Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Church Fathers- Mary: Ever Virgin
The Church Fathers ^ | 120AD-450AD

Posted on 05/31/2011 11:53:33 AM PDT by marshmallow

The Protoevangelium of James

“And behold, an angel of the Lord stood by [St. Anne], saying, ‘Anne! Anne! The Lord has heard your prayer, and you shall conceive and shall bring forth, and your seed shall be spoken of in all the world.’ And Anne said, ‘As the Lord my God lives, if I beget either male or female, I will bring it as a gift to the Lord my God, and it shall minister to him in the holy things all the days of its life.’ . . . And [from the time she was three] Mary was in the temple of the Lord as if she were a dove that dwelt there” (Protoevangelium of James 4, 7 [A.D. 120]).

“And when she was twelve years old there was held a council of priests, saying, ‘Behold, Mary has reached the age of twelve years in the temple of the Lord. What then shall we do with her, lest perchance she defile the sanctuary of the Lord?’ And they said to the high priest, ‘You stand by the altar of the Lord; go in and pray concerning her, and whatever the Lord shall manifest to you, that also will we do.’ . . . [A]nd he prayed concerning her, and behold, an angel of the Lord stood by him saying, ‘Zechariah! Zechariah! Go out and assemble the widowers of the people and let them bring each his rod, and to whomsoever the Lord shall show a sign, his wife shall she be. . . . And Joseph [was chosen]. . . . And the priest said to Joseph, ‘You have been chosen by lot to take into your keeping the Virgin of the Lord.’ But Joseph refused, saying, ‘I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl’” (ibid., 8–9).

“And Annas the scribe came to him [Joseph] . . . and saw that Mary was with child. And he ran away to the priest and said to him, ‘Joseph, whom you did vouch for, has committed a grievous crime.’ And the priest said, ‘How so?’ And he said, ‘He has defiled the virgin whom he received out of the temple of the Lord and has married her by stealth’” (ibid., 15).

“And the priest said, ‘Mary, why have you done this? And why have you brought your soul low and forgotten the Lord your God?’ . . . And she wept bitterly saying, ‘As the Lord my God lives, I am pure before him, and know not man’” (ibid.).

Origen

“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. 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 Matthew 2:17 [A.D. 248]).

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]).

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]).

Epiphanius of Salamis

“We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things, both visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God . . . who for us men and for our salvation came down and took flesh, that is, was born perfectly of the holy ever-virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit” (The Man Well-Anchored 120 [A.D. 374]).

“And to holy Mary, [the title] ‘Virgin’ is invariably added, for that holy woman remains undefiled” (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 78:6 [A.D. 375]).

Jerome

“[Helvidius] produces Tertullian as a witness [to his view] and quotes Victorinus, bishop of Petavium. Of Tertullian, I say no more than that he did not belong to the Church. But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already been proven from the gospel—that he [Victorinus] spoke of the brethren of the Lord not as being sons of Mary but brethren in the sense I have explained, that is to say, brethren in point of kinship, not by nature. [By discussing such things we] are . . . following the tiny streams of opinion. Might I not array against you the whole series of ancient writers? Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and many other apostolic and eloquent men, who against [the heretics] Ebion, Theodotus of Byzantium, and Valentinus, held these same views and wrote volumes replete with wisdom. If you had ever read what they wrote, you would be a wiser man” (Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary 19 [A.D. 383]).

“We believe that God was born of a virgin, because we read it. We do not believe that Mary was married after she brought forth her Son, because we do not read it. . . . You [Helvidius] say that Mary did not remain a virgin. As for myself, I claim that Joseph himself was a virgin, through Mary, so that a virgin Son might be born of a virginal wedlock” (ibid., 21).

Didymus the Blind

“It helps us to understand the terms ‘first-born’ and ‘only-begotten’ when the Evangelist tells that Mary remained a virgin ‘until she brought forth her first-born son’ [Matt. 1:25]; for neither did Mary, who is to be honored and praised above all others, marry anyone else, nor did she ever become the Mother of anyone else, but even after childbirth she remained always and forever an immaculate virgin” (The Trinity 3:4 [A.D. 386]).

Ambrose of Milan

“Imitate her [Mary], holy mothers, who in her only dearly beloved Son set forth so great an example of material virtue; for neither have you sweeter children [than Jesus], nor did the Virgin seek the consolation of being able to bear another son” (Letters 63:111 [A.D. 388]).

Pope Siricius I

“You had good reason to be horrified at the thought that another birth might issue from the same virginal womb from which Christ was born according to the flesh. For the Lord Jesus would never have chosen to be born of a virgin if he had ever judged that she would be so incontinent as to contaminate with the seed of human intercourse the birthplace of the Lord’s body, that court of the eternal king” (Letter to Bishop Anysius [A.D. 392]).

