Posted on 04/14/2011 9:21:51 AM PDT by marshmallow
The Ascension of Isaiah
“[T]he report concerning the child was noised abroad in Bethlehem. Some said, ‘The Virgin Mary has given birth before she was married two months.’ And many said, ‘She has not given birth; the midwife has not gone up to her, and we heard no cries of pain’” (Ascension of Isaiah 11 [A.D. 70]).
The Odes of Solomon
“So the Virgin became a mother with great mercies. And she labored and bore the Son, but without pain, because it did not occur without purpose. And she did not seek a midwife, because he caused her to give life. She bore as a strong man, with will . . . ” (Odes of Solomon 19 [A.D. 80])
Justin Martyr
“[Jesus] became man by the Virgin so that the course which was taken by disobedience in the beginning through the agency of the serpent might be also the very course by which it would be put down. Eve, a virgin and undefiled, conceived the word of the serpent and bore disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy when the angel Gabriel announced to her the glad tidings that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her and the power of the Most High would overshadow her, for which reason the Holy One being born of her is the Son of God. And she replied ‘Be it done unto me according to your word’ [Luke 1:38]” (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 100 [A.D. 155]).
Irenaeus
“Consequently, then, Mary the Virgin is found to be obedient, saying, ‘Behold, O Lord, your handmaid; be it done to me according to your word.’ Eve, however, was disobedient, and, when yet a virgin, she did not obey. Just as she, who was then still a virgin although she had Adam for a husband—for in paradise they were both naked but were not ashamed; for, having been created only a short time, they had no understanding of the procreation of children, and it was necessary that they first come to maturity before beginning to multiply—having become disobedient, was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless still a virgin, being obedient, was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race. . . . Thus, the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith” (Against Heresies 3:22:24 [A.D. 189]).
“The Lord then was manifestly coming to his own things, and was sustaining them by means of that creation that is supported by himself. He was making a recapitulation of that disobedience that had occurred in connection with a tree, through the obedience that was upon a tree [i.e., the cross]. Furthermore, the original deception was to be done away with—the deception by which that virgin Eve (who was already espoused to a man) was unhappily misled. That this was to be overturned was happily announced through means of the truth by the angel to the Virgin Mary (who was also [espoused] to a man). . . . So if Eve disobeyed God, yet Mary was persuaded to be obedient to God. In this way, the Virgin Mary might become the advocate of the virgin Eve. And thus, as the human race fell into bondage to death by means of a virgin, so it is rescued by a virgin. Virginal disobedience has been balanced in the opposite scale by virginal obedience. For in the same way, the sin of the first created man received amendment by the correction of the First-Begotten” (ibid., 5:19:1 [A.D. 189]).
Tertullian
“And again, lest I depart from my argumentation on the name of Adam: Why is Christ called Adam by the apostle [Paul], if as man he was not of that earthly origin? But even reason defends this conclusion, that God recovered his image and likeness by a procedure similar to that in which he had been robbed of it by the devil. It was while Eve was still a virgin that the word of the devil crept in to erect an edifice of death. Likewise through a virgin the Word of God was introduced to set up a structure of life. Thus what had been laid waste in ruin by this sex was by the same sex reestablished in salvation. Eve had believed the serpent; Mary believed Gabriel. That which the one destroyed by believing, the other, by believing, set straight” (The Flesh of Christ 17:4 [A.D. 210].
Pseudo-Melito
“If therefore it might come to pass by the power of your grace, it has appeared right to us your servants that, as you, having overcome death, do reign in glory, so you should raise up the body of your Mother and take her with you, rejoicing, into heaven. Then said the Savior [Jesus]: ‘Be it done according to your will’” (The Passing of the Virgin 16:2–17 [A.D. 300]).
Ephraim the Syrian
“You alone and your Mother are more beautiful than any others, for there is no blemish in you nor any stains upon your Mother. Who of my children can compare in beauty to these?” (Nisibene Hymns 27:8 [A.D. 361]).
Ambrose of Milan
“Mary’s life should be for you a pictorial image of virginity. Her life is like a mirror reflecting the face of chastity and the form of virtue. Therein you may find a model for your own life . . . showing what to improve, what to imitate, what to hold fast to” (The Virgins 2:2:6 [A.D. 377]).
“The first thing which kindles ardor in learning is the greatness of the teacher. What is greater [to teach by example] than the Mother of God? What more glorious than she whom Glory Itself chose? What more chaste than she who bore a body without contact with another body? For why should I speak of her other virtues? She was a virgin not only in body but also in mind, who stained the sincerity of its disposition by no guile, who was humble in heart, grave in speech, prudent in mind, sparing of words, studious in reading, resting her hope not on uncertain riches, but on the prayer of the poor, intent on work, modest in discourse; wont to seek not man but God as the judge of her thoughts, to injure no one, to have goodwill towards all, to rise up before her elders, not to envy her equals, to avoid boastfulness, to follow reason, to love virtue. When did she pain her parents even by a look? When did she disagree with her neighbors? When did she despise the lowly? When did she avoid the needy?” (ibid., 2:2:7).
