An Open Invitation to Civil Discussion

[God's Truth]

Teachings about Mary

Catholic Popes teach Catholics to elevate Mary. There is no such command in the Bible, nor are there any examples of such an act in the Bible. Mary would not want to be exalted in such a way. In fact, a woman in the crowd called out, “Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you.” Jesus replied, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.” See Luke 11:27-28. Does that sound like Jesus wanted Mary exalted to the level that the Catholic Church has exalted her? No. Someone told Jesus, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to see you.” Jesus replied, “My mother and brothers are those who hear God’s word and put it into practice.” See Luke 8:20-21. Does it sound like Jesus wants us to elevate and worship his mother? No!

Jesus did not come to this world to be a husband, or a father, or a son to Mary. Jesus came to this world to save us. When Jesus was on the cross, Jesus called Mary “woman,” and gave her to one of his disciples.

John 19:26 When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, “Dear woman, here is your son,”

Catholics believe Mary never had sexual intercourse with her husband Joseph. However, Joseph and Mary promised each other to get married, and this planned marriage was before Mary and Joseph knew that Mary was carrying the Son of God. If Mary had plans to marry a man…surely she had in mind to have a marriage bed.

Matthew 1:19 Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law, and yet did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.


Mary having, or not having, sexual relations with her husband, after the birth of Jesus; this has no effect on our salvation. However, what does hurt one’s salvation is making up, and, or believing in things that are not God’s Word.

 

[God's Truth]

One more for the night.

 

[God's Truth]

Real Blood and Body in the wafer

Here are scriptures to show that there is not real presence in the bread and wine. John 6:60-64. Catholics believe that the priest can turn wafers into Jesus’ real body. A special box holds these wafers, the supposed body of Christ. There is even a service called Adoration, whereas parishioners can come to church, sit, and pray near the box of wafers, that box that they believe has the real body of Jesus. Catholics believe they can turn wine into the blood of Jesus. Jesus died once—on the cross, and the blood of Jesus shed once—on the cross. Jesus is not in a wafer. No one is turning the wafer into the body of Christ. No one is turning wine into Jesus’ blood.

Catholics believe that the Lord’s Supper is a sacrifice, a sacrifice every Mass where the priest turns the wafers into Jesus’ body. Catholics believe they are experiencing a miracle when the priest does this. No wonder Catholic teachings are that missing a Mass is sin. However, read what the word of God says. The word of God tells us that Jesus is the Sacrificial Lamb. In the Old Testament day after day every priest performs his religious duties again and again, offering the same sacrifices. However, when Jesus offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, see Hebrews 10:12. Did you hear that? Jesus offered for ALL time ONE SACRIFICE for sins. Jesus is not in a wafer, he is at the right hand of the Father.

By one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy, see Hebrews 10:14. By “one sacrifice,” not a daily or weekly sacrifice of turning the wafers into the body of Christ, over and over again, by many priests all over the world.

We have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all, see Hebrews 10:10. How hard is that for anyone to understand that we have been made holy THROUGH the BODY of Jesus Christ ONCE for all?

Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence. Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself, see Hebrews 9:24-26. Jesus has appeared ONCE for ALL, not again and again in a wafer.

 

[jsanford108]

The word hail Mary has been used constantly in your mass prayer. I have seen it tons of times.

The Hail Mary is not in Mass prayers.

This would expose your claim of seeing it "tons of times" completely false.

Nope, not according to Jesus. He made it clear that His followers are His mother, sister or brothers.

This is your response to my claim of "Mary is the greatest of human saints."

Did Jesus ever mention who was greatest among the saints? He certainly mentioned who was least (Matthew 11:11).

My proof of Mary being greatest is that she is the Mother of Christ. Does any other human have such a position in all of history or heaven?

That's your own adding reasoning, not biblical.

For better analysis, let us review my claim which you are trying to refute as "not biblical."

Speaking in regard to Mary: "She played an integral part in the salvific plan of God/Christ. Is this 'elevation' above others? Sure. But that was God's doing, not man's. Is it making Mary equal to Christ? No; unless you consider being an heir with Christ, 'equal.'"

