Biblical Mary

[Brakelite]

I don't want implicit allusions or references but EXPLICIT SCRIPTURAL teaching.

Why do you demand the above "explicit scriptural" teaching of others while your own church uses allusion and mere references and tradition in support of her own teachings? Aaaaahh. We know the answer to this. Because your religion is not a religion of scripture, but one of tradition which overrides scripture. In other words, Catholicism can make anything up she likes and demand her followers do the same in order to be a member of the club. When are you Catholics going to admit that the scriptures are not, nor ever have been the foundation of your faith and practise? And that the only purpose you have here is point out the inconsistencies of Protestant practise wherever you can find it, as evident in your post above?

 

[BreadOfLife]

Why do you demand the above "explicit scriptural" teaching of others while your own church uses allusion and mere references and tradition in support of her own teachings? Aaaaahh. We know the answer to this. Because your religion is not a religion of scripture, but one of tradition which overrides scripture. In other words, Catholicism can make anything up she likes and demand her followers do the same in order to be a member of the club. When are you Catholics going to admit that the scriptures are not, nor ever have been the foundation of your faith and practise? And that the only purpose you have here is point out the inconsistencies of Protestant practise wherever you can find it, as evident in your post above?

Apparently, you haven't been reading the posts.

TWO reasons:
a. Because @Michiah-Imla injected the requirement that ALL we believe and teach must be strictly and explicitly instructed in Scripture.
b. Because, as Christ's pilgrim Church - we understand that the His Church didn't come from the Bible - but the Bible came from His Church.

NOWHERE in Scripture are we told that we are a "Bible church" or that everything we practice and believe must be explicitly taught in Scripture. In fact - we are told that His CHURCH is our final earthly Authority (Matt. 16:18-19, Matt. 18:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 16:12-15, John 20:21-23).

Paul, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit reminds us that Sacred Tradition is ON PAR with Scripture:
2 Thess 2:15
"Stand firm and hold fast to the Traditions you were taught, whether by an ORAL STATEMENT or by a LETTER from us."

Without Sacred Tradition - YOU wouldn't even have a Canon of Scripture., which was declared by the Catholic Church in the 4th century . . .

 

[Michiah-Imla]

Paul, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit reminds us that Sacred Tradition is ON PAR with Scripture:
2 Thess 2:15
"Stand firm and hold fast to the Traditions you were taught, whether by an ORAL STATEMENT or by a LETTER from us."

NOT WHEN THE ORAL WORD CONTRADICTS THE WRITTEN WORD!

"Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition." (Matthew 15:6)

AND THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, like all sectarian organizations, ADD to the word (showing them to be liars!):

"Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." (Proverbs 30:5-6)

You need to open your ears:

"Better is a poor and a wise child than an old and foolish king, who will no more be admonished." (Ecclesiastes 4:13)

 

[Illuminator]

NOT WHEN THE ORAL WORD CONTRADICTS THE WRITTEN WORD!

How does that cancel out the authority of the oral word, that Paul clearly states? You are not making sense.

"Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition." (Matthew 15:6)

Yes, there are bad made up traditions that must be avoided and good traditions that Paul commands us to follow. You refuse to make the distinction, and make up your own tradition with one verse out of context.

AND THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, like all sectarian organizations, ADD to the word (showing them to be liars!):

The CATHOLIC CHURCH is not a sect, and without the tradition of the episcopate, you wouldn't have a Bible! Again, you make no sense. The BIBLE came from the CHURCH, not the other way around.

"Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." (Proverbs 30:5-6)

Nowhere in Scripture is "word of God" confined to the written word alone, not here or anywhere else. That's another one of your man made traditions. If every written word of God is pure, then there would have to be a perfect, divine human language. There is no such thing.

When Jesus quotes the OT, He is teaching what it means, He does not let the Scriptures speak for themselves.

BibleGateway - Keyword Search: "Word of God"

 

[Michiah-Imla]

Nowhere in Scripture is "word of God" confined to the written word alone, not here or anywhere else

For God’s sake man!

