A Protestant view of the Mother of God

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ite_ad_Ioseph
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
PJM. Is that all there is as an answer to what I have said in my Protestant responses to the Catholic posting of a subject that says: A Protestant View of the Mother of God?" When that topic was sent to me, I somehow figured it was to invite me, knowing as the Forum does that I am a Protestant, not Catholic, to respond in whatever way the Holy Spirit led me.
I guess I was wrong. Or was I?
 
When tradition follows Scripture, there is no problem. But when tradition opposes Scripture (is anti-Scriptural), then Scripture MUST prevail.

Here is an example: “By observing the Sunday, in keeping Christmas and Easter, they [the Protestants] are accepting the authority of the spokesman for the church, the pope.” (Our Sunday Visitor, Feb. 5, 1950).

We know from Luke 2:8 that Jesus was born at a balmy time of year, not in mid-winter. Bethlehem sits on a mountain ridge 2350 ft above sea level and only 30 miles from the Mediterranean Sea. Because of this, especially in December and January, winter storms blow in off the Mediterranean and bring windy, wet and cold weather to Jerusalem and Bethlehem. For this reason, shepherds around Bethlehem do not keep their flocks out in the field at night from November through February. Comparing Luke 1:5 with 1 Chron. 24:10 and doing some simple calculations, we find that John the Baptist was born around the time of Passover, and Jesus was born six months later, around the time of the Feast of Tabernacles. There are at least eight “parallels” between the themes of the Feast of Tabernacles in the fall and the narrative of Jesus’ birth given in Matthew and Luke. The teaching of the Catholic Church that Jesus was born on December 25 is anti-Scriptural, and the keeping of Christmas on December 25 is an “import” from paganism.

Regarding Easter: We know that in the First Century AD and more anciently, this was a pagan festival honoring the pagan fertility goddess who went by names such as Ishtar, Ashtoreth, Astarte, Aphrodite, Venus and even Diana of the Ephesians. In the First Century, Easter was held on the first Sunday following the Vernal equinox, or no later than March 28 on our calendar. Passover was always held at the conclusion of the 14th day of the lunar month that began with the first New Moon following the Vernal Equinox. Thus, Passover was never earlier that April 4 on our calendar. You can see that Easter always came before Passover in the First Century. Therefore, it is IMPOSSIBLE that Jesus was resurrected on Easter Sunday. Historical evidence is clear that the faithful Gentile Christians of Asia Minor (the Patriarchate of Antioch) observed a Messianic Passover (the Lord’s Supper) at the end of Nisan 14, the same as the Jews. They said that this was taught by the disciples, and was according to the Gospel (the record of this is found in the writings of Eusebius). It was the Bishop of Rome that decided to move the celebration of Christ’s resurrection to Sunday, even to Easter Sunday, both to accommodate the pagan converts and to also distance Christians from being seen as Jews. But this was not Scriptural, in fact it was anti-Scriptural, and was strongly resisted by the Christians of Asia Minor for centuries. To the end of the Second Century AD they strongly resisted the Bishop of Rome in this matter, and even by the time of the Council of Nicea in 325 AD, they were still opposed but were forced by Constantine with his civil authority to go along with the Bishop of Rome. Again, the Bishop of Rome brought something into the church from paganism, in defiance of Scripture.

The change from worship on the seventh-day Sabbath (Saturday) to worship on the weekly Sunday is also anti-Scriptural. The Fourth Commandment clearly says: “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but THE SEVENTH DAY IS THE SABBATH OF THE LORD YOUR GOD. In it you shall do no work. . . .” (Exodus 20:8-10). The Catholic Church has even re-arranged the Ten Commandments! Worship on the Venerable Day of the Sun is an import from pagan practice, not a Bible teaching.

In the above quotation from Our Sunday Visitor, there is no appeal to Scripture. Rather, these anti-Scriptural changes are held up as showing the authority of the pope. The Catholic church has long held their traditions to trump Scripture, and this is seen in the teachings and practices of the Catholic Church.

Here is the text of a letter written by T. Enright CSSR, of St. Alphonsus’ Church, St. Louis, Missouri in 1905: “Dear Friend, I have offered and still offer $1000 to any one who can prove to me from the Bible alone that I am bound, under grievous sin, to keep Sunday holy. It was the Catholic Church which made the law obliging us to keep Sunday holy. The church made this law long after the Bible was written. Hence said law is not in the Bible. Christ, our Lord empowered his church to make laws binding in conscience. He said to his apostles and their lawful sucessors in the priesthoold “Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be binding in heaven.” Mth. 16:19. Mth. 18:17, Luke 16:19. The Cath. Church abolished not only the Sabbath, but all the other Jewish festivals. Pray and study. I shall be always glad to help you as long as you honestly seek the truth. Respectfully, T. Enright CSSR.”

Again, the appeal is to the “power” of the Catholic church to override God’s law. The Catholic church teaches that it’s decisions and traditions override Scripture. This clearly shows that the Catholic Church pays no attention to the authority of Scripture. If it wants to, it changes the word of God at will.

Are you willing to subject yourself to Scripture? Are you willing to bow humbly before the teachings of Scripture, as inspired by the Holy Spirit, and learn the things of Jesus Christ who set forth His religion (faith and practice) in Scripture?

Sola Scriptura!
 
