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.
The criteria for inclusion in the scriptures was apostolic origin, direct record of events related to Christ and absence of contradiction. Massive body of work was produced by the Fathers of the Church at about the same time the scripture was canonized that for one reason or another was not canonical scripture. Irenaeus's work is one example.
And Osteen doesn’t have 1.2 billion alleged followers.
If a Lakewood member wises up and leaves them are they still counted as a member?
See, I really expected better from you. Maybe my expectation was aimed too high? Wasn't it obvious from the REST of the post that any righteousness we have that gets us to heaven is the righteousness of GOD which He credits to us through faith? There certainly IS a human level of righteousness - or rightness - that comes from obedience and a love for God in gratitude for His grace. But, seeing as it IS God's word that says there is NONE righteous NO NOT ONE, then it is speaking of the righteousness needed to be in God's perfect presence - and we could NEVER manufacture that of ourselves - which is why it is of GRACE.
I am an ex catholic myself and I went to Catholic grade school at St Mary's parish and catholic high school at St James High School, in Grand Forks, North Dakota, from 1954 to 1966, so you can see it has been a ton of years ago. I cannot recall if any of them ever told me that Mary was divine. I simply do not remember. They did, however, teach us to pray to Mary, like the rosary, or after embarrassing myself in the confessional, so does the fact that we were taught to pray to her, make her divine? I don't know, but of course, I don't do that now. I always enjoy our catholic high school class reunions. There are 2 others, like me, and we have developed some friendly rivalries over the years, with some of the class mates we keep in touch with occasionally. We have fun talking about doctrine. The other two guys are full time preachers. Me? I spent 20 years in the USAF and 25 years in CDCR, at San Quentin, and Solano at Vacaville, CA. BTW, my degree was in air traffic control, of which I was real darned good at, even if I do say so myself. Later bro.
Well, a reference regarding Joseph's degree of intimacy with his espoused wife is made here:
"Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS" (Mt. 1:24-25 AV).
And later on, the same writer Levi makes mention of brothers and sisters:
"Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?" (Mt. 13:55-56 AV).
So what do you make of that?
Without Eve's normal function, It would have been hard for God's command to be followed:
"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth" (Gen 1:27-28 AV).
And regarding the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants (cf. Gen. 17:9-14; Lk. 2:21-23 and also Lev. 11:14; 5:7, 11; 14: 12, 30; 15:14: Lk. 2:24, all AV) this is something to ponder on. From the beginning, Joseph was considered His father, legally for at least 12 years, and certainly by Mary:
"Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover. And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast. . . . And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing" (Lk. 2:41-42, 48 AV).
There's a lot to think on here, isn't there?
“>>that if works made faith perfect then works are necessary for salvation as well.<<
Um, NO, the works simply proved the faith was genuine.
............
Realize you are speaking with someone who does not start with the Word of God and form spiritual convictions based on what it teaches. The opposite is true. This one and others start with the idea they were commanded to believe and are attempting to shoehorn it into a passage of scripture where it is not taught.
It is not their fault. It is bad teaching, a mistaken priority of a particular church over Christ, and the belief they must live their lives on a hamster wheel of works and guilt.
...but for the grace of God, go I.
Continue to speak forth His truth in grace and love. Be a great servant and witness to the grace you’ve experienced. Be faithful. He opens eyes in His time.
You are correct about james. If this poster and others would do the work to understand the passage, it would be clear. Making an outline would be a tremendous learning experience. If they would make an outline of james and Galatians they would never again make silly claims about works.
...but then it would invalidate their religious experience and that is troubling. Better to toe the line and not be uncomfortable.
On iPad. Sorry if autocorrect has ruined any spelling...
You seemed to have missed the change in language on justification by faith from Orange to Trent.
There is a significant difference.
Trent embraced semi Pelagian language.
>>Yes, but we make the decision to do them or not do them. Eph. 2:10 says we must do them. The decision is ours.<<
No not correct. It says:
“For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.”
We do them because we are His workmanship. If one does not or refuses, their heart is elsewhere. He never knew them.
Like Obama and Holder, to name a few?
δεδεμένα and λελυμένα (bound and loosed) are both perfect participles middle/passive.
The significance of the perfect tense means an action was completed in the past but with results existing in the present time(in relation to the speaker/writer).
These are more properly translated as "shall have been bound" and "shall have been loosed".
δήσητε and λύσητε (you shall bind and you shall loose) are both aorist subjunctive active verbs. These are both proceeded by ἐὰν (if) which makes this part of Matthew 18:18 a third class conditional statement. Third class conditional sentences always have a protasis introduced by ἐὰν and a verb in the subjunctive.
These are more likely classified as future more probable third class conditional sentences. If the first part of the if statement is true, the then part of the statement is also probably true.
To interpret this....Jesus is saying whatever you may bind or loose on earth has already been bound or loosed in Heaven. The disciples were to make their decisions in these matters on what was already known.
