Did Christ instruct His Apostles to pray to His earthly mother?

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
newbirth said:
many catholics do not own or read the bible...they follow the tradition of the "church"...some even say "I was born a catholic" or "I was baptised as a baby" man made doctrine they follow...
they follow the pope...and pray to idols....so instead of worrying about Chick....worry if you are following God and not man
It is quite obvious you have been schooled in hostility to the Catholic Church, and more obvious you haven't a clue what you are talking about. The "pray to idols" charge is so stupid and has been refuted so many times, I find it difficult to believe you have never seen it. So I am not going to bother. You prefer the darkness of ignorance and shy from illuminating knowledge. That's why you reject all instruction. It's called blind prejudice. The Pope tells us to follow Jesus but you think it's wrong for Catholics to follow the Pope. Ridiculous. The Pope's official teachings are a matter of public record, which you are afraid of. That's why you can't quote any of them, except twisted out-of-context snippets from anti-Catholic bigots. So what has the Pope said that you think Catholics should not follow? That abortion is evil? That millions of starving people is a grave injustice? I could go on. As far as I am concerned, it takes a sick mind to dismiss the Pope on moral and social issues, regardless of their religion. You don't know what the Pope says, and don't care, and have no clue about Who Catholics really follow.

I recommend you digest, slowly, the scriptures I gave about The Ark of the New Covenant. The parallels are undeniable, but you deny them, because of your blindness. Mary is blessed among woman, it's scripture you cannot understand, and that is why you falsely accuse Catholics of Mary worship. It's insulting. Its a convenient bat to beat Catholics with, it can fit on a bumper sticker and no thinking or research is required. I challenge you to look up the words dulia, hyperdulia, and latria and maybe, just maybe, you will begin to understand just how stupid and sadistic the false "Mary worship" charge really is. I'll spell it out for you so you don't misunderstand me: CATHOLICS DO NOT WORSHIP MARY.

We don't follow the opinions of Martin Luther with his sola scriptura heresy, so you are hardly one to talk about "worry if you are following God and not man".

If you knew your bible, you would know that we are to HEAR the Word of God, it says nothing about READING the Word of God, and practicing Catholics are exposed to more public reading of scripture in a day than Protestants are in a month.

There is a vast difference between an ethnic Catholic and a practicing Catholic, you simply refuse to make the distinction, and compare the worst Catholics with the best Protestants. That's dishonest. I don't think there is anything "Christian" about beating Catholics with your invented misrepresentations. May God have mercy on your soul.
 

Born_Again

Well-Known Member
Nov 5, 2014
1,324
159
63
US
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
kepha31 said:
It is quite obvious you have been schooled in hostility to the Catholic Church, and more obvious you haven't a clue what you are talking about. The "pray to idols" charge is so stupid and has been refuted so many times, I find it difficult to believe you have never seen it. So I am not going to bother. You prefer the darkness of ignorance and shy from illuminating knowledge. That's why you reject all instruction. It's called blind prejudice. The Pope tells us to follow Jesus but you think it's wrong for Catholics to follow the Pope. Ridiculous. The Pope's official teachings are a matter of public record, which you are afraid of. That's why you can't quote any of them, except twisted out-of-context snippets from anti-Catholic bigots. So what has the Pope said that you think Catholics should not follow? That abortion is evil? That millions of starving people is a grave injustice? I could go on. As far as I am concerned, it takes a sick mind to dismiss the Pope on moral and social issues, regardless of their religion. You don't know what the Pope says, and don't care, and have no clue about Who Catholics really follow.

I recommend you digest, slowly, the scriptures I gave about The Ark of the New Covenant. The parallels are undeniable, but you deny them, because of your blindness. Mary is blessed among woman, it's scripture you cannot understand, and that is why you falsely accuse Catholics of Mary worship. It's insulting. Its a convenient bat to beat Catholics with, it can fit on a bumper sticker and no thinking or research is required. I challenge you to look up the words dulia, hyperdulia, and latria and maybe, just maybe, you will begin to understand just how stupid and sadistic the false "Mary worship" charge really is. I'll spell it out for you so you don't misunderstand me: CATHOLICS DO NOT WORSHIP MARY.

We don't follow the opinions of Martin Luther with his sola scriptura heresy, so you are hardly one to talk about "worry if you are following God and not man".

If you knew your bible, you would know that we are to HEAR the Word of God, it says nothing about READING the Word of God, and practicing Catholics are exposed to more public reading of scripture in a day than Protestants are in a month.

There is a vast difference between an ethnic Catholic and a practicing Catholic, you simply refuse to make the distinction, and compare the worst Catholics with the best Protestants. That's dishonest. I don't think there is anything "Christian" about beating Catholics with your invented misrepresentations. May God have mercy on your soul.
As I have stated before, your attack was far more hostile... Anyway. To give you the benefit of the doubt, I have been researching the parallels you posted. I am still undecided. When you mention "hear the word of God" are you referring to Luke 11:28? Let me know and I'll get back to you on that one. I still don't see how a man, chosen by man, is an authority beyond scripture. I will not deny the humanitarian side of the Pope. I do think he is a godly man with a good heart. Help me understand something though. I don't think Catholics worship Mary, however, what's with the rosary thing? Explain that one and I'll get back to you as well. I want to make sure I have all the facts straight before I dive in. Here is your opportunity to educate me so I don't go "blindly" into this, as you would put it.

BA
 

newbirth

New Member
May 23, 2015
352
5
0
kepha31 said:
It is quite obvious you have been schooled in hostility to the Catholic Church, and more obvious you haven't a clue what you are talking about. The "pray to idols" charge is so stupid and has been refuted so many times, I find it difficult to believe you have never seen it. So I am not going to bother. You prefer the darkness of ignorance and shy from illuminating knowledge. That's why you reject all instruction. It's called blind prejudice. The Pope tells us to follow Jesus but you think it's wrong for Catholics to follow the Pope. Ridiculous. The Pope's official teachings are a matter of public record, which you are afraid of. That's why you can't quote any of them, except twisted out-of-context snippets from anti-Catholic bigots. So what has the Pope said that you think Catholics should not follow? That abortion is evil? That millions of starving people is a grave injustice? I could go on. As far as I am concerned, it takes a sick mind to dismiss the Pope on moral and social issues, regardless of their religion. You don't know what the Pope says, and don't care, and have no clue about Who Catholics really follow.

