Posted on 06/23/2003 2:36:07 PM PDT by Patrick Madrid
We've discussed the Perpetual Virginity here already. Regarding the Assumption, why is this so unreasonable? Matthew 27.52 tells us the graves of the Old Testmament Saints were opened and the Saints rose again. Ephesians 4.6-8 tells us Christ led these same Saints up into heaven at his Ascension (as also Enoch and Elijah were taken bodily up into heaven).
If Christ could do this for the Stains of the Old Testament, why woudl he not do so for His own Mother?
Regarding the Immaculate Conception, the doctrine says Mary was born with grace, and without concupiscence. It doesn't say she didn't need a savior, because she did (Luke 1.47), rather, it says her redemption from original sin took place at the moment of conception, and that when her soul was infused into her tiny zygotic body, it was also filled with grace at the same time that overcame Adam's sin (Luke 1.28). That's why the Angel greeted her "Chaire, Kecharitomene!" - "Hail, Full of Grace!"
It's why I could never become a Catholic, even though I have such respect for it outside of those doctrines...
If you truly want to become a Catholic, but this is a stumbling block, open your mind and pray to God for enlightenment on these topics, to grant you understanding.
John 10:30 I and the Father are one.”
II>The same way I read this:
John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.
We will be one with the Father and Yeshua. Doubt that would make us God.
283 posted on 06/24/2003 5:47 PM MDT by Invincibly Ignorant
John 17:11 I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the
world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by
the power of your name — the name you gave me — so that
they may be one as we are one.
I don't read John 17:11 the same way as you do .
I read it as G-d the Father and Y'shua are as one (("as we,"))
all the church( the "called out" ones) are one as the bride of Y'shua(("so that they may be one"))
chuck <truth@YeshuaHaMashiach>
Jesus in the Gospels, too, solemnly informs us that the Jews are children of the Devil, because they reject Him, and thus reject God the Father."You are of your father the devil: and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning: and he stood not in the truth, because truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof." (John 8.44)JESUS is speaking to the Pharisees here, at a time when every follower he had was a Jew.
Paul, also, informs us that God has not cast away Israel ...Romans 11:1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.Also, god has yet more for His servant Israel to do ...
11:2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel saying,
11:3 Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.
11:4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.
11:5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
------------------------------------------------------
Romans 11:23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again.
11:24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?
11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
11:27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
11:28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the father's sakes.
11:29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.Revelation 7:1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.Also, I think that it is important to point out that your current pontiff does not agree with the declarations in your posting.
2 And I saw another angel ascending from the east, having the seal of the living God: and he cried with a loud voice to the four angels, to whom it was given to hurt the earth and the sea,
3 Saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads.
4 And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.
5 Of the tribe of Juda were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Reuben were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Gad were sealed twelve thousand.
6 Of the tribe of Aser were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Nepthalim were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Manasses were sealed twelve thousand.
7 Of the tribe of Simeon were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Levi were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Issachar were sealed twelve thousand.
8 Of the tribe of Zabulon were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Joseph were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Benjamin were sealed twelve thousand.
Selective reading. How convenient.
Where are these "Missionary/Evangelist teams" in a Scripture that talks only of Bishops, Presbyters (Priests - look up the derivation), and Deacons?
Paul/Barnabas/Silas/John Mark ?
How could this not be a comprehensive picture of Christ? Are you claiming their preaching was lacking?
I think that their preaching was entirely adequate.
Do you think the average first century christian's picture of Christ was as comprehensive as that which is available to us today through the completed canon of scripture ?
The average first century Christian could talk to (or at least hear from) an actual witness to Christ's life and resurrection. Ponder that for a moment.
SD
For clarity, I'm going to split your response into (2) parts ...
The average first century Christian could talk to an actual witness to Christ's life and resurrection. Ponder that for a moment.
If one of these witnesses happened to be around (in Philippi, Sardis, Antioch, Lystra, Iconium, Athens, Colossa, Ephesus, etc., ... rather than being concentrated in Jerusalem) ... no doubt.
The average first century Christian could, at least hear from, an actual witness to Christ's life and resurrection. Ponder that for a moment.
So can we (from the scriptures).
Israel is the Church, the congregation of the faithful of the Hebrews, and the converts of the Gentiles. See Romans 11, John 8, etc. You blaspheme by giving that term to the modern Jews, who are wholly underserving of it (see Revelations 2.9)
John 8 is directed to the Pharisees.
Romans 11 says that Gentile believers have been grafted onto the the branch of Israel. Have you forgotten that there are Jewish believers?
By sacrilegious Protestants such as yourself who deny her perogatives and holiness and call her place in the economy of salvation into question and deny the usefulness of having recourse to her prayers. That's how Blessed Mary is persecuted in heaven.
I take my cue from JESUS of the scriptures ... and I rather doubt that JESUS persecuted His mother.
I thought the Apostles sent out witnesses to found the early churches?
So can we (from the scriptures).
And here it is again. Even with eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus, you desire that text. Though the Apostles or their immediate successors are alive and directing the Church, even though the Bible is not yet finished being written, you desire it over and above the Church that already exists.
This is the result of your sola scriptura lenses. The new Church, even though it writes and canonizes your Bible is not sufficient to teach you.
SD
I thought the Apostles sent out witnesses to found the early churches?
Do you have documentation of this ? Scriptural evidence points more to Paul and company, I believe.
