[–] thats_disinfo 1 point 0 points 1 point (+1|-1) ago (edited ago)
Part 2
Now, on to the QA part.
Question 1:
"In 1 Timothy it says Jesus is our sole mediator, yet we pray to Mary and the Saints. Is that going against the Bible?"
Their making the claim that we all share in Jesus' roles as the body of Christ in an attempt to defend Mary being "Mediatrix" (CCC 969. Notice the captial M) in Roman Catholicism is purely dishonest. They claim that Jesus is the Foundation, but there are multiple foundations; Jesus is Lord, but there are multiple lords; and that Jesus is the Judge, but there are multiple judges, since the Christian Church is the Body of Christ.
The Roman Catholic church doesn't just claim that "Mary could play a role as a small M mediator, since she's part of the Body of Christ". No. They claim that she's the "Mediatrix" that she "brings us the gifts of eternal salvation":
"...by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation..." (CCC 969)
And that she "delivers us from death by her prayers":
"You conceived the living God and, by your prayers, will deliver our souls from death." (CCC 966)
That's not lower case m mediation, that's upper case, as evidenced by their use of "Mediatrix". Jesus is the only Mediator:
(1 Timothy 2:5-6) "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; {6} Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time."
Mary doesn't mediate anything, she doesn't bring us anything or deliver us from anything, and to hold to something so extreme and bizarre when it's absolutely nowhere in the Bible is simply crazy and/or evil.
Question 2:
"In Romans, chapter 3, it says that none is righteous and that all have sinned, but the Catholic Church teaches that Mary is without sin…could you explain that in light of Romans 3?"
They compare Paul's quoting from Psalms 14 and his declaration made by inspiration of God (2 Timothy 3:16) to try to twist them to somehow support that someone could be sinless, even though we were just told that no one is in Romans 3:23. Then they claim that babies haven't sinned, so "for all have sinned" isn't really saying what it seems to be saying. Really? That's either one of the dumbest things I've ever read, or one of the most dishonest. Most likely both.
"Babies haven’t sinned. This is not an absolute. There are exceptions. It’s something to think about. So, it is perfectly legitimate to say that these passages from Romans, when interpreted in context, in no way conflict with the Church’s teaching on Mary being without sin."
No, it isn't. Mary was a sinner.
Question 3:
"Why do Catholics call Mary the Queen of Heaven? Doesn’t God rebuke the Israelites in the O.T. for worshipping a false goddess called the Queen of Heaven? Should we not refer to Mary with that title, therefore, since it is the title of a false goddess?"
Here they try to evade the fact that worshipping Mary the "queen of heaven" was originally a pagan practice. To support this claim, they claim that we see the "queen of heaven" in Revelation 12:1:
"And there is a true Queen of Heaven, which we see quite clearly in Revelation 12:1: “And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars…” So in this passage, we read that there is a woman…she’s in Heaven…and she has a crown on her head. It is the true Queen of Heaven, Mary, the mother of the male child who is to rule the nations."
Let's look at Revelation 12:
(Revelation 12:1-4) "And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: {2} And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered. {3} And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads. {4} And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born."
That isn't the "queen of heaven", unless the great red dragon that wanted to devour her baby is the "king of heaven". It's pretty obvious why they stopped at verse 1.
Mary isn't the queen of anything, and her being the "queen of heaven" (which is obviously nowhere to be found in the Bible) is completely pagan:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_of_heaven_%28antiquity%29
Question 4:
"The Bible clearly says that Jesus had brothers and sisters, but the Catholic Church teaches that Mary was a perpetual virgin…how can you reconcile those seemingly different positions?"
The Bible tells us explicitly that Mary did not remain a virgin. In Matthew 1:24-25, we're told:
(Matthew 1:24-25) "Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: {25} And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS."
"To know" someone is a Jewish idiom for sexual intercourse. (https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1097&t=KJV)
Joseph "knew" Mary after she gave birth to Jesus, as Matthew 1:25 clearly tells us with "And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son."
