Who really cares what the ECF's had to say?

[Montalban]

Simple. Just find out what the apostles taught and what Jesus taught. This can easily be seen in the Gospels, Acts and the Epistles. It's so voluminous many people haven't even read a tenth of it. If anything is introduced that is not supported by these, forget it.

Again with your yawn inducing approach to debate. Ignore what was said and then come up with the same 'points' people have addressed already.

Well, call me foolish, because here I go again.

If the Bible is all that you need 'for support' then show me where in the Bible it says it's all you need.

I expect nothing but evasion from you on this point. And lo, and behold! In a weeks time you'll repeat the same 'just-so' again.

 

[Rick Otto]

"If the Bible is all that you need 'for support' then show me where in the Bible it says it's all you need."
"You" being understood to be an elect (saved) person...
2Ti 3: 12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. 13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. 14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. Hey B-boy, ya got a guest room in that Castle of Truth?

"salt-reduced" is an unusualy candid self-revelation Mr. M.

 

[beamishboy]

in the US (at least) there is both academic and critical recognition of a genre and device known as "Exploitation" - in sum, it refers to a characteristic style which seeks to provoke an emotional response in the viewer or reader -- in the vernacular it can be described as "pushing someone's buttons". Exploitation seeks to thrill (negatively or positively) rather than inform and is noted to be shallow in nature. The descriptive "dizzy heights" is either hyperbolic or a misrepresentation. Either way, repeated use of such characterizations is "exploitative".

I think you can do better.

When Anglian continues to say that the Protestant tradition is to persist in error just because MamaZ made a slip in one of the posts, you don't think of it as "exploitative". Why then should you feel it's exploitative when I say "dizzy heights"? Simple. Because you know deep down that it is true. You know that both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox traditions have elevated Mary to a height that would be unseemly and forbidden when you consider the strict Jewish tradition that Christianity emanates from. Your buttons are pushed. Why are your buttons there in the first place? You know deep down that something is not quite right.

When I say dizzy heights, I really mean it because in practice what we see in the veneration of Mary is something that no Jewish Christian would have accepted and all the Apostles were Jewish Christians. In the Jewish Christian mind (as it is in the Protestant mind) such acts of veneration are worship and the use of statues idolatory.

But when Anglian in telling MamaZ that she had slipped up says that it's a Protestant tradition to persist in error, that is clearly "exploitative" and incendiary. But most of us Protestants don't have "buttons" as you put it because we don't live in glass houses on shifting sand and we just dismiss Anglian's remarks as unnecessary and ungracious.

 

[beamishboy]

"If the Bible is all that you need 'for support' then show me where in the Bible it says it's all you need."
"You" being understood to be an elect (saved) person...
2Ti 3: 12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. 13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. 14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. Hey B-boy, ya got a guest room in that Castle of Truth?

"salt-reduced" is an unusualy candid self-revelation Mr. M.

Hi Rick Otto,

I have many guest rooms in my Castle of Truth and the beamishboy openly invites everyone who loves our Lord there. In fact the beamishboy has also invited atheists in GA but none has taken up the offer. So far, only believers in our Lord and God's Holy Word seem to come a-visiting.

The beamishboy would be more than happy and would consider himself blessed to have your company. In case the beamishboy is out of his Castle doing battles with atheists and others, please write to the beamishboy at beamishboy94@gmail.com and he will send you his castle key which will activate the draw-bridge so you can get into the Castle which is surrounded by a shark-infested moat.

That gmail address is best cos the beamishboy checks it regularly. It's a pity someone else (must be an imposter; hehe) has taken up the name beamishboy alone for gmail and I had to add the "94" which isn't so good for it reveals too much. But the beamishboy has other addresses without "94" added ie beamishboy@ymail.com and beamishboy@rocketmail.com - these are new addresses by yahoo so if you want new addresses, do check them out. But alas, I hardly check those two addresses so please write to the gmail address with the number "94" added.

