Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Worship of Mary? (An Observation)

Posted on 05/30/2008 10:21:34 AM PDT by Ultra Sonic 007

Some of you will remember my recent decision to become a Catholic. I suppose I should be surprised it ended getting derailed into a 'Catholic vs. Protestant' thread, but after going further into the Religion forum, I suppose it's par for the course.

There seems to be a bit of big issue concerning Mary. I wanted to share an observation of sorts.

Now...although I was formerly going by 'Sola Scriptura', my father was born and raised Catholic, so I do have some knowledge of Catholic doctrine (not enough, at any rate...so consider all observations thusly).

Mary as a 'co-redeemer', Mary as someone to intercede for us with regards to our Lord Jesus.

Now...I can definitely see how this would raise some hairs. After all, Jesus Himself said that He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and that none come to the Father but through Him. I completely agree.

I do notice a bit of a fundamental difference in perception though. Call it a conflict of POV. Do Catholics worship Mary (as I've seen a number of Protestants proclaim), or do they rather respect and venerate her (as I've seen Catholics claim)? Note that it's one thing to regard someone with reverence; I revere President Bush as the noted leader of the free world. I revere my father. I revere Dr. O'Neil, a humorous and brilliant math teacher at my university. It's an act of respect.

But do I WORSHIP them?

No. Big difference between respecting/revering and worshiping. At least, that's how I view it.

I suppose it's also a foible to ask Mary to pray for us, on our behalf...but don't we tend to also ask other people to pray for us? Doesn't President Bush ask for people to pray for him? Don't we ask our family members to pray for us for protection while on a trip? I don't see quite a big disconnect between that and asking Mary to help pray for our wellbeing.

There is some question to the fact that she is physically dead. Though it stands to consider that she is still alive, in Heaven. Is it not common practice to not just regard our physical life, but to regard most of all our spirit, our soul? That which survives the flesh before ascending to Heaven or descending to Hell after God's judgment?

I don't think it's that big of a deal. I could change my mind after reading more in-depth, but I don't think that the Catholic Church has decreed via papal infallibility that Mary is to be placed on a higher pedestal than Jesus, or even to be His equal.

Do I think she is someone to be revered and respected? Certainly. She is the mother of Jesus, who knew Him for His entire life as a human on Earth. Given that He respected her (for He came to fulfill the old laws; including 'Honor Thy Father and Mother'), I don't think it's unnatural for other humans to do the same. I think it's somewhat presumptuous to regard it on the same level as idolatry or supplanting Jesus with another.

In a way, I guess the way Catholics treat Mary and the saints is similar to how the masses treated the Apostles following the Resurrection and Jesus's Ascension: people who are considered holy in that they have a deep connection with Jesus and His Word, His Teachings, His Message. As the Apostles spread the Good News and are remembered and revered to this day for their work, so to are the works of those sainted remembered and revered. Likewise with Mary. Are the Apostles worshiped? No. That's how it holds with Mary and the saints.

At least, that's how my initial thoughts on the subject are. I'll have to do more reading.


TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; History; Theology
KEYWORDS: catholic; mary; rcc; romancatholic
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 5,301-5,3505,351-5,4005,401-5,450 ... 11,801-11,826 next last
To: MarkBsnr

Certainly welcome.

But honestly, I’m merely in a mirthful teasing mood today.


5,351 posted on 06/13/2008 9:12:12 AM PDT by Quix (GOD ALONE IS GOD; WORTHY; PAID THE PRICE; IS COMING AGAIN; KNOWS ALL; IS LOVING; IS ALTOGETHER GOOD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5344 | View Replies]

To: Quix

***Much appreciate the confirmation of the late dates of some of the political affirmations of some of the Mary nonsense***

The Mary nonsense started in the 1700s, I believe, when 4th and 5th generation Reformers and Restorationists started morphing their theologies considerably far afield from Luther, Calvin and Zwingli.

The Church has the authority; generation after generation of illigitimate theological children do not.

Gen 1:
27
God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them.
28
God blessed them, saying: “Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.

God meant for us to fill the earth with humans, not exotic theologies.


5,352 posted on 06/13/2008 9:17:38 AM PDT by MarkBsnr ( I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5345 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
III. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels[6] are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death.[7]

That's not the decree of God, that's the decree of Jean Cauvin, mouthed by the dark and cruel god Cauvin created in his own image.

