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.
I will read up on those over the next few days/weeks and get back to you.....While I have been posting this, 1,842 store front protestant denominations have probably come and gone somewhere on Earth.....but then, that's O.K.....
See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3237145/posts?page=5831#5831 and the replies S.R. supplied to you.
When does the door close?
You never answered that question, but seemingly went plunging on in arguing for indiscriminate inclusion into OT canon for particular writings due to the scant mention there is for those in NT text --- but not for other writings also found in NT texts.
Keep the door open, and who comes slithering in centuries later, but Mohammed.
That man quoted from OT texts (badly, usually mangling those things which he touched) while he boasted himself a prophet.
That doesn't make him a prophet, any more than Ben Sira's grandson relating that his grandfather thought that *his own* writings (which the grandson, in opening chapter of that writing, was alleging he was presenting) were worthy of status equal to that of known prophets.
As for such other pretend-to-be-"scripture", the Maccabean writings had been set well aside as being ~not~ Scripture, regardless if copies of those writings (some of them) were possibly grouped with other, actual scrolls which were Scripture.
We could go down the list for the rest of what Jerome referred to as Apocrypha, and in no uncertain terms excluded from that which should be considered proper OT canon -- but why bother?
As the finds at Qumran suggest -- just for reason a copy of this or that was kept by some -- does not equal that those same persons considered them as fully canonical, much as Targum and other rabbinical commentary could be valued, even cherished -- but still not seen as, or thought as being Scripture.
For days and days now I and others have been showing you some of the reasons why & how that just doesn't work in order to establish Apocrypha as being Scripture.
Must we go over it all again?
To every single challenge -- in reply to those, from you --- it's been nothing but duck and dodge, and bring up some other thing or claim, the conversation going around and around in big circles.
Paul could have just as well known that Timothy (of whom he was personally acquainted) knew well enough that the writings Jerome, centuries later referred to as Apocrypha -- were not Scripture.
So you are wrong yet again, basing an all-in-all which relies in part upon aspect of yet more assumption, as foundational to your contentions, for it can be, and perhaps should be argued the other way around, with Paul having made mention that the Pharisee sect of which he was once quite deeply involved in -- was wrong to have excluded Apocrypha from Scripture.
Yet Paul wrote not one word as for condemning the Pharisees for having excluded writings which God Himself would regard as His own "Word".
Or else also, like I've said many times, witnesses after Christian witness, many of the saints and bishops of the Church, were in this regard (as to OT canon) hopeless IDIOTS who did not know their own bibles!
You have yet to deal with that in any manner other than to brush it all aside, and then sweep it under a rug of claim that centuries later Church Councils could -- by their own decisions, convert that which had been by Tradition explicitly excluded, to at that later date be fully included.
As I pointed out to you...that process reached all the way to Council of Trent, for the voting there was not unanimous for indiscriminate inclusion of Apocrypha -- which would make of those bishops who voted against to themselves be idiots too, in the mold of Athanasius, Epiphanius, Melito, Origen, Jerome and yet many others also.
Yes, that was pretty funny, and not one four letter word, or the N word. Amazing.
Thanks for the welcome, dear Mark17!
Let us begin with Zeus, whom we mortals never leave unspoken.So when an inspired text quotes an uninspired text, we expect that whatever part of it makes it into Scripture is true and real, whether persons or principles, but not that everything else in the source text is true. The argument for the canonicity of any given text must stand on more stable ground than that.
For every street, every market-place is full of Zeus.
Even the sea and the harbour are full of this deity.
Everywhere everyone is indebted to Zeus.
For we are indeed his offspring ...
Available here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aratus
John 10:22-23 And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication, and it was winter. (23) And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon's porch.So yes, He was there at that time. But this is another one of these made up rules, that if Jesus went to some place or event X, that any text describing X must therefore divinely inspired. It doesn't follow. Jesus didn't say or do anything to either ratify or condemn the festival. He was an evangelist with a message, and He threw his nets where the fish were swimming. As we do today. Paul visited Mars Hill and quoted a pagan poet talking about Zeus as if he were talking about God. That doesn't equal putting a stamp of approval on everything associated with Mars Hill or that pagan poet. What matters is what God has approved of and commended to us as undisputed Scripture through consensus of the whole body of Christ.
Watching the events recently in Paris, France, the following phrase is used a lot:
Take the "i" out of je suis and your are left with Jesus!
God seems to have a hand in the French language.
You are welcome for the welcome.
:-)
This revolves about the historial (beyond any doubt) of the hypocrisy of Rome regarding the Inquistion.
One of the great flaws of the Church policy toward heretical movements has been the consistent refusal to even consider any point of view other than the official, approved doctrine of the day (even though doctrine itself has been changed and evolved over time). Many people have been condemned and executed or sent away to prison simply for raising questions about basic beliefs. The belief in the infallibility of the Church and its doctrines created more problems than solutions.
When it comes to writing a history of the Inquisition, the position of the church is well understood. Heresy is not merely to question doctrine or to express an opposite point of view; it is equally heretical to write about events of the past in any critical way of the church. The current Church leadership continue question whether the wrongs of the Inquisition were as severe as history has demonstrated, and has even raised questions as to whether the events (including events documented by the church) occurred as the record shows. The Church position is that elling the story of the Inquisition (or any other matter that questions Church authority) is simply wrong.
