Sola Scriptura . . .

[kujo313]

Surely, kujo313, you don’t claim to be more enlightened than these Saints when it comes to Christianity, and specifically, devotion to Our Lady, do you?

Do you really think that anyone will be quoting you 1000+ years from now on your thoughts on Christianity? 1000 years! Will anyone remember what you say after this thread is closed? Probably not. Thats the difference between Early Church Fathers as the ones quoted above and you, they are “Imitations of Christ” 1 Cor. 11:1], in the sense that they give Mary her due honor. If you want to imitate Christ, you must love Mary as your own Mother. You do her a huge dishonor to label 2000 years of sincere devotion to Christ’s Blessed Mother, as “worship” (in the latria sense) . This is from your supreme ignorance of what worship really is and what veneration (dulia ) really is.

So I will ask again, honestly, do you really think you are more enlightened than the Saints quoted above on the subject at hand?

(Matthew 4:10, Luke 4:8) Then Jesus said to him, “Away with you, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the LORD your God, and Him only you shall serve.’”

(Mark 8:33) But when He had turned around and looked at His disciples, He rebuked Peter, saying, “Get behind Me, Satan! For you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men.”

Acts 1-1:1 thru Jude 25… nothing except Acts 4:12

“Neither is there salvation in ANY other: for there is NONE other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.”

In your worldly attitude, you can ask Barbara Bush ANYTHING about politics and she’ll answer you with, “I’m afraid you’ll have to ask the President.”

I don’t know why ANY of you would be on this message board anyways. Where’s your mother? I should be asking HER instead of you.

 

[Randy_Carson]

IN other words, Paul was correcting and warning the Thessalonians from that very error which Catholics teach…the tendency to be led astray by false authority and spurious tradition. He was urging the Thessalonians to test all truth claims by written marks. Sola Scriptura, thessalonians. Sola Scriptura.

This passage in no way suggests there are unwritten traditions that should be heeded and followed, but rather, to stick to what the apostles wrote, becuase there alone do we find true marks of apostolic authenticity.

Helped by John MacArthur.

Paul needed to do anything BUT encourage the Thessalonians to follow sola scriptura - it was sola scriptura that caused the Jews in Thessalonica to reject the Gospel in the first place.

Berean Rejection of Sola Scriptura

If one group could be tagged as believers in sola scriptura, who would it be, the Thessalonians or the Bereans? The Thessalonians, obviously. They, like the Bereans, examined the Scriptures with Paul in the synagogue, yet they rejected his teaching. They rejected the new teaching, deciding after three weeks of deliberation that Paul’s word contradicted the Torah. Their decision was not completely unjustified from their scriptural perspective. How could the Messiah of God be cursed by hanging on a tree like a common criminal, publicly displayed as one who bore the judgment of God? What kind of king and Messiah would that be? This seemed irreconcilable to them (see Simon J. Kistemaker, Acts [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1990], 614).

When some of the Greeks and prominent citizens did accept Jesus as Messiah, the Jews became jealous—and rightfully so, from their perspective, since the new believers separated themselves from the synagogue and began meeting elsewhere, at Jason’s house. The Jews naturally considered themselves the authoritative interpreters of the Torah. Who were the Gentiles to interpret Scripture and decide important theological issues or accept additional revelation? They were the “dogs,” not the chosen custodians of the oracles of God (see William Barclay, The Acts of the Apostles [Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Westminster Press, 1976], 128).

We can see, then, that if anyone could be classified as adherents to sola scriptura it was the Thessalonian Jews. They reasoned from the Scriptures alone and concluded that Paul’s new teaching was “unbiblical.”

