Posted on 12/05/2010 6:14:57 PM PST by RnMomof7
Abbreviations for books of the Bible1
Chicago Manual of Style
http://hbl.gcc.edu/abbreviationsCHICAGO.htm
Abbreviation:
James or Jas
Book:
James
Listen, I know that everyone is going to have a different opinion on this subject matter, but please be respectful to the Holy Mother Mary, she does not deserve any disrespect.
No. Just the church. The body of believers of all time. Not one specific denomination or membership in it.
If she didn't sin, she didn't need to be saved from anything.
If Mary was saved from sin before she ever sinned,then she had no sin to need to be saved from.
The reasoning just doesn't work.
The CATHOLIC CHURCH is not a denomination.
You belong to a denomination. All early Christians were Catholic. You may wish that weren’t so but your opinion does not change the facts.
As Blessed John Cardinal Newman said: To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.
For instance, "Are you a heretic?" is not making it personal. But "You are a heretic" is making it personal.
Can’t you guys grow up?
Are any of you perfect that you can afford to throw the first stone at Rnmom?
She’s not even wrong, just different and yet here you are telling her that she is and castigating her for it.
Why does it bother you so much that someone does something different than you? Is that what Catholicism teaches? To harangue people who do something different?
Tell me, is it really hard to be so perfect in such an imperfect world?
Between this and other attacks on RNmom (like definitions of words), Catholics really demonstrate how to make a mountain out of a mole hill.
All Catholics. Insulting Catholics and spreading falsehoods is a very popular past time for some here. The more outrageous the lies the more Christian they believe themselves to be. They must not know of
DEATH, JUDGMENT, HEAVEN AND HELL.
I not clear on your post - are you saying that Scripture doesn’t belong somehow?
Ahh cupcake. Why would we question what the Church teaches as dogma when we believe it is the fullness of Truth revealed by God. Such Truth is contained in the Word of God which is the written Scripture and the apostolic Tradition.
Are you allowed to question the Bible? Can you say you do not believe Christ healed the lepers? Why not. Are you in thrall to mind controling preachers? You poor, poor dear.
Please cite the scripture where YHvH absolved Miriam of Original Sin.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
But you are claiming to know what the doctrine says. You have been corrected several times. It states Mary was saved by Christ. To keep insisting it reads otherwise is nothing but a deliberate provocation. The persistent spreading of falsehoods in order to advance your anti Catholic prejudices is not going to be tolerated by people of good character.
Mary was not an eternal virgin. Not in the Bible? Toss it out! The Bible says Jesus had brothers. He was not an only child.
John 19: 25thru 17
25”
Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.
26
When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!”
27
Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!” And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home.”
I think it is natural to assume that if Jesus had younger brothers and sisters, tradition would demand that the mother would have been taken care of by her own children, and it would have been their right and responsibility to care for her.
In other words if mary would have had other children Jesus would have not had any reason to have done that.
John 7
1
After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him.
2
Now the Jews’ feast of tabernacles was at hand.
3
His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest.
4
For [there is] no man [that] doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world.
5
For neither did his brethren believe in him.
Doe,s that sound like younger brothers? would a younger brother urge an older brother to go some where that might get him killed?
These brothers did not look up to Jesus as a younger brother would, which makes me believe they were older step brothers or cousins.
And you are right, at that time his mother and brethren were just like all of the other unbelievers.
Matthew 12:46-50 (King James Version)
46
While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.
47
Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.
48
But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?
49
And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
50
For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.
Jesus had to die on the cross for his mother as for every one else.
If in fact they had believed in him they would not have been
outside.
I don’t normally hang around these threads, but I can’t believe the blatant LIES being told about what RNMom ACTUALLY said.
If I didn’t know better, I’d think that Catholics thought lying was acceptable.