When tradition follows Scripture, there is no problem. But when tradition opposes Scripture (is anti-Scriptural), then Scripture MUST prevail.

Here is an example: “By observing the Sunday, in keeping Christmas and Easter, they [the Protestants] are accepting the authority of the spokesman for the church, the pope.” (Our Sunday Visitor, Feb. 5, 1950).

We know from Luke 2:8 that Jesus was born at a balmy time of year, not in mid-winter. Bethlehem sits on a mountain ridge 2350 ft above sea level and only 30 miles from the Mediterranean Sea. Because of this, especially in December and January, winter storms blow in off the Mediterranean and bring windy, wet and cold weather to Jerusalem and Bethlehem. For this reason, shepherds around Bethlehem do not keep their flocks out in the field at night from November through February. Comparing Luke 1:5 with 1 Chron. 24:10 and doing some simple calculations, we find that John the Baptist was born around the time of Passover, and Jesus was born six months later, around the time of the Feast of Tabernacles. There are at least eight “parallels” between the themes of the Feast of Tabernacles in the fall and the narrative of Jesus’ birth given in Matthew and Luke. The teaching of the Catholic Church that Jesus was born on December 25 is anti-Scriptural, and the keeping of Christmas on December 25 is an “import” from paganism.

Regarding Easter: We know that in the First Century AD and more anciently, this was a pagan festival honoring the pagan fertility goddess who went by names such as Ishtar, Ashtoreth, Astarte, Aphrodite, Venus and even Diana of the Ephesians. In the First Century, Easter was held on the first Sunday following the Vernal equinox, or no later than March 28 on our calendar. Passover was always held at the conclusion of the 14th day of the lunar month that began with the first New Moon following the Vernal Equinox. Thus, Passover was never earlier that April 4 on our calendar. You can see that Easter always came before Passover in the First Century. Therefore, it is IMPOSSIBLE that Jesus was resurrected on Easter Sunday. Historical evidence is clear that the faithful Gentile Christians of Asia Minor (the Patriarchate of Antioch) observed a Messianic Passover (the Lord’s Supper) at the end of Nisan 14, the same as the Jews. They said that this was taught by the disciples, and was according to the Gospel (the record of this is found in the writings of Eusebius). It was the Bishop of Rome that decided to move the celebration of Christ’s resurrection to Sunday, even to Easter Sunday, both to accommodate the pagan converts and to also distance Christians from being seen as Jews. But this was not Scriptural, in fact it was anti-Scriptural, and was strongly resisted by the Christians of Asia Minor for centuries. To the end of the Second Century AD they strongly resisted the Bishop of Rome in this matter, and even by the time of the Council of Nicea in 325 AD, they were still opposed but were forced by Constantine with his civil authority to go along with the Bishop of Rome. Again, the Bishop of Rome brought something into the church from paganism, in defiance of Scripture.

The change from worship on the seventh-day Sabbath (Saturday) to worship on the weekly Sunday is also anti-Scriptural. The Fourth Commandment clearly says: “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but THE SEVENTH DAY IS THE SABBATH OF THE LORD YOUR GOD. In it you shall do no work. . . .” (Exodus 20:8-10). The Catholic Church has even re-arranged the Ten Commandments! Worship on the Venerable Day of the Sun is an import from pagan practice, not a Bible teaching.

In the above quotation from Our Sunday Visitor, there is no appeal to Scripture. Rather, these anti-Scriptural changes are held up as showing the authority of the pope. The Catholic church has long held their traditions to trump Scripture, and this is seen in the teachings and practices of the Catholic Church.

Here is the text of a letter written by T. Enright CSSR, of St. Alphonsus’ Church, St. Louis, Missouri in 1905: “Dear Friend, I have offered and still offer $1000 to any one who can prove to me from the Bible alone that I am bound, under grievous sin, to keep Sunday holy. It was the Catholic Church which made the law obliging us to keep Sunday holy. The church made this law long after the Bible was written. Hence said law is not in the Bible. Christ, our Lord empowered his church to make laws binding in conscience. He said to his apostles and their lawful sucessors in the priesthoold “Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be binding in heaven.” Mth. 16:19. Mth. 18:17, Luke 16:19. The Cath. Church abolished not only the Sabbath, but all the other Jewish festivals. Pray and study. I shall be always glad to help you as long as you honestly seek the truth. Respectfully, T. Enright CSSR.”

Again, the appeal is to the “power” of the Catholic church to override God’s law. The Catholic church teaches that it’s decisions and traditions override Scripture. This clearly shows that the Catholic Church pays no attention to the authority of Scripture. If it wants to, it changes the word of God at will.

Are you willing to subject yourself to Scripture? Are you willing to bow humbly before the teachings of Scripture, as inspired by the Holy Spirit, and learn the things of Jesus Christ who set forth His religion (faith and practice) in Scripture?

Sola Scriptura!
Given that so much of what you say is information not in the Bible,you refute your own claim. As to Christmas, it was a minor feast until the 4th Century. That it later become so important is testimony to the Church’s determination that we celebrate the feat of the Incarnation. The elevation of that feast like the elevation of Marian devotion is a desire to emphasize both the divinity and humanity of Jesus.
 
