Scholar8200:
The Word (Eternal from the beginning) was made flesh (not before stripping Himself of the Divine attributes as Philippians 2 reveals)and by the Power of the Spirit Mary was used as the human vehicle to bring Him to this world. While He (in the nature of man, Divinity being stripped) was a child, Mary was His mother.

However, the fact that He took of Divinity (philippians 2) already makes the title mother of God, void ab initio. Else why would Jesus pray thus

John 17:5

And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

He was here praying for something to come (of course not before the cross) after His resurrection. The glory which He had to strip Himself of to become a man. Why pray? It's one of the ordinances (matthew 7:7) on which the world operates and He was not exempted.

From the above epistle, are you saying that the Jesus who lived in the womb of Mary, who walked the streets of Israel, who was crucified at Calvary, was a mere man, not God?

italo:


No need to beat around the bush.

I said Jesus existed before Mary yet the Angel called Mary his "mother."

You asked me to show you biblical evidence and I showed you:

Matt 2:13 When they had gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream. “Get up,” he said, “take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt.

You replied: "take the child is what was said bro."

Who is fooling who?

Is Mary the Mother of Jesus who is God? Yes or no?

Have you seen the verse where the Angel called Mary his mother? Yes or no?

Yes, Mary was the mother of Jesus.

Barnabaseloka:

Luke 1:1-3
1. Inasmuchas many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us,
2. just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, delivered them to us.
3. It seems good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus,
4. that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed.
Do you want me to believe that there are mistakes made in the Scriptures?
Ps.12:6 The words of the Lord are pure words. Like silver tried in the furnace of earth, purified seven times.
I will not argue with you on this again. If you believe that there are mistakes in the Scriptures, so be it to you. It also means that what we believe contains mistakes and our faith in Christ has error. For me; God's word is error-free. Any error seen is as a result of misinterpretation.

You still can't show me where the Bible said Luke wrote the book of Luke, and that it was tried and found to be error free. Because in biblical times, "scripture" meant Old Testament. Many of the books of the New Testament were not even written then.

Also, who is error-free? God alone or God and Bible writers alone?

Barnabaseloka:

Anything done under the guidance of the Holy Spirit is erro-free, but if done by the wisdom of man is error-prone.
If those that wrote them did so with human wisdon, then what we have contain errors and christians cannot boast of having the truth. Anything done of the flesh (human wisdom) is of the flesh and has errors, but anything done of the Spirit is of the Spirit and is error-free.

If you feel that what you have contains error, so be it to you. It also shows how shaky and uncertain you are in your belief in Christ.
1 Corinth 12:3 '.... And no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit.
If sb cannot say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit, how much more those that wrote and compiled the Scriptures we have today?

All that is required is that you quote from the bible you have while others quote from the ones they have, then we shall know whether the interpretation is the same while comparing them with other passages.

Still dodging simple questions in the usual dubious protestant/pentecostal style. Let me post them again:


Show me where the Bible says Luke was under the influence of the Holy Spirit?

A lot was written, both good, ordinary and bad.

Compilation involved picking the inspired and removing the uninspired from circulation in the Church and among the people of God.

Was God's Church infallible in doing that or where they error-prone?

Barnabaseloka:

Noted. What you need to do is to quote from your bible, while others compare it from their own bibles, alongside other passages to get balanced understanding of a matter.

Why should anyone quote from the Bible when you don't know how the bible came about?

Show me where Jesus or the Bible told anyone to write, read or quote the bible?

Barnabaseloka:

Yes, Mary was the mother of Jesus.

When Jesus was in Mary's womb, in the streets of Israel, on the cross...was he God or mere man?

[quote author=italo post=34614759]

Where Moses and Elijah alive at the transfiguration?

Was Abraham alive in the parable of Lazarus and the rich man?/quote]
Deut.34:5 So Moses, the servant of the Lord dies there in the land f Moab according to the word of the Lord.
2 Kings 2:11 Then it happened, as they continued on and talked, that suddenly a chariot of fire appeared with horses of fire and separated the two of them and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.
1 Sam.25:1 Then Samuel died and the Israelites gathered together and lamented for him, and buried him at his home in Ramah....'

