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.
Dang, I should have said "head" not "skull" in that line. My mistake.
In my seeking and reading, I've read that quote or similar in several of the messages, as in this dual message/prophecy regarding Russia with this quote from our Lord:
soon, your Holy Mother will topple Satan's throne to the ground and crush the Serpent's head;And this one of a vision in which Mother Mary says:
I am the one who will crush and trample with My heel the serpent's head;And in this quote from Jesus:
this is why, before My Return, I am sending you, before Me, the Ark of Alliance, I am sending you the Woman of the Apocalypse, the second Eve, who will crush the serpent's head with her heel; I am sending you, before Me: My Mother, to open a broad highway and level it in this desert; I am sending you the Queen of Heaven, the Door to Heaven, to prepare you, and to school all you who still lie in the dust, to come forward and make your peace with Me, your King, before My Great Return; I am sending you the Queen of Peace to thresh from one corner of the earth to the other and gather you one by one;Fwiw, I've been steadily reading TLIG for quite a while and still have not finished it. It has my time and attention and has been good for both a lot of info and questions to research, as well as giving me a better understanding of our times and situation.
However, I'm not sure how that quoted phrase is meant to be understood, either as strictly an end of our story/Revelation thing or perhaps with the dragon's many lesser serpent's heads get crushed along the way until we get to the final event, like with Hitler.
Genesis 3:15 has that final event covered where God tells the serpent:
"I will make you enemies of each other: you and the woman, Your offspring and her offspring. I will crush your head And you will strike its heel."However, supposedly there are differing ways to understand Genesis 3:15, so despite my efforts, I remain a lo-info Christian seeker, but with an ever deepening faith.
I'm okay with that.
Thanks! You make me blush, you flatterer.
Saying "He gave them the power of binding and loosing. To Simon Peter He gave the keys to the kingdom of heaven" is a redundancy. The keys are defined as the power of binding and loosing, which is what keys do, so it make sense. But then it also means the keys are not unique to Peter, since, as you concede, all apostles were given that gift of binding and loosing.
As for who loved Him the most, the text does not say it was Peter. That is imagination, not fact. There is no need to imagine in Peter some exalted quality of person befitting the exalted role which Rome posthumously assigned him. When Peter was being restored by Jesus, he was asked to declare his love for Jesus three times, which corresponded to the three denials. Peter's love failed when tested against his instinct for survival, though John remained faithful. Jesus had to heal him of that very damaging experience. But that in no way demonstrates in Peter a love greater than that found in John or any other particular disciple. They all loved Jesus, and history would show they were all, including Peter, willing at the end to love Him unto death. But no. The Petrine office is a fiction, and well suited to justify Rome's coalescing around the monarchical episcopate centuries later. It has no basis, either in Scripture, or in the first few centuries of the life of the Ecclesia.
SR: BTW, there's actually better evidence that Claudia and Pudens, mentioned right alongside Linus, were a couple of early Brits who took the Gospel from Paul back to the British Isles. There's even a theory of Baptist successionism that says these two were the founders of British Christianity independent of Rome, leading some Baptist groups to claim they've never been part of Rome and therefore never were Protestants. Now, I'm not saying that's right, and I'm not saying it's wrong. But if I did take such a position, how would you attack it? Wouldn't you challenge me to show proof, hard evidence, drawn from primary sources of the period, that my claims were true? Of course you would.
AF: I would you were hot or cold, and if not, give Catholics the same benefit of the doubt.
Well, in the post in question, I'm not trying to resolve whether Baptist successionism is any better than Catholic successionism. I think they both have severe problems. My point was only that if a Baptist sauntered in with a list of names claiming apostolic succession, no one, not even I, as a Baptist, would consider that much of an argument. It's right to demand hard, historical evidence of such a claim. That's why the Lampe study and others like it are so important. If succession happened the way Rome has proposed it to have happened, there should be a signature in real data. There isn't. That's a problem.
Peace,
SR
Your opinion, but you'll have to explain that one to me. I have simply offered what I've read and my thoughts.
Your speculations make me think that don't agree with the material I've quoted, which would suggest that one of us, me specifically, is wrong, in your opinion.
