tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-64920191586057524412023-11-16T02:37:11.671-08:00Redemption in Christ AloneAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05691278945044347095noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6492019158605752441.post-39952710877836974312015-09-10T19:34:00.000-07:002015-09-10T19:45:55.773-07:00The Five Things Calvinism Does Not Say (Part 1)<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
I will be using the Westminster
Confession of Faith as a standard of reference for representing Calvinism
accurately. The Westminster Confession is by far the most predominant
confessional statement of Calvinist theology in the Western world. With that
established, I now present to you the Five things that most non-Calvinists
assert about Calvinism, but which Calvinism does not teach. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<b>1. Calvinism does not deny that we have free will.</b><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The Westminster Confession has an entire chapter named “Of
Free Will”. Here is the first complete section of that chapter:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty,
that it is neither forced, nor, byany absolute necessity of nature, determined
to good, or evil. (WCF 9.1)</blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
That’s as clear as you’ll ever get to the affirmation of
free will. There’s also a chapter on God’s providential guiding of His creation
earlier in the Confession in which the authors again affirm their belief in fee
will:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy
counsel of his own will, freely, and
unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God
the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is
the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.
(WCF 3.1)</blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
When the Confession refers to
“second causes”, human will is included in that category. Yet, asserting the
liberty of “second causes” in general wasn’t enough for the authors of this
Confession. They also insisted that in God’s providential control of events
there is no “violence offered to the will of the creatures”. Section 3.1 of
this Confession is not exclusive to Calvinism. The belief that God ordains
everything that comes to pass is just Theism. Every Christian theological
tradition agrees on this point. The differences come about when one confronts
the following questions, like the relationship between God’s ordaining of
events and his foreknowledge of them.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Now, a
lot more can be said about this topic, but that aside, the important point is
that Calvinism clearly and unambiguously asserts that we have free will. If
this is true, then why do so many people think Calvinism denies free will? <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Today,
the phrase “free will” refers to moral responsibility. When one says people
have free will, one means that they are not merely puppets of exterior natural
forces such as one’s heredity and environment; one is in control of one’s own
choices and is morally responsible for them. In modern-day language, the
opposite of “free will” is “determined will”, that is to say, a will whose
actions are naturally determined by things outside itself.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
However,
in the 16<sup>th</sup> century, when the Reformation first began, one of the
central debates was over “free will” in a completely different sense. Back
then, then question was whether the will is, by nature, enslaved by sin and in
captivity to Satan. In this context, the opposite of “free” is not “determined”
but “enslaved”. Believing in “free will” meant believing that human beings are
not born as slaves of Satan. Denying “free will” meant believing that they are.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Erasmus,
one of Luther’s most insightful and influential critic, reinforced this use of
the term “free will” in his book <i>The
Freedom of the Will</i>. Erasmus reasoned that the crucial issue between Luther
and Rome was whether we are born as slaves of Satan or born free to choose
whether to serve God or Satan. Luther strongly agreed that this was in fact the
crucial issue. He praised Erasmus for being the only proponent of Rome smart
enough to comprehend this. Luther then replied to Erasmus’s book in his own
book entitled <i>The Slavery of the Will</i>.
Later, Calvin picked up on this theme, taking Luther’s position and entitled
his own book on the subject <i>The Slavery
and Liberation of the Will</i>. Denying “free will” in this particular sense
was one of the earliest defining positions of both Lutheran and Calvinistic
theology. It was an important element of the Protestant view.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In these
debates, no one was questioning that the will is “free” in the sense of
self-controlled and morally responsible, as opposed to being determined by
exterior forces. Everybody agreed that one has “free will” in this sense, but
they didn’t call it “free will” because that phrase had a different meaning for
them. Even Calvin called the slavery of the will to Satan “voluntary slavery”.
Fallen man is a slave of Satan precisely because, when given a choice, he
always chooses to love sin more than God. It is his own voluntary choice (his
exercise of “free will” in the modern sense) that keeps him a slave to Satan
(thus lacking “free will” in the 16<sup>th</sup> century sense).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Furthermore,
in the <i>Institutes of the Christian
Religion</i>, his theological masterwork, Calvin departs from his criticism of
“free will” to make this very point. He notes that the term “free will” could
also be used to refer to a morally responsible will that is not naturally determined
by forces such as heredity and environment, and he says if “free will” means
that, then he agrees that one has “free will”. Yet, he goes on to argue, that’s
not what most people (at least in his day and age) would understand that term to mean, so it would be misleading for him to use it in that manner.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The
problem is that Calvinists who study the 16<sup>th</sup> century debates
frequently use its terms into the discussions and debates of today without
adjusting for the change in meaning. Now, it’s natural and right for scholarly
study of these theological issues to be molded by the great books that were
written during the 16<sup>th</sup> century Reformation debate. And yet, many
times we don’t contemplate carefully enough how those books continue to form
the English language, especially when one talks to an audience of people who
don’t read 16<sup>th</sup> century books on a normal basis. And now a days, the
term “free will” has a completely different meaning from the one it had in
the context of the 16<sup>th</sup> century Reformation debate.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
Calvin
said that he used the phrase “free will” the way he did because he desired not
to cause a misunderstanding. But now a days when one uses it that same way,
misunderstanding is precisely what one creates. One would do better to imitate
Calvin in his desire to avoid misunderstanding rather than in his particular
lexicographical choices.<o:p></o:p></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05691278945044347095noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6492019158605752441.post-6749458939630442342015-09-07T09:13:00.002-07:002015-09-07T09:43:16.284-07:00JUSTIFICATION<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="text-align: left; width: 700px;"><tbody>
<tr><td height="60" valign="top"><table border="0" cellpadding="9" cellspacing="0" style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 10pt; width: 100%px;"><tbody>
<tr><td width="100%">The Bible’s teaching on justification is the very core of the gospel message because it<br />
answers the all-important question of how a sinner can become right with God.<br />
<br />
What is justification? Though the meaning of the word ‘justification’ may not be very<br />
familiar because we do not often use it in everyday speech, the concept is quite simple<br />
to understand. Justification is a legal term. It is the sentence pronounced by the judge<br />
in favour of the accused. To justify means to declare righteous, to pronounce not<br />
guilty. The justified person is freed from all punishment of the law. The opposite of<br />
justification, as one may suppose, is condemnation: the sentence meted against<br />
the accused when the judge declares him to be guilty, a law-breaker, and deserving<br />
punishment. The judge’s role, then, is to condemn the unrighteous and to justify the<br />
righteous (Deut 25:1; Prov 17:15). <br />
<br />
God would have justified us if we had been righteous. In that case we would not have<br />
needed a Saviour because Christ did not come to call the righteous, but sinners. In<br />
reality we have all sinned, having broken the law of God. We are born sinners and<br />
throughout our lives we continued to pile up guilt upon guilt. ‘Now we know that<br />
whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may<br />
be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God’ (Rom 3:19). God’s<br />
just sentence is our condemnation because we are all guilty; we are all worthy of the<br />
punishment of hell. <br />
<br />
Since the Lord abhors him ‘who justifies the wicked’ how then can we ever escape<br />
divine judgment? It is precisely here that the gospel of God’s grace shines forth in all<br />
its splendour: God has revealed a way – the only way – whereby he himself may still<br />
be just and at the same time justify the wicked! <br />
<br />
There are two aspects to justification: negatively, God cancels out the sin record of<br />
the believer. ‘Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are<br />
covered; blessed is the man to whom the LORD shall not impute sin.’ God does not<br />
impute sin, that is, he does not count the believer’s sins against him any longer.<br />
Positively, ‘God imputes righteousness apart from works’ (Romans 4:6-8). In other<br />
words, God counts and considers the believer as righteous! God imputes, or credits,<br />
righteousness to his account. <br />
<br />
At this point we must ask two important questions: (1) How is the blessing of<br />
justification received? (2) How can God justify a sinner without violating his own<br />
justice and holiness?<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Faith Alone </b></div>
<br />
How is a sinner justified? A person is justified by faith, by trusting in the Lord Jesus<br />
Christ. Faith is the hand that receives God’s gift of righteousness. <br />
<br />
God does not justify the believer because of any personal righteousness that he has<br />
attained by obedience to God’s law. Scripture speaks unequivocally: ‘Therefore we<br />
conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law’ (Rom 3:28).<br />
‘Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus<br />
Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in<br />
Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be<br />
justified’ (Gal 2:16). ‘But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is<br />
evident, for ‘the just shall live by faith’’ (Gal 3:11). <br />
<br />
Man is justified by faith alone, that is, without any merit accruing from what he does<br />
during his lifetime. This does not imply that faith is alone or barren in the justified<br />
person. A true and living faith is always shown by the good works it produces, but<br />
the Christian does not perform good works in order to be justified before God, neither<br />
is he justified on account of his good deeds.<br />
<br />
‘But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his<br />
faith is accounted for righteousness’ (Rom 4:5). God justifies the ungodly! He does<br />
not say, ‘God justifies the righteous.’ That would have been perfectly understandable<br />
and just - and it would have spelled despair to all of us sinners. He does not even say,<br />
‘God justifies the ungodly when he converts and starts doing good works.’ Paul<br />
insists that it is him ‘who does not work’ but ‘believes’ that God accounts as righteous.<br />
God justifies the ungodly by faith alone. <br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Christ Alone </b></div>
<br />
We now come to the second question. How can God justify a sinner without violating<br />
his own justice and holiness? How is it possible for God, who is holy and just, not to<br />
reckon sin? Can God be lax about it, or simply ignore it? How can he ‘credit<br />
righteousness’ to the believer if the believer does not work to gain it? What<br />
righteousness is this on account of which God accepts sinners? In a word, the answer<br />
is Jesus! <br />
<br />
The Bible explains how those who believe in Jesus are ‘justified freely by His grace<br />
through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by<br />
His blood, through faith … to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that<br />
He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus’ (Rom 3:24-26). <br />
<br />
God can be gracious towards sinners because of ‘the redemption that is in Christ Jesus’.<br />
Jesus bought our freedom by shedding his blood on the cross. In Christ ‘we have<br />
redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins’ (Eph 1:7). We were indebted to<br />
God’s justice; Jesus paid our debt in full. Our debt was cancelled. <br />
<br />
God presented Jesus as a propitiation. The word ‘propitiation’ means to placate, to<br />
pacify, and to appease. God is offended and angered by sin. ‘The wrath of God is<br />
revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men’ (Rom 1:18).<br />
Jesus turned aside God's wrath against us who believe because he shed his blood on<br />
the cross as a sacrifice for sin. God is appeased because Christ fulfilled the demands<br />
of the Law.<br />
<br />
Moreover, in justification God does not only take away our sin and guilt; he also credits<br />
righteousness to our account. We are not only declared ‘not guilty’ – we are also<br />
declared ‘righteous’! Not guilty because our sins were taken away by Christ; righteous<br />
because we are clothed in Jesus’ righteousness. ‘Therefore, as through one man’s<br />
offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one<br />
Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. For<br />
as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s<br />
obedience many will be made righteous’ (Rom 5:17, 19). Adam’s sin brought down the<br />
human race with him to condemnation; Jesus’ perfect obedience to the Father merited<br />
righteousness and life for all who believe in him.<br />
<br />
In brief, God ‘made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the<br />
righteousness of God in Him’ (2 Cor 5:21). Christ, the Lamb without spot or blemish,<br />
was made ‘sin for us’ – and suffered and died to satisfy divine justice. Furthermore,<br />
we have been made righteous ‘in him’. Believers are hid in Christ; when God looks at<br />
us, he sees us perfectly righteous – indeed, as righteous as his beloved Son himself.<br />
<br />
So, God is ‘just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus’ (Rom 3:26). God<br />
graciously declares believers righteous, and in so doing he remains perfectly just -- all<br />
because of Jesus’ obedience and sacrifice on the cross. Grace and justice are gloriously<br />
displayed at the cross of Calvary. <br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Grace Alone </b></div>
<br />
Why is it that the merits of Christ for our justification are applied to us by faith alone?<br />
Why doesn’t God allow us to contribute our merits too?<br />
<br />
The Bible answers: ‘Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace’<br />
(Rom 4:16). God wants to exhibit the beauty of his grace – his unmerited favour, his<br />
goodness and kindness towards undeserving sinners. ‘Now to him who works, the<br />
wages are not counted as grace but as debt. But to him who does not work but<br />
believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness’<br />
(Rom 4:4, 5).<br />
<br />
A worker deserves his salary because he has earned it by his labour, but a servant who<br />
hates his master and steals his property doesn’t deserve anything but chastisement.<br />
What if, instead of punishment, his master forgives him and enriches him with goods?<br />
That is grace! And that is exactly what God does to sinners who believe in His Son.<br />
<br />
Justification is not the wage, or payment, for our works. It was earned for us by an<br />
infinite price – the blood of the Son of God (Rom 5:9). God justifies us freely because<br />
the price was paid by his own Son! It is God’s gift to unworthy sinners. God justifies<br />
‘freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus’ (Rom 3:24). Freely!<br />
Without any payment! Without human merit! Whoever attempts to be reconciled to God<br />
by doing good works thereby denies and refuses grace (see Rom 11:6; Gal 5:4).<br />
<br />
This evangelical truth of justification is vital for the Christian church. If we are in error<br />
here, we lose the true and only gospel of God. With all our heart, we must embrace,<br />
uphold and defend the scriptural gospel of justification by faith alone, in Christ alone,<br />
and by the pure grace of God alone.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">© Dr Joseph Mizzi. 2008. Permission is given to reproduce and distribute this article in any format </span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">provided </span><span style="font-size: x-small;">that the wording is not altered and that no fee is charged. Please include the following </span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">statement on distributed copies: Copyright Dr Joseph Mizzi. Website: www.justforcatholics.org. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">Used by permission.</span></div>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05691278945044347095noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6492019158605752441.post-64257852156363544592015-06-14T20:05:00.003-07:002015-09-07T08:48:00.859-07:00Mariolatry (Pt. 9) Refuting Catholic Arguments for Mary as Mediatrix<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Refuting Rome’s Biblical arguments for Mary as Mediatrix<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Luke 2:34-35</span></b></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In order to make the case that Mary suffered at the
base of the Cross in a saving manner regarding redemption, Catholics bring up
<b>Luke 2:34-35</b> which reads:</span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Then Simeon blessed them, and said to Mary His
mother, “Behold, this Child is destined for the fall and rising of many in
Israel, and for a sign which will be spoken against 35 (yes, a sword will
pierce through your own soul also), that the thoughts of many hearts may be
revealed.</span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Remarking on this passage, Catholics writer
Alessandro Apollonio asserts:</span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">“The Presentation of Jesus in the Temple (cf. Lk 2:22-40) further
clarifies the bases of this mediation: not only Mary’s vocation as Mother of
God, <i>but her role as Co-redemptrix</i> in the Realization of the redemptive
sacrifice which secures the ‘salvation of his people’” (Allessandro M.
Apollonio, <i>Mary Mediatrix of all Graces</i>, ed. Mark I. Miravalle, <i>Mariology:
A Guide for </i>Priests, Deacans, Seminarians, and Consecrated Persons, [Mark
I. Miravalle, S.T.D., 2008], p. 434 italics mine)</span></blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Yet the fact that Simeon prophesied that a sword
would also pierce Mary’s soul at her Son’s death is supposed evidence for
Romanists in that she had in some manner a restoring gift of supernatural life
to souls and that her faith, obedience, and hope somehow made this happen.
Anyone that reads <b>Luke 2:34-35</b> would never come up with that sort of bizarre
and shockingly bad interpretation from the passage. It’s true, Mary suffered
when she saw her Son nailed on the Cross, like any mother would suffer after
seeing her son being slaughtered on a wooden cross in such a humiliating death.
It’s true, Mary would be ached at the heart, yet to interpret from this text
that she would also have a part in the gift of salvation, the office of
salvation, etc., is entirely ridiculous.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">John 19:26-27</span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Roman Catholic Scholar Ludwigg Ott claims that
since Mary is supposedly the spiritual mother of all believers as stated in
<b>John 19:26-27</b> then consequently she helps and mediates in heaven for believers.
Supposedly this is biblical evidence for Mary as Mediatrix of all Graces and
Advocate, quote:</span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">“It [John 19:26-27] corresponds to the position of Mary as spiritual
mother of the whole of redeemed humanity that she, by her powerful
intercession, should procure for her children in needs of help all graces by
which they can attain eternal salvation” (Ludwigg Ott, <i>Fundamentals of
Catholic Dogma</i>, [TAN Books and Publishers, 1960], p. 214 brackets mine)</span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The passage being discussed reads:</span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> “When Jesus
therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said
to His mother, ‘Woman, behold your son!’ 27 Then He said to the disciple, ‘Behold
your mother!’ And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home.” (John
19:26-27)</span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Catholics erroneously deduce from this that Jesus
was identifying Mary as Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, Mediatrix, giving her a
saving office, and giving her the task of granting us eternal life. Nothing
comes close to how bizarre and ridiculous this is. Anyone reading the passage
would never come to that conclusion. The fact of the matter is Jesus entrusted
the care of Mary His mother to the Christian community surrounding Him at the
Cross. The fact of the matter is He required His followers to treat Mary in the
same manner He would have treated Mary His mother after His death. No connection
exists whatsoever to the strange Roman Catholic claims about Mary based upon
these two texts (<b>Luke 2:34-35; John 19:26-27</b>)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The passage refers to John the beloved disciple,
not the human race. Second, as D.A. Carson states, the words are:</span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">“reminiscent of legal adoption formulae” (D.A. Carson, <i>The Gospel
According to John</i>, ed. <i>The Pillar New Testament Commentary</i>, [Wm. B
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1991], p. 616)</span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Which shows that Jesus was leaving Mary in the care
of John by which John would provide for her. Not all of mankind is adopted by
John, and therefore, not all of mankind is Mary’s metaphorical child. The
context is merely concerned with John being tasked to watch over Mary when
Jesus ascended. Third, it’s crucial to point out that verse 27 states, “from
that hour that disciple took her to his own home”, which confirms the outcome
of Jesus’s words was that John cared for Mary. Hence Catholics are completely
backwards when they emphasize Mary caring John or the Church. As Carson states:</span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">“Roman Catholic exegesis has tended not so much to see Mary coming
under the care of the beloved disciple, as the reverse.” (D.A. Carson, The
Gospel According to John, ed. The Pillar New Testament Commentary, [Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1991], p. 617)</span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">As a matter of fact, this passage actually calls
into question the Catholic’s view. As A.W. Pink commented:</span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">“We surely need no stronger proof here than we have here, that Mary,
the mother of Jesus, was never meant to be honored as Divine, or to be prayed
to, Worshipped and trusted in, as the friend and patroness of sinners. Common
sense points out that she who needed the care and protection of another, was
never likely to help men and women to heaven, or to be in any sense a mediator
between God and man!” (A.W. Pink, <i>Exposition of the Gospel of John</i>,
[Zondervan, 1975], p. 1056)</span></blockquote>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Rev. 5:8</span></b><br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></b></div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Rome frequently brings up Rev. 5:8 and 8:3-4, both
of which say the same thing, as alleged evidence for saints being prayed to, as
well as them presenting these prayers to God. The passage says:</span></div>
</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">“Now when He
had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and <i>the twenty-four elders</i>
fell down before the Lamb, each having a harp, <i>and golden bowls full of
incense, which are the prayers of the saints.</i>” (Rev. 5:8; cf. 8:3-4)</span></blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Catholic writers Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch argue
from this text, saying:</span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">“The saints in heaven mediate the praises and petitions of the saints
on earth (8:3)” (Scott Hahn, Curtis Mitch, <i>Ignatius Catholic Study Bible New
Testament</i>, [Ignatius Press, 2010], p. 499)</span></blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The Catholics are at fault in twisting this
passage. <o:p></o:p>The body of facts indicate that these 24 elders do
not have prayers because <b><i>they</i></b>
were prayed to as Catholic authors propose, rather they have prayers which
people offer to God alone and they symbolically bring them to God.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 107%; margin-bottom: 8.0pt;">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 107%; margin-bottom: 8.0pt;">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 8.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The twenty-four elders clothed
in white raiment are representative of the church according to most Bible
scholars. The fact that they are in white robes in Rev. 4:4 is the church is to
be clothed in white robes, the righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ
(Rev. 7:9,13-14). They also have golden crowns on their heads representing the
various crowns that believers will receive (1 Cor. 9:24,25; 1 Thess. 2:19, 20
& Dan 12:3; James 1:12 & Rev. 2:8-11; 2 Tim. 4:8; 1 Pet. 5:1-4). Since
they have white robes and crowns of victory, this implies a conflict and
endurance that we as believers go through. In Rev. 5:9 these 24 “Elders” sing a
song of praise in which they say Christ has “redeemed us to God by Your blood
out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation”, meaning that these 24
Elders represent the whole church of God, both in the Old-Testament and in the
New-Testament state; not the ministers of the church, but rather the
representatives of the people. So in Rev 15:3, "the song of Moses, and of
the Lamb," the double constituents of the Church are implied, the Old
Testament and the New Testament. "Elders" is the very term for the
ministry both of the Old and New Testament, the Jewish and Gentile Church. Most
likely these “Elders” are the 24 Patriarchs in the line of the promised seed of
Abraham found in Genesis, but it’s not certain.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 8.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Now in Rev. 5:8, the 24 Elders
present before the Lamb of God golden bowls full of incense, which symbolically
represent the prayers of the saints. However, they are not interceding for the
saints, functioning as mediators for God's people. First, we are reminded that
there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus (1
Timothy 2:5). These elders are not praying for the saints, and this in no wise
justifies the Roman Catholic practice of praying to the saints, asking them to
pray for us. Second, the connection between prayer and incense is shown in
Psalm 141:2, “Let my prayer be set before You as incense, the lifting up of my
hands as the evening sacrifice.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 8.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In this we see how precious the
prayers of the saints are to God. He regards them as a sweet smelling incense,
as if set in precious golden bowls. Third, when comparing Rev. 5:8 with the
other references to petitionary prayers of the saints found in Rev. 6:10;
8:3-4, we come to understand that the prayers of the saints are directed
towards God Himself, and NOT to some supposed mediating saints. In Rev. 6:10,
the contents of the prayers of the saints are one of justice for their
martyrdom in which they ask God to avenge them. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">“And
they cried with a loud voice, saying, ‘How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost
thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?’”</span></span></blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In
Rev. 8:3-4, these same prayers are symbolically represented as the incense
inside the golden censers being offered on the golden altar. As the smoke of
the incense ascend to God, this symbolically represents the prayers of the
saints ascending to God. These prayers, which are directed to God, and NOT the
alleged mediating saints, are then answered through the judgments of the seven
trumpets. Hence, when one reads Rev. 5:8 in relation to Rev. 6:10; 8:3-4, we
find that there is no contextual nor exegetical grounds in this verse for
Catholics to claim that believers can offer their prayers to mediating saints.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Luke
9:21</b><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Tim Staples adduces Luke 9:21-31 as supposed proof
that Jesus prayed to the dead during His Earthly ministry. He erroneously argues:</span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">“Our Lord ascends
a mountain with Peter, James, and John. There, He is transfigured before them, and
Moses and Elijah appeared and ‘talked with him’ about his death (cf. Luke 9:30)….At
His transfiguration, Jesus prays to the saints. And aren’t Christians supposed
to imitate Christ?” (Tim Staples, <i>Nuts and Bolts</i>, [Basilica Press,
2007], p. 60)</span></blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">However, what Deut. 18:11 forbids biblically is
that MAN must not pray to the dead, not that the transfigured God-Man Jesus
could not talk with Elijah and Moses if they appeared on Earth at the time of
His First Coming. There is a significant difference. Jesus never beseeches nor
seeks help from Moses, Elijah, or any of the saints in Heaven during His
Earthly ministry as He evidently does so many times when referring to His
Father. Furthermore, James Whites correctly reasons:</span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">“Are we seriously to believe that the unique,
one-of-a-kind event of the Transfiguration itself is a meaningful foundation
for communication with those who have passed from this life? Do I really need to
point out that there is actually no example of communication the apostles and
Moses and Elijah, that it is limited to Jesus, and hence would not, even if it
was pressed far out of its meaningful context, support such a concept?” (James
White, <i>A Brief Comment on the “Communion of Saints” and Catholic Blogger “Devman”</i>)</span></span></blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #00b0f0; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05691278945044347095noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6492019158605752441.post-4149359156573800102015-06-07T16:36:00.000-07:002015-09-07T08:46:03.607-07:00Jesus and Lucifer, how are they both called a "morning star"?Let me begin by explaining how and why Satan is called "Lucifer".<br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px; white-space: pre-wrap;">Now as for the name” Lucifer”. The Old Testament Hebrew says Heylel “הֵילֵל”, which can mean “shining one”, but also means “boastful one” since this word comes from the root word “halel” הָלַל, which means to shine, to make a show, to boast, and thus, be foolish.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
And judging by the boastful rant that this “shining one” gives in Is. </span><a class=" yt-uix-sessionlink" data-sessionlink="ei=J9J0VZvrLpXT-AXSwYHYAQ" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GP-7PPHk9CM&t=14m13s" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; color: #167ac6; cursor: pointer; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; white-space: pre-wrap;">14:13</a><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px; white-space: pre-wrap;">-14, it’s no wonder why he’s a “boastful one”. Now the Greek Septuagint translates 'Heylel' to Heosphoros ἑωσφόρος, meaning 'bringer of dawn'. Heosphoros is a variant name of Eosphorus (Greek Ἐωσφόρος, "bearer of dawn"), which in turn comes from Phosphorus (Ancient Greek: Φωσφόρος, "bearer of light"). Both these names are said to be the personification of the “Morning Star” in Greek Mythology. This is NOT to say that these names are from Greek Mythology, but merely that these names are considered the personification of the “Morning Star”. Both Heosphoros and Lucifer are proper names within the Greek and Latin language. Because Heosphoros is a name, the Latin Vulgate translated it to “Lucifer”, meaning “shining one, morning star, bringer of light”. Therefore, it’s perfectly acceptable to view Lucifer or “Shining one” as a name.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px; white-space: pre-wrap;">Now, “Morning Star” is also a divine title given to Jesus Christ in 2 Pet. </span><a class=" yt-uix-sessionlink" data-sessionlink="ei=J9J0VZvrLpXT-AXSwYHYAQ" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GP-7PPHk9CM&t=1m19s" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; color: #167ac6; cursor: pointer; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; white-space: pre-wrap;">1:19</a><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px; white-space: pre-wrap;"> “φωσφόρος” (Phosphoros-morning star), and in Rev. </span><a class=" yt-uix-sessionlink" data-sessionlink="ei=J9J0VZvrLpXT-AXSwYHYAQ" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GP-7PPHk9CM&t=22m16s" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; color: #167ac6; cursor: pointer; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; white-space: pre-wrap;">22:16</a><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px; white-space: pre-wrap;"> “ἀστὴρ ὁ λαμπρὸς καὶ ὀρθρινός” (Bright and Morning Star).