1 Sam 28:11,13-15
11. Then the woman said, Whom shall I bring up for you. And he said, Bring up Samuel for me.
13. And the King said to her, Do not be afraid. What do you see? And the woman said to Saul, saying; I saw a spirit ascending out of the earth.
14. So he said to her, What is his form? And she said, An old man is coming up and he is covered with a mantle. And Saul perceived that it was Samuel, and he stooped with his face to the ground and bowed down.
15. Now Samuel said to Saul, Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up...?'
if a medium can bring up the dead Samuel, how much more God. Remember that their coming up was for a reason. After they achieved the purpose they disappeared.

I speak of Moses only b/c he died, unlike Elijah that did not die. That Moses appeared does not mean that he is not dead, awaiting resurrection. People who were children of God before they died will only be raised when Christ comes at the sound of the trumpet.

In the case of Abraham and Lazarus, it was a parable Jesus used to illustrate something.

italo:


Finally: Rev 6:10 They called out in a loud voice, “How long, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, until you judge the inhabitants of the earth and avenge our blood?”
Who were they and where they alive?

Gen.4:10 And He said, What have you done? The voice of your brother's blood cries out to Me from the ground.
Does it mean that Abel was not dead here?
My answer to you is dependent on your understanding of a dead person being alive.

hahn:


Another reason not to believe that horse poo of a story. So basically Mary was straffed by the holy spirit which makes the holy spirit a sinner for committing adultery.

Quite confusing

it could be said that the Holy Spirit artificially inserminated her, I hope your question is not rhetorical.

italo:
Why should anyone quote from the Bible when you don't know how the bible came about?

Show me where Jesus or the Bible told anyone to write, read or quote the bible?

So, how do people verify the authenticity of your belief? I can't argue with you on this issue. Go with your claims and let me obey that which are written in the bible I have. After questioning its authenticity, you will still go ahead to quote from it to validate your point. Good luck!

italo:


You still can't show me where the Bible said Luke wrote the book of Luke, and that it was tried and found to be error free. Because in biblical times, "scripture" meant Old Testament. Many of the books of the New Testament were not even written then.

Also, who is error-free? God alone or God and Bible writers alone?

Luke 1:3. It must not be explicit for you to know that it was Luke that wrote it to Theophilus.

italo:


Still dodging simple questions in the usual dubious protestant/pentecostal style. Let me post them again:


Show me where the Bible says Luke was under the influence of the Holy Spirit?

A lot was written, both good, ordinary and bad.

Compilation involved picking the inspired and removing the uninspired from circulation in the Church and among the people of God.

Was God's Church infallible in doing that or where they error-prone?

Must it be stated for you to know that Paul, James, Jude, Peter and others did not write any epistle with human wisdom? It has been quoted here severally that all scriptures were given by the inspiration of God. Yet, you did not accept it. If any epistle in the scriptures is written without the guidance of the Holy Spirit, it is error-prone.

italo:


When Jesus was in Mary's womb, in the streets of Israel, on the cross...was he God or mere man?

Do not make me say things that cannot be proven in order for you to prove a point. Jesus was God wherever He was on earth and in any form He appeared. On earth, He was both God and man. As God, He had the power to do all things, including forgiving of sins. As man, He decided not to use such authority in everything He did.

Barnabaseloka:

So, how do people verify the authenticity of your belief? I can't argue with you on this issue. Go with your claims and let me obey that which are written in the bible I have. After questioning its authenticity, you will still go ahead to quote from it to validate your point. Good luck!

you verify the authencity of belief by going to the church established by Jesus. Paul did it this in Galatians 1 and 2 as well as acts 15..we are also asked to go to the church in Matt 18 15.also it is the church that is the bulwark and pillar of truth 1tim3 15

Sorry, which church is that?

btoks:
you verify the authencity of belief by going to the church established by Jesus. Paul did it this in Galatians 1 and 2 as well as acts 15..we are also asked to go to the church in Matt 18 15.also it is the church that is the bulwark and pillar of truth 1tim3 15

Why do you quote from the same scriptures that is said to be error-prone? How do I know that what you have quoted is right?

