Saturday, May 23, 2009

A not-so-funny thing about Mary

This is the second time I have read an article by a catholic apologist using 1 Kings 2:13-25 to validate the Catholic practice of asking Mary to intercede for them. The reasoning is that Mary is the Queen Mother of Jesus the King, and she intercedes for those who ask for her help just as Bathsheba interceded for Adonijah with her son King Solomon.
When I told my husband about the article and gave the reference for the proof text the author used in 1 Kings, He laughed, just as I had when I went and read the whole passage, because my husband was very familiar with the story and knew the ending. Actually, the story isn't funny, nor is the the deduction of what happens to people who make the 'Queen Mother' their hope instead of the King himself. What's funny is that anyone would use this as a proof-text. Read it for yourself and see what I mean, if you don't know. It's as if, since the Lord knew this would happen, He put it in His Word for a warning to those who would listen.

204 comments:

1 – 200 of 204   Newer›   Newest»
Daughter of Wisdom said...

Your love for Jesus shines through.

Moonshadow said...

I enjoy reading those fellas at Deo Omnis Gloria but I have never heard the 1 Kings passage used in this way.

It's usually her intervention at the wedding in Cana and her presence with the apostles in the Upper Room on Pentecost (Acts 1:13-14, 2:1-4) that show her role.

Now, personally, I've noted this dynamic in Daniel 5:10-12 where the mother of Belshazzar suggests Daniel be consulted to interpret the "handwriting on the wall." Another ominous episode, I suppose.

Obviously, the intentions of the mother of Christ would not be as inauspicious as these biblical archetypes. Of that we can be sure.

Jennie said...

Welcome to my blog, Daughter of Wisdom. I'm so glad you stopped by and I hope you'll come back often.

Jennie said...

Hi Teresa (Moonshadow),
Let me just ask you, if Mary is supposed to be venerated and prayed to and called many extravagant titles, as the Catholics do, why is it not made obvious in the New Testament that this should be done? Why do the Apostles never name her in their letters at all, much less calling her the Mother of God and telling us to pray to her or other saints? Why is it so obvious that we should love, adore, pray in the name of, and worship Jesus, but never once is Mary talked of in that way in the New Testament? If it was to be so, it would have been taught openly at the beginning.
All these examples you've given are stretching something to fit what it was not intended to fit.

Elena said...

Luke 1:28

Luke 1:48

Moonshadow said...

Why do the Apostles never name her in their letters at allThis is a good question because I just watched a video of N. T. Wright reminding us that Mary Magdalene was the first to the tomb, "apostle to the Apostles" and all that. But when Paul writes to the Corinthians in the middle of the first century, what does he say ...

For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.As N. T. Wright says, The Magdalene is "airbrushed" right out of the traditional account.

I'm prepared to accept some revisionism, of putting things in their rightful place. Galatians 3:28 took some centuries to "catch on" in the church, eh?

And I won't even ask you which twelve Paul has in mind, as Judas was already dead and Matthias had not been yet selected.

Peace of Christ to you.

Jennie said...

Hi Elena,
I'm trying to stress that according to scripture, the apostles and the new church did not teach these titles and extravagant reverence for Mary.
The passages in Luke are restrained in comparison to the names she has been given since medieval times. Saying Mary was highly favored by God and calling her the 'mother of my Lord' is not the same as 'Mother of God' and Queen of Heaven.' Mary is not called 'mother of God' in the Bible and this title tends to place her in the realm of divinity herself, which is not scriptural. The Apostles are not considered gods, yet they worked miracles in Jesus' name and raised the dead.
I believe there is a reason Mary is not mentioned after Acts 1 or 2, and it's not revisionism, as Teresa suggests, but that 'He must increase, but she must decrease,' in the same way that John the Baptist spoke of.

Jennie said...

Hi Teresa,
I think you end up on dangerous ground if you start listening to people who think the bible was tampered with and revised for political reasons, or to keep women in their place, or something like that. There are plenty of accounts that stress the women being there first. Just because Paul doesn't mention them here doesn't mean he was trying to leave them out, or that someone later changed his account.

I think 'the twelve' is just an easy way to refer to all the apostles that were there, since it was probably a habitual way of referring to them.

Moonshadow said...

Just because Paul doesn't mention them here doesn't meanWhy doesn't Paul mention the women?

You asked the same question of me and I've given my answer - "Sin" - which you don't seem to accept.

I'd like to know how you'd answer the question.

(I accept your answer to "the twelve" just fine.)

Peace of Christ.

Jennie said...

'You asked the same question of me and I've given my answer - "Sin" - which you don't seem to accept.'

I asked 'why don't the apostles mention Mary?' But when did you mention 'sin'? Are you saying they sinned in not mentioning her, or that someone else sinned by revising the accounts? Please clarify.

Moonshadow said...

I gave an example from an apostolic letter of a significant woman, Mary Magdalene, verifiably being glossed over in the tradition that Paul received (1 Cor. 15:3) to counter your expectation that significant women would be mentioned in the apostolic letters.

Jennie said...

Ok. But I still don't see what you meant by the word 'sin'.
I think that if Mary was meant to be such a significant part of Christianity as she has become to the Catholics, that it would have been taught clearly, and the Apostles would have practiced it and taught it. Since they didnt't, we should follow their example and revere God alone.

Jennie said...

Also, Mary Magdelene wasn't ever considered an Apostle, even though she was an eyewitness of Christ. The apostles were men and were to be the founding teachers of the gospel. She and the other women were beloved parts of the body of Christ, but they weren't leaders in that sense.

Jennie said...

"I gave an example from an apostolic letter of a significant woman, Mary Magdalene, verifiably being glossed over in the tradition that Paul received (1 Cor. 15:3)"
I believe that what is written in the passage is what Paul originally wrote,. The idea that something was removed is only speculation. There is no proof. There are several manuscript copies of most of the new testament books and the church Fathers quoted from all of them, so much that almost the wole thing can be reproduced from their writings. there is nothing left out. God preserved His word.

Moonshadow said...

the idea that something was removedIt's more like the church being "guided into all truth." (John 16:13).

Was it necessary for salvation that Christians in Corinth knew Mary Magdalen saw the risen Lord first? Obviously not.

But we know.

Is it necessary for salvation that Christians invoke Mary of Nazareth by her innumerable titles? Maybe Elena will correct me if I'm wrong, but there's no harm in it. Before dismissing Luke 1:42, consider "blessed" is used of the Child as well as His mother.

I just finished studying the Letter to the Hebrews at a PCA church. Our leader asked, on Hebrews 11, what names we expected to see in the litany ... and were disappointed at not seeing. More women, for one thing. But, something more profound: people Christ knew personally, in the flesh. Why are his blessed, righteous (ευλογεω, δικαιος) parents (Luke 1:42; Matt 1:19) and righteous close relatives (Luke 1:6; Mark 6:20) not mentioned? They lived by faith, did they not?

But the list isn't exhaustive, you say, and the faith is taught by men ... "The apostles were men" ...

Think, since the author of Hebrews finds a parallel in the nonexistent genealogy of Melchizedek, perhaps he knew nothing of Jesus' infancy: "Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually." (Hebrews 7:3)

In fact, I'd suggest that, until the Evangelists wrote, certain facts and knowledge of Jesus' life were hidden.

But we know. The Spirit has guided us into all truth, and we live by what we know.

Peace of Christ to you.

Daughter of Wisdom said...

Should I dare jump into this lively discussion?
1. Mary, the mother of Jesus was His mother as well as a follower. She was there in the upper room with the other disciples "with one accord in prayer and supplication" (Acts 1:13-14.
2. Mary Madgelene was also a follower of Jesus, among many other female disciples, "And it came to pass afterward, that he went throughout every city and village, preaching and shewing the glad tidings of the kingdom of God: and the twelve were with him, and certain women, which had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities, Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils, and Joanna the wife of Chuza Herod's steward, and Susanna, and many others, which ministered unto him of their substance" (Mark 1: 1-3).
3. "The twelve" were all men, but the full count of disciples was far more in number, and included women. In the upper room, about 120 of Jesus' disciples gathered to hear Peter, after Christ's ascension (Acts 1:14-15).
4. Matthias was a disciple of Christ from the beginning of Christ's ministry, but he was not originally one of "the twelve." He became one of the "the twelve" after Judas' suicide (Acts 1: 21-26).

I hope this helps.

Daughter of Wisdom said...

Hi Jennie,
Could I help a little with answering some of Moonshadow's questions? I may be able to throw some light on certain questions.

Jennie said...

Daughter,
please do; I'd welcome it. If I disagree I'll let you know:)

Daughter of Wisdom said...

Thanks Jennie.

Moonshadow: I see your passion for Mary, the mother of Christ, and the Lord's earthly family. I too am curious, and wished more was written about the early childhood of Jesus in the Bible, but according to John 21:25, "And there were also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world could not contain the books that should be written." You see, God has chosen to limit the information contained in the Bible and just give us the essential truths which we need for our salvation. I am sure there were many more women than those mentioned in Hebrews 11 who showed great faith, but the author limited the list to the matriachs of the faith. He included those womem with the "the elders" (Hebrews 11:2). The author of the book of Hebrews even made a disclaimer in vss. 32-39 by saying, "And what shall I more say? for the time would fail me to tell of ...." and another list of people named and unnamed are mentioned.
You see, the Bible is not about promoting the exploits of men (or wwomen). It is all about God. God is the all-important theme of the Bible, and His Son Jesus Christ. It's all about Jesus and His love for us.

Jennie said...

"Think, since the author of Hebrews finds a parallel in the nonexistent genealogy of Melchizedek, perhaps he knew nothing of Jesus' infancy: "Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually." (Hebrews 7:3)"

Some believe that Melchizedek WAS Jesus, meeting with Abraham the 'friend of God.' But whether or not this is the case, Jesus AS GOD has no earthly father or mother, even though He had an earthly mother when He came to earth as a human, because He is the creator and has existed for eternity past. Mary is human and has not existed for eternity past.

Jennie said...

"You see, the Bible is not about promoting the exploits of men (or wwomen). It is all about God. God is the all-important theme of the Bible, and His Son Jesus Christ. It's all about Jesus and His love for us."

Amen, Daughter of Wisdom!

Moonshadow said...

answering some of Moonshadow's questions?My questions are customarily rhetorical. I suppose questions seem less confrontational ... online?

Daughter, I relish your full handle, "Daughter of Wisdom," conveys many beautiful connotations.

I see your passion for MaryI hope I haven't given a false impression as I don't have much passion for the BVM. Still, I'll do my part in aiding those who may exercise the freedom that's theirs in Christ.

It seems I can quote your words to Jennie who expects to read in the Bible about apostolic veneration of Mary: "the Bible is not about promoting the exploits of men (or women). It is all about God." along with your citation of John 21:25.

But I won't use your words against Jennie, even as she has expressed her affirmation of them, because, if your hyperbole is accurate, that the Bible is all about God, then Hebrews 11 is certainly out of place as it speaks of nothing but the exploits of men and some women without any explicit mention of grace. Obviously, grace is implicit because without faith it is impossible to please God. But clearly one needs a theology to even read Hebrews 11 properly. Something Elena has been saying incessantly.

I don't think there's a Christian out there that doesn't recognize the progressive revelation of sacred Scripture. With the Incarnation comes the complete story but even the inspired mind works out the implications in time. Faith may be instantaneous but not so understanding. Christ's death and resurrection, of central importance, are proclaimed principally but as the salvific aspects of Jesus' life are uncovered, the historical content of the Gospels are added to what the People of God believe.

Peace of the Lord to you.

Jennie said...

"Is it necessary for salvation that Christians invoke Mary of Nazareth by her innumerable titles? Maybe Elena will correct me if I'm wrong, but there's no harm in it."
Teresa, far from it being necessary for salvation (and far from harmless), I believe it's blasphemy and idolatry to invoke Mary by these titles that are not given to her in the bible. Some of them are given to God alone, and at least one (Queen of Heaven) is given to a false goddess, worshipped by the faithless Israelites, copying the pagans, which is an abomination to God.

Elena said...

Some of them are given to God alone, and at least one (Queen of Heaven) is given to a false goddess,Of course the terms "Lord" and "King" and "God" are also given to false idols and gods of other faiths. Heck, Lord and King are even given to earthly men... we still use them though do we not.

As far as Queen of Heaven goes, I think that is indeed an honorary title as in if Jesus is King of the Universe and Mary is Jesus' mother (and there is no denying that Jennie, as much as you would like to - Jesus did choose to be conceived and grow in Mary's womb and be raised by her so let's give some credit where credit is due) then technically that does make her the Queen Mother of Jesus and Queen of Heaven

Another point I want to get back to, you asked earlier

Let me just ask you, if Mary is supposed to be venerated and prayed to and called many extravagant titles, as the Catholics do, why is it not made obvious in the New Testament that this should be done?I gave you two blatant examples in the New testament. I think if the angel of God can call Mary Blessed among all women - it doesn't get more obvious than that. And as a sola scriptura Christian I think you are also bound to Mary's words in the bible that all generations shall call her blessed. If anything many Protestants want to throw Mary under the bus as it were and demote her to the role of brood mare. Seems to contradict what is SPECIFICALLY AND OBVIOUSLY spelled out in a "simple read" of those passages - which is what your type of theology is supposed to be all about.

Moonshadow said...

it's blasphemy and idolatryDo you who believe this, also believe that God is judging the sin in the Catholic church?

If you believe that God is judging the Catholic church for this, in what way and to what end? In other words, how is God's judgment of the Catholic church's "blasphemy and idolatry" evident to you and what's the purpose of God's judgment?

(these aren't rhetorical questions; I'm seriously interested in your opinion in this regard.)

Thank you and God bless.

Elena said...

That actually is a good question Teresa.

I suppose some will say the priest abuse scandal, but of course since that only involved 4% of the priests, and is not isolated to just the Catholic church (i.e. abuse in other churches, public schools etc) I'm not sure that would be a compelling example.

Moonshadow said...

No fair giving hints, Elena! :-)

I am actually interested in their perspective on this.

Peace.

Jennie said...

Elena,
You are missing the point. Mary is being called names that belong to God alone: to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. She is being treated as if she has power that belongs to God alone. She is being entreated as only God should be entreated.
See these names (and there are many more, which you may be familiar with):
Mother of divine grace (God gives grace),
Mother of good counsel(Jesus is called Counselor),
Mother of our Creator(Mary is not mother of God as creator, but God the Son only in His humanness),
Virgin most powerful (She has no power),
Virgin most merciful (God is merciful, and humans can be merciful only by the Spirit),
Virgin most faithful (Jesus is called Faithful and True; she is not 'most' faithful),
Seat of wisdom (God is the seat of Wisdom; false goddesses are falsely called the seat of wisdom),
Cause of our joy (God is the first cause of our joy),
Gate of Heaven (Jesus is the Gate of Heaven),
Morning star (Jesus is the Morning Star),
Health of the sick (Jesus is the Healer of the Sick),
Lady and Mistress (Jesus is Lord and Master), to whom all power has been given in Heaven and on earth (She has no power at all),
Queen of my heart (God should be alone our King), my sweetness, my life and all my hope (God is our only hope),
Refuge of sinners (Jesus is the refuge of sinners),
Comforter of the afflicted (the Spirit is our comforter),
Help of Christians (God is a very present help in trouble),
Queen conceived without Original Sin (Jesus is the only Man without sin),
Queen assumed into Heaven (Jesus was assumed into heaven;there's no proof Mary was),
Queen of peace (Jesus is Prince of Peace).

"As far as Queen of Heaven goes, I think that is indeed an honorary title as in if Jesus is King of the Universe and Mary is Jesus' mother (and there is no denying that Jennie, as much as you would like to - Jesus did choose to be conceived and grow in Mary's womb and be raised by her so let's give some credit where credit is due) then technically that does make her the Queen Mother of Jesus and Queen of Heaven"
The point I am trying to make about calling Mary Queen of Heaven is that the only time it is used in scripture is for the name of a false goddess which the Israelites began worshipping in imitation of the pagans, which is an abomination to God.
I have no problem with Mary being Jesus' mother, blessed among women, and the mother of my Lord. I and other non-catholics have a problem with the extravagant titles and especially the ones that are given to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in scripture which is blasphemy and which the real Mary would abhor.
Because we react against the catholic extreme, you think we are dishonoring Mary; I am just trying to bring out the truth as taught in the bible.
It does not technically make Mary Queen of Heaven because she is the Mother of Jesus. She is the mother of His humanity only, not His eternal Godhood. She is not spoken of that way in scripture, and that is our only guide for doctrine.

Jennie said...

Elena,
(Teresa, I'll have to get back to your question later)
"I gave you two blatant examples in the New testament. I think if the angel of God can call Mary Blessed among all women - it doesn't get more obvious than that. And as a sola scriptura Christian I think you are also bound to Mary's words in the bible that all generations shall call her blessed. If anything many Protestants want to throw Mary under the bus as it were and demote her to the role of brood mare. Seems to contradict what is SPECIFICALLY AND OBVIOUSLY spelled out in a "simple read" of those passages - which is what your type of theology is supposed to be all about."
You've set up a straw man here, Elena. This just goes back to what I said in the last comment, that non-catholics are not denying scriptural honor to Mary, just reacting against the titles and worship wrongly given to her (and it is worship, whatever catholics like to say to the contrary). The 'simple read' says Mary is honored and blessed, not Queen, intercessor, comforter, helper, hope of sinners, powerful, etc.

Moonshadow said...

(Teresa, I'll have to get back to your question later)That's fine, of course.

I just want to say that I'm really glad you are working from the list of titles that I originally linked to rather than any number of unapproved sets that can be found just about anywhere online.

Sure, there are other titles, like you said, but I think this set provides ample fodder for our discussion. I don't stumble over any of them personally and I can't imagine Elena would either.

