Scripture and Mary

[EphelDuath]

But I’d like to give my own list.

1517 - Salvation by faith alone invented by Martin Luther
1522 - Deuterocanon (1 & 2 Maccabees, Baruch, Sirach, Tobit, Wisdom of Solomon, Judith, parts of Daniel and Esther) removed from the Bible
1525 - Symbolic Eucharist
1530 - Sola scriptura invented at Augsburg
1534 - Divorce invented in England
1536 - Authority of clergy removed among reformed churches
1609 - “Believer’s baptism”
1611 - King James Bible completed; changed John 3:16 to “will not perish” instead of “may not perish”
1827 - The Rapture
1878 - Biblical literalism enforced among evangelical Christianity

 

[teachccd]

Yeah, no doubt! Old Scholar, I spanked Teach ( ) , now I’m spanking you! Please, this debate could be so wonderful if we just kept ourselves under control. Honestly, many on this board (on both sides of the issue) have some very good points. But Old Scholar, when we throw out insults like this, all points are lost.

*Edited to add, Old Scholar, I just saw your post where you acknowledged this. I agree w/ everything you wrote. We get so passionate that sometimes we come across differently than we want.

Anyway, have a very Merry Christmas all!

boppaid and all here today,

It’s all good…May the Prince of Peace fill our hearts with the peace and love that He shows us today as He took on flesh and dwelt with us. There is one Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Let us in our differences remember that Mary risked her life to accept the will of God and carry our Lord for nine months. Today we remember that Mary gave birth and presented the fruit of her womb, Jesus. While all here may not see eye to eye as to how we should honor her or how she plays forth in her role as the Mother of our Lord, let us all recognize that she held Him first as the world holds Him now. When she gave the baby Jesus His first kiss, she kissed the face of God, a face that would be worshipped until the end of time.

Merry Christmas to all of us here and for just today let us join in Christ and know that it is His love that remains when all of the theological dust settles. A love that lights the hearts of every believer, be us Catholic or Protestant. Let us rejoice for unto us today in the city of David a Savior has been born. The Prince of Peace…teachccd

 

[Janet_S]

boppaid and all here today,

It’s all good…May the Prince of Peace fill our hearts with the peace and love that He shows us today as He took on flesh and dwelt with us. There is one Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Let us in our differences remember that Mary risked her life to accept the will of God and carry our Lord for nine months. Today we remember that Mary gave birth and presented the fruit of her womb, Jesus. While all here may not see eye to eye as to how we should honor her or how she plays forth in her role as the Mother of our Lord, let us all recognize that she held Him first as the world holds Him now. When she gave the baby Jesus His first kiss, she kissed the face of God, a face that would be worshipped until the end of time.

Merry Christmas to all of us here and for just today let us join in Christ and know that it is His love that remains when all of the theological dust settles. A love that lights the hearts of every believer, be us Catholic or Protestant. Let us rejoice for unto us today in the city of David a Savior has been born. The Prince of Peace…teachccd

wrensworld.com/marydiduknow.htm

A beautiful song by Mark Lowry (not a Catholic BTW)

 

[teachccd]

wrensworld.com/marydiduknow.htm

A beautiful song by Mark Lowry (not a Catholic BTW)

Yes, a quite beautiful song. I hope that all will listen and find it within their hearts to behold a Mother and her ultimate Son.

Thank you…Merry Christmas teachccd

 

[boppaid]

boppaid and all here today,

It’s all good…May the Prince of Peace fill our hearts with the peace and love that He shows us today as He took on flesh and dwelt with us. There is one Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Let us in our differences remember that Mary risked her life to accept the will of God and carry our Lord for nine months. Today we remember that Mary gave birth and presented the fruit of her womb, Jesus. While all here may not see eye to eye as to how we should honor her or how she plays forth in her role as the Mother of our Lord, let us all recognize that she held Him first as the world holds Him now. When she gave the baby Jesus His first kiss, she kissed the face of God, a face that would be worshipped until the end of time.

Merry Christmas to all of us here and for just today let us join in Christ and know that it is His love that remains when all of the theological dust settles. A love that lights the hearts of every believer, be us Catholic or Protestant. Let us rejoice for unto us today in the city of David a Savior has been born. The Prince of Peace…teachccd

AMEN!

 

[jcrichton]

…Scriptures say that he increased in strength during the three years he preached …

***Hi, Old Scholar!

Acts 9:17-22 unequivocally state that mere days transpired between Saul’s transformation and his proclamation of Chirst as the Son of God.***

Sorry… Instead it says the power given to Peter was given to all the apostles. Not just peter.

---

Read: St. Matthew 16:18-19; St. Luke 22:31-32; St. John 21:15-17.***

… Scriptures that say it was Jesus Himself who came to Peter and told him about Paul’s conversion…

---

Read Acts 10:9-48; 11:1-18; 15:1-21 The Mission to the Gentiles is revealed to Peter; he identifies himself as one to whom the Lord Himself has delegated this task; when Paul comes to the Church in Jersusalem he supports his Mission without reservations.***

I am not demeaning Peter at all… Scriptures tell us that Christ is the head of the church and you seem to think Peter was.

