Posted on 05/19/2008 6:44:32 PM PDT by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
>>I am not a research librarian ... read the Book of Acts for yourself ... <<
There is lots of fun Bible software that can be used to post actual references. Usually, when someone quotes the Bible, they know chapter and verse.
Otherwise I could say something like, SkyDancer was in Genesis. And when called on it, say “I am not a research librarian ... read Genesis for yourself ... “
Now doesn’t that look silly?
(I think it was Ironman anyway)
You made the assertion. Back up your statements with chapter and verse. You being a good 'Bible Christian' should be able to do so rather easily.
The word “Mary” appears twice in Acts: 1:14 & 12:12
Neither verse seems to confirm the claim.
Instead of setting up a straw-man to knock down, why don’t you try refuting the actual beleif of catholics, not what you say is their beleif?
Or is it that you can not refute what they say they beleive beleive?
What is your minor premise - that hyperdulia and dulia is impossible or that hyperdulia and dulia are acceptable, proper and “biblical” (which is ACTUAL the Catholic position) but that Catholic’s in practice tend not to limit themselves to dulia and hyperdulia (your major premise)?
“Protestants do not need intervention by Mary or any of the Saints to Jesus ... we can go directly to Him ... I guess you can’t ..”
LOL, you really do not understand the Holy WErit, do you?
>>The word “Mary” appears twice in Acts: 1:14 & 12:12
Neither verse seems to confirm the claim.<<
Oooops!!!
Protestants tend to be very good with the Bible. Especially the parts that talk about Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide...... :-D
Other than the first 2 chapters of Acts, if my memory serves, Mary isn’t mentioned at all in Acts, and there’s no mention of her being a sinner.
Ummm, there’s nothing in your post #30 that contradicts scripture, or the article posted. At the same time nothing in those quotations elevates Mary to the special status given to her officially, as described in the article, in the modern Roman Church.
Yes she was a great and godly woman. But no where in the Epistles to the infant Church, nor the description of the first generation of Christians in Acts, spanning some 30 years, is their any veneration or the very special honor Roman Catholicism gives to Mary today, seen then.
If hyperdulia for Mary is something vitally important—and not a later innovation—why doesn’t Luke in Acts, Paul, Peter, John, James, Jude, and the author of Hebrews make one mention of it?
If there’s a reason why historically, over the long term Roman Catholicism has discouraged Bible reading by laymen, this may be a big part of it.
Do your research ... you’ll find it ... in any event, I don’t need Mary or the ‘saints’ to intervene for me ... I have direct access to God through His Son Jesus .... it is interesting though how many catholic churches there are dedicated to Mary and the Apostles than there are to Jesus ...
All Catholic parishes are dedicated to God first. They're aren't called "houses of God" for nothing. His earthly dwelling place is in the tabernacle. After that, the name of the parish is often the place's primary patron. It can be a saint, or it can be Christ Himself, such as Christ the King, Holy Redeemer, etc.
I would have been burned at the stake by the catholics as a heretic during their early years .... and which Holy Writ are you referring to? I use the New Internal Version ..... show me where I need Mary or the saints to have access to Jesus.....
Catholicism doesn’t deny you can go to Christ directly. In fact, one of the most frequent Catholic prayers is “Lord have mercy” or “Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.” But your denial of the intercession of the saints is where you go off track. The Church is one, “one earth as it is in heaven.” Death doesn’t separate us from the communion of saints who are with the living God. Just as St. Paul asked others to pray for him, we ask the saints to pray for us and with us.
Big difference ....
Uh, no. You have bought the false history of the black legend.
Again it was the catholic church that came out with the reference first that Mary was born sinless ... that would make two, wouldn’t it? Jesus and Mary which would make Mary the equivalent of Jesus ....
So really what you’re saying is that you were caught stating something that was untrue and now you want to move on to more untrue statements. Okay.
Comedy gold!
“You made the assertion. Back up your statements with chapter and verse. You being a good ‘Bible Christian’ should be able to do so rather easily.”
OK Let’s try:
(Rom 3:23 KJV) For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.
(Rom 3:10-20 KJV) As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one.
(Luke 1:47 KJV) And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
This is Mary speaking.
(1 Tim 2:5 KJV) For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
Mary knew her own sin and acknowledged her need of a Saviour (Luke 1:47). None of the Lord’s Apostles exalted Mary; none of them applied to her such titles as sinless, immaculate, ever-virgin, Mother of God, Blessed Virgin, Holy Queen, Queen of Heaven, Our Lady, Co-Redemptress, Immaculate Virgin, etc. The Apostles taught us that Jesus Christ ALONE is the Mediator between God and men (1 Timothy 2:5)
How am I doing so far?
And Pyro, are you denying that the catholic church burned people for heresy???
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.