Speak lovingly of Mary

[lionroar0]

Deut6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:

James 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

2Cor1:3: Blessed be God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies, and the God of all comfort

John10:29: My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
30: I and my Father are one.
(excludes modalism, Oneness & Arianism. )

John5:43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.
(So then, "Jesus" is not the Father's name)

There is plenty more...




2Tim3:16: 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.

1Cor4:6: And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.

Acts17:11: These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.


Heb1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;


Faith.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/verbatim


Verbatim.

1.in exactly the same words; word for word: to repeat something verbatim. –adjective 2.corresponding word for word to the original source or text: a verbatim record of the proceedings. 3.skilled at recording or noting down speeches, proceedings, etc., with word-for-word accuracy: a verbatim stenographer.

ver·ba·tim
adj. Using exactly the same words; corresponding word for word: a verbatim report of the conversation.

adv. In exactly the same words; word for word: repeated their dialogue verbatim.


All of your the verses that you have quoted do not mention Sola Scriptura, the Trinity or the hypostanic union.

They are being interpreted through your own tradition to imply Sola Scriptura, Trinity and the Hypostanic union.

Verbatim means word for word.

Jesus and the apostles never mention the Trinity, Sola Scriptura, Hypostanic union (verbatim). They can not be quoted word for word as having said these words.

To be quoted verbatim about them they must have used the same exact words.

Peace

 

[lionroar0]

and saying that makes it so. My word, if that's all it takes....

I'm a millionaire. Darn. Didn't work. Must only be YOU that has the "I say it so it's so" powers. Lucky you!

From thekla

I know the difference

the popular English definition of prayer has evolved, but the dictionary still includes "ask" as one. In my parish, the NT terms are still used (in the Greek); it seems instead that English has failed to expand in accord with the NT

as I've pointed out before, there are words aprox. five diff words in the NT that refer to prayer; some refer only to God, some to others as well.

From WA

And here is a writing of the early Church father
CHURCH FATHERS: Oration on Simeon and Anna (Methodius)

You are the circumscription, so to speak, of Him who cannot be circumscribed; the root Isaiah 40:1 of the most beautiful flower; the mother of the Creator; the nurse of the Nourisher; the circumference of Him who embraces all things; the upholder of Him Hebrews 1:3 who upholds all things by His word; the gate through which God appears in the flesh; Ezekiel 44:2 the tongs of that cleansing coal; Isaiah 6:6 the bosom in small of that bosom which is all-containing; the fleece of wool, Judges 6:37 the mystery of which cannot be solved; the well of Bethlehem, 2 Samuel 23:17 that reservoir of life which David longed for, out of which the draught of immortality gushed forth; the mercy-seat Exodus 35:17 from which God in human form was made known unto men; the spotless robe of Him who clothes Himself with light as with a garment. You have lent to God, who stands in need of nothing, that flesh which He had not, in order that the Omnipotent might become that which it was his good pleasure to be. What is more splendid than this? What than this is more sublime? He who fills earth and heaven, Jeremiah 23:24 whose are all things, has become in need of you, for you have lent to God that flesh which He had not. You have clad the Mighty One with that beauteous panoply of the body by which it has become possible for Him to be seen by my eyes. And I, in order that I might freely approach to behold Him, have received that by which all the fiery darts of the wicked shall be quenched. Ephesians 6:16 Hail! hail! mother and handmaid of God. Hail! hail! You to whom the great Creditor of all is a debtor. We are all debtors to God, but to you He is Himself indebted.
For He who said, Honour your father and your mother, Exodus 20:12 will have most assuredly, as Himself willing to be proved by such proofs, kept inviolate that grace, and His own decree towards her who ministered to Him that nativity to which He voluntarily stooped, and will have glorified with a divine honour her whom He, as being without a father, even as she was without a husband, Himself has written down as mother. Even so must these things be. For the hymns which we offer to you, O you most holy and admirable habitation of God, are no merely useless and ornamental words. Nor, again, is your spiritual laudation mere secular trifling, or the shoutings of a false flattery, O you who of God art praised; you who to God gavest suck; who by nativity givest unto mortals their beginning of being, but they are of clear and evident truth. But the time would fail us, ages and succeeding generations too, to render unto you your fitting salutation as the mother of the King Eternal, 1 Timothy 1:17 even as somewhere the illustrious prophet says, teaching us how incomprehensible you are. How great is the house of God, and how large is the place of His possession! Great, and has none end, high and unmeasurable. For verily, verily, this prophetic oracle, and most true saying, is concerning your majesty; for you alone hast been thought worthy to share with God the things of God; who hast alone borne in the flesh Him, who of God the Father was the Eternally and Only-Begotten. So do they trulybelieve who hold fast to the pure faith.



