The assumption of Mary

[Kinsman]

Mathetes007:

In summary, the harlot is apostate Jerusalem that rejected the Messiah. She rode the beast, Rome, and used its authority to crucify its own God and Lord. She further used the beast to persecute the saints and commit sins. She compromised with pagan Rome to rid her land of Jesus the Christ. Since the harlot is Jerusalem, and Jerusalem is the capital of “national” Israel, “national” Israel cannot therefore be the woman of Revelation 12. Note that in contrast to the whore and synagogue of false Jews, the Woman is said to be protected by God, that her children keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus (Revelation 12:17). Non-Christian Jews do not bear testimony to Jesus but in fact unequivocally reject Him as Messiah, including His teachings, and His followers.

It is amazing what one can do when pulling Scripture out of its context. There are so many errors in your presentation it’s impossible to use this forum as a rebuttal. National Israel is not the Harlot and God has not forever forsaken her. Yes, she is protrayed as the wife of God in the O.T. (as the Chruch is the Bride of Christ in the N.T.), but only because she played the harlot with other gods. But by His sovereign grace and according to His prophetic Word He promises to bring her back to Him. He says of national Israel:

"Therefore, behold, I will allure her, Bring her into the wilderness and speak kindly to her. Then I will give her her vineyards from there, And the valley of Achor as a door of hope. And she will sing there as in the days of her youth, as in the day when she came up from the land of Egypt. And it will come about in that day, declares the Lord, that you will call Me Ishi (my husband) and will no longer call Me Baali (my master). For I will remove the names of the Baals from her mouth, So that they will be mentioned by their names no more. In that day I will also make a covenant for them with the beasts of the field, the birds of the sky, and the creeping things of the ground. And I will abolish the bow, the sword, and war from the land, and will make them lie down in safety.

In that day I will also make a covenant for them with the beasts of the field, the birds of the sky, and the creeping things of the ground. And I will abolish the bow, the sword, and war from the land, And will make them lie down in safety. And I will betroth you to Me forever; Yes, I will betroth you to Me in righteousness and in justice, In lovingkindness and in compassion, and I will betroth you to Me in faithfulness. Then you will know the Lord. And it will come about in that day that I will respond, declares the Lord. I will respond to the heavens, and they will respond to the earth, and the earth will respond to the grain, to the new wine, and to the oil, And they will respond to Jezreel (God sows). And I will sow her for Myself in the land. I will also have compassion on her who had not obtained compassion, and I will say to those who were not My people, ‘You are My people!’ And they will say, ‘Thou art my God!’ (Hos. 2:14-23).

The O.T. Hebrew prophets are replete with "restoring the Kingdom to Israel in the last days. They will bear testimony of Jesus “*in that day” *(Is. 61:1-9; 62:1-12; 65:17-25; Zech. 12:10; 14:8-9; 16; Acts 15:16-18; Rom. 11:25-29)
National Israel is the woman in Rev. 12. No doubt about it.

 

[Pax]

Kinsman,

I have to say that the posts of Mathetes007 are as good an exegesis as you will find, and that includes those efforts that Protestants would use to justify your position. While you seem extremely confident in your final statement that “the woman” can only mean Israel, there are numerous biblical scholars that believe that it can mean Israel, it can refer to the Church, or that it can refer to Mary. Not only that, many biblical scholars think that the reference in some way refers to all three. The reason for this latter approach is that none of them seems to fit the terms of the passages in totality, but together they seem to complete them.

I would say that it’s important to remember that the Book of Revelation is filled with imagery, and because it is apocalyptic in style and content, that much of it is not nearly as clear cut as you might believe.

The views that have been presented in this thread point out one glaring fact that none of us can deny. Scripture is not self explanatory and interpretation of scripture can certainly be at odds from one party to another. The word “party” is used here to refer to anyone and everyone; from the individual, to scholar, through church or even denomination.

