Posted on 12/14/2014 11:57:21 AM PST by ealgeone
The reason for this article is to determine if the worship/veneration given to Mary by the catholic church is justified from a Biblical perspective. This will be evaluated using the Biblical standard and not man’s standard.
If Catholics really put so much stock in the very words and teachings of Jesus, then why do they ignore the Beatitudes where Jesus taught that if you lusted after a woman, you committed adultery in your heart, and that it's the heart attitude that is what counts, not merely keeping the letter of the law.
Don't forget that hating your brother is equivalent to murder.
So while Mary may not have physically murdered someone, if she lied, hated anyone, whatever, then it's the same in God's eyes as doing the sin.
No where in that passage that says it was planned. It says He revealed His glory but doesn’t say it was planned. It’s not a big deal in the overall scheme of things so no sense in continuing this.
Wherefore my sentence is the Apostles were brethren in unity and obedience to Messiah. He gave them the power of binding and loosing. To Simon Peter He gave the keys to the kingdom of heaven and He promised to build His prevailing church on Peter. He called Peter to feed his sheep as the Apostle who loved Him the most, by being the chief servant of the brethren. This is not at all like the model of the Gentiles, which could easily lead to a misunderstanding with respect to what occurred at the Council at Jerusalem.
BTW, there's actually better evidence that Claudia and Pudens, mentioned right alongside Linus, were a couple of early Brits who took the Gospel from Paul back to the British Isles. There's even a theory of Baptist successionism that says these two were the founders of British Christianity independent of Rome, leading some Baptist groups to claim they've never been part of Rome and therefore never were Protestants. Now, I'm not saying that's right, and I'm not saying it's wrong. But if I did take such a position, how would you attack it? Wouldn't you challenge me to show proof, hard evidence, drawn from primary sources of the period, that my claims were true? Of course you would.
I would you were hot or cold, and if not, give Catholics the same benefit of the doubt.
To know ABOUT her is not to know her.
TO know her is to be in relationship with her somehow, give and take.
Since she is no longer alive on this planet, that is not possible.
They sure do put a lot of importance on a person who no one even wrote about or even kept track of after Pentecost.
What a bunch of unadulterated DRIVEL.
It’s not even good writing.
Well stated. I fully expect, though, that those who bitterly claim “we” never read the writings of the “fathers” of the church, while they seldom demonstrate their own familiarity with the same, will claim we have it wrong and will appeal to the intellectuals who have converted to Catholicism. It is clear that what calls itself THE ONE, TRUE church today, is certainly NOT the church that existed from the start.
Interesting thing is.... how can you love someone you don’t even know?
Catholics sure like to claim they love Mary, but when what they are taught about her cannot be found in Scripture, it’s more like they love what they’ve been taught about her. The woman they claim to love, is nowhere portrayed in Scripture.
So they are in effect claiming to love someone who is not real, or if she is real, is not the one that Luke wrote about.
Mothers who really love their kids get involved in their lives. (Jewish mothers are stereotypically portrayed as way overdoing that.)
She was told that He would cause her heart to be pierced.
“Mary treasured up all these things and pondered them in her heart.’ Lu 2:19
To Joseph the angel said, and I’m sure he spoke with Mary about it: Matthew 1: “21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.” 22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 “The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel”—which means, “God with us.””
A passage in Isaiah about a virgin.
Saving people from their sins.
Bethlehem.
A king trying to kill them.
Wise men giving them gold, frankincense and myrrh.
How likely that she hadn’t been searching the scriptures FAR longer than the apostles had even imagined.
John 20: 24 “Let’s not tear it,” they said to one another. “Let’s decide by lot who will get it.” This happened that the scripture might be fulfilled which said, “They divided my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing.” So this is what the soldiers did. 25 Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26 When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, “Dear woman, here is your son,” 27 and to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” From that time on, this disciple took her into his home.
The idea that the bible is the sufficient rule of faith and that salvation comes from faith alone are contrary to scripture.
You know, you are not the only one writing to me. That was asked half a dozen times for know. Read around.
They are all quite good. Perfect? I don't know.
Hebrews 3:9, 1 John 2:13 (well, the latter is obviously not St. Paul, which is in itself a corroboration).
Yet they don't see that the love they claim they have for Mary belongs to Christ. It's nothing short of blasphemy.
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.