I recommend you digest, slowly, the scriptures I gave about The Ark of the New Covenant. The parallels are undeniable, but you deny them, because of your blindness. Mary is blessed among woman, it's scripture you cannot understand, and that is why you falsely accuse Catholics of Mary worship. It's insulting. Its a convenient bat to beat Catholics with, it can fit on a bumper sticker and no thinking or research is required. I challenge you to look up the words dulia, hyperdulia, and latria and maybe, just maybe, you will begin to understand just how stupid and sadistic the false "Mary worship" charge really is. I'll spell it out for you so you don't misunderstand me: CATHOLICS DO NOT WORSHIP MARY.

We don't follow the opinions of Martin Luther with his sola scriptura heresy, so you are hardly one to talk about "worry if you are following God and not man".

If you knew your bible, you would know that we are to HEAR the Word of God, it says nothing about READING the Word of God, and practicing Catholics are exposed to more public reading of scripture in a day than Protestants are in a month.

There is a vast difference between an ethnic Catholic and a practicing Catholic, you simply refuse to make the distinction, and compare the worst Catholics with the best Protestants. That's dishonest. I don't think there is anything "Christian" about beating Catholics with your invented misrepresentations. May God have mercy on your soul.
you are joking right???
Revelation 1:3
Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

where does the scripture tell you to follow the pope???
are there not idols in your churches???
Was it not the RCC murdering people in the name of Christ???
this is not a contest bro ..the RCC is the mother of harlots and most of the protestants are the harlots...
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
newbirth said:
you are joking right???
Revelation 1:3
Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

where does the scripture tell you to follow the pope???
Scripture speaks heavily of the Primacy of Peter, the leader of the Apostles, which you deny. Scripture also speaks heavily about Apostolic Succession, which you deny,
so there are there not idols in your churches???
No. Proper religious use of statuary is thoroughly biblical, which you deny. There was also images in the Temple, which you are unable to see because they contradict your falsehood.

Exodus 25:18-22; 26:1,31 - God commands the making of the image of a golden cherubim. This heavenly image, of course, is not worshiped by the Israelites. Instead, the image disposes their minds to the supernatural and draws them to God.

Num. 21:8-9 - God also commands the making of the bronze serpent. The image of the bronze serpent is not an idol to be worshiped, but an article that lifts the mind to the supernatural.

I Kings 6:23-36; 7:27-39; 8:6-67 - Solomon's temple contains statues of cherubim and images of cherubim, oxen and lions. God did not condemn these images that were used in worship.

You don't like these verses so you ignore them.

2 Kings 18:4 - it was only when the people began to worship the statue did they incur God's wrath, and the king destroyed it. The command prohibiting the use of graven images deals exclusively with the false worship of those images.

Catholics do not worship statues, it's blind prejudice and ignorance that says they are idols, mixed in with a little Calvinistic iconoclasm. It is the dumbest anti-Catholic canard going.
Was it not the RCC murdering people in the name of Christ???
Exaggerations and false histories have been debunked by modern scholarship. You are talking about Protestant propaganda, not facts. The Inquisition was necessary to stop the state from executing vast numbers of people in the name of religion, because treason and heresy was the same crime. Fair trials were set up. In the Protestant Inquisition, there were no trials. The Crusades were defensive wars, a form of the ISIS had over run the Holy Land. You may have been told the occupying peace loving Muslims were killed by blood thirsty Catholics. To fall for that requires stupidity or brain damage, I'm not sure which.

If the RCC murdered as many as you have been told or read about, provide scholarly documentation to support your claim. Psychotic ramblings of anti-Catholic bigots is not primary or secondary source documentation, it's persecution. There is big money in anti-Catholicism. Hate sells, and that is your source of information.

in the this is not a contest bro ..the RCC is the mother of harlots and most of the protestants are the harlots.


According to who? Dave Hunt? Jack Chick? Or your private deified opinion?
If the RCC and most Protestants are harlots, then what are you? Your own pope in a church of one?
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Born_Again said:
As I have stated before, your attack was far more hostile... Anyway. To give you the benefit of the doubt, I have been researching the parallels you posted. I am still undecided.
It's only a beginning.
When you mention "hear the word of God" are you referring to Luke 11:28? Let me know and I'll get back to you on that one.
There are several verses but that one is exceptionally good.
I still don't see how a man, chosen by man, is an authority beyond scripture.
A man is elected by bishops with a special ecclesiastical office who pray to the Holy Spirit that the one He wants gets elected. Nobody is an authority beyond scripture. The Church is a servant of the Scriptures.
I will not deny the humanitarian side of the Pope. I do think he is a godly man with a good heart. Help me understand something though. I don't think Catholics worship Mary, however, what's with the rosary thing?
It's an instrument of prayer. One can use fingers. We meditate on the main parts of the bible while reciting. It is a powerful prayer but not mandatory. Some Protestants pray the rosary.



Recommended resources:
http://www.phatmass.com/catholic-apologetics/

http://socrates58.blogspot.ca/2009/06/catalogue-index-catholic-apologetics.html
 

newbirth

New Member
May 23, 2015
352
5
0
kepha31 said:
Billboard2_300x117.jpg
does that banner make you righteous??Go and check the RCC history ...you guys killed more people that one can imagine..Have a look
 

newbirth

New Member
May 23, 2015
352
5
0
kepha31 said:
According to who? Dave Hunt? Jack Chick? Or your private deified opinion?
If the RCC and most Protestants are harlots, then what are you? Your own pope in a church of one?
1 Corinthians 11King James Version (KJV)
11 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.
2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
 

newbirth

New Member
May 23, 2015
352
5
0
The Barrd said:
If Protestants agreed with Catholicism, we'd be Catholics, wouldn't we?