Rufinus: about 307-309 AD he died. So this was written prior to that date. Maybe 280 AD plus.
CHURCH FATHERS: Commentary on the Apostles' Creed (Rufinus)

The words of the Prophets concerning Him, A Virgin shall conceive and bring forth a Son, are known to all, and are cited in the Gospels again and again. The Prophet Ezekiel too had predicted the miraculous manner of that birth, calling Mary figuratively the Gate of the Lord, the gate, namely, through which the Lord entered the world. For he says, The gate which looks towards the East shall be closed, and shall not be opened, and no one shall pass through it, because the Lord God of Israel shall pass through it, and it shall be closed. What could be said with such evident reference to the inviolate preservation of the Virgin's condition? That Gate of Virginity was closed; through it the Lord God of Israel entered; through it He came forth from the Virgin's womb into this world; and the Virgin-state being preserved inviolate, the gate of the Virgin remained closed for ever. Therefore the Holy Ghost is spoken of as the Creator of the Lord's flesh and of His temple.


Peace

 

[lionroar0]

granted. But it is in scripture. That is what you refuse to acknowledge. That it is there, and can be seen. As opposed to the Marian dogmas and prayer to Saints, no matter how much you want to say it's there, it's not. Not even a whisper of it.

It's in Scripture because of Tradition. It's not in Tradition because of Scripture. Your putting the cart before the horse.

I've read it. Lacking, as usual, in anything compelling to believe it.

no. It's called exposing a fact that you aren't willing to readily admit.

refuted. Scripture addresses it.

And how many times have people quoted Scriptures that imply it? Only to be categoricaly dismissed because it's not part if your tradition?

how many times must you be told what Sola Scriptura really is?

It is a method that can not be quote verbatim by Jesus nor the Apostles.

please. It's just a fancy term for Jesus is God, Jesus is Man. Scripture is pretty clear on that matter.

Which again can not be quoted verbatim by Jesus and the Apostles.

they ever mention an infant baptism?

Now ur getting it. They cannot be quoted verbatim because they never mention it verbatim.

yeah... some just decide to believe whatever their leaders tell them, regardless if it's there or not.

Like beliving in Sola Scruiptura,or not praying to the Saints. Which are innovations in Christianity and a departure from Ancient Christian orthodoxy.

not a thing. It's impossible to disprove a phantom. The onus lies in the one making the claim, not in the one refuting it.

According to your intepretation.

Although it's in Scriptures according to all of the Ancient Churches and something that all three agree on.

Something perhaps to ponder on.

Peace

 

[lionroar0]

No, it is called debating. There is a difference. You made a very clear and concise statement which you were asked to defend. You should think twice before spouting off statements which you finally admit are utterly indefensible.

I never admitted such thing. Maybe you should try reading my post instead of putting words in my mouth and categorically dismissing your own straw man.


Peace

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Our friend lionroar0 stated, "it's right because it's what has been taught by Jesus and the Apostles."


Therefore, I asked, "Then you can verbatim quote Jesus and at least 2 of the 13 Apostles. Go ahead. Be sure to reference the quotes. Thank you!"


Our friend lionroar0 replied, "And that would prove what?



I replied, "1. It would "prove" your statement that, "Jesus and the Apostles taught it."






No, it hasn't been answered.
Instead, I was rebuked for asking the question.



.​

1st it's a leading question, because the answer is obviouly no. This is called baiting.

No.


You stated that it's right because it is what Jesus and the Apostles taught.


Therefore, it is prudent and reasonable to ask "where?" That's not baiting, it's simply asking for some substantiation for what you posted as a statement of fact. Well, is it?


​

I asked before. It would prove what??

That what you stated as factual is, indeed, factual.





.

 

[Rick Otto]

It's in Scripture because of Tradition.

Error code 404
File Not Found In Reality.
Actualy, it is in the "canon" because of Tradition.
It isn't in Scripture because of Tradition.

Point taken on "verbatim".

 

[hogndog]

Error code 404
File Not Found In Reality.
Actualy, it is in the "canon" because of Tradition.
It isn't in Scripture because of Tradition.

Point taken on "verbatim".

Is everything surrounding the RCC immersed in tradition? the traditions of men?

 

[Uphill Battle]

It's in Scripture because of Tradition. It's not in Tradition because of Scripture. Your putting the cart before the horse.

And how many times have people quoted Scriptures that imply it? Only to be categoricaly dismissed because it's not part if your tradition?
It is a method that can not be quote verbatim by Jesus nor the Apostles.

Which again can not be quoted verbatim by Jesus and the Apostles.

Now ur getting it. They cannot be quoted verbatim because they never mention it verbatim.

Like beliving in Sola Scruiptura,or not praying to the Saints. Which are innovations in Christianity and a departure from Ancient Christian orthodoxy.

According to your intepretation.

Although it's in Scriptures according to all of the Ancient Churches and something that all three agree on.

Something perhaps to ponder on.

Peace

you're mistaking me for the one who asked for Verbatim examples. I only asked for ANY reference to them. And if they "all agree that it's there" it should be demonstrated. The only thing that ever gets put out though, is 1) we've always believed it, so there and 2) here it is. (enter the badly mangled interpretation of a passage.)

 

[bbbbbbb]

I never admitted such thing. Maybe you should try reading my post instead of putting words in my mouth and categorically dismissing your own straw man.

"1st it's a leading question, because the answer is obviously no. This is called baiting."

You might find it difficult to believe but I actually did read your post and I am quoting it once more for your edification You stated that the answer to the question of whether Jesus and at least two of the Apostles ever taught such as thing was obviously no. Now, please don't tell me that you never admitted such a thing.

Thank you.

 

[lionroar0]

You might find it difficult to believe but I actually did read your post and I am quoting it once more for your edification You stated that the answer to the question of whether Jesus and at least two of the Apostles ever taught such as thing was obviously no. Now, please don't tell me that you never admitted such a thing.

Thank you.

Here is the question from CJ.

Therefore, I asked, "Then you can verbatim quote Jesus and at least 2 of the 13 Apostles. Go ahead. Be sure to reference the quotes. Thank you!"


The answer is no. I can't quote them verbatim, because they never said explicitly said that we can pray to the Saints in heaven.

Just like I can't quote them verbatim about the Trinity , because they never used the word Trinity.

Just like I can't quote them about the hyspostatic union, because they never used the word hyspostatic union.

Just like I can't quote them about Sola Scriptura, bacause they never used the words Sola Scriptura.

Verbatim means exact word for exact word.

Jesus and the Apostles never used exact words in regards to praying to the Saints. It's a question I can not answer with explicit quotes from the bible with exact wording.

If he had asked the same question about the Trinity. I still could not answer him, because the question is asking for a specific answer, which is not there.

The same with the hypostastic union and the same with Sola Scriptura.

The words Trinity, hypostatic union and Sola Scriptura would have to have been recorded in the Bible and been explicitly stated by the apostles and Jesus. To fullfil the requirements of CJ's question.


Peace

 

[lionroar0]

Is everything surrounding the RCC immersed in tradition? the traditions of men?

nope

Peace

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Here is the question from CJ.

Therefore, I asked, "Then you can verbatim quote Jesus and at least 2 of the 13 Apostles. Go ahead. Be sure to reference the quotes. Thank you!"

YOU said that teaching exists BECAUSE it was taught by Jesus and the Apostles.
You made a statement of fact.
And the central, foundational point in your apologetic.

THEREFORE, I asked you for the evidence of such. Some quote from Jesus and at least two of the Apostles (you used the plural) to substantiate what you said.

You have been giving all of us the "run around" ever since....
Sometimes saying, no, you can NOT substantiate your central point and statement of fact, then saying that you can (but you don't), then saying... well, frankly, I don't think anyone can keep track of all your evasions.

Let me try again: Your point was that this teaching is taught by the RCC because Jesus and the Apostles (2 or more) taught it.

Okay. Substantiate that central point in your apologetic. Show us exactly where Jesus and at least 2 of the Apostles taught that. Give us the quotes and reference them.

Now, of course, you may personally believe that Jesus and at least 2 of the Apostles just might have taught it (just as Mormons personally believe that they prophecized the founding of the LDS) but that's an ENTIRELY different issue and that's not what you said nor the point you have been defending. YOUR point is the RCC teaches it because Jesus and the Apostles did. It is the central point of your apologetic. Thus, I understandably made it the subject of my response. So far, you've been going to GREAT lengths to evade any answer.




Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah

 

[Thekla]

can it be conclusively proven that everything in the NT is a teaching of Christ and the apostles ?

 

[bbbbbbb]

Here is the question from CJ.

Therefore, I asked, "Then you can verbatim quote Jesus and at least 2 of the 13 Apostles. Go ahead. Be sure to reference the quotes. Thank you!"


The answer is no. I can't quote them verbatim, because they never said explicitly said that we can pray to the Saints in heaven.

Just like I can't quote them verbatim about the Trinity , because they never used the word Trinity.

Just like I can't quote them about the hyspostatic union, because they never used the word hyspostatic union.

Just like I can't quote them about Sola Scriptura, bacause they never used the words Sola Scriptura.

Verbatim means exact word for exact word.

Jesus and the Apostles never used exact words in regards to praying to the Saints. It's a question I can not answer with explicit quotes from the bible with exact wording.

If he had asked the same question about the Trinity. I still could not answer him, because the question is asking for a specific answer, which is not there.

The same with the hypostastic union and the same with Sola Scriptura.

The words Trinity, hypostatic union and Sola Scriptura would have to have been recorded in the Bible and been explicitly stated by the apostles and Jesus. To fullfil the requirements of CJ's question.


Peace

I am frankly nonplussed at all the effort this relatively simple question has required. You should have simply and frankly answered the question as "No" when it was first asked. If you wished to explicate on your answer as you have now done, that might help matters - or not. However, a simple answer in the negative with a possible explanation would have been sufficient, allowing us to move along with this thread,

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

can it be conclusively proven that everything in the NT is a teaching of Christ and the apostles ?

Yes. By quoting them.

ANYONE can state that Jesus taught that Toyotas are better than Fords. But it's just a meaningless, baseless, useless statement until it can be shown that He did. Hardly a good foundational basis for an apologetic.






.

 

[Thekla]

Yes. By quoting them.

ANYONE can state that Jesus taught that Toyotas are better than Fords. But it's just a meaningless, baseless, useless statement until it can be shown that He did. Hardly a good foundational basis for an apologetic.






.

I'm sorry if I was unclear; what conclusive proof can you offer that the NT itself accurately records the teachings of Christ and the apostles. For example, where is the objective proof that Christ gave the parable of the Prodigal Son ?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Yes. By quoting them.

ANYONE can state that Jesus taught that Toyotas are better than Fords. But it's just a meaningless, baseless, useless statement until it can be shown that He did. Hardly a good foundational basis for an apologetic.

I'm sorry if I was unclear; what conclusive proof can you offer that the NT itself accurately records the teachings of Christ and the apostles. For example, where is the objective proof that Christ gave the parable of the Prodigal Son ?

We can quote Jesus teaching that parable.

The poster stated that the teaching in question is correct because Jesus and at least two of the Apostles taught it. So, therefore the reasonable to ask, "where?" The poster doesn't seem to know. Read what I said in the post you quoted.





.

 

[Thekla]

We can quote Jesus teaching that parable.

The poster stated that the teaching in question is correct because Jesus and at least two of the Apostles taught it. So, therefore the reasonable to ask, "where?" The poster doesn't seem to know. Read what I said in the post you quoted.





.

Thank-you; I did read it. But you seem to have missed my point. I am asking about the verifiable accuracy of the NT text itself; how can it conclusively and verifiably be known that the NT does indeed present accurately the teachings of Christ and the apostles.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Thank-you; I did read it. But you seem to have missed my point. I am asking about the verifiable accuracy of the NT text itself; how can it conclusively and verifiably be known that the NT does indeed present accurately the teachings of Christ and the apostles.

It was stated that the Catholic teaching is correct because Jesus and the Apostles taught it, therefore, the poster must know of where Jesus and at least two of the Apostles taught this. I simply asked for the quote (with reference).

Now, if you point is that perhaps those quotes come from the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas or something - okay, let's see the quotes and the references. I suppose you're correct - he might have in mind some rejected, noncanonical, nonauthoritative record of the words of Jesus and the Apostles, but so far we haven't seen ANY quotes or references at all, from ANY source.

Again, ANYONE can state that Jesus and 3 of the Apostles taught that Toyotas are better than Fords. But it's just a meaningless, baseless, useless statement until it can be shown that He did. Hardly a good foundational basis for the apologetic of this teaching. I think you are helping to make my point.




.

 

[Thekla]

It was stated that the Catholic teaching is correct because Jesus and the Apostles taught it, therefore, the poster must know of where Jesus and at least two of the Apostles taught this. I simply asked for the quote (with reference).

Now, if you point is that perhaps those quotes come from the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas or something - okay, let's see the quotes and the references. I suppose you're correct - he might have in mind some rejected, noncanonical, nonauthoritative record of the words of Jesus and the Apostles, but so far we haven't seen ANY quotes or references at all, from ANY source.

Again, ANYONE can state that Jesus and 3 of the Apostles taught that Toyotas are better than Fords. But it's just a meaningless, baseless, useless statement until it can be shown that He did. Hardly a good foundational basis for the apologetic of this teaching. I think you are helping to make my point.




.

And anyone can say that the teachings in the NT are not the authentic teachings of Christ and the apostles. Absent verifiable authenticity (unless you have some) there is no way to be objectively conclude that what the NT records are indeed the authentic teachings.