Posted on 09/02/2011 9:07:47 AM PDT by marshmallow
Minneapolis, Minnesota (CNN) –Prior to 2006, few people even knew that then-Minnesota state legislator Keith Ellison was a Muslim. Because of his English name, he said, no one thought to ask.
But five years ago, when he ran for a seat in the United States House of Representatives - a race he would go on to win - word of his religious affiliation began to spread.
“When I started running for Congress it actually took me by surprise that so many people were fascinated with me being the first Muslim in Congress,” said Ellison, a Democrat now serving his third term in the House.
“But someone said to me, ‘Look Keith, think of a person of Japanese origin running for Congress six years after Pearl Harbor–this might be a news story.’”
Though Ellison's status as the first Muslim elected to Congress is widely known, fewer are aware that he was born into a Catholic family in Detroit and was brought up attending Catholic schools.
But he said he was never comfortable with that faith.
“I just felt it was ritual and dogma,” Ellison said. “Of course, that’s not the reality of Catholicism, but it’s the reality I lived. So I just kind of lost interest and stopped going to Mass unless I was required to.”
It wasn’t until he was a student at Wayne State University in Detroit when Ellison began, “looking for other things.”
(Excerpt) Read more at religion.blogs.cnn.com ...
It's right here...
Joh 2:4 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.
And Lord knows we get semantics and double speak from those who can’t prove their doctrine from scripture.
And is it not His human body which has been glorified?
Could Jesus have walked through locked doors before the resurrection?
Well, we know He could walk on water after seemingly appearing out of nowhere.
And we know that He could conceal Himself even in the midst of His accusers
Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by. John 8:59
And how about this?
28 On hearing these words, the whole assembly became indignant. 29 They rose up and brought him out of the town, 30 to the edge of the hill on which Nazareth is built, in tending to throw him down the cliff. But he passed through their midst and went his way. Luke 4:29-30.
Or how about the fact that He used dirt and His spit to cure someone, or knew that someone had touched just the hem of His cloak?
Could Jesus have commanded the mountain to move and it would have? He claimed we could with faith as small as a mustard seed.
See how things arise, questions come up and how are they to be answered? And one question or assertion leads to another.
Who are we to trust to answer them? Scripture surely tells us He did these things, but how are we to know how or why?
We would do well to remember that.
Thank you.
Now there's an interesting question. I've always held that our glorified bodies will not be our current physical bodies, as we know them now, due to the limitations of these physical bodies and due to certain verses, among which is one that states that this corruption must put on incorruption. I really don't think that our physical body, which is corruptible, is the same as our glorified body, which is incorruptible.
Given that Christ is the firstborn of the dead and therefore the first to receive His glorified body, I feel safe to think that our glorified bodies will likewise be of the same manner as His.
As for the rest of your post, I have no problem believing that Christ performed these things simply because I also believe He is God in the Flesh. Walking on water is not a big deal when you have power over life and death, even all of creation itself, but you know this.
I see Christ's miracles as originating from His divinity, so to me there's not a problem with Him walking through walls before His resurrection other than the fact that if He did it, it wasn't recorded so I don't know about it.
His walking through a wall after the Resurrection was recorded though, and given that He had put on His glorified body you can see why I would believe that this was part of the nature of that body. It could be His divinity coming into play again, I don't know, but it's also not possible to say that it was definitely His divinity and not an attribute of His glorified body. After all, the glorified Saints have plenty of advantages over us due solely to their glorified bodies, not the least of which is the ability to stand directly in the presence of God the Father. That is definitely not something that our physical bodies can do, just look at what it did to Moses.
That's a very interesting question. Maybe, in public, say on the street, during some parade or something like that, some discretion may be called for, for the reason you question. Maybe.