However, the animosity between us is not necessary...
it would be for those who are carnal.....I am opposed to false doctrine....not to persons


2 Corinthians 10:3-5King James Version (KJV)
3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh:
4 (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;)
5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
newbirth said:
does that banner make you righteous??Go and check the RCC history ...you guys killed more people that one can imagine..Have a look
That does not detract from the fact of Christian persecution in Syria and Iraq. The banner is not intended to make me righteous, it's intended to show the similarities between protty cult anti-Catholic bigotry and the metaphorical "beheadings" that occur in forums in the here and now, not events centuries old. The banner is simple, I'm sorry you cannot understand it. If you are going to blame "us guys" for alleged atrocities of the past, (most is post Enlightenment revisionism) then you should take responsibility for the sins of your spiritual forefathers. It ain't pretty either. IMO, Catholic bashing, normally based on blind prejudice, bigotry and ignorance, is not far from a type of The Christian ISIS.

Unfortunately, the religious "scandal score" needs to be evened up now and then, and the lesser-known "skeletons in the closet" need to be rescued from obscurity, surveyed, and exposed. I take no pleasure in "dredging up" these unsavory occurrences, but it is necessary for honest, fair historical appraisal. This does not mean that I have forsaken ecumenism, or that I wish to bash Protestants, or that I deny corresponding Catholic shortcomings.

Historical facts are what they are, and most Protestants (and Catholics) are unaware of the following historical events and beliefs (while, on the other hand, one always hears about the embarrassing and scandalous Catholic stuff -- and not often very accurately or fairly at that). If (as I suspect might often be the case) readers are shocked or surprised by the very title of this paper, this would be a case in point, and justification enough for my purposes of education. With that end and stated outlook in mind, I offer this copiously-researched treatise, with all due respect to my Protestant brethren, yet not without some remaining trepidation.
All the citations in this link are from Protestant or secular historians, so you can't say it's biased. Your link shows a mixture of truths, half-truths, and lies with anti-Catholics citing other anti-Catholics giving a phony air of scholarship. If you know anything about history, most of the atrocities listed on your link, if not all, were done by the state, not the Church.
There is a link under the heading "The Burning of Witches" that takes you to a page written by Inkubus Sukkubus. (names of sex demons) It promotes paganism and witchcraft so your link should be approached with skepticism.
Since you are your own infallible authority with a private set of doctrines, you don't claim any spiritual forefathers and conveniently escape any antiquated wrongdoing.
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
The Barrd said:
If Protestants agreed with Catholicism, we'd be Catholics, wouldn't we?

However, the animosity between us is not necessary...
Yes Barrd, but we are all catholic in what truths are universally accepted, it's more than what most people think.
 

Barrd

His Humble Servant
Jul 27, 2015
2,992
54
0
73
...following a Jewish carpenter...
kepha31 said:
That does not detract from the fact of Christian persecution in Syria and Iraq. The banner is not intended to make me righteous, it's intended to show the similarities between protty cult anti-Catholic bigotry and the metaphorical "beheadings" that occur in forums in the here and now, not events centuries old. The banner is simple, I'm sorry you cannot understand it. If you are going to blame "us guys" for alleged atrocities of the past, (most is post Enlightenment revisionism) then you should take responsibility for the sins of your spiritual forefathers. It ain't pretty either. IMO, Catholic bashing, normally based on blind prejudice, bigotry and ignorance, is not far from a type of The Christian ISIS.

Unfortunately, the religious "scandal score" needs to be evened up now and then, and the lesser-known "skeletons in the closet" need to be rescued from obscurity, surveyed, and exposed. I take no pleasure in "dredging up" these unsavory occurrences, but it is necessary for honest, fair historical appraisal. This does not mean that I have forsaken ecumenism, or that I wish to bash Protestants, or that I deny corresponding Catholic shortcomings.

Historical facts are what they are, and most Protestants (and Catholics) are unaware of the following historical events and beliefs (while, on the other hand, one always hears about the embarrassing and scandalous Catholic stuff -- and not often very accurately or fairly at that). If (as I suspect might often be the case) readers are shocked or surprised by the very title of this paper, this would be a case in point, and justification enough for my purposes of education. With that end and stated outlook in mind, I offer this copiously-researched treatise, with all due respect to my Protestant brethren, yet not without some remaining trepidation.
All the citations in this link are from Protestant or secular historians, so you can't say it's biased. Your link shows a mixture of truths, half-truths, and lies with anti-Catholics citing other anti-Catholics giving a phony air of scholarship. If you know anything about history, most of the atrocities listed on your link, if not all, were done by the state, not the Church.
There is a link under the heading "The Burning of Witches" that takes you to a page written by Inkubus Sukkubus. (names of sex demons) It promotes paganism and witchcraft so your link should be approached with skepticism.
Since you are your own infallible authority with a private set of doctrines, you don't claim any spiritual forefathers and conveniently escape any antiquated wrongdoing.
"protty cult"?

Kepha, should I take offense at that?

Tell, me, Kepha....I am one who does not believe that Peter was a pope, or in what you call "apostolic succession".
Under the Inquisition, would I be considered a heretic, to be tortured or perhaps burned at the stake?
 

Barrd

His Humble Servant
Jul 27, 2015
2,992
54
0
73
...following a Jewish carpenter...
kepha31 said:
Yes Barrd, but we are all catholic in what truths are universally accepted, it's more than what most people think.
In one sense, you are right.
However, we do not accept everything the RCC teaches.
I do not accept, for instance, the authority of any pope.
And I do not accept the notion that a pastor or priest, or preacher, or whatever one wishes to call them must remain single....or even be male.
I do not pray to any but the Lord, although I concede that there may be some rationale in your thinking that those other "saints" might be able to convey your prayers to God. I just don't see any point with messing around with underlings, when God went to some length to open the way to His throne directly.
I do not see Peter ever wearing that ridiculous get up that the pope sports, or wearing that ring, or letting anyone else kneel to him and kiss his hands, or living in such opulence while others go without basic necessities.
I understand your rationale behind your statuary, I just don't agree with it, especially such things as statues that weep or statues that bleed.
I do not believe that Mary remained a virgin throughout her life, rather, she and her husband enjoyed a normal married relationship and had other children.
I do not believe that Mary has ever appeared to anyone, or that she has done any miracles. If she could do miracles, why did she need Jesus to provide wine for the wedding at Cana?
These are some of the reasons I could not be a Catholic.