Augustine

“In being born of a Virgin who chose to remain a Virgin even before she knew who was to be born of her, Christ wanted to approve virginity rather than to impose it. And he wanted virginity to be of free choice even in that woman in whom he took upon himself the form of a slave” (Holy Virginity 4:4 [A.D. 401]).

“It was not the visible sun, but its invisible Creator who consecrated this day for us, when the Virgin Mother, fertile of womb and integral in her virginity, brought him forth, made visible for us, by whom, when he was invisible, she too was created. A Virgin conceiving, a Virgin bearing, a Virgin pregnant, a Virgin bringing forth, a Virgin perpetual. Why do you wonder at this, O man?” (Sermons 186:1 [A.D. 411]).

“Heretics called Antidicomarites are those who contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary and affirm that after Christ was born she was joined as one with her husband” (Heresies 56 [A.D. 428]).

Leporius

“We confess, therefore, that our Lord and God, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, born of the Father before the ages, and in times most recent, made man of the Holy Spirit and the ever-virgin Mary” (Document of Amendment 3 [A.D. 426]).

Cyril of Alexandria

“[T]he Word himself, coming into the Blessed Virgin herself, assumed for himself his own temple from the substance of the Virgin and came forth from her a man in all that could be externally discerned, while interiorly he was true God. Therefore he kept his Mother a virgin even after her childbearing” (Against Those Who Do Not Wish to Confess That the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God 4 [A.D. 430]).

Pope Leo I

“His [Christ’s] origin is different, but his [human] nature is the same. Human usage and custom were lacking, but by divine power a Virgin conceived, a Virgin bore, and Virgin she remained” (Sermons 22:2 [A.D. 450]).


TOPICS: Catholic; History; Theology
KEYWORDS: virginmary
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 551-600601-650651-700 ... 2,451-2,497 next last
To: stfassisi
You are devaluing the Incarnation just like Nestorious did

AND NOW, FOR THE REST OF THE STORY...PAGE 2...

Oddly, you guys always forget to mention that the Nestorians would not accept the authority that your popes gave themselves...And as the article states,

At the time, Theotokos ("bearer/mother of God") was a popular term in the Western Church (including Constantinople) used to refer to the Virgin Mary, but it was not used in Antioch.

The Nestorians would not bow down to your pope and they knew a fable when they saw one, ie, Mother of God...

And let us note; the Nestorians lived where the Apostles hung out...Antioch, in what at the time was inside the borders of Syria, just up the road from Jerusalem...

They didn't fall for the Mother of God stuff that came up from Egypt...

Nestor has far more credibility than anything that came up from Rome/Egypt...

601 posted on 06/02/2011 5:09:34 PM PDT by Iscool (I don't understand all that I know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 583 | View Replies]

To: Cronos; Quix
HD, do you believe in the Rapture? Is it unBiblical?

No, I don't believe in the Rapture. And if I'm correct, then yes, it is unBiblical for someone to hold this view. And if I'm wrong then I'm a heretic-at least on this matter.

There is only one scriptural truth. Every heretical doctrine leads you AWAY from God. The degree of the heresy and how many heretical doctrines you believe will lead you farther away from God. I have always believed this. Consequently I don't accept doctrine lightly and I do not accept things that I'm not 100% sure of. It was no small effort that I became a Reformer. As far as embracing an eschatology viewpoint, I have not fully made up my mind.

602 posted on 06/02/2011 5:24:06 PM PDT by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 435 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
Oddly, you guys always forget to mention that the Nestorians would not accept the authority ...

Nobody forgot, it's no different than what the Mormons and the Calvinists and others do

they knew a fable when they saw one, ie, Mother of God...

They knew how to be heretics in denying the Trinity.

As Saint Thomas Aquinas rightfully points out Nestorius error...

Furthermore, by saying made of a woman two errors are destroyed, namely, that of Nestorious saying that Christ did not take His body of the Virgin but of the heavens and that He passed through the Blessed Virgin as through a corridor or channel. But this is false, for if it were true, He would not, as the Apostle says, have been made of a woman. By the preposition “of” [ex] the material cause is denoted. Likewise, the error of Nestorious saying that the Blessed Virgin is not the mother of the Son of God but of the son of a man. But this is shown to be false by the words of the Apostle here, that God sent his Son made of a woman. Now one who is made of a woman is her son. Therefore, if the Son of God was made of a woman, namely, of the Blessed Virgin, it is obvious that the Blessed Virgin is the Mother of the Son of God.