This invitation is open to everyone - Protestants, RCs, Orthodox, Jews, people of other religions or no religion, etc. The beamishboy believes in befriending everyone. Don't be afraid of his sword; he rarely unsheathes it. If you write to me, I'll invite you to my castle and show you round. The beamishboy extends hospitality to all - even those with whom he crosses swords.

 

[Anglian]

Dear Beamishboy,

I asked MamaZ, as I did yourself and LLOJ whether, as per what the Spirit says in my new signature that St. May can be called 'blessed'; not one of you has actually responded. That is the stiff-necked attitude to which I am referring.

I asked MamaZ only twice to accept the correction of her own mistake; she did not respond.

You keep quoting the later Lukan verse as though it contradicts the statement in my signature, yet when pressed, avoid answering.

Your Roman Fever is your own cross. You are not even in line with your own Church on this. Your archbishop venerates St. Mary, and, as you have been shown, there is a whole Anglican shrine to her in Walsingham. Indeed, I have been there many times, and have seen many Anglican priests bowing to statues of her. So, before you are quite consumed by Roman fever, perhaps sort your own Church out first?

When you get off your anti-Roman hobby-horse, beat your sword into a ploughshare and join us peasants in trying to love those who despitefully use you.

The Orthodox follow the word of the Spirit and call the Theotokos 'blessed' - what do you do?

Peace,

Anglian

 

[beamishboy]

Again with your yawn inducing approach to debate. Ignore what was said and then come up with the same 'points' people have addressed already.

Well, call me foolish, because here I go again.

If the Bible is all that you need 'for support' then show me where in the Bible it says it's all you need.

I expect nothing but evasion from you on this point. And lo, and behold! In a weeks time you'll repeat the same 'just-so' again.

You are missing my point. Please read this post carefully.

I never once said that the Bible tells us to depend on the Bible alone. All I'm saying is that if the apostles had practised Mary veneration, there would have been something in their writings about it. The early Christians were Jews. Anything that is "offensive" to Jews had to be neutralised before they can be accepted by the early Christians.

We see this in the unclean food. In their meetings in those days, (read Acts) there were a lot of discussions on issues like unclean food and circumcision. Why? Because these were things that Jews were fastidious about.

If the Apostles or early Christians had Mary veneration, it would have to be debated because the concept of venerating a woman - making idols of her, bowing to them, kneeling to them, praying to her, consecrate her sacred heart, etc etc would have been anathema to a Jew.

The TOTAL ABSENCE of any hint of Mary veneration in the Bible is proof paramount that Mary veneration is not something the Apostles knew about or even envisaged. It's totally alien to them.

It's very wrong when people tell me that there are some in my church who venerate Mary, etc etc. I know that. I know that my church has always been plagued with people who want to be RC and yet refuse to leave the church. It's OK if they leave the church and be RC as is their right. It's the staying behind and yet throwing their voices to RC causes that I think is wrong, especially when we consider the importance of the English Reformation and our historical enmity that led to many of our people burnt at the stake for their beliefs.

But you see, we are not RCs and the Archbishop of Canterbury is not viewed as someone with papal infallibility. The Archbishop can venerate anybody, can think well of ordaining gay priests, can even worship the goddess Kali for all I care but that does not mean I'll do the same. I don't care much about the doctrines of the Church of England today. I know they have been badly corrupted since the time of its first institution as espoused in the 39 Articles which are extremely un-RC. Even the pro-RC chaps in the church can't throw out the 39 Articles because it will always be the spine of the church. I dare not quote from the 39 Articles because I was chided once for using harsh names against RCs when I was merely quoting them. But that's what the 39 Articles are - for those of you who are unfamiliar.

Like I said, I don't care much about what's happening in my church because I'm only serving the Church of England because of my family, people and country. It's too much inextricably interwoven in my very being. But my religion must be based squarely on God's Word.

As my vicar tells me, there are lots of Anglicans who are just like me. We shouldn't relinquish the Church to people who will destroy it (as in do things against its Constitution - the 39 Articles).

