Is Maryology Idolatry?

[Guest Judas Machabeus]

9 hours ago, kwikphilly said:

Blessings Judas

I'm sorry.....where does it say that?                              You are interpreting Acts 15:13 what verse?

 

Can you clarify what part of what I said is causing the confusion. 

Edited April 8, 2017 by Judas Machabeus

[Guest shiloh357]

On 4/4/2017 at 3:10 PM, Judas Machabeus said:

But you are making statements about what certain verses mean. So how can you claim you are right and someone else is wrong when you can't be 100% positive that you are interpreting scripture correctly. 

As for sola scriptura, that's a man made tradition that goes against scripture. Paul teaches to hold to the traditions he taught written and ORAL. So your man made tradition actually contradicts scripture. 

 

It's kind of hypocritical to have man made traditions that say Mary never had sex or never had any children with Joseph (which violates Scripture)  or was assumed into heaven, but then criticize Sola Scriptura as a man made tradition.   Sola Scriptura doesn't violate Scripture at all.    But  for some reason, Catholics can have all kinds of traditions that go against the Bible (like the Mass and other heresies), but Sola Scriptura is disallowed because it is man made.

[Guest Judas Machabeus]

16 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

It's kind of hypocritical to have man made traditions that say Mary never had sex or never had any children with Joseph (which violates Scripture)  or was assumed into heaven, but then criticize Sola Scriptura as a man made tradition.   Sola Scriptura doesn't violate Scripture at all.    But  for some reason, Catholics can have all kinds of traditions that go against the Bible (like the Mass and other heresies), but Sola Scriptura is disallowed because it is man made.

Nothing hypocritical at all. I don't deny Sacred Tradition. I also don't adhere to a man made tradition that is created in order to deny Sacred Tradition. 

Shiloh do you deny that sola scriptura is a man made tradition?

 hypocrisy is using a man made tradition to deny Tradition. That is what Jesus speaks against in the bible. 

  

Edited April 8, 2017 by Judas Machabeus

[Guest shiloh357]

10 minutes ago, Judas Machabeus said:

Nothing hypocritical at all. I don't deny Sacred Tradition. I also don't adhere to a man made tradition that is created in order to deny Sacred Tradition. 

Shiloh do you deny that sola scriptura is a man made tradition?

 hypocrisy is using a man made tradition to deny Tradition. That is what Jesus speaks against in the bible. 

  

Sacred tradition is man made tradition.  Calling it sacred tradition doesn't preclude it coming from man.

Sola Scriptura is a doctrine, not a tradition.  It is demonstrated in Scripture the same way the Trinity is a doctrine, but is not explicitly named in Scripture.   If we were to follow the logic of the Roman cult, then by same means they deny Sola Scriptura, they have to deny the Trinity.

 

[Guest Judas Machabeus]

4 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

Sacred tradition is man made tradition.  Calling it sacred tradition doesn't preclude it coming from man.

Sola Scriptura is a doctrine, not a tradition.  It is demonstrated in Scripture the same way the Trinity is a doctrine, but is not explicitly named in Scripture.   If we were to follow the logic of the Roman cult, then by same means they deny Sola Scriptura, they have to deny the Trinity.

 

Calling a man made tradition that was created to deny Sacred Tradition doctrine. Doesn't make it doctrine. And you can not use scripture to prove your heresy. 

[Guest shiloh357]

Just now, Judas Machabeus said:

Calling a man made tradition that was created to deny Sacred Tradition doctrine. Doesn't make it doctrine. And you can not use scripture to prove your heresy. 

It isn't a man made tradition.   Sacred tradition is man made by reprobate Popes and priests.

Sola Scriptura is all over the Bible.  Mary's sinless cannot be demonstrated.  Her assumption into Heaven cannot be demonstrated, much less proven.  Her alleged perpetual virginity cannot be demonstrated.   But I can demonstrate Sola Scriptura from Scripture itself in the same way I can demonstrate the Trinity.

And by the way, you are misusing the word, "heresy."

The human writers of Scripture lived on different continents and at different time periods.  Most of them did not know each other personally.  

What we have in Scripture is seamless transmission of Scripture through time, through millennia and preserved through millennia.   And what we see in Scripture is an amazing unity between the writers.  We see both a progressive revealing of truth, but we also see an interlocking of doctrines.  The truth of Scripture is both layered and interlocking so that every doctrine intersects with other doctrines.   So there is an interdependence between all of the doctrinal truths in Scripture.   The Bible is continuously cross referencing itself.