Moreover, although he might have said “born of a woman,” he distinctly says made, and not “born.”[1] Indeed, for something to be born it must not only be produced of a principle conjoined to it but be made from a principle separate from it. Thus a wooden chest is made by an artisan, but fruit is born from a tree. Now the principle of human generation is twofold, namely, material—and as to this, Christ proceeded from a conjoined principle, because He took the matter of His body from the Virgin; and it is according to this that He is said to be born of her: “Of whom [Mary] was born Jesus Who is called Christ” (Matthew 1:16). The other is the active principle, which in the case of Christ, so far as He had a principle, i.e., as to the forming of the body, was not conjoined but separate, because the power of the Holy Spirit formed it. And with respect to this He is not said to have been born of a woman, but made, as it were, from an extrinsic principle. From this it is obvious that the saying, of a woman, does not denote a defloration; otherwise he would have said “born” and not “made.”- Saint Thomas Aquinas

And let us note; the Nestorians lived where the Apostles hung out...Antioch, in what at the time was inside the borders of Syria, just up the road from Jerusalem...

Gack!Are you really suggesting that hanging out in Antioch guarantees they knew truth? This is like say because I live in NY I must know the complete list of laws of the state of NY

Show us Nestorian writings that links them to the Apostles like writings of Saint Ignatius, Justyn Martyr and others?

603 posted on 06/02/2011 5:36:16 PM PDT by stfassisi ((The greatest gift God gives us is that of overcoming self"-St Francis Assisi)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 601 | View Replies]

To: NEWwoman

You wrote:

“As a Presbyterian (like many other Protestants), we say the Apostles Creed - “I believe in one catholic and apostolic church ...” (I understand catholic has the broader meaning of universal.)”

Alright, let’s start there. Where was the Presbyterian church in the first century? Where was Presbyterian doctrine in the first century? If it wasn’t there, then can it be universal? If it isn’t universal, should you as a Christian believe in it?

“Ephesians 4:4 - says there is one body.”

Yes. And when was that one body established? Can those who disagree on the most basic of Christian doctrines - such as how we are saved - be in the same body when that body is freely chosen by its members?

“Christ only has one church - believers He has called out to Himsef. The labels we all give ourselves are man-made.”

Maybe the labels we give are man-made, but is the Church then man-made? No. It is Christ-made. Are all so-called churches Christ-made? Wouldn’t that mean all had been established in the first century? Is that the reality?


604 posted on 06/02/2011 5:47:00 PM PDT by vladimir998 (When anti-Catholics can't debate they just make stuff up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 473 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD; Cronos
No, I don't believe in the Rapture. And if I'm correct, then yes, it is unBiblical for someone to hold this view. And if I'm wrong then I'm a heretic-at least on this matter.

By Rapture, do you mean:

A. The pre-tribulation secret whisking away of believers immediately prior to 7 years of antichrist rule as described nowhere in the Bible, or

B. The gathering by Christ of his own to himself on the day of his appearance as described by Paul in his letter to the Thessalonians and by Jesus in the Book of Matthew?
605 posted on 06/02/2011 5:50:29 PM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 602 | View Replies]

To: Titanites

Welllll THANK YOU

for your GRACIOUS eagle eye in pointing that out.

Maybe with further coaching I’ll slowly learn to avoid inferring anything from your words.


606 posted on 06/02/2011 6:03:40 PM PDT by Quix (Times are a changin' INSURE you have believed in your heart & confessed Jesus as Lord Come NtheFlesh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 599 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD

I don’t think anyone else has it all figured out either.

I sure don’t.

However, I think we respect a lot of one another’s Christianity—regardless of the relentless divisive assaults of some hereon.


607 posted on 06/02/2011 6:06:43 PM PDT by Quix (Times are a changin' INSURE you have believed in your heart & confessed Jesus as Lord Come NtheFlesh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 602 | View Replies]

To: Cronos; Quix
You left off the following verses:

Now do you believe that the wicked can turn away from their wickedness without God's help? If you believe so then you are contradicting Church teaching and have fallen into the Pelagius error.

God judges everyone according to their ways. And it's interesting that people CONTINUOUSLY say that this is unjust of God (just as He states). How many times do I hear that God isn't "fair" if someone doesn't hear the message and is cast into hell. We invent all sorts of goofy doctrine to find an excuse to make God "fair".

God is perfectly right to judge each of us for what we are. People are wicked and evil (yes, even kindly Aunt Murdle) and God would be unjust if He didn't give us the wages due-just what we ask for. We cannot overcome our wickedness even though God commands it. Heck, He told Cain that sin was "crouching" at the door and he had to overcome it. Cain couldn't and he murdered Able his brother. That is the nature of man. We're corrupt. And each one of us deep down knows that we would do something just as vile to become successful, popular, or for some other lascivious reason.

