Queen of heaven

[Valletta]

IF that is true, that Mary is recorded after Acts 1:13-14........then all YOU have to do is list them.

Please name the Book, Chapter and verse.

I eagerly await your response!

YES....I am also LOL at your response! NO ONE is ever seen after their last time mentioned. Think about what you said.

The point was which you either did not understand or maybe I did not say it properly.........
Acts is the START of the church. Acts 1:13-14 is the last mention of Mary.

IF she was as needed and did as much as you think.....why is there NO MENTION of her in any of the epistles from Acts to the end of the Bible????

Allow me to very clear......... Yes, Mary was a righteous woman and favored (graced) by God.
At the same time, Mary was a sinful human being who needed Jesus Christ as her Savior, just like everyone else.

You are welcome to believe anything you want to believe that a MAN has told you. However, BIBLICALLY speaking, The virgin Mary did not have an “immaculate conception.”

The Bible doesn’t suggest Mary’s birth was anything but a normal human birth. Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus, but she was not a virgin permanently. The idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary is unbiblical and it nothing more than a passing down of "Tradition".

Biblical facts are that Mary is never mentioned again after Acts chapter 1.
There is NO RECORD of The apostles giving Mary a prominent role.
There is NO record Mary’s death recorded in the Bible.
Nothing is said about Mary ascending to heaven or having an exalted role there.

As the earthly mother of Jesus, Mary should be respected, but she is not worthy of our worship or adoration.

You need to think about what you said. Obviously the last time a person is mentioned in a book there is NOTHING, NO RECORD of that person again in the book. There are plenty of people where there is NO RECORD of their death in the Bible. Bible only religions sprung up over a thousand years later, it appears because of the influence of an Arab theologian. The Bible was NEVER intended to be all of God's Word, neither God nor his Word can be confined to a book. It seems obvious from a number of writings, particularly to those given to a small group, that the human authors through which God worked had no idea that the Catholic Church would decided to compile 73 books that the Church deemed were God-breathed and put them in a "Bible." NEVER was the Bible intended to hold ALL of the Word of God, such a concoction comes from humans. That is your manmade TRADITION, just like most of the books of the Bible chosen by the Catholic Church, certainly the ORDER of the books decided by the Catholic Church is your TRADITION. Why is it that you and those like minded decided to use the ORDER of the CANON of the CATHOLIC CHURCH? The Trinity is not spelled out in the Bible. Mary is referred to as a virgin, you have decided to follow teachers who have gone outside of the Word of God.

 

[Valletta]

And by the way.....if you have any questions about the Revelation I would consider it a blessing to answer it for you!

No offense, but your understanding of Revelation is poor, I have a far better understanding.

 

[prodromos]

"Those who have been joined to Christ. If we are adopted as sons and daughters of God, co-heirs with Christ, then it follows that we are also adopted as sons and daughters of Christ's mother. If we are to be as the disciple Christ loved, then we will also hear the words, "Behold your mother"."

That Makes you a Catholic!!!!!!!!

No, it makes Catholics in some ways Orthodox.

 

[Major1]

No offense, but your understanding of Revelation is poor, I have a far better understanding.

LOL..........Now THAT is funny!

 

[Major1]

No, it makes Catholics in some ways Orthodox.

Or better said......it makes You a Catholic because you accept their teachings.

 

[prodromos]

Or better said......it makes You a Catholic because you accept their teachings.

You accept their teachings too, on Christ's dual nature, on His death, resurrection and ascension etc. Therefore you must be Catholic too.

 

[Major1]

You need to think about what you said. Obviously the last time a person is mentioned in a book there is NOTHING, NO RECORD of that person again in the book. There are plenty of people where there is NO RECORD of their death in the Bible. Bible only religions sprung up over a thousand years later, it appears because of the influence of an Arab theologian. The Bible was NEVER intended to be all of God's Word, neither God nor his Word can be confined to a book. It seems obvious from a number of writings, particularly to those given to a small group, that the human authors through which God worked had no idea that the Catholic Church would decided to compile 73 books that the Church deemed were God-breathed and put them in a "Bible." NEVER was the Bible intended to hold ALL of the Word of God, such a concoction comes from humans. That is your manmade TRADITION, just like most of the books of the Bible chosen by the Catholic Church, certainly the ORDER of the books decided by the Catholic Church is your TRADITION. Why is it that you and those like minded decided to use the ORDER of the CANON of the CATHOLIC CHURCH? The Trinity is not spelled out in the Bible. Mary is referred to as a virgin, you have decided to follow teachers who have gone outside of the Word of God.

