Is Prayer/Veneration/Worship to Mary Biblical?

self | 12-14-14 | ealgeone

[af_vet_1981]

And what are we left with? That the Ecclesia, like Israel before them, had arrived at an informal consensus, by faith, that certain books were Scripture, well before any councils had so decided; that this consensus developed as a result of the Holy Spirit working amongst all believers everywhere, the truly universal church, or better, Ecclesia; that those today who wish to know and interact with the revelation of the mind and heart of God may do so in the pages of Scripture; that God has given us natural and supernatural gifts which we are obligated to use to apprehend His word to us, which gifts culminate in a private act of faith, that we believe God and His word, and choose to live by it, no matter where it leads; that in the exercise of this necessary private judgment, we are but clay, and prone to error, and so must lean on God's Holy Spirit and on each other to remain honest and faithful stewards of His word.

1. No. I still believe what Messiah said, that He would build His church ( now we can speak Greek if you insist, or Hebrew, but the other readers my not really speak in, or interpret, other tongues) upon Peter and the gates of hell would not prevail against it.
   That leaves three options, and any assembly from the Protestant Reformation is excluded.
   1. Catholic churches
   2. Other Orthodox churches
   3. Independent Fundamental Baptist churches that trace their pedigree to the Apostles (some of them believe it)
2. Messiah promised a Church, not a Bible.
3. Why do Protestants fail to produce a complete, error free, authentic, uniform Bible from original manuscripts ? Why are you not standing by the Textus Receptus/ King James Version as the only Bible for the English speaking world ?
4. Although there are thousands more denominations, sects, faith groups, and movements that continue to spring up I find they never solve the problem. It is as if deep down inside they know there is an authentic Church but continually stumble trying to reform and recreate it. The same occurs with new Bible translations and pseudo translations.
5. I checked. " The Ecclesia Church" is already claimed.

[af_vet_1981]

Do you really think that the miracle of transubstantiation was too much for Christ to handle????????

That is a very good question, and especially so in the present tense.

[terycarl]

The “catholic” church began in the ad250 time frame. Paul was converted to Christ - not a church.

The Catholic church began when Christ said to Peter, upon this rock I will build my church. By the year 254, the Catholic church had gone through 22 popes., indeed,Paul was converted to Christ and along with Peter, became the foundation for the Catholic church....there is reference to the church as Catholic as early as the end of the first century.....but the official name is not important, it was the group, consisting of Christ and His Apostles which became known as Catholic and just when is irrelevant

[Mark17]

Well, I guess you two have been warned. Are you ready to repent form your evil born again Christian beliefs?

:-)

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Hey, it’s a start...
“The Catholic church began when Christ said to Peter, upon this rock I will build my church.”

Christ didn’t say church, He said gathering.
No evidence that it was the Catholic Church, as it exists today.

“By the year 254, the Catholic church had gone through 22 popes., “

Pope is not a Biblical office of the Christian Church. All offices are listed in the NT Epistles and pope isn’t there.

“indeed,Paul was converted to Christ and along with Peter, became the foundation for the Catholic church....”

The Apostles formed the foundation of the Christian Church.

“there is reference to the church as Catholic as early as the end of the first century..”

Catholic, meaning universal. Two and a half centuries later - about the time the Catholic Church (fully incorporating pagan syncretism) became established.

“but the official name is not important, it was the group, consisting of Christ and His Apostles which became known as Catholic and just when is irrelevant”

Unfortunately, as the church drifted into error, it came to power in Rome. It continued downhill from there. Fortunately, God has always reserved for Himself true believers. Praise to God.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

I decided long ago in life that just because a dog barks at me, I don’t have to take it personally. It works with other upset drivers too.

[Mark17]

I decided long ago in life that just because a dog barks at me, I don’t have to take it personally. It works with other upset drivers too.

Roger that. (a little air traffic control lingo there)

:-)

[terycarl]

When I was growing up, I only knew 3 catholic families and we never talked about their beliefs. I am amazed at the junk they believe when they should be reading the Bible. I have learned a lot on these threads. Thanks y’all. Happy, Blessed New Year.When I was growing up, I only knew 3 catholic families and we never talked about their beliefs. I am amazed at the junk they believe when they should be reading the Bible. I have learned a lot on these threads. Thanks y’all. Happy, Blessed New Year.

MamaB, I respect everyone's opinion on this thread, but I am amazed how anyone could ignore over 2,000 years of history, many of the most dedicated and learned people who have ever walked the face of the Earth, read a book that THEY wrote, and come to your own conclusions as to what it meant....mind boggling to say the least.

[caww]

It's not about the color silly....

[metmom]

Top 10 Most Wicked Popes

http://listverse.com/2007/08/17/top-10-most-wicked-popes/

1. Liberius, reigned 352-66 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
2. Honorius I, reigned 625-638 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
3. Stephen VI, reigned 896-89 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
4. John XII, reigned 955-964 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
5. Benedict IX, reigned 1032-1048 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
6. Boniface VIII, reigned 1294-1303 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
7. Urban VI, reigned 1378-1389 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
8. Alexander VI, reigned 1492-1503 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
9. Leo X, reigned 1513-1521 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
10. Clement VII, reigned 1523-1524 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]

Top 10 Worst Popes in History

http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-worst-popes-in-history.php

1. Pope Alexander VI (1431 – 1503)
2. Pope John XII (c. 937 – 964)
3. Pope Benedict IX (c. 1012 – 1065/85)
4. Pope Sergius III (? – 911)
5. Pope Stephen VI (? – 897)
6. Pope Julius III (1487 – 1555)
7. Pope Urban II (ca. 1035 – 1099)
8. Pope Clement VI (1291 – 1352)
9. Pope Leo X (1475 – 1521)
10. Pope Boniface VIII (c. 1235 – 1303)

YOUR pope kissing the koran. Fits right in with YOUR Catechism of the Catholic church.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P29.HTM

841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."330

[metmom]

The only ones ignoring Catholic church history are the Catholics.

The rest of us see it for what it is.

[Mark17]

BTW, I wanted to ask you, when Jesus said, upon this rock I will build my church, I am 100% sure he did not mean Peter, but was He referring to that statement of faith that Peter made, or was He referring to Himself? That is what I think He meant, on Himself, but give me your opinion please.

[terycarl]

Akin claims he isn't using circular logic but he certainly is. He is also using an argument by assertion tactic by claiming things not in evidence. There are also a number of leaps in logic such as his claim that the Roman Catholic church was the church Jesus founded, that this church was "infallible", that this "infallible" church determined God's word was infallible and that without this "infallible" church we wouldn't have God's word or believe in its infallibility. Each one of these can be disproved, and HAVE been often right here.

none of these claims have been, can be, or ever will be, disproved, and certainly not on this thread.

For 2,000 years some of the most educated, learned, dedicated people on Earth compiled scripture, interpreted scripture, hand copied scripture, saved scripture throughout the ages. Now, somehow, we are to ignore them and rely on admittedly good people here on FR to prove them wrong.....If I were a betting man, I'd put some heavy duty bucks on their being right.

[metmom]

Since ampu is our resident Greek scholar, perhaps he could evaluate this for me then.

Peter – rock

Matthew 16:18 - http://bible.cc/matthew/16-18.htm

Jesus said that Peter was *petros*(masculine) and that on this *petra*(feminine) He would build His church.

Greek: 4074 Pétros (a masculine noun) – properly, a stone (pebble), such as a small rock found along a pathway. 4074 /Pétros (”small stone”) then stands in contrast to 4073 /pétra (”cliff, boulder,” Abbott-Smith).

“4074 (Pétros) is an isolated rock and 4073 (pétra) is a cliff” (TDNT, 3, 100). “4074 (Pétros) always means a stone . . . such as a man may throw, . . . versus 4073 (pétra), a projecting rock, cliff” (S. Zodhiates, Dict).

4073 pétra (a feminine noun) – “a mass of connected rock,” which is distinct from 4074 (Pétros) which is “a detached stone or boulder” (A-S). 4073 (pétra) is a “solid or native rock, rising up through the earth” (Souter) – a huge mass of rock (a boulder), such as a projecting cliff.

4073 (petra) is “a projecting rock, cliff (feminine noun) . . . 4074 (petros, the masculine form) however is a stone . . . such as a man might throw” (S. Zodhiates, Dict).

It’s also a strange way to word the sentence that He would call Peter a rock and say that on this I will build my church instead of *on you* as would be grammatically correct in talking to a person.

There is no support from the original Greek that Peter was to be the rock on which Jesus said he would build His church. The nouns are not the same, one being masculine and the other being feminine. They denote different objects.

Also, here, Paul identifies who petra is, and that is Christ. This link takes you to the Greek.

http://biblehub.com/text/1_corinthians/10-4.htm

1 Corinthians 10:1-4 For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ.

http://biblehub.com/text/romans/9-33.htm

Romans 9:30-33 What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, as it is written, “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock (petra) of offense; and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”

http://biblehub.com/text/1_peter/2-8.htm

1 Peter 2:1-8 So put away all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander. Like newborn infants, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up into salvation— if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good.

As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For it stands in Scripture: “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”

So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe,

“The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone,”

and

“A stone of stumbling, and a rock (petra) of offense.”

They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.

All occurrences of *petra* in the Greek.

http://biblehub.com/greek/strongs_4073.htm

[aMorePerfectUnion]

I believe Christ is referring to Himself. He is the cornerstone of the Church. The whole Peter/Pope nonsense developed later in history, like so much of Catholicism.

[caww]

Happy New YEar...a day late! :)

[Springfield Reformer]

Well, I guess you two have been warned. Are you ready to repent form your evil born again Christian beliefs?

It's like Polycarp said (and I paraphrase),  I'll repent of anything bad, but if you think I'm going to repent of something so good as my King and Savior, forget about it.

:)

Peace,

SR

[MamaB]

I do not need catholic input on what the Bible says. It is very understandable. I have had wonderful pastors over the past 70 years. I accepted Christ as an elementary school student. We had many wonderful men of God who stayed with us or visited over the years. What I have learned about Catholic beliefs is hard to believe. I have seen them pray to Mary and then people on here deny it. I have seen them bow to statues, etc when the Bible clearly teaches otherwise. My dad knew the Bible and I loved listening to him and the ministers who stayed with us or friends of my parents who visited. Catholics did not write the Bible, btw. When I was growing up, we went to church on Sunday morning, night and Wednesday night. Then when different churches had revivals, we attended those, too. I grew up in a small town and family frends/relatives invited us. One thing they all had in common was teaching directly from the Bible

[terycarl]

To blindly neglect their own well being and expect an army of Angels to descend to defend them would be a little over the top. Says one of the guys who trust wholeheartedly in RELICS.

I would place more reliance on a relic than expect an army of angels to save the U.S. if Obama eliminated our nuclear arsenal.....give me Paul's handkerchief any day...

[MamaB]

I would rely on Jesus not a piece of cloth.