---

I do not obscure or magnify Scriptural passages to render them in better or lesser light. So I am sensitive to those that do–specially if their efforts is to amplify their own personal belief while sacrificing the content of the Holy Scriptures. It is Jesus who makes such statements; if you have any grievances, please taken them up with God!***

I don’t persecute the Christian Church…

---

… but when you continue to claim perfection in 30,000 plus Christian churches which support anything and everything under the sun… I must but suspect that you are anti-Catholic and pro-anything-anti-Catholic.***

…writings of the early church leaders that show the doctrines that are being taught… they don’t exist… Catholics believe what some man has told them and do not believe the Word of God. Christ spoke of that and rebuked those who believed the doctrines of man instead of doctrines of His.

---

I am not versed in writtings; I do not apologize for it. Yet, when you tell me that you reject Catholic Teachings because you cannot see them in the Bible I cannot but wonder what you are looking for. Rejecting the Catholic Church because of usage of terms and ideas that are not explicitly scripted in the Bible while accepting everything from anyone at any time who promotes anything under the guise of “Christian” or “Biblical” doctrine is nothing more than sectarianism.

Consider this: If you cannot determine from Scriptures that Paul did not need a vast amount of time to get “instructed,” though the Holy Scriptures themselves attest that the time lapsed between his transformation and his proclamation of Christ was minute, how would anyone be able to assist you in understanding Catholic Doctrine? Our theology is almost as far apart as that of Catholics and Jews (though many rudimentary parts intertwine, there’s no final convergence because too many important issues are unresolved).

---

I challenge you, show me a Scriptures that places Peter in Rome.

---

This, as many non-Catholic arguments, is cartoonish; I can now dare you to show with explicit Biblical text where it states that Peter did not leave Jerusalem or did not go abroad or did not visit any of the believers found outside of his Jewish circle. Yet, if I tell you that the Holy Scriptures attest that Peter traveled all over (Acts 9:32) I am more than sure that you can find a Biblical version that would narrow down the places he traveled to exclude Rome since you do not seek to abide by Scriptures but to counter the Catholic Church.

It would be redundant to continue to argue on issues that you have determined that are not valid. It would make as much sense as if I were to ask why non-Catholic Chirstians reject the Body of Christ or refuse to acknowledge that the bread and whine are not mere symbols, even when Scriptures and Jesus Himself attest otherwise.

I will make one more attempt to show you our disparities:

Show me a Scripture that says anyone has gone to heaven except for He who came down from heaven.

---

Jesus tells us that God is not a God of the dead, hence Abraham, Isaac, Jacob cannot but be alive in God. Further, Jesus is transfigured in front of the disciples and He is joined by Moses–a man that died hundreds of years before Christ’s Incarnation. Additionally, we find two Old Testament prophets that were taken into heaven bodily (Enoch and Elijah). Please remember that the Bible is not a book given to us to determine God’s limits; it is a book to help us understand some of God’s being.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Old_Scholar]

***Hi, Old Scholar!

Acts 9:17-22 unequivocally state that mere days transpired between Saul’s transformation and his proclamation of Chirst as the Son of God.***

True and Galatians 1:17-18 says that while he was increasing in strength, he preached in Damascus and went to Jerusalem after three years—all the while, increasing in his knowledge…

---

Read: St. Matthew 16:18-19; St. Luke 22:31-32; St. John 21:15-17.***

**And then in Matthew 18:18-19, He gave the same power to all the disciples. Then in Luke 22:24, the disciples asked who among them was the greatest and strangely, Jesus did not tell them it was Peter…because it wasn’t. All the apostles were equal in stature.

In Luke 22:31-32, Christ said He would pray that Peter would not follow Satan. Does that sound as if Peter was special? And in John 21, Christ was trying to restore Peter’s confidence as Peter had betrayed Him three times. That’s why He repeated His statement three times. He gave nothing special to Peter then, but tried to save him.**

---

I do not obscure or magnify Scriptural passages to render them in better or lesser light. So I am sensitive to those that do–specially if their efforts is to amplify their own personal belief while sacrificing the content of the Holy Scriptures. It is Jesus who makes such statements; if you have any grievances, please taken them up with God!***

---

… but when you continue to claim perfection in 30,000 plus Christian churches which support anything and everything under the sun… I must but suspect that you are anti-Catholic and pro-anything-anti-Catholic.***

**30,000 is a figure a little bogus. There are far fewer protestant denominations than that. Probably far less than 100. But then look at the RCC; there are thousands of them that are all different, some believe one thing and others believe another; some have married Priests and some don’t; many teach *Sola Scriptura ***and others don’t; Many have female Priests and many don’t; many support homosexuals and same sex marriage and many don’t. You don’t find very many Protestant churches that support such things.

You can’t make the claim that there are far too many Protestant denominations without looking at the RCC.

---

I am not versed in writtings; I do not apologize for it. Yet, when you tell me that you reject Catholic Teachings because you cannot see them in the Bible I cannot but wonder what you are looking for. Rejecting the Catholic Church because of usage of terms and ideas that are not explicitly scripted in the Bible while accepting everything from anyone at any time who promotes anything under the guise of “Christian” or “Biblical” doctrine is nothing more than sectarianism.

Consider this: If you cannot determine from Scriptures that Paul did not need a vast amount of time to get “instructed,” though the Holy Scriptures themselves attest that the time lapsed between his transformation and his proclamation of Christ was minute, how would anyone be able to assist you in understanding Catholic Doctrine? Our theology is almost as far apart as that of Catholics and Jews (though many rudimentary parts intertwine, there’s no final convergence because too many important issues are unresolved).