Showing pics of Anglican errors does not affect me at all. My faith is personal and will not be affected even if all my priests turn overnight into practising homosexuals, or my prelate wants Muslim Shariah Law introduced or if they think the goddess Kali is to be worshipped by all Christians.

My faith rests in the teachings of the Apostles as written in the Bible. I reject all contradictory and man-made traditions that are post-apostolic and anti-apostolic. That's my personal stand. I hope you will now save your breath and stop pointing out the errors of the CoE. They don't mean a thing to me.

 

[MamaZ]

I hope not...Lets change topics now, please? this is very uncomfortable.
Help me out here, Pope LLOJ...

Beamish Boy is only a young man looking for a role model in Christianity.. He does get a little high strung I admit this because he is still a child. But here on this forum he has found His role model in you. Prayer is the power..

 

[MamaZ]

Dear MamaZ,

You state:


We do, here in St. Luke 1:41 and foll:

Is this not in your Bible?

It shows:
Elizabeth knew St. Mary was pregnant; you denied that as quoted above
The Spirit was speaking through St. Elizabeth when the latter called St. Mary blessed. Does Sola Scriptura not mean reading your Bible?

Peace,

Anglian

When she was filled with the Holy Spirit and John leaped in her womb then she knew.. Yup she did.. But did she know up to that point? Scripture does not tell us she knew until this advent.

 

[MamaZ]

Dear MamaZ,

You stated that Elizabeth did not know St. Mary was pregnant, a point I addressed in my no. 786, complete with Biblical quotation. Do you stand by what you said?

Like others here, you are ignoring the context. St. Mary was becoming pregnant before marriage without her fiance's participation; she was facing, to say the least of it, a hard time explaining that one to St. Joseph (not many men would believe that from their intended). That she was still so joyful shows her complete obedience to the Lord, even though it might cost her her reputation.

Peace,

Anglian

One must read what I wrote.. LOL.. We see in scripture that the angel told Mary that Elizabeth was with child. So Mary knew she was pregnant also.. But we do not see in scripture that Elizabeth knew about Mary. Not until Mary went to Elizabeth did she probably know that Mary was with child and then when the Holy Spirit filled her and John she exclaimed what she did.

Mary did what the Lord had asked her too.. What a wonderul sister in the Lord she is.. Many a man and woman have lost multitudes of friends and family because of following Christ and coming out of the presence of the world to be obedient to Christ. They are just as joyful and happy to do so as she was. It is the Power of Christ in us that makes us to die daily to self and decrease so that He may increase..

 

[beamishboy]

Dear Beamishboy,

I asked MamaZ, as I did yourself and LLOJ whether, as per what the Spirit says in my new signature that St. May can be called 'blessed'; not one of you has actually responded. That is the stiff-necked attitude to which I am referring.

I asked MamaZ only twice to accept the correction of her own mistake; she did not respond.

You keep quoting the later Lukan verse as though it contradicts the statement in my signature, yet when pressed, avoid answering.

Your Roman Fever is your own cross. You are not even in line with your own Church on this. Your archbishop venerates St. Mary, and, as you have been shown, there is a whole Anglican shrine to her in Walsingham. Indeed, I have been there many times, and have seen many Anglican priests bowing to statues of her. So, before you are quite consumed by Roman fever, perhaps sort your own Church out first?

When you get off your anti-Roman hobby-horse, beat your sword into a ploughshare and join us peasants in trying to love those who despitefully use you.

The Orthodox follow the word of the Spirit and call the Theotokos 'blessed' - what do you do?

Peace,

Anglian

As I have already explained in my post #846, there is no point showing me the wrongs of some people in the CoE. I'm fully aware of them and they don't concern me one bit.

You ignored my many posts. I have said for the fifth time now that there is no contradiction in Luke. Mary was told she was blessed (ie happy) because she bore Jesus in her womb. Later, when Jesus was with a crowd of people (no longer in her womb), some woman shouted out that his mother was blessed. Jesus corrected her. Where is the contradiction?

Jesus probably didn't want her to talk about the past. What's the point of talking about his happy mother when the time of her carrying him in her womb and her suckling him was long gone? Why harp on these things? So he drew her attention to CURRENT THINGS. Those who obey Him are the ones who are blessed.

