Posted on 09/02/2011 9:07:47 AM PDT by marshmallow
Holy is His name, the Magnificat, The Canticle of the Lord
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TEL_7TS5FE
Do you endorse or agree that Mary, the Mother of Jesus, should be linked with or referred to as a pagan temple prostitute? Because that is exactly who Ishtar is.
It’s rather heart breaking to watch followers of the RCC not being able to use scripture for their beliefs when scripture clearly states that we should. Yet they blindly follow for some reason. I know some of them truly want to follow Christ but have been so indoctrinated that they can’t seem to let go of false beliefs.
Perhaps, you might check out posts 2182 and 2183.
Scripture. What you seem to hold dear unless a Catholic posts it.
Luke. Read it.
(Lk 1:46-55)
LOL. INDEED.
Sigh.
Which word did you not understand?
NO PRODDY on FR is likening the authentic Mary to anyone or anything but Mary.
I am describing as y’all demonstrate the role of the caricatured take-off that y’all’s cult has constructed from Mary’s name and personage
INTO
the Vatican constructed Ishtar-Mary-Goddess personage with many of the accoutraments, worship, rituals, roles, titles etc. that Ishtar has carried through the centuries.
Her not so new role in the Vatican system is a very slick coup of the enemy of our souls.
In one swell foop he has managed to degrade a major edifice of what was once a slightly tolerable version of Christianity into a fossilized RELIGION replete with tired old worn pagan practices and personages.
Y’all don’t like it when we accuse you of things you insist you aren’t doing.
I guess hypocrisy is a major doctrine of the Ishtar-Mary-Goddess cult???
Well put.
Which part of
“Y’all can’t have it both ways”
is difficult to understand?
I think they have been warned for so long that the only life preserver they have is hooked onto the RCC, they are petrified to let go. They don’t know if they can tread water or not, they’ve never tried. They were told not to, that the Church had their life preserver for them. So what does a person do? Let go and take a chance or continue to squeeze the line and trust someone will eventually pull them to safety. It won’t be until they see the lines of others being cut to make room that they realize they aren’t safe at all. Then will come the anger. And the search for their own strengths and survival skills. They will never look back at that point. Only up.
I think they have been warned for so long that the only life preserver they have is hooked onto the RCC, they are petrified to let go. They don’t know if they can tread water or not, they’ve never tried. They were told not to, that the Church had their life preserver for them. So what does a person do? Let go and take a chance or continue to squeeze the line and trust someone will eventually pull them to safety. It won’t be until they see the lines of others being cut to make room that they realize they aren’t safe at all. Then will come the anger. And the search for their own strengths and survival skills. They will never look back at that point. Only up.
Well put.
Do you really have to include snide? When have you ever seen me disregard scripture if a Catholic posts it unless it is being interpreted incorrectly and there is clear evidence from other scripture for that assertion? You lose credibility with snide.
Your hatred of all things Catholic is scary.
You will be judged as all of us will be judged.
I so hope you have a really good excuse for your over the top blasphemy of all things Catholic. The Church that Jesus himself started.
Good luck. You will need it.
And don’t come back with the crock of “I’m just trying to save the Catholics.” When Jesus says, I don’t know you, don’t try to blame it on us.
It’s rather heart breaking to watch followers of the RCC not being able to use scripture for their beliefs when scripture clearly states that we should. Yet they blindly follow for some reason. I know some of them truly want to follow Christ but have been so indoctrinated that they can’t seem to let go of false beliefs.
Your quote.
I think the subject is quite interesting and however we view the canon selectivity process, I think we would all agree that, since God was the inspire-er, what we consider inspired Scripture should meet certain criteria. If God did inspire the books, then it's only logical that we can't argue he only inspired certain books but then allowed us to mix in books that were not inspired. The conflict we have to address then, since we all agree on the 66 books we have in the Bible, is to answer what about those "extra" books that are in dispute.