---

I only reject Catholic teachings that are in conflict with the Bible. Any Historian, Scholar or Theologian will tell you that the earliest facts known are always the most accurate and the truth is that none of the present day anti-Biblical doctrines or dogmas of the Catholic Church were present in the first two centuries of the Catholic Church. They are all manifestations of man and are not Scriptural. The Churches had it right for the first two or three centuries then the Gnostics came in and started adding to and subtracting from Scripture in order to fit their beliefs. Your own church history will show you that if you will read the writings of the early fathers.

continued—I haven’t figured out yet how to get so much on a page as some do, so I have to split it up. Must be a secret…

 

[Old_Scholar]

(cont’d)

jcrichton

---

Read Acts 10:9-48; 11:1-18; 15:1-21 The Mission to the Gentiles is revealed to Peter; he identifies himself as one to whom the Lord Himself has delegated this task; when Paul comes to the Church in Jerusalem he supports his Mission without reservations.***

Not true. Peter had been preaching to the Jews only when God sent him to meet with Cornelius. Peter did not know why he was there but went anyhow and when he arrived he preached the same message he had been preaching to the Jews. We do not know why God sent him there but he was the apostle to the Jews, not the Gentiles. Read that entire chapter.

Please read Galatians 2:7-9 and you will see that Peter was sent to preach to the Jews and Paul to the Gentiles.

---

This, as many non-Catholic arguments, is cartoonish; I can now dare you to show with explicit Biblical text where it states that Peter did not leave Jerusalem or did not go abroad or did not visit any of the believers found outside of his Jewish circle. Yet, if I tell you that the Holy Scriptures attest that Peter traveled all over (Acts 9:32) I am more than sure that you can find a Biblical version that would narrow down the places he traveled to exclude Rome since you do not seek to abide by Scriptures but to counter the Catholic Church.

It would be redundant to continue to argue on issues that you have determined that are not valid. It would make as much sense as if I were to ask why non-Catholic Chirstians reject the Body of Christ or refuse to acknowledge that the bread and whine are not mere symbols, even when Scriptures and Jesus Himself attest otherwise.***

Your arguments are taking the same old course, prove a negative and we know that can’t be done. However, common sense should tell you that if what you believe is true, that Peter was appointed head of the church or selected as a “pope”, then we should know it. It would have been such a great event that Scripture would certainly have made a big thing of it. Instead, we have Peter never taking or assuming any special power, apostles arguing over who is the greatest and Jesus not telling them Peter was the one. You assume far too much and speculation is great if you had something to speculate about. But to make up things is simply not the way to go. The same is true of Mary—if she had been anything special, then Jesus would have told us and so would the writers of the New Testament. Points as important as that would not be left to us to “figure out.” They are merely figments of someone’s imagination unless they can be found in Scripture.

I will make one more attempt to show you our disparities:

Jesus tells us that God is not a God of the dead, hence Abraham, Isaac, Jacob cannot but be alive in God. Further, Jesus is transfigured in front of the disciples and He is joined by Moses–a man that died hundreds of years before Christ’s Incarnation. Additionally, we find two Old Testament prophets that were taken into heaven bodily (Enoch and Elijah). Please remember that the Bible is not a book given to us to determine God’s limits; it is a book to help us understand some of God’s being.

Maran athal

Angel

**You are again assuming a great deal. John tells us some 50 or more years after the resurrection that NOONE has gone to heaven except the Son of God who came down from heaven. How clear can it be?

The vision of Moses and Elijah on the mountain was just that, a vision, nothing more. Jesus even asked that no one be told of the event. There was a really good reason for that if you studied the Bible enough. It is like Elijah and Enoch. They were taken up into the clouds(which was called the first heaven then) alright but they were not taken to heaven where God is. That is the third heaven and no one has gone there. Elijah was alive years later, as the Bible records a letter from him. If you studied the Old Testament enough, you would realize that Elijah was often taken to “another place” in order to save his life. He was not taken to heaven.

Jesus even tells us that David is still in the grave. All who have died are still in the grave, including all the saints and Mary herself. At the resurrection, they will all be raised—not before.

I would be glad to prove to you, Biblically, that Elijah and Enoch were merely taken somewhere else, to another place, but not to heaven, if you would like, but in another thread.**

 

[jcrichton]

***Hi, Old Scholar!

Acts 9:17-22 unequivocally state that mere days transpired between Saul’s transformation and his proclamation of Chirst as the Son of God.***

True and Galatians 1:17-18 says that while he was increasing in strength, he preached in Damascus and went to Jerusalem after three years—all the while, increasing in his knowledge…

***Hi, Old Scholar!

…it seems that you do not even keep up with your own claims… I’ve never stated that Paul did not grow in his faith or understanding… but you claimed that he had to be instructed for 3 years in order to preach the Gospel.

---

In Luke 22:31-32, Christ said He would pray that Peter would not follow Satan. Does that sound as if Peter was special? And in John 21, Christ was trying to restore Peter’s confidence as Peter had betrayed Him three times. That’s why He repeated His statement three times. He gave nothing special to Peter then, but tried to save him.

---

Again, twisting and straining Scriptures is not the path to the Truth… Jesus spoke of all of the Disciples being attacked by Satan, not merely Peter. And He did not ask all of the Disciples to gather and strengthen each other; He asked only*** Peter to gather and strengthen the others!

Please read the Holy Scriptures without injecting denominational bias into them!

