Posted on 03/29/2015 4:16:53 PM PDT by NYer
Actually it is a true statement. We have no record in the Word of anyone praying to Mary or asking Mary to intercede on their behalf for their salvation.
Roman catholicism has taken John 2:5 so far out of context and has built a complete Maryiologial theology out of the text in question.
We have no writings accepted by the early church and declared as canon that show Mary is someone we are to pray to or rely upon for our salvation or that she was immaculately conceived or remained a virgin. None. All were rejected.
Why?
Because the early church rejected these as they knew they were not true.
In Acts we see the Holy Spirit moving and guiding the disciples. We see the Holy Spirit acting this way in a number of passages.
We have NO recorded passages of Mary acting in this way or any of the NT writers noting they discussed anything with Mary or prayed to her for direction.
My point is that we can go straight to God and ask Him what it is He wants us to do. He is far more capable of handling all of these requests than Mary.
Again, we have no Scriptural support for the Holy Spirit directing us to pray to anyone other than Jesus or God.
Confession is not what heals....belief in Christ is what heals.
How do you know? Seriously how do you know? And before you make the stock prot answer of: "The Bible never mentions....." There is a lot things the Bible never mentions, Like how many pairs of Sandals did Paul have? What color were Peter's eyes? How tall was Stephen? etc...
Ah yes....the catholic cart blanch card...if it's not in the Word, then it must be ok!
Is the Book of Mormon as a source of truth ok?? The Koran??
Why do you need to be a self-rightious party-pooper? As Thumper said, "If you can't say anything nice, then don't say anything at all."
Guess you probably wouldn't want to invite Paul to many parties either....he seemed to have been a "self-righteous party pooper" also.
“Early church rejected these” ... Really? Usually it takes several years for someone to study the extant writings of the early Church Fathers. If you were making an unfounded assertion (I never do =), well ... it’s never too late to see what they really said at:
http://www.ccel.org/fathers.html
Hence the problem with the roman catholic church....
no confidence that the Word is authoritative and final,
no confidence that the blood of Jesus is sufficient for our sins or in statements by Jesus that He desires the disciples and those who hear their word to be where He is,
no confidence in the statements by Jesus, Paul, Peter, the writers of Genesis and Hebrews, that faith/belief in Jesus is what saves us....not works.
Now why would anyone want to join an organization that didn't support or stand for that?
... Really? Usually it takes several years for someone to study the extant writings of the early Church Fathers. If you were making an unfounded assertion (I never do =), well ... it’s never too late to see what they really said at: http://www.ccel.org/fathers.html
Nice attempt at cutting and pasting to distort what I actually said...something I've notice catholics are very, very good at doing....but for the record, this is the lead in statement for context.
>We have no writings accepted by the early church and declared as canon that show Mary is someone we are to pray to or rely upon for our salvation or that she was immaculately conceived or remained a virgin. None. All were rejected.<
Why?
Because the early church rejected these as they knew they were not true.
Oh, btw....if you actually read these you'll see they're all over the place on issues near and dear to catholicism.
I think this distortion started sometime before the second council of Nicea, but it did not reach official ‘Mary as goddess’ until the mid-1990’s.
No, it is not.
It is a statement about something which is impossible to know today.
The Bible contains just a minuscule fraction of what all those individuals said in their lifetimes (to Mary, or to anyone else), so nobody on earth today can possibly know what they did or did not say throughout their earthly lives. Most of what they said in their lifetimes is not recorded in the Bible.
In addition to that, most of the prayers those people prayed in their lifetimes is not recorded in the Bible either.
For a person to make a claim one way or the other about those matters is completely unverifiable, foolish and ridiculous, and should be assiduously avoided, as it is not founded on truth, but only on frivolous speculation.
This statement sums up the opinion of the catholic church on their position on mary
With Christianity we do have a written record to rely upon. John noted the written record was given for a reason.
(By the way, the written record for Christianity came from the Catholic Church, as God chose to have it. If you have a problem with that sovereign choice, take it up with God.)
Goodnight to all.
Whoa....hold on there....did it come from God or the catholic church? Your statement is a bit vague.
You will never hear Christians make this claim. We know that it was God moving men through the Holy Spirit to write the Word and to give us the Word.
But let's pretend for discussion sake your statement is correct.....interesting no books were included on the subject of mary as how the catholic church understands her.
The roman catholic church had another chance at Trent to include these books with the false teachings of mary, but chose not to. That is telling.
If you have a problem with that sovereign choice, take it up with God.) Goodnight to all.
Nope....just trying to address your questions. If that's changing the subject in catholicism's world so be it.
Is making up history a regular pastime of yours, or do you just dabble in it on occasion?
Cogitate on this for awhile: the earliest known prayer to Mary that is physically extant today is the prayer "Sub tuum praesidium," which exists on an Egyptian papyrus from the third century. That's before Christianity was legalized under Constantine.
St. Ephrem of Syria wrote in the "Nisibene Hymns": "Certainly You alone and your mother are from every aspect completely beautiful for there is no blemish in Thee, my Lord, and no stain in Thy mother". That dates from the 4th century.
There are many, many, many other examples.
All of the Marian dogmata are in Scripture as it currently stands. No “extra books” are necessary. You simply aren’t reading or understanding Scripture correctly.
1.2 billion people are not all cradle Catholics. We have converts, even reverts. And Mary is an integral part of Catholicism. To Jesus, through Mary!
18 years of Jesus’ life are not recorded in Scripture. Common sense would tell one that the Son of God, although not yet in His public ministry must have said or done at least one remarkable thing. Is it in the Bible? No. But Jesus did not live in a cocoon, or suspended animation all those years. Think about it: He had to be the best-behaved kid in the village, being incapable of sin. He grew in stature in the eyes of God and men, did He not?
As a prophet, He was not accepted in His own country, a statement which He chose as a generalization for the Prophets, not just Himself. If it’s not in the Bible, them it didn’t happen? I don’t think so.
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.