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.
In other words, you make a personal decision about the motivations of others who criticize your personal beliefs. Even when people have told you the name of their denomination in the past, you continue to badger as if they never have - apparently forgetting they ever did. Instead of asking for a denomination in the first place, why not realize what Springfield Reformer and others have been trying to tell you all along? What someone specifically believes comes across in what they SAY on these threads. Knowing the name of a church they worship in won't reveal that since, if you are being honest, EVEN Roman Catholics differ with each other on many areas of faith and morals.
On this very thread there has been disunity among Roman Catholics on an array of subjects. For example, is St. Peter the rock Jesus would build His church upon or was it the FAITH Peter expressed that Christ's ecclesia is built? Was the universe created in six literal days or is evolution responsible for a creation that took eons? Is there such a place as Purgatory or not? Does physical suffering take place there over untold lengths of time or is it a swift, instantaneous jaunt through a spiritual "car-wash"? All those personal preferences you condemn in non-Catholics are every bit as present within your OWN religion, maybe you just don't see it.
So this personal revulsion you express towards not-Catholic Christians because they may not agree with your own personal interpretation of Scripture is all just a bunch of hot air. It's a sidetrack to avoid going deeper into a conversation, a diversionary tactic intended to cease responses. As you can see, they don't work. All it does is make you look foolish, petty and anything BUT Christ-like.
Catholics are just fine with the leader that we have....Protestants are a little upset because he won't lean to their way of thinking.
Catholics are not required to agree with every move he makes nor every opinion that he utters. He might lean toward the democrats and I wouldn't like it at all..He is a human being just like the rest of us and only under VERY specific circumstances am I required to adhere to his proclamations...otherwise....whatever!
it certainly is no coincidence...the fact that they are a nuclear power and allied with the most powerful nation in the history of mankind helps them a little too.
Did you not read Acts 15?
Yes, Emanuel Swedenborg was not just out in left field. He was not even in the ball park. I am amazed at some of the stuff out there, that tries to pass itself off as doctrine. Incredible.
Really? I think even I could find one or two that didn't agree with transubstantiation -- including the ones who wrote the New Testament. With whom I do agree. They knew the difference between literal and figurative-literal language, and how to use the Koine to express Jesus' words.
is that the command that says take and eat of this THIS IS MY BODY???
It is amazing how you give credence to a passage concerning a word "Father" and yet deny the Eucharist....amazing!!!!
that is all very true, I was merely pointing out that the Catholic church picked one out of 26.6 bad guys and Jesus picked one out af 12....a simple numerical comparison...
No, the UNSHAKABLE rock is Jesus Christ - always was always will be. When St. Peter died a martyr's death in 64 A.D. that "first place" of leadership did as well. You have NOTHING in Scripture that proves Peter's leadership among the Apostles and the local assemblies he helped to form was, or could be, passed on from Peter to someone else. Your religion takes a huge logic leap - unfounded within the writings of even the early church leaders - by saying this "primacy" was something that could be handed down for thousands of years and was what Jesus meant by saying to Peter what He did.
As has been shown at least a dozen times on this thread alone, there was no Pope Peter, head over all Christendom, there was no Pope of Rome nor a succession of Popes of Rome that led all of Christendom, there was no head bishop that all Christendom had to obey. There was no church called the Roman Catholic Church until at least four centuries after the last Apostle died. The very word "catholic" wasn't even used until the second century and then only as an adjective describing the "universal" body of believers in Christ. All that Roman Catholicism teaches today about Apostolic Succession is something they invented and developed over time. They didn't get it from Christ, they didn't get it from Peter.
His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort,
That must be the part where is describing protestants...
you seem to have little boys on your mind a lot....I don't know about those Popes, but.......
He is perfectly capable of making His own decisions...just have faith in Him, He always does it right....founding the Catholic church for example.
I just told you that you were hung up on little boys....
would that be the scripture that the Catholic church brought down through the 1,600 years before you edited it???
the Holy Spirit has guided the Catholic church quite well concerning Mary
Wait until you get to the 5th grade, past participles will freak you out.
It's still done to remember the broken and torn up Body of our Saviour because of what was going to happen to Him very soon after He said essentially Do this to remember Me.
It was His body, broken just for us.
Take and eat, in remembrance of Me.
Thank you Jesus, I love You. But you first loved me, an undeserving person who is more important to you than every sparrow that falls to the ground.
So, Jesus did NOT eat his own flesh and pass it around for his followers to eat. That would have been a mess.
I know you have this aversion to the word "personal", but you'll have to do a lot of redacting in your Bible to remove all the times God is referred to as my Savior, my Lord, my God, my Redeemer, my Shepherd, my Rock, my Deliverer, my Father, my Shield, my Fortress, my Buckler, my Stronghold, my Defense, the horn of my salvation and my high tower. Why, even Blessed Mary said, "My soul exalts the Lord, And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior." (Luke 1:46-47)
No one denies that God isn't also the Savior of the world, the God of all, just that He is also a personal God and not some impersonal spirit. Maybe it's time to get over your fear of that word?
He agrees with me 100%Amazing that there is ONE person in the world that the Holy Spirit agrees with 100% and it is terycarl?
I'm just going to let that sink in...
My pleasure. Though as you can see from recent activity it wouldn't matter to some if Augustine and other like-minded early interpreters of Scripture all rose from the dead and started posting here 24/7 that Christ is the Rock. The narrative must survive the onslaught of reality no matter what the cost. Truly amazing.
And that hymn was one of my mother's favorites. I know it well, and sing it with relish, such as my voice is. :(
And somewhere back in the family tree I have a circuit riding Methodist preacher. Hard days, but good times.
Peace,
SR
By all means don't fast-forward through I Corinthians 10:14-17 which IS the context for the next chapter you speak of, because Paul makes it pretty clear what/who is that loaf of bread:
Paul further teaches in chapter 12:
Paul ALWAYS taught this principle, as here:
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.