How will we beat the modernists?

Also, Jesus doesn't rebuke her in a harsh tone. He calls her woman as in the woman prophesized in Genesis. Rebuking her in such a harsh manner would go agianst God's commandment honor thy father and mother.

By (dictionary (and all the understandings of prayer among early Christians)) definition prayer is a request. You would have no problem if I asked you to pray for me. (1 Timothy 2:1–4.) If we can use use so called Apocrypha, 2 Maccabees 12:39-45 demonstrates that it's a good thing to pray for the dead. Apocalypse 5:8/8:3-4 shows that the Saints in Heaven can hear our prayers.

Well the Rosary isn't a necklace. It's a devotional, a sort of supra-prayer consisting of 74 prayers, 53 of them being the Hail Mary which is derived from the Angelic Salutation. The so-called "necklace" isn't a necklace at all but a tool to help you keep track of the prayers you've said so far. It's a way of honoring Mary, something which Christians have been bound to do since Jesus told John "Son, behold your mother" on top of Calvary. This was the moment in which Mary was designated as the mother of Christendom, and of course the Fourth Commandment exhorts us to honor our mothers and fathers. There's nothing that explicitly says "pray the Rosary" in Scripture, but we can find an instruction to honor Mary, and the Rosary is an excellent way to follow that instruction.

And Genesis 3:15 (also called the "Proto-evangelium") says that the Blessed Virgin has perfect enmity with Satan, meaning, she was never affected by Satan's temptation/corruption (sin). Vatican exorcists have also said that demons can curse many names, but they can't curse the Blessed Virgin. It's also likely that instead of "he shall crush your head" it's actually "she shall crush your head" - Masoretic texts were corrupted (and even then, we have a few Masoretic texts that say "she"). Josephus, an ancient Jewish scholar, interpreted it as "she shall crush". Many early Jewish scholars did the same. It was likely only to discredit Christian texts that the Masoretic tradition changed it (and we know without a doubt the Masoretic texts are corrupt).

Attached: Madonna.jpg (640x939, 114.21K)

Who is "we"?

The only description we have of such is the sermon on the mount, Jesus never referred to David's kingdom as a prototype, in fact he declared himself Lord over David's kingdom.
In fact Jesus rebuked the scribes when they declared him as such
35 And while teaching in the temple, Jesus said in answer: "How is it that the scribes say that the Christ is the son of David?
36 For David himself said in the Holy Spirit: 'The Lord said to my Lord: Sit at my right hand, until I set your enemies as your footstool.'
They only referred to him as such because they didn't fully understand he was the Messiah, when Peter finally got the memo Jesus told him it was because the Father
had revealed it to him. The Father didn't tell Peter that Jesus was to be regarded as the son of David did he?

There has NEVER been anything stated in scripture about a Queen in heaven, and this isn't about the House of David, this about the House of the Lord. God declared Jesus to be on his right hand and made him ruler over all, there's nothing about Mary anywhere.
2 Timothy 3:16 -
'16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God[a] may be complete, equipped for every good work.'
There you go, unless you're saying God's word is insufficient and your traditions take priority then you've got nothing to say against the Bible as being sufficient
You're the one using man made tradition, you base your teachings off what the Saints said instead of what the Bible said, your church changes its doctrine constantly, from that of indulgences to pilgrimages. Your Pope has allowed sinners into the so called church and you people look at him as your leader, if you deny the Pope then you deny the authority of the Catholic doctrine making you a protestant.

Issue with that is that Apocrypha conflicts with what the Gospel says about souls being eternally damned after judgment, you can't pray or hope for the dead, Jesus never taught that.

He was talking to John, that's why the next verse immediately says that John took her home. Where on earth did you get that Jesus was telling John to make her the mother of Christendom? If Mary was important Jesus would've talked endlessly about her, but not only did he rebuke her, He denied her spiritually when His family came looking for him, claiming that his only brothers and sisters were those who followed the Father's will.

"I will put enmities between you and the woman, between your offspring and her offspring. She will crush your head, and you will lie in wait for her heel.""
How did you get Mary from this section? God was talking to Adam and Eve after the fall of man incident.

Jesus teaches that there are sins that can and cannot be forgiven in *this* age AND the age to come. (Mat 12:32.) Which implies another place before you can actually be with God in Heaven (Apocalypse 21 shows nothing unclean can enter Heaven), Corinthians 3:11-15 is a clear example of Purgatory.
It's the consensus of the Fathers (search up "Proto-evangelium"), and we can see a perfect parallel of it in Apocalypse 12. There is a woman, clothed in the sun, crowned (Mary) pregnant with Jesus (it says He will rule with a rod of iron, a reference to the Psalm 2:9 (and, as a symbol, the Church because without Mary there is no Church)). The dragon is clearly Satan, as not only does it explicitly say so, Michael is described as fighting him. So, in Apocalypse 12, there is a woman (the new Eve, Mary), her seed (the new Adam, Christ, Jesus–offspring is not an accurate translation), the Dragon (Satan, the serpent in the garden) and the enmity between them (the followers of her and her Son). Exactly like Genesis 3:15.

winnie the pooh what? Is this what Catholics actually believe?

Modernists are a dying breed of geriatric boomers at this point. It's postmodernism that you should be worried about (on the plus side, it actually gives an opening that modernism never did, by saying all viewpoints are valid).

Ironic **not really*

The last picture is like, a huge strawman, and contains serious philosophical and doctrinal errors. To talk of induction or deduction between man and God, for instance, would make either man the genus of God or God the genus of man, which are both absurd, if not heretical. Besides, theologians have reasoned about the relationship between man and God from facts of human experience for as long as theology has existed. This is the whole basis of the doctrine of natural rights, of "virtuous pagans", as well as the doctrines that God can be known from the light of natural reason, and of man's capacity for God ("The desire for God is written in the human heart, because man is created by God and for God", CC 27).

The sins that will be forgiven in the age to come are those that have been committed by genuine Christians who have been saved by the blood of our beloved Christ. Say a Christian commits suicide or gets murdered before confessing his sins to the Father, will the Father hold it against him? No. We cannot even be sure that we'll truly confess everything we know of and we might never experience the full guilt of how much we've wronged the Father, but He will not hold it against us and shall forgive us of everything in the age to come because of the blood of Christ Jesus. Therefore only the Father may do so, and it is in his own divine will.
Why are you taking verses out of context man, that clearly speaks of good works done after salvation, you should know this, you're a Catholic, your doctrine thrives on good works. There's NOTHING there about the existence of any structure between heaven and hell.
'11 For no one is able to lay any other foundation, in place of that which has been laid, which is Christ Jesus.
12 But if anyone builds upon this foundation, whether gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, or stubble,
13 each one's work shall be made manifest. For the day of the Lord shall declare it, because it will be revealed by fire. And this fire will test each one's work, as to what kind it is.
14 If anyone's work, which he has built upon it, remains, then he will receive a reward.
15 If anyone's work is burned up, he will suffer its loss, but he himself will still be saved, but only as through fire.
'

This is where your entire thesis falls apart, you're using allegories to justify the worship of Mary? This isn't even scriptural, you're symbolizing everything, you're jumping through many hoops of logic to justify this practice. The Bible never uses allegories unless it specifies it, the Bible never uses symbolizations. This paints God as estoric and mysterious, you're repeating the same mistakes the Agnostics made in the past and that's what doomed them. The Bible is straight forward on this.
"Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God." Philippians 4:6
"For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus," 1 Timothy 2:5
And finally, from the mouths of Jesus himself, AKA GOD.
"Pray then like this: “Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil." Matthew 6:9-13

Bam, nothing about Mary, not a single iota about any allegories or Queen intercession, nothing about Rosary.

"Therefore, do not choose to imitate them. For your Father knows what your needs may be, even before you ask him.
9 Therefore, you shall pray in this way: Our Father, who is in heaven: May your name be kept holy.
10 May your kingdom come. May your will be done, as in heaven, so also on earth.
11 Give us this day our life-sustaining bread.
12 And forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors.
13 And lead us not into temptation. But free us from evil. Amen."

That's from the Catholic Bible itself, with the Apocrypha and everything. Additionally, calling God father or abba was so intimate and personal that it was news to the apostles and the Jews, here was God breaking the barriers between himself and man so that he may become personal with them and like an actual Dad. Using Mary as an intercessor not only blasphemes this act but makes a mockery of what God sacrificed so you can get close to him, but you throw his work away because you'll rather trust the words of your fathers than the actual Christ.

But we're not saved through works, or faith alone, we're saved through grace. You can read in the Council of Trent where (explicitly) it anathematized the idea of "working" your way to Heaven.
Did you watch the video above? The Hail Mary has the same structure as the Our Father.
Hyperdulia is not latria. You do realize that any other interpretation (…and it's clearly Mary, because her child is obviously Jesus) for Apocalypse 12 didn't exist before Protestantism? All of Christendom was united on the idea that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant. Read the end of Apocalypse 11, Saint John says he sees the Ark of the Covenant, but we know that was lost - he's identifying Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant. If the Ark of the Covenant was the most holy object on Earth, how much more holy is the Ark of the New, perfected Covenant? This actually shows the remarkable continuity of the Bible, from Genesis (Proto-evangelium) to the Apocalypse. The Bible also doesn't say that we lose the ability to pray once we go to heaven, in fact, as I showed from the Apocalypse, saints in Heaven can pray for those on Earth. In Pslam 103 + 148, David prays to the Angels. I mean, the highest choir of Angels sings "Holy, Holy, Holy" (one for each person of the Holy Trinity - something that again shows the continuity between the OT and NT) in praise of God… so not every prayer has to even be like the Lord's Prayer.
…The Fathers come directly after the Apostles, some being taught by the apostles themselves. You're saying that the Church from the earliest of times fell into heresy. Read the Didache… and devotion to Mary comes from Apostolic times. Saint Luke painted a picture of the Virgin Mary, Saint Thomas took it all the way to India. And what of when Jesus says "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you."? You do know what happens right after that, many of His followers desert Him, and then He turns to His twelve, and says "will you also leave Me?" Meaning that a) He will not compromise on the Truth which means b) you must eat the flesh of the Son of Man to have life in you. It's the new Passover, and it makes perfect sense if the New Covenant is a perfection of the Old Covenant.

Right on the money here, it's Grace through Fail alone which produces works.
Doesn't matter if it's the same structure, what matters is if it's what Jesus commanded, one could make the same structure out of the Devil could he not? Does that corrupt the original prayer or justify the new one?
"Et le temple de Dieu dans le ciel fut ouvert, et l'arche de son alliance apparut dans son temple. Et il y eut des éclairs, des voix, des tonnerres, un tremblement de terre, et une forte grêle."
=
"And the temple of God in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant appeared in his temple. And there were lightnings, voices, thunderings, an earthquake, and a strong hail."
I must be blind because in nowhere here does John identify Mary as the new Covenant, Mary makes almost no appearance after the book of Acts and is never mentioned in Revelation/Apocalypse.
This was before Jesus came into the scene, once he arrived the new rules were set and solidified. And Jesus is God, so when God says here is how you pray do you say "Oh well God I mean our fathers had a different method in mind and one of your beloved had this other tactic so we're going to with him okay?"
Now obviously the Lord's Player is a template but the core elements of it must remain intact.