Lucifer (Greek Heosphoros-morning star, Hebrew Heylel- shining one), the son of the morning, was meant to be a type of Christ (just as all Christians are to imitate Christ), but failed because of his pride.
Now, the real issue is the meaning behind Heylel and Heosphoros. Both of which refer to the morning star, especially with it’s complimentary line “son of the morning”. The phrase that’s used to describe Jesus as morning star is </span><b style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;">completely different</b><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px; white-space: pre-wrap;"> from the phrase that’s used to describe Satan as a morning star. And yet because these different phrases mean the same thing, this is why Lucifer was a type of Christ. Much like when Scripture says “sons of God” and “Son of God”, “spirit” and “Spirit”, “son of man” and “Son of Man”, “morning stars” and “Bright and Morning Star”. One is referring to angels or men, while the other is a divine title reserved only to God. This is why Jesus is the true Day Star.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px; white-space: pre-wrap;">If you're still confused over why Jesus and Lucifer are both called "morning star", then let me explain further:
The angels of God are called sons of God because they are created spirit beings meant to serve God. We Christians are called sons and daughters of God because we are sinners adopted into God’s Family through the Redemption found in Christ Jesus. Yet, there is only one true Son of God, Jesus Christ, because only he is the Eternal Son who eternally proceeds from the Father, meaning only Jesus came directly from the Father, uncreated and eternally existing with Him from all Eternity.
It’s the same then when talking about “morning star”. Lucifer is referred as a “morning star” in Isaiah </span><a class=" yt-uix-sessionlink" data-sessionlink="ei=J9J0VZvrLpXT-AXSwYHYAQ" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GP-7PPHk9CM&t=14m12s" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; color: #167ac6; cursor: pointer; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; white-space: pre-wrap;">14:12</a><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px; white-space: pre-wrap;">. And even all the angels of God are referred to “morning stars” in Job 38:7. And yet, just like there is only one morning star (Venus) in the night sky, so there is only one true Morning Star, Jesus Christ.
While Lucifer and the angels of God are referred as “morning star(s)” in the sense that they are spirits of light reflecting the glory of God, Jesus is the Bright and Morning Star in the sense that He is the source of eternal Light and Life, for only He is the very Glory of God.
Plus, when Lucifer is referred as “morning star” the Greek word that is used is “heōsphoros” (ἑωσφόρος), which means “dawn-bringer” referring to the morning star.
However, when Jesus is referred to as the “Morning Star”, Rev. </span><a class=" yt-uix-sessionlink" data-sessionlink="ei=J9J0VZvrLpXT-AXSwYHYAQ" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GP-7PPHk9CM&t=22m16s" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; color: #167ac6; cursor: pointer; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; white-space: pre-wrap;">22:16</a><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px; white-space: pre-wrap;"> has a far different Greek phrase used to describe Him, and that is “ho astēr ho lampros kai orthrinos”(ὁ ἀστὴρ ὁ λαμπρὸς καὶ ὀρθρινός). The Bright and Morning Star! Literally, the Star of the Bright and Morning (a descriptive phrase always only referring to Venus, the morning star). Hence, Jesus and Lucifer is not the same “morning star”, they are totally different from each other.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px; white-space: pre-wrap;">Let me show you the differences between Satan and Jesus by first looking at their titles each one has, and then revealing their meaning, and finally how they were translated down through time.
Let’s start with Satan in Is. 14: 21 “O Lucifer” (KJV)
</span><b style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;">Hebrew “heylel” (הֵילֵל) = shining one, boastful one</b><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
Hebrew was translated into Greek as:
</span><b style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;">Greek “heosphoros” (ἑωσφόρος) = bringer of dawn, personification of morning star</b><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
Greek was translated into Latin as:
</span><b style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;">Latin “lucifer” = shining one, morning star, bringer of light</b><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
Latin was translated to English as:
</span><b style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;">English “Lucifer” (KJV)</b><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
Greek and Hebrew was translated to English as:
</span><b style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;">English “Day Star” (ESV), “morning star” (NIV), “star of the morning” (NASB), “shining one” (NET)</b><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
Now let’s look at </span><b style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;">Jesus</b><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px; white-space: pre-wrap;"> in 2 Pet. </span><a class=" yt-uix-sessionlink" data-sessionlink="ei=J9J0VZvrLpXT-AXSwYHYAQ" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GP-7PPHk9CM&t=1m19s" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; color: #167ac6; cursor: pointer; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; white-space: pre-wrap;">1:19</a><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px; white-space: pre-wrap;"> “morning star”
</span><b style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;">Greek “phōsphoros” (φωσφόρος” = bearer of light, personification of morning star</b><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
Greek was translated into English as:
</span><b style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;">English “day star” (KJV), “morning star” (NKJV)</b><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
And the Greek phrase </span><b style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;">“astēr o lampros kai orthrinos” (ἀστὴρ ὁ λαμπρὸς καὶ ὀρθρινός)</b><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px; white-space: pre-wrap;"> in Rev. </span><a class=" yt-uix-sessionlink" data-sessionlink="ei=J9J0VZvrLpXT-AXSwYHYAQ" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GP-7PPHk9CM&t=22m16s" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; color: #167ac6; cursor: pointer; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; white-space: pre-wrap;">22:16</a><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px; white-space: pre-wrap;"> was translated as </span><b style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;">"the Bright and Morning Star"</b><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
Notice that in the original languages (Hebrew and Greek) both Satan and Jesus have very different titles. However, because of the very similar meanings of these titles, English translations have sometimes used the same words to describe both Satan and Jesus as “morning star”. For example, notice how “heosphoros” (Satan) and “phosphoros” (Jesus) are both personifications of the morning star. Yet, “heosphoros” is the bringer of dawn, while “phosphoros” is the bearer of light. Simply put, Jesus the Bearer or Source of light is superior to Lucifer who merely brings the light. Just as the angels (i.e. messengers) bring the commands and decrees of God, so Satan was once the Bringer of the light of God. But Satan was never the Bearer or Source of the light of God. Keep in mind that angels merely reflect the light of God, while Jesus Himself is the Light.
Think of it like this: Jesus is the Sun who shines on the world during the day, while the angels are the Moon reflecting/bringing the light of the Sun during the night. That is what Lucifer used to be, but not anymore.</span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05691278945044347095noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6492019158605752441.post-21985008924012723532015-03-05T20:24:00.000-08:002015-09-07T08:43:10.952-07:00Mariolatry (Pt. 8) Mary our Advocate?<div align="center">
<strong><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Is Mary really our Advocate?</span></strong></div>
<div align="center">
</div>
<div align="center">
<strong><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">NO!</span></strong></div>
<div align="center">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">
</span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Biblical Evidence against Mary as Advocate</span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Both the beliefs that we as Christians should pray and
petition Mary who will then offer them up to Jesus and that she intercedes for
us, turning God’s wrath away from us, are utterly unbiblical. Not only do we
not find a single biblical example of a believer offering prayers and petitions
to Mary in heaven, but nowhere in Scripture are we even encouraged to do so.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">1 John 2:1</b> reveals
to us that we can go to Jesus as our Advocate who secures our right
relationship with the Father, stating, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">“My
little children, these things I write to you, so that you may not sin. And if
anyone sins, <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">we have an Advocate with
the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.</b>”</i></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Hebrews 10:19-20</b>,
we read, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">“Therefore, brethren, since we
have <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">confidence to enter</b> the
sanctuary by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way which <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">He opened for us</b> through the curtain,
that is, <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">through His flesh</b>”.</i> It’s
through the flesh of Jesus Christ I even have access and confidence to enter
God’s sanctuary in Heaven, not Mary. You don’t ever need Mary or anyone else
since it’s always Jesus Christ alone that we need. As a Christian one must
never put anyone between us and Jesus Christ since we can directly<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>to Him through His blood and sacrifice for
our entrance into God’s sanctuary.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In John 14:14 Jesus Christ says, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">“If you ask <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Me </b>anything in
My name, I will do it.” </i>Thus,<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> </i>it’s
obvious that we don’t need to pray to anyone else who will then give our
petition to God.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In Roman Catholic theology, Catholics are taught that Jesus
is the King of Justice and Mary is the Queen of Mercy. Therefore, when
Catholics fear God’s justice they are taught to pray to Mary who then pleads
mercy for them before God.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">But on the contrary, <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Philippians
4:6</b> says, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">“Have no anxiety about
anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">let your requests be made known to God.</b>”
(<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">RSVCE</b>)</i></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Now, concerning the false belief that Mary appeases God’s
wrath and anger for believers, this is not found anywhere in Scripture as well.
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">1 John 2:2</b> says that Jesus <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">“is the propitiation for our sins”. </i>(see
also <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">1 John 1:10; Heb. 2:17</b>). The
word “Propitiation” in the original Greek is, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">hilasmos</i>, and can mean ‘expiation’, that is, the canceling/wiping
away of the penalty of sins, or it can mean ‘propitiation’, that is, <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">a
turning away of God’s wrath by an acceptable offering.</i></b></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In this specific verse the word ‘hilasmos’ does mean
propitiation, and plenty of examples in the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament)
can be cited in which ‘hilasmos’ is used in a propitiatory view (Gen. 32:20;
Num. 16:47-48, 25:11; 1 Sam. 26:19; 2 Sam. 21:3-4; 24:25; Prov. 16:14). Also,
John many times points out the theme of God’s wrath and Jesus being the
solution (John 3:16; 36; 8:24; 1 John 3:14; 5:16). Therefore, the evidence tilts
in preference for Jesus turning away God’s wrath for us sinners, since His
continual heavenly intercession involves applying His death to our salvation.
Hence, we do NOT need Mary to turn away God’s wrath because it’s Jesus alone
who turns away God’s wrath from us through His perfect work.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Rome falsely asserts that Mary’s prayers “will deliver our
souls from death” (<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Catechism of the
Catholic Church </i>{DoubleDay,, 1994], par. 966, p.274). For this reason Rome
believes Mary helps in “restoring supernatural life to souls” (<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">CCC</i>, par. 968). Presenting Mary as a
co-savior in this way is extremely insulting to us regenerated Christians who
believe that <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Jesus alone</i></b> delivers our souls from death and restores
supernatural life to souls. As the Apostle Paul proclaims in <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">1 Tim. 2:5-6</b>, “For there is one God,
and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave
Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time.”</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">If there is only one mediator between God and Mankind, i.e.
the Man Christ Jesus, why then do we need Mary as another mediator and raise
her up to such a superior and exalted level? Rome answers by saying, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">“There may be only one mediator between God
and men, and that’s Christ Jesus, but who is the mediator between man and
Christ Jesus”</i>. Our response is, <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">you
don’t need one</b>. One goes directly to Jesus Christ to our Father in Heaven.
We are NOT to give our prayers in Mary’s name, who in turn will give those
prayers to Jesus Christ her son, who in turn will give them to God. Since
Christ Jesus is our ONE and only Mediator, there is thus only one way to come
near to God, for only Christ Jesus “gave Himself as a ransom for all, the
testimony given at the proper time”. <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">1
Thess. 5:9</b> declares, “For God did not appoint us to wrath, but to obtain <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">salvation
through our Lord Jesus Christ</i></b>”. Thus, salvation is through Christ, Not
Mary.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">The Bible most plainly forbids communicating with dead. <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Deut. 18:10-11</b> states, “There shall not
be found among you <i>anyone</i> who makes his son or his daughter pass through
the fire, <i>or one</i> who practices witchcraft, <i>or</i> a soothsayer, or
one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, or one who conjures spells, or a
medium, or <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i>a spiritist, or one who
calls up the dead,</i></b>”. The word ‘spiritist’ that is used in Hebrew is <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i>darash</i></b><i> (</i></span><i><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">דָּרַשׁ</span></i><i><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">)</span></i><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">. Old Testament Scholar, Earl S. Kalland
explains that the word is referring to, “(‘[one] who consults the dead’) is
one who investigates, looks into, and seeks information from the dead” (Earl S.
Kalland, <i>Deutoronomy</i>, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, <i>The Expositor’s Bible
Commentary with the New International Version</i>, Volume 3, p. 121, n. 11). Sadly,
Catholics seek the deceased saints and Mary for help. <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Isaiah 8:19</b> reveals more of the Bible’s stance on communication
with the dead:</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">“And when they say to you, “Seek those who are mediums and wizards, who
whisper and mutter,” <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i>should not a
people seek their God? Should they seek the dead on behalf of the living?”</i></b></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The Bible’s stance is that Christians must seek God on behalf of the
living. We are not to seek the dead, like the saints and Mary. Now, Catholic
apologists in predictable fashion will reply to this by misusing <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Matthew 22:32</b>, which states, “God is
not the God of the dead, but of the living.” Romanists such as Patrick Madrid
make the flawed case that because the saints are alive in Heaven the Biblical
prohibitions against praying to the dead do not apply on them (Patrick Madrid, <i>Answer
Me This!,</i> [Our Sunday Visitor Publishing Division, 2003], p.168).</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">First</span></i></b><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">, this verse was never meant to be an
argumentation that permits prayers to the dead saints in the New Testament
times. Nowhere does the context indicate such a thing. This out-of-place use of
the text is just not the case whatsoever. <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i>Second</i></b>,
even though believer who enter Heaven are spiritually alive with God, they are
nonetheless dead as Scripture proclaims. Hence, communication with them is
prohibited. <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Joshua 1:2 states, </b>“Moses
My servant <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i>is dead</i></b>”. Furthermore,
in <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Acts 2:9</b>, a follower of Christ named
Eutychus sat next to a window and as he fell asleep, “he fell down from the
third story and was taken up <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i>dead</i></b>”.
So according to Scripture, even though the dead saints are living spiritually,
they are nonetheless counted as part of the dead, and thus, communicating with
them is prohibited.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In spite of the fact that later church fathers began communicating with
the dead saints and Mary, Early Church history showed no such thing. The
Historian Philip Schaff writes:</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;"></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">“In the first three centuries the veneration of the martyrs in general
restricted itself to the thankful remembrance of the their virtues and the
celebration of the day of their death as the day of their heavenly birth...But
in the Nicene age it advanced to a formal invocation of the saints as our
patrons (patroni) and intercessors (mediators), before the throne of grace, and
degenerated into a refined form of polytheism and idolatry. The saints came
into the place of the demigods, Penates and Lares, the patrons of the domestic
hearth and country” (Philip Schaff, <i>History of the Christian Church</i>,
volume 3, [Hendrickson, 2011], p. 432)</span></blockquote>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Since the dead saints are with God in Heaven, this means that they are
in a condition of perfect happiness or absolute peace. <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Revelation 21:4</b> recounts those in Heaven as never experiencing
sorrow, nor crying, nor pain. However, if the saints in Heaven were presented
with all the prayers from all the Catholics in the world in regards to all
their troubles, trials, adversities, afflictions, maladies, etc. they would
definitely be full of grief and in great pain. Therefore, it is impossible that
the saints and Mary receive those prayers and intercede for them.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div align="center">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">
</span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Historical
Evidence against Mary as Advocate</span></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">A meticulous examination of the Early Christians of the first 300 years
shows that it was never orthodox to seek Mary’s intercession through prayer.
Rather, for the first three centuries drew near to God through Christ and
prayed directly to them. When one reads their writings on prayer or anywhere
prayer is talked about in some length, not one reference is made about praying
to Mary or seeking her heavenly intercession. The mere fact that the disciples
of the Apostles and the following generations after them for the next three
centuries never participated in such a practice is damaging proof that the
Roman practice is false. Rather, we find proof to the contrary. For instance, in
Clement’s late 1st century letter to the Corinthians he states how Christians must
strive against, “unrighteousness and iniquity, along with all covetousness,
strife, evil practices, deceit, whispering, and evil-speaking, all hatred of
God, pride and haughtiness, vain glory and ambition. For they that do such
things are hateful to God” (Clement, Letter to the Corinthians, 35). He
understands the struggle of the Christian life. Therefore, instead of
encouraging his readers to pray to Mary for help and strength as Modern
Romanism teaches, Clement urges them to pray to Jesus in their time of need and
temptation:</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;"></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">“This is the way, beloved, in which we find our Savior, even <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i>Jesus Christ</i></b>, the High Priest of
all our offerings, <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i>the defender and
helper of our infirmity. By Him</i></b> we look up to the heights of heaven”
(Clement, <i>Letter to the Corinthians</i>, 36).</span></blockquote>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Now there is possibly one exception of prayer offered to Mary before
the 4<span style="font-size: small;"><sup>th</sup> century of Christian history. This prayer that some date to
about 250 A.D. is named the ‘Sub-tomb Presidium’ which invokes Mary asking for
her protection from persecution and worldly hazards. However, the Historian
Maxwell Johnson mentions that lots of scholars are reluctant to give this
prayer an early date and instead choose to give it a later date (Maxwell E.
Johnson, <i>Praying and Believing in Early Christianity</i>, [Liturgical Press,
2013], p. 79). Yet, even if it’s given a later date, Johnson comments:</span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;"></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">“It remains the earliest marian prayer in existence” (Maxwell E.
Johnson, <i>Praying and Believing in Early Christianity</i>, [Liturgical Press,
2013], p. 90).</span></blockquote>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">So it’s not until around 250 A.D. or later that one finally sees a
prayer to Mary in Christian history. Then, more than 100 years passes before
the first Christian Father is recorded to have prayed to Mary. As Church
Historian Philip Schaff states:</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;"></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">“The first instance of the formal invocation of Mary occurs in the
prayers of Ephraim Syrus (379), addressed to Mary and the saints” (Philip
Schaff, <i>History of the Christian Church</i>, volume 3, [Hendrickson, 2011],
p. 422).</span></blockquote>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Later on, others take part in this new but unorthodox practice, like Gregory
of Nazianzus and Epiphanius of Salamis. Then, it gradually becomes the
prevalent practice on account of these influences. Remarking on this
development, J.N.D. Kelly affirms:</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;"></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">“Devotion to the Blessed Virgin
developed more slowly…Thus reliable evidence of prayers being addressed to her,
or of her protection and help being sought, is almost (though not entirely)
non-existent in the first four centuries” (J. N. D. Kelly, <i>Early Christian
Doctrines</i>, [HarperOne, 1978], p.491).</span></blockquote>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">As concerning Mary being invoked to turn away God’s wrath from Catholics,
which is the other-half of the Roman teaching, this belief develops later in
Church history. Medieval piety is what caused modern Catholics to believe this.
