The Virgin Mary

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ginger2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Good Fella.

I read your your first paragraph in post # #684.

Then I stopped reading. I agree completely with what you have written .
I did not read any farther as I expect you were trying to convince me of what you said in that first paragraph.
 
The truth is that there were many things revealed to the Apostles that did not get written down.
Yes indeed. Take the Gospels for instance. If you take all 4 of them and make a single writing, you have only 2 hours worth of reading(teaching) Jesus’ ministry at the least lasted 1 year and at the most 3 years. Let’s go conservative with the 1 year ministry. Let’s assume Jesus only taught for 1 hour each day. 2 hours of teaching in the new testament out of 365 total teaching hours. That renders only 1/2 of 1 percent.

So let us put a relationship in the grahpical visual:

0 = what is contained in the new testament Gospels

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000 = what Jesus did and said over a 1 year period.
 
Joey,

How long did it take for Jesus to totally transform the Apostle Paul?
 
Joey,
How long did it take for Jesus to totally transform the Apostle Paul?
totally transform? Is that in scripture( appealing to your scripture alone mentality)? I think Paul’s transformation was an ongoing experience for Paul according to scripture.
 
Joey,

How long did it take for Jesus to totally transform the Apostle Paul?
Red herring. Whatever He did to the Apostle Paul makes no difference to whether the Bible is the sum total of Christ’s teaching or apostolic teaching. Which there’s no way on earth it is. And if you’re putting yourself on the same level as the Apostle Paul or expecting a ‘road to Damascus’ for everyone then you’ve got serious pride issues and delusions of other sorts.

If anything it makes our case - at the time of Paul’s conversion there WAS no Bible. Yet Paul still knew what he had to do - go and visit Peter and the other apostles to get their blessing on his teaching before he set off as a missionary. They didn’t refer him to the scriptures, they weren’t written yet! Neither did he simply wander around Europe with a copy of the OT in his hand.

This is how things still work, by the way, with teh successors of Peter and those same apostles, now it is the Catholic Church that stands for Him and teaches His revelation without error and guided by His protection which He promised to the end of the age, and His Holy Spirit.
 
How long did it take for Jesus to totally transform the Apostle Paul?
May I ask what you mean by this?

He was, literally, “blinded by the light” (cf. Acts 9:3,8). He stayed with Ananias and the other disciples in Damascus for a while (cf. Acts 9:19) before preaching in Arabia. What he did in Arabia, and what success he had there, we do not know. He makes it clear in other letters that baptism was not his primary objective (cf. 1 Cor 1:17). I don’t know of any churches he established in Arabia at this time. Luke, in writing Acts, glosses over this period of Paul’s life.

But what do you mean about being totally transformed? He talks about working out one’s salvation with “fear and trembling” (Phil 2:12). He talks about mastering his body so that he may not be disqualified (cf. 1 Cor 9:26-27). He talks about receiving a “thorn in the flesh” so as not to become too elated (2 Cor 12:7). It is near the end of his life, in his second letter to Timothy, that he finally states that he has “kept the faith” (2 Tim 4:7).
 
Look how Irenaeus parallels Mary to Jesus

Mary, …being obedient, was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race. . . . (Against Heresies 3:22:24 [A.D. 189]).

Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him; (Hbr 5:8-9 the HOLY BIBLE)

This I find troubling. Jesus made himself “equal to God” because he is God. But drawing these parallels between Mary and Jesus is, to put it mildly, over-reaching.

The same goes for stating the Mary is the “New Eve” because Scripture tells us Jesus is the New Adam.
I think you see this as “over-reaching” because you are looking at Jesus as purely God, and not also as MAN. Mary is not comparable to Jesus as God, but in His role as MAN, and the New Adam, He plays a role in obedience and dutifulness to God that rights the wrongs of the first Adam. As a Woman, Mary, by doing rather than rejecting God’s will, performs a similar role with respect to Eve.
 
The point about Paul is that Jesus didn’t have to spend years teaching. God can do things in an instant.

In one evening Jesus opened the minds to of the men on the road to Emmaus.

"When he had seated himself with them to eat, he took bread, pronounced the blessing, and then broke the bread and distributed it to them. With that their eyes were opened and they recognized him; whereupon he vanished from their sight. They said to one another, “Were not our hearts burning inside us as he talked to us on the road and explained the scriptures to us?”

Likewise, Paul’s spiritual eyes were opened when Jesus appeared to him.

I am responding to the accusation that Scriptures are insufficient because everything Jesus ever did and said is not written in them. My point is that God has saw to it that everything we need to know is written within the Scriptures.
Our salvation is not based upon Mary’s perfection. It is Jesus who brings us salvation.
 
My point is that God has saw to it that everything we need to know is written within the Scriptures.

Ginger, I agree that the scriptures are inspired and infallible.
But they are NOT written in the form of a Catechism.
If they WERE, none of us would disagree with each other’s scriptural viewpoint.

Does the Holy Ghost help us understand scripture?
Yes, he does, but as individuals we are not infallible interpreters, even with the help of the Holy Ghost. If we WERE with His help able to interpret them perfectly, then Evangelical denominations would not disagree with each other based upon their interpretations of the scriptures.
Calvin taught “double predestination,” based on his interpretation of the scriptures. Other Evangelicals disagree vehemently with Calvin’s view, and they disagree based on their interpretation of the scriptures. My point is, Christ made provision of authority within his Church for the proper understanding of important things in the written word. That authority is
a) the Bishops of the Church gathered in an Ecumenical (not local) Council which Council is then ratified by the successor of St. Peter and
b) in certain (extremely rare) cases by the Pope alone ((after careful and meticulous and prayerful study on his part)) when,
and ONLY WHEN, issuing an extraordinary Dogmatic Definition
ex-Cathedra. and
c) teachings which have always been the common consensus
of the Church’s bishops and presbyters.
By common consensus, I mean that the entire Church as a whole was united on the doctrine, not that there weren’t a few people here and there who expressed disagreement. There will ALWAYS be people who dissent from the duly constituted authority of the Church. They are in rebellion as were the Sons of Korah in the Old Testament were in rebellion against Moses.
(( Today’s Protestants, born and raised in evangelicalism
for many hundreds of years since the 16th century,
would not directly qualify as being the same as the Sons
of Korah, for these people have for the most part never
been Catholics and have never fully understood Catholic
doctrine ))
God bless,
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+
 
Jay “none of us would disagree with each other’s scriptural viewpoint.”

There would still be disagreement because of freewill. People like to justify what they do and want. The Bible tells us so.

2 TIMOTHY
4:3 For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the healthful teaching, but, in accord with their own desires, the will accumulate teachers for themselves to have their ears tickled.,
4:4 …and they will turn their ears away from the truth, whereas they will be turned aside to false stories.

If you are wondering what translation this is from, it is the JW. I used it to witness to the Witnesses. 🙂
 
The point about Paul is that Jesus didn’t have to spend years teaching. God can do things in an instant.
We all agree on that point. You will also acknowledge the issue that Mary was saved at conception solely on the principle and rendering of Kecharitomene.
In one evening Jesus opened the minds to of the men on the road to Emmaus. …Likewise, Paul’s spiritual eyes were opened when Jesus appeared to him.
Jesus never appeared to him. The voice of Jesus spoke to him yes, but Paul never saw the actual visage of Christ. Neither did his cohorts see Jesus either, they just heard a voice. This indicates a twisted perception of scripture.
I am responding to the accusation that Scriptures are insufficient because everything Jesus ever did and said is not written in them.
Red herring. No catholic makes the claims that Scriptures are insufficient. Scripture is materially sufficient but not formally sufficient. Scripture is “A” word of God but it is not “THE” word of God.
My point is that God has saw to it that everything we need to know is written within the Scriptures.
Can this be proven from scripture?
Our salvation is not based upon Mary’s perfection.
Agreed.
It is Jesus who brings us salvation.
Agreed. But the narrow path to that state of salvation is laden with commandments and directives.
 
Joey, “Jesus never appeared to him.”

You are nit-picking over my choice of wording… and wrong.

It was the men who were with Paul that saw nothing -verse 7.

Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord? 1 Cor 9:1

And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. 1Cr 15:8
 
The lack of mention of this in the NT does not mean the doctrine has no Apostolic origin.
Then it must be demonstrated, somehow, somewhere, within those writings that assert those non-Biblical, Marian doctrines. NONE do. So far what I see is that your church just embraced those doctrines (personal opinions) as dogma and by its own self-proclaimed, Apostolic, authority branded them “Apostolic.” But no proof, whatsoever, was ever provided. Could such a claim hold up in a court of law? Hardly! Where’s there’s no evidence it must be thrown out. Which is exactly what happened.
I think this is an error. No new public revelation occurred after the death of the last Apostle. However, there are things that were revealed that were understood more gradually over time, like the two natures of Christ, the nature of the Trinity,
I agree. But that’s because the “things” that were more fully understood were preserved in Holy Writ which could be studied.
the need to define the canon,
Actually I think that was first expressed by Constantine.
and the doctrines of Mary.
Mary’s IC wasn’t something understood over time. The doctrine was later taught by men and by means of eisegeses, Lk. 1:28 was used to support it. It wasn’t accepted as dogma until the 1800s. Rev. 12 was said to support the post-Apostolic doctrine of Mary’s heavenly coronation. But the text does not reveal “the woman” to be in heaven at all. Neither the text or context of those two passages can help anyone to more fully “understand” those two Marian dogmas. They’re read into the text.

Where was the bodily Assumption of Mary first revealed, and how then was it more fully “understood” centuries later?
The truth is that there were many things revealed to the Apostles that did not get written down.
Then you must somehow prove their Apostolic origin, not just assert it.
No, he is saying that there are doctrines written about within them that are holy Spirit inspired, such as the Marian Doctrines.
So you’re now claiming “partial” inspiration of those writing??? :eek: That the Spirit co-Authored some parts of them? My O my!
 
Joey “Can this be proven from Scripture?”

Jhn 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
 
Joey “Can this be proven from Scripture?”

Jhn 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
Jews of today read those self-same Scriptures - those exact same things that were written that we might believe in Jesus - at Synagogue every Friday night, yet they do not find Jesus in them.

Why not? 🤷

(Because they aren’t even looking for Him, first of all, and secondly, because it is only from the Tradition of the Church that we know that those passages are prophecies about Jesus. So, in order to find Jesus in the Old Testament, the Jews would first of all have to be told (oral teaching) that He can be found there, and secondly, someone would have to explain to them (again, via oral teaching) the correlation between the prophetic passages and the actual life of Christ. Of course, zeroeth, they would have to be willing to listen to the Oral Tradition, in the first place.)
 
Good Fella,

I’ll wait.

Please ask your friend also if the word “full” was written in the original Greek text of Luke 1:28.
According to my acquaintance, a Catholic theologian, the word “full” is inclusive within one word ‘kecharitomene’ “Hail, full of Grace.” This is the perfect passive participle of a verb: having been graced. However, the Greek is not the sole authority. The early Church began to use Latin, the vernacular language of the Roman empire, and so translated Luke’s Greek into Latin according to the understanding of the passage in the Church by that time. Although translations are not inspired, the Holy Spirit continuously protects the scriptures so that no truths are completely lost or obscured.

Concerning Genesis 3:15, Jerome’s use of ‘ipsa’ is feminine, referring both to the woman Eve and the woman Mary, the New Eve: Jerome’s emphasis of how the Church had already viewed Mary in God’s plan of salvation. Some ancient manuscripts have the feminine and others the masculine. Both forms are correct. There is not one original Hebrew source. There are very many manuscripts of various biblical books, and they often disagree as to the exact wording. So either masculine or feminine forms of pronouns are correct, since the enmities are between the serpent and the woman, as well as between her offspring and the serpent’s offspring (original sin / followers of the devil). All followers of Jesus, including Mary, are at enmity with the devil.

As I understand, we see from the very beginning that God gives Mary a unique role in the history of salvation. God says, “I will put enmity between you and the woman, between your seed and her seed.” This refers to Jesus ( the “enmity”) and Mary (the “woman”). The phrase “her seed” (spermatos) is not seen elsewhere in Scripture. The new Adam is fashioned from the new Eve, indicating the start of a radical reversal in the state of mankind.

The Scriptures begin and end with the woman battling Satan. Eve did not battle with Satan but conceded. She is a type of follower of the devil. This points to the power of the woman with the seed and teaches us that Jesus and Mary are the new Adam and new Eve (Cf. Gen 3:15; Rev 12:1). Jerome was probably stressing this unveiled truth about Mary’s role in our salvation.

In John 2:4, 19:26, Jesus calls Mary “woman” as she is called in Genesis 3:15 and Revelation 12:1. Just as Eve was the mother of the old creation, Mary is the mother of the new creation. This woman’s seed will crush the serpent’s skull after the woman gives birth to her offspring. Mary is portrayed as our intercessor at the right hand of her Son at the wedding feast, and she is presented to us by her Son as our spiritual mother at the foot of the cross just before our Lord dies for our sins, finishing Satan’s reign on earth: the fulfillment of the prophecy in Genesis 3:15. So the feminine form of ‘ipsa’ is not inappropriate at all. Mother and Son are together at the start and end of Jesus’ divine mission. Revelation 12 depicts this divine scenerio.

They were overjoyed at seeing the star, and on entering the house they saw the child with Mary his mother. {Matthew 2:11}

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella :cool:
 
jm, "Jews of today read those self-same Scriptures "

Jews read the NT!!! !:extrahappy: Now now that’s something to rejoice in!
 
jm, "Jews of today read those self-same Scriptures "

Jews read the NT!!! !:extrahappy: Now now that’s something to rejoice in!
The Apostles had no New Testament Scriptures to refer to. It hadn’t been written yet.

“These things are written” is referring to the Old Testament, since that was the only Scripture that had yet been written down.
 
jm, Look at what the last 2 verses say:

30 N**ow Jesus did many other signs in the presence of (his) disciples that are not written in this book. **
31 But these are written that you may (come to) believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through this belief you may have life in his name.

He is speaking of the Gospel he just wrote.
 
Joey, “Jesus never appeared to him.”

You are nit-picking over my choice of wording… and wrong.

It was the men who were with Paul that saw nothing -verse 7.

Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord? 1 Cor 9:1

And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. 1Cr 15:8
Have you ever considered that you are nit-picking with us Catholics? Honestly?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top