Posted on 08/17/2015 6:07:35 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
Being a good Jewish woman, Elizabeth would never have dared to utter the tetragrammaton in full. She said Adonai, which translates Kyrios.
So if your priest comes along and says you must stand on your head to be saved.....you gonna believe it?
Without Scripture you have no way to determine if what is being said is true or not regarding salvation.
“You’re attempting to read something into the text that’s not there.”
Nope. Even Protestants get this: “Elisabeth confessed faith already in the person of Jesus, for she noted that Mary bore the God-man (mother of my Lord).” Footnote in The Reformation Heritage KJV Study Bible for Luke 1:43.
It’s only the usual anti-Catholics who don’t get this.
It was priests who told you what books make up the Bible. Or does yours have an apostle-authored Table of Contents?
You might want to check your translation. She said Kyriou...specifically, "mother of the Lord of me"
Later in verse 47 Mary does use Theo (God)....does this make Mary not a good Jewish girl??
If you check, there are 1,327 occurances of the use of God or a derivative of in the NT.
Zacharias also used God in his prophecy in Luke 1:68 and 78.
Chapter and verse where Scripture says to throw out a portion of the Old Testament and to rely exclusively in personal interpretations of what isn’t thrown out.
Mary is the BEST Jewish girl ever.
Now, how about some answers to my questions in #168? Got anything?
Now, how about you explain why catholics continue to persist is asserting this is true when catholic sources admit there is no biblical support for this false teaching??
You will not find the word priest in the NT as used in connection with the NT church. So your argument falls apart.
You better watch out for the Klingons.
There’s no ambiguity involved.
Mary is the mother of Jesus.
Jesus is God, the Second Person of the Trinity.
Mary is the mother of God, the Second Person of the Trinity.
It makes you look like you're attempting to bait people.
Are you looking for a reason to run to the RM again as you like to do??
There is plenty of biblical support for those who aren’t willfully blind.
Nor is biblical support necessary, as I’ve explained.
How can you place your faith in the bible, but refuse to believe in the Church that gave it to you? That is irrational.
Since you like to believe sacred texts in a vacuum, why aren’t you muslim? Why aren’t you Mormon?
To insist on the bible as the sole source of faith is unbiblical. How do you live with this contradiction?
So now this version of the Bible is acceptable to you?
Catholics never cease to amaze when you like to accept ECFs, Luther, etc. One day they're in....next day they're out.
Bottom line....you're reading something in the text that is not there.
How many natures does Jesus have? How many wills?
I thought you claimed to know him. So tell me.
Is it possible to be Christian without the Bible? How would you do that?
The Church never gave man, the Bible.
Those who seek to usurp authority from God, claim they have inherited authority directly from Him and nobody else can have fellowship with Him except through them.
Such is not the Gospel.
God provides His Word to man and has given us Scripture to understand Him more directly through faith alone in Christ alone.
So you’re saying your faith is mediated through the Scriptures?
If the Church didn’t compile the Bible, where does it come from? Is it self-authenticating?
The Immaculate Conception from catholic encyclopedia online:(http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=6056)
No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture.
You are in disagreement with Catholicism's own admission on this topic.
Nor is biblical support necessary, as I’ve explained.
How can you place your faith in the bible, but refuse to believe in the Church that gave it to you? That is irrational.
The early NT church did yes....not the roman catholic church as there is no evidence of the rcc in the New Testament.
Since you like to believe sacred texts in a vacuum, why aren’t you muslim? Why aren’t you Mormon?
To insist on the bible as the sole source of faith is unbiblical. How do you live with this contradiction?
Jesus often said, "it is written". The Bereans searched the Scriptures to confirm what they were hearing is truth. John wrote in two places he had written down information so we'd know it was true. There is ample evidence of relying upon the written Word in both Old and New Testaments.
Do you even know why the early church put the NT canon together? One of the reasons was false teaching that was creeping into the church through such writings as the Protoevangelum of James (145 AD). You may be familiar with this writing. It was the earliest to talk about Mary being a perpetual virgin.
That the rcc has never included this as part of the canon, even though they had a chance at Trent, should tell you all you need to know about this book.
Same with the Didache. Never included.
Same with Clement....never included.
Perhaps it is you who should be the Mormon....they don't rely upon the Bible as their sole source of authority either. Perhaps you'd like to start using the Book of Mormon....maybe the Koran....maybe Hindu teachings....maybe something from the Church of Oprah??
Wrong question....would you know Christ without the Bible?
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.