And I do not believe the Inquisitions were "necessary", although I do agree that the Crusade against the Muslims who overran the Holy Land was.
Given the things I said above, I'm fairly sure that, if the Inquisitions were happening today, I'd be in a world of trouble.
Would you have turned me in, Kepha?
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
The Barrd said:
"protty cult"?

Kepha, should I take offense at that?

Tell, me, Kepha....I am one who does not believe that Peter was a pope, or in what you call "apostolic succession".
That is not a qualifier for "protty cult".
Under the Inquisition, would I be considered a heretic, to be tortured or perhaps burned at the stake?
Most of the Inquisition you have heard or read about is myth. I trust the analysis of a professor of history who specializes in the medieval era, not public opinion that has been hammered with revisionism and protty cult propaganda.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/211193/real-inquisition-thomas-f-madden


The Barrd said:
In one sense, you are right.
However, we do not accept everything the RCC teaches.
I do not accept, for instance, the authority of any pope.
And I do not accept the notion that a pastor or priest, or preacher, or whatever one wishes to call them must remain single....or even be male.
I do not pray to any but the Lord, although I concede that there may be some rationale in your thinking that those other "saints" might be able to convey your prayers to God. I just don't see any point with messing around with underlings, when God went to some length to open the way to His throne directly.
I do not see Peter ever wearing that ridiculous get up that the pope sports, or wearing that ring, or letting anyone else kneel to him and kiss his hands, or living in such opulence while others go without basic necessities.
I understand your rationale behind your statuary, I just don't agree with it, especially such things as statues that weep or statues that bleed.
I do not believe that Mary remained a virgin throughout her life, rather, she and her husband enjoyed a normal married relationship and had other children.
I do not believe that Mary has ever appeared to anyone, or that she has done any miracles. If she could do miracles, why did she need Jesus to provide wine for the wedding at Cana?
These are some of the reasons I could not be a Catholic.

And I do not believe the Inquisitions were "necessary", although I do agree that the Crusade against the Muslims who overran the Holy Land was.
Given the things I said above, I'm fairly sure that, if the Inquisitions were happening today, I'd be in a world of trouble.
Would you have turned me in, Kepha?
No, I would protect you. You disagree with what you see on the surface, it's not disagreement I have a problem with; I am not going to rebut your list here. But you don't promote lies, and I don't see any anti-Catholic bigotry in your posts. For what it's worth, you are one of my favorites. :wub:
 

newbirth

New Member
May 23, 2015
352
5
0
kepha31 said:
I've been away a while.

I have two questions concerning the OP.

1) Where in the Bible does it explicitly state that all Christian doctrines and practices must be found in the Bible to be trustworthy?
2) If no such verse exists, then are you following a man made tradition?

Catholics ask Mary to pray for us because it has been part of Christianity since the beginning of the Church. Heaven and earth do not hold separate families. That is an anti-biblical notion invented by certain post-reformist cults. We are ONE family in Christ, (Eph. 3:14-15) and if Mary cannot pray for us then, logically, nobody can pray for anybody. That is not Christianity.

Here is a trivia question: Who was the first Bible-Christian to invent the term "dead saint"? If you can find such a verse with that term in it, I would like to check it out.

Marian doctrines are not a good starting point for non-Catholics in understanding Catholicism. It is not even the first thing taught to new converts coming into the Church. There must be some baseline or foundation in which to start. First there must be an understanding of the historic apostolic community, the primacy of Peter, apostolic succession, sacraments, and then Mary is easier to understand.
Next are the obstacles. The main one is the problem of interpretation. Then there are the problems of Christological errors. To reject the Marian doctrines of the historic Church is to fall susceptible to heresy. (Nestorianism, [SIZE=13.3333330154419px]Sabellianism, Pelagianism, etc.)[/SIZE]
The basis of all the Marian Doctrines goes back to the Old Testament where we learn about the nature of the sacred.
If you believe that nothing on this earth can be sacred (except Jesus) then you may have Gnostic threads running through your belief system.
scripture is the basis of all doctrine....if it is not in scripture ...it is not given by inspiration of God...therefore not profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:


2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

1 Corinthians 11:2
Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.



catholics asking Mary to pray for them is not in scripture...the living pray to God for the living
I have no idea about " Who was the first Bible-Christian to invent the term "dead saint"? but I do know we are called to be saints...we do not have to wait for the pope to make us saints...


Romans 1:7
To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.


1 Corinthians 1:2
Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their's and our's:

There is nothing in scripture about Marian doctrine...that is total rubbush
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
newbirth said:
scripture is the basis of all doctrine....if it is not in scripture ...it is not given by inspiration of God...therefore not profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:


2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

"Profitable" does not mean exclusive, which is how you read it. 2 Tim 3:16 does not say all doctrine must be explicitly found in scripture. Scripture is a primary source, but not the only source.


2 Tim 3:
[14] But as for you, continue in what you have learned
(TRADITION) and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it (MAGISTERIUM)
[15] and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings
(SCRIPTURE) which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
[16] All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
[17] that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

Sola scripturists ignore verse 14 and 15 because it demolishes their position.

The Bible on St. Paul's list comes in third, not first. He actually gives here the traditional Catholic teaching on the three sources of sound teaching.


In verse 16 he goes into an excursus on the Bible. This brief excursus emphasizes the value of the Bible and recommends a fourfold method of exegesis. This verse was used as a proof text for the Quadriga which was the standard Catholic approach to the Bible, long before the so called reformation, and it is still used today. The Quadriga method used the following four categories:

Literal/Literary (teaching) - the text as it is written
Analogical (reproof) - matters of faith
Anagogical (correction) - matters of hope/prophecy
Moral (training in righteousness) - matters of charity

The so called reformers rejected all this and instead adopted a more literal approach to biblical exegesis, and Martin Luther was rejected by his contemporaries for ignoring
2 Timothy 3:16.

Far from distinguishing tradition from the gospel, as evangelicals often contend, the Bible equates tradition with the gospel and other terms such as "word of God," "doctrine," "holy commandment," "faith," and "things believed among us." All are "delivered" and "received":

1) Traditions "delivered" (1 Cor 11:2), "taught by word or epistle" (2 Thes 2:15), and "received" (2 Thes 3:6).

