Catholic Heresy (for the record)
- Thread starter RoboOp
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
tomorrow I will have the exact scriptures that prove the Mary mentioned here is not the mother of Jesus. It really opened my eyes to the role the Blessed Mary plays and continues to play. I don't have it memorized, but I do have notes and i will post them for you, even though I know you and valient will rip them apart. I will post them show that the Mary in the mentioned verse is a relative and not the mother of Jesus
Last edited:
True, but upon reading the aforementioned chapter...it appears that Jesus's "Brethren" and His mother were not among the "relatives" who claimed Him to be insane. Also, we see nothing of any avarice or malice in Jesus's mother's actions here. All we are told is that she is outside and sent someone inside to tell Him they were looking for Him.
There is no Scriptural evidence that these "relatives" of Jesus are the same people as His "brothers", because specifically two separate words are used to describe each party involved.
I leave it at that.
There is no Scriptural evidence that these "relatives" of Jesus are the same people as His "brothers", because specifically two separate words are used to describe each party involved.
I leave it at that.
I'm not surprised that you leave it at that. I have never read such deliberate twisting of Scripture in all my life.
When in the same context we are told that Jesus' family heard about how the crowds were gathering to Him and went to lay hold on Him, saying 'He is beside Himself' and then immediately we are told that Jesus was informed that His mother and brothers were outside (why didn't they come in?) and wanting to speak with Him, with the consequence that He REPUDIATED them, any intelligent person would connect the two.
But then you will no doubt say to me, 'no one who is intelligent would be a Roman Catholic'. I agree with that.
When in the same context we are told that Jesus' family heard about how the crowds were gathering to Him and went to lay hold on Him, saying 'He is beside Himself' and then immediately we are told that Jesus was informed that His mother and brothers were outside (why didn't they come in?) and wanting to speak with Him, with the consequence that He REPUDIATED them, any intelligent person would connect the two.
But then you will no doubt say to me, 'no one who is intelligent would be a Roman Catholic'. I agree with that.
I am not surprised you don't look deeper. If you did you would discover how wrong you were.
For those who find it difficult to understand context I will explain simply the situation with regard to Mark 3.20-34 which, as can be seen, is one integral passage:
3.20 And the crowd comes together again, so that they could not so much as eat bread.
21 And when those who were close to him heard it, they went out to lay hold on him, for they said, He is beside himself.
22 And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem said, 'He has Beelzebub', and, 'By the prince of the demons he casts out the demons.
23-26 And he called them to him, and said to them in parables, 'How can Satan cast out Satan? And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. And if a house be divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand. And if Satan has risen up against himself, and is divided, he cannot stand, but has an end.
27 But no one can enter into the house of the strong man, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man; and then he will spoil his house.
28-30 Truly I say to you, All their sins will be forgiven to the sons of men, and their blasphemies with which they will blaspheme, but whoever will blaspheme against the Holy Spirit will never have forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin' (because they said, He has an unclean spirit).
31 And there come his mother and his brothers, and, standing outside they sent to him, calling him.
32 And a great crowd was sitting about him, and they say to him, Look, your mother and your brothers who are outside are looking for you.'
33 And he answers them, and says, 'Who is my mother and my brothers?'
34 And looking round on those who sat round about him, he says, 'Behold, my mother and my brothers! For whoever will do the will of God, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.'
The aim of the passage is to show the reaction of two kinds of people to the fact that great crowds have come to hear Him, firstly His own family, and then the Scribes from Jerusalem..
A The crowds gather to hear Him (seeking to know the will of God) (3.20)
B Those who are close to Him go out to lay hold of Him, thinking that he is mad (3.21).
C The Scribes from Jerusalem come down and accuse Him of being in league with Satan (3.22).
C' Jesus rebuffs the Jerusalem scribes in no uncertain way (3.23-30).
B' Jesus is informed that His mother and brothers (His close relatives) want to see Him, and rebuffs His mother and His brothers in no uncertain way (3.31-33).
A' Jesus acknowledges those who do the will of God as His mother, sisters and brothers (3.34).
Note the chiastic formation popular with Jewish writers. A links with A', B links with B', C links with C'. The whole passage is a unity.
