He is both, man and God. That is what makes Him the mediator.God become a man born of a virgin cannot be addressed as Christ the man?
Paul didn't have a problem with this
1 Tim 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
1 Tim 2:6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
Paul calls him the man which is fine by me.He is both, man and God. That is what makes Him the mediator.
Did you, or did you not write that my post was almost a verbatim quote of "ancient heresy"?
I'm not Catholic nor is it my place to declare one way or the other.Pretty close to calling me a heretic if you ask me. But that's fine, according to official Catholic doctrine I am "anathema", so I guess it might be true.
.. not to rehash the whole discussion but in denying Mary as Theotokos, you kinda' did, even if unintentional.Yep, I never once said Jesus was not fully God and fully man.
I saw no need to address this part, I agree with it.My point is this, as God, Jesus pre-existed Mary, as the Bible clearly says, in the Scripture I quoted, which you ignored.
First, prayer is not worship. Second, there is nothing "Christian" about being hypercritical about a doctrine, belief or practice you refuse to make any attempt at understanding. That requires shedding prejudice and narrow mindedness. It also requires a lot of reading. Third, no one is obligated to have a devotion to any saint, it's not mandatory. We do it because we are a family and it works. Dividing the family of God in heaven from the family of God on earth is a false man made Protestant tradition.
In His story of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16:19-31), we find our compelling prooftext:
Asking Saints to Intercede: Clear Teaching of Jesus
James 5:14-18
Note here that the Bible itself recommends asking someone else to pray: “the elders” of the Church,
Dialogue: "Why pray to a saint rather than to God?"
vs 18: “The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects.” We see the same dynamic in the following passage:
James 5:14-18
Note here that the Bible itself recommends asking someone else to pray: “the elders” of the Church,
1 Kings 13:6
This is the biblical rationale for asking others, of more spiritual stature in the kingdom, or holier (or, best of all, both!) to pray for us.
But that is not yet the same as asking a (dead) saint to pray for us. How does one arrive at that conclusion? It takes a little more work, but it is possible to ground it, too, in Scripture by less direct, explicit biblical data.
In Revelation 5:8, the “twenty-four elders” (usually regarded by commentators as dead human beings) “fell down before the Lamb . . . with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.” They appear to have other people’s prayers, to present to God. So the obvious question is: what are they doing with them? Why does Revelation present dead saints presenting the prayers of other saints to God?
Revelation 8:3-4 is even more explicit. Rather than equate incense and prayers, it actually distinguishes between them, and presents the scenario that the prayers and incense are presented together:
Dialogue: "Why pray to a saint rather than to God?"
Bible on Invocation of Angels and Saved Human Beings
Read more at Bible on Invocation of Angels and Saved Human Beings
What you mean by the Communion of Saints and what we mean are not the same.
Saints, Purgatory, & Penance (Index Page)
Not once have I called you a heretic. Nor will I, ever.
You quoted Goatee who said : ↑
"Mary is truly the Mother of the risen Lord."
You then replied, "She is the mother of Christ the man, (that is, His humanity/physical body), not of Christ as God. Jesus, as God, existed "in the beginning" and is the Creator of all things, as Scripture plainly states."
I've read your post several times, You said, "She is the mother of Christ the man, ..not of Christ as God."
It still reads the same. God became man, born of a virgin - that is the Incarnation.
Fine line if you ask me. Not that I "mistankenly repeated" any heresy at all. Only part of what I said was addressed.Anyone can mistakenly repeat heretical statements without being a heretic.
I'm not Catholic nor is it my place to declare one way or the other.
Whatever you are comfortable with is fine by me.
.. not to rehash the whole discussion but in denying Mary as Theotokos, you kinda' did, even if unintentional.
That was the conclusion of the 5th century council.
I saw no need to address this part, I agree with it.
As I have stated many times before. The Apostles heard 'all' of the teachings of Jesus, of which, there would not be enough books in the world to record!
The Apostles did not teach or pass down through Apostolic Tradition only that which is in the Bible!
Many more 'truths' have been revealed to the Catholic Church because of the Apostolic Tradition and the Holy Spirit.
The Bible is a guide. God lives outside of scripture too. Jesus continues to steer the Catholic Church. The gates of hell will not prevail!
Sola Scripture is very much MAN MADE.
Not trying to jump into the middle of this, but please let me take a whack at it.
I think what she's saying, and I apologize in advance if I'm wrong, is that as per John 1, the Son was eternal from the beginning. Therefore the Son predated Mary, which means Mary had no part in creating the Son. The Son wasn't created, he always was.
That being said, also as per John 1, the Son became flesh. And that is where Mary entered the scene. So yes, while Mary did give birth to Jesus Christ, who was fully God and Man, she did not play a part in creating the Son, since the Son became flesh.
Mary is truly the Mother of the risen Lord.
She is truly the Holy Tabernacle.
Debatable. As John received that mission personally.She is truly Our Holy Mother as given to us at the foot of the cross.
People go on about how they cannot find any Biblical evidence for what the CATHOLICS teach about Mary or the Saints. I say, it is there! Plus, we have Apostolic Tradition. Teachings brought down through Holy Tradition as given by the Apostles who heard all of Jesus teachings, of which, not enough books in the world could contain!
Can you define Sola Scriptura? I don't think you know what it means.You are a Sola Scripture only believer. Nothing outside the Bible is real to you.
Yet again, I agree. You are right, the Son of God is begotten not created, before all ages.
but, just so you understand why I pointed out the earlier part, Nestorians agreed with us on this part too.
APOCALYPSE - Chapter 5Does the text confirm the prayers are directed towards the 24 elders? No
Are you indicating the use of 'saints' in the text is the Roman Catholic understanding of canonized departed saints?
Who are the 24 elders? What is the significance of the harps the 24 elders each hold? Why are the prayers in golden bowls full of incense?
I didn't argue SS. I provided Irenaeus showing the traditions of the apostles were later written down by the apostles and given to his generation as Scriptures (NT). Will you address what Irenaeus actually said and not introduce into the conversation what you think I am saying?If it's not handed down by the Apostles then it's not Tradition. Irenaeus has no problem asserting the material sufficiency of Scripture, and neither did any Church Father. That's why using the ECF to support sola scriptura never works. It's the sole or formal sufficiency that is non-existent.
Newman became a Catholic BECAUSE he studied history. " "To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant." Newman’s maxim is not intended to be a "rule" that those Protestants versed in Church history "must" enter the Catholic Church. It is a general observation that Church history argues against Protestantism and that those Protestants who study history deeply many times realize that the Catholic Church is the true Church.
Ultimately, belief in the truth of Catholicism is a gift of faith given by God that must be accepted and acted upon by the recipient in order for the recipient to become Catholic.
You are not being fair here. It goes on to say, " Images are painted ... For the Image is a triumph, and a manifestation, and a monument in memory of the victory of those who have done nobly and excelled, and of the shame of the devils defeated and overthrown."
THAT IS A LIE.
Catholics have never claimed forgeries as apostolic. That's the job for SuperAnti-Catholic bigots like James White and Willy Webster.
After trying for over an hour I couldn't find your source. Snippets like that are highly suspicious given your track record in one post. Please provide an accessible link to the source.
I provided the original sources and links to ebooks. These are the words of Catholic theologians.You are quoting from junk theologians who manipulate what Cardinals actually mean. It would take months to sort through that volume of Catholic material and then not seeing the forest for the trees.
Psychotic anti-Catholic nonsense.
From then Cardinal Ratzinger (better known to all as Benedict XVI):
Before Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven was defined, all theological faculties in the world were consulted for their opinion. Our teachers' answer was emphatically negative . What here became evident was the one-sidedness, not only of the historical, but of the historicist method in theology. “Tradition” was identified with what could be proved on the basis of texts. Altaner , the patrologist from Wurzburg…had proven in a scientifically persuasive manner that the doctrine of Mary’s bodily Assumption into heaven was unknown before the 5C ; this doctrine, therefore, he argued, could not belong to the “apostolic tradition. And this was his conclusion, which my teachers at Munich shared .
This argument is compelling if you understand “tradition” strictly as the handing down of fixed formulas and texts…But if you conceive of “tradition” as the living process whereby the Holy Spirit introduces us to the fullness of truth and teaches us how to understand what previously we could still not grasp (cf. Jn 16:12-13), then subsequent “remembering” (cf. Jn 16:4, for instance) can come to recognize what it has not caught sight of previously and was already handed down [invisibly, without evidence] in the original Word,” — J. Ratzinger, Milestones (Ignatius, n.d.), 58-59.
Basically Ratzinger is telling us the Church forgot this most important doctrine but remembered it much later. Even though, as he admits, there was no historical evidence prior to the 5th Century AD. Which he does not try to defend from a position of Holy Scriptures at all.
Therefore, your argument among other RCs here is the same as Karl Keating:
"The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.” — Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275.
Nonsense.Frankly Roman Catholics should not be engaging in these discussions on church doctrine without permission from their Local Ordinary.
We should be getting only information with the proper nihil obstat and imprimatur.
If he defines it as A you wil say "no, it means B". If he defines it as B you will say "No, it means A".Can you define Sola Scriptura? I don't think you know what it means.
Ver. 7-8. He....took the book,[3]...and when he had opened it, or was about to open it, (in the Greek is only, he took it: which was a sign that he would open it)...the four and twenty ancients fell down before the Lamb, to adore him, as appears by what follows, ver. 13. --- Having every one of them harpsto celebrate his praise, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of the saints: which shews that the saints in heaven offer up before the throne of the Divine Majesty the prayers of the faithful. (Witham) --- Harps, &c. These harps are symbols of the praise which good men render to God; and the vials full of odours represent the prayers of the saints. In conformity with this idea, St. John wishes to represent these four and twenty ancients as so many senators, who present to the Almighty the prayers and homages of good men on earth. (Estius; Clement of Alexandria) --- This also is an imitation of what was practised in the temple, in which were always around the altar, in times of sacrifice, Levites with musical instruments, priests with vials to contain the wine and blood, and censers to hold the incense (Calmet) --- The prayers of the saints. Here we see that the saints in heaven offer up to Christ the prayers of the faithful upon earth. (Challoner)If you could find another source or tell me the name to the official Catholic teaching I would appreciate it. I received a notification the link was suspect for virus.
