N
NotWorthy
Guest
Bump
- Status
T
Timidity
Guest
Not only have I read the New Testament, I’m also a graduate of a Baptist university where I studied it under a very stern Baptist preacher who taught me not only to learn what the Bible says, but to learn what it doesn’t say–that was very important to him as a sola scripturist. So, yes, I do know exactly what you’re talking about, and I also know that it doesn’t say what you claim it says. Period. So I’ll state it again, there isn’t a single scripture that talks about Mary giving birth to anyone else but Jesus. Anyone who claims that she had other children is not basing it on scripture, but on human tradition.
O
Observing4Grace
Guest
O
Observing4Grace
Guest
Can I say the word “Dead wrong”. Jesus himself didn’t even do it all Himself! That’s why He had the disciples.
The disciples were spreading his word. That’s it. I’d rather talk to him because I know he’s alive. The saints are physically dead, not alive.
We are doing it together with Him building the Kingdom of God. He expects the same thing from you.
**Don’t misunderstand what I’m telling you. I’m totally for Saintly Intercession but not the way the Catholic Church Teaches it. Veneration is not even mentioned in the Bible at all and there is no claim that the saints (who are physically dead and in heaven) can hear your prayers. **
Why don’t you leave the job to Jesus and let Him talk to us personally?
**He does reveal himself to us within his word. (Bible)
Parker**
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
From: campus.udayton.edu/mary/questions/yq/yq134.html
Q: Does the nursery rhyme, “Mary, Mary, quite contrary” refer to the Blessed Virgin Mary?
A: Mary, Mary, quite contrary,
How does your garden grow?
With silver bells and cockleshells,
and pretty maids all in a row.
This nursery rhyme of anonymous author and without proof that it existed before the 18th century allows for at least four interpretations.
A frequent interpretation sees in these verses a religious connotation, a “word-picture of Our Lady’s convent,” with church bells, badges of the pilgrims (cockleshells = St. James’ shells = attribute of St. James = badge of pilgrims) and ranks of nuns praying the office. For some, this rhyme is a lament: of Catholics for the persecution of the Catholic Church in England; of Protestants at the reinstatement of the Catholic Church. However, according to widespread popular tradition the original Mary was Mary, Queen of Scots; the pretty maids her ladies-in-waiting (the renowned “four Marys”), the cockleshells decorating one of Mary’s dresses given to her by the Dauphin. But all of this remains intelligent guesswork.
[See: I. and P. Opie, The Oxford Dictionary of Nursery Rhymes, 1952, 301.]
O
Observing4Grace
Guest
You’re trying to say that we, or anyone, can somehow accidentally worship Mary or anyone else, even if we claim we’re not worshipping, and genuinely believe we don’t worship?
The answer is NO
What I’m telling you is plain and simple.**** Even though the church says they don’t worship Mary and uses explanations for the phenomena, the mere fact of their actions imply otherwise. In other words, I’m saying the church is in a state of denial.
Firstly - every parade, secular and religious, uses images of different kinds. When Americans salute their flag and pledge allegiance to it on 4th of July does that mean they’re worshipping it?
**You and me both know it’s not worship. Like I was trying to tell you, if you ONLY ERECTED **images of Mary and ONLY BOWED TO THEM AND NO FURTHER. It’s an understandable custom. (Like saluting the flag) However, it’s entirely different thing if you made claims about the flag which contradicts or isn’t mentioned in scripture.
When God commanded cherubs in the temple or the snake on its pole in the desert who was REALLY being honoured by these?
Let’s see, the first commandment is this :
Thou shalt have none other gods before me. Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth: [First Condition in order for it to be idolatry] Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them [Second Condition]
(Deuteronomy 5:7-9)
Certainly not the cherubs themselves in place of God, or the snake itself in place of the God who ordered the image made.
**If you would apply both conditions to concept of art, I’m certain that the story would be made different. However when you apply this to the way the church functions, the story is entirely different. **
And ‘overdone’? In whose opinion ‘overdone’?? That’s a judgement of your own based on nothing.