Barnabaseloka:

Why do you quote from the same scriptures that is said to be error-prone? How do I know that what you have quoted is right?

He is telling you to go to the Church which canonised the Bible. The Church which told you that Genesis to Revelation is scripture. That Church is the Catholic Church and it canonised the Bible at Carthage, Hippo and Rome in the 4th century, more than 1000 years before the first Protestant.

Listen to the major Protestant father Martin Luther here:
Commentary on St.
John (ch. 16), "we are
obliged to yield many
things to the papists
[Catholics]--that they
possess the word of
God which we
received from them,
otherwise we should
have known nothing
at all about it."

Papist:

He is telling you to go to the Church which canonised the Bible. The Church which told you that Genesis to Revelation is scripture. That Church is the Catholic Church and it canonised the Bible at Carthage, Hippo and Rome in the 4th century, more than 1000 years before the first Protestant.

Listen to the major Protestant father Martin Luther here:
Commentary on St.
John (ch. 16), "we are
obliged to yield many
things to the papists
[Catholics]--that they
possess the word of
God which we
received from them,
otherwise we should
have known nothing
at all about it."

Cool down. How do I believe you that what was compiled was error-free and the truth?

Papist:

He is telling you to go to the Church which canonised the Bible. The Church which told you that Genesis to Revelation is scripture. That Church is the Catholic Church and it canonised the Bible at Carthage, Hippo and Rome in the 4th century, more than 1000 years before the first Protestant.

And also went ahead to include the apocrypha, which are non - inspired! I believe the credit (as human elements) should go to those who were in tune with God enough to know that the apocrypha had no place in scripture and not just a compilation done thanks to having custody of the books!

Listen to the major Protestant father Martin Luther here:
Commentary on St.
John (ch. 16), "we are
obliged to yield many
things to the papists
[Catholics]--that they
possess the word of
God which we
received from them,
otherwise we should
have known nothing
at all about it."

Luther was sure being gracious here.

But for the efforts of people like himself, Tyndale etc (who put their life on the line due to possible martyrdom by the catholic Church) the Bible would have been a hidden book being the exclusive preserve of the catholic clergy who will then decide what should be taught and what to make the people believe. (by the way they did not give us the word as its original authors!).

From history, we can see that the RCC did not act for the public good like Luther,Tyndale etc did; there were other motives for the custody of the books gathered and compiled else why did they conceal it from the public? and why were people like Luther, who sought to place it in every hand ,persecuted (and some martyred) if there was no ulterior motive? But God Whose Word it is (and Who can use a raven to fulfil His purpose) overruled!

Even Luther knew he acted (publishing the 95 thesis, translating the Bible to the people's mother tongue etc) at the risk of being burned by the Catholic Church! Why? because, inter alia, he declared the truth as found in the Bible (previously concealed)that the just shall be justified and shall live by faith!

Scholar8200:
And also went ahead to include the apocrypha, which are non - inspired! I believe the credit (as human elements) should go to those who were in tune with God enough to know that the apocrypha had no place in scripture and not just a compilation done thanks to having custody of the books!

Luther was sure being gracious here.

But for the efforts of people like himself, Tyndale etc (who put their life on the line due to possible martyrdom by the catholic Church) the Bible would have been a hidden book being the exclusive preserve of the catholic clergy who will then decide what should be taught and what to make the people believe. (by the way they did not give us the word as its original authors!).

From history, we can see that the RCC did not act for the public good like Luther,Tyndale etc did; there were other motives for the custody of the books gathered and compiled else why did they conceal it from the public? and why were people like Luther, who sought to place it in every hand ,persecuted (and some martyred) if there was no ulterior motive? But God Whose Word it is (and Who can use a raven to fulfil His purpose) overruled!

Even Luther knew he acted (publishing the 95 thesis, translating the Bible to the people's mother tongue etc) at the risk of being burned by the Catholic Church! Why? because, inter alia, he declared the truth as found in the Bible (previously concealed)that the just shall be justified and shall live by faith!

