Jesus Repudiates the Mariolatry Volume III

Now that you have come to the Scriptures, look at it in its context and quote it accurately.

Luke 1:28 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.
--Mary was "highly favored." In five different translations there is no "full of grace." She was favored. She was highly favored in the sense that God chose her to bear the body of Jesus. She was a vessel used of God in a point in history and that is all.
"The Lord is with thee." Amen. The Lord is with every believer. He promises never to forsake us or leave us.
"Blessed art thou among women" Among the women of that time in that area she was blessed to bear the child Jesus. It in no way refers to all women of all ages.

Judges 5:24 Blessed above women shall Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite be.

So who is it? Jael or Mary that is blessed above all women? It can't be both can it?

"And Elizabeth said, the mother of my Lord."
What did Elizabeth say?
Luke 1:43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
--The context shows that the Holy Spirit was telling Elizabeth that Mary would give birth to the Messiah.

That is right. Woman behold thy son. Not "mother." Jesus did not address her as mother. That is important to note, for Jesus did not consider Mary as his mother. He was also making Mary to understand that she was not His mother. In fact he told John: "Behold 'thy' mother." John was to take care of Mary as if Mary was his mother.

Do you have Biblical proof here.

Whatever you say. Then from ancient times people have been in gross error. Every writer of the NT has warned about false error, false teachers, false prophets. If they were there in the time of Christ and in the time of the Apostles, then your statement could very well be true. But that doesn't make it doctrinally correct. Ever since the garden of Eden people have believed the serpent's lie: "ye shall be as gods." Does that make it true? Antiquity does not equal truth.

The practice of the rosary is heretical. It takes away worship from God and blasphemously gives it to Mary, making Mary into an idol. It is idolatry and blasphemy.

Furthermore Jesus said:
Matthew 6:7 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

The rosary is vain repetitions as the heathen do.
53 times is the "Hail Mary" repeated. It is a vain repetition. It is prayer to Mary as a god. There is only one God and it is not Mary. This kind of thing puts Catholicism in a class of pagan religions like Hinduism. It sets it apart from Christianity. Christianity has no part in goddess worship. That is a pagan practice.

You say the rosary is the epitome of the whole gospel. I laugh. I was a Catholic for 20 years, and never heard the gospel once. I prayed through the rosary almost every day. I can post for you the Hail Mary. There is no gospel there; only the worship of Mary. There is no gospel in the rosary; even to post such is a lie. Demonstrate how there is the gospel in the rosary. That should be interesting.

 

For you or Howdy Doody? :laugh:

Toys R Us!

 

Did you not read my posts. Look again at post #66. I quoted for Isa.8:20; Acts 17:11, and Luke 24:27, all of which teach sola scriptura--the Bible is the sole source for doctrine and authority. It doesn't have to say it in those exact words just as the Bible doesn't use the word "trinity." But they do teach the principle.

The believers at Berea were commended by Paul for searching the Scriptures in order to verify the message that Paul was giving them was true. That is sola scriptura. This they did on a daily basis, and were commended for it. They did not consult tradition, but the Scriptures only. In fact it is interesting that they could use the OT to verify a NT message.

A gross misinterpretation of the verse.
The word "tradition" simply means "truth" as in the truth of God's word. Think of it.
First, I looked up the word tradition in a Catholic Encycopedia. It said that it was teaching, oral or written, passed down from generation to generation over many years throughout centuries.
Now apply that to this verse. The beginning of the church was at Pentecost shortly after the resurrection of Christ, about 29 A.D. Paul wrote the letter to the Thessalonians around 60 A.D. How much "tradition" (according to a Catholic definition) could be passed down in a period of 30 years? Obviously none! There was no time for any tradition to develop. There is no logical sense here whatsoever.
"The tradition (the teaching of the Word of God) which you have received from us--whether by preaching and teaching (orally) or by written letter (written). There is no tradition as interpreted by the Catholics.
The term is simply used as the truth of God's Word, which Paul had been teaching to them.

Again, the same gross misinterpretation has been used.
The term "tradition" simply refers to the truth of God's Word as explained above.
"Hold to the 'truth of God's Word' which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter."
What and how did Paul teach them?
1. He taught them the Word of God and only the Word of God. That was the commission that God gave him.

1 Corinthians 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

1 Corinthians 1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

The obvious point is that he did not preach tradition. He always preached Christ, the Word of God. "Tradition" cannot mean 'tradition' in the sense that Catholics define it. It is impossible.

I don't know where you are quoting from, but it sounds like a bad or inaccurate translation. Here is what the KJV says:

1 Corinthians 11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
--These are not traditions. They are ordinances or commands. A command is far different than a tradition. Read the rest of the chapter and you will find a series of commands that Paul gives to the Corinthians.

The Bible does not support any such tradition at all. You have read into the Bible your own pre-conceived ideas (no doubt reading it from a Catholic web site).

And this is what the Catholics do. Their traditin opposes Biblical teaching.

I already gave you three. I still could give you more, but when you ignore the ones I gave I find that unnecessary.

They don't use them; they abuse them. Here is what Peter says about that:

2 Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

But the Catholic Tradition contradicts the Bible in almost every way.

 

2 Corinthians 10:8-11
For even if I boast somewhat freely about the authority the Lord gave us for building you up rather than pulling you down, I will not be ashamed of it. I do not want to seem to be trying to frighten you with my letters. For some say, "His letters are weighty and forceful, but in person he is unimpressive and his speaking amounts to nothing." Such people should realize that what we are in our letters when we are absent, we will be in our actions when we are present.

2 Corinithians 13: 9-10
We are glad whenever we are weak but you are strong; and our prayer is for your perfection. This is why I write these things when I am absent, that when I come I may not have to be harsh in my use of authority--the authority the Lord gave me for building you up, not for tearing you down.


