Assumption of st. Mary

[david_ruiz]

Dave, sounds like you have all the answers, so please answer the following question:

In one corner we have a group of protestant churches that defer to the bible** as their final authority** for doctrinal clarification, believing that Jesus was speaking in metaphor regarding John 6. In the other corner we have a group of protestant churches that also defers to the bible **as their final authority **for doctrinal clarification, believing the exact opposite. Since, as you suggest, the authoritative bible is the means for resolving doctrinal differences, use your bible to resolve this one??? Be the first person to not dodge this question.

Actually the two P churches are no different than the CC. It is a CHURCH that is giving you it’s interpretation of John 6 and yes, both claiming leading of the Holy Spirit (all denominations are good at speaking “Chistianese”). Is not that what CC claims -being led by the spirit ,the Catholic Church expounds on Holy Scripture ? What I like about the scenario so far is that all are trying to expound on Scripture because of it’s authority. It is just that CC uses tradition moreso than P churches.The CC says tradition etc. will help expound , even authoritatively. The P church is far less likely to do so (many varying degrees here in P churches). The P church is more likely to try to get to the original intent , stripping away history and tradition , in case they are not pure.The CC also values being “apostolic”. Again , I say more likely .All things are still wisely considered, again in varying degrees. It is not an easy comparison because Catholicism is just one church whereas Protestant covers many more (3-4 main divisions), and we have not even mentioned the OC-orthodoxy…That the two remain at odds is not the fault of the scenario we have noted . A little like Jesus saying I came not to destroy the law (He kind of did) ,but to fulfill it. It is not that the law and some of the tradition were bad , but we (Jews) are (were) bad… Two wrongs do not make a right. Just because the two churches are not on the same page , they are in the right book. To avoid this problem and come up with a different scenario still leaves you vulnerable to error. The wheat and the tares will still be there .Which church is wheat and which is tare, and once a wheat always a wheat ? Are there no crows ,or hot sun or worldly enticements for a church also (just look at the 7 churches specific in Revelations) ? Was there not the church universal (catholic) and at the same time , the church specific (Philippi) ? Thanks gotta go zzzzz,s like the brother said somewhere.

 

[joe370]

Hey Dave…you said in response to my question:

Actually the two P churches are no different than the CC.

Agreed, with the exception that these P churches claim that the holy bible is the Christians final authority for resolving doctrinal conflicts, which begs the question: why are these pastors teaching their flock? They should simply tell them to defer to their bibles as opposed to the pastor from the pulpit.

It is a CHURCH that is giving you it’s interpretation of John 6 and yes, both claiming leading of the Holy Spirit (all denominations are good at speaking "Chistian

ese").

Dave, do you believe that the HS is forever guiding Jesus’ established church **into all truth? That’s what the bible tells us.
**

Is not that what CC claims -being led by the spirit ,the Catholic Church expounds on Holy Scripture ?

If the CC is not the church founded by God on Pentecost in Jerusalem circa AD 33 then that would be a claim that the CC could not back up -agreed? But, if the CC is…then the HS is guiding the CC into all truth.

What I like about the scenario so far is that all are trying to expound on Scripture because of it’s authority.

Your point being is that the bible via individual interpretation is the Christians final authority as opposed to any church leadership teaching authoritatively?

It is just that CC uses tradition moreso than P churches.The CC says tradition etc. will help expound , even authoritatively. The P church is far less likely to do so (many varying degrees here in P churches). The P church is more likely to try to get to the original intent , stripping away history and tradition , in case they are not pure.

Sola scriptura is a man-made tradition embraced by all PC’s and the very reason why there is so much division in the protestant world.

How do you know that the bible is the pure word of God, untainted and unaltered by the CC that supposedly gave us altered, tainted and spurious tradition? Prove to me that the CC didn’t add impurities to the word of God (written tradition) - considering the fact that they supposedly added impurities elsewhere eg oral tradition. You can’t have it both ways Dave.

The CC also values being “apostolic”.

The CC is apostolic if the CC can trace her origin all the way back to the apostles, and the CC can. Protestants reject the importance of this little fact for the simple fact that they can only trace their lineage back to the reformation, at best.

