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.
Not a word of condemnation against what?
Resist?
Rome cannot PRODUCE 'evidence'!
Apostle taught SINLESSNESS of Mary,
Apostles taught ASSUMPTION of Mary...
Here is my response: All of the lukewarm Catholics and RABID-Catholics need to spend more time in Bible reading than you do skimming the vast libraries of the Vatican for 'early church father' quotes and fanciful, non-biblical teachings.
Now HERE is a offer one just cannot refuse!
Your, or your client's, counter argument is circular. That all the people that are in that chapter of Hebrews are in scripture is overwhelmingly probable; your side arbitrarily chooses to cast off scripture without any divine mandate. You have no table of contents. You have no original manuscripts. You object to the Greek in favor of the Hebrew but only as it arbitrarily suits the position you inherited by Protestant tradition that stems from an abominable source. Not a compelling case
Are you aware that when Paul quotes pagan poet Aratus ("we are his offspring") the quote he is repurposing is actually referring to Zeus? Let us begin with Zeus, whom we mortals never leave unspoken. 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 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.=
Abundantly aware and I make no such claim that a reference to Greek poets in the scriptures includes the works of those Poets in the scriptures other than what is included. Paul was a Jew of the Diaspora, trained in Greek, and certainly comfortable with the Septuagint; that he later studied in the land of Israel under Gamaliel notwithstanding, it is obvious from the scriptures that our Messiah chose Paul to reach the Greek speaking world. It does not surprise me that he refers to their writings to reach them, as the author of Hebrews and others appealed to the Jewish writings to reach the Jews. The problem with your position is that it took a virulent antiSemite to remove some Jewish writings from the Bible some 1600 years later to reach your argument, and you are very fortunate you are not arguing the case today to burn the book of James.
I'm fairly certain you are familiar that there is a ranking of importance attached to the Jewish writings: Law, Prophets, and Writings. If Rabbinic Judaism is your source of the Canon, you rank the Old Testament books in order of gravity, so to speak, and exclude the Messianic books of the Christians, as well as the Septuagint Greek that favored Christian doctrines. I have two words for that: Bnei Noach.
As for Jesus' appearance at the Temple during the feast of dedication (Hanukkah), the text simply says he was there at that time: 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.
I'm surprised at your words; they suggest to me a lack of vision. To even suggest Gentile demons as a contemporary example for the Holy One of Israel walking in his own temple to sanctify it by His presence during the feast of the Dedication, that is mentioned no where else but Maccabees and John, is so incongruent with what I expect. You cannot see what you cannot see.
How poor WAS he?
He was so poor he didn't have a pit to hiss in!
LOL, do I have to? Isn't there enough snake oil on this thread already? 😄😃😀
Now the Spirit manifestly saith, that in the last times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to spirits of error, and doctrines of devils,
Revelation 1:4-6, 11,
4 John to the seven churches which are in Asia. Grace be unto you and peace from him that is, and that was, and that is to come, and from the seven spirits which are before his throne,
5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth, who hath loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,
6 And hath made us a kingdom, and priests to God and his Father, to him be glory and empire for ever and ever. Amen.
11 Saying: What thou seest, write in a book, and send to the seven churches which are in Asia, to Ephesus, and to Smyrna, and to Pergamus, and to Thyatira, and to Sardis, and to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea.
(Read the 2nd and 3rd chapters to see what ERROR these 'CATHOLIC CHURCHES' were involved in.)
Lol. That is funny. Thanks.
I see more red and stupid from the anti-Catholics everyday on these threads than I do in a year of living just north of the Bible belt.
You mean you do not like the facts shown from the Bible? Just wow. Y’all need to read the Bible more and quit listening to men. Things are claimed to be fact but there are no books, chapters or verses to back up such beliefs. Saying, “oh, it is tradition” does not prove a thing either. Thank God, we can have our own copies of the Bible.
Saying that Catholics should follow the pope even if he were Satan incarnate.
I was on a site recently. It was about Catholic beliefs. One statement that stood out was one made by Pope Boniface VIII where he says to have salvation, every one has to be subject to the pope. Unbelievable. They do not think Jesus is enough. That must have been another day I missed when the minister spoke about that and, you know, it is not in my Bible. Imagine that.
Abundantly aware and I make no such claim that a reference to Greek poets in the scriptures includes the works of those Poets in the scriptures other than what is included. Paul was a Jew of the Diaspora, trained in Greek, and certainly comfortable with the Septuagint; that he later studied in the land of Israel under Gamaliel notwithstanding, it is obvious from the scriptures that our Messiah chose Paul to reach the Greek speaking world. It does not surprise me that he refers to their writings to reach them, as the author of Hebrews and others appealed to the Jewish writings to reach the Jews. The problem with your position is that it took a virulent antiSemite to remove some Jewish writings from the Bible some 1600 years later to reach your argument, and you are very fortunate you are not arguing the case today to burn the book of James.