What you are missing in Ezekiel is the other part of the story. God tells the people that He will put a new spirit in us and cause us to walk in His statures and obey His ordinances (Eze 36:26). People can't do it-but God can. This is the grace of God. God purposely overcomes this nature of our by ripping out our rebellious heart and spirit, giving us a new one instead. God being so rich in His mercy that He takes it upon Himself to show mercy and grace when we deserve the torments of hell. Why He selects one and not another is His perogative, just as He calls some to be apostles and some teachers. It is according to HIS MERCY-not our "turning" from something.

But you might say this isn't "fair" of God if He doesn't do it for everyone. If so reread this again.

608 posted on 06/02/2011 6:10:01 PM PDT by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 437 | View Replies]

To: helloandgoodbye
I'm afraid you mean something different by prayer from what I mean by it. You say:
Notice He spoke with them, He NEVER prayed to them.

I say that's a distinction without a difference. I tried to suggest that with my example of Jesus praying to Mary, but I guess you didn't get it.

Also you speak a different kind of English from that which I speak, while it appears some judge by outward appearances, a practice against which there is Biblical advice.

Using the RSV, Matt 6:7: I find "do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do; for they think that they will be heard for their empty words. Leaving aside the peculiar word βατταλογησητε, of which we seem to have little attestation, I would just go to the adjective "empty" and to the attribution of motive.

The words we say are not empty. SO we do not see ourselves as disregarding the first part of the advice. I find the words full of meaning.

Further, as I said, while we repeat these prayers, we are meditating on various periods of our Lord's life, or that of his mother. So the Rosary is very rich.

And, I do not think I will be heard for my many words. That's the bad part.

Many-ness and repetition are offered to us in Psalm 136 -- "for his steadfast love endures forever" 26 times! If we thought that the may repetitions were the problem, we couldn't pray that psalm. And anybody who thinks that multiplying words will make God hear them isn't paying attention.

So the problems are emptiness and a kind of prayerful works righteousness, not many-ness or repetition. The outward appearance is repetition, But the emptiness and the other is not to be seen. It is something somebody brings with him to the observation.

"Isn't it odd ...?"

No it isn't, not to me. Knotted and beaded strings have been used a long time to keep track of things. The cheap little rosary I have with me is handy.

If other people use malas and whatnot, that's not my problem. I worship the Lord who conquered death. He's not afraid of a bit of string and some beads.

609 posted on 06/02/2011 6:13:58 PM PDT by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 502 | View Replies]

To: aruanan; Cronos

Oooooo...good question.

I believe Christ will return and believers will be caught up in the clouds. I can’t say much more than that but I don’t see an advantage of an “antichrist” rule.


610 posted on 06/02/2011 6:14:44 PM PDT by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 605 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name
Hey Mad Dawg - Idolatry bells should be going off big time!

Why?

611 posted on 06/02/2011 6:16:26 PM PDT by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 512 | View Replies]

To: Quix
Eschatology is very confusing. While I know some really stress the value of it, I think it's far more important to understand the will of God verses the will of man. There is no such thing as “free will”. I strongly believe from this misconcept every heresy springs.
612 posted on 06/02/2011 6:19:59 PM PDT by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 607 | View Replies]

To: Cronos; Quix; narses; lastchance; allmendream; mlizzy; xone; marbren

This is a first-a Catholic supporting Luther. Are you saying you enjoy reading Luther? I wouldn’t let this leak out to the Vatican if I were you. ;O)


613 posted on 06/02/2011 6:24:34 PM PDT by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 460 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD

I don’t know of a single Christian who sees the Anti-Christ’s rule for 3.5-7 years as

“an advantage.”

Scripture calls it the worst time that ever was or ever will be again.

However, I trust that God has His reasons.

And certainly, HE knows best.

FREE WILL . . . is a tricky subject Biblically.

There’s Scriptures on both sides. And there’s no, imho, definitive Biblical solution to that tension. So, I accept BOTH parts of Scripture and wait for God to resolve them in eternity.


614 posted on 06/02/2011 6:25:32 PM PDT by Quix (Times are a changin' INSURE you have believed in your heart & confessed Jesus as Lord Come NtheFlesh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 610 | View Replies]

To: caww
Thank you for at least noticing the quote.

My point, and I do have one, is that the word "prayer" means more than making petitions. It's an imprecise word which is used to convey many things. We speak of silent prayer, prayer of adoration, even wordless prayer.

While the word and the words it translates seem to have started out with a sense of petition, they now mean far more.

In fact, it's hard to make a clear distinction between "pray" and "communicate", when we think of prayer in the broadest sense. But even with petitionery prayer, it seems to me entirely plausible that Jesus asked Mary to help him with his sandals when he was a toddler just learning to speak.

