Mary mother of God

[Wharton]

For centuries, catholics didn't take the wine. Only the "priest" did. I pray that has changed, considering that taking bread and wine are direct commands from Jesus to remember Him, and His sacrifice for us.

Who did the RCC think they were to deprive their followers from sharing the wine? This is an example of what Jesus was talking about when He said,

Their worship is a farce, for they teach man-made ideas as commands from God. Matthew 15:9

If there are enough Eucharistic ministers, then communion is offered under both species. However, you do not get more Jesus by receiving both. One is enough. You can receive either one or both. The end result is the same.

 

[Wharton]

We do not live under Old Testament Jewish laws. Jesus gave His teachings to His apostles, and His apostles and other inspired men gave us the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament. The RCC has created new doctrines, exchanging the teachings of Jesus and His apostles for their own invented doctrines.

The teaching method is not an Old Testament Jewish law. It's called rabbi/talmidim. It is just a teaching method used by Jesus and the Apostles.

 

[katiemygirl]

Correct. Cardinals make the election of the pope universal as it is the prerogative of the clergy of Rome to elect their bishop who is also the pope. If there were no cardinals from all over the world, the election of the pope would not be by the universal church, it would be limited to the clergy of the diocese of Rome

There is no clergy of Rome in the Bible, nor are there cardinals or popes in the Bible. Jesus hates the doctrines of men.

 

[kepha31]

Either you misunderstand the New Testament church structure or you have intentionally twisted what I wrote. I am not an elder/bishop/pastor, nor have I ever claimed to be. If a MAN (women do not qualify) is an elder in a congregation, it is because he desired the office. In the NT church, a plurality of elders were appointed by the apostles to oversee the congregation if they met certain qualifications.

Yes, that's called succession.

One of those qualifications was that the men had to be MARRIED. (RCC priests are not married).

Wrong and wrong. Widowed bishops could not remarry. Celibacy is NOT a doctrine, it is a discipline, and there are some married priests in the Latin rite. Most of them are Protestant ministers who have come home.
1 Tim. 3:2 - Paul instructs that bishops must be married only once. Many Protestants use this verse to prove that the Church's celibacy law is in error. But they are mistaken because this verse refers to bishops that were widowers. Paul is instructing that these widowers could not remarry. The verse also refers to those bishops who were currently married. They also could not remarry (in the Catholic Church's Eastern rite, priests are allowed to marry; celibacy is only a disciplinary rule for the clergy of the Roman rite). Therefore, this text has nothing to do with imposing a marriage requirement on becoming a bishop.

Once the apostles died off, and elders needed to be replaced, a congregation would have appointed new elders,

Elders (priests) were never appointed by the congregation. Only in Protestantism can a potential minister be "hired" by a board of directors, essentially a lesser authority than the one they hire, which makes little sense. Furthermore, there is not one instance in the NT where any priest or bishop is appointed by the congregation. The office of bishop, priest or deacon is CONFERED by the laying on of hands by other bishops. There are dozens of scriptures confirming this.

again, based on qualifications laid down by the Holy Spirit in the word of God. Paul's letters were being circulated to all the congregations in the first century, so they were well aware of the qualifications of elders.

That is a half truth. True, the elders had to be virtuous, but they got their training via oral tradition, not entirely from Paul's letters. There was no Bible at the time and few people could read. Paul's letters were generally accepted by 130 A.D., and quotes from them as scripture are very rare. Hebrews was not universally accepted as scripture until the 4rth century.

Every member of each congregation was a priest, including the elders and deacons. Elders had authority over the congregation insomuch as the word of God allowed. They were not to go beyond what was written, teaching their own doctrine.

The Bible came from the Church, a church did not come from the bible.

As far as apostolic succession goes, nowhere in Scripture did Jesus, the apostles, or any other New Testament writer set forth the idea of apostolic succession. We have been given one example, and that was Matthias replacing Judas, a godly man for an ungodly one. Notice that Matthias had to have certain qualifications, one being that he had been with Jesus from the beginning and was an eye witness to all that happened. No one today meets these qualifications. The concept of apostolic succession is not found in the Bible.

Yes, it is in the Bible, and I have posted them repeatedly. You just ignore my posts and repeat the same idiocy.

What is found in Scripture is that the true church will teach what the Scriptures teach and will compare all doctrines and practices to Scripture in order to determine what is true and right. The RCC does not do this.

The RCC gave you your Bible.

If you're calling the mass "a sacrifice," then you are killing Jesus over and over again, regardless of what time frame you put it in. All Jesus ever asked us to do is to remember Him by taking the bread and wine. He didn't ask us to repeat the sacrifice over and over, which is what the RCC does when it claims to change the bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus. What began as a simple memorial to Jesus, the catholic church has turned into a pagan ritual.