**30,000 is a figure a little bogus. There are far fewer protestant denominations than that. Probably far less than 100. **

---

You are beginning to convince me that you truly are an old scholar:***

"The Facts and Stats on 33000 Denominations: World Christian …
bringyou.to/apologetics/a106.htm

I only reject Catholic teachings that are in conflict with the Bible. Any Historian, Scholar or Theologian will tell you that the earliest facts known are always the most accurate and the truth is that none of the present day anti-Biblical doctrines or dogmas of the Catholic Church were present in the first two centuries of the Catholic Church. They are all manifestations of man and are not Scriptural. The Churches had it right for the first two or three centuries then the Gnostics came in and started adding to and subtracting from Scripture in order to fit their beliefs. Your own church history will show you that if you will read the writings of the early fathers.

---

It is wonderful to be so enlightened!

Biblical scholars and theologians and secular scholars do not err; they simply learn to adapt. It was only a few years ago that these learned people rejected St. John’s Gospel as being in error because he cited a pool which the other Gospel writers did not… how interesting it was that that very precise pool was unearth, accidentally, when none of the “intellectuals” were looking for it!

You, as well as most scholars, refuse to understand that the world did not stand still; that there were heresies (still are) that reject Yahweh as the God of the Jews and Gentiles and Jesus as God Incarnate and the Holy Spirit as the third Person of God. The word Trinity was “invented” to explain away heresies that either rejected God as three Divine Persons or rejected Jesus as both man and God or rejected the Holy Spirit as the Creator, the Giver of Life: God!

To dwell further into Catholic Doctrine will gain us nothing as you continue to reject Scriptures and the responses which you receive both from me and from others on this forum.

Maran atha!

Angel***

 

[jcrichton]

(cont’d)

Not true. Peter had been preaching to the Jews only when God sent him to meet with Cornelius. Peter did not know why he was there but went anyhow and when he arrived he preached the same message he had been preaching to the Jews. We do not know why God sent him there but he was the apostle to the Jews, not the Gentiles. Read that entire chapter.

***Hi, Old Scholar!

Did you ever study with the Jehovah Witnesess? How can you selectively read the Holy Scriptures? How can you prescribe what they mean? How can you set limits and boundaries to what they cover, who they define, who they limit, or who they promote?:

6 The apostles and elders met to look into the matter, 7 and after a long discussion, Peter stood up and addressed them. ‘My brothers,’ he said, 'you know perfectly well that in the early days God made his choice among you: the gentiles were to learn the good news from me and so become believers. 8 And God, who can read everyone’s heart, showed his approval of them by giving the Holy Spirit to them just as he had to us. 9 God made no distinction between them and us, since he purified their hearts by faith. *** (Acts 15:6-9)

Where does it say that Peter could only preach to the Gentiles who resided with Cornelius? Where does it say that Peter could only preach to the Gentiles around Cornelius’ residence or place of employment? I again ask you to stop injecting your personal views on the Holy Scriptures.

Please read Galatians 2:7-9 and you will see that Peter was sent to preach to the Jews and Paul to the Gentiles.

---

Again, where does Paul claim that Peter could not preach to the Gentiles; that they were his personal turf?

Do you actually believe that the Jews that sought to kill Paul would simply embrace Peter’s preaching of Jesus? Do you truly believe that Paul and Peter never traveled in the same circles? Do you honestly believe that the Apostles divided territories into districts belonging to Paul or Peter or Matthew or John Mark…?

---

You are again assuming a great deal. John tells us some 50 or more years after the resurrection that NOONE has gone to heaven except the Son of God who came down from heaven. How clear can it be?

---

Again, I ask: Did you study of the Jehovah Witnesses? They are experts at using Scriptures to deny Scripture! Since you are so versed in Scripture and since you claim that no one is in Heaven but Christ, tell me: where was Elijah after he was taken? Enoch, did Yahweh simply used a vanishing trick or metamorphosed him into another creature? Again I tell you: the Bible is not a book about God’s limits!***

The vision of Moses and Elijah on the mountain was just that, a vision, nothing more. Jesus even asked that no one be told of the event. There was a really good reason for that if you studied the Bible enough. It is like Elijah and Enoch. They were taken up into the clouds(which was called the first heaven then) alright but they were not taken to heaven where God is. That is the third heaven and no one has gone there. Elijah was alive years later, as the Bible records a letter from him. If you studied the Old Testament enough, you would realize that Elijah was often taken to “another place” in order to save his life. He was not taken to heaven.

---

So Yahweh played a trick on Israel! And Yoshua, is He simply an ancient version of Hudini, entertaining His friends with trickery and sly-of-the-hand gimmicks? So Elisha was more powerful than Elijah or better yet, Yahweh could not keep Elijah safe but He could Elisha? Your theology knows no bounds!

And you actually claim that I distort Scripture!

Maran atha!

Angel***

 

[Old_Scholar]

***Hi, Old Scholar!

Did you ever study with the Jehovah Witnesess? How can you selectively read the Holy Scriptures? How can you prescribe what they mean? How can you set limits and boundaries to what they cover, who they define, who they limit, or who they promote?:

6 The apostles and elders met to look into the matter, 7 and after a long discussion, Peter stood up and addressed them. ‘My brothers,’ he said, 'you know perfectly well that in the early days God made his choice among you: the gentiles were to learn the good news from me and so become believers. 8 And God, who can read everyone’s heart, showed his approval of them by giving the Holy Spirit to them just as he had to us. 9 God made no distinction between them and us, since he purified their hearts by faith. *** (Acts 15:6-9)

So you didn’t read Galatians 2:7-9 did you?

