Monday, December 21, 2009

War on the Saints? A serious British beginning!

UPDATE: Above is Lillian LaDele, a brave English Christian persecuted for adhering to her morals and her faith in God. Pray for her. Pray for Gary McFarlane. Pray for all of us as we head into these very serious times. Read the full article by clicking here.

CONSTANCE


Just found this from Great Britain. I was wondering how long it would be until people would be fired for refusing to perform same sex marriages on religious grounds. Likewise, how about those refusing to give gay couples "sex therapy." Looks like serious persecution is now here, at least for our British cousins.

Read about the gay wedding refusal here and about the persecuted Christian counselor here. I suppose Bill Marrs would find all of this very funny. I don't.

Lord Jesus, come quickly!

Constance

"

Comments:
This reminds me of what UNESCO's Rosa Guerreiro presented at the EU counter-terrorism conference:

“UNESCO promotes respect for all dimensions of cultural diversity since it is the very fabric of humankind and the “common heritage of humanity”, as stipulated in the UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity, unanimously adopted in 2001. The Declaration furthermore aims at preserving cultural diversity as a living, and thus renewable treasure that must not be perceived as static but rather as a process guaranteeing the survival of humanity. At the same time, the Declaration is dedicated to preventing segregation and fundamentalism which, in the name of cultural differences, could sanctify those differences and in doing so, counter the message of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is extremely important to stimulate the respect of all cultures including religions. As we can read in the article 4 of UNESCO’s Declaration on Cultural Diversity: “the defence of cultural diversity is an ethical imperative, inseparable for human dignity. It implies a commitment to human rights and fundamental freedoms…..No one may invoke cultural diversity to infringe upon human rights guaranteed by international law, nor to limit their scope.””

The war against the saints and those who keep the commandments of God is to be conducted through counter-terrorism measures.
 
Hi Constance.

We have been having stuff like this for a while now. Just today the papers reported about a school teacher who was sacked for offering to pray for a pupil.

have a look at,

http://www.ccfon.org/index.php?tid=0

for the latest news on this front.

God bless, have a great Christmas.

Pete
 
On another note,

Celebrated Atheist Richard Dawkins was on T.V last night heading up a campaign to allow Atheists to celebrate Christmas without references to God....

You gotta laugh..
 
Please refresh your browser to see the material I added on Lillian LaDele, the brave Englishwoman who has refused to bow to Baal or kiss his image!

Constance
 
MANY, MANY THANKS to PETE Mc for putting me on to the ccfon.org site and many thanks to them for keeping us abreast of the continued abrogation of Christian religious rites in Great Britain and the European Union.

Constance
 
Over at the www.ccfon site, I just learned of the BRITISH HOUSE OF LORDS passage of a "Right to Die" bill -- probably more accurately characterized as a "duty to die" Neo Nazi piece of legislation.

http://www.ccfon.org/view.php?id=817

Constance
 
This video about another persecuted British believer must be watched. Here's the link:

http://www.justiceforduke.com/

Constance
 
Democracy as we have it right is only a travesty of what it really is. While only 60-70% of the population care to show up to vote once every 4 years, atheists and homosexual lobbyists work around the clock to undermine little by little, as much as public opinion is willing to let go of at a time, our foundation. It's tyranny of the minority, as it were. They've infiltrated the Church, the media and the political realm. Soon pastors and priests will be taken to court for refusing to marry homosexual couples. Hats off to that woman for standing up for her moral beliefs. To me that's a form of martyrdom. "Unesco promotes respect for [...] cultural diversity"... as long as it's not Christian monotheism and belief in the Bible(sic). Thanks Rich Peterson-Medford for the quote, very relevant.
 
UNESCO is obviously now trying to foist the New World Religion off on us as an "emergency."

See here:

http://tinyurl.com/y8s9crt

Constanc
 
On MSNBC.com today is this article:

Religious expression often frowned on at work
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34381193/ns/business-careers/

My daughter's due date for our first grandbaby was Dec. 23. Whenever she checked out at a store she was inevitably asked "When are you due?" When she answered, she always got the response, "Oooh, a Christmas baby!" Then, as soon as the transaction was completed, she would be told, "Happy Holidays!" How sadly funny and hypocritical.

By the way, Shiloh Allen was born yesterday (Sunday) and was 8 lbs 2 oz; 21 inches long. We're here on the east coast. Yes, we traveled in that awful storm to the hospital! PTL! God was gracious. We made it!

Terri
 
I have been busy over the last week attending to personal matters, so I had to take some time to catch up this morning. I couldn't help but notice as many of these instruments of global governance are being put into place, we now have a large amount of distracting posts and trolls in general. Maybe its coincidence, but am begining to suspect its not. This seems to be becoming a pattern, as every time major events erupt, this blog is attacked, distracted, hi-jacked, and divided by people who arrogantly try to convince any who will listen of their views or detract from the work being done here. Most of which who have never done 5 minutes of serious reading on the subject matter.

These same people will usually try to convince the christians here that their perception is off, only to post "information" from a site that is either anti-catholic, anti-semitic, or has some twisted perception of christianity. These posts are usually quickly dispatched by knowlegable posters, at which point the always anonymous poster who spammed the garbage will continue to argue for a few days only to disappear into the internet abyss. If this type of event occured once or twice I could probably concede coincidence, but as I roll back through my memory it has happened every time important stories break regarding global governance or mechanization of the NAM. I will safely say to my friends here, that if you begin to see a rise in these types of activities here, dig deeply elsewhere as something is happening some one doesn't want you to see or discuss.

As far as who is or isn't a real chrisitian or in the Lord's favor, I had an opportunity to visit a friends church on Sunday. A small country church with a congregation of less than 10 people. All of whom gleefully professed their faith. I was astonished to learn that this little church with its miniscule congregation had managed to help feed or in some way provide a service to over 300 children so far this holiday season. This same modest group also had a toy drive much like toys for tots in which 6 three foot tall boxes had been filled to capacity and half a dozen smaller boxes of books were donated. If we are able to recognize the fruit of His spirit, then I hold this up as a shining example. I will take this as my example over anything posted by the distractors.
 
JD:

I believe it's really the voice of Satan. Even the Garden of Eden couldn't escape Satan's voice.
 
Terri,

CONGRATULATIONS on the new grandchild!

Constance
 
This article PROVES diversity is selective, not inclusive and definitely divisive.

'Winning W/Diversity'? Diverse - Divided - Divide - Divide and Conquer.
 
JD,

Re: If this type of event occured once or twice I could probably concede coincidence, but as I roll back through my memory it has happened every time important stories break regarding global governance or mechanization of the NAM. I will safely say to my friends here, that if you begin to see a rise in these types of activities here, dig deeply elsewhere as something is happening some one doesn't want you to see or discuss.

I couldn't agree with you more!!!

This is why, it is important to remain especially watchful and vigilant, and, as you say "dig deeper" when this happens - and not to allow ourselves to be diverted by red herrings disguised as "religious polemics."

We must never forget how the Devil himself went as far as to quote the Scriptures to Our Lord when tempting Him in the desert - in order to divert Our Lord from completing His salvific mission according to His Father's will.

"The last temptation is the greatest treason/To do the right thing for the wrong reason."

MURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL
T.S. Eliot
 
Pete Mc at 8.36AM mentioned Richard Dawkins being on TV in the UK presumably.
Oddly enough he also appeared on Australian ABC TV's interview with Andrew Denton. I felt sorry for Dawkins. Denton's questions were piercing. Dawkins was at times most uneasy and awkward. He looked most uncomfortable at times as if he was desperate to prove an impossibility. Weird.
 
12/21/2009

Indonesia: Mob of 1000 Muslims storms a church under construction ...19 Dec 2009

The 7th-century Pact of Umar forbade the construction of new churches (and synagogues) or repair of existing ones. The pact is in the spirit of Qur'an 9:29, which commands that ...

Jihad Watch - http://www.jihadwatch.org/ -
 
W-e-lllll Dawkins is weird and his position is both illogical and untenable. I would have to have unlimited faith in coincidence to accept his world view!

"The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God . . ."

florhalo
Constance
 
I am trying my best to figure out where the "florhalo" came from -- no halo on Dawkins // floor, sky, or otherwise!

Constance
 
According to the attached link, UN chief (Ban Ki Moon) admits climate change pact will be enforced by WORLD GOVERNMENT!

http://beforeitsnews.com/story/0000000000001382

Constance
 
Constance

Please check your E-mail for one
titled "The Christmas Tree".

Walt & LaWanda
 
I am praising God for the very public witness to Jesus Christ, and, I am praising Him for giving His Servant her courage to stand and withstand in evil days. Sometimes, Paul had to preach to kings, who withstood him, but preach he did. None of us can choose our battles, we only choose to follow our Lord. Jesus told his disciples, (paraphrased) "don't worry about what to say when they bring you before judges and courts..just know that I will fill your mouth at the time with the words." Isn't that wonderful trust? It's time to know, that our place is to stand, but we do so in the power of The HOly Spirit. Praising and dancing...Merry Christmas. Anonymous on the beach
 
OPINION EUROPEDECEMBER 21, 2009, 8:06 A.M. ET.The British Threat to American Free Speech

The U.S. Congress is considering legislation to protect American writers from the threat of suppressive libel lawsuits in the U.K.

By RACHEL EHRENFELD
The recent movement to change British libel laws to allow for greater freedom of expression has its origins in New York City and New York State.

I am a New York-based scholar specializing in research on terror financing and economic warfare. In my book, "Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed—and How To Stop It," I alleged that Saudi billionaire Khalid bin Mahfouz funded al Qaeda, Hamas and other terrorists organizations through his charitable fronts.

In 2005, Mr. Mahfouz sued me for libel in London, where my book had never been published or marketed. He chose London due to its antiquated libel laws, which are plaintiff-friendly. As recently noted by New York Times correspondent Sara Lyall, London is known as the "Libel Mecca" of the world, and Mr. Mahfouz was the most notorious abuser of the British system. A one-man wrecking crew of Americans' free speech rights, Mr. Mahfouz exploited British libel laws and courts, threatening or suing more than 40 writers and publishers, including many Americans. These cases were never tried on the merits. Mr. Mahfouz's litigiousness and deep pockets helped to silence and intimidate Americans and others who tried to expose his terrorist connections.

Except for me.

I refused to acknowledge the jurisdiction of the British courts, asserting my rights as a U.S. citizen. Unimpressed, the British judge rendered a default judgment in favor of Mr. Mahfouz. I was ordered to pay the Saudi more than $225,000, publish apologies in major international newspapers, and destroy all copies of my book internationally.

Continued here:
http://tinyurl.com/y9p3b8h
 
Mary - surrender all to her for world peace

http://www.medjugorje.com/index.html

Marija and the other visionaries are very basic people. They do normal things – chores, daily obligations, etc. The only exception is that once and sometimes twice a day they enter into another world, yet they are still in this world. This experience is not a haze or a faint vision but a reality stronger and clearer than you can see the person next to you. The presence of Our Lady is so real that Marija can, at any time, reach out and touch the feet which will crush the serpent’s head. Marija can touch and grasp Our Lady’s mantle or clasp Her hands. Because of this, Ivanka was told that the visionaries have received a grace that no one on earth has received.