"She played an integral part in the salvific plan of God/Christ:" This is obviously biblical. Luke 1:26-38 clearly demonstrates this. Mary gave birth to the Christ. That is integral to God's plan of salvation. If Mary had not given birth to Christ, then Christ would not have been the Word Incarnate. Now, if you do not believe that Christ is God Incarnate, then there is no point in further discussions of Mary, Catholicism, or any other doctrinal disagreements; for we do not agree on Christ, who is the epicenter of all Christian doctrine.

"Is this 'elevation' above others? Sure. But that was God's doing, not man's.:" Again, refer to Luke 1, to see that God chose Mary to bring Christ into the world. Thus, God chose Mary, and created her in such as fashion, as to play this integral role. Therefore, basic intellect and analysis can lead one to see that God elevated Mary above other humans, since he chose her to be the mother of Himself.

"Is this making Mary equal to Christ? No; unless you consider being an heir with Christ, 'equal.':" Basic common Bible sense. Surely no one disagrees with this.

In closing, one can clearly see that your claims regarding knowledge of Catholicism are falsehoods, or misinformed at best. And, you seem to project ideas of addition to Scripture upon claims, regardless of accuracy or truth.

On another note:

whatever happened to this thread?

Calm down. I have a life outside of TOL. And especially since I am not being paid to educate/discuss/debate on TOL, then it is not a priority in my life. So, immediate, or even daily responses, should not be expected.

 

[jsanford108]

I will try and address each of your posts individually. If it gets to be too much, or too confusing, then I will compact them into a single response post. I apologize for the delay in my response.

As to your inquiry about positing more claims; go ahead. I just may not respond to them all at once. And if I forget, or overlook one, please feel free to bring it to my attention. I will do my best to address each one to the best of my knowledge.

We are only talking about the scriptures and spiritual things.

There are things revealed in Scripture that are not explicitly stated. And there are spiritually good things, not found in Scripture. Such as celebrating and remembering Christmas. No where are we called to celebrate and remember Christmas, yet we should both agree that is a good, spiritual calling for Christians.

Likewise, there are infallible facts not stated in Scripture, yet evidenced outside of Scripture. Such as the election of George Washington. We both know this is an infallible fact. My whole purpose of mentioning presidential election is to demonstrate that just because a fact is not found in the Bible, that does not negate its factual, infallible nature.

Sure, we are discussing spiritual things and doctrine; yet to immediately ignore or dismiss evidence outside of Scripture is ignoring and dismissing truth and reality.

There is not an apostolic succession from Peter to the Catholic’s current pope; and, even if it were true, it is against the scriptures.

That was my purpose of explaining Apostolic Succession, which you failed to see the point. So, allow me to explain a little more clearly, if I can.

As we agree, Apostolic Succession is the continued succession of Church leaders, leading back to Peter. All Apostolic Succession is, is that each Pope was ordained as priest/Pope, in a continuous line leading back to the original Apostles.

Now, you claim this is not the case. What evidence do you have to support this claim? As for me, there are documents which trace each Pope's ordination back to the original Apostles. Hence, there is proof for Apostolic Succession. An easy example is that Pope Clement I was ordained by St. Peter, one of the Twelve. There is a document which contains the list of Apostolic Successors, called Annuario Pontificio.

As for biblical evidence, Acts and the Letters to Timothy are full of references to ordination, laying on of hands, etc as means of making one a priest. Then, the charges given to them are to go out and to preach that which they have heard/been taught. (Acts 6, 13, 14. 1 Timothy 1, 4, 5. And 2 Timothy 1, just to name a few chapters; examples abound)

This goes back to my claim that Apostolic Succession is a Tradition, evidenced in the Bible, yet supported by historical evidence. So, historical evidence negates your posit of Apostolic Succession being a "manufactured belief." Biblical evidence negates it being a "manufactured belief." And Tradition (being something handed down and taught by the Apostles) negates it being a "manufactured belief."

So, when you claim that Apostolic Succession is not biblical, that is false. There is biblical evidence of ordination of priests by the Apostles. But, if you wish to argue that the Tradition is not biblical, that is fine. Yet, this Tradition is supported by historical evidence. However, to make the claim that "even if it were true, it is against the scriptures," is completely false; as there is no Scripture against this Tradition, as well as evidence in Scripture that supports this idea of succession.