Elizabeth Johnson discusses this particular popular medieval legend called the Apocryphal
Theophilus Legend, based on the 6th century cleric Theophilus of Adana, stating:</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;"></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">“The idea that Mary had maternal influence over God, that she could
turn away Christ’s just anger and obtain mercy for sinners, had already been
accepted in the East, as seen in the popularity of the Theophilus Legend. In
this story a man bargains his soul away to the devil to gain a lucrative job.
Near death he implored Mary to get back the contract, which she does after
contending with the devil. Theophilus dies forgiven and avoids eternal hell.
Translated into Latin in the eighth century, this story exercised great
influence on the West’s notion of Mary’s power to save” (Elizabeth Johnson,
“Blessed Virgin Mary,” ed. Richard P. McBrien, <i>The HarperCollins
Encyclopedia of Catholicism</i>, [HarperCollins Publishers, Inc., 1995], p.833)</span></blockquote>
<o:p></o:p><br />
<div align="center">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">This fictitious tale was then utilized by well-known western churchmen
like Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153 A.D.), Bonaventure (1221-1274 A.D.), and
Alphonsus Maria de' Liguori (1696-1787 A.D.), to advance the belief that Mary
could turn away God’s anger by asking her in prayer. Therefore, it is mostly on
account of this ridiculously fabricated 6<span style="font-size: small;"><sup>th</sup> century tale, which came
into Latin Christendom in the 8<sup>th</sup> century, that Modern-day Catholics
believe this teaching to this day. Germanus I of Constantinople who died in 733
A.D. popularized this belief as well that Mary could turn away God’s wrath from
Catholics (Richard P. McBrien, <i>Catholicism: New Edition</i>, [HarperOne,
1994], p. 1085).</span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> We see once more that this teaching is unbiblical and ahistorical.</span></span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05691278945044347095noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6492019158605752441.post-32393370450755448912015-02-28T12:10:00.000-08:002015-09-07T08:47:45.525-07:00Mariolatry (Pt. 7) Mary the Mediatrix of all Graces?<div style="text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Is Mary really the Mediatrix of all Graces?</span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">NO!</span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Biblical Evidence against Mary as Mediatrix of all Graces</span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="color: red;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">First, let’s start with the Biblical
evidence against Mary being the Mediatrix of all Graces.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="color: red;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: black;">Because the average life-expectancy
of the 1<span style="font-size: small;"><sup>st</sup> century society in relation to the New Testament was
probably around 20-25 years, it’s fairly reasonable to conclude that Mary died
before most of the later New Testament books were written. With this in mind,
it’s fascinating to observe that when these New Testament books talk about the
subject of the application of heavenly Grace, they invariably declare that it
comes from God, never Mary. For instance, Scholars date the Book of Revelation
after 66 A.D. In fact, most of these later New Testament books are around 90 to
95 A.D. Now, if Rome is correct that Mary should have been applying grace to
all men around this time, the fact remains that Revelation 1:4 states that
grace is given by God, not Mary.</span></span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="color: red;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">“<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Grace</i></b> to you and peace <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">from
Him </i></b>who is and who was and who is to come” (Rev. 1:4)</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="color: red;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Furthermore, the Second letter of
John was at some point written after 80 A.D. And this Epistle also attests to the
fact that Grace comes from God the Father and Jesus Christ, not Mary.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="color: red;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">“<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Grace</i></b>, mercy and peace
will be with us, <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">from God the Father and from Jesus Christ</i></b>, the Son of the
Father, in truth and love.” (2 John 1:3)</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Moreover, Scripture says that there is only <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u>One Mediator</u></b>.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">“For there is one God and <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">one Mediator</i></b> between God
and men, the Man Christ Jesus” (<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">1 Tim.
2:5</b>)</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Catholics will object to this, saying that just because the
verse says “One Mediator”, doesn’t mean that no one else can participate in the
mediation. So there are lesser mediators such as Mary and the saints
participating in mediation.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Well let’s allow this logic and apply it not just to the
“One Mediator”, but to the “One God”. By the Catholics logic, we can say that
just because there’s “One God”, doesn’t mean that no one else can participate
in Deity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Therefore, there are lesser
gods participating in God’s deity.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">You see how the Catholic’s logic fails. Scripture plainly <span style="color: black;"><span style="color: red;"><span style="color: black;">and emphatically</span> </span>tells us that there is only one true
God (<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Deut. 4:39; 6:4</b>) And Scripture
plainly </span><span style="color: red;"><span style="color: black;">and emphatically</span> </span>tells us there is only
one true Mediator, and there is no other.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="color: red;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Similarly, <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Acts 4:12</b> declares, “Nor is there salvation in any other, for there
is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” There
is only one name and there is only one Mediator, and that is Jesus Christ. Yet,
the Catholic Church blasphemously proposes another mediator.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">One must understand that the reason why Jesus is our only
Mediator is because He has a basis upon which to mediate, and that basis for
mediation is that He shed His blood on our behalf. Thus, when Jesus mediates
for us He has a basis upon which He intercedes for us, and that is what He did
on the Cross. Jesus Christ is our only Mediator because He alone died and made
restitution for our sins. He died as our perfect substitute. He bore our sins
in His body upon the tree. Mary and the saints have absolutely no basis upon
which to mediate. Mary did not bear my sins in her body. And even the Catholics
admit that everything that Mary and the saints have they have from Christ.
Therefore, since they cannot be mediators in the sense that Christ is, they
cannot participate in Christ’s one mediation, and thus, they cannot mediate for
us.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Hence, Mary is NOT the Mediatrix of all Graces.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="color: red;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">As a further matter, in order for
Mary to be capable of applying grace to billions of believers across the world
at the same time, without interruption until the end of the world, as Vatican
II claimed, she would need to be capable of being in various places simultaneously.
Only an omnipresent being can be present everywhere at the same time. Yet, only
God has the divine attribute of Omnipresence (1 King 8:27). Mary would also
have to know who to give grace to, which means that she would have to be
omniscient. Yet, only God has the divine attribute of Omniscience as well (1
John 3:20). Mary would also need to be powerful enough to apply grace to all
believers across the earth simultaneously. And yet, only God has the divine
attribute of Omnipotence (Job 42:2).</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="color: red;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">By declaring Mary as the Mediatrix
of all Graces, Catholics end up ascribing to Mary divine attributes that God
alone possesses and that serves to glorify God alone.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">It should also be noted that in Catholic theology there is
this principle idea that Mary is close to Jesus because she’s the ark, the
vessel that gave birth to Him. It’s because of this concept that Catholics are
taught to pray to Mary because she can speak to Christ for us, since she is His
mother, and thus, is closer to Him than we are. This Catholic notion is
completely false because Jesus Himself said in <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Matt. 12:48-50</b> that those who do the will of the Father are His
brother, sister, and mother to Him. Therefore, Mary is no closer to Jesus than
we are by the Blood shed for us on the Cross.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Our Lord Jesus Christ said in <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Matt. 11:28</b>, “<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u>Come to Me</u></b>,
all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.”</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">And the Apostle Paul teaches us in <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Heb. 7:25</b> that Jesus “is also able to save <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u>to the uttermost</u></b> those who come to God through Him, since <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u>He always lives to make intercession for
them</u></b>”</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">And in <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Rom. 10:13</b>
we are taught that “whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be
saved”</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: black;">Hence, Scripture teaches us that we can go directly to Jesus
Christ since He is our ONE and ONLY Mediator. This is the very reason why Jesus
came into this world, to save all of us from our sins and give us Eternal Life
through Him alone. There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in Scripture that talk of a
Co-Mediatrix of all Graces with Jesus. There are no two mediators. Just ONE!
And there is no need for another mediator. Scripture clearly does NOT teach nor
has it EVER taught that we somehow need to come to the Father through Jesus via
Mary.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Historical Evidence against Mary as Mediatrix of all Graces</span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="color: red;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Now, we look at the <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">historical evidence</b> that Mary is NOT
the Mediatrix of all Graces.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="color: red;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: black;">In analyzing the disciples of the
Apostles, the Apostolic Fathers, we find no indication that they thought Mary
applies all graces to humanity from heaven. It’s the same situation when we
look at the 2<span style="font-size: small;"><sup>nd</sup> century apologists as well as later generations of
Church Fathers. According the <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholocism</i></b>,
this doctrine is first found in the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">“late
medieval era”</i>. Catholic Scholar <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Ludwig
Ott</b> acknowledges that <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">“Express
testimonies, though few in number, to Mary’s position as mediatrix of grace are
found since the eighth century”</i> (<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma</i>, p. 214</b>).
</span></span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="color: red;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: small;">As stated by Ott, it’s not until about 700 years after Christ’s death that people
begin to assert that Mary is mediatrix of all graces. Even the Patristic
Scholar, <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">J.N.D. Kelly</b>, agrees that <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">“centuries had to elapse before the
doctrines of...her position as intercessor and mediator...could become elements
in the day-to-day faith of Catholic Christians” </i>(<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Early Christian Doctrines</i>, p.
499</b>). </span></span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="color: red;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Not only did none of the Patristic
Fathers bear witness to this doctrine, proving that the Apostles never passed
on this teaching to the Church for all to believe in, but many Patristic
Fathers have testified to holding beliefs contrary to this teaching. These
Fathers clearly taught that it’s God that gives grace to men, not Mary.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="color: red;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">For instance, <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Clement of Alexandria</b> stated, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">“For
it were truly monstrous that that which is not complete should be called a gift
(or act) of <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">God’s grace</b>. Being
perfect, <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">He consequently bestows</b>
perfect gifts.As at his command all things were made, so on His bare wishing to
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">bestow grace</b>, ensures the perfecting
of <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">His grace</b>”</i> (<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The
Paedagogus</i>, Book I, 6</b>).</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="color: red;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Likewise, <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">John Chrysostum </b>said, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">“For
the whole is of <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">God who wills to bestow</b>
upon many, so that the <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">grace</b> may
appear the greater”</i> (<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Homily 9 on 2
Corinthians</b>)</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="color: red;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Moreover, <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Jerome</b> declared, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">“It Has been
established that the Lord, by the <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">same
grace wherewith He bestowed upon us</b> free choice, <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">assists and supports us in our individual actions</b>”</i> (<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Against
the Pelagians</i>, Book III, 6</b>)</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="color: red;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: black;">In John’s Gospel Chapter 17 our Lord
Jesus Christ proclaims, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">“And this is
eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom
You have sent.”</i><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"> </b>(<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">John 17:3</b>). This statement sums up
everything we need to know for our eternal salvation and eternal life. To know
our Lord Jesus Christ is to know the only true God. Hence, there is no need of
Mary for eternal life since our Lord Jesus himself never mentions her anywhere
in Scripture concerning eternal life.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: black;">
</span></span><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: red; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="color: red; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="color: black;">Discussin</span><span style="color: black;">g on the medieval Roman misuse of Luke 1:28
in order to support this false doctrine, Church Historian, <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Alister Mcgrath</b>, said it was disproven by the Catholic Scholar <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Erasmus</b> saying, “According to the
Vulgate, the angel Gabriel greeted Mary as ‘the one who is full of grace’ (<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">gratia plena</i>) (Luke 1:28), thus
suggesting the image of a reservoir full of grace, which could be drawn upon at
a time of need. But as Erasmus pointed out, the Greek simply meant ‘favored
one,’ or ‘one who has found favor’. Mary was one who had found God’s favor, not
necessarily one who could bestow it on others. Once more, an important feature
of medieval theology seemed to be contradicted by humanist New Testament
scholarship” (<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Historical Theology: An Introduction to the History of Christian
Thought</i>, p. 97</b>)</span></span></span></span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05691278945044347095noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6492019158605752441.post-28368585207637001622015-02-26T18:53:00.002-08:002015-09-07T08:43:46.581-07:00Mariolatry (Pt. 6) Praying to Mary as a Mediator and Helper?<div style="text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: black;">Should we pray to Mary as our Helper and Mediator?<o:p></o:p></span></span></b></div>
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: black;">No!</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: black;">First, Prayer is a form of worship that is reserved to our
Triune God alone. As Jesus said to Satan in <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Matt. 4:10</b>, “It is written, 'You shall worship the LORD your God,
and <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u>Him only</u> you shall serve</b>.'”</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: black;">Second, In <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Matt. 6:9</b>,
when Jesus taught his disciples to pray He said “In this manner, therefore,
pray: ‘<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u>Our Father</u></b> in heaven,
Hallowed be Your name’”. Also, the Apostle Paul taught us in <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Phil. 4:6</b> who it is that we should pray
to, saying, “Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and
supplication, with thanksgiving, let your requests be <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">made known to <u>God</u></b>”. And even James the brother of Jesus said
in <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">James 4:8,</b> “Draw near to God and
He will draw near to you.”</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: black;">Therefore, No prayer is ever directed to Mary nor should it
ever. The Catholic would have you believe that we should cast our cares and
petitions to Mary, but Scripture is quite clear that we Christians should pray
ONLY to Jesus, “casting <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u>ALL</u></b> your
care upon Him, for He cares for you.” (<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">1
Pet. 5:7</b>)</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: black;">Now some Catholics might object saying, “We don’t pray to
Mary, we ask Mary to pray for us, just like you would ask your family or
friends to pray for you, because Mary has direct access to Jesus and can see
Him face to face”</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: black;">There are two problems to this statement.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: black;">1. The Bible says “Let us then approach God’s throne of
grace <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u>with confidence</u></b>, so
that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need.” (<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Heb. 4:16;</b> <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">NIV</b>). The Bible also tells us that it’s because of Jesus that we
may approach God. As <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Eph. 3:12</b>
proclaims, it’s “in whom [Jesus] we have boldness and access with confidence
through faith in Him.” (<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">NKJV</b>). “So
we can confidently say, ‘The Lord is MY HELPER; I will not fear; what can man
do to me?’” (<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Heb. 13:6, ESV</b>)</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: black;">Believers in Christ can approach the throne of grace with
confidence. Therefore, true believers have direct access to God Himself, which
was signified at Christ’s death on the Cross when the veil in God’s Temple was
ripped top to bottom, showing that all believers can now pray to God directly.
There is no need for Mary or the saints to give you access to Jesus, since all
those saved by Christ through faith can now enter into direct fellowship with
God.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: black;">2. When a Catholic claims that they can pray to Mary or ask
Mary to pray for you, he or she is assuming that Mary has the divine attributes
of Omnipotence and Omnipresence which only God alone has. It is ridiculous to
claim that Mary can answer prayers or pray for those asking her to pray for
them, when millions of Catholics cry out to her at the same time, which would
assume that Mary, a mere human being, is to a certain degree omnipotent and
omnipresent. This is blasphemy. Mary is not our Mediator nor can she ever be
our Mediator.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: black;">Now another Catholic might object saying, “Well, we don’t
worship Mary, we venerate her.”</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: black;">My response would be that, “the bigger issue is, how is it
you venerate her in practice. You see it doesn’t matter what you call it, what matters
is how it is in reality. Whether you call it worship or veneration, it’s all
just semantics. One could say “We don’t eat, we feast”, or “We don’t cry, we
weep” or “We don’t scream, we yell”. It’s all semantics, because in reality,
when one venerates, one is giving their devotion, their heart, their life to a
person who is no longer here on Earth.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: black;">For example look at these pictures of people venerating
Mary.</span></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.abbaswatchman.com/Sunday%20worship%20of%20mary%20=%20Rosary%20Sun%20day.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.abbaswatchman.com/Sunday%20worship%20of%20mary%20=%20Rosary%20Sun%20day.jpg" height="213" width="320" /></a><a href="http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Russian_Orthodox/mary_worship105.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Russian_Orthodox/mary_worship105.jpg" /></a><a href="http://www.the-bible-antichrist.com/images/mary_worship.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.the-bible-antichrist.com/images/mary_worship.jpg" height="185" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimktdUu6mCvYcCx8nNoQqBywAmeAbnXgRMV5fh2W9y4R61ZV01O1IG7Rm7RieIsryEF-o0nK4N2GNkK5tmb4moegxD-F6e9x9w87Bdntml8r2cFeR_CoA0Ok3Kbj6w8HoxIgCvbu2tVkw/s1600/worshipping+mary+together.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="235" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimktdUu6mCvYcCx8nNoQqBywAmeAbnXgRMV5fh2W9y4R61ZV01O1IG7Rm7RieIsryEF-o0nK4N2GNkK5tmb4moegxD-F6e9x9w87Bdntml8r2cFeR_CoA0Ok3Kbj6w8HoxIgCvbu2tVkw/s1600/worshipping+mary+together.jpg" width="320" /></a><a href="http://www.lovethetruth.com/jis_images/idolatry-mary_worship.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.lovethetruth.com/jis_images/idolatry-mary_worship.jpg" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: black;">Looking at these pictures one realizes that no matter how
you put it, this is worship of an idol.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: black;">The Word of God in <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Exodus
20:3-4</b>, says “You shall not make for yourself a <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u>carved image</u></b>—<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u>any
likeness of anything </u></b>that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth
beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u>you shall not bow down to them nor serve them</u></b>. For I, the
LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the
children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me” (<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">NKJV</b>)</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: black;">Now we true Christians do respect greatly Mary, mother of
our Lord Jesus Christ, but not in a way that belongs to God alone. The Glory,
worship, honor, and praise belonging only to God, must be given to God alone
and to no one else, not even to Mary. Scripture tells us in <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">1 John 5:21</b>, “Little children, keep
yourselves from idols. Amen.” (<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">NKJV</b>)</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: black;">And in <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Deuteronomy
4:15-19</b>, “Take careful heed to yourselves, for you saw no form when the
LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, lest you act corruptly
and make for yourselves a <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u>carved
image</u></b> in the form of any figure: <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u>the
likeness of male or female</u></b>,<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>the
likeness of any animal that [is] on the earth or the likeness of any winged
bird that flies in the air, the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground
or the likeness of any fish that [is] in the water beneath the earth.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And [take heed], lest you lift your eyes to
heaven, and [when] you see the sun, the moon, and the stars, all the host of
heaven, you feel driven to worship them and serve them, which the LORD your God
has given to all the peoples under the whole heaven as a heritage.”</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: black;">The command is clear. One must not bow down to idols of any
kind including Marian statues.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: black;">And even scripture shows us that no one was to worship any
person whether human or angel. For example, in <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Acts 10:24-26</b>, it says “And the following day they entered
Caesarea. Now Cornelius was waiting for them, and had called together his
relatives and close friends.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As Peter
was coming in, <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u>Cornelius</u></b> met
him and <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u>fell down at his feet and
worshiped him</u></b>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But Peter lifted
him up, saying, "<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u>Stand up; I
myself am also a man.”</u></b></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: black;">Also in <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Acts 14:11-15</b>,
“Now when the people saw what Paul had done, they raised their voices, saying
in the Lycaonian language, "<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u>The
gods have come down to us in the likeness of men</u></b>!"<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u>Barnabas
they called Zeus, and Paul, Hermes</u></b>, because he was the chief
speaker.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Then the priest of Zeus, whose
temple was in front of their city, brought oxen and garlands to the gates, <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u>intending to sacrifice with the
multitudes</u></b>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But when the
apostles Barnabas and Paul heard this, they tore their clothes and ran in among
the multitude, crying out and saying, "<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u>Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men with the same
nature as you</u></b>, and preach to you that you should turn from these
useless things to the living God, who made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and
all things that are in them” (<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">NKJV</b>)</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: black;">And in <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Revelation
19:9-10</b>, “Then he (the angel) said to me, "Write: 'Blessed [are] those
who are called to the marriage supper of the Lamb!' " And he said to me,
"These are the true sayings of God."<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u>And I fell at his feet to
worship him.</u></b> But he said to me, "<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u>See that you do not do that! I am your fellow servant, and of your
brethren who have the testimony of Jesus. Worship God!</u></b> ...” (<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">NKJV</b>)</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: black;">Finally, <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Rev. 22:8-9</b>,
“Now I, John, saw and heard these things. And when I heard and saw, <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u>I fell down to worship before the feet
of the angel</u></b> who showed me these things.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Then he said to me, "<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u>See that you do not do that. For I am
your fellow servant, and of your brethren the prophets</u></b>, and of those
who keep the words of this book. <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u>Worship
God</u></b>!"<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">NKJV</b>)</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: black;">As the Bible has shown, idolatry is a very serious matter
that no one is allowed to worship any other thing or person, except God
Himself.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: red;"><strong><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: black;">Mediatrix of all Graces</span></span></strong></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="color: red;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: black;">There are two ways in which
Catholics call Mary the Mediatrix of all Graces. </span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="color: red;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: black;">The <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">first meaning</b> is that Mary gave birth to Jesus. And since Jesus
brings grace to all men, Mary can be said to be Mediatrix of all Graces. True
Christians aren’t really opposed to this first meaning, nonetheless we wouldn’t
use the term Mediatrix of all Graces.</span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="color: red;"><span style="color: black;">The <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">second meaning</b>, however, is the one that causes Christians to rightly
worry. We read in <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism</i></b> that “through her
continual intercessions, Mary was seen as the dispensatrix<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(Latin) who distributed and applied the
graces of Christ”</span></span> </span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: red;"><span style="color: black;">(“Mediatrix”, ed. Richard P. McBrien, [HarperCollins
Publishers, Inc., 1995], p.848).</span></span></b></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: black;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: red;"><span style="color: black;">Vatican II</span></span></i></b><span style="color: red;"><span style="color: black;"> declared as fact that Mary is in Heaven supposedly continuously
distributing and applying grace to all mankind till the end of the world. As it
states, “This maternity of Mary in the order of grace began with the consent
which she gave in faith at the Annunciation and which she sustained without
wavering beneath the cross. </span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black;">This maternity will last without</span>
<span style="color: black;">interruption until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect. For taken up to
heaven, she did not lay aside this saving role, but by her manifold acts of
intercession continues to win for us gifts of eternal salvation.</span></i></b><span style="color: black;"> By her
maternal charity, <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Mary cares for the brethren </i></b>of her Son<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">... </i>the Blessed Virgin is invoked by the Church under the titles of
Advocate, Auxiliatrix (Helper), Adjutrix (Benefactress), and Mediatrix.” <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">(<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Lumen
Gentium</i>, 62)</b></span></span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="color: red;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="color: black;">Catholic Theologian Ludwigg Ott explains
in his book, <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma</i></b>, that “Since her assumption into
Heaven, Mary cooperates in the application of the grace of Redemption of man.