And this message given to Jelena (July 30, 1987):


“…Dear children, to be chosen by God is really something great, but it is also a responsibility for you to pray more, for you, the chosen ones, to encourage others, so you can be a light for people in darkness….Dear children, this is the reason for my presence among you for such a long time: to lead you on the path of Jesus. I want to save you and, THROUGH YOU, TO SAVE THE WHOLE WORLD…”


http://www.medjugorje.com/medjugorje/what-in-the-world-is-medjugorje/593-the-tremendous-importance-of-these-medjugorje-apparitions.html

This message was addressed to the parish in general and in particular to the members of Jelena’s prayer group. Our Lady wants to save the whole world through Medjugorje.



November 25, 1987


“…today also I call each one of you to decide to surrender again everything completely to me. Only that way will I be able to present each of you to God…”



In some way, by your listening to Our Lady and doing as She asks you to do through the messages She is giving in Medjugorje, She can go before God and present you to Him in a way that She cannot if you are not living Her words. By your surrendering your life, your family, your possessions, your livelihood, and your problems to God the Father, you, in some way, mark yourselves as Our Lady’s possession, and She claims you as Her own before God’s throne. She says it is “only” through your surrender that She can continue to present you to God. This “presentation” is unique for our time. Our Lady said:


http://www.medjugorje.com/medjugorje-today/christian-worldview/746-decide-surrender-everything-completely-to-me.html
December 25, 1987

“…I want each one of you to open your heart to Jesus…I want Him to change you, to teach you, and to protect you. Today I am praying in a special way for each one of you and I am presenting you to God so He will manifest Himself in you…I call you today with great seriousness to obey me and to do as I am calling you…”


There is no doubt that we are living in decisive times. We must hold ourselves accountable to how seriously we are answering Our Lady’s call, because it is for our own good that we obey Her requests.

Mary will be used to unify the world.
 
There are billboards posted with this website

http://www.mej.com
"This is my time"

The Queen of Heaven is at work
 
The Senate is breaking its own rules on healthcare very scary

http://www.redstate.com/erick/2009/12/21/we-are-no-longer-a-nation-of-laws-senate-sets-up-requirement-for-super-majority-to-ever-repeal-obamacare/
 
From Fulfilled Prophecy front page.
http://www.fulfilledprophecy.com/

Unconfirmed rumor: Solana to be appointed special EU envoy in Greek-Macedonian dispute.

Skopje. Spain supports the negotiating process in name issue, held in the frames of the UN. In reference to the idea the EU’s High Representative of the Common Foreign and Security Policy Javier Solana to be appointed special EU envy in the negations between Athens and Skopje, the foreign ministry in Madrid has not received such information, Spain Embassy in Skopje press center informed, quoted by Macedonian Dnevnik newspaper.

“Being the next country to take over EU rotation Presidency as of January 1, 2010 we support the negotiating process with the mediation of UN mediator Mathew Nimetz, which should help resolution acceptable for both countries (Macedonia and Greece) to be taken. The two countries should engage to reach an agreement. Meanwhile we know about Javier Solana contacts at the Balkans, including in Macedonia, but the idea to be appointed envoy in Greek-Macedonian dispute is only an initiative of the Member of European Parliament George Sacimarakis,” said Spain Ambassador to Skopje Angeles Garsia.

http://www.focus-fen.net/index.php?id=n203898

Curt
 
There is no doubt that we are living in decisive times. We must hold ourselves accountable to how seriously we are answering Our Lady’s call, because it is for our own good that we obey Her requests.

Mary will be used to unify the world.

I've tried to ignore this but I can't. Please tell us in scripture where this 'doctrine' is valid...anywhere. I'm not trying to be mean-spirited but I simply cannot understand where this Mary worship comes from and where the Catholic Church finds support of it.

I grew up in New Mexico so most of my friends were Catholic. My best friend was the nephew of the Arch Bishop of New Mexico. I loved the man dearly but he ended up suddenly leaving his position (and the country) due to some small indescretions with a few teen aged girls on a camping trip.

I often heard stories from my friends of praying to statues of Mary and they smelled roses and such while they prayed. Sometimes these statues cried or did other strange things.

I've gone so far as to borrow their Bibles looking for these doctrines and I find nothing other than my Bible with a few Apocryphal texts included.

Don't get me wrong, I have no appreciation for this and believe it is of the Devil. I just can't understand where it came from. If someone could explain it, I'd deeply appreciate that. I have many Catholic friends and some family members that I'm certain are saved because they believe in the fundamentals of salvation.

This Mary thing really troubles me though.
 
Reformed, thank you!

I understand your perplexity.
 
There are many documented problems with the Medjugorje purported Marian messages, which I hear have never been endorsed as authentic by the Catholic church. E. Michael Jones wrote an important book about it which included a chapter on Vassula Ryden whom I have written about on this blog. I would recommend caution on Medjugorje which I understand has been a lucrative travel business for that section of what was once known as Yugoslavia.

Constance
 
Those claiming the Medjugorje messages as "authentic" were for the post part PARAPSYCHOLOGISTS who tested the seers under HYPNOSIS. The Marian messages there that I had the opportunity to read were SYNCRETISTIC. They are highly recommended by WAYNE PETERSON who cites them as supporting his MAITREYA message in his book EXTRAORDINARY TIMES EXTRAORDINARY BEINGS. I don't know how much more evidence anyone needs to claim it is a NEW AGE message tailored for Marian Catholics.

Constance
 
The real Mary, the mother of Jesus, always pointed people to her Son Jesus and told to do whatever he told him to do. My reading of the Medjugorje Mary was of a relatively boastful "Mary" who pointed people to herself rather than her Son. Be very cautious to TEST THE SPIRITS -- Lucifer is not one bit above impersonating Mary nor anyone else. From New Ager Wayne Peterson's site quoting Benjamin Creme's SHARE INTERNATIONAL( from Share International, October 1992

http://miracles.mcn.org/med3.html

CONSTANCE
http://miracles.mcn.org/med3.html
 
The Medjugorje Mary, per Wayne Peterson is pointing people to Maitreya.

Very subtle and dangerous!

Constance
 
I haven't seen it yet (not sure if I want to), but the Avatar movie is looking like an attack on Christians via a blatant New Age avenue.

Satan certainly has his tactics down pat. Attack Christianity, while at the same time introduce something to replace it.

And this is going right into the minds of children, who are probably watching this movie in droves. (Anyone who thinks this movie *isn't* targeting children and young adults doesn't understand the motion picture's "indoctrination" philosophy.)

Here's a review summary from Movie Guide:

Summary:
AVATAR is a visually stunning, but slow, shallow and abhorrent, science fiction adventure pitting evil human capitalists against heroic, spiritually sensitive aliens on the planet Pandora, who worship a false diety and nature. Too graphically intense for children, AVATAR has an abhorrent New Age, pagan, anti-capitalist worldview that promotes goddess worship and the destruction of the human race.


Complete review at:

http://www.movieguide.org/box-office/7/10075/avatar

I may watch it just so I can warn the youth at our church and tell them what to look for.

But then again, sometimes you don't have to climb into the outhouse pit to know what's at the bottom!

Marko
 
Constance & all,

Re:There are many documented problems with the Medjugorje purported Marian messages, which I hear have never been endorsed as authentic by the Catholic church.

You are correct. The reported apparitions at Medjugorje have never been formally approved by the Catholic Church and even if the Catholic Church DID declare them to be "worthy of belief," Catholics would still not be required to believe in them.

For that matter, Catholics are not even required to believe in major apparitions at places like Fatima, Portugal and Rue de Bac in France which have already been officially declared "worthy of belief" by the Catholic Church!

Phenomena such as Marian and Dominical apparitions, etc. come under the category of "private revelations," and as such can never be allowed to be equated with or trump Scripture or Sacred Tradition (a.k.a. written and oral tradition) which embodies the objective body of public divine revelation given by Christ directly to Peter and the Apostles.

Doing otherwise would put a person in the ranks of the gnostics who did place their heretical "falsely so-called knowledge" - a.k.a. false "private revelations" - ABOVE the Sacred Scriptures and the teachings of the Apostles.
 
P.S.

I could tell you guys a few tales about some bogus apparitions, but Constance wouldn't have enough space here to contain them all.
 
Constance,

Re:The real Mary, the mother of Jesus, always pointed people to her Son Jesus and told to do whatever he told him to do.

Absolutely correct.

Moreover, Catholic beliefs about Mary are only important because of what they tell us about Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

If Mary were not pointing us to her Son Jesus Chirst in all that she is and all that she does (i.e. "DO WHATEVER HE TELLS YOU" John 2:5)then Mary wouldn't be doing what Mary is supposed to be doing, and we are right to be suspicious.
 
BUILD-A-CLIMATE-SCARE: WHY YOU SHOULD BOYCOTT BUILD-A-BEAR

by Maura Flynn

Attention Santas:

This missive is directed at the guardians of, and donors to, tiny humans. If you fall into that category you likely are already familiar with Build-A-Bear, a world-wide corporation that provides the most innocent of services. They sell customizable stuffed animals. Make your own bear, dog…penguin. Cute concept.

So cute, in fact, that the Build-A-Bear empire sweeps across nearly every state and into 17 other countries. You’ll find their outlets in shopping malls everywhere and even some ballparks. The company also has a website called Build-A-Bearville.com where children can play an interactive video game that, on it’s surface, is unlikely to raise suspicion or sound alarms.

But when your unsuspecting tot logs on and hops a virtual train to the North Pole…you should know that he or she will be informed — by Santa Claus — that Christmas may be canceled this year due to Global Warming. Below is part two of the 3-part video...read more...


http://biggovernment.com/2009/12/
22/build-a-climate-scare-why-you
-should-boycott-build-a-bear/
 
I agree about Mary, she pointed those around her to Jesus. She also faded into the background. Remember the passage, Jesus your mother and brothers are here, He responded, who is my mother who are my brothers?

She is Mary, blessed among women to have carried the Messiah in her womb and raised him into adulthood.
She is also Mary, the human. Mary who had a fallen nature. Mary the sinner in need of a Savior. Mary who had to come to faith just like the rest of us.

Mary who died, who's body still must be resurrected and joined with her spirit, like the rest of humanity. Mary has no special access to Jesus, Jesus made that abundantly clear.

Mary cannot hear our prayers, she does not intercede for us any more than my sweet grandmother can.

She is just Mary, do not make more of her than scripture does.
 
Hi Constance ,I have found what I believe is a good source for sorting out the Medjugorje phenenomenon(shall we say "hoax"?) and it ties in nicely with your idea neatly expressed that "Lucifer is not one bit above impersonating Mary". Although it says "apologetics" those are Q and A's on various topics with a Catholic answer, not trying to win people over. Anyway it's http://www.saint-mike.org/apologetics/qa/answers/spiritual_warfare/s0310240285.html If anyone doesn't know how to copy and paste, I'd suggest this is the right time to learn it!
 