5,353 posted on 06/13/2008 9:17:59 AM PDT by Petronski (Scripture & Tradition must be accepted & honored w/equal sentiments of devotion & reverence. CCC 82)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5341 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr

5,354 posted on 06/13/2008 9:20:41 AM PDT by Quix (GOD ALONE IS GOD; WORTHY; PAID THE PRICE; IS COMING AGAIN; KNOWS ALL; IS LOVING; IS ALTOGETHER GOOD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5352 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998; John Leland 1789; Quix; fortheDeclaration; 1000 silverlings
lol. As rebuttal to JohnLeLand1789's excellent post, all that is offered is support of Rome's pagan, idolatrous, unScriptural "praying to the dead" is some decaying headstone and a stray verse from the Apochrapha, which was not part of the Jewish Scriptures and is not inspired.

APOCRYPHA

21 REASONS WHY THE APOCRYPHA IS NOT INSPIRED

1. The Roman Catholic Church did not officially canonize the Apocrypha until the Council of Trent (1546 AD). This was in part because the Apocrypha contained material which supported certain Catholic doctrines, such as purgatory, praying for the dead, and the treasury of merit.

2. Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.

3. Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.

4. These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.

5. They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian Church.

6. They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many different places.

7. The Apocrypha inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection...

Etc...

5,355 posted on 06/13/2008 9:56:26 AM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5261 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration

Ah, don’t I wish. It’s NOT impossible!


5,356 posted on 06/13/2008 10:00:34 AM PDT by Marysecretary (.GOD IS STILL IN CONTROL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5280 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration

Indeed. I only care what Christ thinks, not the Councils nor some of our brethren who disagree so vehemently with us.


5,357 posted on 06/13/2008 10:01:56 AM PDT by Marysecretary (.GOD IS STILL IN CONTROL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5279 | View Replies]

To: John Leland 1789

Thank you. I’m reading the book of Acts now, actually. I have copied this onto my computer. Many thanks!


5,358 posted on 06/13/2008 10:07:10 AM PDT by Marysecretary (.GOD IS STILL IN CONTROL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5266 | View Replies]

To: Quix
Well, on the resolution thing. When Protestants have a difference, they fissiparate. So we have several different kinds of Methodist, synods of Lutherans, and what not. Watching my poor former denomination split and re-split and argue over who gets the house is rough. BUt what it comes down to is the ones with the guns said,"We're ordaining and marrying homosexuals. You think that's wrong, don't let the door knob catch you in the cassock on your way out."

I see that organic unity isn't as a big a deal, but it seems to me that separating is a kind of a pre-emptive act and all that's left if you don't have something that serves as a doctrinal supreme tribunal. Different emphasis, same unwillingness to "abide" with theological controversy? Maybe?

All the while pretending that the dogma had been whole, complete and homogeneous from 400 years before the edifice began.

Um, there you go again? (Blessed Ronald, ora pro nobis, heh heh heh?)

I tried to address the homogeneity thing. I have a quote from a Pope admitting corruption and I've tried to adduce councils and "Definitions" in what I take to be their true context, which is largely as a response to some kinks in the "enfolding" process.

So I'm suggesting that homogeneity is only a claim we make in a highly austere and abstract way.

I mean, we all agree Jesus is "God the son of God". Then somebody says, Well, because He is a SOn he is "after" somehow, so "there was when He did not exist." and somebody else says, "Oh yeah? If 'ther was when he did not exist' ANd if there's only one God, then you mean He isn't God." and next thing you know there are riots in the streets.

The "Jesus is God the Son of God" is not threatened, it remains the same. But how we explicate (another word for 'unfold') it can direct our thought towards the Jehovah's Witnesses line of country or to the challenge of thinking of a "same" which includes "distinction" (a philosophical brain-buster.) So it's EITHER fissiparate or go to a tribunal and abide by their verdict.

As far as the "FROM THAT POINT ON" aspect goes: I think we have to consider that the reasons the Wesleyans have a separate building from the UMC (or whatever) is that somebody said, "Our way or get your own real estate!"

Now, personally, I don't lie awake at night worrying about the Assumption of the BVM. And it was settled when I was, what, 2 years old? I didn't toddle into the 'rents bedroom and say, "Mommy, I can't sleep, I want to know what the Catholics believe about Mary and heaven, ... and there's a Baptist under my bed or maybe a Charismatic ...."

But evidently some people got cranked up about it.