I don't know if this is hate speech or profound ignorance on your part.

For centuries, catholics didn't take the wine. Only the "priest" did. I pray that has changed, considering that taking bread and wine are direct commands from Jesus to remember Him, and His sacrifice for us.

This proves you ignore my posts. You came up with the same LIE in post #79 here. Either you have a reading comprehension problem or you are too proud to take correction. I answered your LIE in post #80 here, and here you are repeating the same LIE. This is habitual with you.

 

[katiemygirl]

If there are enough Eucharistic ministers, then communion is offered under both species. However, you do not get more Jesus by receiving both. One is enough. You can receive either one or both. The end result is the same.

Regardless of the reasons, the RCC is in direct opposition with what Jesus said to do. There is no good excuse for disobedience. It's not a matter of getting more or less of Jesus. It's a matter of doing what He said to do. Don't you realize how important it is to do what Jesus says? Doesn't this bother you?

Luke 6:46
`And why do ye call me, Lord, Lord, and do not what I say?

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Matt. 7:21

If ye love me, keep my commandments. John 14:15

 

[katiemygirl]

Yes, that's called succession.

Wrong and wrong. Widowed bishops could not remarry. Celibacy is NOT a doctrine, it is a discipline, and there are some married priests in the Latin rite. Most of them are Protestant ministers who have come home.
1 Tim. 3:2 - Paul instructs that bishops must be married only once. Many Protestants use this verse to prove that the Church's celibacy law is in error. But they are mistaken because this verse refers to bishops that were widowers. Paul is instructing that these widowers could not remarry. The verse also refers to those bishops who were currently married. They also could not remarry (in the Catholic Church's Eastern rite, priests are allowed to marry; celibacy is only a disciplinary rule for the clergy of the Roman rite). Therefore, this text has nothing to do with imposing a marriage requirement on becoming a bishop.
Elders (priests) were never appointed by the congregation. Only in Protestantism can a potential minister be "hired" by a board of directors, essentially a lesser authority than the one they hire, which makes little sense. Furthermore, there is not one instance in the NT where any priest or bishop is appointed by the congregation. The office of bishop, priest or deacon is CONFERED by the laying on of hands by other bishops. There are dozens of scriptures confirming this.

That is a half truth. True, the elders had to be virtuous, but they got their training via oral tradition, not entirely from Paul's letters. There was no Bible at the time and few people could read. Paul's letters were generally accepted by 130 A.D., and quotes from them as scripture are very rare. Hebrews was not universally accepted as scripture until the 4rth century.


The Bible came from the Church, a church did not come from the bible.


Yes, it is in the Bible, and I have posted them repeatedly. You just ignore my posts and repeat the same idiocy.

The RCC gave you your Bible.


I don't know if this is hate speech or profound ignorance on your part.


This proves you ignore my posts. You came up with the same LIE in post #79 here. Either you have a reading comprehension problem or you are too proud to take correction. I answered your LIE in post #80 here, and here you are repeating the same LIE. This is habitual with you.

You're calling me a liar? Sorry, but I can no longer respond to you.

 

[Wharton]

Regardless of the reasons, the RCC is in direct opposition with what Jesus said to do. There is no good excuse for disobedience. It's not a matter of getting more or less of Jesus. It's a matter of doing what He said to do. Don't you realize how important it is to do what Jesus says? Doesn't this bother you?

So do you believe it is the body and blood of Christ or just a symbol/emblem? If it is just a symbol or emblem, then it really doesn't matter whether you receive both or not. The bread and wine have no value. They're just bread and wine that you can take or leave.

 

[katiemygirl]

Although I am not Protestant, I thank God for men like Luther who saw with his own eyes the apostasy of the RCC. He may not have had it all 100% correct, but at least he tried to get back to the Scriptures and away from the false teachings of the catholic church. I believe God will reward Luther for his efforts.

There isn't a day that goes by when I don't thank God for instilling in me a desire for His truth. It has been my practice to search the Scriptures for whatever is being said to be sure it lines up with God's word. Never again will I be caught up in the lies of Satan that come from doctrines of men.

 

[lovemuffin]

Katie: what church do you belong to, if I might ask?

kepha: It might be more accurate to say the early church created the Bible than to say the RCC did. The latter is a bit anachronistic

 

[kjv4me2you]

Yes, that's called succession.