Elena said...

If you could put down your anti-Mary glasses Jennie you might actually be able to see how these titles could apply to Mary.


Mother of divine grace (God gives grace),Right and Jesus is God and Mary is his mother...ergo..


Mother of good counsel(Jesus is called Counselor),Right - and Jesus is good counsel and Mary is his mother... ergo...


Mother of our Creator(Mary is not mother of God as creator, but God the Son only in His humanness),That's Arianism. Jesus is God, God is the creator, and Mary was chosen to be his mother. The definition fits, although the chronology is not something we can easily wrap our minds around - of course we are not multidimensional like God is.


Virgin most powerful (She has no power),Prayer is powerful is it not? Mary's greatest power is her prayer and her strong example to "Do whatever He tells you."

Virgin most merciful (God is merciful, and humans can be merciful only by the Spirit),Mary was present at the coming of the Holy Spirit. I'm not sure why anyone would have a problem with this one.

Virgin most faithful (Jesus is called Faithful and True; she is not 'most' faithful),The comparison isn't Mary vs. Jesus, but Mary as compared to the rest of the human race. That's how I've always taken it and I think that is how most Catholics in the "catholic vernacular" take it as well. I think I've told you many times Jennie that if you wish to confront/engage Catholics, you have to come where we are, not from your own perspective - this is a perfect example of why.

Seat of wisdom (God is the seat of Wisdom; false goddesses are falsely called the seat of wisdom),
Cause of our joy (God is the first cause of our joy),
Once more Jennie, from the Catholic vernacular, Mary would be called "Seat of wisdom" because
because the Son of God, the eternal Wisdom, assumed flesh from her, lived in her womb and rested in her arms. This is also analogous to the Arc of Covenant which also contained the word of God and was a seat.


Gate of Heaven (Jesus is the Gate of Heaven),In the Catholic vernacular Mary leads us to Jesus. Also it was Mary's fiat through which Jesus came into the world.


Morning star (Jesus is the Morning Star),When referring to Mary it means a star that radiates light (Jesus) without losing its brightness.

Health of the sick (Jesus is the Healer of the Sick),A good explanation for this title is here.Lady and Mistress (Jesus is Lord and Master), to whom all power has been given in Heaven and on earth (She has no power at all),Well actually that was kind of explained in the bible passages your husband blew off. These titles come from Mary's role as Queen Mother.


Queen of my heart (God should be alone our King), Again the title of Queen Mother.


Refuge of sinners (Jesus is the refuge of sinners),
Comforter of the afflicted (the Spirit is our comforter),
See here.See here.Help of Christians (God is a very present help in trouble),


Queen conceived without Original Sin (Jesus is the only Man without sin),We covered a lot of that here.

Elena said...

Queen assumed into Heaven (Jesus was assumed into heaven;there's no proof Mary was),
Queen of peace (Jesus is Prince of Peace).
Jesus actually ascended into heaven. In the Catholic church we just celebrated that event last week. Mary was assumed into Heaven not by her own power. This is part of Sacred Tradition. As Catholics are not sola scriptura Christians ( which isn't biblical anyway) we are not bound exclusively with what is in the written scriptures.


The point I am trying to make about calling Mary Queen of Heaven is that the only time it is used in scripture is for the name of a false goddess which the Israelites began worshipping in imitation of the pagans, which is an abomination to God.Not really as the passage from King illustrates So? If Jesus is King and Mary is his mother, she becomes Queen Mother by default, which was a title of respect and honor in the culture.


I and other non-catholics have a problem with the extravagant titles and especially the ones that are given to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in scripture Fine. Then don't use them.

Catholics who understand the titles and what they mean have a much different paradigm as I have illustrated. Far from blasphemy, Mary illuminates God's plan for all of us. Honoring Mary gives glory to God.

Because we react against the catholic extreme, you think we are dishonoring Mary; No. I think you are misinformed and uneducated on the topic.


She is the mother of His humanity only, not His eternal Godhood.Catholics believe that Mary is a creature and not a creator so I'm not sure why you want to keep picking that bone. Besides to divide God's nature is Arianism and that really is a bona fide heresy.


She is not spoken of that way in scripture, and that is our only guide for doctrine.That's YOUR only guide. But I reject Sola scriptura as being unscriptural. I might further point out that as a Catholic, I am not bound by your doctrines. Again Jennie... if you want to challenge and connect with Catholics you have to meet us where we are, something you seem to have a little trouble with.

Elena said...

(and it is worship, whatever catholics like to say to the contrary...an example of reaching out to Catholics where we are Jennie? Telling us what we really worship even after we tell you that we don't? Are you in the habit of calling people you converse with liars?


I think you should get into another form of apologetics because probably telling Catholic what they do when you don't have a clue is not the most effective tack to take.

Jennie said...

Elena,
you're calling me an Arian because I said Mary is not the mother of Christ's Godhood but only of His humanness? Arians believed that Jesus was a created being, which is the opposite of what I'm saying: that Jesus is eternal Creator God, who created Mary and then became a man conceived in her womb by the power of the Holy Spirit. The bible shows Mary as a human mother in all respects; the child is the one who was amazing, and she was blessed by God to be given the honor to bear Him and raise Him by God's grace and favor shown to her.

It seems like you are trying to tell me that catholics are giving Mary all those titles but they are really giving them to Jesus through her? Jesus died a horrible death, bearing our sins in His own body, rose again, conquering death for us, and we have to praise Him through a middleman? He IS the middle man who makes the way to the Father for us.
Don't you see that you are just placing another step (Mary) between you and God again after Jesus died to remove all barriers? Jesus Himself is the bridge to God: the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no one comes to the Father except by Him.

Jennie said...

Another thought,
It is Jesus who brings us to the Father, after seeking us as a shepherd seeks His lost sheep, not Mary who brings us to Jesus. In the bible, He is always the One who does the work for us: our helper, our Savior, our Shepherd, our healer, our life-giver, our Friend, our Beloved Bridegroom.

Daughter of Wisdom said...

Hi Jennie,
I have been following this spirited debate from the start, and I admire your stand in defense of the faith. Here is the thing: Christians who reject sola scriptura will not accept the Bible as the final authority for truth and righteousness. They will seek out other writings, which may even conflict with scripture, as truth. Jesus had some strong words to say about persons who choose religious tradition over the word of God. He says,

"Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?" (Matthew 15:3)

"Thus ye have made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men" (Matthew 15:6-9).

"But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up. Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch" (Matthew 15:13-14).

Hard words from Jesus, but this is what he said to the Pharisees, who were notorious for adding on their own traditions to the plain word of God. The Pharisees were not sola scriptura Jews. They had their own religious traditions which they taught in addition to, or in place of scripture, and sometimes with conflicting results.

I think you have done a marvellous job defending the faith. If one cannot accept the truth in the Bible as whole truth, then there is nothing more you can do.

Daughter of Wisdom said...

Here is another good scripture.

"To the law and the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them."

Christians who oppose the word (of God) cannot shed any light on truth. Let us first bring our thoughts captive to the word of God, and His Spirit will lead us into all truth (2 Corinthian 10:5; John 16: 13-14).

Daughter of Wisdom said...

Isaiah 8:20 is the scripture quoted above.

Elena said...

Elena,
you're calling me an Arian because I said Mary is not the mother of Christ's Godhood but only of His humanness?


Did not. I said many of your statements bordered on the heresy of Arianism, which divided God's nature into divine and human. Go back and look at those particular sentences and you can see how they come uncomfortably close to that.

It seems like you are trying to tell me that catholics are giving Mary all those titles but they are really giving them to Jesus through her?Actually, that's a pretty good way to put it!


Jesus died a horrible death, bearing our sins in His own body, rose again, conquering death for us, and we have to praise Him through a middleman? We don't see Mary as a middleman. We see her as a reflection of God's mercy, love, and glory. A huge difference. Everything Mary is (and she even says this in scripture) she was because of Jesus and we honor her for being His perfect creature.

He IS the middle man who makes the way to the Father for us.
Don't you see that you are just placing another step (Mary) between you and God again after Jesus died to remove all barriers?
Nope. Catholic teaching doesn't put Mary as a barrier to Christ, but as a conduit. Big difference.

Jesus Himself is the bridge to God: the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no one comes to the Father except by Him.Exactly! And Mary would be the first one to say so!

Elena said...

Christians who oppose the word (of God) cannot shed any light on truth.As I've said before, Catholics don't oppose the Word of God. We might possibly disagree or even oppose YOUR interpretation of the Word of God - which is an entirely different matter.

Jennie said...

Daughter of Wisdom,
Thank you so much for your encouragement, wisdom, and help.
Ecclesiastes 4:
9 Two are better than one,
Because they have a good reward for their labor.
10 For if they fall, one will lift up his companion.
But woe to him who is alone when he falls,
For he has no one to help him up.

I appreciate you exhorting and encouraging me with God's word.
I have seen for a while that rejection of God's word as the sole standard innoculates one to the Truth; I just keep hoping and praying the Holy Spirit will convict them by the word that I share.
You (and my husband also has told me) are right that it does no good to keep arguing when someone has repeatedly rejected the truth. Pray for me on how to proceed; I'm not only speaking to the one or two who comment, but to others who may happen by.
It's good to hear you speak and see that we are of one mind, with no discordant notes.

Jennie said...

Elena,
All That I said about the nature of Christ is in line with biblical protestant teaching. I did not say anything about dividing the nature of Christ; I said that Mary is not mother of the Creator but only His mother in the human sense, as He lowered Himself to become a man. Saying she is Mother of God infers Divine attributes upon her, which is never even hinted at in the bible. She was given an undeserved honor to bear Him, just as all of us don't deserve the honor to be saved and be indwelt by Him; but He makes us clean by His blood.

"Everything Mary is (and she even says this in scripture) she was because of Jesus and we honor her for being His perfect creature."
Everything believers are is because of Christ, and we honor Him, not ourselves. Mary is not a perfect creature, but is born again as all true believers are, by faith in His sacrrifice.

Christ needs no conduit; HE IS THE CONDUIT TO THE FATHER FOR US.

Elena said...

All That I said about the nature of Christ is in line with biblical protestant teaching. I'm sure that it is line with your biblical protestant understanding. I doubt you would get all of Protestantism to necessary agree with it.


I did not say anything about dividing the nature of Christ;As I remember, you did twice.

I said that Mary is not mother of the Creator but only His mother in the human sense, as He lowered Himself to become a man. In the Catholic vernacular (probably Orthodox and possibly Anglican and Lutheran) we call this the incarnation. And infact we agree on this. In fact during the recitation of the creed the priest and deacon will bow when it is said he "was made man." We are essentially agreeing here although I still think your wording sounds really Arian-like and I would tend to avoid it if I were you.

Saying she is Mother of God infers Divine attributes upon her, which is never even hinted at in the bible.And Catholic teaching doesn't attribute it to her either. Probably because we "get" that Jesus is God and Mary is the mother of Jesus and thus we have no conflict with Mary being called the Mother of God. So if that's your fear - fear not. It's not a Catholic teaching and even the marginally catechized get it.

She was given an undeserved honor to bear Him, just as all of us don't deserve the honor to be saved and be indwelt by Him; but He makes us clean by His blood.You understand of course that not even all Protestants buy this. Luther for example had a great devotion to her and the understanding of Mary being created free from sin. In fact that too is very biblical. Mary needed a savior, but just not in the usual way.

"Everything Mary is (and she even says this in scripture) she was because of Jesus and we honor her for being His perfect creature."
Everything believers are is because of Christ, and we honor Him, not ourselves.
Up to that point I agree with you, although I chuckle whenever I here a devout anti-Mary person say this. You must shiver and shake on Memorial Day, fourth of July etc. when we "honor" fallen heroes and war dead! Award shows must bother you too? Do your kids go to school? Will they get awards for perfect attendance or superb academics? Of course we honor ourselves and each other. It's done all the time.

Mary is not a perfect creature, but is born again as all true believers are, by faith in His sacrrifice.Actually you are very close to the Catholic belief. It is Mary's faith that saved her in a special way when she gave her fiat to be Jesus' mother, but of course she was also created especially for the task. This is the Catholic Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

Christ needs no conduit;Didn't say He did. But people do though. That's why Jesus left the apostles to preach and teach, and His church to stand as the pillar of truth. Mary is simply one more way for people to find their way to Christ.

HE IS THE CONDUIT TO THE FATHER FOR US.Yep, and the Catholic church would agree with you on that.


I just keep hoping and praying the Holy Spirit will convict them by the word that I share. Insert eye roll there. I am sure you are both very sincere, but I'm not stupid and I'm certain Teresa isn't either. And how insulting to insinuate tht your fellow Christians are not also in the Holy Spirit, and how arrogant to assume that the words you share (which are YOUR words) are the same as sacred scripture.

Again Jennie I keep telling you the secret for reaching out to Catholics. But you seem unwilling or unable to do so.

Insults probably aren't the best way to go.

Jennie said...

Elena,
"You must shiver and shake on Memorial Day, fourth of July etc. when we "honor" fallen heroes and war dead! Award shows must bother you too?"
I was speaking of giving honor where honor is due, specifically giving honor to Jesus for all aspects of our salvation, and especially not giving any of His names to anyone else. We shouldn't honor ourselves or Mary for our help and salvation because we can do nothing without Him.

Jennie said...

And now, unless Daughter of Wisdom wishes to add anything, I think this topic is closed.
I may make a new post about Teresa's question that we didn't get to yet.

Moonshadow said...

One point, please, on terminology.

I'm sorry I'm late getting back ... my friend with cancer graduated seminary yesterday ... I spent the day with her celebrating God's mercy.

your statements bordered on the heresy of Arianism, which divided God's nature into divine and human.No, that's not it.

We're talking about dividing the Person of Christ according to His two natures (human and divine) which was the supposed error of Nestorius prompting the Council of Ephesus in AD 431.

If you would indulge me, please read this post, and I think you'll see what Elena is proposing: Catholics are entitled to call Mary "the Mother of God," but those whose consciences bother them are not obligated.

This matter has Romans 14 all over it. Sisters, please.

Peace of Christ.

Elena said...

Well pick your heresy! Either way reading it was a uncomfortable.

That said, Romans 14 indeed. I don't get why Christian women ( and Jennie isn't the first or only one)create blogs for the sole purpose of bashing Catholicism - a form of Christianity they personally have no interest in whatsoever - uh... other than to bash it.

It would be like starting a blog to bash the Calvinists or the Lutherans - and I just have absolutely no interest in knowing enough about THEIR flavor of Christianity to make the effort. I'd rather just attend their bake sales and Swiss steak dinners (at least that's what the Lutheran church around here does.)

And yet, I feel rather protective of my church. And I'll defend her. I think when you start a blog for that purpose you sort of need to be prepared for that.

Jennie said...

Elena,
"I don't get why Christian women ( and Jennie isn't the first or only one)create blogs for the sole purpose of bashing Catholicism"

I don't know if I can explain in this small space why I have been exploring the subject of Roman Catholicism; I've said a little about it in the past in comments on your blog, Elena, and in some of my posts. I didn't just wake up one day and decide to 'go after' catholicism; First of all, I was raised catholic until I was about 10 years old; my mother was raised Catholic, and all her family was and is Catholic.
Secondly, a close family member, who was also a child when we left the catholic church, several years ago re-entered it along with his wife and children, and that bothered me because I had learned things that made it hard for me to accept. Before that I had been vaguely receptive of some catholic things: I was very admiring of Mother Theresa and Pope john Paul 2 and Saint Francis, for example.

I'm not sure exactly when and how that began to change, but something made me gradually begin to question everything. The questioning happened a little at a time and off and on, but at times there would be intense questions that I would research as they occured to me.
I was and am very interested in why people convert, because it puzzled me so much when someone close to me did so. I didn't understand why they could be so sure all the signs pointed that way when to me they all pointed the other way. ( I remember a time when a friend of mine who was a christian, I thought, converted to judaism so she could marry a jewish man. I was sitting in my parents' living room doing college homework, when all of a sudden I was sobbing deeply because it greived me so that she could renounce Christ.) It felt like that again for the catholic conversion because to me it was a different gospel.
I also couldn't understand the contradiction between the ecumenical movement that stressed what we have in common and the statements on both sides that stress that these are two different gospels; I had to get to the bottom of it.
Another contradiction that puzzled me was the different historical accounts of church history and of spcific figures like St. Patrick. I wanted to know where the church was during the medieval times, when the whole world seemed to be Catholic, as far as I knew. I wanted to know much more about history.
I don't know if this sheds any understanding on my reasons for blogging about this. Maybe I'll dig in a little more and write some more about it soon.

Jennie said...

Teresa,
Your post is interesting, as I had recently read about Nestorius, because I was researching about Mary being called the Mother of God. I don't agree that Catholics are 'entitled' to call Mary the Mother of God if they want to,b though I guess you mean the Catholic Church says it's ok to do it, but not to if your conscience
says no. Of course, I don't see that they have that authority.
I tend to wonder if Nestorius got into trouble because he was defending the faith against 'Mariolotry' and went too far trying to explain why she wasn't 'the Mother of God' but 'of Christ.' I think there are some things that can't be explained well outside of using the actual words of scripture, and we get into trouble trying to explain the unexplainable.
I was not impressed by the council's decision, and it struck me that the Ephesians were so ready to cheer their 'Theotokos' and denounce Nestorius, when in Paul's time the Ephesians were the same ones who were so angry at him for preaching Christ and denouncing their goddess Diana; they were shouting 'Great is Diana of the Ephesians!' a few centuries earlier. I'd be happy if they were cheering for Jesus being the only one worshipped.

Daughter of Wisdom said...

The question that should be asked by all sincere believers is, "When did Jesus become the Son of God?"
Was He the Son of God BEFORE His incarnation, or did He begin to be the Son of God at His birth through Mary?

If Christ became the Son of God only at His birth through Mary, then the Catholics are correct in saying that Mary is the Mother of God (although not the mother of the Father and Holy Spirit).

If Christ was the Son of God before His incarnation, then His Sonship pre-dates the existence of Mary, and thus she cannot lay any claim on His Sonship, because she had nothing to do with it.

According to the Psalmist David, who by the way lived about 1,000 years before Mary, speaks frequently about Jesus, as the Son.

"I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee" (Psalm 2:7).

"Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him" (Psalm 2:12).

"The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool" (Psalm 110:1).

Many are the Old Testament passages that speak of the pre-incarnate Jesus, and how He was going to come into the world as Messiah and Savior. Look at Psalm 22, and Isaiah 53! I love Malachi 4:2, "But unto you who fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall."

"But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands in Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been of old, from everlasting" (Micah 5:2).

It would seem that Jesus' Sonship was something that was determined long before Mary existed, and that Jesus pre-dated Mary:

"God, who at sundry times, and in dives manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds" (Hebrews 1:1-2).

Here is the thing: Mary was the Mother of Christ, the Messiah. She can claim that she was the one who brought the Messiah into the world. She was the one selected by God to bring the Messiah into the world, through the process of birth. She is however, not the mother of Christ, the Eternal King, and Son of God. Christ was King, Ruler, and Creator of this earth long before there ever was a Mary. She is definitely no "Queen Mother" as she did not give birth to a king, as He was King prior to His incarnation. Christ however created Mary, and favored her as the instrument of His purpose, which was to come to earth as a human baby. She was blessed by God to carry this Holy Child, and we admire her willingness and submission to the will of God. I am sure it was not easy to submit, as she was not even married yet, and risked being branded as a "fornicator" by the unbelievers around her. The lesson for us is not that we should worship and honor Mary as a Divine being, but that we should emulate her submission to the will of God, come what may.

Elena said...

"Since Mary is Jesus’ mother, it must be concluded that she is also the Mother of God: If Mary is the mother of Jesus, and if Jesus is God, then Mary is the Mother of God. There is no way out of this logical syllogism, the valid form of which has been recognized by classical logicians since before the time of Christ.

Although Mary is the Mother of God, she is not his mother in the sense that she is older than God or the source of her Son’s divinity, for she is neither. Rather, we say that she is the Mother of God in the sense that she carried in her womb a divine person—Jesus Christ, God "in the flesh" (2 John 7, cf. John 1:14)—and in the sense that she contributed the genetic matter to the human form God took in Jesus Christ.


To avoid this conclusion, Fundamentalists often assert that Mary did not carry God in her womb, but only carried Christ’s human nature. This assertion reinvents a heresy from the fifth century known as Nestorianism, which runs aground on the fact that a mother does not merely carry the human nature of her child in her womb. Rather, she carries the person of her child. Women do not give birth to human natures; they give birth to persons. Mary thus carried and gave birth to the person of Jesus Christ, and the person she gave birth to was God.

The Nestorian claim that Mary did not give birth to the unified person of Jesus Christ attempts to separate Christ’s human nature from his divine nature, creating two separate and distinct persons—one divine and one human—united in a loose affiliation. It is therefore a Christological heresy, which even the Protestant Reformers recognized. Both Martin Luther and John Calvin insisted on Mary’s divine maternity. In fact, it even appears that Nestorius himself may not have believed the heresy named after him. Further, the "Nestorian" church has now signed a joint declaration on Christology with the Catholic Church and recognizes Mary’s divine maternity, just as other Christians do.

Since denying that Mary is God’s mother implies doubt about Jesus’ divinity, it is clear why Christians (until recent times) have been unanimous in proclaiming Mary as Mother of God.

The Church Fathers, of course, agreed, and the following passages witness to their lively recognition of the sacred truth and great gift of divine maternity that was bestowed upon Mary, the humble handmaid of the Lord.

Catholic Answers

Daughter of Wisdom said...

Church Fathers may say this, and say that, but what does the Bible say about the nature of the incarnate Christ?

"Let this mind be in you, which wa also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon himself the form of a servant,and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion of man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even death of the cross" (Phillipians 2:5-8).

"But when the fullness of time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons' (Galatians 4:4).

"And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God" (1 John 4:3).

If Jesus had come to earth with his God nature, there was no way He could have died. He laid aside His immortality and took upon Himself mortality for our sakes, to pay our debt of sin on the cross. His earthly body functioned in the same way as our mortal bodies do. He hungered (Luke 4:2), got thirsty (John 19:28), got tired, slept, wept, etc. For in Jesus "we have not a high priest who cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin" (Hebrews 4:15). This was the greatest miracle of God for all times, in that He became a man in order to save man.

This may sound like heresy to some, but these words are taken directly from the Bible:
"Ye men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: Him being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain" (Acts 2:22-23). In this scripture Peter referred to Jesus as a "man approved by God."

To our finite minds, it is hard to understand how God could make Himself into a man. How Jesus could leave behind His Godly powers and nature and subject Himself to the evils of this world. His mission was to save mankind and glorify His Father in heaven. He totally depended upon His Father for all things. He said, "The words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake" (John 14: 10-11).

Here is the thing: While on earth He laid aside His Godly nature, but still retained his title - God. Now He is back in heaven reigning, with all His Godly powers restored (John 17: 4-5; Acts 2:30-36).

If we understood the risk Jesus took by coming to earth as a man, then we would truly appreciate the depth and breadth and height of His sacrifice for us!

Jennie said...

"The lesson for us is not that we should worship and honor Mary as a Divine being, but that we should emulate her submission to the will of God, come what may." I agree, Daughter of Wisdom, that this is what scripture teaches in regard to Mary.


"If Jesus had come to earth with his God nature, there was no way He could have died. He laid aside His immortality and took upon Himself mortality for our sakes"
Daughter of Wisdom, I think I agree with you here, as long as you are not saying that He ceased to BE God when He became a man. I'm not sure the word 'nature' is clearly communicating what scripture teaches. I believe He voluntarily left behind His glory when He took on human flesh, and He put off much of His power, which would be taken up again when He rose from the dead.


"To avoid this conclusion, Fundamentalists often assert that Mary did not carry God in her womb, but only carried Christ’s human nature. This assertion reinvents a heresy from the fifth century known as Nestorianism, which runs aground on the fact that a mother does not merely carry the human nature of her child in her womb."
I'm not sure if 'fundamentalists' really assert this or not. If they do, they are wrong; but I think it may be a misstatement or misunderstanding of what they are saying. I believe Mary did carry God in her womb, but the point is that Mary was created by Him before He became a man in her womb (by the power of the Triune God of which He is a member) so SCRIPTURE NEVER CALLS HER THE MOTHER OF GOD BECAUSE THIS IMPLIES DIVINITY ON HER PART. She only became His mother when He became a man, but he was eternally God before she existed. This is the mystery of the incarnation.

Daughter of Wisdom said...

Jennie,
I totally agree with you. I know in whom I have believed and in whom my faith rests, that is, Jesus, the Son of God. The nature of Christ will always be controversial. The truth is, we really do not know how God turned Himself into a man. All we know is that He did it, and I agree, this is the mystery of the incarnation.

I am wrapping up this conversation now. It was great being a part of this experience. I got to sharpen my Biblical skills a lot, and got to see other points of view in a non-confrontational way. It was great! I will check back from time to time for more interesting topics.

Jennie said...

Thanks Daughter of Wisdom,
I appreciate your comments here; I also love Malachi 4:2-3 where it says 'The Sun of Righteousness shall arise with healing in His wings' It's my favorite passage!

Moonshadow said...

I'll sign off too but hope to see, if Marian veneration is such an affront to God, how God's judgment is manifest against the Catholic church.

I, too, am very interested in why sincere people convert or switch denominations. It is perplexing, even disturbing, for family and friends.

But I thank God for the freedom of religion that we enjoy in the United States. That's what I'm trying to promote here, in the least.

Keep reading history, Jennie. I feel as if we repeated history in our little discussion here.

Peace of Christ.

Jennie said...

Thanks Teresa,
I'd like to talk about your judgment question in another post soon if you'd like to come back and discuss it.
Yes, our discussion shows that the age-old differences still exist between the catholic teaching and the protestant teaching.
I too am thankful to God for our freedom here; I wonder how much longer it will remain.

Leo said...

Okay, here is the start of my humble attempt to express the Catholic Faith and why we believe some of what we do and why it does not contradict Scripture. Please refrain from carpet bombing with rebuttals and listen with an open heart to see what we believe. May the Holy Spirit guide us in this endeavor.

We view ourselves as the family of God. It is not just 'me and Jesus'; it is about a covenant relationship between God and His creation. God humbled Himself to share in our humanity so that we might some day share in His divinity. However, we are His adopted children and we are not God. We only worship and adore God alone: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

On the other hand, we glorify God by venerating Mary and the Saints in heaven. This in no way detracts from God and His glory because we recognize the difference between God and His creation as clearly as we recognize the difference between night and day. Imagine going to an art show and greatly admiring a brilliant work of art. Does anyone really believe that the artist would jump between you and his painting, yelling,"Wait look at me! Look at me instead?" Of course not, that would be silly. Anyone can see that the artist would be glorified by our admiration of his handiwork. Even praising him for his work would probably not give the artist more satisfaction than watching us 'oohing and aahing' in front of his painting. No one would dream that the artwork created itself and deserved any praise unto itself.

Likewise, when we have paintings, sculptures and statues of these individuals, it is no different than carrying around pictures of our family...for indeed they are our elder brothers and sisters in Christ.

We also believe that all Christians have not only the right, but the obligation to intercede for others. Although Jesus Christ is the only mediator between God and man, we know that the prayers of a righteous person are effective before God. We pray for each other and we especially ask the Saints in heaven to pray for us as well. They also possess the same gifts in heaven that they were given on earth. This is why we pray to certain Saints for certain things. Incidentally, to pray is simply to make a request. In the British legal system, one says "I pray the court" when asking for something. For a Saint to be canonized, typically requires witness of an exemplary holiness and two confirmed miracles. One must be after death, to show that God is still working through that person in heaven. Even the evidoers can perform miracles in Christ's name while living. Revelation 5:8 talks about the golden bowls of incense which are the prayers of the Saints.

This brings us to Mary, which I will cover next, to show her from Genesis through Revelation and in between. Stay tuned...

Daughter of Wisdom said...

Hi Leo, thanks for your commendation in the post about William Webster, where you were trying to explain the salvation of non Christians.

As a lifelong Prostestant, I do not know much about Roman Catholicism, and I am willing to read what you have to say. I really admire your persistence in trying to espouse the doctrines of your church which you believe to be true; but to be honest with you, much of what you have said in the above post, will seem strange to Prostestants, especially Prostestants who are deeply rooted in the plain scriptures, us Sola Scriptura Christians.

Let us see, and I speak for myself only, what you have to offer here. If it is of God, it will stand up to scripture, if is not, it will fail scripture. That is how we Protestants view things. Our standard is the Word of God, by which all other standards are judged.

Jennie said...

Leo,
I'm interested in what you have to say, but just a thought: who are the scriptures revealing as a whole, Christ or Mary? Are we to dig in scripture to find Mary, or to find Christ? Are we to spend our time making excuses why we are trying to come to God by a different gate or way than He has revealed to us, or to spend our time at His feet hearing His word that reveals Him?

Leo said...

Jennie,

I asked for the courtesy to complete my thoughts so that all could see a more complete picture.
We are "to dig in scripture" to find whatever is actually there, not to justify our preconceived notions about Mary, or anyone or anything else, for that matter.

We are not making "excuses" and we are not trying "to come to God by a different gate or way than He has revealed to us". I am asking you and the others reading this to actually listening with an open mind and heart to what we in the Church believe and claim that His word really reveals.

As Daughter of Wisdom said, if this is of God, it will stand up to Scripture and to the test of time. Truth is Truth and there is nothing to be afraid of. Please allow me to continue.

Leo said...

My apologies to all for the delay, but I will continue tonight, hopefully...too busy right now...

Leo said...

Ever notice how Satan seems to jump in and interfere when you try to share Truth? I have had problems galore with my computer since starting this piece...

Anyway, back to the family of God. We view God the Father as both loving and merciful. Scripture says our souls cry out "Abba" which probably best translates as "Daddy". The meaning of this verse became personal to me when a brother in Christ related his experience in the Holy Land.

He was at the beach and he saw a little two year-old boy running towards his father with a big smile and his little arms outstretched, crying "Abba, Abba". If we come to Him as a little child, He will indeed be our "Abba". Jesus teaches us how to pray...."Our Father..."

We as Catholics like to pray "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Amen", calling upon all three persons of the Blessed Trinity. We also keep crucifixes to remind us not of the empty cross, but of what Jesus sacrificed for us. Paul said, " I preach only Christ crucified."

Of course, we pray individually to Jesus and the Holy Spirit as well. Our requests are usually "Through Christ our Lord."

As Jesus said, "God is not the God of the dead, but of the living." Again, the saints in heaven are as real to us as our fellow worshippers at church.

Now let's go to Genesis to see how it is God Himself who uses Mary as part of His salvation plan...Notice that when God spoke to the serpent in the Garden of Eden, He said, "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers." The enmity begins between Satan and Mary, since she is the woman and Jesus is the one who strikes at Satan's head. He could have just as easily left 'the woman' out, but apprarently deemed it important enough to identify her as a major antagonist to Satan.

Let's now fast forward to the time of the tribes of Israel and Judah. We know from Scripture that Jesus is the Lion of Judah and that He is a descendant of King David. This is a key piece of information, because there is something quite unusual and exraordinary that took place only in the tribe of Judah and not in Israel or the other satraps.

The very first descendant to the throne of David was Solomon, and if we read 1Kings 2:19-20, we see that Solomon placed a throne next to his and gave it to his mother Bathsheba and she was given the title and position of queen mother. Notice that the king made it clear that He would not refuse His mother any request.

Jennie, you mentioned this passage in this blog and you laughed it off as a trite little story unto itself which some poor misinterpreters used to justify making Mary into some Queen Mother and as our hope instead of the King himself.

What you apparently failed to see in your exegesis is the importance of this role in the kingdom of Judah. This was known as the mercy seat and the servants of the king went to the queen mother for special requests and she would, in turn, pass on their requests to the king.

Another key point is that the queen mother would rule as second in authority to the king and she would rule until she died. In one case, the grandmother was still alive and she continued to rule as queen mother until her death.

This point was important enough that when we read about the kingdom of Judah, whenever the new king is mentioned, so is the queen mother. Here are some examples: 1Kings 14:21 "Rehoboam, son of Solomon, reigned in Judah...His mother was the Ammonite named Naamah." Continued on the next post.

Leo said...

Turn to 1 Kings 14:31 "Rehoboam rested with his ancestors...His son Abijam succeeded him as king...15:2 "His mother's name was Maacah."

1 Kings 15:8 "Abijam rested with his ancestors." v.9 "Asa, king of Judah began to reign." v.10 "His grandmother's name was Maacah."

1 Kings 22:41 "Jehoshaphat, son of Asa, began to reign over Judah..." His mother's name was Azubah..."

2 Kings 8:19 "...the Lord was unwilling to destroy Judah, because of his servant David. For he had promised David that he would leave him a lamp in the Lord's presence for all time."
(Foreshadows Christ as the Lion of Judah)

2 Kings 10:12 "...We are going down to visit the princes and the family of the queen mother."

2 Kings 8: 25-26

2 Kings 11:1

2 Kings 14:1-2

2 Kings 15:1-2

Skip some and go to a couple of examples in Chronicles...

2 Chron 20:31

2 Chron 22:2

2 Chron 22:10

2 Chron 24:1

Skip a bunch more...

Go to Jeremiah and he then talks about the king who will be exiled and the queen mother as well, and then thus it happened. It seemed that Judah was gone but, yet, God promised to leave a lamp for all time for David's sake.

Oh heck, the point is that God saw fit to make it ABUNDANTLY clear that only the kingdom of Judah had a queen mother...not Israel. It is also important that Jesus is a descendant of David of the line of Judah. The queen mother role is archetypical for the role of Mary.

Please keep reading without looking for counterattack verses to find ways to discredit Mary. I am trying to show that you are fighting Jesus Himself when you attack His Mother. But, you need to hear more of the story...thanks in advance for your kind attention, brothers and sisters in Christ!

Okay, Let's go to the Gospel of Luke.

Please pay attention carefully...

Luke 1:28 The angel Gabriel addressed her as "Hail, full of grace."

Luke 1:32-33 "...the Lord God will give him the throne of David his father, and he will rule over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end."

Okay, the lamp is, in fact, burning as a result of God's promise to David. It is clear that the kingdom of David will now have no end with Jesus as king. Guess who the queen mother is. Mary...and, since the queen mother sits at the side of the king until she dies, guess how long that is.

Please keep reading. It gets better but ponder carefully. They had no phones, so Elizabeth had no way of knowing that Mary was now pregnant, much less with the King of the Universe.

Luke 1:41 "When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the infant leaped in her womb,and Elizabeth, filled with the Holy Spirit, cried out in a loud voice and said, 'Most blessed are you among women and blessed is the fruit of your womb. And how does it happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For at the moment the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy. Blessed are you who believed that what was spoken to you by the Lord would be fulfilled."

Notice that Elizabeth was 'filled with the Holy Spirit', so it was God speaking through her. Note also that Mary was 'most blessed among women'. Read carefully and you will see that Elizabeth honors the fact that "the mother of my Lord should come to me." Think about that for a moment. Mary is pregnant with Jesus, yet Elizabeth honors greatly the fact that the mother of the Lord has come to her. Why not 'how does it happen that my Lord has come to me? And, since she is filled with the Holy Spirit, it is God Himself who is honoring His creation for saying yes and playing a key role in God's salvation plan. Think back to the artist who just finished a masterpiece and now steps back to admire his own work...