WHY can't you focus and respond to the POSTS in view.
WHY do you feel the need to change the focus ?????

Could it be that you can not answer the paradox?
Could it be that you have just been caught in a paradox that you know destroys the Immaculate Conception teaching????

While what you stated is true, we are not discussing OTHER people are we???

Mary was the person in the discussion!

Can you...will you focus on MARY and not others?

 

[Major1]

You accept their teachings too, on Christ's dual nature, on His death, resurrection and ascension etc. Therefore you must be Catholic too.

That is an ASSUMPTION based on facts not in evidence.

I base what I understand on the written word of God!

 

[Major1]

No, it makes Catholics in some ways Orthodox.

If it looks like a duck,,and it quakes ..............

 

[prodromos]

If it looks like a duck,,and it quakes ..............

then it must be an earth tremor?
No, a nervous ballerina! No wait, that's walks like a duck.

 

[Valletta]

WHY can't you focus and respond to the POSTS in view.
WHY do you feel the need to change the focus ?????

Could it be that you can not answer the paradox?
Could it be that you have just been caught in a paradox that you know destroys the Immaculate Conception teaching????

While what you stated is true, we are not discussing OTHER people are we???

Mary was the person in the discussion!

Can you...will you focus on MARY and not others?

Why don't you answer my questions? Why not acknowledge YOUR manmade traditions? We've gone over this before, for example, you take a manmade teaching that Mary supposedly is not a perpetual virgin, which is not in the Bible, and repeat it no matter how many people point out your teaching is not in the Bible. The problem is you don't seem to be able to hold a conversation without throwing in false anti-Catholic or personal accusations. When you falsely accuse don't be surprised to be corrected.

 

[Major1]

Why don't you answer my questions? Why not acknowledge YOUR manmade traditions? We've gone over this before, for example, you take a manmade teaching that Mary supposedly is not a perpetual virgin, which is not in the Bible, and repeat it no matter how many people point out your teaching is not in the Bible. The problem is you don't seem to be able to hold a conversation without throwing in false anti-Catholic or personal accusations. When you falsely accuse don't be surprised to be corrected.

WHY NOT????

Because YOU do not.

YOU SAID.........
"for example, you take a manmade teaching that Mary supposedly is not a perpetual virgin, which is not in the Bible, and repeat it no matter how many people point out your teaching is not in the Bible."

DO YOU read and think about what you post before YOU post it??????

I did not take a "man-made" teaching and say that Mary is NOT a perpetual virgin"

That is total nonsense. I said several times that there is NO BIBLE SUPPORT that the man made Catholic teaching of Mary as a Perpetual Virgin is valid!!!!

 

[prodromos]

That is total nonsense. I said several times that there is NO BIBLE SUPPORT that the man made Catholic teaching of Mary as a Perpetual Virgin is valid!!!!

Scripture is entirely consistent with Jesus' brethren being older than Him, which is wholly consistent with Mary remaining a virgin after she gave birth to Christ. Scripture does not show that Mary had any other children. To claim it does is a man made tradition.

 

[Major1]

Scripture is entirely consistent with Jesus' brethren being older than Him, which is wholly consistent with Mary remaining a virgin after she gave birth to Christ. Scripture does not show that Mary had any other children. To claim it does is a man made tradition.

IF that is true......then all you have to do is post one Scripture for me to read and I will agree with you and openly apologize to you.

Just one!!!!

For me.....I will accept the Bible record instead of your personal Orthodox opinion.....until YOU post that Scripture.