It is clear from this that Mark wishes us to connect those who are close to Him in B with His mother and brothers in B'. Indeed, why else should He rebuff them and replace them with those who are listening to His words?
It is quite clear that far from 'honouring' Mary, He puts her squarely in her place as NOT being one of those who are seeking the Father's will through Him. Anyone who refuses to see this is simply closing his eyes to the truth (a favourite pastime of Roman Catholics in trying to defend the indefensible).
For those who find it difficult to understand context I will explain simply the situation with regard to Mark 3.20-34 which, as can be seen, is one integral passage:
3.20 And the crowd comes together again, so that they could not so much as eat bread.
21 And when those who were close to him heard it, they went out to lay hold on him, for they said, He is beside himself.
22 And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem said, 'He has Beelzebub', and, 'By the prince of the demons he casts out the demons.
23-26 And he called them to him, and said to them in parables, 'How can Satan cast out Satan? And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. And if a house be divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand. And if Satan has risen up against himself, and is divided, he cannot stand, but has an end.
27 But no one can enter into the house of the strong man, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man; and then he will spoil his house.
28-30 Truly I say to you, All their sins will be forgiven to the sons of men, and their blasphemies with which they will blaspheme, but whoever will blaspheme against the Holy Spirit will never have forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin' (because they said, He has an unclean spirit).
31 And there come his mother and his brothers, and, standing outside they sent to him, calling him.
32 And a great crowd was sitting about him, and they say to him, Look, your mother and your brothers who are outside are looking for you.'
33 And he answers them, and says, 'Who is my mother and my brothers?'
34 And looking round on those who sat round about him, he says, 'Behold, my mother and my brothers! For whoever will do the will of God, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.'
The aim of the passage is to show the reaction of two kinds of people to the fact that great crowds have come to hear Him, firstly His own family, and then the Scribes from Jerusalem..
A The crowds gather to hear Him (seeking to know the will of God) (3.20)
B Those who are close to Him go out to lay hold of Him, thinking that he is mad (3.21).
C The Scribes from Jerusalem come down and accuse Him of being in league with Satan (3.22).
C' Jesus rebuffs the Jerusalem scribes in no uncertain way (3.23-30).
B' Jesus is informed that His mother and brothers (His close relatives) want to see Him, and rebuffs His mother and His brothers in no uncertain way (3.31-33).
A' Jesus acknowledges those who do the will of God as His mother, sisters and brothers (3.34).
Note the chiastic formation popular with Jewish writers. A links with A', B links with B', C links with C'. The whole passage is a unity.
It is clear from this that Mark wishes us to connect those who are close to Him in B with His mother and brothers in B'. Indeed, why else should He rebuff them and replace them with those who are listening to His words?
It is quite clear that far from 'honouring' Mary, He puts her squarely in her place as NOT being one of those who are seeking the Father's will through Him. Anyone who refuses to see this is simply closing his eyes to the truth (a favourite pastime of Roman Catholics in trying to defend the indefensible).
Ok, I may not be the best person to give an opinion about this. I once was a catholic, then after seeing several things I did not agreed, I was down a path of almost being an atheist. However, the Lord had mercy on me and through the person I love the most on Earth (she was the tool He used to help me going to Him), I started to read and study the bible. So, I consider to be a Protestant (evangelical). Denomination, church is very important, but the most important thing is the Bible and our relation with Jesus!
What do I think about Catholic Church? It has many things wrong, that´s a fact; it seems that in many cases they go more for what the priest says and tradition and do not encourage Bible study (at least they didn´t do it with me). However, I believe that every denomination has men and women of God. In terms of salvation, only God knows.
Plus, Jesus, talking with the Samaritan woman said:
John 4:23-24
[SUP]23[/SUP] But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
[SUP]24[/SUP]God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
KJV
What do I think about Catholic Church? It has many things wrong, that´s a fact; it seems that in many cases they go more for what the priest says and tradition and do not encourage Bible study (at least they didn´t do it with me). However, I believe that every denomination has men and women of God. In terms of salvation, only God knows.
Plus, Jesus, talking with the Samaritan woman said:
John 4:23-24
[SUP]23[/SUP] But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
[SUP]24[/SUP]God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
KJV
C
Halo Catholic christian, I am christian, The old testament said not to worship statue.
