Intriguing Article on How Protestants Handle Mary

[HammerStone]

http://www.firstthings.com/article/2013/10/our-lady-of-wheaton

I find myself in agreement with this article. We Protestants make too little of Mary, but the Catholics too much.

 

[rockytopva]

I believe that the churches are seven...

1.Ephesus – Apostolic – Leaving the first love… “All they which are in Asia be turned away from me…” – II Timothy 1:15
2.Smyrna – Martyrs – Persecutions ten days… Foxes Book of Martyrs describes ten Roman persecutions.
3.Pergamos – Orthodox – A pyrgos is a fortified structure – Needed for the dark ages.
4.Thyatira – Catholic – The Spirit of Jezebel is to persecute, control, and to dominate. This spirit can invade any church!
5.Sardis – Protestant – A sardius is a gem, elegant yet hard and rigid. Doctrine in the head, little in the heart.
6.Philadelphia – Methodist – To obtain sanctification was to do so with love.
7.Laodicea – Charismatic – Rich and increased with goods and have need of nothing?

I hold to the position that Catholics are on equal ground with all the other churches. We have our issues, they have theirs. We have our unique virtues, they have their unique virtues. I think that they do mass much better than we 'protestants' for example, I would be tempted to visit them for communion if it were opened. I also like their government structure. As Mary is Christ's mother I worry that I would do a wrong talking about a man's mother, especially when his name is Jesus. But I find no scriptural justification for praying to Mary or any of the other saints. I also think that the Papal succession thing is just an excuse for control and domination. I worry that Catholics will find this board 'overly protestant.' In which I wouldn't think so. As I recognize them as a Christian part of the church, I do not recognize them as the Christian church.

It would never be my intention to purposely run away a Catholic any more than I could run away a brother from a family cook out. But it should be understood that we will have our differences in point of view from time to time. And the issue of the reverence of the Holy Mother is one of them!

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

http://www.firstthings.com/article/2013/10/our-lady-of-wheaton

I find myself in agreement with this article. We Protestants make too little of Mary, but the Catholics too much.

I find that in most debates, truth is one of the "extremes" not the middle. Some people instinctively seek the middle ground, hoping to seem diplomatic and in a quest for compromise. But I've found that just as the un-aimed arrow never misses, so too does the middle ground on any issue never fail to be in error. Take evolution for example. On one side you have atheists claiming there is no God and evolution provides an alternate explanation for our origin. Then you have people of faith who claim there is a God and he is the author of all creation. Then you have the "middle grounders" who don't like all the fighting and seek peace through an explanation that incorporates parts of both arguments. They'll say, "Why can't it be that God used evolution as a means to create life?" This is an example of the mean point between two arguments being more certainly wrong than either extreme.

To your point, it isn't about the quantity of focus on Mary as an historical figure still playing an active role in the Christian church, it's about considering that one side of this issue can be entirely right and the other wrong. Middle grounders instinctively reject the possibility that one side can be right because that means by necessity that claims in opposition are wrong and Middle grounders, peace seekers that they are, don't want anyone to be wrong. But the only position that can be guaranteed incorrect is the position that tries to situate itself equally between opposing arguments.

Mary is too broad a subject to be covered with one thread. Should we discuss Mary's perpetual virginity? Her immaculate conception? Her ongoing intercessorship on behalf of the saints? Her title as Queen of Angels and Saints? The Assumption? The meaning of "co-redemptrix?" Which one of these are Catholics making too much of Mary, or are they all? How about the fact that Mary's prophesy that "every generation shall call me blessed" has been carried out faithfully by the Catholic Church while Protestants think of her as little more than an incubator, giving birth to Jesus and then being discarded like a dried out chrysalis? At what point are Protestants caring too little for the Mother of God and at what point are Catholics caring too much?

 

[day]

Perhaps rather than specific doctrines or even specific persons, the issue should be to what degree and in what way are non-divine persons to be honored in a religion that worships only the divine.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

Perhaps rather than specific doctrines or even specific persons, the issue should be to what degree and in what way are non-divine persons to be honored in a religion that worships only the divine.