Mark 6:3 records people becoming angry with Jesus when He taught in His hometown. They rejected Him as a prophet and responded........
“‘Isn’t this the carpenter? Isn’t this Mary’s son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren’t his sisters here with us?’ And they took offense at him.”

I fail to grasp how such a simple, clear Scripture can be rejected.

This passage clearly indicates that Mary had at least seven children, including Jesus. There were at least thirty years between the time of Jesus’ birth and this encounter, which allows plenty of time for other children to have joined the family as Jesus’ siblings.

Then just to make it even more simple and to answer the responce of...those were his followers/disciples John 2:12 gives us another hint as we answer the question of whether Mary had other children:..........
“After this he went down to Capernaum with his mother and brothers and his disciples.”

The BIBLE fact that the words brothers and disciples are both used means that John was not referring to “spiritual” brothers but to familial relationships. The “brothers” and the “disciples” were different groups.

Efforts to prove that Mary remained a perpetual virgin are not based on Scripture but on a misguided allegiance to a woman who was as fallible as any other human being.

 

[Valletta]

WHY NOT????

Because YOU do not.

YOU SAID.........
"for example, you take a manmade teaching that Mary supposedly is not a perpetual virgin, which is not in the Bible, and repeat it no matter how many people point out your teaching is not in the Bible."

DO YOU read and think about what you post before YOU post it??????

I did not take a "man-made" teaching and say that Mary is NOT a perpetual virgin"

That is total nonsense. I said several times that there is NO BIBLE SUPPORT that the man made Catholic teaching of Mary as a Perpetual Virgin is valid!!!!

You previously claimed that Mary had other children, perhaps you forgot. That's a man-made teaching.

 

[Major1]

You previously claimed that Mary had other children, perhaps you forgot. That's a man-made teaching.

No it is not! I have made NO claims whatsoever.

That is what the Bible says. YOU have rejected what the word of God says.

Mark 6:3.......
“‘Isn’t this the carpenter? Isn’t this Mary’s son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren’t his sisters here with us?’ And they took offense at him.”

Matthew 13:55-56 .....
"Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? 56 "And His sisters, are they not all with us?"

Mt 12:46 While He was still speaking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. 47 And someone said to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You."

John 2:12 .......
"After this He went down to Capernaum, He and His mother, and His brothers, and His disciples; and there they stayed a few days.

Jesus....James, Joseph, Judas, Simon and His sister's! Plural sister's = at least 6 children of Jesus who would be his 1/2 siblings.

 

[Major1]

Scripture is entirely consistent with Jesus' brethren being older than Him, which is wholly consistent with Mary remaining a virgin after she gave birth to Christ. Scripture does not show that Mary had any other children. To claim it does is a man made tradition.

Still waiting !!!

All you have to do is post just one Scripture to support your claim.

 

[Valletta]

No it is not! I have made NO claims whatsoever.

That is what the Bible says. YOU have rejected what the word of God says.

Mark 6:3.......
“‘Isn’t this the carpenter? Isn’t this Mary’s son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren’t his sisters here with us?’ And they took offense at him.”

Matthew 13:55-56 .....
"Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? 56 "And His sisters, are they not all with us?"

Mt 12:46 While He was still speaking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. 47 And someone said to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You."

John 2:12 .......
"After this He went down to Capernaum, He and His mother, and His brothers, and His disciples; and there they stayed a few days.

Jesus....James, Joseph, Judas, Simon and His sister's! Plural sister's = at least 6 children of Jesus who would be his 1/2 siblings.

False, you have made claims, such as "Mary and Joseph had at least 6 children AFTER jesus was born!."

 

[prodromos]

Still waiting !!!

All you have to do is post just one Scripture to support your claim.

I have posted many times in other threads you have been part of. Plus, I just got out of bed and need to go to work.

 

[Major1]

I have posted many times in other threads you have been part of. Plus, I just got out of bed and need to go to work.

LOL!......I really mean falling down, LOL!

Really good one!

Yes you have but you have never ever posted ONE single Scripture to support your opinions especially the Immaculate Conception.

But it was really fuu=nny!!!!!


By the way..........Still waiting!