Abused texts of Scripture: What is your example?

[BNR32FAN]

Don’t speak for me, I said exactly what I meant.

You just refused to admit that Jesus has always been God because you didn’t want to admit that Mary gave birth to God. Why? That question has nothing to do with venerating Mary. It has nothing to do with praying to Mary. It’s just a truth that is revealed in the scriptures. Admitting that Mary gave birth to God is a testimony to Christ. It’s affirming that He has always been God. It’s affirming that He wasn’t born a mere man then God entered into his body. You know I’m not Catholic, I refute Catholicism all the time. I’ve never prayed to Mary ever in my entire life. Not that I’m against it, I just don’t feel the need to. But I pray to God everyday. And I have no problems admitting that Jesus was God at the time Mary gave birth to Him. That’s not venerating Mary, that’s venerating Jesus and affirming that He is always God from eternity to eternity.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

You just refused to admit that Jesus has always been God because you didn’t want to admit that Mary gave birth to God. Why? That question has nothing to do with venerating Mary. It has nothing to do with praying to Mary. It’s just a truth that is revealed in the scriptures. Admitting that Mary gave birth to God is a testimony to Christ. It’s affirming that He has always been God. It’s affirming that He wasn’t born a mere man then God entered into his body. You know I’m not Catholic, I refute Catholicism all the time. I’ve never prayed to Mary ever in my entire life. Not that I’m against it, I just don’t feel the need to. But I pray to God everyday. And I have no problems admitting that Jesus was God at the time Mary gave birth to Him. That’s not venerating Mary, that’s venerating Jesus and affirming that He is always God from eternity to eternity.

How can I refuse to admit that Jesus has always been God when I said Jesus has always been God over and over. I just do not apply what Jesus is Supernatural the Creator to Mary, human, creation.

 

[BNR32FAN]

If Jesus is fully God, and God exists outside of time, and is ever present in the past, now, and in the future (the eternal NOW), from God's perspective, was there a moment where Mary wasn't the Mother of God?

That’s an interesting question. There was a time when Mary wasn’t the Mother of God but from God’s perspective existing in all time simultaneously I would say that would Jesus have seen her as His mother before creation? It’s a tough question that probably only God can answer.

 

[concretecamper]

That’s an interesting question. There was a time when Mary wasn’t the Mother of God but from God’s perspective existing in all time simultaneously I would say that would Jesus have seen her as His mother before creation? It’s a tough question that probably only God can answer.

And I am not inferring anything to Mary that is Divine, but trying to understand Eternal is (like my wife says) mind boggling

 

[BNR32FAN]

How can I refuse to admit that Jesus has always been God when I said Jesus has always been God over and over. I just do not apply what Jesus is Supernatural to Mary, human.

Actually you said He is God not He has ALWAYS been God. If you had included the word ALWAYS earlier I would’ve stopped asking. I had a feeling that you would NOT deny that Jesus has always been God because I truly believe that you love Him with all your heart and would never deny His divinity. God bless you sister I knew you had it in you.

 

[concretecamper]

Yes, as you said God existed outside of time and Mary did not exist outside of time, she only existed on earth for a short time to be mother of Jesus.

Correct, from a human perspective, but from God's perspective, then what?

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Correct, from a human perspective, but from God's perspective, then what?

Where does it state that Mary existed before time? It doesn’t. God’s perspective is through scripture. If He wanted us to elevate Mary, He would have said so, but Jesus made it clear. He came to do His Heavenly Fathers will.

 

[BNR32FAN]

And I am not inferring anything to Mary that is Divine, but trying to understand Eternal is (like my wife says) mind boggling

I certainly think it is likely that He would see her as His mother because He always knew her, even before creation.

 

[concretecamper]

Where does it state that Mary existed before time? It doesn’t. God’s perspective is through scripture. If He wanted us to elevate Mary, He would have said so, but Jesus made it clear. He came to do His Heavenly Fathers will.

You are addressing issues I'm not advancing. Next?

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Actually you said He is God not He has ALWAYS been God. If you had included the word ALWAYS earlier I would’ve stopped asking.

Seriously….. Because I didn’t use the word always that insinuates I thought Jesus was God temporary.

I had a feeling that you would NOT deny that Jesus has always been God because I truly believe that you love Him with all your heart and would never deny His divinity. God bless you sister I knew you had it in you.

Of course not. While I appreciate the vote of confidence, its not what others think, if we love Jesus or not, that matters, I hope and pray everyone on here loves Jesus with all their heart, might and soul, but God is the only one who knows our hearts. It matters what He thinks. Nothing we can hide from Him.

Thanks for the chat. I think I will sign out of this thread for now and hopefully we can get it back to its original topic.

God bless all!

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

We are dealing here with hyper (and on steroids) Nestorianism. Call it what it is, AND GO ON WITH LIFE. My last post on this matter.

 

[RileyG]

Luke 11:28 hands-down. It’s literally the Gospel for the Feast of the Dormition being abused by the anti-dicomarianists.

Yup. It's also used for the Vigil for the Assumption of the Virgin Mary for the Gospel.

 

[RileyG]

A lot of "violent" images in the OT which some non-believers use to attack Christianity.

 

[trophy33]

Mt 8:5 does not preclude Lk 7:3 just because it is not mentioned in Mt 8:5.

Because the soldiers are not mentioned, does that preclude them from flogging Jesus, so that Pilate himself flogged Jesus in Mt 27:26?

Did you even read the texts? One says: "Now when Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to Him",

another says " So when he heard about Jesus, he sent elders of the Jews to Him".

Sending someone excludes coming in person.

Sorry, you will have to do better than this to warrant my time.

To warrant your time? You think a lot of yourself, huh? You simply do not need to participate and I will be fine with that. I suppose you are on forums to talk because you want to, not against your will.

Mk 5:35 indicates two reportings: Jairus' plea to Jesus to heal his daughter (Mk 5:22-23,) followed by a report to Jairus by the men from his house that his daughter has died (Mk 5:35).

This is the typical wrong try to explain it, I have read it on various websites. It does not work in the context.

The approach of Jairus was always placed before the events with the woman suffering from hemorrheage, which was before Jairus knowing his daughter died.

Again, read the texts more carefully, they are not compatible.

A word to the wise: the "examples" presented above are one of the means used to separate the goats from the sheep.
The goats are baffled by them, and do not believe.
The sheep are not baffled, the Holy Spirit giving them understanding, and do believe.

Wth? Are you calling yourself sheep and me goat? Behave yourself, you are no spiritual judge over me. If you are unable to have such kind of conversation in a neutral, technical way, do not participate.

 

[trophy33]

This is historically inaccurate. The title of Theotokos, meaning birth-giver to God, was in use long before Nestorius came to power, used violence to force people to refer to the Blessed Virgin Mary as “Christokos” and then to justify this change, he argued a separation between the deity and humanity of our Lord, and was subsequently deposed and anathematized for this at the Council of Ephesus, based on the consensus of the three other major patriarchates (including Antioch, where he had originally been ordained).

You should perhaps read up on ecclesiastical history. I would suggest the Cambridge History of the Christian Church (I have all eight volumes), the Oxford History of Christian Worship, and when it comes to Eastern Orthodoxy, The Orthodox Church by Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, memory eternal, who contributed to the Orthodox Study Bible which I can’t recall if you have in addition to the NETS translation of the Septuagint.

I will let @Ain't Zwinglian and @MarkRohfrietsch recommend a good history of the Reformation and Martin Luther. As for a history of the Oriental Orthodox, my friend dzheremi can suggest one perhaps, but I am not going to tag him - the Coptic Orthodox Church (which included until recently the Ethiopian and Eritrean churches, but granted these what we call autocephaly, meaning ecclesiastical independence, in the 20th century) and the Syriac Orthodox Church and the Armenian Apostolic Church collectively have done much to preserve the ancient Christology that was upheld at the Council of Ephesus.

The problematic overreaction to Nestorius was Eutyches, who together with the sinister crypto-Nestorian Ibas, who played both sides of the fence, deceived various bishops which contributed to the disastrous EO-OO schism as a result of the Oriental Orthodox being falsely accused of Eutychianism (Eutyches taught that the human nature of our Lord was dissolved into His divinity “like a drop of water in the ocean” and this violates the fourfold principle of Jesus Christ being fully man and fully God without change, confusion, separation or division. Eutychianism, also known as Monophysitism, which degenerated into Tritheism, embraces the first two categories, and Nestorianism the subsequent categories.

Thanks, but I am not too interested. Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication. I do not want bear the whole burden of "historical theology", names, places, years who said what against whom etc. I do not see anything useful in it, for me.

As I already said, the title can be acceptable when properly explained, but is still useless. And in many cases its understood wrongly and needs the explanation, which makes it even harmful. So I would not use it.

 

[The Liturgist]

Yup. It's also used for the Vigil for the Assumption of the Virgin Mary for the Gospel.

Which makes rather a lot of sense because the Assumption is just another word for the Dormition. Indeed some Oriental Orthodox use the word Assumption in reference to the Dormition, and I have no qualms about that/ That said I am inclined to look at a Tridentine lectionary to see what was historically read on the feast day itself, because it seems strange that’s the vigil Gospel in one rite and the liturgical Gospel in the other. Of course, the Byzantine Rite primarily reads the Old Testament at Vespers, which is part of the services called a Vigil in Orthodoxy (All Night Vigils is Vespers, Compline, the Midnight Office, Matins and Prime, and sometimes starting with the Ninth Hour, for example, in monasteries, before Vespers), celebrated as a block with an end to end time of two to three hours in those Athonite Monasteries, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and other Greek monasteries, and the primarily Slavonic parishes where it is used, while the Romanians, Antiochians (Arabic-speaking Orthodox chiefly Lebanon, Syria, and all areas of the Middle East outside of the territory of the Jerusalem Patriarchate, including the subordinate Church of Sinai, and the Church of Alexandria and All Africa), and the Greeks, Cypriots and Albanians in their parishes tend to celebrate Matins the morning of the Divine liturgy, and do Vespers either the night before, or in many cases, sadly omit it, which is unfortunate, because if you omit Vespers you omit the Old Testament Prophecy that corresponds to the appointed Epistle and Gospel.

 

[RileyG]

Which makes rather a lot of sense because the Assumption is just another word for the Dormition. Indeed some Oriental Orthodox use the word Assumption in reference to the Dormition, and I have no qualms about that/ That said I am inclined to look at a Tridentine lectionary to see what was historically read on the feast day itself, because it seems strange that’s the vigil Gospel in one rite and the liturgical Gospel in the other. Of course, the Byzantine Rite primarily reads the Old Testament at Vespers, which is part of the services called a Vigil in Orthodoxy (All Night Vigils is Vespers, Compline, the Midnight Office, Matins and Prime, and sometimes starting with the Ninth Hour, for example, in monasteries, before Vespers), celebrated as a block with an end to end time of two to three hours in those Athonite Monasteries, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and other Greek monasteries, and the primarily Slavonic parishes where it is used, while the Romanians, Antiochians (Arabic-speaking Orthodox chiefly Lebanon, Syria, and all areas of the Middle East outside of the territory of the Jerusalem Patriarchate, including the subordinate Church of Sinai, and the Church of Alexandria and All Africa), and the Greeks, Cypriots and Albanians in their parishes tend to celebrate Matins the morning of the Divine liturgy, and do Vespers either the night before, or in many cases, sadly omit it, which is unfortunate, because if you omit Vespers you omit the Old Testament Prophecy that corresponds to the appointed Epistle and Gospel.

I'm not aware of what the Tridentine/Pre-Vatican II uses for the Gospel for either the Vigil or Feast of the Assumption.

I'm mostly knowledgeable about the novous ordo.

 

[The Liturgist]

I forgot to explain the Matins Gospels in the context of Orthodoxy, which have proper gospels for some feasts but normally rotate through the seven Resurrection Gospels; the Dormition is one such feast, and the Matins Gospel for it is in fact the Magnifcat, which overlaps with the Gospel of the Assumption in the Tridentine Mass. So it seems like the two liturgies historically used each other’s Gospels for the Vigil and for the feast itself. Which is fine, I can’t complain about that. It is the kind of parallelism one expects between the Tridentine Mass and the Byzantine Rite - similar, composed largely of the same elements (thanks largely to the contributions of Pope St. Gregory the Great and the Jerusalem Rite in the 4th through 7th century to both liturgies) but in a different structure and configuration.

All of the traditional Christian liturgies are in fact like this; indeed, they are not even separated by a continuum, but rather one can draw a network diagram of the different historical interactions between the different rites. For example, there appears to be a very ancient connection between the liturgy of Alexandria and that of Rome, in that there are certain similarities between the Anaphora of the Divine Liturgy of St. Mark, also known as the Divine Liturgy of St. Cyril, and the Roman Canon, and this might finally answer a question which has puzzled scholars concerning the provenance of the Roman Canon. And for most Eastern liturgies, such as the Ethiopian, West Syriac, Byzantine, Hagiopolitan and Armenian, this network mostly radiates out from Antioch (although there are other cross connections, for example, the Armenian liturgy has suffered both Byzantinization and Latinization, and only uses one of its historic anaphoras).

I'm mostly knowledgeable about the novous ordo.

What are the scripture lessons for the Feast of the Assumption?

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Luke 1:43.

-CryptoLutheran

Amen!

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

You keep trying to apply what God is, Supernatural to Mary, which she was not supernatural, she was 100% human. Until you understand this, you will never fully understand the answer to your question.

This is like a game of dodge ball. You wonder why peoples patience is running a bit thin. Various respected members asked you your thoughts/beliefs regarding Jesus' humanity and in particular His divinity at the time of his birth (take it back to His conception). Instead, you divert and deflect. We are not discussing the Blessed Virgin Mary's humanity; that is not in question; the question is regarding your beliefs regarding to the dual nature of Jesus Christ.

Bottom line is if He is conceived and born with both natures, Mary can not be mother to half a baby.

Instead of answering questions with questions; maybe try and be less of a politician and answer with a straight answer.

I will try and make this as simple as possible:

Was Jesus the Christ both Human and Divine at the moment of His concepting and birth?

Please answer the question.