The 'blessed virgin Mary'

[robert derrick]

"From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent are taking it by force."

On earth yes, but not in heaven...

Those looking to enter the gates of the New Jerusalem to embrace their Mother's womb, will be directed to other gates.

"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Matthew 16)

"Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot." (1 Peter 1)

My simple question is this to the Catholic Mother Mary believers is this:

Are you washed in the blood of the Lamb.

 

[robert derrick]

My simple question is this to the Catholic Mother Mary believers:

Are you washed in the blood of the Lamb.

 

[Illuminator]

The 'Roman sect' implies some form of legitimacy in Christ. Cult is far more accurate.

At the beginning of this thread I was all to willing to confess traditional Catholics as brothers and sisters in the Lord, with just some mystical 'Mary' mother stuff to dispute. But having witnessed their deep dive into non-Scripture and adherence to ungodly traditions of false 'fathers', every bit as much as the corrupt 'fathers' of the Jews who slew Jesus, I no longer afford them that much credibility.

The tradition-bound Catholic following 'church' of today is every bit as much cultish as the rabbinical-bound synagogue following Jews of Jesus' day.

And I guarantee you, If Jesus were once again to come as a man with miracles of God, rebuking their false oral traditions added to Scriptural authority, they would have Him killed likewise.

That is a fact. Even as they did His members in the days where they had such governmental authority to do so. They have not changed their zealous anti-christ adherence to their own traditions from that of yesteryear. They just don't (at this time) have the gvt clout to exercise it.

The Catholic papacy and ecumenical eucharistic body of today is a dormant beast, just waiting to be unleashed upon all the Scripture and Jesus only followers of the Lamb, that call their traditional pseudo-scholastic garbage what it is: pseudo-scholastic garbage.

Sola Scriptura is Sola Jesus. No mystical Mary and certainly no pompously marxist pope.

This is trolling and a violation of the rules. One insulting rant after another. I like the ignore feature. Here is a tissue....you're frothing at the mouth.

This thread should be closed.

 

[Osiris]

The Trinity can be proven from Scripture, indeed (material sufficiency), but Scripture Alone as a principle was not formally sufficient to prevent the Arian crisis from occurring. In other words, the decisive factor in these controversies was the appeal to apostolic succession and Tradition, which showed that the Church had always
been trinitarian. The Arians could not appeal to any such tradition because their christology was a heretical innovation of the 4th century.

The Arians thus appealed to Scripture Alone. And that is the point Catholics make about this. The Arian formal principle was deficient, so that they could appeal to the Bible Alone and come up with Arianism (just like Jehovah's Witnesses do today). If they had held also to an authoritative Sacred Tradition, this could not have happened because the "tradition of Arianism" was
non-existent.

We claim that apostolic Tradition is necessary along with Sacred Scripture. This was the patristic principle, and how they invariably fought the heretics. The biblical arguments provided the "meat" of their arguments, but in the end they would appeal to the Tradition of "what had always been believed everywhere by everyone" (St. Vincent of Lerin's dictum -- the Commonitorium where this comes from is also the most explicit exposition of development of doctrine in the Fathers, and Newman's starting-point).

Edwin Tait, an Anglican, wrote (in substantial agreement with the Catholic view):

Of course the Fathers thought that they could prove their view from Scripture. They also thought that the historic communion of bishops in succession from the Apostles, gathered in Councils (with Rome playing some role, which I don't want to debate here), could be counted on to interpret Scripture correctly. The whole sola scriptura debate only became possible when a sizeable number of influential Christians began proclaiming that the bishops gathered in Council, in communion with Rome, had seriously erred in interpreting Scripture over a period of several centuries. Of course both sides can appeal to the Fathers, because the Fathers never thought of Scriptural sufficiency and the authority of the Church/Tradition as being at odds.​

Read more: https://www.catholicfidelity.com/apologetics-topics/sola-scriptura/material-vs-formal-sufficiency-of-scripture-by-mark-shea/

Development of Doctrine: A Corruption of Biblical Teaching? | Dave Armstrong (patheos.com)

The trinity can’t be proven. Not when you out the whole Bible first. It just doesn’t work out unless you begin to coerce and dilute the scriptures to fit a mold that is not present. I believe what scholars would call nonsensical insertions

 

[Illuminator]

In the ancient eastern church, there were (broadly) 2 schools of biblical studies: the Antiochene and the Alexandrian. Antiochene scholars emphasized the literal, historical method whereas Alexandrians were more prone to allegorization. Origen was an Alexandrian.