You see, the arguments against the intercession of the saints just don't make sense to me. It seems they are always based on an unspecified but firmly held meaning of prayer, a denial of the oneness of the body of Christ and of the Spirit which makes us one, and a careless reading of our Lord's teaching on prayer.

The usual way to proceed in such a case would be to identify the differences on which the disagreement is built and to discuss the meanings of the passages and the words used in them.

But so many are so interested in winning or in showing the other side up, that this exercise, which could be done in fellowship and charity is ignored for accusations of idolatry and the dangerous fun of thinking oneself more righteous and more blessed that others. ( I did not say"wrong"; I said "dangerous".)

Jesus communicated with Mary. That, to me, is equivalent to prayer except that neither party has died yet. And Jesus probably asked Mary for something. So we have petitionery prayer. All we ask her for are her prayers, while at other times (scattered lightly in the daily prayers of Catholics) we ask God to hear Mary's prayers.

If that's "brainwashed", then I'm brainwashed. I think the idea that, even after the Transfiguration and the Resurrection, communication with those who have 'gone before' is impossible is itself unBiblical, for surely Moses and Elias went before, and sure we are one in the Spirit.

615 posted on 06/02/2011 6:35:59 PM PDT by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 517 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
I have enjoyed reading Luther. I don't have to agree with a theologian either to profit from him or to enjoy him

Heck, I enjoy reading Calvin.

616 posted on 06/02/2011 6:40:40 PM PDT by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 613 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD; Cronos; Quix; narses; lastchance; allmendream; mlizzy; xone; marbren

Luther did not set out to “destroy” the Church (nor could he), he saw problems and was trying to correct them. Some things he was right about. Some he clearly was not. Sadly his own pride kept him from working with the Holy Spirit and the end result was ugly, but certainly anyone with sense will study what he did and who he was if they want to understand today’s religious landscape, no?


617 posted on 06/02/2011 6:43:37 PM PDT by narses ("Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions." Chesterton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 613 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

* Where was the Presbyterian church in the first century? ...*

There were no denominational labels, Catholic, Prebyterian, Baptist, .... that I know of in the first century.

As for the other questions of doctrine - etc.

In the first century, we did have the Old Testament, and the New Testament in the form of Gospels, the letters, the history by Luke, and the Revelation of John. From that, Christians derive our doctrine. And I thank the Catholics for putting the New Testament together and preserving it.

The crux is to believe Jesus is the Son of God and trust Him as our Savior. Why do we make it so complicated? That is totally universal - totally catholic.

And believing God for salvation goes way, way, back before the first century to the Garden of Eden - the seed of the woman (Jesus born of a virgin) will crush the head of the serpent (the devil). Abraham believed God and it counted to him as righteousness. The nasty Ninevites that Jonah preached to - all believed God and He showed them mercy. (That’s all God has asked any sinner to do - believe Him.)

You are absolutely right that the Church is Christ-made.


618 posted on 06/02/2011 8:11:48 PM PDT by NEWwoman (God Bless America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 604 | View Replies]

To: Quix; Titanites
cronos: Why exactly did Jesse Duplantis believe that he zoomed to heaven, met Abraham and David and comforted Jesus?

What was that you were saying about believeing in unbiblical stuff straight from hell?

Quix: Because he was awake when the trip began and awake when it ended and that’s what his senses etc. told him he experienced.

Rot -- Jesse Duplantis was/is a liar and a con-man through and through.

What is worse is the utterly unbiblical stuff he spouts --

Jesse Duplantis, the guy who preached that You, not God, Decides When to Die

“I’m going to say something that will knock your lights off. Go has the power to take life, but He can’t. He’s got the power to do it, but He won’t. He’s bound; He can’t. He says, “Death and life is in the power of” who’s tongue? Yours. You ready for this? You want something that’ll knock your lights off? You choose when you live; you choose when you die. Death and life is in the power of your tongue, not God’s.
As you said "wholesale gross UNBiblical deceptions from hell" -- what do you think of Herr Duplantis now?
619 posted on 06/02/2011 8:58:01 PM PDT by Cronos (Palin, Cain, Jindal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 581 | View Replies]

To: Quix; papertyger

Yes, exactly my point — your posts do not display the fruit of the Holy Spirit at all. Falsehoods are not the fruit of the Holy Spirit, so cast it aside


620 posted on 06/02/2011 8:59:24 PM PDT by Cronos (Palin, Cain, Jindal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 584 | View Replies]

To: marbren; xone; GiovannaNicoletta
Thank you so much for your question, dear brother in Christ!

