Is Prayer/Veneration/Worship to Mary Biblical?

self | 12-14-14 | ealgeone

[terycarl]

LOL, her we go again. First, I am not a protestant. I am an evangelical, born again Christian.

There is only one, complete, correct Christian church on Earth and it is the one directly founded by Christ....There are many Christian denominations on Earth and they are all Protestant simply because they are not Catholic. There is nothing derogatory about the term, it merely establishes that you are a Christian and not a Catholic....that kind of means that you are protesting the one true church of Christ. Catholics are "born again" and were so 1,600 years before someone else decided to coin the phrase as something unusual...it isn't!

You and I aren't far apart in our belief in Christianity, I just chose the route that Christ established and you didn't. Your route may lead you to Salvation, mine definitely will.

[CynicalBear]

So is “you will never hunger or thirst” but you ignore that one.

[terycarl]

The Catholic Bible is the same today as it was two thousand years ago. uhhh...no.

uhhhh yes, that is, the one that certain people didn't turn into the Readers Digest abridged edition...

[terycarl]

So is “you will never hunger or thirst” but you ignore that one.

Catholicas don't hunger nor thirst, we have the Eucharist that Christ gave us...

[Mark17]

Much of modern catholicism involves the syncretism from pagan religions just like this. Rome approves and incorporates these into practice... eventually backfilling from the Scriptures to justify and making them dogma.

Yes, I know it all came from Babylon. Let me try to clarify a little bit. Being as I used to be a catholic, I am aware of the holy water thing, the graven images, the incense, the vestments, the rituals and all the rest of the trappings. I know, from these things I just mentioned, that ALL catholics are superstitious. My only point, is that where I am, for instance, it seems to me that the superstitiousness (is that a word?)is magnified to a much greater degree. In the Philippines, many are catholics on the surface, but below the surface, they are animist, worshipping spirits. All I am saying, is the difference in degrees of superstitiousness between them. Metmom suggested that might be due to the heavy influence of true Christianity in America, and that might be true too.

My "favorite" superstition, is the one where they tell you that you might get pinched by a dwarf. What non sense I thought, till I saw it on TV, then I understood it perfectly. It happens mostly in the remote, out of the way areas. I spoke to a Filipino preacher, formerly an indigenous mountain tribal man, who told me he saw it up close and personal. He said he felt the evil in the atmosphere. He said it was scary. I believe him. There seems to be much more demonic activity in the remote, mountainous areas. I have been in the mountainous tribal regions a little bit, but I always feel a little uncomfortable there. Very nice people, however.

[ealgeone]

The Catholic Bible is the same today as it was two thousand years ago.

uhhh...no.

uhhhh yes, that is, the one that certain people didn't turn into the Readers Digest abridged edition...

that's just too funny. sad, but funny.

I use NASB...best word for word translation out there.

Not the flawed douay rheims.

And please don't ask for the flaws....they've been covered already.

[metmom]

Catholicas don't hunger nor thirst, we have the Eucharist that Christ gave us...

What? You don't eat or drink any more?

Every Catholic I ever met does. I guess they're missing something then.

[Mark17]

I have asked both sides why the animosity, but no one could tell me why.

At least the Hatfield's and the McCoy's KNOW!

Let me take a stab at it. I have no way of knowing if this is true, but I will give my opinion. The Roman Catholic Church, is Roman, or European based. The Igesia Ni Cristo (Philppine church of Christ) was started by Felix Y Manalo, though you may already know this. They claim, with rabid fanaticism, like many cults, to be the only true church, and that you can't be saved outside the Iglesia Ni Cristo. (Gee, where have I heard that before?) Anyway, the church appeals to Philippine nationalism, like here is the one true church, and it was started by one of our own people. I am not positive if this is what is behind the animosity between the INC, as I call it, or I also call it the Iglesia ni Manalo, and the Catholic Church, but it might be. I will say this, at least the catholics have the correct interpretation of the Trinity. The INC does not.

[Religion Moderator]

” I just chose the route that Christ established and you didn’t”

Stating an opinion as if it is a fact about another poster is mindreading, which makes it personal.

Discuss the issues all you want but do not continue to make it personal.

