What is Mariology?

[face2face]

The obvious problem with this argument is that there isn't a single passage of scripture that is quoted to support this belief. These quotes are nothing more than the theological ramblings of men who were trying to pass their own traditions/beliefs off as Christian dogma in the same way the Pharisees tried to pass their own doctrines off as scriptural.

Correct its frightening how close the RCC is to the Pharisaical model. Their development of traditions to their hierarchical structure all reveal itself to be anti-christ.

That's not how it works. The words of uninspired men aren't more authoritative than the words of those that were written by divinely inspired men, no matter how well they dress their pagan theology up with righteous-sounding language.
The Bible disagrees with you:

"for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," - Rom. 3:23

That includes Mary.

"And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior." - Luk. 1:47

"But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman under the law," - Gal. 4:4

The second and third passages are certainly of extreme import to this thread. A logical person would ask themselves how Mary could have possibly been sinless when she addressed Jesus as such. Jesus can only be somebody's Savior if they acknowledge a) the fact that they have sinned and b)they needed Him to save them from sin.

The third passage shows Christ was born to a woman who "was under the law". In other words, Mary has committed sin prior to giving birth to Jesus. There are prophecies that says the Messiah was supposed to be born of a virgin woman, but there isn't a single one of them that says the virgin woman would be sinless. Mary was no different than any other human being around her other than the fact she was chosen to be the woman who would give birth to Christ. Christ certainly didn't look at her as being important enough to be treated like a deity.

All of which is true.

I know this is a side point to the subject but Mary's name in Heb: “Miriam” = “rebellious”. From a root “Bitterness”. If only people like Mungo understood the real journey for Mary? Luke 2:23 (just as it is written in the law of the Lord, “Every firstborn male will be set apart to the Lord” What was Mary's bitterness? what was her struggle? What was the sword thrust into her heart? And what of the rebuke from Jesus when in the temple at 12? And what of his teaching regarding his real family while Mary and his siblings were without? What about the rebuke when Mary asked him to turn water into wine? Her journey to discipleship was harder than most...after all she was the Lord's mother - but what did that represent in the mind of Yahweh?

Luke 2:23 (just as it is written in the law of the Lord, “Every firstborn male will be set apart to the Lord”

Nothing!

The Son of Man would die and become forever the Son of God.

 

[Mungo]

I seemed to have struct a nerve with that last post.

It really comes down to what you have written above. Your doctrine on Mary is the weakest of all Catholic teaching and without question or doubt is the traditions of men. Mary statues with toes worn away from the kissing declares the basis of your religion as idolatrous. This of course does not mean your worship is insincere, far from it! It's just founded on man-made dogma's all of which will be revealed in the day of his coming.

The doctrines of Mary bare Biblically founded and not "tradition of men".
But your appear not to be interested in the truth

 

[Mungo]

Correct its frightening how close the RCC is to the Pharisaical model. Their development of traditions to their hierarchical structure all reveal itself to be anti-christ.


All of which is true.

I know this is a side point to the subject but Mary's name in Heb: “Miriam” = “rebellious”. From a root “Bitterness”. If only people like Mungo understood the real journey for Mary? Luke 2:23 (just as it is written in the law of the Lord, “Every firstborn male will be set apart to the Lord” What was Mary's bitterness? what was her struggle? What was the sword thrust into her heart? And what of the rebuke from Jesus when in the temple at 12? And what of his teaching regarding his real family while Mary and his siblings were without? What about the rebuke when Mary asked him to turn water into wine? Her journey to discipleship was harder than most...after all she was the Lord's mother - but what did that represent in the mind of Yahweh?

Miriam has many possible derivations but you have to pick out a negative one as part of your anti-Mary bigotry..
In antiquity, it was variously etymologized as "rebellion", "bitter sea", "strong waters", "exalted one", "ruling one", "wished for child", or "beautiful".[2]

St. Jerome (writing c. 390), following Eusebius of Caesarea, translates the name as "drop of the sea" (stilla maris in Latin), from Hebrew מר mar "drop" (cf. Isaias 40:15) and ים yam "sea". This translation was subsequently rendered stella maris ("star of the sea") due to scribal error or as a result of 3rd century vowel shifts, from which comes the Virgin Mary's title Star of the Sea.[2]

Alternatively, the name can be interpreted "star of the sea" if taken as a contracted form of the Hebrew מאור ma'or "star" (lit. "luminary") plus ים yam "sea", yet this "strikes as a very free interpretation".[3]
(Wikipedia)

And Jesus never rebuked Mary. That is just more of your anti-Mary, anti-Jesus errors

 

[Mungo]

Thank you for this reference.

