The never-ending weekend question
UPDATE, March 20: Reader Jess is our 3,000th commenter on this post! Congrats, Jess! How about your own copy of the book, On Message? Either that, or I have some t-shirts in my pro-life stash. Email me.
UPDATE, March 19: Yes, comments to this February 23 weekend question are still going strong, and I’ve been asked to bump it up again before comments close, which they do when a post has been up 2 weeks.
2827! Reader Bobby Bambino was our 1,000th commenter and received a copy of On Message as his major award, and moderator Bethany was our 2,000th. (Do you have Lime 5 yet, Bethany? I’m trying to think of a prize you haven’t won already… :)
Will there be a 3,000th commenter to this post that will not end? I think so!…
UDPATE, March 4: Well, we have a new comment record: 674 and counting. The previous record was 615 on a post by HisMan while I was on vacation in April 2007.
This following post was a weekend question from February 23. I’m moving it up to give the conversation a chance to wind down. That said, this particular chat has evolved into a healthy one on Protestantism and Catholicism, which has actually been ongoing for 500+ years. So if this debate does conclude, history will be made.
Congrats on the record!
***************
This weekend’s question is theological, about post-natal life.
I Peter 1:18 states lives lived apart from faith and thanks to Jesus Christ for dying to free us from the eternal consequences of sin are “worthless… dead-end[ed}… empty-headed.”
Those are strong words. Why do you agree or disagree?
“Worthless”: God’s Word Translation
“Dead-end, empty-headed”: The Message Translation
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
My favorite Christmas song is “O Holy Night” and my favorite line is:
Gives me chills everytime I hear it.
I agree that they are strong words, but they need to be.
People desperately need to realize that a life without faith is consumed with worldly things. These worldy things won’t do a darned bit of good for you in the end. No amount of money, good works or anything else can give you eternal life. ONLY by the precious blood of Jesus Christ are we given that one, true, priceless gift. Isn’t that wonderful news! There is a way out of a worthless, dead-end, empty-headed life!
Every person ever born was bought with a price. To not accept that gift would make one empty-headed, and their lives here on earth are worthless. They dead-end into an eternal seperation from God, without any means of escaping that horrific doom that they so chose to go.
If you’re born once, you die twice; but if you’re born twice, you die once.
I agree, what would you be working towards? death and nothing more?
Wow, MK, great line in great context.
mk, that’s my favorite Christmas carol as well.
Obviously I don’t believe my life is worthless just because I don’t have faith in Jesus Christ. I believe my life has a different kind of worth than my more religious friends do, is I guess the best way to put it. My life brings joy to me and the people I share it with, my life can better the lives of others if I live it right, and so on. Do I suspect that there’s something more? Frequently, I do — mostly when I can’t bear the idea that there’s not (such as when a loved one dies). Do I hope that there’s something more? Absolutely. But I don’t think that faith in Christ is something you can CHOOSE to have. I tried to choose it for years, and I never had it, and eventually I had to be honest with myself about what I believe. I can’t choose to have faith in Christ any more than some of the people on this site can choose NOT to have faith in Christ. But that doesn’t mean my life is worthless. And I don’t think that being honest with myself about my faith, my struggles, and my beliefs is at all empty-headed; I have not casually decided not to believe in Jesus just because Wicca sounds so much cooler, or something (I am most certainly NOT Wiccan either, lest anyone latch onto that statement). You could say that, in my darker moments, it seems like a dead-end, but that doesn’t mean the drive there isn’t worth taking anyway.
I’m at best agnostic but optimistic, and I think that any God who might exist would rather me be honest with both of us about my beliefs, and do my best to live my life in a way that makes the world a better place for others. The idea of a God who would give me this pragmatic, logical, faithless mind and expect otherwise of me or condemn me to hell doesn’t feel true to me; it’s something I’ve never felt. And you can say all you want that religion isn’t about feeling, it’s about the TRUTH, but would you believe it was the truth if you did not feel in your heart that it was?
Alexandra,
I liked reading what you wrote. You are thinking big thoughts and I like that. You sound on one hand like you are seeking answers and then on the other you are fine with where things are.
Ever read The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel? Just a thought.
If I didn’t think that God is in control and is preparing a place for all of those who believe I think life would be bleak, indeed.
God bless you.
thanks Jill for the provocative question,
I think there is the possibility to write and write about this, so I’ll try it from this stance. There is little doubt Peter did not find believing in Jesus real easy. We may think so, after all Peter was right there and interacted daily with a physical Jesus for 3 years.
Once Peter figured he had it right when he told Jesus that He was messiah, Son of the living God in answer to the query ‘And you, who do you say that I am?’. But within a very few moments. the jubilant Peter heard Jesus say: “Get behind me Satan!”
The ultimate in these exchanges seems very difficult. Jesus has Resurrected and is to meet with His disciples ‘up-north’. Peter decides to go fishing (to pick-up right where he had left-off). When Jesus comes a walking on the shore … Peter had to be told “It is The Master.”
After some food and still not recognizing Jesus. The Master asks Peter not once but three times if Peter loved Him. There is absolutely no time when so much of the heart is revealed … (Abraham’s walking with Isaac to Mt. Horeb … to sacrifice Isaac … seems close.)
In a way, Jesus asks us too “Do you love me?” When we start on something new we feel like: ‘Sure!’ But answering when someone ‘close’ dies, is much harder. If the question is posed when I die …. what will be my answer?
The answer to Jill’s question is not so easy to understand except that somehow Peter hopes to place you in the same predicament … everyday life is just sickeningly ordinary … a denial of our own life and a denial of Jesus. Loving Jesus transforms and resurrects this ‘ordinary’ into the extraordinary. Without His Love …. there is zip. I am zip!
John
…And those that denied the existence of the Gnomes wore mismatched plaids, never returned their carts to the corral at the supermarket, and were never welcome at the “Cool Table” in High School.
Yup, those who fail to live the Gnome Lifestyle are a pack of cretins with big 80’s hair-dos, while those of us who know the Gnomes are just way ‘mo better.
I love religion. Everyone who disagrees with me is just a big ***ktard!
Sssshhhhhh, Laura.
Alexandria, thank you for such an honest and thoughtful response. I feel like I completely understand where you are coming from after reading your words.
I think Carla’s book recommendation was a good one… I appreciate the fact that you are still seeking answers. I am sure that you will eventually find them. Seek and you will find.
And you’re right…you can be honest with God about how you’re feeling. He will answer your prayers, not always in the way you might expect…but if you sincerely want to know, He will provide you with the answers, in His time.
Unlike FF(Laura), you have responded to this question in sincerity, and I really appreciate that about you! (hugs)
I’m an atheist, so of course I disagree. To me, the verse sounds like someone who is insecure in his own belief attempting to puff himself up by tearing down others.
Heironymous, I understand how you feel, but this wasn’t an attempt to tear down others, but it was explaining how vain life is without Christ, and how fortunate we are to have a Savior that would redeem us from the worthless life (a life which ends with death) into a life that has purpose, and inherent worth and value (and does not cease when we die).
Without Christ, our lives end at death, and there would probably be nothing more to it. Without Christ, we are only as valuable as we perceive ourselves to be, or as others value us (as Doug’s type of logic will explain).
With Christ, there is more, there is life after death, and we do not have to live a life in vain, only to eventually just die and be forgotten.
It’s not about tearing others down as much as it is explaining that things on earth are corruptible and have an end, but spiritual things last forever.
Even you would probably agree with me, being an atheist, you (I assume) believe that life ends with death- so what exactly is the purpose of life- for you? Is there an actual purpose to life, in your opinion? To be remembered by other people? You could be remembered for a few centuries, maybe even a thousand years by other people…but those people will eventually die and be forgotten too. What is the real point of living, of helping others, of accomplishing goals, of keeping yourself healthy, etc, if it all ends with death and nothing more?
Here is the verse Jill posted, along with the context…I’m posting it with the New International version as it’s easier than KJV for most:
17 Since you call on a Father who judges each man’s work impartially, live your lives as strangers here in reverent fear.
18 For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers,
19 but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect.
20 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.
21 Through him you believe in God, who raised him from the dead and glorified him, and so your faith and hope are in God.
22 Now that you have purified yourselves by obeying the truth so that you have sincere love for your brothers, love one another deeply, from the heart. [fn2]
23 For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God. 24 For,
?All men are like grass,
and all their glory is like the flowers of the field;
the grass withers and the flowers fall,
25 but the word of the Lord stands forever.? [fn3]
And this is the word that was preached to you.
Alexandra,
That is a good post and a very honest way of looking at things. God can not fault you for that..in fact, I bet He appreciates it.
There are at times when I too feel conflicted with the physical world and that of the spiritual world. Especially when really terrible things happen in the world. But I pray, and I just hope that He shows me the way. Having faith is not easy, even Jesus at times struggled with what He was put here to do on Earth. But nothing that is worth it is ever easy.
Alexandra,
(sorry for bombarding you!)
Your post is so sincere. You explain yourself and feelings very well. I admire that.
I don’t know if this will help, but I like to share this story because I have witnessed the “light” being turned on myself:
My mother was a devout atheist. Things happened in her life that made her believe that there wasn’t a God, because “if there were a God” He could not possibly allow the things that happened to her in her life happen. One day, when she was at rock bottom in her life, she cried out and said, “God. People tell me that you are real but I have a hard time believing that. If you are real, please show me”.
In a miraculous way, God did indeed answer her prayer. The “light” was turned on (through God) and she is now happy, full of life and her spirit has been filled. So, if you arn’t sure, just ask God…He will answer you. I promise.
One more thing that I would like to add, is that God does enjoy people being kind, good-hearted, honest, etc. However, he cannot look upon sin, and sin cannot enter Heaven. It’s nothing personal, for you are His creation. Through believing in the gospel of Jesus Christ, our sins are cleansed FOREVER, and this is what will allow one to spend eternity in Heaven with Him. It’s not you He doesn’t like…He loves you! It’s the sin that you have….that we ALL have…that we were born with….that He cannot accept.
Romans 10:9-10
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
God will work in your heart to believe if you ask Him to.
I don’t know…I have to say I also disagree with the statement.
I do believe that when we die, that’s it, that’s the end. I’m not so sure why this is always seen as a *bad* thing? Could it just be that we really are here for *no reason*? I’m not sure why people are so concerned with whether they are here for a purpose or that their lives need a purpose in order to be considered worthwhile and good.
Something I’ve always wondered about, why can’t people just be good for the sake of being good? Why is it that people are good to avoid Hell and for an opportunity to go to Heaven? I’m good to people because it makes me happy to be that way. I often feel crummy and really guilty if I’m mean…and if I treat people poorly, it gives them an “excuse” so-to-speak to treat me poorly, so why would I do that?
I’m perfectly content with understanding that this is it, and that there probably isn’t a purpose or reason for my existence or that there is a point to living. I just do because that’s what I have been doing for the past 20 years, and I’m quite fond (at this moment) of the status quo.
Ari-chan,
And if you’re wrong? I mean, you HAVE been wrong about things before, right?
Eternity is quite a long time. In fact, it’s immeasurable. Quite a long time to pay for being wrong, if you are, right?
@JLM: Then I guess I’ll pay the consequences for being “wrong”. However, I think it rings hollow to believe in God out of fear of what would happen if you don’t. Pascal’s wager…ugh.
Believe me JLM, I have tried to believe that there is a God, but I can’t. I’ve tried to believe that there is an afterlife, but I can’t. It’s not important to me, to be honest.
St. Paul said, “For me to live is Christ and to die is gain.” Christ is the only word that will fit into it’s place in that sentence and justify the last 5 words of it”. Everything else is lost when you enter eternity; and even He is lost to you if you enter it without Him.
Then I guess I’ll pay the consequences for being “wrong”. However, I think it rings hollow to believe in God out of fear of what would happen if you don’t.
I certainly do not believe in God out of fear. However, it’s what got me studying the bible in the first place! I always thought that if I were wrong, what a horrible place to go to! I just thought it would be to my benefit if I were to “look into it”, wholeheartedly, and then make a decision based on my “findings”.
I always relate that to someone who wants to be, say, a bioligist. They don’t just say one day, “well, I want to be one, but I can’t.” They go to school, study biology…every aspect they can of it…to get complete understanding of it, so they can become a biologist. Same thing with God. In order to understand Him better, you need to study the bible…every aspect you can of it…to get complete understanding of it, so you can learn how to receive the gift of eternal life.
IMO, I’d rather learn about God now, than put it off, or take a gamble on whether what He says is true or not, so I don’t spend eternity kicking myself in the rear end!
Believe me JLM, I have tried to believe that there is a God, but I can’t. I’ve tried to believe that there is an afterlife, but I can’t. It’s not important to me, to be honest.
God will work in your heart to believe if you ask Him to. Honest. It takes only a few seconds of your life to ask Him, A-c. It may not be important to you now, but you really can’t guarantee that you’ll be alive even another hour. It’s not fear, it’s just smart.
:)
I see myself as the same person I was when I was an atheist. I think I still have some ambivalence though. My conversion is not on firm ground as of yet,imo. I think I want to believe more than I might actually believe.
4:04 was me…oops!
Hi Bethany – thanks for the response. You are correct. I think that our lives cease when we die, and I’m ok with that.
I don’t agree at all that ceasing upon death makes life worthless, quite the contrary. I cherish the time I have, the friends I’ve made (and hopefully will make), my family, my own accomplishments and the accomplishments of those whom I care about.
Thinking about Alexandria’s post also, I have this vague notion that there really is something physically different about the brain, genetics or what-have-you between believers and non-believers. Just like her, I went through some years of searching before concluding that I just don’t have the proper mechanisms for belief. I don’t feel it, and never have. I was raised by strong believers in a family of strong believers, and to me it always felt like play-acting.
I think religion is an incredibly rich and fascinating field of study, but that’s about as far as it goes.
One of the things I’m struggling with Hell–why would God give an infinite punishment for a mistake on Earth? Doesn’t seem just.
PIP,
I don’t know if you read this, but I’ll re-post the comment especially for you :)
One more thing that I would like to add, is that God does enjoy people being kind, good-hearted, honest, etc. However, he cannot look upon sin, and sin cannot enter Heaven. It’s nothing personal, for you are His creation. Through believing in the gospel of Jesus Christ, our sins are cleansed FOREVER, and this is what will allow one to spend eternity in Heaven with Him. It’s not you He doesn’t like…He loves you! It’s the sin that you have….that we ALL have…that we were born with….that He cannot accept. It’s not the mistakes we may make, it’s the sin that we were born with that needs cleansing. Sin cannot enter Heaven. As much as God loves each and every one of us, sin in Heaven is not His plan. Thankfully, he gave us His Son, Jesus Christ, so that we can be cleansed of sin and spend eternity in Heaven.
What an wonderful, free gift!
Carrie,
Maybe that’s God knocking at your door? Let Him in, trust me, He’s awesome!
@JLM: I’m sorry, but it sounds to me like like it’s “covering your bum” in case you are wrong. It seems that by having faith you are buying nothing more than insurance policy that may or may not fully cover everything.
It doesn’t seem worth it to me. I think it would be best not to continue this dicussion. :)
Hi PIP
I don’t think you’re the only one who struggles with the concept of Hell.
I think it’s quite beyond our human comprehension.
What I have read and been taught as a Catholic is that when we are judged by God (personal judgement as opposed to the general judgement at the end of time) we choose Hell. God does not place us there.
This is because we cannot stand the sight of a being so perfect so loving and we flee – we know that Hell is where we belong (I’m speaking of evil people unreconciled to God). We also know in perfect understanding the consequences of all of our actions and have perfect understanding of our motivations for doing them.
I once heard Hell described as a place where no one can ever love again. It seems incredible.
However, having said that, the thing to remember is that God wants us to be in Heaven with him and His mercy is infinite and much greater than the power of the devil.
Peace and God bless,
Patricia
Hi PiP.
there is a rather profound story about a gambler who died. He finds himself in luxurious clothes plus plenty of good food. “This is absolutely wonderful, especially because I did NOT believe in any sort of afterlife.”
A few weeks pass and he learns the routine of his new home. So he stops to talk to a neighbor. “This is wonderful” says he “but it’s like every available moment we go to the temple to sing God’s praises. Isn’t there something else… some ACTION?” “Nope, nothing else.” was his reply.
“Oh, didn’t anyone tell you?” “You are in Hell!”
John
PIP,
Hell is the complete seperation from God.
God doesn’t want anyone to go to hell. Each day that we have, is another chance that God gives us to come to know Him. He gave us the most amazing gift, Jesus Christ, so that whoever believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. God gave us free-will so that we can choose. Some do, some don’t. And there are consequences for those decisions. He respects us so much as not to barge into our life. So the decision of whether we go to hell or not rests solely on ourselves.
The only difference between a believer and non-believer is that when a believer stands before God, he or she has Jesus to intercede on his/her behalf. Believers and non-believers both sin.
Both will stand before God to make an account for his/her life, what he/she did, what he/she didn’t do. Believing that Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world doesn’t give anyone a free pass. Believing and understanding who He is allows us the reassurance that we won’t be judged harshly, bc we recognize that we are sinners and that we are nothing without Jesus Christ.
In the end, if those like Hieronymous are right, and there is no God, I have lost nothing. If there are many paths to God, I still lose nothing bc I can look at God and say I lived my life with the understanding that Jesus’s words were true by saying “I am the way, the truth, the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.” But if I am right and there is a God and Jesus is the only way, I still lose nothing bc I trusted Jesus with my life. But those who don’t will lose everything, and that really makes me sad, for I will never see them in Heaven.
Heaven is going to be the most amazing place. We think the earth is beautiful now, just wait to we see it in it’s perfected state. The way is was created originally. It is unfathomable. I can’t wait to see my Father in Heaven, and Jesus Christ. I can’t wait until I can give Jesus a hug. That thought gives me goose bumps!I can’t wait to talk with Paul, Peter, Nicodemus, David, Deborah, Mary, Calvin, Bonhoeffer, Augustine. The list goes on.
I’m a big fan of Islam because of how accepting it is (when it is practiced in true accordance with the Qur’an). They say that Jews and Christians are on the right path as well and they believe in the messages of Abraham (Ibrahim) and Jesus, but simply that–in the nature of humans–they strayed and forgot to listen to Mohammad. If I had a dollar for every time it reassures readers of the Qur’an “but God is ever-forgiving and infinitely merciful” or something similar, I would not have to worry about paying for university.
There are many paths to God. I will never stop believing that.
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
There are many paths to God. I will never stop believing that.
Then, by definition, you are not Christian as you have claimed(not saying it to be mean, but to help you understand this point). Leah, a Christian believes what the Bible says about salvation, that Christ is the only way, the truth, and the life, and that no man can enter except through Him.
If you want to believe that there are many paths to God, you can, but please don’t call it Christianity.
Tara, 6:37, I agree.
I’m not kidding here, my translation tool came up with this:
oops…
Above the “in poison” translation was SUPPOSED to be Leah’s Arabic endnote to her post.
I never called it Christianity, Bethany. But you have no right to speak for all Christians, because you will find many open-minded accepting groups of Christians DO believe that there are many paths to God. Your exclusivity is extremely disturbing to me.
The translation of what I wrote, by the way is the first line of every chapter in the Qur’an: In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate.
@Leah: Somebody is eventually going to say that no…Christianity doesn’t believe in the “many paths lead to God” and that the evil, evil pro-abort liberalz are ruining Christianity by saying that that is the case.
Though, if you like religions that are tolerant, you should look at Hinduism too. My buddy Indraneel told me about it and how it’s a pretty tolerant [of other religions] faith. That and it has a god with blue skin, how rockin’ is that?
Leah,
That wasn’t Bethany, that was me. (JLM)
I forgot to put my name up AGAIN!
Thank you, though, for posting the translation for it. I wasn’t kidding. i wanted to know what it meant, so when i ran it through the translation tool on my computer (stock), that’s what it came up with. I didn’t mean to offend you, I was just hoping you’d give me the proper translation. you did. Thanks!
I never called it Christianity, Bethany.
I know you didn’t today, but you have in the past, which is why I was mentioning it…you have said in the past that you are a Christian, and that Jesus would allow abortions. Now, you may be another Leah and if you are, I apologize, but that is the only reason I brought it up at all. And like I said, my intent is not to offend but simply to point out that if one follow’s Christ, they’ll follow his teachings. And his teachings were that He is the only way to Heaven.
But you have no right to speak for all Christians, because you will find many open-minded accepting groups of Christians DO believe that there are many paths to God. Your exclusivity is extremely disturbing to me.
Then the Bible should be disturbing to you too, Leah. The Bible states clearly time and time again that Christ is the only way to salvation.
That’s ok, JLM. I wasn’t offended. :)
Bethany: I never claimed to be a Christian. I am not a Christian. I seek to better myself through a variety of spiritual mediums, many of which come from the words of Christ.
The Bible does not disturb me. What disturbs me are what I perceive to be severe misinterpretations (not to mention the mistranslations) of its texts.
Ari: Hinduism is VERY cool! I’m a big fan of Buddha as well.
Somebody is eventually going to say that no…Christianity doesn’t believe in the “many paths lead to God” and that the evil, evil pro-abort liberalz are ruining Christianity by saying that that is the case.
Ari-chan,
HUH???
You’re really not making much sense with that statement.
Leah,
So, do you agree or disagree with the weekend question?
Of course I disagree. If that is indeed what that verse says, then it is ridiculous. Does that mean that those who are not Christians are worthless? Jesus, I believe with all my heart, would NEVER say such a thing.
Unless, that is, I misunderstand Jill’s interpretation.
@JLM: EHehehehehehe. Fingers were typing *far* faster than brain was functioning.
Allow me to clarify:
I was trying to say that the concept that Christianity allows for “many paths reaching to God” is something many more fundamentalist Christians do not believe. A critique I’ve often heard of that mode of belief is that it’s an overly liberal (and therefore evil) interpretation because it *may* allow for people to have no problem with abortion but still love Jesus, when that isn’t technically supposed to be the case.
I have often seen more conservative/fundamentalist Christians have major issues with denominations that are liberal in that aspect (in that many paths lead to God) like the United Church of Christ and the Unitarian Universalists.
I was being overly sarcastic with the “evil, evil pro-abort liberalz!” stuff…as I’ve heard that kind of thought-process before and felt like satirizing it, but obviously I did that poorly…
1 Peter 1:18-21:
18For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers, 19but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect. 20He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake. 21Through him you believe in God, who raised him from the dead and glorified him, and so your faith and hope are in God.
What’s this about worthlessness?
What’s this about worthlessness?
” the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers”
Of course I disagree. If that is indeed what that verse says, then it is ridiculous. Does that mean that those who are not Christians are worthless? Jesus, I believe with all my heart, would NEVER say such a thing.
The “way of life” is worthless, not the individuals involved in that way of life.
That would be “empty way of life” in your translation, Leah.
Ari-chan,
My bad. I didn’t get the sarcasm in the last part. That’s what threw me off.
Thank you for taking the time to clarify!
I’ll still have to disagree. Many people live full and happy lives without Jesus.
@JLM: No worries, I probably over-did it. My sarcasm gets out of hand at times, to the point where it becomes mean and nonsensical. Duuuurrrrrr.
You’re really not making much sense with that statement.
JLM, I think that what Ari-chan was saying was that there will always be people who feel that no true Christian can believe that there are many paths to God, and that people who feel that way will probably dismiss the beliefs of “Christians” (here in quotes to avoid a discussion over the true definition of Christian, who gets to call oneself a Christian, etc) who feel more like Leah as being more of the same “liberal” — ie weak — New Age spirituality that allows any other dissent from their views on what the religion is.
I wish — more for your sake (and Bethany’s) than for mine, because you guys seem to want it so badly — that I could just say that I hadn’t tried very hard to know God. I have. I spent most of my life trying, and I felt nothing. I remember being touched when all that stuff about Mother Teresa’s doubt came out, because that’s kind of what my entire religious experience was, in a way. Except that I never felt connected to God in the first place. And I am a much happier person accepting that and just concentrating on being the best person I can be, than I was when I was so desperately seeking something I felt should come to me if I just asked, or just wanted it badly enough, or whatever. I’m an open-minded person on just about every account, I think — if someone proves me wrong, I have no problem changing my mind — so if something were to come along to convince me that there is a God, I would probably change my mind. But I searched for quite a while, and the only conclusion I can come to is that whether there’s a God or not, I’m not the believing type, at least not on the evidence I’ve seen. And if there is a God, I certainly don’t believe that He would fault me for being honest about that.
Alexandra,
Thank you again. You do explain yourself VERY well! Believing what I believe, how can I not want it so bad for you? I understand your belief, and I also understand that I have not walked a day in your shoes.
I’d like to ask you something and I totally understand if you don’t want to answer. That’s ok. When you were “searching” for God, were you doing it on your own, or did you ask Him for help?
1 Peter 1:18-21:
18For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers, 19but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect. 20He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake. 21Through him you believe in God, who raised him from the dead and glorified him, and so your faith and hope are in God.
What’s this about worthlessness?
Posted by: Leah at February 23, 2008 7:51 PM
…………………………………………………
In the context of this scripture it would relate to the buying of dispensation as it were.
If God doesn’t want us to be in hell, how could he send incredibly good people there?
Leah,
The Qur’an does not allow for other faiths. And it definately doesn’t teach that there are many paths.
This is not to say there aren’t moderate people of the Muslim faith. I have had these kinds of conversations with a friend who is a Muslim.
Just curious, have you read the Qur’an?
That would be “empty way of life” in your translation, Leah.
Posted by: Jill Stanek at February 23, 2008 7:57 PM
………………………………………….
This scripture is not speaking to anyone’s way of life but rather the use of graven images made from precious metals used by Jews to appease God.
Your brand of Bible takes great liberties in it’s attempt to make historical references hip and relevant to it’s readers.
No, JLM, I understand how much you must want it for me. I used to agonize imagining even people I didn’t like rotting in hell.
I asked Him for help, almost every day for years once I was old enough to really understand the concept of faith as a personal issue rather than just “going to church.” I always felt like there was something broken about me because it never worked. I became by far the most “religious” person in my family, I made best friends out of the most genuine Christians my age at my church (most of whom I am still in contact with — that much, at least, was worth it!), I bought a Teen Bible hoping it would offer me some kind of key to understanding things, I pored over the Bible I’d received in third grade for graduating a Sunday School class hoping its straightforward presentation would help me get down to the core of my faith, I went on youth retreats and — more than once — asked my whole entire youth group to pray for me because I could not feel anything. I prayed fervently myself, always suspicious that no one was listening anyway. Eventually I grew tired, and found that I was much happier just letting it go.
Thank you for the compliment, by the way, JLM.
This is disturbing me, so I need to post this. By no means is this meant to offend anyone, but the truth needs to be said:
Christians DO NOT worship the same God as the Islam religion does. Allah is a pagan god, who has no son. Jesus Christ is Almighty God (John 10:33; Revelation 1:8), the second Person of the Godhead (John 1:1-3,10; Matthew 28:19-20), the Christ (Luke 2:11), and He is the Son of God (John 3:16)!
1st John 4:14 says, “And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world”.
Muslims deny Jesus Christ as Savior.
We do not believe in the same God.
So, to say that there are many “paths” to God is simply false. There is only ONE path to God, and that is through Jesus Christ. He is God. All other religions that do not believe that Jesus Christ is God worship pagan gods.
Alexandra,
Thank you again. You do explain yourself VERY well! Believing what I believe, how can I not want it so bad for you? I understand your belief, and I also understand that I have not walked a day in your shoes.
JLM, you took the words out of my mouth. I want it so badly for her too. I have been there though. I have been through the agony of wondering if God really existed, if God really cared.
I remember as a child asking God if he existed and telling Him to give me a sign. I was asking for a physical sign, but I didn’t realize that it would be years later before I realized how to listen for God’s signs.
God has answered so many of my prayers (one of them ended up being my husband! He was a DIRECT answer to my prayers!), and has done good on all of His promises through His word.
I was able to come to assurance of my salvation again only through the support of my loving husband who has a lot of faith, and by reading the Bible again and again, searching for the support I needed. ALL of the answers that I was seeking were right there. Every single one.
I so badly wish I could help you to have the faith that you have been wanting, Alexandria. If there is any way that I can help you or that JLM or Mary Kay or anyone here can help, please let us know.
It is not as difficult as you might think, to have faith in God…but remember, you’re not a failure or abnormal if you doubt at times. Remember, even Jesus disciples doubted many times, and Jesus called them “ye of little faith” on many occasions.
We only need faith “size of a mustard seed”.
The devil can influence our minds and make God seem like a fairy tale, and if we aren’t prepared with scripture to fight him with, we many times can fall for his tricks. It is very easy to do so. I fell for the idea that there were countless contradictions in the Bible, at one time. I was crying one night and asked my husband if he could help me understand why the Bible seemed to contradict. Lo and behold he showed me that I was taking the verses out of context, and when I read them correctly, they did not contradict at all. I remember being so intensely relieved when I saw this and realized my error.
I will pray and pray that we will be able to help you find faith in God. I pray that God will give me and others here the words to speak, so that we will not say the wrong thing, offend, or be a stumbling block, to turn you away from Him. Please try to remember that we are only human and can make big mistakes.
By the way, I think I speak for all of us when I say we love you – although we obviously disagree on many subjects, I never want you to get the idea that we dislike you. Never at all!
Ah, I hope this post isn’t a jumbled mess!
@Leah,
I sure hope you are enjoying Alberta – must be the flat part, close to Saskatewan .. because much of the province is very hilly, being next to the Rockies.
I think you keep running up against a continuing problem: “And you, who do you say I am?”‘ These words spoken by Jesus have always been a problem for those who wish to control Him via ‘superior’ understanding.
There is an old story about Thomas Aquinas walking along a beech and running into a small child attempting to fill the hole he had dug with water. He told Thomas, that it would be easier to put all the ocean’s water into that wee hole, than to understand the Trinity (an aspect of Jesus, Thomas had been contemplating).
The story goes that after this Thomas stopped writing … referring to his earlier work as mere chaff.
Much of our current opposition to Jesus is a deep misunderstanding of Who He is. The answer is not simple, so the Way is and is-not narrow like you insist that it is.
“So, to say that there are many “paths” to God is simply false. There is only ONE path to God, and that is through Jesus Christ. He is God. All other religions that do not believe that Jesus Christ is God worship pagan gods.”
I knew this was gonna come… :)
Now do you get what I was saying before?
Alexandria, psalm 119 is a very long chapter, but there is a lot there that helped me find assurance. You have probably read it many times before but I want you to notice how it reads, “Blessed are they….that seek Him with a whole heart.”
You are very blessed, Alexandria. You are seeking Him.
Bethany,
Your post wasn’t jumbled, it was beautiful.
And yes, you did speak for me when you told Alexandra that we love her.
Thank you, Bethany!
:)
Alexandria, have you ever accepted Christ as your Savior? Did you have faith as a child?
Tara: I realize that Islam is not a completely open faith, but I like that it at least recognizes other monotheistic religions as being valid. Not like JLM there who condemns Islam with a flick of the wrist.
To answer your question, I have read much of the Qur’an, although not all of it.
JLM: Yes, Muslims DO worship the same God you do. Just because you are too blind to see it does not change the fact. Next time, try to me just a *little* more ignorant and offensive.
Ari: I do, indeed. It saddens me.
These are my new bunnies, that will be off the bottle by the middle of March! I will get them when I get back from spring break :)
I have number 6 reserved for the first pick, 1 reserved on the second.
Anon:
There are a lot of hills, although not Rocky Mountain-esque ones. They’re visible from the farm–the Rockies–although a five-hour drive away! But yes, for the most part, it is flat.
I think you misunderstand me. I am saying that the Way is not narrow, as many believe it to be. I believe the Way is wide and an abundance of paths lead to the same destination. Or am I misunderstanding you?
Beeeeeethany?
Are you able to chat this beauteous evening?
mods please post my bunnies :)
So, to say that there are many “paths” to God is simply false. There is only ONE path to God, and that is through Jesus Christ. He is God. All other religions that do not believe that Jesus Christ is God worship pagan gods.
Posted by: JLM at February 23, 2008 8:31 PM
…………………………………….
That makes Christianity absolute bunk then doesn’t it? Christians use the Jewish God to explain their Christian God yet Jews don’t believe that Jesus was God. Quite a conundrum. if Jews don’t know their God, Christians know their God even less.
Tara: I realize that Islam is not a completely open faith, but I like that it at least recognizes other monotheistic religions as being valid. Not like JLM there who condemns Islam with a flick of the wrist.
From the quran:
The Jews call ‘Uzair a son of God, and the Christians call Christ the son of God. That is but a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. God’s curse be on them; how they are deluded away from the Truth! They take their priests and their anchorites to be their lords in derogation of God, and (they take as their Lord) Christ the son of Mary. Yet they were commanded to worship but One God: there is no god but He. Praise and glory to Him! (Far is He) from having the partners they associate (with Him)” (9:30-31).
Yes… and?
Leah, the exact same thing that you accuse us of doing is in the quran! They believe their religion is the ONLY one, they believe their way is the ONLY way.
Tell me where the difference is?
” recognizes other monotheistic religions as being valid.”
that is false. They think that judaism and Christianity are false religions. See my point?
Bethany, check out my bunnies! They are in the queue
Ari-chan,
I am not embarrased to say it. Jesus is the only way, the only truth and the only life. No one comes to the Father except through Him. Yes, I believe that.
It seems intolerant, exclusive, arrogant, ignornat, and many other adjectives to say in this day and age. Because we have lost the true meaning of tolerance.
But I do respect other people no matter what their religion or lack there of bc God created them to. So while, I do not have to agree or accept anothers faith or viewpoint, I MUST respect them bc they are human beings and have intrinsic value. That is the true meaning of tolerance.
That being said, it is NOT my job to convert anyone to Christianity. That is God’s job. I am to share my faith. I am to tell others how much Jesus loves them and wants to have a personal relationship wtih them. He came so that they can live. He came so that their sin would not destroy me forever. He came to redeem all of creation. He came because God loves them.
As Jesus said, it one sheep was lost, a shepherd would leave the flock and find the lost one. He then would throw a party when the lost one was found.
Aren’t they the cutest things you’ve ever seen!
PIP, SO ADORABLE!
JLM: Yes, Muslims DO worship the same God you do. Just because you are too blind to see it does not change the fact. Next time, try to me just a *little* more ignorant and offensive.
Then why don’t Muslims accept our God?
I just showed you the verse that says that, Leah. They say that we worship a false God (Christ)
Can I have one, PIP???
hehe
That makes Christianity absolute bunk then doesn’t it? Christians use the Jewish God to explain their Christian God yet Jews don’t believe that Jesus was God. Quite a conundrum. if Jews don’t know their God, Christians know their God even less.
Not at all, Sally. The difference between Christians and Jews, is that the Jews do not believe that Jesus Christ, the Messiah, has come yet. They are still waiting for Him to come. They are still living under the law, while Christians believe that Jesus HAS come, fulfilled the law, and are living under grace through faith in Jesus. The beginnings of Islam are also found in the old testament. Our beliefs turn to a different path when we get to Jesus Christ. The crux of belief of Christianity. The one, true and only path to God.
So again, no. Christianity isn’t debunked, the other religious beliefs are.
lol Bethany, she already gave the free ones away already but they are only twenty bucks ;)
I went over there (it’s a 40 minute drive there) this afternoon, it was a lovefest. I was all over them and their cuteness. It was hard to pick just two.
here are her other litters:
http://www.furryfriendsrus.com/maternity.htm
she also breeds rats and mice. One of her rats was so adorable too!
“It seems intolerant, exclusive, arrogant, ignornat, and many other adjectives to say in this day and age. Because we have lost the true meaning of tolerance.”
@Tara: Eh. I don’t think I said that… do I agree with your view? Nope. Do you agree with my views? Nope. And that’s fine.
They accept Jesus Christ, only not as a God. He is accepted as a Prophet. However, the aspect of God as an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient being is consistent throughout the three monotheistic religions: you all worship the same God!
I have some Qur’an verses for you, but I need to go get my copy first.
Yes, Muslims DO worship the same God you do. Just because you are too blind to see it does not change the fact.
Leah,
I started the post with my “no offense” statement. Again, I am truly sorry you were offended. The truth often does offend.
Please enlighten me, then, as to how Muslims DO worship the same God as I do, if they believe that Jesus Christ was a prophet, and not God.
They accept Jesus Christ, only not as a God. He is accepted as a Prophet. However, the aspect of God as an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient being is consistent throughout the three monotheistic religions: you all worship the same God!
My God is in three persons. Their god is not, Leah. If they don’t believe that Christ is God, they don’t believe in my God. Don’t you see that?
See my above post, JLM.
got it, Leah. I’m a slow poster, LOL!
They accept Jesus Christ, only not as a God. He is accepted as a Prophet.
But he is not accepted by them as part of the triune God, which means that they do not believe in our God, which is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, all three are one.
No, Bethany. I do not. There is your ignorant exclusivity again. In any case, here are some wonderful Qur’an verses:
“The same religion has He established for you as that which He enjoined on Noah … and that which We enjoined on Abraham, Moses, and Jesus” (42:13 AYA)
“We [Muslims] believe in the Revelation which has come down to us and in that which came down to you [Jews & Christian]); our Allah and your Allah is One” (29:46 AYA)
“O People of the Book!” (5:68 AYA) refers to and addresses Muslims, Jews and Christians alike.
In case you’re wondering, AYA simply stands for Abdullah Yusuf Ali, who translated this particular version of the Qur’an from Arabic to English.
Also the quran claims that Christ was never crucified, which would mean logically that they would believe Him to be a false prophet, if they believe Him to be a prophet at all.
By the way, anything further addressed to me, I’ll answer in the morning.
I’m off for the evening!!
That’s Qur’an–not quran. Like it’s Bible, not bible. And God, not god.
Ari-chan –
I didn’t think you did use those adjectives.
I was just trying to point out that I know there are other that would say that, and I was acknowledging that.
I respect you for your feelings. And I do hope that someday you come to know Jesus, but that is between you and Him.
I have to go and tuck my kids inoto bed, and study for my exam on Monday. Have a great night.
Leah, that would be if I respected their god as a diety. I mean no disrespect, but their god is not my God.
“That makes Christianity absolute bunk then doesn’t it? Christians use the Jewish God to explain their Christian God yet Jews don’t believe that Jesus was God. Quite a conundrum. if Jews don’t know their God, Christians know their God even less.”
It is possible to draw distintions without being insulting.
Jews have a concept of a messiah, they just don’t accept Jesus as that messiah. Christians believe he was.
Since both Christians and Jews accept the old testament, they acknowledge the same heritage and basis of belief.
The quran clearly states in, The Women 4.171, that God has NO Son. [4.171] O followers of the Book! do not exceed the limits in your religion, and do not speak (lies) against Allah, but (speak) the truth; the Messiah, Isa son of Marium is only an apostle of Allah and His Word which He communicated to Marium and a spirit from Him; believe therefore in Allah and His apostles, and say not, Three. Desist, it is better for you; Allah is only one God; far be It from His glory that He should have a son, whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth is His, and Allah is sufficient for a Protector.
In sharp contrast, John 3:16 in the Word of God declares that God DOES have a Son, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”
The quran even goes as far as to claim that Jesus never died, nor was He crucified (The Women, 4.157). And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the apostle of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure.
Both history and archeology show clearly that Allah was worshipped as a pagan moon god long before Mohammed came on the scene.
So again, I will stress, not to offend, but just to prove that we DO NOT worship the same God, Leah.
Yes, I’ve heard that about the moon god, JLM. Interesting stuff.
Christians DO NOT worship the same God as the Islam religion does. Allah is a pagan god,
Muslims deny Jesus Christ as Savior.
We do not believe in the same God.
Posted by: JLM at February 23, 2008 8:31 PM
Allah is the arabic word for God. In the arabic version of the christian bible, allah is the word used for God.
If you don’t feel or believe it is the same God, well okay.
However, arguing over the word allah is silly because it is just a matter of translation, like spanish Dios or german Gott, etc. Each language has its own words.
JLM,
Real quick, Isalm believes, that the Jews and Christians rewrote parts of the Bible after Mohommed was here. Although, that has been proven false from the archeological finds.
But most importantly they believe that as Christians we believe the Trinity, is God, Jesus and Mary. They do not have an understanding of the Holy Spirit. So for them, it looks like God had a wife. As Christians we know that is not true. But it is an important thing to understand. Muslims believe in the virgin birth, but do not believe that Jesus is God in human form. Even many Christians have a hard time understandig of the Trinity.
I agree with you, we do not worship and believe in the same God. We have a common ancestor, but that is where the similarities end.
If you don’t feel or believe it is the same God, well okay.
However, arguing over the word allah is silly because it is just a matter of translation, like spanish Dios or german Gott, etc. Each language has its own words.
I totally agree, Hippie. I don’t think that JLM is trying to say that the word Allah doesn’t translate as “God” in their language, but like you said, that we don’t feel it is the “same” God. I hope that helps clear it up.
JLM correct me if I’m wrong about your intent though..don’t want to put words in your mouth..
I worship Jeff the God of Biscuits and Simon the God of Hair-dos…
(10 pts and brownies for whoever guesses what I’m referencing! :D)
No, hippie, it’s not silly it’s deceptive. Many religions call who they worship god, when it’s not the same God that Christians believe in.
Islam’s origins have been traced back by scholars to the ancient fertility religion of the worship of the moon god which was always the dominant religion of Arabia. The moon god was worshipped by praying toward Mecca several times a day, making an annual pilgrimage to the Kabah which was a temple of the moon god, running around the Kabah seven times, caressing an idol of a black stone set in the wall of the Kabah, running between two hills, making animal sacrifices, gathering on Fridays for prayers, giving alms to the poor, etc.. These were pagan rites practiced by the Arabs long before Muhammad was born.
This explains why the crescent moon is the symbol of Islam. It is placed on top of mosques and minarets and displayed on hats, flags, rugs, amulets and even jewelry. Every time you see the Muslim symbol of a crescent moon, you are seeing the ancient symbol of the moon god.
So I am not sorry to say, hippie, that who Muslim’s call “god” and who I call “God” are NOT one in the same. It’s not semantics, there’s true meaning behind both names, and both names mean different things to each religion. One is real, one is not.
Tara, wow, that is very interesting!
I worship Jeff the God of Biscuits and Simon the God of Hair-dos…
(10 pts and brownies for whoever guesses what I’m referencing! :D)
I have no idea….what kind of brownies are they?
THis is for PIP:
God does not send “incredibly good people” to hell. They make that choice themselves, by the choices they make throughout their lives.
We have free will, unlike animals who operate on instinct. We can know what is good and evil and we make a choice. God wants us to choose to be with Him forever, but some do not want this. So, in His infinite wisdom, he allows us to choose. Of course, only God can know what is in a person’s heart and if there are mitigating circumstances. That’s why we cannot judge a person, only their actions. We leave the judgeing to God.
BTW,”Incredibly good people” do not go to Hell. How would you know this anyhow? Who told you?
PIP,
CUTE BUNNIES! If I could adopt every cute animal in the world, I would!
Patricia-
“They make that choice themselves, by the choices they make throughout their lives.”
So if their perspective on religion is different but the goals are the same, they will still go to hell, because they have to be a Christian in order to go to heaven. Sounds unfair that someone willingly “sent themselves to hell” for eternity by simply being raised or come to understand God in a different manner.
“BTW,”Incredibly good people” do not go to Hell. How would you know this anyhow? Who told you?”
the people who say that unless you accept Jesus Christ you will go to hell.
JLM, no, the “two” gods are One and the Same. In the beginning Islam was essentially a split from Judaism, with changes as they believed the Jews had “gone off course” as the phrase was used by my Comp. World Religions teacher. However there was eventually a split due to Jews in the region believing Muhammed was a power threat and chased he and his followers out of town. That began the praying towards Mecca over Jerusalem. However they continued treating Jews and Christians as “brothers” in God who had simply been misled by their own prophets.
JLM, aren’t they?! I had a heart attack looking at them, they were so cute.
Dan,
No, really they are not one in the same. Maybe they are to you, but I don’t worship the moon god. I worship the One, True God.
@Bethany: Good brownies. With frosting. And walnuts if you like.
PIP,
They would have had to drag me out of there to leave! Wasn’t it hard to go?
Dan,
This may help:
When Mohammed was born in Mecca in 570 AD, the black Kaaba Stone was the religious center of all Arabia. In Mohammed’s day, 365 idols were worshipped there, standing in the great courtyard. One of those deities was called Allah and was the god of the Quarish tribe, of which Mohammed was a member. When the Quarish tribe took control of Mecca, all the idols except Allah, the idol of their tribe, were destroyed.
The Koran Tells us that Mohammed drove the other idols away; his god was now the only god and he was its messenger. But he kept the Kaaba as a holy, sacred place and confirmed that the black stone had the power to take away man’s sins. He obligated every believer to make a pilgrimage to the stone at least once in his lifetime. (Sura 22:26-37)
Once again, not the same God Christians worship.
Oh definitely! I was there for probably a little over an hour, because I was petting and holding them. Some of them would dig their head into the nook of my elbow (awww) and yeah, crazy cuteness overload.
She also breeds rats and mice. One of her rats was really cute and just had a litter. The breeder took off her hut so we could see them. The rat would pick up one of her babies in her mouth to move them, and they would skweak!
oh my goodness. Cuteness everywhere. I didn’t want to go, and I don’t want to wait until march 24th!
PIP,
Not wanting to wait, I don’t blame you! However, at least it’s a good thing to look forward to, you know?
I heard rats make really good pets. I’m not sure I could ever do that, but I’ve heard from people who have them that they wouldn’t have any other pet. Who knew?
Yup a friend of mine has a rat and she’s really happy with him. Then another friend got a rat because he saw how she liked hers. I already have fish, hamsters, and now rabbits. If I got a rat right now I’d be a copycat!
but yeah I’ll get one probably over the summer lol.
I’m totally that girl in being john malcovich–will probably have one of each species eventually.
I think the more life in the living space, the better.
JLM, the following is the text you are referring to:
[22.26] And when We assigned to Ibrahim the place of the House, saying: Do not associate with Me aught, and purify My House for those who make the circuit and stand to pray and bow and prostrate themselves.
[22.27] And proclaim among men the Pilgrimage: they will come to you on foot and on every lean camel, coming from every remote path,
[22.28] That they may witness advantages for them and mention the name of Allah during stated days over what He has given them of the cattle quadrupeds, then eat of them and feed the distressed one, the needy.
[22.29] Then let them accomplish their needful acts of shaving and cleansing, and let them fulfil their vows and let them go round the Ancient House.
[22.30] That (shall be so); and whoever respects the sacred ordinances of Allah, it is better for him with his Lord; and the cattle are made lawful for you, except that which is recited to you, therefore avoid the uncleanness of the idols and avoid false words,
[22.31] Being upright for Allah, not associating aught with Him and whoever associates (others) with Allah, it is as though he had fallen from on high, then the birds snatch him away or the wind carries him off to a far-distant place.
[22.32] That (shall be so); and whoever respects the signs of Allah, this surely is (the outcome) of the piety of hearts.
[22.33] You have advantages in them till a fixed time, then their place of sacrifice is the Ancient House.
[22.34] And to every nation We appointed acts of devotion that they may mention the name of Allah on what He has given them of the cattle quadrupeds; so your God is One God, therefore to Him should you submit, and give good news to the humble,
[22.35] (To) those whose hearts tremble when Allah is mentioned, and those who are patient under that which afflicts them, and those who keep up prayer, and spend (benevolently) out of what We have given them.
[22.36] And (as for) the camels, We have made them of the signs of the religion of Allah for you; for you therein is much good; therefore mention the name of Allah on them as they stand in a row, then when they fall down eat of them and feed the poor man who is contented and the beggar; thus have We made them subservient to you, that you may be grateful.
[22.37] There does not reach Allah their flesh nor their blood, but to Him is acceptable the guarding (against evil) on your part; thus has He made them subservient to you, that you may magnify Allah because He has guided you aright; and give good news to those who do good (to others).
I dont see that at all
Source: Here
except for the wild mice in the apartment. They gots to go.
PIP,
I agree with you, there!
Animals are so faithful and loving. They never cease to give you great joy! My dream in life is to become a dog breeder. The only thing that halts it, is that I’d never be able to give those cute little puppies up!
I just checked out the website you posted. What a wonderful breeder. She actually stated that she is responsible for her “creations”, and that if you ever didn’t want something you purchased, she would take them back, no matter how many years go by, no questions asked. What a wonderful breeder!
I’m sure you’ll make a great bunny mom, PIP!
Also, JLM, Mohammad received the Koran from Angel Gabriel. They also refer to previous Biblical figures on top of tracing ancestry through Ishmael back to Abraham, and thus their connection to Judaism/Christianity and God Himself
It is true that as a Catholic I believe that the CAtholic Church is the one true apostolic faith. And I believe that the Catholic faith offers the best chance of achieving sanctity and heaven.
However, it is not true that only Catholics will go to heaven or only those who are Christian will go to heaven. Any person of good faith, seeking the truth honestly, will at some point in their journey end up on the road towards God. Such people grow spiritually and in a similar manner as Catholics, Christians. Father GRoeschel who is a psychologist and a priest has studied how people grow spiritually and states that while people of other religions can and do grow spiritually, the best opportunity for spiritual development is in Christianity and specifically Catholicism. (I hope I’m not misquoting him here!)
For example, if a person of the Hindu faith, is raised in the Hindu faith and really knows no other faith, but tries to live a good life (by that I mean he basically lives an honest life, is compassionate towards his fellow man etc) that person can definitely go to heaven. God does not damn someone because they’ve never had the opportunity to become Catholic.
As for knowing about the Catholic faith and declining to become Catholic, I have to say that only God really knows because only God really knows what was in that person’s heart. For example, the great writer and Christian apologist, CS Lewis was very amenable towards Catholicism and had a strong relationship with Tolkien (a devout Catholic). Yet, it is my understanding the Lewis could never quite come to grips with becoming CAtholic. I believe CS Lewis was likely a very good man and I don’t believe he resides in hell today! I think God saw his struggles, but also saw the tremendous good this man did while on earth.
This is my understanding of how things work.
JLM,
Thanks! In fact that is why I chose her as my breeder. I talked to her through email and AIM, and her website shows she is both responsible and knowledgeable. When I visited her today you could tell they were all in good condition and had ample space. She said when its warm she lets her buns run around ;)
that last post was directed to PIP
Sorry I meant to put your name up there at the top!!
Patricia-
but often people of other faiths live around christianity of some sort but stay with their religion. So what would your definition of “knows no other faith”?
Pip
I was referring to say a HIndu who lives in INdia- chances are those people will not likely have much exposure to Christianity and even if they did, they would not necessarily consider another religion due to cultural pressures etc.
Dan,
Mohammad allegedlyreceived the Koran from the Angel Gabriel.
“According to the legends, myths, and stories found in the Hadith, the Qur’an was written in heaven by Allah on a large stone tablet. The angel Gabriel brought it down and Muhammad recited it verbally but did not write any of it down. It was Muhammad’s companions who wrote down what he recited. After his death, it was gathered together and compiled by the Calif Uthman.
The Qur’an was invented in order to give spiritual unity to the vast empire created by Arab conquests. By borrowing liberally from the legends, myths and religious traditions of pagans, Jews, Christians, Hindus, and Persians, they created one religion to rule over all its citizens. Thus the Qur’an was the product of multiple authors from different times and places. These authors contributed stories and legends from their own cultural and religious background. The sources of these stories have been well documented by many scholars.”
Same origin, went a different “man-made” route, chose the moon god to worship, etc., etc. Again, Dan I choose not to believe that they worship the same God as I do.
That being said, I really get sick to my stomach when I have to research pagan religions. I actually cringe inside when I have to read their filth. Believe what you want, and I will do the same. I can’t look at anymore Muslim writings and beliefs tonight.
patricia-
What I am referring to would be like people in america. There would be no excuse for them, correct?
good night to all
sweet dreams…………..
aww :/
no answers for kate
Patricia,
In response to the paragraph re: the Hindu faith:
So, what you’re saying then, is that we were all born sinners, but God allows sin in Heaven, and that Jesus really didn’t have to come to shed his blood to wash away the sin that God allows in Heaven. That God’s plan from the beginning was just a bad joke, and that people don’t need to believe in Jesus, or anything He said in the bible, that all they just need to do is to have good intentions while they are alive to get to Heaven?
That is most certainly NOT the teachings of Christ (hence, Christian faith). God was very clear over and over again in the bible that there is only one way to God, through Jesus Christ.
I am the way the truth and the life; NO MAN cometh unto the Father BUT BY ME.” — Jesus Christ (John 14:6)
I don’t mean to sound offensive, but your comment above is calling Jesus a liar.
PIP,
I tend to be blunt in my comments because I feel that this is such a serious matter. A true matter of life and death. I apologize in advance for my bluntness if it is offensive.
The fact is, is that God will not allow sin to enter Heaven. Those are not my rules, nor yours, they are God’s. I know you have a hard time accepting that as being “just” and “fair”, but I think that our ideas of “just” and “fair” are much different than God’s.
Suppose you had a home with light colored carpeting throughout. Your rules for your house are that no one is to enter your house with shoes covered with filthy mud.
One of your best friends comes over, and their shoes are covered with mud. You tell them that they cannot come into your house unless they take their muddy shoes off. You tell them that your carpet must be kept clean.
Your friend, instead of abiding by your rules, gets mad at you instead, tells you that you aren’t being fair or just to her. She tells you that she is a good person, never did anything wrong to you, and that you should accept her into your house anyway based on her goodness to you, regardless of her filthy, muddy shoes.
You cannot accept her into your home unless she took off her muddy shoes. You tell her that all she has to do is leave her muddy shoes outside of the door, and she will be more than welcome to come in. She has a choice here. What she chooses will determine whether or not she will come into your house. What will she do?
Does that help?
:)
couldn’t Jesus cover everyone’s sins then?
btw watching ANTM on the youtubes. One of my friends from high school is on it! It’s almost surreal to see her on a major tv show like that.
also things aren’t as black and white as in your example. Because we can’t know for sure who is really right or wrong, then we’d have say when she gets there that you told her she had the choice before she knocked on your door, and should have learned from this one girl who was supposed to tell her about the rule, and now she is screwed and can’t come in ever again.
couldn’t Jesus cover everyone’s sins then?
He did, PIP. And that’s all that He asks, is that you believe in Him and accept what He has done for you. That’s it. Plain & simple. It was never meant to be complicated.
PIP,
Do you realize that your passion for human rights has been a blessing and a curse to you?
Please, just worry about yourself for now. Think only about what Jesus has done for you. Don’t try to think about the whole world for now. Baby steps, PIP….baby steps. You’re starting at the end when you should start at the beginning. Trust me, everything will fall beautifully into place if you just think about you alone for a little bit.
Picture for a moment Jesus hanging on the cross. You are standing in front of Him. He looks down at you, and says, “Kate, I did this for you so that you may have eternal life.”
JLM-
What you said about the Koran can be said about the Bible. Discrediting it for that reason and refusing to believe they worship the same God, even when Muslims THEMSELVES believe they worship the same God is ridiculous.
BTW, Islam is not considered a pagan religion. It is widely considered to be 1 of the three Abrahamic monotheistic faiths which all worship the same God, though you seem to want to believe otherwise.
Dan,
Here. Read up. Knock yourself out.
http://www.light-of-life.com/eng/gospel/g4105efm.htm
JLM-
I have already learned a great amount of that in my comparative world religions class. That article seems to leave out the nuances of the split between sunni and shi’ia, which are two very different forms of one religion. Those nuances are truly very important distinction.
Not to mention, it does seem fairly biased based in as a christian observer rather than an objective observer ;)
he also said “what you do for the least of these, you do for me.” (or some variation thereof).
How could I rejoice in a salvation where others would be perishing?
Okay,
How weird is this? While you guys were having a discussion on pets and Islam, I was at the Dog Show at McCormick Place. They usually have two conventions going on at the same time. (Last year it was dentists and the year before it was bikers – now that one was fun). This year? You guessed it. The Nation of Islam. The name of their convention? Gods At War.
http://www.noi.org/
Anywho,
here’s some pics of my favorite breeds…
The Samoyed is for Alyssa!
PIP,
I also have a bunny. Her name is Lucy. Sweetest pet EVER!
Alexandria, have you ever accepted Christ as your Savior?
I have. I don’t think it counts anymore, though.
Did you have faith as a child?
How much of a child are you talking about? As a young child, I mostly enjoyed the social aspects of church. I liked having an excuse to wear a dress, and I liked occasionally reciting Bible verses in front of all the older church members who would coo over us, and of course the pageants and skits, etc. I loved the children’s sermons. At some point I became aware that while I liked all of it, I didn’t actually believe the things I was reciting or acting out or being told, and that I never had. As I grew older I realized that my inability to believe was just part of a larger inability to believe in God.
Even many Christians have a hard time understandig of the Trinity.
You know, one way I always used to think of it was like how H2O can come in three physical states. It can be a gas (steam), a liquid (water), or a solid (ice), but it’s still one oxygen atom and two hydrogen atoms — it’s still the same substance.
Alexandra,
That is an awesome analogy.
Remember what you said about Mother Teresa? It wasn’t that she didn’t believe, but that she didn’t feel. It struck me when you said this.
If I had to rely on feelings for my faith, I’d fail miserably. Faith isn’t an emotion. It’s more like a verb. Sometimes you feel it, sometimes you don’t.
Otherwise, it becomes all about you, instead of all about Him.
I’m not trying to get into a Catholic/Protestant debate here, but have you ever looked into the Catholic Faith? It offers a lot more “depth” in my opinion. A lot more explanation of why we believe what we believe and why we do what we do.
Tons of books on saints that are going through what you are going through. There is one book called the Dark Night of the Soul. It deals with exactly what you are describing and what Mothere Teresa went through.
You might just be feeling that “there must be more…” and if so, I think the Catholic Church offers “more”…Maybe not, but it might be worth a look-see.
PUPPIES OMGZ.
Thanks MK, although I don’t know why you said just the Samoyed was for me…..I love allllllllllllll puppies, and I took all of them as a personal cute overload gift this morning. *steal*
And your Gracie is unbelievably adorable. Remember how you were auctioning off either the dog or the son? I’ll take the four-legged one. If you ever get to a point where you can’t have her anymore, I would adopt her. :D
Well, anyway, I’m off again as I must go tend to the boyfriend….he’s in a 46 hour dance marathon raising money for children with cancer. I must say, I’ve cried more than once this weekend looking at the pictures and seeing these kids at the event. He’s dancing for his organization, but I’m also there to see the people from the coed frat I’m pledging…four people are dancing for this organization. I really admire all of them for being able to stand on their feet for so long and for such a great cause. Last year, we raised over 5 million dollars to donate to cancer research. FOR THE KIDS! :)
I forgot to put my name up AGAIN!
JLM, if you click “yes” right after the question “remember me?” above the posts…your name will automatically be added each time you post, so you wont have to remember each time.
Wow,
Lyssie, That is AWESOME! The more I hear about your beau, the more I like him!
I’ve grown to love Gracie (now that I can walk again) and I’m sorry, she’s no longer up for auction. And since your boyfriend sounds so amazing, I’ll have to withdraw my offer on the son too. I like you too much.
Leah,
You’ve posted pictures from your new “Homeland” Would it be okay to put one of them on the “Snaps” link?
Good Morning Bethany,
I’ll be leaving for church in a few…glad I caught you.
Alexandria, have you ever accepted Christ as your Savior?
I have. I don’t think it counts anymore, though.
Alexandria, I think it counts. In fact, the very fact that you are struggling and searching right now, that suggests to me that the Holy Spirit is in you, drawing you towards God. MK made a good point, which I was going to touch on, that you cannot rely on your feelings, which change from day to day. Faith is not based on feelings.
I struggled with my assurance of salvation GREATLY as a teenager and as an adult. At one point, I used to cry out to God at night, every single night, asking Him to please save me, then wondering why I simply couldn’t *feel* saved. I had heard so many testimonies from people who said they literally “felt a burden lifted from their shoulders”, or “felt an extreme sense of peace” right after asking for salvation, but I had felt nothing. And this perplexed me, Alexandria.
It wasn’t until, years later, that I realized it had absolutely nothing to do with my feelings, and it had everything to do with me having to accept God’s promises in the Bible. He PROMISED that all I had to do was to ASK. That all I had to do was to TRUST. But the problem was, I wasn’t trusting, because I was basing my trust on my fluctuating feelings.
I thought to myself, God made these promises, and He will keep them.
I kept index cards in my purse which helped me tremendously during this time. Here are a few examples:
Romans 10:9-10, “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.”
This is one thing that comforted me. God didn’t say, “you might” be saved. He didn’t say, “You can be saved one moment then be unsaved the next”. He said “Thou shalt be saved”. End of story.
John 10:28, “And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. ”
If no one can pluck one out of God’s hand, that includes you.
You, as well, cannot pluck yourself out of God’s hand. He holds onto you and you will forever be His child. He will not leave you or forsake you based on some feelings of doubt. He did not forsake doubting Thomas, did He?
” for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.””
God is able to keep His promises to you. If you accepted Christ as Savior, God will honor His promise to you.
” 1 Peter 1:5. “Who are kept by the power of God, by faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.” ”
We are not kept by our own power, but through God’s power.
“1 John 3:14, “We know we have passed from death unto life because we love the brethren.””
1 John 5:13, “These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that you may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God”
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
There are so many more, but I hope that these will give you a little comfort. I will pray that God will continue working in your heart, Alexandria.
Did you have faith as a child?
How much of a child are you talking about? As a young child, I mostly enjoyed the social aspects of church. I liked having an excuse to wear a dress, and I liked occasionally reciting Bible verses in front of all the older church members who would coo over us, and of course the pageants and skits, etc. I loved the children’s sermons. At some point I became aware that while I liked all of it, I didn’t actually believe the things I was reciting or acting out or being told, and that I never had. As I grew older I realized that my inability to believe was just part of a larger inability to believe in God.
I meant, when you were a child, you believed that Jesus died on the cross, without doubting that, you believed that He did so for you, and this is why you asked Him into your heart. As most little children, what I’m basically asking, is whether you believed the things your Sunday School teachers told you about God and Jesus, and if you did, and if you accepted Christ, you are saved.
You know, one way I always used to think of it was like how H2O can come in three physical states. It can be a gas (steam), a liquid (water), or a solid (ice), but it’s still one oxygen atom and two hydrogen atoms — it’s still the same substance.
Alexandria, that is a brilliant analogy!
And I completely agree.
Good morning, MK!
Alexandra,
For a VERY long time I had been struggling with the concept of the trinity and it being one. I’ve had it explained to me in so many ways so that I could understand. I understood, I guess, but took it more as a faith thing than anything else. I’ve prayed about if for a while, and yes, God DOES answer prayer.
I thank you so much for your anaolgy about H2O. You have NO idea, how much I understand now thanks to that. It actually brought tears to my eyes. God surely answered my prayer through your analogy.
Thank you so much again for posting that!
mk 6:59,
I agree that reading about the saints is a wonderful way to learn about people who lived before us and struggled just as we do.
There are days when the only prayer I can muster is “Lord, thy will be done”, and that is enough to get me through the day.
The Morning Offering is also a simple prayer one can say every day. My version is “Lord, I offer you my prayers, works, joys and sufferings of this day, in union with the (Holy Catholic) Church throughout the world.” I like it because it is an offering of everything I do all day to God.
Also, it is good for non-Catholics to know that they can come sit in a Catholic Church any time they wish, the doors are almost always open. God bless you!
JLM, 10:30 AM
God sure does work in mysterious ways, doesn’t He?
(hugs)
He sure does, Bethany! It’s quite amazing!
(hugs back to you)
Patricia,
In response to the paragraph re: the Hindu faith:
So, what you’re saying then, is that we were all born sinners, but God allows sin in Heaven, and that Jesus really didn’t have to come to shed his blood to wash away the sin that God allows in Heaven. That God’s plan from the beginning was just a bad joke, and that people don’t need to believe in Jesus, or anything He said in the bible, that all they just need to do is to have good intentions while they are alive to get to Heaven?
That is most certainly NOT the teachings of Christ (hence, Christian faith). God was very clear over and over again in the bible that there is only one way to God, through Jesus Christ.
I am the way the truth and the life; NO MAN cometh unto the Father BUT BY ME.” — Jesus Christ (John 14:6)
I don’t mean to sound offensive, but your comment above is calling Jesus a liar.
Posted by: JLM at February 23, 2008 10:51 PM
Thank you for your post JLM
Every person born after the fall of Adam and Eve has the stain of original sin on their soul. We are all prone to sin because our souls are weakened by this. This means our flesh and our spirit are not in perfect harmony as they were in Paradise and we are constantly struggling against the desires of our bodies. Hence, Jesus saying the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak.
God does not allow anything impure into heaven. Everyone who enters heaven must be completely without sin. If we are not purified in this life, we will be purified in the next life in Purgatory. I understand that most Christian faiths do not accept the doctrine of a place of purification after death.
However, if you look at yourself honestly and you were on your death bed today, could you honestly say that you are pure enough to go to heaven? You would want to be purified further, indeed desire it, before entering heaven.
This does not mean that Jesus’ death and resurrection does not cover all our sins. It means that we must take responsibility for our sins but that there is punishment due to our sins. If you hammer a nail(sin) into wood (our souls) and you pull out the nail, the wood is not unblemished. It still contains the mark of the nail (sin) and that is removed through either temporal punishment (here on Earth) or after death in Purgatory.
I have to go to work this afternoon and wish a good day to all.
Patricia
Aww MK that is the cutest bunny ever! I can’t wait to get mine in. The ones I picked were so very cuddly!
PIP:
You said, “One of the things I’m struggling with Hell–why would God give an infinite punishment for a mistake on Earth? Doesn’t seem just.”
PIP, you have to understand who we are in relation to God to answer this question and you have to understand what sin is. Sin is like an arrow missing its mark. We are fallen creatures deserving separation from God. God has every right to discard us to that place. The real question should be, “Why does God even care”? His requirement for fellowship is absolute perfection and holiness since for him to accept anything else would cause the Universe to collapse in utter annhilation. It would destroy God Himself. This is what satan’s aim for abortion is.
Since God lives in the eternal realm, all that exists apart from Him in that realm is in Hell for He is the only source of life in eternity. It’s state is desribed as an everlasting fire, absolute darkness, etc. We are warned repeatedley in this life that it’s not a place where we should desire to go and I believe it. Why do I believe it? Because the physical world tells me that for every action there’s an equal but opposite reaction. The opposite reaction to evil is punishment. Hell was not created for us, but for satan and the angels that rebelled against God with satan. All evil is dealt with in Hell.
This enemy of our soul, satan, whose desire is for us to join him in Hell since he is already condemned to go there.
Satan hates God and all that He loves including us. Satan tries to decieve us by getting us to question God, question His word, etc. His existence is evident by the comments and thinking patterns of many people who blog on this site. Their state of deception is evident.
And don’t think we are so powerless and that one sin doesn’t mean much. Do you know how much kinetic energy your body possesses? Think about this. You are spinning on the surface of the earth at a radius from its center of 7,000 miles at a radial velocity of 1,000 miles per hour. Not only that you are travlling in orbit around the sun at a radius of 93,000,000 miles at a radial velocity of 10,616 miles per hour. Then the whole solar system is travelling within the Milky Way at a zillion miles and hour and then the Milky Way Galaxy is travelling within the Universe another zillion miles and hour. Do you get the point? Relative to a fixed point in teh Universem the energy we possess is incalculable. Because we are spirits we have infinte energy and the physical realm proves it. One tiny sin is enough to destroy the Universe.
Christ died on the cross to pay for our sin debt. This is what’s so amazing. That God found a way for us sinners, with the potetial to destroy the Universe, to still have fellowship with Him despite our sin. This is why we love Christ so much, because we realize what Hie did for us and at what cost.
Here’s another thing. When people try to justify an abortion of even a zygote, they fail to realize that a zygote, even as small as it is, has infinte energy. Nothing, no matter how small or big, in insignificant to God. For He sees the whole picture.
The question at the end will be, “What did you do with my Son”? Our answer will be our end and we won’t be able to lie about it.”
“How could we neglect so wonderful a salvation”.
I hear a lot of non-believers on this site talk about religion and describing us pro-lifers as religious. I despise religion. Religion is an attmept by man to reach God. Every such attmept is fruitless for there is not a scheme that man can devise that will make him acceptable to a holy God.
No, I am in a relationship to a Savior. A realtionship that was offerred to me by a Holy God. My acceptance of that realtionship qualifies me to fellowship with Him on His terms not mine. I do not consider myself religious at all and this is why I have such a problem with religions that rely on ritual and superstition. They are simply fruitless attempts reach a holy God on their own terms.
JLM,
We are created in the image of God.
We are body, mind and spirit, yet we are one, as God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, yet One.
Does that help?
Bethany, the question of capitalizing Qur’an is not one of religion–just proper English (although since you did it intentionally, then it is quite disrespectful). In English, we capitalize book titles. Saying “quran” is like saying “the cat in the hat” It’s just proper English to capitalize.
The lack of apostrophe in “quran” however, is just incorrect transliteration. :)
Al-Qur’an: القرأن
The little mark on top of this:أ denotes a stop, which is written in English as an apostrophe. In case anyone was in the mood for an Arabic lesson this morning.
However, if you look at yourself honestly and you were on your death bed today, could you honestly say that you are pure enough to go to heaven? You would want to be purified further, indeed desire it, before entering heaven.
YES, I CAN!
1John 1:7-9
7But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from allsin.
8If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
9If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
Jesus paid for ALL of my sins. Out of a love that cannot be comprehended, Jesus Christ paid for all of my sins, past, present and future. I am cleansed by His blood and pure in His sight.
Jesus said that His crucifixion completes the payment for sin. He hung suspended between the earth and heaven for six hours taking the brutal payment for your sins and mine. After He had taken on the sins of this whole sinful world, He said these words just before He died,
“It is finished.”
John 19:30
Jesus didn
Leah, would you should consider taking a vacation to Saudi-Arabia or Iran to learn more fully of the religon if Islam?
Any religion that denies the full deity of Jesus Christ is a false religion and not of God.
HisMan,
We are created in the image of God. Yes, that does help a great deal. Thank you so much! I’m feeling great today thanks to all of this help!
And I agree. Religion is the WORST thing that has ever happened to this world. Billions of people have been deceived through false religions. Religion didn
@Jasper: My friend wants to travel to Saudi Arabia to learn more about it. She also wants to go to Egypt.
I take Middle Eastern dance classes…aka bellydancing. :-p
In addition to my 11:34 post, you said,
This does not mean that Jesus’ death and resurrection does not cover all our sins. It means that we must take responsibility for our sins but that there is punishment due to our sins. If you hammer a nail(sin) into wood (our souls) and you pull out the nail, the wood is not unblemished. It still contains the mark of the nail (sin) and that is removed through either temporal punishment (here on Earth) or after death in Purgatory.
The “mark of the nail” was covered by Jesus’ blood. He covered ALL sin, not just some of it. The only payment for sin is a blood sacrifice. Not fire…blood. And I thank the Lord every day for that one, complete sacrifice that He made for all sin so that we may have eternal life through his free gift.
“I hear a lot of non-believers on this site talk about religion and describing us pro-lifers as religious. I despise religion. Religion is an attmept by man to reach God. Every such attmept is fruitless for there is not a scheme that man can devise that will make him acceptable to a holy God”.
“No, I am in a relationship to a Savior. A realtionship that was offerred to me by a Holy God. My acceptance of that realtionship qualifies me to fellowship with Him on His terms not mine. I do not consider myself religious at all and this is why I have such a problem with religions that rely on ritual and superstition. They are simply fruitless attempts reach a holy God on their own terms.”
Posted by: HisMan at February 24, 2008 11:14 AM
I was surprised when I read this, I would have taken you for a religious man (no offense intended). Your reasons for despising religion are not clear to me. Can you explain what you mean by “His terms” and “our terms”. What is “fellowship”? It’s a word I hear, but I don’t really know what it means. What is wrong with man trying to reach God?
Do we not each have our own unique experience in life as unique as the soul God gives each of us? Are not our human lives are full of traditions such as celebrations of birthdays, weddings, holidays, graduations, etc. For some of us, religion is an expression of love for God that is full of tradition too. What you may call ritual and superstition, I would call “tradition”. Would God be offended by our creating beautiful music for His ears? Or building beautiful churches? The beauty around us is a sign of God’s creation. Why would He object to our using what He created to give Him praise and thanksgiving?
Going to mass, I’ll be back later.
Oh Jasper. Your ignorance tickles me. I understand the situation in Saudi Arabia, and I understand that that is what happens when you base a country entirely off of a religion: people abuse it. Many things that take place in Saudi Arabia are, in fact, not based off of Islam, but severe misinterpretations of the Qur’an. I have NO doubt that the same thing would happen if a country were based off of Christianity.
If you want to know what happens when power falls into the wrong hand and what happens with misinterpretations, THEN you go to Saudi Arabia. But in any case, I don’t think they allow tourists.
Have you been to Saudi Arabia, Jasper? Have you ever been outside of the United States?
@Hisman and JLM,
would laugh a bit here but I know you guys are serious. Read St. John’s gospel when he refers to us as ‘adopted children of God’. Children of a family typically have a tag of association like: I’m from the Smith family. IMO such a tag as ‘religion’ seems appropriate because we are not called ‘God’s unique creations’ but His children.
Also Jesus Christ is not my savior … Jesus is. The word ‘Christ’ means ‘savior’ and why St. Paul often says ‘Christ Jesus’. I do not say Jesus Savior Savior. ‘Christ’ is not a last name…
We are created as God’s image, but we have/had a difficult time finding-out/living what this means. Voila: Jesus is the superior Image of God being both God and man and we live in Him as Jesus lives in Abba….(Jesus’ prayer at the Last Supper). So a ritual is not a repeat performance, it is entering into God’s Life (the eternal now). It is entering into His presence now and joining in our salvation … which does not begin at death, but at baptism.
Gotta do my laundry now!
John
John,
It’s ok to laugh at what I said. I don’t mind. It wouldn’t be the first time and most certainly wouldn’t be the last.
Jesus was laughed at and mocked also. If people did this to Him, why should I expect anything less?
Matthew 1:1
The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
Matthew 1:18
Now the birth of Jesus Christwas on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
Mark 1:1
The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;
John 1:17
For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
John 17:3
And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
Acts 3:6
Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk.
Acts 3:20
And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:
Acts 4:10
Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christof Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.
Acts 5:24
42And daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ.
Although this is not an exhaustive list of all of the verses throughout the KJV, it pretty much can tell us that is perfectly OK to call Jesus, Jesus Christ.
FYI, there are a total of 187 verses in the bible with the exact wording, “Jesus Christ”.
JLM 11:34 AMEN!
Thank you, Bethany.
I thank God for that!!!
I believe the correct term is Jesus the Christ…
As for the Muslim thing, the do believe in the same God that we do…They believe in the personage of God from the Old Testament.
If you are going to use the example that they don’t accept Jesus as divine, then you would have to say that Jews do not believe in the same God as Christians. They do not believe in all three persons of the Trinity, but we all believe in the God of Abraham.
As for Hell, I just finished listening to a tape this morning by Scott Hahn called “Where in the Hell”…
Some points he made:
You know when you tell your teenager that they are grounded and they stomp off? They aren’t sorry one bit for what they did? Instead they hate you.
And while they may accept the punishment, they stew in their bedroom for hours?
This is much the way souls are in hell. They take the punishment and regret having to live with it, but they do NOT regret the actions that got them there.
If a man broke into your home and murdered your wife and children, and a police officer was right outside the door and did nothing, wouldn’t you be miffed at him? Well, when God allows people to go to hell he is also protecting us (those who choose to go to heaven) from them. Much as a police officer would come in and take the offender off in handcuffs. And then he would be judged and hopefully be put in jail for life. Now why don’t we put him in jail for just 25 minutes or so…because, he is not sorry for murdering your family. He is only sorry that he is in jail. And he must be kept there because he is harmful to the rest of us.
Also, a person is not sent to hell until the very last moment. The “hour of death” of which you have heard me speak. Up until that moment it is always possible to reject hell and embrace God. To come into the light. To choose a different end.
But if God truly gives us free will and we reject Him, then wouldn’t He be breaking His own rules by forcing us to spend eternity with Him, when that is NOT what we have chosen?
JLM, are you comparing yourself to Jesus? A bit heady of you, in my opinion.
Remember what you said about Mother Teresa? It wasn’t that she didn’t believe, but that she didn’t feel. It struck me when you said this.
If I had to rely on feelings for my faith, I’d fail miserably. Faith isn’t an emotion. It’s more like a verb. Sometimes you feel it, sometimes you don’t.
Otherwise, it becomes all about you, instead of all about Him.
I understand that, mk, but as I said before — you may say that religion is about truth or whatever word you choose, not feeling, but would you have the strength to believe in it in your darkest moments if you did not FEEL, on some level, that it was true? If you had never felt that it was true?
I have been to Catholic services before. One of the things I disliked about a Protestant church I used to visit was that they said that it was sad how Catholics felt like they needed a priest to talk to God for them, which struck me as a stupid way to look at it. I figured that even just the act of confessing your sins to a person rather than just to God helps to provide a support network on this earth — which I thought might be helpful specifically because if you leave it all up to your own feelings on your personal relationship with God then your “support” depends entirely on how much you can feel God’s presence, whereas if you’ve got other people pulling for you and encouraging you things don’t get so lonely even at their worst. Of course, I couldn’t feel God’s presence at all, so maybe that’s why I thought the presence of other people might be comforting. ;)
Honestly, I very much appreciate the kind words from people on this site — but stories where people describe an emptiness or loneliness before returning to (or finding) their faith are basically the opposite of my life as of yet. I felt kind of lonely and empty until I gave myself permission not to try anymore, and that was the point at which I really started to appreciate my life much more.
Oops, sorry mk, all of those first three paragraphs were yours and were supposed to be in italics. Whoops!
Bethany, I appreciated your story. I have always been bad at those trust games where you’re supposed to fall back onto your friend’s arms and trust them to catch you. Come to think of it, we played that game a lot in Sunday School, and I was consistently one of the worst ones.
Back when I used to really think about it, I’d wonder if God would create a person so incapable of believing and trusting Him and then damn her to hell because she had no faith. Eventually I kind of just naturally came to the conclusion that if there is a God, I can’t wrap my mind around the concept much less trust in it, and even less so believe that people know what He wants, so all I can do is live my life so that it benefits this world as best as I can reasonably make it.
Alexndra,
I can’t speak for other people but I didn’t feel lonliness so much as sort of, I don’t know, at sea.
I was having a great time, but it didn’t feel right.
I know that I just used the word “feel” but by that I mean that I knew I wasn’t where I was meant to be.
It is possible to be happy without God. It is possible to feel pleasure. But you can’t experience “joy” without Him.
It’s possible to be a good person without Him. But again that is putting the focus on yourself.
The reason I think you would like the Catholic Church (although you might not like the “rules”) is that it is so precise. There is a reason for everything and it all fits together in a way that just sort of “clicks”.
I agree with you about confession. It’s wonderful to speak to God. But at the moment of confession, the priest is “taken over” by God, “becomes” God and as such can give me some feedback. Plus there is the whole sanctifying Grace thing, which the protestant church doesn’t offer. That Grace, I believe, is the thing that you are saying is “missing”. It’s like food. Or better yet, it’s like special glasses. When you are in a “state of Grace” you can see things so much more clearly because you are looking at the world through “mystical” lenses. You see what other people can’t see, unless they too, are in a state of Grace.
And of course, there is the Body and Blood of Jesus, that simply being in the room with, changes you.
I would ask you to not give up. And as Janet suggested, perhaps find a Catholic Church that you could just sit in and read some good books. I think you’ll be amazed at what happens to you.
Could you/Would you ever consider doing this? Not going to Mass, but after, when the church is virtually empty? And reading a book or two while you were there? Just for a couple of weeks. I’d look for an older church if possible. Don’t know where you are, but if you give me your zipcode I could find one for you.
I’m sure you can tell, that many of us here are rooting for you and are now praying for you. Don’t be surprised by any miracles or “weird” stuff that starts happening in your life. There are some powerful prayer warriors on this website.
I love what you said about “other people” pulling for you. We in the Catholic Church often call on the “Communion of Saints” in times of darkness.
Imagine all the saints, angels and loved ones in heaven watching you run this race and they all just keep yellin’ “GO GO GO, you CAN do it!” Talk about a cheering section!
And never underestimate His mother. Sometimes in the beginning, it’s easier to talk to her, especially if you yourself are a woman. No worries, it won’t be long before she leads you straight to Himself, hands you over and rejoices with that holy host of heaven…
Peace,
We’re all here for you.
MK
Alexandra,
May I just add, that one of the reasons you might have felt lonley last time around is because you were trying to please people instead of Him? Sometimes, it can be really hard to find Him when all kinds of “people” are watching to see if you’re doing it “well enough”.
Bethany, I appreciated your story. I have always been bad at those trust games where you’re supposed to fall back onto your friend’s arms and trust them to catch you. Come to think of it, we played that game a lot in Sunday School, and I was consistently one of the worst ones.
Not to pry, but is there possibly a set of circumstances which made you feel like you couldn’t – or shouldn’t- trust anyone?
It doesn’t sound like the problem is limited solely to God, which makes me wonder if someone hurt you in some way, which made you feel that you could not trust people or God.
I think that some of my trust issues were very much a result of things that had happened in my past- some very small and seemingly insignificant, and others much larger and harder for me to deal with.
Those things, without my even realizing it, kind of made me want to put a barrier up and not trust certain people and things because of those events in my past.
Young children are most of the time naturally trusting- and when they are not able to trust, it many times does mean that there is something going on in their life; there is usually some reason they’re trying to protect themselves by not having that trust.
Does any of that make sense, or am I just rambling? I hope you understand what I’m trying to get at. :-)
@Leah,
I would tend to agree with you about the word ‘the’ except being Christ is not a function as a job is a function, but a designation that characterizes Jesus’ being. It is something like the name ‘Peter’ whose original name is Simon. It is a hallmark of a new era when God renames someone!
The only reason I brought it up at all because it drives me crazy when the words Jesus Christ are used exclusively in that order, as if Christ was Jesus’ last name. Very often St. Paul switches these two words and says ‘Christ Jesus’.
Such is astounding and tends to shake up people who have not reflected on the person too often. Much can also be said about our translation of ‘Abba’ as the formal ‘Father’ and not the familiar ‘Dad’ or ‘Daddy’.
((As an aside: ‘Abba’ is Jesus exclusive word for God. Nobody, comes even remotely close. And it is precisely His insistence of being so familiar with God … that He was crucified for it …. love Abba you must be crazy (or killable) … everyone knows we must fear God.))
We folks in the English world are all familiar with the derivation of Jesus as ‘Word’. This is indeed brilliant. but the Greek word used by John is ‘Logos’ which is close to meaning the ‘mind of God’.
John
“reject hell and embrace God”
Would this mean God as an almighty all forgiving entity out of love or you must “accept Jesus as your personal savior” in order to embrace Him?
Well Pip,
We are under the impression that if you embrace God, you would eventually be led to Jesus, as He is the Truth.
So if you are embracing God and not embracing an ideology, you won’t be able to help but find Jesus.
Bethany, I was very fortunate in my childhood and adolescence, so nothing that would jeopardize my natural ability to trust ever happened, to my knowledge. I just always kind of had a pretty low threshold for “things I’ll believe with little evidence.” And it’s not a problem necessarily with trusting people, but with trusting concepts/ideas/theories/what-have-you. I was always the kid in kindergarten asking “why?” or “how do you know?”
mk,
I wouldn’t be opposed to reading some books in churches. As I said when you asked why I come to pro-life sites if I’m not pro-life, I generally try to understand as many points of view as I can, as fully as I can, so that I feel as solid and informed in my own opinions as I possibly can. I live in New York City, but I’d rather not put my zip code out in public since zip codes cover a relatively small physical area in a city this size. (Reading the things some people have written here, I might come home to a pro-life protest outside my apartment one day or something! lol) I’d e-mail it to you or something, though. I put my e-mail address in the “post a comment” information, but I have no idea if that lets you e-mail me.
As for the Muslim thing, the do believe in the same God that we do…They believe in the personage of God from the Old Testament.
NO, THEY DO NOT!
Hebrews 13:8
Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.
Pay attention here:
1 John 2:22-23
22, Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
23, Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.
Muslims outright deny the Sonship of Jesus Christ; therefore, Islam is of the Devil. According to scripture, mk, not according to me.
MK, that is VERY clear. Muslims DO NOT believe that Jesus is the Son of God, who IS God. They DO NOT believe in the same God as Christians do. Without believing in Jesus Christ, you cannot, and I repeat CANNOT believe in the one, true God. Period.
Alexandra,
It does. I’ll email you. And you can always email me by clicking on my name in the moderators box.
I want to address your comment about trusting that which is “knowable”…
It’s funny but just this morning my husband and I were discussing the priest that said my mass.
He tends to be very direct and very simple in his homilies (sermons). This tends to bother some of my friends, but it doesn’t bother me in the least.
He doesn’t say anything doctrinally incorrect, he doesn’t condone anything he shouldn’t, he just isn’t very “deep”.
My husband adores him.
Recently I was having the same conversation with a few close friends. I told them that not all priests are deep thinkers just as all people are not all deep thinkers and that while we might prefer our homilies to be “mystical” and “intense” others would be freaked out by that…so this priest has an audience, just as priests that we prefer have an audience. They just might not be the same audience (I don’t mean audience as in entertainment).
This priest is a Canon Lawyer. He thinks in facts and words and numbers and provables and logic. He’s not reading books on the mystics or exorcisms or angels. He’s reading books on doctrine and law.
This doesn’t make him any better or worse than my “favorite” priests. It just means that his talents lie in a different place and he will reach like minded people.
I guess what I’m trying to say is, don’t try to be like every other “Christian”, just try to be like Alexandra. Alexandra who accepts that God exists and loves her. He lived a long time ago and through some mechanism that we don’t understand he still lives today. And more importantly, he still loves you today.
Then you can find the path that suits you best, whether it be ethical science, or translating Hebrew, or Canon Law. God made your mind the way He did for a reason, and if you let Him, He will show you that reason.
You just might not be a touchy feely kind of person and your experience is not going to be the same as, say, mine. I cry at the drop of a hat.
Heck, I get weepy over new grass.
You have a purpose. You are who you are and you aren’t who you aren’t. The church needs all of us.
God Bless,
Mk
JLM:
You’re right. Allah (Islam’s god) and Yahweh (Judaism’s and Christianity’s God) have no resemblance to each other at all. It’s not only what you call your God but it is also important as to how your God acts. Jesus Christ is the full revelation of who the Father is. If you reject Jesus as the Son of God, which Islam does, you reject Jesus, and therefore any chance of reaching God. At best, Islam is a man made religion. If you read anything about Mohammed he was NOT a good person and anything but godly.
Islam teaches that Jesus was a great prophet but not the Son of God. This is ludicrous. Jesus was either the Son of God or a lunatic. No fence sitting allowed here.
Janet:
God created each person with an innate desire to seek Him. Since man was created there has been an inborn desire for him to worship or, to find God. If you look at all ancient cultures, milllions of false gods have been conjured up by man’s imagaination or by demonically inspired activities in an attempt to reach or get to God, and all, every single one, in vain. There is nothing that we can give God that he does not already possess. There is nothing we can do to impress God since He is the author of all ideas and intelligence. God does not need us, we need Him.
Look at the Greek gods for instance. Zeus does not exist. Athena does not exist, Mercury, Pluto, etc., etc., etc. Where are all these false gods, including Allah?
God revealed himself through the Jewish culture via the Prophets who for the most part, the Jews rejected. Typically, they chased after the false gods of other cultures. Finally, in fulfillment of prophecies made 1,000’s of years prior, in the form of a baby, concieved of the Holy Spirit and born of a virgin through the line of David and in fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant, Jesus Christ or Emmanuel was born, fully man, fully God; God’s full revelation of Himself to man. Jesus Christ was no invention of man but God reaching down to man desirous of a relationship but that without compromise and under His terms and conditions.
Jesus repeatedley taught that He only did and said what the Father commanded, indicating their oneness. He repeatedley taught that to reject Him was to reject the Father. He taught that He was the Way, the Truth and the Life, and that no man could come to the Father except through Him.
Paul said in Galations 1, “6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel
Thank you, HisMan!
:)
JLM
With all due respect, and I mean that, please understand that it is okay to think differently. A couple of weeks ago, a whole slew of us got into a protestant/catholic discussion (and it went very well) but it was quite draining.
We came to the conclusion that we simply don’t have the same definitions of certain words and that much of our disagreements stemmed from this. Once saved, grace, sola scriptura, Our Lady, The pope…these are our differnces, yet in spite of them, we came away respecting each other and those very differences.
I mean no disprespect to you or your faith of choice. We both believe in the Trinity, that Jesus died and rose, carrying OUR cross for us, and that without Him we’d pretty much be up the creek.
We will just have to agree to disagree about the Muslim thing.
I stand by what I said. You can think differently. It won’t affect me or my faith, just as my believing that Ishmael believed in the God of Abraham should not affect you or yours.
It will also have no bearing on whether or not people reading these posts will come to be Christian or leave the Christian Faith.
We simply have a different understanding. But please don’t “yell” at me. I didn’t say what I did to upset you. Peace, MK
Hisman,
You know I love you. Deeply. I have the utmost respect for the way you love God and know scripture.
Nowhere did I say that people who believe in Islam are saved nor that their faith was equal to ours. I simply said that their faith is based on belief in the same God that we believe in from the Old Testament. Just like the Jews. They don’t accept Jesus, no, and therefore are NOT Christians. And while God says that to reject His Son is to reject Him, that is part of the New Testament. Obviously, they are not reading or accepting the New Testament. Therefore pointing out that Jesus has been here all along is a bit disingenuous. He may have existed, but He hadn’t yet revealed Himself to us. So all believers of the Old Testament were unaware of Him. The fact that they still reject Him today, is, I agree, problematic. But I still hold that they believe in the same God the Father that we do.
@JLM.
… my initials too …. but perhaps it is time for a bit of a stretch. Usually when I hear talk of ‘I believe in Jesus’ a person remains remote … like I believe in South Africa, though I’ve never been there. It’s this remoteness about some kinds of faith that Benedict XVI said “Even the devil believes in Jesus, he just doesn’t love Him.”
There is another sense of belief. In Christianity we talk of the in-dwelling Spirit … kinda like entering/becoming-one with the flame who is God. A believer is ‘in’ God so believes as God believes. So when a Christian believer says: ‘I believe in Jesus’, he is saying that he believes AS Jesus.
I do not sense this is what you mean … so tread very cautiously when confronting another’s belief systems, especially MK’s. … or Leah’s for that matter!
John
Satan hates God and all that He loves including us. Satan tries to decieve us by getting us to question God, question His word, etc. His existence is evident by the comments and thinking patterns of many people who blog on this site. Their state of deception is evident.
HisMan,
You are SO right!
John
My hero!
I hear you. Too often I think we get hung up on “who is saved” and “who is not”. While God definitely gave us a path to follow, I think he meant that we should use it to judge ourselves…not others.
I don’t think you can say that Muslims are condemned until every last one of them are dead, because who knows what tomorrow might bring. I cannot say how God is leading my Muslim brothers. I can only plant seeds, pray, offer up my suffering, and hope for the best. But I will not, no, I will not, stand in judgment of others beliefs.
I know that my journey was quite bumpy and many, many times I thought I had finally “GOTTEN IT”. Well, I had “GOTTEN IT” all right! “GOTTEN IT WRONG”…over and over and yet each time I was so sure.
At any given time, somebody looking at me, could have said “That girl is going to hell in a handbasket”, but they would have been wrong. Because I was where I was and God was not finished with me yet. It’s like putting HIM in a Cartesian box!
Anyhow, thanks for coming to my rescue. I knew you’d understand. A good father understands His children and knows that some need more time, more prayers or more understanding. It was those that screamed “I KNOW” that he condemned, not those that said “I Don’t get it”…It was these that He showed the most mercy.
Saved? Not saved? Not my job, man. Just spreadin’ His word, spreading the Truth as I know it, and praying like there’s no tomorrow…
mk & John,
I quoted scripture in my posts.
Is it a problem you have with me, or a problem you have with scripture?
JLM,
I have no problem with either scripture or you. I am only saying that we both believe the same things and that fighting amongst ourselves is pointless and unnecessary.
I think that it is counterproductive to point out the myriad of ways you can’t get to heaven when it would be so much more beneficial to point out all the ways that you can, and to do it in a way that makes people want what you have. Sometimes I think we make people hate who we are and that defeats the purpose of evangelizing.
Again, whether Muslims do or do not believe in the God of Abraham has no bearing on whether I am a Christian or not.
But condemning Muslims might keep them from hearing what you have to say and instead of inviting them to our faith, we have scared them off.
I agree that Christs’ words were strong and definite. But let Him do the judging. If we judged ourselves half as critically as we judge others the world would be a better place.
Is your goal to be right? Or to bring more souls to Him?
I have no problem with either scripture or you. I am only saying that we both believe the same things and that fighting amongst ourselves is pointless and unnecessary.
No we don’t.
I never thought we were “fighting”.
I think that it is counterproductive to point out the myriad of ways you can’t get to heaven when it would be so much more beneficial to point out all the ways that you can, and to do it in a way that makes people want what you have. Sometimes I think we make people hate who we are and that defeats the purpose of evangelizing.
Again, I post scripture. There is only one way to get to Heaven, not several ways.
As you said in one of your posts to Alexadra, “be who you are”. This isme, mk. This is what God has created, and I am one of His children. I do pray before I post. If someone hates me because of the Truth, then so be it. I’m not concerned about ME, I’m concerned about THEM, and their eternal lives. Sometimes the truth is difficult to take in, mk, but it’s a seed. Again, I post scripture. I’m truly sorry that you see that as being “harsh”.
Again, whether Muslims do or do not believe in the God of Abraham has no bearing on whether I am a Christian or not.
But condemning Muslims might keep them from hearing what you have to say and instead of inviting them to our faith, we have scared them off.
It’s not going to have a bearing on my faith, either, mk. But God’s word will never hurt someone.
I have never condemned Muslims. I quoted scripture, and that is the Truth. Again, I am sorry if you think that the scripture I posted was “harsh” or “condemning”.
I agree that Christs’ words were strong and definite. But let Him do the judging. If we judged ourselves half as critically as we judge others the world would be a better place.
I never judged. Again, I quoted the scriptures. Let them speak for themselves.
Is your goal to be right? Or to bring more souls to Him?
God is right. God’s word is right. The scripture is right. His word will bring more souls to Him. I cannot.
Without Christ, our lives end at death, and there would probably be nothing more to it. Without Christ, we are only as valuable as we perceive ourselves to be, or as others value us (as Doug’s type of logic will explain).
With Christ, there is more, there is life after death, and we do not have to live a life in vain, only to eventually just die and be forgotten.
Bethany, I think it stems from fear of death, wanting there to be an afterlife, etc. Christ, the Bible, etc., are themselves perceptions. I think a lot of people get a lot of good out of religion.
Doug
JLM
And I am sorry if came across as heated. I’ve gotten a “visitor” today and it’s been months (goin’ on 50) so I’m a little temperamental and VERY short on patience tonight.
I guess I just feel that sometimes we make these guys want to kill us, instead of join us. I can understand your words because I agree with them, but I think “outsiders” need a gentler approach. I’m not saying to gloss over the truth, just to give it in smaller doses. Too much can overwhelm people and then they are running before they have a chance to listen. Does that make sense?
Sorry if I go out of hand. I just worry that we’ll lose more souls than save…
HisMan,
Thanks for your thoughtful response. I agree with much of what you say, but then a few things you say are puzzling to me. I certainly do not know scripture anywhere near the same level as you so we are coming from very different places in our faith. That’s OK. God bless you.
Doug,
While I hear what you are saying, I would venture to say that Christians, true Christians, are the least afraid to die people you’ll ever meet.
I know you desperately want to put us in a cute little cartoon and say “aren’t they adorable with their little God and their sweet naive beliefs” but you are so, so wrong.
There is nothing sweet or naive about being a Christian. It’s tough. It’s often grueling. It requires strength when strength is needed, humility when humility is needed, courage, love, patience, persistance…do you think there aren’t moments when it would be easier to say “Hey, I think I’ll just think like Doug for awhile and chuck it all! Do whatever I want for a change!”
Get real! Answering to nobody but yourself? Now that is easy. Try being a Christian for a week Doug. One week, and so all the things that are expected of you. Change your entire way of life, lose life long friends, have people insinuate that you are a fruitcake (a sweet fruitcake, but a fruitcake nonetheless), bite back the words that spring to your lips, listen to God tell you all the ways you failed today…you couldn’t handle it.
And because you view us as complete morons, you’d never understand the joy that comes from that ridiculous belief system.
mk,
I’m sorry your visitor is visiting!
I really don’t feel that you agree with my “words”, though. But it was nice to say.
Last note,
We cannot save souls. Only God can do that. God’s word is powerful in itself, so maybe that’s why it appears harsh.
Have a good night, and get some rest. That always seems to help!
God bless you.
JLM,
When I say “your words” I guess I meant scripture. And the fact that Jesus is the only way to heaven. Yes, I do understand this. But I understand them because I already believe them.
I’m not arguing with what you are saying. Not at all. Jesus died for us. To deny that is most definitely to jeopardize your salvation.
I’m only saying that to people that don’t believe that, all they hear is DO IT MY WAY OR ELSE…
It’s really the delivery I question.
No, of course I can’t save anyone. But I can help lead souls to Him. I must help lead souls to Him. Because it pleases Him that I do so.
If I gave you the impression that I think I, personally can save souls, then you have misread me.
In the Catholic Church we often pray to “save a soul”, or “save the poor souls in purgatory”…it’s a turn of phrase. Just like when we say we pray TO Mary, we mean we ask Mary to pray for us and with us…it’s really just lingo.
I forget that you don’t understand our “language”…I’ll try to be more careful. But honestly, there is not a Catholic on here that read “we are trying to save souls here” and thought that I meant I, MK, am trying to save souls.
There is saving souls and then there is Saving Souls…
And on that note, you’re right, I should get a cup of tea and hit the hay…good heavens, I just yelled at Doug!
Sorry Doug!
Bad MK, Bad, nasty, cranky, hormonal MK.
MK:
I love and respect you deeply as well. You are a tremendoulsy positive influence on this site and balance out my coarse delivery.
Allah is not Yahweh, Jehovah, Elohim, El Shaddai, ad infinitum.
You are wrong when you say that Islam and Jews/Christians worship or believe in the same god and I believe Ishmael would agree. If you’d like I can present an essay on that theme.
Sometime during the period between Ishmael and the emergence of the name Allah, there evolved a vast divergence between the God of the Jews and the god of the Arabs/Persian, etc. Allah does not exist. Yahweh does and always has. Now I can write an essay on the life of Mohammed and it would sicken many on this site. Very simply, he was an egotistical monster. And I would say that to any Muslim’s face.
Muslims need to be told the truth. If they do not repent from their faith in a non-existent Allah they will perish eternally.
You win people to God by telling them the truth not by candy coating your faith. Besides it is not we who win souls but God. We are simply the messengers. If we cannot plant the proper seeds, we won’t get the proper harvest. Never, not ever did Jesus compromise what the Father told Him to say. He told Peter, “Get behind me satan”!!!!! Why, because Peter’s mindset up to that point was not born of the Spirit but of the flesh.
The Word of God, is the Sword of the Spirit. When a man hears it, it cuts through the garbage and exposes a man to himself. He either humbly accepts it and repents or he rejects it and gets angry at the messenger. Christ was not crucified because He said nice, loving things with flowers and perfume coming from His mouth. No, He spoke the truth and people either loved Him or hated Him. Most hated Him. The Muslim faith is simply a mob reaction to the truth and we should not be surprised by their mentality. Ever heard of a union?