=RonTheNewJew;5233880]PJM. Is that all there is as an answer to what I have said in my Protestant responses to the Catholic posting of a subject that says: A Protestant View of the Mother of God?" When that topic was sent to me, I somehow figured it was to invite me, knowing as the Forum does that I am a Protestant, not Catholic, to respond in whatever way the Holy Spirit led me.
I guess I was wrong. Or was I?
My friend Ron,

Sorry if my last post didn’t pass “muster!”

If you ask specific questions, I’ll go out of my way to reply not only with specifics but with evidence of why we teach and believe what we do.

This is a topic of great personal interest for me, so of you’d like to discusss a particiular view, or idea, just share it and we can go from there.

We do find on this Forum, a large group who hide behind a “belief” in “no God.” I don’t personally buy it. It’s too easy to prove that their is.

Love and prayers,

Pat
 
Sunday Worship

Isaiah 1:13 - God begins to reveal His displeasure with the Sabbath.

Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:2,9; John 20:1,19- the Gospel writers purposely reveal Jesus’ resurrection and appearances were on Sunday. This is because Sunday had now become the most important day in the life of the Church.

Acts 20:7 - this text shows the apostolic tradition of gathering together to celebrate the Eucharist on Sunday, the “first day of the week.” Luke documents the principle worship was on Sunday because this was one of the departures from the Jewish form of worship.

1 Cor. 16:2 - Paul instructs the Corinthians to make contributions to the churches “on the first day of the week,” which is Sunday. This is because the primary day of Christian worship is Sunday.

Col. 2:16-17 - Paul teaches that the Sabbath was only a shadow of what was fulfilled in Christ, and says “let no one pass judgment any more over a Sabbath.”

2 Thess. 2:15 - we are to hold fast to apostolic tradition, whether it is oral or written. The 2,000 year-old tradition of the Church is that the apostles changed the Sabbath day of worship from Saturday to Sunday.

Heb. 4:8-9 - regarding the day of rest, if Joshua had given rest, God would not later speak of “another day,” which is Sunday, the new Sabbath. Sunday is the first day of the week and the first day of the new creation brought about by our Lord’s resurrection, which was on Sunday.

Heb. 7:12 - when there is a change in the priesthood, there is a change in the law as well. Because we have a new Priest and a new sacrifice, we also have a new day of worship, which is Sunday.

Rev 1:10 - John specifically points out that he witnesses the heavenly Eucharistic liturgy on Sunday, the Lord’s day, the new day of rest in Christ.

Matt. 16:19; 18:18 - whatever the Church binds on earth is bound in heaven. Since the resurrection, Mass has been principally celebrated on Sunday.
When tradition follows Scripture, there is no problem. But when tradition opposes Scripture (is anti-Scriptural), then Scripture MUST prevail.
so Ron I really cannot see how Tradition opposes scripture :rolleyes:

God bless you Ron, and welcome to the Catholic church, ‘‘the pillar and bulwark of the truth’’ 1Tim3:15:thumbsup:
 
**Scripture alone disproves scripture alone **:rolleyes:
Scripture Alone Disproves “Scripture Alone”
Gen. to Rev. - Scripture never says that Scripture is the sole infallible authority for God’s Word. Scripture also mandates the use of tradition. This fact alone disproves sola Scriptura.

Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:15 - those that preached the Gospel to all creation but did not write the Gospel were not less obedient to Jesus, or their teachings less important.

Matt. 28:20 - “observe ALL I have commanded,” but, as we see in John 20:30; 21:25, not ALL Jesus taught is in Scripture. So there must be things outside of Scripture that we must observe. This disproves “Bible alone” theology.

Mark 16:15 - Jesus commands the apostles to “preach,” not write, and only three apostles wrote. The others who did not write were not less faithful to Jesus, because Jesus gave them no directive to write. There is no evidence in the Bible or elsewhere that Jesus intended the Bible to be sole authority of the Christian faith.

Luke 1:1-4 - Luke acknowledges that the faithful have already received the teachings of Christ, and is writing his Gospel only so that they “realize the certainty of the teachings you have received.” Luke writes to verify the oral tradition they already received.

John 20:30; 21:25 - Jesus did many other things not written in the Scriptures. These have been preserved through the oral apostolic tradition and they are equally a part of the Deposit of Faith.

Acts 8:30-31; Heb. 5:12 - these verses show that we need help in interpreting the Scriptures. We cannot interpret them infallibly on our own. We need divinely appointed leadership within the Church to teach us.

Acts 15:1-14 – Peter resolves the Church’s first doctrinal issue regarding circumcision without referring to Scriptures.

Acts 17:28 – Paul quotes the writings of the pagan poets when he taught at the Aeropagus. Thus, Paul appeals to sources outside of Scripture to teach about God.

1 Cor. 5:9-11 - this verse shows that a prior letter written to Corinth is equally authoritative but not part of the New Testament canon. Paul is again appealing to a source outside of Scripture to teach the Corinthians. This disproves Scripture alone.

1 Cor. 11:2 - Paul commends the faithful to obey apostolic tradition, and not Scripture alone.

Phil. 4:9 - Paul says that what you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, do. There is nothing ever about obeying Scripture alone.

Col. 4:16 - this verse shows that a prior letter written to Laodicea is equally authoritative but not part of the New Testament canon. Paul once again appeals to a source outside of the Bible to teach about the Word of God.

