Posted on 04/07/2008 3:06:20 PM PDT by annalex
That book isn’t in my Bible. Do I need a special Catholic-haters version? Can I borrow yours?
You are welcomed to share with us the Catholic reconciliation of those scripture verses in regards to position of veneration. Here is a bit of help from the Haydock Catholic Bible Commentary:
Here is what John Gill states about the same passage:
Now where did I lay my car keys......
Next step: stop making them.
It hasn't change yet. ;O)
Matthew 7:6
No, no one asked me anything.
He stated that no one was trying to stone me and I asked him what he was talking about.
There is nothing in Chapter 18 of either 1Sam. or 1Ki. about stoning, so he also got the chapter wrong as well as the Book!
The Bible calls those books [X ...] They used to be known as [Y]. I am sure this is inadvertent but still a perfect illustration of how Protestantism views the Holy Scripture.
No, because it is changed in the Roman Catholic bibles as well, such as the NAB.
So, what these posts reveal by the both of you is a pitiful lack knowledge of the Bible, even your own!
I know. I've seen this nonsense as well. What is striking is how none of the RC posters seem to be outraged by this.
Mary being blessed is no different than Daniel being blessed, or any of the other individuals God uses.
Dan. 10:10-11 Suddenly, a hand touched me, which made me tremble on my knees and on the palms of my hands. And he said to me, "O Daniel, man greatly beloved,...
Luke 1:28 And having come in, the angel said to her, "Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women.
This unwarranted focus on Mary is a perfect example of how faithful Christians can be manipulated if they allow themselves to be controlled by a church hierarchy. All it takes is one guy at the top of the hierarchy to proclaim something and they all fall into line. The irony is something else. The Reformed are always accused of being robots, but in actual practice its the RC's.
ROTFLOL!
Begin here while I search Scripture for "Sola Scriptura". I am certain you will direct me to the "Bodily Assumption" Scriptural reference(s).
Isn’t Jesus enough?
= = =
God has never been sufficient to any STRUCTURED, ORGANIZED RELIGIOUS HIERARCHICAL MAGICSTERICAL. Wasn’t true 2,000 years ago. Isn’t true now.
I don’t know how much clearer God can be.
= = =
INDEED!
Oh, but HarleyD . . .
Our Rubber Bible says . . . and
Our Rubber histories say . . . and
Our Rubber dictionsaries say . . . and
Our Rubber logic texts say . . . . . and
Our Rubber mathematics say . . . . . . .
In terms of the relative
1. number of minutes
2. number of lines posted
3. number of articles posted
. . .
I find the assertion I’m replying to thoroughly and utterly false.
Yet again.
Demonstrably false.
Fundamentalists are sometimes horrified when the Virgin Mary is referred to as the Mother of God. However, their reaction often rests upon a misapprehension of not only what this particular title of Mary signifies but also who Jesus was, and what their own theological forebears, the Protestant Reformers, had to say regarding this doctrine.
A woman is a man’s mother either if she carried him in her womb or if she was the woman contributing half of his genetic matter or both. Mary was the mother of Jesus in both of these senses; because she not only carried Jesus in her womb but also supplied all of the genetic matter for his human body, since it was through her—not Joseph—that Jesus "was descended from David according to the flesh" (Rom. 1:3).
Since Mary is Jesus’ mother, it must be concluded that she is also the Mother of God: If Mary is the mother of Jesus, and if Jesus is God, then Mary is the Mother of God. There is no way out of this logical syllogism, the valid form of which has been recognized by classical logicians since before the time of Christ.
Although Mary is the Mother of God, she is not his mother in the sense that she is older than God or the source of her Son’s divinity, for she is neither. Rather, we say that she is the Mother of God in the sense that she carried in her womb a divine person—Jesus Christ, God "in the flesh" (2 John 7, cf. John 1:14)—and in the sense that she contributed the genetic matter to the human form God took in Jesus Christ.
To avoid this conclusion, Fundamentalists often assert that Mary did not carry God in her womb, but only carried Christ’s human nature. This assertion reinvents a heresy from the fifth century known as Nestorianism, which runs aground on the fact that a mother does not merely carry the human nature of her child in her womb. Rather, she carries the person of her child. Women do not give birth to human natures; they give birth to persons. Mary thus carried and gave birth to the person of Jesus Christ, and the person she gave birth to was God.
The Nestorian claim that Mary did not give birth to the unified person of Jesus Christ attempts to separate Christ’s human nature from his divine nature, creating two separate and distinct persons—one divine and one human—united in a loose affiliation. It is therefore a Christological heresy, which even the Protestant Reformers recognized. Both Martin Luther and John Calvin insisted on Mary’s divine maternity. In fact, it even appears that Nestorius himself may not have believed the heresy named after him. Further, the "Nestorian" church has now signed a joint declaration on Christology with the Catholic Church and recognizes Mary’s divine maternity, just as other Christians do.
The Church would like to link Protestant thought to the Nestorian error when in actually they credit Mary with doing everything herself, which is far from true. There is no evidence that Mary supplied anything-even an egg. The only thing we know about the holy birth is that Mary carried our Lord Jesus. The divine nature and human perfection that comprised our Lord Jesus came from the Holy Spirit.
Catholics are fond of comparing Mary to the Ark. Keep in mind that everything inside the Ark was supplied by God.
As they should be. It's clear from seeing all the "venerating" of Mary that RC's do, they think of her as more than the God Bearer. It's claimed that it isn't worship, but it sure looks like it.
Fundamentalists often assert that Mary did not carry God in her womb, but only carried Christ’s human nature.
Well I guess the RCC isn't opposed to misrepresenting others beliefs.
In this case I would argue that the material came from God's Holy Spirit; not Mary. God creates things-not humans.
I would agree. I think the most appropriate way to view Mary is she was blessed to be the God Bearer.
I wouldn’t even mind if he beat me.
BTW, God bless you.
Another fine example of "The Game:"
Catholic: "I believe this."
Catholic-hater: "No you don't believe that, you believe what I say you believe, and if you differ with me it's just spin."
Catholic: "But that's NOT what I believe..."
Catholic-hater: "Yes it is, reprobate!"
Mary is not God, and Christ is certainly king. I don't think I understand what you mean by that, but neither, in all likelihood, do you.
Mary is the mother of God, and given that Christ is king, she is queen mother, per the Jewish tradition.
She is, scripturally, the spouse of the Holy Ghost.
The Church named these books to begin with, so she, — not your lying proddie pastor — is at liberty to rename them. Next time you have a difficulty because you and your conversation partner don’t seem to be referring to the same book of Kings, or the same psalm, or the same verse number in some gospel chapters, don’t clown around and ask for a clairification, just like Pet did.
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.