Mary's immaculate conception and history

[Agathon]

If you think that Jesus should not have interacted with Moses and Elijah, that is your call.

I’m not sure what the Savior did in a vision is relevant to the doctrine of the intercession of the Saints or to this discussion. We were speaking of the circumstances of Mary’s conception.

 

[Benadam]

I’m not sure what the Savior did in a vision is relevant to the doctrine of the intercession of the Saints or to this discussion. We were speaking of the circumstances of Mary’s conception.

why do you say it was a vision and not a real event happening in time?

 

[Agathon]

Isn’t that what Christ said? “And as they were coming down the mountain, Jesus commanded them, “Tell no one the vision, until the Son of Man is raised from the dead.”

 

[Benadam]

Isn’t that what Christ said? “And as they were coming down the mountain, Jesus commanded them, “Tell no one the vision, until the Son of Man is raised from the dead.”

Good point. Thank you. But a vision isn’t bound to the future or the past is it? A vision of something that is happening in the moment but not seen without a special condition like the Transfiguration.

 

[mcq72]

You are right. From the beginning, there have been those who do not accept the Apostolic teaching.

Agree, that if one is to believe in IC, it is because the apostles taught it (and vice versa).

 

[mcq72]

If you think that Jesus should not have interacted with Moses and Elijah, that is your call.

Well, i dont pray to Moses or Elijah either, do you ?

 

[guanophore]

I’m not sure what the Savior did in a vision is relevant to the doctrine of the intercession of the Saints or to this discussion. We were speaking of the circumstances of Mary’s conception.

We were, and the point was made that requests for intercession should not be made to anyone who had passed on to the next life. I think Jesus intended to show the Apostles that conversation with those who have left this earthly realm is possible and beneficial.

why do you say it was a vision and not a real event happening in time?

Why do you imply that a vision is not a real event happening in time?

And as they were coming down the mountain, Jesus commanded them, “Tell no one the vision, until the Son of Man is raised from the dead.” Matt. 17:9

Did Moses and Elijah have glorified bodies? It is possible. Elijah was bodily taken up in a chariot of fire. There was a spiritual battle over the body of Moses, which is presumed to have been taken up to heaven. But even if they were not present in corporeal form, they were clearly present in time and space. What I also find interersting is that “they were speaking to him about his upcoming departure”, indicating that they were quite aware of events occurring in space time. Some people say that those who have fallen asleep in the Lord are in some kind of soul sleep, and “know nothing”. King Saul’s interaction with Samuel also makes it clear that Samuel was quite aware of what was happening, and about to happen.

 

[guanophore]

Good point. Thank you. But a vision isn’t bound to the future or the past is it? A vision of something that is happening in the moment but not seen without a special condition like the Transfiguration.

I think that both things might be true. For example, Paul writes rather cryptically about being taken up into the “third heaven” and it has an other worldly feel to it, as if he was outside space and time. The same seems to be true of John’s Revelation.

Agree, that if one is to believe in IC, it is because the apostles taught it (and vice versa).

Are you speaking explicitly ? If so, I think we may e in trouble with regard to the Trinity, the hypostatic union, observing The Lord’s Day (Sunday) rather than the Sabbath (Saturday), and the canon of scripture.

Well, i dont pray to Moses or Elijah either, do you ?

Only on special occasions. I think most of us have our favorite saints. Most of us do pray to Mary, though, which is probably why it came up in the context of this thread.

 

[Agathon]

We were, and the point was made that requests for intercession should not be made to anyone who had passed on to the next life. I think Jesus intended to show the Apostles that conversation with those who have left this earthly realm is possible and beneficial.

His intention was to strengthen the Apostles with the vision; remember that those three were the very ones who saw His agony in Gethsemane and the betrayal by Judas.

 

[Benadam]

think that both things might be true. For example, Paul writes rather cryptically about being taken up into the “third heaven” and it has an other worldly feel to it, as if he was outside space and time. The same seems to be true of John’s Revelation.

Yes, I agree. That to me is the state of Glory revealed in the light of the transfiguration. The Glory Jesus was born with that He let the disciples see. The Glory that the bodies of Elijah etc were taken up into previous to the Glory of the ressurection. I believe that those taken up before bodily, wait for the final persecution. The two witnesses are of that third heaven’s glory until God says “come up here”. Imo.

 

[Benadam]

But even if they were not present in corporeal form, they were clearly present in time and space. W

I agee.

Satan wouldnt have a right to argue if it wasn’t a corporeal body. They were taken up body and soul no doubt, and were seen at the Transfiguration

 

[guanophore]

His intention was to strengthen the Apostles with the vision; remember that those three were the very ones who saw His agony in Gethsemane and the betrayal by Judas.

Yes, I agree. One way we are strengthened is to be in communion with those Holy Souls who have gone on to their heavenly reward.

 

[Truth4]

Every denomination of Christianity have their own bible.I am really surprise Why Catholic is not incorporating their teaching into their version of bible.

1. intercede to all saints
2. Mary’s immaculate conception
   3)Purgatory

Do you know why Apostle John who know and lived with Mother of God didn’t mentioned Mary’s immaculate conception? Do you believe Apostle John and other 11 Apostles to them the spirit of the Lord not reviled it?

 

[guanophore]

Every denomination of Christianity have their own bible.

This is a false statement.

I am really surprise Why Catholic is not incorporating their teaching into their version of bible.

There are two reasons for this. The main one is that the canon of scripture was closed in 382 AD, after which nothing can be added to, or subtracted from the scriptures.

Second, unlike Sola Scriptura Christians, we do not extract our doctrines of the faith from Scripture, so it is not necessary to find every single word (like “Trinity”) in the Bible. Our doctrines were handed down to us from the Apostles. Not all of them are specifically written.

Do you know why Apostle John who know and lived with Mother of God didn’t mentioned Mary’s immaculate conception? Do you believe Apostle John and other 11 Apostles to them the spirit of the Lord not reviled it?

I think that the Gospel of John and the Revelation of John are quite clear about Mary’s special status in the Kingdom of Heaven.

I do not understand what you are saying here about reviling the Spirit of the Lord.

 

[Truth4]

I had referred Catholic, Orthodox and Pentecostal bible. They differ.
Pentecostal bible, they removed chapters that are not suitable for them and they have their own version. Orthodox, they are not using the same Catholic bible.
“Trinity”, its not stated as its but it’s Mathew 28:19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,(Trinity).
Mother of God was there with Apostles, sure. You know, Our God is a man. All the Apostles are men. All angels are men. No women can sit in the presence of God in heaven.
Jesus, said don’t touch me to the women but not to Apostles .
Mary is the mother of Jesus, after Jesus resurrection, he is God.God have not father, no mother or any relationship with this world. He is “I am who I am” that’s why we ask for intercede.
Why Mary and Joseph is not ordering as our parents do?
Sorry, typing mistake, its not “revil” it’s reveal.
thks for your reply

 

[mcq72]

Are you speaking explicitly ? If so, I think we may e in trouble with regard to the Trinity, the hypostatic union, observing The Lord’s Day (Sunday) rather than the Sabbath (Saturday), and the canon of scripture.

Then one must be careful to say what is apostolic, and what is tradition handed down from successors, both powerful yet distinct, properly so.

As to Trinity/Christology, definitely more apostolic teaching thru writ on that than the IC or Assumption.

Sabbath,canon,… not a big deal that it is explicit from apostles (though there is some writ), the latter quite naturally being tradition from successors.

So , the only thing we see explicitly in writ, universally , is Mary’s jewish roots, her virginity , from Bethlehem, full of grace, saying "yes’, her glory in all calling her blessed…we then quibble in opinion as to any sin and sinning or always immaculate, of having children or “abstaining”, any assumption, or sitting at the right hand of God or not etc.

 

[Agathon]

Mary is the mother of Jesus, after Jesus resurrection, he is God.

He was always God, even before He was in His mother’s womb.

 

[Benadam]

Sabbath,canon,… not a big deal that it is explicit from apostles (though there is some writ), the latter quite naturally being tradition from successors.

If I’m understanding your meaning of writ.
The tradition from successors determines what is canon and so what is authentic writ explicit from the Apostles

So , the only thing we see explicitly in writ, universally , is Mary’s jewish roots, her virginity , from Bethlehem, full of grace, saying "yes’, her glory in all calling her blessed…we then quibble in opinion as to any sin and sinning or always immaculate, of having children or “abstaining”, any assumption, or sitting at the right hand of God or not etc.

How can it not be that tradition from successors determine what is quibbling opinion or not?

 

[mcq72]

If I’m understanding your meaning of writ.

The tradition from successors determines what is canon and so what is authentic writ explicit from the Apostles

My parenthesis was that some writ was identified by apostles, in particular Peter naming some of Paul’s letters. Others unmentioned must then be received and continue to be revered by churches after the apostles were gone.

 

[mcq72]

How can it not be that tradition from successors determine what is quibbling opinion or not?

It is relative to what was taught explicitly by apostles for sure, as revealed thru their God breathed writ, as compared to what may have been implicitly taught by them, as written by successors though not God breathed.

So it is universally explicit that apostles taught that Jesus died and resurrected and ascended. It is implicit, though not universal by sucessors, that apostles taught that Mary was immaculate, and also assumed (assumption).