Mary and the Catholic Church
June 15th, 2009
91 years ago today, was the miracle of the sun. The only miracle ever predicted months ahead, witnessed by thousands, and recorded and reported by an atheist government. To understand the role of Mary as Mother of the Son of God, we need to first understand the humanity of Jesus. The bible says Jesus was both human and divine “The Word became flesh”
Duration : 0:7:18
mikevoter said:
The church of the …
The church of the NT never taught Purgatory, the exalting of Mary, the baptisim of infants, or baptismal regeneration. Nor did she have a Pope, or a central command post like the Vatican. The NT church taught that sinners who trusted Christ’s blood to take away sin were regenerated and saved forever. NT Christians were ALL called saints while still living. All the “extras” of the Catholic faith can be attributed to men after the Apostolic age closed. Back to the Bible for the truth of God
heyheybananaboat said:
The Roman Catholic …
The Roman Catholic Church was the FIRST Christian Church. The Original! There was none other! Those are just the facts.
TheManGadoosh said:
I might also add, …
I might also add, that when Jesus said “Why do you call me Lord, Lord, but do not do the things I command?”
And you convienently forget that Jesus commanded that the believers listen to the Church Matt 18:17-18
The Church being the final authority. The same Church Paul calls “the pillar and foundation of truth”
Tell me, how can the pillar and foundation of the truth teach error?
Especially if even the heavenly powers will learn the wisdom of God from it Eph 3:10
But you deny this.
TheManGadoosh said:
A ploy? Thanks, …
A ploy? Thanks, thats very kind of you.
Paul also baptized the Phillipian jailer. If faith was all that one needed, then why baptize him?
Jesus said it is not enough to have faith in him; we also must obey his commandments. “Why do you call me Lord, Lord, but do not do the things I command?” (Luke 6:46, Matt. 7:2123, 19:1621).
So, its faith working through love (1 Cor 13:2) Love being greater than faith.
Tell me what the fathers never agreed on?
mikevoter said:
This is simply a …
This is simply a ploy on your part to get away from scriptural teaching. Paul told the Phillipian jailer to simply trust Christ for salvation. I believe that . You don’t. You want to hide in the shadowy past rather than come into the light of God’s truth. Don’t even suggest that the “fathers” agreed on Apostolic teaching! The serpent bitten Israelites simply looked to the brass serpent and were saved. Jesus pointed Nicodemus to that as an example of salvation by faith alone. John 3
TheManGadoosh said:
So this is you …
So this is you admitting that you cant find anyone who belived in faith alone, even at the end of the 1st century. Even by those who heard the gospel from the apostles.
Hmm, dont you find that strange?
mikevoter said:
Any one who trusted …
Any one who trusted Christ alone for salvation is a true follower of Apostolic teaching. What good is it to claim to be a successor to the Apostles and yet not believe their most fundimental teachings regarding salvation? You must know Catholics who are such in name only; can such be true believers in Christ? Yes, the same situation on my side. So can name or position save a soul from sin? “Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin. ” True Christian faith beging here ..
TheManGadoosh said:
Apostolic …
Apostolic succession”
Ok, were was this Church of believers who were the successors to the apostles at the end of the 1st century?
And can you show me anyone for the 1st 500yrs who believed in faith alone?
These should show if your Church has apostolic succession. Name anyone post apostolic please. This should suffice for your claim of Apostolic succession. Surely there must be someone who you claim as one of your own from the 1st 300yrs at least ?
mikevoter said:
My denomination is …
My denomination is the true church. We followed the Apostles teaching individually as well as collectively. this is true “Apostolic sucession. We preached and believed that Christ rose from the dead, thus validating His teaching in all things as well as satisfying once and for all, God’s righteous wrath against sin. Now each believer is indwelt by the Holy Spirit forever and is himself a priest and a king before God. We believe that faith alone justifies, Christ alone is able to sanctify satisfy
TheManGadoosh said:
“The doctirne of …
“The doctirne of Christ is basic”
If its that basic, then why is there 1000s of denomintaions?
Can you show anyone for the first 500yrs in Christianity who believes in exactly what your denomination believes in?
Or can you show me anyone within the first 500yrs of Christianity who arrived at the truth you have using the bible alone?
mikevoter said:
“If doctrine …
“If doctrine matters not a jot to God?”‘
Huh? The doctrine of Christ is basic. Believing in Christ’s death and ressurection for ones personal salvation is the first and most important truth. Other truths follow but never supplant that one truth. All untruth is antichrist whether intentional or purposeful. Catholics often think being a member of the RCC ensures salvation. It does not. That’s why I’m here.
TheManGadoosh said:
If doctrine matters …
If doctrine matters not a jot to God? Then please tell me why you are coming onto Catholic videos preaching?
mikevoter said:
Why limit caution …
Why limit caution to the Protestants’ teachings? Surely you don’t believe that every Catholic teacher has it right? Tthere are on going doctrinal divides in the RCC and much error..
