:) Oh, FRiend! Irritable and combative words don't take the place of proofs... Oh, now.... I'm not irritable! And the proofs are there -- it's Rome that twists it. And in a few lines, you fall prey to Rome's mistake by alleging that James indicates faith AND works. He doesn't. No proofs necessary. Those are facts. And facts are hard things sometimes. You just need to deal with it and READ the Bible for yourself!
Ahhh -- and now the tired old canard is parroted again:
"Mediator" is anyone who intercedes ("bridges the middle") on behalf of someone else, yes? Every time you pray for someone, you're a mediator. Yes, Jesus is the Sole Mediator (1 Timothy 2:5)... in the sense that, without Him, none of our prayers would matter at all, and we could do nothign good (and we wouldn't exist, anyway). But for anyone to assume that this excludes all SUBORDINATE mediators is to fail to understand the meaning of the word.
Mary cannot and does not intercede for anyone. She is not omniscient. She was a sinner in need of a Savior, as are we all.
Now then. You need to provide a little clarification because in one fell swoop, you've contradicted yourself. You just said:
"Yes, Jesus is the Sole Mediator (1 Timothy 2:5)...." and actually managed to quote the correct scripture that supports that fact. Yet, you say:
"But for anyone to assume that this excludes all SUBORDINATE mediators is to fail to understand the meaning of the word."
I think you actually have failed to understand the meaning of one particular word -- "Sole" in Sole Mediator. You cannot have a "sole" anything with subordinate somethings underneath it. It's either sole, or it's not sole. You said Jesus is the "sole" mediator. So does scripture. Yet, you said then in the next sentence that he isn't the sole mediator. Which is it?
As for indulgences, I think it's pretty obvious though the history of Rome that indulgences were sold to build St. Peter's basilica, no? But wait -- weren't they supposed to buy down the time souls spent in Purgatory?
There is no purgatory. If there were, why didn't Christ tell the thief on the cross, "Today, I'll be in Paradise. I'll see you when you've burned a bit."
There is Heaven. There is Hell. There is no purgatory.
1 Corinthians 3:12-15 -- another misquoted/misrepresented/misinterpreted canard -- this is referring to a person's works. Not their soul. It even says so.... so, no, this is not a proof text.
2 Maccabees 12:39-45 - looked it up and saw nothing about "Purgatory" - not even an allusion to it. I can find Heaven, Hell, Sheol, Paradise -- all plainly stated in scripture. Can't find Purgatory. Again, nothing there.
No problem on the teasing. In the Religion Forum, one must have a thick skin. No sweat.
I am interested though in your explanation of being able to be the sole mediator and still have subordinate mediators. Very interested indeed.
Hoss
Oh, now.... I'm not irritable!
:) Glad to hear it!
And the proofs are there -- it's Rome that twists it.
You do realize that you'll need to SHOW those proofs, and not simply make me accept it on your say-so?
And in a few lines, you fall prey to Rome's mistake by alleging that James indicates faith AND works. He doesn't. No proofs necessary. Those are facts.
I'm not sure of the passage to which you'd be referring; I'm referring mainly to James 2, in which he says clearly that: (a) faith without works cannot save, and (b) we are justified by works, and not by faith alone. Are you referring to these?
And facts are hard things sometimes.
I appreciate that truism... though I'd gently suggest that it's applicable to both sides of any discussion!
You just need to deal with it and READ the Bible for yourself!
I have, I assure you... many times over. That's how I found James 2:24, John 6, Colossians 1:24, Matthew 16:18 (and its parallel/typological precedent in Isaiah 22), 2 Maccabees, and a whole host of other Scriptures which never seem to get much play in Protestant sermons.
Ahhh -- and now the tired old canard is parroted again:
:) You do have a flair for the rhetorical...
[paladinan]
"Mediator" is anyone who intercedes ("bridges the middle") on behalf of someone else, yes? Every time you pray for someone, you're a mediator. Yes, Jesus is the Sole Mediator (1 Timothy 2:5)... in the sense that, without Him, none of our prayers would matter at all, and we could do nothign good (and we wouldn't exist, anyway). But for anyone to assume that this excludes all SUBORDINATE mediators is to fail to understand the meaning of the word.
[HossB86]
Mary cannot and does not intercede for anyone. She is not omniscient.
(?!) Pardon? Why do you say that omniscience is required in order to intercede for someone? Neither logic nor Scripture say anything of the sort.
She was a sinner in need of a Savior, as are we all.
She was in need of a savior; but she was not a sinner.
Now then. You need to provide a little clarification because in one fell swoop, you've contradicted yourself.
We'll see.
You just said: "Yes, Jesus is the Sole Mediator (1 Timothy 2:5)...." and actually managed to quote the correct scripture that supports that fact. Yet, you say: "But for anyone to assume that this excludes all SUBORDINATE mediators is to fail to understand the meaning of the word."
Right.
