Posted on 09/16/2017 7:51:35 AM PDT by Raymond Pamintuan
That earth-chant is NOT in any way the Lord’s Prayer! It has the form, but not the substance!!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07xDqFovnT8
Holy smokes. eaglone! It took you 19 whole posts before you made your predictable ignorant smear on Catholicism. You’re slipping!!
Gays run the entertainment industry, and if you want the good roles, you’d better wear that ribbon.
Ariana Grande had the same story: turned from Christ because LGBT is more important to her. Look, if I was in Hollywood, maybe I would have to take up positions I would secretly abhor. But, I would draw the line at publically denouncing the Lord.
I know...it doesn't fully capture the extent of just how far into error he had wondered. There's a whole bunch more of his false teachings that can be produced.
50. Beware, chosen soul, of thinking that it is more perfect to direct your work and intention straight to Jesus or straight to God. Without Mary, your work and your intention will be of little value. But if you go to God through Mary, your work will become Mary's work, and consequently will be most noble and most worthy of God.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/montfort/secret.htm
Again...the above stands in contradiction of Scripture.
In the New Testament Paul writes:
6Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. 7And the peace of God, which surpasses all comprehension, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus. Philippians 4:6-7 NASB
We also have Peter writing:
6Therefore humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God, that He may exalt you at the proper time, 7casting all your anxiety on Him, because He cares for you. 1 Peter 5:6-7
We also have John, who was entrusted with Mary's care, writing:
13These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life. 14This is the confidence which we have before Him, that, if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us. 15And if we know that He hears us in whatever we ask, we know that we have the requests which we have asked from Him. 1 John 5:13-15 NASB
Not once do these writers...or any writer of the NT or Old, direct prayers to Mary or a created being. They are directed to God.
But this focus on Mary seems to reflect how Roman Catholics view God...He is unapproachable by them for some reason. So they have to go through Mary.
Again...all in contradiction of revealed Scripture.
In Catholic doctrine, Mary is the mediatrix of all graces.
Yes...Christianity is aware of this false teaching of Roman Catholicism which stands in contradiction of Scripture.
5For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time. 1 Timothy 2:5-6 NASB
Mary cannot make this claim no matter how much the Roman Catholic may try.
And that really is the issue when comparing what Rome teaches regarding Mary and what is revealed in Scripture. Rome's teachings stand in contradiction of Scripture.
>Make no mistake: it’s on her for adopting the views they demanded she adopt.
On the other hand, if she didn’t adopt them, she’d probably have been buried, or at least persecuted-they’d have made her life an Islamic Republic
Agree completely, and he seems like an arrogant jerk to boot.
Literal Bible Christianity is a fraud as leading Protestant theologians and scholars have long found out.
Not sure what you mean by literal.
But I see you cannot refute the contradictions between Roman Catholicism and Scripture.
Question: "Can / Should we interpret the Bible as literal?"
Answer: Not only can we take the Bible literally, but we must take the Bible literally. This is the only way to determine what God really is trying to communicate to us. When we read any piece of literature, but especially the Bible, we must determine what the author intended to communicate. Many today will read a verse or passage of Scripture and then give their own definitions to the words, phrases, or paragraphs, ignoring the context and author’s intent. But this is not what God intended, which is why God tells us to correctly handle the Word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15).
One reason we should take the Bible literally is because the Lord Jesus Christ took it literally. Whenever the Lord Jesus quoted from the Old Testament, it was always clear that He believed in its literal interpretation. As an example, when Jesus was tempted by Satan in Luke 4, He answered by quoting the Old Testament. If God’s commands in Deuteronomy 8:3, 6:13, and 6:16 were not literal, Jesus would not have used them and they would have been powerless to stop Satan’s mouth, which they certainly did.
The disciples also took the commands of Christ (which are part of the Bible) literally. Jesus commanded the disciples to go and make more disciples in Matthew 28:19-20. In Acts 2 and following, we find that the disciples took Jesus' command literally and went throughout the known world of that time preaching the gospel of Christ and telling them to "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved” (Acts 16:31). Just as the disciples took Jesus’ words literally, so must we. How else can we be sure of our salvation if we do not believe Him when He says He came to seek and save the lost (Luke 19:10), pay the penalty for our sin (Matthew 26:28), and provide eternal life (John 6:54)?
Although we take the Bible literally, there are still figures of speech within its pages. An example of a figure of speech would be that if someone said "it is raining cats and dogs outside," you would know that they did not really mean that cats and dogs were falling from the sky. They would mean it is raining really hard. There are figures of speech in the Bible which are not to be taken literally, but those are obvious. (See Psalm 17:8 for example.)
Finally, when we make ourselves the final arbiters of which parts of the Bible are to be interpreted literally, we elevate ourselves above God. Who is to say, then, that one person’s interpretation of a biblical event or truth is any more or less valid than another’s? The confusion and distortions that would inevitably result from such a system would essentially render the Scriptures null and void. The Bible is God’s Word to us and He meant it to be believed—literally and completely.
https://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-literal.html
“Not much is known about the new film “Mother!”
Since this is the 5th or 6th thread about the movie, I would bet that’s not true.
Plus the LA Crimes ran two Calendar section front page stories on it Friday. We are publicizing this movie and making it money.
maybe you can borrow a search engine
Thank you for your suggestion. I discovered that I have not seen any of the movies she has been in.
Before the Bible, there was the oral tradition, and the Church. The Church alone got the divine authority to sort out the true word of God over three centuries. Why don’t you simply take the Evangelist John at his word, and instead of trying tp play internet theologian, when all your leading Protestant theologians have studied and taught the Bible for years and have seen the light and converted to Catholicism? Are they and John all wrong?
John: 21-25 “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.”
You seem to have dismissed the OT.
The Church alone got the divine authority to sort out the true word of God over three centuries. Suggest you read F.F. Bruce's The Canon of Scripture for how the NT was decided.
Why don’t you simply take the Evangelist John at his word, and instead of trying tp play internet theologian, when all your leading Protestant theologians have studied and taught the Bible for years and have seen the light and converted to Catholicism?
Erroneous and error filled statement on your part....all leading Protestant theologians have converted to Catholicism.
No one has denied there was oral teaching. What is denied is Rome's interpretation of this teaching.
Despite being asked many times, Rome cannot provide us with an authoritative listing of what this oral teaching was.
Christianity can point out what it is not though.
And I see you still cannot refute the contradictions between Roman Catholicism and Scripture on Mary as you've now moved the goalposts to shift the conversation to how we got the NT.
The Bible is the “selected” words of God that made itself into print. The Church “interpreted” what was true and untrue from hundreds and hundreds of manuscripts and papyrus fragments.
This interpretation was inspired by Divine guidance did not vanish after the first 1300 years with heretical Lutheranism that opened the door to the Billy Grahams; Joel Osteens; Jeremiah Wrights, and everybody’s grandmother and neighborhood self-appointed pastor to crack open the Bible, overlook the oral tradition as mentioned by John the Evangelist; and instead offer their own “individual” reading of literal text as being authentic interpretation.
This is the stuff that is fed to low-information Protestants, while leading Protestant theologians, scholars, teachers, and preachers have after years and a lifetime of study discarded this rot, and have converted to Catholicism.
Are you prepared to say every message by every priest every service has been approved by Rome and is identical?
Are you prepared to say every Catholic Bible study (if y'all have those) has been approved by Rome?
Didn't think so. We see the differences in Catholic beliefs on these very threads.
Why do these Hollywood hypocrites lecture us on the fragile ecology of the planet and then take private jets and huge private yachts everywhere and anywhere?
What bullshit artists!
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.