Thanks bro.
When two people debate on a matter and one of them seems to have an upperhand, by using more of bible passages to support one's point, the next questions from the other person will be: Who compiled the scriptures? Are they error-free? These questions asked indirectly doubt or question the authenticity of God's word, and claim that the scriptures contain some elements of lies or falsehood.

One who asked such questions consider it that b/c the Holy Spirit inspired men to write and compile the scriptures, there ought to be errors involved. This leaves christians at the mercy of a shaky foundation and belief that has some elements of falsehood. Yet, such a person quotes from the same scriptures when arguing or teaching.

The question is: If you say that the bible is error-prone, why do you believe the words written in it and quote from it?
No passage of the scriptures contradict itself. Any error comes from humans who misinterprete it and misquote it.

I ask these questions to those who believe that the bible contains errors: Which kind of errors do you mean? How do you want people to believe that everything written in the bible you have is true and does not also contain error?

Barnabaseloka:



Deut.34:5 So Moses, the servant of the Lord dies there in the land f Moab according to the word of the Lord.
2 Kings 2:11 Then it happened, as they continued on and talked, that suddenly a chariot of fire appeared with horses of fire and separated the two of them and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.
1 Sam.25:1 Then Samuel died and the Israelites gathered together and lamented for him, and buried him at his home in Ramah....'

1 Sam 28:11,13-15
11. Then the woman said, Whom shall I bring up for you. And he said, Bring up Samuel for me.
13. And the King said to her, Do not be afraid. What do you see? And the woman said to Saul, saying; I saw a spirit ascending out of the earth.
14. So he said to her, What is his form? And she said, An old man is coming up and he is covered with a mantle. And Saul perceived that it was Samuel, and he stooped with his face to the ground and bowed down.
15. Now Samuel said to Saul, Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up...?'
if a medium can bring up the dead Samuel, how much more God. Remember that their coming up was for a reason. After they achieved the purpose they disappeared.

I speak of Moses only b/c he died, unlike Elijah that did not die. That Moses appeared does not mean that he is not dead, awaiting resurrection. People who were children of God before they died will only be raised when Christ comes at the sound of the trumpet.

In the case of Abraham and Lazarus, it was a parable Jesus used to illustrate something

So "dead" Moses spoke to Jesus?

If this can happen, then even if Mary died, she can speak to Jesus.

Also, please show us where the Bible said Mary is "dead and buried," as you claimed. Or is that too just one of your personal traditions?

Barnabaseloka:

Gen.4:10 And He said, What have you done? The voice of your brother's blood cries out to Me from the ground.
Does it mean that Abel was not dead here?
My answer to you is dependent on your understanding of a dead person being alive.

Abel was alive, not dead.

Now answer my question: the people who talked to God in Rev 6:10, were they alive then?

Barnabaseloka:

So, how do people verify the authenticity of your belief? I can't argue with you on this issue. Go with your claims and let me obey that which are written in the bible I have. After questioning its authenticity, you will still go ahead to quote from it to validate your point. Good luck!

Just dodging my questions. I never questioned the Bible's authenticity. I know that it is authentic because God's authentic Catholic Church compiled, Canonized it.

My question is to you, Mr Bible alone protestant:


Why should anyone quote from the Bible when you don't know how the bible came about?

Show me where Jesus or the Bible told anyone to write, read or quote the bible?

Or are you also following Catholic tradition which canonized the Bible?

Barnabaseloka:

Luke 1:3. It must not be explicit for you to know that it was Luke that wrote it to Theophilus.

Barnabaseloka:

Must it be stated for you to know that Paul, James, Jude, Peter and others did not write any epistle with human wisdom? It has been quoted here severally that all scriptures were given by the inspiration of God. Yet, you did not accept it. If any epistle in the scriptures is written without the guidance of the Holy Spirit, it is error-prone.

Below is what you said earlier

HopeAlive14:


Jesus speaking in Mark 7:13 "And so you cancel the word of God in order to hand down your own tradition. And this is only one example among many others."(NIV)

Any doctrine or tradition that is not based on Scripture, no matter how good it appears or sounds is unprofitable and should be discarded.