Heb 13:17
Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you

It doesn't seem to me that the Bible indicates it is the sole source for authority.

It does many times demonstrate the apostles using their authority to authoritatively teach scripture. I can't seem to find the passage where they indicate to the believers that they should read and the Holy Spirit would provide them with a correct interpretation.

 

Nice to meet you

1 Corinthians 2:13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.

The words of the holy spirit are only found in the bible.

 

1 Corinthians 2:14 is also good with that verse.

1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

To try to teach the things of the Spirit of God using sources that do not line up with the Word of God is foolishness. One that tries to explain God's will for man by using anything other than the Word of God is in direct disobedience to God's Word.

 

Nice to meet you too. :wavey:

You're of the belief that the Holy Spirit only worked through men directly until the Bible was completed, and then stopped?

 

No. This verse you asked about points to the words of the holy spirit. Obviously, the words are in the bible so if you want to know the holy spirit, you get to know what is in your bible front and back. You trust it as the sole authority, not man's wisdom. Until I look something up, or someone offers bible verses as proof for their beliefs, it's not worth anything as it is only man's opinion.

The only way to know the spirit is to get serious, read and believe what your bible says as the only source of truth. Don't let man made interpretations or man made beliefs keep you from going to the source to for proof of what you believe.

You picked an interesting handle

 

The Holy Spirit still works through men today, but in a different manner. The Working of the Holy Spirit today does not add to, nor will it ever add to the Written Word of God. The Written Word is complete.

If one claims the Holy Spirit is giving him or her some new divine revelation that has never been revealed to man before, then that one is bearing false witness.

There is nothing new under the sun.

 

I would assume that lots of prayer would go along with that Bible study as part of the 'only' way to know the spirit?

The catch I see to this idea (and probably always will) is that you are then relying on your wisdom for a correct interpretation, which would be equivalent to "man's wisdom", is it not? And how would your interpretation not be man-made, whereas someone else's is?

And also, you've read no Bible commentaries or interpretations by others (ever) that may have influenced the conclusions you've reached?

Does my handle trouble you? I'm aware many are not big fans of CS Lewis.

 

No. I read your handle and didn't catch it at first. I love mr. tumnis. He's my favorite character on the Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe

Honestly, I don't read any other books except the bible. It seems many others do. As a new Christian, I read the Purpose Driven life. Took it apart verse by verse practically, looked each and everything up. It didn't take a bible scholar to look up verses and notice right off they didn't mean what the author was trying to intend them to. Eventually, 1/3 of the book was marked up as inaccurate.

Maybe this is why I don't trust any books except the bible. There are living translations which make it easier to understand.
Prayer helps of course, but you can only get closer to him in knowing him. You can't know him if you don't read his instruction book (The Bible). I don't concern myself over the holy spirit, it's not a salvation issue anyway. It took a while for me to feel the Holy Spirit's presence. It will happen, so there is no reason to dwell upon it.

You can check out e sword (free program) to look up verses. The program has many features. I don't use it though.

Are you female? There is a bible study called BSF which is free, and there are locations all over the world. It is non-denominational, various denominations attend this study. My neighbor is a teacher.

 

Glad you like Mr. Tumnus. I identify with him because he found courage to do the right thing, although he didn't start out that way. And yes, I am female -- don't let the "Mr." fool you.

I like to use a variety of Bible study tools and go back and forth. Do you have some info on the BSF?

Lately I have been working through much of what Scott Hahn has put together. Sure it wouldn't appeal to many here, but he is extremely well educated in both Protestant and Catholic theology and tends to be a little more realistic about both perspectives than some.

Related to the topic at hand, interesting enough he and his wife both received graduate degrees from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, which is a Bible-based non-denominational evangelical seminary (you can check out their statement of faith to see if it aligns or not with your beliefs). His wife states that "In seminary we used the technical term, theotokos which means God-bearer or even Mother of God. Now I have to admit that when we heard that in seminary, I kind of bristled. That doesn't sound right. Mother of God sounds like she made God. You know that's not right. But my Protestant seminary professor assured all of us it was a very important title because if she only mothered Jesus in his humanity, then Jesus wasn't fully God. But if Jesus, in one person, was fully God and fully man, then we can honestly say that she is the Mother of God, not the creator of God but the Mother of God. And there's no need to be offended by that. "

Thought that was kind of interesting seeings that people here seem to think that's just a Catholic/Orthodox heresy.

 

Oh, you're female. This is good
Here is the link http://www.bsfinternational.org/

For a new Christian, just understanding salvation issues should be your goal. You want to ensure your own salvation, this is most important. Google salvation issues

Obsessing over who the mother of God is only distracts us from knowing who he is, thus it makes no sense. Let's say that Mary is the mother of God. So what? I want to live! I have better things to worry about, like what the Lord expects of me. He is a jelous God so praying to or thru his mother Mary would probably irk him. He told us otherwise. Christ Jesus said "I am the way the truth and the light, no one comes to the father except thru me" When I pray, I pray to God in Jesus name. It is through Jesus death I have salvation. Mary was just an incubator.

 

I just skimmed his name on Wikipedia, which isn't always accurate. It appears a works based salvation. Google works based salvation if you choose.

Salvation is very simple, and when works are added to it, this is often the definition of a Cult.

 

Your theology teacher got that one wrong. Mary is not the Mother of God. To say she was the Mother of God would be to say she existed before God did... which is heresy. One would also have to come to the conclusion that God had a beginning if Mary was the Mother of God... another heresy.

Just because one teaches a seminary does not make one unquestionable in his or her doctrine. The Mother of God doctrine should be questioned and discarded as heresy.