In addition it clearly demonstrates that the followers
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
of the ROMAN "church" do not know Yah'shua and
his lovingkindness.
|
|
Well, i stopped after 237 posts were made in about 2 hours. I would not consider the posted subject to really be a matter of salvation, but behind it is the foundational issue of authority, that of the only objective source which is affirmed to be wholly inspired by God, (2Tim. 3:16) separated from the rest of tradition which class it is part of, versus an assuredly infallible magisterium (AIM), it being infallible whenever it speaks in accordance with its infallibly declared formula. Scripture has been employed here by Catholics, but their use of it cannot infer they see it as the means of ascertaining truth, as certainty can only come by implicit trust in the AIM, and by which a superior unity is claimed. That all being another debate, I went through and selected a representative sample from each side out of the many posts i saw, which i will try to place side by side with my brief comments. This also provides some idea of how different poster respond. Some simply reiterate the claims of their faith, or unsubstantiated views, or sometimes with a slew of links, while others provide some Scripture texts, and perhaps ancient testimony, with varying degrees of reasoning and responses, and some respond with indignation, immediately or after some of the preceding. |
||
|
|
Roman Catholic |
Protestant |
Comment |
|
1 |
Luke 1:48 “Because He hath regarded the humility of His Handmaid; for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.” being full of grace allows no room for sin. |
Mary herself offered a guilt offering to the priest. Christs line goes through Rahab The OT is all about CHRIST, not His mother..the ark was a type of CHRIST. |
From what i see only Jn. 1:14 states that Jesus was “full [plērēs, which is used 17 times, all denoting “full”] of grace [charis=grace] The key phrase in Lk. 1:28 simply says “Hail [chairō=rejoice, greeting, etc.] grace [chairō, denoting to be graced, favored, enriched with grace as in Eph.1:6) Robertson’s states that, Vulgate gratiae plena “is right, if it means ‘full of grace which thou hast received’; wrong, if it means ‘full of grace which thou hast to bestow’” (Plummer). As for the underlying argument, see further below. |
|
2 |
Mary was preserved from the stain of original sin by the merits of Jesus Christ. He saved her. |
"All have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God"
|
It is true that “all” is not always inclusive, but many texts state that all men are sinners, and this the Holy Spirit is faithful to state more than once that Jesus did not sin. (Jn. 8:46; 2Cor. 5:21; 1Pt. 2:220 |
|
3 |
Mary was the Ark of the New Covenant -- carrying Christ within her womb. Of course, she was pure and sinless. |
Using that logic, it would be logical to conclude that Mary's mother was sinless as well. We couldn't have the sinless "Ark of the Covenant" be carried in the womb of a sinful human, could we? |
While the typology in this case might be permissible, though it is not mentioned (neither is Joseph in the O.T. as a type of Christ), the logic behind it limits God (below). |
|
4 |
He needed a sinless vessel to bring the Savior |
In Luke 2:47 Mary says “And my Spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.” |
The foundational logic necessitating a sinless vessel is not valid. If the God-breathed word of God came through sinners, then the word made flesh certainty can as well. |
|
5 |
It is commonly understood that the Holy Spirit does not fill those who are still in a state of original sin. . If it is granted that John the Baptist was freed from original sin before birth, it does not follow that he was immaculate, as was the Blessed Virgin Mary. This is firstly because he may have been freed of original sin after his conception and before birth, whereas Mary was preserved from her conception from contracting original sin. |
1 john 1:8-10 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, Actually the Catholic church itself teaches that only Jesus could keep the whole law perfectly..and THAT is a description of sinless:) |
The idea that man is born guilty due to something he did not do is one i do not subscribe to. (2Ki. 14:5-6; 2Chr. 25:4; Jer. 31:29-30; Eze.18:20) Adam;s sin did lead to condemnation, that of his own and his progeny due to man having and yielding to his a sinful nature, (Gn. 4:7) and he also and suffers the temporal effects if Adam's sin, but the final judgment is based upon one's own works. (Rev. 20:12) And one can be filled with their Holy Spirit, which is an aspect of grace, and yet be a sinner. And as argued below, if John the Baptist was made free from sin before birth, then God could have done the same for all. |
|
6 |
So God didn't have the power to absolve her as has been described in Catholic canons? |
If God could have simply absolved Mary's sin, He could do it for everyone. Then there would have been no need for Jesus to die. |
The first part of the Protestant is valid, but God forgave sins prior to Jesus death under the rubric of the final atonement. |