But Arius, Sabellius, Nestorious, and Apollonarius were of the Antiochene school and this method eventually gave rise to the Bogomil and Paulician heretics.

Theodore of Mopsuestia was another scion of this school who was never condemned in life but whose works were later censured after his death at the Councils of Ephesus and Constantinople. Orthodox members of the Antiochene school included St. John Chrysostom.

Protestants in the 16th Century would look back to the Antiochene school as their intellectual forbears. That is one reason why St. John Chrysostom has always been unpopular with them.

But a careful study of Church History shows that the desire to be crassly literal lay at the root of all the heresies of the Patristic period. The willingness to be flexible and to interpret difficult passages allegorically has been the usual manner of orthodoxy.

By doing so, paradoxes and outright contradictions are avoided. It also allows one to move beyond the literal meaning of the text to discern larger patterns of similarity between various portions of the Bible.

Scott Hahn has championed this understanding and has pointed out in some of his recent talks on a biblical worldview that the NT writers used allegorical methods in interpreting the OT.

The Deformers and their descendants have stated that this method cannot be used 'safely' in the Church because the Holy Spirit alone can do this safely and he no longer works within the Church as he did among the Apostles. This is one consequence of denying the existence and charism of the Magisterium.

Bottom line: People who want to interpret the Bible for themselves always prefer the Antiochene literal to the Alexandrian allegorical. They think that they can be guided by sound methodology which will lead to logical results. They denounce the Alexandrian method as a flight of fancy that may lead to wild conclusions.

The reality is that without allegorization, people get carried away by their method into atomized conclusions that cannot be harmonized with other parts of the Bible and Tradition.

Virtually every major heresy has been the result of being too rigid and methodical in interpreting the Bible while not being willing to interpret the Bible in the light of the Holy Spirit. IMHO, this is the opposition of Spirit and letter, which St. Paul warned against:

2Cor 3:5 Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God, 6who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of letter but of spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

This error is a form of Pelagianism where human effort is pitted against the superintendence of the Holy Spirit.

What's great about the Catholic Church is that she accepts both of the methods of Antioch and Alexandria. She sees them as two gifts.

I do agree that heretics do try to limit mystery. When I talk to some (not all) Protestants, they tend to rationalize everything. When I look at Protestant doctrine, I do not see development, but reductionism.

They tried to reduce "faith" without the sacraments, revelation to Scripture alone, righteousness into a mere declaration without the person's status itself. I hope I do not offend anyone here, and I'm not trying to, but whenever I read Protestant theology, it seems like it is a reductionist Christianity.

When they do not understand how the Cross and the Mass can be the same sacrifice, they reject it. If they do not understand how Mary can be the Mother of God without producing divinity, they reject it.

If they do not understand how a person can partake the sufferings of God so that he can offer his sufferings for another, they reject it. If they cannot understand why a mere man is chosen to feed His sheep, they reject it.

My question is, as it is the same to Ockhamists or reductionist philosophers, why take the reductionist position rather than the mystery? Is it because if we take the mystery, we will have to acknowledge our limitations? The issue is really humility isn't it?

The Antiochene "method" was absracted from their whole system. What was advocated by the radicals was a truncated version of it that was reduced it to a mechanical method instead of a tool to aid faith. Many were seduced by the Antiochene "method" because it appealed to their rationalism. I think this is why the Deformers and their descendants have fallen into that trap.

There were problems with the extremists using the Alexandrian "method" as well, but they were always perceived as flighty and Gnostic and so they had less atraction to educated people. Their heresies degenerated into folk practices.