In fact, this is where the "Hail Mary" prayer comes from...'Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou amongst women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus...sounds pretty scriptural to me...

To be continued tomorrow...

Jennie said...

Leo,
please give me an example from scripture where a king of Judah puts his mother on a throne and she intercedes for people.
Show me in scripture where you got the idea that the queen mother traditionally sat on a throne and it was called the mercy seat.
The only mercy seat in the bible is the one that is described as being the lid of the Ark of the covenant, which seat represents Christ as our intercessor.

Jennie said...

please give me an example from scripture where a king of Judah puts his mother on a throne and she intercedes for people.
Obviously I mean besides the one example of Bathsheba and Adonijah that ended in death.

Daughter of Wisdom said...

Finally! We get to read what you have to say. I like your intro about God being our Father. That is so true, both Biblically and spiritually (I guess you pass the scripture test here).

Now that verse in Genesis 3:15 (NIV):
"And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel."


Here God is speaking both literally and figuratively. He is speaking literally because Satan had just deceived Eve, the woman, and God was not about to let Eve become a part of Satan's kingdom. He was not going to let what had occurred cause Him to lose Eve and the whole human race to Satan, on account of Eve's mishap. There is a definite enemity or division between the human race and the devil that continues to this day. Satan is opposed to humanity and we have become victims to his schemes and deceptions except through the love and power of Christ, by whom we are able to fight back against him.

God is also speaking figuratively, because He has limited the offspring of Eve to just one person, and the offspring of Satan to just one person. Yet we know that Eve had many children, i.e. the whole human race, and that Satan has many children, i.e the giants in Genesis 6: 1-6, and all persons who obey the devil in sinning against God and opposing Him. To the Jews who opposed Him, Christ said, "You belong to your father, the devil" (John 8:44). God is therefore using symbolic language here in Genesis 3:15 to make a prophecy of what is to come. The "woman" here prophesied could very well be Mary and her offspring Jesus, but it could also be the church or the nation of Israel. As a matter of fact, the nation of Israel is usually personified as a woman in scripture. In Jeremiah 6:2 we read where God says,"I have likened the daughter of Zion to a lovely and delicate woman" (NKJV).

"Son of man, cause Jerusalem to know HER abominations" (Ezekiel 16:2).

"For thy Maker is thine husband the Lord of hosts is his name and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel the God of the whole earth shall he be called. For the LORD hath called thee as a WOMAN forsaken and grieved in spirit, and a wife of youth, when thou wast refused, saith thy God." (Isaiah 54:5-6).

The same personification is carried over into the New Testament when referring to the Church.


Jesus Christ was the promised seed that came out of the nation of Israel. Abraham was known as the father of the faithful, and the progenitor of the nation of Israel. It was through Abraham that God was going to send the seed of the woman. "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many, but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ" (Galatians 3:16).

Leo, Now before I get carried away with evaluating your statement anymore, I would like to ask Jennie if I could continue. I need her approval to continue.

Jennie,
Do you like what I said above and can I continue? :-)

Peace and blessings

Daughter of Wisdom said...

Yes Jennie, if you may, I would like to prove Biblically to Leo the Biblical and non Biblical concept of queen mother, which is a tradition of men not necessarily of God (does not mean that this tradition is wrong, but that it is not really a Biblical doctrine, but a worldly practice).

Leo said...

Daughter of Wisdom,

Remember that I am trying to explain what we Catholics truly believe and why we believe it. It really is important to read everything I say so you get the whole picture, in context, so it makes more sense.

One analogy to Scripture is that it is like a jigsaw puzzle. All of the individual pieces fit together in one precise way, yet when assembled, it becomes a picture. Christ revealed how a significant number of the puzzle pieces fit through His Church and showed us the picture and this helps us immensely to put the pieces in the right place.

The problem with the "Sola Scriptura" approach is that different people pick up different pieces and try to guess the picture without having all of the pieces. It's like trying to put the puzzle together upside down.

Anyway, I lead a Scripture study men's group and I need to go. Yes, even Catholics read Scripture, lol...not many, though...

You did touch on one offspring, though, so you can see how Mary fits. If Eve, then Cain makes no sense because he was the serpent's offspring. We are speaking figuratively, as you said. Actually, to digress, the spiritual descendants are broken up into two camps...the Sethites and the Canaanites(guess who they were pridefully named after...yep, Cain)

Gotta run...PLease let me continue the story later to see the whole puzzle picture, let's not argue that it's all sky or trees yet. And I will not forget you Jennie, either.

Daughter of Wisdom said...

Leo,

I apologize, but I DO SEE where Mary fits into the picture, it is just that she is not the whole picture. There is always a bigger and broader application to Biblical prophecy. There is the literal and the symbolic, and everything in between.

Have a great time at Bible study. May you be blessed as you study God's word.

Moonshadow said...

even Catholics read Scripture ... I lead a Scripture study men's group

No doubt, Leo, but why is it a men's study group? Why isn't it men and women, even men and their wives?

Leo said...

Moonshadow, there is a good reason for having men's and women's study groups because we can better deal with issues openly. Men and women do see things differently by our nature. Our sinful tendencies also tend to be in different ways. We also typically act quite differently when members of the opposite sex are present.

Jennie said...

Hillary,
Please go ahead:)

Jennie said...

Leo,
a couple of points:
Oh heck, the point is that God saw fit to make it ABUNDANTLY clear that only the kingdom of Judah had a queen mother...not Israel.
It is not true that Israel's queen mothers are not mentioned like Judah's were. If you look at the geneologies of the kings of Israel in Kings and Chronicles, there are mothers listed there, too.

Another point:
If you read the passages that mention the queen mothers, almost all of them mention something evil that that queen had done or had influenced her son to do. This is not a good legacy, any more than the story I mentioned of Adonijah.
As Hillary said, the Queen mother tradition was a worldly tradition presumably because people would try to manipulate the King by using his love for his mother as leverage instead of coming openly to his throne.

Jennie said...

Notice that Solomon did NOT grant Bathsheba's request after he heard what it was, and that it made him very angry, and ended in the supplicant's death.

Jennie said...

Hebrews 4:
14 Seeing then that we have a great High Priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. 15 For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin. 16 Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need.

Jennie said...

Leo,
I don't agree to not interject my thoughts, by the way, since it would be too hard for people to compare our views if I wait until the end to give my thoughts.

I am trying to show that you are fighting Jesus Himself when you attack His Mother.
I am not attacking His mother, but the RCC teachings about her. I don't believe your idea of Mary is the same one seen in scripture.

Luke 1:28 The angel Gabriel addressed her as "Hail, full of grace."
There is plenty of debate about the meaning of the Greek words that make up the original text, here. It has been debated (and I'm no expert on this so I leave it to others) that the Greek words mean something like 'highly favored one' or 'one shown much grace'. Grace meaning God is pleased with her, and is showing her a great blessing because of her faith in Him. See this page(it's very long, and please excuse the opinions of the writers about the catholic teachings on the words) http://www.ichthys.com/mail-Mary-full-of-grace.html

Luke 1:41 "When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the infant leaped in her womb,and Elizabeth, filled with the Holy Spirit, cried out in a loud voice and said, 'Most blessed are you among women and blessed is the fruit of your womb. And how does it happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
We have no problem with the biblical story, that Elizabeth was filled with the Spirit and recognized Mary as the mother of the Lord. She was and is His mother. But the Spirit, notice, did not inspire Elizabeth to say 'The mother of my God' as Catholics like to call her. She is to be honored only as God's word shows us, and no more.

Jennie said...

This does not mean the bible (or protestants) is saying that Jesus is not God, but that Mary is not to be called the mother of God, because it IMPLIES motherhood over the entire Godhead; even though people may know this isn't the case, over time it can become corrupted in people's minds, just as the practice of using statues can lead to idolatry, and so is forbidden, because God knows the tendencies of the human heart. These commands are there for our safety against sin, and are not to be excused away.

Daughter of Wisdom said...

Thanks Jennie.

Okay Leo I get your point about the queen mother but I am sorry to disappoint you, but there is nothing special or unusual about Solomon making his mother the queen mother. Prior to Israel becoming a kingdom, the Israelites were slaves in Egypt, and in the Egyptian monarchy, the queen mother played a vital role in government, often as spiritual head of the nation, or overseer of a king who was too young to rule effectively (those boy-kings). Just go to Wikipedia and look up "Egyptian queens" and you will see the role that queen mothers played in that society.

The nation of Israel was a holy nation, and was run under a different Constitution than Egypt. Nowhere in the Constitution of the nation of Israel (The Law of Moses) did the queen mother have any legal right under the law, in government. Search out the law of Moses for yourself, and if you find it, please let me know.

Next, this idea of a monarchy was not God's idea in the first place. God was satisfied to rule Israel by direct rule, using judges and prophets, but the people were not satisfied with this. They wanted to be like the other pagan nations around them, with a monarchy. Under God's old system, ANYONE could rise to the postion of judge or prophet, regardless of tribal descent, regardless of gender. Under the monarchy, only men could rule and succession was passed down through family lineage. So we see the Israelites adopting a pagan form of government much to God's displeasure, but He permitted it anyway (See 1 Samuel 8).

See next post for Queen mothers behaving badly.

Moonshadow said...

I’ve read your comments, Leo. Did you read the existing comments to this post before you started posting? Just wondering.

Scripture says our souls cry out "Abba" which probably best translates as "Daddy".

Absolutely not. Totally unacceptable translation.

The enmity begins between Satan and Mary

The typology doesn’t work because nothing in the rest of the Bible makes this connection or interpretation, you see.

almost all of them mention something evil that that queen had done ... This is not a good legacy

And almost all the kings were sinners, as well.

Jesus, as the last Adam, is immune. Read the beginning chapters of John's Gospel: it really is God's RE-creation story ("the next day," "the next day," etc.), complete with the "mother of Jesus!"

there is a good reason for having men's and women's study groups

Is it a Bible study or group therapy? I just want to know.

this idea of a monarchy was not God's idea

Right, but He worked with it.

Daughter of Wisdom said...

Queen Mothers Behaving Badly:

Jezebel, wife of king Ahab and mother of king Joram of Israel. Known for ursurping the power of the monarchy,and ruling for her husband at times. Acted as spiritual leader, and led the children of Israel into idolatry. Was a known adultress.

"And it came to pass, when Joram saw Jehu, that he said, Is it peace Jehu? And he answered, What peace, so long as the whoredoms of thy mother Jezebel and her witchcrafts are so many?" (2 Kings 9:22).

Athaliah: wife of king Jehoram, and mother of king Ahaziah of Judah (2 Kings 8:25-26). When her son, Ahaziah died, she had all the male members of the royal family killed, including her husband's children, except for Joash, who was secreted away by his aunt(2 Kings 11:1-2). Athaliah did this so that she could be ruler of Judah. She made sure to kill off all the males, because legally, any male relative of the king could claim the throne.

"When Athaliah the mother of Ahaziah saw that her son was dead, she proceeded to destroy the whole royal family. 2 But Jehosheba, the daughter of King Jehoram and sister of Ahaziah, took Joash son of Ahaziah and stole him away from among the royal princes, who were about to be murdered. She put him and his nurse in a bedroom to hide him from Athaliah; so he was not killed. 3 He remained hidden with his nurse at the temple of the LORD for six years while Athaliah ruled the land"(2 Kings 11: 1-3).

The point I am making is that the position of queen mother held no legal status in Israel. The queens had to seize power if they wanted it. Now Solomon did not have to make his mother queen mother, because she already was, because she was his mother. He gave her a special seat beside him, as a way to honor his mother. The commandment says, "Honour thy father and mother, that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee" (Exodus 20:12). Bathsheba had made a request to the king for Adonijah, but the request was denied. She really had no authority in the kingdom, nor in government. That was just the law.

Leo said...

Daughter of Wisdom said...
Leo,

I apologize, but I DO SEE where Mary fits into the picture, it is just that she is not the whole picture.

I never said she was.

Leo said...

Jennie said...
This does not mean the bible (or protestants) is saying that Jesus is not God, but that Mary is not to be called the mother of God, because it IMPLIES motherhood over the entire Godhead;

Really? When the media regularly talked about Barbara Bush being the mother of President Bush, did we confuse her as the mother of the Presidency? We would have been pretty naive and ignorant of the Presidency to believe that, now wouldn't we? There is a level of common sense that needs to play into this, you know.

You claim that you are the mother of your children, yet their souls did not originate from you. Yet, you have no problem calling yourself the mother of the whole person.

Well, think of it this way. We are body and soul. Jesus is body and God.

Leo said...

Daughter of Wisdom said...
Yes Jennie, if you may, I would like to prove Biblically to Leo the Biblical and non Biblical concept of queen mother, which is a tradition of men not necessarily of God

DOW, I never said it was not a human concept too. It had plenty of precedence. This was just to show that there was authority in Judah, starting with Bathsheba. You simply cannot discount it. The arguments about evil queen mothers is baseless. You may as well discount Jesus too because of the evil kings...

Jennie said...

Leo,
You did not include my entire statement: I went on to say
'even though people may know this isn't the case, over time it can become corrupted in people's minds, just as the practice of using statues can lead to idolatry, and so is forbidden, because God knows the tendencies of the human heart. These commands are there for our safety against sin, and are not to be excused away.'
Even though many people may know that Mary is not the mother of the Trinity, the idea of someone being the mother of God can put people in danger of idolatry as ideas develop and change and grow. People are easily led astray in that area.

Leo said...

Jennie,

It is pretty clear that you have a personal bias against Mary. Your regular snipes make that quite clear.

Let me stay in the Gospel of Luke and issue you a challenge.

Luke 1:46 "And Mary said, my sout doth magnify the Lord..."

To magnify is to bring into clarity and to make larger, which she does for Jesus Christ.

1:48 "...behold, from now on will all ages call me blessed."

What is the ONLY Church that fulfills scripture and calls her Blessed Virgin Mary?

Here is my challenge. Try calling her Blessed Virgin Mary.

If you find yourself unable to, you should ask yourself why. The Holy Spirit is perfectly content to do so.

Leo said...

Jennie said,

using statues can lead to idolatry, and so is forbidden

Where is it forbidden? In the same chapter that commands the graven images on the Ark?

Leo said...

Moonshadow said, "Scripture says our souls cry out "Abba" which probably best translates as "Daddy".

Absolutely not. Totally unacceptable translation.

Really? the more we act like little children before him, the more He will be our loving Father. If we act like a rebellious teenager in disobedience, then we shall surely see another side of Him.

I like to think about our Mother the Church this way. When we start out, we are in our spiritual 'terrible twos'. Eventually, we become spiritual teenagers and we say, "Mom, you're 2000 years old, you just don't get it how things are today".

Eventually, by the grace of God we become spiritual adults and realize that our mother was right all along.

Leo said...

Regarding Mary as the 'Woman' from Genesis, let's go to the Gospel of John Chapter 2. Who did they go to? Jesus or Mary? And what did Mary do? She described the problem to Jesus. She did not tell Him how to solve it, but just laid it before Him. She was calling Him to His first miracle and He knew full well that this was the beginning of the march to Calvary.

His response was interesting. He called her 'Woman', which was not a sign of disrespect. He was referring to the 'Woman' from Genesis. That is not all. The response He gave her is the exact same as the response given to Him by demons about to be cast out by Him. The best translation is "What is it you will have me do, knowing that I will respect your wishes because it is you who have asked it."

Notice also her command. "Do whatever He tells you." This is the only command she ever gives us. It is her role to lead us to Jesus Christ and Him alone.

Let me also dispel two common red herrings thrown at Catholics.

The first is when the woman says,"blessed is the womb that bore you and the breasts that nursed you" and He replied "blessed rather are they who hear the word of God and obey it."

He simply meant, yes, she is blessed, but not for the reason given. He wanted them to know WHY she was blessed. It is for her perfect obedience. This was the same concept He used when called "Good teacher". He replied, "Why do you call me good? Only God is good." He was not denying His divinity. He was trying to reinforce it.

The other red herring is "Who are my mother and brothers and sisters, but those who hear the word of God and obey it." Same concept.

Moonshadow said...

Absolutely not. Totally unacceptable translation.

Really?

Yes, really.

Which English version renders it as you? Peterson comes closest with "Papa" ... which goes for the Holy Father just fine ... but not God the Father.

See the difference?

Jennie said...

Where is it forbidden? In the same chapter that commands the graven images on the Ark?

Exodus 20 4 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; 5 you shall not bow down to them nor serve them."

'You shall not make for yourself' means take it upon yourself to make an image 'to bow down to or serve.'

Jennie said...

Leo,
It is pretty clear that you have a personal bias against Mary. Your regular snipes make that quite clear.

Try calling her Blessed Virgin Mary.

If you find yourself unable to, you should ask yourself why. The Holy Spirit is perfectly content to do so.


I have a 'bias' against the unscriptural teachings and practices of the Roman Catholic Church about Mary.
I will call her the blessed mother of my Lord. She is the mother of more than one child by her husband, Joseph, as is taught in scripture. I've already talked about this in the other post about Mary as the Ark of the Covenant, so I don't want to debate the issue anymore. The Holy Spirit calls her 'blessed' and 'the mother of the Lord' and 'highly favored' and that is what I say.

Jennie said...

Leo,
The response He gave her is the exact same as the response given to Him by demons about to be cast out by Him. The best translation is "What is it you will have me do, knowing that I will respect your wishes because it is you who have asked it."
Are you comparing Jesus' response to His mother to the response of demons?
Do you suggest that Jesus is forced to obey His mother because of who she is just as demons are forced to obey Jesus because of who He is?

Moonshadow said...

the exact same as the response given to Him by demons
Are you comparing Jesus' response to His mother to the response of demons?

