C
cranster
Guest
I would like to apologize to justasking for being caustic in my last post. I was uncharitable, and I find it’s a very easy temptation to fall into when following these threads.
- Status
G
Good_Fella
Guest
We have an extant Marian prayer that dates back to about 250 A.D., the ‘Sub Tuum Praesidium’
“We fly to your patronage, O holy Mother of God;
despise not our petitions in our necessities, but
deliver us from all dangers, O ever and glorious Virgin.”
This prayer was among those reited by the persecuted Christians who hid in the catacombs in Rome. The early Church invoked Mary as Mother of God and Mother of the Church long before the Council of Ephesus took place. Church dogmas are defined and promulgated after a long-standing belief and devotion has existed among the pious faithful: the ‘sensus fidelium’. Such beliefs were formed by the teachings of the Apostolic authority of the Church and nurtured by its guidance. Mary invoked as Mother of God is not a fifth century production that has gone out of control. :nope:
“There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first possible and then impossible, even Jesus Christ our Lord.”
Ignatius of Antioch, ‘To the Ephesians’ ( c.A.D.110 )
Ignatius was the second bishop of Antioch, who was well acquainted with Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, a disciple of the apostle John.
The Word became flesh and dwelt among us. {John 1:14}
The Catholic Church has always believed and professed that the Word was divine before his conception in the womb of Mary when He took on our humanity in all things but sin.
“To be deep in history is to cease being Protestant.”
Cardinal John H Newman
Pax vobiscum
Good Fella
G
Ginger2
Guest
Quote Mannyfit: “But did Israel give birth to Jesus Literally speaking? Let us for once interpret the passage in Revelation 12:1 as individuals.”
The book of Revelation was revealed through visions, like Joseph’s dream where 7 fat cows get eaten by 7 thin cows.
“The Dragon is Satan. No doubt.” Quote
Agreed.
"
“The male child is no doubt Jesus.” Quote
Agreed.
“The woman is Mary because of her giving birth to Jesus. Israel would be correct if it is interpreted symbolically. When you interpret this literally, Israel doesn’t fit the woman in Revelation 12:1.”
If you read it in Chronological order keeping in mind the author is describing a vision, it fits perfectly that the woman is Israel.
“Israel by the way is male because his original name is Jacob.” Quote.
When you speak of the man who was renamed Israel, then it is male. When you speak of the nation, Israel, it is she.
Quote rig: “That’s an interesting comment. So, nothing in Revelations is valid unless it is also mentioned in the gospels? Is that some sort of unwritten Protestant interpretation rule?”
The Bible provides evidence from one book to another in support of each book.
I don’t know if that is what justasking meant, but it is a valid question.
Which makes me wonder…is Luke’s “Full of Grace” (v. 1:28) in any of the other Gospels? Cross referencing can be very effected in supporting your claims. The word “full” does not appear in verse 28. But each writer tells the story in his own words. Does anyone else seem to imply “full of grace” using slightly different words?
The book of Revelation was revealed through visions, like Joseph’s dream where 7 fat cows get eaten by 7 thin cows.
“The Dragon is Satan. No doubt.” Quote
Agreed.
"
“The male child is no doubt Jesus.” Quote
Agreed.
“The woman is Mary because of her giving birth to Jesus. Israel would be correct if it is interpreted symbolically. When you interpret this literally, Israel doesn’t fit the woman in Revelation 12:1.”
If you read it in Chronological order keeping in mind the author is describing a vision, it fits perfectly that the woman is Israel.
“Israel by the way is male because his original name is Jacob.” Quote.
When you speak of the man who was renamed Israel, then it is male. When you speak of the nation, Israel, it is she.
Quote rig: “That’s an interesting comment. So, nothing in Revelations is valid unless it is also mentioned in the gospels? Is that some sort of unwritten Protestant interpretation rule?”
The Bible provides evidence from one book to another in support of each book.
I don’t know if that is what justasking meant, but it is a valid question.
