Biblical Mary

[Taken]

Yes we speak to Mary asking for her intercession.

I wasn't Defining anything.

It was a simple question which you answered, that you DO speak to Mary and you DO ask her to intercede (presuming on your behalf.)

On earth, men are called to Become saints.
On earth, men Become "saints', by answering that call.
On earth, men answer that "call", by agreeing to have the Lord God Convert them.
I have no doubt, many men ON Earth, have answered the calling, and become Made Converted, by the Power of God, and are accounted "saints".
I believe Scripture teaches for "saints" on earth to pray for the "well being" of "saints" on earth. Praying for a "saint" to do well and good in their ministry, to do well and good in endeavors they attempt to glorify God, etc.

* I find not such teaching for "anyone" on earth, to "contact" "saints" IN Heaven, for "any purpose".

Do you have Any verse in Scripture that you can identify, and share with me:
that Does Teach men to "contact, address by Name" ANY saint IN Heaven, for any purpose?

Thanks,
Taken

 

[BreadOfLife]

You have made it abundantly clear, a person who trusts the Scriptures is offensive to you, and try as you may, you can not reveal a Scripture to support your claims that...
EX 34:
[6] ...the LORD...proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, abundant in goodness and truth...

Gen 6:
[2] That the sons of God saw the daughters of men ...took them wives...
[4] ...when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them...
[5] And GOD saw ...that the wickedness of man evil continually.
[6] ...it repented the LORD... it grieved him at his heart
[7] And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth....

Really? You believe God seeing the wickedness and evil (of sons of God and human women) reproducing children, and the grief in Gods Heart, was GOOD?
So good, that God destroyed the earth with a flood...?
So good, that God did A similar thing...?
* Similar; but WORSE;
a Spirit (which God IS) (according to you fertilized a (betrothed) Human Woman's seed, with His Seed, while never taking her to His Wife?

A 10 year old could comprehend the lunacy of such a notion.

We do know, prideful men who have spent their whole lives believing a lie tend to be too prideful to admit they were duped thus continue the charade and think making derragatiory accusations will hopefully deflect from their long term error.

Sooooo, YOU take the story of the Nephilim in Gen 6 and equate THEM with the conception of Jesus??
You're even MORE Scripturally ignorant than I originally thought.

Jesus is GOD in the flesh (John 1:1-14). There is NO comparison.
God impregnated Mary, who was sinless (Luke 1:28). He didn't "plant" a fetus inside of her. SHE conceived in HER womb (Luke 1:31).

Yes - even a 10 year-old understands what that means . . .

PS - A person who trusts the Scriptures is admirable - not "offensive".
A person like YOU, who perverts the Scriptures IS offensive . . .

 

[Webers_Home]

.

Mary was betrothed, not married, to Joseph at the angelic visitation.

Much disagreement revolves around the Greek word translated betrothed
and/or espoused; which is found in only three places in the entire New
Testament and all three are in the story of Joseph and Mary-- one place in
Matthew and two in Luke.

Its primary meaning refers to promise; which is technically different than an
engagement.

Back in those days, girls often had no say in who they were to marry, i.e.
their consent was neither required, nor sought.

For example: when Jacob expressed his desire for Rachel's hand in
marriage, her father Laban said: "It's better that I give her to you than to
some other man." In other words: at that moment, Rachel was implied
promised to Jacob; and once a woman is promised to a specific suitor; she
becomes what we sometimes call "spoken for".

Another problem is the Greek word translated "wife". Well; wife is actually
an interpretation rather than a translation because technically the word only
means woman; e.g. Matt 5:28.

Also a problem is the Greek word translated "virgin". It isn't specifically a girl
that's never slept with a man; though in Mary's case that would be true.
Rather, it simply refers to a young woman of marriageable age.

And then there's the Greek word found in "put her away" which is an
ambiguous word that can mean a number of things besides divorce. For
example: free fully, relieve, release, dismiss, let die, pardon, forgive, loose,
let go, and/or set at liberty. So we're not stuck with a narrow meaning.

Considering that Mary was promised to Joseph, rather than married to him,
then I would say that his intent in Matt 1:19 wasn't divorce, but simply to
revoke his request with her father on the grounds that she was immoral.

Now, under certain conditions; a betrothed girl who cheats on the man to
whom she's promised merited the death penalty in Joseph's world. (Deut
22:23-27). However, a minimum of two witnesses are required in capital
cases (Deut 17:6-7). Well; the Bible says that Joseph was a righteous man.
In other words; he was law-abiding and that's why he decided to put Mary
away quietly because without witnesses, he couldn't possibly have her hauled
into court.