Now IF you can momentarily wrap your protesting mind around the concept that in and for such men as those guys in dresses God, having had plenty of chance to practice on bumbling Saint Peter, could effectively direct their deliberations so that what they come up with is somehow reliable, in principle at least, then especially if the finer issues of Marian dogma do not erode your stomach lining, your reaction can be, "Okay, Cool, Mary now enjoys all that is promised to all the elect. That's neat. What was your bid, two no? Okay, three clubs."

Now to the wonderment and befuddlement of my family and friends, I have a pretty intense Mary thing going on. So to me it's more like, REALLY! WOW! that's amazingly cool AND it confirms what I've been thinking about time and blessedness anyway. I'm totally jiggy with this!"

Maybe to an onlooker it seems like a kind of control or restriction, but to a devotee of "haute vulgarization" Or "how to do theology for people who don't do theology," I feel like a Mad Dawg who just had an article belonging to the missing argument waved under my nose and then felt the leash being taken off. I can RUN (and bark!)

Are my sentences long enough for you? I've read Latin, I can make them REALLY long!

5,359 posted on 06/13/2008 10:09:14 AM PDT by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5349 | View Replies]

To: John Leland 1789

Thank you! I appreciate your telling me this as I’m now reading Acts. It will be helpful. M


5,360 posted on 06/13/2008 10:12:46 AM PDT by Marysecretary (.GOD IS STILL IN CONTROL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5252 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

There was no reason to canonize the OT up to that point. It was simply understood and all Bibles contained the Deuterocanonicals.

Our OT was the Septuagint, written by the Alexandrian Jews which contained all the Scripture. The Septuagint was accepted by the Jews for 400 years. Including the Deuterocanonicals.

The Council of Jamnia in 90AD decided that they had had enough of the Christians and threw out the Septuagint. The Protestant “Reformers” decided against the canon held dear by the Apostles in favor of a canon determined by Pharisees some decades after Jesus rose from the dead — the same Pharisees who denied the Truths of the entire New Testament, even accusing the “Nazarenes” of stealing Jesus’ body from the tomb and lying to the world! (Interestingly, it was Zakkai’s successor, Gamaliel, who forced the “Nazarenes” out of the synagogues. Gamaliel also made it obligatory for Jews to pray the “Prayer of Eighteen Petitions,” the 12th petition, which is still prayed today, known as the birkat, being “For apostates may there be no hope, and may the Nazarenes and heretics suddenly perish.”)

And do you know why the Book of Maccabees was thrown out by the Jewish Council? Because the Council was conducted under the auspices of the Flavian Roman Emperors and they decided that that particuar book, which tells of the Maccabean Revolt, might be inflammatory and incite rebellion by the Jews. So, all those Protestant Bibles are lacking the Book of Maccabees, which speaks clearly of praying for the dead, because a pagan emperor pressured the Pharisees to exclude it. And lest anyone is still tempted to think that it was the “Roman Church” that came up with these books and that they were not written by pre-Christ Jews, Jews in other parts of the world who didn’t get news of the Council of Jamnia’s decisions still use those “extra” 7 books to this very day (research the canon used by Ethiopian Jewry).

The Septuagint was used by the Apostles (and therefore Jesus). The lesson, though, is this: relying on the “Bible alone” is a bad idea; we are not to rely solely on Sacred Scripture to understand Christ’s message. While Scripture is “given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16-17), it is not sufficient for reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness. It is the Church that is the “pillar and ground of Truth” (1 Timothy 3:15)! Jesus did not come to write a book; He came to redeem us, and He founded a Sacramental Church through His apostles to show us the way. It is to them, to the Church Fathers, to the Sacred Deposit of Faith, to the living Church that is guided by the Holy Spirit, and to Scripture that we must prayerfully look.


5,361 posted on 06/13/2008 10:12:46 AM PDT by MarkBsnr ( I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5355 | View Replies]

To: sandyeggo
That may have been so, until that one fateful post which put you into the Posters Who Have Pinged the Religion Moderator Club. :)

Right. That's why I said had not. :)

I do think the mod missed my point though.

5,362 posted on 06/13/2008 10:14:41 AM PDT by OLD REGGIE (I am most likely a Biblical Unitarian? Let me be perfectly clear. I know no thing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5247 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr

Sorry, He’s in my heart, not my hatstand. LOL. How foolish...


