate to me that Revelation 12 literally refers to a single individual. Then go through the whole chapter and demonstrate to me that it refers to Mary. Is Satan really a dragon, too? If your view of Revelation 12 is the best you have to go on in proving Mary is the "new Eve," you have a pretty paper-thin argument. Christ is specifically called the Second Adam in Scripture. We see NO such reference to Mary being the second Eve outside of Catholic dogma. Why can't you just read the New Testament in its entirety and realize that while Mary was indeed blessed by God and honored to bear Jesus in her womb, that she is not in any way a central figure in the Biblical narrative. Jesus? Absolutely; first and foremost. Paul? Certainly. Peter? Without a doubt. Mary? A few scant references outside of the Advent story. It just doesn't wash. Stop making so much of the wedding at Cana! It is such blasphemy to suggest that Mary has to "prod" Jesus -- very God of very God -- into doing what He purposed to do before the foundation of the world. A contemptible heresy is what it is, Emmaus. A violation of the First Commandment, too, at its heart. Romans 5:19 refers to Christ, not Mary. Stop ripping it out of its context and that becomes crystal clear. Hint: refer to verse 17 to see who "the One" is. When tradition takes precedence over the clear understanding of Scripture, theological gymnastics results. --Joe! |
||||||
2 | When did the catholic church go wrong? | Bible general Archive 1 | Emmaus | 26951 | ||
Joe,You make many demands and three serious accusations in your post. "Demonstrate to me that Revelation 12 literally refers to a single individual. Then go through the whole chapter and demonstrate to me that it refers to Mary." And just how much of Revelation and especially Revelation 12 do you take "literally"? Am I to suppose you do no interpretation at all? "Is Satan really a dragon, too?" The correct question is: "Is the dragon really Satan, too?" Yes. And is the son of the woman Jesus? Yes, but does it say that literally naming Jesus? No. And if the other two main characters are persons, logic would allow that the woman is also a real person. It might even be Mary, don’t you think? Or do you have another real person candidate that follows logically? "If your view of Revelation 12 is the best you have to go on in proving Mary is the "new Eve," you have a pretty paper-thin argument. Christ is specifically called the Second Adam in Scripture. We see NO such reference to Mary being the second Eve outside of Catholic dogma." Do you mean that the opinions of the Church Fathers are not outside Catholic dogma? Or are you admitting that they agree with Catholic dogma? "Why can't you just read the New Testament in its entirety and realize that while Mary was indeed blessed by God and honored to bear Jesus in her womb, that she is not in any way a central figure in the Biblical narrative. Jesus? Absolutely; first and foremost. Paul? Certainly. Peter? Without a doubt. Mary? A few scant references outside of the Advent story. It just doesn't wash." Jesus is the central figure in the biblical narrative and all history for that matter. It is just that Mary was literally wrapped around Him body and soul. He was flesh of her flesh and bone of her bone. Is there any better example of complete dedication to God? "Stop making so much of the wedding at Cana! It is such blasphemy to suggest that Mary has to "prod" Jesus -- very God of very God -- into doing what He purposed to do before the foundation of the world. A contemptible heresy is what it is, Emmaus. A violation of the First Commandment, too, at its heart." I did not say Mary “prodded” Jesus, I said Eve prodded Adam and Mary instigated the beginning of Jesus’ ministry. Webster’s defines instigate as "to urge on". "Romans 5:19 refers to Christ, not Mary. Stop ripping it out of its context and that becomes crystal clear. Hint: refer to verse 17 to see who "the One" is." "I did not say Romans 5:19 referred to Mary. I was using it to draw the parallel analogy of Eve and Mary. "When tradition takes precedence over the clear understanding of Scripture, theological gymnastics results." And there is no Calvinist tradition that influences your understanding of scripture? |
||||||
3 | When did the catholic church go wrong? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 26954 | ||
You wrote: "And just how much of Revelation and especially Revelation 12 do you take 'literally'? Am I to suppose you do no interpretation at all?" Of course I do, but you are the one claiming that it is undoubtedly Mary. You cited Revelation 12 as proof positive that Mary is somehow the "queen of heaven" or whatever you want to call her. Is it really a lamb opening seals in Rev. 4? No. Is Satan actually and literally a dragon? No. Then why must we conclude that the woman in Revelation 12 is literally a woman? I am not stating unequivocally that you MUST be wrong, but your argument needs a lot more support than citing verse 1. Show us how the rest of the narrative reflects that the woman is Mary. You also wrote: "Jesus is the central figure in the biblical narrative and all history for that matter. It is just that Mary was literally wrapped around Him body and soul. He was flesh of her flesh and bone of her bone. Is there any better example of complete dedication to God?" Sur ethere is....Christ's sinless life, obedience to God the Father in all things. While I certainly do not despise Mary, and agree that God chose her, I would not say that being the biological mother of anyone in itself makes one dedicated. I teach public high school, and I see lots of biological mothers who are anything but dedicated. Not saying that Mary wasn't, but Mary was blessed BECAUSE God chose her, and not the other way around. You wrote: "I did not say Mary 'prodded' Jesus, I said Eve prodded Adam and Mary instigated the beginning of Jesus’ ministry. Webster’s defines instigate as 'to urge on'." I quote your last post: "Mary instigates the beginning of the saving ministry of Jesus by her prodding at Cana." Prodding. You wrote: "I did not say Romans 5:19 referred to Mary. I was using it to draw the parallel analogy of Eve and Mary." It doesn't talk about Eve or Mary at all. Please elaborate how Romans 5:19 supports your argument. You wrote: "And there is no Calvinist tradition that influences your understanding of scripture?" Of course I am influenced by it, because it is actually SCRIPTURAL. Sola Scriptura, not riding sidesaddle with man-man doctrine which has no support in the Bible. Any Reformed doctrine does not come from Church pronouncements or fallible men, but solely from the word of God. That is the difference between searching like crazy to find support for veneration of Mary and building a confession of faith from the Word alone. --Joe! |
||||||
4 | When did the catholic church go wrong? | Bible general Archive 1 | Emmaus | 26983 | ||
Well I guess we can now agree on one thing. I did use the word prod instaed of urge after instigate. My mistake. I can only say I did not intend it in the meaning you attributed to me. On the rest we will have to disagree. |
||||||