Yes, it did indeed. It said that in Ex. 20:4–5, Ex. 32:31 and Deuteronomy 5:9.
Exodus 20:
[SUP]4[/SUP] Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
[SUP]5[/SUP] Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
[SUP]6[/SUP] And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
You assume that God was forbidding the use of images and statues in worship. You think that Catholics having statues of "anything that is in heaven or above" goes against God's commandments to us. You think that by "bowing to a statue" we worship them, and thus we are guilty of idolatry.
But if you search the Scriptures, five chapters after what you have just quoted, God says to make them: "And you shall make two cherubim of gold [i.e., two gold statues of angels]; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat. Make one cherub on the one end, and one cherub on the other end; of one piece of the mercy seat shall you make the cherubim on its two ends. The cherubim shall spread out their wings above, overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings, their faces one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim be" (Ex. 25:18–20).
Then in the book of Chronicles, David gave Solomon the plan "for the altar of incense made of refined gold, and its weight; also his plan for the golden chariot of the cherubim that spread their wings and covered the ark of the covenant of the Lord. All this he made clear by the writing of the hand of the Lord concerning it all, all the work to be done according to the plan" (1 Chr. 28:18–19). David’s plan for the temple, which the biblical author tells us was "by the writing of the hand of the Lord concerning it all," included statues of angels.
And Ezekiel describes graven (carved) images in the idealized temple he was shown in a vision, for he writes, "On the walls round about in the inner room and [on] the nave were carved likenesses of cherubim." (Ezekiel 41:17–18)
And during a plague of serpents sent to punish the Israelites during the exodus, God told Moses to "make [a statue of] a fiery serpent, and set it on a pole; and every one who is bitten, when he sees it shall live. So Moses made a bronze serpent, and set it on a pole; and if a serpent bit any man, he would look at the bronze serpent and live" (Num. 21:8–9).
One had to LOOK at the bronze statue of the serpent to be healed, which shows that statues could be used ritually, not merely as religious decorations.
"But what about Catholics BOWING to a statue?"
"Catholics use statues, paintings, and other artistic devices to recall the person or thing depicted. Just as it helps to remember one’s mother by looking at her photograph, so it helps to recall the example of the saints by looking at pictures of them. Catholics also use statues as teaching tools. In the early Church they were especially useful for the instruction of the illiterate. Many Protestants have pictures of Jesus and other Bible pictures in Sunday school for teaching children. Catholics also use statues to commemorate certain people and events, much as Protestant churches have three-dimensional nativity scenes at Christmas.
If one measured Protestants by the same rule, then by using these 'graven' images, they would be practicing the 'idolatry' of which they accuse Catholics. But there’s no idolatry going on in these situations. God forbids the worship of images as gods, but he doesn’t ban the making of images. If he had, religious movies, videos, photographs, paintings, and all similar things would be banned. But, as the case of the bronze serpent shows, God does not even forbid the ritual use of religious images.
It is when people begin to adore a statue as a god that the Lord becomes angry. Thus when people did start to worship the bronze serpent as a snake-god (whom they named 'Nehushtan'), the righteous king Hezekiah had it destroyed (2 Kgs. 18:4)." --- Catholic Answers
We use statues and images just like we hug, kiss, and talk to pictures and images of deceased loved ones or something that we wish to remember. We know, however, that a marble bust or carved wood cannot actually hear us, but neither can the glass frame or paper image of our grandparents. Images give us something to look at, and in the Catholic case, images help us pray. It puts our EYES in prayer, rather than just our voices. And obviously, God commanded this in Scripture. God bless!
To me this pope look like bow before the graven image, exactly oppose these verses
Yes, it did indeed. It said that in Ex. 20:4–5, Ex. 32:31 and Deuteronomy 5:9.
Exodus 20:
[SUP]4[/SUP] Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
[SUP]5[/SUP] Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
[SUP]6[/SUP] And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
You assume that God was forbidding the use of images and statues in worship. You think that Catholics having statues of "anything that is in heaven or above" goes against God's commandments to us. You think that by "bowing to a statue" we worship them, and thus we are guilty of idolatry.