“Come, then, and search out your sheep, not through your servants or hired men, but do it yourself. Lift me up bodily and in the flesh, which is fallen in Adam. Lift me up not from Sarah but from Mary, a virgin not only undefiled, but a virgin whom grace had made inviolate, free of every stain of sin” (Commentary on Psalm 118:22–30 [A.D. 387]).
Augustine
“Our Lord . . . was not averse to males, for he took the form of a male, nor to females, for of a female he was born. Besides, there is a great mystery here: that just as death comes to us through a woman, life is born to us through a woman; that the devil, defeated, would be tormented by each nature, feminine and masculine, as he had taken delight in the defection of both” (Christian Combat 22:24 [A.D. 396]).
“That one woman is both mother and virgin, not in spirit only but even in body. In spirit she is mother, not of our head, who is our Savior himself—of whom all, even she herself, are rightly called children of the bridegroom—but plainly she is the mother of us who are his members, because by love she has cooperated so that the faithful, who are the members of that head, might be born in the Church. In body, indeed, she is the Mother of that very head” (Holy Virginity 6:6 [A.D. 401]).
…
“Having excepted the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom, on account of the honor of the Lord, I wish to have absolutely no question when treating of sins—for how do we know what abundance of grace for the total overcoming of sin was conferred upon her, who merited to conceive and bear him in whom there was no sin?—so, I say, with the exception of the Virgin, if we could have gathered together all those holy men and women, when they were living here, and had asked them whether they were without sin, what do we suppose would have been their answer?” (Nature and Grace 36:42 [A.D. 415]).
Timothy of Jerusalem
“Therefore the Virgin is immortal to this day, seeing that he who had dwelt in her transported her to the regions of her assumption” (Homily on Simeon and Anna [A.D. 400]).
John the Theologian
“[T]he Lord said to his Mother, ‘Let your heart rejoice and be glad, for every favor and every gift has been given to you from my Father in heaven and from me and from the Holy Spirit. Every soul that calls upon your name shall not be ashamed, but shall find mercy and comfort and support and confidence, both in the world that now is and in that which is to come, in the presence of my Father in the heavens’” (The Falling Asleep of Mary [A.D. 400]).
“And from that time forth all knew that the spotless and precious body had been transferred to paradise” (ibid.).
Gregory of Tours
“The course of this life having been completed by blessed Mary, when now she would be called from the world, all the apostles came together from their various regions to her house. And when they had heard that she was about to be taken from the world, they kept watch together with her. And behold, the Lord Jesus came with his angels, and, taking her soul, he gave it over to the angel Michael and withdrew. At daybreak, however, the apostles took up her body on a bier and placed it in a tomb, and they guarded it, expecting the Lord to come. And behold, again the Lord stood by them; the holy body having been received, he commanded that it be taken in a cloud into paradise, where now, rejoined to the soul, [Mary’s body] rejoices with the Lord’s chosen ones and is in the enjoyment of the good of an eternity that will never end” (Eight Books of Miracles 1:4 [A.D. 584]).
“But Mary, the glorious Mother of Christ, who is believed to be a virgin both before and after she bore him, has, as we said above, been translated into paradise, amid the singing of the angelic choirs, whither the Lord preceded her” (ibid., 1:8).
Which of course is the pope....
Funny that was not what Jack Kennedy said when he ran... do you think that is true for gingrich?
Truth be told, your question was ridiculous. Comparing a document to a man is like comparing apples and oranges.
Popes come and go. Any Catholic man can be pope. The teachings of the Church and pope give are more important than the particular man himself, although our current pope is certainly a good one.
And why would you think for an instant that I care a flying rats hindquarters what a Kennedy says?
If education was the goal, why are these dunces heaping up the doctorates from diploma mills? That tells me that it matters to them, but that they are willing to lie and cheat in order to be seen with them, without actually having to earn them.
The fruits, you know. They want to be known as having the fruits of their labours, without actually labouring. Scarcely Christian behaviour, wouldn't you say?
Also, like Paul, I “am glad that I speak in tongues more than you all.” I am surprised that with all of the Catholic doctrine that is out there, almost all Catholics that I run in to are very uninformed when it comes to the elementary teachings concerning Christ as set forth in Hebrews 6:1-2 - namely, repentance from dead works, faith towards God, baptisms, the laying on of hands, resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment.
Knowing more than one language is normally very educational in itself. I have friends in central Europe (Switzerland) who know all four official Swiss languages, plus English, plus Hungarian, and some of the older ones have some Russian, Polish or other Slavic languages they can get by in. Very good.
Catholic catechism is poor especially in this country, I grant you that. That is changing even as we speak, and flush the remnants of the Augean stables out of the USCCB, but for the moment, I do not dispute that.
By the way, if you get a good translation, you will realize that Jesus never says born again. Nicodemus says it. Jesus does not. My NAB says:
John 3: 1 1 Now there was a Pharisee named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. 2 2 He came to Jesus at night and said to him, "Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God, for no one can do these signs that you are doing unless God is with him." 3 Jesus answered and said to him, "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born 3 from above." 4 Nicodemus said to him, "How can a person once grown old be born again? Surely he cannot reenter his mother's womb and be born again, can he?" 5 Jesus answered, "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit. 6 What is born of flesh is flesh and what is born of spirit is spirit. 7 Do not be amazed that I told you, 'You must be born from above.'
Jesus says from above and of water and the Spirit. I am glad for your childrens' education, but first we must ask that all Christians actually read Scripture and not rely on their pastors or hearsay in order to guide their beliefs. The KJV is not the best when it comes to accurate translation in many areas.
It is the pope lets not play word games ...
That takes catholics out of the presidential role..
Exactly.
**One question on this thread..were the chuch fathers infallible?**
What’s a ‘chuch’? ;)
Actually, whoever is regarded as church fathers must meet the sola scripture pattern, teaching no other doctrine than that which is found in the Word.
No teaching that Mary was sinless,
No teaching that she was forever a virgin,
No teaching an ‘assumption of Mary’,
The original apostles baptized souls in the NAME of JESUS FOR the REMISSION of SINS. If any that claimed to be ‘church fathers’ didn’t agree with that, then they were certainly not ordained of God. I don’t care how educated, articulate, or pious, or how many ‘good works’ were performed; to not teach the biblical command for remission of sins is simply a great and terrible error.
And no, that doesn't take Catholics out of the presidential role any more than holding the bible above the constitution takes protestants out of the presidential role. Nice try.
Let us go back to the real issue. I have preached repeatedly to you and to the children of the Reformation that it is possible to defend most heresies directly from the pages of Scripture.
By selecting the appropriate Scripture, for instance, one can defend modalism, for instance. It is not that most of the Reformation cannot point to somewhere in Scripture where if the snippet is small enough, and pieced together with enough other snippets, almost any doctrine can be defended.
To turn back to the point of the Reformation's departure from the Church and some of the main points of that departure, let us bring up some of them:
The authority of the Church to teach and to declare correct (and incorrect) teachings.
The Eucharist and the rest of the Sacraments (including absolution).
The doctrine of double predestination. These will do for now, I think. The teachings are clear; Scripture and Apostolic teachings are what the Church relies on since they were given them by God.
Seems to me that using Scripture alone is exactly what the Reformationists were and are criticized and condemned for, because they didn't accept the extra-Biblical teachings of various men's opinion pieces.
The Reformers used selected Scripture and used the Church Fathers even more selectively (and significantly less as the Church Fathers who agreed with these departures from Church teachings are few and far between) in order to differentiate themselves from the Church. The issue is less Scripture alone, and more snippets of Scripture alone and when mixed in with solo (as opposed to sola), opens up complete and infallible interpretation to every Tom, Dick and Harry. Each one of them claims the Holy Spirit, and as long as snippets or logical extensions of Scripture snippets are used, why then almost anything can be concocted. And who is to say that Tom's interpretation is any less valid than Dick's? Both claim infallible powers from the Holy Spirit. Who can gainsay either, as long as there are actual snippets?
Which is it? Are those of the Reformation to be criticized for following Scripture alone (sola scriptura), or for holding to doctrine not found in Scripture (tradition).
You guys follow solo Scripture, not sola. That is the whole deal with the WCF and the various Catechisms and Confessions that came out of the Reformation. At first, the Reformers stuck with sola, but the second generation of Reformers, beginning with Calvin went solo, and constructed novel systems out of the snippets. That is solo and what the last 300 years or better (certainly brought to the light of day in the Restoration) has seen almost exclusively in Reformed circles.
With the abandonment of the Creeds of Christendom, solo Scriptura has led to the creation of the LDS, the JWs, the Pentecostals, the Churches of Christ, the decline of the mainstream denominations and the increasingly visible apostacy of the nondenominationals. We have the Apostolic and Church Fathers and their writings as to what Christians believed and practiced before the NT Scripture was chosen. All rejected and sneered at by those who discover new things every time they take all the words of Scripture, shake them into a pile and assemble them anew in ever diverse arrangements.
We reject the doctrines and practices of the children of the Reformed because they a) do not rely upon the whole Bible and even more because they do not read the words of Jesus in the NT as the pinnacle of God's revelation to man; and b) because they reject the teachings of the Church Fathers in spite of Scripture which instructs us to follow the teachings of the authority of the Church (Jesus, Paul and Peter are most instructive on this).
I do wish Catholics would make up their minds.
That mind was made up all the way back in the upper room at Pentecost. We haven't changed. Not for Simon Magus, not for John Calvin, and not for the likes of Joel Osteen either.
The world that you rejected, mm, is the world of constant Scripture and constant interpretation. St. John Chrystostom received the Eucharist then, just as any Catholic does today. St. Augustine went to Confession the same as any Catholic does today. St. Jerome venerated the Theotokos the same as any Catholic does today. We reach back to St. Luke for his writing of the Virgin Mary icon as an example of how that first generation of Christians practiced Christianity. And it isn't what the children of the Reformed fantasize about.
That takes catholics out of the presidential role..
Oh dearie me, does that mean that the Supreme Court of the United States is illegitimate? No Protestants at all. Why is that, dear Rn? Why is SCOTUS (including the Chief Justice) 2/3 Catholic and 1/3 Jewish? Is it because even the Protestant Presidents of the United States know something that the rest of the children of the Reformation don't? Funny, I've never gotten an answer back on FR whenever I've a variant of this question at all. You charge that Catholics could not be Presidents of the US (I guess that JFK being shot makes up for it); why is it that SCOTUS can be staffed with a majority of Catholics - by Protestant Presidents? Hmmm?
Oh really...
Care to provide a link to that alleged conversation?
It’s ludicrous that Catholics claim that the Catholic church wrote the Bible, quote all kinds of men who they claim are *church fathers* as if that means anything (just like this article does), and then dismiss the Scripture written by really godly men as being of no account.
Catholics have things so backwards.
Bless you, sister.
A “Revenge” thread, how quaint.
I use the original Greek as much as possible when I have questions about translations. Jesus words can be translated several ways born “from above”; born “anew.” Nicodemus’ question makes no sense if Jesus wasn’t saying you must be born again. Whether born from above, born anew or born again - Jesus was telling Nicodemus that a transformative event needs to take place in a person’s life in order to see the Kingdom of God. The bottom line is most evangelicals are much more familiar with the Scriptures than most Catholics - at least in my experience. No matter what you say about the KJV translation - at least it was honest - and once Gutenberg invented the printing press and the Scriptures were put in the hands of the common man, the Reformation was inevitable. People no longer needed priests to tell them what to believe - they could read for themselves.
It is not that most of the Reformation cannot point to somewhere in Scripture where if the snippet is small enough, and pieced together with enough other snippets, almost any doctrine can be defended.
I believe Chesterson said it this way: "One is either Catholic or anything they want to be."
"The first thing to note is the context. This major topic from 5:13-18 is prayer. We are given in verses 13-15 that God hears and responds to our prayers. The key word is "anything." Then John remembers there is an exception: praying for a disobedient, sinning brother or sister in Christ. What to do? How do we pray for that one? Here is the sequence we must keep in mind for such a one as we pray. First of all, the Apostle John tells us that there is a sin not leading to death (physical). In verse 16, he tells us that it is possible for Christians to fall into this sin not leading to death. [See also 1 John 2:1,2--the ideal is to "sin not." But if anyone sins (and we will), we have an Advocate, a defense attorney.]
When Christians observe disobedience in brothers and sisters, they are to pray for him/her (16b); as a result of these prayers, God may choose to preserve, prolong, extend the person's physical life (not eternal life, since that life is determined by one's personal faith decision). This intercession is effective only in the case of sin not leading to death (16c): that is, the person has not reached the end limits of God's patience and grace (His "last straw"). See also v. 17 where John says, "All unrighteousness is sin, but there is a sin which is not unto (physical) death."
Secondly, there is a sin which results in physical death--the sin unto death (v. 16d): This is the death of a believer characterized by persistent, willful sinning in which "the flesh is destroyed [physical death--1 Cor. 5:1-5] so that the spirit might be saved." John tells us that this is a sin not to be prayed for, because God's immutable law concerning this final, "last straw" disobedience is involved and will be unaltered by intercessory prayer (16e), and frankly, we do not know another's heart condition before the Lord. We are not encouraged to speculate about the cause of any believer's untimely death. In our prayer life, we can continue to intercede for a wayward brother or sister, but we are not to draw any conclusions about what may, should, or has happened in regard to a believer's death.
Thirdly, when some Christian we know dies, we might be inclined to ask the question of ourselves, "Was this the sin unto death or not?" John is telling us in this passage not to speculate, because we just don't know.
All through this Epistle (1 John) the Apostle has been addressing sin in the life of the believer--yours and every Christian you know. It is fitting that John portrays the remedy of habitual sin on the part of a believer in the context of the new birth."
Kinda like Pelosi telling us that the bill had to be passed to see what was in it......LOL Gee, come to think of it.....maybe with her upbringing that's where she got the idea.....
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.