Where does it say that Peter could only preach to the Gentiles who resided with Cornelius? Where does it say that Peter could only preach to the Gentiles around Cornelius’ residence or place of employment? I again ask you to stop injecting your personal views on the Holy Scriptures.

---

Again, where does Paul claim that Peter could not preach to the Gentiles; that they were his personal turf?

Do you actually believe that the Jews that sought to kill Paul would simply embrace Peter’s preaching of Jesus? Do you truly believe that Paul and Peter never traveled in the same circles? Do you honestly believe that the Apostles divided territories into districts belonging to Paul or Peter or Matthew or John Mark…?

---

They traveled in different circles, Paul went to the Gentiles and Peter to the Jews. The Scriptures are quite clear on this. They rarely crossed paths, maybe once.

---

Again, I ask: Did you study of the Jehovah Witnesses? They are experts at using Scriptures to deny Scripture! Since you are so versed in Scripture and since you claim that no one is in Heaven but Christ, tell me: where was Elijah after he was taken? Enoch, did Yahweh simply used a vanishing trick or metamorphosed him into another creature? Again I tell you: the Bible is not a book about God’s limits!***

Yes I have studied JWs, just as I have studied Mormanism and Catholicism. Elijah was known by all who lived around him to disappear for long periods of time and it was not uncommon for him to be “taken up” into another place in order to save his life. As I said earlier, I will be glad to cover that in another post.

---

So Yahweh played a trick on Israel! And Yoshua, is He simply an ancient version of Hudini, entertaining His friends with trickery and sly-of-the-hand gimmicks? So Elisha was more powerful than Elijah or better yet, Yahweh could not keep Elijah safe but He could Elisha? Your theology knows no bounds!

And you actually claim that I distort Scripture!

I don’t believe you read Scripture but instead read the church fathers and what they have to say. Are you aware that for the first two cneturies, they all thought that if tradition could not be proven by Scripture, it should be discarded? ***
Maran atha!

Angel

God be with you in your studies…

 

[jcrichton]

So you didn’t read Galatians 2:7-9 did you?

***Hi, Old Scholar!

I did read Galatians 2:7-9… the problem is that you seem to ignore Scripture that demonstrate a different position than yours, thusly you limit yourself by disregarding Scripture or by interpreting that the words do not mean what they say.

In Acts 15:6-9 Peter tells us that Yahweh revealed to him that he must bring the Gospel to not just the Jews but the Gentiles as well.

Though you cite Galatians 2:7-9 as clear-cut Biblical proof that Peter could not preach the Gospel to the Gentiles, you ignore completely the reason for Paul’s declarations. You must realize that Paul’s authority is being questioned by “pretenders” and he is asserting his God-given authority to preach the Gospel. He includes information about Peter not to contrast his Ministry but to demonstrate that he too was called by God to preach the Gospel.

Please understand that when the Holy Scriptures state something which seems to contradict other statement in Scriptures there’s a deeper meaning than what a particular passage or two can convey and there’s no contradiction at all.

Reasoning the way you do, from Scripture one can only ascertain that Yahweh is a liar or that Yeshua is a liar or that the Holy Spirit is a liar since they each claim to be the autonomous Creator.

They traveled in different circles, Paul went to the Gentiles and Peter to the Jews. The Scriptures are quite clear on this. They rarely crossed paths, maybe once.

---

Here you are reasoning that since today there are so many different denominational churches that do not represent one doctrine of faith that it was the same for the Apostles. Not so. Just look at Paul’s own words in Galatians 2:2, 4, 5, and 9.

Yes I have studied JWs, just as I have studied Mormanism and Catholicism. Elijah was known by all who lived around him to disappear for long periods of time and it was not uncommon for him to be “taken up” into another place in order to save his life. As I said earlier, I will be glad to cover that in another post.

No, I did not say “studied the Jehovah Witnesses;” I asked if you studied with the Jehovah Witnesses… They can find Scripture to support anything that their organization claims while simultaneously rejecting, ignoring or transmutating the Scriptures with their interpretations.

Everyone is able to interprete into the Holy Scriptures anything they desire–that is not new; it even happened while the Apostles were preaching the Gospel of Christ. But a peson must be a Scriptural contortionist in order to displace Scripture while pretending to bring enlightenment.

Your claim that Yahweh could not protect Elijah on earth from some impending danger which forced Him to hide Elijah in some layer of Heaven or alternate dimention, while Elijah’s aprentice, Elisha, did not need Yahweh’s protection though he possessed only a portion of Elijah’s power is just such a contortion.

Either Yahweh God is Omnipotent or He is not God!

I don’t believe you read Scripture but instead read the church fathers and what they have to say. Are you aware that for the first two cneturies, they all thought that if tradition could not be proven by Scripture, it should be discarded?

I know that I have not mentioned this on each one of my posts: I am not versed (have very little knowledge; hardly ever read; do not have even basic knowledge; am only aware…) in Sacred Writings of the Doctors/Fathers of the Church. Though it is clear to me that you (not sure if all other non-Catholic Christians do the same) read/have read extensively (both the Holy Scriptures and other writings), it is not clear to me why you are as steadfast in your interpretations as to completely ignore Scripture or think that you can nullify Scripture by injecting your preconceived interpretations.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Old_Scholar]

***Hi, Old Scholar!

I did read Galatians 2:7-9… the problem is that you seem to ignore Scripture that demonstrate a different position than yours, thusly you limit yourself by disregarding Scripture or by interpreting that the words do not mean what they say.

