To set the Record straight Catholics do not worship Mary!

  • Thread starter Thread starter ufamtobie
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
RobHom said:
Sure, why not…as long as you make sure ahead of time that you are not about to step into a trap of your own making.

I have often as a Catholic used the writings of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and a couple of others to prove that those who disagree with Catholics on certain subjects are wrong, and that they have little or no knowledge of what they speak…😃
Click to expand...
and you do?? I see…:yup: :yeah_me:
 
Napsack said:
Me as well and i can show you dozens of Scripture passages that prove the trinity, can you show me just one that says anything about the Roman Catholic church?😊
Click to expand...
You are Peter, rock and upon this rock I build my Church.🙂
 
Napsack said:
Care to do the Greek on that statement?? you might just be in for a bit of a surprise. Let me give you a hint, Luther was right.
Click to expand...
Care to do the Aramaic on that statement. It means what it says. You couldn’t give me a hint if you tried, a real one that is.😃
 
Napsack said:
Me as well and i can show you dozens of Scripture passages that prove the trinity, can you show me just one that says anything about the Roman Catholic church?😊
Click to expand...
No you cannot. There is not one place in the Bible where the word Trinity is explicitly used or stated.

You can try all you want, but unless you write your own version of the “bible”…you will have almost as much success you would if you were to try and stop a hurricane…

Now, I realize that you are somewhat afraid of the truth, but if you go to this link…you will find the truth, and an explanation that you can ponder, and then grasp…🙂

drbo.org/chapter/47016.htm

Make sure you read the words in reddish brown…it is the explanation of the scripture itself.

Have fun!!🙂
 
Both the doctrine of the trinity AND the Marian doctrines are contained IMPLICITLY in Scripture.

Why don’t you show us the explicit Scripture that proclaims: God is Three Divine Persons in ONE God, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

You won’t be able to. It doesn’t exist. The doctrine of the Trinity is a doctrine that has developed. It developed from the implicit Scriptures that support it while never outright stating it as such in 21st century (or even 4th century) terms. It also developed from the ‘second leg’ --that is, Sacred Tradition, the oral teaching of the apostles.

The Marian doctrines are implicit too. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is found in Luke 2 among others. The doctrine of the Assumption is touched on briefly and tangentially in Scripture but is given greater treatment in the oral teaching of the apostles as well as in non-inerrant writings. One must remember that just because texts like the Didache and the Protoevangelium were not judged to be Sacred Scripture did not make the texts themselves WRONG. Like any other ‘non-God-breathed’ writings, if truth is written in them it remains truth. One does not have to claim inerrancy to be able to state any given truth. And I’m sure our Orthodox friends who call it the Dormition and trace it to their oral teachings as well would agree it is most certainly of apostolic origin.
 
Napsack said:
Care to do the Greek on that statement?? you might just be in for a bit of a surprise. Let me give you a hint, Luther was right.
Click to expand...
catholic.com/library/peter_and_the_papacy.asp

"*Opponents of the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18 sometimes argue that in the Greek text the name of the apostle is Petros, while “rock” is rendered as petra. They claim that the former refers to a small stone, while the latter refers to a massive rock; so, if Peter was meant to be the massive rock, why isn’t his name Petra?

Note that Christ did not speak to the disciples in Greek. He spoke Aramaic, the common language of Palestine at that time. In that language the word for rock is kepha, which is what Jesus called him in everyday speech (note that in John 1:42 he was told, “You will be called Cephas”). What Jesus said in Matthew 16:18 was: “You are Kepha, and upon this kepha I will build my Church.”

When Matthew’s Gospel was translated from the original Aramaic to Greek, there arose a problem which did not confront the evangelist when he first composed his account of Christ’s life. In Aramaic the word kepha has the same ending whether it refers to a rock or is used as a man’s name. In Greek, though, the word for rock, petra, is feminine in gender. The translator could use it for the second appearance of kepha in the sentence, but not for the first because it would be inappropriate to give a man a feminine name. So he put a masculine ending on it, and hence Peter became Petros.