Which makes me wonder…is Luke’s “Full of Grace” (v. 1:28) in any of the other Gospels? Cross referencing can be very effected in supporting your claims. The word “full” does not appear in verse 28. But each writer tells the story in his own words. Does anyone else seem to imply “full of grace” using slightly different words?
G
Ginger2
Guest
Also, a literal interpretation fits Israel when you consider it is referring to the nation, as long as it is written in chronological order.
When someone says they spent a week in the “Big Apple” you are not confused wondering how a person can spend time inside a piece of fruit. You know they mean New York.
When someone says they spent a week in the “Big Apple” you are not confused wondering how a person can spend time inside a piece of fruit. You know they mean New York.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
The scriptures are often written on multiple levels. Viewing the woman of Revelation 12 as Mary, the Church, and Israel are all acceptable. However, the primary meaning is that the woman is Mary. Consider the passage:
Revelation 12:1-5
1A great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. 2She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth. 3Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on his heads. 4His tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that he might devour her child the moment it was born. 5She gave birth to a son, a male child, who will rule all the nations with an iron scepter. And her child was snatched up to God and to his throne.
The child is a real person - Jesus.
The dragon is a real person - Satan.
To claim that one of the three persons - the woman - is NOT a real person does violence to the text, and the inclination to do so stems from theological presuppositions. Historically, the Church has always seen the woman as Mary.
Hope this helps. :tiphat:
Revelation 12:1-5
1A great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. 2She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth. 3Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on his heads. 4His tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that he might devour her child the moment it was born. 5She gave birth to a son, a male child, who will rule all the nations with an iron scepter. And her child was snatched up to God and to his throne.
The child is a real person - Jesus.
The dragon is a real person - Satan.
To claim that one of the three persons - the woman - is NOT a real person does violence to the text, and the inclination to do so stems from theological presuppositions. Historically, the Church has always seen the woman as Mary.
Hope this helps. :tiphat:
G
Ginger2
Guest
Randy, Are you saying the woman is consistently Mary throughout the chapter?
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
Is there ANYONE who didn’t end up in Inida and buried in Pakistan?
A
Axion
Guest
Of course she is.
There are a couple of objections, evangelicals sometimes make.
- Mary didn’t flee into the desert AFTER the ascension of Jesus.
- The business with the flood of water
- Mary being mother of Jesus’s followers.
- is easily solved, since besides the flight into Egypt, mary and other Christians had to flee Jerusalem in the persecution after the death of Stephen.
- The flood of water is symbolic of verbal and slanderous assaults on Mary and other Christians by Satan
- Mary is made Mother of Christians (Jesus brethren) by dint of adoption into Jesus family
A
apophasis
Guest
I didn’t say it began in the fifth century. There’s nothing in that prayer about her being “Mother of the Church.” But AGAIN, true Christian doctrine is not based on time plus popular belief. You must prove their Apostolic roots. Quoting me something from the 3rd century means nothing.
He’s talking about His virgin birth. That’s Apostolic, that’s documented.
The Son incarnated. You’re stating nothing new. We’re all in agreement. Stick to the real issues.
Here’s the substantial difference, GF:
Jesus: Virgin born (Scripturally documented)
Mary: Immaculately conceived (imposed on 2 unrelated verses)
Jesus: Lived a sinsless life (Scripturally documented)
Mary: Lived a sinless life (not Scripturally documented)
Jesus: Redeemer (Scripturally documented)
Mary: Co-Redemtrix (not Scripturally documented)
Jesus: Rose from the dead bodily (eye witnessed; Scripturally documented)
Mary: Rose from the dead (no eyewitness; not Scripturally documented)
Jesus: Bodily ascended into heaven: (eye witnessed; Scripturally documented)
Mary: Bodily Assumed into heaven: (no eyewitness; not Scripturally documented)
Jesus: Sits on His Father’s throne in heaven: (eye witnessed; Scripturally documented)
Mary: Queen of heaven: (no eyewitness; imposed on one Scriptural passage)
Jesus: Advocate and Intercessor for the saints (Scripturally documented)
Mary: Advocate and intercessor for the saints (not Scripturally documented)
ALL the Christological doctrines are Scripturally documented and some eye witnessed by the Apostles themselves. Not true of ANY of the Catholic, Marian dogmas. They’re accepted based on popular belief alone. That’s not true Christianity. True Christianity has divine and Apostolic origin.
