Praying of the Rosary Is NOT Bible-Based Teaching

The Disciplers ^ | 2011 | Ptr. Vince

[Colofornian]

It could have appeared in the JST; couldn't it??

Exactly!

Why Smith supposedly was putting back into place stuff removed from the Bible in his JST version...even adding & changing over 100 words in the book of Revelation...a big "no-no"

18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
(Rev. 22:18-19)

Surely, if Smith was willing to put heaven on the line in his messing with the Book of Revelation, he could have "restored" all those books the Mormons feebly allege the Christians took out of the Scriptures!

[NeoCaveman]

Because it's powerful protection against the errors of the Nesotarians. Has been since the Coucnil of Ephesus in 432 AD.

[HossB86]

Why is the phrase "Mother of God" of such urgent importance to FRoman Catholics.

Because of who HE is, not who SHE is.

Really? Then why don't we hear more about the Son of God instead of the "Mother of God"?

Seems the logic is a little twisted.

Hoss

[DJ MacWoW]

I need BIGGER ones!

If I don't lay off the cookies I will too.

[Resettozero]

Because it's powerful protection against the errors of the Nesotarians. Has been since the Coucnil of Ephesus in 432 AD.

Well, that's an answer I guess. So the RCC is still fighting the Nesotarians and that's why you need powerful protection against their errors?

What does any of that have to do with repeatedly calling to Mary as 'Mother of God'?

Like, I said, I cannot get a clear-cut answer to my question that pertains to a repetitious practice of virtually all RCs.

[rwa265]

How many more times do you want to dance this same dance?

---

When it can be shown where Scripture contradicts the following verses that clearly support the concept that Mary was the mother of God incarnate.

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily. But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. Matthew 1:18-23

And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be. And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. Luke 1:26-35

And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda; And entered into the house of Zacharias, and saluted Elisabeth. And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy. And blessed is she that believed: for there shall be a performance of those things which were told her from the Lord. Luke 1:39-45

And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:) To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child. And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn. And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid. And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger. Luke 2:4-12

And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him. And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord’s Christ. And he came by the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the custom of the law, Then took he him up in his arms, and blessed God, and said, Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word: For mine eyes have seen thy salvation, Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people; A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel. And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him. And Simeon blessed them, and said unto Mary his mother, Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against; (Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also,) that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed. Luke 2:25-35

Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him. When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born. And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet, And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel. Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, enquired of them diligently what time the star appeared. And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search diligently for the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also. When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was. When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy. And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense and myrrh. And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way. And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him. When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt: And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son. Matthew 2:1-15

[Resettozero]

When it can be shown where Scripture contradicts the following verses that clearly support the concept that Mary was the mother of God incarnate.

Thanks for bringing me to your dance; I think I'll walk home now.

[Legatus]

So the RCC is still fighting the Nesotarians and that's why you need powerful protection against their errors?

There are people right here in the RF who deny the divinity of Our Lord, nevermind the mormons. There are arians and nestorians still running around today, their Christological errors must be refuted.

[Resettozero]

There are people right here in the RF who deny the divinity of Our Lord, nevermind the mormons. There are arians and nestorians still running around today, their Christological errors must be refuted.

I suppose. Have at it.

[HossB86]

And where exactly in the verses shown does it say Mary is the mother of God?

Hoss

[Resettozero]

And where exactly in the verses shown does it say Mary is the mother of God?

It's a repetitious non-Scriptural incantation that helps ward off the Nestorians and the Klingons.

[CynicalBear]

>>Just like the dates for Easter and Christmas? There is nothing new under the sun.<<

It would seem so.

Jeremiah 44:16 As for the word that thou hast spoken unto us in the name of the LORD, we will not hearken unto thee. 17 But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes, in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem: for then had we plenty of victuals, and were well, and saw no evil.

Sounds like Catholics today doesn't it?

