• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Featured Was the original Catholic Church created by power hungry zealots?

Discussion in 'Christian History' started by fishmansf, Oct 30, 2018.

  1. mark kennedy

    mark kennedy Natura non facit saltum Supporter

    +7,248
    Calvinist
    Single
    US-Democrat
    The immaculate conception didn't become a part of Catholic dogma intil the 19th century and the woman in Revelations 12 is obviously Israel, it's a personage, not a person.
     
  2. Root of Jesse

    Root of Jesse Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord Supporter CF Ambassadors

    +3,217
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Constitution
    Suggest you peruse this: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Bishop
    Relevant:
    • To some extent, in this early period, the words bishop and priest episkopos and presbyteros) are synonymous (See the article: APOSTOLIC COLLEGE.)
    • These terms may designate either simple priests (A. Michiels, Les origines de l'épiscopat. Louvain, 1900, 218 sqq.) or bishops possessing the full powers of their order. (Batiffol. Etudes d'histoire et de théologie positive, Paris, 1902, 266 sqq.: Duchesne, Histoire ancienne de l'église. Paris. 1906, 94.)
    • In each Community the authority may originally have belonged to college or presbyter-bishops. This does not mean that the episcopate, in the actual sense of the term, may have been plural, because in each church the college or presbyter-bishops did not exercise an independent supreme power; it was subject to the Apostles or to their delegates. The latter were bishops in the actual sense of the term, but they did not possess fixed sees nor had they a special title (Batiffol, 270) Since they were essentially itinerant, they confided to the care of some of the better educated and highly respected neophytes the fixed necessary functions relating to the daily life of the community.
    • Sooner or later the missionaries had to leave the young communities to themselves, whereupon their direction direction fell entirely upon local authorities who thus received the Apostolic succession.
    • This local superior authority, which was of Apostolic origin, was conferred by the Apostles upon a monarchic bishop, such as is understood by the term today. This is proved first by the example of Jerusalem, where James, who was not one of the Twelve Apostles, held the first place, and afterwards by those communities in Asia Minor of which Ignatius speaks, and where, at the beginning of the second century the monarchical episcopate existed, for Ignatius does not write as though the institution were a new one.
    • In other communities, it is true, no mention is made of a monarchic episcopate until the middle of the second century. We do not wish to reject the opinion of those who believe that there are in several documents of the second century traces of the monarchic episcopate, that is to say, of an authority superior to that of the college of the presbyter-bishops. The reasons which some writers allege, in order to explain why, for example, in the Epistle of Polycarp no mention is made of a bishop, are very plausible. The best evidence, however, for the existence at this early date of a monarchical episcopate is the fact that nowhere in the latter half of the second century is the least trace to be found of a change of organization. Such a change would have robbed the supposed college of presbyter-bishops of their sovereign authority, and it is almost impossible to comprehend how this body would have allowed itself to be everywhere despoiled of its supreme authority, without leaving in the contemporary documents the least trace of a protest against so important a change. If the monarchical episcopate began only in the middle of the second century it impossible to comprehend how at the end of second century the episcopal lists of several important bishoprics giving the succession of bishops as far back as the first century were generally known and admitted. Such, for instance, was the case at Rome.
    • This theory, it must be carefully noted, does not contradict the historical texts. According to these documents, there was a college of presbyters or of bishops which administered several churches, but which had a president who was no other than the monarchic bishop. Although power of the latter had existed from the beginning it became gradually more conspicuous. The part played by the presbyterium, or body of priests, was a very important one in the earlier days of the Christian Church; nevertheless it did not exclude the existence of a monarchic episcopate (Duchesne, 89-95).
    During the first three centuries, the entire religious life of the diocese centered around the person of the bishop. The priests and deacons were his auxiliaries but they worked under the immediate direction of the bishop. In large cities, however, like Rome, it was soon found necessary to hand over permanently to the priests and deacons certain definite functions. Moreover, as a result of the spread of Christianity outside the great centres of population, the bishop gradually left to other ecclesiastics the administration of a fixed portion of the diocesan territory. In the East, at first bishoprics were created in all districts where there was a considerable number of Christians. But this system presented great inconveniences. To distant or rural localities, therefore, the Church sent bishops, who were only the delegates of the bishop of the city, and who did not possess the right of exercising the most important powers of a bishop. Such bishops were known as Chorepiscopi or rural bishops. Later on, they were replaced by priests (Gillman, Das Institut der Chorbischöfe im Orient, Munich, 1003). The establishment of parishes from the fourth and the fifth century on gradually freed the bishops from many of their original charges; they reserved to themselves only the most important affairs, i.e. those which concerned the whole diocese and those which belonged to the cathedral church. However, above all other affairs, the bishops retained the right of supervision and supreme direction. While this change was taking place, the Roman Empire, now Christian, granted bishops other powers. They were exclusively empowered to take cognizance of the misdemeanors of clerics, and every lawsuit entered into against the latter had to be brought before the bishop's court. The Emperor Constantine often permitted all Christians to carry their lawsuits before the bishop, but this right was withdrawn at the end of the fourth century. Nevertheless, they continued to act as arbitrators, which office the earliest Christians had committed to them. More important, perhaps, is the part which the Roman law assigns to the bishops as protectors of the weak and oppressed. The master was permitted to legally emancipate his slave in the bishop's presence; the latter had also the power to remove young girls from immoral houses where their parents or masters had placed them, and to restore them to liberty. Newly born infants abandoned by their parents were legally adjudged to those who sheltered them, but to avoid abuses it was required that the bishop should certify that the child was a foundling. The Roman law allowed the bishops the right to visit prisons at their discretion for the purpose of improving the condition of prisoners and of ascertaining whether the rules in favour of the latter were observed. The bishops possessed great influence over the Christian emperors, and though in the Eastern Church these intimate relations between Church and State led to Casaropapism, the bishops of the West preserved in a great measure their independence of the Empire (Löning, Geschichte des deutschen Kirchenrechts, Strasburg, 1878, I, 314-331; Troplong, De l'influence du christianisme sur le droit civil des Romains, Paris, 1842, new ed., 1902).
     
