tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6043971967398769903.post5311653843792139884..comments2024-03-29T09:24:12.719-05:00Comments on The Watchman's Bagpipes: Another Marian Shrine Sanctioned by RomeGlenn E. Chatfieldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04117405535707961903noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6043971967398769903.post-35697994514515627882019-11-08T11:52:37.446-06:002019-11-08T11:52:37.446-06:00Anonymous,
I don't know what verse to which y...Anonymous,<br /><br />I don't know what verse to which you are referring. But the Roman Catholic Church, which didn't exist for almost 400 years after the Resurrection of Christ, didn't write ANYTHING we find in the Bible.<br /><br />The CHRISTIAN church (NOT the PAPIST church) didn't exist before the O.T., and it existed during the writing of the N.T., and it was CHRISTIANS, not papists, who wrote the N.T.<br /><br />Everything I have written about the papist church is 100% accurate, taken from their teachings.Glenn E. Chatfieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04117405535707961903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6043971967398769903.post-2820581770295917282019-11-07T20:19:41.441-06:002019-11-07T20:19:41.441-06:00I'm not aware that the Church teaches what you...I'm not aware that the Church teaches what you suggest she teaches. The Church knows that what the verse means (she wrote it!).<br /><br />I am curious why you would think 2 Tim 3:16 somehow supports your theory that the Scriptures are the ultimate authority. Where does 2 Tim teach that? In every version I've read, 2 Tim 3:16 (in context) teaches that the [OT] Scriptures have equal authority as the Sacred Tradition (teaching authority).<br /><br />Also, there is nothing "circular" about the Church's beliefs. The Church pre-dates the Bible; her authority pre-dates NT Scripture. With her authority, she not only gave us the Bible, but is the body that interprets it. What is circular, however, is Protestantism's attempt to swipe an already-created canon, ignore the authority that matter-of-factly created it, then use it to somehow establish a religion that, essentially teaches that "the Bible is what the Bible says it is."<br /><br />So, if you are really trying to "answer Catholics" then perhaps you should actually present Catholicism instead of a straw man. That is, after all, how good apologetics is done.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6043971967398769903.post-4783069519709778502011-07-21T18:45:32.183-05:002011-07-21T18:45:32.183-05:00Even in this one “Mary” identified herself by the ...<i>Even in this one “Mary” identified herself by the unbiblical title “Queen of Heaven”...</i> <br /><br />Ah, but that <i>is</i> a title you'll find in the Bible! Jeremiah talks about her. Unfortunately for her devotees though, it's pretty clear that whoever The Queen of Heaven is, God detests her. <br /><br />I wonder whether in her next appearance she'll exhort her followers to secure their salvation with baked goods...Paulnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6043971967398769903.post-68213803402002015812011-02-23T08:36:12.540-06:002011-02-23T08:36:12.540-06:00Hi Mark,
You are 100% correct. I address that w...Hi Mark, <br /><br />You are 100% correct. I address that whole issue with a previous post about Catholicism's Mary vs the real one: http://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com/2010/06/mary-mother-of-church-is-not-mary-of.htmlGlenn E. Chatfieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04117405535707961903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6043971967398769903.post-77035704528066004442011-02-23T08:21:41.629-06:002011-02-23T08:21:41.629-06:00Anyway, The mother of Jesus could not have still b...Anyway, The mother of Jesus could not have still been a virgin at the time of her death, as she had other children after Jesus. Thus, calling her "The Virgin Mary" is simply wrong.<br /><br />The Bible mentions Jesus having brothers and sisters, and one of the authors of later letters to the churches is often identified as James, brother of Jesus. I don't know if that fraternity has ever been established as historical fact or not, but we know, without a doubt, that Jesus had brothers and sisters.Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15633208787250567256noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6043971967398769903.post-2135316438349696812011-02-15T18:46:53.470-06:002011-02-15T18:46:53.470-06:00Saul was allowed by God to talk to Samuel so Samue...Saul was allowed by God to talk to Samuel so Samuel could tell him the sin he was committing by doing so.<br /><br />Moses and Elijah were with Jesus for the purpose of verifying who he was and his divinity.<br /><br />These are the only examples in Scripture of the dead talking to anyone. And, as I noted, we are told talking to the dead - or rather attempting to do so - is wrong.<br /><br />Of course the Romanists say Mary isn't dead, nor are any other saints - they are spiritually alive. That's nothing but wordplay.Glenn E. Chatfieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04117405535707961903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6043971967398769903.post-91530716810716573052011-02-15T18:32:14.624-06:002011-02-15T18:32:14.624-06:00The Catholics and Orthodox usually put forward the...The Catholics and Orthodox usually put forward their (arguably fictional) doctrine called the "Harrowing of Hell" to prove that it is now okay to talk to dead people. Never mind that dead saints (such as the prophet Samuel) were already said to be "alive," even prior to the Crucifixion, as in Luke 20:38. Thus, the Harrowing of Hell wouldn't really make a difference there.<br /><br />I think the better Catholic argument would be that Jesus spoke to Moses and Elijah. But we don't really get any indication that Jesus sought that out. It just seemed to happen as God's doing.Drewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14143205583006210792noreply@blogger.com