But if you search the Scriptures, five chapters after what you have just quoted, God says to make them: "And you shall make two cherubim of gold [i.e., two gold statues of angels]; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat. Make one cherub on the one end, and one cherub on the other end; of one piece of the mercy seat shall you make the cherubim on its two ends. The cherubim shall spread out their wings above, overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings, their faces one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim be" (Ex. 25:18–20).
Then in the book of Chronicles, David gave Solomon the plan "for the altar of incense made of refined gold, and its weight; also his plan for the golden chariot of the cherubim that spread their wings and covered the ark of the covenant of the Lord. All this he made clear by the writing of the hand of the Lord concerning it all, all the work to be done according to the plan" (1 Chr. 28:18–19). David’s plan for the temple, which the biblical author tells us was "by the writing of the hand of the Lord concerning it all," included statues of angels.
And Ezekiel describes graven (carved) images in the idealized temple he was shown in a vision, for he writes, "On the walls round about in the inner room and [on] the nave were carved likenesses of cherubim." (Ezekiel 41:17–18)
And during a plague of serpents sent to punish the Israelites during the exodus, God told Moses to "make [a statue of] a fiery serpent, and set it on a pole; and every one who is bitten, when he sees it shall live. So Moses made a bronze serpent, and set it on a pole; and if a serpent bit any man, he would look at the bronze serpent and live" (Num. 21:8–9).
One had to LOOK at the bronze statue of the serpent to be healed, which shows that statues could be used ritually, not merely as religious decorations.
"But what about Catholics BOWING to a statue?"
"Catholics use statues, paintings, and other artistic devices to recall the person or thing depicted. Just as it helps to remember one’s mother by looking at her photograph, so it helps to recall the example of the saints by looking at pictures of them. Catholics also use statues as teaching tools. In the early Church they were especially useful for the instruction of the illiterate. Many Protestants have pictures of Jesus and other Bible pictures in Sunday school for teaching children. Catholics also use statues to commemorate certain people and events, much as Protestant churches have three-dimensional nativity scenes at Christmas.
If one measured Protestants by the same rule, then by using these 'graven' images, they would be practicing the 'idolatry' of which they accuse Catholics. But there’s no idolatry going on in these situations. God forbids the worship of images as gods, but he doesn’t ban the making of images. If he had, religious movies, videos, photographs, paintings, and all similar things would be banned. But, as the case of the bronze serpent shows, God does not even forbid the ritual use of religious images.
It is when people begin to adore a statue as a god that the Lord becomes angry. Thus when people did start to worship the bronze serpent as a snake-god (whom they named 'Nehushtan'), the righteous king Hezekiah had it destroyed (2 Kgs. 18:4)." --- Catholic Answers
We use statues and images just like we hug, kiss, and talk to pictures and images of deceased loved ones or something that we wish to remember. We know, however, that a marble bust or carved wood cannot actually hear us, but neither can the glass frame or paper image of our grandparents. Images give us something to look at, and in the Catholic case, images help us pray. It puts our EYES in prayer, rather than just our voices. And obviously, God commanded this in Scripture. God bless!
To me this pope look like bow before the graven image, exactly oppose these verses
To me these Israelites look like they're worshipping images. Exactly oppose God's commandment.
C
LOL I totally understand the difference between sanctified and made perfect as in without sin. But how does "kecharitomene" imply sanctification and not perfection and sinlessness?
I will quote, and please actually look at it:
"'Kecharitomene' is a perfect passive participle of "charitoo" [charitoo (verb) comes from the same Greek root of “charis” - which means “grace” and charitoó means to fill or endow with grace] or in other words: "Hail, one who has always been full of grace."
"Kecharitomene" is the perfect passive participle tense of the verb meaning "to fill with grace," Because it is in the perfect participle tense, it means that Mary was already filled with grace and there is no room for sin in her before the Annunciation, the implication being that she was the immaculate!"