From what I have seen your body has been easily swayed into error by weak analogous examples which have no bearing on the fundamental truths of Scripture.

Paul’s question, “What saith the Scripture?” is not merely rhetorical. It expresses the truth of sola scriptura that only what may be established from Scripture has any claim to a place in Christian Faith. You have not been able to prove from Scripture the 4 RCC doctrines concerning Mary, therefore it holds no place in Christian Faith and is reduced to the mere philosophical ramblings of men.

You have accepted the words of men and failed to examine them against the only authority available to you.

Marian doctrines are rooted in Scripture and Judaism.

Sola Scripture is an unbiblical tradition of men.

 

[Addy]

Sola Scripture is an unbiblical tradition of men.

LOL.... Hello Mungo... Happy Monday to you...

 

[Mungo]

LOL.... Hello Mungo... Happy Monday to you...

Happy Monday Addy,

I hope you are keeping well.

 

[Addy]

Happy Monday Addy,

I hope you are keeping well.

Been sick... on anti-biotics and on the mend... thanks for asking.... Just checking in... don't want to de-rail the thread...
Gotta take care of my ONLY Catholic friend... LOL

 

[face2face]

Marian doctrines are rooted in Scripture and Judaism.

Sola Scripture is an unbiblical tradition of men.

Nothing has changed Mungo...Protestants have wrestled with your position for ages. Our emphasis on sola scriptura has focused our attention on the interpretation of Scripture and in our favour we can reconcile any new theological insights/traditions because we have the inspired authority. It's clear the development of wrong doctrine such as Mariology arose as the ancient church responded to heresies by composing new doctrinal formulations. If we go back to the Apostles as recorded in the Scripture we have the original Gospel untouched by human hands, so at some point you and I can agree church history Christian doctrine was the precise formulation of what the Church had always explicitly and consciously believed. The oral expression of the Gospel which was also recorded for our learning is still in its original form in the Scripture. If we took all the Catechisms and laid them at Paul's feet I believe non of it would make any sense to him and he would labelled it as such. This of course applies to much of Christendom which has consumed most of her wine. Take the Anglicans...they venerate Mary, nowhere to the level of the RCC. The Trinity, your Christology, Immortal Soulism etc etc...all of it has permeated the Christian religions of the earth. A handful here in this forum have guarded themselves from such error but for the most the original Gospel is lost. Ultimately we must leave the traditions of men and commit to the practice of Christian unity based on the original Gospel as taught by the Apostle Paul who was Christ to the gentiles and commit to the authority of the Bible, as the only guidebook for the faith and practice for the true ecclesia of God.

 

[face2face]

Miriam has many possible derivations but you have to pick out a negative one as part of your anti-Mary bigotry..
In antiquity, it was variously etymologized as "rebellion", "bitter sea", "strong waters", "exalted one", "ruling one", "wished for child", or "beautiful".[2]

So it does mean rebellion, bitterness as I suggested?

 

[face2face]

And Jesus never rebuked Mary. That is just more of your anti-Mary, anti-Jesus errors

Luke 2:50 Yet his parents (Mary & Joseph) did not understand the remark he made to them.

1. Why didn't Mary understand Jesus' correction of them both?
2. Were they at fault for worrying about Jesus and why?
3. How many accounts was Mary wrong in this incident?

If other's would like to open this section up feel free to be involved.

Careful reading of the Word giveth light (and prayer) ;)

F2F

 

[Mungo]

Nothing has changed Mungo...Protestants have wrestled with your position for ages. Our emphasis on sola scriptura has focused our attention on the interpretation of Scripture and in our favour we can reconcile any new theological insights/traditions because we have the inspired authority. It's clear the development of wrong doctrine such as Mariology arose as the ancient church responded to heresies by composing new doctrinal formulations. If we go back to the Apostles as recorded in the Scripture we have the original Gospel untouched by human hands, so at some point you and I can agree church history Christian doctrine was the precise formulation of what the Church had always explicitly and consciously believed. The oral expression of the Gospel which was also recorded for our learning is still in its original form in the Scripture. If we took all the Catechisms and laid them at Paul's feet I believe non of it would make any sense to him and he would labelled it as such. This of course applies to much of Christendom which has consumed most of her wine. Take the Anglicans...they venerate Mary, nowhere to the level of the RCC. The Trinity, your Christology, Immortal Soulism etc etc...all of it has permeated the Christian religions of the earth. A handful here in this forum have guarded themselves from such error but for the most the original Gospel is lost. Ultimately we must leave the traditions of men and commit to the practice of Christian unity based on the original Gospel as taught by the Apostle Paul who was Christ to the gentiles and commit to the authority of the Bible, as the only guidebook for the faith and practice for the true ecclesia of God.

