It is not in the Bible ?

[Flsnookman]

Wow Hoddie, that is a whole new can of worms indeed. Again, my 2 cents. I believe in the original text the words used when the angel described mary meant she was "highly favored", a catholic will say this means sinless and one can make the argument for both sides. As to sola scriptura, since the bible itself uses sources from outside the bible we can conclude that other sources can be used however it is in deciding which of these should be used where we run into a lot of issues. I believe most catholics are saved and I also believe the catholic church is false and more interested in keeping power than anything else. I was raised catholic and have known and know many wonderful Jesus loving catholics. I have also had a priest try and tell me I was still a sinner when I am in fact the righteousness of God in Christ. Then again i've had quite a few baptists and pentacosts tell me the same thing so...I think when we focus on what we believe other believers are doing wrong instead of focusing on our own walk with God we are being lead astray. I guess that was closer to a quarter then two cents lol, sorry. Oh since someone might be interested where the bible quotes unbiblical sources here are a few...

• The reference to "He shall be called a Nazarene" cannot be found in the Old Testament, yet it was "spoken by the prophets" (Matthew 2:23). This prophecy, which is considered to be "God's word", was passed down orally rather than through Scripture.
• In Matthew 23:2-3, Jesus teaches that the scribes and Pharisees have a legitimate, binding authority based "on Moses' seat", but this phrase or idea cannot be found anywhere in the Old Testament. It is found in the (originally oral) Mishnah, which teaches a sort of "teaching succession" from Moses.
• In 1 Corinthians 10:4, Paul the Apostle refers to a rock that "followed" the Jews through the Sinai wilderness. The Old Testament says nothing about such miraculous movement. But, this critic writes, rabbinic tradition does.
• "As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses" (2 Timothy 3:8). These two men cannot be found in the related Old Testament passage (cf. Exodus 7:8ff.) or anywhere else in the Old Testament.
• In 1 Peter 3:19, the Apostle Peter describes Jesus' descent into Hell, drawing directly from a Jewish apocalyptic book, the Book of Enoch, which is not part of the Biblical canon in Catholic or Protestant churches.
• In the Epistle of Jude 9, a dispute is mentioned between the Archangel Michael and Satan over Moses' body, which is not mentioned elsewhere in the Bible, and is drawn from oral Jewish tradition.
• In the Epistle of James 5:17, when recounting the prayers of Elijah described in 1 Kings 17, a lack of rain for three years is mentioned, which is absent from the passage in 1 Kings

Edited August 12, 2016 by Flsnookman

[wincam]

On ‎05‎/‎08‎/‎2016 at 2:22 PM, shiloh357 said:

It is idolatry.   But it doesn't stop with Mary.   The call the Pope the "vicar" of Christ.  The word "vicar" from the Latin for vicarious which means, "substitute."   The Pope is viewed as Jesus substitute on earth, basically God on earth. Even in popery, there is the element of idolatry.

so how about bowing down and praying to two pieces of dead wood and mouldy old dough - wincam

[Guest shiloh357]

21 minutes ago, wincam said:

so how about bowing down and praying to two pieces of dead wood and mouldy old dough - wincam

I have no idea what you're talking about,  LOL

 

[ayin jade]

4 hours ago, wincam said:

so how about bowing down and praying to two pieces of dead wood and mouldy old dough - wincam

I have yet to see any protestant bowing down and praying to a cross or praying to any food item. There is no "dear wooden cross, tell God my needs" or "I pray to you oh piece of bread, tell the Father in heaven to forgive me".

[enoob57]

3 hours ago, Davida said:

Lol! oh good .... I was afraid I was the only one.

whew what a relief now there's three  

[Hoddie]

On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 8:10 AM, Flsnookman said:

Wow Hoddie, that is a whole new can of worms indeed. Again, my 2 cents. I believe in the original text the words used when the angel described mary meant she was "highly favored", a catholic will say this means sinless and one can make the argument for both sides.

•  

Hello Flsnookman, and thanks for your participation. You say that you beleive in the original text of words describing the Annunciation in Lk.1:28. "Full of Grace vs. Highly Favored one. If I may ask, what do you consider the 'original texts' to be, Greek, Arameic Pheshitta, ect.? As I stated to Davida in my earlier posts, (you being a former Catholic know, or should) that the teachings of the Catholic Church on the phrase "full of grace" is a translation of the Greek kecharitomene. This word actually represents the proper name of the person being addressed by the angel, and it must on that account express a characteristic quality of Mary. The traditional translation, "full of grace," I beleive is more accurate than the one found in many recent versions of the Protestant N.T. which beleive along the lines of "highly favored."

If you were to dig deep into early Church history, you'd see that prior to the 1500's, all bibles translated the Kecharitomene as "full of grace", this includes the Wyclif Bible, the Tyndale, Tyndale Coverdale all translated as full of grace. The Arameic Pheshitta translated as full of grace in Luke 1:28. The Arameic Pheshitta depending upon whos data one excepts is from about 1-2 hundred a.d. to up to 500 a.d., so it is within a couple hundered years on either side of Jeromes Latin Vulgate and both translate as full of grace. Also, If you were to look at an orginal 1611 KJV you will find that they translated has highly favored, but in their margin notes they wrote could be rendered as "much graced."