The Bereans, on the other hand, were not adherents of sola scriptura, for they were willing to accept Paul’s new oral teaching as the word of God (as Paul claimed his oral teaching was; see 1 Thess. 2:13). The Bereans, before accepting the oral word of God from Paul, a tradition as even Paul himself refers to it (see 2 Thess. 2:15), examined the Scriptures to see if these things were so. They were noble-minded precisely because they “received the word with all eagerness.” Were the Bereans commended primarily for searching the Scriptures? No. Their open-minded willingness to listen was the primary reason they are referred to as noble-minded—not that they searched the Scriptures. A perusal of grammars and commentaries makes it clear that they were “noble-minded” not for studying Scripture, but for treating Paul more civilly than did the Thessalonians—with an open mind and generous courtesy (see I. Howard Marshall, “The Acts of the Apostles” in the Tyndale New Testament Commentaries [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1981], 5:280).

The Bereans searched the Torah no less than the Thessalonians, yet they were eager to accept words of God from the mouth of Paul, in addition to what they already held to be Scripture, that is, the Law and the Prophets. Even if one claims that Paul preached the gospel and not a “tradition,” it is clear that the Bereans were accepting new revelation that was not contained in their Scriptures. These Berean Jews accepted oral teaching, the tradition of the apostles, as equal to Scripture, in addition to, and as an “extension” of, the Torah. This is further illustrated by the Christian community’s reception of Paul’s epistles as divinely inspired Scripture (see 2 Peter 3:16; here Peter seems to acknowledges Paul’s writings as equal to the “other Scriptures,” which can be presumed to refer to the Old Testament).

From Steve Ray’s article: catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9703fea3.asp

 

[Randy_Carson]

When evaluating the doctrines in our church, we need to constantly be looking at the moral lives of our leaders and asking ourselves questions like: is my leadership blameless?

Thoughts?

Your reasoning is flawed. Here’s why:

If a Church leader is guilty of gross immorality, does his sin invalidate his position or authority?

Many, if not most, Protestants would say that it does, and they often use this line of reasoning to justify their denial of the authority of the Catholic Church. They cite historical events such as the Crusades, the Inquisition or reign of the Borgia Popes as evidence that the Church has lost its claim to moral and spiritual authority.

Such a response, however, is unbiblical. For example, Scripture states that Jesus knew “from the beginning” who would betray him – namely Judas, whom Jesus calls a “devil” (cf. John 6:64–71). This fact is significant, since Judas was selected as an apostle even though Jesus knew that he was corrupt.

Another example would be found in Jesus’ teaching on “Moses’ seat” found in the opening verses of Matthew 23: “Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: ‘The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.’” (Matthew 23:1-3)

“Moses’ seat” is a phrase that referred to a position of legitimate teaching authority held by the teachers of the law and the Pharisees. Later, Jesus condemned these men as “hypocrites,” “blind guides,” “blind fools,” “serpents,” and a “brood of vipers.” But in the passage above, Jesus specifically instructed the crowds and his disciples to obey these leaders – despite their corruption – because of the authority of their position. That is sobering stuff.

If it were true that immorality invalidated a religious leader’s authority, then why did Jesus command his followers to “obey and do everything” the scribes and Pharisees tell them? Jesus merely admonished his followers not to follow their hypocritical example. There is not even the slightest hint that their positions had been forfeited or abrogated because of their hypocrisy or immorality. If anything, the reverse is true because Jesus validated these leaders’ office by telling people to obey them. From this, we see that sin and corruption found in the individual office holders has no impact whatsoever on the authority of the office itself.

In the Parable of the Weeds found in Matthew 13, Jesus tells His disciples to anticipate corruption within the Church. He said:

Jesus told them another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared. The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’ ‘An enemy did this,’ he replied. "The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’ ‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’ (Matthew 13:24-30)

Notice it is not the world at large that is being described but rather the “kingdom of heaven” or Church that is portrayed as the field containing both wheat and weeds. Jesus does not indicate that weeds (sinners) should be uprooted from the field (Church) until the separation done at the time of the final harvest.

Jesus clearly taught that sin would be present in the Church, but He also taught that sins of individual Church leaders do not invalidate the authority of the positions those leaders hold. These sins, whether real or imagined, do not undermine the legitimate authority of the Catholic Church and do not provide an excuse for those who refuse to acknowledge and obey her. The authority given by God to the Church and the office of the Papacy is the same today as it was in the days of Peter, Linus, Anacletus and Clement because God is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[Randy_Carson]

In your worldly attitude, you can ask Barbara Bush ANYTHING about politics and she’ll answer you with, “I’m afraid you’ll have to ask the President.”

