Catholic Idolatry

[Guest shiloh357]

2 minutes ago, Mishael said:

Doesn't make much of a difference, it has been translated by various scholars as "full of grace", "graced one," "one who has been made graced," "highly graced," and "highly favored." In the last instance the translator is using the concept that to be graced by God is to find favor with God. It would appear that any translation should use the word "grace," because that is the root word.

Highly favored is the best and most accurate.  And yes it does matter.  It matters immensely when you try to make a verb into a noun.  That is something that no one with any knowledge of the original languages would do accidentally.   It speaks to a low degree of integrity and a complete disregard for the holiness of scripture to make such an egregious, intentional error.

[Mishael]

2 minutes ago, enoob57 said:

2 Timothy 3:15 (KJV)
[15] And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
[16] All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
[17] That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
 

"All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work" (2 Tim. 3:16–17).

This passage doesn’t teach formal sufficiency, which excludes a binding, authoritative role for Tradition and Church. Protestants extrapolate onto the text what isn’t there. If we look at the overall context of this passage, we can see that Paul makes reference to oral Tradition three times (cf. 2 Tim. 1:13–14; 2:2; 3:14). And to use an analogy, let’s examine a similar passage:

"And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ" (Eph. 4:11–15).

If 2 Timothy 3 proves the sole sufficiency of Scripture, then, by analogy, Ephesians 4 would likewise prove the sufficiency of pastors and teachers for the attainment of Christian perfection. In Ephesians 4, the Christian believer is equipped, built up, brought into unity and mature manhood, and even preserved from doctrinal confusion by means of the teaching function of the Church. This is a far stronger statement of the perfecting of the saints than 2 Timothy 3, yet it does not even mention Scripture.

So if all non-scriptural elements are excluded in 2 Timothy, then, by analogy, Scripture would logically have to be excluded in Ephesians. It is far more reasonable to recognize that the absence of one or more elements in one passage does not mean that they are nonexistent. The Church and Scripture are both equally necessary and important for teaching.

[Mishael]

17 minutes ago, Yowm said:

But I'm asking what teaching have the so-called apostles successors added that weren't already in Scripture?

Theology and understand of the faith for a start.

[Mishael]

4 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

Highly favored is the best and most accurate.  And yes it does matter.  It matters immensely when you try to make a verb into a noun.  That is something that no one with any knowledge of the original languages would do accidentally.   It speaks to a low degree of integrity and a complete disregard for the holiness of scripture to make such an egregious, intentional error.

Does it really matter highly favored or highly graced so if I said Hail Mary highly favored would it make much of a difference?

[Guest shiloh357]

Just now, Mishael said:

Does it really matter highly favored or highly graced so if I said Hail Mary highly favored would it make much of a difference?

But that's not what you're arguing for.  Your arguing for the Latin translation.

[Mishael]

15 minutes ago, Davida said:

Daniel and David for two examples were highly favored, most beloved  by GOD also , so do we erect statues to them & offer them our prayers & incense? Gabriel said Daniels prayer was heard immediately so that is a great bonus don't you think?  what about Enoch who the scripture said " walked with GOD & GOD so loved Enoch that He took" him to heaven!!!  How about that?  He walks with the Heavenly FATHER!!  How about Moses? or Elijah? they showed up & glowed and met with JESUS- So, why not build statues to them? Matt 17:3  

---BECAUSE the Word of GOD tells us it is breaking God's Commandment. It is WRONG to build idols & look to any created thing or being to be given worship or honor that is only to be given to GOD-the Holy Trinity is Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  There is no "queen of heaven" , no  mother of God" that is a pagan belief enshrined within RCC. We do not lift up any human to usurp the praise , honor or glory that only the Lord Jesus Christ deserves. 

  Mary was highly favored by God to be chosen as a human vessel to give birth to the Lord Jesus Christ, but Mary is simply a human, in need of a Savior as all of us, she is not on equal footing to the Son of GOD who was with GOD the Father in eternity. This is the same reason she is "blessed among women" to be the human vessel to give birth to the Lord & Savior Jesus Christ. Nothing in the Bible scripture tells us to lift up  Jesus mother for any special honor , for worshp or to give any of the designations that the Popes do-they simply preach a false religion. 