Furthermore, the premise of the argument against Peter being the rock is simply false. In first century Greek the words petros and petra were synonyms. They had previously possessed the meanings of “small stone” and “large rock” in some early Greek poetry, but by the first century this distinction was gone, as Protestant Bible scholars admit (see D. A. Carson’s remarks on this passage in the Expositor’s Bible Commentary, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Books*])."*
 
Napsack said:
Me as well and i can show you dozens of Scripture passages that prove the trinity, can you show me just one that says anything about the Roman Catholic church?😊
Click to expand...
Can you show one verse in the entire bible that says that the bible (both OT and NT) is inspired and the complete word of God? Who is trying to twist scripture to conform it to their own private interpretation now? 😉

You believe in sacred tradition but just don’t want to admit it. Why do you not go to church on the sabbath (Saturday) instead of on Sunday? The reason is because the Catholic Church told you to. That’s another thing you will not find in the bible.

Almost no Protestant intellectuals (if that is not oxymoronic itself)) accept sola scriptura as a valid concept anymore. But then again that small group is getting narrower and narrower these days…

James
 
Angels_Unaware said:
catholic.com/library/peter_and_the_papacy.asp

"*Opponents of the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18 sometimes argue that in the Greek text the name of the apostle is Petros, while “rock” is rendered as petra. They claim that the former refers to a small stone, while the latter refers to a massive rock; so, if Peter was meant to be the massive rock, why isn’t his name Petra?

Note that Christ did not speak to the disciples in Greek. He spoke Aramaic, the common language of Palestine at that time. In that language the word for rock is kepha, which is what Jesus called him in everyday speech (note that in John 1:42 he was told, “You will be called Cephas”). What Jesus said in Matthew 16:18 was: “You are Kepha, and upon this kepha I will build my Church.”

When Matthew’s Gospel was translated from the original Aramaic to Greek, there arose a problem which did not confront the evangelist when he first composed his account of Christ’s life. In Aramaic the word kepha has the same ending whether it refers to a rock or is used as a man’s name. In Greek, though, the word for rock, petra, is feminine in gender. The translator could use it for the second appearance of kepha in the sentence, but not for the first because it would be inappropriate to give a man a feminine name. So he put a masculine ending on it, and hence Peter became Petros.

Furthermore, the premise of the argument against Peter being the rock is simply false. In first century Greek the words petros and petra were synonyms. They had previously possessed the meanings of “small stone” and “large rock” in some early Greek poetry, but by the first century this distinction was gone, as Protestant Bible scholars admit (see D. A. Carson’s remarks on this passage in the Expositor’s Bible Commentary, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Books*])."*

👍 👍 👍 I’m not smart enough to write such eloquent words. 🙂
Click to expand...
 
Napsack said:
and you do?? I see…:yup: :yeah_me:
Click to expand...
I am pleased that you are beginning to “see”, that is an improvement. I do believe that there have been several points where others and I as well have shown you in error on a number of items.

But you misread me as an individual… I seek no repute or status, its unimportant, and undesired. I am but a humble servant… 🙂
 
TRADITIONALIST CATHOLICS & EVANGELICAL PROTESTANTS
Code: 
Catholic traditionalists and evangelical Protestants both are prisoners of mythology that they interpret to be inerrant Christianity. To some degree their myths differ, though many (such as Adam and Eve and the Great Flood) are one and the same. 

 To make Christianity relevant to the world of today we must accept the fact that much in the Bible as well as in theology, both Catholic and evangelical, is a product of a superstitious age when people thought insanity was caused by demons, that Mary is Queen of Heaven and makes an occasion appearance here or there, that priests could grant absolution for sins, and that by saying certain rote prayers you could build up credits to get to heaven and get others out of purgatory.