I might reply, “I did, but would you ask him, also?”

Why does this bother you so?

“Mom, I really want a new bike for my birthday. Would you discuss it with Dad?”

“Well, dear, why don’t you ask your father yourself?”

“I did, Mom. But if you ask him, I know he’ll listen to you.”

People think and act this way every day in real life. Again, why are you so freaked out about asking Mary or another saint to speak to Jesus on your behalf?

I don’t know why ANY of you would be on this message board anyways. Where’s your mother? I should be asking HER instead of you.

Sounds like someone needs to take a little time out or a deep breath or something…

 

[MrS]

I

While I believe the Scriptures are written clearly and understandably (we write you nothing but what you can read and understand 2 cor 1:13) I also believe they will not be rightly understood by those who are unwilling to receive its teachings. THe Pharisees had it way wrong, not b/c they never studied it (they knew their Scriptures all right, and could argue from them!), but b/c they were unwilling to embrace it in full obedience and submission.

?

Good thought… how about this example…

In ACTS, there was an event recorded for the replacing of Judas. Only two were “qualified”. In fact, had Paul been there, even he would not have qualified.

Lots were cast, and one was selected.

Question…if both are qualified, why not choose both??

Answer… because the first important consideration is the position. It was the office that had to be filled, not just an elevation of someone qualified.

Same today… the office of the Pope, and of the bishops is important. They are filled with fallible men, but filled non-the-less. That position of authority preceeds and “authority” of Scripture, and in fact the authority and inerrancy, and the canon of the Scriptures comes from those offices.

 

[down_under]

I want to take a crack at a few moral arguments here , and show why I believe only so much progress can be made on a forum such as this,

The NT writers freqqently teach that the ability to understand Scripture rightly is more a moral and spiritual rather than intellectual ability (Grudem).

Thoughts?

So where does that leave you with people like pope john paul II the great. you see you can never judge a beliefe system by how any person in that system follows it. hitler was a great leader. Many people believe democracy is a good thing does that mean we have had outstanding presidents in the us and else where in democracyes around the world. Hitler was democratically elected. Does it follow that democracy is bad. Or that men following democracy were not very good. After francis de sales died it was commented that if all catholics were like him there would be no portestants.
The reformation was about fixing the way we were living. adjusting peoples morality. they just decided to do it buy changing what they believed. They (luther calvin szingly(spelling)) went back to the fathers and saw (for instance) the euchrist is a symbol. but had no understanding of what symbol meant to the fathers. they did not know what inculturation was or who platinus was. they did not understand that to the fathers a symbol IS what it represents in some way. like adam in genisis. All of these men were good moral men who ment well and did the best they could with what they had. we cant judge there beliefe system based on them either. They understood the problem very well. They just did not come up with an answer the church accepted. The church has the deposit of the faith and the athority to say what it means by what it says. By all means reform away. But reform the way people are living. What people act like (like a few 15 and 16 century popes) cannot be what you judge there beliefe system based on. you cant judge the system based on men who never intended to live by its rules. Even if they did run the thing for a little while. Nor do we judge protestantism by this rule.

 

[down_under]

(Matthew 4:10, Luke 4:8) Then Jesus said to him, “Away with you, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the LORD your God, and Him only you shall serve.’”

(Mark 8:33) But when He had turned around and looked at His disciples, He rebuked Peter, saying, “Get behind Me, Satan! For you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men.”

Acts 1-1:1 thru Jude 25… nothing except Acts 4:12

“Neither is there salvation in ANY other: for there is NONE other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.”

In your worldly attitude, you can ask Barbara Bush ANYTHING about politics and she’ll answer you with, “I’m afraid you’ll have to ask the President.”