I'm fairly certain you are familiar that there is a ranking of importance attached to the Jewish writings: Law, Prophets, and Writings. If Rabbinic Judaism is your source of the Canon, you rank the Old Testament books in order of gravity, so to speak, and exclude the Messianic books of the Christians, as well as the Septuagint Greek that favored Christian doctrines. I have two words for that: Bnei Noach.
The idea that some writings were always present (in the sense of canonical) until Luther questioned them is utter nonsense, as has been demonstrated repeatedly on these pages and in good scholarship readily available to the truly interested, and so I will not venture to add more heat to that subject when what is needed is more light.
I'm surprised at your words; they suggest to me a lack of vision. To even suggest Gentile demons as a contemporary example for the Holy One of Israel walking in his own temple to sanctify it by His presence during the feast of the Dedication, that is mentioned no where else but Maccabees and John, is so incongruent with what I expect. You cannot see what you cannot see.
One of the more fascinating aspects of these "dueling vision" conversations is the absolute certainty each side takes that the other is blind. In my experience in law and other such exercises the real problem is that either the one side did not make his case or the other side did not listen to a good case. I don't think you made your case. It's not up to me to assign canonicity by my own powers of imagination. I see that Jesus was present at the Temple. But instead of imagining His presence adding a book to the canon, what I see is the Great Shepherd teaching about what it means to be one of His sheep:
And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon's porch. Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly. Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me. But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.To aid me in my vision, I have the divinely inspired words of the Apostle John. That I can live with. If you want to add something to the text John forgot, that's your business. But you can count me out. That''s too far above my pay grade.
(John 10:23-29)
I understand what the scripture is saying, as I explained to you, where the previous verse said they angered him (ie., God) at Meribah, or three verses prior to that where they provoked him (ie., God) with their inventions, however you used your interpretation of the Psalm to try to blame Luther's intended prey, the Jews of Germany, for Luther's antiSemitism. So we are going with your usage in comparing Luther to Moses, which is also a comparison of the children of Israel being led and fed, as it were, by Moses, with the Jews of Germany against whom Luther conspired to remove them from protection and cast them as outlaws where their women would be raped, their rabbis burned, their men killed, their goods stolen, oh here we have the template for the Holicaust.
Oh, mulch and compost!
You know very well you would not vouch for every sentence in the 10,000 books written by the historic fathers of the Reformation, even though the major ones' works are still in print and taught in Bible colleges and Evangelical and Reformed seminaries and can be garnered off of websites from sea to shining sea.
"But we never said Philipp Melanchthon was infallible!" saith metmom in my imagination. To which I respond, "Nor Catherine either!"
This dictum that "if you haven't officially denounced this or that, you've accepted it" is nonsense: it's certainly not a rule you live by.
Every canon of Catholic law says that the devil is to be resisted; and that the authority of the pope is limited inasmuch as he cannot command error or evil, not propose an erroneous doctrine to be accepted d fide by the whole Church.
I think Catherine's statement about "even if the pope were Satan incarnate" is a dangerous bit of overheated rhetorical hyperbole, and if she were a FReeper I would be after her hammer and tongs.
("Oh, shut up, Catherine, you know that's not true. You've got the more-Catholic-than-the-Pope sedevacantists dangerously close to apoplexy, and you've got metmom's ears twitching and billowing smoke. And mine too! So cut it out!")
Enjoy this cheery 2-min video on infallibility and papal myocardial infarction. It's worth at least a little heh-heh.
"Eery sentence typed by a Prod"?
Excuse me, but what you be smokin'? Seriesly. My beeber is stuned.
Oh good grief. It confirms what I said earlier......cafeteria catholicism.
Nothing sinister, counselor; it was a reference to the posted link where someone tried to counter the argument that every person mentioned in Hebrews Roll Call of Faith is somewhere in the (Catholic) Bible. I suppose any humor is at risk these days, but no insult intended. I simply was not persuaded by that person's counter argument to the strong evidence for Maccabbees. Nonetheless it was a fair treatment of the issue. I just considered the argument unrefined and still standing.
But again, if you wish to invent your own rules of canonicity, based on a private judgment you make of probabilities, that's your choice. Too courageous for me. I'm a timid sort of fellow when it comes to that sort of thing. I'll recline instead on the consensus of the body of Christ, well established from at least the time of Polycarp, as to which books I should trust to be faithful transmissions of God's word.
What body ? If the body is invisible in history I think there is a problem with having a visible and historical Canon. Nonetheless I do not invent my own rules nor promulgate my own Canon. I recognize the canon of scripture as held by the visible and historical holt catholic apostolic church. It was a German antiSemite who promulgated a reduced and different version of the Bible. It is reckless to trust his judgment.
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.