Posted on 12/14/2014 11:57:21 AM PST by ealgeone
The reason for this article is to determine if the worship/veneration given to Mary by the catholic church is justified from a Biblical perspective. This will be evaluated using the Biblical standard and not mans standard.
Any saint is a saint because of his or her works of self-denial. So whether alms-giving was directly in the biography of a saint or not, any saints, spiritually, and in essence is an alms-giver: she gives of herself so that you may be saved.
Don't forget the goat god Pan's: "I stink, therefore I am."
(Plagiarized humor from Tom Robbins)
That's what comes to my mind reading the same old comments from a few of the usual suspects on these threads.
LOL, that's rich.
what part of “not as a result of works” are you not understanding?
Correct. This is why it is necessary to pray to saints, so that they can take you to Him.
Give her a call...I'm just looking at the results.
And here I was thinking a saint was someone who followed Christ.
Yeah, and you left out the part about how he came back and resumed them...more free will drivel.
You need to ask the people who are they worshiping and they will tell you. That they all kneel to something I see. What is in their heads, I know. You should ask them and then you will know as well.
Well, ok, I understand art work and that the artist in the painting you depict is communicating clearly at one time Jesus Christ was a baby. Sure we know that as Christians. My point, knowing art a bit was the proportionality. The baby Jesus is scaled a bit smaller (in proportion) to the larger Mary. Meaning the subject or focus of the painting was Mary primarily.
That was my point. You can see it also as where in the painting Mary is positioned as opposed to the baby. Most people are right eye dominant, and the focus goes directly to Mary.
I am not a BA or MA in art but did go to a Jesuit university where we examined such works of art. Including the following in which I had to offer a very long paper on:
http://www.metmuseum.org/collection/the-collection-online/search/437912
No, not at all. But John 14:26 says that the Holy Spirit will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you"; that statement does not restrict the Holy Spirit to only speaking through the scripture. In fact, the language is not fitting a scripture study, but rather internal inspiration that speaks to the man like Jesus spoke.
It simply says "all".
Still waiting on you to tell us what your degree is in. If you can’t do this than supply the source of your information.
Correct. This is why it is necessary to pray to saints, so that they can take you to Him.
Nonsense. Not sure who taught you that, but it isn't Christian for sure.
Well, OK. So, Redleghunter, instead of going by some description of semi-pelagian heresy, here is the Catholic teaching thanks to Boatbums. The point remains, that grace is not something man can produce. Obviously he can work with the grace or against it. For example, the entire Protestant project is to resist the grace and kill the faith in people.
Is Psalms inspired scripture?
That is word for word from the Greek. The following verse reads like this.
James 2:22 You see that his faith was working with the works of him and by his works his faith was perfected.
The following verse makes it clear that it was the faith (belief) by which he was justified.
James 2:23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed (pisteuó - I believe, have faith in) God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
>>Good grief, Bear, why do you post word-by-word translation<<
Because it's clearly the meaning as I showed above.
>>your own King James Version.<<
My own?? By what criteria to you assume that the KJV is my perferred translation?
>>It is a flippant negation of the Church teaching, no matter how recent, that is sinful and may preclude entry into Heaven.<<
See post 3949 http://freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3237145/posts?page=3949#3949
But the fact of the matter is, that regardless if you yourself do not worship Mary (I take it that you do not) still other Roman Catholics do, proving they do so by their words and actions both.
...As I explained, with that taking far more than three paragraphs to do.
Even then, I barely scratched the surface of the cult of Mary.
Go read DeMontfort anew, and do so while not searching for how to best cover-up for, or explain away the theology "of Mary" which that man, and many within Roman Catholicism presently do promote.
It is another Gospel, one which was not preached by Paul.
Douay translates "grace". However, since it says "with God and men" "favor" is acceptable here.
Acts 2:47
Here it is indeed "favor", that is not a supernatural gift but simply positive human attitude.
Acts 7 (two of them)
This is referring to the Old Testament, prior to the dispensation of grace. Favor is probably OK (Douay has "favor" in Acts 7:10 but "grace before God" in verse 46).
Acts 25:2-3
You cannot even say "grace against", so there "favor" is correct.
The point is not that contexts where "favor" is better translation do not exist, but that in the first chapters of Luke there is no justification like that: clearly, it is not a human favor that she received.
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.