5,363 posted on 06/13/2008 10:16:49 AM PDT by Marysecretary (.GOD IS STILL IN CONTROL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5200 | View Replies]

To: Quix
Estrogen?

I thought Parochial schools taught basic biology.

They do. Even the most basic biology will tell you that members of each sex have both estrogen and testosterone rushing through their systems, just in wildly different ratios.

5,364 posted on 06/13/2008 10:23:21 AM PDT by Petronski (Scripture & Tradition must be accepted & honored w/equal sentiments of devotion & reverence. CCC 82)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5227 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

You wrote:

“1. The Roman Catholic Church did not officially canonize the Apocrypha until the Council of Trent (1546 AD).”

Irrelevant. When the Church - because of the attacks of Protestants - decided to close the issue is in no effects the inspiration of the books.

“2. Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.”

Irrelevant. 1) God can inspire people through any language. 2) Hebrew was no longer used as commonly as it once was. 3) The New Testament is inspired and yet few Protestants woulc claim it was written in Hebrew!!!

“3. Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.”

Irrelevant. Neither do most of the authors of the New Testament or the Old Testament.

“4. These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.”

Irrelevant. 1) Jesus Himself mentions that the Jews corrupted good scriptural teaching with their traditions. 2) There was no method for Jews to “acknowledge” any book except by acclamation and/or commonality. These books were common enough.

“5. They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian Church.”

Untrue. There was a dispute about their inspiration. To say that means they were “not allowed a place among the sacred books” is not only incorrect, but hints at a Church structure and discipline which Protestants otherwise repeatedly deny existed.

“6. They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many different places.”

Did Judas hang himself (Mt 27:5) or did his bowels burst open (Acts 1:18)? Which is it? How many beings were in the tomb of Jesus when Peter and John arrived there on Resurrection Sunday? Was it one man or one angel? Two angels or two men? Was Jonah really in the belly of a fish (note: not a whale) for three days? Do serpents talk? Do dragons exist? Are those fabulous statements or are they the word of God or can they be both?

“7. The Apocrypha inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection...”

Uh, actually orthodox Christians have no problems with all of the Bible and all that it teaches. Only those who pick and choose (i.e. Protestants) struggle with Biblical teaching or claim the Bible contradicts itself.

Is this the best Protestants can do?


5,365 posted on 06/13/2008 10:25:13 AM PDT by vladimir998 (Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ. St. Jerome)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5355 | View Replies]

To: John Leland 1789

FReepmailed.


5,366 posted on 06/13/2008 10:26:55 AM PDT by Marysecretary (.GOD IS STILL IN CONTROL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5271 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration

AMEN.


5,367 posted on 06/13/2008 10:29:56 AM PDT by Marysecretary (.GOD IS STILL IN CONTROL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5287 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration

Exactly. You aren’t a Christian by just going to church any more than you are a mechanic when you take your car to a garage. It’s all JESUS. Many people go to church and don’t have a real clue as to what it takes to be saved.


5,368 posted on 06/13/2008 10:31:33 AM PDT by Marysecretary (.GOD IS STILL IN CONTROL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5289 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration

Excellent.


5,369 posted on 06/13/2008 10:32:35 AM PDT by Marysecretary (.GOD IS STILL IN CONTROL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5293 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr

And when the vowel-pointing process of the Tanakh undertaken by the Pharisees in the aftermath of the Bar Kochba rebellion and eclipse of daily use of Hebrew is examined, we can see strong evidence in such things as comparisons of the Septuagint and Qumran versions of Psalm 22 (”they have pierced my hands and feet”) with the Masoretic text (”like a lion my hands and my feet”), it’s pretty clear that even the Masoretic text which WASN’T pitched out after Jamnia was combed-over to remove as much support for Christian argument as possible.

Many early Reformers were too easily impressed by contemporary Jewish claims of the immutable purity of the Masoretic text, which such things as Qumran have shown to be a post-facto pious fiction.


5,370 posted on 06/13/2008 10:33:40 AM PDT by Philo-Junius (One precedent creates another. They soon accumulate and constitute law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5361 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr; John Leland 1789; fortheDeclaration; Uncle Chip; Quix; Alex Murphy; Gamecock; ...
The Apocrypha never claims to be inspired. Nor is the Apocrypha ever quoted in the New Testament, not even once.

The Jewish canon, the early church, Josephus, Melito, Origen, Eusebius, Hilary, Jerome, Cyril, all rejected the Apocrypha as outside the accepted, inspired canon of Scripture.