 

[joe370]

;6996945]Being “full of grace” at the annunciation in no way proves sinlessness during her entire life.
The Latin Vulgate is correctecd by the modern Catholic Bible NAB which translates it simply “favored one.” Second the salutation of the angel is only a reference to her state at that moment not to her entire life. It doesn’t mean that she was always and would always be full of grace but only that she was at that time. The grace she received was for the task of being the mother of the Messiah not to prevent her from any sin. Even Catholic scholars admit that Mary was in need of redemption. Why if she was not a sinner? Ott says that Mary required redemption. It is biblically unfounded to suggest that she was prevented from inheriting sins rather that being delivered from it.

Full of Grace - the Greek word charitoo, without doubt, means grace: “Hail full of GRACE.” Greek dictionaries use no variant of the word charitoo for grace - eg the word favor, yet protestants insist on using the words: “Hail, thou that art highly favored.” I have no problem with that as long as they admit that these words are used synonymously, but they won’t. There is of course another variant of charitoo (used in ephesians 1:6) - which is echaritosen which signifies a momentary action, an action brought to pass, but kecharitomene (FULL OF GRACE) - the perfect tense used to address Mary, expresses a completed past action which has results continuing into the future as per all scholars, protestant or otherwise.

Could Mary, the mother of God, have, in her lifetime, fallen from grace, if in fact, she,
as most protestants believe, was a sinner - and possibly lost her eternal inheritance in Heaven??

Did Mary, if she was a sinner, pass on original sin to her son?

 

[joe370]

Freedom, show me where, in the bible, it states that a teaching/belief must be found in the bible (eg - assumption of Mary) - to be believed which of course would make oral tradition irrelevant? Passages please.

 

[Jimmy_B]

The first seven ecumenical councils are as error free as any human documents can be,… Jon

 

[John_oxios]

Being “full of grace” at the annunciation in no way proves sinlessness during her entire life.
The Latin Vulgate is correctecd by the modern Catholic Bible NAB which translates it simply “favored one.” Second the salutation of the angel is only a reference to her state at that moment not to her entire life. It doesn’t mean that she was always and would always be full of grace but only that she was at that time. The grace she received was for the task of being the mother of the Messiah not to prevent her from any sin. Even Catholic scholars admit that Mary was in need of redemption. Why if she was not a sinner? Ott says that Mary required redemption. It is biblically unfounded to suggest that she was prevented from inheriting sins rather that being delivered from it.

Hello freedom writer,

it is not a correction per se, it is an application to the vernacular, people would argue “What is Grace” However there is only one other verse used in the Bible like it, Bottom line the right translation, is ‘Hail Mary Full of Grace’ the word Favor kind of dilutes the true meaning of the Greek.

God sends an angel to Gideon, and the angel says, “The LORD is with you.” Gideon is called to save Israel, Mary is called to participate in the saving of all mankind. What is full can’t be filed anymore. Remember, Grace wasn’t available toany of US til Christ’s death.

God bless,
John

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

[SIGN]Actually the two P churches are no different than the CC. It is a CHURCH that is giving you it’s interpretation of John 6 and yes, both claiming leading of the Holy Spirit (all denominations are good at speaking “Chistianese[/SIGN]”). Is not that what CC claims -being led by the spirit ,the Catholic Church expounds on Holy Scripture ? What I like about the scenario so far is that all are trying to expound on Scripture because of it’s authority. It is just that CC uses tradition moreso than P churches.The CC says tradition etc. will help expound , even authoritatively. The P church is far less likely to do so (many varying degrees here in P churches). The P church is more likely to try to get to the original intent , stripping away history and tradition , in case they are not pure.The CC also values being “apostolic”. Again , I say more likely .All things are still wisely considered, again in varying degrees. It is not an easy comparison because Catholicism is just one church whereas Protestant covers many more (3-4 main divisions), and we have not even mentioned the OC-orthodoxy…That the two remain at odds is not the fault of the scenario we have noted . A little like Jesus saying I came not to destroy the law (He kind of did) ,but to fulfill it. It is not that the law and some of the tradition were bad , but we (Jews) are (were) bad… Two wrongs do not make a right. Just because the two churches are not on the same page , they are in the right book. To avoid this problem and come up with a different scenario still leaves you vulnerable to error. The wheat and the tares will still be there .Which church is wheat and which is tare, and once a wheat always a wheat ? Are there no crows ,or hot sun or worldly enticements for a church also (just look at the 7 churches specific in Revelations) ? Was there not the church universal (catholic) and at the same time , the church specific (Philippi) ? Thanks gotta go zzzzz,s like the brother said somewhere.

