| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 10/13/2013 9:10:43 PM PDT by Religion Moderator, reason:
Poster’s request |
Posted on 10/11/2013 9:11:50 AM PDT by NKP_Vet
Vatican City, Oct 11, 2013 / 07:25 am (CNA/EWTN News).- Anticipating Pope Francis' entrustment of the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary on Oct. 13, a specialist in Marian apparitions reflected on how the Blessed Mother serves to bring people to Jesus.
“It is necessary to have recourse to the Virgin because she can only bring you to God. That's her whole mission. She has nothing of self in it at all. She lives only for God and to bring you to God,” said Marian expert Tim Tindal-Robertson during an Oct. 10 interview with CNA.
Tindal-Robertson is currently the national president in England of the World Apostolate of Fatima, an international association of the faithful which was erected by the Pontifical Council for the Laity in 2010.
Speaking of the significance of Pope Francis’ decision to entrust the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Tindal-Robertson said that “the Pope has judged that in the year of faith this is a very appropriate moment” to focus on Mary’s presence in the Church.
(Excerpt) Read more at catholicnewsagency.com ...
Funny you should mention that.
Note that St. Paul doesn’t say anything about Scripture: He mentions “another gospel than that which you received.” From his preaching. There was no Christian Scripture yet. What he had delivered was TRADITION. 100% TRADITION. No Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. Just TRADITION.
Yet the Church existed. People had faith. People knew the gospel. Without a speck of a written New Testament.
You are so wrapped up in the human tradition of “sola scriptura” that you misquote St. Paul even when your cut-and-pasted verses are right before you.
In the midst of telling his hearers that his flesh is true food, his blood is true drink, that eating his flesh and drinking his blood will bring eternal life, that “I will raise him up” (he who eats my flesh), eat my flesh, eat my flesh, eat my flesh...He then says that “the flesh profiteth nothing”—and he must be referring to HIS flesh?
So Jesus is saying, in the same breath, that eating his flesh results in eternal life, AND that his flesh “profiteth nothing.” Eternal life is “no profit”???
When you find yourself putting an idiotic, self-contradictory statement in the mouth of Jesus, it’s time to question yourself as an exegete.
When, what time period were the vast majority of people illiterate? Peter was a simple fishermen but managed to write a few epistles. The Jews of the era were well versed in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. The Roman Empire Gentiles had a common language of Greek and Latin.
The Early Christians as Jews and Diaspora Jews would understand the reading of Scriptures on the Sabbath. Paul called for his cloak and codex books at the end of an epistle. So I think this early church was a lot more written and gathering to hear the Word savvy than we give them credit for. With the rise of the ecclesiastical in the following centuries we see the laity becoming servants to overseers/bishops instead of partners in the Great Commission. So the widespread illiteracy you claim happened much later and flourished in the grand days of popery.
I would love for an Eastern Orthodox Christian to respond to this propaganda.
I will ask this. Was the canon authoritative because the Church said so, or were the Scriptures in the canon themselves authoritative?
Check again. It ends with “womb.” Jesus was not mentioned in Elizabeth’s prayer.
Sir please refer to 2 Timothy 3:14-16.
Please take a look at 2 Timothy 3:14-17; and Revelation 22.
Sir are we to believe that everything else in Revelation is symbolic but the reference to the woman clothed with the sun is literally Mary?
Perhaps you should back up your claim. If not your post is just a hit piece and does not belong in this discussion.
Typical prot, doesn’t understand the difference between embracing and accepting.
Catholics are only kidding themselves with that nonsense. When the apostles, or anyone else for that matter, orally transmitted the word of God rather than someone reading it it’s still the scripture. “Whether by word of mouth or written” has nothing to do with tradition. It’s simply a different transmission of the word of God aka scripture. The only record we have of what they taught is what was written.
>>No Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John.<<
How preposterous. Who exactly was it that was preaching to those churches? John Smith? NO, it was Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul et el. They indeed DID have Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John and all the others words which were then soon put to writing which is the only reliable source we have today of what they taught. The RCC nonsense of oral tradition somehow being transmitted intact and undefiled from fallible human to fallible human over millennia is unthinkable.