My post on another thread:

I am very much against all forms of replacement theology.

God keeps all of His promises. Every. Single. One.

But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, [and] the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts [is] his name: If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, [then] the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.

Thus saith the LORD; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD. - Jer 31:33-37

The total number and types of dimensions are both unknown and unknowable. God has not cast off the seed of Israel.

And the Song of Moses will be sung along with the Song of the Lamb:

And I saw as it were a sea of glass mingled with fire: and them that had gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over his mark, [and] over the number of his name, stand on the sea of glass, having the harps of God. And they sing the song of Moses; the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous [are] thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true [are] thy ways, thou King of saints. Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name? for [thou] only [art] holy: for all nations shall come and worship before thee; for thy judgments are made manifest. – Rev 15:2-4

This is prophecy.

The Song of Moses (Deut 32) was from God.

Now therefore write ye this song for you, and teach it the children of Israel: put it in their mouths, that this song may be a witness for me against the children of Israel. - Deut 31:19

Then the prophecy:

They have moved me to jealousy with [that which is] not God; they have provoked me to anger with their vanities: and I will move them to jealousy with [those which are] not a people; I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation. – Deuteronomy 32:21

Explained here:

But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by [them that are] no people, [and] by a foolish nation I will anger you. - Romans 10:19

I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but [rather] through their fall salvation [is come] unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy. - Romans 11:11

And then the prophecy as it concerns replacement theology:

Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.

Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in.

Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: For if God spared not the natural branches, [take heed] lest he also spare not thee.

Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in [his] goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.

And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.

For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural [branches], be graffed into their own olive tree?

For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this [is] my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

As concerning the gospel, [they are] enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, [they are] beloved for the fathers' sakes.

For the gifts and calling of God [are] without repentance. - Romans 11:18-29

The Jews are not yet "jealous" but they will be - note the Names of God revealed here:

Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they [also] which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. - Revelation 1:7-8

And again,

That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of [things] in heaven, and [things] in earth, and [things] under the earth; And [that] every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ [is] Lord, to the glory of God the Father. - Philippians 2:10-11

Maranatha, Jesus!!!

621 posted on 06/02/2011 9:03:07 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 465 | View Replies]

Comment #622 Removed by Moderator

Comment #623 Removed by Moderator

Comment #624 Removed by Moderator

Comment #625 Removed by Moderator

To: Iscool
I am the church, a small c, the body of Jesus Christ

Even though this is common knowledge to Christians, this is way over the pay grade of catholics. They are liberals who have a mental block to understanding the simplest of things. Think of them as parrots who just repeat the same babble over and over what they were taught by repetition.
626 posted on 06/02/2011 9:18:06 PM PDT by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 532 | View Replies]

Comment #627 Removed by Moderator

To: Cronos

Potty language is not allowed on the Religion Forum.


628 posted on 06/02/2011 9:20:14 PM PDT by Religion Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 625 | View Replies]

Comment #629 Removed by Moderator

Comment #630 Removed by Moderator

To: Quix; lastchance; Titanites; papertyger; HarleyD
quix: Yourcheap shots about Benny are pathetic.

I’ve long made it known that Benny is not a favorite of mine.

I deplore a lot of his stuff.

If God chooses to use Benny, that’s God’s business. God used a donkey to speak to a prophet once.

So, when Benny Hinn says the following unbiblical stuff from hell you just "deplore" his "stuff"?

God has 9 parts (tri-theistic).

A. God has a body, soul and spirit.
B. Jesus has a body, soul and spirit.
C. Holy Spirit has a body, soul and spirit. (Benny Hinn, Benny Hinn broadcast, recorded 10/13/90)

and
"He [Jesus] who is righteous by choice said, 'The only way I can stop sin is by Me becoming it. I can't just stop it by letting it touch Me; I and it must become one.' Hear this! He who is the nature of God became the nature of Satan where He became sin!" (Benny Hinn, TBN, 12/1/90)

So, why do you Quix think that Benny is not a liar con-man who spouts "non-biblical stuff from hell"?

9 gods?

631 posted on 06/02/2011 9:31:47 PM PDT by Cronos (Palin, Cain, Jindal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 589 | View Replies]

To: Quix; Titanites
But benny sure knows the booty call!

From the Curious Presbyterian website

Televangelist Benny Hinn is being sued by Strang Communications, a publishing company that alleges that Hinn violated a morality clause in their contract when he began an “inappropriate relationship” with Without Walls pastor Paula White.

In August, The National Enquirer published photos of Hinn and White holding hands in Rome. Hinn was married to Suzanne Hinn at the time. His wife had filed for divorce in February 2010.

Go Benny, hit that thang!

Paul White -- the botox filled preacher who sleeps around with another preacher is pretty hot.

