Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Pope Francis: self-help courses can turn Catholics into Pelagians
Catholic Herald ^ | 3/28/2013

Posted on 03/28/2013 5:58:16 AM PDT by markomalley

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-265 next last
To: RobbyS
Irenaeus—writing long before [sic]Constabntine—described her as the New Eve

Irenaeus let his imagination make connections not quite kosher. Eve didn't give birth to the original Adam [think about it].

By one man it is written, sin entered the world. The woman herself was not primarily charged with the crime, being punished for her association with it, by the pain of childbirth itself, though she too, as wife of Adam, was expelled from the Garden.

Now seeing Mary as Daughter of Israel, as spoken of by the prophets...that is safely enough more fully kosher, from a Christian perspective [with apology for borrowing the word kosher, to any Jew of faith whom may come along].

According to Hebrew law & custom, humans do not become diety. But we do see, in Jesus, God becoming for a time, man. Yet regardless of specious objections to the contrary, this praying to those whom have lived previously as humans, and only as human, themselves being merely created beings from the very onset (such as Mary) is too much much like the polytheism Abram was instructed to leave, in the first place! Those people prayed to various departed long-lived, powerful and influential kings (along with some ladies who became promoted to the goddesses once passing on from this world) as city-State god-protectors whom could be appealed to in times of need, or as objects of adoration.

One can be forgiven for praying to Jesus, for He was diety before having a brief period of human Incarnation.

As you touched upon earlier, "god-bearer" is more accurately translated than capitalized "Mother of God". For although it is said that Mary be not a Goddess...the attention paid to her is so much like goddess worship it not only approaches that same, but is difficult to discern much difference, upon more than a few instances of expression towards her, in RC theology and practice.

The title "mother of Christ our Lord and Saviour" or "mother of the Incarnation" can be more precise, though it takes longer to say.
Even Christ did not instruct to pray to himself, but more precisely to pray to the Creator more directly, in his name. A subtle difference, but one worth remembering.

101 posted on 03/30/2013 4:42:56 PM PDT by BlueDragon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: BlueDragon

It is your imagination, or maybe just your knowledge, that is lacking here, because Irenaeus was comparing Mary’s obedience with Eve’s disobedience. As for Jesus, we disagree. He was not man for a time,but for all time. He was and is, Mary’s sons and she, his mother.


102 posted on 03/30/2013 9:55:04 PM PDT by RobbyS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
It is your imagination, or maybe just your knowledge, that is lacking here, because Irenaeus was comparing Mary’s obedience with Eve’s disobedience

But that's just it. It wasn't for Eve's disobedience, it was for Adam's, LIKE I SAID. Check the Hebrew OT scripture. Check what is said about the same by Paul in the NT. They don't mention Eve.

I see you won't touch a single thing of what I just told you, but instead call me ignorant. How convenient. But I'm obviously not ignorant, so the easy escape evaporates like a mirage...

No, the imaginings are not my own. Or you can prove your own assertions to the contrary. [but I know you won't...not from the scripture].

As for Jesus, we disagree. He was not man for a time,but for all time.

A "man" for all time? Like...even before His earthly Incarnation? Are you sure about that? I think the Word disagrees with that. Besides, He was never merely a man such as we (strictly created beings) for He was both fully man, and fully God during His Incarnation.

The "was and is Mary's son, and she his mother" business, with the hyper-inflation that is RC Marionism, alluding to Mary having god-like powers(!) could have been better avoided, if they had stuck more with the "god-bearer" limitation of description, or the "mother of the Incarnated Lord" (for he existed prior to his earthly incarnation, did He not?).

My "knowledge" isn't "lacking" for reason I'm not buying into RC claptrap concerning Mary, going far beyond scripture itself, and the early church itself.

It is for sake of my own knowledge, and that I am aware of the extra-biblical sources which first began to contribute to the hyper-inflation of her role as co-mediatrix, co-redeemer, etc, that makes me a tough customer, far beyond your own ability to cope with, or disprove.

In some instances, she is said to appear and direct people to "pray to her", or build churches "dedicated to her sacred heart", etc.

That sort of things is so distant from the Judeo portion of the Judeo-Christian construct, it would be laughable if it were not so blasphemous (to the one true God).