"The Jewish canon, or the Hebrew Bible, was universally received, while the Apocrypha added to the Greek version of the Septuagint were only in a general way accounted as books suitable for church reading, and thus as a middle class between canonical and strictly apocryphal (pseudonymous) writings. And justly; for those books, while they have great historical value, and fill the gap between the Old Testament and the New, all originated after the cessation of prophecy, and they cannot therefore be regarded as inspired, nor are they ever cited by Christ or the apostles" (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, book 3, chapter 9)

WHAT HATH ATHENS WITH JERUSALEM?

5,371 posted on 06/13/2008 10:38:17 AM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5361 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

Read the link. Those were just the first seven of 21 reasons why the Apocrypha is not part of the inspired word of God.


5,372 posted on 06/13/2008 10:39:27 AM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5365 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr

Paragraphs are your friends...


5,373 posted on 06/13/2008 10:40:53 AM PDT by Marysecretary (.GOD IS STILL IN CONTROL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5317 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

You mean a Swiss-born, German-educated protestant theologian and historian doesn’t like the Deuterocanonicals?

I’m shocked!


5,374 posted on 06/13/2008 10:41:28 AM PDT by Petronski (Scripture & Tradition must be accepted & honored w/equal sentiments of devotion & reverence. CCC 82)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5371 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg; John Leland 1789
(BTW I'm not really clear that Peter is "installed" as Pope before Easter Eve or the "Do you love me?" episode or even Pentecost. It might be the future Pope whom Jesus calls Satan.)

Of course it's not really clear that Peter was ever installed as Pope. Legend can only take you so far.
5,375 posted on 06/13/2008 10:41:54 AM PDT by OLD REGGIE (I am most likely a Biblical Unitarian? Let me be perfectly clear. I know no thing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5254 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE
(What I learned as bailiff in General District Court: Don't get cute or subtle with the judge.
Do I act on what I learn? What, and miss all the excitement?)
5,376 posted on 06/13/2008 10:42:15 AM PDT by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5362 | View Replies]

To: tiki; Dr. Eckleburg; Marysecretary; fortheDeclaration; Quix
Read John 6 and tell me why those disciples walked away from Christ at that time

Simple, they were unbelievers in the first place,only following him to see some easy miracle, read the whole chapter.

5,377 posted on 06/13/2008 10:42:19 AM PDT by 1000 silverlings (Everything that deceives also enchants: Plato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5264 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr

But we can know OUR own state, Mark. And no angel has deluded us about that.


5,378 posted on 06/13/2008 10:43:02 AM PDT by Marysecretary (.GOD IS STILL IN CONTROL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5327 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE
Ah yes, the "piling on" technique of theological argument. Great for heat, lousy for light.

Brother Leland was constructing a reductio: THIS is the clown they are putting forward as an infallible Pope.

I was fine-tuning the reductio, that's all. He was disputing our claims. I was clarifying them.

5,379 posted on 06/13/2008 10:47:21 AM PDT by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5375 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998; John Leland 1789; fortheDeclaration; 1000 silverlings; Quix; Gamecock; Alex Murphy; ...
Rereading your post shows the paltry arrogance of the RCC position. It's laughable.

“2. Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.”

Irrelevant. 1) God can inspire people through any language. 2) Hebrew was no longer used as commonly as it once was. 3) The New Testament is inspired and yet few Protestants woulc claim it was written in Hebrew!!!

LOL. God COULD inspire in Pig Latin, but He didn't. I'll stick with the Jewish canon as the Jews received and delivered it; not with Rome's rewrite centuries later by way of the Greeks.

“3. Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.”

Irrelevant. Neither do most of the authors of the New Testament or the Old Testament.

?????

The New Testament does not attest to the authorship of God?

No wonder the RCC ignores so much of the Bible.

"And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." -- 2 Tiomothy 3:15-17


5,380 posted on 06/13/2008 10:47:45 AM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5365 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

I can’t believe we found something on which we agree. Progress!


5,381 posted on 06/13/2008 10:49:17 AM PDT by Marysecretary (.GOD IS STILL IN CONTROL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5348 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE

“Installed” as Pope?

Peter was made Pope by Christ.


5,382 posted on 06/13/2008 10:49:55 AM PDT by Petronski (Scripture & Tradition must be accepted & honored w/equal sentiments of devotion & reverence. CCC 82)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5375 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

You wrote:

“Read the link. Those were just the first seven of 21 reasons why the Apocrypha is not part of the inspired word of God.”