But here is the problem. The CC does indeed claim to be led by the Holy Spirit to lead the Church into the fullness of the truth! Agreed! But tell me this, why is it then the CC has all of the same truth, and the P Church’s make the same claim but every P Church has a different truth? There can only be ONE truth, and every P Church has a different truth. The CC has and always has had the same truth. Why would the Holy Spriit lead us to different truths? It can’t! So why is it when I go to other Church’s except for the CC there are different truths?

 

[joe370]

Hey Dave and Freedom…Sacred Scripture (tradition committed to writing) -and Sacred Tradition (oral tradition not always explicitly committed to writing in the form of sacred scripture) - are both sources of revealed truths given to us by Jesus’ church and can be trusted and believed if you believe what your bible has to say about the spirit of truth guiding His church into all truth in perpetuity, so it’s important that we acknowledge them both and in practice reconcile one with the other, for they come from the same divine fount, His church; God has revealed both ST and SS to us through His Church. Neither of these truths, be it oral or written, would be available to you or me today if not for the CC’s direct involvement and influence. God has revealed everything to us through His Church and I don’t think it’s logical to embrace some things as inerrant truth and reject other things as manufactured lies peddled by Jesus’ church. This kind of logic cast all kinds of suspicion on the written word that was revealed to all by Jesus’ church - right?

You guys, using the holy bible as the sole rule of faith is a mis-use of the Bible. It was not created, nor contains instruction, to be used in such a way. It must be used in the proper context and interpreted in light of Apostolic Tradition and the teaching authority of the Church empowered by Christ to do said teaching:

He said to them…(Jesus’ Church leadership) - you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to **the ends of the earth." **

"All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me…teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

Many Christians don’t realize (like my sister for example) - that even the idea of using the Bible as the only rule of faith (Sola Scriptura) - is actually a new invention propagated only in the past 500 years. It was unheard of before that point and was certainly not practiced by the Apostles or the early Christians. They would have been extremely perplexed at at the very idea.

Bottom line. if the CC has been teaching erroneously for centuries regarding things such as the IC or the AOM then it’s time to consider the idea that the CC could have taught erroneously in the 4th and 5th century when they finally collected, selected, compiled and eventually codified the written canon, in the midst of many **so called canonical books and apocryphal books making there way around the known world. It was from within the CC that doctrinal truth regarding the correct inclusion of books in your bible and the correct exclusion of books from your bible - was revealed. Outside the CC was nothing but one plinter sect after another teaching all kinds of heretical doctrine. In other words guys, your NT could have books in the bible that are not, and never were, **meant to be part of the inspired word of god, especially considering the fact that you guys think that the CC added 7 spurious books to the OT; this just adds more fodder for your claims, that the NT is error free (thanks to the authoritative proclamation of the CC) - all the while claiming that other authoritative proclamations by the CC are spurious at best.

Either the CC is right on a wholesale level, doctrinally speaking, thanks to the guidance of the holy spirit, the spirit of truth, Who is guiding the CC into all truth, and safeguarding the deposit of faith (be it word or letter) - from within and without, or, doctrinal truth was never attainable from the very beginning. This door doesn’t swing both ways guys.

I don’t think anyone here is ever going to change your minds but it is fun going back and forth in an amicable exchange. Dave and Freedom, why did you guys come here to CAF? Just curious. I know why I did 3 years ago. Was it to learn something about the catholic faith or to share with us something that you believe is lacking in our catholic faith eg the AOM is untrue?

Peace…

 

[Nicea325]

Read 2 Timothy 3:15-17 and then ask yourself “were the scriptures alone sufficient in providing Timothy what he needed to know to be saved”.

If the scriptures alone were sufficient for Timothy, then aren’t the scriptures alone sufficient for us?"

Ah no! That is totally inaccurate and St.Paul teaches no where that scripture alone is sufficient in order to be saved. If that is the case,anyone can simply select any text from the Bible and say it is sufficient to be saved.

You have been sold a bogus doctrine and apparently you bought it.

Where does Jesus teach scripture alone is sufficient for salvation?

 

[Nicea325]

Originally Posted by freedomwriter
Being “full of grace” at the annunciation in no way proves sinlessness during her entire life.
The Latin Vulgate is correctecd by the modern Catholic Bible NAB which translates it simply “favored one.” Second the salutation of the angel is only a reference to her state at that moment not to her entire life. It doesn’t mean that she was always and would always be full of grace but only that she was at that time. The grace she received was for the task of being the mother of the Messiah not to prevent her from any sin. Even Catholic scholars admit that Mary was in need of redemption. Why if she was not a sinner? Ott says that Mary required redemption. It is biblically unfounded to suggest that she was prevented from inheriting sins rather that being delivered from it.