In Acts 15:6-9 Peter tells us that Yahweh revealed to him that he must bring the Gospel to not just the Jews but the Gentiles as well.

I didn’t deny Acts 15 but it was at that council that they all agreed that Peter would preach to the Jews and Paul to the Gentiles. Gal 2:9 tells us that. Prior to that, Peter was to preach to the Jews and after he received the vision, he also preached to the Gentiles. But after the council, he was to preach to the Jews only.***

Though you cite Galatians 2:7-9 as clear-cut Biblical proof that Peter could not preach the Gospel to the Gentiles, you ignore completely the reason for Paul’s declarations. You must realize that Paul’s authority is being questioned by “pretenders” and he is asserting his God-given authority to preach the Gospel. He includes information about Peter not to contrast his Ministry but to demonstrate that he too was called by God to preach the Gospel.

Please understand that when the Holy Scriptures state something which seems to contradict other statement in Scriptures there’s a deeper meaning than what a particular passage or two can convey and there’s no contradiction at all.

Reasoning the way you do, from Scripture one can only ascertain that Yahweh is a liar or that Yeshua is a liar or that the Holy Spirit is a liar since they each claim to be the autonomous Creator.

I have never said that Scripture contradicts Scripture. In fact I know it does not.

Here you are reasoning that since today there are so many different denominational churches that do not represent one doctrine of faith that it was the same for the Apostles. Not so. Just look at Paul’s own words in Galatians 2:2, 4, 5, and 9.

No, I did not say “studied the Jehovah Witnesses;” I asked if you studied with the Jehovah Witnesses… They can find Scripture to support anything that their organization claims while simultaneously rejecting, ignoring or transmutating the Scriptures with their interpretations.

My experience(except for forums) with JWs is at my DR table when they often knock on my door on Saturday. I spend a great deal of time showing them the true Scriptures and discussing with them why they are wrong; just as I discuss with Roman Catholics why they are wrong and the Mormons.

Everyone is able to interprete into the Holy Scriptures anything they desire–that is not new; it even happened while the Apostles were preaching the Gospel of Christ. But a person must be a Scriptural contortionist in order to displace Scripture while pretending to bring enlightenment.

My hermeneutical approach to Scripture is that it is truly the Word of God and cannot and should not attempt to be changed, added to or subtracted from.

Your claim that Yahweh could not protect Elijah on earth from some impending danger which forced Him to hide Elijah in some layer of Heaven or alternate dimention, while Elijah’s aprentice, Elisha, did not need Yahweh’s protection though he possessed only a portion of Elijah’s power is just such a contortion.

**We do not know God’s plan. Why God would protect one of His prophets and not another, who knows. I can see however, that you have not studied Elijah because the Scriptures show us how he was often “taken” to another place. I will give you this information in a future post.

If you believe Elijah or any other dead person is in heaven, then you cannot believe John. How can you selectively discount one Scripture and not another? Have you not read Acts 2:29 and 2:34? Can you produce any Scripture that says any mere man has gone to heaven? No! You can’t.**
Either Yahweh God is Omnipotent or He is not God!

I know that I have not mentioned this on each one of my posts: I am not versed (have very little knowledge; hardly ever read; do not have even basic knowledge; am only aware…) in Sacred Writings of the Doctors/Fathers of the Church. Though it is clear to me that you (not sure if all other non-Catholic Christians do the same) read/have read extensively (both the Holy Scriptures and other writings), it is not clear to me why you are as steadfast in your interpretations as to completely ignore Scripture or think that you can nullify Scripture by injecting your preconceived interpretations.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[anthony022071]

bringyou.to/apologetics/a28.htm

< "For example, when we first meet Mary in Scripture, in Luke 1:28, the angel Gabriel greets her with the phrase: “Hail, Full of Grace” – a phrase which most modern Bibles mistranslate as “highly favored one” or even “highly favored daughter.” Yet those words are not in the original Greek. In the Greek, it is “Kecharitomenae” – literally, “Full of grace” or “Perfectly graced” implying an “overflowing” or “abundance” of grace.

Furthermore, the angel Gabriel uses this as a proper name for Mary; and we all know the significance of names in the Bible, right? Names define who and what the person is. For example, Jesus’ Name means: “Yahweh is Salvation.” And, indeed, that’s what Jesus was and is.

So, if Mary is “Full of grace,” how can this be if she was a sinner? One cannot be sinful and “full of grace” or “perfectly graced.” That’s a contradiction.

So, therefore, Mary must have been Baptized into Christ, right? (How else can a person be “full of grace”?) So, the only question is: When was Mary made this? Or, in “Protestant-ese,” when was Mary “saved” ? It must have been before Luke 1:28, right? So, when was it?

We Catholics say that it was at the first moment of her conception in the womb of her mother. Why? Because of Genesis 3:15. Here, God speaks to satan, saying:

"I will place enmity between you (the serpent / satan) and the woman (Eve, or Mary the New Eve), and between your seed (sin /death) and her seed (the Messiah: Jesus), and He (Jesus) will strike at your head (i.e., crush your power), even as you strike at His heel (the Crucifixion).