Are there secular references to in the Scriptures?  Yes.   But those references are often either historical in nature or are simply used to make a didactic point.   No secular references are ever used to in the formulation of doctrine.

Just looking at the New Testament for the sake of brevity, what we see is Jesus always appealing to Scripture in His teachings.  He appeals to Scripture during his temptation, and during his confrontations with the Pharisees.  His favorite phrase appears to be "It is written."  And is always followed up with an appeal to Scripture to prove His doctrinal points.    The Apostle Paul always, appeals to Scripture on doctrinal matters.  Paul quotes the Old Testament and at least once, indirectly from the Gospel of Luke, hundreds of times in the New Testament.    The Gospel writers when confirming Jesus' fulfillment of prophecy always referenced the prophecies of the OT to make that case.   Paul instructs Timothy to study and rightly divide the Word of God and holds the Scriptures up as being not only wholly inspired, but profitable for instruction in righteousness.   Paul never holds anything else up to that level of authority.

When Paul debated the Jews in the synagogues.  He didn't appeal to the Talmud or any other outside text.   He consistently appealed to the Scriptures as His sole authority for His declaration of Jesus as the Messiah.  

The sole RCC argument about tradition appears to be centered on II Thessalonians 2:15.   I will repeat what I said earlier:

"Paul uses "tradition" in the sense of "teaching" here.

What the RCC does is, they commit the error of equivocation because they are using the same word but trying to give two different meanings to it.   They define tradition as the words of Jesus and the apostles, but they also define "tradition" to refer to the changing and evolving doctrines of the RCC over time.   The traditions of the RCC and the traditions that Paul is referring to here, are two completely different things.  They are trying to justify their made up doctrines like Mary being assumed into Heaven by forcing Paul's' use of "tradition" in II Thess. 2:15 to mean the same thing as the evolving "traditions" of the RCC.    And that is invalid, not to mention a very sloppy form of hermeneutics.

Paul is referring to the doctrines that he gave them the last he was there at that church in Acts 17: 1-4, 11.   He is not talking about extra oral traditions that are not included in the Bible.   Paul is writing in both I and II Thessalonians to re-enforce the doctrinal teachings he already transmitted to them, previously.   So what we have in both I and II Thessalonians are the teachings that they had received prior in oral form. 

That is a far cry from the RCC just pulling something out of thin air, like Mary never having sex (which is really unlikely) or that Mary was born sinless or that Mary was assumed into heaven like Elijah/Enoch, and none of which can they support when it comes to Mary.   It's all a pack of lies."

The other  writers of Scripture, in the NT,  John, Peter, James, Jude  the writers of Hebrews, all appeal to Scripture to make doctrinal points. 

Not one place do we find any writers of Scripture appealing to any other doctrinal authority outside of Scripture. We only ever find, the Bible appealing internally, to the revelation already provided as the sole authority for its teaching. 

Scripture is self-interpreting. We see hundreds and hundreds of OT references.  Not one appeal to tradition on which to base a doctrine is ever made, only Scripture.  So, while the Bible does not explicitly refer to Sola Scriptura, it practices Sola Scriptura.   Like the Trinity, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is  a doctrine that is discovered in Scripture even if it does call it that explicitly.

Sola Scriptura doesn't guarantee that we will be infallible in what we believe and it doesn't have to.   No one, on this side of the grave is infallible in what they say or teach.  But then, Sola Scriptura is not designed to ensure infallibility.   Sola Scriptura is simply the doctrine that states that the Bible is our sole authority for doctrine, that was inspired by the Holy Spirit, and that the Bible is the sole arbiter in all matters of faith and practice.  It is where we turn for the light that God has provided to us in those doctrines/teachings that form the basis for practical Christian living.

So, I can be wrong about speaking in tongues, or the rapture, or my views on the late or early dates of the Exodus, etc. I don't have to have everything pinned down perfectly, and God doesn't expect me to have every down 100%.  We can't possibly do that, anyway.   But that doesn't mean that the Bible is not my sole authority and instruction for Christian living to the extent that I am empowered by the Holy Spirit to live the Christian life and to the extent of the light in the Scriptures he as provided to guide my steps.

