"He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption." Hippolytus AD 235
Mary is the New Ark, the New Eve, the Mother of God. These are not recent, fabricated concepts. The early Christians considered her these things because that is what was handed down to them from the Apostles and Scripture is consistent with it, even if not plain and obvious, when one considers it in context of culture/language/time/place.
I know for a fact the Bible tells us about the new Adam...but why did God forget to tell us about a new Eve? And why wasn't Mary born of a Virgin like Jesus was?..if you claim that she bypassed being born of the seed of Adam like Christ did. And please provide scripture where this miracle took place...like how the Bible tells us about it happening with Christ's birth. Thank you.
@shanana000 "but why did God forget to tell us about a new Eve"
Scripture does describe a new Eve, not explicitly, as Paul calls Jesus New Adam, but implicitly with other words and phrases. The "woman" throughout salvation history is prominent. Eve ("woman") was mother of all the living. Mary became mother of all the living of the New Covenant (Jesus was the Fristborn). Jesus calls her "woman" in the pericope of His first miracle (wedding at Cana). Rev 12 features "woman" as mother.
@MRGV7373 "New Eve" is implicit, not plainly stated. She is the mother of all the New living, as Eve was the mother of all the living. Hanging on the Cross, Jesus said to John (representative of all believers) "Behold your mother" and the Mary "behold your son". (These statements also accomplished a practical matter, placing Mary under the care of John, because He had no siblings to do so.)
Church Fathers defended her sinlessness. I'll get the references for you...
@AmericanBerean To even teach this is pure theological nonsense. Mary sinned, the patristic never taught that Mary was sin free. More lies. This guy is terrible.
@AmericanBerean yeah, I know the Bible doesn't tell us explicitly...and that's why it isn't there....making it nonsense. pure and simple.....or was it because God was forgetful?
@hockeyrulesus the word "trinity" was given to sum up what is explicit in scripture...the God head, the Bible teaches us about the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit....no where does it teach us that Mary is the "new Eve" Adam was married to Eve...Jesus wasn't married to His mother.
@shanana000 Throughout salvation history the "woman" is a significant player. Through a virginal woman Sin entered the world through her disobedience. But God quickly promised salvation through a woman. Later, through a virginal woman Salvation entered the world through her obedience (God didn't force her to do it). Mary's Yes undid Eve's No.
When you really study & contemplate & pray over Scripture you can see such logical connections and implicit truths.
@AmericanBerean Mary was born from two sinful parents...right? so she also is a product of Adam.. Jesus had to be born of a virgin not a sinless woman...Jesus had to be born of His Father who was sinless...that's why we need a new Adam (which is Christ) so we can born through Him and His blood. We are made righteous through the sacrificed shed blood of Christ..and Mary need Christ's blood too! the egg comes to life when the father fertilizes the egg in the woman.
@shanana000 "Jesus had to be born of a virgin not a sinless woman" Does that make sense to you? Why did God make Moses remove his sandals just to stand in His presence, yet God would physically reside in a sinful, dirty human. Not by my understand of God. I don't think that Protestants really understand who Jesus is....."God on Earth", and He didn't take flesh from filth, but a cleansed and pure virgin.
@hockeyrulesus Christ came to remove sin...even His Mother's. No where does the Bible teach mary was sinless...Since the Bible is God's word...why did He forget to mention that Mary had to be sinless? He said she was a virgin..I know the meaning of what virgin is..and it doesn't mean sinless. A mother and her Child are two seperate ppl.. sin is in the blood...and Christ has His Father's blood..not His mothers..get it now? the Father fertilizes the egg. That's when blood developes in the egg.
When I went to school, I learned that we get 1/2 of our genetic material from our father and 1/2 from our mother. If God didn't need Mary's genetics to make Him human, He wouldn't have come into the world this way.
Jesus was fully God, and fully Human, and fulfilled the prophesy that the Messiah would be born of the "House of David", meaning He would be a descendant of King David, which Mary was, and is where He received 1/2 of His genetic material. Get it yet?
@hockeyrulesus And Joseph was also a descendant of King David. Don't forget...Jesus created Mary. She's a creation like the rest of us....But Jesus is God in the flesh..and He is the creator of flesh,,,the plan of salvation was His, not Mary's....so that is why prots don't worship mary, but God alone. Just like those in the Bible did...you won't find anyone going to mary for healing or them praying to her in the Bible. No where.
@shanana000 For starters, Mary was still alive when the Gospels and Epistles were written. She was dead when John wrote Revelations, and John describes her in Heaven with a crown of 12 stars.
That being said, Prots can yell up and down that Catholics worship Mary, but this is of their own ignorant's. Prots have a problem with the definition of the word "Prayer". It can mean "worship"(communication that involve adoration) OR "a fervent request" (communication that does not involve adoration).
@hockeyrulesus I know she was, and even though she was likely dead when John was old. He still knew her..so why didn't he say it was mary? that's because the woman is ISRAEL and the 12 stars are the TRIBES of ISRAEL. The Jews will finally come to accept her MESSIAH in the last days. You only pray to the only one that can hear you being He is omnipresent, omnicient and omnipotent...Mary isn't any of these..so how can she hear all those that pray to her? vain prayers to 1 that can't hear any1.
I've heard this false interpretation of Revelations before, but the problem with this interpretation as the Woman being Israel is, further on in this passage, and I quote:
"And the dragon was angry against the woman: and went to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ." (Rev12:17)
Did Israel keep the testimony of Jesus Christ? No. Israel rejected Him, so the woman can not be Israel. (1 of 2)
@shanana000 How Saints hear us. The Soul is not of the material word, it is of the supernatural world. Meaning it is outside of natural law. God, Angels, and the Human Soul are NOT bound by time and space. So, she can and does hear us, and if you read Revelations, you'd see the Souls in heaven offer up the "Prayers" of men. ( Revelation 5:8, or Revelation 8:3-4)
St Paul called the Saints of old as "we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us,", one must be aware to witness
@shanana000 What Mary does for us comes from God, the same way the Apostles preformed miracles not of their own power but of God's. No good Catholic believes it is Mary's power or worships her as a God, this comes from Protestant propaganda.
Correction: God the Father created Mary, Jesus, (God made flesh) was created by Mary. God needed His creation to create His human form. Don't worry, I don't expect you to get it, that's why you're not Catholic. lol.
@hockeyrulesus And God said "let us make man in our image" who was God telling this too? Someone else was going to help him make humans? Could it be Jesus? Jesus received His flesh from Mary, but Jesus knew the plan of salvation from the foundations of the earth...before Mary was ever born! It's God's plan, It's God's Bible, It's God's creation and He gets all the praise and glory! Not your church or Mary..and Mary would know this herself.
@hockeyrulesus you seem to forget that Christ took all the sins of the whole world while on the cross...so yes, he can live in a sinful mother. because he is a separate human being then his mother...isn't that why abortion is murder? All humans are from the sinful blood of Adam until they are born again through the sinless blood of Christ. and that included Mary. your church made up all the doctrine of mary...and it can be traced in time when it developed..you won't find in the Bible.
@shanana000 All Catholic doctrine can be found in scripture either implicitly or explicitly and verified by the Church Fathers. Yes, Mary was freed by the blood of Christ......at conception, for God is not bound by time. As much as Protestant would love to erase Mary as the Son of God's mother it can't be done. Mary was God's mother by her actions and her genetics, and Jesus was fully God and fully Man.
1) Where in the Bible does it say Jesus was a separate human being from His mother?
@hockeyrulesus Where in scripture does it tell us that Jesus isn't a separate human being from His mother? Being a virgin doesn't mean your sinless. we are all products of adam accept Christ..he was born of virgin, by passing the seed of man...Jesus received his sinlessness from his father...and his flesh from his mother. A baby gets it's blood from it's father..that's biologly 101. And doesn't your church teach that abortion is murder?..the mother is killing a separate human being in her womb
No, but the Holy Spirit was. "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee". The culture/language idioms employed in this verse imply taking as a wife, not just divine impregnation.
Joseph was told "fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife". The phrase for marital union was not used, but instead the phrase for lead her into the house as a wife excepting sexual union.
@AmericanBerean oh, so mary had two husbands...the Holy Spirit and Joseph...right? Stop it would you? God, Jesus or the Holy Spirit never married anyone...The Holy Spirit never had sex with Mary...only Joseph did because the angel told Joseph to take Mary as his wife. Wives can have sex with their husbands because God ordained it so. Boy you guys twist truth...but occults do that.
@shanana000 "the Holy Spirit never married anyone...The Holy Spirit never had sex with Mary"
You are wrong because you are not considering the cultural context.
The HS did have sex with Mary, though not in human manner but in the way the HS would. Once she conceived a child that was not Joseph's, she was sexually out of bounds to him.
The angel's phrase to Joseph to take her as his wife does not include the usual marital union, but to take into his house as wife w/o cohabiting.
@AmericanBerean So when the bible says the angel to joseph to take mary as his wife..it didn't really mean the way that God tells everyone else too...and when you say the HS had sex with mary; but not in the way ppl do but you can't prove it any where in the bible but i'm suppose to believe you and your church? i think your foolish and backwards. and what you said is the reason why i don't believe in what your leaders teach.
@shanana000 The problem is you are not taking Scripture on it's own terms. You are interpreting it based on your modern western notions, specifically, your notion of marriage in that time and culture and place. Celibate marriages were not unheard of.
The angel used a phrase (paralambano gunaika) which was not the usual phrase for marital union ("go into" or "come together"). Divine insemination must be a quite different procedure than natural insemination, since He is non-corporeal.
Doctrines over time can be determined over time but nothing can be added to what the NT teaches. No additional teachings, dogma can be added to the message. We can gain more understanding but no new teaching can be added. The church can develop the doctrine but can add no teachings. The ever virgin Mary is not taught in scripture or by the early church fathers. The sinless Mary is not taught by church fathers and many warn against teaching this teaching. No history on Mary on assumption
"The Book [the Protoevangelium] of James [records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her."
Origen AD 248 continued "And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the firstfruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the firstfruit of virginity" (Commentary on Matt 2:17 )
"If they [the brethren of the Lord] had been Mary’s sons and not those taken from Joseph’s former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, ‘Woman, behold your son,’ and to John, ‘Behold your mother’ [John 19:26–27), as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate" (Commentary on Matthew 1:4 [A.D. 354]).
"Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that he took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary" (Discourses Against the Arians 2:70 [A.D. 360]).
@hockeyrulesus Yes, so one man's ideas makes it true?? Such none sense. Mary is never represented in the gospels as ever virgin. John, Matthew and Luke tell us that Jesus had blood brothers and sisters. No where in scripture is Mary as ever virgin. The patristic have many ideas about Mary as ever virgin, sinless and nothing about assumed into heaven at all. Even Thomas Aquinas said that Mary had sin. The church fathers are not scripture nor do they agree 100% on Mary.
@MRGV7373 Scripture does not say, blood brothers & sisters, and it would have been unheard of for Jesus to leave His mother in the care of John if He had siblings. When the Gospels speak of the Holy family, there is no mention of siblings. The words brethren, brothers, and sisters, have a wide range of meaning. All the evidence from the NT to the Early Church is contrary to siblings of Christ. For God sake, their identity is explained in (Matt. 27:56) & (Mark 15:40) & (John 19:25)
The teaching on Mary are not part of salvation for Christians. Mary is Jesus mother and becomes a believer in Jesus, Acts 1,2. Mary by history had many children, 4 boys and sister no know. Mary is not ever virgin but virgin until after Jesus was born. Mary did sin since she is human and she says she needs a redeemer. Mary bones or body was never found and no one knows where she is buried. No one knows if she was assumed into heaven. Any Mary teachings don't change salvation.
1)Correct, the teachings of Mary are not Salvation.
2) There is NO HISTORY of Jesus having Brothers. James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude are explained to be the sons of Mary, the wife of Clopas, Jesus' cousins. Cousins, or any male relatives were called brothers in Hebrew and Aramaic.
"Mary is not ever virgin but virgin until after Jesus was born."
3)The most commonly made argument based on Matthew 1:25: "And he did not know her till (hilos) she brought forth her firstborn son." (hilos) till means only that some action did not happen up to a certain point. Example: "Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death" (2 Sam. 6:23) and Nobody knows where Moses is buried "until this present day" (Deut. 34:6).
@MRGV7373 "Mary is not ever virgin but virgin until after Jesus was born."
3)The most commonly made argument based on Matthew 1:25: "And he did not know her till (hilos) she brought forth her firstborn son." (hilos) till means only that some action did not happen up to a certain point. Example: "Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death" (2 Sam. 6:23) and Nobody knows where Moses is buried "until this present day" (Deut. 34:6).
@hockeyrulesus Yes, and in the context of the sentence. If Joseph left her a virgin until Jesus was born of Mary. Then after Jesus was born, Joseph and Mary had normal marital relationship. Keep the sentence in context and then you see the true meaning. The context means, Jesus is born, then Joseph and Mary had normal sexual relation. Simple to understand and in the context it is the correct interpretation.
@MRGV7373 By Law, any woman who had sexual relations of any sort with a man not her husband could never go back, sexually, to her husband. Joseph was told by the angel to take her as his wife but, being an observant Jew, he still would not have sex with her. She became espoused to the Holy Spirit when she was overshadowed by the power of the Most High. From that point forth she was sexually out of bounds to any other man, including her earthly husband.
@AmericanBerean You are putting words and actions that counter scripture. Matthew1:25 But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus. The word in greek for until mean after the condition changed, so after Mary's condition of delivery Jesus, Joseph took Mary in a normal marriage relationship. Do believe the junk you hear about Mary as ever virgin, the EVM teaching is scriptural, unnatural and lack validity. think!!
@MRGV7373 Unscriptural, lacks cultural tradition and Jesus had brother and sister that the Greek again supports as blood brothers and sisters, not cousin. Mary was normal and had normal sexual life. Why would she be out of bounds if the Angle made Joseph take her as his wife. That belief makes no sense. So is Joseph ever virgin too? A virgin wife to the Jewish mind would be ungodly and and sinful to mosaic law. Why does any body believe such nonsense.
1) It was also, ungodly to be with child and unwed, and also a death sentence according to Jewish law. Joseph was the protector of Mary and the Lord.
2) The Greek text was a translation from Hebrew/Aramaic Gospels, and those languages have no word for cousin, step brothers, etc. Example: Lot is called Abraham’s "brother" (Gen.14:14), though he's his nephew. Sometimes brethren meant kinsmen (Deut.23:7; Neh. 5:7; Jer. 34:9) Jacob is called the "brother" of his uncle Laban (Gen. 29:15)
@hockeyrulesus Yes, Joseph was told by God to take Mary, the child is from the HS. Mary and Joseph were already engaged so Mary was never in danger and besides, Joseph was going to divorce Mary quietly. But In Act 1:14-15. Luke writes in Greek and says that Mary and Jesus' Brothers and the Greek word means blood brothers. Why can't Mary have children? What is the matter with Mary having a normal, loving children after Jesus. The virgin birth is good history, evervirgin not
@hockeyrulesus Yes, the OT is Aramaic but the whole of the NT is in Greek and the word for cousin and brother are not the same. No where in the NT brother or cousin the same, and using the Genesis is not valid since it does not have the same meaning. The Greek is specific and sites Jesus as having blood brothers. Again, the scriptures always point out that Jesus has blood brothers and sisters not cousins. Mary and Joseph had sex and children. Why is it so hard to believe???
@MRGV7373 The question then is, whether or not the Apostles wrote the Original Gospels in Aramaic, or Greek, and according to many scholars, the Greek versions we have today were copied from Aramaic/Hebrew originals. Now if you can prove to me that the Gospels were always in Greek, and that whenever the Apostles use the word "Brothers", or "Brethren" it means "Blood Brother".
The proof I have is the Early Church Fathers, and they say no way to siblings of Christ.
@hockeyrulesus Yes, Acts and Luke wrote in Greek and were never Aramaic and they are the basis of why I believe that scripture supports the family of Mary and Joseph had more children than Jesus. you can not duck the issue by source language from Luke, Acts or the letter of Paul since the original is Greek never in Aramaic.
@hockeyrulesus con't Jesus had a normal family life. It appears form the gospels that Joseph died young and Jesus, being the oldest, took over the family business and held the family together with Mary by working. Jesus was responsible, hard working and made money to support the family until all 7 children were grown up and Mary had some other support. Jesus then at age 30 start to preach Until around age 30 he was a carpenter. So come on and think. Mary lived a normal life.
@MRGV7373 "support the family until all 7 children were grown up"
So, Jesus had 7 younger siblings, huh?... Then they must have been retarded or just uncaring wretches, if Jesus left the care of His mother to His friend John, when he was dying on the cross. Logically, if Jesus had siblings, one of them would take care of her after the eldest died.
You're impressing your own modern notions on an alien culture and time and place. You must interpret Scripture on it's own terms, not yours.
@AmericanBerean I did, 3 named brothers and the word for sister means 3 or more in Greek. If Jesus knows that his brothers are going to witness and die for him the next few years, it would make sense to have John keep his mother since Jesus knew that John was going to out live his mother and brothers. Mary as the new eve, she gave birth to many children, she had sex with out sin, she births a new born again world, she has gold in her inner and out parts, touched by only poles
@AmericanBerean Stop listening to Scott Hahn and actually read the Bible....They didn't believe Jesus was God....the Bible is clear of that....it wasn't until after the ressurection did some of them believe in Christ...like James and Jude.
@shanana000 Here's another non-explicit Scriptural Truth: Your divine right to private ownership of property. Nowhere in the Bible is that explicitly stated. But it is implicit in the Commandment "Thou shalt not steal". If you don't have the right to own property, I can't be guilty of unlawfully taking it. Since that commandment exists, the implicit truth is that you have the divine right to own property.
Your logic dictates that only explicit doctrines are "Scriptural".You're wrong.
@AmericanBerean God's laws are written on our hearts....and no where in the 10 commandments does it tell me to call Mary mother....she was the mother of Christ and the children of Joseph her husband. I have my own parents that I am to honor. That's explicit.
@MRGV7373 The word "until" in Greek "heos" means only that some action did not happen up to a certain point; it does not imply that the action did happen later, which is the modern sense of the term. Examples:
1) "Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death" (2 Sam. 6:23).
2) Deuteronomy says that no one knew the location of Moses' grave "until this present day" (Deut. 34:6)
@hockeyrulesus Again you use the Aramaic word and not the Greek word in Samual. Heos in context of matt1:24 fits that Mary had sex with Joseph after Jesus was born, there is not other way to interpret the verse.
@MRGV7373 "heos" means only that some action did not happen up to a certain point; it does not imply that the action did happen later, which is the modern sense of the term.
@hockeyrulesus Yes, and if you look at the rest of the verse it tell you what happened with Mary and Joseph after "heos" had happened before. Mary and Joseph had no sex before "heos" Jesus was born - correct - and then they had a normal marriage relationship that resulted in normal 1/2 brothers and sister to Jesus. That is the full and correct meaning of the sentence in context by itself. Plain as day.
@28804ecorrell And the documentary teaches a very non-historical non bible based teaching. No history of Mary as ever virgin, sin less and assumed into heaven. Mary is full of Grace, she is a great women and one of the first believers. Mary is Holy because God died for here on the cross. see acts 1-2. Mary is human since only Jesus never sinned. God saved her just like ever one else. You don't need a savior if you don't ever fall. All truth was given by Jesus, RCC can't add
There's no Bible teaching on Peter's death, or Paul's beheading either, but it happened. Not everything is in the Bible, but can be found in the writings of the Early Church, and the Oral Tradition. You obviously didn't watch the video, because if you did you would see that Sinless Mary is explained, and he explains where we see it in scripture. Mary had no other children that's why Jesus left his mother in the care of the Apostle John. Sorry.
De Obitu S. Dominae (305AD) "And when the third day was ended, the voices were no longer heard; and from that time forth all knew that her spotless and precious body had been transferred to paradise."
De Transitu Virginis (490AD) "He was lifted up on a cloud, and taken back into heaven, and the angels along with Him, carrying the blessed Mary into the paradise of God."
Gregory of Tours (590AD) -"The Apostles took up her body on a bier and placed it in a tomb; and they guarded it, expecting the Lord to come. And behold, again the Lord stood by them; and the holy body having been received, He commanded that it be taken in a cloud into paradise: where now, rejoined to the soul, she rejoices with the Lord's chosen ones." (Book of Miracles, 1:4)
I really have nothing to say to you non-believers except that I will pray for you. GOD BLESS THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH, THE TRUE CHURCH. GOD'S CHURCH :)
@TheSmithDorian The Quote is "Blessed are you among women and blessed is the fruit of your womb."(Luke 1:42-43) and "for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed." (Luke 1:48).
The word "Blessed", has more then one definition, and the word in both of these texts, means "consecrated; sacred; holy; sanctified" . In (Luke 1:42-43) the same definition of "Blessed" is used to describe both Jesus and Mary, and these things were explained by the Apostles to the Early Church Fathers
@TheSmithDorian The last paragraph of the Gospel of John says, " But there are also many other things which Jesus did which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written." Because the Gospel doesn't record much dialogue between Jesus and Mary isn't proof of anything, and to say Jesus didn't love His mother is just plain idiotic.
"No one is Good" is not a literal statement. Jesus often used exaggeration to make a point
I could say that the original ending to John looks like it was 20:23 and that 20:24-31 and 21:1-24 look like additions and further that 21:25 looks like an addition to an addition. But you've probably heard it before and as you still cite this passage, presumably you don't accept it.
However, the authors claim about the world not being big enough to hold the accounts of all that Jesus did is - well let's be kind and call it a wild exaggeration from a non-eye witness.
At most, the period of Jesus ministry was 3 years and most of that was covered in the gospels.
It’s ironic though that while the Catholic Church probably added 21:25 itself, it was also responsible for declaring any accounts of these other things that Jesus supposedly did, to be heretical and banning them.
While Jesus obviously said more to Mary than is recorded in the gospels, those words were not thought significant enough to be recorded by the gospel authors.
Had Jesus indicated that Mary was the only sinless human being in history and the Queen of Heaven I’m sure the gospel authors would have recorded it.
.
“..and to say Jesus didn't love His mother is just plain idiotic”
Possibly – but nobody is saying that. What I said was that Jesus didn’t treat her “like she is anything special” (i.e., that she was anything more than a normal human being and his mother as opposed to a sinless human being and the Queen of Heaven).
@TheSmithDorian Even though the Gospel doesn't record everything, and is not the only source of truth, it does record Mary's place in heaven, "And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. And being with child, she cried travailing in birth:... And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with an iron rod." (Revelations12:1-7)
All these things are explained by the Early Church Fathers.
Really? I suppose nobody knows for sure but I understood it to mean that all humans are sinners to one degree or another.
.
“Jesus often used exaggeration to make a point”
That’s a very slippery slope, if true. How do we know when Jesus was exaggerating and when he wasn’t? For example; did Jesus actually mean that no one comes to the Father but through him or was he exaggerating? Did he really mean that most people don’t?
@TheSmithDorian This were Protestant theology falls apart. Each denomination, or individual determines what the Bible means, and what is/isn't an exaggeration. This the Sola Scriptura doctrine, but Catholic's use the Sacred Tradition to determine what the Bible is saying. This Tradition is also called the Apostolic "Oral Tradition", this was derived from the Apostles Oral teachings to their first converts, like Ignatius, Polycarp, and Clement of Rome, for example. Their witness is crucial.
"This were Protestant theology falls apart" - possibly, but I am not a protestant.
"Each denomination, or individual determines what [.] what is/isn't an exaggeration" - my contention is that Jesus would not have exaggerated at all.
"This is the Sola Scriptura doctrine" - not exactly. Sola Scriptura holds that the NT is sufficient in itself and should not be added to later by men (Scripture alone)
I don't agree that Catholic Tradition comes from the apostles’ oral teachings
1) Protestantism, is any Christian that rejects the Catholic/Orthodox faith, and adheres to Protestant doctrines, such as Bible Alone, and Saved by Faith Alone, etc,etc. So, even though you might be a non denominational Christian, from my short correspondence with you, I can summarize that your ideology is very much Protestant.
Bible Alone: In principal I don't adhere to this. If something can be reliably shown to have been said by one of the original disciples then I'll give it the same weight as scripture. Establishing that though is easier said than done. However, I do not believe that Paul was a genuine apostle and give no regard to his writings.
.
Saved by Faith Alone: This is a Pauline doctrine and as such I reject it.
2) Jesus used exaggeration, also called (hyperbole), often to make a point. Jesus called Himself , a Door, a Light,etc,etc, and are is a few more, “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26)
"If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. " (Matt 5:29–30)
"And call no man your father on earth" (Matt 23:9)
Hyperbole I don't have a problem with. But exaggeration is only classed as such if it is obviously intended not to be taken literally or seriously ( I'm so tired I could sleep for a week). If it's not clear that it is an exaggeration made to demonstrate a point, then it is deception.
So, what then is the obvious non-literal meaning that Jesus intended to convey when he said that no one is good but God?
@TheSmithDorian In (Mk 10:18), Jesus is not rebuking the man and in the process denying that he himself is good, like this passage implies. He was saying that if people recognize that He is good then they should know that He is God. This is hyperbole, as we can see by the words of Christ; (Luke 23:50) "And, behold, there was a man named Joseph, a counsellor; and he was a good man, and a just:" (Matt 12:35) "'A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things:'"
Ok, you're claiming here that Jesus effectively said that he was God in Mk 10:18. While I (and many NT scholars) don't agree that this is what Jesus is saying here; for the sake of this discussion let's assume for a moment that you are correct.
So when Jesus says that only God is good and that as he (Jesus) is good then he is God; he isn’t using hyperbole at all. He is simply stating a truth without exaggeration. Only God is good, Jesus is good, therefore Jesus is God.
The kind of hyperbole that you cite from Matt and Luke is different. It refers to being a “good man”. This means loving God, trying to keep his laws and when failing to (as every man does) repenting and asking forgiveness. When Jesus says no one is good but God he means no one but God is without sin or ‘absolutely good” - as Ignatius writes to the Philadelphians.
Full circle – God is good, Jesus is God, Mary isn’t God, Mary can’t be good, Mary can’t be sinless.
@TheSmithDorian I didn't cite (Luke 23:50) or (Matt 12:35) as hyperbole. I used those verses to show that (Mk 10:18) is Jesus using hyperbole when he says no "one" (man/women) is good, that would include, good man, because the statement posed to Jesus was referring to Him as being a good man. so, we can see this can only be hyperbole, because else where in the Bible other humans are referred to as Good.
3) The Traditions of the Church all have their origins in the teachings of the Apostles. If I use Ignatius for example; he was a man converted and ordained by St John, and John's fellow worker for 40 yrs. Ignatius took over Peter's Bishopric in Antioch, before Peter went to Rome, where Ignatius would later be Martyred. If I can't trust this man, over the Reformers and their teachings 1500 yrs later, then I need my head examined .lol. Ignatius taught RC Doctrine and I'm content.
@TheSmithDorian What we know is Irenaeus was taught by Polycarp, who we know was friends with Ignatius (by their letters). Irenaeus, states Polycarp was taught by the Apostle John. If Polycarp was verified as knowing the Apostles and was 40yrs younger then Ignatius, we can be sure his friend Ignatius wasn't lying either. Also, other Christian historians, like Eusebius, give us enough information on this subject. Eusebius had access to ancient writings now extinct.
OK but I think you will concede that the answers to questions 1, 2 and 3 are 'no'.
Ignatius never claims to have known John or that his writings are based on what John told him. Further, he doesn't mention John's gospel at all - despite supposedly being a friend / follower of John at the time that it was being written.
For Ignatius there are were very good reasons for stating his association with John and no reasons for not doing so. So why would he not mention it?
Ignatius died in his 80's, but we only have 6 letters he wrote on his way to die. I would suspect that he wrote a whole lot more, or even wrote letters to John, but since other Church Fathers say it is true, and we know he was friends with Polycarp, a known friend of John, I'm sold. Also, Ignatius was writing on his way to die, he might have had more important things to write about then his relationship with John.
I have a question for you (and I don't know the answer to this myself);
Albeit that they are not always 100% consistent on some issues - the letters of Ignatius nevertheless contain many of the doctrines that were adopted by the Catholic Church and which remain as doctrine today. Why then do you think that none of them were included in the NT canon? Particularly when some works of far lesser importance and of questionable authenticity, were included in the canon?
@TheSmithDorian Well, for the first 200+ yrs the writings of Ignatius and Clement of Rome were considered scripture. When the Catholic Church was deciding the Christian Canon, it was decided by majority, to not include any epistles written by none Apostles. The exceptions were two Gospels, (Mark & Luke) even though not Apostles, they were the accounts of two Apostles. Mark was Peters disciple, and asked to write Peters account after Peter was martyred, and similarly with Luke.
It also sets a dangerous precedent for the gospel writers. If Jesus exaggerated to make a point why would they not do so to win people over to Jesus? Why not add some miracles to the story or some post resurrection appearances – if it serves a noble purpose?
.
We know that the early church leader Eusebius did this kind of thing and Paul hints that he did in 1 Cor 9:22. If Jesus himself isn’t 100% truthful, what reason is there to think that NT scripture is?
@TheSmithDorian We can talk about (John 6), where Jesus speaks of of His flesh is "real food". do you believe this to be an exaggeration of Jesus? If you're a non Catholic/Orthodox, then you must believe this to be an exaggeration of Christ to make a point, but we know this to be a 100% truthful statement. How does one know what is truth? By the witness of the Early Church, and the writings of the men who knew the Apostles first hand, like Ignatius, disciple of St John for 4 decades, for one.
If it did then you wouldn’t get new Tradition springing up centuries after the first converts had died – as with the assumption of Mary. Further, a great deal of Catholic Tradition is not related to anything that the apostles could or would have said – like Paul being the author of Hebrews (which he clearly isn’t)
.
Catholic Tradition is a wish list. It’s all the things that the Church wanted to be true, but which were not in scripture and for which there was no evidence.
1) Their are no "New" Traditions only "clearer" understandings of old Traditions. The Assumption has come through the oral tradition, and can be seen referred to by the Apostle John in Rev 12 "And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars."
2) There is no evidence one way or another on the author of Hebrews, and it's only a source of inconclusive debates. Irrelevant.
The first time that Mary's death is mentioned by anybody is 377AD (approx 325 yrs after) and even then the comment is that nobody knows where, how or when it happened. The Assumption itself isn't recorded until 5th C.
Are you saying that there was an oral tradition that started with with one of the Church fathers in the 1st C - that was kept secret & never written down once by anybody in over 400 yrs?
The Assumption was a late Tradition, it was not a "clearer" understanding
@TheSmithDorian Yes, we hold the truth of the Assumption as coming down through the oral tradition, but this is not saying that this was never written down before 377AD, only that the writings have not survived, as many writings are lost. The logic that the writings of Mary's Assumption isn't found before 377AD means it didn't happen, could also be applied to her death, of which no writings can be found pre 377AD. Does that mean you don't believe Mary died? Where are her relics?
"The logic that the writings of Mary's Assumption isn't found before 377AD"
377AD isn't the date that the Assumption is first recorded or even discussed - it's the date that the details (or lack thereof) of Mary's death are first discussed. The first time that the Catholic Church or any senior member of it, states in writing that the Assumption actually happened isn't until the 8th C.
Are you saying that there was some kind of conspiracy going on it the Church whereby..
... although it was Church doctrine and known by everybody, for nearly 700 yrs the Church wrote nothing about it?
It's not a minor event - the only time in history that a woman is assumed, the only time in the NT period where a fully human being is assumed and it takes place in the middle of the NT authorship period, and it wasn't worth writing about?
Your point that writings might not have survived might be credible if we're talking about the 1or 2 centuries -but not 7.
@TheSmithDorian 1 We believe as Catholic's that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit into "All" truths, as stated in the NT. Whether it isn't found before 5th century, we believe this revelation to be true. Though I personally believe it came through the Oral Tradition.
Doctrines sometimes take centuries to define, such as the doctrine of the Trinity, Transubstantiation, The Nature of Christ, etc,etc,. The Assumption can be seen mentioned in various writings from the 5th century on.
"we believe this revelation to be true. Though I personally believe it came through the Oral Tradition"
OK but the question is :- which Apostle either saw the Assumption and started the tradition or had it 'revealed' to him and started the tradition? If you don't know where the tradition started how can you possibly say that it is true? Particularly when the earliest sources are unknown authors, centuries later whose accounts the Church didn't seem to accept at the time.
This isn't really doctrine though is it. It either happened or it didn't happen. Mary's body was either taken up to heaven or it wasn't. It isn't like contemplating how a biblical period parable about a specific kind of sin should be applied in modern times. It's black or white.
If an apostle saw it or had it revealed to him then that is the point when it is the most clear. It doesn't get clearer by not recording it for centuries
At the 4th Ecumenical Council: Chalcedon (451), It was mentioned "Mary's Tomb was empty"
De Obitu S. Dominae (4th-5th century) "And when the third day was ended, the voices were no longer heard; and from that time forth all knew that her spotless and precious body had been transferred to paradise." De Transitu Virginis (490AD) "He was lifted up on a cloud, and taken back into heaven, and the angels along with Him, carrying the blessed Mary into the paradise of God."
St. Gregory of Tours (590 A.D).: "The course of this life having been completed by the Blessed Mary, . . . [The Lord] commanded that [her holy body] be taken in a cloud into paradise."
1) As I stated before, Mary wasn't the first human assumed. We don't make any of the past humans, assumed like Moses, Enoch or Elijah into royalty, so Mary's royalty is not due to her assumption.
2) We don't know if Mary was first woman assumed, NT says "Saints" rose from their graves
I may be wrong but I don't think St Gregory wrote the words you assign to him. As far as I know the earliest Church figure to confirm the Assumption in his writings was John the Damascene in the 8th C.
.
"... so Mary's royalty is not due to her assumption" - I didn't claim that it was.
.
"We don't make any of the past humans, assumed like Moses, Enoch or Elijah into royalty" - True, but who is "we"? These individuals were all pre-christianity and pre-Catholic Church.
Ok, just to clarify my previously stated position;
.
i) Mary's death wasn't mentioned at all before 377AD.
ii) Mary's Assumption was not stated anywhere until around 5th Century
iii) Mary's Assumption wasn't confirmed by a Church leader in his writings until 8th C (John the Damascene)
.
The only area we disagree on is iii) where you say it was Gregory of Tours (590 AD). As i said, I could be wrong on this but what is your source for the Gregory of Tours reference?
@TheSmithDorian I agree with 1,2,&3, if you mean, as far as the writings that have survived.
" The Apostles took up her body on a bier and placed it in a tomb; and they guarded it, expecting the Lord to come. And behold, again the Lord stood by them; and the holy body having been received, He commanded that it be taken in a cloud into paradise: where now, rejoined to the soul, she rejoices with the Lord's chosen ones." (Saint Gregory of Tours, Book of Miracles, 1:4)
We have thousands of texts from 4th - 7th centuries from Churches and their leaders - why are there none for the Assumption only?
“Where are her relics?”
That’s obvious surely – Satan must have taken them to deceive Catholics. He’s very crafty – he knows that we have relics from every human being in history, other than Enoch, Moses and Elijah. So if he takes Mary’s; Catholics will assume she was assumed, make her into the Queen of Heaven and start praying to her.
To conclude my argument on the Assumption I would ask that you refer to the earliest Christian historians on whether it really was Apostolic Tradition.
Luke, writing specifically about the apostles during the last half of the 1st C, never mentions it.
Neither Iraneus, about 100 years later nor Origen who wrote shortly after him ever mentions it.
Eusebius writing 100 yrs later never mentions it.
Is it really credible to claim that the Assumption passed bye these four people?
@TheSmithDorian Does Luke mention what happened to Mary's husband Joseph? The belief in the assumption isn't essential to salvation, and their isn't much that survived, if any, about what happened to many of the key people in the Gospels. I don't believe we have the complete writings that were circulating around the ancient world, and I'm not too concerned because it's not salvation.
No Luke doesn't mention Joseph's death but why would he?
I agree that belief in the Assumption isn't essential for salvation but you could say the same of almost everything in Acts which is set at the same time. Further, if Gregory of Tours is correct and it was the apostles that entombed Mary and watched her Assumption, it's really very surprising that Luke doesn't record it in Acts.
As a matter of interest - do you believe that Gregory's account of the Assumption is true?
1) I believe Acts was written before Mary's Assumption, and this is why it's not mentioned. Peter and Paul died between 64-67AD, and this isn't mentioned in Act either. Acts is estimated to be written around no later then 60AD, and Mary death date isn't known.
2) I believe Gregory's account comes from what he was taught through tradition, so, Yes, to the best of his knowledge, it's correct.
3) From a theological point of view, Mary had to be assumed. So lets agree to disagree.
@TheSmithDorian It always seems like non Catholics find the Assumption as something unusual in biblical contexts, yet there were lesser Saints, in the Bible, that were assumed into heaven, such as, Elijah, Enoch, and Moses. If God did this for them why not His Mother? Also, in the Gospel of (Matthew 27:53), after Jesus's resurrection, many of the dead saints came out of their tombs and entered Jerusalem, where they appeared to many, but this is strange for His Mother?
Elijah, Enoch and Moses weren't actually Saints. As for them being somehow "lesser" to Mary; Enoch was too far back in antiquity for us to judge but Moses and Elijah were two of the greatest prophets in biblical history. Moses, Elijah and Mary were all chosen by God but whereas the first two endured suffering, showed great bravery and strove against kings and the masses for God, Mary's only achievement was giving birth to a child. This hardly justifies assumption into heaven.
"in (Matthew 27:53), [..] many of the dead saints came out of their tombs and entered Jerusalem, where they appeared to many, but this is strange for His Mother"
Mark, Luke and John don't seem to aware that this happened but even if it did, it's very different to what is suppposed to have happened to Mary. Matt talks about the bodies of dead saints (whoever they were) being raised. Mary on the other hand is supposedly taken up bodily into heaven upon her death.
If he has choices and faces consequences then he is no better then us... then he is operating inside the space-time frame.. and has mental monologues.. I am having hard time accepting that
@Kosta88Pop The speaker in the video was just making a point., and I think you're reading too much into it. God knows what He's doing, but the speaker is just making a point that God could do anything, and could have destroyed His creation if He wanted. Just like God could have Redeemed us with one drop of His blood, but God chose a much more bloody route.
why do we(people keep putting man kind on a throne and giving him power over us? jesus came to doaway with this evil corupt system. yet here we are 2000 years later and once again we have given all the power of heaven over to a image of mary and a pope who thinks he is Christ him self. we have learn nothing. no wonder when Jesus comes back he is going to b mad. not with the world. it dosnt know any better. but with his people. who set up evil systems to goven over others.
@4gotten1s If a child dies before the age of reason, did that child sin? Protestant interpretation on this subject are incorrect. That quote means, All are born with the stain of Original Sin, and All of us need a Savior. Mary was saved at conception, by the grace of God, to be the Mother of God the Son. Where does it say God was made flesh from a SINNER? It goes against reason!
You didn't watch the video? The angel Gabriel said, "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you" (Luke 1:28). The phrase "full of grace" is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene. Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning "to fill or endow with grace." Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present.
@hockeyrulesus The phrase "full of grace" in Greek is "plaras karitos" and it occurs in only 2 places in the New Testament; neither 1 is in reference 2 Mary.
1."And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth," (John 1:14).
2."And Stephen, full of grace and power, was performing great wonders and signs among the people," (Acts 6:8).<<< so therefore Steven is the king of heaven? and was also sinless
@4gotten1s The Greek word used in (Luke 1:28) was not the words used in (John1:14) and (Acts 6:8), it was Kecharitomene-Fully Endowed with Grace, a perfect passive participle. In Steven's case he was, at the time, full of Saving Grace "plaras karitos", not in a "past - present" form of Grace "Kecharitomene" as Mary.
@hockeyrulesus (Acts 6:8) can be twisted also to mean steven is a sinless person. come really do u hv that much faith in a system that choose to do exactly what Christ came to do away with. its simple. man kind kept on put kings lords preist on thrones and giving them the power to tell the people what god was saying. jesus came and said so simple a child could under stand. Iam the way 2 the father and the holy spirit will help ur spirit.
not another king or queen of heaven. or pope. IESUS
The Bible isn't for individual interpretation. Protestants claim that the Holy Spirit guides them in their interpretations.......well, if that were true, then the Holy Spirit would be schizophrenic, because there are 30+ thousand denominations all with differing beliefs, some reject infant baptism, some don't, some reject Gay Marriage, some don't, etc,etc, Christ said the Holy Spirit would guide the Church, and it's been that way for 2000+ yrs. AMEN!!
@hockeyrulesus where did I say that it was? ur twisting words. the bible tells us the spirit will lead u into all turth. some people put they own spin on it. some as u hv talk about dont listern to the holy spirit. But no where dose it say the pope will lead u into all truth. where dose it say bow to mary. If Mary was cleansed from Original Sin by God, at conception, show me in the bible where it says this. Romans 3:23
@4gotten1s "The Spirit will lead you into all truths" was directed at the Apostles, who were the clergy of the Church, again, we aren't to interpret the bible outside of what was already interpreted through the church.Our interpretations are the same since Apostolic times.
I already gave you the passage about Mary's sinless nature, and this was reviled in full, by the Holy Spirit to Christ's Church.
@ComradeAgopian I tell u why. 1. iam not insulting mary. iam insulting the chatholic churchs false teachings. 2. u never explain ur selfs. just come back answers on how people hate u. or how ur the true church with no bible back up 4 ur false claims.
just because mary was beatified like so many others.Charlemagne, Kateri Tekakwitha
By October 2004 Pope John Paul II had beatified 1,340 people,
and still u wont show me where mary is called sinless. or Jesus said to bow 2 her.make idols of
@ComradeAgopian jesus never made and claims of mary being the queen of heaven she was just a blessed servent of the Lord. the aposles never made and claims or laws rules or even say the bead and wine trun into christ blood and body as soon as there blessed. If u cant see this is pagan worship. then I just feel sorry 4 u. as u will hv to give an answer to God on why u choose to put mary and the pope b4 Christ. why u choose to hv another human as ur medator 2 God and not Christ 4 which he came 4.
Bible on MARY QUEEN OF HEAVEN ""And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars." (Revelations12:1-7)
SINLESS MARY ""Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you" (Luke 1:28). To be "Full of Grace" is to have no room for sin.
(1Cor 10:16) " The chalice of benediction which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?"
STATUES IN CHURCH (No engraved Images of anything on earth or in heaven?)
Exodus25:18-19- God Commands Moses to make 2 Cherubim(Angels) for the Arc.
@hockeyrulesus these were decorations. not worshiped or kissed like that of the foot of peter? or prayer to like mary. and carryed around through the streets.if the chatholic way is all there is.no hope for any one. as all it want back is the power it once has as a geo-political power. just like islam. to rule with fear. to cause great and small to bow before it. not to bow to jesus. but to who ever it set up. weather is a statues of mary to day. or an image in the holy of holys tomorrow
"He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption." Hippolytus AD 235
Mary is the New Ark, the New Eve, the Mother of God. These are not recent, fabricated concepts. The early Christians considered her these things because that is what was handed down to them from the Apostles and Scripture is consistent with it, even if not plain and obvious, when one considers it in context of culture/language/time/place.
AmericanBerean 2 weeks ago
Thank you for sharing!
msmary126 3 weeks ago
I know for a fact the Bible tells us about the new Adam...but why did God forget to tell us about a new Eve? And why wasn't Mary born of a Virgin like Jesus was?..if you claim that she bypassed being born of the seed of Adam like Christ did. And please provide scripture where this miracle took place...like how the Bible tells us about it happening with Christ's birth. Thank you.
shanana000 3 weeks ago
@shanana000 "but why did God forget to tell us about a new Eve"
Scripture does describe a new Eve, not explicitly, as Paul calls Jesus New Adam, but implicitly with other words and phrases. The "woman" throughout salvation history is prominent. Eve ("woman") was mother of all the living. Mary became mother of all the living of the New Covenant (Jesus was the Fristborn). Jesus calls her "woman" in the pericope of His first miracle (wedding at Cana). Rev 12 features "woman" as mother.
AmericanBerean 2 weeks ago
@AmericanBerean the new Eve was never taught in the NT. Not one word is said about Mary being a new Eve. Jesus, Peter and Paul never taught this.
MRGV7373 2 weeks ago
@MRGV7373 "New Eve" is implicit, not plainly stated. She is the mother of all the New living, as Eve was the mother of all the living. Hanging on the Cross, Jesus said to John (representative of all believers) "Behold your mother" and the Mary "behold your son". (These statements also accomplished a practical matter, placing Mary under the care of John, because He had no siblings to do so.)
Church Fathers defended her sinlessness. I'll get the references for you...
AmericanBerean 2 weeks ago
@AmericanBerean To even teach this is pure theological nonsense. Mary sinned, the patristic never taught that Mary was sin free. More lies. This guy is terrible.
MRGV7373 2 weeks ago
@AmericanBerean yeah, I know the Bible doesn't tell us explicitly...and that's why it isn't there....making it nonsense. pure and simple.....or was it because God was forgetful?
shanana000 1 week ago
@shanana000 The Trinity isn't explicitly stated either, but implicitly, as also the "New Eve" is implicitly stated. Was God forgetful? lol
hockeyrulesus 1 week ago
@hockeyrulesus the word "trinity" was given to sum up what is explicit in scripture...the God head, the Bible teaches us about the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit....no where does it teach us that Mary is the "new Eve" Adam was married to Eve...Jesus wasn't married to His mother.
shanana000 1 week ago
@shanana000
The answers about Mary in scripture can be found in this video- ( The Truth About Mary and Scripture: MUST SEE! )
hockeyrulesus 1 week ago
@shanana000 Throughout salvation history the "woman" is a significant player. Through a virginal woman Sin entered the world through her disobedience. But God quickly promised salvation through a woman. Later, through a virginal woman Salvation entered the world through her obedience (God didn't force her to do it). Mary's Yes undid Eve's No.
When you really study & contemplate & pray over Scripture you can see such logical connections and implicit truths.
AmericanBerean 1 week ago
@AmericanBerean Mary was born from two sinful parents...right? so she also is a product of Adam.. Jesus had to be born of a virgin not a sinless woman...Jesus had to be born of His Father who was sinless...that's why we need a new Adam (which is Christ) so we can born through Him and His blood. We are made righteous through the sacrificed shed blood of Christ..and Mary need Christ's blood too! the egg comes to life when the father fertilizes the egg in the woman.
shanana000 5 days ago
@shanana000 "Jesus had to be born of a virgin not a sinless woman" Does that make sense to you? Why did God make Moses remove his sandals just to stand in His presence, yet God would physically reside in a sinful, dirty human. Not by my understand of God. I don't think that Protestants really understand who Jesus is....."God on Earth", and He didn't take flesh from filth, but a cleansed and pure virgin.
hockeyrulesus 5 days ago
@hockeyrulesus Christ came to remove sin...even His Mother's. No where does the Bible teach mary was sinless...Since the Bible is God's word...why did He forget to mention that Mary had to be sinless? He said she was a virgin..I know the meaning of what virgin is..and it doesn't mean sinless. A mother and her Child are two seperate ppl.. sin is in the blood...and Christ has His Father's blood..not His mothers..get it now? the Father fertilizes the egg. That's when blood developes in the egg.
shanana000 4 days ago
@shanana000
When I went to school, I learned that we get 1/2 of our genetic material from our father and 1/2 from our mother. If God didn't need Mary's genetics to make Him human, He wouldn't have come into the world this way.
Jesus was fully God, and fully Human, and fulfilled the prophesy that the Messiah would be born of the "House of David", meaning He would be a descendant of King David, which Mary was, and is where He received 1/2 of His genetic material. Get it yet?
hockeyrulesus 4 days ago
@hockeyrulesus And Joseph was also a descendant of King David. Don't forget...Jesus created Mary. She's a creation like the rest of us....But Jesus is God in the flesh..and He is the creator of flesh,,,the plan of salvation was His, not Mary's....so that is why prots don't worship mary, but God alone. Just like those in the Bible did...you won't find anyone going to mary for healing or them praying to her in the Bible. No where.
shanana000 4 days ago
@shanana000 For starters, Mary was still alive when the Gospels and Epistles were written. She was dead when John wrote Revelations, and John describes her in Heaven with a crown of 12 stars.
That being said, Prots can yell up and down that Catholics worship Mary, but this is of their own ignorant's. Prots have a problem with the definition of the word "Prayer". It can mean "worship"(communication that involve adoration) OR "a fervent request" (communication that does not involve adoration).
hockeyrulesus 3 days ago
@hockeyrulesus I know she was, and even though she was likely dead when John was old. He still knew her..so why didn't he say it was mary? that's because the woman is ISRAEL and the 12 stars are the TRIBES of ISRAEL. The Jews will finally come to accept her MESSIAH in the last days. You only pray to the only one that can hear you being He is omnipresent, omnicient and omnipotent...Mary isn't any of these..so how can she hear all those that pray to her? vain prayers to 1 that can't hear any1.
shanana000 1 day ago
@shanana000
I've heard this false interpretation of Revelations before, but the problem with this interpretation as the Woman being Israel is, further on in this passage, and I quote:
"And the dragon was angry against the woman: and went to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ." (Rev12:17)
Did Israel keep the testimony of Jesus Christ? No. Israel rejected Him, so the woman can not be Israel. (1 of 2)
hockeyrulesus 2 hours ago
@shanana000 How Saints hear us. The Soul is not of the material word, it is of the supernatural world. Meaning it is outside of natural law. God, Angels, and the Human Soul are NOT bound by time and space. So, she can and does hear us, and if you read Revelations, you'd see the Souls in heaven offer up the "Prayers" of men. ( Revelation 5:8, or Revelation 8:3-4)
St Paul called the Saints of old as "we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us,", one must be aware to witness
hockeyrulesus 1 hour ago
@shanana000 What Mary does for us comes from God, the same way the Apostles preformed miracles not of their own power but of God's. No good Catholic believes it is Mary's power or worships her as a God, this comes from Protestant propaganda.
Correction: God the Father created Mary, Jesus, (God made flesh) was created by Mary. God needed His creation to create His human form. Don't worry, I don't expect you to get it, that's why you're not Catholic. lol.
hockeyrulesus 3 days ago
@hockeyrulesus And God said "let us make man in our image" who was God telling this too? Someone else was going to help him make humans? Could it be Jesus? Jesus received His flesh from Mary, but Jesus knew the plan of salvation from the foundations of the earth...before Mary was ever born! It's God's plan, It's God's Bible, It's God's creation and He gets all the praise and glory! Not your church or Mary..and Mary would know this herself.
shanana000 23 hours ago
@hockeyrulesus you seem to forget that Christ took all the sins of the whole world while on the cross...so yes, he can live in a sinful mother. because he is a separate human being then his mother...isn't that why abortion is murder? All humans are from the sinful blood of Adam until they are born again through the sinless blood of Christ. and that included Mary. your church made up all the doctrine of mary...and it can be traced in time when it developed..you won't find in the Bible.
shanana000 4 days ago
@shanana000 All Catholic doctrine can be found in scripture either implicitly or explicitly and verified by the Church Fathers. Yes, Mary was freed by the blood of Christ......at conception, for God is not bound by time. As much as Protestant would love to erase Mary as the Son of God's mother it can't be done. Mary was God's mother by her actions and her genetics, and Jesus was fully God and fully Man.
1) Where in the Bible does it say Jesus was a separate human being from His mother?
hockeyrulesus 4 days ago
@hockeyrulesus Where in scripture does it tell us that Jesus isn't a separate human being from His mother? Being a virgin doesn't mean your sinless. we are all products of adam accept Christ..he was born of virgin, by passing the seed of man...Jesus received his sinlessness from his father...and his flesh from his mother. A baby gets it's blood from it's father..that's biologly 101. And doesn't your church teach that abortion is murder?..the mother is killing a separate human being in her womb
shanana000 4 days ago
@shanana000 "Jesus wasn't married to His mother."
No, but the Holy Spirit was. "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee". The culture/language idioms employed in this verse imply taking as a wife, not just divine impregnation.
Joseph was told "fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife". The phrase for marital union was not used, but instead the phrase for lead her into the house as a wife excepting sexual union.
AmericanBerean 1 week ago
@AmericanBerean oh, so mary had two husbands...the Holy Spirit and Joseph...right? Stop it would you? God, Jesus or the Holy Spirit never married anyone...The Holy Spirit never had sex with Mary...only Joseph did because the angel told Joseph to take Mary as his wife. Wives can have sex with their husbands because God ordained it so. Boy you guys twist truth...but occults do that.
shanana000 5 days ago
@shanana000 "the Holy Spirit never married anyone...The Holy Spirit never had sex with Mary"
You are wrong because you are not considering the cultural context.
The HS did have sex with Mary, though not in human manner but in the way the HS would. Once she conceived a child that was not Joseph's, she was sexually out of bounds to him.
The angel's phrase to Joseph to take her as his wife does not include the usual marital union, but to take into his house as wife w/o cohabiting.
AmericanBerean 1 day ago
@AmericanBerean So when the bible says the angel to joseph to take mary as his wife..it didn't really mean the way that God tells everyone else too...and when you say the HS had sex with mary; but not in the way ppl do but you can't prove it any where in the bible but i'm suppose to believe you and your church? i think your foolish and backwards. and what you said is the reason why i don't believe in what your leaders teach.
shanana000 1 day ago
@shanana000 The problem is you are not taking Scripture on it's own terms. You are interpreting it based on your modern western notions, specifically, your notion of marriage in that time and culture and place. Celibate marriages were not unheard of.
The angel used a phrase (paralambano gunaika) which was not the usual phrase for marital union ("go into" or "come together"). Divine insemination must be a quite different procedure than natural insemination, since He is non-corporeal.
AmericanBerean 7 hours ago
Doctrines over time can be determined over time but nothing can be added to what the NT teaches. No additional teachings, dogma can be added to the message. We can gain more understanding but no new teaching can be added. The church can develop the doctrine but can add no teachings. The ever virgin Mary is not taught in scripture or by the early church fathers. The sinless Mary is not taught by church fathers and many warn against teaching this teaching. No history on Mary on assumption
MRGV7373 3 weeks ago
@MRGV7373 1 of 2
Origen A.D. 248
"The Book [the Protoevangelium] of James [records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her."
hockeyrulesus 3 weeks ago
@hockeyrulesus this book was a know forgery.
MRGV7373 3 weeks ago
@MRGV7373 2 of 2
Origen AD 248 continued "And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the firstfruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the firstfruit of virginity" (Commentary on Matt 2:17 )
hockeyrulesus 3 weeks ago
@hockeyrulesus It says the first fruits of virginity not the ever virgin Mary. that is not taught here.
MRGV7373 3 weeks ago
@MRGV7373 Hilary of Poitiers
"If they [the brethren of the Lord] had been Mary’s sons and not those taken from Joseph’s former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, ‘Woman, behold your son,’ and to John, ‘Behold your mother’ [John 19:26–27), as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate" (Commentary on Matthew 1:4 [A.D. 354]).
hockeyrulesus 3 weeks ago
@MRGV7373 Athanasius
"Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that he took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary" (Discourses Against the Arians 2:70 [A.D. 360]).
hockeyrulesus 3 weeks ago
@hockeyrulesus Yes, so one man's ideas makes it true?? Such none sense. Mary is never represented in the gospels as ever virgin. John, Matthew and Luke tell us that Jesus had blood brothers and sisters. No where in scripture is Mary as ever virgin. The patristic have many ideas about Mary as ever virgin, sinless and nothing about assumed into heaven at all. Even Thomas Aquinas said that Mary had sin. The church fathers are not scripture nor do they agree 100% on Mary.
MRGV7373 2 weeks ago
@MRGV7373 Scripture does not say, blood brothers & sisters, and it would have been unheard of for Jesus to leave His mother in the care of John if He had siblings. When the Gospels speak of the Holy family, there is no mention of siblings. The words brethren, brothers, and sisters, have a wide range of meaning. All the evidence from the NT to the Early Church is contrary to siblings of Christ. For God sake, their identity is explained in (Matt. 27:56) & (Mark 15:40) & (John 19:25)
hockeyrulesus 2 weeks ago
The teaching on Mary are not part of salvation for Christians. Mary is Jesus mother and becomes a believer in Jesus, Acts 1,2. Mary by history had many children, 4 boys and sister no know. Mary is not ever virgin but virgin until after Jesus was born. Mary did sin since she is human and she says she needs a redeemer. Mary bones or body was never found and no one knows where she is buried. No one knows if she was assumed into heaven. Any Mary teachings don't change salvation.
MRGV7373 3 weeks ago
@MRGV7373 (1 of 2)
1)Correct, the teachings of Mary are not Salvation.
2) There is NO HISTORY of Jesus having Brothers. James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude are explained to be the sons of Mary, the wife of Clopas, Jesus' cousins. Cousins, or any male relatives were called brothers in Hebrew and Aramaic.
hockeyrulesus 3 weeks ago
@MRGV7373 (2 of 2)
"Mary is not ever virgin but virgin until after Jesus was born."
3)The most commonly made argument based on Matthew 1:25: "And he did not know her till (hilos) she brought forth her firstborn son." (hilos) till means only that some action did not happen up to a certain point. Example: "Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death" (2 Sam. 6:23) and Nobody knows where Moses is buried "until this present day" (Deut. 34:6).
hockeyrulesus 3 weeks ago
@MRGV7373 "Mary is not ever virgin but virgin until after Jesus was born."
3)The most commonly made argument based on Matthew 1:25: "And he did not know her till (hilos) she brought forth her firstborn son." (hilos) till means only that some action did not happen up to a certain point. Example: "Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death" (2 Sam. 6:23) and Nobody knows where Moses is buried "until this present day" (Deut. 34:6).
hockeyrulesus 3 weeks ago
@hockeyrulesus Yes, and in the context of the sentence. If Joseph left her a virgin until Jesus was born of Mary. Then after Jesus was born, Joseph and Mary had normal marital relationship. Keep the sentence in context and then you see the true meaning. The context means, Jesus is born, then Joseph and Mary had normal sexual relation. Simple to understand and in the context it is the correct interpretation.
MRGV7373 3 weeks ago
@MRGV7373 By Law, any woman who had sexual relations of any sort with a man not her husband could never go back, sexually, to her husband. Joseph was told by the angel to take her as his wife but, being an observant Jew, he still would not have sex with her. She became espoused to the Holy Spirit when she was overshadowed by the power of the Most High. From that point forth she was sexually out of bounds to any other man, including her earthly husband.
AmericanBerean 2 weeks ago
@AmericanBerean You are putting words and actions that counter scripture. Matthew1:25 But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus. The word in greek for until mean after the condition changed, so after Mary's condition of delivery Jesus, Joseph took Mary in a normal marriage relationship. Do believe the junk you hear about Mary as ever virgin, the EVM teaching is scriptural, unnatural and lack validity. think!!
MRGV7373 2 weeks ago
@MRGV7373 Unscriptural, lacks cultural tradition and Jesus had brother and sister that the Greek again supports as blood brothers and sisters, not cousin. Mary was normal and had normal sexual life. Why would she be out of bounds if the Angle made Joseph take her as his wife. That belief makes no sense. So is Joseph ever virgin too? A virgin wife to the Jewish mind would be ungodly and and sinful to mosaic law. Why does any body believe such nonsense.
MRGV7373 2 weeks ago
@MRGV7373
1) It was also, ungodly to be with child and unwed, and also a death sentence according to Jewish law. Joseph was the protector of Mary and the Lord.
2) The Greek text was a translation from Hebrew/Aramaic Gospels, and those languages have no word for cousin, step brothers, etc. Example: Lot is called Abraham’s "brother" (Gen.14:14), though he's his nephew. Sometimes brethren meant kinsmen (Deut.23:7; Neh. 5:7; Jer. 34:9) Jacob is called the "brother" of his uncle Laban (Gen. 29:15)
hockeyrulesus 2 weeks ago
@hockeyrulesus Yes, Joseph was told by God to take Mary, the child is from the HS. Mary and Joseph were already engaged so Mary was never in danger and besides, Joseph was going to divorce Mary quietly. But In Act 1:14-15. Luke writes in Greek and says that Mary and Jesus' Brothers and the Greek word means blood brothers. Why can't Mary have children? What is the matter with Mary having a normal, loving children after Jesus. The virgin birth is good history, evervirgin not
MRGV7373 2 weeks ago
@hockeyrulesus Yes, the OT is Aramaic but the whole of the NT is in Greek and the word for cousin and brother are not the same. No where in the NT brother or cousin the same, and using the Genesis is not valid since it does not have the same meaning. The Greek is specific and sites Jesus as having blood brothers. Again, the scriptures always point out that Jesus has blood brothers and sisters not cousins. Mary and Joseph had sex and children. Why is it so hard to believe???
MRGV7373 2 weeks ago
@MRGV7373 The question then is, whether or not the Apostles wrote the Original Gospels in Aramaic, or Greek, and according to many scholars, the Greek versions we have today were copied from Aramaic/Hebrew originals. Now if you can prove to me that the Gospels were always in Greek, and that whenever the Apostles use the word "Brothers", or "Brethren" it means "Blood Brother".
The proof I have is the Early Church Fathers, and they say no way to siblings of Christ.
hockeyrulesus 1 week ago
@hockeyrulesus Yes, Acts and Luke wrote in Greek and were never Aramaic and they are the basis of why I believe that scripture supports the family of Mary and Joseph had more children than Jesus. you can not duck the issue by source language from Luke, Acts or the letter of Paul since the original is Greek never in Aramaic.
MRGV7373 1 week ago
@hockeyrulesus con't Jesus had a normal family life. It appears form the gospels that Joseph died young and Jesus, being the oldest, took over the family business and held the family together with Mary by working. Jesus was responsible, hard working and made money to support the family until all 7 children were grown up and Mary had some other support. Jesus then at age 30 start to preach Until around age 30 he was a carpenter. So come on and think. Mary lived a normal life.
MRGV7373 2 weeks ago
@MRGV7373 "support the family until all 7 children were grown up"
So, Jesus had 7 younger siblings, huh?... Then they must have been retarded or just uncaring wretches, if Jesus left the care of His mother to His friend John, when he was dying on the cross. Logically, if Jesus had siblings, one of them would take care of her after the eldest died.
You're impressing your own modern notions on an alien culture and time and place. You must interpret Scripture on it's own terms, not yours.
AmericanBerean 2 weeks ago
@AmericanBerean I did, 3 named brothers and the word for sister means 3 or more in Greek. If Jesus knows that his brothers are going to witness and die for him the next few years, it would make sense to have John keep his mother since Jesus knew that John was going to out live his mother and brothers. Mary as the new eve, she gave birth to many children, she had sex with out sin, she births a new born again world, she has gold in her inner and out parts, touched by only poles
MRGV7373 2 weeks ago
@AmericanBerean Stop listening to Scott Hahn and actually read the Bible....They didn't believe Jesus was God....the Bible is clear of that....it wasn't until after the ressurection did some of them believe in Christ...like James and Jude.
shanana000 1 week ago
@shanana000 Here's another non-explicit Scriptural Truth: Your divine right to private ownership of property. Nowhere in the Bible is that explicitly stated. But it is implicit in the Commandment "Thou shalt not steal". If you don't have the right to own property, I can't be guilty of unlawfully taking it. Since that commandment exists, the implicit truth is that you have the divine right to own property.
Your logic dictates that only explicit doctrines are "Scriptural".You're wrong.
AmericanBerean 1 week ago
@AmericanBerean God's laws are written on our hearts....and no where in the 10 commandments does it tell me to call Mary mother....she was the mother of Christ and the children of Joseph her husband. I have my own parents that I am to honor. That's explicit.
shanana000 5 days ago
@MRGV7373 The word "until" in Greek "heos" means only that some action did not happen up to a certain point; it does not imply that the action did happen later, which is the modern sense of the term. Examples:
1) "Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death" (2 Sam. 6:23).
2) Deuteronomy says that no one knew the location of Moses' grave "until this present day" (Deut. 34:6)
hockeyrulesus 2 weeks ago
@hockeyrulesus Again you use the Aramaic word and not the Greek word in Samual. Heos in context of matt1:24 fits that Mary had sex with Joseph after Jesus was born, there is not other way to interpret the verse.
MRGV7373 2 weeks ago
@MRGV7373 "heos" means only that some action did not happen up to a certain point; it does not imply that the action did happen later, which is the modern sense of the term.
hockeyrulesus 2 weeks ago
@hockeyrulesus Yes, and if you look at the rest of the verse it tell you what happened with Mary and Joseph after "heos" had happened before. Mary and Joseph had no sex before "heos" Jesus was born - correct - and then they had a normal marriage relationship that resulted in normal 1/2 brothers and sister to Jesus. That is the full and correct meaning of the sentence in context by itself. Plain as day.
MRGV7373 1 week ago
we can say much about Mary but she has nothing to do with my salvation. No more then anyone else except Jesus.
medusa210562 1 month ago
This documentary explains it all.
28804ecorrell 2 months ago
@28804ecorrell And the documentary teaches a very non-historical non bible based teaching. No history of Mary as ever virgin, sin less and assumed into heaven. Mary is full of Grace, she is a great women and one of the first believers. Mary is Holy because God died for here on the cross. see acts 1-2. Mary is human since only Jesus never sinned. God saved her just like ever one else. You don't need a savior if you don't ever fall. All truth was given by Jesus, RCC can't add
MRGV7373 3 weeks ago
@MRGV7373 1 of 3
There's no Bible teaching on Peter's death, or Paul's beheading either, but it happened. Not everything is in the Bible, but can be found in the writings of the Early Church, and the Oral Tradition. You obviously didn't watch the video, because if you did you would see that Sinless Mary is explained, and he explains where we see it in scripture. Mary had no other children that's why Jesus left his mother in the care of the Apostle John. Sorry.
hockeyrulesus 3 weeks ago
@MRGV7373 (2 of 3)
The Assumption in History
De Obitu S. Dominae (305AD) "And when the third day was ended, the voices were no longer heard; and from that time forth all knew that her spotless and precious body had been transferred to paradise."
De Transitu Virginis (490AD) "He was lifted up on a cloud, and taken back into heaven, and the angels along with Him, carrying the blessed Mary into the paradise of God."
hockeyrulesus 3 weeks ago
@MRGV7373 (3 of 3)
Gregory of Tours (590AD) -"The Apostles took up her body on a bier and placed it in a tomb; and they guarded it, expecting the Lord to come. And behold, again the Lord stood by them; and the holy body having been received, He commanded that it be taken in a cloud into paradise: where now, rejoined to the soul, she rejoices with the Lord's chosen ones." (Book of Miracles, 1:4)
hockeyrulesus 3 weeks ago
Catholics do NOT worship Mary, they venerate her. They worship ONLY God. There is a difference between worship and venerate.
28804ecorrell 2 months ago
I really have nothing to say to you non-believers except that I will pray for you. GOD BLESS THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH, THE TRUE CHURCH. GOD'S CHURCH :)
28804ecorrell 3 months ago
What madness is this?
Blessed doesn't mean sinless and neither Jesus nor Mary ever states or even hints that she is.
Jesus does not treat Mary like she is anything special - in fact he hardly speaks to her at all.
In Mark ands John she hardly gets a mention, although we know she thought that Jesus had "lost his mind' at one stage".
During his ministry Jesus stated that no one is good but God. So that would make Mary blessed and sinless - but not good. How exactly does that work?
TheSmithDorian 4 months ago
@TheSmithDorian The Quote is "Blessed are you among women and blessed is the fruit of your womb."(Luke 1:42-43) and "for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed." (Luke 1:48).
The word "Blessed", has more then one definition, and the word in both of these texts, means "consecrated; sacred; holy; sanctified" . In (Luke 1:42-43) the same definition of "Blessed" is used to describe both Jesus and Mary, and these things were explained by the Apostles to the Early Church Fathers
hockeyrulesus 4 months ago
@TheSmithDorian The last paragraph of the Gospel of John says, " But there are also many other things which Jesus did which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written." Because the Gospel doesn't record much dialogue between Jesus and Mary isn't proof of anything, and to say Jesus didn't love His mother is just plain idiotic.
"No one is Good" is not a literal statement. Jesus often used exaggeration to make a point
hockeyrulesus 4 months ago
@hockeyrulesus1
I could say that the original ending to John looks like it was 20:23 and that 20:24-31 and 21:1-24 look like additions and further that 21:25 looks like an addition to an addition. But you've probably heard it before and as you still cite this passage, presumably you don't accept it.
However, the authors claim about the world not being big enough to hold the accounts of all that Jesus did is - well let's be kind and call it a wild exaggeration from a non-eye witness.
TheSmithDorian 3 months ago
@hockeyrulesus 2
At most, the period of Jesus ministry was 3 years and most of that was covered in the gospels.
It’s ironic though that while the Catholic Church probably added 21:25 itself, it was also responsible for declaring any accounts of these other things that Jesus supposedly did, to be heretical and banning them.
While Jesus obviously said more to Mary than is recorded in the gospels, those words were not thought significant enough to be recorded by the gospel authors.
TheSmithDorian 3 months ago
@hockeyrulesus 3
Had Jesus indicated that Mary was the only sinless human being in history and the Queen of Heaven I’m sure the gospel authors would have recorded it.
.
“..and to say Jesus didn't love His mother is just plain idiotic”
Possibly – but nobody is saying that. What I said was that Jesus didn’t treat her “like she is anything special” (i.e., that she was anything more than a normal human being and his mother as opposed to a sinless human being and the Queen of Heaven).
TheSmithDorian 3 months ago
@TheSmithDorian Even though the Gospel doesn't record everything, and is not the only source of truth, it does record Mary's place in heaven, "And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. And being with child, she cried travailing in birth:... And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with an iron rod." (Revelations12:1-7)
All these things are explained by the Early Church Fathers.
hockeyrulesus 3 months ago
@hockeyrulesus A
"No one is Good" is not a literal statement”
Really? I suppose nobody knows for sure but I understood it to mean that all humans are sinners to one degree or another.
.
“Jesus often used exaggeration to make a point”
That’s a very slippery slope, if true. How do we know when Jesus was exaggerating and when he wasn’t? For example; did Jesus actually mean that no one comes to the Father but through him or was he exaggerating? Did he really mean that most people don’t?
TheSmithDorian 3 months ago
@TheSmithDorian This were Protestant theology falls apart. Each denomination, or individual determines what the Bible means, and what is/isn't an exaggeration. This the Sola Scriptura doctrine, but Catholic's use the Sacred Tradition to determine what the Bible is saying. This Tradition is also called the Apostolic "Oral Tradition", this was derived from the Apostles Oral teachings to their first converts, like Ignatius, Polycarp, and Clement of Rome, for example. Their witness is crucial.
hockeyrulesus 3 months ago
@hockeyrulesus A
"This were Protestant theology falls apart" - possibly, but I am not a protestant.
"Each denomination, or individual determines what [.] what is/isn't an exaggeration" - my contention is that Jesus would not have exaggerated at all.
"This is the Sola Scriptura doctrine" - not exactly. Sola Scriptura holds that the NT is sufficient in itself and should not be added to later by men (Scripture alone)
I don't agree that Catholic Tradition comes from the apostles’ oral teachings
TheSmithDorian 3 months ago
@TheSmithDorian
1) Protestantism, is any Christian that rejects the Catholic/Orthodox faith, and adheres to Protestant doctrines, such as Bible Alone, and Saved by Faith Alone, etc,etc. So, even though you might be a non denominational Christian, from my short correspondence with you, I can summarize that your ideology is very much Protestant.
hockeyrulesus 3 months ago
@hockeyrulesus
Re: Protestantism - You're a little off the mark.
.
Bible Alone: In principal I don't adhere to this. If something can be reliably shown to have been said by one of the original disciples then I'll give it the same weight as scripture. Establishing that though is easier said than done. However, I do not believe that Paul was a genuine apostle and give no regard to his writings.
.
Saved by Faith Alone: This is a Pauline doctrine and as such I reject it.
TheSmithDorian 3 months ago
@TheSmithDorian
2) Jesus used exaggeration, also called (hyperbole), often to make a point. Jesus called Himself , a Door, a Light,etc,etc, and are is a few more, “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26)
"If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. " (Matt 5:29–30)
"And call no man your father on earth" (Matt 23:9)
hockeyrulesus 3 months ago
@hockeyrulesus
Hyperbole I don't have a problem with. But exaggeration is only classed as such if it is obviously intended not to be taken literally or seriously ( I'm so tired I could sleep for a week). If it's not clear that it is an exaggeration made to demonstrate a point, then it is deception.
So, what then is the obvious non-literal meaning that Jesus intended to convey when he said that no one is good but God?
TheSmithDorian 3 months ago
@TheSmithDorian In (Mk 10:18), Jesus is not rebuking the man and in the process denying that he himself is good, like this passage implies. He was saying that if people recognize that He is good then they should know that He is God. This is hyperbole, as we can see by the words of Christ; (Luke 23:50) "And, behold, there was a man named Joseph, a counsellor; and he was a good man, and a just:" (Matt 12:35) "'A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things:'"
hockeyrulesus 3 months ago
@hockeyrulesus 1/
Ok, you're claiming here that Jesus effectively said that he was God in Mk 10:18. While I (and many NT scholars) don't agree that this is what Jesus is saying here; for the sake of this discussion let's assume for a moment that you are correct.
So when Jesus says that only God is good and that as he (Jesus) is good then he is God; he isn’t using hyperbole at all. He is simply stating a truth without exaggeration. Only God is good, Jesus is good, therefore Jesus is God.
TheSmithDorian 3 months ago
@hockeyrulesus 2/
The kind of hyperbole that you cite from Matt and Luke is different. It refers to being a “good man”. This means loving God, trying to keep his laws and when failing to (as every man does) repenting and asking forgiveness. When Jesus says no one is good but God he means no one but God is without sin or ‘absolutely good” - as Ignatius writes to the Philadelphians.
Full circle – God is good, Jesus is God, Mary isn’t God, Mary can’t be good, Mary can’t be sinless.
TheSmithDorian 3 months ago
@TheSmithDorian I didn't cite (Luke 23:50) or (Matt 12:35) as hyperbole. I used those verses to show that (Mk 10:18) is Jesus using hyperbole when he says no "one" (man/women) is good, that would include, good man, because the statement posed to Jesus was referring to Him as being a good man. so, we can see this can only be hyperbole, because else where in the Bible other humans are referred to as Good.
hockeyrulesus 3 months ago
@TheSmithDorian
3) The Traditions of the Church all have their origins in the teachings of the Apostles. If I use Ignatius for example; he was a man converted and ordained by St John, and John's fellow worker for 40 yrs. Ignatius took over Peter's Bishopric in Antioch, before Peter went to Rome, where Ignatius would later be Martyred. If I can't trust this man, over the Reformers and their teachings 1500 yrs later, then I need my head examined .lol. Ignatius taught RC Doctrine and I'm content.
hockeyrulesus 3 months ago
@hockeyrulesus
OK let's take this guy who you'd be crazy not to trust. I have a few questions about him.
1. Do we have anything from either John or Ignatius that confirms that they actually knew each other?
2. Ditto for Peter and Ignatius?
3. Does Ignatius ever say that his teachings were based on those of John?
4. If the answers to 1.- 3. are 'no' then on what is your trust in Ignatius based?
TheSmithDorian 3 months ago
@TheSmithDorian What we know is Irenaeus was taught by Polycarp, who we know was friends with Ignatius (by their letters). Irenaeus, states Polycarp was taught by the Apostle John. If Polycarp was verified as knowing the Apostles and was 40yrs younger then Ignatius, we can be sure his friend Ignatius wasn't lying either. Also, other Christian historians, like Eusebius, give us enough information on this subject. Eusebius had access to ancient writings now extinct.
hockeyrulesus 3 months ago
@hockeyrulesus
OK but I think you will concede that the answers to questions 1, 2 and 3 are 'no'.
Ignatius never claims to have known John or that his writings are based on what John told him. Further, he doesn't mention John's gospel at all - despite supposedly being a friend / follower of John at the time that it was being written.
For Ignatius there are were very good reasons for stating his association with John and no reasons for not doing so. So why would he not mention it?
TheSmithDorian 3 months ago
@TheSmithDorian
Ignatius died in his 80's, but we only have 6 letters he wrote on his way to die. I would suspect that he wrote a whole lot more, or even wrote letters to John, but since other Church Fathers say it is true, and we know he was friends with Polycarp, a known friend of John, I'm sold. Also, Ignatius was writing on his way to die, he might have had more important things to write about then his relationship with John.
hockeyrulesus 3 months ago
@hockeyrulesus
I have a question for you (and I don't know the answer to this myself);
Albeit that they are not always 100% consistent on some issues - the letters of Ignatius nevertheless contain many of the doctrines that were adopted by the Catholic Church and which remain as doctrine today. Why then do you think that none of them were included in the NT canon? Particularly when some works of far lesser importance and of questionable authenticity, were included in the canon?
TheSmithDorian 3 months ago
@TheSmithDorian Well, for the first 200+ yrs the writings of Ignatius and Clement of Rome were considered scripture. When the Catholic Church was deciding the Christian Canon, it was decided by majority, to not include any epistles written by none Apostles. The exceptions were two Gospels, (Mark & Luke) even though not Apostles, they were the accounts of two Apostles. Mark was Peters disciple, and asked to write Peters account after Peter was martyred, and similarly with Luke.
hockeyrulesus 3 months ago
@hockeyrulesus B
It also sets a dangerous precedent for the gospel writers. If Jesus exaggerated to make a point why would they not do so to win people over to Jesus? Why not add some miracles to the story or some post resurrection appearances – if it serves a noble purpose?
.
We know that the early church leader Eusebius did this kind of thing and Paul hints that he did in 1 Cor 9:22. If Jesus himself isn’t 100% truthful, what reason is there to think that NT scripture is?
TheSmithDorian 3 months ago
@TheSmithDorian We can talk about (John 6), where Jesus speaks of of His flesh is "real food". do you believe this to be an exaggeration of Jesus? If you're a non Catholic/Orthodox, then you must believe this to be an exaggeration of Christ to make a point, but we know this to be a 100% truthful statement. How does one know what is truth? By the witness of the Early Church, and the writings of the men who knew the Apostles first hand, like Ignatius, disciple of St John for 4 decades, for one.
hockeyrulesus 3 months ago
@hockeyrulesus B
If it did then you wouldn’t get new Tradition springing up centuries after the first converts had died – as with the assumption of Mary. Further, a great deal of Catholic Tradition is not related to anything that the apostles could or would have said – like Paul being the author of Hebrews (which he clearly isn’t)
.
Catholic Tradition is a wish list. It’s all the things that the Church wanted to be true, but which were not in scripture and for which there was no evidence.
TheSmithDorian 3 months ago
@TheSmithDorian
1) Their are no "New" Traditions only "clearer" understandings of old Traditions. The Assumption has come through the oral tradition, and can be seen referred to by the Apostle John in Rev 12 "And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars."
2) There is no evidence one way or another on the author of Hebrews, and it's only a source of inconclusive debates. Irrelevant.
hockeyrulesus 3 months ago
@hockeyrulesus
The first time that Mary's death is mentioned by anybody is 377AD (approx 325 yrs after) and even then the comment is that nobody knows where, how or when it happened. The Assumption itself isn't recorded until 5th C.
Are you saying that there was an oral tradition that started with with one of the Church fathers in the 1st C - that was kept secret & never written down once by anybody in over 400 yrs?
The Assumption was a late Tradition, it was not a "clearer" understanding
TheSmithDorian 3 months ago
@TheSmithDorian Yes, we hold the truth of the Assumption as coming down through the oral tradition, but this is not saying that this was never written down before 377AD, only that the writings have not survived, as many writings are lost. The logic that the writings of Mary's Assumption isn't found before 377AD means it didn't happen, could also be applied to her death, of which no writings can be found pre 377AD. Does that mean you don't believe Mary died? Where are her relics?
hockeyrulesus 3 months ago
@hockeyrulesus 1.
"The logic that the writings of Mary's Assumption isn't found before 377AD"
377AD isn't the date that the Assumption is first recorded or even discussed - it's the date that the details (or lack thereof) of Mary's death are first discussed. The first time that the Catholic Church or any senior member of it, states in writing that the Assumption actually happened isn't until the 8th C.
Are you saying that there was some kind of conspiracy going on it the Church whereby..
TheSmithDorian 3 months ago
@hockeyrulesus 2.
... although it was Church doctrine and known by everybody, for nearly 700 yrs the Church wrote nothing about it?
It's not a minor event - the only time in history that a woman is assumed, the only time in the NT period where a fully human being is assumed and it takes place in the middle of the NT authorship period, and it wasn't worth writing about?
Your point that writings might not have survived might be credible if we're talking about the 1or 2 centuries -but not 7.
TheSmithDorian 3 months ago
@TheSmithDorian 1 We believe as Catholic's that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit into "All" truths, as stated in the NT. Whether it isn't found before 5th century, we believe this revelation to be true. Though I personally believe it came through the Oral Tradition.
Doctrines sometimes take centuries to define, such as the doctrine of the Trinity, Transubstantiation, The Nature of Christ, etc,etc,. The Assumption can be seen mentioned in various writings from the 5th century on.
hockeyrulesus 3 months ago
@hockeyrulesus
"we believe this revelation to be true. Though I personally believe it came through the Oral Tradition"
OK but the question is :- which Apostle either saw the Assumption and started the tradition or had it 'revealed' to him and started the tradition? If you don't know where the tradition started how can you possibly say that it is true? Particularly when the earliest sources are unknown authors, centuries later whose accounts the Church didn't seem to accept at the time.
TheSmithDorian 3 months ago
@hockeyrulesus
"Doctrines sometimes take centuries to define"
This isn't really doctrine though is it. It either happened or it didn't happen. Mary's body was either taken up to heaven or it wasn't. It isn't like contemplating how a biblical period parable about a specific kind of sin should be applied in modern times. It's black or white.
If an apostle saw it or had it revealed to him then that is the point when it is the most clear. It doesn't get clearer by not recording it for centuries
TheSmithDorian 3 months ago
@TheSmithDorian 2
At the 4th Ecumenical Council: Chalcedon (451), It was mentioned "Mary's Tomb was empty"
De Obitu S. Dominae (4th-5th century) "And when the third day was ended, the voices were no longer heard; and from that time forth all knew that her spotless and precious body had been transferred to paradise." De Transitu Virginis (490AD) "He was lifted up on a cloud, and taken back into heaven, and the angels along with Him, carrying the blessed Mary into the paradise of God."
hockeyrulesus 3 months ago
@TheSmithDorian 3
St. Gregory of Tours (590 A.D).: "The course of this life having been completed by the Blessed Mary, . . . [The Lord] commanded that [her holy body] be taken in a cloud into paradise."
1) As I stated before, Mary wasn't the first human assumed. We don't make any of the past humans, assumed like Moses, Enoch or Elijah into royalty, so Mary's royalty is not due to her assumption.
2) We don't know if Mary was first woman assumed, NT says "Saints" rose from their graves
hockeyrulesus 3 months ago
@hockeyrulesus
I may be wrong but I don't think St Gregory wrote the words you assign to him. As far as I know the earliest Church figure to confirm the Assumption in his writings was John the Damascene in the 8th C.
.
"... so Mary's royalty is not due to her assumption" - I didn't claim that it was.
.
"We don't make any of the past humans, assumed like Moses, Enoch or Elijah into royalty" - True, but who is "we"? These individuals were all pre-christianity and pre-Catholic Church.
TheSmithDorian 3 months ago
@TheSmithDorian Above are the writings that mention Mary's body being taken to heaven, and I'll re-list them so you can look them up yourself.
1) De Obitu S. Dominae (4th-5th century)
2) De Transitu Virginis (490AD)
3) St. Gregory of Tours (590 A.D)
Honorable mention:
the Ecumenical Council: Chalcedon (451)- The oral tradition of Mary's relics was discussed, and it was stated that Mary's Tomb was empty.
hockeyrulesus 3 months ago
@hockeyrulesus
Ok, just to clarify my previously stated position;
.
i) Mary's death wasn't mentioned at all before 377AD.
ii) Mary's Assumption was not stated anywhere until around 5th Century
iii) Mary's Assumption wasn't confirmed by a Church leader in his writings until 8th C (John the Damascene)
.
The only area we disagree on is iii) where you say it was Gregory of Tours (590 AD). As i said, I could be wrong on this but what is your source for the Gregory of Tours reference?
TheSmithDorian 3 months ago
@TheSmithDorian I agree with 1,2,&3, if you mean, as far as the writings that have survived.
" The Apostles took up her body on a bier and placed it in a tomb; and they guarded it, expecting the Lord to come. And behold, again the Lord stood by them; and the holy body having been received, He commanded that it be taken in a cloud into paradise: where now, rejoined to the soul, she rejoices with the Lord's chosen ones." (Saint Gregory of Tours, Book of Miracles, 1:4)
hockeyrulesus 3 months ago
@hockeyrulesus 3.
We have thousands of texts from 4th - 7th centuries from Churches and their leaders - why are there none for the Assumption only?
“Where are her relics?”
That’s obvious surely – Satan must have taken them to deceive Catholics. He’s very crafty – he knows that we have relics from every human being in history, other than Enoch, Moses and Elijah. So if he takes Mary’s; Catholics will assume she was assumed, make her into the Queen of Heaven and start praying to her.
TheSmithDorian 3 months ago
@hockeyrulesus
To conclude my argument on the Assumption I would ask that you refer to the earliest Christian historians on whether it really was Apostolic Tradition.
Luke, writing specifically about the apostles during the last half of the 1st C, never mentions it.
Neither Iraneus, about 100 years later nor Origen who wrote shortly after him ever mentions it.
Eusebius writing 100 yrs later never mentions it.
Is it really credible to claim that the Assumption passed bye these four people?
TheSmithDorian 3 months ago
@TheSmithDorian Does Luke mention what happened to Mary's husband Joseph? The belief in the assumption isn't essential to salvation, and their isn't much that survived, if any, about what happened to many of the key people in the Gospels. I don't believe we have the complete writings that were circulating around the ancient world, and I'm not too concerned because it's not salvation.
hockeyrulesus 3 months ago
@hockeyrulesus
No Luke doesn't mention Joseph's death but why would he?
I agree that belief in the Assumption isn't essential for salvation but you could say the same of almost everything in Acts which is set at the same time. Further, if Gregory of Tours is correct and it was the apostles that entombed Mary and watched her Assumption, it's really very surprising that Luke doesn't record it in Acts.
As a matter of interest - do you believe that Gregory's account of the Assumption is true?
TheSmithDorian 3 months ago
@TheSmithDorian
1) I believe Acts was written before Mary's Assumption, and this is why it's not mentioned. Peter and Paul died between 64-67AD, and this isn't mentioned in Act either. Acts is estimated to be written around no later then 60AD, and Mary death date isn't known.
2) I believe Gregory's account comes from what he was taught through tradition, so, Yes, to the best of his knowledge, it's correct.
3) From a theological point of view, Mary had to be assumed. So lets agree to disagree.
hockeyrulesus 3 months ago
@TheSmithDorian It always seems like non Catholics find the Assumption as something unusual in biblical contexts, yet there were lesser Saints, in the Bible, that were assumed into heaven, such as, Elijah, Enoch, and Moses. If God did this for them why not His Mother? Also, in the Gospel of (Matthew 27:53), after Jesus's resurrection, many of the dead saints came out of their tombs and entered Jerusalem, where they appeared to many, but this is strange for His Mother?
hockeyrulesus 3 months ago
@hockeyrulesus
Elijah, Enoch and Moses weren't actually Saints. As for them being somehow "lesser" to Mary; Enoch was too far back in antiquity for us to judge but Moses and Elijah were two of the greatest prophets in biblical history. Moses, Elijah and Mary were all chosen by God but whereas the first two endured suffering, showed great bravery and strove against kings and the masses for God, Mary's only achievement was giving birth to a child. This hardly justifies assumption into heaven.
TheSmithDorian 3 months ago
@hockeyrulesus
"in (Matthew 27:53), [..] many of the dead saints came out of their tombs and entered Jerusalem, where they appeared to many, but this is strange for His Mother"
Mark, Luke and John don't seem to aware that this happened but even if it did, it's very different to what is suppposed to have happened to Mary. Matt talks about the bodies of dead saints (whoever they were) being raised. Mary on the other hand is supposedly taken up bodily into heaven upon her death.
TheSmithDorian 3 months ago
If he has choices and faces consequences then he is no better then us... then he is operating inside the space-time frame.. and has mental monologues.. I am having hard time accepting that
Kosta88Pop 4 months ago
@Kosta88Pop The speaker in the video was just making a point., and I think you're reading too much into it. God knows what He's doing, but the speaker is just making a point that God could do anything, and could have destroyed His creation if He wanted. Just like God could have Redeemed us with one drop of His blood, but God chose a much more bloody route.
hockeyrulesus 4 months ago
@Kosta88Pop So, God is limited? He has no choice?
hockeyrulesus 4 months ago
@Snip3rSkillz Isn't it awesome how he tries to teach you and make you laugh at the same time? Glad you liked it!! Amen Homey!!
hockeyrulesus 7 months ago
why do we(people keep putting man kind on a throne and giving him power over us? jesus came to doaway with this evil corupt system. yet here we are 2000 years later and once again we have given all the power of heaven over to a image of mary and a pope who thinks he is Christ him self. we have learn nothing. no wonder when Jesus comes back he is going to b mad. not with the world. it dosnt know any better. but with his people. who set up evil systems to goven over others.
4gotten1s 1 year ago
the sinless mary? what the. for all hv sin and fallen short of the glory of god. where dose it say" except mary"
4gotten1s 1 year ago
@4gotten1s If a child dies before the age of reason, did that child sin? Protestant interpretation on this subject are incorrect. That quote means, All are born with the stain of Original Sin, and All of us need a Savior. Mary was saved at conception, by the grace of God, to be the Mother of God the Son. Where does it say God was made flesh from a SINNER? It goes against reason!
hockeyrulesus 1 year ago
@hockeyrulesus Mary was saved at conception. PLEASE SHOW ME THE BIBLE VERSES FOR THIS.
4gotten1s 1 year ago
@4gotten1s
You didn't watch the video? The angel Gabriel said, "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you" (Luke 1:28). The phrase "full of grace" is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene. Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning "to fill or endow with grace." Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present.
hockeyrulesus 1 year ago
@hockeyrulesus The phrase "full of grace" in Greek is "plaras karitos" and it occurs in only 2 places in the New Testament; neither 1 is in reference 2 Mary.
1."And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth," (John 1:14).
2."And Stephen, full of grace and power, was performing great wonders and signs among the people," (Acts 6:8).<<< so therefore Steven is the king of heaven? and was also sinless
4gotten1s 1 year ago
@4gotten1s The Greek word used in (Luke 1:28) was not the words used in (John1:14) and (Acts 6:8), it was Kecharitomene-Fully Endowed with Grace, a perfect passive participle. In Steven's case he was, at the time, full of Saving Grace "plaras karitos", not in a "past - present" form of Grace "Kecharitomene" as Mary.
hockeyrulesus 7 months ago
@hockeyrulesus (Acts 6:8) can be twisted also to mean steven is a sinless person. come really do u hv that much faith in a system that choose to do exactly what Christ came to do away with. its simple. man kind kept on put kings lords preist on thrones and giving them the power to tell the people what god was saying. jesus came and said so simple a child could under stand. Iam the way 2 the father and the holy spirit will help ur spirit.
not another king or queen of heaven. or pope. IESUS
4gotten1s 1 year ago
@4gotten1s
The Bible isn't for individual interpretation. Protestants claim that the Holy Spirit guides them in their interpretations.......well, if that were true, then the Holy Spirit would be schizophrenic, because there are 30+ thousand denominations all with differing beliefs, some reject infant baptism, some don't, some reject Gay Marriage, some don't, etc,etc, Christ said the Holy Spirit would guide the Church, and it's been that way for 2000+ yrs. AMEN!!
hockeyrulesus 1 year ago
@hockeyrulesus where did I say that it was? ur twisting words. the bible tells us the spirit will lead u into all turth. some people put they own spin on it. some as u hv talk about dont listern to the holy spirit. But no where dose it say the pope will lead u into all truth. where dose it say bow to mary. If Mary was cleansed from Original Sin by God, at conception, show me in the bible where it says this. Romans 3:23
4gotten1s 1 year ago
@4gotten1s "The Spirit will lead you into all truths" was directed at the Apostles, who were the clergy of the Church, again, we aren't to interpret the bible outside of what was already interpreted through the church.Our interpretations are the same since Apostolic times.
I already gave you the passage about Mary's sinless nature, and this was reviled in full, by the Holy Spirit to Christ's Church.
hockeyrulesus 1 year ago
@4gotten1s , I'll never understand why infidels like you come to vids like this , and hurl disgusting insults at our Blessed Mother .
ComradeAgopian 1 year ago
@ComradeAgopian I tell u why. 1. iam not insulting mary. iam insulting the chatholic churchs false teachings. 2. u never explain ur selfs. just come back answers on how people hate u. or how ur the true church with no bible back up 4 ur false claims.
just because mary was beatified like so many others.Charlemagne, Kateri Tekakwitha
By October 2004 Pope John Paul II had beatified 1,340 people,
and still u wont show me where mary is called sinless. or Jesus said to bow 2 her.make idols of
4gotten1s 1 year ago
@ComradeAgopian jesus never made and claims of mary being the queen of heaven she was just a blessed servent of the Lord. the aposles never made and claims or laws rules or even say the bead and wine trun into christ blood and body as soon as there blessed. If u cant see this is pagan worship. then I just feel sorry 4 u. as u will hv to give an answer to God on why u choose to put mary and the pope b4 Christ. why u choose to hv another human as ur medator 2 God and not Christ 4 which he came 4.
4gotten1s 1 year ago
@4gotten1s
Bible on MARY QUEEN OF HEAVEN ""And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars." (Revelations12:1-7)
SINLESS MARY ""Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you" (Luke 1:28). To be "Full of Grace" is to have no room for sin.
hockeyrulesus 1 year ago
@4gotten1s More Bible passages;
The EUCHARIST
(1Cor 10:16) " The chalice of benediction which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?"
STATUES IN CHURCH (No engraved Images of anything on earth or in heaven?)
Exodus25:18-19- God Commands Moses to make 2 Cherubim(Angels) for the Arc.
hockeyrulesus 1 year ago
@hockeyrulesus these were decorations. not worshiped or kissed like that of the foot of peter? or prayer to like mary. and carryed around through the streets.if the chatholic way is all there is.no hope for any one. as all it want back is the power it once has as a geo-political power. just like islam. to rule with fear. to cause great and small to bow before it. not to bow to jesus. but to who ever it set up. weather is a statues of mary to day. or an image in the holy of holys tomorrow
4gotten1s 1 year ago
wow more lies form the babylon whore.
4gotten1s 1 year ago
Go to catholicdoctrine . org and read "Papal Authority." Rome is false Christianity.
magic038 1 year ago
A new Eve and a new Adam. Wow.. can you give me the scriptures for this story?
magic038 1 year ago
Thank you for making this documentary... it clearly clarifies the immaculate conception
MarvinPadilong 1 year ago