I could care less who the fathers claim to come from, Paul himself stated that it didn't matter the lineage of the person talking.
"4 For if one says, "Certainly, I am of Paul," while another says, "I am of Apollo," are you not men? But what is Apollo, and what is Paul?
5 We are only the ministers of him in whom you have believed, just as the Lord has granted to each of you."
The fathers have no authority over what scripture says, what Christ says is final and anything that takes away or contradicts it is heretical. A painting has no justification of authority, in fact that's a horrible example, you don't think they painted it because they just wanted to admire her, you think they painted it because she was meant to be a symbol of prayer?

Won't be the FIRST time the Catholic 'church' showed its true colors (indulgences, this entire Mary debacle, bloody Mary, high amounts of degeneracy amongst priests), won't be the first time the 'church' has been in trouble (Look at Galatians). Man can't be trusted, any person who claims authority should never be acknowledged, what matters is sound theology and truth.

Luke 22:19-20
"19 And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you."
I don't think I have to explain this, but all this does is justify communion, doesn't give the fathers any authority over scripture. Yes there is a New Covenant, and that is one with God made through Christ, and thank God for that because it means the fallen human race can be reconciled with the God of all creation.

Speaking of fathers how does the Catholic Church explain Matthew 23:9
"And do not choose to call anyone on earth your father. For One is your Father, who is in heaven."
Acquired from the Catholic bible itself.

Begome 🅱️abdisd

Attached: xBEsQMU.jpg (254x489, 25.57K)

Its either the truth (Catholic Church) or man made lies (heresy). There is no third position.

Repent, bible-idolater.

No thanks.

God commanded the Israelites to create and honor the Ark of the Covenant. The New Ark of the Covenant (Mary) contains a) God's Word, the second person of the Trinity Himself b) the true manna from Heaven c) the true high priest (Jesus). God literally was in her womb for 9 months - think about how holy that makes her.
You wishfully ignore the fact that there are no chapter breaks in the original NT, so, right after the end of Apocalypse 11, there is (without a chapter break) the following:
That is obviously Mary and Jesus. There was no other interpretation for thousands of years!
So, basically, the people who devoted their entire lives to interpreting Scripture and also spoke Latin and Greek, being closest to the Apostles, often martyred, were wrong, and the Holy Spirit let us misunderstand Scripture for 1500+ years?
Amen. There is also One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church, established with 7 visible sacraments, that assure us of what we're doing, unlike (for example) Calvinists who will claim that if you leave their faith you were never one of the elect in the first place… who are you to say so?
…What? Where does it say the Seraphim stopped or changed their chant? It's a vain repetition by protestant standards, but they are the highest of angels (Lucifer was likely one) and yet they honor God with a simple, repetitive prayer.
The problem is that there is zero evidence of Evangelicalism until the 17th century, if that. The Didache (70AD) makes it clear that affusion is a valid way to baptize and that at communion we receive the true Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus. And it's so explicit in Scripture… you ignore the Lord's clear words, and Paul's too (1 Corinthians 11:27-29).
Okay, now you're just trolling.

Does the term Bible idolater actually make sense to you? The Bible is the Lord's word (2 Timothy 3:16), and makes the man of God complete, equipped for every good work (2 Timothy 3:17). I don't worship a book, I worship the Lord Jesus Christ and live (to the best of my abilities) by His word conveyed to us through the Holy Bible.

The holy spirit guides us.
So? Do you need art to worship God?
Do sacraments save you or are you saved by grace through faith (like the Bible tells us many times)? We have the ordinances of baptism (full immersion of a believer as an outward sign of their faith) and the Lord's supper (done as a remembrance of Him, as He instructed).
We repent of our sins, we ask God for forgiveness directly instead of going through a priest to do so. Give me one quote from the Bible that says you must go to a priest for confession of sins.

That's not what you spoke about earlier, you mentioned the covenant, not the woman clothed by the Sun. The woman clothed by the Sun represents Israel, the twelve stars represent the tribes, Jesus was born in Israel, the Devil tried to devour Him but failed and he was taken up to God. There's nothing there about Mary, the Bible would have mentioned it.

Do you have EVIDENCE that the new covenant is Mary? Mary is hardly mentioned anywhere in scripture after Jesus leaves and the Holy Spirit arrives, from that point on it's a battle between the saved and the lost, that's all there is. Believe in Christ, repent and you will be saved, the apostles never make a reference to Mary. The new covenant is made through Christ, scripture makes this so clear that even the lost understand this.

Made by man himself, there is not mention of any practice of sacraments in the scripture, if you want to call out other denominations you're going to have to explain why your own right to declare what is true is divine. Has the Catholic church maintained a strong doctrine since it's inception? Isn't this the same church that not only introduced indulgences, but had to withdraw them, isn't the same church that allows degenerates to have meeting in its so called holy place? (cnn.com/2019/04/05/world/lgbt-vatican-meeting/index.html). The same place where your priests have become so corrupted that the word 'priest' and 'pedo' are now almost synonymous?. Daring to call the Catholic church anything Holy is an affront to God and his righteousness, your people have changed doctrines, massacred protestants, denied the access of the Bible to others and your Pope exalts himself above Christ. You lied to the soldiers during the crusades and told them their sins would be forgiven if they died for their country, but now you say come to the priest and your sins shall be forgiven? Make up your mind.

If their ideals conflict with scripture then I couldn't care less what they died for, should we now revert to Judaism because of the Holocaust? And the Holy Spirit is perfect, He doesn't make mistakes in who He reveals truth to, the Bible isn't esoteric, it's straight forward and clear. If what the fathers say clearly conflict with the Bible then no amount of allegories or mysticism or books is going to change that.

1 John 2:19: "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us."
I hope I don't have to explain that. That's as straight forward as it can be.

How does that answer the question?
"And do not choose to call anyone on earth your father. For One is your Father, who is in heaven."
Why do Catholics refer to those appointed as fathers? Why do they pay indulgences? Don't tell me what the fathers say, tell me what God's Word says, use straight forward scripture and please prove me wrong.

