Posted on 08/16/2023 6:39:10 AM PDT by zucchini bob
(2 Peter 1:20) Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. (Isaiah 28:10) For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little: (Isaiah 28:13) But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.
The problem - deviating from the religious angle here - is that the USA has only 2 parties.
Take the Democrats - there are Black evangelicals who are socially very conservative but vote D.
The Democrats need to be split into multiple parties — and the Republicans too.
President Trump won because many Democrats saw him as what they wanted in a President and that he wasn’t labelled a s a R lifer
What is calvary chapel?
And yet Jesus contradicts you
What does Jesus say saves us?
| 13But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved. |
you are confusing two different eras and two different meanings of saved.
James - faith alone saves. If it is saving faith, His new life is expressed through our own and fruit is produced.
Etc.
You failed to to “rightly divide the Word of Truth” here.
PS - your post is very nicely formatted though.
I would just point out the word would be veneration, not worship. Worship goes to God alone
They asked Him for a sign, saying that Moses gave them manna in the desert. If Jesus (according to them) was aspiring to the level of Moses, He should do something as big as that.
30 So they asked him, What sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do?
31 Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written: He gave them bread from heaven to eat.
32 Jesus said to them, Very truly I tell you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven.
33 For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.
34 Sir, they said, always give us this bread.
35 Then Jesus declared, I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.
36 But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe.
And now the crowd is openly rebellious saying How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died.
50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die.
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
Note -- Jesus doesn't clear up the Metaphor, like he did in Matt. 16:512
53 Jesus said to them, Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.
57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.
58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.
5 When they went across the lake, the disciples forgot to take bread.So, Jesus DOES indicate when it is a metaphor and when it isn't.
6 Be careful, Jesus said to them. Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
7 They discussed this among themselves and said, It is because we didnt bring any bread.
8 Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked, You of little faith, why are you talking among yourselves about having no bread?
9 Do you still not understand? Dont you remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?
10 Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?
11 How is it you dont understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
12 Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
You cannot say that this was just bread and wine of that this is a metphor for coming and having faith in the Lord or some kind of metphor for believing in Christ because of the reaction of the Jews and the very language -- to eat one's flesh and drink the blood means to do violence on some one. You see it even in Hindi where a threat is "Mein tera Khoon pie jaongaa" or "I will drink your blood" -- and this is among vegetarians! To drink a persons blood means a serious threat of injury.So, if you believe that this was just a metphor, you mean to say that Christ is rewarding people for crucifying Him?!! That's nonsensical, sorry.
60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?...
66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.
Even in the literal sense -- Christ says he is the gateway to heaven and the vine such that we get nourishment with him as the connecting path. But John 6 is much much more than mere symbolism as He categorically states that "For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed" (John 6:55).
Even at the end of John 6, Jesus rebukes those who think of what He has said as a metaphor by emphasising that
Jesus repeats the rebuke against just thinking in terms of human logic (Calvin's main problem) by saying
61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, Does this offend you?
62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!
63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to youthey are full of the Spirit[e] and life.
64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.
Just using human logic as Calvinist thought does, without God's blessings behind it fails in grace.John 6:63 does not refer to Jesus's statement of his own flesh, if you read in context but refers to using human logic instead of dwelling on God's words.
John 8:15 You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one.
16 But if I do judge, my decisions are true, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me.
and also 1 Cor 11:27-29
6 Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?
How clear can Paul get? "The bread IS a participation in the body of Christ" and "who eats the bread... will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord" This is not just mere bread and wine anymore. This is the body and blood of Christ.
27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.
28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup.
29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.
he said to Philip, “Where can we buy enough food for them to eat?”
Philip answered him, “Two hundred days’ wages[e] worth of food would not be enough for each of them to have a little [bit].”
Jesus said, “Have the people recline.”
He gave thanks, and distributed them to those who were reclining, and also as much of the fish as they wanted.they saw Jesus walking on the sea[k] and coming near the boat, and they began to be afraid. 20 But he said to them, “It is I.[l] Do not be afraid.”
“Amen, amen, I say to you, you are looking for me not because you saw signs but because you ate the loaves and were filled. 27 Do not work for food that perishes but for the food that endures for eternal life,[o] which the Son of Man will give you. For on him the Father, God, has set his seal.”
“This is the work of God, that you believe in the one he sent.”