[CynicalBear]

>>It is not a wise thing to do. We should be working to embrace the 90% of what we agree on, not drive wedges in between the few things we disagree on.<<

That's not what Christ said to the Pharisees.

[SZonian]

Keep searching SP, keep searching...the Truth is out there.

It took me a while to eventually find it...

Praying for you and yours to see the Light and the Truth.

[NeoCaveman]

Nesotarians denied the divinity of Christ.

The title of Mother of God clears that up in no uncertain terms. Since the fifth century.

That’s the beauty of Catholicism we don’t need to reinvent the two thousand year old wheel. Or reverse engineer it from a text.

[HossB86]

And where exactly in the verses shown does it say Mary is the mother of God?

It's a repetitious non-Scriptural incantation that helps ward off the Nestorians and the Klingons.

Ahhhhhh. Now I see. Oddly, that makes more sense than Roman Catholicism does.

Thanks!

:D

Hoss

[HossB86]

That’s the beauty of Catholicism we don’t need to reinvent the two thousand year old wheel. Or reverse engineer it from a text.

But Catholicism does make up false doctrine from whole cloth. Been doing that since what? Fourth Century? And still going strong....

If Catholics could just go back to the two thousand year old truth of Christ and him alone, they wouldn't need to make up stuff from whole cloth -- like Mary being a mediatrix, or a co-redemptrix, or other heretical pap.

Hoss

[Springfield Reformer]

A number of unprovable assumptions in your position, SP.  In the King's English, we read:

And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.
(Colossians 4:16)

In Greek, the phrase  "ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea" comes out as:

καὶ τὴν ἐκ Λαοδικείας ἵνα καὶ ὑμεῖς ἀναγνῶτε

which comes out something like this:

and the [one] out of (or from) Laodicea, that also y'all should read

There are a number of possibilities here.  The context is epistles, so supplying the missing word "epistle" makes sense.  But who is the author, and what is the intended scope?  Paul doesn't say.  The Christian fellowships of Asia Minor, Colosse, Laodicea, Ephesus, and others, interacted with each other.  Apostolic letters circulated among them, as well as less significant communication.  Which of the two was it? There is a hint in the fact that Paul wanted these epistles read reciprocally, because it suggests they were on topic to what Paul was saying in the immediate letter to the Colossian Christians.  But either way, the language is explicit that Paul was referring, not to a letter written to Laodicea, but a letter the Colossians were expected to receive from Laodicea.

So let's consider these two most likely scenarios.  Under the first theory, it is possible the Laodiceans had private or local matters they needed to share with Colosse, and this letter was in fact written by them, just for Colosse.  This would mean the letter could easily be excluded from the canon, as were many other communications during those times, as John indicates explicitly near the end of his Gospel, where only those things were included that were important to coming to faith in Jesus Christ.  We would not necessarily need to see a letter, by Paul or anyone else, that dealt with, say, Laodiciea asking for more funds or other help from the fellowship at Colosse, with no significant doctrinal content.  Paul told them they should read the letter.  But we cannot extrapolate from that your conclusion that everybody on planet earth needed to know what was in that private communication.  So SP your premise is faulty.  You can't infer a universal need to know from this skimpy information.  

Alternatively, it is possible Paul knew of this epistle because he was the author of it.  However, there was, as noted above, a practice of circulating apostolic epistles.  We do NOT know that the epistle coming from Laodicea was named after Laodicea.  Circular letters may have had an initial audience in mind, but then would be copied, word for word, and sent from fellowship to fellowship.  The one epistle that Paul wrote, which would have been in the Colosse/Laodicean/Ephesian/Etc circuit, that also is remarkably similar in content and focus to Colossians, is Paul's epistle to the Ephesians.  Therefore it is possible, just on a straight factual analysis, that the epistle coming from Laodicea was the epistle Paul had originally written to the Ephesians.  If so, then it isn't even lost.  Merely canonical under the name given by it's original audience, the Ephesians.

