Not Convinced.....

[simeonhuff]

Lately, I have been comparing and contrasting Catholic beliefs and Baptist beliefs. First off, I would like to begin with “sola scriptura”. I personally believe that if the Bible was not alone sufficient, than God would somewhere explicitly state it in scripture. I have heard arguments asking why, if scripture is alone sufficient, that there are so many different denominations of Christianity.My answer is that, while scripture is alone sufficient, this is caused by different interpretations, because many parts the Bible can be misinterpreted. Second, nowhere in the Bible does it say to venerate Mary, and nowhere does it say that she is sinless, “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). Because, even when, in the Bible, she was honored,(but not worshiped), Jesus corrected her and said that rather, those who obeyed God’s commandments were blessed. I am not trying to officially say it (the Catholic faith) is false, of disrespecting it’s beliefs, but I am just not convinced that Catholicism is the right path. Please correct me if I am wrong, and please, if you correct or explain, to go into as much detail and explanation as possible, to make sure I understand.

 

[pipper]

Lately, I have been comparing and contrasting Catholic beliefs and Baptist beliefs. First off, I would like to begin with “sola scriptura”. I personally believe that if the Bible was not alone sufficient, than God would somewhere explicitly state it in scripture. I have heard arguments asking why, if scripture is alone sufficient, that there are so many different denominations of Christianity.My answer is that, while scripture is alone sufficient, this is caused by different interpretations, because many parts the Bible can be misinterpreted. Second, nowhere in the Bible does it say to venerate Mary, and nowhere does it say that she is sinless, “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). Because, even when, in the Bible, she was honored,(but not worshiped), Jesus corrected her and said that rather, those who obeyed God’s commandments were blessed. I am not trying to officially say it (the Catholic faith) is false, of disrespecting it’s beliefs, but I am just not convinced that Catholicism is the right path. Please correct me if I am wrong, and please, if you correct or explain, to go into as much detail and explanation as possible, to make sure I understand.

Simeon first let me start by saying I started out in a sola scriptura denomination, they were so sola scriptura they belevied it was wrong and sinful to do anything in church that was not speciffically “ordered” to be done in the bible, so I understand where you stand.

But…the NT of the bible was not canonised until the late 4th century, she existed nearly four hundred years without the bible. The church made the bible and the bible did not give birth to the church, and they did well.

The Catholic church is NOT sola scriptura, and so we aren’t terribly impressed by what the bible does and does not say. So we arent terrible concerned about what the scriptures leave out about the Virgin.
Everything is not contained in the pages of the bible in fact it says in the bible if everything Jesus said and did were written down, there would not be enough books in the world to contain it all. (pipper paraphrase, don’t have a bible in front of me right now, but that’s the gist). BTW CATHOLICS do not worship Mary, that is a myth.

Perhaps if you are convinced that sola scriptura (which is not taught in the bible it’self) is the way to go, you might stay Baptist.

 

[regression]

Lately, I have been comparing and contrasting Catholic beliefs and Baptist beliefs. First off, I would like to begin with “sola scriptura”. I personally believe that if the Bible was not alone sufficient, than God would somewhere explicitly state it in scripture.

Couldn’t that argument be turned around like so:

I personally believe that if the Bible was alone sufficient, then God would somewhere explicitly state it in scripture (and state what books belong in the bible)?

 

[simeonhuff]

That may be true, but I am not sure what verse it says that, explicitly, and the other scriptural explanations that I have heard justifying that belief have not been related to the belief at all and have not justified it. It may be true, I would just need to see the verse, if one such verse exists.

 

[Tyuiop411]

I have to agree with regression here. Bringing in the “if scripture alone wasn’t sufficient, God would have said so in scripture” argument is kinda shooting yourself in the foot.

As for the Latria and Dulia distinction in worship, that’s for someone more skilled than i to go over.

 

[Trishie]

Lately, I have been comparing and contrasting Catholic beliefs and Baptist beliefs. First off, I would like to begin with “sola scriptura”. I personally believe that if the Bible was not alone sufficient, than God would somewhere explicitly state it in scripture.

Ah, but is is mentioned in Scripture, Simon!