2) The Gospel "preached" and "received" (1 Cor 15:1-2, Gal 1:9,12, 1 Thes 2:9).

3) Word of God "heard" and "received" (Acts 8:14, 1 Thes 2:13).

4) Doctrine "delivered" (Rom 6:17; cf. Acts 2:42).

5) Holy Commandment "delivered" (2 Pet 2:21; cf. Mt 15:3-9, Mk 7:8-13).

6) The Faith "delivered" (Jude 3).

7) "Things believed among us" "delivered" (Lk 1:1-2).

Clearly, all these concepts are synonymous in Scripture, and all are predominantly oral. In St. Paul's writing alone we find four of these expressions used interchangeably. And in just the two Thessalonian epistles, "gospel," "word of God," and "tradition" are regarded as referring to the same thing. Thus, we must unavoidably conclude that "tradition" is not a dirty word in the Bible. Or, if one insists on maintaining that it is, then "gospel" and "word of God" are also bad words! Scripture allows no other conclusion - the exegetical evidence is simply too plain.


Thus, the Bible cannot be separated and isolated from tradition and a developmental process. Christianity does not take the view of Islam, whose written Revelation, the Q'uran, simply came down from heaven from Allah to Mohammad, without involving human participation in the least. Some extreme, fundamentalist forms of "Sola Scriptura" have a very similar outlook, but these fail the test of Scripture itself, like all the other manifestations of the "Bible Alone" mentality. As we have seen, Scripture does not nullify or anathematize Christian Tradition, which is larger and more all-encompassing than itself - quite the contrary.

In Catholicism, Scripture and Tradition are intrinsically interwoven. They have been described as "twin fonts of the one divine well-spring" (i.e., Revelation), and cannot be separated, any more than can two wings of a bird. A theology which attempts to sunder this organic bond is ultimately logically self-defeating, unbiblical, and divorced from the actual course of early Christian history.

I could write a book about 2 Tim. 3:16 and how severely it is abused, and demolish sola scriptura in the process.







1 Corinthians 11:2
Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
There is no such thing as a written ordinance.

dikaióma: an ordinance, a sentence of acquittal or condemnation, a righteous deed
Original Word: δικαίωμα, ατος, τό
Part of Speech: Noun, Neuter
Transliteration: dikaióma
Phonetic Spelling: (dik-ah'-yo-mah)
Short Definition: a thing pronounced to be just
Definition: a thing pronounced (by God) to be righteous (just, the right); or the restoration of a criminal, a fresh chance given him; a righteous deed, an instance of perfect righteousness.

It's kinda dumb for Paul to hand deliver scripture when he always prefers oral preaching. How do you write down a righteous deed?

catholics asking Mary to pray for them is not in scripture...the living pray to God for the living
God is a God of the living. He invites us to pray for each other, living on earth or living in heaven. You unbiblically divide the Body of Christ.

I have no idea about " Who was the first Bible-Christian to invent the term "dead saint"? but I do know we are called to be saints...we do not have to wait for the pope to make us saints.
..You are evading the question. "Dead saint" is not in the bible, it is invented by prot cults that have only been around for a few decades, more or less. I see it all the time. The saints in heaven are more alive than you and I; its prot cults that deny life after death, especially when it comes to trying to explain intercession of the saints. It's like trying to explain the Trinity to a JW or a Muslim. The Pope doesn't make anyone a saint, he declares sainthood based on the sanctity of a persons life, they are already saints, which proves your ignorance. Yet you feel qualified to criticize Catholicism based on what you learn from a voyeuristic view obscurred by stained glass.

Romans 1:7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Rome...imagine that.
1 Corinthians 1:2
Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their's and our's:

How does this exclude the church in heaven?
There is nothing in scripture about Marian doctrine...that is total rubbush
Total rubbish is believing Jesus came to earth by space aliens, since you can't find Mary in scripture.
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
The rationale for devotion to Mary, and devotion means honoring her and seeking her intercession, is simple and forceful. Mary's primary role in the divine scheme of salvation revealed in Scripture is to lead all her children to her Son.

The Genesis 3:15 prophecy of the Woman and her seed in battle with the Devil reaches its climax in Revelation 12 where the Woman's seed now includes not just the Son but also all His followers.

The author of Revelation had already laid the groundwork for this startling image with John 19 in which the "beloved disciple" (symbolizing all believers) is given the Woman as his Mother by her Son. In Marian devotion and in Marian appearances throughout history and throughout the world we see this Scriptural portrait come to life with the Mother of all believers leading them to salvation in her Son.

She is not the Savior and she is not the source of salvation but she leads us to the Savior and to salvation. This is the mission assigned to her by God that we see in Scripture. The fundamental theme of Marian devotion is of going "to Jesus through Mary".

The choice we face is not: "Do I surrender to God directly or do I go through Mary to God?" Rather, the choice we face is this: "Do I surrender to God through the instrumentality He has set up, i.e., through Mary, or do I surrender to God through the instrumentality I set up, i.e., without going through Mary?

The choice is: "Do I go to God on His terms or on mine?" The choice is not: "Do I want to follow Jesus or Mary?" but "Do I want to follow Jesus (by going to Him through Mary)?"

It is a hard fact of history that devotion to Mary has been a fundamental part of the historic Faith for 20 centuries. The Sub Tuum prayer dating back to the 2nd and 3rd centuries establishes this to be the case along with numerous other pieces of evidence.

Any criticism of Marian devotion must overcome this "hard fact". Also Marian devotion has always been directly related to the centrality of Christ and has been the surest protector of sound Christology.

Marian devotion stems from the surest sources: the witness of Scripture; the inerrant interpretation of Scripture handed down by Councils, Creeds and the Fathers; the universal and ancient practice among Christians of venerating Mary and seeking her intercession in line with scriptural teaching; the Marian experience of the faithful; and the appearances of Mary throughout history in the most diverse cultures that have resulted in mass conversions and the renewal of Christian life.

It may be argued that Christians were in error on this matter from the beginning but in response we will have to ask who has the authority or competence to make such an arbitrary interpretation.

Should we trust the interpretations of Augustine or Jimmy Swaggart, the teachings of the Council of Ephesus or the pronouncements of Dave Hunt? Should we be guided by the prayer and worship practices of Christians in the first three centuries who were the closest to the New Testament Church or the prayer-and-worship routines of 25,000+ denominations?