In a Catholic church (building) though, such behavior should not be discouraged in the name of "tolerance" (which is essentially what you are suggesting). In such buildings, it should be understood and indeed respected, that people will behave as Catholics. One such behavior is to kneel/bow before statues of saints and/or light candles in front of such creations. So if anyone is scandalized by seeing that in a Catholic church building, it's their own fault. It's their own fault for being there in the first place, as well as if course, completely missing the reason why Cafholics do these things. Perhaps a personal account will help illustrate this.
I went to Confession a few months ago, and afterwards I went before a statue of Mary, knelt before it and lit a candle. Now, this is all you, or anyone observing me at the time would have seen, if you had seen me that day. But I can assure you I was not worshipping the statue; I used the statue as a way to focus my thoughts on Mary (much as anyone would use a photo of a dead relative to focus their thoughts on them) to ask her for intercessory prayer.
Now you or others can debate as much as you like the concept of the Comminion of Saints, another "gift" of the "Reformation", that such a concept was tossed aside no matter all the living tradition behind it. I don't care. The point I'm making here is, I simply was not committing idolatry no matter how much it may have appeared I was to the uneducated or misinformed eye.
In my heart, which is what truly counts here, no matter how much you or anymother critic of Catholicism may say otherwise, I wasn't "worshipping Mary" insomuch as I was thinking she was equal to God. I was asking her, through my prayer to her, to pray for me to God to help me resist temptation. You, nor anyone else can debate that, unless you are going to claim you can read my mind.
And I don't think you want to do that on FR, do you?
I swear! It wasn’t me officer! I was just here minding my own business!
Aren't you EVER going to unpack??? ;o)
In Romans 5:12, Paul uses the word anthropos which can mean in the general sense all mankind, but he specifically used the word before that, heis, which means the numeral "one". The context, then, signified one man (Adam) just as the next use of the word is preceded by pas which denotes all, i.e., all men, all have sinned.
I pinged boatbums because she argues that the Trinity can be found in Scripture.
Couldn't agree more. However, I was not the one to suppose in print what despair we would have to face had Mary refused God's commission. I think this goes back in a way to the idea of God's predestination versus his foreknowledge. Did God predetermine that Mary would agree so that he had her be born without sin (not my view, BTW)? So, did Mary really have a free will choice? You can thank me later for conundrums that keep one up at night. :o)
I think I'd go to 1 Cor 15 first.
I would say it was not his "natural" human body. It was his "spiritual" human body.
Not sure what you consider is "gnostic-ish". Can you be a little more specific?
Wow. I'd love to try one.
Again, I'd want to stick with Paul's language precisely because I don't know all the ins and outs. Paul says there is a natural body and there is a spiritual body. He doesn't (that I recall) talk about a "human" and an "inhuman" body.
So I'd want to say that Jesus was no longer confined to his "of the earth, earthy" body, but I think the "spiritual body" is a "spiritual human body."
So it's not the loss of humanity but the loss of the earthy body that makes for the through the wall stuff.
I personally am confined to "off the wall" stuff.
And there's the empty tomb. Why is it empty if he'snot using that body anymore. To me that suggests that the 'natural' body was transformer,not shuffled off and left behind.
Thanks for your research. I think it's a safe bet that Paul considered eve pretty much off to one side. Still the use of anthropos is at least interesting - perhaps suggesting Adam as representative of humankind rather than of guys.
Tolerance? No, that wasn’t what I was suggesting rather the obligations toward fellow believers that Paul spoke of when a person performed even acceptable acts.
Paul does mention in 1 Cor. 10 the effect upon the unbelievers conscience as well as his own so it is not just in public that permitted actions might be refrained from but also in a private setting.
More important than what’s in your heart is what’s in God’s heart, I would say, how He views matters, not you and I.
My comments were prompted by someone posting that they knew weren’t worshiping and what others thought about it didn’t matter to them.
No, I may assume certain things but I’ve never tried to read minds, never wanted to.
Tolerance? No, that wasn’t what I was suggesting rather the obligations toward fellow believers that Paul spoke of when a person performed even acceptable acts.
Paul does mention in 1 Cor. 10 the effect upon the unbelievers conscience as well as his own so it is not just in public that permitted actions might be refrained from but also in a private setting.
More important than what’s in your heart is what’s in God’s heart, I would say, how He views matters, not you and I.
My comments were prompted by someone posting that they knew weren’t worshiping and what others thought about it didn’t matter to them.
No, I may assume certain things but I’ve never tried to read minds, never wanted to.
Very good, you sort of proved one of the two things. Yes, we find in Scripture that Jesus is Man and Jesus is God. That can certainly be gleaned at face value.
But, it does not answer the heresies brought up as to the union of those two natures and what it means. Those who proposed and adhered to those heresies had the same Scripture and still did not believe.
How could Jesus be God and be human? How could a mortal body contain the Immortal God?
You cannot deny that this has been pondered from the beginning and it was a Church council which defined His two natures.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christology
See especially the section on post Apostolic controversies or heresies.
And here...http://www.earlychristians.org/fathers_church/ecumenical_councils.html
So, you know and accept these doctrines because of the Church which has validated it.
Next, please turn your attention to the doctrine of the Trinity, which though implicit in Scripture is not named as such nor clearly defined.
Again, it was a council of the Church which did so, and you in believing it and promulgating it have accepted Catholic teaching on it.
Okay, my turn.
Let us start with Mary’s assumption into heaven.
As stated before, since Mary’s death is nowhere mentioned in Scripture, we do not know when, how or where she died. It may have been in Ephesus as we know she lived there with John. And, curiously considering the veneration of the remains of most of those from the NT, we don’t know where she is buried. It marks one of the great mysteries of Christianity.
So, we must look to other Scripture to answer our questions regarding Mary. As I said, I am not a theologian and minds greater than mine have pondered this in light of Scripture so, I highly recommend you take the time to find their work for thorough exegesis on this.
In the OT we find two people who were taken into heaven.
Enoch Gen 5:24 “After Enoch had walked with God, he disappeared because God took him up.”
Okay, we know this because Enoch has died at the time of the writing and we are told that he just disappeared. Taken up by God. First instance of one who is in heaven body and soul.
Elijah 2 Kings 2:11 As they were talking on the way, a chariot of fire with horses of fire stood between them, and Elijah was taken up to heaven in a whirlwind.
Second person taken up body and soul to heaven.
In the story of the Transfiguration we see Jesus in what appears to be a glorified body standing with and talking to Moses and Elijah. Now, Scripture does not say, but can we glean from it that Moses is in heaven body and soul? Of course we can, for Jesus would not conjure him up.
Third person we know to be in heaven body and soul.
On to Matthew’s account of Jesus’ death and this....
Mt 27:51 Just then the curtain of the Temple sanctuary was torn in two from top to bottom, the earth quaked, rocks were split, 52 tombs were opened, and several holy peo ple who had died were raised to life. 53 They came out of the tombs after the resurrection of Jesus, entered the Holy City and appeared to many.
Where did those people go after they entered the holy city and appeared to many? Back to their graves? Scripture does not say, but the Church teaches they are in heaven with Jesus.
We can see then that God has taken many of His own to be with Him body and soul in heaven. It is not unreasonable to think that Mary falls into this group. An example of where explicit Scripture supports an implicit theology.
In Psalm 132:8, the psalmist calls for the Lord to “Arise, O Lord, into thy rest, Thou and the Ark of thy strength.”
Mary has been called the Ark of the New Covenant going back to the fourth century. The parallels are well documented here http://www.scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html#tradition-IV
and a list of the early Fathers who proclaimed this is here...http://www.catholicfidelity.com/apologetics-topics/mary/church-fathers-on-mary-as-ark-of-the-new-covenant/
Whether you agree with that or not is a whole other debate, but it has been believed and taught by the Church for hundreds of years.
One striking parallel between Mary and the Ark is that the “resting place” of neither has ever been found.
In Revelation 11:19, John sees the Ark in the heaven.
In Revelation 12:1 John sees the Woman, “1 A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman, clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. 2 She was pregnant and cried out in pain, looking to her time of delivery.”
One can certainly dispute these things, and I certainly expect that many here will, as they have already done so in the past.
It does not change anything. I believe these things and I accept them. And, though I despise it, I can take the ridicule that comes to me here for having done so.
Will have to post on the Immaculate Conception later.
The concept of Jehovah as a Trinue being was not the novelty first understood in the centuries after Christ's ascension. From the interesting link http://www.layevangelism.com/qreference/chapter10e.htm:
The teaching of the Trinity is Found in Jewish Targums (O.T. in Armaic) and commentaries such as the Zohar. These Jewish sages taught that God appears in the form of three persons of the Godhead, three manifestations or three emanations.45/93-94
This fact indicates that the Jews rejection of Christianity up until the second century was not because of the teaching of the Trinity. They understood that the Messiah would be the Son of God. That is why so many Jews did accept him. It was not until the rebellion against Rome in AD 135 that this changed. During the three years of battle for Jewish independence led by the general Simeon Bar Kochba, many of his followers (including the famous Rabbi Akiba) declared that Bar Kochba was Israel’s true messiah.45/93-94 This forced Jewish Christians to withdraw from the Jewish forces fighting against Rome since they could only follow and give allegiance to the true Messiah: Jesus. Jewish Christians who took this stand were considered treasonous and therefore no longer welcome in the synagogues. This division between Jews and Christians has lasted for 2,000 years.
Jewish Targums, read in the synagogues, gave an understanding of the triune nature of God. God was taught as "Three in One" by Rabbis Simon ben Jochai and Eliezer.
The Zohar is a book that was written by Rabbi Simon ben Jochai and his son Rabbi Eliezer in the years following the Roman army’s destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in A. D. 70.
In the Zohar the following statements about God are made: "How can they (the three) be One? Are they verily One, because we call them One?" "How Three can be One, can only be known through the revelation of the Holy Spirit."46/43/verse 22 Rabbi Simeon ben Jochai instructed his son as follows: "Come and see the mystery of the word hw:hoyÒ, Yehovah: there are three steps, each existing by itself; nevertheless they are One, and so united that one cannot be separated from the other."47/65 He later indicated in another passage that these three steps as revealed in Elohim !yhiloa> (God) are three substantive beings or three divine persons united in one.
In another book written by Rabbi Simeon, known as The Propositions of the Zohar, records the mystery of the Shechinah glory of God in these words.
"... the exalted Shechinah comprehends the Three highest Sephiroth; of Him (God) it is said, (Ps. 62:11), "God hath spoken once; twice have I heard this." Once and twice means the Three exalted Sephiroth, of whom it is said: Once, once, and once; that is, Three united in One. This is the mystery."471/113
Another extraordinary reference to the Trinity is found in the Zohar:
"Here is the secret of two names combined which are completed by a third and become one again. ‘And God said Let us make Man.’ It is written, ‘The secret of the Lord is to them that fear him’ (Psalm 25:14). That most reverend Elder opened an exposition of this verse by saying ‘Simeon Simeon, who is it that said: "Let us make man?" Who is this Elohim?’ With these words the most reverend Elder vanished before anyone saw him ... Truly now is the time to expound this mystery, because certainly there is here a mystery which hitherto it was not permitted to divulge, but now we perceive that permission is given.’ He then proceeded: ‘We must picture a king who wanted several buildings to be erected, and who had an architect in his service who did nothing save with his consent. The king is the supernal wisdom above, the Central Column being the king below: Elohim is the architect above ... and Elohim is also the architect below, being as such the Divine Presence (Shekinah) of the lower world.’
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.