Opinions, opinions, opinions.

 

[Mungo]

So it does mean rebellion, bitterness as I suggested?

No.

 

[Mungo]

Luke 2:50 Yet his parents (Mary & Joseph) did not understand the remark he made to them.

1. Why didn't Mary understand Jesus' correction of them both?
2. Were they at fault for worrying about Jesus and why?
3. How many accounts was Mary wrong in this incident?

If other's would like to open this section up feel free to be involved.

Careful reading of the Word giveth light (and prayer) ;)

F2F

Only an anti-Mary, anti-Jesus person would interpret that as a rebuke.

 

[Addy]

Well... that was a one-sided conversation.... LOL

I actually think what face2face said made sense. When someone is born into something... they often neglect to check the facts/truths.
They take it for granted that they have been taught properly. My mother died absolutely believing ALL the things you defend @Mungo.

I chose to walk away.... and I now have a very personal and close relationship with Christ. He is my BEST friend... .yet you would state that this is NOT possible... So... there is no common ground for a non Catholic to have with a Catholic... and it's all based on the cornerstone of raising your beliefs to be above others ( and NO that is not an insult )... I have come to like you... LOL ... I would probably delight sharing a meal with you.

When you meet Christ face to face... Are you certain you are SAVED? I am... and not because I am BETTER... or RIGHT... but because of the BLOOD ATONEMENT....

Traditions are merely repetitions of the same behaviours over and over again.... they have NO power to SAVE a soul. It is CHRIST and CHRIST ALONE who SAVES.... NO church has the authority or power to do that.

Anyways.... and OH my goodness... You got an earful this morning.... LOL

Not going to debate this issue with you.... Just leaving my opinion on the matter of Roman Catholicism.

 

[Mungo]

Well... that was a one-sided conversation.... LOL

I actually think what face2face said made sense. When someone is born into something... they often neglect to check the facts/truths.
They take it for granted that they have been taught properly. My mother died absolutely believing ALL the things you defend @Mungo.

I chose to walk away.... and I now have a very personal and close relationship with Christ. He is my BEST friend... .yet you would state that this is NOT possible... So... there is no common ground for a non Catholic to have with a Catholic... and it's all based on the cornerstone of raising your beliefs to be above others ( and NO that is not an insult )... I have come to like you... LOL ... I would probably delight sharing a meal with you.

When you meet Christ face to face... Are you certain you are SAVED? I am... and not because I am BETTER... or RIGHT... but because of the BLOOD ATONEMENT....

Traditions are merely repetitions of the same behaviours over and over again.... they have NO power to SAVE a soul. It is CHRIST and CHRIST ALONE who SAVES.... NO church has the authority or power to do that.

Anyways.... and OH my goodness... You got an earful this morning.... LOL

Not going to debate this issue with you.... Just leaving my opinion on the matter of Roman Catholicism.

Yes, just your opinions Addy. Rather like face2face.
Debating is not just swapping opinions.
It requires proper evidence.

 

[Addy]

Yes, just your opinions Addy. Rather like face2face.
Debating is not just swapping opinions.
It requires proper evidence.

Well... since you live in the United Kingdom... I am unable to send you proof that Jesus is my best friend. LOL
I choose to believe that the BLOOD ATONEMENT is what paid for my sins.
Once one strips off all the formalities... they are left with just JESUS and them... For some reason... many Christians don't seem to
like this scenario... yet each one of us is going to die someday. The question remains.... Is Jesus your best friend?
Do you serve Him in your real life? Do you bring Him everywhere with you? Do you invite the REAL Jesus into your life?
If so... this is what makes you a Christian.

 

[Illuminator]

Nothing has changed Mungo...Protestants have wrestled with your position for ages. Our emphasis on sola scriptura has focused our attention on the interpretation of Scripture and in our favour we can reconcile any new theological insights/traditions because we have the inspired authority.'

You have 40,000+ "inspired authorities". You have no mechanism for resolving disputes so division necessarily follows. Sola scriptura is not taught anywhere in Scripture, it's a man made tradition.

It's clear the development of wrong doctrine such as Mariology arose as the ancient church responded to heresies by composing new doctrinal formulations.

But you don't name the heresies the church responded to. Lets go back to the attacks on the trinity as a starting point. The Arian heresy was not refuted with new doctrinal formulations. Neither was the Nestorian heresy. Virtually every heretic in the patristic period thumbed their noses at the historic Church, and went by scripture alone.

