Why do Catholics adore, worship and deify Mary so much?

[Jim B]

Illuminator, see post #1227 If I am lying, then the Bible is untrue.

 

[Jim B]

I know. I just wanted to see if he'd attempt to back up his claim, but of course he hasn't, because he can't.

I can and I have. I don't believe Catholic propaganda, I believe God's Word.

What else in the Bible do you deny?

 

[Jim B]

Jim B is lying.
48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?

49 And he stretched forth his hand towards his disciples, and said, Behold, my mother and my brethren!

50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father who is in heaven, he is my brother, and sister, and mother.

Anti-Mary Christians are forced to argue that Jesus' mother did not do the will of God, and she is not a model for all of us, which the point of this quote. Anti-Mary Christians are uncomfortable with the undeniable truth that she is blessed. Instead, they profess man made diabolical traditions about Jesus' mother invented in the 18th century. Anti-Mary Christians busy themselves in covering up what their own reformers taught about the BLESSED VIRGIN MARY.

All of the early Protestant Founders accepted the truth of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. How could this be, if it is merely “tradition” with no scriptural basis? Why was its supposed violation of Scripture not so obvious to them, as it is to the Protestants of the last 150 years or so (since the onset of theological liberalism) who have ditched this previously-held opinion? Yet it has become fashionable to believe that Jesus had blood brothers (I suspect, because this contradicts Catholic teaching), contrary to the original consensus of the early Protestants.

Let’s see what the Founders of Protestantism taught about this doctrine. If Catholics are so entrenched in what has been described as “silly,” “desperate,” “obviously false,” “unbiblical tradition” here, then so are many Protestant luminaries such as Luther, Calvin, and Wesley. Strangely enough, however, current-day Protestant critics of Catholicism rarely aim criticism at them. I guess the same “errors” are egregious to a different degree, depending on who accepts and promulgates them—sort of like the Orwellian proverb from Animal Farm: “all people are equal, but some are more equal than others.”

Read more: https://www.catholicfidelity.com/apologetics-topics/mary/early-protestants-on-the-perpetual-virginty-of-mary-by-dave-armstrong/

Modernist Protestants of today cover up (protest) what their own reformers taught about Mary, making them true Protestants.

Again, this thread title is sick and makes a mockery of the rules.

You believe anything, don't you. The RCC excommunicated Martin Luther because he told the truth and exposed the lies and corruption that had taken over their beliefs and practices.

I view this in the same light as when Moses went up onto the mountain to receive the words of God directly from Him, the rest of the people built an altar with a golden calf idol to worship (under the leadership of Aaron the priest). That golden calf is a type of Mary!

In exactly the same manner, the RCC church has built up a false religion of lies and idolatry.

 

[Illuminator]

You believe anything, don't you. The RCC excommunicated Martin Luther because he told the truth and exposed the lies and corruption that had taken over their beliefs and practices.

I view this in the same light as when Moses went up onto the mountain to receive the words of God directly from Him, the rest of the people built an altar with a golden calf idol to worship (under the leadership of Aaron the priest). That golden calf is a type of Mary!

In exactly the same manner, the RCC church has built up a false religion of lies and idolatry.

You don't want the truth about Martin Luther. You make bold dogmatic statements with no proof. Your anti-Mary animus is not biblical. "That golden calf is a type of Mary!" Seriously? Why do you disrespect Mary so much with these headless chicken comments??
Why do you uphold Martin Luther yet reject what he taught about Mary? Or do you even know what he taught?

Martin Luther
· Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary’s virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.
{Luther’s Works, eds. Jaroslav Pelikan (vols. 1-30) & Helmut T. Lehmann (vols. 31-55), St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House (vols. 1-30); Philadelphia: Fortress Press (vols. 31-55), 1955, v.22:23 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }
(rejected by Jim B.)

· Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that ‘brothers’ really mean ‘cousins’ here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.
(rejected by Jim B.)

{Pelikan, ibid., v.22:214-15 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }

· A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ . . .
{Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:199 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) }
(rejected by Jim B.)

· Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity . . .

· When Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her . . . This babble . . . is without justification . . . he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom.


{Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:206,212-3 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) }
(rejected by Jim B.)
Editor Jaroslav Pelikan (Lutheran) adds:
· Luther . . . does not even consider the possibility that Mary might have had other children than Jesus. This is consistent with his lifelong acceptance of the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary.