Wrong and wrong. Widowed bishops could not remarry. Celibacy is NOT a doctrine, it is a discipline, and there are some married priests in the Latin rite. Most of them are Protestant ministers who have come home.
1 Tim. 3:2 - Paul instructs that bishops must be married only once. Many Protestants use this verse to prove that the Church's celibacy law is in error. But they are mistaken because this verse refers to bishops that were widowers. Paul is instructing that these widowers could not remarry. The verse also refers to those bishops who were currently married. They also could not remarry (in the Catholic Church's Eastern rite, priests are allowed to marry; celibacy is only a disciplinary rule for the clergy of the Roman rite). Therefore, this text has nothing to do with imposing a marriage requirement on becoming a bishop.
Elders (priests) were never appointed by the congregation. Only in Protestantism can a potential minister be "hired" by a board of directors, essentially a lesser authority than the one they hire, which makes little sense. Furthermore, there is not one instance in the NT where any priest or bishop is appointed by the congregation. The office of bishop, priest or deacon is CONFERED by the laying on of hands by other bishops. There are dozens of scriptures confirming this.

That is a half truth. True, the elders had to be virtuous, but they got their training via oral tradition, not entirely from Paul's letters. There was no Bible at the time and few people could read. Paul's letters were generally accepted by 130 A.D., and quotes from them as scripture are very rare. Hebrews was not universally accepted as scripture until the 4rth century.


The Bible came from the Church, a church did not come from the bible.


Yes, it is in the Bible, and I have posted them repeatedly. You just ignore my posts and repeat the same idiocy.

The RCC gave you your Bible.


I don't know if this is hate speech or profound ignorance on your part.


This proves you ignore my posts. You came up with the same LIE in post #79 here. Either you have a reading comprehension problem or you are too proud to take correction. I answered your LIE in post #80 here, and here you are repeating the same LIE. This is habitual with you.

The rcc did not give the Bible to anyone. YHWH-YaH gave His Book to the Hebrews.

YHWH-YaH WROTE HIS BOOK
When YHWH-YaH delivered Israel out of Pharaoh's bondage, that is when YHWH began to give the Israel of God the volume of His BOOK and this continued until Revelation that completed the volume of YHWH-YaH's BOOK.

(Heb 10:7 KJV) Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.

Exo 32:31 KJV) And Moses returned unto YHWH-YaH, and said, Oh, this people have sinned a great sin, and have made them gods of gold.

(Exo 32:32 KJV) Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin--; and if not, blot me ( Moses) , I pray thee, out of THY BOOK which thou hast written.
(Exo 32:33 KJV) And YHWH-YaH said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of MY BOOK.

(Exo 32:34 KJV) Therefore now go, lead the people unto the place of which I have spoken unto thee: behold, mine Angel shall go before thee: nevertheless in the day when I visit I will visit their sin upon them.

(Exo 24:12 KJV) And YHWH-YaH said unto Moses, Come up to me into the mount, and be there: and I will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and commandments WHICH I HAVE WRITTEN; that thou mayest teach them.

(Isa 34:16 KJV) Seek ye out of the book of YHWH-YaH, and read: no one of these shall fail, none shall want her mate: for my mouth it hath commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered them.

(Jer 15:16 KJV) Thy ( YHWH-YaH's ) words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, O YHWH-YaH Elohim of hosts.

willyah

 

[katiemygirl]

So do you believe it is the body and blood of Christ or just a symbol/emblem? If it is just a symbol or emblem, then it really doesn't matter whether you receive both or not. The bread and wine have no value. They're just bread and wine that you can take or leave.

Jesus commanded we take the bread and wine BOTH. Who are you to say it doesn't matter if someone believes the bread and wine are emblems, that it won't have any value? I see nothing in the Scriptures about a priest being given some sort of power to change bread and wine to the body and blood of Jesus. Book, chapter, verse please. All I know is Jesus said "Do this in memory of Me." I do what Jesus said to do. I partake of both.

 

[katiemygirl]

Katie: what church do you belong to, if I might ask?

kepha: It might be more accurate to say the early church created the Bible than to say the RCC did. The latter is a bit anachronistic

Hi WN, I am a member of the Lord's church. I am not affiliated with any denomination.

 

[Wharton]

Katie: what church do you belong to, if I might ask?

kepha: It might be more accurate to say the early church created the Bible than to say the RCC did. The latter is a bit anachronistic

St Ignatius uses the term Catholic Church in 110AD, long before the bible was complied.

8 Flee from schism as the source of mischief. You should all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ did the Father. Follow, too, the presbytery as you would the apostles; and respect the deacons as you would God’s law. Nobody must do anything that has to do with the Church without the bishop’s approval. You should regard that Eucharist as valid which is celebrated either by the bishop or by someone he authorizes. Where the bishop is present, there let the congregation gather, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. Without the bishop’s supervision, no baptisms or love feasts are permitted. On the other hand, whatever he approves pleases God as well. In that way everything you do will be on the safe side and valid.