Not so. It’s based on scriptural opinion.
God himself commanded the Israelites to make images of angels and cherubs (and put them ON THE ARK of his presence and all over His temple in Jerusalem no less!). Jesus and Mary are real people, we are permitted to honour them. The mere use of images doesn’t automatically translate it into worship.
**Apply the conditions from Deuteronomy 5:7-9. You’ll eventually get the picture. **
My point is not about whether the mock crucifixions are a good thing or not, my point simply is that you’re making assumptions about the level of honour we give to Mary and the saints as opposed to Christ,
**They’re not obviously. My point is this: these “levels” of honor need to have a scriptural basis for. (ex. latria, dulia, hyperdulia needs a basis) The mere fact that God doesn’t suggest us to drag our interests to Mary insists that the book (Bible) is entirely meant for us to get closer to him! **
based on lack of knowledge and understanding and some cultural biases as well.
Accusing me of this isn’t helping.
You seem to be putting forward your own ideas of what is appropriate or ‘overdone’ in terms of worship and veneration based on … your opinion.
**Not necessarily, I’m looking for evidence and spelling it out for you in plain text. If you can’t get that far, I don’t think you ever will. **
Like saying you don’t like the colour orange. Whoopdee. Pardon me for being fine with the colour orange then.
**I don’t get your point.
Parker **
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Brothers and Sisters of Jesus
Q: The Bible clearly says that Jesus had brothers and sisters, but the Catholic Church teaches that Mary was a perpetual virgin…how can you reconcile those seemingly different positions?
A: Mk 6:3 says, “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses, and Judas and Simon, and are not His sisters here with us?” We need to realize a few things here about these “brothers and sisters”: #1, there was no word for cousin, or for nephew or niece, or for aunt or uncle in ancient Hebrew or Aramaic - the words that the Jews used in all those instances were “brother” or “sister”. An example of this can be seen in Gen 14:14, where Lot, who was Abraham’s nephew, is called his brother.
Another point to consider. If Jesus had had any brothers, if Mary had had any other sons, would the last thing that Jesus did on earth be to grievously offend his surviving brothers? In Jn 19:26-27, right before Jesus dies, it says that Jesus entrusted the care of His mother to the beloved disciple, John. If Mary had had any other sons, it would have been an incredible slap in the face to them that the Apostle John was entrusted with the care of their mother!
Also, we see from Mt. 27:55-56, that the James and Joses mentioned in Mark 6 as the “brothers” of Jesus, are actually the sons of another Mary. And, one other passage to consider is Acts 1:14-15, “[The Apostles] with one accord devoted themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus and with His brothers…the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty.” A company of 120 persons composed of the Apostles, Mary, the women, and the “brothers” of Jesus. Let’s see there were 11 Apostles at the time. Jesus’ mother makes 12. The women, probably the same three women mentioned in Matthew 27, but let’s say it was maybe a dozen or two, just for argument’s sake. So that puts us up to 30 or 40 or so. So that leaves the number of Jesus’ brothers at about 80 or 90! Do you think Mary had 80 or 90 children? She would have been in perpetual labor! No, Scripture does not contradict the teaching of the Catholic Church about the “brothers” of Jesus, when Scripture is properly interpreted in context.
From John Martignoni
Q: The Bible clearly says that Jesus had brothers and sisters, but the Catholic Church teaches that Mary was a perpetual virgin…how can you reconcile those seemingly different positions?
A: Mk 6:3 says, “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses, and Judas and Simon, and are not His sisters here with us?” We need to realize a few things here about these “brothers and sisters”: #1, there was no word for cousin, or for nephew or niece, or for aunt or uncle in ancient Hebrew or Aramaic - the words that the Jews used in all those instances were “brother” or “sister”. An example of this can be seen in Gen 14:14, where Lot, who was Abraham’s nephew, is called his brother.