She participates in the </span>distribution of grace” <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">(p.213)</b></span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="color: red;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: black;">For this reason, <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Pope Pius VII</b> proclaims Mary as the “Dispensatrix
of all graces” <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">(Pius VII, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Ampliatio privilegiorum ecclesiae B.M.
Virginis ab angelo salutatae in cenobio Fratrum Ordinis Servorum B.M.V. </i>Florentiae,
A.D., 1806; Armand J. Robichaud, S.M., <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">“Mary,
Dispensatrix of all Graces”</i>, Maiology, II, p.429)<o:p></o:p></b></span></span></span></div>
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: red;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: black;">Advocate</span></span></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="color: red;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: black;">The Vatican Church also teaches that
Catholics should pray to Mary and offer their needs and petitions to her, which
she supposedly brings to Jesus as maternal intercessor, and that Mary turns
away God’s anger and wrath for people. Catholic feminist theologian <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Elizabeth Johnson</b> states that, “Mary
had a maternal influence over God, that she could turn away Christ’s just anger
and obtain mercy for sinners” <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">(“Blessed
Virgin Mary”, ed. Richar P. McBrien, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The
HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism</i>, p.833)</b></span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="color: red;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: black;">Saint and Doctor of the Church, <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Alfonso de’Ligouri</b> states in his book<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The
Glories of Mary</i>, </b>“Be comforted then, O you who fear’ will I say with
Saint Thomas of Villanova; ‘breathe freely and take courage, O wretched
sinners; this great Virgin who Is the <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Mother of your God</i></b> and Judge, is
also the Advocate of the whole human race: fits for this office, <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">for
she can do whatever she wills with God</i></b>, most wise, <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">for she knows all the means of
appeasing Him</i></b>” <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">(Alphonsus
Liguori, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Glories of Mary</i>, [Tucker
Printer Perry’s <span style="color: black;">Place, 1852] p.161)</span></b></span></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: black;">
<span style="color: red;"><strong><span style="color: black;">Pope Pius XI </span></strong></span><span style="color: red;"><span style="color: black;">proclaimed “O Blessed Mother, our Queen and Advocate...gather together our prayers and we beseech you (our hearts one with yours) present them before God’s throne...that we may reach the portal of salvation”</span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: black;"> (Pius XI, papal allocation to French pilgrims present for reading of ‘de tuto’, Canonization of Antida Thouret, 15 August 1933, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">L’Osservatore Romano</i>, August</span> <span style="color: black;">15, 1993).</span></b></span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: red;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><o:p></o:p></b></span></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="color: red;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="color: black;">Furthermore,<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"> Pope Pius XII </b>declared, “Our Advocate, placed</span> between God and the
sinner, takes it upon herself to invoke clemency of the Judge so as to temper
His justice”<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"> (Pius XII, papal allocation
at the Canonization of Louis Marie Grignon de Monfort, 21 July 1947, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">AAS 39</i>, 408).</b></span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="color: red;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: black;">Some Catholics believe that the
doctrine of Mary as Mediatrix of all graces is not official Catholic doctrine,
and thus, they do not have to accept or justify it. However, this doctrine is regarded
by the Vatican Church as part of the infallible teaching of the Ordinary
Universal Magisterium. In others words, since this doctrine has for a long time
been accepted and supported by Popes and by bishops united with them, it is
infallible for all Catholics because the Vatican claims the Church could not
have been in doctrinal error at such a high level within the Hierarchy for such
a long time.</span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="color: red;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: black;">On the subject of this doctrine,
Catholic Mariologist <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Mary Miravalle</b> states
in her book, <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Introduction to Mary</i></b>, that “in light of the fact that the
doctrine of Mary as Mediatrix of all graces has been universally taught in the
Church by popes of the last two hundred years and by the bishops in union with
them (ordinary Magisterium), and in virtue of this universal teaching of the
Church, it has been the opinion of certain modern Mariologists that the
doctrine of Mediatrix of all graces already possess the <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">nature</i> </b>of a defined
doctrine of faith. In short, the Marian roles of Co-Redemptrix and Mediatrix of
all graces represent essential Catholic teaching through the order of the
ordinary Magisterium. This charism of the universal teaching authority of all
bishops who, when in union with the pope, can exercise the ecclesial element of
infallibilty, is disussed in Vatican II’s <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Constitution
on the Church</i> (Lumen Gentium, No. 25).” (p.111)<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">
</span></span><span style="color: red; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: red; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="color: black;">Some Catholics believe that these teachings are not
official and therefore they do not have to believe them or defend them.
However, these teachings constitute what is known as <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">infallible teaching of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium. </b>That is
because these have been affirmed for so long by Popes and</span><span style="color: black;"> bishops in union with
them it is infallible for Catholics since according to Rome the Church could
not be in doctrinal error for so long in such a high level.</span></span></span></span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05691278945044347095noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6492019158605752441.post-28171611386522479132015-02-16T19:58:00.002-08:002015-09-07T08:44:47.117-07:00God's Creation, The Fall of Lucifer, and the Rise of the Messiah<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://ytimg.googleusercontent.com/vi/GP-7PPHk9CM/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/GP-7PPHk9CM?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<br />
This is a three-part video. The first is the Creation of the Universe by the Word of God, including the creation of the angels and the origin of Lucifer<br />
The second is the Fall of Lucifer. While I do use Ezekiel 28:12-19 and Isaiah 14:12-15 to explain the fall of Lucifer, Lucifer's first speech is merely a construction that I myself made, which I based it upon certain verses of the Bible. I tried to be as faithful to the scriptures as possible when constructing what Lucifer might have said to God when wickedness was found in his heart. I also mention the fall of other angels who lusted after women and gave birth to the Nephilim.<br />
Then, I move on to the third and final part, the rise of the Promised Messiah. I give several speeches, each one concerning every single name and title that is given to Jesus Christ.<br />
Here is a google doc link to my narration speech with all the Bible verses used:<br />
<a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/14_qVEA9FV7bdIGQhB1mHI8wQnYStGFanYYYBEtg5Ghg/edit?usp=sharing">https://docs.google.com/document/d/14_qVEA9FV7bdIGQhB1mHI8wQnYStGFanYYYBEtg5Ghg/edit?usp=sharing</a><br />
Almost 99% of my narration is taken straight from the Bible.<br />
One thing I might regret is that the music sometimes overpowers my voice. Despite that, I believe you can still clearly make out what I'm saying.<br />
I own none of the vids and music used in this video.<br />
<br />
Thanks and Credit:<br />
All Glory, Honor, and Praise goes to my Triune God, to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.<br />
Archangelclk- for the concept to my vid and his "Love like fire" music vid<br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=av0OjugpMX8">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=av0OjugpMX8</a><br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUWkHUj4-PA">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUWkHUj4-PA</a><br />
Roma Downey & Mark Burnett- For the Bible Series Extended Look trailer<br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wir4fH6hUxw">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wir4fH6hUxw</a><br />
Sevenfold Films & Creation Science Evangelism- for both Genesis Series teaser trailers<br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbXUF9i47EU">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbXUF9i47EU</a><br />
<a href="http://www.genesisseries.com/">www.genesisseries.com</a><br />
Michaelegit- for the Creation of the world vid<br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RKByQf9jsk">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RKByQf9jsk</a><br />
Guy Tourgeman- for the earth zoom to universe vid<br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EanYhkv5P8">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EanYhkv5P8</a><br />
Blizzard Entertainment- for the Diablo 3 cinematic scenes<br />
Konami & MercurySteam- for the Castlevania: Lords of Shadow 2 trailer<br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXyblWhsDys">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXyblWhsDys</a><br />
Vigil Games and THQ- for the Darksiders 2 trailers & commercial<br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEw2oU2WH2w">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEw2oU2WH2w</a><br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJp6O53PiXE">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJp6O53PiXE</a><br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2Uc-zmiS8o">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2Uc-zmiS8o</a><br />
<br />
Music:<br />
The Audiomachine- The New Earth 0:00<br />
Frozen Synapse OST- Deeper 3:06<br />
Has Zimmer- Time 5:40<br />
Audiomachine- Gaurdians at the Gate 8:52<br />
Audiomachine- Epica 10:56<br />
Two Steps From Hell- Love & Loss 15:39<br />
Audiomachine- The Odyssey 17:28<br />
Epic Score- Rightful Heir 20:51<br />
Immediate Music- Serenata Immortale 23:17<br />
Audiomachine- Reaching 26:56<br />
God's blessings to you all, my Friends.<br />
One Love, One Joy, One Peace = Jesus Christ<br />
<div align="center">
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05691278945044347095noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6492019158605752441.post-38848452217903011242015-02-09T18:24:00.002-08:002015-09-07T08:45:21.663-07:00Mariolatry (Pt. 5) Mary the New Eve?<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Is Mary the New Eve
from Gen. 3:15?</b><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">NO!<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Pope Pius IX argued that Gen. 3:15 established the doctrine
of the Immaculate Conception. He said, “the most holy Virgin, united with him
[Christ] by a most intimate and indissoluble bond, was, with him and through
him, eternally at enmity with the evil serpent, and most completely triumphed
over him, and thus<i> crushed his head with her immaculate foot</i>” (Pope
Pius IX, <i>Ineffabilis Deus</i>, Interpreters of the Sacred Scripture,
italics and brackets mine).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">It’s ‘He’, Not ‘She’<o:p></o:p></span></span></b></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">As has been already explained in a previous post, the “she”
and “her” in <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Gen. 3:15</b> of the Latin
Vulgate is a mistranslation. In the <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Douay Rheims Bible</i></b>, the verse reads
as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">“I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy
seed and her seed: <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">SHE </b>shall crush
thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">HER</b>
heel.” (<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">DRB</b>)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">DRB</b> is a
translation of the Latin Vulgate, which uses the Latin word “Ipsa”, that is,
“she” in English. This is a complete error and mistranslation. It should have been
“ipse”, masculine for “he”. The <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">NRSVCE</b>,
a Catholic Bible, correctly renders the verse as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between
your offspring and hers; <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">he</b> will
strike your head, and you will strike <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">his</b>
heel.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">For a very long time the Roman Catholic Church knew very
well of the Vulgate’s mistranslation. Romanist bishop Alphonsus Liguori (A. D.
1696 –1787), proclaimed Doctor of the Church, made mention of this problem
prior to Pius IX’s definition of the Immaculate Conception:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">“She will crush your head: <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><u>some question whether this refers to Mary, and not rather to Jesus,
since the</u></i><u> <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Septuagint
translates it, He shall crush your head</i></u>. But in the Vulgate, which
alone was approved by the Council of Trent, we find She.” (Alphonsus Liguori,
The Glories of Mary, (adapted), [Catholic Book Publishing, 1981], p. 88.)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Even Modern Catholics themselves admit this mistranslation,
as the <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">New Catholic Encyclopedia </i></b>states: “Much confusion has resulted
from the fact that the second half of this verse [Genesis 3:15] was <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u>inaccurately translated in the Vulgate</u></b>
to read, “SHE shall crush your head.” This translation, which has strongly
affected the traditional representations of the Blessed Virgin, is today
generally recognized to be <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u>a mistake</u></b>
for “it [or “he,” i.e., the seed of the woman] shall crush...,” and
consequently <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u>CAN NO LONGER BE CITED
in favor of the Immaculate Conception.</u></b>” (Volume VII, page 378)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">And even the <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Catholic
Encyclopedia</b>, when talking about the Immaculate Conception, admits that,
and I quote, “The translation "she" of the Vulgate is interpretative;
it originated after the fourth century, and <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u>cannot be defended critically</u></b>. The conqueror from the seed
of the woman, who should crush the serpent's head, is Christ …”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Morever, the <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Nova
Vulgate</b>, the revised Latin version which was authorized by the Vatican,
corrected this mistake, changing it from ‘ipsa’ to ‘ipsum’, “it” in the Latin.
And in the footnotes of the <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">New Revised
Standard Version Catholic Edition</b>, it states that the rendering “ipsa”
could have been <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">“due originally to a
copyist’s mistake...”<o:p></o:p></b></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">All modern Bible translations which translate from the
Septuagint and Masoretic Texts have correctly interpreted it as “He” or “it”, referring
to the <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Seed</b> of the woman who will
crush the serpent’s head, which is fulfilled in Jesus Christ. As <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Rom. 16:20</b> testifies, “The God of peace
will shortly crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be
with you.” (<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">NRSVCE</b>) Paul alludes to
Christ’s anticipated Final victory over Satan in <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Rev. 20:2,10</b>, while at the same time telling the church at Rome and
to all believers that they will have victory over Satan and his schemes through
our Lord Jesus Christ, NOT Mary. And as <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Is.
9.6</b> proclaims, Jesus is our mighty God, Father of Eternity, and “The Prince
of Peace”.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Now, a Catholic might argue that the Hebrew word <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">“<span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">hū”,
</span></i><span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">used in Gen 3:15 to refer
to the Seed, can also mean “she”. And that’s true, the word <i>“hū” </i>can
mean “he”, “she”, or “it”, but that depends on the surrounding grammatical
context being examined. <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i>The
Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon</i></b> confirms that <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i>“he”</i></b>, <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">NOT</b> “she” or “it”, is the correct choice for Gen. 3:15 (Francis
Brown, S. R. Driver, Charles A. Briggs, <i>The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew
and English Lexicon</i> <i>Coded with Strong’s Concordance Numbers,</i> [Hendrickson
Publishers, 2010], p. 215). And since the Greek Septuagint (LXX, 3<sup><span style="font-size: x-small;">rd</span></sup>-2<sup><span style="font-size: x-small;">nd</span></sup>
century B.C.) translates the Hebrew word <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><i>“hū” </i>into<i> </i>the masculine “He”
(“autos”, αὐτός), then “he” is certainly the accurate word to describe the <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Seed</b> of the woman. This means that the
Greek-speaking, pre-Christian Jews were expecting a single <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">MALE</b> person who would crush the Serpent’s head.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Furthermore, God’s Word reveals to us in <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Gen.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>4:1</b> that Eve was expecting a <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">MALE</b>
child to crush the serpent’s head: “Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she
conceived and bore Cain, saying, ‘I have gotten a man with the help of the
LORD’” (Gen. 4:1). <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">This is a clear and definite remark from Eve who believed that
the promise of Gen. 3:15, in which a future seed would destroy Satan, was
fulfilled with Cain’s birth. Though she was wrong about Cain, this proves to us
that even Eve knew that Gen. 3:15 refers to a male offspring crushing Satan’s
head, <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">NOT</b> a female. Therefore, there
is a powerful, well-founded case grammatically, historically, and biblically for
the rendering “he will crush your head”. No other case can be made for the
rendering “she” as the Greek grammar has shown. No honest and serious scholars
or modern translations can nor will make such a case.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Therefore, Pope Pius IX, expressing Jerome’s false
translation, was in error when asserting that Mary crushed Satan’s head.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>His biblical arguments in his very own
encyclical culminating in his supposedly infallible dogmatic definition of the
Immaculate Conception were misleading and deceptive. Still, Rome wants people
to believe the dogmatic definition itself is infallible. The many evidences reveal
that Gen. 3:15 does in fact mean that God puts enmity between Satan and Eve,
and between Satan’s seed and Eve’s seed. Jesus, as Eve’s offspring, will crush
Satan’s head and Satan will bruise Christ’s heel. Mary is not the one who
crushes Satan’s head.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Yet, Catholics still want to say that Mary crushed Satan’s
head through Jesus. The problem is that, <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">One</i></b>, Mary was not sinless. And <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Two</i></b>,
she did not die for our sins. Only Jesus was sinless and only Jesus died for
our sins. Mary was merely the blessed instrument by which Jesus would become
human. </span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The ‘Woman’ is Eve, Not Mary<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Since it is clearly obvious Mary is NOT the one to crush the
serpent’s head, Romanism has recently devised another argument in order to
somehow say that Mary is in Gen. 3:15. Now they say that although Mary is not
the one who crushes Satan’s head, she is instead the woman who is at enmity
with Satan and bears a seed (Christ) who crushes Satan’s head. Thus, according
to this argument, one might interpret the text as follows: </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">“and I will put enmity between Satan and Mary and between
Satan’s seed and Mary’s seed: Jesus shall crush Satan’s head, and Satan shall
bruise his heel.” <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">For instance, Roman scholar Stephano M. Manelli gives
his thoughts: <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">“the Mariological dimension in reference to the ‘woman’ must
be also understood literally to be exclusive to that ‘woman,’ to Mary, that is,
to the Mother of the Redeemer, and not to Eve” (Stephano M. Manelli, <i>All
Generations Shall Call me Blessed: Biblical Mariology</i>, [Academy of the
Immaculate Conception, 2005], pp. 23-24).<br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">On the contrary, the context is plainly clear that Eve is
the “woman” (Hb. <i>hā·’iš·šāh</i>) of Gen. 3:15, NOT Mary. The reference
to “woman” is evidenlty Eve all through the chapter in the context of the same ‘fall
of man’ event with Adam, Eve and the serpent in the garden (e. g. vv. 1-2, 4,
6, 12-13, 16). Therefore, when v. 15 mentions the “woman” in the same story, in
God’s address to the serpent that had just deceived Adam and Eve, it is misleading
and deceptive to claim Mary is all of a sudden in view. Furthermore, Eve’s
assumption in Gen. 4:1 that her son Cain fulfilled what God promised in Gen. 3:15
(i.e., that her seed would crush the serpent’s head) confirms it was instantly
known that the woman here is Eve, <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">NOT</b>
Mary.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">And yet the Catholic will respond saying: Jesus is Mary’s <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">seed</i>, not Eve’s. Hence, Catholics assert
that Mary has to be this ‘woman’. As Roman scholar Mark I. Miravalle contends,
“Since the ‘seed’ of the woman is Jesus Christ, who is to crush Satan
victoriously in the Redemption, then the woman must in fact refer to Mary,
Mother of the Redeemer, from whom the seed of victory comes” (Mark I.
Miravalle, Introduction to Mary: The Heart of Marian Doctrine and Devotion,
[Mark I. Miravalle, S.T.D., 2006], pp. 64-65).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Contrary to this argument, it is contextually wrong to limit
the word “seed” (Heb. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">zera‛</i>) to a
recent descendant and rule out the broader sense of a future descendant. The
word <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">zera‛</i> can denote the seed of a
person many generations in the future. For instance, we read in 2 Sam. 22:51, “He
is the tower of salvation for his king: and sheweth mercy to his anointed, unto
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">David,
and to his seed for evermore</i></b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">.</i>”
Hence, David’s seed does refer to future descendants until the end of time, and
thus, it’s not restricted to his immediate descendant. <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Mounce’s Complete Expository
Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words</i></b> indicates the word can pertain
to “‘offspring’ or ‘descendents’ of an individual. At times <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">zera‛</i> designates a single descendent” (William
D. Mounce, Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament
Words, [Zondervan, 2006], p. 625 italics mine). The word isn’t limited to
immediate offspring, but can also refer to future children.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Moreover, the New Testament uses the term “seed” (Gk. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">spermatos</i>) to extend further than an
immediate descendant. For instance, 2 Tim. 2:8 reads, “Remember that Jesus
Christ, of <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">the seed of David</i></b>, was raised from the dead according to my
gospel”. It cannot be said that Jesus was David’s literal and immediate seed
(i.e. his biological son). Yet, that is exactly what Catholic reasoning assumes
because the Catholic apologists completely disregard the fact that the term can
refer to future offspring.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">To sum up, there is no basis for denying that the ‘seed’ in
Gen. 3:15 refers to <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Eve’s</i> future
descendant, that is, Jesus. To claim that the ‘seed’ must refer to the woman’s
immediate offspring is recklessly rash. That does not accord with the facts
according to the Hebrew and Greek languages. The context is absolutely clear
that the enmity is between Satan and Eve, between Eve’s ‘seed’ (Jesus) and
Satan. The enmity is not between Satan and Mary, for Mary is not the ‘woman’ of
Gen. 3:15. The Catholic’s attempt at forcing Mary into Gen. 3:15 in order to
try to prove the false doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, regardless of
being disproven on their first argument, also fail to prove their point.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">For Catholics to keep pressing the issue that Mary must be
the ‘woman’ of Gen. 3:15 simply because Jesus is her ‘seed’ is just eisegetical
desperation, for it rips the first half of Gen. 3:15 out of its surrounding
context (Gen. 3:14-16) and does not correlate with the exegetical facts that
the context of Gen. 3:15 speak of the Serpent’s hostile relation with Eve, and
thus, mankind’s hostile relation with Satan in its prophetic completion by
Jesus Christ, the Woman’s (Eve’s) ‘Seed’ who will crush the Serpents’ head. And
since the context clearly demands the ‘woman’ to be Eve, especially because the
next verse (v.16) clearly speaks of Eve’s punishment as the ‘woman’ who will
experience birth pangs, desire her husband, and be under his authority, in no
way can it be said that Mary is somehow the New Eve. <em>(Keep in mind that Catholics claim that Mary did not experience birth pangs nor had any desire/sex with her husband. This is another reason why Gen.3:15 cannot be applied to Mary since it contradicts these Catholic beliefs)</em> Mary’s connection to Eve
is only that she is the instrument by which she would give birth to the Seed,
Jesus Christ, who will crush the Serpent’s head, and nothing more. Mary’s
blessedness as recorded in <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Luke 1:28,42</b>
was her <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">childbearing </i></b>of the Promised Messiah, NOT her supposed
sinlessness as the New Eve.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Besides, the Catholic analogy that Mary is the New Eve fails
miserably because Eve was Adam’s earthly <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">WIFE</i>. </b>Mary is Jesus’ earthly <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">MOTHER,
not His wife</i></b>. Scripture teaches that Jesus is the “last Adam” (<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">1 Cor. 15:45</b>), but NOWHERE does it teach
that Mary is the last Eve. And even if Mary was the New Eve, It would be more
of an insult than a respectable title for Mary, since it would give the
blasphemous impression of an incestuous relationship between Jesus and his
mother Mary. The fact is that Mary is NOT the New Eve, but rather <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">she is part of the Church of Christ</b>,
and the <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Church collectively as a whole</b>
is spiritually called the <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">“bride” of
Jesus Christ</b> (<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Eph. 3:23-33; Rev.
