Posted on 04/08/2016 7:34:38 AM PDT by Salvation
we align in only one sphere
Why not use that ?
I am?
What the heck is going on here?
Beats me!
|
To: Legatus
People use "God and Jesus" as if Jesus is not God.
See! That's what we've been saying:
514 posted on 4/14/2016 7:40:22 AM by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
|
The reason you're not getting an answer is we know the next thing the catholic will do is ask, "well, if Jesus is God and Mary was the mother of Jesus, isn't she the mother of God?"
We're not playing that game.
Christians know the relationship between the Trinity.
We know Who the Father is.
We know Who Jesus is.
We know Who the Holy Spirit is.
We understand the relationship.
As explained before, the roman catholic definition of mary, mother of God, is different than how Christians understand Mary and God.
(Fixed that, too.)
Who or what exactly did Mary give birth to then, a cheese danish?
I see that many still do not understand that Jesus and the Eucharist are the same and they do not have faith in the words of Jesus.
So you do not believe or accept the words of Jesus? 57Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.b 58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.”
Instead they have faith in their interpretation or opinion that may not be real faith in Jesus. Just because one states that they have faith in Jesus but reject his teachings might conclude for the Lord to question if it is true faith.
Yes Nicodemus was told truly, truly that Baptism of water and the Holy Spirit was necessary to see the kingdom of God.
Just as Christ was baptized and stated that it was essential for life with God.
Yes the Apostles believed in the Eucharist and accepted the ability to change Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of our Lord during Mass. So you make statements that Catholics skip verses of Chapter 6. Be specific as that doesn’t make sense. I could say that Protestants ignore many teachings that they disagree with (such as the Real Presence) because Catholic teachings follow what Jesus taught us.
I am not trying to win an argument, but to share the Truth of Jesus that is important for faith in Jesus.
God’s Peace be with you.
Then Jesus is manna ?
Since the Holy Spirit did not we are on solid ground. While as theologically defined statement ""mother of God" might be used, as with "grandmother of God" going all the way back to Eve, this is not the language of Scripture, and its uncritical use as formal title most naturally conveys ontological oneness, yet Mary provided nothing to Christ's Divinity, and owes her very existence to Him.
The words of Ratzinger as concerns the title of “Co-redemptrix” applies here as concerns what Scripture expresses, though Ratzinger will not apply it to "Mother of God."
the formula “Co-redemptrix” departs to too great an extent from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers and therefore gives rise to misunderstandings”
“Everything comes from Him [Christ], as the Letter to the Ephesians and the Letter to the Colossians, in particular, tell us; Mary, too, is everything she is through Him. The word “Co-redemptrix” would obscure this origin. A correct intention being expressed in the wrong way. (God and the world: believing and living in our time, by Pope Benedict XVI, Peter Seewald, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 2000, p. 306
Moreover, Catholic use of Mother of God is part of the unScriptural, blasphemous (based on what we see as constituting that in Scripture) hyper-hyper exaltation of the fabricated Mary of Scripture, a "Christianized" version of the pagan Queen of Heaven*," in contrast to the humble, virtuous, Spirit-filled and God-exalting honorable Mary of Scripture. And who, unlike Catholics, only prayed to God, and never sought devotion to herself, nor is shown being an object of devotion in the life of the church (being manifestly absent after Acts 1)
Technical theological statements can have their place, but the Holy Spirit does not engage in giving grand titles to men, "For I know not to give flattering titles; in so doing my maker would soon take me away," (Job 32:22) and is careful to guard the unique honor of God. Thus when speaking of Israel bringing forth Christ, the Spirit adds in " Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. (Romans 9:5)
Thus we see the manner in which Israel as a corporate entity begat Christ being included as a qualification, and with God being glorified, and (I think) inferring the Divinity of Christ.
Likewise in defining David as the father of the Messiah. If Mary is the Mother of Christ due to the incarnation, and (as supposed) passing on DNA as a descendant of David, then Christ is the Son of David, who is technically His father "as concerning the flesh." But the real issue is that of His Divinity, and thus the Lord rebuked the normal connotation of this saying,
And answered and said, while he taught in the temple, How say the scribes that Christ is the Son of David? For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The Lord said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool. David therefore himself calleth him Lord; and whence is he then his son? And the common people heard him gladly. (Mark 12:35-37)
This does not deny that in a qualified sense Christ is the Son of David "as concerning the flesh," and thus that Mary is the mother of Christ, but Divinity is the issue here. Thus rather than doing what Catholics do, and exalting instruments of grace far above that which is written, and obscuring the vast distinction in honor btwn the creature and the Creator by incessant unqualified language that otherwise denotes ontological oneness, then Lord is careful to emphasize that distinction by pointing out that David called Him "Lord, a word which can simply mean "master" (Mt. 18:26) but also can refer to Divinity, but in this context denotes the latter.
