"This evening" Benedict XVI concluded, "you caused us to turn our hearts to Mary in prayer, the most beloved prayer of Christian tradition. Yet you also led us back to the beginning of our journey of faith, to the liturgy of Baptism, the moment in which we became Christian: an invitation always to drink from the only water that can quench our thirst - the living God - and to commit ourselves day after to day to rejecting evil and to renewing our faith with the affirmation 'I believe!'"(Vatican Information System, 1 September 2011) A few brief responses:
1) It is nice to see the pope admitting what a lot of his English-speaking servants deny, namely that his religion prays to Mary. His reference is to the Hail Mary (the Ave Maria).
2) I'm sure that the Hail Mary is the most beloved prayer to those in the Roman communion. However, it ought not to be. The prayer was not taught or practiced by the Lord Jesus or His apostles. It is a tradition of men, not a tradition of God, even though it incorporates portions of God's word.
3) There's a more natural choice for the most beloved prayer - the Kyrie Eleison (Господи Помилуй - "Lord Have Mercy!"). After all, that prayer can succinctly express both repentance of sin and trust in Christ.
4) Alternatively, the model of our prayers, the Lord's Prayer (Pater Noster) would be an excellent choice for the most beloved prayer.
5) One does not become a Christian at Baptism. Christians (and their children) come to baptism. Baptism signifies and seals what faith grasps. Whoever believes is a Christian, and therefore ought to be baptized.
6) I'm not a fan of mixing the metaphors of baptism and the water that is drunk (there's not any intentional drinking of water in Baptism). Nevertheless, the pope is right in pointing to that living water as the uniquely thirst-quenching water. If only he would learn that one who drinks once of this water will never thirst again!
John 4:13-14 Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again: but whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.
Yet Rome teaches (and the pope has not rejected) that men can again thirst: that they can commit a "mortal sin" and - in essence - lose their salvation. It is great that the pope has appealed to one of Christ's metaphors, but would that God would open the pope's eyes to see the whole truth!
-TurretinFan
196 comments:
Wow, you are truly full of yourself. What makes you think you know more than the scholar that is Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) not to mention the present Steward, the holder of the Keys to the Kingdom. Aside from that, Mary is the perfect Christian - she is Our Mother in Christ and the model of the Church.
As for the Hail Mary, well that came from the Archangel Gabriel (Luke 1:28) and the Holy Spirit-inspired Elizabeth (Luke 1:42). The second part of the prayer is as simple as 1+2=3:
1) "Holy Mary" - she must be holy in order to be the Ark of the New Covenant wherein her womb resided the Word Made Flesh - God.
2) "Mother of God" - or Theotokos, the God-bearer. This is an apt title as Christ is both God and Man meaning that Mary cannot give birth the Man without giving birth the God or better put - the God-Man. She is not the cause of His Divinity but the genetic blueprint of the Human. So when you see Jesus, you see Mary - when you see Mary, you see Jesus (Genesis 3:15).
3) "Prayer for us sinners now and at the hour of our death" - Well, you pray for others no? So do I. And because God is a God of the Living and the human spirit is Eternal, rest assured that those who die in His Grace and reside in Heaven are more fully aware than we are. For examples of eternal spirits see God, the Angels, the Transfiguration, the Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man (Jesus would not teach us an untruth or heresy no?) and etc.
Oh yeah, and if you were to ever examine the Mass (and even the Rosary) you would note that the Kyrie Eleison is intrinsic to it as is is the Our Father (especially in the Rosary).
As for becoming a Christian, well the Church and all of Christendom always taught and believed that in order for one to be truly a Christian, one must be baptized. You are not saved and/or justified by Faith Alone (James 2:24). And yes, we can reject/lose our gift of salvation through Mortal Sin or did you forget what John teaches in 1 John 5:16?
"He that knoweth his brother to sin a sin which is not to death, let him ask, and life shall be given to him, who sinneth not to death. There is a sin unto death: for that I say not that any man ask."
LR:
Thanks for sharing your feelings. As for the facts:
A) As to Mary
1) Mary was not the perfect Christian.
2) Mary is not our Mother.
3) Mary is not the model of the Church.
B) As to Ratzinger
1) Yes, he's a scholar. There's nothing scholarly about his remarks quoted above, however.
2) Christ is the present holder of the Key.
3) The keys of the kingdom of heaven, though at first promised to Peter, were given to all the apostles.
C) As to the Hail Mary
1) As I mentioned, parts of it are taken from Scripture. Nevertheless, as a prayer it is merely a human tradition, not a divine or even apostolic one. Jesus never prayed the Hail Mary, the Apostles never did, and neither did the fathers of the first 3 centuries.
2) She is not the Ark of the New Covenant. Christ is.
3) It is not wrong to call her the "Mother of God," but it can be misleading and leads to the very Mariolatry expressed in Ratzinger's comments.
4) We can't see either Jesus or Mary. We must trust in a God whom we don't see.
5) I do ask people to pray for me. I don't, however, ask dead people or people who don't speak English (or Latin) to do so. We Christians in this pilgrimage bear one another's burdens. Mary, however, is no longer in her pilgrimage. So, she does not bear my burdens, nor do I bear hers (for she has none).
6) While the dead may receive some news of what happens in this world, we have no reason to think that they are generally aware of what is going on here. For Josiah was promised that his eyes would not see the evil that God was to bring upon his nation after his death.
D) As to the Better Prayers
1) Why else would I pick those two prayers, except that they are so woven into your liturgy? It's not as though Ratzinger is going to pick some prayer that is uniquely Lutheran or Reformed.
2) Yet you miss the point: those prayers to God ought to be the most beloved, not prayers to a dead woman, whether it be Christ's mother, or one of his other female ancestors, such as Tamar, Rahab, or Lot's daughter.
E) As for When One Becomes a Christian
1) Scriptures are perfectly clear that one becomes a Christian by faith.
2) Show me where your own church (in an official document) teaches that one becomes a Christian by being baptized.
F) As for Losing Salvation
1) Either you are right or Jesus is right. If one can thirst again (as you seem inclined to teach), then you are right. If not, then Jesus is right.
2) 1 John 5:16 does not teach that we can (or at least that anyone will) lose our (their) salvation.
3) If you think that a "sin unto death" is a mortal sin, why do you think that priests can forgive mortal sins? That makes no sense in the context of the verse.
-TurretinFan
I'm stilling learning this new comment interface. My response to you has been posted as a separate comment.
TF said: "5) One does not become a Christian at Baptism. Christians (and their children) come to baptism. Baptism signifies and seals what faith grasps. Whoever believes is a Christian, and therefore ought to be baptized."
How is this statement non-circular with paedobaptism in view? Is it your view from Scripture that all the children of all professing Christians truly "believe" [salvifically via regeneration], and thus are true, born-again Christians, therefore paedobaptism" signifies and seals" what the saving faith of those chidren grasps?
In Him,
CD
Sorry, that should have read "children". I don't see a way to edit or delete comments in this new design.
CD
No. It is not my view that all the children of all those who profess faith also either actually believe or actually profess faith.
In the case of the children of believers it signifies and seals something that they may not yet have grasped. I wasn't really going to get into a detailed discussion on this topic, but baptism is both under-inclusive and over-inclusive in terms of identifying who "Christians" are. There are many Atheists who were once baptized and there are some unbaptized people who are believers.
You see, the unbaptized "believer" is not fully incorporated into the Body until Baptism. This may be with water or even through desire (died with the expressed intent) or blood (martyrdom). The passages where Jesus talks about people coming to Him at their judgement saying, "Lord, Lord we have done great things in your name..." comes to mind here.
Also, the issue of Baptism being given as an initiation into the Body can be demonstrated in the fact that Christ healed the dude on the stretcher, who was lowered from through the roof, because of the faith of his friends not on the dude's own faith because he was apparently lacking in that department....
As for those Atheists who were baptized and no longer believe and/or explicitly renounce their faith...Judas comes to mind.
I am guilty of a chuckle reading lozeerose's comments.
Apparently his handlers are reluctant to bring him to or speak to him about the Faith once delivered to the Saints?
Oh yeah, you have had to have done some really amazing things in the RCC to be anointed a Saint?
How about this lozeerose?
1Co 2:12 Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God.
1Co 2:13 And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.
1Co 2:14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.
1Co 2:15 The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one.
1Co 2:16 "For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ.
From where I sit, TF has been vetted well and qualifies for being a spiritual person well able to judge all things. He has a sense of His Master's mind, will and emotions; and it is a continual joy to come in here and enjoy this gift of God to us!
Curious if you consider yourself a saint then? Cause as far as I know there ain't nobody perfect on Earth. The point in Revelation is that there are people in heaven, physically dead mind you, that are concerned and knowledgeable with the goings on down here.
Oh and your passage reminds me of something, the reason for the Church. Because the Fullness of Truth is certainly a folly to those who choose to reject it.
Yes I consider myself a saint b/c the Bible calls me one. By Christ's merit.
Curious if you consider yourself a saint then? Cause as far as I know there ain't nobody perfect on Earth.
Saints are perfect?
How do you have any hope? You think you will be able to achieve perfection by merit you've attained to?
TurretinFan: "Show me where your own church (in an official document) teaches that one becomes a Christian by being baptized."
TurretinFan, I have met Lutherans who believe that water baptism confers salvation. Rhology has encountered and engaged these Lutherans as well.
And I could show you the passage in the Confessional Lutheran documents that teaches that water baptism saves.
Saints are most certainly "perfect" or I should say "perfected." All of course was gained for those who dies in a state of grace with God through Jesus Himself whose own death and resurrection placed our lowly selves in the realms above the angels. Funny thing is, that while we remain here on earth, we do not share fully in this and are thus able to reject the Grace of God by our own free will. This is sin. This is something that you and I both do - Catholic or Protestant...
So why do you stumble over the idea that we consider ourselves saints here on Earth, since we are perfected by Jesus by His merit alone and not by anything we might do (such as suffer in Purgatory to get perfectED)?
First, Purgatory has nothing to do with perfection it has to do with purging or purifying the person, who is already saved and going to heaven, from the stain of sin. That is to say the attachment to sin.
Secondly, a saint does not sin nor has the desire to sin. Do you sin? Do you sometimes find yourself giving in to your desires? I do. And because Saint Paul reminds us that all are sinners - even himself while he remained alive, then it is safe to say that you are a sinner as well and thus are not a saint on Earth. Be careful with how you understand sanctity for your words lean close to presumption, which is part and parcel to the doctrine of "once saved, always saved." This OSAS heresy is a tradition of men and has not basis in Scripture.
Oh, so purging and purifying has nothing to do with perfection of the person? Did you even read that before you posted it?
a saint does not sin nor has the desire to sin
An assertion straight from your RC theology, not from the NT.
it is safe to say that you are a sinner as well and thus are not a saint on Earth.
Or I could be both...
This OSAS heresy is a tradition of men and has not basis in Scripture
Oh, Romans 8:29-30 is a "tradition of men"?
Romans 8:29-30 says nothing of OSAS. Or does the same St. Paul lie when he said, "Wherefore, my dearly beloved, (as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but much more now in my absence,) with fear and trembling work out your salvation" (Phil 2:12)?
Perfection, as in "be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect," is to be without sin. You cannot be without sin whilst you are on this Earth. Again, St. Paul says, "For all have sinned, and do need the glory of God" (Romans 3:23).
Now, for Christ to fully abide within you, you must be without sin. Thus we cannot be fully alive or fully abiding in Christ until we die physically (1 John 2:5) and are judged pure enough to enter Heaven and be in His presence as (Revelation 21:27).
You cannot be both sinner and saint.
And I do admit that perfection and purging are related but they are not synonyms. One can enter Heaven perfect, as Christ and His Mother and the saints did.
Lozeerose,
You ask if I consider that I am a Saint? It depends on who you are asking, me or new me? :) Don't ask my wife, though, or my Pastor, or even TF, because they have good cause to think new me doesn't even exist!
Thank God, though, I have been born again, baptized into Christ's death and now my new me is seated in Heavenly places with Christ in God while old me lives by the Faith once delivered to the Saints.
Let me ask you if you agree with this definition? The Greek word "saints" used in Scripture is: hagios; From hagos (an awful thing) [cf ἁγνός (G53), חָג (H2282)]. Hagios is also used when referencing the Hagios/Holy Spirit, God the Heavenly Father, Who is a Spirit and Christ's Spirit.
With that definition of the word hagios/holy, do you see why we believe the way we do, whether or not you agree with us about our assertion that when once we are born again, we are considered Saints before the Elect and before God Almighty?
Do you agree with the Apostle Paul when he writes this?:
Rom 8:8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
Rom 8:9 You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.
Rom 8:10 But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
I quite agree with you that there is no one perfect on earth. Of the three perfect Ones to ever live on the earth, (Adam, Eve and Jesus), all are gone now from the earth, two left fallen humans and the One, Jesus, of these three, will return again to judge the living and the dead. When He does return, I wonder for you, if you agree with these Words from the book of Hebrews?
Heb 9:27 And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment,
Heb 9:28 so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.
Agree with all the verses you quoted. However, I would not put Adam and Eve in the "perfect" category. Jesus, most certainly and His mother, for sure (although you will disagree).
As for the new and old you and even me. Separating both is applicable in the sense that God is outside of time and space and for sure, if we are both in the elect then we have our place reserved. The problem is that we can choose to reject that gift through our own free will. Mind you, the more God has His hand on you the more difficult it is to reject Him since a person in that situation would be joined so closely to Him that it makes it near impossible (still possible) to reject Him. Mary is a great example of this.
I think you some up the entire Catholic position very well the only real difference being the understanding of "saint" and how one works out their salvation here on earth.
Remember, we can choose to reject the gift it is never taken away.
lozeerose,
If I might respond to something you wrote in response to Rhology?