, “Amen, amen, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave the bread from heaven; my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”
“I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst. 36 But I told you that although you have seen [me], you do not believe. 37 Everything that the Father gives me will come to me, and I will not reject anyone who comes to me, 38 because I came down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of the one who sent me. 39 And this is the will of the one who sent me, that I should not lose anything of what he gave me, but that I should raise it [on] the last day. 40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him may have eternal life, and I shall raise him [on] the last day.”
“Stop murmuring[r] among yourselves. 44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draw him, and I will raise him on the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets:
‘They shall all be taught by God.’
Everyone who listens to my Father and learns from him comes to me. 46 Not that anyone has seen the Father except the one who is from God; he has seen the Father. 47 Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died; 50 this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.”
“Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. 54 Whoever eats[s] my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.”
“Does this shock you? 62 What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?[u] 63 It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh[v] is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.”
“For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.”“Did I not choose you twelve? Yet is not one of you a devil?”
71 He was referring to Judas, son of Simon the Iscariot; it was he who would betray him, one of the Twelve.
Jesus’ deeds and words are clear
1. God will feed the multitudes
2. I am God - I can walk on water
3. Do not work for food that perishes but for the food that endures for eternal life,[o] which the Son of Man will give you
4. This is the work of God, that you believe in the one he sent
5. my Father gives you the true bread from heaven.
6. I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger,
7. I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life.
8. unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. 54 Whoever eats[s] my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
===== +++ =======
He is crystal clear - and He emphasizes that this is not an allegory, but repeats thrice that this is what you are to do - eat of His Body and drink of His blood
Those are not "two different eras"
Jesus Himself said
namely that to be saved you must
False understanding, again a failure “to rightly divide the Word of Truth”, but again we give you very high marks for penmanship.
(I didn’t grade spelling or grammar, since you come from a high consonant, Slavic background.)
Final grade, being as generous as possible, a solid 44/100.
You also turned in your work on time.
You might want to add to that what Jesus said to Nichodemus...that
And then there is that statement in 1 Corinthians 13:2 about having faith but not love.
But didn't Jesus say that everything, all His "instructions," were covered by the following exchange with one of the Pharisees (a lawyer) who asked him (Mat 22:36-39):
"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the law?"And Jesus wrapped that up by saying:Jesus said to him, "You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind."
"This is the first and greatest commandment."
"And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."
"On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets." (Mat 22:40)
Be kind. The Devil hangs out of these threads just hoping we’ll get crabby with each other.;-)
It’s probably true.
I gave him as many points as I possibly could, despite the poor hermeneutics and conclusion.
As much as you say it is crystal clear to you that it means what you think it means, it is just as crystal clear to others that it means what they think it means.
Let's agree to disagree. All of us. When people believe in something a certain way and are determined that their belief is correct to the exclusion of all others, is there any good that can come from any discussion of it?
Given that we are discussing God's Word, shouldn't we resist the Devil's temptation (because as I said upthread, he's right here trying to get us to crab at each other).
I read your comments and appreciate them. They have given me something to think about. I don't want to get my day off on a bad start by getting crabby (with myself or anyone else). I know for a fact (as you do) that such isn't pleasing to Jesus.
It was reported in the newspaper on Monday under the headline of "The Reverend O'Brian Delivered a Particularly Provocative Sermon at Church Yesterday. Details Below."
;-)
Thinking of souls above what is written. (cf. 1Cor. 4:6)
It should be kept in mind that my objection is not to Mary being honored as the holy chosen vessel to bring forth Christ, but to the excess ascriptions, appelations, exaltation, and adoration (and the manner of exegesis behind it), ascribed to the Catholic Mary, whether officially or by Catholics (with implicit sanction of authority). And which presumes that bowing down to a statute and attributing to the person it represent attributes and glory that are uniquely ascribed to God/Christ in Scripture, including the power to hear in Heaven incessant multitudinous mental prayers addressed to them from earth and respond to them, and imploring such for heavenly aid, would be understood and vindicated as merely being "hyperdulia," and not "latria" (which Rome states is the manner of adoration reserved for God).
As making that distinction itself is presumptuous, the Scriptures do not sanction religiously bowing down to any statue in supplication, nor supplies even one single prayer to anyone in Heaven but the Lord (crying "Abba, Father," Gal. 4:6; not "Mama, Mother"), nor in instructions on who to pray to ("our Father who art in Heaven," not "our Mother").
Note that many Catholic Marian attributions much parallel even that of Christ:
For in the the Catholic quest to almost deify Mary, it is taught by Catholics*,
As the the Son of God has a unique unique relationship with the Persons of the Trinity, so also Mary is said to have a unique relationship with all three Persons of the Trinity;
As Christ is the express image of God, and highly exalted above all under the Father, having the primary position among all creation, so Mary is declared to be the greatest saint of all, and the first of all creatures, and as having a certain affinity with the Father, with a pre-eminent resemblance which she bears to the Father;
As Christ was called the Son of God, indicating ontological oneness, so Mary is called the Mother of God (which naturally infers the same, and is not the language of Scripture, which even clarifies Israel birthed Christ "according to the flesh, God blessed for ever": Rm. 9:4,5);
As the the Son of God supernaturally, spiritually makes believing souls into children of God, Mary is said to be the mother of Christians in "supernatural and spiritual generation."
As Christ was sinless, so Mary was;
As the Lord remained a virgin, so also Mary;
As the Lord was bodily ascended into Heaven, so Mary also was;
As the Holy Spirit directs believers to be "Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith," (Hebrews 12:2) in whom believes are accounted a holy nation, (1 Pt. 2:9) so Catholicism teaches that believers are to "turn their eyes to Mary" in whom "the Church is already the 'all-holy." (CCC 829)
As the Father made Christ Lord over all things, so Mary is said to be enthroned above all creation (all other believers have to wait for their crowns) and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things;
As Christ is given all power in heaven and in earth, so Mary is said to be "surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven," and "most powerful" and effctively "omnipotent";
As Christ is given all power on Heaven and on earth, so Mary is said to have (showing some restraint) “almost unlimited power;” and showing less restraint, to be "omnipotent" (by grace);
As God the Father made His Divine Son functionally the Lord over the universe, so Mary states, "I command what I will, and introduce whom I will."
As no man comes to the Father but through the Son, so it is taught that no one can come to the Son except through Mary in Heaven;
As no one can obtain mercy, be saved/redeemed or be delivered and know the Father but through the Son, so the same is said of Mary;
As those whom God has chosen will come to Him, so it is said that if Mary wills our salvation, and then we are sure to obtain it.
As the emphasis is upon Christ as the Creator through whom God (the Father) made all things, including Mary, so it is emphasized that uniquely “to her, Jesus owes His Precious Blood,” shed for the salvation of mankind, (the logic behind which can lead back to Eve);
As Scripture declares that Christ suffered for our sins, so Mary is said to have done so also, even all the consequences of sin;
As Christ redeemed mankind (as many as truly believe) with the Father and the Spirit, so it is said of Mary that "we might rightly say she redeemed the human race together with Christ."
As Christ saves us from the condemnation and death resulting from the fault of Adam, so it is taught that man was condemned through the fault of Eve, the root of death, but that we are saved through the merits of Mary; who was the source of life for everyone.
As all things come from the Father through the Son, so Mary is made to be the dispenser of all grace; that "through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation."
As believers have confidence through Christ, so Mary is extolled as being the foundation of all the believer's confidence.
As the Lord wills all souls to be saved through Christ, so it is said that it is God's will that we obtain everything through Mary.
And as the Lord called souls to come to Him to be given life and salvation, so (in misappropriation of the words of Scripture) it is said of Mary, “He that shall find me shall find life, and shall have salvation from the Lord;” “that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is His will, that we obtain everything through Mary.”
As Christ is the King of the saints and over all kings, (Rv. 15:3; 17:14; 19:16) so Mary is made Queen of Heaven and the greatest saint, and that “Next to God, she deserves the highest praise;”
As Christ ever liveth to make intercession for the saints, so is Mary said to be in constant intercession;
as only to God is ascribed the power and privilege of hearing prayer from all flesh, so also is Mary extolled as doing so;
as believers only address God/Christ in prayer to Heaven, including in prostration before Him, so also do Catholics pray to Mary;
as believers only pray to God to have mercy on sinners, so Catholics beseech Mary to do so.
As Catholics (adding error to error) believe Christ gave His "real" flesh and blood to be eaten, so it is emphasized that Mary gave Him this, being fashioned out of Mary's pure blood and even being “kneaded with the admixture of her virginal milk,” so that she can say, "Come and eat my bread, drink the wine I have prepared" (Prov. 9:5);
And as Christ is given many titles of honor, so Mary also is, except that she is honored by Catholics with more titles than they give to the Lord Himself!
Mary was a holy, virtuous instrument of God, but of whom Scripture says relatively little, while holy fear ought to restrain ascribing positions, honor, glory and powers to a mortal that God has not revealed as given to them, and or are only revealed as being possessed by God Himself. But like as the Israelites made an instrument of God an object of worship, (Num. 21:8,9; 2Kg. 18:4) Catholics have magnified Mary far beyond what is written and warranted and even allowed, based on what is in Scripture.
In addition, although (technically) Mary is not to be worshiped in the same sense that God is worshiped, yet the distinctions between devotion to Mary and the worship of God are quite fine, and much due to the psychological appeal of a heavenly mother (especially among those for whom Scripture is not supreme), then the historical practice of Catholics has been to exalt Mary above that which is written. As the Catholic Encyclopedia states, "By the sixteenth century, as evidenced by the spiritual struggles of the Reformers, the image of Mary had largely eclipsed the centrality of Jesus Christ in the life of believers." (Robert C. Broderick, ed., The Catholic Encyclopedia, revised and updated; NY: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1987, pp.32,33)
The practice of praying to departed saints and Mary was one that developed, helped by pagan influences, for Scripture provides no example of any believer praying to anyone in Heaven by the Lord, and reveals that doing otherwise was a practice of pagans, including to the “Queen of Heaven.” (Jer. 44:17,18,19,25). The Catholic Encyclopedia speculates that a further reinforcement of Marian devotion, “was derived from the cult of the angels, which, while pre-Christian in its origin, was heartily embraced by the faithful of the sub-Apostolic age. It seems to have been only as a sequel of some such development that men turned to implore the intercession of the Blessed Virgin. This at least is the common opinion among scholars, though it would perhaps be dangerous to speak too positively. Evidence regarding the popular practice of the early centuries is almost entirely lacking...,” (Catholic Encyclopedia > Devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary) Yet, as expected, it imagines this practice came from the apostles and NT church, but which never exampled or instructed it, and instead showed that the believer has immediate access to God in the Divine Christ, (Heb. 10:19), who is the all sufficient and immediate intercessor between God (the Father) and man. (Heb. 2:17,18; 4:15,16) To the glory of God
Contrasting foundations
As the Catholic author whose work is examined here has attempted to extrapolate support from Scripture for a tradition which does not rest upon Scripture, it warrants pointing out that while Roman Catholics condescend to using Scripture (in attempting to substantiate to evangelicals that the traditions they hold to are Scriptural), yet in reality neither the Mariology of Catholicism or assurance of doctrine is based upon the weight of Scriptural warrant. Instead, in the earthly realm it ultimately rests upon the premise of the self-proclaimed authority of Rome, with her assuredly “infallible” magisterium (which infallibly defined herself as being infallible, when speaking in accordance with her infallibly defined scope and subject-based formula), which is what is held as being what provides real assurance.
Therefore, rather than engaging in an objective examination of Scripture in order to ascertain truth and provide assurance thereby, the use of Scripture by Roman Catholic apologists is mainly in order to support Rome, and the ultimately goal is to convince souls that searching the Scriptures (as the noble Bereans did: Acts 17:11)) is not the way to obtain certitude of truth, and instead their goal must be to convince souls to make a fallible decision to place implicit trust in the assuredly infallible magisterium of Rome, which assent is effectively as if it were to God, as only He is assuredly infallible.
While Scripture requires some interpretation, and with that comes the problem of disagreement, yet widespread unity in core essentials is overall the result of holding Scripture as supreme (thus even Rome allows baptized Protestants to be “separated brethren”), distinguishing the majority from cults, and which tend to follow Rome's model of making themselves the supreme authority. In addition, Roman Catholics themselves must engage in interpretation to varying degrees, that of their supreme authority, the magisterium. This pertains not only as to what class a magisterial teaching falls into (and thus what degree of submission is required, or if any dissent is allowed), but the meaning of it to varying degrees. And wherein there are disagreements in Rome, as well as among churches which hold to the Roman model, that of the church being the supreme and autocracy authority (“sola ecclesia”).
As regards the Catholic exaltation of Mary, recognized Roman Catholic authorities and some web apologists admit that, as the Catholic Encyclopedia states, "no direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture" for the Immaculate Conception, but which is an understatement and which also applies to certain other claims, such as Mary's perpetual virginity.
Catholic authorities such as Cardinal Newman have attempted to explain a lack of Scriptural support by asserting that “Christians have never gone to Scripture for proof of their doctrines, till there was actual need, from the pressure of controversy.” (Anglican Difficulties, London, 1885, II, 54) And which is an admission that, unlike in Scripture, Scripture is not the supreme transcendent material standard for obedience and testing truth claims, in word and in power, but Rome is, and while she may claim support from Scripture or whatever, this is based upon their premise that they can only mean what she defines the to mean, as she is supreme and autocratic.
In contrast to doctrine being established under premise that the church is the supreme transcendent authority, when doctrine is established upon Scripturally then Marian excesses are excluded. Ratzinger acknowledged that Mary, “in the gospel tradition is quite marginal,” (“God and the world;” p. 296), which is in contrast to souls like Peter and Paul, the latter of whom sees relative little emphasis by Catholics, especially as compared with Mary despite the far greater attention to Holy Spirit gives to him.
And because Scripture does not say what the Catholic wants it to say about Mary, then when faced with challenges from those who hold Scripture as supreme, what the Catholic must attempt to do if he will try to defend the hyper exaltation of Mary from Scripture, is to wrest texts of Scripture to support it, such as seen below, often going to extrapolative extremes, even going beyond what even his church officially teaches. And which careless use of Scripture actually demeans it, rather than honoring it like as he does the Catholic Mary, and testified to the second class (at best) status of Scripture among Catholics.
Scripture no where states or teaches an exception for Mary as regards not being a sinner, or for her being a perpetually sinless virgin and having a sexless marriage (contrary to its description: Gn. 2:24; Mt. 19:4,5), who is ascended to Heaven, and who is already crowned (which happens after the resurrection) and enthroned as Queen of Heaven with almost unlimited power, including having the ability to process virtually unlimited prayer requests, (the Holy Spirit provides zero examples of prayer to anyone in Heaven but the Lord, or in its instructions on who to pray to), and who is even set forth by some notable Catholics as a more immediate and superior recourse for help than Christ Himself.
Such an absence of real substantiation is contrary to the manifest practice of the Holy Spirit in stating similar and even lesser exceptions to the norm by notable subjects, from the blood of righteous Abel, (Gn. 4:10; Mt. 23:35) to the age of Methuselah, (Gn. 5:27) to the strength of Samson, (Jdg. 4:4,16; 16:12,29,30) to the number of toes of the Philistine giant, (2Sam. 21:20), to the special diet of the Baptist, (Mt. 3:4) to Joseph being a just man, (Mt. 1:19) to the supernatural transport of Phillip, (Acts 8:40) to Jesus being sinless, which He is said at least twice to be. (2Cor. 5:21; 1Pt. 2:22)
In addition, as such miraculous claims as are made for the Catholic Mary are exceptions to the norm, then the burden of proof is upon the Catholic to establish them, and not upon us, any more then we must disprove the existence of the Mormonic angel “Moroni.” As evangelical apologist Steve Hays argues, "If the evidence is uncertain, then our position should be uncertain; not: our evidence is uncertain; therefore, it's certain that Mary was a lifelong virgin. If the evidence is uncertain, then that hardly warrants a certain conclusion.” Yet some of the Mariology referred to is approved teaching, some of it even being dogma, while the lack of official censure of extreme Marian claims by Catholics can amount to implicit approval.
In a rare instance of a mild form of reproof of excessive Marian exaltation, no less a devotee of Mary than Cardinal Ratzinger at least recognized that the title “Co-redemptrix” “departs to too great an extent from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers and therefore gives rise to misunderstandings” (see comments on Co-redemptrix below), Yet as regards Scripture, this is also true of other aspects of Catholic exaltation of Mary, which depart too greatly from the sober and balanced descriptions given of Mary in Scripture, showing how she was a holy saint and a virgin, but not going beyond into the extremes of Catholic devotion, in which the Roman Catholic apologists add to their transgressions in their attempts to find support from Scripture by many unwarranted extrapolations, which the list below examples.
Catholics engage in isolationist exegesis, contrary to how the NT church manifestly understood the gospels (which does not teach the LS as being spiritual food, or teach transubstantiation, nor make it the focus of devotion, and when it does actually describe it then it is to show the Lord's death by manifesting the union that the body of Christ has, as the "one loaf," by sharing food in a communal meal with others who were purchased with His sinless shed blood, thus effectually remembering is via its effects.
See here and more, by God's grace:
The Lord's Supper: metaphorical commemoration or the consumption of the metaphysical "real" body and blood of the Lord Jesus?
(Note: allow scripts for pop up Bible verses
4. 1Cor. 10,11 |
5. The Lord's Supper in the record and descriptions of the New Testament church |
6. Purely literal versus the contrived Catholic interpretation |
11. Endocannibalism |
12. Conclusion |
+1
If Mary were sinless, she wouldn’t have died.
The links in your yellow table don’t seem to work.
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.