That is right; and, it proves that the Catholics claiming succession from Peter is against the teachings of God....

But you are lacking the ‘not of Cephas’ part. You do know that Cephas is Peter, and it is Peter the Catholics say they are of.

I am keenly aware that Cephas is Peter. Yet, that does not negate in any form or capacity, Apostolic Succession.

All the saved are priests.
We are not to call our brothers in Christ ‘father’.

Correct. As Christians, we are all called to be ministers of the Word, as witnesses. Agreed.

Yet, do you not see the paradox of saying "calling a priest 'Father' is wrong," when you call an educator of children "teacher?" This is hypocritical. The same can be said for "master." So, if you can explain why calling a teacher "teacher" is okay, yet calling a priest "father" is not, despite there being no difference between those two verses in Scripture, then I am open to hearing it.

Except that Jesus says not to.

Is Jesus negating God's commandments, since God commanded us to honor our father and mother? In fact, given that context, Jesus says not to call anyone on earth by the title “Rabbi,” “Father,” or “teacher,” in the sense of arrogating to oneself an authority which rests with God and of forgetting the responsibility of the title.

In fact, Jesus Himself used the title “father” for several characters in His parables: In the parable of the rich man and the beggar, Lazarus, the rich man, cries out from the depths of Hell, “Father Abraham, have pity on me,” and the usage of the title “father” occurs three times (Luke 16:19-31). One has to wonder: if Jesus prohibited the use of the title “father,” why does He instruct the people with a parable in which the characters use the title? To do so seems to be contradictory and actually misleading to the audience. The same is true in the parable of the Prodigal Son: The young prodigal son, upon his return, says, “Father, I have sinned against God and against you” (Luke 15:11-32). Given the way our Lord used the title “father” in so many teachings, including when repeating the fourth commandment, our Lord did not intend to prohibit calling a father by the title “father”; rather, He prohibited misusing the title.

 

[jsanford108]

Confession to a Priest

Catholics teach that we must confess to a priest. In fact, if a Catholic sins a certain offensive sin and does not confess to a priest before death, then according to the Catholics, the person does not get to go to heaven with Jesus. In the Old Testament, the Jews went to a priest to confess their sins; the priest was behind a curtain, where the sinner could not cross. However, when Jesus died on the cross, the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. Through Jesus, we are reconciled to God. We go directly to God when we sin. We ask God to forgive us in the name of Jesus. Jesus intercedes for us, Romans 8:34. Jesus is our high priest. See Hebrews 2:17; 3:1; 4:14,15; 5:10; 6:20; 7:26,27, 28; 8:1; 9:7, 11, 25.

Matthew 27:51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split.

Infant baptism is not biblical

Acts 2:38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

An infant cannot repent. Many denominations perform infant baptisms. The way to salvation changes by infant baptism, it is not biblical. Catholics perform infant baptisms; they preach this falseness, which is a damaging blow to those needing the truth, those who want Jesus to save them.

Many Catholics try to use Matthew 19:13-14 to support their false doctrine of infant baptism.

13 Then little children were brought to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray for them. But the disciples rebuked those who brought them.
14 Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” 15 When he had placed his hands on them, he went on from there.

If the disciples were baptizing infants, as the Catholics claim, why do you think the disciples rebuked the people who brought the little children?
And, why did Jesus place his hands on them but not have his disciples baptize them?
The kingdom of heaven belongs to little children such as the ones brought to him.

Matthew 19:14 Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” 15When he had placed his hands on them, he went on from there.

Matthew 18:3 And he said: "Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

John 9:41 Jesus said, "If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains.

You see, infant baptism is not biblical. In fact, infant baptism goes against the Word of God.

Forbidding marrying

Catholics forbid their Nuns, Priests, Cardinals, Bishops, and Popes not to marry. The word of God tells us those teachings are teachings taught by demons. In addition, the Catholics teach to abstain from meat on Good Friday that is not from the scriptures.

1 Timothy 4:1 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2 Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3 They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth.

Catholic Traditions

When Popes add teachings to the Bible, they call this man-made teachings “Tradition.”