103 posted on 03/30/2013 11:37:01 PM PDT by BlueDragon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: BlueDragon

Adams and Eve were of one flesh, were they not? She being his other “side,” and the one tempted by the the serpent. If you are going to reduce Christianity into philology, know there are limits to this. As for Ignorance, I merely said you haven’t read “Against the Heretics, which was directly mainly against the Gnostics, who denied the Virgin Birth.


104 posted on 03/30/2013 11:53:44 PM PDT by RobbyS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
As for Ignorance, I merely said you haven’t read “Against the Heretics, which was directly mainly against the Gnostics, who denied the Virgin Birth.

Now you're saying that, but if before I must have missed it...

Those who denied the virgin birth... doesn't apply to myself in any way, no matter how desperately one may simply wish to lump myself in with some past heritics.

Adams and Eve were of one flesh, were they not?

Adam tried to blame Eve, and Eve blamed the serpent. Neither excuse at the time, cut the mustard. Adam was convicted of the sin. Eve was not even (by God) charged with the crime. OR, show me where God pins the blame on her...and later scriptural foretelling concerning how it will or would require "obedience of a woman" to undo the ancient error.

If you are going to reduce Christianity into philology, know there are limits to this.

So sticking with the Hebrew understanding of long standing, even prior to the Incarnation, is "reducing Christianity to philogy"? It's more a matter of proper exegesis.

Adding Mary as goddess (just lacking the word goddess, itself, but not the role or "power") is more the philogy...word games, and mental associations games with some FABLE mixed in. Having a Roman Catholic protecting Marionism while accusing me of engaging in "philogy" in my own opposition to the same, is extremely laughable.

I see the response is always "personal". Stuff it, mister, I'm not interested in recieving any more personal insults.

Stick with the subject matter, or shut up.

105 posted on 03/31/2013 12:19:50 AM PDT by BlueDragon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Gene Eric
I’ve done all these things?

Sorry. Poor etiquette on my part. No, the Church has allowed for this type of worship to take place. And the people love it.

Exodus 20:2-5 is about serving other gods. Mary, who was not a god,

That isn't the meaning of Exodus 20. Please read it again.

God is very specific in instructing us not make images after the likeness of those things of earth. There is no talk of serving other gods. That came later. All those statues of Mary would certainly fall into this category. That is why throughout the Old Testament (such as Daniel) you will find Jews refusing to bow down to images of any sort including kings such as King Nebuchadnezzar.

106 posted on 03/31/2013 3:04:29 AM PDT by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: narses

Very nice but I suspect, based upon her prayer, Mary would be the last person who would want people to worship her. Her joy was in God the Savior and in what He has done for her and others. She didn’t give thanks to Abraham or Moses.


107 posted on 03/31/2013 3:09:37 AM PDT by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD; fellowpatriot; MarineMom613; Ron C.; wolfman23601; ColdOne; navymom1; Pat4ever; ...
HarleyD wrote:
Very nice but I suspect, based upon her prayer, Mary would be the last person who would want people to worship her. Her joy was in God the Savior and in what He has done for her and others.
I am sure you are correct in that. That is reflected in Catholic teaching and practice. We venerate the Saints and Mary is venerated as a Saint and given special veneration as the Mother of God. Not worship but respect.

She became the Mother of God, in which work so many and such great good things are bestowed on her as pass man’s understanding. For on this there follows all honor, all blessedness, and her unique place in the whole of mankind, among which she has no equal, namely, that she had a child by the Father in heaven, and such a Child . . . Hence men have crowded all her glory into a single word, calling her the Mother of God . . . None can say of her nor announce to her greater things, even though he had as many tongues as the earth possesses flowers and blades of grass: the sky, stars; and the sea, grains of sand. It needs to be pondered in the heart what it means to be the Mother of God.

(Commentary on the Magnificat, 1521; in Luther’s Works, Pelikan et al, vol. 21, 326)

Your final point is just odd. Why did you say:
HarleyD wrote:
She didn’t give thanks to Abraham or Moses.