I don’t know why ANY of you would be on this message board anyways. Where’s your mother? I should be asking HER instead of you.

Hey there you are I see you have still captulated on sola scriptora nice to know the church is still on top of things. remember the old adage

rome has spoken the argument is over

If you have anything to say about sola scriptora in this thread I would like to hear it but it seems like you have run out of steam. Does that mean you are ready to convert having seen the error of your ways. Or that you simply submit to being lost forever in confusion.

 

[HailMary]

(Matthew 4:10, Luke 4:8) Then Jesus said to him, “Away with you, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the LORD your God, and Him only you shall serve.’”

(Mark 8:33) But when He had turned around and looked at His disciples, He rebuked Peter, saying, “Get behind Me, Satan! For you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men.”

Acts 1-1:1 thru Jude 25… nothing except Acts 4:12

“Neither is there salvation in ANY other: for there is NONE other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.”

In your worldly attitude, you can ask Barbara Bush ANYTHING about politics and she’ll answer you with, “I’m afraid you’ll have to ask the President.”

I don’t know why ANY of you would be on this message board anyways. Where’s your mother? I should be asking HER instead of you.

…
what? How does this correspond with anything I said?

 

[guanophore]

In reply to Post #2 – “what’s there to joust about? nowhere in Scripture does it teach Scripture alone.”

Nowhere seems to be a stretch because, Jesus said as much when He was confronted by the Devil in the wilderness. (See Matthew 4:4)

Since Jesus used the scriptures in response to the Devil, it would seem that He was stating the authority of the scriptures.

Matt 4:4
4 But he answered, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’”

The writings, certainly, but no Jew would limit the words of God to the writings. The oral tradition was as strong (sometimes stronger) and was kept for millenia before the writings became popular. So today the Word of God (Jesus) has left written testimony, and oral testimony.
elation37;2154656:

Thus, the problem would seem to be “what are the scriptures and how is scripture to be determined?”

Jesus also said that the Holy Spirit would guide “you” (He was speaking to the Apostles) (See John 16:12-15)

Therefore, the Holy Spirit working through the Apostles would present God’s Word to a new people (The Church).

Problems seem to occur when people who claim to be leaders of the Church “stretch” the scriptures for their own purpose. When this occurs, the leaders are leading the flock down a “slippery-slope” that may or may not lead to the flock being weakened and thus unable or unwilling to follow the commandments of Jesus Christ.

So, how does a believer know what to believe as to the scriptures?

An excellent example would be found in Acts 17:10-11. The Jews in Berea examined the writings of the OT prophets to see if what Paul was teaching could be backed-up by the scriptures.

Perhaps what every believer should do is to personally read and study the OT. This would give a foundation of understanding that could then be applied to reading and studying the NT scriptures.

Do you agree?

Yes, but even the OT needs an interpreter. Remember that the eunuch was reading the OT in his chariot, and asked Phillip to interpret.

 

[NotWorthy]

Yes, but even the OT needs an interpreter. Remember that the eunuch was reading the OT in his chariot, and asked Phillip to interpret.

Especially when you consider that the Holy Spirit could have just as easily guided the Eunuch on his own.

But instead, He guides the Church to teach the Eunuch.

 

[guanophore]

MrS,
Thanks for sharing your insights into the Real Body of Christ.

Perhaps you would share with me and others:
Jesus’ instruction to Peter in John 21:15-17
that outline the duties of Peter.

Are you sure you are giving the right citation here? this passage is more about Jesus reconciling Peter to HImself than it is about his duties:

John 21:13-19
13 Jesus came and took the bread and gave it to them, and so with the fish. 14 This was now the third time that Jesus was revealed to the disciples after he was raised from the dead.

15 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” 16 A second time he said to him, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” 17 He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” And he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep. 18 Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were young, you girded yourself and walked where you would; but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish to go.” 19(This he said to show by what death he was to glorify God.) And after this he said to him, “Follow me.”

Do you think that the RCC has fulfilled all three parts of the teaching in the scripture noted above? I have a problem in seeing how the RCC has fulfilled instruction #3.

