Were any of the visions and sightings of Mary legit then?
- Thread starter YeshuaFan
- Start date
Hello YeshuaFan;
I don't know. On one hand the wise men in Matthew 2 and in Luke 2 the Shepherds saw the vision/sighting of Mary and Jesus and actually bowed down to worship Him.
Are you speaking of today's sightings of Mary? If this were so the event would be so much greater Spiritually and God Anointed than a marian apparition.
Is this what you are asking?
I don't know. On one hand the wise men in Matthew 2 and in Luke 2 the Shepherds saw the vision/sighting of Mary and Jesus and actually bowed down to worship Him.
Are you speaking of today's sightings of Mary? If this were so the event would be so much greater Spiritually and God Anointed than a marian apparition.
Is this what you are asking?
Yes, Shepards saw Mary. But how are WE supposed to know what she looks like?
I am speaking of all of the so called Catholic sightings over the years!
My hunch is that she would look like a typical Jewish maiden of her same age today!
Thank you for clarifying, YeshuaFan. No, I don't believe they are legit.
I was speaking towards those like claimed for Fatima!
yeh, but there could have been hundreds of them... could have even been Deborah.
if I saw a jewish maiden I would hope The Lord would somehow confirm it for sure. no idea how He would even do that, so, I would most probably believe I am hallucinating. I have had a few odd dreams about biblical characters and themes, and found them fascinating, they never amounted to much, unlike Lourdes.
We live right next to a cemetery and they used to have a huge tree on the grounds. Back in the late 90s the branch was cut and many people came to visit it because the open cut branch had an image of Mary. It caught the attention of the news media and there were candles lit, flowers and other stuff in front of the tree.
Personally, we didn't put too much stock in it. We didn't feel right worshiping a tree. lol!
Hello Via;
You know, I'm with you on your point. My response is if the Lord confirmed even a glance there has to be a purpose.
I have also had dreams of Jesus and even intense dreams of darkness which I presume was Satan. Both times when I woke up I thought about it.
I would conclude the same.
Or demonic ...
Demonic, attention-getting, sensationalism, money-making, keep-the-deception-going and many other maladies of human nature is the real explanation. But, hey, remember that the silly followers of that stuff aren't our enemies, but rather the powers and principalities of the air.
MM
MM
As for the Virgin Mary to appear, she would need a body. The RCC answer this by saying she was taken to heaven before her death, which I do not find in scripture. For anyone interested in how the RCC starts with links from Eve to Mary and continues with doctrinal gymnastics to declare her the queen of heaven, there is a book titled Hail Holy Queen by Scott Hahn. I read about half of it before giving up. It uses one unscriptual doctrine to "confirm" another then that one to "confirm" the next. I was amazed at the lengths this guy went to explain why Mary is the queen. I dont believe catholics get everything wrong but they went off the rails sometime in the distant past.
Something else that's striking about so many of the claims within that system of doctrine is to observe the 'evolution' of that system's doctrinal decrees. It was only recently, 1950, that they assume the assumption of the (alleged) Virgin Mary. I've been told by RCC apologists that the various beliefs decreed in certain years were all believed before they were made official doctrine. That's an argument from silence. Apart from an actual, dated decree from whatever pope made the ex-cathedra declaration through the centuries, that they became official dogma at some dated point in their history speaks to me personally of an extremely fickle god.
For example, Boniface VIII fueled what was stated in the Council of Trent:
"The sacrosanct Roman Church…firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart ‘into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Matt. 25:41), unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, and almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church" (Henry Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma (London: Herder, 1954), p. 230, #714).
Of late, we've all seen and heard recent popes claim there IS salvation outside the RCC among those who not only NOT follow and bow to the RCC, but also refuse to be a part of her.
So, I remain quite leery of a system of belief that has such a history filled with doctrinal drift and progression when viewed from the perspective of the cannon having had closure after the last jot and tittle was penned in Revelation. The idea that any mere sinful man can be declared as being able to utter what is infallible, adding to a body of doctrine through time, that's simply indefensible. Yes, the apostles did write progressively in their day, but it all aligned with the rest of the body of scripture. Dare one try and justify the idea that Mary was sinless and assumed as were Enoch and Elijah, no. It's asking too much to so easily give in to never-ending progressivity in doctrines.
If you want to see the major doctrines, when they came into being, then you can see them here:
Timeline of Roman Catholicism
www.eaec.org
I'm not slamming that religion, nor those who follow it. I'm simply stating why I personally do not and cannot subscribe to its claims.
MM
Good link thanks for sharing. I saw a chart once comparing the Ark to Virgin Mary showing how she was the Ark of the new covenant. I found it interesting and not too far fetched. Also the meaning of the term theotokos, God bearer, mother of God doesnt bother me as she was after all Christs mother. I do believe the respect for Mary can be taken to the extreme and the RCC seems to encourage this to the point she becomes more than a pious woman.
The Holy Spirit is here to glorify the Lord Jesus, not His mother!
She is far more to Rome then what the Bible ascribes to her!
Dr. Barnett also pointed out what I had not noticed before is the pagan-originated imagery of the "mother-son", with the mother, obviously being much larger and more prominent, having that larger "halo" about her head, with the child sitting on her lap with the smaller "halo" and shooting the hippy peace sign. I never did get that one, other than it brings greater glory to whoever that woman really is from deepest, pagan history (Semaramus, Tamuz...?).
Anyway, not at all consistent with the word of God.
MM