Bottom line, we cannot attribute to God the inability to communicate His word to whomever He wants, whenever he wants, however he wants.  He is God:

And at the end of the days I Nebuchadnezzar lifted up mine eyes unto heaven, and mine understanding returned unto me, and I blessed the most High, and I praised and honoured him that liveth for ever, whose dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom is from generation to generation: And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?
(Daniel 4:34-35)

But if someone serves a god who's purposes can be thwarted by human error or faulty human judgment or the chaos of history, then they serve a different god than the God of Scripture, Who is emphatic that His word will get where it is supposed to go, and do whatever He sends it to do:

For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater: So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.
(Isaiah 55:10-11)

Great comfort in that. God rules.

Peace,

SR

[rwa265]

Thanks for bringing me to your dance; I think I’ll walk home now.

---

Well, I guess if you can’t provide Scriptures that contradict the concept that Mary is the mother of God incarnate . . .

[Colofornian]

The Prophecy of Ahijah (2 Chr. 9:29) didn't make it in...but Song of Solomon did... what's wrong with this picture? There's a long list of writings from true prophets they threw out in favor of Song of Solomon. I wish we had the Prophecy of Ahijah.

So what? There's a long list of other regarded "prophets" by Book of Mormon characters who weren't (fully) inclusive about their fave-cited "prophets" either!

* The large plates of Nephi [reduced to an abridgement: 3 Nephi 5:8-17; Words of Mormon 1]
* The supposed "numerous plates" buried in a hill that the "prophet" Mormon didn't touch (Mormon 1:3-4)
* The unabridged version of Ether (Ether 1:1-5; Moroni 1:1)
* Zenock? (1 Nephi 19:10; Alma 34:7; Helaman 8:20; 3 Nephi 10:15-16)
* Neum? (1 Nephi 19:10)
* Zenos? (1 Nephi 19:10-17; Jacob 5:1; 6:1; Alma 33:3ff; Alma 34:7; Helaman 8:19; 15:11; 3 Nephi 10:15-16)
* Isaiah (70% of his stuff that was excluded from 2 Nephi)
* Malachi (50% of his stuff that was excluded from 3 Nephi)

I think I know the answer, but I'll ask it anyway: Why the selective targeting of those you regard as Scriptural kingpins? I mean, how convenient it is for you to let all of these Book of Mormon "prophets" off the hook of the same charges you level at others!!!

Please tell us: Where's your scrutiny to be leveled across the board (aimed equally to the Book of Mormon)?

**************

I need to give a sample explanation here so that others understand what's involved:

If the Mormon "prophets" knew that some of these sacred books of old would be at risk of becoming "lost"..."discarded"...etc. & hence need to be set apart for a future "restoration" via gold-plate face-in-the-hat methodology
(not sure what good a gold plate is when a hat works just as well :) ) ...
...well, surely that would include ALL of the book of Isaiah...
...and ALL of the book of Malachi!

(NOTE to NON-Mormons: You may not realize that one Book of Mormon book, before Joseph Smith really got rolling, cited 19 chapters directly ... King James word-for-King James word ... and the next Nephi chapter did the same thing with two chapters from the book of Malachi)

The prophet Isaiah lived 740-681 B.C. -- his death date perhaps being less than 100 years before the alleged dates of when 2 Nephi was supposedly written (588-570 B.C.)

It could very well be that Isaiah was highly regarded but that his work was yet to be fully recognized as an addition to sacred Scripture around the time of 588-570 B.C.

So perhaps Isaiah's work was at risk of being lost. Why did the 2 Nephi choose to throw out 47 chapters of Isaiah -- and only include 19 chapters word for word?

Why did the 3 Nephi only include two word-for-word chapters of the book of Malachi? Why did they toss out the rest?

It's very easy for Stormprepper to toss out these accusations, but then fail to aim similar questions at his own acknowledged sacred texts.