Posted on 12/14/2014 11:57:21 AM PST by ealgeone
The reason for this article is to determine if the worship/veneration given to Mary by the catholic church is justified from a Biblical perspective. This will be evaluated using the Biblical standard and not man’s standard.
“No, because in that passage and the next Paul said body and blood is there to be discerned. “
I suggest you read that passage word for word. Then read the broader context.
Well, yeah.
Are we to assume He only did the things that were recorded and nothing else? Did His miracles cease with His death?
No and no.
If there are other things that Jesus did and taught, then feel free to tell us what they are and where they're recorded to verify them.
What I don't accept is people making stuff up and claiming that Jesus taught it simply because the Bible doesn't say it DIDN'T happen.
Anything not explicitly spelled out in Scripture is not binding on the believer to accept as truth.
Mary is not MY mother. She was Jesus' mother. It was HIS responsibility to obey her, not mine.
I am obligated to obey MY own mother, not everyone or anyone else's mother.
She's not even alive on this planet, God never put her in a position to be honored, nor commanded us to.
Matter of fact, the Holy spirit in James tells us not to be a respecter of person's as it is a sin.
=============================================================
?
(Did you miss the second part of my post #2701?)
Rather - used to introduce a statement that indicates what is true after you have said what is not true - used to introduce a statement that corrects what you have just said.
And Catholics surely do not.
=============================================================
You are still completely missing my point, CynicalBear.
My post #2606 referred back to your post #2306 which said:
Added to the original Greek? Seriously?
which ultimately worked back to your post #2302, in which you stated that the "Doxology" was (and here is a direct quote from your post #2302):
"Found in these versions. The original Greek as found at biblehub"
My point to you was and is that we do not have the original Greek, at BibleHub, or anywhere else in the world -- only copies of copies made long after the originals had been written.
(In other words, your claim is false -- they do not claim to have the original Greek there at BibleHub, only the various versions of much later "copies" of the Greek which they do provide. No one knows for sure today what the original Greek actually said.)
The folks at Bible Hub fully realize that we do not have the original Greek manuscripts, and they never claim that we do. The only thing we have to go on is various copies of copies, which do not all match each other exactly (including for Matthew 6:13), so scholars have to make their best assessment of those copies, based on the differing versions we do still have available to us, and their best analysis of those copies, as well as various other factors.
Some of the Greek examples they show at "http://biblehub.com/texts/matthew/6-13.htm" contain that "Doxology", and some of them don't.
(Take a look at that link for yourself.)
I hope that clears that up for you.
(By the way, any assertion you happen to make in a post is open for discussion, not just the restricted ones you prefer us to reply to. If you don't want any of those assertions discussed, don't make them.)
Yes, I did. It doesn’t matter that KJV onlyists cite a document kept in the Smithsonian. Washingtonianus is a real text of the gospels. It really is from the late 4th century (late 300’s AD) or early 5th century (early 400’s AD).
So, in response to this post #2304 - “man oh man....the protestants added that doxology to all those Bibles....” - I posted a text that shows the doxology pre-dates the appearance of the protestants by one thousand two hundred years!
So, to say the protestants created this is contradicted by the facts. The doxology also appears in the Didache which, even late dating its copies, still is about 400 years before the protestants showed up.
My point is that protestants did not dream this up. It was already present in Byzantine circles long before the protestants.
"I believe." Probably one of the most beautiful, yet controversial statements a human being can make, isn't it? Don't let it get you down! Faith is a lifelong journey: seek with all your heart, and you'll find the path God wishes you to follow!
No, I"m not. I'm telling you that your point is immaterial to my initial post and I don't have any quarrel with whether is should be there or not. So your whole effort on trying to convince of something that may or may not be is immaterial to me and I'm not going to waste any more of my time debating the issue with you.
Plain enough?
Simple fact. Thank you.
Is there anything in the Bible that says Scripture isn't the ultimate source?
Mary is mentioned on Scripture only a handful of times.
In John 2:1-11, which catholics have totally out of context and have built a lot of the mary theology around, Mary is not mentioned by name.
She is referred to as the mother of Jesus, or His mother, or Woman only five times. In none of those instances is mother in caps.
Contrast this with Jesus. He is mentioned by name six times. This passage is about Him. Not Mary.
The primary purpose of this narrative in the life of Christ is told to us in v11, yet catholics want to focus on v5. This is an example of what is known as One Verse Theology. It is the most dangerous form of Biblical interpretation as it leads to error.