That later Lukan verse is a good reminder to us not to overdo things. Yes, Mary has expressed her happiness at being pregnant with Jesus. Following Jesus' example, we should not become overly sentimental about these things and harp on them. Move on to more important things - the need to obey Jesus.

You guys seem unable to comprehend the above which I have stated a million times now. I will give you an analogy and perhaps you will understand better:

Supposing the beamishboy takes a time-machine and goes back to the time when Mary was pregnant with Jesus. The beamishboy visits Mary and in that room where she was talking with Elizabeth and Zechariah, the beamishboy asks if he could worship Jesus in the womb. The beamishboy then goes on his knees to our Lord (making clear to all that he was kneeling to our Lord Jesus!!!) and worships Him. After that, the beamishboy tells the three persons that he was blessed to have worshipped Jesus shortly after the Incarnation. "Wow," says the beamishboy, "that's so cool. All generations will call me blessed because I have worshipped Jesus shortly after the Incarnation". Do you think Zechariah, or Mary, or Elizabeth will disagree that the beamishboy was blessed? Of course not. He was blessed to have worshipped the Lord.

Years later, when Jesus was in his ministry, a woman shouts out from the crowd, "Blessed is the boy who worshipped thee shortly after thy Incarnation". And Jesus replies, "Rather, blessed are those who obey God".

Is there a contradiction? Of course not. Those who focus on the beamishboy's blessedness have got it wrong. That's not the focus, Jesus is telling us.

I hope the above analogy will help you understand the position better and that we will all give glory to God alone and may everything else pale into insignificance.

 

[MamaZ]

Correct me if i am wrong, but SHE said 'ALL generations SHALL call ME blessed.'
Again, either she was telling the truth, or she was lying and not filled with the Holy Spirit.

She was happy?
Not only she, my friend, but Jesus was happy to be loved and cared for by her. HE created her for this purpose. He loved her immensely, to which is why He created her to His specifications.

Now tell me, if you are rightly dividing the word of God thru truth...
DID or did not Mary say [not a suggestion mind you]
THAT ALL generations shall call her blessed....

She made a prophecy to that which the followers of what her Son would do.

NOW - either she was not telling the truth or she was.

AND why would St Luke note this, if it was a mere insignificance??

And if every one said how blessed she was is great. I don't have a problem with people saying wow she was blessed but then lets stop at that and not expound on it by making her anything other than she was blessed to have been able to be the mother of Jesus.. All of a sudden she is not blessed but someone to adore and exault..We don't see that written anywhere in any scripture.

 

[MamaZ]

No, it is not. I'm tempted to throw the same question back to you. Is it RC and Orthodox tradition to persist in error?

I have already stated that I do not accept that Elizabeth didn't know Mary was pregnant but you continue to harp on someone's slip probably because there's nothing else you can pin on. Don't forget - it's Protestant tradition to be true to the Word of God at all costs and we are quick to chuck out tradition if it conflicts with the Word of God which is more than we can say for most people.

we do know that Elizabeth knew that Mary was with child as she was filled with the Holy Spirit but up unto that point where do we see that Elizabeth knew.. We see in scripture Mary knew that Elizabeth was with child for the angel had told Mary. This is why Mary traveled to her.. But we do not see in scripture that Elizabeth had foreknowledge that Mary was with child until Mary arrived at her house.. So what a blessing and what Joy filled these two women when they got together and found out that both were with child. Not only that but that Mary was carrying the Messiah and Elizabeth the forerunner.. What a joyous day for the both of them..

 

[Anglian]

You are missing my point. Please read this post carefully

I have, and it saddens me to sere it:

You presume to say that other Anglicans are not really Anglicans because they interpret your tradition in a manner different from you; you tell us you don't care what the Archbishop (who is set in authority above you) says; you tell us you don't care for your own Church's doctrines and stay only for personal reasons. You seem to miss, entirely, the possibility that the person who chided you for what you said about the RCs might have spoken more in the Spirit of the Lord Jesus than your harshness; yet, again, you prefer your own opinion.

