| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 10/13/2013 9:10:43 PM PDT by Religion Moderator, reason:
Poster’s request |
Posted on 10/11/2013 9:11:50 AM PDT by NKP_Vet
people are not objecting that certain chritian role models can’t help people find Christ. For certain great Christians have inspired and pointed people to the Savior, and from that, others go on to point others to Christ.
we object to them saying they are the only way you come to God, you have to go through them. this whole consecrating the world to Mary’s heart deal is such an issue.
Jesus said HE is the door. HE is the narrow path. HE is the way, the truth and the life and NO one comes to the Father but by HIM. Others can point you to Him, but they don’t get you to God.
No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. (John 6:44)
Salvation is found in no-one else, for there is no other name (emphasis added) under heaven given to men by which we must be saved. (Acts 4:12)
Wow. It took just a few minutes for the Catholic-bashers to come out.
——————————————————————————————they are never far away, pray for them.
Jesus - total historical evidence for bodily assumption in Scripture, empty tomb, eyewitnesses to His final bodily assumption. therefore, bodily assumption proved.
Mary - no historical evidence for bodily assumption in Scripture, no tomb/grave known, no witnesses to her final bodily assumption. therefore, bodily assumption proved.
really?
I am a Catholic and I believe in the bible, don’t generalize numnuts...
“It is necessary to have recourse to the Virgin because she can only bring you to God. That's her whole mission. She has nothing of self in it at all. She lives only for God and to bring you to God,”verses
John 14:6 — Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.Jesus says the only way to God [the father] is through himself… whereas this other guy says that it's Mary.
This question was addressed on a previous thread. Perhaps, GeronL, you missed it.
Various Christians wrote books explaining the history of the Christian Church (including Gospels about the life of Christ and more general histories such as the Acts of the Apostles) and letters addressed to specific communities and persons (such as the letters of Saint Paul) and also what are best considered to be “open letters” (such as Hebrews). There were hundreds of different documents circulating around, all of them purporting to the authentic Christian teaching and accurate history and doctrine.
However, many of these documents were not what they claimed to be – they were forgeries not written by the people whose names they bore, or were heretical documents advancing novel notions about Christ. Some of these documents have survived today – examples are the Gospel of Judas and the Gospel of Thomas. Neither of these documents were written by their alleged authors – they are late forgeries designed to cash in on the success and popularity of Christianity.
Out of all these hundreds of documents – many of them forgeries – the current 27 book New Testament appeared. This process took a long time – roughly 300 years went by from the writing of the last book of the New Testament (Revelation) until the list was finalized.
The list was compiled by the bishops of the Catholic Church. Initially, local canons were assembled by individual bishops. These canons were lists of books which could be read aloud in Churches at Mass. Despite the fact that these canons were independently assembled they bore a great deal of similarity to each other – because the Catholic bishops were all using the same criteria to determine which books should be included. They looked to see if the books were written by an apostle or someone who was reporting the words of an apostle. They checked to see how much the book was being used by other bishops and priests in their Masses, and also looked at how often the book was quoted by the Church Fathers in their writings. Only those books which “scored” favorably on all three of these criteria made it into their canons.
In the early fourth century Christianity was made the official religion of the Roman Empire and it became possible for the bishops to meet without being imprisoned or killed by the pagan authorities. Beginning in the late fourth century and continuing until the very early fifth century the Catholic Church met at a number of councils where the canon of the Bible was debated. These councils produced canons which were identical to the current 73 book Roman Catholic canon.
As can clearly be seen the canon of the Bible was produced by the Catholic Church. The Church also existed long before the Bible – it was the early fifth century before the Bible existed as we might recognize it today, and none of the books of the Bible were even written until around 50 AD. But the Catholic Church began 20 years earlier, at Pentecost when the Holy Spirit descended on the apostles.
The Christians who wrote the New Testament were Catholic – they were Catholic for two reasons. One, they believed everything which the current Catholic Church (and only the Catholic Church) teaches (as is shown by the writings of the Church Fathers). And they were Catholic because there was no other church at the time. Myths such as the “Trail of Blood” simply do not hold water – the Catholic Church was, quite literally, the only game in town.
Accordingly, the Bible can be considered to be two things – it is younger than the Catholic Church and it is the product of the Catholic Church. This means that the Bible is not the sole rule of faith for Christians, but rather “the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth” as it says in I Timothy 3:15.
Versions of the whole or parts of the Bible in the language of the common people first appeared in Germany in the eighth century, in France and Hungary in the twelfth, and Italy, Spain, Holland, Poland and Bohemia in the thirteenth century. In the 1500's in Italy, there were more than 40 vernacular editions of the Bible. France had 18 vernacular editions before 1547, and Spain began publishing editions in 1478, with full approval of the Spanish Inquisition. In all, 198 editions of the Bible were in the language of the laity, 626 editions all together, and all before the first Protestant version, and all having the full approval of the Church.