Another point to consider. If Jesus had had any brothers, if Mary had had any other sons, would the last thing that Jesus did on earth be to grievously offend his surviving brothers? In Jn 19:26-27, right before Jesus dies, it says that Jesus entrusted the care of His mother to the beloved disciple, John. If Mary had had any other sons, it would have been an incredible slap in the face to them that the Apostle John was entrusted with the care of their mother!
Also, we see from Mt. 27:55-56, that the James and Joses mentioned in Mark 6 as the “brothers” of Jesus, are actually the sons of another Mary. And, one other passage to consider is Acts 1:14-15, “[The Apostles] with one accord devoted themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus and with His brothers…the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty.” A company of 120 persons composed of the Apostles, Mary, the women, and the “brothers” of Jesus. Let’s see there were 11 Apostles at the time. Jesus’ mother makes 12. The women, probably the same three women mentioned in Matthew 27, but let’s say it was maybe a dozen or two, just for argument’s sake. So that puts us up to 30 or 40 or so. So that leaves the number of Jesus’ brothers at about 80 or 90! Do you think Mary had 80 or 90 children? She would have been in perpetual labor! No, Scripture does not contradict the teaching of the Catholic Church about the “brothers” of Jesus, when Scripture is properly interpreted in context.
From John Martignoni
J
JMJ_coder
Guest
Hello,
And note - eternal truth is NEVER bologna. For truth is Jesus Himself (John 14:6) and I would not be calling Jesus a blob of fatty meat.
Jesus is in a league all of His own. He is God. Mary is as close as a non-hypostatically united person can come to God in her perfection. She is elevated (by the grace of God mind you) above all the Angels and Saints.
Why think of such things in such a modern and material way. She knows what God reveals to her to know, just like Peter knew Jesus was the Christ because the Father revealed it to him. If you insist that she, or any saint, can’t hear us - please provide the biblical citation that asserts such.
Well, He did.
What would have happened if Mary had said ‘no’ to Gabriel? No redemption (at least as we know it). If Jesus couldn’t be born, then He couldn’t die on a cross. Thus Mary, by accepting God’s will, aided in redemption.
Look at Revelation 12:1 on biblical evidence of the Assumption and Queenship of Mary. There is also the overwhelming teaching of the Church on this from the beginnings of the Church. The Assumption of Mary was one of the earliest feasts in the Church. Also, we have relics from the Saints and many towns boast on holding such relics or being the site of burial of a Saint. Not one town or Church claims to possess the body or burial place of Mary.
I still don’t know what exactly you are saying with this. No one claims that Mary is a higher authority than God.
Obviously a lack of understanding of what veneration is.
Mary asked Gabriel “How shall this be done, because I know not man?” (Luke 1:34). Now note that Mary is already betrothed to Joseph at this point (Luke 1:27) and in Judaic law, once betrothed you were legally married. Mary’s reply doesn’t make any sense if she was not intent on remaining a virgin. Imagine a bride on her wedding night being visited by an angel who says ‘you’re going to have a child’ and the bride saying ‘how, since I am a virgin?’. What bride with an ounce of common sense would say this if she were not intent on staying a virgin. The normal response from a bride who was about to consummate her marraige would be ‘I can see that, since I shall know a man very soon’.
And note - eternal truth is NEVER bologna. For truth is Jesus Himself (John 14:6) and I would not be calling Jesus a blob of fatty meat.
But there is no worship involved in a procession - unless it is a Eucharistic procession.
Exactly! Just as praying in front of a statue or image of a Saint doesn’t equal worship.
J
JMJ_coder
Guest
That is a silly question. Where does Jesus command you to sing Amazing Grace. Where does Jesus command you to say Amen or Alleluia at the end of every sentence your preacher says. Where does Jesus command you read the Bible every day. Where does Jesus command you to rely only on the Bible. Where does Jesus command that there should be a Bible (or even a New Testatment - His order was to preach not write). I could go on and on, but I think you get the point.
How? Does celebrating someone’s birthday turn them into an idol? I mean you present them with gifts and make a special meal, etc.