NASB, HCSB, NET Bible, Aramaic Bible, KJ 2000 Bible, World English Bible, and Young's Literal Translation all have Matthew 18:18 along these lines.
Yes and Irenaeus and many other post apostolic theologians upheld Holy Scriptures as the means to test what they said.
I’ve met a great many people with advanced degrees who are fools.
Like Obama and Holder, to name a few?
“..........
Too many to count!!
You go girl! Right on, right on!
We need a new classification.
I suggest typo tyrant.
Then there are the obviously missing, but logically intended to be included words, which disappear from the page, but I still read them as if they were there.... It can make one sound ebonic-like, or a poor imitation of a bad William Faulkner novel (though I'm not all that certain there are all that many good ones, despite the ravings of legions of fans and a few critics). At least that's what comes to mind when reviewing the writing my own editor had been assigned to check for error then correct, but didn't. Too many coffee breaks, or just too much coffee altogether? cranky is as cranky does
I fired the bum last week, but he said "you can't fire me -- I don't work here." (he had a point)
Then there is the doubling of words...the the. I've done that one more than once, even when not listening to George Thoroughgood and the Destroyers, which is not as often as the stutter typing -- that I've come to believe comes about due to too much bad re-writing, which my editor swears up and down (you should hear that guy swear, it can scorch the paint right off the walls) is not his fault, but my own, instead.
A degree would certainly give her opinions more weight. It is not the degree that matters in her case. It is the anti intellectual bigotry that is constantly presented. As well as the complete ignorance of the Catholic faith by someone, like yourself, that has claimed to be an ex-Catholic When you Are questioned both of you dodge. Perfect example: Earlier on the thread I asked both of you "Where did you learn to worship Mary?" I wanted to know specifically who taught you that Mary was divine. MM refused to answer and your response was to the effect of: It is difficult to say... It isn't difficult to say. It is simply a matter of Fr. Brown during Mass, Sister Mary Joseph in 3rd grade CCD, My parents, aunts, uncles, cousins, taught me during...... The fact is that it never happened.
Yet another example of your personal attacks while denying you engage in them! What you call "anti-intellectual bigotry" is really nothing more than your OWN bigotry in response to having your beliefs challenged. You boast of a degree in "Theology" but do your comments ever give evidence of deep thinking or reasoned considerations? Haven't so far. You hide behind carefully worded personal attacks - some not so carefully - and lash out at others if they dare contradict you! Again, not a good indicator of a person who has confidence in his own beliefs. You presume people like Metmom have "complete ignorance of the Catholic faith", but what you really mean is they don't accept what the religion teaches on certain things.
You claim you asked the both of us where we learned to worship Mary and you presumed the question was dodged. Did it occur to you that it was seen as an insincere question to which ANY answer would be shot down anyway, just as you've done in the past? Do you honestly believe EVERY question you toss out there DESERVES an answer to your demands? How quick you are to assign "dodging" and "crickets", as reasons for non-answers as if you have really stumped "those prots"! There is FAR more intellectual honesty and scholarship posted here almost daily by the non-Catholics than I see in a month from your peeps.
The simple truth is that Jesus called fishermen, a tax collector and others who could not boast of their advanced degrees and intellectual largess, but who opened their hearts to the truth as the Holy Spirit illuminated it to them through Jesus Christ. That's what He requires of us today. Some of the "smartest" people in the world are completely ignorant of what life is all about.
Brothers and sisters, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him. It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. Therefore, as it is written: “Let the one who boasts boast in the Lord. (I Cor. 1:26-31)
I toed the line for my first 21 years, but I felt VERY uncomfortable with that. Maybe that was just God preparing me for my conversion experience. Make sense?
Why thank you sir. 😄
God bless you too.
Not one has ever answered you countless times, or you never accepted the countless times you were answered on this? Which is it? Because I know I certainly have and others have as well. If Paul the Apostle said that to the Jews "First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God" (Rom. 3:2), then why wouldn't they be able to discern what was Divinely-inspired from merely historical or "inspirational" writings? That RCs today INSIST the Apocryphal books are equally inspired and authoritative as the universally-held Old Testament books is ONLY because they HAVE to since Trent made it dogmatic. It gets tiring having to constantly explain this to you Catholics.
I didn't say the Holy Spirit was restricted to only speaking through Scripture. Isn't it logical that when Jesus was speaking to His Apostles telling them that the Holy Spirit was going to teach them all things and bring to their remembrance ALL the things He had taught them, that He might have been talking about their role in writing the Scriptures since what Jesus taught them is recorded within it? They didn't have recording devices back then or shorthand. These writings, like the sacred Scriptures written and preserved by God through the Jewish people, are given to us by God as a more sure word of prophecy and testimony. They are our authority because they came from God. It is why the precepts of our faith are found within them and whatever is presented as necessary for our salvation and life of faith must be proved by them.
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.