  Why have so many millions of Catholics and Protestants fallen away from the church? Because both groups have held on to silly beliefs that so many honest and educated people simply can't accept anymore. They are ready to believe in an Almighty God and to follow a compassionate, divine Christ, but most of the petty doctrines and many of the Biblical tales that churches ask them to believe - whether transubstantiation or Jesus casting demons into pigs or feeding the 5000 with five loaves and two fishes - are too far out to be credible.

   Sorry to have reached this conclusion, as I wish I could accept such things as I did as a child, but no more. "When I became a man I put away childish things...." I Cor. 13. But I still view myself as a devout Christian sincerely seeking to follow Christ and live by his precepts. And I suspect that there are millions of Catholics and Protestants like me.
 
To make Christianity relevant to the world of today
Click to expand...
We don’t have to work at making Christianity relevant today; it is relevant. Why else would you be here?

If you are suggesting that Christianity should bend to the times instead of the times bending to Christ, which time period should Christianity bend to? 1st century Rome? 17th century France? 20th Century Nazi Germany? Or is it a continuous thing where Christianity becomes a hodgepodge of beliefs depending on the times?

If Christianity was what you were trying to make it be, it would be nothing today. The past would have influenced it and bent it beyond recognition.
They are ready to believe in an Almighty God and to follow a compassionate, divine Christ, but most of the petty doctrines and many of the Biblical tales that churches ask them to believe
Click to expand...
And yet there are those who would call even these beliefs silly. 🤷
Sorry to have reached this conclusion, as I wish I could accept such things as I did as a child, but no more. “When I became a man I put away childish things…” I Cor. 13.
Click to expand...
To which I echo the relevant words of my Lord and Savior:
At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them, and said, "Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Matt 18: 1-4
Click to expand...
God bless
 
CentralFLJames said:
Can you show one verse in the entire bible that says that the bible (both OT and NT) is inspired and the complete word of God? Who is trying to twist scripture to conform it to their own private interpretation now? 😉

You believe in sacred tradition but just don’t want to admit it. Why do you not go to church on the sabbath (Saturday) instead of on Sunday? The reason is because the Catholic Church told you to. That’s another thing you will not find in the bible.

Almost no Protestant intellectuals (if that is not oxymoronic itself)) accept sola scriptura as a valid concept anymore. But then again that small group is getting narrower and narrower these days…

James
Click to expand...
James you are just flat out wrong…once again.
Scriptures and the word of God are easily found in the bible which are synonimus with bible.

As for your accessment of protestant intellectuals you are just flat our wrong again.

Have you ever thought about giving up while you are behind? 😃
 
RobHom said:
No you cannot. There is not one place in the Bible where the word Trinity is explicitly used or stated.

You can try all you want, but unless you write your own version of the “bible”…you will have almost as much success you would if you were to try and stop a hurricane…

Now, I realize that you are somewhat afraid of the truth, but if you go to this link…you will find the truth, and an explanation that you can ponder, and then grasp…🙂

drbo.org/chapter/47016.htm

Make sure you read the words in reddish brown…it is the explanation of the scripture itself.

Have fun!!🙂
Click to expand...
You dont know your bible very well do you?
 
CentralFLJames said:
I suppose you forgot the part where St. John at the foot of the cross honors and venerates Mary by being her son and taking her under his care for the rest of her life - just as JESUS COMMANDED???

Give it up guy and start honoring your mother and calling Mary blessed as we are told in scripture we must!

James
Click to expand...
James Jon did not venerate Mary.
 
Hisalone said:
James Jon did not venerate Mary.
Click to expand...
So, are you arguing the case that John just made up all that Queen of Heaven imagery that he put in his Book of Revelation to dishonor Mary or shall we assume he just wrote that book to scare Protestants into buying all those “rapture” and “don’t get left behind” paperbacks as supplements to the bible? 😃

So tell us, why is it when Catholics call Mary Queen of Heaven in pray it is considered Worship but when John honors His Mother by taking care of her for her as the Lord commanded and then writes a substantial part of scripture to make it clear that Mary is Queen of Heaven that His words are not even considered veneration?

Your conspicuous double standard tells much.

James
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top