Okay let's try again: http://www.saint-mike.org/apologetics/qa/answers/spiritual_warfare/s0310240285.html Hence my comment about copy and paste;)
 
Last part of the address got left out twice. Missing is 10240285.html
 
The doctrine of AVATARS is a key New
Age teaching. I wrote of it in HIDDEN DANGERS (available for free download under "Presentations for download" link to the right of my columns. I recoil in horror every time I see the word and don't use "avatars" on line to represent me -- I despise the word and the concept.

Constance
 
I think the Catholic position is that if Mary were conceived with original sin then she could not have borne a sinless child to atone for the sins of the world even if the other half of him were pure -- that he would have been born with original sin since his mother had been.
 
Mary couldn't have faded that much into the background -- most likely it was her who gave the accounts of Gabriel's appearance, Joseph, the flight into Egypt, and other details only which she was privy to - - - she probably talked with Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and Luke.
 
The new Incredible Hulk movie did the same thing, very subtle but very sinister message.

The opening scene was of Bill Bixby in a martial arts center. His teacher is trying to help him learn to control his anger. He cannot, and like the series, the movie is filled with crisis and events that invoke the wild but tender beast within him.

Meanwhile the army is creating another hulk, with a voluntary psycho man who gets completely out of control with his new found strength.

Just as Bill finds a cure, the new evil hulk starts to wreak havoc, not able to be controlled or stopped by those who "created" him. Bill decides to sacrifice his chance to be normal by not going through the curing treatment and becomes the incredible hulk to fight the evil hulk.

He wins of course, then must run off into seclusion.

The final scene is with Bill in a yoga pose in a remote cabin in the mountains. His eyes are closed, he is calmly breathing and when he opens his eyes, they are green.

The underlying message in this movie was that "the beast within us" is something we should embrace and can use to defeat the evil beasts or danger in the world. That we can learn to harness it, to control it, and put it to the benefit of mankind, and often to save a loved one, apparently through some spiritual discipline like yoga.

This is basically the same frightening and seductive theme of the Twilight series as well as a few TV shows, like Sanctuary. Embrace the beast within you, you can use it for good.....

Evil, very attractively packaged.

Lily
 
Of course Mary gave her account to the other diciples, there is no contradiction, she was very vocal during her life about who Jesus was, as were His other followers.

Anonymous 9:59...remember in the garden "her seed shall crush your head"...women don't have seeds, they have eggs. Jesus was begotten of God, of His seed, this is why He was sinless and untainted, He is God and God cannot sin.

So Mary who had two mortal parents was not tainted with original sin, yet Jesus who was begotten of the Father, would have been tainted with sin, your logic makes no sense.
 
It is my understanding that sin is passed on through the man's seed.

Not that women are sinnless, but that Adam is the Federal Head and takes the blame for the woman. He was held responsible for Eve's sin.

The same way in a marriage, the husband is the one held responsible and that is why the woman is to submit to his authority.

This is also a picture of Christ. He takes the pentalty for his bride the Church.

It is my understanding that Mary had to be of Jewish decent to fulfill prophecy."Being Jewish" is passed on through the mother. So even if you have a Jewish father, you are not considered Jewish unless you have a Jewish mother.

In other words, Mary did not have to be sinnless and the scripture only says that she was to be a virgin, not that she would be without sin.

Hope this helps.
Valerie
 
Weird that our posts are so similar, but I wanted to make clear that the 9:04 post does not belong to the same person as the 9:09 post.

To 9:04 I do agree with what you posted

Thanks,
Valerie
 
Well I re-read the 9:04 post and now I don't know which position they are taking.

Can the poster of the Anon 9:04 post clarify your position.

Thanks,
Valerie
 
Bill Bixby died many years ago. He had cancer, probably from messing around with all that gamma radiation. He starred in the Incredible Hulk TV show in the late '70's and early '80's. There's no way there could be a new movie starring Bill Bixby. Lou Ferrigno is still alive, though.
 
Anonymous said...
I think the Catholic position is that if Mary were conceived with original sin then she could not have borne a sinless child to atone for the sins of the world even if the other half of him were pure -- that he would have been born with original sin since his mother had been.

9:59 PM


How is it then that Abraham was found to be righteous, other than that he believed the Lord and the promise? Is Mary better than Abraham? Was anyone ever declared sinless and the perfect sacrifice besides Jesus?

If your line of thought is correct, it would have been Mary who was the Lamb of God through all of scripture rather than Jesus. John the Baptist would have been proclaiming Mary.

Jesus was all God and all man. Perfectly human and perfectly divine.

I'm not saying Mary was like Abraham either. I'm saying she likely understood and believed Scripture as Abraham did, making her righteous in the sight of God. I'm saying that, as Abraham, she would have been among the elect for the faith that she had and was therefore in the condition that we, as Christians, are today. And likely more blessed than we because she understood the prophesy before it came to pass.

But that doesn't make Mary a god anymore than it made Abraham a god. If anything, she would have been repulsed by the thought of this stature and, having spent her adult life with the Savior, repulsed by the thought of being worshipped on His behalf or immortalized in images that are worshipped and prayed to.

She could not have been without sin or Christ would not have been perfectly man and perfectly God.
 
Anonymous 9:59

Re:I think the Catholic position is that if Mary were conceived with original sin then she could not have borne a sinless child to atone for the sins of the world even if the other half of him were pure -- that he would have been born with original sin since his mother had been.

First of all, I would like to say that you are to be congratulated Anonymous for "getting it."

You are on the right track as far as you go, and for this reason, I would like to expand on what you said.

The Catholic position is that the IMMACULATE CONCEPTION does NOT mean that Mary was excempt from the need for redemption.

Mary was indeed Redeemed by Christ.....she was PREREDEEMED in view of the future merits of the Passion Death and Resurrection of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

This PREREDEMPTION is what we Catholics refer to as the IMMACULATE CONCEPTION.

The dogma of the IMMACULATE CONCEPTION states that, from the first moment of her existence, Mary was preserved by God from the lack of sanctifying grace that afflicts mankind, and that she was instead filled with divine grace. It is further said by Catholics that she lived a life completely free from sin. Her immaculate conception in the womb of her mother, through normal sexual intercourse, should not be confused with the doctrine of the virginal conception of her son Jesus, known as the ANNUNCIATION, and followed by the VIRGIN BIRTH.

As I have said before, the things we Catholics believe about Mary are important ONLY insofar as they refer to Jesus.

Since Jesus is truly God as well as truly man and exists outside of time in His divinity, there is no contradiction in the idea of Mary being "PREREDEEMED" (a.k.a. "conceived without sin") in view of her role as "mother of the Word made flesh."

Another thing that has been pointed out by the Church Fathers is that it would not have been fitting for Mary not to have been "conceived without sin" before saying "yes" to God since our mother Eve was without sin when she first said "yes" to the devil who came to Eve disguised as a talking serpent when she was alone in the Garden of Eden.

Echoing the teachings of the Catholic Church, the late Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen points out that the dogma of the Immaculate Conception IS supported by the Scriptures (Luke 1:26-37) because in the Scriptures, the very words of the archangel Gabriel -"HAIL, FULL OF GRACE"- indicate Mary's sinlessness since, until that moment, sanctifying grace had been lost for all humanity by the Original Sin of Adam and Eve.

Nowhere else in the Scriptures is any other human being thus addressed by an angel.....and it is to be noted that the archangel Gabriel is the same archangel who appeared to Mary's cousin Elizabeth to announce the birth of the "precursor" John the Baptist....and also to the Prophet Daniel. Again, NOWHERE is it indicated that the archangel Gabriel addressed either Elizabeth and Zacharias or Daniel in terms of "hail full of grace."

The reason why is because the IMMACULATE CONCEPTION was a SINGULAR PRIVILEGE granted to Mary by God - not for her own glory - but in view of her coming role as Mother of the Messiah.

Elizabeth, Zacharias and Daniel were not "preredeemed." They were redeemed like the rest of us.....AFTER the Passion, Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

In closing, I would like to say that while it is unfortunately true that there are certain "Catholics" who espouse beliefs about Mary that border on "Mariolatry," - whether they put a New Age spin on such beliefs or not - the official teachings of the Catholic Church are light years away from such blasphemy.
 
I think we should focus on what we have in common rather than argue on points of doctrine. With all due respect, being a cradle Catholic myself, entry into Heaven will not hinge on wether you adhere to the dogmas regarding Mary or not. Regards to all.
 
Very useful sites, rich with detailed information.


http://www.youtube.com/
user/excatholics

http://www.excatholicsforchrist.com/
 
RESPONSE TO SUSANNA'S THREAD 9:28AM


http://www.carm.org/religious-movements/roman-catholicism/mary-full-grace-and-luke-128

Mary, full of grace, and Luke 1:28
According to The Catholic Encyclopedia (TCE) under the topic of Hail Mary it says, "Hail (Mary) full of grace, the Lord is with thee, blessed art thou amongst women", embodies the words used by the Angel Gabriel in saluting the Blessed Virgin (Luke, I, 28)." The Roman Catholic Church derives all sorts of teachings concerning Mary from the phrase "full of grace." Two of them are...

She was conceived without sin.
"...It was fitting that the mother of him in whom "the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily" should herself be "full of grace." She was, by sheer grace, conceived without sin..." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 722).
That she was redeemed from conception and was without sin.
"Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, "full of grace" through God, was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854: The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin, (CCC, 491)
"From among the descendants of Eve, God chose the Virgin Mary to be the mother of his Son. "Full of grace", Mary is "the most excellent fruit of redemption" (SC, 103): from the first instant of her conception, she was totally preserved from the stain of original sin and she remained pure from all personal sin throughout her life," (CCC, 508).
Catholic.com says under "Full of Grace," that "These blessings included her role as the New Eve (corresponding to Christs role as the New Adam), her Immaculate Conception, her spiritual motherhood of all Christians, and her Assumption into heaven." As you can see, Mary is greatly exalted even to the point of having "spiritual motherhood of all Christians," whatever that means.

Also, since she has been so highly exalted, prayer is also offered to Mary. Catholics recite "The Hail Mary" which says, "Hail Mary, full of grace. The Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou amongst women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death, Amen." Prayer should be offered to God alone, not to any creature no matter how blessed, including Mary.

As you can see, a great deal is derived from the phrase "full of grace." But, does the phrase justify such adoration and doctrinal proclamation? Can the Roman Catholic church rightfully derive so much from so little? In fact, is the phrase "full of grace" used of Mary in the Bible at all? The answers to these questions is, "No."

The Bible and "full of grace"
The phrase "full of grace" in Greek is "plaras karitos" and it occurs in only two places in the New Testament; neither one is in reference to Mary.