No. First of all, a person who is deceased in not dead, but living. Those in Heaven are more alive than we are. Second, it is not a form of worship. I understand that to many Protestants worship is basically praying to and praising a person. But that is not worship in the Catholic sense (or the biblical sense or God’s sense). The Mass is worship. Eucharistic adoration is worship. Singing Regina Caeli is not worship. Picture clear?
How, if we are looking at outward appearences. How is an outsider to view a man speaking of his significant other in highly flattering terms.
What do you mean by this - as it doesn’t make sense to me?
You could have fooled me. It seems that alot of the information you have of the Catholic Church is distorted.
As far as Bible only: if you are not misinformed, why do you think that Catholicism is Bible only? We have Sacred Tradition and the Magesterium in addition to Sacred Scripture. This is basic to the faith. Also, I think most Protestants do not understand what the first commandment (to Catholics, Protestants number it 1 and 2) is prohibiting and what it is not. The commandment doesn’t prohibit praise and veneration of others. It does not prohibit statue building or image making. If it did God commanded His holy nation to disobey Himself (which would be a denial of Him being God). After God told them the commandments, He then ordered them to build an Ark, with two statues of Cherubim on top. Strange if there was a complete prohibition on images and statues of any kind.
In essence idolatry is setting anything above God. Be it money, possessions, family, friends, etc. But Catholics don’t do this with the Saints. We never place them above God. Just because we venerate them doesn’t mean we think that they are higher than God. Do you understand?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Can They Hear Us?
“He came and took the scroll from the right hand of him who sat on the throne. And when he had taken it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.” (Revelation 5:7-8)
One charge made against it is that the saints in heaven cannot even hear our prayers, making it useless to ask for their intercession. However, this is not true. As Scripture indicates, those in heaven are aware of the prayers of those on earth. This can be seen, for example, in Revelation 5:8, where John depicts the saints in heaven offering our prayers to God under the form of “golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.” But if the saints in heaven are offering our prayers to God, then they must be aware of our prayers. They are aware of our petitions and present them to God by interceding for us.
Some might try to argue that in this passage the prayers being offered were not addressed to the saints in heaven, but directly to God. Yet this argument would only strengthen the fact that those in heaven can hear our prayers, for then the saints would be aware of our prayers even when they are not directed to them!
In any event, it is clear from Revelation 5:8 that the saints in heaven do actively intercede for us. We are explicitly told by John that the incense they offer to God are the prayers of the saints. Prayers are not physical things and cannot be physically offered to God. Thus the saints in heaven are offering our prayers to God mentally. In other words, they are interceding.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Where does the Bible tell you to recite the sinner’s prayer and provide the precise words that you must say to do it correctly?
Where does the Bible tell you not to baptize infants? Where does the Bible tell you to baptize only adults?
Where does the Bible tell you to baptize by sprinkling, pouring or immersion?
Where does the Bible tell you that Jesus proceeds from the Father but that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son?
Where does the Bible tell you that there are three co-substantial persons in the one triune God?
Where does the Bible tell you that Jesus is fully God and fully man with two natures and two wills?
Where does the Bible tell you that public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle?
Where does the Bible tell you which letters and books written by early Christians are to be considered “scripture”?
Where does the Bible tell you that it is the only infallible rule of faith for the believer (sola scriptura)?
Where does the Bible tell you that you are saved by faith alone (sola fide)?
Where does the Bible tell you that once you are saved, you cannot lose your salvation?
Where does the Bible tell you that dancing and drinking alcohol is prohibited?
Where does the Bible tell you that you must attend Wednesday night services?
Where does the Bible tell you that you must set up little “manger scenes” in places of honor at Christmas time with a “graven image” of the Baby Jesus surrounded by cows, sheep, wise men and angels?
Where does the Bible tell you that the bread and wine used at the Last Supper were purely symbolic references to his “teaching” which we must “chew on” and “mull over” as “food for thought” in our minds?