>>Yet the Church existed. People had faith. People knew the gospel. Without a speck of a written New Testament.<<
Well, duh! Of course people knew the gospel. It was spoken to them by the very apostles who later wrote what they were teaching by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit as a record of what they were teaching for the generations to come. Before that century was over and the apostles left this earth the Holy Spirit assured us that what HE believed we needed was recorded in writing and was preserved for all time. As early as 63AD Peter was already calling what Paul wrote scripture. Matthew was written a mere 4-6 years after Christ’s ascension. In fact most of the New Testament we have today was written before Jerusalem was destroyed in 70AD. So those churches indeed did have Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and in person no less and before they left this earth their words were in written form to be preserved for us today.
>>You are so wrapped up in the human tradition of “sola scriptura” that you misquote St. Paul even when your cut-and-pasted verses are right before you.<<
I most certainly do believe that the original words of those who Jesus promised the Holy Spirit would “bring to their remembrance” what was said and taught is to be the go to source to see “whether those things were so”. Human tradition to take the advice of Paul and check with scripture? I think not. There was no misquoting of Paul. What the RCC tries to portray as tradition is nothing more then hearsay passed from fallible mouth to fallible mouth trusting that somehow nothing got changed in the process. It’s joke to many to start a story and see how intact that story is after several transmissions yet the Catholics place their eternal destiny on that very concept. Checking with scripture to see “whether those things are so”? You can bet your sweet bippy I will. I’ll not place my eternal destiny on the word of mouth story joke that Catholics try to put forth as truth. I’ll “search the scriptures daily to see if these things be true”.
That’s right He did. And explained it by stating that what He was saying was spirit not physical flesh. We are to no more eat the physical flesh of Christ than Ezekiel was to eat the literal paper of the scroll.
Ezekiel 3:1 Then He said to me, "Son of man, eat what you find; eat this scroll, and go, speak to the house of Israel."
Anyone who doesn’t understand the spiritual aspect of what Jesus was saying is without the Spirit.
1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
"The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Cor 2:14
As far as I know, the Gospels are the same, both Protestant and Catholic, with the exception of a very few disputed verses. Luther kicked out the Epistle of James, because it speaks of good works, but that’s another matter.
There are, of course, different translations, but that’s mostly a problem with the modern versions. I’m Catholic, but I usually prefer to quote the King James Version, which was the standard in English for centuries. The Revised Standard Version, based on the KJV, is also good, but was replaced by the New Revised Standard Version, which was spoiled by political correctness.
Preposterous. “My flesh is REAL (not metaphorical) food. My blood is REAL (not metaphorical) drink.”
BTW: When you accuse someone of spiritual blindness, appending a couple of quotations about spiritual blindness is not evidence that your accusation is true.
You killed your mother.
“Thou shalt not kill.”—Ex 20:13
See?
But the context suggests that the meaning is literal, in some sense. Because it was a “hard saying,” and it drove many of His followers away, because they simply couldn’t accept it. Jesus didn’t call them back and explain that he was speaking metaphorically.
A Marian expert??? This guy couldn't possibly know any more about Mary than I or any other bible believer...If he's a Marian expert, we all are...
And I'll bet Catholics pay this guy for scammin' them...
And they all go to him for answers to the “tough” Marian questions. Like “What Would Mary Tell Jesus To Do?” WWMTJTD.
What a beautiful prayer, and wonderful Scripture reference from the Gospel of Luke. Thank you for sharing this.
The prayers of faithful women in the Bible are so very clear, loving, honoring of God and humble. This one by Mary tops the list!
I have to agree with Luther. Mary is to be highly respected, she stands as a wonderful example and role model for the love and humility a Christian must have. I think most Protestants react the way they do because Catholics have taken Mary's role in the early Church beyond what the Scriptures tell us.
Cicero, you are correct Jesus does say that! However what is the context telling us? What is the expository examination of the passage, the following passages and previous passages?
I am sure you have not cut off your hand, or plucked out an eye for sins committed, right?
I mean, only fundamentalists pluck out obscure verses in the Bible and tell us to take them literally, right?
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.