Come again? Full of Grace is not proof Mary was not sinless? Who else was FULL of GRACE? Are you full of grace? Tell me what other human besides Jesus was and is full of grace?

BTW: Explain to me why God would have sinner conceive His begetton Son?

Even Catholic scholars admit that Mary was in need of redemption.

Yes,because she is also human and needs a Savior too.Jesus’ death on the cross redeemed every human,but did not guarantee a free ticket to heaven. You confuse redemption with salvation.

 

[joe370]

Dave, if we can historically and reliably conclude that Jesus founded a Church (as opposed to churches) - and endowed His one church with authority to teach via the perpetual guidance of the HS, then, and only then can we reliably conclude that the bible, given to the world by that same church, is the inspired word of God. Outside of this premise the bible is no different than any other book and becomes nothing more than another book claiming to be something (via circular reasoning) - it cannot prove.

The key then, logically speaking, is to find the historical church founded by God, endowed by God with the authority to teach, to the very ends of the earth until the end of time, and then and only then, can the answer to the question about Mary’s assumption be answered.

 

[Nicea325]

Dave, if we can historically and reliably conclude that Jesus founded a Church (as opposed to churches) - and endowed His one church with authority to teach via the perpetual guidance of the HS, then, and only then can we reliably conclude that the bible, given to the world by that same church, is the inspired word of God. Outside of this premise the bible is no different than any other book and becomes nothing more than another book claiming to be something (via circular reasoning) - it cannot prove.

The key then, logically speaking, is to find the historical church founded by God, endowed by God with the authority to teach, to the very ends of the earth until the end of time, and then and only then, can the answer to the question about Mary’s assumption be answered.

Don’t you find it amazing as a convert, how so many non-Catholics flat out reject early church history? They can read and accept a lot of other histories,but when it comes to the early church it is all biased and false?

 

[John_oxios]

Actually the two P churches are no different than the CC. It is a CHURCH that is giving you it’s interpretation of John 6 and yes, both claiming leading of the Holy Spirit (all denominations are good at speaking “Chistianese”). .

I Love the above quote! You see, when a person come to you and says, " my Church/ congregation/ Hall / group interpret the Bible this way."

What they are saying is, “**This is our Tradition!” ** Yet they won’t admit they have a tradition?
As far as John 6 goes, I’ve heard several Baptist ministers say That they believe the Catholic Church added to the passage to uphold the Eucharist.

But I think that’s why the Apostle John wrote it and was inspired to write it.
So all future generations would undeniably know, to be saved we must it His flesh, and drink His Blood.
In the Passover, did the Hebrews have to eat the lamb to be saved? Yes they did, if they did not eat of the Lamb, they would have died.

God bless,
john

 

[John_oxios]

freedomwriter
Even Catholic scholars admit that Mary was in need of redemption

Everybody before Christ, and who walked with/ after Christ was/ is/ are in need of redemption.

Let’s put it this way it took God some 6000 biblical yrs. to gather enough Grace in one woman to bear Jesus.
this is paraphrased, I have to literally dig for the notes on this,
The Jews believed in the passing down from generation to generation the inherent goodness within people…(There is a name for this, can’t remember off hand, hasn’t come up in yrs.) and once in a awhile these traits would explode in an individual, as in say a prophet, that God used.

I believe God took forty one generations to bring out the best in these traits and they exploded in Mary. After all the #40 biblically means Long enough!

God bless,
John

 

[John_oxios]

Read 2 Timothy 3:15-17 and then ask yourself “were the scriptures alone sufficient in providing Timothy what he needed to know to be saved”.

If the scriptures alone were sufficient for Timothy, then aren’t the scriptures alone sufficient for us?"

Actually the word ‘alone’ is EXTRA biblical, and that is supposedly a protestant no-no?
Paull urged to hold on to the teachings whether by word or letter
God bless,
John

 

[joe370]

Enmity…

*"…so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, 16 and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity. 17 And He came and preached peace to you who were afar off and to those who were near. 18 For through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father." 2 Ephesians *

Here we see there was enmity placed between the human race and Jesus the Christ until the redeeming work of Jesus on the cross, which meant that man/womankind could never be one with God until Jesus was glorified.

