Mark121359
Well-known member
One of the things he stated was that Mary was immaculately conceived. The Immaculate Conception is a dogma of the Catholic Church. Umm…that’s infallible!
- Status
A
Anesti33
Guest
I am curious to know why you would think that the Heavenly Kingdom was not also on Earth, as Jesus Himself is known to say “it is at hand” and “it has drawn near”.TMC:
I agree and I would add that when Jesus was talking about John, he was still on earth, so the talk is about the present not the future in the heavenly kingdom.
Is the Catholic Church not the Kingdom of God on Earth?
Last edited:
I
Inbonum
Guest
@Startingcatholic
I don’t know which Bible you use but look at last pages (last 100-150 pages, it’s after Book of The Revelation) and see if it has a comment on whole Bible, because if does you have it explained versus by versus from Genesis to Revelation and whole history connected to every book of OT and NT. That can help you alot to understand what you read.
I don’t know which Bible you use but look at last pages (last 100-150 pages, it’s after Book of The Revelation) and see if it has a comment on whole Bible, because if does you have it explained versus by versus from Genesis to Revelation and whole history connected to every book of OT and NT. That can help you alot to understand what you read.
Last edited:
T
TK421
Guest
T
TMC
Guest
Not sure if you are asking me or Dan, but I do agree that Jesus was often talking about the coming Kingdom as something that would be here on earth. I think that Jesus also spoke at times about the afterlife. Many Christians (including many Catholics) have assumed that Jesus was only talking about the next life, which I think is clearly wrong if you just read the text, and which leads to all manner of errors. But it is not always clear when Jesus is talking about the next life and when he is talking about a future in this world. Why that is so is probably a separate discussion.
I
Inbonum
Guest
G
Gorgias
Guest
Well, be careful with that train of thought!
While not a dogmatic declaration, there is the notion that, while John was conceived with original sin, he wasn’t born with it. Remember the scene when he leaps in the womb at the appearance of Mary to Elizabeth? The Gospel states that the Holy Spirit filled Elizabeth. So… as the story goes… John was born without original sin, so to speak, having been filled with the Holy Spirit from the womb.
Can you go by direct Gospel quote, then? It’s right there…
Not all truths are proclaimed as dogma. What purpose would there be in declaring it as such? Is it necessary for salvation? Does it change the teachings of the Church? I’m not seeing it.
Ahh, but “all generations will call me blessed”, right?
My take on it is that the key phrase is “in the Kingdom of Heaven”. That includes Mary (since she was part of the Church, at Pentecost and onward), but not John (since he died before Christ’s passion, death, and resurrection). So… no, there’s not the implication that “John is cooler than Mary” in that statement.
G
Genesis315
Guest
With this interpretation it would mean John as greater than Christ Himself, since He too was born of a woman. Here is the Haydock commentary on this point:
He that is the lesser, &c. Many understand this of Christ, who is less in as much as he is more humble, younger in age, and according to the erroneous opinion of men, of less sanctity than John. Maldonatus and Tolletus suppose the meaning to be, that he who is the least in sanctity in the Church of Christ is greater than John; not that John did not excel in sanctity many, nay even most of the children of the Church of Christ, but that those who belong to the Church, on account of this circumstance of their being under the new law, which is the law of children, are greater than those under the old law, which was the law of bondsmen, as the least among the children is greater than the greatest among the bondsmen. Now John in this respect did not belong to the Church of Christ, as he was slain before Christ’s death, before which time the gospel was not fully established. (Menochius) — There hath not risen … a greater, &c. This comparison, by what we find, Luke vii. 28, is only betwixt John and the ancient prophets, to signify that John was greater than any of the prophets, at least by his office of being the immediate precursor of the Messias. The comparison cannot be extended to Christ himself, who was both God and man, nor to his blessed Virgin Mother; nor need we understand it of this apostles. (Witham)
He that is the lesser, &c. Many understand this of Christ, who is less in as much as he is more humble, younger in age, and according to the erroneous opinion of men, of less sanctity than John. Maldonatus and Tolletus suppose the meaning to be, that he who is the least in sanctity in the Church of Christ is greater than John; not that John did not excel in sanctity many, nay even most of the children of the Church of Christ, but that those who belong to the Church, on account of this circumstance of their being under the new law, which is the law of children, are greater than those under the old law, which was the law of bondsmen, as the least among the children is greater than the greatest among the bondsmen. Now John in this respect did not belong to the Church of Christ, as he was slain before Christ’s death, before which time the gospel was not fully established. (Menochius) — There hath not risen … a greater, &c. This comparison, by what we find, Luke vii. 28, is only betwixt John and the ancient prophets, to signify that John was greater than any of the prophets, at least by his office of being the immediate precursor of the Messias. The comparison cannot be extended to Christ himself, who was both God and man, nor to his blessed Virgin Mother; nor need we understand it of this apostles. (Witham)
T
tonyh12
Guest
Thanks Just one thought say The pious tradition were correct and John Baptist was born in a state of sanctified grace, I am not saying he was or wasn’t but say he was it doesn’t make a lot of sense to me, Mary had to be conceived without sin I can understand that because she was the the new ark of the covenant but John the Baptist Didn’t have to carry the Lord. I understand he jumped in the womb at the visitation sure it was a sign of grace but being filled full of grace well scripture doesn’t not say this but it does say mary was filled with grace so is it reasonable to have doubt about this I say keep an open mind probably best thing. If he were born in sanctified grace he would be the second greatest person,
Last edited:
G
Gorgias
Guest
Why not? The fact that John didn’t “carry the Lord” in his body doesn’t mean that God cannot imbue a prophet with grace, does it?
I’m not saying “filled full of grace.” That holds for Mary, and it implies her life-long sinlessness. We’re not making that claim about John.
If you’re thinking that this claim means that John was necessarily free from sin all his life, then rest at ease. It doesn’t make that claim. It’s just a claim about his state of grace at his birth.
Last edited:
T
tonyh12
Guest
I always believed JTB jumping in the womb to be an act of grace, but was not aware there was this ‘pious tradition’ that goes further
Also please everyone just disregard my posts above I now realise they weren’t well thought through so for this thread I will just read rather than write. sorry.
Also please everyone just disregard my posts above I now realise they weren’t well thought through so for this thread I will just read rather than write. sorry.
Last edited:
B
Benadam
Guest
There is a big difference I think between being conceived in sin and it removed after 6 months and to being conceived with out sin.
Underlying what Jesus is teaching about John the Baptist is that He Himself is not of this generation. Adam isn’t His father.
.
Underlying what Jesus is teaching about John the Baptist is that He Himself is not of this generation. Adam isn’t His father.
.
A
Anesti33
Guest
I am not sure what you mean by this. Adam is considered the patriarch of Jesus, John, and in fact all the living. How else could it be?
B
Benadam
Guest
‘Born of woman’ is a euphemism for being a descendant of Adam and Eve.
We know that all human life is a generation of Adam. Jesus knew that those who followed Him believed Him to be greater than John. That’s what John taught. If Jesus is saying that John is the greatest man born of woman He is saying either; John was wrong or Jesus isn’t born of woman ie; not of the generation of Adam.
That had to raise an eyebrow.
We know that all human life is a generation of Adam. Jesus knew that those who followed Him believed Him to be greater than John. That’s what John taught. If Jesus is saying that John is the greatest man born of woman He is saying either; John was wrong or Jesus isn’t born of woman ie; not of the generation of Adam.
That had to raise an eyebrow.
B
Benadam
Guest
I’m assuming you know something that you may not. The man is the generating force in the reproductive act. Adam is a father of Jesus through His mother true. But Jesus isn’t of Adam’s generation because He is an eternal generation of His Father, God. Jesus is a Divine Person being a human.
I should add that the woman is the passive force. She receives . That’s why all souls are brides to God we receive He gives.
Last edited:
- Status