Very, very good point. Mary is not divine. She's a finite creature with a definite beginning and has no powers or attributes we associate with divinity. How much can she be honored? I compare this to the Old Testament story of the king who discovered that Queen Esther's uncle Mordecai had saved his life by exposing a plot to assassinate him. The king asked the wicked Haman how a man could be properly honored by the king. Haman, thinking the king was talking about him, suggested that such a man be honored with the best vestments, horses, and chariots, and be paraded around the city as people bowed in his presence. And so this was done to Mordecai.

I have two questions. Did the king have the right to honor this man in such a spectacular fashion. The obvious answer is yes, he is the sovereign king. The second question is, was the king's glory in any way diminished by honoring Mordecai. The answer, just as obvious, is no. It can be argued in fact that the king's glory was amplified.

In reference to Mary, we're not talking about a dutiful citizen who saved the king's life, we're talking about the Mother of the Lord, the same Lord that told us to "honor thy father and thy mother" in the commandments. We have Mary who is the subject of the oldest prophesy ever given (the seed of the woman shall crush the serpent's head) who by her very fiat became the font of salvation for the whole world, and is at the heart of the most miraculous event in all of history, God becoming man. Would this woman not be highly honored by God? And also, is God's glory in any way diminished by honoring one of his creatures in such rare a manner?

I've said time and time again that there is no competition in heaven, for God is glorified in all his angels and saints. Protestants are trained to think either/or. But the Catholic both/and thinking does not pit God against his creatures in a zero sum rivalry. The both/and thinking of Catholics is more, better, yes, and amen! It adds and does not subtract for that's the economy of heaven.

 

[justaname]

Very, very good point. Mary is not divine. She's a finite creature with a definite beginning and has no powers or attributes we associate with divinity. How much can she be honored? I compare this to the Old Testament story of the king who discovered that Queen Esther's uncle Mordecai had saved his life by exposing a plot to assassinate him. The king asked the wicked Haman how a man could be properly honored by the king. Haman, thinking the king was talking about him, suggested that such a man be honored with the best vestments, horses, and chariots, and be paraded around the city as people bowed in his presence. And so this was done to Mordecai.

I have two questions. Did the king have the right to honor this man in such a spectacular fashion. The obvious answer is yes, he is the sovereign king. The second question is, was the king's glory in any way diminished by honoring Mordecai. The answer, just as obvious, is no. It can be argued in fact that the king's glory was amplified.

In reference to Mary, we're not talking about a dutiful citizen who saved the king's life, we're talking about the Mother of the Lord, the same Lord that told us to "honor thy father and thy mother" in the commandments. We have Mary who is the subject of the oldest prophesy ever given (the seed of the woman shall crush the serpent's head) who by her very fiat became the font of salvation for the whole world, and is at the heart of the most miraculous event in all of history, God becoming man. Would this woman not be highly honored by God? And also, is God's glory in any way diminished by honoring one of his creatures in such rare a manner?

I've said time and time again that there is no competition in heaven, for God is glorified in all his angels and saints. Protestants are trained to think either/or. But the Catholic both/and thinking does not pit God against his creatures in a zero sum rivalry. The both/and thinking of Catholics is more, better, yes, and amen! It adds and does not subtract for that's the economy of heaven.

I love your Esther comparison!

You ask "Would this woman not be highly honored by God?"
I ask, was she not highly honored by God?

You say "I've said time and time again that there is no competition in heaven"
I say, then lets not compete here amongst brothers. There is only one body that is Christ's; not a Protestant Christ and a Catholic Christ. You make a claim then break it in the same breath. Does not our Lord say your will Father on earth as it is in heaven?

 

[aspen]

honoring Mary is honoring God for the redemption of humanity

 

[Webers_Home]

.
I'm going to deliberately misquote Mary's cousin Elizabeth in order to
bring out something important not so much to the average rank and file
pew warmer; but to Jesus' Jewish countrymen. Watch for the revision.