 

[kwikphilly]

Blessings Judas

Quote

9 hours ago, kwikphilly said: Blessings Judas I'm sorry.....where does it say that?                              You are interpreting Acts 15:13 what verse?

Can you clear what part of what I said is causing the confusion. 

Yes,you say "we see a "visible authoritive church"....you referred to this Scripture where I replied that the Holy Spirit Revealed Gods Truth through Philip,"hearinmg the Word of God" .....which again conforms Sola Scriptura, imo

Quote

29 And the Spirit said to Philip, "Go up and join this chariot."
30 So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, "Do you understand what you are reading?"
31 And he said, "How can I, unless some one guides me?" And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.

this is why Christ established a visible authoritative teaching Church. We also see this in scripture

You stated that no where does it say that a visible authorative Church stops  & I asked where do we see this "visible authoritive church" (which I'm sure you mean the rcc?)

And y ou referenced "Acts 15:13".......you only quoted verse 1 and then gave your interpretation

 

Quote

Acts 15:13

13 After they finished speaking, James replied, "Brethren, listen to me.

so we see a visible Church and see that Christians viewed the Church in Jerusalem as having final authority (because the Aposltes were there). 

we see them invoking the authority given to them back in Matt

So where does the Bible show this "visible authoritive church" as such?  I don't see Christians viewing the church in Jerusalem as having FINAL authority ......Anything that was Revealed to the Apostles by Power of Holy Spirit was taught to them by Jesus and Jesus always appealed to the Holy Scriptures

As Shiloh,others & myself have pointed out Sola Scripture is not only not a man made tradition,it is not a tradition at all.....it is a doctrine    I must say,the rcc has mawny many man made traditions & customs     

 Back to your question.I don't see any support for your interpretation of this visible,authoritive church with FINAL Authority except for the fact that  the rcc teaches this,it's taught n the rcc missile

                                                                                       God Bless,Kwik

[Guest Judas Machabeus]

7 hours ago, kwikphilly said:

Blessings Judas

Yes,you say "we see a "visible authoritive church"....you referred to this Scripture where I replied that the Holy Spirit Revealed Gods Truth through Philip,"hearinmg the Word of God" .....which again conforms Sola Scriptura, imo

You stated that no where does it say that a visible authorative Church stops  & I asked where do we see this "visible authoritive church" (which I'm sure you mean the rcc?)

And y ou referenced "Acts 15:13".......you only quoted verse 1 and then gave your interpretation

 

So where does the Bible show this "visible authoritive church" as such?  I don't see Christians viewing the church in Jerusalem as having FINAL authority ......Anything that was Revealed to the Apostles by Power of Holy Spirit was taught to them by Jesus and Jesus always appealed to the Holy Scriptures

As Shiloh,others & myself have pointed out Sola Scripture is not only not a man made tradition,it is not a tradition at all.....it is a doctrine    I must say,the rcc has mawny many man made traditions & customs     

 Back to your question.I don't see any support for your interpretation of this visible,authoritive church with FINAL Authority except for the fact that  the rcc teaches this,it's taught n the rcc missile

                                                                                       God Bless,Kwik

Thanks for your reply. My post that you quoted from was more than that one verse. It seems too often that one small part is taken and the rest is missed. So I'll try again. 

The verse you claim I'm using to show as authoritative is the verse that shows we need a teaching Church which is what that verse is all about. Not sola scriptura!! actually it shows why sola scriptura doesn't work.  The Eunck did NOT understand and needed a deacon (clergy of the Church) to explain it to him  

-----------------------------

So my next thought starts now

-----------------------------

Acts 15 is where we see a visible authoritative Church. There is a problem with Jews saying that gentiles converting must follow the laws of Moses and a debate arises. Paul being an aposlte could have shut the debate down right than and there but he didn't. He and Barnabas went to Jerusalem to consult with Peter and the other Apostles as to what to do.  Peter gets up first to talk and than James speaks. They write a letter to send with Paul as to what their  decision was. 

-----------------------------

Final thought

-----------------------------

If you go back and look at my post structure I make my statement than follow it up with the coresponding scripture. What you did was took the scripture that belonged to the thought above it and linked it to the thought below it. So I hope that my separation in this post keeps things a bit more clear. 