Therefore, is it fair to assume that I indeed am a "low-information seeker" by your reckoning?
If you called me an "opinionated lo-info Christian seeker" then we have no argument.
But, if you and I had to play The American Bible Challenge against each other, I guarantee you'd win and not because I let you beat me.
Cheers!
Oh yeah...risking a TMI violation, it was almost 80 today and I'm wearing a short sleeved shirt, so all I have up my sleeves is pit hair. No card.
it's hard to believe that a fallen Catholic would admit that.....
>>Note also that work here is understood to incur debt: St. Paul simply is not talking of the good works that we know are fundamental for our salvation (Matthew 25:31-46).<<
First this thread has gone too long.
Second a few verses from James taken out of its context and teaching point (dead faith) does not make a theology. That is why I in several posts to you and others pointed out how important it is to properly apply exegesis to passages and the best theologians also follow expository examination of scriptures. For example Paul exhibits all of the above in the most minute detail. When reading James we see a pastor mostly exhorting the faithful flock and pointing out we have phonies abounding, tares among the wheat, true believers. If we read the entire epistle of James, we see no bold statements or clear indication of the Gospel message, no mention of Grace. Based on your model that means there is no Grace involved in salvation. Of course using the entire body of revealed truth refutes this notion. (More below on this).
Third point is Jesus Christ preached Torah perfectly, which means where Messiah pointed out “works” and “doing” He is clearly preaching keeping Torah. Matthew 5 clearly is a sermon on the unfiltered Law God gave us as the Greatest Commandments and the Second one like it. So Christ, after telling people to repent, and follow Him tells us the Holy standard. Which in Matthew 5 is “to be perfect as your Heavenly Father is Perfect.” Don’t know about you and others but I am a total failure to that standard. Only One did live this perfection. Yes Jesus Christ.
Now we get to the point. All of what Jesus said, all that He did in His ministry: the miracles, preaching, expressions and actions of compassion and love and the rebuking of the wooden Pharisees...all of the above led to the Cross and Empty Tomb. All of His teaching must be in the light of His death and resurrection. That is how the apostles taught and preached the Gospel (1 Corinthians 15)
Therefore in light of the above and how the apostles preached the Gospel we have the following on our salvation by God’s Grace and not a mix of works and “cooperating” with Grace:
Rom. 3:28-30, “For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one.”
Rom. 4:5, “But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness,”
Rom. 5:1, “therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ;”
Rom. 9:30, “What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith;”
Rom. 10:4, “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.”
Rom. 11:6, “But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.”
Gal. 2:16, “nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified.”
Gal. 2:21, I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.
Gal. 3:5-6, “Does He then, who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? 6Even so Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.”
Gal. 3:24, “Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith.”
Eph. 2:8-9, “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God. 9Not by works, lest any man should boast.”
Phil. 3:9, “and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith.”
So what can we conclude with the above body of evidence? Works save? If that is true then the only logical conclusion is yes the Work and Righteousness of Jesus Christ Saves. His Work is the Grace that saves the sinner. Nothing else is acceptable to The Father but the Work of His Beloved Son in Whom He is well pleased.
Our works? Again they come from Christ, He is the True Vine and all the fruit comes from the Vine.
Romans 16:20 "And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen."
>>Sola Scriptura is simple never stated in the scripture.<<
Ok what is your understanding of Sola Scriptura? Or is your understanding actually “Solo Scriptura?” The Reformers clearly had Sola in mind not Solo.
Better, putting aside debates of the 16th century, how did the apostles see the position of Inspired Scriptures to test truth claims which would include testing doctrines, creeds and rules of faith (which is what the early church fathers deemed as tradition as well as the Reformers later)
Not surprisingly Jesus Christ and the apostles used TaNaKh (OT).
Jesus Christ used Torah to rebuke the Devil (Matthew 4)
Jesus Christ used the OT to rebuke and condemn the Pharisees, lawyers, Saducees and Scribes throughout all 4 Gospels.
Jesus Christ literally fulfilled Messianic prophecies written throughout the OT.
Peter used a wide array of OT scriptures to proclaim Jesus Christ as the promised Messiah and King all Israel awaited (Acts 2-ff)
Phillip used Isaiah to preach the Gospel to the Ethiopian eunuch.
Peter used the OT scriptures and not a mitre to preach the Gospel to the first Gentile converts (Acts 10)
Paul never failed to use the entire volume of OT scriptures to preach Christ as Lord and Savior, and to reprove and correct false doctrines (Acts 15, Romans, Ephesians, Hebrews much more)
James, John and Jude same as the above as a trend has been established.
And we are left with this which sums it all:
2 Timothy 3:
13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
15 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.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.(KJV)
I think that was quite clear above.
And as the Reformers pointed out Sola Scriptura meant to them all creeds, confessions, doctrines and rules of faith must meet the muster of Holy Inspired Scriptures for all truth claims. We see our Savior Jesus Christ using this standard against the father of lies, against the sons of Satan who opposed Jesus Christ; His apostles also following the same standard, so why not us?
So instead of using terms from the 16th century, what if I said: Holy Inspired Scriptures is the standard in which we test truth claims on doctrine, church conduct, discipline, and traditions.
Would you agree with the above statement as which Paul addresses to Timothy?
Bump
Annie, do you ever read your Bible, or do you wish to just continue to spout verbiage from the Roman Catholic cult? It really seems the latter, as you are consistent to misrepresent what Scripture says, and try to frame it to meet your cults goal of confusion and separation from God. In no way does the RC religion show the way to Christ, but instead requires a circuitous route through Mary or some supposed saints to an end goal of works based faith. There is no reason for me to post the Scriptures again and again, because you are consistent in denying what they mean.
Guess what? They are all dead,Mary, and all the dead your cult wishes to elevate to some super status before God. I am a saint according to St Paul's doctrinal statements. I have seen where you quote and misquote his words, always trying to lead others astray into the cult of Roman Catholicism.
Blindly accepting things without proper guidance from the Holy Spirit makes it easier to get to the point where you will deny what is clearly taught and presented to you. It is called "hardening of your heart".
Your cults definition of Peter is off from the start(we've all presented the evidence to support that extra-Biblical claim), and there is absolutely nothing in Scripture to support praying to Mary or anybody other than the Father. Nobody! None! Nada!
I know you will come back with another false statement, but I also know in Whom I believe, and am persuaded that He will keep me... not anybody but Jesus Christ,our Goel (kinsman redeemer!)... and we will continue to refute the false gospel presented incessantly by the Roman Catholic cabal on FreeRepublic, soundly, with Scripture, as lead by the Holy Spirit.
from my homepage...
(Tagline storage area: Heck is where people, who don’t believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
Oh?
Just HOW did she 'know' this and WHERE is it recorded as such?
-— and WHERE is it recorded as such? -—
Where is Sola Scriptura recorded?
And no, passages that include the word “Scripture” don’t constitute proof of Luther’s doctrine of the Bible ALONE as the SOLE or ULTIMATE rule of faith.
Another thing you should keep in mind when quoting Scripture to prove Sola Scriptura is that any reference to Scripture recorded in the Bible is NOT referring to the Bible as we know it, since the last book of the Bible wasn’t written until the year 100 A.D., and the entire Bible wasn’t canonized until around the year 400 A.D.
It’s simply IMPOSSIBLE for a passage in the Bible to be referring to the entire Bible.
As for Sacred Tradition, Paul tells his disciples to hold to the traditions passed down by word or letter.
And according to Jesus, the ultimate teaching authority is the church.
“If he won’t listen to the church, treat him as a pagan or tax collector.” —Jesus
Of course!
for 2014 years minus 33 - she STILL has Jesus' ear and can get Him to do whatever a good Jewish mother asks her son to do.
"Mom", says Jesus in a lull from 139 or more requests a second, "Why did you and my stepdad NEVER consummate your marriage?"
In the pope's caes; that's mere Veneration2, Adoration3 and Respect4
From what I've heard that the pope has said in the last few days about the Vatican Inner Circle; I hope he has a Nehemiah on staff!
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.