The Bible says the foundation was laid by the Apostles, and the Prophets, and Jesus Christ as the chief cornerstone. See Ephesians 2:20. No Pope or Bishops can add to God’s word. The foundation has been laid.

When the Apostles taught the Gospel, God also testified to what they said, God testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will. See Hebrews 2:4; Galatians 3:4-6; 2 Corinthians 12:12; Romans 15:19; Acts 19:11; Acts 8:13; Acts 2:22.

When the Popes add teachings to the Christian beliefs that are not in the Bible…there are no signs and miracles from God to testify to the validity of those teachings. Furthermore, the teachings Popes add to the Bible, they contradict God’s word. The oral Tradition of the Catholics is not biblical, and it is against the Word of God.

Peter and the other apostles said: “We must obey God rather than men! (See Acts 5:29)

See what Jesus say about tradition from men.
Matthew 15:3 Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?

Matthew 15:6 he is not to ‘honor his father ‘with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.

Mark 7:8 You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men.”

Mark 7:9 And he said to them: “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!

Mark 7:13 Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”

Praying to Mary and the “Saints”

Catholics teach us to pray to Mary and the other “Saints”. However, there is only one Mediator between God and man, and that is Jesus, 1 Timothy 2:5.

It is wrong to pray to Mary. It is wrong to say the Rosary. Catholics even teach that we should pray to Saints, but we are not to pray to Saints. We can ask others to pray for us, but we are not to pray to others.

Catholics pray to Mary and ask her to go to Jesus with their request. They also do this with the Catholic saints.

When a person is saved…they have Jesus living inside them. They are reconciled to God.
Let us then approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need. Hebrews 4:16.

In him and through faith in him we may approach God with freedom and confidence. Ephesians 3:12.

Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died–more than that, who was raised to life–is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us. Romans 8:34.

And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints in accordance with God’s will. Romans 8:27.

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

For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 1 Timothy 2:5.

We do NOT go through Mary and Saints to get to Jesus and God! I hope you really do carefully consider these scriptures.

Teachings about Mary

Catholic Popes teach Catholics to elevate Mary. There is no such command in the Bible, nor are there any examples of such an act in the Bible. Mary would not want to be exalted in such a way. In fact, a woman in the crowd called out, “Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you.” Jesus replied, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.” See Luke 11:27-28. Does that sound like Jesus wanted Mary exalted to the level that the Catholic Church has exalted her? No. Someone told Jesus, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to see you.” Jesus replied, “My mother and brothers are those who hear God’s word and put it into practice.” See Luke 8:20-21. Does it sound like Jesus wants us to elevate and worship his mother? No!

Jesus did not come to this world to be a husband, or a father, or a son to Mary. Jesus came to this world to save us. When Jesus was on the cross, Jesus called Mary “woman,” and gave her to one of his disciples.

John 19:26 When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, “Dear woman, here is your son,”

Catholics believe Mary never had sexual intercourse with her husband Joseph. However, Joseph and Mary promised each other to get married, and this planned marriage was before Mary and Joseph knew that Mary was carrying the Son of God. If Mary had plans to marry a man…surely she had in mind to have a marriage bed.

Matthew 1:19 Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law, and yet did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.


Mary having, or not having, sexual relations with her husband, after the birth of Jesus; this has no effect on our salvation. However, what does hurt one’s salvation is making up, and, or believing in things that are not God’s Word.

Real Blood and Body in the wafer

Here are scriptures to show that there is not real presence in the bread and wine. John 6:60-64. Catholics believe that the priest can turn wafers into Jesus’ real body. A special box holds these wafers, the supposed body of Christ. There is even a service called Adoration, whereas parishioners can come to church, sit, and pray near the box of wafers, that box that they believe has the real body of Jesus. Catholics believe they can turn wine into the blood of Jesus. Jesus died once—on the cross, and the blood of Jesus shed once—on the cross. Jesus is not in a wafer. No one is turning the wafer into the body of Christ. No one is turning wine into Jesus’ blood.

Catholics believe that the Lord’s Supper is a sacrifice, a sacrifice every Mass where the priest turns the wafers into Jesus’ body. Catholics believe they are experiencing a miracle when the priest does this. No wonder Catholic teachings are that missing a Mass is sin. However, read what the word of God says. The word of God tells us that Jesus is the Sacrificial Lamb. In the Old Testament day after day every priest performs his religious duties again and again, offering the same sacrifices. However, when Jesus offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, see Hebrews 10:12. Did you hear that? Jesus offered for ALL time ONE SACRIFICE for sins. Jesus is not in a wafer, he is at the right hand of the Father.