19:7-9</b>). <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Hence, no one else but Jesus alone fulfilled the magnificent
prophecy of <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Gen. 3:15</b> and He alone
conquered our greatest enemy, Satan. As <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">1
John 3:8 </b>testifies, “For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that
He might destroy the works of the devil”. It’s through Jesus Christ’s death on
the Cross, NOT Mary, that He destroyed “him who had the power of death, that
is, the devil, and release[ed] those who through fear of death were all their
lifetime subject to bondage.” (<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Heb.
2:14-15</b>) Therefore, we should trust in Jesus alone to give us victory over
Satan, sin, and death, so that He alone may be glorified.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05691278945044347095noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6492019158605752441.post-46586187187973441622014-11-25T20:22:00.003-08:002015-09-07T08:45:32.208-07:00Mariolatry (Pt. 4) Immaculate Conception<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Was Mary
Immaculately Conceived?<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">No!<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">It was in 1854 A.D. that the Roman Catholic Church
officially proclaimed through the infallible announcement of <b>Pope Pius IX</b> that Mary was immaculately
conceived, that is, conceived without the stain of original sin. However, it’s
nowhere to be found in Scripture. And yet, there is an immaculate conception in
the Incarnation of Jesus Christ. As <b>Isaiah
9:6</b> proclaims, “For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given... And
His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, <b>Mighty God, Everlasting Father [Father of Eternity]</b>, Prince of
Peace.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">But, the Catholic will say, “Hold on, there is one passage
of Scripture that supports the Immaculate Conception”. And this is what they’ll
show you. “And the angel being come in, said unto her: <b><u>Hail, full of grace</u></b>, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou
among women.” (Luke 1:28) Douay Rheims Version<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">This is where Catholics get their “Hail Mary, full of grace”
prayer from. Now in most translations it says “Rejoice, highly favored one”
(NKJV) or “Greetings, you who are highly favored!” (NIV)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The point of showing you these differences is to show that
this statement from the angel Gabriel is merely a greeting, and should NOT be
looked at as a basis for praying to Mary. Also, the phrase “full of grace” or
“highly favored” comes from the Greek word “khar-ee-to’-ō” (χαριτόω). <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">It should be noted that, the term “Kecharitomene” (<b>κεχαριτωμένη</b>) is translated in the
Latin Vulgate as “gratia plena”, meaning ‘full of grace’. However, all modern
versions of the Bible which translate from the original Greek, and NOT from the
Latin, translate “kecharitomene” as “highly favored one” “highly favored”
“favored one” “favored woman”. All these variations are closer to the original
Greek term than the Latin Vulgate term “full of grace”. Even the most recent
up-to-date Catholic versions which also translate from the original Greek have
translated <b>kecharitomene</b> as “favored
one” (<b>NRSVCE, NJB </b><i>“you who enjoy God’s favor”</i><b>, NAB</b>, not to be confused with <b>NASB</b>). The actual way of saying <b>‘full of grace’</b> in Greek is “<b>playrace khareetos</b>” (<b>plērēs charitos, πλήρης χάριτος</b>).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">But what does “full of grace” actually mean for Catholics?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">For Catholics, “full of grace” means, “transformation of the
subject by favor or grace; plenitude of favor or grace; of a singular and
permanent kind; perfection of grace; extensive and from birth the whole
lifelong”.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">That’s quite a mouth full. Does such a Greek word have that
kind of definition? Absolutely Not! Such a Roman Catholic definition is just
utter nonsense. All that the Catholics are trying to do is try to come to the
false conclusion that Mary never sinned because she was “full of grace”. They
reason by saying, “how could Mary have sinned if she was ‘full of Grace’. She
cannot sin.” Therefore, in making the declaration that Mary was immaculately
conceived, <b>they depend entirely upon
this verse only</b>. Essentially, Mary was conceived without sin because she
was “full of grace”. They argue that because the Greek word is in the perfect
tense, that therefore means that Mary’s ‘full of grace’ is somehow “permanent
and of a singular kind”<a href="file:///C:/Users/Freddy%20Castaneda/Documents/Mariolatry%20-%20Immaculate%20Conception.docx#_edn1" name="_ednref1" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 115%;">[i]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>,
and hence “is unchanging, everlasting, definitive”<a href="file:///C:/Users/Freddy%20Castaneda/Documents/Mariolatry%20-%20Immaculate%20Conception.docx#_edn2" name="_ednref2" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 115%;">[ii]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Yet the truth is that the Greek word “charitoō” used here in
the perfect tence (kecharitomene) does
not mean what the Catholics want it to mean. This Greek word takes place in the
same participle form in Sir 18:17 with no theological importance:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Sir. 18:17: οὐκ ἰδοὺ λόγος ὑπὲρ δόμα ἀγαθόν καὶ ἀμφότερα παρὰ
ἀνδρὶ <b>κεχαριτωμένῳ </b>(“Behold, is not
a word better than a good gift? But both accompany a favored man”)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Not only that, but the perfect tense in <b>Luke 1:28</b> merely talks about the <b><i>current state</i></b> of Mary without
referring to <b><i>how long</i></b> Mary has been in that state, or <b><i>will be</i></b> in that state.
For example, <b>John 14:29</b> states: “And
now I have told you before it comes, that when it does come to pass, you may
believe.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The word “told” is in the perfect tense, but obviously it
doesn’t mean that Jesus has told his disciples from the beginning of their
lives, i.e. their conception. Instead, He just now told them. Compare Acts.
7:56; 10:45; and Matt. 13:46 as well, where all of them use the perfect tense,
yet not one of them imply a <b><i>permanent</i></b> state or condition.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">If we want to know the meaning of this word, we must look at
it in context. We need only to read what follows in <b>Luke 1:30</b>, where the angel Gabriel says, “Do not be afraid, Mary,
for you have found <b><u>favor</u></b> with
God.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">God has <b><i>favored</i></b> Mary. Even <b><i>Strong’s
Exhaustive Concordance</i></b> states that the Greek root word <b><i>charitoō</i></b>
means “to endow with <b><i>charis</i></b>, primarily signified ‘to make
graceful or gracious’ and came to denote <b><u>‘to
cause to find favor’</u></b>”. There’s nothing here about “plenitude of favor
or grace, or from beginning to end sinlessness, or being without sin” as the
Catholics wish to apply all of this to the term “full of grace”. Contextually
speaking, Mary was “favored” by God because she was elected by Him to be the
one to conceive and birth the Messiah, <b>NOT</b>
because of some permanent and intrinsic quality of grace within Mary. In other
words, Mary was not chosen because she was considered ‘highly favored’, but
rather, she became ‘highly favored’
because God chose her for the task of conceiving and giving birth to Christ
Jesus.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">If we turn to <b>Ephesians
1:5-6</b> the exact same term is used in Greek. Paul is speaking in reference
to what God has given to His own, saying “Having predestined us to adoption as
sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, to
the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He <b><u>made us accepted</u></b> in the Beloved.” (NKJV)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The phrase “made us accepted” or in other translations
“freely bestowed favor on us” (HNV), or “graced us” (DRA) is the exact same
“grace” term that’s used in <b>Luke 1:28</b>.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">My response to the Catholics is this: if you are going to
define “full of grace” with such a ridiculous definition for Mary, then you
must apply that definition to all believers as well based on <b>Eph. 1:6</b>. Catholics can’t have it both
ways.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Scripture also tells us that others were “full of grace”,
not just Mary. For example, in <b>Acts 6:8</b>
Stephen is said to be “full of grace” (πλήρης χάριτος)(NRSVCE, DRA). In <b>Luke 1:41</b>, Elizabeth is said to be
“filled with the Holy Spirit” (DRA). In <b>Acts
11:24</b>, Barnabas is said to be “full of the Holy Spirit” (NRSVCE). And as we
all know, the Holy Spirit is the “Spirit of grace” (<b>Hebrews 10:29</b>, NRSVCE, DRA). And many more in Scripture were “full
of grace” especially our Lord Jesus Christ in <b>John 1:14</b>, who was “full of grace and truth”. It is only fair,
then, to apply the Catholic definition to the term “full of grace” to Stephen,
Elizabeth, and Barnabas. But, we already know that the Catholic definition is
nothing but a complete myth.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Therefore, the term “full of grace” found in <b>Luke 1:28</b> simply means that God favored
Mary as the context shows in <b>Luke 1:30</b>.
Thus, “Full of grace” does NOT mean that Mary was conceived without sin or that
she lived a sinless life. Mary was full of grace, and so is every believer. So,
Mary's grace was a <b><i>received</i></b> grace, NOT grace to bestow to others. She received
grace, NOT because of some <b><i>personal merit</i></b>, but simply for the
sake of <b><i>free grace.</i></b> Mary "found favor with God", and thus,
her being “full of grace” has nothing to do with being praised for what she
supposedly was, immaculately conceived, or for what she supposedly did, living
sinless, as Catholics would have us believe. When one is graced by God it
glorifies God, not man.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">However, some Catholics mistakenly argue that the Greek word
“kecharitomene” (κεχαριτωμένη) is a noun, and thus, they reason that because
this word is used in place of Mary’s name, it therefore is a title or name
given to Mary to indicate a characteristic quality of her unique abundance of
grace in a supernatural, godlike state of soul. But, the word “kecharitomene”
is a feminine verb since Mary is the subject of this verb, and it’s in the
perfect passive participle form derived from the root verb “charitoō”. It’s not
a noun. The meaning of “kecharitomene” is “endued with grace”. In other words,
Mary was given grace by God, grace that she neither earned nor gained, but
rather, because God willed that she would be the one to bear and carry our
Savior. She was a blessed recipient of God’s grace, NOT the source of grace, so
that she could conceive and bear Jesus without the aid of man through the
agency of the Holy Spirit.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Furthermore, the Greek term “kecharitomene” or
“kecharitomenos” can be grammatically used to describe any other person without
any implication of that person being immaculately conceived or living sinless.
Even Catholic apologist, <b>Jimmy Akin</b>,
concedes that <b><i>kecharitomene</i></b> “is a Greek term that you could use in that exact
grammatical formation for someone else who wasn’t immaculately conceived and
the sentence would still make sense....This is something where I said
previously, we need the additional source of information from tradition and we
need the guidance of the magisterium to be able to put these pieces together.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Therefore, the phrase, “full of grace” is not evidence for
the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. In fact, even the <b>Catholic Encyclopedia</b> acknowledges
this, stating that the term <b><i>kecharitomene </i></b>“serves only as an
illustration, <b><u>not as a proof of the
dogma</u></b>”.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">To prove my point even further that the Catholics themselves
admit that the term “full of grace” does not refer to the Immaculate
Conception, we read in the <b><i>New Catholic Encyclopedia</i></b>, “The
words of Gabriel, “Hail, full of grace” (Lk. 1.28), have also been appealed to
as a revelation of the Immaculate Conception, on the grounds that to be truly
full of grace, Mary must have had it always. This interpretation, however,
overlooks the fact that the Greek term κεχαριτωμένη [kecharitomene] is not
nearly so explicit as the translation “full of grace” might suggest. It implies
only that God’s favor has been lavished on Mary, without defining the degree of
grace.” <b>(Volume VII, Page 378)<o:p></o:p></b></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b><br /></b></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Moreover, almost every Catholic NT scholars in current
years, including Raymond Brown and Joseph Fitzmeyer, acknowledge that the older
Roman Catholic interpretations of the Greek term <i>kecharitomene</i> “clearly go beyond the meaning of Luke’s text.”<a href="file:///C:/Users/Freddy%20Castaneda/Documents/Mariolatry%20-%20Immaculate%20Conception.docx#_edn3" name="_ednref3" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 115%;">[iii]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Yet Catholics, will in their desperation claim that when the
angel Gabriel says to Mary “Blessed are you among women” (<b>Luke 1:28</b>), that Mary is blessed above all women and above all
Mankind because of her supposed Immaculate Conception and sinless life. There
are two problems with this argument. <b><i>One</i></b>, Catholics who use this argument
fail at both English and Greek grammar because it never says that she is
blessed above women, but rather she is blessed <b><i>among</i></b> women. And <b><i>Two</i></b>,
the verse <b>only</b> mentions that she’s
blessed among <b><i>women</i></b>, NOT above the whole Human race.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Still, Catholics will argue that the phrase “Blessed are you
among women” should be interpreted as the NAB renders it, “<b><i>Most blessed </i></b>are you
among women”. But such an interpretation is inconsistent with the Greek
Grammar, as well as deceptive. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>First</b>, because
Greek is a far more specific language, the term "εὐλογημένη"
(Blessed) is <b>NOT</b> in the superlative
form (i.e. “Most blessed).</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Second</b>, "εὐλογημένη"
is the feminine form of "εὐλογημένος" and is in the <i>Passive Perfect Participle</i> form derived
from the Greek verb “eulogeō” (εὐλογέω). <b><o:p></o:p></b></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Third</b>, the
feminine superlative form of PP participle “εὐλογημένη” is “<b>εὐλογημένότατη</b>” (Most blessed).</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Fourth</b>, in <b>Luke 1:42</b> both the masculine and
feminine forms are used (<b>εὐλογημένη</b>
σὺ ἐν γυναιξίν καὶ <b>εὐλογημένος</b> ὁ
καρπὸς τῆς κοιλίας σου = Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit
of your womb!) and yet only the feminine is falsely interpreted as "most
blessed", just so Catholics could justify lifting up Mary above everyone
else. That's being very deceptive. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Fifth</b>, the Catholic
Douay–Rheims Bible says "Blessed art thou among women". Even the
other more recent Catholic versions which follow the <b>GREEK</b> say "Blessed are you among women" (RSVCE, NRSVCE). Only
those versions which follow Catholic theology translate this verse as
"Most blessed are you among women" (NAB, not to be confused with
NASB), while leaving the second part of the verse unchanged "blessed is
the fruit of your womb". WHY the inconsistency? WHY the deception? <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Sixth</b>, In <b>Luke 19:38</b>, we read "Blessed be
the king who cometh in the name of the Lord..." (DRB) The Greek uses the
masculine form "Εὐλογημένος" and it's referring to Jesus. One would
think that if "Εὐλογημένος" actually meant "most blessed"
that that is how it would have been translated when referring to Jesus Himself,
but it's not. There is <b>absolutely</b> <b>NO</b> Bible version which ever translates
this as "Most blessed be the King". In fact, even the NAB, which uses
"Most blessed" in Luke 1:28,42, simply translates "Εὐλογημένος"
as "Blessed is the King".<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The inconsistency is so clear as day that it's no surprise
Catholics have been trying so hard to find anything in Scripture to support
their false Marian beliefs. They would go so far as to change God's word to fit
their own dogma.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">But even if Catholics still want to believe that Mary is
blessed above all of Humanity based on this phrase in <b>Luke 1:28</b>, the phrase “blessed are you among women” is actually not
found in the earliest Greek manuscripts and is found in later Greek texts. And
even though this phrase is repeated in <b>Luke
1:42</b> by Elizabeth towards Mary, it does not have as much weight as it would
have had from an angel sent by God.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Now, keep in mind that the doctrine of the Immaculate
Conception was not approved until 1854 by <b>Pope
Pius IX</b>. This means that before 1854, for nearly 1900 years Mary was with
sin. And yet, the Catholic religion is not limited to the Bible only. They
don’t hold to the Scriptures alone because they believe that they have “rights”
to change the Bible according to their man-made traditions and their
proclamations of their fallible councils.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">And yet, Catholics will object, saying that the Church and
the Church faithful throughout history were unanimous in believing in the
doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Really?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The Early Church seems to have been oblivious about the
doctrine of the Immaculate Conception for centuries. In fact Catholics
themselves admit this in a book called <b><i>A Handbook of the Catholic Faith</i></b>,
authored by N.G.M. Van Doornik, S. Jelsma, & A. Van De Lisdonk; and the
book was given the <b>Imprimatur</b> or <b>official endorsement</b> of the Vatican
Church. In it we read:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">““This point of doctrine [the immaculate conception] is <u>not
expressly dealt with anywhere in the Bible, nor was it preached by the
Apostles, and for many centuries it was not mentioned at all by the Church. </u>Gradually,
however, as the idea of the future dogma began to develop among the faithful,
theologians submitted the point to the closest examination, and finally, the
view then generally prevailing was formally pronounced as a dogma of the Church
by His Holiness Pope Pius IX in 1854” (p. 238).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">There are <b>five</b>
damaging admissions this Catholic book makes: <b><i>One</i></b>, the doctrine of the
Immaculate Conception is never taught “anywhere in the Bible”, and thus,
there’s no biblical grounds for this fallacious notion. <b><i>Two</i></b>, this dogma was
virtually unknown to the 12 Apostles. <b><i>Three</i></b>, for centuries this idea was
completely foreign to the Early Church. <b>Four</b>,
the concept of the Immaculate Conception slowly developed through time. <b><i>Five</i></b>,
this dogma has no biblical authority, and thus, has no divine approval
whatsoever, but is instead believed in simply because the Vatican Church used
its ‘authority” that it claims to have to dogmatically teach it through its
papacy and fallible councils.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Thus, we arrive at our conclusion, and that is, all
generations would call Mary blessed, NOT because of the concept of the
Immaculate Conception, but rather, because she was chosen by God to be the humble
instrument by which the Son of God became flesh.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div>
<!--[if !supportEndnotes]--><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br clear="all" />
</span><br />
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<!--[endif]-->
<br />
<div id="edn1">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><a href="file:///C:/Users/Freddy%20Castaneda/Documents/Mariolatry%20-%20Immaculate%20Conception.docx#_ednref1" name="_edn1" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">[i]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>
Keating, Karl. <i>Catholicism and Fundamentalism:
The Attack on “Romanism” by “Bible Christians”</i>, 269.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div id="edn2">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><a href="file:///C:/Users/Freddy%20Castaneda/Documents/Mariolatry%20-%20Immaculate%20Conception.docx#_ednref2" name="_edn2" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">[ii]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>
Laurentine, René. <i>“Pluralism about Mary:
Biblical and Contemporary”</i>, 84.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div id="edn3">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><a href="file:///C:/Users/Freddy%20Castaneda/Documents/Mariolatry%20-%20Immaculate%20Conception.docx#_ednref3" name="_edn3" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">[iii]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>
Raymond Brown et al, eds. <i>Mary in the New
Testament</i>, 128.</span><o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05691278945044347095noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6492019158605752441.post-16281878805144699942014-11-20T22:01:00.000-08:002015-09-07T08:45:41.899-07:00Mariolatry (Pt. 3) Mother of God?<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Should Mary be called the “Mother of God”?<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">No!<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">It was in 431 A.D. at the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus that
Mary was proclaimed to be the “Mother of God”. Yet, for 400 years after
Christ’s death, Mary was <b>NEVER</b> called the “Mother of God”.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Theotokos<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">From the very beginning, in the council of Ephesus at
Ephesus about 431 A.D., the term “Theotokos” (Literally, God bearer), from
which the phrase “Mother of God” is based on, was completely Christological in
nature. The term was meant to protect from the Nestorian heresy, which taught
that Christ’s two natures were separate, and thus, there were two Christs. And
this is why Mary was proclaimed to be “Theotokos” the “God-bearer”, in order to
protect the unity of the two natures in one Christ. Essentially, the term
“Theotokos” served as a useful term to affirm the deity of Christ even in the
womb. Yet as time passed, instead of trying to define who Jesus was (as was the
purpose of the term “Theotokos”), some Christians began speculating about who
Mary was. By calling Mary “Mother of God” it seemed to unintentionally
intensify this speculation, setting off the development of many non-Biblical
false assumptions about Mary which continues to grow ever worse in our times.
Dr. Ludwig Ott, a highly respected Catholic theologian, testifies to this in
his book, The Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, saying “The veneration of Mary
was greatly promoted by the definition of her dignity as Mother of God” (p.