632 posted on 06/02/2011 9:33:18 PM PDT by Cronos (Palin, Cain, Jindal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 589 | View Replies]

Comment #633 Removed by Moderator

To: Quix; stfassisi; HarleyD
quix: Most Proddys hereon are quite Biblical in their beliefs about such thing

Well, we had earlier established that "Proddy" is not a short-form for Protestant but rather for those following the same cockamamy philosophy as you, Quix: we saw in above posts of Jesse (the liar) Duplantis went to heaven and that Benny (there are 9 gods) Hinn is just a tool of God

The term "Proddy" hence excludes Presbyterians, Lutheran, etc. among others because they too will laugh at this crap. So, hence the term "Proddy" just means those following the same cockamamy philosophy as you, Quix on Benny Hinn and Jesse Duplantis. Thanks for the confirmation. From now on when we see that term "Proddy" we'll know it mean "Jesse Duplantis lovers" and definitely does not mean Lutherans or Presbyterians or others (well, in any case your post repeated what the Proddy clan says of Lutherans -- rejection can be hurtful, eh?)

634 posted on 06/02/2011 9:43:37 PM PDT by Cronos (Palin, Cain, Jindal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 591 | View Replies]

To: Titanites; Quix
titanites: the luminescence was due to the reflection off Jesse's Rolex.

The question is -- which of Jesse's many Rolexes was this?

635 posted on 06/02/2011 9:44:31 PM PDT by Cronos (Palin, Cain, Jindal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 592 | View Replies]

To: Titanites; Quix
titanites: the luminescence was due to the reflection off Jesse's Rolex.

The question is -- which of Jesse's many Rolexes was this?

As Quix's following post says which flaunt themselves loudly far and wide. -- Rolexes like Jesse's really do flaunt themselves loudly far and wide

636 posted on 06/02/2011 9:45:10 PM PDT by Cronos (Palin, Cain, Jindal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 592 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name
pnsm: And that would tie in with the muzzie's koran

Do you know that well?

And strangely enough, your post above spoke of only Christ's preaching and death. We Christians on the other hand celebrate Christ's rising from the Dead and Ascension into heaven too

I know it's difficult for some to accept the fact that JEsus Christ is God and they use this to attack the Church, but if you wish to believe or not believe that, that's your choice.

637 posted on 06/02/2011 9:47:23 PM PDT by Cronos (Palin, Cain, Jindal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 600 | View Replies]

To: Iscool; stfassisi
I've never known anyone to post with such lack of knowledge as your posts show

Nestorianism rejected the idea that the Human and Divine hypostases of Jesus Christ were intimately intertwined, but rather that they were separate.

This propounded the concept that there were two Christs -- a human one born of Mary and the Hypostasis of the Son who ENTERED into and "possessed" the man Jesus.

Nestorianism thus sees Jesus as a man possessed by the Spirit of God, not God become man. We Christians on the contrary believe that Jesus was/is God, not a man possessed by the Spirit of God

you're also utterly wrong about the location -- Nestorianism moved to what is now Persia and was instrumental in the Church of the East, which later, under Babai the Great rejected Nestorianism

638 posted on 06/02/2011 9:57:29 PM PDT by Cronos (Palin, Cain, Jindal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 601 | View Replies]

To: Quix; Titanites; lastchance; papertyger
Cronos: So, why exactly would WELS throw out someone? WELS = Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod

Quix: For someone not believing lock-step identically to the way the hierarchy currently says they must . . . FELLOWSHIP DOCTRINE etc.

Ah, so because the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod holds to a position that, “… complete confessional unity is the necessary scriptural basis for all practices of church fellowship, that is, for pulpit, altar, and prayer fellowship.”

no wonder -- they would throw out anyone who was preaching heterodox views like following Benny or Jesse or any of the other outlandish theorems, I'm sure, right?

639 posted on 06/02/2011 9:59:26 PM PDT by Cronos (Palin, Cain, Jindal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 585 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
Consequently I don't accept doctrine lightly and I do not accept things that I'm not 100% sure of. It was no small effort that I became a Reformer.

That's a good approach (former sentence) and the same path I went to deepen my faith in my Church.

With the Reformed, I really, honestly do think that there are three deep issues at the core that are wrong and the first is actually threatening to the holder's faith in a Christian God -- you of course will disagree, but that's the way I see it:

  1. the belief in double predestination --> Ezekiel 33 knocks this out of the park and scripture abounds with branches pruned out but some grafted back in.

    you added in verses 19 and 20 in post 608, and you asked Now do you believe that the wicked can turn away from their wickedness without God's help? -- My answer is No.