I think you actually have failed to understand the meaning of one particular word -- "Sole" in Sole Mediator. You cannot have a "sole" anything with subordinate somethings underneath it. It's either sole, or it's not sole. You said Jesus is the "sole" mediator. So does scripture. Yet, you said then in the next sentence that he isn't the sole mediator. Which is it?
I can explain it best by comparison:
"And the scribes and the Pharisees began to question, saying, 'Who is this that speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins but God only?'" (Luke 5:21)
"Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you." And when he had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained." (John 20:21-23)
Now, it's certainly true that only God can forgive sins, in general (i.e. not merely sins committed against us, personally--we can forgive those). But here we have Jesus saying that the Apostles have the authority to forgive (or to hold bound) sins... and that Heaven will ratify their decision. So... which is it? Is God the only One Who can forgive sins? Or can the Apostles do it, too?
The answer is, "both/and"... in the sense that only God forgives sins, but He's perfectly within His rights to forgive THROUGH the agency of his priests (mere mortal, sinful men). The authority is God's alone... but He freely chose (as John 20:21-23 makes crystal-clear) to exert that authority in cooperation with some of His children. No priest or bishop can forgive ANYTHING on his own; it's only God, forgiving through that sinful man, which makes the Sacrament of Confession effective. In short: the word "ONLY" must refer to the ULTIMATE source of authority for forgiveness... or else the text simply lies (which would be attributing a lie to the Holy Spirit WHo included it as Sacred Scripture).
As to your question: all mediation between God and man is done by Jesus alone... but Jesus Himself enacts that mediation through His Body, which is the Church. The extent to which we can mediate for one another is precisely the extent to which we are incorporated in the Body of Christ.
Now, let me ask you: what, exactly, do you think "mediation" *means*? Surely it has a definition? And surely the definition is knowable to us? When anyone prays to God on behalf of another, it would not behoove us to avoid the word "mediation" simply out of a fastidious caution about 1 Timothy 2:5, any more than it would, for example, behoove us never to call our male parent "father", simply out of a fastidious caution about Matthew 23:9 (especially since St. Paul, St. Stephen, and even Jesus Himself applied it to mere men--1 Corinthians 4:15, Acts 7:2, Luke 16:24ff, respectively), or any more than it would behoove us to assume that unborn babies are all sinners, simply out of a fastidiously exacting view of Romans 3:23. Some things which seem absolute, at first glance, are shown to be quite different, when given the proper context.
As for indulgences, I think it's pretty obvious though the history of Rome that indulgences were sold to build St. Peter's basilica, no?
Yes, and no. Indulgences can be gained when someone enacts a charitable work (one such work being monetary donations to build up St. Peter's Basilica), and some misguided priests (and/or other proclaimers of the indulgence) presented things in such a way that the laity thought the indulgences were being "sold". But again: I already told you that indulgences need to be judged on their TRUE nature, not on the abuses done WITH (or to) them.
But wait -- weren't they supposed to buy down the time souls spent in Purgatory?
Not "buy down"; indulgences, when gained, remit temporal punishment which would otherwise be expiated in Purgatory.
There is no purgatory.
Scripture, Sacred Traditon, and common sense all disagree with that.
If there were, why didn't Christ tell the thief on the cross, "Today, I'll be in Paradise. I'll see you when you've burned a bit."
Are you under the impression that, since Purgatory exists, then everyone must necessarily go through it? I'm not sure where you'd get that idea; the Church doesn't teach it... and it's the teachings of the Church which are being discussed, here. St. Dismas (the "good thief") apparently didn't need any expiation beyond his sincere act of love and trust, and his own terrible suffering on his own cross.
There is Heaven. There is Hell.
True, and true.
There is no purgatory.
You'll need to prove that assertion, if you want anyone else to see it as aught but your mere personal opinion.
1 Corinthians 3:12-15 -- another misquoted/misrepresented/misinterpreted canard -- this is referring to a person's works. Not their soul. It even says so.
It refers to a person's works being "burned up", but it also refers to a person "being saved, but only as through a fire". In other words: you have no basis for making this an "either/or" situation; the "fire" refers to both the works and the soul.
2 Maccabees 12:39-45 - looked it up and saw nothing about "Purgatory" - not even an allusion to it.
No?
So they all blessed the ways of the Lord, the righteous Judge, who reveals the things that are hidden; and they turned to prayer, beseeching that the sin which had been committed might be wholly blotted out. And the noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened because of the sin of those who had fallen. He also took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of two thousand drachmas of silver, and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably, taking account of the resurrection. For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.
So... you don't find the idea of "praying for the dead, and making sin offerings in atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin" to be any reference to Purgatory? Those in hell cannot be delivered from their sin (and they would not benefit from our prayers or offerings), and those in Heaven have no need of such help, and those who are alive are not dead. So... what other option is there? No, the word "Purgatory" is not in the text (that's a title of convenience, anyway, just to call it SOMETHING), any more than the word "Trinity" is in the text (I've had loads of fund debates with Unitarians on that one!)... but it's not necessary, either.