You think that you can understand Greek better than scholars? This is not something that Catholics made up. This is factual, and I don't think that anyone who speaks Greek would agree with you in what you just said. I am not going to debate so much with you on this, because it is a waste of my time and yours. But if you are actually interested in learning about the Catholic teachings on Mary, and how it is ROOTED in Scripture, go to this webpage: http://prophecyfilm.blogspot.com/2015/03/the-bible-proves-teachings-of-catholic.html#virgin-mary
Thank you and God Bless!
I will quote, and please actually look at it:
"'Kecharitomene' is a perfect passive participle of "charitoo" [charitoo (verb) comes from the same Greek root of “charis” - which means “grace” and charitoó means to fill or endow with grace] or in other words: "Hail, one who has always been full of grace."
"Kecharitomene" is the perfect passive participle tense of the verb meaning "to fill with grace," Because it is in the perfect participle tense, it means that Mary was already filled with grace and there is no room for sin in her before the Annunciation, the implication being that she was the immaculate!"
You think that you can understand Greek better than scholars? This is not something that Catholics made up. This is factual, and I don't think that anyone who speaks Greek would agree with you in what you just said. I am not going to debate so much with you on this, because it is a waste of my time and yours. But if you are actually interested in learning about the Catholic teachings on Mary, and how it is ROOTED in Scripture, go to this webpage: http://prophecyfilm.blogspot.com/2015/03/the-bible-proves-teachings-of-catholic.html#virgin-mary
Thank you and God Bless!
C
LOL I totally understand the difference between sanctified and made perfect as in without sin. But how does "kecharitomene" imply sanctification and not perfection and sinlessness?
I will quote, and please actually look at it:
"'Kecharitomene' is a perfect passive participle of "charitoo" [charitoo (verb) comes from the same Greek root of “charis” - which means “grace” and charitoó means to fill or endow with grace] or in other words: "Hail, one who has always been full of grace."
"Kecharitomene" is the perfect passive participle tense of the verb meaning "to fill with grace," Because it is in the perfect participle tense, it means that Mary was already filled with grace and there is no room for sin in her before the Annunciation, the implication being that she was the immaculate!"
You think that you can understand Greek better than scholars? This is not something that Catholics made up. This is factual, and I don't think that anyone who speaks Greek would agree with you in what you just said. I am not going to debate so much with you on this, because it is a waste of my time and yours. But if you are actually interested in learning about the Catholic teachings on Mary, and how it is ROOTED in Scripture, go to this webpage: http://prophecyfilm.blogspot.com/2015/03/the-bible-proves-teachings-of-catholic.html#virgin-mary
Thank you and God Bless!
C
1) How the heck is losing Jesus in a crowded city during the feast of Passover a sin? Is it a sin when you accidentally misplace something?
2) When Mary and Joseph found Jesus, she "tried to put the blame on Jesus"? She said “Son, why have you done this to us? Your father and I have been looking for you with great anxiety.” They searched for him for 3 days! And did so tirelessly and "with great anxiety"! How is this a sin?
3) "When his relatives heard of this they set out to seize him, for they said, 'He is out of his mind'." Wouldn't his relatives be his cousins? Every time the Bible implies Mary, it singles her out as "His mother", not "relative". Since in Mark 3:31, it says "His mother and his brothers arrived. Standing outside they sent word to him and called him." The word brother in the New Testament (adelphos) was used to imply someone's cousin. And how is Mary calling Jesus a sin? "Interfering with His ministry"? You have NO IDEA what Mary wished to talk to Jesus about, and if Mary really wished to interfere with Jesus's ministry, I doubt she would have wanted Jesus to perform a miracle at the Wedding Feast at Cana, or said “yes” to being the mother of the Redeemer.
4) In Matthew 28:9, “upēntēsen” and “legōn” are the Greek words used to describe Jesus greeting the disciples. NOT “chaire”. “Chaire” was not used at all in that passage.
5) Luke 1:28 uses a special conjugated form of "charitoo." It uses "kecharitomene," while Ephesians 1:6 uses "echaritosen," which is a different form of the verb "charitoo." Echaritosen means "he graced (bestowed grace.) Echaritosen signifies a momentary action, an action brought to pass. (Blass and DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament, p.166.),
WHEREAS
“Kecharitomene”, the perfect passive participle, shows a completeness with a with permanent result. “Kecharitomene” denotes continuance of a completed action (H. W. Smyth, Greek Grammar (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968 ) 108-109, sec 1852:b) (Blass and DeBrunner p.175.)