The Church position has always been that books critical of the Catholic doctrines are to be ignored and that' good Christians' should refuse to read them. An encyclical from the year 1776 written by Pope Clement XIII (1758-69) strongly condemns not only those who write books critical of the Church, but also those who read such books. Clement wrote on the Dangers of anti-Christian writings "
The well being of the Christian community which has been interested to Us by the Prince of shepherds and the Guardian of souls requires U to see to it that the unaccustomed and offensive licentiousness of books which has emerged from hiding to cause ruin and desolation does not become more destructive as it triumphantly spreads abroad. The distortion of this hateful error and the boldness of the enemy has so increased.....accursed men who have given themselves over to myths....[and who] and who vomit the poison of serpents from their hearts for the ruin of the Christian people b the contagious plague of books which almost overwhelms us. They pollute the pure waters of belief and destroy the foundations of religion....They are abominable in their activity. Secretly sitting in ambush they draw arrow out of the quiver which they shoot at the righteous in the dark. They have not restrained their impious minds from anyting divine, holy, and consecrated by the oldest religion of all time; rather in their attacks they have sharpened their tongues like a sword. They have run first of all against God in their pride. Armed with a thick neck, they have strengthened themselves against the Almighty.....
It is necessary to fight bitterly, as the situation requires, and to eradicate with all our strength the deadly destruction caused by such books. The substance of the error will never be removed unless the criminal elements of wickedness burn in the fire and perish.....For if it is necessary to avoid the company of evildoers because their words encourage impiety and their speech acts like a cancer, what desolation of their books can cause! Well and cunning written these books are always with us and forever within our reach. They travel with us, stay at home with us, and enter bedrooms which would be shut to their evil deception.....
The [faithful] should be warmed not allow themselves to be ensnared by the splendid writings of certain authors in order to halt the diffusion of error by cunning and wicked men. In a word, they should detest books which contain elements shocking the reader; Which are contrary to faith religion, and good morals; and which lack an atmosphere of Christain virtue.
So, the POPES ordered the killing of the Cathars and Albigensians (virtually wiped them and their literature off of the face of the earth, murdered hundreds of thousands), murdered the Lollards and Waldensians by the hundreds of thousands including babies of people who disagreed with the magesterium (Gregory IX) and then the rest of the papal lineages. Then they turned their sights on Spain killing hundreds of thousands of Bible believing Christains (at the Popes direct orders- even unto conscripting the dominicans and later the franciscans and Jesuits) to carry out the Inquisitions. Then on the Portugal which was just as bloody as Spain, but a smaller country. Then the Roman Inquisition which targeted all of Europe. Now exposed clearly by scores of historians (even John Paul II in 2004 made a tepid admission of such acts). And the Popes now claim you should not read what bad people tell about the papal murders because the bad guys are not those innocent popes.
The racial components of the killings which lay behind the killings of the Cathars, the Spainish Inquision , the Papal witch hunts (who killed women with moles or blemishes on their skin) Jews, Moslems, and the Conversos (Jews who converted to Christianity).
By the time of Luther and Calvin the political powers began to be expressed and slowly subdued the murderous events of the Popes.
Yet to this day the Popes refuse mostly to condemn those who expose the largest murderous holocaust in the history of the world, for they say the did it in the name of the Prince of Peace. It seems Jesus said love those who despitefully use you.;....turn the other cheek, love your neighbor.....about the harshes thing Jesus said the the disciples was if you are not received shake the dust off of your feet and move on.......But for power they killed those who had devoted their lives unto death to Jesus Christ. Now I ask, who showed fidelity to the teachings of Jesus..... the martyrs or the Popes. The answer,.....it is not even close. I commend Revelation 17 to those who are devoted to the city on seven hill....the city which the Magesterium refers to as the City of God......the city which the Magesterium of Rome refers to as Babylon the Great. The perversion goes on and on and on. It cannot be swept under the rug. Today we all can read. Today we all can think. The simplicity of Christ..His death, burial, resurrection all a propitiation for wretched sinners is available to all who come to him as a child. He will take your burden. He promised He would.....and as the song says "Jesus always Keeps the Promises He Made".
"If you abide in My Word, then are you My disciples, and you shall know the Truth, and the Truth shall set you free."
Time will tell whether your Rome taught spin can explain away the FACT that you CLAIM these churches as CATHOLIC; yet totally IGNORE the FACT that they were teaching ERROR!
They didn't want the Bible in English or any other native language.
They knew, as has been shown by the Reformation, that once people begin reading the Bible for themselves they will see that Rome's teachings are incorrect.
Instead what we see the desperation of certain unbalanced rabid reactionary cultists exhibiting blind rage and inane argumentation, frankly idiotic unreason-able conclusions, with their "argument by outrage ") ignoring to the very thing in their own leadership-centric church which they somehow imagine invalidates another and different system. And faced with refutation and the antisemitism of Rome, they finally resort to insolence.
As which such they are an argument against being Roman Catholic. What rational soul would want what such are infected with and must resort to?
The decrees did not mention certain Bibles. It was a blanket decree.
Also, in light of the corruption of Scripture done by the CATHOLIC church, that faux concern is laughable.
Sources for all your claims, please......
Do you have ANYTHING to back them up?
You are correct sir. I am living proof. I figure that they did not want to lose control of the people, because it would affect their bottom line.
The reason to alter the canon like Luther did would be to show that the Septuagint as a whole was not understood as scripture in 1-4 centuries AD. Everything else is just "I like this book, I don't like that one" and pulling random quotes that suit your argument. In order to make progress in an argument like this you need to learn to think like a Catholic and think in terms of historical practice of the Holy Church. If you need help with that, --ask.
But he did not. He instead said "all the scripture known to thee", making no reservations.
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.