Posted on 03/19/2014 8:19:20 PM PDT by ealgeone
CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH SECOND EDITION
PART ONE THE PROFESSION OF FAITH SECTION TWO THE PROFESSION OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH
CHAPTER THREE I BELIEVE IN THE HOLY SPIRIT
ARTICLE 9 "I BELIEVE IN THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH"
Paragraph 6. Mary - Mother of Christ, Mother of the Church
963 Since the Virgin Mary's role in the mystery of Christ and the Spirit has been treated, it is fitting now to consider her place in the mystery of the Church. "The Virgin Mary . . . is acknowledged and honored as being truly the Mother of God and of the redeemer. . . . She is 'clearly the mother of the members of Christ' . . . since she has by her charity joined in bringing about the birth of believers in the Church, who are members of its head."502 "Mary, Mother of Christ, Mother of the Church."503
I see a lot of man-made ideas with leaps of logic about things in the Bible and some not even in the Bible.
I've never really delved much into the Catholic belief system, but from just what I've been learning about Mary it's been a real eye opener.
I see a lot of non-Biblical teaching based on assumptions occurring regarding Mary which saddens me.
I just study the Bible and the clear teaching of the Word. I'm studying Koine Greek to have a better understanding of the original texts.
But, I am just a sinner who is saved by the grace of Christ. I can claim no more than that for my forgiveness according to His word.
The importance is in the Name Jesus Christ. Jesus “God Saves” Christ (Messiah). Son of God; Son of Man; Immanuel “God with us”. Peter’s proclamation was “Son of the Living God.”
Lord or Master (same according to the lexicon) in the NT is a title; a relationship of Lord to His servants.
When the OT was translated to Greek, the LXX, the Jews used LORD (kyrios) for the Hebrew tetragrammaton.
So the question we must ask is if Lord in the NT is tetragrammaton (YHWH) or Lord meaning Master. So was Elizabeth proclaiming Mary as the “mother of my YHWH?” That would be some proclamation given it was not until Peter we see the proclamation “You are the Son of The Living God.”
Something to look at Vlad as in your use of LORD here with Elizabeth meaning YHWH makes Elizabeth the most important disciple in the Gospels.
The Greek word for Nicolaitans (Strong's Concordance Number #G3531) found in Revelation is actually three words combined. As a proper noun, it TRANSFERS, but is not translated, into English. The three Greek words used are Nikos, Laos and Ton.
The first Greek part of the English word Nicolaitans is NIKOS. We use the English equivalents instead of the Greek letters, as we shall also of the other two. Nikos is defined as "a conquest, victory, triumph, the conquered and by implication, those who are dominate over the defeated." Another transferred name in which this word is used is Nicopolis. It is composed of Niko, which means conquest, and polis, which means city. Nicopolis therefore means the city of conquest, or city of victory.
1 Peter 5: 3 Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being examples to the flock.
Well now you are going Mormon on us.
If you wanna get snarky I can also or can you play like a big boy and try and have a conversation?
1. pleasant
2. kind or friendly
3. good or satisfactory
4. subtle, delicate
5. precise, skillful
6. rare: fastidious
7. obsolete: foolish or ignorant, delicate, shy, modest, wanton.
Word History Five hundred years ago, when nice was first used in English, it meant "foolish or stupid." This is not as surprising as it may seem, since it came through early French from the Latin nescius, meaning "ignorant." By the 16th century, the sense of being "very particular" or "finicky" had developed. In the 19th century, nice came to mean "pleasant or agreeable" and then "respectable," a sense quite unlike its original meaning.
“If you believe in anything other than God’s word you are a non-believer.”
Okay, let’s test that: Show me from God’s word alone where it says Matthew wrote a gospel. Show me - from God’s word alone - where it says Matthew’s gospel is inspired.
“If you believe you can lose your faith, how?”
By rejecting it, by rejecting God. God saves no man against His will. We must all persevere until the race is finished as St. Paul told us.
“You’re saying your sins are so great Jesus’ death on the cross didn’t forgive them??”
No, but you are denying the necessity or faith and perseverance. What if someone loses their faith in Christ and becomes a Muslim? Are they still saved? No, of course not. We must persevere until the end.