I am glad that you think you know better than these people. “Kecharitomene” does not mean “highly favored”. It means exactly what I said it did.
I am not going to go back and forth and argue because it is a waste of both of our times. But if you really want to learn about how the Catholic teachings of Mary are ROOTED in Scripture, go to: Blogging: The Bible Proves the Teachings of the Catholic Church
2) When Mary and Joseph found Jesus, she "tried to put the blame on Jesus"? She said “Son, why have you done this to us? Your father and I have been looking for you with great anxiety.” They searched for him for 3 days! And did so tirelessly and "with great anxiety"! How is this a sin?
3) "When his relatives heard of this they set out to seize him, for they said, 'He is out of his mind'." Wouldn't his relatives be his cousins? Every time the Bible implies Mary, it singles her out as "His mother", not "relative". Since in Mark 3:31, it says "His mother and his brothers arrived. Standing outside they sent word to him and called him." The word brother in the New Testament (adelphos) was used to imply someone's cousin. And how is Mary calling Jesus a sin? "Interfering with His ministry"? You have NO IDEA what Mary wished to talk to Jesus about, and if Mary really wished to interfere with Jesus's ministry, I doubt she would have wanted Jesus to perform a miracle at the Wedding Feast at Cana, or said “yes” to being the mother of the Redeemer.
4) In Matthew 28:9, “upēntēsen” and “legōn” are the Greek words used to describe Jesus greeting the disciples. NOT “chaire”. “Chaire” was not used at all in that passage.
5) Luke 1:28 uses a special conjugated form of "charitoo." It uses "kecharitomene," while Ephesians 1:6 uses "echaritosen," which is a different form of the verb "charitoo." Echaritosen means "he graced (bestowed grace.) Echaritosen signifies a momentary action, an action brought to pass. (Blass and DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament, p.166.),
WHEREAS
“Kecharitomene”, the perfect passive participle, shows a completeness with a with permanent result. “Kecharitomene” denotes continuance of a completed action (H. W. Smyth, Greek Grammar (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968 ) 108-109, sec 1852:b) (Blass and DeBrunner p.175.)
I am glad that you think you know better than these people. “Kecharitomene” does not mean “highly favored”. It means exactly what I said it did.
I am not going to go back and forth and argue because it is a waste of both of our times. But if you really want to learn about how the Catholic teachings of Mary are ROOTED in Scripture, go to: Blogging: The Bible Proves the Teachings of the Catholic Church
Why I left the Roman Catholic church! (personal testimony)
(exposes the heresy (the rcc is heresy) )
(exposes the heresy (the rcc is heresy) )
To me these Israelites look like they're worshipping images. Exactly oppose God's commandment.
Neither are of course photographs. They are artist's representations, and in the first case undoubtedly incorrect. The ark was not intended to be open to public view.
All you have done is made a fool of yourself. YOUR Pope was literally bowing down to Mary and kneeling before her.
I see you are blind. They did not lose Jesus in crowded city, they set off back to Galilee without checking that He was with them and was safe. They had gone a whole day's journey before they realised what they had done. It was totally unacceptable. If they had done that in the UK social security would have been checking them out to see if they were suitable to be looking after children.
It was firstly a sin because they had so neglected Jesus that they had left Him to fend for Himself alone for four days. They should not have needed to be looking for Him for three days. Had they been looking after Him properly they would have checked on where He was the same day. It was a further sin in that Mary then blamed Jesus. 'Why have you done this to us?' It was humanly natural, she was upset. But it was NOT sinless. She and Joseph were to blame.
They had a family conference and that would include His mother and His brothers. Indeed as I have shown Mark makes this clear by his construction of the passage. His cousins, if He had any in Nazareth, would not have acted without consulting His mother and His blood brothers. 'they went out to lay hold of Him.' And then what happened? 'His mother and His brothers came to him and called to Him to come to them outside. Why? To lay hold of Him of course. Why do you think Jesus repudiated them?
