FLBear5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

If Mary didnt give birth to Jesus, who is God, to whom did she give birth?

---

Matthew 12:46-50

"While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. Someone told him, "Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you."
He replied to him, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?" Pointing to his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother."

---

John 19:26-27

26 When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple there whom he loved, he said to his mother, "Woman, behold, your son." 27 Then he said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother."

We can and have been doing this for 1000 years. We will not agree.

You keep running to a man interpreted book, which there is NO scripture supporting that the version you read is the correct one. I guess Luther tradition is ok, but that is another discussion. But, regardless you think we are doomed for idiology.

From our point of view, you have fallen away from the true Church and fell for Satan's trap of believing that you as a Man can determine what is "true" and what isn't. I feel bad for you guys.

---

The irony here is you don't even accept Paul's letters as canon. Kind of ironic to accuse people of falling away from the "true Church," as you call it, when you don't even accept your true Church's teachings.

Bottom line is there is nothing in either the Protestant Bible, or the Catholic Bible, that states, much less suggests, that Mary should be honored and prayed to. You have to lie on your Church's evolving and sometimes contradictory doctrine to reach that conclusion.

---

After 1000 years you guys still dont get it. We do not agree with Sola Scriptura. A word for word reconciliation will not be there. If that is your only criteria, you will not find it. You will find Biblical passages that support Church Tradition, but not a cool book recipe from Christ.

The Bible was compiled 400 years after Christ and 1500 years have occurred after its compilation. So, how do you address everything before the Bible and everything after that is not included. There has been no revelation from God since the Apostles? And Augustine and the Church Fathers before are not to be listened to if it didn't make Jerome's and then Luther's cut?

---

Again, it's not just sola scriptura you disagree with, but your own church's position on scripture. Again, you don't even believe Paul's letters are canon.

I mean, when you trust the infallible word of man over God's holy scriptures, there really isn't much to discuss. Your position is completely illogical.

Mothra said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

If Mary didnt give birth to Jesus, who is God, to whom did she give birth?

---

Matthew 12:46-50

"While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. Someone told him, "Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you."
He replied to him, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?" Pointing to his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother."

---

John 19:26-27

26 When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple there whom he loved, he said to his mother, "Woman, behold, your son." 27 Then he said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother."

We can and have been doing this for 1000 years. We will not agree.

You keep running to a man interpreted book, which there is NO scripture supporting that the version you read is the correct one. I guess Luther tradition is ok, but that is another discussion. But, regardless you think we are doomed for idiology.

From our point of view, you have fallen away from the true Church and fell for Satan's trap of believing that you as a Man can determine what is "true" and what isn't. I feel bad for you guys.

---

The irony here is you don't even accept Paul's letters as canon. Kind of ironic to accuse people of falling away from the "true Church," as you call it, when you don't even accept your true Church's teachings.

Bottom line is there is nothing in either the Protestant Bible, or the Catholic Bible, that states, much less suggests, that Mary should be honored and prayed to. You have to lie on your Church's evolving and sometimes contradictory doctrine to reach that conclusion.

---

After 1000 years you guys still dont get it. We do not agree with Sola Scriptura. A word for word reconciliation will not be there. If that is your only criteria, you will not find it. You will find Biblical passages that support Church Tradition, but not a cool book recipe from Christ.

The Bible was compiled 400 years after Christ and 1500 years have occurred after its compilation. So, how do you address everything before the Bible and everything after that is not included. There has been no revelation from God since the Apostles? And Augustine and the Church Fathers before are not to be listened to if it didn't make Jerome's and then Luther's cut?

---

Again, it's not just sola scriptura you disagree with, but your own church's position on scripture. Again, you don't even believe Paul's letters are canon.

I mean, when you trust the infallible word of man over God's holy scriptures, there really isn't much to discuss. Your position is completely illogical.

---

I said I don't like Paul or his letters.

Do you think about anything in scriptures other than just take at face value because it is the Bible? Do you apply any logic, thought, wonder of the interactions of the actual people and how it impacted what we have today?

Honest question, do you believe that the Apostles (including Paul) and the Church Fathers (including the Protestants) humanity had anything to do with the actual products we see today? Or, were they robots programmed to follow the computer cards inserted by the Holy Spirit?

What is the Holy Spirit's influence? Was it literal, the Bible being put together by a Court Reporter taking transcrption from the Holy Spirit? Or, was the Holy Spirit to ensure the overarching message survived 2000 years into the future and the particulars are not as important?

Just how literal are the "Scriptures" that have not been added to in 1700 years? Does that make sense? It all stopped with the Apostles? Do you guys really think God wants us to just stand pat for 1700 years?

FLBear5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

If Mary didnt give birth to Jesus, who is God, to whom did she give birth?

---

Matthew 12:46-50

"While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. Someone told him, "Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you."
He replied to him, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?" Pointing to his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother."

---

John 19:26-27

26 When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple there whom he loved, he said to his mother, "Woman, behold, your son." 27 Then he said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother."

We can and have been doing this for 1000 years. We will not agree.

You keep running to a man interpreted book, which there is NO scripture supporting that the version you read is the correct one. I guess Luther tradition is ok, but that is another discussion. But, regardless you think we are doomed for idiology.

From our point of view, you have fallen away from the true Church and fell for Satan's trap of believing that you as a Man can determine what is "true" and what isn't. I feel bad for you guys.

---

The irony here is you don't even accept Paul's letters as canon. Kind of ironic to accuse people of falling away from the "true Church," as you call it, when you don't even accept your true Church's teachings.

Bottom line is there is nothing in either the Protestant Bible, or the Catholic Bible, that states, much less suggests, that Mary should be honored and prayed to. You have to lie on your Church's evolving and sometimes contradictory doctrine to reach that conclusion.

---

After 1000 years you guys still dont get it. We do not agree with Sola Scriptura. A word for word reconciliation will not be there. If that is your only criteria, you will not find it. You will find Biblical passages that support Church Tradition, but not a cool book recipe from Christ.

The Bible was compiled 400 years after Christ and 1500 years have occurred after its compilation. So, how do you address everything before the Bible and everything after that is not included. There has been no revelation from God since the Apostles? And Augustine and the Church Fathers before are not to be listened to if it didn't make Jerome's and then Luther's cut?

---

Again, it's not just sola scriptura you disagree with, but your own church's position on scripture. Again, you don't even believe Paul's letters are canon.

I mean, when you trust the infallible word of man over God's holy scriptures, there really isn't much to discuss. Your position is completely illogical.

---

I said I don't like Paul or his letters.

Do you think about anything in scriptures other than just take at face value because it is the Bible? Do you apply any logic, thought, wonder of the interactions of the actual people and how it impacted what we have today?

Honest question, do you believe that the Apostles (including Paul) and the Church Fathers (including the Protestants) humanity had anything to do with the actual products we see today? Or, were they robots programmed to follow the computer cards inserted by the Holy Spirit?

What is the Holy Spirit's influence? Was it literal, the Bible being put together by a Court Reporter taking transcrption from the Holy Spirit? Or, was the Holy Spirit to ensure the overarching message survived 2000 years into the future and the particulars are not as important?

Just how literal are the "Scriptures" that have not been added to in 1700 years? Does that make sense? It all stopped with the Apostles? Do you guys really think God wants us to just stand pat for 1700 years?

---

It's hard to know where to begin with these posts. On the one hand, you attack the veracity and authenticity of scripture. On the other hand, you claim we should accept the doctrine of the church fathers from more than a 1,000 years ago.

I am not sure how to reconcile that strange dichotomy.

Mothra said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

If Mary didnt give birth to Jesus, who is God, to whom did she give birth?

---

Matthew 12:46-50

"While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. Someone told him, "Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you."
He replied to him, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?" Pointing to his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother."

---

John 19:26-27

26 When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple there whom he loved, he said to his mother, "Woman, behold, your son." 27 Then he said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother."

We can and have been doing this for 1000 years. We will not agree.

You keep running to a man interpreted book, which there is NO scripture supporting that the version you read is the correct one. I guess Luther tradition is ok, but that is another discussion. But, regardless you think we are doomed for idiology.

From our point of view, you have fallen away from the true Church and fell for Satan's trap of believing that you as a Man can determine what is "true" and what isn't. I feel bad for you guys.

---

The irony here is you don't even accept Paul's letters as canon. Kind of ironic to accuse people of falling away from the "true Church," as you call it, when you don't even accept your true Church's teachings.

Bottom line is there is nothing in either the Protestant Bible, or the Catholic Bible, that states, much less suggests, that Mary should be honored and prayed to. You have to lie on your Church's evolving and sometimes contradictory doctrine to reach that conclusion.

---

After 1000 years you guys still dont get it. We do not agree with Sola Scriptura. A word for word reconciliation will not be there. If that is your only criteria, you will not find it. You will find Biblical passages that support Church Tradition, but not a cool book recipe from Christ.

The Bible was compiled 400 years after Christ and 1500 years have occurred after its compilation. So, how do you address everything before the Bible and everything after that is not included. There has been no revelation from God since the Apostles? And Augustine and the Church Fathers before are not to be listened to if it didn't make Jerome's and then Luther's cut?

---

Again, it's not just sola scriptura you disagree with, but your own church's position on scripture. Again, you don't even believe Paul's letters are canon.

I mean, when you trust the infallible word of man over God's holy scriptures, there really isn't much to discuss. Your position is completely illogical.

---

I said I don't like Paul or his letters.

Do you think about anything in scriptures other than just take at face value because it is the Bible? Do you apply any logic, thought, wonder of the interactions of the actual people and how it impacted what we have today?

Honest question, do you believe that the Apostles (including Paul) and the Church Fathers (including the Protestants) humanity had anything to do with the actual products we see today? Or, were they robots programmed to follow the computer cards inserted by the Holy Spirit?

What is the Holy Spirit's influence? Was it literal, the Bible being put together by a Court Reporter taking transcrption from the Holy Spirit? Or, was the Holy Spirit to ensure the overarching message survived 2000 years into the future and the particulars are not as important?

Just how literal are the "Scriptures" that have not been added to in 1700 years? Does that make sense? It all stopped with the Apostles? Do you guys really think God wants us to just stand pat for 1700 years?

---

It's hard to know where to begin with these posts. On the one hand, you attack the veracity and authenticity of scripture. On the other hand, you claim we should accept the doctrine of the church fathers from more than a 1,000 years ago.

I am not sure how to reconcile that strange dichotomy.

---

It was an honest question. You guys keep saying Sola Scriptura, everything is based on the Bible. Well, the Bible has not changed in 1700 years. There are no new books being written, no new Apostles coming forward. So, nothing has happened in the world that requires we adjust? We are to look at the world and how we live our lives as they did in Paul's times?

You guys question Church Tradition, the scripture is one part of the equation (even Paul, as much as I think he is a dick), but the Church is the other part that responds to the earthly environment. The Church looks for God's and the Holy Spirit's influence in the world and incorporates it into practice. Church Tradition is how the Roman Catholic Church addresses the last 1700 years...

So, what servant are you and your faith? Do you bury the talents and only do what the Master and Apostles did 2000 years ago? Or are you the 5 talent one, the Church at least tries to be the 5 talent servant. That is how I look at it. But, I also believe the human, flawed view, is still part of God's creation and the Holy Spirit still works in man. We may not get it right all the time, but their is value in trying. I know my efforts are viewed by God as Dirty Rags. (Geez, someone had an insecurity issue...)

FLBear5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

If Mary didnt give birth to Jesus, who is God, to whom did she give birth?

---

Matthew 12:46-50

"While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. Someone told him, "Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you."
He replied to him, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?" Pointing to his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother."

---

John 19:26-27

26 When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple there whom he loved, he said to his mother, "Woman, behold, your son." 27 Then he said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother."

We can and have been doing this for 1000 years. We will not agree.

You keep running to a man interpreted book, which there is NO scripture supporting that the version you read is the correct one. I guess Luther tradition is ok, but that is another discussion. But, regardless you think we are doomed for idiology.

From our point of view, you have fallen away from the true Church and fell for Satan's trap of believing that you as a Man can determine what is "true" and what isn't. I feel bad for you guys.

---

The irony here is you don't even accept Paul's letters as canon. Kind of ironic to accuse people of falling away from the "true Church," as you call it, when you don't even accept your true Church's teachings.

Bottom line is there is nothing in either the Protestant Bible, or the Catholic Bible, that states, much less suggests, that Mary should be honored and prayed to. You have to lie on your Church's evolving and sometimes contradictory doctrine to reach that conclusion.

---

After 1000 years you guys still dont get it. We do not agree with Sola Scriptura. A word for word reconciliation will not be there. If that is your only criteria, you will not find it. You will find Biblical passages that support Church Tradition, but not a cool book recipe from Christ.

The Bible was compiled 400 years after Christ and 1500 years have occurred after its compilation. So, how do you address everything before the Bible and everything after that is not included. There has been no revelation from God since the Apostles? And Augustine and the Church Fathers before are not to be listened to if it didn't make Jerome's and then Luther's cut?

---

Again, it's not just sola scriptura you disagree with, but your own church's position on scripture. Again, you don't even believe Paul's letters are canon.

I mean, when you trust the infallible word of man over God's holy scriptures, there really isn't much to discuss. Your position is completely illogical.

---

I said I don't like Paul or his letters.

Do you think about anything in scriptures other than just take at face value because it is the Bible? Do you apply any logic, thought, wonder of the interactions of the actual people and how it impacted what we have today?

Honest question, do you believe that the Apostles (including Paul) and the Church Fathers (including the Protestants) humanity had anything to do with the actual products we see today? Or, were they robots programmed to follow the computer cards inserted by the Holy Spirit?

What is the Holy Spirit's influence? Was it literal, the Bible being put together by a Court Reporter taking transcrption from the Holy Spirit? Or, was the Holy Spirit to ensure the overarching message survived 2000 years into the future and the particulars are not as important?

