Mary Worshipers

[JamieinNH]

One of the reasons, I am considering breaking away from the Baptist faith is that "EVERYTHING IS SYMBOLIC, NOTHING IS REAL TO A BAPTIST".

The Pharisees had plenty of traditions and "real" things, and Jesus had some things to say about that.

When someone let's their "traditions" and "Symbols" take over, or even push aside their walk with Christ, then it becomes a problem. This can happen in any church, any person, but it happens more in churches such as the RCC that is steep in "traditions" and not so steep in Scripture.


If you want to be a RC, then by all means do it, no one is holding you back, or stopping you. You appear to be able to tell right from wrong, you appear to be able to do research and make up your own mind.

I don't know why you come here and post one thread after the other and want to "debate" people when you seem to have made your mind up.

Good luck in your walk with Christ.


Jamie

 

[bound]

[SIZE=-1]Eastern Orthodoxy[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]The Mariology of Eastern Orthodoxy is in many respects identical to that of the Catholic Church. The Orthodox greatly venerate the Blessed Virgin in the same sense as in Catholicism, call her Theotokos, Aeiparthenos, (Ever-Virgin), and Panagia (All-Holy), regard her as the New Eve, and hold firmly to her bodily Assumption. Although they maintain that Mary was free from actual sin, the great majority of Orthodox reject the Immaculate Conception. Some Catholic theologians, such as Louis Bouyer (231), have argued that Orthodox theologians (like St. Thomas Aquinas himself) often misunderstand the precise meaning of this dogma, as clarified by Duns Scotus and others, and finally defined in 1854. (232) Nevertheless, the feast of the Immaculate Conception first originated in the east, and individual Orthodox Christians are free to believe in this doctrine without being deemed heretical..[/SIZE]

231. Bouyer, Louis, The Seat of Wisdom, tr. A.V. Littledale, Chicago: Henry Regnery Co., 1965 (orig. 1960), 104.

[SIZE=-1]232. Ware, Timothy (Archbishop Kallistos), The Orthodox Church, NY: Penguin Books, Rev. ed., 1980, 261-4.[/SIZE]

Grace and Peace mojoala,


The best-man at my wedding was and is Russian Orthodox and I can tell you from personal experience that Orthodoxy rejects the Catholic Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception because they reject Original Sin which makes such a doctrine necessary in Catholic Theology.

If you can't take my word for it I would be happy to point you to forums which would articulate this very well from the horses mouth as it were.

regardless Peace and God Bless.

 

[bound]

One of the reasons, I am considering breaking away from the Baptist faith is that "EVERYTHING IS SYMBOLIC, NOTHING IS REAL TO A BAPTIST".

Grace and Peace mojoala,

I can appreciate your desire to 'physically' encounter God but let me just say you're really going to miss Him if you try and find Him in 'smells and bells'.

Do me a real favor. Get your hands on a book by Watchman Nee "Spiritual Man" and read it. That is all I'm going to ask. Get that book and read it. It has nothing about Denominations within it but it does talk a great deal about encountering God personally.

You appear to be a man in search for God but please be careful where you look for Him. He is not in the thunder and lightning of the mightest storm or within the great earthquakes nor great fires but within the soft breeze which only lightly touches our cheeks. We our attention is distracted by the big things of this world we will miss it.

Thing 'little things' all the time.

Peace and God Bless.

 

[DHK]

Where is the verse that says the Bible is the Final Authority? It does not exist. That is a tradition of men. The Early Church Fathers were writing about scripture long before any person dreamed up the idea of a Baptist Denomination.

The Scriptures have always been the final authority to God's people, both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament ages, and in every ages since. Only to those that reject Christ is it not God's final authority. If you study the first epistle of John carefully, John writes against a heresy called gnosticsm. The gnostics were like yourself. They knew better than the Bible. They were their own authority. They also lived before the church fathers that you refer to were even born. They were contemporary with the Apostle John. He writes against their doctrine. Thus the key word in the first epistle is know. The gnostics thought that they could know things experentially, mystically. John was an apostle. He starts off by saying:

1 John 1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;
--he heard Christ. He saw with his own eyes Christ. He looked (gazed upon) Christ. He touched him. He was a real person. And this is the one that he was declaring to his readers. John was an eye-witness. His knowledge was not mystical.

The Bible has always been the standard:

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.
DHK

 

[DHK]

I rather trust the opinions of those that lived immediately after the Apostles then from any mordern day person. They lived and breathed the culture and the times. If anybody had a true sense of the interpretation of the Scriptures it was those that had great knowledge of the times, the culture and the utmately the language the scriptures were written in. The learned men of those times had a better understanding of what was written.

Do the opinions of sinful men matter more to you then the actual words of God?

 

[BobRyan]

One of the reasons, I am considering breaking away from the Baptist faith is that "EVERYTHING IS SYMBOLIC, NOTHING IS REAL TO A BAPTIST".

You need to start a thread on John 6 if you want to see the RCC doctrine "really" get blown out of the water from John 6!