₦airaland Forum

blueAgent:
So God is now a lair that will write something different in his book the Bible and still instruct people to teach doctrines contrary to it?


Romans 3:4 King James Version (KJV)
4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.


Version (NKJV)
You Will Know Them by Their Fruits
15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them.

you are the person who imagine that the writings of these early Christians are contradictory to the Bible, which they are not, they are only contradictory to your false interpretation of the Bible.


That is why the early church is totally different from the modern Protestant churches, you guys it seems are interpreting the text in a way that the original audience of the Bible will totally disagree with.

blueAgent:
You are really funny.

You are trying hard to force meaning out of meanless words.

Was Mary married ro Jesus as Eve was married to Adam?

you are really funny because you just showed you didn't read the passage.

Now take your Bible and open gen 3:15, God tells us that unlike Adam and Eve, husband and wife whose tag team led to the fall, the new tag team by which God will create enmity with the devil shall be WOMAN AND HER OFFSPRING. Those are not meaningless words, they are God's word. That is how God was to reverse the old Adam stupidity, and the old Eve failure, there will be a new woman and man, not husband and wife but mother and son. The son according to Paul is the new Adam, the woman then is the new Eve since Adam and Eve failed together a woman and a man will be obedient to God and reverse that fall though not equally.

blueAgent:
Do you know that Occultists and pagans still worship this pagan goddess which your church rebranded as Mary and even pagans confirm that the doctrine on Mary originated from them.

do you know that occultist and pagans still worship pagan gods which they claim the church rebranded and stole and call him Jesus? Even the pagans confirm that the doctrine of Jesus originate from them.



Do you believe the pagans and occultist now?

blueAgent:
Who made her Queen and Holy?

heck that must be God.


Maybe you missed it in your Bible study so maybe later you can check it out.


The mother of the king in the davidic kingdom has the office of Queen mother in the Bible, from Beersheba downward... Every woman who gives birth to the davidic king is Queen mother. Not rocket science.

God prophesied and brought to manifestation that Jesus will be King in that dynasty
Luke 1
You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.”
his mum is automatically Queen mother. No long story there.


As for holy, that is what we call people who as full of grace, who God is with, they can't be anything but holy.

Dantedasz:
Ubenedictus, you spin so many webs,you should call yourself Spiderman.
I suggest you retreat to your safe haven cocoon thread called "A Thread for Catholics". That is the place where no one will tell you the truth and you and your fellow Catholics can continue burying your heads in the sand. See no evil and hear no evil.
However when you come out of that safe haven and come onto independent threads like this one expect to be schooled.
I was once a Catholic so all the pagan origins of Catholicism is well known to me.
I think me and you are done on this thread and you have not been able to convince me of any of your answers.
1. The idolatry worship of Statues of Mary as well as her image.
2. The chanting of hail Mary's as an intercession between man and God.
3.Claiming Mary is without sin.
4.Claiming Mary as the Mother of God.
5. The assumption of Mary.
6.Introduction of Rosary into prayers
7.What ever fancy catches the reigning Pope can be introduced into worship without support of scriptures under papal infallability.
None of the above is scripture but heresy and of Roman pagan origin.

Talking of web spinning, that seems to be your job description, you have been trying to lie about Catholicism for so long now. First you confused mariology with mariolatry, then you showed your ignorance of sin offering meant to remove ceremonial uncleanliness, then you imagined wrongly that the Pope in the 19s proclaimed the feast of assumption on a whim, whereas it has been a feast since at least the 6th century, then you showed your ignorance of basic exegesis when you bundled the protoevangelium passage... You totally jumped the questions I asked you and went about trying to spin stories. I still hasn't worked for you and it seems you new tactics is to try to get me out of the thread. Well it won't work, I have freedom to be in whatever thread I want and address whatever issues I want.

Your claim of once being a Catholic only makes me pity you the more, you are like the kid in a story who threw away diamonds for stones. Your false accusation about worshipping the statue of Mary only shows that if you were indeed a Catholic you mush have been a very ignorant one. Hail Mary is ultimately a quote of a passage from the Bible and a request for intercessory prayers... If you didn't know that then I wonder if you really ever was a Catholic. No one claimed anything, Mary gave birth to a son who is God, she is mother of God incarnate, she was full of grace so I won't even mention sin around her.... That you can't see doesn't mean it is not there.

OLAADEGBU:
Please correct me if I'm wrong, don't you have all your crucifixes with Jesus hanging on it?

not all, there are those with Jesus risen. I do prefer the ones with Christ crucified because that is what Paul preaches, Christ crucified.

eternal rest grant unto them oh Lord and let perpetual light shine upon them. may their souls rest in peace.

Ihedinobi3:
First of all, Ubenedictus, why do you sound like you're on the war path? You opted to respond to me when I addressed myself to PastorAIO. The least you could do is maintain something of a neutral attitude, right? If I have offended you, it was completely unwitting. There is no reason to treat my arguments like a personal affront.

I'm not even offended, I just prefer to be blunt when I write.

I'm not neutral in the discussion because I did take a position, it is not exactly pastoraio's position but it certainly is totally different from yours. I addressed your post because I think if you accuse someone of been simplistic then you must be ready to address the issue in all its complexity. If you think someone is wrong then do the due diligence to make sure you get it right. I didn't consider your response to pastoraio particularly charitable, by my own estimation I have granted you the very charity you didn't do him.

Second, your rebuttal about the Bible's claim about itself is truly disappointing. Here's why:

2 Timothy 3:16
[16]All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

2 Peter 1:20-21
[20]But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation,
[21]for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

2 Peter 3:15-16
[15]and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you,
[16]as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

The above are three out of 53 results that showed up when I searched the word "Scripture" in an NASB (New American Standard Bible) app. The first thing that comes straight out is that the word "Scripture" is clearly used as a technical word meaning something very specific. That means that both Paul and Peter and the people they wrote to knew what the word meant. That is to say, they knew what was Scripture and what was not. This was obviously before all the apostles were dead since these two were apostles. Also, throughout the New Testament, as I already mentioned, there is constant reference to "the Scripture" or "the Scriptures" so that clearly there was existing literature that was known by those who made these references and by those to whom the references were made as Scripture. That immediately negates your claim that "the Hebrew Canon was not set until after the apostles died".

Next, Peter clearly recognized Paul's writings as Scripture in the last passage of the three I shared above. Paul was still very much alive at that time and still writing. So, clearly, the text itself was known to be Scripture right when it was written, not hundreds of years later when some council pronounced upon it. Even Paul himself, the writer, treated his writings as Scripture (Col 4:16). So, as I said before, the Canon was set as each book was written because of God's unique signature in them. The writers knew what they were writing. Those who read the writing knew what they read. No council was necessary to prove anything. And there is no reason in the New Testament to believe that God thundered in any way to communicate that the writing in question was from Him.

Again, it was clearly sufficient that, as Paul said, each writing of Scripture was "inspired" by God. That means that each writing possessed the Essence of God which identified the writing as God's Words to the reader. That is what the Bible itself says, not a claim that I am making. So, the Bible is the one you would be taking issue with here if you disagree, not me. In other words, what Paul said is that if any writing is Scripture, you will be able to tell that it is from the presence of God's Inspiration in it, not that the writing itself will claim to be written by God. So, if you are looking for an actual explicit written claim in a book of the Bible that it was written or commissioned by God, it would be at your own behest, not because the Bible says that true Scripture would be identified that way.

first of all Paul writing to Timothy says all scripture is inspired, in fact he places the word scripture in context by claiming that they are texts Timothy has been familiar with from childhood.... He is speaking of the "scripture" of the old testament and even at that this technical term didn't have a defined list of books. For the Samaritan reading that text Paul was referring to the Torah alone! For a Pharisee it was between 20-22 books since they were still argument on which books are pure, to an average Jewish Rabbi in the first century who accepted the Septuagint it could be 28 books, for an Essene it would be over 30 books...the audience was the church and since the church and the apostles used the Septuagint I believe he was referring to the 29 books the church accepts as scripture. Again that passage pretty much is old testament specific.

The next tells us that Peter knew that many letters of Paul was been considered scripture in the church, the letter doesn't tell us if the writing of Peter, John or Hebrew was considered scripture. Heck it doesn't even tell us which of the letters of Paul is been referred to, is it his letters to the churches or does it include his personal correspondence like that to Philemon.

I repeat what I wrote earlier, the Bible does not anywhere state that these 50,70, or 80 books are the scripture, God's word and Oracle... The people who did make that claim is the church.
The Bible tells us that scripture is God breathed but it certainly does not give a list of the books that make the scripture.

The Bible doesn't make the claim either that whatever is scripture is immediately recognisable, if is was Jews won't be debating what books defiled the hand, nor would whole Christian churches reject certain letters of Peter, etc, nor would Martin Luther advocate against the book of James as contradictory to the other scripture. Your theory that the book of Timothy implies that scripture is immediately recognised is just a theory and not found in the passage in question.

None of this puts a dent on what I said earlier.

The issue of each man discerning the "feature" that says a book is inspired still raises it own question, who makes the discernment, Luther tried and ended up not liking both James and the deuterocanon, the church did its own and accepted 73 books, I hear the Ethiopian church now accept 80 books, jerome discerned and had two lists of scripture one he called canon, the other ecclesiastical, heck I believe you are happy with 66 books based on your discernment. Who among the above have got the discernment correct? Or it is OK for every one to discern for himself? Heck who here has the authority to discern? Based on acts 15 I say the church has the final say, she is led by the spirit and is heir to the unfailing promises of Christ... For you I guess it everyone for himself.

Finally, obviously, the Bible does claim that Scripture is God-inspired. So, unless any writing can prove itself to indeed be God-inspired, it is not Scripture. That is the Bible's actual claim. And it is on the basis of that claim that we can say that this or that book does or does not belong in the Bible. It is only when we doubt this claim made in the Bible that we would then make up our own criteria for deciding what is and what is not Scripture. That is what I believe is very wrong with the Roman Catholic Church: you do not believe the Bible

I will say the collection called the Bible does NOT make such claim, some books allude to other, some books make claims about themselves, but certainly no book or group of books tell us that the current collection in your hand is exactly scripture. Nope that decision was made by others.

The Catholic church certainly doesn't share your theory that the Bible tells us it table of content and calls it all scripture, we don't do that because it is a lie to say the Bible makes a claim it doesn't make.

We do believe the Bible to be God's word but we wouldn't lie that its table of content is immediately recognisable and that the Bible tells us of same.

Third, I don't believe that it is only good people who can tell that something is Scripture. That is not what I said. I believe that the Bible identifies itself to anyone who cares to know what it is. Not that they would understand what it says: only those who have the Spirit of God can understand what the Bible says. But anyone - good, bad, believing, unbelieving - who comes to the Bible seeking to know what it is will know that it is God's Oracle. Whether they decide to retain that knowledge in themselves by believing it or not is up to them. If they choose to reject it as God's Truth, then the Bible will be closed to them and its claims and pronouncements ridiculous to them. That is why we can have these discussions. The Truth does not force itself on anyone while we still live in mortal flesh in this world. We have free will and can choose whether to accept or reject the Truth as it pleases us. So, even knowing that the Bible is the Word of God when we open it does not mean that we will believe it. We can reject that knowledge and choose instead to lie to ourselves that it isn't for any number of rationalizations that suits us.

anyone can find it you say and whoever can't find it is just one who rejected the truth he found.

I could say the same of anything, Nigeria is the greatest country in the world everyone can see it whoever doesn't agree, saw it but rejected it.

My grand mum is a virgin, everyone can see it, whoever doesn't agree saw it but rejected it... And I can go on and on, the statement is amoebic in nature, sounds like what you say when you can't address an issue, you claim it is self evident and condemn all he disagree as insincere liars etc. Doesn't make for a good argument.

So, double standards? Luther's alleged tampering? Essenes? Etc. My answer to all these things is that once you accept the testimony of Scripture concerning itself, it becomes clear that to know what book, text, translation, manuscript etc is Scripture, all we need to do is read it.

PS. I don't think that you should take history so lightly. You make a lot of claims on the basis of documents you believe say the truth about what happened so long ago. A trained historian might surprise you about what is really admissible as historical truth and what isn't. Just saying.

OK tell us which translation(s) is correct since you assume to have the right discernment. Is Luke correct to quote the Septuagint above the Hebrew that a virgin is to conceive not just a young woman?

Since you believe your acceptance of a claim scripture doesn't make of itself gives you the qualification to discern, how about we hear it.


Lastly certain trained historians also tell us that lots of things, some even tell us that the church tampered and added to or revised the new testament we now used, some tell us the scribes did same to the old testament even before Jesus was born, attend a class on high method of biblical criticism and you'll be scared what they say. There are those who say the apostles didn't write the gospel.... How many of those do you agree with.

JMAN05:
It letter has a substance to the discussion, The full paragraph of interest reads:

Letter 107 - To Laeta

let her treasures be not silks or gems but manuscripts of the holy scriptures; and in these let her think less of gilding, and Babylonian parchment, and arabesque patterns, than of correctness and accurate punctuation. Let her begin by learning the psalter, and then let her gather rules of life out of the proverbs of Solomon. From the Preacher let her gain the habit of despising the world and its vanities. Let her follow the example set in Job of virtue and of patience. Then let her pass on to the gospels never to be laid aside when once they have been taken in hand. Let her also drink in with a willing heart the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles. As soon as she has enriched the storehouse of her mind with these treasures, let her commit to memory the prophets, the heptateuch, the books of Kings and of Chronicles, the rolls also of Ezra and Esther. When she has done all these she may safely read the Song of Songs but not before: for, were she to read it at the beginning, she would fail to perceive that, though it is written in fleshly words, it is a marriage song of a spiritual bridal. And not understanding this she would suffer hurt from it. Let her avoid all apocryphal writings, and if she is led to read such not by the truth of the doctrines which they contain but out of respect for the miracles contained in them; let her understand that they are not really written by those to whom they are ascribed, that many faulty elements have been introduced into them, and that it requires infinite discretion to look for gold in the midst of dirt. Cyprian's writings let her have always in her hands. The letters of Athanasius and the treatises of Hilary she may go through without fear of stumbling. Let her take pleasure in the works and wits of all in whose books a due regard for the faith is not neglected. But if she reads the works of others let it be rather to judge them than to follow them."

you can see the instruction was about sacred scripture before his recommending other works.

actually I read the entire paragraph and many books of the Bible weren't mentioned, many that Jerome considers canonical aren't there, but guess the works that make it, Cyprian, Hilary and Athanasius.


As I earlier said this is a list of books a child is to read not his list of what is scripture.

He gives a list of canonical scripture elsewhere and later his list of ecclesiastical scripture.

jerome listed 22 books as what he viewed are canonical, and stated that any beyond that will be left as apocryphal. When someone list books he considers canonical, he is in another words telling us that the books he listed are inspired and authoritative. Any other book beyond that might be correct, but it is never as authoritative and inspired as the ones listed as canonical. That is simple to me.

he lists the books he considered canonical 22 of them, he listed another 7 he considered ecclesiastical to be read by the authority of the church for edification and he also calls those books scripture... It is the others who do not make either list that are apocryphal.

On the topic of Jerome, it is easy to concede that he elevated the Hebrew scripture and even though he calls the deuterocanon scripture he doesn't call them canonical... That is easy to concede. So too it is easy to remember that the church in council over ruled him and one priest doesn't equal the entire church in authority.

For Jerome the deuterocanon wasn't apocrypha, it was ecclesiatical, it was scripture just placed below the Hebrew canon in authority.... For the church who has the authority, it is both scripture, and canonical.

I think you are detaching that discussion out of context. The church back then had even accepted this apocryphals as canonical, as they follow what is written in the Septuagint. Back then, they viewed the Septuagint as inspired. But Jerome took a different turn. He went ahead to translate from the Hebrew Bible, not the Septuagint that was revered by the then church. Is that the judgment of the churches? When Augustine wrote Jerome, instructing him to stick to the Septuagint and nothing more, did Jerome hid to that advice? You read further his letter 57 or read that discuss with Rufinus, you will see him make case for the Hebrew bible as against the Septuagint, which was then against the opinion of the churches. So you are cutting the letter out of context.

Jerome all through his life consistently accepted the Hebrew texts as been the best even though the church didn't. But in the letter to rufinus he wrote clearly that he didn't translate Daniel by the Hebrew text but instead by the greek because THAT IS THE JUDGMENT OF THE CHURCH.


HE SAYS:

We have four versions to choose from: those of Aquila, Symmachus, the Seventy, and Theodotion. The churches choose to read Daniel in the version of Theodotion. What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches? But when I repeat what the Jews say against the Story of Susanna and the Hymn of the Three Children, and the fables of Bel and the Dragon, which are not contained in the Hebrew Bible, the man who makes this a charge against me proves himself to be a fool and a slanderer; for I explained not what I thought but what they commonly say against us. I did not reply to their opinion in the Preface, because I was studying brevity, and feared that I should seem to he writing not a Preface but a book.


So no, am not quoting out of context, Jerome who preferred the Hebrew text translated Daniel according to the Greek because that is what the church says. That same Jerome also translated the deuterocanonical book even though they are not found in the Hebrew text.

If one does not list a particular book in his canon, how can he view the one not listed as inspired. If you understand the meaning of canon, you will understand the point very well. And some of the areas where you added a scripture attached the words of these men are not certain. They never wrote there words with those scriptural quotations. Secondly, as Jerome said to Laeta, they may view those books as books of wisdom,but not as a book from the authors the book was ascribed to.

because canon in the early church does not equal inspiration. Canon is what is read in liturgy. In the Russian Orthodox church the book of revelation is not canonical but it is scripture. We know he considered them scripture became he gives them a list of their own and calls them scripture. This is pretty clear.
Does not the SCRIPTURE say: 'Burden not thyself above thy power' [SIRACH 13:2] Jerome, To Eustochium, Epistle 108 (A.D. 404), in NPNF2, VI:207

Jerome says:

"Thus there are twenty-two books . . . This prologue of the Scriptures can serve as a fortified approach to all the books which we translate from the Hebrew into Latin; so that we may know that whatever is beyond these must be put in the apocrypha"

And these is even as the council of Carthage had those books as there canon.

and Jerome denied speaking wrongly of the deuterocanon.... And I'll still take the church above Jerome.

blueAgent:
Ezekiel 28:18 Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee. 28:19 All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more.

Is there anything written above that is complex to understand?

is this also too complex to understand?


The word of the LORD came to me: “Son of man,
take up a lament concerning the king of Tyre and say to
him: ‘This is what the Sovereign LORD says

blueAgent:
Its obvious you don't know that the word venerate is a Synonym of Worship


Known Use of venerate
circa 1623, in the meaning defined at sense 1
History and Etymology for venerate
borrowed from Latin venerātus, past participle of
Latin venerārī "to solicit the good will of (a deity), worship, pay homage to, hold in awe," verbal derivative of vener-, venus "sexual desire, qualities exciting desire, charm, (as proper noun) goddess personifying sexual
attractiveness" (probably originally in cognate
accusative phrase Venerem venerārī "to propitiate Venus," extended to other deities) — more at
VENUS

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/venerate


Secondly define worship for me.

why do you enjoy posting half truths. oya before you go to etymology learn the contemporary meaning.



Definition of venerate
: to regard with reverential respect or with
admiring deference
1
: to honor (an icon, a relic, etc.) with a ritual
act of devotion



Choose the Right Synonym for venerate
REVERE , REVERENCE , VENERATE, WORSHIP, ADORE
mean to honor and admire profoundly and
respectfully. REVERE stresses deference and
tenderness of feeling. // a professor revered by her
students // REVERENCE presupposes an intrinsic
merit and inviolability in the one honored and a
similar depth of feeling in the one honoring. //
reverenced the academy's code of honor //
VENERATE implies a holding as holy or sacrosanct
because of character, association, or age. // heroes
still venerated // WORSHIP implies homage usually
expressed in words or ceremony. // worships their
memory // ADORE implies love and stresses the
notion of an individual and personal attachment. //
we adored our doctor //
What's the Difference Between venerate ,
revere , and reverence ?
Venerate , revere , reverence , worship, and adore all
mean to honor and admire profoundly and
respectfully. Venerate implies a holding as holy or
sacrosanct because of character, association, or
age. Revere stresses deference and tenderness of
feeling ("a professor revered by students".
Reverence presupposes an intrinsic merit and
inviolability in the one honored and a similar depth of
feeling in the one honoring ("she reverenced the
academy's code of honor". Worship implies homage
usually expressed in words or ceremony ("he
worships their memory". Adore implies love and
stresses the notion of an individual and personal
attachment ("we adored our doctor". Venerate ,
incidentally, traces back to the Latin verb venerari,
from vener -, meaning "love" or "charm."
Examples of venerate in a Sentence
// a writer venerated by generations of admirers
// She is venerated as a saint.
Recent Examples on the Web
// One of the key thinkers venerated by Putin and his
circle is a hitherto obscure Russian fascist, Ivan
Ilyin, whose views are absurd but terrifying in their
implications.
— Margaret Macmillan, New York Times, "Are We Traveling the
‘Road to Unfreedom’?," 9 May 2018
// Madikizela-Mandela was persecuted by the
apartheid government, and venerated by many South
Africans, because of her activism against white
minority rule.
— Washington Post , "South Africa declares mourning period for
Madikizela-Mandela," 3 Apr. 2018
// Discretion is different now; it is practiced less, it
is venerated less.
— Meagan Fredette, refinery29.com , "Are Justin Bieber &
Ariana Grande Trying To One-Up Each Other On PDA?," 14 July
2018
// Social media's problems stem not just from
internet companies' business strategies but from the
technologies the companies use and venerate.
— Nicholas Carr, chicagotribune.com , "Is Facebook the problem
with Facebook, or is it us?," 10 July 2018
// Every day, the whole world seems to venerate
mothers, but for you, Mother’s Day is the worst.
— Yvonne Abraham, BostonGlobe.com , "For women who have
trouble conceiving, Mother’s Day can be the worst," 12 May
2018
// The comment made Lugo reflect on whose faces
get venerated on vases.
— Cassie Owens, Philly.com , "Throwing down: How this potter
from Kensington found fine art success," 26 June 2018
// Mexico may venerate its teachers, but that seems
not to have translated into learning.
— The Economist , "Mexico’s crucial education reform risks
being unwound," 31 May 2018
// Long- venerated as a trading powerhouse, Goldman
Sachs has struggled to regain its foothold there
since the financial crisis.
— Fortune , "Goldman Sachs Group," 29 Mar. 2018





hope you can now see the difference,


source: the same Merriam Webster dictionary you selectively quoted.

blueAgent:
So you don't know that Diana is another name of the pagan goddess which your church rebranded as Mary?

no dear, maybe Diana is the name of the Mary your pastor talks about in your church.


the Mary we honor in the Catholic church is instead the mother of my saviour, my Lord and my God, Christ Jesus, she is no goddess, she instead is highly graced.

blueAgent:
Tell me how this is not worship?

One popular prayer in Mary’s honor is the Hail
Holy Queen, which is known in Latin as the
Salve Regina. It is traditionally included as part
of praying the rosary.
For Catholics who are reading this, please try to
overcome your familiarity with this text and really
look at the words. Doesn’t this sound like
worship?
“Hail, holy Queen, Mother of Mercy! Our life,
our sweetness and our hope! To thee do we
cry, poor banished children of Eve. To thee
do we send up our sighs, mourning and
weeping, in this valley of tears. Turn, then,
most gracious Advocate, thine eyes of mercy
toward us; and after this our exile show unto
us the blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus. O
clement, O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary.”
Alfonsus de Liguori (1696-1787) was a principal
proponent of the Marianist Movement, which
glorifies Mary. He wrote a book entitled The
Glories of Mary which is famous, influential and widely read. In this book, de Liguori says that Mary was given rulership over one half of the kingdom of God; Mary rules over the kingdom of mercy and Jesus rules over the kingdom of justice. De Liguori said that people should pray to Mary as a mediator and look to her as an object of trust for answered prayer. The book even says that there is no salvation outside of Mary. Some people suggest that these views are extreme and not representative of Catholic
Church teaching. However, instead of silencing de Liguori as a heretic, the Catholic Church canonized him as a saint

sorry if you are scandalized but that prayer is exactly how any human will address her Queen and that's is with a good deal of poetic flowery language

blueAgent:
Tell me how this is not worship?

One popular prayer in Mary’s honor is the Hail
Holy Queen, which is known in Latin as the
Salve Regina. It is traditionally included as part
of praying the rosary.
For Catholics who are reading this, please try to
overcome your familiarity with this text and really
look at the words. Doesn’t this sound like
worship?
“Hail, holy Queen, Mother of Mercy! Our life,
our sweetness and our hope! To thee do we
cry, poor banished children of Eve. To thee
do we send up our sighs, mourning and
weeping, in this valley of tears. Turn, then,
most gracious Advocate, thine eyes of mercy
toward us; and after this our exile show unto
us the blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus. O
clement, O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary.”
Alfonsus de Liguori (1696-1787) was a principal
proponent of the Marianist Movement, which
glorifies Mary. He wrote a book entitled The
Glories of Mary which is famous, influential and widely read. In this book, de Liguori says that Mary was given rulership over one half of the kingdom of God; Mary rules over the kingdom of mercy and Jesus rules over the kingdom of justice. De Liguori said that people should pray to Mary as a mediator and look to her as an object of trust for answered prayer. The book even says that there is no salvation outside of Mary. Some people suggest that these views are extreme and not representative of Catholic
Church teaching. However, instead of silencing de Liguori as a heretic, the Catholic Church canonized him as a saint

so we are now going by the testimony of Satanists now abi?

guess I should provide a quote by Satanists too that says the reformation is the work of the devil to divide the church of Christ into factions.

will you accept that too?

blueAgent:
They are Fake Christain leaders.
Am never moved by whatsoever a christain leader does no matter your annointing or grace what matters to me is that what the christain leader says or does agrees with God's word

Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

you are now God who decides the true from the fake Christians abi?


Justin martyr who was killed for his faith in Jesus and acclaimed by the entire church is fake to you but you blue agent sited in the comfort of your home must be one abi.

funny enough 3 of the gospels are anonymously written, it is iranaeus a disciples of John the apostle who tells us who wrote what, but I guess in your estimation, these people taught by the apostles and well known for trustfully handing on the Christian faith by the whole church they are fake but you are correct.

you are getting biblical exegesis from members of the church closer to the apostles and you say they are all fake but you in 2018 who neither know the languages in which the Bible is written nor the apostles in person nor even acclaimed by the church, you are the correct guy.

sorry dear, you are not correct just because you claim to be correct.

blueAgent:
all through the Bible nowhere is Mary mentioned as the new eve all this are fabrications of your Church the Bible mentions Jesus as the one through his death and resurection redeem man from death which Adam brought upon humanity through his disobeidence nowhere is Eve or Mary ever mentioned as typo.

then you need to read your Bible.


in genesis 3:15 God promised a new Eve aka Woman whose seed is the new Adam and he established a perpetual enmity between the new Eve and the devil, between her offspring and the devils offspring.

Paul tells us that Jesus is the new Adam who reverses the old Adams sin, Mary then is the new Eve the fulfilment of that prophecy, the woman.


you don't need a PhD to get that.

blueAgent:
You lied the early Church never worshipped or venerated Mary.
In Acts 19:24 Paul condemed the Greeks for worshipping the goddess Diana which is another name for Queen of Heaven no where in the bible did Paul or any other the apostles ever give Mary any title lest of all venerate her. it was this same Diana that was rebranded as Mary


Acts 19:24
For a certain man named Demetrius, a silversmith, which made silver shrines for Diana, brought no small gain unto the craftsmen; 19:25 Whom he called together with the workmen of like occupation, and said, Sirs, ye know that by this craft we have our wealth. 19:26 Moreover ye see and hear, that not alone at Ephesus, but almost throughout all Asia, this Paul hath persuaded and turned away much people, saying that they be no gods, which are made with hands: 19:27 So that not only this our craft is in danger to be set at nought; but also that the temple of the great goddess Diana should be despised, and her magnificence should be destroyed, whom all Asia and the world worshippeth. 19:28 And when they heard these sayings, they were full of wrath, and cried out, saying, Great is Diana of the Ephesians. 19:29 And the whole city was filled with confusion: and having caught Gaius and Aristarchus, men of Macedonia, Paul's companions in travel, they rushed with one accord into the theatre. 19:30 And when Paul would have entered in unto the people, the disciples suffered him not.

what concerns Diana and Mary, you seem to be inconsistent as usual.


The Bible tells us about the honor of Mary and her title.

You just seem blind to it or you knowingly try confusing the mother of Jesus with Diana.


I would go even more direct, God himself honored Mary, Jesus honoured her, the the Bible tells me that all generation, all ages will do same.

God honored her
Luke 1
God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, 27 to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. 28 The angel went to her and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.”

Jesus honored her
Luke 2:51

Then he went down to Nazareth with them and was obedient to them. But his mother treasured all these things in her heart.

All ages will honor her.

Luke 1:48 hmm



So Jesus honored her, so do I

Dantedasz:
[b]Catholics just pick dogmas out of the air and make them a part of their worship or modus operandi. The infallability of the Pope is a very large loophole which allows any given Pope to introduce whims and caprices into Catholic worship such as the statues and art work of Mary. Another is the introduction of the rosary which was not at the council of Nicaea but was a later invention and introduction stolen from Hinduism,Vishnu and Shiva all based on pagan origins.
The rosary has no backing in the scriptures in the Christian Bible but is a self invention and man made traditions by the Catholics.
Catholics do not appear to read their Bible or know what is written in it or choose to pretend not to know when it comes to declaring Mary as being without sin.
The book of Romans Chapter 3 VERSE 10 is very clear on sin but Catholics elevate Mary without scriptural backing to the Mother of God. Queen of heaven and through her statues and chanting of hail Mary convert Mary to a vessel to get to God.
None of these practices are based on scriptures but on heresies plucked from the depths of ancient Roman pagan rituals.
[/b]

again you are back spinning tales...

The doctrine of infallibility doesn't give the Pope the power to invent doctrine, it simply confirms the Pope as spokesman for the church, it means he can confirm that which is already taught in the church and thus dispel fractions. The Pope doesn't invent doctrine, he confirms them against heresies.


The rest is your hogwash as usual.

Dantedasz:
GENESIS CHAPTER 3 VERSE 15.



Genesis 3:15 King James Version (KJV)
15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

King James Version (KJV)



How does this passage relate to Mary and the Catholic assumption?
This is directed at Eve and the serpent. Keep on wriggling. There is more to come.

then you are ignorant of basic scriptural exegesis. That passage is called the proto evangelium, God's first declaration of the good news.

God prophesied an enmity between The Woman and the serpent and between the Woman's seed and the serpents seed. In the Bible only men have seeds except in this passage. This tells us how God will save us by a collabo of a woman and her seed that is Mary and her son conceived without a man.

The victory over the enemy is by both so too will they share it effects.

OLAADEGBU:
That is my point, the reason you only have the dying Jesus on your crucifix. The devil wishes Jesus either remains a baby on His mother's hands or he will have him remain perpetually hanging on the cross, which you are happy to portray.

we also have Jesus risen from the grave but as usual your bias will blind you to such.

Youlyn:
Dear, I went through everything and was the coordinator in my parish who train others for consecration.
Nobody convince me that what we were doing is wrong but the Holy Spirit.
Actually in words we say we don't worship her but in deed we do. How can you explain moulding a statue of someone and kneeling down to pray before it always. Sometimes kiss the image, carry the image on your neck and praying to her every 3 hours apart from the 150 daily hail Mary. Dedicate 2 months of the year for her with several days too.

See what the Bible says:
Exodus 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;


Romans 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

I don't know you but I will strongly advise you to try worshipping God in truth and in spirit in a Holiness preaching church.
God bless you.
You will see the difference when Christ comes into your life.

then you must be a jjc in scripture.


That same Bible has images of cherubims molded in gold that the Israelites prostrated before when then pray and the holding of those images were reserved from priests. If that is not idolatry neither is the case of Mary.


Sorry dear, you were deceived. Praying in front of an image and even prostrating before same is found in scripture.

F

Dantedasz:
Is it scriptured in your Bible?
If so please direct me to the Bible passage.

gen 3: 15.

Learn to read in context

Dantedasz:
@ubenedictus,
While you point out where the assumption of Mary is in the scriptures let me proceed to prove to you with scripture from your Bible that Mary can not be without sin.

Luke Chapter 2 verses 21-24.
Leviticus Chapter 12 verse 8.

LUKE 2 VERSES 21-24
.....................................

Luke 2:21-24 King James Version (KJV)
21 And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called Jesus, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.

22 And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord;

23 (As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord

24 And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.

King James Version (KJV).





LEVITICUS 12 VERSE 8
.......................................


Leviticus 12:8 King James Version (KJV)
8 And if she be not able to bring a lamb, then she shall bring two turtles, or two young pigeons; the one for the burnt offering, and the other for a sin offering: and the priest shall make an atonement for her, and she shall be clean.

King James Version (KJV).

the Bible tells us the reason for the sin sacrifice, it is for ceremonial cleaniness.

The Jews believe that touching blood makes someone unclean, a woman mensuration is also considered unclean, so too a woman who gives birth... The sacrifice is to make someone ceremonially clean.

So even if you are without sin when you give birth you must still offer that sacrifice, so as to be ceremoniously clean

Dantedasz:
The assumption of Mary is an example of a festival hinged on the whims and captives of any given Pope under the ambiguous umbrella of papal infallability. It is not scriptured. It has its roots in ancient Roman pagan rituals and worship. There is nowhere this assumption of Mary is located in the Bible except for conjectures and innuendos from passages in the scriptures vaguely interpreted by Catholics.
This assumption was never legitimate in Catholicism until 1st November 1950 when the then Pope Plus xii dogmatically defined the earthly body and soul of Mary to have been taken or assumed into heaven as the second Eve and mother of the Christos.
This festival of assumption of Mary is celebrated on August 15th and is a holiday in certain countries.
This assumption is not scriptural,but is vaguely based on Roman pagan worship of the goddess Diana,the virgin goddess of the moon and the hunt.
This Roman festival of the assumption of Diana was celebrated on August 15th,just like the assumption of Mary.
Diana was celebrated by the Roman belief that she was assumed into heaven as an eternal virgin and had become the queen of heaven.
This can not be a coincidence can it?
Finally even the Catholics are not clear on the place of this unscriptured assumption of Mary-is it from Jerusalem or from Ephesus?
@ubenedictus, more to come later.

again this isn't true, the assumption has been a feast since at least the 5&6 century, it just didn't spread to the west, so even though the West held the assumption as doctrine it wasn't a feast. Only in the east.

Again the Pope didn't proclaim it on a whim, the church petitioned the Pope on that feast, he asked every bishop and the overwhelming majority of the church already held the teaching... The Pope merely acted as a spokesman and proclaimed what is already believed. Again the assumption goes back to the early church

Glycolysis:
I'm done arguing on religious issues...
Believe whatever you want to believe.
Take care..



Good afternoon.

take care

R

Ihedinobi3:
@Ubenedictus, I will beg your indulgence because I am going to cut to the heart of the matter. I apologize if that offends you but I really cannot afford the time and energy for the piecemeal responses that you may want and for all the historical research that answering each specific point requires especially since I am not trained in history.

you don't need to be trained in history you just need to be sufficiently interested about the issue....
I don't have the time to be offended.

To begin with, the claim the Bible makes and which Christians believe is that it is the Word of God, God's Oracle, God's Truth or God's Testimony.

Allow me to begin here to address your points

The 66 books of the Protestant Bible or the 70+ books of the Catholic/Orthodox bibles do not make any claim that each of those books are God's oracles, his word etc. Don't get me wrong, many book have a thus says the Lord character, but many others don't, besides there are many thus says the Lord books that none of the groups above consider scripture. Paul is the guy who tells us all scripture is God breathed but he doesn't give a list of the books he considers scripture... Is it the current Hebrew Bible or a more robust Septuagint, we know he used the Septuagint extensively? Did he intend to write scripture when he was writing the letter to Philemon? Or is Luke's personal correspondence with theophilus?


There is no book in the Bible that says these 66 or 73 books are scripture, God's word and Oracle, nope! That claim isn't in the Bible.

Do you know who made those claims?

The Christian churches, they brought together personal letters, church letters and books of various genres and declared that they are scripture, God's Truth and Oracle.

That is the first point, the Bible makes no such claim.

That statement is what this thread is attacking on the basis of historical arguments that I believe are very flawed. I have already given my reasons for believing so. Now I will give my reasons for believing that the Bible's claim about itself is true. In my arguments, I think that you will also find your own counterarguments answered in one way or another.

I believe your premise is itself wrong, the Bible makes no such claim.

The same way that the only person who can tell you that some testimony attributed to them is really from them is that person themselves, it is only God Himself Who decides what the Bible is or what the Canon is. No human or angelic council can do that. It cannot be voted on or be pronounced upon in any way. If any book belongs to the Canon, it will be known from the identifying feature - whatever it may be - that God Himself put upon it to make sure that nobody who really cares to know will be confused about it. That is only to be expected since we evil humans who will deliberately mislead other people into believing falsehoods about ourselves can still be responsible enough to make sure that people we care about don't get misled into believing that something that is not from us is really from us and something that is really isn't. God Who is Perfect and perfectly loving toward His Creatures must therefore be even more responsible in His Own Actions regarding His Testimony. The books that He inspired must therefore contain some innate witness within themselves that makes it clear to everyone who reads them that these books really came from Him.

Therefore, no human or angelic council of any sort is qualified or necessary to decide what the Canon is or "set it" in any way.

here you have created new problems for yourself. Of course the guy who has the right to say which and which are his word is the owner of the word himself.... That can't be debated, the question is how do you know what God says concerning each book been scripture or not?

Its been a long time since men heard God thundering his opinion about stuff from heaven, if I remember rightly it scared the hell out of them, so the question remains how do we know...

You believe that God put an identify feature upon each book, that every good person should recognize... Well many Samaritans will describe themselves as sincere yet they didn't see that feature in the prophets and proverbs and psalms, the Essene say the feature in in the Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, the Pharisees will disagree... On and on....seeing this illusive "feature" seem pretty subjective, the good men in the church say they saw it and the rabbis didn't. Who decides who really get the feature thing?

I on the other hand will argue that God in his kindness didnt want us in such confusion and made his church as the pillar and bulwark of truth, promised her the holy spirit to lead her to all Truth and promised to be with her for all ages...I will argue that he guides each council as is found in acts 15 that it decisions are spirit guided. And I would say that the church is the guarantee to the scripture not each individual Christian searching subjectively for a rather illusive nondescript "feature".

The word of God doesn't thunder from heaven and if it isn't the voice of the church, then every Christian may very well decide on his own canon according to his knowledge of the " feature " just as Luther attempted removing certain new testament books.

For this reason, I cannot accept that the Canon of the Hebrew Scriptures (which, by the way, were in use for more than a thousand years and the last of which was written more than four hundred years before the Lord Jesus Christ came and died for our sins) was "not set until after the apostles had died". The Canon was set as each book was written because of God's unique "signature", if you will, in each one of them.

Now, because human history from the Garden of Eden until Eternity begins is all about Truth, that is, about the question, "what is Truth?", it only follows that Satan and humans will be invested in distorting whatever God's own Answer to that question may be. We possess a free will, the very Image of God, and therefore can choose what we want to believe. But we also have something in us that demands Truth, that is, a Conscience. For that reason, while we may reject God's Truth, we must provide ourselves with some rationale for doing so. That is what leads to the distortions and total or complete inventions of belief systems of our own that have nothing to do with God, forcing our consciences to embrace the Lie in one form or another.

That is how many versions of the Bible whether in historical manuscripts or in contemporary translations exist with not a few of them conflicting with each other on one point or the other.

Regardless of this desire on the part of the majority of human beings to distort God's Truth, God's Truth is still preserved in the world because of others who not only want to know it in its pure form but want to keep it accessible to others who may come to seek it. This is how God counteracts the power of the Lie. So, in every generation, there have been true believers equipped with the abilities and resources required to either reclaim the Truth from increasingly elaborate distortions that the Enemy and his agents have tried to mire it in. Some of them, like Jerome, had tremendous work to do in doing so and, being weak humans like the rest of us, often caved to the pressure to just leave well enough alone but each one went far enough to preserve a shining witness to God's Testimony for others to know that work still needed to be done. Their mistakes - when they made any - must then be separated from their successes. That Jerome, for example, did quote some of the Apocrypha as Scripture - if indeed he did for I admit no such thing having too little expertise in history to have any kind of expert opinion on that - does not therefore mean that they were part of the Bible. It only means that he did quote them as Scripture - if, like I said, your claims that he did are in fact true.

who decides what is a distortion and what is true, a Catholic say rightly that Jerome quoted the deuterocanon as scripture and that they truly are, Protestants repeat his reservations for them and say they are a distortion. Catholics will say the decision of the church superseded the reservation of one priest Jerome, Protestants elevate his reservation above the church. Which is the distortion which is the truth?

Do you believe that some books that are scripture should be in the Bible? because you seem to think Jerome quote them as scripture yet they should not be in the Bible.

Who decides what is a shinning witness and what is a mistake? A Catholic/Orthodox will see Jerome's submission to the judgment of the church as a shinning witness, you seem to think it is a mistake. I guess if he agrees with you it is a shinning witness, when he disagrees it is a mistake abi?

Talk of double standard and making ones self the ultimate authority.

Why did God not prevent anyone from corrupting the Scriptures though? It is a fair question because obviously God can and He loves us and wants us to know the Truth or else the Bible is lying about Him, that is, He would be lying about Himself if the Bible is truly His Testimony. The answer to that question is that we have a free will. All sane human beings (the overwhelming majority of human beings) do. Therefore, each of us has a God-given right to decide what to do with God's Testimony. We can receive it in humility. We can ignore it. Or we can actively try to destroy it like King Jehoiakim of Judah tried to do in Jeremiah 36:21-26. Active physical destruction of the Bible has been attempted multiple times in human history but it is not the only way that people have actively attempted to destroy the Scriptures. They have tried too to add or remove or change material in them so that those who read their production will be misled into believing lies masked as Truth. This is hardly novel since Satan himself has been doing that since the beginning of human history, that is, presenting the lie as the truth to try to deceive those who want to be listening to God.

reminds me of Luther knowingly adding the word alone in his German Bible and removing books from the Bible

God allows this to make sure that every human choice about him is clearly demonstrated in the eyes of men and angels. But He is also God and He does have people who love His Truth and He commits Himself to helping them to preserve it, covering their weaknesses with His Strength so that His Testimony is preserved pure in the earth. There has never been a time in human history when such people did not exist. Nor has there ever been a time in human history when their opposite didn't either. So at all times throughout human history, both the pure Testimony of God and the adulteration, distortions and outright invented alternatives have always existed together so that everyone can choose what side they want to be on.

For this reason, the age of any given material says very little about whether or not it is God's Testimony. So, the argument that the Septuagint pre-existed the Masoretic Text counts for exactly nothing...not to mention that in some of the material discovered in the Qumran Caves you mentioned which are older than the Septuagint (if memory serves me right), the Masoretic Text was witnessed to rather emphatically.

and many times the substraction and addition in the masoretic text are made glaring.

Finally, what is God's Signature in the Scriptures? How can anyone know what is Scripture and what isn't if we cannot judge by human authority or popular appeal? It is this: God is Spirit, therefore, every Scripture will contain His Essence, that is, they will necessarily possess His Inspiration and thus be spiritual in themselves. This is something that cannot be ascertained by physical or material investigation of any kind. The same way that our eyes need help to be able to detect certain lights like infrared and ultraviolet, our minds must be helped (with the tool or faculty of free will faith) in order to perceive the spiritual quality of the Scriptures. Every living human is able to tell that Scripture is Scripture (if they have preserved that faculty of free will faith in themselves) but not everyone can understand what is written in it. For unbelievers, if they care, they will find the Gospel in the Bible and be led to Salvation. Other than that, not much else in the Bible will make sense to them since it is spiritually discerned. For the neophyte believer, they may learn some fundamental truths of the Bible. But only if they submit to a fellow believer who possesses a teaching gift and training will they learn more than that. The Scriptures only yield themselves to faith and growing faith. Otherwise, they are opaque to those who try to read them.

This is why it is such a stumbling block. When those who will not submit to God discover His Testimony, they have only two possible reactions: ignore it or try to destroy it. Many have done or tried to do one or the other. But nobody has ever seen God's Truth and failed to know Its Uniqueness.

So, all the history in this debate is an interesting intellectual exercise and had I the time I would have enjoyed butting heads with you over what really did happen and what each event really meant. But I don't have the time and the history is beside the point. The point is that the Bible is really its own defence against all the efforts that have been made to destroy it. So, PastorAIO is wrong and in quite a few points so are you.

if every human can tell that "scripture is scripture" as you claim then we wouldn't be having a discussion about the church decisions about scripture been overruled by some men 500years ago.


Since you seem to get the feature thing, please tell us which version, translation, canon.... Has the identification feature?

Dantedasz:
You know you are being economical with the truth about mariolatory. The same thing you did on the paedophilia Catholic priests thread.
I will get back to you when I get back from work.
So Mary that had other children after Jesus as stated in your Bible is a perpetual virgin ?
Mary that stated in Luke that she is a sinner is without sin according to you??
Mary also ascended into heaven like Jesus
These are just heresies and blasphemy based on Roman idolatry practises.
I will mention you when I get back....

no dear! I am never economical with the truth, I am pretty happily blunt in speech, in the other thread I remember speaking frankly too, let criminals be condemned, let victims receive Justice, let the accused be justly presumed innocent until otherwise is found...all in all let justice be rightly pursued, it is a pity you think that is economical.

When you come back please provide.

1. Any child in scripture who is identified as Mary's child.

2. The passage that Luke says Mary is a sinner.

3. Show me where I said Mary ascended into heaven, it seems you have ended mixing different things again, assumption and ascension aren't the same.


None of this is pagan, every part is Christian and held by every ancient church that can trace its linage back to the apostles.

JMAN05:
How did you arrive at the bold faced phrase?

by reading the Jews.


The Mishnah, compiled at the end of the 2nd century CE, describes a debate over the status of some books of Ketuvim, and in particular over whether or not they render the hands ritually impure. Yadaim 3:5 calls attention to a debate over Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes- Wikipedia


They were still debates by the 2nd century if and what books are pure and which are impure. That is to say their canon wasn't fixed even then, the Essene Jews used a great deal more books than current jews, so too the Alexandria Jews, the Ethiopian and even in Palestine... Put simply they hadn't set a canon.

JMAN05:
No, he never made a U-turn. the discussion you quoted was with Rufinus, and the discussion isnt about the canon of the bible. See wrote Jerome wrote to Lady

"“Let her avoid all the apocryphal books, and if she ever wishes to read them, not for the truth of their doctrines but out of respect for their wondrous tales, let her realize that they are not really written by those to whom they are ascribed, that there are many faulty elements in them, and that it requires great skill to look for gold in mud.”—Select Letters, CVII.

This is an dvise written to an inquirer, and thus shows his view of these books. It could be that he agreed with what some parts of these aprocryphals stated, but he never viewed it as written by inspired authors.

Rufinus himself didnt recognise those books as canonical. So that was never the issue at all. They were rather trading words cause of the writing of Origin, which Rufinus seem to argue that Jerome subscribe to doctrinally. But Jerome admired the work of Oregin, but not his doctrines. Jerome in the same work you quoted emphasized the superiority of the Hebrew scriptures over Septuagint because of some inconsistency in them.

first of all Jerome never classified the deuterocanon as apocryphal, he classified them as ecclesiastical and not canonical, so the quote above doesn't even have any business in the discussion.

It is funny if you even read that quote in the original Latin it says:

Caveat omnia apocrypha et, si quando ea non ad dogmatum veritatem, sed ad signorum reverentiam legere voluerit, sciat non eorum esse, quorum titulis praenotantur, multaque his **admixta vitiosa et grandis esse prudentiae aurum in luto quaerere.

Let her beware all apocrypha; so long as she but wishes to read such things for reverence toward signs [ie, miracles] and not for truth of dogma, may she know them not to be what they are written on their title labels [the tags on scrolls]. And many **are mixed full of vice; and to find gold in mud, one's prudence must be great.

He goes on to say:
Let her always have Cyprian's little works in her hand. She may race uninterruptedly through Athanasius' letters and Hilarius' books without stubbing her foot. She may enjoy such tracts of such [good] characters, in whose books piety of faith may not totter. Let her read the rest in another way, for she may better judge [them] than follow after.

The apocryphal according to Jerome in this quote are full of vice, any body who has read Jerome will testify that on his worst days he doesn't ever say that of the deuterocanon instead he is clear that they edifyAs, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it also read these two volumes (Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus) for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church

Clearly he is not talking of the deuterocanonical books.


The quote isn't even talking about books of the Bible or the canon, he his telling a woman about the books her kids are to read and the next sentence in that letter is


Let her always have Cyprian's little works in her hand. She may race uninterruptedly through Athanasius' letters and Hilarius' books without stubbing her foot. She may enjoy such tracts of such [good] characters, in whose books piety of faith may not totter. Let her read the rest in another way, for she may better judge [them] than follow after.


Is Cyprian, athanasius and Hilary scripture? Do you consider them inspired? Because in that letter of what to read they are included... You have brought an off topic quote.

2nd Jerome is always the first to elevate the Hebrew canon, but as the quote I provided showed he clearly said, THE CHURCHES do not read the book according to the Hebrew canon instead it is read according to the Theodian which contain the deuterocanonical part of Susanna and bell and he said he translated it according to that version with the deuterocanon because HE SUBMITS TO THE JUDGEMENT OF THE CHURCHES and what he had earlier wrote against it were only what the Jews used to say.


Then he goes further and calls the deuterocanonical book of sirach scripture and quotes a ton of other deuterocanonical books as scripture and prophet
Does not the SCRIPTURE say: 'Burden not thyself above thy power' [SIRACH 13:2] Jerome, To Eustochium, Epistle 108 (A.D. 404), in NPNF2, VI:207

not, my dearest brother, estimate my worth by the number of my years. Gray hairs are not wisdom; it is wisdom which is as good as gray hairs At least that is what Solomon says: "wisdom is the gray hair unto men.’ [Wisdom 4:9]" Moses too in choosing the seventy elders is told to take those whom he knows to be elders indeed, and to select them not for their years but for their discretion (Num. 11:16)? And, as a boy, Daniel judges old men and in the flower of youth condemns the incontinence of age (Daniel 13:55-59, or Story of Susannah 55-59, only found in the Catholic Bibles) Jerome, To Paulinus, Epistle 58 (A.D. 395), in NPNF2, VI:119


Rufinus the guy he is addressing does the same, he lists the books without the deuterocanon but also quote them as scripture.

For it is evident that the Son, not the Father, became incarnate and was born in the flesh, and that from that nativity in the flesh the Son became "visible and passible." Yet so far as regards that immortal substance of the Godhead, which He possesses, and which is one and the same with that of the Father, we must believe that neither the Father, nor the Son, nor the Holy Ghost is "visible or passible." But the Son, in that He condescended to assume flesh, was both seen and also suffered in the flesh. Which also the Prophet foretold when he said, 'This is our God: no other shall be accounted of in comparison of Him. He hath found out all the way of knowledge, and hath given it unto Jacob His servant and to Israel His beloved. Afterward He shewed Himself upon the earth, and conversed with men.' [Baruch 3:36-38]" Rufinus of Aquileia, The Apostles Creed, 37-38 (A.D. 404), in NPNF2, III:545


Neither of them dispute the inspiration of those books, they treated them as scripture but as non canonical because the canon is what is read in liturgy.

Youlyn:
But why the so much deep devotion and consecration to Mary even when we never see any early apostle doing that. To be honest, as a former Marian devotee of the confraternity of Mary Queen of all Heart, I can tell you that Catholic Marian devotees practically worship Mary even when they claim otherwise. There's a great conspiracy theories about Mary in the Catholic Church, and it will be rather better to live as Christ just as the early apostles did and forget about Mary than to be hindered on the last day.

I remember my own consecration, it seems you must have missed the accompanying retreat because I distinctly remember that the consecration is TO Jesus through the patronage of Mary. I distinctly remember it based on the teaching of st Louis maria deMonfort who is emphatic in insisting that Mary is a mere creature, less than a speck before the awesomeness of the divine majesty made beautiful only by grace.

Coming from that foundation it is impossible to even worship Mary who is less than a speck.

We live as the apostles did, we are the heirs of their teaching the continually of the early church. Our understanding of Mary which is shared by all ancient churches both the Orthodox church and the Oriental church is the deposit of faith left by the apostles.

Dantedasz:
@Ubenedictus,

Cogratulations, you are coming towards my point that mariolatory and mariology are so closely intertwined that both practices spill into each other.
Where does one stop and where does the other begin? The two practices are like two sides of one coin.
So you believe Mary is born sinless? These are what you get with the immaculate conception dogma of the Catholic church and leads to the dogma of the second Eve.
What is your opinion of Mary as a perpetual virgin?
What about the assumption of Mary? Or the dogma of Mary as a holy child because of the dogma of perpetual virginity.
These practices have their origins in Roman pagan worship.

What about the rosary? Was it an original part of Christianity at the council of Nicaea or a later insertion by the whims of a pope more than 500 years later?

mariology does not spill into mariolatry, they are totally distinct like night and day a mariologist studies the grace God has granted to Mary and can never be a mariolatier became he knows from the beginning that Mary is a mere creature, simply graced by God.

Mariology stops at considering what God did for Mary, mariolatry and the other hand trys to make Mary the God. Mariology and mariolatry cannot coexist, they are different.


Of course I believe Mary is without sin like the early church teaches, I believe she is the new Eve as the early Christians like Justin martyr, iraeneus of Lyons etc dissect the relevant scripture. She was assumed into heaven, and is a perpetual virgin... These are the graces God granted she who will bear him. As I already showed these teachings predate Constantine and the early church who held them were the same people martyred for their faith.


The rosary is even very mild in its Marian thought, the rosary is simply a meditation on the life of Jesus moving though the gospels while asking Mary to join you in prayer, the pre-nicean Church had a more serious Marian prayer they said. Have you ever heard this one from before nicea?

We fly to your patronage, o holy mother of God dispose not our prayer in our necessity but deliver us from all dangers O ever glorious virgin.


If they prayed this because nicea, the rosary is pretty mild, simply meditate on the life of Jesus, repeat the words of the scripture and ask for prayers.

OLAADEGBU:
Why just the passion? There's more to Christianity than just "the passion of Christ."

because that is the part of Christ life he wants his film to focus on as the manifestation of God's love