Posted on 01/18/2015 8:33:58 AM PST by ADSUM
Jesus told the disciples that the ENTIRE OT was about HIM not His momma.. The Ark was a type of Christ, containing the OT elements that were types of Him... the manna, the budding staff and the law.. all symbols of the promised Savior they were contained in the ark..the tabernacle
The cover was the place of Mercy, where the High Priest can and poured the blood of a Bull..first for his sin and then for the sin of the nation .. When God came down, His glory resred above the mercy seat—between the cherubim... Mary has no mercy to give.. Mary is not the source of Grace or Mercy ..
That Ark was kept in the tabernacle .. It was where they went for mercy ..That is Christ not His mother.
That Ark led Israel into battle.. do you think that Jesus would send His mother in front of the army? Would Jesus allow His mother to be captured by the enemies?
The psalms make clear who the ark was .. the Ark is called "the strength and glory of God"; , it is spoken of as "the ark of the strength of the Lord."
Was Mary the strength of God?
There's a difference between God being able to do something and Him actually doing it.
The debate has never really been around His ability, as much as the fact that what y'all claim about Mary is found NOWHERE in Scripture.
Yes, there were several hundred sects some as small as two or three people. In the face of persecution there were innumerable splinter groups. Perhaps a class in Bible history would help. This is what happens when Bible Christians suddenly find themselves in the deep end of the pool of theological inquiry.
We had the Arian heresy and schism of AD 343, and many more following the collapse of the western Roman Empire in A.D. 476
“There was no schism until Luther” This is risible nonsense and ignores the Great Schism of 1054.
Finally, you offer: “I’ll take the Holy Spirit’s words through John.” This is what Joel Osteen, Billy Graham and Jim Jones said too. And in any event why take it selectively and ignore John: 6:53
“Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.”
Douay-Rheims Bible
Well done!!
There's not a Christian on this board who does not recognize the value or importance of works in relations to salvation, so your faux surprise is disingenuous as best.
The difference is whether one thinks that works need to be done to attain salvation, as Catholicism teaches, or whether they are the fruit of salvation as Scripture teaches.
Luke 1 46And Mary said: "My soul exalts the Lord, 47And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior.
Seems she thought she needed a savior..
Go burn some fish entrails.
TY
Well said.
Wow! So trapped by your own idiotic quotes that’s the best you can offer,
Augustine, Aquinas, Newman, Benedict, all the saints and martyrs of the Church, and the eminent Protestant and Evangelical theologians, scholars, pastors, and preaches, who we must admit know much more than some of us here, and who converted to Catholicism all go it wrong.
Welcome to the brave new worlds of David Koresh and Jim Jones.
Welcome to the false teaching of the rcc.
How many men dies believing this lie?
Wow....trapped by your own pope!
Christianity recognizes the false teachers. Why? Because we test the spirit as we're told to do in the Word. The only infallible source of truth.
And since you brought up the church fathers why don't you believe all they said?
"They [heretics] gather their views from other sources than the Scriptures...We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith" - Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.1.1 - Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.1.1 Sola Scriptura !
“Have thou ever in your mind this seal, which for the present has been lightly touched in my discourse, by way of summary, but shall be stated, should the Lord permit, to the best of my power with the proof from the Scriptures. For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning , but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.” (Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat. Lecture 4, Ch. 17)
"There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source. For just as a man, if he wishes to be skilled in the wisdom of this world, will find himself unable to get at it in any other way than by mastering the dogmas of philosophers, so all of us who wish to practice piety will be unable to learn its practice from any other quarter than the oracles of God. Whatever things, then, the Holy Scripture declare, at these let us look; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn; and as the Father wills our belief to be, let us believe; and as He wills the Son to be glorified, let us glorify Him; and as He wills the Holy Spirit to be bestowed, let us receive Him. Not according to our own will, nor according to our own mind, nor yet as using violently those things which are given by God, but even as He has chosen to teach them by the Holy Scriptures, so let us discern them." - Hippolytus, Against Noetus, ch 9
"For how can we adopt those things which we do not find in the holy Scriptures?" - Ambrose (On the Duties of the Clergy, 1:23:102)“Neither dare one agree with catholic bishops if by chance they err in anything, but the result that their opinion is against the canonical Scriptures of God.” - Augustine (354–430) De unitate ecclesiae, 10
So tell me. Is it only some of the statements of those church fathers you believe in?
These elders, leaders within the local churches, were given the responsibility to proclaim the gospel and to pass on the "whole counsel of God" just as Paul gave to them. Paul never mentioned a papacy nor did he say a word about the claims Catholics make about Mary insisting that these dogmas could be traced back to the early church. If, indeed, these doctrines were essential to our salvation, Paul would have taught it. He didn't and neither did Peter or John or James or Jude. The whole counsel of God doesn't include these invented doctrines, therefore they are not part of the Christian faith.
There are a lot of things Mormons claim and they can use the same argument.
Does that mean they’re correct as well?