108 posted on 03/31/2013 6:23:47 AM PDT by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: BlueDragon

She became the Mother of God, in which work so many and such great good things are bestowed on her as pass man’s understanding. For on this there follows all honor, all blessedness, and her unique place in the whole of mankind, among which she has no equal, namely, that she had a child by the Father in heaven, and such a Child . . . Hence men have crowded all her glory into a single word, calling her the Mother of God . . . None can say of her nor announce to her greater things, even though he had as many tongues as the earth possesses flowers and blades of grass: the sky, stars; and the sea, grains of sand. It needs to be pondered in the heart what it means to be the Mother of God.

(Commentary on the Magnificat, 1521; in Luther’s Works, Pelikan et al, vol. 21, 326)


109 posted on 03/31/2013 6:29:27 AM PDT by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: BlueDragon

Why reject what Irenaeus said because it conflicts with what you have been taught by those whose adhere to your own tradition, which begins with the Reformation” In any case, I don’t follow you because what you say goes against what is clearly stated in Genesis 3. He first pronounces judgement against the serpent, then against the woman and then against the man. But Why do you think that sticking to the Hebrew is so important? The Jews don’t read the Scripture your way. Luther started out thinking as you did, and then turned against the Jews in rage after they declined to accept his interpretation. Fact is that private interpretation of the Bible has led to endless division among Christians, but even before this, ling before the average Christian had ever seen anything like our Bible, there were many other causes of division. Sadly the Church often chose to use force rather than leave judgement to God. I suppose we have see no end to it until he comes to render that judgement.


110 posted on 03/31/2013 7:53:36 AM PDT by RobbyS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: narses
So obviously she must be a goddess now. It's all so plain to me now...

By which I mean; the problem isn't such contemplations as you are quoting from Luther, but the rest of the over-inflated baggage of Marionism(s) that goes on from there, to far beyond anything which can be seen as continuance of revelation given to the Hebrew prophets.

There is only one true God, and it's not Mary. But listening to Roman Catholics, it's many times like "move over Jesus, you are sitting in mommy's chair".

If it is to be contemplated what it means for Mary to be god-bearer, one must always bear foremost in mind the context which she became, was raised up, chosen to be that person, at that precise time & location, fulfilling prophecy of the Messiah's birth.

Daughter of Israel. Ponder in your own heart, what that means, bearing in mind all that transpired from Abraham, to the day Gabriel told her, "you will", not asking for permission at that time.

Christ was fore-shadowed by Isaac as the son of promise, then both foreshadowed and foretold by Moses. Seen from still far off by David. Told of to lowly shepherds by a host of Angels, and revealed by the Holy Ghost to Simeon, that he should not die before seeing the Saviour of Israel, with that coming true, even holding the babe in his own arms, blessing him and prophesying over him, and Mary too.

This I mention is still not the entire story, nor the complete meaning;


111 posted on 03/31/2013 8:12:36 AM PDT by BlueDragon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
Oh good you decided to come back. where would you like me to send the Tim Staples CD for you to listen to?
112 posted on 03/31/2013 8:22:07 AM PDT by verga (A nation divided by Zero!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
Mary was not, is not and never will be the mother of God...

Jesus is God in the second person of the Trinity. She bore Him in her womb, gave birth to Him, suckled Him at her breast, Changed His little diapers. Yeah Mary is the Mother of God. Just like your mother is the mother of whatever you are.

113 posted on 03/31/2013 8:26:42 AM PDT by verga (A nation divided by Zero!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: HerrBlucher
I can only think of once,

Twice, actually. The other is in the Nicene Creed: "And by the Holy Spirit, was incarnate of the Virgin Mary"

I wonder ... do these anti-Catholic folks disagree with this sentence? Perhaps that's the real problem.

114 posted on 03/31/2013 8:44:00 AM PDT by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilization is Aborting, Buggering, and Contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: narses; fellowpatriot; MarineMom613; Ron C.; wolfman23601; ColdOne; navymom1; Pat4ever
We venerate the Saints and Mary is venerated as a Saint and given special veneration as the Mother of God. Not worship but respect.

Our Lord plainly tells us we are not to make images of anything on earth. Nor are we to bow down to those images. Now the real question is why, when given such clear and explicit instructions in scripture, would we go about doing exactly what the Lord God tells us not to do? But this is our sinful nature to willfully go against God's instructions.

Your final point is just odd.

