Why don't protestants bless Mary?

[Grafted In]

I understand. These verses refer to the second coming, the resurrection. I don't hold to a rapture. No one in Church history interpreted these verses as a rapture until Darby in 1830. It says we will meet him in the air--it's because we will then have glorified bodies and so of course we will want to meet him as he is coming down.

I do not believe we are caught up to be with Him as He is coming down. It says we are caught up together to meet Him in the air. There is no mention of we and Christ returning to this world at that time.
We, the Spirit filled Church will be made perfect at that very moment, and we will return with Him after the great tribulation.
Furthermore, we have no way of knowing who wrote what or why prior to Darby.
1830 years is a long time. Besides, as with all Scripture we cannot count on anything outside of the Bible to be of God.
So many things have come and gone, so much hatred and persecution, so many wars....much of it caused by supposed Christians lead by so called great men of God, spiritual leaders many continue to believe were acting on His behalf only later to have been found to be men with evil hearts.
We cannot count on records of what they said and did other than to say that who and what they represented was handed down to us as traditions adopted by yet other such men as doctrine.
The only writings God gave His stamp of approval on was/is Scripture.
I know you believe it was the church at Rome that was solely responcible for gathering together what is now accepted as Scripture, but there, again, we have only the word of others to look to as proof.

 

[Aldebaran]

This kind of statement is made by those who don't understand the differences between infallibility and impeccability, and don't get it that the Catholic church teaches non-infallible doctrines which can be changed over time (such as limbo, capital punishment is wrong) in addition to unchangeable infallible dogma (such as the virgin birth or the assumption of Mary). The Bible is part of unchangeable infallible dogma, but is not the whole of it.

But don't you see the confusion that is caused by adding things to what God has told us? The Pharisees did the exact same thing, and Jesus called them out on it. You are even claiming the "assumption of Mary" is one of your unchangeable infallible dogma, even though it is something that was clearly ADDED. It's not in the bible! If you think it is, I'd appreciate it if you'd point it out.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

For the same reason that Paul calls Timothy his spiritual son. It denotes the closeness and due order of the relationship. The etymology of the word "priest" in English comes from the word priester in German, which comes from presbyter in Latin which comes from presbyteros in Greek. Presbyteros means "elder"... very much like "father"-- both are the same in terms of a hierarchical relationship, although father is closer in terms of love.

Holy simply means set apart for God's purposes. We honor the Pope with the title of Holy Father because of all priests, he is the most set apart. A word which actually means holy is "saint, " and pope actually means "father," so "holy father" means the same thing as "saint pope." All Christians are holy, btw.

So what did Jesus mean when he said.

"Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven."

Matthew 23:9

He obviously was not referring to your parents so what is Jesus talking about?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

If St. Peter, the rock in which the Lord founded the Catholic church didn't authenticate Christokos,...

Um...I hate to tell you this....but Peter was not "the rock" that the Lord used to "found the Cothlic church.

 

[Linet Kihonge]

Peter was not "the rock" that the Lord used to "found the

Don't worry about that!

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Don't worry about that!

I am not worried about it. I am not the one following a church who's foundation is built upon the apostolic succession of Peter which is a false intereptation of the scripture.

 

[Linet Kihonge]

Jason, relax, I'm saying EVEN IF it was the CHURCH Founded On Peter as They SAY... none of the disciples said, "Hail Mary full of ....." and I would like to know what happened!!!

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Jason, relax, I'm saying EVEN IF it was the CHURCH Founded On Peter as They SAY... none of the disciples said, "Hail Mary full of ....." and I would like to know what happened!!!

Ok. Gotcha brah. I hate texts. It is hard to understand context.

 

[supersoldier71]

And every denomination extant has an equally damning and damnable resume.

, post: 69198721, member: 356742"]Hypocricy is not unique to Pharisees and Catholics. Wherever you find human beings you find hypocrites. Which is why you find them in Bible Churches, Mainline Churches, etc.

• Put a little "seed money" into the offering plate
• Have the band play that heart tugging melody while we do an altar call
• Have someone lead a Bible study, but of course it's the Holy Spirit leading you
• Teach that no matter how much you sin, you will still go to heaven
• Say you have no dress code but treat those in a suit and tie as "arrogant"
• No gossiping but pray for Sally who...
• Let's talk about the Catholic scandal while avoiding our own
• Be scandalized by high divorce rates while the highest rate is among Evangelicals

[/QUOTE]

Precisely.

God and God alone.

 

[Meowzltov]

I think the point he was trying to make was that the Catholic church as an authority is not very solid when you look at what it has done. If you want a rock-solid authority, then choose God's Word as is written rather than institutions of man. Man changes, God doesn't.

The Catholic Church does not change its dogma. Infallible dogma such as the resurrection, or that Christ died for our sins, are unchallengable and unchangeable.

 

[Aldebaran]

The Catholic Church does not change its dogma. Infallible dogma such as the resurrection, or that Christ died for our sins, are unchallengable and unchangeable.

Yes, those 2 things are. But other things Catholics claim are dogma, such as Mary being sinless and ascending to Heaven, are not.

 

[Albion]

The Catholic Church does not change its dogma. Infallible dogma such as the resurrection, or that Christ died for our sins, are unchallengable and unchangeable.

There no doubt are some dogmas that the Catholic Church has not changed. Yeh, we can probably agree to that.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

The Catholic Church does not change its dogma. Infallible dogma such as the resurrection, or that Christ died for our sins, are unchallengable and unchangeable.

If the Roman Catholic Church and the Pope said the bible was wrong, specifically Genesis 1, and said that God is not a "magician who could simply wave a wand and create everything from nothing", what would you think?

 

[supersoldier71]

If the Roman Catholic Church and the Pope said the bible was wrong, specifically Genesis 1, and said that God is not a "magician who could simply wave a wand and create everything from nothing", what would you think?

I'd say that my confirmation bias was completely justified!!!

 

[Meowzltov]

I do not believe we are caught up to be with Him as He is coming down. It says we are caught up together to meet Him in the air. There is no mention of we and Christ returning to this world at that time.

The verse itself is a record of Christ returning to the world at that time. The fact that he is in the air, which is part of this world, shows that he is here.

Furthermore, we have no way of knowing who wrote what or why prior to Darby.
1830 years is a long time.

Yes 1830 years is a long time. You would think that in allll those long years, that if Christians believed in the rapture, that SOME besides Darby would have written about it. But no. Very telling.

 

[Meowzltov]

So what did Jesus mean when he said.

"Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven."

Matthew 23:9

He obviously was not referring to your parents so what is Jesus talking about?

Right, he was obviously not saying to stop calling your earthly father "father," so obviously he was speaking FIGURATIVELY. He is saying to not put anyone in God's place, that no one is above your heavenly Father.

 

[Aldebaran]

Right, he was obviously not saying to stop calling your earthly father "father," so obviously he was speaking FIGURATIVELY. He is saying to not put anyone in God's place, that no one is above your heavenly Father.

I find it rather surprising that's it's almost passed off as a coincidence that Jesus tells us to call no one on earth your father for you only have one Father who is in Heaven, and yet Catholics go out of their way to refer to someone (a priest) as Father when they address him. They do it with ANY priest, not just one they see as a "father figure".

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Right, he was obviously not saying to stop calling your earthly father "father," so obviously he was speaking FIGURATIVELY. He is saying to not put anyone in God's place, that no one is above your heavenly Father.

So how would this scripture based on your intereptation explain these quotes from the Roman Catholic Church? :

“The Pope and God are the same, so he has all power in Heaven and earth.” (Source: Pope Pius V, quoted in Barclay, Cities Petrus Bertanous Chapter XXVII: 218.)

"I alone…am the successor of the apostles, the vicar of Jesus Christ..I am the way, the truth, and the life…" (Source: History of the Christian Church, by Henry Charles Sheldon, p. 59.)

"The Pope is not simply the representative of Jesus Christ. On the contrary, he is Jesus Christ Himself, under the veil of the flesh, and who by means of a being common to humanity continues His ministry amongst men ... Does the Pope speak? It is Jesus Christ Who is speaking. Does he teach? It is Jesus Christ Who teaches. Does he confer grace or pronounce an anathema? It is Jesus Christ Himself Who is pronouncing the anathema and conferring the grace. Hence consequently, when one speaks of the Pope, it is not necessary to examine, but to obey: there must be no limiting the bounds of the command, in order to suit the purpose of the individual whose obedience is demanded: there must be no cavilling at the declared will of the Pope, and so invest it with quite another than that which he has put upon it: no preconceived opinions must be brought to bear upon it: no rights must be set up against the rights of the Holy Father to teach and command; his decisions are not to ‘be criticized, or his ordinances disputed. Therefore by Divine ordination, all, no matter how august the person may be — whether he wear a crown or be invested with the purple, or be clothed in the sacred vestments: all must be subject to Him Who has had all things put under Him." (Source: Evangelical Christendom, Vol. 49, January 1, 1895, p. 15, "the organ of the Evangelical Alliance," published in London by J. S. Phillips.)

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

I'd say that my confirmation bias was completely justified!!!

[video=youtube]

[/video]

 

[supersoldier71]

To call God a magician is to belittle Him who did speak the creation into existence. Ex nihilo--from nothing: impossible by any means or through any agency but God.

God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit; by whom all that has been created, was created. God is perfect, needing no one, and apart from Him, no one, not one is Holy.