Biblical Mary!

[arthurfleminger]

Why would Paul pass something on by word of mouth that contradicted what he wrote in his letters?



Now you're claiming from scriptural authority that scripture alone isn't authoritative. If it's not authoritative, why should I believe your claim that scripture isn't authoritative?



The church was built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets: "So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord."—Ephesians 2:19-21

If the foundation has already been laid on the apostles and prophets, how can another foundation be laid? Every book of the New Testament was written by an apostle or an associate of an apostle. It is the record of the apostles' teaching and of the oral tradition that was handed down by them.

Don't reject what I'm saying before thinking about it carefully. Don't react without considering the logic in it.

You ask, "Why would Paul pass something on by word of mouth that contradicted what he wrote in his letters?" I never said that he contradicted what he wrote in his letters. But it's very clear from what he is saying that he taught both orally and in writing and his oral teachings and the teachings of the church were not put down in writing. And, even if they weren't put down in writing Paul demands that Christians be true to both oral and written teaching, even if the oral teaching didn't end up in the bible.
And, you gotta remember that less than 1% of the people were literate,, they couldn't read so they had to be taught orally. Even well past the time of Gutenberg's printing press the great majority of people were illiterate.

And there wasn't even a bible until 300 years after Christ ascended to heaven. So you bet there was a lot of oral teaching going on.

 

[ResidentAlien]

You ask, "Why would Paul pass something on by word of mouth that contradicted what he wrote in his letters?" I never said that he contradicted what he wrote in his letters. But it's very clear from what he is saying that he taught both orally and in writing and his oral teachings and the teachings of the church were not put down in writing. And, even if they weren't put down in writing Paul demands that Christians be true to both oral and written teaching, even if the oral teaching didn't end up in the bible.

Where is this "oral teaching?" Who is the keeper of it now? How was it transmitted? We know where the apostolic letters came from. How can we know this "oral teaching" is reliable and not just made up?

And if there's nothing that adds to or takes away from the written teaching, what need is there of this so-called oral teaching?

 

[arthurfleminger]

You hold Luther guilty because of what Hitler's actions? That's both fallacious and stupid. Luther was never Hitler's theologian; they lived four hundred years apart.

Obviously you are ignorant of Luther's writings for the murder of Jews which turned out to be a strong plank for Hitler and his Nazis: On the Jews and Their Lies - Wikipedia

Hitler relied on Luther's hatred of the Jews and used Luther in his propaganda: Luther and Hitler: A Linear Connection between Martin Luther and Adolf Hitler’s Anti-Semitism with a Nationalistic Foundation

Two of the most notoriously unshakable Anti-Semitics were the Protestant reformer Martin Luther and German Chancellor-turned dictator Adolf Hitler. But who exactly were Martin Luther and Adolf Hitler? Although four centuries apart, both Martin Luther and Adolf Hitler had a remarkable impact on both Germany and the world. Luther is renowned still today as the initiator and leader of the Protestant Reformation. Centuries later, Lutherans and Germans alike admire and honor him for his bold and daring actions against the Catholic Church in the 1500s. Hitler remains one of the most hated men in history. The similarities shared between Luther and Hitler were not limited to their hatred for anything Jewish, however. Both men were led by a strong sense of German nationalism and a yearning for unity among their fellow Germans.

What exactly was it about these two men that allowed them to start a rebellion and garner support from their fellow Germans? More importantly, what led them to live a life filled with rage and hatred, and why was it directed toward the Jews? Was there something about the German people in particular that allowed them to be susceptible to the leadership of Luther and Hitler? Martin Luther and Adolf Hitler are inseparably linked with their extreme anti-Semitism and nationalism. It is impossible to assume that Luther did not have any influence on Hitler and his views, for it cannot be mere coincidence that Hitler’s anti-Jewish sentiment of the 1930s and 1940s mirrors that of Luther’s anti-Semitism of the 1500s. This paper will explore the connection between Luther and Hitler; it will attempt to illustrate the similarities between their German nationalism and anti-Semitism, and explain how Luther laid the foundation for Hitler’s holocaust.

 

[Magenta]

Where is this "oral teaching?" Who is the keeper of it now? How was it transmitted? We know where the apostolic letters came from. How can we know this "oral teaching" is reliable and not just made up?

And if there's nothing that adds to or takes away from the written teaching, what need is there of this so-called oral teaching?

Probably oral teachings the likes of which Jesus had to say:

Matthew 15:9 "They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules."

Mark 7:7 "They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules."

And also no doubt in relation to how many times Jesus said, "But I say unto you... "
which was always contrasted against, "Ye have heard that it was said... "

 

[infinitekhanol]

She is not God how human able to heir and remember billions request every day from catholic from Mexico, USA china in the same time?

I do not think that anybody has mentioned anywhere that she is God. No, she is not God and therefore not omnipresent.

Have you considered the way prayer works? Have you considered why St Paul was always asking his converts to pray for him and his fellow workers in the vineyard of God? Unity of purpose in prayer yields answers to petitions. He prays on his own, off course, but he understood the importance of unity in prayer or joint prayer. Was Paul present with each of the different churches at the same time they were all offering prayers on his behalf? or rather, were they present with Paul, all at the same time? Yes, spiritually, not that Paul or they are omnipresent.

When we truly pray ( not with wondering mind while we seem to be praying), we spiritually partake in heavenly things. right in the presence of God, his angels and saints. We unite in Spirit. Same thing that happens when we are continually walking in the light or in the Spirit. She does not need to be everywhere to hear us pray or join in our prayers. For, we have come unto Mount Zion, unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem and to the innumerable company of angels. To the general assembly and church of the Firstborn which are written in heaven and to God, the judge of all and the spirits of just men made perfect. And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than of Abel. Hebrew 12:22 -24. When we commune with God with the right frame of mind, irrespective of where we dwell, even if all are praying at the same time, we are in his presence with the heavenly hosts. The RCC pray to God through our Lord Jesus Christ. They ask her and the saints for intercessory prayers. They understand Jesus is the only way and their prayers are directed through him.

In John's vision about the heavenly throne, he saw the importance of the prayers of the saints before the throne of the Lamb. Their prayers were so precious that they were placed in golden bowls (Rev5:7-9). That is, the prayer of those who have died in the Lord, together with the saints who are living in the world are like incense before the throne of God.

In Rev 8:1- 4, we see another vision of St John. He saw the prayers of the saints being offered on a golden altar before the throne, He also saw that the prayers of the saints were presented to God by angels who stood before the throne. Before the Lamb and God the Father, were seen the prayers of those who believe in Jesus Christ (both the dead and living) as giving glory to God.

If we can ask our Pastors or fellow believers for prayers, why can't we ask her or any of the saints? After all, when she was on earth, she interceded for people at the wedding at Cana and her Son obliged her. Why do you think he will not oblige her again?

 

[infinitekhanol]

It seem to me catholic believe Mary Omni present like God able to hear all request from people all over the world n the same time. It is wrong only God Omni present, not mary

I think my post #225 has answered this question.

 

[infinitekhanol]

The component letters of the New Testament were being circulated among the believers within Paul's lifetime. All of the New Testament was written within thirty years of Jesus' death.

When he wrote about "teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth of by letter", Paul was referring to the he taught, or that the other disciples taught. He was not referring to some alleged "other teachings" that don't appear at all in the NT.

Not at all! He was referring to his teachings which he has passed to them either by word of mouth or by letters.

What about all the other things St John testified not written in the scriptures?

 

[infinitekhanol]

About 20 years ago I had a catholic neighbor she say Mary meet her and ask her to always wear white t shirt with hearth symbol. How Mary come to her? I believe the devil pretend to be Mary that talk to her.
She instruct to keep fasting, almost die and her neighbor call ambulance on her

So, you are using your neighbors experience to judge others. I do not think that is right.

By the way, how do you know she was not telling the truth? The way it stands, it is only God who can say that or she confesses. Outside this, it is just conjecture on your part.

 

[infinitekhanol]

1. The Word of God is truth, only the bible contains God's written word.
2. The church is described in Timothy as the pillar and bulwark of the truth, that is to say the defence.
3. The RCC is not that church, the Catholic church from it's earliest days slipped it's moorings. It is built upon a false foundation of the bishop and sacraments as opposed to the foundation laid by Peter [the rock] and Paul, which foundation is Christ.

She has not said that the word of God is not truth. She said show in the scripture where it is written Sola Scriptura.