[af_vet_1981]

Your comment that my comment was misleading, is the height of misleading itself. Typical tactic of yours, post something to a poster that you YOURSELF are doing. Standard Operating Procedures, I've seen it a lot.

It seems to me you could write this to yourself.

Nice copout, you were teasing me? How sick, what a lame excuse to make me into an ex-con.

I would make a joke here, but I think you would misunderstand that as well. You were boasting, in my view, of being at Altamont, doing a favor for Mick Jagger, being in the movie, speaking up for Sonny Barger, and defending his violent gang. It was natural that I might consider you were claiming to be one of the security force. Now, what you don't apparently know, and I use apparently since you have not clarified the relationship you boasted of (that is for you to do if you don't want others to misinterpret your boasting), is that not only was Sonny Barger sent to prison in the 80s but he also spent much of the 1970s behind bars. When Sonny went to Folsom State Prison, he had lots of his gang visit him.Teasing a gang member about Sonny's new residence was a trigger for assault and/or homocide. It was their way. That is why I wrote I should not have teased you. It is along the lines of the cartoons and perverse jokes about Mohammed, why rile up demons on purpose ? It is foolish to tease one of Sonny's gang about his going to prison so often. It happened to many, but I would not go so far to say it could happen to anyone, at least not for those crimes.

Not good enough. [You are referring to the Hell's Angels right? Scared to say it are you?]

I find the name demonic; apparently you are comfortable with it. I know we differ.

LOL oh yeah they may come after you now! Geeze...

One would have to make the mistake of being provocative in person, so to speak, not something I recommend.

Oh gosh, what a sentence! You are nervous huh?

No, unfortunately I'm using a smart phone and it is inconvenient and tends toward grammatical and spelling errors I prefer to avoid. Being surrounded by Moslems makes me nervous. Their gangs tend to also be violent, albeit for different reasons.

I see you are redeeming yourself a bit by saying that they (that "particular" club was [read "were" for grammar's sake]) in the past violent and vicious.

I was discussing Altamont, so my comments applied to that generation, which has aged quite a bit. It's difficult to be quite as violent when one is old and in the way, so to speak.

Very good, maybe you know they bought hundreds of bicycles (and other toys) for poor kids last month.

An organization can be a violent criminal enterprise and still do acts of charity for their community.

[Syncro]

I would make a joke here, but I think you would misunderstand that as well. You were boasting, in my view, of being at Altamont, doing a favor for Mick Jagger, being in the movie, speaking up for Sonny Barger, and defending his violent gang.

Do you ever get anything right?

Just posting facts, which you would rather exchange for the media reports and things you make up.

I'll get back to you in a while, I can't be bothered with your tripe at this time.

None of what you just posted is true.

[af_vet_1981]

First, there is little doubt we are looking at an underlying Hebrew idiom, as it doesn't correspond well to any known idiomatic Greek sense. However, that means we have some samples from the OT to compare it against:

It seems to me there is another example in the second book of Samuel but it follows the others in that David the King does not agree with the advice of the sons of Zeruiah. Yet here, we see that Messiah does a miracle to solve the problem Mary brought before him. St Irenaeus in Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 16 has an interesting perspective. He seems to think that The Lord was checking the "untimely haste" of Mary to partake, before the time, of "the cup", but despite that nothing at Cana was out of due season. It was really about the cup of redemption at His last Passover. I hadn't thought of the phrase from that angle. Yet He did "the wonderful miracle" and "WithHim is nothing incomplete or out of due season." So Mary was intended to ask, and He was intended to do the miracle, and perhaps it was a lesson of some sort to desire nothing before the time. The fascination with end times prophecy comes to mind. I remember the question if the Apostles to Him as to would He at that time restore the kingdom to Israel ! We don't consider that a sin on their part, nor rudeness or disrespect on his. He was simply telling them not yet, although He did the miracle at Cana. I'm just soul dreaming here.