1 Thess. 2:13 – Paul says, “when you received the word of God, which you heard from us…” How can the Bible be teaching first century Christians that only the Bible is their infallible source of teaching if, at the same time, oral revelation was being given to them as well? Protestants can’t claim that there is one authority (Bible) while allowing two sources of authority (Bible and oral revelation).

1 Thess. 3:10 - Paul wants to see the Thessalonians face to face and supply what is lacking. His letter is not enough.

2 Thess. 2:14 - Paul says that God has called us “through our Gospel.” What is the fullness of the Gospel?

2 Thess. 2:15 - the fullness of the Gospel is the apostolic tradition which includes either teaching by word of mouth or by letter. Scripture does not say “letter alone.” The Catholic Church has the fullness of the Christian faith through its rich traditions of Scripture, oral tradition and teaching authority (or Magisterium).

2 Thess 3:6 - Paul instructs us to obey apostolic tradition. There is no instruction in the Scriptures about obeying the Bible alone (the word “Bible” is not even in the Bible).

1 Tim. 3:14-15 - Paul prefers to speak and not write, and is writing only in the event that he is delayed and cannot be with Timothy.

2 Tim. 2:2 - Paul says apostolic tradition is passed on to future generations, but he says nothing about all apostolic traditions being eventually committed to the Bible.

2 Tim. 3:14 - continue in what you have learned and believed knowing from whom you learned it. Again, this refers to tradition which is found outside of the Bible.

James 4:5 - James even appeals to Scripture outside of the Old Testament canon (“He yearns jealously over the spirit which He has made…”)

2 Peter 1:20 - interpreting Scripture is not a matter of one’s own private interpretation. Therefore, it must be a matter of “public” interpretation of the Church. The Divine Word needs a Divine Interpreter. Private judgment leads to divisions, and this is why there are 30,000 different Protestant denominations.

2 Peter 3:15-16 - Peter says Paul’s letters are inspired, but not all his letters are in the New Testament canon. See, for example, 1 Cor. 5:9-10; Col. 4:16. Also, Peter’s use of the word “ignorant” means unschooled, which presupposes the requirement of oral apostolic instruction that comes from the Church.

2 Peter 3:16 - the Scriptures are difficult to understand and can be distorted by the ignorant to their destruction. God did not guarantee the Holy Spirit would lead each of us to infallibly interpret the Scriptures. But this is what Protestants must argue in order to support their doctrine of sola Scriptura. History and countless divisions in Protestantism disprove it.

1 John 4:1 - again, God instructs us to test all things, test all spirits. Notwithstanding what many Protestants argue, God’s Word is not always obvious.

1 Sam. 3:1-9 - for example, the Lord speaks to Samuel, but Samuel doesn’t recognize it is God. The Word of God is not self-attesting.
 
1 Kings 13:1-32 - in this story, we see that a man can’t discern between God’s word (the commandment “don’t eat”) and a prophet’s erroneous word (that God had rescinded his commandment “don’t eat”). The words of the Bible, in spite of what many Protestants must argue, are not always clear and understandable. This is why there are 30,000 different Protestant churches and one Holy Catholic Church.

Gen. to Rev. - Protestants must admit that knowing what books belong in the Bible is necessary for our salvation. However, because the Bible has no “inspired contents page,” you must look outside the Bible to see how its books were selected. This destroys the sola Scriptura theory. The canon of Scripture is a Revelation from God which is necessary for our salvation, and which comes from outside the Bible. Instead, this Revelation was given by God to the Catholic Church, the pinnacle and foundation of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15).

If you wanna read other passages Ron that protestents use to try and prove their sola scriptura then take a look at this site by John salza, that refutes all of them.
scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html
 
I suspect that their are a great many “Ron types out there” simply because it would mean that they would be accountable and have to change how they are “living” their lives.🤷

Oh my:blush: Naw! For me? You know how I live my life? Hmm.

Love and prayers,
Yah. OK

It appears that the Catholic Church has decided that it can set up festivals or days, just because there is “no commandment preventing it” from doing so. You already have the text, mentioned earlier, in which Jesus tells His disciples to go forth and “teach all nations those things whatsoever I have commanded you.” Christ’s words were to teach only those things He had commanded His disciples to teach. Christ didn’t command the observances (Christmas, Easter, etc.) Instead, they kept the “Jewish” days which He gave to Moses, and did so after His crucifixion-to-ascension, but with new Messianic meaning.

Jesus knew that Peter was often filled with a vain, impetuous pride and desire for personal power. Yet, He knew that beneath that boastful vest, was a scared man, who would deny Him three times in Jerusalem. Jesus was merely comparing Peter, (Petros, in Greek), a rolling stone who could be easily manipulated or turned away from real strength, to a solid rock (the large boulder upon which they both stood. Jesus was merely telling Peter that the large, solid rock was the truth He had revealed to Peter and all the other disciples. That meant that the truth Jesus had revealed to Peter and the others, was the Rock upon which He would build His Church. Peter made no changes to what Christ had given him and the others.

He had already said to them that the “extra” (or the oral torah, which means “set of rules or laws,” set up by the religious “sages,” that is the rabbis and teachers, which disagreed with what He and His Father had set up as the everlasing covenant of grace, which started at the Gate of the Garden of Eden and were expanded and completed when given to Moses at Mt. Sinai , ie. the written Torah (first five books of Moses), such “extra-biblical” rules which were made by those who “laid heavy burdens on the people,” and that caused the people to “break the commandment of God,” were obviously to be rejected.