1. Jesus promised,** “I have many more things to say to you. But those things are too much for you to accept now. But when the Spirit of truth comes, he will lead you into all truth.** The Spirit of truth will not speak his own words. He will speak only what he hears. He will tell you the things that will happen. The Spirit of truth will bring glory to me. How? He will get things from me and tell them to you. All the things that the Father has are mine. That is why I said that the Spirit will get things from me and tell them to you.”- John 16:12-15
2. “When the Advocate comes, whom I shall send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who issues from the Father, He will be my witness. And you too will be my witnesses.” [John 15: 26-27] “When He comes, He will show the world how wrong it was, about sin…and about judgement” and “about who was in the right: proved by my going to the Father…proved by the prince of this world already being condemned.” John 16:8-9

In these last comments, Jesus shows the action of the Holy Spirit will bring greater learning…about sin, about judgement…and not that it remains only in full in the bible

1. ‘Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book.’ [the Bible] John 20:30

4)‘Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.’ John 21:25

Therefore, Simeon, the Bible itself tells us that all is not contained only in the bible!

 

[Apryl]

Lately, I have been comparing and contrasting Catholic beliefs and Baptist beliefs. First off, I would like to begin with “sola scriptura”. I personally believe that if the Bible was not alone sufficient, than God would somewhere explicitly state it in scripture. I have heard arguments asking why, if scripture is alone sufficient, that there are so many different denominations of Christianity.My answer is that, while scripture is alone sufficient, this is caused by different interpretations, because many parts the Bible can be misinterpreted. Second, nowhere in the Bible does it say to venerate Mary, and nowhere does it say that she is sinless, “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). Because, even when, in the Bible, she was honored,(but not worshiped), Jesus corrected her and said that rather, those who obeyed God’s commandments were blessed. I am not trying to officially say it (the Catholic faith) is false, of disrespecting it’s beliefs, but I am just not convinced that Catholicism is the right path. Please correct me if I am wrong, and please, if you correct or explain, to go into as much detail and explanation as possible, to make sure I understand.

(Normally, I would answer within the quotes and make it easier to follow… tonight, I’m too tired/lazy to do that. Please forgive me)

You say that IF scripture alone was NOT sufficient, the Bible would say so. But as Catholics (this IS a Catholic board), if the Bible alone was sufficient, it would say so. It doesn’t say it alone is all that there is. In fact, there are places (for example, the end of the Gospel of Matthew) where it STATES that there are other things not recorded.

Also, the Bible wasn’t there when the first Christians were being the first Christians. Stephen wasn’t quoting from the New Testament when he was stoned. Paul wasn’t reading FROM the New Testament, he was composing it. They were living as Christians, and they weren’t using the Bible. At least, not the New Testament.

You point to the many Protestant denominations because of interpretations, but wouldn’t our Lord and Savior give us a vehicle to interpret the Bible? He did: The Church. The Church that existed from the days of the Apostles is the Catholic Church. We have the successors to Peter who sit at the helm of that body.

You point out that Mary is honored, and not worshipped… My response to that is ‘Duh’… since no Catholic who is a real Catholic worships Mary. Mary is in NO WAY God. (We make the Sign of the Cross. ‘In the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit’. She doesn’t even get on that cross.). In contrast to what you say, though, in the Ten Commandments, it tells us to Honor our Father and Mother. Mary is the Mother of our Lord. It says in the Gospel of Luke that all nations will call her Blessed. If you don’t want to accept that Mary had a significant role, that’s on you. But I know she was there for His conception, birth, His first miracle, and His death. She was one of the first to see Him when he rose from the dead. She is a wonderful EXAMPLE of Christian life.

But that doesn’t mean that I would suggest worshipping Mary. I worship God

I can understand where you are coming from. When I was in High School, I read the Bible from Genesis to Revelations. By myself. A few years later, when I was thinking of leaving The Church, and my way out was to point to the ‘error of their ways’, well, you see where I am and what I’m doing.

 

[Nine_Two]

First off, I would like to begin with “sola scriptura”. I personally believe that if the Bible was not alone sufficient, than God would somewhere explicitly state it in scripture.

