Skip to comments.
The Worship of Mary? (An Observation)
Posted on 05/30/2008 10:21:34 AM PDT by Ultra Sonic 007
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,501-1,520, 1,521-1,540, 1,541-1,560 ... 11,821-11,826 next last
To: Philo-Junius; Quix
Catholics will, I hope, be forgiven for not pinning the truth of all their Marian doctrines upon the infallibility of the KJV translators.
What in the world is the connection between "blood brother" and the KJV?
1,521
posted on
06/03/2008 1:36:16 PM PDT
by
OLD REGGIE
(I am most likely a Biblical Unitarian? Let me be perfectly clear. I know nothing.)
To: big'ol_freeper
Reject the Church, reject the authority that determined the New Testament. Quite a catch-22 protestants created for themselves.Nothing a little naked duplicity won't fix.
To: XeniaSt
1,523
posted on
06/03/2008 1:42:11 PM PDT
by
Petronski
(Scripture & Tradition must be accepted & honored w/equal sentiments of devotion & reverence. CCC 82)
To: OLD REGGIE
He was deliberately and expressly general:
...all their Marian doctrines...
1,524
posted on
06/03/2008 1:43:51 PM PDT
by
Petronski
(Scripture & Tradition must be accepted & honored w/equal sentiments of devotion & reverence. CCC 82)
To: Petronski
I thought everything in Wikipedia was a “pagan fable”.
1,525
posted on
06/03/2008 1:44:19 PM PDT
by
wagglebee
("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
To: wagglebee
Many wiki entries on contentious topics can be . . . uh . . . less than trustworthy. Thus, I thought I’d ask.
1,526
posted on
06/03/2008 1:47:26 PM PDT
by
Petronski
(Scripture & Tradition must be accepted & honored w/equal sentiments of devotion & reverence. CCC 82)
To: netmilsmom; Philo-Junius
>>Catholics will, I hope, be forgiven for not pinning the truth of all their Marian doctrines upon the infallibility of the KJV translators<<
;-)
Except the post was an extraneous slur against the KJV. If you think that's funny laugh away.
1,527
posted on
06/03/2008 1:49:22 PM PDT
by
OLD REGGIE
(I am most likely a Biblical Unitarian? Let me be perfectly clear. I know nothing.)
To: Mad Dawg
1,528
posted on
06/03/2008 1:54:32 PM PDT
by
Uri’el-2012
(you shall know that I, YHvH, your Savior, and your Redeemer, am the Elohim of Ya'aqob. Isaiah 60:16)
To: XeniaSt
1,529
posted on
06/03/2008 1:55:57 PM PDT
by
Mad Dawg
(Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
To: OLD REGGIE
>>Except the post was an extraneous slur against the KJV. If you think that’s funny laugh away. <<
Not really. It didn’t say the NJV but those who translated it.
From a Catholic’s POV, understanding that we have scholars translating meanings for us, this was in no way a slam on the King James Version of the Bible itself.
Sorry you took it that way.
1,530
posted on
06/03/2008 1:57:39 PM PDT
by
netmilsmom
(I am Iron Mom. (but really made from Gold plated titanium))
To: XeniaSt
The first pdf is quite comprehensive and informative. I’m glad to have it.
1,531
posted on
06/03/2008 2:00:29 PM PDT
by
Petronski
(Scripture & Tradition must be accepted & honored w/equal sentiments of devotion & reverence. CCC 82)
To: OLD REGGIE
Do you think a good argument runs along the line of "This is what Jesus said in Aramaic. Sadly we don't have any evidence to prove it."?Amen !
1,532
posted on
06/03/2008 2:00:42 PM PDT
by
Uri’el-2012
(you shall know that I, YHvH, your Savior, and your Redeemer, am the Elohim of Ya'aqob. Isaiah 60:16)
To: netmilsmom; Quix; Philo-Junius
What context would that be? And if the Holy Spirit wanted you to understand that all these Brothers were of Mary, wouldnt you think He would have made it abundantly clear, even without a proper greek word?
Most Protestants (I used to be a faithful, learned one) :) Would say it is abundantly clear beginning with "he knew her not until..." and continuing with "Your mother and your brothers are outside, asking for you." .
On the other hand where is the Bodily Assumption Of Mary even hinted at in Scripture? Don't you suppose the Holy Spirit would have made abundantly clear in Scripture if He wanted you to know it?
1,533
posted on
06/03/2008 2:02:24 PM PDT
by
OLD REGGIE
(I am most likely a Biblical Unitarian? Let me be perfectly clear. I know nothing.)
To: OLD REGGIE
>>Don’t you suppose the Holy Spirit would have made abundantly clear in Scripture if He wanted you to know it?<<
He passed on the message! The Vatican got the message and passed it on to me.
1,534
posted on
06/03/2008 2:05:43 PM PDT
by
netmilsmom
(I am Iron Mom. (but really made from Gold plated titanium))
To: Mad Dawg
>>Gee it’ll be too dark to cut the grass then, won’t it. <<
They had GRASS? ;-)
1,535
posted on
06/03/2008 2:07:03 PM PDT
by
netmilsmom
(I am Iron Mom. (but really made from Gold plated titanium))
To: OLD REGGIE
>>Do you think a good argument runs along the line of “This is what Jesus said in Aramaic. Sadly we don’t have any evidence to prove it.”? <<
The answer would be in the context, as Quix stated.
1,536
posted on
06/03/2008 2:08:33 PM PDT
by
netmilsmom
(I am Iron Mom. (but really made from Gold plated titanium))
To: OLD REGGIE
>>Most Protestants <<
And let’s face it, most Protestants would NOT look at it another way. Even if it is very evident.
Why should they, they’re Protestants? Nothing wrong with that.
1,537
posted on
06/03/2008 2:10:49 PM PDT
by
netmilsmom
(I am Iron Mom. (but really made from Gold plated titanium))
To: OLD REGGIE
Except the post was an extraneous slur against the KJV. If you think that's funny laugh away.Now here's an opportunity for some real bridge-building. Will you take it? Will you acknowledge you're accusing the poster of slur against the KJV, when any normative reading of what was said would recognize the poster was mocking the uneducated, dogmatic, devotees of a particular translation of the Bible?
All you have to do is admit you accused him of something he didn't do, and we'll know you are more interested in truth than "winning."
Will you admit you are ignoring his criticism of certain people deserving of criticism, and accusing him of criticizing something that would degrade his credibility if true?
To: Mad Dawg
That would be dreadful if true and a great attack on, indeed a refutation of, the Church's claims. The Church Catholic is for all and it touches every aspect of life. It is catholic intensively and extensively, in principle if not in fact. It is for the 80 IQ and the 120 IQ, for the 60IQ and the 140IQ and so on right out to the ends of the scale. If not it is not catholic.
Good for you. Well said.
I might go a little farther though. :)
Some are meant to be Catholic and God is with them.
Some are meant to be Protestant and God is with them.
Some are meant to be "other" and God is with them.
God is with all who wish to be with Him.
1,539
posted on
06/03/2008 2:14:20 PM PDT
by
OLD REGGIE
(I am most likely a Biblical Unitarian? Let me be perfectly clear. I know nothing.)
To: OLD REGGIE
Don't you suppose the Holy Spirit would have made abundantly clear in Scripture if He wanted you to know it? No, and until you can find a Scriptural passage that says the Holy Spirit would make all things "abundantly clear" to you, the question fails by your own standard.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,501-1,520, 1,521-1,540, 1,541-1,560 ... 11,821-11,826 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson