Biblical Mary

[Mungo]

A Catholic mixed the 2 to start.



The Bible does not say Mary is the mother of God. There are dozens of lords in the Bible and Jesus is one. All of them had mothers. No one is the mother of God. See how Catholic dogma was used as a substitute for the Biblical Mary right from the start?

Time and again Catholics start this divisive threads, then claim they are being bashed. Amazing Ego's.

Lk 1:43 shows exactly what theefaith claimed.

 

[Michiah-Imla]

Post# 896

By equating the beast with the Catholic Church

I did no such thing.

You were not paying attention.

I was asked (by you) where in the Bible does it say the church will be prevailed by evil and I showed the scripture regarding the execution of the saints (the church) by the beast.

Since many Protestants equate the beast with the Catholic Church, you assumed I did so just by seeing the scripture reference.

I thought you were mature enough to at least read the posts and follow the discussion honestly. But now you have thrown out a false accusation.

 

[BreadOfLife]

"…should not a people seek unto their God? …To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." (Isaiah 8:19-20)

End of discussion.

Ummmmm, NOT quite,

whenever I see people using an ellipsis (...) it usually means that they are editing a verse or taking it OUT of context as YOU just did.
Let's read the ENIRE passage- in CONTEXT:
Isaiah 8:19-20
And when they say to you, “Inquire of the mediums and the necromancers who chirp and mutter,” should not a people inquire of their God? Should they inquire of the dead on behalf of the living? To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, they have no light of dawn.

Now - I asked YOU to show me in the bible where it explicitly teaches that everything we practice as Christians must be explicitly mentioned in Scripture. NOWHERE does this passage tell us that we are ONLY to refer to the Scriptures, what is written.
The "Law and the Testimony" were BOTH the written AND the oral. It has ALWAYS been this way Judaism - and in Christianity from the beginning.

Remember what Paul wrote to the Thessalonians:
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."

BOTH the written AND the oral,
END of discussion.

 

[Wrangler]

Lk 1:43 shows exactly what theefaith claimed.

No. Only the LORD is God. When the text uses lowercase lord, why do you pivot to God WHILE claiming Biblical Mary?

Friend, shalom.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Mine? LOL even a moron could figure out churches that are disjointed, splintered is not one same persons church.... LOL

So, NAME one hundred of these so called "tens of thousands" disjointed Churches...
Or name 50....Or Name 10...
THEN quote me EVER Claiming ANY OF THEM TO BE MY CHURCH...
What a COMIC to make such an outlandish claim.

"MINE"....Pfff Ridiculous per your usual.

Just as you project yourself as an Expert on Catholic Churches....You apparently are ALSO an Expert on tens of thousands Protestant Churches...WHY ASK ME what they teach?
You are the one wondering if they received Gods Understanding.... surely you have first hand knowledge, being an expert...Why do you NOT know the answer?
TSK, TSk, TSK. Get your mirror...you are talking your thought, your word, to you, about you....
Another crock of nonsense you are preaching.

I was simply pointing out the fact that:
a. Thousands of Protestant men have stated they have "Gods understanding" - yet they ALL believe different things.
b. If you are a Christian and NOT a Catholic or Orthodox - you ARE a Protestant. Otherwise, you are one of the quasi-Christian groups like JWs, Mormons or "Oneness" believers.

Oh...so quote Scripture during Peter's life he was given the Title POPE...

None of your references say "Jesus gave Peter an exclusive appointed Position of head of ....anything".

And in the depths of your ignorance, it may have escaped you that the title of the Pope is not "Pope". This word simply means "Papa"/Father" and is NOT an official title for the Bishop of Rome - but a simple term of endearment.

Do your homework and you won't be so confused . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Tens of thousands splintered Churches...
Surely you must know it is members of ALL churches who choose what how THEY will interpretate Scripture...
*) of their own personal interpretation
*) adopt their Clerics taught interpretation
*) adopt their Churches "manual" taught interpretation.
*) daddy said so
*) ask God.

You imply, only Protestants have different interpretations....WHAT a FARCE.
All Catholics do not agree, no different than All Protestants or ALL Muslims do not agree.

LOL....How naive.

Correct - ALL Catholics don't agree.
Those that don't agree with the teachings of the Church are called dissidents or outright Protestants.

Faithful Catholics believe what is taught by Christ's 2000 year old Church.

 

[BreadOfLife]

they were Catholics so they had a catholic bias, as oppossed to being unbiased. If my experts are biased because they uncovered error in Romanism, same is true withy9ours for whatever they uncover. Has nothing to do with heresy or not. Just making sure you apply your bias standard even handedly.

So Hus, Tyndale, Luther etal. weree all heretics against Christianity? I think not! And that Roman Catholic Church also had its own heresies. And so you won't let your mind going there, I am not defending the heretical sects. All of t hem had some measure of truth in them, but like others their errors clouded the truth.

I take it you don't understand everyone is biased?

Hus, Tyndale and Luther were Catholic priests who repudiated their Catholic beliefs - so, yes - they were heretics.
That is the very definition of "heresy", Einstein.

This has NOTHING to do with "biased" Catholic theologians in the Councils - but the repudiation of Catholic teaching by Catholics.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Did you just arrive on earth from another planet?????????????????????????????????????????????????????
All the other "Catholic sects" do not recognize the pope as supreme pontiff and thus are not part of the roman Catholic Church.
do a google search pogo and surprise yourself with the myriads of references to the Roman Catholic Church.
YOU are being petulantly obstinate and contentious. shame on you!

This is like speaking to a box of rocks . . .

The 20 or so Liturgical Rites I mentioned are ALL part of the ONE Catholic Church.
they are not "Catholic sects" - they are Liturgical Rites. We are ALL in full communion with each other and with the Pope.

The "sects" that YOU are ignorantly referring to are groups that have broken away from the Catholic Church.
In short, they are nothing but Protestants - just like YOU.

Get your facts straight and stop embarrassing yourself . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Well Mosaic Law called for a relative (JOhn the son of Zebedee was a cousin).

but as to why? The bible doesn't give an answer so at best I can only offer suppositions which I have no clue how right or wroing they would be so it would be pointless to venture guesses.

WOW.

Sooooo, you can only offer "suppositions" as to why Mary's "other children" couldn't care for her because the Bible is SILENT about it.
Yet you insist that she indeed had "other children" - when the Bible is just as SILENT about it.

I hope you don't run your personal life with the SAME kind of confusion . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

The Catholic Church was proved to be corrupting Scripture at least 600 years ago -- since Tyndale -- a Catholic -- exposed that corruption. Had the Catholic clerics listened to Tyndale and repented, things would be quite different now.

Instead we have the Vatican intervening for evildoer Joe Biden to partake of the Eucharist against the wishes of all the Catholic bishops. That scoundrel should have been excommunicated a long time ago. And Pope Francis should have been "fired".

That's rich.

Sooooo, every time somebody CLAIMS that there is corruption - it is carved in stone as a "fact"??
So, I can make ANY ridiculous claim I want about ANY Protestant sect - and YOU have to accept it as the unvarnished truth??

That's an idiotic standard - even for you . . .

 

[Mungo]

No. Only the LORD is God. When the text uses lowercase lord, why do you pivot to God WHILE claiming Biblical Mary?

Friend, shalom.

This may come as a surprise to you but the Bible was not written in English.
Lord or LORD is a translators choice. Some use one, some another in particular cases.

But in Luke 1 translations seem to be consistent in using Lord for kurios.
Luke says (vs 3-4) it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed.
Luke is being very careful to make sure what he writes is truth.

Vs 9 "according to the custom of the priesthood, it fell to him by lot to enter the temple of the Lord [kurios] and burn incense"
Clearly Lord here is God.
vs 68 “Blessed be the Lord [kurios] God of Israel, for he has visited and redeemed his people"
Again Lord is God.
Taking the text vs 9-56 (when Mary returned home) there are 12 examples of Lord (kurios). 11 of them (i.e. leaving aside vs 43) are very clearly Lord meaning God. Two of those are Elizabeth herself (vs 25 and 45).
Why would:
1. ELizabeth, filled with the Holy Spirit (vs 42), proclaim Lord (kurios) meaning some other Lord?
2. Why would Luke, being very careful to tell an orderly and true narrative mislead us by using kurios for another Lord?

Elizabeth, inspired by the Holy Spirit. recognised that the child in Mary's womb was God.
Mary, the mother of that child, is the mother of God and Elizabeth proclaimed it,

 

[Wrangler]

This may come as a surprise to you but the Bible was not written in English.
Lord or LORD is a translators choice. Some use one, some another in particular cases.

Again, when you have to go to a foreign language, you've lost the argument. There are many lord's in the Bible. None of their mother's is the mother of God. It's true in any language.

 

[BreadOfLife]

It's like you know...writing a manual saying it is based on Scripture, when Scripture says nothing about Mary being sinless, nothing about God fertalizing Mary's seed, nothing about a bishop Peter, stuff like that...

a. Sinless Mary (Luke 1:28)
b. God impregnating Mary - Mary conceives Jesus in HER womb (Luke 1:31)
c. Shepherd (Bishop) Peter (John 21:15-19)

That was fun.
Anything else?

 

[Michiah-Imla]

a. Sinless Mary (Luke 1:28)

Yeah right!

This is heresy!

 

[Wrangler]

Yeah right!

This is heresy!

And the double whammy is this heretical statement is made under the auspices of 'Biblical Mary.'

If I wanted to talk about my doctrine, like I have in various threads, the thread title states my doctrine, then I look for Bible verses to support my doctrine. To pretend the thread is only on what the Bible says WHILE immediately superseding the Bible for theefaith's doctrine is beyond the pale.

Then when people predictably respond, claim to be the victim. Wow! So little humility, I'm sure it grieves the HS. And most of my family is trapped in that RCC organization. I pray for them.

 

[Brakelite]

If I wanted to talk about my doctrine, like I have in various threads, the thread title states my doctrine, then I look for Bible verses to support my doctrine.

Not the ideal way to find truth. One can devise anything in his head and find something in scripture claiming it supports your idea. That's what Catholics do. It's what BoL has done with Luke 1:28. If however you start without any preconceived ideas, and you read Luke 1:28, there is really no way you can come up with Mary being sinless.

 

[Enoch111]

Sooooo, every time somebody CLAIMS that there is corruption - it is carved in stone as a "fact"??

William Tyndale was not just somebody or anybody. He was an outstanding Catholic scholar and theologian who not only translated the Bible into English, but wrote extensively. But he saw the errors of the Catholic Church and exposed them. You might want to read these writings to see the truth.

• The Introduction to the New Testament [Pathway into Holy Scripture] (1525)
• The Parable of the Wicked Mammon (1528)
• The Obedience of a Christian Man (1528)
• The Practice of Prelates (1530)
• An Answer to Sir Thomas More's Dialogue (1531)
• Expositions of 1 John and Matthew V-VII (1531 and 1533)

 

[Taken]

I was simply pointing out the fact that:
a. Thousands of Protestant men have stated they have "Gods understanding" - yet they ALL believe different things.
b. If you are a Christian and NOT a Catholic or Orthodox - you ARE a Protestant. Otherwise, you are one of the quasi-Christian groups like JWs, Mormons or "Oneness" believers.

And in the depths of your ignorance, it may have escaped you that the title of the Pope is not "Pope". This word simply means "Papa"/Father" and is NOT an official title for the Bishop of Rome - but a simple term of endearment.

Do your homework and you won't be so confused . . .

Really?
So small everything has to fit in your box or it's ignorant.
Pfff!

 

[Mungo]

Again, when you have to go to a foreign language, you've lost the argument. There are many lord's in the Bible. None of their mother's is the mother of God. It's true in any language.

That's hilarious.
go to a foreign language!!!
The New Testament was written in Greek.
English is a translation.

AND, except for point 2, all mentions of kurios are in brackets. You could remove them and it makes no difference to the points I raised.
You have completely bottled it and failed to respond to the points I made.

Your LORD vs Lord is a complete red herring.
If you look at the various translations of Luke 1 that gave (vs 9 & vs 68) in Bible Gateway there not one that translates kurios as LORD.
I've looked all through Luke 1 in 4 commonly used translations - KJV, RSV, ESV, ASV and none of them use LORD

Your response is a complete fail.

 

[Taken]

Correct - ALL Catholics don't agree.
Those that don't agree with the teachings of the Church are called dissidents or outright Protestants.

Some would disagree and call them Wise.

Faithful Catholics

believe what is taught by Christ's 2000 year old Church.

Except that Christ's Church is Called:
The Holy Temple in the Lord...(Eph 2:19)
...not Catholic

Except that Christ's Church is built upon the foundation of :
Christ, the Chief corner stone, the Apostles and prophets....(Eph 2:20)
...not only a Catholics Peter.

Except that Members of Christ's Church are lifetime Members, fellowcitizens in the Household of God....(Eph 2:19)
...not kicked out, called names, like Catholics do.

Except that foundation, fellowcitizens, are bound Forever by the rock that:
Jesus IS the Christ the Son of the Living God
(Matt 16:16 / John 20:31)
....not Simon Peter or a succession of Roman Bishops.

Except that Scripture is expressly sufficient for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. (2 Tim 3:16)
...not Catholics quoting philosophies of other Catholics...and the "persecuters" badmouthing men who put their Trust in Scirpture.

* True that...your Catholic Church has a standing of it's own...apart from Christ Jesus.
* Wise some Catholic men do not fall for all the official Chruch's goopy standing positions.