I don't think Leo is saying that Jesus is obliged to obey his mother.

The expression is the same in Mark 1:24 and John 2:4, but not word-for-word exact because of plural vs. singular pronouns (the demons are "us" and Jesus is "me"). To my mind, use of the common Semitic expression does much to ground the Gospels in the history and culture of Jesus' day. But it does nothing to establish authority and chain of command within the Holy Family. Sorry, Leo.

I am trying to show that you are fighting Jesus Himself when you attack His Mother.
I am not attacking His mother, but the RCC teachings about her.


I don't know if you read the excerpt from Mark Noll's book, Jennie, that I posted a link to, but Catholics see attacks on the Church as an attack on Christ Himself. Or, put another way, as Wiki does -

" in Catholic ecclesiology, ... the Church is Mystici Corporis Christi, the mystical body of Christ, therefore to honour the Church is to honour Jesus himself."

I offer these because I believe you two are on the verge of offending each other.

Peace of Christ to you.

Daughter of Wisdom said...

Leo said:
"He called her 'Woman', which was not a sign of disrespect. He was referring to the 'Woman' from Genesis."

Okay Leo, I am ready to concede to you that Mary was the literal woman mentioned prophetically in Genesis 3:15, but you must also remember that the prophetic woman of Genesis 3:25 is also the symbolic woman which is the church. The hatred that Satan has is not just limited to Mary, but ALL followers of Christ, which by the way includes Mary. All followers of Christ, including Mary, are members of Christ's body, the church, which is referred to as "woman" or "bride" or "wife" in scripture.

Ephesians 5:30-32 (NIV)

"30for we are members of his body. 31"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."[b] 32This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church."


Another thing, Jesus also called the Samaritan woman at the well "Woman" see John 4:21.

It would seem that the title "Woman" was a respectful way in that culture to address women, in much the same way we address women as "Ma'am" or "Miss" or "Ms." or "Mrs." This is my guess, I am no authority here. Maybe some theologian reading this can verify this for me.

Moonshadow said...

The Holy Spirit calls her 'blessed' and 'the mother of the Lord' and 'highly favored' and that is what I say.

And, yet, the believer(s) who crafted the Apostles Creed called her "Virgin Mary" - virgin, but not blessed.

Is the ancient Creed incorrect? Curious what folks think.

Daughter of Wisdom said...

Correction: the prophetic woman of Genesis 3:15 is also the symbolic woman which is the church (not Genesis 3:25 as stated previously). A typo, which I meant to change but I pushed the publish button instead.

Daughter of Wisdom said...

So as not to confuse anyone:

The literal woman of Genesis 3:15 is Eve.

The prophetic woman of Genesis 3:15 is Mary in a limited sense, but refers to the church in the larger sense. That is my conclusion.

Daughter of Wisdom said...

Teresa,

Just to remind us. Can you print an excerpt from the Apostle's Creed for us, who may not be too familiar with it. We hardly ever use it at my church.

Thank you so much!

Blessings

Moonshadow said...

This is from Wiki, an ecumenical version in English:

I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, God's only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again;
he ascended into heaven,
he is seated at the right hand of the Father,
and he will come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.

Moonshadow said...

BTW, Hillary, I understood your words about Gen. 3:15 just fine, Eve, Mary and the church.

Daughter of Wisdom said...

Thank you so much Teresa. It would seem like the word "blessed" was never meant to be a title at all! In my mind, as a Prostestant, the word "blessed" means "happy" or "favored by God." I am sure ALL CHRISTIANS think of Mary this way. We think of her being happy to do God's will and to bear His Son, and favored by God as one honored with the privilege of doing this. Her magnificat speaks to her joy.

Luke 1:46-55 (New International Version)
46And Mary said: "My soul glorifies the Lord
47and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
48for he has been mindful of the humble state of his servant.
From now on all generations will call me blessed,
49for the Mighty One has done great things for me— holy is his name.
50His mercy extends to those who fear him, from generation to generation.
51He has performed mighty deeds with his arm; he has scattered those who are proud in their inmost thoughts.
52He has brought down rulers from their thrones but has lifted up the humble.
53He has filled the hungry with good things but has sent the rich away empty.
54He has helped his servant Israel, remembering to be merciful
55to Abraham and his descendants forever,even as he said to our fathers."



Blessings :-)

Moonshadow said...

Now I thought that since "virgin" is capitalized in the creed, that indicated that it was a title, like Lord. (And I guess "Pontius" is a family name?)

My next comment is related to blessedness.

Moonshadow said...

Ah, so, a correction to what I said above:

I would add Jael to that litany of women graced enough to stamp out evil, Judges 4:21, immortalized in Deborah's song in the next chapter (Judges 5:24-27).

A decent article on "blessedness" can be found here. The article draws from the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Kittel, et. al.) and a commentary on Matthew's Gospel by M. Eugene Boring.

I don't think that I'm disagreeing with you, Hillary, on who is called "blessed."

Daughter of Wisdom said...

Jael is described as "blessed" because she killed somebody!

The honor that she would receive as a war hero would bring happiness and satisfaction to her life.

That article about blessedness describes the various states of man in which man is considered blessed: without cares, without problems, rich, the afterlife bliss, etc. It also talks about states of man in which Christ says one is blessed, but in our thinking, those states are far from happy, such as poor in spirit, poor, meek, etc.

It would seem to suggest that a state of blessedness is a state of joy that is independent of circumstances.

Great job Teresa!

Jennie said...

Teresa,
And, yet, the believer(s) who crafted the Apostles Creed called her "Virgin Mary" - virgin, but not blessed.
I think the Apostles' Creed is referring to the time of Jesus' birth. Doesn't it say 'born of the Virgin Mary' or something like that? She was a virgin when He was born; I have no problem with that, obviously. But those who crafted the creed were not inspired so I don't have to accept that as scripture.

Moonshadow said...

That's ok. Some Christians do accept it, however.

Is the creed incorrect or misunderstood by those who profess it?

I understand "virgin" as a title, derived from an early Christian tradition.

Jael killed someone evil.

Jennie said...

Teresa,
I don't know if you read the excerpt from Mark Noll's book, Jennie, that I posted a link to, but Catholics see attacks on the Church as an attack on Christ Himself.
I see what you are saying, but you must know from what I've said over all these weeks that protestants don't accept that the RCC is the body of Christ; and we see the traditions as opposing God's Word and therefore as BEING attacks on the true Word and the true Body of Christ.

Jennie said...

Hillary,
The literal woman of Genesis 3:15 is Eve.

The prophetic woman of Genesis 3:15 is Mary in a limited sense, but refers to the church in the larger sense. That is my conclusion.


I think that's the protestant understanding, which I agree with.
It goes along with what I said about Mary being foreshadowed in the Ark of the Covenant, that may be true, but that it and she also symbolize something else: the entire church which is comprised of saved Israel and the Gentile church.

Jennie said...

Teresa and Leo (and other Catholics who may read this),
I don't want you to think that I am being deliberately offensive when I speak of the RCC as I do. I have made a deliberate decision all along to be honest about my beliefs, while trying to show that I am concerned about Catholics themselves, because I can't help thinking that, if the RCC is teaching false doctrines, then I should not hold back speaking the truth as I see it in God's word. I don't have all the answers, but I do believe that what I have learned so far and what I have said are true according to God's word. And I'm still learning. Please notice and remember that I try to stick to comparing doctrines to God's word and not go after sensational and weird stories, which definitely abound.

Daughter of Wisdom said...

Jennie,

I think what you are doing is creating an open forum where Christians of all persuasions can discuss doctrinal differences. Many of the other Christian blogs I have visited have enabled the comment moderator, so that all opposing points of view are blocked, and only the views that they agree with are published.

Just like you, I do not use the comment moderator. I want people to feel free to express myself. I do not want to become a self-appointed judge of what is Truth. I fear that if I do that, I may be limiting the teaching of the Holy Spirit to my own pre-conceived ideas. I believe that we can all learn from each other. For example, this weekend, I learned from Leo that Mary is also represented prophetically in Genesis 3:15. Never thought of that before, but when compared with scripture, it does stand up. Christ is the seed of the woman. He is the seed of Eve, He is the seed of Mary, and He is the seed of God's spiritual wife - spiritual Israel.

Moonshadow said...

I may be limiting the teaching of the Holy Spirit to my own pre-conceived ideas.

I'm pretty sure that thought is what got me interested in this blog. Something about Abraham following the command of God even though it was contrary to God's eternal law (and the natural law).

I am [NOT] being deliberately offensive when I speak of the RCC

That's fine, of course. But just know that, because of how Catholics feel about the Church, they will come in defending the Catholic Church and you can't then say, "You are preaching the Church [or man or yourselves] instead of Christ," because there isn't any difference to us.

not go after sensational and weird stories, which definitely abound.

I'm not sure that I want to know exactly what you have in mind but I was listening to a preacher on the radio who was very careful to dot every 'i' and cross every 't' in his sermon. And it occurred to me that Catholicism is very vulnerable to criticism. In fact, when I was reading through the Pastorals this past spring with a group of Catholics, I remember being struck by how many verses I already knew, because they had been quoted to me by Protestants as proofs that Catholicism is false. I asked the study leader about it but he isn't one for giving answers.

However, I am actually turned off by things that are too tidy. Christ Himself was vulnerable unto death ... and anyone who belongs to Him is vulnerable as He was. And Catholicism may be vulnerable but when we are weak, then we are strong.

Peace of Christ to you.

Daughter of Wisdom said...

I just want to complete my comments on Mary. Although Christ was the seed of Mary, we must also remember that it was God who made Mary and it was God who gave Christ His human flesh (not Mary). In Hebrews 10:5, (NIV) we read:

"Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said: "Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me."

Christ's human body was from God,and not man. If God could create Adam from nothing, then He can most definitely give Christ a human body. How much genetic material, if any, God took from Mary WE DO NOT KNOW. All we know is that God implanted His Son in Mary's womb, to grow up as a human being. The conception process is best described in the KJV of the Bible.

"And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that HOLY THING which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God" (Luke 1:35).

Christ was placed within Mary by God. Christ received human flesh by God, and Mary became Christ's mother by the power of God. She had nothing to do with it, except obey.

Leo said...

Moonshadow,

My point about "Abba" was that a 2 year-old little boy running eagerly to his father with open arms to be picked up is something that he did innately. Our heavenly Father would do no less for us and wants us to be like that little boy.

I can tell you that I certainly see the Father that way especially after Confession or receiving the Eucharist, for it is at those times that He has just purified me and made me clean once again.

Leo said...

Jennie,

You need to understand that when you attack Mary, you are attacking my spiritual Mother that the Lord Jesus Christ has given to all believers. That is why I am defending her, as Moonshadow said. Go back to Luke and you will see that she is MOST blessed among women and blessed is the fruit of her womb. In other words, she is blessed as a title given by the Holy Spirit, as is Jesus. It is not in the sense of "Wow, were you blessed" Blessedness here refers to a being set apart...a holiness.

You sure don't treat her as having the highest Blessedness of ALL women by your comments and digs. Did not Jesus honor her AS His MOther? Are not we do do EXACTLY what Jesus did?

Moonshadow said...

I'm glad you are back commenting, Leo.

My point about "Abba"

And my point was based on what Fr. Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, O.P. told a bunch of us last week during a seminar: that "Abba" does not mean "Daddy" or "Papa," but "Father."

No Irish sentimentality for him.

Peace of Christ to you.

Jennie said...

Leo,
I have already said I am not attacking Mary, but questioning the Roman Catholic doctrine of Mary.
You are free to defend your doctrine, but you are defending something contrary to scripture.
In Luke, the Holy Spirit twice spoke and said the same thing: once by the Angel He said "Blessed are you among women" and once by Elizabeth, filled with the Spirit, He said "Blessed are you among women". He did not say 'most blessed' or 'blessed above all women'. It is the RCC who is changing what it says to suit their beliefs.

If we are to do as Jesus did, then I honor her as one who had faith and so obeyed God, and was an example of how the goodness of God is given to us. He gives us Himself, and fills us with Himself when we have faith and submit to His Word as she did.

Leo said...

You know, this reminds me of the lunar landing hoax conspiracy theorists. If you ever saw their conclusions, they had some very convincing arguments that supported their positions on first and even second glance. It took the show Mythbusters to show how each of those erroneous interpretations could jive with an actual lunar landing.

They had an interesting observation. The noted that the skeptics had 40 years to come up with enough credible evidence to plausibly deny the truth of what really happened. These hoaxers developed quite a following because what they showed, seemed to back their claims up.

Enemies of the Church have had
500+ years to come up with specious arguments and clever sophistry to mislead sincere believers.

It goes back to two camps on Scripture...those who are seeking to find out if what the Church has been teaching could possibly be true, and those who are ardently seeking to disprove what the Church has taught for 2000+ years.

Again, why is it that the deep Protestant theologians have consistently given study of the Fathers of the Church as their reason to cease to remain Protestant? Catholics who leave, usually do so because they either never understood the Faith or they refuse to accept some teaching.

By the way, those Catholics who receive the Eucharist while obstinately practicing contraception or other serious sins, tend to leave as well. God will not be mocked.

Leo said...

Here is another thought for you.

You claim Sola Scriptura, yet the Church was already on its 4th successor of Peter due to martyrdom, before all of the NT was even written.

Would you admit at least that it would make sense that Christ would leave a physical Church to infallibly protect the deposit of Faith?

Did not John also make it clear that there would not be enough room in the world to contain the books if everything Jesus did in those 3 years were written down? Too bad they didn't have Twitter...

Leo said...

Here's another interesting observation...

Did you know that in Satanic worship, their highest level of worship is the 'Black Mass'? It is not the 'Black worship service'.
Their highlight is to desecrate a consecrated host from a Catholic church.

Truth is Truth even if nobody believes it; Falsehood is falsehood even if everybody believes it...

Leo said...

Jennie said...
Where is it forbidden? In the same chapter that commands the graven images on the Ark?

Exodus 20 4 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; 5 you shall not bow down to them nor serve them."

Why not read a little further in Exodus?

"[The Lord said] make two cherubim of gold; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat. Make one cherub on the one end, and one cherub on the other end. . ." (Ex. 25:18-19).

"You shall make the tabernacle with . . . cherubim skillfully worked" (Ex. 26:1).

How about, ""The Lord said to Moses, `Make a fiery serpent, and set it on a pole; and every one who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live.' So Moses made a bronze serpent and set it on a pole" (Num. 21:8-9).

Or,

"He made two cherubim of olivewood, each ten cubits high. . . . He put the cherubim in the innermost part of the Temple . . . And he overlaid the cherubim with gold. He carved all the walls of the Temple round about with carved figures of cherubim and palm trees and open flowers" (1 Kgs. 6:23, 27-29).

Or perhaps, even,

"[The brazen sea] stood upon [statues of] twelve oxen, three facing north, three facing west, three facing south, and three facing east" (1 Kgs. 7:25).

"And on the surfaces of its stays and on its panels, he carved cherubim, lions, and palm trees, according to the space of each, with wreaths round about" (1 Kgs. 7:36).

So, God commanded that graven images be made...

Jennie, let me get this straight. Do you have any pictures of your family? What would you say to me if I accused you of worshipping those pictures?

Moonshadow said...

By the way, those Catholics who receive the Eucharist while obstinately practicing contraception or other serious sins, tend to leave as well. God will not be mocked.

I'll catch you up:

Earlier on this thread, Jennie called Mariology idolatry and blasphemy so I wondered, assuming that's the case, if God has judged it.

You take the view, Leo, that God punishes sin here & now. You would say all the idolaters eventually abandon the Catholic Church. I wish I could believe that. I'm just incredulous that people are surprised to find sinners in Christ's Church. Even today, the Teacher eats with sinners. Hallelujah!

Leo said...

Moonshadow,

Actually I probably did not explain myself well. Jesus will not separate the wheat from the chaff until the end. However, belief in the Eucharist is a gift that provides the peace that surpasses all understanding. Paul explained that those who received the Eucharist unworthily were sick or dead. This happens to many Catholics when they stop attending Mass. They begin to have many issues, troubles, etc., and do not realize that they are experiencing the effects of not receiving the Bread of Life anymore. I could not imagine trying to make it wihout the graces from attending Mass regularly. It is said that the graces received from one devoutly attended Mass are greater than all the prayers of all the angels and saints for all time.

Daughter of Wisdom said...

Leo said:

"The Church was already on its 4th successor of Peter due to martyrdom, before all of the NT was even written.

Would you admit at least that it would make sense that Christ would leave a physical Church to infallibly protect the deposit of Faith?"


Leo, had you meant to say: the church was already on its 4th successor of Peter due to martyrdom before all of the New Testament was cannonized?

From my understanding all the New Testament was written during the lifetime of the authors, but were cannonized in the Bible much, much later. The gospel of Matthew was written by Matthew the former tax collector, and disciple/apostle of Jesus. The gospel of Mark was written by John Mark, a convert to Christianity during the time of Paul. The gospel of Luke and the book of Acts were written by Luke the physician, a convert to Christianity during the time of Paul. According to Eusebius (Church Father), Mark got his gospel account from Peter,and Luke got his gospel account from Paul. The gospel of John, the epistles of John, and the book of Revelation were written by the apostle John. Paul wrote all these epistles: Romans, Corinthians (1&2), Galatians, Ephesians, Phillipians, Colossians, Thessalonians (1&2), Timothy (1&2), Titus, and Philemon. Peter wrote Peter 1&2, Jude wrote Jude, and the authorship of the book of Hebrews is unknown.

How did these writers remember or record all the details so accurately? It was not because these men were infallible. Remember Peter's dissimulation in Galatians 2:11-14. They were able to record everything accurately, down to the smallest detail because they served an infallible God. They had the Holy Spirit of God who taught them all things, who brought back all things into remembrance,and who led them into all truth (John 14:26; 16:13).