  3. Root of Jesse

    Root of Jesse Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord Supporter CF Ambassadors

    +3,217
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Constitution
    Regardless of when it was codified, the basis of it is in Scripture. And Revelation (singular) has many interpretations, some correct, some incorrect. That's not to say that the woman is not Israel, it is to say that she is not only Israel. FWIW, she is called woman, not named Mary, as Jesus several times called Mary "woman", which is indicative of her immaculate-ness, as Eve was "woman" until after she sinned.
     
  4. redleghunter

    redleghunter Thank You Jesus! Supporter

    +29,520
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    How can I trust a source which tries in the first statement with something entirely in error. Priest is not episkopos nor presbyteros in the NT Koine Greek. There was a word back then for priest in the Greek and that was hierus.

    [ 1,,G2409, hiereus ]
    one who offers sacrifice and has the charge of things pertaining thereto," is used
    (a) of a "priest" of the pagan god Zeus, Acts 14:13;
    (b) of Jewish "priests," e.g., Matthew 8:4; Matthew 12:4-Matthew 12:5; Luke 1:5, where allusion is made to the 24 courses of "priests" appointed for service in the Temple (cp. 1 Chronicles 24:4 ff.); John 1:19; Hebrews 8:4;
    (c) of believers, Revelation 1:6; Revelation 5:10; Revelation 20:6. Israel was primarily designed as a nation to be a kingdom of "priests," offering service to God, e.g., Exodus 19:6; the Israelites having renounced their obligations, Exodus 20:19, the Aaronic priesthood was selected for the purpose, till Christ came to fulfil His ministry in offering up Himself; since then the Jewish priesthood has been abrogated, to be resumed nationally, on behalf of Gentiles, in the millenial kingdom, Isaiah 61:6; Isaiah 66:21. Meanwhile all believers, from Jews and Gentiles, are constituted "a kingdom of priests," Revelation 1:6 (See above), "a holy priesthood," 1 Peter 2:5, and "royal," 1 Peter 2:9. The NT knows nothing of a sacerdotal class in contrast to the laity; all believers are commanded to offer the sacrifices mentioned in Romans 12:1; Philippians 2:17; Philippians 4:18; Hebrews 13:15-Hebrews 13:16; 1 Peter 2:5;
    (d) of Christ, Hebrews 5:6; Hebrews 7:11, Hebrews 7:15, Hebrews 7:17, Hebrews 7:21; Hebrews 8:4 (negatively);
    (e) of Melchizedek, as the forshadower of Christ, Hebrews 7:1, Hebrews 7:3.


    [ 2,,G749, archiereus ]
    designates
    (a) "the high priests" of the Levitical order, frequently called "chief priests" in the NT, and including "ex-high priests" and members of "high priestly" families, e.g., Matthew 2:4; Matthew 16:21; Matthew 20:18; Matthew 21:15; in the singular, a "high priest," e.g., Abiathar, Mark 2:26; Annas and Caiaphas, Luke 3:2, where the RV rightly has "in the high priesthood of A. and C." (cp. Acts 4:6). As to the combination of the two in this respect, Annas was the "high priest" from A.D. 7-14, and, by the time referred to, had been deposed for some years; his son-in-law, Caiaphas, the fourth "high priest" since his deposition, was appointed about A.D. 24. That Annas was still called the "high priest" is explained by the facts

    (1) that by the Mosaic law the high priesthood was held for life, Numbers 35:25; his deposition was the capricious act of the Roman procurator, but he would still be regarded legally and religiously as "high priest" by the Jews;

    (2) that he probably still held the office of deputy-president of the Sanhedrin (cp. 2 Kings 25:18);

    (3) that he was a man whose age, wealth and family connections gave him a preponderant influence, by which he held the real sacerdotal power; indeed at this time the high priesthood was in the hands of a clique of some half dozen families; the language of the writers of the Gospels is in accordance with this, in attributing the high priesthood rather to a caste than a person;

    (4) the "high priests" were at that period mere puppets of Roman authorities who deposed them at will, with the result that the title was used more loosely than in former days.

    The Divine institution of the priesthood culminated in the "high priest," it being his duty to represent the whole people, e.g., Leviticus 4:15-Leviticus 4:16; ch. 16. The characteristics of the Aaronic "high priests" are enumerated in Hebrews 5:1-Hebrews 5:4; Hebrews 8:3; Hebrews 9:7, Hebrews 9:25; in some mss., Hebrews 10:11 (RV, marg.); Hebrews 13:11.


    (b) Christ is set forth in this respect in the Ep. to the Hebrews, where He is spoken of as "a high priest," Hebrews 4:15; Hebrews 5:5, Hebrews 5:10; Hebrews 6:20; Hebrews 7:26; Hebrews 8:1, Hebrews 8:3 (RV); Hebrews 9:11; "a great high priest," Hebrews 4:14; "a great priest," Hebrews 10:21; "a merciful and faithful high priest," Hebrews 2:17; "the Apostle and high priest of our confession," Hebrews 3:1, RV; "a high priest after the order of Melchizedek," Hebrews 5:10. One of the great objects of this Epistle is to set forth the superiority of Christ's High Priesthood as being of an order different from and higher than the Aaronic, in that He is the Son of God (See especially Hebrews 7:28), with a priesthood of the Melchizedek order. Seven outstanding features of His priesthood are stressed,

    (1) its character, Hebrews 5:6, Hebrews 5:10;

    (2) His commission, Hebrews 5:4-Hebrews 5:5;

    (3) His preparation, Hebrews 2:17; Hebrews 10:5;

    (4) His sacrifice, Hebrews 8:3; Hebrews 9:12, Hebrews 9:14, Hebrews 9:27-Hebrews 9:28; Hebrews 10:4-Hebrews 10:12;

    (5) His santuary, Hebrews 4:14; Hebrews 8:2; Hebrews 9:11-Hebrews 9:12, Hebrews 9:24; Hebrews 10:12, Hebrews 10:19;

    (6) His ministry, Hebrews 2:18; Hebrews 4:15; Hebrews 7:25; Hebrews 8:6; Hebrews 9:15, Hebrews 9:24;

    (7) its effects, Hebrews 2:15; Hebrews 4:16; Hebrews 6:19-Hebrews 6:20; Hebrews 7:16, Hebrews 7:25; Hebrews 9:14, Hebrews 9:28; Hebrews 10:14-Hebrews 10:17, Hebrews 10:22, Hebrews 10:39; Hebrews 12:1; Hebrews 13:13-Hebrews 13:17.

    Note: In Acts 4:6 the adjective hieratikos, "high priestly," is translated "of the high priest."

    Priest - Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words
     
  5. redleghunter

    redleghunter Thank You Jesus! Supporter

    +29,520
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Correct and same with the bodily assumption of Mary.

    Roman Catholic Lawrence P. Everett, C.Ss.R., S.T.D. confessed:

    In the first three centuries there are absolutely no references in the authentic works of the Fathers or ecclesiastical writers to the death or bodily immortality of Mary. Nor is there any mention of a tomb of Mary in the first centuries of Christianity. The veneration of the tomb of the Blessed Virgin at Jerusalem began about the middle of the fifth century; and even here there is no agreement as to whether its locality was in the Garden of Olives or in the Valley of Josaphat. Nor is any mention made in the Acts of the Council of Ephesus (431) of the fact that the Council, convened to defend the Divine Maternity of the Mother of God, is being held in the very city selected by God for her final resting place. Only after the Council did the tradition begin which placed her tomb in that city.

    The earliest known (non-Apocryphal) mention concerning the end of Mary's life appears in the writings of St. Epiphanius, Bishop of Constantia,.. in his Panarion or Medicine Chest (of remedies for all heresies), written in c. 377: "Whether she died or was buried we know not."

    ...And with the exception of a so-called contemporary of Epiphanius, Timothy of Jerusalem, who said: "Wherefore the Virgin is immortal up to now, because He who dwelt in her took her to the regions of the Ascension,"9(After a very thorough and scholarly investigation the author concludes that Timothy is an unknown author who lived between the sixth and seventh centuries (p. 23). no early writer ever doubted the fact of her death....

    In the Munificentissimus Deus Pope Pius XII quotes but three Fathers of the Church, all Orientals. St. John Damascene (d. 749)...St. Germanus of Constantinople (d. 733) ...St. Modestus of Jerusalem (d. 634)...

    Apart from the Apocrypha, there is no authentic witness to the Assumption among the Fathers of either the East or the West prior to the end of the fifth century.

    The first remote testimony to which Pope Pius XII turns in order to indicate the fact that our present belief in the Assumption of the Blessed Mother was likewise the belief of the Church from the earliest times is the Sacred Liturgy...

    ...The feast of the Assumption began in the East as did many of the older Marian feasts... However, due to the fact that neither Sacred Scripture nor early Tradition speaks explicitly of the last days of our Blessed Mother on earth and of her Assumption into heaven, the liturgy of this feast did not mention them either. Later, when the apocryphal Transitus Mariae ” in which the death and Assumption of Mary are described in detail ” became popular among the faithful, the facts of her death and Assumption were inserted into the feast... -
    Library : Mary's Death and Bodily Assumption


    From then Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope 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... 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.

    But...subsequent "remembering" can come to recognize what it has not caught sight of previously." (Joseph Ratzinger, Milestones (Ignatius, n.d.), pp. 58-59;).

    The concluding statement by Ratzinger is typical doctrinal development language.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  6. mark kennedy

    mark kennedy Natura non facit saltum Supporter

    +7,248
    Calvinist
    Single
    US-Democrat
    Well you just pulled that one out of thin air and btw, Apocalypsis, the Greek word we ger Revelation(s) from can be either singular or plural depending on the context. I like the plural so as not to confuse it with the doctrine of revelation. Anyway the context clearly and definitively identifies the woman as Israel, the child about to be born isn't Christ or that would have been made clear. Israel was giving birth to a nation now repentant and united undet faith in the risen Savior, their true Messiah.

    It's not as bad when you take a versr out of context but words taken out of the context of their sentence, assigning meanings at will and at random leads to frivolous expositions, divirced from the intended meaning. This personage is one of a series of personages that highlight a crucial point in the book of Revelations. Your drifting from the text into capricious allegory again.
     
  7. mark kennedy

    mark kennedy Natura non facit saltum Supporter

    +7,248
    Calvinist
    Single
    US-Democrat
    I wasn't aware of Pope Benedict's discussion of the doctrinal issue, isn't that interesting.
     
  8. redleghunter

    redleghunter Thank You Jesus! Supporter

    +29,520
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Even the Catholic NABRE Study Bible has the woman as either Israel or the church.
    Revelation 12:6 Footnote 136:
    God protects the persecuted church in the desert, the traditional Old Testament place of refuge for the afflicted, according to the typology of the Exodus. (NABRE Study Bible)
    Footnote 132 (Rev. 12:1-6) The woman adorned with the sun, the moon, and the stars (images taken from Genesis 37) symbolizes God’s people in the Old Testament and the New Testament. The Israel of old gave birth to the Messiah (Rev 12:5) and then became the new Israel, the church, which suffers persecution by the dragon (Rev 12:6, 13-17) (NABRE Study Bible)



    Quotes from: NABRE Fireside Personal Study Edition: Authorized by the USCCB
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  9. Root of Jesse

    Root of Jesse Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord Supporter CF Ambassadors

    +3,217
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Constitution
    Why would I trust any source that ignores what Catholics actually mean by "priest" and "bishop", whether in the Greek or Latin or English? The Christian priesthood, also, is different from the Jewish or pagan priesthood. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Priest
     
  10. Root of Jesse

    Root of Jesse Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord Supporter CF Ambassadors

    +3,217
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Constitution
    There is no question that doctrine develops, and there is nothing wrong with that. The doctrine of the Trinity developed. The doctrine of the nature of original sin developed. All doctrine develops. NONE is Biblical, though all have their origin in Scripture.
    The fact is, if Mary had died bodily on earth and were buried, we would know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, where her tomb is, just as we know where the tomb of Jesus is, and the tomb of Peter, Paul, James, John, and so on. The fact is, we do not know where her tomb is, and we can surmise that we don't know because she wasn't buried, but assumed into heaven, the same way as Moses and Elijah were.
    It is true that Mary's bodily assumption into heaven wasn't defined, or possibly even thought of, prior to the 5th century. But dogma being defined is different than doctrine existing. The doctrine of the table of contents of the Bible wasn't defined until the Council of Trent. But it existed well prior to that. In fact, the table of contents of the bible wasn't ever discussed until the third or fourth century. Does that mean it's any less valid?
     
  11. mark kennedy

    mark kennedy Natura non facit saltum Supporter

    +7,248
    Calvinist
    Single
    US-Democrat
    The Scriptures are a living witness, attache7d to living communities their entire history, the Hebrew and Christian connities respextively. When get a scroll from Paul naturally you read it to the church. If someone wants a copy they get a scibe and a blank parchment. Then in th second century or third with new writting no one has ever seen before it's not difficult to discern the genuine from the fraud.

    We aren't sure where the tomb is so she nust have ascended bodily? Really? You guys are big on Apostolic succession but the Apostolic witness not so much. Devotions to Mary developed during the Mediaeval period, by Trent it's ananthama to deny Mary worship. The only anathama in Scripture is anyone who preached another gospel then the Apostolic witness. This doctrine did not exist in the early church and is supported nowhere in the New Testament. The church knew where the Scriptures came from they had been reading them to their congregations for centuries. Mary worship, perpetual virginity, the bodily assumption and the immiaculare conception are little more the Mediaeval folk stories.
     
  12. redleghunter

    redleghunter Thank You Jesus! Supporter

    +29,520
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    The doctrine of the Trinity is taught in Holy Scriptures. The only reason we had to have councils on this doctrine was because of heretics denying both Scriptures and the apostolic rule of faith (which was derived from inspired Scriptures)

    It was always there in Romans.

    Not what comes from Christ and His apostles. Even the Church doctors refused something to become doctrinal without substantiation from Holy Scriptures.

    The origins of all doctrines must come from Holy Scriptures.
     
  13. Root of Jesse

    Root of Jesse Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord Supporter CF Ambassadors

    +3,217
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Constitution
    Comments on Scripture in a Bible are not infallible. There are several, in fact, many, ways to interpret Revelation.
     
  14. mark kennedy

    mark kennedy Natura non facit saltum Supporter

    +7,248
    Calvinist
    Single
    US-Democrat
    No, your confusing a legitamate exposition with a private interpretation. The context and litetary features indicate Israel, Catholic commentary and even you yourself say Israel.Footnotes in a study Bible may not be infallible but Revelations is, and clearly the prophetic oracle indicates Israel. Every one agrees, no one has a problem with it, vut you want to make it mean Mary because you say so.
     
  15. SolomonVII

    SolomonVII Well-Known Member

    +4,705
    Canada
    Catholic
    Married
    CA-Greens
    I think in general the Catholic Church keeps interpretation open. Interpretation is about whether the particular reality of the subject conforms to type.Jesus for example conforms to the type of Moses, for one, escaping from the slaughter of the innocents, and in a thousand other ways. He is Elisha to the Elijah of John the Baptist, seven times the miraculous power, and through the Holy Spirit delivering manifold times the miracle to the Church.
    The type that includes Mary includes even the ark and the ark of the covenant, carrying the Word of God, which is Torah, which is Jesus, which is life itself to their ultimate fulfillment. The type in this way includes Israel to be sure, the light on the hill delivering the word of God to the world,as a first born to siblings who come later. The ultimate fulfillment of this type, of this role of Israel is the daughter of Israel, Mary, who literally delivers the Word, Jesus, to the pagan world, like the Ark, like the Whale of the Sign of Jonah, spitting the prophet ought to the pagans of Nineveh.
    The choice is never between metaphor and allegory and historical literalness. The literalness is just as historic as Jesus and Mary are historic, but the spiritual reality is a type of metadata where the drama is an archetype that is written into our very psyches. It is not true just for an historic place and time, but for all time.
    Understand the fullness of Biblical prophecy,and you understand the truth of Eucharist in our own personal lives. Prophecy does not just point to an event, but to all that is true within our own lives.
    Of course you already know that. I am merely agreeing with somebody who has a similar understanding Forgive me for using you as a sounding board.
     
  16. mark kennedy

    mark kennedy Natura non facit saltum Supporter

    +7,248
    Calvinist
    Single
    US-Democrat
    I am literally sitting here reeling from the statement that Mary 'literally delivers the Word'. I notice you capitalize it. There is a choice between a metaphor and allegory, a metaphor is between two distinct things and an allegory is a private interpretation which is not an exposition at all. I can see we have abandoned the Apostolic and Scriptural witness here in favor of what I do not know. Jesus was spitted out? I'm disappointed, I have longed to identify more with my Catholic brethren and sought to be more engaged on things we can identify with as Christians. I'm deeply envious of the ecclesiastical traditions of Orthodox and Catholic institutions and as a Calvinist, strive to reclaim those sacred moorings.

    Then I read something like this and the ecclesiastical authority that has reserved it's right to be the sole interpreter of Scripture fails to provide a single comprehensive exposition of requisite proof texts. No disrespect intended to @Root of Jesse, he has been very interesting in his treatment of the subject matter. What does this say of the opinion of Rome with regards to the Levitical, Prophetic and most importantly, the Apostolic witness? Does Rome represent the Apostolic witness or replace it I wonder. Because I see nothing in Holy Script venerating Mary, only honoring her as one of many sinners saved by the atonement of the Son of God who loved us and gave himself for us.

    Grace and peace,
    Mark
     
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2018
  17. Root of Jesse

    Root of Jesse Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord Supporter CF Ambassadors

    +3,217
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Constitution
    It means Mary because the Early Fathers of the Church said it means Mary, and because the Church has the authority to say it means Mary. On a different level, it means Israel. The thing you don't seem to understand is that apocalyptic literature had many ways of interpreting it. The reason I agree that the woman can mean Israel is based on one way of interpreting it. But the literal is that the woman IS Mary. It's not an interpretation. The woman gave birth to Jesus, and that can only mean she's one person. That's just the way it is. I know you disagree. That's what Protestants do. I'm done arguing with you, it'll get neither of us anywhere.

    What isn't infallible about Revelation is the way some people interpret it. Pre-Trib, post-trib, mid, whatever. Also, when it was written, by whom, and so on. And when it was written, and by whom makes all the difference in how it is interpreted. Many believe Revelation was written before the fall of Jerusalem, and that casts it in a whole different light.
     
  18. Root of Jesse

    Root of Jesse Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord Supporter CF Ambassadors

    +3,217
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Constitution
    I didn't pull it out of my hat, and the Church says it was Christ. Authority matters.
     
  19. Root of Jesse

    Root of Jesse Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord Supporter CF Ambassadors

    +3,217
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Constitution
    Well, you're jumping off a cliff now. We don't worship Mary, and Trent never said that we have to worship Mary. I can point to devotions to Mary long before Medieval times, whatever that means, back to the second century. I can show you places where there are statues of her from the early 5th century.
    You cannot show in scripture, where Mary had other children, you cannot show, from history, where she was buried, where her bones are, and so on. And her Immaculate Conception (you really need to type better...) is based on Scripture. Did she not carry the Word of God, the Bread of Life, and the High Priest inside her for 9 months? Because that OT structure, the Ark of the Covenant, was so pure that one who was without the proper authority touched it, and died. The Ark of the Covenant carried the Word of God, the Bread of Life, and the High Priest's staff.
    Look, Mark, I know you don't see all this stuff. I get it. If you're interested enough to learn about it, whether you believe it or not, is a different issue, I can help. But your criticism isn't going to do either of us a whit of good.
     
  20. Root of Jesse

    Root of Jesse Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord Supporter CF Ambassadors

    +3,217
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Constitution
    No, it's not. That's why some Christians don't believe it. It's not apparent in Scripture. I know-the Father is there, so is the Son, so is the Holy Spirit. But what that means (=doctrine) is not there.
    Right. Those were heresies. Doctrine comes from Scripture, but what it means does not. Otherwise, you would see, and we could agree, that Baptism saves you, sacramentally. You'd also see that John 6 means that we MUST eat His flesh to have life in us.
    I think you're missing my point. What you said at the end is correct though. All doctrines proceed from Holy Scripture. Absolutely. I can prove every doctrine of the Church from Scripture.
     
Loading...