"The faith which was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3) did not begin as a Mother/Child religion as Catholicism now is. This was not based on the will of God, but men.
G
guanophore
Guest
Knowing all this should help you understand why Catholics belief Jesus has already done this for His mother!
G
Good_Fella
Guest
Look again! The prayer refers to Mary as “Mother of God”. The truth is the fact upsets you. Apostolic authority did not expire with the original apostles. Apostolic succession is a scriptural and historical fact. The charsim of infallibilty was bestowed by Christ on the apostles and through them to their successors by the laying on of hands and divine appointment. What the Church proclaims as dogma is an explicit revelation. I’ve provided you with scriptural verses above to prove this fact. All our dogmas are based on Scripture, explicitly and implictly. That’s that. If you don’t like it, that’s your problem. A mother-child religion? Athiests attack Christianity just like you by saying Jesus is a figure derived from pagan mystery religions. You’ll find a virgin birth and a resurrection from the dead in the Greek and Roman pagan religions. You attack the Church just like an athiest. Drop your erroneous belief in ‘sola scriptura.’ Not everything the apostles and their successors taught are recorded in Scripture. The Church existed by Sacred Tradition for a century before the written word was compiled. Beliefs existed for centuries before the canon of Scripture. Mary was invoked as Mother of God at least 200 years before the canon of Scripture, as the prayer proves. Christ commisioned his apostles to establish his One visible Church, not write Scripture. Revelation fully develops over time through the Church (Jn 14,16). The canon of Scripture comes from the Catholic Chiurch, so don’t try to give us a bible lesson on “our” Holy Book. Your version was twisted and distorted by the early reformers.
“To be deep in history is to cease being Protestant.”
Cardinal John H Newman
Pax vobiscum
Good Fella
A
apophasis
Guest
Knowing all this should convince you that the faith is not at all about His mother. She too still waits for her human body to be conformed to the glory of His human body.
G
guanophore
Guest
We believe this about all those who are in heaven with Christ.
G
Good_Fella
Guest
Really? Where is her body, if not in heaven?
That is nothing but your unauthoritative and ignorant opinion. Not only that, but you don’t even belong to the Church that was founded by Christ. The Protestant Reformation is unscriptural and a contradiction. And history proves that too. So save your breath.
Pax vobiscum
Good Fella
G
guanophore
Guest
She has influence and contol to the extent that God chooses to give it to her. He humbled himself, and became a human baby, helpless, and totally under her control. We believe that she was given special graces to excel in this task. Everyone knows there is no such thing as a perfect parent, but to raise God the Son, she needed to avoid anything that would interfere with His development.
“Catholics” don’t take it to this level, God takes it there! Catholics and Orthodox recognize that God chose Mary for a very special place in salvation history.
Luke 2:51-3:1
51 And he went down with them and came to Nazareth, and was obedient to them; and his mother kept all these things in her heart.
52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature, and in favor with God and man.
It was she who changed his diapers and cleaned his cuts when he fell down. It was she who called him for dinner, and guided him through His childhood (along with Joseph). They were parents to Him, and had “control” over Him as much as He allowed them to have through the mystery of His incarnation.
At the wedding in Cana, Jesus indulged His mother by making water into wine, even though He did not think it was time for His public ministry to begin. Who knows how many other miracles He had done for her before that day? How was it she was so confident He would do something? Experience?
A
apophasis
Guest
No need to convince me that you believe what Catholicism asserts about Mary and its relationship to her. But you’re regurgitating again. I’m asking for Apostolic proof of the Marian dogmas. Can you help me out or not?Look again! The prayer refers to Mary as “Mother of God”. The truth is the fact upsets you. Apostolic authority did not expire with the original apostles. Apostolic succession is a scriptural and historical fact. The charsim of infallibilty was bestowed by Christ on the apostles and through them to their successors by the laying on of hands and divine appointment. What the Church proclaims as dogma is an explicit revelation. I’ve provided you with scriptural verses above to prove this fact. All our dogmas are based on Scripture, explicitly and implictly. That’s that. If you don’t like it, that’s your problem. A mother-child religion? Athiests attack Christianity just like you by saying Jesus is a figure derived from pagan mystery religions. You’ll find a virgin birth and a resurrection from the dead in the Greek and Roman pagan religions. You attack the Church just like an athiest. Drop your erroneous belief in ‘sola scriptura.’ Not everything the apostles and their successors taught are recorded in Scripture. The Church existed by Sacred Tradition for a century before the written word was compiled. Beliefs existed for centuries before the canon of Scripture. Mary was invoked as Mother of God at least 200 years before the canon of Scripture, as the prayer proves. Christ commisioned his apostles to establish his One visible Church, not write Scripture. Revelation fully develops over time through the Church (Jn 14,16). The canon of Scripture comes from the Catholic Chiurch, so don’t try to give us a bible lesson on “our” Holy Book. Your version was twisted and distorted by the early reformers.
G
guanophore
Guest
We see it differently, justasking. Catholic believe that those who die “in Christ” are with Him in heaven.
John 14:12-14
12 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I go to the Father. 13 Whatever you ask in my name, I will do it, that the Father may be glorified in the Son; 14 if you ask anything in my name, I will do it.
G
Good_Fella
Guest
The Apostolic proof concerning Church teaching authority is in the scriptures. There is also scriptural proof in both the OT and NT concerning the Church’s Marian doctrines. Quit regurgitating your false criterion of sola scriptura and taking the Bible literally and explicitly. You Fundies (bastard children of the Enlightenment) are so naive. Are you sure Christ rejoices in you?
A
apophasis
Guest
In the grave - awaiting the first resurrection. Unless you can PROVE otherwise.
G
guanophore
Guest
No, God’s promises are the basis for our hope:
For all the promises of God find their Yes in him. That is why we utter the Amen through him, to the glory of God. 21 But it is God who establishes us with you in Christ, and has commissioned us; 22 he has put his seal upon us and given us his Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee. 2 Cor 1:20-22
It is not speculation that is the basis of our hope, but the Spirit of God that has been placed in our hearts as a guarantee of our inheritance, until we acquire posession of it.
It is a mistake for you to separate Mary, the Mother of God from Him, and from the hope that He has promised to all of us.
1 Peter 5:3-5
4 And when the chief Shepherd is manifested you will obtain the unfading crown of glory. 5 Likewise you that are younger be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for “God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble.”
Does the Apostle counsel the believers to be “subject” to the elders INSTEAD of to God? Of course not . There is no contradiction between the two.
Asking Mary to pray for us does not take away in any manner from the intercession of Christ. On the contrary, since she is closer to Him than any other human being, she can most purely understand His will for His church.
Certainly, the trust and confidence I have in any solid disciple of the Lord. Your thinking error is in your misunderstanding of our participation in the ministry of reconciliation that Christ brought.
19 My brethren, if any one among you wanders from the truth and some one brings him back, 20 let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins. James 5:19-20
Does James think that the person who brings back the wanderer “saved” his soul from death, or does he believe Jesus does the saving? Does James think that people can cover a multitude of sins, or does he believe that only the grace of God can cover sins?
2 And convince some, who doubt; 23 save some, by snatching them out of the fire; on some have mercy with fear, hating even the garment spotted by the flesh. Jude 22-23
Does Jude think it iis possible for one person to “save” another? How is is a person can snatch one out of the fire. Can’t only Jesus do this?
Rom 11:13-15
I magnify my ministry 14 in order to make my fellow Jews jealous, and thus save some of them.
Does Paul think that, by magnifying his own ministry he can save the souls of the Jews? Does he think he can do this himself, INSTEAD of with Jesus, or BECAUSE of Jesus?
A power which He has deigned to share with HIs disciples!
- Status