The Resurrection & The Eucharist

http://www.frksj.org/homily_ressurection_and_the_eucharist.htm ^

[Elsie]

Somehow, I knew you missed it!

Somehow; I knew it would NOT be forthcoming.

[StormPrepper]

Here’s a thought...why don’t you open your OWN thread to discuss your religion instead of hijacking this one?

Can't bring yourself to admit the Book of Mormon contains truth, so your wish is for me to just go away? That's not being very honest with yourself.

And I was pinged on to this thread by someone else...

[Elsie]

Well; you’ve certainly made MY day!

[Elsie]

The Father and Son are one in purpose.

Then one is unneeded.

[Elsie]

Can't bring yourself to admit the Book of Mormon contains truth, so your wish is for me to just go away?

Of COURSE it does; still it was plagerized from the BIBLE!

It also contains a bunch of lame fiction.

Why can't you admit that it does?

---

 

The Doctrine and Covenants

Section 132

Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illinois, recorded 12 July 1843, relating to the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant, and also the plurality of wives (see History of the Church, 5:501–7). Although the revelation was recorded in 1843, it is evident from the historical records that the doctrines and principles involved in this revelation had been known by the Prophet since 1831.

 

 

I wish that GOD would make up HIS mind!!

 

Romans 7:1-2

Do you not know, brothers and sisters—for I am speaking to those who know the law—that the law has authority over someone only as long as that person lives?  For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law that binds her to him.

[DungeonMaster]

Then one is unneeded.

WOW!!!

[verga]

So by your admission we can stick with the meaning Papyrus since that is the one that even predates book.

[verga]

Sorry don’t mean to be a Donny Downer

[CynicalBear]

Don’t try to twist the words of the Holy Spirit.

[RitaOK]

The answer if you want to know, and aren’t flailing to injure, is found in your understanding of the word and act of “worship”, and the difference between worship and veneration of Mary— Mary, who changed the world. She changed the world to the favor of God as ever powerfully as Eve changed the world against God. The actions of these two women, both known well by God, who titled them both and called them with His mouth, “Woman”, thus, tells us of their monumental effects on mankind. The curse and the blessing for man through all ages.

Eve, our human mother, did from the tree in the Garden, deliver her children of mankind over to sin and rebellion, from their beginning.

Mary, our spiritual Mother of Christ, stood under a different tree, at the Crucifixtion, and delivered her children of mankind over to salvation, before her eyes— first through her fiat and obedience to the Blessed Angel Gabriel, and then in the Nativity bearing her son for our benefit, Jesus, making her Mother of us all, who are the children of God ever after who believe in Him, repent and go and be baptized, to follow Him in loving obedience.

There you have it. Eve and the New Eve. Birthing Sin unto generations against Birthing Salvation for generations.

Mary. Worthy of veneration? I should think so. But to worship dear Mary would be to replace our Lord, with her? Who do you know that does that? Who would want to do that?
Mary is not God. Her exemplar virtue was humility and obedience and love for God.

I believe you misplace what you see, in the bending of the knee, bringing her flowers, lighting candles, paying respects and uttering prayers for her intercession, as worship. It is not worship. It’s more like a birthday party with fit behaviors of joy and love, appreciation, and relationship with Mary. She hears my prayers as you would, ie., if you were in a good mood, but she is located near the Throne of God and has His ear on my behalf, because she is Woman and Mother, who intercedes with her son for me.

She intercedes with her son, who is with the Father. She intercedes not between Man and God, but between man and Jesus her son, on my behalf. As you would do, for me. It is then Jesus who intercedes between man and God.

Worship begins as a matter of understanding, (even the caveman has that spark for understanding the Maker of the Universe), and also then from the knowledge and wisdom of God, brought first by the Prophets and more so by God the Son.

God is the Maker of the universe. Mary birthed the new people of God, through Jesus and his believers. (The Jews therefore, are now the people of God, the Chosen ones, only as they become Christian, in the holy nation, the Church Christ built for the people of God).

The natural human response in the people of God to Mary is found in great love of Mary, and understanding her love for her children, who are identified by their marks of salvation, in their Baptism, their Confession of repentance, their Confirmation in receiving our Lord, their loving obedience to receiving the Sacrament of the Eucharist of the Body and Blood, faithfully on the Christian Sabbath.

It is outside of the Church that there is great stirring against Catholics to make a competition between Mary and God, using a false argument to begin with.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Dear Old Bear,

The woman of the Great Sign of Genesis 12 is identified as the mother of the male child who will rule the nations with a rod of iron. This is a direct reference to Psalm 2, a Messianic psalm which describes Him in these terms:

"I will proclaim the decree of the Lord,
he said to me, “You are my son;
today I have begotten you.

"Ask it of me,
and I will give you the nations as your inheritance,
and, as your possession, the ends of the earth.
"With an iron rod you will shepherd them,
like a potter’s vessel you will shatter them.”

So that's the Messiah. Mary is mother of the Messiah.

The reference also draws our attention to Zion (Daughter Zion), Daughter Jerusalem, Israel, the Church, Lady Ecclesia, etc. etc.

That's the way Biblical images and types work. They are multivalent. These various meanings are simultaneous; they are not identical, but they rhyme.

With this typical multivalence in mind, we can see that Jesus IS the son of Mary, the son of Daughter Jerusalem, the Son of Zion; as well, the son of Bathsheba and David, the son of Adam and Eve. That is because he is a true member of the human race, and has a true lineage according to the flesh, even though his human nature is joined to His divine nature, and He is the Son of God.

It's beautiful, isn't it?

[CynicalBear]

Making things up that scripture doesn’t say is NOT beautiful. Mary is still NOT the mother of the ekklesia and she’s still not the woman in Revelation 12.