He was, as Exekiel 36, 26 and 27 clearly tells us, come to put "My Laws, Statutes and Judgements in their hearts There was no other Law given by God after Ezekiel’s description and Christ’s defense of those Laws.

Without the animal sacrifices and Temple services, which were the “mirth” and the “offerings and oblations”, the animal sacrifices are gone. Now, each Festival (Feast) has a prophetic meaning.

People sometimes say that Paul said: “Christ, our Passover has been slain.” They try to say that that means the Passover Seder with it’s 14 steps is gone. They fail to read the very next sentence where Paul then says: “therefore, let us keep the Feast.” Christ gave the example for His followers to follow when they had the final Seder with the prayer, the two questions before the meal,.the meal with the dipping into the bitter herbs, the Hallel at the end, as described mainly by Luke, but in pieces by the other Gospels.

He had already kept all of the Feasts that normally required male attendance at Jerusalem, but kept them at Capernaum, away from Jerusalem. In summation, He was setting up His religion and did so before He died for us.

Passover is a remembrance of freedom from Egyptian bondage. It is also a rembrance of Christ’s sacrifice for us. It is a prophecy because Christ told His disciples that He will eat of the Passover (meaning the Seder) with them, and us “in the Kingdom,” which yet to come.) We are to keep it until He comes, and will do so after He had come back. There, we will remember the feast of the early first fruits, Christ when he rose from the dead. The eight days of unleavened bread, the remembrance of His cleansing us from our sins. Thus, with the memory of such Salvation, we will worship Him

The bitter herbs, the sauce, taken by mouth, is a reminder of the suffering of Israel in Egyptian bondage. It is a memorial to the suffering of Christ for us. It is a prophecy about the suffering of the people of God who will suffer the time of tribulation at the very end, immediately preceding Christ’s second coming to deliver His people from that tribulation and take them Home.

Shavuot (Pentecost, in Greek), is a reminder of how God’s Spirit, the Holy Spirit, led our spiritual forefathers, the Jews, and even before the Jews, back to Adam and Eve. It is a memorial to the giving, by Jesus, Who is God the Son, of the Holy Spirit to the Apostles. It is also a reminder, and a prophecy that His Holy Spirit is with us yet and in the future.

The Feast of Trumpets is a reminder of the great Trumpet of God at Mt. Sinai when the pre-incarnate Christ, whose voice Moses was able to hear, and whose finger Moses saw write the Ten Commandments, gave the Law to His people. It is the same Trumpet that will announce His second coming. Thus, it also is prophetic.

The Feast of Tabernacles is a memorial to how God was with His people, really from the very beginning. In the wilderness, it was the cloud by day and the pillar of fire by night. It is a memorial to when Christ was here on earth with His people and lived, guided them, and died for their law-breaking.

The Feast of Tabernacles is also, and as importantly, prophetic, because it says that He will Tabernacle with us in the new earth.

Because Christ now works within each of us to sanctify us (the cup of Sanctification, one of the four cups of the Seder), He delivers us (the cup of Deliverance of the Seder), because He died for us (the cup of Atonement of the Seder). When we stand, thereby, through having kept the original faith and testimony of God and Christ, in the Judgement (the cup of Judgement)

Praise God for His Deliverance.
 
Yah. OK

It appears that the Catholic Church has decided that it can set up festivals or days, just because there is “no commandment preventing it” from doing so. You already have the text, mentioned earlier, in which Jesus tells His disciples to go forth and “teach all nations those things whatsoever I have commanded you.” Christ’s words were to teach only those things He had commanded His disciples to teach. Christ didn’t command the observances (Christmas, Easter, etc.) Instead, they kept the “Jewish” days which He gave to Moses, and did so after His crucifixion-to-ascension, but with new Messianic meaning.
Friend, as a person of Jewish hetitage, you should understand Mt. 16:18-20, and Mt. 18:18 better than most.

The terms “to bind and to loose” were binding at Law, Jewish Rabbinical terms, contractual and completely binding in nature.

Specifically they delt with unlimited, unihibited, power and authority to govern, make and inforce laws, adminsiter the “governemnt / and or kingdom” and to do so being anserable ONLY to the King. It was awarding the position of Primeminister of the Kingdom! This is precisely what Christ did for Peter, and I can give abundant evidence that this was clearly understood to be the case.

This authority is passed on from Supreme Pontiff to Supreme Pontiff, and is the key reason that the Catholic Church has 2000 continious and conscutive years of Serving God.
Jesus knew that Peter was often filled with a vain, impetuous pride and desire for personal power. Yet, He knew that beneath that boastful vest, was a scared man, who would deny Him three times in Jerusalem. Jesus was merely comparing Peter, (Petros, in Greek), a rolling stone who could be easily manipulated or turned away from real strength, to a solid rock (the large boulder upon which they both stood. Jesus was merely telling Peter that the large, solid rock was the truth He had revealed to Peter and all the other disciples. That meant that the truth Jesus had revealed to Peter and the others, was the Rock upon which He would build His Church. Peter made no changes to what Christ had given him and the others.
Friend, “Petra” is Greek and MALE gender and translates ONLY into “rock”.While “Petros”
is “feminine gender” and means “pebble.”

