Posted on 09/12/2013 4:22:27 AM PDT by imardmd1
So now you propose to tell me what I accept? Hmm! I can tell you this much for certain. The apostles didn’t teach of the assumption or veneration of Mary and that along with many other of the RCC teachings makes the teaching of the RCC “another gospel”. I treat it as such and the teachers I consider “accursed” as Galatians 1 states.
Why would they teach the veneration of Mary? The veneration of Mary comes from our rejection of the teachings of those Christians who denied that Jesus was literally the son of God? The first Marian dogma, the Virgin birth,of course, found its way into Matthew and Luke in the form of the nativity stories and the attendant doctrine of the Incarnation in John’s Prologue. It was finally made totally explicit in the proclamations of the first great councils who insisted that Mary was theotokos —mother of God. The immaculate conception and the Assumption are essentially corollary to the divinity of Jesus, both proclaimed in an age that denies it.
Mary was hardly in the background in the first two Chapters of Luke. As for our veneration of Mary, it is of an entirely different sort that the Apostles would have paid to the person of the mother of Jesus. She does not seem to have traveled with him in Galilee. They could hardly have know about the circumstances of his birth from him. Until after the Resurrection, they would have thought such a story to be as preposterous as moderns today do. We don’t know how Luke and Matthew came to include the stories in their Gospels. Marcion, who made Luke his only Gospel, left off the first two chapters because the doctrine of the incarnation did not fit his theology.
“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” Galatians 1:8-9
Nuff said.
Now you show me your proof that the apostles taught sola scriptura.
We venerate Mary because we worship Jesus as the son of God. This is no contradiction of the Gospel. If Jesus is our savior, it is not the same way that Moses was the savior of his people. How could the death of a mere man, even a great and holy man, save mankind? he has to have been the Son of God and he had to be a man, and Mary is the Mother of God.
No, it is simply other than what you claim to be the Gospel.
Noticed that Paul says "any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached [not written] unto you." Again he says: "any other gospel unto you than that ye have received" [not have read]. This gospel is that which has been handed down over the centuries by the Church in Sacred Tradition and the liturgy as well as in Scripture. Search as you may but you will find no proof that the apostles or anyone in the early Church ever taught sola scriptura.
It may be what you consider proof but there is not one shred of evidence to show that the apostles taught that. Not one. The Bereans were commended for searching the scriptures daily to see if even what Paul taught was true. I’ll not believe your hearsay or trust the story tellers over centuries let alone millennia. You’re preaching another gospel. Suit yourself but remember the “let him be accursed” ending to that verse.
Hearsay!
It seems clear that, operating in the flesh, his allegiance was toward a Master whose goal, as Peter thought, was to bring an earthly dominion that would reform religion, eject Roman dominance, and provide His special disciple/apostles a high position in the government that this New Master would impose. Peter's initiative, verve, desire for eminence, and intermittant commitment demonstrated his continual errors and misjudgments that Jesus certainly knew He had to manage, in taking Simon bar Jonah on as a subject needing transformation (not reformation) to be of service under the New Covenant.
I believe that the continual vignettes of Simon/Peter's dilemmas and responses while operating in the flesh are given not as a confirmation of his value to the ministry, but as proof of the damage an unregenerated "believer" can do to a ministry, and should be an example to us all as a call to spiritual maturity.
Note that Peter's tendencies to err continued to influence his actions even through the post-Calvary presence of The Christ, and especially in the ten days following His Ascension, right up until the momentuous Arrival of Another Comforter and Guide (of the Same Kind), at which Simon Peter exhibited the startling transformation that led to his soul-winning Pentecostal homily--one of being led by the Indwelling Holy Ghost.
I am not a Catholic, but I do find your references to one of the founding Saints of Christianity to be offensive and in need of being tempered.
Perhaps you might take into account that subsequent to the Pentecostal metamorphic transformation, Peter's actions began to reflect a spiritual maturity worthy of imitation by Christian generations to follow. Though this pattern was interrupted by a couple of minor incidents of recidivism to old behaviors ("Not so, Lord" at Joppa; Paul's rebuke of Peter at Antioch), Peter began to model submission to his pastor and co-equal Apostles in the Polity of the Jerusalem church, and finally, from Babylon, penned the grand letters to the dispersed Jews of his bounded ministry (to the Circumcision, 1 Peter); and to the broader scope of all faithful (2 Peter, confirmation of Paul's writings and condemning the negligence of teaching by discipling); as well as coaching John Mark in the formation of a 3rd biographical sketch of Jesus' ministry. These were done about 65-67 A.D., about thirty-some-odd years after his own training by Jesus, and continually growing submission to the Holy Ghost.
The story of Peter's transformation is stunning, and worthy of careful thought by those who wish to place him into the wrong role as Primary Prelate of an erring religion. I do not believe Peter, in the end, would have wished for that position he would have sought for at the first.
But certainly, at the Bema of Christ, it must be that of Peter He will say. "Well done, thou good and faithful servant ... enter thou into the joy of thy Lord."
Eh?
Excellent article imardmd1! Thanks for posting!
First of all you failed to show where the apostles taught the assumption or veneration of saints. Nonetheless, I’ll issue another challenge.
“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” Galatians 1:8-9
Do you know of any other source of what the apostles taught? Paul also commended the Bereans for because they “searched the scriptures daily” to see if what he taught was correct. And please don’t waste your time trying to tell me that the RCC somehow has been handed down some unwritten “tradition” that the apostles didn’t record. That can only be considered hearsay.
I am still waiting for your proof that the apostles taught sola scriptura.
Well, that makes us even. I’m still waiting for you to prove that the apostles taught the assumption and veneration of Mary and I asked the question first.
There is massive evidence of persecution, that has been openly discussed for the last 300 years, and was the reason that catholicism was considered criminal at the founding of this country.
.
Utter gibberish!
The entire new testament is riddled with clumsy translation errors caused by the total lack of understanding of the Hebrew and aramaic languages, and the Hebrew culture, by the the greek translators. there is not one book that doesn't contain these Hebrew related errors.
.
>> “While Matthew was most likely originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic, the rest of the New Testament was clearly written in Greek.” <<
Ugly strawman! - That is not what I said.
All of the NT was ORIGINALLY written in Hebrew, or the the mistranslations of Hebrew would not be present in them.
There are passages in every book that are complete nonsequiturs, making no sense at all, because of these misunderstandings of Hebrew colloquialisms, and culturally centered figures of speech.
Judea was a bilingual country, conquered by Alexander more than three hundred years before Christ. Even in Jerusalem, there were Jews who spoke only Greek, which is why Stephen was made a deacon.
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.