 

[lovemuffin]

Katie Is that the name of an organization? I understand the distinction between the idea of the Church as something beyond human institutions but I'm specifically asking what religious organization you belong to, if any. Basically since you said you were not protestant, I was curious if you belong to some particular group.

edit: either I suck at reading or you edited your post after I read it. nevermind

 

[lovemuffin]

Wharton: I wasn't objecting to "Catholic", but to "Roman". Catholic just means universal, or literally according to the whole. The eastern orthodox churches also consider themselves the "catholic" church. But the point is the early ecumenical councils which formalized the canon were neither called nor presided over by the Bishop of Rome, so it's a bit anachronistic to say that the roman church gave us the Bible. The roman church participated with the other regional churches in the process of canonization.

 

[Wharton]

Jesus commanded we take the bread and wine BOTH. Who are you to say it doesn't matter if someone believes the bread and wine are emblems, that it won't have any value? I see nothing in the Scriptures about a priest being given some sort of power to change bread and wine to the body and blood of Jesus. Book, chapter, verse please. All I know is Jesus said "Do this in memory of Me." I do what Jesus said to do. I partake of both.

You belong to no denomination? So as I said before, you are your own self-made bishop as you head your own 'church.' I drink bread and wine when I go out to eat. Am I doing what Jesus told me to do or is there something else involved?

BTW, Jesus is high priest. What was he doing at the Last Supper?

 

[Wharton]

Wharton: I wasn't objecting to "Catholic", but to "Roman". Catholic just means universal, or literally according to the whole. The eastern orthodox churches also consider themselves the "catholic" church. But the point is the early ecumenical councils which formalized the canon were neither called nor presided over by the Bishop of Rome, so it's a bit anachronistic to say that the roman church gave us the Bible. The roman church participated with the other regional churches in the process of canonization.

Roman Catholic is a derogatory term used by the Anglicans after the break. It was not in use back then so there was no Roman Catholic Church. Just Catholic Church. The term RCC is confusing as it should be Catholic Church, Roman/Latin rite.

 

[lovemuffin]

It sounds like you are agreeing with me

fwiw I don't consider "roman catholic" derogatory. My wife and her whole family is catholic. So I didn't intend anything like that and I'm sorry if it seemed I did, I'm just being a pedant about church history.

 

[kjv4me2you]

A reminder of the original thread. Mary the Mother of God

The false doctrine of Mary the mother of God a trinity.

I know this is not going to go over well with the rc's but these are sincere thoughts on my part and should not be considered hatred for any rc person.

The false doctrine of Mary the mother of God a trinity contradicts the word of God.

The words "Mary mother of God" are not in any verse of scripture; therefore they cannot be every word of God that is purified seven times ( Psa 12:6-7) .

YHWH-YaH Elohim is a Spirit. YHWH-YaH has no beginning or end. He always was and always will be; therefore YHWH-YaH has no mother Mary.

No scripture verse shows any apostles praying a rosary to Mary nor do any believers in scripture pray a rosary to Mary.
.
No scriptures declare YHWH-YaH God in heaven or on earth declaring to Mary "you are my beloved mother."

No scriptures declare the Holy Spirit saying "this is my beloved wife".

ACCORDING TO THE FALSE DOCTRINE OF TRINITY
If Mary was the mother of God the Father, and the mother of God the Son Jesus, and the mother of God the holy spirit that impregnated Mary making her the wife-mother of God.

If Mary and God the Holy Spirit were not married then it would be considered by God as adultery.

For Mary to be the mother of God means Mary had to exist before God existed and it means Mary formed- created God so that God could create Adam and Eve.

Do you think Mary mothered the Father God and the Son God and the Holy Ghost God? If not, which God do you think Mary mothered as the mother of God Or do you think Mary mothered all three?

What would you think of a mother who tells her son that he is her husband, her son and his own father.

If God the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary that makes Mary the wife of God the holy spirit, but not the wife of the Father God nor the wife of God her Son.

Also if Mary birthed God ( the Father ) by God ( the Holy Spirit who impregnated Mary ) that would make Mary the mother of God the Father and the wife of God the Holy Spirit and then again when Christ is born Mary becomes the mother of God the Son: thereby making Mary twice a mother of God and once the wife of God the Holy Spirit.The last mention of Mary in scripture is (Acts 1:14 KJV) These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.

Mary is called mother of Jesus by Luke. Luke would have gotten the term " mother of Jesus" from Paul or from the churches of Judaea. (Gal 1:22 KJV) And ( I Saul/Paul) was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ:

The apostle Paul wrote 13 epistles and never calls Mary the mother of God neither do any of the other apostles.

willyah

 

[Wharton]

It sounds like you are agreeing with me

fwiw I don't consider "roman catholic" derogatory. My wife and her whole family is catholic. So I didn't intend anything like that and I'm sorry if it seemed I did, I'm just being a pedant about church history.

I am agreeing with you.

I like churches that have a sign out front that says Catholic Church. The ones that state Roman Catholic Church are just plain wrong. As a Catholic, you can worship validly and licitly in any Catholic rite church.