Views on Mary

[E.C.]

I saw the name Riviera somewhere along this post. If I remember correctly he was a Spaniard who spoke of some "seal of approval" on the Bibles and other wrongdoings in Spain.

What one needs to recall is that he was around during Franco's Spain. When Spain was under Franco only one institution outside of the government was allowed printing rights: the Roman Church. The Roman Church did not ask for it, rather it was something which the secular civil government imposed.

Just keep that in mind the next time you read his propaganda that he was around in Spain under a dictatorship and that Catholicism was treated by the government the same was as Islam is by the Taliban.

An expected reply from someone that wants to deny the truth.

Deny the truth? Do I look like an Atheist to you?

BTW, we never, ever should pray to the dead or bring any relics into a house of worship. Face it E.C. Roman Catholicism is pagan worship and veneration of the dead.

As an ex-Roman Catholic whom has done much more than their share of research in the area of relics: they are not pagan. They are indeed of God's origin.

Even the Jews prayed for the dead. Since Adventists try to be like the Jews so much with Sabbath observing and other Laws, I wonder why Adventists have not adopted this.

No, it's the truth.

Roman Catholicism is steeped in the paganism of Babylon and Egypt. Veneration of the dead, bringing relics into a supposed house of worship and praying to dead spirits is adopted paganism and specifically prohibited in the scriptures.

Necromancy is prohibited. Yet necromancy is the belief that one can communicate with the dead the same way in which one has a conversation with another human being in the real world.

Asking the fallen asleep for their prayers is not necromancy because A) one does not seek communication and B) it is via the God's Grace in which the fallen asleep can hear our prayers.

The fallen asleep are still alive. After all, what does death mean to God? God destroyed death and if man's purpose in life is to be as close to God as he can, than why should such an insignificant thing like death get in the way?

actually you are proving my point of this whole thread and that is when it comes to Mary, people are quick to judge and condem the Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox for their views on Mary. But when someone points out that many of the "GREAT REFORMERS" held to similiar beliefs and in some cases almost identical beliefs on Mary all of a sudden you get

"Well I don't agree with everything they say" or like you respond "I believe the bible only" etc

It's such a joke.

You know, I'm working on some research that the Protestant Reformation lead to the rise of Atheism in the Western World as well as the hatred of any authority.

Care to hear about it outside of the thread?

I editted my post before you responded. I said the OT was complete long before the RCC showed up.

So again, you're wrong. Just like the Bible was there to guide Christ when he fought Satan with OT Scripture, or just like the Bible was there to Guide the Boreans to see if what Paul said was true or not, Just like the Bible was there to help the Apostles argue from Scripture when they evangelized....The Bible was there to guide the RCC.

To bad they chose to ignore key parts.

The Bereans had an advantage which the Adventists and the rest of the Protestant world (Roman Catholic world as well for that matter) do not: the Bereans had the complete Old Testament. The Roman Church and the Protestants lack the complete Old Testament.

No matter if one is Protestant or Roman Catholic, how can you have a complete faith and complete doctrine if you do not even have a complete canon?



Given the hostile caliber of this thread (reminds me of Dirty Harry) I think it is fair to say we have all forgotten a very critical part of Scripture which Christ Himself spoke.
It was something to the effect of "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul...... and you shall love your neighbor as yourself".


I suggest we all take some time to cool off a little bit and clear our heads of our worries before posting again because this thread is becoming about as friendly as East L.A. at night. I know I will.

 

[boswd]

Yeah E.C. I would be very interested in your research. Another area that interest me is when traditional Protestantism gave way to the more modern radical fundamental views that seem to have taken over. Like when did the 'Baby get thrown out with the bath water".

but yeah PM anytime, I love this stuff.

 

[shinbits]

The Bereans had an advantage which the Adventists and the rest of the Protestant world (Roman Catholic world as well for that matter) do not: the Bereans had the complete Old Testament. The Roman Church and the Protestants lack the complete Old Testament.

No matter if one is Protestant or Roman Catholic, how can you have a complete faith and complete doctrine if you do not even have a complete canon?

That's not true. Those who evangelized to to the Romans (which Protestants spread from) had the complete OT. Peter preached, and around 2,000 (I forget the exact number of people) joined them that same day. The Jews had access to the complete OT. So when they went out to the rest of the world to evangelize, the brought the OT with them. That includes bringing the complete OT to the Romans, from which the Roman Church was born.

So the Roman Church had the same advantage the Boreans had. Furthermore, the Romans had Paul, who wouldn't be so irresponsible as to leave them with incomplete OT Scripture.

The RCC had the complete OT to guide them. Unfortunately, they chose to ignore key parts.

Given the hostile caliber of this thread (reminds me of Dirty Harry) I think it is fair to say we have all forgotten a very critical part of Scripture which Christ Himself spoke.
It was something to the effect of "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul...... and you shall love your neighbor as yourself".


I suggest we all take some time to cool off a little bit and clear our heads of our worries before posting again because this thread is becoming about as friendly as East L.A. at night. I know I will.

agreed. I think enough time has passed by now.

 

[shinbits]

How do you know the books in the Bible are God's inspired word?

Also many of the earliest Christian heresies such as Nestorianism would quote heavily from the Bible to prove their points.

You don't "know". That's an issue of faith. But basing your faith on texts which survived through time in thier original wording (the Jews have always been militant in preserving the OT in it's orginal form) is much more substantial than basing one's faith on "oral tradition". Oral tradition can change easily, as the game Telephone shows, but famous texts do not. Every word in the Constitution has been preserved over the last few centuries, but not one unwritten word has.

In short, text is more reliable---far more---than oral tradition. This is why it's better to put your faith in the Bible, and not "oral tradition".

 

[Philothei]

You don't "know". That's an issue of faith. But basing your faith on texts which survived through time in thier original wording (the Jews have always been militant in preserving the OT in it's orginal form) is much more substantial than basing one's faith on "oral tradition". Oral tradition can change easily, as the game Telephone shows, but famous texts do not. Every word in the Constitution has been preserved over the last few centuries, but not one unwritten word has.

In short, text is more reliable---far more---than oral tradition. This is why it's better to put your faith in the Bible, and not "oral tradition".

Let's not forget that the first "bible" bits that were written were the epistles everything else was mostly written BASED on oral tradition... through wintess... in the four books of the Gospel... Mark, Luke, Matthew and John... all of them. The constitution was written with a set of "rules" for the government of a nation in mind... Think about how much different they truly are ... One is a record of events the other a legal doc. Of course the legal doc would not rely upon oral tradition... And the Gospel did rely on it until it was finally written down. Also the choice of books you hold on your hands calling it NT canon came out of a community of believers we know it was the "crowd" that followed Mark that "wrote" it...but still it sprang out of that 'tradition" and had certain emphasis. If the four gospels were 'legal' doc you think they would have different emphasis? I think not.

The reason the four gospels are similar and share the same source (q source) shows a common origin. But at the same time they have different accounts of Christ's ministry and that is proof that there were different oral "traditions" around potraining to the person of Christ.