Because interpretations vary so widely among even Protestants, let alone Protestants verses Catholics, it becomes clear that your confidence in your understanding is at best overstated. I mean no offense by that remark. I only make it based on the fact that each of us can claim the same confidence and believe we are correct, yet that does not guarantee that we have the true interpretation. You are viewing these passages through a Protestant lens, while we are viewing them through a Catholic lens. You are relying on your tradition and we are relying on ours. Our tradition, as it guides us to understand the holy word of God, goes back to the ancient roots and teachings of the early Church. We have, based on that, reason to be more confident in the teachings.

We believe that the differing views of scripture prove that sola scriptura does not work. We have other reasons for believing it to be an erroneous teaching as well, but that is the subject of another thread. The whole problem boils down to who you wish to believe. To us, it makes sense to believe the teachings of the Church that Jesus established, the Church He promised to be with until the end of time, the Church that He promised would not fail even against the gates of hell, the Church to which He gave the keys to the Kingdom and the power to bind and loose. We believe that Jesus has kept His promises. We trust the teachings and interpretations of the Church that set up the Canon of Scripture, and testifies to the authenticity of scripture, and that has lovingly protected and handed down the scriptures to us.

There is something else that I can say with utter confidence. I know that if I was left to my own devices with scripture, I would fall into serious error in a hurry. I’m sure you can appreciate why I made that statement. In your own experience, I’m certain that you have seen denials of Christian teaching on the Trinity and other doctrines within non-Catholic circles. If I did not have the Catholic Church and if you did not have a Protestant tradition to guide you, but only had the bible, there is no telling what we might believe.

cont. on next post

 

[Pax]

cont. from prior post

As Catholics we believe our teachers to be true to the full meaning of the word of God because our teachers and understandings of scripture come through the unbroken chain of “the laying on of hands” through the apostles.

I could not place that kind of confidence in a figure from the Reformation, or subsequent off-shoots, because they deviate from the long standing beliefs held by the original Christian Church through the ages and their interpretations of scripture are simply that, “interpretations.” I don’t mean that perjoratively, but I point it out because interpretation seems to be crucial here. When we reduce it to the bottom line, we are looking at the question of authority. As Catholics we believe we have a Christ authorized authority in the Church to protect and interpret scripture, as opposed to “Sola Scriptura” which allows for various interpretations which must by definition have at least some equality since there exists no other authority to differentiate between them. Exegesis, in and of itself, is simply not enough.

 

[Mathetes007]

Kinsman:

But by His sovereign grace and according to His prophetic Word He promises to bring her back to Him…The O.T. Hebrew prophets are replete with "restoring the Kingdom to Israel in the last days. They will bear testimony of Jesus “*in that day” *(Is. 61:1-9; 62:1-12; 65:17-25; Zech. 12:10; 14:8-9; 16; Acts 15:16-18; Rom. 11:25-29)

For those that have time to read the following lengthy discussions in regards to the fulfillment of OT prophecies by Christ in the NT, Israel’s reaction at Christ’s Second Coming, and what the OT prophets meant by the “last days” or “that day” in prophecy according to the NT writers see

catholicintl.com/epologetics/sungenis_pacheco.asp

catholicintl.com/epologetics/camerondialogue.asp

catholicintl.com/epologetics/zionism.asp

catholicintl.com/epologetics/Romans11.htm

catholicintl.com/epologetics/dialoguewithProtestant.asp

 

[Kinsman]

Pax:

I have to say that the posts of Mathetes007 are as good an exegesis as you will find, and that includes those efforts that Protestants would use to justify your position. While you seem extremely confident in your final statement that “the woman” can only mean Israel, there are numerous biblical scholars that believe that it can mean Israel, it can refer to the Church, or that it can refer to Mary.

First of all I demonstrated in a previous post how the woman in Rev. 12 could not possibly mean either the Church or Mary. She could not be the Church because the Church did not produce Christ (the Male child to whom she gives birth and who is subsequently caught up to God’s throne), The only thing in common with Mary and the woman is child birth. But the overall description of the woman and what happens to her after she gives birth clearly prevents her from specifically being Mary (see my previous post).