By one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy, see Hebrews 10:14. By “one sacrifice,” not a daily or weekly sacrifice of turning the wafers into the body of Christ, over and over again, by many priests all over the world.

We have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all, see Hebrews 10:10. How hard is that for anyone to understand that we have been made holy THROUGH the BODY of Jesus Christ ONCE for all?

Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence. Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself, see Hebrews 9:24-26. Jesus has appeared ONCE for ALL, not again and again in a wafer.

This is quite a bit. I will do my best to reply to these later.

I do thank you for engaging in this conversation and discussion.

 

[jsanford108]

I can't tell you how much I love talking about God's Truth.

I assume you don't mean yourself.

Just kidding.

I always enjoy discussing God's divine revelations, Scriptures, etc. We are called to grow in the knowledge of Him. I think discussions such as ours allow us to fulfill this Christian calling.

 

[God's Truth]

I will try and address each of your posts individually. If it gets to be too much, or too confusing, then I will compact them into a single response post. I apologize for the delay in my response.

As to your inquiry about positing more claims; go ahead. I just may not respond to them all at once. And if I forget, or overlook one, please feel free to bring it to my attention. I will do my best to address each one to the best of my knowledge.

Okay, thank you.

There are things revealed in Scripture that are not explicitly stated. And there are spiritually good things, not found in Scripture. Such as celebrating and remembering Christmas.
No where are we called to celebrate and remember Christmas, yet we should both agree that is a good, spiritual calling for Christians.

As for Christmas, it is a celebration for the Lord and the Bible does in fact speak of celebrating special days to the Lord and it is okay. However, you say it is a calling. It is not a calling.

Likewise, there are infallible facts not stated in Scripture, yet evidenced outside of Scripture. Such as the election of George Washington. We both know this is an infallible fact. My whole purpose of mentioning presidential election is to demonstrate that just because a fact is not found in the Bible, that does not negate its factual, infallible nature.

Again, I want to only speak about what is spiritual. It is good to not confuse what is earthy and what is spiritual. Is it spiritual to elect a man to lead who has Christian values? It is. However, George Washington is not in the Bible and I do not want to discuss him.

Sure, we are discussing spiritual things and doctrine; yet to immediately ignore or dismiss evidence outside of Scripture is ignoring and dismissing truth and reality.

Again, you must know that it has to line up with the truth. We cannot add things to the Bible what George Washington says, just because he was elected President.

That was my purpose of explaining Apostolic Succession, which you failed to see the point. So, allow me to explain a little more clearly, if I can.

As we agree, Apostolic Succession is the continued succession of Church leaders, leading back to Peter. All Apostolic Succession is, is that each Pope was ordained as priest/Pope, in a continuous line leading back to the original Apostles.

No.
Apostolic Succession is saying, “I am of Cephas”.

That is against the Word of God to say and do such a thing.

Now, you claim this is not the case. What evidence do you have to support this claim? As for me, there are documents which trace each Pope's ordination back to the original Apostles. Hence, there is proof for Apostolic Succession. An easy example is that Pope Clement I was ordained by St. Peter, one of the Twelve. There is a document which contains the list of Apostolic Successors, called Annuario Pontificio.

I gave scriptures which plainly say not to say, “I am of Cephas”.
Cephas is Peter.
The Catholics say they are of the Apostolic line from Peter.

So, when you claim that Apostolic Succession is not biblical, that is false. There is biblical evidence of ordination of priests by the Apostles. But, if you wish to argue that the Tradition is not biblical, that is fine. Yet, this Tradition is supported by historical evidence. However, to make the claim that "even if it were true, it is against the scriptures," is completely false; as there is no Scripture against this Tradition, as well as evidence in Scripture that supports this idea of succession.

I have scriptures that say not to say the thing the Catholics say.
If you don’t go by the scriptures, then what are you going by?

I am keenly aware that Cephas is Peter. Yet, that does not negate in any form or capacity, Apostolic Succession.