It does nothing of the kind. That is simply speculation. Indeed it doesn't mention her very often (once she had borne Jesus she was not seen as of any importance). Clearly when speaking of her in an individual situation she is mentioned individually, as anyone would be. But that does not exclude her being mentioned as part of a group of kinsfolk.
So you are saying these ARE His relatives. So they ARE included in the description in verse21. Then we must ask, why would Mary have come with His cousins when they were coming to take Him? The answer is because she was in it with them. If she had been unwilling then Jesus would certainly have gone out to sort matter out. He repudiated both her and them because He knew their motives..
But in fact the natural reading is to see it as referring to blood brothers, as it does in other places as well.
The reason she was there was sinful. If her motive had not been sinful Jesus would have broken the commandment to honour His father and mother by not speaking with her. Are you imputing sin to Jesus in order to save Mary? Typical of Roman Catholics. Jesus clearly put her in her place. And that would have been inexcusable unless He had good reason.
Now you are simply becoming stupid. When she said yes to being His mother she did not foresee any problems. When she asked Him to deal with the wine problem (she did not ask for a miracle) it had nothing to do with His ministry as far as she was concerned. It was helping out a friend at a wedding.
But this case was different. She and His brothers and others in the family had become concerned because of the huge crowds gathering which could get Him into trouble with the Roman Authorities. They were also concerned about Scribes coming from Jerusalem to investigate Him. They feared He would find Himself in trouble. So they wanted to stop His ministry.
Are you using a Roman Catholic Greek text? Matt 28.9 says 'Jesus answered them saying, CHAIRETE (Hail)'. This is in all the standard Greek texts. Perhaps you can't read Greek???
You are so typical of Roman Catholics. You will twist or change anything if it doesn't suit you.
It is not a special conjugated form LOL It is simply a perfect passive participle. It is simply a variant usage to fit the context turning the verb into an adjectival noun.
But both are saying the same thing. They are referring to Mary and all believers as highly favoured. The use of participle or otherwise does not make any difference to the basic meaning. You are simply trying to deceive people. charitoo means to highly favour, show unmerited love and favour towards
Actually it means an action which is once for all and covers the whole of the future. It does NOT signify a momentary action. I am not interested in biased Roman Catholic grammars. I read the Greek. Nor does it mean 'bestowed grace'. It means 'acted in grace towards and upon'. 'Grace' is not a thing. it is indicating God's attitude and action.
It does NOT indicate a permanent result. That would require the aorist. It indicates a past activity continued to the present, that is, to the time when the angel spoke. It does not mean that she would be highly favoured (or anything else) from then on. You Roman Catholics have your own interpretations of Greek designed to say what you want them to say. They are not recognised by independent Greek scholars.
You may have noted that I cited Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich. They are LEADING AUTHORITIES on the meaning of Greek and cite both NT usage and usage in external sources. So yes they do know better than those people. They say that it means 'highly favoured' and that Mary was 'a highly favoured one at that time' (the meaning of the participle).
If you cite doubtful sources it certainly is a waste of time. I cite independent accepted scholarly sources. Roman Catholic teaching about Mary are not rooted in Scripture at all. They are the equivalent of fairy tales, speculations built on nothing.
Last edited:
It actually DOES signify being set apart (sanctified) by God in order that He might show high favour towards her. What IT DOES NOT signify is perfection and sinlessness.
You can quote from RC sources as much as you like. It will not change the facts. charitoo means to highly favour, show unmerited love and favour towards, act graciously towards (see Bauer Arndt and Gingrich Greek lexicon). The passive means to have high favour shown towards one. It is NEVER used to indicate 'fill or endow with grace'.
It is the perfect passive participle of the verb 'to highly favour'. It is also used of Christians in Eph 1.6 with the same meaning. It means 'one who has been shown high favour'.
What a wonderful imagination you Roman Catholics have LOL. The perfect passive participle does not change the essential meaning of the verb. It means 'a having been highly favoured one'. It gives NO implication of sinlessness and it certainly does not indicate that she was immaculate. It indicated that she was a humble sinner to who God had shown high favour.
well I AM a Greek scholar
And I cite the HIGHEST authorities.Of course it is.
well I for one agree that it means she was 'sanctified' by having high favour shown towards her. And Bauer Arndt and Gingrich agree.