Carried to an extreme, the Antiochene "method" leads to a greater dependence on human nature than is wise. I think it assumes a kind of Pelagianism. The Alexandrian approach recognized that "there are more things in Heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in {OUR} philosophy." Humility is the only way to approach the text. Having absolute assurance in our Greek grammar and our concordances is just another form of works righteousness.
by Art Sippo, MD

 

[robert derrick]

The trinity can’t be proven. Not when you out the whole Bible first. It just doesn’t work out unless you begin to coerce and dilute the scriptures to fit a mold that is not present. I believe what scholars would call nonsensical insertions

'Osiris'. Isn't that some Egyptian god or something?

Either Jesus was God in the flesh, and He was either with God everlasting, or He was God the Father in the flesh.

If He was not God in the flesh at all, then he was the next pagan hero after Herakles to be deified with immortality with his own seat among the Olympians.

But then, this is about the Mother of all Gods 'Mary'. Which might include Osiris.

(You know I am funning with you, right?)

 

[robert derrick]

"This thread should be closed."

Then do so. The last resort of the flummoxed.

"Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech." (2 Cor 3)

These people are as childishly pathetic about real adult argument as they are about Scriptural dispute. Once their stylish pseudo-intellectual arguments are trashed by certain and simple Scripture, they runaway like a Monty Python 'knight' seeking the Holy Grail.

Wah, wah, wah, blah, blah ,blah, but they just keep coming back for more. Which is of course the very nature of ideological cultism. They just can't let it go...

Simple question: As a Catholic follower of oral tradition of the fathers, are you washed in the blood of the Lamb?

 

[robert derrick]

"Pelagianism"

One thing is for sure. I do learn a whole bunch of new educated words from illuminated Mary-babes.

Simple question: are the most-Catholic adherents to the traditions of the most-Catholic fathers washed in the blood of the Lamb?

 

[Illuminator]

“He became man by the Virgin, in order that the disobedience which proceeded from the serpent might receive its destruction in the same manner in which it derived its origin. For Eve, who was a virgin and undefiled, having conceived the word of the serpent, brought forth disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy, when the angel Gabriel announced the good tidings to her that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her, and the power of the Highest would overshadow her: wherefore also the Holy Thing begotten of her is the Son of God; and she replied, ‘Be it unto me according to thy word.’ And by her has He been born, to whom we have proved so many Scriptures refer, and by whom God destroys both the serpent and those angels and men who are like him; but works deliverance from death to those who repent of their wickedness and believe upon Him.”
Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 100 (A.D. 155).

 

[robert derrick]

He became man by the virgin... leave out the 'V'irgin part and everything's good. Mary was as faithful and blessed as Rahab the Harlot and the mother of Samson, all of whom were as essential to the endurance of the the faith on earth. Not to mention Sarah and Ruth.

It's still a simple questions: is the Catholic follower of the traditions of the Catholic fathers washed in the blood of the Lamb?

No one is going to dispute nor question a simple yes or no confession of faith...

 

[Osiris]

'Osiris'. Isn't that some Egyptian god or something?

Either Jesus was God in the flesh, and He was either with God everlasting, or He was God the Father in the flesh.

If He was not God in the flesh at all, then he was the next pagan hero after Herakles to be deified with immortality with his own seat among the Olympians.

But then, this is about the Mother of all Gods 'Mary'. Which might include Osiris.

(You know I am funning with you, right?)

Quite straightforward he was the word in the flesh. That being the word of the most high god in the flesh. I was responding to a quote about the topic.

 

[BreadOfLife]

"Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee." (Matthew 12)

And this is another fundamental reversal of dispute.

It is obviously understood from Scripture that Jesus had brothers, because the Scripture plainly says so.

It is therefore up those who object to plainly written Scripture to prove by Scripture that what is plainly written isn't really so.

But since we now know that such Catholic followers don't care what Scripture says in the first place, because they go by not-scriptural tradition anyway, that it is a waste of time to bother with them at all.

Scripture speaks of Jesus' mother and brothers. Simple. Their no-scriptural tradition says otherwise. We go by Scripture, they go by their own traditions.