In Gen. 3 * (“And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.”) *- we also see enmity placed between the anti-Christ and the woman; between her offspring (Jesus’ Mystical Body, the church/kingdom of which He is the head and savior) - and his offspring (all the earthly kingdoms - “…the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. 9"All this I will give you,” he said, “if you will bow down and worship me.” ) - Due to this enmity, the woman had to be sinless and at no time could the sinless woman of Gen. 3 become one with Satan, the father of sin and lies, in any way shape or form, or his offspring, just as the sinful human race, (since the fall of our very first parents) - could not become one with God, due to the aforementioned enmity, until Mary, the new Eve, gave birth to her Son Jesus the Christ, who, by crushing the head of the evil one with His heel, opened up the pearly gates of heaven for His earthly kingdom, mystical Body, the church, thereby removing the enmity of Gen. 3 that loomed so large on the human race for so long.

Just as enmity, (due to sin of mankind) - separated mankind from God, so did enmity, (due to the sin of the evil one) - separate satan from the woman who gave birth to God, for she was foreordained/destined to be the pure ark of the Son of the Most High who was given the throne of his father David so that He could break down that barrier (enmity) - between the human race and God, by putting to death once and for all the enmity that separated us from God, giving us access, by one spirit, to the Father.

In both cases enmity was a barrier - one between the human race and God and one between the mother of God and the evil one. The human race had no access to God until Jesus’ atoning work on the cross removed the enmity, and the evil one knew that he would never ever have access to the mother of God for the evil one understands scripture too for he quoted it and tried to use it against Jesus:

• “If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread.”

Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. 6"If you are the Son of God," he said, "throw yourself down. For it is written:
" 'He will command his angels concerning you,
and they will lift you up in their hands,
so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.

Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. 9"All this I will give you," he said, “if you will bow down and worship me.” *

 

[Jimmy_B]

Actually the word ‘alone’ is EXTRA biblical, and that is supposedly a protestant no-no?
Paull urged to hold on to the teachings whether by word or letter
God bless,
John

Good point John,

I had a long time friend over, a while back and he allegedly held a belief in Bible-Alone and was dead-set against any Catholic Sacramental’s or Catholic traditions… but then showed me a polished stone that he and others from his Church carried around in their pockets to remind them that “Jesus was their rock”… He would also talk about a Christian radio show that he would listen, Christian TV shows that he would watch, Christian books that he would read and so on… All things related to and influencing his faith and ALL Extra Biblical… I don’t get it… :doh2:

 

[GaryTaylor]

The immense proportion of “Full of Grace” is very underestimated when contemplating Marys position.

Think about who is Full of Grace? I believe finding Mary itself is a Blessing not all receive. Not because they can’t. but because their mind won’t allow it.

Anyway to think about Mary and her position, how would you suppose God/Jesus received Mary in Heaven? I couldn’t come to any other conclusion but to believe she would be given the utmost respect and authority as Queen.

Several Bible passages offer implicit evidence that Mary was assumed into heaven. Both Enoch and Elijah were assumed into heaven (Heb. 11:5, 2 Kgs. 2:11). Also, in Matthew 27:52-53 one can read about saints whose bodies left the grave after the Resurrection of Christ. The early resurrection of these saints anticipated the rising of those who die in faith, all of who will be assumed one day to receive their glorified bodies. Belief in the assumption of Mary is simply the belief that God granted her this gift early, as he appears to have done for others in Matthew 27:52-53.

The Scriptures also promise that those who suffer with Christ will be glorified with him (Rom. 8:17), so it is fitting that she whose heart was pierced through her Son’s suffering would receive her glorification in a unique manner. Paul calls Christians “God’s co-workers” (1 Cor. 3:9), and there was no co-worker of Christ who was linked so intimately in the work of salvation as was Mary.

Keep in mind that if Scripture does not record an event, it does not follow that the event did not happen. Scripture does not record Paul or Peter’s journey to Rome, and they were both martyred there while the Bible was still being written. With this in mind, it would be unscriptural and unreasonable to conclude that the dogma of Mary’s Assumption is false because it is not mentioned explicitly in Scripture.

