Posted on 08/15/2013 7:03:11 PM PDT by annalex
Indeed; it is irrelevant whose house it was since Mary comes in it from outside ("his mother and his brethren came; and standing without", Mark 3:31), -- unlikely if the house was hers.
we know that the closest family came to seek Him
Yes, that indeed we know. However, we also know that His mother and brethren were not among the original group who thought that He was crazy. That is my only point: that by confusing the group "οι παρ αυτου" in verse 21 with the relatives that came from the outside to sort out what was going on, in verse 31, you make it as if His mother and brothers thought Jesus was crazy. That is the slander.
No, I don't think Mary thought her Son was mad
Thank you. That is all that mattered to me here. That Mary had concerns we can be certain; doubts -- possibly; the scripture also hints at them in Luke 2:50. The short speech in Mark 3:33-35 is a repetition of the story of the veneration of Mary in my article: it again expands the communion of saints to all justified beyond the family ties that Mary and St James the Just had. Neither episode takes anything away from Mary as we venerate her, but it sanctions us to venerate all saints as Jesus' brothers.
Wrong, there was the high priest, and under the OT sacrificial system believers could pray to God, if not have boldness to enter the holiness and the better high priest of Jesus. But it would not been hard to imagine angels might be able to intercede as well or otherwise act on behalf of them, as some later did, influenced by post NT deviation into PTDS. (http://www.jewishgateway.com/library/prayer/articles/f_lib_article_hc_jewish.html)
And, like Rome in going beyond what is written, some may have to have engaged in a veneration of angels near to worship. (cf. Col. 3:18)
urther, I answered in the sentence you quoted: a saint is someone very much like me, who has overcome sin under the leadership of the Holy Ghost; an angel is someone I cannot model myself after.
Regardless, you pray to angels now for help, and Jews could just as easily did so, but not one prayer them or in the rest of Scripture addresses anyone on Heaven but the Lord, nor are we taught to.
Your field goal from far out is still far short and shanked, and this is far past getting redundant. The End.
“An example of repenting we have from St. John the Baptist who wore a hairshirt and fasted, — typical Catholic penance. Don’t teach me words.”
How can I teach you words when you use none to support your assertion? John the Baptist was not in penance wearing a hair shirt. He was dressed in such a way as to recall Elijah “who was a hairy man, and girt with a girdle of leather about his loins” (2 Kings 1:8). In fact, the “rough garment” was common to Prophets in general (Zec 13:4). There is no indication at all that Prophets wore these clothes as “penance” for some terrible sin they committed.
This is why I say your posts are mostly spam. You just make the most absurd assertions without ANY evidence, and then expect me to accept it.
“Not at all, St. Peter and I mean the Catholic Sacrament of Baptism that washes away prior sin and makes someone Catholic Christian.”
By St. Peter you must mean some other guy. Since, obviously, Peter was a Jew with Jewish customs and not a Gentile Catholic removed by 300 years. And neither were people washed clean by the baptism of water, but were instead quickened and cleaned by the baptism of the Holy Ghost, as Cornelius and his family were when the Spirit fell upon them before they even had a chance at water baptism.
By the way, what’s really annoying is that you don’t actually respond to my posts. You just say stuff at me, as if each new post is a brand new conversation.
Maybe you’re like that guy from Memento? Except all you have tattooed on your body are tired Papist talking points.
“If you have a question further I will be glad to answer.”
Well, let’s see if you’ll keep your word. Please give the Catholic exegesis of this passage:
“But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.”(Joh 6:64-65)
And I don’t mean some other passage. I mean this passage. You’re free to use the context or anything else to explain its meaning, but you must explain the meaning of this particular verse, line by line.
Can ya do that?
Well, this is interesting. One has to wonder why you don't keep up praying to saints so that you won't continue to sin?
BTW-doesn't the saint make you a robot by not sinning?
Then I take it you are Not A German, or a Spaniard, or Russian, Greek, Japanese or Nepali.
HMMMmmm...
HMMMmmm...
Matthew 15:16
"Are you still so dull?" Jesus asked them.
Matthew 231. Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples:
2. "The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat.
3. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.
4. They tie up heavy loads and put them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.
5. "Everything they do is done for men to see: They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long;
6. they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues;
7. they love to be greeted in the marketplaces and to have men call them `Rabbi.'
8. "But you are not to be called `Rabbi,' for you have only one Master and you are all brothers.
9. And do not call anyone on earth `father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.
10. Nor are you to be called `teacher,' for you have one Teacher, the Christ.
11. The greatest among you will be your servant.
12. For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
13. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.
14. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
15. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.
16. "Woe to you, blind guides! You say, `If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.'
17. You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred?
18. You also say, `If anyone swears by the altar, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gift on it, he is bound by his oath.'
19. You blind men! Which is greater: the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred?
20. Therefore, he who swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it.
21. And he who swears by the temple swears by it and by the one who dwells in it.
22. And he who swears by heaven swears by God's throne and by the one who sits on it.
23. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices--mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law--justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former.
24. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.
25. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence.
26. Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.
27. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean.
28. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.
29. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous.
30. And you say, `If we had lived in the days of our forefathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.'
31. So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets.
32. Fill up, then, the measure of the sin of your forefathers!
33. "You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?
34. Therefore I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town.
35. And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.
36. I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation.
37. "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.
38. Look, your house is left to you desolate.
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.' "
Mark 7:26-27
26. The woman was a Greek, born in Syrian Phoenicia. She begged Jesus to drive the demon out of her daughter.
27. "First let the children eat all they want," he told her, "for it is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs."
What if the LDS church is one of them?
Do some research into the early Church, and see what it has in common with Mormonism. Or not.
You mean a perpetually infallible magisterium, and you are ignoring the problem with that, which is that this is not promised. The closest you have is Moses and apostles, and which you image Rome to be like, but their authority was very manifest in holiness and evident overt supernatural power, while Rome's is not. And in neither case was all their successors, nor was assured infallibility promised them, neither was it the basis for their veracity.
Moreover, sometimes even autocratic Rome has not resolved fervent disagreement, as in The Congregatio de Auxiliis .
The manner of authority you want is seen in cults which also operate under the premise of sola ecclesia, thus JWs have even more unity than Rome.
The reality is that truth and authority is manifest and upheld upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, not upon the premise of perpetual infallibility (based upon her scope and subject-based criteria). And as SS holds, the office of the magisterium is valid and needed, and most denominations have such, including Rome.
Which, lacking the kind of apostolic power seen in the NT church, and with evangelical faith being a necessary alternative and reproving Rome's errors and institutionalization and subsequent lack of life for hundreds of years, can only rule over her own, which presently she does by fostering liberalism overall.
And you may be surprised that i believe that ideally there should be a central magisterium, but its authority would have to be upheld by apostolic purity and power and Scriptural probity in proportion to its claims. And Rome by her abuse, presumption and impotence has done more to prevent that than its necessary alternative. Nor could it claim perpetual assured infallibility as per Rome, nor can any magisterium, which is a key difference btwn Rome and SS.
There the real radicals who held that not even Scripture was the final authority but that only the Holy Ghost was the only infallible source,
As when speaking by them you mean, which is essentially what Rome does, as personal infallibility is claimed by and for the the pope to speak infallibly by the Holy Spirit in decreeing something is true, even if any supporting arguments are not infallible. Moreover, the veracity of Rome's doctrines do not rest upon the degree of Scriptural substantiation, nor necessarily that something is actually taught therein (as in PTDS ), but only that they do not contradict Scripture. Yet the only interpretation of Scripture that has authority is that which Rome officially gives (though what constitutes "official" and its meaning can be interpretive).
Riiight, the Jewish high priest was Jesus. Nice Christianity you invented there.
you pray to angels now for help, and Jews could just as easily did so
Because now Jesus has set up the unfailing communication system with the saints and we realize that the angels are a part of it. Jews believed that prophetic ability was exceptional, we now know it is no longer so; we speak to heavens daily.
LOL.
what’s really annoying is that you don’t actually respond to my posts
See above. I just did.
Peter was a Jew with Jewish customs
Ethnic Jew, Catholic by religion. In Christ there is no Jew or Greek.
(Joh 6:64-65)
But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were that did not believe, and who he was, that would betray him. And he said: Therefore did I say to you, that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father. (John 6:65-66, in some numbering 64-65)In the first verse we see foreknowledge of Christ, which shows His divine nature. God, generally, foreknows our feats and our sins before we know of them, and he leads His saints through life, first giving them faith and from that leading them to good works of faith, known collectively as discipleship, -- that we see from the second verse. Here for example, some of His disciples are proven to believe in the Holy Eucharist and they stay with Christ; others are proven to be without Catholic faith and fall off (next verse just outside of your scope).
But Luther rejected not only the authority of the pope and the bishops but the councils of the church and even the Fathers and doctors. In any case, why listen to Dr.Luther rather than someone else, especially when he comes up with a novel approach to scriptural interpretation, or indeed, a choice of what constitutes scripture?
I didn’t notice any Baptist referrences there...that’s tellling!
Interesting grammar here, with built-in assumptions of what I do and don't do.
Routinely I pray Our Father, Hail Mary and Glory Be -- these are the prayers comprising the Holy Rosary, but when the beads are not around I simply say all three once each. At meals I say improvised prayer about daily concerns: praise and requests for healing, conversion, to protect my Church and my country, for peace, and to praise a particular saint on his feast day; when a prayer aloud is not convenient, I make a sign of the cross. I try to pray the Jesus's prayer continuously when I sense that my mind wanders off, till I regain the arrival of grace. With my patron saint, or other saints whose lives I study I have more of a conversation than a prayer as such, as I try to deepen the relationship and sort of enter the mind of the saint, asking him or her at the same time to enter mine. That is about it.
The outcome of a prayer is arrival of grace. The technique is to let the spiritual soul rise in me and the passionate soul die. Once you are dead to passions: greed, lust, pride etc. you begin to live in Christ and His will gradually replaces yours; you surrender yourself to the Holy Ghost. St. Teresa of Avila describes the purpose of any prayer thus:
if you would purchase this treasure of which we are speaking, God would have you keep back nothing from Him, little or great. He will have it all; in proportion to what you know you have given will your reward be great or small. There is no more certain sign whether or not we have reached the prayer of union. Do not imagine that this state of prayer is, like the one preceding it, a sort of drowsiness (I call it 'drowsiness' because the soul seems to slumber, being neither quite asleep nor wholly awake). In the prayer of union the soul is asleep, fast asleep, as regards the world and itself: in fact, during the short time this state lasts it is deprived of all feeling whatever, being unable to think on any subject, even if it wished. No effort is needed here to suspend the thoughts: if the soul can love it knows not how, nor whom it loves, nor what it desires. In fact, it has died entirely to this world, to live more truly than ever in God. This is a delicious death, for the soul is deprived of the faculties it exercised while in the body: 6 delicious because, (although not really the case), it seems to have left its mortal covering to abide more entirely in God. So completely does this take place, that I know not whether the body retains sufficient life to continue breathing; on consideration, I believe it does not; at any rate, if it still breathes, it does so unconsciously.A good prayer life will lead you to this "delicious death" and then, as St. Peter teaches, "you shall not sin at any time":
all things of his divine power which appertain to life and godliness, are given us, through the knowledge of him who hath called us by his own proper glory and virtue. [4] By whom he hath given us most great and precious promises: that by these you may be made partakers of the divine nature: flying the corruption of that concupiscence which is in the world. [5] And you, employing all care, minister in your faith, virtue; and in virtue, knowledge; [6] And in knowledge, abstinence; and in abstinence, patience; and in patience, godliness; [7] And in godliness, love of brotherhood; and in love of brotherhood, charity. [8] For if these things be with you and abound, they will make you to be neither empty nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. [9] For he that hath not these things with him, is blind, and groping, having forgotten that he was purged from his old sins. [10] Wherefore, brethren, labour the more, that by good works you may make sure your calling and election. For doing these things, you shall not sin at any time. (2 Peter 1)
You have to remember that the only authentic meaning of a word or Scripture is that which Rome or an RC acting on its behalf gives. And John the Baptist wearing a garment of camels hair and eating insects would be the result of a changed heart, if indeed John had much of a change of heart from birth. Metanoeō denotes a change in heart, which goes with believing, which results in a change of action: "Bring forth therefore fruits meet [fitting, in correspondence with] for repentance:" (Matthew 3:8)
And nowhere does any text indicate the rough garment of John was that of him repenting in sackcloth and ashes, but likely was in order to keep the flesh in subjection so one would not sin, versus making expiation for sins. "But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway." (1 Corinthians 9:27)
However, believing itself is an act of repentance, and effects the same. One cannot believe in the Lord Jesus if he does not repent from allegiance to a false lord. And repentance faith will bring forth manifest "things which accompany salvation, testifying to saving faith, which was counted for righteousness without works.
Note that the official RC bible for America has "repentance," not penance, for sins in Lk. 24:47.
Also of interest is the change in penalties in Catholic confession:
During the first centuries the reconciliation of Christians who had committed particularly grave sins after their Baptism (for example, idolatry, murder, or adultery) was tied to a very rigorous discipline, according to which penitents had to do public penance for their sins, often for years, before receiving reconciliation. To this “order of penitents” (which concerned only certain grave sins), one was only rarely admitted and in certain regions only once in a lifetime.
During the seventh century Irish missioners, inspired by the Eastern monastic tradition, took to continental Europe the “private” practice of penance, which does not require public and prolonged completion of penitential works before reconciliation with the Church. From that time on, the sacrament has been performed in secret between penitent and priest. This new practice envisioned the possibility of repetition and so opened the way to a regular frequenting of this sacrament. It allowed the forgiveness of grave sins and venial sins to be integrated into one sacramental celebration. In its main lines this is the form of penance that the Church has practiced down to our day’ (Catechism of the Catholic Church (Rome: Urbi et Orbi, 1994), #1447). More
He did not wholly reject them all, but submitted them to Scripture. But once again, are you saying that this dissent cannot be justified because Rome must be submitted to as she is the steward of Divine revelation, and the inheritor of God's promises of His presence and reservation , and has historical dissent?
. In any case, why listen to Dr.Luther rather than someone else, especially when he comes up with a novel approach to scriptural interpretation, or indeed, a choice of what constitutes scripture?
Why not read my posts in which i answer this?
By what right did he submit them? After all, we are talking about a mere biblical scholar with a limited command of Greek and Hebrew, but impelled more by his own struggles with impurity rather than his studies of Scripture. As to the second part, I am not asking about the content of his argument but where his authority to make it came from? To answer my own question, I say it came that it came from the quality of his personal gifts, or charisma, and from the civil authority of the Elector. To the extent he prevailed, it was owing to the protection of the Elector his son and to the other princes Luther convinced to come to his aid. And unlike the case of Arius, the theological question was never decided by a church body to which the civil authority finally committed itself. In this respect, Trent was a failed council, because the Lutherans et al.never took the opportunity to defend themselves.
>> “That is correct: Mary was created by God to be the Mother of God.” <<
Blazing absurdity!
The son was already God before he was born on Earth, infact, he was always God, and will always be God.
Simply, the Son has been God eternally, thus Mary is not the mother of his Godhood, but only the mother of his mortal earthly body, not even the mother of his changed glorified, resurrected body.
Everything about the RCC is illogical, unscriptural, and absurd. (completely devised by men)
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.