Jesus was quoteing the old testament scriptures. Search the old testament to see if he is what the scriptures had to say about him. Nowhere does it say scripture has the answers to everything. If that’s the case the early church would have been in alot of trouble because the bible was not comprised as it is now.Luke 24:25-27 “And He said to them, "O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory?” Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures."
Luke 24:32 “They said to one another, "Were not our hearts burning within us while He was speaking to us on the road, while He was explaining the Scriptures to us?”
Luke 24:44-45 “Now He said to them, "These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures,""I think Jesus Himself would disagree with you.
No Abraham … no Jewish people thus No Mary … No Mary … No Jesus. Your insistence on separating faith and works clouds your seeing the truth for what it is. Faith and works are 2 sides of the same coin … they cannot be separated the way you seem to always want to.I read of the faith response of both Abraham and Mary, but no “saving actions” by them.
Indeed the Savior is Jesus Christ but for whatever reason God chose to link Jesus with humanity … .a human mother. Abraham the Father of the Jews and Mary … the Mother of God. Tell me … how did God bring " Person of the Son" into this world? What vessel could contain the Second Person of the Trinity?It is not by either of them that salvation was brought to mankind, but by God Himself through the Person of the Son and His selfless, sacrificial work on the cross, on our behalf, when He bore in His body the sins of the world.
Nothing I have written is heretical, nor corrupt.What you present is corrupt, if not heretical.
They too are saints and in their own measure intercede for us.This can be equally said of all who took a personal part in salvation history (Noah, Jacob, David, the prophets, Apostles, etc.).
They called “heaven” in Jesus’s time the “bosom of Abraham” even Jesus referred to this place as the “bosom of Abraham”. They ascribed a divine place to a named person.But, no, the Jews never elevated Abraham into heaven and set him there on his own throne, ascribing to him Divine attributes and intercessory powers.
Jews invoke the special relationship between Abraham and God the same way we invoke Mary’s special relationship with Jesus. From a Jewish weekday prayer, ““We are Your people, the sons of Your covenant, children of Your beloved Abraham, with whom You made a pledge on Mount Moriah. We are the seed of Isaac, Abraham’s only son, who was bound upon the altar. We are Your firstborn people, the congregation of Jacob, whom You named Israel and Jeshurun because You loved him and delighted in him.” (Weekday Prayer Book, Rabbinical Assembly of America, 1961, p.13)”. Jews invoke Abraham’s name for the same reason we invoke Mary’s … there is a recognizable relationship we are part of … that God does not forget.Orthodox Jews don’t pray to Abraham.
From The Jewish Mother:A Theology by Meir Soloveichik in %between%, " The centrality of mother-love in Judaism thus means that all Jews are linked by familial ties that can never be undone. Born into Judaism that is not just a faith but a family, we are all joined for eternity to God—and to each other." This is what the early Christians (converted Jews) recognized from their Judaisim. Jesus as the Son of God had an earthly mother … and that motherhood was given to all at the Cross, “Behold your mother.” It does not have to be explicitly written. One must recognize and understand motherhood, Judaism and the exactly who the Son was … from that flows a legitmate devotion to Mary. It’s all there in Scripture … if you can see it.There’s absolutely no Scriptural support for man’s devotion to Mary.
It flows from understanding Scripture the Catholic way … since you cannot do this what good is literal … it hasn’t worked in other areas now has it.Show me a REAL, literal example of where such devotion is taught or even demonstrated in the Scriptures.
Indeed. This thread is a clear case of why the Scriptures are not for private interpretation, because we can make them say whatever we want them to say. Where order is not enforced, chaos ensues, and there is no order in Protestant theology.It certainly does come back to Sola Scriptura. Unfortunately, for Moondweller, all he has is a book, the Bible, and his own interpretation of it as has been stated to him over and over and over again.
Another point that I have made to him on a number of occassions, a point that he refuses to address by the way, is his total lack of understanding of Incarnational Theology. He has his personal template over certain bible verses to the exclusion of the rest in typical Protestant fashion.
The Marian doctrines do not have to be literally supported by scripture,because our religion is not founded upon scripture alone. It is the Church itself (from which we the Bible has its authority) that holds all divine truth. See posts 148,149,150. The Marian doctrines are not founded upon allegorical interpretations of scripture anyway,they are founded upon the teachings we have inherited from the apostles and upon the figure of the woman who crushes the serpent’s head in Genesis,and the figure of the woman clothed with the sun in Revelations.No, the so-called ECFs don’t “tell” us that. There was that school that practiced that hermenutics, like Origen. But the problem with interpreting the Scriptures allegorically (as found out through Oregin) is that the Scriptures must submit to the fertile imaginations of men (as demonstrated by your posts), rather than men submit to the Scriptures - the written Word of God. With the allegorical method there can be as many interpretations of Scripture as there are men, all having a different fantasy of what it means. Like even the modern day Gnostics.
However, we see within Scripture itself that they’re to be understood literally, grammatically & historically (it’s how even Christ interpreted the O.T.). The text/context itself lets the reader know if it is to be understood allegorically; the reader himself has no authority to allegorize (spiritualize) the Scriptures, at whim. By doing so he robs the Scriptures of their Divine authority. You take a contrary stand because the ONLY way you can appeal at all to the Scripture to try to support your Marian doctrines is to allegorize them. Literally those doctrines are not supported anywhere by Scripture.
Where does Catholic teaching say anyone but God saves? I don’t think it’s a double standard.Right and to say Mary saves on her own… Is well… Not Catholic teaching! Mary saves Paul saves I save. Strait out of the bible. Of course this does not mean that humans bestow salvation the same way christ does by earning it for them. But it does mean we serve as agents.
So yes Mary saves in a different sense. Read my first post. This is the context of the bible in which you reconize so why a double standard when reading Catholic teaching? Or my post for that matter?
I’ve always agreed that the saved will demonstrate works, but the saved did not work for their salvation: “For by grace you have been saved through faith…the gift of God, not as a result of works”No Abraham … no Jewish people thus No Mary … No Mary … No Jesus. Your insistence on separating faith and works clouds your seeing the truth for what it is. Faith and works are 2 sides of the same coin … they cannot be separated the way you seem to always want to.
No human vessel could “contain” the Second Person of the Trinity. The Second Person incarnated and took on true humanity (being born into this world system), hence a woman was required (women child bear, not men). But that doesn’t automatically exalt the woman into the position MEN have placed her. I don’t see anywhere in the Scriptures that Christianity was ever meant to be a mother/son religion. It’s truly Christ centered to the glory of God:Rom 16:25-27 “Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past, but now is manifested, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, has been made known to all the nations, {leading} to obedience of faith; to the only wise God, through Jesus Christ, be the glory forever. Amen.” "Indeed the Savior is Jesus Christ but for whatever reason God chose to link Jesus with humanity … .a human mother. Abraham the Father of the Jews and Mary … the Mother of God. Tell me … how did God bring " Person of the Son" into this world? What vessel could contain the Second Person of the Trinity?
When you ascribe to men the cause of salvation, it is. God chose various people to participate in salvation history, but NONE of them saved anyone.Nothing I have written is heretical, nor corrupt.
Proof?They too are saints and in their own measure intercede for us.
That was not “heaven.” And nowhere does it say Abraham interceded for men on earth or was given the Divine attribute to hear the prayers and thoughts of all Jews on earth.They called “heaven” in Jesus’s time the “bosom of Abraham” even Jesus referred to this place as the “bosom of Abraham”. They ascribed a divine place to a named person.
The emboldened pronouns do not refer to Abraham. Jews don’t pray to Abraham. This is a prayer to the God of Abraham, not Abraham.Jews invoke the special relationship between Abraham and God the same way we invoke Mary’s special relationship with Jesus. From a Jewish weekday prayer, ““We are Your people, the sons of Your covenant, children of Your beloved Abraham, with whom You made a pledge on Mount Moriah. We are the seed of Isaac, Abraham’s only son, who was bound upon the altar. We are Your firstborn people, the congregation of Jacob, whom You named Israel and Jeshurun because You loved him and delighted in him.” (Weekday Prayer Book, Rabbinical Assembly of America, 1961, p.13)”.
Jews don’t pray to Abraham nor request that he intercede for them. Their prayers are directly to the God Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Catholics pray to Mary and assume she can hear them and expect her to intercede for them - based on the teachings of MEN - not Scripture.Jews invoke Abraham’s name for the same reason we invoke Mary’s … there is a recognizable relationship we are part of … that God does not forget.
Show me in the Book of Acts where those newly converted Jews prayed to Mary.The centrality of mother-love in Judaism thus means that all Jews are linked by familial ties that can never be undone. Born into Judaism that is not just a faith but a family, we are all joined for eternity to God—and to each other." This is what the early Christians (converted Jews) recognized from their Judaisim.
It has to be correctly interpreted. Jesus was speaking to John and Mary ONLY. The text gives absolutely no other indication. Nor is such a concept followed through in the teachings of the Epistles which contain the doctrines of the faith. In fact, Mary’s not even mentioned by name in the Epistles except briefly in Acts 1:14.Jesus as the Son of God had an earthly mother … and that motherhood was given to all at the Cross, “Behold your mother.” It does not have to be explicitly written.
To the contrary - NONE of it is there. You adhere to it in spite of the fact that it has no Scriptural support. That’s all I’m saying.One must recognize and understand motherhood, Judaism and the exactly who the Son was … from that flows a legitmate devotion to Mary. It’s all there in Scripture … if you can see it.
This is true. Catholicism is Tradition based.The Marian doctrines do not have to be literally supported by scripture,because our religion is not founded upon scripture alone.
This is truly something when Catholics now claim that the theopneustos Word of God is subordinate to their church.It is the Church itself (from which we the Bible has its authority) that holds all divine truth. See posts 148,149,150.
Proof?The Marian doctrines are not founded upon allegorical interpretations of scripture anyway,they are founded upon the teachings we have inherited from the apostles
“He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel.”and upon the figure of the woman who crushes the serpent’s head in Genesis,
If you’ll read the heavenly “sign” carefully in Rev. 12 you’ll see that it’s not the woman who is caught up to heaven but the male child she bore. In the “sign” the woman is never seen in heaven but remains on earth; and when the dragon is thrown down to the earth it then persecutes the woman, and she is taken into the wilderness for a time and times and a half time (three and one half years). The woman is national Israel and the prophetic sign takes place at the end of the age. The “sign” has nothing directly to do with the person of Mary.and the figure of the woman clothed with the sun in Revelations.
Originally Posted by panevino
amazing how people can read the same verse and get something completely different out of it.
when I read above what hits home is
For whoever does the will of God, he is My brother and sister and mother
which highlights the close relationship one arrives into when they believe jesus and follow him.
Christ unto salvation (which is the desire of God for all men), he/she enters into an eternal relationship with Christ which transcends earthly, family ties. The saved (by grace through faith) enter into the eternal household of God (Jn. 1:12). We see the eternal relationship of spiritual brothers and sisters in Christ, but Scripture gives us no “mother” in the eternal state. Motherhood is an earthly function for an earthly purpose (Gen. 1:27-28). In the eternal state we have one Father (God), but no mother.=moondweller;6751067]Yes, when one believes in
posted by panevino
however you see an illustration of him trying to distance himself from his mother?
…some of his last words while dying on the cross were about her.
amazing, u can’t honestly say that this conclusion of “severing” is not a biased / clouded interpretation. Where does this interpretation come from… I can see how it can be downplayed to mereley a care for his mothers life, and not a spiritual motherhood of us all, but severing…?..posted by moondweller
Yes, and the last words recorded (and there are very few words, indeed, recorded of Jesus with Mary) were He giving her over to John’s care. At the cross Jesus severed the mother/son relationship completely…
" and His prayer to the Father would be answered:John 17:5 "Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.…With the cross His redemptive work was "finished
i think your interpretation of this verse is clouded.
this did not really answer my query. I was saying that your interpretation of the specific verse Mark 3:33-35 was clouded."I don’t think it’s clouded at all. Scripture, whether O.T. prophecy or the N.T., nowhere teaches us that the Son came into this world to acquire a mother to take back with Him and assign to her a heavenly throne, exalt her to “Queen of heaven,” and afford to her Divine attributes for the work of heavenly intercession. Such teachings by men aren’t Scripturally “cloudy,” they just plain don’t exist in the Scriptures.
Rev 12.1 1 And there appeared a great wonder** in heaven; ** a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:posted by moondweller …If you’ll read the heavenly “sign” carefully in Rev. 12 you’ll see that it’s not the woman who is caught up to heaven but the male child she bore. In the “sign” the woman is never seen in heaven but remains on earth; and when the dragon is thrown down to the earth it then persecutes the woman, and she is taken into the wilderness for a time and times and a half time (three and one half years). The woman is national Israel and the prophetic sign takes place at the end of the age. The “sign” has nothing directly to do with the person of Mary.
Obad20-21 the exiles Halah who are of the people of Israel shall posses Phoenicia as far as Zarephath; and the exiles of Jerusalem who are in shepharad shall possess the cities of Negeb, saviors shall go up to mount zion to rule mount esau and the kingdom shall be the lordsWhere does Catholic teaching say anyone but God saves? I don’t think it’s a double standard.
First of all, Pan, your other recent responses to me are nonsensical, so I can’t respond. But as for the “sign” in Rev. 12, READ ITS WHOLE CONTENT. The woman NEVER goes to heaven…only the male child she bore is caught up to heaven - “to God and to His throne” (vs. 5). The woman remains on earth and flees to the wilderness (vs. 6). When the dragon is thrown down to earth he persecutes the woman who is ON EARTH (vs. 13). The heavenly sign is prophetic and speaks of national Israel and the Antichrist during the time of the future Tribulation period (cf. Matt. 24:15-22). Though “a woman” gives birth to a male child in the sign, the sign itself does not directly refer to Mary. The woman represents national Israel in the latter days of this age just prior to her Messiah’s return (Zech. 12:10; Matt. 24:29-30).Rev 12.1 1 And there appeared a great wonder** in heaven; ** a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:
Kind of like how you adhere to Sola Scriptura even though it has no Scriptural support?You adhere to it in spite of the fact that it has no Scriptural support. That’s all I’m saying.
God has always preserved His Word for future generations in God-breathed (theopneustos) Scriptures. It’s what He’s done since Moses. All the Scriptures of the N.T. were written within the first century. Of course the O.T. Scriptures were finished 400 years before the birth of the church (Pentecost) which Christ is presently building while sharing His Father’s throne in heaven, functioning there as the believer’s High Priest, interceding for them (the only One who intercedes in heaven for them - according to the Scriptures: Heb. 7:25).Jesus was quoteing the old testament scriptures. Search the old testament to see if he is what the scriptures had to say about him. Nowhere does it say scripture has the answers to everything. If that’s the case the early church would have been in alot of trouble because the bible was not comprised as it is now.
To the contrary, I joyfully embrace the Truth as revealed in the theopneustos (God-breathed) Scriptures.Kind of like how you adhere to Sola Scriptura even though it has no Scriptural support?
You can ignore me all you like, but you can’t ignore the truth.
Then why do you adhere to the false doctrine of Sola Scriptura, which is neither explicitly stated nor indirectly implied anywhere in Scripture?To the contrary, I joyfully embrace the Truth as revealed in the theopneustos (God-breathed) Scriptures.
And how do you come to understand what truth is revealed by those scriptures or even what books make up those scriptures for that matter?To the contrary, I joyfully embrace the Truth as revealed in the theopneustos (God-breathed) Scriptures.
So was the letter to Clement and gosple of Thomas scriptures?God has always preserved His Word for future generations in God-breathed (theopneustos) Scriptures. It’s what He’s done since Moses. All the Scriptures of the N.T. were written within the first century. Of course the O.T. Scriptures were finished 400 years before the birth of the church (Pentecost) which Christ is presently building while sharing His Father’s throne in heaven, functioning there as the believer’s High Priest, interceding for them (the only One who intercedes in heaven for them - according to the Scriptures: Heb. 7:25).
Councils merely ratified what was already accepted as the theopneustos writings amongst the CHURCHES.If it weren’t for the Catholic Church sitting down (during the Council of Rome in 382) and, guided by the Holy Spirit, authoritatively deciding which books that claimed to be Scripture were actually of God and which were of men, there would be no Bible today for Protestants to take books out of and distort for their own purposes.
Yes, but part the point is that, until the Council of Rome, the average layman (to say nothing of perhaps most clerics) did not know which of the many books that claimed to be Scripture were in fact of God. Hence, through the Church, God taught men - as He wanted it to be.Councils merely ratified what was already accepted as the theopneustos writings amongst the CHURCHES.
So? Again, Sola Scriptura is a man-made heresy and not everything that we believe must have a Scriptural basis. Either provide the chapters and verses that support Sola Scriptura or admit that a Scriptural basis is not essential for all points of belief.But your doctrines which involve Marian devotion and salvation are all extra-biblical.