There are numerous reasons why it is fitting that the Lord would assume Mary’s body into heaven. By becoming man, Jesus was born under the law (Gal. 4:4) and was bound to obey the commandment to honor his mother. The Hebrew word for “honor” does not imply mere courtesy, but the bestowal of honor and glory. By preserving Mary’s body from corruption, Jesus fulfills the command to honor his mother in a way that only a divine Son could. What person, if he had the power to prevent the corruption of his mother’s body, would not do so? The love of Jesus for his mother seems to be the strongest argument for her Assumption.

It is useful also to examine how God calls people to treat holy things in the Old Testament. The holiest object for the people of Israel was the Ark of the Covenant, because it contained the bread from heaven, the staff of Aaron, and the tablets of the law. It was laden in and out with gold and could only be approached by sanctified priests. One unfortunate soul dared to touch it, and despite his good intentions, it cost him his life (2 Sam. 6:6-7). God’s glory overshadowed this holy Ark, and Psalm 132:8 says of it, “Arise, O Lord, into thy resting place; thou and the ark which thou hast sanctified.”

In the book of Revelation we read, “Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple” (Rev. 11:19). “And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; . . . she brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron” (Rev. 12:1,5). The arbitrary break here between chapters, done long after the Bible was written, makes it easy to overlook how John mentions the mother of the Messiah in conjunction with the Ark of the Covenant.

Considering God’s reverence towards an inanimate Ark, St. Robert Bellarmine asked a fitting question: “Who could believe that the ark of holiness, the dwelling of God, the temple of the Holy Spirit *, crumbled into dust? I shudder at the very thought that the virginal flesh of which God was conceived and born, which nourished him and carried him should have turned to ashes or been given as food to worms.”

Revelations Chapter 12 can’t be underestimated. Popes have been traveling to Fatima for decades now to discuss this specific chapter. And specifically when Sr. Lucy was still with us on earth. Theres no doubt about the referrence of Our Lady in this chapter.

Often when discuss different points in faith. at the basis of our thinking is our faith. And the point of ones Blessing of Grace can’t be seperated from what they think and believe. BTW there’s nothing wrong or right about the way you feel thus think. Its just the way it is. But I also believe its wise to save judgement of your words. Your thinking will change, especially as you become more deeply rooted in Jesus Christ and the Blessed Mother.

Its not by chance we see the Pope and the last Pope holding up the Rosary and exclaiming, This is our only weapon of Salvation, and the Solution now, that and the sign left by the Son of God. The gravity of what they are saying has to be seriously considered. The Popes are very educated specifically in Theology, and are surrounded by the greatest minds in this area of education. Let alone the access to the archives of the faith and vatican.

When a Pope makes a statement like the last two in ex-cathedra, 1950 and 1854 and both were concerning Mary, The Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary respectfully. And they began using phrase’s including “WE”. Then he is speaking for the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ.*

 

[KathleenGee]

Good posts, fellows…

People just do not want to believe the passage in Scripture that Christ instituted His church through Peter and the apostles.

We never had the printed Word per se…God has always come through a gathering of people, not a book…if you look at the printed page…something you can see, then you really have no faith.

Faith is a living relationship with the Living God…the Living Word.

Christ intended we have Scripture – and His Church…all through the transmission of the Holy Spirit…as Christ said previously in Scripture He would leave but His Comforter would come Who would teach us many things…and that the Apostles would do much more than He…they went out into the world and established the foundation of many churches…meaning, regions of believers…and that the pattern of worship as well was being laid down and developed as well.

How people can be able to read the Bible but refuse history and the context of the passages of the bible…by learned men…well, I would think I would error if I reflected Scripture that way.

 

[John_oxios]

Good point John,

I had a long time friend over, a while back and he allegedly held a belief in Bible-Alone and was dead-set against any Catholic Sacramental’s or Catholic traditions… but then showed me a polished stone that he and others from his Church carried around in their pockets to remind them that “Jesus was their rock”… He would also talk about a Christian radio show that he would listen, Christian TV shows that he would watch, Christian books that he would read and so on… All things related to and influencing his faith and ALL Extra Biblical… I don’t get it… :doh2:

Hey Jimmy B,
I love the polished rock thing :getholy: great example, I’ve seen them!
Next you have to ask him if he has ever prayed or meditated holding that rock!

To a protestant kneeling and praying in front or near a statue is Worship, and wrong. So I ask have you ever prayed with your bible in front of you?
I’ll throw a shoe five feet in front of them, and say, who’s to say your not Worshiping the shoe, or anything else in front of you!

God bless,
John