***From Youngs Litteral Translation: Mt. 16;18 “And I also say to thee, that thou art a rock, and upon this rock I will build my assembly, and gates of Hades shall not prevail against it;” ***

You’re entitled to your own opinion, but friend that is all that is is. Your own opinion, not biblical fact!
He was, as Exekiel 36, 26 and 27 clearly tells us, come to put "My Laws, Statutes and Judgements in their hearts There was no other Law given by God after Ezekiel’s description and Christ’s defense of those Laws.
Christ did not change the law, He only explained it both in words and with His personal lifes example. Mt. 5: 27-31 is a good example of this as are the Beatitudes.

You are correct that their was no “other law” but Christ expalined and expanded the Commandments, and gave His Church the power and the authority to judge souls based on compliance.

1 John 5: 16-17, Jn. 20: 23-24 give evidence of this.
Without the animal sacrifices and Temple services, which were the “mirth” and the “offerings and oblations”, the animal sacrifices are gone. Now, each Festival (Feast) has a prophetic meaning.
People sometimes say that Paul said: “Christ, our Passover has been slain.” They try to say that that means the Passover Seder with it’s 14 steps is gone. They fail to read the very next sentence where Paul then says: “therefore, let us keep the Feast.” Christ gave the example for His followers to follow when they had the final Seder with the prayer, the two questions before the meal,.the meal with the dipping into the bitter herbs, the Hallel at the end, as described mainly by Luke, but in pieces by the other Gospels.
I**'m going to post for you what Catholics believe about the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist and why… **
The bitter herbs, the sauce, taken by mouth, is a reminder of the suffering of Israel in Egyptian bondage. It is a memorial to the suffering of Christ for us. It is a prophecy about the suffering of the people of God who will suffer the time of tribulation at the very end, immediately preceding Christ’s second coming to deliver His people from that tribulation and take them Home.
I have been blessed to have been a “Passover Participiant” and it is a deeply beautiful and meaninful meal.

But in Catholic Eucharist, the very “lamb of God” [male and unblemished] offers Himself for our Redeemption, our personal “Passover.”
Because Christ now works within each of us to sanctify us (the cup of Sanctification, one of the four cups of the Seder), He delivers us (the cup of Deliverance of the Seder), because He died for us (the cup of Atonement of the Seder). When we stand, thereby, through having kept the original faith and testimony of God and Christ, in the Judgement (the cup of Judgement)
Very beautiful! Thankyou.

But you’re dealing with the “OT” Spirit of God. We friend deal with the Real Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Himself, in His now Risen and Glorified Body!

Praise God for His Deliverance.

Love and prayers

Shalome
 
To:
Ron the New Jew
Can it be true? Is Jesus Really in Catholic Holy Communion?

Jesus Willed to stay with us. Mt. 28: “18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me… and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”

The gift from God, of God (His Son, Jesus the Christ) and for God, in that it is the greatest source of grace, leading to our eternal salvation.

When the Catholic priest or bishop pronounces the words: “This is My Body…. This is My Blood” two miracles take place. First the priest is momentarily miraculously transformed into Christ Himself, as it is Christ who makes the transformation (Transubstaniation…Catholic theological term) of what appears to be ordinary bread and wine, into the very Flesh and Blood of Jesus Himself. Thus we proclaim that what was, is no more” The second miracle. Jesus Himself, not a sign, and not a symbol: Jesus Himself is made present. All that remains are “the accidents” that is to say the appearance of bread and wine.

John: Ch. 6:

52The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; 54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed

66 after this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him. (Deciples …not Apostles.” no longer” means that they deserted Jesus and His teaching.) 67 Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?” 68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; 69 and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.”

Jesus didn’t say …oops, “you didn’t understand what I was trying to say.” He simply asked ‘do you not understand, not believe and wish to go away (desert Me)?

Saint Paul: 1st. Corinthians 11:
27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 for any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.

33 So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another—34 if any one is hungry, let him eat at home–lest you come together to be condemned. Paul is saying this “this not a meal! It is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Himself.” Were he not saying this, why would one be” condemned” for eating what is only ordinary bread, and drinking ordinary wine? NOT!

Only through the window of Divine Love, can one even come close to understanding why God did this.

Heb. 2: “5 For it was not to angels that God subjected the world to come, of which we are speaking. 6* It has been testified somewhere, “What is man that thou art mindful of him, or the son of man, that thou carest for him? 7 Thou didst make him for a little while lower than the angels, thou hast crowned him with glory and honor, 8 putting everything in subjection under his feet.” Now in putting everything in subjection to him, he left nothing outside his control. As it is, we do not yet see everything in subjection to him. 9 But we see Jesus, who for a little while was made lower than the angels, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for every one.”

Desiring to do more, to be more, to save more; Christ became our Bread and our Drink. God didn’t settle for (dare I say) “just” becoming a man like us in every way but sin. Jesus the God-man, didn’t just die for us. No, God who promised to be “with us until the end if time,” (Mt. 28:20), Willed to become an inanimate object, ordinary bread and wine.