This verse, according to both Jews and Christians, is the Proto-Evangelion: the first prophecy of the Messiah. And it reveals to us that the Mother of the Redeemer will be placed in opposition to satan, and not under his dominion. Thus, this New Eve could pass a sinless humanity onto her Son, the New Adam." >

 

[jcrichton]

Originally Posted by jcrichton
Hi, Old Scholar!

I did read Galatians 2:7-9… the problem is that you seem to ignore Scripture that demonstrate a different position than yours, thusly you limit yourself by disregarding Scripture or by interpreting that the words do not mean what they say.

In Acts 15:6-9 Peter tells us that Yahweh revealed to him that he must bring the Gospel to not just the Jews but the Gentiles as well.

I didn’t deny Acts 15 but it was at that council that they all agreed that Peter would preach to the Jews and Paul to the Gentiles. Gal 2:9 tells us that. Prior to that, Peter was to preach to the Jews and after he received the vision, he also preached to the Gentiles. But after the council, he was to preach to the Jews only.

Though you cite Galatians 2:7-9 as clear-cut Biblical proof that Peter could not preach the Gospel to the Gentiles, you ignore completely the reason for Paul’s declarations. You must realize that Paul’s authority is being questioned by “pretenders” and he is asserting his God-given authority to preach the Gospel. He includes information about Peter not to contrast his Ministry but to demonstrate that he too was called by God to preach the Gospel.

Please understand that when the Holy Scriptures state something which seems to contradict other statement in Scriptures there’s a deeper meaning than what a particular passage or two can convey and there’s no contradiction at all. Reasoning the way you do, from Scripture one can only ascertain that Yahweh is a liar or that Yeshua is a liar or that the Holy Spirit is a liar since they each claim to be the autonomous Creator.

I have never said that Scripture contradicts Scripture. In fact I know it does not.

Here you are reasoning that since today there are so many different denominational churches that do not represent one doctrine of faith that it was the same for the Apostles. Not so. Just look at Paul’s own words in Galatians 2:2, 4, 5, and 9.

No, I did not say “studied the Jehovah Witnesses;” I asked if you studied with the Jehovah Witnesses… They can find Scripture to support anything that their organization claims while simultaneously rejecting, ignoring or transmutating the Scriptures with their interpretations.

My experience(except for forums) with JWs is at my DR table when they often knock on my door on Saturday. I spend a great deal of time showing them the true Scriptures and discussing with them why they are wrong; just as I discuss with Roman Catholics why they are wrong and the Mormons.

Everyone is able to interprete into the Holy Scriptures anything they desire–But a person must be a Scriptural contortionist in order to displace Scripture while pretending to bring enlightenment.

My hermeneutical approach to Scripture is that it is truly the Word of God and cannot and should not attempt to be changed, added to or subtracted from.

Your claim that Yahweh could not protect Elijah on earth from some impending danger which forced Him to hide Elijah in some layer of Heaven or alternate dimention, while Elijah’s aprentice, Elisha, did not need Yahweh’s protection though he possessed only a portion of Elijah’s power is just such a contortion.

We do not know God’s plan. Why God would protect one of His prophets and not another, who knows. I can see however, that you have not studied Elijah because the Scriptures show us how he was often “taken” to another place. I will give you this information in a future post.

If you believe Elijah or any other dead person is in heaven, then you cannot believe John. How can you selectively discount one Scripture and not another? Have you not read Acts 2:29 and 2:34? Can you produce any Scripture that says any mere man has gone to heaven? No! You can’t.

Either Yahweh God is Omnipotent or He is not God!

I know that I have not mentioned this on each one of my posts: I am not versed (have very little knowledge; hardly ever read; do not have even basic knowledge; am only aware…) in Sacred Writings of the Doctors/Fathers of the Church. Though it is clear to me that you (not sure if all other non-Catholic Christians do the same) read/have read extensively (both the Holy Scriptures and other writings), it is not clear to me why you are as steadfast in your interpretations as to completely ignore Scripture or think that you can nullify Scripture by injecting your preconceived interpretations.

***Hi, Old Scolar!

Time and again I have attempted to show through the Holy Scriptures, your own posted material and my replies that it is you who circumvent Scripture and who contort the meaning/definition of Scripture but you simply cannot/are unwilling to see the truth.

Maran atha!

Angel***

 

[jfallaw]

I see that you know absolutely NOTHING about Catholicism. Most of the above list are not and have never been doctrine. You have theological opinion and canon law and devotions all tied together. Boy are you confused…

1054 AD - Rome splits from the Orthodox Church

haha I just think it’s funny how anti-Catholics always accuse the Church of breaking away from everything else, rather than anyone breaking away from the Church. See? Rome LEFT the Orthodox church!

 

[jfallaw]

I found the writings of Ignatius (letter to John) you mentioned. These are interesting writings, you can read them here, but they are considered spurious (forgeries). That’s probably why you don’t hear about them much.

This is from the introduction:
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.v.xiii.html

Even if a forgery, the quote still does not in any way prove that James Justus was Jesus’ brother-

James, the Lord’s brother. He says about James, “I desire to see the venerable James, who is surnamed just, whom they relate to be very like Christ Jesus in appearance, or ‘face,’ as if he were a twin brother of the same womb. They say that, if I see him, I see also Jesus himself, as to all the features and aspect of His body.”

Why would he be surprised that Jesus looked like His brother if He in fact did have a brother? How does ‘as if he were a twin brother from the same womb’ imply or prove that he WAS from the same womb?

