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.
The war(s) between the denominations is mostly feckless ‘gotcha.’
All of the organized denominations are chock full of error, as witnessed by Yeshua’s letters to the seven churches. Only the church at Philadelphia was praised for retaining the first principles, and promised to be protected from Satan’s great tribulation.
.
Thanks! I forgot about that! Old age sinking in! : )
I posted a picture of Olive for you but it disappeared!
Doesn’t make sense why it would be removed.
What does your tagline translate to?
In the RF, foreign languages need to be translated.
Glory to God in the highest!
: )
Absolutely nothing. Scripture does not record one word of what you are speculating.
Besides, Jesus is the one who redeemed us. He is the one who died for us.
He is the One we answer to at the Judgment Seat of Christ for what we did on this earth.
And if Catholics want to use the criteria of Jesus teachings as the basis for that evaluation, He never mentioned one word about anyone relating to Mary, so there's no reason to think that it would even come up.
Additionally, it's the work of the Holy Spirit in our lives that produces the fruit of righteousness. Mary cannot do the work of preparing us for her Son. She is not God and only HE can work in our hearts. She does not have that ability.
Yeah, well it did with the kids when they were young.
Not so much any more.
"Faith, for all defects supplying, where the feeble senses fail."
Thanks, and God bless!
Do you think that Free Republic is "anti-Catholic" because on OPEN Religion Forum threads the views of non-Catholics are allowed to be expressed? Have you ever looked at who posts the MAJORITY of the Religion Forum threads? It's your fellow Catholics, some of them are blatantly anti-Protestant. The Religion Moderator does a good job of policing these forums and admonishing Freepers who disobey the rules. I hope you are seeing that "making it personal" comments come from BOTH sides. That "bias" you claim to see is awfully one-sided. As is often recommended by the RM, those who cannot countenance opposition to their religious views should probably NOT read OPEN RF threads.
No. It just seems that way because of the anti-Catholic squatters who church it on the religion forum on a daily basis. Whose form of Christian fellowship is to mock fellow Christians in posts to one another.
Maybe that's to be expected. Most of the inhabitants of the RF are elderly, retired, maybe house-bound. It sure would explain a great many things. Particularly the intransigence found in the protestant contingent along with the devolution of human decency that is normally found in the elderly as they revert to childish antics.
I noticed you brought up that "who posts the most..." argument again. I also noticed you never did respond to what I had to say on the matter. Specifically that the majority of threads posted by Catholics are responsorial in addressing the claims of Protestants, i.e., "Why we don't worship Mary" etc. It's interesting that a protestant would view Catholics trying to defend their faith as anti-Protestant.
Perhaps if being a protestant didn't involve the negative proposition of being anti-Catholic it wouldn't be an issue but unfortunately it is. The inevitable consequence of having a theology that isn't so much for something, but against something else.
Twink: I understand what you're saying. Don't be disheartened by the vile actions of others.
In the first 200 years of Christianity, the Catholic church (the only church) had gone through 15 Popes....and Catholics are Christian..the ONLY true and COMPLETE form of Christianity on Earth.
That is a well written summary of the issue and this thread is an example. The heart of the matter are religious movements whose perceived legitimacy depends on a rejection of all things Catholic.
While the true church hadn't had a single Pontifex Maximus.
Requiring it to be believed for salvation contradicts the scripture.
Except, St. James did NOT write "you are not saved by faith alone" anywhere in Scripture. The context of James chapter 2 is all about demonstrating genuine faith to the world. God knows if our faith is real, people can only see it by what we do. You cannot cancel out all the dozens of OTHER Scripture passages that clearly teach we ARE justified by faith apart from our works by misusing ONE partial verse.
WRT the Eucharist,when Christ held up the bread,
And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me." (Luke 22:19)
Do you really think the Apostles all knew he meant his body was bread? Or did they understand it was a metaphor? Did Jesus really NEED to explain it to them seeing as he was pre-crucifixion and standing whole right in front of them? Like the misquote of James, many Catholics presume much that is not Scriptural and they, in turn, lose the meaning of God's word.
=============================================================
I believe you were responding to my post. (I'm "Heart-Rest".) :-)
I did not say it was a Protestant invention. (Read my post #2606 again!) I said it was not in the oldest Greek manuscripts, and that most biblical scholars today (both Catholic and Protestant) believe it was added later by a "copyist", then propagated through a number of subsequent copies by other copyists as well, but that it was definitely not in the oldest manuscripts we have of the Gospel of Matthew (just like it is not in the Lord's Prayer in the Gospel of Luke), but was added later for liturgical reasons, following the custom of the time to add a "Doxology" like that to the end of vocal, liturgical prayers.
That's the simple truth.
Everything that the Catholic church teaches is correct and the Baptist church agrees with almost all of it. Visit your local Catholic church some Sunday morning, sit in the back and just observe what goes on....it is usually quite painless and you would see what 1,300,000,000 people know is the true Christian church...you would be impressed, I guarantee....and you don't even have to put money on the offering basket!!!
=============================================================
No, xzins, two of those links in my post #2604 are to major Methodist links, maintained by Methodists. If you disagree with them, you are disagreeing with Methodists (including the largest Methodist organization in the United States, the "United Methodist Church" on their main web site). If anyone is in error about that, it is those Methodists (but they are not in error about that -- they are actually correct).
=============================================================
CynicalBear, in my post #2606, I was responding to you and what you said in your post #2306, not to terycarl's post.
You are constantly making reference to the Bible Hub web site as an authoritative source, and if you look at the "Bible Hub" page for Matthew 6:13 ("http://biblehub.com/matthew/6-13.htm"), you will notice that in the majority of English translations they use there, that "Doxology" is not included. (Count them for yourself.)
Furthermore, that same page for that Bible text on Bible Hub says the following at the conclusion of that page:
------------------------------------------------------------
"For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen—If any reliance is to be placed on external evidence, this doxology, we think, can hardly be considered part of the original text. It is wanting in all the most ancient manuscripts; it is wanting in the Old Latin version and in the Vulgate: the former mounting up to about the middle of the second century, and the latter being a revision of it in the fourth century by Jerome, a most reverential and conservative as well as able and impartial critic. As might be expected from this, it is passed by in silence by the earliest Latin fathers; but even the Greek commentators, when expounding this prayer, pass by the doxology. On the other hand, it is found in a majority of manuscripts, though not the oldest; it is found in all the Syriac versions, even the Peschito—dating probably as early as the second century—although this version lacks the "Amen," which the doxology, if genuine, could hardly have wanted; it is found in the Sahidic or Thebaic version made for the Christians of Upper Egypt, possibly as early as the Old Latin; and it is found in perhaps most of the later versions. On a review of the evidence, the strong probability, we think, is that it was no part of the original text. "------------------------------------------------------------
=============================================================
What you are referring to as "word games" is what is in reality the simple truth. It is always better to learn the truth, and not try to hide from it or deny 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.