| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 04/14/2014 6:31:52 PM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
Lunar eclipse tonight. |
Posted on 04/05/2014 5:57:23 AM PDT by Gamecock
The latter phrase “that is what troubles you” is the mind reading part.
No, totally scriptural, inspired, and inspiring
Do you think the Sinner's Prayer is scriptural ? Which one?
All the ones that are not quoting texts in Scripture, eg., Billy Graham, Joel Osteen, etc.
Examples from Luke 18 and Matthew 8 are approved.
And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.
Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed.
Now I get it; I will rephrase it as a question, "Is that why you object to asking Mary for help, because she is in heaven?"
That would be fine.
Is Gamecock the Religion Moderator?
You are right. I errantly conflated the Hail Mary with the following KJV text. It was careless reading on my part.
Nevertheless, the Hail Mary, to which I objected, is unsupported as Biblical language, unless one accepts Jerome’s handling of Luke 1:28 as effectively a re-inspration of the same text into Latin with new and significantly different verbiage. In one sense this is identical to the KJV-Onlyist who claims the 1611 KJV is a re-inspiration of the Received Text into English.
Both theories are defective, in that they allow the introduction of novel and incorrect doctrines through human manipulation of the text, which is why reformational Protestants such as myself would tend to reject such theories as fonts of heresy, and press toward the primitive text as far as God enables us.
Your other question concerning approval or non-approval of various translations is a question of ecclesiastical authority, and it goes beyond your original question, which was:
“Can you show me any part of this that is unbiblical or incorrect …”
The authority question has been handled on these threads many times over. I think the RC authority construct is hopelessly circular, but it would probably be redundant and unproductive to go off on that tangent when the question you asked is so much easier to address as a matter of the objective history and content of the text.
To summarize then, there is an entirely Protestant interpretation to all the texts you presented, even the so-called “Hail Mary,” as long as one allows the meaning of the original Greek to prevail. By which I mean that Protestants do see grace in Mary, but her as a recipient of grace, like any other sinner made whole by Christ; and Protestants do see the angel greeting Mary, but with a greeting of rejoicing, not worshipping.
Before you protest, I do understand the purported differences between atria, dulia and hyperdulia, but I do not think the vast majority of rank and file Catholics grasp such fine distinctions, and it puts their souls at risk. I am certain my own Catholic relatives do not. They have merged their feminism with their Marian ideas to create a female deity coequal to Christ. I am sure that is as repugnant to you as it is to me.
However, we have to live our faith, and any doctrines that lead to such dangerous places in practice ought to have the highest degree of Scriptural verification of correctness, for if God says it, no matter how confounding, it must be true. But if God has not said it, woe to that man or woman who presumes to put words in Gods mouth. Eternity is nothing to trifle with.
You appear to be unfamiliar with how Protestant approach the matter of inspiration. We agree with all believers everywhere that God inspired Scripture through His Holy Spirit.
But we do not see that same inspiration in every attempt to translate Scripture. As mentioned above, once you start applying the same level of inspiration to every subsequent translator you subject yourself to the possibility of misconstruing human error for holy writ.
And as a matter of history, God has given us an excellent body of autograph texts to serve as stable reference points for any translation effort. Why should we not use them? They are God's gift to His people.
Which other verses in the Bible do you deny ?
That is in form a loaded question. It is an inferior form of argument, begging the question. I feel certain you are capable of more adroit work. Alter the form to not presume the answer in the question and I will be happy to respond.
Please be sure and ping me the next time you give that advice to your fellow Catholics posting regular threads discussing "Protestantism" here.
It's not a stumbling block for me. It's true that Mary was a recipient of great grace. But that fact doesn't have the entourage of inferences that typical Catholic teaching assigns to it, i.e., it doesn't imply sinlessness etc. The problem is that the Hail Mary, esp. as used in its English form, carries nuances that go beyond the teaching of the primitive text. Those "nuances," however weakly inferred, have been codified and presented as the teaching of Rome. That extra baggage is no stumbling block to me. I see it and step around it. But many precious souls are being injured by it. And so I raise my objection.
As for "we," I am simply speaking as a Christian of Protestant heritage. I do not seek to be an official representative of any human institution, but simply wish to be obedient to Scripture:
1Peter 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:
Do you have a similar distaste for the Catholics that do this with regularity here or only when "Protestants" do it?
Still kicking at the beehive, I see.
But how are we going to sort it out? It doesn't matter how many straws are drawn, "we" will always keep getting the short one.
Or is this crazy to have back-and-forth talk between the multiples?
I hear it's not so bad when they are never aware of each other, or try to communicate among themselve(s)...
If you believed the Book...
Deuteronomy 34:5-6
5 So Moses the servant of the Lord died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the Lord. 6 And He buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, opposite Beth Peor; but no one knows his grave to this day.
Where is Elijah's grave ? Where is Enoch's grave ?
I find it amazing that Catholicism can toss out these two guys as examples of what COULD HAVE happened to Mary; but refuse to take MOSES as an example of what might have happened.
Now you've got the lurkers wondering...
Just what is he referring to here with THESE two assertions?
No WONDER the bookshelves are SO huge at Zondervan's!
With 45,000 (YMMV) different bibles - all in a row...
You may be right; but the facts are.
Mighty bold talk for a one-eyed fat man.
Have you EVIDENCE of what you claim here?
Since you’ve condemned neither FReepers from claiming Catholics aren’t Christians, do you agree?
Agree with what?
That Catholic FReepers say nast things about non-Catholic ones?
YEs - you are correct.
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.