The Holy Rosary

Good post

John 21:25
"There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually....."


This writer, John, knew about many of these other things that Jesus did, because he was there as a witness. But they're not written down. All the books on earth couldn't describe them. Jesus did MANY things that aren't in the bible.


a reply to: markosity1973

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
It doesnt take much to see through the catholic doctrine. Just read your bible.

Try reading the bible without the anti-Catholic glasses and you'll see the Catholic doctrine is in line with biblical teaching. (BTW - there is no such thing as sola scriptura)

I have given rock solid information showing that praying the rosary is scriptural, that it is a wonderful meditation, that the prayers are in line with christian teaching and that they give glory to God, that people are called to pray for each other and we are to ask others to pray for us and that no where in scripture does it say that we are to exclude those righteous people who are in Heaven with god.

You have failed to show where God has excluded them from being able to pray for us when asked.

Oh well ... you can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink.

I have read most all of the thread to date and really do not understand this Catholic thing. I do respect the right of people to believe the way they want to believe but isn’t all of this thread theology?

According to the theological history that I am aware of there were no Roman Catholics when Jesus died and the NT manuscripts are not penned by Catholics. They were penned by Jewish Christians who were, by the way, slaughtered by the very Romans who stole their Christianity and introduced the Catholic liturgy.

This pope thing came about long after the Christian Jews were slaughtered by the Romans in both 70 CE and 135 CE. Up to this point we had our own Christian Kohen who was the brother of Jesus named Jacob or James the Just. James was murdered by the Orthodox Jewish authorities in about 62 to 70 CE and was succeeded by Simeon ben Clopas.

As Jesus was still alive it was asked of Him who should be His earthly representative when He was gone. According to Thomas (12) Jesus said to them that “In the place to which you come, you shall go to James the Just for whose sake heaven and earth came into being.” Jesus did not appoint anyone greater than James, His brother, to lead the followers of the Christ. He did not appoint Peter as head of the Christian congregations and certainly not Mary or any other than James the Just.

The final slaughter of the true Christians came with Hadrian in 135 CE and almost all records were burned as well as the Christians and their children. Up to this point Christianity was purely Hebrew and Aramaic liturgy with nothing contributed from the Roman murderers who then stole Christianity and molded it to their liking. I see nothing in this thread that credits the true church with Roman Catholicism.

a reply to: Seede

I see nothing in this thread that credits the true church with Roman Catholicism.

Isn't that because the thread is about the rosary?

Thats said church history is very interesting, the historical 'ownership' of Christianity without the spiritual bit thrown in i think is a good thread topic if you're up for it of course.
Cheers Zazz

a reply to: markosity1973

The Nicean Council did not leave anything out. Both the OT and NT are a completely closed unit that was phonetically preserved in the ancient Hebrew and Greek syllables. I know this to be true because I myself have counted the the Hebrew syllables in Zephania Samech 1-3, and I know another researcher who has confirmed the syllable metering in dozens of other books in the OT and NT.

I trust the bible, not the Roman Catholic political system. The bible stands alone...that is what the Vatican does not want you to know.

My rendering of the person of Jesus Christ is based on both OT and NT prophecies. The bible can teach you things that the Catholic Church cannot, that is if you are willing to recieve God's word for what it is.

a reply to: FlyersFan

Why dont you try letting the Bible interpret itself? What's so scary about sola scriptura? Take off your papal goggles and see the truth, you just might learn something.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

What?

Are you saying there are not any omitted historical scripture/gospels/variations of text?

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
Why dont you try letting the Bible interpret itself?

Why don't you? What I've posted is scriptural and I've proven it. Seems that you've added requirements and interpretations to scripture that simply aren't there. You still have yet to show me where God said we have to exclude people in heaven from praying for us. We got the mandate from God that we are to pray for each other and ask prayers from each other, but where exactly did he say it ends when a righteous person enters heaven? Still waiting ...

What's so scary about sola scriptura?

It's a man made notion ... thought you guys didn't like man made notions when it came to religion? Sola scriptura isn't biblical. In fact, the bible says just the opposite.

Take off your papal goggles and see the truth, you just might learn something.

Stop listening to Jack Chick and anti-Catholic fundie preachers, you just might learn something.

a reply to: zazzafrazz

There are many small variations between the manuscripts, for example textus receptus has many small variations and additions, but the earliest Greek manuscripts and Hebrew masoretic manuscripts are for the most part complete. You can confirm this by counting the syllables in various poems, psalms and prophecies. The syllables always follow a structure based on 7. For example the first paragraph of Revelation is exactly 84 syllables (according to the original chapter division, not the modern method). While the actual original documents have yet to be produced, scripture was written according to the rhetorical metering for the purpose of memorization. Not everyone in the ancient world was literate, so the bible was meant to be memorized.

So yes, the bible is complete. If anything, there are lines added here and there.

a reply to: FlyersFan

All you've proven is your arrogance. Im not going to continue this conversation with you. Its like talking to a child.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Hmmm
There are versus added, for example the end of Mark is not in Codex Sinaiticus not vaticanus.
Mathew is 90% sourced from Mark.
Example/ resurrection meeting with apostles did not take place. The "safe happy" verse was added later. Totally made up and not original. That is not a few syllables here and there no?

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest
So I get insults tossed at me instead of scripture to back up your statement.
Okay. Got it.


To recap - THE ROSARY

- The prayers are scriptural. Completely scriptural.

- The meditations follow scripture and sacred tradition. Both of which scripture says to hold tight to.

- God said we are to pray for each other and to ask each other to pray for us. That's exactly what the rosary does.

- God said to pray for each other and to ask for prayers, but in no place in scripture did he then say He excludes the righteous who are with Him in Heaven. Those in Heaven are NOT excluded from praying for us and we can ask for prayers from them.

- Scripture is clear that the prayers of the righteous are very powerful. Those in heaven are righteous. The prayers of the mother of Jesus Himself are powerful and she's a good person to ask to pray for us to Jesus.

So bottom line - the Rosary is an excellent prayer and meditation. It's in line with scripture and it brings people closer to God, and it gives glory to God.

a reply to: zazzafrazz

No, its more like a few paragraphs in Mark, but like I said it depends on which manuscript you are looking at. The older manuscripts tend to be closer to the original. You can easily spot the added lines when the metering goes hay-wire. If you have a consistent Sevening and then it suddenly starts going crazy, then you know that something is wrong.

So far I can confirm that Psalm 90, Zephaniah, Daniel 9, and Isaiah 52-53 are intact.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

So you agree there are paragraphs added later to original text?
Make your mind up....

a reply to: zazzafrazz

There are no "original texts", just copies. Some copies are better than others. The best copies show a consistent pattern in the syllables. Yes. Some manuscripts have been altered.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

The Nicean Council did not leave anything out.

Oh really?

History of the Church 1:1:5
Having gathered therefore from the matters mentioned here and there by them whatever we consider important for the present work, and having plucked like flowers from a meadow the appropriate passages from ancient writers, we shall endeavor to embody the whole in an historical narrative, content if we preserve the memory of the successions of the apostles of our Saviour; if not indeed of all, yet of the most renowned of them in those churches which are the most noted, and which even to the present time are held in honor.

Eusebius

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

I know I should alter 'original' with earliest.

Yes. Some manuscripts have been altered.

Good then we are in agreance and you should amment your post

The Nicean Council did not leave anything out. Both the OT and NT are a completely closed unit that was phonetically preserved in the ancient Hebrew and Greek syllables

I agree that the OT was orally passed down with precision and perfection. Isiah in the DSS is to the letter the same as the next written version appearing 800 years later.
The NT was not.
Though the tradition of oral was Judaic, there was no "NT" firmly in place since the time jesus left to be recited and passed down. Only certain sayings of his are believed to have been done in a oral tradition. The forming of the text at best in completion we have is 300 years later, with scrap fragments 2nd century, one possible first century though that is debated currently.

Anyway, I am confused at myself being distracted with this conversation pertaining to the rosary.....another thread perhaps for another day.

a reply to: markosity1973

The new testament was settled upon by the council of Nicea

That was the council of Laodicea...

Nicea had nothing to do with the compilation of the NT...

Sigh... Why does that fact never sink in???

a reply to: zazzafrazz

Isn't that because the thread is about the rosary?

Perhaps I should have extrapolated. I see nothing in this thread that credits the true church with Roman Catholicism and the dominicam rosarium which venerates the woman Mary. Arguments solve nothing except more of same.

a reply to: windword

Yes, really.

I dont care what Eusebius said, Ive anylized some of the text for myself, and it reflects a pattern that is not found in the apocryphal books.