Not really. Mary did not prayed or gave thanks to Moses. She prayed and gave thanks to God. One has to wonder why some feel the need to pray to anyone other than the Trinity.

115 posted on 03/31/2013 8:45:59 AM PDT by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
Our Lord plainly tells us we are not to make images of anything on earth.

Exo 25:18 And you shall make two cherubim of gold; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat. Exo 25:19 Make one cherub on the one end, and one cherub on the other end. Of one piece with the mercy seat shall you make the cherubim on its two ends. Exo 25:20 The cherubim shall spread out their wings above, overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings, their faces one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim be.

Exo 25:31 "You shall make a lampstand of pure gold. The lampstand shall be made of hammered work: its base, its stem, its cups, its calyxes, and its flowers shall be of one piece with it. Exo 25:32 And there shall be six branches going out of its sides, three branches of the lampstand out of one side of it and three branches of the lampstand out of the other side of it; Exo 25:33 three cups made like almond blossoms, each with calyx and flower, on one branch, and three cups made like almond blossoms, each with calyx and flower, on the other branch--so for the six branches going out of the lampstand. Exo 25:34 And on the lampstand itself there shall be four cups made like almond blossoms, with their calyxes and flowers, Exo 25:35 and a calyx of one piece with it under each pair of the six branches going out from the lampstand. Exo 25:36 Their calyxes and their branches shall be of one piece with it, the whole of it a single piece of hammered work of pure gold.

Exo 26:31 "And you shall make a veil of blue and purple and scarlet yarns and fine twined linen. It shall be made with cherubim skillfully worked into it.

You folks did keep the book of Exodus in your Bible right?

116 posted on 03/31/2013 8:56:55 AM PDT by verga (A nation divided by Zero!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: ArrogantBustard
I wonder ... do these anti-Catholic folks disagree with this sentence? Perhaps that's the real problem.

I am pretty sure they agree with it, their problem I believe lies, ultimately, in the Faith v Works issue. Catholics believe that you can fall out of grace, and I think that is a threatening concept to many Protestants. The frustration and fear caused by their inability to even make to themselves a convincing argument against that concept, gets expressed in bashing and ridicule of Catholicism.

117 posted on 03/31/2013 10:00:48 AM PDT by HerrBlucher (Praise to the Lord the Almighty the King of Creation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD; fellowpatriot; MarineMom613; Ron C.; wolfman23601; ColdOne; navymom1; Pat4ever; ...

HarleyD wrote:

“Our Lord plainly tells us we are not to make images of anything on earth.”

Any FReepers out there on this beautiful Easter Sunday care to name the heresy involved in this odd claim? For bonus points, what schsimatic sects hold to this heresy even today?

Hey Harley - are you one of them that will not celebrate Easter or Christmas or worship on a Sunday?


118 posted on 03/31/2013 10:09:18 AM PDT by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

She became the Mother of God, in which work so many and such great good things are bestowed on her as pass man’s understanding. For on this there follows all honor, all blessedness, and her unique place in the whole of mankind, among which she has no equal, namely, that she had a child by the Father in heaven, and such a Child . . . Hence men have crowded all her glory into a single word, calling her the Mother of God . . . None can say of her nor announce to her greater things, even though he had as many tongues as the earth possesses flowers and blades of grass: the sky, stars; and the sea, grains of sand. It needs to be pondered in the heart what it means to be the Mother of God.

(Commentary on the Magnificat, 1521; in Luther’s Works, Pelikan et al, vol. 21, 326)


119 posted on 03/31/2013 10:10:11 AM PDT by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans

What is your old screen name?


120 posted on 03/31/2013 10:15:27 AM PDT by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Dutchboy88; Gamecock

What a shame that you, Dutchboy and Gamecock, can’t even give it a rest on Easter Sunday. What tortured souls you must be. May God bless you, and ease the psychological and emotional pain you clearly suffer.


121 posted on 03/31/2013 10:15:31 AM PDT by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: HerrBlucher

A “convincing argument” has been made several times in this thread in response to lame Catholic assertions, even Augustine joined in on the festivities. So far they stand unmolested.


122 posted on 03/31/2013 10:20:54 AM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: narses

It is not something you would be able to pronounce with your limited alphabets. Some civilizations give me their own name prior to their atomization, but most just die with a bewildered wail.