ARe you saying that you cannot see how RCC has fed the lambs, cared for the sheep, or followed Christ?

I cannot find any commentary that details the instructions in the verses — many comment on the reconciliation part. Can you direct me to a source for #3?

Thanks

 

[guanophore]

So, are you saying that a believer cannot understand and apply the scriptures apart from the teaching of the RCC?

If so:
What part does the Holy Spirit do in a believer’s life?
Who has the Holy Spirit?
Who gifts people for service within the Church?

Thanks

Clearly people do read, understand, and apply, however misguided their efforts may be. Scripture clearly teaches that God gives the HS to those who obey Him. The gifts of the HS are passed through the laying on of hands.

 

[kujo313]

What does the Bible say about Mary?

When asked to defend their position from Scripture, “Mary” - worshipping Catholics always point to passages like Luke 1:28, 42 & 48. “Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women…”. There is no question about it, Mary the mother of Jesus is blessed among women. No Christian would deny that. But just what is really meant by her being “blessed”? It is necessary to know and consider the totality of what the Bible says about Mary to get a truly Scriptural understanding of this. Mary the mother of Jesus is blessed, yes, but there is another side to what the Bible says about her, which is contrary to what “Mary” worshippers make of her.

Catholic readers might protest the use of the word “worshippers” with the old line that Catholics don’t “worship” “Mary”; they “venerate” her. Frankly, this is what is known as double talk. The words “worship” and “venerate” can be considered synonymous. .
Mary was chosen to be the mother of the man who would become the Savior of the world. This is a great blessing. It guaranteed her the position of being the most honored woman in the history of mankind. But she, in her famous psalm of praise, known as the “Magnificat”, referred to God as “my Savior”. If she is, as the Catholics call her, the Mother of God, how then can God be her Saviour? The two ideas are contradictory. Also, the Bible never calls her the Mother of God. She is called the mother of Jesus, the Son of God.
Another piece of Catholic dogma about “Mary” is the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, the idea that Mary was somehow miraculously born without the curse of original sin. In other words, she too supposedly lived a sinless life. All that this writer can say about this is that he has challenged a number of Catholics to show him Scriptural support for this. None has been shown. None exists. The idea is a fantasy.
In Luke 11:27 & 28, Jesus made a statement that effectively dethrones “Mary”. As He was teaching, a woman in the crowd spoke up and made this comment: “Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts that you sucked”.

Now understand this: There is a pattern in the Gospels of Jesus complimenting anyone who did or said anything commendable in regard to Him. The most famous example of this is His statement to Peter in Matthew 16:17. Jesus had asked the provocative question, “But who do you say that I am?”

Peter responded with the famous proclamation: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God”.

And Jesus replied with the beautiful compliment, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven”.

Of course there are numerous other examples of this in the Gospels. The idea is, Jesus believed in giving affirmation where affirmation was merited; credit where credit was due. If Mary is what the Catholic Church makes of her, than what this woman said was an enlightened statement equal to Peter’s. She should have also received a compliment from Jesus. She didn’t.

In fact, what Jesus said to her is a mild rebuttal: “More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!” Jesus said, in other words, that spiritually, as Christians go, there is nothing special about Mary. **Any Christian who really lives a life of obedient faith is at least just as blessed as she! **

In Matthew 12:46-50, while Jesus was teaching in a synagogue, the Bible says that “His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him”. Note that this, plus other Scripture references, tells us that Mary had more children after Jesus was born. Contrary to what the Catholic Church teaches, she did not stay perpetually a virgin. This is taking the Bible to mean exactly what it says. Jesus was told about His family being there, and if the Catholic dogma mentioned above was true, Jesus would have gone out to them. He didn’t. Instead He asked this rhetorical question:

“Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?”

Then He pointed to His disciples and answered His own question:

“Here are My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of My Father in Heaven is My brother and sister and mother.”

