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 man’s standard.
I meant to ask if there had been any real prophets of the Lord, as you understand it, since the books of the Bible were written.
I guess it all worked out in spite of me and my errors, kinda like everything else in my life. :)
Thanks, again, for your reply.
Do you think you could ever reach the point where you can agree to disagree and respect the other person's right to believe what they do? Or, is it more important to y'all to demean, destroy, insult, mock and belittle those who, though they ARE Christians and believe and follow Jesus Christ, are not Roman Catholics?
you seem to have little , if any, understanding of what Catholicism is. Catholics have, for over 2,000 years, been dedicated to the Lord Jesus Christ. We do NOT pray to Mary instead of Jesus and we realize that the answer to EVERY PRAYER if from Jesus. You can't possibly have attended a Mass if you think that we don't worship Jesus....the entire Mass is dedicated to Him and the Eucharist, which you are sadly missing, is the focal point of every Mass.
I understand that you are from a fundamental Baptist background, but your family and the local preachers are no substitute for the truth that only the Catholic church represents. You say that you have heard this and that about Christ's church....well, of course, since the revolution, many mistaken opinions and teachings have sprung forth but they are easily refuted by just paying attention to the teachings of the Catholic church and learning from where each dogma or teaching eminates.
We are all surrounded with those who, 1,600 years after the fact, decided that they knew better than the original church what Christianity meant......they don't.
Mind you, they aren't necessarily wrong about everything, but they are either incomplete or in error on some very important things.
LOL.
I kind of thought the same thing when I was a catholic too.
I've heard of revisionist history before, but this is ridiculous!!
WOW, talk about reading between the lines and making up hypothetical possibilities...that kind of did it all...
“You violated...”
Discuss the issues all you want but do not make it personal.
and with the promise of Infallibility, the church was protected from error by these men....and by the way, wasn't Judas their treasurer??
Everyone has the right to believe whatever they desire...however, all cannot be right. I belittle no one and those who follow Christ but do not follow the Catholic church are called Protestant. I have many friends and relatives who are protestant and I respect their beliefs.....however....someone is right and the rest are not necessarily wrong, but incomplete or at least partially in error....that's all!
Not much is said, but I thought she went to live in the home of John. I am confused, and we will never know for sure, and it does not matter a whole lot, but I wonder why she didn't stay with her sons, James, Jude, or any of her other children. Maybe she did later, but we simply do not know for sure what became of her. The Bible was not given to us, so we have a blow by blow account of all of history, but was given, to point to Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith. Make sense?
That's not what you did. You can see very clearly the recipient of your snide comment--an "Assumption"--(posted below) follows Jesus, and shows all the signs of being one of Jesus' born again members of His church.
if you don't understand what "following Christ" means, Christianity apparently is not for you.A clever sneaky way of "suggesting" some one follow Christ.
With the premise of another one of those false "Assumptions."
I’d have to look up the verses, but I read a good exegesis on this, to this effect:
Before Jesus’ death Mary’s other sons were not believers in Jesus as Christ until shortly after the resurrection.
Thus, at the time of Jesus death, he appointed the Apostle “whom he loved”, John to fulfill this duty of taking care of his mother.
This is an example to Christians. Normally families should take care of their elderly by closeness of relation; this of course falls under the 5th commandment. Jesus, as firstborn son, would be first in line for this obligation. However, sometimes a person converts to Christ but their family may be unbelievers, and one may have significant concerns about these family members as caretakers, that the person placed in the care of an unbeliever would be unequally yoked with them. There are also Scriptural examples of the more godly child being chosen to care for or be heir to a parent, over the first in line. To Christians, our faith takes precedence over family or blood relations.
Yep, Logos is a game changer. Expensive though. e-Sword is pretty good for a shareware product. I end up using both all the time.
Do this...in REMEMBERANCE of Me. Remember that part?
Or are you still saying that was a mis-translation? Shades of Mormonism!
Jesus eating his own blood and body...how anathema is that to believe something that sickly strange .
therefore whatever He did must be exactly what He expected us to do
And you believe he bit and ate his own flesh?
Do your overseers see ALL of your posts? How embarrassed they must be.
That really would have surprised and shocked the assembled disciples, would it not? caught them flat-footed, right? a neat trick never seen before, eh? flabbergasted them, what what?
Awww, come on !
What he taught them was a figurative way of connecting this last supper with the remembrance of His Passion! Show me where he had accustomed them to changing bread to flesh and wine to blood, rather than bread to bread and fish to fish; and with no further remark!
What a mixed-up man-invented theology!
I know about family members that were unbelievers. My younger sister, who almost went ballistic when I got saved, after several years of seeing my changed life, figured I was onto something. Now, she is one of the most Godly women I know.
I think so.
Are you Reformed Christian ?
Well, OK, water to grape juice at the beginning of his public ministry. But not as a ritual of remembrance —
TC: WOW, talk about reading between the lines and making up hypothetical possibilities...that kind of did it all...
Reading the lines above and below is not reading between the lines. It's just getting the context. The question of primacy was clearly on the minds of the apostles in Matthew 18:3, and again in Matthew 20:20-28. It should not have been, but it was. If they thought the "upon this rock" statement gave full closure to that issue, it's fair to ask why they were still raising it later. It may mean they did not understand Jesus the way you do, and they were there, and you were not.
Another individual, whom I hope you will not accuse of reading between the lines and making up hypotheticals, who sees this differently than you do, is Augustine, quoted here:
You are Peter, Rocky, and on this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of the underworld will not conquer her. To you shall I give the keys of the kingdom. Whatever you bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall also be loosed in heaven’ (Mt 16:15–19). In Peter, Rocky, we see our attention drawn to the rock. Now the apostle Paul says about the former people, ‘They drank from the spiritual rock that was following them; but the rock was Christ’ (1 Cor 10:4). So this disciple is called Rocky from the rock, like Christian from Christ. Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognized. Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer (John Rotelle, O.S.A., Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Volume III/6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327).Now was Augustine delirious when he wrote that? Or did he mean what he said, that "Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession?" And if he did mean it, how can anyone of Roman persuasion argue for the consensus of the fathers on this issue? In fact, it is hard to find patristic support for the "Peter is the Rock" theory outside of the Roman fathers, whose appeal to Roman supremacy (via Peter) appears to be somewhat self-serving (Congar quoted here):
'It does sometimes happen that some Fathers understood a passage in a way which does not agree with later Church teaching. One example: the interpretation of Peter’s confession in Matthew 16:16–19. Except at Rome, this passage was not applied by the Fathers to the papal primacy; they worked out an exegesis , more anthropological and spiritual than juridical.' (Yves Congar, Tradition and Traditions, New York, Macmillan, 1966, p. 398). (emphasis added )So rather than metmom coming in as representing some modern, novel speculation, she believes about this passage what Augustine believed, and many others early Christians of good reputation as well. While you may still disagree with her, it behooves you to at least respect her position as well represented among many of the best early witnesses of the Christian faith, who would, if they were posting on this forum today, be on her side of this particular argument.
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.