That's my personal stand.

Yes, the message that it is your personal interpretation above all that matters to you has come across loud and clear.

I have said for the fifth time now that there is no contradiction in Luke. Mary was told she was blessed (ie happy) because she bore Jesus in her womb. Later, when Jesus was with a crowd of people (no longer in her womb), some woman shouted out that his mother was blessed. Jesus corrected her. Where is the contradiction?

And for the sixth time you have not understood. If your later verse does not contradict what is in my signature, then we are right to call St. Mary blessed, because we have the warrant of the Spirit for it. You still have not told me why you will not obey the word of the Spirit - except, I guess you have; you prefer your own personal, private interpretation.

Move on to more important things - the need to obey Jesus.

Which you will do more clearly when you cease posting comments which you must know will offend other Christians.

Please, please, no more of your analogies; I'm sure they make sense to you, but when I want parables, I shall go to the Lord.

You still have not said what you call the Theotokos if not 'blessed'? Why assume that following the example of the Holy Spirit takes anything away from God?

Your continued eisegesis is ample evidence of the dangers of relying upon only one's personal views on these matters. But since you take advice not even from your own Archbishop and are so fond of your own views, so be it.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[Anglian]

we do know that Elizabeth knew that Mary was with child as she was filled with the Holy Spirit but up unto that point where do we see that Elizabeth knew.. We see in scripture Mary knew that Elizabeth was with child for the angel had told Mary. This is why Mary traveled to her.. But we do not see in scripture that Elizabeth had foreknowledge that Mary was with child until Mary arrived at her house.. So what a blessing and what Joy filled these two women when they got together and found out that both were with child. Not only that but that Mary was carrying the Messiah and Elizabeth the forerunner.. What a joyous day for the both of them..

Dear MamaZ,

In your initial post you asked where was the evidence that St. Mary should be called 'blessed'. I quote your exact words:

Were is the command to calle her blessed? I don't see it there. Elizabeth had no Ideah Mary was also carring a child. Mary knew she was but we don't read in scripture where Elizabeth did.[

I have provided it, it is there in my new signature. Your own personal interpretation continues the trend here of not answering my very simple question.

The Holy Spirit, through St. Elizabeth, calls St. Mary 'blessed'. The Orthodox called her 'blessed' as per the Bible. Do you do likewise? If not, why not?

Peace,

Anglian

 

[beamishboy]

It is all right to say Mary was blessed to bear Jesus. The Bible tells us so. We say that when we recite the Magnificat which comes directly from Luke.

But we MUST stop there. Otherwise, as history shows us, we are in danger of adding more to Mary than merely the blessedness of bearing Jesus. That's all.

Anglian, you talk about offending other Christians. Why is it offensive? It's not offensive when you harshly condemn Protestant tradition as the persistence in being in error?

When we show that the veneration of Mary is unapostolic, you find that offensive. It's the Bible then that you should find offensive because we are allowing ourselves to be guided by the Bible here.

What is harshness to you is any disagreement with your belief in Marian veneration. When you condemn Protestants as being in error and having a tradition of persisting in error, that's not harsh and not offensive. Do you see your own wrong here?

 

[Anglian]

It is all right to say Mary was blessed to bear Jesus. The Bible tells us so. We say that when we recite the Magnificat which comes directly from Luke.

Which is all that has ever been said to you by me. This is why I fear for your Roman fever.

But we MUST stop there.Otherwise, as history shows us, we are in danger of adding more to Mary than merely the blessedness of bearing Jesus

History shows that some people in some Churches fear this; it also shows that other people in some of the same Churches don't agree. History does not record that those who fear this has happened are more correct than those who claim it has not.

History also shows, in the form of the Orthodox practice, so commended by Rowan Williams, that it is perfectly possible to call St. Mary 'blessed' without there being any such problems.

There is a difference between disagreeing and suggesting people persist in error, and using words such as 'grovelling' in connection with the mother of Our Lord; as I suspect you know. If you are denying you ever use heightened language to annoy Catholics, I accept that.