Just how literal are the "Scriptures" that have not been added to in 1700 years? Does that make sense? It all stopped with the Apostles? Do you guys really think God wants us to just stand pat for 1700 years?

---

It's hard to know where to begin with these posts. On the one hand, you attack the veracity and authenticity of scripture. On the other hand, you claim we should accept the doctrine of the church fathers from more than a 1,000 years ago.

I am not sure how to reconcile that strange dichotomy.

---

It was an honest question. You guys keep saying Sola Scriptura, everything is based on the Bible. Well, the Bible has not changed in 1700 years. There are no new books being written, no new Apostles coming forward. So, nothing has happened in the world that requires we adjust? We are to look at the world and how we live our lives as they did in Paul's times?

You guys question Church Tradition, the scripture is one part of the equation (even Paul, as much as I think he is a dick), but the Church is the other part that responds to the earthly environment. The Church looks for God's and the Holy Spirit's influence in the world and incorporates it into practice. Church Tradition is how the Roman Catholic Church addresses the last 1700 years...

So, what servant are you and your faith? Do you bury the talents and only do what the Master and Apostles did 2000 years ago? Or are you the 5 talent one, the Church at least tries to be the 5 talent servant. That is how I look at it. But, I also believe the human, flawed view, is still part of God's creation and the Holy Spirit still works in man. We may not get it right all the time, but their is value in trying. I know my efforts are viewed by God as Dirty Rags. (Geez, someone had an insecurity issue...)

---

So, Paul is a dick, and the scriptures may neither be authentic or accurate, but we should rely on Church tradition and trust it's accuracy just because?

Again, I am just not sure how to respond to this. But yes, I do trust the accuracy of the Holy Scriptures over Church tradition. It is the inspired word of God, IMO. I get it, you are not convinced. We will agree to disagree with that, and I guess, you will disagree with your own Church on that point. But I would submit the idea that we can trust 1000 year old man-made Church doctrine, but not the Holy Scriptures, just makes no sense whatsoever to me.

Mothra said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

If Mary didnt give birth to Jesus, who is God, to whom did she give birth?

---

Matthew 12:46-50

"While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. Someone told him, "Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you."
He replied to him, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?" Pointing to his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother."

---

John 19:26-27

26 When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple there whom he loved, he said to his mother, "Woman, behold, your son." 27 Then he said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother."

We can and have been doing this for 1000 years. We will not agree.

You keep running to a man interpreted book, which there is NO scripture supporting that the version you read is the correct one. I guess Luther tradition is ok, but that is another discussion. But, regardless you think we are doomed for idiology.

From our point of view, you have fallen away from the true Church and fell for Satan's trap of believing that you as a Man can determine what is "true" and what isn't. I feel bad for you guys.

---

The irony here is you don't even accept Paul's letters as canon. Kind of ironic to accuse people of falling away from the "true Church," as you call it, when you don't even accept your true Church's teachings.

Bottom line is there is nothing in either the Protestant Bible, or the Catholic Bible, that states, much less suggests, that Mary should be honored and prayed to. You have to lie on your Church's evolving and sometimes contradictory doctrine to reach that conclusion.

---

After 1000 years you guys still dont get it. We do not agree with Sola Scriptura. A word for word reconciliation will not be there. If that is your only criteria, you will not find it. You will find Biblical passages that support Church Tradition, but not a cool book recipe from Christ.

The Bible was compiled 400 years after Christ and 1500 years have occurred after its compilation. So, how do you address everything before the Bible and everything after that is not included. There has been no revelation from God since the Apostles? And Augustine and the Church Fathers before are not to be listened to if it didn't make Jerome's and then Luther's cut?

---

Again, it's not just sola scriptura you disagree with, but your own church's position on scripture. Again, you don't even believe Paul's letters are canon.

I mean, when you trust the infallible word of man over God's holy scriptures, there really isn't much to discuss. Your position is completely illogical.

---

I said I don't like Paul or his letters.

Do you think about anything in scriptures other than just take at face value because it is the Bible? Do you apply any logic, thought, wonder of the interactions of the actual people and how it impacted what we have today?

Honest question, do you believe that the Apostles (including Paul) and the Church Fathers (including the Protestants) humanity had anything to do with the actual products we see today? Or, were they robots programmed to follow the computer cards inserted by the Holy Spirit?

What is the Holy Spirit's influence? Was it literal, the Bible being put together by a Court Reporter taking transcrption from the Holy Spirit? Or, was the Holy Spirit to ensure the overarching message survived 2000 years into the future and the particulars are not as important?

Just how literal are the "Scriptures" that have not been added to in 1700 years? Does that make sense? It all stopped with the Apostles? Do you guys really think God wants us to just stand pat for 1700 years?

---

It's hard to know where to begin with these posts. On the one hand, you attack the veracity and authenticity of scripture. On the other hand, you claim we should accept the doctrine of the church fathers from more than a 1,000 years ago.

I am not sure how to reconcile that strange dichotomy.

---

It was an honest question. You guys keep saying Sola Scriptura, everything is based on the Bible. Well, the Bible has not changed in 1700 years. There are no new books being written, no new Apostles coming forward. So, nothing has happened in the world that requires we adjust? We are to look at the world and how we live our lives as they did in Paul's times?

You guys question Church Tradition, the scripture is one part of the equation (even Paul, as much as I think he is a dick), but the Church is the other part that responds to the earthly environment. The Church looks for God's and the Holy Spirit's influence in the world and incorporates it into practice. Church Tradition is how the Roman Catholic Church addresses the last 1700 years...

So, what servant are you and your faith? Do you bury the talents and only do what the Master and Apostles did 2000 years ago? Or are you the 5 talent one, the Church at least tries to be the 5 talent servant. That is how I look at it. But, I also believe the human, flawed view, is still part of God's creation and the Holy Spirit still works in man. We may not get it right all the time, but their is value in trying. I know my efforts are viewed by God as Dirty Rags. (Geez, someone had an insecurity issue...)

---

So, Paul is a dick, and the scriptures may neither be authentic or accurate, but we should rely on Church tradition and trust it's accuracy just because?

Again, I am just not sure how to respond to this. But yes, I do trust the accuracy of the Holy Scriptures over Church tradition. It is the inspired word of God, IMO. I get it, you are not convinced. We will agree to disagree with that, and I guess, you will disagree with your own Church on that point. But I would submit the idea that we can trust 1000 year old man-made Church doctrine, but not the Holy Scriptures, just makes no sense whatsoever to me.

---

Who said "not the Holy Scriptures"? Everything Catholics have said is Scriptures and Tradition. You asked why we would believe in Tradition, I told you life goes on and we believe that Holy Spirit and God are active today just like then. The Scriptures have not changed since John wrote Revelations. Best analogy I have is that Scripture is the road map and Tradition is the practice (at least how I look at it as a Catholic, but I also think about this stuff and don't just rely on some Pastor to tell me).

I just think Paul is a dick, that is not a Church position. He was either telling us what to do or asking for money. Acquinas loved him. I don't. But the Lord works in mysterious ways. Not my call...

FLBear5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

If Mary didnt give birth to Jesus, who is God, to whom did she give birth?

---

Matthew 12:46-50

"While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. Someone told him, "Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you."
He replied to him, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?" Pointing to his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother."

---

John 19:26-27

26 When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple there whom he loved, he said to his mother, "Woman, behold, your son." 27 Then he said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother."

We can and have been doing this for 1000 years. We will not agree.

You keep running to a man interpreted book, which there is NO scripture supporting that the version you read is the correct one. I guess Luther tradition is ok, but that is another discussion. But, regardless you think we are doomed for idiology.

From our point of view, you have fallen away from the true Church and fell for Satan's trap of believing that you as a Man can determine what is "true" and what isn't. I feel bad for you guys.

---

The irony here is you don't even accept Paul's letters as canon. Kind of ironic to accuse people of falling away from the "true Church," as you call it, when you don't even accept your true Church's teachings.

Bottom line is there is nothing in either the Protestant Bible, or the Catholic Bible, that states, much less suggests, that Mary should be honored and prayed to. You have to lie on your Church's evolving and sometimes contradictory doctrine to reach that conclusion.

---

After 1000 years you guys still dont get it. We do not agree with Sola Scriptura. A word for word reconciliation will not be there. If that is your only criteria, you will not find it. You will find Biblical passages that support Church Tradition, but not a cool book recipe from Christ.

The Bible was compiled 400 years after Christ and 1500 years have occurred after its compilation. So, how do you address everything before the Bible and everything after that is not included. There has been no revelation from God since the Apostles? And Augustine and the Church Fathers before are not to be listened to if it didn't make Jerome's and then Luther's cut?

---

Again, it's not just sola scriptura you disagree with, but your own church's position on scripture. Again, you don't even believe Paul's letters are canon.

I mean, when you trust the infallible word of man over God's holy scriptures, there really isn't much to discuss. Your position is completely illogical.

---

I said I don't like Paul or his letters.

Do you think about anything in scriptures other than just take at face value because it is the Bible? Do you apply any logic, thought, wonder of the interactions of the actual people and how it impacted what we have today?

Honest question, do you believe that the Apostles (including Paul) and the Church Fathers (including the Protestants) humanity had anything to do with the actual products we see today? Or, were they robots programmed to follow the computer cards inserted by the Holy Spirit?

What is the Holy Spirit's influence? Was it literal, the Bible being put together by a Court Reporter taking transcrption from the Holy Spirit? Or, was the Holy Spirit to ensure the overarching message survived 2000 years into the future and the particulars are not as important?

Just how literal are the "Scriptures" that have not been added to in 1700 years? Does that make sense? It all stopped with the Apostles? Do you guys really think God wants us to just stand pat for 1700 years?

---

It's hard to know where to begin with these posts. On the one hand, you attack the veracity and authenticity of scripture. On the other hand, you claim we should accept the doctrine of the church fathers from more than a 1,000 years ago.

I am not sure how to reconcile that strange dichotomy.

---

It was an honest question. You guys keep saying Sola Scriptura, everything is based on the Bible. Well, the Bible has not changed in 1700 years. There are no new books being written, no new Apostles coming forward. So, nothing has happened in the world that requires we adjust? We are to look at the world and how we live our lives as they did in Paul's times?

You guys question Church Tradition, the scripture is one part of the equation (even Paul, as much as I think he is a dick), but the Church is the other part that responds to the earthly environment. The Church looks for God's and the Holy Spirit's influence in the world and incorporates it into practice. Church Tradition is how the Roman Catholic Church addresses the last 1700 years...

So, what servant are you and your faith? Do you bury the talents and only do what the Master and Apostles did 2000 years ago? Or are you the 5 talent one, the Church at least tries to be the 5 talent servant. That is how I look at it. But, I also believe the human, flawed view, is still part of God's creation and the Holy Spirit still works in man. We may not get it right all the time, but their is value in trying. I know my efforts are viewed by God as Dirty Rags. (Geez, someone had an insecurity issue...)

---

So you are basically saying that the scriptures are only relevant & applicable for the times they were written?
You do know that many of the scriptures in the OT were older than the NT is to us today, and yet Jesus read & taught from the OT scriptures. He never claimed that the scriptures were too old and needed to be updated by traditions. Quite the opposite. Jesus directly condemned the Pharisees for adding their own traditions to the scriptures, and making the plan of God more complicated. Sound familiar? Relics, purgatory, Marian worship, Sacraments, etc.... the RC has added many man-made traditions to the scriptures just like the Pharisees did.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

If Mary didnt give birth to Jesus, who is God, to whom did she give birth?

---

Matthew 12:46-50

"While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. Someone told him, "Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you."
He replied to him, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?" Pointing to his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother."

---

John 19:26-27

26 When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple there whom he loved, he said to his mother, "Woman, behold, your son." 27 Then he said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother."

We can and have been doing this for 1000 years. We will not agree.

You keep running to a man interpreted book, which there is NO scripture supporting that the version you read is the correct one. I guess Luther tradition is ok, but that is another discussion. But, regardless you think we are doomed for idiology.

From our point of view, you have fallen away from the true Church and fell for Satan's trap of believing that you as a Man can determine what is "true" and what isn't. I feel bad for you guys.

---

The irony here is you don't even accept Paul's letters as canon. Kind of ironic to accuse people of falling away from the "true Church," as you call it, when you don't even accept your true Church's teachings.

Bottom line is there is nothing in either the Protestant Bible, or the Catholic Bible, that states, much less suggests, that Mary should be honored and prayed to. You have to lie on your Church's evolving and sometimes contradictory doctrine to reach that conclusion.

---

After 1000 years you guys still dont get it. We do not agree with Sola Scriptura. A word for word reconciliation will not be there. If that is your only criteria, you will not find it. You will find Biblical passages that support Church Tradition, but not a cool book recipe from Christ.

The Bible was compiled 400 years after Christ and 1500 years have occurred after its compilation. So, how do you address everything before the Bible and everything after that is not included. There has been no revelation from God since the Apostles? And Augustine and the Church Fathers before are not to be listened to if it didn't make Jerome's and then Luther's cut?

---

Again, it's not just sola scriptura you disagree with, but your own church's position on scripture. Again, you don't even believe Paul's letters are canon.

I mean, when you trust the infallible word of man over God's holy scriptures, there really isn't much to discuss. Your position is completely illogical.

---

I said I don't like Paul or his letters.

Do you think about anything in scriptures other than just take at face value because it is the Bible? Do you apply any logic, thought, wonder of the interactions of the actual people and how it impacted what we have today?

Honest question, do you believe that the Apostles (including Paul) and the Church Fathers (including the Protestants) humanity had anything to do with the actual products we see today? Or, were they robots programmed to follow the computer cards inserted by the Holy Spirit?

What is the Holy Spirit's influence? Was it literal, the Bible being put together by a Court Reporter taking transcrption from the Holy Spirit? Or, was the Holy Spirit to ensure the overarching message survived 2000 years into the future and the particulars are not as important?