Thanks.
Nah. You get accused of bigotry because of instances such as the time when you made up a story about missing Bible verses at Mass, and I proved that you were lying.I've actually quoted Catechism for the Catholic Church and been told I'm spouting anti-Catholic bigotry. What I'm saying is...good luck.
Spare me the vicious, ignorant, anti-Christian, anti-Catholic hate speech.First lets back up the truck a bit {BEEP, BEEP, BEEP}. I think you are attributing perhaps arguments from others and 'thinking' them to me. So let's examine your claims.
I never made that statement so please stop putting words in my mouth. What you quote above has nothing to do with the passage in Matthew where the crowd tells Jesus His kin are present and want to speak with Him. The quote from Luke 1:38 is of a contrite and faithful Blessed Mary who surrenders to the will to God. Indeed that is to be emulated and followed.
Of course where the Blessed Mary of the Bible is concerned. Not the demi-goddess status some proclaim her to be. And I will note, we have a laundry list of examples of Great Faith recorded for us to follow, unfortunately, in these verses Blessed Mary is not mentioned:
Scripture is not opposed to logic and reasoning.The text nor I made that claim. You projected it upon me. Jesus claimed those who do the Father's will are His brothers and mother. There is nothing more to read into the text. However, you did read into the text and attributed Jesus as pointing out His earthly family were examples He was uplifting. The text makes no mention of this, nor does the text allude to this. So we have to take it at face value Jesus was comparing the spiritual relationship above the earthly bonds we have. Which support His other teachings as well (Luke 14:26; Luke 18:28-30).
I never said His entire earthly family. His "brothers" are relatives, not biological siblings, which I am about to prove.Again, Jesus does not make this point at all. In fact, He is making the point about what He was teaching (Parable of the soils, Parable of Revealed Light). To make the leap that Jesus was pointing out to the crowd His entire earthly family was the example of what He spoke of is reading into the text.
Now you are saying Jesus was refering to His unbelieving brothers in Mark 3:34 who do the will of God. That's absurd.As I already pointed out His own earthly brothers did not believe in Him (John 7:5).
The seeds of developed Marian devotion are in the NT, you just refuse to understand the whole picture. If you mean the people who walked the earth with Blessed Mary and respected her, loved her and looked after her when Jesus ascended into Heaven, that is found in the NT. [/quote] Marian theology is rooted in both the OT and the NT.Marian devotion is nowhere to be found in the New Testament. At least the type of Marian devotion as seen in the two self proclaimed One True Churches (West and East).
How about we level the playing field and you show me "sola scriptura" before the 16th century in any document in any language in any place on earth.Everything else from "co-redemptrix, mediatrix and advocate" were terms added well after the 6th century and some as recent as the 19th-20th century and are doctrinal developments of the Roman magisterium.
This argument has been flattened 30 times on this thread. I guess I have to do it again because you probably don't read links.Well I did not even turn over this rock. However, as I pointed out in John 7:5, Jesus' own earthly brothers did not believe in Him, therefore He would not be pointing them out as 'spiritual brothers.' Let's look at Mark's account of the encounter with family:
Mark 3: NKJV
31 Then His brothers and His mother came, and standing outside they sent to Him, calling Him. 32 And a multitude was sitting around Him; and they said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are outside seeking You.”
33 But He answered them, saying, “Who is My mother, or My brothers?” 34 And He looked around in a circle at those who sat about Him, and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! 35 For whoever does the will of God is My brother and My sister and mother.”
Notice the bolded blue underlined. In Mark's Gospel account, Jesus points to those sitting 'about Him.' Not His earthly family 'outside seeking' Him.
The multiple usage of "brother" is the same as the zillion other places in the Bible where "brother" is found. You just take the one meaning that suits you.As I pointed out, the men referred to as 'brothers' in the "Jesus’ Mother and Brothers Send for Him" Gospel accounts are also referred to not believing in Him (John 7:5). So the 'brother in Christ' reference to post resurrection NT church use is not the context here.
I pointed the same thing. I also pointed out that everyone who does the will of God is His mother, and I clarified what doing the will of God meant. Mary did the will of God PERFECTLY, and that is why she is a model of faith. I have yet to find any Catholic or Protestant that does the will of God as perfectly as Mary.And as I note above, Jesus is pointing out those who are around Him listening to Him preach (Mark 3:34). Not His earthly family still outside wanting to come in and see Him.
Then why are a vast number of Protestants Helvidian heretics, whom Jerome opposed? Jerome did not teach Jesus had siblings, he unequivocally opposed it as a heresy.With that option (Jesus' stated 'brothers' in Mark 3 as 'spiritual brothers') removed what you have left is wresting the Greek to make 'brother' mean just 'kin' or 'cousin' even though the Latin Vulgate translates the Greek as "fratres." Seems Jerome got it right.
Check Strong's concordance.I refuse to wrest the Holy Scriptures to conform to a much later doctrinal development.
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?