What is harshness to you is any disagreement with your belief in Marian veneration.

Since you have admitted that it is biblical to venerate (call blessed) St, Mary, I am unable to make sense of this.

What I suggested was that if, as seemed to be the case, none of the Protestants here would even admit it was biblical to call St. Mary 'blessed' it would appear they persisted in their own error. Now you have admitted that it is biblical to venerate St. Mary, you suggest to me that there is some hope.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[MamaZ]

Dear MamaZ,

In your initial post you asked where was the evidence that St. Mary should be called 'blessed'. I quote your exact words:

I have provided it, it is there in my new signature. Your own personal interpretation continues the trend here of not answering my very simple question.

The Holy Spirit, through St. Elizabeth, calls St. Mary 'blessed'. The Orthodox called her 'blessed' as per the Bible. Do you do likewise? If not, why not?

Peace,

Anglian

You have only provided that Elizabeth knew she was with child at her comming and not before.. Do I call Mary blessed? or Bless-ed? I say she was blessed and happy and excited.. Yes I do.. I am as equally blessed and happy and excited.. I know that My redeemer lives and will be coming back for me some day.. Or if He tarry's that nothing absolutely nothing can ever seperate me from Him.. Not even death.. Are you as excited? are you as blessed?

 

[Montalban]

You have only provided that Elizabeth knew she was with child at her comming and not before.. Do I call Mary blessed? or Bless-ed? I say she was blessed and happy and excited.. Yes I do.. I am as equally blessed and happy and excited.. I know that My redeemer lives and will be coming back for me some day.. Or if He tarry's that nothing absolutely nothing can ever seperate me from Him.. Not even death.. Are you as excited? are you as blessed?

That's the most hillarious one you've yet posted; the difference between blessed and bless-ed

 

[Montalban]

You are missing my point. Please read this post carefully.

I've noticed you still won't answer me.

I never once said that the Bible tells us to depend on the Bible alone. All I'm saying is that if the apostles had practised Mary veneration, there would have been something in their writings about it. The early Christians were Jews. Anything that is "offensive" to Jews had to be neutralised before they can be accepted by the early Christians.

Which is to say exactly that one must depend on what's written in the Bible.

If you want to now branch out into contradiction, that's up to you

The TOTAL ABSENCE of any hint of Mary veneration in the Bible is proof paramount that Mary veneration is not something the Apostles knew about or even envisaged. It's totally alien to them.

Where in the New Testament does it say "Don't marry a 10 year old?"

Obviously the complete lack of prohibition means that the early church wasn't concerned about how old your wife would be.

And you continue to ignore the issue of how the Bible was compiled in the first place.

Each time you post you advertise you're not here to openly debate this. You advertise this by avoiding questions, and making things up; such as straw-man arguments, claims people haven't responded to you, novel translations of the Bible, and now you add contradictions to your armoury

I still await a frank exchange of ideas but you're not willing to do this.

 

[Montalban]

It is all right to say Mary was blessed to bear Jesus. The Bible tells us so. We say that when we recite the Magnificat which comes directly from Luke.

She says she'll be counted blessed throughout the ages. Not just then.

But we MUST stop there. Otherwise, as history shows us, we are in danger of adding more to Mary than merely the blessedness of bearing Jesus. That's all.

Where in the Bible does it say "Stop right there?" in fact, as just noted, it's open-ended

Anglian, you talk about offending other Christians. Why is it offensive? It's not offensive when you harshly condemn Protestant tradition as the persistence in being in error?

It's offensive when you pontificate about dogma without the slightest intent on answering questions put to you that you must find too difficult. You'd rather just repeat your statements over and over again.

When we show that the veneration of Mary is unapostolic, you find that offensive. It's the Bible then that you should find offensive because we are allowing ourselves to be guided by the Bible here.

(when he was dying) Whom else did Jesus trust specifically to the care of one of his disciples?

Oh, that's right, too difficult. Avoid it!