Protestant Orangemen
Buddhist monks:
Hurricane fans worshipping... What?!
Dutch soccer fans:
Orange models:
Crayola crayons:
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.
You can have an intelligent conversation with a protestant. Prots give one liner replies, frequently in the form of a joke that does not address the issue.
You mean like that Catholic who kept posting “You are wrong?”
Post 4463 and Post 4459
I thought there were rules against “making it personal.”
we do...for example when He said "take and eat of This, THIS IS MY BODY" we pretty much take Him at His word and do it.
Dude.....you aren't really arguing with Annalex, are you?......snicker
Like my British friends like to say: Spot on!
Happy Solemnity of Mary the Mother of God!
You do understand I was conducting a comparative analysis?
LOL, ok, whatever you say. You don't know what they said, so how do you know they were lying. They might beg to differ just a little with you. Besides, I am satisfied where I am, I think I will stick with it.
"And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me" (Luk 22:19 AV). Either:
(A) Jesus was speaking literally, the bread became His body, and part of His body (and His blood) did not go to the cross and was not crucified; or
(B) He was speaking figurative-literally, the bread was to be taken as a figure of speech representimg His body, and all of His body (and all of His blood) went to the cross and was crucified.
If you pick the wrong one for your doctrine, you are not remembering Him as He wished.
Q. E. D.
we do...for example when He said "take and eat of This, THIS IS MY BODY" we pretty much take Him at His word and do it.
"And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me" (Luk 22:19 AV).
Either:
(A) Jesus was speaking literally, the bread became His body, and part of His body (and His blood) did not go to the cross and was not crucified; or
(B) He was speaking figurative-literally, the bread was to be taken by them to be a figure of speech as representimg His body, and therefore all of His body (and all of His blood) went to the cross and was crucified.
If you pick the wrong one for your doctrine, you are not remembering Him as He wished.
Q. E. D.
What a transparent attempt to change the subject.
The prohibition against eating blood predates the Old Covenant, the Law given to Moses and is one of the few prohibitions reiterated under the New Covenant.
Physical actions do not cause spiritual realities, but they change as a result of spiritual realities.
Jesus Himself said that the Spirit gives life, that the flesh is no help at all. But Catholics CONSTANTLY ignore and refuse to address that verse in John 6.
John 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
Ever notice how selective in taking verses literally Catholics are? Even within on passage, it's on again, off again.
Literal, figurative, literal, figurative, etc, all based on which doctrine they wish to support.
For example, when in John 6, Jesus said that He was the bread, I don't see anyone claiming He's made out of wheat flour and water.
Nor do I see ANYONE who has lived forever having eaten the eucharist, as they claim it's His literal flesh. Nor do I see anyone who has never become hungry or thirsty after having eaten what they consider His flesh and blood, and yet Jesus said that whoever eats would never hunger and never thirst.
Jesus also, in this passage, says that anyone who looks on Him will be saved, and yet Catholics demand a literal eating. Why don't they believe Him, I wonder?
John 6:40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”
The answer is obvious. They want to be able to control people's spiritual lives by making a demand that eternal life is gained though THEIR sacraments, and that if you don't participate in THEIR sacraments, you can't be saved.
After all, their church clearly and plainly states that there is no salvation outside of them, and I don't see a single verse in the Scripture they claim to have written that even suggests that.
A very keen observation. The content of these passages has often occupied my mind, but I’ve not found as concise and pity way to express the core of the thought. Thanks!
pithy
OK, I now understand your point.
You're saying that if Luther's doctrine of "the Bible alone is the sole, or ultimate, rule of faith," is untrue, then we can't trust the Bible to be inspired, and to use verses as proof-texts.
Is that a fair representation of your position?
If so, that conclusion doesn't follow with logical necessity.
The inerrancy and canon of Scripture can, and must, be derived extra-biblically, because it can't be derived from Scripture alone.
+++
Jimmy Akin masterfully, and concisely, presents the "spiral" argument for the inspiration of Scripture here.
It's not a long read, but if you don't want to read the entire argument, I have excerpted the critical section below.
The Bible as Historical TruthNext we take a look at what the Bible, considered merely as a history, tells us, focusing particularly on the New Testament, and more specifically the Gospels. We examine the account contained therein of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection.
Using what is in the Gospels themselves and what we find in extra-biblical writings from the early centuries, together with what we know of human nature (and what we can otherwise, from natural reason alone, know of divine nature), we conclude that either Jesus was just what he claimed to be—God—or he was crazy. (The one thing we know he could not have been was merely a good man who was not God, since no merely good man would make the claims he made.)
We are able to eliminate the possibility of his being a madman not just from what he said but from what his followers did after his death. Many critics of the Gospel accounts of the resurrection claim that Christ did not truly rise, that his followers took his body from the tomb and then proclaimed him risen from the dead. According to these critics, the resurrection was nothing more than a hoax. Devising a hoax to glorify a friend and mentor is one thing, but you do not find people dying for a hoax, at least not one from which they derive no benefit. Certainly if Christ had not risen his disciples would not have died horrible deaths affirming the reality and truth of the resurrection. The result of this line of reasoning is that we must conclude that Jesus indeed rose from the dead. Consequently, his claims concerning himself—including his claim to be God—have credibility. He meant what he said and did what he said he would do.
Further, Christ said he would found a Church. Both the Bible (still taken as merely a historical book, not yet as an inspired one) and other ancient works attest to the fact that Christ established a Church with the rudiments of what we see in the Catholic Church today—papacy, hierarchy, priesthood, sacraments, and teaching authority.
We have thus taken the material and purely historically concluded that Jesus founded the Catholic Church. Because of his Resurrection we have reason to take seriously his claims concerning the Church, including its authority to teach in his name.
This Catholic Church tells us the Bible is inspired, and we can take the Church’s word for it precisely because the Church is infallible. Only after having been told by a properly constituted authority—that is, one established by God to assure us of the truth concerning matters of faith—that the Bible is inspired can we reasonably begin to use it as an inspired book.
A Spiral Argument
Note that this is not a circular argument. We are not basing the inspiration of the Bible on the Church’s infallibility and the Church’s infallibility on the word of an inspired Bible. That indeed would be a circular argument! What we have is really a spiral argument. On the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is history. From that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded. And then we take the word of that infallible Church that the Bible is inspired. This is not a circular argument because the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired) is not simply a restatement of its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable), and its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable) is in no way based on the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired). What we have demonstrated is that without the existence of the Church, we could never know whether the Bible is inspired.
Protestant Orangemen
Buddhist monks:
Hurricane fans worshipping... What?!
Dutch soccer fans:
Orange models:
Crayola crayons:
They don't eat the blood during a transfusion. Nor are they killing the person who donates the blood. Or were you just so desperate that you had to try anything?
Jesus was born under the law. Part of that law was the prohibition against eating blood. If, as Catholic claim, He was actually eating literal blood it was a sin against the law. Catholics therefore do not have a sinless savior.
They are claiming that Jesus broke the law and is thus not sinless.
They like to go back to the Old Testament and use it to justify their rituals. Yet they ignore the command of God that the blood of a sacrificed animal was NOT to be eaten.
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.