- Status
J
jericho777
Guest
The question was asked earlier of who the offspring of the woman are in Rev 11:17 “Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to make war against the rest of her offspring—those who obey God’s commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus.”
The answer can be found in Rev 7:1-4”After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth to prevent any wind from blowing on the land or on the sea or on any tree. 2Then I saw another angel coming up from the east, having the seal of the living God. He called out in a loud voice to the four angels who had been given power to harm the land and the sea: 3“Do not harm the land or the sea or the trees until we put a seal on the foreheads of the servants of our God.” 4Then I heard the number of those who were sealed: 144,000 from all the tribes of Israel.” They are Jews who proclaim the gospel during the tribulation.
The answer can be found in Rev 7:1-4”After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth to prevent any wind from blowing on the land or on the sea or on any tree. 2Then I saw another angel coming up from the east, having the seal of the living God. He called out in a loud voice to the four angels who had been given power to harm the land and the sea: 3“Do not harm the land or the sea or the trees until we put a seal on the foreheads of the servants of our God.” 4Then I heard the number of those who were sealed: 144,000 from all the tribes of Israel.” They are Jews who proclaim the gospel during the tribulation.
P
panevino
Guest
regarding the discussion on consent
i thought this was relevant.
Irenaeus - Against Heresies, Book V. Chapter XIX
…by which that virgin Eve, who was already espoused to a man, was unhappily misled,-was happily announced, through means of the truth [spoken] by the angel to the Virgin Mary, who was [also espoused] to a man.168 For just as the former was led astray by the word of an angel, so that she fled from God when she had transgressed His word; so did the latter, by an angelic communication, receive the glad tidings that she should sustain (portaret) God, being obedient to His word. And if the former did disobey God, yet the latter was persuaded to be obedient to God, in order that the Virgin Mary might become the patroness169 (advocata) of the virgin Eve. And thus, as the human race fell into bondage to death by means of a virgin, so is it rescued by a virgin; virginal disobedience having been balanced in the opposite scale by virginal obedience…
The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus Chapter 12* …Bearing this tree and displaying its fruit, you shall always gather in those things which are desired by God, which the Serpent cannot reach, and to which deception does not approach; nor is Eve then corrupted, but is trusted as a virgin; and salvation is manifested, and the Apostles are filled with understanding, and the Passover of the Lord advances, and the choirs are gathered together, and are arranged in proper order, and the Word rejoices in teaching the saints—by whom the Father is glorified: to whom be glory for ever. Amen. *
i thought this was relevant.
Irenaeus - Against Heresies, Book V. Chapter XIX
…by which that virgin Eve, who was already espoused to a man, was unhappily misled,-was happily announced, through means of the truth [spoken] by the angel to the Virgin Mary, who was [also espoused] to a man.168 For just as the former was led astray by the word of an angel, so that she fled from God when she had transgressed His word; so did the latter, by an angelic communication, receive the glad tidings that she should sustain (portaret) God, being obedient to His word. And if the former did disobey God, yet the latter was persuaded to be obedient to God, in order that the Virgin Mary might become the patroness169 (advocata) of the virgin Eve. And thus, as the human race fell into bondage to death by means of a virgin, so is it rescued by a virgin; virginal disobedience having been balanced in the opposite scale by virginal obedience…
The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus Chapter 12* …Bearing this tree and displaying its fruit, you shall always gather in those things which are desired by God, which the Serpent cannot reach, and to which deception does not approach; nor is Eve then corrupted, but is trusted as a virgin; and salvation is manifested, and the Apostles are filled with understanding, and the Passover of the Lord advances, and the choirs are gathered together, and are arranged in proper order, and the Word rejoices in teaching the saints—by whom the Father is glorified: to whom be glory for ever. Amen. *
G
GreggAlvarez
Guest
This is REALLY getting to me. WE HAVE ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION NUMEROUS TIMES! And it is YOU who has not reasonably answered my objections. I give you 4 and your answer 2… In another post, I gave you about 10 objections and you answer two. How is that answering all of them?
You said “Lord” and “God” are the same thing. “I am the Lord, the God of all mankind.” “…mother of my Lord” is the same thing as Mother of God. I have kept in context. It is you that has failed to keep The Word, our words and your own words in its proper context. Although, by this time, it does not surprise anybody.
To my surprise, you did not answer my question.
“Hail Mary, full of grace. The Lord is with thee. Blessed are thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.”
What is wrong with this prayer?