So then, either the Catholics do, or they do not say they are of Peter.
You tell me. Do they say that? I know they do, and it is wrong of them.

 

[God's Truth]

I assume you don't mean yourself.

Just kidding.

Have you ever heard the saying that there is truth said in jest? lol

I only want God's Truth.

When my mom was dying and the Catholic priest came to give her last rite, it is that day I began my search for God's Truth and not man's truth.

Do I think I am speaking God's Truth? Of course, I think I am; what do you think you are speaking, Satan's lies? No, of course you do not think that.

I always enjoy discussing God's divine revelations, Scriptures, etc. We are called to grow in the knowledge of Him. I think discussions such as ours allow us to fulfill this Christian calling.

I cannot tell you how much I enjoy speaking about the things of God. I am glad to have these discussions with you.

 

[meshak]

The Hail Mary is not in Mass prayers.

This would expose your claim of seeing it "tons of times" completely false.

So you don't say "hail Mary" in your prayers?

My proof of Mary being greatest is that she is the Mother of Christ. Does any other human have such a position in all of history or heaven?

So you dismiss what Jesus sayd "My mother, sister and brothers are who follow Him"?

On another note: Calm down. I have a life outside of TOL. And especially since I am not being paid to educate/discuss/debate on TOL, then it is not a priority in my life. So, immediate, or even daily responses, should not be expected.

Sorry, I though you forgot about this thread. that's all.

thanks.

 

[God's Truth]

Correct. As Christians, we are all called to be ministers of the Word, as witnesses. Agreed.

Yet, do you not see the paradox of saying "calling a priest 'Father' is wrong," when you call an educator of children "teacher?" This is hypocritical.

No way is it hypocritical. A teacher to children isn’t calling a BROTHER IN CHRIST ‘THE Teacher’

Even a teacher to adults is not calling that person ‘The Teacher’.

The same can be said for "master." So, if you can explain why calling a teacher "teacher" is okay, yet calling a priest "father" is not, despite there being no difference between those two verses in Scripture, then I am open to hearing it.

If I teach you something about Jesus, or vice versa, then does that give you or me the title of ‘The Teacher’? No, it does not. We are not to call our brothers in Christ ‘father’. Jesus says not to do it.

In fact, Jesus Himself used the title “father” for several characters in His parables: In the parable of the rich man and the beggar, Lazarus, the rich man, cries out from the depths of Hell, “Father Abraham, have pity on me,” and the usage of the title “father” occurs three times (Luke 16:19-31).

Abraham was not around during the laying of the foundation. Abraham is not one of the brothers in Christ Jesus was speaking to. If you try to use Abraham in such a way it is just wrong.

One has to wonder: if Jesus prohibited the use of the title “father,” why does He instruct the people with a parable in which the characters use the title? To do so seems to be contradictory and actually misleading to the audience. The same is true in the parable of the Prodigal Son: The young prodigal son, upon his return, says, “Father, I have sinned against God and against you” (Luke 15:11-32). Given the way our Lord used the title “father” in so many teachings, including when repeating the fourth commandment, our Lord did not intend to prohibit calling a father by the title “father”; rather, He prohibited misusing the title.

It is not against Jesus’ teachings to call a biological man a ‘father’.
Abraham was the BIOLOIGICAL ‘father’ of the Jews.
Your earthly father is your biological father, and is mine to me.
That has nothing to do with what Jesus said.
Don’t call your brother in Christ ‘father’.
If you want to obey Jesus than that is what you should obey, because he says call no man ‘father’, and it is about what is SPIRITUAL.

 

[God's Truth]

Abraham was literally the BIOLOGICAL father of the Jews.

You saying Jesus called Abraham 'father' is NO excuse to call the Catholic priests 'father'.

The Catholic priests are not biologically related to us; and, it is against what Jesus says if anyone calls them 'father'.

 

[God's Truth]

This is quite a bit. I will do my best to reply to these later.

I do thank you for engaging in this conversation and discussion.

Thank you, sincerely.

 

[jsanford108]

So you don't say "hail Mary" in your prayers?

The Hail Mary is not a part of the liturgy of the Mass.