It is also my belief that some of the newer Protestant translations leave out something the Greek conveys, something the older English versions convey, which is that this grace (and the core of the word kecharitomene is charis, after all) is at once permanent and of a singular kind. The Greek indicates a perfection of grace. A perfection must be perfect not only intensively, but extensively. The grace Mary enjoyed must not only have been as "full" or strong or complete as possible at any given time, but it must have extended over the whole of her life, from conception.

　

Peace

 

1

[Hoddie]

On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 8:18 AM, Davida said:

Luke 1:28 KJV "28And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women." 

The mother of Jesus was blessed & highly favored simply because the Messiah & Saviour Jesus would be born from her womb. How full of grace could you get?  Interestingly , Mary was a young chaste Jewish woman. There is an obvious over focus & embellishment on Mary by the Catholic Church but we never hear her lifted up as a Jewess? ...just something to notice.

I respectfully disagree Davida, Scripture plainly demonstrates the beginnings of devotion to the mother of our Lord: "My soul magnifies the Lord, / and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, / for he has regarded the low estate of his handmaiden. / For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed" (Luke 1:46–48) — by all appearances an early liturgical prayer or hymn, which we today call the Magnificat. There is nothing in Scripture to demonstrate that we shouldn't honor our Lord’s mother, for Jesus Himself loved her and honored her. The tradition of honor (not worship, that is given to God, and to God only) given to Mary dates to the earliest centuries of the Church, found among the earliest Church Fathers and ecclesiastical writers. There is nothing in the Church’s doctrines regarding Jesus and Mary that isn’t well attested to in the writings of Tradition. Some of the fathers of the Reformation/Protestantism like Martin Luther, Calvin,ect. even gave honor/veneration to The Blessed Virgin Mary. In closing Davida, I'd like to ask you something, do you beleive Jesus loved and honored His Mother?

　

Peace

[enoob57]

7 hours ago, Hoddie said:

I respectfully disagree Davida, Scripture plainly demonstrates the beginnings of devotion to the mother of our Lord: "My soul magnifies the Lord, / and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, / for he has regarded the low estate of his handmaiden. / For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed" (Luke 1:46–48) — by all appearances an early liturgical prayer or hymn, which we today call the Magnificat. There is nothing in Scripture to demonstrate that we shouldn't honor our Lord’s mother, for Jesus Himself loved her and honored her. The tradition of honor (not worship, that is given to God, and to God only) given to Mary dates to the earliest centuries of the Church, found among the earliest Church Fathers and ecclesiastical writers. There is nothing in the Church’s doctrines regarding Jesus and Mary that isn’t well attested to in the writings of Tradition. Some of the fathers of the Reformation/Protestantism like Martin Luther, Calvin,ect. even gave honor/veneration to The Blessed Virgin Mary. In closing Davida, I'd like to ask you something, do you beleive Jesus loved and honored His Mother?

　

Peace

She was a sinner like as we all or God is a liar which do you prefer?

Rom 3:23
23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Rom 3:10
10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
KJV
as you can't have it both ways either the children of Adam
are as God's Word says or ... you are calling God a liar!
Love, Steven

[Ezra]

3 minutes ago, Hoddie said:

In closing Davida, I'd like to ask you something, do you beleive Jesus loved and honored His Mother?

While this is addressed to Davida, I will respond by saying "Absolutely". 

But then the next question should be "Did Christ and His apostles teach anything about the veneration, elevation, and exaltation of Mary?" and the answer is a resounding "No".

If Mary were to return to earth today, she would be the first to condemn Mariolatry (which began centuries after the apostolic period) and became "the cult of Mary".

Here is how Mary regarded herself, and how the apostles regarded her (Acts 1:14): These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.

She was simply another disciple. along with the apostles, the other disciples, the brothers of Jesus, and the women who were disciples. None of the epistles has a single word about "Mary" as such.

[Hoddie]

On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 8:18 AM, Davida said:

The Catholic bible exaggerates, embellishes & creates it's own teachings inspite of what the Word of God actually says.

Again Davida, I must respectfully disagree. The teaching of the Catholic Church does not exaggerates, embellishes, contradicts nor creates Scripture. Perhaps it contradicts Protestant/ personal interpretation of Scripture, but such interpretations have little grounding in history or tradition. The fact is, even speaking practically, the Church Fathers, as the earliest recipients of Scripture and Tradition and of all Christian teaching, know how to interpret Scripture and Tradition in light of each other better than anyone else. Catholic teaching, coming both from Scripture and from the Tradition received from the Church Fathers, is in agreement with these Church Fathers: both what they believed, and how they interpreted Scripture. If these ancient interpretations contradicts,exaggerates or embellishes Protestant/personal interpretation of Scripture, then Protestants have a much greater problem than Catholics do.

　

Peace