The area known as England was invaded and settled by Germanic tribes called "Saxons" who aligned with tribes from the area of Denmark called "Angles". In the 700's, (St. Bede the Venerable), the area was speaking a Germanic dialect. In the Middle Ages, between 1066-1377, there were different dialects depending on where you went, between the different tribes. The Normans had invaded the area, There was no written vocabulary, so Latin and Greek were most commonly used by the literate.
For centuries before the invention of the printing press, the only way to duplicate the text of the Bible was to copy it by hand. Copyists could have made mistakes, but, they took more care with Scripture than with any other book. Errors, while they are possible and certainly have occurred in some instances, can not be too easily admitted or accepted as an excuse to disregard these copies. Moreover, God in His Providence has faithfully protected His Bible from any serious corruption.
And that NAME is Yah'shua, which in Hebrew means
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
"YHvH is/be my Salvation"
See 47 aboveshalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
explain the false interpretation of Jesus’ quotes.
Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to her, “Woman, here is your son,” and to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” From that time on, this disciple took her into his home. -- from John 19So there's some disconnect between your claim and the scripture you reference.
“It never ceases to amaze me that anyone buys the notion that Jesus intended the personal reading and personal interpretation of Scripture to be the ONLY source of knowledge about him”
Nobody holds that it needs to be the only source or knowledge about him, that is a straw man. Some of us merely hold that it should be the definitive source of knowledge, especially in matters of doctrine.
This is the problem one encounters with Scriptural literalists. A dying Christ gasping for his last breath could speak few words. Not carry on a dialogue. The Mother of Christ was not just a “mother” for John (John already had a mother) but for all mankind since she is the purest and most perfect of all creation in heaven and earth and Christ entrusted her to all of us. This why it was not just son behold thy mother, but also mother behold this son.
Catholics and most other christians do not worship on the Sabbath, which according to Jewish law is the last day of the week (Saturday), when God rested from all the work he had done in creation (Gen. 2:2-3). Catholics worship on the Lord’s Day, the first day of the week (Sunday, the eighth day); the day when God said "Let there be light" (Gen. 1:3); the day when Christ rose from the dead; the day when the Holy Spirit came upon the Apostles (Day of Pentecost).
The early Church did not move the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. Instead "The Sabbath, which represented the completion of the first creation, has been replaced by Sunday, which recalls the new creation inaugurated by the Resurrection of Christ"
We see evidence of this in Scripture:
The early christians worshiped on Sunday, as documented by the early Church Fathers. To cite one example:
"But every Lord’s day . . . gather yourselves together and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned" (Didache 14 [A.D. 70]).
Pax et Bonum
>> Hail Mary, Full of Grace, The Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now, and at the hour of death.<<
Please show us where in scripture that bolded part is. Book, chapter and verse please. If all the words of that are not contained in that order in scripture you must admit that it is “rewriting” or “adding to” scripture.
While I agree that Jesus couldn't carry on a dialog… the rest here is just crap.She is the purest and most perfect of all creation in heaven and earth
Crap.and Christ entrusted her to all of us.
She's dead, there's no way that you or I can be entrusted with her.
Please show from scripture where the Apostles taught that. Book, Chapter, and verse please.
I'm going to fix up a mess of popcorn now. Keep it goin'!!
Catholics and most other christians do not worship on the Sabbath, which according to Jewish law is the last day of the week (Saturday), when God rested from all the work he had done in creation (Gen. 2:2-3). Catholics worship on the Lord’s Day, the first day of the week (Sunday, the eighth day); the day when God said "Let there be light" (Gen. 1:3); the day when Christ rose from the dead; the day when the Holy Spirit came upon the Apostles (Day of Pentecost).
The early Church did not move the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. Instead "The Sabbath, which represented the completion of the first creation, has been replaced by Sunday, which recalls the new creation inaugurated by the Resurrection of Christ"
We see evidence of this in Scripture:
On the first day of the week when we gathered to break bread, Paul spoke to them because he was going to leave on the next day, and he kept on speaking until midnight (Acts 20:7). On the first day of the week each of you should set aside and save whatever one can afford, so that collections will not be going on when I come (1 Cor. 16:2). Let no one, then, pass judgment on you in matters of food and drink or with regard to a festival or new moon or Sabbath (Col. 2:16). The early christians worshiped on Sunday, as documented by the early Church Fathers. To cite one example:
"But every Lord’s day . . . gather yourselves together and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned" (Didache 14 [A.D. 70]).
If you were familiar with the WORD of G-d you would know that Yah'shua taught the meaning of Shabbat to the Tradition following Pharisees. Paul talks about breaking bread on the first day Yes. Raising money was never done on Shabbat ! The LORD's Day has never been changed by YHvH to the pagan Day of the Sun. There are many questions about the Authenticity of the Didache I may be wrong but my Bible say Elohim said
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
"let there be Light "
on the FIRST DAY of Creation
Yah'ahua rose from the dead on one of His Feast Days which is
on the day following the Shabbat following Pesach. (see Leviticus
for the Feast of First Fruits)
He celebrated Shabbat as did all of the apostles, OBTW All Jews.
There is always a meal after the sundown of the Shabbat.
Always on the day following which began after sundown.
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.