Why did Jesus allow Himself to be born as a small, helpless, baby? Remember he was “laid in a manger.” What is a “manager? Something that hold food. Where did this take place? Lk. 2: “15 When the angels went away from them into heaven, the shepherds said to one another, “Let us go over to Bethlehem and see this thing that has happened, which the Lord has made known to us.” 16 And they went with haste, and found Mary and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger. And what does the work “Bethlehem” mean in Hebrew?” It means, “house of bread.”

Jesus came to us as a tiny harmless baby, so as not to scare or to intimidate us. For the very same reason, he assumes the appearance of bread and wine. Mt. 11: 28 ”Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light." Jesus loves us too much to scare us, to force us, but loves us so very much that He desires to lead us to Himself.

This, my friend can only be understood through the window of Divine Love!

Shalome my friend,

Pat
 
The “Catholic Mary” and the “Bible Mary” are one and the same. Catholics wrote the New Testament and decided what books were to go into it. The Bible is a Catholic book.

Those people are suggesting that God would have made Mary have a baby even if she had said no?
I don’t understand the two choices, What do you mean by the Bible Mary? Catholic Mary?
Don’t you read the Bible? In this case Lu.1:26-38. I like verse 49 also.
At times Catholics say things about non- catholics which aren’t true. And the reverse of this is true also.
As a Lutheran I believe Mary is blessed and I say the Rosary. It’s a beautiful, biblical prayer. I think every christian should pray the Rosary.
Catholics wrote the New Testament? Would you care to explain this statement?

God bless,
jean
 
I don’t understand the two choices, What do you mean by the Bible Mary? Catholic Mary?
Don’t you read the Bible? In this case Lu.1:26-38. I like verse 49 also.
At times Catholics say things about non- catholics which aren’t true. And the reverse of this is true also.
As a Lutheran I believe Mary is blessed and I say the Rosary. It’s a beautiful, biblical prayer. I think every christian should pray the Rosary.
Catholics wrote the New Testament? Would you care to explain this statement?

God bless,
jean
Because the Catholic church teaches that we were Catholic from the day of Pentecost.
 
First, I have taken a liking to of calling Mary Mother of God like the Greeks, who never say Mary alone, but either use her title or her title and name together. It offends Protestants even more but I don’t care.

A YouTube video discussed the difference between the ‘Catholic Mary and the Bible Mary.’ The main topic was that when God has a plan it happens with out a choice. That is, if Mary said no during the Annunciation, it would have happened anyway. They used Jonah and the whale through a picture, never spoke about it: Jonah didn’t want to do something but God made a whale swallow him and he did the job anyway. Also, it said Mary would have been scared like every other Jewish teenager should be, and that Gabriel was basically telling her, not asking, what was going to go down. Now I am not saying anything; just thinking. Your thoughts? I never thought about this before.
In the Old Testament when a king asended to the throne of Israel, his mother was automatically queen. To deny Mary as queen is to deny Jesus as King. To diminish her role is a constant pre-occupation with fundamentalists, to the point of blasphemy.
When one is introduced to Blessed Mother, the same Mary in the Bible, there are no words that can convey the role she plays.
I feel sorry for Protestants who have never seen this.
 
I don’t understand the two choices, What do you mean by the Bible Mary? Catholic Mary?
I think that what our sister is alluding to is that the Catholic explanation of the Catholic Mary is biblical, thus consistent with that of the Bible Mary, we therfore conclude that they are one and the same. much admiration for your interest in unity and praying the rosary, please pray a decade for me.

Mary of course is indeed Catholic Because the Catholic church is ‘‘the pillar and bulwark of the truth’’ and she wouldnt be anywhere else, shes also The Mother of the church, I think we can safely and easily give Mary the title of ‘‘Catholic’’ without looking for scriptural evidence, as we’ve already seen that if protestants can call the Bible ‘‘Bible’’ even though the word Bible isnt in scripture, then surely Catholics can call Mary Catholic dont you think?

Stephen (L)
 
I don’t understand the two choices, What do you mean by the Bible Mary? Catholic Mary?
I am interjecting myself into this conversation as I am a “Catholic Marian Catechesist,” and hold Mary is a special reverence in my heart and personal prayer life.

What is meant by this is that some hold the view that “The Mary [Mother of Jesus] in the bible” is not the Mother of God. How one is able to reach this conclusion is a mystery, if they accept the Word of God, and clearly there are those who do not.

If Jesus is God, and Mary is the Mother of Jesus; Mary has to be the “Mother of God.” Amen! Jesus is Godm Mary ih the Mother of Jesus and therefore "The defacto “Mother of God.” This mary “of the Bible” is Mary, the Mother of God.
Don’t you read the Bible? In this case Lu.1:26-38. I like verse 49 also.
At times Catholics say things about non- catholics which aren’t true. And the reverse of this is true also.
While I agree with you’re statement without a specific example I am unable to respond to it.
As a Lutheran I believe Mary is blessed and I say the Rosary. It’s a beautiful, biblical prayer. I think every christian should pray the Rosary.
Amen! Thank you!
Catholics wrote the New Testament? Would you care to explain this statement?
As an FYI, Martin Luther himslef acknowledged that “we must thank the Catholics for the bible.”

The statement is futher validated by super-abundant historical evidence.

Christ founded only one Church, [Mt.16:18-20] that which we now identify as the RCC. The term “Christian” was used by St. Peter, the first Pope in 2 Peter 4:16 and by St. Paul in Acts 4: 26-27. It was not until the early part of the Second Century that the term “Catholic” was first used, and this took place in Antioch.