So you dismiss what Jesus sayd "My mother, sister and brothers are who follow Him"?

I have not dismissed anything that Jesus said.

 

[meshak]

The Hail Mary is not a part of the liturgy of the Mass.

Most of what they say included Mary's name. It was repetitious.

I have not dismissed anything that Jesus said.

I know that's what you say but I disagree.

Jesus said John the baptizer was the greatest man on earth. He did not say Mary is.

 

[jsanford108]

As for Christmas, it is a celebration for the Lord and the Bible does in fact speak of celebrating special days to the Lord and it is okay. However, you say it is a calling. It is not a calling.

Right. We agree on celebrating Christmas, but it is not explicitly stated to do so in Scripture.

So, by celebrating Christmas, you are embracing a Tradition.

No.
Apostolic Succession is saying, “I am of Cephas”.

That is against the Word of God to say and do such a thing.

False. Apostolic Succession is not saying "I am of Cephas;" it is highlighting a line of succession which leads back to Cephas. Catholics do not follow Peter, which is what Paul was expressly speaking of. Saying "I am of the line of Peter" is vastly different than "following Peter."

I have scriptures that say not to say the thing the Catholics say.
If you don’t go by the scriptures, then what are you going by?

This is also false. You are making claims that I say things, which I have not, nor do I ever, state. I will highlight this below.

So then, either the Catholics do, or they do not say they are of Peter.
You tell me. Do they say that? I know they do, and it is wrong of them.

Now, here you are claiming to know that Catholics make a claim. This implies that, despite evidence that I provide, you are going to immediately refute it, because you "know." This is not being open to logic and evidence.

For the record, Catholics do not say "they are of Peter," as I highlighted the difference between this phrase and what Apostolic Succession is. "Of the line" is different from a strict devotional following of. You are misapplying what Paul states to Apostolic Succession.

No way is it hypocritical. A teacher to children isn’t calling a BROTHER IN CHRIST ‘THE Teacher’

Even a teacher to adults is not calling that person ‘The Teacher’.

Catholics don't address a priest as "THE Father." So, you entire premise, utilizing the verse from Matthew is void, if it is built on the premise that you just disclosed.

If I teach you something about Jesus, or vice versa, then does that give you or me the title of ‘The Teacher’? No, it does not. We are not to call our brothers in Christ ‘father’. Jesus says not to do it.

Again, if you taught something about anything, that makes you a "teacher." If you are a priest, that makes you a "father." Neither title gives authority over another person.

Abraham was not around during the laying of the foundation. Abraham is not one of the brothers in Christ Jesus was speaking to. If you try to use Abraham in such a way it is just wrong.

It is not against Jesus’ teachings to call a biological man a ‘father’.
Abraham was the BIOLOIGICAL ‘father’ of the Jews.
Your earthly father is your biological father, and is mine to me.
That has nothing to do with what Jesus said.
Don’t call your brother in Christ ‘father’.

Where do you find this biblical clarification of "biological father" as an exception to the rule?

It would appear that you are adding a clarification that is not found contextually within the Scriptures. You did say "Again, you must know that it has to line up with the truth. We cannot add things to the Bible what George Washington says, just because he was elected President." Here, by adding the clarification of "biological," you are adding extra-biblical clarification.

Abraham was literally the BIOLOGICAL father of the Jews.

You saying Jesus called Abraham 'father' is NO excuse to call the Catholic priests 'father'.

The Catholic priests are not biologically related to us; and, it is against what Jesus says if anyone calls them 'father'.

Hebrews in the time of Christ called Abraham "the Father of Our Faith." Thus, when Jesus says "Father Abraham," the Jews would have understood that title not to apply to biological contribution, but as a spiritual leader of their faith. Again, look at the passage I provided: In the parable of the rich man and the beggar, Lazarus, the rich man, cries out from the depths of Hell, “Father Abraham, have pity on me,” and the usage of the title “father” occurs three times (Luke 16:19-31). The man is not a biological son of Abraham. He is addressing Abraham in the Hebrew context of spiritual leader.

Again, you are making clarifications not found within the Scriptures. You are ignorant of context (which is fine; I was at one time, as well), or you are deliberately ignoring clarifications make within Scripture, that I have highlighted. Logically, your claim cannot stand given the evidence and clarifications that you have made.