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Bump
D
DianJo
Guest
Unfortunately, Parker will never understand what we are trying to explain to him because, apparently, he’s too blinded with seeing only the bible.
Parker, you have to understand that the Church existed for almost 400 hundred years before the book was canonized. The letters of the NT were written to particular communities to correct abuses or misunderstandings to things that had been taught to them by word of mouth either by the Apostles or their successors. The bible was never meant to be a manuel of Christian doctrine with everything listed out and explained explicitly. Some things in the bible that are not clear to us today were perfectly clear to the people of the time and they understood the meaning of what the writer was trying to teach. That’s why we need the Church - the one that gave us the bible and whose writers were Catholic. It’s that Tradition that tells us the things associated with a particular teaching. Who better to explain those things than the entity whose members produced and bound/canonized the bible?
That’s why we understand the teachings around Mary’s Perpetual Virginity, hearing our prayers, being the Ark of the Covenant, etc. Those explanations were unnecessary to the people of the time. We need those things now because we are living 2000 years removed and are no longer familiar with the idioms of the day or the cultural/social underpinings.
It’s unfortunate that non-catholics have decided to turn a deaf ear to the Church because of some perceived 450 year old notion that the Church is entirely corrupt (her members may have been corrupt but her teachings were always sound. Men are sinners and the Church is the place for sinners!). Because of this, you will not understand (because you choose not to)some of the most profound teachings.
Me and my Confirmation class just attended the RCIA’s class presentation of the Seder meal. The kids were just amazed at the enormity of the implications that the Passover meal has on our Mass and the Eucharist! All of God’s revelation to us is tied up in the Mass/Eucharist. But, Parker, you won’t understand all this because “it’s not explicit in the bible!” What you don’t understand is that IT IS IN THE BIBLE. It’s just not put together all nice and neat to be recoginzed easily. Someone has to show you - the Church! Just like the typology in the OT that someone raised earlier with you. You reject it because you never heard of it before and the Church teaches it.
It’s a real shame that you won’t “get” all of it because you are too interested in listening to your own interpretations, you close your heart and mind to anything else. It might mean that you would have to admit that there might actually be truth within the Catholic Church.
No matter what we tell you in this thread, you won’t have any of it because it doesn’t make sense to you. I think we should move on.
Parker, you have to understand that the Church existed for almost 400 hundred years before the book was canonized. The letters of the NT were written to particular communities to correct abuses or misunderstandings to things that had been taught to them by word of mouth either by the Apostles or their successors. The bible was never meant to be a manuel of Christian doctrine with everything listed out and explained explicitly. Some things in the bible that are not clear to us today were perfectly clear to the people of the time and they understood the meaning of what the writer was trying to teach. That’s why we need the Church - the one that gave us the bible and whose writers were Catholic. It’s that Tradition that tells us the things associated with a particular teaching. Who better to explain those things than the entity whose members produced and bound/canonized the bible?
That’s why we understand the teachings around Mary’s Perpetual Virginity, hearing our prayers, being the Ark of the Covenant, etc. Those explanations were unnecessary to the people of the time. We need those things now because we are living 2000 years removed and are no longer familiar with the idioms of the day or the cultural/social underpinings.
It’s unfortunate that non-catholics have decided to turn a deaf ear to the Church because of some perceived 450 year old notion that the Church is entirely corrupt (her members may have been corrupt but her teachings were always sound. Men are sinners and the Church is the place for sinners!). Because of this, you will not understand (because you choose not to)some of the most profound teachings.
Me and my Confirmation class just attended the RCIA’s class presentation of the Seder meal. The kids were just amazed at the enormity of the implications that the Passover meal has on our Mass and the Eucharist! All of God’s revelation to us is tied up in the Mass/Eucharist. But, Parker, you won’t understand all this because “it’s not explicit in the bible!” What you don’t understand is that IT IS IN THE BIBLE. It’s just not put together all nice and neat to be recoginzed easily. Someone has to show you - the Church! Just like the typology in the OT that someone raised earlier with you. You reject it because you never heard of it before and the Church teaches it.