The church councils did NOT, as some assume, have the role of choosing what was Scripture and what was not of hundreds of choices, but they did nothing more than confirm what was already believed by the church at large. When Paul, for example, wrote his letters to various local churches they copied them and additional copies were sent to other churches throughout the empire and beyond. The same thing with the accounts of the life and teachings of Jesus recorded in the Gospels. They were considered "Scripture" because they came from the Apostles or their designated disciples. It was enough that the books were authorized by those who were taught directly by Jesus and the teachings they contained touched the hearts and lives of those who heard them. The Holy Spirit at work within those who had committed their lives to the faith, and the truth was confirmed in them. They also had the precedent of the established Old Testament canon as an example for gathering and establishing what writings would become universally recognized as Holy Scripture for the new church age.
I believe the fact that the Jews from the time before Christ did not include the extra - apocryphal - works as part of their canon is certainly a factor in determining their relevance as authoritative to us. The early church was not unfamiliar with these works and others like them, but as far as claiming they were authoritative, there were criteria that had to be met before they were accepted as Scripture. I believe a chief one must be that they do not contain error - because God would not contradict himself nor allow error to be taught by his Word.
I do not think you can locate any early church father who considered the apocryphal works as equal to the already established Jewish Scriptures and the fact that they did not choose to make them part of the New Testament, speaks that they did not consider them in the same light as the writings of the Apostles and those to whom they had given authority. Although some of these books were found with some of the Old Testament books in the Dead Sea area, they still were not considered as authoritative as from God. They may have been considered "useful" within the church, but not in the same light as infallible revelation from God.
From http://bible.org/article/how-many-books-are-bible we read:
The content of the Apocrypha is sub-biblical. Some of the stories are clearly fanciful. Bel and the Dragon, Tobit, and Judith have the earmarks of legend; the authors of these books even give hints along the way that the stories are not to be taken seriously.
What is more, these books have historical errors. It is claimed that Tobit was alive when the Assyrians conquered Israel in 722 B.C. and also when Jeroboam revolted against Judah in 931 B.C., which would make him at least 209 years old; yet according to the account, he died when he was only 158 years. The Book of Judith speaks of Nebuchadnezzar reigning in Nineveh instead of Babylon.
These inaccuracies are inconsistent with the doctrine of inspiration which teaches that when God inspires a book it is free from all errors.
Finally, and most important, we must remember that the Apocrypha was never part of the Old Testament Hebrew canon. When Christ was on earth, he frequently quoted from the Old Testament but never from the Apocryphal books because they were never a part of the Hebrew canon. "Christ referred specifically to the content of the Hebrew canon when he said:
Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city, that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar (Matt. 23:34-35)
In the Hebrew canon, the first book of the Bible was Genesis, where the death of Abel is recorded, and the last book was 2 Chronicles where near the end of the book the murder of Zechariah is described (24:21). In between these two events lay the entire content of the Old Testament. He assumed it ended with the Hebrew Scriptures and not the Apocrypha.
The Apocryphal books were written in Greek after the close of the Old Testament canon. Jewish scholars agree that chronologically Malachi was the last book of the Old Testament canon. The books of the Apocrypha were evidently written about 200 B.C. and occur only in Greek manuscripts of the Old Testament. Since Christ accepted only the books we have in our Old Testament today, we have no reason to add to their number."
Good answer on that passage. Please tell me what I should tell my Mom when she says she is "offering it up for her sins" whenever she endures discomfort, pain, aggravation or anything else that is negative in her life? Is that what Catholics are usually taught, that they must suffer for their sins to make it to Heaven? Are we not to praise the Lord because HE did the suffering for all our sins?
Actually, NO it was NOT Calvin that said that. NL has been told that several times, but it keeps being repeated. Repeat anything often enough and people will start believing it is true, is that the goal, NL?
And, I agree with you. It was another that chose to glom unto what a "generation" really was rather than amend the mistaken comment. I guess it didn't jibe with the party line to have to admit the truth.
No, honey, that's not what the verse says, it's: "For God so loved the world he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life." John 3:16
So, this means God loved us so much he gave us Jesus, and we can learn all about that in the Bible - which is a book - inspired by God just for us so that we CAN know. Are we clear on that now?
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.