An idol is an object to replace God with and adore as a deity all the while believing it has some special power. That is a graven image and idol. I think a statue of any of the prophets is permissible so long as it's not turned into a graven image which is to believe that it has some type of special power on its own. The early Christians venerated Mary as much as modern day Catholics and Orthodox do, I can't think of any pagan religions that used the title Theotokos in history. Elizabeth called Mary mother of my lord, the early Christians venerated her, even Martin Luther himself called Mary mother of God.

[Mishael]

Martin Luther's words on Mary:

She is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin- something exceedingly great. For God's grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil. 
(Personal {"Little"} Prayer Book, 1522)

". . . she is rightly called not only the mother of the man, but also the Mother of God. . . . it is certain that Mary is the Mother of the real and true God." 

{Sermon on John 14. 16: Luther's Works (St. Louis, ed. Jaroslav, Pelican, Concordia. vol. 24. p. 107)}

[Mishael]

7 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

But that's not what you're arguing for.  Your arguing for the Latin translation.

Either way does that make a difference?

[Guest shiloh357]

3 minutes ago, Mishael said:

Either way does that make a difference?

Yes, it makes a difference.  It makes a difference because we are talking about the word of God.   Full of grace is based on Catholic theology, not biblical interpretation.    It is about Mary being full of grace based on the myth  of her sinlessness.    She was highly favored by God, but Mary was still a sinner who needed a Savior.  She was favored to be the one who would give birth to the humanity of Jesus.

[enoob57]

5 minutes ago, Mishael said:

"All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work" (2 Tim. 3:16–17).

This passage doesn’t teach formal sufficiency, which excludes a binding, authoritative role for Tradition and Church. Protestants extrapolate onto the text what isn’t there. If we look at the overall context of this passage, we can see that Paul makes reference to oral Tradition three times (cf. 2 Tim. 1:13–14; 2:2; 3:14). And to use an analogy, let’s examine a similar passage:

Realizing the transitional state from OT Scripture to NT Scripture being formed at the time is your error of understanding... common for a great many. If you are to not have error in Theology one must rightly divide 
2 Timothy 2:15 (KJV)
[15] Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
It's has always been that way even in the OT
Isaiah 28:9 (KJV)
[9] Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
[10] For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
when one fails to do the work then error begins...
just like your understanding of traditions you site; you fail to note they did not have the completed Scripture and  concessions were made by God as such your citing...

6 minutes ago, Mishael said:

"All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work" (2 Tim. 3:16–17).

This passage doesn’t teach formal sufficiency, which excludes a binding, authoritative role for Tradition and Church. Protestants extrapolate onto the text what isn’t there. If we look at the overall context of this passage, we can see that Paul makes reference to oral Tradition three times (cf. 2 Tim. 1:13–14; 2:2; 3:14). And to use an analogy, let’s examine a similar passage:

"And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ" (Eph. 4:11–15).

If 2 Timothy 3 proves the sole sufficiency of Scripture, then, by analogy, Ephesians 4 would likewise prove the sufficiency of pastors and teachers for the attainment of Christian perfection. In Ephesians 4, the Christian believer is equipped, built up, brought into unity and mature manhood, and even preserved from doctrinal confusion by means of the teaching function of the Church. This is a far stronger statement of the perfecting of the saints than 2 Timothy 3, yet it does not even mention Scripture.

So if all non-scriptural elements are excluded in 2 Timothy, then, by analogy, Scripture would logically have to be excluded in Ephesians. It is far more reasonable to recognize that the absence of one or more elements in one passage does not mean that they are nonexistent. The Church and Scripture are both equally necessary and important for teaching.

Rev 22:18-19
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
KJV

You see the progressive revelatory work of God is finished and the council of Paul to Timothy stands for us the great seal of Revelation reverberating all the way back to the law

Deut 4:2
2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
KJV