Z
zach_dunn
Guest
Very interesting and informative post! Thanks a lot!
- Status
Z
zach_dunn
Guest
I feel bad saying this and I really mean no offense, but could you type a little slower and try spelling a little better? I really didn’t understand this part of your post . . . I’m sorry!
If you download Mozilla Firefox as your web browser, that might help as it has a spell checker built in.If you say that the Holy Spirit is with every individual Christian and gives them each the ability to interpret the Bible authoritatively by themselves, why is my interpretation wrong and yours right? Why is the pentecostal’s interpretation wrong and yours right when said pentecostal doesn’t agree with you?
You believe that Christendom is in “good order?” With at least 2,000 different Christian denominations that are vehemently opposed to each other, I would hardly say that Christianity is in “good order,” this is completely the opposite of what Jesus wants [Jn 17:11], and completely opposed to the reason of sending the Holy Spirit in the first place.
Opinions are good when they are based on fact and are themselves fact, just as my opinions are (in respect to this topic, that is).
D
Des
Guest
That answer makes no sense since until has to fit. It’s a copy/paste straight from the Good Book.
“For He must reign TILL He has put all enemies under His feet.” After all enemies are put away, will Christ be reigning?
Absolutly, but in completeness then.
Read the entire passage beginning from vese 21. The reigning it’s talking about is once all is said and done. You seem very desparate here to apply completeness to an already complete reign.
To which of the angels did God ever say, ‘Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet’”? After that time, the angels (or Jesus) could get up again?
If you belive that Jesus was an angel and not part of the triune God, there is nothing to talk about here.
You totally avoided that. According to your interpretation, does that passage imply that Jesus will no longer sit at God’s right hand once He made His enemies a footstool of His feet since the word ‘until’ by your definition would say this.
G
guanophore
Guest
If Leslie had to accept that Jesus really meant what He said when He gave Peter a special gift and ministry to the Church, it would really throw wrenches into her self appointed authority model. 
G
guanophore
Guest
It is also a reminder of Christ to Mary that, from the time of his first public miracle it would be a straight shot to the cross. He was allowing her to give her permission to lose the wonderful private enjoyment of Him she had basked in for the last 30 years. It is His invitation to her that she could choose the time to give Him away to His ministry, and His suffering. Far from a “reprimand”, it is the Mighty God permitting His Mother to choose the time of His revelation to the world. What a great honor!
A
adriancombe
Guest
Amen. Precisely. He’s not just saying “you realize where this is headed for me”. He is reluctant to start on that path that will pierce her heart as well.
Z
zach_dunn
Guest
What you say makes no sense. You believe that when the word “until” is used, it means the action that does not before a certain time or event does happen afterward. Randy showed you why this is not always correct when he wrote “my mother . . . never smoked again until the day she died.” If your understanding of the world “until” was always true, it would mean that the mother smoked after she died, this is impossible which means that is not how the word “until” is supposed to be understood 100% of the time.
This doesn’t make sense and it is just wrong. The statement “my uncle never touched another drop of alchohol until the day he died,” means that every day after escaping the automobile accident (including the day he died), he did not smoke. By your understanding, the uncle would have to have had a drink after his death. If you applied this same line of reasoning (yours) to Mt 1:25, you would have to say that Mary and Joseph had sex on the day Mary gave birth to Jesus, that’s just silly.
You have no scriptural evidence to support this theory. It is evident that the raven did not come back because Noah had to send a dove after the raven [Gen 8:8], why would he send a dove if the raven had done its job? Also, the dove comes back to the ark two times [Gen 8:9, 11], if it was recorded that the dove came back, why wasn’t it recorded that the raven came back?
“Until” doesn’t fit, to you. This is because you do not understand the proper usage of that word. “Until” does fit when you look at it the Catholic (and normal) way; in this way, “until” can mean that the action did not occur then did, OR it can mean that the action did not happen to a certain point, then afterward we are not sure (we can be sure, though, in many cases. Like Randy’s examples). Until does fit if you look at it the proper way.
This quotation isn’t in your Bible, so don’t bother. Look it up here.
Now you’re trying to say that “until” = “when”? That’s not good, you run into problems like Mt 1:25, do you think Mary and Joseph had sex the day Jesus was born? Also, Randy provided these verses because they contradict your notion of “until.” If your understanding of “until” is correct, then John would have had to move out of the desert after his public ministry, which we know he didn’t, thanks to Scripture.
It was referring to the present, what else?
Even though you agree, your ideas of “until” have been proven false, and you acknowledge that here without thinking about it. In your understanding, Jesus should not reign after his enemies are under His feet, because in your definition of “until” the action that did happen before must cease to happen. This verse utterly defeats this notion.
Ephesians 4:11-13
“11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: 13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ.” [KJV]
The passage is saying that Christ gave Apostles, prophets, etc., for those three ends. Are those supposed to stop after we are united? Nope, that’s another reason your idea of “until” is false.
You completely misunderstand what Randy meant. The verse says that God never said that to an angel which implies that He did say it to Jesus. If we apply “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet” to Jesus (which is what Randy was trying to do when he said “or Jesus” in parentheses), “until,” by your understanding, would mean Jesus would not sit at God’s right hand when all of His enemies were made a footstool; we know this is false. Please ask for explanations before spouting off peoples beliefs.
← continued in next post →
Z
zach_dunn
Guest
← continued from previous post →
I’ll wait for your responses to 1 Tim 6:14 and Rev 2:25-26 before saying anything about them.
Romans 8:22
“22 For we know that every creature groaneth and travaileth in pain, even till now.”
We know that there has been no change since Paul’s time in this matter, every creature still groans and all are in pain.
You do that.
I’ll wait for your responses to 1 Tim 6:14 and Rev 2:25-26 before saying anything about them.
After reading this post I hope you understand that your notion of “until” has been proven false. It is possible for there not to be a change afterward, this is shown by . . .
Romans 8:22
“22 For we know that every creature groaneth and travaileth in pain, even till now.”
We know that there has been no change since Paul’s time in this matter, every creature still groans and all are in pain.
Z
zach_dunn
Guest
D
djeter
Guest
Back in 2001, Time magazine called Stanley Hauerwas, the Duke University Divinity School professor, “America’s Best Theologian.” Needless to say he earned the praise for his maverick writings on pacifism, homosexuality, American patriotism, etc., etc.
That would hardly be the sort of recommendation that would earn his inclusion to a traditional Catholic weblog. Further, Hauerwas is not a member of the Church but belongs to the United Methodist denomination. Despite all of that I found his book Matthew (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible) a compelling read.
I have some reading selections from the opening chapters and a few have some interesting comments on Mary. If you scroll down they strart at
That would hardly be the sort of recommendation that would earn his inclusion to a traditional Catholic weblog. Further, Hauerwas is not a member of the Church but belongs to the United Methodist denomination. Despite all of that I found his book Matthew (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible) a compelling read.
I have some reading selections from the opening chapters and a few have some interesting comments on Mary. If you scroll down they strart at
*]The Importance Of Mary’s Conception Through The Spirit
*]The Virgin Birth
*]Mistaking The Virgin Birth
*]The Holy Family
*]Without Mary’s Virginity The Story Cannot Be Told
*]Mary Is Also Our Abraham
"Matthew’s story of Mary’s pregnancy lacks the charm and detail of Luke’s account, but that may well be its value. One of the great enemies of the gospel is sentimentality, and the stories surrounding Jesus’ birth have proven to be ready material for maudlin sentiment.
Matthew’s account of Jesus’ conception and birth is unapologetically realistic. Joseph, not Mary, is the main actor. John Chrysostom praises Joseph as a man of exceptional self-restraint since he must have been free of that most tyrannical passion, jealousy. Unwilling to cause Mary distress, to expose her to public disgrace, he planned to dismiss her discreetly. Joseph, therefore, refused to act according to the law, but rather chose to act in a manner that Jesus himself would later exemplify by his attitude toward known sinners (Matthew. 9:10-13).
Yet Joseph still required a revelation so that he would know the character of Mary’s pregnancy. He is also given the honor to name Jesus as the new Joshua capable of rescuing his people from their sins. The Joshua of old had been given the task of conquering the Promised Land, but this Joshua is sent to save his people from their sins, making it possible for them to live as the people of the promise. Joseph did as he was instructed, taking Mary for his wife and naming his son Jesus."
Much more about Matthew here:
payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/10/02/book-recommendation-matthew-brazos-theological-commentary-on-the-bible-by-stanley-hauerwas/
but scroll down to get to all the Mary stuff.
And let me know what you think. I’m just a recent convert who takes in a lot of stuff about the gospels and my Church – this could be questionable stuff but I enjoyed it.
dj
L
Leslie_Polley
Guest
Once again Randy is saying that I do not answer his posts. If you talke the time I have answer all I have seen and the one on Matthew 1:25 at least 3 times. Now Randy, I don’t know what you are reading, but on this forum is not only the the answer to Matthew 1:25, but also the Dictionary definition of the UNTIL…I donn’t know how much more you want …look around, at whoever set this up…you have to seach for things, and sometimes its just not easy…persistant…you will find it Anf by the way I don’t have to prove anything, the Word of God says it all…I THINK you don’t understand it.Once again, Leslie makes an assertion that she THINKS she can or has proved. However, she has not interacted with my posts regarding Matthew 1:25, and the verse does not prove that Joseph had sex with Mary.
Then she goes on to claim that Catholics “have no idea what [we] are looking at or reading”.
Talk about irony.
L
Leslie_Polley
Guest
Yes, so, what does that have to do with what I said about Mary…other than prove my point…He was not a Milk Sop…Christ took authority and was afraid of no one, or thing…
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Okay…this will be my last attempt to explain this to you…we’re waaaay past the point of diminishing returns.
The word “until” (Gr. heos hou) can mean exactly what you say it means; it implies a cessation of past action. We can agree on this, yes? Call this interpretation, “A”.
The word “until” can also be used in a manner that does NOT imply a cessation of past action. Numerous examples from scripture were given. We should be able to agree on this, also. Call this interpretation, “B”.
Now, if the word “until” can be used in a manner that does not REQUIRE cessation of past action, then you cannot assert that Matthew 1:25 PROVES your position because an equally plausible explanation exists.
This is the position that you are in. You cannot claim “A” is the ONLY possible interpretation because both “A” and “B” are possible. To use an analogy, in a court of law you could not convict someone of a crime if reasonable doubt exists. Your argument againt the Perpetual Virginity of Mary based on Matthew 1:25 is not beyond reasonable doubt, and the article that I provided on heos hou explains this clearly.
Additionally, in a court of law, I would bring in additional evidence such as the constant teaching of the Catholic Church, the writings of the Early Church Fathers, the beliefs of the Protestant Reformers and modern Protestants…well, you get the idea.
The preponderance of evidence is in my favor.
Hope this helps. :tiphat:
L
Louemma
Guest
One question
Do the Catholics worship Mary?That’s all I wanna know.
Do the Catholics worship Mary?That’s all I wanna know.
P
PRmerger
Guest
It depends upon what you mean by the word “worship”, as that term has changed over the years.One question
We only give Latria (adoration) to God alone.
However, “worship” has more meanings than “the adoration due only to God”, as can be seen even today in any dictionary. ** It can mean respect and veneration. In that context**, it can be said that we “worship” Mary, as has been stated in an encyclical by Pope Pius X: (AD DIEM ILLUM LAETISSIMUM–encyclical on the Immaculate Conception)
*"For to be right and good, **worship of the Mother of God *ought to spring from the heart; acts of the body have here neither utility nor value if the acts of the soul have no part in them. Now these latter can only have one object, which is that we should fully carry out what the divine Son of Mary commands."
[SIGN] In this context, it is used as “respect and veneration”.[/SIGN]
L
Louemma
Guest
Good Heavens,you are a hostile little Catholic
I had reasons for asking because I already know the answer.
Now in the word of God and I don’t have that word in front of me at the moment, says something to the effect of “If I do something that is not a sin to me,but is a sin to another”
You’ll have to look it up I believe it’s in 1 Cor.8
My point is I personally think Mary is a great woman who as Mary said herself,that God favored her among women.I don’t pray to her not because I think it’s wrong but because I feel odd praying to anyone besides the father because I know when I pray the Father hears me and really I feel no need to pray to Mary or with her(however you do it) because it’s the Lord I am wanting to talk with anyways.
If I say this I’m still in accordance to the word of God.So praying to the Father only, is not a sin or not something the Lord is going to condemn me for.Right?
If you go to Mary in prayer,so she will pray for you then "what’s that to me?Nothing.If praying to Mary is not a sin for you then your good.If praying to Mary is a sin for someone else then by all means,Don’t do it but don’t condemn others because a sin for one may not be a sin for another.
Hope this clears up why some are so against Praying with Mary.
However it is a sin for all, if Mary is placed in the same regards as the Lord.Did Mary not state she was a handmaiden of the Lord?
I had reasons for asking because I already know the answer.
Now in the word of God and I don’t have that word in front of me at the moment, says something to the effect of “If I do something that is not a sin to me,but is a sin to another”
You’ll have to look it up I believe it’s in 1 Cor.8
My point is I personally think Mary is a great woman who as Mary said herself,that God favored her among women.I don’t pray to her not because I think it’s wrong but because I feel odd praying to anyone besides the father because I know when I pray the Father hears me and really I feel no need to pray to Mary or with her(however you do it) because it’s the Lord I am wanting to talk with anyways.
If I say this I’m still in accordance to the word of God.So praying to the Father only, is not a sin or not something the Lord is going to condemn me for.Right?
If you go to Mary in prayer,so she will pray for you then "what’s that to me?Nothing.If praying to Mary is not a sin for you then your good.If praying to Mary is a sin for someone else then by all means,Don’t do it but don’t condemn others because a sin for one may not be a sin for another.
Hope this clears up why some are so against Praying with Mary.
However it is a sin for all, if Mary is placed in the same regards as the Lord.Did Mary not state she was a handmaiden of the Lord?
P
PRmerger
Guest
Amen, adrian. Amen!!
That post was soooo good I have to repeat and emphasize your words:
[SIGN1] ALL heretics CLAIM their interpretation is “the word of God”[/SIGN1]
P
PRmerger
Guest
What was your reason for asking, then, Louemma?
Have you seen something from our Popes or Bishops that encourages Catholics to place Mary in the same regard as the Lord?
A
adriancombe
Guest
Actually I just showed you:
- Christ recognized Mary’s authority.
- He had a healthy human fear of the type of death He knew He faced.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Indeed.
As if Jesus, a good and pious Jew, would disobey the 4th Commandment.
Also, Protestants love to refer to Luke 11:27-28 in which Jesus supposedly tells his followers not to call Mary blessed–as if Jesus would tell his disciples to disobey the Scriptures :whacky: (see Luke 1:48)
- Status