St. Irenaeus

With Him is nothing incomplete or out of due season, just as with the Father there is nothing incongruous. For all these things were foreknown by the Father; but the Son works them out at the proper time in perfect order and sequence. This was the reason why, when Mary was urging [Him] on to [perform] the wonderful miracle of the wine, and was desirous before the time to partake of the cup of emblematic significance, the Lord, checking her untimely haste, said, “Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come”—waiting for that hour which was foreknown by the Father. This is also the reason why, when men were often desirous to take Him, it is said, “No man laid hands upon Him, for the hour of His being taken was not yet come;” nor the time of His passion, which had been foreknown by the Father; as also says the prophet Habakkuk, “By this Thou shalt be known when the years have drawn nigh; Thou shalt be set forth when the time comes; because my soul is disturbed by anger, Thou shalt remember Thy mercy.” Paul also says: “But when the fulness of time came, God sent forth His Son.” By which is made manifest, that all things which had been foreknown of the Father, our Lord did accomplish in their order, season, and hour, foreknown and fitting, being indeed one and the same, but rich and great. For He fulfils the bountiful and comprehensive will of His Father, inasmuch as He is Himself the Saviour of those who are saved, and the Lord of those who are under authority, and the God of all those things which have been formed, the only-begotten of the Father, Christ who was announced, and the Word of God, who became incarnate when the fulness of time had come, at which the Son of God had to become the Son of man.

[af_vet_1981]

I'll get back to you in a while, I can't be bothered with your tripe at this time. None of what you just posted is true.

posts by you on this thread; I see the claim of a favor applied to the Grateful Dead while the hanging out was with Mick Jagger, so my error was that the claim to have done the favor was attributed to the wrong performer, not that you had not made it; hence my wrong turn trying to understand your boasting with respect to Altamont.

For the record
1. 4973: mocking Jerry Garcia
2. 4983: claim to have done a favor for the Grateful Dead at Altamont where they "preformed" whatever that meant
3. 5045:claim media made up the violence
4. 5079:defend motorcycle gang for the homicide, and ignore their other well documented violence at Altamont
5. 5167: speak out on behalf of Sonny Barger and his motorcycle gang and boast of being in the movie and hanging out with Mick Jagger the night before the concert
6. 5192: claim to have studied and researched this (whether Altamont, Barger's gang, or both is not clear; the sin is evident

[terycarl]

” I just chose the route that Christ established and you didn’t” Stating an opinion as if it is a fact about another poster is mindreading, which makes it personal.

I meant to offend no one...I merely pointed out that I had chosen one route and he had chosen another....maybe he's right, I doubt it, but just maybe!.....

[BlueDragon]

The Catholic Bible is the same today as it was two thousand years ago.

NPNF2-04. Athanasius: Select Works and Letters (367 AD)

4. There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after these four books of Kings, the first and second 1 being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third and fourth 2 as one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the first and second 3 are similarly one book. After these there is the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the Twelve [minor prophets] being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations and the Epistle, one book; afterwards Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament.

I see he mentions "Jeremiah with Baruch, (Jeremiah & Lamentations) but other than getting close (but not close enough) you guys are either out of luck in trying to say the "the Catholic Bible is the same today as it was two thousand years ago" , or else would have to by default take some position as towards Athanasius having been an ignoramus.

The man was long ago "sainted", both East & West.

6. These are fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these. For concerning these the Lord put to shame the Sadducees, and said, ‘Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures.’ And He reproved the Jews, saying, ‘Search the Scriptures, for these are they that testify of Me

7. But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity; that there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being [merely] read; nor is there in any place a mention of apocryphal writings. But they are an invention of heretics, who write them when they choose, bestowing upon them their approbation, and assigning to them a date, that so, using them as ancient writings, they may find occasion to lead astray the simple.

There are more witnesses which could be brought to these pages once again, who's own testimony lines up well with Athanasius --- like Melito of Sardis (approx. 170 AD) , (coming down to us through Eusebius) Melito in no manner or way included writings of so-called deuterocanon in his own description of "Old Testatament" (OT) canon, Melito being the earliest Christian witness who is attributed to having written detailed listing concerning what the OT canon consisted of.

There's two more "saints". Should they be given dunce caps, also? Or is is it more true that they were faithfully enough conveying what was commonly, and widely recognized as OT, and what was not?

Others also made mention of partial listings of those same writings which they too regarded as not being canonical...though there is a sprinkling of witnesses in the other direction, whom are seldom united as for all seven of the disputed writings, at times accepting some but rejecting others, which yet other persons wrote they themselves viewed as part of the canon.