†. Luke 1:43 . . But why am I so favored, that the mother of my God should
come to me?

No; she didn't say "God" she said "Lord" which is translated from the koiné
Greek word kurios (koo'-ree-os) which is an ambiguous word; viz: it has
more than one meaning depending upon the context. Most of the time it
simply means Master or Superior; for example 1Pet 3:16 where it's stated
that Sara regarded her husband Abraham as her kurios. (cf. Gen 18:12)

In other words; Elizabeth wasn't expecting Mary to give birth to God; but
rather to a man of the Davidic dynasty destined to rule Israel; which is
exactly why it was appropriate for a Spirit-filled Jewish Elizabeth to refer to
Mary's baby as her lord rather than her God.

†. Luke 1:32-33 . .The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David,
and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never
end.

Buen Camino
/

 

[Selene]

.
I'm going to deliberately misquote Mary's cousin Elizabeth in order to
bring out something important not so much to the average rank and file
pew warmer; but to Jesus' Jewish countrymen. Watch for the revision.

†. Luke 1:43 . . But why am I so favored, that the mother of my God should
come to me?

No; she didn't say "God" she said "Lord" which is translated from the koiné
Greek word kurios (koo'-ree-os) which is an ambiguous word; viz: it has
more than one meaning depending upon the context. Most of the time it
simply means Master or Superior; for example 1Pet 3:16 where it's stated
that Sara regarded her husband Abraham as her kurios. (cf. Gen 18:12)

In other words; Elizabeth wasn't expecting Mary to give birth to God; but
rather to a man of the Davidic dynasty destined to rule Israel; which is
exactly why it was appropriate for a Spirit-filled Jewish Elizabeth to refer to
Mary's baby as her lord rather than her God.

†. Luke 1:32-33 . .The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David,
and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never
end.

Buen Camino
/

And we know that Jesus is both "Lord" and "God".....just as St. Thomas said (John 20:28) to Him.

 

[day]

Very, very good point. Mary is not divine. She's a finite creature with a definite beginning and has no powers or attributes we associate with divinity. How much can she be honored?

God alone can hear and answer prayer. It requires divine attributes. Praying to Mary (or any other person who has left this earth) is assigning to them divine attributes. God has said that He will not give his glory to another (Isaiah 48:11). Provider, Healer, Comforter, Intercessor are all titles he has taken as his own. Giving them to Mary is wrong.

She should be honored like Abraham. Like him she believed God could do the impossible, and I believe that like him, her faith was credited to her as righteousness (sins blotted out at that moment and in her case this absence of sin lasted until after the birth of Jesus). But even more than Abraham, she had to trust herself to God's provision that she would not disgrace her family, loose her betrothed, and be stoned to death for pregnancy outside marriage. Her faith was equal to Abraham's, her trust greater. Through both of them all peoples have been blessed. They deserve our gratitude and our emulation.

As you can probably tell, I do not believe in the Immaculate Conception, or perpetual virginity of Mary. And I cannot accept titles like Queen of Heaven, Mother of God, or Co-Redemtrix. The Assumption I can accept as more probable than not (understood as natural death, then a resurrection and assumption into heaven).

 

[Webers_Home]

And we know that Jesus is both "Lord" and "God".....just as St. Thomas
said (John 20:28) to Him.

I'm curious who the "we" are for whom you presume to speak.

Anyway; within the context of Luke 1:26-33 and Luke 1:41-43, Jesus is
a human being born for the express purpose of taking David's throne.

When the angel spoke to Mary, he spoke as a messenger of God; and when
Elizabeth spoke, she spoke as a messenger of The Spirit. So then, you do
what you want, that's up to you; but I'm going to listen to the angel that
spoke for God, and I'm going to listen to the Elizabeth that spoke for The
Spirit. In other words; I will never, ever be dumb enough to use Luke 1:43
as a proof text of Jesus' divinity because it's too easy to refute.