 

[jsanford108]

Most of what they say included Mary's name. It was repetitious.

Any evidence of this?

Because, this is blatantly false. Mary is mentioned at most two times in Mass: First, in the Nicene Creed, when mentioning the conception of Christ. Second, in the Liturgy of the Eucharist, some priests mention her along with the other deceased saints.

I know that's what you say but I disagree.

Jesus said John the baptizer was the greatest man on earth. He did not say Mary is.

You can disagree. That is fine. But you are wrong.

I haven't dismissed anything. I said that Mary is the greatest of human saints, due to her integral role in God's plan of salvation for humanity. You have no proof to refute this.

Jesus did say that John the Baptist was greater than others, yet that he is the least of those in heaven. There is no mention of Mary in that verse. So, you fail to make any point with this particular passage. This passage does not refute anything I have said about Mary, nor does it support anything I have stated about Mary.

 

[God's Truth]

Right. We agree on celebrating Christmas, but it is not explicitly stated to do so in Scripture.

You are wrong because the Bible says plainly that we can if we want.

So, by celebrating Christmas, you are embracing a Tradition.

The traditions of men are those who preach to obey certain man made things. That is what the Catholics do. Again, celebrating Christmas or not is not a tradition one must follow.

 

[God's Truth]

False. Apostolic Succession is not saying "I am of Cephas;" it is highlighting a line of succession which leads back to Cephas. Catholics do not follow Peter, which is what Paul was expressly speaking of. Saying "I am of the line of Peter" is vastly different than "following Peter."

Your mere denial is no defense of the truth.
The Catholics do say they follow Peter.

 

[God's Truth]

This is also false. You are making claims that I say things, which I have not, nor do I ever, state. I will highlight this below.

I said, “I have scriptures that say not to say the things the Catholics say.
If you don’t go by the scriptures, then what are you going by?”

Catholics don't address a priest as "THE Father." So, you entire premise, utilizing the verse from Matthew is void, if it is built on the premise that you just disclosed.

Where did I say they call the priests “THE Father” ? You are now changing what I said. Be more careful in what you say I said, okay? The Catholics call their brothers ‘father’. Jesus says NOT to do that. Jesus also says not to call each other ‘Master’, and ‘Rabbi’.

Again, if you taught something about anything, that makes you a "teacher." If you are a priest, that makes you a "father." Neither title gives authority over another person.

If I teach someone, it does NOT make me the ‘father’, or the ‘Rabbi’, or the ‘Master’, or ‘The Teacher’.

Where do you find this biblical clarification of "biological father" as an exception to the rule?

Jesus was not telling biological children not to call their fathers ‘father’. Abraham is the biological father of the Jews.
Jesus is speaking about SPIRITUAL things.

It would appear that you are adding a clarification that is not found contextually within the Scriptures. You did say "Again, you must know that it has to line up with the truth. We cannot add things to the Bible what George Washington says, just because he was elected President." Here, by adding the clarification of "biological," you are adding extra-biblical clarification.

You are the one who is trying to disqualify the calling of our earthly fathers ‘father’.
Jesus is speaking of Spiritual things and we are not to call our spiritual brothers in Christ ‘father’.

Hebrews in the time of Christ called Abraham "the Father of Our Faith." Thus, when Jesus says "Father Abraham," the Jews would have understood that title not to apply to biological contribution, but as a spiritual leader of their faith. Again, look at the passage I provided: In the parable of the rich man and the beggar, Lazarus, the rich man, cries out from the depths of Hell, “Father Abraham, have pity on me,” and the usage of the title “father” occurs three times (Luke 16:19-31). The man is not a biological son of Abraham. He is addressing Abraham in the Hebrew context of spiritual leader.

Of course the man is a biological descendant of Abraham.
You don’t know that the Jews are blood related to Abraham?

Again, you are making clarifications not found within the Scriptures. You are ignorant of context (which is fine; I was at one time, as well), or you are deliberately ignoring clarifications make within Scripture, that I have highlighted. Logically, your claim cannot stand given the evidence and clarifications that you have made.

You are wrong and hopefully you will study it more and come back to tell me you were wrong and that you now get it.