And this still doesn't even answer the question, if God commands that we pray to him and if he made himself intimate to us why would you trouble yourself bringing in Mary?

The point of the statement is that we don't have a Quran. The Church existed before the first gospels, and it existed for a very long time before the canon of Scripture was settled. Jesus never commands His apostles to write, He Himself never writes, only draws the sins of the Pharisees.
From the earliest times, Christians understood that the Son has revealed the Father, and the saints we honor are in Heaven, and we can portray them so as to bring ourselves closer to them. We don't worship the actual images.
The Didache (70AD) teaches that affusion is valid. Jesus says unless a man be born again of WATER and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Baptism is necessary for salvation.
Funny that nobody would consider baptizing themselves to be a valid baptism, but somehow with confessing our shameful sins, we go directly to God ezpz.
Jesus gave the Apostles the power to forgive sins in John. Do you really think that Jesus would let this power die out with His Apostles?

The woman clothed by the Sun is the *new* Ark of the Covenant, because the Old Covenant (temple sacrifice, passover, circumcision) has been superseded by the greater New Covanant (The true Lamb of God being slain for our sins, the Church, the 7 sacraments). Proof of this is the destruction of the Temple in 70AD. The old Ark contained God's word (the ten commandments) manna, and the rod of the high priest. The New Ark (Mary) contained God's Word Himself, the true high priest, and the bread from Heaven. Do get it? Her crown can symbolize the twelve tribes, twelve patriarchs, but it would not make sense for a symbol to literally give birth, and you just were denigrating me for my so called "exaggerated" symbolism a few posts ago.
Lol, where do I even start with the rest of your post?
Exaggerated media hysteria - proportionally we have the same amount of molestations as other religious groups, and secular institutions greatly succeed us. They're also mainly cases of homosexuals who don't have the faith. The media hates the Church because we've still managed to maintain Jesus's teachings on marriage, sex, contraception, divorce, homosexuality, etc.
Rank nonsense. "Evolution" of dogmas is condemned. Protestants literally twisted scripture (led by a coprophiliac) and then started their wars with us. I'm sure you think that the Inquisition started in 33AD and was only stopped by Luther. Anyways, Protestants later realized that "one and done" salvation leads one feeling empty, leading to the disasters of the Enlightenment and the world we have today.
The Bible was not widely available until Luther's time, in fact, literacy was not even that common until the 17th century at the earliest. Hmm… seems like if Luther was born in the year 500 he never would have thought of Sola Scriptura.
Jesus gave the Apostles the power to forgive sins in John. Do you really think that Jesus would let this power die out with His Apostles?
True, that is also condemned by the Church.
But He did for 1500+ years, because nobody believed the 5 Solas until Luther.
You're not supposed to lose your salvation, according to your doctrines.
Have you literally ever debated a Catholic? We answer this question a million times. Do Christians have no right to call their fathers, father? Obviously not. Jesus is not speaking literally. Haven't you ever had to deal with an atheist bringing up Luke 19:27 to say that Jesus promoted violence?

Yes out of all the denominations and the existing Christian groups, the media just decided to attack the Catholics because why not, despite the fact that not only does the Pope admit the issue but is also desperately (doing a bad job btw) to fix it. Your priests have ruined countless lives and destroyed the innocence of many children and you have the audacity to use Jesus's name to protect your movement.
That's a lie, your Pope asked your people to apologize to the gays and held an LGBT meeting in the vatican, one of his key aide's held a gay-orgy in the holy place. nypost.com/2017/07/05/vatican-cops-bust-drug-fueled-gay-orgy-at-cardinals-apartment/
churchmilitant.com/news/article/englands-catholic-schools-back-state-in-lgbt-sex-ed-law
Your church is funding the destruction of many children and their lives, or what, is it fine because the fathers say so?
theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/08/pope-radically-reforms-catholic-churchs-marriage-annulment-process
Your Pope made it easier for people to divorce, if that's not progressive dogma I don't know what is. He literally changed the rules.

What hogwash is this? Faith through Grace alone, where did you get one and done from?
Is that so? Then the priests should also have the abilities to heal, prophesy and speak in tongues no?
Or are you only taking the forgiving one because it's the easiest to fake. Where in scripture do the apostles ever speak of giving their authority to anyone?
Because you didn't allow the Bible to be translated and nobody was going to question the church because of the power they wielded. It took one monk with horrible social anxiety and bad flatulence to show the world how full of crap your entire denomination was, and till this day he haunts you. That's the work of the Holy Spirit, unless you mean to tell me one 'demon possessed' man managed to break the entire church apart with a simple note but that's not only blasphemous, much worse.
What's funny is that the scriptural evidence for all these is so clear and easy to reference in the Bible, but when Catholics come along we have to reference their own source material and use allegories to get a simple point right. If Mary was so important Jesus would have made it so clear, he would have simply said "Here is my mother, and you must come to me or the father through her", why didn't he do that? Was he being enigmatic for no good reason?

Of course not, it's by Grace you gain it and by divine miracle, can you stop what God has started?

OF COURSE I'm not being literal, I'm talking about the fact that you call your priests father, not biological dads. You're giving mere men spiritual authority instead of giving that to God.

1 John 1:9
'If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.'
Baptism isn't necessary for salvation but it's an act of love that helps to draw closer to God.

How do you explain the thief on the cross? Did they lump him in water beforehand?

So what on Earth does the 'Church' stand on?