216). Hence, neither the phrase “Mother of God”, nor its implied Catholic
assertions, is in harmony with the original intent of the term “Theotokos”.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">It’s also important to note that during the time of the
council of Ephesus and the council of Chalcedon (451 A.D.), another, more
precise term, “mater theou” (Mother of God) was in use as a supplemental term
by Cyril of Alexandria, who led the council of Ephesus. However, this
supplemental term was never accepted by the framers of both councils.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">But, since in our times the title “Mother of God” has
altered its purpose from one that maintains the deity of Christ to one that glorifies
Mary, the original intent of the title has faded away from use, and for this
reason the title should be abandon.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">“Mother of God” creates a False Syllogism<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Yet, since the Catholics won’t discard the title any time
soon, then we must discuss whether the title “Mother of God” is logically sound
by looking at it syllogistically.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">1<sup>st</sup> premise: Jesus is God<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">2<sup>nd</sup> premise: Mary is the mother of Jesus<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Conclusion: Mary is the mother of God<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">If we are to accept the conclusion, then we should also
accept the logical continuation:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">1<sup>st</sup> premise: God is Trinity<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">2<sup>nd</sup> premise: Mary is the mother of God<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Conclusion: Mary is the mother of the Trinity<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">If we accept this conclusion (which I don’t), then the final
syllogism is as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">1<sup>st</sup> premise: God the Father subsists within the
Trinity<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">2<sup>nd</sup> premise: Mary is the mother of the Trinity<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Conclusion: Mary is the mother of God the Father<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Obviously, this poses a big problem for Catholics, as the 2<sup>nd</sup>
and 3<sup>rd</sup> conclusions are heretical. Yet, they are simply the logical
continuation of the first syllogism. Though they may seem valid conclusions,
the question is whether their 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> premises are
true or false. If any premise is found to be false, then the syllogism ends up being
unsound. First, we look at the 2<sup>nd</sup> premise to the last syllogism. Is
Mary the mother of the Trinity? Clearly the answer is NO. Hence, we should
examine the 2<sup>nd</sup> syllogism that came to this conclusion, that is:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">1st premise: God is Trinity<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">2nd premise: Mary is the mother of God<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Conclusion: Mary is the mother of the Trinity<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">When we look at the 1<sup>st</sup> premise (God is a
Trinity) we accept this as a true premise. Since the conclusion (Mary is the
mother of the Trinity) is false, then we can call into question the
truthfulness of the 2<sup>nd</sup> premise (Mary is the mother of God), and by
extension, we can question the soundness of the 1<sup>st</sup> syllogism which
led to the conclusion “Mary is the mother of God”.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">When we look at the premises of the 1<sup>st</sup> syllogism
(Jesus is God & Mary is the mother of Jesus), we realize where the fallacy
takes place. The 1<sup>st</sup> premise “Jesus is God” is put forward as a
categorical statement affirming something about Jesus, which is more accurately
presented as: <b><i>All</i> </b>of Jesus is God <i>(properly
called an A proposition, “All of S is P”)</i>. Though this functions well for
other singular propositions such as, “All of John is human”, it doesn’t function
well with this one. The premise “Jesus is God” is not actually a categorical
statement because it’s not true that <b><i>all </i></b>of Jesus is God, for Jesus’
humanity cannot be considered divine. Otherwise, Monophysitism (heretical
teaching that Christ’s divine and human natures are actually one nature) would
be orthodox. Jesus is both God and man, hence, we must use the proposition “<b><i>some</i></b>
of Jesus is God” <i>(properly called an I
proposition, “some of S is P”)</i>. Once we accept this, we come to understand
that the 1<sup>st</sup> syllogism runs into the fallacy of the <b>undistributed middle. </b>The proposition
(some of Jesus is God) is an affirmative and particular statement, and hence
the middle term (Jesus) cannot be distributed. In the same manner, Mary cannot
be said to be mother of <b>all</b> of
Jesus, but only of his humanity.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Let’s look at these two premises:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">1<sup>st</sup> premise: <b><i>Some</i></b> of Jesus is God<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">2<sup>nd</sup> premise: Mary is the mother of <b><i>some</i></b>
of Jesus<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Can we then conclude that Mary is the “mother of God”? No,
because the conclusion does not follow necessarily from the two premises. It
could very well be that Mary is the mother of <b><i>only</i></b> the <b><i>non-God</i></b>
part of Jesus, and in fact she is. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">(I must ask that you
forgive me for using terms such as “some of Jesus” and “non-God”. It’s not my
intention to be disrespectful, rather, I’m merely using the language of logic)<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></i></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">“Mother of God”, Mother of a Nature or of a Person?<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Now, Catholics might object, saying that Mary is not the
mother of a <b><i>nature </i></b>(divinity/humanity), but of a <b><i>person</i></b>. That’s true, but
the moment one asserts that Mary is the mother of <b><i>God</i></b>, one has broken that
distinction because one is stating that Mary is the mother of deity but not of
humanity. That is to say, “God” is merely describing Jesus’ divine nature. The <b><i>person</i></b>
of Jesus is not just God, and the person of Jesus is more than just a man. In
other words, Mary gave birth to the person who is both God and man, but she did
<b>NOT </b>give birth to the pre-incarnate
form of the <b><i>Logos</i></b>. It’s appropriate then to call Mary the “mother of
Christ”, but not the “mother of God”. In fact, what Catholics seem to keep on
ignoring is the <b>purpose</b> for giving Mary the title “<i><b>Theotokos</b></i>” at the councils
of Ephesus and Chalcedon, and it’s that the title “Theotokos” was meant to
confirm and maintain the divine <b><i>nature </i></b>of Christ, <b>NOT</b> to establish his personhood. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Besides, in the strict sense, God is not a person, but a <b><i>being</i></b>
that subsists in three persons. God is a Trinity, yet one <b>cannot</b> say that since
Jesus is God then Jesus must be a Trinity. Theologically speaking, all
Christians can agree that our Triune God is Eternal and is without a beginning.
Thus, God has no mother, just as Jesus Christ had no earthly father. Christ’s
human nature had no father and Christ’s divine nature had no mother. So, Mary
added nothing to Christ’s divine nature.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Roman Catholics have failed to make the necessary
theological distinction between person, nature, and being. Some Catholics argue
that Jesus is an exception to this distinction, claiming that Jesus is a
“divine person” who took on a human nature. However, such an argument is faced
with countless problems. <b>First</b>, the
moment one uses the phrase “divine person”, one has already violated the
distinction mentioned above: “Divine person” is simply another way of saying
“person with a divine nature”. Still, the moment the incarnation happened, the
“person” in question was something more, that is, he was a “person with a
divine nature and a human nature”, and it was to <b><i>this</i></b> person that Mary
gave birth to. Furthermore, if one maintains that we have to view Mary as the
mother of God on the basis that she gave birth to a “divine person”, we should
then ask several probing questions. In <b>Luke 2:52</b> we read that “Jesus grew in
wisdom”; Can it be said that God grew in wisdom because Jesus is God? In <b>Matt.
24:36</b> we read that Jesus doesn’t know the day and hour of His return; Can it be
said that God doesn’t know this information because Jesus is God? In <b>Heb. 4:15</b>
we read that Jesus was “tempted in every way just as we are”; Can it be said
that God was tempted because Jesus is God? Since Jesus died on the cross, can
it be said that God died because Jesus is God?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Certainly, the Scriptures reveal that God has always
possessed all wisdom. God knows all things, and that includes the time period
of the return of Christ (Matt. 24:36), God cannot be tempted with evil (Jas.
1:13), and God cannot die because death is a bodily condition that affects all
humans (1 Cor. 15:22; “in Adam, all die”), but not God (Ps. 82:6-7; “I said,
‘you are gods’...but you will die like mere men”), nor even the angels (Luke
20:36; “they can no longer die, for they are like the angels”). Clearly, the
reason as to how Jesus grew in wisdom, was limited in knowledge, was tempted,
died, and of course was born, is only because of his <b>humanity</b>, NOT his divinity. God, in His divinity, cannot be
conceived and born just as He cannot die. Therefore, it cannot be said that Mary
bore God (and thus, carries the title “mother of God”), any more than it can be
said that the Jews killed God. Jesus in His humanity had no mother; Jesus in
His divinity was “without father or mother, without genealogy, without
beginning of days or end of life” (Heb. 7:3).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Belief of the Early Church Fathers about the Jesus/Mary relationship<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">This also was the belief of the earliest minds concerning the
relationship between Jesus and his mother Mary. Augustine comments on John 2,
writing:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">“At that time, therefore, when about to engage in divine
acts, He repelled, as one unknown, her who was the <b>mother, not of His divinity, but of His [human] infirmity.</b>”
(Augustine, <i>Tract. In Ioannem</i> CXIX,
1)</span></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">He makes the same affirmation in another place also:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">“It was as if [Jesus] said [in John 2], ‘You did not give
birth to my power of working miracles, <b>it
was not you who gave birth to my divinity. But you are the mother of all that
is weak in me.</b>” (Ibid., VII, 9)</span></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Evidently, Augustine differentiates between the relation
Mary had with Jesus’ humanity, and the relation she had with His Divinity. In
the following chapter, Augustine explains what he means by this:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Why, then, said the Son to the mother, “Woman, what have I
to do with thee? Mine hour is not yet come.”? Our Lord Jesus Christ was both
God and man. <b>According as He was God, He
had not a mother; according as He was man, He had. She was the mother, then, of
His flesh, of His humanity, of the weakness which for our sakes He took upon
Him</b>. But the miracle which He was about to do, He was about to do according
to His divine nature, not according to His weakness; according to that wherein
He was God not according to that wherein He was born weak. But the weakness of
God is stronger than men. His mother then demanded a miracle of Him; but He,
about to perform divine works, so far did not recognize a human womb; saying in
effect, “<b>That in me which works a
miracle was not born of thee, thou gavest not birth to my divine nature; but because
my weakness was born of thee, I will recognize thee at the time when that same
weakness shall hang upon the cross.</b>” This indeed, is the meaning of “Mine
hour is not yet come.”...How then was was He both David’s son and David’s Lord?
David’s son according to the flesh, David’s Lord according to His divinity; so
also <b>Mary’s son after the flesh, and
Mary’s Lord after His majesty. Now as she was not the mother of His divine
nature</b>, whilst it was by His divinity the miracle she asked for would be
wrought, therefore He answered her, “Woman, what have I to do with thee?”
(Ibid., VIII, 9)</span></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Gregory the Great also comments on John 2 and John 19,
stating:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">“As if to say plainly, That <b>I can do a miracle comes to me from my Father, not from my mother.</b> <b>For He who from the nature of His Father
did miracles, had it from His mother that He could die</b>.” (Gregory, <i>Epist.</i> 41)</span></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Both Augustine and Gregory share the same belief we have asserted
above about the distinction between Mary’s relationship to Jesus in His
Humanity and the same to Jesus in His Divinity.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">A Roman Catholic who rejects this view as <i>ahistorical</i> no
longer has any grounds to object it. This view is founded not just on superior
logic than the phrase “mother of God”, but is also supported by some of the best
thinkers in the Early Church.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">“Mother of God” Does Not Distinguish between the Natures of Christ<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Another objection to the phrase “Mother of God” is that it
does not correctly differentiate between the two natures of Christ. In
designating Mary as the “mother of God”, and not “mother of man” there is an
implied denial of the Christ’s humanity, or a divinization of His humanity,
both of which are heresies. That is to say, it asserts that Mary gave birth to
one nature (specifically, deity) stripped of all true humanity. Despite
Catholics intensely denying this, the Scriptures over and over again explicitly
states that one gives birth not only to a person, but also to a nature. “And
the earth brought forth...plants yielding seed <b><i>after their kind</i></b>...’Let
the earth bring forth living creatures <b><i>after their kind</i></b>.” (<b>Gen. 1:12, 24</b>). Jesus
was the “son of David <b><i>according to the flesh</i></b>” (<b>Rom. 1:3</b>),
Abraham is “forefather [to the Jews] <b><i>according to the flesh</i></b>” (<b>Rom. 4:1</b>).
“It is not the <b><i>children of the flesh</i></b> [i.e. descendants by human nature from
Abraham] who are children of God” (<b>Rom. 9:8</b>)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Now, the framers of the Council of Chalcedon were aware of
the danger that calling Mary “mother of God” would make her the one who birthed
Jesus’ divine nature, depriving Jesus of His true human nature. Hence, they
used the term “Theotokos” (God bearing one), and made no other reference to
Mary. And as I mentioned earlier above, they <b>rejected</b> Cyril’s supplementation <i>“mētēr theou”</i> (μήτηρ θεοῦ), literally “Mother of God”, thus
reaffirming that Jesus is one person who has two natures. The work of Chalcedon
referred to Mary as “God-bearer”, but not without qualification. The content of
the document declares, “...as regards [Jesus’] <b><i>manhood</i></b>, begotten...of
Mary the virgin, the Theotokos...,” thus being cautious <b>NOT</b> to attribute to Mary the idea of giving birth to Christ’s
deity. Paul held to the same belief in <b>Rom.
1:3</b>, in which he says that Jesus is the “son of David, <b><i>according to the flesh</i></b>”.
Hence, Chalcedon merely reaffirmed what the Bible had already made clear. We,
along with Chalcedon, believe that God and man are indissolubly united in the
person of Jesus from the moment of conception; but, that there is no
transformation or mixture of the natures. We have to uphold the distinction
between the two natures of Christ, or we will fall into heresy.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In regards to the Incarnation, Mary certainly had a role in
producing Christ’s humanity, but she was in no way responsible for producing
Christ’s deity. If one really wants to give Mary credit in producing one of the
natures of Christ, then it would be far more accurate to call her the “<b>mother of man</b>” rather than “mother of
God”. And if we are to maintain the proper unity of Christ’s two natures as
Chalcedon demands of us, then it would be even more accurate to call Mary the “<b>mother of Christ</b>” (a general term embracing
both natures). This is precisely what Nestorius tried to accomplish by
introducing the term “<b><i>Christotokos</i></b>” (<b><i>Χριστοτοκος</i></b>), literally,
“Christ-bearing one”. What Chalcedon had taught is also what Nestorius also
apparently taught. As a matter of fact, Nestorius believed himself justified by
the conclusions of Chalcedon (<i>Heresies</i>,
182). His opponents mistakenly believed he was teaching only an apparent unity
between the two natures based on a misunderstanding of his use of <i>prosōpon </i>[πρόσωπον], literally, “face” (<i>Heresies</i>, 174).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The misleading term “Mother of God” must then be dropped and
replaced with another. A more accurate term would be “<b>Mother of Christ the God-Man</b>”, for Mary was merely the Mother of
Christ’s humanity, and nothing more. Yet, Catholics will not give up on the
idea that Mary had some significant and supernatural part in producing <b><i>God</i></b>
in the flesh. Mary did not produce <b><i>God</i></b> in the flesh. Instead she
produced the <b><i>human vessel</i></b> of God. Therefore, Mary is to be called Mother of
Christ the God-Man, for God created in her womb the uniqueness of the God-Man
Jesus and allowed her to carry and bear Him. In other words, since Jesus is God
and Mary is His mother in regards to His human nature, then it is in this way
that Mary is the Mother of Christ the God-Man. Mary was simply the earthly
mother of Jesus Christ, God-incarnate. The End! Period!<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">“Mother of God” Implies an Ongoing Relationship<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The last objection to the title “Mother of God” is that it
strongly suggests a continuing relationship. Let’s suppose for a second that we
accept the title “Mother of God”. It is one thing to assert that Mary gave
birth to Jesus, and thus <b><i>WAS </i></b>the mother of God. It is another
thing completely to assume that there is an ongoing relationship, and hence say
that Mary <b><i>IS </i></b>the mother of God. That is to say, even if the Roman Catholic
could prove to us that Mary has a part to play in the hypostatic union, it does
not logically follow that she keeps the title or status as the “mother of God”. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Let’s read what Scripture teaches us.<b> First</b>, it teaches us of a spiritual relationship with our Lord
Jesus Christ, and hence Jesus broke off all biological bonds with Mary before
he went to Calvary. In <b>Matt. 12:47</b>,
a person told Jesus that “Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside,
seeking to speak with You”. Therefore, Jesus Himself taught in <b>Matt. 12:48-50</b>:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">"Who is My mother and who are My brothers?" And He stretched out His hand toward His
disciples and said, "Here are <b><u>My
mother and My brothers</u></b>! For <b><u>whoever
does the will of My Father</u></b> in heaven <b><u>is My brother and sister and mother</u></b>." </span></blockquote>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">This passage reveals two significant things: <b><i>One</i></b>,
it shows that Jesus did have actual blood brothers. And <b><i>Two</i></b>, those who do the
will of our Heavenly Father are spiritually as close or closer to Jesus than
His own blood family, his brothers and even Mary herself. Essentially, Jesus
declares that nobody has special relations with Him because of biological
bonds, <b><i>not even Mary His mother</i></b>. The true mother, brothers, and
sisters of Jesus are those that do the Father’s will, <b>NOT</b> those that gave birth to Him and grew up with Him. If we put
our faith in Christ Jesus, accepting His free gift of Salvation which He
provided for us through His death and resurrection, then we will be doing the
will our Father in Heaven and we will be in a close intimate relationship with
Jesus, as Jesus Himself proclaimed.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Also important to note concerning this is John 2:1-4. John
gives an account of a wedding that took place in Cana:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">On the third day there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. Now both Jesus and His disciples were invited to the wedding. And when they ran out of wine, the mother of Jesus said to Him, “They have no wine.” Jesus said to her, “Woman, what does your concern have to do with Me? My hour has not yet come.”</span></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Jesus’ response to Mary’s request reads in the Greek as <i>“<b>ti
emoi kai soi, gunai</b>”</i> (<b>τί ἐμοὶ καὶ
σοί γύναι</b>), literally “<b>what to me
and to you, woman</b>”, which means “<b>what
do we have in common with each other</b>”. It’s interesting to note that this
saying is always used as a rebuke in the New Testament, and in each passage the
same Greek construction is shown, where every one of those passages involves
the idea of distancing and/or rebuff (Matt. 8:29; Mark 1:24; 5:7; Luke 4:34;
8:28, John 2:4). </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Indeed, aside from John 2:4, every passage records demons distancing
themselves from Jesus. But, one should then ask oneself why John would choose
to show this rebuke toward Mary at all. The only logical explanation is that
John wanted to make it clear to us that Jesus was indebted to no one, <b>not even Mary His mother</b>. This is very
important because John was the apostle who took Mary in to live with him after
Jesus’ death on the Cross (John 19:26-27). This means that John knew Mary on an
intimate basis, and yet, far from venerating her, he presents her in an
undeniably unflattering light. One might even say that an appropriate
translation for the phrase <i>“what to me and to you”</i> can be <i>“leave me alone”</i> or <i>“why
are you bothering me?”</i>. The Septuagint, the ancient Greek Old Testament, is
full of examples using the exact same construction (Judge 11:12; 2 Sam. 16:10;
1 King 17:18; 2 King 3:13; 2 Chron. 35:21).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Now, Roman Catholics dislike the idea that Jesus Christ
rebukes His mother Mary. Some Catholics have even made efforts to mitigate the
meaning by interpreting Jesus’ words as either “What has changed between us?”<a href="file:///C:/Users/Freddy%20Castaneda/Documents/Mariolatry%20-%20Mother%20of%20God.docx#_edn1" name="_ednref1" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 115%;">[i]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>,
or “What would you have me do?”<a href="file:///C:/Users/Freddy%20Castaneda/Documents/Mariolatry%20-%20Mother%20of%20God.docx#_edn2" name="_ednref2" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 115%;">[ii]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>.
But, they have never shown an example where the Greek construction is used with
these meanings.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Others have tried to interpret Jesus’ title for Mary, “woman”,
in more affectionate terms than the Greek permits, such as “dear woman” or “mother”.
But such terms cannot be justified. Even Catholics admit that the “woman”
(gunai [γύναι]) is “unattested in reference to one’s mother”<a href="file:///C:/Users/Freddy%20Castaneda/Documents/Mariolatry%20-%20Mother%20of%20God.docx#_edn3" name="_ednref3" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 115%;">[iii]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>.
Even Jesus Himself <b>NEVER</b> calls Mary
by the title “mother”, but rather 'Woman’ as <b>John 2:4</b> and <b>John 19:26</b>
testifies. Furthermore, the whole phrase that Jesus says (“what to me and to
you”) is a “Hebrew expression of either hostility...or denial of common
interest”<a href="file:///C:/Users/Freddy%20Castaneda/Documents/Mariolatry%20-%20Mother%20of%20God.docx#_edn4" name="_ednref4" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 115%;">[iv]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>.
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In the end, John 2:4 does teach that Jesus rebuked Mary.
This is not a matter of interpretation, rather the Greek construction of this
passage necessitates this meaning. Jesus did in fact distance Himself from
Mary, and thus, He broke off all normal biological bonds and duties. Any other
interpretation is essentially baseless because it does not sufficiently deal
with the use of the Greek phrase in other places of Scripture. And if Jesus
in this passage (and all other passages where He speaks to & of Mary)
breaks off biological bonds, then Mary no longer possesses the title and status
of “Mother of God” (If she even had that title in the first place, which she
never had).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Finally</b>, Scripture
teaches that all true Believers are children of God, for “as many as received
Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe
in His name” (<b>John 1:12</b>)<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Thus, Mary is NOT the Mother of God in any special,
supernatural sense as described in the Marian Doctrines. Jesus Christ Himself
denied special status to Mary over other believers, and thus, she does not take
priority in the Family of God. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Now, no one anywhere in Scripture calls Mary the “Mother of God”.
And it’s obvious why. God has no mother. Instead Scripture merely calls her the
“mother of Jesus”, as it is written in <b>John
2:1,3</b> and <b>Acts 1:14</b>, for Mary was
simply the mother of Jesus.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Yet, some Catholics will mistakenly argue that in <b>Luke 1:43</b>, Elizabeth called Mary the
“mother of my Lord”, and therefore, Mary is called the “Mother of God”. This is
false! <b><i>First</i></b>, the phrase “mother of my Lord” is not a supernatural
title given to Mary. Mary is the mother of Jesus, who is our Lord, but she is
not the mother of Yahweh. <b><i>Second</i></b>, the Greek word for “Lord” (κύριος,
kyrios) is “kü'-rē-os” and it’s meaning is “one who has supreme authority, to
whom a person or thing belongs, about which one has power of deciding”. In
other words, what Elizabeth was saying is that Mary was the “mother of my
Master”. <b><i>Third</i></b>, The word “Lord” is to be distinguished from the Greek
word “God” or “theos” meaning “deity and
supreme Divinity”. As Thomas declared in <b>John
20:28</b> “My Lord and my God”. Therefore, Elizabeth never said that Mary was
the “Mother of God”, rather she said that Mary was the “mother of the One who
is Sovereign over my life”, because Elizabeth was a servant of the Lord. Hence,
the word “Lord” (κύριος) is referring to a position of sovereign power, and <b>NOT</b> to a divine nature. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>ENDNOTES</b></div>
<div>
<!--[if !supportEndnotes]-->
<!--[endif]-->
<br />
<div id="edn1">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText" style="margin-top: 6.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><a href="file:///C:/Users/Freddy%20Castaneda/Documents/Mariolatry%20-%20Mother%20of%20God.docx#_ednref1" name="_edn1" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">[i]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>
J. Cortés, <i>New Testament Abstracts</i>,
III (1958-59), 247. This rendering is fraught with difficulties: (1) contra the
proposed rendering, there <i>was</i> a
change---since this was Jesus’ <i>first</i>
miracle (v.11), he could not have granted this kind of request before; (2) Mary
gives no indication that she detected a change in relationship, so what need
would there be for Jesus to ask “what has changed between us?”; (3) this
rendering does not account for the fact that in <i>every other instance</i>, this Greek construction is a rebuke. If it is
argued that this cannot be a denial of Mary’s request since Jesus <i>does</i> eventually grant it, it must also
be pointed out that Jesus denies requests elsewhere, only to grant them
immediately thereafter (Matt. 15:22-28; John 7:3-10).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div id="edn2">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText" style="margin-top: 6.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><a href="file:///C:/Users/Freddy%20Castaneda/Documents/Mariolatry%20-%20Mother%20of%20God.docx#_ednref2" name="_edn2" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">[ii]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>
M. Lagrange and R. Schnackenburg, quoted in D.A. Carson, <i>The Gospel According to John</i> (Leicester: IVP, 1991; Grnad Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1991), 171<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div id="edn3">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText" style="margin-top: 6.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><a href="file:///C:/Users/Freddy%20Castaneda/Documents/Mariolatry%20-%20Mother%20of%20God.docx#_ednref3" name="_edn3" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">[iii]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>
Pheme Perkins, notes on John 2:4, </span><i><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Catholic
Study Bibl</span>e</i><o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div id="edn4">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText" style="margin-top: 6.0pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Freddy%20Castaneda/Documents/Mariolatry%20-%20Mother%20of%20God.docx#_ednref4" name="_edn4" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[iv]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>
Ibid.<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05691278945044347095noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6492019158605752441.post-48480161063050114922014-11-08T13:16:00.001-08:002015-09-07T08:46:19.300-07:00Mariolatry (Pt. 2) The Sacrilegious Elevation of Mary<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #660066;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">To prove to you just how far the
Roman Catholic Religion has gone to elevate Mary, <b>Pope Leo XIII</b>, in his 1891 encyclical <b><i>“Octobri Mense”</i></b>, said
about Mary’s mediation, “as no man goes to the Father but by the Son, <b><u>so no man goes to Christ but by His
Mother, Mary</u></b>”<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #660066;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">This is blasphemy at its worst.
Such a statement is so far removed from the inspired word of God.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #660066;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b><span style="color: #660066;">Pope Pius X</span></b><span style="color: #660066;"> said
in his encyclical,</span> <b><i><span style="color: #660066;">Ad Diem Illum
Laetissimum</span></i></b><span style="color: #660066;">, that the source of all
blessing “is Jesus Christ...But <b><u>Mary
is the channel</u></b>”<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: #660066;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #660066;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">And <b>Pope Pius XI</b> stated in his encyclical, <b><i>Ingravescentibus Malis,</i></b>
that every blessing “comes to us from Almighty God <b><u>through the hands of Our Lady</u></b>”<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #660066;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #660066;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Finally, <b>Pope Leo XII</b> declared in his encyclical, <b><i>Iucunda Semper Expectatione</i></b>,
that, “Every grace granted to man has three degrees in order; for by God it is
communicated to Christ, <b><u>from Christ
it passes to the Virgin, and from the Virgin it descends to us.</u></b>”<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #660066;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #660066;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">For any human to say that there
are two mediators contradicts God’s Word. As <b>1 Timothy 2:5</b> proclaims “For there is one God, <b><u>and one mediator of God and men</u></b>, the man <b><u>Christ Jesus</u></b>”. When the Lord
said that there was one mediator between God and mankind, that’s exactly what
He meant. Even Jesus agreed with the Father saying in <b>John 14:6</b>, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. <b><u>No one comes to the Father except
through me</u></b>.”<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #660066;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #660066;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Yet, Catholic theologians don’t
see it that way. For example,<b> Thomas
Aquinas</b> SPECULATED that Mary stood for all of humanity at the Annunciation.
Therefore, Mary’s obedience is on par with Eve’s disobedience. Catholics equate
Mary as on the same level as Eve because just as Eve failed the test, and thus,
through Eve all men fell, so Mary did not fail the test, and thus, through Mary
all men can be saved. Thus, the fallen Eve’s unfaithfulness is undone by Mary’s
faithfulness, which leads to Mariolatry, the worship of Mary. Again, this is
not only unbiblical, but blasphemous as well. Essentially, the Roman Catholic
Religion is a matriarchal religion that includes a female deity as well as a
patriarchal religion.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #660066;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #660066;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In his celebration of the Marian
Year in Rome in 1950, <b>Pope Pius XII</b>
accurately reflected the Church's view of the Virgin Mary in his pontifical
prayer:<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #660066;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #660066;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Enraptured by the splendor of
your heavenly beauty, and impelled by the anxieties of the world, we cast
ourselves <b>into your arms</b>, O
Immaculate Mother of Jesus and our Mother, Mary, confident of finding in your
most loving heart appeasement of our ardent desires, and a safe harbor from the
tempests which beset us on every side.</span></span><span style="color: #660066;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #660066;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Though degraded by our faults
and overwhelmed by infinite misery, we admire and praise the peerless richness
of sublime gifts with which God has filled you, <b>above every other mere creature</b>, from the first moment of your
conception until the day on which, after your assumption into heaven, <b>He crowned you Queen of the Universe</b>.</span></span><span style="color: #660066;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b><span style="color: #660066;">O crystal fountain of faith</span></b><span style="color: #660066;">, bathe our minds with the eternal truths! <b>O fragrant Lily of all holiness</b>,
captivate our hearts with your heavenly perfume! <b>O Conqueress of evil and death</b>, inspire in us a deep horror of sin,
which makes the soul detestable to God and a slave of hell!<o:p></o:p></span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: #660066;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #660066;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">O well-beloved of God, hear the
ardent cry which rises up from every heart. <b>Bend tenderly over our aching wounds. Convert the wicked, dry the tears
of the afflicted and oppressed</b>, comfort the poor and humble, quench
hatreds, sweeten harshness, safeguard the flower of purity in youth, protect
the holy Church, make all men feel the attraction of Christian goodness. <b>In your name, resounding harmoniously in
heaven</b>, may they recognize that they are brothers, and that the nations are
members of one family, upon which may there shine forth the sun of a universal
and sincere peace.</span></span><span style="color: #660066;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><b style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: #660066;">Receive, O most sweet Mother, our humble supplications</span></b><span style="color: #660066; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">, and above all obtain for us that, one day, happy with
you, we may repeat before <b>Your throne</b>
that hymn which today is sung on earth around<b> your altars</b>: You are all-beautiful, O Mary! <b>You are the Glory, you are the Joy, you are the Honor of our people</b>!
Amen.</span></blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #660066;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Anyone hearing this prayer most
certainly knows that this sounds like worship and adoration to a deity, as if
Mary is seen as the “fourth part” of the Trinity. This pontifical prayer is
blatant idolatry, praying directly to Mary and giving her all these titles
which should be reserved to God alone. It’s the same as if one took <b>Rev. 5:6-14</b> and replaced Jesus with
Mary as the worthy Lamb. This prayer goes contrary to Scripture. The Bible says
that Jesus Christ is the “the author and finisher of our faith” (<b>Heb. 12:2</b>), NOT Mary. Jesus Christ is
our Glory, for in Him is “the hope of glory” (<b>Col. 1:27</b>), NOT Mary. Jesus is our joy, for His Joy remains in us
so that our “joy may be full” (<b>John
15:11</b>), NOT Mary. Jesus is our honor,
for He “was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour,
and glory, and blessing” (<b>Rev. 5:12</b>),
NOT Mary. It’s the role of the Holy Spirit to convert the wicked and “convict
the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment” (<b>John 16:8</b>), NOT Mary. And it is the Holy Spirit who gives comfort
to all Christians, for the Holy Spirit is our Comforter (<b>John 14:16,26</b>), NOT Mary. It’s clear that this blasphemous prayer
gives titles that belong only to Jesus, and thus, the Mary of Catholic theology
is not the Mary of the Bible. Pope Pius XII’s prayer is absolute idolatry and
presents another false gospel. As <b>Bishop
Strossmayer</b> boldy pleaded with the Vatican Council in 1870, “we have made a
goddess of the blessed Virgin. Stop, stop, venerable brethren, on the odious
and ridiculous incline on which you have placed yourselves. Save the church
from the shipwreck which threatens her, asking from the holy Scriptures alone
for the rule of faith which we ought to believe and to profess.” <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #660066;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #660066;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">His words fell on deaf ears and
that very day the Vatican Church declared the Infallibility of the Pope as
Church dogma. Yet, aside from the infallibility of the Papacy, the blasphemous
idea that Mary, a mere creature, created by God, is dogmatically paralleled
with Christ Himself in Catholic Theology is what upsets us true Christians the
most.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #660066;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #660066;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Continuing on, <b>Cardinal Spellman</b> in New York wrote,
“O, Mary, gate of heaven, none shall enter except through thee”<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #660066;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In Christ’s Holy and Precious
Name we cry out, “NO!” Jesus Christ Himself proclaims “I am the Way, The Truth,
and the Life” (<b>John 14:6</b>) “I am the
door of the sheep” (<b>John 10:7</b>) “I am
the door. By Me if any man enter in, he shall be saved” (<b>John 10:9</b>)<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #660066;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #660066;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">It’s clear that what Catholic
theology is doing is attributing to a mere human woman the titles, positions,
and offices of God.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #660066;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #660066;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">According to <b>Pope Leo XIII</b> the knowledge and
salvation of God comes through Mary. In his encyclical in 1895, <b><i>Adiutricem</i></b>,
the pope prayed “O Virgin most holy, <b>none
abounds in the knowledge of God except through thee</b>; <b>none, O Mother of God, attains salvation except through thee</b>; none
receives a gift from the throne of mercy except through thee.”<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #660066;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #660066;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">This prayer is also unbiblical
and blasphemous of the highest degree. <b>First</b>,
the Bible teaches us that it’s only through Christ that we can know God. As <b>John 1:18</b> states, “No one has ever seen
God. <b>It is God the only Son</b>, who is
close to the Father’s heart, <b>who has
made Him known</b>.” (NRSVCE) <b>Second</b>,
Scripture clearly shows us that salvation is found in and through Jesus Christ
alone, not through Mary. As <b>Acts 4:12</b>
states, “<b>There is salvation in no one
else</b>, for there is no other name under heaven given among mortals by which
we must be saved.” (NRSVCE). Finally, <b>Third</b>,
Scripture repeatedly shows us that it’s God the Son, who became incarnate to
walk among us, so He could sympathize and help us with our weakness because
Jesus was tempted in all ways just like us, yet he never committed a sin.
Christ knows what we go through every day. And because He personally died on
the Cross to pay for our sins, it’s through Jesus, not Mary, that Scripture
states in <b>Hebrews 4:16</b>, that we have
been given the privilege to “approach God’s throne of grace with confidence, so
that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need.”
(NIV). <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #660066;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #660066;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Yet, Roman Catholics completely
ignore Scripture, as they elevate and adore Mary above Christ. For example,
this prayer from the book, <b><i>Devotions to our Mother of Perpetual Help</i></b>,
reads:<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #660066;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #0070c0;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">O Mother of <b><u>Perpetual Help</u></b>, thou art the <b><u>dispenser of all the goods</u></b> which God grants to us miserable
sinners, and for this reason, has He made thee <b><u>so powerful, so rich, and so bountiful</u></b>, that thou mayest
help us in our misery. Thou art the <b><u>advocate</u></b>
of the most wretched and abandoned sinners who have recourse to thee; come,
then, to my help, dearest Mother, for I recommend myself to thee. <b><u>In thy hands, I place my eternal
salvation and to thee do I entrust my soul</u></b>. Count me among thy most
devoted servants; take me under thy protection, and it is enough for me; for, <b><u>if thou protect me</u></b>, dear Mother,
<b><u>I fear nothing</u></b>; <b><u>not from my sins, because thou wilt
obtain for me the pardon of them</u></b>; <b><u>nor
from the devils, because thou art more powerful than all hell together</u></b>;
<b><u>NOT EVEN FROM JESUS, my Judge
Himself, because, by one prayer from thee, He will be appeased</u></b>. But one
thing I fear; that, in the hour of temptation, I may neglect to call on thee,
and thus perish miserably. <b><u>Obtain for
me then the pardon of my sins, love for Jesus, final perseverance, and the
grace</u></b> always to have recourse to thee, O Mother of Perpetual Help.<br /> </span></span><span style="color: #0070c0;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">(3 Hail Mary's)</span></span></blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #0070c0;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #660066;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Is there any other prayer that
is so anti-Marian, so blasphemous, as this one here? The real Mary would never
want anyone to say such blasphemous things about her. The real Mary would
always direct people to Jesus Christ. She would never want anyone to entrust
their eternal salvation to her. She would never want anyone to seek her mediation
or her intercession when there is only One Mediator between God and Man, the
Man Christ Jesus. The real Mary is not listening to any prayer done in her
name. The real Mary is in the presence of Christ wholly occupied in the worship
of our Triune God, not in hearing prayers asking for her intercession and
entrusting their souls to her.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #660066;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #660066;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The Roman Catholic Church has
seemingly purposefully paralleled in Mary all the unique offices of Jesus
Christ. Jesus is without sin and so is Mary. Jesus was raised bodily from the
dead and Mary was assumed bodily into Heaven. Jesus is our Redeemer and Mary is
Co-Redemptrix, not equal to, but alongside Jesus in a lesser sense. Jesus is
our Mediator and Mary is our Mediatrix. Jesus is our King in Heaven and Mary is
the queen in heaven. All these parallels in Mary to Christ’s unique offices are
unbiblical and antichristian.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #660066;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #660066;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">It is essentially impossible to
have to seek the mediation of someone else to appease Christ’s wrath. Anyone
who prays like this to Mary does not truly know Jesus Christ. All these Marian
Doctrines are from a rogue religious system that believes that it’s not bound
by the authority of the inspired Word of God. Entire libraries of theology has
been built around no fewer than 4 verses in the Bible that in context literally
has nothing to do with these Marian Doctrines which the Catholic Church wants
everyone to dogmatically believe under pain of eternal condemnation, under pain
of anathema. This is what happens when a religious system adds another source
of authority, man-made Tradition, to that which is the ultimate authority, the
God-breathed Holy Scriptures.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #660066;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #660066;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Let me give a few more examples
of just how far the Roman Catholic Church has gone to elevate Mary.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #660066;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #660066;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">At the end of <b>Pope John Paul’s</b> encyclical, <b><i>“Veritatis
Splendor”</i></b>, he gave this prayer:<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #660066;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">“O Mary, Mother of Mercy, watch
over all people, <b><u>that the Cross of
Christ may not be emptied of its power</u></b>,...”<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #660066;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #660066;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Does this not sound familiar to
anyone? <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #660066;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #660066;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">“For Christ did not send me to
baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with wisdom and eloquence, <b><u>lest the cross of Christ be emptied of
its power</u></b>.” (<b>1 Cor. 1:17</b>)
NIV<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #660066;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #660066;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">It’s clear that this is the role
of the Holy Spirit, not of Mary. The real Mary would know that the Pope’s
prayer takes away from the proper form of worship belonging only to God that
has been established throughout Scripture. Therefore, the Pope’s prayer is
quite literally full blown idolatry.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #660066;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #660066;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Also, in his book, <b><i>The
Glories of Mary</i></b>, Alfonso Maria de' Liguori (declared to be a <b><u>Doctor of the Church</u></b> by the
Vatican Church) says this, “If God is angry with a sinner, and Mary takes him <b><u>under her protection</u></b>, <b><u>she withholds the avenging arm of her
Son</u></b>, and <b><u>saves him</u></b>.”<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #660066;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #660066;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Scripture says, “But of Him
[God] you are in <b><u>Christ Jesus, who
became for us</u></b> wisdom from God—and <b><u>righteousness
and sanctification and redemption</u></b>— that, as it is written, "He who
glories [boasts], <b><u>let him glory
[boast] in the LORD</u></b>” (<b>1 Cor.
1:29-30</b>)<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #660066;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #660066;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">It is by God, not Mary, that we
are in Christ Jesus. It is by Jesus Christ, not Mary, that we have our
salvation, so that our boasting is in Yahweh alone, not Mary.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #660066;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #660066;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Here are more excerpts from
Alfonso de’Ligouri’s work, <b><i>The Glories of Mary</i></b>.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #660066;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #660066;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">There is no doubt, St. Bernard
adds, that Jesus Christ is the only mediator of justice between men and
God...but <b><u>because men fear the Divine
Majesty</u></b>, which is in Him as God, <b><u>it
was necessary to assign us</u></b> <b><u>another
advocate</u></b> to whom we might have recourse <b><u>with less fear and more confidence</u></b>; and <b><u>this Advocate is Mary,</u></b> than whom we can find no advocate
more powerful with the divine majesty and more compassionate towards us. <b><u>A mediator was then needed with the
Mediator Himself.</u></b>”(p. 221)</span></span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #660066;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">“Console yourselves, then, oh ye
faint of heart, I will say with St. Thomas of Villanova, take heart, oh
miserable sinners; this great Virgin, who is the mother of your judge and God,
is t<b><u>he advocate of the human race</u></b>.
Powerful and able to <b><u>obtain whatever
she wishes</u></b> from God; most wise, for she knows every method of <b><u>appeasing him</u></b>; <b><u>universal</u></b>, for she welcomes all,
and refuses to defend none.” (p. 223-4)</span></span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #660066;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">“And to increase our confidence,
St. Anselm adds, that when we have recourse to this divine mother, we may not
only be sure of her protection, but that <b><u>sometimes
we shall be sooner heard and saved by invoking her holy name than that of Jesus
our Savior</u></b>. And he gives this reason: Because it belongs to Christ, as
our judge, to punish, but <b><u>to Mary, as
our advocate (patroness), to pity (mercy)</u></b>.”(p.149)</span></span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #660066;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">“St. Bernardine affirms, that in
order to become mother of God, it was requisite that the <b><u>holy Virgin should be exalted to a certain equality with the divine
Persons</u></b>, by a certain infinity of graces.” (p.425)</span></span></blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #660066;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #660066;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">These statements from Ligouri’s
work is blasphemy unrestrained, and there are literally hundreds and hundreds of
blasphemous statements like those quoted above throughout this damnable work. To
blasphemously think such thoughts about Jesus and His mother is beyond
imagining. If Jesus Christ, our only Mediator, has borne our sins in our place
and sent His Spirit to dwell within us, then why would anyone fear Jesus? When
one says that their prayers will be heard more quickly through Mary than
through Jesus Christ Himself simply because He’s a judge, then that person is
completely ignorant of the One who alone is our Hope and the Fountain of all
Mercy, Jesus Christ and Him alone.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #660066;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: #660066;">Now, because the Roman Catholic
Church will not denounce this work from Ligouri as blasphemy of the worst kind,
they have proven to the whole world that they have absolutely no knowledge of
the Truth of our Lord Jesus Christ.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: #660066;"><br /></span></span></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05691278945044347095noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6492019158605752441.post-4122662838215512092014-11-04T21:10:00.000-08:002015-09-07T08:46:29.742-07:00Mariolatry (Part 1) Catholic Beliefs & the 8 Steps to Godhood<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Hey Friends. Today’s topic of discussion is about the Marian
Doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church and why these doctrines are contrary to
scripture and how they rob the all-sufficiency of our Lord Jesus Christ. First
let’s start with what the Catholics actually believe about Mary.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Roman Catholics believe Mary is <b>“the Mother of God”</b>, that she is the “Mother of our Head”, the head
being, Jesus, who is the Head of the Church. <b>Pope Pius XII</b> agrees with this in his 1943 Encyclical “On the
Mystical Body of Christ”.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Catholicism claims Mary is full of grace, free of original
sin, and kept from all actual sin. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">She is also <b>perpetually
a virgin</b>...before, during, and after the birth of Jesus Christ, essentially
denying that Mary had any children after Jesus Christ’s birth.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Catholicism also claims that because of her sinless life
Mary was raised up into Heaven after experiencing death. Though there has been
debate over whether Mary experienced death, Pope John Paul II has affirmed that
Mary did in fact experience death (<b><i>Mary and the Human Drama of Death</i></b>)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Catholicism has given Mary the title of <b>“Mediatrix of All Graces”</b>. In other words, the grace that comes
from God flows through Mary. A person can then go to Mary to get grace from
God. Essentially, SHE is the one who dispenses God’s blessings and grace to
those who are spiritually in need of grace. <b>Pope Pius XII</b> agrees that it’s by Mary’s all-powerful prayers that
the Divine Redeemer’s Spirit was given to the newly born Church at Pentecost
and that through her intercession she obtains from Him abundant streams of
grace to all the members of the Mystical Body.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Roman Catholics have elevated Mary by these types of Papal
statements and decrees to a position where she is praying and pleading with the
Son to the Father, and the Son is always responding to her prayers and never
denying her.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Many times when you ask Catholics why they pray to Mary,
almost always the answer is that Mary somehow feels closer to them, relates to
them, and understands them better in a way that the Son and the Father cannot,
and that Mary is a friend to them because she’s soft, tender, and loving in a
way that Jesus and God are not. What nonsense, to think that a created being
could ever relate to us or understand us better, or has more loving-kindness
than our Great God and Savior Jesus Christ. What an insult to the real Mary and
to her Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, to think that Mary is a closer Friend to us
than Jesus Christ Himself.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Another title that’s given to Mary, but not yet officially
sanctioned by the Vatican Church is that Mary is <b>Co-Redemptrix</b> with Jesus. In other words, Mary took part in the
Redemption of Humanity in some way, and without HER...salvation would have been
impossible. She cooperates with Christ in the work of saving sinners. Her part
in the redemption of Mankind has to do with her <b><i>intercession and suffering along
with the suffering of her Son</i></b>, not just that she gave birth to Jesus. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Catholics must understand that Biblically speaking, Mary in
no way or form shared in the atonement of our Lord Jesus Christ and nothing can
be added to what he has done. Yet, the Roman Catholic Church has done just that
by proclaiming Mary as Co-Redemptrix with the Son. <b>Pope Pius XII</b> confirms this in his encyclical, <b><i>Mystici Corporis Christi ,</i></b>
by making this shocking statement, stating that “<b><u>It was she</u></b>, the second Eve, <b><u>who</u></b>, free from all sin, original or personal, and always
more intimately united with her Son, <b><u>offered
Him on Golgotha to the Eternal Father for all the children of Adam</u></b>,
sin-stained by his unhappy fall”. The Pope continues saying that by
“bearing...the tremendous burden of her sorrows and desolation, she....filled
up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ...for His Body,
which is the Church". That is to say, Mary is the one who gave the
offering of atonement and that by her immeasurable sorrows SHE supplies what
was lacking in the suffering of Christ. SHE supplies what Christ couldn’t.