THIS THREAD CONTINUES
 
10:31 AM THREAD CONTINUED

"And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth," (John 1:14).
"And Stephen, full of grace and power, was performing great wonders and signs among the people," (Acts 6:8).
The first citation refers to Jesus who is obviously full of grace. Jesus is God in flesh, the crucified and risen Lord, who cleanses us from our sins. In the second citation it is Stephen who is full of grace. We can certainly affirm that Jesus was conceived without sin and remained sinless, but can we conclude this about Stephen as well? Certainly not. The phrase "full of grace" does not necessitate sinlessness by virtue of its use. In Stephen's case it signifies that he was "full of the Spirit and of wisdom," along with faith and the Holy Spirit (Acts 6:3, 5). But Stephen was a sinner. Nevertheless, where does the phrase "full of grace" come from regarding Mary?

The Latin Vulgate and other translations
The Latin Vulgate is the Latin translation of the Bible done by St. Jerome in the fourth century. It is here in Luke 1:28 that is found the unfortunate Latin translation which says "ave gratia plena "Hail full of grace.'" Remember, the New Testament was written in Greek, not Latin, but the Roman Church has derived its doctrine from the Latin translation, not the Greek original. Therefore, it constructed its doctrine on a false translation. Of course, it cannot correct itself since so much is invested in the worship, adoration, and prayer to Mary in the Roman Catholic Church and to recant of this false teaching would greatly lessen its credibility. Unfortunately, this means that millions of Catholics will continue to look to Mary for help, not Christ who is truly full of grace.

So what do the other translations say about Luke 1:28? Let's find out.

The Nestle Aland 26th edition, Greek New Testament Interlinear - "having gone into her he said rejoice one having been favored, the master is with you."
The NRSV English Greek Reverse Interlinear New Testament - And he came to her and said, "Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you."
American Standard Version - "And he came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favored, the Lord is with thee."
English Standard Version - "And he came to her and said, Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!
Today's English Version - '"The angel came to her and said, “Peace be with you! The Lord is with you and has greatly blessed you!”
King James Version- "And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women."

THREAD CONTINUES...
 
10:34AM THREAD CONTINUED

New American Standard Bible - "And coming in, he said to her, Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you.
New International Version - "The angel went to her and said, Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.
New King James Version - "And having come in, the angel said to her, Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women!
Revised Standard Version - "And he came to her and said, 'Hail, O favored one, the Lord is with you!'
New Revised Standard Version - And he came to her and said, “Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you.”
The New Century Version - The angel came to her and said, “Greetings! The Lord has blessed you and is with you.”
New Living Translation - Gabriel appeared to her and said, “Greetings, favored woman! The Lord is with you!'”
The Cambridge Paragraph Bible - And 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 Holman Christian Standard Bible - "And the angel came to her and said, “Rejoice, favored woman! The Lord is with you."
International Standard Version - '"The angel'' came to her and said, “'Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you!"
What does the Greek say here for "highly favored one? It is the single Greek word kexaritomena and means highly favored, make accepted, make graceful, etc. It does not mean "full of grace" which is "plaras karitos" (plaras = full and karitos = Grace) in the Greek.

5923 χαριτόω (charitoō): vb.; Str 5487; TDNT 9.372—LN 88.66 show kindness graciously give, freely give (Eph 1:6); as a passive participle, subst., “one highly favored.”1
5487 χαριτόω [charitoo /khar·ee·to·o/] v. From 5485; TDNT 9:372; TDNTA 1298; GK 5923; Two occurrences; AV translates as “be highly favoured” once, and “make accepted” once. 1 to make graceful. 1a charming, lovely, agreeable. 2 to peruse with grace, compass with favour. 3 to honour with blessings.2
Therefore, we conclude that the Roman Catholic Church has manufactured far too much doctrine concerning Mary out of the erroneous translation of the Latin Vulgate Bible and that the RCC needs to recant its false teaching concerning Mary.

Conclusion
Mary was a very blessed woman. She was graced with the privilege of being able to bear the Son of God. We should never forget her high privilege in this respect. However, we must not elevate her to a level beyond that which is prescribed in Scripture. To do so is to be in error, the very error that is taught in the Roman Catholic Church.

We urge Roman Catholics not look to Mary. Instead, they should look to Jesus alone. He alone is the sinless one, the perfect one, the Lord, the mediator, the forgiver of our sins. It is he alone to whom we should appeal and trust for the forgiveness of our sins. We should not look to any creature, no matter how blessed that creature may be.



This article is also available in: Español

1. Swanson, J., Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains: Greek New Testament, electronic ed., Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, 1997, kephale, GGK5923.
2. Strong, J., Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, electronic ed., Ontario: Woodside Bible Fellowship, 1996, GK5487.
 
IN fact, nowhere in the New Testament is it written that the Apostle Peter went to Rome ever!
 
Could this be the Apostle Peter's grave, found in Jerusalem in 2003? I'm not saying it definitely is, but one thing's sure, there is no Scriptural record of him ever having been martyred in Rome or ever having visited there, or the Romans having taken his body to Rome.
 
Could this be the Apostle Peter's grave, found in Jerusalem in 2003? I'm not saying it definitely is, but one thing's sure, there is no Scriptural record of him ever having been martyred in Rome or ever having visited there, or the Romans having taken his body to Rome.

http://www.leaderu.com/theology/burialcave.html


http://www.leaderu.com/
theology/burialcave.html
 
Echoing the teachings of the Catholic Church, the late Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen points out that the dogma of the Immaculate Conception IS supported by the Scriptures (Luke 1:26-37) because in the Scriptures, the very words of the archangel Gabriel -"HAIL, FULL OF GRACE"- indicate Mary's sinlessness since, until that moment, sanctifying grace had been lost for all humanity by the Original Sin of Adam and Eve.

Nowhere else in the Scriptures is any other human being thus addressed by an angel.....and it is to be noted that the archangel Gabriel is the same archangel who appeared to Mary's cousin Elizabeth to announce the birth of the "precursor" John the Baptist....and also to the Prophet Daniel. Again, NOWHERE is it indicated that the archangel Gabriel addressed either Elizabeth and Zacharias or Daniel in terms of "hail full of grace."

So how do you explain the glory of Moses? How do you explain Abraham if grace had been lost to mankind due to the sin of Adam and Eve? Both were led directly by God. Mary was not. She was spoken to by an angel regarding the fact that she was faithful and would give birth to the Christ. Abraham was was saved by grace as all of us are (Romans 4:1-3). I would argue that Mary was no different.

Nowhere in the gospels or in the New Testament is it stated that Mary was anyting more than a believer in Christ and a follower of the Savior, who happened to be her offspring by the blessing of God for her belief.

Furthermore, the Old Testament does not prophesy much about Mary other than Messiah would be born of a virgin. Nowhere is there any indication that this virgin should be prayed to or worshipped. If you can find it, show me. There is no reference in my Bible or in the Bible of any Catholic that Mary should be prayed to through any sort of rosary or anything else. I can see how she would have been chosen for her belief and faith, much as Abraham was chosen for his belief.

She is not given any power among the saints that I can see. Point it out clearly if you can.

By the way, why would she be full of grace if she didn't need it as all of us do? Grace is the gift that brings about salvation to sinners. A gift is something we cannont earn but gain by faith. Are not all Christians full of grace?

If Mary was perfect from birth, why would she not be called the second Adam?
 
"The Body of Christ, some two hundred years before any council had been called into session, had quoted the New Testament 87,000 times, throughout the world of Christendom.

Anthanasius lists all 27 books on the NT in his pastoral letter & Gregory of Nazianzen lists 26 of them, save Revelation (Rev. H.S Miller, General Biblical Introduction, 1937, pg. 191.)

Polycarp quotes Matthew, Luke, John, Acts and 10 Pauline Epistles.

Clement quotes Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, six Pauline epistles and Revelation.

Irenaeus quotes all four Gospels, Acts, Pauline epistles, 1 Peter, 1 John, Hebrews, Jude, James and Revelation.

With the above "fathers" and Tertullian, we find all 27 New Testament books cited and revered before 200AD. Plus we have Latin and Syriac versions being used (150-180AD.) Therefore, we have a COMPLETE New Testament in circulation, some 200 hundred years BEFORE any Council meet to officially ratify this (Miller, pg. 133.)"

Taken from excatholicsforchrist comments at:

http://www.youtube.com/
user/excatholics
 
Excellent poits Reformed!
 
Excellent points Reformed! It's worth repeating.
 
queanon said...
I think we should focus on what we have in common rather than argue on points of doctrine. With all due respect, being a cradle Catholic myself, entry into Heaven will not hinge on wether you adhere to the dogmas regarding Mary or not. Regards to all.

Depends on who you choose to worship and pray to. If we believe in what the Bible says, I'd say this argument is highly relevent among those who consider themselves to be followers of Christ and believers in the Bible. If anyone can prove to me in scripture that we should pray to Mary, I'd buy into it. But I doubt that will happen.

It's not a simple doctrinal issue. If we are to call ourselves Christians, we should determine who is worthy of our prayers and we should do it scripturally according to Christian belief.

If we are to pray to Mary, it should be proven through Scripture that we should do so. If we choose to worship God through Christ and if we believe that Christ is our savior and is in fact God, we should not have to deal with Mary as the intercessor between man and the intercessor who is Christ. I can't find evidence that Mary stands between the Christian and Christ.

I'm trying to figure out where this additional layer came from and I haven't heard of a solid doctrine related to it, nor can I find it in prophesy.
 
Anonymous 9:09

Re:It is my understanding that sin is passed on through the man's seed.

Not that women are sinnless, but that Adam is the Federal Head and takes the blame for the woman. He was held responsible for Eve's sin.


This is correct. Because while Eve was deceived, Adam was not deceived.

And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

1 Timothy 2:14

Eve was the one who had direct contact with the "talking serpent" and the reason why Eve was deceived is because the serpent LIED to her.

I have given this much thought, and since Adam and Eve were charged with tending the Garden of Eden, they would have both known about all the animals in the garden and how they NATURALLY behaved. In fact, the Bible tells us that it was Adam who named all the animals.

Interestingly, it is after the sin of Adam that divine revelation is sealed by miracles so that the person receiving them can have a certainty that they are from God.

This is probably because of the darkening of the intellect that was a consequence of Original Sin.

Before Adam sinned, there was never any doubt on the part of Adam and Eve that it was God Who was communicating with them.

My question is - could the "talking serpent" have been the first "lying wonder" by which the devil managed to successfully deceive Eve?

As for Adam, it has been suggested that Adam was more concerned about losing Eve than he was about obeying God.

Here is an excellent article from a Christian site on this very subject. I don't know much about the author except that he is reportedly a licensed Baptist preacher.

SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT FOR EVE
By Gary Kurz

http://www.authorsden.com/visit/
viewarticle.asp?id=30642
 
My thread at 11:03 AM proves that Roman Catholicism was NOT the fist to compile the COMPLETE New Testament. The New Testament was COMPLETELY compiled at least 200 years before the Coucil of Nicea. Ask yourselves why would Rome obfuscate and subsequently LIE about the matter!
 
In Truth, nowhere in the New Testament is it written that the Apostle Peter went to Rome ever!


