Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Keep on assuming things, don't you!on't read the Early Church Fathers, do you.
I know exactly what I'm saying but for clarity I'll spell it out...I hope you know what you are trying to say.
Like I replied, you don't do much research on church history do you?Like I said, don't read the Early Church Father much do you.
Until justified in Jesus Christ all acts of 'belief' are avaricious in nature, thus sin. It is through justification in the baptismal fonts of the Church is Jesus Christ "in you". Being Baptized in the Church you drive Christ away with a a misguided will, a rejection of God. To simply say, "I believe" without Baptism, without justification every act, even those of charity are tainted with selfishness. After Baptism sin blots or deforms righteousness not abiding in Jesus.Romans 8:10“But if Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, the spirit is life because of righteousness.”
Galatians 1:15-16“But when it pleased God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called by His grace, to reveal His Son in me.”
Galatians 2:20“I am crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live in faith, the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself up for me.”
Galatians 4:19“My children, with whom I travail again in birth until Christ is formed in you.”
Ephesians 3:17“That Christ may make His home in your hearts through faith, that you, being rooted and grounded in love.”
Colossians 1:27“To whom God willed to make known what are the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.”
That's odd. You admit Christ never said or suggested that you cannot know Him without knowing His mother. You say that Christ never suggested otherwise which is not only false but a strange basis upon which to believe anything, but seems to be greatly used by Catholics. Christ didn't say a lot of things that we don't believe. eg. Peter is in charge, Steven is sinless (note he is described with the exact same word "blessed" that Mary is described with and Catholics use to argue she is sinless), etc. Irrespective, we do know that MANY people KNEW Jesus without knowing His mother when He was on earth threw the various accounts and interactions where His mother wasn't present... and so the ONLY biblical reality is that we don't need to know His mother to know Him
Ok. Thank you.Sorry but you're just being argumentative here because you didn't read or understand what I wrote. If that makes you feel good to do so and then judge me delusional, then so be it. I won't join you on that road
With whom am I trying to score points? Frankly, I didn't know I was playing a game.Trying to move the goalpost so you can score a goal is great if you want to win the game but poor if you want truth or you want to convince others. Irrespective, ALL faith must be underpinned by truth not imagination. That is the kind of things hoped for an unknown. The rest belongs in Disneyland. So in response to a challenge to demonstrate faith based on scripture, you argue you don't need any!
John calls Mary Mother of Jesus. Jesus is God, hence Mary is Mother of God.None of which are in the Bible.
1. No one in all of the NT calls Mary "the mother of God"
Don't have to, common sense tells us she is immaculate. Jesus Christ, God wasn't issued from sin.2. No one in all of scripture says Mary was born sinless or was sinless her entire life etc. Rather she calls Christ "her savior"
Neither is there said that she wasn't.3. No one in all of scripture says Mary was always a virgin
Being assumed into heaven is the promise of all Christians - Are you saying Christ is an Indian giver to His own mother?4. No one in all of scripture says Mary was bodily assumed into heaven
The source is Scripture together with Sacred Tradition, the Church, the Early Church Fathers, miracles, and good ol' common sense.So then what is the source for those ideas?
Agreed. I think that is a statement that no Christian group opposes since we actually see it in the BibleJohn calls Mary Mother of Jesus.
But He is God incarnate - NOT God procreated by a human. A not-so-subtle detail that gets lost if we were to use statements likeJesus is God
The saints will be resurrected and bodily assumed into heaven in the future - the claim that Mary was assumed into heaven sometime before 90 A.D. lacks historic affirmation by John (for example) which you would think would be a noteworthy event.Being assumed into heaven is the promise of all Christians - Are you saying Christ is an Indian giver to His own mother?
That would be a "do-loop", do charitable "works".That turns into an infinite loop.
If Christ doesn't need a mother then He's not human. You do know all humans are "born of woman". Maybe you're not?If Christ needed a mother to be born without sin so He could be without sin - then His grandmother also needed to be born without sin so that His mother could be born without sin. And so also His great-grandmother so His grandmother could be born without sin... goes all the way back to Eve claiming she too had to be without sin.
I know where the doctrines come from, the Holy Spirit.Don't know where that doctrine comes from - but it is not in the Bible
Agreed. I think that is a statement that no Christian group opposes since we actually see it in the Bible
He is indeed incarnate, but human never the less. All god had to do is provide the male component to procreation, some call it the spark of life.But He is God incarnate - NOT God procreated by a human. A not-so-subtle detail that gets lost if we were to use statements like
That's your assumption.Mary wiser than God
This is true at least to a limited degree. Mary was Mother of the infant, young child, young adult. Her role in His life was to train him in the ways his humanity.Mary instructor of God
Who said that? is this one of your loop-de-loops?Joseph stronger than God
He was indeed, again in a limited and human way.Joseph protector of God
Indeed!Mary mother of God
They didn't need to, there weren't Protestants in those days.So no wonder no NT person ever does that.
I don't think Matthew 3:16-17 part of the Scriptural proof for the Trinity - but if you like it so be it. What you described could also be called Tritheism. There is God the father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Not one God, but three.The OT teaches that there is one God. The NT has Jesus saying he was sent from His father and that he and his father are one. We know the Jews understood what he was claiming because they tried to stone him for blasphemy. There are numerous verses that say the Holy Spirit comes from God and is part of the one God. So:
Thus we have 3 persons claiming to be that one God. Never does the Bible teach there are 3 gods. One God in three persons. The word trinity came later as a useful label to describe a triune God. The Scriptures define that there is one God in three persons. The label came later but the creation of the label was not when the concept of the trinity became known. It was not new revelation. We don't have the concept of the Trinity thanks to the RC church. It was there in Scripture. We don't need one neat, clear-cut verse when these other verses collectively clearly teach the concept. If you want a single verse, this one comes close:
- There is one God
- Jesus claims that he and the Father are one
- The Holy Spirit is God
Matthew 3:16-17
16 And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him; 17 and behold, a voice from heaven said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.”
Here we have the trinity. Jesus, "the Spirit of God" (i.e. the Holy Spirit), and the voice from heaven saying "This is my beloved Son" (i.e. the Father).
Mary's assumption is mentioned in Scripture. Mary was in heaven when John had his vision, Apocalypse 11:19-12:5.The saints will be resurrected and bodily assumed into heaven in the future - the claim that Mary was assumed into heaven sometime before 90 A.D. lacks historic affirmation by John (for example) which you would think would be a noteworthy event.
from: The Assumption of Mary
"Second, the Catechism teaches that Mary was taken to heaven when the course of her earthly life was finished. The Church does not declare whether Mary died and then was assumed into heaven or whether she was assumed before she died. It leaves open both possibilities. However, the majority of theologians and saints throughout the centuries have affirmed that Mary did experience death"
So I am not sure which of those two options you prefer - but neither is mentioned in the Bible as an event in the first century. You could argue that the Bible writers did not consider it worth mentioning even though Paul does mention things like books and papers and coats that need to be brought to him. It is up to you.
My point is that something that unusual would at least make "honorable mention" - and it does not in the first century.
Fr. Longenecker lists the reasons for her assumption alot better than I could:Both forms of it are recorded in the OT.
Enoch was bodily assumed into heaven without dying (and yes that event does make honorable mention into scripture)
Moses is said to have been bodily assumed into heaven after being resurrected in the book "The Assumption of Moses" quoted by Jude in the NT. And of course that also happens in the case of Christ - which also is worthy of mention by NT writers.
I know exactly what I'm saying but for clarity I'll spell it out...
The church has been pathetic in establishing correct doctrine from only a few hundred years after Christ's death all the way up to modern day...
You're having a laugh or dreaming! 2,000 years? The Catholic Church has been making stuff up. There's very little in the Catholic Church that has been believed for over 1,000 years and even less that didn't evolve through argument, debate, threats and even bloodshed!
...but of course, that process is infinitely more reliable than God's "living and active" word because God was incapable of ensuring the precise words He desired on the pages of His book!
My favourite is how the infallible Magisterium decided on the validity of the Trinity in Constantinople! No resolution could be found over the council whilst Archbishop Gregory presided but when he got ill and a Pagan senator was brought in, he was able to solve the conflict to become the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed... i.e the birth of formalization of the Trinity! That's a PAGAN SENATOR!!
What? Moving the goalposts again?Until justified in Jesus Christ all acts of 'belief' are avaricious in nature, thus sin. It is through justification in the baptismal fonts of the Church is Jesus Christ "in you". Being Baptized in the Church you drive Christ away with a a misguided will, a rejection of God. To simply say, "I believe" without Baptism, without justification every act, even those of charity are tainted with selfishness. After Baptism sin blots or deforms righteousness not abiding in Jesus.
Ah sarcasm, the refuge of those who have ran out of worthwhile argument!You do know that we were created with a brain. It's thing that hangs out between your shoulders. One of the things about human nature is that we cannot love what we don't know. We can certainly hope, but we can't love the unknown. It follows then, the Mary is the only Apostle that can truly describe the love that God has for us, she alone can identify Jesus Christ.
You missed the point! YOUR claim is that nobody can know Jesus without Mary. Here you accept that she was with him for much of His ministry (which incidentally is assumption because there's scant evidence of it), but in doing so you also accept she wasn't there all the time! This means there are people who met Jesus who didn't meet Mary.... and that knew Him but didn't know Mary.... and proves your thesis wrong.That's not all together right, Mary was with Him through much of His ministry. She was there at the beginning, the wedding of Cana, she was there at least twice during the middle of ministry, and she was there at the end.
But those statements are part of the same body of Scripture that says there is but one God. Taken as a body, they teach there is one God in three persons. The understanding of the Trinity was based on Scripture. It was not a private revelation to the RC church. Even in Genesis, we see the statement "Let us make man in our image." That implies more than one person. The full knowledge of the Trinity took time to be realized but the teaching is found in the Scriptures. Later, men coined terms and phrases to better explain it but it was there in Scripture.I don't think Matthew 3:16-17 part of the Scriptural proof for the Trinity - but if you like it so be it. What you described could also be called Tritheism. There is God the father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Not one God, but three.
JoeT
That's astonishing! The three persons of the Trinity are present and active in Mt 3:16-17, but you somehow manage to believe their being present and actions isn't proof of the Trinity.... because you WANT to believe the revelation of the Trinity came from Catholic Councils, the most significant of which, Constantinople, was presided over by a Pagan!!I don't think Matthew 3:16-17 part of the Scriptural proof for the Trinity - but if you like it so be it. What you described could also be called Tritheism. There is God the father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Not one God, but three.
That's astonishing! The three persons of the Trinity are present and active in Mt 3:16-17, but you somehow manage to believe their being present and actions isn't proof of the Trinity.... because you WANT to believe the revelation of the Trinity came from Catholic Councils, the most significant of which, Constantinople, was presided over by a Pagan!!
I'm glad I don't have the ability for such mental gymnastics!
because you WANT to believe the revelation of the Trinity came from Catholic Councils, the most significant of which, Constantinople, was presided over by a Pagan!!
I'm glad I don't have the ability for such mental gymnastics!
Nothing in the bible says the words on the page are the "bible" or that God is omnipotent, omniscient or omnipresent because none of these words are there... but that doesn't mean we don't call it the bible or that God isn't omnipotent, omniscient or omnipresent....But the Scriptures say that a voice came from heaven and said: "this is my Son"... Nothing in scripture *actually* says Jesus is the third Person of the Holy Trinity.
...That's something that has been confirmed through Tradition. Scripture simply doesn't go against it.
Nothing in the bible says the words on the page are the "bible" or that God is omnipotent, omniscient or omnipresent because none of these words are there... but that doesn't mean we don't call it the bible or that God isn't omnipotent, omniscient or omnipresent.
Also would you not accept it was the Father speaking here? How can you possibly know that because it does not say, "The Father said, '....'" ?
Tradition is a cop out because there is nothing in the early church record that indicates the early church actually believe in the Trinity. It wasn't even confirmed in the Council of Nicea.... and infact the first real confirmation is not until the Council of Constantinople where it took a pagan senator to preside over the argument and conclusion that in fact Jesus and the Holy Spirit are God! There's no tradition playing a part here but there is church authority through a pagan!
So either scripture confirms the Trinity else if scripture does not do so all we have is a pagan senator's direction!
The problem is that all those people who claim scripture doesn't speak of the Trinity haven't bothered to FULLY research. I speak to many of them who are Jehovah's Witnesses all the time. How can you claim the bible doesn't speak of the Trinity without asking God and searching the scriptures.... and if you've searched the scriptures you'll know there are HUNDREDS of scriptures that speak to the divinity of Christ and the Holy Spirit. Not one or two but literally hundreds. To evaluate these scriptures, you have to find them, document them in order consider the context, linguistic usage, audience understanding, culture and then consider various different views, and cross correlated to potentially lots of other bible verses. It's a huge task and my own notes now are 70+ pages and continue to grow. The thing is, if you're going to claim scripture doesn't support the Trinity then you have to do the work and find all those verses that might attest to the divinity of Christ and the Holy Spirit, then do all the extra work to show why they don't actually do what might be claimed. You have no choice if you really want to know the truth and know you haven't simply brought your own bias to isolated piecemeal considerations.... and yet I've never met a single person who has their own copious notes on this subject who hasn't concluded the Trinity is right there in the bible.
You can chose to live in delusion, but you cannot blame anyone else if you do so!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?