Posted on 05/31/2011 11:53:33 AM PDT by marshmallow
The Protoevangelium of James
“And behold, an angel of the Lord stood by [St. Anne], saying, ‘Anne! Anne! The Lord has heard your prayer, and you shall conceive and shall bring forth, and your seed shall be spoken of in all the world.’ And Anne said, ‘As the Lord my God lives, if I beget either male or female, I will bring it as a gift to the Lord my God, and it shall minister to him in the holy things all the days of its life.’ . . . And [from the time she was three] Mary was in the temple of the Lord as if she were a dove that dwelt there” (Protoevangelium of James 4, 7 [A.D. 120]).
“And when she was twelve years old there was held a council of priests, saying, ‘Behold, Mary has reached the age of twelve years in the temple of the Lord. What then shall we do with her, lest perchance she defile the sanctuary of the Lord?’ And they said to the high priest, ‘You stand by the altar of the Lord; go in and pray concerning her, and whatever the Lord shall manifest to you, that also will we do.’ . . . [A]nd he prayed concerning her, and behold, an angel of the Lord stood by him saying, ‘Zechariah! Zechariah! Go out and assemble the widowers of the people and let them bring each his rod, and to whomsoever the Lord shall show a sign, his wife shall she be. . . . And Joseph [was chosen]. . . . And the priest said to Joseph, ‘You have been chosen by lot to take into your keeping the Virgin of the Lord.’ But Joseph refused, saying, ‘I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl’” (ibid., 8–9).
“And Annas the scribe came to him [Joseph] . . . and saw that Mary was with child. And he ran away to the priest and said to him, ‘Joseph, whom you did vouch for, has committed a grievous crime.’ And the priest said, ‘How so?’ And he said, ‘He has defiled the virgin whom he received out of the temple of the Lord and has married her by stealth’” (ibid., 15).
“And the priest said, ‘Mary, why have you done this? And why have you brought your soul low and forgotten the Lord your God?’ . . . And she wept bitterly saying, ‘As the Lord my God lives, I am pure before him, and know not man’” (ibid.).
Origen
“The Book [the Protoevangelium] of James [records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the firstfruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the firstfruit of virginity” (Commentary on Matthew 2:17 [A.D. 248]).
Hilary of Poitiers
“If they [the brethren of the Lord] had been Mary’s sons and not those taken from Joseph’s former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, ‘Woman, behold your son,’ and to John, ‘Behold your mother’ [John 19:26–27), as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate" (Commentary on Matthew 1:4 [A.D. 354]).
Athanasius
“Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that he took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary” (Discourses Against the Arians 2:70 [A.D. 360]).
Epiphanius of Salamis
“We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things, both visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God . . . who for us men and for our salvation came down and took flesh, that is, was born perfectly of the holy ever-virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit” (The Man Well-Anchored 120 [A.D. 374]).
“And to holy Mary, [the title] ‘Virgin’ is invariably added, for that holy woman remains undefiled” (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 78:6 [A.D. 375]).
Jerome
“[Helvidius] produces Tertullian as a witness [to his view] and quotes Victorinus, bishop of Petavium. Of Tertullian, I say no more than that he did not belong to the Church. But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already been proven from the gospel—that he [Victorinus] spoke of the brethren of the Lord not as being sons of Mary but brethren in the sense I have explained, that is to say, brethren in point of kinship, not by nature. [By discussing such things we] are . . . following the tiny streams of opinion. Might I not array against you the whole series of ancient writers? Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and many other apostolic and eloquent men, who against [the heretics] Ebion, Theodotus of Byzantium, and Valentinus, held these same views and wrote volumes replete with wisdom. If you had ever read what they wrote, you would be a wiser man” (Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary 19 [A.D. 383]).
“We believe that God was born of a virgin, because we read it. We do not believe that Mary was married after she brought forth her Son, because we do not read it. . . . You [Helvidius] say that Mary did not remain a virgin. As for myself, I claim that Joseph himself was a virgin, through Mary, so that a virgin Son might be born of a virginal wedlock” (ibid., 21).
Didymus the Blind
“It helps us to understand the terms ‘first-born’ and ‘only-begotten’ when the Evangelist tells that Mary remained a virgin ‘until she brought forth her first-born son’ [Matt. 1:25]; for neither did Mary, who is to be honored and praised above all others, marry anyone else, nor did she ever become the Mother of anyone else, but even after childbirth she remained always and forever an immaculate virgin” (The Trinity 3:4 [A.D. 386]).
Ambrose of Milan
“Imitate her [Mary], holy mothers, who in her only dearly beloved Son set forth so great an example of material virtue; for neither have you sweeter children [than Jesus], nor did the Virgin seek the consolation of being able to bear another son” (Letters 63:111 [A.D. 388]).
Pope Siricius I
“You had good reason to be horrified at the thought that another birth might issue from the same virginal womb from which Christ was born according to the flesh. For the Lord Jesus would never have chosen to be born of a virgin if he had ever judged that she would be so incontinent as to contaminate with the seed of human intercourse the birthplace of the Lord’s body, that court of the eternal king” (Letter to Bishop Anysius [A.D. 392]).