|
7 |
Interesting logic, I guess this means Jesus sinned then right? For is he not part of “All”? |
if Mary was indeed sinless, it would have been very logical to claim her as an exception here, |
And consistent. (see #2),. |
|
8 |
You should be concerned about YOUR salvation since you choose to disparage the Mother of Christ. She is much more active than a lot of other saints. |
Making up stories about her being sinless, immaculately conceived, perpetually virgin, assumed and whatever else their fancy conjures up, and passing them off as truth does no one any favors, |
Not thinking of any man of women beyond what is written is Scriptural. (1Cor. 4:6) The idea that the Bible supports prayers to the departed, or that Mary is capable of or needed to hear prayer is without warrant and is contrary to what is instructed and exampled in the Bible. |
|
9 |
If Mary simple prodding of her son Jesus caused him to do something he originally did not intend to do and yet did it. That is Love for ones Mother and speaks wonders to have Mary petitioning Jesus for you |
Mary's not the only woman who seems to have convince Jesus to do what he had not intended. |
P response is valid, while the idea that we need a heavenly mother is a psychological and not a Biblical one. No insufficiency exists with Christ in terms of access or ability or compassion than would necessitate or advantage praying to heavenly intercessor. |
|
10 |
Hey, if you find happiness by trashing the Mother of Our Lord and Savior, I won’t stand in the way. |
|
|
|
11 |
The Catholic Church herself admits that much of Mariology lacks scriptural support. Fine.”
Really I missed that update |
|
Perhaps "The Catholic Encyclopedia states that there are “no direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture.” is one that was meant. (Frederick G. Holweck, “The Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception,” The Catholic Encyclopedia (1910), vol. 7, p. 242 http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Immaculate_Conception#II._THE_HOLY_SCRIPTURE |
|
12 |
I do not intend to participate in yet another forum established for the sole purpose of giving you a platform for blaspheming the Blessed Virgin and Catholic baiting |
Catholics are bashing God’s Word by their tradition of Mary and all their accolades the RCC bestows on her which are not in Scripture. |
|
|
13 |
They have gone too far and I only appeal to God for mercy on their behalf for I will no longer be party to their sin. |
|
|
|
14 |
The first time I've ever been this ticked off to leave. If I would have been in the same room with you, you'd be in the hospital, and I would be in jail. |
|
|
|
15 |
I’ve got news for you. If you are a baptized Catholic you are still a Catholic even though you may not presently be a practicing one. |
|
Serving two master would provide a false statistic on membership. “If someone lives an unrepentant sinful life and stops going to Mass, etc., this person is technically a de facto apostate, and is no longer really a member of the Catholic Church.” But as often is the case, formally it is not that simple. http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/how_to_stop_being_catholic.htm |
Who are you talking to?
She’s not even wrong, just different and yet here you are telling her that she is and castigating her for it.
Isn't that what the article that started this thread does towards Catholic belief?
Is that what Catholicism teaches? To harangue people who do something different?
The same could be said about all the threads on here criticizing Catholic belief.
Between this and other attacks on RNmom (like definitions of words), Catholics really demonstrate how to make a mountain out of a mole hill.
It wasn't any of the identified Catholics who first corrected her about the abbreviation of James, but geologist.
I don't understand why you're trying to make this about RnMomof7. She has enough experience on the Religion Forum to know that her article would stir up debate, particularly since she posted it three days before the day that Catholics celebrate Mary's Immaculate Conception, the very Catholic doctrine that the article she posted is criticizing.
Explain and provide proof please.
Excellent. Thanks.
Of course, you likely realize that in the Vatican rubberized pseudo 'Bible,' in the verse above--
"MORE" Blessed has been replaced with
"slightly sorta favored a little around the edges."
And the meaning and import of What color=red>CHRIST, CREATOR GOD, THE LIVING WORD, RESURRECTION LIFE
SAID IN THAT SCRIPTURE, has been neutered, cut off, castrated, voided, rendered of absolutely no effect, as though Christ never said it.
There's no shred of evidence that I've ever seen on FR in 10+ years to indicate that a single RC on FR has the least bit of respect for those verses whatsoever. There's not a shred of evidence that those verses influence a single RC's attitude, beliefs or practices regarding Mary or the rest of Scripture.
A form of Godliness, denying the power thereof, indeed.
Rendering God's Living Written Word null and of no effect in such verses is not a great way to please God.
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.