Secondly, Mathetes007’s post was not based on an exegetical study of the Scriptures. Most of his commentary came straight out of RC theology, based on Augustinian Amillennialism. In fact ALL forms of Amillennialism, whether “Catholic” or “Protestant,” are developed not from an exegetical study of the Scriptures (especially prophetic) but the presupposition that God is forever finished with national Israel. A conclusion that is impossible to arrive at when one allows the Word of God to speak for itself. Not bringing to the study table your own presuppositions and conform the Scriptures to them.

As I said, Pax, the Old Testament Hebrew prophets, both major and minor, are replete with God restoring the Kingdom to national Israel; and this anticipation and expectation did not diminished with the N.T. but carried over. Just before Christ’s ascension His Jewish Apostles asked Him if it was at this time He was “restoring the Kingdom to Israel.” He did not rebuke them by saying they erred by misinterpreting the prophets, but only in their timing (Acts 1:6-8). At this time they were to be His witnesses concerning His death and bodily resurrection, and what this soteriologically entailed for all men. At the first Church Council in Jerusalem this national hope was again referred to by James quoting the prophet Amos saying that, “after these things” (the building of His Church, calling it out of both Jews and Gentiles by grace) He would return and rebuild the tabernacle of David which has fallen…rebuild it ruins…and restore it." The “tabernacle of David” is the theocratic kingdom rule unconditionally promised to King David, assuring that one of his descendants would sit on his throne forever (2 Sam. 7; Ps. 89). This Kingdom is earthly and for this reason Jesus will return (Rev. 19; cf. Zech. 14). Mary herself was told that the Child she would conceive would “*be great and the Lord God would give Him the throne of His father David; and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever; and His kingdom will have no end” *(Lk. 1:32-33). Paul in Romans eleven plainly speaks of national Israel’s future “fulfillment” (vs. 12), their future “acceptance” (vs. 15), their being grafted back into God’s sovereign plan (vs. 24), and “all Israel will be saved” (vs. 26; cf. Mic. 2:12). This all fits in perfectly with the description of the woman in Rev. 12… Continued…

 

[Kinsman]

We believe that the differing views of scripture prove that sola scriptura does not work…The whole problem boils down to who you wish to believe. .

You’ll excuse my bluntness, but this is a very naive statement. Spiritual despotism might remove the problem of controversy by stifling the freedom of men to think for themselves, but such systems never last - the Reformation. Even the Bereans were deemed noble-minded because they received the word of Christ with great eagerness, but tested the teachings of Paul and Silas against the Scriptures. This “you simply tell me what to believe” mentality is nowhere sanctioned in Scripture. Not even the Apostles taught such a concept for the Church.

The whole problem does not boil down to WHO you wish to believe, but WHAT you wish to believe. You don’t alleviate error by assigning infallibility to an ecclesiastical elite - oh no, in fact you drastically increase it, since all are then conditioned to accept their direction without question. *By what objectivity are they tested? *The issue presented here is not a matter of “Sola Scriptura,” but hermeneutics. Not bringing to the study table your own presuppositions (or that of your "magesterium). Let the Word of God speak for itself. The study of God’s inerrant Word, granted, is not an easy task, but most Christians, Catholic and Protestant alike, are lazy when it comes to this discipline. But Roman Catholics, like all who first swear allegiance to a particular religion or doctrine (a cultish mentality), have a greater disadvantage and will find it virtually impossible to do an honest exegetical study of the Scriptures.

We have the Scriptures to study and test the teachings of men and church. All true believers should take advantage of what God has given us. You might even see that according to the Scriptures salvation truly is by grace through faith alone, and it’s no accident that Israel is back as a nation in it’s ancient homeland, according to God’s prophetic Word which He is watching over to perform (Jer. 1:12).

 

[MariaG]

coming out of the Protestant churches, I stand on Scripture. In 1 Tim 3:15 the church is called the pillar and foundation of truth. Either those promises still hold true, the church Christ founded still teaches truth or the Bible is not true. If God can’t keep His promises why bother being a Christian of any denomination?

 

[Pax]

Kinsman:

…The study of God’s inerrant Word, granted, is not an easy task, but most Christians, Catholic and Protestant alike, are lazy when it comes to this discipline. But Roman Catholics, like all who first swear allegiance to a particular religion or doctrine (a cultish mentality), have a greater disadvantage and will find it virtually impossible to do an honest exegetical study of the Scriptures.

We have the Scriptures to study and test the teachings of men and church. All true believers should take advantage of what God has given us. You might even see that according to the Scriptures salvation truly is by grace through faith alone, and it’s no accident that Israel is back as a nation in it’s ancient homeland, according to God’s prophetic Word which He is watching over to perform (Jer. 1:12).

Kinsman,

I’ll stand by my post. You have presented your interpretation of scripture in your prior posts. Your statement about “lazy” Catholics and Protestants is absurb. Our so called “allegiance to a particular religion or doctrine” is simply the total submission and surrender to Jesus Christ and His church which “is the pillar and bullwark of the truth.” I find this to be much more in keeping with the will of God as presented in scripture than to claim that I can interpret scripture on my own. I can only assume that you believe us to be lazy, only because we do not agree with your view. We do not have a “cultish mentality” unless it is cultish to follow the words of our Divine Savior. We differ in our views of authority. Unless I have misunderstood you, I can only assume that you are your own authority when it comes to scripture.

And since you brought it up "We are saved by grace alone, through the merits of Jesus Christ, through faith and works, but not by faith alone. And that my friend is exegetically correct. Your statement contradicts the one place in scripture where the words faith and alone are used together which we read in James 2:24 “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.” That is the teaching of the apostles and it was never changed in Christendom until the Reformation. The one true Church, however, never fell into the error of teaching that we are saved by faith alone.

 

[Kinsman]

MariaG:

coming out of the Protestant churches, I stand on Scripture. In 1 Tim 3:15 the church is called the pillar and foundation of truth. Either those promises still hold true, the church Christ founded still teaches truth or the Bible is not true.

First of all, *“pillar” *and “foundation” are support systems. That passage is stating that the Church is a supporter “of the truth” (that little prepositional phrase puts it in perspective), it is not stating that the Church IS the truth. Secondly, the Church as defined in that passage as "the household of God," not the church of Rome. Not by any stretch of the imagination could this possibly be referring to the church of Rome. Yes, I know Rome makes such a boast, but it’s an empty one. The Church was not “founded” in Rome but began to be built in Jerusalem and is still *being built, *being made up of all true believers called out from each successive generation since Pentecost (Acts 2) to this present moment.

If God can’t keep His promises why bother being a Christian of any denomination?

There’s no “promise” stated in this passage. It’s a statement. Jesus Christ Himself is the truth (Jn. 14:6), and the truth about Him is still being supported by the “universal” Church (again, not referring to Rome). The “Reformation,” with great struggle, got back again to the simplicity of the Gospel based on the revealed, written Word of God. The simplicity of salvation by grace through faith alone.

Since the beginning it’s been about abiding in GOD’S WORD, not the words of angels, not men, not a hierarchy headquatered in Rome. Deviating from His Word is how Adam and Eve got us into this mess in the first place. For this reason the Bible must be taken seriously and studied diligently for what IT has to say. Not reading into it your own preconceived ideas, or those of any established church, Roman or Protestant. The Church is the Body of Christ and the Body of Christ is the Church. The Church does not transcend the Body of Christ, it is the Body, they are one and the same. And the head of the Body is Christ (see Eph. 1:15-23).

 

[Delgadoajj]

Kinsman:

Had it not been for the reformation father’s disobedience, we would not be debating these points. The fact remains that there was only one church founded by Christ. The fact also remains that deviating from this Church produces other churches with their own interpretations of the Bible. This is not the will of God. This division does not come from God, these various interpretations of the same thing do not come from God. There is only one Truth, and the whole of that Truth is contained in the Catholic Church.

Do you think God wants us to be debating over whether Peter was the first Pope? Of course not. Do you think God wants us to be debating about the Real Presence in the Eucharist? Of course not. These are issues that were established long before the Protestant Reformation. There was only one church. Division from this one Church came about bacause of disobedience. As long as each person tries to interpret the Sacred Scriptures his/her oun way, there will be a lot of confusion , contrasting points of view and debates such as this one.

If you interpret one reading one way, and I interpret the same reading my way, and our interpretations contradict each other, and at the same time we both say that the Holy Spirit is guiding us, how do you break that stale-mate? There has to be an established authority here on earth that we can turn to for the answer. Jesus gave that power of authority to His Church on the day of Pentecost.

We need to pray together so that all christians can come back to the Church Jesus founded. This is the only way we will fully become ONE again.

Jorge

 

[MariaG]

But the Bible itself tells us things are not easy to understand. If the Bible spoke for itself, we would not have so many different denominations teaching what the “Bible” says. I will go with the Biblical interpretation of the early Church Fathers who walked and talked with the apostles, not some man who lived 1500 years (or more) after the fact.

 

[Kinsman]

Jorge:

Had it not been for the reformation father’s disobedience, we would not be debating these points.

Jorge, had the Roman church not replaced the authority of God’s Word with itself, and if it had built its doctrines on an exegetical study of God’s written Word, and had not introduced, as articles of faith, extraordinary, extrabiblical dogmas, then we would not be having to debate these points.

One might argue, ah, but the Church was established before the Scriptures. That’s true! Just as national Israel was established before the Law. However, the Law became Israel’s divine guide and authority, just as the New Testament Scriptures became the divine guide and authority over the Church (even the Roman church). Both the Law and the New Testament Scriptures are God’s written Word. Intrinsically, they wield divine authority.

 

[Kinsman]

Pax…

According to an exegetical study of all the New Testament Epistles, salvation is by faith alone. But it is certainly true that the faith that saves is not alone; salvation faith produces good works. James does not contradict Paul’s soteriology. In fact, Paul states in Eph. 2:8-10 that salvation is by GRACE, through FAITH, a GIFT of God, stating emphatically that it is not a result of works, for the definitive reason “lest any man should boast” (i.e., prohibiting anyone from deceiving himself and ultimately claiming salvation based on personal merit).
It is in verse ten that Paul and James reveal their harmony, where he says of those saved by GRACE through FAITH: "For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works (not by good works, mind you), which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them."

James reasons, *“But someone may well say, ‘You have faith, and I have works;’ show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.’” *He is establishing here that salvation faith is demonstrable. Faith is the main consideration here, not salvation. He says “I will show you my faith - by my works.” The suggestion that works play a deciding role in the divine impartation of salvation is a completely foreign concept here. The man saved by grace through faith is a new creature, created in Christ Jesus FOR good works. Both James and Paul reveal that the true believer has a whole new identity, now being IN CHRIST. So-called faith that demonstrates no works is as dead as the unbeliever IN ADAM.

 

[SP38]

MariaG:

coming out of the Protestant churches, I stand on Scripture. In 1 Tim 3:15 the church is called the pillar and foundation of truth. Either those promises still hold true, the church Christ founded still teaches truth or the Bible is not true. If God can’t keep His promises why bother being a Christian of any denomination?

Keep reading in 1 Timothy 4…

 

[MariaG]

Some may walk away. That is true anywhere. The early church (as well as current) denounced those who strayed from the truth. The Bible warns us of this. It does not say the church will no longer teach truth. People will stray. People will teach untruth. But The church will be held as a pillar and foundation of truth. And Christ established but one church, the catholic church, home of the original Christian!

God Bless

 

[Pax]

Pax…

According to an exegetical study of all the New Testament Epistles, salvation is by faith alone. But it is certainly true that the faith that saves is not alone; salvation faith produces good works. James does not contradict Paul’s soteriology. In fact, Paul states in Eph. 2:8-10 that salvation is by GRACE, through FAITH, a GIFT of God, stating emphatically that it is not a result of works, for the definitive reason “lest any man should boast” (i.e., prohibiting anyone from deceiving himself and ultimately claiming salvation based on personal merit).
It is in verse ten that Paul and James reveal their harmony, where he says of those saved by GRACE through FAITH: "For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works (not by good works, mind you), which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them."

James reasons, "But someone may well say, ‘You have faith, and I have works;’ show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.’" He is establishing here that salvation faith is demonstrable. Faith is the main consideration here, not salvation. He says “I will show you my faith - by my works.” The suggestion that works play a deciding role in the divine impartation of salvation is a completely foreign concept here. The man saved by grace through faith is a new creature, created in Christ Jesus FOR good works. Both James and Paul reveal that the true believer has a whole new identity, now being IN CHRIST. So-called faith that demonstrates no works is as dead as the unbeliever IN ADAM.

While I would agree that Eph 2:8-10 is “one” of the verses that connect Paul and James, you are simply wrong when you twist scripture to deny the clear teaching of James. James uses the word “justify” and He knows the meaning of the word. James does not say what you say. Instead of saying, “faith that saves is not alone” as you do, James says " You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone." He goes on to say in verse 2:26 that “For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead.” Your change in the words changes the meaning. This is not superior exegesis, but is instead twisting the words of scripture to your own destruction.

I expect you to respond and that is welcome, but I really think this subject is for another thread. In fact there are numerous threads on this board that address this issue and they are all worth a read.

 

[Pax]

Kinsman:

Jorge, had the Roman church not replaced the authority of God’s Word with itself, and if it had built its doctrines on an exegetical study of God’s written Word, and had not introduced, as articles of faith, extraordinary, extrabiblical dogmas, then we would not be having to debate these points.

One might argue, ah, but the Church was established before the Scriptures. That’s true! Just as national Israel was established before the Law. However, the Law became Israel’s divine guide and authority, just as the New Testament Scriptures became the divine guide and authority over the Church (even the Roman church). Both the Law and the New Testament Scriptures are God’s written Word. Intrinsically, they wield divine authority.

The Church did not replace the authority of God’s word with itself. That is an empty accusation. The Church has its authority explicitly granted by Jesus, Himself. It is much easier for us to make your accusation against the Catholic Church against you. You have placed yourself as “the authority” on the interpretation of scripture. You have assigned the Divine authority granted by Jesus to His Church to yourself. Your extra biblical declarations such as being “saved by faith alone” are not based on Divine authority, are not based on sound exegesis, and go against the Divine authority that is found in scripture. You have replaced the teachings of scripture and the Church established by Jesus Christ with a tradition of men. These men are Martin Luther and John Calvin.

 

[Kinsman]

Pax:

You have assigned the Divine authority granted by Jesus to His Church to yourself.

I have much more I could say on my exegesis of James and Paul. However, like you say, we’re off topic. But regarding the authority to interpet Scripture, you said Jesus granted authority only to His Church. I am part of the Body of Christ, hence I am part of the Church. I have as much “authority” (as you say) to read and interpret the written Word of God as anyone else in the Body of Christ. Can you tell me where Jesus assigned this task only to the magesterium of the Roman Church? Please don’t use the phrase “private interpretation” and reference the 1 Pet. 1:20-21 passage. (1) The passage has nothing to do with interpreting Scripture, but the origin of prophecy. (2) It says nothing about handing the “authority” of Scripture interpretation to Rome’s magesterium. So, will you guide me to the text?

P.S. Did Augustine submit to Rome’s magesterium? Did the patristic writers?

 

[jonman]

:tsktsk: Look it is really quite simple, both the immaculate conception and the assumption of Mary.

Jesus was the only person ever to have created His own Mother. Now if you had the ability to do that; create your own mother, wouldn’t you want to make her perfect. Well she was perfect in being born without origional sin, all during her life, and in death.

O’K ? Thank you.

 

[mrS4ntA]

Kinsman:

I
…
Did Augustine submit to Rome’s magesterium? Did the patristic writers?

Funny you should ask that, 'coz the answer is a BIG FAT YES!!

In fact, St Augustine was the originator of the maxim:

“Roma locuta est, causa finita est” – Rome has spoken, the matter is settled.

and also:

“I would not believe in the Gospel myself in the Church did not move me to do so…”