Augustine
“In being born of a Virgin who chose to remain a Virgin even before she knew who was to be born of her, Christ wanted to approve virginity rather than to impose it. And he wanted virginity to be of free choice even in that woman in whom he took upon himself the form of a slave” (Holy Virginity 4:4 [A.D. 401]).
“It was not the visible sun, but its invisible Creator who consecrated this day for us, when the Virgin Mother, fertile of womb and integral in her virginity, brought him forth, made visible for us, by whom, when he was invisible, she too was created. A Virgin conceiving, a Virgin bearing, a Virgin pregnant, a Virgin bringing forth, a Virgin perpetual. Why do you wonder at this, O man?” (Sermons 186:1 [A.D. 411]).
“Heretics called Antidicomarites are those who contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary and affirm that after Christ was born she was joined as one with her husband” (Heresies 56 [A.D. 428]).
Leporius
“We confess, therefore, that our Lord and God, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, born of the Father before the ages, and in times most recent, made man of the Holy Spirit and the ever-virgin Mary” (Document of Amendment 3 [A.D. 426]).
Cyril of Alexandria
“[T]he Word himself, coming into the Blessed Virgin herself, assumed for himself his own temple from the substance of the Virgin and came forth from her a man in all that could be externally discerned, while interiorly he was true God. Therefore he kept his Mother a virgin even after her childbearing” (Against Those Who Do Not Wish to Confess That the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God 4 [A.D. 430]).
Pope Leo I
“His [Christ’s] origin is different, but his [human] nature is the same. Human usage and custom were lacking, but by divine power a Virgin conceived, a Virgin bore, and Virgin she remained” (Sermons 22:2 [A.D. 450]).
Actually, when God says,
that HE SET CHRIST above all principalities and powers . . .
I don’t see any sense to saying that Christ is less than God.
Certainly . . . in some clear respects, THE FATHER is at the top of the Heavenly power structure.
Yet, when HE DECLARES AND CHRIST DECLARES THAT THEY ARE IN ONE ANOTHER—I think that kind of levels the field amongst the Trinity. Particularly when God declares that one can blaspheme Christ and The Father and receive forgiveness but not if one blasphemes Holy Spirit.
I don’t know that we can have successful exhaustive assumptions about all the particulars of the Trinity. However, we can believe Scripture, which I do.
“”I don’t think it touches what I was trying to articulate, however””
Post 2249 articulates the Incarnation and the error of others,dear brother.
Do you believe that Christ’s body was just a human shell that is not seated at the right hand of the Father?
The “human shell not seated at the RT hand of The Father” does not ring true to me at all.
However, I think we must take into account that
CHRIST’S BODY
is NOT identical—POST RESURRECTION
with the Body hung on The Cross.
I don’t think finite mortals can articulate or even fantasize well about what the differences might be.
However, one went through walls and one didn’t.
And, reportedly, there are no toilets in Heaven though there’s plenty of eating.
I must preface my remarks with the observation that Jesus Christ is The Creator and we are merely creatures, that properties of the creation are not properties of the creator of them. So I wouldn't venture a remark about time or percentage.
All we can know of Him is what He reveals to us.
So first, what of His earthly stay He reveals is important in heaven; namely, why He came:
And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all [men] unto me. This he said, signifying what death he should die. The people answered him, We have heard out of the law that Christ abideth for ever: and how sayest thou, The Son of man must be lifted up? who is this Son of man? - John 12:32-34
And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth. – Revelation 5:6
And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. - Revelation 13:8
In Revelation 21 we see the New Jerusalem in the new heaven and earth with twelve pearl gates each named for a tribe of Israel and twelve foundation layers of gemstones each named for an Apostle. But their names are not mentioned.
The Song of Moses (Deut 32) is mentioned in Revelation 15, but Moses himself is not mentioned. Neither is Enoch, Noah, Abraham, David, Solomon, Elijah, Mary (though some would argue that she is mentioned in chapter 12 by metaphor) and so on. Neither Peter nor Paul are mentioned by name. John is mentioned only as the one receiving the revelation.
And very telling, the angel who was a prophet and fellowservant didn't even give John his name, it was irrelevant - he said "Worship God."
The Parable of the Talents captures the stewardship/ownership scenario so if you have anything on the "official" Catholic teaching (or interpretation) of the parable, that would be very helpful.
I look forward to your further reply on #2.
Absolutely indeed.
Do you have any insights on this aspect of such . . . clarity in God’s Word . . .
Israeli’s . . . true Jewish folks who truly seek God—sometimes read far too much in subtle nuances, it seems to me. They don’t miss a thing.
Cults always miss out on things which don’t support their cultism.
You have outlined a clear SET OF PATTERNS
which, I AGREE WITH—if I infer your msg clearly.
God made abundancly clear BY THE ABSENCE OF SUCH NAMES
THAT HIS NAME IS ABOVE ALL NAMES.
AND THE FOCUS MUST BE ON HIM
ABOVE ALL NAMES.
Why is that so hard for so many to wrap their understanding around.
It seems like kindergarten Sunday School stuff, to me.
Am I the dense one?
Please consider yourselves pinged to my reply 2286 to the same post.
In the "hard" sciences like physics the "absence of evidence is evidence of absence." They go where the evidence leads, the theory is built up from the tests and observations.
In the "soft" sciences like archeology the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." They fill in the blanks. Indeed, they draw a blueprint into which they fit the evidence they collect.
INDEED. INDEED.
THX
THX.
What are the scriptural and church historical references to this -- what does it mean exactly?
But do note -- the question was does Jesse Duplantis' revelation that God is a mile-high and surrounded by a huge wall and actually in the shape of a man, is that what you would consider "revealed to us"? Is it a new revelation?
But do note -- the question was does Jesse Duplantis' revelation that God is a mile-high and surrounded by a huge wall and actually in the shape of a man, is that what you would consider "revealed to us"? Is it a new revelation?
for instance, Jesse says
I saw Him! I saw Elohim, Jehovah God, Yahweh sitting on the Throne! But I saw His feet - only His feet. . . He is so big - you can’t describe Him in a dimension. His hand is huge! His body, the form of it, is sort of like energy, spirit. There’s a wall around the Throne, but the Throne is higher than the wall - that’s why you can see the Throne from every direction, from a distance. And that power, that energy-like smoke of God, covers all around the chair of the Throne itself."besides the fact that this contradicts I Tim. 6:16 16Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen. -- is this what "He has revealed to us"? Should Jesse's revelations be taken as true?
who says that is was identical - no one. On the contrary the resurrected body is not pure spirit but of spiritual nature. Christ's glorious body is prefigured in John 6:1-13 where mere matter is multiplied by the divine power.
This is in according with the writings of Malachi 11For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts. -- the purest of all offerings in heaven..
"All that there is" belongs to God - every one, every thing, every where and every when.
That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded [is] death; but to be spiritually minded [is] life and peace. - Romans 8:4-6
We are stewards of these gifts - of our lives, of family, of things, of time, etc. We never own them.
And He gives us instructions (Scriptures) on how to be good stewards and warns us that we will be held accountable for what we did with those gifts.
The Parable of the Talents (Matthew 25:19-30) speaks to that point directly. The owner is God and the servants are just stewards of his possessions.
And the Great Commandment speaks directly to the proper stewardship of our hearts, minds and souls:
On the other stuff, I don't know anything about Duplantis or Hinn and do not care to research them.
I'm going to bed now, but will check for any replies in the morning.
Can I correct state that this philosophy is basically summed up as The owner is God and the servants are just stewards of his possessions.?
As the parable of the talents indicates we are given this gift and we should grow it, live out the grace and move on our path of sanctification.
We can give our hearts to anyone we choose, just as in the parable we can do what we will with the talents given -- Mark 25:14-30
16 The man who had received five bags of gold went at once and put his money to work and gained five bags more. 17 So also, the one with two bags of gold gained two more. 18 But the man who had received one bag went off, dug a hole in the ground and hid his master’s money."Put the money to work" -- this means used the gift, maybe even lent it to someone else, right?
The teaching we all know is that our hearts are gifts from God -- this has been Church teaching at least 1900 before the phrase "stewardship of the heart" -- and you can freely use your body, heart, soul, homes, family, country for good or evil -- as you pointed out, this is free will.
You are the ultimate steward as in you choose what to do with the gift, but you can also, like the people in the Parable of the Talents, lend, give your gifts to another to make it grow.
If I take this further -- if you are given the money by your master, to make it grow in say the stock market (let's assume it's not a down-cycle year!), you invest individually. You can also invest as a group (a mutual fund). In the mutual fund you are still the steward of your money/heart, but you ask someone else to help you make it grow -- you do not give it in the sense of permanent transfer, because it's not yours to give permanently, but you can give i.e. enlist a mutual fund manager to help you and others in the group to grow together in grace.
consecrate: to devote or dedicate to some purpose: a life consecrated to science.
Now as in the analogy of the MF mgr, or even better as a focusing point, from what I understand of that dedication it was specifically for the conversion of Russia, just after communism triumphed there.
I don't say this and was still in my pre-teens when communism fell, but let me repeat to you my conversations with people from Russia, Poland, Serbia and other parts of the Eastern block -- these are people aged 30 to 60 who lived through communism:
In the 80s, right up until 85, no one believed that communism would fall in their lifetimes. It seemed impossible, the state was too strong, too all-pervasive.Yet, something happened -- so incredibly quickly no one completely understands why or how. It seems miraculous, isn't it?Even in Poland which never had the intense collectivisation as in Czechia or Russia or the Ukraine, where some private businesses were allowed, no one believed it would collapse, no-one even believed it would change or soften in their lifetimes.
It was impossible
The election of the first Slavic pope gave hope, but hope that sometime in the future there would be some change.
And I believe that it WAS miraculous -- a whole dedication of millions of prayers, of "talents", the concentration of the grace, freely given by the stewards to be used for a particular purpose, to collapse communism -- and it worked.
Maybe?
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.