It’s a real shame that you won’t “get” all of it because you are too interested in listening to your own interpretations, you close your heart and mind to anything else. It might mean that you would have to admit that there might actually be truth within the Catholic Church.
No matter what we tell you in this thread, you won’t have any of it because it doesn’t make sense to you. I think we should move on.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Could you imagine the whole bible written like Leviticus?!?
L
LilyM
Guest
Ever heard of a little thing called a ticker-tape parade??? Or a lap of honour after a someone wins, for example, the Superbowl or what have you? Very much living people being carried or driven around in procession from one place to another, people throwing gifts and confetti at them, very flowery and flattering speeches made about them and their achievements, all sorts of things being chanted.
Don’t know about American sportsmens’ nicknames, but here in Australia we had one football player a few years ago who actually was nicknamed
‘Buddha’. So you can imagine what his fans were chanting whenever he did something extra special.
Does that mean they literally worshipped him as a divine being, even though they would have given every appearance of doing so? Of course not! No more than those Israelites who doubtless bowed in front of the cherubs on the Ark were worshipping them, even though they also gave every appearance of doing so.
Nor were they, or 'Buddha’s fans, even remotely in denial about such. They simply were not worshipping! In fact, we Australians are very cynical about celebrities. So if anything his name of ‘Buddha’ was very likely meant in an unflattering and ironic way - maybe the player was fat or bald or something and thus LOOKED like a statue of the Buddha
D
DianJo
Guest
Oh, My - What a snooze!!!Could you imagine the whole bible written like Leviticus?!?
L
lak611
Guest
Could you imagine the whole bible written like Leviticus?!?
Or could you imagine the whole Bible written like Numbers?
:yawn:
E
Eden
Guest
Where did you learn this? Jesus is most certainly not the greatest of all Saints! He is God. There is nothing equal to being God!
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
And there you have one of the biggest difficulties–communication.
When Observing uses words and concepts, he sees them only ‘his way’, never realizing that the ‘original way’ was quite different, and that somewhere along the line, some “man” decided that this, that or the other thing really meant something else. After 500 years of the ‘something else’, it’s not surprising that they can neither believe that something taught ‘so long’ wasn’t the ‘original’, or that people could have believed differently both 1500 years before (and in the case of us Catholics, kept on believing for the 500 years since).
Observing targets (in a sense) us Catholics because (being original) we have the longest history. While his fellow protestants from other denominations may agree with him, there are also many differences, ranging from great to small, but in a way he is using smart strategy going after ‘the big one’ (us) first. The logic would be, if we can totally eliminate the Catholics, then we can go after the ‘smaller game’ (Protestants who don’t agree with everything Observing’s Protestant group teaches). Talk about internecine warfare.
When Observing uses words and concepts, he sees them only ‘his way’, never realizing that the ‘original way’ was quite different, and that somewhere along the line, some “man” decided that this, that or the other thing really meant something else. After 500 years of the ‘something else’, it’s not surprising that they can neither believe that something taught ‘so long’ wasn’t the ‘original’, or that people could have believed differently both 1500 years before (and in the case of us Catholics, kept on believing for the 500 years since).
Observing targets (in a sense) us Catholics because (being original) we have the longest history. While his fellow protestants from other denominations may agree with him, there are also many differences, ranging from great to small, but in a way he is using smart strategy going after ‘the big one’ (us) first. The logic would be, if we can totally eliminate the Catholics, then we can go after the ‘smaller game’ (Protestants who don’t agree with everything Observing’s Protestant group teaches). Talk about internecine warfare.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
I agree with you. But the problem is (at least with these types of “evangelist”) they haven’t had an original thought in 100’s of years. These types of questions have been asked only about a bagillion times.
The problem is (for us, at least) these types of questions will still pick off some who don’t know their faith, so it’s worth the effort for these “evangelists”.
- Status