Just how literal are the "Scriptures" that have not been added to in 1700 years? Does that make sense? It all stopped with the Apostles? Do you guys really think God wants us to just stand pat for 1700 years?

---

It's hard to know where to begin with these posts. On the one hand, you attack the veracity and authenticity of scripture. On the other hand, you claim we should accept the doctrine of the church fathers from more than a 1,000 years ago.

I am not sure how to reconcile that strange dichotomy.

---

It was an honest question. You guys keep saying Sola Scriptura, everything is based on the Bible. Well, the Bible has not changed in 1700 years. There are no new books being written, no new Apostles coming forward. So, nothing has happened in the world that requires we adjust? We are to look at the world and how we live our lives as they did in Paul's times?

You guys question Church Tradition, the scripture is one part of the equation (even Paul, as much as I think he is a dick), but the Church is the other part that responds to the earthly environment. The Church looks for God's and the Holy Spirit's influence in the world and incorporates it into practice. Church Tradition is how the Roman Catholic Church addresses the last 1700 years...

So, what servant are you and your faith? Do you bury the talents and only do what the Master and Apostles did 2000 years ago? Or are you the 5 talent one, the Church at least tries to be the 5 talent servant. That is how I look at it. But, I also believe the human, flawed view, is still part of God's creation and the Holy Spirit still works in man. We may not get it right all the time, but their is value in trying. I know my efforts are viewed by God as Dirty Rags. (Geez, someone had an insecurity issue...)

---

So, Paul is a dick, and the scriptures may neither be authentic or accurate, but we should rely on Church tradition and trust it's accuracy just because?

Again, I am just not sure how to respond to this. But yes, I do trust the accuracy of the Holy Scriptures over Church tradition. It is the inspired word of God, IMO. I get it, you are not convinced. We will agree to disagree with that, and I guess, you will disagree with your own Church on that point. But I would submit the idea that we can trust 1000 year old man-made Church doctrine, but not the Holy Scriptures, just makes no sense whatsoever to me.

---

Who said "not the Holy Scriptures"? Everything Catholics have said is Scriptures and Tradition. You asked why we would believe in Tradition, I told you life goes on and we believe that Holy Spirit and God are active today just like then. The Scriptures have not changed since John wrote Revelations. Best analogy I have is that Scripture is the road map and Tradition is the practice (at least how I look at it as a Catholic, but I also think about this stuff and don't just rely on some Pastor to tell me).

I just think Paul is a dick, that is not a Church position. He was either telling us what to do or asking for money. Acquinas loved him. I don't. But the Lord works in mysterious ways. Not my call...

---

It's the "traditions" not included in scripture, and contradictory to the Holy Scriptures that are the issue in this thread. But again, we can agree to disagree.

ShooterTX said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

If Mary didnt give birth to Jesus, who is God, to whom did she give birth?

---

Matthew 12:46-50

"While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. Someone told him, "Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you."
He replied to him, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?" Pointing to his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother."

---

John 19:26-27

26 When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple there whom he loved, he said to his mother, "Woman, behold, your son." 27 Then he said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother."

We can and have been doing this for 1000 years. We will not agree.

You keep running to a man interpreted book, which there is NO scripture supporting that the version you read is the correct one. I guess Luther tradition is ok, but that is another discussion. But, regardless you think we are doomed for idiology.

From our point of view, you have fallen away from the true Church and fell for Satan's trap of believing that you as a Man can determine what is "true" and what isn't. I feel bad for you guys.

---

The irony here is you don't even accept Paul's letters as canon. Kind of ironic to accuse people of falling away from the "true Church," as you call it, when you don't even accept your true Church's teachings.

Bottom line is there is nothing in either the Protestant Bible, or the Catholic Bible, that states, much less suggests, that Mary should be honored and prayed to. You have to lie on your Church's evolving and sometimes contradictory doctrine to reach that conclusion.

---

After 1000 years you guys still dont get it. We do not agree with Sola Scriptura. A word for word reconciliation will not be there. If that is your only criteria, you will not find it. You will find Biblical passages that support Church Tradition, but not a cool book recipe from Christ.

The Bible was compiled 400 years after Christ and 1500 years have occurred after its compilation. So, how do you address everything before the Bible and everything after that is not included. There has been no revelation from God since the Apostles? And Augustine and the Church Fathers before are not to be listened to if it didn't make Jerome's and then Luther's cut?

---

Again, it's not just sola scriptura you disagree with, but your own church's position on scripture. Again, you don't even believe Paul's letters are canon.

I mean, when you trust the infallible word of man over God's holy scriptures, there really isn't much to discuss. Your position is completely illogical.

---

I said I don't like Paul or his letters.

Do you think about anything in scriptures other than just take at face value because it is the Bible? Do you apply any logic, thought, wonder of the interactions of the actual people and how it impacted what we have today?

Honest question, do you believe that the Apostles (including Paul) and the Church Fathers (including the Protestants) humanity had anything to do with the actual products we see today? Or, were they robots programmed to follow the computer cards inserted by the Holy Spirit?

What is the Holy Spirit's influence? Was it literal, the Bible being put together by a Court Reporter taking transcrption from the Holy Spirit? Or, was the Holy Spirit to ensure the overarching message survived 2000 years into the future and the particulars are not as important?

Just how literal are the "Scriptures" that have not been added to in 1700 years? Does that make sense? It all stopped with the Apostles? Do you guys really think God wants us to just stand pat for 1700 years?

---

It's hard to know where to begin with these posts. On the one hand, you attack the veracity and authenticity of scripture. On the other hand, you claim we should accept the doctrine of the church fathers from more than a 1,000 years ago.

I am not sure how to reconcile that strange dichotomy.

---

It was an honest question. You guys keep saying Sola Scriptura, everything is based on the Bible. Well, the Bible has not changed in 1700 years. There are no new books being written, no new Apostles coming forward. So, nothing has happened in the world that requires we adjust? We are to look at the world and how we live our lives as they did in Paul's times?

You guys question Church Tradition, the scripture is one part of the equation (even Paul, as much as I think he is a dick), but the Church is the other part that responds to the earthly environment. The Church looks for God's and the Holy Spirit's influence in the world and incorporates it into practice. Church Tradition is how the Roman Catholic Church addresses the last 1700 years...

So, what servant are you and your faith? Do you bury the talents and only do what the Master and Apostles did 2000 years ago? Or are you the 5 talent one, the Church at least tries to be the 5 talent servant. That is how I look at it. But, I also believe the human, flawed view, is still part of God's creation and the Holy Spirit still works in man. We may not get it right all the time, but their is value in trying. I know my efforts are viewed by God as Dirty Rags. (Geez, someone had an insecurity issue...)

---

So you are basically saying that the scriptures are only relevant & applicable for the times they were written?
You do know that many of the scriptures in the OT were older than the NT is to us today, and yet Jesus read & taught from the OT scriptures. He never claimed that the scriptures were too old and needed to be updated by traditions. Quite the opposite. Jesus directly condemned the Pharisees for adding their own traditions to the scriptures, and making the plan of God more complicated. Sound familiar? Relics, purgatory, Marian worship, Sacraments, etc.... the RC has added many man-made traditions to the scriptures just like the Pharisees did.

---

Jesus condemned the Pharisees for their hypocrisy, not their traditions.

"The scribes and Pharisees, he said, have established themselves in the place from which Moses used to teach; do what they tell you, then, continue to observe what they tell you, but do not imitate their actions, for they tell you one thing and do another." Matthew 23:2-3

Sam Lowry said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

If Mary didnt give birth to Jesus, who is God, to whom did she give birth?

---

Matthew 12:46-50

"While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. Someone told him, "Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you."
He replied to him, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?" Pointing to his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother."

---

John 19:26-27

26 When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple there whom he loved, he said to his mother, "Woman, behold, your son." 27 Then he said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother."

We can and have been doing this for 1000 years. We will not agree.

You keep running to a man interpreted book, which there is NO scripture supporting that the version you read is the correct one. I guess Luther tradition is ok, but that is another discussion. But, regardless you think we are doomed for idiology.

From our point of view, you have fallen away from the true Church and fell for Satan's trap of believing that you as a Man can determine what is "true" and what isn't. I feel bad for you guys.

---

The irony here is you don't even accept Paul's letters as canon. Kind of ironic to accuse people of falling away from the "true Church," as you call it, when you don't even accept your true Church's teachings.

Bottom line is there is nothing in either the Protestant Bible, or the Catholic Bible, that states, much less suggests, that Mary should be honored and prayed to. You have to lie on your Church's evolving and sometimes contradictory doctrine to reach that conclusion.

---

After 1000 years you guys still dont get it. We do not agree with Sola Scriptura. A word for word reconciliation will not be there. If that is your only criteria, you will not find it. You will find Biblical passages that support Church Tradition, but not a cool book recipe from Christ.

The Bible was compiled 400 years after Christ and 1500 years have occurred after its compilation. So, how do you address everything before the Bible and everything after that is not included. There has been no revelation from God since the Apostles? And Augustine and the Church Fathers before are not to be listened to if it didn't make Jerome's and then Luther's cut?

---

Again, it's not just sola scriptura you disagree with, but your own church's position on scripture. Again, you don't even believe Paul's letters are canon.

I mean, when you trust the infallible word of man over God's holy scriptures, there really isn't much to discuss. Your position is completely illogical.

---

I said I don't like Paul or his letters.

Do you think about anything in scriptures other than just take at face value because it is the Bible? Do you apply any logic, thought, wonder of the interactions of the actual people and how it impacted what we have today?

Honest question, do you believe that the Apostles (including Paul) and the Church Fathers (including the Protestants) humanity had anything to do with the actual products we see today? Or, were they robots programmed to follow the computer cards inserted by the Holy Spirit?

What is the Holy Spirit's influence? Was it literal, the Bible being put together by a Court Reporter taking transcrption from the Holy Spirit? Or, was the Holy Spirit to ensure the overarching message survived 2000 years into the future and the particulars are not as important?

Just how literal are the "Scriptures" that have not been added to in 1700 years? Does that make sense? It all stopped with the Apostles? Do you guys really think God wants us to just stand pat for 1700 years?

---

It's hard to know where to begin with these posts. On the one hand, you attack the veracity and authenticity of scripture. On the other hand, you claim we should accept the doctrine of the church fathers from more than a 1,000 years ago.

I am not sure how to reconcile that strange dichotomy.

---

It was an honest question. You guys keep saying Sola Scriptura, everything is based on the Bible. Well, the Bible has not changed in 1700 years. There are no new books being written, no new Apostles coming forward. So, nothing has happened in the world that requires we adjust? We are to look at the world and how we live our lives as they did in Paul's times?

You guys question Church Tradition, the scripture is one part of the equation (even Paul, as much as I think he is a dick), but the Church is the other part that responds to the earthly environment. The Church looks for God's and the Holy Spirit's influence in the world and incorporates it into practice. Church Tradition is how the Roman Catholic Church addresses the last 1700 years...

So, what servant are you and your faith? Do you bury the talents and only do what the Master and Apostles did 2000 years ago? Or are you the 5 talent one, the Church at least tries to be the 5 talent servant. That is how I look at it. But, I also believe the human, flawed view, is still part of God's creation and the Holy Spirit still works in man. We may not get it right all the time, but their is value in trying. I know my efforts are viewed by God as Dirty Rags. (Geez, someone had an insecurity issue...)

---

So you are basically saying that the scriptures are only relevant & applicable for the times they were written?
You do know that many of the scriptures in the OT were older than the NT is to us today, and yet Jesus read & taught from the OT scriptures. He never claimed that the scriptures were too old and needed to be updated by traditions. Quite the opposite. Jesus directly condemned the Pharisees for adding their own traditions to the scriptures, and making the plan of God more complicated. Sound familiar? Relics, purgatory, Marian worship, Sacraments, etc.... the RC has added many man-made traditions to the scriptures just like the Pharisees did.

---

Jesus condemned the Pharisees for their hypocrisy, not their traditions.

"The scribes and Pharisees, he said, have established themselves in the place from which Moses used to teach; do what they tell you, then, continue to observe what they tell you, but do not imitate their actions, for they tell you one thing and do another." Matthew 23:2-3

---

That's kinda funny.
Yes, he condemned them for hypocrisy, but that wasn't the only thing he condemned for.

Matthew 15:5-9 NIV
[5] But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is 'devoted to God,' [6] they are not to 'honor their father or mother' with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. [7] You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you: [8] " 'These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. [9] They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules.'

He condemned them for hypocrites and also for their "traditions" that were merely "human rules".

ShooterTX said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

If Mary didnt give birth to Jesus, who is God, to whom did she give birth?

---

Matthew 12:46-50

"While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. Someone told him, "Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you."
He replied to him, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?" Pointing to his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother."

---

John 19:26-27

26 When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple there whom he loved, he said to his mother, "Woman, behold, your son." 27 Then he said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother."

We can and have been doing this for 1000 years. We will not agree.

You keep running to a man interpreted book, which there is NO scripture supporting that the version you read is the correct one. I guess Luther tradition is ok, but that is another discussion. But, regardless you think we are doomed for idiology.

From our point of view, you have fallen away from the true Church and fell for Satan's trap of believing that you as a Man can determine what is "true" and what isn't. I feel bad for you guys.

---

The irony here is you don't even accept Paul's letters as canon. Kind of ironic to accuse people of falling away from the "true Church," as you call it, when you don't even accept your true Church's teachings.

Bottom line is there is nothing in either the Protestant Bible, or the Catholic Bible, that states, much less suggests, that Mary should be honored and prayed to. You have to lie on your Church's evolving and sometimes contradictory doctrine to reach that conclusion.

---

After 1000 years you guys still dont get it. We do not agree with Sola Scriptura. A word for word reconciliation will not be there. If that is your only criteria, you will not find it. You will find Biblical passages that support Church Tradition, but not a cool book recipe from Christ.