The "world" of Marian devotion is one which has been familiar to almost all Christians, including the holiest and the wisest, for the last 20 centuries. The Fundamentalists and Evangelicals have not entered this world. Neither have Mormons or Buddhists.

Before they criticize or reject a part of Christian experience that has been accepted as basic and normal by most Christians, 20th century Christians should consider understanding or even better entering it.
Three aspects of Marian devotion are vital here.

(i) The basic objective of Marian devotion is growth in sanctification on our path to salvation. From Mary came Jesus Who brought salvation to the world. Through Mary came the first of Jesus' miracles wrought at her request and bringing faith to the disciples.

Now Mary comes to us from Jesus Who gives her to us as our Mother. Her children, we are told by Scripture, are those who "keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ." Her God-given mission is to help us in keeping the "commandments", in battling the world, the flesh and the devil.

Those who believe, like Luther, that the Christian can "be a sinner, and sin boldly" and "even commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day" may decide that we do not need assistance in resisting the world, the flesh and the Devil since our salvation is "assured" regardless of our future choices and actions.
But this is a perilous decision. It ignores the dire warnings of Paul and James and Our Lord's own admonition: "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." (Matthew 7:21).

We have seen that Hebrews 10:26 warns us, "For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation which shall devour the adversaries."

If we take these warnings seriously we will gladly accept the assistance of the maternal love that has been experienced by millions of Christians.

(ii) Secondly, Marian devotion can only be comprehended in relation to the Christian belief in the "communion of saints", an article of faith preserved even in the Apostles' Creed.

According to the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, "For many centuries believers have affirmed in the Apostles' Creed their faith in ‘the communion of saints.’ ... This affirmation of belief has been interpreted in various ways.

The traditional, and probably the best interpretation refers the phrase to the union of all believers, living or dead, in Christ, stressing their common life in Christ and their sharing of all the blessings of God."1
The communion of saints is clearly a scriptural teaching that is emphasized in the New Testament references to the cloud of unseen witnesses and the mystical Body of Christ ("Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?"). Among Protestants, Methodists have shown a lively awareness of the close relation between the communion of saints and a scriptural faith.

According to John De Satge: "The solidarity of which Christians find themselves members is therefore one into whose ongoing life they are caught up so as to be penetrated by it, and ultimately transformed. It is a solidarity which stretches back at least as far as the call of Abraham. ... It is a solidarity ... which implies resurrection of its members, to whom death has become incidental to their ultimate destiny."

Once we have understood the historic affirmation of the communion of saints, an affirmation that has dropped out of the Fundamentalist and Evangelical theological systems, we are in a better position to understand the role of Mary.

(iii) Finally we must ask ourselves how we would respond if we were given the opportunity to spend a day with Mary. Would we ask her questions about Jesus and the Holy Spirit? Would we ask her how we can grow closer to God and learn to obey Him better?

Would we seek her guidance in fighting the Dragon? Even suspicious Fundamentalists would find it hard not to ask these questions to the Mother of their Savior - the one so favored by God the Father as the Angel Gabriel tells us - if given the opportunity.

Marian devotion springs from the realization through Scripture and universal experience that the Mother of Jesus will be with us every day of our lives guiding us to her Son and away from her adversary. Her Son has given her to us as our Mother (John 19, Revelation 12). Dare we refuse His gift?

She is the mother God has given us. If we say we do not need a mother, then we are presuming to question the wisdom of God's provision for our needs.

The awareness of Mary's intercessory and maternal presence was a secure part of Christian experience from the beginning. Several exegetes have been quoted on this (McHugh, Breck, Miguens).

The clearest line of separation between Fundamentalism and historic Christianity, when it comes to devotion to Mary, is the differing perspectives on the dictum "to Jesus through Mary."

Historic Christianity has never seen Mary in isolation from Jesus and has viewed Marian doctrine and devotion as the safest, surest and swiftest path to a true and lasting commitment to Christ. Fundamentalists claim that they "do not need Mary" to go to Jesus and that they prefer to go directly to Jesus.

This response is a misunderstanding of the traditional teaching. All Christians can and should pray directly to Jesus. But no one actually "goes" to Jesus "alone". We all carry with us some mediating group or individual when we go to Jesus.

Fundamentalists approach him with a Calvinist picture of a god who has predestined the majority of mankind to damnation or with a Dispensationalist picture of a god who operates through various covenants and dispensations established with Israel and the church.

Faith movement Charismatics have their own health-and-wealth conception of god. Nobody goes to Jesus "alone". We go with various pictures of God and salvation. If we go to Jesus through Mary we go with the right picture, the historic picture, the God-given picture.

When we talk about going "to Jesus through Mary" we are not suggesting that Mary's function is to "introduce" us to Jesus. We are talking about growing deeper in our life in Jesus with and through Mary's assistance.
With Mary as our model, teacher and guide we become the kind of Christian God wants us to be. With and through Mary we become more and more like Jesus. Thus "through Mary" does not mean that she functions as a door-opening "go-between".

In actuality, it means that she is acting as our Mother trying to make us more like her divine Son. We are simply doing what Jesus commanded in John 19 and what the book of Revelation teaches when it says that those who "keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ" are "her seed." (Revelation 12:17).

To go to Jesus through Mary is to have a maternal companion at your side given to you by Jesus to help you follow His commandments and stay faithful to Him. We may ask why we need this companion when Jesus can do this for us just as well. This is like asking why God has given us guardian angels when we could go directly to God for all our needs.

The question is: how does God want things to work? Does He want us to work with our guardian angels, does He want our angels to protect us? If the answer is yes, as Scripture tells us, our conceptions of what is or is not "appropriate" are irrelevant. Similarly if God ordains Mary to be our Mother and guide - as Scripture and the historic Faith affirm - then that is what is best for us.

In practice the Fundamentalist does not go to Jesus "alone". He is nurtured by his minister, his Bible teacher, his church and other such "support groups" in forming his understanding of Jesus and then "goes" to Jesus on the basis of the training and guidance he gets from these groups, often with the groups or individuals actually praying with him and guiding him.