I believe Christ remains the foundation of the RCC. I think you need to be more enlightened on their doctrine and practices. When Moslems declare that Jesus is neither God nor the Son of God, their belief does not in any way make us Christians to disbelief what we know as truth. Same way, I do not think it matters to them how you misrepresent them. They know what they believe.

It will follow that if you cannot show where Sola Scriptura is written in the bible, then, perhaps, you are also following a faulty foundation? Have you thought about that?

I think we should all stop these bashings of the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[Magenta]

The RCC pray to God through our Lord Jesus Christ. They ask her and the saints for intercessory
prayers. They understand Jesus is the only way and their prayers are directed through him.

I have also witnessed Catholics saying they do not pray to Mary, when the Hail Mary is the most predominant prayer on their rosary.

 

[Evmur]

2, 000 years and there has never been a word spoken or written by any pope or bishop which can be compared with scripture.

 

[Dino246]

Obviously you are ignorant

And, right there, I lost interest in reading your post.

 

[Magenta]

2, 000 years and there has never been a word spoken or written by any pope or bishop which can be compared with scripture.

Interesting, too, that their only ex cathedra dogmas concern Mary and not Jesus.

The Catholic is mandated to believe these dogmas, which try
as anyone may, cannot be found to have any basis in Scripture.

 

[Dino246]

Not at all! He was referring to his teachings which he has passed to them either by word of mouth or by letters.

How does that contradict what I wrote?

What about all the other things St John testified not written in the scriptures?

What about them, indeed?

 

[infinitekhanol]

I believe why catholic empezized in unwritten teaching so she can put additional teaching like pray to Mary, sailing forgiveness certificate to make money and other manipulations.

They are saying it the way it is in the scripture. There is no ulterior motive.

It is wrong to malign or misrepresent others

 

[infinitekhanol]

You are wrong. Sadly, you have been convinced by Catholic propaganda.

Paul doesn't deny sola scriptura; he actually upholds it. The problem is that you believe the Catholic misinterpretation of Paul's words.

Sola fide is also true. Justification is by faith in Christ, not by faith plus works.

She is asking for scriptural verse to prove your point, nothing more.

 

[Evmur]

She has not said that the word of God is not truth. She said show in the scripture where it is written Sola Scriptura.

I believe Christ remains the foundation of the RCC. I think you need to be more enlightened on their doctrine and practices. When Moslems declare that Jesus is neither God nor the Son of God, their belief does not in any way make us Christians to disbelief what we know as truth. Same way, I do not think it matters to them how you misrepresent them. They know what they believe.

It will follow that if you cannot show where Sola Scriptura is written in the bible, then, perhaps, you are also following a faulty foundation? Have you thought about that?

I think we should all stop these bashings of the Roman Catholic Church.

Many Catholics come to a true knowledge of salvation, most Protestants believe that. They are saved despite the RCC not because of it. I was raised a devout Catholic and am not anti Catholic people, I am anti Catholic doctrine. Which is a lie.

How is it a lie? it is a lie because it does not teach truth, it does not teach the truth that will save. It witholds the key truths concerning salvation because those who teach it i.e. the priests and bishops do not themselves know these truths.

Christ is neither the Founder or the Foundation of the Catholic church. The church leadership was usurped at the turn of the 1st century by the bishops, Ignatias taught that the bishop must be received and obeyed as though he were Christ in person.

No apostle would have claimed such a thing. Ignatias set the church upon a new foundation i.e the bishops.

And that's what you have .... you want to believe their doctrines, their musings, their dreamings, go ahead it's a free country ... we will follow Christ and His apostles.

 

[Magenta]

What about all the other things St John testified not written in the scriptures?

Such as what, exactly?

 

[infinitekhanol]

How does that contradict what I wrote?


What about them, indeed?

It seems we are reading different meanings into your posts . I saw it as you are contesting what she posted. In this light, I disagreed with you.

 

[Magenta]

They are saying it the way it is in the scripture. There is no ulterior motive.

It is wrong to malign or misrepresent others

Paying the priesthood to reduce the amount of punishment one has to undergo for sins
was never a Scripture teaching. In fact, the claim that freedom from God’s punishment for
sin could be purchased with money was a main reason for the reformation of the Church.