Skip to comments.Holy Father's meeting with Cardinals-live
Posted on 02/28/2013 6:46:49 AM PST by fatima
Watch live-on now. http://www.ewtn.com/multimedia/live_player.asp
You can’t take one line out of context like that. Who was Jesus talking to when he said that? Why did he say it?
|1||Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples,|
|2||"The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat;|
|3||so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.|
|4||They bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with their finger.|
|5||They do all their deeds to be seen by men; for they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long,|
|6||and they love the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues,|
|7||and salutations in the market places, and being called rabbi by men.|
|8||But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren.|
|9||And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.|
|10||Neither be called masters, for you have one master, the Christ.|
|11||He who is greatest among you shall be your servant;|
|12||whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.|
|13||"But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you shut the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither enter yourselves, nor allow those who would enter to go in.|
|15||Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you traverse sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves.|
|16||"Woe to you, blind guides, who say, `If any one swears by the temple, it is nothing; but if any one swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.'|
|17||You blind fools! For which is greater, the gold or the temple that has made the gold sacred?|
|18||And you say, `If any one swears by the altar, it is nothing; but if any one swears by the gift that is on the altar, he is bound by his oath.'|
|19||You blind men! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that makes the gift sacred?|
|20||So he who swears by the altar, swears by it and by everything on it;|
|21||and he who swears by the temple, swears by it and by him who dwells in it;|
|22||and he who swears by heaven, swears by the throne of God and by him who sits upon it.|
|23||"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law, justice and mercy and faith; these you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.|
|24||You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!|
|25||"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you cleanse the outside of the cup and of the plate, but inside they are full of extortion and rapacity.|
|26||You blind Pharisee! first cleanse the inside of the cup and of the plate, that the outside also may be clean.|
|27||"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within they are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness.|
|28||So you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but within you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.|
|29||"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous,|
|30||saying, `If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.'|
|31||Thus you witness against yourselves, that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets.|
|32||Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers.|
|33||You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?|
|34||Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from town to town,|
|35||that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of innocent Abel to the blood of Zechari'ah the son of Barachi'ah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar.|
|36||Truly, I say to you, all this will come upon this generation.|
|37||"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!|
|38||Behold, your house is forsaken and desolate.|
|39||For I tell you, you will not see me again, until you say, `Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.'"|
They are showing the Pope leaving the Vatican Live now.
I guess it is 9:00 or so there. I will miss him so much.
I am feeling sad.Watching history in the church.He is coming out now.Papal guard and Vatican workers await him.
Hey, if he’s gonna pick a team, let him at least wait until he’s resigned! ;-)
Wow,”As of 8 o’clock tonight I will not be Pope.”Got the chills.
So, I should not be able to call my dad, “father”?
I am feeling sad.Oh, my goodness, yes... me too. *sniffs* It was so hard to see him turn his back and walk away after speaking to the crowd that had gathered at his new home.
Well it’s time to pray and batten down the hatches.We await the Holy Spirit.
Well its time to pray and batten down the hatches. We await the Holy Spirit.Amen!
Jesus speaks to Pope Benedict XVI, Emertius just as He speaks to us.
Today Jesus would say, “well done, good and faithful servant” to Pope Benedict XVI, Emertius. Rest now your holiness.
Sure, He might refer to the pope as "Holy Father of My Church" or something like that.
” I see nothing in common between these two persons. Would Jesus call the guy in the top photo “Holy Father”? No, He wouldn’t and neither does He want us to. “
Oh yes He would. I know because The (Holy Roman Catholic) Church is INFALLIBLE - so to speak. History has it RIGHT. You have it WRONG - sorry. Suggestion: brush up on HISTORY.
fatima: thank you so much for posting this thread. I would have missed it all live (I had that pic I had gotten and was looking for a place to put it !)
Now I have a LOT of live pics and a lot of live vid too. PTL
Gosh and a full schedule still coming - on EWTN following on rest of day.
Oh your welcome PraiseTheLord.Tripped over it on facebook and thought I would post it as a reminder to all.My husband and I watched.Unreal when the Pope’s Helicopter flew over the Coliseum.Our faith is so touchable.
FYI Italy is 6 hours ahead of East Coast (NY) time.
IOW we in the East Coast are 6 hours behind Italy.
UK and Ireland are 5 hours ahead of ET.
(btw are you familiar with the Sony Platinum SuperStars ThePriests, from NI ?)
yikes - do you have a PROBLEM ~ que lastima as they say ~
This is such a sad day for Roman Catholics. Why must you spout your venom today? Can’t it wait until tomorrow?
Your OPINION, not mine.
Today the torch has been passed.
Remember that Jesus found the Church on Peter, which means “rock”.
You haven't seen venom. Not by a long shot...What a crock!
Since you aren’t Catholic, why don’t you just go away? Or do you always crash other people’s parties, just to “prove” you’re right about something? You don’t want to listen, you just want to argue, so BUG OFF!
MEMO TO ALL CATHOLICS: DON’T FORGET TO PUT “CAUCUS” IN THE TITLE OR WE’LL GET MORE OF THIS OVER THE NEXT MONTH!!
I am going to send you a catholic view.
St. Peter and the Papacy
JESUS ESTABLISHED HIS CHURCH ON PETER:
| The Church Fathers Speak | Protestants Speak? | The Scriptures | The Objections |
Christ instituted His Church as a means of salvation to continue His mission and apply his work of redemption to souls throughout the ages until the consummation of the world (Matt 28:20). This Church is a visible organization: “A city built on a hill cannot be hid” (St. Matt. 5, 14). Being visible, Christ’s Church possesses a hierarchical authority to govern it (St. Luke 6, 13), which is invested with His own mission (St. John 20, 21) to teach (St. Matt. 28, 20) to rule (St. Matt. 18, 17-18) and to sanctify the faithful (St. John 15, 16).
This same Church, Christ founded upon Peter, the prince of the apostles in order that he (and his successors) may be the visible representative of Christ saying:
“And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build My Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, and whatsoever You shall bind on earth, it shall bound also in heaven: and whatsoever Thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be Bound also in heaven: and whatsoever Thou shalt loose on earth, It shall be bound in heaven.” - MATHEW 16:18 -19
Although the objections to these clear words of Christ are numerous because of the implications it bestows upon Christians to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. The claim that Christ is referring to himself as the Rock does violence to text since it is clear that Christ is praising Peter for having confessed his divinity and not praising Himself as otherwise it would be but an insult to Peter. Yet nevertheless the words which directly follow would also have not only not make any sense but would have nothing to do with the very context of Christ’s words as He goes on to say to St. Peter “ And I will give to thee the keys of the Kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou (in the singular) shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven”. Thus from the whole context it seems clear that Christ is talking to Peter and declaring him to be the Rock upon which He is to build his Church” - MATT 16:19
We also note that Christ had at this point changed Peters name to “Cephas” which means a large, massive stone in Aramaic (since not only was Aramaic the language Jesus and the apostles and all the Jews in Palestine spoke, but Matthew’s Gospel was written by him in Aramaic, we know this from records kept by Eusebius of Caesarea—but it was translated into Greek early on, perhaps by Matthew himself) in order to affirm that Peter is the rock upon which He will build His Church. If Peter was not in some way to be a Rock, why the need to change his name, especially since when God changes ones name it often has to do with a divine mission (i.e. Abram’s name is Changed to Abraham - Gen 17:5).
It is Jesus Christ Himself Who gave Simon Bar-Jonah, the fisherman, this unique place among His twelve Apostles. The most obvious place to begin is Simon’s name, which Jesus changed. In Matthew 16:18 Jesus said, “And I say to you [Simon], you are Peter [Petros], and upon this rock [petra] I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.” The unfailing Church of Jesus Christ, in other words, is built upon Simon the Rock - Peter. Like the Patriarchs Abram/Abraham (Gen. 17:5) and Jacob/Israel (Gen. 32:28), Simon/Peter received a new identity from the Lord.
Although the reception of a new name is significant in itself, as we know from the stories of Abraham and Israel, Matthew 16:18 also promises that it is on Simon Peter that Jesus’ Church will be built. Even though the Apostles in general have been called a “foundation” (Eph. 2:20), Jesus singled Simon Peter out as the “Rock.” A similar thing occurs in 16:19: “I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven.” “Binding and loosing” is a charism given to all the Apostles (Matt. 18:18), but Peter is singled out for “the keys.”
Apologists who strictly equate Matthew 16:19 with 18:18 miss a rare but crucial biblical motif: “keys” equal authority. Consider the words of Jesus in Apoc 1:18: “Once I was dead, but now I am alive forever and ever. I hold the keys to death and hell.” What does Jesus mean when He says He holds “the keys”? In Peter’s words, Jesus has authority or rights over death: “it was impossible for [Jesus] to be held by [death]” (Acts 2:24). Jesus holds “the keys” of death, death does not hold Jesus.
If “keys” represent authority, what kind of authority is Jesus conferring on Peter in Matthew 16:19? Jesus gives Peter “keys” to a Kingdom. What kind of King is Jesus? Jesus is a King in the line of David (Luke 1:32). So the Kingdom of Heaven that Jesus mentions is nevertheless a truly Davidic Kingdom. Jesus possesses “the key” of David (Rev. 3:7), and it is within His authority as Davidic King to authorize Peter, which He does in Matthew 16:19.
Jesus gives “the keys” of His Kingdom to Peter alone among the Apostles; “the keys” are not mentioned in passages like Matthew 18:18 and John 20:23. The Apostles, familiar with Isaiah and with Israel’s history, would have understood the imagery Jesus evoked. It need not have been any more explicit. This is precisely however one of the major problems with both a number of (so called) modern scholars and Protestants in general who pick up the bible some 2000 years later and read it without having any historical or biblical education other than their own prejudicial views and then hope to have an infallible understanding of the scriptures!
Can Christ and Peter both be foundation stones at the same time? This indeed is the case as St. Peter is simply to be the ministerial head but Christ is the ultimate head upon which all things depend for their existence. The Headship of St. Peter is dependant upon that of Christ as they are not univocally one and the same since one is subordinate to the other. Christ further illustrates this point when he calls us to be to be the light and Truth (Matt 5:16; John 14:6) even though He is the Light and Truth (John 8:12). Hence there is no contradiction but rather an affirmation. There is no contradiction, as both Peter and Christ are the “foundation” or “rock” of the Church in different senses. Jesus was the cornerstone, author, and foundation of both salvation and Christianity, so Peter who was the head of the apostles is in a lesser way - was the cornerstone of the Church. St. Paul saw no contradiction in this and openly declares that the Apostles and prophets are cornerstones with Christ: “You are fellow citizens with the saints and domestics of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets” - Eph 2:20 He also confirms the same thing explicitly of St. Peter, John and James saying “ When they had known the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas (Peter the Rock) and John, who seemed to be PILLARS, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship”. The Papacy would thus become for the Church what a foundation stone is for a building as outside of this building all are not part of it. This stone offers stability and unity as we get from the supreme authority in any society.
Our Lord singles Peter out on other occasions as well. At the Last Supper, in the midst of foretelling Peter’s betrayal, a very negative thing, Jesus gives Peter a particular positive mission. “Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you [plural] like wheat, but I have prayed that your [singular] own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you [singular] must strengthen your brothers” (Luke 22:31-32). As James informs his readers, the prayers of a righteous man like Jesus avail much (Jas. 5:16), and though Peter unfortunately denied knowing the Lord three times, he did turn and strengthen his brothers. One might say he did this in a number of ways. For example, Peter decided that, according to Scripture, a successor to Judas’ office must be appointed (Acts 1:15-22) so that the original number of Apostles would not be diminished (weakened). Peter was also the first to command the baptism of Gentiles (Acts 10:46-48), an action which increased the number of Christians by leaps and bounds. As mentioned above, he was considered the first witness to the Resurrection (1 Cor. 15:5) and was the first to explain the outpouring of the Spirit and preach the Gospel publicly (Acts 2:14-40).
Peter is again singled out by Our Lord in John 21:15-19. Our Lord, knowing that He would not remain long on this earth after his resurrection, appeared to peter in order to confer upon him that which he had promised saying: JOHN 21:15 “Peter do you love me . . . .
“. . . . Feed my Lambs” (Peter Head of the Bishops)
” . . . . Feed my Lambs” (Peter, Head of Priests)
” . . . . Feed my sheep” (Peter, Head of Laity)
By this Christ placed Peter as head to look after his Church that was to continue in perpetuity according to the divine mission, which was entrusted to Him and all of his legitimate successors. A great number of texts in scripture convey that Peter was preeminent among the apostle in both honor and jurisdiction as the Head of the Church. In order signify the superiority of St. Peter his name occurs first (and more often) in all lists of apostles (Mt 10:2; Mk 3:16; Lk 6:14; Acts 1:13). Matthew even calls him the “first” (Mt 10:2). This is also illustrated by the fact that Peter alone among the apostles is exhorted by Jesus to “strengthen your brethren” (Luke 22:32) and is uniquely associates with him in the miracle of the tribute-money (Mt 17:24-27). The Jews and common people regarded him as the leader and spokesman of Christianity (Acts 4:1-13; 2:37-41; 5:15). Peter takes the lead in calling for a replacement for Judas (Acts 1:22) and to receiving the Gentiles, after a revelation from God (Acts 10:9-48). Those who purport to ignore Christ’s Church through their own disobedience no longer belong to its unity: “if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector” (St. Matt. 18, 17). To ignore the Church, one effectively ignores Christ.
The language of Peter’s primacy, in Scripture, is no mere “primacy of honor.” Peter is given crucial duties and responsibilities and authorized to carry them out. Jesus clearly makes Peter a servant, leader, and unifier to all His Apostles and disciples.
After the Ascension of Our Lord, it is Peter whom we see calling, presiding over and directing the assembly at which St. Matthias is elected; it is he that first preaches the Gospel to the Jews; it is he that receives the order to baptize Cornelius and open the Church to the Gentiles; it is he that punishes Ananias and Saphira for the falsehood they uttered, and confounds Simon the Magician; it is he that affirms before the tribunal his right and his mission to preach, and who performs the first miracle in confirmation of the Gospel; first also, he speaks to the Council at Jerusalem; and all the assembly “having heard these things, held their peace” (Acts 11:18); cast into prison, he absorbs the attention of all the Church, and “prayer was made without ceasing by the Church to God for him” (Acts12:5), until his miraculous delivery; it is he who founds the See of Antioch, which for that reason became a patriarchal See; finally it is he who founds the See of Rome, and it is because he died Bishop of that city that his legitimate successors have always had and always will have the primacy in the universal Church.
The words of our lord “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me” (St. Luke 10, 16) teach us that it is no small matter to reject those who he has lawfully placed in command over the Church.
The gift of infallibility, which what is understood by the Power of loosing and binding, is one that is often misunderstood by people as meaning that, even if the pope isn’t infallible in all he does, he is infallible in all he says. This again is untrue. The object of the pope’s infallibility is matters of faith and morals. He cannot speak infallibly on anything else unless it is something that has a bearing on the teachings of faith and morals. This is what theologians call the secondary object of infallibility. But the pope is not infallible when it comes to matters of science or history or math etc. Nor does it mean that the Pope is impeccable! The Pope is a sinner like the rest of us. Our Lord made use of sinners to write the scriptures which Protestants have no problem as accepting to be infallible and so in like manner he continues to use’s a sinner to guard and defend the deposit of the faith, which is the primary duty of the Pope.
That was eight o’clock Rome time.
It’s done, Jim
That’s because you do not know the Catholic faith, built on the words of Christ.
For all Catholics in all the rites.
Pope's brother gives interview on Papal resignation
Cardinal Wuerl describes spiritual experience of conclave (and work of the Holy Spirit)
Cardinal says next Pope likely to be young (interesting insight into how a pope is chosen)
Cardinal Arinze: Pope's resignation was a 'surprise, like thunder'
French archbishop criticizes Papal decision to resign
Pope announced canonisation of 800 martyrs slaughtered by Muslim troops
FATHER BARRON TO REPORT ON PAPAL ABDICATION (NBC & MSNBC)
Some distinctly non-canonical musings on the status of an ex-pope
Benedicts Men: U.S. Vocations Strengthen During His Eight-Year Papacy
Pope has 'cleaned up the episcopate,' nuncio says
Benedict XVI's Final General Audience
Pope confident God will guide Church in days ahead (150,000 fill St. Peter's Square)
Pope Recalls "Joy" Of Papacy, And Difficulties
The Papacy and the 'Gay Mafia'
Pope Benedict's new name revealed
Pope Benedict chooses his new wardrobe
Call Me the Optimist A Meditation on Recent Reports of Crisis and Conclave
Young, new Philippine cardinal has extensive international ties
Cardinal Keith OBrien resigns, will not go to conclave
Benedict XVIs new Motu Proprio about the Conclave (date regulations officially changed)
The 'strictest' secrecy: a look at how conclaves work
Pope will change rule for conclave date tomorrow [today]
Pope Benedict says he is not 'abandoning the Church' (tens of thousands fill square)
Communiqué of the Secretariat of State on the upcoming Conclave
Ratzinger's forgotten prophesy (sic) on the future of the Church
Homosexual Network at the Vatican, Yes; Reason for the Pope's Resignation, No
Castel Gandolfo prepares to receive first retired Pope
Vatican slams media for trying to influence papal vote
In Defense of the Papacy: 9 Reasons True Christians Follow the Pope
The Church Doesn't Need a Revolution
The Reason Benedict Resigned [Catholic Caucus]
At B16's Window, A Big "Thank You"... While Behind the Walls, The "Showcase" Begins
Prayers for Our Holy Father Benedict XVI and the Papal Conclave
Pope still extremely Catholic (A look at how media cover Catholicism [and the Pope])
Conclave to silence at least nine tweeting cardinals
Pope Benedict's resignation and the mystery of the missing encyclical
Benedict, Dawkins, and the Fullness of Reason
Benedict XVI: Vatican II as I saw it
Benedicts renunciation and the wolves within the church
The Left Lobbies for a Liberal Successor to Benedict (and here is why)
Pope Benedict's Future Residence
SCOTT HAHN: Pope Benedict had a profound effect on this former Presbyterian minister
Is the Next Pope the One From John Boscos Dream? (Patrick Madrid offers an intriguing twist)
"Re-Elect Pope Benedict" - Eight more years!
Who can be elected pope?
The Legacy of Pope Benedict XVI: A commentary by Fr. Barron
More details on papal resignation, conclave (Vatican Press Office)
Church doesn't bend, but endures
Who Will Take Up the Keys of Peter (This is a MUST READ!)
Conclave & The Media: The Silly Season
Cardinal Bertone's Farewell Address to the Holy Father
"Thank You Let Us Return to Prayer": For the Last Time, The Pope Leaves the Altar
"Today, We Begin A New Journey" Liturgically Speaking, B16's Last Word
Vatican releases schedule for Pope's final days
Benedict XVI: Reasons Revolutionary
Some Interesting Tidbits From Todays Vatican press conference
Pope Decided to Resign After Cuba Trip, Vatican Advisor Says
Pope Says He's Resigning for the 'Good of Church'
Watch for the Anti-Catholics To Weigh in on the Papal Succession
The challenge Pope Benedict has left for his successorand for ordinary Catholics
Historian Notes Precedents for Papal Resignation
US Will Have Unprecedented Voice In Electing New Pope
Pope Benedicts Resignation and St. Corbinians Bear
Pope Benedict XVIs Musical Legacy
Benedict announces resignation and lightning strikes
DHS's curiosity piqued over Pope Benedict XVI's retirement and Catholic Prophecy
Prayers for Pope Benedict XVI
Pope Benedict's Devotion to Saint Celestine Signaled His Resignation from the Papacy
Cardinal Sodano to Pope Benedict: We have heard you with a sense of loss and almost disbelief
Pope's resignation invokes sadness, gratitude from US bishops
Pope cites waning strength as reason for resignation
Report: Brother Says Pope Was Considering Resignation for Months
Some Notes About the Upcoming Conclave
An Evangelical Looks at Pope Benedict XVI
Pope Benedicts Resignation in Historical Context
Virtually unprecedented: papal resignation throughout history
Pope Benedict XVI:a papal timeline
"I declare that I renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome" [Full Text]
Pope Benedict's Address on Resignation of the See of Rome
POPE BENEDICT XVI WILL RESIGN AT THE END OF THIS MONTH, VATICAN PRESS OFFICE TELLS FOX NEWS
Thanks for the correction Salvation... :)
Tears the legs out? No, that would be Mormonism that gets it's legs, uh, torn out.
Meeting face-to-face with God? None have directly, not with the Father, the Creator, yet those of the time period of Christ were able to speak with Jesus (God the Son) directly.
Before that time;<.br> Even Moses was hid in the cleft of the rock. Not any rock, either, but the rock.
It is written that Moses saw only the back (hinder parts). Not face to face. Yet he was a true prophet. Whoosh, the Mormonic theory (of having to talk "face-to-face") just went bye-bye! Should I go on?
If we are speaking of communing with the Spirit in the tent of meeting...there is still no "face". Unless the pillar of cloud by day, and the pillar of fire by night, be the face (it isn't).
Did Samuel see God and speak to him face-to-face? Did Elijah? No, but Eljah did converse with the Lord, as did other lessor prophets all while never speaking "face-to-face".
John the Baptist saw and spoke to Christ face-to-face, that we can know. But yet he leapt with joy upon his first meeting with Him, recognizing the One even as he himself was still in his own mother's womb, and Jesus himself hidden in the womb of Mary, not much more the size than could fit and be hidden in a man's hand...
Howcouldthat meeting be called face to face, when either of them were yet born? They certainloy did not see one another with their 'natural eyes', such as the sort one most typically uses while taking a Dept. of Motor Vehicles "eye exam".
Those present during the time of Jesus when he walked upon this earth were able to see the Messiah...yet when the Christ told them "if you have seen me, you have seen the Father", who is it that thinks that be in regard to facial characteristic? It is understood He did not mean that himselfin the form of the only begotten Son of God, was "physically" identical. For God is a Spirit...
Isn't the meaning more as towards all that Jesus did and said, how those both revealed the spirit of the Law, and the letter, fulfilling also all the teachings as to the nature of the Creator Himself, as personified in the Son?
If it was all about God the Father having once been a man himself, and having walked upon the earth, long before Adam, along with all the rest of the Joseph Smith distortions...why hide it for 18 centuries, waiting for some treasure hunter in upState NY to find the "lost" pieces? not only does that not compute, but at juncture after juncture Joseph Smith theology, a.k.a Mormonism, brings interpretation straight from the flesh, with little to no understanding of the Spirit. There is no anointing on him. He was a false prophet, of the worst sort, corrupting everything he touched or spoke about.
But you keep arguing for Smith's theology on this forum, just taking pains to hide it.
Put the Joey Smith fantasies to bed. It was Smith that came up with the plan, that the only way a woman could be "exhalted" to the "Celestial" (that Celestial appearing suspiciously like Swedonborgian "Celestial" --- obviously Joey borrowed that) was to be wed to a Temple approved good Mormon man.
Isn't that right? SHOW me, from Mormonic official sources, where I'm going wrong in this.
I can show in part where Joey ended up getting it wrong, simply enough by pointing towards Genesis and the Creation story.
Mankind...Created in God's image, not "begotten" as the Only Son, Jesus was. Yet Mormon theology has "gods" having physical sex yet birthing "spirits" that they send to earth to be born. That makes us "spirit children" according to Mormonism, correct?
That defies that were are creations of God. We are not born of Him until born again of the spirit, and the waters. John 3:3
Smith couldn't figure out what it meant, or couldn't understand, if he had ever encountered true Spirit led teachings that he listened to, or heard tell of in his youth...so he "figured out" how things could be pieced together to appear to fit by way of one cunning lie or set of lies after another. Should we bring them here, quoting them? I know just the folks to ping, if you'd like.
Then, according to Mormonism, if one is a good enough "temple Mormon" "doing all they can do" without fail, they themselves can become exhalted, be Assumed to Heaven, (possibly under the power of their own righteousness?). IF they live as Super Duper Pharisees, and "obey God's laws", to the utmost letter, which "laws" are much amended and redefined by Joey and Co., compared to that found more plainly in the Word.
It's either that, or even when it's not much redefined, it's still thoroughly putting all it's adherents back under the law. Do you know what the Apostle Paul spoke of concerning that sort of thing? Everyone should know. Quote it from the Pauline Epistles. Read them and weep...with joy!
Then show or quote from the BoM, the Pearl of Great Price, Doctrines & Discourse, etc., so we can contrast and compare. One has the indelible stamping of the Spirit...the other set of writings...trying to fake it linguistically, borrowing from LAW all the while. Now the letter of the Law, does what? It Kills, does it not?
Where is the Spirit which brings life, in Joseph Smith teachings? It's all "letter"...and then some!
If we can learn anything from the Jews and their experience under the law, it is that none can perfectly keep it.
Why add to that? Who in their right mind think they would be able to "keep the law" well enough to satisfy the law? It cannot be done!
The giving of the law, was not for the purpose of establishing a rule book for us to follow to "become exhalted", risen ourselves up to a "Celestial" sphere, becoming little "g" gods ourselves, continuing the marriages entered into in this realm (even getting our own planets to Lord over!!) with the children produced by the continued physical maritial relations themselves being "spirit children" which will be sent back to earth to be born in earthly flesh.
How am I doing? Describing Mormonisms properly...? If not, then prove otherwise, and by all means be specific.
Further, in the Hebrew creation story,male & female created He them (in His own image).
Nowhere is it later shown that a woman's very salvation (in the Lord's own eyes) be dependent upon the righteousness (or lack of righteousness) of a man. Although in this world, one's worldly fate can indeed be intricately woven in with that of one's mate. Ahab comes to mind here...well intentioned (sort-of), a king of Israel, but weak and overwhelmed by the false spirituality, the witchcraft even, of Jezebel.
It is far easier of course for us to see something of the opposite, with woman more generally either enjoying the good graces practiced by a husband, or suffering for the lack, in this world. Yet we see nowhere in the scripture, that a woman will be punished in the hereafter for the sins of her husband, or that God will turn away from a woman forever for the failings of her mate.
The "temple Mormon" theology is just so much fleshly reasoning towards scripture, straining at this or that to make it fit within Smith's alleged "restoration", ignoring all else which either disputes it, or doesn't fit.
If you are going to push the theology, get naked with the attempt. Joey would approve, dearie...
But you do not know the Catholic Church, or are you a Catholic?
Spoke "face-to-face". Not exactly. In fact, that statement is so far off the mark, it is everything but a full blown lie.
I just touched upon that in my last note to you. Why ignore it?
And here we thought it was founded upon the revelation... leaving it built upon that (face-to-face?) communication you seem to be so lathered up about? But the revelation was given by way of Spirit.
Built upon the recognition by Peter of what the Spirit of the Lord was illuminating within himself perhaps? For Christ said of that occurrence, that "flesh and blood did not reveal it" as opposed to otherwise possibly noting that flesh and blood did not tell it to Peter.
It may not have been, need not have been, most likely was not revealed in the form of "words", for the Spirit of the Lord can speak both direct words (speaking in the language the listener can understand) or show by revelation God's own thought or thoughts, without using words. I know this from personal experience, as do many others.
He chooses what He communicates to whom, when & where, limited to what the Lord would have us know (what He chooses to say) and in His mercy, as to what we need to know. The scriptures back me up on this, though I'm relying not singularly upon them, but upon them after the same has been put to the test... field tested and approved. Add my confirmation to all those (too numerous to count) that have gone before me.
Did Moses see God? Did Samuel? The thesis "...spoke face to face with head of His people. With out fail" breaks down extremely rapidly under examination due to the "face-to-face" inclusion.
How about Jonah? Jonah held two-way conversations with the Lord, not face-to-face, but by Spirit, for he recounts no visions. Are we to need assume that Jonah experienced or saw a "vision", just to keep him on the bus? He already went overboard, was quite literally tossed over already. Let's not insist we see his "vision" bus token or transfer, nor assume that such is required.
It has not been established that "face-to-face" or "in the course of also having a waking vision" be required. Would you care to try? So far...all we've gotten is some strident demand that such as "face-to-face" be necessary, but without defining more precisely what you mean by that. Why should anyone accept your own say-so concerning such?
Who taught this strange idea to you? Wait....I think I know. BWA-HAA_HAA!
Are you saying no one has had that sort of conversation since the time of Christ (or should we say John, shortly or some years, at least within John's natural lifetime, his having continued some years after the time Christ be physically present)?
Or are we stuck with the "face-to-face" business, where there must be a "vision" associated with the communication?
Who in your estimation has had that sort of conversation by way of Spirit since then? Or are still in some way insisting that "visions" be involved? No one, until...18 centuries later? Wasn't that what you said previously concerning it? 18 centuries...ok, that was on another thread, yet hmmm, who oh who can we find in the 19th century who claimed to have spoken with God face-to-face?
Joseph Smith? and then his successors, right?
What's this "...This isn't hyperbole, this is real. This isn't nit picking...it went on for nearly 2000 years."
That was directly following a link you posted which leads to some page concerning the Inquisition. The Inquisition did not go on for "nearly 2000 years". Try about 700 years. Read Llorente's book about it maybe? It's about as first hand as it gets, written by one whom was once of the office itself, in compilation of what was found concerning it, much of it the Vatican library, in the early 1800's.
Or perhaps you meant something else concerning "nearly 2000 years"?
"It may not have been, need not have been, most likely was not revealed in the form of "words", for the Spirit of the Lord can speak both direct words (speaking in the language the listener can understand) or show by revelation God's own thought or thoughts, without using words. I know this from personal experience, as do many others."
25 I have said these things to you while I am still with you. 26 But the Advocate,[i] the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything, and remind you of all that I have said to you."
Amen!! Brother!! Amen!!
Thank you, you are quite gracious, johngrace.