And as for Thomas' statement at John 20:28, you really ought to compare
his to Paul's at 1Cor 8:6 where he stated that there is but one God, and one
Lord before succumbing to a knee-jerk reflex over Thomas' remark.

I'm going to deliberately misquote Thomas in order to bring out an
important point of language and grammar. Watch for the revision.

"Thomas said to him: You are my Lord and my God!"

Thomas didn't say "you are" which leaves his remark wide open to debate
as to whom he was speaking and/or about whom he was speaking. In other
words: John 20:28 is yet another passage that I will never, ever be dumb
enough to employ as a proof text of Jesus' divinity because it's too easy to
refute.

Unknown to quite a number of rank and file pew warmers; Jesus wasn't God
while he was here. According to Dan 7:13-14, Acts 1:9, and Php 2:6-11
Jesus was promoted to the rank of God after his ascension. Obtaining the
rank of God by means of promotion was necessary because Jesus descended
from Adam; who himself was a created being; which of course makes Jesus
a created being just like the rest of us. In other words: creatures are by
nature non-divine.

That seems to me a very simple, straight-forward concept; but knee-jerk
Trinitarians have somehow managed to leap over Jesus' humanity, and
go directly to his divinity; the meanwhile mouthing their belief that Jesus
is fully God and fully Man. In reality, they only believe he's fully God.

Buen Camino
/

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

And we know that Jesus is both "Lord" and "God".....just as St. Thomas said (John 20:28) to Him.

Some people here don't believe that Jesus was divine.

God alone can hear and answer prayer. It requires divine attributes. Praying to Mary (or any other person who has left this earth) is assigning to them divine attributes. God has said that He will not give his glory to another (Isaiah 48:11). Provider, Healer, Comforter, Intercessor are all titles he has taken as his own. Giving them to Mary is wrong.

She should be honored like Abraham. Like him she believed God could do the impossible, and I believe that like him, her faith was credited to her as righteousness (sins blotted out at that moment and in her case this absence of sin lasted until after the birth of Jesus). But even more than Abraham, she had to trust herself to God's provision that she would not disgrace her family, loose her betrothed, and be stoned to death for pregnancy outside marriage. Her faith was equal to Abraham's, her trust greater. Through both of them all peoples have been blessed. They deserve our gratitude and our emulation.

As you can probably tell, I do not believe in the Immaculate Conception, or perpetual virginity of Mary. And I cannot accept titles like Queen of Heaven, Mother of God, or Co-Redemtrix. The Assumption I can accept as more probable than not (understood as natural death, then a resurrection and assumption into heaven).

Of all the issues that Protestants have with Mary, it always seems to be that she's prayed to that leaves all others in the dust. I understand this. It's because it goes right to the heart of the Protestant either/or versus the Catholic both/and thinking. Protestants believe that one prays to Mary or any saint in lieu of praying to God, but Catholics don't believe that. A prayer to Mary is not subtracted from a prayer to God, it's added. I'm not trying to convince you that you're wrong, I'm trying to define the debate and where our difference in thinking comes to play.

In Revelation, the prayers of the saints are brought before the throne of God by the elders in golden bowls of incense. It doesn't mean that our prayers don't go directly to the Almighty, it does mean that others can be involved in the process. Where I differ from my Protestant brethren is in the thinking that WE are charged with the duty to make sure that God alone is glorified, that somehow if we fail in that duty, somebody else will be glorified instead. It does sound absurd when it's spelled out like that, but that's the summary of Protestant thinking on this. I've gone to Protestant services where the pastor says, "Don't touch the glory!" The underlying premise is that we have the ability to interfere in the economy of heaven by which God is glorified in all his angels and saints and by all creation; that we can become agents or disruptors of this process.

Being Catholic is accepting that we cannot take anything away from God, for all honor, all glory, and all praise are directed at Him. The reason I used the analogy of Esther's uncle Mordecai is because all the praise and honor showered on Mordecai did not subtract from the glory of the king in any way. It was the king who sovereignly exalted Mordecai for special honor and it was the king who was truly glorified by doing this. We are powerless to repurpose glory that belongs to God. We simply cannot do it.