{Pelikan, ibid.,v.22:214-5}
(rejected by Jim B.)

Read more: https://www.catholicfidelity.com/apologetics-topics/mary/early-protestants-on-the-perpetual-virginty-of-mary-by-dave-armstrong/?utm_source=copy&utm_medium=paste&utm_campaign=copypaste&utm_content=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.catholicfidelity.com%2Fapologetics-topics%2Fmary%2Fearly-protestants-on-the-perpetual-virginty-of-mary-by-dave-armstrong%2F

see also Martin Luther Was Extraordinarily Devoted to Mary
(rejected by Jim B.)

 

[Illuminator]

Jesus making a spiritual point about something that didn't require him to involve His mother isn't rejecting Her. Who taught you this? lol

Don't expect an answer from the troll.

 

[Jim B]

Jesus making a spiritual point about something that didn't require him to involve His mother isn't rejecting Her. Who taught you this? lol

Nobody taught me this, as it's apparent from the Bible text. And what's with the "lol"? What is there to laugh about regarding this subject?

 

[Jim B]

Don't expect an answer from the troll.

See my above reply. Why do you call me a troll? Because you, in your spiritual blindness, can't see the truth?

 

[Jim B]

You don't want the truth about Martin Luther. You make bold dogmatic statements with no proof. Your anti-Mary animus is not biblical. "That golden calf is a type of Mary!" Seriously? Why do you disrespect Mary so much with these headless chicken comments??
Why do you uphold Martin Luther yet reject what he taught about Mary? Or do you even know what he taught?

You don't want the truth about Martin Luther. You make bold dogmatic statements with no proof.

My anti-Mary animus has nothing to do with being anti-Biblical. On the contrary, I believe exactly what the Bible says about Mary (and everything else). (Sola scriptura.) Catholicism has invented one myth about Mary after another, e.g., perpetual virgin, queen of heaven. Mary is falsely exalted, just like the golden calf.

Martin Luther (and others) rescued the Christian faith from the grotesque, cruel distortion of Catholicism. I know what he taught, as I have read an excellent biography about him and his peers: "Rebel in the Ranks" by Brad S. Gregory.

What do you know about him?

 

[Illuminator]

You don't want the truth about Martin Luther. You make bold dogmatic statements with no proof.

My anti-Mary animus has nothing to do with being anti-Biblical. On the contrary, I believe exactly what the Bible says about Mary (and everything else). (Sola scriptura.) Catholicism has invented one myth about Mary after another, e.g., perpetual virgin, queen of heaven. Mary is falsely exalted, just like the golden calf.

Martin Luther (and others) rescued the Christian faith from the grotesque, cruel distortion of Catholicism. I know what he taught, as I have read an excellent biography about him and his peers. What do you know about him?

I post what I know Martin Luther taught, using authoritive bibliographies. You post nothing. You are either ignorant of what Luther taught and believed about Mary, or you are afraid of his views because they contradict your lies.
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davea...ther-was-extraordinarily-devoted-to-mary.html

 

[Jim B]

I post what I know Martin Luther taught, using authoritive bibliographies. You post nothing. You are either ignorant of what Luther taught and believed about Mary, or you are afraid of his views because they contradict your lies.
Martin Luther Was Extraordinarily Devoted to Mary

Do you think that your insults will get you anywhere? They just make you look ignorant and stupid.

BTW, I read books, not biased web postings. Just another example of your laziness. "Biblical Evidence for Catholicism"? Obviuously that's a source of RCC propaganda instead of objective truth. Unlike you, I look for both reason and knowledge.

 

[Jim B]

You don't want the truth about Martin Luther. You make bold dogmatic statements with no proof. Your anti-Mary animus is not biblical. "That golden calf is a type of Mary!" Seriously? Why do you disrespect Mary so much with these headless chicken comments??
Why do you uphold Martin Luther yet reject what he taught about Mary? Or do you even know what he taught?

Martin Luther
· Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary’s virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.
{Luther’s Works, eds. Jaroslav Pelikan (vols. 1-30) & Helmut T. Lehmann (vols. 31-55), St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House (vols. 1-30); Philadelphia: Fortress Press (vols. 31-55), 1955, v.22:23 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }
(rejected by Jim B.)

· Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that ‘brothers’ really mean ‘cousins’ here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.
(rejected by Jim B.)