123 posted on 03/31/2013 10:28:44 AM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans
A “convincing argument” has been made several times in this thread

Oh yeah? A convincing argument convinces at least those that are making it. I see evidence all the time that Protestants do not actually believe it themselves. This is shown in their concern that some of their fellow Christians, presumably in a state of grace by accepting Christ, are being led astray by new age thinking, near-death experiences, Mormonism, liberalized "progressive" Christianity, Satanism, and of course the biggie Catholicism. Why the concern if you cannot fall out of grace? Are they not going to heaven anyway by the mere fact they at one time accepted Jesus Christ as their Savior?

124 posted on 03/31/2013 10:30:57 AM PDT by HerrBlucher (Praise to the Lord the Almighty the King of Creation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: HerrBlucher

Well, I’m pretty convinced by it. The preaching of the Gospel is the means by which God calls out His elect. What greater joy is their than to be used by God to speak the truth? Especially the truth against the biggie, known as Popery? But as for those who leave us, it is as John said. They must leave us to show they were not of us. If they were of us, they would have remained with us. It is impossible, as Jesus said, for the elect to be lost, even in the face of incredible deception. I believe Him. You should too.


125 posted on 03/31/2013 10:46:00 AM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans

126 posted on 03/31/2013 11:01:07 AM PDT by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans
They must leave us to show they were not of us. If they were of us, they would have remained with us.

Then there is no reason to be concerned for them or to warn them of bad influences. Their fate has already been pre-determined and nothing you do or they do can change that. And so there really is no reason to bash Catholicism, or Mormonism, or progressive Christianity, because those who are influenced by them were pre-determined to be influenced by them.

But the bashing continues anyway because, despite their assertions to the contrary, Protestants deep down, maybe at an unconscious level, do believe that you can fall out of grace and be led back into grace. That is what their actions tell me anyway.

127 posted on 03/31/2013 11:05:50 AM PDT by HerrBlucher (Praise to the Lord the Almighty the King of Creation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans; narses; HerrBlucher
Well, I’m pretty convinced by it.

Well, there it is. That great inerrant interpreter of Scripture and infallible arbiter of doctrine, "Greetings_Puny_Humans" says so: therefore it must be true.

He who rails against "Popery" seems to be setting himself up as Pope. That of which he is convinced must be true, because ... well ... he's "pretty convinced by it".

The irony huge with this one.

BTW, I'm not making this personal, nor am I mind reading. GPH made it personal about himself. I'm merely pointing out the fact.

128 posted on 03/31/2013 11:08:25 AM PDT by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilization is Aborting, Buggering, and Contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: HerrBlucher

You can believe what you want, but it plainly contradicts the scriptures. Obviously, all the world’s greatest evangelists believe as I do, from the apostles all the way up to the reformers and men like Spurgeon. You should not project your own doubts and disbelief upon others. We’re doing just fine.

It’s amazing for what passes as Catholic apologetics around these parts.


129 posted on 03/31/2013 11:14:26 AM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: ArrogantBustard

Lol. I read the scripture plainly and evidence has been provided in this thread. Do you really think avoiding them and attacking me with red herrings will get you out of it? Address the evidence.


130 posted on 03/31/2013 11:17:36 AM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans
What have I said that contradicts scriptures? All I have said is that many if not most Protestants, by their actions, don't truly believe once saved always saved.

Obviously, all the world’s greatest evangelists believe as I do, from the apostles all the way up to the reformers and men like Spurgeon.

So you are appealing to authority, fine, nothing wrong with that. All Christians that believe the Bible is the inspired word of God do so in acknowledgement of the authority that canonized it. Either that, or they personally read all of the writings considered for inclusion in the Biblical canon and decided that they agreed with the authority.

131 posted on 03/31/2013 11:27:29 AM PDT by HerrBlucher (Praise to the Lord the Almighty the King of Creation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans
LOL! I'm addressing your post #125, wherein you explicitly try to make your interpretation of the Scriptures normative for everyone, and conflate your interpretation of the Scriptures with Truth.

Later, dragging in "all the world’s greatest evangelists" doesn't help. Who gets to define them as "greatest"? You? ROFL!

You give every evidence of replacing the dreaded Pope of Rome with the benificent Pope GPH.

