Posted on 05/12/2008 8:08:07 PM PDT by annalex
Yes, you're expressing yourself clearer now. I agree that Hades, i.e., hell, underworld, grave, is the common grave of all deceased. But they will not be resurrected from the grave until Jesus comes again (explained in most of the books of the New Testament in terms everyone can understand!) As for the "church," while referenced as "the body of Christ, the Bride of Christ, etc. and etc., the "church" is the "assembly of called out ones," the members: and they can and do "err." Even Popes "err." History is the evidence here. Your explanation that since the church is the body of Christ, and Christ is the truth, it will never "err," is a straw man waiting to be knocked down :-)
Artists all seem to have a vivid imagination. The colors are nice, but I sure don't agree with what is expressed therein. Liberties always seem to be taken with things said in the scriptures...reference that picture you sent.
Right on, Iscool.
OK...I understand what you are saying...I however, disagree at this point...
I don't see where our wisdom has anything to do with it...God says so Himself...I mean, how can you argue with this scripture???
1Co 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
I know for a 'fact' that God lives, and lives within me...My flesh doesn't seem to know it...And even when my mind occassionally tries to convince me otherwise, my spirit/God's Spirit immediately does a body slam on my flesh...If I relied on my wisdom, I would likely not be a Christian...
Jesus came to earth through Mary, period. That was her ‘job’ and nothing else. She birthed him, raised him, and that’s it. She doesn’t have any special grace to be our co-redemtrix or anything else. She was an obedient young woman whom God blessed with the birth of our Lord. For that alone she should be recognized.
Aren’t these verses prophecy and indicate Israel, not Mary????
I believe these verses are prophetic and talk about the nation of Israel, NOT Mary.
The indicate the remnant, imho.
Amen, Iscool. There are none so blind who cannot, or will not, see.
EXACTLY
This is a very good passage to reference, it gets to the heart of what I’m saying, thanks. I’ll have to think about it for a while to give an adequate response.
There are no scriptures that even hint that she remained a virgin.
The scripture is silent on whether she did. "Brothers" are used loosely throughout the scripture (like with anything I say, if you want to drill to the specifics I am ready). Matthew 1:25 does not say anything about their relations after the birth of Jesus. The doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary comes from the Holy Tradition -- after all, people were alive who knew her personally enough to pass on the knowledge that she never remarried and had no other children. There are also powerful arguments from reason, -- if you want to go into them just ask. The issue is, there is no contradiction that you can find in the scripture to the doctrine.
The Word of God takes precedence over other authoritative sources of truth
Where the Holy Scripture allows for several interpretations, or where it is silent, the Holy Tradition of the Church dictates the truth. Your quotes to not controvert that. There are plenty of verses that praise the scripture, call it inspired by God, suggest that we study it and argue based on it, explain that it is given for all eternity, etc. but there is no verse that says what you imply: that the scripture is perspicuous or alone sufficient for all spiritual matters, or overrides legitimate authority of the Church.
The supremacy of Christ is essential
No one said anything against the supremacy of Christ. You are, agian, arguing against a straw argument.
In elevating the role of Mary beyond what the Bible says, this doctrine fails to measure up to the standard of searching scripture to see if these things are so.
First, the Bible says a whole lot about her, including her veneration being approved and expanded to all saints by Christ (Luke 11:27-28). Second, no, if the sripture does not contradict something and the Church offers it for the benefit of the faithful, then by definition searching the scripture is not any kind of standard -- you cannot search for what is not there.
The intimacy of spiritual union with Christ is greater than the physical union of Mary or anyone else who knew Christ during His first advent
You know that how? It is not the point anyway: the point is that Christ chose to redeem us through His incarnation, and to be a baby born of the particular woman. If that woman were inimportant, she would not be named, her words would not be recorded, her presence at the foot of the Cross and her adoption of the disciple, her presence at Pentecost -- would not be necessary to record.
It is possible for churches to sin and err
The Church is a body of Christ, so no. It is possible for individual clergy to sin and err, yes. This is why we have confessions for them as well, as well as the apparatus of the clergy to communicate with us as necessary.
No amount of symbolism can explain away her identification as the physiological mother of Christ.
I see its opposite in the passage directly treating this issue in the Letter of James. Ephesians 2 does not say "faith alone": it teaches grace alone, which is the Catholic teaching. So does Romans 3:24.
This is not a very reasonable attitude: St. John Chrysostom read and wrote in the same language in which the scripture was written, lived in a culture that changed little since 1c, and dedicated his life to the study of the scripture and the stewardship of his flock. No current writer can do the same.
The difference is that Peter spoke of Christ being of divine nature in a way that was unique to Christ, while Martha and Nathaniel did not indicate the Jesus was a son of God like no other. There is little in the actual text that says so, but we trust that Christ detected the conviction in Peter that wasn't with Martha (who was, St. John writes, confused) or with Nathaniel (who was startled by Jesus's clairvoyance).
I am simply explaining what the Church believes the gates of hell are. Since you are not Catholic, you are likely to disagree with Catholicism on many more subjects than this one. The icon is, of course, Orthodox and the composition and the meaning of it comes from the Early Church.
I wonder if your husband would introduce you thus:
— Hi, Joe. This is my wife Mary. My son was born through her. She birthed him, raised him, and that’s her job, nothign else. She is obedient and I blessed her by getting her pregnant with Johnny. Please do not recognize her other than for that. — You can return to your desk now, dear.
You can believe what you want, but I don’t think Israel is the mother of Christ writhing in labor pains.
Many current writers can read and write in the Koine Greek that the Scriptures were written in, dedicate their life to the study of the Scriptures, and pastor a chuch. The only thing difference is that they live today, not back in the time of Chrysostom. A close friend of mine, when I asked to see his bible, handed it to me and I saw that there wasn't a single English word in it! Yet as he read from it he translated it into English.
The difference is that Peter spoke of Christ being of divine nature in a way that was unique to Christ, while Martha and Nathaniel did not indicate the Jesus was a son of God like no other. There is little in the actual text that says so, but we trust that Christ detected the conviction in Peter that wasn't with Martha (who was, St. John writes, confused) or with Nathaniel (who was startled by Jesus's clairvoyance).
You're correct in that there is little if anything in the text that warrents what you just said above.
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.