Everyone should have their eyes opened by now and realize that the Pope’s
statements are anathema, i.e. cursed and condemned. This is another gospel
entirely, this is a false gospel.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Yet, it doesn’t stop there. Catholics claim that Mary was <b>bodily assumed into heaven</b> where she
now <b>reigns </b>with Christ. The pope’s
encyclical declares, “Mary, now glorified in body and soul, reigns together<b> </b>with her Son.” <b>As Queen of Heaven</b>, she rules providentially with Christ the King
of Heaven. Mary is elevated above all the prophets, apostles, saints, popes and
the whole Catholic Church as well. In his book, <i><b>Devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary [Marialis Cultus]</b></i>, <b>Pope Paul VI</b> said, “...the place Mary
occupies in the Church: [is] ‘the highest place and the closest to us after
Jesus.’” <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Say hello to our Queen of queens, and Mistress of
mistresses. Every step of the way Catholics have been putting Mary on the same
level as Christ Jesus. Is it no wonder, then, that Protestants believe
Catholicism has been elevating Mary to Godhood. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">These Catholic ideas of Mary is not Biblical and cannot be
found anywhere in Scripture. Even <b>Dr.
Ludwig Ott</b>, a revered Catholic theologian, admitted this in his book, <b><i>Fundamentals
of Catholic Dogma</i></b>, saying “The Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of
Mary is not explicitly revealed in Scripture” (<b>p.200</b>). In regards to Mary’s bodily assumption into Heaven, he
states, “The direct and express scriptural proofs of Mary’s bodily assumption
are not to be had” (<b>p. 208</b>). And
when talking about Mary as Mediatrix and intercessor in Heaven, Ludwig says
“Express scriptural proofs are lacking” (<b>p.214</b>).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">However, Catholics don’t use the Bible alone for their
ideas, beliefs, doctrines, and authority.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Instead Catholics like to say that it’s “fitting” for Mary
to be born without sin, that way she wouldn’t have passed original sin to Jesus
in her womb. That it’s “fitting” for Mary to have lived a sinless life because
she had such a close relationship with Jesus. That it’s “fitting”, being
sinless, she would be assumed into Heaven. In a way, Catholics are saying that
Mary is almost as unique as Jesus Christ. Yet, as time has passed for the last
2,000 years, not only has Mary been elevated into being assumed into Heaven,
but she is now considered a Co-Remptrix and a Co-Medatrix. Now, even with these
supposed apparitions of Mary, Mary has been ascended and lifted up even more in
Roman Catholic tradition.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">On a practical level, most Catholics like this Catholic idea
of Mary because they are never taught to have a direct relationship with Jesus,
since it’s always through the sacraments and through the Catholic Church that
one has a relationship with Jesus. And since women are denied responsibilities,
authority, the priesthood, and so forth, they need something to hang on to. So,
more and more Mary is elevated to status that almost equals that of Jesus
Christ. This is why Catholics have Marian apparitions, Marian statues, Marian
pilgrimages, Marian worshippers, and even Pope John Paul II was entirely
devoted to Mary. This elevation of Mary is an ongoing elevation, to the point
where it has literally become a cult that has gotten out of control.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In his book, <b>The <i>Second Vatican Council and The New
Catholicism</i></b> (1965, p. 239), G.C. Berkouwer noticed that “Mary’s role is
often delineated by Catholicism in a way that the gospels ascribe exclusively
to Christ.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Now that we have learned about what Catholics claim about
Mary, it’s time to list what I call the “<b>8 Steps to Godhood</b>”, where I explain
how Mary is elevated to Godhood in Catholic Theology.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Step One</b> is where
the Roman Catholic Church began to elevate Mary, and it begins with <b>Genesis 3: 15</b>. In the English Roman
Catholic Bible, the <b>Douay Rheims Version</b>,
this is how it renders <b>Gen. 3:15</b>:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">“I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy
seed and her seed: <b>SHE </b>shall crush
thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for <b>HER</b>
heel.” (<b>DRB</b>)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Roman Catholic Scholars interpret this “SHE” and “HER” in <b>Gen. 3:15</b> to be a reference to Mary.
This is the beginning of Mary’s elevation to Godhood. Now one should understand
that we object to this translation and its interpretation. Why? Because the
Douay Rheims Version is a translation of the Latin Vulgate, and in the Latin
Vulgate, it uses the Latin word “Ipsa”, that is, “she” in English. This is a
complete error and mistranslation. It should have been “ipse”, masculine for
“he”. Almost every version of the Bible (NKJV, NLT, NIV, ESV, NASB, RSV, ASV,
YLT, DBY, HNV, LEB, HCSB, MSG, GNV, AMP, NLV, CJB, GW, WEB, etc.) uses “he” in
accordance with the Greek Septuagint “autos” (αὐτός), the masculine “He”. A few
other versions use “it” (KJV, Webster’s Bible) in accordance with the original
Hebrew “הוּא” pronounced
“hoo”, which is a masculine pronoun and can mean either “he” or “it”. The “it”
refers to “the seed of the woman”. Therefore, “he”, in reference to the Lord
Jesus Christ, shall crush the head of the serpent. It is not “she”. Yet,
Catholics want to use this mistranslation to say that instead of Jesus alone
crushing the head of the serpent; Mary would be the one who would crush the
head of Satan by being perfect and sinless. And by doing this, they go on ahead
to try to justify all their false Marian Doctrines.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I remember a few years back in the University of Dallas, a
catholic university, before the final exam began in my Moral Theology class, I
drew a serpent on the board and wrote the words “Final exam” inside the
serpent, as a joke to energize the students into crushing the exam. However,
while I was sitting on my desk waiting for the exam to begin, a fellow student
saw the drawing on the board and proceeded to draw Mary with her feet crushing
the head of the Serpent. I was surprised because at the time I didn’t
understand why she drew that when it was obvious from <b>Gen. 3:15</b> that it was Jesus who would crush the head of the serpent,
not Mary. Now that I understand that they get it from the mistranslation found
in the Latin Vulgate, it is understandable why Catholics would exalt Mary to a
position that belonged only to Jesus.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Why then do the Catholics continue saying “she”? It’s because,
at the Council of Trent, the Latin Vulgate was declared to be the only
translation acceptable to the Roman Catholic Church. Thus, they accept the
rendering “she” despite their own theologians admitting that it was a mistake.
Even the <b><i>Catholic Encyclopedia</i></b>, when talking about the Immaculate
Conception, admits that, and I quote, “The translation "she" of the
Vulgate is interpretative; it originated after the fourth century, and <b><u>cannot be defended critically</u></b>.
The conqueror from the seed of the woman, who should crush the serpent's head,
is Christ …”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Even Catholics themselves admit this, as the <b><i>New
Catholic Encyclopedia </i></b>states: “Much confusion has resulted from the
fact that the second half of this verse [Genesis 3:15] was <b><u>inaccurately translated in the Vulgate</u></b> to read, “SHE shall
crush your head.” This translation, which has strongly affected the traditional
representations of the Blessed Virgin, is today generally recognized to be <b><u>a mistake</u></b> for “it [or “he,”
i.e., the seed of the woman] shall crush...,” and consequently <b><u>CAN NO LONGER BE CITED in favor of the
Immaculate Conception.</u></b>” (Volume VII, page 378)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Also, the Nova Vulgate, the revised Latin version which was
authorized by the Vatican, corrected this mistake, changing it from ipsa to
ipsum, “it” in the Latin. And in the footnotes of the <b>New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition</b>, it states that the
rendering “ipsa” could have been <b>“due
originally to a copyist’s mistake...”</b><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b><br /></b></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Yet, despite Catholic Scholars conceding this point,
Catholicism continues to view it as “she”. And the greater mistake is
interpreting the “she” as Mary. And it’s from this starting point that
Catholics begin to exalt Mary ever higher to Godhood in Marian theology. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">They go on to say that because this “she” is Mary, Mary must
be the Second Eve. She crushes the head of the serpent through a perfect and
sinless life. Where Eve was imperfect, Mary would be perfect. Where Eve was
seduced by the Serpent and failed, Mary would be obedient and not fail. Because
the First Eve failed, there had to be a Second Eve to undo what the First Eve
had done. And that Second Eve is Mary according to Catholics. Yet, this
teaching of a Second Eve is foreign to Scripture because Scripture itself says
that it was Adam who fell, and the sin came through Adam, not Eve, and Christ
Jesus is the Second Adam who did not fail. Scripture teaches that Christ would
be the one who would come and in His perfect obedience Jesus would undo that
which Adam had done. Christ would restore what Adam had destroyed. Yet, it’s
from this foreign theology of a Second Eve arising from the mistranslation of <b>Gen. 3:15</b> that the Roman Catholic
Church begins to elevate Mary.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">So from step one Catholics move on to <b>step 2</b>. And that is, the Roman Catholic religion believes that Mary
is the Mother of God. What Catholics mean by this is that Mary gave birth to
God Himself. Their reasoning is that since Jesus Christ is God, Mary therefore,
gave birth to God. By doing this they are painting Mary as someone powerful,
someone so supernatural, someone greater than a mere human being. They cannot
ever get it through their minds how a normal human being could ever give birth
to Deity. So they make Mary out to be someone beyond a normal human. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Now Protestants, as well as myself, agree that Mary is the
mother of God, but only in the sense that she gave birth to that which was
fathered by the Holy Spirit. Mary was told that she would be with child through
the agency of the Holy Spirit. On her own Mary could not give birth to the
God-Man Jesus. And it is in this way that the conception of Jesus Christ is
supernatural because it was caused by God, wherein the pre-existent Christ was
made in the likeness of Man. That which is God is fathered by the spirit of
God. That which is human is given its human nature from Mary. This holy
creation is of God, NOT Mary. Mary in no way had any part in giving Jesus His
God nature. Christ’s divine nature was given by God through the agency of the
Spirit of God. The only thing Mary gave
birth to was Christ’s human nature. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The hypostatic union of Jesus Christ’s divine and human
nature was fashioned by God alone. Mary was merely chosen as a humble vessel to
give to Jesus His human nature. Christ’s conception and birth was something
unique which was made possible by God alone. God did not need Mary’s womb to
accomplish this unique creation, yet God so ordained it in order to display the
humility of Jesus Christ. I would ask Catholics, since when is the human
instrument of the miracle to receive greater adoration than the miracle itself?
Therefore, it’s false and an error to conclude that Mary has supernatural
status because she somehow gave birth to God.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">And it’s from this false conclusion that Catholics are
forced to move to the next step to Godhood. They say that “how could Mary
possibly give birth to God?” “How could she possibly be the mother of God if
she were a normal human being?” Thus, Catholics arrive to the <b><u>third step</u></b>, and this is the
doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. The Doctrine of the Immaculate
Conception states that Mary was born without sin, and thus, she never had sin
nor committed any sin whatsoever because she was conceived without sin herself.
Starting from the wrong premise of step 2, Catholics deduce that if Mary is
going to be mother of God Himself, then she cannot have sin herself. Otherwise,
she would pass that sin along to Jesus Christ Himself. Therefore, they conclude
that because Jesus is without sin, Mary must have been without sin as well.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Catholics must realize that one is in danger if one speculates
beyond what the Scriptures say. And that is exactly what they have done. We
true Christians believe that Mary was indeed protected from passing along the
sin nature from Adam because Scripture tells us that sin is passed along
through the Man. The Father of the Lord Jesus Christ was not a man, but God the
Holy Spirit. The woman does not pass along the sin nature to her offspring. The
Man is responsible for passing along the sin nature because Scripture says that
it was through Adam and Adam’s sin that death entered into the world. It was
not through Eve. Yet, the Catholic’s belief goes beyond scripture, proclaiming
that because Mary is the Mother of God she must not have sin, therefore, they
invent the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, where they falsely view Mary
as the Second Eve, which only serves to minimize the role of Adam and the
Adamic nature.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">From this false conclusion, Catholics move to the <b><u>fourth step</u></b> towards Godhood. And
that is, Mary’s Perpetual Virginity. Historically, Catholic theologians
believed that Mary must not have had any sexual relations whatsoever in order
to keep her purity and supernatural status of her human nature intact. They
argue that Mary could not have been involved in something as common as sex
because that would mean that her devotion would be diverted away from Jesus
Christ and to a mere man, to just a human. Such a devotion diverted away from
Christ could never be from one who is devoted perfectly to Christ and God.
Thus, they deny that Mary had sexual relations with her own husband, not just
prior to Jesus’s conception and birth, but after as well. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Now, because Mary has this special relation with God it
leads to the <b><u>fifth step</u></b> to
Godhood, and that is, Mary’s Assumption into Heaven. Catholic theologians are split
as to whether Mary actually died or went up alive into Heaven, just as our Lord
Jesus Christ was raised up into Heaven. Because of this uncertainty some
Catholic theologians just say that she became “dormant”, that is, her body did
not undergo decay at all and was taken up in Heaven. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Let’s look back at the steps we’ve gone through so far
before we go to the sixth step of Godhood. First, Mary is mistakenly viewed in <b>Gen. 3:15</b> as the one who will crush the
serpent’s head. Second, Mary is proclaimed as the Mother of God. Third, she was
immaculately conceived, and thus, never had sin in her and never committed a
sin in her life. Fourth, she was a perpetual virgin, and thus, she gave
constant devotion to Christ and God. Fifth, Mary is assumed into Heaven in a
perfect state, being without sin and perfectly devoted to God.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Thus, we enter the <b><u>sixth
step</u></b> of Godhood, and that is, Mary is the Mediatrix of all Graces.
Catholics argue that because Mary was set apart to live this perfect life, then
surely, all graces must come through her. People in Catholicism are taught
that: If there is anything they need, then they should ask Mary because Jesus
always says yes to His mother. They are told to go through Mary if they need
anything from Jesus.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">From this Mary is then elevated to the <b><u>seventh step</u></b>, and that is, Mary is Co-Redemptrix of the
Universe. Mary is put on a level on par with Jesus Christ. In terms of
salvation, Catholics argue blasphemously that without Mary Jesus could not have
been born, without her faithfulness on Earth as a sinless person perfectly
devoted to God she would not have set the example for mankind. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">And now that Jesus is pleased with her, He elevates her to a
state wherein we can go to her for forgiveness of sin, looking to her in her
co-redemptive activities, and thus, <b><u>step
8</u></b>, she is elevated as the “Queen of Heaven” in Roman Catholic theology.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Now as true believers in Jesus Christ, we do not
accept any of these steps as biblical. In fact, they are not only unbiblical,
but down right blasphemous. We do not want to give any devotion whatsoever to
this imaginary Mary that the Catholics have invented, since it’s an insult to
the real Mary, who is blessed among all women. All our devotion should go to
our Lord Jesus Christ alone. All our worship should go to God through His Son,
our Lord Jesus Christ. Everything we have is to Christ Jesus alone and His
finished work. And if we dare to take one iota of devotion and worship away
from God, then we have denied Christ’s Godhood and the sufficiency of His death
on the Cross, by introducing a false gospel and a foreign element found in
Marian theology, or Mariolatry as we like to call it.</span></span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05691278945044347095noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6492019158605752441.post-88566588090683059532014-11-03T17:50:00.000-08:002015-09-07T08:46:59.396-07:00Declaración de Fe<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;">Yo creo que
la Biblia es la revelación escrita de Dios, completa y suficiente en todos los
aspectos. Yo creo que las Escrituras son "inspirada por Dios" y por
lo tanto plenamente autoritario en sí mismos; que dependen para su autoridad
sobre ninguna iglesia, consejo, o credo, pero tienen autoridad simplemente
porque son la Palabra de Dios. Las Escrituras, ya que encarnan el hablante de
Dios, participan de Su autoridad, Su poder.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;">Creo en un
solo Dios verdadero y eterno, inmutable, inalterable. Yo creo que Dios es el
Creador de todo lo que existe en el cielo y en la tierra. El Dios que se
describe en la Biblia es único; Él es a diferencia de cualquier persona o
cualquier otra cosa en todo el universo. Dios tiene todo el poder, todo el conocimiento,
toda la sabiduría, y se debe toda gloria, honor y alabanza. Todo lo que llega a
pasar, lo hace bajo el decreto de Dios. Todas las cosas, al final, resultará en
la gloria de Dios.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;">Yo creo que
la Biblia enseña que sólo hay un ser de Dios, sin embargo, hay tres personas
que comparten esta un ser de Dios: el Padre, el Hijo y el Espíritu. Cada
persona es plenamente y completamente Dios, cada uno se describe en las
Escrituras como poseedor de los atributos de Dios. El Padre, el Hijo y el
Espíritu han existido eternamente en la relación descrita por el término
"Trinidad". La doctrina de la Trinidad afirma que la esencia entera e
indiviso de Dios pertenece igualmente, eternamente, simultáneamente, y
plenamente a cada una de las tres Personas distintas de la Deidad.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;">Creo que el
hombre fue creado a imagen de Dios. El hombre se rebeló contra su Creador, y
cayó en el pecado. Como resultado, el hombre se convirtió espiritualmente
muerto, totalmente mal dispuesto, y de hecho incapaz de buscar a Dios. Dios,
desde la eternidad pasada, después de haber preordenado todas las cosas, se
unió a un pueblo a Cristo Jesús, para que Él podría redimirlos de sus pecados,
y al hacerlo, darle gloria a Él mismo. Jesucristo, el Hijo de Dios, murió en el
lugar de esta gente electo, proporcionando el perdón total y completa de los
pecados por medio de Su muerte en la cruz del Calvario. Ninguna otra obra puede
proporcionar para el perdón de los pecados, y sin adición puede ser hecho a la
obra realizada y terminada de Cristo.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;">Yo creo que
Dios, en su gracia soberana y misericordia, regenera los pecadores por el poder
del Espíritu Santo, no por ninguna acción de su propio, llevándolos a una nueva
vida. Dios concede a ellos los dones de la fe y el arrepentimiento, que luego
ejercen por creer en Cristo y volviéndose de sus pecados en el amor por Dios.
Como resultado de esta fe, sobre la base del sacrificio del Señor Jesucristo,
Dios justifica o declara justo el que cree. El regalo de Dios de la fe, y la
continuación de la labor del Espíritu Santo en la vida de los elegidos, resulta
en las buenas obras. Estas buenas obras fluyen de verdadero, fe salvadora;
ellos son el resultado necesario de la fe, pero no deben ser considerados
necesarios para la obtención de la justificación, que es por la gracia de Dios
por medio de la fe sola, por lo que ningún hombre puede jactarse.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;">Creo que
Jesucristo estableció Su Iglesia, que está compuesto de todos los elegidos de
Dios. Su Iglesia, como una novia obediente, escucha su Palabra como se
encuentra en la Biblia. Todos los que creen en Cristo son colocados en su
cuerpo, la Iglesia. Las expresiones locales de la Iglesia son muy importantes,
y cada creyente debe participar activamente en una comunión tal.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Creo que
Cristo viene a juzgar a los vivos y los muertos. Esta promesa se encuentra en
toda las Escrituras inspiradas. Hasta su regreso, los creyentes deben vivir
vidas que traen gloria a Dios a través de Jesucristo. La Iglesia debe ser
ocupado haciendo el trabajo de evangelismo y discipulado, proclamando el puro,
Evangelio de Cristo sin compromisos a través de la enseñanza de la Palabra de
Dios.</span><span style="font-size: large;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05691278945044347095noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6492019158605752441.post-75237507840295595512014-11-02T16:07:00.001-08:002015-09-07T08:47:12.248-07:00Statement of Faith<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #3e3e3e; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 21px; margin-bottom: 1.618em; orphans: 3; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; widows: 3;">
I believe the Bible to be the written revelation of God, complete and sufficient in all respects. I believe the Scriptures to be “God-breathed” and therefore fully authoritative in and of themselves; they rely for their authority upon no church, council, or creed, but are authoritative simply because they are the Word of God. The Scriptures, as they embody the very speaking of God, partake of His authority, His power.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #3e3e3e; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 21px; margin-bottom: 1.618em; orphans: 3; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; widows: 3;">
I believe in one true and eternal God, unchanging, unchangeable. I believe God is the Creator of all that exists in heaven and in earth. The God who is described in the Bible is unique; He is unlike anyone or anything else in all the universe. God has all power, all knowledge, all wisdom, and is due all glory, honor and praise. All that comes to pass does so at the decree of God. All things will, in the end, result in the glory of God.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #3e3e3e; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 21px; margin-bottom: 1.618em; orphans: 3; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; widows: 3;">
I believe the Bible teaches that there is but one being of God, yet there are three Persons who share this one being of God: the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. Each Person is fully and completely God, each is described in Scripture as possessing the attributes of God. The Father, Son, and Spirit have eternally existed in the relationship described by the term “Trinity”. The Doctrine of the Trinity affirms that God's whole and undivided essence belongs equally, eternally, simultaneously, and fully to each of the three distinct Persons of the Godhead.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #3e3e3e; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 21px; margin-bottom: 1.618em; orphans: 3; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; widows: 3;">
I believe that man was created in the image of God. Man rebelled against His Creator, and fell into sin. As a result, man became spiritually dead, totally unwilling and indeed incapable of seeking after God. God, from eternity past, having foreordained all things, joined a certain people to Christ Jesus, so that He might redeem them from their sin and in so doing bring glory to Himself. Jesus Christ, the Son of God, died in the place of this elect people, providing full and complete forgiveness of sins by His death upon the cross of Calvary. No other work can provide for forgiveness of sins, and no addition can be made to the completed and finished work of Christ.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #3e3e3e; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 21px; margin-bottom: 1.618em; orphans: 3; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; widows: 3;">
I believe that God, in His sovereign grace and mercy, regenerates sinful men by the power of the Holy Spirit, not by any action of their own, bringing them to new life. God grants to them the gifts of faith and repentance, which they then exercise by believing in Christ and turning from their sins in love for God. As a result of this faith, based upon the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ, God justifies or makes righteous the one who believes. God’s gift of faith, and the continuing work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of the elect, results in good works. These good works flow from true, saving faith; they are a necessary result of faith, but are not to be considered necessary to the gaining of justification, which is by God’s grace through faith alone, so that no man can boast.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #3e3e3e; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 21px; margin-bottom: 1.618em; orphans: 3; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; widows: 3;">
I believe Jesus Christ established His Church, which is made up of all the elect of God. His Church, as an obedient bride, listens to His Word as found in the Bible. All who believe in Christ are placed in His body, the Church. The local expressions of the Church are very important, and each believer should be actively involved in such a fellowship.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #3e3e3e; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 21px; margin-bottom: 1.618em; orphans: 3; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; widows: 3;">
I believe that Christ is coming again to judge the living and the dead. This promise is found throughout the inspired Scriptures. Till His return, believers are to live lives that bring glory to God through Jesus Christ. The Church is to be busy doing the work of evangelism and discipleship, proclaiming the pure, uncompromising Gospel of Christ by teaching the Word of God.</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05691278945044347095noreply@blogger.com0