That IS the evidence, and I addressed it.

It's quite funny, actually. That is all.

132 posted on 03/31/2013 11:27:57 AM PDT by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilization is Aborting, Buggering, and Contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: ArrogantBustard
"Perhaps that's the real problem. "

That probably is the real problem.

People who worship their own Most High and Holy Self can't stand the idea of Christ being fully human.

They can handle the idea of an abstract sort of God in the afterlife and Christ as holograph of some sort, but not Jesus Christ as fully human and therefore superior to their Self. They're following Eve rather than Jesus Christ and as icing on the cake, encouraging anyone who will listen to them to perish in the contradiction of Core.

The best thing to do is let them keep wallowing in their own muck and returning to their own vomit. When they're playing their favorite game, Publican in the Temple, they don't even understand what they're saying much less what anyone says to them. They're deaf and blind and, in reality, dumb as well given that they have no life in them but spout whatever any convenient spirit, hanging like Spanish Moss from some nearby tree, tells them to spout.

If the Holy Spirit sends someone to them in person they may some day realize the error of their ways and repent. If not, they'll be hearing, "I never knew you" from the same Jesus Christ they slander by slandering His mother, and call a liar by contradicting what Jesus Christ Himself said.

They have no life in them, they've accepted life as zombies and trying to talk with zombies is a waste of time. The fields are ripe, move on to the wheat waiting for the harvesters.

133 posted on 03/31/2013 11:34:29 AM PDT by Rashputin (Jesus Christ doesn't evacuate His troops, He leads them to victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Dutchboy88

Why don’t you take your anti catholic nasty comments somewhere else..they would be MOST welcome on DU!

go practice your “christianity” your own way, leave others alone..unless you consider your criticisms your form of evangelization.


134 posted on 03/31/2013 11:35:49 AM PDT by Recovering Ex-hippie (Go Galt!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ArrogantBustard

“It’s quite funny, actually. That is all.”

Yes, it is.


135 posted on 03/31/2013 11:38:40 AM PDT by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans

” Address the evidence. “

He did. You lost. Again.

Tell us again what screen name you used to use?


136 posted on 03/31/2013 11:42:25 AM PDT by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: narses; HarleyD; fellowpatriot; MarineMom613; Ron C.; wolfman23601; ColdOne; navymom1; Pat4ever
“Our Lord plainly tells us we are not to make images of anything on earth.”

Counterscriptural cretinism strikes again.



We win, they lose.

137 posted on 03/31/2013 11:56:21 AM PDT by annalex (fear them not)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
Why reject what Irenaeus said because it conflicts with what you have been taught by those whose adhere to your own tradition

Because he was waxing poetic...yet his words are being employed as equal to infallible inspired holy writ. Besides, your posed question answers itself, attributing solitary motivation for the questioning "why".

"...your own tradition, which begins with the Reformation" I must stop you here sir, for "my tradition" as you refer to it, goes back to the traditions of the Jews, of whom's scriptures I speak.

But Why do you think that sticking to the Hebrew is so important? Because entrusted to them were the oracles of God. Throw that out, and who is this Christ we speak of today? Also, from Roman Catholicism came corruption of the very book chapter/text in question, namely Genesis 3:15.

In any case, I don’t follow you because what you say goes against what is clearly stated in Genesis 3

What precisely of what I am saying "goes against what is clearly stated in Genesis 3 as you assert? You never brought the scripture itself, just mention of it (but which version? one of the corrupted RC numbers? lol) and just your own and the RCC's own "private interpretation" influenced much among multiple other things, by faulty translation or some copy error mistake of translation, which appears not as mere honest mistake, but deliberate tampering with the text, yet accuse and condemn the many millions whom agree with the exegesis I am adhering to (based both upon superior adherence towards the Masoretic, and finding confirmation in the New Testament).

So you say; I'm going against what is as you say "clearly stated" in Genesis 3, while you refer to what is instead inferred based soley upon Gen 2:13 to exclusion of what else is found stipulated in that vicinity... with assertion and reliance upon one verse (not named, just alluded to by way of reasoning, taking things a further step away from the text) taking a verse out-of-context for purpose of imposing a pre-text, which just so happens to match up with some elements of "tradition" which themselves not only do not have any "clear" scriptural support for, but can be clearly seen to be in opposition of scripture.