Cheers and God Bless

------------------------

edit addition

------------------------

kwick I went back and looked at the post that causes confusion. I'm a bit puzzled. The paragraph directly before the scripture quote about Philip (the one you thought I was using to show a visible Church) make reference to the Ethiopian so clearly the quote belongs to the state before the scripture quote. I did not say anything about that scripture being for a visible authoritative church. That came after the Philip quote, than followed by the scripture quote supporting that. 

------------------------

Quote from my original post

------------------------

Another charge against this is that the Church Fathers didn't always agree. This is true as well, and like the Ethiopian in the books of Acts says 

Acts 8:29-31

29 And the Spirit said to Philip, "Go up and join this chariot."
30 So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, "Do you understand what you are reading?"
31 And he said, "How can I, unless some one guides me?" And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.

this is why Christ established a visible authoritative teaching Church. We also see this in scripture

Matthew 18:17-19

17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the Church; and if he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. * 
19 Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 

Edited April 9, 2017 by Judas Machabeus
I think my edit is clear ;)

[Guest Judas Machabeus]

1 hour ago, Judas Machabeus said:

As Shiloh,others & myself have pointed out Sola Scripture is not only not a man made tradition,it is not a tradition at all.....it is a doctrine    I must say,the rcc has mawny many man made traditions & customs     

Something just occurred to me. Scripture isn't the final authority, Protestants are. Let me explain why I say that. 

Catholic doctrine is rejected and reduced down to man made traditions. The charge is that you can not find it in the bible. 

Sola scriputra is doctine and NOT man made tradition because Protestants say so. 

IF Catholic doctrine MUST be found in the bible than Protestant doctrine MUST be found in scripture. But that's not the case. Kwick you admitted that sola scriptura is not found in scripture. That's why no one can quote a bible verse. 

So to summarize. 

Catholic Doctrine to be valid must be found in scripture. 

Protesant doctrine to be valid is just declared to be by man...... wait a minute isn't that what you accuse the pope of doing?

Cheers and God Bless

[Guest shiloh357]

5 hours ago, Judas Machabeus said:

Something just occurred to me. Scripture isn't the final authority, Protestants are. Let me explain why I say that. 

Catholic doctrine is rejected and reduced down to man made traditions. The charge is that you can not find it in the bible.

Well, it's more than that.  Catholic "doctrine"  is theologically inconsistent with what is in the Bible.  For example:

Romans 3:23 says that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. But according to the Roman cult, Mary was born sinless and lived sinless. Funny how Paul forgot to mention that.

The Roman cult says that Mary remained a perpetual virgin and that the references to Jesus brothers and sisters are either cousins or children of Joseph by a previous wife or maybe a different "Mary."

The Bible is clear that Jesus had brothers and sisters.

"Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us?" (Matt. 13:55-56).  The word for "cousin" is "anepsios"  used only one time in the NT in Col. 4:10.   The word "brother" is adelphos and does not refer to cousins, regardless of what the Roman cult says.   In fact, that is further refuted because the text refers to his brothers and sisters, and adelephe is used for sisters, so it cannot refer to cousin as as both adelphos and adelphe refer to those born of the same womb.

Those are just a couple of examples of how Roman Catholic theology isn't only not only found in the Bible, but theologically contradicts what the Bible says.

Quote

  Sola scriputra is doctine and NOT man made tradition because Protestants say so. 

No, as you can see in my previous post, that was NOT the argument for Sola Scriptura being doctrine.  It has been demonstrated that Sola Scriptura is demonstrated in Scripture and that the Bible is our authority for claiming it.

Quote

IF Catholic doctrine MUST be found in the bible than Protestant doctrine MUST be found in scripture. But that's not the case. Kwick you admitted that sola scriptura is not found in scripture. That's why no one can quote a bible verse. 

No, that is not we determine how a doctrine is found in the Bible.    I cannot quote a verse that mentions the Trinity.   But the Trinity is a Bible doctrine because we can find the Trinity in operation.   There are no discussions or teachings on the Trinity in the Bible, but all mainline denominations affirm the Trinity.    So the argument that we must produce a verse in the Bible doesn't hold any water.

Quote

Catholic Doctrine to be valid must be found in scripture. 

Any doctrine, to be valid, as to be found in Scripture.   The errant doctrines of the Roman cult espouses about Mary are not only NOT found in Scripture, but actively contradict what we find in Scripture.