Could this be the Apostle Peter's grave, found in Jerusalem in 2003? I'm not saying it definitely is, but one thing's sure, there is no Scriptural record of him ever having been martyred in Rome or ever having visited there, or the Romans, or anyone else for that matter, having taken his body to Rome, or his body dead or alive ever having been in Rome.

http://www.leaderu.com/theology/burialcave.html


http://www.leaderu.com/
theology/burialcave.html
 
Dear Reformed 9:59,

Re:So how do you explain the glory of Moses? How do you explain Abraham if grace had been lost to mankind due to the sin of Adam and Eve? Both were led directly by God. Mary was not. She was spoken to by an angel regarding the fact that she was faithful and would give birth to the Christ. Abraham was was saved by grace as all of us are (Romans 4:1-3). I would argue that Mary was no different.

First of all, let me state that I am not hiding the fact that I am speaking as a committed practicing Roman Catholic.

Therefore, it comes as no surprise to me that you would disagree with me as a devout Protestant....and please understand that I respect that.

The only reason I wrote what I did about Mary is because someone esle brought the subject up first and I wanted to clarify what Catholics actually do believe about Mary.

It is my understanding that Protestants interpret the Bible literally.

Nowhere in the Bible does an angel address anyone with the words "HAIL FULL OF GRACE."

And as great as they were, that includes Abraham and Moses.

Re: There is no reference in my Bible or in the Bible of any Catholic that Mary should be prayed to through any sort of rosary or anything else. I can see how she would have been chosen for her belief and faith, much as Abraham was chosen for his belief.

As a Catholic and Protestant, we have different Rules of Faith.

The Protestant rule of Faith is Sola Scriptura (Bible alone). The Catholic Rule of Faith is Scripture and Sacred Tradition (a.k.a.written and oral tradition.)

Moreover, the Protestant Old Testament is different from the Catholic Old Testament.

These are two main reasons for many of our disagreements.

However, it was never my intention to get into any of that here. I have already done so on previous threads.

At the end of the day, I am not asking you or anyone else here to agree with me. I am simply clarifying what Catholics believe and why they believe it.

I am also asking that non-Catholic Christians make sure that they understand what Catholics actually DO believe before criticising Catholics for their beliefs.
 
And please don't accuse me of any gnostic nonsense on my last point. It was pedantic to stop any pretense and wrongful inference.

Let any gnostic nonsense be exposed and rebuked.
 
Reformed 9:27

Re:How is it then that Abraham was found to be righteous, other than that he believed the Lord and the promise? Is Mary better than Abraham? Was anyone ever declared sinless and the perfect sacrifice besides Jesus?

Abraham may have been found to be "righteous," but he was not found to be "sinless."("FULL OF GRACE") There is a difference.....because it is the very Scriptures themselves by which we are informed that "Even the righteous man falls seven times daily and rises up again, but the wicked stumble to ruin." Proverbs 24:16

Also "Our righteousness is as filthy rags." Isaiah 64:6....meaning that everything we do -even the best things - are infected with sin.

Moreover, Abraham was not even counted as "righteous" until after his faith was tested.(Gen. 22)

Because God accounted faith to Abraham for righteousness.

Gen 15:6 reads, “And he [Abraham] believed in the LORD, and He [the LORD], accounted it [the belief or faith] to him [Abraham] for righteousness.” Gen 15:6

However, Mary, according to Scripture, was addressed by the archangel Gabriel as being "FULL OF GRACE" (FULL meaning all of her being)even before she said "yes" to God's invitation to become the mother of the Word made flesh.

Along with Catholic beliefs about Mary, I presented them with a Scriptural defense.
So I don't understand what you mean in saying that you can't find evidence of my beliefs "anywhere in the Scriptures," after I have clearly quoted Scriptures......and presumably from books included in BOTH of our Bibles.

The only thing I can think of is that it may be a matter of different interpretations.
 
At the end of the day, I am not asking you or anyone else here to agree with me. I am simply clarifying what Catholics believe and why they believe it.

I am also asking that non-Catholic Christians make sure that they understand what Catholics actually DO believe before criticising Catholics for their beliefs.

11:46 AM

I'm not out to criticise anyone, nor am I out to convert anyone. I want to know about where doctrines come from but I have no desire to attack others for theirs. I will argue strongly to see if there is a doctrinal 'solid ground' for what others believe in because it helps me.

Honestly, I've enjoyed this blog because it helps me sharpen my sword but I haven't meant any harm by what I say.

I've spent my life with Catholics and I've never really understood why they believe what they do. I've always been a protestant and many of my friends are former Catholics who can't really explain why they grew up believing what they did.

The differences between us are immense but not personal. I'm perplexed by the gaps and by the history of us. I'm sure you're aware of it all.

There are basic Scriptural differences between us and I honestly cannot understand the Catholic perspective. I don't argue it much but I can't get anything solid on why Catholics believe what they believe when I ask. I get a lot of what other Catholics have written but little of it has to do with what is in the Bible. Yet our Bibles are essentially the same.

It isn't likely we'll ever see eye to eye on it. I read your posts and I don't doubt your sincerity or your salvation. There are, however, elements of the Catholic Church that are questionable and you have chimed in on these. These elements were where I started posting.

God bless you and thank you for your response.
 
Reformed, please do not set yourself up as the legitimate provider of criteria of what a good Christian is. I repeat: let's leave dogmas aside. I don't know what confession you are, but someone from another confession could rightfully disagree with parts of your creed. This is not the right place to discuss tiny doctrinal points. Nobody is pushing Marian worship here, and if someone is guilty of that, that's between them and God. Know your rightful place in the scheme of things. You think Catholics are deluded heretics, worshippers of Mary, the Pope is the antichrist, Rome is a harlot, then good for you. We all know where you stand on catholicism, now shall we move on?
 
http://watch.pair.com/apocrypha.html

CANONIZATION: THE APOCRYPHA
Robert J. Sargent

The word "apocrypha" means "hidden" or "concealed," but after c. 450 A.D. came to refer to the non-canonical books, especially those of the Old Testament period.

Consideration of the Apocrypha usually centers around the highly contentious issue of additional books contained in Roman Catholic bibles, and, more increasingly, in several modern Protestant versions.

1. THE NATURE OF THE APOCRYPHA

The Apocrypha consists of 15 books of Jewish literature written during the intertestamental period. Come of them have historic value, but all are spurious, of unknown authorship, and without claim of inspiration or authority. Some are legendary and fantasy. Many of them are written to reinforce post-exilic Jewish opposition to idolatry.

All extant copies of the Apocrypha are written in Greek.

2. THE LIST OF THE APOCRYPHA

The following list gives the books referred to as the Apocrypha:


Wisdom of Solomon 30 B.C. Didactic
Ecclesiasticus 32 B.C. Didactic
Tobit c. 200 B.C. Religious Novel
I Esdras c. 150 B.C. Historic & Legendary
I Maccabees c. 110 B.C. Historic
II Maccabees c. 100 B.C. Historic & Legendary
Judith c. 150 A.D. Romantic Novel
Baruch c. 100 A.D. Prophetic
Letter of Jeremiah c. 200 B.C. Prophetic
II Esdras c. 100 A.D. Prophetic
Additions to Esther c. 130 B.C. Legendary
Prayer of Azariah* c. 100. B.C. Legendary
Suzanna (Daniel 13) c. 100 B.C. Legendary
Bel & the Dragon (Daniel 14) c. 100 B.C. Legendary
Prayer of Manasseh c. 150 B.C. Legendary

*The "Prayer of Azariah" is also called the "Song of the Three Hebrew Children," and follows after Daniel 3:23.
3. THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE APOCRYPHA

As a general summary:

The Jews do not accept the Apocrypha as part of their Scriptures.
Protestants do not accept the Apocrypha as Scripture, though some ascribe to them value as "good and useful reading" and "for example of life and instruction of manners."
The Roman Catholic 'Church' in effect accepts 12 of the apocryphal books as canonical (omitting I & II Esdras and the Prayer of Manassah from the above list.) Because of this the Roman Catholic 'Church' speaks of the Apocrypha as "deutero-canonical" books, and in turn labels as apocrypha what we may term "pseudoepigraphical" books."
4. THE INCLUSION OF THE APOCRYPHA
The Apocrypha are contained in the following:
a. The Septuagint (LXX) - Except II Esdras.
b. Codex Alexandrinus (A) - Also contains III & IV Maccabees
c. Codex Vaticanus (B) - Except I & II Maccabees and The Prayer of Manassah
d. Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph)
e. Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (C) - Includes Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus
f. Chester Beatty Papyri - Fragments of Ecclesiasticus
g. The Dead Sea Scrolls - Some apocryphal writing was found among the Dead Sea Scrolls - interestingly written in Greek.
h. The Writings of Church Fathers

continued thread...
 
Dear Susanna,

You wrote:

The Protestant rule of Faith is Sola Scriptura (Bible alone). The Catholic Rule of Faith is Scripture and Sacred Tradition (a.k.a.written and oral tradition.)

Therein lies the problem with catholicism.

Scripture is full of warnings against adding to and/or taking away from God's word, and embracing the traditions of man. Scripture and many of the catholic traditions are NOT compatable. Praying to Mary and looking upon the Pope as infallible to ANY degree are classic examples.

As a Christian, with Martin Luther the great Reformer, I say "My conscience is held captive to the Word of God".

I'm not looking to get into a long drawn out discussion, I don't have time as I am working. I won't change you, you won't change me.

I implore any and all to search the scriptures and be sure their foundation is sure. Time is oh, so short!

Blessings.
 
12:50pm thread continued...

In general, the Apocrypha were more favoured by the Western (Latin) Church Fathers. For example, Irenaeus (115-200 A.D.) quoted from the Book of Wisdom.
However, in the East, Clement of Alexandria (150-217 A.D.) recognized II Esdras. Origen (185-254 A.D.) inserted II Esdras, the Maccabees, and the Letter of Jeremiah to his canonical list.

Jerome (340-420 A.D.) reluctantly inserted Judith, Tobit, the Additions to Esther, and the Additions to Daniel into his Latin Vulgate after some "friendly" pressure. The rest of the apocryphal books were added to the Vulgate after his demise.

The most influential benefactor of the Apocrypha was Augustine (354-420 A.D.), the "Father of corrupt theology." He influenced the Councils of Hippo (393 A.D.) and Carthage (397 A.D.) to declare the Apocrypha canonical.

In his usual form, Augustine also saw to it that any opposition to the Apocrypha was suppressed.

5. THE COUNCIL OF TRENT

The Apocrypha were formally canonized by the Roman Catholic 'Church' on April 8, 1546 A.D. at the Council of Trent.

The Council of Trent was actually a series of 3 Church councils held between 1545 and 1563 A.D. and dominated by the newly-formed Jesuits. It was called as an integral part of the counter-Reformation which had begun 28 years earlier, sparked by Martin Luther. The Papal bull convening this council required 3 things:

The defining of Catholic dogma
The reformation of Catholic 'Church' life
The extermination of heresy
One of the catch-cries of the Reformation was 'sola-Scriptura' (i.e., "The Bible says!!"). In order for the Roman Catholics to say the same thing, the Apocrypha were added to give "Scriptural" proof for their false teachings.
The resolution of the Council was: "...if anyone receives not as sacred and canonical the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church...let him be anathema (accursed!)."
 