The problem of who is correct is settled by believing the scriptures. There are major errors that everyone should be aware of and avoid and there are lesser ones to worked on. Receiving truth does not require any gift as our new nature enables us to Hear God’s Word.
Peter made errors as he learned God’s Word.
mikevoter said:
“complete …
“complete disagreement” is over stating the case. Those who trust Christ as the Son of God who died in our place are saved. 1 John 5:11,12. Those who don’t believe are lost. Denomination makes no difference in either case. However, it is possible to be a Christian and believe other, less important things correctly or incorrectly. Otherwise, why teach at all? Being a Catholic or a Baptist does not save anyone. Christ alone saves. We all have the Apostles’ teaching written down to guide us.
sulkow82 said:
@mikevoter Does …
@mikevoter Does every Christian have the Spirit of Christ residing within?
Yes, you are correct here. However, Paul also tells us that not everyone gets all gifts. Not everyone gets the gift of teaching or prophesy. With Protestantism, you have ti be especially careful. Everyone cam seemingly set themselves up as “Pope” (interpreting scripture for others) The problem is telling who is telling who set up an “independent Church” because they have the gift of teaching or out of pride.
TheManGadoosh said:
This does not …
This does not preclude human teachers but all Christians are to compare spiritual with spiritual. That means scripture with scripture to arrive at true conclusions.”"
Then the conclusion must be that going by the bible alone was not the intention of the Holy Spirit.
1000’s of Denominations all claiming to go by the bible alone and yet in complete disagreement with one another over what Scripture teaches.
Going by the bible alone renders the Holy Spirit the author of confusion.
TheManGadoosh said:
Pauls message is …
Pauls message is not all contained in the OT. If you believe it is then give me the verses from the OT that say Jesus had both a human and divine will that existed at the same time?
Note, not natures but wills, seperate, yet in union with one another.
mikevoter said:
Does every …
Does every Christian have the Spirit of Christ residing within? Yes. Col 1:27 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:
Thus every true believer is a new spiritual creaqture, able to receive the Word of God. This does not preclude human teachers but all Christians are to compare spiritual with spiritual. That means scripture with scripture to arrive at true conclusions.
mikevoter said:
The Gospel is not a …
The Gospel is not a new teaching. Church teaching is, but not the Gospel. Paul uses 2 OT characters in Romans 4 to demonstrate what true salvation is. He is teaching who? NT believers! Jesus said, “Abraham saw My day and He was glad.” So searching the OT to see if the Gospel is true would give affirmation to the seeker that it is indeed.
mikevoter said:
Thessalonicas …
Thessalonicas unbelieving Jews did not check scripture but trusted their traditions. Yet some Thessalonians did believe. We have 2 letters to prove it.
In Luke 24 Jesus shows That He is all through the OT. Paul’s oral teaching never contradicted scripture, old or new.
mikevoter said:
Act 17:4a And some …
Act 17:4a And some of them believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas; This precedes your verse and shows that some out of the Jews believed. Paul is comparing the Jewish listeners in Berea with the Jewish listeners in Thessalonica. The Bereans were more noble because they checked their OT Scriptures and found Pauls Gospel true. (more)
sulkow82 said:
@mikevoter But to …
@mikevoter But to limit Him to using only one man to interpert scripture is wrong.
A secular analogy: how long would our nation have lasted if everyone was issued a copy of the Constitution with the blessing “may the Spirit of George Washington guide you in interpreting what the founding fathers meant.” Our nation wouldn’t have lasted the year.
We need a designated voice to interpret the scripture. Just because someone says that they are guided by the HS doesn’t make it true.
TheManGadoosh said:
Paul was arguing …
Paul was arguing with Jews in Thessalonica.
Also, were the Bereans commended primarily for searching the Scriptures? No. Their open-minded willingness to listen was the primary reason they are referred to as noble-minded—not that they searched the Scriptures.
As I mentioned before, the Bereans searched the Torah no less than the Thessalonians BUT the Bereans were accepting new revelation that was not contained in their Scriptures.
NOW do you see?
TheManGadoosh said:
Heres one for you, …
Heres one for you, I suggest you read Acts. 17:19: “Now when they had passed through Amphipolis…..they came to Thessalonica, where there was a SYNAGOGUE OF THE JEWS………for three weeks he argued but the Thessalonions trusted the Scriptures alone, not Pauls Oral message”
The Bereans, on the other hand, were not adherents of sola scriptura, for they were willing to accept Pauls new oral teaching as the word of God (as Paul claimed his oral teaching was;1 Thess. 2:13)
mikevoter said:
I hope you both …
I hope you both will read my replies on that subject already posted on here. Thanks