It is foolish and fruitless to argue Scripture with such Catholic followers as much as it would be with an unbelieving Jews and Islamists.

It really is that simple. The only so-called 'complication' in all this is that Catholics persist in giving lip-service to Jesus, whereas unbelieving Jews and Islamists do not even bother.

"I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth." (Rev 3)

The Lord Himself has more respect to unbelieving Jews and Islamists than He does for Catholic posers, as do I.

Nonsense.

As to your first false claim above in RED - it is absolutely NOTHING that is "obvious" from Scripture about Jesus having uterine siblings.
I'll go even further than that - there is no extrabiblical tradition that speaks of ANY uterine siblings of Jesus. Pretty STRANGE for something that YOU claim is "obvious".
Time for a Bible Lesson . . .

The ONE thing that IS clear is that the word "Adelphos(oi)" is used in the NT for brother of same parents, half-brother (same father), cousin, uncle, relative, kinship, same tribe, a fellow countryman, etc. YOUR attempt to apply ONE meaning for this word because of your limitations to 21st century English is ludicrous.

There are 344 instances are instances where the word “Adelphos” and all of its variations are used in the NT.
- 41 times (12%) are cases where "Adelphos" clearly or probably refers to a family sibling.
- 47 instances (14%) are cases where "Adelphos" may or may not refer to a family sibling.
- 256 instances (74%) are cases where "Adelphos" cannot or almost certainly does NOT refer to a family sibling.
Ergo - not only the laws of linguistics - but even the law of averages is against you.

As to your idiotic claim that Catholics "don't care" what Scripture says - this is even more ignorant than your FIRST ignorant statement.
As you are probably unaware - it was the Catholic Church that brought the Canon of the New Testament to the world.
Time for a History Lesson . . .

The Synod of Rome (382) is where the canon was first formally identified – ALL 73 (not 66) Books.
- 11 years after that, it was confirmed at the Synod of Hippo (393).
- 4 years later, at the Council (or Synod) of Carthage (397), it was yet again confirmed. The bishops wrote at the end of their document, "But let Church beyond sea (Rome) be consulted about confirming this canon". There were 44 bishops, including St. Augustine who signed the document.
- 7 years later, in 405, in a letter from Pope Innocent I to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse, he reiterated the canon.
- 14 years after that, at the 2nd Council (Synod) of Carthage (419) the canon was again formally confirmed.

The Canon of Scripture was officially closed at the Council of Trent in the 16th century because of the perversions happening within Protestantism and the random editing and deleting of books from the Canon.

I suggest you do some homework . . .

 

[robert derrick]

Nonsense.

As to your first false claim above in RED - it is absolutely NOTHING that is "obvious" from Scripture about Jesus having uterine siblings.
I'll go even further than that - there is no extrabiblical tradition that speaks of ANY uterine siblings of Jesus. Pretty STRANGE for something that YOU claim is "obvious".
Time for a Bible Lesson . . .

The ONE thing that IS clear is that the word "Adelphos(oi)" is used in the NT for brother of same parents, half-brother (same father), cousin, uncle, relative, kinship, same tribe, a fellow countryman, etc. YOUR attempt to apply ONE meaning for this word because of your limitations to 21st century English is ludicrous.

There are 344 instances are instances where the word “Adelphos” and all of its variations are used in the NT.
- 41 times (12%) are cases where "Adelphos" clearly or probably refers to a family sibling.
- 47 instances (14%) are cases where "Adelphos" may or may not refer to a family sibling.
- 256 instances (74%) are cases where "Adelphos" cannot or almost certainly does NOT refer to a family sibling.
Ergo - not only the laws of linguistics - but even the law of averages is against you.

As to your idiotic claim that Catholics "don't care" what Scripture says - this is even more ignorant than your FIRST ignorant statement.
As you are probably unaware - it was the Catholic Church that brought the Canon of the New Testament to the world.
Time for a History Lesson . . .