12:52pm thread continued

http://watch.pair.com/apocrypha.html


...Some of the unscriptural Catholic doctrines supported by the Apocrypha are:

a. Purgatory - II Maccabees 12:39-45
b. Salvation by Almsgiving - Ecclesiasticus 3:30
Other unscriptural things found in these books are the justification of suicide (II Maccabees 14:43-46), slavery and cruelty (Ecclesiasticus 33:24-28), and reincarnation (Wisdom of Solomon 8:19-20). Lying, assassination and magical incantations are also approved.
The Rheims-Douay Version (1582 A.D.) lists 7 additional books, adds to Esther and Daniel, and combines the "Letter of Jeremiah" with "Baruch" -- thus including 12 of the 15 apocryphal books to the Old Testament.

The Council was selective in this exercise, because it did not include II Esdras, which in its chapter 7:105 speaks against prayers for the dead!

6. THE INCLUSION OF THE APOCRYPHA IN ENGLISH VERSIONS

Many of the early English versions contained the Apocrypha, for two basic reasons - because of the general acceptance of the Apocrypha during the Dark Ages, and/or (in case of the Authorized, King James Version) for Scriptural analysis.

In each case, the Apocrypha were delineated either in an appendix and/or with an explanation showing them to be non-canonical.

a. Tyndale's Bible (1525 A.D.) places them by themselves as "uninspired."
b. Coverdale's Bible (1535 A.D.) does likewise, and with the following title:
"Apocrifa. The bokes & treatises which amonge the Fathers of old are not rekened to be of
authorite with the other bokes of the Byble, neither are the foude in the Canon of the Hebrews." (1)
c. Matthew's Bible (1537 A.D.) and Taverner's Bible (1539 A.D.) place the Apocrypha between
the Testaments.
d. The Authorized, King James Version (1611), like the Great Bible, (1539 A.D.), the Geneva
Bible (1560 A.D.) and the Bishop's Bible (1568 A.D.) before it, places them in an appendix.
Apocrypha began to be omitted from the Authorized Version in 1629, and by 1827 were excluded permanently.
7. ARGUMENTS FOR THE INCLUSION OF THE APOCRYPHA

The following arguments are most generally advanced for granting the Apocrypha canonical authority:

a. The New Testament alludes to Apocryphal events.
Hebrews 11:35 is thought to refer to II Maccabees & and 12. (In actual fact, it is referring to I Kings 17:22 and II Kings 4:35.
Jude 14 cites the pseudepigraphical book of Enoch. Does it? It cites Enoch, whose words the Holy Ghost knew.
II Timothy 3:8 is also supposed to refer to some Apocryphal literature. Again, the Holy Spirit can reveal the names of the Egyptian magicians when He chooses.

b. Early Manuscripts include the Apocrypha.
More will be said about this later.

c. Early Christian art includes Apocryphal scenes.

So?!?

d. Early Church Fathers cited them and listed them as Canonical.

More will be said about this later.

thread continued....
 
12:55pm thread continued


8. ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE CANONICITY OF THE APOCRYPHA
They are not, and have never been, in the Jewish canon.
Josephus explicitly excluded them from his list.
Philo (20 B.C.-50 A.D.) neither mentions or quotes them.
They were never quoted or alluded to by Jesus Christ or any of the apostles. The sermons in the Book of Acts, which outline Jewish history, do not included apocryphal events.
Jewish scholars meeting at the Council of Jabneh did not recognize them.
Most Church Fathers in fact rejected them.
None of the Apocrypha claim inspiration or divine authority.
Many of the Apocryphal books contain historical, geographical, and chronological errors.
Many of the Apocryphal books teach heresy, contrary to the Word of God.
Their literary style is legendary and fantasy. Some stories are grotesque and demonic.
They lack the power and distinctive elements of the Word of God.

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

Landmarks of English Bible: Manuscript Evidence, pp. 70-75
Robert J. Sargent
Lecture 5 CANONIZATION
Miller, H.S., General Biblical Introduction. Houghton, New York: The Word Bearer Press, 1960: p. 117.
Another Bible ~ Another Gospel
 
Reformed 11:25 A.M.

Re:If we are to pray to Mary, it should be proven through Scripture that we should do so.

First I must correct you. Catholics do not pray to Mary. Catholics ask Mary to pray for them to God.

The first part of the HAIL MARY is straight out of the Bible:

Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee
Blessed art thou amongst women and belssed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus


The second part is:

Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death Amen.
___________________________

The "Mother of God" reference is from the title of Mary defined at the Council of Ephesus and it is from the Greek "Theotokos."

The Council of Ephesus decreed in 431 that Mary is Theotokos because her son Jesus is one person who is both God and man, divine and human.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theotokos
___________________________

The reason for the definition is because there were those who were describing the Virgin Mary in such a way ("Christotokos") as to place the divinity of Christ in doubt. The definition was never intended to refer to Mary as "mother of God from eternity," but only with reference to the birth of Jesus, that is, the Incarnation. It is to be noted that this belief is also held by Orthodox Catholics.

The English term Mother of God is mostly used as an imprecise translation of Theotokos, and frequently requires explanation.[2] The other principal use of Mother of God has been as the precise and literal translation of Μήτηρ Θεού, a Greek term which has an established usage of its own in traditional Christian theological writing, hymnography, and iconography. In an abbreviated form ΜΡ ΘΥ it often is found on Orthodox icons (see illustration above), where it is used to identify Mary.

A hymn normally sung as part of the Greek Divine Liturgy includes both titles in close proximity, in both cases referring to Mary, showing that the titles are not synonymous: "It is truly fitting to call you blessed, the Theotokos, ever-blessed and wholly pure and the Mother of our God (Ἄξιόν ἐστιν ὡς ἀληθῶς μακαρίζειν σὲ τὴν Θεοτόκον, τὴν ἀειμακάριστον καὶ παναμώμητον καὶ μητέρα του Θεοῦ ἡμῶν...", emphasis added.) The difference between the two terms is that the former, Theotokos explicitly refers to physical childbearing, while the latter, Mother of God, describes a family relationship but not necessarily physical childbearing.

Within the Christian tradition, Mother of God has not been understood, or intended to be understood, as referring to Mary as Mother of God from eternity, that is, as Mother of God the Father, but only with reference to the birth of Jesus, that is, the Incarnation. This limitation in the meaning of Mother of God must be understood by the person employing the term. To make it explicit, it is sometimes translated Mother of God incarnate [3].

However, those reading or hearing the English phrase Mother of God as a translation of a Greek text cannot — unless they know the Greek text in question, or obtain additional information — know whether the phrase is a literal translation of Μήτηρ Θεού or an imprecise rendering of Θεοτόκος or one its Latin equivalents or equivalents in other languages.

Catholic and Orthodox Christians justify use of the term Mother of God by citing Luke 1:43 in which Elizabeth greets the Virgin Mary as the "mother of my Lord."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theotokos
 
http://www.youtube.com/
user/excatholics

http://www.excatholicsforchrist.com/
 
cont......

also......

As Cyril of Alexandria wrote, "I am amazed that there are some who are entirely in doubt as to whether the holy Virgin should be called Theotokos or not. For if our Lord Jesus Christ is God, how is the holy Virgin who gave [Him] birth, not [Theotokos]?" (Epistle 1, to the monks of Egypt; PG 77:13B). Thus the significance of Theotokos lies more in what it says about Jesus than any declaration about Mary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theotokos
________________________________

As for the Rosary, non-Catholic Christians who criticize Catholics for saying the Rosary should check it out before criticizing it.

All of it is straight out of the Bible - whether explicitly or implicitly.
 
Anonymous 12::55

Re:...Some of the unscriptural Catholic doctrines supported by the Apocrypha are:.....

Are you aware of how you have just contradicted yourself? How can these doctrines be "unscriptural" if they are included in the Catholic Bible???

They may be "unscriptural" by your standards, but they are certainly not "unscriptural" by the standards of the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox communions.

Moreover, with all due respect, your argument cuts both ways insofar as I can just as legitimately say that your rejection of these beliefs supported by books that only the PROTESTANTS have defined as "Apocryphal" is "unscriptural."

Actually, many devout Protestants I know regard the "Apocrypha" as spiritually edifying even if they do not regard said books as part of the Scriptural canon.

For 1500 years before the Reformation, the official Old Testament for Roman Catholics and Greek Orthodox was based on the Septuagint - which is not only the oldest translation of the Bible, but also the translation of the Old Testament in use at the time of Jesus.

Of significance for all Christians and for Bible scholars, the LXX is quoted by the New Testament and by the Apostolic Fathers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint
 
Anonymous 12:51:

Scripture is full of warnings against adding to and/or taking away from God's word, and embracing the traditions of man. Scripture and many of the catholic traditions are NOT compatable. Praying to Mary and looking upon the Pope as infallible to ANY degree are classic examples.

I don't want to get into it with you either, but briefly, "Sola Scriptura" contradicts itself.

Where does the Bible teach "Sola Scriptura?"

I have looked real hard and from what I can see, there is nowhere in the Sacred Scriptures where it is clearly and explicitly taught that the "Bible only" is to be the Christian Rule of Faith.

Sola Scriptura is a "man made tradition" invented by Martin Luther who should have never been allowed to become a priest in the first place.
 
Reformed,

Re:Honestly, I've enjoyed this blog because it helps me sharpen my sword but I haven't meant any harm by what I say.

I've spent my life with Catholics and I've never really understood why they believe what they do. I've always been a protestant and many of my friends are former Catholics who can't really explain why they grew up believing what they did.

The differences between us are immense but not personal. I'm perplexed by the gaps and by the history of us. I'm sure you're aware of it all.

________________________________

Actually, I have enjoyed discussing Christianity with you. It helps me as well insofar as I have gotten some of my greatest insights into the Bible from Protestants.
Anytime you want to know why Catholics believe what they believe, I am more than happy to explain it - and without any intention of trying to "convert" or "condemn" anyone.

At the end of the day, the Catholic Church does not condemn Protestants or refer to Protestants as "heretics." A "heretic" is a baptised Catholic who rejects all or part of Church teaching....and even then it doesn't necessarily mean that such a Catholic is going to hell in a handbasket.
 
Susanna 1:34pm,

"I don't want to get into it with you either, but briefly, "Sola Scriptura" contradicts itself."

It does not contradict itself. And if you 'don't want to get into it' then don't promote such serpent-tongued lies!
 
IN RESPONSE TO SUSANNA, 1:43 PM

http://www.excatholicsforchrist.com/


http://www.youtube.com/
user/excatholics


May God bless you Susanna, you are in my prayers.
 