But where I really am at odds with Protestant thinking is the assumption that Mary is just like any other woman. It goes against the commandment which say we are to honor our father and our mother; that they are not in our eyes no different than any other man or woman. Was Jesus born of Mary and grow up to say, "Thanks, now get lost"? Far from it! In fact it can't be dismissed that when Jesus was on the cross he told John his disciple, "Behold your mother." Simple logic informs us that if we are the brethren of Christ, then Mary is our mother just as she was the mother of Christ; and if Mary is our mother, then she is allotted honor as our mother. The flaw in Protestant piety is thinking that showing honor to the Mother of God is subtracting honor from God himself. Quite the opposite!

Mary is not a supplanter, nor is it possible to have a supplanter in heaven, for the economy of heaven dictates that God is honored and glorified in everything. And there's nothing you and I can do to add or subtract from that.

 

[justaname]

I'm curious who the "we" are for whom you presume to speak.

Anyway; within the context of Luke 1:26-33 and Luke 1:41-43, Jesus is
a human being born for the express purpose of taking David's throne.

When the angel spoke to Mary, he spoke as a messenger of God; and when
Elizabeth spoke, she spoke as a messenger of The Spirit. So then, you do
what you want, that's up to you; but I'm going to listen to the angel that
spoke for God, and I'm going to listen to the Elizabeth that spoke for The
Spirit. In other words; I will never, ever be dumb enough to use Luke 1:43
as a proof text of Jesus' divinity because it's too easy to refute.

And as for Thomas' statement at John 20:28, you really ought to compare
his to Paul's at 1Cor 8:6 where he stated that there is but one God, and one
Lord before succumbing to a knee-jerk reflex over Thomas' remark.

I'm going to deliberately misquote Thomas in order to bring out an
important point of language and grammar. Watch for the revision.

"Thomas said to him: You are my Lord and my God!"

Thomas didn't say "you are" which leaves his remark wide open to debate
as to whom he was speaking and/or about whom he was speaking. In other
words: John 20:28 is yet another passage that I will never, ever be dumb
enough to employ as a proof text of Jesus' divinity because it's too easy to
refute.

Unknown to quite a number of rank and file pew warmers; Jesus wasn't God
while he was here. According to Dan 7:13-14, Acts 1:9, and Php 2:6-11
Jesus was promoted to the rank of God after his ascension. Obtaining the
rank of God by means of promotion was necessary because Jesus descended
from Adam; who himself was a created being; which of course makes Jesus
a created being just like the rest of us. In other words: creatures are by
nature non-divine.

That seems to me a very simple, straight-forward concept; but knee-jerk
Trinitarians have somehow managed to leap over Jesus' humanity, and
go directly to his divinity; the meanwhile mouthing their belief that Jesus
is fully God and fully Man. In reality, they only believe he's fully God.

Buen Camino
/

John 1:1-5
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was in the beginning with God.
3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.
4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men.
5 The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

The Lord of Hosts is the Word. God gave His own Word that men might have life. The divine Word became flesh, giving a beginning to said flesh, yet the divine Word was/is/and will always be the Eternal Father. This is the Light that shines into the darkness. That which is spoken into being is all things. This Word is God, the man Yeshewa Mashiach.

John 14:9
9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?
10 “Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works.
11 “Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me; otherwise believe because of the works themselves.


And then this before the ascension, from the context of Matthew.
Matthew 14:33
33 And those who were in the boat worshiped Him, saying, “You are certainly God’s Son!”

First the point of worship. None can accept the LORD's worship except the divine. Second, can the divine beget anything but divinity? Yes Jesus is the only begotten Son of God, for He was divine from before the foundations of the world. Through Him all things came into being, thereby He is the Creator. Who is the Creator except God?