But here we get into possibly murky grounds, for some of those individuals may not have known very well the difference between canon proper - and "ecclesiastical writings" which had been accessed for a verse or a passage (a few verses) from here & there which were used then in liturgy.

Although by the time the Council of Trent came along, there were admittedly those within the RCC who viewed the writings which make up the 'deuterocanon' as generally and indiscriminately equal to the protocanonicals , while we are at it in "admitting things", it should be confessed that not only was the voting at Trent not unanimous as far as consideration of the deuterocanonicals to be fully equal with the rest of the OT, but that the very term 'deuterocanon' comes from that era, and as expressed could well have been viewed by *some* of those who voted for positive inclusion of those writings was that what they were agreeing with (perhaps in the minds of *some*) was a degree of inclusion that was a "secondary" rank, and thus as I said, a less-than fully canonical ranking, yet not put in an appendix as Martin Luther had done.

Then there is the testimony of (St.)Jerome indicating what in the 16th century came to be called the deuterocanon were Apocryphal -- not to be considered the same as the rest of the OT, Jerome recommending those writings not to be used for establishment of doctrine, but allowable to be read in church as "ecclesiastical writings" (yet not to be confused with Scripture).

Luther was following St. Jerome's lead in differentiating what Jerome himself referred to as Apocrypha, Luther emphasizing that with moving those writings to an appendix.

All of which leaves the usual RC apologetic concerning this issue, and statements such as italicized at the top of this note -- all wet, like a wet and stinky dog, and as about as well educated and informed (as that dog) also.

All the vigorous shaking and slinging around the ignorant "claim" is about as welcome as a wet dog in the library, where there are men, books, the little tiny glasses of port, cups of coffee, maybe a snifter of cognac, and cigars. There's nothing quite like a good smoke...

Meanwhile, though it's too cold for the dogs to go sleep in the backyard --- they do find themselves banished to the "mud room" adjacent to the side-rear entry of the Hacienda.

[psst... they could do less "barking" and a lot more studying if they wish to be in the company of men (in the library) with all those finer things like---little aperitif glasses, vintage port, fine coffees and good tobacco]

Additional documentation (which disputes the claim that the Catholic Bible is the same...as it was two thousand years ago;

The Old Testament Canon and the Apocrypha

Part 3: From Jerome to the Reformation

Endnotes for The Old Testament Canon and the Apocrypha, for Part 3: From Jerome to the Reformation

and here, for the beginning of the series;

The Old Testament Canon and the Apocrypha A Survey of the History of the Apocrypha from The Jewish Age to the Reformation which careful reading of can show there was no uniform agreement for inclusion, and even wide rejection of the writings which came to be known as the deuterocanon, showing also how deceitful some of 'Rome's' apologists have been in their own presentations.

Gentlemen (or gentle doggies, whatever the case may be) you've been had -- by those of the RCC, for the "story" which you must have been(?) told about this issue by various "Catholic' apologists --- must have been bunk (not true, if but not true enough) in order for you both have to have expressed the opinions which you have, in regards to this issue...

And now, with great assistance of Philip Schaff, Henry Wace, and William Webster, your claims have done been whupped, and whupped but good.

Don't bring the same argument, in the same phrasing, back to these pages again.

Change the wording at least.

[annalex]

Did I say anything about translations?

That the unbaptized babies go to hell is an opinion that is within the Catholic breadth of opinions on the subject, although the one that prevails today instead says that we can hope otherwise. Another notable opinion is that they continue in the state of greatest natural happiness possible even though not in the supernatural state of beatific vision.

[annalex]

I did not say “the Catholic Canon was established 2000 years ago”. I said that the books of the Bible that we have today did not change for 2000 years. The context was that the Catholic Church “added” to the Bible. It did not.

[BlueDragon]

I did not say “the Catholic Canon was established 2000 years ago”

You said

"The Catholic Bible is the same today as it was two thousand years ago."

and I just proved that to be incorrect -- not true.

The context was that the Catholic Church “added” to the Bible. It did not.

When we retrace the exchange of comments back to #5389 where it started, Elsie said;

Now, how do you explain the ADDITIONS to 'scripture' that Rome teaches?

he was obviously enough (to my own eyes) not there speaking of 'Rome' as it were having added to 'scripture' itself, but was instead speaking about what 'Rome' teaches that is addition to scripture, as in "extra-biblical", not in the bible, etc.