Nowhere does Luke 1:1-3 mention "Luke" or Holy Spirit. Stop trying to squeeze those words into the passage.

At the time Paul said "All scripture is given...," he meant Old Testament. Revelations, for example had not even been written.

If you cannot show me where the the bible said Luke wrote Luke under the influence of the Holy Spirit, then you are either following Catholic tradition or your personal tradition.

You also refused to say if the Church was error prone in compiling the Bible or if they were above error.

Also please tell us: is the Holy Spirit still inspiring men to write scriptures?

Barnabaseloka:

Do not make me say things that cannot be proven in order for you to prove a point. Jesus was God wherever He was on earth and in any form He appeared. On earth, He was both God and man. As God, He had the power to do all things, including forgiving of sins. As man, He decided not to use such authority in everything He did.

Meaning Mary gave birth to God?

Barnabaseloka:

Why do you quote from the same scriptures that is said to be error-prone? How do I know that what you have quoted is right?

Show us where it was said that the Bible was error prone! Just give us the quote!

You know what we quote is right because God's infallible Catholic Church canonized it.

Scholar8200:
And also went ahead to include the apocrypha, which are non - inspired! I believe the credit (as human elements) should go to those who were in tune with God enough to know that the apocrypha had no place in scripture and not just a compilation done thanks to having custody of the books!

Please show us where the Bible says that those books are not inspired. Or are you following the personal tradition of Martin Luther and his fellow heretics?

Remember, you said:

You are right. All Scripture is given by Inspiration of God hence should be our final authority in issues concerning Its contents.

Scholar8200:


Luther was sure being gracious here.
But for the efforts of people like himself, Tyndale etc (who put their life on the line due to possible martyrdom by the catholic Church) the Bible would have been a hidden book being the exclusive preserve of the catholic clergy who will then decide what should be taught and what to make the people believe. (by the way they did not give us the word as its original authors!).
From history, we can see that the RCC did not act for the public good like Luther,Tyndale etc did; there were other motives for the custody of the books gathered and compiled else why did they conceal it from the public? and why were people like Luther, who sought to place it in every hand ,persecuted (and some martyred) if there was no ulterior motive? But God Whose Word it is (and Who can use a raven to fulfil His purpose) overruled!
Even Luther knew he acted (publishing the 95 thesis, translating the Bible to the people's mother tongue etc) at the risk of being burned by the Catholic Church! Why? because, inter alia, he declared the truth as found in the Bible (previously concealed)that the just shall be justified and shall live by faith!

When Martin Luther said the Catholic Church possessed the world of God, was it True or False?


Also you dodged this my question below: please answer

italo:


From the above epistle, are you saying that the Jesus who lived in the womb of Mary, who walked the streets of Israel, who was crucified at Calvary, was a mere man, not God?

Scholar8200:
And also went ahead to include the apocrypha, which are non - inspired! I believe the credit (as human elements) should go to those who were in tune with God enough to know that the apocrypha had no place in scripture and not just a compilation done thanks to having custody of the books!

Luther was sure being gracious here.

But for the efforts of people like himself, Tyndale etc (who put their life on the line due to possible martyrdom by the catholic Church) the Bible would have been a hidden book being the exclusive preserve of the catholic clergy who will then decide what should be taught and what to make the people believe. (by the way they did not give us the word as its original authors!).

From history, we can see that the RCC did not act for the public good like Luther,Tyndale etc did; there were other motives for the custody of the books gathered and compiled else why did they conceal it from the public? and why were people like Luther, who sought to place it in every hand ,persecuted (and some martyred) if there was no ulterior motive? But God Whose Word it is (and Who can use a raven to fulfil His purpose) overruled!

Even Luther knew he acted (publishing the 95 thesis, translating the Bible to the people's mother tongue etc) at the risk of being burned by the Catholic Church! Why? because, inter alia, he declared the truth as found in the Bible (previously concealed)that the just shall be justified and shall live by faith!