The Synod of Rome (382) is where the canon was first formally identified – ALL 73 (not 66) Books.
- 11 years after that, it was confirmed at the Synod of Hippo (393).
- 4 years later, at the Council (or Synod) of Carthage (397), it was yet again confirmed. The bishops wrote at the end of their document, "But let Church beyond sea (Rome) be consulted about confirming this canon". There were 44 bishops, including St. Augustine who signed the document.
- 7 years later, in 405, in a letter from Pope Innocent I to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse, he reiterated the canon.
- 14 years after that, at the 2nd Council (Synod) of Carthage (419) the canon was again formally confirmed.

The Canon of Scripture was officially closed at the Council of Trent in the 16th century because of the perversions happening within Protestantism and the random editing and deleting of books from the Canon.

I suggest you do some homework . . .

That's not my red. I don't do that. so I went to check, and of course it wasn't. Someone else did that. I wonder who. No doubt the same types that change Scripture to fit their own purposes.

 

[BreadOfLife]

That's not my red. I don't do that. so I went to check, and of course it wasn't. Someone else did that. I wonder who. No doubt the same types that change Scripture to fit their own purposes.

Ummmmmm, it's called, "highlighting".

I "highlighted" the comments that I was addressing - which YOU made.
Are you going to offer an intelligent response - or are you simply going to whine about my use of "highlighting" the text?

My guess ids that you have NO response, so you chose to deflect the argument in another direction . . .

 

[robert derrick]

If the great and learned 'fathers' had to go to traditions of man in order to disprove an heretical attack on Scripture, then they obviously were not the ones capable of keeping out the tares, because Scripture easily refutes Arian Unitarianism:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (John 1)

There is no logical 'reasoning' nor Greek 'translating' that can ever do away with the simple fact of John 1:

God the Word was with God and Was God from everlasting and in the beginning of creation to create all things. And That Word was made flesh and called the Son of the Highest and named Jesus Christ.

And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." (Phil 2) And there is One Lord (Eph 4). And know that the LORD he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath (Deut 4)

The Lord Jesus is God who came down from heaven above to be upon the earth beneath becoming Son of God and Savior.

Which is confirmed by John that the Son of God has come to give us an understanding to be in Him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life. (1 John 5)

Jesus was the true God upon the earth while the Father was the true God still in heaven above.

This is Jesus Christ: The way to the Father, the true One, and the eternal life.

See. Simple. No need at all for some big huge 'conference' full of stupid hermonetics, phonetics, or heumonetical homonoic reasonings of man, that takes more time to try and even understand what they are trying to say, than to just read the Scriptures for ourselves.

 

[kcnalp]

Jesus was Mary's Savior.

 

[robert derrick]

What really happened at that time of Arian was not the confirming of Scriptural Canon for the Old and New Testaments, which had already been completed toward the end of the 1st century, with the last of the apostles' writings. Rather a bunch of 'Bishops' and 'clerics' and so-called apostolic 'leaders' took the occasion of Arian's heresy to bring in their nonscripture traditions to 'supplement' the Scriptures of God in order to 'disprove' the heresy.

Once that act of heretical pseudo-defense of Scripture was accomplished, they then fully deemphasized Scripture of God by instituting 'Catholic Canons' of faith along side of and equal to the Bible at the 'Council of Carthage'. Further 'Catholic canons' would be introduced down the road to combat liberty of faith according to the Scriptures.

In summary, the Catholics of the Christian era are the same as the Jews of the Mosaic Law: they both received the Torah and the Bible as confirmed Scripture of God and then proceeded to add their own 'Rabbinical writings' and 'Canons of the Fathers' as equal in matters of faith of the Lord to that of Scripture itself. The making of the the Jews' religion and of the Catholics' religion are the same in error of Scripture and destructiveness to faith of God.

And of course in due time, these traditions of men, whether Jewish or Catholic came to rise higher than the Scriptures themselves, as 'proof' of true faith and service to God. They degenerated the love of God to the loyalty of man, and the pure religion of God to the instruments of man.

"...that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another." I Cor 4)

The Jews' rabbis and the Catholic fathers have become above Scripture in authority and power over the believers.