Understand now?

So that make you wrong here in two ways at once! Imagine thAT.

[boatbums]

In addition to SR's well stated comments, I would add that we have God's moral law in addition to the natural law. For example, in I Corinthians 11:14, Paul stated, Does not nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace for him?. Barnes' Notes on the Bible has this to say about that passage:

Doth not even nature itself - The word nature (φύσις phusis) denotes evidently that sense of propriety which all men have, and which is expressed in any prevailing or universal custom. That which is universal we say is according to nature. It is such as is demanded by the natural sense of fitness among people. Thus, we may say that nature demands that the sexes should wear different kinds of dress; that nature demands that the female should be modest and retiring; that nature demands that the toils of the chase, of the field, of war - the duties of office, of government and of professional life, should be discharged by people. Such are in general the customs the world over; and if any reason is asked for numerous habits that exist in society, no better answer can be given than that nature, as arranged by God, has demanded it. The word in this place, therefore, does not mean the constitution of the sexes, as Locke, Whitby, and Pierce maintain; nor reason and experience, as Macknight supposes; nor simple use and custom, as Grotius, Rosenmuller, and most recent expositors suppose; but it refers to a deep internal sense of what is proper and right; a sense which is expressed extensively in all nations. showing what that sense is.

No reason can be given, in the nature of things, why the woman should wear long hair and the man not; but the custom prevails extensively everywhere, and nature, in all nations, has prompted to the same course. "Use is second nature;" but the usage in this case is not arbitrary, but is founded in an anterior universal sense of what is proper and right. A few, and only a few, have regarded it as comely for a man to wear his hair long. Aristotle tells us, indeed (Rhet. 1: - see Rosenmuller), that among the Lacedemonians, freemen wore their hair long. In the time of Homer, also, the Greeks were called by him καρηκομόωντες Ἀχαῖοι kareÌ„komooÌ„ntes Achaioi, long-haired Greeks; and some of the Asiatic nations adopted the same custom. But the general habit among people has been different. Among the Hebrews, it was regarded as disgraceful to a man to wear his hair long, except he had a vow as a Nazarite, Numbers 6:1-5; Judges 13:5; Judges 16:17; 1 Samuel 1:11.

Occasionally, for affectation or singularity, the hair was suffered to grow, as was the case with Absalom 2 Samuel 14:26; but the traditional law of the Jews on the subject was strict. The same rule existed among the Greeks; and it was regarded as disgraceful to wear long hair in the time of Aelian; Hist. lib. 9:c. 14. Eustath. on Hom. 2:v.

It is a shame unto him? - It is improper and disgraceful. It is doing that which almost universal custom has said appropriately belongs to the female sex.

I believe God even more strongly demonstrates through nature and His moral law that homosexual acts are against nature as well as against the moral law. Why else did He describe it as an "abomination" to Him? Homosexual acts are unnatural, against God's own design of the human body, against procreation and a destroyer of the family unit as He created it to be. There will always be those who think they have progressed past God, but they are always wrong.

[Syncro]

Did I say anything about translations?

Sorry, I thought the Vulgate was the Catholic Bible.

What Bible did you refer to when you said "the Catholic Bible?"

That the unbaptized babies go to hell is an opinion that is within the Catholic breadth of opinions on the subject, although the one that prevails today instead says that we can hope otherwise.

Wow, that is the best Catholicism can do? HOPE otherwise?

Do you know nothing of the love Jesus has for children?

Do you really think he would allow a, let's just say, 6 mo. old baby go to hell just because he wasn't sprinkled (that is NOT baptism) by a priest shortly after he/she was born?

That's totally un-Biblical and horrendous! The Jesus of Christians would allow a child to go to heaven if by some unfortunate turn of events he/she died before reaching the age of reason.

But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.---Mark 10:14

Does the Catholic Bible have that verse?

BTW there was no Catholic Church at that time, just the Christian church.

So Jesus is saying "such is the kingdom of God"...little children coming unto him.

WITHOUT being baptized.

I'll take Jesus' way over the Catholic church's way, for the love of God.