The Bible was compiled 400 years after Christ and 1500 years have occurred after its compilation. So, how do you address everything before the Bible and everything after that is not included. There has been no revelation from God since the Apostles? And Augustine and the Church Fathers before are not to be listened to if it didn't make Jerome's and then Luther's cut?

---

Again, it's not just sola scriptura you disagree with, but your own church's position on scripture. Again, you don't even believe Paul's letters are canon.

I mean, when you trust the infallible word of man over God's holy scriptures, there really isn't much to discuss. Your position is completely illogical.

---

I said I don't like Paul or his letters.

Do you think about anything in scriptures other than just take at face value because it is the Bible? Do you apply any logic, thought, wonder of the interactions of the actual people and how it impacted what we have today?

Honest question, do you believe that the Apostles (including Paul) and the Church Fathers (including the Protestants) humanity had anything to do with the actual products we see today? Or, were they robots programmed to follow the computer cards inserted by the Holy Spirit?

What is the Holy Spirit's influence? Was it literal, the Bible being put together by a Court Reporter taking transcrption from the Holy Spirit? Or, was the Holy Spirit to ensure the overarching message survived 2000 years into the future and the particulars are not as important?

Just how literal are the "Scriptures" that have not been added to in 1700 years? Does that make sense? It all stopped with the Apostles? Do you guys really think God wants us to just stand pat for 1700 years?

---

It's hard to know where to begin with these posts. On the one hand, you attack the veracity and authenticity of scripture. On the other hand, you claim we should accept the doctrine of the church fathers from more than a 1,000 years ago.

I am not sure how to reconcile that strange dichotomy.

---

It was an honest question. You guys keep saying Sola Scriptura, everything is based on the Bible. Well, the Bible has not changed in 1700 years. There are no new books being written, no new Apostles coming forward. So, nothing has happened in the world that requires we adjust? We are to look at the world and how we live our lives as they did in Paul's times?

You guys question Church Tradition, the scripture is one part of the equation (even Paul, as much as I think he is a dick), but the Church is the other part that responds to the earthly environment. The Church looks for God's and the Holy Spirit's influence in the world and incorporates it into practice. Church Tradition is how the Roman Catholic Church addresses the last 1700 years...

So, what servant are you and your faith? Do you bury the talents and only do what the Master and Apostles did 2000 years ago? Or are you the 5 talent one, the Church at least tries to be the 5 talent servant. That is how I look at it. But, I also believe the human, flawed view, is still part of God's creation and the Holy Spirit still works in man. We may not get it right all the time, but their is value in trying. I know my efforts are viewed by God as Dirty Rags. (Geez, someone had an insecurity issue...)

---

So you are basically saying that the scriptures are only relevant & applicable for the times they were written?
You do know that many of the scriptures in the OT were older than the NT is to us today, and yet Jesus read & taught from the OT scriptures. He never claimed that the scriptures were too old and needed to be updated by traditions. Quite the opposite. Jesus directly condemned the Pharisees for adding their own traditions to the scriptures, and making the plan of God more complicated. Sound familiar? Relics, purgatory, Marian worship, Sacraments, etc.... the RC has added many man-made traditions to the scriptures just like the Pharisees did.

---

Jesus condemned the Pharisees for their hypocrisy, not their traditions.

"The scribes and Pharisees, he said, have established themselves in the place from which Moses used to teach; do what they tell you, then, continue to observe what they tell you, but do not imitate their actions, for they tell you one thing and do another." Matthew 23:2-3

---

That's kinda funny.
Yes, he condemned them for hypocrisy, but that wasn't the only thing he condemned for.

Matthew 15:5-9 NIV
[5] But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is 'devoted to God,' [6] they are not to 'honor their father or mother' with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. [7] You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you: [8] " 'These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. [9] They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules.'

He condemned them for hypocrites and also for their "traditions" that were merely "human rules".

---

Any Catholic would agree that tradition must not nullify the word of God. That doesn't mean it has no place.

Mothra said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

If Mary didnt give birth to Jesus, who is God, to whom did she give birth?

---

Matthew 12:46-50

"While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. Someone told him, "Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you."
He replied to him, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?" Pointing to his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother."

---

John 19:26-27

26 When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple there whom he loved, he said to his mother, "Woman, behold, your son." 27 Then he said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother."

We can and have been doing this for 1000 years. We will not agree.

You keep running to a man interpreted book, which there is NO scripture supporting that the version you read is the correct one. I guess Luther tradition is ok, but that is another discussion. But, regardless you think we are doomed for idiology.

From our point of view, you have fallen away from the true Church and fell for Satan's trap of believing that you as a Man can determine what is "true" and what isn't. I feel bad for you guys.

---

The irony here is you don't even accept Paul's letters as canon. Kind of ironic to accuse people of falling away from the "true Church," as you call it, when you don't even accept your true Church's teachings.

Bottom line is there is nothing in either the Protestant Bible, or the Catholic Bible, that states, much less suggests, that Mary should be honored and prayed to. You have to lie on your Church's evolving and sometimes contradictory doctrine to reach that conclusion.

---

After 1000 years you guys still dont get it. We do not agree with Sola Scriptura. A word for word reconciliation will not be there. If that is your only criteria, you will not find it. You will find Biblical passages that support Church Tradition, but not a cool book recipe from Christ.

The Bible was compiled 400 years after Christ and 1500 years have occurred after its compilation. So, how do you address everything before the Bible and everything after that is not included. There has been no revelation from God since the Apostles? And Augustine and the Church Fathers before are not to be listened to if it didn't make Jerome's and then Luther's cut?

---

Again, it's not just sola scriptura you disagree with, but your own church's position on scripture. Again, you don't even believe Paul's letters are canon.

I mean, when you trust the infallible word of man over God's holy scriptures, there really isn't much to discuss. Your position is completely illogical.

---

I said I don't like Paul or his letters.

Do you think about anything in scriptures other than just take at face value because it is the Bible? Do you apply any logic, thought, wonder of the interactions of the actual people and how it impacted what we have today?

Honest question, do you believe that the Apostles (including Paul) and the Church Fathers (including the Protestants) humanity had anything to do with the actual products we see today? Or, were they robots programmed to follow the computer cards inserted by the Holy Spirit?

What is the Holy Spirit's influence? Was it literal, the Bible being put together by a Court Reporter taking transcrption from the Holy Spirit? Or, was the Holy Spirit to ensure the overarching message survived 2000 years into the future and the particulars are not as important?

Just how literal are the "Scriptures" that have not been added to in 1700 years? Does that make sense? It all stopped with the Apostles? Do you guys really think God wants us to just stand pat for 1700 years?

---

It's hard to know where to begin with these posts. On the one hand, you attack the veracity and authenticity of scripture. On the other hand, you claim we should accept the doctrine of the church fathers from more than a 1,000 years ago.

I am not sure how to reconcile that strange dichotomy.

---

It was an honest question. You guys keep saying Sola Scriptura, everything is based on the Bible. Well, the Bible has not changed in 1700 years. There are no new books being written, no new Apostles coming forward. So, nothing has happened in the world that requires we adjust? We are to look at the world and how we live our lives as they did in Paul's times?

You guys question Church Tradition, the scripture is one part of the equation (even Paul, as much as I think he is a dick), but the Church is the other part that responds to the earthly environment. The Church looks for God's and the Holy Spirit's influence in the world and incorporates it into practice. Church Tradition is how the Roman Catholic Church addresses the last 1700 years...

So, what servant are you and your faith? Do you bury the talents and only do what the Master and Apostles did 2000 years ago? Or are you the 5 talent one, the Church at least tries to be the 5 talent servant. That is how I look at it. But, I also believe the human, flawed view, is still part of God's creation and the Holy Spirit still works in man. We may not get it right all the time, but their is value in trying. I know my efforts are viewed by God as Dirty Rags. (Geez, someone had an insecurity issue...)

---

So, Paul is a dick, and the scriptures may neither be authentic or accurate, but we should rely on Church tradition and trust it's accuracy just because?

Again, I am just not sure how to respond to this. But yes, I do trust the accuracy of the Holy Scriptures over Church tradition. It is the inspired word of God, IMO. I get it, you are not convinced. We will agree to disagree with that, and I guess, you will disagree with your own Church on that point. But I would submit the idea that we can trust 1000 year old man-made Church doctrine, but not the Holy Scriptures, just makes no sense whatsoever to me.

---

Who said "not the Holy Scriptures"? Everything Catholics have said is Scriptures and Tradition. You asked why we would believe in Tradition, I told you life goes on and we believe that Holy Spirit and God are active today just like then. The Scriptures have not changed since John wrote Revelations. Best analogy I have is that Scripture is the road map and Tradition is the practice (at least how I look at it as a Catholic, but I also think about this stuff and don't just rely on some Pastor to tell me).

I just think Paul is a dick, that is not a Church position. He was either telling us what to do or asking for money. Acquinas loved him. I don't. But the Lord works in mysterious ways. Not my call...

---

It's the "traditions" not included in scripture, and contradictory to the Holy Scriptures that are the issue in this thread. But again, we can agree to disagree.

---

I get that. You are 100% right, that has been the problem since Luther. I don't know that we will solve it or come to agreement. I am telling you where my head is when I attend Mass or read a Vatican letter comes out. I am telling you as a Catholic, the Hail Mary is literally from Scripture and not worshipping. Basically, where average Catholics are. Just like anywhere else there are those that are on the fringe, the outside 10% on any given subject that I don't agree with.

I am sure you guys don't agree and will find all sorts of little Canon items that are inconsistent. I will be more than happy to answer or discuss. But, I do not expect resolution...

ShooterTX said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

If Mary didnt give birth to Jesus, who is God, to whom did she give birth?

---

Matthew 12:46-50

"While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. Someone told him, "Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you."
He replied to him, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?" Pointing to his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother."

---

John 19:26-27

26 When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple there whom he loved, he said to his mother, "Woman, behold, your son." 27 Then he said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother."

We can and have been doing this for 1000 years. We will not agree.

You keep running to a man interpreted book, which there is NO scripture supporting that the version you read is the correct one. I guess Luther tradition is ok, but that is another discussion. But, regardless you think we are doomed for idiology.

From our point of view, you have fallen away from the true Church and fell for Satan's trap of believing that you as a Man can determine what is "true" and what isn't. I feel bad for you guys.

---

The irony here is you don't even accept Paul's letters as canon. Kind of ironic to accuse people of falling away from the "true Church," as you call it, when you don't even accept your true Church's teachings.

Bottom line is there is nothing in either the Protestant Bible, or the Catholic Bible, that states, much less suggests, that Mary should be honored and prayed to. You have to lie on your Church's evolving and sometimes contradictory doctrine to reach that conclusion.

---

After 1000 years you guys still dont get it. We do not agree with Sola Scriptura. A word for word reconciliation will not be there. If that is your only criteria, you will not find it. You will find Biblical passages that support Church Tradition, but not a cool book recipe from Christ.

The Bible was compiled 400 years after Christ and 1500 years have occurred after its compilation. So, how do you address everything before the Bible and everything after that is not included. There has been no revelation from God since the Apostles? And Augustine and the Church Fathers before are not to be listened to if it didn't make Jerome's and then Luther's cut?

---

Again, it's not just sola scriptura you disagree with, but your own church's position on scripture. Again, you don't even believe Paul's letters are canon.

I mean, when you trust the infallible word of man over God's holy scriptures, there really isn't much to discuss. Your position is completely illogical.

---

I said I don't like Paul or his letters.

Do you think about anything in scriptures other than just take at face value because it is the Bible? Do you apply any logic, thought, wonder of the interactions of the actual people and how it impacted what we have today?

Honest question, do you believe that the Apostles (including Paul) and the Church Fathers (including the Protestants) humanity had anything to do with the actual products we see today? Or, were they robots programmed to follow the computer cards inserted by the Holy Spirit?

What is the Holy Spirit's influence? Was it literal, the Bible being put together by a Court Reporter taking transcrption from the Holy Spirit? Or, was the Holy Spirit to ensure the overarching message survived 2000 years into the future and the particulars are not as important?

Just how literal are the "Scriptures" that have not been added to in 1700 years? Does that make sense? It all stopped with the Apostles? Do you guys really think God wants us to just stand pat for 1700 years?

---

It's hard to know where to begin with these posts. On the one hand, you attack the veracity and authenticity of scripture. On the other hand, you claim we should accept the doctrine of the church fathers from more than a 1,000 years ago.

I am not sure how to reconcile that strange dichotomy.

---

It was an honest question. You guys keep saying Sola Scriptura, everything is based on the Bible. Well, the Bible has not changed in 1700 years. There are no new books being written, no new Apostles coming forward. So, nothing has happened in the world that requires we adjust? We are to look at the world and how we live our lives as they did in Paul's times?

You guys question Church Tradition, the scripture is one part of the equation (even Paul, as much as I think he is a dick), but the Church is the other part that responds to the earthly environment. The Church looks for God's and the Holy Spirit's influence in the world and incorporates it into practice. Church Tradition is how the Roman Catholic Church addresses the last 1700 years...

So, what servant are you and your faith? Do you bury the talents and only do what the Master and Apostles did 2000 years ago? Or are you the 5 talent one, the Church at least tries to be the 5 talent servant. That is how I look at it. But, I also believe the human, flawed view, is still part of God's creation and the Holy Spirit still works in man. We may not get it right all the time, but their is value in trying. I know my efforts are viewed by God as Dirty Rags. (Geez, someone had an insecurity issue...)

---

So you are basically saying that the scriptures are only relevant & applicable for the times they were written?
You do know that many of the scriptures in the OT were older than the NT is to us today, and yet Jesus read & taught from the OT scriptures. He never claimed that the scriptures were too old and needed to be updated by traditions. Quite the opposite. Jesus directly condemned the Pharisees for adding their own traditions to the scriptures, and making the plan of God more complicated. Sound familiar? Relics, purgatory, Marian worship, Sacraments, etc.... the RC has added many man-made traditions to the scriptures just like the Pharisees did.