I am really, really trying to hold back on all I know about the Catholic influence and its vast divergence from the simplicity of Scripture, primarily because of the tradition doctrine, however, I really, really don’t want to offend you. Besides, the most important thing is Christ and not our diferences and it is wrong to air out our dirty laundry before non-believers. As far as I am concerned, Christians are united by their faith in Christ, period.
Now regarding the term judgement. Judgement is saying, “HisMan, you are going to ……” or FetusFacist you are going to ……”. First of all this is a lie, because none of knows what anyone’s eternal destiny is.
Now having said that, saying, “God’s word says that all who reject Christ are eternally lost”, is not judgement it is telling the truth, it is prohesying, it is teaching, it is not judgement. Otherwise, there should be no sermons, no teaching, no preaching, no admonishing, no rebuking.
Now, since the Muslim faith requires that its adherents reject Christ as the Son of God and because the word says that all who reject Christ are lost, I am simply telling people what the word says. Now if a Muslim hears that, I could see where they probably would get angry since that statement would be stating that all of their dead relatives are in hell. Is there another way to put it without compromising it? We either love God or hate Him.
“Otherwise, there should be no sermons, no teaching, no preaching, no admonishing, no rebuking.”
I would be fine with that. :)
“We either love God or hate Him.”
Only a Sith deals in absolutes…
“Only a Sith deals in absolutes…”
Is that an absolute statement?
Obi Wan Kenobi also lied to Luke in Episode IV and then tried to pawn it off as a “certain point of view” in Episode VI. Not the best role model.
mk:
I understand what you meant! You soul-saver you..
JLM,
I respect your knowledge of scripture. God’s word is powerful all right, but we don’t need to hit people over the head with it, if you know what I mean. Some people don’t learn very well that way.
@Bobby: C’mon…Obi-Wan Kenobi was the shiznits. :-p
The Jedis were awfully hypocritical, weren’t they? That’s probably why I cheered for Darth Vader for the whole “Original Series” because Luke and Yoda annoyed me.
HisMan, you know so much about your idea of God, which is a really admirable thing. But I can tell you absolutely 100% money-back guarantee that there is middle ground between love and hate–ALWAYS.
If you really, really want to get picky we should all be calling Jesus the Christ; Yeshua-Messiah.
Look we all know who we are talking about when we say Jesus Christ. We can say, the man/god, or:
Advocate (1 John 2:1)
Almighty (Rev. 1:8; Mt. 28:18)
Alpha and Omega (Rev. 1:8; 22:13)
Amen (Rev. 3:14)
Apostle of our Profession (Heb. 3:1)
Atoning Sacrifice for our Sins (1 John 2:2)
Author of Life (Acts 3:15)
Author and Perfecter of our Faith (Heb. 12:2)
Author of Salvation (Heb. 2:10)
Beginning and End (Rev. 22:13)
Blessed and only Ruler (1 Tim. 6:15)
Bread of God (John 6:33)
Bread of Life (John 6:35; 6:48)
Bridegroom (Mt. 9:15)
Capstone (Acts 4:11; 1 Pet. 2:7)
Chief Cornerstone (Eph. 2:20)
Chief Shepherd (1 Pet. 5:4)
Christ (1 John 2:22)
Creator (John 1:3)
Deliverer (Rom. 11:26)
Eternal Life (1 John 1:2; 5:20)
Gate (John 10:9)
Faithful and True (Rev. 19:11)
Faithful Witness (Rev. 1:5)
Faithful and True Witness (Rev. 3:14)
First and Last (Rev. 1:17; 2:8; 22:13)
Firstborn From the Dead (Rev. 1:5)
Firstborn over all creation (Col. 1:15)
Gate (John 10:9)
God (John 1:1; 20:28; Heb. 1:8; Rom. 9:5; 2 Pet. 1:1;1 John 5:20; etc.)
Good Shepherd (John 10:11,14)
Great Shepherd (Heb. 13:20)
Great High Priest (Heb. 4:14)
Head of the Church (Eph. 1:22; 4:15; 5:23)
Heir of all things (Heb. 1:2)
High Priest (Heb. 2:17)
Holy and True (Rev. 3:7)
Holy One (Acts 3:14)
Hope (1 Tim. 1:1)
Hope of Glory (Col. 1:27)
Horn of Salvation (Luke 1:69)
I Am (John 8:58)
Image of God (2 Cor. 4:4)
Immanuel (Mt. 1:23)
Judge of the living and the dead (Acts 10:42)
King Eternal (1 Tim. 1:17)
King of Israel (John 1:49)
King of the Jews (Mt. 27:11)
King of kings (1 Tim 6:15; Rev. 19:16)
King of the Ages (Rev. 15:3)
Lamb (Rev. 13:8)
Lamb of God (John 1:29)
Lamb Without Blemish (1 Pet. 1:19)
Last Adam (1 Cor. 15:45)
Life (John 14:6; Col. 3:4)
Light of the World (John 8:12)
Lion of the Tribe of Judah (Rev. 5:5)
Living One (Rev. 1:18)
Living Stone (1 Pet. 2:4)
Lord (2 Pet. 2:20)
Lord of All (Acts 10:36)
Lord of Glory (1 Cor. 2:8)
Lord of lords (Rev. 19:16)
Man from Heaven (1 Cor. 15:48)
Mediator of the New Covenant (Heb. 9:15)
Mighty God (Isa. 9:6)
Morning Star (Rev. 22:16)
Offspring of David (Rev. 22:16)
Only Begotten Son of God (John 1:18; 1 John 4:9)
Our Great God and Savior (Titus 2:13)
Our Holiness (1 Cor. 1:30)
Our Husband (2 Cor. 11:2)
Our Protection (2 Thess. 3:3)
Our Redemption (1 Cor. 1:30)
Our Righteousness (1 Cor. 1:30)
Our Sacrificed Passover Lamb (1 Cor. 5:7)
Power of God (1 Cor. 1:24)
Precious Cornerstone (1 Pet. 2:6)
Prophet (Acts 3:22)
Rabbi (Mt. 26:25)
Resurrection and Life (John 11:25)
Righteous Branch (Jer. 23:5)
Righteous One (Acts 7:52; 1 John 2:1)
Rock (1 Cor. 10:4)
Root of David (Rev. 5:5; 22:16)
Ruler of God
Leah:
Please explain yourself. I am not sure I understand. Are you saying that God is a compromiser?
Hehe, Ari-chan. Good stuff, ehh?
Ari-chan:
You must be a Vulcan.
Or, perhaps a Vulcan-Sith mongrel?
Sometimes I get Star Wars and Star Trek confused. What was it that Spock use to say? Nan-nu, nan-nu or was that Robin Wiliams or Bork or Spork or Vrignet?
But never confused on theological issues since it requires much more mental power and a degree of maturity.
@Bobby: Indeed. ^_^
@HisMan: I am a Vulcan, I have the store-bought pointy ears and everything!
Star Wars = Darth Vader, Death Star, Luke Skywalker, light sabers, and really bad dialog.
Star Trek = Cap’n Kirk, Spock (the Vulcan), The Enterprise, and poor dying red-shirts.
“Nan-nu Nan-nu” was Robin Williams on “Mork and Mindy”. :)
I respect your knowledge of scripture. God’s word is powerful all right, but we don’t need to hit people over the head with it, if you know what I mean. Some people don’t learn very well that way.
Posted by: Janet at February 24, 2008 8:30 PM
I’m only saying that to people that don’t believe that, all they hear is DO IT MY WAY OR ELSE…
It’s really the delivery I question.
Posted by: mk at February 24, 2008 8:08 PM
Although I thank you both for your comments, and respect them, I can’t help to think that you are judging me. That’s fine, if you’d like. I really don’t mind.
Again, I am quoting scripture. As HisMan put it so eloquently, “The Word of God, is the Sword of the Spirit. When a man hears it, it cuts through the garbage and exposes a man to himself. He either humbly accepts it and repents or he rejects it and gets angry at the messenger.”
I’ll humbly take the beating, thank you.
HisMan, thank you for your posts.
Ahhh JLM,
So close to bed, yet so far…
I am not judging you. I am judging the delivery. No need to play martyr as I am not beating you. lol.
Carry on.
I just think there is an awful lot of scripture to choose from and that exposing a man to himself can be done in many ways. We both want the same thing. You do it your way. I’ll do it mine. As long as the message is out there.
Peace.
Leah,
“But I can tell you absolutely 100% money-back guarantee that there is middle ground between love and hate–ALWAYS.”
I think there is a certain sense in which this is true, but my guess is that in the sense that HisMan (and I) understands the terms “love” and “hate,” there is no middle ground. By love, I think we mean “charity.” Allow me to propose the following definitions;
charity- the theological virtue by which we love God for his own sake above all things and love our neighbor as ourselves.
hate- to wish ill or harm on another.
So in this sense, I think you would agree that one can not say “I somewhat love God above all things and have a bit of love for my neighbor, and I also wish a little bit of harm upon my neighbor.” Does that make sense? I agree in kind of the everyday parlance, one can feel both hate and love for someone, but I think theologically the ideas are incompatible. God love you.
HI JLM,
“mk & John,
I quoted scripture in my posts.
Is it a problem you have with me, or a problem you have with scripture?
Posted by: JLM at February 24, 2008 7:09 PM
…….
I assume you know scripture inside out … but that does not mean you grasp what it is saying. Just read the stories about Jesus being tempted by Satan with the words of scripture. So, rather than training my memory skills, I’ve asked and have received a gift of discerning a little of what is written in scripture. So when I point to some scriptural incident, I assume you have a good acquaintance with the words. I very rarely, deliberately do not swap chapter and verse because this is so filled with problems …. just one little example … we get a sanctimonious fill thee’s and thou’s etc ` like its foreign English and this is not any part of ancient languages except old English, and scripture was already i5 centuries young before being translated into English. Speak modern-current words. The ‘th’ are just bs especially with good translations into English are readily available. Like I do not get spiritually appopleptic when I read ‘Thy monkeyeth runneth overeth thee groundeth’ …. the authors of scripture were not speech impaired and did not usually require a additional interpreter.
Bobby,
Do you get what I mean when I say “hitting someone over the head”? Is there a better way to say that? Maybe not? (From my post at 8:30.) God bless you.
Anon:
Use the NLT then…….Gee wiz!
Well, HisMan, I don’t know God, but when I die I’ll ask him if he is. However, that was not my implication. Human beings are VERY compromising creatures, however. I’ll take myself as an example. Now, I have a very loving relationship with my idea of God. But my idea of what God is is not the same as yours. So you will say that I do not love God because yours is the only True God. BUT–I don’t hate “your” God, HisMan. I may dislike your image (I’m not saying I do–I’m not well-versed enough in your idea to make that judgment), but I certainly don’t, nor have I ever HATED God.
Now, I could go another way with this. Suppose you accepted my image of God as valid. Just humor me. I love God. But I have not always had this relationship with God. I used to have few religious convictions at all. But it was not a hatred towards God that I felt–a lack of feeling, perhaps. Or maybe not enough knowledge to draw a good conclusion on what I thought of God.
I know many people who do not LOVE God. But I know none who HATE Him.
I respect your opinions, HisMan, even as we disagree. You are obviously very knowledgeable about what you speak of. But I know that there is many a middle road between love and hate.
Feel free to respond to what I have to say, but I won’t get back to you until tomorrow. I’m off for the evening.
Good to see you back, by the way!
JLM:
Keep fighting the good fight and long, no crave to hear those precious words, “well done thy good and faithful servant”.
Aei-chan:
I’ve got to admit….I’m a Star Wars nut.
I love the overall theme of Star Wars which is….redemption.
No matter how bad a person is, i.e., Darth Vader….there is always a chance for redemption.
It is my opinion that Star Wars is a deeply spiritual story. There’s good versus evil, a satan, a redeemer, the redeemed, a misunderstood priesthood, etc.
I think Star Trek is rather plastic.
I am not judging you. I am judging the delivery. No need to play martyr as I am not beating you. lol.
oh, mk…I wasn’t talking about you, I was referring to the part where I quoted HisMan when he said, “He either humbly accepts it and repents or he rejects it and gets angry at the messenger.”
Now then, if you get angry at the messenger, then yes, it would also be directed to you. However, you already stated that you weren’t angry with me, so I really don’t know where that came from. And the “no need to play the martyr” statement…touching.
All that being said, I’m glad that we can finally agree that you’ll do it your way, and I’ll do it mine. I was already there, though.
Anon,
I didn’t interpret scripture, I posted it. You interpreted it on your own. Although I understand that you want me to speak it in my own words, I choose not to, because I think that scripture speaks for itself, with all it’s “thees” and “thous”, I can still fully understand the meaning.
I also fully understand what you’re saying about not taking scripture out of context. I pray before I post, and read most of the entire chapter before posting the particular verse to make sure I’m not at fault with what you stated above. I’m very familiar with historical, literal, prophetic and parables in the bible. I have studied extensively. Have you ever read Halley’s Bible Concordance? It’s an invaluable tool in helping with that problem, and has helped me a great deal in understading the historical point of view on each chapter of the bible. It’s absolutely wonderful!
If you ever feel that I am posting scripture that is not pertinent, or out of context to a certain situation, please do let me know. I would greatly appreciate your assistance in that respect. It’s how we learn. We are all a “work in progress”.
God bless you both.
Thank you, HisMan.
I live my entire life craving to hear those words.
@HisMan: I got into Star Wars first, as a wee lass of 9 years. I adore the original series, I watch it for what it is: a movie. A story. Nothing more. I liked the action. I’m not one for getting into
I like Star Trek too, but I really like the Deep Space Nine series as that one has some really interesting, organic aspects to it compared to Next Generation and the Original Series. I think you may like the Deep Space Nine series too as it has a *lot* of spirituality and the conflicts of it.
Aaaaaanywho. :)
I don’t think Darth Vader was ever totally evil or bad. I think he was self-destructive and I think it hurt him to hurt others, and that’s why he did it, out of guilt, shame and anger over what happened to Padme.
Leah:
Look at this way.
Let’s say there’s a being in the Universe named Jim.
Now a lot of people say they love Jim, however, the Jim they say they love is not who Jim is.
Now, Jim calls some people or e-mails them and he says, “Hey, I can’t be there right now but I’m going to send my son Jim. Jim Jr. is just like me so listen to him and you can believe eerything he says because you see, he’s my son. Now, there will be other Jims that claim to be Jim Jr. but they are not the real thing because you see, Jim Jr. is going to give you what you always dreamed of and prove that he is Jim Jr. by giving his life for you.”
Now Leah. The God I love is not my idea as you stated. The God I love is the God that rvealed Himself to me in the Bible. I have chosen to believe and accept the message as have millions upon million of others who have gone before me and have testified to His faithfulness and goodness.
The g-o-d you believe in and by your own admission, is your own idea, does not exist. Let me ask you, has your idea of g-o-d revealed himself, or herself, or itself to you yet? You see, God is not an idea, or a theory, or a philosophy, or even a religion. God is a real person who really came to earth, really did some supernatural things, died on a cross and was resurrected and then appeared to over 500 people. I have never heard of an idea of a
g-o-d doing anything like that, have you?
Sorry Ari-chan:
I love all kinds of science fiction movies.
I recently saw “Jumper” which I thought was pretty cool.
Did you know that in the Book of Acts, 2nd Chapter that after Peter preached to the Ethiopian Eunuch that he literally jumped to a different place?
And Paul was physically transported to Heaven.
And in Matthew 17 it talks about Jesus, Moses and Elijah appearing to a few of the apostles.
And people think the Bible is some ancient, out of date Book. Yes, the Bible is the most advanced book in the Universe. We would do well to read and study and understand it.
I love the overall theme of Star Wars which is….redemption.
Ha! HisMan, me too, love themes of redemption.
While I hear what you are saying, I would venture to say that Christians, true Christians, are the least afraid to die people you’ll ever meet.
MK, some are, some aren’t. I’m not saying “religion is bad,” here, just that different people have different needs. Can one’s belief make one feel unafraid? I think so, yes, for some people. That said, it’s not like everybody else is “afraid to die.”
……
I know you desperately want to put us in a cute little cartoon and say “aren’t they adorable with their little God and their sweet naive beliefs” but you are so, so wrong.
No, really, I don’t. And it’s not just Christians, this is bigger than that – it’s all matters of “faith” in the realm.
……
There is nothing sweet or naive about being a Christian. It’s tough. It’s often grueling. It requires strength when strength is needed, humility when humility is needed, courage, love, patience, persistance…do you think there aren’t moments when it would be easier to say “Hey, I think I’ll just think like Doug for awhile and chuck it all! Do whatever I want for a change!”
The thing is that you ARE doing what you want. It’s all the same. It’s not any tougher nor any less, necessarily, whether one is religous or not.
……
Get real! Answering to nobody but yourself? Now that is easy. Try being a Christian for a week Doug. One week, and so all the things that are expected of you. Change your entire way of life, lose life long friends, have people insinuate that you are a fruitcake (a sweet fruitcake, but a fruitcake nonetheless), bite back the words that spring to your lips, listen to God tell you all the ways you failed today…you couldn’t handle it.
Your faith IS in yourself, MK. Again, all the same.
……
And because you view us as complete morons, you’d never understand the joy that comes from that ridiculous belief system.
Now doggoneit, I do not view you that way. I’ve said repeatedly that lots of people get lots of good from religion. I’m impressed with the amount of thought that has gone into various religions and the amount of thought expressed as you and Bethany have done right here. Don’t even worry about being a little grouchy.
Doug:
I don;t think you realize how close minded you are.
MK,
does that mean that when you die you will literally have the ability to know the existence of God and Jesus and THEN be able to reject it or accept it?
Leah,
How can you believe what’s in Halley’s Bible Concordance? I thought you only believed in the Bible?
HisMan,
I’m sure you realize that there are places in the bible that specifically refer to tradition and the word. How do you reconcile this with your views, since you don’t believe in tradition?
I don’t think you realize how close minded you are.
HisMan, you could say the same for members of other religions, religions different than your own, or one could say it of you, because of what you believe.
There are things that apply to all of us, but when we get to unprovable assumptions, then one person or one group saying something does not make it so.
PIP,
If you don’t mind me replying, I’m pretty sure MK was referring to the time just before death, not after.
Janet, what I mean is, does that mean that God reveals himself through Jesus so you can choose to accept it? Or is this just semantics for “well you never really understood God, or had the wrong perception of Him, but if only you tried in that last hour of death, you could have gotten into heaven”?
Doug:
The evidence of the reality of Christ demands a verdict.
To not be willing to even consisder it is close-minded.
PIP,
I hesitate to give an answer here, because it will be from a Catholic standpoint…but, I’ll try.
We believe, in the Catholic Church, that
when an angel is created, he decides at that moment which “team” he will be on. Can’t change his mind, can’t go back. God or Satan. That’s his moment of truth, if you will.
For humans, we get a whole lifetime to make up our minds. (Of course, you don’t know when that lifetime will end, so hedging your bet isn’t exactly wise).
We have until the moment of death. If we show one iota of wanting to be with God for eternity, then His Mercy, which is bottomless, will flow, and in we’ll get.
Of course, we believe in purgatory (a final bath, if you will), but nonetheless, we’ll make it to heaven.
I heard a priest once tell the story of a young woman that was dying and he kept asking her to just kiss the crucifix that he held. Just kiss it, and it would be enough. She spat at it, and then died.
But someone that commits suicide say, could, at the very split second before the gun goes off, or the pills take effect, or they hit the water, cry out, God have Mercy, or God Help Me, and that would be enough.
But after death? No, we become like the angels and all bets are off. God continues to love us, because He is all love and can do nothing else, but we have made our final choice and He honors it.
As I said somewhere else earlier, a soul that chooses hell, may regret where He is, but doesn’t regret the actions that brought him there, or regret the choices he made. Having it to do all over, they would make the same choice.
Again, we have been given free will. If we choose, like Doug, to refuse God, and choose to spend eternity without Him, then God must, by His own rules, honor Dougs choice. Otherwise, He would be interfering with Doug’s free will.
Nobody is making Doug spend an eternity in Hell. Doug prefers it that way. And God will allow Doug to have his “desire”. To put Doug in heaven, would be to make the whole free will thing a sham. As Doug says, it’s all about desire. Doug desires a life and an eternity without God. And so he shall be granted his wish.
This is why purgatory makes so much sense. If you were to accept Jesus, but not embrace Him, just sort of believe in Him, but not wholeheartedly follow Him, you could still get into heaven. But there would be a lot of tweaking that needed to be done. (more time in purgatory) If however you went to the other extreme, and became a Mother Teresa, giving your entire mind, body, soul and heart to Him, you’d probably spend very little time in purgatory. You’d already have worked out a lot of the “kinks” in your faith life.
Saint Faustina was given a choice by Jesus. He told her that she could either do her purgatory time on earth, or after death. She asked for both. Wanted to offer up the “extra” suffering for souls who didn’t believe. So she spent her last days very sick and in great pain. We can only assume she did some more suffering after she died.
This is another difference between Catholics and Protestants. We believe that our suffering can be offered up with Jesus’ on the cross, and it has the power to bring souls to Him.
So it is entirely possible that Padre Pio, or Saint Faustinas’ earthly suffering will help you, PIP, to convert and get into heaven…which I think is really cool.
“The evidence of the reality of Christ demands a verdict.
To not be willing to even consisder it is close-minded.”
The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel is a wonderful introduction to this subject.
HisMan: The evidence of the reality of Christ demands a verdict.
To not be willing to even consisder it is close-minded.
I do consider it.
Again, we have been given free will. If we choose, like Doug, to refuse God, and choose to spend eternity without Him, then God must, by His own rules, honor Dougs choice. Otherwise, He would be interfering with Doug’s free will.
MK, the problem with that is that free will means there is not an all-knowing god, nor is there an all-knowing anything. Free will means we are not predestined, while if our future is known, to “anybody,” then we’re predestined.
Some of us will choose to embrace the theoretical construct of God just as you do, and some will do it differently, and some will not do it at all.
@Doug,
but that is just it … we ain’t talking of intellectual possibilities/imaginings, we are talking about the realities of love … all unseen. How do you react to a child’s twisted ankle? Do you think his pain imaginary … easy cop-out for you but that does zip to assist the child. A simple gesture of sharing his misery (like his mother kissing the bruise) can become (inexplicably) healing.
Now which of these is real?
John
“MK, the problem with that is that free will means there is not an all-knowing god, nor is there an all-knowing anything. Free will means we are not predestined, while if our future is known, to “anybody,” then we’re predestined.”
Well, I think there’s a couple ways to illustrate man’s free will vs. God’s sovereignty. The first is to consider the fact that (for example) every I yawn and smack my lips, Gianna laughs. Every single time. So I can hold her in my arms say “watch this, Gianna will smile in 5 seconds” and that will happen. I “knew the future” but I didn’t force her to smile. If you want to say she was “predestined” because I knew she was going to smile, well, fine. But she still had free will. While it isn’t a perfect comparison, it is similar to how we understand God’s sovereignty vs. our free will.
The other comparison is the following. When I watch Wrestlemania VII, when Macho Man vs. Ultimate Warrior begins, I can tell you that Macho Man will give the Ultimate Warrior 5 elbows in a row from the top rope. Guarantee it. Did that take away Macho Man’s free will? No, he had free will when he did the elbows. He could have done only one or (God forbid) 10 elbows. Well, what’s the objection to this comparison? I already knew what Macho was going to do. I had seen this match (many, many times!). But this touches precisely on a truth about God- namely, that God is outside of time. Because God is pure soul which has an unchanging nature, God is in an eternal “now.” So in a sense, the entire history of the earth has already happened in God’s eyes, and the situation is much like the video that I watch where, indeed, Macho has free will, yet I already knew what happened.
So I’m not expecting you to believe all of this; just that it is possible to reconcile the two. There is a HUGE treatise on this called “Grace, Predestination, and Free Will” by William Most if you wish to beat this subject to death. God love you.
Doug,
You are constraining yourself by linear time.
There is no linear time for God.
It is all happening at once. He can see the present, past, future at any time He chooses.
So He can see you struggling with a decision, and He can know the outcome of that decision even before you make it because YOU are stuck in linear time.
We don’t believe in predestination. We don’t believe that God “causes” us to do anything. Be we believe He can “see” everything.
Think science fiction…back to the future. Michael J Fox knew what his folks were going to do before they had even met because he was able to project himself into the future. Granted that he manipulated his folks, while God doesn’t, but the theory remains the same.
No time constraints on God. Time constraints on humans. We simply can’t see the way He sees.
Janet,
I think you were referring the Halley’s Bible Concordance question to me, not Leah.
Check it out sometime and you’ll see what I’m talking about. It gives historical and archaeological facts book by book throughout the bible. It doesn’t interpret the bible, it just shows you what was going on during that time historically book by book. Very interesting, if your into archaeological and historical facts!
For instance, during a period of time in which people were woshipping the god Baal, it shows you historical digs that were done during that time period. Human sacrifice was a big ritual then, and people during that time were told to sacrifice their babies, then put the remains in a vase, then build the structure of their homes around the vase and that would give them blessings by their god. In the book, you see the vases that were dug up and the tiny bones within them.
By reading this book, it really opens up the bible, to me at least, to fully understand why God poured out his wrath on people who did not obey Him.
There’s much, much more to the book, and it goes chapter by chapter throughout the bible. It’s a great read. Seriously, if you have the time, check it out!
I”ve added it to my amazon.com wishlist, JLM.
Bobby & Janet,
Ooooh. I forgot to mention that if you get it, or borrow it from the library, there are many verisons of it. When new archaeological discoveries are unearthed, Halley’s updates the book to include the new discoveries. It’s been updated ALOT, so if you do get it, make sure you get the newest version for the lastest facts!
If my memory is correct, Jill is or was reading it also.
but that is just it … we ain’t talking of intellectual possibilities/imaginings, we are talking about the realities of love … all unseen. How do you react to a child’s twisted ankle? Do you think his pain imaginary … easy cop-out for you but that does zip to assist the child. A simple gesture of sharing his misery (like his mother kissing the bruise) can become (inexplicably) healing.
Now which of these is real?
John, those are all real. I don’t say anything there is imaginary.
You are constraining yourself by linear time. There is no linear time for God. It is all happening at once. He can see the present, past, future at any time He chooses.
MK, it wouldn’t change anything. There is that which we define as our future. If that is known to an entity, “linear time” for that entity or not, then we are predestined.
……
We don’t believe in predestination. We don’t believe that God “causes” us to do anything. Be we believe He can “see” everything.
“Cause” isn’t required. Just knowing it is enough – it’d mean our futures are fixed.
……
Think science fiction…back to the future. Michael J Fox knew what his folks were going to do before they had even met because he was able to project himself into the future. Granted that he manipulated his folks, while God doesn’t, but the theory remains the same.
So from Mikey’s perspective he knew the future, in that limited way, i.e. while the others didn’t know it, their future was known to another.
……
No time constraints on God. Time constraints on humans. We simply can’t see the way He sees.
Nothing there that would contradict what I’ve said. We don’t need to know, it’s enough that any other entity knows.
I agree with you Doug, that we are predestinated.
Here is a little of insight on how John Calvin explained how this does not remove our human responsibility:
From http://geneva.rutgers.edu/src/christianity/predest.html
” Of the things I’ve seen from the 16th Century, Calvin dealt with this the most clearly. He maintained that predestination does not remove human responsibility. In effect, he suggested that there are two different accounts for the same event, one in human terms and one in God’s terms. God has a plan for our individual lives and history as a whole. Everything that happens fits into that plan. However he normally works through secondary causes. When someone does something, it is because they make a decision to do so. God knew what that decision would be. Indeed because the person’s character, motivations, and situation is under God’s control, there’s a sense in which we can say that God determined the action. But his plan is carried out by the working out of human decisions and other historical causes.
Calvin looks at the example of the Sabeans’ violence against Job’s household near the beginning of Job. There are three levels of responsibility here. The Sabeans are responsible for the violence, motivated by whatever motivates vandals, presumably a desire for loot. But they are also acting as Satan’s agents to test Job. Thus in another sense Satan is responsible. His goal is to show up Job. He somehow moved the Sabeans to attack Job’s family. However even Satan is acting accordance with God’s plan. God’s intention is to vindicate Job’s character and his own justice. The event is completely intelligible on any of these three levels: human, Satan’s plan, and God’s plan. In fact all three accounts are true.
Calvin also points out that God carries out his plan differently when dealing with people who have faith in him and those who do not. Everyone ends up acting in accordance with his plans. But with those who have faith, there is a conscious collaboration. God works with them through the Holy Spirit, and moves them directly in the way he intends. The ungodly do not intentionally cooperate with God. They still do his will, but they do it because he has set up the situation so that they end up doing what he wants. ”
Hi JLM,
yep, the anon to which you refer is me John L. McDonell … sorry forgot to sign.
“Anon,
I didn’t interpret scripture, I posted it. You interpreted it on your own. Although I understand that you want me to speak it in my own words, I choose not to, because I think that scripture speaks for itself, with all it’s “thees” and “thous”, I can still fully understand the meaning.”
I have not interpreted the words of scripture but because I have a rare charism does not make my words somehow less. I have talked to all kinds of young people and they wish to know not just what God says but how this effects my personal life. I can be remote and call you ‘sister’ like they do in unions OR I can let you inside …. become one … let the ‘wall of separation down’ … and embrace you in my littleness …. to become my ‘sister’ … as real (even more real) as my earthly sisters(2).
A few years back, one of these family folks wrote to me. Lynn was struggling with being a new mom. So I wrote that I’d always be there for her … in-her-corner. If you know anything about my disease and how it wastes muscles so I cannot even walk nor crawl, such bravado as I wrote to her seems ludicrous. But I think her pain (now both of ours) is lessened just by being open to listen.
99% of Christians could/cannot read words … like Bibles, but all ‘read’ people. So it is very important for me to enter-the-fray and not remain an ‘observer’ …. too many spectators. I am … in God I am … and the more real I am = how close Abba/Jesus/Spirit are in me …. That’s why Jesus prays that we might be one (Prayer at the Last Supper/John).
The ‘thee’s’ and ‘thou’s’ are important because they are words not used in any family, so distance people rather than unite them. To me the effect works exactly against what God is attempting to accomplish. Thee’s and thou’s … are these Biblical words or are they English sentiments that gloss over this oneness that Abba is attempting to achieve? Am I wrong?
hope this helps ….
John (also JLM)
Hey Bethany. So are you reformed? If so, how reformed (if that question makes any sense)? God love you.
Bobby, yes, I believe that is what you could call me. I am not really sure about levels of reformed..maybe you can help me understand?
It’s really about whether something agrees with the Bible or not, more than anything else, for me. :-)
Hey Bethany, pretty good. Calvin was hardcore….
Doug,
Then we do not have the same understanding of predestination.
You are still placing God in time constraints.
You are saying He is looking into the future and I am saying to Him, there is no future. There is only “now” and now encompasses all. He doesn’t see what “will” happen, He sees what “is” happening.
# S: (n) predestination (previous determination as if by destiny or fate)
*
# S: (n) predestination, foreordination, preordination, predetermination ((theology) being determined in advance; especially the doctrine (usually associated with Calvin) that God has foreordained every event throughout eternity (including the final salvation of mankind))
Presdestination means determining what will happen. Not seeing it happen. Saying it WILL be so ahead of time. Not watching it happen.
It is completely different than what I am talking about.
http://geneva.rutgers.edu/src/christianity/predest.html
John,
My response was to what you said here:
I assume you know scripture inside out … but that does not mean you grasp what it is saying. Just read the stories about Jesus being tempted by Satan with the words of scripture.
I felt like you were telling me that I may know the words, but I don’t know what they mean. I then told you that I just posted them, and didn’t interpret them. If there was an interpretation, that had to have come from you reading the scripture that I posted.
John, I try very hard to understand what you are trying to convey in your posts, but we most certainly are not on the same intellectual level. So, if I misunderstood, I am sorry for that. It’s just how I read your words.
Rest assured, I do pray before reading any scripture at all. I pray for understanding and wisdom. I pray that God has me understand it EXACTLY how He wants me to. The way that He intended them to be. I think we’ll have to disagree on the “thee’s” and “thou’s” though. I find those words to be beautiful and timeless.
John, I think you’re a remarkable individual. What you did for Lynn and others is beautiful and so altruistic. I am sure God is pleased.
God bless you, John.
One more thing to all: My bad: It’s not Halley’s Bible Concordance, It’s Halley’s Bible Handbook. I get all of my little helpers mixed up sometimes! Sorry for any confusion.
:)
“aIt’s not Halley’s Bible Concordance, It’s Halley’s Bible Handbook. I get all of my little helpers mixed up sometimes! Sorry for any confusion.”
Ah, yes indeed. It’s only 52 cents on amazon used!
Doug,
I think that the free will thing is, like, picture a home video of your family. At the time it was filmed, your actions were chosen freely, but in the years since, you’ve seen it so many times that you know what the kid in the video is going to choose. That you know what he’ll choose doesn’t mean he’s not choosing, it just means you’ve seen it already. But to the kid trapped in the film, everything is new.
Sometimes I feel that way watching or reading historical documentaries. I’m like, “No, don’t do that!” or “Gee, this is all awfully drawn out considering we all KNOW what’s going to happen anyway.” But I try to imagine actually being there — being George Washington or Alexander the Great or Ceasar or whatever — and seeing two seemingly endless paths on either side of a fork in the road, and legitimately not knowing what would happen next. I guess I have an awful imagination, because sometimes try as I might I can’t imagine making a historical decision WITHOUT having my thoughts affected the bias I have inherited by way of being born after that decision’s consequences were well known. But anyway, the point is, if I were somehow able to go back and watch history unfolding, the fact that I knew what each person would decide to do with each situation wouldn’t mean that they weren’t deciding to do it of their own volition. It would just mean that I had information they didn’t.
Going back to the “asking your friends to take off their dirty shoes before entering your house” analogy with regards to sin not being allowed to enter heaven, for a moment, because I was thinking about it as I fell asleep last night. (And not just because my partner tracked mud all through our apartment!) I don’t think it would mean that I loved my friends any less if I insisted that they remove their shoes — as it is, I prefer that they do but hope to just lead by example rather than insisting — but I do think that if I built a moat of mud around my house, a moat that took a lifetime to cross and that you had to get extremely dirty to get through, and THEN I insisted that everyone help me keep my house pristine, I might be a bit of a jerk. I might still have the right to want my friends to remove their shoes, but I don’t think they’d be out of line to grumble about my choice of landscaping.
Bobby,
You’re too funny!
I’m going to stop at the bookstore today & pick up two copies. My father lent it to me back in September. When I was out at the Aurora mill, one of the prayer warriors really liked it, so I lent it to him. I didn’t get it back, yet, and I really miss it! I read up to Song of Solomon, (of course read Revelation first, since it’s such a passion for me) and am itching to read the rest!
If you get it, let me know what you think!
…and now I’ve gone and spelled Caesar incorrectly. Woe.
Well, I think there’s a couple ways to illustrate man’s free will vs. God’s sovereignty. The first is to consider the fact that (for example) every I yawn and smack my lips, Gianna laughs. Every single time. So I can hold her in my arms say “watch this, Gianna will smile in 5 seconds” and that will happen. I “knew the future” but I didn’t force her to smile. If you want to say she was “predestined” because I knew she was going to smile, well, fine. But she still had free will. While it isn’t a perfect comparison, it is similar to how we understand God’s sovereignty vs. our free will.
Bobby, you make me smile too. “Forcing” is not necessary. Just knowing is enough. Having the certainty about Gianna that you do is not being “all-knowing,” however. I also think that eventually she would tire, become saturated and not respond the same, go to sleep, etc., i.e. you’ve noted a tendency but it’s not really a sure thing going out into the future. More sure would be dropping a rock onto the ground, knowing that gravity will take effect. It’s still observations from the past projected into the future, as differentiated from truly being “all-knowing.”
……
The other comparison is the following. When I watch Wrestlemania VII, when Macho Man vs. Ultimate Warrior begins, I can tell you that Macho Man will give the Ultimate Warrior 5 elbows in a row from the top rope. Guarantee it. Did that take away Macho Man’s free will? No, he had free will when he did the elbows. He could have done only one or (God forbid) 10 elbows. Well, what’s the objection to this comparison? I already knew what Macho was going to do. I had seen this match (many, many times!). But this touches precisely on a truth about God- namely, that God is outside of time. Because God is pure soul which has an unchanging nature, God is in an eternal “now.” So in a sense, the entire history of the earth has already happened in God’s eyes, and the situation is much like the video that I watch where, indeed, Macho has free will, yet I already knew what happened.
I disagree. The match has already occurred. There’s no free will on the part of the contestants that can change what happened. They are “outside” of that time, already, so to speak, and if God is outside of time, then fine, I say – if God is seeing our future as you see the already-taken-place wrasslin,’ then we cannot change what we think of as our future any more than Macho Man can change Wrestlemania VII.
Alternatively, do you think God works through Hulk Hogan and Sgt. Slaughter?
……
So I’m not expecting you to believe all of this; just that it is possible to reconcile the two. There is a HUGE treatise on this called “Grace, Predestination, and Free Will” by William Most if you wish to beat this subject to death. God love you.
Too busy to really get the Big Beater out, at least today – am loading for a couple jobs in the hind-end of the USA, New Jersey. Thank you, though, I’ll look into it.
Doug
I think that the free will thing is, like, picture a home video of your family. At the time it was filmed, your actions were chosen freely, but in the years since, you’ve seen it so many times that you know what the kid in the video is going to choose. That you know what he’ll choose doesn’t mean he’s not choosing, it just means you’ve seen it already. But to the kid trapped in the film, everything is new.
GOOD analogy, Alexandra!
Going back to the “asking your friends to take off their dirty shoes before entering your house” analogy with regards to sin not being allowed to enter heaven, for a moment, because I was thinking about it as I fell asleep last night. (And not just because my partner tracked mud all through our apartment!) I don’t think it would mean that I loved my friends any less if I insisted that they remove their shoes — as it is, I prefer that they do but hope to just lead by example rather than insisting — but I do think that if I built a moat of mud around my house, a moat that took a lifetime to cross and that you had to get extremely dirty to get through, and THEN I insisted that everyone help me keep my house pristine, I might be a bit of a jerk. I might still have the right to want my friends to remove their shoes, but I don’t think they’d be out of line to grumble about my choice of landscaping.
Alexandra,
I really love reading your posts! You explain yourself very well, and your words flow so beautifully!
That is so funny that the mud analogy coincided with your bf’s mud-tracking! ha!
I see where you’re coming from. But God doesn’t love someone any less because they “don’t take their shoes off”. He has infinite love, and wants so badly for people to “choose” to take their shoes off. He can’t force them. It’s a choice they have to make. It’s either what He wants, or what they want. That’s the choice. Choose God’s way, or choose your own way. It’s His house – His way. (or the highway, lol! I’m thinking of that AC/DC song now…highway to h*ll.) It’s going to be another one of those days, I can just feel it now!
As for the moat, I love that part! But the beautiful thing, is that it’s doesn’t have to take a lifetime to get through the muddy moat. Once a person accepts what Christ has done for them, their “shoes” are cleaned, and the muddy moat is gone. It’s a walk through clean pastures at that point! Not to say there won’t be bumps along the way, but at least Jesus will be carrying you through it. He’s not only a Savior, but a best friend.
Please keep posting, Alexandra. I really, really enjoy what you write. You have quite the gift with thought and the ability to put into into such powerful words! Thank you for that!
Going back to the “asking your friends to take off their dirty shoes before entering your house” analogy with regards to sin not being allowed to enter heaven, for a moment, because I was thinking about it as I fell asleep last night. (And not just because my partner tracked mud all through our apartment!) I don’t think it would mean that I loved my friends any less if I insisted that they remove their shoes — as it is, I prefer that they do but hope to just lead by example rather than insisting — but I do think that if I built a moat of mud around my house, a moat that took a lifetime to cross and that you had to get extremely dirty to get through, and THEN I insisted that everyone help me keep my house pristine, I might be a bit of a jerk. I might still have the right to want my friends to remove their shoes, but I don’t think they’d be out of line to grumble about my choice of landscaping.
Alexandra,
I really love reading your posts! You explain yourself very well, and your words flow so beautifully!
That is so funny that the mud analogy coincided with your bf’s mud-tracking! ha!
I see where you’re coming from. But God doesn’t love someone any less because they “don’t take their shoes off”. He has infinite love, and wants so badly for people to “choose” to take their shoes off. He can’t force them. It’s a choice they have to make. It’s either what He wants, or what they want. That’s the choice. Choose God’s way, or choose your own way. It’s His house – His way. (or the highway, lol! I’m thinking of that AC/DC song now…highway to h*ll.) It’s going to be another one of those days, I can just feel it now!
As for the moat, I love that part! But the beautiful thing, is that it’s doesn’t have to take a lifetime to get through the muddy moat. Once a person accepts what Christ has done for them, their “shoes” are cleaned, and the muddy moat is gone. It’s a walk through clean pastures at that point! Not to say there won’t be bumps along the way, but at least Jesus will be carrying you through it. He’s not only a Savior, but a best friend.
Please keep posting, Alexandra. I really, really enjoy what you write. You have quite the gift with thought and the ability to put into into such powerful words! Thank you for that!
Then we do not have the same understanding of predestination. You are still placing God in time constraints. You are saying He is looking into the future and I am saying to Him, there is no future. There is only “now” and now encompasses all. He doesn’t see what “will” happen, He sees what “is” happening.
MK, I am saying there is that which we call the future. If that is known (or seen) by an entity in what we call the present, then we are predestined. “Time constraints,” etc., on the part of the entity don’t change anything. Regardless of the entity’s viewpoint, as long as they know what occurs in that which we call the future, then we do not have free will. We’re gonna do what we’re gonna do, whether it is seen as “will happen” or “is happening” on the all-knowing entity’s part.
……
(n) predestination (previous determination as if by destiny or fate)
(n) predestination, foreordination, preordination, predetermination ((theology) being determined in advance; especially the doctrine (usually associated with Calvin) that God has foreordained every event throughout eternity (including the final salvation of mankind))
Presdestination means determining what will happen. Not seeing it happen. Saying it WILL be so ahead of time. Not watching it happen. It is completely different than what I am talking about.
I disagree. An all-powerful god could “determine” things, but it wouldn’t have to be that way, i.e., destiny or fate would be enough – all that’s required is for God or any consciousness to know it, in advance from our perspective. If we go with the “determining” deal by God, then another entity being aware of our future would still do the same thing – even aside from God. Per Calvin, if from our perspective God has “scripted” the future, then another entity being aware of it would be proof of no free will; just knowing is enough.
Yo yo yo.
“Bobby, you make me smile too. “Forcing” is not necessary. Just knowing is enough. Having the certainty about Gianna that you do is not being “all-knowing,” however. I also think that eventually she would tire, become saturated and not respond the same, go to sleep, etc., i.e. you’ve noted a tendency but it’s not really a sure thing going out into the future. More sure would be dropping a rock onto the ground, knowing that gravity will take effect. It’s still observations from the past projected into the future, as differentiated from truly being “all-knowing.””
I agree but I think you’ve taken the analogy too far. All I want to do is illustrate how I can (at least for now) know that something is going to happen and show that it is compatible with the action being freely chosen.
” if God is outside of time, then fine, I say – if God is seeing our future as you see the already-taken-place wrasslin,’ then we cannot change what we think of as our future any more than Macho Man can change Wrestlemania VII.”
But see, Macho had free will at the time. Although his action was known by God, his action was his choice.
See, I think we agree with each other’s premises, but we are drawing different conclusions. I am saying that God can know what we are going to do in the future and we have free choice as to what we will do in the future. I think you understand those premises. But I’m happy to leave it at that. I think you are thinking that as those premises stand, they are contradictory. Is that correct? So that’s why you are saying that we can not change our future, to fix the contradiction you see, correct? Now if that is the case, the problem I have is that I don’t see any contradiction between a Being who knows the future and our actions being freely determined. So (again, is I am correct in my analysis) I think you’re going to have to show me how from those two premises you can deduce both “A and not A.” Do you know what I mean?
“Alternatively, do you think God works through Hulk Hogan and Sgt. Slaughter?”
LOL. Heck, God works through the Birdman KoKo B Ware.
“Too busy to really get the Big Beater out, at least today – am loading for a couple jobs in the hind-end of the USA, New Jersey. Thank you, though, I’ll look into it.”
Good, don’t read it. Even I’m too scared to read it. It’s extremely technical.
sorry for the double-post. If a mod wants to delete one, I’d appreciate it! The first one I thought didn’t go through. It said the server was busy or broken. I re-loaded the website, and the post wasn’t there.
Sorry!
Going back to the “asking your friends to take off their dirty shoes before entering your house” analogy with regards to sin not being allowed to enter heaven, for a moment, because I was thinking about it as I fell asleep last night. (And not just because my partner tracked mud all through our apartment!) I don’t think it would mean that I loved my friends any less if I insisted that they remove their shoes — as it is, I prefer that they do but hope to just lead by example rather than insisting — but I do think that if I built a moat of mud around my house, a moat that took a lifetime to cross and that you had to get extremely dirty to get through, and THEN I insisted that everyone help me keep my house pristine, I might be a bit of a jerk. I might still have the right to want my friends to remove their shoes, but I don’t think they’d be out of line to grumble about my choice of landscaping.
I think this is a good analogy but there are some minor flaws – I could be wrong but bear with me.
Suppose that the moat had a bridge over it (representing salvation) , which you could easily cross without having to go through all of the mud and dirt.
When you get to the house, there is no more mud on your shoes, if you cross the bridge.
(You would still have to remove the shoes though, because in my view, the shoes would be analogous to our old body- the mud is analogous to the sin).
If someone decided to jump in the moat and get their shoes all dirty before going, instead of using the bridge, could they really fault you for wanting them to take off their shoes?
Okay, let me know if this didn’t make sense and I’ll try to word it better.
JLM 9:25 I agree. She does have a gift with words.
Bethany,
“Bobby, yes, I believe that is what you could call me. I am not really sure about levels of reformed..maybe you can help me understand?”
Well, does the acronym “TULIP” mean anything to you?
Haha, Bethany and JLM, thanks.
What if the bridge (ie salvation etc) was invisible though? Like, did you ever see that Indiana Jones movie where he has to throw the dirt out over the edge of the cliff to find the entrance to the bride, and then he just has to trust that it’s there? So my friends would have to try to find and then trust an invisible bridge just to get to my house, which I had intentionally surrounded by a gigantic mud-filled moat, or else remove all of their mud-covered clothing, in order to be clean enough to come in for tea once they’d finally gotten to my front door. I don’t think I’d fault my friends for deciding not to hang out with me anymore.
Haha, Bethany and JLM, thanks.
What if the bridge (ie salvation etc) was invisible though? Like, did you ever see that Indiana Jones movie where he has to throw the dirt out over the edge of the cliff to find the entrance to the bride, and then he just has to trust that it’s there? So my friends would have to try to find and then trust an invisible bridge just to get to my house, which I had intentionally surrounded by a gigantic mud-filled moat, or else remove all of their mud-covered clothing, in order to be clean enough to come in for tea once they’d finally gotten to my front door. I don’t think I’d fault my friends for deciding not to hang out with me anymore.
HisMan:
This is being over-complicated. The bottom line is I neither love nor hate this being that you call God. Hate is something that requires feeling–a very strong feeling. I hate no one.
Alexandra,
Ah, but you left a book of instructions for your friends on how to get across the moat, and who would provide the bridge for them. Once they accepted the provider of the bridge, their veil of doubt was removed from them, so they trusted without a doubt.
Alexandra,
And if they didn’t trust YOU, were they really your friends to begin with? You may have loved them dearly, but if they didn’t trust you, did they ever love you?
Leah,
I don’t hate your god either. I can’t hate something that isn’t real, and I’m sure that’s why you don’t hate our God. Am I correct?
“Many things that take place in Saudi Arabia are, in fact, not based off of Islam”
Leah, are you telling me you know more about Islam then the people in Saudi-Arabia? I believe the Saudi’s….
“Have you been to Saudi Arabia, Jasper? Have you ever been outside of the United States?”
China
Korea
Taiwan
Japan
England
Scotland
Switzerland
Germany
Holland
Canada
And if they didn’t trust YOU, were they really your friends to begin with? You may have loved them dearly, but if they didn’t trust you, did they ever love you?
I guess that’s what I always wondered. If someone gave me a book and was like, “This is how you find the bridge,” and I just COULDN’T believe it — I tried and tried and still always kind of thought, “This is a little absurd” — then maybe I was not meant to have a relationship with that person.
Alexandria, when you feel that way (that it is absurd), that is your “natural man” talking… It is in everyone to feel this way, of themselves. Without God to help you interpret the scriptures, the words can certainly seem foolish. God still wants a relationship with you. You are not out of the ordinary for having these thoughts.
“…the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” 1 Corinthians 2:14-15″
Oops, I just noticed… When I wrote “that it is absurd”, it looked like it reads “that is absurd”. I hope you didn’t read it that way. lol
Alexandra,
I believe if you seek you will find.
Luke 11:9
And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.
But, keep in mind, that you need to seek & ask!
Until then:
John 12:40
He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.
2 Corinthians 3:14-16
14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.
15 But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.
16 Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away.
Do you see? One needs to seek the Lord first, with all their heart. If one really wants to seek Him, they will find Him. Then, the vail can be removed.
Does that make sense?
JLM, thank you….
Bethany,
You know, while I was “working on it”, then posted it, I read yours, and they totally coincide! How awesome is that!
Thank YOU!
JLM, do you think that sometime you might drop me an email? My email address is in the sidebar. :)
“Ah, but you left a book of instructions for your friends on how to get across the moat, and who would provide the bridge for them.”
Yet, several other instructions were left for them too, that could be equally valid, but you expect them to know which one is true.
Doug,
The very word predestined implies a time constraint.
How can we be predestined if there is no “pre”…nor is there a post…
Again, you keep looking at this from your point of view instead of Gods. To us, it may appear predestined. To Him, it just “is”.
First off, Catholics don’t adhere to Calvin. We reject that theory.
Secondly, how does one knowing what will happen have any effect on the person making a choice.
Again, you are confusing knowledge with cause. Free will means I decide. Not God, me. He may know my choice, but He doesn’t cause it.
I know that the sun will come up tomorrow. But I am not causing the sun to come up. God can change His mind and decide that starting tomorrow the sun will no longer rise. My knowing it, doesn’t change God’s causing it.
I agree but I think you’ve taken the analogy too far. All I want to do is illustrate how I can (at least for now) know that something is going to happen and show that it is compatible with the action being freely chosen.
Bobby, the analogy needs to go far enough to be akin to an “all-knowing” being, so that’s a fur piece, as they say. I would agree that it is possible to “know” what somebody will pick, or how they will react, same as for gravity acting on the rock. This wouldn’t even require predestination, however, just probabilities.
So, postulating free will, then there’s nothing there that says some things cannot be “known,” as with Gianna’s reaction, etc. It’s reasonable to expect that a thing observed enough times in a row will occur again under the same conditions.
Had you never observed Gianna’s reaction, then you would not know of it, not like an “all-knowing” being. The “all-knowing” part would do away with probabilities and past observation, since the future would then be fixed.
Bethany quoted something about there being an appointed hour for our death, etc., ( I think), and that sounds like we’re going down the road of fixed futures.
……
” if God is outside of time, then fine, I say – if God is seeing our future as you see the already-taken-place wrasslin,’ then we cannot change what we think of as our future any more than Macho Man can change Wrestlemania VII.”
But see, Macho had free will at the time. Although his action was known by God, his action was his choice./i>
And at the time you would not have known what was to occur (obviously), if he had free will, whereas an all-knowing entity would have.
……
Good, don’t read it (“Grace, Predestination, and Free Will” by William Most ). Even I’m too scared to read it. It’s extremely technical.
Sounds good to me, Holmes. :: laughing :: “too scared to read it…” I don’t think so. You’re fairly busy, I reckon, but “scared….”?
……
See, I think we agree with each other’s premises, but we are drawing different conclusions. I am saying that God can know what we are going to do in the future and we have free choice as to what we will do in the future. I think you understand those premises. But I’m happy to leave it at that. I think you are thinking that as those premises stand, they are contradictory. Is that correct? So that’s why you are saying that we can not change our future, to fix the contradiction you see, correct? Now if that is the case, the problem I have is that I don’t see any contradiction between a Being who knows the future and our actions being freely determined. So (again, is I am correct in my analysis) I think you’re going to have to show me how from those two premises you can deduce both “A and not A.” Do you know what I mean?
I don’t agree with your premise that both free will and knowledge of what we see as future choices can coexist. I think they’re mutually exclusive.
If our future is known to the Being, then how can we freely determine our actions? There’d have to be a reality known to the Being. We wouldn’t have to be aware of it, but how could we alter things between now and the future as we reckon them, when the Being knows in our “now”? It’d mean our future is already fixed in our “now.”
And ya done lost me on the “A and not A” deal. Perhaps we are not reckoning time in the same way.
Alexandra,
I’m sure it was unintentional but Bethany and JLM have just perfectly described the concept of purgatory. Gotta walk through the muck. Even if you have the instruction book. You’ve made it to the door because of the instruction book. The gatekeeper died so that you could have free access to the “bridge”…but those dang muddy shoes! No worries, theres a shoe brush by the entrance. Clean them off and c’mon in!
I’d have to disagree with the idea that everything would be beautiful pastures after believing in the moat though. I think the beautiful pastures are through the doors. I believe you still have to walk through the muck. The world is what it is. More like you’d have your own personal shoe shine machine (confession in my faith) to periodically clean them so that they are not so caked with mud that you can’t get it off.
Then of course, there are those that like the mud. Don’t want them clean, don’t believe there is anything beyond the door, and will turn back the way they came.
As for friends thinking your nuts…well, that is definitely one of the prices you have to pay. A lot of my friends found it too difficult to be around me. I’ve become a drag, so to speak. No smoking pot, no drinking til I puke, No more chasing musicians…They found that they didn’t really care for me, only the “entertainment” that I provided when I was joining them in their activities.
It was hard, but looking back, it was necessary. Better to enter heaven with no right hand, than enter hell with both of them and all that…
Bethany,
I’ll do that right now!
:)
The very word predestined implies a time constraint. How can we be predestined if there is no “pre”…nor is there a post…
MK, sure, from our point of view there is a now and a later.
……
Again, you keep looking at this from your point of view instead of Gods. To us, it may appear predestined. To Him, it just “is”.
As you said, there is a “pre” and a “post.” God’s point of view would not matter, as long as the knowledge is there in what we perceive as the present, prior to the “post.”
God’s “is” would be enough – things would be that way, not some other way. From our point of view it’d be things can’t be changed, had we the same knowledge.
……
how does one knowing what will happen have any effect on the person making a choice.
No effect is necessary. The Knowledge alone is enough. If our future is known to any entity, then that “is” you mentioned is the deal, rather than anything else. The “is” could not be altered.
……
Again, you are confusing knowledge with cause. Free will means I decide. Not God, me. He may know my choice, but He doesn’t cause it.
“Cause” from the entity isn’t necessary. If your choice is already known, then you cannot change it.
……
I know that the sun will come up tomorrow. But I am not causing the sun to come up. God can change His mind and decide that starting tomorrow the sun will no longer rise. My knowing it, doesn’t change God’s causing it.
Then you really don’t know that the sun will come up. If you did, for absolute sure, then it could not be changed.
Hey JLM, does that “M” start out “Mayn….”?
Doug
Dougster,
“If our future is known to the Being, then how can we freely determine our actions? There’d have to be a reality known to the Being. We wouldn’t have to be aware of it, but how could we alter things between now and the future as we reckon them, when the Being knows in our “now”? It’d mean our future is already fixed in our “now.”
And ya done lost me on the “A and not A” deal. Perhaps we are not reckoning time in the same way. ”
Your last line about me losing you you actually answered above it. I just wanted you to explain how you see our future being known and us having free will as a contradiction. But you did above, so it’s all good.
Oh and MK,
“I’m sure it was unintentional but Bethany and JLM have just perfectly described the concept of purgatory.”
hehe, I noticed that too, MK, but I wasn’t gonna say anything…
No effect is necessary. The Knowledge alone is enough. If our future is known to any entity, then that “is” you mentioned is the deal, rather than anything else. The “is” could not be altered.
Well, of course it could, up until the moment that “is” became “was”…I don’t see why His knowing means that we didn’t choose it.
I can have an orange or an apple. I choose an orange.
God knows that I will choose the orange. He knew I would choose the orange before I was born. Before there were oranges. He didn’t cause me to choose the orange. But he saw me choose it. He knows I chose it. But that in no way interfered with my ability to choose it.
Predestination would mean that He laid it all out before hand, then wound me up and set me on my path, leaving me no choice, but to do what He programmed me to do. But He didn’t “program” me.
He created me and then said do what you will. Now if you choose to do what I want you to do, I will begin interfering in your life, but if you choose not to do what I want you to do, then you will be at the mercy of my Natural Law.
And He knows what I chose, and He knows what you have chosen, but He had nothing to do with those choices…
I’m sure it was unintentional but Bethany and JLM have just perfectly described the concept of purgatory. Gotta walk through the muck. Even if you have the instruction book. You’ve made it to the door because of the instruction book. The gatekeeper died so that you could have free access to the “bridge”…but those dang muddy shoes! No worries, theres a shoe brush by the entrance. Clean them off and c’mon in!
TOTALLY unintentional. Actually, it was never a thought!
The muck is the sinful life. (muck=sin)
gatekeeper cleans shoes – totally muckless!
gatekeeper = bridge
no need for shoe brush, gatekeeper already took care of that over 2000 years ago! Come right in!
John 5:24
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
(for more on this, please see my February 24th post at 11:34 am)
I’d have to disagree with the idea that everything would be beautiful pastures after believing in the moat though. I think the beautiful pastures are through the doors. I believe you still have to walk through the muck. The world is what it is. More like you’d have your own personal shoe shine machine (confession in my faith) to periodically clean them so that they are not so caked with mud that you can’t get it off.
Nope! The green pastures are the beautiful life you have here on earth, via a life in Christ. Life is beautiful with Him! Very, very dark and gloomy without Him. Of course, until you get to the green pastures, you really don’t realize how dark & gloomy life actually was!
I agree with you on the “nuts” part, mk! Some people think I am too. However, I don’t care! They thought Jesus was too! How can I expect any more?
Doug,
Huh?
Bobby,
LOL..I know. I really need to learn to keep my big mouth shut. The concept of Purgatory has not been well received.
John 5:24
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
But I never said anything about condemnation…
JLM,7:22,
Thank you for the info on Halley’s Bible Handbook. I’m going to add it to my reading list!
1 Thessalonians 5:9-10
9 For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ,
10 Who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him.
(I know Jesus isn’t in purgatory!)
Janet,
Your welcome.
:)
Sorry about the wrong title again!
If you love history you’ll love the book!
1 Thessalonians 5:9-10
9 For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ,
10 Who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him.
(I know Jesus isn’t in purgatory!)
Never said anything about not attaining salvation. Never said we wouldn’t spend eternity with Jesus.
Simply said that we go to purgatory first.
I understand that you don’t agree with this view, but your scripture passages are not negating the concept.
Thanks you, MK.
Would you say then in our allegory, the other instructions out there wouldn’t be all together bad if the ultimate goal was the same?
I. A State After Death of Suffering and Forgiveness
Matt. 5:26,18:34; Luke 12:58-59
Thanks you? haha I meant thank you.
Also I like hearing the Catholic viewpoint, so don’t worry…it tends to make more sense to me anyways.
II. Purification After Death By Fire
Heb. 12:29 – God is a consuming fire (of love in heaven, of purgation in purgatory, or of suffering and damnation in hell).
1 Cor. 3:10-15 – works are judged after death and tested by fire. Some works are lost, but the person is still saved. Paul is referring to the state of purgation called purgatory. The venial sins (bad works) that were committed are burned up after death, but the person is still brought to salvation. This state after death cannot be heaven (no one with venial sins is present) or hell (there is no forgiveness and salvation).
1 Cor. 3:15
In fact, JML, I would point to a passage like rev 21:27 which says that nothing unclean may enter heaven. Now I believe that you agreed with this earlier above. But part of how we understand “being clean” is having no attachment to sin. Zero. Absolutely no attraction whatsoever. I don’t know about you, but although I detest sin and any offense against God, there is still a small part of me that is attracted to it. In fact, it can be very tempting sometimes. And this is what purgatory does. It takes that love of God and purifies it, makes it absolute.
It is a different action than what Christ accomplished on the cross. Christ merited for us the ability to even have eternal life with God as an option. However, Christ merited enough grace for the entire world to go to heaven, but unfortunately we know not everyone will accept the gift of eternal life. Now that takes nothing away from Jesus’ work on the cross, right? In a similar manner, the fact that we must be purged from all our attachments to sin after death in no way takes away from what Christ merited on the cross for us. God love you.
“I’d have to disagree with the idea that everything would be beautiful pastures after believing in the moat though. I think the beautiful pastures are through the doors. I believe you still have to walk through the muck. The world is what it is. More like you’d have your own personal shoe shine machine (confession in my faith) to periodically clean them so that they are not so caked with mud that you can’t get it off.”
Nope! The green pastures are the beautiful life you have here on earth, via a life in Christ. Life is beautiful with Him! Very, very dark and gloomy without Him. Of course, until you get to the green pastures, you really don’t realize how dark & gloomy life actually was!
POSTED BY JLM 12:45
What about poor people living in shacks with no running water or electricity, with dirt roads and barely enough to eat? They can say they accept Christ as you do, but they may not find “green pastures” here on earth.
Janet,
If they have Christ in their lives, they arn’t concerned with the material world. Of course material things are nice, but when you put complete trust in the Lord, He will provide you what you need.
Matthew 6:28-30
28 And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin:
29 And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.
30 Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?
PIP,
In extraordinary circumstances (a small child, someone who never heard of Jesus, someone following his own faith out of love for his understanding of God), then our faith teaches, that yes, a person could enter heaven.
But in ordinary circumstances, the answer would have to be, no. I know that seems harsh.
Now if you were seeking, truly seeking, the Truth but died before you had a chance to “find” it, then I would have to say His mercy is infinite and He would judge your desire. Does that make sense.
But, in this day and age, especially in modern cultures, knowing Jesus is so easy, that I would have to say everyone has had the opportunity to accept or reject His teachings.
There really aren’t that many choices. Paganism, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Islam…
If you look at each of those you can see that three of them stem from the same beginning, one of them is not about loving God, but about becoming him, two are about many lesser gods (pantheism)…
Only one offers a God that you can have a relationship with. And that relationship is where you’ll find the “truth”…
All faiths have elements of truth in them. This is why respect others right to follow them. If God gave them free will, we must honor it also. But only one is true in every aspect.
Follow Hinduism to it’s conclusion. Or Buddhism.
You’ll see the flaws.
Are all Hindus condemned to Hell? Who knows.
JML would say that she knows, but I don’t think anyone can know.
We know we have been told. Therefore we are responsible for that knowledge. If we accept it, then we are held to it. For me, who knows the truth, I must believe in Jesus. If I reject Him at this point I am consciously rejecting Him. But if a Hindu rejects Him, never having known Him? Who can say?
You are familiar with Christianity. You don’t have the same excuses. Now you may not have studied it, or looked at it very deeply, but you have access to it. You will be judged much more harshly than, say, a Muslim raised in the faith. But I will be judged much more harshly than you, because more has been revealed to me. God help the Pope! lol.
Does that make sense?
I don’t know about you, but although I detest sin and any offense against God, there is still a small part of me that is attracted to it. In fact, it can be very tempting sometimes. And this is what purgatory does. It takes that love of God and purifies it, makes it absolute.
Bobby, Romans talks about this a lot. This is our flesh fighting our spirit. Once our flesh is dead, our spirit lives on, and is completely free of sin. We do not have sin anymore once we leave our body of flesh, if we have been “born again” of the Spirit.
21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. 22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? 25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.
Never said anything about not attaining salvation. Never said we wouldn’t spend eternity with Jesus.
Simply said that we go to purgatory first.
Mk, the Bible says that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. If the Lord isn’t present in Purgatory, then how could we be there after dying?
JLM,
If Jesus has removed our sin and the sin is the muck and you will walk in green pastures and arrive at the door with no mud/sin on your shoes, are you claiming that you no longer sin? That because you believe in Jesus, you have become sinless?
MK,
yes to an extent. But because Jesus is “prevalent” in culture it still does not seem to be fair to me for them to “reject it” in the true sense of the word. If that makes sense. Someone grew up in the Muslim faith or the Buddhist faith with the Christian faith around them, but they have understood their faiths more and are therefore likely to accept these because to them it sounds like the truth. You say you “know” the truth, but these people think the same way. The ultimate goal is to be closer to God, so why wouldn’t God show them mercy for trying as hard as they can to get there?
It’s like I said for the analogy. It’s like me never showing my face but when people come knocking on my door, I say, “well you should have gotten the message from so-and-so. Sorry. Go away to hell forever.” Where is justice in this?
Bethany,
We don’t believe that the body and spirit are meant to be separated. We believe that they will spend eternity together. We don’t view the body as something to be endured until we can get rid of it. We embrace our bodies along with our souls.
The separation is temporary. It is not our actual bodies that cause us to sin, but our animal instints.
Being both spritual like the angels and physical like the animals, makes humans unique. I don’t believe that we become “angels” when we die. We remain fully human, and for us, that means bodies.
Bethany,
It doesn’t say at the “moment” of death. Simply, after death. We also believe that we will be with Him after death. After purgatory.
Nowhere does it say, immediately upon death.
If they have Christ in their lives, they arn’t concerned with the material world. Of course material things are nice, but when you put complete trust in the Lord, He will provide you what you need.
JLM 1:29,
Someone who is hungry and suffering in poverty is concerned with surviving. What I’m trying to say is that life is not all “beautiful pastures” to ALL those who accept Christ, as you are suggesting. Christ tells us there will be suffering here on earth, even for those who love Him.
We don’t believe that the body and spirit are meant to be separated. We believe that they will spend eternity together. We don’t view the body as something to be endured until we can get rid of it. We embrace our bodies along with our souls.
Why? I don’t understand. It’s so clearly there in the Bible. Yes, our bodies have a purpose -on this earth- but in heaven, they don’t.
Can you explain to me what you think Paul meant when he said what he said in Romans, since you see it through a different lens than I do?
Oh, let me clarify that. Our earthly bodies dont’ matter in heaven. We receive new, heavenly bodies, perfect and without sin, immortal.
It doesn’t say at the “moment” of death. Simply, after death. We also believe that we will be with Him after death. After purgatory.
Nowhere does it say, immediately upon death.
To be absent from the body, is to be present with the Lord.
That sounds to me quite clearly that if we (our souls) are not present in our bodies, then our souls are present with the Lord.
I don’t understand how you can separate it and say there is a space? I am trying desperately to see how you see it and I just can’t, MK.
Bethany,
“Bobby, Romans talks about this a lot. This is our flesh fighting our spirit. Once our flesh is dead, our spirit lives on, and is completely free of sin. We do not have sin anymore once we leave our body of flesh, if we have been “born again” of the Spirit.”
I know you’re not trying to say this, but your interpretation of the Romans passage somewhat implies body-soul dualism. We are a body-soul integration. It seems as if you are saying that the flesh is holding us back. Now St. Paul talks about how the dead shall be raised in 1 Cor 15, and our bodies will be resurrected. If that is the case, then it is not the flesh that is evil. So even though our souls can not sin anymore (but I think we believe this for perhaps different reasons), it still has to “account” for it’s behaviour. Otherwise, we seem to be saying that the soul “takes no resposability for what the body did during my life on earth.” But they are an integration, a fusion. Do you see what I mean about this idea leading to dualism?
“Mk, the Bible says that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. If the Lord isn’t present in Purgatory, then how could we be there after dying?”
Be careful here. I think you’re talking about 2 Cor 5:6-8, correct? However, the KJV states
6Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord:
7(For we walk by faith, not by sight:)
8We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.
You quoted it a little bit differently than it is stated, and I think there is a big difference.
Also, purgatory is not away from God. In fact, it is God’s love that purifies us in purgatory. It’s like the foyer to heaven. God love you, friend.
After my father-in-law died, my wife had a vivid dream of her father when he was dying (lying bed after his stoke). Then, during the dream he appeared to her to in his newly formed restored body, telling my wife not to worry about him and that he was Ok.
Oh that’s beautiful jasper! Did she tell you what the resurrected body looked like????
Someone who is hungry and suffering in poverty is concerned with surviving. What I’m trying to say is that life is not all “beautiful pastures” to ALL those who accept Christ, as you are suggesting. Christ tells us there will be suffering here on earth, even for those who love Him.
To someone who accepts Christ and trusts on Him, they will not have a need to worry about tomorrow;
Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment? 26 Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they? 27 Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature? 28 And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin: 29 And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. 30 Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith? 31 Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? 32 (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things. 33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.
PIP,
It’s like I said for the analogy. It’s like me never showing my face but when people come knocking on my door, I say, “well you should have gotten the message from so-and-so. Sorry. Go away to hell forever.” Where is justice in this?
You’re confusing justice with mercy. Mercy is when the deserved punishment is removed or lessened, but justice is when it is doled out.
The rules have been stated. To ignore them is to do so at your own risk. Mercy would mean that you would be allowed entry anyway. Justice, by definition, would mean that you weren’t.
Now Saint Faustina is know for “The Divine Mercy” She had visions of Jesus for years. You may have seen this picture that Jesus asked her to have painted…
She says that He told her that now, this time period, is the time of His greatest mercy throughout all of history, and that it would be easier to become a believer now than ever. But that soon, very soon, His mercy would end and His justice would begin. I think this is why you hear such an urgency in our voices.
You can read more about Divine Mercy here:
http://www.divinemercysunday.com/UnderstandDM.pdf
If Jesus has removed our sin and the sin is the muck and you will walk in green pastures and arrive at the door with no mud/sin on your shoes, are you claiming that you no longer sin? That because you believe in Jesus, you have become sinless?
Posted by: mk at February 25, 2008 1:43 PM
Not sinless, mk, forgiven for sins. That precious work was done on the Cross over 2000 years ago, for past, present and future sins. I was made righteous in His eyes the moment I accepted Him. Once Christ is in me, nothing can seperate me from Him or Him from me.
He didn’t say He would come and go from my life depending on if I sin or not, He said He will never leave me. Once righteous, always righteous. That is what God said. (not in those exact words, though!) He didn’t say righteous, then unrighteous, then righteous again until I was “good enough”. He said that I was made righteous the moment my sins were paid for.
I know you’re not trying to say this, but your interpretation of the Romans passage somewhat implies body-soul dualism. We are a body-soul integration. It seems as if you are saying that the flesh is holding us back. Now St. Paul talks about how the dead shall be raised in 1 Cor 15, and our bodies will be resurrected. If that is the case, then it is not the flesh that is evil. So even though our souls can not sin anymore (but I think we believe this for perhaps different reasons), it still has to “account” for it’s behaviour. Otherwise, we seem to be saying that the soul “takes no resposability for what the body did during my life on earth.” But they are an integration, a fusion. Do you see what I mean about this idea leading to dualism?
Bobby, if we must bear the responsibility for our sins, then what did Jesus die for?
Bethany,
Give me the whole scripture passage.
Also, why can’t Jesus be present in purgatory? He can be anywhere and everywhere.
You’re confusing justice with mercy. Mercy is when the deserved punishment is removed or lessened, but justice is when it is doled out.
Well said, MK.
Bethany,
Give me the whole scripture passage.
1 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? 2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. 3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God. 5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. 6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.
7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. 8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. 9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. 10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. 11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me. 12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.
14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. 15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. 16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. 17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. 19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. 20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. 22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? 25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.
Hi there JLM. I have to ask, then, how you understand much of 1 Cor 9, particularly verse 27. St. Paul pummels his body lest he should be disqualified. If anyone had an assurance of salvation, surely it would be Paul. What do you understand his worry to be? Thanks, God love you.
Bethany,
Bobby, if we must bear the responsibility for our sins, then what did Jesus die for?
Again, you misunderstand our understanding of sin. We believe there are two remedies for every sin. Jesus forgiveness, which allows to share eternity with Him, and the temporal remittance, which is the “cleansing”. This is because we believe that as a community our sin affects everyone. My sin harms people I’ll never meet. Evil is loosed/fed.
I must do something to offset this.
Original sin could NOT be erased. Nothing we could do could remove it. His death did that. But any sins committed by us after baptism, must be offset.
Yes, He took the punishment due to us. That punishment is death. And because of Him, we will not die. But that does not mean we will not be punished/cleansed. Death is the wages of sin. Death is eradicated by His death. But only Death.
Bethany,
Give me the numbers…I need ENGLISH!
MK,
I never saw Jesus appear to me, and I’m sure many people get to see Him either.
If we want to talk mercy, where is the mercy in rejecting someone who tries their whole life to reach God but do it in a different way? Wouldn’t it be like failing a test over a subject we were never taught?
Also, why can’t Jesus be present in purgatory? He can be anywhere and everywhere.
Posted by: mk at February 25, 2008 2:06 PM
Because He has no sin, MK. Come on. Are you saying that Jesus has sin to supposedly burn off???
This is because we believe that as a community our sin affects everyone. My sin harms people I’ll never meet. Evil is loosed/fed.
I must do something to offset this.
But the wages of sin IS death. Death is the final payment for all of our sins, no matter how great or small, MK. On earth, I completely agree with you- we must face the natural consequences on earth for things that we do- such as a smoker will receive the consequences of smoking if he develops lung cancer- an excessive gambler will receive the consequences of his gambling- misery, poverty, etc.
But once we are dead, there is no more payment for sin.
This is what it consistently says through Romans, 1 Corinthians, Acts, the 1-2-3 Peters, 1-2-3 John, etc…
Can you show me anywhere in the Bible where it says that we must still face consequences for our sin after death, besides the judgement of hell or heaven?
I’m saying that Jesus can be anywhere. Sin or no sin. He spent 33 years on earth didn’t he? He can stop into purgatory for visit, sure.
Bethany,
I posted 50 scripture passages doing just that, along with the explanations. Did you read them?
Actually to amend that last analogy:
Say you were interested in psychology so you devote your life to it, in its personal application and the application of aiding people.
Then in finals week, you are handed a calculus test. You have never taken it, heard of it but never really understood it, and are told if you fail it, you will never be able to study psychology again. In fact, you must never return to education again, but live on the streets for the rest of your life. Where is your professor’s mercy?
If we want to talk mercy, where is the mercy in rejecting someone who tries their whole life to reach God but do it in a different way? Wouldn’t it be like failing a test over a subject we were never taught?
It would be more like failing a test that we had been given the book to study from, and decided not to read and learn, and ended up failing as a result.
Death is not the final payment. Death is supposed to be the final payment. By all rights we should all be in Hell. His death took away our death. Not our punishment. Only our death.
Here are those passages again…
I. A State After Death of Suffering and Forgiveness
Matt. 5:26,18:34; Luke 12:58-59
“Bobby, if we must bear the responsibility for our sins, then what did Jesus die for?”
Right. So without getting into trying to prove my claim, let me illustrate my claim to better help understanding (this will be similar to JLM’s analogy) Before Jesus’ work on the cross, there was an iron-clad door outside of heaven. No human could opewn it, no one could ever dream of opening it. But it was Jesus who eventually came and unlocked that door as a total act of giving to us. We did nothing to merit his opening of that door. Now the door is open, but we have to choose either to go through the door or not. Finally, those of us who choose to accept the free unmerited gift by going through the door may have to stop and wipe off our shoes in the foyer, which is purgatory. Some have clean shoes already so they can walk directly in.
So what Chrtist’s work accomplished was reconciling us with heaven, inviting us over, so to speak. However, we have to be worthy, and he did that for us too. I mean, we believe that purgatory is his provision. But we see salvation as a process, which is somewhat the heart of our disagreement. Calvin (I think it was him) was quite insightful when he said that teh issue of justification is the pillar on which the church stands or falls. I’m really beginnning to see that almost all of the Catholic/Protestant disagreements all boil down to our understanding of justification. Man, good stuff. God love you.
“It would be more like failing a test that we had been given the book to study from, and decided not to read and learn, and ended up failing as a result. ”
Or given several subjects saying there is only one you can take, you deciding to take one, and then find out later you chose the wrong subject to study. Sorry! You fail and can never return.
“Oh that’s beautiful jasper! Did she tell you what the resurrected body looked like????”
I just called my wife to ask her…LOL.
Yes, his body was surrounded by a white mist. She just saw his face and said it was similiar to his high-school picture.(much younger).
Right. So without getting into trying to prove my claim, let me illustrate my claim to better help understanding (this will be similar to JLM’s analogy) Before Jesus’ work on the cross, there was an iron-clad door outside of heaven. No human could opewn it, no one could ever dream of opening it. But it was Jesus who eventually came and unlocked that door as a total act of giving to us. We did nothing to merit his opening of that door. Now the door is open, but we have to choose either to go through the door or not. Finally, those of us who choose to accept the free unmerited gift by going through the door may have to stop and wipe off our shoes in the foyer, which is purgatory. Some have clean shoes already so they can walk directly in.
You don’t believe that Jesus death was to cover our sins, but it was simply analogous to opening a door so that we could get into heaven if we work to cleanse our own sins? Is that an accurate representation of what you said?
Or given several subjects saying there is only one you can take, you deciding to take one, and then find out later you chose the wrong subject to study. Sorry! You fail and can never return.
Do you not think that God is powerful enough to get the message out to everyone, PIP?
Are you worried that you do not know for sure which is true for yourself? If you are, I would suggest in all kindness that you pray, seek, beg God to help you to know which is the correct one. Pray while reading the Bible. Ask him to show you what is correct. He will show you if you are willing to listen to his still, small voice.
I hope that I represent it correctly so I can know how to respond. :)
Bobby,
His life is like running a race to get the prize. The prize being his reward in heaven. Not the earthly, corruptable one, but the Heavenly, incorruptable one. Although it may be difficult at times (the race), he keeps running to achieve that great reward that is waiting for him in Heaven. The race is him preaching the gospel to his generation, so that it will be passed down to the next generation, and so on, and so on.
His spreading the gospel is like dropping a rock into water. The ripple effect (each generation)will eventually reach the shorline (Judgement Day) at which time, the race is over, and he will receive his Heavenly, incorruptible reward.
I don’t believe it was about his salvation, Bobby,
MK 2:22 thank you…I’ll take a look at all of those and get back with you. It’ll probably take some time! LOL
I don’t believe it was about his salvation, Bobby,
That is what I believe, because it would have to contradict all of the other stuff that he said in the majority of the text of his books, if it were referring to his salvation. We have to read what he said in the light of everything else he said, in order to have a full understanding of what it meant. It we read that passage, and it seems to disagree with the other passages, either it contradicts, or we’re reading it wrong.
Over and over in Romans Paul states that salvation is a gift, that we can not earn it by works of any kind. If he meant that then why would he go against it by then saying that we have to work for it?
PIP,
Actually to amend that last analogy:
Say you were interested in psychology so you devote your life to it, in its personal application and the application of aiding people.
Then in finals week, you are handed a calculus test. You have never taken it, heard of it but never really understood it, and are told if you fail it, you will never be able to study psychology again. In fact, you must never return to education again, but live on the streets for the rest of your life. Where is your professor’s mercy?
Posted by: prettyinpink at February 25, 2008 2:21 PM
But that would be like the Hindu who didn’t know anything about Jesus. What you are asking is, what if I heard about it, but didn’t believe it?
What if you were given three history books and told that only one of them contained the truth. You would be tested, but the answers, the correct answers could only be found in one of them. You’d have to study all three and really learn your material in order to discern which text contained the truth.
Same here. You have to research all of the faiths that attract you, learn you material, and then discern which one is the truth. Some people don’t need to do that, but others, like you (and me) won’t be happy just accepting someones else “word for it”…so study the bible. Study the catechism. Read, read, read…
You’ll come to know the truth in time.
But simply dismissing it out of hand because other people claim they have the truth isn’t gonna cut it.
Look at your previous stance on abortion. You were all for it. Thought everyones view had merit. Then you spent months on Jills site (and others), read, read, read and came to the conclusion that we were right. Abortion is wrong.
You discerned the truth there. Why not here?
“You don’t believe that Jesus death was to cover our sins, but it was simply analogous to opening a door so that we could get into heaven if we work to cleanse our own sins? Is that an accurate representation of what you said?”
Not quite. You said “cover sins” and I don’t know if you’re referring to Luther’s idea about “dung covered in snow” but that is not our understanding. Jesus death was atonement for sins. For whatever reason (I don’t want to get into atonement theories) the sins of mankind needed atonement. Christ atoned for our sins.
Okay, so what does that mean? It means that he merited for us the ability to become righteous. This is a big difference as far as our understandings of justification go. So our sins are not covered, and God simply looks favorably at us, we ACTUALLY ARE made good. So if anything, we give Jesus too much credit. We actually believe that he can make, the worst sinner of them all, good. And hence, Christ merited for us our ability to merit.
Let’s see, I’ve somewhat digressed. We can not work to cleanse our own sins. That is the fire of God’s love that cleanses our sins. Like I said before, Purgatory is part of what Jesus merited for us on the cross. It is the final step in our sanctification that Jesus merited for us.
I don’t know if that clears anything up, but there is some more detail of our understanding.
Bethany at 2:35 PM
Exactly.
I simply think there are people more deserving to get into heaven than I ever will be but according to the Christian religion they will not be there as if what they did means nothing.
I think this is an unmerciful position. If someone died a Buddhist and devoter her life to helping other people but still didn’t make it to heaven, then what in the world is our life here worth?!
Again how could I rejoice in a salvation when others are perishing? Especially when we have no proof of who is right or wrong on this world anyway?
That is the fire of God’s love that cleanses our sins. Like I said before, Purgatory is part of what Jesus merited for us on the cross. It is the final step in our sanctification that Jesus merited for us.
Bobby,
Then what were all of the scriptures in the bible that said that His blood did that, there for then?
hi JLM,
about scripture – because Christ Jesus is a living being His word is effective now …. even if the Word does not change and grow, we as recipients do change our listening abilities. The use of “Word” for ‘Logos’ (the original Greek) is brilliant because a word-spoken is always paired with-a-word-listened-to. The use of “Word” describes God not only as Truth but as Communicator. It is not about need but about the very nature of God… read if possible ‘God In Search of Man’ Abraham Heschel. God’s salvation is a response to His listening.
There is a truism that God gave us one mouth but two ears. Be quick to listen but slow to answer. Very often people get angry at Christians who seemed to have words so fast. Do we take time to listen? We sometimes profess that ‘Jesus is the ANSWER … long before any question is asked. In doing so do we not stop communication … a hug, a kiss, a tear shed, laughter, a gaze lots and lots of non-verbal Word … not written anywhere.
@Dougster,
Like spacetime the eternal now is hard to fathom. The best book I’ve read on this is ‘Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance’. You make a troubling fixed problem … the now is not a very short past. All words are of the past. These are ‘memory’ and the future is also in our heads exclusively and is called imagination. Often we make a very quick transition from one to the other and think we’ve experienced ‘now’. Like American tourists seeking out a MacDonald’s in Paris, France, we’ve missed the ‘now’. ‘Take time to smell the roses’ is an axiom used for this!
‘Now’ is the only actuality that exists, but it is the universe and everything in it bears uniqueness. God is Lord of the universe still because sin is quite often linked with memory and imagination which are parts of human thought/virtuality.
“and then discern which one is the truth.”
If there is no evidence or guidelines either way how could each discernment be said to be right or wrong? If I have to study all three books for the test, why not take the main idea for each and when the test comes I know all the stuff anyway? Will I be penalized for discerning which sounds right but seeing the merits in the other books?
Seems to me Corinthians 9:27 through 10:22 pretty much covers the Eucharist, once saved can become unsaved, purgatory…excellent chapter!
Pip,
No, that is what we mean by respecting other faiths. All faiths have some truth. You may take those truths and keep them. Kahlil Gibran, Ghandi…all kinds of people have all kinds of things that are worth knowing. We’re talking about the fullness of truth tho.
There may be things in all three books that say the same things. This would be a clue. But it is where they diverge that you must discern the truth.
As long as you know which one is the true History book, then feel free to browse the others.
Bethany and LJM,
“Over and over in Romans Paul states that salvation is a gift, that we can not earn it by works of any kind. If he meant that then why would he go against it by then saying that we have to work for it? ”
Bethany, you said some great stuff in the paragraph above this paragraph (which I didn’t post). But you hit on a good point. The Paul of 1 Cor can not contradict the Paul of Romans. So let me tell you how we understand Romans.
Let’s look at a famous text for “faith alone” Romans 3:28.
28Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
Now, the very next verse reads
29Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:
30Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.
In fact, in the entire letter to the Romans, it is clear that Paul is discussing with the Judiazers whether or not those who are Christians need to be circumcized, follow kosher laws, etc. That is clear from verse 29-30. See St. Paul uses this phrase “works of the law” or “deeds of the law” which many people interpret as “good works” or “corporal works of mercy.” But that understanding of works is nowhere found in the context Romans. All the works he refers to are circumcision and other now meaningless Jewish ceremonial laws. So “works of the law” is not the same thing as when Catholics use the word “works” as in “faith and works.” This perfectly makes sense of chapter 2 now.
I listen and read a lot of RC Sproul and other Protestant scholars, and I have never once heard them address this understanding of Romans. Paul never discusses corporal works of mercy. That’s why this phrase “works of the law” can not be works of mercy. Even in Romans 4 where we have the famous Abraham story, his point is that Abraham was justified before he was circumcised. So that’s the way we understand Romans. God love you.
”
Then what were all of the scriptures in the bible that said that His blood did that, there for then?”
JLM, are you asking for scripture or saying how do I understand certain scripture passages?
MK,
how would you know to discern them? Seems like searching and picking from the “history books” is just a gamble.
Bobby,
Ok, that sounds great. Post a few scriptures regarding what the purpose of the sacrifice of Jesus’ blood was for, and then show me how that blood sacrifice was not good enough to pay for ALL sin. The challenge: use the KJV.
JLM,
“show me how that blood sacrifice was not good enough to pay for ALL sin.”
You still don’t quite understand the doctrine of purgatory. Christ’s blood atoned for our sins. All of them. Purgatory is to be cleansed of any attachment we have to sin. Not sin itself, but attachment.
Plus MK posted many passages including 1 Cor 3:15 above that show that the doctrine of purgatory is scriptural.
Bobby,
Explain this attachment to sin, then. How many parts does sin have? If Jesus paid for ALL sin, wouldn’t that include your “attachment” part also?
Also, can you please show me, by scripture, where it tells us that we have parts of sin that still have to be removed, and also scripture where Jesus tells us the same?
Be careful that you don’t use scripture involving animal blood sacrifices from the Old Testament, though. These were not good enough to pay for sin. Only Jesus’ blood did that.
Bobby,
From my previous post:
John 5:24
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
The idea of purgatory negates what God Himself has said. You would have to wipe out much of the new testament, including Jesus
“I tell you, you will never get out till you have paid the very last copper” (Luke 12:59).
Christ refers to the sinner who “will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come” (Matt. 12:32), suggesting that one can be freed after death of the consequences of one
“Explain this attachment to sin, then. How many parts does sin have? If Jesus paid for ALL sin, wouldn’t that include your “attachment” part also?”
Sin does not have any parts. It is not a being. The attachment to sin is a result of original sin that we inherent from our parents, known as concupiscence. Being attached to something is not the same thing as the object of action. Even if I don’t sin, I have the tendency to want to sin. We all do. We all do. That is concupiscence. I am tempted to look at pornography on the internet. I hate pornography, it is vile and evil, yet my hedonistic tendencies make me attracted to it. Do I look at it? No, hence I don’t sin. Do I have a disordered desire to want to look at it? Yes. But that is not a sin. So it is that kind of thing that we will be cleansed of in purgatory.
“Also, can you please show me, by scripture, where it tells us that we have parts of sin that still have to be removed, and also scripture where Jesus tells us the same?”
Again, MK already posted many scripture passages. Now she posted a lot, granted. But here’s the idea, JLM. You can not point to one passage in scripture to convince someone 100% that God is three persons in one nature. This has to be gleamed from several different texts; one has to show that the Father is God, Jesus is God, and the HS is God. Then one has to show that there is only one God. After that, we come up with theology that says that all those passgaes put together infer what we call the doctrine of the trinity. For your second question, the answer is from the inferences given what we know about the atonement, salvation, and purgatory from scripture.
There are many things that are not written down that Jesus said and did as St John mentions at the end of his gospel. No where in the bible does the bible teach that everything we must believe has to be clearly stated in the bible. Jesus left us a Church to teach in his name so that there wouldn’t be these kinds of disputes. Even our forefathers when they established the USA didn’t just hand us a constitution and say “here, everyone interpret this for yourselves in the spirit of George Washington.” No, they set up a hierarchical establishment to ensure that laws would be understood properly. So that is ultimately where we Catholics obtain our understanding of doctrine; through the deposit of faith handed down by the apostles to all generations. God love you.
“The Catholic Church itself ADMITS that purgatory is their own invention.”
The CC admits no such thing. Show me where they admit this. Also, purgatory was understood by the early church. Here are several quotes from church fathers.
http://catholic.com/library/Roots_of_Purgatory.asp
So purgatory was much earlier than 1545.
“And those who would refuse to believe the decrees of Rome were under the threat of “anathema,” and the curse has not yet been lifted to this day.”
A curse… Wow, okay. Anathema is simply a way of stating that what is about to be pronounced is de fide. I strongly recommend you start obtaining information about what Catholics teach from Catholic sources.
Whenever a date is set for the “invention” of purgatory, you can point to historical evidence to show the doctrine was in existence before that date. Besides, if at some point the doctrine was pulled out of a clerical hat, why does ecclesiastical history record no protest against it?
A study of the history of doctrines indicates that Christians in the first centuries were up in arms (sometimes quite literally) if anyone suggested the least change in beliefs. They were extremely conservative people who tested a doctrine
Bobby,
How about wikipedia? seems like an unbiased source to me!
Anathema
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anathema
If you so choose to use the least “rough” definition, that would be excommunication:
Anathema in the Roman Catholic Church
While “minor excommunication” could be incurred by associating with an excommunicate, and “major excommunication” could be imposed by any bishop, “anathema” was imposed by the Pope in a specific ceremony described in the Pontificale Romanum. Wearing a purple cope (the liturgical color of penitence) and holding a lighted candle, he, surrounded by twelve priests, also with lighted candles, pronounced the anathema with a formula that concluded with the phrase:
“Wherefore in the name of God the All-powerful, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, of Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and of all the saints, in virtue of the power which has been given us of binding and loosing in Heaven and on earth, we deprive (Name) himself and all his accomplices and all his abettors of the Communion of the Body and Blood of Our Lord, we separate him from the society of all Christians, we exclude him from the bosom of our Holy Mother the Church in Heaven and on earth, we declare him excommunicated and anathematized and we judge him condemned to eternal fire with Satan and his angels and all the reprobate, so long as he will not burst the fetters of the demon, do penance and satisfy the Church; we deliver him to Satan to mortify his body, that his soul may be saved on the day of judgment.” The priests responded: “Fiat, fiat, fiat” (Let it be done), and all, including the pontiff, cast their lighted candles on the ground.
Notice is sent in writing to the priests and neighbouring bishops of the name of the one who has been excommunicated and the cause of his excommunication, in order that they may have no communication with him. Although he is delivered to Satan and his angels, he can still, and is even bound to repent. The Pontifical gives the form for absolving him and reconciling him with the Church.[1]
You say, “simply a way of stating that what is about to be pronounced is de fide”
Sounds like a curse to me, Bobby.
I love religion. Everyone who disagrees with me is just a big ***ktard!
It is not possible to have a serious religious discussion here, Jill. Later.
That is all true; however, that is not what is meant when it is used in councils. I use the word “anathema” to describe, say, a Catholic bishop parades around supporting abortion and doing all sorts of evil. And that’s one meaning. But when the council of Trent uses it (or any other ecumenical council) all it refers to is an infallible teaching.
So there are two different ways in which we use that word. The wiki article only mentions the one, but Trent uses it in the other way.
And I do want to apologize. I was a bit rude above. That was uncalled for, and I see now that it is easier to get it confused than I thought. Obviously we are both quite passionate, and it’s easy to get wound up. Mea culpa. God love you.
Tony, that was Laura who said that. She is not religious and she almost always tries to get a reaction out of people. I think LJM and I are and MK and Bethany are having a great discussion. Don’t let Laura makes you leave.
Bobby,
no apologies necessary. You guys are too sweet. You always think you’re rude when I never took it that way. All I see is passion on both sides. Passion is a good thing!
God bless you too, Bobby!
I’ll get back to some questions later on this evening.
:)
Okay, I’m gonna go too. We can all just chill. This thing is so addictive. God love you, friend.
Wait, you’re not Anonymous from last week, are you?
…I strongly recommend you start obtaining information about what Catholics teach from Catholic sources.,/i>
Bobby,
I followed your recommendation. The Roman Church proclaimed purgatory as an article of faith in 1439 at the Council of Florence, and it was confirmed by Trent in 1548.
Per your friend, Fr. John Corapi
http://www.fathercorapi.com/articledet.aspx?articleID=753244527
Purgatory is the final purification of a person who is on their way to heaven. Only the truly pure and perfected in grace can see God face to face. If we don’t achieve the perfection of charity on this earth the mercy of God provides for us a place of final purification. This is purgatory, and it is a doctrine of the faith. “The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent” (#1031). The church’s teaching is based upon certain texts of Scripture such as 2 Maccabees 12:46, remembering that only the church’s magisterium has the authority to authentically interpret Scripture, not any individual expressing what they think is “plausible.”
Now, I
I’m impressed. (arg, I said I was gonna go… can’t stay away…)But by formulate, we mean the first definition that dictionary.com gives.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/formulate
I hate to get into semantics, but there really is a big difference between invent and formulate. I agree completely that it wasn’t hammered out until Trent. But the doctrine of the Trinity was not hammered out until 325. Now obviously that’s much, much closer to the time of Jesus, but the point is that these doctrines don’t really get hammered out until they are being challenged. I think that link I gave above shows that the idea was around in the early church, and it just took
time and challenges to really spell out exactly what we meant by purgatory. In fact, granted that even if you don’t accept the Maccabees as scripture, it still is a historical document which is good for getting a glimpse into how certain people lived or believed.
“The Roman Church proclaimed purgatory as an article of faith in 1439 at the Council of Florence, and it was confirmed by Trent in 1548.”
Also, we didn’t infallibly define the canon of scripture until that same council of Trent. So that just goes back to my above point that the Church is very slow to define something de fide. She usually saves it for only when there is confusion. Even something that we both agree on, the canon of scripture (barring Deuterocanonical books) the Church did not claim infallible until it absolutely HAD to.
But going to Father Corapi, that’s very impressive. You’ll begin to see that everything that I say is stolen from him :) God love you.
Bobby,
Ok, so it took 300 years to define Trinity (understandable), but some 1400+ years to decide that we would need to burn for a while before we could enter Heaven? This all coming from a religion that claims that it is the root of Christianity and the church that Jesus built? If there were such wonderful teachers at the beginning (they were there at that time) why did it take so long for your religion to formulate purgatory? I mean, we’re talking 1400+ years AFTER Christ! Or beter yet, this was only 600 years ago.
If your religion’s formulation on purgatory is correct, isn’t where you go when you die supposedly your crux, or a HUGE part of Christianity? It wasn’t hammered out until Trent?
JLM,
You don’t seem to be acknowledging my posts…
If you read this you will understand that what Bobby says is true. The acceptance of purgatory goes back to before Christianity. Jews believe in purification. It was never questioned until the 1400’s. So it was clarified and made doctrine. I don’t know why this is so important to you. You belong to a church (which is a HUGE part of your faith) that didn’t even exist til the 1500’s.
Whenever a date is set for the “invention” of purgatory, you can point to historical evidence to show the doctrine was in existence before that date. Besides, if at some point the doctrine was pulled out of a clerical hat, why does ecclesiastical history record no protest against it?
*
A study of the history of doctrines indicates that Christians in the first centuries were up in arms (sometimes quite literally) if anyone suggested the least change in beliefs. They were extremely conservative people who tested a doctrine
JML,
Plus I have twice now, given you scripture passages that clearly show that purgatory was indeed an accepted belief in Jesus’ time, and yet you just ignored them.
Did you want scripture passages, or didn’t you?
http://www.catholic.com/library/Purgatory.asp
mk,
Regarding the scriptures that you gave me (thank you very much), well, for starters, there are seven of them in the first paragraph alone, that span the width of almost the beginning of the bible through Revelation. I am looking into each one of them that you posted, but it is going to take me time.
Please forgive me for not getting back to you quick enough. I promise you, I will though..
:)
JLM,
Take your time. I just didn’t know if you saw them, or dismissed them.
There were a lot of them, I agree.
I’m probably signing off for now, but look forward to you response.
God Bless,
MK
For all the particpants in this thread -thanks, very interesting discussion, I’ve learned alot…
“No effect is necessary. The Knowledge alone is enough. If our future is known to any entity, then that “is” you mentioned is the deal, rather than anything else. The “is” could not be altered.”
MK: Well, of course it could, up until the moment that “is” became “was”…I don’t see why His knowing means that we didn’t choose it.
No, MK – there is no “didn’t choose it.” “He” would know what you’re gonna pick. The “is” is what you pick. There is nothing else if it’s known already.
……
I can have an orange or an apple. I choose an orange. God knows that I will choose the orange. He knew I would choose the orange before I was born. Before there were oranges. He didn’t cause me to choose the orange. But he saw me choose it. He knows I chose it. But that in no way interfered with my ability to choose it
No, you were gonna choose the orange. You weren’t going to choose the apple because it was known that the orange was it.
…….
Predestination would mean that He laid it all out before hand, then wound me up and set me on my path, leaving me no choice, but to do what He programmed me to do. But He didn’t “program” me.
Nope, again – causation isn’t required. Just the fact of knowing what the future holds is enough.
……
He created me and then said do what you will. Now if you choose to do what I want you to do, I will begin interfering in your life, but if you choose not to do what I want you to do, then you will be at the mercy of my Natural Law.
There’s the contradiction – there is no “if you choose,” because your choice is already known to him. It’s a done deal.
……
And He knows what I chose, and He knows what you have chosen, but He had nothing to do with those choices…
The knowing alone is enough.
Doug, Huh?
JLM, I know a guy on a gardening message board with the same initials. I realize it was a total longshot, but just wondered if you were one and the same. I gather that it’s “nope.” It would have been a heck of a coincidence.
Doug
It is hard to believe that Doug is still totally under the sway of his parent’s religion to this day.
Sad, but Doug is simply using TULIP reasoning of Calvin as a argument about his version of trying to construct a god.
Gee, Doug, you and Fred Phelps think alike in constructing a all knowing god.
I can’t blame ya Doug for leaving the Jesus that allows murder by his followers, which is exactly your parent’s version of god is, and sadly ending up where your parent’s were in the first place. No progress, no ability to think outside the caged mental box your parent’s constructed in your mind as a child. Maybe the only progress in you Doug, is that you left that personal killer god, and have constructed some doubt in your mind about really knowing anything absolutely about a god,force,spirit or whatever you name it, Doug. But, you didn’t wander very far from your superstiitous parent’s god to me Doug. I like you Doug, and wish you had at least been able to construct a force/spirit, non living, all powerful, all knowing, flying spaghetti monster, with the boring fact that it is exactly like all those other ideas about god that murders its creation.
You really believe all the words you have written on this page about your conclusions and decisons of your version of your god constructs, or you must have some doubt about the words you have written about your “god thinking”, on this page.
If you really believe every word you wrote about your thinking about your version of “god theology”, Doug, then your not a agnostic, who admits he just doesn’t really know for sure, or know for sure, his thoughts about knowing the true nature of a god.
Which is to say Doug, your a put on, a fake argument, a hillarious parade of some doubter, thinking about his doubts, and then either believing every word you wrote concerning this attempt to prove your parent’s theology, missing Jesus of course, which is based in ABSOLUTE pre-destination from the all knowing god construction of them in you mind still, Doug.
Do you believe Doug, every word you wrote about your personal thoughts, based on logic deductions of Doug, about some all knowing,predestination god/force/spirit? Yes or no Doug?
Now, Doug, I know it is hard to come to terms with the fact your a contradiction in terms, or truth, and I am leaving it up to you to complete where this is leading to logically for you, and your agnostic/absolute conumdrum you have created by your own written words.
See it Doug, YET?
This is hillarious, a agnostic arguing about all knowing, all powerful, pre-destination and other ABSOLUTE attributes, of a mental invention in the first place.
Man Doug, your mommy and daddy’s religion screwed you up for life.
Tell ya what Doug, take a break and do some reading by GK Chesterton, Doug. May I suggest two chapters from Orthodoxy, Doug, for you to regain your mind from your parent’s version of the murdering Jesus, and the hillarious fact your a doubter still trying to come to grips with absolute all knowing god construction.
Chapter one; The Maniac.
Chapter two; The Suicide Of Thought.
It’s free and on line Doug.
Poor Doug.
mk,
OK. Here goes. I’m going to break this down paragraph by paragraph in regard to your February 25, 2008 2:22 PM post:
Paragaph #1
Matt. 5:26,18:34; Luke 12:58-59
JLM,
The point of a parable in the bible is to liken our relationship with God to one that we can understand. Hence He uses an analogy that anyone of the time could understand. Paying what you owe.
Do we just ignore this?
The word
it speaks of a person who would never be released.
UNTIL the last penny is paid.
Paragraph #2
Matt. 5:48 – Jesus says, “be perfect, even as your heavenly Father is perfect.” We are only made perfect through purification, and in Catholic teaching, this purification, if not completed on earth, is continued in a transitional state we call purgatory.
Matthew 5:43-48 These verses deal with the Hatred of enemies.
43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
Proverbs 24:17 Do not gloat when your enemy falls; when he stumbles, do not let your heart rejoice
it speaks of a person who would never be released.
UNTIL the last penny is paid.
Posted by: mk at February 26, 2008 8:04 AM
If you read the post again, it clearly shows that this man, prisoner, will NEVER be able to pay his debt.
Plus the entire passage, from it’s beginning, is dealing with the end times. This parable is used to illustrate our “ends”…
read Luke 12:54. and especially 12:57…
Why do you not judge for yourselves what is right?
If you are to go with your opponent before a magistrate…
He is talking about making good choices. He is saying that if you don’t make good choices now, then you will pay later. Every last penny. But obviously, the debt can be paid.
Paragraph #3
(btw, the sources that I posted in my February 26, 2008 7:55 AM post have been used in all of these posts.)
Matt. 12:32
Why do you not judge for yourselves what is right?
If you are to go with your opponent before a magistrate…
He is talking about making good choices. He is saying that if you don’t make good choices now, then you will pay later. Every last penny. But obviously, the debt can be paid.
Posted by: mk at February 26, 2008 8:11 AM
He was saying to forgive your opponent, or you won’t be forgiven. Like us, if we don’t forgive, we won’t be forgiven.
“Be perfect…”
I think the point is that NO ONE can be perfect. We can be forgiven, but not perfect. So if Jesus’ death brought forgiveness, what brings “perfection”?
JLM,
He was saying to forgive your opponent, or you won’t be forgiven. Like us, if we don’t forgive, we won’t be forgiven.
I’m sorry, I disagree. While that might be the secondary message, the primary one when taken in context of the preceding chapters, seems to me, to be about paying debts and making right choices.
Where you see agree with your adversary, I see come to terms.
If you read the post again, it clearly shows that this man, prisoner, will NEVER be able to pay his debt.
Not in this life, no. But it doesn’t say you will be thrown in prison forever. It says UNTIL the debt is paid.
Luke 16:19-31 – in this story, we see that the dead rich man is suffering but still feels compassion for his brothers and wants to warn them of his place of suffering. But there is no suffering in heaven or compassion in hell because compassion is a grace from God and those in hell are deprived from God’s graces for all eternity. So where is the rich man? He is in purgatory.
The Bible itself states the man is in Hell. Why would it mean anything other than what it said?
The word “hell” in this passage comes from the greek word: “ᾅδης”, which is translated to hadēs, and means
1) name Hades or Pluto, the god of the lower regions
2) Orcus, the nether world, the realm of the dead
3) later use of this word: the grave, death, hell
The very same word is used in a few other passages which describe Hell in the Bible.
Such as:
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
I [am] he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.
*********************
22And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
23And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
24And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
(notice, Abraham and Lazarus did NOT give the man the mercy he desired.)
25But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
26And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.
(If there is a gulf fixed, so that no one can pass from one to the other, then how could he go from this place of torment to Heaven if he was simply in purgatory? There is no way. God made it so that they cannot go from one to the other. This was Hell.
27Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father’s house:
28For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
29Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
30And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
31And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
**************************
I just don’t see how that story could possibly be speaking about purgatory, especially when it actually uses the very word Hell that is described in other passages referring to Hell.
Do you see what I mean?
I think the point is that NO ONE can be perfect. We can be forgiven, but not perfect. So if Jesus’ death brought forgiveness, what brings “perfection”?
Jesus blood brings perfection on us, when we are born again of His Spirit. \
Our earthly body will always have sin, but our soul cannot sin. The body and the soul are continually struggling in a war of sin vs goodness until the day we die.
“For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.” Galatians 5:17
We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.” 1 John 5:16-18
Mk, I am confused about your view on the spotlessness of our souls. I was reading a Catholic article the other day when I was researching something else, and it claimed that protestants are the ones who do not believe that our souls are literally cleansed…but it says that Catholics do. Can you please help me to understand?
Here is the part of the article I read:
Really Cleansed
“Sanctifying grace implies a real transformation of the soul. Recall that most of the Protestant Reformers denied that a real transformation takes place. They said God doesn
@Doug,
“The knowing alone is enough.” I’m with yllas here because Doug, God doesn’t necessarily think as you do (He is not in a Cartesian box you are!) You just cannot seem to fathom that God is not some kind of mental construct.
We discussed this before but the surest and easiest way to dismiss the notion that all-is-just-a-dream, is pain. A good swift kick in the groin very quickly snaps a person out of dream existence, another is the need for food or breath, or the need to pee.
There is only ‘is-ness’/now. What we call reality is a construct of two realms: actuality + virtuality. Actuality is God’s domain and is this ‘now’ universe …. the virtuality is man’s mental domain of memories and imagination. Much too often we believe the now occurs only in its transition to ‘was’. This transition then is not tangible because thoughts are not tangible.
It’s the old ‘did the tree falling in the forest make a sound?’. Well ‘yes’ and ‘no’ – the tree does make pressure waves, but it is our brain’s hearing apparatus that translates these waves into ‘sound’.
We often are like the little kid who closes his eyes and because he can’t see then he disappears. The act of ‘growing-up’ is the movement from illusions of being creator (flying) to accepting and rollicking in the fact that “I am a created being’.”
Freedom does not come from selection of options (virtuality) but through the power of love/peace (actuality) …. to become one – in another …. space; time etc are of small consequence. As is thoughts of predestination. Doesn’t mean very much at all except to the kid holding his breath to impress others with superior reasoning (virtuality) skills.
I really find it funny that St. John refers to the ‘Logos’ … (mind of God), which we translate as the ‘Word’. Yet PC’ers demand ‘logic’ from PL’ers without a reference to God.
John
Not in this life, no. But it doesn’t say you will be thrown in prison forever. It says UNTIL the debt is paid.
Posted by: mk at February 26, 2008 8:24 AM
mk,
it would be like me putting you in prison and saying that you can’t come out until you pay one trillion dollars. Now, how are you going to do that in prison? You can’t. You’d never get out.(well, unless you are that filthy rich-lol!). That was the point. The man would never be able to pay that debt. Nowhere in that parable does it state that the man would be able to find a way to pay it in prison to get out. The point was that he couldn’t.
JML,
This is one of the times where our definition of “grace” gets confusing.
Baptism removes, and I mean removes, the stain of original sin. But obviously, we are still capable of sinning. If we commit small sins, (venial) we can be forgiven our temporal punishment simply by confessing sorrow, doing penance (offering up suffering, prayer, etc.) but if we commit graver sins (mortal…sin so grave it puts your salvation in jeopardy) then confession to a priest is required. At that moment, the priest is in Persona Christi, the person of Christ, and we confess to Him. This is a sacrament, and like all sacraments we receive sanctifying graces when we participate in them.
This grace, cleanses us once again, and we become free from the stain of any sins we’ve confessed.
However, being human, we will invariably sin again. And new stains will appear.
Often we go to confession even when we have no mortal sins, just to receive these sanctifying graces. They aid us in our journey to become Holy.
Think of your soul as a crystal that you hang in the window. God is the Sun. He shines through your soul and rainbows are made, shining everywhere. Everytime you touch that crystal, you are leaving fingerprints/smudges. Each smudge attracts dust. Eventually the crystal will become so dull that the Sun can no longer shine through it. Going to confession is like getting out the windex. Small smudges mean less rainbows, but the Sun can still get through, like venial sins. Really, really dirty crystals cannot let any light in. This is why mortal sin puts your salvation in jeopardy. You have seriously compromised your relationship with God.
Mortal sin is so serious, that we may not receive communion (the Eucharist) until we have gone to confession and removed it.
Does that help?
JML,
mk,
it would be like me putting you in prison and saying that you can’t come out until you pay one trillion dollars. Now, how are you going to do that in prison? You can’t. You’d never get out.(well, unless you are that filthy rich-lol!). That was the point. The man would never be able to pay that debt. Nowhere in that parable does it state that the man would be able to find a way to pay it in prison to get out. The point was that he couldn’t.
I understand what you are saying, and that just brings my point home more. You could never repay the debt IN THIS LIFE. This is why we understand it to mean that it would take lifetimes (thus take place somewhere other than on earth) to pay. But it can be paid. Otherwise, Jesus would have said “You can’t come out, period” . But He doesn’t. He says UNTIL. This causes us to ask, how is this possible. How can this debt be repayed. We won’t live long enough.
But if we know no death, and live forever, we will have plenty of time to repay the debt…somewhere else.
Sorry, that post about confession was to Bethany. I didn’t realize you had jumped into the conversation. If I had time, I’d change the name, but I have to drive John to work…
Here are some of my reasons for believing we are cleansed completely when we confess our sins and accept Jesus…we do not need any more cleansing after death because:
Romans 3:24: “…Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:”
bullet Romans 8:1: “There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus…”
bullet 1 Corinthians 6:11: “And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus…”
bullet Titus 2:14: “Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify onto himself a peculiar people…”
bullet Hebrews 10:14: “For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.”
bullet 1 John 1:7: “…the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.”
bullet 1 John 1:7: “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleans us from all unrighteousness.”
bullet 1 John 1:9: “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”
(hope you don’t read the bolds as shouting- they’re only intended for emphasis). ;-) Love you, Marykay!
Hope you have a good morning, MK, and I may not be able to make many more posts this morning (have to leave in about an hour), so if I don’t answer all of your posts, I’ll try to get back to them when I can! :)
Bethany,
Hades and Hell are two different places. Hades is the underword or place of death. Hell is where we go when we reject God. Jesus descends into Hades (in our creed) but returns.
I’ll look up a reference when I get back.
“Be perfect…”
I think the point is that NO ONE can be perfect. We can be forgiven, but not perfect. So if Jesus’ death brought forgiveness, what brings “perfection”?
Posted by: mk at February 26, 2008 8:18 AM
Perfection is God’s love. God is love. God is perfect. We are perfected IN His love:
1 Corinthians 13 (NLV)(one of my favorites!)
Love
1If I speak in the tongues[a] of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames,[b] but have not love, I gain nothing.
4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
8Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
13And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.
Bethany
“Mk, I am confused about your view on the spotlessness of our souls. I was reading a Catholic article the other day when I was researching something else, and it claimed that protestants are the ones who do not believe that our souls are literally cleansed…but it says that Catholics do. Can you please help me to understand?”
I only have 10 minutes and then I have to go, but Catholics believe in what is called “infused righteousness” as opposed to the classical reformation understanding of “imputed righteousness.” The Catholic belives that when God declares that we are just, we actually are made just, and the righteousness of Christ lives within us. The Classical reformation understanding is that when God declares that we are just, that is that. In other words, God declaring us just for the Protestant is a legal declaration. We are not really any better; God just “looks favorably” upon us. Incidently, that is why OSAS follows from the protestant understanding of justification. If it’s just a legal declaration, what reason is there to think that God would renege?
Okay, now this is our the understanding of justification. So to try and tie thew Catholic understanding of justification and purgatory together, the idea is that even though we are made good, we MAY not be perfect, as of course know God requires. And the reason we may not be perfect even though we have God’s own life living within us is that we still have an attraction, an attachment to sin. I explained the difference between actually sinning and having an attraction to sin (concupiscence) yesterday in this post to LJM, you can find it above (it mentions both the words “concupiscence” and “porn”, so it shouldn’t be hard to find.)
Now that being said, not everyone who is in a state of sanctifying grace (when you have God’s life living within you i.e. the righteousness of Christ) is necessarily still attached to sin. So when they die, they go straight to heaven.
So to sum up, yes Catholic believe that once we are justified, we are MADE good and our souls ARE righteous in reality (and in particular, to God) because we have sanctifying grace in us; yet we may still have an attraction (not the same thing as actual sin as I tried to explain above) to sin itself. I”ll try to check back in a couple hours to see if that clarifies. God love you, Bethany.
Baptism removes, and I mean removes, the stain of original sin. But obviously, we are still capable of sinning. If we commit small sins, (venial) we can be forgiven our temporal punishment simply by confessing sorrow, doing penance (offering up suffering, prayer, etc.) but if we commit graver sins (mortal…sin so grave it puts your salvation in jeopardy) then confession to a priest is required. At that moment, the priest is in Persona Christi, the person of Christ, and we confess to Him. This is a sacrament, and like all sacraments we receive sanctifying graces when we participate in them.
This grace, cleanses us once again, and we become free from the stain of any sins we’ve confessed.
I agree that once we are transformed, we can still sin. But not “us”, that is to say, our soul. Our soul, which is completely transformed, cannot sin. This is what 1 John explains about a lot.
Our flesh and our spirit are in a constant struggle until the day we die, and leave that sinful, mortal body behind, then receive our new, perfect, immortal body which is preserved from sin.
I think Jesus grace cleanses us once, and we only need to be cleansed once.
“Being BORN AGAIN, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.” 1 Peter 1:23
“For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of ADOPTION, whereby we cry, Abba, FATHER.” Romans 8:15
“My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand.” John 10:29
“He that believeth on the Son HATH EVERLASTING LIFE:.. .” John 3:36
I already have everlasting life. Right now. This is because I have been born again, of an incorruptible seed of God.
My everlasting life began the day I accepted Christ. If it can be taken away, or ended, then I never had everlasting life to begin with.
Bobby, thanks for your reply, I’m reading it right now.
I understand what you are saying, and that just brings my point home more. You could never repay the debt IN THIS LIFE. This is why we understand it to mean that it would take lifetimes (thus take place somewhere other than on earth) to pay. But it can be paid. Otherwise, Jesus would have said “You can’t come out, period” . But He doesn’t. He says UNTIL. This causes us to ask, how is this possible. How can this debt be repayed. We won’t live long enough.
But if we know no death, and live forever, we will have plenty of time to repay the debt…somewhere else.
Posted by: mk at February 26, 2008 8:53 AM
But Jesus didn’t say that. The parable was that the man COULD NOT pay his debt. He would NEVER be able to. When Jesus said “until”, it is understood that it would never happen. The man would never come up with that money. Again, if I were to put you in prison, I could tell you that you cannot come out UNTIL you pay your debt of one trillion dollars. You know it can’t be done, and the “until” will never happen. It’s an overwhelming thought to go somewhere and never get out. That’s the point that Jesus was trying to make, and why forgiveness is so important.
I agree that once we are transformed, we can still sin. But not “us”, that is to say, our soul. Our soul, which is completely transformed, cannot sin. This is what 1 John explains about a lot.
Our flesh and our spirit are in a constant struggle until the day we die, and leave that sinful, mortal body behind, then receive our new, perfect, immortal body which is preserved from sin.
I think Jesus grace cleanses us once, and we only need to be cleansed once.
“Being BORN AGAIN, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.” 1 Peter 1:23
Amen, Bethany!
Okay, now this is our the understanding of justification. So to try and tie thew Catholic understanding of justification and purgatory together, the idea is that even though we are made good, we MAY not be perfect, as of course know God requires. And the reason we may not be perfect even though we have God’s own life living within us is that we still have an attraction, an attachment to sin. I explained the difference between actually sinning and having an attraction to sin (concupiscence) yesterday in this post to LJM, you can find it above (it mentions both the words “concupiscence” and “porn”, so it shouldn’t be hard to find.)
Now that being said, not everyone who is in a state of sanctifying grace (when you have God’s life living within you i.e. the righteousness of Christ) is necessarily still attached to sin. So when they die, they go straight to heaven.
There is where we disagree. I believe that once we are cleansed from all sins, we do become “perfect”, but our body is still under the law of sin and therefore will continue to be tempted to sin, and it is continually warring with our spirit until the day we die and shed that old body of sin.
I believe that every single person who is saved still is connected to that body of sin, just as Paul was, and had wars going on in his members, battles between his flesh and spirit. In fact, he said on different occasions things like, “Oh wretched man that I am! Who shall deliver me from this body of death?”
Here’s that verse:
“I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.”
(Romans 7:21-25 KJV)
Here is how we are cleansed. I like to use Les Feldick, because he explains things so well:
http://www.havefaith.org
Colossians 3:13
“Forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: (and we
And this is what we have to do. We get daily cleansing, by the washing of the water, but what does Paul say the water is? The Word of God! Do you see that? Boy isn
:)
“Thank you so much for reminding me of the Peter/ feet washing story. I had forgotten about that. Your post really helped me today.”
Oh, that’s just wonderful! I love to see members of the body of Christ helping each other. As much as we disagree about, there is much more that we do hold in common. God love you, LJM and Bethany.
Bobby,
You bring such a smile to my face! Thank you for your kind words!
:)
I have made that mistake so many times, when I feel terrible about the way I’ve handled the day I will go to God seeking forgiveness.
I’ll sometimes feel like my sin is so bad that He has to hear me apologize again and again. And even after I’ve sought forgiveness, I won’t be able to forgive myself, and I’ll ask again.
Posted by: Bethany at February 26, 2008 9:42 AM
This is only my humble opinion, and from a Catholic perspective. . . I think your reaction is a normal part of human nature. If we didn’t feel guilty when we did something wrong, that could be a sign of a bigger problem.
One of the positive aspects of confession, is that you are able to physically talk to someone. It makes our admission of guilt, and God’s forgiveness more “real” in our minds, and let’s us know that we are truly forgiven. We are required to confess mortal sins as Catholics, but may also confess smaller sins, which is beneficial for the reasons I just stated. It can be a very comforting experience.
Praise the Lord, JLM. I don’t have time to discuss much today, but I’ll check out Les Feldick’s website. Unfortunately, I don’t get his TV show here, though.
HIs “questions and answers” book looks pretty cool!
Bobby,
I don’t get his show here either. I think you can listen to his radio program live, though. For me, it’s between 1:00 & 1:30. I don’t get a chance to listen to it much.
Yes, I think he’s great. My dad lent me the questions and answers book, and I just can’t seem to get enough of it. I can’t tell you how many times while reading it I went, OHHHHH! Now I get it!
This one was one of my favorites (after Revelation, of course!)
http://havefaith.org/new_page_14a.htm
I never understood the whole hell, hades, Paradise thing until I read that. WOW!
I told my dad he wasn’t getting the book back! lol. He ordered another one for himself! I think there’s some more topics on other things that can be ordered from his site, but I haven’t done that yet.
However, the book is all there online. It’s exactly the same. I like to cuddle up with a good book, though, not sit hunched over at a computer!
Janet,
I agree! I think confessing sins by mouth does makes it more real and is important to confirm the acknowledgement. Confession by mouth has been used alot in the bible as something that needs to be done along with what you feel in your heart. For example:
Romans 10:10
For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.
Although we disagree on who we confess them to, confessing them shows that we are aware of them and that we want to change.
Bethany,
You say that sometimes you feel guilty after doing something wrong. And then you confess your sins, either to another person or to God. Why are you confessing? What are you expecting to get out of telling God the wrongs that you have done if it isn’t forgiveness?
And if it is forgiveness, then how do you reconcile that with JLM’s theory that we don’t need forgiveness?
From where I sit, it seems like I can do anything I want and not worry, not say I’m sorry, not confess anything, cuz that was all taken care of.
So where is the guilt coming from? Surely, if I have been forgiven ahead of time, there would be no need to feel guilty? See what I’m saying?
As far as the body sinning but not the spirit, the mind is what chooses to do something sinful. The body does not act of it’s own accord. So when I give into temptation, I am consciously choosing, with my spirit, to allow my body to sin.
Therefore my heart, spirit, mind AND body have all affronted God. In my church, this requires asking Him to forgive me.
Who’s that pastor guy that was married to Tammy Faye Baker? When he (I can’t remember if he cheated on her or with funds) sinned, did he need to ask God for forgiveness? Or did he say, “HEY my body sinned, but not my spirit, and since Jesus died for my sins, I don’t need to say I’m sorry and I sure don’t need to ask forgiveness! Already did that when I professed my faith in Jesus!”
Bethany,
You say that sometimes you feel guilty after doing something wrong. And then you confess your sins, either to another person or to God. Why are you confessing? What are you expecting to get out of telling God the wrongs that you have done if it isn’t forgiveness?
Absolutely.
And if it is forgiveness, then how do you reconcile that with JLM’s theory that we don’t need forgiveness?
We do need forgiveness, but if we have repented, confessed our sins, He is faithful to forgive us and cleanse us from all unrighteous.
When we sin after having been saved, we absolutely should feel guilty when we do wrong- that is our conscience – the part of us that is without sin- telling us that we are giving in to our flesh. After sinning, we must still seek forgiveness of the people who we have hurt on earth, and we should turn away from those sins, and read the Bible to keep ourselves from sinning again (thy Word have I hid in my heart that I might not sin against thee).
Asking forgiveness from God is not a bad thing- it is good to tell him we’re sorry. But we must also remember that He has already forgiven us for all our sins, past and present, when we asked Him to so long ago. We can’t expect Him to forgive us again for something that has already been forgiven. Does that make sense the way I am trying to explain it? I hope so.
From where I sit, it seems like I can do anything I want and not worry, not say I’m sorry, not confess anything, cuz that was all taken care of.
No, actually Paul speaks about that very thing, “What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? God forbid!
Here is the entire chapter, so that you can understand the context of it (I’m posting it in another translation so it will be easier to understand- I hope this translation is a good one):
1 Well then, should we keep on sinning so that God can show us more and more of his wonderful grace? 2 Of course not! Since we have died to sin, how can we continue to live in it? 3 Or have you forgotten that when we were joined with Christ Jesus in baptism, we joined him in his death? 4 For we died and were buried with Christ by baptism. And just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glorious power of the Father, now we also may live new lives.
5 Since we have been united with him in his death, we will also be raised to life as he was. 6 We know that our old sinful selves were crucified with Christ so that sin might lose its power in our lives. We are no longer slaves to sin. 7 For when we died with Christ we were set free from the power of sin. 8 And since we died with Christ, we know we will also live with him. 9 We are sure of this because Christ was raised from the dead, and he will never die again. Death no longer has any power over him. 10 When he died, he died once to break the power of sin. But now that he lives, he lives for the glory of God. 11 So you also should consider yourselves to be dead to the power of sin and alive to God through Christ Jesus.
So where is the guilt coming from? Surely, if I have been forgiven ahead of time, there would be no need to feel guilty? See what I’m saying?
The guilt comes from the part of us that is perfect and holy, our spirit which was transformed when we were born again. Our conscience. The holy Spirit convicting our heart and telling us to turn around and do the right thing.
As far as the body sinning but not the spirit, the mind is what chooses to do something sinful. The body does not act of it’s own accord. So when I give into temptation, I am consciously choosing, with my spirit, to allow my body to sin.
The Bible says that our reborn spirit cannot sin. We can sin with our flesh but not with our spirit.
I don’t understand it completely- I just trust that God meant what He said about it ,and I leave it at that.
Who’s that pastor guy that was married to Tammy Faye Baker? When he (I can’t remember if he cheated on her or with funds) sinned, did he need to ask God for forgiveness? Or did he say, “HEY my body sinned, but not my spirit, and since Jesus died for my sins, I don’t need to say I’m sorry and I sure don’t need to ask forgiveness! Already did that when I professed my faith in Jesus!”
He absolutely should have asked forgiveness of those who he hurt. He should have turned around, and if he was saved he was forgiven of this sin by God but it doesn’t mean that the natural consequences of his sins won’t come about, and it doesn’t mean that people will forgive him. People aren’t the ones who died on the cross for his sins…since Jesus did, if he was truly reborn of the spirit, he will feel extreme remorse for his actions and he will indeed repent and turn away from it and make amends to fix what harm he did by sinning.
But as for his accountability to God, death is his final penalty for those sins.
So where is the guilt coming from? Surely, if I have been forgiven ahead of time, there would be no need to feel guilty? See what I’m saying?
Hebrews 10:16
This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
Hebrews 8:10
For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
Before Christ came to fulfill the law, God’s commandments were written on tablets of stone. When Christ fulfilled the law, God’s laws would be written on our hearts. The first covenant was temporal. Christ’s covenant is everlatsting. When we accept Jesus into our lives, we live in Him, and He in us. When we sin, or go against what He wishes for us, we feel badly about it because He is in us, and His laws are written into our hearts and minds. Things that are not of God will always cause conflict within a believer because we have Christ in us, thus causing the feeling of guilt, remorse, etc.
And if it is forgiveness, then how do you reconcile that with JLM’s theory that we don’t need forgiveness?
From where I sit, it seems like I can do anything I want and not worry, not say I’m sorry, not confess anything, cuz that was all taken care of.
Oh, absolutely not! Yes, we do need forgiveness! That comes when we become believers. Jesus’ blood was the ultimate sacrifice for our sins, and by His blood, we are completely forgiven.
I like to equate love for our own children to the above. We love them so much. (God loves us more) No matter what our kids do, we have already forgiven them because we know that it’s in their nature to do the wrong things. We forgive them before they even do it. However, we do want them to confess what they have done to us, so we can talk about it and they can grow, mature, learn from their mistakes, and pass this wisdom down to the next generation.
When I don’t understand something about God’s love for me, I try to sustitute the love I have for my child to the love that God has for me. What I am blown away by, is that God loves me more than I can imagine, and more than I could ever think of loving my child.
Asking forgiveness from God is not a bad thing- it is good to tell him we’re sorry.
But saying you are sorry is not the same as asking forgiveness. Doesn’t it seem silly to you to ask forgiveness for something that you have already been forgiven for?
You see? I think where we differ is that every time I sin, I believe I offend God and need to ask His forgiveness for the sin I have committed.
I think you see His death as a “pass” on needing forgiveness and I see His death as a “guarantee” of being forgiven when I ask…
I think before He died I was not guaranteed this forgiveness. I would have to “do” something. Now all I have to due is ask.
But like with my kids, saying sorry isn’t always enough. Sometimes they still need a time out or to be grounded. I forgive them, but they still need to pay some price.
Purgatory to me (us) is not a punishment so much as a way to purify ourselves. While I don’t look forward to the unpleasantness of it, I DO look forward to the preparation I will need to be so pure, so clean, “perfect”, so that I can stand in front of Him.
Think of your wedding day. You were meeting your bridegroom at the altar. Didn’t you have your hair done, and your nails and your dress and everything “just perfect” to meet him? This is how I want to be for Jesus when I meet Him. The church (me) IS His bride. And as a bride, I want to look (be) perfect for the wedding day! Sure the curlers hurt, and the shoes pinched…but it was all worth it. Purgatory will also have it’s down side, but when it’s over, I will be READY to meet my bridegroom.
Paragraph #4
Luke 12:47-48 – when the Master comes (at the end of time), some will receive light or heavy beatings but will live. This state is not heaven or hell, because in heaven there are no beatings, and in hell we will no longer live with the Master.
In these passages, Jesus
But like with my kids, saying sorry isn’t always enough. Sometimes they still need a time out or to be grounded. I forgive them, but they still need to pay some price.
Absolutely! I had a child out of wedlock! I know that God loves me very much, but I have definately been disciplined by Him for that! I chose to not go His way, and I am reaping what I have sowed. I have told Him that I am very sorry, and I know that He already forgave me. He already knew I was going to do that.
God has been there every waking moment with me throughout these very tough years, but it hasn’t been easy. That I think is the discipline part…not following His ways and having a more difficult time getting through life because of my choice not to follow Him. He forgave me already because He already knew what I was going to do, and His love and mercy for me continues.
I definately learned from that experience, and have passed down what I have learned, and STRESSED it with my child, so that he can learn from my mistake of not following God’s ways.
sorry…I forgot to italicize the first paragraph in the 7:53 pm post above. The first paragraph was from mk…
Purgatory to me (us) is not a punishment so much as a way to purify ourselves. While I don’t look forward to the unpleasantness of it, I DO look forward to the preparation I will need to be so pure, so clean, “perfect”, so that I can stand in front of Him.
Think of your wedding day. You were meeting your bridegroom at the altar. Didn’t you have your hair done, and your nails and your dress and everything “just perfect” to meet him? This is how I want to be for Jesus when I meet Him. The church (me) IS His bride. And as a bride, I want to look (be) perfect for the wedding day! Sure the curlers hurt, and the shoes pinched…but it was all worth it. Purgatory will also have it’s down side, but when it’s over, I will be READY to meet my bridegroom.
not yelling, but shouting it from the rooftops….YOU ALREADY ARE!!!
You have been perfected through Him already!
Hebrews 10:14
For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
You accepted his offering, right? You ARE perfected FOR EVER! You have been sanctified by His blood! Isn’t that GREAT NEWS! That is Gospel of Jesus Christ! WOW!
Paragraph #5
Luke 16:19-31 – in this story, we see that the dead rich man is suffering but still feels compassion for his brothers and wants to warn them of his place of suffering. But there is no suffering in heaven or compassion in hell because compassion is a grace from God and those in hell are deprived from God’s graces for all eternity. So where is the rich man? He is in purgatory.
Bethany explained it beautifully in her February 26, 2008 8:25 AM post.
I first understood it (finally) after reading this about a year ago.
http://havefaith.org/new_page_14a.htm
Honestly, it really helped!
Paragraph #6
1 Cor. 15:29-30 – Paul mentions people being baptized on behalf of the dead, in the context of atoning for their sins (people are baptized on the dead
Paragraph #7
Phil. 2:10 – every knee bends to Jesus, in heaven, on earth, and “under the earth” which is the realm of the righteous dead, or purgatory.
The actual verse reads:
Philippians 2:10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
Taken in full context, it reads:
Philippians 2:5-11
5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
There is power and glory in the name of Jesus. He is exalted above all. Every knee shall bow to Him and every tongue will confess that He is Lord. I believe that
Paragraph #8
2 Tim. 1:16-18 – Onesiphorus is dead but Paul asks for mercy on him
You have been perfected through Him already!
Not shouting it from the rooftops, just saying.
No I’m not. I am far from perfect.
Sorry JLM,
I have read everything you wrote, and all I can say is that it only confirmed what I belive. Every knee shall bend under the earth (hell), IN the Earth (purgatory) and in heaven.
I do read Maccabees, and find that to be a compelling passage. My understanding is that Luther didn’t like how clearly it pointed to purgatory and that that is why he eliminated it.
As he did James.
I still hold that Abraham could not compassionately have asked for mercy on his brother, because he could show no compassion if her were in hell. There is no compassion in hell.
Jesus descended into hell, simply means he descended into death. Not the “eternal fire.”
That was interesting tho about paradise.
JLM,
And then of course there are these:
II. Purification After Death By Fire
Heb. 12:29 – God is a consuming fire (of love in heaven, of purgation in purgatory, or of suffering and damnation in hell).
1 Cor. 3:10-15 – works are judged after death and tested by fire. Some works are lost, but the person is still saved. Paul is referring to the state of purgation called purgatory. The venial sins (bad works) that were committed are burned up after death, but the person is still brought to salvation. This state after death cannot be heaven (no one with venial sins is present) or hell (there is no forgiveness and salvation).
1 Cor. 3:15
JLM and Bethany,
Try to understand my confusion here…
On one hand you say, we are perfect, we are forgiven…in the other you say that when you sin, you ask God to forgive you.
On the one hand you say that you look to no one but the Holy Spirit to interpret scripture and on the other you admit that you are not fluent in Hebrew, Latin, Greek or Aramaic.
On the one hand you say we shouldn’t look to others for explanations but instead rely on the Holy Spirit, and then quote Les Feldick for explanations.
On the one hand you say that the bible is your total source of information and on the other you follow Luther and Calvin, men who completely changed the accepted view of Christianity that had been held for 1500 years. You reject purgatory, the Eucharist, Confession, the priesthood, Peters’ Chair and the 7 sacraments based on a “MAN’S” new version of the “church”…
There is no way that you read the bible, knowing nothing of Luther, and all on your own came to the conclusions that you did.
I on the other hand, admit my ignorance, lack of multi languages and am true to the teachings of Jesus as passed on, unchanaged, for two thousand years, that are found only in the Catholic church.
I can freely quote those more knowledgable than my self because I have admitted that I am not qualified to understand scripture at it’s deepest level. I accept, unchanged, what the church has taught since the first word of Genesis was written.
I look to Aquinas, and Iraneus, and Augustine and Origen, men who were “there” and who had access to the apostles, as opposed to a man that became disgruntled with the church and set about changing it to suit his tastes.
I believe that ONLY God is perfect, and that as such, His death allowed me the OPPORTUNITY to become perfected, by following Him, and following His ways. I admit that much work will need to be done on me in order to stand before Him. This is why there is no contradiction in my asking Him for Forgiveness.
So unless and until you can show me that you are following Christ, and not Luther, I have a very hard time accepting the things that you say.
Every interpretation that you give of scripture is protestant, meaning it came from a man, not Jesus.
I too get my interpretations from men, but I admit it, and I said earlier, the men I accept my interpretations from were “THERE”…
Mk, in all kindness I think that there were a lot more reasons than just purgatory that Macabees was not considered to be inspired of God… there was a lot of consideration done to make sure that it was divinely inspired or not. I know that at least one of the reasons that it was found to not be inspired by God is that it actually commends suicide in 2 Macabees 14:39-46 …. Here is the passage. I was surprised to read that it says that the man was showing manly courage by killing himself, especially in such a manner. Can you help me understand how you look at it?
39
Nicanor, to show his detestation of the Jews, sent more than five hundred soldiers to arrest him.
40
He thought that by arresting such a man he would deal the Jews a hard blow.
41
But when these troops, on the point of capturing the tower, were forcing the outer gate and calling for fire to set the door ablaze, Razis, now caught on all sides, turned his sword against himself,
42
preferring to die nobly rather than fall into the hands of vile men and suffer outrages unworthy of his noble birth.
43
In the excitement of the struggle he failed to strike exactly. So while the troops rushed in through the doors, he gallantly ran up to the top of the wall and with manly courage threw himself down into the crowd.
44
But as they quickly drew back and left an opening, he fell into the middle of the empty space.
45
Still breathing, and inflamed with anger, he got up and ran through the crowd, with blood gushing from his frightful wounds.
46
Then, standing on a steep rock, as he lost the last of his blood, he tore out his entrails and flung them with both hands into the crowd, calling upon the Lord of life and of spirit to give these back to him again. Such was the manner of his death.
Obviously, I am new to this book, but I do see it as contradictory to the principles of the Bible, which says, in 1 Cor 16-17, “16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? 17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.”
I don’t see how if God tells us not to damage our temple or to defile it, would say that it was a courageous act of this man to totally destroy his temple. Do you see where I am coming from?
JLM and Bethany,
Try to understand my confusion here…
On one hand you say, we are perfect, we are forgiven…in the other you say that when you sin, you ask God to forgive you.
MK, it is like JLM said before. We are forgiven, in the sense that nothing we do can ever take away our salvation. Yes, we can sin. But we do not have to, because we are not slaves to it anymore. I hope this makes it a little easier to understand. “For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.”
18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. 19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. 20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
On the one hand you say that you look to no one but the Holy Spirit to interpret scripture and on the other you admit that you are not fluent in Hebrew, Latin, Greek or Aramaic.
The Holy Spirit guides us, and we have to listen and study to see whether something contradicts with what the Bible clearly says or not. I have concordances freely available all over the internet where I can see the greek, hebrew, Latin, and Aramaic roots of words if I need this help.
I think you misunderstand when you think I say that we don’t need anyone else to tell us what the Bible says. That isn’t what I mean. We do need others insight on the Bible, but we have the responsibility to take what they have said, compare it to the scripture, and see whether it adds up, and is consistent with the scripture. If what they’re saying is not consistent with the scripture, and if it contradicts what the Bible says, then we should be aware of that.
There is much good in sharing our own insights with others and learning from each other. Others may be able to point out something in the Bible that we have never noticed before. But we should NEVER take someone’s word over what the Bible clearly says. If they are saying something that contradicts the Bible, then it is not right.
It has to add up with the Bible. “Let God be true, but every man a liar”
On the one hand you say that the bible is your total source of information and on the other you follow Luther and Calvin, men who completely changed the accepted view of Christianity that had been held for 1500 years. You reject purgatory, the Eucharist, Confession, the priesthood, Peters’ Chair and the 7 sacraments based on a “MAN’S” new version of the “church”…
Just because we follow parts of what Martin Luther and John Calvin wrote, doesn’t mean that we agree with everything they said or did. We compare each thing they said to the scripture. Anything they said which was compared to scripture and adds up, is worth listening to. Anything they say which compared to scripture does not add up, is false.
There is no way that you read the bible, knowing nothing of Luther, and all on your own came to the conclusions that you did.
I don’t know what that means? I don’t know that much about Luther unfortunately, because I didn’t pay much attention in History in school (I was homeschooled and it was part of my schooling.)
I do remember that he nailed his 95 thesis on the wall, but I never paid attention to what they were, and that’s basically all I know about him.
I should study more about him so that I could discuss this issue a little better.
I on the other hand, admit my ignorance, lack of multi languages and am true to the teachings of Jesus as passed on, unchanaged, for two thousand years, that are found only in the Catholic church.
I admit my ignorance too, Marykay. I believe that the Bible is the source of truth, not myself.
I can freely quote those more knowledgable than my self because I have admitted that I am not qualified to understand scripture at it’s deepest level. I accept, unchanged, what the church has taught since the first word of Genesis was written.
I am not qualified either, however, the Holy Spirit is, and the Bible assures me that the holy Spirit can and will teach me. And yes, that includes through preachers and teachers, who teach in accordance with the Bible:
“How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? 17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
Let me also add that I think the Bible is written in such a way that even a child should be able to understand it.
Just wanted to lighten the mood a little though- I LOVE YOU GIRLS!!!
Bethany,
What I mean by following Luther is that every protestant interpretation of the bible is because of Him. Whether you realize it or not, you are following HIS interpretations.
Can you give me an example of where you would disagree with either Luther or Calvin.
And while you can show me that the bible doesn’t expressly say the word purgatory, you haven’t given me anything that definitively negates it.
The same with the Eucharist. Or confession. Or Peter’s Chair. Or the sacraments. Or the priesthood.
I can and have given you the biblical references for all of these things, then shown that it was accepted church teaching for 1500 years, and still you say, no, You know better. I just don’t get it.
Can you give me an example of where you would disagree with either Luther or Calvin.
Well, you said that Luther tried to remove James from the Bible. That his followers put it back. Obviously, not only do I disagree with him there if this is what he did, but his followers must have as well.
I am just starting to learn about John Calvin, so I really don’t know as of yet.
I don’t base my beliefs on either of these men, but soley on the Bible itself.
And while you can show me that the bible doesn’t expressly say the word purgatory, you haven’t given me anything that definitively negates it.
The Bible doesn’t say anything about the rapture either, but there are those who will say that certain verses imply it is going to happen in our near future. I don’t agree that it is a Biblical belief…I believe that Jesus meant it when He said, “But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.” and “this generation shall not pass, till all things be fulfilled” (Mat 24:34).
Theres a lot more to that, but I can tell you, it was very easy to see “rapture” in passages like Matthew 24 when I went along with what the church taught me, as opposed to simply taking the Bible at face value. It was very easy to say, it is there, even though it wasn’t. Not for us, in this day and age.
Do you see what I’m trying to get at ?
Absolutely. We don’t accept the rapture either. But you can see how easy it would be. The idea of the rapture came from men messing with the accepted teachings.
Church fathers accepted purgatory. They did not accept this rapture theory.
I really wish you read more Catholic interpretations. Let me know what you think.
Especially the ones on the Eucharist, Confession and the priesthood.
I bet you’d be surprised to find that you agreed with much of it.
Accepted teachings which disagreed with the Bible, and contradicted the Bible, Marykay.
The idea was invented as a joke by some guy (can’t remember his name now), and then someone took it seriously, I believe, and it took off from there.
Scofield wrote about it in his commentaries. People started trusting in the word of man, rather than adhering to the word of God.
This was the mistake, Marykay.
2 Timothy 4:3-5:
My point was not about the rapture contradicting the teachings of man, it was about it contradicting the plain and clear word of God…that’s what I’m trying to get at.
Just as I feel that purgatory is based on an assumption, and based on some verses, which do not specifically support it.
That is how I feel the rapture idea was supported too. Believe me, those who believe the Rapture is true, they can cite lots of verses which -out of their context- can definitely appear to mean what they want it to mean.
Purgatory is not expressed in the Bible clearly, yet the idea that we die and immediately are either with the Lord or in Hell is expressed in the Bible many times.
I simply cannot trust that a person’s teachings are correct unless they add up with the scripture. I just can’t. The Bible is the ONLY book that I feel is absolutely true, every part. No other book can compare.
If I read someone’s commentary, if I listen to a preacher, I ALWAYS compare what they have said with the scripture because it is the only way that I will know for sure that they are on the right track. If I allow my desires to control what I believe the Bible says, then I would be wrong to do so.
Arg, I know probably I have a lot of people angry with me now…I just want you to know how I feel./ I promise no offense is intended. I love you all.
I still hold that Abraham could not compassionately have asked for mercy on his brother, because he could show no compassion if her were in hell. There is no compassion in hell.
I know there is weeping and gnashing of teeth and that the worm dieth not, and all of that, but I do not remember a passage (but I definitely could have missed it) about there being no compassion or remorse in hell. Are you absolutely sure about that?
One thing that bothers me, MK, and this is what scares me about what Catholics believe. (I hope you will never take personal offense to how I feel about the beliefs of the Catholic church).
You basically believe that pretty much everyone is going to be burning in an intense fire, no matter what. That is, unless somehow they have worked hard enough and been good enough people that they can go straight to heaven without going to purgatory (as Bobby said in his 9:04 post). (and who can do that, since the Bible says that even if you keep the whole law perfectly, but offend in one point, you’re guilty of the whole law?)
If I believed that purgatory was in my future after death, even if later I would be rewarded by Heaven, I would be absolutely TERRIFIED to die. Because by ONE sin, I am guilty of them ALL.
Jesus promised me that I will have no more condemnation. That there will be no punishment, no need for more cleansing, that his payment was sufficient for all of that. But purgatory teaches that his grace is not sufficient to cleanse us from all sin, but that we must be purged after we die still to remove our attachment to sin, from what I have learned this last week.
I would be absolutely scared out of my mind if I thought that no matter what I did, if I died before I was able to go to a confession and get rid of some sin I had committed that day, that I would have to go to what is basically Hell, even if it is temporary. That would scare the living daylights out of me.
For God did not give us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind.
If I believed that purgatory and a lake of fire – even just a temporary one- was imminent in my future (and believe me, it would be, because I am no where near perfect- that is, my flesh), I would be scared out of my mind and be terrified of dying. What a scary concept to me!
Can you possibly understand why that view bothers me?
Before yesterday, I actually thought that Catholics believed purgatory was a place where you have to sit around and just wait- just an empty hollow place without God. It was a vague understanding but that is about how much I had known about it.
But now I know that you believe it’s a lake of fire..that the sins are literally burned away off of your body, isn’t that scary to you?
Bethany & mk,
Ok. I’m a huge believer in the rapture, and am very curious how you would interpret these verses.
I Thessalonians 4:13-17
13But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.
14For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.
15For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
16For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
17Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
and these:
1 Corinthians 15:51-52
51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
I’ve always believed this on the basis of the book of Revelations, that there are three parts to the last days. I believe that God has to pull (rapture) His church (believers) out of the way, first, before He can pour out his wrath (bowls), during the 7-year tribulation. Why would he want to pour his wrath out on believers? We have been perfected by Him? We are clothed in His love. For the rapture to not be “real”, would make many verses in the bible seem contradictory to me, IMO.
mk,
I promised you that I would respond to each verse that you posted, and that it will take me a great deal of time to do so. (you added more, now! oh no!)
I do keep my promises, however, if you would like for me to cease my responses, please let me know. I don’t want to offend or upset you. I’m not trying to “convert” you, I am simply trying to explain why I believe what I do, according the the scriptures I read.
I must say, though, that I thoroughly enjoy discussing the Word of God. I learn more every time I do so. So for that, I thank you.
Bethany & mk,
Ok. I’m a huge believer in the rapture, and am very curious how you would interpret these verses.
I Thessalonians 4:13-17
13But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.
14For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.
15For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
16For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
17Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
and these:
1 Corinthians 15:51-52
51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
Yes! I agree….I don’t know exactly how to explain this where you will understand…I’ll try though…. I do believe that there is going to be a moment where Jesus gathers us all up in the end. but what I don’t believe is that the tribulation period is in our future. I believe that happened in the destruction of Jerusalem.
If I may, can I recommend two books which really helped explain it to me. The books are, “End Times Fiction”, and “Last Days Madness”, by Gary DeMar. You may not agree with the content of the books, but I would ask that you at least take a look at them to see what you think about them. From my perspective it is very Biblically sound, using comparing scripture with scripture to help understand what the texts in Matthew 24 and others like it mean (those were always the most perplexing verses for me when I was pre-millenialist)
It was very difficult for me at first, to change my mind on these views, because they are what I had been taught all my life. But I had always been confused by the fact that Jesus repeatedly said that all of those tribulations would happen within that generation. I remember asking my mom about it and my pastor, and the only thing they would say, was that “Jesus didn’t really mean it like that”.
You have no idea how tormented I was while I believed the tribulation was coming soon. My mom made me watch those “Left behind” movies from the 70’s, and they scared the daylights out of me. People having their heads cut off and all of that.
I remember thinking all the time, every time it was quiet around me, that I had been “left behind”, and that even though I had asked Jesus to save me, that He hadn’t, and that I was doomed to have the mark of the beast on my hand or to have my head chopped off.
I remember my mom sent me to the grocery store across the street one time and when I got back, she was hiding in the closet. I couldn’t find her and I started screaming, “NOOO!!! DON’T LEAVE ME PLEASE DON’T LEAVE ME BEHIND!” and I was sobbing hysterically by the time she came out and said it was just a joke she was trying to play.
I remember laying beside the door of my parents bedroom every night, trying desperately to hear them breathing, because if I didn’t hear them breathing, they might be gone, and I might be alone. I cried and prayed to God to save me every night, and just didn’t feel saved.
And whenever I was in a grocery store, if I lost sight of my mom, I would panic.
I feel that all of this fear and confusion was of the devil. Now I realize that my experience doesn’t necessarily make the belief that the tribulation period is coming in the future, untrue.
However, I now see no Biblical basis for the idea that a tribulation period is imminent in our future. I believe that that has already happened.
If you’ll read those books I told you about, I would love for you to give me your insight on them. I do appreciate your point of view, absolutely and I think that you’ll be able to tell whether it is Biblically sound or not.
I still go to a church which believes in pre-millennialism ..and my mom and dad still do believe in that. It’s very scary to tell anyone that I don’t though because I feel like they will be angry with me (that probably has a lot to do with my mom’s reaction when I started changing my mind on it. Suffice it to say, she wasn’t pleased.) I never even thought I’d bring it up here, to be honest. I am not quite sure why I did at all.
Here are links to the books on Amazon. You may want to start with End times fiction, if you are interested, as it’s much cheaper (only about 3.00 for a used copy):
http://www.amazon.com/Last-Days-Madness-Obsession-Modern/dp/0915815354/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1204132163&sr=1-1
http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0785266429/ref=sr_1_olp_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1204132144&sr=1-2
Bethany,
Thank you so much for the links for those books. I’m going to order them today and I’ll get back to you after I read them. Please be patient, though. I’m a VERY slow reader. My mind is constantly wandering, so it’s hard for me to concentrate while reading!
That is so funny (not really, though) that you had those fears when you were younger. I did too!
I’m sorry your mom had that reaction when you told her. It’s difficult sometimes when we don’t agree with what our parents tell us, especially when it comes to their teaching of spiritual things!
However, I now see no Biblical basis for the idea that a tribulation period is imminent in our future. I believe that that has already happened.
I agree that we really don’t know when the tribulation period is going to be close. I believe that it hasn’t come yet. Although it may seem like it from “signs of the times”, it could always get worse!
I hate to always post this link, but the way that Les explains things is so easy for my pea-sized brain to understand. The end times were always really confusing for me, but after I read these, it really cleared ALOT of things up for me. Check it out, if you’d like. I’d really like to hear what you think about it.
http://havefaith.org/ Read all of the links under Part D-The End Times.
Thanks for resonding, Bethany! I’m off to Amazon to buy those books!
:)
That is so funny (not really, though) that you had those fears when you were younger. I did too!
oh my goodness, what a relief!
and I am so happy you’ll be taking a look at the books. Take all the time you need. (hugs)
I’ll check out your link. Thanks! :)
hugs back, Bethany!
I know there is weeping and gnashing of teeth and that the worm dieth not, and all of that, but I do not remember a passage (but I definitely could have missed it) about there being no compassion or remorse in hell. Are you absolutely sure about that?
By defintion there can’t be. There is nothing of God in hell, compassion is good, all that is good is of God, so there can’t be compassion.
Those souls are probably gnashing and moaning because they are ticked off, not because they would change their mind if they could. They are not sorry for their sins, or sorry for offending God, they are only sorry that their options are gone…as in, they are stuck there.
Ooops, I need to add, I didn’t mean that it was a relief that you had to go through all of that as a child- I wouldn’t wish that kind of worry on my worst enemy. I meant that it’s so nice to know that I wasn’t alone in that. That it wasn’t just me that had those feelings, and those fears!
JLM,
No, don’t stop answering. I too am learning. I didn’t realize how very fundamentally different our beliefs were. I didn’t realize that we view grace differently, forgiveness differently, sin differently..etc.
If nothing else, it makes me realize that are premises are not the same, so any ensuing discussions are gonna be pretty tricky.
I’m glad you’re not trying to convert but rather explain. Sometimes I have gotten a different feeling.
As I said, I have wondered whether you even think that Catholics are Christian. You have said that we worship idols and follow a false “Prophet” (the pope) and it felt like in your eyes, that was disqualifying us.
Thank you for your response, mk!
I believe that God put us in this life to learn and prepare us for living in His Kingdom for eternity. So, this life, at least to me, is one BIG learning process. I don’t believe that learning will cease until we are with Him in Heaven.
I agree that we have HUGE differences on many aspects of our faiths. I’m truly sorry if you ever got the idea that I wanted to convert you. Like I stated in a previous post, if I believe what I believe and don’t share it, what kind of person would I be? If I didn’t love, I wouldn’t care, and I wouldn’t share.
I’m still learning, mk, about the Catholic faith. I’ll admit, and please don’t take offense, that there is doubt to the actual belief in Jesus. I mean, (for many reasons other than this) if you truly believe in what Jesus did on the cross, which is the only way to salvation, how can you possibly believe in purgatory?
However, I am learning, through your words, what the belief is. I don’t agree, but it is clarifying things for me. And trust me, I do continually pray that God gives me insight into this also.
God bless you, mk!!!
(hugs)
Bethany,
LOL. Yes, I can understand your fears. No I am not afraid.
I have read accounts of Saints that have seen purgatory. I think the burning is more of an “illustration”.
It is miserable yes, but because you are not yet with God, but are so close, AND because you see yourself as God sees you for the first time…you see how very far from perfect you are.
I know we use the word punishment…but it’s not punishment as in “YOU ARE BAD, YOU MUST BE PUNISHED” I take no pleasure in punishing my kids when they tick me off, but you do it for their sake. When I made Johnny sit on the chair yesterday for 10 minutes, it wasn’t because I was punishing him per se, but rather that I was trying to get him to think about leaving his backpack laying around. AGAIN! And trooper that he is, he never even questioned me. In a way, after the ten minutes was up, he could start with a clean slate. He “made up” for his carelessness and could look me in the eye again.
Had I just hung up his backpack for him, or made him do it but not made him “sit”, he’d forget tomorrow also. I did it because I love him.
God will cleanse me for the same reason. He loves me. He wants to remove, not just atone, for my imperfections.
In some of the saints visions they spoke of liars having their tongues burning and wanting just a drop of water. Or thiefs having their hands burning…some saints just talked about a deep lonliness and grayness…
There are also ways to pay the temporal price for our sins now…offering up our suffering, prayer…I can tell you that the suffering I felt watching my Tommy go into a psychotic state will be 10 times worse than a burning tongue. But because I accepted it and offered it up, it will probably take care of some of my “purgatory time”.
Sometimes I think I would rather have had a “tongue on fire”…
Does that help at all?
And I will tell you, the beauty, the peace, the passion I feel about the Eucharist, offsets any fear I could possibly have. I trust that what will be done, is what must be done. If the peace of heaven is even one drop as beautiful (and I’m sure it will 5 millions times greater) than the peace I feel when I receive Jesus at mass on Sunday, then I welcome whatever I have to do to get there.
JLM,
I can’t tell you how much I appreciate that hug. At one point you stopped talking to me, and I couldn’t for the life of me figure out what I’d done.
I understand that both of us really believe in what we are saying and one of us must be not “as right” and that can shake up our world.
We must never lose sight of the fact that Jesus/God is the MOST IMPORTANT part of the picture. For Catholics as well. (Well, Catholics that know their faith anyway). He is always first. He is always only. There is nothing else.
*Hugs* back. That felt good.
Awww great cyber-hug! :)
your hug back feels pretty good, too!
Bethany,
Too cute!!!
Bethany,
I know we use the word punishment…but it’s not punishment as in “YOU ARE BAD, YOU MUST BE PUNISHED” I take no pleasure in punishing my kids when they tick me off, but you do it for their sake. When I made Johnny sit on the chair yesterday for 10 minutes, it wasn’t because I was punishing him per se, but rather that I was trying to get him to think about leaving his backpack laying around. AGAIN! And trooper that he is, he never even questioned me. In a way, after the ten minutes was up, he could start with a clean slate. He “made up” for his carelessness and could look me in the eye again.
I understand your analogy, but a punishment that happens after death would not be a natural consequence of that sin. It would be a supernaturally imposed consequence which would mean that God is making you literally pay for your sins.
If you make johnny sit in a chair, you are making him pay for his sin of laziness. If God let you sit in purgatory and have a burning arm, leg, tongue, whatever, that is a punishment.
“Punishment is the practice of imposing something unpleasant or aversive on a person or animal in response to an unwanted or disobedient behavior.”
Had I just hung up his backpack for him, or made him do it but not made him “sit”, he’d forget tomorrow also. I did it because I love him.
Again, that makes it a punishment. Something that he has to correct about himself. Something that he should work at to prevent that punishment from happening again. God says that it is not our works that justify, cleanse, redeem, or remove our sins at all. It is only through the blood of Christ that those sins can be removed. And once they are removed, they are truly “gone”. As far as the east is from the west. Even the sins you haven’t committed yet. They are forgiven. You are still His child, you will still live in Heaven, but of course you will suffer natural consequences of your sins on earth. The wages of sin is DEATH. The gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
This means that the final payment, the FINAL one that we have to pay for our sins, that is death.
1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus made me free from the law of sin and of death. 3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
10 And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the spirit is life because of righteousness.
And here, read this part especially:
18 For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed to us-ward.
Our sufferings that we endure…those are on earth. They are not in some place between Heaven and earth. The Bible says that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.
Jesus said to the thief on the cross, “today you shall be with me in paradise”.
God will cleanse me for the same reason. He loves me. He wants to remove, not just atone, for my imperfections.
This is where we do not agree with one another. I believe that Jesus not only atoned for our sins, but removed them from us, as far as the east is from the west. God will not punish us according to our transgressions, as it says in Psalms:
8 The LORD is merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and plenteous in mercy.
9 He will not always chide: neither will he keep his anger for ever.
10 He hath not dealt with us after our sins; nor rewarded us according to our iniquities.
11 For as the heaven is high above the earth, so great is his mercy toward them that fear him.
12 As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us.
13 Like as a father pitieth his children, so the LORD pitieth them that fear him.
14 For he knoweth our frame; he remembereth that we are dust.
There are also ways to pay the temporal price for our sins now…offering up our suffering, prayer…I can tell you that the suffering I felt watching my Tommy go into a psychotic state will be 10 times worse than a burning tongue. But because I accepted it and offered it up, it will probably take care of some of my “purgatory time”.
Sometimes I think I would rather have had a “tongue on fire”…
Wow, Marykay, I’m sorry you had to deal with something so awful.
1 Cor. 3:15
Eph 2:8-9 “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.”
Think about this verse for a moment. Suppose you got to go directly to Heaven and completely bypass purgatory, because before you died you had gone to confession and you had done a great work for God, and therefore, you had not sinned again before you died.
You could then boast that this was due to your righteousness, that you had gotten to Heaven without having to first receive a punishment through purgatory. Where is Jesus glory in purgatory? Jesus glory is lost in purgatory, because it puts the emphasis on the works of the person.
Jesus said that we have no attachment to sin except through our flesh, which is shed completely when we die our physical death.
Once our body dies, our attachment to sin is absolutely gone. We are given a new body, which is perfect and entire, immortal and sinless.
I have decided to use the New Life Translation to show you the following verses. It makes it even simpler to understand what I’m trying to explain:
1 Corinthians 5
1 Our body is like a house we live in here on earth. When it is destroyed, we know that God has another body for us in heaven. The new one will not be made by human hands as a house is made. This body will last forever. 2 Right now we cry inside ourselves because we wish we could have our new body which we will have in heaven. 3 We will not be without a body. We will live in a new body. 4 While we are in this body, we cry inside ourselves because things are hard for us. It is not that we want to die. Instead, we want to live in our new bodies. We want this dying body to be changed into a living body that lasts forever. 5 It is God Who has made us ready for this change. He has given us His Spirit to show us what He has for us.
6 We are sure of this. We know that while we are at home in this body we are not with the Lord. 7 Our life is lived by faith. We do not live by what we see in front of us. 8 We are sure we will be glad to be free of these bodies. It will be good to be at home with the Lord. 9 So if we stay here on earth or go home to Him, we always want to please Him. 10 For all of us must stand before Christ when He says who is guilty or not guilty. Each one will receive pay for what he has done. He will be paid for the good or the bad done while he lived in this body.
11 Because of this, we know the fear of God. So we try to get men to put their trust in Christ. God knows us. I hope that your hearts know me well also. 12 We do not want to sound as if we think we are so important. Instead, we are making it easy for you to be proud of us. In that way, you will be able to tell them about us. They always talk about the way people look, but do not care about their hearts. 13 Are we crazy to talk like this? It is all because of what God has done. If we are using our minds well, it is for you. 14 For the love of Christ puts us into action. We are sure that Christ died for everyone. So, because of that, everyone has a part in His death. 15 Christ died for everyone so that they would live for Him. They should not live to please themselves but for Christ Who died on a cross and was raised from the dead for them.
16 So from now on, we do not think about what people are like by looking at them. We even thought about Christ that way one time. But we do not think of Him that way anymore. 17 For if a man belongs to Christ, he is a new person. The old life is gone. New life has begun. 18 All this comes from God. He is the One Who brought us to Himself when we hated Him. He did this through Christ. Then He gave us the work of bringing others to Him. 19 God was in Christ. He was working through Christ to bring the whole world back to Himself. God no longer held men’s sins against them. And He gave us the work of telling and showing men this. 20 We are Christ’s missionaries. God is speaking to you through us. We are speaking for Christ and we ask you from our hearts to turn from your sins and come to God. 21 Christ never sinned but God put our sin on Him. Then we are made right with God because of what Christ has done for us.
1 Cor. 3:15
Especially when I’ve been on the computer all day! lol
I think I better get off here finally and get some work done (and run some errands in town.)
Bethany & mk,
Between the last two posts, it got me thinking.
If purgatory is real, what exactly would burn there if we get new bodies in Heaven? (The incorruptible kind.)
Would the our current bodies burn?
There’s no use, then because we’re getting new ones anyway.
Would the soul burn?
Here’s something I found, mk, regarding the gold, silver, fire, etc. I think it fits in beautifully, if I can show you: (my thoughts are in italics)
1 Peter 1:5-9
5 who through faith are shielded by God’s power until the coming of the salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time. 6 In this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while you may have had to suffer grief in all kinds of trials. 7These have come so that your faith?of greater worth than gold, (your faith is of greater worth than gold!) which perishes even though refined by fire(you are not refined by fire, gold is. Refined gold will still perish, but your faith, hopefully will not)?may be proved (by maintaining your faith throughout your troubles and trials)genuine and may result in praise, glory and honor when Jesus Christ is revealed.
8Though you have not seen him, you love him; and even though you do not see him now, you believe in him and are filled with an inexpressible and glorious joy,
9for you are receiving the goal of your faith, the salvation of your souls. you need to have GENUINE faith in order to receive salvation
Do you see that?
hey, if you guys can modify my above post to take off the bold after “suffer grief in all kinds of trials.”, I’d appreciate it. I forgot to “turn it off”….silly me!
Thanks!
:)
Oh, that’s just wonderful! I love to see members of the body of Christ helping each other. As much as we disagree about, there is much more that we do hold in common. God love you, LJM and Bethany.
God love you too, Bobby! And you Marykay! And you JLM. :) I hope you all have a wonderful evening!
you too, Bethany!
Paragraph #9:
Heb. 12:14 – without holiness no one will see the Lord. We need final sanctification to attain true holiness before God, and this process occurs during our lives and, if not completed during our lives, in the transitional state of purgatory.
We need to take a look at the verses that precede verse # 14 for context:
Hebrews 12:1-2
1Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us,
2Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.
Paragraph #10
Heb. 12:23 – the spirits of just men who died in godliness are “made” perfect. They do not necessarily arrive perfect. They are made perfect after their death. But those in heaven are already perfect, and those in hell can no longer be made perfect. These spirits are in purgatory.
The preceding verses, again, are what we need to take a look at here, along with one after. I
Paragraph #11:
1 Peter 3:19; 4:6 – Jesus preached to the spirits in the “prison.” These are the righteous souls being purified for the beatific vision.
The verses in context: (KJV)
18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: topic for another day?
22 Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.
I believe that the spirits that he preached to in prison, were the one
mk,
I’ll get to the final three tomorrow. (my fingers are going to either fall off, or carpal tunnel (sp?) will set in!
The one’s on Revelation I have WAY too much to say about!
Have a wonderful evening & God bless.
one last hug for the road…..
Good night !
OOPS! I
Paragraph #12
Rev. 21:4 – God shall wipe away their tears, and there will be no mourning or pain, but only after the coming of the new heaven and the passing away of the current heaven and earth. Note the elimination of tears and pain only occurs at the end of time. But there is no morning or pain in heaven, and God will not wipe away their tears in hell. These are the souls experiencing purgatory.
1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.
6 And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.
Clearly, John was describing what he saw in his vision. In verse 4, the former things, (that come when the new heaven and earth are created) that he knows of on earth, (he is living on earth at the time he wrote this) will not be there in heaven. He knows of great sorrow, tears, pain and death on earth. He is living in it right now at this time that he is writing his vision down! But in this vision he sees, he sees that there is no more suffering. No more suffering or tears or pain or death for the living on earth when the new heaven is created. This comes after the 1000 year reign of Christ here on earth. When the 1000 years have ended, this earth, heaven and the sea will be no more (verse 1) and a new heaven and new earth were created.
Now, picture yourself seeing this vision. You want to tell your husband and kids right away what you saw. You gather them all around you and you say to them,
Paragraph #13:
Rev. 21:27 – nothing unclean shall enter heaven. The word
Paragraph #14
Luke 23:43
Paragraph #15
Gen. 50:10; Num. 20:29; Deut. 34:8 – here are some examples of ritual prayer and penitent mourning for the dead for specific periods of time. The Jewish understanding of these practices was that the prayers freed the souls from their painful state of purification, and expedited their journey to God.
Genesis 50:10 And they came to the threshingfloor of Atad, which is beyond Jordan, and there they mourned with a great and very sore lamentation: and he made a mourning for his father seven days.
Numbers 20:29 And when all the congregation saw that Aaron was dead, they mourned for Aaron thirty days, even all the house of Israel.
Deuteronomy 34:8 And the children of Israel wept for Moses in the plains of Moab thirty days: so the days of weeping and mourning for Moses were ended.
I don
okay, fingers are cramped! Must stop for the night! I’ll finish up tomorrow evening.
Hey, just in time for the next weekend question!!!
John: God doesn’t necessarily think as you do (He is not in a Cartesian box you are!) You just cannot seem to fathom that God is not some kind of mental construct.
Doesn’t matter – whether construct or not – the same logic applies. You say “Cartesian box” yet in reality your box is smaller than mine – mine includes people both religious and non-religious. The exact manner of a god’s thinking would not matter. If what we think of as our future is known to another entity, then we do not have free will.
……
We discussed this before but the surest and easiest way to dismiss the notion that all-is-just-a-dream, is pain. A good swift kick in the groin very quickly snaps a person out of dream existence, another is the need for food or breath, or the need to pee.
No, John, for dreams can seem real. If anything I’d say that conscious beings cannot be sure they won’t later “wake up” and find that their experience to that time was akin to a dream. That said, you and I don’t disagree on most things, and we share many assumptions.
……
There is only ‘is-ness’/now. What we call reality is a construct of two realms: actuality + virtuality. Actuality is God’s domain and is this ‘now’ universe …. the virtuality is man’s mental domain of memories and imagination. Much too often we believe the now occurs only in its transition to ‘was’. This transition then is not tangible because thoughts are not tangible.
Far-out, Man….
……
It’s the old ‘did the tree falling in the forest make a sound?’. Well ‘yes’ and ‘no’ – the tree does make pressure waves, but it is our brain’s hearing apparatus that translates these waves into ‘sound’.
So yes it made a sound, but it did not make noise, which is dependent on a receiver. “Sound” doesn’t have to have our brains.
……
We often are like the little kid who closes his eyes and because he can’t see then he disappears. The act of ‘growing-up’ is the movement from illusions of being creator (flying) to accepting and rollicking in the fact that “I am a created being’.”
Growing up can be realizing that Santa Clause, the Tooth Fairy, and other supernatural and imaginary stuff is not real.
…..
Freedom does not come from selection of options (virtuality) but through the power of love/peace (actuality) …. to become one – in another …. space; time etc are of small consequence. As is thoughts of predestination. Doesn’t mean very much at all except to the kid holding his breath to impress others with superior reasoning (virtuality) skills.
It is not “love” to take away women’s freedom.
……
I really find it funny that St. John refers to the ‘Logos’ … (mind of God), which we translate as the ‘Word’. Yet PC’ers demand ‘logic’ from PL’ers without a reference to God.
Where, really, do you see those “demands”? Heck, my opinion is – “say what you want, but don’t expect a pregnant woman to do what you say, necessarily.”
yllas: It is hard to believe that Doug is still totally under the sway of his parent’s religion to this day.
For most people other than you, probably, yllas, because while you are often nonsensical, they are not.
My parents would have some pity for you, but also feel you are damaged goods, as evidenced by your behavior here. They would think you a bigot.
“One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.”
I know there are wonderful Catholic people on earth, as well as wonderful Protestants, agnostics, atheists, members of other religions, etc.
You rant and rave about atheists, Protestants, agnostics, members of other religions, really – anybody from outside your own little “tribe.” One of these days the dictionary is going to have your picture beside the entry for “bigot.”
In the meantime…..
Paragraph #16
Baruch 3:4 – Baruch asks the Lord to hear the prayers of the dead of Israel. Prayers for the dead are unnecessary in heaven and unnecessary in hell. These dead are in purgatory.
Paragraph #17
Zech. 9:11 – God, through the blood of His covenant, will set those free from the waterless pit, a spiritual abode of suffering which the Church calls purgatory.
Zechariah 9:11
As for thee also, by the blood of thy covenant I have sent forth thy prisoners out of the pit wherein is no water.
As for thee -that is, the daughter of Zion,” or “Jerusalem”
Zecharaih 9:9
Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass).
The “thee also,” in contradistinction to Messiah spoken of in Zec 9:10
10: And I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim, and the horse from Jerusalem, and the battle bow shall be cut off: and he shall speak peace unto the heathen: and his dominion shall be from sea even to sea, and from the river even to the ends of the earth.
This implies that besides cutting off the battle-bow and extending Messiah’s “dominion to the ends of the earth,” God would also deliver for her her exiled people from their foreign captivity.
by the blood of thy covenant-that is, according to the covenant vouchsafed to thee on Sinai, and ratified by the blood of sacrifices:
Exodus 24:8
And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words;
and
Hebrews 9:18-20
18 Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.
19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,
20 Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.
pit wherein . no water-Dungeons were often pits without water, miry at the bottom, such as Jeremiah sank in when confined:
Genesis 37:23-24
23 And it came to pass, when Joseph was come unto his brethren, that they stript Joseph out of his coat, his coat of many colours that was on him;
24 And they took him, and cast him into a pit: and the pit was empty, there was no water in it.
And
Paragraph #18 (final)
2 Macc. 12:43-45 – the prayers for the dead help free them from sin and help them to the reward of heaven. Those in heaven have no sin, and those in hell can no longer be freed from sin. They are in purgatory. Luther was particularly troubled with these verses because he rejected the age-old teaching of purgatory. As a result, he removed Maccabees from the canon of the Bible.
Again, I don’t read the Maccabees, but here’s what I noticed: (Please also see my February 26, 2008 9:21 PM post for more on the Maccabees)
2 Maccabees 12:43-46
43 He then took up a collection among all his soldiers, amounting to two thousand silver drachmas, which he sent to Jerusalem to provide for an expiatory sacrifice. (a sacrifice is a sin-offering
I don
Doug,
Growing up can be realizing that Santa Clause, the Tooth Fairy, and other supernatural and imaginary stuff is not real.
No, growing up is realizing that Santa Clause and the Tooth fairy are not real, but that other supernatural “stuff” is…the part that makes you a grownup is the ability to discern the difference.
JLM,
That is quite a radical change, don’t you think?
What makes you think that the Catholics changed it and not the protestants?
Zech. 9:11 – God, through the blood of His covenant, will set those free from the waterless pit, a spiritual abode of suffering which the Church calls purgatory.
*
Zechariah 9:11
As for thee also, by the blood of thy covenant I have sent forth thy prisoners out of the pit wherein is no water.
**
As for thee -that is, the daughter of Zion,” or “Jerusalem”
*
Zecharaih 9:9
Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass).
As with most of Old Testament scripture there is meaning for the people of the time and meaning for us, in the future. It is a foreshadowing. Hence, the term “Prophet”
Yes the prisoners at that time will be free. But there is always a second meaning that should be read about the people of our time….post Resurrection.
@Doug,
“Growing up can be realizing that Santa Clause, the Tooth Fairy, and other supernatural and imaginary stuff is not real.”
Perhaps this is the juncture of a ‘major error’. There is little doubt that a child cannot discern differences in what is believable. However, to reject the whole of belief realities as if such amounted to nonsense, is disingenuous. For instance the beverages you like/drink as an adult are often different (repulsive at times) to those you had as a child. And yet, I do not notice any movement to ban drinking any liquid at all as ‘childish behavior’.
John
JLM,
I thought that either you or Bobby (or both) told me that you can
Fourthly, The Roman Catholic Church is not in the habit of removing from scripture that with which it disagrees. We recognize that if something in scripture is giving us pause, that the fault lies with our interpretation and not scripture itself. I find it hard to conceive how someone that holds to sola scriptura has no concerns over the fact that whole books of what was accepted scripture for 1500 can just be dumped. By those rules, I, or anyone could drop ANY book from scripture simply because we disagree with it…do you not see the contradiction?
Recently, a Lutheran pastor wrote to me. He had read material from two of my books on purgatory (and is increasingly convinced of the truthfulness of it), and was asking about this passage in particular. He asked me:
If we could nail down what the full range of experience was concerning debtor’s prison in Jesus’ day then perhaps I would find the clincher here. What I’m seeing from writings on other periods of history though is that there was little if any expectation of persons gaining freedom from debtor’s prison. Couple that with Jesus’ words in these passages which sounds like a warning to avoid debtor’s prison (because by implication it doesn’t sound like a comforting place given Jesus’ comments) I’m not sure that one can put a positive spin on “…you will not get out until you (the sinner) have paid the last penny.”
Here was my reply, in full:
My responses for now (without a great deal of additional study) would be the following:
1) First of all, there is an assumption by Jesus that it is possible to get out of this place: “you will never get out till . . . ” This motif of being able to get out of debtor’s prison is repeated by our Lord Jesus in Matt 18:30: “. . . put him in prison till he should pay the debt” (repeated in 18:34). This could not be said about hell at all, because no one can get out of hell. We wouldn’t say of, e.g., a corpse in a casket: “he will never get out of there till . . . ” To say such a thing presupposes the possibility of leaving the place. If one can’t leave, it wouldn’t be described in such a fashion. Therefore, if we apply the passage to the afterlife at all, it must refer to purgatory and not hell.
2) Secondly, purgatory is not all that “comforting.” It is a place of punishment for temporal sins, and purging. We have hope, of course, because everyone there is saved and not damned, and it may be even more pleasant than this life, for all we know, but that doesn’t make it all that “comforting” in an immediate sense, because we know from this life that purging ourselves of sins and sinful tendencies is not an easy process. We have plenty of analogies for purging in our earthly existence. So I don’t see how this is a disproof at all. If one was trying to apply the passage to heaven, I could see that, but not if it is said to be a description of purgatory.
3) As for Jesus warning us to avoid this place (purgatory, as we believe), that makes perfect sense. No one has to go to purgatory, if they achieve sufficient sanctity by God’s grace in this life. It is a good thing to avoid purgatory if we can. That’s what Jesus is saying.
4) It can’t apply to hell, either, because the “debts” are metaphorical for remaining sins on our soul. We don’t get saved from hell by paying off our debts (in Catholic theology, by penance for temporal sins). We get out by means of the redeeming work of Jesus on the cross on our behalf. It is sheer mercy, not a mere debt-paying process (because none of us could ever pay off the debt in that case). This is good Catholic theology, too, I assure you. We don’t gain salvation by our good works. That is the heresy of Pelagianism.
Jesus often uses the metaphor of “debt” for sins and the necessity of forgiveness (e.g., Mt 6:12-15, 18:23-35, Lk 7:36-50, 11:4). Therefore, it makes much more sense (granting these theological premises) that the passage refers to purgatory, since the “debts” are sins that we are still being purged of. We’re not being punished eternally in this instance for the sins, but having them purged from us because we are already saved. That’s why Jesus says that we can get out of the place or state. Again, we don’t gain heaven and eternal life by paying off debts ourselves, because this would never be sufficient. But we can gain the entrance to heaven (having already been saved by the cross and God’s mercy and forgiveness and election) by purging our sins entirely in purgatory by this painful process.
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia [a Protestant work], in its article on “Debt, Debtor” (vol. II, 814-815) states:
Debt and debtor are used in a moral sense also as indicating the obligation of a righteous life which we owe to God. To fall short in righteous living is to become a debtor. For this reason we pray, ‘Forgive us our debts’ (Mt 6:12).
Now, again, in Catholic theology, this is sensibly spoken of penance and purgatory, not of hell or of salvation. The above description fits very nicely with the Catholic (and biblical) concept of purgatory. We “owe God a righteous life”; not in order to be saved (as both Protestants and Catholics agree that we can be saved while still possessing actual sinfulness and less than perfect sanctity), but in order to (already saved) enter heaven, where no sin is allowed (Rev 21:27; implied also by the tenor and content of Isaiah 6:1-8, where the prophet Isaiah comes in contact with God).
5) Jewish tradition held to the practice of forgiving debts every seven years (Deut 15:1 ff.; cf. Ex 23:10-11, Lev 25, Neh 10:31). This was not always heeded (Amos 2:6-8, 4:1), but nevertheless, it is an indication that the notion of a debtor’s prison was not always (or usually, it seems to me) a lifetime sentence. Otherwise, Jesus simply wouldn’t talk in this manner. We must assume that His thought here represents the common understanding of that time and culture. There was also the Jubilee Year, whereby all debts were forgiven every 50th year (Lev 25:9,13,28, Num 36:4). Even slaves (enslaved due to debt) were to be freed (Lev 25:10,39). Properties were also restored to their original owners (Lev 27:17-29, 48 ff., 27:19).
6) The fact that Israelites at various times became corrupt, or that the poor were excessively oppressed by the rich and powerful (condemnations throughout the prophets), or that the Jubilee Year was not always properly observed, does not eliminate the applicability of the metaphor. Every analogy to human existence will be flawed to some extent because of human sin, but that doesn’t wipe out the principle that our Lord was trying to put across by means of these metaphors. Men might oppress unduly (including debtor’s prisons) but we know that God is just, and He will let us out when we “pay” what we owe.
7) Tertullian wrote around 212 A.D., concerning this passage:
. . . it is most fitting that the soul, without waiting for the flesh, be punished for what it did without the partnership of the flesh . . . if we understand that prison of which the Gospel speaks to be Hades, and if we interpret the last farthing to be the light offense which is to be expiated
there before the resurrection, no one will doubt that the soul undergoes some punishments in Hades, without prejudice to the fullness of the resurrection, after which recompense will be made through the flesh also.
(The Soul, 58,1)
Hope that is helpful to you! I found it a very interesting study, myself. I love delving deeper into the Bible. It is always a great blessing and a further education.
May God abundantly bless the fruitfulness of your pastoral ministry,
Dave
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2004/10/elaboration-upon-one-biblical-argument.html
mk,
Baruch 3:4 is not in any bible that Protestants read. Protestants don’t read it. This passage was changed in the Modern Roman Catholic’s bible, “The New American Bible” Who gives authority for changes in a Catholic bible?
We have said that there is no clear and explicit Scriptural text in favour of prayers for the dead, except the above text of II Machabees. Yet there are one or two sayings of Christ recorded by the Evangelists, which are most naturally interpreted as containing an implicit reference to a purgatorial state after death; and in St. Paul’s Epistles a passage of similar import occurs, and one or two other passages that bear directly on the question of prayers for the dead. When Christ promises forgiveness for all sins that a man may commit except the sin against the Holy Ghost, which “shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world nor in the world to come” (Matthew 12:31-32), is the concluding phrase nothing more than a periphrastic equivalent for “never”? Or, if Christ meant to emphasize the distinction of worlds, is “the world to come” to be understood, not of thelife after death, but of the Messianic age on earth as imagined and expected by the Jews? Both interpretations have been proposed; but the second is far-fetched and decidedly improbable (cf. Mark 3:29); while the first, though admissible, is less obvious and less natural than that which allows the implied question at least to remain: May sins be forgiven in the world to come? Christ’s hearers believed in this possibility, and, had He Himself wished to deny it, He would hardly have used a form of expression which they would naturally take to be a tacit admission of their belief. Precisely the same argument applies to the words of Christ regarding the debtor who is cast into prison, from which he shall not go out till he has paid the last farthing (Luke 12:59).
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04653a.htm
Mk,
The books that are accepted in the Roman Catholic Bible, as opposed to the Jewish or the Protestant, are Baruch, Judith, 1st & 2nd Maccabees, Sirach a.k.a. Ecclesiasticus (not to be confused with Ecclesiastes), Tobit a.k.a. Tobias, Wisdom of Solomon, as well as small additions to Daniel and Esther. Roman Catholicism generally refers to these as deuterocanonical (secondary canon) rather than apocryphal.
What is the Apocrypha? Popular works of the time that were excluded by the Rabbis because they felt that they contained an excess of non-Jewish influence. Among the works found in the Apocrypha are the two volume Books of the Maccabees, which recount the Hanukkah story. The rabbis, it is explained, opposed their inclusion in the Bible because they glorified war and the descendants of the Hasmoneans, who after their glorious cleansing of the Temple set out on a path of conquest and succumbed to non-Jewish influence.
mk,
Matthew 12:31,32
“Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man (Christ), it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world (age), neither in the world (age) to come.”
Now let’s look at a parable that explains this so beautifully in Matthew 21. Jesus is speaking again to the Jews:
Matthew 21:33,34
“Hear another parable: `There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country:'”
“And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants (to get some return on the investment that he had made) to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits (or profit) of it.”
Matthew 21:35-42
“And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another. Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise. But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, `They will reverence my son.’ But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, `This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance.’ And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him, When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen (and remember this is Jesus asking the Jew). They say unto him, `He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall r render him the fruits in their seasons.’ Jesus saith unto them, `Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?'”
Matthew 21:43-45
“Therefore say I unto you, `The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.’ And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables (plural, not just this one, but everyone that He had spoken), they perceived that he spake of them.”
They suddenly understood that Jesus was pointing His finger at them. Now what was the parable all about? God called the Nation of Israel out, and gave them the Covenant promises. He called them His son, His favored nation. And He dealt with them through the Old Testament years by sending the prophets. What did they do to the prophets? They killed them.
We always like to talk in terms of the Trinity. So let’s look at it this way. Remember the Jew only knew about God the Father. So God the Father sent the prophets to His Covenant people and they killed them, or threw them in the dungeons. They refused to hear them. Did God cancel the Nation of Israel because of that? No. God sent His only Son next, The Christ. And Christ presented Himself to the Nation of Israel, on the basis of the covenants that we have been emphasizing for months. And what did they do with the Son? They killed Him. So these Pharisees are picking up on it. He’s talking about them. And so it is in all of Jesus’ parables.
But we have one Person of the Trinity left out. The Holy Spirit. Let’s look at the Scripture that pertains to the Holy Spirit. And if you can’t go along with this, don’t worry about it. I’ve always said in my teaching there is room for you to disagree on some things, and this is one of them. But to me it makes sense in light of the fact that there is one sin that condemns us, and that is unbelief concerning the Gospel.
In other words, I maintain, someone could blaspheme the Holy Spirit tomorrow or next week and God can still save him in this Age of Grace. But let’s not lose sight of what the unpardonable sin is dealing with, and that is Israel the Nation! She is the one that is coming under this anathema of God.
Now go to Acts Chapter 6. Israel has rejected the overtures from the Father by killing the prophets. They rejected the overtures of the Son by killing The Christ. But how are they going to deal with the Holy Spirit, because here is the unpardonable part now – how they deal with third Person of the Godhead. He could forgive the first two, but not the third one. We have, in Acts Chapter 6, the appointment of seven men, normally referred to as deacons. They get the word “deacon” from the description of their duties. We find in verse 3 that the early Jewish church in Jerusalem was having some problems and so the following happened:
Acts 6:3
“Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.”
Acts 6:5
“And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost,…” Now we have the Holy Spirit mentioned twice in two verses. So Stephen comes before this whole Jewish crowd.
Acts 6:15
“And all that sat in the council, looking steadfastly on him, saw his face as it had been the face of an angel.”
What is permeating Stephen? The presence of the Holy Spirit. It was so radiant they could see the difference. Go to Chapter 7 verse 2. Now watch the language of whom Stephen is addressing:
Acts 7:2
“And he said, `Men, brethren, and fathers (all Jews), hearken; The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham,…'” Can any Gentile claim that? Of course not.
If you ever want the history of the Nation of Israel in a nutshell, read this whole chapter. It even gives a lot of little details that the Old Testament leaves out.
Acts 7:54
“And when they (these Jews) heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth.”
Acts 7:55
“But he, being full of the Holy Ghost (do you see the emphasis over and over that the Holy Spirit is on display here?), looked up steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus (not sitting but rather) standing on the right hand of God,” In a future lesson, we’ll pick up the reason these Jews got so mad when they heard Stephen say that Jesus was standing.
Acts 7:58-60
“And cast him out of the city, and stoned him: and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man’s feet, whose name was Saul. And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, `Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.’ And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, `Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep (died).'”
From this point on, what is the future as we see here in the Book of Acts concerning the Nation of Israel? All down hill. And why? Because they had now committed that unpardonable sin of not only rejecting the Father and The Son, but now had also rejected the Holy Spirit. And for nearly 2000 years, what has the Jew been going through? Suffering, turmoil, in a state of spiritual blindness. Here in America they are pretty fortunate, but overall for all this time, basically they have been going through the mill. But when this age ends and we come into the next age, which is the millennium reign, Israel is going to come into God’s goodness and Grace. If you don’t like that approach about the unpardonable sin you don’t have to agree. But for me it fits so beautifully, because we have left it in place. Notice we didn’t take it out of the Nation of Israel and try to put it in the Church Age, but left it right where it was, with the Jewish economy.
Another point I would like to make is this. After the stoning of Stephen and the Holy Spirit aspect, the next event of importance in the chronological unfolding is the conversion of what great man? Saul of Tarsus (Paul). Even though Peter will go to the house of Cornelius in Acts Chapter 10 (after Saul is converted in Chapter 9), Chapters 11 and 15 mention Peter, and from there to the end of the Book of Acts Peter is never mentioned again. Why? Israel is now falling out of all the things that God had been promising, and now here comes Paul with the Body of Christ, the predominately Gentile Church. When we study the Book of Acts, I’ll show you the transitional aspect of this Book, how God deals with His Covenant people Israel under the Law with all the Old Testament promises; and how when they rejected it, God now does something totally different – something the Old Testament knew nothing of. He turned to the Gentiles with the Apostle Paul.
http://havefaith.org/new_page_6c.htm
Christ showed us that sacrifice is the way to atone for sins by virtue of the fact that HE offered HIMSELF as the ultimate sacrifice. Surely, if we are to imitate Him, we can see that offering up suffering to atone for our own and others sins is what we are supposed to do.
Christ showed us that sacrifice is the way to atone for sins by virtue of the fact that HE offered HIMSELF as the ultimate sacrifice.
EXACTLY!!!! There IS no more need for any other type of sacrifice. Jesus sacrifice is complete! No need for ANY other. You’ve got it, mk, it just needs to “click”.
Hebrews 10:12
12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
We imitate Christ by forgiving others, thus, others see Christ in us and are led to Him through our actions.
In return, we offer Christ thanksgiving.
JLM,
You’re kidding right? The Jewish religion is a seperate religion from ours????
We are the same religion. Only we kept going. Do you think if it was a completely different and irrelevant religion, Jesus would have been born a Jew?????
Secondly,
You cannot point out that the Jewish faith cannot be used as as a resource and then in the next breath use them as a resource.
The Jews removed these books 100 years after Jesus’ death (sound familiar, Mr. Luther) after they had been accepted scripture for over 4000 years.
At the time of Our Lord and the Apostles, the Septuagint version was used by all the Jews of the dispersion, and the sacred writers of the New Testament made diligent use of a Greek version which contained the deuterocanonical books and passages. Had these not been considered inspired, surely the Apostles and disciples would have warned the early Christian readers and determined exactly the authentic catalogue of sacred books.
To prevent possible misunderstanding it must be remembered that there is a different use of the word in Protestant circles.
During the Protestant Reformation, Martin Luther and those who ultimately followed his example, removed seven books from the Old Testament, following the Torah as it had been edited by the rabbis at the Council of Jamnia (100A.D.).
http://www.cathtruth.com/catholicbible/apocryp.htm
Again, scripture as we know it came unchanged, from first the Jews and then the apostles. The changes that were made were after Jesus death on the Jews part and 1500 years after the apostles on the Christians part…
I ask you once more, how is it that you adhere to sola scriptura, but have no problem with scripture being disposable?
Hebrews 10:12
12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
*
We imitate Christ by forgiving others, thus, others see Christ in us and are led to Him through our actions.
*
In return, we offer Christ thanksgiving.
And nothing about purgatory contradicts that.
Often times I will hear pro choicers say that if you believe a woman that has been raped should not be allowed to have an abortion, then you must support rape. Obviously this is not true, and the two are mutally exclusive.
So too, your idea that we must forgive each other somehow excludes the need to atone for our sins. Jesus, to a Catholic, opened the gates to heaven. That’s all. He didn’t negate all temporal punishment. He simply made it possible for all people to enter into His Home. Believing in purgatory does not negate His death, His resurrection or the fact that He died for our sins. He took away death. That is the punishment that we no longer have to undergo. Death. Not temporal penance for minor sins. One is removing the thing that blocked us from entering, and one is purging ourselves of any “lingering dirt”. I do not have to die, because Jesus died for me. But I do have to be held accountable for my actions. This He did not die for.
He died so that I might live, not so that I would not have temporal consequences for my choices.
And I must clarify, what I said about the Catholic Faith and the Jewish Faith being one and the same.
Of course they are not. What I mean is that you cannot understand one without the other and you cannot seperate the two. While the actual faith is not a blending of the two religions, scripture is. If the Jews had gotten it right, there would have been no need for a new covenant, and we would indeed be the same religion. But they screwed up (more than once) and a new covenant became necessary. So while we are two separate faiths, we cannot fully embrace the new without looking at the old.
mk,
I found this article at catholic.com/therock. It is an interesting explanation of purgatory.
Purgatory
By Rev. William G. Most
The inspired writers of the Old Testament had a great perception of the majesty, the awful holiness of God. They knew that nothing defiled can stand before him. Yet we know from Paul (1 Cor. 13:12) that in heaven the soul has a vision of God, sees him face to face. That is metaphorical language (a soul has no eyes, God no face), yet it conveys awesome truth. It means the soul will know God directly.
How could that be? When we see someone on this earth, we take into our eyes and brain an image of him. That works well enough, for although any image is finite or limited, so is the person doing the imaging. But what image could make God known? None, of course. So the soul must know God without an image. This can be only if God directly joins himself to that soul, to do what an image would do in seeing others.
God will not join himself to anything defiled, yet that is precisely what Luther thought, what they think who claim infallible salvation. Luther claimed (in Epistle 501,written to Melanchthon), “Even if you sin greatly, believe more greatly.” The man may be (and really is) total corruption, according to Luther, but God does not mind that. The Holy Spirit could even dwell within total corruption, said Luther wrongly.
He thought justification was not a real cleansing–it was just that the merits of Christ, like a white cloak, would be thrown over the sins of the sinner. God would not look under the cloak, but the sinner would remain totally corrupt.
All this is impossible (nothing unclean shall enter heaven, says Revelation 20:27), so there must be some means of purgation after death, if the soul is not fully pure. There must be a purgatory.
Logically,if one follows out Luther’s fancy, a man who goes out and kills several others and then turns the gun on himself should go at once to be joined to the infinite purity of God! Luther wrote, “Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly….No sin will separate us from the Lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day.”
Judas Maccabeus was quite right in having sacrifices offered in the Temple for the souls of those fallen in battle who had sinned by wearing amulets (2 Mac. 12:42-46). But, our Protestant friends will object, that book is not in the Bible! To which we reply: A prominent Baptist professor, Gerald Burney Smith, in 1929 surveyed every means he could think of to determine which books are inspired and which are not. He found no possible way unless there would be a divinely-protected teaching authority to decide. Of course, he denied there was such an authority. He reported that Luther said that, if a book strongly preaches justification by faith, the book is inspired. But that cannot be true. Luther never proved that was the criterion, and, further, he could write such a book himself (and so could I), and it would not be inspired. Besides, many books of the Bible do not preach justification by faith at all, yet they are inspired.
Catholics have the sort of teaching authority Burney lacked. It is the Catholic Church, as we find from a study of apologetics. That teaching authority has determined that the Books of Maccabees are inspired. (Really, no Protestant should quote Scripture at all, for he has no means of determining which books are inspired –unless, of course, he accepts the authority of the Catholic Church!)
OK. I see where the discrepancies lie.
What is sin?
Sin is not trusting that God loves you and wants the best for you.
Look at Adam and Eve. God gave them everything they could ever want and need. He just told them not to eat the fruit from that one tree. Satan came along, and said that God is just trying to withold something good for them. Eve plucked the apple & took a bite. She didn’t believe that God loved her and wanted the best for her. She didn’t trust Him.
Look to the ten commandments:
Thou shalt not steal. Why would one steal something? Because they didn’t believe that God would provide for them. They didn’t trust Him.
All of the commandments that God gave to Moses to give to the people were to show them to do things His way, and they would have a life full of blessings. God wanted people to have a full, rich life and receive many blessings because He loves them. When they didn’t trust God’s way, or sinned, they were exhibiting their “Adamic nature”. The sin that we are all born with. Our inherit belief that makes us want to do things our way instead of trusting in God.
This is what God commands. That we trust in Him. Disobedience sends a message to the Lord, saying that we know better than He does when it comes to our lives and the circumstances surrounding them. This is sin. He commands our obedience, not because He is strict or mean, but because He knows the devastating effect that disobedience and sin will have on our lives.
Satan tries to tempt believers to disobey God, usually by telling them that God’s promises cannot be trusted and that we can enjoy life more thorought disobedience that by our obedience. Just like he did with Eve. This is sin.
Disobedience always has repercussions. Guilt, shame, worthlessness, broken lives, destroyed marriages, bitter disputes, prison. But sin can never change God’s eternal love for His children. God is love. Sin will disrupt our fellowship with God, and we will miss blessings because of it, but He still loves us. If we continue in a sinful life, we sink deeper and deeper into sin’s grasp (think of a drug addict here) and find it really hard to reverse our sinfulness on our own.
But when we finally realize that we can’t do it on our own, we call out to God and His mercy and love surround and envelop us.
The only payment for sin is blood. In the Old Testament, animals were sacrificed to pay for the sin. They were used as an offering to God to show Him their repentence for not following His ways (trusting Him).
When Jesus came, the moment His blood was shed, that sacrifice covered all sin. It was God’s blood. Look at a baby in the womb. The baby doesn’t get any blood from the mother. The blood comes from the father. When Mary was impregnated, it was God’s blood in the baby Jesus. This is why Jesus was born without sin. He had God’s sinless blood in Him. This is also why when he shed His blood to cover sin, it was God’s blood that paid for it.
God simply wants us to believe (trust)in Him. That is Christianity. A “believer” believes (trusts) in God and His will for them. A non-believer doesn’t believe (trust)in God’s will, instead, they do things their own way. They will never know God because they don’t have a will to know Him. Just like Satan. He knows God, but would rather do things his own way. He doesn’t trust that God knows best. He thinks he does.
God IS love. This is why I do not believe in purgatory. If one believes in God, they trust Him. From time to time we all have the urge to do things our own way and suffer the consequences for those actions here on earth. I don’t believe for a second that God would send a believer to purgatory to further punish the believer for not trusting in Him at all times. He never expected us to be perfect. He said we wouldn’t be. Only Jesus was. We suffer the consequences on earth, not after we die. It’s believing in what Jesus did on the cross, trusting God that His blood would be the final offering of sin that would set us free from the penalty of death (resurrection).
Unbelievers will suffer an absence from God for eternity. That was their choice. To do things on their own without God. So be it, they will not have Him for eternity.
JLM,
I trust that you are not calling me an unbeliever, and hope that you are not saying that I don’t trust in God. That would be a total falsehood.
That being said, once again, I agree with this:
It’s believing in what Jesus did on the cross, trusting God that His blood would be the final offering of sin that would set us free from the penalty of death (resurrection).
He set us free from the penalty of DEATH.
And here you show that you actually understand the concept of purgatory…
He never expected us to be perfect. He said we wouldn’t be. Only Jesus was.
Whether you know it or not, you have just justified the need for purgatory.
He died to free us from DEATH. But we remain imperfect. While His death allowed us the possiblity of entering heaven and standing in His presence, it did not stop us from being imperfect.
Yes He opened the door. But to walk through it, we must be perfected.
His death did not make us perfect. It made us free. His death did not make us sinless. It made us forgiven.
Being forgiven is entirely different from being perfected.
His death equals forgiveness. Purgatory equals perfection. Purgatory would not have been possible without His death.
They do not negate each other, but rather compliment each other…
mk,
I was NOT calling you an unbeliever, mk. I know (from what I read from you) that you believe and trust in God. Only God knows your heart, though.
And yes, I do believe HOW the concept of purgatory was invented, but it is simply not true.
We are perfected through Him. Through His perfect blood; we accept Him and are perfected through Him. We cannot do this on our own. We need him. We are perfected in His eyes. There is no further need for purification, because His blood purified our past, present and future sins.
Fire cannot perfect us, purify us, or make us righteous in God’s eyes. Blood was the only sacrafice acceptable to God throughout the Old Testament and the New (Jesus). ONLY BLOOD was acceptable. Only Jesus’ perfect blood could, and HAS done that.
They negate each other because a God that would through His perfected, purified, righteous believers into a fiery pit, would be a God that would negate Himself. That can’t happen.
JLM, mk,
I’m sorry for “interrupting” earlier. You two have great exchanges and definitely don’t need my input. (Sometimes I just can’t help myself.)
Father Most’s last line about Protestants reading scripture is pretty harsh (I wouldn’t go so far as to say that myself). I debated whether to include it, but felt that to not include it would be misrepresenting his work. Please forgive me if that was offensive to either of you, because that was not my intent in including it.
mk,
Does the Catholic Church teach that purgatory will be a “hellish” experience? I’m confused about that.
Titus 2:14 (KJV)
Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.
Titus 2:14 (NLV)
who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good.
The object of Christianity is not to sin less, but to glofiry God more. It is not to somehow stop ourselves from doing the bad things we really want to do, but find ourselves craving to do what pleases God.
Sripture CANNOT contradict itself. Through Jesus’ blood we are forgiven AND purified.
1 John 1:9 (KJV)
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
1 John 1:9 (NIV)
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.
Sripture CANNOT contradict itself. Through Jesus’ blood we are forgiven AND purified.
To cleanse is to purify.
When something is cleansed, it is purified. We have been purified (cleansed) by the blood of Jesus.
We cannot get purification through fire, going to church, eating certain foods, etc. We only get purified through the blood of Jesus Christ.
It’s not by works that we are saved. It’s by the blood of Jesus Christ. Purgatory would just be another “works” to get you to heaven. This is not possible, because it is not by works that we are saved. It is by Jesus ONLY. His blood cleansed us (purified us) for sin, and all we have to do is believe in Him and we are saved!
Titus 3:4-6
4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,
5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;
Janet,
Not offended at all! (thanks for asking, though!)
I enjoy seeing everyone’s feedback here! Jump in any time!
Truly Janet,
I don’t know. I know what I have read from saints that have actually seen purgatory in visions. I know it won’t be “pleasant”, but I don’t think anyone knows for sure what it will be like. I do know that in Medjugorge, the children were told by our Lady that more souls are released from purgatory at Christmas than any other time. And that when you pray for a soul in purgatory, for the moment you are praying for them you can see them.
We also know that the souls in purgatory may pray for us, but not themselves. They are completely at our mercy, but our prayers and offerings can shorten their time there.
I have to run to Adoration, but I will try to find more info (on the “visions”) when I get back.
Oh and by the way, feel free to jump in anytime.
In some of the saints visions they spoke of liars having their tongues burning and wanting just a drop of water. Or thiefs having their hands burning…some saints just talked about a deep lonliness and grayness…
Posted by: mk at February 27, 2008 12:11 PM
mk,
Please read this:
James 2:9-11
9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.
10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.
Based on scripture, mk, how would there be different punishment for people in “purgatory” if scripture says that if they break even one law, they are guilty of them all? Wouldn’t everyone then serve the same amount of time and recieve the same type of punishment?
2 Corinthians 5:17-20 (NIV)
17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!
18 All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation:
19 that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation.
20 We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God.
How are we reconciled to God? Through Jesus Christ, His finished work on the cross.
We are reconciled, and NEW creations. The old one is gone! Our sins are NOT counted against us! There is NO need for purgatory!
Definition of sanctify: To make holy. To purify.
Hebrews 10:9-14
9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
10 By the which will we are sanctified (made holy through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. (i>holy)
By accepting Jesus, we are made holy and we are purified. Holy and purified people don’t go to purgatory.
Look JLM,
This is really not productive in the sense that our premises are different. You keep showing me scripture that says that Jesus died so that we can have salvation. We never have to sacrifice another goat… I got that. I’m not arguing it. No matter how many scripture passages you show me that say it, I will agree.
But I am not talking about sacrifices. I am not talking about offering up a token of our atonement. I am not talking about doves and goats and blood. That part is done. Yes. We can’t add to it, we can’t imitate it. It’s finished, over, kaput. No need to slit another lambs throat. Gotcha.
That has NOTHING to do with the fact that sin is dirty and I sin. I am dirty. Unless I confess these sins and am absolved of them. But there is still a temporal punishment to be payed. Not an eternal one. Not a spiritual one. He died for my spiritual salvation, YES! But I must still atone for the TEMPORAL punishment…can’t you see that they are two different things?
Maybe this will help…
“Temporal” Punishment- its not about “debt”
An Evangelical emailed me and said:
“Jesus used the Greek word TETELESTAI for “it is finished,” which is translated “paid in full.” It was used in his day on documents that released prisoners from jail after their relatives paid the bail.”
TETELESTAI literally translates as “it is finished.” “Tetelestai” can be associated with the “paid in full” connotation only from its cultural context. It was stamped on debts that were paid. I think the primary meaning of “it is finished” is that Jesus was signifying the completion of the Passover meal. I also have no problem with the possibility that he also intended other interpretations of “paid in full”. Jesus always speaks at many levels.
In ancient Jewish tradition, at every Passover meal there were four cups of wine. The last supper finished with only the third cup being consumed. Christ consumed the fourth cup on the cross.
“When he had received the drink, Jesus said ‘It is finished'” (TETELESTAI) . (Jn 19:29-30)
This signified that the Passover meal had been completed, Jesus being the Passover lamb. (this research was conducted by Scott Hahn)
Catholics agree He paid the price for our sins, which is “eternal” damnation. Perhaps we might look at it this way. If I was 10 years old and got into trouble with bullies and they were contemplating stabbing me to death because I stole something from them, my father would come and pay off those bullies so that I wouldn’t be killed (eternal damnation). My father would have “paid in full” the debt I owe. I would owe nothing. But when I got home, my father would probably give me some consequences, not because he hated me or because I owed him a debt, but because he loved me. It is no longer about “debt”, it’s about “discipline.” There is a difference.
Some may say that the Prodigal Son had no consequences and no punishment. The Prodigal Son had spent his whole inheritance and that was gone forever. For sure he got a great meal and a welcome home party, but even the Prodigal Son experienced consequences to his debauchery.
My child, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord, or lose heart when you are punished by him; for the Lord disciplines those he loves and chastises every child whom he accepts. Endure trials for the sake of discipline. God is treating you as children; for what child is there whom a parent does not discipline? If you do not have the discipline in which all children share, then you are illegitimate and not his children; Moreover, we had human parents to discipline us, and we respected them. Should we not be even more willing to be subject to the Father of spirits and? live? For they disciplined us for a short time as seemed best to them, but he disciplines us for our good, in order that we may share his holiness. Now, discipline always seems painful rather than pleasant at the time, but later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness (Heb12:5)
Some denominations have said there is never any punishment from the Lord, especially after we surrender to him. The above passage was speaking to Christians who had already turned their lives over to Christ. They had been saved from damnation (eternal punishment) and they had entered the family of Christ. Nevertheless there is punishment at times.
The Apostle Paul had turned his life over to Jesus authentically. Although Jesus restored his vision after he was hit on the road to Damascus, Paul nevertheless had a very painful number of years. (2 Cor 24-30). He said “I am now rejoicing in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am completing what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body that is the church” (1 Col 24) Evangelicals believe Jesus washes us clean in “one sweeping motion” never to be dirty again. Catholics believe there is “one sweeping motion” but afterward the “washing clean” process continues for the rest of our lives and we must “endure to the end.” (Mk 13:13, James 1:2, Mt 10:22, Mt 24:13)
The thief on the Cross beside Jesus received freedom from “eternal punishment”, which is hell. Jesus said to him “This day thou shalt be with me in Paradise” (Luke 23:43). However, the thief still experienced “temporal punishment.” After he turned his life over to Jesus he continued to hang on the cross which was probably pretty darn painful even if it was for only a few hours and his legs were busted – ouch! (Jn 19:32). Jesus could have easily had him taken down from the cross but he didn’t. There are consequences to sin even after forgiveness.
Temporal punishment is not “vengeful” retribution from God. God is not the big fly swatter of the universe. The punishments stem from the very nature of sin itself.
One of the big complaints against the Catholic practice of confession is that it allows people to run back to the Priest every week but live poorly the rest of the time. (Sunday morning Catholics) This is where Temporal punishment comes in. Jesus, through the Priest, provides absolution (forgiveness) and grants freedom from Eternal punishment of hell. Jesus will forgive “seventy times seven” (Mat 18:22). However, not all Temporal punishment is removed in “absolution.” So Catholics who don’t live their faith all week long are not getting away with too much. In my experience, the only Catholics who go to confession these days are those who are serious about their faith.
Perhaps the best way to demonstrate “Temporal punishment” is to describe a situation in my own life. In 1984, I was involved in an abortion with my girlfriend (at the time) because we were chasing our careers on Broadway and films. God has long since forgiven me but in prayer he has made it clear to me that I will never become a famous person. Moses never entered the promised land because he killed one of his own people (even though God forgave him). Similarly, I do not believe the Lord will allow me to ever experience the fame I was seeking when I had the abortion. This is “Temporal punishment.” I accept the punishment. Now I try to help out the pro-life movement wherever possible. I don’t do it to win “Brownie points” in heaven. I do it because I love the Lord and he has put it on my heart to do this. He can use my past sin to educate others. One might call this a “penance.” (My story of Abortion is here)
Eternal Punishment
It’s in vogue in today’s secular society to believe that their is no hell. One of the greatest victories of the devil over the modern age is that he made them think he doesn’t exist. Thankfully Catholics and Evangelicals understand that there is a hell and that evil and the devil are real. Those who blatantly and insincerely persist in sin after having received the knowledge of the truth will not do too well in the after life. (Heb 10:26). hell is real and it is waiting for all those who turn away from the Lord Jesus Christ.
Thankfully there is Reconciliation
Jesus forgives “seventy times seven” (Mat 18:22). And will take anyone back into the fold who earnestly seeks him. For Catholics, that is a process of Confession, Reconciliation and Penance.
Penance – Consists of three interrelated things:
1. Confession, ( a sincere manifestation of my conscience where I have failed God and my neighbour)
2. Contrition (genuine sorrow for sorrow because I have offended the all good God)
3. Satisfaction (An attempt to repair the effects of sin)
The Catechism says this about penance:
Absolution [forgiveness] takes away sin, but it does not remedy all the disorders sin has caused. Raised up from sin, the sinner must still recover his full spiritual health by doing something more to make amends for the sin: he must “make satisfaction for” or “expiate” his sins. This satisfaction is also called “penance.” Catechism 1459
There are two parts to restitution aspect of Penance: “amends” and “make satisfaction”
“Amends”
After we confess our sins and are forgiven by God, we should do what we can to make reparation for our wrong actions. Jesus forgives us. He is a “forgiving God” but he is also a “just God.” For instance, if I steal a $4,000 piece of equipment from a recording studio and then ask God to forgive me, he will forgive me if I have a humble and contrite heart. However, he will also probably want me to pay back the $4000 if possible (this is called amends).
“Make Satisfaction”
I also must move forward in his light with a changed heart looking for every opportunity to be of service. Modern society would call this a “living amends” but it is all part of penance. In article 1460 of the Catechism we find that penance can take many forms such as:
…prayer, an offering, works of mercy, service of neighbour, voluntary self-denial, sacrifices, and patient acceptance of whatever crosses we must bear in life. These penances help configure us to Christ, who alone can expiate our sins once for all. They allow us to become co-heirs with the risen Christ, “provided we suffer with him” (Rom 8:17, Rom 3:25, 1 Jn 2:1-2)
At the end of my life I will stand before God. If I have made and authentic surrender to Jesus, I believe I will not go to hell. I will either go straight to heaven or I will make a stop in Purgatory. I believe Jesus will look at what I did with the faith he gave me. How did I respond to the call? If I have responded well and if my character is the best it could be in his light, I believe I will enjoy a direct pass to Heaven. If however, I have not responded wholeheartedly and have had some rebellion, then I believe whatever parts of my soul that have not been cleaned up here on earth will be cleaned up in Purgatory after I die.
http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/punishment.htm
20 We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God.
How are we reconciled to God? Through Jesus Christ, His finished work on the cross.
* * * * * * *
We are reconciled, and NEW creations. The old one is gone! Our sins are NOT counted against us! There is NO need for purgatory!
Posted by: JLM at March 2, 2008 4:21 PM
JLM,
If God is a just God, wouldn’t he hold us each accountable for our own sins? Any other way is not logical or fair. The way you explain it sounds too good to be true. (You know what they say, if it sounds too good to be true, it usually is.)
Not to be offensive, but have you ever thought about the fact that most Catholics who become Protestant do so because they are rejecting some facet of the Catholic faith, (doesn’t fit their lifestyle,etc…) not because of an attraction to Protestantism? After all, the faiths are both pretty much the same- centered around Jesus Christ, except the Catholic Church has “all the trimmings” that the Protestant churches don’t. The beliefs of most Protestant faiths can be summed up in about 2 or 3 sentences, right? The Catholic beliefs take a bit longer to explain. Is the simplicity of Protestant beliefs the main attraction?
mk,
Did you read ALL of my posts, or just some? Because it really seems to me that you’re missing my point.
In the Old Testament, people had to sacrifice animals over and over and over again to offer them to God in repentenance of their sins. Animal blood was never enough, and wasn’t a complete payment for sin.
This is the Old Covenant.
The NEW Covenant is when Jesus offered HIMSELF as a one and only, total, complete, finished sacrifice for all of our sins. He did that one time for our sins. Past, present and future. This was completed over 2000 years ago. This IS the total payment for sin. When we believe in Him, and repent of us BEING sinners (not sin), we are forgiven. That’s the key you’re missing, here. It’s us admitting to Him that we are sinners and need Him. At that point, we are purified through Him and are new creations. We are not the sinners of the flesh anymore. We are one with the Spirit. We become the body of Christ.
The beliefs of most Protestant faiths can be summed up in about 2 or 3 sentences, right? The Catholic beliefs take a bit longer to explain. Is the simplicity of Protestant beliefs the main attraction?
2 or 3 sentences…Heavens no! I’ve spent a whole week and 25 pages on a word document on purgatory alone! lol!
I don’t think that the Protestant belief (if you want to call me that), is an “attraction”. Seriously, Janet, I read the scriptures, study history and it’s just crystal clear to me. When you said, “if it sounds too good to be true it probably is”.. That made me laugh! My dad would ALWAYS use that one on me when I was little. Well, that and the “there’s no such thing in life as a free sandwich”! lol!
But seriously, yes, God is that good, and God did make it that easy. Some Christians are content being “baby Christians” for a long time, or forever. They know the basics, and don’t have a need or want to learn more. I’m “on fire” for God…I want to know all that I can about Him, about every person in the bible, about history throughout each book in the bible. I think it’s fascinating! I eat, sleep & breath the Word of God! I actually wake up each morning coming out of a dream I was having, thinking about scriptures! God is truly amazing!
It wasn’t always like that for me, though. I was content for over 20 years being a “baby Christian”. I prayed one day to God that He would show me more, and BAM! Can’t stop me now!
And yes, Janet, I do believe that God does hold us accountable for our sin. See my above post (9:15 pm) for more. I believe that He holds us accountable until we admit that we are sinners, or repent. After that, He remembers them no more, and we are purified through Him.
Jeremiah 31:34
And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
and
Hebrews 10:16-18
This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
17
And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.
God promised me, Janet. I’ll take Him at His Word!
God bless you!
Oh, one more thing, Janet, regarding it being “easy”…
I like to think of life as a labyrinth. God doesn’t stand on one end saying, “ok, I hope you find your way and get to me”. Instead, I picture Jesus laying pieces of popcorn along the route that leads directly to God.
Jesus dying on the cross was like the popcorn.
I know, not a good comparison, but I need child-like visuals sometimes!!!
I think the primary meaning of “it is finished” is that Jesus was signifying the completion of the Passover meal. I also have no problem with the possibility that he also intended other interpretations of “paid in full”. Jesus always speaks at many levels.
He said that right before He died. I believe He was referring to the New Covenant being finished, or completed. Hence, the beginning of the New Testament.
JLM,
Did you read ALL of my posts, or just some? Because it really seems to me that you’re missing my point.
Okay, that made me laugh…I might ask you the same thing…lol
You keep showing me scripture that says that Jesus died so that we can have salvation. We never have to sacrifice another goat… I got that. I’m not arguing it. No matter how many scripture passages you show me that say it, I will agree.
*
But I am not talking about sacrifices. I am not talking about offering up a token of our atonement. I am not talking about doves and goats and blood. That part is done. Yes. We can’t add to it, we can’t imitate it. It’s finished, over, kaput. No need to slit another lambs throat. Gotcha.
*
That has NOTHING to do with the fact that sin is dirty and I sin. I am dirty. Unless I confess these sins and am absolved of them. But there is still a temporal punishment to be payed. Not an eternal one. Not a spiritual one. He died for my spiritual salvation, YES! But I must still atone for the TEMPORAL punishment…can’t you see that they are two different things?
What you are not comprehending, or I am not explaining, is that there are two natures to sin.
The spiritual, and the temporal.
The wages of spiritual sin is death. But I no longer have to worry about that because Jesus died so that I don’t have to.
The wages of sin of the flesh is temporal punishment. These I am responsible for.
There is nothing I can do about my spiritual sinfulness so God atoned for that for me. But my body must still be purified. I must be “put through fire”…
JLM,
“Baby” Christian – I don’t consider that a bad thing. Didn’t Christ say “we should all become like little children”?
The popcorn analogy doesn’t work for me, maybe if I was a bird. Lol. I think God knows we can understand a more complex theology, and I see yours as too simple, too easy, to be complete. That’s all.
Janet,
While I’m sure that JLM will say that that is the beauty of Christianity…its simplicity…I agree with you.
Whereas we are asking JLM to think deeper, accept more, gain more…JLM is asking us to think less, accept less and gain less.
We are asking her to take something extra, while she is asking us to give something up.
This is why say the Catholic Church as having the FULLNESS of the truth. All Christians have the truth, but we have the “bigger/biggest” picture.
The wages of sin of the flesh is temporal punishment. These I am responsible for.
Sorry I dropped out of the conversation for so long…I’ve had a busy week!
I’m going to try to explain this so that you understand what we’re trying to say, because I think you’re possibly missing the point of some of the posts.
The wages of the sin of the flesh is death, MK. God says, here is what my punishment is for earthly sin. The payment that you owe me is death.
Death is the complete payment for our fleshly sins on this earth, if we have accepted Christ as our savior.
If we haven’t accepted Him, our payment for sins is not only the first death, but the second death as well.
Our natural death is the wages of our sin.
If God had meant that our wages consisted of more than that, He would have made that absolutely clear. What He did say is “the wages of sin IS death”, that is the payment, in full, that we owe for our fleshly sins.
That’s what the Bible says. It is Biblical for us to be chastised for our sins on this earth (natural consequences, such as suffering poverty after gambling excessively, getting into a car wreck after driving drunk, etc), but there is no Biblical basis for us paying for our sins after our body of flesh is gone, after we have “paid our wages”, which the Bible clearly states is “death”.
The end of our payment for our fleshly sin is our earthly deat…why can’t you see that that is can’t you see that that is what we are trying to tell you?
We’re not trying to tell you that we do not suffer temporal punishment. Our temporal punishment on earth ends with death. There is no more condemnation for us after death.
We are trying to help you see that you do not have to look forward to a place of suffering after you die. You do not have to look forward to suffering for years and years because of your attachment to sin.
It is not possible that you will have any attachment to sin after death, because you will be separated from the body of flesh and will have a “new body” which is perfect and entire.
JLM asked a good question earlier. She said, when you go through purgatory, what exactly is it that burns? Your new body? That would be impossible because your new body is perfect, immortal, sin free.
Your old body? Why would that be necessary? Your old body would be in the ground, and you don’t need it anymore because you will have a new body.
Your soul? Your soul, according to the Bible, is perfect and entire, and sin cannot touch it, because it is filled with the Spirit of God and is born again.
So what would actually burn if you were in purgatory? Where in the Bible do you see that we have an attachment to sin after death? We are released from our body of sin after death, so that we can “put on ” the new body which is sinless.
I don’t know if this helps clarify or if it makes it more confusing for you, what we believe, but I just don’t think it’s right that you feel that you have to suffer after dying, when God clearly says you don’t have to.
I want you to be able to die one day, knowing that you will be straight in Heaven, with Christ, suffering no more for the sins that His blood has cleansed you from, and separated you from, the sins that you will no longer have any attachment to once your body of sin is removed from you.
I don’t want you to have to look forward to suffering in agony, to pay the price for some attachment to sin which you do not even have anymore! I want you to rejoice knowing that you will immediately be with your Saviour.
(hugs!)
“Baby” Christian – I don’t consider that a bad thing. Didn’t Christ say “we should all become like little children”?
The popcorn analogy doesn’t work for me, maybe if I was a bird. Lol. I think God knows we can understand a more complex theology, and I see yours as too simple, too easy, to be complete. That’s all.
Janet, I am a little confused by your post. On one hand, you say that Jesus wants us to have faith like little children, which is true, but then on the other hand, you say that we need a more complex theology.
If we believe what the Bible says, “as a little child”, what need to we have for more complexity? Do little children understand complex issues before trusting them, or do they simply lean by faith on what they are taught?
The Bible says what it says, and as little children, we have faith that what it says is true.
I hope that helps you understand our position a little more clearly. :)
JLM, regarding your 9:54 post, I saw a sign at a church I pass every day, which said, “The Bible is like a GPS device. Follow it’s directions and never get lost”.
:-)
How to Explain Purgatory to Protestants
by James Akin
Suppose a friend or co-worker comes to you and says:
“The Catholic Church has this massive doctrine of purgatory, invented in the middle ages. The Church used to even sell indulgences to shorten your time in purgatory by a fixed number of days. This doctrine is based on books that don’t belong in the Bible. There is no place or region in the afterlife for the saved except heaven. There is no pain in the afterlife, and the minute we die we go to heaven, as Paul says, ‘To be absent from the body is to be present with Christ,’ praying for people in purgatory makes no sense. Worst of all, it infringes on the sufficiency of Christ’s work. It is completely unbiblical. No Protestant could believe it.”
What should you say?
Well, the first thing you should say is, “Whoa! Slow down! One argument at a time, okay?” Then go over his arguments with him individually . . .
1. “The Catholic Church has this massive doctrine of purgatory.”
This is quite false. As an illustration of this, the section on purgatory in the Catechism of the Catholic Church is only three paragraphs long (CCC 1030-1032). In essence, there are only three points on the matter which the Catholic Church insists: (1) that there is a purification after death, (2) that this purification involves some kind of pain or discomfort, and (3) that God assists those in this purification in response to the actions of the living. Among the things the Church does not insist on are the ideas that purgatory is a place or that it takes time, as we shall see below….. (See holysouls.info/how to explain purgatory – Google)
JLM, regarding your 9:54 post, I saw a sign at a church I pass every day, which said, “The Bible is like a GPS device. Follow it’s directions and never get lost”.
:-)
Bethany,
I love that one! – How true!
They sure are clever with those signs!
God says, here is what my punishment is for earthly sin. The payment that you owe me is death.
Death is the complete payment for our fleshly sins on this earth, if we have accepted Christ as our savior.
If we haven’t accepted Him, our payment for sins is not only the first death, but the second death as well.
Our natural death is the wages of our sin.
If God had meant that our wages consisted of more than that, He would have made that absolutely clear. What He did say is “the wages of sin IS death”, that is the payment, in full, that we owe for our fleshly sins.
That’s what the Bible says. It is Biblical for us to be chastised for our sins on this earth (natural consequences, such as suffering poverty after gambling excessively, getting into a car wreck after driving drunk, etc), but there is no Biblical basis for us paying for our sins after our body of flesh is gone, after we have “paid our wages”, which the Bible clearly states is “death”.
The end of our payment for our fleshly sin is our earthly death…why can’t you see that that is can’t you see that that is what we are trying to tell you?
We’re not trying to tell you that we do not suffer temporal punishment. Our temporal punishment on earth ends with death. There is no more condemnation for us after death.
BINGO!
oops…forgot to italicize the whole thing…Sorry Bethany!
Bethany,
I was following up after my 8:40 post and JLM’s. JLM used the phrase “baby christian” (which I’ve never heard before) to refer to those adults who are not as well versed in the bible, and my response was that God says we should have the simple faith of a child. We don’t need to be able to quote from all the books of the bible, as a child most certainly can’t, to have faith.)
I believe that God put on this earth to love Him and serve Him, and Jesus died for us to save us from our sins, quite a simple concept. The complexity or “fullness” of the Catholic faith that I refer to, is like the “icing” on the cake. It doesn’t change the basis of the Christian faith, but makes it a little sweeter.
Also, I just posted the beginning of a long article on Explaining Purgatory to Protestants. I haven’t had a chance to read it, but I have heard him speak on the radio and he’s very good. (He was a preacher at one time and he KNOWS the bible, so I hope you find it interesting, maybe thought-provoking.)
Janet, the term “babes in Christ” is in the Bible…it’s sort of an analogy for your growth in Christ… See, we all begin as “babes” in Christ, when we are “born again”, and we literally grow and learn and develop in our spiritual life, in the same way that we do in our physical life.
There are parts of the Bible that are our spiritual “milk”, and some that are our spiritual “meat”.
“1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. 2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. ”
I believe that God put on this earth to love Him and serve Him, and Jesus died for us to save us from our sins, quite a simple concept. The complexity or “fullness” of the Catholic faith that I refer to, is like the “icing” on the cake. It doesn’t change the basis of the Christian faith, but makes it a little sweeter.
I would agree with your post exactly except that in place of “the catholic faith”, I would put “God’s word”, and I hope that you would understand that to us, it is the Bible that the complexities and fullness of are the “icing on the cake” so to speak. I hope that made sense the way I explained it to you.
I fixed your 8:52 post, JLM ;-)
Oops, Janet I forgot to add this verse to my 9:08 post to further explain about the “milk” of the word:
As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:
1 Peter 2:2
And this verse:
Thanks for the fix, Bethany!
While I’m sure that JLM will say that that is the beauty of Christianity…its simplicity…I agree with you.
It is simple! Jesus did the hard part!
Whereas we are asking JLM to think deeper, accept more, gain more…JLM is asking us to think less, accept less and gain less.
Is that really what you think my motives are? Mk, with all due respect, I am simply asking you to think deeper about what Jesus actually did for us, the magnitude of His immeasurable giftand gain more in this life by knowing that you are 100% set free from the chains of sin that bind you so that you can have more of a rich, full life!
We are asking her to take something extra, while she is asking us to give something up.
No, you are asking me to reduce what Jesus did for us by asking me to believe that Jesus was just a
By the way, I think we have about 5 more days before this topic will be closed…if we are still discussing this after that, I wonder where we should continue the discussion?
This is going to be long (please forgive me!), but to expound on what JLM has said about Peter, I’d like to give you all a little commentary, so you can understand a little better where we are coming from on Peter. I hope that despite the length, you might read all of it, because reading the verses that fall below the verse which is usually used by Catholics to describe the foundation of the church as being Peter, Peter allows Satan to speak through him, and I think this is a very important piece of information which could help you understand that if Peter were this solid foundation which the church was to be built on, then he would not have been able to speak for Satan, nor would He have denied Jesus those three times. I’m trying to post this so that before you respond about Peter, you’ll at least have a more clear understanding on what our beliefs are surrounding those passages:
************************************************
From:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/chuck_smith_c2000/Mat/Mat016.html
Now we have one of two choices. The church is built upon Peter, or the church is build upon Peter’s confession, that Jesus is the Christ the Son of the living God.
Now the Catholics assert that the church was built on Peter. There are problems with this. Number one, Jesus said unto him, “Thou art Petros”, which in the Greek is a little stone. And then He declared, “upon this Petras”, which is a giant stone, “I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” The church was not build upon the little stone, but upon the giant rock; “Thou art Petros”, a little stone, “upon this Petras”.
Paul the apostle in 1 Corinthians 3:11, tells us: “For other foundation can no man lay, then that is laid, which is”, not Simon Peter, but Jesus Christ. “No other foundation can man lay, but that which is”.
I know men have tried to lay another foundation, Peter. But it seems quite obvious that Peter is not the foundation of the church. And it’s not build upon him, but it is build upon the foundation of Jesus Christ and Peter’s declaration that Jesus is indeed the Messiah, the son of the living God. And that is the true foundation of the church. The church is build upon Jesus Christ. He is the foundation upon which the church stands.
Now the interesting thing to me is that Peter had here, and I am sure he did not realize it, he had here a spiritual revelation. When he said, “Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God!” Jesus said, “All right Peter, flesh and blood it not reveal this unto you, but my father which is in heaven.” Peter you’ve had a spiritual revelation. This didn’t come out of your own chemical juices that flash the little electronic impulse across your brain, this came from God. And I am certain that Peter didn’t realize this that had come from God, because it just came to him, I am sure, as just a flash. Peter as we said was impulsive, and I am sure that when Jesus said, “Who do you say that I am?” He just said impulsively, “You’re the Christ the Son of the living God.” He said all right, blessed are you; you’ve had a revelation from God. “Flesh and blood didn’t reveal this unto you, but my Father which is in heaven”.
God speaks to us in such natural ways, that usually we are not aware that God is speaking to us. We expect God to speak in some supernatural way. We expect to go into a trance and hear the prelude of the angelic choir, and feel all of these tingling sensation, and our hair is standing out, and then we hear, “My child”, God is talking to me. But God speaks to us in such natural ways, and God leads us in such natural ways, there is the beautiful supernatural within the natural. But because we are so dull in our spiritual sensibilities, we are usually not even attune or aware to the fact that it is God speaking to us or God leading us. And that’s just put down to our spiritual dullness.
And there are a lot of times, when you say, “Well, God has never spoken to me, “or, “I never heard the voice of God, never had an experience. “And it’s because you are looking for some kind of super kind of hocus-pocus, the vibrations to come and everything else. But God works in such beautiful, natural ways. And the real ability is discovering the supernatural in the natural. And more important than that, and more difficult than that is to be able to discern the supernatural from the natural.
Now that’s the hardest part. Did this come from God, or did this come from me? God are you speaking to me or is this just something I am dreaming up? And that is difficult. There is no easy way. That is extremely difficult because the supernatural comes in such a natural way. If the supernatural came in a supernatural way, I would have no problem with discernment. But because God, you see, is a superior Trinity, Father, Son and Spirit, I am an inferior trinity, spirit, soul and body. I meet God in the realm of the spirit.
And so God’s Spirit bears witness with my spirit that I am a son of God. Now my spirit has to bear witness to my consciousness, and when my spirit bears witness to my consciousness, it comes just like a thought from within, an awareness, an inspiration from within. Now I have my own inspirations too at times. Now how do I know if this inspiration is coming from God, or coming from me? Because they flash into my consciousness from the same level as the spirit comes from the area of the subconscious, so does my imagination come from the area of the subconscious. And because it comes to me consciously, the difficulty is to discern. Did this come from my own imagination or did this originate, did this thought actually come from God? Is He the one planning the thought in my mind?
And so here is Peter, he just expresses the thought that flashes in his head, and Jesus said, hey, all right, spiritual revelation Peter. My Father revealed that to you. So Peter has got a role going.
Jesus said,
And I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven (Mat 16:19).
We have power as the children of God to bind the forces of darkness, and to loose the work of God. God has given us that authority over these spirit forces, these spiritual entities, that as children of God, we do have authority over them. We can bind these spirit forces and we can loose the work of God.
Then he charged his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Messiah (Mat 16:20).
The reason being He did not want a premature attempt to acclaim Him. There was a day in which the Messiah was to be revealed. That day came when Jesus made His triumphed entry. At this point He is saying now look, don’t tell anybody. This is a revelation that came from you from God, but don’t tell anybody. Now later on He set the stage, he said “go unto the city and you will find the donkey, bring him to me” (Mat 21:2). And He sat on the donkey, fulfilling the prophesy of Zechariah; “behold thy king cometh unto thee, but he is lowly, he is sitting upon a donkey”(Zechariah 9:9). But now was not the time for the revelation. The perfect time of God had not yet come. So He is saying look, don’t tell anybody yet. No premature kind of forcing of the people, or the people trying to set up the kingdom prematurely.
Now from that time on Jesus began to show to his disciples (Mat 16:21),
At this point, now He reveals Himself. “I am the Messiah.” Peter you are right.
Now the Jewish people had been looking for the Messiah to come and establish the kingdom of God and overthrow the Roman yoke and bondage. And when Jesus acknowledged, “Yes, I am the Messiah, but don’t tell anybody”. He then began to tell them,
now look, I must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and the chief priests and the Scribes, and be killed, and be raised again on the third day. And Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord [or, Lord, spare yourself] this shall not happen to you. [Peter the rock]And Jesus turned, and said unto Peter, Get thou behind me, Satan: you are an offence unto me: because you can not tell the difference between those things that are of God, and those things that are of men (Mat 16:21-23).
Move over Peter I want to sit down. A problem that I have, the inability to always be able to tell what is of God, and what is of my own heart.
Notice that Peter in one moment has a divine revelation, and in the next moment is expressing Satan’s philosophy. The philosophy of Hell. Spare yourself. “Be that far from thee,” literally, spare thyself, it shall not be to you. The philosophy of Hell, take the easy way. Take the easy path. Escape the cross. The philosophy of Hell is to encourage you to escape the cross, but the cross was important for our Salvation. Without the cross we could not be redeemed and the cross is also important for us, for our spiritual development.
And Satan is saying to us escape the cross, live the easy path, indulge yourself, escape the cross, you don’t want the cross. But it is important that I recognize that I was crucified with Christ, and that old man, the old nature, was there crucified with Him, that I should no longer live unto the flesh, but now live unto the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me. But Satan is still saying spare yourself. You don’t want to come to the cross in your own life. Live after your flesh, go ahead, indulge yourself. And Jesus is just pointing to the cross and saying there is no answer except the cross. You must reckon your old nature to be dead, crucified with Christ. You can’t live after the flesh anymore. Paul the apostle said, “how can we, who are dead to the flesh, how can we then be living any longer therein?” (Romans 8:12)
So Peter having a divine revelation, then the inspiration of his own heart inspired by Satan, as he expresses the philosophy of Hell, shows what is a common problem with us, the ability to know the difference between when God is speaking and my own heart is speaking to me.
And God help me, I don’t have any easy answers for you. This is a question that I am faced with so many times. People say, “How can I tell if it’s God or me?” And God help me, I don’t know. In my own life I seek to measure it by the scripture. Does it keep with the word of God? If it doesn’t keep with the word of God, then I know it’s not of God, because God is consistent, always consistent, in whatever He says will be in perfect harmony and in keeping with what He has said.
No, Jesus Christ is the fullness of the Church. He is the church. Picture here, if you will, Jesus talking to Peter, then pointing to Himself:
Matthew 16:18
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock (that’s where Jesus is pointing to Himself) I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Posted by JLM 8:18,
Jesus gave Peter his new name (which means “rock” in Greek, I believe) and was referring to Peter, not himself, when he said, “upon this rock I will build my church, I will give to thee the keys to the kingdom of Heaven.” He’s talking about the Catholic Church’s first Pope, Peter.
I think you are taking mk too literally thinking Jesus is a “key”. That word was used just to help you grasp the idea of purgatory. It’s not part of Catholic teaching, I don’t think.
My idea of “fullness” is not resonating with you. I am not taking anything away from Jesus or what He did for us.
Bethany, as I’m posting, I see your long post. I’ll read it now, but I already know I won’t like it when you say Peter is allowing Satan to speak through him. That’s a new one…
Take your time, Janet… It’s okay! :) I have a lot of housework to do (a ton of laundry to catch up on!)
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0007fea5.asp
“Return to Apostolic Traditions” (This Rock 2000) by Rev. Alex Jones
Bethany, I have a post in que. Thanks.
JLM,
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock (that
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19
I will give YOU the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever YOU bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever YOU
Take for example Jesus
Marykay, I know it’s long but your 11:21 post was answered in that mega post I made at 9:50… here it is so you don’t have to try to find it :)
“We have power as the children of God to bind the forces of darkness, and to loose the work of God. God has given us that authority over these spirit forces, these spiritual entities, that as children of God, we do have authority over them. We can bind these spirit forces and we can loose the work of God.”
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19
I will give YOU the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever YOU bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever YOU loosed in heaven.”
How can you just change the meaning of that? I think if Jesus meant “Upon myself I will build this rock, and whatever I bind on earth shall be bound and whatever I loose shall be loosed” then that’s what he would have said!
20
Bethany,
I read it but am at a loss…We keep saying the same things over and over…
You believe that Jesus died so that we can automatically enter into heaven simply by believing in Him.
I believe that Jesus died so that we now have the opportunity to enter heaven provide we believe in Him and take a bath before entering…
You’ve shown me nothing that says this isn’t true, I’ve shown you nothing to convince you it is.
I don’t really know where to go from here.
Did you read the long post I put up? From David someone or other?
Try this:
If Jesus died and we no longer have to pay for our sins, why do you say that of course we pay the temporal consequences for our sins on earth. Why can you accept this, but not that any residual sins must be payed for before actually passing through the gates? If he payed for our sins, then our lives should be pain free, even if we sin. We shouldn’t have to pay the consequences for them here on earth either, because, according to you and JLM, Jesus already payed for them…
By the way, I think we should keep moving to the most recent weekend posts since they are all about whatever we want them to be about anyway…
How can you just change the meaning of that? I think if Jesus meant “Upon myself I will build this rock, and whatever I bind on earth shall be bound and whatever I loose shall be loosed” then that’s what he would have said!
This is one of the only things that Catholics disagree with us on that I can actually understand where you’re coming from.
I understand why you see it that way…the problem is, the Bible cannot contradict itself. If Jesus is saying that Peter is the foundation of the church, then it plainly contradicts 1 Cor. 3:11 (among other verses):
“For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.”
Therefore, we have to read it in the light of other scriptures, in order for it to not contradict. We have to search for the hebrew roots of the words and see what they meant.
What do Catholics think that 1 Cor. 3:11 means? I am not sure how they would read it, with their presupposition being that Peter was the foundation of the church.
Try this:
If Jesus died and we no longer have to pay for our sins, why do you say that of course we pay the temporal consequences for our sins on earth. Why can you accept this, but not that any residual sins must be payed for before actually passing through the gates? If he payed for our sins, then our lives should be pain free, even if we sin. We shouldn’t have to pay the consequences for them here on earth either, because, according to you and JLM, Jesus already payed for them…
I think that you are misunderstanding what we’re trying to say. I think I sort of understand your confusion but try to bear with me as I try, probably pitifully, to explain further.
We are talking about two separate things here. Our flesh, and our spirit. You seem to not separate the two. This may be the difference.
Our spirit, which becomes born again at the moment of salvation, will never have to pay the price for any sins. It is perfect and entire. It does not have sin.
Our bodies, which are corruptible, they can still sin and they still bear the consequence of death.
We must be free of these incorruptible bodies before we will be able to live in Heaven.
It is appointed unto man once to die. We all have to die. It is the wage of our earthly bodies to pay for sin.
Our spiritual bodies will either pay an eternal consequence in Hell, or will have an eternal life in Heaven.
There is no other plan listed in the Bible.
It is simply, die, then the judgement (God determines which souls have been justified and will go to Heaven, and which souls have not been justified, and will go to Hell), and then each soul goes to their eternal destiny. That may be an ultra-simplified view, but that is it in a nutshell, I believe.
By the way, I think we should keep moving to the most recent weekend posts since they are all about whatever we want them to be about anyway.
Okay, that sounds good to me! :)
Boy it is such a beautiful day today and all I have done is jump on the computer every 20 minutes. I need to turn the darn thing off already! lol
The kids have been playing on the trampoline…the sun is shining. The wind is blowing just right…it’s just gorgeous out there.
I’ll talk to you all later!
Bethany,
I understand why you see it that way…the problem is, the Bible cannot contradict itself. If Jesus is saying that Peter is the foundation of the church, then it plainly contradicts 1 Cor. 3:11 (among other verses): “For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.”
Peter is the Rock, NOT foundation. Jesus says this.
JESUS is the Foundation of the church. He hands the keys to the kingdom to Peter and says “upon this rock I will build my church” (NOT “upon this rock I will build myself”). There is absolutely no contradiction here.
I’ll move along to the last “weekend post” too…..
Bethany,
Trampoline? I’m jealous! My backyard is mush… rain on top of melting snow! Enjoy the sunshine.
Peter is the Rock, NOT foundation. Jesus says this.
JESUS is the Foundation of the church. He hands the keys to the kingdom to Peter and says “upon this rock I will build my church” (NOT “upon this rock I will build myself”). There is absolutely no contradiction here.
‘
Notice I couldn’t stay away more than an hour. How pitiful! lol
But according to the Catholic doctrine, Peter is the foundation of the church, not Jesus.
Here is a page on Catholic Answers which explains what the Catholic view is on it:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Origins_of_Peter_as_Pope.asp
It says that according to The Letter of Clement to James:
“Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter” (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).
And it says that from The Clementine Homilies:
“[Simon Peter said to Simon Magus in Rome:]
By the way, if I am wrong about anything that I say the Catholic doctrine teaches, please do let me know. The only things I know about Catholics is what I read on the Catholic websites and other places on the internet (and through Marykay and others here). Just let me know if I misrepresent your views, and I’ll understand and change my arguments accordingly! :)
Bethany,
I read your post and skimmed the website, I think I get the idea. I understand the difference between petra and petros, as used in the bible, It’s something I hadn’t thought about. That said, I also think it is very significant that Jesus renamed Simon, Peter, which the following attempts to explain….(see below) (from http://www.catholic.com/library/Peter_and_the_Papacy.asp)
Peter and the Papacy
There is ample evidence in the New Testament that Peter was first in authority among the apostles. Whenever they were named, Peter headed the list (Matt. 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13); sometimes the apostles were referred to as “Peter and those who were with him” (Luke 9:32). Peter was the one who generally spoke for the apostles (Matt. 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6:68-69), and he figured in many of the most dramatic scenes (Matt. 14:28-32, Matt. 17:24-27, Mark 10:23-28). On Pentecost it was Peter who first preached to the crowds (Acts 2:14-40), and he worked the first healing in the Church age (Acts 3:6-7). It is Peter’s faith that will strengthen his brethren (Luke 22:32) and Peter is given Christ’s flock to shepherd (John 21:17). An angel was sent to announce the resurrection to Peter (Mark 16:7), and the risen Christ first appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34). He headed the meeting that elected Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1:13-26), and he received the first converts (Acts 2:41). He inflicted the first punishment (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic (Acts 8:18-23). He led the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15), and announced the first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:7-11). It was to Peter that the revelation came that Gentiles were to be baptized and accepted as Christians (Acts 10:46-48).
Peter the Rock
Peter’s preeminent position among the apostles was symbolized at the very beginning of his relationship with Christ. At their first meeting, Christ told Simon that his name would thereafter be Peter, which translates as “Rock” (John 1:42). The startling thing was that aside from the single time that Abraham is called a “rock” (Hebrew: Tsur; Aramaic: Kepha) in Isaiah 51:1-2 – in the Old Testament only God was called a rock. The word rock was not used as a proper name in the ancient world. If you were to turn to a companion and say, “From now on your name is Asparagus,” people would wonder: Why Asparagus? What is the meaning of it? What does it signify? Indeed, why call Simon the fisherman “Rock”? Christ was not given to meaningless gestures, and neither were the Jews as a whole when it came to names. Giving a new name meant that the status of the person was changed, as when Abram’s name was changed to Abraham (Gen.17:5), Jacob’s to Israel (Gen. 32:28), Eliakim’s to Joakim (2 Kgs. 23:34), or the names of the four Hebrew youths – Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah to Belteshazzar, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego (Dan. 1:6-7). But no Jew had ever been called “Rock.” The Jews would give other names taken from nature, such as Deborah (“bee,” Gen. 35:8), and Rachel (“ewe,” Gen. 29:16), but never “Rock.” In the New Testament James and John were nicknamed Boanerges, meaning “Sons of Thunder,” by Christ, but that was never regularly used in place of their original names, and it certainly was not given as a new name. But in the case of Simon-bar-Jonah, his new name Kephas (Greek: Petros) definitely replaced the old.
Look at the scene
Not only was there significance in Simon being given a new and unusual name, but the place where Jesus solemnly conferred it upon Peter was also important. It happened when “Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi” (Matt. 16:13), a city that Philip the Tetrarch built and named in honor of Caesar Augustus, who had died in A.D. 14. The city lay near cascades in the Jordan River and near a gigantic wall of rock, a wall about 200 feet high and 500 feet long, which is part of the southern foothills of Mount Hermon. The city no longer exists, but its ruins are near the small Arab town of Banias; and at the base of the rock wall may be found what is left of one of the springs that fed the Jordan. It was here that Jesus pointed to Simon and said, “You are Peter” (Matt. 16:18).
The significance of the event must have been clear to the other apostles. As devout Jews they knew at once that the location was meant to emphasize the importance of what was being done. None complained of Simon being singled out for this honor; and in the rest of the New Testament he is called by his new name, while James and John remain just James and John, not Boanerges.
Promises to Peter
When he first saw Simon, “Jesus looked at him, and said, “So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas (which means Peter)'” (John 1:42). The word Cephas is merely the transliteration of the Aramaic Kepha into Greek. Later, after Peter and the other disciples had been with Christ for some time, they went to Caesarea Philippi, where Peter made his profession of faith: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matt. 16:16). Jesus told him that this truth was specially revealed to him, and then he solemnly reiterated: “And I tell you, you are Peter” (Matt. 16:18). To this was added the promise that the Church would be founded, in some way, on Peter (Matt. 16:18).
Then two important things were told the apostle. “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matt. 16:19). Here Peter was singled out for the authority that provides for the forgiveness of sins and the making of disciplinary rules. Later the apostles as a whole would be given similar power [Matt.18:18], but here Peter received it in a special sense.
Peter alone was promised something else also: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 16:19). In ancient times, keys were the hallmark of authority. A walled city might have one great gate; and that gate had one great lock, worked by one great key. To be given the key to the city – an honor that exists even today, though its import is lost – meant to be given free access to and authority over the city. The city to which Peter was given the keys was the heavenly city itself. This symbolism for authority is used elsewhere in the Bible (Is. 22:22, Rev. 1:18).
Finally, after the resurrection, Jesus appeared to his disciples and asked Peter three times, “Do you love me?” (John 21:15-17). In repentance for his threefold denial, Peter gave a threefold affirmation of love. Then Christ, the Good Shepherd (John 10:11, 14), gave Peter the authority he earlier had promised: “Feed my sheep” (John 21:17). This specifically included the other apostles, since Jesus asked Peter, “Do you love me more than these?” (John 21:15), the word “these” referring to the other apostles who were present (John 21:2). Thus was completed the prediction made just before Jesus and his followers went for the last time to the Mount of Olives.
Immediately before his denials were predicted, Peter was told, “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again [after the denials], strengthen your brethren” (Luke 22:31-32). It was Peter who Christ prayed would have faith that would not fail and that would be a guide for the others; and his prayer, being perfectly efficacious, was sure to be fulfilled.
Who is the rock?
Now take a closer look at the key verse: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church” (Matt. 16:18). Disputes about this passage have always been related to the meaning of the term “rock.” To whom, or to what, does it refer? Since Simon’s new name of Peter itself means rock, the sentence could be rewritten as: “You are Rock and upon this rock I will build my Church.” The play on words seems obvious, but commentators wishing to avoid what follows from this -namely the establishment of the papacy – have suggested that the word rock could not refer to Peter but must refer to his profession of faith or to Christ.
From the grammatical point of view, the phrase “this rock” must relate back to the closest noun. Peter’s profession of faith (“You are the Christ, the Son of the living God”) is two verses earlier, while his name, a proper noun, is in the immediately preceding clause.
As an analogy, consider this artificial sentence: “I have a car and a truck, and it is blue.” Which is blue? The truck, because that is the noun closest to the pronoun “it.” This is all the more clear if the reference to the car is two sentences earlier, as the reference to Peter’s profession is two sentences earlier than the term rock.
Another alternative
The previous argument also settles the question of whether the word refers to Christ himself, since he is mentioned within the profession of faith. The fact that he is elsewhere, by a different metaphor, called the cornerstone (Eph. 2:20, 1 Pet. 2:4-8) does not disprove that here Peter is the foundation. Christ is naturally the principal and, since he will be returning to heaven, the invisible foundation of the Church that he will establish; but Peter is named by him as the secondary and, because he and his successors will remain on earth, the visible foundation. Peter can be a foundation only because Christ is the cornerstone.
In fact, the New Testament contains five different metaphors for the foundation of the Church (Matt. 16:18, 1 Cor. 3:11, Eph. 2:20, 1 Pet. 2:5-6, Rev. 21:14). One cannot take a single metaphor from a single passage and use it to twist the plain meaning of other passages. Rather, one must respect and harmonize the different passages, for the Church can be described as having different foundations since the word foundation can be used in different senses.
Look at the Aramaic
Opponents of the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18 sometimes argue that in the Greek text the name of the apostle is Petros, while “rock” is rendered as petra. They claim that the former refers to a small stone, while the latter refers to a massive rock; so, if Peter was meant to be the massive rock, why isn’t his name Petra?
Note that Christ did not speak to the disciples in Greek. He spoke Aramaic, the common language of Palestine at that time. In that language the word for rock is kepha, which is what Jesus called him in everyday speech (note that in John 1:42 he was told, “You will be called Cephas”). What Jesus said in Matthew 16:18 was: “You are Kepha, and upon this kepha I will build my Church.”
When Matthew’s Gospel was translated from the original Aramaic to Greek, there arose a problem which did not confront the evangelist when he first composed his account of Christ’s life. In Aramaic the word kepha has the same ending whether it refers to a rock or is used as a man’s name. In Greek, though, the word for rock, petra, is feminine in gender. The translator could use it for the second appearance of kepha in the sentence, but not for the first because it would be inappropriate to give a man a feminine name. So he put a masculine ending on it, and hence Peter became Petros.
Furthermore, the premise of the argument against Peter being the rock is simply false. In first century Greek the words petros and petra were synonyms. They had previously possessed the meanings of “small stone” and “large rock” in some early Greek poetry, but by the first century this distinction was gone, as Protestant Bible scholars admit (see D. A. Carson’s remarks on this passage in the Expositor’s Bible Commentary, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Books]).
Some of the effect of Christ’s play on words was lost when his statement was translated from the Aramaic into Greek, but that was the best that could be done in Greek. In English, like Aramaic, there is no problem with endings; so an English rendition could read: “You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church.”
Consider another point: If the rock really did refer to Christ (as some claim, based on 1 Cor. 10:4, “and the Rock was Christ” though the rock there was a literal, physical rock), why did Matthew leave the passage as it was? In the original Aramaic, and in the English which is a closer parallel to it than is the Greek, the passage is clear enough. Matthew must have realized that his readers would conclude the obvious from “Rock . . . rock.”
If he meant Christ to be understood as the rock, why didn’t he say so? Why did he take a chance and leave it up to Paul to write a clarifying text? This presumes, of course, that 1 Corinthians was written after Matthew’s Gospel; if it came first, it could not have been written to clarify it.
The reason, of course, is that Matthew knew full well that what the sentence seemed to say was just what it really was saying. It was Simon, weak as he was, who was chosen to become the rock and thus the first link in the chain of the papacy.
NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004
IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004
Interested in reading more about Peter and the Papacy? Check out these wonderful titles from the Church History and Church Fathers section of our online Catalogue (links open in a new window):
Peter and the Papacy
Pope Fiction, Patrick Madrid
One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic, Kenneth D. Whitehead
The Fathers Of The Church, Mike Aquilina
Early Christian Writings, Maxwell Staniforth
Peter: Keeper Of The Keys, Stephen Ray
Jesus, Peter & the Keys, Butler, Dahlgren, and Hess
Faith of the Early Fathers, William A. Jurgens
Papacy Learning Guide, Stephen Ray, Dennis Walters
Papacy Evangelization Guide, Stephen Ray, Dennis Walters
Tract Pak A, Catholic Answers
Janet, I am very confused by what you are trying to get across to me. Do you believe that Jesus is the foundation or that Peter is? In the one post, you said Jesus was, but in the next you are agreeing with the Catholic position that Peter is. Can both be the foundation of the church?
Hope you understand that my intent is not to attack. I’m genuinely curious and interested in what you believe.
notice, in first peter 2, Peter himself describes Jesus as a stone, a stone with the same greek root, “petra”.
1 Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings,
2 As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:
3 If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious.
4 To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,
5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
***************
Concerning the Aramaic argument, the link that I sent you had this argument which I thought made sense- but let me know if you disagree and maybe you could help me understand from your point of view why that is:
The Aramaic Kepha
In contrast to this, in paragraph #2 at the beginning of this article, the Roman Catholic Church says that the rock cannot refer to Jesus, “but only Peter, as is so much more apparent in Aramaic in which the same word (Kipha) is used for ‘Peter’ and ‘rock’.” The problem is that the text is not in Aramaic, but Greek. Since we do not have the Aramaic text, it is not proper to refer to it as proof of the Roman Catholic position.
Furthermore, in John 1:42 it says, “He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, “You are Simon the son of John; you shall be called Cephas,” (which is translated Peter).” The word “Peter” here is petros, not petra. It is used to elucidate the Aramaic kephas, which is not a name in Aramaic.
“Except in Jn. 1:42, where it is used to elucidate Aramaic kēph
Edit:
notice, in first peter 2, Peter himself describes Jesus as a stone, a stone with the same greek root, “petra”.”
This should have read “describes Jesus as a rock”, not stone. Duh!
:)
Be careful, Bethany!!!
I’ll be praying for you guys!
Thank you, JLM! We have tornados around here way too often. The last time it happened, a tornado touched down about 3 miles away from us. Yikes. At least no one was hurt!
Also here is another passage which supports Jesus being the Rock:
4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
Here is the context if you can use it:
http://www.carm.org/kjv/1Cor/1cor_10.htm#And
Bethany,
Sorry, I’m trying to do 14 things at once…..I tried to clarify my post to you that I repeated on the most recent weekend question…but maybe you didn’t see it yet. (Obviously no one else followed me over there since we are still here!) I’ve got to run, but just want you to know, I believe Jesus is the foundation, and he names Peter the “foundation of the Church” on earth once he leaves the earth.
ALL who make a right confession of faith like St. Peter, become living stones in the congregation built upon
“the foundation of the apostles and prophets Jesus Christ himself, being the chief corner stone .(Ephesians 2:20).
According to Peter:
“Behold I lay in Zion a chief corner stone/i>, elect, precious, and he that believeth on HIM shall not be confounded . . .YE ALSO as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood . . .”
(I St. Peter 2: 5-6).
Jesus is the cornerstone…the apostles are stones, we are stones, all together making up “a holy Temple in the Lord”. We are altogether “The Church”.
Ephesians 2:20
And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
21In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
22In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.
Sorry, I’m trying to do 14 things at once…..I tried to clarify my post to you that I repeated on the most recent weekend question…but maybe you didn’t see it yet. (Obviously no one else followed me over there since we are still here!) I’ve got to run, but just want you to know, I believe Jesus is the foundation, and he names Peter the “foundation of the Church” on earth once he leaves the earth.
Thats okay, Janet….I also am doing about a dozen things at once. I totally understand! Don’t worry about hurrying on my account. ;-) I just had my mom over and then she just left and I came back here. :)
I’ll go check out the weekend question to see your post. :)
Then I’ll post a link to there from here so we can all continue there.
Janet I went to the most recent weekend question but the last post there is by Jasper. Am I going to the right one?
Bethany Part, 2,
Also, I can’t find the reference now, but I think there is something about Jesus being the cornerstone and Peter being the rock? Does that help? I’m trying to show how the Catholic position is justified by the words of the Bible. Remember, I’m not taking anything away from Jesus, but showing support for the papacy on earth as well.
No rush…that’s a lot of reading to do. Thanks for your kind reply. Gotta run, talk to you later.
Stay safe! Storm pit? Is that like the one Dorothy ran to in The Wizard of OZ? God bless you!
hehe It’s kind of similar but its a little more off the ground. You just walk in. :)
Yes, I agree…Jesus is the cornerstone, and Peter (as well as every Christian) is a stone, making up a holy temple of the Lord…does that make sense? We all fit together to make up the Lord’s church.
Re:cornerstone – You might be referring to the verses I posted in the 4:10 post…
This one, Janet?
Ephesians 2:19-22
19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household,
20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.
21 In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord.
22 And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.
Bethany,
******I’m back for a minute******
Yes, you were on the right one – I repeated my post on the March 1, 2008, Weekend post (at around 12:32 today), but it’s still being used actively, so I don’t know if that’s where you want to take this discussion.
Bethany,
I haven’t read every thing yet, so if I’m repeating, I’m sorry.
Oddly enough the passage you have chosen is yet another argument for purgatory.
What do Catholics think that 1 Cor. 3:11 means? I am not sure how they would read it, with their presupposition being that Peter was the foundation of the church.
You need to put it into context…read the whole thing…
10 According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and someone else is building upon it. Let each one take care how he builds upon it. 11 For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw
JLM 4:30,
Yes, Eph 2:20 – also see this excerpt from my long post at 2:26 (worth reading in full, to get the big picture).
Another alternative
The previous argument also settles the question of whether the word refers to Christ himself, since he is mentioned within the profession of faith. The fact that he is elsewhere, by a different metaphor, called the cornerstone (Eph. 2:20, 1 Pet. 2:4-8) does not disprove that here Peter is the foundation. Christ is naturally the principal and, since he will be returning to heaven, the invisible foundation of the Church that he will establish; but Peter is named by him as the secondary and, because he and his successors will remain on earth, the visible foundation. Peter can be a foundation only because Christ is the cornerstone.
In fact, the New Testament contains five different metaphors for the foundation of the Church (Matt. 16:18, 1 Cor. 3:11, Eph. 2:20, 1 Pet. 2:5-6, Rev. 21:14). One cannot take a single metaphor from a single passage and use it to twist the plain meaning of other passages. Rather, one must respect and harmonize the different passages, for the Church can be described as having different foundations since the word foundation can be used in different senses.
Alright, MK, but then we need to go further into the context of that passage. Let’s read a little more above that:
1Brothers, I could not address you as spiritual but as worldly
1 Corinthians 10:4
4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
Janet,
I’m not trying to be obnoxious here or anything, but scripture is SO clear. It really can’t get any clearer than that, don’t you think? You said, “Peter is the Rock, NOT foundation. Jesus says this.”
Yet scripture is so clear. If it’s not clear, it is a fact that it cannot contradict itself. If the verse above states that the Rock was Christ, it would contradict itself saying that Peter was the Rock, which is not possible.
Again, I’m not trying to be obnoxious, but it’s just clear as a bell to me, and I have difficulties understanding why it isn’t for others.
I think Jesus is the foundation of the faith, but Peter is the foundation of the church…
How do you define church, from a Catholic perspective? I am not sure how Catholics define it, and that may cause confusion from my lack of understanding of your definition of that word. Maybe you can help me there.
My definition of church is “the body of believers”.
JLM,
My post at 2:26 is clear as a bell too. Can you humor me and read it just for fun? It explains any doubts you might have concerning the Catholic position. It may be just be semantics, but you don’t know if you don’t read it. Thanks.
Bethany,
If you haven’t read my post at 2:26, I’d like to hear your opinion. It appears to be well thought out from both the Protestant and Catholic angles.
In 1 Corinthians chapter 10, the whole idea here is that Paul is addressing these carnal believers at Corinth. And he’s using everything at his disposal to teach them and to bring them to an understanding of his Gospel that was given him by the ascended, risen from the grave, Lord of glory: and how that Christ died for the sins of the world, that His blood was shed, and that He rose from the dead.
And of course He has to constantly bring in all their behavioral problems, and they had them. They were constantly tempted to go back into idolatry, and immoral practices, plus all these other hang-ups that he has been addressing.
So,the Apostle Paul goes back to Israel’s experience in the wilderness, and how that when they cried for water, Moses at God’s instruction, struck the Rock, and out of the Rock came water, and Paul now makes it’s plain in Chapter 10 that that Rock was Christ.
Now you want to remember that all through Scripture from the beginning of the Old Testament to the end of the New Testament, whenever there is a typical reference to “The Rock,” that Rock is always Christ, and none other. So whether it’s back in Exodus when the Rock is struck or in the Book of Numbers when Moses was supposed to have spoken to the Rock, but he struck it again instead, that Rock is still Christ. You come on up to the Book of Daniel in Chapter 2 when Daniel has the vision of that Rock cut out with hands, and it strikes the image on it’s feet, that’s the 2nd coming of Christ pictured as a smiting stone. Then, when you get to Matthew, of course, Peter made that tremendous profession of faith in Chapter 16.
Jesus is the rock.
For a more in-depth reading on this, I encourage you to read all of it here: http://www.lesfeldick.org/lesbk27.html
Matthew 16:16-18
“And Simon Peter answered and said, `Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ And Jesus answered and said unto him, `Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, (a stone) and upon this rock (speaking of Himself, Christ) I will build my church; and the gates of hell, shall not prevail against it.'”
So remember throughout all Scripture, the Rock is always Christ in typical language.
Janet, I promise I will read it again (I thought I responded to it but I realize it wasn’t a full enough reponse) and try to respond to it as soon as I can. I’ve got to get supper started tonight and I hope you and Mk and JLM all have a wonderful evening!
Love you girls!
mk: 5:08,
Your summary is clearer than what I was trying to say.
I corrected myself and emphasized that Peter is the (rock) foundation of the church on earth, but I posted it on the most recent weekend question thread and no one followed me…so no one saw it…. I think my 2:26 post is quite clear, what do you think?
I think Jesus is the foundation of the faith, but Peter is the foundation of the church…
Posted by: mk at March 3, 2008 5:08 PM
That would make them the equals, mk. Is that what you are trying to say?
JLM,
Did you read 2:26 yet? There is going to be a quiz later. lol.
Bethany,
I think Jesus is the foundation of the faith, but Peter is the foundation of the church…
How do you define church, from a Catholic perspective? I am not sure how Catholics define it, and that may cause confusion from my lack of understanding of your definition of that word. Maybe you can help me there.
*
My definition of church is “the body of believers”.
We view the church as the “bride of Christ”, his spouse, His partner, His helpmate.
Yes, it’s the people, but it’s more than that…
It is is also the Kingdom of Heaven on earth.
Peter being the “king”, Jesus being the High King, the first King.
Peter takes His place here on earth. He is simply a body, standing in for Jesus, while Jesus is in heaven. When Jesus returns, there will be no need for a guardian any longer.
He is just the physical body that makes sure things are running smoothly.
Coincidentally, Johnny is making his first Confession tonite so I have to go. This is really big for us and is in preparation for his first Holy Communion in May. He looks so handsome!
I’ll write more later…
Janet,
You’re too funny!
Yes, I read it, but I have to wait until later this evening for my response.
I can get to quick ones now, but the longer ones will have to wait ’til later!
I hope you understand.
:) HUG!
JLM,
:)HUG BACK!
mk, Bethany,
:)HUG, TOO!
GROUP HUG!!!!
Janet,
I’m back and going through your post now….
I’ll be back!
:)
Hi gang,
It may be because I am a male, that many key elements are continuously being avoided/glossed-over. Just as you might proclaim to be an American does not mean that someone else also claiming to be an American has faulty logic… Jesus Himself refers to himself as Father …. we all know He was single … so does this mean we are bastard-children? The whole argument of ‘rock’ vs ‘stone’ is nit-picking and silly. Why, after 1500 years did a small group of rebels find ‘the true Christian faith’? Was the Spirit dormant over all those centuries? How does ‘sola scriptura’ work for Christians who cannot read?
All this (and other questions) pale beside Peter’s responses to Jesus repeating … “Peter, do you love me?” The question is so profound and disturbing that perhaps it needs fuller use: “JLM do you love me?” Prove it!
Far too much navel gazing going on to show who is correct. That kind of argumentation has us spinning-tires and does not show any growth.
John
Janet,
I liked your post! It really does bring up great history of Mount Hermon and great history on the different names that Peter was given throughout the bible and their various translations. It was very interesting!
Now; (and you knew I’d come to this! lol)
If taken literally, that Peter was actually “the rock” that Jesus build his church on, we literally then could find the skeletal remains of Peter under the building, church, that Jesus build with His own hands? Of course not. That would be ridiculous!
Peter himself was inspired to teach that Christ was the Rock on which the church and Christians are built.
1 Peter 2:3-9
3 If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious.
4 To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,
5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;
And then we have Paul, who says what’s in a name?
1 Corinthians 3:4-9
4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?
5 Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?
6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.
8 Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.
9 For we are labourers together with God: ye are God’s husbandry, ye are God’s building.
I can truly understand how the Catholic church sees this. I really can. However, when you put the rest of the scriptures together, that are found all throughout the bible and the Gospel of Jesus Christ that Peter taught, it is plain to see that the members of the body of Christ are the church. Jesus was the foundation the members of His body are built upon. Peter proclaimed this Gospel and certainly brought new members into His body. It was never about an organization, or a building for that matter. It was always about the individual believer. It is a personal decision to accept Christ as Savior. Organizations cannot do that, and buildings can’t do that. Only individual people can.
That kind of argumentation has us spinning-tires and does not show any growth.
1 Peter 2:2
As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:
John, when scripture, the Word of God, is used, we grow. I love to spiritually grow, do you? I have grown much more spirtually after researching all of these topics using God’s word, or sola scriptura, whatever you’d like to call it.
It’s actually very uplifting and enlightening when we hear God’s word. If you’d care to join us in our spiritual growth, we’d love to have you join in!
..we even HUG each other!!!!
JLM,
Now; (and you knew I’d come to this! lol)
If taken literally, that Peter was actually “the rock” that Jesus build his church on, we literally then could find the skeletal remains of Peter under the building, church, that Jesus build with His own hands? Of course not. That would be ridiculous!
Of course it would be ridiculous. Which is why we aren’t taking it literally…are you?
JLM,
They negate each other because a God that would through His perfected, purified, righteous believers into a fiery pit, would be a God that would negate Himself. That can’t happen.
Why? I often punish my children because I love them. To leave them to their own devices would be cruel. I want them to always aim to be better. Doesn’t God want the same for me?
When my kids misbehave and I discipline them, it is precisely because I love them.
It’s the parents that think they are showing their kids love by allowing them to do whatever they want that don’t really love their kids. At least not the way God loves me.
I would be very disappointed if God didn’t correct my flaws. I love Him because He cares enough about me to want me to be perfect. And to be perfect He is going to have to do some “fixin”.
If He loves me, He won’t allow me to continue in my poor, pitiful state. He will purify me and make me beautiful. It’s what I do for my kids. Why won’t He do the same for me?
Sure you are, mk! Your claim is that Peter was the rock because Peter’s name means rock. Is he an actual rock?
Of course not.
My point is, that Jesus told Peter that the rock that He (Jesus) will build His (Jesus’)church on is Him (Jesus).
2 Samuel 22:47
The LORD liveth; and blessed be my rock; and exalted be the God of the rock of my salvation.
PRAISE GOD!
Psalm 62:6
He only is my rock and my salvation: he is my defence; I shall not be moved.
PRAISE THE LORD!
Psalm 95:1
O come, let us sing unto the LORD: let us make a joyful noise to the rock of our salvation.
AMEN!
mk,
God disciplines you with His love while you are here on earth. He doesn’t send you to purgatory.
There are alot of other questions that I’ve asked you on this thread that I’m really interested in hearing your response to. I understand if you don’t want to, and I also respect that. I just feel like we’re going round-and-round with the same questions when other points are being brought up and asked about.
John, 9:11,
It may be because I am a male, that many key elements are continuously being avoided/glossed-over.
Is a word or two missing from this sentence?
JLM,
The test is postponed to a later date; more study time is needed. lol.
Jesus gave Simon the name of Peter. Doesn’t that say something? If you forget the notion that “the rock is always Jesus”, this might make some sense. But then you’d have to believe that Peter plays a more important role than you believe he should. I think we’re at a standstill.
My point is, that Jesus told Peter that the rock that He (Jesus) will build His (Jesus’)church on is Him (Jesus).
2 Samuel 22:47
Jesus told Peter that He will build His church on Himself? This interpretation makes no sense, mk pointed this out earlier.
mk,
How did Johnny’s First Confession go?
JLM,
Sure you are, mk! Your claim is that Peter was the rock because Peter’s name means rock. Is he an actual rock?
I can’t tell if you are being serious or not…
Do I also think that Jesus is a rock, since He is the cornerstone?
Do I think that I eat grass and graze on mountaintops because I am a “sheep”?
Do I think that Jesus grows leaves and that I need to be trimmed each season because He is the vine and I am the branches?
Did you really read Janets 2:26 post?
JLM,
There are alot of other questions that I’ve asked you on this thread that I’m really interested in hearing your response to. I understand if you don’t want to, and I also respect that.
I feel the same way. But these threads are long and questions get lost…perhaps we could both reask them?
Not sinless, mk, forgiven for sins. That precious work was done on the Cross over 2000 years ago, for past, present and future sins. I was made righteous in His eyes the moment I accepted Him. Once Christ is in me, nothing can seperate me from Him or Him from me.
We do not believe this. We believe Christ will leave you if you commit a sin so grave that He can no longer reside in you. (This is why we must not have mortal sins on our soul when we receive Communion). Once the sin is removed, through confession, Jesus will once again reside in you.
But we most definitely believe that you can renege on your end of the covenant.
The most important question to me, however, remains “How do you reconcile the fact that for 1500 years 7 Sacraments, the idea of the True Presence, Confession, the Papacy, Purgatory, and the priesthood were part and parcel of the universal church? How do you reconcile Luther simply changing scripture? Dropping whole books so that the bible more readily fit into his heretical notions? If you adhere to sola scriptura, how is it possible to mess with said scripture? And how to you accept scripture as the only Truth, but don’t accept Catholicism, when it was Catholicism that gave you the scripture to begin with?
1500 years of accepted practices, doctrine and faith…and poof, it’s all gone because of a MAN.
I simply don’t get this…
,
Jesus told Peter that He will build His church on Himself?
Posted by: Janet at March 4, 2008 12:01 AM
Yes! On Jesus’ Gospel, on Jesus’ New Covanent and on God Himself! His church is not a building or a religion, His church is His body and we are the members. Peter would go out and preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ to bring more members into His body, ie., church. Soulwinning, Janet!
Makes perfect sense.
The most important question to me, however, remains “How do you reconcile the fact that for 1500 years 7 Sacraments, the idea of the True Presence, Confession, the Papacy, Purgatory, and the priesthood were part and parcel of the universal church? How do you reconcile Luther simply changing scripture? Dropping whole books so that the bible more readily fit into his heretical notions? If you adhere to sola scriptura, how is it possible to mess with said scripture? And how to you accept scripture as the only Truth, but don’t accept Catholicism, when it was Catholicism that gave you the scripture to begin with?
1500 years of accepted practices, doctrine and faith…and poof, it’s all gone because of a MAN.
I simply don’t get this…
Marykay, I’m going to do a little reading up on Martin Luther so that I can more accurately answer your question here. Since I don’t know that much about him, from what you’ve told me about him wanting to remove books like James and Revelation out of the Bible, I may very well have problems with him. I need to do some research and then get back with you.
Also, I think you may have missed my February 27, 2008 8:05 AM post…. can you check it out and let me know your thoughts?
Marykay while I was reading a little bit I was thinking about one thing and I wondered your thoughts on this.
When Jesus preached, he preached reading from scripture.
When Satan tempted Jesus, He responded to Satan using Scripture.
When Jesus taught parables or condemned the Pharisees, He recalled Scripture.
Jesus was our example. He told us that we were to follow His example.
Jesus never used tradition as a response to someone’s questions, from what I can remember.
Can you think of any instance where Jesus did this?
It may be because I am a male, that many key elements are continuously being avoided/glossed-over. Just as you might proclaim to be an American does not mean that someone else also claiming to be an American has faulty logic… Jesus Himself refers to himself as Father …. we all know He was single … so does this mean we are bastard-children? The whole argument of ‘rock’ vs ‘stone’ is nit-picking and silly. Why, after 1500 years did a small group of rebels find ‘the true Christian faith’? Was the Spirit dormant over all those centuries? How does ‘sola scriptura’ work for Christians who cannot read?
John, it’s so good to see you here.
I have to disagree with your statement about this aspect of the debate being nitpicking and silly, although I respect your opinion. I think that this subject about Peter and the rock is absolutely crucial to the understanding of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
On the one hand, we have Peter, being on equal footing as Jesus.. (one statement that really confused me was this one by MK: “Peter takes His place here on earth. He is simply a body, standing in for Jesus, while Jesus is in heaven. When Jesus returns, there will be no need for a guardian any longer.” What I can’t understand is that she’s saying that Peter is a body who is standing for Jesus right now, while Jesus is in Heaven. Even though Peter has been dead and gone for thousands of years? But at the same time, Jesus, who is God, is apparently not capable of being our King and representative on earth? Maybe I am misunderstanding the statement. It could be.)
On the other hand, we have Jesus as being the foundation, which is consistently confirmed in Scripture, the foundation for the church, with all the believers fitting together to make one body of Christ, one holy temple, one “church”.
Why put Peter on a Pedastool? We are not followers of Peter, but Christ. I just can’t see calling Peter a King, when Jesus is the King. I can’t see calling Peter the “rock”, when Jesus is the Rock of our salvation.
I think that the way we understand this very important aspect of the debate has a lot to do with our understanding of the gospel of Christ in the first place.
I do not think that it was after 1500 years that people started following the scripture alone.
In fact, I found this article which may help explain:
The Early Church operated on basis of sola Scriptura
These above quotations are simply representative of the Church fathers as a whole. Cyprian, Origen, Hippolytus, Athanasius, Firmilian, and Augustine are just a few of these that could be cited as proponents of the principle of sola Scriptura in addition to Tertullian, Irenaeus, Cyril and Gregory of Nyssa. The Early Church operated on the basis of the principle of sola Scriptura. It was this historical principle that the Reformers sought to restore to the Church. The extensive use of Scripture by the fathers of the Early Church from the very beginning are seen in the following facts:
Irenaeus: He knew Polycarp who was a disciple of the apostle John. He lived from c 130 to 202 AD. He quotes from twenty-four of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament, taking over 1,800 quotations from the New Testament alone.
Clement of Alexandria: He lived from 150 to 215 AD. He cites all the New Testament, books except Philemon, James and 2 Peter. He gives 2,400 citations from the New Testament.
Tertullian: He lived from 160 to 220 AD. He makes over 7,200 New Testament citations.
Origen: He lived from 185 to 254 AD. He succeeded Clement of Alexandria at the Catechetical school at Alexandria. He makes nearly 18,000 New Testament citations.
By the end of the 3rd century, virtually the entire New Testament could be reconstructed from the writings of the Church Fathers.
************
As for the question of how sola scriptura works for those who cannot read, the Bible says,
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. 12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. 13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? 15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? 17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
18 But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.
@JLM,
just a wee problem … Jesus is spoken as ‘the Word of God’. This is an English translation of the Greek word ‘Logos’ … it can be translated as ‘The Mind’ of God, but ‘Word’ is instead used because ‘logos’ does have a more tangible sense to it than the English word ‘mind’.
Even when we translate ‘Logos’ as ‘Word’, we do not hold that Jesus’ words alone were sacred …. but that ‘the Word’ includes all sorts of non-verbal elements: like places of adoration; the Eucharist; sacred music; sacred symbols like the Crucifix; laying on of hands; kiss/handshake/embrace of Peace; tradition … etc, etc. If Jesus submitted Himself to the direction of His mother, if we are following Jesus, should we not also submit to this direction?
Janet, when I wrote of the maleness I just wanted to note that everyone in this ‘discussion’ is female and as such MAY miss certain male nuances … like when buying a car many males tend to like their car for it’s ‘power’; and many females are enamored by the ‘color’. If Jesus and all the apostles are male … then elements of their rapport may indeed be missed.
JLM, how can Jesus pray: ” … that they may be One as You and I are one” … and maintain our ‘individualness’ as the primary Christian calling?
John
Bethany,
I did see that post, but somehow forgot it…oops.
I think you have to first understand the times and the fact that then, suicide was not looked upon as shameful. Maybe this will help. Take note of the Talumd (which didn’t exist then, but the Old Testament did. If the Jews thought suicide was acceptable under Razis circumstances in the 1st century AD, when the Talmud was written, surely they thought it was okay hundreds of years before). Also note that suicide was not looked down upon even by Christians until the 4th century AD…
THE BIBLE
The only Biblical authority is the interpretation of the sixth commandment, “Thou Shalt Not Kill”. The Old Testament records suicides, but does not condemn it nor promises a happy afterlife.
Ablimlech – (Judges 9) who killed himself to avoid having it recorded that he was mortally wounded by a woman.
Samson – (Judges 16) who pulled the temple down upon the Philistines, killing them and praying that he die as well.
Saul – (Samuel 31) and his armor-bearer killed themselves rather than be taken captive by the Philistines.
Ahitophel – (Samuel 17) whose betrayal of David failed.
Zimiri – (Kings 1) burned a building down upon himself.
CHRISTIANITY
The New Testament records one suicide.
Judas Iscariot (Mathew 27) Judas hanged himself after his betrayal of Christ. Theologians have debated, if God did condemn Judas, was it because he killed himself (in remorse for the betrayal) or for the betrayal itself.
The New Testament hails both Samson and Saul as great servants of God. Samson is noted as a great hero of the faith “of whom the world was not worthy”. (Hebrews 11)
The advent of Christianity brought marked changes in attitudes toward suicide. At first there were many suicides by early Christians, especially by martyrs who found the attraction of the promised afterlife in paradise greater than the hardships of their life on earth.
The Church could ill afford to lose so many of its supporters at that time, and a quick halt to the rash of suicides was brought about in the 4th Century A.D. when St. Augustine codified the Church’s official disapproval of suicide by placing it in a moral framework and condemning it as a grievous sin. As a result, in the Middle Ages, from about the 4th to the 13th century, when the Catholic Church held great sway in Europe, suicide became practically unknown.
Thomas Aquinas, in the 13th century, further specified the Church’s attitude toward suicide in his great writings about Church and God, Summa Theologica, when he condemns suicide as unnatural and a usurpation of God’s power to dispose at His discretion man’s life, death and resurrection. Yet even in this writing, which was to become the center of Christian doctrine, Aquinas takes his arguments from Plato and Aristotle, not from the Bible.
During the 14th and 15th centuries (Renaissance) suicide was severely condemned. This period brought rise to the industrial revolution, the incorporation of the Protestant Ethic into Anglo-Saxon culture, and the rise of Puritanism, a religious outlook that also condemned poverty as sin and unworthiness.
JUDAISM
In addition to the suicides recorded in the Old Testament, two accounts exist from the Maccabean period. Razis, an elder of Jerusalem during the Maccabean revolt, killed himself to avoid being captured by Syrian general Nicanor (II Macc. 14:37- 46). The mother of seven sons murdered by Antiochus IV threw herself upon their funeral pyre (IV Macc. 17:1f).
In the first century A.D. two accounts are recorded. The first involved a group of Jewish soldiers under the command of Josephus. The second was in 73 A.D. when 953 Jews of Masada completed mass suicide to avoid Roman capture.
The TALMUD, written and codified during the early Christian era, specifically condemns suicide. The TALMUD’s condemnation of suicide is based on the interpretation of Gen. 9:5 ‘For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning’. Only self-inflicted deaths under extreme situations were acceptable, such as in apostasy, ignominy, and disgrace of capture or torture. The victim and his family were punished by denial of regular burial and the customary rituals of mourning. The severity of this punishment caused rabbis of the time to consider a self-inflicted death as only those announced beforehand and carried out in front of eye witnesses. Modern Jewish scholars believe that the harshest Jewish treatment of suicide was partly due to the negative Christian influence on the subject. (Ch.W. Reines, “The Jewish Attitude Toward Suicide”, Judaism, Vol. 10, Spring 1966, p.170.
http://www.heartbeatsurvivorsaftersuicide.org/materials/religious_reflections.htm
Bethany,
This oral teaching was accepted by Christians, just as they accepted the written teaching that came to them later. Jesus told his disciples: “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me” (Luke 10:16). The Church, in the persons of the apostles, was given the authority to teach by Christ; the Church would be his representative. He commissioned them, saying, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations” (Matt. 28:19).
And how was this to be done? By preaching, by oral instruction: “So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ” (Rom. 10:17). The Church would always be the living teacher. It is a mistake to limit “Christ
John,
It’s the individual choice to choose or accept Jesus. When we accept Him, we are accepted into His body, His church, and are all individual members of His body, but the body as a whole is one.
Just like your body is made up of fingers, toes, arms, legs….Each individual member of your body comprises your body as a whole. Many members, one body.
If Jesus submitted Himself to the direction of His mother, if we are following Jesus, should we not also submit to this direction?
Why? What could Mary possibly do for me? She didn’t die on the cross, she didn’t give me the gift of salvation. She is not my mother. I submit myself to God, and God alone. Jesus obeyed His mother, and we are to do the same with our OWN mother (and father).
Colossians 3:20
Children, obey your parents in all things: for this is well pleasing unto the Lord.
Since Jesus was perfect, He obeyed His earthly parent.
Would you happen to have a bible verse that claims that Jesus submitted Himself to Mary? I can’t find one.
Papias
“Papias [A.D. 120], who is now mentioned by us, affirms that he received the sayings of the apostles from those who accompanied them, and he, moreover, asserts that he heard in person Aristion and the presbyter John. Accordingly, he mentions them frequently by name, and in his writings gives their traditions [concerning Jesus]. . . . [There are] other passages of his in which he relates some miraculous deeds, stating that he acquired the knowledge of them from tradition” (fragment in Eusebius, Church History 3:39 [A.D. 312]).
Eusebius of Caesarea
“At that time [A.D. 150] there flourished in the Church Hegesippus, whom we know from what has gone before, and Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, and another bishop, Pinytus of Crete, and besides these, Philip, and Apollinarius, and Melito, and Musanus, and Modestus, and, finally, Irenaeus. From them has come down to us in writing, the sound and orthodox faith received from tradition” (Church History 4:21).
Irenaeus
“As I said before, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the tradition is one and the same” (Against Heresies 1:10:2 [A.D. 189]).
“That is why it is surely necessary to avoid them [heretics], while cherishing with the utmost diligence the things pertaining to the Church, and to lay hold of the tradition of truth. . . . What if the apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches?” (ibid., 3:4:1).
…
“It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors to our own times
If Jesus submitted Himself to the direction of His mother, if we are following Jesus, should we not also submit to this direction?
Jesus did not always submit to the direction of his mother. It was not His mother that He followed. Jesus submitted Himself to the direction of God.
When Jesus was 12, He stayed behind in Jerusalem when His parents were going back home from a feast.
This is not something His mother would have desired Him to do, and we find that out in the passage, that she was extremely worried about Him, and confronted Him about this:
“48
And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.
49
And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business?”
Also, a lot about how important Mary was as the mother of Jesus can be found in this passage:
19 Then came to him his mother and his brethren, and could not come at him for the press. 20 And it was told him by certain which said, Thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to see thee. 21 And he answered and said unto them, My mother and my brethren are these which hear the word of God, and do it.
Mary was not more important than other people because she carried Jesus in her womb. Yes, she was very blessed, very much so. But she was never blessed “above” other women, but “among” other women.
There is no evidence to support the idea that Mary was immaculately conceived…if she was, then she would have no need of a Savior. However, Mary said herself, My soul doth magnify the Lord, And my spirit hath rejoiced in GOD MY SAVIOUR.” -Luke 1:46-47.
By the way, the more reading on Martin Luther I do, it appears that he was a heretic.
Bethany,
Please note two things. First, all of scripture was originally oral tradition. Until it was written down and collected, there was no “scripture”. It was ALL tradition.
Secondly, there is a difference between human tradition and divine tradition.
The Jews never wrote down scripture either, unless there was a threat that it would be lost. Everything was handed down orally. This is why young Jewish boys had to memorize the Torah…
Oral Law, or Oral Tradition (Hebrew: תורה שבעל פה, Torah she-be-`al peh), according to Rabbinic Judaism, is an oral tradition received in conjunction with the written Torah (and the rest of the Hebrew Bible), which is known in this context as the “Written Torah” (Hebrew: תורה שבכתב, Torah she-bi-khtav). The traditions of the Oral Torah are believed to be the same as those recorded in the Mishnah and Talmud during the 2nd-5th centuries CE.
According to classical Judaism and the tenets of Orthodox Judaism, Moses and the Jews at Mount Sinai received an Oral as well as a written Torah (“teaching”) from God. The books of the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) were relayed with an oral tradition passed on by the scholarly and other religious leaders of each generation, and according to classical Rabbinic interpretation, the teachings of the Oral Law are a guide to that interpretation of the Written Law which is considered the authoritative reading. Jewish law and tradition thus is not based on a strictly literal reading of the Tanakh, but on combined oral and written traditions. Further, the basis of halakha (Jewish law) includes the premise that the Written Law is inherently bound together with an Oral Law.
The “Oral Law” was ultimately recorded in the Talmud and Midrash.
Bethany,
I did see that post, but somehow forgot it…oops.
I think you have to first understand the times and the fact that then, suicide was not looked upon as shameful. Maybe this will help. Take note of the Talumd (which didn’t exist then, but the Old Testament did. If the Jews thought suicide was acceptable under Razis circumstances in the 1st century AD, when the Talmud was written, surely they thought it was okay hundreds of years before). Also note that suicide was not looked down upon even by Christians until the 4th century AD…
Okay, I see what you’re saying, but I feel that you are missing something… the author of the book is actually condoning the suicide as a noble act.
If the Bible is inspired by God, it doesn’t matter how a particular culture or society looked on suicide… God Himself had said that suicide was wrong, as it destroys our temple. God says, ” 16Don’t you know that you yourselves are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit lives in you? 17If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him; for God’s temple is sacred, and you are that temple.”
He would not then say that suicide was noble, or He would contradict Himself.
In the accounts that you bring up, such as the man who kills himself because he doesn’t want to be remembered as being killed by a woman, the author of the story makes no implication whatsoever that this was a noble thing to do.
As for Samson, I do not think of his death as a suicide. His goal was not to kill himself but the philistines.
Original prohibition to write the Oral Torah
The laws transmitted to Moses were contained in the Torah written down on scrolls. The explanation however, was not allowed to be written down. Jews were obligated to speak the explanation and pass it on orally to students, children, and fellow adults. It was thus initially forbidden to write and publish the Oral Law: written material would be incomplete and subject to misinterpretation (and abuse).
After great debate, however, this restriction was lifted. Following the destruction of the Second Temple and the fall of Jerusalem, it became apparent that the Palestine community and its learning were threatened, and that publication was the only way to ensure that the law could be preserved; see Timeline of Jewish history.
Thus, around 200 CE, Rabbi Judah HaNasi took up the redaction of oral law; it was compiled into the first written work of rabbinic Judaism, the Mishnah.(There is also a tradition that the Midrashic-Mystical book “Pirke deRabi Eliezer” is the oldest Jewish book after the TaNaCh.) Over the next four centuries this body of law, legend and ethical teachings underwent debate and discussion, or Gemara, in both of the world’s major Jewish communities (Israel and Babylon). The Gemara with the Mishnah came to be edited together into compilations known as the Talmud.
Thanks to the works of Professor Lawrance Shiffman, many of the exact, intricate terms (including detailed legal arguments) mentioned in the Talmud (200ce) can be verified a full 350 years earlier in the Dead Sea scroll known as MMT ( Miqsat Ma’ase Ha-Torah / Qumran Cave 4). Anyone interested in this information can contact the Biblical Archaeological Review for more information. In addition, a book called “Understanding the Dead Sea” scrolls now contains Professor Shiffman’s article on this exact topic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_Torah
So pretty basically, most of what Jesus taught was oral tradition. The law may have been written down, but not the explanations…and it was the explanations (unwritten) which were upsetting the elders. Jesus was not qualified to give these explanations as he had no authority in the oral traditions.
Bethany,
I agree. A common misconception of Catholics, is that Protestants follow Luthers teachings. This is not true. Martin Luther founded the Lutheran religion, which is an offshoot, or “child” of the Catholic religion. Luther may have come out of Catholisism, but Catholisism did not come out of Luther. Luther’s teaching are much more in line with Catholosism’s teachings than the Protestant teaching. It always makes me wonder why Catholics despise him so much, when much of his teachings are right in line with Catholisism.
He was a heretic.
So pretty basically, most of what Jesus taught was oral tradition. The law may have been written down, but not the explanations…and it was the explanations (unwritten) which were upsetting the elders. Jesus was not qualified to give these explanations as he had no authority in the oral traditions.
But He was our example! He read from the scriptures, and He expounded on them, as the Holy Spirit guided Him…we can do this too, as the Bible says, “study to shew thyself approved, a workman who needeth not to be ashamed- rightly dividing the word of truth.”
Jesus did have the authority to understand and interpret the scriptures, and we do too, because His Holy Spirit will guide us into all truth.
The elders were wrong when they said Jesus was not qualified to interpret scripture. He spoke and taught as one having authority, and this astounded and infuriated them. They did not understand that He had the authority to interpret the scriptures, and were indignant that He would do so.
By the way, I am finding this discussion so intriguing…I am learning so much about different faiths that I never knew before. Thanks for being willing to discuss this with me, Marykay, Bobby, John, and Janet.
*********************************
I was looking through some more on Maccabees, and I found a passage which you may recognize,
” Since Nicanor’s doings ended in this way, with the city remaining in possession of the Hebrews from that time on, I will bring my own story to an end here too.
38
If it is well written and to the point, that is what I wanted; if it is poorly done and mediocre, that is the best I could do.
39
Just as it is harmful to drink wine alone or water alone, whereas mixing wine with water makes a more pleasant drink that increases delight, so a skillfully composed story delights the ears of those who read the work. Let this, then, be the end.”
The first thing that comes to mind, is why does the author feel that the book will be poor or mediocre? Why does he apologize for this?
Secondly, why does he call the story “skillfully composed”, which was written with the intent of ‘delighting the ears’ of the readers?
God’s word is not for our entertainment, but for our spiritual growth, wouldn’t you agree?
I have never read Maccabees before I read that passage about suicide, but I think I’ll be reading a lot more of it to see if I have any more questions about it. I may check out some of the other apocryphal books as well. Thanks for bearing with me as I learn.
Bethany,
Oh yes, of course Jesus REALLY had the authority, but the point was that this “expounding” was done traditionally. He was familiar with the scripture, yes, but He was also familiar with the tradition (the explanation of the scripture).
Actually, everytime you explain what scripture passage means, you, yourself, are in essence passing down oral tradition. The meanings of the scripture are written in scripture. They must be interpreted. You (with the spirit) interpret them and share what you interpret.
Everytime you have explained a passage here on these posts to me, your explanation is tradition.
As in, these are the accepted understandings of scripture as have been passed down (for us, from Jesus, Peter and the Apostles) from Luther, Calvin etc…
Bethany,
By the way, I am finding this discussion so intriguing…I am learning so much about different faiths that I never knew before. Thanks for being willing to discuss this with me, Marykay, Bobby, John, and Janet.
and thank you and JLM for making me work so hard to explain my faith. It has served to deepen it, make me better armed to defend it, and also taught me much about why we do the things we do.
I think we should begin today with a prayer…
John, Bethany, Bobby, JLM, Janet,
Would you join me in saying the one prayer that we all share?
Our Father who art in Heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day, our daily bread, and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who have tespassed against us, and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.
Lord, we know that pride, and defensiveness and impatience can enter into these discussions. But all of us, Catholic and Protestant, desire the Truth. Please help us to hear one another, help one another and discover what it is you wish us to discover, all the time loving each other and remembering that we are all part of your family.
Thy will, not ours. The Truth, the whole Truth and nothing but the Truth…Amen.
Oh yes, of course Jesus REALLY had the authority, but the point was that this “expounding” was done traditionally. He was familiar with the scripture, yes, but He was also familiar with the tradition (the explanation of the scripture).
Actually, everytime you explain what scripture passage means, you, yourself, are in essence passing down oral tradition. The meanings of the scripture are written in scripture. They must be interpreted. You (with the spirit) interpret them and share what you interpret.
Everytime you have explained a passage here on these posts to me, your explanation is tradition.
As in, these are the accepted understandings of scripture as have been passed down (for us, from Jesus, Peter and the Apostles) from Luther, Calvin etc…
Posted by: mk at March 4, 2008 10:14 AM
Marykay, thank you for clarifying…I think that you may have misunderstood what I meant when I brought up tradition. There are traditions which are customs that one follows, and I guess there is the tradition which you call oral tradition. I’ve never heard of it called that before, maybe that’s where the confusion sets in.
I do feel a little insulted by the statement that you just made though, where you say that you accept the teachings as passed down from Jesus and the apostles, and then you go on to say that I follow Calvin or Luther. I am sure that you did not mean it to be offensive, so I will not dwell on it too much…. but I have to let you know that I absolutely do not follow Calvin or Luther. I follow the principles which are shared in the Bible itself. I have already explained to you above that I think Luther was a heretic. Why would I then be his follower? I have told you that I do not follow Calvin, but I do agree with some things I have heard him say, as I feel they agree with the Bible. If they disagreed with the Bible, I would disagree with Calvin. It’s not about men, it’s about God.
For instance, let me give you this passage to help you understand how we can listen to a man, but not follow the man, but God.
********
4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?
5 Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? 6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. 7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase. 8 Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour. 9 For we are labourers together with God: ye are God’s husbandry, ye are God’s building.
******************
We could substitute the name “Calvin” in there, and it would read:
4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Calvin; are ye not carnal?
5 Who then is Paul, and who is Calvin, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? 6 I have planted, Calvin watered; but God gave the increase. 7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase. 8 Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour. 9 For we are labourers together with God: ye are God’s husbandry, ye are God’s building.
Bethany,
You’re killing me here! I’m totally unfamiliar with Maccabees myself…
It sounds like he is apologizing for any human flaw that has been found in the story. It also sounds like he is trying to say that it is skillfully (based on the facts) and the reader will “delight” because the Jews were safe.
Like we delight when we read the story of the Resurrection…
Amen to your 10:20 post, Marykay, I agree.
I could stay here all day but – sniff- I have to get ready to go to the CPC…so I guess Ill have to continue this more later.
Marykay, I’m sorry to overwhelm you with so many posts! I’ll be back when I can. :)
mk,
AMEN!
I prayed that prayer with you. That was beautiful, and my prayer also, that we all may know His Truth.
Thank you so much for that!
Oh Bethany,
I didn’t mean to imply that you weren’t following Jesus…I only meant in the sense of traditons and how you view the faith.
You believe in sola scriptura and that is a Lutheran concept. You believe in Once saved always saved and that is a Calvinist concept. You also believe that we are saved by faith alone and that too, comes from Luther.
These are not Catholic teachings and they are not what was believed for the first 1500 years of the church. So when I say you are following their “Traditions” I don’t mean you are following them, but only some of the concepts that they put forth.
Does that make sense. Never, ever, ever would I imply that you don’t follow Jesus. And Lord knows you follow scripture!!!!!!
JLM,
Thanks. It ocurred to me that all of us pray before we post but we don’t pray together. Perhaps our voices united will ring clearer…
Bethany and you are right, this has been fun and challenging. And I can feel Him working as I type…
Aww thanks Marykay, I appreciate it. Makes me feel a lot better!
I had to hop back on and let you know that before I leave. :)
I will have to come back later to explain why I don’t feel those concepts you described originated with Luther or Calvin, but just don’t have time right now! :) hehe
I hope you have a terrific day!!
Bethany,
4. What
Bethany,
Martin Luther was a prolific writer and held many views in opposition to the Catholic Church. On Nov 1, 1517, Luther took 95 theses, which he authored, and nailed them to the door of the Castle Church in Wittenburg Germany. The Catholic Church responded by demanding that Luther retract the statements of his which were in conflict with Church teaching.
The very earliest mention of the false doctrine of Sola Scriptura was by Martin Luther as he was questioned in the Synod of Augsburg (Germany) in October 1518. In his appeal to the Council, Luther placed the Bible and his interpretation of it, above the Pope. Even so he admitted the authority of the Synod and of the Bible were equivalent, only in the hope that the Synod would give him a favorable decision. In the Leipzig Disputation in July 1519, Luther went a step further and declared that Scripture ranked above a Church Council, and that Ecumenical Councils had already erred in matters of faith. As a result he was branded a heretic.
There seems to be a contradiction here, as Luther was a Catholic Augustinian Monk, and therefore was well aware that it was Catholic Church Councils* which finalized the canons of both the Old and the New Testaments. Now at Leipzig, he declared that the product of the Councils ranked above the Councils themselves.
mk, Thanks for leading the prayer. Excellent idea!
Bethany, You’re welcome. I am amazed at your knowledge of scripture and I am learning so much from you too. Thanks for your patience with me.
***********
If Jesus and all the apostles are male … then elements of their rapport may indeed be missed.
John, I’m looking forward to hearing more of your thoughts. (By the way, I’ve never owned a pink or light blue car. lol.)
Bethany,
Understand that Luther added the word “alone” to scripture to further his agenda of sola fide.
This was the first time this idea had ever been put forth. And he changed scripture to back it up.
The doctrine that salvation is by faith only. The term emerged as a consequence of Luther’s translation of Rom. 3:28 in which he added the word “alone” to the phrase “man is justified by faith [alone] apart from works of the Law”
http://mb-soft.com/believe/txc/solafide.htm
It seems to be a matter of common sense to say that good people will go to heaven and evil people will go to hell. Something would be terribly wrong if God could send an innocent, sincere, charitable, helpful person to hell. Yet sometimes people suggest that a person’s salvation depends upon his faith alone, and not upon the good things he does, or how he lives, or whether he obeys the Ten Commandments. The Bible never mentions “faith alone” (except in one passage which says faith alone is dead&emdash;James 2:24) The concept first came into existence during the Reformation, when Luther and other Protestants split away from the Roman Catholic Church. Luther’s concept of how a person gets to heaven was different from what had been taught by the Catholic Church. Luther’s phrase “faith alone” emphasized this difference.
In the early Christian Church there was no controversy about whether a person could be saved by faith alone without obeying the Lord and living well. Early Christians knew that loving the Lord meant obeying His commandments, (Matthew 19:17; John 14:21; 15:10) and that salvation depended on bearing fruit (that is, doing good works). (Matthew 7:19; 16:27; 21:43; Luke 3:9; John 5:29; 15:1-16; Revelation 20:13; 22:12) In fact there are so many passages which say that a good life is necessary, that it would be quite a contradiction if the Bible did say that faith alone is enough.
Probably the closest the Bible comes to mentioning “faith alone” is Paul’s phrase, “man is justified by faith without the works of the law.” (Romans 3:28) Sometimes this phrase has been used to defend or promote the idea that man is saved by faith alone. But if we look at Paul’s statement in context we can see that Paul was simply saying that you can be saved without being a Jew. (Read Romans 3:28-31) Some early Christians felt that to be a good Christian, one should obey all the ritual laws of the Jewish Church. “Certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, `Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.'” (Acts 15:1) Now Paul knew that it made no difference to the Lord whether a person was circumcised or not, so he made it clear that it is not necessary to keep the laws about washing, sacrifices, offerings, holy days, diet, and circumcision. (Colossians 2:16; Galatians 2; Romans 3; 2:25-28; Hebrews 8-10) “Does this blessedness then come only on the circumcised, and not on the uncircumcised also?” (Romans 4:9) “Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what counts.” (1 Corinthians 7:19) “In Jesus Christ neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working by love.” (Galatians 5:6) Paul says here not “faith alone,” but “faith which works by love”. Faith, works and love are all necessary.
http://members.aol.com/johnodhner/WhoNeedsWorks.html
The first person to espouse the idea of “once saved, always saved” was John Calvin in the mid-sixteenth century. Even Martin Luther didn
One of the first things one notices when one compares a Protestant Bible with a Catholic or Orthodox edition, is how much thinner the Protestant Bible is. This thinness has nothing to do with smaller print or finer paper, but is because seven entire books and significant sections of some other books have been removed from the Old Testament of Protestant Bibles. This seems an amazing thing to be done by people who claim to love and revere the Bible.
How did This Happen?
Most people know that Martin Luther translated the Holy Bible into German, making it more widely available to the general reader. Luther’s Bible was by no means the first German translation. It was, however, enormously successful.
As is explained in Bible Truth, Martin Luther opposed many of the ancient teachings of the Church. But how could he convince people that the historic church was wrong in its beliefs, and that he was right? He needed an authority that he could appeal to, and claim was higher than that of the Universal Church. He seized upon the Bible, introducing a new doctrine, Sola Scriptura, which said that Scripture Alone could be used to define Christian doctrine. The ancient teachings,and Apostolic tradition of the Church could then be discarded as of no value whatsoever.
Authority
But what gave the Bible its authority? Jesus did not leave us the Bible. The NewTestament books were not written until many years after his death. The Old Testament did exist, but its individual books were kept as separate scrolls and not bound together. Books as we know them, with bound and turnable pages, were “new technology” unknown in the 1st Century, They did not come into use until the 4th Century.
In fact the Bible as we know it dates from the Council of Rome, called by Pope Damasus in 382 AD, which decided on the number and order of the books that were to be accepted as Scripture. This was considered final by all the churches until 1520. The Bible therefore did not precede the Church, it was a creation of the Church.
Luther’s Next Problem
Another problem immediately arose for Luther. Although many of his teachings (and those of the other Reformers) could be backed up from certain Bible passages, read in isolation, other Bible Books clearly refuted them.
Luther, however, wanted a bible that agreed totally with his teachings. He disliked books in both the Old and New Testaments that disagreed with his teachings. He particularly disliked the New Testament Book of James, which condemned his teaching on Salvation by Faith Alone, (see Faith and Works), and the Old Testament Book of Maccabees, which advocated Prayer for the Dead, and therefore could be used to justify the doctrine of Purgatory. (see Heaven and Hell). He called the Book of James the “Epistle of Straw.”
Cutting Down the Bible.
Luther therefore took the golden opportunity of his translation of the Bible into German to try to cut certain Books out of the Canon of Scripture. Of James he said, “I will not have him in my Bible in the number of truly principal works.” He didn’t dare remove books from the Bible entirely – that was too big a step for even him to take. What he did was to take them out of their accepted places in the Bible, and put them in a separate section, which he termed the Apocrypha. These books, he said, were not inspired by God, though they contained “many good sayings.” (Luther
@JLM,
It is very interesting what is ‘left out’. Bethany was sure to quote from the Jerusalem episode of Jesus being lost at age 12. The quote I’ve focused on comes at the very end of that very episode. After being confronted with Mary and Joseph’s bewilderment “He returned home and submitted to their authority.” And JLM, since Jesus is our brother and Mary His mother … Mary is my mother too … why I call her ‘Mom’. I feel that you have a great deal of hostillity towards Mary. Am I to understand then that Mary is just one-more-notch to be put-in-her-place (put-down) by God? Just as the infant narratives must have been told to Luke by Mary, she humbly submits her whole being to doing the Spirit’s will.
There is not anyone who has ever come so close. Bethany says that ‘the immaculate conception’ is not spelled out in scripture, so it is not so. I could go on and on about how this is implied – but instead I’ll ask you to ask Mary herself.
JLM, I’ll give you a wee task … find out the time-line for development of the New Testament … like most of Paul’s epistles and even some of Acts was written before any of the Gospels.
think you’d find, Bethany, that the Church Father’s use of scripture was to explain what they were already doing in practice (tradition). I would have a hard time believing that they would accept your understanding as to who belongs to the Church …. most of these men, like Peter a fisherman, and Paul a craftsman, had a much more concrete grasp on life than us.
John
John,
You crack me up. Recently, I attended a mass that was concelebrated by 11 priests and the Cardinal. I was struck by how much this resembled the Last Supper. And I remember thinking, Wow, they’re just a bunch of guys sittin’ around sharin’ a meal..)As the mother of 5 sons, this means more to me than the mother of 5 girls) and I kept picturing the apostles at that dinner 2000 years ago, joking and slurpin’ and teasing and being, well, guys.
I wonder how different scripture would be if it had been written down by chicks!
I feel that you have a great deal of hostillity towards Mary.
MK, whether you understand this or not, I find that comment to be offensive and very rude. I don’t have any hostility towards Mary. I commend her for her faith. She was obviously a very good mother to Jesus when he was here on earth. For her to listen to God when it seemed impossible is simply amazing to me. She was an amazing woman, but that’s all she is to me. I do not worship her, pray to her, or even consider her the mother of God. She was the mother of Jesus when He was on earth, and she was one amazing woman. I can’t wait to meet her in Heaven.
MK,
I am truly sorry for the above post. It obviously should not have been directed to you, but to John instead.
I am truly sorry, mk.
John,
Here you go.
THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE KING JAMES VERSION
From the birth of Christ to 100 A.D. the original manuscripts were written in the Greek language.
The New Testament was compiled by 400 A.D.
by 170 A.D. — 20 N.T. books had been accepted by the early Christians.
by 400 A.D. — all 27 books of the N.T. had been accepted by the early Christians as they were guided by the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit guided so that only the genuine books were included.
The Holy Spirit also guided in the selection of the pure manuscripts.
The Holy Spirit so guided that false gospels and manuscripts were set aside.
The original manuscripts were lost but the Received Text that was produced during this time was a faithful reproduction of the original autographs.
452-1453 A.D. — The Textus Receptus was used by the Greek Church during this time under the direction of the Holy Spirit.
1516 A.D. — Erasmus edited the first printing of the Greek N.T.
This was in agreement with the Textus Receptus.
1526 A.D. — Tyndale’s New Testament in English was printed. He was burned at the stake in 1536 because he had the Bible printed in English.
1550 A.D. — Stephens Greek N.T. (Textus Receptus).
1611 A.D. — The King James or Authorised Version of the Bible was translated from the Greek Textus Receptus in the N.T. and Hebrew Masoretic Text in the O.T.
1611 A.D. — To the present. Infidels and assorted enemies of the Bible have attacked our Bible in every way known to man, but God’s Word shall abide forever.
The Old Testament of the King James Bible was translated from the Masoretic Text. This text was in use during the time of Christ and He quoted from them many times. If the Masoretic Text was acceptable to Christ then it certainly should be accepted by every child of God. This text was kept pure by the Hebrew priests who were given the responsibility of caring for it.
The New Testament of the King James Version was translated in 1611 A.D. from the Greek manuscripts known today as the Textus Receptus. The scholars who did this work were giants in their field. They were far superior to the self-proclaimed scholars in Biblical criticism who are responsible for the rash of modern perversions.
The Textus Receptus from which the King James Bible was translated is a faithful reproduction of the original manuscripts, which were penned by the writers of the Scriptures. The T.R. or Traditional Text as it is also called has been traced back to the early church.
The Book was not written in the seats of learning, either at Athens in Greece or at Alexandria in Egypt, but in Palestine. Some of the writers were not distinguished for their scholarship. Some did not speak even their own language perfectly. Peter was betrayed by his Galilean dialect, and he and John were described in Acts 4:13 as “ignorant and unlearned men”. Many of the men who wrote the Bible were of that character. One was a farm-hand, another a shepherd, others were fishermen. They were men of no literary reputation, and yet by the mysterious power of God the Book has become the standard of language of the most literary nations of the world.
JLM,
Even if it had been directed to me, I would not have taken offense, as it opens up a good discussion.
You say that Mary was the mother of Jesus while He was on earth.
Do you believe then, that God was half human and half God, and that Mary was mother only to the human part?
JLM,
The Holy Spirit so guided that false gospels and manuscripts were set aside.
If this is true then not one word should have been changed or deleted. Not even by “scholars who were giants in their field”. Especially, as it is then pointed out that “education” had nothing to do with who was chosen to write the Gospels…ie: fishermen,shepherds and farmhands. By your own admission (“They were men of no literary reputation, and yet by the mysterious power of God the Book has become the standard of language of the most literary nations of the world.”) being a scholar was no guarantee of accuracy.
Quite the opposite, wasn’t it the proud scholars of Jesus’ day that rejected Him, and the lowly nobodies that followed Him?
Mk,
No I do not believe that God was half-human and half-God.
Yes, I believe that Mary was only the mother to the earthly Jesus.
As scripture reads, God is, was, and always will be. With God, there is no beginning. He always was. Therefore, He has no mother, and Mary was the wonderful mother of earthly Jesus only.
Here are Jesus’ words. I follow His teachings:
“While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.” Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? And he stretched forth his hand TOWARD HIS DISCIPLES, and said, “Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of my father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.” -Matthew 12:46-50
There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him. And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee. And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren? And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother. “-Mark 3:31-35
And it was told him by certain which said, Thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to see thee. And he answered and said unto them, My mother and my brethren are these which hear the word of God, and do it.” -Luke 8:20-21
“And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked. But he said, Yea RATHER, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.” -Luke 11:27-28
Here’s some advice from Mary herself:
“His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever HE SAITH unto you, do it.” -John 2:5
mk,
Could you please re-phrase your March 4, 2008 12:13 PM post. I really don’t know what you were trying to ask here. My brain may very well be mush today, but I’ve read it 5 times now and have no clue what the question is in regard to what I posted.
Thank you!
JLM,
And what of Luke 1:41-44?
When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. [42] In a loud voice she exclaimed: “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! [43] But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
mk,
Of course she’s blessed! What woman wouldn’t be carrying Jesus in their womb! I would never deny that God knew the utmost faith that she had in Him when the Angel came to her and told her what would be. She was definately something special to have found such favour by God and to have such a strong faith in His words!
I will never deny that she is not the mother of Jesus when he was here on earth.
However, here’s why I don’t believe that Mary was the mother of God. Like I stated above, God always was. Mary was not perfect and without sin. Only Jesus was. Mary carried Jesus in her womb, yes. But Jesus’ blood was perfect, the ultimate perfect sacrifice, because Jesus’ blood did not come from Mary, but from God. Here’s how I got there” (yes, I watch Glen Beck too much! ha!)
Think about an egg floating around in Mary’s body. It cannot make a baby without the egg being fertilized. There is absolutely no proof that God did this by “sperm”. It was an conception conceived by God, it what way, we don’t know. But it did happen.
The baby makes its own blood. Once the baby begins to grow, it forms its own bones, skin, hair, etc. and also begins making blood. The
blood type (ie, A, B, AB, or O) is determined by both parents. Type A and Type B are both dominant, which means that if they are there, they will show up. Type O blood is recessive, which means that both parents have to give
the baby an O type gene for it to have type O blood. If the baby gets and O gene from one parent and a B gene from the other, it will have type B blood and the O is “hidden”. If one gives a B and the other an A the baby will be type AB. Anyway, no blood passes through the umbilical cord. Only nutrients and oxygen are small enough to pass through the filters in the cord.
Hence, it was always God’s blood in earthly Jesus, and not Mary’s.
It is in reference to you post right above it. You say:
by 400 A.D. — all 27 books of the N.T. had been accepted by the early Christians as they were guided by the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit guided so that only the genuine books were included.
The Holy Spirit also guided in the selection of the pure manuscripts.
The Holy Spirit so guided that false gospels and manuscripts were set aside.
The original manuscripts were lost but the Received Text that was produced during this time was a faithful reproduction of the original autographs.
And I asked:
If this is true then not one word should have been changed or deleted. Not even by “scholars who were giants in their field”. Especially, as it is then pointed out that “education” had nothing to do with who was chosen to write the Gospels…ie: fishermen,shepherds and farmhands. By your own admission (“They were men of no literary reputation, and yet by the mysterious power of God the Book has become the standard of language of the most literary nations of the world.”) being a scholar was no guarantee of accuracy.
Quite the opposite, wasn’t it the proud scholars of Jesus’ day that rejected Him, and the lowly nobodies that followed Him?
If scripture was deemed to be perfect and accepted in 170AD then where did the authority come from to change it?
mk,
All 27 books of the New Testament were finally compiled in 400AD, not 170AD.
In addition to my 2:02 post, let me make it clear that the scriptures were not one whole book. They were a collection of letters, etc. that were combined to form the bible that we have today.
In 170AD, 20 books were accepted by early Christians, then, by 400AD, the remaining 7 were included by Christians guided by the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit guided so that only the genuine books were included.
The Holy Spirit also guided in the selection of the pure manuscripts.
The Holy Spirit so guided that false gospels and manuscripts were set aside.
The original manuscripts were lost but the Received Text that was produced during this time was a faithful reproduction of the original autographs.
JLM,
The point remains the same. Once all of the books were compiled and accepted, on whose authority were they deleted or changed 1000 years later?
You say Luther was a heretic, and yet sola fide and sola scripta, were both concepts that he invented. They had never been heard of or accepted or believed prior to him.
I am asking why you accept teachings from a man that you yourself have called a heretic and accept scripture that has been altered, contradicting the concept of sola scriptura put forth by this heretic known as Luther.
I wonder how different scripture would be if it had been written down by chicks!
Posted by: mk at March 4, 2008 11:49 AM
I’m so far behind on this post, but saw your comment…. I LOVE this question!!! I’m sure men and women would have very different responses.
If scripture had been written by chicks instead of guys, I don’t think it would have gotten done, because we’d have treated it like a scrapbooking project, with cute drawings and ribbons, etc… lol.
mk, John, Janet & Bethany,
Here’s an EXCELLENT source for history of the bible. Check it out. I think you’ll be impressed (I know I was!)
http://www.ntcanon.org/index.shtml
I am asking why you accept teachings from a man that you yourself have called a heretic and accept scripture that has been altered, contradicting the concept of sola scriptura put forth by this heretic known as Luther.
I’m not Lutheran, mk, so I really don’t know what you’re talking about. I do agree with some of his teachings of scripture, as do I also with the Catholic teachings of some scripture. This does not mean that I “follow” Luther. And what exactly did he change or alter? I’m confused.
Janet,
Your last comment cracked me up to no end! How funny (yet true!) We do get side-tracked with the cutsies & pretties, don’t we!
Thank you.
That was definately a bright spot in my day!
:)
Behold Thy Mother!
When Jesus saw His mother and the disciple there whom He loved, he said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son.” Then He said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother”. And from that hour the disciple took her into his home.
(Jn 19:336-37)
This is not simply Jesus being a concerned son, even in His last agonizing moments before death, ensuring His mother would be well cared for. Jesus Himself during the years of His public ministry did not care for His mother, as it would appear He is literally commanding John to do. Rather, He left her in Nazareth while He travelled through Galilee and Judaea preaching the Good News. And He would later tell John and the others that they must go forth to all nations teaching them the Good News. He did not intend that John should spend the rest of his life caring for the Blessed Virgin.
Certainly, John took on responsibility for the care of Mary, but relying strictly on such a literal translation is clearly insufficient. Throughout his gospel, John speaks in symbolic terms. The synoptic gospels do not record this detail in recounting the facts of that day.
No, rather, Jesus commissioned His mother to be the Mother of all Christians, and by giving her to John who personifies the Christian people, He commands us to accept her as our own mother.
JLM, Mary was the earthly mother of Jesus, she must be without sin to hold Jesus in her womb. She is not to be worshipped as God is, but venerated as the Mother of our Lord. She must have a higher place in heaven than the rest of us, it only makes sense that she would.
JLM, Mary was the earthly mother of Jesus, she must be without sin to hold Jesus in her womb.
Why?
JLM, Mary was the earthly mother of Jesus, she must be without sin to hold Jesus in her womb. She is not to be worshipped as God is, but venerated as the Mother of our Lord. She must have a higher place in heaven than the rest of us, it only makes sense that she would.
Posted by: Janet at March 4, 2008 3:35 PM
………………………………………………
Not if God loves everyone equally. Supposedly God doesn’t play favorites.
http://www.catholic-pages.com/bvm/mother.asp
This is the source for my last post (first 4 paragraphs)
“Growing up can be realizing that Santa Clause, the Tooth Fairy, and other supernatural and imaginary stuff is not real.”
MK: No, growing up is realizing that Santa Clause and the Tooth fairy are not real, but that other supernatural “stuff” is…the part that makes you a grownup is the ability to discern the difference.
MK, it’s still a case of you saying it’s real, versus there being proof. Saying does not make it so.
It’s “real” for Mel Gibson to think his wife is going to Hell because her religion differs from his. Sheesh….
Doug
Exactly, Sally!
Janet,
This is the source for mine:
Holy Bible: KJV
22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.” -Romans 3:10-12
There is little doubt that a child cannot discern differences in what is believable. However, to reject the whole of belief realities as if such amounted to nonsense, is disingenuous. For instance the beverages you like/drink as an adult are often different (repulsive at times) to those you had as a child. And yet, I do not notice any movement to ban drinking any liquid at all as ‘childish behavior’.
John: There is little doubt that a child cannot discern differences in what is believable. However, to reject the whole of belief realities as if such amounted to nonsense, is disingenuous. For instance the beverages you like/drink as an adult are often different (repulsive at times) to those you had as a child. And yet, I do not notice any movement to ban drinking any liquid at all as ‘childish behavior’.
I don’t say it’s “nonsense,” and I’ve noted that lots of people gets lots of good out of religion. There’s no proving the negative, i.e. “there are no gods,” etc., in the first place. And nobody’s talking about “banning religion.” Well, I’m not, anyway.
Among adults, there are some who believe in their religion as strongly as a kid may believe in Santa Claus. Some adults think that other adults are wrong, because they don’t believe what the first group does. Where religions are contradictory, they obviously can’t all be right, in fact, at the most only one could. Well, each group thinks theirs is the “one.”
Doug
Janet,
Again, I’ll say this:
The baby makes its own blood. Once the baby begins to grow, it forms its own bones, skin, hair, etc. and also begins making blood. The
blood type (ie, A, B, AB, or O) is determined by both parents. Type A and Type B are both dominant, which means that if they are there, they will show up. Type O blood is recessive, which means that both parents have to give
the baby an O type gene for it to have type O blood. If the baby gets and O gene from one parent and a B gene from the other, it will have type B blood and the O is “hidden”. If one gives a B and the other an A the baby will be type AB. Anyway, no blood passes through the umbilical cord. Only nutrients and oxygen are small enough to pass through the filters in the cord.
Hence, it was always God’s blood in earthly Jesus, and not Mary’s.
This is why Jesus was born without sin. The blood had to be free of sin. It wasn’t Mary’s sinful blood, it was God’s SINLESS blood.
JLM,
As I have already said, the idea of sola scriptura, which you have said that you adhere to, is an invention of Luthers.
The idea of saved by faith “alone”, sola fide, is also a construct, complete fabrication, of Luthers.
The word alone is NOT in scripture. He added it. Your entire belief that we are saved by faith alone is based on a lie that Martin Luther invented. It was unknown til then.
The idea of once saved always saved was an idea of Calvins. NO ONE, anywhere, believed this until HE INVENTED IT!
So whether you realize it or not, by believing these things you are inadvertently “following” Luther’s teachings.
The Catholic church was the accepted, uncontested, only faith until Luther came along. After he dissented and opened the door for everyone to interpret scripture as they wanted, all the other protestants began to bicker amongst themselves and we ended up with Methodist, Anglicans, Lutherans, all the way down to non-denominational today.
My question, again, is how do you reconcile this?
How can you claim to believe in sola scriptura if the concept itself was invented by a man who in your own words, was a heretic?
Doug,
MK, it’s still a case of you saying it’s real, versus there being proof. Saying does not make it so.
And not having proof does not make it “unreal”…
Sally,
Not if God loves everyone equally. Supposedly God doesn’t play favorites.
Where do you get that from?
JLM, (MK),
Mary was born without original sin, God chose her to be Jesus’ mother. How does blood type matter?
MK,
With all due respect, I’ll take the Word of God ANYTIME over a fabrication or lie. Churches are great for explaining scripture, but when they use far-fetched ideas that cannot be backed up by scripture, or plugging an idea into a scripture that doesn’t support it’s context (like I have showed you regarding Purgatory), it is very dangerous.
Knock the sola scriptura idea all you want. I’ve never even heard of that term until I started talking to you. But like I said, I’d much rather get it “straight from the source”, being the Holy Bible, than be fed a bunch of lies by a money-making religion with an agenda.
2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
1 Peter 2:2
As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:
So yes, mk, God’s word says it’s good enough for me, why don’t you agree with God’s word?
Mary was born without original sin, God chose her to be Jesus’ mother. How does blood type matter?
Janet,
Show me, via scripture, where it shows she doesn’t.
btw,
The blood post was supposed to show you how Jesus WAS born without sin. He was perfect. It’s not because Mary was born without sin, because she was.
I like this website for Scriptural proofs for the Catholic faith. http://www.scripturecatholic.com/
http://www.catholic-pages.com/bvm/mother.asp
This is the source for my last post (first 4 paragraphs)
Posted by: Janet at March 4, 2008 4:18 PM
…………………………………………..
Janet, I no longer profess to be Christian. My maternal grandfather came from a long line of Reformers dating back to the Reformation itself. The point of the Reformation and Protestantism is focussing on the teachings of Jesus rather than the additions, amendments and ‘official’ proclamations created by the RCC. My view of proclamations made by the RCC are colored by the treatment of some of my ancestors by that institution. Catholicism and Christianity are two separate entities to me. What the representatives of the RCC have to say about Christianity have never held any weight with me or mine.
The concept of levels of heaven and hell are redundant to Christians that do not believe in a literal heaven or hell. To serious Protestants, praying to graven images such as statues of what someone thought Mary should have looked like, is heretical. Pagan worship. Satanic.
Actually teaching anything that the Bible says to the sheeple is a newish concept for the RCC. The RCC believes that lowly, unchosen by God sheeple, must have the Bible explained to them. On RCC terms and for their own glorification. No questioning allowed or accepted. It all goes back to the days when the RCC had a bigger, meaner military than any other Christian group.
Sally,
Well said.
Janet, in regard to your 3:35 post (I promise I will get to your other one when I have more time…just got back home and have to make dinner in a sec). This question may be a bit confusing but hopefully I can ask it where it makes sense:
If Mary had to be without sin in order to hold a sinless Jesus in her womb, why was God able to keep Mary from sinning when her own parents were not immaculately conceived?
In order for Mary’s mother to hold sinless Mary in her womb, would she not also need to have been immaculately conceived, just as Mary needed to be immaculately conceived (according to Catholic theology) in order to be able to hold a sinless Jesus in her womb?
And wouldn’t this mean, that as far back as the lineage of David goes, that each man’s wife must have been immaculately conceived in order to have continued the line of immaculate conceptions?
That’s all I’ve got for tonight. Wish I had more time!
JLM, Bethany, and MK,
much of the intransigence seems to be about philosophy or pre-conceptions …. and it sure isn’t much easier if you’ve followed any of my debate with Doug. And Bethany I do very much agree with you re. Mk’s description of the Pope and Jesus … strange would be putting it mildly.
Over and over, since Moses asked the name of God. Answer: ‘I am,that I am’ … ‘say, I am’ has sent me to you!” Nowadays some refer to being present in the Eternal-now. BTW it is much easier to say this word which we now say is ‘Yahweh’, than He is to understand. This word YHWH became so special that mortals did not even speak it and forgot the vowels of the name. They much preferred the word El(Lord).
Centuries pass and along comes Jesus with a brand new word for God – Abba. JLM you talk about the new covenant and rightly … but the new covenant was not about a set of books as it is about accepting God’s Name. It is simply a word of trust and …. The word ‘Abba’ is a Aramaic word for the English ‘Daddy/Dad’.
(To me it is the epitome of informality.) Absolutely no room for any kind of distinction and one of the main reasons why I thought the whole discussion about ‘foundation’ mute. Like one flame joining another, I defy you to point out one from the other. Remember Peter is filled with God’s Spirit … so when Jesus prays for the acceptance of the apostles it is to be one in the flame which is God …. it doesn’t mean that Peter somehow outdid Christ. Jesus has permitted Peter into God’s Life … a life of One-ness. And there is no waiting until Peter is dead!
Mary is very much alive and within reach. If you have trouble grasping her role … just ask her. We have very little appreciation of our life here and even less about our life that awaits.
John, I am going to respond to your posts as soon as I can tomorrow morning, if I am able! :)
Hope you have a great evening!
One of the first things one notices when one compares a Protestant Bible with a Catholic or Orthodox edition, is how much thinner the Protestant Bible is. This thinness has nothing to do with smaller print or finer paper, but is because seven entire books and significant sections of some other books have been removed from the Old Testament of Protestant Bibles. This seems an amazing thing to be done by people who claim to love and revere the Bible.
……………………
Really? What was left out? RCC editorials? Luther was a Catholic and a scholar. He found his church to be bastardized by avarice for power and control. Quite willing to violate every teaching of Jesus. Corruption on every level.
Sally,
If you don’t mind, can you please stick around on this thread? You are an unbiased source who has great knowledge on historical facts from both sides.
Your input would be greatly appreciated. I may just learn more things I didn’t know!
:)
Wow, I didn’t know this thread continued after it got cut off from the main page.
I’ve missed you, Bobby!
JLM,
You can’t just take passages out of context like that. Heck, I can say…”Eat was is before you son of man. Eat this scroll” Ezekiel 3:1, and claim that all God’s people should eat scrolls.
As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.” -Romans 3:10-12
This passage is talking about the jews. Why circumcision won’t guarantee your salvation. Why works without faith won’t cut it.
mk,
In Romans? You do realize that this is in the New Testament and Romans deals with age of grace, right?
Romans 3:10-12 is a quote from Psalms 14:1-3: “1 The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they have committed abominable deeds; There is no one who does good. 2 The LORD has looked down from heaven upon the sons of men To see if there are any who understand, Who seek after God. 3 They have all turned aside, together they have become corrupt; There is no one who does good, not even one.”
What Paul was stating goes back to what he was saying prior, “who truly is righteous?” Paul is talking about the nature of man, no one is good of their own. Paul said “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” (Romans 3:23) Paul said “For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not.” (Romans 7:18) Jesus said in Mark 10:18 no one is good but God alone. Paul was addressing the true understanding that no one is righteous of his or her own deeds or nature, but it comes through faith in Christ. (Romans 3:21-4:5)
Sally,
If you don’t mind, can you please stick around on this thread? You are an unbiased source who has great knowledge on historical facts from both sides.
Your input would be greatly appreciated. I may just learn more things I didn’t know!
:)
Posted by: JLM at March 4, 2008 5:25 PM
………………………
Really? OK.
Sally,
COOL!
JLM,
You can’t just take passages out of context like that. Heck, I can say…”Eat was is before you son of man. Eat this scroll” Ezekiel 3:1, and claim that all God’s people should eat scrolls.
As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.” -Romans 3:10-12
This passage is talking about the jews. Why circumcision won’t guarantee your salvation. Why works without faith won’t cut it.
Posted by: mk at March 4, 2008 5:35 PM
………………………
Assuming that the Jews don’t have a clue about their religion isn’t a really good basis for a belief in a knock off Jewish religion.
The Jews don’t know what the hell they are talking about but I believe in a God that the jews proclaimed but through their faulty religious beliefs cannot accept. Who is faulty here? The basis or the knock off?
JLM,
Knock the sola scriptura idea all you want. I’ve never even heard of that term until I started talking to you. But like I said, I’d much rather get it “straight from the source”, being the Holy Bible, than be fed a bunch of lies by a money-making religion with an agenda.
Which is why I am so surprised that you adhere to this false belief. No where in scripture does it say that scripture is the ONLY source for truth.
You say that you will takes Gods word over Luthers any day, and yet you believe that scripture alone holds the truth, and no where in scripture does it say this. Martin Luther is the one who said.
Again, I’m not saying that you knowingly follow Luther. But you wouldn’t even have the idea of scripture being the only source of truth if it weren’t for him.
And I think it was a cheap shot to call my church “money making religion with an agenda”…I guess the truth comes out?
You say you want the truth, and yet when you are shown the truth, you ignore it. Luther invented the idea of saved by faith alone. He INVENTED IT. This is the truth. He added the word ALONE to scripture. And you believe this because you were told it by people who adhere to Luther.
Calvin INVENTED the idea of once saved always saved.
You read a bible that didn’t even come into existence until a thousand years after divinely inspired scripture had been established.
Books were taken out. On whose authority?
You have yet to answer that question. On whose authority was the first bible written and on whose authority was scripture altered?
“What Paul was stating goes back to what he was saying prior, “who truly is righteous?” Paul is talking about the nature of man, no one is good of their own. Paul said “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” (Romans 3:23) Paul said “For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not.” (Romans 7:18) Jesus said in Mark 10:18 no one is good but God alone. Paul was addressing the true understanding that no one is righteous of his or her own deeds or nature, but it comes through faith in Christ. (Romans 3:21-4:5)”
And the Catholic has no problem with any of that, JLM. The Immaculate conception was a special grace of God; he can do that, right?
In fact, if you understand the answer to “who was truly righteous?” to be not a single human being in a literalistic sense, than Jesus would not be righteous. He is fully human, not just the appearance of man, but is a real human being with a real human nature.
We know that St. Paul uses the word “all” (as in “all have sinned”) in a non-literal sense. Look at 1 Cor 15 (I don’t know the verse) where St. Paul says “For as in Adam all die; even so in Christ shall ALL be made alive.” Unfortunately, we know that not ALL as in every single human person will be made alive in Christ because some will choose to reject him. This is why I think that a passage like Romans 3:23 works to disprove the Immaculate conception. I gotta eat now. God love you.
Sally,
Not if God loves everyone equally. Supposedly God doesn’t play favorites.
Where do you get that from?
Posted by: mk at March 4, 2008 4:46 PM
………………………………..
Are you saying that God’s favor can be bought? That would be a fundamental difference between Catholics and Protestants. Buying your way to heaven as it were.
You say that you will takes Gods word over Luthers any day, and yet you believe that scripture alone holds the truth, and no where in scripture does it say this. Martin Luther is the one who said.
Nowhere in the RCC’s teachings does it say it, mk. I’ve shown you where it does, and you tell me it doesn’t.
Maybe I didn’t make myself clear enough. I don’t just read God’s word, I attempt to follow it. I’m getting the feeling that you seem to think all I do is read it & I’m done. It’s not that way, mk.
Scripture is the Truth, mk. God’s word is the truth. If you don’t think so, tell Him you don’t believe it. I am truly sorry that you think that the ideas of Catholic teachings trump God’s word.
And I think it was a cheap shot to call my church “money making religion with an agenda”…I guess the truth comes out?
I’m sorry you feel that way. I thought it was common knowledge that the RCC is the biggest money-making organization in the world. If I’m wrong about that, I’m sorry.
You have yet to answer that question. On whose authority was the first bible written and on whose authority was scripture altered?
I gave you a great, unbiased link to that info, mk. Here, I’ll post it again for you:
http://www.ntcanon.org/index.shtml
Browse through it. It tells you all you ever wanted to know about the history of the bible.
JLM,
Yes Romans…
As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.” -Romans 3:10-12
Paul is quoting the Old Testament here…
1
1 What advantage is there then in being a Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision?
2
Much, in every respect. (For) in the first place, they were entrusted with the utterances of God.
3
What if some were unfaithful? Will their infidelity nullify the fidelity of God?
4
Of course not! God must be true, though every human being is a liar, 2 as it is written: “That you may be justified in your words, and conquer when you are judged.”
5
But if our wickedness provides proof of God’s righteousness, what can we say? Is God unjust, humanly speaking, to inflict his wrath?
6
Of course not! For how else is God to judge the world?
7
But if God’s truth redounds to his glory through my falsehood, why am I still being condemned as a sinner?
8
And why not say–as we are accused and as some claim we say–that we should do evil that good may come of it? Their penalty is what they deserve.
9
3 Well, then, are we better off? Not entirely, for we have already brought the charge against Jews and Greeks alike that they are all under the domination of sin,
10
as it is written: “There is no one just, not one,
11
there is no one who understands, there is no one who seeks God.
12
All have gone astray; all alike are worthless; there is not one who does good, (there is not) even one.
13
Their throats are open graves; they deceive with their tongues; the venom of asps is on their lips;
14
their mouths are full of bitter cursing.
15
Their feet are quick to shed blood;
16
ruin and misery are in their ways,
17
and the way of peace they know not.
18
There is no fear of God before their eyes.”
19
Where it is written: as in Where it was written in scripture as in the Old Testament.
Did you even read the posts that I put up earlier?
Please read the 9:27 post and the 9:31 post and in your own words, not scripture ping pong, please tell me why these doctors of the church are wrong, and the King James version of the bible is right.
And please tell me where in the bible it says that tradition is wrong and ONLY scripture is to be read?
Sally,
With all due respect babe, if you aren’t going to read all the posts then commenting with things that have nothing to do with what we are saying is not only distracting but unfair.
JLM,
What it says is that the bible you are reading was written in the year 1611. And books were left out and words were added.
“I’ve missed you, Bobby!”
Thanks, friend!
Hey Bethany, I was looking at some posts from above, and I think one of us missed something the other said. I asked you if you were reformed and then asked how reformed and you then you said to give you an idea of what I meant. I then asked if you had heard of TULIP. Unless I again missed your response, you might have missed my original response. So, still out of curiosity of your beliefs, have you heard of TULIP, and if so, how much of it do you adhere to? Thanks, God love you.
I find these comment boxes to be too small to really dialogue over Protestant/ Catholic perspectives on faith. I find Dave Armstrong’s website and books to be most helpful for better understand and appreciating each others points of view.
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ — His main page
ecumenism and Christian unity page http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/11/ecumenism-christian-unity-index-page.html
“I gave you a great, unbiased link to that info, mk. Here, I’ll post it again for you:
http://www.ntcanon.org/index.shtml“
While Bruce Metzger is unquestionably the MAN, it still doesn’t address the question of authority. For example, there were a lot of people who wanted The Letters of Clement to be included in scripture. If you haven’t read them, they’re great. If one didn’t know what books were considered canonical at this point in time, I don’t think there is anything about the letters of Clement or the Didache or the Epistle of Barnabas or the Shepherd of Hermes to say that they shouldn’t be considered scripture but say Jude or Hebrews should be. Do you see what I mean? The issue of canon is a real tricky point.
One more plug. A dvd on common ground … what Protestants and Catholics can learn from each other.
http://ninevehscrossing.com/Order-CommonGround.html
Please read the 9:27 post and the 9:31 post and in your own words, not scripture ping pong, please tell me why these doctors of the church are wrong, and the King James version of the bible is right.
Wrong about what, exactly, mk?
Honestly, you ask me to respond to very, very long posts. To keep me occupied? I don’t know. Then, I put a great deal of time and effort into giving you an answer, and you ignore them. I honestly am having a difficult time wanting to answer long posts of yours for this reason. Does that make sense?
I believe we have covered just about everything already.
And I apologize if I use so much scripture in my posts, but I believe scripture over what I have to say any day!
JLM,
And I get the feeling that you think I think scripture does not play a role in my church. You couldn’t be more wrong.
I’m not going to read everything in the link you sent me. It will be enough if, in your own words, you can tell me on whose authority books were removed from the accepted scriptures, and words were added to others. That’s all I’m asking. On whose authority.
And my next question, both of which I have been asking for days now, is where does it say Scripture ALONE. I see that it says scripture, but never scripture ALONE. I also see where it DOES say tradition.
I have also shown that the Jews relied/rely on oral tradition and scripture combined just as Catholics do. I have also pointed out that your belief in scripture only, once saved always saved and faith alone, are actually “traditions”.
You have shown me scripture passages yes, but none, not one, have showed me why scripture alone is to be used, why we are saved no matter what (yet I have shown you equal passages that say, indeed we CAN lose our salvation) and you have not shown me anything that says faith ALONE is how we are saved.
We are saved by Faith. Yes. But not faith alone.
We are saved when we believe but we can renege on our end of the covenant.
We follow scripture, yes, but we also follow tradition as it was passed on from the apostles to the Catholic church today.
Sally,
If you don’t mind, can you please stick around on this thread? You are an unbiased source who has great knowledge on historical facts from both sides.
Your input would be greatly appreciated. I may just learn more things I didn’t know!
:)
Posted by: JLM at March 4, 2008 5:25 PM
huh?
Janet,
She’s a whiz at history, and an unbiased source.
mk,
“the book” wasn’t a book as a whole. There were letters, writings, etc. that comprised “the book”. When putting all of the writings together, yes, some were left out due to them conflicting with scripture. The one’s that conflicted are not there. The Holy Spirit guided these men to put what we (or I) know as the Holy Bible together into one book.
Any version of the Bible which omits Acts 8:37, or “Through His blood,” in Col. 1:14, evidently has for its foundation a corrupted manuscript. This corruption can be traced to 200 A.D., when there lived one of the world’s foremost theologians whose name was Origen. Being a TEXTUAL CRITIC, he is supposed to have corrected numerous portions of the sacred manuscripts. Evidence to the contrary shows that he changed them to agree with his own human philosophy of mystical and allegorical ideas. Thus certain original MSS. became corrupt and it is evidently from this source the revised Bibles of this generation have come. Read pages 900-902, Vol. 16, 1936 edition Encyclopedia Britannica and you will see that Origen taught the “LOGOS” is “KTISMA,” meaning the Lord Jesus Christ is a created being. Thus, he could easily omit Acts 8:37 and other texts which testify to Christ’s deity.
And here, I’ll post this again, because you may have missed it somewhere in the realm of the many posts! HA!
The Old Testament of the King James Bible was translated from the Masoretic Text. This text was in use during the time of Christ and He quoted from them many times. If the Masoretic Text was acceptable to Christ then it certainly should be accepted by every child of God. This text was kept pure by the Hebrew priests who were given the responsibility of caring for it.
The New Testament of the King James Version was translated in 1611 A.D. from the Greek manuscripts known today as the Textus Receptus. The scholars who did this work were giants in their field. They were far superior to the self-proclaimed scholars in Biblical criticism who are responsible for the rash of modern perversions.
The Textus Receptus from which the King James Bible was translated is a faithful reproduction of the original manuscripts, which were penned by the writers of the Scriptures. The T.R. or Traditional Text as it is also called has been traced back to the early church.
Again, mk, the Holy Spirit guided these men to make the Holy Bible incorruptible. If something was “left out”, it was for very good reason…the way God planned it to be.
From the birth of Christ to 400 A.D. False prophets wrote polluted gospels and other books of the Bible at the same time that the true books of the New Testament were being written. Paul makes mention of this in 2 Cor. 2:17, “For we are not as many, which corrupt the Word of God …. “Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit these tainted manuscripts were cast aside and were not included in the Textus Receptus.
331 A.D. Constantine ordered that an “ecumenical Bible” be written that would be accepable to every stripe of Christian that was under his jurisdiction. A man by the name of Eusebius was assigned to direct this undertaking. Eusebius was a follower of Origen who rejected the deity of Christ. He claimed that Christ was a created being. The Jehovah’s Witnesses of today believe the same thing. This error is called the Arian heresy.
1481 A.D. The Vatican manuscript was discovered in the Vatican Library. This is a corrupted manuscript which repeatedly casts aside the deity of Christ. It reflects the Arianism of Origen and is thought by some to be one of the surviving manuscripts done be Euscbius at the command of Constantine. The date of its writing coincides with the “ecumenical Bible” of Constantine.
1844 A.D. The Sinaitic manuscript was discovered at Mt. Sinai in the monastery of Saint Catherine. It agrees closely with the Vatican manuscript and minimises the deity of Christ and is Arian in nature. It is safe to suggest that these two manuscripts were two of the fifty that were written for Constantine.
1881 A.D. The Westcott and Hort Greek Text was introduced. This text departed from the Textus Receptus and follows the Vatican and Sinaitic corruptions. Most scholars from every spectrum of Christianity have knowingly or otherwise promoted the Westcott and Hort text from that time to the present.
The Jehovah’s Witness Bible entitled the “New World Translation of the Scriptures” was translated from the text of Westcott and Hort. Their friendship with Westcott and Hort is not surprising. They reject the deity of Christ and gain strength from this corrupt text.
Most, if not all, of the modern translations of the Bible follow the path of the two worst manuscripts which are in existence. They almost seem to loathe the Textus Receptus. This is evidenced by the fact that most Bible colleges, seminaries and schools use some Greek text other than the Textus Receptus. Nevertheless, the new versions are founded on faulty texts and are not acceptable for any purpose.
Bethany, Don’t worry about getting back to my older post. There’s plenty to respond to currently!
If Mary had to be without sin in order to hold a sinless Jesus in her womb, why was God able to keep Mary from sinning when her own parents were not immaculately conceived?
Grace.
“MK, it’s still a case of you saying it’s real, versus there being proof. Saying does not make it so.”
And not having proof does not make it “unreal”…
Well, again, you’re going with the logical fallacy of proving the negative. No, there’s no “proving” unreal but it doesn’t matter in the first place.
“Unreal” =
“not real or actual. Imaginary; fanciful; illusory; delusory; fantastic.”
No proof that it’s anything but “unreal.” As you’re making the assertion, the positive assertion, I might add, the burden of proof is on you.
I wonder how different scripture would be if it had been written down by chicks!
MK, I have to laugh – that is one of the best questions ever.
You can’t cure a natural born, anti-Catholic bigot such as Sally,
It comes from being a product of generations of being a Protestant with KKK and Know Nothing family influence, and the deeply held belief of being a victim of those Catholics.
The irony of the Sad Eyed Sally is she finally dropped her generational bigoted religious training and is now just another failed Christian trying to convince others that deathsex is a life affirming virtue.
Poor Doug.
Simply explaining your the product of Protestant parent’s and their fanatical murdering god for health, wealth, and the power gained from the other two legs of their Earth bound, trinitarian god is now being bigoted.
Nothing I write is not true concerning the fact that you do not practice today, their worshipping a God that allows the pre-destined murder of his creation in the womb.
You have become released from the God of your parent’s that murders before your born, and have become a self actualized Hedonist, who measures life by pain avoided and pleasure gained.
In essence, nothing has changed in Doug ,since your religious training from your parent’s was nothing more then a wish for pleasure, and pain being avoided by praying for health,wealth and the power to murder without guilt, learned from your Protestant version of God.
And when you, or your parents’s were denyed some prayer for health, wealth or some power gained by the forementioned two Proterstant virtues, you became a silly doubter of their version of god.
Today, your a silly illogical agnostic absolutley knowing, you don’t know, or know.
Your parent’s faith in their Protestant god failed you Doug, and you became a simple minded agnostic living by the principle of pain avoided and pleasure gained.
Your a product of failed Protestantism, Doug. Your a failed Protestant, Doug. Congratulations Doug. You have partially awoken to being able to think outside that Protestant box your parent’s put you in. Next thing you’ll wake up to Doug, is defending a anti-Catholic bigot named Sally is from those years of your parent’s Protestantism still owning your mind Doug.
Hillarious, a failed Protestant defending a anti-Catholic bigot named Sally from not being able to drop that deeply held Protestantism within you, to this day, Doug.
Doug,
As you’re making the assertion, the positive assertion, I might add, the burden of proof is on you.
Duh, Doug, that’s why they call it “Faith”.
I don’t have to “prove” anything. My point is that, just because we don’t have proof, it isn’t automatically impossible. Heck, I have no proof who Jack the Ripper was, but I’m pretty sure he existed.
“As you’re making the assertion, the positive assertion, I might add, the burden of proof is on you.
Duh, Doug, that’s why they call it “Faith”.”
I’m trying to go backwards and follow what it is you guys are discussing. Is it the existence of God? Because if it is, there’s the teleological argument, the cosmological argument, and the ontological argument. There are many others as well, but it seems to be that these are the strongest.
On the other hand, I’ve never heard any good positive evidence for atheism. The problem of evil doesn’t work, and most atheists tend to be too anthropomorphic in their understanding of God, hence projecting too much of humanity onto God and limiting his nature.
Bethany, Don’t worry about getting back to my older post. There’s plenty to respond to currently!
Thanks, Janet! I was getting a little overwhelmed by the vast amount of posts to respond to! :)
If Mary had to be without sin in order to hold a sinless Jesus in her womb, why was God able to keep Mary from sinning when her own parents were not immaculately conceived?
Grace.
Posted by: Janet at March 4, 2008 10:49 PM
See, this is where I am confused though, Janet.
Why would God be able to keep Mary from sinning, by Grace, but He was incapable of keeping Jesus, who was God, from sinning, by Grace?
If God was able to create Mary in Mary’s mothers womb, perfect and sinless by Grace, without Mary’s mother having to be immaculately conceived herself, then why was God not able to create Jesus earthly body in Mary’s womb, perfect and sinless by Grace, without Mary having to be immaculately conceived?
As you’re making the assertion, the positive assertion, I might add, the burden of proof is on you.
Duh, Doug, that’s why they call it “Faith”.
LOL :-P
Bethany,
We call her conception “immaculate”…The Immaculate Conception is one of the infallible statements of one of the popes.
We believe that she was capable of sinning, but that through grace (remember, she was FULL, room for no more, of grace) she was able to AVOID it,(which is different from being UNABLE to sin) and that the only way God intervened was to create her without the stain of Original Sin.
I am confused tho, by what you are asking about Jesus committing sin. When did he commit sins?
Or do you mean you thought that we were saying Mary was incapable of committing sin? Because she wasn’t.
yllas: Next thing you’ll wake up to Doug, is defending a anti-Catholic bigot named Sally
Nonsense. You don’t get beyond your fruit-loopy fantasies. If there is a “bigot” here, then look in the mirror.
“One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.”
I know there are wonderful Catholic people on earth, as well as wonderful Protestants, agnostics, atheists, members of other religions, etc.
You rant and rave about atheists, Protestants, agnostics, members of other religions, really – anybody from outside your own little “tribe.” One of these days the dictionary is going to have your picture beside the entry for “bigot.”
Doug
Hey Bethany, I was looking at some posts from above, and I think one of us missed something the other said. I asked you if you were reformed and then asked how reformed and you then you said to give you an idea of what I meant. I then asked if you had heard of TULIP. Unless I again missed your response, you might have missed my original response. So, still out of curiosity of your beliefs, have you heard of TULIP, and if so, how much of it do you adhere to? Thanks, God love you.
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at March 4, 2008 6:33 PM
Oh sorry about that, Bobby! :)
It’s good to have you back in here, by the way.
I have heard of Tulip but would have to go look it up in Google again to remember what the acronym stood for. I think that my beliefs are very close but there are some differences, unless I am mistaken.
See, until I was married, I was in a family who was a fundamentalist independent Baptist, and there are a lot of differences in those beliefs and those of Calvinism.
But there are many things which I have read in Calvinistic books which I agree with and see as being Biblically sound.
This is why I say you might call me “reformed”, sort of. I’m starting to learn a bit about the beliefs surrounding Calvinism, but I do not adhere to any Calvinistic doctrine, that I know of…I simply adhere to the Bible.
See, before I got married, I really had no choice but to say that I believed what my parents believed. My parents wouldn’t allow difference of opinion. (They, however, did one good thing though during all of that time I lived with them. They let me listen to Alexander Scourby Bible CD’s every day- you know, the guy who reads the Bible all the way through? My sister, brother, and I would listen to them in the car, and in the house, pretty much anywhere…about 5-6 chapters, sometimes whole books every day. Because of this, I became really familiar with the Bible and it helped me to notice that some things that our church was teaching didn’t seem to really add up with the Bible itself.)
If there is a Calvinistic doctrine which doesn’t add up with the Bible, I will reject it.
As for predestination, I do agree with Calvinists on that one because the Bible talks about this a lot. Of course, I would have a lot of opposition from my own church on that one.
I believe that no one can choose to come to the Lord on their own – that they can only come to God when the Holy Spirit draws him and they respond to His call…of course, that is a whole new topic for another day! lol
“What Paul was stating goes back to what he was saying prior, “who truly is righteous?” Paul is talking about the nature of man, no one is good of their own. Paul said “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” (Romans 3:23) Paul said “For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not.” (Romans 7:18) Jesus said in Mark 10:18 no one is good but God alone. Paul was addressing the true understanding that no one is righteous of his or her own deeds or nature, but it comes through faith in Christ. (Romans 3:21-4:5)”
Yes! Bobby, that is right. No one is good on their own. The only way to be “good” is to have God’s spirit dwelling in you, and that comes through faith in Christ.
And the Catholic has no problem with any of that, JLM. The Immaculate conception was a special grace of God; he can do that, right?
Of course…but the question is, why couldn’t He do it with Jesus by the special grace of God, without Mary having to be immaculately conceived?
In fact, if you understand the answer to “who was truly righteous?” to be not a single human being in a literalistic sense, than Jesus would not be righteous. He is fully human, not just the appearance of man, but is a real human being with a real human nature.
We know that St. Paul uses the word “all” (as in “all have sinned”) in a non-literal sense. Look at 1 Cor 15 (I don’t know the verse) where St. Paul says “For as in Adam all die; even so in Christ shall ALL be made alive.” Unfortunately, we know that not ALL as in every single human person will be made alive in Christ because some will choose to reject him. This is why I think that a passage like Romans 3:23 works to disprove the Immaculate conception. I gotta eat now. God love you.
The passage about Adam and Christ is understood that Jesus is speaking of only the believers in Christ.
Let me see if I can clarify that a bit:
“For as in Adam all die; even so in Christ shall ALL be made alive.
For as in Adam, all who are born from Adam (the earthly birth) die.
So in Christ, ALL (who are born in Christ) shall be made alive.
So the word “all” actually does fit in there, and literally too.
The all which is described in the passages that JLM posted, they also have the addition, “No, not one”, which means that there are no exceptions to that rule. No one is righteous, no one one.
Hey Bethany!
“If God was able to create Mary in Mary’s mothers womb, perfect and sinless by Grace, without Mary’s mother having to be immaculately conceived herself, then why was God not able to create Jesus earthly body in Mary’s womb, perfect and sinless by Grace, without Mary having to be immaculately conceived?”
It is my understanding that he could have. I hope I”m not undermining any of my Catholic friends arguments on this post, but I don’t see it as being necessary that Jesus was born to a mother without original sin. Jesus could have incarnated into the womb of a prostitute if God wanted. I’ve heard the argument before that they shared blood so she had to have been free from original sin, but to me that’s just some decent evidence as to why the immaculate conception makes sense; not a direct argument for the immaculate conception (if that distinction makes sense).
BTW, you don’t have to respond to anything I wrote way back when either. I know how overwhelming it can be to try and respond to 100 posts or whatever. God love you.
“As you’re making the assertion, the positive assertion, I might add, the burden of proof is on you.”
Duh, Doug, that’s why they call it “Faith”.
Sure, MK, but thus there really isn’t proof, and while you are welcome to your personal beliefs, it’s not a reasonable basis for making public policy.
……
I don’t have to “prove” anything.
When it comes to essentially saying that abortion should be made illegal “because God says so,” then you do.
……
My point is that, just because we don’t have proof, it isn’t automatically impossible. Heck, I have no proof who Jack the Ripper was, but I’m pretty sure he existed.
Well, what is “automatically impossible”? Not that much…. yllas’s beany propeller achieving a speed of over 100 RPM?
I also don’t think that ol’ J. the R. is at issue. And maybe using a thicker layer of aluminum foil under the beany (to foil those dastardly space aliens who are always trying to aim anti-Catholic rays into yllas’s brain, don’t you know) would induce a harmonic resonance, speeding up the propeller.
186,282 – it’s not just the law, it’s the limit.
Bethany,
We call her conception “immaculate”…The Immaculate Conception is one of the infallible statements of one of the popes.
We believe that she was capable of sinning, but that through grace (remember, she was FULL, room for no more, of grace) she was able to AVOID it,(which is different from being UNABLE to sin) and that the only way God intervened was to create her without the stain of Original Sin.
Marykay, the Bible says that we ALL can be prevented from sinning, when we are born of the Spirit, God’s spirit dwells in us and we are no longer slaves to sin. We are all have grace equal to the grace of Mary’s grace. We were not all chosen to carry God’s Son in our wombs, but God ordained her for that purpose, just as he ordained Jeremiah to be a prophet, to serve that purpose for Him and His glory.
I am confused tho, by what you are asking about Jesus committing sin. When did he commit sins?
Or do you mean you thought that we were saying Mary was incapable of committing sin? Because she wasn’t.
I’m sorry if it was confusing what I was saying.
No, Jesus never committed sin.
If Mary was still capable of committing sin, then she still had the flaw which, if sin was passed down through women, would have passed down to Jesus, regardless of whether she sinned or not.
As for us, I believe that sin passes down from the men, not the women. Therefore, when Jesus was born of Mary, He was not born with original sin because His father was divine.
Here is a link which can help you understand this, as I’m sure it will confuse you even more if it isn’t clarified:
http://www.carm.org/questions/Jesus_original_sin.htm
” Some Bible commentators, with whom I agree, hold the position that the sin nature is passed down through the father. Support for this position is found in the fact that sin entered the world through Adam, not Eve. Remember, Eve was the one who sinned first. However, sin did not enter the world through her. It entered through Adam. Rom. 5:12 says, “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned.” The concept behind this is called Federal Headship. This means that a person (a father) represents his descendants. We see this concept taught in Heb. 7:9-10, “And, so to speak, through Abraham even Levi, who received tithes, paid tithes, 10for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him.” We see in Hebrews that Levi, a distant descendant of Abraham, is said to have paid tithes to Melchizedek when Abraham was the one offering the tithes, not Levi. What this means is that there is biblical support for the idea that the sin nature was passed down through the father. Since Jesus had not literal, biological father, the sin nature was not passed down to Him. However, since He had a human mother, he was fully human but without original sin. Jesus has two natures: God and man. Col. 2:9 says, “For in Him dwells all the fullness of deity in bodily form.” Jesus received His human nature from Mary, but He received His divine nature through God the Holy Spirit. Therefore, Jesus is both God and man. He was sinless, had no original sin, and was both fully God and fully man.”
When it comes to essentially saying that abortion should be made illegal “because God says so,” then you do.
……
Doug, how many times do we have to tell you that it isn’t “because God says so” that we believe abortion is wrong. This is a human rights issue, not a religious issue.
Although, of COURSE our faiths agree with us that abortion is wrong. This doesn’t mean that it is the sole factor for why we are against abortion!
Bobby: I’m trying to go backwards and follow what it is you guys are discussing. Is it the existence of God? Because if it is, there’s the teleological argument, the cosmological argument, and the ontological argument. There are many others as well, but it seems to be that these are the strongest.
“Strongest”? Perhaps, Bobby, yet they rely on assumptions. I don’t see them as really being arguments but rather statements of belief.
……
On the other hand, I’ve never heard any good positive evidence for atheism.
Same deal – it’s assuming there are no gods. Ya can’t prove “faith” and ya can’t prove the negative.
……
The problem of evil doesn’t work, and most atheists tend to be too anthropomorphic in their understanding of God, hence projecting too much of humanity onto God and limiting his nature.
I think “evil” and “good” work just fine. They come down to what’s wanted and what’s not. An atheist might look at a theoretical construct of a god or gods on an “if/then” basis, but as for “projection” I think there are plenty of ideas about gods out there already.
Doug
Hey Bethany!
“If God was able to create Mary in Mary’s mothers womb, perfect and sinless by Grace, without Mary’s mother having to be immaculately conceived herself, then why was God not able to create Jesus earthly body in Mary’s womb, perfect and sinless by Grace, without Mary having to be immaculately conceived?”
It is my understanding that he could have. I hope I”m not undermining any of my Catholic friends arguments on this post, but I don’t see it as being necessary that Jesus was born to a mother without original sin. Jesus could have incarnated into the womb of a prostitute if God wanted. I’ve heard the argument before that they shared blood so she had to have been free from original sin, but to me that’s just some decent evidence as to why the immaculate conception makes sense; not a direct argument for the immaculate conception (if that distinction makes sense).
Wow, Bobby, thank you! You understood exactly what I was trying to say. :D
Oh and I did respond to that post, it’s just a couple of posts up. :) You may have already found it by now! :)
I’ve heard the argument before that they shared blood so she had to have been free from original sin, but to me that’s just some decent evidence as to why the immaculate conception makes sense; not a direct argument for the immaculate conception (if that distinction makes sense).
I could be wrong, but don’t unborn children make their own unique blood, even from the very beginning of their lives? I know that at least one of my children was born with a different blood type than me.
Great! Thanks for sharing.
“As for predestination, I do agree with Calvinists on that one because the Bible talks about this a lot. Of course, I would have a lot of opposition from my own church on that one.”
Double predestination? Catholics believe in predestination as well, but only that God predestines some people to heaven, never to hell.
“Yes! Bobby, that is right. No one is good on their own. The only way to be “good” is to have God’s spirit dwelling in you, and that comes through faith in Christ.”
Agreed.
“Of course…but the question is, why couldn’t He do it with Jesus by the special grace of God, without Mary having to be immaculately conceived?”
Right, and as I stated above I think he could have. But we believe he chose to use a human, a creature to do his work. It’s kind of like the angels. God sent the angel Gabriel to announce the incarnation to Mary. Why didn’t God announce this to Mary himself? Well, includes his creation, his creatures in his work, just like a loving Father who wants to include his children in the activities or chores around the house he performs. Sure, the dad can get the work done himself, but including his children in his work makes it a fatherly work. Of course, this analogy is only to try and show why the immaculate conception might makes sense in terms of who God is. It isn’t positive evidence in favor of it.
“The passage about Adam and Christ is understood that Jesus is speaking of only the believers in Christ.”
I see what you mean here. Let’s look at a couple different things. First of all, St. Paul is trying to say how now with the new covenant, there is “nothing special” about being a Jew and Jewish ceremonial rituals, etc. We see in verse 9 that Jews and gentiles are all under sin. Now Jesus was a real human person with a real human nature who was a Jew. He fits into this category of people that St Paul is talking about because he REALLY was a human person. Clearly we know that Paul does not intent to include Jesus. Now I don’t mean to try and open the floodgates for tons and tons of exceptions, but if you understand “no not one” to really mean “no not one” then this can’t include Jesus. (wow, that last sentence makes me look like a revisionist!) So i think it’s more plausible that that phrase is hyperbole.
But let me look at another angle. Romans 3:9-11
9What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;
10As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
11There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
As we agreed to above, no one can come to God without the Holy Spirit (I think we actually understand this to mean different things, but a surface level understanding of this will do just fine) And so without the Holy Spirit or the grace of God, Mary could do nothing. But in verse 11, Paul continues this line of reasoning and we see that there is none that seeketh after God. Well, moved by the Holy Spirit, I think you would agree that there are people who seek after God. Without the Holy Spirit, no way. And that’s the idea with Mary. On her own, no way is she righteous. But with the power of the Holy Spirit, this is possible. So like LJM stated before, this can be understood as a passage about human nature and how corrupt it has become, and amen to that. No one is righteous on their own. It is a grace of God, and that’s the way I would see this passage.
I think 800 might be possible…
Doug, how many times do we have to tell you that it isn’t “because God says so” that we believe abortion is wrong. This is a human rights issue, not a religious issue.
Bethany, I disagree with you there – it’s very often a religious deal. However, if all religious stuff would be left out of the abortion debate, it’d be fine with me.
……
Although, of COURSE our faiths agree with us that abortion is wrong. This doesn’t mean that it is the sole factor for why we are against abortion!
I don’t think anybody said it’s the sole factor. “Human rights”? Yes, but the entire question is still before us, there. (Should they be attributed or not?)
Melchizedek
Gotta love some of those old names. You see a lot of Jacobs, Joshuas and Michaels these days, but not many Melchizedeks.
186,282 miles per second – it’s not just the law, it’s the limit.
Bobby,
I’m way confused. Are you saying that you don’t believe in the Immaculate Conception?
Hey Doug.
“”Strongest”? Perhaps, Bobby, yet they rely on assumptions. I don’t see them as really being arguments but rather statements of belief.”
Well, yeah. What assumptions do you think pose problems?
“I’m way confused. Are you saying that you don’t believe in the Immaculate Conception?”
Oh no, not at all. I”m saying I don’t buy the argument that the reason the immaculate conception is true is because Jesus had to incarnate into a body that was free from original sin. I think there are other arguments that are more sound.
It’s kind of like how some people argue for the existance of God based on morals, or the Moral argument. I of course believe in God, but I don’t buy the moral argument for his existence. I think it’s a flawed argument, but I still think there are other arguments to prove he exists.
Of course I believe in the immaculate conception, just not for the above reason. Does that make sense?
@JLM,
It is very interesting what is ‘left out’. Bethany was sure to quote from the Jerusalem episode of Jesus being lost at age 12. The quote I’ve focused on comes at the very end of that very episode. After being confronted with Mary and Joseph’s bewilderment “He returned home and submitted to their authority.”
Yes, you are right John. The point I was trying to make was not that Jesus was not obedient to his parents (believe me, I would never make this kind of implication!), but that His ultimate goal was to fulfill his father‘s wishes, not Mary’s.
Jesus was obedient and subject to his parents while He was a child. What does that tell me? It tells me that Jesus was a good example for us. The Bible tells us that we are to “obey our parents in the Lord, for this is right”.
If Jesus had not been obedient to His parents, He would not have been an example of this very solid principle which is in the Bible.
I do not see His obedience to His earthly mother as a way of Him saying that we need to obey Mary or pray to her now at all. This would be reading a lot more into it than is there, in my opinion.
He was simply being a good child, obeying His parents as God commands that all children do.
And JLM, since Jesus is our brother and Mary His mother … Mary is my mother too … why I call her ‘Mom’. I feel that you have a great deal of hostillity towards Mary. Am I to understand then that Mary is just one-more-notch to be put-in-her-place (put-down) by God? Just as the infant narratives must have been told to Luke by Mary, she humbly submits her whole being to doing the Spirit’s will.
We can do the same, John.
Once we are born of the Spirit, we are not enslaved to sin anymore (it does not rule over us. We can tell Satan to get behind us and he will flee), and we can submit our whole being to doing the Spirit’s will. This does not make us higher beings but simply humans who have submitted to God’s will. Mary was very blessed, and like JLM said, it will be wonderful to meet our Sister in Christ in Heaven, but we cannot place her on such a pedastool as to call her the queen of Heaven.
Bethany, I disagree with you there – it’s very often a religious deal. However, if all religious stuff would be left out of the abortion debate, it’d be fine with me.
Doug, the only time we bring religion into it, to an atheist, is when an atheist brings it up.
Hey JLM. That time line at 7:06 from yesterday… where did you get it from?
Nonsense Doug,
You offer a apologetic for a bigoted anti-Catholic named Sally and think your not trapped in the bigotry of your parent’s religion founded on nothing more then a protest against Catholics.
Your parent’s made you into a failed Protestant Doug, not me.
That is why you come here to this site and try and prove your parent’s religious logic that is reduced to a murdering Jesus for health, wealth, and the power gained from being “set free” to do work of Jesus through acts of abortion.
You worshipped a God of murder Doug as a faithful child of your parent’s god, and have not progressed one thought beyond their murdering God they created to gain power, wealth and health on this Earth.
Eventually millions of failed Protestants simply became converts to some form of “comes around goes around”, instant karma, which is simply Protestantism without Jesus doing the pre-destined death and destruction of humanity.
Like you Doug.
Bobby,
Yes and THANK YOU! You had me nervous there for a moment.
Bethany brings up a good point. If Mary was conceived without original sin (not having it removed but actually never having it to begin with) then she actually was unable to sin, since original sin is what causes us to sin…am I making sense here?
So now I’m not sure how to answer Bethany…
Care to help?
Okay, here is the info about the child’s blood and the mother’s:
Day 22: heart begins to beat with the child’s own blood, often a different type than the mothers’.
Bethany,
I have to thank you for bringing that up…I have always just accepted Mary’s purity, and never questioned it. I now have a fuller understanding.
Here is what I found…
The Immaculate Conception
It
I could be wrong, but don’t unborn children make their own unique blood, even from the very beginning of their lives? I know that at least one of my children was born with a different blood type than me.
Yes, Bethany. That is correct. The baby does make it’s own blood. I posted this earlier regarding where blood comes from:
The baby makes its own blood. Once the baby begins to grow, it forms its own bones, skin, hair, etc. and also begins making blood. The
blood type (ie, A, B, AB, or O) is determined by both parents. Type A and Type B are both dominant, which means that if they are there, they will show up. Type O blood is recessive, which means that both parents have to give
the baby an O type gene for it to have type O blood. If the baby gets and O gene from one parent and a B gene from the other, it will have type B blood and the O is “hidden”. If one gives a B and the other an A the baby will be
type AB. Anyway, no blood passes through the umbilical cord. Only nutrients and oxygen are small enough to pass through the filters in the cord.
My point of this post was to show that the blood that had to pay for all sins had to be sinless. Mary was born with sin, according to scripture, as we all were. Jesus was not. His blood was sinless because it didn’t come from Mary. It came from the Father. An egg is just an egg until it is fertilized. The egg has to be fertilized from the father in order for life to begin. We don’t know how God fertilized that egg, but we do know that the fertilization came from the Father, therefore Jesus’ blood was sinless. It had nothing to do with Mary being sinless. She wasn’t. She was a vessel to carry the most precious gift on earth. She was truly blessed.
In addition to my 8:56 post, when the pope declared that Mary was sinless, he had no idea, scientifically, where the baby’s blood came from.
“Bethany brings up a good point. If Mary was conceived without original sin (not having it removed but actually never having it to begin with) then she actually was unable to sin, since original sin is what causes us to sin…am I making sense here?”
Yes, definitely. I don’t know if I’m answering the right question though, but is the problem that if Mary had concupiscence then Jesus did as well? Concupiscence is also a side-effect of original sin, so we would say that neither Mary nor Jesus suffered from it. However, we know from, say Matthew 4 that Jesus was tempted. Now I’ve heard this explained, and it gets pretty crazy, taking apart the idea how Jesus was tempted, yet could not have sinned, so what does that mean etc. But the point is that we all believe that Jesus was tempted (whatever that means) so it follows that Mary could have suffered at least the same “kind” of temptation.
I don’t know if that answers the question…
“In addition to my 8:56 post, when the pope declared that Mary was sinless, he had no idea, scientifically, where the baby’s blood came from.”
But again LJM, thats not why we believe in the immaculate conception.
Bethany (JLM),
I agree with Bobby that the whole blood thing is a Red Herring. It has more to do with Mary being the new Eve, Jesus being the new Adam and Mary being the new Ark of the Covenant. The ark had very specific instructions on how it was to be built. Mary is the new “vessel” that will carry God’s word and as such needed to be unblemished.
We know that Saint Paul could not have meant EVERYONE, NO NOT ONE, because Adam and Eve were originally created without the stain of sin. So that’s at least twice that God created human beings without sin. And Jesus Himself, was fully Human and also born without the stain of original sin…that makes three. The leap to Mary being born sinless is not that great.
Marykay, thank you for your 8:53 post. I still see you basically saying the same thing though. That Mary was conceived with the same sin nature, but was kept from sin.
I noticed in one part of your post, it said that Gabriel called Mary “full of grace”. I understand that you believe this means that Mary was pure, kept from sin? I may be wrong. But the Bible doesn’t even say “full of grace” in that passage. I looked it up. Here is what it says- I am bolding the parts that I think are important to note:
28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. 29 And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be. 30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. 31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. 34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. 36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren. 37 For with God nothing shall be impossible. 38 And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.
Mary was the humble servant, or handmaid, of the Lord. She was not a higher being, she was humbling herself and submitting to God’s will.
Later in this same chapter, Mary says:
46 And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord,
47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
48 For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
49 For he that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is his name.
50 And his mercy is on them that fear him from generation to generation.
51 He hath shewed strength with his arm; he hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
52 He hath put down the mighty from their seats, and exalted them of low degree.
53 He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away.
54 He hath holpen his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy;
55 As he spake to our fathers, to Abraham, and to his seed for ever.
Doug,
We are not and have not been discussing whether or not there is a God. We are discussing doctrinal and theological differences between protestants and catholics…we’re way, way past whether he exists or not.
Funny how we can discuss something rationally without having to prove its existence. We are all quite satisfied that our initial assumptions are correct…ie: there is a God. He loves us. He died for us.
It’s a shame you can’t be in on this conversation as you have been left standing at the door of unbelief…
@9:12 post…Bravo, Marykay.
I just looked up the word “low estate” from Luke 1:48 in the strongs concordance. Here is what I found:
Low estate comes from the greek word, ταπείνωσις, which means:
1) lowness, low estate
2) metaph.
a) spiritual abasement, leading one to perceive and lament his (moral) littleness and guilt
http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G5014&Version=kjv
Bethany,
That was discussed here:
When discussing the Immaculate Conception, an implicit reference may be found in the angel
Bethany, there is, unfortunately, controversy over how the Greek term Kecharitomene is translated. (the term that some translate “highly favored” and others “full of grace”)I’m not going to pretend to be a Greek scholar, so I don’t know how much of that I can get into.
But let’s see, some of those things that you “bolded” are good evidence for the Catholic understanding of Mary, like “all generations shall call me BLESSED” :)
But I think I know what your point is about some of the others, like “my Saviour.” And we wholeheartedly agree that Mary was in need of a Saviour. But there are two ways to be saved. 1) you are saved in the way Jesus saves all of us (however we understand that) or 2) you are saved by being kept from needing the 1st option. Okay, the way I worded that was abysmal. Let me make an analogy.
Say you are walking through a forest and there is a deep pit which is covered by leaves and you are headed straight for it. You fall in it and can’t get out. Jesus comes and lowers you a rope and pulls you out. You are “saved.” That’s how most of us are saved.
The other way in which one can be saved is right as we are about to step onto those leaves and fall into the whole, Jesus puts his hand out and stops us from falling in. This is like the Immaculate conception, a single special grace. Either way, Jesus saves us, and without him both us and Mary would be in that pit. All we believe is that he stopped Mary from walking into that pit. She would have had it not been for him, so he is her Saviour.
Marykay, from the concordance I have looked at, “highly favoured” (which is the text in my Bible), translates to the greek word, χαριτόω, which means:
“1) to make graceful
a) charming, lovely, agreeable
2) to peruse with grace, compass with favour
3) to honour with blessings”
I am not sure where you are getting the words “full of grace” or Kecharitomene from, or what translation of the Bible it comes from, or when that translation was recorded. Can you help me?
Bethany,
Yes. Low Estate. For He has taken me, a woman of nothing, and exalted her to the highest of postitions. The mother of God. From this point on, after she says yes, people will recognize that she was “blessed”…was singled out, was different.
mk or Bobby,
I’m confused as to what “grace” means to you guys. Does it mean something different when applied to different situations, or does it mean the same thing to all situations?
Bethany,
I will but I need to drive John to the train…I’ll get back soon…
“blessed”
Here is the greek root for that: εὐλογέω
1) to praise, celebrate with praises
2) to invoke blessings
3) to consecrate a thing with solemn prayers
a) to ask God’s blessing on a thing
b) pray God to bless it to one’s use
c) pronounce a consecratory blessing on
4) of God
a) to cause to prosper, to make happy, to bestow blessings on
b) favoured of God, blessed
I don’t see where this says that Mary had a different state of being than anyone else, but rather that she found favor with God.
We all can find favor with God by submitting ourselves to His will. We may not all be chosen to carry His Son, but we all can find Favor and be “blessed”.
Job found favor with God. Abraham found favor with God. Rehab the Harlot found favor with God.
They were all blessed because they found favor with God, through their faith in Him.
See you when you get back! :)
Bobby, I understand your analogy, absolutely.
However, I simply cannot see a reason to believe that Mary was given this different method of Salvation. Do you see what I mean? There isn’t any Biblical support for the idea that Mary was prevented from sinning.
Also, this brings me to another thought about Mary… do Catholics really believe that she was always a virgin till the day she died?
“I am not sure where you are getting the words “full of grace” or Kecharitomene from, or what translation of the Bible it comes from, or when that translation was recorded. Can you help me? ”
Hmmm, i don’t know, Bethany. What I can tell you is that every time I hear Protestants and Catholics discuss the word Kecharitomene, it is always about the meaning of the word and never a question of whether or not the word was used. But my own personal experience isn’t terribly convincing, granted :)
But actually, I just found a website http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a116.htm that says taht Kecharitomene is formed from the root charitoo, the word you mentioned above. So for what tahts worth.
“I’m confused as to what “grace” means to you guys. Does it mean something different when applied to different situations, or does it mean the same thing to all situations?”
Grace is a share in God’s own life. It is God dwelling within us. It is a participation in the life of God.
“However, I simply cannot see a reason to believe that Mary was given this different method of Salvation. Do you see what I mean? There isn’t any Biblical support for the idea that Mary was prevented from sinning.”
Yes, I do understand and respect your position.
“Also, this brings me to another thought about Mary… do Catholics really believe that she was always a virgin till the day she died?”
Oh yes. This is one of the four dogmas of Mary. It is de fide.
JLM,
Again, I have to leave, but I’ve brought this up before. Yes, it does mean something different to us.
It’s why we view baptism differently, confession differently, the Eucharist differently…
In fact, I don’t know if you know this, but I should also mention that both Luther and Calvin believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity and the Immaculate conception. http://www.mariology.com/sections/reformers.html is just one website that gives their quotes, but you can find quotes from them about Mary all over the place. It certainly doesn’t prove anything, but it is interesting to think about.
bobby, thank you…I read your link. Then I went to google and did a few searches, and then I found this. This explains a lot for me, because I don’t remember the timeline of the different translations of the Bible. According to this, the Latin Vulgate was a translation which came after the original greek translation.
Here, I’ll let you read it and see what you think about it. If anything on the quote sounds offensive, I promise that is not my intent. I’m just copying and pasting:
“The Latin Vulgate and other translations
The Latin Vulgate is the Latin translation of the Bible done by St. Jerome in the fourth century. It is here in Luke 1:28 that is found the unfortunate Latin translation which says “ave gratia plena “Hail full of grace.'” Remember, the New Testament was written in Greek, not Latin, but the Roman Church has derived its doctrine from the Latin translation, not the Greek original. Therefore, it constructed its doctrine on a false translation. Of course, it cannot correct itself, since so much is invested in the worship, adoration, and prayer to Mary in the Roman Catholic Church; and to recant this false teaching would greatly lessen its credibility. Unfortunately, this means that millions of Catholics will continue to look to Mary for help, not Christ who is truly full of grace.
So what do the other translations say about Luke 1:28? Let’s find out.
1. The Nestle Aland 26th edition, Greek New Testament Interlinear – “having gone into her he said rejoice one having been favored, the master is with you.”
2. The NRSV English Greek Reverse Interlinear New Testament – And he came to her and said, “Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you.”
3. American Standard Version – “And he came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favored, the Lord is with thee.”
4. English Standard Version – “And he came to her and said, Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!
5. Today’s English Version – ”The angel came to her and said, ‘Peace be with you! The Lord is with you and has greatly blessed you!’
Bobby, that’s very interesting.
Although, I disagree with Calvin’s interpretation of brothers, if that’s how he really interpreted it…. I mean, the Bible actually uses the word “cousin”, “wife’s mother”, “Aunt”, and other such terms to describe relatives in other parts of the Bible. If the translators were capable of translating those words when they needed to, then they could have definitely put in the word “cousin” or “relative” instead of the word “brother”, when the Bible refers to Jesus brothers.
Also, the Bible says that Joseph did not know her “until” she gave birth to Jesus. Which implies that he did eventually “know her”. How could that be, if she remained a virgin?
No, that certainly doesn’t offend me. So obviously I’m not educated enough to try and give a response to the above. However, I should mention, as the Catholic Encyclopedia says http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm that
“But the term kecharitomene (full of grace) serves only as an illustration, not as a proof of the dogma.”
My point being that even if we grant what you quoted above as being true, that isn’t ultimately what the doctrine is based on. If you look at the Catholic Encyclopedia link, the reason we hold to the doctrine is based on tradition and Mary as the new Eve. Ultimately, that’s where the heart of this doctrine lies.
mk,
I’m sorry. I think my question was a bit confusing. Let me re-phrase.
Is the definition of grace always the same meaning to you. Does the definition change depending on the subject or circumstance, or is the definition of grace to you always the same.
I realize we may have different definitions of it, but my question is that is there one definition that you guys use that applies to all situations where grace is the subject?
I hope that makes sense…
“Although, I disagree with Calvin’s interpretation of brothers, if that’s how he really interpreted it…. I mean, the Bible actually uses the word “cousin”, “wife’s mother”, “Aunt”, and other such terms to describe relatives in other parts of the Bible. If the translators were capable of translating those words when they needed to, then they could have definitely put in the word “cousin” or “relative” instead of the word “brother”, when the Bible refers to Jesus brothers.”
I have heard that the one Greek word adelphos is used for many family relations, but I am not qualified to defend that position.
“Also, the Bible says that Joseph did not know her “until” she gave birth to Jesus. Which implies that he did eventually “know her”. How could that be, if she remained a virgin? ”
Right. Well, the word until does not necessarily imply that what is happening will stop at that point. Take, for example Matthew 28:20
“And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age”
At the end of the age, Jesus will certainly not not be with us anymore. I also like this one
2 Sam 6:23 — Michal “had no children till the day of her death.”
Now we know that Michal did not have children after she died.
This website http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num27.htm lists many other examples of the word until/till being used where iot is clear that there is no change.
I agree with the more sensible Jewish
view:God judges us by our actions.He could
not care less which religion we follow.
I find the notion that a terrible person,
if he or she”repented”,and accepted Christ as
“savior”,would go to heaven,while a good and
kind person who was not a Christian would be
doomed to hell not only ludicrous,but downright
obscene.Why would God allow the people in
some primitive tribe which never heard of Jesus
be eternally damned?It’s not their fault
that they never heard of Jesus.That’s why
missionaries are so misguided.What right do they
have to impose their beliefs on others?
I don’t think that God looks too favorably
on the self-righteous,hypocritical cowards
who have murdered doctors who provided
abortions.
JLM an example might be Stephen, who the Bible describes as being full of grace and power.
Do Catholics believe that Stephen was full of grace in the same sense that they believe Mary was?
Bobby, thanks for your reply. I think that when it comes to the oral tradition you describe, I just disagree that it is in agreement with the Bible. However, I do appreciate your willingness to continue discussing it with me. I’ve learned so much these past two weeks.
“Is the definition of grace always the same meaning to you. Does the definition change depending on the subject or circumstance, or is the definition of grace to you always the same.”
Ah okay. In Catholic theology, we distinguish between two kinds of grace; actual grace and sanctifying grace. whenever the Catholic says “grace”, he means either actual or sanctifying, depending on the context. For the case of Luke 1:28, the catholic would understand this to be sanctifying grace.
“Do Catholics believe that Stephen was full of grace in the same sense that they believe Mary was?”
Which passage do you have in mind, Bethany?
“However, I do appreciate your willingness to continue discussing it with me. I’ve learned so much these past two weeks.” :) Hurray!
Bobby,
Thank you.
What’s the difference (in a nutshell) between actual and sanctifying grace?
Which passage do you have in mind, Bethany?
Acts 6:8
“And Stephen, full of grace and power, was performing great wonders and signs among the people”.
Wowzers I’m starting to get a headache and I think I’ll have to go for a little bit. Talk to you all more later! :)
Basically the definition I gave of grace above was sanctifying grace. It is Gods’ own life within us. Actual grace is when God gives us the ability to do anything good. So anything that I do that is good, if it’s donating money to a charity, or helping someone with their math homework, God had to give me the grace to be able to perform that good task on THAT occasion. So when one does anything that is good, it is because God has given us actual grace.
Ah, to probably explain it even better, a person in a state of sanctifying grace will go to heaven when they die, by definition. But someone who ends up going to hell, by definition, died in a state where they were lacking sanctifying grace. However, as we saw above, this “good and kind person” while perhaps rejecting God, may help the homeless. If though that person didn’t know it, they had actual grace in order to be able to help the homeless. So a person can go their whole lives with a lot of actual grace, doing a lot of good things, but if they reject God and are not full of sanctifying grace when they die, they go to hell. Does the distinction make sense?
Now, irony or ironys, KJV translates that as “full of faith and power” while the Catholic NAB translates it as “full of grace and power.” But let’s stick with the NAB. I think since it says he was working great wonders and signs among the people, this would be an example of actual grace. All the good things that he was doing required actual grace, as I hope I made the distinction clear above.
“Wowzers I’m starting to get a headache and I think I’ll have to go for a little bit. Talk to you all more later! :)”
Yeah, a break is a good idea. I still need to shower (gross) and eat!
@JLM,
one of the biggest spiritual difficulties we all face is ‘distancing’. People often accuse Christians of removing themselves from Life’s normalcy that life is challenging.
In doing this to Mary, Mary is too often removed from the fray by calling her ‘blessed’ and in the Catholic tradition – The Immaculate Conception. Let’s turn this on its ear and say ‘because of lack of sin’ there was none of sin’s blunting effects. Mary is exquisitely sensitive to the pain of sin … more than anyone she knows Christ’s pain intimately.
One of the primary ways we distance ourselves is by using different tenses …. so God IS’, but Mary ‘WAS’ … and we all do this. Just one of the extremely unusual mystical experiences re. Mary has her identifying herself as an event. She said: ‘I am the Immaculate Conception.’ No one, not the most wise theologian would ever say that. They may have said – Mary was born sinless. But nobody, but nobody would ever say “I am the Immaculate Conception.”
Bethany, you and JLM have ‘issues’ with Mary. I can assure you ain’t alone …. the relationship is strained for Catholics too. We do have a problem with having Mary enter our family (many prefer the controllability of statues … she is within Churches, because we decided she is only where her image is …. and ‘no’, she will not ‘take over’.
One of the many, many titles bestowed on Mary is Queen of Peace … and just as ‘Jesus is our peace’ (St Paul) … please note that Jesus does not ‘give us peace’. Jesus is our gift …. Mary is our gift. We separate/distance ourselves from greatness … by not accessing those in heaven – the eternal-now.
“She said: ‘I am the Immaculate Conception.'”
Oh yes! At Lourdes! I love that quote. It’s in my facebook profile :)
IMMACULATE CONCEPTION — Mary was preserved from all stain of original sin from the first instant of her conception. (“Catechism” 490-492).
In Luke 1:46-47, Mary said: “My soul doth magnify the Lord, And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour”. Mary knew that she needed a savior.
The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was first introduced by a heretic (a man whose teachings were officially declared to be contrary to Church doctrine). For centuries this doctrine was unanimously rejected by popes, Fathers and theologians of the Catholic Church. (Note 13)
ALL-HOLY — Mary, “the All-Holy,” lived a perfectly sinless life. (“Catechism” 411, 493)
Romans 3:23 says “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God”. Revelation 15:4 says, “Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name? For thou only art holy”. Romans 3:10 says, “There is none righteous, no, not one”.
Jesus is the only person who is referred to in Scripture as sinless. Hebrews 4:15 says, “For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feelings of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.” 2 Corinthians 5:21 says, “For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” 1 Peter 2:22 says, “Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth”.
In contrast, Mary said that God is her Savior. (Luke 1:47) If God was her Savior, then Mary was not sinless. Sinless people do not need a Savior.
In the Book of Revelation, when they were searching for someone who was worthy to break the seals and open the scroll, the only person who was found to be worthy was Jesus. Nobody else in Heaven or on earth (including Mary) was worthy to open the scroll or even look inside it. (Revelation 5:1-5)
PERPETUAL VIRGINITY — Mary was a virgin before, during and after the birth of Christ. (“Catechism” 496-511)
Matthew 1:24-25 says, “Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.” “Till” (until) means that after that point, Joseph did “know” (have sexual relations with) Mary. (See Genesis 4:1 where Adam “knew” Eve and she conceived and had a son.)
Jesus had brothers and sisters. The Bible even tells us their names. Matthew 13:54-56 says, ”
And when he was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hatch this man this wisdom, and these mighty works? Is not this the carpenter
However, I simply cannot see a reason to believe that Mary was given this different method of Salvation. Do you see what I mean? There isn’t any Biblical support for the idea that Mary was prevented from sinning.
Bethany,
I tried to read all the Catholicism sections about Mary last night so I could answer you more accurately, but it’s not easy to explain, especially for someone like me who has believed all her life. We had a 15 in. statue of Mary in a prominent place in my house when I was growing up, but we also had statues of Jesus and Crucifixes in all the bedrooms, so I’m not sure how much “explanation” is going to influence the opinions you already have of Mary. You look at this only in terms of Mary having a “different method of Salvation, but I’ve never thought of it that way. I can see how that might not make sense. It’s very important to look at the BIG picture. God chose Mary to be the MOTHER OF JESUS and Mary said YES. BECAUSE of our love for JESUS, Mary has a place in the hearts of Catholics right next to the place that our earthly mothers have. Catholics always see Mary in relationship to Jesus; SHE POINTS US TOWARD JESUS. Think of Mary with Jesus on the road to Calvary. How she must have suffered. She is an example of a woman who accepted God’s will to the very end of Jesus’ life, no matter how much it pained her. This is the real reason she is “put on a pedestal”. Not to be worshipped, but to be loved for her sacrificial role as the mother of Jesus. There’s more I’m sure, but I need to go. It’s something to think about. God bless you!
@Bethany,
your 9:55 question had me remembering a South African friend. ‘Ato ‘Ale did not find this ‘strange’ at all. EVERYONE (no matter how distantly removed) with his father’s last name was his brother or sister. (Cousins had his mother’s maiden name.) In his culture, all cousins, sisters and brothers were prohibited from marriage. Such a division is very ancient and the reference to Jesus’ brothers is thought to reflect this understanding.
John,
(from my previous post)
Jesus had brothers and sisters. The Bible even tells us their names. Matthew 13:54-56 says, ”
And when he was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hatch this man this wisdom, and these mighty works? Is not this the carpenter
I obviously can’t reply to everything that Mary Ann Collins has said. She obviously doesn’t understand Catholicism, as she makes clear with the tired title of “Mary Worship.” We make the distinction between dulia and latria. She needs to look it up. So some very select things
“Jesus had brothers and sisters. The Bible even tells us their names. Matthew 13:54-56 says”
We read in Matthew 27:56 exactly whose children James and Joseph were
There were many women there, looking on from a distance, 33 who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him.
56
Among them were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.
“The Incarnation means that Jesus was both fully God and fully man. Mary was only the mother of Jesus as man, and not the mother of Jesus as God. According to the Bible, the world was created through Jesus. This was long before Mary was born”
People do not give birth to natures. They give births to persons. Jesus was a divine person. If Mary was only the mother of Jesus as a man, she was only the mother of his divine nature. Collins goes on to show her lack of metaphysical understanding with the asinine claim that if Mary is the mother of God, then she is older than God, or at least as old. I would ask Collins, exactly what is a parent? Collins of course, limits the idea of parent to only what we humans know of as a parent. The answer is that a parent is someone who gives to another (the child) their nature, and they share that nature with the parent. Mary fits this definition of parent to Jesus perfectly. Seriously, Collin’s metaphysical understanding is an abomination.
“In Luke 1:46-47, Mary said: “My soul doth magnify the Lord, And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour”. Mary knew that she needed a savior.
…In contrast, Mary said that God is her Savior. (Luke 1:47) If God was her Savior, then Mary was not sinless. Sinless people do not need a Savior.”
We have already discussed this.
“Matthew 1:24-25 says, “Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.” “Till” (until) means that after that point, Joseph did “know” (have sexual relations with) Mary. (See Genesis 4:1 where Adam “knew” Eve and she conceived and had a son.)”
We have already discussed this as well.
“There is only one mediator and that is Jesus. 1 Timothy 2:5-6 says, “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus: Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.” Hebrews 7:25 says,Wherefore he [Jesus] is able to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.” Ephesians 3:12 says, “In whom [Jesus} we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him.””
There are two different sense of the word mediator. Anytime I pray for my daughter, I am acting as a mediator between her and God. That’s what we mean by mediatrix; that Mary gives our prayers to God. For a former Catholic nun, she sure doesn’t know basic Catholic theology.
As far as the Wiccan table is concerned, I’m sure I can find many tables that show how Christianity in general was derived from paganism, and all this other silly stuff. Have you ever heard this whole theory about why Christmas is celebrated on Dec 25? It’s really to worship pagan gods blah blah blah.
I can’t get to everything she says, but it is very, very weak, I can assure you. I would suggest the book “Refuting the Attack on Mary” by Father Mateo. He answers all Collins’ objections and more. Honestly, I’ve heard much, much better argumentation from Protestant scholars against the dogmas of Mary.
But LJM, keep me in your prayers, my friend. This was in no way an attack on you, BTW, yet an attack on Collins. I have very little patience for those who are Catholic, don’t understand it, leave the faith, and then act like they are experts on Catholicism, as Mary Ann Collins clearly does.
In fact, I’d rather believe what the early church fathers believed than some anti-catholic former nun.
http://www.catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp
http://www.catholic.com/library/Mary_Full_of_Grace.asp
http://www.catholic.com/library/Mary_Mother_of_God.asp
Bobby, I’m only on here now for a second, but could you please define “worship” for me, as Catholics see it?
So I think using Matthew 13:55
( 55Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? )
in light of Matthew 27:56 where we see that his brothers/brethern James and Joses are children of a different Mary
(56Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedees children.)
undermines the use of the word “brothers/brethern.” Because now we see that Matthew has just used the word “brother/brethren” to denote people who were not Jesus’ blood brothers i.e. born of the same Mother. So now anytime we see the phrase “brothers of Jesus” we can’t necessarily conclude they are children of Mary.
Sure. From Catholic Encyclopedia
“In the strict sense, an act of religion offered to God in acknowledgment of His supreme perfection and dominion, and of the creature’s dependence upon Him”
i.e. adoration.
Wait, I think you may have already answered my question. Sorry about that, Bobby. You said something about dulia and latria which I was unfamiliar with. When I typed it in the search engine, I found this:
“2. A distinction without a difference
The distinction of what is called dulia and latria was invented for the very purpose of permitting divine honours to be paid to angels and dead men with apparent impunity. For it is plain that the worship which Papists pay to saints differs in no respect from the worship of God: for this worship is paid without distinction; only when they are pressed they have recourse to the evasion, that what belongs to God is kept unimpaired, because they leave him latria. But since the question relates not to the word, but the thing, how can they be allowed to sport at will with a matter of the highest moment? But not to insist on this, the utmost they will obtain by their distinction is, that they give worship to God, and service to the others. For “latreia” in Greek has the same meaning as worship in Latin; whereas “douleia” properly means service, though the words are sometimes used in Scripture indiscriminately. But granting that the distinction is invariably preserved, the thing to be inquired into is the meaning of each. “Douleia” unquestionably means service, and “latreia” worship. But no man doubts that to serve is something higher than to worship. For it were often a hard thing to serve him whom you would not refuse to reverence. It is, therefore, an unjust division to assign the greater to the saints and leave the less to God. But several of the ancient fathers observed this distinction. What if they did, when all men see that it is not only improper, but utterly frivolous?”
Bobby,
I know you weren’t attacking me. I just have seen so much of the same thing from former priests and former nuns. I know nothing about her, but do agree with her on the scripture.
What I do think is odd, is that if you ask a Catholic “how do you get to heaven”. I have done this, and it is amazing how many different responses I got! It’s just a bit wierd to me, that after all of the repetitions of tradition and prayers in the church, that so many people are so confused on a multitude of subjects that are being so maticulously taught and defined.
Nothing in the above definition applies to how Catholics view Mary. God love you.
I hope that article doesn’t offend you. That’s what I found on it, and wondered your thoughts on it.
What I do think is odd, is that if you ask a Catholic “how do you get to heaven”. I have done this, and it is amazing how many different responses I got! It’s just a bit wierd to me, that after all of the repetitions of tradition and prayers in the church, that so many people are so confused on a multitude of subjects that are being so maticulously taught and defined.
The answer I keep getting from Catholics when I ask this, sadly, is that no one can know for sure. That breaks my heart. I don’t know if they all believe this, or just some of them. But it makes me sad to think that they believe you can’t know.
Bethany,
I know this isn’t you who said this, but I have a real problem with this from your quote
“For it is plain that the worship which Papists pay to saints differs in no respect from the worship of God”
No one can judge my heart and tell me that when I show honor and respect to Mary that it is the same thing as when I praise and worship God. No one can look at me and tell me that when i say a Hail Mary that I have the same internal existential disposition as when I say an Our Father/Lord’s Prayer. I have no problem with someone arguing that the distinction isn’t biblical. But to try and tell me and my fellow Catholics that we worship Mary is an abomination. The distinction is there. It doesn’t really matter if they came from the same word or not; the important thing is the meaning of the terms in the way that we use them now.
I must say, though, that I give honor and respect to my parents. I give honor and respect to you. But there are different levels of that honor and respect. I respect St Paul much more than I respect Judas Iscariot. Yet I respect Mary more than St. Paul, more than any other creature. So the honor we bestow upon Mary is of the same “esssence” as that which we bestow upon our parents; yet it is as high as that essence can be. What we do to God, latria or adoration, is of a completely different essence. It’s in its own league.
Sorry, I’m not snippy at all at you. I know everything you do is out of love for us Catholics and for the salvation of our souls. God love you.
@JLM,
we are a family of 7 …. 5 boys and 2 girls. Many decades ago my youngest brother got married. Now all of us are very close … tight you might say. However, our newest sister-in-law insisted that she was only marrying my brother! The implication was that we didn’t merit much and our bond (with our brother) did not matter very much.
So what am I saying that God is essentially community … three in one and that He initiated a ‘family’. Being stuck as an isolate (independent being) has all sorts of hazards … the greatest of these is never having been hugged … or wrestled as did Jacob.
The spirituality is one of belonging ….
PS. she divorced my brother … her choice, just as it was her choice to live her way.
“I know you weren’t attacking me. I just have seen so much of the same thing from former priests and former nuns. I know nothing about her, but do agree with her on the scripture.”
I know, I understand.
“What I do think is odd, is that if you ask a Catholic “how do you get to heaven”. I have done this, and it is amazing how many different responses I got!”
Baptism, and as Jesus said in Matthew 19, you must follow the commandments. There is no one nice neat formula like there is in Protestant theology. But see, part of following the commandments is doing what Jesus taught, correct? You would agree with that. Now if it can be shown that Jesus established a visible church here on earth that he intended for his followers to be members of, it does follow that membership in that church is also part of salvation. But that’s a big if; IF he established a visible church, which of course, is a big part of our disagreement. But in its most basic form, that is how one gets to heaven. Actually, I should say the ORDINARY means of getting to heaven. For example aborted and miscarried babies obviously can not fulfill those requirements, so we also believe that God has extra-ordinary means (known to him alone) for the salvation of souls like aborted babies (and others).
“The answer I keep getting from Catholics when I ask this, sadly, is that no one can know for sure. That breaks my heart. I don’t know if they all believe this, or just some of them. But it makes me sad to think that they believe you can’t know.”
We don’t have a GUARANTEE of salvation like you do, but we have what we call moral assurance. This, in fact, is all summed up in the theological virtue of hope. While I have every reason to beleieve that if I die right now I will go to heaven, I can’ be 100% sure that I’m not lying to myself and that I really don’t love God; that it’s just an act. But we do have a moral assurance, and that comes from, as I stated above, the theological virtue of hope.
Bobby,
I really mean no disrespect for your beliefs. But please try to understand where we are coming from.
You guys will all say that you don’t worship Mary. That alone is for God.
However, if you look up “worship” in the dictionary, it is this:
WORSHIP
1. The reverent love and devotion accorded a deity, an idol, or a sacred object.
2. The ceremonies, prayers, or other religious forms by which this love is expressed.
3. Ardent devotion; adoration.
The synonyms for worship are as follows:
adoration
love
reverence
respect
devotion
adoration
veneration
Now, I know these synonyms can be applied to other things as well, like you said, your mother. However, I have seen ALL of them used in describing how you guys describe your devotion to Mary. All of the definitions and synonyms seem to match the Catholic love for Mary, or, in opinions of many, Worship.
Again, I mean no disrespect, but it seems like there are many “plays on words” that are used when Catholics are questioned regarding an unbiblical belief.
Please tell me where I’m wrong so I can clear up any misconceptions I have regarding what I believe is “Mary worship”.
Bobby,
You explain your position and beliefs so very well, and I sincerely thank you for that. Understanding, I believe, IS achieved by the very dialogue that we are having now. We do have MAJOR differences.
We don’t have a GUARANTEE of salvation like you do, but we have what we call moral assurance. This, in fact, is all summed up in the theological virtue of hope. While I have every reason to beleieve that if I die right now I will go to heaven, I can’ be 100% sure that I’m not lying to myself and that I really don’t love God; that it’s just an act. But we do have a moral assurance, and that comes from, as I stated above, the theological virtue of hope.
Bobby, I so dearly want you to have what I have. A full, 100% assurance that I am saved and will be spending my eternity in the presence of God. I am so sorry you have doubts. It really does break my heart. I couldn’t possibly imagine going through life not being 100% sure of my eternity.
I am most certainly not asking you to convert, but please Bobby, please pray and ask God to show you how you can be 100% sure. Even if you think it’s not possible, ALL is possible with God. Please ask Him?
Bethany,
Are you still on? I have something I want to share with you but it’s long, and complicated and I want to make sure you get it all…
Bobby,
I would love if you were around too.
No, you’re fine JLM. You’re very respectful and concerned.
Well, maybe I should turn this around and ask what do you mean by worshiping God? Because you and I both show all of the synonyms (except adoration) to people here on earth. I love my daughter, I show reverence to policeman, I respect Jewish Rabbis, I am devoted to my wife, and I venerate my parents. So sure, we can use any one of those terms to describe how we feel about Mary. And if that’s the way you wish to define worship, then, okay, fine, Catholics worship Mary. But then, I also worship my daughter and Richard Dawkins worships his wife.
So I like the definition of worship that I gave to Bethany in the 11:45 post. So let’s just forget the words worship, latria, dulia. We show to God and God alone that which is in 11:45 post, and we show Mary love, honor, respect, etc. as you mentioned above (of course, all those things that we have for Mary we also have for God).
I know this seems like semantics, but I think the synonyms you gave would not be defined as “worship” by most people.
Now turning to your definition of worship, 1) does not apply to her because she is not a deity, idol, or sacred object. True, we have statyes of Mary, but these are to help remind us of her. Just like I have pictures of my parents, my wife, my daughter. These images remind me of my love for them. They are not idols, just like statues of Mary are not idols.
2) somewhat does apply, because we have certain prayers to Mary. However, I don’t agree with definition 2 for the following reason. In Catholic theology, we make the distinction between 4 kinds of prayer: thanksgiving, adoration, penance, and petition. Adoration (and penance to a certain extent) are the only kinds of prayer that actually involve worship. Thanksgiving and petition prayer are just that; giving thanks for something or asking for something. It is done in the context of prayer because that’s the only way that we can petition Mary and the saints. I know this is a big sticking point. When most people hear the word “prayer” they immediately think “worship.” But the word prayer is not always used in terms of worship. If you go to England (in some parts anyway) you will hear a contraction pry’the (man I don’t know how it’s spelled!) but it’s a contraction for “I pray thee” as in “I pray thee tell me more.” Or in law you may hear “We pray that the court…” But the word “pray” is not used in a worship sense. Just a petitioning sense. Now for 3), that is absolutely to God alone. If by ardent devotion we mean adoration, that alone goes to God.
So I hope that clears it up. But it would be good to know how you understand worship. God love you.
mk,
I feel so “left out”
:(
i’m here but it’s been an on and off thing. I may not be able to answer something that is very long as I have so much housework to catch up on lol (also, I have to check my son’s math). But go ahead and post whatever it is and I’ll be sure to at least look at it today!
My idea of worship is giving 100% of glory to God and God alone.
btw,
Thank you for explaining that to me. I still think it’s all semantics, but as you said before, it’s all what you believe you are doing in your heart. I can agree with that.
“I am most certainly not asking you to convert, but please Bobby, please pray and ask God to show you how you can be 100% sure. Even if you think it’s not possible, ALL is possible with God. Please ask Him?”
I will absolutely do that, my friend.
” I am so sorry you have doubts.”
I should say, though, that we don’t have doubts. I think in order to doubt, one would need a reason. I have no reason to doubt. Think of it this way; I have moral assurance that the sun will rise tomorrow morning. Is that 100% true that the sun will rise tomorrow? Well, the world could end tonight. But I have no reason to doubt that the sun will rise tomorrow. Does that distinction make sense?
But I will admit, I would “like” a 100% assurance of salvation. But I would “like” it in the same way I would “like” everyone to be saved. Unfortunately we know that that won’t happen; not because we don’t want it to, but because that’s the way that things are. I guess what I’m saying is that (and I don’t think we need to get into this right now) I don’t think that the idea of a 100% assurance of salvation is biblical. But of course, you do, which is fine. So it’s not that I don’t want one, it’s just that I don’t see it being “the way things are.”
But now I’m curious. I haven’t really encountered this very loving sorrow that you and Bethany express for Catholics who don’t have assurance of salvation. Could you explain why it is so heartbreaking for you? I mean, I know that Muslims believe that God can be capricious and in the end, say “haha, only practicing Jews are saved” and the Muslim would accept this, so they by NO MEANS have an assurance of salvation. Yet I don’t go quite so far as to say my heart breaks for them. So is it that I may be living in fear? Or how do you see it? Thanks, God love you.
“I would love if you were around too.”
oh thank you, friend. I of course, as well hope to see you and LJM and Bethany and everyone else “on the other side” too.
Bobby, you are such an understanding person. I appreciate that you understand that my intent is not to attack but out of love and concern for you and other Catholics here.
Maybe I can help you see why we don’t see a difference when you try to clear it up (regarding Mary worship).
We see what you’re saying, and we hear it and understand what you’re trying to get across to us…however, we disagree that it is simply like respecting your mother, or like petitioning the court. Or anything like that at all.
Here are a couple of reasons why:
1.) You say you believe Mary is sinless (kept from sinning), and the mother of God, and that she ascended to Heaven. That shows that you do not merely have respect for her, but that you consider her to be on what seems to be the level of a deity. I know you wouldn’t call her a diety, but you do call her the “queen of Heaven” which implies that she is much higher in rank than us as human beings. Many of the quotes that I’ve found from Catholic authors, in fact, many of the ones you posted, seem to deify her. For example:
“The first thing which kindles ardor in learning is the greatness of the teacher. What is greater than the Mother of God? What more glorious than she whom Glory Itself chose?” (The Virgins 2:2[7] [A.D. 377]).
”
2.) You ask her to pray for you. This implies that Mary is omni-present. She would have to be omni-present in order to hear all of your petitions. And she would have to be very powerful as well, in order to fulfill them. Yes, God could give her the power to hear everyone’s prayers, but can you please tell me why would He? He has already given us an advocate, and His name is Jesus Christ.
Bobby,
I meant now…silly boy.
Okay,
JLM, Bethany (and Bobby too, what the heck)
I have just finished listening to a tape by Scott Hahn (A former evangelical who converted to Catholicism after YEARS of fighting it) give a talk on “The Last Supper”. I am also reading his book “The Lamb’s Supper” simultaneously.
Personally, we could sqabble all day about Mary, the saints, the popes, the bible…but the crux of our Faith, is the Eucharist.
I’d like, if I may, share what Scott said.
But first I need you to answer a question.
In John, 19:30, Jesus says the words, “It is finished” (Perhaps you have he words it is consummated).
What is the “it” that He is referring to?
I will absolutely do that, my friend.
Okay, Bobby. You’re a man of your word, right?
The only way that I can explain my sorrow, is that I know what I have, I know how it feels. It’s like a great big ball of joy that fills every part of me when I think of the assurance of my salvation. Based on the posts, (many, many!) I don’t believe that you guys share that amount of joy. The sorrow, for me at least, comes from me knowing how I feel & wishing that you could have it, knowing how you can have it, and being hindered from giving you that. I know I can’t, but I know God can. That’s why I asked you to ask Him. You said you would, so I am starting to feel joy in my heart for you!
“My idea of worship is giving 100% of glory to God and God alone.”
I would agree with that totally. Ah, which brings up one last thing. This may be actually the most important point when it comes to the cult of Mary. And that is that every title we bestow upon Mary is for the glory of Jesus. All the titles, understood properly, point to the greatness of God. So for example, around the third or fourth century, there was an idea going around known as nestorianism which said that Jesus exists as two natures i.e is two persons. This matter was settled at the council of Ephesus around 430. And they way they settled this heresy was by conferring the title of “theotokos” or God-bearer on Mary, claiming that she was the mother of God. How did that settle the question? It essentially said that Christ does not subsist in two natures, yet has two natures, that he is one person but with a human nature and a divine nature. Otherwise, who died on teh cross? Was it Jesus the human or Jesus the God? It was Jesus, the God-man; one being, two natures. Mary gave birth to a divine person, not to a divine nature nor to one of the people that Jesus was. So since Mary is God bearer, Jesus Christ is both fully God and fully man, and we don’t have this problem about who died on the cross.
And there are reasons, of course, for the other titles and dogmas of Mary that reflect back and say something about Jesus. So to sum up, even if you don’t agree with or believe the titles and dogmas, at least know that the reason we believe them is because we think (though possibly incorrectly) that they say something about Jesus and God, that they all point to him.
JLM,
1.) You say you believe Mary is sinless (kept from sinning), and the mother of God, and that she ascended to Heaven. That shows that you do not merely have respect for her, but that you consider her to be on what seems to be the level of a deity. I know you wouldn’t call her a diety, but you do call her the “queen of Heaven” which implies that she is much higher in rank than us as human beings. Many of the quotes that I’ve found from Catholic authors, in fact, many of the ones you posted, seem to deify her. For example:
I thought you said that you too are incapable of sin because Jesus died for you. Through Jesus, and baptism, you are now sinless, correct? Well then why couldn’t marry have been made sinless just like you, only beforehand. And she did need a savior. She gave birth to Him, and previous to conceiving Him, she was “saved” by God and made sinless, just as you claim to be.
mk,
I believe “it” refers to the end of the old covanent, and the beginning of the new.
JLM,
I don’t believe that you guys share that amount of joy.
Then the fault lies with you. I experience that JOY to the point of tears every single Sunday at Mass. Everytime I receive His body, I shake I am so moved.
You really don’t understand the Catholic Faith, do you?
I don’t mean that in a nasty way, really. I just am amazed at how much you think you understand but don’t really have any idea about.
But now I’m curious. I haven’t really encountered this very loving sorrow that you and Bethany express for Catholics who don’t have assurance of salvation. Could you explain why it is so heartbreaking for you? I mean, I know that Muslims believe that God can be capricious and in the end, say “haha, only practicing Jews are saved” and the Muslim would accept this, so they by NO MEANS have an assurance of salvation. Yet I don’t go quite so far as to say my heart breaks for them. So is it that I may be living in fear? Or how do you see it? Thanks, God love you.
I am not quite sure why that fact about Muslims wouldn’t break your heart.
Just imagine, these muslims live day to day, hoping that they are doing and believing the right thing, but if they believe that in the end, God could have been lying to them all along, what kind of terror is that to live through?
When I was younger (I’ve posted about this a few days ago in this topic- good luck in finding it! lol) I had no assurance of salvation. I was absolutely terrified of dying.
I feel empathy for anyone who does not have full assurance of their salvation, because they believe that if they died, they might still be doomed, even after having done everything they thought was right in the first place.
What a very scary way to live and think. Very terrifying. I had a part in it and it was very bad.
The Bible tells us very plainly that we can know we are saved…and denying that Jesus blood paid the price for our sins and that it is all that is necessary for salvation is spoken of in the Bible:
“But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.” -2nd Peter 2:1
Salvation is spoken of in the Bible as being a “free gift”. What kind of a free gift does one have to pay for or return?
“But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.”
Romans 6:23 “For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.”
“But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.” -Romans 4:5
I don’t know if this helped answer your question but I hope so. I just hate the thought that anyone has to go through the doubt of not knowing 100 percent that if they died today, that they would go to Heaven. It hurts me.
Ah, Lamb’s Supper, wonderful book.
I can not get enough of Scott Hahn. I’ve seen him twice, and I’ve read most of his books. MK, you should read his book “A Father who keeps his Promises.” Fan-friggin-tastic!
JLM,
Could you explain what you mean by that?
In John, 19:30, Jesus says the words, “It is finished” (Perhaps you have he words it is consummated).
What is the “it” that He is referring to?
His payment on the cross. His atonement for our sins.
JLM yours explained it a little better. Yes, God’s old covenant was gone once Jesus died. The new one had begun.
Bobby,
Then you’ll know where I’m going with this…please feel free to jump in…
Okay
Bethany and JLM,
If it was finished at that moment, then why did we need the resurrection?
I thought you said that you too are incapable of sin because Jesus died for you. Through Jesus, and baptism, you are now sinless, correct? Well then why couldn’t marry have been made sinless just like you, only beforehand. And she did need a savior. She gave birth to Him, and previous to conceiving Him, she was “saved” by God and made sinless, just as you claim to be.
No no no, you misunderstand. God’s spirit dwells in me and cannot sin. However, my flesh can sin (that’s the part of me which has to die so that I can put on my new body). I never said that I was incapable of sin, but that God’s spirit in me is incapable of sin.
If it was finished at that moment, then why did we need the resurrection?
I’m not sure if I understand what you mean? Can you expound on that question a little?
Bethany,
Okay, God’s spirit (FULL of Grace, full of God’s spirt, full of sanctifying Grace) in Mary cannot sin either.
Okay, God’s spirit (FULL of Grace, full of God’s spirt, full of sanctifying Grace) in Mary cannot sin either.
God’s Spirit indeed was in Mary, but I do not believe that was from birth. There is no reason for me to believe that. I would say that as with most people in the Bible who found favor with God, Mary found favor with God because of her faith (not to mention her humility and willingness to serve).
Bethany,
“That shows that you do not merely have respect for her, but that you consider her to be on what seems to be the level of a deity. I know you wouldn’t call her a diety, but you do call her the “queen of Heaven” which implies that she is much higher in rank than us as human beings.”
Well, God could have done that (and we believe that he did, of course) right? So like I tried to explain after I saw your question, those things are a reflection of God. For example, Elijah and Enoch were taken up into heaven. That’s nothing special about them, yet God who chose to do that to keep them free from corruption (at least in Enoch’s case). Same with the I.C. (immacualte conception) It’s not a reflection about Mary’s greatness, yet God’s awesome power. And with the title Queen of Heaven. We believe that Jesus Christ has made her Queen of heaven. If Jesus did it, we must accept it (which of course is the question).
As far as your quote goes,we do believe that Mary is the greatest OF ALL CREATION. I have to believe that there is no way the person making that quote meant to include God in that.
“can you please tell me why would He?”
I hope so… The reason, as I see it, is very much like what I mentioned above (several aboves) about why God uses angels to tell people things. God could of course do it himself, yet he shares his Fatherly attributes with his creation. 1 Cor 3:9 tells us that we are God’s coworkers. Why would God need a coworker? Well, he doesn’t, but he chooses to raise us up and participate in his work. He allows a creature like Mary to be able to hear prayers, and offer them to the Father because he wants us to help each other out, to really “integrate” the body of Christ. There is certainly no “need” to pray to Mary; we can just go straight to our Father. But we believe that it isn’t just me and Jesus; it’s all of us together, whether we are here on earth, or in heaven, those of us who love God wish to help each other out. I hope that makes sense.
“I am not quite sure why that fact about Muslims wouldn’t break your heart.”
I guess it’s cause while I respect their belief, I believe that they are wrong, and that in the end, God is not capricious. So I guess is seems to me that if a Catholic has truly accepted Jesus as Lord and Saviour, even though they think they don’t have 100% assurance, in reality they do.
“I don’t know if this helped answer your question but I hope so. I just hate the thought that anyone has to go through the doubt of not knowing 100 percent that if they died today, that they would go to Heaven. It hurts me.”
But yes, I understand your answer. It is that kind of love for your fellow brothers and sisters that just, man, words can’t describe how they make me feel (it’s a good feeling). Wonderful.
“Then you’ll know where I’m going with this…please feel free to jump in…”
Well, hmmm, it’s been a few years… I’ll just stand back…
mk,
What was his reason, if you don’t mind me asking, for converting to Catholisism. I’ve always heard of that happening, but never knew what the “key turning point” was. Did he say why he did?
Again Bethany,
Mary is the new Ark of the Covenant. She must be pure and holy in order to contain “The Word”…
But forget this for now. Answer my question about the consummation of the covenant. If “It is finished” means that our sins are forgiven and Jesus has done His work here, then why do we need the resurrection?
The resurrection of Jesus ,or the resurrection of the dead? I am not clear on your meaning.
Bethany,
Jesus’ resurrection.
The words “It is finished” imply that nothing more is to be done. And yet we know we still have Easter Morning. So it wasn’t finished. Therefore, what is the “it” that Jesus is referring to?
MK,
“I meant now…silly boy.”
I will be at UIUC on March 29-30… is that anywhere near you?
Death was defeated the moment that Jesus said “It is finished”. There was nothing more to do to defeat death.
Marykay, what do you believe it refers to?
mk,
2 Corinthians 4:14 Knowing that He which Raised up the Lord Jesus shall Raise up us also by Jesus,
It is God accepting the sacrifice of Jesus by receiving Jesus/Himself back up into heaven. Only acceptable sacrifices are received by God into heaven. Jesus is the only acceptable sacrifice and only through Him can we also be accepted into Heaven.
This is what the resurrection means to me.
Then why did Jesus need to resurrect? If it was finished, nothing more should have needed to be done.
So He must have been referring to something else being finished. What?
“What was his reason, if you don’t mind me asking, for converting to Catholisism. I’ve always heard of that happening, but never knew what the “key turning point” was. Did he say why he did?”
Ah, you can get his conversion story for free at http://www.catholicity.com/cds/ as well as some other CDs. The CD called “confession” with Father Larry Richards is the greatest thing I have ever heard.
But to give you the quick version, the first thing was that he and his wife Kimberly realized was the evil of contraception, although this is natural law and not necessarily anything Catholic. But actually the first major thing he changed his mind about while at Gordon-Conwell was the doctrine of justification and sola fide. Then, one by one, he began studying each and every doctrine like Mary, purgatory, the saints, the Eucharist, and was convinced of the Catholic position on all of them. Actually, we says that one of his bigggest “mistakes” was the first time he went to mass; that he fell in love with the Eucharist and longed to be united with Jesus; body, blood, soul, and divinity. That’s it in a nutshell.
If you’re interested, you should check out his conversion story. It’s free, so yeah (even though it’s from a place called the Mary foundation, hehe)
Then the fault lies with you. I experience that JOY to the point of tears every single Sunday at Mass. Everytime I receive His body, I shake I am so moved.
Then I am confused. You said that you cry at the sight of grass growing, and pretty much at the drop of a hat.
We were talking about assurance of salvation, not joy at mass.
This is the story. What I’m telling you now. When he put two and two together and gave a lecture on what he had come to realize to his fellow protestants, one of them accused him of sounding Catholic. He began to study to see if this were true and went to a weekday mass at Marquette University. He couldn’t believe what he was seeing and went back every day for a week. From that point on he was in love with Jesus in the Eucharist…
I think his conversion story is in a book called “Road to Rome”
Marykay, the part that was finished was the fulfillment of the prophesy, his death which was His sacrifice for our sins, and His offering for our life:
“He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed” (Isaiah 53:5).
Yes, there is much more to our salvation. He had to be buried and resurrected. But death had already been conquered by the time Jesus uttered “It is finished”. Jesus had not gone through the burial at that point, neither had He gone through the resurrection or the ascension. However, at the point where He said “It is finished”, that part was finished.
Bobby,
Larry Richards CD is next. It’s in my car and as soon as Scott Hahns is finished, it’s going in. Then comes Bishop Sheen on Easter. I parish offered these during Lent and I took 7 of them…I wish there were 70 more…
“I think his conversion story is in a book called “Road to Rome””
Close… “Rome Sweet Home.” It’s both his and Kimberly’s conversion story in alternating chapters.
But seriously MK, UIUC on March 29?
Yes, JLM, this is true. But I rarely cry from sadness. It is usually joy that brings tears to my eyes. Seeing baby grass makes me think of life, and spring and hope…really crying over new grass is similar to crying over the Eucharist. Both are filled with God.
Our “moral assurance” of salvation lies in the Mass. But I’m not there yet in my story. Are you forgoing answering my questions JLM, because I’ll move on…
mk,
“It”, meaning the old covanent was finished, and the new covanent begun. He took all of the sins of the world upon Him, and His blood, perfect blood, spilled out upon all of the world as the ultimate payment for sin. The moment this happened, the moment right before He died, this (the end of the old covanent, and the beginning of the new began.
His resurrection is God accepting the sacrifice of Jesus by receiving Jesus/Himself back up into heaven. Only acceptable sacrifices are received by God into heaven. The sacrifice had to be made first, as it was, and was finished, before the resurrection could take place. Jesus is the only acceptable sacrifice and only through Him can we also be accepted into Heaven.
Bethany,
But to use the words I am finished doesn’t really make sense. Because it isn’t finished until he rises.
Are you familiar with a Jewish Seder?
Ah, I DO know where you’re going with this! :)
Also Bethany,
Can you answer me to questions?
What did a High Priest wear when he was performing rituals in the Old Testament?
and
What did Moses use to sprinkle the people with blood?
btw, mk, I did answer your question at 1:48. I posted it again, though.
mk,
It doesn’t matter what traditions they did in the Old Testament. The Old Testament, (covanent, promise) does not apply to us. The new one does. Although it is fascinating to read about how God dealt with the Jews, and WHY the need for Jesus having to come, the Old Testament (law) does not apply to us. You cannot mix law & grace. You cannot.
I thought you might Bobby! I’m telling you I got chills!
JLM,
That is true, the resurrection is Jesus being accepted. But until the offering was accepted, it wasn’t really “FINISHED”, was it?
I mean Jesus didn’t say…
“I have done my part” or “It’s your turn father” He said IT is finished. But the covenant wasn’t finished. The Father had not accepted it yet.
So, what is the “IT” Jesus is talking about?
JLM,
This is why I didn’t originally address this to you. I knew you would have a problem tying in the Old with New, but Bethany seems more open to the entire bible and not just the New Testament.
If you want to bow out now, you can. I’ll understand.
JLM
You must understand that everything in the New Testament is fulfillment of the Old Testament. You must understand the Old, to understand the New. Whatever was done in the New was also done in the Old. It is a new covenant, not a new God.
Never forget that Jesus WAS a Jew.
Marykay, you’re right. The entire work of redemption wasn’t finished until Jesus was resurrected. The “It” Jesus refers to is the fulfillment of prophesy.
I’m quoting from another website here:
“Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home. After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst.”
Bethany,
I don’t mean what did moses sprinkle the people with, sorry, I mean what did the people paint their doorposts with in Exodus during the passover. What did they use to spread the blood?
mk,
I’ll post it again:
“It”, meaning the old covanent was finished, and the new covanent begun. He took all of the sins of the world upon Him, and His blood, perfect blood, spilled out upon all of the world as the ultimate payment for sin. The moment this happened, the moment right before He died, this (the end of the old covanent, and the beginning of the new began.
His resurrection is God accepting the sacrifice of Jesus by receiving Jesus/Himself back up into heaven. Only acceptable sacrifices are received by God into heaven. The sacrifice had to be made first, as it was, and was finished, before the resurrection could take place. Jesus is the only acceptable sacrifice and only through Him can we also be accepted into Heaven.
Posted by: JLM at March 5, 2008 2:04 PM
Bethany,
Now what did Jesus do that “finished it”
JLM,
No need to post it again. I got it. But like I said, it wasn’t finished. God had not accepted the sacrifice yet.
Here, I’ll post my response again…
That is true, the resurrection is Jesus being accepted. But until the offering was accepted, it wasn’t really “FINISHED”, was it?
I mean Jesus didn’t say…
“I have done my part” or “It’s your turn father” He said IT is finished. But the covenant wasn’t finished. The Father had not accepted it yet.
So, what is the “IT” Jesus is talking about?
Bethany,
You might have missed these question…
Are you familiar with a Jewish Seder?
Do you know what the people used to put the blood on the doorjambs during passover?
Do you know what the high priests in the old testament wore when performing rituals?
Also Bethany,
Can you answer me to questions?
What did a High Priest wear when he was performing rituals in the Old Testament?
and
What did Moses use to sprinkle the people with blood?
Posted by: mk at March 5, 2008 2:06 PM
I don’t mean what did moses sprinkle the people with, sorry, I mean what did the people paint their doorposts with in Exodus during the passover. What did they use to spread the blood?
honestly? I don’t remember. I’m not sure where you’re going with this one either. lol
Can you refresh my memory? I’ll try to google and find the answer to your questions.
No don’t google, it’s okay. I promise I AM going somewhere….please, please please stick with me?!?!?
Bethany,
Now what did Jesus do that “finished it”
Marykay, I feel like I’ve answered this question several times now. What is it that you want me to say? I’m confused.
Here is the verse in Isaiah that Jesus fulfilled. This is “it”:
“He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed” (Isaiah 53:5).
LOL okay, mk…I didn’t mean I was going to cheat…I meant I was going to go to Exodus and find out what they used to spread the blood on the doorposts.
mk,
The offering was accepted. That’s what the resurrection is.
However, the completion, or the “it” is referring to the moment the fulfillment of the new covanent. The new covanent is Jesus Himself, who offered the ultimate sacrifice. The moment before He died, he finished the ultimate sacrifice. His resurrection is not related to His covanent, or sacrifice. His resurrection is God accepting the sacrifice of Jesus by receiving Jesus/Himself back up into heaven. Two seperate things here, mk, regarding the “it” is finished.
He offered his sacrifice for the sins of the world. He died in this world. It was finished here – the new covanent began the moment before he died.
Exodus 12:22
Okay, in a seder, there are four cups of wine poured and drunk. They each represent very specific things. Things that happened in the passover.
You remember the jews were told to remember the passover every year forever? This is their most important Holy Day…even now.
Read Exodus 13:1-9
THE FIRST CUP:
The first cup of wine accompanies Kiddush. The function of Kiddush is to give expression to the Sanctification of Time (not the magazine); that is, the ability of Time to be invested with holiness.
This sanctification manifests itself in relation to Shabbat and the Holidays. The Shabbat was sanctified by G-d, in order for us to remember both the creation and the Exodus. We were commanded to sanctify the Festivals by means of establishing the Rosh Chodesh, the beginnings of the various months, in the Sanhedrin, the Jewish equivalent of Congress and the Supreme Court.
Each of the Festivals has a distinctive nature and, for the Jew, the question “Mah Yom MiYomayim?” “Why or How is this day different in its nature from other days?” always has a unique answer, as we shall see in connection with the first of the Four Questions.
In Kiddush, we thank G-d for being the “Mekadesh Yisrael V’HaZemanim,” the One Who made Israel holy, and thereby gave Israel the mastery over time to be able to confer holiness upon the Festivals.
THE SECOND CUP:
This cup is drunk after the fulfillment of the Mitzvah of “Sipur Yetziat Mitzrayim,” “Telling the Story of the Exodus of the Jewish People from Egypt.
THE THIRD CUP:
The third cup is drunk at the conclusion of the “Bircat HaMazon,” the Blessing which we recite at the end of a full meal. It represents our gratitude to Hashem for being the “Zan et HaKol,” the One Who sustains all of Creation, Who showers blessings upon the Land of Israel, during Festivals the One Who defined the unique holiness of each, and the One Who is rebuilding and will continue to rebuild Jerusalem.
http://www.ou.org/chagim/pesach/fourcups.htm
Are you with me so far?
JLM,
It was finished here – the new covanent began the moment before he died.
It takes two to make a covenant. If the father had not accepted the sacrifice yet, then it wasn’t finished.
But it’s not important, except to say that this is not what Jesus meant by “IT”.
I may be even more confused than before!
“Are you with me so far?”
I am, MK! :)
Don’t fight it girl, just go with it. see where it takes you.
Okay, we have 4 cups, three labeled so far.
What was the last supper? It was a celebration of the Passover, right?
Now go and read John 12:27-33
Just a Catholic who wants to respond to Bethany’s comments. She says that Catholics worship Mary and this is not true. We venerate her as someone who completely submitted to God’s Will. Bethany’s two points:
“1.) You say you believe Mary is sinless (kept from sinning), and the mother of God, and that she ascended to Heaven.”
Mary didn’t ascend to Heaven by herself. How could she, being a human being? She ascended by the power of God. Regarding the immaculate conception, that concept is that she was born without original sin. However, Mary had completely free will and could have chosen to sin in her life – but didn’t – instead she molded herself perfectly to God’s Will which is why she is the perfect example of a human being to emulate.
“2.) You ask her to pray for you. This implies that Mary is omni-present. She would have to be omni-present in order to hear all of your petitions. And she would have to be very powerful as well, in order to fulfill them. Yes, God could give her the power to hear everyone’s prayers, but can you please tell me why would He? He has already given us an advocate, and His name is Jesus Christ.”
We ask the saints to pray for us, not to answer our prayers. Just like you ask your neighbor to pray for you before you go into surgery. Protestants pray for each other all the time. We ask saints to pray too because we think they have a clearer “line” to God. It’s still always up to God to answer prayers.
But that said, often people do what their mother asks them to do, no?
To throw something else (on-topic?) into the mix, if you are so sure of your bible interpretations, and the people 100 years ago were so sure, why do nearly 100% of the protestants now consider Birth Control proper or at least a matter of personal choice, when 100 years ago, the same denominations condemned it as a grave sin? Especially echoing it in 1930 when the Anglicans in their Lambeth Council approved it only in the most serious situations?
By the late ’60s the protestant church changed, then Abortion came – Roe v. Wade using the same point made in Griswold v. Connecticut.
This is a 180 on a very serious matter. Why not simply reinterpret things to allow homosexuality? When Jesus says clearly that marriages are indissoluble (God puts them together, no man can break that bond) his words are rejected.
As far as the original question, Jesus also spoke this parable (Matt 25, if I remember). A father had two sons and he asked both to go out into the field and work. The first said NO!, butS later repented of it and went out and worked. The second said Yes, but didn’t actually go out. Which one did the father’s will?
So should I look at how well you know the words of the Apostle Paul (often more than the Gospels), or how many acts of real charity and sacrifice you do? Should I look at knowledge or humility?
And as to purification, he didn’t say it would be instant or painless. Nor does it work if we, after accepting Christ, reject him, and even the smallest sin is a rejection. Yet we can’t stop sinning. The greatest saint was more frustrated over their trivial imperfections than most here are over their daily and continuous sins – outbursts of anger, lingering lusts, petty pride.
The person who has the right answer – whether they can express it or not – is the one who shows the most perfect image of Jesus Christ himself. They see Jesus in everyone, so Jesus is most clearly seen in them.
It is far easier to read the Bible, commentaries, and great works – or to do devotions, attend daily mass, or volunteer for bingo – than to break even the smallest annoying habit. So all too many Christians are too busy to become little Christs, i.e. Saints. It is easier to be Martha than Mary, but the latter had the better part.
Yet that is like soldiers reading about guns instead of practicing their marksmanship. Watching exercise videos instead of working on their real strength and endurance. And you wonder why we are unable to battle the evil one effectively?
I have to understand the question in order to be able to give you an answer. There is no way I can just go with it if I don’t even know where we’re going.
Okay, so we know that the original passover was the last plague sent by God on the Egyptians. The jews were to follow a very, very specific ritual in order that their first born sons not be killed along with the first born of the Egyptians, right?
And what did they have to do?
Exodus:
The LORD said to Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt,
2
1 “This month shall stand at the head of your calendar; you shall reckon it the first month of the year.
3>Tell the whole community of of Israel: On the tenth of this month every one of your families must procure for itself a lamb, one apiece for each household.
4
2 If a family is too small for a whole lamb, it shall join the nearest household in procuring one and shall share in the lamb in proportion to the number of persons who partake of it.
5
The lamb must be a year-old male and without blemish. You may take it from either the sheep or the goats.
6
You shall keep it until the fourteenth day of this month, and then, with the whole assembly of Israel present, it shall be slaughtered during the evening twilight.
7
They shall take some of its blood and apply it to the two doorposts and the lintel of every house in which they partake of the lamb.
8
That same night they shall eat its roasted flesh with unleavened bread and bitter herbs.
9
It shall not be eaten raw or boiled, but roasted whole, with its head and shanks and inner organs.
10
None of it must be kept beyond the next morning; whatever is left over in the morning shall be burned up.
11
3 “This is how you are to eat it: with your loins girt, sandals on your feet and your staff in hand, you shall eat like those who are in flight. It is the Passover of the LORD.
12
For on this same night I will go through Egypt, striking down every first–born of the land, both man and beast, and executing judgment on all the gods of Egypt-I, the LORD!
13
But the blood will mark the houses where you are. Seeing the blood, I will pass over you; thus, when I strike the land of Egypt, no destructive blow will come upon you.
14
“This day shall be a memorial feast for you, which all your generations shall celebrate with pilgrimage to the LORD, as a perpetual institution.
15
For seven days you must eat unleavened bread. From the very first day you shall have your houses clear of all leaven. Whoever eats leavened bread from the first day to the seventh shall be cut off from Israel.
16
On the first day you shall hold a sacred assembly, and likewise on the seventh. On these days you shall not do any sort of work, except to prepare the food that everyone needs.
17
“Keep, then, this custom of the unleavened bread. Since it was on this very day that I brought your ranks out of the land of Egypt, you must celebrate this day throughout your generations as a perpetual institution.
18
From the evening of the fourteenth day of the first month until the evening of the twenty-first day of this month you shall eat unleavened bread.
19
For seven days no leaven may be found in your houses. Anyone, be he a resident alien or a native, who eats leavened food shall be cut off from the community of Israel.
20
Nothing leavened may you eat; wherever you dwell you may eat only unleavened bread.”
21
Moses called all the elders of Israel and said to them, “Go and procure lambs for your families, and slaughter them as Passover victims.
22
4 Then take a bunch of hyssop, and dipping it in the blood that is in the basin, sprinkle the lintel and the two doorposts with this blood. But none of you shall go outdoors until morning.
23
For the LORD will go by, striking down the Egyptians. Seeing the blood on the lintel and the two doorposts, the LORD will pass over that door and not let the destroyer come into your houses to strike you down.
24
“You shall observe this as a perpetual ordinance for yourselves and your descendants.
25
Thus, you must also observe this rite when you have entered the land which the LORD will give you as he promised.
26
When your children ask you, ‘What does this rite of yours mean?’
27
you shall reply, ‘This is the Passover sacrifice of the LORD, who passed over the houses of the Israelites in Egypt; when he struck down the Egyptians, he spared our houses.'” Then the people bowed down in worship,
28
and the Israelites went and did as the LORD had commanded Moses and Aaron.
29
Tz, lynn, it may be a while before I can address your posts. Except I will agree with you that any protestant faith who allows birth control and abortion is absolutely wrong, no doubt about it, and they are not in the Word.
I have to pick up the kids from school…I’ll be back in twenty minutes…
I’m pleading here Bethany…don’t leave. Okay?
I’m almost done.
Just read Exodus while I’m gone.
Then read Luke 17-18
Bethany, I wouldn’t waste a lot of time trying to prove something that isn’t true. Catholics don’t worship Mary. It is not in the Catechism. Perhaps you can find some people who do but they are not Catholics.
Marykay, you have no idea how hard I am trying to grasp your point, but I haven’t figured it out. I honestly dont’ know what you’re wanting me to see.
Ok I will come back in a few minutes and keep checking to see if you’ve clarified. I’m not trying to avoid the point- I just can’t see it!
Lynn, okay I will try to address your point since Marykay has left for a moment.
Per your first point…since I think that everything that we teach should be consistent with the Bible, I cannot believe that Mary had chosen to be sinless her entire life. I know she found favor with God, very much so, but this does not mean that she was sinless, yet rather it was that she was submitted to the will of God and had faith.
Your second point:
We ask the saints to pray for us, not to answer our prayers. Just like you ask your neighbor to pray for you before you go into surgery. Protestants pray for each other all the time. We ask saints to pray too because we think they have a clearer “line” to God. It’s still always up to God to answer prayers.
Why not go to God directly through Jesus? And why do you believe that a saint can hear all the multitudes of prayers being prayed every day? If they could hear them all and answer them, it would be necessary for them to be omni-present.
But that said, often people do what their mother asks them to do, no?
Jesus says that we can pray directly to Him. Why go through Mary when you can go directly to Jesus? Jesus promised that if we ask Him for the things we need, He will answer them. Why does He need his mother to tell Him to do it? Don’t you think that Jesus loves us enough to answer our requests, without His mother having to take on the role of an earthly mother, and talk him into doing what we ask?
Marykay, in regards to Luke 18…I agree with this commentary about what it signifies. In fact, I taught a lesson on it in Sunday School one time:
http://home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/qjesusteachingworks.html
Was Jesus teaching salvation by works to the rich young ruler (Luke 18:18-23)?
In Luke 18:18-23 Jesus answered the question, “What must I do to inherit eternal life?” by telling the rich young ruler to keep the commandments (v. 20). Does this statement support the idea of salvation by grace plus works?
No. There is no evidence here or elsewhere that Jesus taught that good works are a condition of salvation. This is clear for a number of reasons.
First of all, Jesus’ answer was not intended as a plan of salvation but as proof of the young man’s condemnation. The law does not save (Romans 3:28), but it does condemn (Romans 3:19). The “law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith” (Galatians 3:24). Jesus was trying to demonstrate to the young man that he stood condemned before the law. His unwillingness to give his money to the poor revealed that he had not even kept the first great commandment to love God more than his money or anything else (cf. Matthew 22:3637).
Furthermore, even the rich young ruler’s question was confused. For one does not “do” anything to get an inheritance of any kind, including eternal life. An “inheritance” is a gift. Indeed, eternal life is presented throughout the Bible as a gift (Romans 6:23; John 3:36; 5:24; 20:31; 1 John 5:13). And one cannot work for a gift. As Paul said, “Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness” (Romans 4:45). The only “work” by which someone can be saved is “faith.” For when Jesus was asked, “What can we do to accomplish the works of God?” Jesus replied, “This is the work of God, that you believe in the one he sent” (John 6:29).
It takes two to make a covenant. If the father had not accepted the sacrifice yet, then it wasn’t finished.
ok, mk…what IS the new covanent?
btw…God made the covanent with us. Jesus fulfilled it.
Bethany,
It’s okay…I haven’t made my point yet. I need to lay the “biblical” groundwork first…
For you.
mk,
Maybe this commentary can explain it better than I could:
Observe the dying word wherewith Jesus breathed out his soul. It is finished; that is, the counsels of the Father concerning his sufferings were now fulfilled. It is finished; all the types and prophecies of the Old Testament, which pointed at the sufferings of the Messiah, were accomplished. It is finished; the ceremonial law is abolished; the substance is now come, and all the shadows are done away. It is finished; an end is made of transgression by bringing in an everlasting righteousness. His sufferings were now finished, both those of his soul, and those of his body. It is finished; the work of man’s redemption and salvation is now completed. His life was not taken from him by force, but freely given up. (Jn 19:31-37)
I’m an idiot Bethany…I meant Luke 22:17-18…
And read Mark 14:22-26
JLM,
btw…God made the covanent with us. Jesus fulfilled it.
You are the one that said the resurrection was God accepting the sacrafice, not me. I’m just pointing out that if God did not accept the sacrifice until Jesus was taken back into heaven, then it was NOT finished on the cross…
Bethany, I found a link where exactly what MK is saying is explained beautifully. I’ll show it to you when MK is finished.
Marykay, are you trying to say that communion is a perpetual sacrifice for our sins?
Bethany, you are discussing two different things. I’d like to address the first one, where you say Catholics worship Mary, which is not true.
Let’s say I believe Mary is sinless. Does that mean I worship her? No. She is obviously a human being that walked on the earth.
Let’s also say I pray to Mary. I petition her to pray for me. Does that mean I worship her? No. Just like when I ask my neighbor to pray for me do I not worship him.
I will address your two points but first make the point that whatever your quibbles are with particular beliefs, they are not evidence that Catholics think Mary is a deity and should be worshipped. Mary is the #1 saint.
So, now you agree Catholics don’t worship Mary?
Okay,
Bethany, now lets review. We have the passover. With hyssop, the jews paint their doorstops with the blood of an unblemished lamb. This causes their firstborn sons to be spared.
They are to eat every last bite of the lamb, to leave none. If there family is too small to consume a whole lamb by itself, they are to share with their neighbors. Following all of these details, the blood, the consuming of the lamb…they are making a covenant with God. They are saying yes, Lord, we are yours. And God “passes over” their firstborn sons.
They are told that they must perform the passover in memorium eternally…forever.
In the ritual of the festival of passover, they drink 4 cups of wine. The first they drink after pronouncing a blessing on the holiness of Israel. Then they eat bitter herbs.
Then they recite the story of Exodus in Q and A form, the youngest asking the questions the oldest answering. (This would be Jesus, the eldest)
Then they recite a number of psalms including 113.
Then they eat the meal. They consume the LAMB and the UNLEAVENED bread. Then they pass the third cup and when everyone has drunk, they sing a hymn. The Great Alleluia.
Finally, they drink the fourth cup (remember, there is one cup that gets passed around to everyone) and bless the future messiah…
Now go back to Mark.
7 While they were eating, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, and said, “Take it; this is my body.”
23
Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, and they all drank from it.
24
He said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed 8 for many.
25
Amen, I say to you, I shall not drink again the fruit of the vine until the day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”
26
Then, after singing a hymn, 9 they went out to the Mount of Olives.
27
You are the one that said the resurrection was God accepting the sacrafice, not me. I’m just pointing out that if God did not accept the sacrifice until Jesus was taken back into heaven, then it was NOT finished on the cross…
You’re not hearing me, or you don’t want to. It was finished, Jesus taking on all of the sins of the world, any previous sacrifice was moot at this point. No other sacrifice was needed. Jesus made the ultimate sacrifice. It was finished the moment before He died. All of the past rituals, ceremonies, traditions, etc., were all nailed to the cross with Him. Salvation through His blood at that moment became the new covenant. The old covenant of law was finished, and the new covenant of grace began. His resurrection didn’t save us, mk, his blood sacrifice did.
Let’s also say I pray to Mary. I petition her to pray for me. Does that mean I worship her? No. Just like when I ask my neighbor to pray for me do I not worship him.
Lynn, I would love to believe that Mary to you was just as a neighbor or a sister in Christ.
But, using your analogy, try to understand how we see this. You do not consider your neighbor to be a Queen of Heaven, your neighbor is not dead, and you do not sing songs about your neighbor to glorify her, and you do not hail her name and believe that she can hear millions of prayers all at once. You do not call your neighbor immaculately conceived. You also do not have statues of your neighbor all through your church to remind you of your neighbor and how much you love her.
Does that make sense? This is why we see it as worship. We don’t say it to be offensive or rude but because that’s honestly what it appears to be. Please do not take offense. I am only speaking as it appears from my perspective.
Do you notice that they sing a hymn after passing the cup? This shows us that this must have been the third cup. See? A hymn is sung after passing the third cup at passover.
But what does Jesus do next?
He leaves. He goes to the Mount of Olives to pray.
He, nor do his apostles, drink the fourth cup.
To Jews, this is unthinkable…this is the cup that consummates the passover. It isn’t right! YOU MUST drink the fourth cup.
And what does Jesus pray in garden?
“Father, if you are willing, take this CUP from me.”
He is speaking about the fourth cup. He is saying that He is afraid to drink the fourth cup.
Now lets go to the cross. What does Jesus say?
“I thirst”
It would have been agonizing for Him to speak because to get a breath would have meant putting weight on His feet, but these words are not about getting something cold to drink…no.
He is saying…I THIRST…give me the fourth cup.
And he is offered a sponge, dipped in wine, on ?
HYSSOP!
After he drinks, He says “IT is finished” meaning the passover…
So Jesus has fulfilled His part of the covenant.
See?
Oh, it gives me chills, MaryKay…
JLM,
You’re not hearing me, or you don’t want to. It was finished, Jesus taking on all of the sins of the world, any previous sacrifice was moot at this point. No other sacrifice was needed. Jesus made the ultimate sacrifice. It was finished the moment before He died. All of the past rituals, ceremonies, traditions, etc., were all nailed to the cross with Him. Salvation through His blood at that moment became the new covenant. The old covenant of law was finished, and the new covenant of grace began. His resurrection didn’t save us, mk, his blood sacrifice did.
No, you’re not hearing me. Jesus did His part yes, but the covenant was not completed.
Jesus was finished. But He didn’t say I am finished…He said IT is finished. Are you reading what I have been writing to Bethany? Because if not then this conversation is pointless…we’re waaaaay past this part…
The only part of the bible addressed to the present day church, the Body of Christ, is Paul’s epistles.
So, if we want to know the correct doctrinal details regarding salvation, church structure and church instruction and discipline (to name a few matters) we need to look to Paul’s epistles in order to find the correct answers.
It all centers around the crucial importance of what Paul refers to as “the revelation of the mystery” (Rom 16:25; Eph 3:1-9; Col 1:26-27) and also what he refers to as “my gospel” (Rom 16:25) which he calls “the gospel of the uncircumcision” (Gal 2:7).
Knowing this truth that Paul elaborates on with some detail in his epistles is the key in helping biblically illiterate Roman Catholics to understand that James, Peter and John’s ministry ended in the first century with no “apostolic successors” to follow – the ministry that Christ gave to the Apostle Paul is the one that was to go on and continue until Christ comes back to gather up the members of the Body of Christ (saints saved from Paul’s conversion until “the fullness of the gentiles” Rom 11:25) to commence the current dispensation.
Bethany,
As Lynn, Bobby, and I have all said, we know what is in our hearts, and we are not worshipping Mary. You just have to take our word for it. God bless you.
Bethany,
Now the high priests in the Old Testament wore white tunics that were seamless…
Look at John 19:23
King James Bible
Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also his coat: now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout.
This signifies that Jesus was both Lamb and Priest. Sacrificer and Sacrifice…
We all agree He was the Lamb, right?
So let’s go back to passover.
In the Old Testament, God makes a covenant with the Jewish People. He promises to spare their babes if they sacrifice and eat the lamb.
Jesus drinks the fourth cup on the cross, signifying God and His promise AND the LAMB.
So Jesus part is done. But we (the Jews) have not fulfilled our part yet. What do we need to do to seal the covenant?
Jesus was finished. But He didn’t say I am finished…He said IT is finished. Are you reading what I have been writing to Bethany? Because if not then this conversation is pointless…we’re waaaaay past this part…
No, mk, we’re stuck at that part. I have been following along just fine, thank you. You really don’t understand what Jesus did on the cross. Post, after post I have gathered that. He did more than just die for a “part of sin”. I certainly don’t expect you to understand why I keep posting this part, because our beliefs are very different in what Jesus did on the cross.
The Passover Sabbath has to do with salvation, the shedding of blood. The blood on the doorposts and the lintels; our Lord nailed that to the cross.
No longer a need for a lamb to die. No longer a need to slay a lamb. Why? Nobody’s sin is forgiven by a lamb being slain. No need for it. Why? The Lamb of God has already been slain.
So our Lord nailed the Passover Sabbath. That’s why we don’t have Passover season. Why? Because the Passover represents salvation, and you don’t need the lamb freshly slain all the time for salvation. Slain once and for all, our Lord nailed the Passover Sabbath to the cross.
Salvation has always been by grace through the faith, but no longer a need for other sacrifices. All those nailed to the cross. Our Lord took care of all that.
That, mk, is why “it” was completed the moment before He died.
Let’s look anew at the words Jesus spoke at the Last Supper…
While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, “Take and eat; this is my body.”
27
Then he took a cup, gave thanks, 16 and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you,
28
for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.
29
17 I tell you, from now on I shall not drink this fruit of the vine until the day when I drink it with you new in the kingdom of my Father.”
Bethany, I can only tell you your perspective is completely wrong. We honor Mary. There is nothing wrong with honoring people. In fact, it is even a commandment to “honor thy father and mother.” She was immaculately conceived not by her own power but by God’s power. “Loving Mary” doesn’t mean I worship her.
Bethany, I am sorry that you won’t take the trouble to understand Catholic doctrine on Mary for whatever reason and cling to your poorly formed perspective. For example, there are not statues of Mary “all though my church.” There’s one. It reminds me of my need to imitate her in her submission to God’s will. Honoring Mary in the ways you describe is not the same as worshipping her as a deity.
How odd also that you have a problem with her being Queen of Heaven and hearing many prayers. We both believe Jesus Christ gave all everlasting life, so why would the dead be constrained from hearing prayers and praying themselves? And who else should be Queen of Heaven? She is only honored for her perfect submission to God’s Glory. That brings glory to God, not her.
How odd to persist in believing something that there is no evidence for, and that the participants themselves say is not true. You are unconvinceable (is that a word?) I must sadly conclude.
Marykay, I don’t want to hurt you. I think that what you wrote was very poetic and makes sense, but it is not Biblically accurate.
From http://www.challies.com/archives/articles/take-this-cup-a.php
This may help you understand:
To understand what Jesus
From Scott Hahn,
“Some scholars explain Jesus
In the ancient days, when the Jewish priest had killed the last lamb of the Passover, he uttered the Hebrew word Kalah, “it is finished.” Moments before He died on the Cross, Jesus said, Jn 19:30 Kalah (it is finished).
The Jews knew that He was speaking literally. Jn 6:52 “How can this man give us his Flesh to eat?” On other occasions when our Lord spoke of Himself as a Jn 10:9 “door” or a Jn 15:1 “vine,” nobody said, “How can this man be made of wood?” or “How can this man be a plant?” They recognized these as metaphors. But when Jesus insisted, Jn 6:53 “Unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of man and drink His Blood, you have no life in you; he who eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood has eternal life.” The Jews who heard this said, Jn 6:60 “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” They remembered God’s command to Noah and all mankind, Gn 9:4 “Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.” God spoke more forcefully to His chosen people. Lv 17:10 “I will set my face against that person who eats blood, and will cut him off from among his people.” It was only after Christ’s redemptive sacrifice and the Holy Spirit’s enlightenment that the Apostles saw the full meaning of our Father’s next words. Lv 17:11 “For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it for you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement, by reason of the life.” In the Old Covenant our Father in heaven had commanded His children not to eat the blood of animals because we are not to participate in the life of animals. Animals, having no immortal souls, are lower than man in the order of created nature. However, in the New and Everlasting Covenant we consume the Blood of Christ to participate in Christ’s eternal life.
esus knew we would need a lot of help to become accustomed to the Holy Eucharist. He performed the Miracle of the Loaves and Fishes in the dim light of the original Passover sacrifice Ex 12:6 and of His Crucifixion. Mt 27:45 He performed the four great Eucharistic actions: He took the bread, blessed it, broke it, and gave it to His apostles to feed the people: Mt 14:15 “When it was evening, the disciples came to him and said, ‘This is a lonely place, and the day is now over; send the crowds away to go into the villages and buy food for themselves.’ Jesus said, ‘They need not go away; you give them something to eat.’ They said to him, ‘We have only five loaves here and two fish.’ And he said, ‘Bring them here to me.’ Then he ordered the crowds to sit down on the grass; and taking the five loaves and the two fish he looked up to heaven, and blessed, and broke and gave the loaves to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the crowds. And they all ate and were satisfied. And they took up twelve baskets full of the broken pieces left over.”
The three Gospel narratives of the Last Supper are absolutely consistent. Matthew: 26:26 “This is My Body.” 26:27 “This is My Blood
Catholic Answers has a nice succinct rebuttal to the charges of praying to Mary and the saints – if interested, please click on this URL:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Praying_to_the_Saints.asp
What I quoted from Scott Hahn was in response to Bethany’s post about the cup being God’s wrath, BTW.
Bethany,
When we celebrate Mass Bethany, we are keeping OUR end of the covenant. We are drinking from the fourth cup and we are eating the Lamb. Jesus has done His part, but everytime I receive communion, I am saying YES to his sacrifice. I am doing what He told me to do at passover and at the last supper…
I don’t know how much more scriptural you can get.
Okay. You’re free to go. lol
Lynn, please do not misunderstand. I understand that you do not believe what you are doing is worship. I just can’t agree with you that it is not worship. I would be lying if I told you I agreed with you on that. I think praying to the dead is wrong, period.
I honestly am not trying to fight with you- it’s my opinion and I don’t mean it as a personal attack against you. Please understand that we come from completely different belief systems and that we are probably just not going to agree on this one.
I have to go now, but for a scripture saturated article about exactly what MK is talking about, see http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1991/9109fea1.asp . It REALLY is worth reading and looking at the scripture he sites. God love you, Bethany and JLM.
mk,
I gather from your posts that the 4th cup was already drank?
He is saying…I THIRST…give me the fourth cup.
And he is offered a sponge, dipped in wine, on ?
HYSSOP!
After he drinks, He says “IT is finished” meaning the passover…
So Jesus has fulfilled His part of the covenant.
See?
He hasn’t drank the fourth cup yet. Here, this may help you understand:
Jesus takes a cup of wine. It is the third cup of the four prescribed cups of the feast. The third cup is known as the cup of redemption. The first cup is the cup of Sanctification, meaning to be set apart to God for the feast. The second cup is the cup of instruction, instructing that there were many plagues on the land of Egypt, yet the children of God could not go free from slavery until there was a death of the firstborn. Now this night Jesus is proclaiming that He is the Firstborn of God and that His death will set us free from the slavery of sin and the cruelty of Satan just like the death of the firstborn did so many years ago back in Egypt.
Then Jesus taking the cup Mark 14:23 of redemption and like the bread, giving thanks, Jesus passed the cup to the disciples and said “take drink all of it,” Matthew 26:27 this cup is the New Testament in His blood: this do, that as often as we drink of it, to do it in remembrance of Jesus. The disciples are fully aware that Jesus is speaking of a better blood than man has, of His Spiritual life blood. They gladly take the cup of wine and gladly drink all of it. We marvel that Jesus wants us to “Drink all” that He has for us, all of His Life, Love, Compassion and Mercy.
Jesus then mentions that He will not drink again of the wine until He drinks it anew with us in His Father’s Kingdom. The fourth cup of wine that Jesus is postponing to drink is called the “cup of Rejoicing.” After the feast, the cup of rejoicing is to be drunk as we rejoice in all that God has done in our lives in setting us free and reuniting us with Him in the promise land of Heaven.
Jesus says that He will drink that next cup with all of us for real in the real heaven. Jesus and the disciples then sing a Psalm in the closing of the “Lord’s Passover Feast.”
When we celebrate Mass Bethany, we are keeping OUR end of the covenant. We are drinking from the fourth cup and we are eating the Lamb. Jesus has done His part, but everytime I receive communion, I am saying YES to his sacrifice. I am doing what He told me to do at passover and at the last supper…
I don’t know how much more scriptural you can get.
Okay. You’re free to go. lol
Marykay, it isn’t scriptural. Please try to understand. The Bible never says that we must do anything to keep our end of a covenant. It says quite the opposite. Having to partake of a communion to keep our salvation would be letting our salvation depend our works, our participation, and ultimately, that would result in our glory, not Christ’s.
Our part is simply accepting the free gift of Christ’s atonement.
We do not have to do that more than once.
If someone hands you a gift, do you come weekly to accept it again? Do they take it away from you if you forget?
Communion is meant for one reason- to remember Christ and what He did for us. That’s what the Bible says…Jesus says, “This do in remembrance of me”. Not, in order to keep your end of the bargain. The Bible NEVER says that partaking of the communion will bring you salvation. I love you Marykay but we have very, very different views on this.
Bethany,
It is no coincidence that the crucifixion came right on the passover.
Remember when the veil was rent?
This is because up until now, no one except the Hight Priest was allowed into the Holy of Holies, the tabernacle. God was kept from our eyes. We were not allowed to see. At the moment of His death the veil was ripped in half, signifying that now, we could ALL go to the altar. We could all look upon God. He was no longer hidden. This is the Eucharist.
This is also why Mary had to be pure. SHE is the new tabernacle. And why Paul says we must receive Him worthily, because one He is in us, WE become a tabernacle. We too must be spotless. This is why we must go to confession before we can receive Him if we have committed a mortal sin, and why we say a penitential rite before communion at every mass.
The last words I say before I may receive Him are “Lord, I am not worth to receive you, but only say the word, and I shall be healed” The only word I speak after that is “Amen”…
Bobby,
Thank you so much for sticking it out. I’m still reeling from that tape! WOW!
Now where is this link?
JLM,
The fourth cup of wine that Jesus is postponing to drink is called the “cup of Rejoicing.” After the feast, the cup of rejoicing is to be drunk as we rejoice in all that God has done in our lives in setting us free and reuniting us with Him in the promise land of Heaven.
He says He will not drink until He drinks it in His Kingdom. But His crucifixion established that Kingdom…right here on earth. He drank the fourth cup. And we rejoiced!
Bethany, how about reading my link then and commenting? I don’t take it personally, I just find it odd you would cling to a “belief” and unformed opinion that is so obviously completely wrong. How does that help you?
JLM,
The preacher happened to be a fine Scripture scholar as well as one of my favorite seminary professors, so I was taken aback when he proceeded to show quite convincingly that Jesus could not have meant that. For one thing, Paul teaches that our redemption is not complete without Jesus being “raised for our justification” (Rom. 4:25).
mk,
The blood was to be sprinkled, remember, on the mercy seat right after the death of the substitutionary animal of sacrifice, Now Christ is, of course, our substitute. He was slain for us upon the Cross, and entered into death for us, and when He arose, He immediately went to heaven, entered into the holy of holies in heaven, sprinkled His precious blood upon the mercy seat before the throne of God, and forever settled the sin questions, and delivered us from the curse of the law. This is clearly taught in the New testament. Hebrews 9:12 is very definite on this:
“But by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.”
The Bible also makes plain when He accomplished this. On the morning of the resurrection He meets Mary at the tomb. As soon as Mary recognized Him, she prostrated herself upon Him, and would have kissed His feet, but with shocking suddenness, Jesus emphatically says to her: “Touch me not”; and then He proceeds immediately to give the reason why Mary is not permitted to touch Him at all.
“For I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.” (John 20:17)
Literally the Lord Jesus Christ said, “Touch me not; for I now am about to ascend unto my Father.” We can understand this action when we remember the the high priest after he had offered the sacrifice, was to enter the holy of holies, before he did anything else, with the precious blood. No one was allowed to approach him. Everyone was shut out until this was completely done. And here in the record of the meeting with Mary we have the fulfillment of this type. Here Mary meets her great High Priest, just arisen from the tomb, but before He had entered the holy of holies with the reconciling blood. And so He says to her, “TOUCH ME NOT.”
SOURCE: The TABERNACLE, by M.R. DeHaan, M.D., ISBN 0-310-23491-3, page 129.
Then again, maybe I am offended. Bethany is telling me I am worshiping something when I am not. How patronizing.
Lynn,
Let me ask you a question…
What is the difference in the way you admire Jesus and the way you admire Mary?
JLM,
I don’t see where any of that contradicts what I said.
The veil renting was symbolic of the Old Covenant no longer applying. We were all free. We no longer had to be High Priests…
And I thought you believed it was “finished” on the cross.. Now we must wait until He has ascended. Pick one or the other…
I am sorry you are offended, Lynn.
Wine
Jesus is spiritually present in the wine. When the afikomen is broken and passed around for all to eat, Jews drink the third of four cups of wine, called the cup of blessing because it represents the blood of the sacrificed paschal lamb. It is the cup that Jesus gave to His apostles, saying, Lk 22:20 “This cup which is poured out for you is the New Covenant in My Blood.” He did not drink the fourth, the Kalah cup, explaining, Mt 26:29 “I tell you I shall not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” But later that evening at Gethsemane, Jesus prayed by moonlight, Mt 26:39 “Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me.” After He was captured, Jesus asked Peter, Jn 18:11 “Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given Me?” Many Catholics believe that Jesus drank the last cup on the Cross, Jn 19:29 “They put a sponge full of the vinegar on hyssop and held it to His mouth. When Jesus had received the vinegar, He said, ‘It is finished’; and He bowed His head and gave up His spirit.”
Lamb
Pasch or pesach in Hebrew means “he passed over.” The paschal lamb recalls the lamb that was sacrificed that its blood might be daubed on the doorposts of every Jewish home, and its body eaten in every Jewish home, that the angel of death might know it as a household of the faithful and pass over. God had originally commanded Ex 12:6 that the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel kill the paschal lambs. When Solomon built the first Temple, Jewish priests sacrificed the paschal lambs there. But after Jesus ascended to heaven and the second Temple fell never to rise again, the Temple sacrifices could no longer be done, so Jews began to represent the paschal lamb with a lamb’s shank bone.
Jesus is spiritually present in the shank bone of the lamb. The Jews in Egypt ate the paschal lamb to be physically redeemed and led to the promised land of Canaan. Catholics for two thousand years have consumed the Body and Blood of the Lamb of God, Jn 1:29 that we might be spiritually redeemed and find the promised kingdom of heaven.
In the ancient days, when the Jewish priest had killed the last lamb of the Passover, he uttered the Hebrew word Kalah, “it is finished.” Moments before He died on the Cross, Jesus said, Jn 19:30 Kalah (it is finished).
http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/scrip/a6.html
The above was from this link: He is a Jewish man that converted to Catholicism…
He says He will not drink until He drinks it in His Kingdom. But His crucifixion established that Kingdom…right here on earth. He drank the fourth cup. And we rejoiced!
I think you’re confusing the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven, mk:
The Kingdom of God is the universal and eternal rule of God.
The Kingdom of Heaven is the earthly sphere of the Kingdom of God, the coming Messianic reign of Jesus Christ, the Son of David. Found only in Matthew’s Gospel, the book of the King and His coming Kingdom, it looks to His heavenly rule over the earth in the soon-coming millennium.
http://www.gotquestions.org/temple-veil-torn.html
So what do we make of this? What significance does this rent-torn veil have for us today? Above all, the tearing of the veil at the moment of Jesus’ death dramatically symbolized that His sacrifice, the shedding of His own blood, was a sufficient atonement for sins forever. It now signified that the way into the Holy of Holies was open for all people, for all time, both Jew and gentile.
When Jesus died, the veil was torn, and God moved out of that place never again to dwell in a Temple made with hands (Acts 17:24). God was through with that Temple and its religious system and worship forever, and the Temple and Jerusalem was left
don’t see where any of that contradicts what I said.
I do!
The veil renting was symbolic of the Old Covenant no longer applying. We were all free. We no longer had to be High Priests…
We were never High Priests! The High Priests were the only ones “holy enough” to come before God. When the veil was torn, by Jesus, we are now able to go directly to God, because we have been made holy through His blood sacrifice. Remember, only a blood sacrifice was required for the payment of sins. Our sins were forgiven, and we are made holy and can enter God’s presence through His blood! Again, hate to beat the dead horse again, but….No reason for purgatory!
And I thought you believed it was “finished” on the cross.. Now we must wait until He has ascended. Pick one or the other…
It WAS finished on the cross.
Where did I say that?
JLM,
From a protestant perspective I see why you would think that, but to us Catholics, Jesus is already here. And we have the heavenly kingdom on earth in the tabernacle. Every mass is heaven.
mk,
I see.
Yes, I believe that I am a member of Christ’s body because I accepted His sacrifice on the cross, and from what I gather, Catholics beleive that they consume Christ’s body and that’s when He is with them.
I guess we’re at a “stumper” again.
JLM,
When the veil was torn, by Jesus, we are now able to go directly to God, because we have been made holy through His blood sacrifice. Remember, only a blood sacrifice was required for the payment of sins.
I’m pretty sure that that is exactly what I said. And you contradicted me.
But the “tabernacle” of which you speak, to us, is the Tabernacle that holds Jesus in the flesh. And we are all free to go directly to God and receive him in the Eucharist.
What I said:
This is because up until now, no one except the Hight Priest was allowed into the Holy of Holies, the tabernacle. God was kept from our eyes. We were not allowed to see. At the moment of His death the veil was ripped in half, signifying that now, we could ALL go to the altar. We could all look upon God. He was no longer hidden. This is the Eucharist.
Bethany,
The Bible never says that we must do anything to keep our end of a covenant. It says quite the opposite. Having to partake of a communion to keep our salvation would be letting our salvation depend our works, our participation, and ultimately, that would result in our glory, not Christ’s.
Yes it does…
First, these words were important enough to be mentioned in three of the Gospels. Very few other passages are recorded by this man of the writers…
The three Gospel narratives of the Last Supper are absolutely consistent. Matthew: 26:26 “This is My Body.” 26:27 “This is My Blood
Ok, now I see what you were saying. Thank you for pointing it out.
I guess I lost you when you said “that is the eucharist”.
You do realize that the tabernacle was an actual structure that was built in the Old Testament, right?
And that part of the end times prophecy is that they will have to build it again, right? An acutal temple?
Amos 9:11 (prophesy)
In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old:
Acts 15:15-17
15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:
17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.
Reading Hebrews, Daniel and the Book of Revelations has alot to do with the end times and rebuilding. I just don’t get how a piece of bread ties into any of this.
No need to explain, I already read your explanations, I just don’t tie it in because on so many levels, it just doesn’t fit.
Sorry!
JLM,
Are you familiar with the Eucharistic Miracles? Where hosts bleed? Did you know that every time they test the blood it turns out to be type AB, which is also the blood type on the shroud of turin?
mk,
Since I don’t have time to explain it in my own words, again, here’s this:
The flesh and blood of the Son of man, denote the Redeemer in the nature of man; Christ and him crucified, and the redemption wrought out by him, with all the precious benefits of redemption; pardon of sin, acceptance with God, the way to the throne of grace, the promises of the covenant, and eternal life.
These are called the flesh and blood of Christ, because they are purchased by the breaking his body, and the shedding of his blood. Also, because they are meat and drink to our souls.
Eating this flesh and drinking this blood mean believing in Christ. We partake of Christ and his benefits by faith. The soul that rightly knows its state and wants, finds whatever can calm the conscience, and promote true holiness, in the redeemer, God manifest in the flesh. Meditating upon the cross of Christ gives life to our repentance, love, and gratitude.
We live by him, as our bodies live by our food. We live by him, as the members by the head, the branches by the root: because he lives we shall live also.
biblegateway.com
mk:
What’s the significance of the blood-type genetics lessons yesterday. I didn’t get what JLM was saying about it, and I can’t figure it out.
Well JLM,
You read those as end times prophecies and we read them as the Mass. To us, the entire book of Revelations is basically the Mass.
He is already here. Yes, there will be a second coming, but we don’t believe it will happen the way that you do.
Regardless, He is already here. Of course I realize that the tabernacle was a real building. It housed the “Word”…but the “Word” was made Flesh and that “Flesh” now sits in every tabernacle on every altar of every Catholic Church in the world.
Please explain the passages that I posted to Bethany at 5:17.
In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old:
To us, this is Jesus on the altar. These ruins raised up? They are Jesus. He says these words himself somewhere…hmmmm…where was that?
Janet,
Have you been reading along? Wasn’t that the most amazing thing??? The Fourth Cup?
The blood thing had something to do with Mary not being Jesus’ mother because He never got her genes. He was “placed” in her and never shared anything with her…I think. I don’t know. It was confusing. I found it irrelevant. She wasn’t pure and sinless because they shared blood but because she was the new Eve and the new Ark…I gave up on that conversation.
Are you familiar with the Eucharistic Miracles? Where hosts bleed? Did you know that every time they test the blood it turns out to be type AB, which is also the blood type on the shroud of turin?
Well, first thing that comes to mind is, are you familiar with this verse?
Matthew 24:24
For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
mk:
Very interesting! You deserve a break! Have some dinner!
The blood thing had something to do with Mary not being Jesus’ mother because He never got her genes.
I explained it a few times, and I thought you guys got it.
Mary is the mother of Jesus. we agree
Mary has sin. we don’t agree
Jesus has no sin. we agree
Sin is cleansed by perfect blood. We agree?
Jesus had perfect blood. We agree.
Jesus’ blood did not come from Mary, because babies don’t get any blood from their mothers.
This is why it makes no sense that Mary’s blood had to be sinless in order to carry Jesus. She gave Him NO BLOOD of her own.
JLM,
Haha, you’re nothing if not consistent…ah well, it was worth a try…
I don’t suppose you have ever for a moment considered that the protestant church is one of satans deceptions? To keep you from the Bread of Life? Didn’t think so…
JLM,
Who claimed that she DID give Him blood? What is she, the Red Cross?
Not for one second, mk!
JLM
Well, you guys had to come up with something that showed that Mary had no sin. The “New Eve” and the Arc of the Covenant”??? Where scriptually does THAT come from? Certainly not the bible I read!
Sin is in the flesh, blood, mk. It makes alot of sense if you actually think about it. Mary had sin. Nothing scriptually said she didn’t. Sola Scriptura isn’t such a bad thing, really…..you get the truth there.
mk,
Right here.
Lk 22:19 “Do this in remembrance of Me.”
Do this in remembrance of me? That’s it?
Paul warns that if you eat of this bread unworthily you will be sent to hell. He says that anyone eating it without accepting the truth of it will be condemned.
All this for eating a piece of bread the wrong way? Really? Hmmmmm….
“Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the Body and Blood of the Lord.”
So what would be a worthy manner of eating bread? In a tree? Naked? What is Paul talking about here. How do you worthily remember something? What do you do at your church that shows your are not profaning the body and blood of Our Lord. What worthy way do you eat it?
And why exactly do the Jews freak when He says If YOU DO NOT eat of it, you will not enter heaven?
“Unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of man and drink His Blood, you have no life in you; he who eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood has eternal life.” The Jews who heard this said, Jn 6:60 “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?”
I’ve heard of the quote “Remember the titanic” But never “Remember the BREAD!!!!”
And I’ve never heard…eat the cracker and drink the grape juice…
I’ve heard “do this in rememberance of me”.
(repost) (Now think in terms of “rememberance” when you read this….try to be a “protestant” (although I don’t like that term) for a quick 15 seconds)
The flesh and blood of the Son of man, denote the Redeemer in the nature of man; Christ and him crucified, and the redemption wrought out by him, with all the precious benefits of redemption; pardon of sin, acceptance with God, the way to the throne of grace, the promises of the covenant, and eternal life.
These are called the flesh and blood of Christ, because they are purchased by the breaking his body, and the shedding of his blood.
Also, because they are meat and drink to our souls.
Eating this flesh and drinking this blood mean believing in Christ. We partake of Christ and his benefits by faith. The soul that rightly knows its state and wants, finds whatever can calm the conscience, and promote true holiness, in the redeemer, God manifest in the flesh. Meditating upon the cross of Christ gives life to our repentance, love, and gratitude.
We live by him, as our bodies live by our food. We live by him, as the members by the head, the branches by the root: because he lives we shall live also.
Therefore, if you are taking part in the rememberance for the wrong reason, not in a state of thanksgiving, it is a bad, bad thing!
OBJECTOR: Now that Christmas is approaching, a lot of people are thinking about Christ more than they would at other times of the year. It
mk,
I responded, it’s above your long post.
:)
The Old Testament tells us that one item was placed inside the Ark of the Old Covenant while in the Sinai wilderness: God told Moses to put the stone tablets with the Ten Commandments inside the ark (Deut. 10:3
JLM,
First of all the very word Eucharist, means Thanksgiving.
Second of all I have never had crackers and grape juice together.
Grape Juice is not used, is forbidden in a Catholic Mass. As are crackers.
Thirdly, you didn’t respond to the scripture passages. While what you said was lovely, it had nothing to do with what Paul said. Or what Jesus said that made the Jews blanche.
Don’t you find it odd that He uses bread over and over, and that he consistently uses it with the phrases MY BODY, MY BLOOD.
You get awfully hung up on one or two word phrases when reading the bible, but when something is said plainly over and over and over again, you suddenly fluff it off…He says you must EAT OF MY FLESH! Eat, not remember. Eat. Just like the Jews were required to EAT the lamb at passover…
JLM,
mk,
I responded, it’s above your long post.
Yes, but did you read my long post?
Yes I did. I was dying to see what the Objector had to say next…..what happens at the end? Is the Objector converted to Catholisism?
JLM,
lol…of course not…but I just thought it explained the New Eve better than I was doing.
We’re still friends right?
Time another hug?
You get awfully hung up on one or two word phrases when reading the bible, but when something is said plainly over and over and over again, you suddenly fluff it off…He says you must EAT OF MY FLESH! Eat, not remember. Eat. Just like the Jews were required to EAT the lamb at passover…
I’m not a cannibal, mk. Jesus did not say that you actually are to eat him. He only came once, not over & over & over again.
From what you believe, after “eating Jesus”, what on earth do you think when you go to the bathroom afterwards???? Do you flush him?
mk,
of course we are still friends.
BIG BIG BIG hug for you!
Well actually JLM,
He did say that you were to eat Him. Over and over.
The Jews knew what He meant.
And no I do not flush Him down the toilet. Regardless of your beliefs, don’t you think this is a bit disrespectful?
I pretended I was a protestant for a while there…now you pretend that just for a minute you are wrong and that actually is the Body and Blood of our saviour. Pretending that you believe that, do you realize how blasphemous it sounds to suggest flushing Him down the toilet?
How would you feel if Doug asked you if you spit on the bible, simply because he doesn’t believe in it? I’m sure the very thought would make you gag.
Try to understand how you sounded…
I have to go to a pro life meeting right now. I probably won’t be back on tonite but I will most definitely be back tomorrow morning…
Good nite and God Bless you JLM…*Here’s that HUG*
Thanks, mk..God bless you too!
mk at March 5, 2008 6:49 PM,
Yes, I see your point. It did come off as disrespectful. Sorry about that. But I did always wonder if you guys thought you were really eating Jesus, what you thought about the latter part of my post. It was a legitimate question, but maybe I just shouldn’t have brought it up.
My apologies.
I wouldn’t care if Doug spit on my bible. I would just pray for him. (then demand he cleans & sanitizes it!)
“I’m not a cannibal, mk. Jesus did not say that you actually are to eat him”
Several things. First of all, we don’t digest Jesus; he is hidden under the accidents of bread and wine. Second, cannibalism requires that someone suffer or even die in order to eat them. This does not happen in the Eucharist. Next, cannibalism requires that we consume the flesh of other humans who share our nature. Well, we eat the flesh of Jesus’ resurrected body, which is of a completely different nature as ours. Finally, Jesus commanded it, so it can’t be wrong. Jesus is God, and by his very nature, could never command us to do something evil; even if he was speaking symbolically. For example he could not command us to symbolically sodomize each other since sodomy is inherently evil. So even if you believe it is symbolic, it can not be cannibalism.
“From what you believe, after “eating Jesus”, what on earth do you think when you go to the bathroom afterwards???? Do you flush him?”
Now, once the bread and wine are no longer bread and wine, yet broken down (however the body does that) Jesus is no longer present. As long as the bread and wine remain, Jesus remains.
It was a legit question, JLM. These are important things to consider. Did I answer it, or should I say more?
“How would you feel if Doug asked you if you spit on the bible, simply because he doesn’t believe in it?”
Hey, Doug’s a good guy, I don’t think he would do that… there are people on this board, though, that I do think would do that, but I won’t mention names…
Bobby,
Thank you so much. I really didn’t mean to be disrespectful, I tend to be blunt at times. My fingers hurt! I did actually wonder about that.
You explained your position beautifully, and I thank you for that.
I think Doug’s a good guy, too!
Well, we eat the flesh of Jesus’ resurrected body, which is of a completely different nature as ours.
So when he said “flesh and blood”, he really didn’t mean “flesh and blood”?
I thought His resurrected body had no flesh and blood. If I were to take the verses that mk posted literally, as you guys do, Jesus was there in the flesh and blood (human) and this is what He supposedly told the disciples to “eat” and “drink”, He wasn’t resurrected yet, so where exactly does the resurrected flesh and blood come from then?
“So when he said “flesh and blood”, he really didn’t mean “flesh and blood”?”
No he did. It’s flesh and blood of a different essence. Like human flesh and blood is of a different essence than dog flesh and blood. This of course is not to say that Jesus is not human, but in his resurrected body, it’s a different “kind” of flesh and blood.
“I thought His resurrected body had no flesh and blood.”
Nope. Check out Luke 24:39
39Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
“If I were to take the verses that mk posted literally, as you guys do, Jesus was there in the flesh and blood (human) and this is what He supposedly told the disciples to “eat” and “drink” He wasn’t resurrected yet, so where exactly does the resurrected flesh and blood come from then?”
No, not quite. Consider when St Peter answers Jesus’ question “Do you also wish to leave?” Peter says (John 6:68) “Lord, to whom shall we go; you have the words of eternal life.” Peter does not say “yeah Jesus, we understand what you are saying perfectly, roll up your sleeve so we can gnaw on your arm.” No, he basically says “Look, we don’t know what you’re talking about either, but we have placed our faith in you.” So they neither eat his flesh nor drink his blood until Matthew 26:26-28 at the institution of the Eucharist. Yes, that’s right- Jesus held himself in his hands.
I LOVE Eucharistic theology!
Bobby,
OK…from reading posts from other Catholics that have posted here, I have been told that the eucharist is you guys being time-warped through space to be right there at the crucifixion with Him….now it’s when he’s resurrected??? Did I miss something?
Also, why if it’s when He is resurrected, you wouldn’t be time-warping through space, He would be. No wait, He’s in the present, and resurrected, so there would be no time-warping…I’m beyond confused!
Bobby,
Luke 24:39
Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
So then, if He’s in the Catholic church as a spirit, He will have no flesh and bones. But if He is there in the Catholic church, you should be able to see him as the people saw Him, right?
Another thing, if He actually has flesh & bones, there is no mention of having blood.
One more thing: If He is there in the Catholic church, is He peeling off His flesh and cutting Himself or something to get the blood out?
The mass explained. Free audio cd’s
http://www.catholicity.com/cds/mass.html
Other free Catholic cd’s
http://www.catholicity.com/cds/
The Passion and the Eucharist free CD ($1 shipping)
http://www.embracethegrace.com/
also other good cd’s are there too
like — True Presence: Jesus in the Holy Eucharist
— The Holy Eucharist: Real Presence, Real Power
“I have been told that the eucharist is you guys being time-warped through space to be right there at the crucifixion with Him”
Well, first of all, as far as I know, I think the whole “time warp” thing as far as the Eucharist and mass goes is theological speculation; I don’t think there is anything set in stone about how it works. It is still largely a mystery. That being said, what you wrote (as you gathered from others) isn’t quite right because Jesus presents himself to the Father, one in the same sacrifice as calvary, yet in an unbloody manner. The mechanics of how that works? Well, God is outside of time, and can make events in time present in other parts of time. Even though time is linear to us, there is no reason why it should be so to God. But the Eucharist is the resurrected body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus, and even during the last supper before he had died on the cross, the disciples partook of the Eucharist. So how does that work in time? Again, same idea. God is not bound by time, and if he can make Jesus’ past sacrafice truly present (as in the mass), he can make Jesus’ future sacrifice truly present (Jesus’ sacrifice being in the future during the last supper).
“Also, why if it’s when He is resurrected, you wouldn’t be time-warping through space, He would be. No wait, He’s in the present, and resurrected, so there would be no time-warping…I’m beyond confused!”
I don’t think you want to be calling this “time warping.” Like I said above, God is outside of time. I guess it just seems to me that the phrase “time warp” has connotations of magic or superstition when really, most Christians (I think) would agree that God is not bound by time. It’s just how like God is not bound by space because he is not made of matter. Well, because he is pure spirit his nature is unchanging, and hence time does not apply to him.
Admittedly, it can get very complicated, but I don’t think that we’ve stumbled upon anything that would really be “too hard” for God to accomplish IF he wishes. Do you know what I mean?
But the Eucharist is the resurrected body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus, and even during the last supper before he had died on the cross, the disciples partook of the Eucharist. So how does that work in time? Again, same idea. God is not bound by time, and if he can make Jesus’ past sacrafice truly present (as in the mass), he can make Jesus’ future sacrifice truly present (Jesus’ sacrifice being in the future during the last supper).
Gosh, you do not know how much I appreciate you explaining this to me in such a wonderful manner. Although I don’t agree, and probably never will, it is so good to understand than to speculate or get “heresay” from 80-year old Catholics that were beat by nuns!
In your post above, you mention three different periods of time. One, the sacrifice, on the cross. Two, the resurrection, and Three, The Last Supper. At what event is the participation in eating the eucharist in?
“So then, if He’s in the Catholic church as a spirit, He will have no flesh and bones. But if He is there in the Catholic church, you should be able to see him as the people saw Him, right?”
No, he is not in the Catholic Church as a just spirit. He is there body, blood, soul, and divinity. He is as much truly present in any Catholic Church as he was when the disciples talked with him on the road to Emmaus. And I mean that absolutely literally. But we can not see him. The reason is that he is hidden under the form of bread and wine, under the appearance of bread and wine. But what is actually and metaphysically there, what that “bread” actually is, is Jesus’ body, blood soul, and divinity.
“Another thing, if He actually has flesh & bones, there is no mention of having blood.”
True the text does not mention is, but if he does have flesh and bones, it is not a stretch to assume he has blood. The text certainly doesn’t say he DIDN’T have blood.
“One more thing: If He is there in the Catholic church, is He peeling off His flesh and cutting Himself or something to get the blood out?”
I’m nt sure exactly what you mean, but under each and every “bread waffer,” he is fully present. So, it’s not like Jesus has X amount of blood, and in each cup of wine all over the world he has to divide his blood up among all those cups. No, each and every particle of wine contains the entire Jesus.
I should also mention that we believe that you can not separate his body and blood, so that if a Catholic just receives the host (bread), he receives both body and blood (as well as soul and divinity) of Jesus.
No, he is not in the Catholic Church as a just spirit. He is there body, blood, soul, and divinity. He is as much truly present in any Catholic Church as he was when the disciples talked with him on the road to Emmaus. And I mean that absolutely literally. But we can not see him. The reason is that he is hidden under the form of bread and wine, under the appearance of bread and wine. But what is actually and metaphysically there, what that “bread” actually is, is Jesus’ body, blood soul, and divinity.
But the people that saw Him after the resurrection ACTUALLY saw Him. Why can’t you if He’s really there? From what you are telling me about the theology of the Eucharist, there is no way you wouldn’t be able to see Him if He were really there. That wouldn’t correspond to scripture, because people ACTUALLY saw Him after the resurrection.
Another thing: why does He have to hide behind a cracker, bread, or whatever & wine? I mean, the bread is in one place, and the wine is in another. A few feet apart, right? If He is really there, body, blood, soul & divinity, as a whole…..He wouldn’t be split apart into bread and wine several feet apart, right?
“Gosh, you do not know how much I appreciate you explaining this to me in such a wonderful manner. Although I don’t agree, and probably never will, it is so good to understand than to speculate or get “heresay” from 80-year old Catholics that were beat by nuns!”
LOL, thanks friend. Your line about heresy from 80 year old nuns has made my night! :)
“In your post above, you mention three different periods of time. One, the sacrifice, on the cross. Two, the resurrection, and Three, The Last Supper. At what event is the participation in eating the eucharist in?”
Do you mean for us or the disciples? For the disciples (at least the first time), we believe they consumed the Eucharist during the last supper after Jesus said “Take all of you eat, etc.” (wow, did I just “etc.” the words of consecration? Yikes, that’s gotta be at least a venial sin!)
For us, though, we consume the Eucharist during mass. I guess this kind of goes back to [what I believe is] theological speculation about what exactly happens during mass. So I think the closest thing to a decent answer is that Christ’s sacrifice on calvary i.e. the cross is made present during the mass, so I suppose the even that we partake of the Eucharist during is the crucifixion on calvary, but that’s not really, hmmm, yeah, I don’t think I fully understand the question.
When you consume the eucharist, is it the resurrected Jesus, the Jesus that was sitting at the Last Supper, or the Jesus that was hanging on the cross?
“But the people that saw Him after the resurrection ACTUALLY saw Him. Why can’t you if He’s really there? From what you are telling me about the theology of the Eucharist, there is no way you wouldn’t be able to see Him if He were really there. That wouldn’t correspond to scripture, because people ACTUALLY saw Him after the resurrection.”
Well, simply put, he chooses to be present under the appearance of bread and wine. To help see this, consider Luke 24:16
16But their eyes were holden that they should not know him.
Jesus REALLY was present to them, but they did not recognize him, probably because he was under some different form, but that really was him, just like he comes to us under the form of bread and wine. Also, consider verses 30-31
30And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them.
31And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight.
Notice that it says he vanished FROM THEIR SIGHT; not that he left; he still could very well have been there, but the disciples did not see him. We believe this is a very Eucharistic text; that when the disciples finally realize that Jesus is really and truly present in the breaking of the bread, there is no need for him to be physically visible. If one day during mass, Jesus appeared standing next to the priest, nothing would be different for me, because I believe that that is exactly what happens, except he is hidden under the appaerence of bread and wine.
“Another thing: why does He have to hide behind a cracker, bread, or whatever & wine? I mean, the bread is in one place, and the wine is in another. A few feet apart, right? If He is really there, body, blood, soul & divinity, as a whole…..He wouldn’t be split apart into bread and wine several feet apart, right?”
Right. I don’t know if you saw when I talked about the fact that his body and blood can not be separated. The bread contains the whole Jesus; body, blood, soul, divinity. The wine contains the whole Jesus; body, blood, soul, divinity. So yeah, he can not be split apart.
Some Catechism quotes explaining that Christ is present fully in ‘bread’ and in the ‘wine’
1376
The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: “Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation.”206
1377
The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ.
1390
Since Christ is sacramentally present under each of the species, communion under the species of bread alone makes it possible to receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace. For pastoral reasons this manner of receiving communion has been legitimately established as the most common form in the Latin rite. But “the sign of communion is more complete when given under both kinds, since in that form the sign of the Eucharistic meal appears more clearly.”225 This is the usual form of receiving communion in the Eastern rites.
“When you consume the eucharist, is it the resurrected Jesus, the Jesus that was sitting at the Last Supper, or the Jesus that was hanging on the cross?”
Gotcha. Well, those are all the same Jesus, right? The human person Jesus Christ is always a single human person. Now when we have our glorified bodies after the resurrection of the dead, that will still be us; yet we will have a “new and improved” body. So we are consuming the “new and improved” body of Jesus, the resurrected body of Jesus, his glorified body (all three of those I mean to be synonymous).
Whew! Cool, thanks Brian. Good, I didn’t contradict the Catechism… :)
a quote emphasizing the importance of faith and trust in Christ’s words.
1381
“That in this sacrament are the true Body of Christ and his true Blood is something that ?cannot be apprehended by the senses,’ says St. Thomas, ?but only by faith, which relies on divine authority.’ For this reason, in a commentary on Luke 22:19 (?This is my body which is given for you.’), St. Cyril says: ?Do not doubt whether this is true, but rather receive the words of the Savior in faith, for since he is the truth, he cannot lie.'”212
Godhead here in hiding, whom I do adore
Masked by these bare shadows, shape and nothing more,
See, Lord, at thy service low lies here a heart
Lost, all lost in wonder at the God thou art.
Seeing, touching, tasting are in thee deceived;
How says trusty hearing? that shall be believed;
What God’s Son has told me, take for truth I do;
Truth himself speaks truly or there’s nothing true.
31And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight.
Bobby, you have to be careful here. When a semi-colon is used, time has past. So, when the verse says “And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; (he was visible to them) then the semi-colon (; time passes) “and he vanished out of their sight.”
They saw Him first visually, then he vanished OUT of their sight. Kindof like how if someone is walking away from you, at some point, you cannot see them anymore. From this verse, it seems to me at least, that the vanishing happened more quickly than usual, but they did see him first before He vanished.
I have posted some links to free Catholic cd’s explaining the Eucharist, but these links can not be seen yet till they are approved of. Patience, and prayer and perhaps some questions can be answered by people who are better capable of answering the questions.
The bread contains the whole Jesus; body, blood, soul, divinity. The wine contains the whole Jesus; body, blood, soul, divinity. So yeah, he can not be split apart.
But Bobby, if He’s in the monstrance, and His blood is in the cup, He is separated.
Bobby you are answering well, no disrespect meant for your answers. I just like providing links so people can get further answers.
Gotcha. Well, those are all the same Jesus, right? The human person Jesus Christ is always a single human person. Now when we have our glorified bodies after the resurrection of the dead, that will still be us; yet we will have a “new and improved” body. So we are consuming the “new and improved” body of Jesus, the resurrected body of Jesus, his glorified body (all three of those I mean to be synonymous).
Wait right there, Bobby…didn’t you just tell me earlier it was the resurrected Jesus? I believe it was mk who told me it was Jesus at the crucifixion. Sorry I have to keep on about this, but it does make a difference in how I’m understanding where you guys are coming from.
“When a semi-colon is used, time has past.”
I don’t see why that is necessarily true. Why would it say “he vanished out of their sight” if he simply left. If fact, once they realized who he was, don’t you think they wouldn’t have wanted him to get away? It seems that in the context of the passage, given that the disciples were just with someone who opened up the scriptures to them, and how they just thought their beloved Messiah had failed in his mission, and then all of a sudden they put two and two together, it seems quite reasonable to conclude that he indeed “disappeared.”
So true, the phrase vanished out of sight could be interpreted the way you interpret it in your second paragraph, but I think it really goes against the text. Even if time did pass, it seems that the phrase vanished from their sight is implying that he was still there, yet could not be seen ny them.
Welcome, Brian!
Bobby,
But something cannot vanish if it is not seen.
LJM,
“But Bobby, if He’s in the monstrance, and His blood is in the cup, He is separated. ”
No, again, that is not the case. Under the bread, all of Jesus is present. Under the wine, all of Jesus is present. The bread is not his body and the wine is not his blood, yet the bread is both and the wine is both (see Brian’s post above, paragraph 1390).
Brian,
“Bobby you are answering well, no disrespect meant for your answers. I just like providing links so people can get further answers.”
Oh no, I didn’t mean to imply that I thought you were showing any disrespect. Catechism is great to quote. That’s great.
we participate in the death and resurection of Jesus when we partake of the Eucharist. Infinity/ eternity meets in time and space in a special way. This may not be comprehendable, we are finite. God is infinte. We live in time, God lives within and beyond time.
“But something cannot vanish if it is not seen.”
Jesus was seen, or at least “known” as the KJV says. And then he vanished. Whatever form he was (whatever alternate form he was appearing to the disciples to on the road), that WAS him. Then he vanished. The substance was him, just like we believe the substance of bread and wine is Jesus, yet hidden under the accidents.
So okay, say on the road to Emmaus, the disciples saw a man who looked exactly like Joel Osteen. He sounded like Joel, he smiled like Joel, etc. Yet, that was only an outward apperence. Did the disciples see Joel Osteen or did they see Jesus? Well, even though he looked exactly like Joel Osteen, he WAS Jesus. The accidents were Joel Osteen, the substance was Jesus.
So the disciples saw Joel Osteen, which was Jesus, they realized it was Jesus, and then he vanished from their sight.
“Wait right there, Bobby…didn’t you just tell me earlier it was the resurrected Jesus? I believe it was mk who told me it was Jesus at the crucifixion. Sorry I have to keep on about this, but it does make a difference in how I’m understanding where you guys are coming from.”
Yes. The resurrected Jesus is the same body as the glorified body of Jesus. Maybe I keep using too many different words/phrases, but it’s the same thing.
My guess is that MK meant the resurrected body of Jesus AFTER he had been crucified. There would be no resurrected body without the crucifixion. So it is his glorified body, which is the name that we give to the new body that one gets after the resurrection or the resurrected body. Clear things up?
My goodness, I would love to continue to discuss all of this, but I must retire for the night. I’ll hopefully pick this up tomorrow. God love you all.
Bobby,
You were the 1000th commenter.
31And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight.
but look at the verse…they didn’t know Him at first (Joel Osteen (lol on that one!…I know of him) then their eyes were opened (they knew Him, Jesus now) and He vanished out of their sight (they saw Him (Jesus) and knew Him (Jesus)) see?
Jesus was able to change the substance of water to wine. Likewise, Jesus is able to change the substance of bread and wine to his body and blood. Jesus is able to do this even while keeping the appearance of bread and wine in tact. We believe by faith.
Even though we believe by faith, God has generously provided us with some Eucharistic miracles. Frankly, I think God’s Word is enough for us to believe Him. His Word is truth. Yet, God in his compassion does sometimes give his people visible signs to help them believe.
I reccomend googling Eucharistic miracles and reading some of these many signs of grace. If you do not believe some of the miracles no big deal. There is no requirement to believe them as there is a requirement for a Christian to believe the Words of Jesus to be true.
OKAY…
So, then if Jesus’ own words were “do this in rememberance of me”…and you’re saying that He’s actually there…you wouldn’t be remembering Him, you would be there with Him.
By what you’ve said, the verse would then have to read, “do this and I will be there”
See what I mean?
The Hebrew language for in rememberance of me is more than the english language for in rememberance of me. (yes the NT was written in Greek – but this saying began regarding the rememberance of the Passover. This meal was more than just an intellectual reminder, it was a partaking that is on another level.
All right, I just had to check in…couldn’t stay away…
Doug,
I love you, you know that. I only chose you for an example because you don’t believe. And you wouldn’t get mad.
JLM,
Now that I see you weren’t being disrespectful about “flushing Jesus down the toilet”, I can see why you would ask that. It just came off a little crudely. Bobby’s explanation was on the money.
Also, Jesus is in the Monstrance only when He is being adored or exposed, but not at Mass.
And can you remember where I said that the bit about Jesus in crucifixion? I can’t remember what I said or what context it was in.
Brian, your input was great!
I’m sure all of our heads are spinning! I know mine is…lol.
But it was great. I’ve never had my faith challenged like this before.
Good nite to all…morning will be here soon enough.
God Bless.
MK if you are still on can you check the database thing for the website links I submitted for free Catholic cd’s (ok you gotta pay $1 for shipping or so) Thanks. And thanks for your comments.
They are up but if you want I can move them down farther on the thread…
The mass explained. Free audio cd’s
http://www.catholicity.com/cds/mass.html
Other free Catholic cd’s
http://www.catholicity.com/cds/
The Passion and the Eucharist free CD ($1 shipping)
http://www.embracethegrace.com/
also other good cd’s are there too
like — True Presence: Jesus in the Holy Eucharist
— The Holy Eucharist: Real Presence, Real Power
Brian,
There you go…
And thanks. It’s been amazing hasn’t it?
MK
Yes. Amazing grace!
Yes, they were up … I missed it. Thanks again.
MK and JLM:
Here’s the answer to the debate about the eucharist:
John 6:63 “It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.”
and…
Luke 6:45, “The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For out of the overflow of his heart his mouth speaks.”
One can partake (ingest physically) of the Eucharist all day and not be changed one iota.
Thw Word of God is the Sword of the Spirit: When a person hears the words of God he accepts them (repents and believes) or rejects (blasphemes) them thereby securing his own eternal judgement.
Why do I call the rejection of God’s Word blasphemy? Here’s why: Since we are made in God’s image we are programmed to see our choices as good. When we reject God’s words which are ultimately good we are in effect saying they are actually bad. This is blasphemy.
There is no power is ingesting a piece of bread or having holy water sprinkled over your head. Now if you are saved and partake of Holy Communion because of a heart right with God, then Communion makes the presence of God even more real, not vice versa.
God looks at the heart. Only the Word of God open to the Holy Spirit can awaken a man’s soul to his true state and need for God’s grace.
This is why the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is unforgiveable because it is the sin of so often and so consistently refusing God’s will, that in the end it cannot be recognized. There is simply no other solution to a man’s sin apart from repentance and faith in Christ.
Hey Jill:
For the record, my post had the most hits, however, do yo remember that it was turned off becasue of the shear volume….
Should have let it run.
It is late so I will not do extensive research, but I wanted to quickly discuss the points raised by HisMan above. John 6:63 discusses the spirit being important and the flesh not being important. This passage is talking about the difference between the spiritual man and the carnal man … between the person who lives according to the spirit as opposed to the person who lives seeking carnal desires. This passage is not saying that flesh is bad. In fact, in John it is highlighted that the Word became Flesh and dwelt among us for our salvation. (Jn 1:14) Elsewhere St. Paul talks about Jesus death and ressurection for our salvation. Did Jesus die a physical fleshy death? Yes he did. He did this so we can be spiritually alive. …
Now we go to the Eucharist. This is a participation in the death and ressurection of Christ. It is a meeting with our redeemer in the flesh. (under the appearance of bread) … certainly we are spiritually alive because of Christ, yet it is his Bodily sacrifice by which we have eternal life. Be careful not to denigrate the Body and Blood of Christ. It is by his Body and Blood that we are saved.
Yes, one can eat the Eucharist all day and not develop spiritually … look at Judas and St. Paul’s letter in 1 Cor 11 … some people who eat of the Lord’s Supper heap judgement on themselves … others profit from it. This is especially seen in John chapter 6 where Jesus commands us to eat his body and drink his blood to have eternal life. By following Jesus’ commands we do have eternal life. Reject Jesus teaching and guess what …
You are right, there is no power in ingesting bread. The power is in participating in the death and ressurection of Christ which happens in a particularly blessed way when we participate in the Lord’s Supper and at our initiation into the body of Christ at baptism. (Jn 3:5, 1 Pet 3:21)
Yes, just because someone is baptized and participates in the Lord’s supper does not guarantee their salvation, somone can always reject grace – God gives free will — but to a person who loves Jesus, these special encounters with the Lord, these sacraments, these channels of grace, are indeed blessed and Biblical and even necessary when one recognizes that if he rejects them he rejects Jesus.
Almost made it to bed. I remembered that I wanted to point out that a person can read the Bible day after day after day and not obtain salvation. Salvation does not happen by reading. Salvation happens based on one’s relationship with the Lord. Can reading the Bible help one’s relationship with the Lord. Indeed it can! Without a doubt, and Bible reading (or hearing) is an essential part of having a healthy relationship with the Lord.
Just as a person can read the Bible daily and not have faith, hope, or love and not be saved … so to a person can receive the sacraments and not have faith, hope, or love and not be saved.
God’s grace is communicated to us through His Word, and through His Sacraments.
Excellent points Brian…
HisMan,
Have you read all of the posts? Because Bobby, Janet, Brian and I have clearly, and I do mean clearly, shown that in SCRIPTURE we are told over and over to EAT HIS BODY. In SCRIPTURE we are told over and over to DRINK HIS BLOOD. Not only are we told to do, but we are warned that NOT to do so, endangers our salvation.
The two passages that no one seems to want to deal with…
“Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the Body and Blood of the Lord.”
and
“Unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of man and drink His Blood, you have no life in you; he who eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood has eternal life.” The Jews who heard this said, Jn 6:60 “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?”
Note that Jesus says the latter weeks before the Last Supper. Why would He use these particular words, inflame the Jews, and insist that they accept them, and then use the exact same words at the last supper?
You cannot understand His sacrifice unless you understand the Passover. The parallels are glaring. Down to the finest detail. And at the passover, the Lamb HAD to be eaten. If it wasn’t the Jews could expect to find their firstborn sons dead in the morning.
Then later in John:
16 Our ancestors ate manna in the desert, as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.'”
32
So Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave the bread from heaven; my Father gives you the true bread from heaven.
33
For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”
34
So they said to him, “Sir, give us this bread always.”
35
17 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst.
36
But I told you that although you have seen (me), you do not believe.
Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life.
48
I am the bread of life.
49
Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died;
50
this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die.
51
I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.”
52
The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?”
53
Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
54
Whoever eats 19 my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
55
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
56
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
57
Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.
58
This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.”
59
These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
60
20 Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?”
61
Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, “Does this shock you?
62
What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 21
63
True to His word, God sent down manna from heaven the very next morning. Instruction came with that blessing, and the people of Israel were told to collect only enough for their daily needs. Do not hide it or hoard it, because God will supply a fresh batch the next day, and what is left from the day before will not only be stale but it will be so rotten that worms will crawl out of it. The day before the Sabbath was an exception to the rule of collecting more than one day at a time, because they were not authorized to work on the Sabbath day of rest but they would need to eat. So they were allowed to collect twice as much on that day before, and God would preserve what was needed for the Sabbath’s use. (16:13-30).
http://www.helium.com/tm/700447/familiar-phrase-manna-heaven
Do you not see that you are doing exactly what the disciples did? Saying “This Truth is too hard. We cannot accept it”?
If there were only one Biblical Passage claiming that we were to Eat His Flesh and Drink His Blood, I could understand your doubts. But there are many. MANY. You say you only accept scripture and yet when His words, no His commands, are put before you, you balk…
The true presence is not only scriptural, but it is the center of, all of scripture, both Old and New. The theme runs throughout. From Eve eating the forbidden food, to Jesus saying He IS the Bread of Life…
Bethany,
I was so saddened to see that you dropped out of the conversation yesterday…I hope it was because you had to catch up on housework and not because something I said upset you.
Today is a new day, and I thank God that we have been given this opportunity to share and ask Him that all of it be done for His greater glory and out of love for Him and each other…amen
Hey Jill:
For the record, my post had the most hits, however, do yo remember that it was turned off becasue of the shear volume….
Should have let it run.
Posted by: HisMan at March 5, 2008 11:37 PM
I’m sorry, Hisman…that was my mistake. I just didn’t know what else to do at the time. :-(
But if I could do it again I’d have let it go on!
Good to see you here, by the way!
I was so saddened to see that you dropped out of the conversation yesterday…I hope it was because you had to catch up on housework and not because something I said upset you.
Today is a new day, and I thank God that we have been given this opportunity to share and ask Him that all of it be done for His greater glory and out of love for Him and each other…amen
Marykay, no! I was not upset with you at all! I had been on the computer literally all day and the house looked like a hurricane hit it. lol I had to run like a chicken with it’s head cut off to get the house cleaned before my husband got home. I didn’t want him to walk into that mess! :D heehee
I hope I didn’t upset you at all either :)
HisMan,
“John 6:63 “It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.””
I have seen this used before, and I always find it amazing that people use it. Zwingli used this, incidentally. Well, if the flesh profitheth nothing than guess what? Jesus’ death on the cross was meaningless. Jesus just spent the past several verses saying that unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood you HAVE NO LIFE WITHIN YOU. But now he says the flesh profitheth nothing. What are we to make of this? Consider an example. Suppose I say “Without Jeff, I would not have gotten through college… Jeff didn’t do much for me.” Now either I’m a goofball (like Zwingli makes Jesus to be), or I’m talking about two different Jeffs, and that’s the case with Jesus’ words. He means two different things we he talks about the flesh of teh son of man (which clearly profitheth infinite value) and the flesh of humans i.e. the body and the senses, things that are sense perceptible. Look at the verse in it’s context
60On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”
61Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit[e] and they are life. 64Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him.”
We see people grumbling at his teaching, just like there are today; WHO CAN ACCEPT THIS? When Jesus says “The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing.” the spirit is faith, it is intellectual asent to belief in this strange thing that he is teaching, and how you can’t understand this bizzare teaching with the senses. We see this today from the new (and crappier) atheism. “If I can’t see, touch, and observe God, he doesn’t exist.” Well, we know the concept of verificationism is self-refuting. Notice the next verse as well.
66From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.
This is the only time in scripture we see disciples of Jesus leave him for a doctrinal reason. Does he say “hey guys, wait, I was only talking symbolically, this isn’t REALLY something you have to do to for salvation”? No, he turns to the disciples and says “Do you also wish to leave?”. He take Jesus at his word. When he says “unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood, you have no life within you” we believe him. He meant it.
By honestly, no one should believe anything based on my exegesis. Let those who knew Christ speak for themselves; the witness of the early church fathers for the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist is simply overwhelming. You look at purgatory, the saints, Mary and there isn’t a TON of early church father writings on it, but not so with the Eucharist. Here are some quotes from the early church http://www.catholic.com/library/Real_Presence.asp and teh book “The Hidden Mana” by James O’Conner is nearly 400 pages, saturated with quotes from the early church. It is OVERWHELMINGLY clear that those who knew the apostles understood what Jesus was talking about in John 6 in the way that the Catholic Church does today. I don’t know about you, but I want to believe and worship like those who knew the apostles did. I’ve said it many times; it is worth looking into. The claims made by the Catholic Church are worth investigating. And investigate it FROM THE SOURCE. Read Catholic authors to know what the Catholic Church teaches. Karl Keating’s “Catholicism and Fundamentalism” is a great place to start because it is very readable. O’Conner’s book is a little more difficult. But most importantly, the early church fathers, the early church fathers, the early church fathers. God love you.
Marykay, have you ever read the rest of the chapter, after the disciples say, “this is a hard thing to accept.”?
And before?
As soon as my husband leaves, I’ll explain my point further…but just go to the chapter and read the entire thing for now:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Jhn/Jhn006.html
I see that Bobby has responded to part of the surrounding context. I hope I will not be too redundant here.
If you’ll read the entire book of John, you’ll notice that the entire thing pretty much consists of parables/analogies/figurative accounts.
The entire book involves parables where Jesus refers to himself as a number of different things (vine/rock/water/bread), in order to give an analogy for himself and what His significance is on this earth.
Read this passage in full:
Jhn 6:32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.
Jhn 6:33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.
Jhn 6:34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.
Let me stop here for a moment. Does this sound familiar to you? Let me show another passage, which is in the same book, a couple of chapters prior….
10Jesus answered her, “If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water.”
11″Sir,” the woman said, “you have nothing to draw with and the well is deep. Where can you get this living water? 12Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well and drank from it himself, as did also his sons and his flocks and herds?”
13Jesus answered, “Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, 14but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”
15The woman said to him, “Sir, give me this water so that I won’t get thirsty and have to keep coming here to draw water.”
Do you notice what I am seeing? The woman took what Jesus said literally. The woman thought that Jesus was talking about literal water, which is why she asked him how He would be able to bring her the living water, as she had nothing to draw with.
What did Jesus actually mean? He certainly was not talking about a literal spring of water, but was referring to Himself- His spirit which is analogous to a living spring of water because it gives life. The woman was saved that day, and she went to tell her friends of Jesus, and they were saved as well:
So he stayed for two days,long enough for many of them to hear his message and believe. Then they said to the woman, ?Now we believe because we have heard him ourselves, not just because of what you told us. He is indeed the Savior of the world.?
The fact that the woman took Jesus’ words literally does not prove that Jesus was speaking literally. Jesus was speaking of the fact that if you believe on Jesus (spiritually) you will have eternal life- He will give you the living water! He is your bread of life!
Now, let’s go back to John 6.
Jhn 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger;
First, this is EXACTLY what he told the woman at the well, about the “water of life”.
Secondly, He said “he that COMETH to me shall never hunger”. This has nothing to do with eating literally.
Let’s continue: and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
Again, this is exactly what he told the woman at the well! It is by BELIEVING on Him that we will never ‘thirst’ or ‘hunger’ again!
Compare this verse:
This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
To this verse:
13Jesus answered, “Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, 14but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”
And I leave you with this last verse to ponder (Bobby I know you already posted about this verse, but I feel you may have missed an important part of it):
Jhn 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life.
THE WORDS of Jesus, THEY are Spirit. THEY are life.
Bethany,
Gather up the fragments that remain, that nothing be lost.
This is exactly what we do with the Eucharist. Not one piece/drop can be lost. He must be locked in the Tabernacle if there is any left over. And every thing is done over a “plate”…The priest must drink every last drop of the “wine”…
Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.
Jhn 6:27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.
Again, notice how He foreshadows the Eucharist?
“for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you…
He is saying that He hasn’t given it to them yet, but He will. At the Last Supper.
Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.
Notice, again, it is the “Bread” that fills them. Not the miracle of the multiplication, but the miracle of the “BREAD”
Again, Bethany, it is not once, but many, many, times that Jesus speaks of eating this bread. And how many times does He call Himself the “vine”? As in Grape Vine as in wine? These are running themes…Wheat from Chaff…The host must be made from Wheat only. Wheat and water. Anything else and the sacrament is not valid.
And the Wedding at Cana? They didn’t run out of rolls or Wedding Cake. They ran out of WINE. And how many times does Jesus use a “banquet” to describe heaven? Banquet…Last Supper…Eucharist.
hen said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
Jhn 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
Jhn 6:30 They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?
Jhn 6:31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.
Jhn 6:32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.
Jhn 6:33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.
Jhn 6:34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.
Jhn 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
Again, not I am like that manna. Not I am likened to bread. But I AM MANNA. I AM BREAD.
The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.
Notice that the only thing the Jews take issue with is the idea of Jesus being Manna. They understood that the Manna must be eaten. They knew that at passover, you had to consume the Lamb. They understood what He was saying, and they couldn’t wrap their heads around it…
erily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
Jhn 6:48 I am that bread of life.
Jhn 6:49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
Jhn 6:50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
Jhn 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
Do you see how many times He is saying the same thing? Where else in scripture does He spend this much time pounding home an idea? Over and Over and Over He say…I AM THE BREAD…of Me you MUST EAT?
The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us [his] flesh to eat?
The Jews get it. They have their history to refer to and they understand that Jesus is saying they must EAT Him.
And Jesus doesn’t say, Oh no, you misunderstand, what He says is (AGAIN)
TRULY I say unto you…
Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
Jhn 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
Jhn 6:55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
Jhn 6:56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
Jhn 6:57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
Jhn 6:58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
I realize this post is long. But let’s look at why it is long…
Because Over and Over and Over again, Jesus is saying I am the Bread of Life…you must EAT ME to enter Heaven.
(vine/rock/water/bread),
Exactly Bethany. And where do we see water? Baptism. And what is the rock? Jesus, the foundation of the Church. And what is the vine?
A grapevine. Wine. And what is this bread? His body, in the Eucharist.
These were not arbitrary comparisons. We know that Baptism (water) is necessary for salvation. So is Bread and the Vine…
And note the amount of times He says, no, I am not making a metaphor here, I am telling you the Truth.
Verily I say unto you, Truly I say…like He knew there were people that would interpret His words symbolically and He went out of His way to make sure that that didn’t happen.
Yes. We must eat of the bread of life.
We must drink from the well of living water (do you drink from a well of water during the eucharist?)
We must open the door (John 10:9) (do you open a door every time you do the Eucharist?)
All of these analogies mean one thing.
Eating = Believing!
Do you notice what I am seeing? The woman took what Jesus said literally. The woman thought that Jesus was talking about literal water, which is why she asked him how He would be able to bring her the living water, as she had nothing to draw with
And do you notice that He corrects her and says I am not talking about this water…(and Here I believe He is talking about literal water, the water of Baptism) but when He is speaking to the Jews He says I am talking about real flesh?
Marykay, Jesus said SO clearly, right before he said I am the bread of life:
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
Marykay, in order for you to be correct that it was baptism, the woman would have needed to have been baptised, along with her friends. She wasn’t, they weren’t.
Baptism, as the Bible says, is not the putting away of the filth of the flesh but the answer of a good conscience towards God!
Jesus blood is the only thing that can purify us. We simply have to accept His gift of atonement. He bought us with a price. We do not pay for our own salvation.
(do you open a door every time you do the Eucharist?)
Yes we do. We open the door of the Tabernacle AND when Jesus enters the bread, He opens the door to Heaven. This is heaven on earth. THis is the new Jerusalem spoken of in Revelations…
Also, Marykay, if Jesus was in fact speaking to the woman at the well literally, this would mean that we need to DRINK the water, not be immersed in it.
Marykay, do you take this verse literally?
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
27
Do not work for food that perishes but for the food that endures for eternal life, 15 which the Son of Man will give you. For on him the Father, God, has set his seal.”
28
So they said to him, “What can we do to accomplish the works of God?”
29
Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in the one he sent.”
Do you take that bolded sentence literally?
Or this one (still the same chapter)
But I told you that although you have seen (me), you do not believe.
37
Everything that the Father gives me will come to me, and I will not reject anyone who comes to me,
38
because I came down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of the one who sent me.
39
And this is the will of the one who sent me, that I should not lose anything of what he gave me, but that I should raise it (on) the last day.
40
For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him may have eternal life, and I shall raise him (on) the last day.”
Still the same chapter!
46
Not that anyone has seen the Father except the one who is from God; he has seen the Father.
47
Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life.
48
I am the bread of life.
Next chapter:
13 On the last and greatest day of the feast, Jesus stood up and exclaimed, “Let anyone who thirsts come to me and drink.
38
Whoever believes in me, as scripture says: ‘Rivers of living water 14 will flow from within him.'”
Bethany,
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
Of course. But notice the context He is using it in here…He means, He who believes in what I am saying right now….
No, Marykay, that is not what he is saying.
Let’s compare this with other verses in John:
Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever disobeys the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains upon him.
16
For God so loved the world that he gave 7 his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life.
17
For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn 8 the world, but that the world might be saved through him.
18
Whoever believes in him will not be condemned, but whoever does not believe has already been condemned, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.
Mornin Bethany.
There is so much I want to talk about, and I’d love to address everything you said above, but I’m at school today and have little time. But yes, we do take those verses literally, and I could ass John 3:16, Romans 10:9-10 and others. But the question is; what does it mean to believe? Is it simply intellectual assent? James tells us that even the demons have that kind of faith or belief. If we believe in Jesus, we must OBEY whatsoever he commands. The only time Jesus answers the flat-out question “what must I do to be saved?’ in Matthew 19 is not “believe”, but it is OBEY the commandments. St. Paul talks about the “obedience of faith” in Romans 1:7 (I think, don’t have time to ,ook it up) and in teh last chapter. Faith and belief involves obedience and DOING what Jesus commands. I gotta go, but meditate on that. I love you, Bethany. God love you.
And just as Moses lifted up 5 the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of Man be lifted up,
15
6 so that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.”
Secondly, He said “he that COMETH to me shall never hunger”. This has nothing to do with eating literally.
Let’s continue: and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
Again, this is exactly what he told the woman at the well! It is by BELIEVING on Him that we will never ‘thirst’ or ‘hunger’ again!
Of course Bethany, but believing in Him means believing what He says. And while accepting the Eucharist does NOT negate believing in Him as well as believing Him, NOT believing in the Eucharist says that, like the Jews, you are not willing to accept what He is saying.
and they said to the woman, “We no longer believe because of your word; for we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this is truly the savior of the world.”
Believe what? Believe and know that Jesus was Savior of the world!
46
For if you had believed Moses, you would have believed me, because he wrote about me.
47
But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?”
Jhn 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life.
And it is the spirit that is being fed…there is no nutritional value in the host. The flesh that we eat will give us spiritual life.
Of course Bethany, but believing in Him means believing what He says. And while accepting the Eucharist does NOT negate believing in Him as well as believing Him, NOT believing in the Eucharist says that, like the Jews, you are not willing to accept what He is saying.
The bread and wine are a token of our remembrance of what Christ did for us on the cross. It is not the Eucharist that Christ tells us to believe. It is HIM.
And it is the spirit that is being fed…there is no nutritional value in the host. The flesh that we eat will give us spiritual life.
But the WORDS are spirit, and life. Not the literal bread and wine, Marykay. That was my point by showing you that verse. Can’t you see what I am showing you?
It is right there…so many times!
Bethany,
Read John 3:12
If I tell you about earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell about heavenly things?
The Eucharist is a thing of Heaven. How can you say you believe IN Him when you don’t believe HIM. How can you focus on one or two phrases in John and ignore the multitude?
Nothing you have shown me contradicts what I have said. It enforces it. You must believe in what He tells you. And what does He tell you? That you must eat His flesh.
Mornin Bethany.
There is so much I want to talk about, and I’d love to address everything you said above, but I’m at school today and have little time. But yes, we do take those verses literally, and I could ass John 3:16, Romans 10:9-10 and others. But the question is; what does it mean to believe? Is it simply intellectual assent? James tells us that even the demons have that kind of faith or belief. If we believe in Jesus, we must OBEY whatsoever he commands. The only time Jesus answers the flat-out question “what must I do to be saved?’ in Matthew 19 is not “believe”, but it is OBEY the commandments. St. Paul talks about the “obedience of faith” in Romans 1:7 (I think, don’t have time to ,ook it up) and in teh last chapter. Faith and belief involves obedience and DOING what Jesus commands. I gotta go, but meditate on that. I love you, Bethany. God love you.
Bobby, good morning to you as well….please read this commentary which explains Matthew 19 more fully. I posted it above (at March 5, 2008 3:11 PM), but thought you might not have seen it:
Was Jesus teaching salvation by works to the rich young ruler (Luke 18:18-23)?
In Luke 18:18-23 Jesus answered the question, “What must I do to inherit eternal life?” by telling the rich young ruler to keep the commandments (v. 20). Does this statement support the idea of salvation by grace plus works?
No. There is no evidence here or elsewhere that Jesus taught that good works are a condition of salvation. This is clear for a number of reasons.
First of all, Jesus’ answer was not intended as a plan of salvation but as proof of the young man’s condemnation. The law does not save (Romans 3:28), but it does condemn (Romans 3:19). The “law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith” (Galatians 3:24). Jesus was trying to demonstrate to the young man that he stood condemned before the law. His unwillingness to give his money to the poor revealed that he had not even kept the first great commandment to love God more than his money or anything else (cf. Matthew 22:3637).
Furthermore, even the rich young ruler’s question was confused. For one does not “do” anything to get an inheritance of any kind, including eternal life. An “inheritance” is a gift. Indeed, eternal life is presented throughout the Bible as a gift (Romans 6:23; John 3:36; 5:24; 20:31; 1 John 5:13). And one cannot work for a gift. As Paul said, “Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness” (Romans 4:45). The only “work” by which someone can be saved is “faith.” For when Jesus was asked, “What can we do to accomplish the works of God?” Jesus replied, “This is the work of God, that you believe in the one he sent” (John 6:29).
Bethany,
C’mon…
But the WORDS are spirit, and life. Not the literal bread and wine, Marykay. That was my point by showing you that verse. Can’t you see what I am showing you?
He is the Word…MADE FLESH. How do you reconcile that the flesh is bad, if the Word was made flesh.
Don’t you see that by eating His Flesh, you are eating the Word…which is exactly what John does in Revelations?
Read John 3:12
If I tell you about earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell about heavenly things?
The Eucharist is a thing of Heaven. How can you say you believe IN Him when you don’t believe HIM. How can you focus on one or two phrases in John and ignore the multitude?
Nothing you have shown me contradicts what I have said. It enforces it. You must believe in what He tells you. And what does He tell you? That you must eat His flesh.
Then Marykay, you must also conclude that you must drink from a living spring of water. Not be immersed in it, but drink it.
Bethany,
Eating = Believing!
No Beth, all of these analogies mean one thing.
Believing = eating!
Secondly, He said “he that COMETH to me shall never hunger”. This has nothing to do with eating literally.
Then why does He say, over and over, that it does?
Bethany,
C’mon…
But the WORDS are spirit, and life. Not the literal bread and wine, Marykay. That was my point by showing you that verse. Can’t you see what I am showing you
He is the Word…MADE FLESH. How do you reconcile that the flesh is bad, if the Word was made flesh.
Don’t you see that by eating His Flesh, you are eating the Word…which is exactly what John does in Revelations?
Marykay, of course. God was made flesh when He came to earth with a human body. This doesn’t have anything to do with the Eucharist.
Flesh is not bad. Eating his flesh literally was not the point of Jesus words. It never was.
He wants us to believe on Him for salvation, Marykay. To trust in His atonement. To believe that He is the Son of God!
Bethany,
This is an awesome discussion, I’m learning so much., Thanks mk, Bobby and Brian too. Again, I have to say I really admire your tenacity, Bethany. I know it’s not easy to hear some of these things. I don’t want you to feel “ganged up on”, so I won’t say much, but I really want to give you a few words to think about.
47 Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life.
I think what Jesus is saying is that whoever believes/accepts the totality of what he places before us (believing and doing what he tells us to do) will have eternal life.
In the story of the woman at the well, I think Jesus is alluding to Baptism with water, even though he is standing by a well. They happen to be in the desert, where the need for water is a life or death matter. He compares Baptism to the life-giving water in the well. If he had watered some plants or washed a stone wall while talking about the water, I don’t think it would have had the same effect on the woman. God Bless you!
Secondly, He said “he that COMETH to me shall never hunger”. This has nothing to do with eating literally.
Then why does He say, over and over, that it does?
Marykay, He said over and over that the temple would be torn down and in three days He would raise it up. His disciples did not know what that meant until AFTER his death and resurrection.
Did he therefore mean a literal temple, or was He speaking of His body?
He spoke it in a way that everyone who heard it believed he was speaking of a literal temple.
According to what you’re saying, this would also mean that the temple story was not an analogy but that He was speaking of a literal temple.
This is the work of God, that you believe in the one he sent.”
Do you take that bolded sentence literally?
Of course. Do you? What is it that is the work of God? The Bread of Life. The Eucharist.
Bethany,
You believe that to be saved you have to be baptized, correct. Was the woman at the well saved? If so, we must assume that at some point she was baptized. It doesn’t say “So the woman went away, but was not baptized” We have no way of knowing whether she was baptized or not.
And Jesus IS making a metaphor here about the water. He does not “harp” on drinking it. He says it once. And when we are baptized, metaphorically speaking, we are drinking of the well of everlasting life. In this case He is making a comparison, in the other He is speaking literally and we know this because He says so.
He says, “PAY ATTENTION…I am NOT speaking metaphorically! I am speaking TRULY!”
Notice that when He spoke metaphorically, He corrects the woman, and she then accepts what He says, but when He speaks literally, He does NOT correct the Jews and say I am speaking metaphorically. He reiterates that He is speaking literally and THEY WALK AWAY! He sticks to His guns, even when they give Him a chance to say “I am not talking about a loaf of bread, I am talking about metaphorical bread” He says, then leave. If you can’t accept what I am saying, go.
Of course. Do you? What is it that is the work of God? The Bread of Life. The Eucharist.
No, Marykay…the same chapter answers that very question:
For when Jesus was asked, “What can we do to accomplish the works of God?” Jesus replied, “This is the work of God, that you believe in the one he sent” (John 6:29).
1 Cor 15 expounds on what you believe:
1 2 Now I am reminding you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you indeed received and in which you also stand.
2
Through it you are also being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.
3
3 For I handed on to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures;
4
that he was buried; that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures;
5
that he appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve.
6
After that, he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at once, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.
7
After that he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.
8
Last of all, as to one born abnormally, he appeared to me.
9
For I am the least 4 of the apostles, not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
10
But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me has not been ineffective. Indeed, I have toiled harder than all of them; not I, however, but the grace of God (that is) with me.
11
Therefore, whether it be I or they, so we preach and so you believed.
Here is the record that we are told to *believe*. This is what Jesus is referring to when He says “believe on me”:
1 John 5:10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.
11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
For one does not “do” anything to get an inheritance of any kind,
No, but one must eat, to stay alive. We receive the Eucharist Bethany. We don’t “take” it. It too is a gift. When He says we must receive it and eat of it, this is because it is sustenance. Not good works. But actual food. For the soul. He is not saying you are bad if you don’t partake. He is saying you will die, because you must eat to live.
Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life.
48
I am the bread of life.
Exactly Bethany. Amen, Amen, I say to you, that whoever believes that I AM THE BREAD OF LIFE has eternal life.
You can’t just drop the Bread of Life part. That is precisely what He is asking, no telling, you to believe!
Bethany,
Here is the record that we are told to *believe*. This is what Jesus is referring to when He says “believe on me”:
1 John 5:10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.
11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
You keep posting these same passages…but they have nothing to do with it.
If we believe that Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist, how is that not believing in Him.
You are the one that is not accepting His words.
By insisting that believing what He says we are somehow not believing in Him doesn’t make sense.
Yes, we must believe in Him. Why does believing that He can be present in the form of bread and wine negate our belief in Him.
Even if you adhere to faith alone, how does this contradict that. It is by faith, that we accept His Words/Word. Why don’t you?
Well, I have come to the conclusion after reading/responding to now well over 1,000 posts, the following:
The difference between Protestants and Catholics is this:
Protestants salvation comes through faith alone, and not by works. All scripture that we read verifies this. Our salvation was complete THROUGH JESUS’ WORKS. We take the scriptures that speak of “works” figuratively (i.e., the eating of the flesh, and drinking the blood)
and the ones that speak of faith and grace literally.
Catholics salvation comes through faith and works, and the hope that God will accept their works (sacraments) as a pleasing offer to Him for their salvation. Catholics take the scriptures that speak of “works” literally, and the ones that speak of faith and grace figuratively.
The bible cannot contradict itself. There is a clear passage in it that cannot be twisted to mean anything else than what it says:
Ephesians 2:8-9
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
Jesus did all of the “works” on the cross. There is no ritual or ceremony or anything else we can do to save us. It is all done by Jesus, and Jesus alone.
Being “saved” is not a Protestant term, it is word used by God. Salvation is what Jesus provided on the cross. The finished work on the cross.
When we have faith in Him, we produce good works (fruits). Faith is the root, our works, by His spirit residing in us, are the fruits.
Works don’t produce faith, faith produces works.
Marykay, where did Jesus clarify for the woman that it was an analogy any more than He clarified for the disciples?
And why do you feel that the analogy would represent literal water instead of Jesus, when Jesus said “I AM the water”?
Why wouldn’t it represent HIM?
Marykay, the BREAD represents Christ, and His words. I absolutely believe that Jesus is the bread of life…just as I believe he is the rock, the vine, the door, the way , the truth, and the life! The bread is simply one of hundreds and hundreds of descriptions of Jesus. I have no idea why you put such emphasis on a literal interpretation of it. God’s words are our bread, our sustenance. This is why the Bible says:
Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God!
The first part is talking about a literal bread. Jesus was rebuking Satan for telling him to make the stones into bread.
The Words that proceed out of the mouth of God, THOSE are our spiritual food.
our Spiritual bread!
Marykay, I have a question for you. If Jesus is talking about us needing to continually eat bread and drink his blood in order to be continually given sustenance, then why does He say:
Bethany,
The bread and wine are a token of our remembrance of what Christ did for us on the cross. It is not the Eucharist that Christ tells us to believe. It is HIM.
They are the same thing. You don’t accept the Eucaristic teaching and stop believing in Him. That would be nuts! Of course we believe that He is the savior…The only way. Why the heck do you think we Eat the Eucharist? Because we believe that it IS Him…
I hope I am coming off as passionate about my beliefs, but not angry. That is how I feel…. I would hate to hurt anyone here because they cannot see my face or hear the inflection of my voice. Love you girls!
I thought I may have seen a post from Janet but can’t remember.
JLM 9:37, amen!
What does Jesus require that we believe? Not in literal bread, but:
Romans 10:8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Per my 9:41 post….include Bobby in there! :D
Of course we believe that He is the savior…The only way. Why the heck do you think we Eat the Eucharist?
If you truly believed that He was the only way, you’d be Protestant!
Eating the Eucharist because you think it’s Him is backwards. He doesn’t come into you because of a ritual, you come to Him through faith.
We can see in these verses that believing is synonymous with receiving Christ. Not eating a piece of bread, or drinking wine. Believing!
10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. 11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
Here’s another example of believing on Christ:
49 Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel. 50 Jesus answered and said unto him, Because I said unto thee, I saw thee under the fig tree, believest thou? thou shalt see greater things than these.
Nathanael believed exactly what he needed to in order to be saved.
Acts 16:25 And at midnight Paul and Silas prayed, and sang praises unto God: and the prisoners heard them.
26 And suddenly there was a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison were shaken: and immediately all the doors were opened, and every one’s bands were loosed.
27 And the keeper of the prison awaking out of his sleep, and seeing the prison doors open, he drew out his sword, and would have killed himself, supposing that the prisoners had been fled.
28 But Paul cried with a loud voice, saying, Do thyself no harm: for we are all here.
29 Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas,
30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
John 11:25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:
26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?
John 20:30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
Bethany,
I posted at 9:16, thanks for asking. You are always gracious in your responses. I know you are passionate, and that is wonderful.
God bless you.
Bethany,
This is an awesome discussion, I’m learning so much., Thanks mk, Bobby and Brian too. Again, I have to say I really admire your tenacity, Bethany. I know it’s not easy to hear some of these things. I don’t want you to feel “ganged up on”, so I won’t say much, but I really want to give you a few words to think about.
Thanks Janet, that is very kind of you.
47 Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life.
I think what Jesus is saying is that whoever believes/accepts the totality of what he places before us (believing and doing what he tells us to do) will have eternal life.
In the story of the woman at the well, I think Jesus is alluding to Baptism with water, even though he is standing by a well. They happen to be in the desert, where the need for water is a life or death matter. He compares Baptism to the life-giving water in the well. If he had watered some plants or washed a stone wall while talking about the water, I don’t think it would have had the same effect on the woman. God Bless you!
I understand where you’re coming from, but again you have to understand that if Jesus was referring to baptism, and you took that literally, not only would you need to drink the water, but you would only need to drink it once.
Janet, I urge you to please, please read the above verses that I have posted and think about them…I honestly want you to understand where I’m coming from on this and to see why I believe that we need to believe to receive Jesus. We need no continual sacrifice…the sacrifice has already been made once. You do not have to live in fear…you can have eternal security. I love you, Janet.
I posted at 9:16, thanks for asking. You are always gracious in your responses. I know you are passionate, and that is wonderful.
God bless you.
God bless you too!!
JLM,
I think Bobby mentioned this earlier, but I’ll remind you – If you are interested in what the Catholic Church teaches, I would stay away from anything by ex-Catholics, or other non-Catholic sources. Those sources are only good if you want to make a list of all the myths and fallacies about the Catholic Church. Stick to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Bible, and the like. Also, some of the best information comes from Catholic converts because they’ve studied so much from both Protestant and Catholic perspectives.
Janet,
I’m sorry. I don’t know what you’re referring to.
Was it one of my posts?
Lynn, I know your post is way up there, but here are some reasons that I see the way Catholics see Mary as worship. Please try to see it from where I am standing:
# Mary per Catholicism
1. “Holy Mary, Mother of God…we can entrust all our cares and petitions to her: she prays for us as she prayed for herself: ‘Let it be to me according to your word.’ [Lk 1:38] By entrusting ourselves to her prayer, we abandon ourselves to the will of God together with her: ‘Thy will be done,’ (CCC 2677).
2. “By asking Mary to pray for us, we acknowledge ourselves to be poor sinners and we address ourselves to the ‘Mother of Mercy,’ the All-Holy One. We give ourselves over to her now, in the Today of our lives. And our trust broadens further, already at the present moment, to surrender ‘the hour of our death’ wholly to her care” (CCC 2677).
3. [Mary] “Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation …. Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix” (CCC, par. 969).
4. Mary is “The mother of the members of Christ” (CCC par. 963). She was “Preserved free from all stain of original sin” (CCC, par. 966). She is “Queen over all things” (par. 966). By Mary’s prayers, she delivers souls from death (par. 966). Mary, “…by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation….”
5. “The Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix” (CCC par. 969). “The liturgical feasts dedicated to the Mother of God and Marian prayer, such as the rosary, are an epitome of the whole Gospel” (par. 971). (!!!!!!!!!)
6. Mary, “…when the course of her earthly life was completed, was taken up body and soul into the glory of heaven…” (par. 974). “…when she [Mary] is the subject of preaching and worship she prompts the faithful to come to her Son...” (Vatican Council II, p. 420). See quote in Context
7. “Mary has by grace been exalted above all angels and men to a place second only to her Son” (Vatican Council II, p. 421). “This mother…is waiting and preparing your home for you” (Handbook for Today’s Catholic, p. 31).
Bethany,
“The liturgical feasts dedicated to the Mother of God and Marian prayer, such as the rosary, are an epitome of the whole Gospel”
This is exactly what I was talking about above when I said that the titles and dogmas of Mary are not for Mary’s glory; yet the they reflect Jesus, who is the heart of the whole gospel. The prayer of the rosary is the prayer of the gospels. Today, being THursday, when we pray the rosary, we concentrate on the Luminious mysteries. These are 1) the baptism of Jesus from Matthew 3:13-16, 2) The Wedding Feast at Cana John 2:1-11, 3) The Proclamation of the Kingdom Mark 1:14-15 4) The Transfiguration Matthew 17:1-8, and 5) The Institution of the Eucharist Matthew 26. And that is just the Luminious mysteries. There are still the sorrowful mysteries, the joyful mysteries, and the glorious mysteries, all saturated in scripture, all taken from the gospels (except for glorious mysteries). Everything having to do with Mary needs to be understood in light of what it says about her son, Jesus. God love you.
JLM,
Protestants salvation comes through faith alone,
No one argues that we are saved by grace JLM. Of course we say that He says this. But nowhere, NOWHERE, does He say by grace ALONE. Yet James clearly says that faith without works is dead.
The prayer of the rosary is the prayer of the gospels.
Who are you praying the prayers to?
Bethany,
“I AM the water”?
Why wouldn’t it represent HIM?
When we are baptized in water we ARE baptized in Him, are we not? Isn’t that what baptism is? Isn’t that why we use water and not chocolate milk? Could we use apple juice to baptize someone? NO! Because we were told that we MUST be baptized in WATER. It is literal.
JLM,
Catholics salvation comes through faith and works, and the hope that God will accept their works (sacraments) as a pleasing offer to Him for their salvation. Catholics take the scriptures that speak of “works” literally, and the ones that speak of faith and grace figuratively.
This is not true. We are saved by His death and Resurrection. This is not the same as being judged (rewarded/punished) for your works. The works do not GET us into heaven. Faith does. But we will still be judged according to our works. You do believe in the judgment don’t you? What in heavens name do you think we will be judged on? How MUCH we believed?
No one argues that we are saved by grace JLM. Of course we say that He says this. But nowhere, NOWHERE, does He say by grace ALONE. Yet James clearly says that faith without works is dead.
I said FAITH alone, not grace. Grace comes from God. Salvation comes from our faith in Him.
Of course faith without works is dead. James was clear about that. If we have faith in God, He works through us and we have good works (fruits) to show by it. Without the good works showing, it would prove we didn’t have faith, or never had.
Again, scripture is very clear to us protestants regarding works, while it is clear to you that you still need to do things (works) to earn your salvation. You do not believe that salvation was given freely to you. If you did, you wouldn’t believe in works by your definition of works.
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Doesn’t mention works, doesn’t say faith alone, simply says it is through Him. Agreed.
Not of works, lest any man should boast.
No one argues that we are saved by grace JLM. Of course we say that He says this. But nowhere, NOWHERE, does He say by grace ALONE. Yet James clearly says that faith without works is dead.
If it isn’t by faith alone (and of course faith without works is dead. When we have faith in Christ, we are reborn of His spirit and are a new Creature. We will obviously have works!), then why would Jesus have repeatedly said, Believe and you WILL HAVE ETERNAL LIFE.
Why would He omit continually, something that is so important? Did Paul and Silas lie to that family, by omission, because they told them to believe and they would be saved?
Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God!
Out of context.
Show us the context that clarifies that it is by works as well, within that passage.
Bethany,
He doesn’t come into you because of a ritual, you come to Him through faith.
It’s not one or the other. OF course I come to Him through faith. Every time I accept Him into my body it is an act of Faith. It is because I believe in Him that I accept His teaching.
You keep pickin’ an out of context passage here and an out of context passage there, but I have shown you one of the longest passages in the bible that says OVER AND OVER AND OVER This IS my BODY, you must eat of it. IT is REAL FLESH! Why do you just dismiss these most important words. Why do you pick and choose which words you will accept.
Every passage you have shown me, I agree with. It takes nothing away from the doctrine of the Eucharist. Paul got it. The church Fathers got it. I get it. Why do you refuse to accept His words?
The only thing you have shown me is that I must believe to be saved. No one here is arguing that. The question is WHAT do we believe? His words in context? Or His scattered word?
Bethany,
“The liturgical feasts dedicated to the Mother of God and Marian prayer, such as the rosary, are an epitome of the whole Gospel”
This is exactly what I was talking about above when I said that the titles and dogmas of Mary are not for Mary’s glory; yet the they reflect Jesus, who is the heart of the whole gospel. The prayer of the rosary is the prayer of the gospels. Today, being THursday, when we pray the rosary, we concentrate on the Luminious mysteries. These are 1) the baptism of Jesus from Matthew 3:13-16, 2) The Wedding Feast at Cana John 2:1-11, 3) The Proclamation of the Kingdom Mark 1:14-15 4) The Transfiguration Matthew 17:1-8, and 5) The Institution of the Eucharist Matthew 26. And that is just the Luminious mysteries. There are still the sorrowful mysteries, the joyful mysteries, and the glorious mysteries, all saturated in scripture, all taken from the gospels (except for glorious mysteries). Everything having to do with Mary needs to be understood in light of what it says about her son, Jesus. God love you.
Bobby, I can’t believe you are ignoring the part where it says that Mary is second only to Jesus! That she is ALL HOLY. That SHE brings us the gifts of Salvation. That SHE is the subject of preaching and worship (they even used the word Worship!). That we should surrender “the hour of death” wholly to her care. How in the world else can you possibly read this other than she is being worshipped and raised up to a level of a diety?
Please forgive my exclamations, but I am so shocked that someone could read that and still say that Mary is not being the focus here.
Marykay, He said over and over that the temple would be torn down and in three days He would raise it up. His disciples did not know what that meant until AFTER his death and resurrection.
The temple was torn down. And a new church was established. Was it not?
The only thing you have shown me is that I must believe to be saved. No one here is arguing that. The question is WHAT do we believe? His words in context? Or His scattered word?
We believe that Jesus is the son of God and that he died, was buried and rose the third day. That is what we are required to believe and that is what the Bible says saves us. How can you not see this? I have not only posted a verse or two out of context. How can you possibly say that? I have nearly posted the entire new Testament in the last 2 weeks. You have taken one passage out of the entire Bible to say that you take literally. One passage. If you took the water at the well incident literally, you would believe you had to DRINK (not immerse yourself in) water, and that you would only have to do it once.
The temple was torn down. And a new church was established. Was it not?
A church is simply a body of believers. What was established was the conquering of death and the new covenant in His blood.
Bethany,
What he is saying is that we will NEVER be thirsty or hungry again after having this bread. So what would the point be of having it every week?
Do you read scripture every week?
Why? What is the point? You believe. You don’t need anything else. You will never be hungry again because you believe? Right? So why continue to read scripture? You never need to read another word of it. You’re not trying to work you way to heaven by reading scripture are you?
No. You read it because it nourishes you. The Eucharist nourishes you in the same way. Keep reading scripture and you will stay close to Him. Keep receiving the Eucharist and you will stay close to Him.
You keep the Word written. You do not yet understand that the Word has been made flesh.
The Words live and breath. The bible is the recording of His words but it is not THE WORD. The Word is something new now. It is alive. It lives. It is real. It is flesh and blood. It is Jesus. Present in the Eucharist.
You know, I could just as easily ask you guys if you worship Jesus, or the bible?
This is not true. We are saved by His death and Resurrection. This is not the same as being judged (rewarded/punished) for your works. The works do not GET us into heaven. Faith does. But we will still be judged according to our works. You do believe in the judgment don’t you? What in heavens name do you think we will be judged on? How MUCH we believed?
I Corinthians 3:13
“Every man’s work (it’s the masculine gender, but includes everyone as a believer. Not for salvation) shall be made manifest (like being put under a spotlight. As we come before the Bema Seat to see what our rewards are going to be, we are put in the spotlight. Then the penetrating eyes of Christ will burn off the draught showing if you have gold, silver or precious stones left): for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is.”
I Corinthians 3:14
“If any man’s work abide (survives His scrutiny) which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive (not salvation, but) a reward.”
The Scripture maintains that you and I are literally to work for rewards. Verse 15, but:
I Corinthians 3:15
“If any man’s work shall be burned (that has no reference to hell. That just simply says that if all we have is hay, wood, or stubble … we didn’t do things for the right reason for example. And the Lord looks at it, and our works shall be burned up and disappear), he shall suffer loss (not his salvation, but of his reward): but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.”
This person will be there, but he will not have earned the reward. Now let’s go over to Chapter 9. Here Paul is again going to use one of his many allusions to the Olympics. Paul must have truly loved the Olympics. Here he’s writing to you and I, the believers:
I Corinthians 9:24,25
“Know ye not that they which run in a race run all (they all take off at the starting gun. But how many receive the prize?), but one receiveth the prize? (now who determines the winners? Judges who sit on the Bema Seat) so run, that ye may obtain.”
“And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things (what’s he talking about? Their training period, while they were getting ready for the race. They maintained good diet, exercise, and they didn’t overdo anything. The Scripture says, “that in all things be temperate.” We wouldn’t have so many of these health problems if people were just temperate). Now they (these athletes) do it to obtain a corruptible crown (you know what corruptible means, it doesn’t last); but we an incorruptible.”
We believe that works are a product of living in Christ, and when we live in Him, we do things that are pleasing to Him. These are what we consider works, and we will be judged for them in order to see which ones will be rewarded. We are not judged, how we lived in Christ will be.
Nowhere does it say that we will be punished for our works. It only talks about rewards for them. If it didn’t stand the test of “fire” (not literally), then no reward. But no punishment, either….just no reward. Therefore, the only thing that “works” can mean is what I stated above.
Bethany,
Janet, I urge you to please, please read the above verses that I have posted and think about them…I honestly want you to understand where I’m coming from on this and to see why I believe that we need to believe to receive Jesus. We need no continual sacrifice…the sacrifice has already been made once. You do not have to live in fear…you can have eternal security. I love you, Janet.
We are not, I repeat are NOT, resacrificing Jesus on the altar.
Jesus is the priest at mass. Jesus is offering the sacrifice. Not me. Him. He is making the offering to God over and over. It’s a perpetual offering. It will go on for eternity. Not the blood. Not the crucifixion. The offering. Here Lord, accept this.
And the people say over and over, for eternity, Yes Lord, we believe. We accept. We renew the covenant. Not redo. Renew.
JLM 11:22 , exactly. You have clarified that so nicely. That is exactly what I believe…it’s what the Bible says.
Every time I accept Him into my body
YOU accept HIM into YOUR body???? He has to be worthy of YOUR acceptance in order to enter into YOUR body?
No, backwards again….You accept Him through faith into HIS body. You become a member of HIS body, He is not a member of yours.
We are not, I repeat are NOT, resacrificing Jesus on the altar.
Jesus is the priest at mass. Jesus is offering the sacrifice. Not me. Him. He is making the offering to God over and over. It’s a perpetual offering. It will go on for eternity. Not the blood. Not the crucifixion. The offering. Here Lord, accept this.
And the people say over and over, for eternity, Yes Lord, we believe. We accept. We renew the covenant. Not redo. Renew.
Hebrews 9:24-26 state, “For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now ONCE in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.”
JLM,
Who are you praying the prayers to?
We are praying them with Mary to God.
I think there are to meanings to the word pray and this is causing confusion. You can use the word pray to mean address, as in Pray thee, tell me, or as in “to converse with God”. When we say “pray to Mary” or “pray to the saints” we mean speak to. But the “prayer” is always to God.
Jesus is the priest at mass. Jesus is offering the sacrifice. Not me. Him. He is making the offering to God over and over. It’s a perpetual offering. It will go on for eternity. Not the blood. Not the crucifixion. The offering. Here Lord, accept this.
And by the beckoning command of a priest, Jesus must obey the priest, come into a wafer, and do this over and over and over again. Gee, I believe He said He paid the price ONCE, for all mankind….
# To ask (someone) imploringly; beseech. Now often used elliptically for I pray you to introduce a request or entreaty: Pray be careful.
# To make a devout or earnest request for: I pray your permission to speak.
# To move or bring by prayer or entreaty.
And Janet,
It was a one-time offering, God accepeted it….DONE! Why can’t you?
Show us the context that clarifies that it is by works as well, within that passage.
I don’t need to show where it does not address works. It is enough to show you that it doesn’t say by faith ALONE.
We can’t very well go through the whole bible pointing out what it doesn’t say in each passage.
Again. No one is arguing that we need to believe.
The argument is in what we are to believe.
Or that belief ALONE is preached anywhere.
While I CAN point out that we must also do works.
I think there are to meanings to the word pray and this is causing confusion. You can use the word pray to mean address, as in Pray thee, tell me, or as in “to converse with God”. When we say “pray to Mary” or “pray to the saints” we mean speak to. But the “prayer” is always to God.
With all due respect, mk, that sounds very deceptive and just a play on words. You can’t twist the truth. Look at the opening lines of your prayers to Mary. Google “prayers to Mary”, and a ton of Catholic websites come up. Honestly, who are you kiddding if you claim you don’t pray to her. Are you trying to convince me or herself?
Bethany,
If it isn’t by faith alone (and of course faith without works is dead. When we have faith in Christ, we are reborn of His spirit and are a new Creature. We will obviously have works!), then why would Jesus have repeatedly said, Believe and you WILL HAVE ETERNAL LIFE.
Why would He omit continually, something that is so important? Did Paul and Silas lie to that family, by omission, because they told them to believe and they would be saved?
I’m begging you to hear me. NO ONE is arguing that we are saved by Faith. No matter how many passages you post, no one will contest them.
WE ARE SAVED BY FAITH.
Why do you keep trying to prove this when no one is arguing it?
JLM,
Before we receive Christ, we say these words, “Lord I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed. The priest holds up the host (body and blood) and says to us, “The body of Christ” and we reply, “AMEN” (“I BELIEVE”). We receive the host. (This is what mk means by our accepting Jesus in the Eucharist.)
11:36am
I meant “yourself”, not “herself”…
A church is simply a body of believers. What was established was the conquering of death and the new covenant in His blood.
And a temple is a building made of brick and mortar. It was torn down, and a new one (The body of Christ) replaced it.
I’m begging you to hear me. NO ONE is arguing that we are saved by Faith. No matter how many passages you post, no one will contest them.
WE ARE SAVED BY FAITH.
Why do you keep trying to prove this when no one is arguing it?
Marykay, what you keep saying is that there is more to it than faith.
We have to do something. We have to be baptized. We have to eat the Eucharist. We have to have good works, etc.
Those are simply not Biblical. Jesus never said we have to do anything except accept Him by Faith.
Marykay, I believe that you have faith in Christ. I do. I just want you to understand that once you have had faith in Him, you do not have to do anything more *of yourself*. All the works that you do are because of Him, not because you are working for him.
Baptism is listed in the Bible as the answer of a good conscience towards God. What does that verse mean to you? It says that Baptism does NOT put away the filth of the flesh. How can you argue with that? I don’t understand.
I just want you to understand that you can have eternal security without having to work for it.
Jesus bought it. We don’t.
WE ARE SAVED BY FAITH.
Why do you keep trying to prove this when no one is arguing it?
and
While I CAN point out that we must also do works.
It cannot be both, mk. That’s the arguement.
I also asked you to show me scriptually where it says we will be punished for our works.
We believe that works are a product of living in Christ, and when we live in Him, we do things that are pleasing to Him. These are what we consider works, and we will be judged for them in order to see which ones will be rewarded. We are not judged, how we lived in Christ will be.
*
Nowhere does it say that we will be punished for our works. It only talks about rewards for them. If it didn’t stand the test of “fire” (not literally), then no reward. But no punishment, either….just no reward. Therefore, the only thing that “works” can mean is what I stated above.
If I reward Mary Pat with a piece of candy but don’t give one to Johnny, don’t you think from Johnny’s point of view, he is being punished.
And what, that verse about burning off the bad is inconvenient so we just ignore it? What’s with the (not literal)…everything else in the sentence is literal, but this little unpleasant part, if fiction?
And by the beckoning command of a priest, Jesus must obey the priest, come into a wafer, and do this over and over and over again. Gee, I believe He said He paid the price ONCE, for all mankind….
The priest is not beckoning. The priest IS Jesus at the moment. Jesus, just as in His death, is BOTH sacrificer and sacrifice.
And you’ll notice I said we DO NOT, DO NOT, DO NOT, resacrifice Our Lord. We RENEW the covenant. NOT REDO the covenant.
I don’t need to show where it does not address works. It is enough to show you that it doesn’t say by faith ALONE.
We can’t very well go through the whole bible pointing out what it doesn’t say in each passage.
Again. No one is arguing that we need to believe.
The argument is in what we are to believe.
Or that belief ALONE is preached anywhere.
While I CAN point out that we must also do works.
Marykay, you said that it was taken out of context. I was asking you to show me the context which would clarify your point.
If the Bible says it is NOT of works, lest any man should boast, that speaks volumes to me. I have read the context surrounding that particular passage countless times. The surrounding context only clarifies that point even more, that salvation is of Faith, not works, and that it’s ALL Christ, and absolutely NONE of it is because of “our part”. We don’t have a part in the payment. We have a part in the acceptance of the free gift of salvation.
Does that help you see what I’m trying to say?
I don’t want you to be angry with me. I just want you to really listen to what I’m saying. I feel like some of my points have been ignored by you and I don’t understand why.
Look, if Christ says “Believe and you’ll be saved and will live forever”. Why does that not imply that’s all there is to it?
If I said, Marykay, if you’ll come over here and accept my gift, I’ll give it to you., would you assume that I meant you had to pay for your gift as well? That it wasn’t simply a gift?
I just don’t understand how you can see it that way.
JLM is another John Hagee waiting to spring that old “babylon whore” bible lines on those delusional Catholics.
Is John Hagee correct in his bible interpetations that the Catholic church is the whore of Babylon in Revelations, JLM? Yes or No JLM?
And believe me JLM, if anyone knows the bible backwards and forwards is Hagee.
Yes or no JLM.
And you’ll notice I said we DO NOT, DO NOT, DO NOT, resacrifice Our Lord. We RENEW the covenant. NOT REDO the covenant.
Marykay, why do you believe the covenant needs to be renewed time and time again?
You become a member of HIS body, He is not a member of yours.
Ahhhh, well that’s a whole other discourse. But actuall HE does come into me and I into Him. The whole thing reflects the family. We become united as a husband and wife become united. We become “One Flesh” Just as we are called to become as a community…the church. We are all the BODY of Christ…
JLM 11:06
I said FAITH alone, not grace. Grace comes from God. Salvation comes from our faith in Him.
Therefore, faith = salvation
Of course faith without works is dead. James was clear about that. If we have faith in God, He works through us and we have good works (fruits) to show by it. Without the good works showing, it would prove we didn’t have faith, or never had.
Therefore, faith = works.
and, no works = no faith
Therefore, works = salvation
and, no works = no salvation
Again, scripture is very clear to us protestants regarding works, while it is clear to you that you still need to do things (works) to earn your salvation. You do not believe that salvation was given freely to you. If you did, you wouldn’t believe in works by your definition of works.
*What you have said is without evidence of works, you are not saved.*
Posted by: JLM at March 6, 2008 11:06 AM
But BY HIS OWN BLOOD he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.” -Hebrews 9:12
Marykay, I know I’m probably getting very frustrating to you, but I want you to answer me how you need to renew the covenant again and again when this verse says so clearly that only once was it necessary for Him to enter into the holy place to obtain eternal redemption for us?
If I reward Mary Pat with a piece of candy but don’t give one to Johnny, don’t you think from Johnny’s point of view, he is being punished.
And what, that verse about burning off the bad is inconvenient so we just ignore it? What’s with the (not literal)…everything else in the sentence is literal, but this little unpleasant part, if fiction?
Number one, you forget that God is love.
If I get no rewards, I’ll still be happy to spend eternity with Him. I would sweep the golden streets in Heaven, and be content knowing that I’m in the presence of my Lord. There is also no sorrow or jealousy in Heaven, so I don’t think anyone will care who’s reward was better.
We have to do something. We have to be baptized. We have to eat the Eucharist. We have to have good works, etc.
Bethany, Jesus Himself said that if we don’t eat His flesh we cannot live.
Jesus Himself said we had to be baptized. Are you saying you don’t believe that we have to be baptized? Really? Wow.
Jesus Himself says that we are to follow His commands. He gives us all sorts of directives. He tells us to love one another. To pray. To “follow” Him.
Never does He say you must believe and that is all.
Belief is the first step. All those people that He told to believe? How do we know where their journey took them next? How do we know that after that they didn’t begin attending Mass, and studying and asking questions.
Again, I ask you, WHY do you read scripture. Once you heard the words, why wasn’t that enough? Why do you do more? Why do you cling to the bible? If He died and it is finished, then why do you continue to study His words. There is nothing there for you. You already have it all. Believe. That’s it. Put the bible away.
Janet, yes, you are correct! That is what we believe. See the thing is, we become literally transformed into new creatures the moment we become saved. The Bible says how can we know if someone’s saved? By their fruits!
But the works are not “us” working. They are Christ working through us.
There is nothing that WE can do to work our way into Heaven. Christ deserves ALL the glory for each and every work.
He is the one who works through us. Just imagine an instrument, like a trombone. We are like that instrument, and God is the musician who plays the instrument.
Without the musician to play the instrument, the instrument will not play.
Without God to do good works through us, we will not be able to do good works.
content knowing that I’m in the presence of my Lord.
Just as I am contented to be in His presence every week at Mass. The differnce between us, is the difference between the you and Jews. They are waiting for the Messiah to come. You are waiting for Him to come back, or to see Him in heaven.
We know that He is already here.
JLM,
How do you think we define works?
JLM,
With all due respect, mk, that sounds very deceptive and just a play on words. You can’t twist the truth. Look at the opening lines of your prayers to Mary. Google “prayers to Mary”, and a ton of Catholic websites come up. Honestly, who are you kiddding if you claim you don’t pray to her. Are you trying to convince me or herself?
I didn’t need to twist the truth. The phrase “pray to Mary” is the meaning “Implore, beseech, ask, address”, the meaning pray to God is to converse with HIM.
I didn’t invent the definitions. I didn’t change them. These are the phrases that have been used forever. Pray, I beseech thee…
You love the words Thou and Thee in your King James Version. They are outdated, yet you use them. Pray is an outdated word, true. But the meaning is the same. If you choose not to see this, then I shall not try to convince you.
“Janet, I urge you to please, please read the above verses that I have posted and think about them…I honestly want you to understand where I’m coming from on this and to see why I believe that we need to believe to receive Jesus. We need no continual sacrifice…the sacrifice has already been made once. You do not have to live in fear…you can have eternal security. I love you, Janet.”
Posted by: Bethany at March 6, 2008 10:09 AM
I’m not sure how to respond, but I’ll try. I don’t live in fear at all. I know what God asks of me and I do the best I can. Really, I’ve never had a fear of dying. I look forward to the day I’ll be reunited with my loved ones in Heaven. I love my Church, because Jesus is the center of it. I love Mary because everything she did, she did for Jesus. I look at life a little differently than you, it’s not all a bed of roses. I look at Mary and the Saints as examples of people from all walks of life who also did their best to give glory to God. Included in that is accepting Christ as their Savior and acknowledging His death on the cross. Catholics believe that we all become saints when we get to heaven (the communion of saints). And we are connected spiritually with all the members of the Catholic Church. We are never alone. That is a very comforting thing.
As far as Mary receiving too much attention, she was the only human being so intimately connected to Jesus. Is it offensive to you that she would receive a higher place in heaven than you or I? It doesn’t bother me. If I have my parents over for dinner, I give them the best of everything – china, silverware, a place at the head of the table.
(Sorry, it took me so long to respond, there are just too many questions here to ponder at once.) God bless you.
*What you have said is without evidence of works, you are not saved.*
Of course! If we live in Christ (members of the body of Christ), we will have good works to show. We will do things pleasing to Him because we are one body. If we do not live in Christ or are not members in the body of Christ, how can we have good works?
Think tree, roots of tree & fruits.
We have to do something. We have to be baptized. We have to eat the Eucharist. We have to have good works, etc.Bethany, Jesus Himself said that if we don’t eat His flesh we cannot live.
Eating his flesh symbolized *belief* in the name of the Son of God, as it says many times in that very passage.
Jesus Himself said we had to be baptized. Are you saying you don’t believe that we have to be baptized? Really? Wow.
Of course! I don’t believe that is necessary for salvation, Marykay, you are correct. The Bible says it is not necessary for us to be baptized to go to Heaven.
19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; 20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. 21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: 22 Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.
Also, the thief on the cross wasn’t baptized. Thousands of people every day accept Christ on their deathbeds, and they are not baptized.
The Bible says that:
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
It does NOT say that if you are not baptized that you will be damned, but that if you don’t BELIEVE.
Baptism is a part of it, but it is not the necessary part for salvation. It is the answer of a good conscience toward God!
Jesus Himself says that we are to follow His commands. He gives us all sorts of directives. He tells us to love one another. To pray. To “follow” Him.Never does He say you must believe and that is all.Belief is the first step. All those people that He told to believe? How do we know where their journey took them next? How do we know that after that they didn’t begin attending Mass, and studying and asking questions.
Jesus told us to follow His commands, but we cannot follow His commands on our own. We must follow the most important command which is to believe on the name of the Son of God. The works will follow because upon the moment we do this, we are a new creature in Christ!
Again, I ask you, WHY do you read scripture. Once you heard the words, why wasn’t that enough? Why do you do more? Why do you cling to the bible? If He died and it is finished, then why do you continue to study His words. There is nothing there for you. You already have it all. Believe. That’s it. Put the bible away.
Posted by: mk at March 6, 2008 12:02 PM
I don’t believe that I am renewing the covenant every time I read the Bible. I am growing spiritually and learning about the Lord.
Why can’t you see that? I don’t understand.
I’ll be back in about an hour .I’ve got to make lunch… Marykay, I hope nothing I say sounds like a personal attack cause I promise it isn’t.
We don’t have a part in the payment. We have a part in the acceptance of the free gift of salvation.
Bethany, it is a covenant, is it not? How do we keep our end of the covenant?
A covenant requires both parties agreement, no?
Our acceptance of the covenant, is acceptance of all of it, or the covenant is null and void.
I have shown you passage after passage that foreshadows the Eucharist or actually demands that we believe in it.
Not one passage. Several.
From the old testament as well as the new.
You have not shown me one passage, not one, that says Faith ALONE is what is required.
aWhat doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath bfaith, and have not works? can faith save him?
15 If a brother or asister be naked, and destitute of daily bfood,
16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye agive them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?
17 Even so afaith, if it hath not bworks, is dead, being alone.
18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my afaith by my bworks.
19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the adevils also bbelieve, and tremble.
20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that afaith without bworks is dead?
21 Was not Abraham our father ajustified by works, when he had boffered Isaac his son upon the altar?
22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by aworks was faith made bperfect?
23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham abelieved God, and it was imputed unto him for brighteousness: and he was called the cFriend of God.
24 Ye see then how that by aworks a man is bjustified, and not by faith only.
AND NOT by faith only…
Nowhere do you show me faith only, and yet I can show you quite clearly that it is NOT by faith only.
I didn’t need to twist the truth. The phrase “pray to Mary” is the meaning “Implore, beseech, ask, address”, the meaning pray to God is to converse with HIM.
THAT’S THE SAME DARNED THING!!!!
You converse, implore, beseech, ask, adress them both! Please do yourself a HUGE favor, and look up each of those words and then tell me that you’re not doing both.
Oh Gosh Bethany no. I’m so grateful that we all feel comfortable enough with each other that we CAN speak freely. These conversations wouldn’t be possible if we were all tiptoeing around each others sensibilities…
Go, make and eat lunch…you need sustenance, remember? ;-)
Nowhere do you show me faith only, and yet I can show you quite clearly that it is NOT by faith only.
Yet nowhere can you show me that we are punished for works. Looks to me as though you’re not seeing what the true meaning of works is.
A covenant requires both parties agreement, no?
A covenant is a promise. You can easily make a promise to someone without them having to do anything.
Jesus fulfilled the promise whether we accept it or not. Some may, some may not. It is still fulfilled either way.
Uh JLM,
Is John Hagee correct in his bible interpretation that the Catholic church is the whore of babylon mentioned in Revelations?
Yes or no JLM?
Or for that matter, Bethany, is John Hagee a true prophet of Christ, and is the Catholic church the whore of Babylon? Or is he a false prophet of Christ Bethany, JLM?
BTW, JLM, are you a capable of making more anti-Catholic bigots then John Hagee has?
Do you head a mega-church built upon gloom and doom of Revelations and anti-Catholicism as Hagee has done his entire life?
Care to name the church you are head preacher of JLM?
JLM,
I not only looked them up but I posted the definitions for you…
1. To utter or say a prayer or prayers to; address by prayer.
2. To ask (someone) imploringly; beseech. Now often used elliptically for I pray you to introduce a request or entreaty: Pray be careful.
3. To make a devout or earnest request for: I pray your permission to speak.
4. To move or bring by prayer or entreaty.
I am growing spiritually and learning about the Lord.
Why can’t you see that? I don’t understand.
No, I don’t understand. You say that you do not have to do anything else. And you have told me often that you must read scripture because it is the only place where the truth is found. I’m saying you don’t need to bother to read scripture.
Follow your logic here. You do not need scripture to be saved. Scripture is the only place where you will find the Truth. If you cannot read scripture for whatever reason, you have no way of hearing the truth. If you can’t hear the truth you can’t believe. Therefore if you can’t read/hear scripture you can’t be saved.
You have now directly placed your salvation on scripture and not on Jesus…
You say that we treat Mary as if she were God and I’m saying you treat Scripture the same way…
Sorry, mk…I must have missed them. That is the definition of prayer? That definition fits for both Mary and God.
Main Entry: prayer
Pronunciation: \ˈprer\
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French priere, praiere, preiere, from Medieval Latin precaria, from Latin, feminine of precarius obtained by entreaty, from prec-, prex
Date: 14th century
1 a (1): an address (as a petition) to God or a god in word or thought (said a prayer for the success of the voyage)
(2): a set order of words used in praying b: an earnest request or wish
2: the act or practice of praying to God or a god (kneeling in prayer)
3: a religious service consisting chiefly of prayers
I am growing spiritually and learning about the Lord.
Why can’t you see that? I don’t understand.
Yes, I can see that Bethany. The Bible is sustaining you, feeding you. It keeps you nourished. It keeps you wrapped in God’s word.
But the Word has been made Flesh.
No JLM,
A covenant is something that two parties enter into. It’s like a contract, only instead of things, promises are exchanged.
God promises us salvation. We promise Him we will follow Him, Obey Him, Love Him…and yes, Believe IN Him, and Believe Him.
“Covenant is an agreement in which all parties pledge themselves to the others. It outlines mutual obligations and responsibilities. Basic to covenant theology is the idea that the Israelites have been specially chosen by Yahweh
Nowhere do you show me faith only, and yet I can show you quite clearly that it is NOT by faith only.
Yet nowhere can you show me that we are punished for works. Looks to me as though you’re not seeing what the true meaning of works is.
Posted by: JLM at March 6, 2008 12:25 PM
Who said you are punished for your works? I don’t recall reading that. How do you define works by the way? I don’t even know how Martin Luther defined them. I would guess that’s where your definition would originate.
Bethany, I know you didn’t know this but…
” 6. Mary, “…when the course of her earthly life was completed, was taken up body and soul into the glory of heaven…” (par. 974). “…when she [Mary] is the subject of preaching and worship she prompts the faithful to come to her Son…” (Vatican Council II, p. 420). See quote in Context”
Shame on CARM! Here is the actual quote from Vatican II found at http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/marye7.htm
Having entered deeply into the history of salvation, Mary, in a way, unites in her person and re-echoes the most important doctrines of the faith: and when she is the subject of preaching and VENERATION she prompts the faithful to come to her Son, to his sacrifice and to the love of the Father.
The word “worship” is NOT in the Vatican II documents. They changed the word “venerate” to worship. I don’t know if they did this on purpose, by Catholics make a distinction between WORSHIP and VENERATION. It’s equivalent to the words I was using before, latria and dulia. That is very disheartening…
Quick definitions (covenant)
# noun: (Bible) an agreement between God and his people in which God makes certain promises and requires certain behavior from them in return
# noun: a signed written agreement between two or more parties (nations) to perform some action
# verb: enter into a covenenant
# verb: enter into a covenant or formal agreement
JLM,
I already said that I “prayed” to them both. But that the definition for praying to Mary is not the same definiton of Praying to God.
Perhaps you missed this post?
I didn’t need to twist the truth. The phrase “pray to Mary” is the meaning “Implore, beseech, ask, address”, the meaning pray to God is to converse with HIM.
I didn’t invent the definitions. I didn’t change them. These are the phrases that have been used forever. Pray, I beseech thee…
You love the words Thou and Thee in your King James Version. They are outdated, yet you use them. Pray is an outdated word, true. But the meaning is the same. If you choose not to see this, then I shall not try to convince you.
JLM,
Do you also believe that baptism is not required for salvation?
Yes, I can see that Bethany. The Bible is sustaining you, feeding you. It keeps you nourished. It keeps you wrapped in God’s word.
But the Word has been made Flesh.
EXACTLY! Now you see! You don’t have to eat Jesus literally, you get “his body” from His Word!
Janet, yes, you are correct! That is what we believe. See the thing is, we become literally transformed into new creatures the moment we become saved. The Bible says how can we know if someone’s saved? By their fruits!
But the works are not “us” working. They are Christ working through us.
There is nothing that WE can do to work our way into Heaven. Christ deserves ALL the glory for each and every work.
He is the one who works through us. Just imagine an instrument, like a trombone. We are like that instrument, and God is the musician who plays the instrument.
Without the musician to play the instrument, the instrument will not play.
Without God to do good works through us, we will not be able to do good works.
Posted by: Bethany at March 6, 2008 12:02 PM
Bethany,
This is an important question – So you don’t believe in free will, beyond saying “I believe”? That’s what it sounds like you are saying – Absolutely everything you do is done by God?
How do you explain that there are unsaved people who do very good works? Who causes them to do their good works if they are not saved? The bible says we know someone is saved by their fruits (works), but obviously, good works are not always a sign of being saved. I’m so confused. I need to leave for a while, get some lunch!
Gee JLM, I’m praying for ya to not avoid my question about the Catholic church being the whore of babylon in the bible, as interpreted by John Hagee.
In fact, I’m praying for Mary to make you drop your bigoted interpretations of bible studies devoted to your praying to your bible interpretated Jesus, that Catholics stop being the whore of babylon too.
Hmm, am I worshipping JLM since I’m praying to him to stop being a false prophet of the word of god?
No JLM,
A covenant is something that two parties enter into. It’s like a contract, only instead of things, promises are exchanged.
God promises us salvation. We promise Him we will follow Him, Obey Him, Love Him…and yes, Believe IN Him, and Believe Him.
Absolutely not! His promise is that He would send a saviour, His Son, Jesus Christ. He did that, no strings attached. He kept His promise, or covanent. He said it and did it.
By your logic, if we don’t accept Him, God can take Him back, renege on His promise, and not send a Savior. That just doesn’t make sense.
His promise was to send a Savior that would pay for the sins of the world. Didn’t Jesus’ sins pay for the sins of the world whether or not we accept that He did that?
JLM,
to pray:
1 : to make a request in a humble manner.
Why can’t this definition apply? ( It does.)
Bethany,
II. Baptism is Salvific, Not Just Symbolic
Matt. 28:19-20 – Jesus commands the apostles to baptize all people “in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” Many Protestant churches are now teaching that baptism is only a symbolic ritual, and not what actually cleanses us from original sin. This belief contradicts Scripture and the 2,000 year-old teaching of the Church.
Acts 2:38 – Peter commands them to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ in order to be actually forgiven of sin, not just to partake of a symbolic ritual.
Matt. 28:19-20; Acts 2:38 – there is nothing in these passages or elsewhere in the Bible about baptism being symbolic. There is also nothing about just accepting Jesus as personal Lord and Savior in order to be saved.
Mark 16:16 – Jesus said “He who believes AND is baptized will be saved.” Jesus says believing is not enough. Baptism is also required. This is because baptism is salvific, not just symbolic. The Greek text also does not mandate any specific order for belief and baptism, so the verse proves nothing about a
Janet,
mk did:
This is not true. We are saved by His death and Resurrection. This is not the same as being judged (rewarded/punished) for your works.
Posted by: mk at March 6, 2008 11:03 AM
JLM,
Yes, I can see that Bethany. The Bible is sustaining you, feeding you. It keeps you nourished. It keeps you wrapped in God’s word.
But the Word has been made Flesh.
EXACTLY! Now you see! You don’t have to eat Jesus literally, you get “his body” from His Word!
Posted by: JLM at March 6, 2008 12:56 PM
If this were true, don’t you think Jesus would have said “read”, (THE WORD) not “eat” (THE WORD)?
Do you also believe that baptism is not required for salvation?
Again, nothing is REQUIRED for salvation. Salvation is a free gift from God through His son, Jesus Christ.
Baptism is synonymous with salvation. When we accept Him, (salvation) we are baptized, or given a new spirit, new life, in Him.
Out with the old life, in with the new!
How do you explain that there are unsaved people who do very good works? Who causes them to do their good works if they are not saved?
Unsaved people’s works are being judged by man to be good works, not God. If you are not saved, you are not doing good works unto Him, you’re doing good works unto man.
If this were true, don’t you think Jesus would have said “read”, (THE WORD) not “eat” (THE WORD)?
He spoke figuratively many of the times he spoke. Some people don’t read the word, they have the word read to them. In both cases, God’s word is filling their spirit just as food (in those days, alot of bread and fish) did.
How do you explain that there are unsaved people who do very good works? Who causes them to do their good works if they are not saved?
You know, actually, for a better explanation of that question, you should ask Doug. I’m not picking on him, it’s just that he freely admits he’s not a believer. I think that he could really shed some light on who he does good works for.
This is an important question – So you don’t believe in free will, beyond saying “I believe”? That’s what it sounds like you are saying – Absolutely everything you do is done by God?
Yes, but not everything I do. I think I may not have communicated myself very well, I’m sorry about that. The works of my flesh are not through God. They come through my own lusts, and desires. When I was not saved, I was a slave to sin. Satan was my master, even though I did not always know it.
The works that I did on my own before I was saved could never atone for my sins. While they may appear good to men, they appeared as filthy rags to God, as it says in Isaiah 64:6.
When we believe on Jesus, our FAITH is counted for righteousness.
Janet, what are your thoughts about the verse that says if we keep ALL of the law, yet offend in one point, we are guilty of them all?
This means that, while we may do wonderful works, they are simply not good enough to atone for our sins. In God’s eyes, they are filthy rags. In our eyes, they seem “good”.
But God’s ways are higher than our ways. Since God is not sinful and cannot be tempted with sin, even the smallest of sins cannot be allowed in His presence. This is why, even if we do good works, we cannot get into Heaven on our own. This is also why Jesus must purify us with His blood. He is the ultimate sacrifice for our sins.
See, we used to have to sacrifice lambs, and other such animals on an altar every year to atone for our sins, because God says that the only way to atone is through blood. And not only this, but it always had to be from a lamb without blemish or spot. This was analogous to the “Lamb” that was to come- Jesus Christ. From the old testament it was prophesied that Jesus would come to make the one atonement for ALL sins, which would stop other sacrifices forever!
He came to make ONE payment for sin which would pay for our sins forver.
The works that I do as a new creature in Christ as all due to Him. See, I am not a slave to sin any longer.
Any works that I do after becoming a new creature in Christ, those are rewarded. However, my sins are not punished eternally because Jesus has paid for each and every one of them.
I may have mixed a lot of things into one paragraph but I hope you understand what I’m saying.
How do you explain that there are unsaved people who do very good works? Who causes them to do their good works if they are not saved?
Their works are only good in the eyes of man.
Every way of a man is right in his own eyes: but the LORD pondereth the hearts.
Proverbs 21:2
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
The good works that we do after being saved are an expression of our gratitude toward Christ for his unspeakable gift!
The bible says we know someone is saved by their fruits (works), but obviously, good works are not always a sign of being saved. I’m so confused. I need to leave for a while, get some lunch!
I hope I haven’t made it even more confusing, Janet… I am trying, and if there is anything else that I say that confuses you please do let me know and I will try to clarify it a little better. I’m not the best with words! You are such a sweetie… have a good lunch! :)
JLM,
Thanks, I see. I think MK is referring to hell when talking about “punishment”.
(Someone please correct me if I’m wrong,) but, JLM, I don’t think the Catholic Sacraments are included in the definition of “works”.
I know there are a lot of posts addressed to me and I’ll try to get to all of them as soon as I can. It’s hard to keep up…and I need to go to the grocery store. Can I pull myself away I wonder? lol
Also, another thought regarding “good works”. Satan himself can appear as an angel of light, according to the Bible. If this is true, which I believe it is, then Satan is the master of disguise and can truly make people believe they’re doing “good works” when they’re in fact, not.
For example, some people who are part of the National Organization of Women truly believe that they are helping women by what they do to protect abortion as a “right”.
but, JLM, I don’t think the Catholic Sacraments are included in the definition of “works”.
Then let me ask you this. If you didn’t “do” any of them, not one, but simply believed in your heart that Jesus died for your sins, would you still go to heaven?
As for works which would be agreed on by most people as “good”, for instance, helping diseased children…. it is the intent of the heart which matters to God, not the action itself.
Luke 23:43 – the good thief, although not baptized, shows that there is also a baptism by desire, as Jesus says to him that he will be in paradise. It should also be noted that when Jesus uses the word “paradise,” He did not mean heaven. Paradise, from the Hebrew “sheol” meant the realm of the righteous dead. This was the place of the dead who were destined for heaven, but who were captive until the Lord’s resurrection. Hence, the good thief was destined for heaven because of his desire to be with Jesus.
See, even you have an exception for it.
Obviously the fact is that baptism of literal water is not necessary to go to Heaven. Baptism of the spirit is.
Hence, the good thief was destined for heaven because of his desire to be with Jesus.
Would you not expect one who has believed on the name of Jesus to desire to be with Jesus?
That is the whole point of believing on Him.
No, I don’t understand. You say that you do not have to do anything else. And you have told me often that you must read scripture because it is the only place where the truth is found. I’m saying you don’t need to bother to read scripture.
Follow your logic here. You do not need scripture to be saved. Scripture is the only place where you will find the Truth. If you cannot read scripture for whatever reason, you have no way of hearing the truth. If you can’t hear the truth you can’t believe. Therefore if you can’t read/hear scripture you can’t be saved.
You have now directly placed your salvation on scripture and not on Jesus…
Marykay, I do not follow your logic. What is your point?
Deaf and blind people can learn to read with their fingers. That’s what braille is for. Blind people can hear. Deaf people can read.
God breathed his words through scripture. His words tell us of Jesus. We wouldn’t be able to hear about Jesus without those words.
I believe in the accuracy of the scripture because I believe that God told holy men inspired by God to write it down. I believe that adding to God’s word or putting words in His mouth is wrong. That’s why I try to stick with scripture and not allow anything unless it agrees with God’s word. Let God be true but every man a liar.”
I believe in the accuracy of the Bible but I do not worship it, I worship Jesus which God told me about through the Bible.
Because it is God breathed, it cannot be in error.
But I worship Christ, not the Bible. The Bible is God’s letter to us.
Bethany, I know you didn’t know this but…
” 6. Mary, “…when the course of her earthly life was completed, was taken up body and soul into the glory of heaven…” (par. 974). “…when she [Mary] is the subject of preaching and worship she prompts the faithful to come to her Son…” (Vatican Council II, p. 420). See quote in Context”
Shame on CARM! Here is the actual quote from Vatican II found at http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/marye7.htm
Having entered deeply into the history of salvation, Mary, in a way, unites in her person and re-echoes the most important doctrines of the faith: and when she is the subject of preaching and VENERATION she prompts the faithful to come to her Son, to his sacrifice and to the love of the Father.
The word “worship” is NOT in the Vatican II documents. They changed the word “venerate” to worship. I don’t know if they did this on purpose, by Catholics make a distinction between WORSHIP and VENERATION. It’s equivalent to the words I was using before, latria and dulia. That is very disheartening…
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at March 6, 2008 12:50 PM
Bobby, you’re right, I got the quotes from CARM. I think I forgot to post a reference link.
I didn’t know that the word was different, so thank you for clarifying for me- although I’m not sure if that really makes a difference with the rest of the quotes.
I looked a couple of them up and they are worded the same way as what I posted.
How can one call her “second only to Jesus”, and not be calling her a diety?
Don’t you think that we should surrender our hour of death to Jesus care, not Mary’s? How do these quotes put focus on Jesus?
Bobby, I’m sorry about the last post…I forgot to italicize your words which are above mine. :)
Yes, I can see that Bethany. The Bible is sustaining you, feeding you. It keeps you nourished. It keeps you wrapped in God’s word.
But the Word has been made Flesh.
I feel that you misunderstand what that means, Marykay.
The Word is a spirit. The Word is GOD.
The word became flesh when Jesus came to earth and was born in an earthly body “of flesh”.
This is why John 1:14 says
14
And the Word became flesh 9 and made his dwelling among us, and we saw his glory, the glory as of the Father’s only Son, full of grace and truth.
15
Bethany 1:28,
Why such a problem with works?
So you are saying that the words “I believe” are more important than a million GOOD (I mean, really, really GOOD) works, and that person is going to hell if they haven’t said “I believe”?
I don’t mean to be disrespectful. I’m really confused!?!!
Bethany,
This is an important question – So you don’t believe in free will, beyond saying “I believe”? That’s what it sounds like you are saying – Absolutely everything you do is done by God?
How do you explain that there are unsaved people who do very good works? Who causes them to do their good works if they are not saved? The bible says we know someone is saved by their fruits (works), but obviously, good works are not always a sign of being saved. I’m so confused. I need to leave for a while, get some lunch!
Posted by: Janet at March 6, 2008 12:57 PM
I’m repeating these questions, because I’m referring to the works you do after you are “saved”, not before. Can you also answer about free will? Thanks. (Take your time, please.)
JLM,
His promise was to send a Savior that would pay for the sins of the world. Didn’t Jesus’ sins pay for the sins of the world whether or not we accept that He did that?
Again…a covenant is something entered into by one or more parties. He did keep His end.
By your own admission a person has to believe that to be saved. From your perspective that is what we must DO to keep our end of the covenant.
If we don’t, then we have not entered into the covenant.
Doug has not entered into the covenant.
Laura has not entered into the covenant.
SoMG was forbidden to enter into the covenant (okay, I’m kidding)
But you and Bethany have DONE your part. You believe. You have entered into the covenant.
But do you not see that by believing you have actively “done” something and this would be considered a “work”?
(Someone please correct me if I’m wrong,) but, JLM, I don’t think the Catholic Sacraments are included in the definition of “works”.
Is that what you guys think? That we view sacraments as works????
Janet I have answers to your questions…I’m leaving out the door right now to go to the grocery store though (the kids are already in the truck waiting) but I promise as soon as I can I will reply to those questions!
Bethany,
I believe that adding to God’s word or putting words in His mouth is wrong
And yet you cannot show me where it says that Faith ONLY is the correct understanding. But I have shown you where James says it is most definitely not!
And I have shown you repeatedly where Jesus says I am the Bread of Life…this is a “true” saying…
But you discount it. It appears very selective to me.
But I worship Christ, not the Bible. The Bible is God’s letter to us.
I know that you do, but it often appears as if you worship the bible.
Just as it might appear that we worship Mary.
But you don’t. And we don’t.
Mary too, carried the word, at one time. In her womb. We honor anything that carried the Word.
And Yes, the moment Jesus was concieved, He became “flesh”…but so too, does He remain flesh, now.
Bethany,
You said that I only offered you one scriptural passage to show that the Eucharist biblically sound.
Now of course, I don’t expect you to read all of these, but I want to show you how many scripture passages are used to back up the sacrament of the Eucharist…
Scripture
I. Old Testament
(a). Foreshadowing of the Eucharistic Sacrifice
Gen. 14:18 – this is the first time that the word “priest” is used in Old Testament. Melchizedek is both a priest and a king and he offers a bread and wine sacrifice to God.
Psalm 76:2 – Melchizedek is the king of Salem. Salem is the future Jeru-salem where Jesus, the eternal priest and king, established his new Kingdom and the Eucharistic sacrifice which He offered under the appearance of bread and wine.
Psalm 110:4 – this is the prophecy that Jesus will be the eternal priest and king in the same manner as this mysterious priest Melchizedek. This prophecy requires us to look for an eternal bread and wine sacrifice in the future. This prophecy is fulfilled only by the Eucharistic sacrifice of the Catholic Church.
Malachi 1:11 – this is a prophecy of a pure offering that will be offered in every place from the rising of the sun to its setting. Thus, there will be only one sacrifice, but it will be offered in many places around the world. This prophecy is fulfilled only by the Catholic Church in the Masses around the world, where the sacrifice of Christ which transcends time and space is offered for our salvation. If this prophecy is not fulfilled by the Catholic Church, then Malachi is a false prophet.
Exodus 12:14,17,24; cf. 24:8 – we see that the feast of the paschal lamb is a perpetual ordinance. It lasts forever. But it had not yet been fulfilled.
Exodus 29:38-39
By your own admission a person has to believe that to be saved. From your perspective that is what we must DO to keep our end of the covenant.
There is no “other” end to the covanent. There is a promise from God that He would send His Son, Jesus Christ to pay for all of the sins of the world. He did that.
However, in order for us to be saved, we do need to accept it. His promise is that He would send His Son, and His gift is salvation. Does that make more sense?
He did it all, and I have done nothing but believed in what He did. It wasn’t my doing, it was all His. I couldn’t do that on my own. I needed Him. I accepted a gift. I didn’t keep my end of a promise, or do anything. He came for me.(and Doug, Laura, and even SoMG! lol)
I have free will to choose whether or not I will accept His gift, but it’s not by my works, it’s by His that I am saved.
I totally see where you are coming from that that would be considered “works”. But biblically, works are the things that are done after we accept Him and live a new life in Him. The things that God will reward us for.
JLM and Bethany,
If you can show me one passage, one, that says the words you are saved by faith ALONE I will concede this argument.
“Eran.–You have opportunely introduced the subject of the divine mysteries for from it I shall be able to show you the change of the Lord’s body into another nature. Answer now to my questions.
Orth.–I will answer.
Eran.–What do you call the gift which is offered before the priestly invocation?
Orth.–It were wrong to say openly; perhaps some uninitiated are present.
Eran.–Let your answer be put enigmatically.
Orth.–Food of grain of such a sort.
Eran.–And how name we the other symbol?
Orth.–This name too is common, signifying species of drink.
Eran.–And after the consecration how do you name these?
Orth.–Christ’s body and Christ’s blood.
Eran.–And do yon believe that you partake of Christ’s body and blood?
Orth.–I do.” Theodoret of Cyrus, Eranistes, 2 (A.D. 451).
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html
@JLM, Bethany and others,
lets pose a little ‘problem’ experienced by the early Church but updated to fit the present age: what if someone ‘saved’ had an abortion and because of scriptural assurances she’s got a free pass into heaven, no matter her atrocious activity. Just how do you handle well-meaning duplicity?
this may seem trite but it also points out the absolute necessity of an authority ….. a position of calling what is OK … OK! (And what is not OK …. not-OK?) I forget exactly where it is …. but doesn’t Jesus Himself say: “I truly tell you that not all who call out ‘Lord, Lord’ shall enter heaven. Only those who DO the will of Abba, shall enter!”
John
What me & Bethany have been trying to tell you, mixed up through various topics and posts, scripture and explanations sums up pretty much your question. I cannot speak for Bethany, however, this is exactly how I see it:
This is perhaps the most important question in all of Christian theology. This question is the cause of the Reformation – the split between the Protestant church and Catholic church. This question is a key difference between Biblical Christianity and most of the “Christian” cults. Is salvation by faith alone, or by faith plus works? Am I saved just by believing in Jesus, or do I have to believe in Jesus and do certain things?
The question of faith alone or faith plus works is made difficult by some hard-to-reconcile Bible passages. Compare Romans 3:28, 5:1 and Galatians 3:24 with James 2:24. Some see a difference between Paul (salvation is by faith alone) and James (salvation is by faith plus works). In reality, Paul and James did not disagree at all. The only point of disagreement some people claim is over the relationship between faith and works. Paul dogmatically says that justification is by faith alone (Ephesians 2:8-9) while James appears to be saying that justification is by faith plus works. This apparent problem is answered by examining what exactly James is talking about. James is refuting the belief that a person can have faith without producing any good works (James 2:17-18). James is emphasizing the point that genuine faith in Christ will produce a changed life and good works (James 2:20-26). James is not saying that justification is by faith plus works, but rather that a person who is truly justified by faith will have good works in his life. If a person claims to be a believer, but has no good works in his life
Where exactly does Paul say that it is by faith ALONE?
Is that what you guys think? That we view sacraments as works????
mk, that’s how we view them. Let me pose the same question to you that I did to Janet:
Then let me ask you this. If you didn’t “do” any of them, not one, never even walked into a Catholic Church, but simply believed in your heart that Jesus died for your sins, would you still go to heaven?
Bethany,
“I didn’t know that the word was different, so thank you for clarifying for me- although I’m not sure if that really makes a difference with the rest of the quotes.”
To a Catholic, the words “venerate” and “worship” conjure up completely different things. They are as different to us as night and day. So you must understand what we mean by our terms. Someone did understand what we mean by our terms and purposefully changed the word “venerate” to “worship.” I’m not accusing CARM of having done that; my guess is that they took it from some other website and didn’t check the original, but I must admit, I was very upset when I saw that. Someone felt the need to LIE and change a word in Catholic doctrine in order to try and show their point.
“I looked a couple of them up and they are worded the same way as what I posted.”
I have no doubt that the others are okay.
“How can one call her “second only to Jesus”, and not be calling her a diety?”
Well, the greatest animal second to humans is the ape. That doesn’t make apes human; there is a HUGE, huge huge gap between apes and humans. So think of it this way; we have Jesus, the greatest being and we have let’s say, me, the worst being. Now there are a whole plethora of beings in between me and Jesus. Suppose you HAD to order all beings from me to Jesus, in order of worst to greatest. Well, SOME being has to come before Jesus, even though there is an infinite gap in between, correct? We believe that being is Mary. Why? Because JESUS CREATED HER to be like that. JESUS gave that honor to his mother. If you had the power, wouldn’t you place your mother in the highest possible position? Wouldn’t you want to elevate her as much as you could, give her everything? We believe that’s what Jesus did. Now okay, you can argue that that isn’t biblical, fine. But again, at least we believe that Jesus did it, that it is not a reflection on the person of Mary.
God love you, Bethany. I’m so glad we’re able to discuss these ideas civilly. Again, I know everything you say is in love for me and my soul, and everything i say is for love of you and your soul.
Ephesians 2:8-9
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
and
Galatians 3:23-26
23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
Now, I know it probably won’t JUMP out at you, but really read his words…
“Then let me ask you this. If you didn’t “do” any of them, not one, never even walked into a Catholic Church, but simply believed in your heart that Jesus died for your sins, would you still go to heaven?”
That depends. If you know that the Catholic Church is the church established by Jesus Christ and that membership in it is necessary for salvation, then no, you will go to hell. Baptism and membership in the CC is the ORDINARY means of salvation. However, there are extra ordinary means of salvation known to God and God alone. If one is invincibly ignorant of the truth of the CC, then there is a POSSIBILITY that they will be saved. Personally, I have a lot of hope for those outside the CC. But baptism is necessary for salvation (I guess above I was redundant; once one is validly baptized, they are a member of the CC, whether they know it or not because the body of Christ, his church, is ONE), but God is not bound by teh sacraments.
For the Ephesians passage, yes, we believe wholeheartedly that we are saved by grace through faith. Yet we understand faith in this context to be faith working through charity, not simply intellectual assent. If by “faith alone” you mean faith working through charity, the Catholic doesn’t have any problem with it.
Now for the Galatians passage, Paul talks about “the law.” This is what I was talking about way back when when I said how “works of the law” is different than works i.e. corporal works of mercy. Paul in Galatians is contrasting faith with LAW, the old Judaic laws, circumcision, kosher, etc. So in no way do i see Paul in either of these passages saying “faith and not corporal works of mercy” yet “faith and not works of the law or Jewish ceremony.”
Bobby,
So those that are not baptized, by water, are not saved?
“So those that are not baptized, by water, are not saved?”
They CAN be saved (and remember, Catholics understand salvation as a process in a different way than Protestants) but that is not the ordinary means. I mean, we believe that yes, one must be baptized, but if someone doesn’t know that, we believe that Jesus will not hold them accountable for what they do not know.
Bobby,
your post regarding these verses is “almost” irrelevant as to the point. The point is, what does God call believers? His children. You cannot be his child unless you believe in him. That being said, what do you make of these verses here? And yes, the Old Testament (covanent) was the law (Moses)…
24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
Excellent JLM,
“Most importantly is that we do NOT confuse the ROOT of our faith(Jesus), with the FRUIT of our faith (works)”
this is critical … because heaven is not earned … but is the invitation to enter the harvest – a job done alone (as independent beings) ????? God/Christ does not ‘need’ us. ‘Tis strange though, we become as one … working together! … ‘they all earned one denary (heaven) the first and the last.’
“what do you make of these verses here?”
LJM, it doesn’t matter what I make of the verse. I don’t base a single one of my beliefs on “how I interpret a verse of scripture.” My interpretation is as good as the next guys.
JLM,
I have read those to passages so many times I’d be rich if I had a penny for each time.
It says you must believe. It says it is not enough to follow the law. It does NOT say faith ALONE…
I emailed carm pointing out their error in the Lumen gentium quote. Hopefully it will be fixed soon.
John,
but is the invitation to enter the harvest
Did you say harvest? As in wheat? As in Bread…as in EAT? ;)
Bobby,
That’s tellin’ ’em! (CARM)
Please let me know what they say! (if anything)…sounds interesting!
Bobby,
JLM, it doesn’t matter what I make of the verse. I don’t base a single one of my beliefs on “how I interpret a verse of scripture.” My interpretation is as good as the next guys.
Precisely!
Still waiting JLM for you to answer my question about John Hagee and the Catholic church being the whore of babylon in his bible study courses, which are then distributed to the multi thousand followers of Hagee.
Which creates more anti-Catholic bible scholors such as JLM.
Once again JLM, is Hagee correct in his personal bible interpretations/studies, that the Catholic Church is the whore of babylon as mentioned in the bible? Yes or no.
But, since you didn’t answer the question posed to you JLM, you are in agreement with Hagee and can’t speak the truth of his correct bible interpretations from not wanting to spread the good news that the Catholic church is a whore of Babylon.
You can’t condemn Hagee as a false prophet of the word of God, since Hagee can easily destroy you JLM, with his superior knowledge of bible study, and if you discussed his bigoted bible studies, you would be made into a defender of the whore of Babylon. A position no Christian would defend except mainline Protestants who actually do worship,pray, sacrifice to the whore of Babylon through the act of abortion.
You know JLM, that cup of abominations that mainline Protestants offer Jesus everyday through abortion to increase their health wealth and power
on this Earth.
JLM is being silent on the matter of the Catholic Church being the whore of Babylon from being suddenly ignorant of his bible and the word “Catholic” being in it “literally”. Which is the same reasoning mainline Protestants used to make Jesus into a murdering God who allows the sacrifice of his creation in the womb from the salvic act of abortion. It saves them a sacrifice of health,wealth and the amazing grace gained from Jesus allowing them to murder his creation too.
I suspect you, JLM, agree totally on bible interpretation concerning Catholics being the whore of Babylon with Hagee, and respect him soo much that you give him donations. Which allows him
to”spread the root of your faith with the fruit of your faith” which works by accusing the Catholic Church of being the whore of Babylon.
Or, JLM, your ashamed of John Hagee using your absolute truth, word of god book,to make those old time bigoted Protestants feel good once again about murdering Catholics around the world, while they built a empire, based bible interpretations that dehumanize Catholics into whores.
mk, Bobby & anon,
Faith alone IS faith in Christ alone. He is the ONLY means to salvation. Christ is the church. He is the root. I am not going to hell because I’m not Catholic or never baptized. I’m going to heaven because I am a member of His Church…Him! His body! I don’t need to partake in eating His body, because I am already a part of it. I am a member of Christ’s body.
Let me clarify the baptized part:
I was not baptized into the Catholic church. I was baptized, created new, when I accepted Him as my Savior. I was baptized, not by water, and I am still a member of His Body, His Church, for He IS the Church and I am a member.
Bobby,
JLM, it doesn’t matter what I make of the verse. I don’t base a single one of my beliefs on “how I interpret a verse of scripture.” My interpretation is as good as the next guys.
Precisely!
Posted by: mk at March 6, 2008 4:39 PM
I don’t claim to interpret scripture on my own, either. The Holy Spirit guides me and shows me His truth. Of course you can’t do it on your own. You need Him for EVERYTHING in life!
JLM,
Faith in Jesus alone is very different from faith alone.
Surely you can see that.
I am not going to hell because I’m not Catholic or never baptized.
Nobody said you were going to hell JLM, although I’m sure of few times these last few days we’ve wanted tell each other to go there…lol.
You do not need to be baptized into the Catholic Church. Any baptism with water will do.
But I am curious as to why you got baptized in the first place. Bethany says that falls under “works” as it is something you did after you were saved…What is the point of baptism for you?
Also, do you or Bethany attend any church? Do you go weekly? What do you do there?
Bobby,
I gotta share this story with you. My 7 year old, Johhny, will be making his first Holy Communion this May. For homework, He had to make an Easter Card for a child in his “sister school”…He asked me if I would draw the picture and then he would color it in…He needs to do the same thing for his banner for church on his Communion Day.
I asked him what he wanted me to draw and he said “A chalice and a cross with the body…” I said I didn’t think I could draw the body. He gave me the strangest look! I said Johnny, I’m pretty good at drawing, but I just don’t think I can draw Jesus’ body on the cross…He said “But it’s just a circle!!!!”
Did you say harvest? As in wheat? As in Bread…as in EAT? ;)
mk, uh…no. I think it’s this one.
Matthew 13:38-40
38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;
39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.
40As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.
mk,
I didn’t say I was baptized by water. I said I was baptized by the Holy Spirit into the Body of Christ.
JLM,
I don’t claim to interpret scripture on my own, either. The Holy Spirit guides me and shows me His truth.
Well if the Holy Spirit is guiding me, and the Holy Spirit is guiding you and we are both coming up with completely different understandings of these teachings, I would say the Holy Spirit seems confused.
But since we know that He can’t be…what do you think the problem is?
One of us must HEAR the Holy Spirit speaking to us, and one of us must not.
Well, how does one tell who is hearing the spirit?
I mean, I “know” that I am right, and I “know” that I love Jesus more than anything. I believe that the Spirit lives in me and that He guides all that I do.
I talk to Jesus constantly. He is the first person I speak to in the morning and the last person I speak to at night and I talk His ear off all day long…
I’m sure you “know” that you are right. I’m sure you “know” that you love Jesus more than anything. etc…
I can we discern which of us is right?
obviously that was supposed to be “HOW” are we supposed to discern…
So His scriptural directive to be baptized in water didn’t matter?
Talking and listening are two different things, mk. You can talk all day long, but if you don’t listen…..
Okay,
I listen. All day long I listen. I dialog. I converse.
I’m sure you do too.
Now, how do we discern which one of us is actually speaking with the Holy Spirit?
So His scriptural directive to be baptized in water didn’t matter?
I Corinthians 12:12,13
For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.”
Now, does the Holy Spirit baptize with water? No! So, this is not talking about water baptism, yet nearly every Christian group will not accept a person for membership without water baptism.
Do you really believe that every member in your congregation is a born again child of God? Of course not!
We are all members of congregations where there are unbelievers who have been baptised under whatever form of baptism their particular group uses. There are still people coming into every group who are totally unsaved; they’re baptised and they are members there, but they are not members of the Body of Christ.
There will be no unbelievers in the Body of Christ because that’s the work of the Holy Spirit – to immediately place or baptize them into the Body of Christ. The reason Paul uses this analogy of the human body is that some believers’ roles are no more that that of a little pinkie finger. Some may even have the role of a little toe, which most people never see. Others may be in more visible roles, but every one of us, regardless of where God has placed us in the Body, has a function in that Body, be it small or great.
In water baptism, we can never be sure of a person’s salvation.
mk,
What do you hear?
Re: Janet
Question set 1
Bethany 1:28,
Why such a problem with works?
So you are saying that the words “I believe” are more important than a million GOOD (I mean, really, really GOOD) works, and that person is going to hell if they haven’t said “I believe”?
I don’t mean to be disrespectful. I’m really confused!?!!
No, you don’t sound disrespectful at all, Janet. I appreciate you asking.
The first thing I should mention is that there are no good works without God. And by that, I mean that there are none that equal the atonement of Jesus blood. None are good enough to get us to Heaven with.
It’s not that they aren’t “good” in the sense that they are helping others or being nice, but that their “goodness” is not good enough for them to enter heaven on their own. See, to us, the good things we do are good…but since God’s ways are higher than our ways, and his standards are higher, the things that we consider “good” are not really that good at all. There is no one who can be as good as God, and in comparison to God, this is where the “filthy rags” analogy comes in. It’s not that the works aren’t good, but that in comparison to God, they are actually that bad, and God cannot allow sin in His presence.
A confession of “I believe” is worth nothing if the person’s heart isn’t in it, and if they do not truly believe. God can see the hearts and He can know if someone is simply pretending to be righteous (ie. remember the pharisees and saducees who appeared righteous to people but were inwardly evil- Jesus saw their hearts and He knew what others could not always see), or if someone truly is, because they have been purchased by the blood of Christ.
If a person truly believes that they are a sinner, and that they need a Savior, and that Jesus is that Savior who died and rose again for their sins, they are transformed by God into a new creature. This completely severs their slavery to sin. They do not have to sin anymore, although their spirit and flesh will be in a constant struggle until death frees them from their corruptible body and they are given a new, incorruptible body which cannot sin. (I can provide you with the Biblical references for any of these that you ask for- I just haven’t got much time to post them right now, I hope that is okay.)
As for if someone who is not saved, does works all their life that are good, sadly, it is not good enough to atone for their sins. I wish I could say that it were, because there are a lot of people who I do not know are in Heaven or not. I would like to think they are, but some of them completely rejected Christ in their lifetime. The Bible says if you reject Christ before men, He will reject you before His Father.
Now I have a feeling that part of your confusion might be that you think that we are opposed to doing good works for Christ. Our feelings are quite the opposite, as, for instance, in the book of James you will find that we SHOULD have works. Absolutely! The book of James shows us how we show others our faith. How will anyone ever know we are saved if we don’t show it with works? Another thing, our salvation does not depend on these works, however, if we do not have the works to show for our salvation, chances are, we never were saved in the first place. After all, if we are truly new creatures in Christ, why would we not have works to show for that? God gives us a new heart, a new mind, new desires, etc. We will DESIRE to do everything we can for Christ. We will DESIRE to do whatever we can for Him because we love God with all of our heart, soul, and mind, and we do the works out of an expression of Gratitude for what Jesus did for us on the cross.
I am hoping that helps you understand my point of view, but no worries, if you still have questions, you can keep asking questions however long you need to, and I will continue to answer them. I just hope and pray that what I have said makes sense to you!
Re: Janet
question set 2
This is an important question – So you don’t believe in free will, beyond saying “I believe”? That’s what it sounds like you are saying – Absolutely everything you do is done by God?
How do you explain that there are unsaved people who do very good works? Who causes them to do their good works if they are not saved? The bible says we know someone is saved by their fruits (works), but obviously, good works are not always a sign of being saved. I’m so confused. I need to leave for a while, get some lunch!
Posted by: Janet at March 6, 2008 12:57 PM
I’m repeating these questions, because I’m referring to the works you do after you are “saved”, not before. Can you also answer about free will? Thanks. (Take your time, please.)
Are you wanting to know how you can know for sure whether someone is saved or not, since there are some unsaved people who do good works? I want to be sure I don’t misunderstand what you’re asking before I answer… let me know if I have represented your question correctly. :-)
Hi JLM.
The ides of ‘harvest’ is from Jesus: ‘Pray to the Lord of the harvest, to send laborers into His harvest …” There is one thing to note here ((really many things)) but laborers … work …. they ‘do’ ….. Jesus also speaks of what happens to the brother who says ‘sure’ but fails to work,
John
John,
Yes, I realize that Harvest is from Jesus…harvest, banquet, water, bread, vine…
JLM,
In water baptism, we can never be sure of a person’s salvation.
It doesn’t matter what I hear. I am thoroughly convinced, as I’m sure you are, that I am hearing the Spirit.
My question does not rely on what I hear. How do we discern which of us is hearing the spirit?
JLM,
Others may be in more visible roles, but every one of us, regardless of where God has placed us in the Body, has a function in that Body, be it small or great.
And what happens if I believe, but do not like where I am placed. Can I ignore the spirit? Will I still be saved if I don’t “play my role”? Because all I would be doing is rejecting “works”, right? And I can’t be saved by works. So I still believe, but I choose not to play the role that I have been given. What now?
Well that was the wrong quote…lol.
mk,
What do you hear?
It doesn’t matter what I hear. I am thoroughly convinced, as I’m sure you are, that I am hearing the Spirit.
My question does not rely on what I hear. How do we discern which of us is hearing the spirit?
(there, that’s better)
must be getting tired…
JLM,
II. Baptism is Salvific, Not Just Symbolic
Matt. 28:19-20 – Jesus commands the apostles to baptize all people “in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” Many Protestant churches are now teaching that baptism is only a symbolic ritual, and not what actually cleanses us from original sin. This belief contradicts Scripture and the 2,000 year-old teaching of the Church.
Acts 2:38 – Peter commands them to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ in order to be actually forgiven of sin, not just to partake of a symbolic ritual.
Matt. 28:19-20; Acts 2:38 – there is nothing in these passages or elsewhere in the Bible about baptism being symbolic. There is also nothing about just accepting Jesus as personal Lord and Savior in order to be saved.
Mark 16:16 – Jesus said “He who believes AND is baptized will be saved.” Jesus says believing is not enough. Baptism is also required. This is because baptism is salvific, not just symbolic. The Greek text also does not mandate any specific order for belief and baptism, so the verse proves nothing about a
It doesn’t matter what I hear. I am thoroughly convinced, as I’m sure you are, that I am hearing the Spirit.
It doesn’t matter what you hear? Maybe that’s the problem.
“I am thoroughly convinced”…maybe that’s the problem too! It’s not about you.
JLM,
So you are not convinced? You told me you were 100% sure that you were going to heaven? Are you no longer sure?
JLM,
And this is VERY much about me. This is about my salvation, right? If you are right, I’d need to know how to discern this, do I not? Otherwise I could believe anything. If it wasn’t about me, what would it matter?
I see what you are trying to say, that this is about God, but you are still not answering my question.
How do I (or you) discern which one of us is hearing the spirit?
mk,
Thank you for posting those verses about baptism. Exactly like I said, you don’t need water, you need to accept Jesus and the Holy Spirit baptizes you into the body of Christ!
Thanks again!
JLM,
What do you hear?
So you are not convinced? You told me you were 100% sure that you were going to heaven? Are you no longer sure?
mk,
I am, mk, but hearing the Holy Spirit “speaking” to you is different than salvation.
What do you hear?
Posted by: Janet at March 6, 2008 6:11 PM
I don’t hear words, Janet. I feel it as Him moving me into a certain direction, or getting a bad feeling in my gut (meaning: No! something isn’t right here.) giving me strength to keep moving even when I’m tired, finding something I wasn’t looking for, having an overwhelming feeling of comfort come upon me, opening the bible and having a verse jump out at me, etc.
JLM,
Are you dodging the question? Let’s try again.
I believe one thing. You believe another. We both believe the spirit is moving us.
One of us must be wrong (your words, not mine)
How do we discern which one is right.
No offense, but you’re beginning to sound like Doug…
mk,
After your 6:08 post, I kindof felt as though you were mocking me. I don’t feel as though it’s a genuine inquiry. I am sorry. The only thing I can say, is ask God to show you.
JLM,
I am not mocking you. I promise. We have come to a point though where both of us feel that what we believe is correct and comes from God. I am asking, sincerely, when this happens in matters of faith, how do we discern what the truth is?
I think it’s time for a…
***************HUG**************************
******HUG*************
:)’s for mk & Janet & Bethany & Bobby & anon-John
HUGS!!!!for mk & Janet & Bethany & Bobby & anon-John
Mk, regarding your question….I was serious…ask God!
But JLM,
God, Jesus and the Spirit are all one, right?
So if the spirit is telling me something, then God is also telling me?
So how can we figure this out? How can we discern which one of us is “hearing” correctly?
anon-John…I love it!
pray for His guidance.
Matthew 7:7
Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
JLM,
John McDonell is awesome. He has some awful disease that I can’t remember the name of but I think it has an A and an F in it…anyway, it makes it very difficult to type. He’s also smarter than anyone I’ve ever met. And he has lots of time to think. So if his posts come off a bit hard to comprehend sometimes, it’s a combination of having a great mind, but a body that won’t let him express it…
So are we both right then? There is more than one way to be saved? I don’t see what asking God can do if we keep getting different answers. It means either God is at fault (which of course he is not) or one of us is…or we are both right. I don’t see any other choices.
I ask God all the time for guidance and He has led me to the Catholic Church. You ask guidance from God all the time and He has led you (well, I don’t know what “church” because you haven’t told me yet), but you get my point.
How can we tell which one of us is right?
thank you, mk. I do like John’s posts, but I do know that we (me & John) are not on the same level intellectually!
You know those magic image things where you stare at a picture for a few minutes and a different picture comes up?
That’s how I read John’s posts. I don’t think. I just read and his message comes to the surface. It works, tho I don’t know why…
As for if someone who is not saved, does works all their life that are good, sadly, it is not good enough to atone for their sins. I wish I could say that it were, because there are a lot of people who I do not know are in Heaven or not. I would like to think they are, but some of them completely rejected Christ in their lifetime. The Bible says if you reject Christ before men, He will reject you before His Father.
So there are no outward signs that someone is saved? You just have to believe them if they say they are saved? If someone does good works but isn’t “saved”, it sounds like you think there might be a small chance that they go to heaven. Is that right?
If a person truly believes that they are a sinner, and that they need a Savior, and that Jesus is that Savior who died and rose again for their sins, they are transformed by God into a new creature. This completely severs their slavery to sin. They do not have to sin anymore, although their spirit and flesh will be in a constant struggle until death frees them from their corruptible body and they are given a new, incorruptible body which cannot sin. (I can provide you with the Biblical references for any of these that you ask for- I just haven’t got much time to post them right now, I hope that is okay.)
Posted by Bethany: 5:29
Just a few questions:
They do not have to sin anymore- what does that mean?
Their spirit – is that the same as their conscience?
Their flesh – is that the same as sin?
Thanks for your last post. I don’t mind you putting things in your own words at all! Nothing gets lost in the translation that way. God bless you.
JLM,
LOL…I just saw this. Talk about an answer to a prayer. We can certainly agree on this…Hillary Clinton is NOT talking to the Holy Spirit…
Hillary Clinton: I believe in the father, son, and Holy Spirit, and I have felt the presence of the Holy Spirit on many occasions in my years on this earth.
Reporter: Can I ask you theologically, do you believe that the resurrection of Jesus actually happened, that it actually historically did happen?
Senator Clinton: Yes, I do.
Reporter: And, do you believe on the salvation issue — and this is controversial too — that belief in Christ is needed for going to heaven?
Senator Clinton: That one I’m a little more open to. I think that it is, as we understand our relationship to God as Christians, it is how we see our way forward, and it is the way. But, ever since I was a little girl, I’ve asked every Sunday school teacher I’ve ever had, I asked every theologian I’ve ever talked with, whether that meant that there was no salvation, there was no heaven for people who did not accept Christ. And, you’re well aware that there are a lot of answers to that. There are people who are totally rooted in the fact that, no, that’s why there are missionaries, that’s why you have to try to convert. And, then there are a lot of other people who are deeply faithful and deeply Christ-centered who say, that’s how we understand it and who are we to read God’s mind about such a weighty decision as that.
Reporter: And your attitude toward the Bible about how literally people should take it.
Senator Clinton: I think the whole Bible is real. The whole Bible gives you a glimpse of God and God’s desire for a personal relationship, but we can’t possibly understand every way God is communicating with us. I’ve always felt that people who try to shoehorn in their cultural and social understandings of the time into the Bible might be actually missing the larger point that we’re supposed to take from the Bible.
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/334482.aspx
See, the Spirit is saying the same thing to BOTH of us about Hillary…He is saying RUN FOREST, RUN!!!
mk,
lol! I’ll have to try that.
John the magic-image poster!
Ha!
“Please let me know what they say! (if anything)…sounds interesting!”
Well, so I have a confession to make. I was wrong about carm. While ewtn.com and the Vatican website do make the translation “preaching and venerated,” when I got home, I checked my copy of Flannery’s Vatican Council II (which is what carm quoted from) and it does, indeed, read “preaching and worship.” Luckily, I just said that there was mistake and gave the website when I emailed carm; I wasn’t accusing or anything like that, thankfully. So I made a large mistake today, and said some strong things above, which I retract. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
Now, that being said, I have learned that there are at least 5 English translations, but the OFFICIAL translation is the Latin translation, so we must go to THAT to see what it should be. http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_lt.html
The phrase is question is “dum praedicatur et colitur” and from what I have gathered, the word that Flannery translated as “worship” is “colitur.” According to http://www.stars21.com/translator/latin_to_english.html , colitur is translated as “live in (place), inhabit; till, cultivate, promote growth; foster, maintain;
honor, cherish, worship; tend, take care of; adorn, dress, decorate, embellish;” Hence, I think from all those possibilities, none of them except “worship” have a worshipy connotation. So I don’t think the word “worship” as we understand it in this day and age would be a fitting translation of the Latin.
So, I wanted to be honest with you guys, I don’t want to try and hide anything. I hope that clears that up. Whew!
Bobby,
way up there I posted something to you…thought you’d get a kick out of it considering the topic here today and yesterday…
I gotta share this story with you. My 7 year old, Johhny, will be making his first Holy Communion this May. For homework, He had to make an Easter Card for a child in his “sister school”…He asked me if I would draw the picture and then he would color it in…He needs to do the same thing for his banner for church on his Communion Day.
I asked him what he wanted me to draw and he said “A chalice and a cross with the body…” I said I didn’t think I could draw the body. He gave me the strangest look! I said Johnny, I’m pretty good at drawing, but I just don’t think I can draw Jesus’ body on the cross…He said “But it’s just a circle!!!!”
Posted by: mk at March 6, 2008 4:57 PM
“But it’s just a circle!!!!”
Oh MK, God love your precious little boy! What wonderful faith! Indeed, that is quite appropriate to the convo. I pray that my little Gianna will have such faith.
Bobby…
Bless your heart. That is very commendable of you. Not that I was amazed, but you brought such a smile to my face as always. Thank you for the clarification too! God bless you! That was pretty cool!
Bobby,
His made his first confession on Monday. He can be a handful. Sometimes when I ask him what he wants to be when he grows up he says a race car driving priest! lol. Knowing him, he might just pull it off.
JLM,
Do you want to drop that question? I’ll understand. If you’re going to answer it I’ll wait, but if not, I think I’m off to bed…
JLM,
Also, I dont’ know if you saw the post where I asked you this, but do you go to a church? Do you go weekly? What do you do at your church, if you do go to one?
Marykay, if I had time I’d answer it tonight, but tomorrow I will be back and will respond to your questions. :)
Good night!
Hi MK,
you forgot an option for deciding who God speaks to. You both could be wrong. Over the years I have learned that the Word speaks, but have little control of just how He helps people listen or what He says to them. Can’t tell you how many times He’s bailed me out.
One day I was scooting along and I met a old friend and his family. We talked a bit (small-talk) and then we parted. At about 200′ I heard myself mumble his name. Michel, this friend had a great deal of difficulty hearing anything I said at such a distance. So, he turns around and walks towards me.
You should have heard me give the Holy Spirit heck, ’cause I sure didn’t call Michel. “just great …” says I. I was totally blank.
When Michel got close, I heard my voice say: “Tell me Mike, what did you ever do to deserve such wonderful children?” Both Mike and I were stunned into silence by such beautiful words.
JLM’s advice to ask God is very, very right. However, we tend to ask for conformity with the way we think … our own truth. Up above JLM quoted the famous words of St. John. “I am the way, the truth and the life.’ THE most important part of that statement is “I am …” as Moses asked God’s name… he heard ‘I AM’. Jesus is declaring His divinity.
Jesus says I am the way, the truth, and the life. Jesus also says he is one with the Father, and that he wants his disciples to be one in Him and with each other as He is with the Father. (John chapter 17: 20-21)
This is an incredible Biblical mandate for unity in doctrine.
In Luke 10:16 Jesus tells his apostles that “Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.” With such Biblical verses, conformity … or rather unity in doctrine is important for the mission of Jesus and His disciples.
Being unified as Christians in doctrine is very important. Yet who is right in the interpretation of the Bible? All of us believe we are right and understand the Bible better than those who disagree with us. All Bible believers pray to God for discernment, and yet come to different conclusions. These different conclusions seem to me to point to ego rather a humble servant accepting the teaching of his or her Lord.
I wrestled with this question of unity years ago. I prayed about it. I studied church history. My conclusion was that in Mathew 16:18 Jesus established a visible church leadership for his church, and by submitting to this leadership we submit to Jesus. From being non-denominational and interpreting the Bible from my own view, I decided it was more appropriate to discern the Bible from the early teachers and authorities instructed by the apostles.
I believe Mathew 16:18 points to the primacy of Peter as the first Pope. The successors to the Papacy are the visible leaders under the guardianship and guidance of the Holy Spirit and the Lord Jesus Christ. Yes, popes sin just like the first Pope — Peter. Yet, like we believe the Bible is inspired by God yet written by sinful human beings, God in a similar fashion inspired the early Popes to distinguish truth from falsehood and distinguish what books belong in Scripture and which ones don’t, and to be inspired to instruct what is truth and what is error regarding the proper understanding of the Bible. This is done not from a vacuum, but by the Holy Spirit acting in history keeping in tact the Sacred Scriptures and the Sacred Tradition through which we have clear guidance as to the teachings of Jesus and His apostles.
You offer a apologetic for a bigoted anti-Catholic named Sally
Same old lame ranting and raving, yllas. The definition of “bigot” is you, to a “T”.
“Bethany, I disagree with you there – it’s very often a religious deal. However, if all religious stuff would be left out of the abortion debate, it’d be fine with me.”
Doug, the only time we bring religion into it, to an atheist, is when an atheist brings it up.
Again, B, I gotta disagree. It very quickly goes to the “why” of one’s argument, and if one’s feeling on the issue has religious overtones then it’s gonna show.
I’m not saying it’s a bad thing, either. If somebody says they don’t like abortion because the Bible says so-and-so or because they believe a god or gods wants certain things then that’s easily understandable. It’s the way they feel.
MK: We are not and have not been discussing whether or not there is a God. We are discussing doctrinal and theological differences between protestants and catholics…we’re way, way past whether he exists or not.
No problem, MK – I’ve seen such discussions before.
……
Funny how we can discuss something rationally without having to prove its existence. We are all quite satisfied that our initial assumptions are correct…ie: there is a God. He loves us. He died for us.
As I’ve said many times, we all make unprovable assumptions, and it’s where they diverge that the arguments begin.
……
It’s a shame you can’t be in on this conversation as you have been left standing at the door of unbelief…
It’s all the same thing. Yes, I don’t believe all that you do, yet vice-versa also applies. Some non-Catholics don’t believe as you, nor do you as they. Same for atheists, agnostics, other religions, etc.
Doug, I love you, you know that. I only chose you for an example because you don’t believe. And you wouldn’t get mad.
Smooth sailing, MK.
……
I wonder how different scripture would be if it had been written down by chicks!
“MK, I have to laugh – that is one of the best questions ever.”
Let me add that I respect the different religious views presented here. It has meaning for me when you describe how you feel in church.
I regret the way much religion denigrates women, in my opinion, but I certainly don’t question that you and others here believe as you say.
APOSTOLIC LETTER
MULIERIS DIGNITATEM
OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF
This may suprise some people – Catholics inclduded.
JOHN PAUL II
ON THE
DIGNITY AND VOCATION
OF WOMEN
ON THE OCCASION
OF THE MARIAN YEAR
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_15081988_mulieris-dignitatem_en.html
MK, to JLM: One of us must be wrong (your words, not mine). How do we discern which one is right. No offense, but you’re beginning to sound like Doug…
You don’t discern which one is right, because there is no discerning, there. It’s a matter of belief. There is physical reality, logic, etc., things that can readily be argued but your “right” isn’t going to be the same as JLM’s.
John,
That is too true. But I was going on the assumption (for the sake of argument) that He was speaking to one of us.
I’m just trying to get a handle on how a person is to discern what the Spirit wants if two people are getting opposing messages.
I agree that first and foremost is the understanding that He Is! Otherwise, we would be having a different discussion…and Doug could be in on it.
We could most definitely leave this conversation at He Is and go no further. On that JLM and I agree, but since we are in the same place on that issue, we have moved on to “what does He want from us”, “how can we be with Him forever”…
What do you think?
Doug,
You don’t discern which one is right, because there is no discerning, there. It’s a matter of belief. There is physical reality, logic, etc., things that can readily be argued but your “right” isn’t going to be the same as JLM’s.
Once you accept that there is a Supreme Being, and that there is a Jesus, then the next step is to ask “What does He want of me?”
Discerning is VERY important, because we believe our souls are on the line.
I hold that believing is the first and most important step in building a relationship with God but that He has commanded more from us. Good deeds, love, the Eucharist, Confession, allegiance to the Pope, Baptism…
JLM thinks that believing is enough. Nothing else is asked of us.
If she is right, and I am worshipping nothing but a cracker, and I am insulting God by putting my faith in a man (the pope), and I am “worshipping” a goddess under the guise of Jesus’ mother, then I want to know it. My salvation depends on it.
On the other hand, if JLM is forgoing the Eucharist, confession, submitting to the authority of the pope and THIS is displeasing God, I’m sure she would want to know it, as HER salvation is on the line.
We both believe with sincere and honest hearts that we are right. We both desire, with sincere and honest hearts, that the other get it right, because we are concerned with their salvation also.
We are having these discussions out of love. Not out of ego. I can tell that Bethany and JLM love Our Lord with all their hearts. I believe they can see the same in me. We care about each other, and want what is best for each other.
So discerning is a very important part of the process.
They don’t want me in hell because I was duped. And I want them to know the fullness of what the Church offers them.
It’s all good.
All of us, Bethany, JLM, John, Bobby, Janet, Brian and I will be spending eternity with God. Of that we are pretty sure. (Well, Bethany and JLM are VERY sure…)
You on the other hand, my friend, where will you be going after this is over?
Our Morning Prayer:
Lord,
We are entering day three. You know that we love You and desire ONLY to please You, for there IS nothing else.
I love my new friends here and I ask You to keep us from hurting one another. Please help us to remember that the goal is pleasing You and not ourselves.
Please help us to remember that words are powerful and have the ability to build up or tear down. Above all help us to remember that THE WORD is the most powerful of all.
We love You, and in loving You, we love each other. Let nothing we do or say here today displease You.
Let all who join this conversation hear Your voice above all of the others. Remind us to give each other spiritual *hugs* often, use harsh words seldom and to let Love be our guide in the conversations to come.
Amen
Doug,
Stick around. You might be surprised by joy.
Expect miracles. Open your heart. Never underestimate the power of Truth.
Get with the program already! ;)
Bethany,
I’m afraid that yesterday I was kind of short with you. I have no excuse except to say that it can get overwhelming at times, especially when other people join the foray. We had so many topics going on at once, and so many posts on each topic, that I fear I got rather testy. I didn’t mean it. I love you. I respect you more than most of the people in my life. You are so amazing, you just ooze love and kindness.
If I said or did anything yesterday to hurt your feelings, I could not be sorrier.
It’s like hurting a bunny. Your gentleness is astounding.
I hope I haven’t done any permanent damage…
JLM,
I must also apologize to you. Yesterday you said you felt that I was mocking you. I promise, with my whole heart, that I am not.
When you first started posting here, you used the moniker “anonymous”. After a time you trusted us enough to change it to JLM. I’m sure you’ve noticed that sometimes people address you as JML, LJM, MLJ, etc…lol. I had to come up with a way to remember the order of the letters and got in the habit of thinking of you as “Just Like Me”…this was a reminder to myself, that we are both Christians, both Love Jesus, both want whats best for each other and both abhor abortion.
If you look at my posts, I’m sure you’ll notice that as the day wears on, they get less and less thoughtful and more and more shot from the hip.
This is exhausting (Though I believe, important) stuff we are doing here. My brain hurts at the end of the day. Which is not a bad thing.
But I wanted you to understand that my “snippiness” is my fault and not yours. You’re 100% fine. When you see me getting “cranky” say a prayer for me, will you? And NEVER, EVER, EVER take it personally.
I LOVE these discussions. They are so incredibly challenging and I have been thinking of them as my Lenten “mission”…lol. They are deepening my faith and I can actually feel the growing pains.
I thank you for that. We both agree that Jesus spits out lukewarmness, and I believe if nothing else, these talks have kept us from that pitfall.
Nothing lukewarm going on here.
I have grown very fond of you. It is always wonderful to meet people who are as intense about their faith as I myself am. It gives me hope.
I hope that you are willing to continue here. I hope our friendship can grow. I hope that you know, I see you and I as being on “the same side”, the side of Our Lord.
Peace,
MK
Hey Doug and MK,
To Doug it is not about discerning but following your own wishes. This is the attitude of someone convinced that God is a projection of our mind. If However, The Spirit is understood as ‘other’, then discernment is a normal feature of any relationship. Even Doug seeks to discern his wife’s wishes … and he’d be hard-pressed to ‘prove’ his wife was no more than a projection of his mind.
MK, part of the problem that haunts Christians is their focus on will-I-make-it. Sorry but salvation is not about ‘me’. It’s about God. and how He works in Our lives.
I once had a discussion about the sophistication of religious belief was very much tied to cosmology. Somehow (the awe inspiring photos of the Hubble telescope) blend well with the awe of God. A more mundane ‘miracle’ is the birth of a babe …. not quite so awe filled are the hugs from a 4 yr-old; the tears of an 80+ new widow. Life itself is a miracle!!!!
And perhaps we focus so much on going-to-heaven that we do not appreciate one another. It is a primary task to fall in love with Jesus …. what He does with this love is up to Him … and leave it up to Him.
Ah John,
This is all too true. I think as Catholics, we view our “salvation” not as something to be guaranteed, but as experienced. It is not something that happens in a “moment”, but a living, breathing process.
So much of the Catholic faith and doctrine is centered around family and relationships…God with God, God with Us, Us with each other…the roles we all play as mother, father, brother, sister, priest, child, son, daughter…are all about the familial. Which is probably why we place so much importance on Mary being the Mother of God and as well as our own spiritual mother.
We can’t leave God out of the equation and focus on ourselves, or leave each other out of the mix and focus on God. We are a family. We have a Father. And Dad’s greatest desire (as is my own mothers, don’t I hear it often enough) is for His kids to get along.
In loving each other, we ARE loving God. We honor Him best by honoring each other. How many families are fatherless these days. How lucky are we to have a father, The Father, looking out for us.
It is no accident that as Catholics, we venerate “The Holy Family”…
Thanks “brother”, for the reminder.
“When you first started posting here, you used the moniker “anonymous”.”
Ah, so JLM IS that anonymous from several weeks ago? The one whom I originally was discussing “Mary worship” with? Very good.
“Please let me know what they say! (if anything)…sounds interesting!”
Well, so I have a confession to make. I was wrong about carm. While ewtn.com and the Vatican website do make the translation “preaching and venerated,” when I got home, I checked my copy of Flannery’s Vatican Council II (which is what carm quoted from) and it does, indeed, read “preaching and worship.” Luckily, I just said that there was mistake and gave the website when I emailed carm; I wasn’t accusing or anything like that, thankfully. So I made a large mistake today, and said some strong things above, which I retract. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
Now, that being said, I have learned that there are at least 5 English translations, but the OFFICIAL translation is the Latin translation, so we must go to THAT to see what it should be. http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_lt.html
The phrase is question is “dum praedicatur et colitur” and from what I have gathered, the word that Flannery translated as “worship” is “colitur.” According to http://www.stars21.com/translator/latin_to_english.html , colitur is translated as “live in (place), inhabit; till, cultivate, promote growth; foster, maintain;
honor, cherish, worship; tend, take care of; adorn, dress, decorate, embellish;” Hence, I think from all those possibilities, none of them except “worship” have a worshipy connotation. So I don’t think the word “worship” as we understand it in this day and age would be a fitting translation of the Latin.
So, I wanted to be honest with you guys, I don’t want to try and hide anything. I hope that clears that up. Whew!
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at March 6, 2008 7:27 PM
Bobby, I want to know what your parents were like when they raised you. I want to know, so that I can know how to raise my children to be half as honest as you. :)
That being said, I still have to say, it really sounds like worship, although I can see how you see it otherwise.
I found yet another quote today that really makes it impossible for me to believe that the writer was trying to convey a love for Christ, or try to point us to Christ through Mary. The statement is absolutely blasphemous, saying that Mary *alone* is our refuge, and that on Mary *alone* do we rely on Salvation. (I’m sure you would agree that the statement is blasphemous- at least I hope you would.)
Here is the quote:
O Mary, we poor sinners know no other refuge but thee, for thou art our only hope, and on thee do we rely for our salvation.
— Saint Thomas of Villanova
Now, after seeing this, I googled it to be sure that it was an accurate statement.
Apparently it is, because I found a Catholic website defending it.
The website article claimed that the quote is “poetic” and therefore isn’t blasphemous..
but isn’t David poetic in Psalms, yet He never blasphemed God, even in His poetry.
There is no reason, even in poetry, to say that Mary is our ONLY hope and refuge for salvation.
Even in a poetic sense this is blasphemous.
Christ alone is our refuge. On Christ alone do we rely on salvation. David said this very poetically in Psalms over and over. Here is one example:
1 God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble.
2 Therefore will not we fear, though the earth be removed, and though the mountains be carried into the midst of the sea;
3 Though the waters thereof roar and be troubled, though the mountains shake with the swelling thereof. Selah.
4 There is a river, the streams whereof shall make glad the city of God, the holy place of the tabernacles of the most High.
5 God is in the midst of her; she shall not be moved: God shall help her, and that right early.
6 The heathen raged, the kingdoms were moved: he uttered his voice, the earth melted.
7 The LORD of hosts is with us; the God of Jacob is our refuge. Selah.
8 Come, behold the works of the LORD, what desolations he hath made in the earth.
9 He maketh wars to cease unto the end of the earth; he breaketh the bow, and cutteth the spear in sunder; he burneth the chariot in the fire.
10 Be still, and know that I am God: I will be exalted among the heathen, I will be exalted in the earth.
11 The LORD of hosts is with us; the God of Jacob is our refuge. Selah.
If the author of this quote above truly relied on Christ for His salvation, there would be no need to praise Mary in this way. He would never say that “alone” in Mary do we find salvation. He would make it clear that Salvation is through Christ.
Can you see where I’m coming from here, Bobby?
I have a couple more quotes too- these, from St. Augistine:
“O Blessed Virgin Mary, who can worthily repay thee thy just dues of praise and thanksgiving, thou who by the wondrous assent of thy will didst rescue a fallen world? What songs of praise can our weak human nature recite in thy honor, since it is by thy intervention alone that it has found the way to restoration? Accept, then, such poor thanks as we have here to offer, though they be unequal to thy merits; and, receiving our vows, obtain by thy prayers the remission of our offenses.
This directly contradicts the Word of God which says that the remission of sins is ONLY through Christ’s blood. Not through Mary and her answer to our prayers. Mary does not have the power to forgive us our sins.
Luke 24:47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Act 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
Rom 3:25
Whom God hath set forth [to be] a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
And here is another quote from St Augustine:
“Carry thou our prayers within the sanctuary of the heavenly audience, and bring forth from it the antidote of our reconciliation. May the sins we bring before Almighty God through thee, become pardonable through thee; may what we ask for with sure confidence, through thee be granted. Take our offering, grant us our requests, obtain pardon for what we fear, for thou art the sole hope of sinners.”
This again, is blasphemous, as the Bible says our sole hope is in God.
Lam 3:24 The LORD [is] my portion, saith my soul; therefore will I hope in him.
Rom 5:2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.
Rom 5:5 And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us. (NOT through Mary)
Rom 15:13
Now the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, that ye may abound in hope, through the power of the Holy Ghost.
1Cr 15:19
If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.
1Cr 15:22
For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
Col 1:5 For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel;
Phl 1:20 According to my earnest expectation and [my] hope, that in nothing I shall be ashamed, but [that] with all boldness, as always, [so] now also Christ shall be magnified in my body, whether [it be] by life, or by death.
Okay, and one last quote:
“Listen, all you who desire the kingdom of God: Honor the Most Blessed Virgin Mary, and you will find life and eternal salvation” (Psalt. B.V. ps. 48).
I think the above verses show that this quote is blasphemous as well. Eternal salvation is not through honoring Mary, but through faith in Christ.
God love you Bobby…thank you for understanding my intent!
Good Morning Bobby,
No sign of Bethany or JLM…I hope it wasn’t my big mouth. Last night JLM just sort of disappeared. I’m kicking myself this morning trying to figure out if it was my fault. I do tend to be forceful.
Bethany,
I’m afraid that yesterday I was kind of short with you. I have no excuse except to say that it can get overwhelming at times, especially when other people join the foray. We had so many topics going on at once, and so many posts on each topic, that I fear I got rather testy. I didn’t mean it. I love you. I respect you more than most of the people in my life. You are so amazing, you just ooze love and kindness.
If I said or did anything yesterday to hurt your feelings, I could not be sorrier.
It’s like hurting a bunny. Your gentleness is astounding.
I hope I haven’t done any permanent damage…
Posted by: mk at March 7, 2008 7:04 AM
Marykay, it is okay, I think that when we’re defending our faith we’re all bound to become passionate at times. I hope I have done nothing to hurt your feelings as well. :) I could go on with this conversation forever, so as long as you’re okay with it, we can keep going!
Marykay, re: your 8:29 post…She may have been tired of being on the computer for so long. I had a major headache from being on so many hours yesterday! Have you had that problem too?
I gotta share this story with you. My 7 year old, Johhny, will be making his first Holy Communion this May. For homework, He had to make an Easter Card for a child in his “sister school”…He asked me if I would draw the picture and then he would color it in…He needs to do the same thing for his banner for church on his Communion Day.
I asked him what he wanted me to draw and he said “A chalice and a cross with the body…” I said I didn’t think I could draw the body. He gave me the strangest look! I said Johnny, I’m pretty good at drawing, but I just don’t think I can draw Jesus’ body on the cross…He said “But it’s just a circle!!!!”
Posted by: mk at March 6, 2008 4:57 PM
I hate to say it, but I am not sure if I understand the meaning of this. Is he talking about Jesus love being like a circle that has no ending?
Bethany,
I can certainly see how those would lead one to believe that we “worship” Mary.
All I can add is that when we thank her, when we honor her, it is because by her one word, yes, she allowed God to use her body to enter the world. We are so grateful to her.
In Genesis, Eve too was given a choice, and she made the wrong one. She too uttered one word, No, and it changed the course of history.
Had she obeyed God we would not have needed a savior.
When Mary said “yes”, she too changed the course of history. Her “yes” gave us Jesus, who in turn gave us a route back to the garden.
One word. Yet what a word.
And so we continually remember to thank her, sometimes profusely, for being the one human being who made it possible for God to enter our pathetic world and give us His son.
It is true that only God can “save” us, but by her “yes” she cooperated in that salvation in a thoroughly unique way. No other human being has played such a significant role in bringing about the salvation of the world.
Remember what I said about our faith being familial? Well, we honor our mothers, and believe that Jesus honors His. To honor a persons mother, especially when they are such wonderful mothers, is to honor the person themself.
Didn’t Solomon do the same for his mother? Wasn’t she made queen and treated with the utmost respect simply because she was his mother.
St. Louis de Montfort wrote a book called “True Devotion to Mary” and in it he warns us NOT to elevate her to divinity. He clearly outlines the correct ways to honor her and the incorrect ways to honor her. He, even back then, was well aware of the dangers of placing Mary on too high of a pedestal.
She was human being. She is not part of the deity. But what a human being she was…
And we love her.
Bethany,
Marykay, it is okay, I think that when we’re defending our faith we’re all bound to become passionate at times. I hope I have done nothing to hurt your feelings as well. :) I could go on with this conversation forever, so as long as you’re okay with it, we can keep going!
I am so happy to hear you say that.
Yes, I too have been getting headaches which is why my posts get testier and testier as the night wears on…but I just can’t stop. This is so exciting to me.
Yes, I too could go on forever.
I love you Bethany.
Bethany,
Johnny and the circle…
No, it’s just that to Johnny there is no difference between Jesus in the spirit and Jesus in the Eucharist. So He used the word body, very naturally, do describe the host. A circle.
It means, (from a Catholic standpoint anyway) that I must be doing something right.
Just as we in the prolife movement make no distinction between the born and the unborn, we as Catholics make no distinction between Jesus as being a man, Jesus being God, or Jesus being present in the Host.
But just like in the prolife movement we use phrases like “expecting” a baby, making it sound like the baby isn’t already there, we Catholics often refer to the Host as distinct from Jesus.
So this would be Bonnie talking about “the baby” (meaning Blessing) and saying, “Mom, do you think the baby is scared of thunder” and you say “what baby”…and her saying “you know Blessing”…out of the mouth of babes. Bonnie would be showing you that Blessing is as real to her as Caleb or Noah. And you would be touched.
Johnny was showing me that to him Jesus is as real to him in the Host as He is in his heart…for a Catholic mom, that was really cool.
Janet:
Just a few questions:
They do not have to sin anymore- what does that mean?
It means that before we are saved, we are bound to sin. We are spoken of in the Bible as “slaves to sin” and “bound to the law”. Imagine yourself being locked to a ball and chain. When you accept Christ, he looses that ball and chain from you, and you do not have to bear that weight anymore.
We still can sin, if we follow our flesh and not our spirit (our flesh/carnal self is constantly battling our Spirit, and we can do those things that are opposed to our spirit…but we don’t “have” to.
An analogy for this might be…imagine that you are an african american in the time when slavery was legal.
You belong to your master, and you do not have a choice but to do what he wills you to do.
One day, someone comes along and purchases you from your master (analogous to Christ coming and purchasing us). He then sets you free from your old master. You can choose to follow this new master. You could still choose to go and do things for your old master too…but these would not be putting you back under his bondage.
That may not be the best analogy, because it doesn’t completely parallel this situation, but it’s the only one I can think of at the moment. :)
Their spirit – is that the same as their conscience?
I believe our spirit is the guide to our conscience.
I have found a little commentary on the web that I think might clarify it better than I can:
“As you know, Christianity is a very diverse religion and there are a great many views on this issue we could discuss.
You asked this question in the Baptist section however, so I’ll answer from that perspective.
Simply stated, “conscience” is our inner sense of right and wrong. It is an inward knowing.
The Holy Ghost is God.
What can make this confusing is that we often refer to the Holy Spirit as though He were a feeling (“can you feel the Holy Spirit in this”).
To give a bit more depth to this answer consider the following:
According to Baptists (and most Christians) there is one God Who is known/manifested in three separate and co-equal “Persons” as Father, Son (Jesus) and the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit is therefore seen as “God” just as Jesus and God the Father are “God.” This view of God’s Tri-unity is called the Holy Trinity. The Holy Spirit is an individual, eternal part of the Trinity.
“Consciousness” on the other hand is the awareness that exists within each “conscious” being. When we say “I” we know “I” exists through our “consciousness,” our awareness. As the philosopher said, “I think therefore I am.”
The Holy Spirit is fully “conscious,” but the Holy Spirit is not “consciousness.” He has consciousness.
Now, “conscience” is the way in which “consciousness” communicates with us. If I do something wrong I will feel a sense of guilt from my conscience. The Holy Spirit may use my “conscience” to discipline or direct me.
Hope this clarifies matters for you,
If not, write back any time,
~John of AllFaith ”
Their flesh – is that the same as sin?
I think that when the Bible refers to flesh, many times it refers to our sinful nature…our carnal minds. “Flesh” can also refer to our body. It just depends on the context. We are all born with a “sin nature”, as human beings.
Here are some of the definitions of the word “flesh” from the root used in Romans 3:20- there are many:
1) flesh (the soft substance of the living body, which covers the bones and is permeated with blood) of both man and beasts
2) the body
a) the body of a man
b) used of natural or physical origin, generation or relationship
1) born of natural generation
c) the sensuous nature of man, “the animal nature”
1) without any suggestion of depravity
2) the animal nature with cravings which incite to sin
3) the physical nature of man as subject to suffering
3) a living creature (because possessed of a body of flesh) whether man or beast
4) the flesh, denotes mere human nature, the earthly nature of man apart from divine influence, and therefore prone to sin and opposed to God
Hi Bethany,
I know it sounds really bad, but look at revelation as a kind of family … Abba/Daddy + Jesus brother + Mary/Mother. And like most families, moms are approached to soften the ‘harsher’ judgment of the father ….it indicates a smallness a kind-of-humility that is enchanting.
I realize that such words may be offensive, but I’d bet that such a way of operating you’d find ‘normal!
John
Mary 8:42
I appreciate your well thought out post about Mary and I understand what you’re saying. Do you feel that the above quotes, as they stand, are blasphemous too?
One thing I would like to point out is that yes, Mary said yes to carrying God’s child. But I do not see where this makes her any more blessed than Abraham, who said yes to God, and led Ishmael to the altar (as an analogy for Christ)…. or any more blessed than Rehab who said “Yes” and helped Joshua’s spies (another analogy for Christ)… or any more blessed than Zaccheus who said Yes, I will follow you Jesus…or any more blessed than you or me if we have Christ within us, and we are submitted to His will.
I see Mary as a sister in Christ who I will meet one day in Heaven. You see her as your superior.
God Gives each of us grace:
Eph 4:7
Hi Bethany,
I know it sounds really bad, but look at revelation as a kind of family … Abba/Daddy + Jesus brother + Mary/Mother. And like most families, moms are approached to soften the ‘harsher’ judgment of the father ….it indicates a smallness a kind-of-humility that is enchanting.
I realize that such words may be offensive, but I’d bet that such a way of operating you’d find ‘normal!
But Mary is not My mother. She was Jesus earthly mother. She was the woman that God chose to plant Jesus in so that He could be born on earth.
She is not our savior. She is not our refuge. I do not understand how you could possibly agree with those quotes unless you agreed that she was our salvation.
Indeed, when Jesus was told by a woman that Mary was extra blessed, He rebuked her. He let her know that Mary was no more special than anyone else who hears God’s word and keeps it.
27 And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked. 28 But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.
I do not mean this disrespectfully, and I know there’s really no way to not put it bluntly… but Johns’ post put in my mind a question that I wonder about now:
Do Catholics believe that Mary is God’s “wife”, and therefore that is why you consider her to be our mother as well as Jesus’?
Oh my goodness, what a mistake!!! I wrote “Ishmael” not “Isaac” in my 9:14 post. Sorry about that!!
Eph 4:7
Suppose Mary had said “no” to God’s offer. God would have simply chosen another woman who was willing to submit to His will. But He chose Mary because He knew in advance what Mary’s answer would be.
Marykay, Mary said yes. We all appreciate her for that. But putting her on a pedastool for being that part in God’s plan isn’t right.
We could just as well say that Abraham is also a king of heaven because without him to bear Isaac in his old age, we wouldn’t have had Isaac, who wouldn’t have had Jacob, who wouldn’t have had Judas, who wouldn’t have had Phares, who wouldn’t have had Esrom, who wouldn’t have had …. and so on until you get to Joseph.
Marykay, John, Bobby have you ever wondered about what Joseph’s role in all of this was? Have you ever considered of what kind of a humble servant He must have been to have stayed around with Mary although she became pregnant without him? Just imagine what kind of a humble willing servant he was, that he didn’t just leave Mary after she became pregnant, but chose to submit to God’s will to raise up Jesus with them, together.
Joseph was Jesus’ earthly father, as Jesus was “from the line of david”, and yet, no mention is made of him in Catholicism…at least, none to the extent of Mary.
Did he not have a large role in the part? He spent years being a father to Jesus on this earth just as Mary spent years of her life being a mother to Jesus.
Have fun at the movie, Marykay!
Bethany
Not disrespectful at all…and yes in a spiritual way we do. She is the spouse of the Holy Spirit, the Mother of Jesus and the daughter of God the Father. I told you we think she is unique.
This all gets back to how we view our faith as familial.
We also view the church as our Mother, the bride or spouse of Jesus.
We are part of the church, so we too are His bride.
This is why the priest wears a wedding ring. Nuns, in imitation of Mary, wed Jesus, and they too wear wedding rings.
So Mary is married to the Holy spirit. Nuns are married to Jesus. The Church is married to Jesus. The priest is wed to the Church…
And when we receive the Eucharist we are “consummating” our marriage. Renewing our vows and imitating the sexual union of a man and woman in a marriage. As a man and woman become one “flesh” in marriage, so too, we become one “flesh” with Jesus at Mass during the Eucharist.
You can close your mouth now…lol.
MK,
Your 7:14 am post…thank you. Bless your heart. It is all good! I really don’t take things personally, though. You can say whatever you’d like, as long as it’s coming from your heart, and I will totally understand.
If I come off as rude, crude, or anything else that dismays you, I apologize. It is not my intention. I try to keep posts as short & sweet as I can, so they are lacking the kindness at times. I can assure you that the kindness is behind them, though!
This discussion is very refreshing.. You are correct!
Again, I appreciate your kind words, & will work on showing the kindness behind the posts. I am a work in progress, I never claimed to be perfect (or even close!)
God bless you, mk! (& all who post & read!)
btw…JLM (Jesus Loves Me)
Bethany,
Don’t get us started on St. Joseph! Do you really want to go there?
Yes, we honor him in much the same way as we honor Mary. I can’t think of any other saint that even comes close. He too has a special place in our hearts…and precisely because of that humility.
When I get back, I’ll show you some prayers we say about St. Joseph.
and then we’ll move on to St Anthony and St Francis and St Theresa and St Jude…only kidding!
When you first started posting here, you used the moniker “anonymous”.”
Ah, so JLM IS that anonymous from several weeks ago? The one whom I originally was discussing “Mary worship” with? Very good.
Thanks mk.
Bobby, I can assure you, though, that there were about three anon’s posting at that time. Not all were me, but many were.
No sign of Bethany or JLM…I hope it wasn’t my big mouth. Last night JLM just sort of disappeared. I’m kicking myself this morning trying to figure out if it was my fault. I do tend to be forceful.
No, not at all. My child had the “first relationship breakup” and was devastated. I needed to talk and listen and comfort last night. I shouldn’t have left you hanging, and I apologize for that. I don’t “multi-task” that well at times!
Okay I have one more question because well, I just have so many. lol
Do Catholics believe that God can ever, ever change his mind about anything?
And do Catholics believe that the popes are infallible in doctrine?
The reason I ask these is because there have been many doctrines of the Catholic church which were not accepted, and were in fact, rejected for a while, before becoming (I think the term is) “Dogma”.
If this is so, then were the popes wrong in times past, and then they realized their error, or, did God change His mind about things?
For example, I am talking about the assumption of Mary. There are other things, but let’s start with that as an example.
Oh how sad, JLM. I took breakups really hard when I was a teenager. I hope that he will be feeling better soon. (hugs)
Thank you so much Bethany. He’ll be fine. The healing process does include grieving! I just hope he doesn’t handle it the way I did when I was a teen!
He seems to have such a strong faith in God…moreso than I did when I was his age. He “gave it to God” last night, so I’m sure he’ll be feeling better soon!
Thank you!
I just don’t understand how anyone can look at those quotes, and not conclude that saying Mary is our ONLY hope and on MARY we rely for salvation is blasphemous, and heresy and absolutely does not point towards Christ but actually points away from Him, making the statements anti-Christ.
Please can someone just tell me. Are those statements blasphemous or not?
And if not, why not? Break it down through each quote, and tell me how they correlate with the Bible.
Sorry if I sound blunt here, but I feel like after reading it again, that the quotes either weren’t read in full by the respondants, or something. There is no way one could read the Bible, then read those quotes, and believe that they parallel.
The Bible rejects this teaching that any man or woman could be our salvation except Christ. That any man or woman could be our refuge, except Christ. The Bible says:
“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” Galatians 1:8, 9
He seems to have such a strong faith in God…moreso than I did when I was his age. He “gave it to God” last night, so I’m sure he’ll be feeling better soon!
Thank you!
His faith in God speaks volumes about his mother. You’re doing a good job raising him. Good for him to give it up to God! I wish I had had that kind of faith when I went through breakups – some of mine I would cry about for months!
Let me show you the preceding verses before that one in Galatians that I showed you, because I think the context is very important;
6I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel? 7which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ.
See, even back then, WAY back in the very beginning of Christianity, there were people who were perverting the gospel of Christ, and not taking only His words but adding their twists to the gospel. This is what Paul is worried about here.
Then he goes on to say:
“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” Galatians 1:8, 9
Even an angel from Heaven is no exception to this rule.
He goes on further:
11I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. 12I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.
And in the next chapter, he explains more about what the Gospel really is:
17″If, while we seek to be justified in Christ, it becomes evident that we ourselves are sinners, does that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! 18If I rebuild what I destroyed, I prove that I am a lawbreaker. 19For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. 20I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!”[d]
The reason that he is saying this? The galatians were trying to gain salvations through their own works! Paul was trying to express to them that trying to have salvation through HUMAN EFFORT was not the gospel!
1You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. 2I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? 3Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort? 4Have you suffered so much for nothing?if it really was for nothing? 5Does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, or because you believe what you heard?
6Consider Abraham: “He believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”[a] 7Understand, then, that those who believe are children of Abraham. 8The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.”[b] 9So those who have faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.
10All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.”[c] 11Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, “The righteous will live by faith.”[d] 12The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, “The man who does these things will live by them.”[e] 13Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.”[f] 14He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.
Please consider reading through the entire book of Galatians if you feel led.
I just found this picture.
Can someone tell me the meaning of this? Why is Mary portrayed with what should be Jesus’ nail scarred hands?
Is this picture real, or is it made up?
I found it along with this quote:
“Mary is the universal mediatrix of grace, a secondary mediatrix and one dependent on Christ; universal, however, because no grace is dispensed without her intervention.” Father A. Tanquerey, A Manual of Dogmatic Theology (New York: Desclee, 1959), vol. II, pg. 109.
If it is real, can you tell me one thing: Do you believe that one can receive Christ’s grace without Mary? And I don’t mean the idea that without Mary’s body, Jesus wouldn’t have been born, but what I do mean is: without Mary basically telling Jesus what to do, do you believe that Jesus would still atone for our sins? Do you believe that Jesus only saves us due to Mary’s direction for Him?
Also, how can one be a co-redeemer with Jesus and not be worshipped?
This is the Gospel that Paul preached by the revelation of God:
1 2 Now I am reminding you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you indeed received and in which you also stand.
2
Through it you are also being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.
3
3 For I handed on to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures;
4
that he was buried; that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures;
5
that he appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve.
6
After that, he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at once, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.
7
After that he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.
8
Last of all, as to one born abnormally, he appeared to me.
There is no co-redeemer. Mary played no role in redemtion. There is only ONE savior, Jesus Christ. Catholic friends, Mary cannot do anything for you. And from the words of God Himself, please read the following:
Isaiah 45:18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.
Isaiah 45:19 I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth: I said not unto the seed of Jacob, Seek ye me in vain: I the LORD speak righteousness, I declare things that are right.
Isaiah 45:20 Assemble yourselves and come; draw near together, ye that are escaped of the nations: they have no knowledge that set up the wood of their graven image, and pray unto a god that cannot save.
Isaiah 45:21 Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.
Isaiah 45:22 Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.
God alone! You should be worshipping, adoring, praying to, etc. HIM ALONE! He deserves all of the glory. He NEVER said He wanted to share that with someone else. He ALONE is Almighty!
I just can’t seem to understand why you guys are so blind to this worship? Has the RCC given you so many definitions, so many explantations and so many interpretations that you just don’t question it and just accept it to avoid confusion? Has it been so ingrained in you that you are blinded to the utter evilness in this? It is so plain for outsiders to see that it is worship, but I feel as though you guys have been utterly brainwashed by the RCC.
The bible, GOD’S word, is so very clear on this. You may call it any term you like, or define it however you like, but God makes it very clear how He sees it.
Seek God and you will find Him. Seek Mary and you will find nothing.
One more question for Catholics:
You guys claim you do not worship Mary.
You do claim that she has a role in salvation.
If she has a role in salvation, how can you NOT worship her if you worship Jesus Christ?
Okay, I just got home. Wow, there seems to be sooo much going on. Qay too many posts to try and answer. What’s the most important thing that I should address?
Also, I can only be on until about 3:30.
“If she has a role in salvation, how can you NOT worship her if you worship Jesus Christ?”
I’ll start here. JLM, we believe that not only Mary has a role in salvation, but that we ALL have a role in salvation. Consider Col 1:24
“Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking 14 in the afflictions of Christ on behalf of his body, which is the church,”
St Paul says that he completes what is lacking is the afflictions of Christ. So, is Paul saying that Jesus just didn’t hang on the cross long enough, or that he just didn’t suffer enough? Far from it. What is lacking is our participation, our joining our own sufferings to that of Christs. When we do this, we believe that all our sufferings can actually be salvific. We can actually merit (what is called condign merit) graces for others. Not because our works on our own are good, never. But because God INFUSES his righteousness in us, we actually become GOOD, so that any good work we do is Christ’s work IN US. Of course, Christ’s work is meritorious, and if Christs’ work is indeed working in us, then our work is meritorious, and can be salvific.
So not only Mary has a role in salvation, but MK and I believe that you, and Bethany, and Jill, and everyone who is infused with Christs righteousness does. And as wonderful of a person as you are, JLM, I certinaly don’t worship you :)
BTW, my last post really hit on something important, and that is that to really understand a PARTICULAR aspect of Catholic teaching, you basically have to understand ALL of Catholic teaching. Like, I was answering a question about Mary, but the answer required talk of merit and justification, which are complex issues. So it’s all really intertwined. It’s hard to just look at a topic (in Catholic theology) in isolation.
So not only Mary has a role in salvation, but MK and I believe that you, and Bethany, and Jill, and everyone who is infused with Christs righteousness does. And as wonderful of a person as you are, JLM, I certinaly don’t worship you :)
But you don’t think that we have a role in YOUR salvation…I think that’s where we’re making the distinction. See what I’m saying?
You’re very patient. Thanks for that.
So salvation is community effort? Everyone had a part in hanging on the cross, everyone suffered, everyone POURED OUT THEIR BLOOD? Please, Bobby, this is so ridiculous. Jesus did that FOR everyone, but everyone did not do that WITH Jesus.
Come one, Bobby, their were many roles that many people played throughout history, but only One paid the price, only One offered salvation for us, and that is Jesus Christ.
We receive the gift of salvation, but we do not play a role in offering it, don’t you see that?
“But you don’t think that we have a role in YOUR salvation…I think that’s where we’re making the distinction. See what I’m saying?”
Oh sure we do. I mean, I don’t know for sure if I’ve ever received any graces that YOU personally have merited, but I very well could have.
“So salvation is community effort? Everyone had a part in hanging on the cross, everyone suffered, everyone POURED OUT THEIR BLOOD? Please, Bobby, this is so ridiculous. Jesus did that FOR everyone, but everyone did not do that WITH Jesus.”
Sorry JLM, but your problem is with Jesus via St Paul, not with me. We believe Jesus CHOSE to share his salvific work with us. Why is that so hard to believe that he might WANT and CHOSE to do that? Can he not do that? Why would our loving Father not want to include his children in his plan of redemption?
Oh sure we do. I mean, I don’t know for sure if I’ve ever received any graces that YOU personally have merited, but I very well could have.
I never merited ANY grace. What grace was given to me was given as a gift of God due to Christ’s atonement. The only grace that can be merited is through CHRIST.
Sorry ,those caps make me sound angry. They were meant only as emphasis.
Sorry JLM, but your problem is with Jesus via St Paul, not with me. We believe Jesus CHOSE to share his salvific work with us. Why is that so hard to believe that he might WANT and CHOSE to do that? Can he not do that? Why would our loving Father not want to include his children in his plan of redemption?
We are included- as recipients!
We believe that you can merit grace through Jesus Christ working within you. So I think we’re just speaking different languages.
No, I know your caps were for emphasis. Mine are always, too, cause I don’t know how to write in bold :)
But let’s think about this a sec, Bethany. You believe in imputed righteousness, correct?
Bobby, we’re contesting the idea that Mary is a co-redeemer for our sins. What is your opinion on this idea. If you believe she redeemed us, please explain how? Because the Bible clearly says there is only one redeemer and that is Christ. There is only one advocate, and that is Christ. Only one mediator, and that is Christ.
No, I know your caps were for emphasis. Mine are always, too, cause I don’t know how to write in bold :)But let’s think about this a sec, Bethany. You believe in imputed righteousness, correct?
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at March 7, 2008 11:32 AM
I’m not really sure what that means. I have heard it before but I do not know totally what it means and I will have to look it up. I know that we have no righteous of our own. the only way we can be righteous is to be born again of God’s Spirit. When God’s spirit dwells in us, we can do good works but they are not of ourselves, they are only through Christ.
Yes, I believe that. But not just Mary. You, JLM, MK, even me, are coredeemers. There is only one redeemer, Jesus. But again, we believe he shares it with us. Without him, no way are we redeemers. But the other stuff I have been saying is to tryt and illustrate why I think we’re all coredeemers. You agree that if Jesus wanted to, he COULD make us all coredeemers with him, right?
Bobby, He could do anything He wanted to, but He never said we were redeemers with Him. What does “redeemer” mean to you?
“I’m not really sure what that means. I have heard it before but I do not know totally what it means and I will have to look it up. I know that we have no righteous of our own. the only way we can be righteous is to be born again of God’s Spirit. When God’s spirit dwells in us, we can do good works but they are not of ourselves, they are only through Christ. ”
Oh my goodness, Bethany! That is NEARLY infused righteousness, the CATHOLIC understanding!
Oh my goodness, Bethany! That is NEARLY infused righteousness, the CATHOLIC understanding!
Not quite…you seem to think that we have a part in redeeming ourselves, unless I misunderstand you.
mk,
Regarding your question to me yesterday, I think this may answer it.
My first question, is why are Catholics baptized when they are babies? What are they being baptized into?
Now,
Romans 6:4
“Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: (this is not a water baptism. Water baptism cannot do what Paul is talking about here.) that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.”
This is being born-again, mk, a “Protestant” term.
No baptism can give new life. Only the power of God can do that. This is Baptism of the Holy Spirit. You can believe in Jesus, but unless you’ve been baptized in the Holy Spirit, you cannot “hear” Him, or understand His words.
Paul speaks of this in I Corinthians Chapter 12. In Chapter 12 is what I consider the only valid baptism for us in this Age of Grace. And it’s a baptism that human hands cannot touch; it’s a baptism that a lost person can have no part in. In water baptism, we can never be sure of a person’s salvation.
Therefore, I have to ask you, if you have never been baptized INTO the Holy Spirit, born again, how can you hear the Holy Spirit speaking to you? Yes, you can believe in Jesus, but what we call “a personal relationship” you cannot have without being “born again”, or born into His Spirit.
Redeem
Greek root:
ἐξαγοράζω
From Gal 3:13
Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed [is] every one that hangeth on a tree:
Redeem:
1) to redeem
a) by payment of a price to recover from the power of another, to ransom, buy off
b) metaph. of Christ freeing the elect from the dominion of the Mosaic Law at the price of his vicarious death
2) to buy up, to buy up for one’s self, for one’s use
a) to make wise and sacred use of every opportunity for doing good, so that zeal and well doing are as it were the purchase money by which we make the time our own
“Bobby, He could do anything He wanted to, but He never said we were redeemers with Him. What does “redeemer” mean to you? ”
Good, okay. When I say we are coredeemers, what I mean is that. like you said above, whae the Holy Spirit/ God’s righteousness dwells within us, we can do good works which are not of ourselves, as you said. Now when I say “not of ourselves” I mean that without that indwelling of the HS, no way could we do good works. Like I said before, the good works that occur when the HS dwells within us IS Christ’s good work, which as we know, is meritorious or redeeming. So when a good work is performed by the HS through us, it is meritorious, and grace is rewarded (because God promised it) to either us or someone who needs it. So if that grace that goes to someone else causes them to accept Jesus, then they have been saved, and the person whom the Holy Spirit did that meretorious work through is a co redeemer. Does that make sense?
Bobby, suppose I told you, Bobby I want to give you a gift. All you have to do is accept it, and I will give it to you.
If you accepted it, would you then have had a part in purchasing it?
“Not quite…you seem to think that we have a part in redeeming ourselves, unless I misunderstand you. ”
Well, read what i say above carefully and see if it clears things up. We on our OWN power, apart from God’s grace, can’t do squat. But like you said, the HS working in us, that may be a different story.
“If you accepted it, would you then have had a part in purchasing it? ”
Certainly not.
Good, okay. When I say we are coredeemers, what I mean is that. like you said above, whae the Holy Spirit/ God’s righteousness dwells within us, we can do good works which are not of ourselves, as you said. Now when I say “not of ourselves” I mean that without that indwelling of the HS, no way could we do good works. Like I said before, the good works that occur when the HS dwells within us IS Christ’s good work, which as we know, is meritorious or redeeming. So when a good work is performed by the HS through us, it is meritorious, and grace is rewarded (because God promised it) to either us or someone who needs it. So if that grace that goes to someone else causes them to accept Jesus, then they have been saved, and the person whom the Holy Spirit did that meretorious work through is a co redeemer. Does that make sense?
No, they would not be a co-redeemer.
“So then neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but God who causes the growth.”
Bobby,
We believe Jesus CHOSE to share his salvific work with us. Why is that so hard to believe that he might WANT and CHOSE to do that? Can he not do that? Why would our loving Father not want to include his children in his plan of redemption?
It’s hard, no, impossible for me to believe such a lie. It seems that you have a problem with God’s own words. I really don’t know how much clearer than this He could have made it for you:
Isaiah 43:11
I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.
I’m sorry if I sound crude, but it’s plain as day. Your way would be contradicting God’s plain, easy to read, brief but powerful statement.
Okay I see what you’re saying, but look at those quotes by Mary again…the ones in my 8:26 post. They do not seem to be saying that Mary is on the same level with other people. By the way, I have to take a break for lunch but will be back shortly! God love you Bobby.
“No, they would not be a co-redeemer.”
Well okay, I hope I never gave the impression that by “co-redeemer” we mean “on the same level” as Christ. “co” means “with.” I “co-authored” a math paper a year ago with a guy, and I came up with about two sentences of a 30 page paper. No way was my authorship even remotely close to his. But I”m his co-author. The point being that the prefix “co” does not imply “equal.”
Now that being said, you can think of what I wrote above as being the definition of a co-redeemer. So what I said was, in a nutshell, what we mean by someone being a coredeemer with Christ. Now if you ask me to tell you about Christ’s role in redemption, I’ll say something far, far more amazing.
So again, I hate that this keeps happening, but I think this may be a misunderstanding in terms. (not your fault at all, language changes, but the Catholic Church does not change it’s language.)
“It’s hard, no, impossible for me to believe such a lie. It seems that you have a problem with God’s own words. I really don’t know how much clearer than this He could have made it for you:”
You would limit God’s power?
Okay, 8:26 post… I’ll check it out…
You would limit God’s power?
God has the ultimate power.
God also doesn’t lie.
Here, I’ll post it again:
Isaiah 43:11
I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.
You would call God a liar?
He certainly isn’t a liar, no. Jesus is the only savior. But read what I wrote above; what we mean by co-redeemer, how “co” means “with” and does not imply on the same level.
But I want to ask again. Does God have the power to include us in his plan of salvation? God is the only Saviour in an absolute sense. But could he share that with us if he wanted?
(I must admit, though, that I’m not sure about the difference between “redeemer” and “savior”, yet I have never heard Mary or any of us referred to as co-saviors, so at least in Catholic theology there must be some distinction between the two, but I’m not sure what taht is)
And Bethany, about your 8:26 post… I hate to take the cowards way out, but I’m just not really sure. It isn’t an official Catholic teaching, it’s writings of the saints, so it isn’t OFFICIAL. Now, that doesn’t mean I should just blow it off though. Maybe the church should have condemned it. But I just don’t know what these saints had in mind when they wrote those things.
If you hadn’t mentioned it, I may have said that they are poetic, but that doesn’t seem to satisfy you, which, right now, I’m gonna go ahead and say is okay. In fact, I see no reason why in Catholic theology, a Catholic couldn’t be offended at those quotes and think that they went too far. So maybe some Catholics can believe that they went too far, and some Catholics can say “it’s poetic, I’m okay with it.” That’s my best guess. But yeah, that’s tricky. In fact, I’ve heard of some book by a Saint that really, REALLY would seem to go overboard on Mary. I can’t remember what it was though.
So that’s about the best i can give you for now. A lot of the Saints writing is tricky, and I just simply don’t have all the answers. Sorry.
But I want to ask again. Does God have the power to include us in his plan of salvation?
His plan, Bobby, was to send His Son, Jesus Christ. That was His plan, and that He did. We had absolutely no part in that plan. We have been given a gift through His sacrifice, and that would be our salvation. We weren’t included in the plan, we were given the gift of Salvation.
My friend, I know that’s what you believe. I believe that God did not create a unicorn to live here on earth. But he has the power. So while you may not believe he did, does he have the power to include us in his plan of salvation?
The word co-redeemer. Basically to break it down means we cooperate with the redemption won by Christ. No biggy. Don’t get mixed up by the misunderstanding of coredemption.
Ah, well said, Brian. That was much simpler than I made it.
Brian & Bobby,
No…we are not co-redeemers. Here:
We are redeemed by His blood.
He paid the price with His blood.
We were bought with a price.
He is the redeemer, we are redeemed.
BIG difference.
Hey – did you know that the word unicorn is in the Bible … Num 23:22, Num 24:8, Job 39:9, Job 39:10, Ps 29:6, Ps 92:10, and unicorns in Duet 33:17, Ps 22:21 Is 34:7.
I was fascinated to learn this.
Yes, I am not a redeemer, I receive redemption from Jesus. I do this by cooperating with His grace. By my cooperating, other people can also learn about Jesus and share in the redemption he won for them to. Please, try not to get muddled by the way the word co-redemption is misunderstood.
I do this by cooperating with His grace. By my cooperating, other people can also learn about Jesus and share in the redemption he won for them to. Please, try not to get muddled by the way the word co-redemption is misunderstood.
No, Brian..it is very important. This is one of the main reasons why I don’t worship anything other than God and you guys do. It’s like saying, I’m human, but also a mammal, and animals are also mammals, so it really doesn’t matter if I’m referred to as an animal or a human, because than it would mean that Jesus also died for animals. It is important…very important.
You do not “share” or “cooperate” with “His Grace”, you either accept or not accept his payment of sin for you. It is a gift. Either you accept it, or you don’t.
JLM
yes, Jesus offers us the gift of salvation. If we accept it – we cooperate — if we reject it we do not cooperate. We don’t earn this gift, we did not buy this gift, but we if we are to receive it that involves cooperation. Jesus won’t force us against our will to receive him in faith, we must in faith receive Jesus within the scope of free will – we must cooperate in faith with Jesus.
If God offers us a gift – it is an offer requiring our response. God does not force his salvation on anyone. That would go against God’s gift of free will and against the very concept of salvation.
Brian,
Cooperation is :to work or act together toward a common end or purpose.
We do not work for salvation. It is a free gift. We don’t act together, we either accept it or we don’t. We don’t “act” together with Christ’s offering. He offered it, Him alone. It is a personal decision. There was one act, by Jesus. We had nothing to do with what He did on the cross. No one did..it was all God and ONLY God warrants the glory for that.
If we accept it, we spend eternity in Heaven with Him. If we don’t we spend eternity in Hell.
The act, redemtion, happened on the cross. Mary had no part in that. That was God’s doing. Mary does not get any credit for that at all. She is not a co-author of what He did on the cross. It was His blood, and His alone. Blood redeems us, not Mary. She has NO part in salvation.
JLM, I was thinking about this last night; what would you say, is required of me (I’m hesitant to say “what should I DO”) in order to be saved?
If God offers us a gift – it is an offer requiring our response. God does not force his salvation on anyone.
You just contradicted yourself.
First, you said that God requires our response.
Then, you said that God does not force that requirement on anyone.
So, which is it? Is salvation a requirement or a gift?
“We do not work for salvation. ”
How do you understand Phil 2:12-13 then?
12Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
13For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.
The HS working in us. That’s what we’ve been saying.
Well okay, I hope I never gave the impression that by “co-redeemer” we mean “on the same level” as Christ. “co” means “with.” I “co-authored” a math paper a year ago with a guy, and I came up with about two sentences of a 30 page paper. No way was my authorship even remotely close to his. But I”m his co-author. The point being that the prefix “co” does not imply “equal.”
But Bobby, if you really think about this, that would mean that part of the works was of your authorship. You would still be the author of part of it. The fact that the other person authored the majority wouldn’t take away from the fact that you wrote those two lines.
Saying that Mary co-redeemed us means that she had a part in the redemption- which means the payment for our sins. In other words, even if her part was smaller, she still would have had a part, and she still would be our Savior too.
Redeem= pay for/purchase
If Mary redeemed us, even in part, then she is our savior and she paid for our sins.
What is the meaning of those scars in Marys’ hands in that picture? Shouldn’t those scars be on Jesus hands? Why does she get the glory for His sacrifice?
“We do not work for salvation. ”
How do you understand Phil 2:12-13 then?
12Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
13For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.
The HS working in us. That’s what we’ve been saying.
Our works do not pay for our sins. The blood did that. Our works are for God’s good pleasure, for our obedience to Christ.
They are commanded of us but are not required to redeem us from sin because we cannot keep the whole law.
That’s why the Bible says we cannot be perfect enough for heaven. In order to do that we would have to keep the whole law. We cannot do this.
Even if we keep the whole law and offend in one tiny point, we are guilty of them all. THis is why we are not required to pay for our own sins, because we can’t. However, after we are saved, we are rewarded for our good works because they please God.
Read that verse you posted again:
13For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.
If I choose to follow Jesus — that takes nothing away from the work Jesus did dying for us on the cross so that we may be saved. God receives all the glory. Likewise, if I choose to follow Jesus and to share the Gospel and to cooperate with the Holy Spirit is sharing the message of salvation that takes nothing away from God receiving all the glory either.
I can not add or take away from God’s glory. Neither can Mary. Neither did Mary. I can however cooperate with God’s plan of salvation by accepting his gift and sharing it with others. That is what you do to. This is what Mary did too. Praise be to God.
The HS working in us. That’s what we’ve been saying.
No, you’ve been saying that we are all co-redeemers.
The verses you posted were great. Now put it together with this one (because the bible (God’s word) cannot contradict Itself/Himself:
Phil 2:12-13
12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.
Isaiah 43:11
I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.
(i.e., PERSONAL savior..not group effort)
Those who are saved are saved by Jesus. Only Jesus was/ is able to save people. People in order to be saved need to cooperate with Jesus and abide in His love. Those who refuse the grace won by Jesus, those who refuse to be in a relationship with Jesus, they reject His love and His gift of salvation.
If I choose to follow Jesus — that takes nothing away from the work Jesus did dying for us on the cross so that we may be saved. God receives all the glory. Likewise, if I choose to follow Jesus and to share the Gospel and to cooperate with the Holy Spirit is sharing the message of salvation that takes nothing away from God receiving all the glory either.
I can not add or take away from God’s glory. Neither can Mary. Neither did Mary. I can however cooperate with God’s plan of salvation by accepting his gift and sharing it with others. That is what you do to. This is what Mary did too. Praise be to God.
Exactly!!!
Then why give Mary glory, by praying to her & worshipping her, and more importantly referring to her as co-author or co-redeemer? In your own words, God should receive ALL of that, right?
Look at that picture Bethany posted. Doesn’t that make you sick to your stomach? If not, it should!
“But Bobby, if you really think about this, that would mean that part of the works was of your authorship. You would still be the author of part of it. The fact that the other person authored the majority wouldn’t take away from the fact that you wrote those two lines.”
True, agreed. It was just an analogy to show that using the word “co” does not imply equality. Yes, I still get my name on the paper, yes as far as anyone who reads it is concerned I did a majority of the work, and this of course is where the analogy breaks down.
“Saying that Mary co-redeemed us means that she had a part in the redemption- which means the payment for our sins. In other words, even if her part was smaller, she still would have had a part, and she still would be our Savior too.
Redeem= pay for/purchase
If Mary redeemed us, even in part, then she is our savior and she paid for our sins.”
Let me know if this makes sense. It’s kind of like a dad cutting the lawn. His little 5 year old boy comes out and asks “can i help?” The little boy then pushes the lawnmower for 5 feet, gets bored, and moves onto something else. Later in the day, the little boy says to his mom “I helped Daddy mow the lawn. I am a co-lawn-carer.” (Maybe he doesn’t say the last part :) ) Now the lawn would have got cut either way without the little boy’s help, but non the less, the father allowed the little boy to help him and the little boy REALLY DID mow part of the lawn.
So while she does play a part, it is because God allows her, it is using God’s “tools” (grace i.e. the lawnmower), and it is something that Jesus shares with her. I don’t know if that quite addresses it…
“What is the meaning of those scars in Marys’ hands in that picture? Shouldn’t those scars be on Jesus hands? Why does she get the glory for His sacrifice? ”
My guess is that the picture is an illusion to Luke 2:34-35
34And Simeon blessed them, and said unto Mary his mother, Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against;
35(Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also,) that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.
We believe that Simeon’s prophesy concerning Mary means that she would suffer (almost?) as much as Jesus did on the cross. The pain of a mother watching her son go through that was monstrous. I think the picture is supposed to be representative of Mary in a sense, being right up there with Jesus on the cross.
Those who are saved are saved by Jesus. Only Jesus was/ is able to save people. People in order to be saved need to cooperate with Jesus and abide in His love. Those who refuse the grace won by Jesus, those who refuse to be in a relationship with Jesus, they reject His love and His gift of salvation.
Okay, so if you realy believe what you wrote, why does Mary even get a second thought from you?
Is not Jesus due ALL of the glory & worship & love?
Fictional dialogue on Justification and Salvation:
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2005/11/fictional-dialogue-on-justification.html
“No, you’ve been saying that we are all co-redeemers.”
I think we’re speaking two different languages.
@Bethany,
“But Mary is not My mother. She was Jesus earthly mother.”
I read this and thought there might be a ‘psychological’ block. The Christian revelation is familial … we-are-in-each-other’s-pockets … we are that one-ness that Jesus prayed about.
so if your father was president of the USA, everyone but everyone (except his family) would call him ‘Mr. President’. But your word for this man is ‘Daddy’ … same fellow. Is it an uncommon practice for a wife to refer to this man as ‘Daddy’ also – (especially if their kids are being addressed)? I can just hear it now: THERE IS NO WAY HE IS HER ‘DADDY’ … absolutely (cross-my fingers and toes too), no way!
There is a ‘safe’ spot in formalism, but it bends a bit toward being ‘correct’ … can someone be True and not correct? In much the same way we refer to Jesus as ‘our brother’, since Mary is (NOT WAS) Jesus’ Mom … by extension she is my Mom too.
There is the additional problem of being limited by time and space. Heaven is God so we do not seek a place (heaven) as much as being-IN-Him. Just as Jesus is…. heaven is …. Mary is. The entrance of Jesus was His whole self … much like His wounds too have entered glory, so too do all who reside IN Him.
Remember my post above that we are kinda a family … no Catholic in their right mind would consider Mary as Abba’s wife …. maybe it’s good not-to-know, but to be surprised by God’s goodness. Didn’t Jesus teach that in-heaven there are no husbands nor wives?
John
Bobby,
So, you’re saying that without Mary, God could not keep His promise by sending His Son to pay for the sins of the world?
This certainly sends a message as to who you believe is King of Kings and Lord of Lords.
Why even bother worshipping God then…if it wasn’t for Mary, we’d all be doomed to hell!
“So, you’re saying that without Mary, God could not keep His promise by sending His Son to pay for the sins of the world?”
How did you get this from what I said?
Those who are saved are saved by Jesus. Only Jesus was/ is able to save people. People in order to be saved need to cooperate with Jesus and abide in His love. Those who refuse the grace won by Jesus, those who refuse to be in a relationship with Jesus, they reject His love and His gift of salvation.
Okay, so if you realy believe what you wrote, why does Mary even get a second thought from you?
Is not Jesus due ALL of the glory & worship & love?———————
If I love my mom does that take away from the love I have for my dad?
If I say a painting is beautiful does that not give praise to the painter?
If I say St. Paul was a great man does that take away anything from glory and honor given to Jesus?
Rather if I point people to the writings of Paul I do this to have Jesus honored all the more. If I point people to Mary, I do this because of my love for Jesus as well. I know that Mary joins me in prayer and in love to God who is the only one who is do my worship.
Exactly Brian.
If I love my mom does that take away from the love I have for my dad?
If I say a painting is beautiful does that not give praise to the painter?
Brian, no. But you are not simply saying Mary was a good person, a humble servant of the Lord. The Catholic people who I quoted put her on a much higher pedastool,to where she is on the same level as God. This is blasphemy and is not regarded as okay in the Bible.
Bethany, The Catholic church teaches that blasphemy is a grave sin. I will go look for the catechism points on this.
If you feel some Catholics (dead or alive) give too much respect to Mary that is fine, but please know that any respect given to Mary within the context of the Catholic faith is that she is honored for being faithful and that any gifts she is given is given by the Lord and that the Lord is the only one worshipped.
” But you are not simply saying Mary was a good person, a humble servant of the Lord. The Catholic people who I quoted put her on a much higher pedastool,to where she is on the same level as God. This is blasphemy and is not regarded as okay in the Bible.”
This is a fair concern. But would you agree that there is a large gap in between the way one feels about their parents and the way one should feel about a deity? Like, say you have a number line, and the higher number you assign to a person, the greater your respect or love or whatever for them. Now, God should get an infinity, right? Well, what do our parents get? 100? 1000? 10000000? Well, there is an infinite gap in between any number you want to assign to the way you feel about your parents, and the way you feel about God. So there’s all sorts levels in between for Mary.
Now one could say “well, I see my parents as a 99 and God as 100, so there is no room for anyone in between.” But I think giving a finite number to God does not do him justice, ehh? So that’s how I might address your concern, Bethany.
“So, you’re saying that without Mary, God could not keep His promise by sending His Son to pay for the sins of the world?”
How did you get this from what I said?
Because Catholics keep saying that it is through the advocacy of Mary, through the intercession of Mary, and through Mary’s asking Christ, that we are redeemed, that we can have salvation. THis is what all those catholic quotes were about. How Jesus will listen to Jesus because He’s her son.
It’s kind of like patronizing Him, those quotes that made it sound like Jesus wouldn’t do it unless Mary told Him to. Because she has some kind of maternal hold on Him and He has to listen to her cause she’s His mother.
God created Mary…Mary wasn’t there from the beginning of time, but Jesus was.
“Before Abraham was, I am”
Catechism quotes
III. “YOU SHALL HAVE NO OTHER GODS BEFORE ME”
2110 The first commandment forbids honoring gods other than the one Lord who has revealed himself to his people. It proscribes superstition and irreligion. Superstition in some sense represents a perverse excess of religion; irreligion is the vice contrary by defect to the virtue of religion.
Superstition
2111 Superstition is the deviation of religious feeling and of the practices this feeling imposes. It can even affect the worship we offer the true God, e.g., when one attributes an importance in some way magical to certain practices otherwise lawful or necessary. To attribute the efficacy of prayers or of sacramental signs to their mere external performance, apart from the interior dispositions that they demand, is to fall into superstition.41
Idolatry
2112 The first commandment condemns polytheism. It requires man neither to believe in, nor to venerate, other divinities than the one true God. Scripture constantly recalls this rejection of “idols, [of] silver and gold, the work of men’s hands. They have mouths, but do not speak; eyes, but do not see.” These empty idols make their worshippers empty: “Those who make them are like them; so are all who trust in them.”42 God, however, is the “living God”43 who gives life and intervenes in history.
2113 Idolatry not only refers to false pagan worship. It remains a constant temptation to faith. Idolatry consists in divinizing what is not God. Man commits idolatry whenever he honors and reveres a creature in place of God, whether this be gods or demons (for example, satanism), power, pleasure, race, ancestors, the state, money, etc. Jesus says, “You cannot serve God and mammon.”44 Many martyrs died for not adoring “the Beast”45 refusing even to simulate such worship. Idolatry rejects the unique Lordship of God; it is therefore incompatible with communion with God.46
2114 Human life finds its unity in the adoration of the one God. The commandment to worship the Lord alone integrates man and saves him from an endless disintegration. Idolatry is a perversion of man’s innate religious sense. An idolater is someone who “transfers his indestructible notion of God to anything other than God.”47
Brian, can you define Blasphemy, as the Catholic church defines it?
“Because Catholics keep saying that it is through the advocacy of Mary, through the intercession of Mary, and through Mary’s asking Christ, that we are redeemed, that we can have salvation. THis is what all those catholic quotes were about. How Jesus will listen to Jesus because He’s her son.
It’s kind of like patronizing Him, those quotes that made it sound like Jesus wouldn’t do it unless Mary told Him to. Because she has some kind of maternal hold on Him and He has to listen to her cause she’s His mother.
God created Mary…Mary wasn’t there from the beginning of time, but Jesus was. ”
But none of that implies that Jesus couldn’t have done it without her. So I could sum up your Catholic quotes by saying
If you go to Mary, then you will get to Jesus.
However, the negation of ANY statement is not necessarily true. The negation of the statement is
If you do not go to Mary, then you will not get to Jesus.
A statement and it’s negation are not logically equivalent, so the syllogism that you are proposing (albeit implicitly) is flawed. Does that make sense?
Brian, wow…do you see this? Bobby…
It requires man neither to believe in, nor to venerate, other divinities than the one true God.
Bethany, the Catechism defines blasphemy as
2148 Blasphemy is directly opposed to the second commandment. It consists in uttering against God – inwardly or outwardly – words of hatred, reproach, or defiance; in speaking ill of God; in failing in respect toward him in one’s speech; in misusing God’s name. St. James condemns those “who blaspheme that honorable name [of Jesus] by which you are called.”78 The prohibition of blasphemy extends to language against Christ’s Church, the saints, and sacred things. It is also blasphemous to make use of God’s name to cover up criminal practices, to reduce peoples to servitude, to torture persons or put them to death. The misuse of God’s name to commit a crime can provoke others to repudiate religion.
Divinity:
deity: any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force
Mary is regarded as a supernatural being. She is venerated, and is considered to be controlling some part of the world (being a part of God’s plan of salvation, her ability to be an intercessor, and being able to hear the prayers of individuals around the world), she is venerated as controlling some aspect of life.
Am I misrepresenting or not?
Bethany,
The reason that he is saying this? The galatians were trying to gain salvations through their own works! Paul was trying to express to them that trying to have salvation through HUMAN EFFORT was not the gospel!
I think I see where the problem lies. I have said this before but I don’t think you got it.
You believe that faith ALONE will get you into heaven.
We do not.
BUT, and this is a big but…this DOES NOT mean that we believe works ALONE can get you into heaven. They are one and the same to us. We believe that they cannot be seperated.
So if you have faith, you will also do good works. If you have faith but do not follow his will, ie:do not do good works in His name, then you do not really have faith. If you do good works but do not have faith, then you are up the creek. You must have BOTH. And not as seperate things. As one thing.
Faith is all that is required for salvation, but works is part of faith. It is, proof, of our faith if you will.
We say to God, we believe in you. And God says, Did you feed my hungry? Did you clothe my poor? Did you visit the sick? And if we say no, then He will say, I see no evidence of this faith you claim…be gone.
If we say yes, He will say, Well done my good and faithful servant.
We have NOT earned our way into heaven. This cannot be done. But we have shown evidence (like faith money when you are buying a house).
But we cannot, cannot, cannot “EARN” our way into heaven.
I’ve said this before. Doing good things will not get us into heaven. But failing to do them, after we have professed our love for Our Lord might keep us out. Not because we didn’t do good works, but because by our actions we did not show our love for God.
re: 2:03Thanks Bobby.
Catechism of the Catholic church on blashpemy
2148 Blasphemy is directly opposed to the second commandment. It consists in uttering against God – inwardly or outwardly – words of hatred, reproach, or defiance; in speaking ill of God; in failing in respect toward him in one’s speech; in misusing God’s name. St. James condemns those “who blaspheme that honorable name [of Jesus] by which you are called.”78 The prohibition of blasphemy extends to language against Christ’s Church, the saints, and sacred things. It is also blasphemous to make use of God’s name to cover up criminal practices, to reduce peoples to servitude, to torture persons or put them to death. The misuse of God’s name to commit a crime can provoke others to repudiate religion.
Blasphemy is contrary to the respect due God and his holy name. It is in itself a grave sin.79
Bobby – good job beating me to it.
“It requires man neither to believe in, nor to venerate, other divinities than the one true God.”
Right. We don’t venerate false gods. But Mary is not a false God, Mary is a creature. Just like the bible, any writing has to be taken as a whole, so it can’t mean “not to show any veneration period” otherwise it would contradict paragraph 972;
972 After speaking of the Church, her origin, mission, and destiny, we can find no better way to conclude than by looking to Mary. In her we contemplate what the Church already is in her mystery on her own “pilgrimage of faith,” and what she will be in the homeland at the end of her journey. There, “in the glory of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity,” “in the communion of all the saints,”516 the Church is awaited by the one she venerates as Mother of her Lord and as her own mother.
The context of all the passages from the catechism around where Brian quoted concerns false gods. But obviously it can’t mean venerate nothing, because it would otherwise contradict paragraph 972, as well as possibly others.
“Mary is regarded as a supernatural being. She is venerated, and is considered to be controlling some part of the world (being a part of God’s plan of salvation, her ability to be an intercessor, and being able to hear the prayers of individuals around the world), she is venerated as controlling some aspect of life.
Am I misrepresenting or not? ”
No, that sounds right. I would add two things; 1) that it is not just Mary but all saints, and 2) it is because God gives them this ability.
There can be only one God. This is metaphysical fact that can be established well before anyone accepts the bible. Any “power” (so to speak) that they have comes from God, but there is nothing God can do to make the saints or Mary Gods. It’s a metaphysical fact.
Fine, well and good, but the bible is God’s word, not the Catechism.
The Catechism does not define God, His word, the bible does.
Bethany,
Suppose Mary had said “no” to God’s offer. God would have simply chosen another woman who was willing to submit to His will. But He chose Mary because He knew in advance what Mary’s answer would be.
Let’s look at this another way. Suppose Eve had said yes instead of no. Would we have had need of a savior? The fact remains that she DID say no.
Now, God is not constrained by time, remember. That’s “Doug” type thinking. He knew every move every person throughout all time made, before they were even born. So, you are correct, He knew Mary would say yes.
Where you are incorrect is believing that He chose her because He knew she would say yes. He “saw” her say yes. He watched her do it. At the same moment that she was doing it. Even tho by our reckoning it was eons before she did it…have I lost you?
Who knows how many women said no? How many women did He see say no, and then altered all the things that happened up to that point. We can only know, that Mary DID say yes. And that it changed the world.
We can’t know what would have happened if Eve had said yes, either. We just accept that she did, and live with the consequences of that action.
So too, we know that Mary said yes. And because she did, because she carried Our Savior for 9 months and gave birth to Him, you and I no longer have to fear death.
Jesus saved us. Mary cooperated in an extraordinary way, because she was given extraordinary graces. She was “saved” even before the “Savior” was born, so that she would be sinless and able to carry “perfection”…
MK, just in time. I gotta go in like 15 minutes.
“The Catechism does not define God, His word, the bible does.”
Agreed, but we’re trying to discuss what Catholics believe now, right?
Bobby, regarding this paragraph below, was Pope Gelasius wrong to reject the teaching of the assumption of Mary as heresy?
If so, how can that be, since the Pope is infallible?
In 495 A.D., Pope Gelasius issued a decree which rejected this teaching as heresy and its proponents as heretics. In the sixth century, Pope Hormisdas also condemned as heretics those authors who taught the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary. The early Church clearly considered the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary to be a heresy worthy of condemnation. Here we have “infallible” popes declaring something to be a heresy. Then in 1950, Pope Pius XII, another “infallible” pope, declared it to be official Roman Catholic doctrine. (Note 15)
The assumption of Mary wasn’t even recognized as Dogma until 1950. So, before that time, were you wrong, and now you are right?
This is one of my biggest problems with this… you all say the pope is infallible, but (and I mean no disrespect of course but) obviously, some pope out there had to be wrong, and one had to be right.
If they are all inspired of God and are infallible in doctrine, how is it possible for them to contradict each other and for one to reject a teaching that another accepts?
“That’s “Doug” type thinking.”
Poor Doug. He always ends up being the “we don’t wanna be like THAT guy” example.
Divinity:
deity: any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force
Mary is regarded as a supernatural being. She is venerated, and is considered to be controlling some part of the world (being a part of God’s plan of salvation, her ability to be an intercessor, and being able to hear the prayers of individuals around the world), she is venerated as controlling some aspect of life.
Am I misrepresenting or not? ————————-
You are correct that we do venerate Mary. Yet, we venerate her in the context of worship of Christ. We do not make her out to be another God or a replacement for God. We see her in God’s plan of salvation as having a special role.
Paragraph 6. Mary – Mother of Christ, Mother of the Church
963 Since the Virgin Mary’s role in the mystery of Christ and the Spirit has been treated, it is fitting now to consider her place in the mystery of the Church. “The Virgin Mary . . . is acknowledged and honored as being truly the Mother of God and of the redeemer…. She is ‘clearly the mother of the members of Christ’ . . . since she has by her charity joined in bringing about the birth of believers in the Church, who are members of its head.”500 “Mary, Mother of Christ, Mother of the Church.”501
I. MARY’S MOTHERHOOD WITH REGARD TO THE CHURCH
Wholly united with her Son . . .
964 Mary’s role in the Church is inseparable from her union with Christ and flows directly from it. “This union of the mother with the Son in the work of salvation is made manifest from the time of Christ’s virginal conception up to his death”;502 it is made manifest above all at the hour of his Passion:
Thus the Blessed Virgin advanced in her pilgrimage of faith, and faithfully persevered in her union with her Son unto the cross. There she stood, in keeping with the divine plan, enduring with her only begotten Son the intensity of his suffering, joining herself with his sacrifice in her mother’s heart, and lovingly consenting to the immolation of this victim, born of her: to be given, by the same Christ Jesus dying on the cross, as a mother to his disciple, with these words: “Woman, behold your son.”503
She was “saved” even before the “Savior” was born, so that she would be sinless and able to carry “perfection”…
No, she wasn’t saved before the Savior completed what He did on the cross. That would be impossible. She even admitted that she needed a Savior. Why would she need a Savior if she had no sin? She had sin. All have sin.
“That’s “Doug” type thinking.”
Poor Doug. He always ends up being the “we don’t wanna be like THAT guy” example.
LOL! I hope Doug knows we still like him. But he sure does make a good example. lol
Agreed, but we’re trying to discuss what Catholics believe now, right?
you’re right.
“If they are all inspired of God and are infallible in doctrine, how is it possible for them to contradict each other and for one to reject a teaching that another accepts? ”
Excellent question, and hopefully we can clear up what we mean by “infallible.” Infallibility is what’s called a “negative chrism.” It guarantees that the pope will not teach error as truth nor truth as error (we will say how exactly he exercises this chrism below). So, it doesn’t say he’ll say the right thing at the right time, or even behave himself. The next pope could be elected and immediately go into his room, watch Tv, eat Doritoes, and smoke pot for his entire pontificate and this would not contradict infallibility.
Vatican I defined what the pope must do to speak infallibly:
He must speak “in the discharge of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, and by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority”
He must define it precisely. When you see the language “we define…” in papal documents, what is about to be said is infallible.
It must be concerning faith or morals. He can not discuss science or baseball.
He must be intended to be held by the church as a whole.
So, I’d have to study the specific case that you mention, but I”m sure that at least one of those conditions was not satisfied.
Alright my dear, dear sisters (and brother Brian) in Christ. I must depart for the rest of the day. I love you all very much, keep me in your prayers, I’ll keep you in mine, and hopefully we’ll figure this all out together. God love ya’ll.
He must define it precisely. When you see the language “we define…” in papal documents, what is about to be said is infallible.
What if it’s something that is being rejected? What is the wording preceding that? Just out of curiosity.
Bethany,
You ask a question how one Pope can contradict another. Not everything the Pope’s say is infallible doctrine. Yet some things are infallible. When infallible teachings are proclaimed that is well known.
I can not answer your question about these Pope’s that I have not studied. I can assure that the doctrine of papal infallibility is not inconsistent with what Pope’s have said over the centuries. Not everything each Pope says is to be believed as being infallible.
Have a good rest of the day, Bobby!!
Bobby, Bethany, JLM,
I think a lot of this gets back to a conversation that JLM and I were having yesterday.
We, Bobby and I, view Jesus’ death and resurrection as a covenant.
Just like marriage.
A covenant takes two parties. Both parties must accept the terms of the covenant.
For instance. God made a covenant with Moses. He laid out his terms. The people accepted. The people didn’t really “do” anything, except agree to God’s terms, but they did “agree”. When things got tough, they began to worship the idol and this action, broke the covenant.
God sent His only son. He offered us a NEW covenant. Bethany keeps saying gift, but really it’s a covenant. Meaning we must do our part. Now, unlike Moses’ time, our part is very simple. We must believe Him. We must accept the “gift” and then the covenant is sealed. If Jesus died and rose and NOT ONE person in the entire world believed it, then the covenant would not have been honored on OUR part. Not on HIS, but on OURS.
He would still have given the gift of Himself, but with no one to accept the gift…well, you see where I am going.
Now when we accept this gift, we become “Co-operaters” in our redemption. We didn’t cause it, we didn’t earn it, we didn’t merit it, we didn’t buy it. BUT we did DO something. We accepted His gift. This is what Bobby means by co-redeemer.
IF I then go out and evangelize, and 100 people come to Christ, I have cooperated with Jesus plan and am therefore playing a part in their redemption. Not the same part Jesus plays. Just being the messenger. Couldn’t save em on my own, aren’t saving ’em with Jesus, but I am cooperating with Jesus and helping to bring people to Him. Co-redeemers.
Not co-saviors. Not go-gift givers. Just CO-operators….
It is a fact that the church fathers did not unanimously consent to the doctrine of infallibility as currently held and taught by the Roman church:
God alone swears securely, because HE ALONE IS INFALLIBLE.-Augustine of Hippo, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series: Volume VIII, St. Augustin on the Psalms, Psalm LXXXIX, Sec. 4
God ALONE is infallible? I can agree with that! What happened?
A good intro to Papal Infalliblity
http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp
Bobby,
I haven’t read everthing yet, but I would hesitate to say that Mary was supernatural. She was given supernatural graces, and she cooperated in a supernatural event, but honestly, I think only God is supernatural…
Dictionary:
supernatural
adj.
1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
3. Of or relating to a deity.
4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
5. Of or relating to the miraculous.
I would call her more preternatural…
* beyond what is natural, as opposed to supernatural (above nature)
http://www.eldritchdark.com/articles/criticism/69/a-glossary-for-the-fiction-of-clark-ashton-smith
Preternatural:
* Beyond of different from what is natural, or according to the regular course of things, but not clearly supernatural or miraculous; strange; inexplicable; extraordinary; uncommon; irregular; abnormal; as, a preternatural appearance; a preternatural stillness; a preternatural presentation (in …
http://www.cprs.info/definitions.htm
* surpassing the ordinary or normal; “Beyond his preternatural affability there is some acid andsome steel”- George Will; “his uncanny sense of direction”
* nonnatural: existing outside of or not in accordance with nature; “find transcendental motives for sublunary action”-Aldous Huxley
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
* The preternatural or praeternatural is that which appears outside or beyond (Latin ””) the natural. While this may include what is more commonly called the supernatural, it may also simply indicate extremity – an ordinary phenomenon taken ‘beyond’ the natural. …
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preternatural
You ask a question how one Pope can contradict another. Not everything the Pope’s say is infallible doctrine. Yet some things are infallible. When infallible teachings are proclaimed that is well known.
I can not answer your question about these Pope’s that I have not studied. I can assure that the doctrine of papal infallibility is not inconsistent with what Pope’s have said over the centuries. Not everything each Pope says is to be believed as being infallible.
But anything they teach about doctrine, wouldn’t that need to be infallible, if they are being inspired to teach by God Himself?
The Bible is infallible, and anything that I learn from there, I can rest assured will be free of errors, I won’t have to worry about God changing his mind later on and saying that what was wrong is now right. Please understand what I am trying to say. The Bible says to let God be true but every man a liar. I only trust the words that I know for sure came from a revelation of God and are infallible and will never change or contradict. This is why I would find it extremely difficult to lean on any of the pope’s doctrines.
For another example:
In 1864, Pope Pius IX declared that the idea that people have a right to freedom of conscience and freedom of worship is “insanity,” “evil,” “depraved,” and “reprobate”.
He also declared that non-Catholics who live in Catholic countries should not be allowed to publicly practice their religion.
In 1888, Pope Leo XIII declared that freedom of thought and freedom of worship are wrong.
Here is the link for this: http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quanta.htm
The Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) produced a document entitled “Declaration on Religious Liberty” which states that all people have a right to freedom of religion.
Shouldn’t we be able to believe that if something is declared doctrine that it is true, and not that it could change tomorrow?
mk,
Regarding: mk at March 7, 2008 2:49 PM
ok good. Now please tell me HOW Mary is to be “venerated” any more than anyone else? Tell me why she is put on a pedastal? If everyone has the same level of “co-ness”, why is she any greater?
Also, based on your post, why shouldn’t all the glory, all of the worship and all prayers go directly to the Savior, Jesus Christ?
Bethany,
I agree that the Bible is without error. Yet, the Bible was written by sinful human beings. Could they have gotten something wrong in the writing of it? You and I both believe that God protected them from writing an error when they wrote the Bible.
In the same way, when a Pope infallibly declares something we believe the Holy Spirit protects this particular insight with words that are without error.
Did the Biblical authors ever write anything besides the Bible? We do not know. But we do know, what is in the Bible is without error. If these same authors wrote other texts on theological matters they may have made some error or spoken poorly, yet when they wrote the Biblical texts they were protected from error.
Bethany keeps saying gift, but really it’s a covenant.
mk,
With all due respect, your interpretation is “man’s interpretation”. Bethany (and I) both believe and trust God’s word that it is a gift.
This is yet another example of looking into man’s explanation of God, rather than the revelation (God revealing Himself to us) from God Himself.
Romans 6:23
23For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Ephesians 2:8
8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Now, if you would like to go on saying it’s really a “mutual agreement” or “covanent” rather than a gift, go right ahead. I’ll choose God’s word over man’s every single time.
Brian,
But if you guys don’t believe in baptism in the Holy Spirit, and only baptism by water when you were a baby, how can you possibly say that the Holy Spirit is working in the pope to make him infallible in his speaking, when he isn’t inspired by the Holy Spirit in the first place?
JLM,
First off, if I asked you to pray for me would that be blasphemous?
Would I be dishonoring Jesus if I asked you to pray for me?
Would it dishonor Jesus if I prayed for you?
I would think the above answers to these questions are that you would pray for me and I would pray for you to Christ and that this would bring God glory and honor.
Am I wrong on this before I move on?
JLM
I do want to get to all your questions. I do have limits, and so does my computer. If I do not answer a question now, please understand it is because of my limitations and not lack of desire.
Brian,
But if you guys don’t believe in baptism in the Holy Spirit, and only baptism by water when you were a baby, how can you possibly say that the Holy Spirit is working in the pope to make him infallible in his speaking, when he isn’t inspired by the Holy Spirit in the first place?———————————–
We do believe in baptism of the Holy Spirit – why would you think we do not?
Brian,
If your prayers are only going to God, then yes. He is the only one that can answer prayer. The Holy Spirit is the only one that can convict your heart, comfort you, and put you in the “right direction”.
Thy will be done…
That should be every prayer, right? It’s not about what we WANT, it’s about HIS WILL…we give our lives to God when we are saved…We put Him “in control”…we let the Holy Spirit direct us (that’s also God). Now, that being said, who then, should ALL prayers be directed to? Sure you can pray God’s will be done for people, but God’s will comes from God…not from Mary or the Saints….
I want God’s will to be done. You want God’s will to be done. So when we pray for one another God is honored and glorified.
similiarly, I want God’s will to be done, Mary wants God’s will to be done, and so if I ask her to pray for me (because she is alive in Christ) why would God get any less glory than if I asked you to pray for me?
We do believe in baptism of the Holy Spirit – why would you think we do not?
This is waterless, right?
I guess you are asking a question of why we baptize babies. Good question.
In the Old Testament to be part of the Old Covenant circumsicion was required. Adult male converts were circumsized, and so were there male children. Why circumsize a child if only an adult could be part of the Covenant? Or were the Covenant promises to the adult and also to his children?
In the Old Testament God instituted the ordinance of circumcision as the normative way for bringing a male child into the Covenanat (Gen 17:1-14) and this ritual was symbolic of the stripping away of the hard heartedness and obstinancy and the entering into God’s Covenant of love with his people. (Duet 10:12-22; 30:1-10). It was through circumsicion that a child was brought into the Covenant.
similiarly, I want God’s will to be done, Mary wants God’s will to be done, and so if I ask her to pray for me (because she is alive in Christ) why would God get any less glory than if I asked you to pray for me?
Aren’t you alive in Christ also? Is God not good enough for you, or do you think that she has more “pull” than your prayers do to God.
It’s not about God’s glory, Brian, it’s about God saying:
1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
We are able to pray (come to) God, through Jesus -not through Mary. Isn’t that crystal clear for you?
Now we move from the Old Covenant with circumsicion to the fulfillment of the New Covenant with baptism.
In the Old Testament to be part of the Old Covenant circumsicion was required. Adult male converts were circumsized, and so were there male children. Why circumsize a child if only an adult could be part of the Covenant? Or were the Covenant promises to the adult and also to his children?
Um, and you do realize that the Old Testament was an account of God’s dealing with the nation of Israel, right?
Which law are you living under? Old Testament Law, or the New Testamant of Grace?
It is crystal clear to me that I am able to go to God through Jesus. Why is it also not crystal clear that we can pray for one another in Christ and to Christ and through Christ?
New Covenant with baptism.
That’s waterless, Brian…this is the baptism of the Holy Spirit.
Remember, until the moment that Jesus died, the Old Covanent (law) was still in place. Jesus lived by the law, or by that covanent.
Bethany,
Do you pray for people to find Jesus. Do you say “Jesus, please have Mercy on these poor souls and call them to you?”
You are advocating for them. You are asking Jesus to call them. You are asking Him to soften their hearts and unplug their ears so they can hear you.
You are advocating.
Take my mother. I love her with all my heart. When my husband, on his own, does something kind for her, out of love for me, brings her flowers say, or Fannie Mae Creams (her favorite), and he does this because he love ME, I am so touched. I say “Oh, my gosh, that was so sweet John. You made my day. You made my mom so happy! and that makes me happy”
Then my mom goes to my father and says, look, look what John did for me. Wasn’t that sweet? And my father says, “That John, what a guy.”
Now suppose I bring flowers to Mary. I say “Hey, Mary, I just wanted to stop by and say thanks for carrying Jesus for 9 months and allowing Him to be born…way to go” and I do this because I love her son. I think He’s the nuts. And she goes to Him and says look what Mary Kay did. She brought me flowers. Wasn’t that sweet? Jesus would say, “Oh that Mary Kay…what a gal. She really made my day. I just love it when people do thoughtful things for the ones I love” and He would be pleased because I had honored someone that he loves, because I love him.
Then say I tell Mary that my son has been dabbling in drugs and I’m really worried. And she goes to Jesus and says “Mary Kay just stopped by. She is really worried about her son. He’s messing up again.” And Jesus says “Yeah, I saw that. She stopped by here too. I’ve got it covered.”
They conversed. They talked about me. They discussed my sorrow. Ultimately Jesus is going to do what Jesus is going to do, but Mary advocated for me.
Now suppose I tell you JLM, or you Bethany, that I am really worried. You would say, take it to God (Just like you did with your son last night JLM.).
By coming to you, your son was not neglecting God. He was simply sharing his pain with you. Does that mean your son thinks you are more powerful than God, or that God cannot help him? NO. He did not go to you instead of God. He went to you in ADDITION to God.
And then you turn around and add your prayers to his. You are advocating for him…
We do the same with Mary.
In Mathew’s Gospel, the Greek word for children is paidia, a generic word that does not denote any particular age. In Luke’s Gospel, however, we see, in addition to paidia, another Greek word for children: brephe, which means infants children who are too young to walk and therefore unable to come to Christ on their own power. These infants, Luke tells us were brought to Christ by adults, most likely parents so that Christ “might touch them”
In the Sacrament of baptism, Christ touches the soul with his grace and life. Scripture tells us that baptism in the New Covenant replaces circumscision in the Old Covenant (Col 2:11-15)
So in the same way that jewish parents prior to the time of Christ would covenant with God on behalf of their 8 day old son through the ordinance of circumsizion, Christian parents also covenant with God on behalf of their children, through the sacrament of baptism.
Thus they follow Jesus teaching to “Let the children come to Him and do not hinder them” (paraphrase)
It is crystal clear to me that I am able to go to God through Jesus. Why is it also not crystal clear that we can pray for one another in Christ and to Christ and through Christ?
It is and we can pray for one another. However, we CANNOT pray TO someone other than God. It’s TO GOD through Jesus.
Remember, Brian…Jesus is God. We pray TO God, THROUGH God.
JLM,
We baptize our children with water, because that is biblical. We baptize them as children because we believe that baptism brings them into the family of God and removes the stain of original sin.
What you are talking about (in our church at least) is the sacrament of confirmation. For us this Sacrament was instituted at the Pentecost.
Baptism is a replacement for circumcision.
Our confirmation is your baptism.
Also, You say it is a gift, and I do not argue, but it is also a covenant. His words, not mine.
This is the blood of the NEW covenant.
We see God grant favors to others based on the prayers of his faithful. In Genesis 18:16-33 Abraham interceded with God on behalf of the city of Sodom. Mathew 8:5-13 had the centurion servant healed based on the centurion’s faith in Christ.
in Mathew 15:21-28 the Canaanite woman’s daughter was healed because of the mother’s appeal to Christ.
In Luke 5:17-26 a crippled man is healed based on the faith multiple people. The Gospel tells us that Jesus saw “Their Faith”, and said to the crippled man “Your sins are forgiven”
But mk, the difference in my prayers and yours, is that you are praying to Mary to go to God for you. It’s double-praying, if you will. You are using a mediator.
When I pray for my son, I pray to God.
When I pray for you, I pray to God.
When I pray for my mother, I pray to God.
I am not using a mediator, mk. I go straight to God.
I don’t ask people to pray for me. If they do, well that’s very nice and considerate. If I need something, I ask God directly because He is the only one that answers prayer, and he said:
1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
I understand how your train of thought works, but that’s to justify an interpretation by “man” again. Look again at the verse I posted above. Those are God’s words.
It is crystal clear to me that I am able to go to God through Jesus. Why is it also not crystal clear that we can pray for one another in Christ and to Christ and through Christ?
It is and we can pray for one another. However, we CANNOT pray TO someone other than God. It’s TO GOD through Jesus.—————————————-
Yes, I agree. So where is the disagreement?
I posted to early. Hold on.
Bethany and JLM,
You are both married right?
Okay. When you got married, your husband gave himself to you as a gift. His whole self. You didn’t do anything to earn it, you didnt’ force him. He gave himself. Likewise, you gave yourself to your husband as a gift. Freely, I’m assuming.
But you said vows to each other. You made promises to each other. Otherwise it wouldn’t be a relationship. It would be a dictatorship.
Now your husband said his vows to you. And what did you do? Did you have to clap 3 times? Or sing Yankee Doodle Dandy? No. You simply said the word “I do”
Then you said your vows to your husband, and what did he do? Did he ride horseback naked through the streets? Did he eat spaghetti? No. He simply said “I do”…
And then the covenant was sealed. You were no longer two, but one. You entered into a covenant relationship. Both parties freely giving themselves to each other.
Jesus, too, said His vows to us. He offered Himself to us free of charge and completely.
And what do we do? Do we put on a tutu and and stand on our head? No. We simply said, “I do”.
Then we pledge ourselves to Jesus. We say Totus Tu. Totally yours. I am yours now. And Jesus said, “I do”.
Jesus and I have now entered into a covenant. We have stopped being two and have become one. I am in Him, He is in me.
A covenant. A total giving of ourselves to each other.
Nothing held back. Freely given. A covenant.
We baptize our children with water, because that is biblical. We baptize them as children because we believe that baptism brings them into the family of God and removes the stain of original sin.
Baptism doesn’t remove sin. That is not biblical. That, again, is man’s interpretation. God said that only Jesus’ blood can remove sin. ALL SIN.
I am saying that all prayers go to the Father through the Son. Yes, I agree.
When you pray, you pray to God through the Son, the same way Mary or I would pray. So why the hostility to Mary’s prayers?
Did she cease to be a member of the Body of believers when she went to heaven?
Yes, I agree. So where is the disagreement?
Do you not pray TO Mary? Are you not asking something OF Mary?
But mk, the difference in my prayers and yours, is that you are praying to Mary to go to God for you. It’s double-praying, if you will. You are using a mediator.
And when I go to you, am I praying to you? Isn’t asking you to pray to God also double praying? What is the difference between you and Mary?
I say, JLM pray for my brother he needs a job. You go to God and say “I am praying for mary kays brother, he needs a job.”
Then I go to God, and say “Pray for my brother he needs a job…”
Meanwhile, my brother goes to God and says “Help me, I need a job”
And I go to Mary and say “Mary, pray for my brother, he needs a job.”
And Mary goes to God and says “God please help Mary Kays brother, he needs a job…”
Where is the difference, pray tell me, for I dost not see it.