[CynicalBear]

There is no truth in Mormonism. Mormonism is built on the false teaching of a corrupt megalomaniac.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Hm. Is the woman in Revelation 12 the mother of the Messiah?

[Mrs. Don-o]

What would not be forthcoming?

[Mrs. Don-o]

Is Mary an offspring of Eve? Is Christ an offspring of Eve? Are you an offspring of Eve?

[CynicalBear]

>>Hm. Is the woman in Revelation 12 the mother of the Messiah?<<

The woman in Revelation 12 is the nation of Israel.

[MHGinTN]

What ‘truth’ is to be found in the book of Mormon was lifted word for word from the Bible. Your heart knows it but your ego won't accept it. Whole passages from Isaiah are found in the BoM. Satan seldom spews out something completely false. He includes grains of truth to make it more palatable for the lost.

[CynicalBear]

Genesis 3:15 is not referencing Mary in any way.

[BlueDragon]

Blue Dragon, this may seem a little thing, but it's a priority for me: please don't say I called Mary a "Spirit Mother."

First off, I did not say that you used that term, capitalized, in that manner.

Yet "spiritual mother" is indeed the term which you used, and which would not matter if you had not, for in effect that is what Mary has been made out to be, and yes, even as expressed capitalized.

It has progressed far beyond mere "poetry" for many of the Cult of Mary within the RCC.

I did say "spiritual" mother, and you might say "What's the difference?" But there is a difference, a big one.

Actually, in end result there is not any real difference other than it be that this Spirit Mother (now, allegedly) in the Sky, is in company of Jesus Christ (God the Son) and God the Father, as those two are known of, and spoken of.

I do understand all the intended Christian context and meaning, perhaps far better than you seem willing to give me credit for.

Yet now the differences between the Christian contexts and the pagan, earthly and sensual excesses, with your focusing upon myself supposedly not noticing or differentiating those and Mary from other alleged-to-be Spirit Mothers, has caused us to be diverted to this small side-bar of consideration, which seems to be all about what I myself allegedly think or *don't think*, or understand, etc.

Yet you started off with me here by accusing me of putting words in your own mouth, when the words were there well enough?

Spirit Mother vs. lower case "spiritual mother".

Is Mary giving birth to persons "spiritually" --- or is she not?

Please bear in mind that when I am using that term "spiritual" in this context I am meaning that truly and literally as being of spirit -- not merely "conceptually" or along lines of how one may speak poetically of a "spirit of an idea" or the spirit of a song.

The Spirit of the Lord is no small thing or mere conceptualization, mood & emotion, thus a spiritual mother also presented to be in something of a literally (not merely "poetically") position of Queen of Heaven frames the context right up very closely next to and in conjunction with God the Father whom Jesus himself spoke of in this manner; God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth."

To that, and to The Our Father outline of prayer -- given to us by Christ himself is to be added; prayers TO Our "spiritual mother"?

REALLY?

Can you not SEE the problem here, and if not see the problem at least SEE the potential problem?

...but now...Our Father (and lower case just to make it past the censors, cross our fingers and hope to die) our Mother, too. Woops, that "M" became capitalized. DOES THAT MATTER ONE WHIT at this point?

I did learn something here, which is: don't assume that people will automatically understand what you say in the context of Jesus Christ Our Lord.

Don't assume that I do not "understand" when the preponderance of evidence as shown in my own words would otherwise indicate that I do understand.

I'm just not buying into it lock-stock-and-barrel just because it is spoken of "in context of Jesus Christ Our Lord" anymore than I would need to roll over and play dead when Mormon theologians present their own versions of theology ---while themselves also utilizing wording alluding "context of Jesus Christ Our Lord".

Yet I've got to hand it to you. That was a genuine professional effort at putting all the onus upon me to personally both explain AND defend myself --- while you went otherwise about entirely avoiding the direct question which I presented to you about six ways from Sunday (so there would be no excuse it not be understood, or else simply overlooked).

Now that we've gotten that out of the way, here again is the primary question, concerning your own assertions and the ramifications of those same.

Thank you again for having rather distilled the central-most contradictory theological results of a wide range of RC apologetic (and the theology it ostensibly explains & defends);

I had said to you, quoting yourself in italics

How on earth (and in heaven also) can this;

This stuff isn't "partial divinizing": nobody is "partially divinizing" Mary.

square with;

"... Mary was therefore predestined to be the spiritual mother of many offspring"

Care to address that, now? Usage of lower case lettering simply does not rectify or remove the cognitive dissonance which the juxtaposition of the two assertions leave in their wake.

How can "Mary" be spiritual mother, and also "Queen of Heaven" of course, at the same time (I already KNOW the excuses for THAT one) yet giving birth to ---- Christians isn't it, and by the spirit too, would that not be, while she herself is said to be in Heaven, reigning there as "Queen", yet herself in some super-secret way also perhaps not(?) Our Spirit Mother..?

Would that mean that you are, in the end, or else deep down inside yourself, otherwise agreeing with me in that we (and I'm assuming here we are speaking only of those whom are born again/born FROM above) really do not have a "spiritual mother", and that mother be Mary and here I will throw a life ring towards you other than only "poetically speaking"? == not truly spiritual in comparison to the realms she is otherwise said to be Queen of, but instead is just poetical emotionalism, spirit of intellectual idea, spirit of outwards face & poise, etc...?

Is God the Father the Father of us when we become born again --- or is that just a figure of speach, in your own understanding?

Think about it, but please address the questions squarely rather than circle 'round dragging it all off into the bushes of yet other additional 'splainin' (that never get's to the genuine core of the issue) mixed up with doses of correcting myself for imaginary offenses...

I'm walking on the rocks by the water lose your footing you drown...