If the word of God is not confined in the holy scriptures then any one can make up whatever religion they want!

Which is why there are so many Christian assemblies out there now! Because when you can just make up what the word of God is without the written word to test it by, what we have today happens: thousands of churches proclaiming to be the true one!

Look, what did God do to his original worship locations in the Old Testament?

Well look here:

"Therefore will I do unto this house, which is called by my name, wherein ye trust, and unto the place which I gave to you and to your fathers, as I have done to Shiloh." (Jeremiah 7:14)

Just because the Catholic Church is the oldest doesn’t mean it’s incorruptible.

Wake up!

 

[Illuminator]

TEST QUESTIONS:

TRADITION
(in Greek, "paradosis") means "to hand on" teaching.

Matthew 15

[2] "Why do your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat."
[3] He answered them, "And why do you transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?
[4] For God commanded, `Honor your father and your mother,' and, `He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die.'

1) Which one of the following is incorrect, in the light of the above verses?

A) Jesus condemns human traditions that void God's word.
B) Jesus condemns all human traditions.
C) Jesus condemns the Pharisees for inventing false traditions that transgressed the Commandments.

2) Which of the following oral traditions that the Apostles taught are not found in the Old Testament?

A) Matthew 2:23 And he went and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, "He shall be called a Nazarene."

B) Matthew 23:2 "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; 3 so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.

C) 1Cor.10:4 and all drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ.

D) All of the above.


3) Which of the following are oral traditions that the Apostles taught that are found in the Gospels or the Old Testament?

A) Acts 20:35 In all things I have shown you that by so toiling one must help the weak, remembering the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, `It is more blessed to give than to receive.”

B) Eph.5:14 Therefore it is said, "Awake, O sleeper, and arise from the dead,
and Christ shall give you light."

C) Hebrews 11:32 And what more shall I say? For time would fail me to tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets – 37 They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were killed with the sword; they went about in skins of sheep and goats, destitute, afflicted, ill-treated --

D) Jude 14 It was of these also that Enoch in the seventh generation from Adam prophesied, saying, "Behold, the Lord came with his holy myriads,15 to execute judgment on all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness which they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against him."

E) none of the above are found anywhere in the Gospels or the Old Testament


11. How do we know who wrote the books that we call Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Hebrews, and 1, 2, and 3 John? (What verse claims the name of the author?)
A) it's written on the top of the page
B) oral Tradition, reflected in the Early Church Fathers writings
C) bible scholars can prove it

12. Where did Jesus give instructions that the Christian faith should be based exclusively on a book?
A) The Gospels
B) The Epistles
C) Revelation
D) nowhere

 

[Illuminator]

For God’s sake man!

If the word of God is not confined in the holy scriptures then any one can make up whatever religion they want!

This is precisely what the so called reformation initiated, with Calvin disagreeing with Luther, and the divisions haven't stopped. When you throw out CHURCH AUTHORITY, and replace it with unbiblical and unworkable notion of "sola scriptura", any one can make up whatever religion they want!

Just because the Catholic Church is the oldest doesn’t mean it’s incorruptible.

We assert the CC's doctrines are incorruptible because of God's promises. There are many indications of this in the Bible that you cannot accept because of your traditions. Infallibility and the indestructible nature of the historic CHURCH has nothing to do with sinful members, who have always been there since the scandals in Corinth.
Now we have to re-invent the wheel and explain what a doctrine is, because you have changed its meaning as well, making sensible discussion impossible.

 

[rockytopva]

As Christ could see into the future so he gave the last word on what he would see as seven churches.

The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches. Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks; - Revelation 1:20 - Revelation 2:1

Candlesticks - Seven church congregations
Stars - Individuals within the congregations, all held in the right hand of Christ
Seals - The seven seals sealed each congregation within the lambs book of life

And I wept much, because no man was found worthy to open and to read the book, neither to look thereon. - Revelation 5:4

Ephesus - Messianic
Smyna - Martyr - Foxes book of martyrs has the persecutions as ten
Pregamos - Orthodox - Pergos is a tower, needed in the dark ages
Thyatira - Catholic - Took form with Constantine
Sardis - Protestant - Took form with Martin Luther
Philadelphia - Revived - Non-Violent with men like John Bunyan.
Laodicean - Mainly independent churches birthed post 1900

So, I believe there are seven generalized congregations...

Messianic
Martyr
Orthodox
Catholic
Protestant
Revived
Independent

All of which, I believe, have different views of Mary. I would imagine if we had Orthodox in this forum they would have their unique views given as well. The important thing here, I believe, is that we all believe she was a virgin at the time of the birth of Christ.

 

[Brakelite]

The greatest and most eloquent defense for Sola scriptura is the history of the Roman church. Her crimes, her corruptions, her unholy assignations with the Kings of the world, her wars she waged against Christians from one end of the so called 'holy Roman empire' to the other. All based on the idea that God actually approved and inspired such behavior. Well did Jesus speak of the medieval church when He said,
KJV John 16:1-3
1 These things have I spoken unto you, that ye should not be offended.
2 They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.
3 And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me.

 

[BreadOfLife]

NOT WHEN THE ORAL WORD CONTRADICTS THE WRITTEN WORD!

"Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition." (Matthew 15:6)

AND THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, like all sectarian organizations, ADD to the word (showing them to be liars!):

"Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." (Proverbs 30:5-6)

You need to open your ears:

"Better is a poor and a wise child than an old and foolish king, who will no more be admonished." (Ecclesiastes 4:13)

For God’s sake man!

If the word of God is not confined in the holy scriptures then any one can make up whatever religion they want!

WRONG.

First of all, the Catholic church is not a "sectarian organization". It is the ONE Church built by Jesus Christ (Matt. 16:18) - the original Tree that ALL Protestantism splintered from. This is a fact of history that you cannot deny.

It was men in the 16th century during the Protestant Revolt who truly began the "sectarianism" of Christianity - ALL based on their personal interpretations of Scripture. Earlier, I listed some of those different beliefs - and YOU disagreed with some of them. WHO then, do Protestants go to when they need to have these differences settled??

Jesus gave ONE prescription for that quandary: His CHURCH. He stated that WHATEVER His Church bound or loosed on earth would also be bound and loosed in Heaven (Matt. 16:19, Matt. 18:18) - and He NEVER stated that Scripture was that final earthly Authority.

Over and over again in the Gospels, Jesus drives the point home that His CHURCH is that earthly Authority (Matt. 16:18-19, Matt. 18:15-18, John 16:12-15, John 20:21-23) - and He states emphatically that whoever listens to or rejects His CHURCH - listens to or rejects HIM and the ONE who sent Him.

That is about as explicit as it gets - and there is NOTHING that is taught by His Church that is "contrary" to Scripture - which, as I reminded you earlier. was declared inspired and canonical by His CHURCH, and NOT by Scripture.

 

[Brakelite]

You bear false witness. The SDA is obsessed with Catholic bashing, particularly with exaggerated histories as you have just proved. TODAY, nobody accepts Auquinas' outdated teachings. He was addressing the heresiarchs of his day, that were a threat to society. You guys always leave out historical context to paint Aquinas as a blood thirsty monster. It's not the 12th century.

You are correct, it isn't the 12th century. And Aquinas was just continuing what by then had become well entrenched policy with Roman catholicism. The first 'heretics' murdered not looking after the council of Nicea and the dozen or so councils that followed it in as many years. 7, including women, beheaded for daring to have a conscience and take a stand on what they believed. Thus the union of Church and State, the clothing of the church with civil power, bore its inevitable fruit. It is true that there were some bishops who condemned the execution of the Priscillianists, but the others fully justified it. Those who condemned it, however, did so more at the sight of actual bloodshed, than for any other reason; because they fully justified, and in fact demanded, every penalty short of actual death. And those who persecuted the Priscillianists, and who advocated, and secured, and justified, their execution, were never condemned by the church nor by any council. In fact their course was actually indorsed by a council; for "the synod at Treves, in 385, sanctioned the conduct of Ithacius" who was the chief prosecutor in the case. Even the disagreement as to whether it was right or not,was silenced when, twenty years afterward, Augustine set forth his principles, asserting the righteousness of whatever penalty would bring the incorrigible to the highest grade of religious development; and the matter was fully set at rest for all time when, in A. D. 447, Leo, bishop of Rome, justified the execution of Priscillian and his associate heretics, and declared the righteousness of the penalty of death for heresy.

A couple of decades later, entire Nations were destroyed at the behest of the bishop of Rome due to disagreements over the Roman invented Trinity. Thus began the long long trail of blood and tears that stained the pages of history for the next 1000 years and would forever mark the Roman church as Antichrist.

 

[Marymog]

I have used Catholic sources which teach certain principles with which you disagree and called me anti Catholic for quoting them. For example, I have quoted Thomas Aquinas previously regarding his absurd teaching regarding the treatment of heretics. When I pointed out that the church has followed his lead in the destruction and murder of those who simply disagree with Catholic theology, thus heretics, and they number in the millions, all of a sudden I am anti Catholic. And all I am doing is putting out where Catholic practice has faithfully followed on from Catholic teaching. In other words, the murderers and persecuters within the church are merely good Catholics. Am I a liar?

Hey Backlit,

I love history and have not been able to find any legitimate historian that agrees with your assertion that The Church killed “millions” for heresy. Can you provide me your source that backs up your allegation?

History lover Mary

 

[Marymog]

Well until you stop calling me anti catholic and apologize for lying on this thread I will have no more to do with your dishonesty. I have told you repeatedly I am not against Catholics but against Catholic doctrine or romanism. You have been told repeatedly, now you are just violating the commandment against bearing false witness.

Ap[ologize or we are finished. I don't dialogue with liars!

Hey Ronald,

Help me out here.....If you are anti-Catholic doctrine then wouldn’t that logically mean you are anti anyone who practices or teaches them?

 

[Nancy]

Well hello and welcome back @Marymog
It has been awhile. Good to know yer still kickin!

 

[Marymog]

Well hello and welcome back @Marymog
It has been awhile. Good to know yer still kickin!

Awww.....Thank you Nancy. That was very nice of you.

 

[Brakelite]

Hey Backlit,

I love history and have not been able to find any legitimate historian that agrees with your assertion that The Church killed “millions” for heresy. Can you provide me your source that backs up your allegation?

History lover Mary

It is very difficult to find any information at all regarding the death tolls of any crusade, war, inquisition that didn't come through the biased eyes of the victor. Perhaps as a neutral observer you could offer a realistic estimate of the casualties of the following... Some numbers may be more easily attainable than others, but I wouldn't want to deprive you of the opportunity of coming up with a number of you can. My estimate, and others, do run into the millions... Who knows exactly when records and writings of those "heretics" were destroyed, and the only records surviving were written mostly by those making the charges. So. Here's a list of the wars against heresy.

• The three nations of the Aryans in the 6th century who were all destroyed because of their heretical beliefs regarding the Trinity. The Heruli, the Ostrogoths, and Vandals. And of course those who Constantine murdered after Nicea.
• The Hussite wars. The Hussites refused the authority of Rome claiming all Christians are priests. Same as me. This heresy resulted in a concerted effort by Rome to destroy the Hussites through a series of crusades and wars that lasted 15 years. I think it logical to count both sides.
• The several crusades against the Waldenses and Albigenses over several centuries.

How you doing so far?

 

[Marymog]

It is very difficult to find any information at all regarding the death tolls of any crusade, war, inquisition that didn't come through the biased eyes of the victor. Perhaps as a neutral observer you could offer a realistic estimate of the casualties of the following... Some numbers may be more easily attainable than others, but I wouldn't want to deprive you of the opportunity of coming up with a number of you can. My estimate, and others, do run into the millions... Who knows exactly when records and writings of those "heretics" were destroyed, and the only records surviving were written mostly by those making the charges. So. Here's a list of the wars against heresy.

• The three nations of the Aryans in the 6th century who were all destroyed because of their heretical beliefs regarding the Trinity. The Heruli, the Ostrogoths, and Vandals. And of course those who Constantine murdered after Nicea.
• The Hussite wars. The Hussites refused the authority of Rome claiming all Christians are priests. Same as me. This heresy resulted in a concerted effort by Rome to destroy the Hussites through a series of crusades and wars that lasted 15 years. I think it logical to count both sides.
• The several crusades against the Waldenses and Albigenses over several centuries.

How you doing so far?

Oh, I see. You are counting all the wars that men fought, in their minds, to preserve the Truth of the word of God. And you want to count deaths on both sides which means you want to count the men that The Church didn’t kill but were killed in battle defending the Truth. I now better understand where you came up with “millions”.

Your aforementioned wars are a bit more complicated than your theory that The Church was solely killing people for being heretics. There were previous rivalries, politics, nationalism, switching of sides, greed, lust for power/money etc involved. But I get the gist of your “millions” statement.

Mary

 

[Brakelite]

Oh, I see. You are counting all the wars that men fought, in their minds, to preserve the Truth of the word of God. And you want to count deaths on both sides which means you want to count the men that The Church didn’t kill but were killed in battle defending the Truth. I now better understand where you came up with “millions”.

Your aforementioned wars are a bit more complicated than your theory that The Church was solely killing people for being heretics. There were previous rivalries, politics, nationalism, switching of sides, greed, lust for power/money etc involved. But I get the gist of your “millions” statement.

Mary

They were wars against heresy, heresy being the charge and accusation and reason put forward even to this day, by the Catholic Church in defense of her actions in provoking this wars and the resulting deaths, and yes, on both sides. You say there were some killed in defense of truth. Where in scripture does it say that it's justifiable to kill someone because they don't agree with what you believe?

 

[Brakelite]

@Marymog
I could add numerous more wars and crusades that the Papacy was responsible for inciting from those early wars and crusades I'm the rising growth of the church... Wars waged by such as Clovis, Charlemagne and Louis 14th and the Portuguese and the Spanish in south America, Europe, attempts to overthrow Protestantism in Britain with the Spanish armada, and numerous others including both world wars and the Vietnam war.
Now all the above is quite separate from all the individual inquisitions against individuals and towns and villages throughout the 1500 years of papal supremacy throughout Europe. These and more Mary were all victims in the wars waged against so called heresy. Heresy, not because their beliefs contradicted scripture, but heresy because your church has never considered scripture the foundation of truth, faith, and practise. This anyone who practises their Christianity in accordance to scripture is automatically a heretic. Like me. And the Christians in Goa, India. And the Celtic church in England. And the church in Spain. And Germany, Bohemia, France, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, all of whom, unless they submitted to the teaching that without the Pope they couldn't be saved, were murdered on order of the Pope. Great Christian concept that you're defending Mary. Please consider where that leads to for the future of Christianity in a world where the Pope becomes a global leader and they implications of a Bible in which is final book describe a religious leader who... Well, I think you know what I'm talking about huh.

 

[Marymog]

They were wars against heresy, heresy being the charge and accusation and reason put forward even to this day, by the Catholic Church in defense of her actions in provoking this wars and the resulting deaths, and yes, on both sides. You say there were some killed in defense of truth. Where in scripture does it say that it's justifiable to kill someone because they don't agree with what you believe?

As I previously stated it is a historical fact that all those wars you mentioned were more complicated than going to war over heresy. I know you and your ilk will never accept that fact but it doesn’t change the truth. You have over simplified the reasons for those wars.

Also, I never said they were killed in the defense of the truth. I said what THEY believe to be the truth.

Mary