“If you believe you “have to do something” other than have faith in Christ, what is it you must do?”
We must co-operate with God’s grace. If we reject it we are doomed. James 2:24.
“How much of it do you have to do?”
Can you only half-way co-operate with God?
“Do works get you into Heaven?”
Christ’s works do, yes. Mine, no. Thankfully, He begins works in us through grace and we co-operate with Him.
“Even though Paul called them filthy rags to be discarded?”
Those were works of the Law and works people did on their own. We don’t believe those. Never have.
“How do you know when you’ve done enough...or even the right things for that matter?”
We simply have faith in Christ and act on it. If we trust in Him completely, then we will never need to “know when you’ve done enough”. That’s not how sanctification works. And how can a Christian not know the right thing here?
“What if you don’t confess your sins to a priest before you die?”
Why would someone refuse a gift from Christ? John 20:19-23. If someone knows they should confess, and can confess, but refuses God’s grace, then God will not save that man against his will. God does not force people into Heaven. We have free will - even the freedom to reject him no matter how stupid that is.
“Do you go to Heaven or Hell?”
That’s up to God.
“If not the Bible, which is given to us by the Holy Spirit, how do you trust a man-made book not inspired by the Holy Spirit?”
I don’t. I do trust Christ working in His Church, however, for it is His body. Christ would never abandon His one and only bride.
“To my knowledge no other book makes that claim.”
Well, several do if you mean they claim to be from God.
“How is that any different than Mormons who rely on the Book of Mormon in addition to the Bible?”
The difference is obvious: Mormons are not even Christians. We are. Their sect was founded by a con-man. Our Church, THE Church, was founded by Christ. They deny the Trinity. We were the original believers in the Trinity.
“I’ve asked these questions on this blog many times and no one will answer.”
I just doubt that. Your questions are pathetically easy.
Strong’s Concordance and Dictionary = “or a NT translation of the Hebrew 151 ‘LORD’ or 3378 ‘LORD,’ that is ‘Yahweh,’ the proper name of God in the OT.”
vlad >> I thank God for His grace and loving-kindness that spared me, a sinner, from falling into the filth of Protestant heresy and sectarianism.<<
Pharisee Luke 18:11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.
You were still wrong. The Nicolaitans were followers of Nicholaus. You have provided no evidence that Nicholaus’ name means anything about those who followed him. He was not a bishop either. Keep beating your dead horse. You’ll still get to nowhere at the same speed.
Not even remotely.
Amen and Amen. I’m with you there. It shows in your posts. I’ll agree on the “eye opener” as far as Catholics. It’s actually stunning.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
“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
Strongs 2962 Lord in Luke 1 is kyrios and not the same definition as LORD in the OT which is Yahweh. An example is Isaiah 44:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H3068&t=KJV
Then compare Lord 2962 here in Luke 1:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G2962&t=KJV
Since you mentioned Stongs I thought why not post the correct versions.
“Protestantism” is a thing. It is not an “other guy”
You’re still wrong.
· 1:26. And in the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God into a city of Galilee, called Nazareth,
1:27. To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David: and the virgin’s name was Mary.
1:28. And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
1:29. Who having heard, was troubled at his saying and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be.
1:30. And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God.
1:31. Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb and shalt bring forth a son: and thou shalt call his name Jesus.
1:32. He shall be great and shall be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father: and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever.
1:33. And of his kingdom there shall be no end.
1:34. And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man?
1:35. And the angel answering, said to her: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
1:36. And behold thy cousin Elizabeth, she also hath conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her that is called barren.
1:37. Because no word shall be impossible with God.
1:38. And Mary said: Behold the handmaid of the Lord: be it done to me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.
The real Mary is no “Queen of Heaven.”
The catholic church’s ‘Mary’ is Semiramis, which is why the title Queen of Heaven, and Mother of God, all pagan titles from the time of Nimrod.
So you are fine with calling folks “morons” as part of a discussion?
“Show me from scripture where the apostles taught the assumption of Mary.”
Okay, right after you show me where I ever said all truths are in scripture. And right after you show me where I ever said the Apostles wrote done every truth. When you fail to do that - and you will - then we will know why I don’t believe in sola scriptura (it’s self refuting) and no one will know from scripture alone why you do believe in it.
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.