If we go back to the Apostles as recorded in the Scripture we have the original Gospel untouched by human hands, so at some point you and I can agree church history Christian doctrine was the precise formulation of what the Church had always explicitly and consciously believed. The oral expression of the Gospel which was also recorded for our learning is still in its original form in the Scripture.

It is impossible to record the entirety of oral expression into a single book, as scripture says. John 21:25.

If we took all the Catechisms and laid them at Paul's feet I believe non of it would make any sense to him and he would labelled it as such.

Your "if" scenario can only work if you deny development, which you do constantly. Paul was always subject to the Church, he was not off doing his own thing.

This of course applies to much of Christendom which has consumed most of her wine. Take the Anglicans...they venerate Mary, nowhere to the level of the RCC. The Trinity, your Christology, Immortal Soulism etc etc...all of it has permeated the Christian religions of the earth. A handful here in this forum have guarded themselves from such error but for the most the original Gospel is lost. Ultimately we must leave the traditions of men and commit to the practice of Christian unity based on the original Gospel as taught by the Apostle Paul who was Christ to the gentiles and commit to the authority of the Bible, as the only guidebook for the faith and practice for the true ecclesia of God.

So here you say the church popped out of a book. There were no bibles as we know it until the 4th-5th centuries. The Bible is a fruit of the Church, not the other way around. commit to the practice of Christian unity is impossible when unity is constantly undermined by the man made tradition of sola scriptura.
Without the tradition of ecclesiastical authority, there would be no Bible in the first place. This should explain why bashing authority using scripture is stupid and absurd.

 

[face2face]

Only an anti-Mary, anti-Jesus person would interpret that as a rebuke.

Mungo, do you know how to enter the Word of God? Has someone ever shown you how to actually study the Bible? Said sincerely with no condescension! Your avoidance of the questions is highly transparent of someone who has been indoctrinated and suffers from confirmation bias. Do not entertain me Mungo, but the Scripture before you:

Lets try again:

Luke 2:50 Yet his parents (Mary & Joseph) did not understand the remark he made to them.

1. Why didn't Mary understand Jesus' correction of them both?
2. Were they at fault for worrying about Jesus and why?
3. How many accounts was Mary wrong in this incident?

I suggest you start by reading the section slowly - Luke 2:41-52

I will be dealing with this section in this thread until we all have a good grasp of its content including its precious lessons about Mary, Joseph & Jesus.

I'm looking forward to seeing what will come of it.

F2F

 

[face2face]

You have 40,000+ "inspired authorities". You have no mechanism for resolving disputes so division necessarily follows. Sola scriptura is not taught anywhere in Scripture, it's a man made tradition. But you don't name the heresies the church responded to. Lets go back to the attacks on the trinity as a starting point. The Arian heresy was not refuted with new doctrinal formulations. Neither was the Nestorian heresy. Virtually every heretic in the patristic period thumbed their noses at the historic Church, and went by scripture alone. It is impossible to record the entirety of oral expression into a single book, as scripture says. John 21:25. Your "if" scenario can only work if you deny development, which you do constantly. Paul was always subject to the Church, he was not off doing his own thing. So here you say the church popped out of a book. There were no bibles as we know it until the 4th-5th centuries. The Bible is a fruit of the Church, not the other way around. commit to the practice of Christian unity is impossible when unity is constantly undermined by the man made tradition of sola scriptura.
Without the tradition of ecclesiastical authority, there would be no Bible in the first place. This should explain why bashing authority using scripture is stupid and absurd.

You write as though you wished the Bible didn't exist. Using John 21:25 to suggest this validates your man made traditions - com'on Illuminator that's not gonna fly! There is no doubt there has been an unfolding of truth concerning the man Jesus Christ that can easily be proved from Scripture but Mariology...forget it! I am happy for you to deal with Luke 2:50 with Mungo. Lets see what we discover together, either way, it will reveal if the "Word" gives you both light?

 

[face2face]

Well... that was a one-sided conversation.... LOL

I actually think what face2face said made sense. When someone is born into something... they often neglect to check the facts/truths.
They take it for granted that they have been taught properly. My mother died absolutely believing ALL the things you defend

Good morning Addy from sunny Melbourne, Australia.
Sad to hear your mum passed without beholding the pearl of great price. I am looking forward to opening Luke 2:41-52 with Mungo & Illuminator. Feel free to read that section and provide your own insights. Let's see what we discover. Hoping it's not one sided as you suggest.