This distinction is actually seen in the only texts which Catholics can quote as closely referring to Mary being called the mother of God: "And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" (Luke 1:43) For note what follows:
And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. (Luke 1:46-47)
In this magnificent expression of worship Mary exalts God, referring to Him least 17 times in 10 verses, and renders herself a mere recipient of the grace of God, whose "mercy is on them that fear him from generation to generation." (Luke 1:50)
And which stands in stark contrast to what is actually worship of Mary, giving such praise and adulation to her that only God is shown being the recipient of, including ascribing to them attributes which are only ascribed to God, and which is blasphemous and a form of worship.
As often said,
One would have a hard time in Bible times explaining kneeling before a statue and praising the entity it represented in the unseen world, beseeching such for Heavenly help, and making offerings to them, and giving glory and titles and ascribing attributes to such which are never given in Scripture to created beings (except to false gods), including having the uniquely Divine power glory to hear and respond to virtually infinite numbers of prayers individually addressed to them
Which manner of adulation would constitute worship in Scripture, yet Catholics imagine that by playing word games then they can avoid crossing the invisible line between mere "veneration" and worship.
Moses, put down those rocks! I was only engaging in hyper dulia, not adoring her. Can't you tell the difference?
Cathsshould only do (and I should do more of) what Mary and every believer in Scripture did in praying to Heaven, which was to pray directly to the Lord, not saintly secretaries. But they must truly become born again for that.
Instead, Caths basically say,
As for the word that thou hast spoken unto us in the name of the Lord, we will not hearken unto thee. But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes... (Jeremiah 44:16-17)
Note that many Catholic Marian attributions much parallel even that of Christ:
For in the the Catholic quest to almost deify Mary, it is taught by Catholics*,
As the the Son of God supernaturally, spiritually makes believing souls into children of God, Mary is said to be the mother of Christians in "supernatural and spiritual generation."
as Christ was sinless, so Mary was;
as the Lord remained a virgin, so Mary;
as Christ was called the Son of God, indicating ontological oneness, so Mary is called the Mother of God (which naturally infers the same, and is not the language of Scripture, which even clarifies Israel birthed Christ "according to the flesh, God blessed for ever": Rm. 9:4,5);
as the emphasis is upon Christ as the Creator through whom God (the Father) made all things, including Mary, so it is emphasized that uniquely “to her, Jesus owes His Precious Blood,” shed for the salvation of mankind, (the logic behind which can lead back to Eve);
as Catholics (adding error to error) believe Christ gave His "real" flesh and blood to be eaten, so it is emphasized that Mary gave Him this, being fashioned out of Mary's pure blood and even being “kneaded with the admixture of her virginal milk,” so that she can say, "Come and eat my bread, drink the wine I have prepared" (Prov. 9:5);
as Scripture declares that Christ suffered for our sins, so Mary is said to have done so also;
as Christ saves us from the condemnation and death resulting from the fault of Adam, so it is taught that man was condemned through the fault of Eve, the root of death, but that we are saved through the merits of Mary; who was the source of life for everyone.
as the Lord was bodily ascended into Heaven, so Mary also was;
as Christ is given all power in heaven and in earth, so Mary is “surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven.”
as Christ is the King of the saints and over all kings, (Rv. 15:3; 17:14; 19:16) so Mary is made Queen of Heaven and the greatest saint, and that “Next to God, she deserves the highest praise;”
as the Father made Christ Lord over all things, so Mary is enthroned (all other believers have to wait for their crowns) and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things;
as Christ is the express image of God, and highly exalted above all under the Father, having the primary position among all creation, so Mary is declared to be the greatest saint of all, and the first of all creatures, and as having a certain affinity with the Father, with a pre-eminent resemblance which she bears to the Father;
as Christ ever liveth to make intercession for the saints, so is Mary said to do so;
as all things come from the Father through the Son, so Mary is made to be the dispenser of all grace;
as Christ is given all power on Heaven and on earth, Mary is said to have (showing some restraint) “almost unlimited power;”
as no man comes to the Father but through the Son, so it is taught that no one can come to the Son except through Mary in Heaven;
and as the Lord called souls to come to Him to be given life and salvation, so (in misappropriation of the words of Scripture) it is said of Mary, “He that shall find me shall find life, and shall have salvation from the Lord;” “that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is His will, that we obtain everything through Mary.”