It's a real issue. I'm not trying to trivialize it. But, there is an atheist gay liberal mafia who has invaded the Church, that much is clear. If you ever go to a properly Catholic Church (if the priest wears a cassock, that's a good sign) you won't find these homosexual predators. Most of the clergy (starting from the top, admittedly) don't have the faith today. But is it not the same with most protestants? Modern life has led to a crisis of faith.
Yeah, they're trying to get around the rules, but they cannot changes dogmas. Dogma says that divorce and remarriage is adultery. They can snake all they want around the issue, but that is infallible.
I believe and now I am saved forever. That is it… there is no real incentive for me to live my faith or even continue to love God.
There have been mystics who have done such things.
The Vulgate is accurate.
That is true, and it has happened before, like with Arius, and Mohammad.
Mary is mentioned several times and at key moments. At the incarnation of Christ. The Magnificat, Visitiation, Annunciation, at the birth of Christ. At the circumcision (first blood-shedding of the Messiah), at the presentation in the temple, at Christ’s teaching in the temple, at his first miracle in Cana, then at the foot of the cross, and then at Pentecost, and then again in the Apocalypse. It is as if God uses Mary as His most precious spice. As he prepares the banquet, he uses it sparingly and only for special purposes. Mary is God’s highlighter. He does not highlight every sentence, only the best lines.
In talking about the New covenant, Ezekiel in 36:23-29, writes about clean water being sprinkled, and God cleansing his people from all filthiness, in tandem with his Spirit being poured out, giving people a new heart, giving people the ability to walk in his statutes. Isaiah 44:3 also talks about the Holy Spirit being poured out with water and many blessings to follow. In John 1:29-34, Jesus is baptized, and the Holy Spirit comes upon Jesus. John promises that Jesus will baptize with the Holy Spirit. What does Jesus do after he tells Nicodemus in 3:5 about being born of water and spirit? He goes out baptizing in John 3:22. This is the only time that Jesus and the disciples baptize in the gospels, emphasizing even more that being born of water and spirit means baptism (besides John 4, immediately following this). What does John do? He baptizes other people. In the context of baptism, John uses the same term "anothen" in 3:31, as was used in John 3:3 and 3:5. It can interchangeably be translated as "born again" or "begotten from above." It would strain credulity to say that all this is a coincidence. All Christians until the 16th century thought that born again meant baptism. On the other hand nothing here or anywhere else in the Bible does being born again mean accepting Jesus as Lord in your heart.
Other passages proving baptismal regeneration include:
1 Peter 3:20-21. 20
Acts 22:16
Acts 2:38-39 38
Mark 16:16
1 Cor. 12:12-13. 12
Colossians 2:11-13
Galatians 3:26-27
Titus 3:5
There are other references to the necessity and saving power of baptism, but if you take God's Word seriously, and look at the above verses, you must admit that Baptism has salvific power. Quoting other verses do not cancel out these verses. Nowhere in these scriptures are Spirit baptism separated from water baptism. They are one and the same thing. Even if there was only one scripture (like Baptism saves (1 Peter 3:21) that shows baptism is salvific) it would be enough to settle the issue, but we have proved the point with much scripture. Not only that, but there are numerous other scriptures not even alluded to that likewise proves the saving power of baptism. Trying to explain away verses that are so blatantly Catholic is something that all Protestants must do in order to avoid Catholic truth, but it is dishonest to say one loves the bible, and then ignores what it so plainly teaches. So, unless one blinds him/herself to the plain meaning of Scripture, one can only conclude that baptism saves, as the Catholic Church teaches, exactly as Scripture states.
St Peter.

Attached: pastorjim.jpg (564x960, 67.73K)

No, God already foreknew in eternity past everything that Scripture would say. The person and author who decided what it will say is God. Don't keep saying this lie.
I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia;
–Revelation 1:11

This last thing is unbiblical.

Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
–John 3:5

John 3:5 doesn't say born AGAIN of water and the Holy Ghost. So basically what you're doing is adding words to Scripture here. Also John 3:5 is about being saved, being born the first time of water is physical birth, and being born again is of the Spirit. See the full context without the added word.

Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
–John 3:5-6

So this has to do with being saved which means being born of the Spirit the second time. There is absolutely no reference to baptism in this passage. And you added a word to it and left out the next verse just to make it unclear.

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
–1 John 1:9

This has to do with church discipline, see Matthew 18:15-18.

Yes he is, because he said to call no man YOUR father upon the earth. He was very specific to say that, because in Matthew 23:8 and 10 he said "be ye not called" meaning simply don't take those names.

In Matthew 23:9 he says call no man YOUR father upon earth. Don't leave out one of the words. The word "your" refers to the crowd, as it's plural as opposed to "thy." It refers to someone attempting to take the title of "Father" over all. Over the whole crowd, over everyone. Obviously the Pope wrongly violates Matthew 23:9 by claiming to be "the" father as a title that everyone calls him. Same goes for every person who puts "Father" in front of their name. They are all in violation of what Jesus said, and even everyone who acknowledges it is in violation as well.
I've explained this multiple times as well. But you don't seem to get it, however.

Attached: kjv_1.jpg (480x360, 9.29K)

(sorry for this being a bit of a wall)
The church is any gathering of believers in christ. "for where two or three are gathered together in my name, there I am in the midst of them" (Matthew 18:20). Just because the gospel isn't physically written down and held doesn't mean it can't be shared by a pastor (in the case of the early Church, Jesus and His apostles).
That doesn't refute that the gospel is all you need. As 2 Timothy 3:17 tells us, the man of God is made complete, equipped for every good work by scripture. And again, whether written or shared orally it's the same gospel.
Ok then, I'll cede that you don't worship the actual images themselves (just as I don't worship the Bible). Do you see the parallel there? That said, you don't need art to be saved in any capacity and I do appreciate art.
The didache is not sacred scripture.
Your wording here is a little bit off, which skews the meaning of the scripture. The quote is:

This is one of the things that was added to the later vulgate. It was never in the Greek New Testament and in even earlier latin translations before the vulgate were correct as well. The vulgate also changed Matthew 6:11 to say "supersubstantial bread" instead of "our daily bread." Signs of alteration from the Greek originals of the New Testament and the Gospels are clear.
Also good point about illiterate people still being able to hear and speak the word of God and be saved. I don't think such a thing would get in the way of God causing his word to spread.