In saying this, Jesus clearly told us that in the Heavenly order of things, again, there is nothing special about Mary. Her “blessedness” begins and ends with her being the mother of the man, Jesus of Nazareth. Period.

 

[kujo313]

BibleGateway.com: A searchable online Bible in over 150 versions and 50 languages.

Keyword Search: Written

Search: New Testament

See how many times Scripture has been referred to?

 

[HailMary]

What does the Bible say about Mary?

When asked to defend their position from Scripture, “Mary” - worshipping Catholics always point to passages like Luke 1:28, 42 & 48. "Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you;
…

In saying this, Jesus clearly told us that in the Heavenly order of things, again, there is nothing special about Mary. Her “blessedness” begins and ends with her being the mother of the man, Jesus of Nazareth. Period.

Your theology is at odds with all the ECFs and even your own Martin Luther and his followers. Too put it bluntly, this understanding of the Blessed Virgin was unknown to the majority of Christians across all ages and all parts of the world.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1643785&postcount=16
Try that out and tell me if you still think the Blessed Virgin is just an ordinary woman.

Sorry to bust your bubble, but you are not as blessed as Mary. This attitude is coupled with the theory of Sola Scriptura because it adds to the arrogance SS requires.

 

[down_under]

What does the Bible say about Mary?

When asked to defend their position from Scripture, “Mary” - worshipping Catholics always point to passages like Luke 1:28, 42 & 48. “Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women…”. There is no question about it, Mary the mother of Jesus is blessed among women. No Christian would deny that. But just what is really meant by her being “blessed”? It is necessary to know and consider the totality of what the Bible says about Mary to get a truly Scriptural understanding of this. Mary the mother of Jesus is blessed, yes, but there is another side to what the Bible says about her, which is contrary to what “Mary” worshippers make of her.

Catholic readers might protest the use of the word “worshippers” with the old line that Catholics don’t “worship” “Mary”; they “venerate” her. Frankly, this is what is known as double talk. The words “worship” and “venerate” can be considered synonymous. .
Mary was chosen to be the mother of the man who would become the Savior of the world. This is a great blessing. It guaranteed her the position of being the most honored woman in the history of mankind. But she, in her famous psalm of praise, known as the “Magnificat”, referred to God as “my Savior”. If she is, as the Catholics call her, the Mother of God, how then can God be her Saviour? The two ideas are contradictory. Also, the Bible never calls her the Mother of God. She is called the mother of Jesus, the Son of God.
Another piece of Catholic dogma about “Mary” is the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, the idea that Mary was somehow miraculously born without the curse of original sin. In other words, she too supposedly lived a sinless life. All that this writer can say about this is that he has challenged a number of Catholics to show him Scriptural support for this. None has been shown. None exists. The idea is a fantasy.
In Luke 11:27 & 28, Jesus made a statement that effectively dethrones “Mary”. As He was teaching, a woman in the crowd spoke up and made this comment: “Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts that you sucked”.

Now understand this: There is a pattern in the Gospels of Jesus complimenting anyone who did or said anything commendable in regard to Him. The most famous example of this is His statement to Peter in Matthew 16:17. Jesus had asked the provocative question, “But who do you say that I am?”

Peter responded with the famous proclamation: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God”.

And Jesus replied with the beautiful compliment, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven”.

Of course there are numerous other examples of this in the Gospels. The idea is, Jesus believed in giving affirmation where affirmation was merited; credit where credit was due. If Mary is what the Catholic Church makes of her, than what this woman said was an enlightened statement equal to Peter’s. She should have also received a compliment from Jesus. She didn’t.

In fact, what Jesus said to her is a mild rebuttal: “More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!” Jesus said, in other words, that spiritually, as Christians go, there is nothing special about Mary. **Any Christian who really lives a life of obedient faith is at least just as blessed as she! **

In Matthew 12:46-50, while Jesus was teaching in a synagogue, the Bible says that “His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him”. Note that this, plus other Scripture references, tells us that Mary had more children after Jesus was born. Contrary to what the Catholic Church teaches, she did not stay perpetually a virgin. This is taking the Bible to mean exactly what it says. Jesus was told about His family being there, and if the Catholic dogma mentioned above was true, Jesus would have gone out to them. He didn’t. Instead He asked this rhetorical question:

“Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?”