His mother said to the servants, “Whatever He says to you, do it.”
They have somehow built a whole belief system that Mary is in Heaven telling Jesus what to do and He is doing it!
In verse 11 we see the real purpose of this narrative.
11This beginning of His signs Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and manifested His glory, and His disciples believed in Him.
=============================================================
Sure (but be fully aware that what you posted in your post #2302 shown below)
was just not at all accurate. (Like I said, "Bible Hub" does not claim to have the original Greek at their web site, only the various differing Greek copies. They are fully aware that we do not possess any of the original Greek manuscripts of the New Testament anywhere in the world.)------------------------------------------------------------
"Found in these versions." "The original Greek as found at biblehub"------------------------------------------------------------
If you don't want to get responses to individual points you make like that, keep them all accurate.
Plain enough?
Do you pray to Abraham and Moses. You would need to in order to be consistent. What you posted were not prayers.
>>Same thing, as someone is to request the prayer-FOR; that is the prayer-TO.<<
I’m sorry but it is not the same thing.
We are only instructed to give our praise, honor, glory to God the Father in the Name of Jesus Christ. As Jesus taught His disciples to pray.
James 2:
23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.(KJV)
Can you explain why James stated the above after discussing dead faith and works?
Or do you see James refuting the body of epistles Paul wrote. I would say no James is not because God does not cause confusion. So when we apply expository examination we see James is discussing works which accompanies regeneration. For only good fruit comes from a good tree.
For as Paul said if our salvation is of works then it is no longer Grace that saves.
Romans 11:
5Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. 6And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
The sufficiency of Scripture pertains to formal and material aspects. The formal aspect does not mean Scripture clearly contains all that is needed for sanctification and maturation in faith, so that one does not need any outside agent or facilities for that end, which would even eliminate "the illumination of the Spirit of God" itself and the "due use of ordinary means" which Westminster affirms,
but in the words of such authors as Herman Bavinck (1854-1921), it means
that the truth, the knowledge of which is necessary to everyone for salvation, though not spelled out with equal clarity on every page of Scripture, is nevertheless presented throughout all of Scripture in such simple and intelligible form that a person concerned about the salvation of his or her soul can easily, by personal reading and study, learn to know that truth from Scripture without the assistance and guidance of the church... - Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. 1, Prolegomena (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), p. 477.
And yet even this pertains to complete canon and a normative state, as while a Ethiopian eunuch-type soul today can read a text such as Acts 10:36-43 and become regenerated as a child of God, by His grace, yet those who cannot comprehend much may need outside help, and which SS is not opposed to.
And which material sufficiency provides for, by supplying for the church, etc., and for "synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same..." as Westminster also says. — http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/wcf.htm
The difference is that in Scripture the magisterium never possesses assured perpetual infallibility, nor was it promised or necessary, and is not superior to its doctrinal source, the Scriptures.
In contrast, it is argued under the Roman model that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority.
And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium.
Which invalidates the NT church itself.
To: CynicalBearThe original Greek as found at biblehub New American Standard Bible King James Bible Holman Christian Standard Bible Aramaic Bible in Plain English King James 2000 Bible American King James Version Webster's Bible Translation World English Bible Young's Literal Translationman oh man....the protestants added that doxology to all those Bibles....no wonder they all say what you want them to say....edit here, add there, pretty soon you have a book that meets all your needs.
You seem to be forgetting the daily squatting and mocking FRoman Catholics rife on these threads. Not unexpected. Tell you what, when FRoman Catholics start their OWN website to compete with Free Republic, you can censure and prequalify anyone to your heart's desire. Then you won't have anything to complain about when people who don't buy into your version of Christianity defend their beliefs and stand up to what they see as a false and accursed gospel. Until then, you'll have to obey the rules here like everyone else and not backtalk the Religion Moderator when all he/she is trying to do is keep threads from launching into flame wars. Funny, how not only are the majority of Religion Forum threads posted BY Roman Catholics, they sure seem to make up the most of the whining and moaning comments attacking the RM for perceived bias whenever their making it personal comments get dinged!
There IS a solution! Either stay off OPEN Religion Forum threads if you cannot bear reading opposing views or go somewhere else. The Religion Mods put up with a LOT and they deserve respect. JR couldn't pay me enough to do it! We non-Caths have just as much right to post here as y'all do. Lump it or leave it.
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.