but you have nothing to check these ‘verbal traditions’ against. you have no idea if they are true of false…but you elevate them to gospel truth. scary.

Yes you do have something to compare them with. The church that Christ said he would be with “even to the consummation of the world”. Obviously that wouldn’t be any church founded in the 1400’s or 1500’s or in the last couple of decades.

so according to you Peter is the Rock…hate to tell you, Jesus is the Rock, and his church is built on Peter’s confession, not peter..sorry.

And you base this assumption on what? Certainly nothing in the Bible. Jesus says to Peter – I name thee Rock, and on this rock I will build my church. Aren’t you the one saying that the Bible must be understood literally. You forgot to say – except when it contradicts your beliefs, in which case the Bible gives way to your beliefs. How disingenuous of you.

so why did Paul publicly rebuke him?

Because Peter was doing the wrong thing. Being head of the Apostles and the Church did not excuse him behaving badly. Being rebuked, rightly, by Paul did not stop him being the head of the Apostles.

this is really sad…do you know the definition of GRACE???
7: free and unmerited favor or beneficence of God: “there but for the grace of God go I”
really sad. you don’t, and CANNOT earn grace.

I do know the meaning of Grace. I also know that you can’t be “full of grace” and a sinner at the same time. If you are full of grace you are free of sin.

What did you want, an organisational chart? Name tags? It is obvious from what Jesus said to him as well as the deference given to Peter by the other Disciples from that time.

well don’t you think if one of the disciples was POPE, then they could have recorded it in their letters? you make it sound like those guys were really dumb, becasue they left out all sorts of really important stuff!

Which negates Peter’s primacy how exactly?

Peter was ‘primary’ ‘pope’ or anything like that. he was the apostle to the jews…as Paul was to the gentiles…you’d be more accurate having Paul as head of your church, because he was the chief apostle to the gentiles…and given the amount of NT written by each, its clear Paul was the primary apostle.

The Saints are literally face to face with God and thus in a much better position to intercede for us.

don’t need the saints to intercede for me..

Hebrews 7:25
Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.

interceding is not the saints job…its HIS job.

You still have not explained how it is ok for someone in this life to intercede for us and pray for us to God, yet it is not possible for someone in Heaven to do so,

show me the verse where this is done….you cannot.

yet you have not answered my question as to wether you believe between them the Apostles only managed to write the 21 Epistles of the NT in the time from 33AD when Christ is believed to have Died and Ascended, to 90AD when the last Apostle died. 21 Epistles in around 60 years when the church was just getting established?

you totally miss the point as usual. they didn’t pray to stephen…even though they wrote those epistles years, decades, after he died. neither do they mention praying to anyone who has died….and if they wrote any other epistles…then YOUR church fathers (so you say) didn’t find them cannonical….get a clue.

So? What Saul did WAS NOT PRAYING! Duhhhhhhh!

he was asking guidance of the dead…as you do. guidance, intercession, whats the difference you are asking of the dead, as saul did……DUHHHHHHHH

St Stephen died 3 years after Christ’s ascension. Are you suggesting no epistles were written in that 3 years?

yes. show me which one was.

So you don’t know why you believe Christ sacrificed himself to no avail? That’s what I thought.

such stupidity has to hurt. try reading the story of lazarus the rich man..and tell me Abraham was not in paradise.

No I’m saying they didn’t see a need to include ALL of them.

laughable…the Holy Spirit put the cannon of scripture together…and you’re saying He missed a few things…blasphemous.

I have given my references and my reasons for believing Scripture does imply the Assumption of Mary.

and its laughable. you read into it what you want it to say.

You cling to a man made church and try and claim it’s from God.

check the mirror. the church that abandoned the grace of God for works.

Where was your church when God was commissioning the founding fathers of the Catholic church to “go teach ye all nations”?

you are mistaken. you don’t know what the church is, and I doubt you are a part of it.

Yet when there is clear evidence to support the real presence that’s apparently not good enough either?

and reading a few verses later we find:

63The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit[e] and they are life

you pick and choose your verses, and read them out of context. He gave a spiritual meaning to this, that the people of the world, like you, could not understand.

No, perhaps they just didn’t think some of us would be so dumb!

people like you were around then, then knew.

So? They would be wrong, just like you.

oh yes, you are the ORACLE OF GOD!!! just like your POPE is an apostle, who cannnot do the deeds of an apostle…keep dreaming. you may find out the hard way…

R4L: another little ‘fact’ that he, or paul, or john, or the writer of hebrews, forget to mention.

What did you want, an organisational chart? Name tags? It is obvious from what Jesus said to him as well as the deference given to Peter by the other Disciples from that time.

Peter was the apostle to the jews…Paul was the apostle to the gentiles. sorry.

Which negates Peter’s primacy how exactly?

you have no scripture for any of these assertions. she was not holy, she needed a savior, like all of use do.