Reformed,

ReI've spent my life with Catholics and I've never really understood why they believe what they do. I've always been a protestant and many of my friends are former Catholics who can't really explain why they grew up believing what they did.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of Catholics who are abysmally ignorant about what the Catholic Church teaches.
____________

The differences between us are immense but not personal. I'm perplexed by the gaps and by the history of us. I'm sure you're aware of it all.

There are basic Scriptural differences between us and I honestly cannot understand the Catholic perspective. I don't argue it much but I can't get anything solid on why Catholics believe what they believe when I ask. I get a lot of what other Catholics have written but little of it has to do with what is in the Bible. Yet our Bibles are essentially the same.

It isn't likely we'll ever see eye to eye on it. I read your posts and I don't doubt your sincerity or your salvation. There are, however, elements of the Catholic Church that are questionable and you have chimed in on these. These elements were where I started posting.

_________________________________

The Catholic rule of Faith is similar to - albeit not identical -to the Jewish Rule of Faith which is Torah/Mishnah (written/oral tradition.) The Catholic Rule of Faith is Scripture and Sacred Tradition (written and oral tradition)and the two are not only inseparable from one another, but the one can not contradict the other.

The Gospels were preached before they were written and we are told in Scriptures:

But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.John 21:25

We Catholics believe that Divine Revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle. The Church Fathers and Doctors do not add anything new to Divine Revelation, but they expand on its meaning in their writings.

If there is anything you would like to discuss, by all means ask away. I would like nothing more than to help you to understand why I believe what I believe as a Catholic.

If you feel comfortable posting your e-mail address here, I will certainly get in touch.

God Bless You and Merry Christmas!

Regards,

Susanna
 
This is horrendous!

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release December 17, 2009 Executive Order -- Amending Executive Order 12425
EXECUTIVE ORDER
- - - - - - -
AMENDING EXECUTIVE ORDER 12425 DESIGNATING INTERPOL
AS A PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION ENTITLED TO
ENJOY CERTAIN PRIVILEGES, EXEMPTIONS, AND IMMUNITIES

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 288), and in order to extend the appropriate privileges, exemptions, and immunities to the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), it is hereby ordered that Executive Order 12425 of June 16, 1983, as amended, is further amended by deleting from the first sentence the words "except those provided by Section 2(c), Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act" and the semicolon that immediately precedes them.

BARACK OBAMA

THE WHITE HOUSE,
December 16, 2009.

http://tinyurl.com/ydobfwz
 
Susanna, your graciousness and immense patiencce in these matters speak for themselves.

By their fruits shall you know them.
 
Regulars here probably already know about the magazine Enlightenment (which is now EnlightenNext), which is I guess I'd call a "cerebral" New Age publication. They have a podcast site that might have some interesting stuff to slog through for research purposes:

Evolutionary Enlightenment Podcast

http://eeny.mypodcast.com/

Marko
 
JD:

Re: the amended Executive order...

The horrendous thing about it is that Obama removed language from the original EO, giving Interpol MORE jurisdiction over people and laws here in the US than they had previously.

This is clearing the way for "legal" detainment of Christians (or whomever, but we all know where this is going) under whatever pretense Interpol comes up with.

Marko
 
An excellent diagnosis of Obama's amendment of Executive Order 12425 can be found here:

http://threatswatch.org/analysis/2009/12/wither-sovereignty/
 
I wish a very Merry Christmas to you Constance, to all who contribute to this valuable site, and to all who visit. May these holidays bring you joy, peace and God's blessings.

VW
 
Anonymous 10:31

Re:The Bible and "full of grace"
The phrase "full of grace" in Greek is "plaras karitos" and it occurs in only two places in the New Testament; neither one is in reference to Mary.


The way I learned it, in the original Greek text of the Gospel, the Greek for "full of grace" that WAS used in reference to Mary is ""Chaire, Kecharitomene," not "plaras karitos."
______________________________

Another point that many non-Catholics argue about the phrase “Full of grace” is Acts 6:8:

“And Stephen, full of grace and fortitude, did great wonders and signs among the people.”

Also, John 1:14:

“And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we saw his glory, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.”

The argument from non-Catholics is that the words used in Acts 6:8 and John 1:14 for “full of grace” are plaras karitos, and that these words are not used for Mary. Plaras karitos either means an infusion of grace or an extrinsic blessing. The argument is true, but it presents a problem. This would mean that Jesus and Stephen were sinless.

In order to remedy this, one would have to interpret these two verses in light of who Jesus is. We know that Jesus is God, so when we see plaras karitos in John 1:14, we know that John is saying that He is without sin. Jesus, being God, isn’t infused with grace, neither is it extrinsic to Him. All grace comes from God. The God-Man, Jesus, isn’t just full of grace, but He IS grace. As John 1:16 says:

“And of his fullness we all have received, and grace for grace.”

One cannot give what he neither has nor is the source of. In the case of Stephen, being a mere creature, he did not share this sinless nature in virtue of the terms plaras karitos, meaning that his grace was infused at a later date. The text doesn’t say Kekaritomene did great wonders and signs among the people, which would mean that he received it in the past and it remains to the present.

Furthermore, as was stated above, the most accurate translation of the word is “You who have been graced”. It’s not the same word, nor do the two words have the same meaning.

Mary, also a mere creature, was not without need of a Savior. That is why she says in Luke 1:47:

“And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Savior.”

From Mary’s own lips, she admits she needs a Savior, but when did this salvation take place? According to the Catholic Church, it happened at the moment of her conception. How do we come to this conclusion? The word of the angel, the messenger of God, tells us that she is full of grace from the past and to the present; kekaritomene.

Furthermore, Gabriel doesn’t say, "Chaire, Mariam, kekaritomene". He says, "Chaire, kekaritomene”. He calls her by a new name, “Hail, Full of Grace”. If the Holy Spirit is the Divine Author of Scripture, then it was His Will for Luke to use this term which points to the past and the present....
read more...

http://protestantmisinformation.
blogspot.com/2006/08/gospel-
truth-part-5a.html

cont.....
 
cont...

The Meaning of Kecharitomene: Full of Grace (Luke 1:28)

This is kind of a return to an old thread. The main point here is that, just as the man Christ Jesus is excepted from original sin (including original sin as described in various places in Romans, with such statements by St. Paul as "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" and "death passed to all men because all have sinned") and just as that fact can be demonstrated from specific Scriptural verses when those verses are correctly understood, Mary is excepted from original sin and this fact can be demonstrated from specific verses. One well-known verse that shows this is Luke 1:28, and particularly the angel Gabriel's salutation to Mary: "Chaire, Kecharitomene" (translated in the Douay-Rheims and other Catholic versions as "Hail, Full of Grace" or "gratia plena" in the Latin Vulgate)...read more....

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a116.htm
________________________________

also.....

The English translation, "Hail, Full of Grace," or "Hail, Favored One," is based on the Greek of Gospel of Luke 1:28, "Χαίρε, Κεχαριτωμένη", Chaire kecharitomene, a phrase which can most literally be translated: "Rejoice, you who have been graced." The latter word, kecharitomene, is the passive voice, present perfect participle of the verb "to grace" in the feminine gender, vocative case; therefore the Greek syntax indicates that the action of the verb has been fully completed in the past, with results continuing into the future. Put another way, it means that the subject (Mary) was graced fully and completely at some time in the past, and continued in that fully graced state. The angel's salutation does not refer to the incarnation of Christ in Mary's womb, as he proceeds to say: "thou shalt conceive in thy womb…" (Luke 1:31).
 
Anonymous 12:52

Re: In order for the Roman Catholics to say the same thing, the Apocrypha were added to give "Scriptural" proof for their false teachings.

You really need to do some more studying on the history of the Bible.

What Protestants refer to as "Apocrypha" are the deuterocanonical books of the Septuagint translation of Old Testament from which the Catholic Old Testament canon is derived.

The Septuagint is also the official Old Testament canon of the Greek Orthodox Church.
____________________________

Deuterocanonical books is a term used since the sixteenth century in the Catholic Church and Eastern Christianity to describe certain books and passages of the Christian Old Testament that are not part of the Jewish Bible. The term is used in contrast to the protocanonical books, which are contained in the Hebrew Bible. This distinction had previously contributed to debate in the early Church about whether they should be read in the churches and thus be classified as canonical texts.

The Deuterocanonical books are considered canonical by Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox, but are considered non-canonical by Protestants...
read more...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Deuterocanonical_books

As to the question regarding how the deuterocanonical books were omitted from the Old Testament, we must refer to what some believe to have been a gathering of rabbis around 90 A.D. which has been called the "Council of Jamnia."

COUNCIL OF JAMNIA

...Late first century developments attributed to Jamnia
Today, there is no scholarly consensus as to when the Jewish canon was set. Nevertheless, the outcomes attributed to the Council of Jamnia did occur whether gradually or in a definitive, authoritative council. Several concerns of the remaining Jewish communities in Israel would have been the loss of the national language, the growing problem of conversions to Christianity, based in part on Christian promises of life after death. What emerged from this era was twofold:

A rejection of the Septuagint or Koine Greek Old Testament widely then in use in Hellenistic Judaism along with its additional books not part of the Biblical Hebrew/Biblical Aramaic Masoretic Text.......

...Some of the books not admitted into the Hebrew canon, such as Wisdom and 2 Maccabees, gave the only textual support for the common first century Jewish belief in the after-life.

The martyrs' prayers for the dead and the living praying and offering sacrifices for the dead motivated Martin Luther to reject these books as apocryphal because they supported Catholic doctrine and practice...
read more...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Jamnia


cont.....
 
cont....

YOCHANAN BEN ZAKAI
His home, at this time, was in 'Arab, a location in the Galilee. However, although living among them, he found the secular attitude of Galileans to be objectionable, allegedly exclaiming that they hated the torah and would therefore fall into the hands of robbers.

During the siege of Jerusalem in the Great Jewish Revolt, he argued in favour of peace; when he found the anger of the besieged denizens to be intolerable, he arranged to be snuck out of the city inside a coffin, so that he could negotiate with Vespasian (who, at this time, was still just a military commander). Yochanan (correctly) predicted that Vespasian would become Emperor, and that the temple would soon be destroyed, in return, Vespasian granted Yochanan three wishes: the salvation of Yavnah (Jamnia) and its sages, the descendants of Rabban Gamliel, who was of the Davidic dynasty, and a physician to treat Rabbi Tzadok, who had fasted for 40 years to stave off the destruction of Jerusalem.

Upon the destruction of Jerusalem, Jochanan converted his school at Jamnia into the Jewish religious centre, insisting that certain privileges, given by Jewish law uniquely to Jerusalem, should be transferred to Jamnia. His school behaved as a re-establishment of the Sanhedrin, and he soon established the Council of Jamnia (70-90 AD), so that Judaism could decide how to deal with the loss of the sacrificial altars of the temple of Jerusalem, and other pertinent questions. Referring to a passage in the Book of Hosea, which states I desired mercy, and not sacrifice, he helped persuade the council to replace animal sacrifice with prayer , a practice that continues in today's worship services; eventually Rabbinic Judaism emerged from the council's conclusions...
read more...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yohanan_ben_Zakkai
________________________________


DEVELOPMENT OF THE JEWISH BIBLE CANON

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Development_of_the_Jewish_Bible_
canon
_________________________________

As you can see, the Old Testament books you call "the Apocrypha" were part of the ancient translation of the Old Testament called the Septuagint long before there were even any Christians around to argue about them.