---

Jesus condemned the Pharisees for their hypocrisy, not their traditions.

"The scribes and Pharisees, he said, have established themselves in the place from which Moses used to teach; do what they tell you, then, continue to observe what they tell you, but do not imitate their actions, for they tell you one thing and do another." Matthew 23:2-3

---

That's kinda funny.
Yes, he condemned them for hypocrisy, but that wasn't the only thing he condemned for.

Matthew 15:5-9 NIV
[5] But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is 'devoted to God,' [6] they are not to 'honor their father or mother' with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. [7] You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you: [8] " 'These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. [9] They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules.'

He condemned them for hypocrites and also for their "traditions" that were merely "human rules".

---

"I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2).

"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." (2 Thess. 2:15)

"You, then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:1-2).

"First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God" (2 Peter 1:20-21).

We can go on for days finding scripture that contradicts each other.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

If Mary didnt give birth to Jesus, who is God, to whom did she give birth?

---

Matthew 12:46-50

"While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. Someone told him, "Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you."
He replied to him, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?" Pointing to his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother."

---

John 19:26-27

26 When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple there whom he loved, he said to his mother, "Woman, behold, your son." 27 Then he said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother."

We can and have been doing this for 1000 years. We will not agree.

You keep running to a man interpreted book, which there is NO scripture supporting that the version you read is the correct one. I guess Luther tradition is ok, but that is another discussion. But, regardless you think we are doomed for idiology.

From our point of view, you have fallen away from the true Church and fell for Satan's trap of believing that you as a Man can determine what is "true" and what isn't. I feel bad for you guys.

---

The irony here is you don't even accept Paul's letters as canon. Kind of ironic to accuse people of falling away from the "true Church," as you call it, when you don't even accept your true Church's teachings.

Bottom line is there is nothing in either the Protestant Bible, or the Catholic Bible, that states, much less suggests, that Mary should be honored and prayed to. You have to lie on your Church's evolving and sometimes contradictory doctrine to reach that conclusion.

---

After 1000 years you guys still dont get it. We do not agree with Sola Scriptura. A word for word reconciliation will not be there. If that is your only criteria, you will not find it. You will find Biblical passages that support Church Tradition, but not a cool book recipe from Christ.

The Bible was compiled 400 years after Christ and 1500 years have occurred after its compilation. So, how do you address everything before the Bible and everything after that is not included. There has been no revelation from God since the Apostles? And Augustine and the Church Fathers before are not to be listened to if it didn't make Jerome's and then Luther's cut?

---

Again, it's not just sola scriptura you disagree with, but your own church's position on scripture. Again, you don't even believe Paul's letters are canon.

I mean, when you trust the infallible word of man over God's holy scriptures, there really isn't much to discuss. Your position is completely illogical.

---

I said I don't like Paul or his letters.

Do you think about anything in scriptures other than just take at face value because it is the Bible? Do you apply any logic, thought, wonder of the interactions of the actual people and how it impacted what we have today?

Honest question, do you believe that the Apostles (including Paul) and the Church Fathers (including the Protestants) humanity had anything to do with the actual products we see today? Or, were they robots programmed to follow the computer cards inserted by the Holy Spirit?

What is the Holy Spirit's influence? Was it literal, the Bible being put together by a Court Reporter taking transcrption from the Holy Spirit? Or, was the Holy Spirit to ensure the overarching message survived 2000 years into the future and the particulars are not as important?

Just how literal are the "Scriptures" that have not been added to in 1700 years? Does that make sense? It all stopped with the Apostles? Do you guys really think God wants us to just stand pat for 1700 years?

---

It's hard to know where to begin with these posts. On the one hand, you attack the veracity and authenticity of scripture. On the other hand, you claim we should accept the doctrine of the church fathers from more than a 1,000 years ago.

I am not sure how to reconcile that strange dichotomy.

---

It was an honest question. You guys keep saying Sola Scriptura, everything is based on the Bible. Well, the Bible has not changed in 1700 years. There are no new books being written, no new Apostles coming forward. So, nothing has happened in the world that requires we adjust? We are to look at the world and how we live our lives as they did in Paul's times?

You guys question Church Tradition, the scripture is one part of the equation (even Paul, as much as I think he is a dick), but the Church is the other part that responds to the earthly environment. The Church looks for God's and the Holy Spirit's influence in the world and incorporates it into practice. Church Tradition is how the Roman Catholic Church addresses the last 1700 years...

So, what servant are you and your faith? Do you bury the talents and only do what the Master and Apostles did 2000 years ago? Or are you the 5 talent one, the Church at least tries to be the 5 talent servant. That is how I look at it. But, I also believe the human, flawed view, is still part of God's creation and the Holy Spirit still works in man. We may not get it right all the time, but their is value in trying. I know my efforts are viewed by God as Dirty Rags. (Geez, someone had an insecurity issue...)

---

So, Paul is a dick, and the scriptures may neither be authentic or accurate, but we should rely on Church tradition and trust it's accuracy just because?

Again, I am just not sure how to respond to this. But yes, I do trust the accuracy of the Holy Scriptures over Church tradition. It is the inspired word of God, IMO. I get it, you are not convinced. We will agree to disagree with that, and I guess, you will disagree with your own Church on that point. But I would submit the idea that we can trust 1000 year old man-made Church doctrine, but not the Holy Scriptures, just makes no sense whatsoever to me.

---

Who said "not the Holy Scriptures"? Everything Catholics have said is Scriptures and Tradition. You asked why we would believe in Tradition, I told you life goes on and we believe that Holy Spirit and God are active today just like then. The Scriptures have not changed since John wrote Revelations. Best analogy I have is that Scripture is the road map and Tradition is the practice (at least how I look at it as a Catholic, but I also think about this stuff and don't just rely on some Pastor to tell me).

I just think Paul is a dick, that is not a Church position. He was either telling us what to do or asking for money. Acquinas loved him. I don't. But the Lord works in mysterious ways. Not my call...

---

It's the "traditions" not included in scripture, and contradictory to the Holy Scriptures that are the issue in this thread. But again, we can agree to disagree.

---

I get that. You are 100% right, that has been the problem since Luther. I don't know that we will solve it or come to agreement. I am telling you where my head is when I attend Mass or read a Vatican letter comes out. I am telling you as a Catholic, the Hail Mary is literally from Scripture and not worshipping. Basically, where average Catholics are. Just like anywhere else there are those that are on the fringe, the outside 10% on any given subject that I don't agree with.

---

The problem with the position that the Hail Mary "is literally from Scripture" is that this is just an objectively untrue statement. There are other examples in the Catholic faith, but the Hail Mary is not mentioned anywhere in scripture, nor even suggested.

Sam Lowry said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

If Mary didnt give birth to Jesus, who is God, to whom did she give birth?

---

Matthew 12:46-50

"While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. Someone told him, "Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you."
He replied to him, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?" Pointing to his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother."

---

John 19:26-27

26 When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple there whom he loved, he said to his mother, "Woman, behold, your son." 27 Then he said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother."

We can and have been doing this for 1000 years. We will not agree.

You keep running to a man interpreted book, which there is NO scripture supporting that the version you read is the correct one. I guess Luther tradition is ok, but that is another discussion. But, regardless you think we are doomed for idiology.

From our point of view, you have fallen away from the true Church and fell for Satan's trap of believing that you as a Man can determine what is "true" and what isn't. I feel bad for you guys.

---

The irony here is you don't even accept Paul's letters as canon. Kind of ironic to accuse people of falling away from the "true Church," as you call it, when you don't even accept your true Church's teachings.

Bottom line is there is nothing in either the Protestant Bible, or the Catholic Bible, that states, much less suggests, that Mary should be honored and prayed to. You have to lie on your Church's evolving and sometimes contradictory doctrine to reach that conclusion.

---

After 1000 years you guys still dont get it. We do not agree with Sola Scriptura. A word for word reconciliation will not be there. If that is your only criteria, you will not find it. You will find Biblical passages that support Church Tradition, but not a cool book recipe from Christ.

The Bible was compiled 400 years after Christ and 1500 years have occurred after its compilation. So, how do you address everything before the Bible and everything after that is not included. There has been no revelation from God since the Apostles? And Augustine and the Church Fathers before are not to be listened to if it didn't make Jerome's and then Luther's cut?

---

Again, it's not just sola scriptura you disagree with, but your own church's position on scripture. Again, you don't even believe Paul's letters are canon.

I mean, when you trust the infallible word of man over God's holy scriptures, there really isn't much to discuss. Your position is completely illogical.

---

I said I don't like Paul or his letters.

Do you think about anything in scriptures other than just take at face value because it is the Bible? Do you apply any logic, thought, wonder of the interactions of the actual people and how it impacted what we have today?

Honest question, do you believe that the Apostles (including Paul) and the Church Fathers (including the Protestants) humanity had anything to do with the actual products we see today? Or, were they robots programmed to follow the computer cards inserted by the Holy Spirit?

What is the Holy Spirit's influence? Was it literal, the Bible being put together by a Court Reporter taking transcrption from the Holy Spirit? Or, was the Holy Spirit to ensure the overarching message survived 2000 years into the future and the particulars are not as important?

Just how literal are the "Scriptures" that have not been added to in 1700 years? Does that make sense? It all stopped with the Apostles? Do you guys really think God wants us to just stand pat for 1700 years?

---

It's hard to know where to begin with these posts. On the one hand, you attack the veracity and authenticity of scripture. On the other hand, you claim we should accept the doctrine of the church fathers from more than a 1,000 years ago.

I am not sure how to reconcile that strange dichotomy.

---

It was an honest question. You guys keep saying Sola Scriptura, everything is based on the Bible. Well, the Bible has not changed in 1700 years. There are no new books being written, no new Apostles coming forward. So, nothing has happened in the world that requires we adjust? We are to look at the world and how we live our lives as they did in Paul's times?

You guys question Church Tradition, the scripture is one part of the equation (even Paul, as much as I think he is a dick), but the Church is the other part that responds to the earthly environment. The Church looks for God's and the Holy Spirit's influence in the world and incorporates it into practice. Church Tradition is how the Roman Catholic Church addresses the last 1700 years...

So, what servant are you and your faith? Do you bury the talents and only do what the Master and Apostles did 2000 years ago? Or are you the 5 talent one, the Church at least tries to be the 5 talent servant. That is how I look at it. But, I also believe the human, flawed view, is still part of God's creation and the Holy Spirit still works in man. We may not get it right all the time, but their is value in trying. I know my efforts are viewed by God as Dirty Rags. (Geez, someone had an insecurity issue...)

---

So you are basically saying that the scriptures are only relevant & applicable for the times they were written?
You do know that many of the scriptures in the OT were older than the NT is to us today, and yet Jesus read & taught from the OT scriptures. He never claimed that the scriptures were too old and needed to be updated by traditions. Quite the opposite. Jesus directly condemned the Pharisees for adding their own traditions to the scriptures, and making the plan of God more complicated. Sound familiar? Relics, purgatory, Marian worship, Sacraments, etc.... the RC has added many man-made traditions to the scriptures just like the Pharisees did.

---

Jesus condemned the Pharisees for their hypocrisy, not their traditions.

"The scribes and Pharisees, he said, have established themselves in the place from which Moses used to teach; do what they tell you, then, continue to observe what they tell you, but do not imitate their actions, for they tell you one thing and do another." Matthew 23:2-3

---

That's kinda funny.
Yes, he condemned them for hypocrisy, but that wasn't the only thing he condemned for.

Matthew 15:5-9 NIV
[5] But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is 'devoted to God,' [6] they are not to 'honor their father or mother' with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. [7] You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you: [8] " 'These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. [9] They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules.'

He condemned them for hypocrites and also for their "traditions" that were merely "human rules".

---

Any Catholic would agree that tradition must not nullify the word of God. That doesn't mean it has no place.

---

Apostolic Tradition complements Scripture.

I think part of the issue is the definition of Tradition. The Church is talking Apostolic Tradition, not mythology, legends, mores of the time, priests dress or liturgical prayers. We are talking the Mass, the Eucharest, the Rosary, Holy Day masses, etc... We are not talking some guy kissing the feet of a statue. That is not an Apostolic Tradition, that is some guy that is on the outer fringe as 99% of people don't go around kissing statues.

Mothra said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

If Mary didnt give birth to Jesus, who is God, to whom did she give birth?

---

Matthew 12:46-50

"While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. Someone told him, "Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you."
He replied to him, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?" Pointing to his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother."

---

John 19:26-27

26 When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple there whom he loved, he said to his mother, "Woman, behold, your son." 27 Then he said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother."

We can and have been doing this for 1000 years. We will not agree.

You keep running to a man interpreted book, which there is NO scripture supporting that the version you read is the correct one. I guess Luther tradition is ok, but that is another discussion. But, regardless you think we are doomed for idiology.

From our point of view, you have fallen away from the true Church and fell for Satan's trap of believing that you as a Man can determine what is "true" and what isn't. I feel bad for you guys.

---

The irony here is you don't even accept Paul's letters as canon. Kind of ironic to accuse people of falling away from the "true Church," as you call it, when you don't even accept your true Church's teachings.

Bottom line is there is nothing in either the Protestant Bible, or the Catholic Bible, that states, much less suggests, that Mary should be honored and prayed to. You have to lie on your Church's evolving and sometimes contradictory doctrine to reach that conclusion.

---

After 1000 years you guys still dont get it. We do not agree with Sola Scriptura. A word for word reconciliation will not be there. If that is your only criteria, you will not find it. You will find Biblical passages that support Church Tradition, but not a cool book recipe from Christ.

The Bible was compiled 400 years after Christ and 1500 years have occurred after its compilation. So, how do you address everything before the Bible and everything after that is not included. There has been no revelation from God since the Apostles? And Augustine and the Church Fathers before are not to be listened to if it didn't make Jerome's and then Luther's cut?