The Bible was written in a varity of languages until about the year 350Ad, when St. Jerome,
took the Greek, Aramaic [the language Jesus spoke] and Latin Books and translated the entire Bible into Latin, the "common language of the then “Catholic Church.”

As their was until the mid 1500’s only ONE Chrsitian faith, the RCC, and all of the Apostles and authors of the bible were (had to be it was the only Denomination at the time) members of that “One Church” they by default were Catholic, and thus the statement that the entire New Testament was authored by Catholics inspired by the Holy Spirt is accurate and the only possible seneiro.

Additionally, the Catholic Bible was the only Bible in existance util about the year 1650 when the KJV became published.

King Henry The Eighth did have a very limited edition of the ***Anglican Bible ***published in about 1560, but it had very limited exposure and was uses primarily in England with His new “State Religion.”

To this very day upwards of 90% of what is found in the Catholic Bible can be found in all other “new and self-edited” bibles. that is why Catholics insist on using “the Orginal” Bible, tha Actual Entire and actual Words of God, in defense of our Catholic Faith.

It was Luthers and John Calvins desire to make the “bible public” and to publish it in a multitude of “common languages” that led to “self interprtiation” of the bible, which in turn is the precise reson their are now some 30,000 Christian denominations, each proclaiming thier personal version of the “One Single truth” that God orginally devulged to the Catholic Authors of the Bible. One TRUTH told 30,000 way’s, can’t be “the truth!”

Jean my friend, I hope this helps you’re understanding?

Love and prayer’s

Indeed: "holy is His name!"

Pat

God bless,
jean
 
I don’t understand the two choices, What do you mean by the Bible Mary? Catholic Mary?
Don’t you read the Bible? In this case Lu.1:26-38. I like verse 49 also.
At times Catholics say things about non- catholics which aren’t true. And the reverse of this is true also.
As a Lutheran I believe Mary is blessed and I say the Rosary. It’s a beautiful, biblical prayer. I think every christian should pray the Rosary.
Catholics wrote the New Testament? Would you care to explain this statement?

God bless,
jean
I agree with you that the Rosary is a wonderful biblical prayer.Some people call the Rosary a repetitive prayer but this is far from the truth.If Christians look down on other fellow Christinas this is most unfortunate as we are all believers in Almighty God,follow the teachings of Jesus Christ follow the Ten Commandments.What we need today in this world threatened by the Threat from secular idealogy and blasphemy is unity among Chrstians.If we follow the exortation or the Final Commandment Jesus gave us of Loving one another we will have Christ in our hearts and there is then no room for hatred or envy for our neighbour.God Bless You.
 
Since Jesus had two natures, a divine nature and a human nature, we must ask: who was the parent of His divine nature and who was the parent of His human nature? Jesus, in the Incarnation, carried His own divine nature through the power of the Holy Spirit. “For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself.” (John 5:26).

Mary was clearly the mother of Jesus’ human nature. She supplied the human genome that provided Christ’s physical body. Jesus therefore was both the Son of God and the Son of Abraham. Do we say that Abraham was the father of God? No, Abraham was the progenetor of Christ’s humanity. Being the progenitors of Jesus’ humanity does not make either Mary or Abraham parents of God. They are progenitors of Christ’s humanity, Christ’s human nature. Neither Mary nor Abraham were progenitors of Christ’s divine nature.

Shalom in Yeshua!
 
Because the Catholic church teaches that we were Catholic from the day of Pentecost.
Hi stephpen,

that answer won’t fly. 🙂
Can you find the word, ‘catholic’ in the Bible? 🙂
Yes, Jesus is God. he said in Jn.8:58 that he was. Please read this.
But he is also the son of man, through Mary. Jesus is human and divine.

jean
 
Hi stephpen,

that answer won’t fly. 🙂
Can you find the word, ‘catholic’ in the Bible? 🙂
Yes, Jesus is God. he said in Jn.8:58 that he was. Please read this.
But he is also the son of man, through Mary. Jesus is human and divine.

jean
Hi Jean, well I dont have to go look for Catholic in the Bible as we’ve already proven that not everything is in the Bible and that, scripture alone, disproves scripture alone 🤷:rotfl:
scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html
 
Since Jesus had two natures, a divine nature and a human nature, we must ask: who was the parent of His divine nature and who was the parent of His human nature? Jesus, in the Incarnation, carried His own divine nature through the power of the Holy Spirit. “For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself.” (John 5:26).

Mary was clearly the mother of Jesus’ human nature. She supplied the human genome that provided Christ’s physical body. Jesus therefore was both the Son of God and the Son of Abraham. Do we say that Abraham was the father of God? No, Abraham was the progenetor of Christ’s humanity. Being the progenitors of Jesus’ humanity does not make either Mary or Abraham parents of God. They are progenitors of Christ’s humanity, Christ’s human nature. Neither Mary nor Abraham were progenitors of Christ’s divine nature.

Shalom in Yeshua!
Matthew:2:11 ''And entering into the house, they found the child
with Mary his mother
‘’

Ladies and Gentlemen, I am not sure which protestent Ron is, but I bet he is american, as all the garbage seems to come from that place as it is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top