To defend their unbiblical doctrine of Mary remaining a virgin her entire life, they claim that Abraham and Lot were cousins, so every time you see "brother" or "sister" in the Bible, it could mean cousins too. But what if "cousin" exists in Greek and was actually used in the Bible? It does, and it was:
(Colossians 4:10) "Aristarchus my fellowprisoner saluteth you, and Marcus, sister’s son to Barnabas, (touching whom ye received commandments: if he come unto you, receive him;)"
"Sister's son" is "anepsios", the Greek word for "cousin":
https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/col/4/1/t_conc_1111010
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G431&t=KJV
So "cousin" existed in Greek, but they didn't use it.
Also, why would they mention Jesus' parents and His brothers and sisters, if they were referring to His cousins?
(Matthew 13:55-56) "Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? {56} And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?"
Why would His cousins just be walking around with His parents? That doesn't make any sense at all, and anyone can see that Jesus had brothers and sisters without even needing to bring a lexicon into it. It's just Catholic dishonesty that necessitated it.
Jesus had brothers and sisters. Mary was not a virgin her whole life.
It's sad that a novice like me on Voat can absolutely deconstruct heretical Roman Catholic doctrine that millions hold to with only minor research. And besides that, you've ignored the fact that your "church" has murdered 50,000,000+ people, has tortured countless people horrifically, and blatantly disobeys Jesus with the title of your leader.
[–] thats_disinfo 1 point 0 points 1 point (+1|-1) ago (edited ago)
Part 1
Before getting into anything else, let me demonstrate how easy it is to refute the claim that Mary was a virgin her entire life:
"To know" is a Jewish idiom for sexual intercourse. (https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1097&t=KJV)
Matthew 1:25 tells us explicitly that Joseph "knew" Mary after she had given birth to Jesus. This single-handedly refutes all of their Mary false doctrine.
As typical for Roman Catholic attempts at theology, the amount of dishonesty in your link is jaw-droppingly shocking. I'll get to that in a moment, but first, let's look at some of their initial claims in the hard to read part over St. Peter's Basilica (which was paid for by the insane amount of money they made selling "indulgences", or paying to get out of "purgatory" (which is also nowhere to be found in the Bible) early):
Mary's the model of perfect love? Excuse me? Did she leave Heaven to come to earth to die on a cross for us when we were still sinners? I didn't think so. Mary is hardly in the Bible at all. She gave birth to Jesus, then followed Him later. To call her "the model of perfect love" when she's almost completely absent from the Bible, except for giving birth to Jesus and then being mentioned by name a few times later, is an absolute insult to Jesus, the Real Model of Perfect Love, and also ridiculous. In fact, this is so ridiculous given the actual Mary in the Bible that heresy and corruption of some kind in the Roman Catholic church is apparent.
No, He didn't. That's not in the Bible. What is in the Bible is this:
Since Jesus is God (John 1:1, John 10:30, John 20:28-29, Revelation 1:8, Acts 20:28, Philippians 2:5-6, Titus 2:13), only He remained sinless. Mary was a sinner, just like everyone else.
The "mother" of God? Excuse me? How is Mary, who was created by Jesus, the Creator of Everything (Colossians 1:16), the "mother of God"? And how would this make her our "mother"? If God is our Father, they're making Mary on par with God by saying this. They say she's not equal with God one second and the next say something that means she is equal or even greater than God.
See? This isn't surprising since nothing Catholic literature says is actually logical and makes sense. It can't be since it's full of lies.
Also, they're lying. Here's what the Catecheism of the Catholic church says:
Here's where the Catholic version of Mary came from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_of_heaven_%28antiquity%29
Paganism.
Also, if Mary "delivers our souls from death" "by her prayers", this makes her co-Mediator with Jesus, as they also make clear here:
And here (among other places):
Please go read your Bible and see how small of a role Mary plays it in. She speaks a total of 4 times in the entire Gospel. All of this stuff is wildly made up and absolutely crazy. How can you support this?
Also notice how they give absolutely zero Scriptural support for their claims. Because obviously none of it is anywhere to be found in the Bible.