To go to Jesus through Mary is simply to embrace another "support" or "fellowship" group in our journey - one whose role in this regard has been biblically mandated. True, we cannot see Mary. But we cannot see our guardian angels either - and we are perfectly justified in seeking their help.

To put it another way, a father who helps his son learn to pray, corrects his misconceptions about God, teaches him the Bible, and directs him in leading a Christian life is not "supplanting" Jesus or acting as an obstacle between his son and Jesus. He is helping his son establish a full and lasting commitment to his Savior.

Of course the son could try to "go" to Jesus alone - but how much easier and how much safer it is to have the guidance of someone who is an experienced Christian and who loves him with a father's tenderness. This is all that is involved in going to Jesus through Mary. "Do whatever he tells you" is her constant encouragement.
"To Jesus through Mary": according to the historic Faith this is the path to salvation ordained by the Trinity.

"To Jesus through Calvinism, Dispensationalism, the Faith Movement, etc.": this is the path to salvation taught by Fundamentalism.

The historic Faith is authoritative simply because it originates from the apostolic community. It is also more true to our experience. No one came to Jesus alone.

Apostles, missionaries, preachers, theologians, writers, parents, and the Church brought us to Jesus. God could have chosen to act directly but he did not. He chose to act through human beings. These human beings were pathways to Him not obstacles. So it is with Mary.

Now it may be said that Mary is just another human being and so it would be wrong to put our trust in her or to rely on her to come to Jesus. Here we must not forget that all the individuals and institutions that brought us and bring us to Jesus are human as well.

Both the Israelites and the early Christians honored the "holy ones" of their time and tried to be guided by them. When you became a follower of a "holy one" like an Old Testament Prophet or John the Baptist you focus not on him but on Whom they point to: GOD.

The "holy one" protects and guides his followers in their spiritual journey and provides them companionship sharing the benefits of his greater experience. We are fellow creatures on the same journey to God. Some of our fellows are more advanced than others and we may need their help in overcoming the hurdles we face in our spiritual life.

This is a simple fact of human experience, one which has been experienced also by Christians at all times.
When we take Mary for our companion and guide we are choosing a fellow creature but one who is the Mother of God, untainted by Original Sin, the Woman clothed with the Heavenly Sun, the Spouse of the Spirit through whom we receive the grace won by her Son.

She is a fitting leader of humanity because she is the only human person who did not give in to the greatest Adversary of God ("our tainted race's solitary boast" said the poet William Wordsworth). She is the Mother of Jesus and the one who has been instituted as our Mother by her Creator.

Devotion to Mary is almost instinctive for a Christian. The first generation of believers who reflected on the Christian revelation inevitably saw the link between Mother and Son, the New Eve and the New Adam. This is the origin of the "To Jesus through Mary" path.

To reject this great scriptural insight is really a kind of regress, a fall from grace.
The main obstacle to Marian devotion for some Fundamentalists is the fear that somehow their conscious prayer life will be "cluttered up" or confused. How can we integrate devotion to Mary with prayers to Jesus or to the Holy Spirit?

This apparent difficulty was not a problem to the greatest pray-ers of Christendom. For the great "prayer warriors" we call the saints, Marian devotion was a pathway to a rich and robust prayer life in which God was all-encompassing.

In praying to Mary we must come back again to the point that there is no "competition" between devotion to Jesus and to Mary. Once we realize that she is our Mother, a Mother who leads us to God, to the Holy Trinity, we realize that devotion is a matter of understanding relationships.

When we realize that God is infinite love, we see this love expressed as a human Mother in Mary. All human beings long for the love of a mother and God Who has implanted this yearning in us gives us a Mother in Mary.

We have a relationship with her on one level as mother and on another level we have a relationship with the Trinity, with God. She is the Mother who draws us closer to the God to Whom she is so intimately united.

Does a focus on Mary and the saints take us away from attention to God?

The answer to this question is a question: Does attention to our closest friends and family in this world take us away from God?

In both instances we see the love of God expressed through these other human persons. They enable us to appreciate His glory in newer and fuller ways. At the same time we should and can pray to Him without restraint.

If there is any confusion in prayer life and devotion we find it with the Fundamentalists. In real life they find it hard to focus on more than One of the Three Persons of the Trinity.

That is why some focus on the Father, others on the Son and a third group just on the Spirit. Marian devotion, on the other hand, will clarify the distinctions within the Trinity while leading us to a real relationship with each of the Three Persons.

The infinite love of God is central to our Christian experience. In embracing Mary as Mother we enter more fully into this great Love. She loves us like she loves Jesus and we should love her like Jesus loves her.
All that we have said here helps us know about Mary. But knowing about Mary is simply a stepping-stone to knowing Mary. And knowing Mary is immeasurably more important than knowing about Mary since she takes us right to Jesus.

Our fellow pilgrims can help us in knowing about Mary. But only we can know Mary. So it is time to take the plunge. The Consecration to Jesus Through Mary is the gateway to a personal relationship with Mary that deepens and consolidates our relationship with Jesus.
 

mjrhealth

Well-Known Member
Mar 15, 2009
11,810
4,090
113
Australia
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Most of the Inquisition you have heard or read about is myth. I trust the analysis of a professor of history who specializes in the medieval era, not public opinion that has been hammered with revisionism and protty cult propaganda.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/211193/real-inquisition-thomas-f-madden
I guess thats a bit like the guy who denies the holocost even with all the evidence before him. Yes you believe what you want to believe, you seek what you want to agree with you not the truth.
 

newbirth

New Member
May 23, 2015
352
5
0
kepha31 said:
scripture is the basis of all doctrine....if it is not in scripture ...it is not given by inspiration of God...therefore not profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:


2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

"Profitable" does not mean exclusive, which is how you read it. 2 Tim 3:16 does not say all doctrine must be explicitly found in scripture. Scripture is a primary source, but not the only source.


2 Tim 3:
[14] But as for you, continue in what you have learned
(TRADITION) and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it (MAGISTERIUM)
[15] and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings
(SCRIPTURE) which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
[16] All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
[17] that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

Sola scripturists ignore verse 14 and 15 because it demolishes their position.

The Bible on St. Paul's list comes in third, not first. He actually gives here the traditional Catholic teaching on the three sources of sound teaching.


In verse 16 he goes into an excursus on the Bible. This brief excursus emphasizes the value of the Bible and recommends a fourfold method of exegesis. This verse was used as a proof text for the Quadriga which was the standard Catholic approach to the Bible, long before the so called reformation, and it is still used today. The Quadriga method used the following four categories:

Literal/Literary (teaching) - the text as it is written
Analogical (reproof) - matters of faith
Anagogical (correction) - matters of hope/prophecy
Moral (training in righteousness) - matters of charity

The so called reformers rejected all this and instead adopted a more literal approach to biblical exegesis, and Martin Luther was rejected by his contemporaries for ignoring
2 Timothy 3:16.

Far from distinguishing tradition from the gospel, as evangelicals often contend, the Bible equates tradition with the gospel and other terms such as "word of God," "doctrine," "holy commandment," "faith," and "things believed among us." All are "delivered" and "received":

1) Traditions "delivered" (1 Cor 11:2), "taught by word or epistle" (2 Thes 2:15), and "received" (2 Thes 3:6).

2) The Gospel "preached" and "received" (1 Cor 15:1-2, Gal 1:9,12, 1 Thes 2:9).

3) Word of God "heard" and "received" (Acts 8:14, 1 Thes 2:13).

4) Doctrine "delivered" (Rom 6:17; cf. Acts 2:42).

5) Holy Commandment "delivered" (2 Pet 2:21; cf. Mt 15:3-9, Mk 7:8-13).

6) The Faith "delivered" (Jude 3).

7) "Things believed among us" "delivered" (Lk 1:1-2).

Clearly, all these concepts are synonymous in Scripture, and all are predominantly oral. In St. Paul's writing alone we find four of these expressions used interchangeably. And in just the two Thessalonian epistles, "gospel," "word of God," and "tradition" are regarded as referring to the same thing. Thus, we must unavoidably conclude that "tradition" is not a dirty word in the Bible. Or, if one insists on maintaining that it is, then "gospel" and "word of God" are also bad words! Scripture allows no other conclusion - the exegetical evidence is simply too plain.


Thus, the Bible cannot be separated and isolated from tradition and a developmental process. Christianity does not take the view of Islam, whose written Revelation, the Q'uran, simply came down from heaven from Allah to Mohammad, without involving human participation in the least. Some extreme, fundamentalist forms of "Sola Scriptura" have a very similar outlook, but these fail the test of Scripture itself, like all the other manifestations of the "Bible Alone" mentality. As we have seen, Scripture does not nullify or anathematize Christian Tradition, which is larger and more all-encompassing than itself - quite the contrary.

In Catholicism, Scripture and Tradition are intrinsically interwoven. They have been described as "twin fonts of the one divine well-spring" (i.e., Revelation), and cannot be separated, any more than can two wings of a bird. A theology which attempts to sunder this organic bond is ultimately logically self-defeating, unbiblical, and divorced from the actual course of early Christian history.

I could write a book about 2 Tim. 3:16 and how severely it is abused, and demolish sola scriptura in the process.







1 Corinthians 11:2
Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
There is no such thing as a written ordinance.

dikaióma: an ordinance, a sentence of acquittal or condemnation, a righteous deed
Original Word: δικαίωμα, ατος, τό
Part of Speech: Noun, Neuter
Transliteration: dikaióma
Phonetic Spelling: (dik-ah'-yo-mah)
Short Definition: a thing pronounced to be just
Definition: a thing pronounced (by God) to be righteous (just, the right); or the restoration of a criminal, a fresh chance given him; a righteous deed, an instance of perfect righteousness.

It's kinda dumb for Paul to hand deliver scripture when he always prefers oral preaching. How do you write down a righteous deed?

catholics asking Mary to pray for them is not in scripture...the living pray to God for the living
God is a God of the living. He invites us to pray for each other, living on earth or living in heaven. You unbiblically divide the Body of Christ.

I have no idea about " Who was the first Bible-Christian to invent the term "dead saint"? but I do know we are called to be saints...we do not have to wait for the pope to make us saints.
..You are evading the question. "Dead saint" is not in the bible, it is invented by prot cults that have only been around for a few decades, more or less. I see it all the time. The saints in heaven are more alive than you and I; its prot cults that deny life after death, especially when it comes to trying to explain intercession of the saints. It's like trying to explain the Trinity to a JW or a Muslim. The Pope doesn't make anyone a saint, he declares sainthood based on the sanctity of a persons life, they are already saints, which proves your ignorance. Yet you feel qualified to criticize Catholicism based on what you learn from a voyeuristic view obscurred by stained glass.

Romans 1:7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Rome...imagine that.
1 Corinthians 1:2
Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their's and our's:

How does this exclude the church in heaven?
There is nothing in scripture about Marian doctrine...that is total rubbush
Total rubbish is believing Jesus came to earth by space aliens, since you can't find Mary in scripture.


what other source do you have that is not scripture inspired by God that we can use for doctrine...and on whose authority???? 2 Tim3:14-15 says nothing of tradition or magisterium...vs15 is clear... he was acquainted with scripture from a child...and scripture is able to instruct him for salvation through Christ...

what do you mean..There is no such thing as a written ordinance.
Ezekiel 43:11
And if they be ashamed of all that they have done, shew them the form of the house, and the fashion thereof, and the goings out thereof, and the comings in thereof, and all the forms thereof, and all the ordinances thereof, and all the forms thereof, and all the laws thereof: and write it in their sight, that they may keep the whole form thereof, and all the ordinances thereof, and do them.



2 Chronicles 35:25
And Jeremiah lamented for Josiah: and all the singing men and the singing women spake of Josiah in their lamentations to this day, and made them an ordinance in Israel: and, behold, they are written in the lamentations.

Did not Paul write epistles to the churches???
Were the righteous deeds of Jesus not written down???
for what could you possibly pray, for one that is in heaven ??? tell us what you think they need????
The pope must be a very foolish man he has no authority to declare anyone a saint based on their sanctity of life... and what is the purpose of declaring one a saint if they already know they are a saint...

what of Rome ???it is not they alone who are called to be saints...

who said anything about excluded church???/