» I don't insist that all and/or any of my comments herein are true and 100%
correct; I only offer them as a second opinion; so to speak.
_

 

[Mungo]

I wasn't Defining anything.

I asked you what you meant by a particular phrase you used.
You told me what you meant.
How is that not a definition?

It was a simple question which you answered, that you DO speak to Mary and you DO ask her to intercede (presuming on your behalf.)

On earth, men are called to Become saints.
On earth, men Become "saints', by answering that call.
On earth, men answer that "call", by agreeing to have the Lord God Convert them.
I have no doubt, many men ON Earth, have answered the calling, and become Made Converted, by the Power of God, and are accounted "saints".
I believe Scripture teaches for "saints" on earth to pray for the "well being" of "saints" on earth. Praying for a "saint" to do well and good in their ministry, to do well and good in endeavors they attempt to glorify God, etc.

* I find not such teaching for "anyone" on earth, to "contact" "saints" IN Heaven, for "any purpose".

Do you have Any verse in Scripture that you can identify, and share with me:
that Does Teach men to "contact, address by Name" ANY saint IN Heaven, for any purpose?

Thanks,
Taken

Catholics are not sola scriptura.
Nor do we believe that we have to have an explicit statement in scripture that we can do something.
There are many things that we do that are not explicitly (or implicitly) permitted in the Bible - posting on the internet, driving a car, flying in an aeroplane, printing Bibles. or even that we can assemble the various scripture writings into one book called the Bible.
Your request is itself therefore unbiblical.

If you want to have a discussion about praying to the Saints in heaven then we can do so, but not on the basis you want.

 

[Mungo]

.

Much disagreement revolves around the Greek word translated betrothed
and/or espoused;

Or even engaged.
An interesting article on that here:
Library : Two Terrible Translations

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Yes he does - pages of them.

Well I am waiting

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Stop prevaricating and tell me why you think bishops have pointy hats.

I asked you- you are the one too rude to answer the question. I am not prevaricating. Stopped projecting onto me what you are doing.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Actually I don't even know what question you are referring to.

Why Bishops wear the pointy hat of course. Would you like me to be presumptuous as you and say you are dodging answering a simple question.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

As I keep saying. If you have evidence then present it.

You failure to do so suggest you have none, or none that would stand up to scrutiny.

I listed a bunch for bread of life- go to one of my posts to him and link to them. I am sure you already know I posted those links. YOu think they are beneath you but for now that is all I am ready to give arrogant acting petulant responders.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

PLEASE - L publicly challenge yo to provide me with a list of qualified historical scholars that agree with Hislop's nonsense.
Hislop hads been DEBUNKED - and NO credible scholar agrees with him.

Well I need to know the standard created to determine who is a "qualified" historical scholar.

1. Who decided that standard
2. what criteria is necessary.
3. when was this standard established.
4. where is this standard found so all can see.
5. what do they have to be qualified in to meet the criteria.
6. what if they do not address the issues at hand?

See I know if I post something from someone- you will simply say they are not qualified.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Give me hard historical FACTS that substantiate Hislop's idiotic claims - not videos.
I've already debunked the Semiramis/Nimrod nonsense.

what determines "hard" historical facts? do you actually believe the Catholic church would write down what they borrowed from pagan belief systems?

And yet I debunked your debunk.

You failed.
I didn't ask you for videos from biased anti-Catholic yahoos - I said CREDIBLE HISTORICAL SCHOLARS.

See, I am convinced anything written that sheds a dark pall on any Catholic practice or belief- you will simply label anti-Catholic and dismiss.

Show me the empirical standards used to determine who is a "credible" historical scholar. Other wise you are just blowing verbal methane to scream loudly in hopes of drowning out things the Catholics have done that are heretical . If you were a Baptist (as I) I could list things Baptists have done or believe that are heretical. Same with every sect of Christendom. but this is a site for catholicism so we focus on that.

Like the myth of teh perpetual virginity of Mary and the myth that she had no more children. As well as the myth that Mary never sinned. I bring these up because thee faith posted what He thought was the Biblical Mary and these Catholic beliefs are not the biblical Mary. I have that from the most Credible Historic Scholar who ever lived! He is called the Holy Spirit!

By the Way, I am still waiting for yo to show how I lied about Catholic Doctrine and how I bore false witness to over 1 billion people. Or did you just throw that out with no ontent of providing evidence to your ad-hominems in hopes of distraction.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

If we are done it's because you fail to come up with evidence or even explain whatever point you had about bishop's mitres

I invite you to go to post #208 and click on any of the three links posted there for evidence.

And I asked you about the bishops mitre! I have a point but it needs you to answer first.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Well I need to know the standard created to determine who is a "qualified" historical scholar.

1. Who decided that standard
2. what criteria is necessary.
3. when was this standard established.
4. where is this standard found so all can see.
5. what do they have to be qualified in to meet the criteria.
6. what if they do not address the issues at hand?

See I know if I post something from someone- you will simply say they are not qualified.

And I see you STILL haven't been able to list a SINGLE historical scholar who agrees with Alexander Hislop's shoddy "research".

Good job . . .

 

[Ronald Nolette]

And I see you STILL haven't been able to list a SINGLE historical scholar who agrees with Alexander Hislop's shoddy "research".

Good job . . .

Well as you are so narrow in your deciding who is and who isn't a "credible" historical scholar, I am just needing to know how one is determined to become a "credible" scholar.

Still waiting for how one is determined and what lies about Romanism I am guilty of and how I have borne false witness to 1,000,000,000 Catholics.

guess we are stalled till these are answered.

 

[Mungo]

Well I am waiting

Waiting for what?

 

[Mungo]

I listed a bunch for bread of life- go to one of my posts to him and link to them. I am sure you already know I posted those links. YOu think they are beneath you but for now that is all I am ready to give arrogant acting petulant responders.

I'm not chasing around. You claim something You provide evidence.

 

[Mungo]

I invite you to go to post #208 and click on any of the three links posted there for evidence.

And I asked you about the bishops mitre! I have a point but it needs you to answer first.

This is a discussion forum. Not a cinema.
If you have a point then make it and provide evidence.

 

[BreadOfLife]

what determines "hard" historical facts? do you actually believe the Catholic church would write down what they borrowed from pagan belief systems?
And yet I debunked your debunk.
See, I am convinced anything written that sheds a dark pall on any Catholic practice or belief- you will simply label anti-Catholic and dismiss.

Show me the empirical standards used to determine who is a "credible" historical scholar. Other wise you are just blowing verbal methane to scream loudly in hopes of drowning out things the Catholics have done that are heretical . If you were a Baptist (as I) I could list things Baptists have done or believe that are heretical. Same with every sect of Christendom. but this is a site for catholicism so we focus on that.

I've done BETTER than that - I've destroyed your main point regarding Semiramis and Nimrod, who NEVER even meant.
And to show you another asinine Hislop blunder - let's discuss his manure regarding the Bishop's miter (hat).

Hislop insists that the miter was derived from "Dagon worship" - Dagon, being a fish-god. The Bishop’s miter didn’t develop into its present form until the late Middle Ages – which is LONG after all of the “Dagon worshippers” were all dead and gone. Before that, it was a shorter version.

Dagon worshippers also forbade the eating of fish, which is something the Catholic Church has NEVER done. In fact, we’ve been accused by you anti-Catholics for eating TOO MUCH fish during Lent and that the Church had a financial interest in the fish industry. Another asinine and unsubstantiated charge . . .

Your confusion stems from the fact that you are ignorant of the customs and practices of Early Christianity.

Next time you’re driving on the freeway, pay attention to some of the cars with the Christian “Fish” symbol on the back. This symbol is an ancient CHRISTIAN symbol for Christ called. “ICHTHUS”. The letters inside the fish are the Greek letters which are the initials of the words I (ēsous) Ch (ristos) th (eou) hy(ios) s (ōtēr) meaning “Jesus Christ Son of God Savior”.

The fact that some ancient pagan culture did something first doesn’t mean that it was “adopted” by a later culture. They just happen to use the same symbol for different things.

Case in point – the Protestant “altar call”. An altar is a place of sacrifice – and Protestants reject the idea of sacrificing anything to God on an altar. Are they “adopting” Catholic doctrine – or does it have a different meaning??

Another example is the wedding ring, which has roots in paganism. Were YOU parttaking in “pagan worship” when you slipped a ring on your wife’s finger??

So, the next time you feel the need to post something as unfounded as this ridiculous charge – do your homework instead of posting this kind of ignorant nonsense . . .

 

[Ronald Nolette]

I'm not chasing around. You claim something You provide evidence.

look up post 208 there is your evidence.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

This is a discussion forum. Not a cinema.
If you have a point then make it and provide evidence.

Nice cop out! tghis also isn't a place to cut and paste from secular encyclopedias either if it is a discussion forum. If you don't wish to look at teh links then so be it. that is on you.