And here it is again. Even with eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus, you desire that text. Though the Apostles or their immediate successors are alive and directing the Church, even though the Bible is not yet finished being written, you desire it over and above the Church that already exists.
This is the result of your sola scriptura lenses. The new Church, even though it writes and canonizes your Bible is not sufficient to teach you.
To what eyewitnesses to the life of JESUS do you suggest that I appeal, other than they which preserved their eyewitness in the scriptures.
I am grateful for the writers which wrote and for the canonization of the NT scriptures by a church which was apparently faithful to this calling by God.
Let's face it ... I trust the recorded words of God more than I do the teaching of men.
Dave, ... if you were to buy a house or a car, ... enter into a business partnership, etc., ... you would insist that the transaction be recorded to shield yourself (and your family) from any potential loss.
Yet you would insist that I risk my very soul on what is not recorded as scripture, ... simply trusting that your leaders have accurately passed down oracles of God through two centuries worth of time, ... which they, as yet, ... have not deemed to designate as scripture.
Let me ask a question.
What, would you say, was God's purpose in the canonization of the scriptures ?
To provide us with a sure way of knowing which writings were divinely inspired and which were not.
SD
Even in the first generation, your suspicion of the humans in the Church comes out.
I'm not saying you are right or wrong, just noting how deeply your attachment to the written word over any Church is. You are, at least utterly consistent.
SD
Nobody said it ok to just come up with ideas. We didn't make up the Assumption. It happened and is attested to. Just not in any canonical writings.
Likewise, Peter was martyred in Rome and the other Apostles were not Assumed. If they were, we'd have the Traditional belifs about it.
You see, we didn't read the Book and then make up stories outside of it. We wrote the Book and we were there in history when these things truly happened.
If her redemption from sin took place at the moment of her conception, then that means she didn't need Jesus' crucifiction to grants her forgiveness from sin...
God granted her a singular favor, because of her role in salvation, to grant the merits of Christ's sacrifice prior to it happening in time.
Do you think God had to "wait" for Christ to be sacrificed? God does not operate in time as we do. To Him the sacrifice of Christ has always been present, and He has always been able to use its merits for the salvation of souls.
The history only had to play out in time for our benefit here in creation.
If anything, I'm pulled toward Lutheranism, but cannot quite believe in the Real Presence, (or Contransubstantiation?).
Lutherans believe, generally, in consubstantiation. That the Body and Blood of Christ are present "with" the bread and wine.
Catholics believe in transubstantiation, that the Body and Blood are present because the bread and wine have changed permanently.
SD
Thanks. Dave.
Matthew 23:39 For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say,
`Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.'" [Psalm 118:26]
Barukh haba b'Shem Adonai
Blessed is He who comes in the Name of the Lord
Y'shua HaMashiach
chuck <truth@YeshuaHaMashiach>
Because they were not. As you know, from the earliest times the Church has venerated the relics of the saints. St. Peter's body is under his Basilica in Rome, St. James is at Compostella in Spain, etc.
No one, anywhere, at any time, has claimed to have the smallest fragment of the body of the Blessed Virgin Mary. I think this is the firmest proof, given the known predisposition of the Church for holding on to such things, that Mary was assumed into heaven.
If her redemption from sin took place at the moment of her conception, then that means she didn't need Jesus' crucifiction to grants her forgiveness from sin...
If God didn't need Jesus' sacrifice to grant Mary forgiveness of sins, then why didn't He just apply that same method of salvation to the rest of the world, and spare His Son from crucifixtion?
Of course Christ's sacrifice was necessary. Mary was a human being, and no human has ever been redeemed without the application of Christ's sacrifice to them. Mary happened to have it applied to her at the moment of conception, as opposed to at circumcision (old law) or Baptism (new law). Mary did not need a redeemer to take away her personal sins, since she had none, but to prevent her from contracting original sin so as to make her a fitting habitation of the Almighty. Mary was redeemed from the sin she would have incurred as a member of the human race by a singular grace of God. This could only be done in anticipation of the sacrifice of Christ.
But it also doesn't make sense because it's not mentioned anywhere in the Bible that there were TWO people born without being subject to Original Sin, Jesus and Mary...in fact, the record states that Jesus was the only one born not subject to Original Sin.
Jeremiah the Prophet and St. John the Baptist were both sanctified in the womb (Jeremiah 1.5, Luke 1.15).
If anything, I'm pulled toward Lutheranism, but cannot quite believe in the Real Presence, (or Contransubstantiation?).
"This is my body ... this is my blood." All we do is take what Christ said literally. He didn't say, represents, or symbolizes, but "is". We don't make a Clintonian parsing of this word. Since it really "is" His Body and Blood, the seperate consecration re-presents his sacrifice on the Cross, where His Body was drained of the Most Precious Blood for our redemption. "For as often as you shall eat this bread and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come." (1 Cor. 11.26)
Bread and wine are used to make the sacrifice a clean oblation (physically without blood, although transubstantiation changes the substance of the wine into blood), as prophesied in Malachi 1.11:
"For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts."
And also bread and wine are used to make Christ's offering one that is in line with the sacrifice of Melchizedek, who also offered bread and wine. "For he testifieth: Thou art a priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech." (Hebrews 7.17). Its difficult to see how Protestants, denying the sacrifice of the Mass, can make this prophesy make sense, since according to them Christ never offered a sacrifice of bread and wine, and they certainly deny making any such offering themselves.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.