{Pelikan, ibid., v.22:214-15 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }

· A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ . . .
{Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:199 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) }
(rejected by Jim B.)

· Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity . . .

· When Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her . . . This babble . . . is without justification . . . he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom.


{Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:206,212-3 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) }
(rejected by Jim B.)
Editor Jaroslav Pelikan (Lutheran) adds:
· Luther . . . does not even consider the possibility that Mary might have had other children than Jesus. This is consistent with his lifelong acceptance of the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary.

{Pelikan, ibid.,v.22:214-5}
(rejected by Jim B.)

Read more: https://www.catholicfidelity.com/apologetics-topics/mary/early-protestants-on-the-perpetual-virginty-of-mary-by-dave-armstrong/?utm_source=copy&utm_medium=paste&utm_campaign=copypaste&utm_content=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.catholicfidelity.com%2Fapologetics-topics%2Fmary%2Fearly-protestants-on-the-perpetual-virginty-of-mary-by-dave-armstrong%2F

see also Martin Luther Was Extraordinarily Devoted to Mary
(rejected by Jim B.)

As I have said many times, this is also unScriptural propaganda. Jesus had brothers according to Scripture. I know that you and others don't believe what the Bible clearly says, instead opting for Catholic mythology.

It baffles me why Catholics have this need to invent a Mary that has nothing to do with the truths of the Bible. She was a young woman who was chosen to be Jesus' mother and the mother of his brothers. The idea of "perpetual virgin" is total nonsense. There is a need to exalt virginity that has no basis in reality. It is some false idealization of women that has resulted in the concept of "marianismo", which is both cruel and demeaning. Mary is a minor figure in the New Testament, which takes away from the glory of her son.

I would never turn to a web site named "catholicfidelity.com", as there would be nothing there but more Catholic propaganda.

When will you people face the truth?

 

[Jim B]

How about this as an example of Catholic behavior?

The Santa Fe Archdiocese settled a lawsuit of almost 400 cases of sexual abuse of children at the hands of clergy. While the settlement is historic, the creation of an archive of the history of sexual abuse within the diocese is even more groundbreaking, given the international claims of abuse within the Catholic Church that have surfaced over the past decades.

Santa Fe New Mexican, 05/18/22

 

[Jim B]

I laughed because you don't realize how much you've either overthought this or got suckered into believing. In the middle of Jesus's teaching, His apostles interrupted to tell Him His mother and other family members just arrived, which upon hearing prompted Him to mention a quick spiritual point about something to the crowd.

Correct! He did not say my mother Mary and my brothers are welcome; let them in. He pointed to His disciples and said that they were His (true spiritual) mother and brothers.

The point is amplified in Luke 14:6, "If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple."

In other words, Mary was nothing more to Jesus than His biological mother. She is most definitely not the person that Catholics portray her as.

 

[Jim B]

The Bible doesn't have every word He spoke in that scene recorded. So, assuming He didn't say that it doesn't mean He said "My mother and other family members aren't welcome here." You've gone from overthinking to just making stuff up.



So, God wants us to "honor thy mother," but also hate them in the way you think that word is being used? That doesn't make sense which is how I know you misunderstand what's being said in Lk. 14:6.

Do you want to know an excellent way to lose somebody's respect? Post this: "You've gone from overthinking to just making stuff up." Since you're clearly incapable of having a meaningful discussion I will ignore you from now on. Find a different sandbox!

 

[Illuminator]

Jim B will be ignored.

 

[Jim B]

Running away when you can't defend your points is a way to lose somebody's respect.

I can and do defend my points but I have better things to do than debate you and your bizarre ideas. You have lost my respect entirely.

 

[Jim B]

Running away when you can't defend your points is a way to lose somebody's respect.

I don't want or need "respect" from you.

 

[Jim B]

I don't expect you to admit you ran away, so of course you'd say that, but you don't need to admit because it's obvious.

[ignored]

 

[user]

Jesus is our salvation!
mary is his mother!
so Mary is the mother of our salvation!

Let's see if that holds water...

Hitler has a son
his son lets the prison camps go free
therefore Hitler is the father of their salvation

Nope!

 

[Jim B]

Jesus is our salvation!
mary is his mother!
so Mary is the mother of Jesus, who is our salvation!

How can Mary give birth to a concept???