Then He pointed to His disciples and answered His own question:

“Here are My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of My Father in Heaven is My brother and sister and mother.”

In saying this, Jesus clearly told us that in the Heavenly order of things, again, there is nothing special about Mary. Her “blessedness” begins and ends with her being the mother of the man, Jesus of Nazareth. Period.

you got your versus and I have mine and until you clear up the SS issue you have no basis to make me believe that you have interperated them better than I or the church already did.

 

[down_under]

BibleGateway.com

Keyword Search: Written

Search: New Testament

See how many times Scripture has been referred to?

Not sure what the context is here. More info please

 

[I_Leatherman]

What does the Bible say about Mary?

When asked to defend their position from Scripture, “Mary” - worshipping Catholics always point to passages like Luke 1:28, 42 & 48.

The Ten Commandments of God

1.   .16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

Careful Kujo.
Catholicism does not worship Mary.
Find below what Catholicism does worship.
In Catholic theology breaking one of the Ten Commandments, like bearing false witness against your neighbour, is a Mortal Sin.
To die in Mortal Sin means Hell.
Catholics like the Ten Commandments - especially this one;

I. “YOU SHALL WORSHIP THE LORD YOUR GOD AND HIM ONLY SHALL YOU SERVE”

CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

II. **DEVOTION TO THE BLESSED VIRGIN **
971 “All generations will call me blessed”: "The Church’s devotion to the Blessed Virgin is intrinsic to Christian worship."515 The Church rightly honors "the Blessed Virgin with special devotion. From the most ancient times the Blessed Virgin has been honored with the title of ‘Mother of God,’ to whose protection the faithful fly in all their dangers and needs. . . . This very special devotion . . . differs essentially from the adoration which is given to the incarnate Word and equally to the Father and the Holy Spirit, and greatly fosters this adoration."516 The liturgical feasts dedicated to the Mother of God and Marian prayer, such as the rosary, an “epitome of the whole Gospel,” express this devotion to the Virgin Mary.517

1378 WORSHIP OF THE EUCHARIST. In the liturgy of the Mass we express our faith in the real presence of Christ under the species of bread and wine by, among other ways, genuflecting or bowing deeply as a sign of adoration of the Lord. "The Catholic Church has always offered and still offers to the sacrament of the Eucharist the cult of adoration, not only during Mass, but also outside of it, reserving the consecrated hosts with the utmost care, exposing them to the solemn veneration of the faithful, and carrying them in procession."208

If you wish you may accuse us of worshipping the Eucharist.

 

[down_under]

The Ten Commandments of God

If you wish you may accuse us of worshipping the Eucharist.

please dont incourage him. This is about SS and he is passing the buck becuase he has nothing left to say as all of his arguments have come undone. Hence the silence on SS even in a thread about SS.

Besides the 2 of you only continue to prove my point. They have their versus and we have ours. Who is to say who is right. I tell you the holy spirit is the spirit of truth and understanding thats all I need right. Me and the book. I am right you are mistaken. You dont understand. and until anyone can point to a higher athority to back up this claim or another. There is no certainty in what that person believes. because they will never know for certain if they are right. So many opinions and you know better than every other living being what God wants you to believe. What makes you better than the other people who say the exact same thing?

 

[I_Leatherman]

OK.
Well, as far as SS goes I reckon He said in 33AD that He would send His Holy Spirit to guide His Church to All Truth, and that He would remain with His Church continuously until the end of time. That the Apostles agreed, ‘the Church is - the pillar and ground of the Truth’.

So, I would say that protestantism did not exist until 1,500 years after Christ founded the Church that He gave His promise to, and quite simply, that would make this 2,000 year old Church the authoritative one - the pillar and ground of the Truth.

And there is an objective truth - free from personal opinions…