...

Have you yet to realize that for over 100 years the church had no scripture and it was not until 393 AD was there even a bible? It is wholly Catholic tradition, composed at the council of Hippo. Sola scriptura is a fallacy as it means the church had always been wrong instead of the actual apostolic tradition it descends from.

Attached: 60664027_1430090857133421_4451062844376481792_n.jpg (860x960, 42.95K)

Just because the book wasn't compiled doesn't mean the gospel didn't exist. Jesus and His apostles preached the gospel to the people without the need of a compiled book (which wouldn't have helped much anyway since most people were illiterate). Sola scriptura simply means that the contents of scripture (the gospel) are necessary and sufficient for salvation, no need of tradition outside the scripture.

This is the problem with Protestantism.

Matthew 13:35 "This was to fulfill what had been spoken through the prophet: "I will open my muth to speak in parables: I will proclaim what has been hidden from the foundation of the world.""

Obey your sola scriptura you heathens, Jesus is not a man who says it clearly for all to instantly understand, instead through faith and tradition.

Major objection to 3rd pic; an absurd blanket statement which combines bits of truth with absolute crap. How is inductive reasoning always bad and modernist? Why is it wrong that man reveals the truth about God, while the opposite is always correct? Moreover is it impossible that the devil demands the impossible, while pretending to speak for God?

In short, if your anti-modernist efforts involve defeating whole branches of logical reasoning along with a theological assault on the way of Martha – namely that earthly activity reflects truth about God – then I'm afraid you are doomed to absolute failure, since you are bent on discarding the half of the truth you don't like.

Sage for this total failure at ironic Cathposting

First of all, Scripture is more than just the Gospel.
Second, Scripture is not necessary for salvation, Grace is.

And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
–2 Timothy 3:15

Do you mean all books of the Bible in one book? Did the physical placement into one book magically make the prophecies become the word of God or were they always. The answer is they were always.

God authored his own word and foreknew what it would say in eternity past. You're bringing up irrelevant stuff here.

Yes, only those who are saved who have faith understand our scriptural tradition. As it says "the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God."

You're on a good start trying to justify yourself with Scripture, but you need to actually explain it in context. That's your issue. There is a right and a wrong, which you need to get on the right side of.
If you continue choosing to cast out scripture, the Bible, which is the word of God, as not good enough then you're on the wrong side. Because you've thrown it away if you won't listen to it.

Attached: 9fa5825bf.jpg (720x720, 118.37K)

How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?
So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
—Romans 10:14-17

different user. Just reading catholics talking about mary gives me spiritual heebee-jeebies. The kind of feeling you get when you come to the sacrificial grounds of some God-forsaken demon worshipers. I have no logical arguments, but something about the way you talk about mary, pray to mary, etc is really off-putting to me. Its borderline wiccan.

There is nothing wiccan or pagan about it. It's the House of David's tradition for the reigning King to elevate his mother to Queen status. Re-read 1 Kings and you will see people asked the Queen to intercede on their bahalf when they petition the king. Jesus, being a King of the line of the House of David, did the exact same thing to His mother, Mary. Jesus literally crowns her in Revelation of John. Making her the Queen of Israel. We can ask her to pray for us and ask her to advocate on our behalf just like how Israel asked the Queen-mother to advocate on their behalf.

If Mary isn't the Queen of Israel than Jesus isn't the Davidic king that God promised Israel in the OT. Thus making His messiahship invalid.

You are in the body of Jesus. God the Father is Jesus' Father and you father by extension. Same goes for Mary. She is Jesus' mother and your mother by extension.

Attached: coronation-of-the-virgin-diego-velazquez.jpg (694x900, 149K)

i don't agree about the rosary.
you should pray to GOD only.
he is in the end jealous one, so i would avoid praying to anyone else.
even if it's about other saints, elohim, idols in heaven.
you may thank christ's mom and accept christ as your savior.
praying is to GOD alone, whoever is that title representing.
perhaps it's multitude of personas, perhaps whore family, perhaps it's the father alone.

Attached: aethel01c.jpg (1200x857, 205.95K)

For the last time:
Prayer =/= worship

If prayer equaled worship, than never ask us, your friends, coworkers, pastors, and family to pray for you ever again.

Attached: 2012599-le_sigh.jpg (400x277, 24.88K)

perhaps whole family..
christ.
it's over for me.

Attached: C6YSIJwXQAA524Z.jpg (695x768, 215.77K)

i don't see the difference.
you are just playing words.

thesaurus.com/browse/worship?s=t
adoration
church service
devotion
prayer
rite
ritual

can you elaborate for me?

Attached: tumblr_oghsj3OvYs1tbghqao1_1280.jpg (1280x963, 268.64K)

In order to understand the meaning of pray you have to go back to the root of the word and where it came from. Not the Thesaurus.

Pray is the English derivative of the Latin Precari which translates to (1):

It literally means "to ask". Just right now you prayed to me to help better understand what pray means. Does that mean you are worshiping me? When you ask your mother to pray for you are you worshiping her? When your pastor asks his congregation to pray for him does that mean he worships his flock?

If course not. Thats ridiculous. So if prayer is "to ask" and not "to worship", ergo asking Jesus' mother to pray for us is not worship. In fact, Israelites in the OT have always asked the mother of the King of Israel the literal Queen of Israel to advocate on their behalf (2). The Blessed Virgin advocates for us on our behalf because she loves us like Jesus loves us. That doesn't mean we worship her. It has never ment we worship her. Even look at the Ave Maria prayer (3):
>AVE MARIA, gratia plena, Dominus tecum. Benedicta tu in mulieribus, et benedictus fructus ventris tui, Iesus. Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, ora pro nobis peccatoribus, nunc, et in hora mortis nostrae. Amen
> Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and until the hour of our death.

Did you notice how literally the entire prayer is us just asking for her to pray for us, to advocate for us sinners? Literally nowhere in the prayer do we worship her.

So, I hope this helped you better understand where Christianity from the very beginning has been comming from. It's Isareli tradition to ask the Queen to advocate on our behalf. Once the new covenant was given to us, and Christ was crowned King, His mother Mary was also crowned Queen (4) and thus we can ask her to pray for us, to advocate on our behalf.

Sauce:
(1) latin-dictionary.net/definition/31551/precor-precari-precatus
(2) 1 Kings 2
(3) ewtn.com/library/prayer/latrosar.htm
(4) Revelation 12:1-7, Psalm 45: 11-12, Song of Songs 4:8

Attached: 2019_06_04_091309.png (1077x1471, 138.38K)

i still don't see the difference.
why not? there is modern ESV translation, so why not use modern Thesaurus?
worshiping idols, praying to idols, praying to satan, worshiping satan, it's all the same.

i have no problem with Virgin.
i cannot verify the Fatima event as there is no prophecy of it in bible.
i just don't agree that you should directly pray to her or even call her Queen?
what does the Queen even mean?
there is no Queen's book in bible.
why not just call her mom?

Attached: 35-frontal-de-altar-de-durro-finales-del-siglo-xii.jpg (4211x3060, 2.32M)

Did you even read the entire post? I literally cite in the Bible where the precedent of the Queen-mother started and where the Blessed Virgin Mary is crowned Queen of Israel.

Do I really have to explain to you the difference between a thesaurus, a dictionary, and etymology? English definitions change all the time, but the orginal meaning of prayer does not.

Again, if you are so set in your ridiculous definition of prayer = worship, than you are literally an idolater for asking people to pray for you. Stop asking us to pray for you. Stop asking your pastor to pray for you. Stop asking your family to pray for least you out yourself as an idolater.

Attached: download.jpg (310x162, 7.59K)

i don't get what is your problem.
i have read it.
i say it again, i have no problem with Virgin.
all i see is saint, holy, mother of god, where is the Queen?
point it out for me again.

i'm not implying that prayer means something else than it did ages ago.
i'm however saying, that you are trying to see some difference between worship and prayer for some reason.
i see it as the same thing.

thesaurus says it's a synonym.
what else can i say to that?
perhaps to ask a question, why is thesaurus saying that it's a synonym?
if you are so versed in etymology, you can explain to me, when these words became synonyms?

what is wrong with you?
calling someone idolater and rejecting ones possibility for him to be prayed for, just for disagreeing with your conjectures.

hope you have friends in high places.

Attached: LhfmI2593.jpg (593x440, 76.02K)

In my experience speaking with people who could very easily be called modernists, not once has the topic of prayer ever come up, and I've attended a parish so ripe with the problem the bishop sent a traditional pastor to get them to stop being liturgically abusive, for two years now.
The rosary was a great tool in stamping out albigensianism's spread in France, if memory serves, although there's nothing wrong with praying other devotions.

I would use a baseball bat.

Attached: bat.jpeg (1200x1200, 163.24K)

lmao. I cant see anything in the Bible about any thesaurus

How is praying to God to forgive you the same as praying to a person?

The similarity is that you are literally asking them to do something for you.
In one case you are asking God to forgive you.
The other case is you are asking someone else to ask with you or ask on your behalf.

Look at the prayer request thread. People are asking other anons to ask on their behalf. I don't get how this is such a hard concept to grasp.

There isn't. There is nothing wrong with praying a chaplet as well. It's just our Lady tells us to pray it everyday and for good reason (see Fatima and Akita as to why).

catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/is-marys-queenship-biblical

Do you even know the definition of a synonym? It means two words that are the same or nearly the same. Prayer may be nearly the same as worship but that doesn't mean prayer = worship. Heck even go to thesaurus.com and type in God. It will tell you that demon is synonymous with God. Does that mean God is a demon? Of course not! Do you see where I'm comming from now?

Attached: facepalm-spiderman.png (262x192, 45.04K)

The difference is that asking a person (who is still alive) to pray for me is different than praying to a saint (who is dead) and asking them to pray for me. The Bible never tells us to pray to saints.

I guess you don't believe in everlasting life, eh?

Luke 20:37-38

Revelation 8:3-4

Thanks protestantism

...

>catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/is-marys-queenship-biblical
give me a bible verse, not some one else's opinion.

great you finally admitted that the meaning is the same.

who cares. give me a bible reference to these, then i will consider it.

you are correct.
if you by death mean, death in flesh then yes, it would be the same as worshiping of dead idol. saints or even you may still live in a different sense after your heart stops beating, but that's a different thing.

so when GOD says, that worshiping of idol is like worshiping of dead, does that mean that he is lying and idols will never die? explain this to me.

Attached: mom.jpg (1500x1013, 848.6K)

Not him but the article he posted clearly has verses.

it does, but here is no specific verse about Marry being a Queen.
it's all conjectures.
if there would be specific verse, there would be no need to have a page dedicated to formation of one's belief via blob of text.
they have nothing.

Attached: b6275698915ce1a5afdcfd1c3ef3d35ce8e5864257258dc3c596fc5ab2156051.jpg (800x608, 65.6K)

Where in the Bible does it say that everything is in the Bible?

i didn't say that.
i'm implying that bible is the closest to the truth, therefore why should i rely in bullshit posted by a meat to another opinion of a meat.

Look at what this guy said, he gave a good explanation of it. They are dead in the flesh, and there is no biblical support for the saints being able to hear our prayers.

Not everything is in the Bible, it's a moral code and history book not an encyclopedia of everything. However, 2 Timothy 3:16-17 tells us that all scripture is breathed out by God, and that through it the man of God may be made complete, equipped for every good work. No traditions outside of the Bible are necessary, because the Bible equips us for EVERY good work, not just some of them.

Hebrews 11:1-12:1
James 5:16-18
Revelation 5:8; 8:3-4

The Saints see and know all about us on earth, because they see us reflected in the mind and heart of the God who loves us, whom they behold face to face (1 Cor 13:12).

i don't get these.
i went through it and there is no support for your first claim, that they can hear our prayers.
i'm not refuting your second claim however.

Attached: christian-art-mosaic-of-the-apse-the-coronation-of-the-virgin-5th-H27MNH.jpg (1300x956, 479.43K)

If you put those verses together, you start to see the whole picture. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective and the Saints are righteous people, whose prayers are lifted up in the smoke of the incense held by the angels. When we ask the Saints to pray for us, those prayers are lifted up to God. Yes, God hears all prayers, but I am not a righteous man and need all the help I can get.

it still doesn't say that we should pray to Saints nor that they can hear our prayers.

Attached: 3197510.jpg (540x493, 126.06K)

I'm not sure how much more plain it can be. Maybe you need a children's Bible primer?

This doesn't say anything about saints in heaven being able to hear our prayers, just that righteous people praying for us is good.

You have to consider that the definition of "saint" differs for catholics and Baptists. If we go with the catholic definition, then the saints are only those that the church has canonized. To put this into the scripture wouldn't necessarily mean that they are hearing the prayers of people still on earth; that would be a leap in logic. Baptists consider all saved people to be saints. If we go with this definition, we have to look closer at the scripture, specifically where it says "four and twenty elders". Which elders are those? Certainly, they can't be the hundreds of canonized saints of the catholic church.

Same explanation as above.

I read through Hebrews 11 and didn't see anything that stuck out to me about the saints being able to hear our prayers. Could you point out which verse you were thinking of?

I said to take them all together as a whole. Stop using the Bible like a cafeteria.

James 5:16 the first part says confess your faults one to another. That's not the same thing as confessing your sins one to another. Praying one for another is also Biblical.
The part of this discussion that doesn't fit is the omnipresence and entitlement of intermediators to hear prayer.

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

O thou that hearest prayer, unto thee shall all flesh come.
–Psalm 65:2

Believing scripture precludes the idea that you have omnipresent men entitled to be prayed to as opposed to the Mediator himself whom Job even waited for in Job 9:33.
Like it says in Hebrews 4:16, "Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need."

There's still not a single part of that which states the saints in heaven can hear our prayers. This guy has it right, there is one mediator between man and God, the man Christ Jesus.

how is this post even related to the discussion about praying to saints and that they are able to hear us?

Attached: 86j86bwrqtv21.jpg (700x612, 40.77K)

Lmao intercession has nothing to do with being a mediator.

Surprise surprise a bunch of theologically bankrupt americans, the land where literally all heresies have resurfaced, doesnt even know what he is talking about.

Your attempts to try to annihilate the saints is rather sad. I feel sorry for you and your delusions.

And I forgot, it is not strange that you want to put saints in some kind of dead box where they are completely isolates from reality. After all you hate them. Them, and the Church that declared them saints. Anything that goes against pastor Jims nonsense that was anathemized thousands of years ago is like acid to your kind

Stop listening to Western catholic elites who are compromised by modernism and 18-20th century ecclesiastical ideology.

I'm still waiting on the Bible verse that says the saints in heaven can hear our prayers.

I don't hate saints, I just don't believe they can hear my prayers after they've died in the flesh.
www.gotquestions.org/prayer-saints-Mary.html has a good explanation of it, I'm not going to write out another wall of text.

not that user, but only a Bible hater would use "Bible-idolater" as an insult. How can revering the word of GOD be idolatry?

"18 “You shall therefore [n]impress these words of mine on your heart and on your soul; and you shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as [o]frontals [p]on your forehead. 19 You shall teach them to your sons, talking of them when you sit in your house and when you walk along the road and when you lie down and when you rise up."

Attached: YOU.jpg (2915x2918, 5.87M)

27 Now while Jesus was saying these things, one of the women in the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed (happy, favored by God) is the womb that gave birth to You and the breasts at which You nursed!” 28 But He said, “On the contrary, blessed (happy, favored by God) are those who hear the word of God and continually observe it.”

Attached: 1548801187613.jpg (1280x864, 288.6K)

Indeed, and first and foremost among those mortals who heard the word of God and observed it was Mary, the beloved mother of God.

How is that a rebuke of Mary?
"For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed"
She is blessed because she heard and revered the Word of God–and not just that, she also kept the literal Word in her womb. The very ground that God was on when Moses met Him became holy. How holy does someone have to be if God dwells in them for 9 months?
"In His answer He did not disgrace His mother, but showed that His birth would have profited her nothing, had she not been really fruitful in works and faith." - St. Chrysostom

Could you please give source on this piece od art? It's beautiful but the added text is unnecessary :P

tineye.com/search/9cf835db6c4c1f6e45f6881722997db14c7ad304?extension_ver=chrome-1.3.0&page=1

sorry, thought u wanted the other picture

Attached: b1762d54842174831e4419025c5463fc8ae1da73b7a093ccae0548b7c04c7847.jpg (2915x2918, 5.87M)

It's by wikiart.org/en/viktor-vasnetsov/the-last-judgement-1904

Thank you, you're cool :)

lol ty

Attached: 1549039511277.png (678x678, 230.84K)

Attached: 1555202455712.jpg (575x768, 121.5K)