Leo said...

Daughter of Wisdom,

No, I meant what I wrote. There is good historical evidence that we were on our 5th pope before the last books of Scripture were written, ca90-100A.D.

Regarding your point on Luke, He got the Gospel info directly from Mary.

Your point on getting the smallest detail correctly is right on, regarding the Holy Spirit who taught them all things. This is exactly the same guidance He provides the Church in teaching on Faith and Morals and interpreting Scripture.

Remember that God always worked through a united authority...Abraham, Moses, the Sanhedrin. Jesus actually COMMANDED His apostles, "because the Scribes and Pharisees sit on the seat of Moses, you MUST do as they tell you. Just do not do as they do." Even the high priest prophesied due to his position. They lost this authority upon the foundation of the Church when He gave the keys to Peter.

In Aramaic, the language the disciples spoke, there is only ONE word for Peter and for Rock. There can be no misunderstanding.

The keys that He gave Peter ALONE, were foreshadowed in Isaiah 22 and were transferrable from Prime Minister to Prime Minister.

Think about it. It is impossible for true sincere believers to simply rely on the Holy Spirit and Scripture to come into the fullness of Truth and to become one as He and the Father are one.

That is why He founded an infallible guide in the Church...so we would not have 30000 denominations at last count.

Do you see how that makes sense?

Moonshadow said...

There is good historical evidence that we were on our 5th pope before the last books of Scripture were written, ca90-100A.D.

And which books are these, Hebrews, Revelation, Jude and Second Peter? Would you say this is the bulk of the NT?

If you read something like this, you come away with the idea that Paul's letters circulated as a collection, and the four Gospels were settled pretty early. The author, Allert, argues that Romans 12:6 speaks of an established "rule of faith" (regula fidei) against which ecstatic utterance in the Roman house churches was to be measured. Kittel writes to the contrary (ἀναλογία) pretty convincingly, actually. Scroll down. I find that I prefer Kittel on Romans 12:6, but that doesn't undermine the suggestion that core doctrine in written form was preserved and available early.

Jennie said...

You know, this reminds me of the lunar landing hoax conspiracy theorists. If you ever saw their conclusions, they had some very convincing arguments that supported their positions on first and even second glance.

Leo, is that a good comparison for someone who's trying to tell you the plain truth from God's word? Everything I've said comes from a plain reading of scripture, not some obscure secret teaching. If it sounds convincing, maybe that's because it's true, even though it's not what you're used to hearing.

Daughter of Wisdom said...

Leo, in your last comment you said a lot of things that really need to be substantiated before anyone can believe you. As a matter of fact, much of what you had said is in direct conflict with the historical writings of Eusebuius of Caesarea, who was the writer of Ecclesiastical History, and a Church Father, who lived in the 4th century A.D. More importantly, much of what you had said is in direct conflict with the Bible.


"There is good historical evidence that we were on our 5th pope before the last books of Scripture were written, ca90-100A.D."

The above statement is partially correct. I misunderstood your definition of "pope." The last books of the Bible were written around 90-100 A.D, which includes the book of Revelation, written by John during his lifetime. Now the part that is incorrect is the reference to "pope." As far as I see in scripture, none of the overseers or bishops of the churches were called popes.

"Regarding your point on Luke, He got the Gospel info directly from Mary."

That statement is in direct conflict with the writings of Eusebius of Ecclesiastical History, but I have heard this claim. It is not impossible because Luke was not an eyewitness to the life of Christ,and he got his report from various eyewitnesses. The Mary that is usually referenced is not Mary the mother of Jesus, but Mary Magdelene, who was the first one to see the resurrected Christ, and who was an ardent follower/disciple of Christ. The report of the women is well-documented in the gospels of John and Luke.

"Remember that God always worked through a united authority...Abraham, Moses, the Sanhedrin. Jesus actually COMMANDED His apostles, "because the Scribes and Pharisees sit on the seat of Moses, you MUST do as they tell you. Just do not do as they do." Even the high priest prophesied due to his position. They lost this authority upon the foundation of the Church when He gave the keys to Peter."

This is the most controversial statement of all. There is no evidence that God was working through the Pharisees and Sanhedrin. That ruling body was in direct conflict with the Christ and His teachings. Jesus wanted the people to obey authority, as that was commanded in scripture, but He also taught that if a teaching is in violation of God's law then it was okay to disobey. That is why Jesus refused to participate in ceremonial washings, public fastings, showy religion, and man-made Sabbath restrictions that were unBiblical. As for Peter getting the keys to the church, I can prove without a shadow of a doubt, and convincingly that Peter DID NOT GET THE KEYS TO THE CHURCH (If by church you mean the physcial earthly church body and authority).

To be continued in next comment...

Daughter of Wisdom said...

I leave this statement for last because this is the most disturbing statement of all you have said.

"Think about it. It is impossible for true sincere believers to simply rely on the Holy Spirit and Scripture to come into the fullness of Truth and to become one as He and the Father are one

The above statement borders on blasphemy. Who and what is more reliable than the Holy Spirit and Scripture? Who is the embodiement of all Truth? What man is there that is more knowledgeable than God? Who is it that presumes to teach God? Who was teaching and guiding Paul when he went into exile in Arabia for three years?


Galatians 1:15-24 (New International Version)
15But when God, who set me apart from birth[a] and called me by his grace, was pleased 16to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man, 17nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus.

18Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter[b] and stayed with him fifteen days. 19I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord's brother. 20I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie. 21Later I went to Syria and Cilicia. 22I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. 23They only heard the report: "The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy." 24And they praised God.


Who was the one instructing John when he was in exile on the isle of Patmos? Who was the one guiding the church of believers with dreams, visions, prophecy, and interpretations. I tell you, any prophecy or teaching of man that is not from the Spirit of God is not from God, but is from human invention at best, or the devil at worst. The Spirit of God is the most reliable source of information there is. Better than CNN, FOX, The History Channel, or any other media of information. We can always count on what is in Scripture and on the leading of the Holy Spirit to be ACCURATE and TRUE.

You need to repent in sackcloth and ashes. God will forgive all sins, but blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven. I pray that you repent NOW before your heart becomes hardened against God's Holy Spirit.

Leo said...

Jennie, I am trying to keep it lighthearted and ask us all to step back and look at the big picture.

You said, "Everything I've said comes from a plain reading of scripture, not some obscure secret teaching. If it sounds convincing, maybe that's because it's true, even though it's not what you're used to hearing."

What I said, was "they had some very convincing arguments that supported their positions on first and even second glance."

You have taken me out of context in the same way that you are taking Scripture out of context. You heard what you wanted to hear in what I wrote, not what I actually said. I said that their arguments supported their positions on first or second glance, not after closer scrutiny.

The word authority comes from the root word author. It is the author alone who has the authority to determine what he wrote. Thus it is that the Holy Spirit ALONE has the authority to interpret Scripture. He does this through the Church. Could He do it through everyone reading Scripture prayerfully on their own? Of course, He could. He's God. But He chose not to.

This is why there are tens of thousands of denominations where honest, sincere Christians found their disagreements on interpretation to be of enough importance to cause them to form their own sects. For example, I have no doubt that Daughter of Wisdom and I are seeking Truth just as earnestly. Yet, we are not 'one' in what we believe. Every saint of the Church truly became 'one' in the Faith. This is the clear work of the Holy Spirit.

The

Leo said...

Daughter of Wisdom said,

"More importantly, much of what you had said is in direct conflict with the Bible."

Let's at least agree that it is in direct conflict with "your interpretation" of the Bible...fair enough? What I have said plainly to all, is that there is nothing contradictory between official Church teaching and Scripture. What I am humbly trying to show you is how the true meaning of Scripture is revealed through the Church by the Holy Spirit. Anyone can take any position and find Scripture verses and other sources that seem to disprove that position.

I am asking that you try to see how Church teaching can be in full agreement with 100% of Scripture when it is taken in proper context.

Leo said...

Daughter of Wisdom said, "Now the part that is incorrect is the reference to "pope." As far as I see in scripture, none of the overseers or bishops of the churches were called popes."

Let's be fair here. Here is what I said:
""There is good historical evidence that we were on our 5th pope before the last books of Scripture were written, ca90-100A.D."

The pope is simply the Bishop of Rome. If you have an issue with the word pope, do you also have an issue with the word Trinity which likewise does not appear in Scripture? You know what I meant and I was not quoting Scripture. I stand behind what I said. We were on our 5th pope(Bishop of Rome) when some books of Scripture were not even written yet.

Jennie said...

Leo,
Why not read a little further in Exodus?
All the examples you gave were images that the LORD told the Israelites to make for the purpose of worshipping Him.
You missed the point of my statement:
'You shall not make for yourself' means take it upon yourself to make an image 'to bow down to or serve.'
It was not idolatry to make the images that God commanded and use them as He commanded.
When they began to MAKE IMAGES FOR THEMSELVES THAT WERE NOT COMMANDED BY GOD is when they were in idolatry. See Deuteronomy 4:
15 “Take careful heed to yourselves, for you saw no form when the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, 16 lest you act corruptly and make for yourselves a carved image in the form of any figure: the likeness of male or female, 17 the likeness of any animal that is on the earth or the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the air, 18 the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground or the likeness of any fish that is in the water beneath the earth. 19 And take heed, lest you lift your eyes to heaven, and when you see the sun, the moon, and the stars, all the host of heaven, you feel driven to worship them and serve them, which the LORD your God has given to all the peoples under the whole heaven as a heritage.

AND when they began to use an image that God commanded in a way that was idolatrous, the image was destroyed. See this passage in 2 Kings 18 about King Hezekiah:
4 He removed the high places and broke the sacred pillars, cut down the wooden image and broke in pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made; for until those days the children of Israel burned incense to it, and called it Nehushtan. 5 He trusted in the LORD God of Israel, so that after him was none like him among all the kings of Judah, nor who were before him.

Moonshadow said...

Let's at least agree that it is in direct conflict with "your interpretation" of the Bible

Assuming the perspicuity of sacred Scripture, there is no difference between their interpretation and what Scripture says. You're not going to be able to drive a wedge between the two. Only by taking their interpretation to its conclusion will you expose its errors, inconsistencies or problems. Starting with "your interpretation is wrong" will fall on deaf ears. Show, don't tell.

It is impossible for true sincere believers to simply rely on the Holy Spirit and Scripture

You don't really intend to preclude the possibility, I hope.

Leo said...

Daugher of Wisdom wrote, ""Regarding your point on Luke, He got the Gospel info directly from Mary.

That statement is in direct conflict with the writings of Eusebius of Ecclesiastical History"

Here, I was quite unclear. I was referring to the info about Mary, from the Anunciation, Incarnation, Presentation in the Temple, Magnificat, etc.

Mary was the only one who knew this intimate information.

Leo said...

Daughter of Wisdom said, "There is no evidence that God was working through the Pharisees and Sanhedrin." Really? Then why did Jesus command His apostles to do whatever they told them? Where does it say that Jesus did not participate in ANY of the ceremonial washings or man-made Sabbath restrictions?

Did not Caiaphas the high priest prophesy? Did not Paul apologize when he did not realize it was the high priest he was speaking to? You are right that Jesus did not obey where they went directly AGAINST God's law, however.

Jennie said...

Leo,
Again, why is it that the deep Protestant theologians have consistently given study of the Fathers of the Church as their reason to cease to remain Protestant? Catholics who leave, usually do so because they either never understood the Faith or they refuse to accept some teaching.

If that is true, and it may be for some former protestants, I would be much happier if they based their decisions on a thorough study of scripture; but if they had, they may not have converted to Catholicicm.
The study of the Fathers needs to be done by carefully comparing everything they say to scripture, as they themselves would say and did say.

As far as Catholics who leave, I'm sure you know some who have left for the reasons you said, but I know of others who have left because they heard the gospel from the Word of God and believed it, and saw that many RCC teachings are not in accord with God's word, and so went to find a congregation that teaches the Bible.

Leo said...

Daughter of Wisdom said, "As for Peter getting the keys to the church, I can prove without a shadow of a doubt, and convincingly that Peter DID NOT GET THE KEYS TO THE CHURCH (If by church you mean the physcial earthly church body and authority)."

Jesus said,"I give you (Peter alone) the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. Whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." The keys in Isaiah are a direct archetype of these keys given to Peter.

I have only used Scripture to show this, so I ask you to do the same. And, by the way, Peter did not get the keys to the Church. He got the keys to the kingdom of heaven.

Moonshadow said...

In Aramaic, the language the disciples spoke, there is only ONE word for Peter and for Rock.

And if it's shown that the disciples spoke Greek (Mel Gibson's portrayal notwithstanding), what does that do to your argument?

I'm seriously asking because I heard recently, on unprecedented authority, that the disciples spoke Greek. John 12:20-21.

Thank you and peace of Christ to you.

Leo said...

Daughter of Wisdom said, "Think about it. It is impossible for true sincere believers to simply rely on the Holy Spirit and Scripture to come into the fullness of Truth and to become one as He and the Father are one

The above statement borders on blasphemy. Who and what is more reliable than the Holy Spirit and Scripture? Who is the embodiement of all Truth?"

Yeah, you're right, that does sound absurd now that I have read it myself. I did not say what I meant because I was in a hurry. Nothing is impossible with God. I apologize for my misstatement.

However, we can only come into the fullness of Truth through revelation by God. What I meant to say was that it is NOT ENOUGH to simply read Scripture and pray about it. God is the one who founded the Church and chooses to reveal the fullness of Truth through the Church. The Church and Scripture are equally reliable, but the Bible is a book of the Church, not the other way around. Scripture itself says that "the Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth."

The Bishop of Rome (pope) is the only person who is directly protected by the Holy Spirit from ever teaching error on Faith and Morals...you and I are not. Nor is any other pastor, priest or bishop...if it were enough, you and I would believe the same things.

Just look at the evidence.

Leo said...

Daughter of Wisdom wrote, "Who was the one instructing John when he was in exile on the isle of Patmos? Who was the one guiding the church of believers with dreams, visions, prophecy, and interpretations. I tell you, any prophecy or teaching of man that is not from the Spirit of God is not from God, but is from human invention at best, or the devil at worst. The Spirit of God is the most reliable source of information there is."

All true...however, there is an important distinction here. The apostles were all directly guided by the Holy Spirit, unlike you or I. Revelation ended with the death of the last apostle.

You also wrote,"We can always count on what is in Scripture and on the leading of the Holy Spirit to be ACCURATE and TRUE."

The statement is true, but misleading. The point is that only the Church gets the PURE leading of the Holy Spirit. It is pretty clear that Christians disagree, so it cannot ALL be the leading of the Holy Spirit. If it were, there would be PERFECT agreement. You must therefore agree that the disagreements indicate leading other than the Holy Spirit's.

There is ONLY ONE Truth. The question is, how did God plan for us to find it without huge difficulty and consternation? The Church!

Leo said...

Moonshadow said...


And if it's shown that the disciples spoke Greek (Mel Gibson's portrayal notwithstanding), what does that do to your argument?

It's all Greek to me.

All kidding aside, the word for rock is feminine and would not be used for a man's name. Jesus would have been changing Simon's name to Petrina. This is one of a number of misunderstandings in conversion to English.

Leo said...

Daughter of Wisdom said,"You need to repent in sackcloth and ashes. God will forgive all sins, but blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven. I pray that you repent NOW before your heart becomes hardened against God's Holy Spirit."

Gee, that's a little harsh...As a child of God, we should not view God as standing over us just waiting for us to make a mistake so He can punish us.

Moonshadow said...

the Bible is a book of the Church

Now, I've long found it interesting that the ancient creed professes belief in each Person of the Holy Trinity and belief in the Church, without any explicit mention of belief in the Bible. But, of course, to believe in the Church implies belief in the Bible which the Church proclaims.

And since many Protestants don't profess the creed, it's hard to get an understanding of what belief "in the holy catholic Church" would mean to those who take an invisible view of Christ's body. Usually they just point out the obvious, that catholic isn't Roman Catholic, but beyond that, they can't venture. But the creed doesn't seem to support an invisible church.

Moonshadow said...

It's all Greek to me.

All kidding aside,


Alright, you don't know. I guess I'll have to work it out myself.

Leo said...

Jennie said,

"Leo,
Again, why is it that the deep Protestant theologians have consistently given study of the Fathers of the Church as their reason to cease to remain Protestant? Catholics who leave, usually do so because they either never understood the Faith or they refuse to accept some teaching.(quoting me)

If that is true, and it may be for some former protestants, I would be much happier if they based their decisions on a thorough study of scripture; but if they had, they may not have converted to Catholicicm.
The study of the Fathers needs to be done by carefully comparing everything they say to scripture, as they themselves would say and did say."

Jennie, my point is that this is exactly what they did. We have received some brilliant Scripture scholars and apologists into the Church precisely because their study led them to the Catholic Church. In all cases, they lost their livelihoods as pastors and seminary deans and professors to come home to what they believe to be the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. You can imagine how difficult this must have been, knowing that they had families to support. Some of the best defenders of the Faith were once seriously anti-Catholic because of what they believed Scripture said. It was only upon in-depth study that they came to see what they believe to be the real Truth about what Scripture says.

You also said,

"As far as Catholics who leave, I'm sure you know some who have left for the reasons you said, but I know of others who have left because they heard the gospel from the Word of God and believed it, and saw that many RCC teachings are not in accord with God's word, and so went to find a congregation that teaches the Bible."

Once again, you actually helped to prove my point. If these people actually understood what the Church teaches, they would not have left. We have had terrible cathchesis in the Church for the last several decades in America. I have never personally witnessed one person who left that could even defend the most basic teachings of the Church using Scripture...unless, of course, they left for sin. An example of this is the priest who recently left to join an Anglican church in Florida, I believe. He was a popular TV priest and ended up in an inappropriate relationship.

I also have a sister-in-law who finally admitted to me to having left years ago because her Protestant fiancee would not marry her otherwise. She chose a creature over the creator and is still dealing with that choice.

It is true that Satan has done damage to the Church and that many in Church leadership will be held accountable for having led followers astray. At least Catholics who have left have some integrity. Those who stay in the Church but refuse to follow her teaching are a poison within. There is no such thing as cafeteria Catholicism and Kennedy, Durbin, Biden, Pelosi, Sebelius and the like will have much to answer for when they face Jesus Christ.

Leo said...

Moonshadow said...
"It's all Greek to me.

All kidding aside,

Alright, you don't know. I guess I'll have to work it out myself."

I did answer it. You cannot use the feminine word meaning rock, as a name for a man. The masculine form of the word was used instead. Imagine that the word for rock in English were Petrina or Rockette. You would need to use the name Peter or Rocky instead. This makes perfect sense in translation from Aramaic, where there is ONLY one word for both. This is where the name Cephas comes from.

Moonshadow said...

they heard the gospel from the Word of God and believed it, and saw that many RCC teachings are not in accord with God's word

I suppose I'm a composite of those two things: I grasped the gospel from Lewis's Mere Christianity and continued to attend Mass in order to determine whether the Catholic Church proclaimed the gospel. And it was clear to me that she did so I've stayed.

This is where the name Cephas comes from.

Oh, I see. This is from the New American Bible:

the Aramaic word kepa - meaning rock and transliterated into Greek as Kephas is the name by which Peter is called in the Pauline letters (1 Cor 1:12; 3:22; 9:5; 15:4; Gal 1:18; 2:9, 11, 14) except in Gal 2:7-8 ("Peter"). It is translated as Petros ("Peter") in John 1:42. The presumed original Aramaic of Jesus' statement would have been, in English, "You are the Rock (Kepa) and upon this rock (kepa) I will build my church." The Greek text probably means the same, for the difference in gender between the masculine noun petros, the disciple's new name, and the feminine noun petra (rock) may be due simply to the unsuitability of using a feminine noun as the proper name of a male.

And it's interesting that Thayer's Lexicon includes the word's metaphorical usage:

a man like a rock, by reason of his firmness and strength of soul

I guess the problem is that some Christians don't believe such a thing is possible, even with God's help.

Leo said...

Jennie said,

"You missed the point of my statement:
'You shall not make for yourself' means take it upon yourself to make an image 'to bow down to or serve.'
It was not idolatry to make the images that God commanded and use them as He commanded.
When they began to MAKE IMAGES FOR THEMSELVES THAT WERE NOT COMMANDED BY GOD is when they were in idolatry."

Actually, it was not idolatry until they worshipped these images. As I am sure you know, the reason God made them sacrifice the different animals was because they had worshipped each of those animals at some point.

I go back to my original point. Do you have pictures of your family? Would you not agree that it would be absurd for me to accuse you of worshipping what the images represented? Do these images not help you to think of your loved ones and the times of your life?

Well, it is equally absurd to accuse us of worshipping statues and paintings.

Jennie said...

Leo,
Worship:
reverent honor and homage paid to God or a sacred personage, or to any object regarded as sacred;
or the act of paying such homage.


What did worship of God mean to the Israelites?
What did worship of a false god mean to those who did so?

It includes praying to God, praising God, depending on God, listening to His words and obeying them, bowing to God whether in body or in our hearts, adoring God, giving gifts or sacrifices to God.

All these things and more are a part of worship. In the bible there is no distinction made as to levels or types of worship: THE ONLY DISTINCTION MADE IS THAT GOD ALONE SHOULD BE WORSHIPPED AND NOT ANY OTHER.
If in using images of Mary or saints, or in their hearts as they think of these, people are doing those things that constitute worship to God, then they are committing idolatry.
Again:
Deuteronomy 4:
15 “Take careful heed to yourselves, for you saw no form when the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, 16 lest you act corruptly and make for yourselves a carved image in the form of any figure: the likeness of male or female, 17 the likeness of any animal that is on the earth or the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the air, 18 the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground or the likeness of any fish that is in the water beneath the earth. 19 And take heed, lest you lift your eyes to heaven, and when you see the sun, the moon, and the stars, all the host of heaven, you feel driven to worship them and serve them, which the LORD your God has given to all the peoples under the whole heaven as a heritage.

Jennie said...

Obviously I don't worship my family photos, and neither do you. That's not the issue. When you have an image of Mary (or another saint) you are doing more than just remembering that person with love and fondness; you are possibly adoring, praying to, and depending upon them for help, giving praise to them, listening to their words that come from outside of scripture, etc.
This is worship, according to the bible.

Leo said...

Jennie said, "Obviously I don't worship my family photos, and neither do you. That's not the issue. When you have an image of Mary (or another saint) you are doing more than just remembering that person with love and fondness; you are possibly adoring, praying to, and depending upon them for help, giving praise to them, listening to their words that come from outside of scripture, etc.
This is worship, according to the bible.

Jennie,

First of all, the bible does not define worship as you just said. Incidentally, the meaning of the word itself has changed over the years. We adore God alone. The bottom line is that there is only one God. Why can't you believe me when I tell you that we don't worship Mary and the saints in heaven? That would be like worshipping a painting as if it created itself. Any honor we give to the saints, glorifies God.

Let me ask you something. Do you ever ask any of your fellow Christians for help or to pray for you? If so, do you do it in person verbally? If they are not close by, do you do it by phone? Internet? Letter?

Do you not believe that the God of Abraham is the God not of the dead but of the living? So, if Abraham is alive in heaven, how do we reach him? Remember the man condemned to the flames? He called out to Father Abraham for help and Abraham heard him from heaven.

How did Abraham hear him? We call this method of communication, "prayer".

We help each other by interceding for each other here on earth regularly. What makes you think that our elder brothers and sisters in heaven cannot intercede for us from there? Since they were made perfectly righteous to enter heaven, their prayers are most effective. What on earth is not scriptural about that? And, by the way, we call upon our guardian angel and all of the angels and saints in heaven for help.

You may be surprised that they can communicate with us as well. However, we must always compare their words to make sure they are in line with scripture and Church teaching.

Moonshadow said...

"There is clearly a theological defence for it [devotion to saints]; if you can ask for the prayers of the living, why should you not ask for the prayers of the dead? There is clearly also a great danger. In some popular practice we see it leading off into an infinitely silly picture of Heaven as an earthly court where applicants will be wise to pull the right wires, discover the best 'channels,' and attach themselves to the more influential pressure groups. But I have nothing to do with all this. I am not thinking of adopting the practice myself; and who am I to judge the practices of others?

"The consoling thing is that while Christendom is divided about the rationality, and even the lawfulness, of praying to the saints, we are all agreed about praying with them.

"You may say that the distinction between the communion of the saints as I find it in that act and full-fledged prayer to saints is not, after all, very great. All the better if so."


Letters to Malcolm - C. S. Lewis

Leo said...

Moonshadow said, ""There is clearly a theological defence for it [devotion to saints]; if you can ask for the prayers of the living, why should you not ask for the prayers of the dead?"

I am sure that you meant the living in the next world, not the dead. We are only to seek those who, we are sure, are alive. This is why a canonized saint must have a miracle after they died to this world. This is a clear sign that God is working through that saint in heaven. Also, we are asking them to intercede for us before God. They are not all-powerful and God can say no to them as well.

This is completely different from seances or necromancy, which are satanic and demonic in origin.

In a true seance, it is a demon that responds to the requests, just like to a ouija board. For instance, if you ask something of your dear uncle Bob, the individual who responds will most certainly not be your uncle Bob.

Demons have witnessed all that you have ever done, for it is they who accuse you before God. It is no big deal for them to come up with some obscure fact about your uncle Bob in a convincing fashion. There is power in the darkside and it is extremely dangerous because it is a form of channeling that opens you up to demonic possession.

Moonshadow said...

I am sure that you meant

The entire post is quoted from Lewis's book Letters to Malcolm, a fictional correspondence, of course, between Lewis and someone of the Scottish Presbyterian persuasion, I presume. Perhaps even Lewis himself, as a young man.

Lewis's Christianity, which has heavily influenced my own, is a generous one - perhaps not as generous as McLaren's which has received a cool reception in conservative circles, but certainly more generous than I'm encountering here.

Anyway, I recommend Lewis's book to anyone trying to unlearn fundamentalism.

Daughter of Wisdom said...

Leo,

I have read all that you have written, but I am afraid that you have failed to prove your case. The arguments you presented are just that - arguments. The scriptural support is sadly lacking and weak. To say that the church in Rome was protected from infallibility sounds self-serving to me. There were multiple Christians congregations scattered throughout the whole Roman empire, and the Christian church was headquartered in Jerusalem (at least initially before the widespread persecutions throughout the Romans empire of Christians). Are you saying then that the bishop of Jerusalem was not protected from infallibility, that only the bishop of Rome was? Where is the evidence of this so-called infallibility? Why would God give infallibility to only one group and deny the other groups?

God is no respecter of persons. He is not impressed with our self-imposed importance, or titles, or positions. He only reveals His will to those who are doing His will and following His commands. Therefore, revelation is not confined to certain positions, such as pastor, bishop, or pope, but is given to whomsoever God chooses within the body of Christ. Just look in the Bible and you will see God calling His prophets from all levels of society - shepherds, cattle ranchers, priests, teenage boys, little boys, mothers, young women, fishermen, etc. He could be calling you too, but you have to submit yourself to His call, and to His ways, and not get distracted by the false, unscriptural claims of others, that leads away from Truth as found in God's Word - the Bible.

Have a God-filled day!

Jennie said...

Leo,
First of all, the bible does not define worship as you just said.
How does the Bible define worship, then?
All the things I listed as worship are things the Israelites did to worship God as He taught them to.

Jennie said...

Leo,
I said:
you are possibly adoring, praying to, and depending upon them for help, giving praise to them, listening to their words that come from outside of scripture, etc.
This is worship, according to the bible.


Adore: definition
1.to worship as divine
2.to love greatly or honor highly; idolize
synonyms of adore: venerate, revere, glorify, cherish, treasure, love

By reading the things people say, sing, and pray to Mary, it sounds like adoration and worship to me.
Mary is to be honored as a fellow believer who holds a special place, but there is no teaching in the bible to adore, pray to, praise, sing to, and treat her as a principle agent in our salvation.
On the contrary, the bible says to do all these things to God alone.

Daughter of Wisdom said...

BTW, the images in the Temple, were not intended as objects of worship. They were there for beauty and adornment of the Holy house. They were works of art.

When the children of Israel started to worship these things, God had them destroyed, just as Jennie said. See the passage she quoted: 2 Kings 18:4.

The fiery serpent of brass that Moses made was NOT an object of worship. Only the people who were bitten because they SINNED, we asked to look upon this serpent. The fiery serpents which bit them was God's judgment upon their sins. God was asking the people to look upon and face the consequence of their sin. By looking at the fiery serpent, the people should feel guilty and repulsed by their sin, and turn to God in repentance. Here is what Jesus had to say about that brass serpent:

"And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life" (John 3:14-15).

The brass serpent represented Christ being lifted up to bear the sins of the world. When we look at Him suffering on the cross, we are repulsed and feel shame and guilt for causing His pain. It drives us to repentance and finally healing, by the power of God. It is only by facing our sins,that we can have hope for healing and forgiveness.

Daughter of Wisdom said...

Did Christ build His church upon Peter? The answer is NO!

Matthew 16:13-20 (New International Version)

13When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"
14They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."

15"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"

16Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." 20Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.

In the above passage, Jesus asked ALL HIS DISCIPLES who He was. Peter answered for the group! Jesus promised THE GROUP the keys of the kingdom of heaven, not just Peter.

The confusion comes in for many people when Christ says, "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it" (vs. 18). The Greek word for Peter is "Petros" and the Greek word for rock is "petra." One masculine and one feminine, obviously two different types of rock. While Peter was Rock in name only, Christ was the Rock on which the church would be built. A play on words by Christ. Pun intended!

"They all ate the same spiritual food 4and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, AND THAT ROCK WAS CHRIST"(1 Corinthians 10:3-4, NIV).

"19Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household, 20built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the CHIEF CORNERSTONE(Ephesians 2:19-20).

"6 Therefore it is also contained in the Scripture,
“ Behold, I lay in Zion
A CHIEF CORNERSTONE, elect, precious,
And he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame.”
7 Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who are disobedient,“ The stone which the builders rejected Has become the CHIEF CORNERSTONE,”8 and
“ A stone of stumbling
And a ROCK of offense.”" (1 Peter 2:6-8, NIV).

Moonshadow said...

It seems we have significant, competent Protestant exegesis in our favor:

The words ‘on this rock [petra]’ indeed refer to Peter" - Ridderbos

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9801word.asp

cf. Primacy of Peter - Wiki

Daughter of Wisdom said...

Hi Teresa, I understand your point about Peter, but scripture is very clear about who the ROCK is. We must use scripture to interpret scripture, which is fundamental rule no. 1 of Biblical exegesis. We need to be careful that our words do not contradict scripture itself. If I may take the liberty of inserting the Greek words in the text, then it would all make sense.

"And I tell you that you are Petros, and on this petra I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it" (Matthew 16:18).

Peter was Petro in name and personality(solid faith in Christ), but Christ was Petra by nature and authority (solid foundation of faith, 100% trustworthy and true, all worthy, all powerful, all mighty, all dependable), upon whom the church would be built. In his ministry, Peter had slipped many times, he was not totally dependable or trustworthy, but he was a strong force for Christ in the ministry - just not strong enough for Christ to base His whole church upon him.

According to Ephesians 2:20, the church is "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the CHIEF CORNERSTONE." The apostles (including Peter) and prophets are a part of the foundation, but Christ is the chief cornerstone or rock on which the foundation is laid and supported.

Definition of cornerstone per Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone

"The cornerstone (or foundation stone) concept is derived from the FIRST STONE set in the construction of a masonry foundation, important since all other stones will be set in reference to this stone, thus determining the position of the entire structure." (per Wikipedia, caps supplied).

Leo said...

Daughter of Wisdom said...
Leo,

"I have read all that you have written, but I am afraid that you have failed to prove your case. The arguments you presented are just that - arguments. The scriptural support is sadly lacking and weak."

With all due respect, I do not need to 'prove' anything. I am not trying to win an argument. I only care about sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ in its entirety. With this in mind, I am merely showing that Scripture does not contradict Church teaching when looked at in its entirety. Here is an interesting thought for you. I do not ever recall hearing a homily during Mass where anything whatsoever was said about Protestant beliefs or why they were wrong. The Church does not need to defend itself or to argue. The mission of the Church is to protect and to pass on the divinely revealed deposit of Faith. It is up to the world to accept or reject her teaching.

Leo said...

Daughter of Wisdom said...
Leo,

"To say that the church in Rome was protected from infallibility sounds self-serving to me."

Actually, Christ did that to serve us, so we would rely on Him through His Church and so we would not each decide to form our individual denominations.

Leo said...

Daughter of Wisdom said...
Leo,

"Are you saying then that the bishop of Jerusalem was not protected from infallibility, that only the bishop of Rome was? Where is the evidence of this so-called infallibility? Why would God give infallibility to only one group and deny the other groups?"

I am saying that only the Bishop of Rome and the college of bishops in union with him, are protected from teaching error on Faith and Morals(only). No other bishop on his own is divinely protected in this way. There was actually a cardinal centuries ago, who conspired to kill the pope with his cronies and did so, so he could become pope and change the Church to their own liking.

They succeeded in killing the pope and he was indeed elected as the successor. A strange thing happened then. He informed his cronies that he could no longer teach anything but the Truth. They thought he had lost his mind and so they killed him too. It is Jesus Christ who protects His Church for all time and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Leo said...

Daughter of Wisdom said...
Leo,

" Why would God give infallibility to only one group and deny the other groups?"

God can do whatever He pleases and it is not up to me to question it. I was not there when He created the Universe. Why did He choose the Jews as His chosen people? Why did He choose Moses?

He founded His Church and is the ultimate authority. When He walked the earth, He was head of the Apostles. When He returned to heaven, He left Peter and His successors in charge. No human organization can function if multiple people have equal authority.

Leo said...

Jennie said...
"Leo,
First of all, the bible does not define worship as you just said.
How does the Bible define worship, then?"

The greatest commandment is to love the Lord God with all of our heart, mind, soul and strength.
We acknowledge Him as God alone. We do not sacrifice to any other than Him.

Leo said...

Jennie said...
Leo,
I said:
you are possibly adoring (NO), praying to (YES, MEANING COMMUNICATING WITH THEM...NO INTERNET LINES TO HEAVEN YET...), and depending upon them for help (YES), giving praise to them, listening to their words that come from outside of scripture (NO), etc.
This is worship (NO), according to the bible.

Adore: definition
1.to worship as divine
2.to love greatly or honor highly; idolize
synonyms of adore: venerate, revere, glorify, cherish, treasure, love

By reading the things people say, sing, and pray to Mary, it sounds like adoration and worship to me (A FIRECRACKER SOUNDS LIKE A GUNSHOT, BUT IT'S NOT).
Mary is to be honored as a fellow believer who holds a special place, but there is no teaching in the bible to adore, pray to, praise, sing to, and treat her as a principle agent in our salvation.
On the contrary, the bible says to do all these things to God alone.

I will need to readdress the Ark of the Covenant again, because you glossed over it and blew off key points.

Moonshadow said...

We must use scripture to interpret scripture, which is fundamental rule no. 1 of Biblical exegesis.

While this is a key principle, it shouldn't be used to clobber the passage itself. In other words, we use Scripture to interpret difficult passages, "for what is obscure in one place, is plain in another." But Matt. 18:16 is plain; only obstinacy obscures it.