Will you now quote from a corrupted Douay version, or the more modern corruption of inserting the word "they" for the Hebrew "him" as is in the original text? [as best as can be determined]. If so, I will be compelled to once again bring versions of Gen 3:15 to these pages, showing everyone (even those not that interested) the corruptions of that precise passage, owned singularly by the RCC. To tie it all together with other parts of the historical extra-biblical origins and furthering impetus of Marionism would take a rather sizable volume to properly address --- but I am aware of much of the basic components, including the one which you yourself have quoted from [thank you very much].

He first pronounces judgement against the serpent, then against the woman and then against the man. He said to Eve, that He [God] would multiply the sorrows of her childbirth, and for her desire to be for her husband, with that coming after the inquiry from God of Eve...but God never filed a charge against her as He did with Adam, when He outlined Adam's offense directly to Adam. The Lord spoke to Eve for reason that Adam tried to immedietly shift blame for his own sin onto his wife, resulting in God saying to Eve, "What is this that thou hast done?" with there being nothing along the lines of God accusing her, as in the case with Adam directly, God saying to Adam alone directly;

(as opposed to doing as God can be seen to have instructed Adam directly, alone).

In verse 3:9 God calls not unto them both, but to Adam, Adam where art thou? with God asking after Adam (not Eve). Adam answers for himself, saying he was afraid. The Lord responds verse 11;

To properly understand chapter three, it would help to first read chapter 2.

Where was Eve then, my FRiend? She had not been created, if we are to approach things chronologically. Notice in verse 8 and 15 of that chapter, God put the man whom He had formed into the garden of Eden first, commands Adam not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil in verse 17, THEN God says "it is not good that the man should be alone" in #18.

If we set aside that chronological order, we still do not see God forbidding the woman directly, although she was aware of the admonition it becomes known in 3:2. From where could she have heard it, if not from God? Obviously it was not the serpent who told her what the law properly was, which leaves only Adam, for she had not been yet created when he himself was forbidden of the fruit of that one tree (to return again to the chronological). If it was important that God tell them both directly--- should it have not been conveyed in that manner? Yet we see that it wasn't. Nor does God address them together as a couple, for although Eve and Adam be together, naked and unashamed after God brought the woman unto Adam, who had been created & fashioned by God from one of Adam's ribs, him proclaiming her then "flesh of my flesh, bone of my bone", they still remained two distinct persons. We do not see God saying a word to Eve specifically concerning going against what he said...but only the question, "what have you done?". If Eve had herself sinned, thou she be made to suffer for it later, the sin itself was not attributed to her, but to Adam it fell.

This approach we find much confirmed by Paul in his letters to the Romans (I am continually flabbergasted how much Roman Catholic interpretations go straight and hard, in diametrically opposed direction against Pauls letters to "Romans"! go figure!)

Death Through Adam, Life Through Christ

Romans 5; 12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—

13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16 Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!

18 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

Shall the Apostle Paul now stand accused of "philogy" with some admonition that he must know "there are limits to this"?

Though the acquiescence, and willing agreement of Mary herself towards God, when she responded to the Angel;

be a thing of great beauty, it is still not the one obedience that was required to undo the initial, preceeding disobedience of one man as is so often presented by Roman Catholics. To teach it as Mary's (somewhat overplayed) "obedience" be the thing, or that it qualifies her for some divinity or semi-divinity all to herself, with such expanding upon her assumed "assumption", is to force exegesis of scripture, which it itself does not support. Utilizing "tradition" in this instance, in regards to Marionism, not only promotes "tradition" (but only certain select favored snippets) to being not only equal to scripture, but promotes those same collected snippets of opinion and waxing poetic to being capable of over-riding the scriptures, with tradition being able to countermand such scripture as exampled [above].

138 posted on 03/31/2013 12:24:33 PM PDT by BlueDragon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: BlueDragon

She became the Mother of God, in which work so many and such great good things are bestowed on her as pass man’s understanding. For on this there follows all honor, all blessedness, and her unique place in the whole of mankind, among which she has no equal, namely, that she had a child by the Father in heaven, and such a Child . . . Hence men have crowded all her glory into a single word, calling her the Mother of God . . . None can say of her nor announce to her greater things, even though he had as many tongues as the earth possesses flowers and blades of grass: the sky, stars; and the sea, grains of sand. It needs to be pondered in the heart what it means to be the Mother of God.

