Views on Mary

[RND]

Is that so?

It be so.

Edit: By the way Alberto Rivera and Jack Chick are terrible, terrible sources of information.

Why? Besides, there are many other resources like:

YouTube - Walter J. Veith Islamic - Catholic Connection - Full Lecture

Truth Provided Newsletter -The Pope & Islam

Many of the exact same things Catholics like to do the Islamic world does as well such as pilgrimages, rosary beds, veneration of the dead, relics, and much symbolism.

Catholicism and Islam go together like peas and carrots.

 

[RND]

Suffice it to say, you are grossly oversimplifying the doctrine of the communion of the saints.

No I'm not. The "saints" as you will are dead. They are resting in their graves awaiting their change.

Ecc 9:5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.
Psa 146:4 His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish.
Psa 6:5 For in death [there is] no remembrance of thee: in the grave who shall give thee thanks?
Praying to the dead is un-Biblical.

And it still doesn't change the fact that Jack Chick is a terrible resource.

Obfuscation.

It's like asking an Islamic extremist about the American government. The answer isn't exactly i line with reality.

Or calling Catholicism Christianity.

 

[Dark_Lite]

I am not watching a 1.5 hour youtube video to respond to a forum post. Let's see... Pilgrimages. Uh, every religion has those. And there are no prescribed pilgrimages in Catholicism. People may undertake religious journeys to gain further insight. It's happened since the dawn of time and will continue to happen. To deny that Protestants do it is disingenuous, unless you're suggesting that all Protestants go only to their church for faith and nothing else.

Islam doesn't even have rosaries, so that's going nowhere. By the way, prayer beads/ropes/counting devices have been in use since Judaims for the psalms. Again, something that pretty much every religion has.

Symbolism. Uh, again. Something every religion has. Christianity: the cross, parables in the Bible, the Bible itself in certain contexts, liturgical colors, hymns, singing, altars, etc. So unless you are suggesting that we all gather in a completely blank white room of cube dimensions and speak in monotone voices I fail to see how this argument is relevant.

Veneration of the dead: Misunderstanding of the communion of saints.

Relics: Have been present in Christianity for the past 2,000 years. Protestants stopped doing it. Oh, the Orthodox Church does it too.

So, I see you have discovered that all religions have common traits that make them religions. Seems like a sound conclusion to me.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Obfuscation.

http://www.chick.com/tractimages97738/1109/1109_12.gif

Seriously. How is he a good resource?

Edit: I should go find that other comic where he sends little children to hell or whatever it is. That may just be a bad memory on my part.

But seriously, the man is a bit off his rocker. He thinks the Catholic Church founded Islam, the LDS church, Jehova's Witnesses, starting the holocaust, and a whole other bunch of odd things.

Think for a moment. How is that at all logical? It's one thing to question and debate the veracity of the Catholic Church, but to say they started up several religions and one of the single most deadly experiences in human history makes absolutely zero sense. Why would they start up several other religions when they could have people in their own? Why would they start the holocaust and then help people in the midst of it? Why would they start up communism and then later be instrumental in tearing it down?

There isn't a shred of consistency or normalcy in those views. It's one thing to have a conspiracy theory. It's another thing to have a conspiracy theory that Jack Chick made up.

Or calling Catholicism Christianity.

I see what you did there.

 

[shinbits]

It's a good thing the Bible was around from the beginning of the Church to guide it. Except, that it wasn't. The Bible was compiled in the 4th century. What up Tradition.

wrong. the Bible in written form first showed up around the time of Moses. That's many centuries before the RCC. The OT was complete 400 years B.C. So you're wrong. The Bible WAS around to guide the RCC. Unfortunately, the RCC ignores most of it.

Tradition takes a back seat.

 

[Dark_Lite]

wrong. the Bible in written form first showed up around the time of Moses. That's centuries before the RCC.

Tradition takes a back seat.

Yup. The New Testament (whose origins have been dated to 70-100 years after Jesus was born) was written before Jesus was even born. ~6,000 years before that no less.

Study up on the history of the Bible. There were many, many Christian texts floating around in the first few centuries after Jesus. The Councils were responsible for removing the ones that were heretical or "not inspired." The Bible did not magically fall out of the sky fully formed. The only part that was fully formed (more or less) before Christianity was the Old Testament. The New Testament is a completely different matter.

 

[shinbits]

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.

First of all, those people you cite disagreed with the Catholic church. So don't pat yourself on the back too much.

Second, status doesn't mean squat in terms of Biblical error. Moses was a great prophet, but he disobeyed God, and wasn't allowed in the Promised Land. David had a man killed after he commited adultery with his wife. Solomon built the Temple, but turned to worshipping idols. Peter was selected by Christ to follow him, but denied the Lord three times.

Just because these men were great men of the Bible, does that mean I should agree with everything they've said or done? Of course not.

Likewise, I don't agree with men who contradict the Bible, just because they were "great" men in some way.

 

[RND]

Seriously. How is he a good resource?

Alberto Rivera? Former Roman Catholic Jesuit. Unrefuted.

Edit: I should go find that other comic where he sends little children to hell or whatever it is. That may just be a bad memory on my part.

But seriously, the man is a bit off his rocker. He thinks the Catholic Church founded Islam, the LDS church, Jehova's Witnesses, starting the holocaust, and a whole other bunch of odd things.

Alberto Rivera?

Think for a moment. How is that at all logical? It's one thing to question and debate the veracity of the Catholic Church, but to say they started up several religions and one of the single most deadly experiences in human history makes absolutely zero sense.

Neither does a talking serpent, but it happened. The connections have to do with high occultism. Satan doesn't care where the worship originates.

Why would they start up several other religions when they could have people in their own?

That's the goal.

Why would they start the holocaust and then help people in the midst of it?

Ever read the Jesuit oath?

Why would they start up communism and then later be instrumental in tearing it down?

To bring all under Rome's control, which if you are paying close attention is exactly what is happening. I don't care much whether you believe this now. There will come a time when you have to stand for God or the temporal church. Your choice.

There isn't a shred of consistency or normalcy in those views.

Ah, the mystery of iniquity.

It's one thing to have a conspiracy theory. It's another thing to have a conspiracy theory that Jack Chick made up.

Jack Chick? Never quoted him.

I see what you did there.

What?

 

[shinbits]

Yup. The New Testament (whose origins have been dated to 70-100 years after Jesus was born) was written before Jesus was even born. ~6,000 years before that no less.

Study up on the history of the Bible. There were many, many Christian texts floating around in the first few centuries after Jesus. The Councils were responsible for removing the ones that were heretical or "not inspired." The Bible did not magically fall out of the sky fully formed. The only part that was fully formed (more or less) before Christianity was the Old Testament. The New Testament is a completely different matter.

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.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Alberto Rivera? Former Roman Catholic Jesuit. Unrefuted.

Alberto Rivera is closely connected with Jack Chick's silliness and they share much of the same views. That's why I brought him up. In fact, Rivera is the source of Jack Chick's silliness. So it all goes hand in hand.

Ever read the Jesuit oath?

The Google search I just did seems to have it be from dubious sources at best (i.e. Rivera), and even then, assuming it's even real it looks like it's more of a byproduct of troubled times when the Reformation was at its high point. Of course, it's far more logical to assume that the Catholic Church is out to destroy the world instead.

To bring all under Rome's control, which if you are paying close attention is exactly what is happening. I don't care much whether you believe this now. There will come a time when you have to stand for God or the temporal church. Your choice.

I'm sure. Obviously the Catholic Church wants people to reunite with them because as far as they're concerned they are the One True Church™. Obviously there's plenty of debate surrounding that, but again instead of it being out of what they see as a necessary thing that must happen, it's definitely because they're out to take over the world/universe.

What?

Who?

 

[Dark_Lite]

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.

And that is an obvious fact. But the Old Testament is not the Bible. It is part of the Bible. The Old Testament and New Testament together is the Bible. How do you account for that?

 

[shinbits]

And that is an obvious fact. But the Old Testament is not the Bible. It is part of the Bible. The Old Testament and New Testament together is the Bible. How do you account for that?

God's word was around to guide the RCC. That's the point of bringing that up.

And even though the the NT, which you brag about the RCC being involved with, says that "All have sinned", the RCC claims Mary was sinless. This directly contradicts the Bible.

How do YOU account for THAT?

 

[Dark_Lite]

God's word was around to guide the RCC. That's the point of bringing that up.

And even though the the NT, which you brag about the RCC being involved with, says that "All have sinned", the RCC claims Mary was sinless. This directly contradicts the Bible.

How do YOU account for THAT?

Jesus is part of everyone. Obviously Jesus didn't sin. Is such a thing beyond God?

And I'm not bragging about anything. I'm telling you that the ancient Church was involved in the compilation of the Bible. Whether you believe that Church to be the Catholic Church is another matter entirely. Whether you believe that Sacred Tradition guided it is another matter entirely. The fact of the matter is, however, that the Bible was assembled by the Church. That is the fact. My interpretation of that fact, which I believe to be true, is that Tradition guided that compilation. I'm quite sure your opinion is different.

 

[shinbits]

Jesus is part of everyone. Obviously Jesus didn't sin. Is such a thing beyond God?

wow. obviously, that part refers to human beings, descendents of Adam, who's sin causes them to need a savior.

Way to play the semantics card.

And I'm not bragging about anything. I'm telling you that the ancient Church was involved in the compilation of the Bible. Whether you believe that Church to be the Catholic Church is another matter entirely. Whether you believe that Sacred Tradition guided it is another matter entirely. The fact of the matter is, however, that the Bible was assembled by the Church. That is the fact. My interpretation of that fact, which I believe to be true, is that Tradition guided that compilation. I'm quite sure your opinion is different.

No one's disputing this. The problem with Catholics is that many of them think that this involvement entitles Catholicism to promote not only doctrine that's unbiblical, but also outright contradicts the Bible. Mary supposedly being sinless is one example.

 

[Dark_Lite]

wow. obviously, that part refers to human beings, descendents of Adam, who's sin causes them to need a savior.

Way to play the semantics card.

Oh, obviously it does. The problem I illustrated there, however, is that nothing is really simple when you boil it down to one verse, one quote, or one anything, really. If you take that verse and that verse alone, and discard all other context, Jesus is a sinner. Once you put it in the larger context, the verse becomes more clear in its meaning.

For Catholicism, the oral Tradition handed down from the apostles is on equal level with Scripture. It does not contradict Scripture from their point of view, but it is equal in defining doctrine.

No one's disputing this. The problem with Catholics is that many of them think that this involvement entitles Catholicism to promote not only doctrine that's unbiblical, but also outright contradicts the Bible. Mary supposedly being sinless is one example.

There is scriptural evidence for apostolic succession with the whole "go forth and preach" and laying of hands stuff. The system that the Apostolic Churches have constructed is not something simple. It is extremely deep and complex and rooted in ancient history. They believe they are "entitled" to promoting those doctrine (which, in their view is not unbiblical), because as far as they see it, history supports their claims.

I, of course, am of the opinion that once you begin to look into history, the ideas of the Protestant reformation are not so solid as they seem to be at first glance. There is something more, and that something more was the first 1,500 years of Church history that many Protestant denominations have cast away.

 

[shinbits]

Oh, obviously it does. The problem I illustrated there, however, is that nothing is really simple when you boil it down to one verse, one quote, or one anything, really. If you take that verse and that verse alone, and discard all other context, Jesus is a sinner. Once you put it in the larger context, the verse becomes more clear in its meaning.

Agreed. Look at other verses which say the same thing:

Romans 5:12:

"Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned"

When you look at the whole Bible, it's clear that the Bible only means those descended from Adam---like Mary. Not Christ, who wasn't brought into this world by man, but through Divine means. This verse backs up the "All have sinned verse" in terms that it means ALL people descended from Adam---which doesn't include Christ.

The Bible is clear on things that the RCC outright contradicts, like Mary being "sinless". The Bible confirms itself.

For Catholicism, the oral Tradition handed down from the apostles is on equal level with Scripture. It does not contradict Scripture from their point of view, but it is equal in defining doctrine.

There's no way to confirm whether or not this actually comes from the apostles, since all you have are the oral claims of faliable men. For all you know, the apostles have nothing to do with anything you believe. You have no way of verifying anything. This is not true with those who have Scripture, inspired by God.

There is scriptural evidence for apostolic succession with the whole "go forth and preach" and laying of hands stuff. The system that the Apostolic Churches have constructed is not something simple. It is extremely deep and complex and rooted in ancient history. They believe they are "entitled" to promoting those doctrine (which, in their view is not unbiblical), because as far as they see it, history supports their claims.

I, of course, am of the opinion that once you begin to look into history, the ideas of the Protestant reformation are not so solid as they seem to be at first glance. There is something more, and that something more was the first 1,500 years of Church history that many Protestant denominations have cast away.

Maybe. But it's dangerous to assume what exactly those "cast away" things, going only by what Oral Tradition says, since you can't confirm anything this way. Anyone who's ever played Telephone as a kid knows this is no way to pass down information, let alone claims of "lost" Scripture.

 

[Dark_Lite]

When you look at the whole Bible, it's clear that the Bible only means those descended from Adam---like Mary. Not Christ, who wasn't brought into this world by man, but through Divine means. This verse backs up the "All have sinned verse" in terms that it means ALL people descended from Adam---which doesn't include Christ.

The Bible is clear on things that the RCC outright contradicts, like Mary being "sinless".

As Christians, we have faith in God. This is one of those such moments. The scripture and history is full of exceptions granted by God. People can be raised by God for extraordinary purposes. There's probably scripture references for Mary's immaculate conception somewhere, but I'm going to bed after this post and might bother to look them up later.

There's no way to confirm whether or not this actually comes from the apostles, since all you have are the oral claims of faliable men. For all you know, the apostles have nothing to do with anything you believe. You have no way of verifying anything. This is not true with those who have Scripture, inspired by God.

If you're going to look at it that objectively I will have to say that we have no way of verifying the truth of the Bible either. After all, it is a religious book that came out of the ancient culture of Middle Eastern sheep herders. The only thing we have supporting the Bible's truth, from this objective point of view, is the testimonies of people throughout the ages--the fallible claims of men.

The way we know the Bible is true is through faith. The evidence we find of its truth supports this faith, but it is not the main reason why we think it's true. This is the same case with Sacred Tradition. God promised not to lead the Church into error, so it is believed that Tradition has carried on throughout the centuries preserved.

 

[shinbits]

As Christians, we have faith in God. This is one of those such moments. The scripture and history is full of exceptions granted by God. People can be raised by God for extraordinary purposes. There's probably scripture references for Mary's immaculate conception somewhere, but I'm going to bed after this post and might bother to look them up later.

There are exceptions. One being that the Bible says "it's appointed unto men once to die; after this, the Judgement". We know that some people have been brought back to life, and thus, died twice eventually. But this exception doesn't contradict any other Scripture. The Bible merely says it's "appointed" for men to die once, it doesn't say "All" men die once.

Mary being sinless would be an "exception" that contradicts the Bible, and not just in one place either. That's why this doctrine concerning Mary is just plain wrong.

If you're going to look at it that objectively I will have to say that we have no way of verifying the truth of the Bible either. After all, it is a religious book that came out of the ancient culture of Middle Eastern sheep herders. The only thing we have supporting the Bible's truth, from this objective point of view, is the testimonies of people throughout the ages--the fallible claims of men.

The difference is, that we at least know for sure what the claims of those sheep herders are. At least with the Bible, we have something solid to decide if we want to have faith in it or not.

The way we know the Bible is true is through faith. The evidence we find of its truth supports this faith, but it is not the main reason why we think it's true. This is the same case with Sacred Tradition. God promised not to lead the Church into error, so it is believed that Tradition has carried on throughout the centuries preserved.

Oral tradition of men is something shaky to put your faith in. There are many who make the same mistake in putting thier faith in things many false teachers SAY. Without the Bible, anyone can lead the Christians astray.

 

[polishbeast]

The difference is, that we at least know for sure what the claims of those sheep herders are. At least with the Bible, we have something solid to decide if we want to have faith in it or not.


Oral tradition of men is something shaky to put your faith in. There are many who make the same mistake in putting thier faith in things many false teachers SAY. Without the Bible, anyone can lead the Christians astray.

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.

 

[RND]

Alberto Rivera is closely connected with Jack Chick's silliness and they share much of the same views.

Alberto Rivera was an ex-Jesuit that spilled the beans. Lots of people, not just Jack Chick wrote about it.

That's why I brought him up. In fact, Rivera is the source of Jack Chick's silliness. So it all goes hand in hand.

What goes hand in hand more is all the paganism the Roman church is steeped in.

The Google search I just did seems to have it be from dubious sources at best (i.e. Rivera), and even then, assuming it's even real it looks like it's more of a byproduct of troubled times when the Reformation was at its high point. Of course, it's far more logical to assume that the Catholic Church is out to destroy the world instead.

Hey, that's what the Bible says. Rome.

The Jesuit oath has never been rescinded.

I'm sure. Obviously the Catholic Church wants people to reunite with them because as far as they're concerned they are the One True Church™.

I'm interested in truth.

Tell me, does the Bible say: "Let's unite" or "come out of her my people?"

Obviously there's plenty of debate surrounding that, but again instead of it being out of what they see as a necessary thing that must happen, it's definitely because they're out to take over the world/universe.

Well that's what the Bible says will happen.

Rome and World Religions | Amazing Discoveries

The "Church" of Rome Unmasked at Last!!

Flee from her. You've been warned.