    God judges everyone according to their ways -- yes. However, note that this "their ways" can only happen if people have the free will to even HAVE "their ways".

    God's grace is needed for us to turn to him, yes, but there is no proof for God pre-condeming pre-programmed people to hell -- God does not do that.


640 posted on 06/02/2011 10:03:32 PM PDT by Cronos (Palin, Cain, Jindal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 602 | View Replies]

To: helloandgoodbye; metmom
Thank you for that explanation

Interesting bit about Makes you wonder why Yeshua supposedly did away with “hitting the mark” now doesn’t it? He didn’t, the Law is still in place and in effect. -- will have to read up more on that

There is a belief that some have talked about here on FR that between Gen 1 and 2 a different form of life arose under God's plan and were destroyed, accounting for the age of the earth and the differences between that and the 6000 years we believe in. I don't know enough on that concept of an earlier civilisation pre-Gen I to comment.

641 posted on 06/02/2011 10:06:16 PM PDT by Cronos (Palin, Cain, Jindal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 596 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
Actually, not the first time. I have argued against some who accuse Luther of everything. It's easy for them as he is a pivotal figure. I object to the post saying He was clearly brainwashed by horrific deceptions, too. --> my own opinion of Luther is that he started off with good intentions -- just like how he became an Augustinian in the first place, he made a choice and then stubbornly stuck to it.

My revaluation of Luther and Lutheranism is when I read on the www.lcms.org website more about Lutheran belief in

  1. The True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist -- they believe that Christ is really there, that it is not just an object
  2. Lutheran belief in baptism for the remission of sins
  3. Lutheran belief in the Sacrament of penance
  4. Lutheran rejection of the Calvinist theory of DOUBLE predestination

I do disagree with them on points, yes, but the fact that they hold the above and most importantly for me that they believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist means a lot.

642 posted on 06/02/2011 10:13:02 PM PDT by Cronos (Palin, Cain, Jindal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 613 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD; Quix
Also, note the supporting bit is against Quix's saying about Luther that "He was clearly brainwashed by horrific deceptions, too." -- that's an unqualified statement from someone whose posts talk of Jesse Duplantis and Benny Hinn as tools of God or whose posts defend Jesse Duplantis's journey to heaven to comfort God

At the very least in comparison to Jesse, Luther was not "brainwashed by horrific deceptions"

643 posted on 06/02/2011 10:15:25 PM PDT by Cronos (Palin, Cain, Jindal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 613 | View Replies]

Comment #644 Removed by Moderator

To: HarleyD; Mad Dawg
Furthermore, on historical matters I do defend Luther against those who accuse him of being some kind of early Nazi anti-semite -- he wasn't. His words were harsh, but he had no racial hatred of the Jews as the Nazis did.

As my posts on various atrocities commited by various religious groups on each other in the 16th and 17th century show, those were harsh times in which not many come off looking good when viewed through 21st century eyes.

Even the Puritans as you see above, were barbaric by today's standards and had no religious freedom for others, but we can't judge them by today's standards

HOWEVER, I put a clear dividing point between pre-Industrial revolution and post-Industrial Revolution. The horrors of genocide in WWII and WWI are more horrific than the similar genocides by the Mongols or Timur-i-Lang precisely because they occurred in civilised countries in a civilised time.

645 posted on 06/02/2011 10:20:12 PM PDT by Cronos (Palin, Cain, Jindal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 613 | View Replies]

To: helloandgoodbye; Cronos
I'm sitting here waiting for Cronos to catch up.

The posts were removed because he kept posting the same potty language after I instructed him to stop. So then I instructed him to leave the thread, which we do when posters are ignoring us - but he just keeps on posting.

I think he just hasn't gotten this far yet.

646 posted on 06/02/2011 10:20:23 PM PDT by Religion Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 644 | View Replies]

To: Religion Moderator

oops, sorry, I didn’t see your warning. I’m off the thread now


647 posted on 06/02/2011 10:21:38 PM PDT by Cronos (Palin, Cain, Jindal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 633 | View Replies]

Comment #648 Removed by Moderator

To: Cronos
That's what I thought happened.

Look, if you will refrain from using that potty language term, I'll remove my instruction to leave and restore the subsequent posts.

Deal?

649 posted on 06/02/2011 10:23:29 PM PDT by Religion Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 647 | View Replies]

To: Religion Moderator

Hi RM — apologies. I have no idea which was the potty language and apologize for it nonetheless. Thank you for waiting. I will refrain from using whatever it was (please can you delete that post and freepmail it to me so I know where I goofed?)


650 posted on 06/02/2011 10:25:11 PM PDT by Cronos (Palin, Cain, Jindal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 649 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 551-600601-650651-700 ... 2,451-2,497 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson