Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Mary: Mother of God?
What Does the Bible say? ^ | 01/11/2012 | Bro. Lev Humphries,

Posted on 01/11/2012 7:34:56 PM PST by RnMomof7

Mary: Mother of God?

This article is prompted by an ad in the Parade Magazine titled: "Mary Mother of God: What All Mankind Should Know." The offer was made for a free pamphlet entitled "Mary Mother of Jesus" with this explanation: "A clear, insightful pamphlet explains the importance of Mary and her role as Mother of God."

This is quite a claim, to say the least! Nowhere in the Bible is Mary said to be the mother of God. I touched on this subject in a series on "Mary Co-Redeemer with Christ" printed recently.

Question: If Mary is the Mother of God, Who, may I ask, is the Father of God? Does God have a Father, and if He does, Who is His Mother?

The phrase "Mother of God" originated in the Council of Ephesus, in the year 431 AD. It occurs in the Creed of Chalcedon, which was adopted by the council in 451 AD. This was the declaration given at that time: "Born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God according to the Manhood." The purpose of this statement originally was meant to emphasize the deity of Christ over against the teaching of the Nestorians whose teaching involved a dual-natured Jesus. Their teaching was that the person born of Mary was only a man who was then indwelt by God. The title "Mother of God" was used originally to counter this false doctrine. The doctrine now emphasizes the person of Mary rather than the deity of Jesus as God incarnate. Mary certainly did not give birth to God. In fact, Mary did not give birth to the divinity of Christ. Mary only gave birth to the humanity of Jesus. The only thing Jesus got from Mary was a body. Every Human Being has received a sinful nature from their parents with one exception: Jesus was not human. He was divine God in a flesh body. This is what Mary gave birth to. Read Hebrews 10:5 and Phil 2:5-11.

Please refer to Hebrews 10:5 where we see. "...Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me."

The body of Jesus was prepared by God. In Matthew 1:18, "she was found with child of the Holy Ghost."

The divine nature of Jesus existed from before eternity, and this cannot be said of Mary Jesus never called her "mother". He called her "woman".

This doctrine deifies Mary and humanizes Jesus. Mary is presented as stronger that Christ, more mature and more powerful that Christ. Listen to this statement by Rome: "He came to us through Mary, and we must go to Him through her." The Bible plainly states that God is the Creator of all things. It is a blasphemous attack on the eternity of God to ever teach that He has a mother. Mary had other children who were normal, physical, sinful human beings. In the case of Jesus Christ, "His human nature had no father and His divine nature had no mother."

It is probably no coincidence that this false doctrine surrounding Mary was born in Ephesus. Please read Acts 19:11-41 and see that Ephesus had a problem with goddess worship. Her name was Diana, Gk. Artemis. You will not have to study very deep to find the similarities between the goddess Diana and the Roman Catholic goddess, Mary. It should be noted that the Mary of the 1st century and the Mary of the 20th century are not the same. Mary of the 1st century was the virgin who gave birth to the Messiah. Mary of the 20th century is a goddess created by the Roman Catholic Church. A simple comparison of what the Bible teaches about Mary and what the Roman Catholic Church teaches about her will reveal two different Marys. Mary is not the "Mother of God." If she were she would be GOD! There is only one true, eternal God. He was not born of a woman. Any teaching on any subject should be backed up by the word of God. If it cannot be supported by Scriptures, it is false doctrine.


TOPICS: Apologetics; Evangelical Christian; General Discusssion; Theology
KEYWORDS: blessedvirginmary; calvinismisdead; divinity; humanity; ignoranceisbliss; mariolatry; mary; motherofgod; nestorianheresy; nestorians; perpetualvirginity; theotokos
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 1,301-1,3501,351-1,4001,401-1,450 ... 1,751 next last
To: Al Hitan
Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter (Petros), and upon this rock (Petra) I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Regardless of what you want to believe, Jesus built his church on Petra, NOT Petros...One is Jesus, the other is Peter...They are not the same...

1Co 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock (Petra) that followed them: and that Rock (Petra) was Christ).

If the church was built on Peter then Peter would be the head of the church. However, Peter was not the head of the church in his day... Instead of having the disciples, apostles, and other believers call Peter pope, or Father Peter, or Holy Father Peter, Jesus said:

Mat 23:8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.
Mat 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
Mat 23:10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.
Mat 23:11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.
Mat 23:12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.

"Call no man your father," could not refer to an earthly parent, but to the spiritual fathers... Jesus recommended our paying full respect to earthly parents when He quoted the commandment:

Mar 7:10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:

If Jesus delegated Peter as the head of the church, why did the other disciples argue among themselves as to who would be the greatest (Luke 9:46)???

If this decision had already been made by Christ, why should the others worry about it??? The other disciples would have submitted to the wish of their Master...

It's pretty obvious that no such appointment had been made by Jesus...

There is not a trace of evidence in the Bible that Peter was a pope...

What if historians who wrote about Abraham Lincoln never mentioned that he was a President of the United States??? Same situation...

If Peter was a 'pope', surely one of the writers of the bible would have mentioned it...Or even Peter himself in one of his letters...

The church in the days of the apostles did not recognize Peter as pope or the head of the church... Neither does the true church today.

1,351 posted on 01/15/2012 3:20:56 AM PST by Iscool (You mess with me, you mess with the WHOLE trailerpark...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1334 | View Replies]

To: marbren

Amen...


1,352 posted on 01/15/2012 3:44:54 AM PST by Iscool (You mess with me, you mess with the WHOLE trailerpark...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1350 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

what would the prophetess think about you posting on the Sabbath?

i rest in my Sabbath, Jesus Christ. ( like all Christians have for 2,000 years )


1,353 posted on 01/15/2012 4:39:42 AM PST by one Lord one faith one baptism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1276 | View Replies]

To: Not gonna take it anymore

sorry, i don’t know how to post links. google his name, it’s the wikipedia article. it gives a more “balanced” presentation of his life.


1,354 posted on 01/15/2012 4:53:52 AM PST by one Lord one faith one baptism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1209 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear; smvoice; metmom; boatbums

“Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would help the disciples remember everything.....”

some are rather selective about believing what Jesus promised. Jesus also promised to establish a Church and PROMISED the gates of hell would NOT prevail against it.

what does that promise mean? It means the Church would always be here, from 33ad to the end of the age. in addition, it means the Church can’t go “apostate” as Joseph Smith taught ( and judging by their posts, many unbelievers agree with )

so when it comes to the NT canon and any other doctrine, we can confidently look to what the Church teaches and believe it is true. WHY can we do this? Because Jesus PROMISED the Holy Spirit would be sent to lead the Church to all truth. Further, the Holy Spirit calls the Church the pillar of truth.

of course the natural man rejects all this, it is foolishness to him. he rejects Jesus Christ by rejecting his Church, and has a hatred for the Church. the natural man takes delight in being an accuser of the brethern. the natural man believes God is strong enough to preserve the written Word for 2,000 years, but is not strong enough to preserve His Body, the Church for that long. the natural man believes Satan has been able to preserve the Mormon Church for 200 years, but the Holy Spirit could not preserve the Church for 2,000 years. the natural man rejects Jesus Christ gave His authority to teach and baptize to the Church. the natural man only believes in the authority of the man in the mirror, this is the final authority to the natural man.

the natural man ( and woman ) is confused.


1,355 posted on 01/15/2012 5:07:36 AM PST by one Lord one faith one baptism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1199 | View Replies]

To: Deo volente

i apologize, i am not good with the computer.


1,356 posted on 01/15/2012 5:08:39 AM PST by one Lord one faith one baptism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1162 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear

This Mary thing just gets deeper and deeper into a fairyland story IMO.....saying she’s the mother of Christians takes it out there into the cultish arena and then some...BAd enough the mother of God...How they cannot see they’ve made an idol of her is stunning....I don’t see this will change rather I do think she’ll be worshipped all the more.. Should be shameful to have such obesssion, but then hot irons do sear.


1,357 posted on 01/15/2012 5:48:09 AM PST by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1259 | View Replies]

The church is not a literal or physical building, but it is a spiritual building made up of those who have been quickened (made alive) in Christ (Eph. 2:5). The word "church" as it is used in the New Testament always means "an assembly, a company of people gathered together for a certain purpose." The word "church" is the translation of the Greek word EKKLĒSIA which is really made up of two Greek words: 1) EK which means "out, out of " and 2) KLĒSIS which means "a calling" (from the verb KALEŌ which means "to call"). If we put these two meanings together we have "a calling out." Therefore the term "church" (EKKLĒSIA) means "an assembly of called-out ones, a called-out assembly." SPIRITUAL ROCK
1,358 posted on 01/15/2012 6:06:11 AM PST by anglian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1357 | View Replies]

In 1 Cor. 10:1-4, Paul interprets the experience of the Israelites in the Exodus as a real, though anticipatory contact with the spiritual benefits of the redemption to be accomplished by Christ, when “they were all baptized into Moses,” “they all ate the spiritual food,” and “they all drank from the same spiritual drink.” Why? “Because they were drinking from the spiritual rock (petra) that accompanied (them); indeed, that rock was Christ” (v. 4).


1,359 posted on 01/15/2012 6:09:03 AM PST by anglian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1358 | View Replies]

To: anglian

‘SPIRITUAL ROCK’
Having a spiritual significance: supernatural, manifesting the power of the Divine Spirit; allegorically applied to Christ as fulfilling the type in the smitten rock in the desert, from which water miraculously burst forth to nourish the Israelites. A tradition current among the Jews affirms that this rock followed the people in their journeyings and gave forth a living stream for their supply. Paul made this ever-flowing rock a beautiful and accurate symbol of Christ: “The rock was Christ” (1 Corinthians 10:4).

Without the characterizing word “spiritual,” this figurative term, with the same significance, is common to the Scriptures; applied

(1) to Yahweh, God:

“Rock of his salvation,” “their rock is not as our Rock” (Deuteronomy 32:15,31); “Yahweh is my rock” (Psalms 18:2; compare Isaiah 26:4; 32:2; 1 Samuel 2:2; 2 Samuel 22:2);

(2) to the foundation-stone of Christian confession and testimony (Matthew 16:18; compare Ephesians 2:20; 1 Corinthians 3:11; 1 Peter 2:6-8), and thus to Christ Himself;

(3) in Christian hymnology to Jesus crucified and spear-pierced:

“Rock of ages, cleft for me.”

ALSO See —> Semantics of New Testament Greek


1,360 posted on 01/15/2012 6:09:16 AM PST by anglian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1359 | View Replies]

http://www.biblestudytools.com/encyclopedias/isbe/spiritual-rock.html


1,361 posted on 01/15/2012 6:10:43 AM PST by anglian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1360 | View Replies]

To: narses; Jvette
Oh look, another “church of one whose opinion matters (only to that one)” opines on what we Catholics believe!

They belong to The Invisible Church of The Most High Self. Doctrine and Scripture don't really matter to the Most High Self crowd in spite of their claiming to base their beliefs on Scripture only. In essence, they believe they've said the magic words, so now Jesus Christ is indebted to and obligated to them, and that they are in no way indebted to or obligated to Christ. As we've seen clearly in this thread, even denying the deity of Christ as it is spelled out in the New Testament doesn't matter to such folks. In their view, they are the Potter and Christ is their clay.

Such folks need to stroke their own ego by claiming insight even though their mentors are the Three Blind Mice of "Self Alone", "Scripture Alone", and "Faith Alone", completely excluding Grace by claiming Christ is their willing slave rather than their merciful King. That's exactly what leads to so many such folks claiming they're led by the Holy Spirit to ordain queers, marry queers one to another, deny that abortion is evil, and so on. And yet, the Most High Self crowd aren't concerned that others who believe as they do indulge in such antiChrist things, they're concerned that Christmas and Easter are pagan holidays and attending church on a regular basis is nothing but a useless tradition. Talking with such folks is really a waste of time. If a huge, fat, American Yorkshire hog, were to attempt to speak with you, it wouldn't make any difference because you don't speak Swine. The same is true in this instance, you don't speak irrational blather so you're never going convince those in The Invisible Church of The Most High Self to surrender to Christ, take up their cross, and follow Him.
(just in case any Most High Self folks read this, "Christ" and "Him" are one and the same in that last sentence, not Christ and a religious song)

Regards and thank you both for many good comments and rebuttals to the Most High Self crowd.

1,362 posted on 01/15/2012 6:19:16 AM PST by Rashputin (Obama stark, raving, mad, and even his security people know it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1303 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212; smvoice; HossB86; RnMomof7; metmom; boatbums; caww; Iscool; presently no screen name
Interesting post Daniel! Good job ferreting out some of the official positions of the CC. As always we find some rather interesting contradictions in what Catholics tell us the CC believes. And some contradictions within even the official stated beliefs. The following is rather interesting.

677 The Church will enter the glory of the kingdom only through this final Passover, when she will follow her Lord in his death and Resurrection.579 The kingdom will be fulfilled, then, not by a historic triumph of the Church through a progressive ascendancy, but only by God’s victory over the final unleashing of evil, which will cause his Bride to come down from heaven.580 God’s triumph over the revolt of evil will take the form of the Last Judgment after the final cosmic upheaval of this passing world.581 http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c2a7.htm#673

Notice that it says that the “church” which they surely mean the RCC “will follow her Lord in his death and Resurrection”. Does that mean that the entirety of the membership will be killed or die before the final battle? It does say that the “final unleashing of evil” will “cause His bride to come down from heaven”. That means that either the entire Christian community will die or be killed and raised again or that it’s only a part of the bride that will come with Christ.

Now they have a problem with their statements because in 989 they claim that Christ “will raise them up on the last day”. Is that two resurrections of the righteous? Will some be raised to “come down from heaven” with Him then others who were “left behind” be raised on the last day to join those who “came down from heaven” with Him?

989 We firmly believe, and hence we hope that, just as Christ is truly risen from the dead and lives for ever, so after death the righteous will live for ever with the risen Christ and he will raise them up on the last day. Then in 1001 they say that the resurrection of the dead is associated with Chris’s Parousia. So they have gone from the “church” the bride of Christ coming with him on that last day to the “dead in Christ” being risen on that last day.

1001 When? Definitively “at the last day,” “at the end of the world.”557 Indeed, the resurrection of the dead is closely associated with Christ’s Parousia:

For the Lord himself will descend from heaven, with a cry of command, with the archangel’s call, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first.558

We know that the CC condemns the belief of the Rapture but they claim in 677 that the bride will come down with Christ but that the “dead in Christ” will not be raised until He returns to earth. It appears to me that they have some serious contradictions in their stated beliefs. How many resurrections do they believe in?

1,363 posted on 01/15/2012 7:03:09 AM PST by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1343 | View Replies]

To: one Lord one faith one baptism; editor-surveyor
>> what would the prophetess think about you posting on the Sabbath?<<

>> i rest in my Sabbath, Jesus Christ. ( like all Christians have for 2,000 years )<<

And yet here you are! I sense a bit of hypocrisy.

1,364 posted on 01/15/2012 7:08:08 AM PST by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1353 | View Replies]

To: one Lord one faith one baptism

Still posting on Sunday? What happened to you’re “resting”?


1,365 posted on 01/15/2012 7:10:30 AM PST by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1355 | View Replies]

To: Bobsvainbabblings

Bobsvainbabblings,

Unlike the near-deification of Mary from tradition, and which is a product of sola ecclesia, the deity of Christ is abundantly testified to in Scripture, and to that authority it owes its near universal acceptance by those who hold Scripture to be supreme, by the Spirit of God. http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/DEITYofCHRIST.html


1,366 posted on 01/15/2012 7:13:41 AM PST by daniel1212 (Our sinful deeds condemn us, but Christ's death and resurrection gains salvation. Repent +Believe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1346 | View Replies]

To: Not gonna take it anymore
"please post the link as what is posted is unreadable. And I really would like to read it.

His Eminence Aloisius Joseph Muench

Diocese Roman Catholic Diocese of Fargo, North Dakota

See Bishop of Fargo

Enthroned 1935

Reign ended 1959

Ordination June 8, 1916

Consecration October 15, 1935

Created Cardinal December 14, 1959

Rank Cardinal-priest

Born February 18, 1889

Died February 15, 1962 Rome, Italy

Buried Fargo, North Dakota

Denomination Roman Catholic

Aloisius Joseph Muench was an American prelate of the Roman Catholic Church. He served as Bishop of Fargo from 1935 to 1959, and as Apostolic Nuncio to Germany from 1951 to 1959. He was elevated to the cardinalate in 1959.

Muench was the most powerful American Catholic and Vatican representative in Allied-occupied Germany and subsequently in West Germany from 1946 to 1959 as the liaison between the U.S. Office of Military Government and the German Catholic Church in the American occupation zone (1946–1949), Pope Pius XII's apostolic visitor to Germany (1946–1947), the Vatican relief officer in Kronberg im Taunus, Germany (1947–1949), regent in Kronberg (1949–1951), as well as nuncio to Germany.[1]

According to Barry's biography, Muench focused on three goals: the Vatican mission for Catholic displaced persons and prisoners of war (funded by American donations brokered by Muench); maintaining the validity of the Reichskonkordat (a 1933 treaty between the Vatican and Germany); and the autonomy of German Catholic schools.[9]

Historian Michael Phayer views Muench's dual appointment as significant: "Muech's position was extraordinary. At one and the same time, he was President Truman's Catholic liaison to OMGUS and Pius XII's personal envoy to zonal Germany. Serving two masters, he listened to Rome, not Washington from the moment of his arrival in Germany".[10]

Muench's pastoral letter One World In Charity was published in installments (in the U.S. first in January 1946, and in occupied Germany one year later).[11] The 10,200 word letter was read from the diocese of Fargo's pulpits weekly on the five Sundays between Shrove Tuesday and Passion Sunday, and then translated into German and printed first in German language newspapers in the United States.[12]

One World appeared in both religious and secular publications alongside statements denying Germans' complicity in the Holocaust, especially the concept of collective guilt.[11] Muench received several letters from German Catholics commenting on One World; they regarded him as one who understood German "suffering"

One World referred to the Allied authorities as "other Hitlers in disguise, who would make of [the German] nation a crawling [Bergen-]Belsen.[14] One World argued that responsibility for the Holocaust lay only with a very few war criminals who had "revived the Mosaic idea of an eye for an eye".[14]

According to Brown-Fleming, Muench's sympathies in his writing matched his actions as one of the most active participants in the Vatican's "postwar clemency campaign on behalf of convicted war criminals".[14]

In at least four instances, Muench became involved in restitution disputes between Catholic Germans and Jews regarding property seized during the war; in each instance, Muench sided with the German Catholics, contacting highly placed German and American officials on their behalf.[16] Muench wrote in a September 1946 letter that "some of these gents exploit the fact that they were in concentration camps for their own benefit, although some were there because of an unsavory past".[17]

Muench was also an opponent of interreligious dialog efforts that included Jews, opposing the organization of chapters of the National Conference of Christians and Jews (NCCJ) and the International Conference of Christians and Jews (ICCJ), among others, in occupied Germany.[19] In a 1948 letter to Carl Zietlow, a Minnesotan Protestant pastor of the NCCJ, Muench described the organization as unneeded because: "regarding anti-Semitism" he had "found very little of it".[19]

According to Phayer, for Muench as well as Pius XII, the "priority was not the survivors of the Holocaust, but the situation of the German Catholic refugees in Eastern Europe who had been driven from their homes at the end of the war. Incredibly, Bishop Muench actually felt that their lot was comparable to that of the Jews during the Holocaust".[20]

In February 1950, Pius XII instructed Muench to write a letter in support of clemency for some convicted German war criminals to General Thomas Hardy, the head of the U.S. Army European Command, who had the final word on all clemency decisions; with his new appointment as papal regent, Muench was to speak as a direct representative of the pope.[22]

As the Vatican urged Muench to press harder against the U.S. authorities, Muench wrote to Undersecretary Montini (future Pope Paul VI) warning him that Rome was on "dangerously thin ice".[25]

Muench often preferred to work behind the scenes; for example, a letter from one of Muench's secretaries provided Father Franz Lovenstein the contact information he had requested "with the understanding, of course, that you are not to use his name in connection with any letters or briefs that will be sent to those gentlemen".[29] For example, in the case of Hans Eisle (former SS, convicted of medical experimentation on prisoners) there is some evidence that Muench's intervention with General Clay in the summer of 1948 resulted in the commutation of Eisle's execution (scheduled for June 1948) and Eisle's eventual release in 1952.[20][30]

Nunciature (1951-1959)Muench's role as apostolic visitor was upgraded to nuncio when the Allied High Commission permitted the Federal Republic to form an independent foreign affairs ministry in March 1951.[31] On March 9, 1951, Pope Pius XII appointed Bishop Muench papal nuncio to Germany with the title of archbishop.[32] Muench viewed it as no small honor to hold the nunciature formerly occupied by Pius XII himself.[20][33]

There is much evidence of genuine camaraderie between Pius XII and Muench. He met Eugenio Pacelli (the future pope) for the first time while Pacelli was nuncio to Bavaria, when Muench visited Munich as a student representative of the Catholic Central Verein of America (CCVA).[2]

Muench mourned the death of Pius XII in October 1958, telling friends that the pope "treated him with the affection and love of a father to his son".

The correspondence between Muench and Pius XII focused almost exclusively on the various opinions shared by the two men, often with great levity. / According to Brown-Fleming, in one private audience between the two in May 1957 Pius XII told Muench a joke about Hitler dying, going to Heaven, and meeting the Old Testament Prophet Moses, who forgives Hitler; Hitler then asks Moses if he set fire to the burning bush himself, a tongue-in-cheek reference to the Reichstag fire, which apparently elicited a "big laugh" from Pius XII.

Muench's papers from course of his work in Germany are well preserved. This makes them one of a very few collections of papers from German, American, or Vatican Catholic dignitaries of that time period that are "fully accessible to historians".[40]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloisius_Joseph_Muench?oldid=0

1,367 posted on 01/15/2012 7:16:29 AM PST by anglian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1209 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212; smvoice; HossB86; RnMomof7; metmom; boatbums; caww; Iscool; presently no screen name
>> The vision proper, then, begins with the figure of a Woman clothed with the sun and the stars. We think naturally enough of our Lady, to whom this description has traditionally been applied. After all, we say, of whom else could John be thinking when he speaks of the mother of the Messiah? However it is clear from the rest of the chapter that this interpretation will stand only if the verse is isolated: what follows has very little relevance to our Lady. Nor is it any honor to Mary to apply any and every text to her without thought....

Isolating verses to force an interpretation? Surely the CC doesn’t do that do they? /s Who then is she? The source to which John has turned for his imagery throughout this book is the Old Testament. There, the Woman, the bride of God who brings forth the Messiah, is Israel, the true Israel, the chosen people of God. It is quite certain that this is what is in John's mind when he begins his description with a quotation from Gen. 37:9-10, where the sun and moon and twelve stars represent the twelve-fold Israel.

Certainly no confusion of conflict in the interpretation of that passage in the CC is there. /s

1,368 posted on 01/15/2012 7:22:25 AM PST by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1343 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear
Notice that it says that the “church” which they surely mean the RCC “will follow her Lord in his death and Resurrection”. Does that mean that the entirety of the membership will be killed or die before the final battle?

Perhaps, or that all must die as per Heb. 9:27, but which would leave out Mary, and Enoch an Elijah, unless they are the 2 witnesses in Rev. And in which you have resurrection that precedes the resurrection of the just, unless this signifies it. Issues like this, and when the marriage supper of the Lamb occurs are why we are not and need not be dogmatic in precise eschatology, thank God.

We know that the CC condemns the belief of the Rapture but they claim in 677 that the bride will come down with Christ but that the “dead in Christ” will not be raised until He returns to earth. It appears to me that they have some serious contradictions in their stated beliefs. How many resurrections do they believe in?

I believe it is only one, as the resurrection would considered to be what is called the "rapture," the catching away of the saints when the Lord returns (1Ths. 4:17; 2Ths. 2:1)

Apparently there is no millennial reign in this expressed eschatology, which separates the two different resurrections as i understand it in the predominate eschatological model, although this varies at to time.

As i see presently see it, the 1st resurrection would be the resurrection of life, (Jn. 5:29; first resurrection: Rv. 20:5) that of all believers who are raptured toward the terminus of the tribulation before Armageddon, and who thus come with the Lord in judgment at Armageddon, (Jude. 1:14,15) and reign with Christ for a 1,00 years before the final test and war, when the devil is loosed and leads most in rebellion against the Lord and His anointed, leading to the resurrection of damnation, (Jn. 5:29; Rv. 20:7-12) And then the elect judge angels as well as men. (1Cor. 6:2)

"And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season. And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years." (Revelation 20:1-6)

"And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them. And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works." (Revelation 20:7-12)

1,369 posted on 01/15/2012 8:24:07 AM PST by daniel1212 (Our sinful deeds condemn us, but Christ's death and resurrection gains salvation. Repent +Believe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1363 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

Keep on believing that, it does not change history or the facts.


1,370 posted on 01/15/2012 8:38:38 AM PST by Jvette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1290 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor; one Lord one faith one baptism
Unlike you, I am a devotee of Jesus Christ, and follow his commandments.

That does not jive with all of the prior posts that I have read. Works do not matter, if I recall properly, to your beliefs, and are therefore irrelevant.

1,371 posted on 01/15/2012 8:42:14 AM PST by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1276 | View Replies]

To: one Lord one faith one baptism
>> Jesus also promised to establish a Church and PROMISED the gates of hell would NOT prevail against it.<<

He most certainly did and it wasn’t the RCC.

1,372 posted on 01/15/2012 8:43:32 AM PST by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1355 | View Replies]

To: Iscool; Cronos
Regardless of what you want to believe

Now, why on earth would I want to bother discussing the convoluted pontifications of a Jack Daniels infused former Catholic arguing from the La-Z-Boy seat of his self-annointed popehood? Maybe you can find a stuffed armadillo that has the time to take it all in.

1,373 posted on 01/15/2012 8:43:42 AM PST by Al Hitan (Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1351 | View Replies]

To: gghd
Rush Limbo also then talked about FEMA camps. Danged if I know whether Rush Limbo was joking or not! I thought I should mention it as I wouldn’t anyone in my Church to miss a Holy of Obligation & end up in a FEMA camp.

If the Muslim in charge and the Visigoths inhabiting Foggy Bottom and imagining the antiCatholic rhetoric of the mid 1800s have their way, all Catholics would wind up in some sort of camp.

1,374 posted on 01/15/2012 8:44:15 AM PST by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1277 | View Replies]

To: narses
Oh look, another “church of one whose opinion matters (only to that one)” opines on what we Catholics believe!

Handing down doctrines from the Throne of Sunday Sports Theology in front of the Sacred Flatscreen during commercials and in between beers seems to be a fine art practiced by the most fervent antiCatholics.

1,375 posted on 01/15/2012 8:48:37 AM PST by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1303 | View Replies]

To: gghd
What church do you go to? Does it have a Web page? The Catholic Church says, Mary is a creature like us & she is NOT Divine. My Church warns against wolves in sheep’s clothing. What Church do you go to? I’d like to read what your church has to say about the Virgin Mary. What is your church’s name & what is the Web site?

Umm, that's probably against forum rules. He'd have to give you his home address in order to comply. When you create and rule a church of one, you probably don't have a separate site; you're probably running things from your LaZBoy.

1,376 posted on 01/15/2012 8:51:09 AM PST by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1312 | View Replies]

To: caww
>>How they cannot see they’ve made an idol of her is stunning<<

Hos 13:2 And now they sin more and more, and have made them molten images of their silver, and idols according to their own understanding, all of it the work of the craftsmen: they say of them, Let the men that sacrifice kiss the calves.

On only watch as Catholics kiss their trinkets to understand.

1,377 posted on 01/15/2012 8:52:43 AM PST by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1357 | View Replies]

To: smvoice
When Peter stood up on the day of Pentecost and declared that the last days had come (Acts 2:16,17), he showed clearly that he was totally ignorant of God's plan to usher in a dispensation of grace before the return of Christ...

But the tribulation did NOT happen as was prophesized. A mystery, hid in GOd, from the foundation of the world, was revealed to the Apostle Paul that put the tribulation on hold. ANd everything changed at that time. When it has run its course in God's Plan, the tribulation will begin and the remaining prophetic program will be fulfilled.

With these two paragraphs in juxtaposition, do you see what we see?

1,378 posted on 01/15/2012 8:53:34 AM PST by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1322 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear

This couldn’t be more wrong and the contradictions in it are astounding.

First....

From the cross, Jesus made seven statements. Imagine, He is hanging on the cross with nails through His hands and feet. He must hold Himself up in order to have the breath to speak and so say these seven things.

One of the things He says, Woman behold thy son! Behold thy mother!

Notice the use of exclamation points. This was an important and powerful statement. A declaration. It was not simply a last minute thought on the part of Jesus before He died to see that His mother had care after He died.

That is so laughable, I am embarrassed that it was written. It ranks right up there with the one saying Jesus, God, gave Peter the name of rock because he was hard headed.

Second.

Do you not see the profound contradiction in the fact that on the one hand, protestants say that Jesus had siblings born of Mary, and then in their haste to deny the true meaning of this verse, they say that Jesus had to see to her care because it was the duty of the offspring to take care of the parents.

What happened to all the offspring protestants say Mary had? Why would Jesus, at the last minute, hanging from the cross, who cries out to God and says six other things that complete the fulfillment of His mission, suddenly think that none of His brothers and sisters would care for their mother?

I have given you the Scriptural support for why Christians from the beginning have regarded Mary as their spiritual mother.

You have given a totally absurd on its face, outright belly laugh inducing, mindless repeat of protestant pablum spewed out of a need to reject anything Catholic rather than accept Scripture that fully supports the Catholic belief.

Funny, too, how when a protestant wants to deny the Catholic understanding of a passage, all of a sudden the words of Jesus are meant only for the person in the passage to whom He is speaking and not all believers.

Then of course, when rejecting others, such as when He gives Peter the keys of the kingdom, NOW He is speaking to All believers.

Meh. Haven’t seen anything new in this post and certainly nothing to be given any thought than I have.


1,379 posted on 01/15/2012 8:55:12 AM PST by Jvette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1295 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr

I don’t know...what do you see? Acts 8,9,and 10 should give you the answer you are looking for.


1,380 posted on 01/15/2012 8:59:42 AM PST by smvoice (Better Buck up, Buttercup. The wailing and gnashing is for an eternity..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1378 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear; MarkBsnr

“he most certainly did”

good, we agree on something!

now, i am sure we also agree the true Church is visible, where was the true Church in 431ad and can you name just two Christians alive that year?


1,381 posted on 01/15/2012 9:00:11 AM PST by one Lord one faith one baptism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1372 | View Replies]

To: Rashputin
They belong to The Invisible Church of The Most High Self. Doctrine and Scripture don't really matter to the Most High Self crowd in spite of their claiming to base their beliefs on Scripture only. In essence, they believe they've said the magic words, so now Jesus Christ is indebted to and obligated to them, and that they are in no way indebted to or obligated to Christ. As we've seen clearly in this thread, even denying the deity of Christ as it is spelled out in the New Testament doesn't matter to such folks. In their view, they are the Potter and Christ is their clay.


1,382 posted on 01/15/2012 9:01:30 AM PST by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1362 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

Only false to you, and not to Christians all over the world.
But, hey, I’m glad at least one of us understands Scripture, maybe the other will learn something in this exchange.

Jesus did indeed give to us His mother as He died on the cross. You may choose to reject her and that is your right, but that denial and rejection by you does not change what Jesus said or why He said it.

Do you deny that there was sorrow as Jesus died and then returned to His Father in heaven? Do you not think that Mary was sorrowful when she watched her Son as He was crucified?

Did Jesus not prepare the Apostles that He would have to die, that He would have to go away so the Holy Spirit could come?

The Church was born from the death of Jesus, so yes, it was indeed born out of sorrow.


1,383 posted on 01/15/2012 9:02:22 AM PST by Jvette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1294 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear; editor-surveyor

are you confused also about the Sabbath and what it represented?


1,384 posted on 01/15/2012 9:02:32 AM PST by one Lord one faith one baptism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1365 | View Replies]

To: smvoice
I don’t know...what do you see? Acts 8,9,and 10 should give you the answer you are looking for.

Actually I was asking you personally. Read the two paragraphs in juxtaposition again, if you would, and tell us what they represent.

1,385 posted on 01/15/2012 9:04:43 AM PST by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1380 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr

You must have it right. Thank you for the message.


1,386 posted on 01/15/2012 9:05:15 AM PST by gghd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1376 | View Replies]

To: aruanan

****Israel was always about a people of God and the covenant was with Abraham and his descendants, both physically, through Isaac, and spiritually, through the faith by which God accounted him justified.****

Physical as in a race of people, though there were certainly converts, but the Israelite people were a people bound by race to their religion.

Good post, thanks.


1,387 posted on 01/15/2012 9:07:23 AM PST by Jvette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1296 | View Replies]

To: one Lord one faith one baptism; CynicalBear
now, i am sure we also agree the true Church is visible, where was the true Church in 431ad and can you name just two Christians alive that year?

I'm sure that it was underground, passing the AV1611 around on flash drives from person to person, since the Catholic Church interdicted all email traffic and took down all sites that had Bibles on them. I'd estimate that two of the true Christians at that time were named CynicalTapeworm and CynicalNematode. Possibly a CynicalHyena might have been around, but that is only conjecture.

1,388 posted on 01/15/2012 9:09:46 AM PST by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1381 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
..i..don't..know..what you're..grasping..for :)

I will tell you this, not ALL the signs of the "day of the Lord" appeared at Pentecost. There were the "signs in the earth beneath" but not "wonders in the heaven above." There were the pouring out of the Holy Spirit, the tongues, and visions, and prophesying, but NOT the "'blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke,". Nor was the "sun turned into darkness and the moon into blood." Acts 2:17-20. Why? Because Israel was given the chance at Pentecost to turn to Christ and accept Him as Messiah. But the nation, as a whole did not. Why didn't God pour out His wrath on the nation at that point? The beginning of the propechy of Joel concerning the Last Days happened..the completion of his prophecy did not. Why not?

1,389 posted on 01/15/2012 9:16:13 AM PST by smvoice (Better Buck up, Buttercup. The wailing and gnashing is for an eternity..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1385 | View Replies]

To: gghd
You must have it right. Thank you for the message.

What else could it be? :)

1,390 posted on 01/15/2012 9:22:37 AM PST by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1386 | View Replies]

To: smvoice

No.

The new Jerusalem is the heavenly Jerusalem.

The Holy City is the heavenly Jerusalem.

And though Rome is called the Eternal City, it began long before the Church was there.


1,391 posted on 01/15/2012 9:23:29 AM PST by Jvette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1297 | View Replies]

To: Jvette
>>Do you not see the profound contradiction in the fact that on the one hand, protestants say that Jesus had siblings born of Mary, and then in their haste to deny the true meaning of this verse, they say that Jesus had to see to her care because it was the duty of the offspring to take care of the parents.<<

Jesus was the eldest was He not? According to Jewish law and tradition it would have fallen on Him to ensure her being looked after and cared for.

>>I have given you the Scriptural support for why Christians from the beginning have regarded Mary as their spiritual mother.<

All of which were stretched beyond credible and in contradiction of scripture itself.

Galatians 4:26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

\ The church in Rome is of the bondwoman.

>>rather than accept Scripture that fully supports the Catholic belief<<

Then of course you could give scriptural proof of the bodily assumption of Mary and of the “universal consent” as to the woman in Revelation 12?

Roman Catholic theologian Father Hubert J. Richards agrees that the Revelation 12 woman refers to Israel. His book, What The Spirit Says to the Churches: A Key to the Apocalypse of John, carries the Nihil obstat and Imprimatur of the Roman Catholic Church.13 Concerning the woman of Revelation 12, Father Richards writes: (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2831799/posts?page=1343#1343)

1,392 posted on 01/15/2012 9:25:16 AM PST by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1379 | View Replies]

To: Jvette

You’re SURE that the CC does not believe that Rome is the “New Jerusalem” and the “Holy City”?


1,393 posted on 01/15/2012 9:26:09 AM PST by smvoice (Better Buck up, Buttercup. The wailing and gnashing is for an eternity..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1391 | View Replies]

To: Iscool; smvoice

LOL

As I said, protestantism is a SEA of confusion.


1,394 posted on 01/15/2012 9:26:49 AM PST by Jvette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1298 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear

I understand it.

One can believe in the new Israel without believing in replacement theology.

I don’t believe that the Church replaced Israel.

I believe that Jesus has made all things new with His new and everlasting covenant.

Rev 21:5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new.


1,395 posted on 01/15/2012 9:30:39 AM PST by Jvette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1301 | View Replies]

To: Jvette; Iscool

No. Catholicism is a SEA of deception. Any Catholic would seem CONFUSED by Protestantism. The deceived are often very confused. Hence, the need for the Cart of Catholic Knowledge. Overflowing with reasons and ways to explain away the plain truth of God’s Word of Truth.


1,396 posted on 01/15/2012 9:32:33 AM PST by smvoice (Better Buck up, Buttercup. The wailing and gnashing is for an eternity..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1394 | View Replies]

To: smvoice
..i..don't..know..what you're..grasping..for :)

The position of the typical antiCatholic rests in part upon the repudiation of Peter as the leader of Christianity after Pentecost, and in the embracing of a distorted Paulian version of Christianity in contrast to Petrine Christianity.

In spite of the Protestant position of Paul - Gentile and Peter - Jew, let us look at the facts. Paul spent most of his ministry with the Jews (Acts and his Epistles bear that out). Peter spent most of his time with the Gentiles (Scripture and various Christian writings of the era bear that out). Peter converted the first Gentile. He raised the first person from the dead (after Christ). His shadow was enough to heal people.

He also led Christianity in Rome. His crucifixion was upside down so that he would not equal Christ in any way. Peter is portrayed by Protestants as a bumbling, stumbling fool, no match for the articulate and educated Paul. Yet Paul himself had an inferiority complex a mile wide and complained his whole life about not being accepted as much as the Apostles that Jesus spent three years with.

Now do you see that philosophy mirrored in the juxtaposition of your two paragraphs?

1,397 posted on 01/15/2012 9:32:56 AM PST by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1389 | View Replies]

To: smvoice; Jvette
No. Catholicism is a SEA of deception. Any Catholic would seem CONFUSED by Protestantism. The deceived are often very confused. Hence, the need for the Cart of Catholic Knowledge. Overflowing with reasons and ways to explain away the plain truth of God’s Word of Truth.

Plain truth? If you get 100 Protestants to describe God's Plain Word of Truth, you'll wind up with 125 descriptions.

Once one takes it upon one's self to proclaim doctrine, why then, anything goes. Jesus created the teaching Church. All of the Gospels and Epistles hammer home the role of the Church as teachers and the need for orthodoxy. The role of the Reformation was to convince people that there was no need for orthodoxy and that anything that they happened to imagine that morning was as good as anything else anybody else could come up with. Including the Tradition of the Church and the Teachings of the Apostles, Apostolic Fathers, and Church Fathers.

1,398 posted on 01/15/2012 9:39:03 AM PST by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1396 | View Replies]

To: one Lord one faith one baptism; MarkBsnr; smvoice; HossB86; RnMomof7; metmom; boatbums; caww; ...
>>now, i am sure we also agree the true Church is visible,<<

No, actually we wouldn’t agree on that.

where was the true Church in 431ad and can you name just two Christians alive that year?<<

Some of them were probably attending the apostate RCC and some of them meeting privately.

Only those invited by Christ and indwelled by the Holy Spirit are true Christians, and these are the Church exclusively. This group can be said to be invisible, because only God can know who they are with certainty. They are marked by the invisible Spirit of God. [http://www.versebyverseministry.org/resource_library/questions_and_answers/the_visible_vs._invisible_church/]

1,399 posted on 01/15/2012 9:39:30 AM PST by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1381 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear; one Lord one faith one baptism; smvoice; HossB86; RnMomof7; metmom; boatbums; caww
>>now, i am sure we also agree the true Church is visible,<<

No, actually we wouldn’t agree on that.

where was the true Church in 431ad and can you name just two Christians alive that year?<<

Some of them were probably attending the apostate RCC and some of them meeting privately.

Only those invited by Christ and indwelled by the Holy Spirit are true Christians, and these are the Church exclusively. This group can be said to be invisible, because only God can know who they are with certainty. They are marked by the invisible Spirit of God. [http://www.versebyverseministry.org/resource_library/questions_and_answers/the_visible_vs._invisible_church/]

Now that is one heck of a waffle. I suppose that you will not name names...

1,400 posted on 01/15/2012 9:44:44 AM PST by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1399 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 1,301-1,3501,351-1,4001,401-1,450 ... 1,751 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