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

I've found a long time ago that I can't contend with people who deny the Trinity and the divinity of Christ. The Church settled this issue once and for all before the 3rd century and I just don't feel obligated to take up battles that have been settled many centuries ago because some non Christian cults breath new life into old discarded heresies. Similarly, I can't contend with people who try to argue the validity of gnostic gospels and other works that the canonical councils rejected in the 4th century. These people are to me as lost as any other unbeliever, needing the light of Christ in their life to spring them from darkness. I'm not going to feign Christian fellowship with people who reject such foundational Christian beliefs. I just can't do it.

 

[aspen]

i feel the same way about the true nature of God as Trinity. it is core of Christian belief.

 

[Webers_Home]

.
When the Word of John 1:1-14 became flesh; it didn't become divine flesh; it
became human flesh-- in point of fact: it became Jewish human flesh, made
not of God, but of the seed of David (Rom 1:3) and born into the tribe of
Judah (Heb 7:14). Since the earthly Jesus was made of the seed of David,
then that makes him by nature the seed of Adam: a creature manufactured
from the earth's dust.

It fascinates me how people forget (or just simply choose to ignore) some of
the simplest information about Jesus recorded in the Bible; and invent for
themselves a fantasy Jesus: one that never lived. Take for example the old
wives' tale that Jesus didn't have a biological father therefore he isn't
biologically related to Adam. That is one of the easiest of the fantasies to
refute. All you have to do is go all the way back to the origin of the human
race.

Eve wasn't manufactured from the earth's dust; but from already-existing
human tissue samples amputated from Adam's own body. Therefore, Eve
was just as much Adam as Adam except for gender.

†. Gen 2:23 . . And Adam said: This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of
my flesh because she was taken out of Man.

Note: the English word "Man" was translated from the very same Hebrew
word translated Adam)

Since Eve was just as much Adam as Adam, then her creator was 100%
literal when He labeled both her and her husband Adam.

†. Gen 5:2 . . Male and female created He them; and blessed them, and
called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

So then, any child that Eve might produce; whether a natural-born child or
a virgin-born child; would be just as much Adam as Adam because Eve was
just as much Adam as Adam.

Now unless people somehow think that Jesus' mom Mary popped out of a
rock, then since Mary descends from Eve (Gen 3:20) then Mary was just as
much Adam as Adam too; ergo: any child Mary might produce would be just
as much Adam as Adam. That's simple genetics.

The sad fact is that the average rank and file pew warmer is poorly-trained
in the first few chapters of Genesis, and content to be ignorant due to
indifference. In other words; they don't care to be disturbed, and prefer to
coast along on the rather childish defense that "If my church believes this or
that; then this or that is what I believe too."

†. Luke 6:39 . . Can the blind lead the blind? shall they not both fall into the
ditch?

Let me tell you: if your church should end up in hell due to its beliefs; then
those trusting in its beliefs will end up in hell too; like lambs following a
Judas goat to the slaughter.

Buen Camino
/

 

[aspen]

My niece takes the same approach towards complex issues - 'it's quite simple' she likes to say, when face with a problem that has confounded mankind for centuries. In her defense, she is 10 years old, with her feet solidly planted in the concrete-operational stage. In your case, Weber, I am wondering, what makes you believe that you are smarter or more enlightened than all the Orthodox Church fathers and great thinkers who thought about and prayer to the Triune God of the Bible for the past 2,000 years?

 

[Selene]

Some people here don't believe that Jesus was divine.

I agree. And that was the reason why Mary was called the "Mother of God." It was to reinforce the belief that Jesus is God. It was really never about Mary, but about her Son. Christ is 100% man and 100% God.

God alone can hear and answer prayer. It requires divine attributes. Praying to Mary (or any other person who has left this earth) is assigning to them divine attributes. God has said that He will not give his glory to another (Isaiah 48:11). Provider, Healer, Comforter, Intercessor are all titles he has taken as his own. Giving them to Mary is wrong.