So much so, that when Jesus came He was declared blasphemous and put to death, even as when others came in defense of the faith of Jesus only according to Scripture only, they were declared anathema, some killed some not, such as Martin Luther.

The same spirit of antichrist is still present in Catholics today who hold to their traditional Canons over the faith of God by Scripture.

Case in point: If you do not consent and believe that the Blessed Virgin 'Mary' is the Mother of God Himself, and do not know Her as such, then neither do you know God Her Son. I.e. you are Anathema. And any defense of Scripture against such heresy is declared to be the flood of the Dragon trying to hurt 'Her'.

And while they have no more gvt power (at this time) to 'inquisite' you, the most they can do is accuse you and demand the thread be ended...

They are not just harmless little 'Mother Mary' loving babes and little children. They are indeed full blown Catholic Religion crusaders, without teeth (for now).

 

[BreadOfLife]

Jesus was Mary's Savior.

Yes, He was.
How does that negate her Immaculate Conception?

 

[BreadOfLife]

What really happened at that time of Arian was not the confirming of Scriptural Canon for the Old and New Testaments, which had already been completed toward the end of the 1st century, with the last of the apostles' writings. Rather a bunch of 'Bishops' and 'clerics' and so-called apostolic 'leaders' took the occasion of Arian's heresy to bring in their nonscripture traditions to 'supplement' the Scriptures of God in order to 'disprove' the heresy.

Once that act of heretical pseudo-defense of Scripture was accomplished, they then fully deemphasized Scripture of God by instituting 'Catholic Canons' of faith along side of and equal to the Bible at the 'Council of Carthage'. Further 'Catholic canons' would be introduced down the road to combat liberty of faith according to the Scriptures.

In summary, the Catholics of the Christian era are the same as the Jews of the Mosaic Law: they both received the Torah and the Bible as confirmed Scripture of God and then proceeded to add their own 'Rabbinical writings' and 'Canons of the Fathers' as equal in matters of faith of the Lord to that of Scripture itself. The making of the the Jews' religion and of the Catholics' religion are the same in error of Scripture and destructiveness to faith of God.

And of course in due time, these traditions of men, whether Jewish or Catholic came to rise higher than the Scriptures themselves, as 'proof' of true faith and service to God. They degenerated the love of God to the loyalty of man, and the pure religion of God to the instruments of man.

"...that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another." I Cor 4)

The Jews' rabbis and the Catholic fathers have become above Scripture in authority and power over the believers.

So much so, that when Jesus came He was declared blasphemous and put to death, even as when others came in defense of the faith of Jesus only according to Scripture only, they were declared anathema, some killed some not, such as Martin Luther.

The same spirit of antichrist is still present in Catholics today who hold to their traditional Canons over the faith of God by Scripture.

Case in point: If you do not consent and believe that the Blessed Virgin 'Mary' is the Mother of God Himself, and do not know Her as such, then neither do you know God Her Son. I.e. you are Anathema. And any defense of Scripture against such heresy is declared to be the flood of the Dragon trying to hurt 'Her'.

And while they have no more gvt power (at this time) to 'inquisite' you, the most they can do is accuse you and demand the thread be ended...

They are not just harmless little 'Mother Mary' loving babes and little children. They are indeed full blown Catholic Religion crusaders, without teeth (for now).

Spoken like yet another person who is bereft of any historical knowledge.

There were MANY individual "Canons" floating around for the first 300 years of the Church's existence which contained MANY Books that did NOT make the final cut.

Some of these included the Epistles of Barnabas, The Shepherd of Hermas, The Protoevangelium, the Letter of clement, etc.
These Books were considered to be "Scripture" on MULTIPLE private canons prior to the OFFICIAL Canon declared by the Catholic Church in 383. They were read aloud from pulpits for 300 years AS Scripture.

It was only due to the God-given Authority of the Catholic Church that the Canon was officially declared and confirmed multiple times.
This is the SAME NT Canon that is used by Protestants today - so your idiotic comment above in RED is absolute nonsense.

 

[kcnalp]

Yes, He was.
How does that negate her Immaculate Conception?

Only sinners need a Savior.