Hi Metmom. No one can make up stuff, and pass it off as truth, based on what the Bible DOESN'T say. My goodness, if people did that, they might start spurious, pernicious, false religions. Oh wait, hasn't that already happened? 😄
The Krazy Katholic Kounter Klaims(TM) don't stop there! I've had several Catholics tell me that the ark parallels even extend to people being struck dead if they touched Mary! That's one way to maintain "Perpetual Virginity" I suppose!
Throwing out a bunch of quotes is not argument. To reference eminent theologians from the Catholic side and former well known Protestants theologians who have converted to Catholicism with educated “socialists etc” is what’s terribly pathetic with your argument. If that’s all you can say, its equivalent to saying you are dumbfounded and really you have no response.
You ask for biblical reference to support veneration of relics and when provided you scurry away.
And then your quote on Irenaeus its laughable since he was talking about known heresies at the time of his day that denied either the full humanity or divinity of Christ.
But since you reference Irenaeus as an authority, perhaps this debate ends and you should accept the following:
“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that Church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]
Bingo!
The "childishness" is coming from those who cannot think for themselves and can only ape the talking points given to you by your esteemed theologians - those people who have convinced everyone that they are better at thinking than others. It's childish to toss out silly scenarios like Scripture falling from the skies and "magically" falling into a volume. Does this kind of dialog count as "grown-up" to you? Do you seriously imagine that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John - whom the Holy Spirit carried along in the words they wrote just as He did the holy men of God from before Christ - first sent their Divinely-inspired contributions to some Pope in Rome and then waited around to find out if they would be received or not? Where are you getting these strange ideas from?
When Paul wrote to the churches at Ephesus, Philippi, Corinth and Galatia under the leading of the Holy Spirit, and he ensured copies were sent to all the other churches as well, did he have to wait for a general council to first inform him they were approved for world wide distribution? Or, as it plainly states IN Scripture, did these churches receive these writings with joy as from the hand of God and set about ensuring the instructions were followed, taught, obeyed and preserved? The answer is obvious, they knew from whom they received these writings as it was the authority of the Apostles of Jesus Christ giving it to them and their assurance that what these writings contained was the truth.
Going back thousands of years earlier, did Almighty God command His prophets to write down the exact words He told them to and to make sure the people heard and obeyed His teachings, have to wait for the Jewish magesterium to pronounce the writings as genuine first before they were held to account for obedience? Yeah, right, as if! You obviously need a bit more instructions about how we got the Old and New Testaments other than the slanted, Rome first drivel you have been reading. Here are but a few places to help you understand better the wonderful gift of Divine revelation we have and how we got it:
Oral Traditions and the Gospels
Really great post!
Correct Eagle. I keep saying, however, that when you say faith in Christ, I know EXACTLY what you mean. When religious cult members say faith in Christ, it does not mean the same thing to him, as it does to you. It is called cult-speak. The Mormons and JWs are notorious for it, but others, who will remain unnamed, are guilty of it too.
“.....first sent their Divinely-inspired contributions to some Pope in Rome and then waited around to find out if they would be received or not? Where are you getting these strange ideas from?”
Pure idiocy. Words just don’t float in the air. There is something called the received oral tradition. This is why all Gospels are not identical. There are variations including the omissions of several scenes. Not all oral communications were written. John makes this abundantly clear in no uncertain terms that even superficial literalists- so called “Bible” Christians can understand:
“But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.”(Douay-Rheims Bible)
Apparently even this clear as a bell language goes over the heads of Bible Christians.
Divine authority was needed to sort out which tracts to include and which to exclude and which oral traditions were best reflected in sacred liturgy and practice.
You cite fundamentalist links that even renowned Protestant and Evangelical theologians have since decamped from as being historically inaccurate. And these are individuals who have spent a lifetime researching, authoring books, and teaching. Not the simpletons like your corner street self-appointed pastors or simpletons like the Rev. Billy Grahams; Rev. Schullers, Rev. Jeremiah Wrights, and the Joel Osteens of this world.
The historical and scriptural basis for Petrine authority has been the subject of intense scrutiny by colleges and universities around the world for hundreds of years. Scores of scholarly articles and books have been written on the subject. Apparently for “Bible-only” Christians this all goes over their heads.
So without further ado let me refer you to just one impeccable source that both Catholics and other Christian denominations often cite as authority. You might try reading this carefully since the author was a close friend of some of the apostles of Christ. His name is Irenaeus. I trust you have at least heard of him.
“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that Church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” ( Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).
And then there is Hermas and Ignatius of Antioch.
Hermas
“Therefore shall you [Hermas] write two little books and send one to Clement [Bishop of Rome] and one to Grapte. Clement shall then send it to the cities abroad, because that is his duty” (The Shepherd 2:4:3 [A.D. 80]).
Ignatius of Antioch
“Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father” (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).
“You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force” (ibid., 3:1).
Once you come unhinged of Petrine authority, you have the foamy froth of interpretations from David Koresh to Jim Jones to all the vapid rot spawned by the curse of the Reformation.
Thankfully, leading Protestant scholars like the late Lutheran Rev. Richard Neuhaus and others have come to realize this. Or Ulf Ekman of the largest Evangelical Church in Sweden who announced the he and his wife, Birgitta, were converting to Roman Catholicism.
These folks have had enough of swimming in the shallow nonsense of Non-Catholic Christianity.
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.