She should be honored like Abraham. Like him she believed God could do the impossible, and I believe that like him, her faith was credited to her as righteousness (sins blotted out at that moment and in her case this absence of sin lasted until after the birth of Jesus). But even more than Abraham, she had to trust herself to God's provision that she would not disgrace her family, loose her betrothed, and be stoned to death for pregnancy outside marriage. Her faith was equal to Abraham's, her trust greater. Through both of them all peoples have been blessed. They deserve our gratitude and our emulation.

As you can probably tell, I do not believe in the Immaculate Conception, or perpetual virginity of Mary. And I cannot accept titles like Queen of Heaven, Mother of God, or Co-Redemtrix. The Assumption I can accept as more probable than not (understood as natural death, then a resurrection and assumption into heaven).

To add on to Vale's post, the Bible says that we can pray for one another (James 5:16). When one prays for another, it is basically because they love the other. Christ commanded us to love one another. This command does not stop at death.

Christians are the "Body of Christ" and when a Christian dies, they are still part of the "Body of Christ." Being the "Body of Christ" means that we are one with Christ and one with each other. Death does not separate us from Christ (Romans 8:38-39) nor from our brothers and sisters in Heaven. Catholics consider themselves one with Christ and with the entire Kingdom of God because Christ and His kingdom are not separate. If we can ask those on earth to pray for us, then we can also ask those in Heaven to pray for us as well because there is only one Body of Christ. The entire mystical body of Christ includes the Christians on earth and those in Heaven. This is Catholic belief.

 

[justaname]

.
When the Word of John 1:1-14 became flesh; it didn't become divine flesh; it
became human flesh-- in point of fact: it became Jewish human flesh, made
not of God, but of the seed of David (Rom 1:3) and born into the tribe of
Judah (Heb 7:14). Since the earthly Jesus was made of the seed of David,
then that makes him by nature the seed of Adam: a creature manufactured
from the earth's dust.

It fascinates me how people forget (or just simply choose to ignore) some of
the simplest information about Jesus recorded in the Bible; and invent for
themselves a fantasy Jesus: one that never lived. Take for example the old
wives' tale that Jesus didn't have a biological father therefore he isn't
biologically related to Adam. That is one of the easiest of the fantasies to
refute. All you have to do is go all the way back to the origin of the human
race.

Eve wasn't manufactured from the earth's dust; but from already-existing
human tissue samples amputated from Adam's own body. Therefore, Eve
was just as much Adam as Adam except for gender.

†. Gen 2:23 . . And Adam said: This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of
my flesh because she was taken out of Man.

Note: the English word "Man" was translated from the very same Hebrew
word translated Adam)

Since Eve was just as much Adam as Adam, then her creator was 100%
literal when He labeled both her and her husband Adam.

†. Gen 5:2 . . Male and female created He them; and blessed them, and
called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

So then, any child that Eve might produce; whether a natural-born child or
a virgin-born child; would be just as much Adam as Adam because Eve was
just as much Adam as Adam.

Now unless people somehow think that Jesus' mom Mary popped out of a
rock, then since Mary descends from Eve (Gen 3:20) then Mary was just as
much Adam as Adam too; ergo: any child Mary might produce would be just
as much Adam as Adam. That's simple genetics.

The sad fact is that the average rank and file pew warmer is poorly-trained
in the first few chapters of Genesis, and content to be ignorant due to
indifference. In other words; they don't care to be disturbed, and prefer to
coast along on the rather childish defense that "If my church believes this or
that; then this or that is what I believe too."

†. Luke 6:39 . . Can the blind lead the blind? shall they not both fall into the
ditch?

Let me tell you: if your church should end up in hell due to its beliefs; then
those trusting in its beliefs will end up in hell too; like lambs following a
Judas goat to the slaughter.

Buen Camino
/

As to your straw man argument I do not deny Jesus is the seed of the woman and in the line of Adam.

Genesis 3:15
15 And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her seed;
He shall bruise you on the head,
And you shall bruise him on the heel.”

Yet this does not deny His divinity.

Colossians 2:9
9 For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form,

Ben Adam, Ben Elohim, Yeshua Yahweh

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

This thread's been successfully derailed by a member of a non Christian cult.