These books were omitted from the Hebrew canon around the first Century A.D. at the gathering or school which came to be called the Council of Jamnia.
It is a historical fact that these books were NOT something the Catholic Church "added to" the Bible in order to "prove" her teachings.
 
Dear Susanna,

In response to your 7:38PM/7:47PM thread.

I hold firm to the explanation I have cited (10:31AM/10:34AM/10:36AM) as being truthful, and in Scripturally structural agreement to the comparative historic textual analysis of the sixty six books which comprise the Holy Bible, as agreed upon by the early Church.

http://www.carm.org/religious-movements/roman-catholicism/mary-full-grace-and-luke-128


On account of Stephen, with great respect, you have not taken into account the following section of the citation I posted at 10:34 AM.

I hope this helps.


"And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth," (John 1:14).
"And Stephen, full of grace and power, was performing great wonders and signs among the people," (Acts 6:8).

The first citation refers to Jesus who is obviously full of grace. Jesus is God in flesh, the crucified and risen Lord, who cleanses us from our sins.

In the second citation it is Stephen who is full of grace. We can certainly affirm that Jesus was conceived without sin and remained sinless, but can we conclude this about Stephen as well? Certainly not.

The phrase "full of grace" does not necessitate sinlessness by virtue of its use. In Stephen's case it signifies that he was "full of the Spirit and of wisdom," along with faith and the Holy Spirit (Acts 6:3, 5). But Stephen was a sinner."

(http://www.carm.org/religious-movements/roman-catholicism/mary-full-grace-and-luke-128)

Peace be with you.

Jay
 
Dear Susanna,

Out of any of the 14 Apocryphal books in question, which are referenced in the New Testament, and if so, where?

Jay
 
Dear Susanna,

Out of any of the 14 Apocryphal books in question, could you please tell me where they are referred to in the New Testament by any apostle, by Jesus Christ, or by anyone?

Thank you.

Jay
 
"The Spanish government on Wednesday named former foreign policy chief of the European Union, Javier Solana, as director of the Spanish Security Strategy..."

http://tinyurl.com/yl86kwz

or

http://fotos.lainformacion.com/fotos/javier-solana-dirigira-la-estrategia-espanola-de-seguridad_Esnvfr2ZCLZ7oOw6xr6585/

Also:

http://tinyurl.com/y9pkno4

or

http://www.elpais.com/articulo/espana/Gobierno/encarga/Javier/Solana/estrategia/espanola/seguridad/elpepiesp/20091224elpepinac_5/Tes

For rough translation, see 5th post at following FP thread:

http://tinyurl.com/ydr7n3w

or

http://www.fulfilledprophecy.com/discussion/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=53405
 
Jay,

If you will first tell me where in the New Testament Jesus ever said that any part of the Septuagint - including the deuterocanonical books that YOU call "Apocryphal" - was NOT an authentic Old Testament canon, then I will answer your question.

But just keep in mind that since I am not the one who is claiming that my Rule of Faith is the "Bible only," I don't have to prove my beliefs from the Bible only. You do.
 
To anonymous 10:04

Thanks for the heads up on the new Solana appointment -- JUST IN TIME for the joint Spanish government's EU - WEU joint presidency! I'm going to put the picture up on a new posting!

Constanc
 
Without getting into the sometimes ugly Catholic/Protestant debates over SOLA SCRIPTURA, here's how to sort it out in my opinion, which was the way the early church fathers sortedthings out when they were assembling the canons of Scripture.

THE HOLY SPIRIT NEVER CONTRADICTS HIMSELF. Therefore, when the purported texts divided Christ, denied that Jesus Christ had come in the flesh, suggested reincarnation in opposition to clear warnings that "it is appointed unto man once to die and then the judgment," even though something might purport to be say, "the 14th fragment of Peter," or the newest "Epistle from Paul." Personally, I believe God can and sometimes does speak to us in many ways, but the spirits must be tested as Paul warned because not every spirit was of the Lord. The Scriptures have internal consistency as does anything else coming from God.

Constance
 
Jay,

Re:The phrase "full of grace" does not necessitate sinlessness by virtue of its use. In Stephen's case it signifies that he was "full of the Spirit and of wisdom," along with faith and the Holy Spirit (Acts 6:3, 5). But Stephen was a sinner."

First of all, please forgive me if I came across in a previous post as being a little snarky. At first I thought you were merely being a wiseguy looking to put another one of those "pagan Catholics" in her place.

That is because I was reading the posts from the bottom up and when I was tired to boot. That'll teach me. LOL

But to answer your question, from a Catholic Christian point of view, Stephen's being "full of grace" would have been in virtue of his Baptism and Confirmation.

We Catholics believe that Baptism is the Sacrament that cleanses the soul from Original Sin, restores Sanctifying Grace to the soul (the grace which was lost by the sin of our first parents), makes us members of Christ and incorporated with the Church.

Confirmation, which completes baptismal grace, is for the baptized person, and it is administered with the anointing of oil, the laying on of hands, and the words, “Be sealed with the Gift of the Holy Spirit” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1300).

Catholics define the Sacraments as "outward signs instituted by Christ to give grace." So for Catholics, Sacraments, by their very definition are channels of grace.

As for Stephen, he would have been "full of grace" after being baptised and confirmed, but not from birth as was Mary according to Catholic teaching. And even after baptism, Stephen, unlike Mary, would have still been a "sinner" in the sense that he would have still had to struggle with the consequences of Original Sin called concupiscence (i.e. disordered, selfish human desire)

Since we Catholics believe that Mary's preredemption by Christ (Immaculate Conception) means that she never contracted Original Sin to begin with, Mary would never have had to struggle with those consequences of Original Sin involving the tendency to sin suffered by the rest of us even after baptism and confirmation.

But this begs the question "what about the baptism of Christ by John the Baptist?

Jesus as an adult comes to the Jordan River to seek his own baptism from John the Baptist. Matthew's gospel uniquely includes a conversation between Jesus and John. John humbly objects to baptizing Jesus, insisting instead that Jesus baptize him.

John's concern seemed to be twofold: John baptized others for repentance and forgiveness of sins, something the sinless Jesus did not need; John's ministry included the coming of a "mightier" one who would bring a better baptism—not only with water but with the Holy Spirit and fire. Jesus persisted and John acceded to administer Jesus' baptism.

In accepting John's baptism, Jesus is seen as identifying with sinful humankind and expressing his full solidarity with us.

Jesus inaugurated his public ministry by stepping into the place of sinners with all our guilt on his shoulders and carrying it down into the depths of the Jordan. His baptism by John marked his acceptance of death for the sins of humankind; his coming up out of the water depicted his resurrection.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism_of_Jesus

MERRY CHRISTMAS!
 
Constance 3:03

If more Protestants followed your good example and took the trouble to educate themselves about what Catholics (and Orthodox) actually believe (from unbiased sources) and why they believe it, we could very likely avoid a lot of "the sometimes ugly Catholic/Protestant debates over SOLA SCRIPTURA."

As I see it, most of the arguments about Biblical canonicity are usually over the Old Testament canon. The Hebrew Bible (see the "Council of Jamnia") is the Protestant canon while the Septuagint is the Roman Catholic and Orthodox canon.

If more people understood this, the mutual and puerile accusations concerning who "added to" or "took away" books of the Bible might at least become less frequent.

The establishment of the Old Testament and New Testament canons was a long complicated process and didn't just happen overnight.

What you have said with regard to the New Testament canon is pretty much in conformity with what Protestants acknowledge as the four CRITERIA FOR CANONICITY:

1. Apostolic Origin — attributed to and based upon the preaching/teaching of the first-generation apostles (or their close companions).

2. Universal Acceptance — acknowledged by all major Christian communities in the ancient world (by the end of the fourth century).

3. Liturgical Use — read publicly when early Christian communities gathered for the Lord's Supper (their weekly worship services).

4. Consistent Message — containing a theological outlook similar to or complementary to other accepted Christian writings.

A four gospel canon was asserted by bishop of Lyon and martyr St. Irenaeus,(c. 160)- a disciple of Polycarp,(of Smyrna) who was said to be a disciple of John the Evangelist.
Irenaeus is the earliest witness to recognition of the canonical character of all four gospels, and one of the many reasons he laid such emphasis on the importance of establishing a gospel canon was to combat the gnotics who were inventing their own "gospels." An example of the kind of "gospels" the gnostics were inventing would be "The Gospel of Mary of Magdala"
or "The Gospel of Thomas."

For anyone interested, here is a free online copy of Irenaeus' ADVERSUS HAERESES

http://www.earlychristianwritings.
com/text/irenaeus-book1.html

Many of the "Christ-severing" gnostic errors described by St. Irenaeus were resurrected in the 19th-century occult revival - notably by Jules Doinel - and also in the New Age Movement.

H.P. Blavatsky doesn't speak too kindly of St. Irenaeus in her writings either!
 
P.S.

Constance,

MERRY CHRISTMAS TO YOU AND TO EVERYONE HERE!
 
Happy Christmas to you to Susanna. Peace be with you and to everybody here.

Just to add, I second what Anonymous wrote at 3:39PM,

"Susanna, your graciousness and immense patiencce in these matters speak for themselves.

By their fruits shall you know them."

God be with you.

Peace and blessings,

Jay
 
Anon 9:22am

Yes, sorry, I was thinking of the actor that played the roll and not the name of the character of the human hulk in the new movie. Insert David Banner where I had Bill Bixby. Thanks for clearing that up. I don't know who played David Banner in the new version. It was some time ago that we watched it.

Lily
 
Do you suppose the outcome would have been the same if she had been a Muslim? Someone will test that someday.
 
History of polo ralph lauren. Polo fashions had its humble beginnings in 1968 when tie salesman Ralph Lauren gave it a kick start. By 1969 he had a boutique polo ralph lauren factory stores within the Manhattan department store Bloomingdale's. ... Brands and luxury standard. Since Ralph Lauren's first brand, Polo Ralph Lauren, was launched, the company has expanded to include a variety of luxury brands such as Polo Golf, Polo Denim, Polo Sport. You can buy cheap Ralph Lauren Clothing at Ralph Lauren outlet.Also We provide polo shirts
Ralph Lauren polo shirt, 50% OFF! polo ralph lauren outlet online is your best choice!In 2006, polo ralph lauren outlet became the first designer in Wimbledon's 133-year history to create official uniforms for the tournament. As part of this year's event, which starts next week, polo ralph lauren sale will introduces the first ... determination to maintain and enhance the values for which our two brands are famous throughout the world. The rugby ralph lauren brand brings to Wimbledon the look of timeless elegance, drawing on our rich history and traditions
 
Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]



Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]