 

[Old_Scholar]

Anthony022071

"I will place enmity between you (the serpent / satan) and the woman (Eve, or Mary the New Eve), and between your seed (sin /death) and her seed (the Messiah: Jesus), and He (Jesus) will strike at your head (i.e., crush your power), even as you strike at His heel (the Crucifixion).

This verse, according to both Jews and Christians, is the Proto-Evangelion: the first prophecy of the Messiah. And it reveals to us that the Mother of the Redeemer will be placed in opposition to satan, and not under his dominion. Thus, this New Eve could pass a sinless humanity onto her Son, the New Adam."

*To attempt to make this verse about Mary is too far out. Here is the time when God placed hatred between the serpent and man, and placed a sentence upon the woman for her sin. It has nothing at all to do with Mary, except that Mary is a woman.

Woman here is condemned to a state of sorrow, and a state of subjection, proper punishments of a sin in which she had gratified her pleasure and her pride. She is put in a state of sorrow here, a particular sorrow of which is only specified, that in bringing forth children; but it includes all the impressions of grief and fear which the mind of the tender sex of women is most likely to receive, and all the strife they are going to receive. The pains of child-bearing, are the effect of sin; every pang and groan of the woman speak aloud the fatal consequences of sin. This came from eating forbidden fruit. It is said here, that the sorrows will be greatly multiplied as our sorrows are when sin is multiplied.

If you could make this verse about Mary, as you attempted to do, then you would have to take the following verse and do the same. In it the woman is told that even though woman was created equal to man, she is, for sin, made inferior and forbidden to usurp authority. (1 Tim 2:11, 12) The wife is put under the dominion of her husband, and is not sui juris—at her own disposal,* as in the law. (Numbers 30:6-8) Here the husband is empowered, if he wishes, to disannul the vows made by the wife.

You are quoting Scripture that means something entirely different than what you have said. In these verses in Genesis, we are told that if man had not sinned, he would always have ruled with wisdom and love, and if the woman had not sinned, she would always have obeyed with humility and meekness and the dominion would have not have caused her any grievance. It shows how our sins make our yoke much heavier.

There is nothing here that pertains to Mary any more than any other woman.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Even if a forgery, the quote still does not in any way prove that James Justus was Jesus’ brother-

James, the Lord’s brother. He says about James, “I desire to see the venerable James, who is surnamed just, whom they relate to be very like Christ Jesus in appearance, or ‘face,’ as if he were a twin brother of the same womb. They say that, if I see him, I see also Jesus himself, as to all the features and aspect of His body.”

Why would he be surprised that Jesus looked like His brother if He in fact did have a brother? How does ‘as if he were a twin brother from the same womb’ imply or prove that he WAS from the same womb?

***As these writings have been studied more and more through 1500 years or more, it is becoming more common to believe that Irenæus wrote them all.

Irenæus got this directly from Scripture. The Scriptures refer several times to “James, the Lord’s brother.” It is not something someone made up. The Scriptures say Jesus had brothers and sisters and names most of them.

You are correct in that since James came from the same womb, it is not too amazing that he would look so much like his brother. Many try to explain away the Scriptures, calling Jesus’ brothers “cousins” but the fact remains, several times the brothers and sisters of Jesus are mentioned in the Bible. Why would it be so hard to believe the Bible is true?

It was hundreds of years later that the RCC did not want Jesus to have brothers and sisters. See if you can find any early church fathers writing about them being cousins for the first couple of hundred years. That concept did not fit the false doctrines about Mary, so the “cousins” thing had to come up. It all boils down to what you believe—I believe the Bible.***

 

[EphelDuath]

Irenæus got this directly from Scripture. The Scriptures refer several times to “James, the Lord’s brother.” It is not something someone made up. The Scriptures say Jesus had brothers and sisters and names most of them.

The Greek word used is Adelphos, which can mean any non-marital blood relationship. This is proven when you compare Matthew 27:56 and Mark 15:47, which plainly say that James “the Lord’s brother” is actually the son of Mary, wife of Clopas.

Also, you quote Irenaeus, who contradicts your view of scripture.

“For as Eve was seduced by the word of an angel to flee from God, having rebelled against His Word, so Mary by the word of an angel received the glad tidings that she would bear God by obeying his Word. The former was seduced to disobey God, but the latter was persuaded to obey God, so that the Virgin Mary might become the advocate of the virgin Eve. As the human race was subjected to death through [the act of] a virgin, so it was saved by a virgin.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V:19,1 (A.D. 180).

Many try to explain away the Scriptures, calling Jesus’ brothers “cousins” but the fact remains, several times the brothers and sisters of Jesus are mentioned in the Bible. Why would it be so hard to believe the Bible is true?

The problem is not with the Bible but the translations. It would be very unharmonic to consistently render “adelphoi” as “cousins or kinsmen,” so the rendering becomes “brother.” Brother does not even always imply a blood relationship. You’re being dishonest, or intentionally dense.

See if you can find any early church fathers writing about them being cousins for the first couple of hundred years.

They didn’t have to. They actually understood Koine Greek fluently, unlike modern Protestants who trip over the language barrier.

It all boils down to what you believe—I believe the Bible.

I do too, which testifies plainly that Mary was a perpetual virgin.

Ezekiel 44:2. “And the Lord said to me: This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it: because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it, and it shall be shut.”