You say the Blessed Virgin Mary was not Holy, and yet she is greeted by Elizabeth saying “Blessed art thou among women.”

Blessed–adjective
1. consecrated; sacred; holy; sanctified: the Blessed Sacrament.

I do not deny that the Blessed Virgin Mary required a Saviour. But it doesn’t automatically follow that she was a sinner. She could have been saved by being prevented from sinning rather then being redeemed after the fact. I have given you the Biblical support for the Catholic church’s view on the matter. That you choose to reject the church’s advice for “false prophets” is your choice.

really? but I can back what I say up by scripture, you cannot. you have to rely on ‘the church’ nice.

You do not back up what you say with Scripture, you bend Scripture to meet your needs. Exhibit A: your contriving to equate Saul’s behaviour in Kings when he uses a witch to conjure up the soul of Samuel; with praying to the saints in heaven.

I’m sure the followers of Jim Jones thought much the same.

I’m sure you do too, the difference is I follow the church that was founded by Christ on Peter 2008 years ago. You do not.

how can you? you have no reference point. you put the church above scripture…so whatever they say goes.

I put the Church that Christ founded and promised to be with even to the consummation of the world, ahead of the Bible produced by the very same church. The Church about which Christ said, “who hears you, hears me” So that is my reference point. What is yours? The Bible produced by the church that you reject? If my church is wrong then how can you place any trust in the Bible that my church produced?

and they never asked the dead to pray for them.

2 Mach 11-16; Apoc 5:8 & 8:3

you are FACE TO FACE with God…do you think He cannot hear, and cannot see what you do? oh please this is laughable.

What is laughable is your apparent inability to understand what I wrote. We are not literally face to face with God in this life. Can He hear our prayers? Yes. But we are by no means in the same sort of relationship with Him in this life, as we will be in the next. The Saints are literally face to face with God and thus in a much better position to intercede for us.

You still have not explained how it is ok for someone in this life to intercede for us and pray for us to God, yet it is not possible for someone in Heaven to do so, nor how we can pray for the dead in this life but when they get to heaven they apparently are unable to return the favour?

laughable. you need to recheck the dates of when the epistles were written…they were written AFTER stephen was martyred. because Paul wasn’t a christian then…duhhhhhhhhhhh moron.

Paul wasn’t the only one to write an Epistle, so why centre on him. You yourself said St Paul continued writing up to 60AD and St John up to 90AD yet you have not answered my question as to wether you believe between them the Apostles only managed to write the 21 Epistles of the NT in the time from 33AD when Christ is believed to have Died and Ascended, to 90AD when the last Apostle died. 21 Epistles in around 60 years when the church was just getting established?

Samuel was one of the holiest people in the OT…duhhhhhhh

So? What Saul did WAS NOT PRAYING! Duhhhhhhh!

in the previous sentence you said:
Many of the Epistles likewise would have been written before his martyrdom
laughable. you are seriously deluded.

St Stephen died 3 years after Christ’s ascension. Are you suggesting no epistles were written in that 3 years?

try theology 101. clueless.

So you don’t know why you believe Christ sacrificed himself to no avail? That’s what I thought.

but I thought it was YOUR holy church fathers that put it together…so you’re saying they screwed up!! oh this is too funny!!!

No I’m saying they didn’t see a need to include ALL of them. Perhaps they gave future generations to much credit for intelligence?

scripture does NOT imply that. scripture is clear when it comes to Elijah..but says nothing about your mother goddess mary. but you faith isn’t on the word of God, obviously, rather the word of man.

I have given my references and my reasons for believing Scripture does imply the Assumption of Mary. You claim to believe the word of God yet reject the teaching of the very church he commissioned to “go teach ye all nations”. You cling to a man made church and try and claim it’s from God. Where was your church when God was commissioning the founding fathers of the Catholic church to “go teach ye all nations”? Still 1500 years or more away from being founded.

I trust you now believe in the Real Presence?
no obviously not. I find it amusing that the catholic church takes that literally, while writing off the entire book of revelation as ’spiritual’. sure.

So you don’t believe in the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption because you claim there is no clear evidence to support them. Yet when there is clear evidence to support the real presence that’s apparently not good enough either? Tell me again how you like to follow explicitly what it says in Scripture.

To quote you from a previous reply: maybe you should try reading what it actually says, instead of what you want it to say.

sure they were so dumb as to forget to mention such ‘important’ things. right.

No, perhaps they just didn’t think some of us would be so dumb!

the orthodox might disagree with you

So? They would be wrong, just like you.

…talk about mind-numbed robot.

Yes, you are rather.

Verbal traditions didn’t come after Scripture. Scripture came after the verbal traditions. You cannot do away with the verbal traditions just because they are inconvenient or not written down.

but you have nothing to check these ‘verbal traditions’ against. you have no idea if they are true of false…but you elevate them to gospel truth. scary.

On this rock I will build my church, and we’re supposed to believe He means something else?

so according to you Peter is the Rock…hate to tell you, Jesus is the Rock, and his church is built on Peter’s confession, not peter..sorry.

As for the authority given to Peter it was borne out by the deference paid to Peter from the moment of Christs ascension. It is clear they knew he was “in charge”.

so why did Paul publicly rebuke him?

Also in Luke 1:30 “..thou hast found grace with God”. If she were under the stigma of even just original sin, she could not be said to be “full of grace” or have found “grace with God.”

this is really sad…do you know the definition of GRACE???

7: free and unmerited favor or beneficence of God: “there but for the grace of God go I”

really sad. you don’t, and CANNOT earn grace.

If the church was founded by Christ (it was) and if it was a preaching church (it was – the scriptures weren’t written until several decades after the Ascension of Christ and even then written material wasn’t widespread) then all the traditions passed down by word would have been from Christ. That some of them were later written down, and then some of those were compiled into the Bible does not negate the continued veracity of the verbal traditions. See Luke 1:1-4.

Verbal traditions didn’t come after Scripture. Scripture came after the verbal traditions. You cannot do away with the verbal traditions just because they are inconvenient or not written down.

As for your interpretation of the primacy of Peter. It doesn’t make sense. Why would God name him Peter (which you admit means rock) yet the next sentence He says On this rock I will build my church, and we’re supposed to believe He means something else? Frankly the mental gymnastics required to accept that proposition is ridiculous. If Peter were not the “rock” but just some figurehead, why name him Peter at all?

As for the authority given to Peter it was borne out by the deference paid to Peter from the moment of Christs ascension. It is clear they knew he was “in charge”.

Yes, all the Apostles were given the power to forgive sin (or retain sin), preach and baptise etc, but that in no way suggests Peter was not the head of the church. It was solely to him (and his successors) that the power to bind on earth or loose on earth was given. Louis Barbeiri is incorrect in saying Peter took instructions from heaven before acting. It clearly says in the Bible that whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. Earth first, then Heaven.

The Immaculate conception is supported in both Luke 1:28 when the angel greets Mary thus “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee“ & Luke 1:41 where Elizabeth greets her saying “blessed art thou amongst women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.” Also in Luke 1:30 “..thou hast found grace with God”. If she were under the stigma of even just original sin, she could not be said to be “full of grace” or have found “grace with God.” As you say, Jesus was without sin, but Scripture does not make allowance for Him in Romans. Neither does it make allowance for the very young who cannot sin as they lack the ability to distinguish right from wrong. There is no mention of their exemption either. Why then would we expect to find an explicit exemption for the Blessed Virgin Mary?€

Assumption:
Sorry that should have been Ps 132:8. While the Apocalypse (Apoc 11:19) may not have been quoted by Christ or the Apostles, it was written by St John. I don’t know why you wouldn’t accept it as you would any other book of the Bible. When it was written would hardly seem to matter, in my opinion. Matt 27:52-53 refers to the Saints of old being raised bodily from their tombs. Christ’s sacrifice having freed them and brought them body and soul into heaven, why would he deny his own mother a similar reward after she had shared in his birth, life and death?

Well at least you now agree with me that Mary was the mother of God. Jesus was both true God and true man. You cannot divide the two natures. To suggest that Mary was given the honour of giving birth to the Son of God and her Redeemer, but that she was just a vessel and there was no reflected honour due to her is an absurd proposition.

He was however the first Pope and the Bishop of Rome.

another little ‘fact’ that he, or paul, or john, or the writer of hebrews, forget to mention.

And yes Christ did install Peter as the head of the Apostles

Peter was the apostle to the jews…Paul was the apostle to the gentiles. sorry.

After His resurrection He called Peter to lead His church when He said to him “..feed my lambs.. feed my lambs.. feed my sheep.”

and what did He tell Paul to do?

How much more should we honour our spiritual mother, our holy mother, the mother of God.

you have no scripture for any of these assertions. she was not holy, she needed a savior, like all of use do.

I gotta tell you I had a laugh when you accused me of not thinking independently, yet here you are mouthing by rote the same inane errors of Protestant preachers of ages past.

really? but I can back what I say up by scripture, you cannot. you have to rely on ‘the church’ nice.

God says believe my church I will,

I’m sure the followers of Jim Jones thought much the same.

when he says beware of false prophets I do.

how can you? you have no reference point. you put the church above scripture…so whatever they say goes.

in their writings you see them offering prayers for various people and groups and also asking for the prayers of the faithful.

and they never asked the dead to pray for them.

If those prayers are a valid intercession on behalf of the people for which they are offered, then how much more beneficial are prayers offered by Sts Peter & Paul in heaven where they are “face to face” with God?

you are FACE TO FACE with God…do you think He cannot hear, and cannot see what you do? oh please this is laughable. basically you put Jesus in the role of Mafia don…and if you get in good with his ‘boyz’ his ‘capos’ they’ll put in a good word for you..please. its NOT done in the NT, and there is NO justiication for praying to the dead for any reason…it is a clear sin.

If those prayers are a valid intercession on behalf of the people for which they are offered, then how much more beneficial are prayers offered by Sts Peter & Paul in heaven where they are “face to face” with God?

laughable. you need to recheck the dates of when the epistles were written…they were written AFTER stephen was martyred. because Paul wasn’t a christian then…duhhhhhhhhhhh moron.

Well if you can’t see a difference between Saul, having been ignored by the Lord, resorting to having a witch conjure up Samuel, and someone praying to a Saint in heaven to intercede for us with the Lord then I would suggest your mental facilities might be lacking.

Samuel was one of the holiest people in the OT…duhhhhhhh

There are 21 Epistles in the NT. As you have already pointed out, St Paul kept writing up to around 60AD and St John up to around 90AD. Are we to believe that in the 30-60 years after the death of Christ, the apostles only wrote 21 Epistles between them?

in the previous sentence you said:

Many of the Epistles likewise would have been written before his martyrdom

laughable. you are seriously deluded.

If Abraham was in heaven as you seem to suggest then what was the consequence of original sin? What was the need for Christ’s sacrifice if heaven were still open to all who were holy enough? Congratulations, you’ve just made Christ passion and death meaningless.

try theology 101. clueless.

Don’t you think it likely that there were many more Epistles written that were not included in the NT by the early Church fathers? Yet you continue with your myopic view. Who is merely spouting talking points here?

but I thought it was YOUR holy church fathers that put it together…so you’re saying they screwed up!! oh this is too funny!!!

Yes Scripture implies it. If Elijah is taken up body and soul, then why is it so difficult to believe that Christ would not treat his mother the same way?

scripture does NOT imply that. scripture is clear when it comes to Elijah..but says nothing about your mother goddess mary. but you faith isn’t on the word of God, obviously, rather the word of man.

I trust you now believe in the Real Presence?

no obviously not. I find it amusing that the catholic church takes that literally, while writing off the entire book of revelation as ’spiritual’. sure.

Absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence

to the gullible.

Perhaps the church fathers believed there was sufficient evidence in both Scripture and Tradition to not require an explicit confirmation.

sure they were so dumb as to forget to mention such ‘important’ things. right.

That church could only be the Catholic Church. No other Christian ‘church’ existed until the last couple of hundred years.

the orthodox might disagree with you…talk about mind-numbed robot.

Yet there are puzzling contradictions of fact among the Gospels which were from people who were close to each other in time and location and witnessed many of the same events.
dedalus on September 10, 2008 at 10:16 AM

Such as?
Send_Me on September 11, 2008 at 12:27 AM

There are many that have been pointed to. Here are a few:
–What were the last words of Jesus?
–Who first entered the tomb on Easter morning?
–How long after the resurrection did Jesus ascend?

And yes Christ did install Peter as the head of the Apostles and thus his church when He said “..thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, it shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.”

After His resurrection He called Peter to lead His church when He said to him “..feed my lambs.. feed my lambs.. feed my sheep.”

Are you calling Christ a liar?

The church is both an institution and a body of people depending on what the reference point. It’s also a building in which Masses are said.

It is you who requires pity for refusing to respect God’s mother to the degree she has earned. The 4th Commandment is Honour thy father and thy mother. How much more should we honour our spiritual mother, our holy mother, the mother of God.

I gotta tell you I had a laugh when you accused me of not thinking independently, yet here you are mouthing by rote the same inane errors of Protestant preachers of ages past. As far as I’m concerned something is either true or it is not. If it is true I will believe it, if it is not, I will not. If God says believe my church I will, when he says beware of false prophets I do.

I didn’t say Saul was a sinner, I merely posted a couple of Bible quotes that showed he had lost God’s favour. I thought you were big on Bible quotes? Neither did I say that Paul of Peter were not sinners. Are you sure you read my post, or did you just read what you wanted to read? But you go some way to making my point for me. Sts Peter & Paul were sinners, as are we all. Yet in their writings you see them offering prayers for various people and groups and also asking for the prayers of the faithful. If those prayers are a valid intercession on behalf of the people for which they are offered, then how much more beneficial are prayers offered by Sts Peter & Paul in heaven where they are “face to face” with God?

Well if you can’t see a difference between Saul, having been ignored by the Lord, resorting to having a witch conjure up Samuel, and someone praying to a Saint in heaven to intercede for us with the Lord then I would suggest your mental facilities might be lacking.

If Abraham was in heaven as you seem to suggest then what was the consequence of original sin? What was the need for Christ’s sacrifice if heaven were still open to all who were holy enough? Congratulations, you’ve just made Christ passion and death meaningless.

The reason why the New Testament doesn’t mention praying to St Stephen is as I pointed out in my previous post. Did you understand it? The Gospels end around the time of Jesus’ Ascension BEFORE St Stephen’s martyrdom. Many of the Epistles likewise would have been written before his martyrdom. Were they supposed to predict St Stephen’s martyrdom? Talk about illogical.

There are 21 Epistles in the NT. As you have already pointed out, St Paul kept writing up to around 60AD and St John up to around 90AD. Are we to believe that in the 30-60 years after the death of Christ, the apostles only wrote 21 Epistles between them? Don’t you think it likely that there were many more Epistles written that were not included in the NT by the early Church fathers? Yet you continue with your myopic view. Who is merely spouting talking points here?

Yes Scripture implies it. If Elijah is taken up body and soul, then why is it so difficult to believe that Christ would not treat his mother the same way?

If you believe that the Bible can only be read literally, then perhaps you can explain John 6:54-57? I trust you now believe in the Real Presence?

As for Mary’s assumption (I didn’t say resurrection and ascension) who says it wasn’t written down? Absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence. Perhaps the church fathers believed there was sufficient evidence in both Scripture and Tradition to not require an explicit confirmation.

Finally you say you accept the church that Christ commissioned to “go teach ye all nations” That same church he promised to “be with even until the consummation of the world.” That church could only be the Catholic Church. No other Christian ‘church’ existed until the last couple of hundred years.

Yet there are puzzling contradictions of fact among the Gospels which were from people who were close to each other in time and location and witnessed many of the same events.
dedalus on September 10, 2008 at 10:16 AM

Such as?

Aussie-T on September 10, 2008 at 9:35 AM
It was in fact 2 Thess 2:15. However you spin it the words “..hold the teachings that you have learned, wether by word or by letter of ours.” the fact that he says by word OR by letter shows not all traditions are recorded in writing in the scriptures.

So, if not from what is written, by what authority would you claim in making any additional traditions? The Pope? No. He has been given no authority to add to or take away from the Scriptures. Consider Matt. 16:15-20. “He said to them, ‘But who do you say that I am?’ Simon Peter answered, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ And Jesus said to him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.’ Then He warned the disciples that they should tell no one that He was the Christ.”
1. Cephas is Aramaic for “rock” and Peter is Greek for “rock”.
2. The word written for “Peter” here was the word Petros, which is masculine.
3. When Jesus says “on this rock”, the word for “rock” is petras, which is feminine.
4. Clearly, Jesus was not saying that He would build His church on/around Peter.
5. Jesus could have been speaking of two different possibilities here: (a) that the petras was Himself, or (b) the truth of Peter’s testimony about who Jesus was.
This is not to say that Peter did not have a role in the early church, but he was certainly not charged with being the head of the church. The keys given to Peter gave him a different authority, the authority to “bind” and “loose” people. As Louis Barbieri writes: These were decisions Peter was to implement as he received instruction from Heaven, for the binding and loosing occurred there first. Peter simply carried out God’s directions. This privilege of binding and loosing was seen in Peter’s life as he had the privilege on the day of Pentecost to proclaim the gospel and announce to all those who responsed in saving faith that their sins had been forgiven (Acts 2). He was able to do the same thing with the household of Cornelius (Acts 10-11; cf. Acts 15:19-20). The same privilege was given all the disciples (John 20:22-23).”

The Immaculate conception…

Yes, Jesus was born to Mary, who was a virgin (Luke 1:26-28). As I explained before, this in no way explains the claim that Mary was sinless.

Likewise, Mary, who was without sin qualified to enter directly to Heaven . Ps 131:8, Apoc 11:19 Mary is the Ark of the Covenant, and Christ is the Covenant.

First, Psalm 131 only has 3 verses. There is no verse 8. Second, I do not trust the Apocrypha for a few reasons, not least of which is the fact that the Apocrypha was not quoted once by Jesus or any of the apostles and it was written in Greek, not Hebrew, during the “period of silence” (time of Malachi to the Christian era). Thirdly, as you mentioned before, Romans 3:23 says, “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” Jesus would not fall into the category since it would break the law of non-contradiction: Jesus can’t be God and fall short of the glory of God (Himself) at the same time; ergo, all people have sinned, with the exception of Jesus alone. No exclusion for Mary is made in Scripture.

Mary was the mother of God.

In order for this statement to be true, you must make your definitions clear, as you have done. She is the mother of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, a part of the Trinity, yes. She does not, however, carry any special privilege beyond the fact that she bore Jesus on this earth. Not once in the Bible is Mary referred to as “holy”, but rather as “blessed”. By Biblical standards, many are blessed, but only God Himself and those things He chooses to make holy are holy. Mary was not one of them.

No cults here R4L. I belong to the Church founded by Jesus Christ. Not one founded by men like Luther, Henry VIII, Smith, Booth or Calvin et al.

uh yeah sure you do. keep dreaming. its just laughable. Oh yeah Peter, whom Jesus said ‘Get thee behind me Satan’, and who denied Christ 3 times. Peter didn’t found the church of rome, Paul did. newsflash: the church isn’t an institition…its the body…ie people who are His.

I pity you for worshipping a pagan ‘queen of heaven’, and defaming the mary of the Bible. I see you’ve bought the line. but you are unable to refute what I say, just spew talking points. I guess independent thinking isn’t encouraged among the laity in the catholic church.

The consulting of ghosts and spirits which Saul transgressed, is condemned in Deut 18:11 , “[Let there not be found among you..] ..casters of spells, nor one who consults ghosts and spirits or seeks oracles from the dead.” To suggest that that is the same as praying to the saints is ridiculous. We pray to the Saints not to gain knowledge, but to have them intercede for us with God, so that God might answer our prayers

a distinction without a difference. all those apparitions of ‘mary’ and you’re not seeking oracles from the dead…sure, right. please. you say Saul was a sinner…as if Peter and paul were not. please. you cannot show an instance of anyone, other than Saul, asking the dead for anything in either the old or new testament. and yet you do the very thing God abhors.

The reason there is no record in the NT of people praying to the saints is, as you would well know, because there were no saints in Heaven at the time of the NT.

where was Abraham…did God place him in hell? please.

Also there would be no mention of anyone praying to St Stephen because he was killed in 36AD, 3 years after the Crucifixion of Christ

and, so? I mean your arguments don’t even make logical sense. Paul stopped writing around 60 AD…you think he would have offered a prayer to Stephen, or John would have mentioned it in his letters or revelation written in 90 AD…but NOOOOOOO…none of them mention it, because they knew it was an abomination before God.

That Mary was assumed into Heaven can be implied from the references I gave previously

yeah you have to ‘imply’ in other words, make it up as you go along…as the catholic church has done…with things like indulgences…denying the grace of God…so tell me, how many sacraments do you have to take to earn your way to heaven? I don’t have to ‘imply’ that Elijah was taken to heaven…certainly mary is more important than Elijah isn’t she??? so why wasn’t her grand entrance to heaven recorded in the new testament, with all its glory????

because it didn’t happen.

St John says there are many other things Jesus did that weren’t recorded. You would reject these things simply because they weren’t written down?

yeah because you have to make those things up and why should I trust someone who claims to be an apostle, the pope, and does not have the mark of an apostle?

2 Corinthians 12:12
The things that mark an apostle—signs, wonders and miracles—were done among you with great perseverance.

The Apostles were present when Mary died some 12 years after Christ. They returned to her grave after 3 days and her body was gone. That is Church teaching.

but somehow the great founders of your church, so you say, forgot to write them down…how could that be? something SO important…with SUCH an important person as mary?? hmmmmmmm?? why didn’t they record them in scripture??? hmmmm?? and since you say your church put the bible together…where is the record of her resurrection and ascension?? hmmmmm??

You reject it because you reject the church that Christ commissioned to “go teach ye all nations”

I accept that church…but its not the catholic church…you really are brainwashed. sad.

How ‘bout you?

Saul was in trouble way before he conjured up Samuel. Have your read 1 Kings? The reason Saul had a witch conjure up Samuel was because “..he consulted the Lord, and He answered him not, neither by dreams, nor by priests, nor by prophets. And Saul said to his servants: seek me a woman that hath divining spirit, and I will go to her, and inquire by her…” (1 Kings 28:6-7) Saul consulted a witch because the Lord had turned His back on him. As Samuel himself points out when he is conjured up by the witch, “because thou didst not obey the voice of the Lord, neither didst thou execute the wrath of his indignation upon Amalec. Therefore hath the Lord done to thee what thou sufferest this day.” (1 Kings 28:18). The consulting of ghosts and spirits which Saul transgressed, is condemned in Deut 18:11 , “[Let there not be found among you..] ..casters of spells, nor one who consults ghosts and spirits or seeks oracles from the dead.” To suggest that that is the same as praying to the saints is ridiculous. We pray to the Saints not to gain knowledge, but to have them intercede for us with God, so that God might answer our prayers.

The reason there is no record in the NT of people praying to the saints is, as you would well know, because there were no saints in Heaven at the time of the NT. The gates of Heaven were closed when Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit. It was Christ’s sacrifice that opened them up again, as I alluded to previously (Matt 27:52-53). Also there would be no mention of anyone praying to St Stephen because he was killed in 36AD, 3 years after the Crucifixion of Christ. The Gospels stop around the time of the Ascension of Christ. Acts reports on Stephen’s martyrdom and ends with Paul’s being taken to Rome. The Epistles deal with spreading, consoling and strengthening the faith of the various places the Apostles had been.

That Mary was assumed into Heaven can be implied from the references I gave previously. You cling to the belief that only what is written in Scripture is to be accepted. You in fact reject Scripture by holding to that point of view. St John says there are many other things Jesus did that weren’t recorded. You would reject these things simply because they weren’t written down? You would reject the teaching authority of the church on things that weren’t written down, even though Jesus said he who hears you hears me? The Apostles were present when Mary died some 12 years after Christ. They returned to her grave after 3 days and her body was gone. That is Church teaching. You reject it because you reject the church that Christ commissioned to “go teach ye all nations”

the only 2 people assumed into heaven are Elijah and Enoch, and the bible is clear about what happened to them. but with your assumption for mary, you have to imply it, it is not stated at all.

you read your own religion into the bible. maybe you should try reading what it actually says, instead of what you want it to say.

Aussie-T on September 10, 2008 at 9:35 AM

you obviously belong to the cult of mary. you build your faith on reading into the scripture what you want to see. amazing. you call mary the ‘queen of heaven’ and the mary you worship is truly the ‘queen of heaven’ a pagan deity.

the mary of the bible, who admitted she needed a savior, is not the mary you worship.

Peace to all!

Yes, a bit. I know that the Bible is a compilation of 66 books that corroborate one another, written by over 40 authors, in three different languages, over a distance of three continents, over a period of 1500 years, yet we cannot find a contradiction of theme anywhere. The Bible writers, though many never knew one another, corroborated one another.
Send_Me on September 10, 2008 at 9:23 AM

Yet there are puzzling contradictions of fact among the Gospels which were from people who were close to each other in time and location and witnessed many of the same events.

Send_Me on September 10, 2008 at 1:06 AM

It was in fact 2 Thess 2:15. However you spin it the words “..hold the teachings that you have learned, wether by word or by letter of ours.” the fact that he says by word OR by letter shows not all traditions are recorded in writing in the scriptures. Even St John (24:25) says “There are, however, many things that Jesus did; but if every one of these should be written, not even the world itself, I think, could hold the books that would have to be written.” Nothing in Timothy contradicts the verbal teachings. In fact “Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness”. Teaching, reproof, correction, training. Who does these things? The Disciples and their disciples – The Church. They transfer both the knowledge of Scripture and the correct understanding thereof. As it says in Matt 28:20 “teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and behold, I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

The Immaculate conception can be defined from Luke 1:28 “And when the angel had come to her, he said ‘Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee’” Luke 1:30 “And the angel said to her, ‘do not be afraid, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God.” Luke 1:42 “….Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb!” Blessed art thou…blessed is the fruit of thy womb – i.e. Jesus Christ.

The Assumption into Heaven can be defined Matt 27:52-53, At Christ’s death on the cross the temple was destroyed and those souls that had been awaiting the opening of that Gates of Heaven where raised from the dead and assumed body & soul into Heaven . Likewise, Mary, who was without sin qualified to enter directly to Heaven . Ps 131:8, Apoc 11:19 Mary is the Ark of the Covenant, and Christ is the Covenant.

Mary was the mother of God. Jesus was both true God and true man. He was the Son of God and the son of man. He did not get his divine/spiritual nature from Mary, but who of us does get our spiritual nature from our parents? Our parents combine with God to beget us. We get out Human nature from our parents and our spiritual nature from God. But that doesn’t make our parents any less our parents. (Matt 1:18 “Now the origin of Christ was in this wise. When Mary His mother…”) (John 2:1,3 “..the mother of Jesus was there.” “…the mother of Jesus said to Him..”)

The people you refer to aren’t his siblings but rather his cousins/extended family. Re: John 19:25 “..by the cross of Jesus his mother and his mother’s sister Mary of Cleophas…” and Matt 27:56 “..Mary the mother of James and Joseph,…” Again, if he had surviving siblings, why did he entrust his mother to St John at the foot of the cross? It would make no sense for St John to take her into his home if there were other family members around. In Acts 15:7 & Acts 15:13 both Peter and James refer to the gathering as “brethren” when clearly not all present are their brothers and/or sisters.

While I respect the opinions and faith of Send_Me immensely your blind faith is a bit misplaced. Let me explain how. When you investigated these passages did you translate them from the original Greek or Latin yourself?

No, but nor did I need to do so. The “phone game” arguments aren’t very good arguments because they don’t represent the reality of Scripture. I did, however, use Strong’s Concordance, a New Testament commentary written by John Walvoord and Roy Zuck, and my trusty Bible.

Do you understand the history of the translation you are using?

Yes, a bit. I know that the Bible is a compilation of 66 books that corroborate one another, written by over 40 authors, in three different languages, over a distance of three continents, over a period of 1500 years, yet we cannot find a contradiction of theme anywhere. The Bible writers, though many never knew one another, corroborated one another. Consider Luke 1:1-4, “Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.” Also, modern translations of the Bible are taken directly from the original manuscripts, not from other translations of translations. These original manuscripts were written by those who lived during the time of Christ and could be corroborated or rejected by others who lived during the time of Christ. There are over 6,000 manuscripts or partial manuscripts of the New Testament put down on paper as early as 120 AD. The NT was completed around 95 AD. By comparison, the fewer than 10 copies we have of Julius Caesar’s Galic Wars were written over 900 years after the original. The five copies of Aristotle’s Poetics were written 1400-1500 years after the original. The less that five copies of Homer’s Iliad were written more than 2100 years after the was written. These are the best history offers, which is pitiful compared to the Bible.
As Voddie Baucham put it if someone wanted to change what the Bible said, “They would have to gather up 6000 manuscripts or portions of manuscripts, steal them, change them all, tell the exact same lie on every one, don’t show your ink work, and get them back where you stole them from, and you’d have to live over a hundred years to get it done.” Then you have “layer number 2″. Consider, during 2nd and 3rd century the Greek New Testament was translated into Syriac, Coptic and Latin as the Christians were taking the Bible out to the world. As Baucham says, folks who wished to change the Bible would have to do the above, as well as steal the Syriac, Coptic, and Latin copies of the New Testament, change them, don’t get caught, return them, and would have to live 200 years to get it done. Then there’s “layer 3″. The church fathers wrote many commentaries relating to the New Testament. Based upon the sheer number of New Testament quotations they used, we could recreate 85-90% of the New Testament. So, if one wished to change what the New Testament says, they’d have to gather up all of the above, change them, return them, not get caught, then would have to change all of the writings of these early church fathers and live 300-400 years to get it all done. This is not plausible.
Consider also that over 23,000 archeological digs directly related to the history of the Bible, no changes in the history accounted in the Bible has had to be changed.

Now let us look at culture. For example, in black American culture today, it is common for people to call each other brother and sister who in fact are not related biologically. A thousand years from now, a person that were to read a letter that is written by a black American today, might not understand this fact and could confuse them as blood relations.
Hawthorne on September 10, 2008 at 7:30 AM

Yep, I agree, context is vital. Based upon what I wrote earlier, I don’t see how what I wrote was out of context.

SaintOlaf on September 9, 2008 at 11:31 PM

You really need to stop this line of accusation. You simply do not know for certain. It is impossible to prove a negative so you cannot prove in any way the ancestry of every member of the Mormon church. As such you are bearing false witness. Please stop. I am not a Mormon, but I always become uncomfortable with such crusading when you are on shaky ground.

We are given some guidance in the The Bible and much of what is there is hotly contested. Some Biblical passages that are quoted can be misleading. Take this post for example:

Send_Me on September 10, 2008 at 1:06 AM

While I respect the opinions and faith of Send_Me immensely your blind faith is a bit misplaced. Let me explain how. When you investigated these passages did you translate them from the original Greek or Latin yourself? Do you understand the history of the translation you are using? Do you understand the cultural traditions of the time of Christ?

Let me take each of these in turn.

Many of the passages in some versions of The Holy Bible have been changed by different “committees” throughout history. Different Vatican Councils and Synods have altered what is in the Bible. There are plenty of cases that now clearly show that some of the passes were changed for a specific political interpretation or cultural bias more than being true to the original. In order to truly study the REAL Bible you would have to be fairly fluent in ancient languages and have access to the original texts.

Fairly recently the Vatican has begun to understand the importance of returning our understanding of the Bible to the original version. Many of the early documents of faith are now being photographed and archived digitally. This is allowing scholars and even the average people to begin studying the true history of the Bible. The real truth is, until we can untangle the mess that church politics has made of the published versions of The Bible, we are making assumptions based not on the word of God in many cases, but the injected desires of men.

Now let us look at culture. For example, in black American culture today, it is common for people to call each other brother and sister who in fact are not related biologically. A thousand years from now, a person that were to read a letter that is written by a black American today, might not understand this fact and could confuse them as blood relations.

Literalist interpretation of The Bible as we have it presented to us in the published versions of today are a mistake. We need to make a very concerted effort to trace the history of each passage in The Bible and return it back to being God’s word, not the massaged version that we have now. It is important that this is done by very talented linguists and anthropologists that understand the Jewish culture in the time of Christ. It also must be done by people that have an overwhelming desire to find the most accurate version that we can get of the original teachings.

My faith in God as a Christian is strong. But the facts are the facts. We have a very difficult search to find the truth because the church has not been a good steward of The Word.