---

Again, it's not just sola scriptura you disagree with, but your own church's position on scripture. Again, you don't even believe Paul's letters are canon.

I mean, when you trust the infallible word of man over God's holy scriptures, there really isn't much to discuss. Your position is completely illogical.

---

I said I don't like Paul or his letters.

Do you think about anything in scriptures other than just take at face value because it is the Bible? Do you apply any logic, thought, wonder of the interactions of the actual people and how it impacted what we have today?

Honest question, do you believe that the Apostles (including Paul) and the Church Fathers (including the Protestants) humanity had anything to do with the actual products we see today? Or, were they robots programmed to follow the computer cards inserted by the Holy Spirit?

What is the Holy Spirit's influence? Was it literal, the Bible being put together by a Court Reporter taking transcrption from the Holy Spirit? Or, was the Holy Spirit to ensure the overarching message survived 2000 years into the future and the particulars are not as important?

Just how literal are the "Scriptures" that have not been added to in 1700 years? Does that make sense? It all stopped with the Apostles? Do you guys really think God wants us to just stand pat for 1700 years?

---

It's hard to know where to begin with these posts. On the one hand, you attack the veracity and authenticity of scripture. On the other hand, you claim we should accept the doctrine of the church fathers from more than a 1,000 years ago.

I am not sure how to reconcile that strange dichotomy.

---

It was an honest question. You guys keep saying Sola Scriptura, everything is based on the Bible. Well, the Bible has not changed in 1700 years. There are no new books being written, no new Apostles coming forward. So, nothing has happened in the world that requires we adjust? We are to look at the world and how we live our lives as they did in Paul's times?

You guys question Church Tradition, the scripture is one part of the equation (even Paul, as much as I think he is a dick), but the Church is the other part that responds to the earthly environment. The Church looks for God's and the Holy Spirit's influence in the world and incorporates it into practice. Church Tradition is how the Roman Catholic Church addresses the last 1700 years...

So, what servant are you and your faith? Do you bury the talents and only do what the Master and Apostles did 2000 years ago? Or are you the 5 talent one, the Church at least tries to be the 5 talent servant. That is how I look at it. But, I also believe the human, flawed view, is still part of God's creation and the Holy Spirit still works in man. We may not get it right all the time, but their is value in trying. I know my efforts are viewed by God as Dirty Rags. (Geez, someone had an insecurity issue...)

---

So, Paul is a dick, and the scriptures may neither be authentic or accurate, but we should rely on Church tradition and trust it's accuracy just because?

Again, I am just not sure how to respond to this. But yes, I do trust the accuracy of the Holy Scriptures over Church tradition. It is the inspired word of God, IMO. I get it, you are not convinced. We will agree to disagree with that, and I guess, you will disagree with your own Church on that point. But I would submit the idea that we can trust 1000 year old man-made Church doctrine, but not the Holy Scriptures, just makes no sense whatsoever to me.

---

Who said "not the Holy Scriptures"? Everything Catholics have said is Scriptures and Tradition. You asked why we would believe in Tradition, I told you life goes on and we believe that Holy Spirit and God are active today just like then. The Scriptures have not changed since John wrote Revelations. Best analogy I have is that Scripture is the road map and Tradition is the practice (at least how I look at it as a Catholic, but I also think about this stuff and don't just rely on some Pastor to tell me).

I just think Paul is a dick, that is not a Church position. He was either telling us what to do or asking for money. Acquinas loved him. I don't. But the Lord works in mysterious ways. Not my call...

---

It's the "traditions" not included in scripture, and contradictory to the Holy Scriptures that are the issue in this thread. But again, we can agree to disagree.

---

I get that. You are 100% right, that has been the problem since Luther. I don't know that we will solve it or come to agreement. I am telling you where my head is when I attend Mass or read a Vatican letter comes out. I am telling you as a Catholic, the Hail Mary is literally from Scripture and not worshipping. Basically, where average Catholics are. Just like anywhere else there are those that are on the fringe, the outside 10% on any given subject that I don't agree with.

---

The problem with the position that the Hail Mary "is literally from Scripture" is that this is just an objectively untrue statement. There are other examples in the Catholic faith, but the Hail Mary is not mentioned anywhere in scripture, nor even suggested.

---

Here you go... It is used in the Rosary as a meditation, all Scripture based. I know you don't agree, but this is the explanation.

The Hail Mary In the Bible:

Introduction - To begin, here is the text of the Hail Mary prayer:

Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed are thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen.

The Hail Mary has two sections: a greeting and a petition. Both are rooted in New Testament passages. Within each section, we can break down the text into two parts, which gives us four total sections of the prayer to reflect on.

Part 1
Hail Mary, full of Grace, the Lord is with thee.
Scriptural reference: "And coming to her, he said, 'Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you.'" (Luke 1:28)

Part 2
Blessed are thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of Thy womb, Jesus.
Scriptural reference: "Elizabeth, filled with the Holy Spirit, cried out in a loud voice and said 'Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb.'" (Luke 1:42)

Part 3
Holy Mary, Mother of God
Scriptural reference: "How does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" (Luke 1:43)

Part 4
Pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death.
Scriptural reference: "Confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The fervent prayer of a righteous person is very powerful." (James 5:16)

FLBear5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

If Mary didnt give birth to Jesus, who is God, to whom did she give birth?

---

Matthew 12:46-50

"While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. Someone told him, "Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you."
He replied to him, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?" Pointing to his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother."

---

John 19:26-27

26 When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple there whom he loved, he said to his mother, "Woman, behold, your son." 27 Then he said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother."

We can and have been doing this for 1000 years. We will not agree.

You keep running to a man interpreted book, which there is NO scripture supporting that the version you read is the correct one. I guess Luther tradition is ok, but that is another discussion. But, regardless you think we are doomed for idiology.

From our point of view, you have fallen away from the true Church and fell for Satan's trap of believing that you as a Man can determine what is "true" and what isn't. I feel bad for you guys.

---

The irony here is you don't even accept Paul's letters as canon. Kind of ironic to accuse people of falling away from the "true Church," as you call it, when you don't even accept your true Church's teachings.

Bottom line is there is nothing in either the Protestant Bible, or the Catholic Bible, that states, much less suggests, that Mary should be honored and prayed to. You have to lie on your Church's evolving and sometimes contradictory doctrine to reach that conclusion.

---

After 1000 years you guys still dont get it. We do not agree with Sola Scriptura. A word for word reconciliation will not be there. If that is your only criteria, you will not find it. You will find Biblical passages that support Church Tradition, but not a cool book recipe from Christ.

The Bible was compiled 400 years after Christ and 1500 years have occurred after its compilation. So, how do you address everything before the Bible and everything after that is not included. There has been no revelation from God since the Apostles? And Augustine and the Church Fathers before are not to be listened to if it didn't make Jerome's and then Luther's cut?

---

Again, it's not just sola scriptura you disagree with, but your own church's position on scripture. Again, you don't even believe Paul's letters are canon.

I mean, when you trust the infallible word of man over God's holy scriptures, there really isn't much to discuss. Your position is completely illogical.

---

I said I don't like Paul or his letters.

Do you think about anything in scriptures other than just take at face value because it is the Bible? Do you apply any logic, thought, wonder of the interactions of the actual people and how it impacted what we have today?

Honest question, do you believe that the Apostles (including Paul) and the Church Fathers (including the Protestants) humanity had anything to do with the actual products we see today? Or, were they robots programmed to follow the computer cards inserted by the Holy Spirit?

What is the Holy Spirit's influence? Was it literal, the Bible being put together by a Court Reporter taking transcrption from the Holy Spirit? Or, was the Holy Spirit to ensure the overarching message survived 2000 years into the future and the particulars are not as important?

Just how literal are the "Scriptures" that have not been added to in 1700 years? Does that make sense? It all stopped with the Apostles? Do you guys really think God wants us to just stand pat for 1700 years?

---

It's hard to know where to begin with these posts. On the one hand, you attack the veracity and authenticity of scripture. On the other hand, you claim we should accept the doctrine of the church fathers from more than a 1,000 years ago.

I am not sure how to reconcile that strange dichotomy.

---

It was an honest question. You guys keep saying Sola Scriptura, everything is based on the Bible. Well, the Bible has not changed in 1700 years. There are no new books being written, no new Apostles coming forward. So, nothing has happened in the world that requires we adjust? We are to look at the world and how we live our lives as they did in Paul's times?

You guys question Church Tradition, the scripture is one part of the equation (even Paul, as much as I think he is a dick), but the Church is the other part that responds to the earthly environment. The Church looks for God's and the Holy Spirit's influence in the world and incorporates it into practice. Church Tradition is how the Roman Catholic Church addresses the last 1700 years...

So, what servant are you and your faith? Do you bury the talents and only do what the Master and Apostles did 2000 years ago? Or are you the 5 talent one, the Church at least tries to be the 5 talent servant. That is how I look at it. But, I also believe the human, flawed view, is still part of God's creation and the Holy Spirit still works in man. We may not get it right all the time, but their is value in trying. I know my efforts are viewed by God as Dirty Rags. (Geez, someone had an insecurity issue...)

---

So, Paul is a dick, and the scriptures may neither be authentic or accurate, but we should rely on Church tradition and trust it's accuracy just because?

Again, I am just not sure how to respond to this. But yes, I do trust the accuracy of the Holy Scriptures over Church tradition. It is the inspired word of God, IMO. I get it, you are not convinced. We will agree to disagree with that, and I guess, you will disagree with your own Church on that point. But I would submit the idea that we can trust 1000 year old man-made Church doctrine, but not the Holy Scriptures, just makes no sense whatsoever to me.

---

Who said "not the Holy Scriptures"? Everything Catholics have said is Scriptures and Tradition. You asked why we would believe in Tradition, I told you life goes on and we believe that Holy Spirit and God are active today just like then. The Scriptures have not changed since John wrote Revelations. Best analogy I have is that Scripture is the road map and Tradition is the practice (at least how I look at it as a Catholic, but I also think about this stuff and don't just rely on some Pastor to tell me).

I just think Paul is a dick, that is not a Church position. He was either telling us what to do or asking for money. Acquinas loved him. I don't. But the Lord works in mysterious ways. Not my call...

---

It's the "traditions" not included in scripture, and contradictory to the Holy Scriptures that are the issue in this thread. But again, we can agree to disagree.

---

I get that. You are 100% right, that has been the problem since Luther. I don't know that we will solve it or come to agreement. I am telling you where my head is when I attend Mass or read a Vatican letter comes out. I am telling you as a Catholic, the Hail Mary is literally from Scripture and not worshipping. Basically, where average Catholics are. Just like anywhere else there are those that are on the fringe, the outside 10% on any given subject that I don't agree with.

---

The problem with the position that the Hail Mary "is literally from Scripture" is that this is just an objectively untrue statement. There are other examples in the Catholic faith, but the Hail Mary is not mentioned anywhere in scripture, nor even suggested.

---

Here you go... It is used in the Rosary as a meditation, all Scripture based. I know you don't agree, but this is the explanation.

The Hail Mary In the Bible:

Introduction - To begin, here is the text of the Hail Mary prayer:

Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed are thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen.

The Hail Mary has two sections: a greeting and a petition. Both are rooted in New Testament passages. Within each section, we can break down the text into two parts, which gives us four total sections of the prayer to reflect on.

Part 1
Hail Mary, full of Grace, the Lord is with thee.
Scriptural reference: "And coming to her, he said, 'Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you.'" (Luke 1:28)

Part 2
Blessed are thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of Thy womb, Jesus.
Scriptural reference: "Elizabeth, filled with the Holy Spirit, cried out in a loud voice and said 'Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb.'" (Luke 1:42)

Part 3
Holy Mary, Mother of God
Scriptural reference: "How does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" (Luke 1:43)

Part 4
Pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death.
Scriptural reference: "Confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The fervent prayer of a righteous person is very powerful." (James 5:16)

---

Thanks. Yes, I have heard this very round-about explanation before. I just don't think it holds up to the least bit of scrutiny.

By any objective measure, there is no scriptural support for the practice, IMO.

Mothra said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

If Mary didnt give birth to Jesus, who is God, to whom did she give birth?

---

Matthew 12:46-50

"While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. Someone told him, "Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you."
He replied to him, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?" Pointing to his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother."

---

John 19:26-27

26 When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple there whom he loved, he said to his mother, "Woman, behold, your son." 27 Then he said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother."

We can and have been doing this for 1000 years. We will not agree.

You keep running to a man interpreted book, which there is NO scripture supporting that the version you read is the correct one. I guess Luther tradition is ok, but that is another discussion. But, regardless you think we are doomed for idiology.

From our point of view, you have fallen away from the true Church and fell for Satan's trap of believing that you as a Man can determine what is "true" and what isn't. I feel bad for you guys.

---

The irony here is you don't even accept Paul's letters as canon. Kind of ironic to accuse people of falling away from the "true Church," as you call it, when you don't even accept your true Church's teachings.

Bottom line is there is nothing in either the Protestant Bible, or the Catholic Bible, that states, much less suggests, that Mary should be honored and prayed to. You have to lie on your Church's evolving and sometimes contradictory doctrine to reach that conclusion.

---

After 1000 years you guys still dont get it. We do not agree with Sola Scriptura. A word for word reconciliation will not be there. If that is your only criteria, you will not find it. You will find Biblical passages that support Church Tradition, but not a cool book recipe from Christ.

The Bible was compiled 400 years after Christ and 1500 years have occurred after its compilation. So, how do you address everything before the Bible and everything after that is not included. There has been no revelation from God since the Apostles? And Augustine and the Church Fathers before are not to be listened to if it didn't make Jerome's and then Luther's cut?

---

Again, it's not just sola scriptura you disagree with, but your own church's position on scripture. Again, you don't even believe Paul's letters are canon.

I mean, when you trust the infallible word of man over God's holy scriptures, there really isn't much to discuss. Your position is completely illogical.

---

I said I don't like Paul or his letters.

Do you think about anything in scriptures other than just take at face value because it is the Bible? Do you apply any logic, thought, wonder of the interactions of the actual people and how it impacted what we have today?

Honest question, do you believe that the Apostles (including Paul) and the Church Fathers (including the Protestants) humanity had anything to do with the actual products we see today? Or, were they robots programmed to follow the computer cards inserted by the Holy Spirit?

What is the Holy Spirit's influence? Was it literal, the Bible being put together by a Court Reporter taking transcrption from the Holy Spirit? Or, was the Holy Spirit to ensure the overarching message survived 2000 years into the future and the particulars are not as important?

Just how literal are the "Scriptures" that have not been added to in 1700 years? Does that make sense? It all stopped with the Apostles? Do you guys really think God wants us to just stand pat for 1700 years?

---

It's hard to know where to begin with these posts. On the one hand, you attack the veracity and authenticity of scripture. On the other hand, you claim we should accept the doctrine of the church fathers from more than a 1,000 years ago.

I am not sure how to reconcile that strange dichotomy.

---

It was an honest question. You guys keep saying Sola Scriptura, everything is based on the Bible. Well, the Bible has not changed in 1700 years. There are no new books being written, no new Apostles coming forward. So, nothing has happened in the world that requires we adjust? We are to look at the world and how we live our lives as they did in Paul's times?

You guys question Church Tradition, the scripture is one part of the equation (even Paul, as much as I think he is a dick), but the Church is the other part that responds to the earthly environment. The Church looks for God's and the Holy Spirit's influence in the world and incorporates it into practice. Church Tradition is how the Roman Catholic Church addresses the last 1700 years...

So, what servant are you and your faith? Do you bury the talents and only do what the Master and Apostles did 2000 years ago? Or are you the 5 talent one, the Church at least tries to be the 5 talent servant. That is how I look at it. But, I also believe the human, flawed view, is still part of God's creation and the Holy Spirit still works in man. We may not get it right all the time, but their is value in trying. I know my efforts are viewed by God as Dirty Rags. (Geez, someone had an insecurity issue...)

---

So, Paul is a dick, and the scriptures may neither be authentic or accurate, but we should rely on Church tradition and trust it's accuracy just because?

Again, I am just not sure how to respond to this. But yes, I do trust the accuracy of the Holy Scriptures over Church tradition. It is the inspired word of God, IMO. I get it, you are not convinced. We will agree to disagree with that, and I guess, you will disagree with your own Church on that point. But I would submit the idea that we can trust 1000 year old man-made Church doctrine, but not the Holy Scriptures, just makes no sense whatsoever to me.

---

Who said "not the Holy Scriptures"? Everything Catholics have said is Scriptures and Tradition. You asked why we would believe in Tradition, I told you life goes on and we believe that Holy Spirit and God are active today just like then. The Scriptures have not changed since John wrote Revelations. Best analogy I have is that Scripture is the road map and Tradition is the practice (at least how I look at it as a Catholic, but I also think about this stuff and don't just rely on some Pastor to tell me).

I just think Paul is a dick, that is not a Church position. He was either telling us what to do or asking for money. Acquinas loved him. I don't. But the Lord works in mysterious ways. Not my call...

---

It's the "traditions" not included in scripture, and contradictory to the Holy Scriptures that are the issue in this thread. But again, we can agree to disagree.

---

I get that. You are 100% right, that has been the problem since Luther. I don't know that we will solve it or come to agreement. I am telling you where my head is when I attend Mass or read a Vatican letter comes out. I am telling you as a Catholic, the Hail Mary is literally from Scripture and not worshipping. Basically, where average Catholics are. Just like anywhere else there are those that are on the fringe, the outside 10% on any given subject that I don't agree with.

---

The problem with the position that the Hail Mary "is literally from Scripture" is that this is just an objectively untrue statement. There are other examples in the Catholic faith, but the Hail Mary is not mentioned anywhere in scripture, nor even suggested.

---

Here you go... It is used in the Rosary as a meditation, all Scripture based. I know you don't agree, but this is the explanation.

The Hail Mary In the Bible:

Introduction - To begin, here is the text of the Hail Mary prayer:

Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed are thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen.

The Hail Mary has two sections: a greeting and a petition. Both are rooted in New Testament passages. Within each section, we can break down the text into two parts, which gives us four total sections of the prayer to reflect on.

Part 1
Hail Mary, full of Grace, the Lord is with thee.
Scriptural reference: "And coming to her, he said, 'Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you.'" (Luke 1:28)

Part 2
Blessed are thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of Thy womb, Jesus.
Scriptural reference: "Elizabeth, filled with the Holy Spirit, cried out in a loud voice and said 'Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb.'" (Luke 1:42)

Part 3
Holy Mary, Mother of God
Scriptural reference: "How does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" (Luke 1:43)

Part 4
Pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death.
Scriptural reference: "Confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The fervent prayer of a righteous person is very powerful." (James 5:16)

---

Thanks. Yes, I have heard this very round-about explanation before. I just don't think it holds up to the least bit of scrutiny.

By any objective measure, there is no scriptural support for the practice, IMO.

---

Aren't you glad we live somewhere that allows you to go to a Church you agree?

Same here, I could not attend a Church without Sacraments based on some German Monk's interpretation. I will stick with Scripture and Apostolic Tradition.

LOL - "Paul is a d*ck".

You can't believe Paul's letters are inspired Scripture if you think Paul is a "d*ck" because you'd be essentially saying that God is a "d*ck".

Sometimes the best argument against false beliefs is to let their proponents talk.

FLBear5630: " Aren't you glad we live somewhere that allows you to go to a Church you agree?

Same here, I could not attend a Church without Sacraments based on some German Monk's interpretation. I will stick with Scripture and Apostolic Tradition."

I agree with your sentiment, but would add the following:

First, this thread - indeed this board - exists to debate certain beliefs and opinions. The different perspectives of Mary's role in Christianity can all be valid, yet disagreement can still be illuminating for not only discussion of Mary, but indeed can shed light on all believers, including leaders today.

Second, while there is sharp disagreement between Roman Catholics and Protestants on some doctrines and teachings, we can both also agree that there are certain basic definitions of Christianity which help us separate sheep from wolves. The Mormons, for example, created a text for their group which has no genuine support in accredited Scriptures, while the Muslims have created a puppet they name 'Isa' for the purpose of pretending Muhammed was greater and holier. I can believe that God loves all His creatures, while rejecting utterly such fabrications. For all our arguments, I would remind us all that Protestants and Roman Catholics are closer to each other than we sometimes remember.

That brings me to the real dangers to people. False teachers like Joel Osteen, Benny Hinn, and the like, who start 'nondenominational' churches which have nothing to do with the Gospel. They teach lies and lead many people away from Jesus. These evil people care about wealth, pleasure, or simply make their 'church' a club for parties or humanist teachings.

It's said that iron sharpens iron, and I would suggest that debate, or dialogue if we could have it, which is based on accepted scripture, is useful in keeping us on the narrow road and free from pits and traps laid by Satan.

Thanks to everyone for their contributions to that talk.

Oldbear83 said:

---

.... The different perspectives of Mary's role in Christianity can all be valid, yet disagreement can still be illuminating for not only discussion of Mary, but indeed can shed light on all believers, including leaders today.

---

You seriously believe they all can be valid?? Have you not paid any attention at all?

Oldbear83 said:

---

FLBear5630: " Aren't you glad we live somewhere that allows you to go to a Church you agree?

Same here, I could not attend a Church without Sacraments based on some German Monk's interpretation. I will stick with Scripture and Apostolic Tradition."

I agree with your sentiment, but would add the following:

First, this thread - indeed this board - exists to debate certain beliefs and opinions. The different perspectives of Mary's role in Christianity can all be valid, yet disagreement can still be illuminating for not only discussion of Mary, but indeed can shed light on all believers, including leaders today.

Second, while there is sharp disagreement between Roman Catholics and Protestants on some doctrines and teachings, we can both also agree that there are certain basic definitions of Christianity which help us separate sheep from wolves. The Mormons, for example, created a text for their group which has no genuine support in accredited Scriptures, while the Muslims have created a puppet they name 'Isa' for the purpose of pretending Muhammed was greater and holier. I can believe that God loves all His creatures, while rejecting utterly such fabrications. For all our arguments, I would remind us all that Protestants and Roman Catholics are closer to each other than we sometimes remember.

That brings me to the real dangers to people. False teachers like Joel Osteen, Benny Hinn, and the like, who start 'nondenominational' churches which have nothing to do with the Gospel. They teach lies and lead many people away from Jesus. These evil people care about wealth, pleasure, or simply make their 'church' a club for parties or humanist teachings.

It's said that iron sharpens iron, and I would suggest that debate, or dialogue if we could have it, which is based on accepted scripture, is useful in keeping us on the narrow road and free from pits and traps laid by Satan.

Thanks to everyone for their contributions to that talk.

---

Let's discuss debate. What is the expectation. For example, you stated worship of Mary and gave some examples. You told us your position. We both used scripture. You guys don't agree with us, we don't agree with you.

Aside from that, is there a requisite amount of bashing needed? Do we need some, but the Canon says this or that? Pope so and so, said something in a speech. That is where this typically goes. I put some people on ignore because that is ALL they want to discuss.

So, what would you like to discuss on Mary?

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

If Mary didnt give birth to Jesus, who is God, to whom did she give birth?

---

Matthew 12:46-50

"While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. Someone told him, "Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you."
He replied to him, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?" Pointing to his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother."

---

John 19:26-27

26 When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple there whom he loved, he said to his mother, "Woman, behold, your son." 27 Then he said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother."

We can and have been doing this for 1000 years. We will not agree.

You keep running to a man interpreted book, which there is NO scripture supporting that the version you read is the correct one. I guess Luther tradition is ok, but that is another discussion. But, regardless you think we are doomed for idiology.

From our point of view, you have fallen away from the true Church and fell for Satan's trap of believing that you as a Man can determine what is "true" and what isn't. I feel bad for you guys.

---

The irony here is you don't even accept Paul's letters as canon. Kind of ironic to accuse people of falling away from the "true Church," as you call it, when you don't even accept your true Church's teachings.

Bottom line is there is nothing in either the Protestant Bible, or the Catholic Bible, that states, much less suggests, that Mary should be honored and prayed to. You have to lie on your Church's evolving and sometimes contradictory doctrine to reach that conclusion.

---

After 1000 years you guys still dont get it. We do not agree with Sola Scriptura. A word for word reconciliation will not be there. If that is your only criteria, you will not find it. You will find Biblical passages that support Church Tradition, but not a cool book recipe from Christ.

The Bible was compiled 400 years after Christ and 1500 years have occurred after its compilation. So, how do you address everything before the Bible and everything after that is not included. There has been no revelation from God since the Apostles? And Augustine and the Church Fathers before are not to be listened to if it didn't make Jerome's and then Luther's cut?

---

Again, it's not just sola scriptura you disagree with, but your own church's position on scripture. Again, you don't even believe Paul's letters are canon.

I mean, when you trust the infallible word of man over God's holy scriptures, there really isn't much to discuss. Your position is completely illogical.

---

I said I don't like Paul or his letters.

Do you think about anything in scriptures other than just take at face value because it is the Bible? Do you apply any logic, thought, wonder of the interactions of the actual people and how it impacted what we have today?

Honest question, do you believe that the Apostles (including Paul) and the Church Fathers (including the Protestants) humanity had anything to do with the actual products we see today? Or, were they robots programmed to follow the computer cards inserted by the Holy Spirit?

What is the Holy Spirit's influence? Was it literal, the Bible being put together by a Court Reporter taking transcrption from the Holy Spirit? Or, was the Holy Spirit to ensure the overarching message survived 2000 years into the future and the particulars are not as important?

Just how literal are the "Scriptures" that have not been added to in 1700 years? Does that make sense? It all stopped with the Apostles? Do you guys really think God wants us to just stand pat for 1700 years?

---

It's hard to know where to begin with these posts. On the one hand, you attack the veracity and authenticity of scripture. On the other hand, you claim we should accept the doctrine of the church fathers from more than a 1,000 years ago.

I am not sure how to reconcile that strange dichotomy.

---

It was an honest question. You guys keep saying Sola Scriptura, everything is based on the Bible. Well, the Bible has not changed in 1700 years. There are no new books being written, no new Apostles coming forward. So, nothing has happened in the world that requires we adjust? We are to look at the world and how we live our lives as they did in Paul's times?

You guys question Church Tradition, the scripture is one part of the equation (even Paul, as much as I think he is a dick), but the Church is the other part that responds to the earthly environment. The Church looks for God's and the Holy Spirit's influence in the world and incorporates it into practice. Church Tradition is how the Roman Catholic Church addresses the last 1700 years...

So, what servant are you and your faith? Do you bury the talents and only do what the Master and Apostles did 2000 years ago? Or are you the 5 talent one, the Church at least tries to be the 5 talent servant. That is how I look at it. But, I also believe the human, flawed view, is still part of God's creation and the Holy Spirit still works in man. We may not get it right all the time, but their is value in trying. I know my efforts are viewed by God as Dirty Rags. (Geez, someone had an insecurity issue...)

---

So you are basically saying that the scriptures are only relevant & applicable for the times they were written?
You do know that many of the scriptures in the OT were older than the NT is to us today, and yet Jesus read & taught from the OT scriptures. He never claimed that the scriptures were too old and needed to be updated by traditions. Quite the opposite. Jesus directly condemned the Pharisees for adding their own traditions to the scriptures, and making the plan of God more complicated. Sound familiar? Relics, purgatory, Marian worship, Sacraments, etc.... the RC has added many man-made traditions to the scriptures just like the Pharisees did.

