The Cult of Mary

https://christs-disciples.org/rccism.php ^ | me

[zucchini bob]

(2 Peter 1:20) Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. (Isaiah 28:10) For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little: (Isaiah 28:13) But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.

[scottiemom]

Reread my posts. You seem to think I am arguing in favor of Catholcism. I am not Catholic. I attend a Bible Church and have been an evangelical,born again Christian for more than 40 years.

[metmom]

Yup, all 1.2 billion interpretations of Catholicism.

[metmom]

I know you’re not. The post was addressed to the first name in the ping.

Your name was added as a courtesy ping since you were involved in the conversation. It was not addressed to you.

[Roman_War_Criminal]

The truth hurts big guy...I know.. And I'm an adopted son of The Living God who proclaims The Lord Jesus, not "mary" or whatever demonic entity on earth that represents her.

Vatican snake room (who is the serpent?)

<

[Roman_War_Criminal]

Just reading through this thread shows the division & confusion they have.

[metmom]

Take Mary out of Catholicism and the whole thing collapses.

I challenged a Catholic one time to focus only on Jesus for just one month. To ignore Mary and take all the time that they devoted to Mary and give it to Jesus.

You’d think I was asking them to sacrifice their first born
or gouge out their eyes. The person was absolutely aghast and horrified at the thought.

Goes to show what they really think about Mary. *Veneration* my foot.

[metmom]

For all the Catholics I knew , was related to, and worked with growing up inn heavily Catholic WNY, I never met any two who ever agreed with all points of Catholic doctrine. They picked and chose what they like and disliked and what they wanted to believe and didn’t.

And a more superstitious lot I have never met.

[Elsie]

Jus like Whack-a-mole!

[Elsie]

Huh?

[Elsie]

You promised you would ADD to your list for me...

I thought about it, but since it IS found in the bible, it really doesn't belong in the list.

---

Mary said, "Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. May it be done to me according to your word." Then the angel departed from her. (Luke 1:38) 

[Mark17]

The cult of Mary is Babylonian in origin.

I could agree with that, but I think your post 264 is even more accurate. Nimrod, Semiramis and Tammuz. The unholy trinity.

[Elsie]

Now if you are willing to speculate God "could have also done"

OMG!!!

This? From a CATHOLIC??!!

[Elsie]

Mea culpa

[Mark17]

And a more superstitious lot I have never met.

I have. Try meeting them in third world countries. They are worse.

[Elsie]

Nor is the Trinitarian Nature of God, to be found in scripture.

The BInarian nature of GOD sure is!

Real early in the Book Rome assembled so long ago.

[Elsie]

They are worse

Really??

[ebb tide]

All anyone has to is read the Bible through and they will NEVER find a reference to “sola scriptura”.

[daniel1212]

The problem was that the section was copied from an older post when my host enables upper case letters and since then it has been changed to a host that does not (it's a Linux thing). And you cannot just use View Selection Source (select text and right click in FF) to view and copy the html on a page so you can post it, since it does not copy the link to sections but only the bookmark, and so upon posting (and in preview) FR changes linked sections in pages to itself, as in

Introduction

Thus after preview the html must be fixed for proper linking.

I I should have provided a link to the actual page, and not just to sections.

But for the future, by the grace of God, by using the FF extension for change case:

(Note: allow scripts for pop up Bible verses

Table of Contents

introduction

1. catholic teaching on the eucharist

2. metaphorical versus literal language

3. supper accounts and john 6: conformity to scripture, and consequences of the literalistic interpretation.

4. 1cor. 10,11

5. the lord's supper in the record and descriptions of the new testament church

6. purely literal versus the contrived catholic interpretation

7. the nature of the catholic metaphysical explanation

8. the lord's supper is not a sacrifice for sins

9. absence of the sacerdotal eucharistic priesthood

10. metaphorical view of jn. 6 is not new.

11. endocannibalism

12. conclusion

[metmom]

But they are often Catholic, are they not?

[metmom]

Sure you will. You just have to admit it.

Which Catholics won’t do.