That’s not only a circular argument, but the opposite of what it should be. If the bible alone was sufficient, than that should be stated in the bible. No religion in the history of mankind, including Judaism, has been in thrall to a select set of books. The earliest Christians themselves had a number of different books in addition to what is called “the bible”, The “bible” of Protestants is quite new, even Luther’s bible contained more books than the modern one. Not only is “the bible” illdefined, but a position like “the bible is all you need” should be backed up by the bible. The fact of the matter is the bible says in several places to look to tradition, to listen to the teachings of your elders, etc.

I have heard arguments asking why, if scripture is alone sufficient, that there are so many different denominations of Christianity.My answer is that, while scripture is alone sufficient, this is caused by different interpretations, because many parts the Bible can be misinterpreted.

If they are being misinterpreted, then does that not mean that one needs something more than the bible to interprete it correctly?

Second, nowhere in the Bible does it say to venerate Mary, and nowhere does it say that she is sinless, “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). Because, even when, in the Bible, she was honored,(but not worshiped), Jesus corrected her and said that rather, those who obeyed God’s commandments were blessed.

The verse you state, Jesus wasn’t correcting them, he didn’t say it was wrong to honour her, he simply said that all who follow the commandments of God are worthy of honour. This is something done by all non-Protestant churches.

 

[beth40n2]

Lately, I have been comparing and contrasting Catholic beliefs and Baptist beliefs. First off, I would like to begin with “sola scriptura”. I personally believe that if the Bible was not alone sufficient, than God would somewhere explicitly state it in scripture .

I. The Word of God is Transferred Orally
Mark 13:31 - heaven and earth will pass away, but Jesus’ Word will not pass away. But Jesus never says anything about His Word being entirely committed to a book. Also, it took 400 years to compile the Bible, and another 1,000 years to invent the printing press. How was the Word of God communicated? Orally, by the bishops of the Church, with the guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit.

Mark 16:15 - Jesus commands the apostles to preach the Gospel to every creature. But Jesus did not want this preaching to stop after the apostles died, and yet the Bible was not compiled until four centuries later. The word of God was transferred orally.

Mark 3:14; 16:15 - Jesus commands the apostles to preach (not write) the gospel to the world. Jesus gives no commandment to the apostles to write, and gives them no indication that the oral apostolic word he commanded them to communicate would later die in the fourth century. If Jesus wanted Christianity to be limited to a book (which would be finalized four centuries later), wouldn’t He have said a word about it?

Luke 10:16 - He who hears you (not “who reads your writings”), hears me. The oral word passes from Jesus to the apostles to their successors by the gracious gifts of the Holy Spirit. This succession has been preserved in the Holy Catholic Church.

Luke 24:47 - Jesus explains that repentance and forgiveness of sins must be preached (not written) in Christ’s name to all nations. For Protestants to argue that the word of God is now limited to a book (subject to thousands of different interpretations) is to not only ignore Scripture, but introduce a radical theory about how God spreads His word which would have been unbelievable to the people at the time of Jesus.

Acts 2:3-4 - the Holy Spirit came to the apostles in the form of “tongues” of fire so that they would “speak” (not just write) the Word.

Acts 15:27 - Judas and Silas, successors to the apostles, were sent to bring God’s infallible Word by “word of mouth.”

Rom. 10:8 - the Word is near you, on your lips and in your heart, which is the word of faith which is preached (not just written).

Rom. 10:17 - faith comes by what is “heard” (not just read) which is the Word that is “preached” (not read). This word comes from the oral tradition of the apostles. Those in countries where the Scriptures are not available can still come to faith in Jesus Christ.

1 Cor. 15:1,11 - faith comes from what is “preached” (not read). For non-Catholics to argue that oral tradition once existed but exists no longer, they must prove this from Scripture. But no where does Scripture say oral tradition died with the apostles. To the contrary, Scripture says the oral word abides forever.

Gal. 1:11-12 - the Gospel which is “preached” (not read) to me is not a man’s Gospel, but the Revelation of Jesus Christ.

Eph. 1:13 - hearing (not reading) the Word of truth is the gospel of our salvation. This is the living word in the Church’s living tradition.

Col. 1:5 - of this you have “heard” (not read) before in the word of truth, the Gospel which has come to you.

1 Thess. 2:13 - the Word of God is what you have “heard” (not read). The orally communicated word of God lasts forever, and this word is preserved within the Church by the Holy Spirit.

2 Tim. 1:13 - oral communications are protected by the Spirit. They abide forever. Oral authority does not die with the apostles.

2 Tim. 4:2,6-7 - Paul, at the end of his life, charges Timothy to preach (not write) the Word. Oral teaching does not die with Paul.

Titus 1:3 - God’s word is manifested “through preaching” (not writing). This “preaching” is the tradition that comes from the apostles.

1 Peter 1:25 - the Word of the Lord abides forever and that Word is the good news that was “preached” (not read) to you. Because the Word is preached by the apostles and it lasts forever, it must be preserved by the apostles’ successors, or this could not be possible. Also, because the oral word abides forever, oral apostolic tradition could not have died in the fourth century with all teachings being committed to Scripture.

2 Peter 1:12, 15 - Peter says that he will leave a “means to recall these things in mind.” But since this was his last canonical epistle, this “means to recall” must therefore be the apostolic tradition and teaching authority of his office that he left behind.

2 John 1:12; 3 John 13 - John prefers to speak and not to write. Throughout history, the Word of God was always transferred orally and Jesus did not change this. To do so would have been a radical departure from the Judaic tradition.

Deut. 31:9-12 - Moses had the law read only every seven years. Was the word of God absent during the seven year interval? Of course not. The Word of God has always been given orally by God’s appointed ones, and was never limited to Scripture.

Isa. 40:8 - the grass withers, the flower fades, but the Word of our God (not necessarily written) will stand forever.

Isa. 59:21 - Isaiah prophesies the promise of a living voice to hand on the Word of God to generations by mouth, not by a book. This is either a false prophecy, or it has been fulfilled by the Catholic Church.

Joel 1:3 - tell your children of the Word of the Lord, and they tell their children, and their children tell another generation.

Mal. 2:7 - the lips of a priest guard knowledge, and we should seek instruction from his mouth. Protestants want to argue all oral tradition was committed to Scripture? But no where does Scripture say this.

 

[arabic_catholic]

i want to say one thing about mary

if you believe that jesus is the awatied king and messiah

then you have to accept that she (mary) is the queen of heaven because jesus is the king

of god’s kingdom

and according to the old testament the queen is the mother of the king not the wife

so mary is the queen of heaven and the woman that john saw in his vision

and she is the one that god talk about in the book of genesis (( I will put enmity between you and the woman ))

notice that jesus call mary woman

, "Woman, how does this concern of yours involve me? My hour has not yet come.

so mary is the queen of heaven and god from the biggining was putting her in his mind and part of the plan to save the world

and he told us in genesis that she will be hated by satan because god said : 'he [the woman’s seed] will crush your head and you will strike his heel

Then the dragon became angry with the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring, those who keep God’s commandments and bear witness to Jesus Revelation 12:17

so after all this bible honoring of mary you dont want us to honor the queen ?!

 

[Reuben_J]

Lately, I have been comparing and contrasting Catholic beliefs and Baptist beliefs. First off, I would like to begin with “sola scriptura”. I personally believe that if the Bible was not alone sufficient, than God would somewhere explicitly state it in scripture.

Looking at the title of this thread, I think the reason you are not convinced is because the premise you set for yourself that makes it difficult for you to be so.

You said if the Bible alone is not sufficient it would be explicitly stated in the Scripture; and yet you don’t require it to be stated in the Scripture that the Bible alone is sufficient. There is nowhere in the Scripture that states that the Bible alone is sufficient. And please, don’t give us that Letter to Timothy. It is not explicitly stated there.

Common sense tells us that the Bible alone is certainly not sufficient as a guideline in how to worship and to live as Christians. It does not have a flow chart or a check list on how to carry out its instruction there. Ultimately, it was the apostles’ practices and examples that we have to follow; and not everything that they do was accounted for in the Bible.

For example – The Bible tells us to confess our sins but it does not tell us how to do it step by step. Thus we have to refer to the Early Church Fathers who had inherited the practices from the apostles.

The Bible also tells us to baptize people but it also does not tell us how to do it step by step. It does not give us a flow chart or a check list on how to do it. So we need to follow the tradition of the apostles. If we don’t, then you have to device a method of your own; in your case it would be your pastor’s method. So which one you would rather follow - . the Early Church Fathers or your pastor?

So you see, the Bible can never be truly sufficient on its own simply because like it says, not everything is written there.

I have heard arguments asking why, if scripture is alone sufficient, that there are so many different denominations of Christianity.My answer is that, while scripture is alone sufficient, this is caused by different interpretations, because many parts the Bible can be misinterpreted.

Here is an age old answer that you may want to hear again here – if many parts of the Bible can be misinterpreted, then whose interpretation is right and how do you know which one is right? OK, you may say the Holy Spirit guides you. But the other fella also claims he is guided by the Holy Spirit too. So who truly has the Holy Spirit then?

Some of you may say that the Bible is like a manual – even if it is, you would need the manufacturer’s representative to explain it to you. It is not just a matter of ‘on’ and ‘off’ the switch; the Bible is more complicated than that. Our company just installed a very modern system the other month – however we need the manufacturer’s technical experts to train us on how to use it. Likewise you need people from the producer of the Bible to train you on how to use it.

 

[vera_dicere]

Exodus 20:3 “You shall have no other gods before Me”.

Mary is the Queen of Heaven, she is the mother of Christ, but her relationship to the Holy Trinity ends there. God has made specific command we are not to worship anyone but Him, and that includes worshipping Mary.

Honouring, however, is a completely different kettle of fish, we may honour Mary, in that we respect her role, pray for her intercession and generally speak kindly of her.

The same way we respect and honour our parents. You can respect and honour someone without worshipping them.

 

[Petergee]

Couldn’t that argument be turned around like so:

I personally believe that if the Bible was alone sufficient, then God would somewhere explicitly state it in scripture (and state what books belong in the bible)?

And moreover, none of the books of the New Testament, except the Apocalypse to St John, even hints in its own text that it is the inspired Word of God.

But the Koran states most emphatically and repeatedly in its text that it is the Word of God. What reason does anyone have for accepting the NT books as the Word of God and rejecting the Koran as the Word of God , if not for the fact that, as St Augustine put it about 400 AD, “I would not believe the Gospel except that the Catholic Church told me to do so.”

 

[Thyme]

The Bible mentions Sacred Tradition:

“I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you. (1 Cor 11:2)”

“Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us. (2 Thess 3:6) (1 Cor 11:2)”

If you don’t believe in Sacred Tradition, then how can you believe in the canon of the Bible? Who had the authority to choose which scriptures were divinely inspired? Christ’s Church did, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Please remember that seven books were removed from Protestant Bibles a lot later in Christianity (about 500 years ago)? Protestant churches were formed with these altered Bibles, so how could you trust Protestant views of Christ’s Church, when Protestants have not kept to the traditions which we have been told to keep in the previous quotes?

The Bible speaks about the Holy Trinity without giving it a title, just like it talks about Confession without naming it (because this is what Christians originally practised).

“Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

“All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation:”

“I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

Christ gave authority to His Church and made it clear that the Church will be strong and un-divided.

Matthew 16:18 “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.”

1 Peter 2:4-9 “… Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and he who believes in him will not be put to shame.” … but for those who do not believe, “The very stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner,”

Revelation 21:10, 14 “…And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.”

 

[benidict]

That may be true, but I am not sure what verse it says that, explicitly, and the other scriptural explanations that I have heard justifying that belief have not been related to the belief at all and have not justified it. It may be true, I would just need to see the verse, if one such verse exists.

first let me welcome you to the forums my friend. what came first, the oral tradition and teaching of Moses, or the torah, complete and hand delivered by God? to understand Christianity, you must understand Judaism. Moses teachings were around long before anything was put into writing. the Jews eventually put the first 5 books into writing, but that was not until much later. they had then two authorities, the written, and the oral, or if you will tradition. Christianity not any different. long before a new testament was even thought of, all the people had, were the oral teachings of the apostles. (tradition) and the letters which came later. (written) we have the authority of scripture yes, but we also have the authority of tradition that was handed down from the apostles till present. if all you have is sola scriptura, you only have half the message given by God. the Jews have never been sola scriptura, Jesus was a Jew. the Church he set up, was primarily made up of Jewish converts. they would have understood this. its no different with us. if you cannot find it in the bible you can probably trace the teaching back to the oral tradition of the apostles. straight through the Church fathers, and directly to us. it may be good for you to read them. i am a former baptist. i also have a friend who was a baptist minister, who had to give up his ordination in the baptist Church because he took the challenge, studied the Church fathers, and would have converted to Catholicism except for his english heritage. he opted for the Episcopalians. and is now a priest in their communion. hope this helps. Peace

 

[RebeccaJ]

Simeonhuff, all writings exist in a context of human events and actions. Scripture is not an exception. The NT exists in a context of the human events and actions that brought it about. It didn’t come about outside of something.This context, this something, is a body of believers, a church.

It isn’t a matter of interpretation, it is a matter of context. Where is the correct context for scripture to exist, and does that where exist for us today?

Being Catholic, it is obvious I found the where, that context, to be Catholicism. From my view, I see all break off denominations, and so-called restoration movements, as creating a new context for scripture. One of itself, or for some people, themselves.

This context outside of the teachings of the body of believers is without support, historically and scripturally. St Paul clearly teaches of a church, and he teaches from a context of people handing down, carefully, what they have been taught. The two go hand in hand. Scripture cannot exist in a separate context without the body of believers, what has been taught and carefully handed down. The body of believers, those who have/are doing the teaching and handing down, cannot exist without the context of scripture.

 

[benidict]

simeon. i went onto your about me page, and looked at some of your other post. a couple of quick questions. just how old are you? i noticed you said you wanted to make a rosary to wear to school. are you in high school or college? either or, you certainly seem very bright. and that you are searching for the ultimate truth. God will not dissapoint you. i am going to offer you up in prayer, so that the Creator will give you clear and consise direction for you. and may he do great things for and thru you, and bless you completely. Peace

 

[Genesius]

Simeon, welcome! I can see you have been bombarded…LOL. But then again, I guess in all fairness, you asked for it…LOL.

I am a convert myself. I thank God for my Baptist brethren who ingrained the Sacred Scriptures in me in my formidable years. I can still bring to mind those memory verses and passages whenever Satan tries to throw his darts of doubt.

Having said that you probably think I am going to address the sola scriptura point. The only thing I will say on that note is that many KJV only Christians are unaware that the original KJV (actual 1611 version) contained the Deutero-canon (or what some Protestants wrongly call “The Apocrypha”). I have a friend who has a copy of the original. It’s very difficult to follow; J’s look like S’s, etc., and the book of Revelation is called “The Apocalypse”, etc.

Anyway, what I really wanted to address is the issue of “Mary worship”. At the risk of confusing you, I would say that many have already answered that point very well…except…that in a sense we DO worship Mary. The problem lies in the linguistic aspect of the term “worship”. What others here have really been saying is that we don’t “Latria” Mary. You see, there are at least three different terms in the Latin for “worship”. Dulia, Hyperdulia, and Latria. There is another one reserved for honoring Joseph as well, but I forget the title of that one.

The Church teaches that “Latria”, the highest form of honor; what you would call “worship”, is reserved for God alone. “Dulia” is a term referring to the lowest form of honor…but still honor, as applied to all other saints. “Hyperdulia” is a form of honor that is between Dulia and Latria and is specifically designated for the honor of Mary, recognizing that although human only, and not divine, she held a unique role in salvation history; namely, being the ark of the new covenant; the mother of Christ, and therefore, “the mother of God”. Jesus is both human and divine. You cannot separate the two anymore than you can separate the soul and body of simeon. When I address you I am not addressing just half of you, but the entire you.

In the same way, we recognize that Mary, being the mother of the whole Christ includes the divine part of Christ. That is not to say that she preexisted God, just that she bore God incarnate.

In fact, even in our modern society, in the courts of England to this day the judge is addressed as “your worship” vs. “your honor”. They rightfully recognize the proper use of the term dulia as being synonymous with “worship”.

Hope that helps, and Godbless.

 

[mountaintop]

heres a link you might like for research catholic-convert.com/ this is Steve ray’s website he was a baptist for years and through his history research he found the catholic Church his book crossing the Tiber gives a through explanation about the differences between the catholic and baptist churches

 

[simeonhuff]

Genesius, when you said that Mary is the Ark of the new Covenant as well as the new Eve, and having a role in our salvation, that sparked some interest. I am not necesarrily saying you are wrong, but do you have some verses that sort of justify/back those ideas up? If you do, I would love to see them as to get a better understanding. Thanks!