---

Jesus condemned the Pharisees for their hypocrisy, not their traditions.

"The scribes and Pharisees, he said, have established themselves in the place from which Moses used to teach; do what they tell you, then, continue to observe what they tell you, but do not imitate their actions, for they tell you one thing and do another." Matthew 23:2-3

---

That's kinda funny.
Yes, he condemned them for hypocrisy, but that wasn't the only thing he condemned for.

Matthew 15:5-9 NIV
[5] But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is 'devoted to God,' [6] they are not to 'honor their father or mother' with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. [7] You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you: [8] " 'These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. [9] They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules.'

He condemned them for hypocrites and also for their "traditions" that were merely "human rules".

---

Any Catholic would agree that tradition must not nullify the word of God. That doesn't mean it has no place.

---

Apostolic Tradition complements Scripture.

I think part of the issue is the definition of Tradition. The Church is talking Apostolic Tradition, not mythology, legends, mores of the time, priests dress or liturgical prayers. We are talking the Mass, the Eucharest, the Rosary, Holy Day masses, etc... We are not talking some guy kissing the feet of a statue. That is not an Apostolic Tradition, that is some guy that is on the outer fringe as 99% of people don't go around kissing statues.

---

Wow.

So the past 4 popes were all guys on the outer fringe??



You are calling the leadership "fringe", and yet you say you are a Roman Catholic??

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

FLBear5630: " Aren't you glad we live somewhere that allows you to go to a Church you agree?

Same here, I could not attend a Church without Sacraments based on some German Monk's interpretation. I will stick with Scripture and Apostolic Tradition."

I agree with your sentiment, but would add the following:

First, this thread - indeed this board - exists to debate certain beliefs and opinions. The different perspectives of Mary's role in Christianity can all be valid, yet disagreement can still be illuminating for not only discussion of Mary, but indeed can shed light on all believers, including leaders today.

Second, while there is sharp disagreement between Roman Catholics and Protestants on some doctrines and teachings, we can both also agree that there are certain basic definitions of Christianity which help us separate sheep from wolves. The Mormons, for example, created a text for their group which has no genuine support in accredited Scriptures, while the Muslims have created a puppet they name 'Isa' for the purpose of pretending Muhammed was greater and holier. I can believe that God loves all His creatures, while rejecting utterly such fabrications. For all our arguments, I would remind us all that Protestants and Roman Catholics are closer to each other than we sometimes remember.

That brings me to the real dangers to people. False teachers like Joel Osteen, Benny Hinn, and the like, who start 'nondenominational' churches which have nothing to do with the Gospel. They teach lies and lead many people away from Jesus. These evil people care about wealth, pleasure, or simply make their 'church' a club for parties or humanist teachings.

It's said that iron sharpens iron, and I would suggest that debate, or dialogue if we could have it, which is based on accepted scripture, is useful in keeping us on the narrow road and free from pits and traps laid by Satan.

Thanks to everyone for their contributions to that talk.

---

....Aside from that, is there a requisite amount of bashing needed? Do we need some, but the Canon says this or that? Pope so and so, said something in a speech. That is where this typically goes. I put some people on ignore because that is ALL they want to discuss.

So, what would you like to discuss on Mary?

---

^^^^
"Yeah, I blocked that guy who just wanted to talk about Roman Catholic dogmas, catechisms, councils, sanctioned prayers, and statements from popes. I only want to talk about real Catholicism - you know, where all that Mary stuff isn't all that important and where Paul is a d*ck."

4th and Inches said:

---

historian said:

---

The context in Matthew is very clear that it is his family that are mentioned.

---

55 Many women were there, watching from a distance. They had followed Jesus from Galilee to care for his needs. 56 Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joseph,[f] and the mother of Zebedee's sons.

The Burial of Jesus

57 As evening approached, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who had himself become a disciple of Jesus. 58 Going to Pilate, he asked for Jesus' body, and Pilate ordered that it be given to him. 59 Joseph took the body, wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, 60 and placed it in his own new tomb that he had cut out of the rock. He rolled a big stone in front of the entrance to the tomb and went away. 61 Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were sitting there opposite the tomb.

In context she not referred to as the mother of Jesus in Matthew. I highly doubt the mother of Jesus would be referred to as the other Mary..

---

Wrong chapter. The reference was from Matthew 12, not 27.

One does not need tradition to understand scripture. Most of it is pretty straightforward and clear. In other areas, one must be guided by the Holy Spirit.

Sometimes outside sources can be helpful to illuminate some of the trickier passages but only if they are consistent with the broader context. Relying on "experts" can be very dangerous because they are often wrong and proclaim false doctrines that lead people astray. Historically, the Church labeled most of these as heresies.

The word "Trinity" is not used in scripture but there are plenty of scripture throughout the Bible that reference God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. The Spirit is mentioned in the Creation account of Genesis snd we know Christ was involved in creation from John 1.

"Rapture" is another word absent from scripture but the concept is mentioned repeatedly from Matthew 24 to I Thessalonians 5 and elsewhere.

By the way, I looked up each of the verses you referenced and I fail to see anything about purgatory. The references to the Spirit's work on believers refers to sanctification.

Looking back to the first page, Fre3dombear made a point of insisting calling Mary a 'Queen' in Heaven was biblical:

https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/157571/replies/4432158

"Fascinating how you seem to be ignore the exact words in the Bible. We see a pattern here."

That post not only makes a bold claim (never supported, by the way), but carries an implicit insult. So for those keeping score, the first shot was from the RC side.

Same guy doubled down on unsupported claims right after:

https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/157571/replies/4432161

"Some here have said the devil defied physics and created this and converted an entire continent to Catholicism."

When asked to provide the support in the Bible, Fre3dombear replied as follows:

https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/157571/replies/4432157

"You really should read again. incompetent or lying? You choose"

and

https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/157571/replies/4433424

"Its right there for you to read. Ive shown you many many times."

That's where the "bashing" started, and while I could go on regarding Fre3dombear's tone and choice of words, those first few posts make clear who you might want to talk with, regarding how we should conduct this dialogue.

Praying FOR one another is not the same as praying TO someone other than God. We definitely should always be praying for others.

historian said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

historian said:

---

The context in Matthew is very clear that it is his family that are mentioned.

---

55 Many women were there, watching from a distance. They had followed Jesus from Galilee to care for his needs. 56 Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joseph,[f] and the mother of Zebedee's sons.

The Burial of Jesus

57 As evening approached, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who had himself become a disciple of Jesus. 58 Going to Pilate, he asked for Jesus' body, and Pilate ordered that it be given to him. 59 Joseph took the body, wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, 60 and placed it in his own new tomb that he had cut out of the rock. He rolled a big stone in front of the entrance to the tomb and went away. 61 Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were sitting there opposite the tomb.

In context she not referred to as the mother of Jesus in Matthew. I highly doubt the mother of Jesus would be referred to as the other Mary..

---

Wrong chapter. The reference was from Matthew 12, not 27.

---

We get it. You don't go for that. I don't either. They do, wow what a world individual choice. You asked, I told you my opinion.

My opinion is my opinion. Notice I said opinion. Unlike you that think you ARE RIGHT and tell everyone how wrong they are. You are entitled to your view, more power to you.

Have some class to NOT tell others what to believe. You can laugh in eternity at those that didn't follow your view as a good Southern Baptist Christian should...

historian said:

---

Praying FOR one another is not the same as praying TO someone other than God. We definitely should always be praying for others.

---

Noted, thanks for the lesson.

So with that said, the debate about Mary frankly depends on the person making their argument.

I would start by saying both Roman Catholics and Protestant Christians consider Mary to be an important person and blessed by God.

I believe the Gospel accounts present Mary quite fairly, both as a virgin who was faithful and obedient to God in a very strange situation, but also as someone who struggled to understand Who her son was. The times she is quoted in the Gospel accounts, Mary seems to expect her son to obey her wishes, and Jesus makes clear that those who do His Father's Will are His Mother and Brothers. That is not a slight on Mary, but makes clear that it is what we do and whether we are obedient to God, which speaks to how God thinks of us.

It's a subtle distinction that some do not see, and others will not accept.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Show me the verses where Jesus spoke of 'purgatory'.

Pope quotes don't count.

Your 'tradition' is pretty much just RC bullying, and won't work on most adults now.

---

In itony of ironies they dont even realize how many many hundreds of years after his death it was that the word Jesus even appeared.

---

Ah. You have another name you prefer us to use?

---

Thats up to you as an adherent to sola scriptura as i understand it. Youre using a name that never existed in scripture. In fact it didnt likely exist until the 1600s over a 100 years after your religion formed.

---

Again, what name do you prefer, and why?

---

---

Im not a sola scriptua person. Not sue what that does to your faith. Maybe use something in scripture?

---

Considering our Lord spoke Greek, Hebrew, maybe some Latin, I sincerely doubt that you call Him by name, anyway.

You're reduced to arguing meaningless trivia just to bicker.

If you have a preferred name, please say what it is and why. Otherwise, I suspect my Lord will know me by my constant communication with Him, just as He knows you by yours.

---

You da sola scriotura crowd. Why you asking Catholics for help tomsupport your belief in things we dint believe in yet you adhere to?

FLBear5630 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

Every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.

Mary, like some others in the Bible, and perhaps some others, may deserve special recognition for their contributions to the Lord's work. However, only one is sitting at the right hand of God.

---

Yep and only one is the Queen

---

Sorry there is no queen. There is no throne for Mary.

Any belief otherwise is unbiblical.

---

You really should read again. incompetent or lying? You choose

---

I'm not sure what you're referring but I've stopped trying to make logical sense out of your posts. You're about as clear as mud - intentionally so, it would appear.

---

Nope. Its right there for you to read. Ive shown you many many times. You just say nuh uh. Same as it ever was.

---

And you likewise say crap like this all the time, claiming you've shown evidence or scriptural support for a position that everyone is ignoring, when the truth is your claims are always specious, baseless and unsupported.

I promise you, if you could actually present valid evidence in support of your baseless opinions, I'd stop saying "nuh uh." When you make a claim, it is your burden to prove it with evidence.

I suspect the response to this will once again be, "But I have shown evidence" - yet another one of your many false assertions.

---

Well you see ive already responded and always give chapter and verse. Its you denying those chapter and verses. Its just tiring and boring and circular. Its not my job toake you believe. I can only present facts. Then Faith has to do its part.

. This ones super easy but since youre either lazy or not genuine ill put it on the spoon for ya:

Thessalonians 2:14 (context from verses 1415):
"Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle. Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God and our Father, who hath loved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation, and good hope in grace..."

This verse refers to holding both written (epistle/Scripture) and oral (by word) apostolic traditions.

Im sure you can search all the times ive already posted on it.

---

Do you remember the subject of this particular discussion? It appears not. Let me remind you.

You made the assertion that Mary is "queen." I said there's no scriptural support for your position. And you went off on a tangent, as you always do, apparently claiming that position was biblical. Is this the verse you allege supports your position that Mary is "queen"? A verse in which Paul talks specifically to the Thessalonians about the traditions that have been taught in the Thessalonian church? Is it your position that the Thessalonians taught that Mary was "queen"?

---

Of course rhats not what happened as you always change your story when met with facts. Mary is referenced in revelation obviously and of course David's mom as tie in to how the mother of
the king is referred to simpol.

Just more scripture to consider.

---

As usual you can't communicate a coherent thought.

I have no idea what you are saying. All i know is you failed to answer some pretty simple questions. If you get brave enough to do so let me know

---

You scared. Deflect deflect. As always. Why its your MO nobody knows.

---

Tell you what, just for my own amusement, I'll try this one more time. Please cite the specific verses in scripture wherein Mary is referred to or given the position of queen. And to be clear, I am not referring to Paul's statement to the Thessalonians about their specific traditions or some other circular type of argument which you will use try and say all Catholic beliefs are valid because of "tradition." I would like a verse which specifically states or suggests Mary is queen, and must be honored as such.

Thanks in advance.

---

My understanding was from the Annunciation Narrative in Luke. Gabriel telling Mary her son would be King.

So, I guess my question is what do you call the Mother of a King?

---

Queen mother? Don't know but what I do know is God didn't ornate her a queen, and he certainly didn't say she's worthy of the same veneration as himself, as the OP has argued on this thread.

---

Another lie or ignorance. Ive never said Mary deserves same veneretion as God. Prove that please.

Thanks in advance.

---

Um, you do remember the title of your thread do you not? "Imagine willfully not trying tohonor Mary as much as our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ."

If you didn't mean to suggest that Mary should be honored as much as our Lord, you should'nt have said it. But you are an awful communicator.

---

Read it again. This time without projecting your stubborn strong bias into it and report back.

---

Tell you what, if you didn't mean to suggest that Mary should be honored as much as God when you said, "Imagine willfully not trying to honor Mary as much as our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ," then you could explain what you meant, because that's how any reasonable person (and every person on this thread) took it.

But we all know you would rather be vague and ambiguous.

---

Tell you what, i never state something other than what i mean to state. Youre clearly reading it wrong. If you cant find the right way to read it thats on you. Plus many Catholics have already corrected you here in this thread about it so we could move on from your misread. We cant teach always to the slowest in the class. Me thinks youre just being silly on purpose.

Will. Not. Play.

---

Of course. A non-answer followed by a personal attack. As predictable as the sunrise.

I get it if you didn't mean to say that Mary should be honored "as much as our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ," but you said it. Best to just admit your error instead of digging the hole deeper. But of course, we know you are unable to do that. Too prideful.

---

Personal attack? Did i accidentally drop the esteemed and highly intellectual argument ender of "son"?

---

Using "son" is disrespectful implying a paternalistic relationship, with the person you are talking to being the child. Get it kiddo?

---

Ageeed

You specifically said you had scriptural support (exact words, you said) to prove Mary was Queen of Heaven, then you got angry and ranted when asked to prove your claim.

Tradition is not Scripture, sorry that you apparently confused the two.