Historical revisionism? Why am I not surprised when this is coming from a Protestant? Here is more to shock you from Luther your hero:

Christ, ..was the only Son of
Mary, and the Virgin Mary
bore no children besides
Him... "brothers" really
means "cousins" here, for
Holy Writ and the Jews
always call cousins brothers.
(Sermons on John, chapters
1-4.1537-39).

He, Christ, our Savior, was
the real and natural fruit of
Mary's virginal womb.. .This
was without the cooperation
of a man, and she remained
a virgin after that. (Ibid.)
God says... "Mary's Son is My
only Son." Thus Mary is the
Mother of God. (Ibid.).
God did not derive his
divinity from Mary; but it
does not follow that it is
therefore wrong to say that
God was born of Mary, that
God is Mary's Son, and that
Mary is God's mother...She
is the true mother of God
and bearer of God...Mary
suckled God, rocked God to
sleep, prepared broth and
soup for God, etc. For God
and man are one person,
one Christ, one Son, one
Jesus. not two Christs. . .just
as your son is not two
sons...even though he has
two natures, body and soul,
the body from you, the soul
from God alone. (On the
Councils and the Church,
1539).

It is a sweet and pious belief
that the infusion of Mary's
soul was effected without
original sin; so that in the
very infusion of her soul she
was also purified from
original sin and adorned with
God's gifts, receiving a pure
soul infused by God; thus
from the first moment she
began to live she was free
from all sin" (Sermon: "On
the Day of the Conception of
the Mother of God," 1527).

She (Mary) is full of grace,
proclaimed to be entirely
without sin—something
exceedingly great. For God's
grace fills her with
everything good and makes
her devoid of all evil.
(Personal {"Little"} Prayer
Book, 1522).

[She is the] highest woman
and the noblest gem in
Christianity after Christ.
..She is nobility, wisdom, and
holiness personified. We can
never honor her enough. Still
honor and praise must be
given to her in such a way as
to injure neither Christ nor
the Scriptures. (Sermon,
Christmas, 1531).
No woman is like you. You
are more than Eve or Sarah,
blessed above all nobility,
wisdom, and sanctity.
(Sermon, Feast of the
Visitation. 1537).
One should honor Mary as
she herself wished and as
she expressed it in the
Magnificat. She praised God
for his deeds. How then can
we praise her? The true
honor of Mary is the honor
of God, the praise of God's
grace.. .Mary is nothing for
the sake of herself, but for
the sake of Christ...Mary
does not wish that we come
to her, but through her to
God. (Explanation of the
Magnificat, 1521).

Scholar8200:
And also went ahead to include the apocrypha, which are non - inspired! I believe the credit (as human elements) should go to those who were in tune with God enough to know that the apocrypha had no place in scripture and not just a compilation done thanks to having custody of the books!

Luther was sure being gracious here.

But for the efforts of people like himself, Tyndale etc (who put their life on the line due to possible martyrdom by the catholic Church) the Bible would have been a hidden book being the exclusive preserve of the catholic clergy who will then decide what should be taught and what to make the people believe. (by the way they did not give us the word as its original authors!).

From history, we can see that the RCC did not act for the public good like Luther,Tyndale etc did; there were other motives for the custody of the books gathered and compiled else why did they conceal it from the public? and why were people like Luther, who sought to place it in every hand ,persecuted (and some martyred) if there was no ulterior motive? But God Whose Word it is (and Who can use a raven to fulfil His purpose) overruled!

Even Luther knew he acted (publishing the 95 thesis, translating the Bible to the people's mother tongue etc) at the risk of being burned by the Catholic Church! Why? because, inter alia, he declared the truth as found in the Bible (previously concealed)that the just shall be justified and shall live by faith!

What is the origin of your church? Can you trace the succession of your pastors to the apostles or is it a man made sect? Tertullian writing in the second century asks you for the proof here:

"But if there be any [heresies]
which are bold enough to plant
[their origin] in the midst of the
apostolic age, that they may
thereby seem to have been
handed down by the apostles,
because they existed in the time
of the apostles, we can say: Let
them produce the original records
of their churches; let them unfold
the roll of their bishops, running
down in due succession from the
beginning in such a manner that
[their first] bishop shall be able to
show for his ordainer and
predecessor some one of the
apostles or of apostolic men—a
man, moreover, who continued
steadfast with the apostles. For
this is the manner in which the
apostolic churches transmit their
registers: as the church of
Smyrna, which records that
Polycarp was placed therein by
John; as also the church of Rome,
which makes Clement to have
been ordained in like manner by
Peter" (ibid., 32).
"But should they even effect the
contrivance [of composing a
succession list for themselves],
they will not advance a step. For
their very doctrine, after
comparison with that of the
apostles [as contained in other
churches], will declare, by its own
diversity and contrariety, that it
had for its author neither an
apostle nor an apostolic man;
because, as the apostles would
never have taught things which
were self-contradictory" (ibid.).
"Then let all the heresies, when
challenged to these two tests by
our apostolic Church, offer their
proof of how they deem
themselves to be apostolic. But in
truth they neither are so, nor are
they able to prove themselves to
be what they are not. Nor are they
admitted to peaceful relations and
communion by such churches as
are in any way connected with
apostles, inasmuch as they are in
no sense themselves apostolic
because of their diversity as to the
mysteries of the faith" (ibid.).

Papist:

Historical revisionism? Why am I not surprised when this is coming from a Protestant? Here is more to shock you from Luther your hero:

Christ, ..was the only Son of
Mary, and the Virgin Mary
bore no children besides
Him... "brothers" really
means "cousins" here, for
Holy Writ and the Jews
always call cousins brothers.
(Sermons on John, chapters
1-4.1537-39).

He, Christ, our Savior, was
the real and natural fruit of
Mary's virginal womb.. .This
was without the cooperation
of a man, and she remained
a virgin after that. (Ibid.)
God says... "Mary's Son is My
only Son." Thus Mary is the
Mother of God. (Ibid.).
God did not derive his
divinity from Mary; but it
does not follow that it is
therefore wrong to say that
God was born of Mary, that
God is Mary's Son, and that
Mary is God's mother...She
is the true mother of God
and bearer of God...Mary
suckled God, rocked God to
sleep, prepared broth and
soup for God, etc. For God
and man are one person,
one Christ, one Son, one
Jesus. not two Christs. . .just
as your son is not two
sons...even though he has
two natures, body and soul,
the body from you, the soul
from God alone. (On the
Councils and the Church,
1539).

It is a sweet and pious belief
that the infusion of Mary's
soul was effected without
original sin; so that in the
very infusion of her soul she
was also purified from
original sin and adorned with
God's gifts, receiving a pure
soul infused by God; thus
from the first moment she
began to live she was free
from all sin" (Sermon: "On
the Day of the Conception of
the Mother of God," 1527).

She (Mary) is full of grace,
proclaimed to be entirely
without sin—something
exceedingly great. For God's
grace fills her with
everything good and makes
her devoid of all evil.
(Personal {"Little"} Prayer
Book, 1522).

[She is the] highest woman
and the noblest gem in
Christianity after Christ.
..She is nobility, wisdom, and
holiness personified. We can
never honor her enough. Still
honor and praise must be
given to her in such a way as
to injure neither Christ nor
the Scriptures. (Sermon,
Christmas, 1531).
No woman is like you. You
are more than Eve or Sarah,
blessed above all nobility,
wisdom, and sanctity.
(Sermon, Feast of the
Visitation. 1537).
One should honor Mary as
she herself wished and as
she expressed it in the
Magnificat. She praised God
for his deeds. How then can
we praise her? The true
honor of Mary is the honor
of God, the praise of God's
grace.. .Mary is nothing for
the sake of herself, but for
the sake of Christ...Mary
does not wish that we come
to her, but through her to
God. (Explanation of the
Magnificat, 1521).

Luther was an augustinian monk under the Roman Catholic church (and an intensely indoctrinated one at that) In fact, Luther faced the council, and carried out his reformation still dressed as a monk! Just like Peter etc found it difficult to break from their roots in Judaism, he must have had his own difficulties. Besides, it's a life's work to translate the whole scriptures (when the press was not what it is today), under the risky conditions in which he did, and still have time for in-depth study.

Besides, my post concerning Luther did not exalt him as a hero; just mentioned him as one (out of others) who risked their lives to bring to the open and make public that which the Roman Catholic Church wanted to have monopoly over! It does not therefore mean that everything he says will/should be accepted lock,stock and barrel! Like the Bereans, we cross-check his teachings with the Word and if there is any contradiction, the Word supersedes Luther's or any other person's teaching!

Papist:


What is the origin of your church? Can you trace the succession of your pastors to the apostles or is it a man made sect? Tertullian writing in the second century asks you for the proof here:

"But if there be any [heresies]
which are bold enough to plant
[their origin] in the midst of the
apostolic age, that they may
thereby seem to have been
handed down by the apostles,
because they existed in the time
of the apostles, we can say: Let
them produce the original records
of their churches; let them unfold
the roll of their bishops, running
down in due succession from the
beginning in such a manner that
[their first] bishop shall be able to
show for his ordainer and
predecessor some one of the
apostles or of apostolic men—a
man, moreover, who continued
steadfast with the apostles. For
this is the manner in which the
apostolic churches transmit their
registers: as the church of
Smyrna, which records that
Polycarp was placed therein by
John; as also the church of Rome,
which makes Clement to have
been ordained in like manner by
Peter" (ibid., 32).
"But should they even effect the
contrivance [of composing a
succession list for themselves],
they will not advance a step. For
their very doctrine, after
comparison with that of the
apostles [as contained in other
churches], will declare, by its own
diversity and contrariety, that it
had for its author neither an
apostle nor an apostolic man;
because, as the apostles would
never have taught things which
were self-contradictory" (ibid.).
"Then let all the heresies, when
challenged to these two tests by
our apostolic Church, offer their
proof of how they deem
themselves to be apostolic. But in
truth they neither are so, nor are
they able to prove themselves to
be what they are not. Nor are they
admitted to peaceful relations and
communion by such churches as
are in any way connected with
apostles, inasmuch as they are in
no sense themselves apostolic
because of their diversity as to the
mysteries of the faith" (ibid.).

No denomination is prominent in heaven. The church is not a denomination and its members; rather it is the total of all those who are joined to Jesus Christ by repentance and faith through the power of the Spirit. Each denomination is a mixed multitude of the true Church (believers), hypocrites, and sinners in different mix. (some have more of one than the other, others have almost none)eg the church in jersusalem (before they were dispersed) had Ananias and Sapphira etc

1 Corinthians 12:13

13 For by [[d]means of the personal agency of] one [Holy] Spirit we were all, whether Jews or Greeks, slaves or free, baptized [and [e]by baptism united together] into one body, and all made to drink of one [Holy] Spirit.

That's why Paul spoke of Aquila and the church (gathering of believers) in his house Romans 16:4,5 etc

Besides, Jesus Christ in the book of Revelations 2&3 sent messages to 7 different churches and their leaders( assemblies of believers) scattered through out Asia minor! there was no mention or a likeness of the Catholic church and a singular ruler (eg successor of Peter etc.)

If, like you claim, the Catholic church is the Church(denomination) Jesus established, I wonder why His message to the Churches in Revelations made no mention of that throughout!

italo:





Please show us where the Bible says that those books are not inspired. Or are you following the personal tradition of Martin Luther and his fellow heretics?

All scripture is given by inspiration of God. There's no quote from the Apocrypha. The real custodians of the covenants and the OT (Jews) recognised these inter-testament period books as just literary works.

Remember, you said:

You are right. All Scripture is given by Inspiration of God hence should be our final authority in issues concerning Its contents.

Perfect!

When Martin Luther said the Catholic Church possessed the world of God, was it True or False?

Why quote Luther here? You just called him a heretic! Any way refer to my reply to a post related to your question.

Also you dodged this my question below: please answer

Let me ask, is Joseph the father of God?