And as Christ is given many titles of honor, so Mary also is, except that she is honored by Catholics with more titles than they give to the Lord Himself!
*The practice of praying to departed saints and Mary was one that developed, helped by pagan influences, for Scripture provides no example of any believer praying to anyone in Heaven by the Lord, and reveals that doing otherwise was a practice of pagans, including to the “Queen of Heaven.” (Jer. 44:17,18,19,25). The Catholic Encyclopedia speculates that a further reinforcement of Marian devotion, “was derived from the cult of the angels, which, while pre-Christian in its origin, was heartily embraced by the faithful of the sub-Apostolic age. It seems to have been only as a sequel of some such development that men turned to implore the intercession of the Blessed Virgin. This at least is the common opinion among scholars, though it would perhaps be dangerous to speak too positively. Evidence regarding the popular practice of the early centuries is almost entirely lacking...,” (Catholic Encyclopedia > Devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary) Yet, as expected, it imagines this practice came from the apostles and NT church, but which never exampled or instructed it, and instead showed that the believer has immediate access to God in the Divine Christ, (Heb. 10:19), who is the all sufficient and immediate intercessor between God (the Father) and man. (Heb. 2:17,18; 4:15,16)
And we see catholics still do not understand the Mass is against the New Testament.
You've said the eucharist is a true sacrifice.
The Eucharist is a true sacrifice, not just a commemorative meal, as “Bible Christians” insist.
However, that is exactly what the Lord's Supper is. Do this in remembrance of Me. The Greek word for remembrance means a recalling, remembrance, memory.
If one studies the Word, one knows that blood was never consumed in any of the sacrifices.
One also knows the Jerusalem Council, where Peter was along with all of the disciples, sent the following note “For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials: 29that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication; if you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well. Farewell.” Acts 15:28-29
At the end of the Bread of Life discourse, the disciples told Jesus, "Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life. 69“We have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God.” John 6:68-69 NASB
We know catholicism teaches it is an ongoing sacrifice of Christ over and over again in direct contradiction of the Word. The Bible teaches Jesus was a one time sacrifice for our sins. He is seated in Heaven. The next time He leaves it will be the Second Coming.
The whole catholic position on this is utter blasphemy and shows a lack of understanding of the New Testament on this issue.
11Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; 12but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD, Hebrews 10:11
However, roman catholicism totally ignores this and teaches just the opposite.
“No act is greater,” says St. Thomas,” than the consecration of the body of Christ.”23 In this essential phase of the sacred ministry, the power of the priest is not surpassed by that of the bishop, the archbishop, the cardinal or the pope. Indeed it is equal to that of Jesus Christ. For in this role the priest speaks with the voice and the authority of God Himself.
When the priest pronounces the tremendous words of consecration, he reaches up into the heavens, brings Christ down from His throne,
and places Him upon our alter to be offered up again as the Victim for the sins of man.
It is a power greater than that of monarchs and emperor: it is greater than that of saints and angels, greater than that of Seraphim and Cherubim.
Indeed it is greater even than the power of the Virgin Mary. While the Blessed Virgin was the human agency by which Christ became incarnate a single time,
the priest brings Christ down from heaven, and renders Him present on our altar as the eternal Victim for the sins of man – not once but a thousand times!
The priest speaks and lo! Christ, the eternal and omnipotent God, bows his head in humble obedience to the priest’s command.
The Faith of Millions: The Credentials of the Catholic Religion, O’Brien, John Anthony Rev, Our Sunday Visitor, Inc, Huntington, Indiana, Nihil obstat: Rev. Lawrence Gollner, Censor Librorum, Imprimatur: Leo A Pursley, Bishop of Fort Wayne-South Bend, pages 255-256 The Faith of Millions: The Credentials of the Catholic Religion
If catholics want to continue to insist in believing Jesus is sacrificed over and over and over again, I cannot stop them from doing so.
Just understand this:
but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD, Hebrews 10:11
Maybe it would be more accurate to say they use their misinterpretation of scripture, to support their non scriptural beliefs.
The Bible is VERY clear, that we can have assurance of salvation. Many of them probably think we are committing the sin of presumption by having assurance of salvation. Oh well, such is life. That's one sin I don't mind committing. 😀😆😄
God does not depend upon your efforts to keep you in His family. You get born from above and you are in His family. That's why He, GOD, took a human form to accomplish.
So when folks start believing it is up to them to get there and up to them to keep it in tact, well they insult the very Creation by God, for believing in Christ Jesus as Savior and Lord then gives HIM all the glory.
But men and women have this little pride thing which makes them want to take some of the credit for what God Alone can do. If you could be worthy of Salvation then Christ died for nothing. You will never be worthy of what God does on your behalf, to His Glory.
If you had the spark of the Spirit of God in you, when you read the passage from John 6 and the scenes from Matthew, Luke, and Mark where Jesus instituted the Shift in the Passover Seder to be a Remembrance of Him (it had been a remembrance of what God did for the Israelites in bringing them out of Egypt!), you would instinctively know JESUS as GOD with us would not violate the very Laws He established, and you would partake in the REMEMBRANCE thanking GOD for what JESUS did ONCE for ALL, forever.
Jesus established the concept of His real Presence, not so He could be swallowed in a pagan ritual but as a means for those faithing in HIM to receive the REAL empowerment where two or more are gathered in HIS name, for there is HE in the midst of them!
In fact, didn't John tell us "but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name." John 20:31
14“As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; 15so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life. John 3:14-15
24“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.John 5:24
13These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life. 1 John 5:13
Paul noted this assurance also:
13In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of His glory. Ephesian 1:13-14
Sure seems like He wanted us to have the assurance of our salvation.
So they imagine as being "really" Christ's flesh and blood, yet contrary to what is evidential. And to what Scripture says "feed" believers.
As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby: If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious. (1 Peter 2:2-3)
Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. (Acts 20:28)
And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified. (Acts 20:32)
If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained. (1 Timothy 4:6)
For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. (Hebrews 5:12)
Sadly, the poster will not address your cogent offering. BUT if theses catholics would! ... well, they would stop being catholics, maybe.
This post might be a good one for you to read through and think about ...
He did indeed sir. I take it seriously.
Sure seems like He wanted us to have the assurance of our salvation.
He did indeed sir. I take it seriously.
I don't know why so many people in different religions out there, either don't have, or don't want assurance of salvation. Trying to tell me, that the Bible doesn't give us any assurance of salvation, is like someone standing outside at high noon, and telling me the sun isn't shining.
It is possible they simply want to establish their own righteousness. That ain't gonna cut the mustard. If they have no assurance of salvation, that's on them.
Your comment: “ Just understand this:
but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD, Hebrews 10:11 “
Please explain why Jesus told the Apostles:
John 20:21-23
21* [Jesus] said to them again,l “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” 22* And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them,m “Receive the holy Spirit. 23* n Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.”
If all sins are forgiven, then why did Jesus give the ability to the Apostles and their successors to forgive sins and to retain sins (some sins that are not forgiven)?
Explain why only one of the thieves on the cross was saved.?
If all sins were forgiven on the cross, then why does Jesus and Catholic Church require Baptism and protestants/evangelicals require “being Born again” to forgive sins?
For your information, The Mass is a sacrifice, an offering to God as He told us to do in His memory. Obviously Jesus does not die over and over again, but our offering to God is an unbloody sacrifice where their is a change into the Body and Blood of Christ.
A definition, By sacrifice in the real sense is universally understood the offering of a sense-perceptible gift to the Deity as an outward manifestation of our veneration for Him and with the object of attaining communion with Him. Strictly speaking, however, this offering does not become a sacrifice until a real change has been effected in the visible gift (e.g. by slaying it, shedding its blood, burning it, or pouring it out). So Jesus completes the sacrifice through the ordained priest when the real change of Bread and Wine becomes His Body and Blood.
Your comment: “The whole catholic position on this is utter blasphemy and shows a lack of understanding of the New Testament on this issue.”
I disagree and your (and other) comments have not convinced me.
I challenge you to truly understand the “whole” teaching of Jesus and not just the parts that you (or the protestants) feel are important. I want you to fully understand the Truth of Jesus. It is not about my opinion, but the Truth of Jesus.
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.