B
benidict
Guest
born again catholic… is their any other kind?
- Status
D
Dokimas
Guest
That may be true. Thank you for your opinion.Then it would appear you need to read your Bible more carefully and perhaps seek instruction from those more knowledgeable when you encounter things you do not understand.
D
Dokimas
Guest
An adopted child has a father and a mother (under normal situations). God can be my Father if He’s chosen to adopt me into His family.
Paul, in Philipians 2 tells us that Jesus emptied Himself. What was it He emptied Himself of? IMO, it was all His Godness so when He died He didn’t call upon His Godness, it was His perfect Humanity that did the suffering.
E
exiled
Guest
God the Father, who is pure spirit, provided the Divinity of Jesus. Mary provided the flesh, the humanity, for God the Son.
My Bible is not nearby right now but I’m pretty sure it is said that God cannot even look upon sin. The logical conclusion would be that He cannot, therefore, be united to sin, either. That union is much closer, so to speak, than merely looking upon sin.
The Flesh that suffered on that Cross, that redeemed us, was given to Jesus by Mary.
Sorry if someone already said this, I didn’t finish reading the thread before I responded to Dokimas.
D
Dokimas
Guest
Thank you for your opinion.
R
Reuben_J
Guest
Seems we are merely nit-picking. You have a problem with the word mother as in Mary the Mother of God. I give you an explanation why we can call her Mother of God. I am only asking you to be consistent. You are looking at mothethood only if her ovum and the father’s sperm form together to form the baby. It is never to be understood that way with Jesus which is pretty obvious. And yet the word father and mother can be used in many situations as been mentioned.
BTW, did not Mary choose to be the mother of Jesus?
V
VARC
Guest
The Virgin Mary must be so proud of you for condemning other Christians because of your views on what did or didn’t happen in her bedroom with her husband or whether or not angels took her corpse to heaven.
R
Reuben_J
Guest
And you haven’t answered if we can separate the man Jesus from the divine Jesus, like are they two different entities?
D
Dokimas
Guest
Your analysis of what I’m saying is not complete. I have pointed out God isn’t created, thus He doesn’t have a Mother.
You must not have seen all the things I’ve said on this issue. I’ve called Mary mother of Jesus of Nazaretn but not the Mother of God.
But it’s not up to you, me nor any church. The correct understanding of Mary and her role is up to God.
M
MelanieAnne
Guest
I find myself feeling very sad. In rejecting whatever it was that they rejected in the Protestant Reformation, they rejected so much more. I was a Protestant once, so I somewhat understand the confusion. It doesn’t need to continue, people just need to study.
People, especially those that find themselves confused, need to read the Early Church Fathers ~ you know, the people who were writing things down about Christianity before the Bible was compiled, before anyone compiled any sort of general understanding of faith. Back then, the “Word of God” was Jesus ~ the WORD OF GOD was a PERSON, not a book. Too many people have become confused about Jesus, the Word, and the Bible, the word. And because of that confusion, they have put all their faith into the written word, and rejected everything else. That’s a big rejection and a big loss.
The Early Church Fathers, often those who either knew Jesus, or were taught directly by those who had known Him, had information that may not have always been written down ~ this was just the way of things in the time ~ often because it was just ASSUMED that it was known at the time. This is why we need the explanation/authority that so many, in these days, choose to reject.
Well, heck, if you’re going to reject the informed explanation of those whose knowledge is rooted in the time of Jesus, that’s just nuts. Why would you reject the teachings of those who had been taught by Jesus?
Myself? I’d be happy to at least LISTEN to the explanations of any doctrine of the faith from someone who was either a disciple of Jesus, or someone taught by a disciple.
But today, we have so many people who, claiming to be Christian, reject the teachings of those most closely related to Jesus. WHY? That seems to crazy to me? Accept or reject Jesus IN GENERAL, but if you have a chance to hear from someone who was taught by Jesus, or, lacking that, someone who was TAUGHT by someone who had been taught directly by Jesus, why reject that? But that’s what so many people do. And in some cases, they don’t even KNOW about them!
And then there are the people, and, with all due respect, appear to be uninformed, who claim “Mary was a vessel used by God. We honor her by being that vessel but she was a sinner just like you and me. She had other children which doesn’t make her a perpetual virgin.”
This is completely false and there is nothing in scripture to support this. What is entirely logical is that God created a Holy Vessel for the incarnation to take place. Anything else is pure nonsense ~ why would God create an UNHOLY place for the incarnation to take place? People need to think this sort of thing through to the end. God would not inhabit an unholy place. To claim otherwise is just silly.
Mary was not a sinner, that’s in the Bible. To refute that sort of claim is easy. She was “full of grace” ~ that means she was without sin. Was she without sin because of her own merits? NO! She was without sin because God made her that way. To deny that is to deny the power of God. Is someone really going to do that? That’s also just silly.
Did Mary have other children? In other words, did the sacred vessel that brought about Jesus continue on and have other children at some point afterwards? There is no definitive evidence of that.
People that are uninformed about the language of relationships may continue to spout this sort of thing. Are they right? It’s hard to say. But the Catholic Church has affirmed Mary as a perpetual virgin and no one has actually presented any evidence to the contrary.
Here’s the information for the “people that are uninformed”. In the time of the early Church, naturally REAL brothers and sisters were referred to as such, but also, under the tribal situation that existed, “cousins” would be considered the same as “brothers and sisters”, why? because the children of brothers and sisters were considered the same as your own children, and any responsibility accorded to children would also extend to cousins.
And then there is St. Paul. He addressed nearly everyone as “Brothers and Sisters”. Why? Because we are all Children of God. Does that mean that we are blood brothers and sisters? Of course not, and to suggest otherwise is just silly.
I have lived, even today, under this concept of who and who is not a “brother” or a “sister”. We cannot assume that our idea of life is the only one, because other ideas exist. My brother-in-law, born in another country than the US, had the same sort of a “tribal” understanding of family. My sister married a man years ago. Upon that marriage, her husband assumed, as was his culture, not only the role of “uncle” but also the role of “father”. It wasn’t that he sought to replace the Father, but in the absence of the Father, he knew he had an obligation.
People, especially those that find themselves confused, need to read the Early Church Fathers ~ you know, the people who were writing things down about Christianity before the Bible was compiled, before anyone compiled any sort of general understanding of faith. Back then, the “Word of God” was Jesus ~ the WORD OF GOD was a PERSON, not a book. Too many people have become confused about Jesus, the Word, and the Bible, the word. And because of that confusion, they have put all their faith into the written word, and rejected everything else. That’s a big rejection and a big loss.
The Early Church Fathers, often those who either knew Jesus, or were taught directly by those who had known Him, had information that may not have always been written down ~ this was just the way of things in the time ~ often because it was just ASSUMED that it was known at the time. This is why we need the explanation/authority that so many, in these days, choose to reject.
Well, heck, if you’re going to reject the informed explanation of those whose knowledge is rooted in the time of Jesus, that’s just nuts. Why would you reject the teachings of those who had been taught by Jesus?
Myself? I’d be happy to at least LISTEN to the explanations of any doctrine of the faith from someone who was either a disciple of Jesus, or someone taught by a disciple.
But today, we have so many people who, claiming to be Christian, reject the teachings of those most closely related to Jesus. WHY? That seems to crazy to me? Accept or reject Jesus IN GENERAL, but if you have a chance to hear from someone who was taught by Jesus, or, lacking that, someone who was TAUGHT by someone who had been taught directly by Jesus, why reject that? But that’s what so many people do. And in some cases, they don’t even KNOW about them!
And then there are the people, and, with all due respect, appear to be uninformed, who claim “Mary was a vessel used by God. We honor her by being that vessel but she was a sinner just like you and me. She had other children which doesn’t make her a perpetual virgin.”
This is completely false and there is nothing in scripture to support this. What is entirely logical is that God created a Holy Vessel for the incarnation to take place. Anything else is pure nonsense ~ why would God create an UNHOLY place for the incarnation to take place? People need to think this sort of thing through to the end. God would not inhabit an unholy place. To claim otherwise is just silly.
Mary was not a sinner, that’s in the Bible. To refute that sort of claim is easy. She was “full of grace” ~ that means she was without sin. Was she without sin because of her own merits? NO! She was without sin because God made her that way. To deny that is to deny the power of God. Is someone really going to do that? That’s also just silly.
Did Mary have other children? In other words, did the sacred vessel that brought about Jesus continue on and have other children at some point afterwards? There is no definitive evidence of that.
People that are uninformed about the language of relationships may continue to spout this sort of thing. Are they right? It’s hard to say. But the Catholic Church has affirmed Mary as a perpetual virgin and no one has actually presented any evidence to the contrary.
Here’s the information for the “people that are uninformed”. In the time of the early Church, naturally REAL brothers and sisters were referred to as such, but also, under the tribal situation that existed, “cousins” would be considered the same as “brothers and sisters”, why? because the children of brothers and sisters were considered the same as your own children, and any responsibility accorded to children would also extend to cousins.
And then there is St. Paul. He addressed nearly everyone as “Brothers and Sisters”. Why? Because we are all Children of God. Does that mean that we are blood brothers and sisters? Of course not, and to suggest otherwise is just silly.
I have lived, even today, under this concept of who and who is not a “brother” or a “sister”. We cannot assume that our idea of life is the only one, because other ideas exist. My brother-in-law, born in another country than the US, had the same sort of a “tribal” understanding of family. My sister married a man years ago. Upon that marriage, her husband assumed, as was his culture, not only the role of “uncle” but also the role of “father”. It wasn’t that he sought to replace the Father, but in the absence of the Father, he knew he had an obligation.
N
Newbie2
Guest
Then aren’t you separating Christ as his divine nature and Christ in his human nature?
B
benidict
Guest
Jesus told the apostles whoever listens to you listens to me. whoever does not listent to you does not listen to me. so yes it is up to the Church the Lord founded to give the correct understanding of these issues. the problem goes deeper than Mary, it is an issue with the authority Christ and his apostles set up.
D
Dokimas
Guest
Call it what you think; it is what it is according to God; maybe we’ll just have to wait til Heaven for God’s answer.
G
Good_Fella
Guest
It is heretics like Helvidius who raise the question of what may have happened between Mary and Joseph after Jesus was born. So naturally the Church is compelled to respond. Mary is offended by Christians outside the Church who presume to act on their own authority with a book in their hands by questioning her virtues and the privileges her divine Son has granted her because she is his mother.The Virgin Mary must be so proud of you for condemning other Christians because of your views on what did or didn’t happen in her bedroom with her husband or whether or not angels took her corpse to heaven.
PAX :heaven:
D
Dokimas
Guest
Some of the early apostles thought Gentile converts needed to be circumsized. Peter knew that that wasn’t correct but held his tongue. Paul challenged this believe and thank God it’s not a requirement for becoming a child of God/Christian through the new birth. The original church leaders were NOT infalible. So what. God is able to deal with all our imperfections. He is perfect; His church, this side of Heaven, is imperfect because it is It’s people and It’s people are ALL fallible.Jesus told the apostles whoever listens to you listens to me. whoever does not listent to you does not listen to me. so yes it is up to the Church the Lord founded to give the correct understanding of these issues. the problem goes deeper than Mary, it is an issue with the authority Christ and his apostles set up.
G
guanophore
Guest
Thank you benidict. I am glad that my studies are able to benefit. I spet three years in seminary and just as I was about to join a community, God took my life in a different direction. I studied Greek primarily. What really made me come out more Catholic than I went in was historical theology. Once I could trace the Church back to the Apostolic roots, I lost interest in Protestantism all together.hi guanophore, you have an excellent grasp of the original languages. just curious, are you a seminarian or a priest? i am really getting an education reading your post. enjoy reading them and learning more. thank you for all your doing. alot of us are uplifted by your knowlegable apologetics.
B
benidict
Guest
amazing! this gives me chills! same thing happened here. im not an educated person. but i had a very similar experience. also have a friend who was a missourie synod lutheran seminarian,who is on the same road. he got kicked out of seminary because he believed that Gods gifts and calling are irrevocable and that God still had a plan for his chosen people the Jews.(he has jewish blood as well.) dont know if he has converted or not yet. but he has been coming to the same conclusions. also have another friend that was a baptist minister. after studying Church history, he started asking questions. one thing led to another and he ended up becoming an anglican priest, only because of his british heritage. he and i have talked and i think when the anglicans are brought back into communion with us he will follow. amazing how the Holy Spirit moves and uses similar experiences to bring people home. God bless you
B
benidict
Guest
hi dokimas, believe you may have this incorrect. then again so may i. im looking at acts 15 and it is not the apostles who said the gentiles had to be circumcised to be saved it was a sect of the Pharisees who believed ,saying: they must be circumcised ,and be commanded to observe the law of moses. vs 5
it then says in vs 6 that the apostles and the ancients assembled to consider this matter. after much disputing Peter stood up, and answered them authoritatively. look at acts 15 again. Peter did not hold his toungue, he answered authoritatively. also it was not the apostles who raised this contention, it was converted pharisees. it is also interesting to know that paul brought this issue to jerulsalem, to be to have this matter decided. and it was peter that ultimately decided decided what the standards were that the gentiles were to be held to.
maybe your reading another passage. plz let me know and ill look it up.
D
Dokimas
Guest
Galatians 2hi dokimas, believe you may have this incorrect. then again so may i. im looking at acts 15 and it is not the apostles who said the gentiles had to be circumcised to be saved it was a sect of the Pharisees who believed ,saying: they must be circumcised ,and be commanded to observe the law of moses. vs 5
it then says in vs 6 that the apostles and the ancients assembled to consider this matter. after much disputing Peter stood up, and answered them authoritatively. look at acts 15 again. Peter did not hold his toungue, he answered authoritatively. also it was not the apostles who raised this contention, it was converted pharisees. it is also interesting to know that paul brought this issue to jerulsalem, to be to have this matter decided. and it was peter that ultimately decided decided what the standards were that the gentiles were to be held to.
maybe your reading another passage. plz let me know and ill look it up.
11 ¶ Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed;
12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision.
13 And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.
14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, "If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?
15 "We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,
16 "knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.
17 "But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is Christ therefore a minister of sin? Certainly not!
18 "For if I build again those things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.
19 "For I through the law died to the law that I might live to God.
20 "I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.
Y
YADA
Guest
Then why did the Protestant Christians start this argument? … Event he original reformers beleived in the perpetual virginity of Mary, that Mary was indeed the Mother of Jesus [Jesus having received His - Human Nature from Mary] …
Your comments are like those who come and say … Catholics are wrong - Mary had other children from her womb … and then come back with - whay does ot matter whether she did or did not have carnal relations" …
So if Mary would not like this 'divisiveness" among Christians … why do you attempt to change 2000 years of Christian belief and argue about it, especially if in ‘charity’ we should all be allowed our position?
…- Status