You wrote this:
"... and are judged pure enough to enter Heaven and be in His presence as (Revelation 21:27)."
Are you not mistaken about Salvation when you frame your idea this way?
Who on earth is ever judged "pure" enough to enter Heaven save Jesus Christ?
No one was ever judged pure enough. Remember these Words from the Book of the Revelation given to John?
Rev 5:1 Then I saw in the right hand of him who was seated on the throne a scroll written within and on the back, sealed with seven seals.
Rev 5:2 And I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, "Who is worthy to open the scroll and break its seals?"
Rev 5:3 And no one in heaven or on earth or under the earth was able to open the scroll or to look into it,
Rev 5:4 and I began to weep loudly because no one was found worthy to open the scroll or to look into it.
Rev 5:5 And one of the elders said to me, "Weep no more; behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has conquered, so that he can open the scroll and its seven seals."
I can tell you this by that Faith once delivered to the Saints that works in me as His gift that the Holy Spirit would not have vindicated Christ before Almighty God and the Holy Elect Angels had He one tiny itty bitty spot or tarnish of sin upon His Soul because of His own sinful action!
The Holy Spirit simply could not do it nor could the Apostle Paul's Words have been allowed to stand as Holy Scripture if Christ was sinful in any degree no matter how small the infraction against the Will of God. Christ died sinless, perfect and pure absolutely 100 percent Holy in union with the Will of Almighty God and the Holy Spirit.
That is why the Apostle Paul was allowed to have these Word made a part of the Scriptures from which we teach and preach:
1Ti 3:16 Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.
No one can open the Scroll because no other Human is God sans Jesus Christ alone. As far as being deemed pure ad clean to enter Heaven, well we are washed clean by the Blood of the Lamb and our sanctification, though a gift, becomes efficacious to us individually through our sufferings in conjunction and made perfect in Christ whether we suffer gravely and die like the saints and martyrs or have our works tested by fire, yet remain saved. So I say, "rejoice in [our] sufferings...and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in [our] flesh, for his body, which is the church."
TUAD,
if I am mistaken I will stand corrected, but I don't believe that is a correct interpretation?
I believe what is believed is "salvation" is in the Word of Grace being administered, "spoken" at the time of baptism to the one being baptized. Baptism is an outer testament to an inner reality of belief. All Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.
Of course, when it comes to a parent or parents baptizing their infant, they are exercising the Faith they have received testifying to what they believe the inner reality is for their child being baptized who exercises no will of their own to be so baptized. It seems to me to be a confession and an act of Faith and belief that just as God has put His sanctifying Word in them, He will likewise do the same for their infant child whom they believe He gave them to raise up in the admonitions of the Lord as they were and continue in, in Faith.
Just like you were touched by the Hand of God so that you have come to Faith by no means of yourself, it comes by Election, so it is the belief that by baptizing the infant Faith is being exercised before God that He will do the same for them, Elect them, by no means of their self will.
I, for one, just do not have the Faith to believe that God would give my wife and I a child and then not give them the very same Faith He has given us.
What do you think?
LOZEEROSE,
So, are you now backing away from your assertion about who is deemed a "Saint" and how one is considered as much in the Church?
Have we persuaded you, lozeerose, that Sainthood is a part of the Faith once delivered to such, Saints, as we are on earth before going onto other worldly Sainthood when we pass to His Eternal Glory in Christ?
"I, for one, just do not have the Faith to believe that God would give my wife and I a child and then not give them the very same Faith He has given us."
I certainly do believe that there are and have been children of believers who ultimately end up in Hell.
Natamllc, I am not backing away from any assertion.
There is, however, a difference between the title of saint, as rightfully proclaimed by the Church, and the use of saint as a descriptor in Scripture.
For example, when the Church proclaims a person as being blessed and/or a saint, you can rest assured that the Church is speaking infallibly under the authority and protection granted her by God.
In terms of Scripture, we see the term saint as being used both to describe a person in heaven (saints are not just dead humans but any creature in heaven including angels) and those presently being sanctified through the merits of Jesus Christ.
We can both agree that this is because saint simply means holy. But one is not truly and completely holy until their own person is in full unity with that of Christ. That cannot occur until after physical death due to the still remaining penalty for sin. Otherwise the Faithful would somehow be immortal or something like that.
Let's examine your claims, one at a time. (1) "She is the perfect Christian, she followed Her son to the Cross never once committing a sin"
That doesn't seem true. (a) Must Joseph alone bear the blame for leaving Jesus behind in Jerusalem? (b) And what of Mary subsequently wrongly scolding her and receiving Jesus rebuke (Luke 2:49)? (c) What of her not understanding even then Jesus' saying that he must be about his father's business (Luke 2:50)? (d) And shall only Jesus' brethren be blamed for thinking he was crazy (Mark 3:21 and 31-35)? (e) Moreover, it is written that "all have sinned" (Romans 3:23, 5:12). (f) Likewise, those who deny that they have sinned make God a liar (1 John 1:10). So, it seems your point cannot be maintained, notwithstanding that it is indeed the teaching of your church that she did not sin (and many fathers of the church agreed with this error).
TUAD,
That reply really heats up my soul putting the Fear of God in me as I ponder and tremble at His Word.
We are in a gut wrenching battle for Elect souls.
Also I am reminded of these Words as I ponder your response:
Rev 2:4 But I have this against you, that you have abandoned the love you had at first.
Rev 2:5 Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent, and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent.
...
Rev 3:5 The one who conquers will be clothed thus in white garments, and I will never blot his name out of the book of life. I will confess his name before my Father and before his angels.
Rev 3:6 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.'
Amen!
First off, it seems that Jesus left you the Keys and the authority to interoret Scripture infallibly because as you know the personsl interpretation of Scripture is frowned upon within Scripture because it leads to error. So i take what you say with a grain of salt because you have no means to judge what the bi le rightly teaches and does not teach. You wouldn't even have a bible were it not for the Church.
Let us examine these tired and already debunked Protestant objections:
Leaving Jesus Behind:
Human mistake does not equate sin. There was no rebuke from Jesus for Mary was right in questioning His actions. Mary may be sinless but know one said she was given the Beatific Vision before the Assumption.
That Wild and Crazy Jesus
This Scripture reference above aays nothing to the effect that Mary and those that stood wither her outside thought He was crazy, she was simply a concerned mother calling for her only child. No sin.
All Have Sinned
Well since this inclusive Paul must be speaking of Jesus as well no? Oh, but that would mean Scripture contradicts itself because it says elsewhere that Jesus was sinless.
And we know that this is not the case. So He is an exception. Could it not be that the most privileged, blessed and holy creature ever would be made sinless and remain faithfully such? Doesn't God deserve nothing less than this?
Hey Nata,
You're the one who asked me what I thought. That being said, I sincerely hope that your children has an eternal relationship with God in Heaven. Just as I hope and pray the same for my children.
Incidentally, did you miss what TFan wrote earlier:
"No. It is not my view that all the children of all those who profess faith also either actually believe or actually profess faith.
In the case of the children of believers it signifies and seals something that they may not yet have grasped. I wasn't really going to get into a detailed discussion on this topic, but baptism is both under-inclusive and over-inclusive in terms of identifying who "Christians" are. There are many Atheists who were once baptized and there are some unbaptized people who are believers."
Just asserting that it was not sinful for Mary to leave Jesus behind in Jerusalem does not make it so. Failing to properly care for one's child is a violation of the law of God - it is a sin. Mary failed to properly care for Jesus, therefore she sinned. I'm not saying it was an especially grievous or heinous sin, but why is it so hard to see that this lapse in her maternal duties was a sin?
Likewise, it was wrong of her to chide Jesus. Again, I'm not saying that this is an especially heinous sin, but it wasn't right. Why is that hard to see?
The passage I cited does indicate what Jesus' family thought (that Jesus was beside himself, i.e. crazy) and what they did (they came to him and standing without called to him). Moreover, Jesus implicitly rebuked them by blowing off their request, saying that his true family were those who are believers. Their motivation can be further seen from the fact that the Scriptures tell us that Jesus' own brethren did not (during part of his ministry) believe on him (John 7:5).
And, of course, those brethren (and sisters, Mark 6:3) show us that Jesus was not Mary's only child.
Yes, God is excluded from the "all" in the statement "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God" (that should be obvious to anyone). But Mary is not God. Therefore, Mary is not excluded.
"Could it not be that the most privileged, blessed and holy creature ever would be made sinless and remain faithfully such? Doesn't God deserve nothing less than this?"
God didn't deserve to be spat on, beat, bruised, and crucified on the cross. Do you really want to try to argue from what God deserves to what Jesus got?
But you can take Mary's own word for it - she called God both her Lord and her Savior, thereby implying that she was not only one of God's people, but that God had saved from her sins.
-TurretinFan
(2) "[Mary] initiated His public ministry at Cana where it was her intercession that prompted the first miracle. This intercession is no different than the same intercession displayed by the Queen Mothers of the Old Testament kingdoms."
(a) The mothers of many of the kings of Israel and Judah were identified in the Old Testament. There was not, however, any identified office of "Queen Mother." Moreover, the one request by Bathsheba that is recorded was denied by Solomon.
(b) Mary's "intercession" consisted of informing Jesus of a problem and instructing the servants to do what Jesus said.
(c) Moreover, how do you interpret Jesus' response to Mary "Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come," if not as a rebuke? That is the most natural interpretation - but it also seems to be about the only reasonable interpretation.
Yes TUAD, I read that. It is excellent the way TF expresses the Truth, huh?
(3) "Mary is Our Mother as Christ Himself made us adopted brothers through her at the Cross when He said to John, "Behold your mother" and to her, 'Behold your son.'"
a) Our mother is heaven, the Jerusalem above (Galatians 4:26).
b) Christ said "Behold thy mother" (i.e. his "you" is singular, specifically for John).
c) It is pure wishful thinking to interpret Jesus' words as giving Mary universal mother-ship while not giving John universal child-ship. Of course, the later is obviously absurd - but so would the former be, except for the mariolatry that has arisen.
d) You are missing the even bigger and more significant point that Jesus is here replacing himself. He's severing his family ties to Mary. She's still biologically his mother, but for the purposes of having a mother or a son, that's between John and Mary not Jesus and Mary.
lozeerose, when you write: "... blessed and holy creature ever would be made sinless and remain faithfully such?", are you referring to Jesus being made sinless?
(4) "She is also the model of the Church as seen in the book of Revelation (mother of the Faithful) and in her general role as the New Eve, perfect Christian and her subservience to the Head Who is Jesus Christ."
a) She's not identified in Revelation. There is a woman that gives birth to a man child there, but we can see from the remainder of the description of that woman that it is not Mary.
b) Scripture doesn't teach that Mary is the "New Eve." This is another human tradition being imposed on Scripture. Adam's spouse was eve. Jesus' spouse is not Mary but the Church (of which Mary is just one member).
c) Scripture doesn't teach that Mary was a perfect Christian. This is another human tradition, already addressed at (1), previously.
d) Very little of Mary's interactions with Jesus are recorded. A good chunk of them are not especially positive. That's hardly a role model of subservience. She does call herself the handmaid of God. In that, naturally, she is a good role model.
(5) "She is the Ark not the same sense as Christ but in the very sense that she shares in this...Arkness... because in her womb lived the Priest, Prophet and King Jesus Christ Who is represented in the OT Ark by the Staff, Tablets and that one item I cannot remember (:P) at the moment."
a) The Ark represents Christ, not his mother (see Hebrews 9, especially verses 4 and 11). He was the whole tabernacle. It all pointed to Him.
b) The item you are forgetting is the pot of manna.
c) Your typology is backwards. Jesus came forth from the womb of Mary. Her womb was not his final or permanent resting place, just the beginning of his earthly pilgrimage.
(6) "It is not misleading to call Mary the Mother of God, that is why the Church is here to make sure everyone understands the proper context of this term and title that is taken from the Greek."
a) It's misleading for this reason - it suggests that she is the mother of the divinity.
b) Your church, in fact, does not make sure that everyone understands the context. How could it possibly do that, though? I mean, "everyone," is over a billion people. I'm sure that even in your parish there are people who don't understand the context in which the term was developed.
c) But why use a potentially misleading term in the first place? "God-bearer" is a better translation of the Greek and avoids the ambiguity.
(7) "And as for the prayer, it is ancient indeed as I believe devotion to her began very early in Christian history and is clearly demonstrated in the writings of the fathers and other early authors."
a) It's definitely not apostolic.
b) It's also not *that* ancient. Augustine, for example, would never have said the "Ave Maria." It wasn't around in his day, and he lived into the 5th century.
c) But so what if it were ancient? That doesn't make it right. Arianism and Gnosticism are ancient, but they're not right.
(8) "Besides, you honor your mother and so do I and thus Jesus would honor his own mother even more so."
a) Explain to me why David called Jesus, "Lord," seeing as Jesus was David's son?
b) Jesus was Mary's Creator, not the other way 'round, as is usual with children and parents.
c) However, Jesus did both honor his parents (both Joseph and Mary - Luke 2:51) and the civil government under which he lived. He did not do so because he had to (see Matthew 17:24-27).
(9) "As for Christians bearing burdens, ever hear of the Church triumphant, the Church suffering and the Church militant."
a) Yes, I have.
b) Bearing one another's burdens, though, is from the Bible (Galatians 6:1-2).
(10) "Well, Mary is triumphant and remember that not even death can separate us from the love of God and besides - there are not two bodies of Christ, one here and one there - the Faithful are always in the in the body both physically alive and dead. The spirit remains."
a) I didn't deny that the spirit remains.
b) I didn't deny that can't separate us from the love of God. (But you should read Romans 8:35-39 more carefully. It corrects your errant view of mortal sins by teaching that nothing is able to separate us from the love of God.)
c) I didn't say that there are two bodies of Christ.
d) However, the bond of Love I have in Christ doesn't let me communicate with people in other countries, nor does it allow me to communicate with the dead. The Bible never promises any such thing.
(11) "The promise to Josiah was to him but Revelation shows the "saints" asking God about events taking place on earth not to mention the parable of Lazarus and the Rich man again and Jesus speaking with Moses and Elijah."
a) You mean the martyrs (not "saints") asking God how long until judgment day? That's hardly relevant to this question.
b) Lazarus isn't described as seeing what is going on in this life (nor is the rich man described as seeing what goes on in this life).
c) Moses and Elijah being transfigured on the mount does not seem particularly relevant to the question of whether those in heaven are aware of what is going on here.
(12) "His comments may not be "scholarly" so to speak but your own assumed superior knowledge over his own is laughable. And I am speaking strictly in the sense of academia."
a) Smart people are wrong all the time and about all sorts of things.
b) Try to focus, if you can, on the issues rather than the personalities.
(13) "The Keys are Christ's to give: Isaiah 22:22, Matthew 16:18-19. If you note, the keys were given solely to Simon Peter, Matthew 18:18 does not say that the keys were given to all."
a) The Key of Isaiah 22:22 is still in Christ's possession (Revelation 3:7). He hasn't given it away.
b) The keys of the kingdom of heaven are what are used to bind/loose. In Matthew 18 Jesus gives that binding/loosing at least to all the apostles, if not to all believers.
c) Don't think that Matthew 16 should be read in a vacuum. In Matthew 16, Jesus promises to give what he actually gives in Matthew 18. In Matthew 16, Jesus says he "will" give ... in Matthew 18 he gives.
(14) "Who said the prayers directed towards God the Father, God the Son and/or God the Holy Spirit are not the most beloved. "
Joseph Ratzinger. See the original post. He identified the Ave Maria (which is directed to Mary) as the most beloved. Mary is not the Holy Spirit (no matter what Mohammed may have thought).
(15) "The Mass is one long prayer of adoration and worship encompassing the Most Holy Trinity as an unbloody Sacrifice from the Son to the Father and through the Holy Spirit."
Don't get me started on the inherent contradiction between the Mass's reference to an unbloody sacrifice and the Roman dogma of transubstantiation.
(16) "Besides, if Mary is good enough for God why is she not good enough for you?"
a) God does not tell me to give any special respect to Mary.
b) In fact, on the contrary, he repeatedly discouraged those who called special attention to Mary (Matthew 12:47-50; Mark 3:31-35; Luke 8:19-21; and Luke 11:27-28).
(17) "Scripture does quote the Holy Spirit-filled Mary stating, 'All generations shall call me Blessed.'"
And they will. She was blessed. What greater honor could be given to an undeserving person?
(18) "None of those ansestors were specifically chosen by God from the beginning of to bear the Word Made Flesh."
a) All of them were specifically chosen by God from the beginning of time to be his ancestors according to the flesh, just like Mary.
b) Yes, he did not reside in their wombs, but what difference does that make, aside from the fact that Mary got to see the promise fulfilled first-hand?
(19) "Well, Baptism is a requirement for salvation as Jesus told Nicodemus."
a) Jesus told Nicodemus that regeneration is necessary.
b) But suppose that Jesus had said that it was? How would that change anything?
c) After all, you yourself think that a desire for baptism is enough.
(20) "So why deny the saving grace of Baptism to infants as this sacrament was already being performed on the little lads in the first centuries and even alluded to in Scripture when "entire families" were baptized. Do you really think those families did not include infants?"
a) Baptism doesn't save, whether or not it is "necessary" in some sense.
b) Just as circumcision was given to infants, so Baptism should be. Neither one saves, though they both symbolize purification (one in a bloody manner, the other in an unbloody manner).
(21) "John makes it clear that there is sin that does not lead to death and sin that does lead to death. And death, in his context is spiritual death AKA separation from God AKA fiery furnace... This does not exempt priests from being able to forgive "mortal sin" as is this is done in persona Christi and it is Christ who forgives not the priest himself. The priest acts as the designated conduit."
a) I'm not sure that "leads to death" means spiritual death there, but I think we can overlook that issue because...
b) John does not encourage for prayer for the sin that leads to death.
c) And how else besides prayer do you suppose that a priest can communicate with God in order to get this sin forgiven?
(22) "This is no different than the Old Testament where people went to the priest to have their sins forgiven through the Mosaic Law as instituted by God."
Hebrews 7 explains that Christ replaces those priests. Thus, if you are right that this is just an attempt to continue OT priestly functions, Hebrews 7 should be proof enough that these practices are wrong.
(23) "Maybe you skipped John 20:22-23 where it is recorded: "When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained." "
I missed where Jesus breathed on anyone but those men. Why would you assume that the special gift of the Holy Ghost that they possessed is in the possession of your parish priest? Can he do any of the miracles that the apostles could? Can he speak in languages he didn't study? Can he cure people with his shadow or raise people from the dead? I thought not.
Who said they can't. Ever heard of Padre Pio?
Wrong. Jesus did not abolish but fulfilled the Law and the Prophets. Thus His priesthood is a perfection and fulfillment of the Old Testament priesthood.
By means of his office which is a sharing of the very priesthood of Jesus. These besides, and Jesus gave his priests this authority and it is He that forgives not the priest per say.
I think it was Peter who wrote in 1 Peter 3:15 something to the effect of, and "Baptism now saves you." Actually, I think those are his exact words.
Baptism of desire is an extraordinary means of the Sacrament and is recognized because know that God is merciful, and desiring that all men be saved.
The means that Jesus taught us is the ordinary means and one cannot enter the kingdom of heaven without being born again of the water and spirit, and Holy Spirit that is.
Being chosen to bear the greatest gift of God to Man is difference enough. No other person could have done this. If they did, and they would be Mary.
No Mary, and no Jesus. Know Mary, and know Jesus.
She was? She is! She is the most Blessed creature of all eternity.
You misinterpret those passages as any good son will always honor his mother. I Besides He gave us His mother at Calvary.
Clearly that passage about what is folly to the Gentiles applies to you here.
Well, I I prefer the Dine Mercy chalet to the Rosary but under start the Holy Father. However, the this is an opinion I think he would agree to a Magisterial teaching.
Can you bind and loose? yeah me neither. But the Pope can an so can the Bishops so long as they are union with Rome. Oh and as a homeowner don't you retain your original copy of the key but give the house- sitter a copy for their use?
Martyrs are saints, and the Rih man does see what is going on in this world and it was Jesus who was transfigured not Moses and Elijah. Those two were just dead guys speaking to Go in the flesh.
God loves the sinner but not the sin. Again we separate ourselves from Him not Him from us. We He just loves us enough to give us what we want as a part of divine justice.
And your love may not allow you to communicate mystical with others but the phone does. Besides communication is two- way and praying, and which means asking, how to the saints is one way. The how and the why is God's will. And read your Bible... Er, and pick up a complete version at your local Catholic bookstore already it again.
As for St. Augustine, did you know personally? No. Then you cannot say what he would or wouldn't say. I Besides whether he had a particular devotion to Mary is not relevant. The Luther, and Calvin and Zwingli all ha a devotion to the Blessed Mother and defended her sinlessness an perpetual virginity a.tbey were the Reformers.
Uh, and because she is the mother of God.
This is a Both/And situation and not either/or.
Ignorance. Saint Peter warned of this. Besides, and why such the dislike of Our Lady?
Wrong. Also, if this shows that Jesus ha no othe siblings as any other brethren are shown to be of other parents.
Woman was a title respect in those days and also shows that Mary fullfils Genesis 3:15. The If jesus was being mean then he would be sinning as this would be a dishonor and disrespect to his mom.
The Queen Mother is termed in Hebrew as Geborah. The and the mother of Solomon was heard and respected.
a) "Woman was a title respect in those days "
There's no good evidence for that assertion. On the contrary, "Woman" is what Peter calls the maid during his first denial. Like "Man," (See his second and third denials) it is the sort of thing one says to a stranger (Luke 22).
b) "Woman ... also shows that Mary fullfils Genesis 3:15."
Woman would likewise show that the Canaanite woman fulfills that passage (Matthew 15:28).
c) " The If jesus was being mean then he would be sinning as this would be a dishonor and disrespect to his mom."
Jesus is Mary's Lord and Master. If he corrects her mistake, that's not a sin on his part. You see, Jesus can't sin: he's God. Mary can sin, because she's not God.
d) "The Queen Mother is termed in Hebrew as Geborah. The and the mother of Solomon was heard and respected."
a) I assume you mean before her request was openly identified as ridiculous (1 Kings 2:22).
b) I'll leave the discussion of גּבירה for another time. Suffice to say that it only appears 6 times in the Old Testament, and none of those times is in reference to Bathesheba.
You've asserted that. Everything in Scripture points to him having both brothers and sisters.
a) Just because I don't worship her with the worship of hyper-dulia doesn't mean I dislike her.
b) The "ignorance" accusation and the reference to Peter's warning isn't backed up by anything.
a) That's just what you assert to get out of the fact that the Scriptures don't teach what you teach, they teach what I teach.
b) Even if you could just make up typologies without Scriptural warrant, this one is backwards, as I already pointed out.
That doesn't answer the question.
a) Yes, you claim that something (us) can separate us from the love of God. Romans 8 contradicts your error.
b) Yes, the phone extends my ability to communicate. That said, there aren't any phones to heaven.
c) Yes, your prayers to the dead are not like my communication with my fellow believers here on earth. That's kind of my point.
d) "The how and the why is God's will." You have no good reason for thinking it is God's will, since God's word does not tell you to try to communicate with the dead.
e) If only you would heed the teachings of the Apocrypha against images! But you want me to hear its teachings on something else?
Luther, Calvin and Zwingli rejected Hyper Dulia. John Cavin expressly refutes it in his Institutes of the Christian Religion.
a) You used the quotation marks around "saints," hence my question, since that's not a quotation.
b) You better re-read the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus. When you do, if you find where he sees something going on in this world, let me know.
c) Yes. Jesus was transfigured. As part of that event, Moses and Elijah "appeared."
c) Elijah wasn't dead (2 Kings 2:11).
a) Find where the Bible says that someone received a copy of the key of David, and I'll get back to you.
b) Yes. I can bind and loose. Why? Because the power of binding and loosing is a declarative power with respect to the Gospel. I can (and do) declare to you the same gospel the Apostles did.
a) Yes. I really read John 6.
b) What is true folly is to accept Rome's contradictions. The Gentiles stumbled at the claim of the resurrection.
a) I addressed your mistaken claim about what happened at Calvary under (3).
b) I addressed this mistaken claim that the verses can't mean what they say because it would mean Jesus was sinning in my responses under (2).
a) You misunderstand. God blessed her (past tense). Therefore, she was blessed (past tense) by God.
b) Don't get too excited. She is still lower than the angels.
Luther, Calvin and Zwingli held to the total depravity of the entire human race. They held that Mary like all humanity are sinners. Jesus is the only sinless one. He alone could ever die for sin.
a) Your mantra is not something Scripture teaches. On the contrary, we know almost nothing about Mary from God's Word, whereas we know lots about Jesus.
b) Almost all women are able to carry a baby to term.
c) Mary was given *undeserved* favor by God. That's why she is called "highly favored."
In other words, it's not really necessary.
He figured that might confuse you, so he provided an immediate clarification:
1 Peter 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
And notice that figurative language?
To eat and drink of Jesus means to believe in Him for eternal life based on His work on the cross. Nothing there of the Lord's Supper in John 6 at all. The Lord's Supper was instituted one year after the events of John 6. It is the work of the Cross of which is in view when Jesus spoke there which at that time was still future event. The Work of Christ was completed on the cross forever.
Do you really think that the priest does not pray to God for the person but somehow does it on his own?
I didn't say Jesus abolished. I said he replaced. He is our one mediator. There are not many priests and many mediators.
Yes, I have. Have you?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1567216/Italys-Padre-Pio-faked-his-stigmata-with-acid.html
But I'm sure he's not your parish priest. And certainly even Benedict XVI doesn't claim to have the powers of Pio.
Roman Catholicism overthrows the meaning of the word " necessary " . Their doctrine of baptism of desire sure contradicts their claimed of baptism being necessary in order to be saved. Since even they have those not baptized and are saved due to their claimed baptism of desire. This is a hopeless contradiction in their own doctrine of baptismal regeneration.
"As for St. Augustine, did you know personally? No. Then you cannot say what he would or wouldn't say."
The historians of your own communion freely admit that the "Ave Maria" was not a practice of the 4th century.
"Besides whether he had a particular devotion to Mary is not relevant."
Not relevant to what? Not relevant to the fact that your worship of Mary isn't as ancient as you might like to imagine? I think it's highly relevant to that.
"The Luther, and Calvin and Zwingli all ha a devotion to the Blessed Mother and defended her sinlessness an perpetual virginity a.tbey were the Reformers."
Uh. No. Yes, they may have believed her to have remained apart from Joseph after Christ's birth. Otherwise, that allegation is false.
You're missing the forest that Benedict XVI is someone for whom Mary is really the prime focus, for the trees of whether it is a matter of opinion or dogma. Obviously, it is a matter of opinion.
This article reports the unsubstantiated claims of one person. Did you fail to consider the following from the story?
"The testimony was originally presented to the Vatican by the Archbishop of Manfredonia, Pasquale Gagliardi, as proof that Padre Pio caused his own stigmata with acid.
It was examined by the Holy See during the beatification process of Padre Pio and apparently dismissed."
Or did you assume that if it goes against Rome it must be right?
As for claiming any powers, that is not for any mere human. Any and all miracles are performed by the power of God through the person. So it was not Pio to did anything it was God that allowed Pio to perform such supernatural feats.
I do not think Luther held completely to that view but I am no expert. As for how this works with Mary, well, let us say that were it not for her son saving her, she would not have been born sinless and remained such.
What Jesus does for us as a result of His death and resurrection now, He did for His mother before her birth. And it is because of the amount of grace bestowed on her that she followed God's will to a T.
A) Yes but we do not know all of Jesus' words now do we?
B) What does that have to do with the fact that Mary was chosen to bear the Christ-child?
C)True, that is why the more accurate translation of her title, as St. Gabriel said it is "Full of Grace."
No one can truly deny that Mary did not play the most pivotal role in salvation history second only to her Son.
Where in the world did you get the idea that it is not necessary. Baptism IS most certainly necessary.
Keep in mind though that although we are bound to the commandments and sacraments God is not. So if He chooses to forgo anything, for example the way He saved Mary prior to her conception, then that is His will.
We are only to follow the instructions given to us by Him through His Church. "He who hears you hears me" and all that.
Also, with every sacrament there is form and matter. Baptism is no different. The form for ordinary baptism is, "I baptize you [so and so] in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (the intent of the baptizer, in conjunction with the will of the person or the person(s) speaking for that person in the case of an infant or invalid). The matter is flowing water whether by pouring or immersion. Besides there is only one baptism - so for any who received the sacrament twice or more - if it was valid the first time, you only got wet every other time.
Yup. But this is to explain how baptism saves you (in the previous verse), "...God in the days of Noe, when the ark was a building: wherein a few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water."
Baptism is prefigured in many areas and practices of the Old Testament including the reference to Noah and even the ritual baths of the Jews. However, the salvific nature of it did not come into play until Jesus sanctified the water (matter) and the provided the means (form) by which to properly do this. Jesus' own baptism in the Jordan was the fulfillment of all that prefiguring that occurred as a result of the early Word AKA the Law and the Prophets.
Jesus said it is a requirement and I believe Jesus.
"To eat and drink of Jesus means to believe in Him for eternal life based on His work on the cross."
Really, because He surely does not explain it to those listening. In fact Jesus reiterates and makes the point stronger when He says, "...and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world...For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed."
He repeats this over and over. Again, this is the fulfillment of the Old Testament Paschal Sacrifice wherein the Jews were instructed to eat the entire sacrificial lamb. Jesus is that lamb and He commands us to eat of His flesh and drink of His blood. The question remained, as the Jews in John 6 asked, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"
Simon Peter, as the leader of the group spoke first, did not question Our Lord but rather accepted this fact and left it up to God to fill in the blanks. And God did as we have the written descriptions of the Last Supper and Paul's own testimony in 1 Corinthians plus extra-Biblical writing from the Fathers including the very useful Didache which was in print in the lifetime of at least on the Original 12, John.
Huh? The priest prays for you me and everyone. But although he says the words of absolution (and even consecration during the Mass) he is not the one performing the act of forgiveness. Only God can do this the priest is simply the means.
He does not replace - He fulfills, perfects. And yes He is the sole mediator and sole High Priest but this does not prohibit Him from giving us a share in His mediation and even priesthood. It is all because of Him, through Him and by Him.
If this were strictly the case then He would not allow us to pray for one another, acting as mediators, here on Earth or even give the Apostles any power to do anything...
Worship does not mean what you want it to mean. For example we call judges here your honor, they have none like God. The Brits often call their judges/leaders your worship and/or lord - these are mere humans.
Aside from that, devotion to Mary goes back to the beginning of the Church as Christ was devoted to His Mother as any son would be. And surely as the Apostles must have been to her after Jesus' death.
Besides, no person on Earth knew Jesus better than Mary. No creature ever shared the special bond with the Most Holy Trinity that Mary did. She is the Daughter of the Father, the Mother of the Son and the Spouse of the Holy Spirit and this my brother in Christ (see how I refer to you as brother yet we are of no relation...hint, hint) deserves a little extra attention as there is no better example of what it means to completely devoted to God than that of Mary.
Mary may be a prime focus, but as I said before, no one knows Jesus better than Mary. So if we really wish to know the Lord we must seek guidance from the woman who bore Him in her womb.
Generally speaking, if I wanted to know everything about any person Mom is the one-stop shop for all the details. No?
The name Remits sin not Baptism.
The Reformed are the Most Ignorant concerning Baptism. The One Baptism(Eph.4:4-6) is a One of unity of the water and Spirit(Not Just the waters of Baptism, but the name Jesus must be called over you to wash away the sins.(Invoked)...)
Jesus said whose soever sins you remit they are remitted unto them and whose soever sins you retain they are retained.(John 20:23) here Jesus is saying one man can remit another man's sin. How is that possible in the reformed fairy tale world? Jesus has given us power through his name in Baptism to remit sins. You are then baptized into Christ and take his name and are circumcised and named(New birth Just like the male Jewish child on the eighth day after his birth but now both men and women) by the spirit. John the Baptist was.(Luke 1:59-60 God himself named the child.)
Baptism alone without the name does nothing but get one wet.(Luke 24:47,Acts 2:38,8:16,10:45,19:5,22:16) Baptism in Jesus name is calling on the Lord Jesus. We do not call on anyone else as do those who use the titles F,S,HS. and call on three. We take the name of the bridegroom as our husbands wife. Christian is not that name it was given of men first at Antioch not by God.
Holy Spirit Baptism
Paul asked the question have you received the Holy Ghost since you believed? (Acts 19:2) Letting us know by asking the question that no, you do not receive automatically upon belief that you receive the spirit. otherwise it would have been absurd to ask. The kind of faith the reformed teach is not faith at all but is misplaced and false doctrine.
But you are washed(Baptism in Jesus name) but you are sanctified, but you are justified,In the name of the Lord jesu and by the spirit of our God.(1st.Cor.6:11) We see the false doctrine that is popularly taught, but wrong.
That may be so but Calvin also holds the heresy of double predestination.
1. No. Nothing separates us from the love of God. Mortal sin separates us from God. There are no contradictions in Scripture.
2. Communion with the saints does not work like a phone call. Prayer (petitions) works like a bulletin board except with God - who responds any way He sees fit.
3. The prohibition is against necromancy and divination with spirits, these are of demonic origin. Communion with the Saints is neither. Asking for the intercession of a saint is the same as me asking for you intercession.
4. The Bible, Deuterocanon or otherwise does not teach against the use of images either. The prohibition is against the adoration of idols or anything else for that matter. The Bible can be wrongly adored and if Protestants accuse Catholics of Mary Worship, then we can often accuse many Protestants of Bible Worship. Both are wrong and grave, mortal sins. So we do neither. We give Mary the proper respect as the Mother of God and the Bible its proper respect as the inerrant, written Word.
Also, if we were to hold to the usual Protestant argument against "images" then statues, monuments and pictures of every person, place and/or event are idolatrous. Besides, it is God Himself who gives the instructions on the proper use of images/statues in the context of adoring Him.
1. "And another angel came, and stood before the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given to him much incense, that he should offer of the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar, which is before the throne of God. And the smoke of the incense of the prayers of the saints ascended up before God from the hand of the angel." Revelation 8:3-4
2. I suggest you read it again. It is very clear that Dives (Rich Man) is aware of the goings on of Lazarus and the conduct of his family on earth.
3. Moses and Elijah appeared. Much like Mary appeared to St. Juan Diego or to the children at Fatima or to St. Bernadette. Plus, there are the appearances of Jesus to St. Margret and to St. Faustina.
4. So Elijah was taken...assumed...into heaven. Guess that should dismiss any objections against the Assumption of Mary into Heaven. If God would do that for Elijah, why not His own Mother? I would do the same for mine. What about you?
So what you bind on earth is bound in heaven? Wow, if you have that authority then, by your words, so does every other believer and spells anarchy and confusion. God is not a God of confusion.
As for the Keys:
Matthew 16:19, "And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven."
Cross reference that with Isaiah 22:22, "And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut, and none shall open."
Haven't I and just about every other Catholic cited the passages? I believe the Words written in the Bible, what about you?
Just like the Gentiles, in this case the Romans, persecuted Christians for cannibalism, e.g., The Eucharist.
Go back and re-read John 6 keeping in mind that your objections are the same as the Jews - almost verbatim - all the while considering the fact that this statement occurs during Passover (so does the miracle of the fishes and loaves in the first half of the chapter) and flipping back to the OT to check out the instructions for celebrating said Passover. Keep in mind Christ came to fulfill/perfect the Law and the Prophets, not to abolish them.
Addressing them does not mean that you proved my claims wrong. You cannot prove them wrong because Protestant objections on both are a new packaging of old heresies.
John represents mankind and Mary the Church. Jesus gives us the Church. However, in doing so, He makes us adopted sons and daughters by means of giving over Mary to John in the very context of Mother/Son.
Not ALL have sinned. Or should I say for your ears, not ALL were born in sin: Adam, Eve (not born but created) and Jesus, Mary (Savior and saved - plus here is the allusion the new Adam and Eve deal).
Now we know Jesus did not sin, He could not go against Himself right? But where do we see Mary sinning? We don't. Your previous examples are your personal judgments against her. There is no record of Mary sinning like that of Peter, Judas, Paul, etc. In fact, the amount of grace bestowed on Mary would make it near impossible for her to choose against God's will, thus sinning.
a) Are you under the impression that Mary is giving you guidance about Jesus?
b) "Generally speaking, if I wanted to know everything about any person Mom is the one-stop shop for all the details. No?"
(i) Not if she's passed on.
(ii) Why not just ask the person themselves? Jesus knows more about himself than Mary does (even if she could respond to you, which she can't).
1. The Title in Greek conveys the message of complete grace: within, without, past, present, future, etc. Thus like Agustine said, "More I than with me, for He Himself is in your heart, He is (made) in you womb, He fills your soul, He fills your womb."
Plus, Fr. Leo Haydock makes a great point in his commentary:
"Hail, full of grace: [5] by the greatest share of divine graces granted to any creature. This translation, approved by the ancient Fathers, agrees with the ancient Syriac and Arabic versions. There was no need therefore to change it into gracious, with Erasmus; into freely beloved, with Beza; into highly favoured, with the Prot. translators. For if seven deacons (Acts vi. 3.) are said to be full of the Holy Ghost, as it is again said of S. Stephen, (Acts vii. 55.) and also of the same S. Stephen, (Acts vi. v. 8.) that he was full of grace, (as the learned Dr. Wells translates it in his amendments made to the Prot. translation) why should any one be offended at this salutation given to the blessed mother of God; who would not have been raised to this highest dignity, had not her soul been first prepared for it by the greatest share of divine graces? — The Lord is with thee, by his interior graces; and now, at this moment, is about to confer upon thee the highest of all dignities, by making thee truly the mother of God. Wi. — The Catholic Church makes frequent use of these words which were brought by the archangel from heaven, as well to honour Jesus Christ and his virgin Mother, as because they were the first glad tidings of Christ's incarnation, and man's salvation; and are the very abridgment and sum of the whole gospel. In the Greek Church, they are used daily in the Mass. See the Liturgy of S. James, and that of S. Chrysos."
There is also a reference in the Book of Wisdom,"For wisdom will not enter into a malicious soul, nor dwell in a body subject to sins" (Wisdom 1:4). This personification of Wisdom is understood as the pre-incarnate Christ.
2. Your second statement is blasphemous and heretical. All of mankind, thanks be to Jesus Christ, is now elevated above the angels. Not just Mary, the Queen of Angels and Heaven.
It is understood that Lucifer and the other demons objected to the fact that God would humble Himself to bring direct salvation to we lowly creatures that cause their own fall. We are safe to assume that this was at least one of the trials these spiritual creatures failed.
Your words are like a false accusation, a denial of His work in the Death, Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus Christ.
I am going to disagree with you on a major point. The proper form of Baptism is in the NAME of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. These are Jesus' own words, even my Reformed brothers would agree to this.
The reason for this form is because God is a Triune God - A Most Holy Trinity - Three Persons One Divinity. And thus the commandment does not read baptize in the NAMES OF but in the NAME OF - singular.
Other than that, I think you understand that it is the act of baptism that saves because it imparts Salvific Grace upon a person's soul. This is because faith and works come together. Not one without the other. For "faith alone" does not save and/or justify (James 2:24).
And one other thing, you and I cannot remit sins just as I cannot. Only God can do that and He chooses to do that via the Sacrament of Reconciliation. And only validly ordained priests can confect the sacrament on the Faithful.
I can understand why you might wish the positive stories about Pio to be true, and the others to be false.
a) When we pray for one another, we are not acting as mediators. We don't plead our merit to God.
b) And yes, "one mediator" means that there are not others.
c) There is a sense in which all believers are priests. What is gone, however, is the kind of priesthood that existed in the Old Testament era.
But John discourages people from praying for the "sin unto death." So, which is it? Do we pray for mortal sins or not?
a) see (19) regarding whether you think it is a requirement
b) Baptism is itself a figure, like the ark was a figure. That's one thing you've missed from the verse.
The thing is this - if Baptism isn't really necessary for salvation, than desire for Baptism can be enough. But if it is really necessary, than desire isn't enough. There's not some third option, unless you just equivocate over what "necessary" means.
And, of course, we agree that Baptism is "necessary" for Christians. But we don't mean that faith does not justify before Baptism. It does. That's one thing we learn from Romans 4:9-12.
Re: (A) What of it? We know what we need to know. You don't get to make up other doctrines and practices, just because not everything Jesus ever said and did was recorded.
Re: (B) You claimed only Mary could do what she did. That's patently false.
Re: (C) No, "Full of Grace" is not more accurate.
It's easy to deny that Mary played the "most pivotal role." There's no good reason to call her role in bearing him in the womb more pivotal than Joseph whisking him off to Egypt, or Pilate sentencing him to death. She's an important part of his family tree, but so is every ancestor back to Adam. Without any of them, his family tree could not have existed as it existed.
An even better example is John the Baptist. He served the pivotal role of forerunner. Unlike Mary, John the Baptist is described by Jesus as being the greatest.
"Addressing them does not mean that you proved my claims wrong. You cannot prove them wrong because Protestant objections on both are a new packaging of old heresies."
a) When someone claims something about Mary, like you have, the burden is on you to prove those claims are true - not on us to prove them false.
b) But we have demonstrated the errors of your views.
"John represents mankind and Mary the Church."
Where did this typology come from? It certainly didn't come from the word of God. Did it come from the traditions of men?
"Jesus gives us the Church."
We are the church.
"However, in doing so, He makes us adopted sons and daughters by means of giving over Mary to John in the very context of Mother/Son."
No. That's not how we are made adopted. We are made adopted by the Spirit (Romans 8:15) and in view of the work of Christ (Ephesians 1:5).
"Not ALL have sinned."
God's words says all have.
"Or should I say for your ears, not ALL were born in sin: Adam, Eve (not born but created) and Jesus, Mary (Savior and saved - plus here is the allusion the new Adam and Eve deal)."
Where's the proof for your assertion that Mary was not born in sin?
"Now we know Jesus did not sin, He could not go against Himself right?"
Jesus is God. God does not sin.
"But where do we see Mary sinning? We don't. Your previous examples are your personal judgments against her."
Your hand must get tired from the waving. See the other discussion for the evidence. Moreover, Mary herself confessed God as her Savior, thereby implying that she had sins to be saved from.
"There is no record of Mary sinning like that of Peter, Judas, Paul, etc."
You're right. The recorded sins of Mary are seemingly far less heinous.
"In fact, the amount of grace bestowed on Mary would make it near impossible for her to choose against God's will, thus sinning."
a) Where does Scripture say this?
b) This seems to come from your mistaken understanding of the term for "highly favored."
c) If that were really true of Mary because of that Greek verb, it is true of all believers, for the same verb is applied to us.
"In fact, being born free from the shackles of Original Sin alleviates her from looking at the world through the eyes of concupiscence thus diminishing/extinguishing the desire to commit sin. "
The Scriptures don't teach what you are asserting, and no father before the time of Augustine ever taught such a thing. This is just another of your human traditions.
a) Where is the evidence that the Romans persecuted Christians for cannibalism?
b) Why don't you actually prove your doctrines from Scripture instead of waving your hands? John 6 uses a lot of spiritual language, and John 6 explains that the language should be understood spiritually, not literally.
"So what you bind on earth is bound in heaven? Wow, if you have that authority then, by your words, so does every other believer and spells anarchy and confusion. God is not a God of confusion."
a) If the confusion arises because of men, does that make God "a God of confusion"? Surely not, so your rebuttal is invalid.
b) I have the authority to declare only what God has declared. If I only declare what God has declared, how does anarchy arise? It can only arise from sinful men, not from my exercise of the authority to proclaim the gospel.
Regarding your attempted cross-reference, notice the difference between "keys" in Matthew 16 and "key" in Isaiah 22. Read more carefully and you won't make this mistake that is so commonly made by people in your communion. Your cross-reference is wrong.
The appropriate cross reference for Isaiah 22:22 is Revelation 3:7.
-TurretinFan
Re (1) Revelation 8:3-4 refers to the prayers of those on earth going up to God.
Re (2) More of your handwaving there. Where does it say he was aware of what was going on?
Re (3) It wasn't actually like those alleged appearings. But even if those alleged appearances were real, there's a world of difference between communicating with an apparition and trying to communicate with an apparationless dead person.
Re (4) I would do nice things for all my relatives, not just my Mom, but also my brethren, my sisters, and of course any loyal disciples I had. But we are not told by God that he assumed Mary, or let her receive the crown of martyrdom, or anything at all about her end. Your belief in fables about her end is not justified.
Re (1) If one can remain un-separated from the love of God in hell, then Paul's persuasion that nothing can separate him from the Love of God is of no comfort at all. There are no contradictions, but the Bible does not teach the error of "mortal sins."
Re (2) Prayers to the dead isn't described in the Bible as being like a bulletin board. In fact, it's not described in the Bible at all. It's a human tradition.
Re (3) No, asking for the intercession of saints is unlike me asking you for prayer on my behalf. It is unlike it in that you and I can actually communicate with one another, and I can bear your burdens, and you mind. It also unlike it in that people pray to the saints hoping that God will hear those prayers on accounts of the merits of the saints. One doesn't have that expectation when one asks one's fellow believer.
Re (4) You should read Wisdom 13 or 2 Maccabees 12.
"The Bible can be wrongly adored and if Protestants accuse Catholics of Mary Worship, then we can often accuse many Protestants of Bible Worship."
Do you really believe that Protestants offer prayers to the Bible, make little pictures of the Bible and bow down to them and kiss them? Do you think that Protestants offer the worship of hyper-dulia to the Bible? Come on. Be reasonable, man.
"Also, if we were to hold to the usual Protestant argument against "images" then statues, monuments and pictures of every person, place and/or event are idolatrous. Besides, it is God Himself who gives the instructions on the proper use of images/statues in the context of adoring Him."
The usual Protestant argument is not that all representations are bad. Are you unfamiliar with the argument or are you intentionally misrepresenting it?
"The Title in Greek conveys the message of complete grace: within, without, past, present, future, etc."
No it doesn't. If it did, the same verb, which is also applied to believers generally, would imply the same of us.
The translation was approved by a lot of people who didn't read Greek. That's not a very good argument
The translation agrees with the Syriac and Arabic, but weren't the Syriac and Arabic translated from the Latin? If so, why would they not agree?
Stephen is said to be full of grace, but Mary is not. Mary is said to be highly favored. The description of Stephen shows us that there was a way to describing being full of grace, but that this description was not used of Mary.
"There is also a reference in the Book of Wisdom,"For wisdom will not enter into a malicious soul, nor dwell in a body subject to sins" (Wisdom 1:4). This personification of Wisdom is understood as the pre-incarnate Christ."
In context, the book of Wisdom is exhorting the rulers of this world to love righteousness and seek the Lord in simplicity of heart (Wisdom 1:1). There's no good reason to suppose that Wisdom 1:4 is saying that Jesus would not enter the womb of a sinful woman.
"2. Your second statement is blasphemous and heretical. All of mankind, thanks be to Jesus Christ, is now elevated above the angels. Not just Mary, the Queen of Angels and Heaven."
a) Where does the Bible say that we are elevated above the elect angels?
b) On the contrary, see 2 Peter 2:11 (angels are greater in might and power)
c) To be human is to lower than the angels (Hebrews 2:7).
d) Where does the Bible call Mary the Queen of Angels or the Queen of Heaven? Sounds like more traditions of men.
e) The term "queen of heaven" is Biblical. See Jeremiah 44.
"It is understood that Lucifer and the other demons objected to the fact that God would humble Himself to bring direct salvation to we lowly creatures that cause their own fall. We are safe to assume that this was at least one of the trials these spiritual creatures failed."
What does this have to do with anything?
"Your words are like a false accusation, a denial of His work in the Death, Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus Christ. "
Just show me where the Bible says that Mary is above the angels, and I'll admit you're right.
Where does your church teach that double predestination is an heresy?
It might help to quote an actual prayer to Mary, to see if it really is just like asking a friend to pray for us. Here goes:
"O Mother of Perpetual Help, grant that I may ever invoke thy most powerful name, which is the safeguard of the living and the salvation of the dying. O Purest Mary, O Sweetest Mary, let thy name henceforth be ever on my lips. Delay not, O Blessed Lady, to help me whenever I call on thee, for, in all my needs, in all my temptations I shall never cease to call on thee, ever repeating thy sacred name, Mary, Mary.
O what consolation, what sweetness, what confidence, what emotion fill my soul when I pronounce thy sacred name, or even only think of thee. I thank God for having given thee, for my good, so sweet, so powerful, so lovely a name. But I will not be content with merely pronouncing thy name: let my love for thee prompt me ever to hail thee, Mother of Perpetual Help."
So, is it the same?
It might help to quote an actual prayer to Mary, to see if it really is just like asking a friend to pray for us. Here goes:
"O Mother of Perpetual Help, grant that I may ever invoke thy most powerful name, which is the safeguard of the living and the salvation of the dying. O Purest Mary, O Sweetest Mary, let thy name henceforth be ever on my lips. Delay not, O Blessed Lady, to help me whenever I call on thee, for, in all my needs, in all my temptations I shall never cease to call on thee, ever repeating thy sacred name, Mary, Mary.
O what consolation, what sweetness, what confidence, what emotion fill my soul when I pronounce thy sacred name, or even only think of thee. I thank God for having given thee, for my good, so sweet, so powerful, so lovely a name. But I will not be content with merely pronouncing thy name: let my love for thee prompt me ever to hail thee, Mother of Perpetual Help."
So, is it the same?
The mother will always lead you to the Son. As a matter of fact, there is an old analogy concerning the relationship of Mary and Jesus: moon and sun. The moon always reflects the light of the sun - most especially in the darkness. Not to mention that the prophecy concerning her role in salvation history known as the proto-evangelion, Genesis 3:15, shows that there will be enmity between her, the woman (funny Eve, which means mother, was also known as WOMAN just like Mary) and the enemy otherwise known as the devil. This enmity means they are complete opposites - he all sinner, she all sinless and Full of Grace.
a) She's not your mother.
Jesus is my brother and she is my Mother. The Mother of all the Faithful. Like it or not. And you call yourself a Bible-only person yet you reject this very fact.
b) Christ does not ask you to be "devoted" to her.
He calls us to honor mother and father. Well she is my mother and I honor her because she is not only my adopted mother but the mother of my Lord and my God. And since He honors her, so shall I.
Besides, Christ said you must eat His flesh and drink His blood but you do neither. And He did say that those who love Him keep His commandments...
c) Christ certainly didn't pray to her or offer her the worship of Dulia or Hyper-dulia (the idea of God offering any form of worship to the creature is obvious blasphemy).
So Jesus never asked His mother for anything. Guess He was like a little man when He was born and did not cry and ask for food, etc. Ever heard someone say to you, "pray tell..." Pray means to ask - to petition - to make a request of. And because she is alive in Christ and part of the body as we are I have every ability to ask her for her help. In fact we are encouraged to pray for one another as this is pleasing in the eyes of God.
There is no worship/adoration of Mary. That is reserved for God. What there is is recognition of her role in salvation history and proper respect is given to the Mother of Our Lord for He chose her of all women - ever. She is given the highest honor of any creature - even the angels bow to her.
As for reason and respect given her by the Apostles, well that is simple logic. They love Jesus, they love His mother
a) Aside from Jesus, you mean, right?
Duh.
b) But why do you even think that Mary knew Jesus better than his apostles did? The Scriptures don't tell us that.
She is His mother. Scripture does not tell you many things, like false doctrines such as Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura either - and yet you believe it more than what it does tell you that, "is the pillar and foundation of Truth" not you and not even Scripture itself.
c) And the Holy Spirit knows Jesus better than any creature, and has revealed what we need to know about Jesus in the Scriptures.
The Holy Spirit is the 3rd person of the Trinity - God - and is obviously not a creature. And the Holy Spirit, through the Church, has revealed what you need to know about Jesus yet you refuse to accept the Fullness of the Truth such as the Real Presence of Christ in the Most Holy Eucharist. Very important...
***Mary does not (and did not) have a special bond to the Holy Trinity that others don't.
Oh contrar monfrar, what is more special than carrying your savior and the savior of the world in your body. Jesus was genetically all Mary for there was no human father.
***Mary is not (and was not) the spouse of the Holy Spirit. She was the spouse of Joseph.
She was betrothed to Joseph and love was certainly there. However, because he did not father Jesus, the Holy Spirit was the cause of the conception there, she is the spouse of the Holy Spirit. Procreate is what spouses do you know.
I think I will believe the Church rather than some ambiguous unsubstantiated allegation.
You got proof? Doubt it.
Dude are you serious? You think that praying for each other is not a form of mediation. You ask me to ask God for something. That is intercession/mediation -look it up.
That is right, one mediator - Jesus the God-Man. There is your mediation. There is your link. Mary and the saints and even you and I ask everything through HIM.
And yes we are all part of the royal priesthood but not all are part of the ministerial priesthood. Same thing existed then and now.
We need not pray about that. We need to partake in the Sacrament of Reconciliation.
Ta da.
It is not whether I think it is a requirement. It is. So need to go back.
The Ark (both) are prefigurements of something that Christ fulfills. Noah, prefigures baptism. The "figure" was not missed by me but by you.
I will see your Romans 4:9-12 with James 2:23-24, "And the scripture was fulfilled, saying: Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him to justice, and he was called the friend of God. Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?
And because the Bible does not contradict itself we know that both faith and works are intertwined. Can't have one without the other...
And back to Baptism, Jesus made it a requirement (removes the stain of Original Sin at the very least) as it initiates the person into the body of Christ. Again, the ordinary means is baptism by water. Baptism by desire and blood are rare and totally on the mercy of God.
No man can confect either because death is part of the matter - one by chance and one by murder.
A) You should take your own advice here.
B) Name to me another Woman who could do what Mary did.
C) Says who? Are you an Apostle, St. Gabriel, a Church father, God or the most superior theologian, like, ever? Nope. So that is your opinion and I would defer to others who are in line with God-revealed Christian doctrine.
So being the mother of God, the chosen creature to bear the Word Incarnate is nothing? Watching your only, innocent child murdered brutally on a cross, being spat on and ridiculed for you and I and even those who killed him is something anyone can do. It is easy as pie.
Please man. Mary went through more and never doubted. Even John asked whether Jesus was the messiah. Mary never once questioned her role or the will of God for herself and her son. That is certainly more pivotal than any other creature's role. Without her Fiat we would have no salvation as she corrected Eve's "no" by her "yes."
a) When someone claims something about Mary, like you have, the burden is on you to prove those claims are true - not on us to prove them false.
Sorry dude, you are making the claims against her and what the Church has always taught. The Reformers are the new heretics on the block. What makes you think that a bunch of MEN 1500 years after the Church was established are somehow right where all the others were wrong? Arrogance, pride and an aversion to authority.
b) But we have demonstrated the errors of your views.
We? You working with a team against little old me. Wow, I am honored but like Archbishop Fulton Sheen once said, "I have the best writers: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John."
***Where did this typology come from? It certainly didn't come from the word of God. Did it come from the traditions of men?
It comes from Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura - not in Scripture and not even more that a few hundred years old. Those are traditions of men. The whole rapture trap junk - about a 100 or so years old no? Tradition of men.
Please, remove the plank from your eye man.
***We are the Church
We are. But so is THE One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ otherwise known as the Holy Catholic Church - established 33AD.
No Protestant ecclesial community can come close.
***No. That's not how we are made adopted. We are made adopted by the Spirit (Romans 8:15) and in view of the work of Christ (Ephesians 1:5).
Yeah and. He acted from the Cross by giving us His mother who represents the Church, is the Spouse of the Holy Spirit and remains His Mother.
***God's words says all have.
Here is the ALL again. All would include Jesus too as He was born and is Human after all. Just saying. (That would include the good angels too...nope they are in heaven and cannot sin.)
***Where's the proof for your assertion that Mary was not born in sin?
Where is your proof that she was born into sin? I have Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture - AKA the Deposit of Faith and the guarantee from Jesus that His Church is the "pillar and foundation of Truth" and that the "gates of Hell will not prevail against it" meaning that she cannot teach error.
What do you have? Oh, yeah, your personal opinion. I think Peter said something bad happens when we rely on our personal interpretations. Oh yeah, FAIL.
***Mary herself confessed God as her Savior, thereby implying that she had sins to be saved from.
Yes she did. Original sin. And she was saved from that before her conception so her confession is also a testimony. We call the her Magnificat. Very nice - ever read it?
***The recorded sins of Mary are seemingly far less heinous.
Where are they recorded? Can't find any. Find them for me...pretty please.
***a) Where does Scripture say this?
Where does Scripture say it is the sole rule of faith? Where does Scripture say the Trinity is the Trinity? Where does Scripture say what the Canon is? I can go on and on...
b) This seems to come from your mistaken understanding of the term for "highly favored."
My understanding of "Full of Grace" is perfectly in line with Christian revelation. Where as yours, sadly, is not.
c) If that were really true of Mary because of that Greek verb, it is true of all believers, for the same verb is applied to us.
So why do you have a problem with it then? But there is one difference - physical motherhood of the Christ-child.
***The Scriptures don't teach what you are asserting, and no father before the time of Augustine ever taught such a thing. This is just another of your human traditions. [Like Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide no?]
Sure about that? Check out New Advent and you will see a ton of information going back to the first centuries.
Google it. In fact, one of the results came up from the UK (like the Pio article). The BBC says:
"Contemporary pagan and Christian sources preserve other accusations levelled against the Christians. These included charges of incest and cannibalism, probably resulting from garbled accounts of the rites which Christians celebrated in necessary secrecy, being the agape (the ‘love-feast’) and the Eucharist (partaking of the body and blood of Christ)."
the link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/romans/christianityromanempire_article_01.shtml
:O
You use the term spiritual as a defense when in fact the amount of times Christ drills the reality of the Eucharist in conjunction with the Passover requirements found in the OT plus, the Last Supper and 1 Corinthians.
Then there is historical Christianity and the fact that there was no question of the Real Presence until after the Reformers. Making your lack of belief in it a - wait for it - a tradition of men.
a) If the confusion arises because of men, does that make God "a God of confusion"? Surely not, so your rebuttal is invalid.
Actually, you make my point. It is insane to think God would give everyone equal power to do whatever they want. That sounds more like a promise from that other guy...I'll give you a hint, we like to think of him with a pointy tail.
b) I have the authority to declare only what God has declared. If I only declare what God has declared, how does anarchy arise? It can only arise from sinful men, not from my exercise of the authority to proclaim the gospel.
The problem is that you have no authority or ability to properly discern what God has declared. (Peter again) This is not for us but for the Church (Paul said that). And without that authority it is not God working through you as in the Holy Spirit guiding you to all truth - that would be the Church and the Pope (when speaking ex cathedra of course) on matters of faith and morals.
***The appropriate cross reference for Isaiah 22:22 is Revelation 3:7.
Your cross-reference is relevant but so is mine. As Matthew 16:19 does not exist in a vacuum right? Besides, and I said this earlier, just cause He gave Peter the Keys it does not mean He completely relinquishes His own authority - He remains the HEAD of the Church.
Here is a tidbit from the Haydock Commentary on Rev 3:7:
"By the key in this place may be understood either the key of the Church, or of the kingdom of heaven. Jesus Christ has both, he opens and shuts the heavens by his infinite power. But in the Church on earth he has entrusted this key (his power) to his apostles and ministers; whatever is bound or loosened by them is ratified by him in the kingdom of his glory. "
***The description of Stephen shows us that there was a way to describing being full of grace, but that this description was not used of Mary.
My point exactly. The context for her is even more so grace-filled.
***In context, the book of Wisdom is exhorting the rulers of this world to love righteousness and seek the Lord in simplicity of heart (Wisdom 1:1). There's no good reason to suppose that Wisdom 1:4 is saying that Jesus would not enter the womb of a sinful woman.
Says you but you do not read the Scriptures with the Heart and Mind of the Church.
***
a) Where does the Bible say that we are elevated above the elect angels?
God became Man and Ascended into heaven. We are made in His image and likeness, etc, etc. Again with the "show me where" stuff. Show me where the Bible says all the unbiblical stuff you profess.
b) On the contrary, see 2 Peter 2:11 (angels are greater in might and power)
Yes, angels are superior creatures but God did not become an angel to save them or us. He became a man and restored us and through Him we are elevated above even the angels.
c) To be human is to lower than the angels (Hebrews 2:7).
Yup, until Jesus. Or do you think He is lower than the angels?
d) Where does the Bible call Mary the Queen of Angels or the Queen of Heaven? Sounds like more traditions of men.
Where does the Bible say God is Three Persons in One Godhead - The Most Holy Trinity? It doesn't. Christ is King of Heaven and as a good Jewish King, His mother would be Queen of Heaven. Ta da.
e) The term "queen of heaven" is Biblical. See Jeremiah 44.
Sure is. Thankfully, that "queen" is false. Jesus fulfilling the Law and the Prophets gives us our rightful Queen and Lady and Mother.
From the Catholic Encyclopedia, some history:
"Predestinarianism is a heresy not unfrequently met with in the course of the centuries which reduces the eternal salvation of the elect as well as the eternal damnation of the reprobate to one cause alone, namely to the sovereign will of God, and thereby excludes the free co-operation of man as a secondary factor in bringing about a happy or unhappy future in the life to come."
The following article will give you a better explanation than I can:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0209fea6.asp
The same as adoring God? Nope. Yet this old devotion is pretty pretty accurate a descriptor of Her. Jesus is our Perpetual Help and She is His Mother.
That is one awesome request for intercession!
Keep in mind that the Church does not require anyone to be devoted to Mary or to pray to saints. She only requires that we know and believe the Truth of the Immaculate Conception, Assumption of Mary and the Communion of Saints (AKA the cloud of witnesses that surrounds us - Hebrews 10:27 I think).
TF,
is there a character restriction on this new posting system?
Is it the same as asking a friend to pray for you? Would you say, "Oh Bob, grant that I may ever invoke thy most powerful name....." etc.? Of course you wouldn't. I was responding to the claim that praying to dead people is just like asking a friend to pray for you. It obviously is not.
Yes, it is interesting that Rome requires you to believe in the Immaculate Conception, since this "Truth" wasn't the Truth prior to 1854 when it was promulgated.
I do not know. I suspect that there is, same as before.
Well, Bob did not have the Word Made Flesh reside in his womb =/
No person who dies in Christ is "dead" as their spirit lives for eternity. We become like angels but not angels - get it? When our bodies pass and our spirit separate, death occurs but the eternal, immortal soul lives on. And in Christ, that means heaven. For those souls who do not die in friendship with God, well they might as well be dead because their eternity is spent "gnashing their teeth."
Through God all things are possible and Communion with the Saints is one of those things.
As for the promulgation of the Immaculate Conception in 1854 and even later still the Asssumption (1950), the date is irrelevant because this is an ancient truth. For in both the East and West we see the celebrations of these facts even before the Schism.
Doctrine develops over time. That does not mean that it did not exist from the start simply that we were unable to articulate the Truth properly or better still had no cause to make an infallible statement such as the two present above. These types of statements are done in response to a heresy or in order to prevent the potential occurring of one.
The Doctrine of Trinity, the Hypostatic Union, Canon of Scripture, etc. The Church does not live in the past it continues on like everything else. What you will note is that the Church never teaches "new" revelation. Everything she proclaims is rooted in the Deposit of Faith and not contradicted in Sacred Tradition and especially not in Sacred Scripture.
Sadly this is not the case with much of what Protestants hang their hats on.
Well, there are over a hundred and fifty comments, so maybe I read too quickly, but I thought you equated praying to Mary with asking a friend to pray for you.
If so, we can both now acknowledge that they are not the same thing, and thereby put that inane argument to rest. Agreed?
On the Immaculate Conception... I'm no historian so by all means correct me if I'm wrong... but I believe that Pope Sixtus IV in 1483 ruled that it was not a sin to deny the immaculate conception (and also not a sin to assert it). The Council of Trent affirmed this order, but from that point on -- with nearly all true believers leaving the Roman church -- things went down hill fast.
The bottom line is that what was specifically declared not a sin in 1483 was declared sin in 1854. That is not upholding the deposit of faith; it is adding to it.
Praying to Mary for some intercession is just like asking a friend to pray for you, and however, with devotion we often use more poetic language.
As for your assertion that one Pope says yes and the other no, I well that all depends on how it is relayed. Certainly if a previous Council or Pope say that something is not under penalty of mortal sin and later it is declared infallible and thus under penalty of mortal sin you will find that previous ruling was not intended to be declared infallible.
This is how the Church is protected from teaching error by the Holy Spirit. Think of the fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of predestination but whether it is Thomist or Molinist has yet to be defined.
And to make things more complicated for the nonbeliever, something does not have to be explicitly declared to be an infallible truth.
Oh yeah, yesterday I asked you this:
lozeerose, when you write: "... blessed and holy creature ever would be made sinless and remain faithfully such?", are you referring to Jesus being made sinless?
Tell that To Dr White How sullies the truth with slander. The Reformed are teaching false doctrine I do not have to excuse that of you.
You disgrace God with your false Reformed doctrine and trinity! Your version of belief does not seal you with the Holy Spirit You pit Paul against Paul. reconcile Acts 19:2 Have you received the Holy Ghost since you believed? with Eph.1:13? Baptism in Jesus name is of grace through faith belief.
Natamllc, do you remember How Paul played patty cake with Hymeaneus and Philetus Like you are asking me to do with you? To whom he said: Once taught truth but now their word/Logos would eat as doth a canker concerning the truth have erred....Pretty harsh words wouldn't you say? I do not tolerate false doctrine very well especially Of those who teach blatant false doctrine ie trinity and Calvinsm and then call the truth false and cultic. God is Just and will give your coming reward.
This is the whole article. It is Truth and it must be taught to even you.
We who Baptize in the name of Jesus in order to wash away the sins of a repentant sinner Now a believer By hearing the word preached(Romans 10:10-17)who now wish to obey the Lord In being Baptized In the name of Jesus are wrongly accused of "Baptismal regeneration".
Baptismal regeneration means that Baptism is the savior and Not Christ.
That would mean that no matter what, if you are Baptized (immersed in water irregardless of any other issues or concerns) you have been regenerated. This is not our position and is false doctrine.
The name Jesus Invoked Over the repentant believer in Baptism gives us the person and work of The Lord Jesus Christ, not Baptism alone. The repentant Believer is not going on in true faith if stopped short of all God has given through his good grace by either insufficient preaching of the gospel(Not the full knowledge which would produce Misplaced faith) Or false doctrine.
The name Remits sin not Baptism.
The One Baptism(Eph.4:4-6) is a One of unity of the water and Spirit(Not Just the waters of Baptism, but the name Jesus must be called over you to wash away the sins.(Invoked)...) And you must be filled with the spirit.(Not an option.) You must be born again of the water and of the spirit or you cannot enter the Kingdom.(John 3:5)
Jesus said whose soever sins you remit they are remitted unto them and whose soever sins you retain they are retained.(John 20:23) here Jesus is saying one man can remit another man's sin. How is that possible in the popular religous fairy tale world? Jesus has given us power through his name in Baptism to remit sins. You are then baptized into Christ and take his name and are circumcised and named(New birth Just like the male Jewish child on the eighth day after his birth but now both men and women) by the spirit. John the Baptist was.(Luke 1:59-60, Col.2:11, God himself named the child.)
Baptism alone without the name does nothing but get one wet.(Luke 24:47,Acts 2:38,8:16,10:45,19:5,22:16) Baptism in Jesus name is calling on the Lord Jesus. We do not call on anyone else as do those who use the titles F,S,HS. and call on three. We take the name of the bridegroom as our husbands wife. Christian is not that name it was given of men first at Antioch, not by God. Though we wear it proudly as a title and identifier to Our Lord.
Holy Spirit Baptism
Paul asked the question have you received the Holy Ghost since you believed? (Acts 19:2) Letting us know by asking the question that no, you do not receive automatically upon belief that you receive the spirit. otherwise it would have been absurd to ask. The kind of faith the reformed teach is not faith at all but is misplaced and false doctrine.
But you are washed(Baptism in Jesus name) but you are sanctified, but you are justified,In the name of the Lord Jesus and by the spirit of our God.(1st.Cor.6:11) We see the false doctrine that is popularly taught, but wrong.
(1st Peter 3:21) the Like figure whereunto even Baptism doth also now save us. Not the putting away of the filth of the flesh( not taking a bath and washing your body) But an answer of a good conscience toward God.
The biggest obstacle concerning this passage for most is the phrasing in verse 20 where:" eight souls were saved by water." Eight souls were not saved by water a very relevant protest. They were not saved by water but saved from water in the Ark that God gave by his good grace.
The Ark is the name Jesus In water Baptism.(Not Baptism) we are Baptized into Christ The person and work through faith in his name. The truth of Jesus name in water Baptism identifies the true Gospel in every aspect with Christ. We are buried(Col.2:21) We are in the Ark. through the flood(1st.Peter 3:21) We are circumcised(Col.2:12) We rise to walk In newness of Life through the spirit and the List goes on and On. This stops the mouths of the false gospel.
No Baptism in the tiles of f,s,and Spirit is it is NOT the proper mode of Baptism! There is one name of the F,S,and spirit and that name is Jesus. Peter was there at Both the great commission of Math.28:19 and Acts 2:38 and said to be baptized in Jesus name. The triune God is false doctrine! The Act of Baptism without the name does nothing but get you wet and Baptism in the titles does nothing but get you wet and certainly does announce you are a Christian because your faith is misplaced with bad teaching... The name called over you remits the sin and gives you the person and work of the savior so in that respect we can remit sins through the power of God's grace.
I have not heard a one of you give us your take On Jesus words in john 20:23 because you cannot. Whose soever sins you remit they are remitted unto them. You do not teach this truth from Jesus... This is Jesus versus the Reformed and the Catholics. Both have been wrong all these years.
That is right it does not say in the names but in the name! That is why you teach false doctrine.
Dude, Protestants may get a lot of things wrong but they do get for sure is the fact that God is a Trinity. John 20:23 gives the ordained priests the authority to forgive sins. Not you, and not me but a validly ordained Catholic priest.
Protestants will disagree with me there but where we certainly stand united is the fact that the form of valid baptism is in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit - the Tribune God. And if we are all wrong on that account then I may as well be an athiest because that would make Christianity a faith based on some dude and the One True God as revealed to us.
I am not a protestant! LOL! Ordained priests have the authority for nothing! I could care less about your ordained priest! You both are wrong and your tradition has zero authority! You have Nothing and your ordained priests are false teachers anyone who teaches baptism in In name of the father ,son and spirit not understanding that it is the name of Jesus is a false teacher. You are not going to argue with me about your man-made tradition. anything with more than one head is monster. You may as well be an atheist because the trinity gets you nothing but false doctrine.
The original Church does not come out of the Catholic church in protest of her Mother (The Reformed) Oneness are the Original body of Christ and have always existed. In the beginning some of your folks had truth very few and then they all fell away from truth loving lies and traditions instead of God and have not taught truth forever. You have soiled the name of Jesus with your traditions. You have never had any authority to forgive sins. God alone forgives sins through his name.
This is one of the strangest combox discussions I've ever read. Stop me if you've heard this one, a Reformed Baptist, a Presbyterian, a Romanist, and a Oneness Pentecostal are sitting at a bar...
Highly unlikely that a Oneness pentecostal would be siting at a bar. But hey, after you religionists Knock back few you could be seeing anything.
Hmmm...that's strange Manuel, I didn't know Oneness Pentecostals didn't eat ice cream. Do you have a Scriptural reason for that, or is it a Romans 14 issue for you personally?
Yeah you were talking about ice cream alright . Nice recover though.
CD,
strange and stranger have I read!
Trins and Oneness have been going at it for a long time. But the The Reformed are really New to this debate(Accept for Calvin and Servetus) other than that we have not debated much from the past... Church of Christ and Oneness have been battling it out since the 1920's of the recent past until now. Oh Serevtus Taught Jesus was God.. Your (So called )Biblical Unitarains do not teach that great truth.
Gen.1:2???? How in the world do you get two persons of God from that passage? The scriptures teach God is Spirit.(John 4:24)......... Which God? ..... scripture teaches God is Holy (Psalm 99:91st.1:15) Which God is Holy?
When Gen.1:2 Talks about God as Spirit moving to work how do you know it is another person and not the first person since the One God is Spirit? Maybe because there are seven spirits and if a spirit is a person then you have seven persons and not three. Your whole trinity doctrine is a sham, especially the limited term person you use for God and the definition you try and force upon God and his word when all you do is contradict scripture this is why we refuse to use that term.
We do not deny a distinction in God.... All there is to that distinction is Divine Spirit and flesh( By flesh I mean: Body, soul, and human spirit.) Jesus had two spirits. One divine(God ) and one human . One Divine spirit(God the father) and one human spirit(There is no divine son spirit, except for that of the One spirit of the father) One human spirit and One divine do not two persons of God make, or My human spirit and yours is a god!
The blood of Christ is not the Blood of "God the son" but of God period!
I didn't know you were also a mind reader, Manuel. What am I thinking about right now?
In Christ,
CD
CD,
smiling, oddly enough, this is what I am thinking after reading the exchange between you and Manuel:
Pro 30:29 Three things are stately in their tread; four are stately in their stride:
Pro 30:30 the lion, which is mightiest among beasts and does not turn back before any;
Pro 30:31 the strutting rooster, the he-goat, and a king whose army is with him.
Pro 30:32 If you have been foolish, exalting yourself, or if you have been devising evil, put your hand on your mouth.
Pro 30:33 For pressing milk produces curds, pressing the nose produces blood, and pressing anger produces strife.
:)
Three spirits???? LOL! It is clear to me you have no understanding of the scriptures talking about three persons of God and three spirits.
Gen.1:26 is the first glimpse we get into the coming incarnation when God said :Let us make man in our image after our Likeness. The us and Our refers to the real man and the real God who incarnate that man or son but it is not speaking of two persons of God as a real man in the incarnation that trinitarains deny for a god the son doctrine would not be another person of God..
The invisible spirit of God had no image(That Could be seen) accept in the son. Jesus is the image(That seen) of the invisible(Of that not seen) God(Col.1:15) Adam was created in that coming image that was not back there ( Romans 5:14) Adam who was the figure of him that was to come.
The Reformed like to toot there own Horns about how educated they are, pompous and presumptuous without trying to make so obvious I am not impressed about with anyone's Greek or Hebrew knowledge. Edification? Of whom? Me? I am not edified by hearing you try and pawn off your false doctrines upon people. You trying to pump up your base? What then?
Then you talk about God the "Holy spirit." What other God would there be but the Holy Spirit that is God! Is there another God somewhere? If there is then that is polytheism.
What I see from you is you are blind to an old tradition that has been pawned off as truth. The Only distinction you need to se is the one you deny. That Jesus wa Both One God and one man. One God and One man are not two persons of God !Please tell me a real man is a person of god and then I will tell you I am a person of God.
Again, Manuel, thank you for kindly exchanging ideas with me about your beliefs and responding critically to mine.
I need your help with this sentence because I am not catching up what you mean?
If you could break it apart into individual ideas for me maybe I can understand what you are saying??
Here is the sentence:
"...The us and Our refers to the real man and the real God who incarnate that man or son but it is not speaking of two persons of God as a real man in the incarnation that trinitarains deny for a god the son doctrine would not be another person of God.."
lozeerose, you wrote above:
"...In terms of Scripture, we see the term saint as being used both to describe a person in heaven (saints are not just dead humans but any creature in heaven including angels) and those presently being sanctified through the merits of Jesus Christ."
What say you?
According to these verses, are you now saying that Satan and "those" with him among the sons of God are "holy/hagios/saints"?
Gen 6:1 When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them,
Gen 6:2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose.
...
Job 2:1 Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them to present himself before the LORD.
Job 2:2 And the LORD said to Satan, "From where have you come?" Satan answered the LORD and said, "From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking up and down on it."
Michael, Concerning the plural pronouns.. God was already giving us a glimpse into our coming redemption. The us and our referred to the coming incarnation he was including the son Not god the son though.(IE.The one real man, an the real God of and in Jesus and in heaven at the same time.)
How do I know that is true? Paul wrote In (Romans 5:14) That Adam was the Figure of Him that was to come (meaning Jesus was not back there with the father even though Adam was made in his Image. Adam was made in the image of God that was to come so he passage is speaking of the incarnation.
Jesus is the image of the invisible God.(Col.1:15) The Only way you or I will see God is in Jesus.
Here is the rest of the sentence: this would have explained what you might have missed......
The invisible spirit of God had no image(That Could be seen) accept in the son. Jesus is the image(That seen) of the invisible(Of that not seen) God(Col.1:15) Adam was created in that coming image that was not back there ( Romans 5:14) Adam who was the figure of him that was to come.
Hey according to you trins what happened to the word/Logos in the incarnation? Was it no longer with god in heaven? LOL!
Why did Paul use the Logos in such a common manner of two individuals? Namely Hymeneus and Philetus's as in their Word/Logos in (2nd Tim.2:17?)
Are you Michael Burgos? He seemed to be coy in complaining about "Graciousness" in the way I answer also....
Things are narrowing in this thread.
No, I am not M. Burgos.
So, tell me this Manuel. You do not believe Jesus Christ was anyone other than a human being, one of Adam's sons from his bloodline, created by God, who succeeded in keeping the whole Law without sin making atonement for our sins so we can die and go to heaven?
Is this your belief?
No I believe Jesus is God manifest in the flesh! His Humanity is the trinity doctrine weakness you do not have a real man. But god the son animating a shell(Docetism)
I believe Jesus is the Only true God and the only person of God what do you say?
1st. Cor.15:21 By one man came sin, and by one man also came the resurrection from the dead." God the son" is not our kinsmen redeemer, nor can he be.
Why should answer your questions when you ignored mine?
Your doctrine is Antichrist doctrine.(1st.John 4:12) you deny Jesus Christ came in the flesh. Where does this passage say you must believe Jesus Christ came as god the fictitious son? You clearly believe Jesus is God the son only animating a shell. the reason you throw out your smoke screen.
manuel, because the other combox is narrowing so much I am answering you in this one, instead of that one.
You ask:
"Why should answer your questions when you ignored mine?"
Well I apologize if it seems I am ignoring you. It is rather that I am ignorant not ignoring. The way you frame your question and your explanations are difficult for me to comprehend because I know so little about your religion.
Well, for me, now, after going over your responses in here and reflecting vaguely on other times when we have interacted I have this conclusion about Oneness Pentecostalism.
It is an invention of man and mostly divined.
It takes the message of the "Power" in the Gospel and removes it from the message even though the power of the Gospel will never be silenced, sort of like what the Apostle Paul writes, here:
Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
Seeing your religion requires great depth of understanding the inventions and conventions of men; and men are idolatrous in nature, man pleasers, men who walk in the fear of man and not the Fear of the Lord, it isn't going to convey spiritually the Righteousness of God through the Grace of God by His Faith upon anyone's soul.
For me, Manuel, that is frightening!
Although, I would encourage you in this, keep lifting up the Name of Jesus Christ as God because He is God. I would continue lifting up the Name of Jesus Christ in baptism. I would continue to tell as many souls as you can that Jesus Christ died on the cross for the sins of His people so that when they "hear" the Name of the Lord, they, too, will come to realize just how lost they are and that through Christ their sins have been atoned for already because it is His Blood that has gotten for them their Eternal Redemption!
Heb 9:11 But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation)
Heb 9:12 he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.
Finally, as for this comment: "1st. Cor.15:21 By one man came sin, and by one man also came the resurrection from the dead." God the son" is not our kinsmen redeemer, nor can he be." , I believe you are onto something there?
You are right, that Christ, according to the legal scheme enacted by God through Moses, is not our kinsmen redeemer. Christ came and abolished that law establishing another one, a far better law based on far better promises and became our God/Man Redeemer as it says there in those verses from Hebrews 9 I cited above. What God accepted of men by their obedience to His legal scheme established through Moses, to act on behalf of another as a kinsman redeemer He no longer is beholden to accept because of the greater work Christ did abolishing that legal scheme taking the enmity out of way by being the only one to have kept it sinlessly thereby establishing a new and living Way to Heaven.
When it comes right down to it, this is what it is all about, won't you agree?
Rom 1:17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, "The righteous shall live by faith."
Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.
Natamllc,I have this conclusion about Reformed doctrine.
It is an invention of man and mostly divined.
It takes the message of the "Power" in the Gospel and removes it from the message even though the power of the Gospel will never be silenced, Funny you should say the following:
"Seeing your religion requires great depth of understanding the inventions and conventions of men; and men are idolatrous in nature, man pleasers, men who walk in the fear of man and not the Fear of the Lord, it isn't going to convey spiritually the Righteousness of God through the Grace of God by His Faith upon anyone's soul."
When your doctrine is the same as everyone elses, IE no depth of thought but a shallow gloss over scripture. Your reply is also thoughtless as Just who is it that we would be trying to please? You? Ourselves? straight is the gate and narrow is the way and few thereof shall find it. My opinion is just as valid as yours but with more depth of thought. You supress the truth and think you do Gods good pleasure when the reformed are the enemies of God and his grace.
Quoting scripture that you think is on your side does not prove you have truth, anyone can do that. You have simply given your bad opinion on the passages I have presented.
Where did I say anything about the law of Moses? Of course Jesus enacted a far better more perfect law in Him! This is always the nonsesne you set up.. You versus those who hold to the "Old Law". This is a true strawman!, We do not Hold to the Old Law except that the Lawgiver is our hearts as the spirit of Grace.. Utter nonsesne you spew.
it does not nulify the fact we need a Kinsmen redeemer. God jr. cannot be our kinsmen redeemer! Your Jesus is neither God, nor man, but A hybrid new species of neither, a Hercules if you will.
By man came sin and By man came also the resurrection(1st.Cor.15:21) You are the One wanting to bypass Christ and not make it about him! Why did not God as spirit redeem mankind from the very beginning of sin then without Christ? Your reformed doctrine is utter nonsesne that bypasses Christ.
Yes Christ did away with the law, But what you are saying in effect is; Jesus is not a real man but god jr animating a puppet shell. Those shoulders of the so called giants who taught you this nonsense(Calvin and the like were devils ) and did not teach the apostles doctrines.
Manuel,
There is one thing I have noticed that I want to draw your attention too.
You keep quoting 1 Cor. 15:21 incorrectly.
I just review about 25 translations, looked at the Greek text also and the word "sin" is not a part of that verse.
Other than that, your words are getting a little hotter or spicy now, so to speak, so after making any comment about quoting the verse improperly, if you care too, I think we probably have gone about as far as we can interacting with each other in here?
What do you think?
So Adam did not sin and bring about the curse of death into the world where there was none before? LOl! THIS IS THE PROBLEM WITH THE REFORMED. You give no thought to anything you read.
It is not in that particular passage but that is what happened? Did it not? This is how we get the trinity, by your thoughtless, carelessness of reading what is there from other passages or by vacuum isolating truths from texts(what I have read into the text is there from other passages.) Sin is what separates us from God and brings God's righteous judgment. *Death*. Did you forget this great truth? This is a great example of the thoughtlessness of the so called theolgical educated.(Head knowledge, with no Holy spirit.) And downright lack of common sense.
Well, Manuel, your kindness is now wearing rather thin, don't you think?
I am fully aware of the sin producing death equation in Scripture.
There are some parts of human life that underscore it so well.
Then again, we do read about Paul the Apostle writing that according to the Law he was blameless.
And then how about this verse?
Luk 2:25 Now there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon, and this man was righteous and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was upon him.
Luk 2:26 And it had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not see death before he had seen the Lord's Christ.
Luk 2:27 And he came in the Spirit into the temple, and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him according to the custom of the Law,
Luk 2:28 he took him up in his arms and blessed God and said,
Luk 2:29 "Lord, now you are letting your servant depart in peace, according to your word;
Luk 2:30 for my eyes have seen your salvation
Luk 2:31 that you have prepared in the presence of all peoples,
Luk 2:32 a light for revelation to the Gentiles, and for glory to your people Israel."
Did I mention Daniel or Job?
These too have a similar reputation among the Faithful.
LOL! I fail to see your point! You may want to be a little more clear so I do not have to read your mind.
Manuel, again because the comment thread is narrowing I will reply to your last post in this combox.
My point is according to the distinction the Holy Spirit is making, the Spirit who moved upon these men to write the Scriptures, there are some men who are blameless according to the Law, "righteous" and "devout" in every moral sense and yet they were not accepted before God on their own blameless, righteous and devout terms. What is acceptable to God is His Righteousness alone, a robe of Righteousness, so to speak, Wedding clothes, so to speak.
Again, it doesn't seem to me that we should continue exchanging ideas about our Faith to one another. I am fully Trinitarian. According to the scholars among us I might not be putting the sort of polish on defining a Trinitarian but I fully comprehend the difference between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
You are fully a Oneness Pentecostal.
I don't want to strive with you. I can fully accept what is right in your eyes and leave it at that.
Thanks again for taking some of your time to exchange view points about your Faith with me exchanging my view points about my Faith with you.
lozeerose, when you write below responding to TF: "... blessed and holy creature ever would be made sinless and remain faithfully such?", ...are you referring to Jesus being made sinless?
I agree with you That what is acceptable To God is his righteousness given to us, and yes a robe of righteousness. I fully comprehend the distinction between the Father and the son, it is simple for me. I think because of your apologetic's concerning us is where the problem lay.... Yes, I am Oneness pentecostal but I am not part of the UPC.
No. I was referring to Mary. Jesus is not a creature, He is Our Creator. In the case of the sinlessness of Our Blessed Mother, TF was attempting to use Romans 3:23 where St. Paul reminds of that "all have sinned." The folly here is that this reference is inclusive yet we know that not all men have sinned as Jesus was True Man and True God and therefore could not sin. As for Mary, there are no places recorded in Scripture where she sinned and in her Magnificat, she praises God for the work He has done for her, namely saving her prior to her own conception. It is that sinless nature of hers that makes her womb a blessed place echoing the acclimation of Elizabeth who, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit said, "Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb." (Luke 1:42).
Where in the world do you get Satan from my reference to saints and sanctity? The only thing I can think of is that you must think that there are no angels in Heaven.
Oh, and I think you are using Gen 6:1-2 in the wrong context. See, "sons of God" here refers to the decedents of Seth and Enos who where known for their religion and piety in contract to the decedents of Cain, AKA the sons of men.
But I still have no complete idea as to what you are trying to get at with Satan and your apparent claim that I am somehow calling him a saint.
Lozeerose,
you are really missing it as far as I am concerned.
The very idea you are espousing does a disservice to sinners! And I am frightened in that you are, without any fear, changing the True meaning of Scriptures. Mary surely was a sinner.
God is the Merciful and Gracious God. If Mary wasn't a sinner she never would have opened her mouth as she did and as is recorded, say what she did.
Luk 1:38 And Mary said, "Behold, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word." And the angel departed from her.
I realize you are not in our camp. I also realize that at one time I wasn't in the camp of the Righteousness of God in Christ Jesus, either. I clearly was not and I am clear about that. God came and opened my eyes to see and to hear the Spirit of Grace and Truth.
Consider what I say in light of these verses found in Matthew's Gospel 11:
Mat 11:25 At that time Jesus declared, "I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children;
Mat 11:26 yes, Father, for such was your gracious will.
Mat 11:27 All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.
What I know I know because of the revelation from God to my spirit. No one knows the Son except the Father. No one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. This business is God's business and man has no say in the matter. I simply conclude then that you are not one of those He has chosen to reveal Him too, yet, if ever? God does things according to His Eternal Purpose.
I can proclaim the Gospel to you. I can tell you the very same things in my own words as others have said to you in here already about Jesus Christ and Mary. But to understand that that we speak about can only come by way of a spiritual revelation and by the sanctification work of the Holy Spirit.
So, I am content that you have "heard" the Gospel in here and the Gospel sufficient enough for you to be saved by it. That you do not hear, well, is something that I know I know I know is of God as much as I know I know I know that for you to hear, well also, would be because of the same revelation as we have been given about Him and about His physical instrument, the means whereby He would come into this world, through the womb of a virgin as prophesied about well in advance of it coming to pass!
Anyway, thank you for clearing that one up for me!
Natamllc,
I hate to break it to you but it is your camp that changes and perverts Scripture to your device and demise.
Mary was no sinner and the passages you quote above in no way prove that she was. In her Magnificat she recognizes and takes joy in the fact that she, a mere servant of the Lord, was chosen before time and freed from the bondage of Original Sin prior to her own conception. In that, she acknowledges that her very own Son, Christ Jesus, saved her. This does not make her a sinner, it makes her a saint. Her close, unique relationship with the Most Holy Trinity and her choice to follow God's will to a T are proof positive of her very own sanctity. A sanctity which caused her to suffer alongside her only Child Jesus as the flesh of her flesh and the bone of her bone was mangled and beaten unto a gruesome death thus fulfilling the sorrowful prophesy given her the day Christ was presented at the temple.
To truly love the Son you must love His mother the way He did. For she is the adoptive mother of all faithful Christians.
As for hearing the Gospel. I hear it nearly every day of my life at Mass (plus readings from the Old Testament, New Testament and the pray the Psalms) and when I am really "working out my salvation in fear and trembling" (Philippians) I listen as well. It seems though that many a Protestant neither hear nor listen though. It must be that you neither have the ears to hear nor the eyes to see per Jesus' own words.
I will pray for you because the blasphemous words I am reading are those from the traditions of men and a product of the Enemy, the Liar, the Murderer - apartate de mi Satanas!
For how can any say that they love the Son when they accuse the mother in contrast to His very own Word?
For Genesis 3:15 states:
"I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel."
This is the Proto-evangelion and shows us Mary's role as co-redemptrix and co-mediatrix, which is a sharing in the work and grace of Her Son Jesus Who is God.
Oh and the word emntity...it means, "The state or feeling of being actively opposed or hostile to someone or something." If the Enemy is Sin then Mary cannot be for it is not in her nature as she was made by God to be sinless for enmity exists between the Woman (AKA Theotokos AKA Mary) and the Serpent (AKA the Dragon AKA the Enemy).
a) The woman in Genesis 3:15 is Eve, not Mary.
b) "her heel" is wrong. Even the New Vulgate acknowledges this.
c) Nothing in the text even gives the slightest hint of co-redemption or co-mediation.
d) The Enemy is the Serpent, namely Satan.
a) The woman in Genesis 3:15 is Eve, not Mary.
Wrong. The Woman here is Mary as she is the Mother of Our Savior.
b) "her heel" is wrong. Even the New Vulgate acknowledges this.
Wrong. The actual word is slightly ambigous in the fact that it can be trasnlated in either form correctly: he or she.
c) Nothing in the text even gives the slightest hint of co-redemption or co-mediation.
That is because you do not understand that every one of us are co-mediatros and co-redeemers simply because we are co-workers in the salvation of one another through Christ.
d) The Enemy is the Serpent, namely Satan.
Correct. (Satan meaning adversary, his name is actually Lucifer)
"I hate to break it to you but it is your camp that changes and perverts Scripture to your device and demise."
Quite the opposite is true, as has already been demonstrated.
"Mary was no sinner and the passages you quote above in no way prove that she was."
I think you may have the idea that if you say it more loudly or dogmatically, we'll just accept it as true. That's not how it works.
"In her Magnificat she recognizes and takes joy in the fact that she, a mere servant of the Lord, was chosen before time and freed from the bondage of Original Sin prior to her own conception."
That's not what she says, nor does "Savior" anywhere in Scripture mean that.
"In that, she acknowledges that her very own Son, Christ Jesus, saved her."
She didn't understand yet Jesus' role, as is made clear through the gospel accounts.
"This does not make her a sinner, it makes her a saint."
The way one becomes a saint is by being justified from one's sins through faith in Christ Jesus.
"Her close, unique relationship with the Most Holy Trinity and her choice to follow God's will to a T are proof positive of her very own sanctity."
a) Her relationship with the Trinity is no more special than that of all believers, as Jesus himself taught.
b) There isn't the slightest shred of Biblical teaching that she followed God's will "to a T." This is just another of the human traditions your sect imposes on the Word.
"A sanctity which caused her to suffer alongside her only Child Jesus as the flesh of her flesh and the bone of her bone was mangled and beaten unto a gruesome death thus fulfilling the sorrowful prophesy given her the day Christ was presented at the temple."
One doesn't have to be particularly holy to be distraught over the death of one's own son.
"To truly love the Son you must love His mother the way He did."
a) Where does the Bible teach this? Oh, it doesn't. It is just another part of Rome's false gospel, the elevation of the traditions of men.
b) Where did Jesus ever make statues of his mother, or bow down to them, or offer them golden roses, or say prayers to his mother when she wasn't around, or say the "hail mary" or wear a scapular?
"For she is the adoptive mother of all faithful Christians."
The Bible doesn't say so. That's just another of your traditions of men.
"As for hearing the Gospel. I hear it nearly every day of my life at Mass (plus readings from the Old Testament, New Testament and the pray the Psalms) and when I am really "working out my salvation in fear and trembling" (Philippians) I listen as well. It seems though that many a Protestant neither hear nor listen though. It must be that you neither have the ears to hear nor the eyes to see per Jesus' own words."
If you heard the Gospel in the Biblical sense, you would turn from your idols to worship the true and living God.
"I will pray for you because the blasphemous words I am reading are those from the traditions of men and a product of the Enemy, the Liar, the Murderer - apartate de mi Satanas!"
It is interesting how you claim not to worship Mary as a goddess, and yet you ascribe "blasphemy" to those who identify her sins.
"Wrong. The Woman here is Mary as she is the Mother of Our Savior."
a) Eve is clearly "the woman" in the context of Genesis 3:15. Just read the context and you'll see.
b) Eve is also the mother of the Savior. Remember that David is the father of the Savior, even though separated by many generations. Moreover, the term "mother" isn't used.
"Wrong. The actual word is slightly ambigous in the fact that it can be trasnlated in either form correctly: he or she."
No. It is not ambiguous. It refers to "seed" and thus can either be translated "it" or "he."
"That is because you do not understand that every one of us are co-mediatros and co-redeemers simply because we are co-workers in the salvation of one another through Christ."
That is because the Bible doesn't teach that. The Bible teaches that there is one mediator.
"Correct. (Satan meaning adversary, his name is actually Lucifer)"
Satan is his name in the Bible.
"Oh, turritenfan, from one Christian to another, please pray for me and my family. My mother passed away yesterday afternoon and it does not hurt to have you and all other Christians interceding for us."
I am very sorry for your loss, and I will pray that God will give you comfort and that he will also free you from the human traditions you have been advocating here.
Lozeerose,
I see TF has addressed your error so I will just mention it. Whatever translation you are using is incorrect. No where in Scripture does it say or give an inference "she" shall crush the head of the "seed" of the serpent. The correct word there is "he" shall crush the head of the "seed" of the serpent.
In fact, the Apostle Paul must have looked down the corridors of time and saw this dialogue between us and you because he makes it very clear who is doing what to who with these Words:
Rom 16:20 The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.
Post a Comment