(Commentary on the Magnificat, 1521; in Luther’s Works, Pelikan et al, vol. 21, 326)


139 posted on 03/31/2013 12:27:11 PM PDT by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: ArrogantBustard; narses

“LOL! I’m addressing your post #125, wherein you explicitly try to make your interpretation of the Scriptures normative for everyone, and conflate your interpretation of the Scriptures with Truth.”


Are you seriously going to keep spamming me with this nonsense? What makes either of you think that I am all that concerned if you think that I behave as my very own Pope? What makes you think I care if you simply say “I disagree!” very loudly, or complain that I have my own so-called “interpretation?” I’ve yet to see evidence that you guys actually have an “alternate interpretation” for any of the scriptures provided. Exactly how many interpretations can you get from Jesus saying, “You have not chosen me, I have chosen you”? Or “You do not believe, because you are not of my sheep. My sheep hear my voice and I know them”? Or from Paul, “whom He predestinates He calls, whom He calls He justifies, and whom He justifies He glorifies”? Or from Acts, “As many believed as were ordained”? And these are only just a few of them.

But instead, you’re wasting my time by attacking me personally, making wry faces and sticking your tongue at me, as if the evidence of your ability to mock me can wash away the scriptures.

As Augustine says, “WE WERE ELECTED AND PREDESTINATED, NOT BECAUSE WE WERE GOING TO BE HOLY, BUT IN ORDER THAT WE MIGHT BE SO.”


140 posted on 03/31/2013 12:52:05 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans

141 posted on 03/31/2013 12:53:59 PM PDT by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: narses
The snake handling n00b's 5 minutes are up!


142 posted on 03/31/2013 12:58:05 PM PDT by Revolting cat! (Bad things are wrong! Ice cream is delicious!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: narses; Revolting cat!

Like I said, mockers who think that sticking their tongue at me can wash away the scriptures which oppose them, or mock to shame the ancient Augustine.

If this is the best the Romanists have to offer, it explains why they were unable to stop the reformation.


143 posted on 03/31/2013 1:03:20 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans
You on the right or left?


144 posted on 03/31/2013 1:07:17 PM PDT by Revolting cat! (Bad things are wrong! Ice cream is delicious!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: narses
Excuse me...but you just posted that same thing to myself previously on this thread, to which I had already offered some reply.

Since you may have not noticed, I will repeat here the most pertinent portions;

Mary most fundamentally ---Daughter of Israel. Ponder in your own heart & mind, what that means, bearing in mind all that transpired from Abraham, to the day Gabriel told her, "you will", not asking for permission at that time.

With Mary responding, in part;

She needed a Saviour as did the nation from which she herself sprang forth into life... and she knew it. That too, must be pondered, or else we err from the very moment of our beginnings of pondering, running risk of ranging far afield (thus far away) from all revelation given unto Israel through her prophets, including Christ Himself(!)

145 posted on 03/31/2013 1:22:52 PM PDT by BlueDragon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans

146 posted on 03/31/2013 1:28:18 PM PDT by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: BlueDragon

147 posted on 03/31/2013 1:28:35 PM PDT by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans
Sometimes words need not be wasted on clowns and their lengthy rants, when metaphors will suffice. That mud are your words on these threads.


148 posted on 03/31/2013 1:33:44 PM PDT by Revolting cat! (Bad things are wrong! Ice cream is delicious!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
Exo 20:5 You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me,

8. Because it is the highest honor, the greatest glory and the greatest utility to serve Mary and to be one of her household (familia). For to serve her is to reign, just as Boethius says of the Lord.

From here: 40 Reasons to Serve Mary

Can it be any clearer to us, or them???

149 posted on 03/31/2013 2:14:35 PM PDT by Iscool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Gene Eric
Exodus 20:2-5 is about serving other gods. Mary, who was not a god, but eventually the mother of Christ, was not the problem being addressed.

She became the problem being addressed...

150 posted on 03/31/2013 2:16:40 PM PDT by Iscool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-265 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson