Skip to comments.Priests are a gift from the Heart of Christ, Pope Benedict says
Posted on 06/13/2010 12:16:24 PM PDT by markomalley
.- Thousands of pilgrims and faithful gathered at noon Sunday in St. Peters Square to pray the Angelus with the Holy Father. Before the prayer, he said that the fruits of the recently ended Year for Priests could never be measured, but are already visible and will continue to be ever more so.
The priest is a gift from the heart of Christ, a gift for the Church and for the world. From the heart of the Son of God, overflowing with love, all the goods of the Church spring forth, proclaimed Pope Benedict XVI. One of those goods is the vocations of those men who, conquered by the Lord Jesus, leave everything behind to dedicate themselves completely to the Christian community, following the example of the Good Shepherd.
The Holy Father described the priest as having been formed by the same charity of Christ, that love which compelled him to give his life for his friends and to forgive his enemies.
Therefore, he continued, priests are the primary builders of the civilization of love.
Benedict XVI exhorted priests to always seek the intercession of St. John Marie Vianney, whose prayer, the Act of Love, was prayed frequently during the Year for Priests, and continues to fuel our dialogue with God.
The pontiff also spoke about the close of the Year for Priests, which took place this past week and culminated with the Solemnity of the Sacred Heart of Jesus. He emphasized the unforgettable days in the presence of more than 15,000 priests from around the world.
The feast of the Sacred Heart is traditionally a day of priestly holiness, but this time it was especially so, Benedict XVI remarked.
Pope Benedict concluded his comments by noting that, in contemplating history, one observes so many pages of authentic social and spiritual renewal which have been written by the decisive contribution of Catholic priests. These were inspired only by their passion for the Gospel and for mankind, for his true civil and religious freedom.
So many initiatives that promote the entire human being have begun with the intuition of a priestly heart, he exclaimed.
The Pope then prayed the Angelus, greeted those present in various languages, and imparted his apostolic blessing.
It is illogical to expect the Scripture to reflect on the lives of saints that are chronologically outside of the scope of the Gospel. The veneration of saints is something that the Church in her God-given power to bind ind loose (Matthew 16:19, 18:18) proposes for our salvation.
We know, however, some aspects of what you ask from the scripture:
Mary was born without sin
That is easy; archangel Gabriel describes her as "full of grace"; that means, there was no room for sin in her. Grace displaces sin.
she remained a virgin her entire life
That is not spoken about in the scripture, but given that her maternal function was fulfilled miraculously and without a marital act (Matthew 1:25) there would be no reason for her to seek carnal union with Joseph. Nor would Joseph be so impious as to desecrate the Tabernacle of the Living Word that her holy womb is. Note, too, that she did not intend to be with Joseph anyway (Luke 1:34).
she was assumed and did not see death
The dogma of Assumption does not say anything about her tasting death. You are free to believe that she did experience death. That she was assumed into heaven in the body can be inferred from Rev. 12. Remember, as well, that all the elect will be assumed and their bodies restored in the fullness of time (Matthew 24:31, 1 Cor. 15:52). Where Mary went, we shall follow.
we are to pray to her for anything
This can be inferred from the Miracle at Cana, where Mary intereceded for the headwaiter (John 2:2). Intercession on behalf of others is a common theme of the Gospel; see, for example, several acts of healing solicited not by the sick person but someone else.
people are to be canonized as saints and prayed to
We pray to saints because we want to pray to God in their company, and praise God for giving them holiness. The earliest, somewhat theologically unsound instance of veneration of Mary is recorded in Luke 11:27-28. Note that Jesus corrects the proper subjects of veneratin being holiness rather than Mary's motherhood per se, and that He explains that all the holy men are to be likewise venerated, and not just Mary alone.
Regarding canonization of saints, see for example, John 17:17, Ephesians 5:26, 1 Thessalonians 5:23, Hebrews 12:1. The very act of canonization is a necessity since often claims of miracles are made without proper substantiation; the Church does it most specifically as the keeper of the Keys to the Heavenly Kingdom (Matthew 16:19).
Where are the instructions to the church in selecting Peters successors
There are none, and indeed the procedure changed over time a bit. There is no doubt though that the papacy of Peter was to be perpetuated (2 Peter 1:14-15).
Thank you very much for your interest. Feel free to follow up.
Yes. And He is the King of Israel and so His Church is true Israel.
Nice try, if you’re a pretzel maker. Other than that, it’s devoid of Scriptural truth. Other than the one truth you manage to GET: He IS the King of Israel.
No because YHWH doesn't mean "LORD". It means GOD. English translations call it the LORD. The other word means master or lord.
ust gave you the example of Jos. 3:11 where adown is used to refer to God
And I told you it was done with a QUALIFICATION ("of the world"). Otherwise it could never be associated with God by itself. However YHWH or Adonai, or Ha-Shem are ALWAYS associated with God by themselves. Adoun is not. It must be qualified in order to apply to divinity. By itself it never does.
At Matt. 22:42 Jesus asks the Pharisees who they think the Christ is, whose son is he? and they answer, David's, though David was anointed as king.
No he doesn't. He asks "Who do you think is the anointed one?" (Greek: christos). And they answer David's because that's what Judaism teaches: the Jewish meshiyah (messiah, the anointed one) will be "of the seed of David" and therefore a king. And all Israeli kings were anointed and had the title the "son of God" just like the angels.
David by inspiration calls the Christ his Lord not just a generic owner, but a title of respect for a superior
This is all Christian innovation. David doesn't call anyone anything. This is a psalm to be chanted by a Levite priest "YHWH said to my lord (David)..." David being the High Priest for founding the city of Jerusalem and the first Temple.
David wasn't talking about himself in Ps. 110.
He certainly wasn't talking about Jesus.
and any of David's lineage if king would sit on David's throne. But since David was not talking about himself Ps. 110 is talking about the Christ
Pure speculation. It doesn't follow. Jesus was not a king, did not sit on David's throne and was never mentioned by name.
Christ sat on David's throne as Peter said at Acts 2:30, David being a prophet and the Psalms being prophetic of the Christ
Peter? I believe Peter was misquoting Ps 132:25 which says "The LORD has sworn to David a truth from which He will not turn back: 'Of the fruit of your body I will set upon your throne.'" Where is the prophesy? Where is Jesus in it?
Isn't this the same Peter who only a few verses earlier calls Jesus a man? "Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God...Act 2:22, and then again ""And on the basis of faith in His name, it is the name of Jesus which has strengthened this man whom you see and know..." (Act 3:16).
Not surprisingly the Jews didn't really care for such an idea as the Christ being both Lord and son of David but so what?
It's not that they didn't care. He doesn't fit the requirements for the Jewish messiah based on the Old Testament. This is like Mormons saying Christians don't care that Jesus visited America...it's simply not what the Christians believe.
[Besides, Jesus never mentions verse 4.] But David did. It show he wasn't talking about himself but prophetically about the Christ who would be both high priest and king
Christ is not mentioned in any way. And it's not David speaking. It's a liturgical song chanted by a Levite priest.
Are you familiar with this:
17 ...thou, being a wild olive, art ingrafted in them, and art made partaker of the root, and of the fatness of the olive tree
23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again. 24 For if thou wert cut out of the wild olive tree, which is natural to thee; and, contrary to nature, were grafted into the good olive tree; how much more shall they that are the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree? 25 For I would not have you ignorant, brethren, of this mystery, (lest you should be wise in your own conceits), that blindness in part has happened in Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles should come in. (Romans 11)
the kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and shall be given to a nation yielding the fruits thereof. (Matthew 21:43)
6 ...Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious. And he that shall believe in him, shall not be confounded. 7 To you therefore that believe, he is honour: but to them that believe not, the stone which the builders rejected, the same is made the head of the corner: 8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of scandal, to them who stumble at the word, neither do believe, whereunto also they are set. 9 But you are a chosen generation, a kingly priesthood, a holy nation, a purchased people: that you may declare his virtues, who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: 10 Who in time past were not a people: but are now the people of God. (1 Peter 2)
Behold the Heavenly Jerusalem:
2 And I John saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a great voice from the throne, saying: Behold the tabernacle of God with men, and he will dwell with them. And they shall be his people; and God himself with them shall be their God. 4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes: and death shall be no more, nor mourning, nor crying, nor sorrow shall be any more, for the former things are passed away. 5 And he that sat on the throne, said: Behold, I make all things new. And he said to me: Write, for these words are most faithful and true. 6 And he said to me: It is done. I am Alpha and Omega; the beginning and the end. To him that thirsteth, I will give of the fountain of the water of life, freely. 7 He that shall overcome shall possess these things, and I will be his God (Rev. 21)
And may I add, I don't have a problem with any religion having and following their own traditions. My problem is when a religion that calls itself the one and only true Christian Church creates traditions NOT based on scripture or incorrectly based on scripture they misinterpret and which then contradicts other clear scripture and then declare/proclaim that one cannot be saved unless they adhere to those traditions.
This kind of thinking led to people being executed for not confessing to belief in the tradition. We see it still happening in the Muslim religion and we have history that tells us Catholics did it to others and Catholics had it done to them.
and it's D.I.S.P.E.N.S.A.T.I.O.N.S... not
I am not here to discuss your ideas and terminology.
No I say so because I can see the OT types and prophecies, something the Jews and unsaved are blinded from seeing .
1Corth2: 14The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any mans judgment:
16For who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him?d But we have the mind of Christ.
This is not a complicated passage, and like all the old Testament points to Christ.
This discussion caused me to look to see if any teachers saw what I see in the passage
In this psalm David sets forth the perpetuity of Christs reign, and the eternity of his priesthood; and, in the first place, he affirms, That God conferred upon Christ supreme dominion, combined with invincible power, with which he either conquers all his enemies, or compels them to submit to him. In the second place, he adds, That God would extend the boundaries of this kingdom far and wide; and, in the third place, That Christ, having been installed into the priestly office with all the solemnity of an oath, sustains the honors of that equally with those of his regal office. Finally, That this shall be a new order of priesthood, whose introduction shall put an end to the Levitical priesthood, which was temporary, and that it shall be everlasting Link
Interesting how this brings us right back to the subject of the priesthood huh? Maybe that is why Catholics misread it? ya think?
Does a piece of bread make one more holy? Know Christ better?
If the indwelling Spirit of God is not sufficient to live a holy life, to grow in the knowledge of Christ , to be led to do His will how is a 5min encounter going to change anything?
Amen! Just more illogical, anti-Scriptural whimsy from the RCC.
If Rome didn't concoct a false charade to distribute or withhold Christ from the masses, where would they look for their salvation?
The word of God, perhaps?
"Christ in you the Hope of Glory"..is not speaking of communion..it is speaking of the indwelling Christ.
Either you are saved and therefore have the indwelling Spirit 24/7 or you are unsaved and looking for quick fills of emotional spirituality..
That is the Gospel truth. If Roman Catholics would just read their bibles, they might "come to the knowledge of the truth."
Cause they're sure far from it as of now.
“And I told you it was done with a QUALIFICATION (”of the world”). Otherwise it could never be associated with God by itself. However YHWH or Adonai, or Ha-Shem are ALWAYS associated with God by themselves. Adoun is not. It must be qualified in order to apply to divinity. By itself it never does.”
I KNOW WHAT YOU SAID. That doesn't make it so. And your assertion that it does changes nothing. I gave an example of what I said was the case. Another is Isa. 1:24:
“Therefore saith the Lord, the LORD of hosts, the mighty One of Israel, Ah, I will ease me of mine adversaries, and avenge me of mine enemies:”
All three titles apply to the same one but each is applicable in and of its self. So much for “must be”.
“No he doesn't. He asks “Who do you think is the anointed one?” (Greek: christos). And they answer David's because that's what Judaism teaches: the Jewish meshiyah (messiah, the anointed one) will be “of the seed of David” and therefore a king. And all Israeli kings were anointed and had the title the “son of God” just like the angels.”
The Greek word “khristos” can be translated “ The Anointed One” or “The Messiah” or transliterated as “The Christ”.
It depends on the translator as I have three interlinears and they each use a different word at vs. 42. The meaning of the verse isn't changed.
“This is all Christian innovation. David doesn't call anyone anything. This is a psalm to be chanted by a Levite priest “YHWH said to my lord (David)...” David being the High Priest for founding the city of Jerusalem and the first Temple.”
Progress. You have the right temple. It's David's Psalm. No matter who recited, chanted, quoted, etc., it's David speaking and not about himself as Jesus understood and so did the Pharisees whether Jewish innovation says otherwise or not.
David a high priest? No. Tribe of Judah, no high priest. The kings of Israel could not and did not combine the offices of priest and king. Christ could and David's Psalm prophetically, Note that word “PROPHETICALLY” calls him such.
“Pure speculation. It doesn't follow. Jesus was not a king, did not sit on David's throne and was never mentioned by name.”
Sorry. You strike out again. Jesus rejected efforts to set him up as a king. It was the resurrected Christ that was to become king, “My kingdom is no part of this world” (John 18:36) and sit on David's throne.
“He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:” (Luke 1:32)
“Peter? I believe Peter was misquoting Ps 132:25 which says “The LORD has sworn to David a truth from which He will not turn back: ‘Of the fruit of your body I will set upon your throne.’” Where is the prophesy? Where is Jesus in it?”
See above. You strike out.....again. P.S. it was Ps. 132:11 not 25. kosta’s opinions versus Peter's inspiration? Peter wins by a unanimous decision! ding, ding, ding!!!!
“It's not that they didn't care. He doesn't fit the requirements for the Jewish messiah based on the Old Testament. This is like Mormons saying Christians don't care that Jesus visited America...it's simply not what the Christians believe.”
Jesus didn't fit the “requirements” of an apostate religious leadership that worried about more losing their privileged positions than serving God. 70 c.e. answered the question of whether they were right or Jesus was right.
“Christ is not mentioned in any way. And it's not David speaking. It's a liturgical song chanted by a Levite priest.”
Peter again says otherwise (Acts 2:34-36) and you're out of strikes.
Only so in the only so in the apocryphal works???
"In Second Temple era Judaism 'paradise' came to be associated with the Garden of Eden and prophesies of restoration of Eden. The Septuagint uses the word around 30 times, both of Eden, (Gen.2:7 etc.) and of Eden restored (Ezek. 28:13, 36:35) etc."
The last time I checked, Jesus was contemporaneous with the Second Temple era, and the Septuagint was was already in existence BEFORE Christ.
But you are using this out of context. Apocalypses are writings of the Essenes and are not considered mainline Judaism, and Talmud is a Christian-era rabbinic work, heavily influenced by Platonic beliefs.
When I speak of Judaism, I speak of pre-Christian, pre-Babylonian, genuine Judaism. It seems to me that most people have no idea that Judaism evolved and is not what it used to be in beginning (i.e. the Torah Judaism). Today, Judaism is a Pharisaical branch of Judaism that evolved in the Christian world, heavily influenced by mysticism, legends, Platonism ,etc.
When Jesus allegedly spoke to the good thief, there was no Talmud, and last time I checked he wasn't an Essene either.. Talmud doesn't come into existence until about 200 years after Christ and isn't completed until about 500 years after him. You can't just spill facts without their context.
What you think constitutes "genuine Judaism", i.e., "Torah Judaism" is not germane to the issue of when these ideas and terms were in use. What is relevant is that the word 'paradise' was already associated with the Garden of Eden and prophesies of restoration of Eden at the time Jesus was being crucified.
In other words, genuine Judaism prohibited belief in immortal soul. The key word here is post-exilic, after the exile. In other words when Persial freed Israel form Babylonian captivity and influenced Judaism with Zoroastrianism, c. 5th century BC.
It seems to me some key words go right by you, or you don;t read the whole thing.
It was only in connection with the Messianic hope that, under the influence of Persian ideas, the belief in resurrection lent to the disembodied soul a continuous existence (Isa. xxv. 6-8; Dan. xii. 2
Messianic hope is a latter-day development in Judaism. In fact it can be traced tom a VERY late development and influence of pagan Greek thought
So, today's Jewish belief in immortality or resurrection is a later development (limited only to Pharisaical Judaism, the form of Judaism that survived and morphed into rabbinic Judaism after 70 AD and the second Exile that produced Christian Era Talmud), and can be traced to Persian, Greek and Egyptian origins, none of which have anything to do with the genuine Mosaic Judaism.
The last time I checked, c. 5th century BC is BEFORE Christ, Ps. xvi. 10, xlix. 16, cxxxix. 8, Isa. xxv. 6-8; Dan. xii. 2 are Biblical passages that were written BEFORE Christ; ("...the belief in resurrection lent to the disembodied soul a continuous existence") and I think there is something in the Bible about Jesus and that Messianic thing, too.
If man by "being driven out of the Garden of Eden was deprived of the opportunity of eating the food of immortality" then Jesus' words to the thief make perfect sense. I am reminded of His words, "He who lives and believes in Me shall never die.", and "Do not labor for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you. For on him God the Father has set his seal."
My personal opinion is that Jesus was using a simple, picturesque one-word metaphor or type for eternal life and immortality with a word that was associated with prophetic references to Eden and Eden restored, but also a word that would have meant something in a simpler way to the thief. People who are dying will sometimes use symbolic language. My own father used a baseball metaphor to me when he was dying in 1975, similar to the one in the 2002 movie, "Signs"; "Swing away, Merle." To the thief 'paradise' may have just meant a garden like place, or possibly the gardens around a king's palace, if he were a gentile, something like Eden if he were a Jew. Conveying a simple and a complex meaning at the same time are not mutually exclusive.
Your tacit admissions of the timeline prove that the word and the ideas were in currency at the time Jesus used it, and that it is not at all impossible or even implausible that he used it, your objections over "genuine Judaism" and your fine eschatological distinctions on the differences between Heaven and Eden notwithstanding.
Every religion uses that argument because blind faith has no other argument.
This discussion caused me to look to see if any teachers saw what I see in the passage
I am sure there people who agree with you. Just like there were 70,000 who "witnessed" the "falling: Sun in Fatima, Portugal. Appealing to other person's opinions, impresisons and beleiefs is not a proof they are true but only that the other person agrees with you.
What or who do you put faith in, kosta?
The question is not what 70,000 saw or thought they saw..the question is who caused it?
Sure it is. Adoun simply means any master. If qualified with words such as "of the world" then it applies to God. It doesn't apply to God alone as Ha-Shem, Adonai or YFWH does. So a sentence that says YHWH told my master does not imply in any way that the "master" is divine, as Christians read it.
Therefore saith the Lord, the LORD of hosts, the mighty One of Israel...All three titles apply to the same
Are you trying to be intentionally obtuse or what? Adoun by itself, wihtout qualification, is never used for God. In this case it is qualified with Lord of Hosts and Lord of Israel. Adoun means master. Master by itself doesn't mean God. I mean a five-year old would understand this.
The Greek word khristos can be translated The Anointed One or The Messiah or transliterated as The Christ.
No it can't. It was Paul who invented the "name" Christ. Until then it was a title not attached to any particular person.
Progress. You have the right temple
Inadvertent error on my part. You never make mistakes? But if you knew better why didn't you correct me when it was relevant?
Tribe of Judah, no high priest
And Jesus was of what tribe?
The kings of Israel could not and did not combine the offices of priest and king. Christ could...
No one called Christ the High Priest and he was not the king of Israel.
You strike out again. Jesus rejected efforts to set him up as a king. It was the resurrected Christ that was to become king, My kingdom is no part of this world (John 18:36) and sit on David's throne
More innovations. The kingdom of the Jewish messiah is here on earth. That said, the Jewish messiah would rule the kingdom on earth. In Matthew, Jesus states that his mission is on earth, and only for the lost sheep of Israel.
He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: (Luke 1:32)
You just said he wasn't going to sit on the throne of David! Get your story straight. Besides, David was not his father ding...ding...ding!!!
Jesus didn't fit the requirements of an apostate religious leadership
LOL! What is "apostate" about the Bible? All requirements for the messiah are based on the OT. Here is a partial list as given by a Jewish source :
More can be found on Wikipedia, Jewish Encyclopedia, etc.
Clearly, He doesn't fit the description except that he is Jewish.
..and yet you keep posting your ideas and terminology to me...ironic, in a twisted, pretzel logic sort of way.
Septuagint was used only among hellenized Jews in dispersion. We don't even know what the original copies looked like. What we have are mostly christianized or Christian-era copies.
The Hebrew Bible doesn't use the word paradise for Garden of Eden. It uses the word gan. Now, Palestinian Jews were using either the Hebrew (Masoretic text) or the Aramaic version (Targum) of the OT.
Besides, Eze 28:13 or 36:35 do nto speak of immortality in way.
The last time I checked, Jesus was contemporaneous with the Second Temple era, and the Septuagint was was already in existence BEFORE Christ
But he was not Greek and most Jews did not use Septuagint. And neither did Galileean fisherman or Palestinian Jews in general.
What is relevant is that the word 'paradise' was already associated with the Garden of Eden and prophesies of restoration of Eden at the time Jesus was being crucified.
The Greek word padeisos was simply used in place of Hebrew gan to mean a park. Reference to Ezekiel shows that the garden was not associated with immortality.
Not in the tales. I take chances, like everyone else.
Who caused what? Cameras showed that the sun was not falling. No one caused anything. It was all in their head, mass hysteria.
Check Matthew 1:3 and Luke 3:33. Jesus' lineage is shown to be from Judah in both places. It is said that the Matthew genealogy is from Joseph - and would show legal rights and Luke is Mary's genealogy which shows genetics rights. Matthew 1:6 shows Solomon also in the lineage. In Luke, Mary's lineage went from Nathan another son of David. Either lineage clearly shows birthright to the kingship.
The other markers of the Messiah are, and will be fulfilled when Jesus returns as conquering hero. His first coming was as a suffering servant, something the Jews did not understand would be two separate events but was clearly prophesied in their prophets' writings.
Tribal lineage is through paternal seed and not through the maternal. The only thing a mother confers upon the child is Jewishness, but not tribal lineage. A child born to a non-Jewish father and a Jewish mother is Jewish by birth but not a member of any tribe.
Therefore his Marian lineage is legally and tribally irrelevant. Legala odption by Joseph owuld onyl make him the heir of property. At any rate Nathen's lineage does not lead to David's throne. Besides, I am told, only Levites can be priests, so being from the tribe of Judah would make it impossible for him to be a high priest.
I didn't make the rules. :)
But you just said:
“Messianic hope is a latter-day development in Judaism. In fact it can be traced tom a VERY late development and influence of pagan Greek thought”
Then a messianic hope ISN'T part of the post-exile Torah Judaism. and you said what YOU mean by Judaism:
“When I speak of Judaism, I speak of pre-Christian, pre-Babylonian, genuine Judaism. It seems to me that most people have no idea that Judaism evolved and is not what it used to be in beginning (i.e. the Torah Judaism). Today, Judaism is a Pharisaical branch of Judaism that evolved in the Christian world, heavily influenced by mysticism, legends, Platonism ,etc.”
So when you cite a source from About.com on Judaism, Why Can't a Jew believe in Jesus?
From Bruce James (Baruch Gershom), its from a Judaism YOU describe as follows:
“Today, Judaism is a Pharisaical branch of Judaism that evolved in the Christian world, heavily influenced by mysticism, legends, Platonism ,etc.”
The same Judaism that produced the Jewish Encyclopedia and Bruce James above.
Just makes a person long for that “Old time religion” with a golden calf, idol worship and sacrifice of children to Baal doesn't it? That pre-exile time of “Genuine Judaism”.
The Jews in Jesus’ day did not understood the O.T. and now have no understanding of what the messiah is, whether an age, a person(s), an individual hope or what have you. In short, Judaism is as fragmented as nominal Christianity.
“You just said he wasn't going to sit on the throne of David! Get your story straight. Besides, David was not his father ding...ding...ding!!!”
Nope. Here is what I said:
“Sorry. You strike out again. Jesus rejected efforts to set him up as a king. It was the resurrected Christ that was to become king, My kingdom is no part of this world (John 18:36) and sit on David's throne.”
And David was his father both by Mary's lineage and by Joseph's since an adopted son was considered a son for inheritance purposes. Legally he met the inheritance test and no challenged
Perhaps “Judaism 101” has a clue on who the Jewish messiah is:
“It has been said that in every generation, a person is born with the potential to be the mashiach. If the time is right for the messianic age within that person's lifetime, then that person will be the mashiach. But if that person dies before he completes the mission of the mashiach, then that person is not the mashiach.” www.jewfaq.org/mashiach.htm
What or who do you put faith in, kosta?
“Not in the tales. I take chances, like everyone else.”
So kosta is certain of what he DOESN'T put his faith in but still the question remains, What DOES he put faith in? A cosmic “craps” game?
And lineage WAS important. “I will overturn, overturn, overturn, it: and it shall be no [more], until he come whose right it is; and I will give it [him].” (Ez. 21:27)
Thanks for additional details.
An interesting turn that not many people are aware of is you can look at the geneology of Joseph and his lineage goes through Jechonias/Jechoniah who was king of Israel when they went into captivity to Babylon. Because Jechonias (also called Coniah) did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord (see II Kings 24:8,9) he was cursed and God declared that no descendant would sit on the throne. Mary’s lineage bypasses this curse and gives Jesus full rights to the throne of David. Just another interesting tidbit.
Post-Babylonian Judaism (late Judaism) is Judaism influenced by Zoroastrian dualism (5th century BC), and, following the Meccabeean (middle 2nd century BC) Revolt with messainism. This period also sees expansion of the scriptures, with the "prophetic" book of Daniel being the last book written.
Cristian-era Judaism is influenced by Platonism, and the resurrenctionof the dead. This period is the period of rabbinic Judaism based on the only surviving Jewish sect, the Pharisees. This period is also the period of Talmudic Judaism beginning with about 200 AD and ending about 500 AD.
So, please explain which part of this don't you understand.
And David was his father both by Mary's lineage and by Joseph's since an adopted son was considered a son for inheritance purposes. Legally he met the inheritance test and no challenged that..
Apparently you need to do some more reading on Jewish customs and laws of the first century. Inheritance had to do with worldly possessions (physical property), not tribal lineage. In the Jewish culture, adoption does not confer tribal lineage
Under normal circumstances, neither inheritance nor tribal lineage is passed through the mother. The mother only confers Jewishness to the child, regardless who or what the father is. The father confers tribal lineage and inheritance rights.
However, there is a special compensation granted to female-only surviving children to inheritance but only if the said female suvivor marries a male relative, which would have applied in Mary's case.
When it comes to Jesus, Joseph was not his natural father, so Jesus did not inherit his "seed." Joesph's lineage was cursed, so Jesus could not inherit the throne of David even if he were from Joseph's seed.
There was no tribal inheritance through female lineage, so Jesus could not inherit the throne of David through Mary's (Nathan's) line. There is no female "seed" to inherit male lineage in Jewish beliefs in 1 AD. A woman is simply a, "fertile field."
Finally, Mary being a Virgin, Jesus was not really her genetic offspring, so no matter how you look at it, he was not of the "seed of David" entitled to a throne of David, and therefore does not meet Jewish standards for a messiah.
So kosta is certain of what he DOESN'T put his faith in but still the question remains, What DOES he put faith in? A cosmic craps game?
Just like everyone else, including you. Except my is not as fancy and magical.
There was no tribal inheritance passed on via maternal lineage. The special inheritance dispensation granted to females-only survivors applied only to physical (property) possessions if the said female married a relative of the same tribe.
Under Jewish law, Jesus could not inherit David's thrown through Mary's lineage. The seed had to be uninterrupted and females were not the carriers of seed in Jewish culture but were only the fertile ground to receive it.
Besides, Jesus was not Mary's generic offspring. She was a surrogate mother.
I quite well understand what you said so why the question?
Maybe I understand it all TOO well.
Are you appealing to the virgin birth, one of those beliefs you call a “tale”, to support your assertions about those who don't believe in it? Outstanding! Outstanding!!!
That's like an atheist appealing to Catholic beliefs to show Protestants are wrong.
Jesus was never attacked by his most vicious opponents for a lack of proper and legal genealogy, either by Jews or Gentiles. Either they gave him a tremendous pass or they understood the law and cutworms of the time better than you and knew he met the genealogical requirements.
“Apparently you need to do some more reading on Jewish customs and laws of the first century. Inheritance had to do with worldly possessions (physical property), not tribal lineage. In the Jewish culture, adoption does not confer tribal lineage”
At Wikipedia? Or maybe you have another unbiased “source”?
So kosta is certain of what he DOESN'T put his faith in but still the question remains, What DOES he put faith in? A cosmic craps game?
“Just like everyone else, including you. Except my is not as fancy and magical.”
Shooting “craps” by yourself really bites doesn't it?
I would say the Orthodox view would be to say "depends what's in your heart." Outward imitation of Christ can be phony, Pharisaical, hypocritical.
Almighty God knows our hearts and minds and motivations. But I agree with the Pharisaical actions of many of our opponents.
But you threw the OT into the mix several posts ago, so I was attempting to get the definitions around the OT and the NT both.
I don't recall the exact post, Mark. Obedience to God was the only requirement in both Testaments. You can't serve two masters. Only one master. And severing a master means your will is only to serve. Christ, in his humanity, was a perfect servant.
Sure. Christ the perfect servant; God the perfect master. Do you see why I don't get it? I accept it, but do not understand how the two of them, opposed in so many ways, are also perfectly aligned in the person of Jesus. I am eternally grateful to God that He did it, make no mistake.
I don’t post my ideas. I explain the teachings of the Catholic Church, the errors of Protestantism, and the relationship with the scriptures that they have. Dissipationalism, for example, has near zero relationship with the scripture, other than it is an excuse to deny it.
Is this the Gospel of the Klingon that you teach? Or the Tributary message of enduring to the end?
Shooting craps by yourself really bites doesn't it?
Not really. It's pretty crowded.
You are joking, right?
So the traditions Irenaeus spoke of are all found in the Bible, he even iterates what the truths were that the barbarians would be taught.
If you read the Bible alone you would not come to explicate wording for things like Infant Baptism,the Trinity, etc...
The ECF's were in agreement on these things and held councils to make them concrete and dogmatic after heretics challenged them and after Christianity was legalized by Constantine
Here are a few ECF writings on Infant Baptism and the Trinity
"For He came to save all through means of Himself--all, I say, who through Him are born again to God--infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2,22:4 (A.D. 180).
""Next, I may reasonably turn to those who divide and cut to pieces and destroy that most sacred doctrine of the Church of God, the Divine Monarchy, making it as it were three powers and partitive subsistences and god-heads three. I am told that some among you who are catechists and teachers of the Divine Word, take the lead in this tenet, who are diametrically opposed, so to speak, to Sabellius's opinions; for he blasphemously says that the Son is the Father, and the Father the Son, but they in some sort preach three Gods, as dividing the sacred Monad into three subsistences foreign to each other and utterly separate. For it must needs be that with the God of the Universe, the Divine Word is united, and the Holy Ghost must repose and habitate in God; thus in one as in a summit, I mean the God of the Universe, must the Divine Triad be gathered up and brought together. For it is the doctrine of the presumptuous Marcion, to sever and divide the Divine Monarchy into three origins,--a devil's teaching, not that of Christ's true disciples and lovers of the Saviour's lessons, For they know well that a Triad is preached by divine Scripture, but that neither Old Testament nor New preaches three Gods. Pope Dionysius [regn. 260-268], to Dionysius of Alexandria, fragment in Athanasius' Nicene Definition 26 (A.D. 262).
Sola scriptura, to me, means that the scriptures are the ultimate authority for doctrines of the faith and, on that, every early "church father" agreed.
This is not what they believed dear sister.They believed in the three legged stool-if you take one out the stool collapses-The three legged stool is Sacred Scripture,Sacred Tradition and the Magesterium(councils etc..)
"The spouse of Christ cannot be adulterous; she is uncorrupted and pure. She knows one home; she guards with chaste modesty the sanctity of one couch. She keeps us for God. She appoints the sons whom she has born for the kingdom. Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adulteress, is separated from the promises of the Church; nor can he who forsakes the Church of Christ attain to the rewards of Christ. He is a stranger; he is profane; he is an enemy. He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother. If any one could escape who was outside the ark of Noah, then he also may escape who shall be outside of the Church. The Lord warns, saying, 'He who is not with me is against me, and he who gathereth not with me scattereth.'" Cyprian, Unity of the Church, 6 (A.D. 256).
" 'So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye were taught, whether by word, or by Epistle of ours.' Hence it is manifest, that they did not deliver all things by Epistle, but many things also unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the tradition of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a tradition, seek no farther." John Chrysostom, Homily on 2nd Thessalonians, 4:2 (A.D. 404).
Again,dear sister,. The Early Church understood Gods Revelation is given to us in three ways: 1. The Scripture, Gods Word in writing by the inspiration of the Spirit. 2. Sacred Apostolic Tradition, Gods Word entrusted to the Apostles by God that is NOT EXPLICITLY in Scriptures. It is living in that it is practiced, thus we also call Tradition living. Sometimes, it takes the Church some self-examination to determine whether something is Divine or not. 3. The teaching office of the Church, the Magesterium. It is Gods desire that men are able to interpret Gods Revelation to us in Scriptures and Tradition. It is the responsibility of the Apostles successors to present this for belief to Gods People. Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are from the same source, God.
You're posts does lead me to think you're on the right track. I will be praying for Our Blessed Lord to reveal more truth to you
I wish you a Blessed evening!
You’re posts = Your post
If you feel like you just really really MUST have the last word, then you’ve had it, no problem, but I’m done with your endless nonsensical assertions. Tossing pearls in the mud and all that, you see.
I don't see from your quote that he even spoke of infant baptism. He said:
"For He came to save all through means of Himself--all, I say, who through Him are born again to God--infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men."
Your church infers from this that he means water baptism because you believe that is how someone starts down the salvation path. I don't read it that way and find nothing in his statement that contradicts scripture. To say "infant water baptism" is scriptural is not true. Nowhere does the Bible say babies must be baptised in order to be saved, in fact, no scripture even says anyone MUST be water baptised to be saved. We are baptised in the Holy Spirit when we believe. Water baptism is an outward sign after this that a believer professes to be a follower of Christ and to rise up in newness of life. It is an outward sign of an inward condition, but the act itself does not save. We are saved by grace through faith in Christ's payment for our sins.
I appreciate any prayers I can get so please feel free to lift them up for me anytime you feel led. I do for you. :o)
It's public knowledge. You are more than welcom to do your own research, but the New testament is not an authority on Jewish law. Jewish Encyclopedia is a good start.
That they are included for Jesus, and no one else in the NT, sure imply they are important, too
Sure they are. They were included to convince the Greeks, who knew nothing of Jewish laws.
You are forgetitng (or neglecting) that the New Testament was written for Greeks, not Jews. Those who knew Jewish custom and law (the Jews), rejected the whole Christian idea because it is as un-Jewish as Mormonism is un-Christian.
BB said-I don't see from your quote that he even spoke of infant baptism.....Your church infers from this that he means water baptism because you believe that is how someone starts down the salvation path. I don't read it that way and find nothing in his statement that contradicts scripture. To say "infant water baptism" is scriptural is not true. Nowhere does the Bible say babies must be baptised in order to be saved, in fact, no scripture even says anyone MUST be water baptised to be saved
Here is clear evidence that Blessed Irenaues taught Infant Baptism by water
"And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven [John 3:5]" (Fragment 34 [A.D. 190]).
So,you see the Church KNEW John 3:5 included infants and there is GREAT evidance of that because Saint Irenaues knew Saint Polycarp who was a direct Disciple of Saint John himself.Dear Sister ,when we approach Scripture, it is important to keep in mind what the intent of the writer was and how early Christians interpreted it. It was NEVER intended to be interpreted apart from the Church.
We see UNITED continuation of infant baptism from other ECF's and Church coucils as well
"Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them" Hippolytus (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).
"The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit" Origin(Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).
"You see how many are the benefits of baptism, and some think its heavenly grace consists only in the remission of sins, but we have enumerated ten honors [it bestows]! For this reason we baptize even infants, though they are not defiled by [personal] sins, so that there may be given to them holiness, righteousness, adoption, inheritance, brotherhood with Christ, and that they may be his [Christs] members" (Baptismal Catecheses in Augustine, Against Julian 1:6:21 [A.D. 388]).
"Canon 2. Likewise it has been decided that whoever says that infants fresh from their mothers' wombs ought not to be baptized....let him be anathema." Council of Carthage,Canon 2,(A.D. 418
Who put it there?
What makes you think it was a “who?” Someone said “the Sun if falling” and the others, expecting a miracle, “saw” the sun “falling.”