I know they were the first seven. You posted them and I showed they were not valid. What more needs to be said?


5,383 posted on 06/13/2008 10:52:38 AM PDT by vladimir998 (Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ. St. Jerome)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5372 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

Excellent.

Of course, we realize that NOTHING—certainly not facts—trump the political RELIGIOUS power mongering committees of the RC edifice.

. . . unless, perhaps . . . it’s an apparition of a white hanky.


5,384 posted on 06/13/2008 10:52:40 AM PDT by Quix (GOD ALONE IS GOD; WORTHY; PAID THE PRICE; IS COMING AGAIN; KNOWS ALL; IS LOVING; IS ALTOGETHER GOOD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5355 | View Replies]

To: Marysecretary

God bless you, sister.


5,385 posted on 06/13/2008 10:53:37 AM PDT by Petronski (Scripture & Tradition must be accepted & honored w/equal sentiments of devotion & reverence. CCC 82)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5381 | View Replies]

To: Marysecretary

***Sorry, He’s in my heart, not my hatstand. LOL. How foolish...***

I agree. Creating one’s own personal God in one’s own image is very foolish.


5,386 posted on 06/13/2008 10:53:48 AM PDT by MarkBsnr ( I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5363 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

And the same to you, brother.


5,387 posted on 06/13/2008 10:54:25 AM PDT by Marysecretary (.GOD IS STILL IN CONTROL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5385 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr

I was talking about your analogy of what we believe. THAT is foolish.


5,388 posted on 06/13/2008 10:55:00 AM PDT by Marysecretary (.GOD IS STILL IN CONTROL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5386 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg

More understandable this time around.

And slightly less alarming in me FOR YOU.

Rushing along. Maybe I’ll think of another response when I get back.

The pots beckon. Mugs for students, actually. Of course with oblique personal mark ‘propaganda’ wink wink, on the bottom.

You know, that dastardly horrifically subversive motto . . .

“FAITH, HOPE, LOVE, JOY” around a modified NM sun thingy.

PEACE,


5,389 posted on 06/13/2008 10:59:20 AM PDT by Quix (GOD ALONE IS GOD; WORTHY; PAID THE PRICE; IS COMING AGAIN; KNOWS ALL; IS LOVING; IS ALTOGETHER GOOD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5359 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

Ahhhh . . . so nice to see quotes of my words in something besides an epithet. LOL.


5,390 posted on 06/13/2008 11:00:42 AM PDT by Quix (GOD ALONE IS GOD; WORTHY; PAID THE PRICE; IS COMING AGAIN; KNOWS ALL; IS LOVING; IS ALTOGETHER GOOD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5364 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

Ahhhh . . . so nice to see [correction] a paraphrase of my words in something besides an epithet. LOL.


5,391 posted on 06/13/2008 11:01:14 AM PDT by Quix (GOD ALONE IS GOD; WORTHY; PAID THE PRICE; IS COMING AGAIN; KNOWS ALL; IS LOVING; IS ALTOGETHER GOOD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5364 | View Replies]

To: Petronski; Marysecretary
Calvin didn't think up the doctrine of Predestination. God wrote it in Scripture and men like Augustine instructed the church of it long before Calvin came along. Life is according to the predestining decree of God, made known to us in the holy Scriptures by the work of the indwelling Holy Spirit, exactly as the WCF shows us by its footnotes from Scripture...

[6] 1TI 5:21 I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality.

MAT 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.


[7] ROM 9:22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: 23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory.

EPH 1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, 6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

PRO 16:4 The Lord hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.


[8] 2TI 2:19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.

JOH 13:18 I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me.


[9] EPH 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: 9 Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: 11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own wilL.

ROM 8:30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

2TI 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began.

1TH 5:9 For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus ChrisT.


[10] ROM 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) 13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. 16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

EPH 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love. 9 Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself.


5,392 posted on 06/13/2008 11:01:32 AM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5353 | View Replies]

To: tiki; Dr. Eckleburg; Marysecretary; fortheDeclaration; Quix
Even more interesting, in John 6, we see the unbelievers demanding a sign from Jesus, they wanted to see some "real manna" not hear some words about believing and being called by the Father. They wanted a real wafer ...so as much as the Catholic church wants this to mean that the unbelievers walked away because they couldn't "eat" His flesh and drink His blood, the actual meaning is just the opposite.
5,393 posted on 06/13/2008 11:01:55 AM PDT by 1000 silverlings (Everything that deceives also enchants: Plato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5264 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

5,394 posted on 06/13/2008 11:03:32 AM PDT by Quix (GOD ALONE IS GOD; WORTHY; PAID THE PRICE; IS COMING AGAIN; KNOWS ALL; IS LOVING; IS ALTOGETHER GOOD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5365 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998; John Leland 1789; sandyeggo
Anyway, you get the idea. The list is bogus. It is filled with errors and distortions and quite frankly is only believed in by twits who know so little about history or the use of BOOKS that they are easily fooled into believing this claptrap.

It's nice to know you are not one of those ignorant "twits".

Frankly, any time I see a list as long as that whether a list of "proofs" published by "Catholic Answers" that Peter was the first Pope or this list I am immediately skeptical and can be certain there are distortions and misstatements in the list.

Of course, that doesn't mean the entire list is incorrect. Perhaps you would care to refute it point by point. Or, do you believe the entire list is worthless because there are demonstrable untruths contained in it? Are you one "twits" who believes in the "Unbroken Line of Popes? If so, please name the Pope, and a little history of that Pope, who reigned between 304 and 308.

5,395 posted on 06/13/2008 11:03:41 AM PDT by OLD REGGIE (I am most likely a Biblical Unitarian? Let me be perfectly clear. I know no thing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5261 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
God wrote it in Scripture

LOL

Cauvin was a sick man, and he created in his own image a sick god.

5,396 posted on 06/13/2008 11:04:13 AM PDT by Petronski (Scripture & Tradition must be accepted & honored w/equal sentiments of devotion & reverence. CCC 82)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5392 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

You wrote:

“Rereading your post shows the paltry arrogance of the RCC position. It’s laughable.”

I can just tell you’re really going to stick your foot in your mouth in this post.

“LOL. God COULD inspire in Pig Latin, but He didn’t. I’ll stick with the Jewish canon as the Jews received and delivered it; not with Rome’s rewrite centuries later by way of the Greeks.”

God inspired men in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. All Christians agree on that point - all of them. All the books, and all the verses, in a Catholic Bible fall into those three languages. You’re simply not making a point. Unless you can produce some sort of evidence that God only works with Hebrew and Aramaic (which would deny the inspiration of the New Testament) then you’re out of luck.

“The New Testament does not attest to the authorship of God?”

Is that what I wrote to you? No. But since you can’t deal with what I wrote you must invent a straw man. Here is what I ACTUALLY WROTE TO YOU: “Irrelevant. Neither do most of the authors of the New Testament or the Old Testament.”

What I said is 100%, undeniably true. MOST of the New Testament authors do not make claims to inspiration. Where does Matthew claim his gospel was inspired? Where does Matthew even claim to be the author?

“No wonder the RCC ignores so much of the Bible.”

I am ignoring nothing in the Bible. Clearly I pay more attention than you do because I know Matthew never claimed inspiration.

2 Tiomothy 3:15-17 says all scripture is inspired. It doesn’t what books are inspired.


5,397 posted on 06/13/2008 11:04:43 AM PDT by vladimir998 (Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ. St. Jerome)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5380 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

Now now!

There ya go agin trying to confused the confuzzed with facts.

Tsk Tsk.

/s


5,398 posted on 06/13/2008 11:05:21 AM PDT by Quix (GOD ALONE IS GOD; WORTHY; PAID THE PRICE; IS COMING AGAIN; KNOWS ALL; IS LOVING; IS ALTOGETHER GOOD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5371 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

5,399 posted on 06/13/2008 11:07:30 AM PDT by Quix (GOD ALONE IS GOD; WORTHY; PAID THE PRICE; IS COMING AGAIN; KNOWS ALL; IS LOVING; IS ALTOGETHER GOOD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5382 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
Rome's rewrite centuries later by way of the Greeks.

What did the capital city of Italy rewrite centuries later by way of the Greeks?

St. Jerome included the Deuterocanonicals in the Vulgate late in the fourth century, because he was instructed to translate the Bible as it existed at the time.

5,400 posted on 06/13/2008 11:10:46 AM PDT by Petronski (Scripture & Tradition must be accepted & honored w/equal sentiments of devotion & reverence. CCC 82)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5380 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 5,301-5,3505,351-5,4005,401-5,450 ... 11,801-11,826 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