The only thing that surprises me here is the unending creativity in twisting our words and parts of Scripture to conform AGAINST our teaching instead of FOR somebody. This is why we have the upper hand. We are defending with the presumption that we are right and maybe a little counter-attack here and there. You are attacking based on the premise that the Church is wrong and have no stronghold. Scriptures hardly count because no one can teach himself Scripture without help. We all need instruction in everything we do: reading, working, sports, academics, etc… But when it comes to the Bible (the most mysterious of books and certainly the hardest to comprehend), suddenly an individual can know everything there is to know? This is ridiculous, condescending and belittles the significance of Scripture. This is why we know that Marian dogmas are pure truth. We have instruction from the Church that is guarded from untruth by the Holy Spirit.
Mary is Mother of God. This is already proved and you have not refuted all the objections.
Messianic Jews do not exist. They may call themselves so but they are not. I have talked with Jews on this and they said exactly that. The Apostles may have started Jewish but clearly, by definition, are Christians. Revelations 12:17 is talking about Christians. As you would say, “Scriptures will not conform to you. It is the Word of God.”
You said “Lord” and “God” are the same thing. “I am the Lord, the God of all mankind.” “…mother of my Lord” is the same thing as Mother of God. I have kept in context. It is you that has failed to keep The Word, our words and your own words in its proper context. Although, by this time, it does not surprise anybody.
To my surprise, you did not answer my question.
“Hail Mary, full of grace. The Lord is with thee. Blessed are thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.”
What is wrong with this prayer?
The only thing that surprises me here is the unending creativity in twisting our words and parts of Scripture to conform AGAINST our teaching instead of FOR somebody. This is why we have the upper hand. We are defending with the presumption that we are right and maybe a little counter-attack here and there. You are attacking based on the premise that the Church is wrong and have no stronghold. Scriptures hardly count because no one can teach himself Scripture without help. We all need instruction in everything we do: reading, working, sports, academics, etc… But when it comes to the Bible (the most mysterious of books and certainly the hardest to comprehend), suddenly an individual can know everything there is to know? This is ridiculous, condescending and belittles the significance of Scripture. This is why we know that Marian dogmas are pure truth. We have instruction from the Church that is guarded from untruth by the Holy Spirit.
Mary is Mother of God. This is already proved and you have not refuted all the objections.
Messianic Jews do not exist. They may call themselves so but they are not. I have talked with Jews on this and they said exactly that. The Apostles may have started Jewish but clearly, by definition, are Christians. Revelations 12:17 is talking about Christians. As you would say, “Scriptures will not conform to you. It is the Word of God.”
P
paul_c
Guest
Moondweller is a debator. Its not that he misunderstands the text, just that he doesn’t accept it as written so he needs to modify it with his arguments. Rest assured, the only one he is fooling is himself. And while he does it, he gives us all an excellent forum to discuss the merits of the Catholic position.
P
paul_c
Guest
In reality, this is not really a debate. He doesn’t have to answer your questions. The way to look at it is that we are here to give Catholic answers to those that have questions. Now we all know Moondweller isn’t really here to learn about Catholicism, he’s here to convince people that Catholicism is wrong and the evangelicals are right. That is his perrogative. In doing so, he gives us all an excellent forum to teach. While our responses are directed at Moondweller, the real beneficiaries are the people reading these threads with an open mind and an open heart. The will discern who is right. In the meantime, we all learn more about our faith because people like Moondweller challenge us to . That is all to the good.
P
Pax
Guest
MD in Christ,Thank you, Pax!I certainly hope so. I don’t know them personally. Do you? But of course I don’t think Herod Agrippa was persuaded by Paul (Acts 26:28).
Do you?
Did you see my earlier post to GreggAlvarez?
I’ll take that as a yes since they are Christians. Now…do you or scripture, or both, indicate that unconverted Jews or unconverted gentiles bear testimony to Jesus? Or is it clear that only Christians bear testimony to Jesus?
God bless.
P
Pax
Guest
MD in Christ,
Actually, none of us took your question in the way you are now explaining it. Your question was never phrased that way and we never saw any of those indicators in your question.
Now…your question is still a failure because Catholics have done nothing extra biblical nor have we elevated Mary above what scripture indicates. Much of this thread has been devoted to explaining scripture to you in regards to Mary. You have simply disagreed with these explanations because they do not follow “your individual” views of the texts. Your interpretation is no better than any other, and from our point of view your interpretations are sorely lacking. You may view ours the same way, but you have absolutely no position of advantage nor do you have a shred of credibility that would match or exceed our own.
This is one of the problems with sola scriptura and individual interpretation of scripture. Everybody has just as much credibility as the other guy based upon their own fallible interpretations and doctrines. You are not an authority and are only rendering fallible guesses and objections. From your school of thought on sola scriptura and individual interpretation of scripture, it is virtually all up for grabs between competing individual interpretation. It basically turns everything into white noise and silly arguments over words which Paul tells us to avoid.
God bless.
P
paul_c
Guest
Moondweller,
there are two types of debating. One is to simply win an argument by virtue of superior arguing skills. The other is to get at the truth.
Why do you want to know if Mary is indispensible to Catholics? Is it because you want to be drawn closer to Jesus through the love of his mother and you want to know how that works? Or is it because you want to argue that Catholics are doing it wrong because we are distracted by doctrines you think are unbiblical?
P
Philthy
Guest
Gabriel was not asking permission, Mary did, however, give her consent. She consented (agreed) in the sense that since it be God’s will then she agrees, approves, complies and yields to Gods will and is in harmony with it.
con·sent sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/g/d/speaker.gif/kənˈsɛnt/ sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif Show Spelled
- to permit, approve,** or agree; comply or yield** (often fol. by to or an infinitive): He consented to the proposal. We asked her permission, and she consented.
- Archaic . to agree in sentiment, opinion, etc.; be in harmony.
- agreement in sentiment, opinion, a course of action, etc.: By common consent he was appointed official delegate.
- Archaic . accord; concord; harmony.
S
Shannon9791
Guest
I think I see the problem now. You take everything 100% at face value as written. My example included a child and a parent, yes, but it could have been any two people. I can tell my wife I am going to do something, and if what I want to do doesn’t suit her plans she can give me a yea or ney. My wife is not in a position of authority over me (I’m sure all the married men on here will agree with me there, huh), but she can still veto my thoughts. Not everything written in the Bible is to be taken literally. That’s where your problem comes with Revelation.
You claim you want us to answer your question. From where I sit, your question has been answered many times on this thread. Your original question “What is Catholicism without Mary? IOW, is there a Catholic faith without Mary?” was answered in the post immediately following the initial question. Since there have been a number of people who have answered your question, I’m not going to join in. It’s been beaten to death, but here’s a question for you and I expect an answer, although I probably won’t get one. Is there a Christian faith without Mary?
G
GreggAlvarez
Guest
Paul c,
I totally agree with your response to my previous post. I was just very frustrated and still am. I will be more reasonable next time. Sorry if I did not give a good representation of the Catholic position.
Moondweller,
“Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.”
What is wrong with this prayer?
I totally agree with your response to my previous post. I was just very frustrated and still am. I will be more reasonable next time. Sorry if I did not give a good representation of the Catholic position.
Moondweller,
“Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.”
What is wrong with this prayer?
E
EricFilmer
Guest
I showed way back in Post #144 that the interaction between Gabriel & Mary was that of consent being sought and given.
That post was TEN days ago! And yet you have done nothing so far to refute it.
So here is the material from Post #144 once more:
Generally speaking, consent can be requested in two different ways, and we see examples of both all the time in everyday life:
- I can ask for consent using an interrogative statement.
For example: I can say to you, “Moondweller, will you please answer my list of questions from Post #127?” - I can express to someone a plan that involves him, and await for him to either accept the plan or reject it.
For example: I can say to you, “Moondweller, I envision this forum as being a scholarly debate in which you answer the questions I posted in #127.”
Unless I intend to force you to comply (and naturally it is impossible for me to do so) it is obvious that you have a choice, and that you can either consent or not consent to the stated plan.
In both #1 and #2 above, I “asked” you for consent, it’s just a matter of how.
The dialog between Mary and Gabriel demonstrates what I described in #2. Because Gabriel would not force Mary to comply, Gabriel presented her with the plan and then waited for her to accept or reject it.
Keep in mind that Gabriel stated that Mary had been chosen to be the mother of the Messiah, but at the time he revealed this, she was not yet the mother. In other words, the plan was not already in effect, it was in the proposal stage. The details of the plan were in the future tense: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.” The Gospel of Luke shows the expression of a plan with the presentation of a choice to consent or not consent. So yes, along the lines of what I stated above in #2, Scripture demonstrates Gabriel asking Mary for consent. It just was not in terms of an interrogative statement.
Going back to your response to Shannon9791, the fact that Gabriel did not use the word “may” does nothing to refute my description of the different ways in which consent is sought and gained. Once again, you are insisting that consent is only sought with an interrogative statement (i.e., a question), and yet that is not how it always happens, as I demonstrated in Post #144.
In your above quote to Shannon9791 you are doing what you do over and over again.
If someone presents material that clearly refutes your interpretation, you just ignore it and pretend it never happened.
After all, how on earth could you make a statement like…
“If consent, or permission, was being sought there, then it would have been Gabriel who would have first used the word ‘may’ when confronting Mary”
…knowing full well that I proved in Post #144 that consent can be sought without even doing so in the form of a question?
I have reminded you of Post #144 on a number of occasions. And yet rather than concede that your interpretation of Luke is erroneous, you have repeatedly ignored Post #144 and just keep saying the same thing over and over again, that Mary did not give consent.
And what about all the Protestant scholars I quoted way back in Post #133?
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7296657&postcount
Was it THEIR intention to read catholic Marian doctrine into the text TOO???
Once again, in this debate you simply type the biblical text, claim that your interpretation is what is literally deduced from the text, and offer no other means of supporting your claim.
If this is the “literal translation”, and if Catholics read Marian doctrine into the text, then once again I challenge you to find ONE, just ONE, credible Protestant Scripture scholar or theologian who backs up your interpretation that Mary’s consent was not sought.
THIS IS NOW THE SIXTH TIME THAT I HAVE DIRECTLY CHALLENGED YOU TO DO THIS!
And now I will remind you YET AGAIN that I PROVED that Mary’s consent was sought and gained in Post #186. I have challenged you over and over again to give a “point-by-point” refutation of my material therein. And yet you have failed to do so.
So, one more time, here is the link to Post #186.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7301714&postcount=186
P
paul_c
Guest
Don’t get frustrated. Just keep everything in perspective. You are here to give Catholic answers. If someone doesn’t accept those answers, you have still done your job. And many others that you don’t see will benefit from your efforts.
M
moondweller
Guest
First of all “obedience” is not “consent.” Slaves are obedient, they don’t give consent to their masters.
But this is the theology of men, not the Scriptures. God’s Word doesn’t present the fall of man and the redemption of man at all through two women, but through two men.Rom 5:12-21 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned (i.e., in that ONE man) – for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. The gift is not like {that which came} through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment {arose} from one {transgression} resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift {arose} from many transgressions resulting in justification. For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous. The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace would reign (i.e, as king) through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."It’s about two men - not two women; two acts with two results. By one man. Adam: Judgment resulting in condemnation, guilt and death (vss. 15, 16, 18, 19; By one Man, Jesus Christ: Justification, life, kingship of GRACE (vss. 17, 18,19).
Irenaeus’ statement in “Against Heresies:” “And thus, as the human race fell into bondage to death by means of a virgin, so is it rescued by a virgin:” is itself heretical and anti-Scriptural. Remember Paul’s statement in Galatians: “A little leaven leavens the whole lump.” And so as a result you end up with an extrabiblical, highly exalted woman introduced into Christianity by men. This is the Mary I’d like to know if there can be a Catholicism without.
M
moondweller
Guest
Where did Gabriel ask her permission?
D
davidv
Guest
How does one obey? By “consenting” to the one giving the command.
Different words - same result.
M
moondweller
Guest
So, if you have a son and you give him a command and he obeys, that means he gives you consent to command?
D
davidv
Guest
What do you think?So, if you have a son and you give him a command and he obeys, that means he gives you consent to command?
E
EricFilmer
Guest
And yet ONCE AGAIN from post #144…
Generally speaking, consent can be requested in two different ways, and we see examples of both all the time in everyday life:
- I can ask for consent using an interrogative statement.
For example: I can say to you, “Moondweller, will you please answer my list of questions from Post #127?” - I can express to someone a plan that involves him, and await for him to either accept the plan or reject it.
For example: I can say to you, “Moondweller, I envision this forum as being a scholarly debate in which you answer the questions I posted in #127.”
Unless I intend to force you to comply (and naturally it is impossible for me to do so) it is obvious that you have a choice, and that you can either consent or not consent to the stated plan.
In both #1 and #2 above, I “asked” you for consent, it’s just a matter of how.
The dialog between Mary and Gabriel demonstrates what I described in #2. Because Gabriel would not force Mary to comply, Gabriel presented her with the plan and then waited for her to accept or reject it.
Keep in mind that Gabriel stated that Mary had been chosen to be the mother of the Messiah, but at the time he revealed this, she was not yet the mother. In other words, the plan was not already in effect, it was in the proposal stage. The details of the plan were in the future tense: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.” The Gospel of Luke shows the expression of a plan with the presentation of a choice to consent or not consent. So yes, along the lines of what I stated above in #2, Scripture demonstrates Gabriel asking Mary for consent. It just was not in terms of an interrogative statement.
Are you ever going to try to refute this, Moondweller? Or is it your intention to keep ignoring it?
- Status