Since Catholics say that the pope is Christ's representative on earth, it's implicit that Christ is head of our Church. "You will not always have me. ... It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you." (Mark 14:7; John 16:7)

just not strong enough

As I said, many don't believe it's possible.

Peace of Christ to you, Hillary, and to all reading.

Jennie said...

Teresa,
Hillary is right that we must use scripture to interpret scripture. The passage in Matthew about the church being built 'upon this rock' has to be interpreted according to all of scripture; that which comes before it, and that which comes after it.
Hillary mentioned some of both. I want to add that there are other passages in the New Testament that show that this passage was not understood the way the Catholic Church interprets it. There are passages in Acts and the epistles that show that Peter did not consider himself the foundational 'rock' nor was he treated this way by the other Apostles and believers.
There is much doubt historically that Peter ever was in Rome, and if he was, it was not during the entire time that the RCC claims, and must have been a short time.
Hillary is right that historically the bishops of cities were all equal, and were not infallible. God's word and the Spirit are infallible, and His word must be interpreted best by those who abide in Him the most.

I'll come back later and list the passages about Peter, since I'm out of town and need to go.

Moonshadow said...

I'll come back later and list the passages about Peter, since I'm out of town and need to go.

OK, I'd appreciate that and will wait.

I hope your trip out of town is pleasant.

Teresa

Leo said...

Daughter of Wisdom said...
"Did Christ build His church upon Peter? The answer is NO!"

RESPONSE: Sorry, that does not agree with Scripture...

"17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." 20Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.

In the above passage, Jesus asked ALL HIS DISCIPLES who He was. (CORRECT)

Peter answered for the group! (CORRECT)

Jesus promised THE GROUP the keys of the kingdom of heaven, not just Peter." (INCORRECT)

RESPONSE: In Greek, there are separate words for you(singular) and you(plural), unlike in the English language where the same word is used for both. Jesus said, " I give you(alone) the keys to the kingdom of heaven" to Peter.

Daughter of Wisdom said again,
The confusion comes in for many people when Christ says, "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it" (vs. 18). The Greek word for Peter is "Petros" and the Greek word for rock is "petra." One masculine and one feminine, obviously two different types of rock. While Peter was Rock in name only, Christ was the Rock on which the church would be built. A play on words by Christ. Pun intended!

RESPONSE: As I explained earlier, it is the same exact word in Aramaic which is arguably the language they used when together. Even in Greek, however, you cannot use a feminine word for a man's name. You can compare him to something that has a feminine name, but you cannot call him that.

Jesus changed his name to Cephas (Petros when translated to Greek).

Let's not forget in all this that it is Jesus Christ Himself who is the head, founder, cornerstone of His Church. He simply left Cephas and his successors in charge and the Holy Spirit is personally protecting them in their mission of protecting the deposit of Faith.
The pope is merely a man appointed by Christ to watch over His Church.

Leo said...

Two other points about Scripture...

The Church actually defines very few passages of Scripture specifically. She does use Scripture freely to express Christ's teachings, however.

We also view Scripture as the 'living word of God'. God will speak to us through Scripture to address our immediate circumstances if we delve into it prayerfully. This is why a certain verse may speak personally to us on the thousandth reading, specifically in answer to a prayer request.

May the grace and peace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you always!

Leo said...

Jennie said,

"There is much doubt historically that Peter ever was in Rome, and if he was, it was not during the entire time that the RCC claims, and must have been a short time."

Really?

In (1 Pet. 5:13), Peter writes from "Babylon", which was used as a first-century code-word for the city of pagan Rome. According to all of the fathers, Peter went to Rome and was martyred there. You cannot even find a Church father who denied that he went to Rome.

Here is a quote from "Saints and Sinners", a book by a Cambridge historian by the name of Duffy:

"There is no reason to doubt the ancient tradition that both Peter and Paul were put to death in Rome during the Neronian persecutions of the mid-60s A.D. The universal acceptance of this belief among early Christian writers, and the failure of any other church to lodge competing clams to the possession of the Apostles' witness or relics, is strong evidence here, especially when taken together with the existence of a second-century cult of both saints in Rome and their "trophies"-shrines at their graves or cenotaphs over the site of their martyrdoms. These monuments were mentioned by a Roman cleric around the year 200, and their existence was dramatically confirmed by archaeology in this century. Building work in the crypt of Peter's in 1939 uncovered an ancient pagan cemetery on the slope of the Vatican Hill on top of which Constantine had built the original Christian basilica in the fourth century. As excavation proceeded, it became clear that Constantine's workmen had gone to enormous trouble to orientate the entire basilica toward a particular site within the pagan cemetery over which, long before the Constantinian era, had been placed a small niche shrine or trophy dateable to 165. This shrine, though damaged, was still in place, and fragments of bone were discovered within it. . . . The mere existence of the shrine is overwhelming evidence of a very early Roman belief that Peter had died in or near the Vatican Circus in Rome."

Jennie said...

Well, plans changed, so I'm going to post the following and then go back and post the passages about Peter.
Here's a quote from a book by
Lorraine Boettner, titled Roman Catholicism, on pages 121-122, which dates Peter’s journey using the Bible as his only source.

"Most Bible students agree that Paul's conversion occurred in the year 37 A.D. After that he went to Arabia (Gal.1:17), and after that he went up to Jerusalem where he remained with Peter for 15 days (Gal.1:18). That brings us to the year 40 A.D. Fourteen years later he again went to Jerusalem (Gal.2:1), where he attended the Jerusalem council described in Acts 15, in which Peter also participated (vs.6). This conference dealt primarily with the problems which arose in connection with the presentation of the Gospel in Jewish and Gentile communities. Paul and Barnabas presented their case, and were authorized by the council to continue their ministry to the Gentiles (Acts 15:22-29); and this quite clearly was the occasion on which Paul was assigned to work primarily among the Gentiles while Peter was assigned to work primarily among the Jews (Gal.2:7- 8), since this same Jerusalem council is spoken of in the immediate context (Gal.2:1-10). So this brings us to the year 54 A. D., and Peter still is in Syria, 12 years after the time that the Roman tradition says that he began his reign in Rome. Sometime after the Jerusalem council Peter also came to Antioch, on which occasion it was necessary for Paul to reprimand him because of his conformity to Judaistic rituals (Gal.2:11- 21). And the same Roman tradition which says that Peter reigned in Rome also says that he governed the church in Antioch for 7 years before going to Rome. Hence we reach the year 61 A.D., with Peter still in Syria."

Moonshadow said...

which dates Peter’s journey using the Bible as his only source.

How did I get in the position of defending the papacy?

I'm actually very sympathetic to those who don't think Peter's episcopacy at Rome much resembled what later developed.

But, if not, if Jesus' words weren't fulfilled in Peter's tenure, does that mean we disregard Christ's promise?

Isn't it more likely that successors to Peter were chosen because it was clear Jesus' words hadn't yet been fulfilled in Peter?

Maybe you think this is like what Abraham and Sarah did with Hagar to produce an heir. Maybe it is.

But if the test of authentic prophecy and promise is how quickly it comes to pass rather than the trustworthiness of who gives it, well then there's a number of expectations we ought better to shove off.

Leo said...

Jennie said...

"Here's a quote from a book by
Lorraine Boettner, titled Roman Catholicism"

Jennie,

Loraine Boettner is a noted anti-Catholic and you quoted his most famous work, which most Protestants use as their 'anti-Catholic bible'.

The problem is that this book is of horrendously poor scholarship because of the lies and outright fabrications contained within. Allow me to explain.

Note that that first of all, he only quotes from 7 listed Catholic sources and none of those really apply on any of his attacks of significance.

Notice also that he quotes anti-Catholic sources with specific pages and publishing information, while he quotes purported Catholic sources(other than the 7) with no backup information that would allow verification.

He even quotes from some anti-Catholic authors such as Blanshard, who were even discredited by other anti-Catholic authors years ago because they were so far off the deep end.

Another example is when he quotes from a supposed speech by an archbishop Strossmeyer in 1870 at Vatican Council I, against the concept of the papacy. The problem with this was that it was a well-known forgery at the time and the archbishop repeatedly demanded retractions from those who circulated it.

I will give him credit for at least quoting scripture accurately.

My point is that we really need to be careful on our source material.

Moonshadow said...

of horrendously poor scholarship

Alright, then show that from the portion Jennie cited. Even a broken clock can be right twice a day.

Show what's wrong with Boettner's timeline.

I'm prepared to say our (mutual) expectations for Jesus' words are incorrect, for one reason or another.

Jennie said...

I don't know why I'm arguing about the Peter as pope issue. I should know by now that there are so many conflicting reports on both sides that it will never be resolved this side of eternity; though I do believe if we depend on scripture alone, things would be alot different.
I'd rather talk about doctrinal issues, which are important for assurance of salvation; for really knowing how we become part of the Body of Christ.
The Mary issue seems important because it appears that many depend upon her (or who they think she is) to help them, and the bible teaches to depend upon Christ alone as our savior and mediator and helper.

Jennie said...

Well, about the Boettner quote, if we can show that the timeline is correct, as Teresa said, that would mean that at it's likely that Peter was never bishop of Rome, though he might have been there for a short time.
The protestant belief is that all the apostles were sort of 'foundation' or maybe more accurately they were the first strong layer of stones in the building, and their inspired writings are the foundation of our faith, and the touchstone to which everything must be compared. Irenaeus said the scriptures are the pillar and foundation of our faith, compared to scripture which calls the church the pillar and foundation of the truth. The believers must stand upon the word, and also uphold the word by being faithful to it and transmitting it correctly.

Daughter of Wisdom said...

Thank you so much Jennie for your backing and support on this doctrine of Peter, which is important, as this doctrine of Peter being the rock steers people away from giving Christ the praise and honor that is due ONLY TO HIM, as the ROCK and FOUNDATION of the church.

According to scripture, Peter was called to be the apostle to the Jews who were scattered throughout the Roman empire. There was no evidence that Peter was settled as a bishop over any one church. Both Peter and Paul were travelling preachers/missionaries of the gospel throughout the Roman empire.

Galatians 2:7-8, NIV
"7On the contrary, they saw that I [Paul] had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles,just as Peter had been to the Jews. 8For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles."

According to Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, both Peter and Paul died as martyrs in Rome (page 63). He also gave a list of all the Bishops of Rome, and the first bishop of Rome was NOT PETER, but LINUS.

1. Linus
2. Anencletus
3. Clement
4. Euarestus
5. Alexander
6. Xystus or Sixtus
7. Telesphorus
8. Hyginus
9. Pius
10. Anicetus
11. Soter
12. Eleutherus
13. Victor
14. Zephyrinus
15. Callisthus, and so on

"After the mattyrdom of Paul and Peter, Linus was the first who received the episcopate at Rome. Paul made mention of him in his epistle from Rome to Timothy in the address at the close of the epistle, saying, "Eubulus and Prudens, and Linus, and Claudia, salute thee" (2 Tim. 4:21)"(Eusebius Ecclesiastical History, page 67).

According to Wikipedia, "The Apostolic Constitutions say on the other hand that Linus was the first Bishop of Rome, ordained by Paul, and was succeeded by Clement, who was ordained by Peter" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Linus).


I hope these references, both scriptural and historical, will help to settle the matter (or maybe not for some).

Peace and blessings :-)

Daughter of Wisdom said...

I want to apologize to Leo for sounding a little harsh, and to Teresa for sounding a little stern, but these matters are matters of eternity, and our very souls depend upon them - for all eternity.

May the peace and love of God reign in our hearts through the love of Christ and the communion and fellowhsip of the Holy Spirit, in this world, and in the world to come. Amen.

Jennie said...

I'm curious, Teresa and Leo, why the catholics are avoiding my two latest posts on the Sabbath Rest. Is it just a boring subject, or some other reason? To me it's fascinating, and is at the center of everything.

Jennie said...

Thanks Hillary, for helping out here to stand for the truth of God's word. I haven't had as much time the last couple of weeks, since we're on a break from home school (finally) and want to relax and have some fun before school starts again.

Daughter of Wisdom said...

Leo said:

"As I explained earlier, it is the same exact word in Aramaic which is arguably the language they used when together. Even in Greek, however, you cannot use a feminine word for a man's name. You can compare him to something that has a feminine name, but you cannot call him that.

Jesus changed his name to Cephas (Petros when translated to Greek)."


Jennie, I know you want us to wrap up this conversation, but I need to explain or correct this remark by Leo, so that others reading may come to a full understanding of what is going on here, and not leave with misconceptions.

Although the disciples may have spoken in Aramaic, the New Testament as we have it, is written in Greek. Greek was the official language of educated persons in the Roman empire. The words "Petros" and "petra" are Greek words (Strong # 4074 & #4073 respectively in Strong's concordance). Even if Jesus spoke these words in Aramaic, the writers of the New Testament saw it fit to make a distinction in translation between "Petros" and "petra," to differentiate between the two words, as one was masculine and one feminine. It is not unusual in language to have masculine and feminine words. We see the same in Spanish, yet no one thinks that Senor(Mister) is the same as a Senora(Mrs.) or Senorita(Miss).

In the Old Testament we see the same thing in the Hebrew language. Solomon's wife was called Shulamite (Song of Solomon 6:13), yet Shulamite is the female form of the name Solomon; yet no one thinks that Solomon's wife is the same person as Solomon.

According to Wikipedia:

"Shulamis (שולמית) or Shulamit is the feminine form of the Hebrew name Solomon (in Hebrew, "Shlomo", שְלמה), related to the word "shalom" (שָׁלוֹם), or "peace"."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shulamith

As for the name Cephas for Peter. That name was first given to Peter by Christ in John 1:42 which was a Greek word of Chaldean origin (Strong #2786), which according to the passage is translated "a stone."

"And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone" (John 1:42).

The word translated "stone" in the above verse is the Greek word "Petros" (same as Strong #4074). According to Strong concordance, the word "Petros" means "(a piece) of rock." And the word "Cephas" means "the rock."

So what do we have here? Peter is a rock which is a piece from the Rock. While Christ is the Rock, Peter is only a piece from that Rock. This is in keeping with what Peter himself said about all true believers and followers of Christ, that we too are all stones of Christ, within Christ's building. 1 Peter 2:4-8,NIV:

"4As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him— 5you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6For in Scripture it says: "See, I lay a stone in Zion, a chosen and precious cornerstone, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame." 7Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe,
"The stone the builders rejected
has become the capstone," 8and,
"A stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall." They stumble because they disobey the message—which is also what they were destined for."

Peace and Blessings

Jennie said...

Hillary,
I didn't know about Shulamite being the feminine form of Solomon; that's wonderful!

This is in keeping with what Peter himself said about all true believers and followers of Christ, that we too are all stones of Christ, within Christ's building. 1 Peter 2:4-8,NIV:

"4As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him— 5you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood,


I too think it's significant that it is Peter himself who calls all believers living stones, of which he is one, by faith, in the same way that we are, if we have believed (obeyed) the gospel.

Leo said...

Daughter of Wisdom, I take it that your name is Hillary. May I refer to you as such? Leo

The following is probably one of my most important responses, so please read carefully.


You said,"According to Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, both Peter and Paul died as martyrs in Rome (page 63). He also gave a list of all the Bishops of Rome, and the first bishop of Rome was NOT PETER, but LINUS."

This actually serves to demonstrate how the Protestant approach to Truth and interpretation of Scripture is seriously flawed. Please allow me to explain.

I am sure that you will agree that is not possible to find Truth unless we earnestly seek it. You cannot simply take a preconceived position and just look for ammunition to support it.

Yet, this is EXACTLY the Protestant approach to Scripture. You are starting off with an incorrect premise that the Catholic Church CANNOT be what she claims to be, so we simply need to be able to prove it. Thus, the tendency is to quickly dismiss anything that supports the Church and to eagerly accept as fact anything that discredits her.

I will now quote from the SAME work you did, Daughter of Wisdom, to PROVE that you quoted a Church father out of context. Here is another passage that seems to support what you erroneously claimed, if you ignore the title, which I did not because I wanted to show what was truly said.

"Book 3, Chapter 2. The First Successor to St. Peter in Rome.
1. After the martyrdom of Paul and of Peter, Linus was the first to obtain the episcopate of the church at Rome. Paul mentions him, when writing to Timothy from Rome, in the salutation at the end of the epistle."

It was also clear that Peter was the first amongst the Apostles and not considered just 'a' Bishop of Rome.


"For immediately, during the reign of Claudius, the all-good and gracious Providence, which watches over all things, led Peter, that strongest and greatest of the apostles, and the one who on account of his virtue was the speaker for all the others, to Rome against this great corrupter of life. He like a noble commander of God, clad in divine armor, carried the costly merchandise of the light of the understanding from the East to those who dwelt in the West, proclaiming the light itself, and the word which brings salvation to souls, and preaching the kingdom of heaven."

Finally, in Chapter 4 of Book 3...

"9. As to the rest of his followers, Paul testifies that Crescens was sent to Gaul; but Linus, whom he mentions in the Second Epistle to Timothy 2 Timothy 4:21 as his companion at Rome, was Peter's successor in the episcopate of the church there, as has already been shown."

Pretty clear, huh?

Daughter of Wisdom, you then said,
"I need to explain or correct this remark by Leo, so that others reading may come to a full understanding of what is going on here, and not leave with misconceptions."

With all due respect, it is you who are creating the misconceptions by your flawed exegesis. Your taking of a Church father out of context is no different than what Webster does. Then, Jennie, you quote these misinterpretations the same way and use them as support for your anti-Catholic positions.

Do you not see the error in this approach? Please try approaching the Catholic Faith with an open mind and you may see the pearl of great price. It is not possible to come to a knowledge of the fullness of Truth if we do not approach it with an open mind and heart.

There may be a reason why I stumbled upon this blog while doing research on something completely different. I do not post on blogs as a matter of practice.

May the grace and peace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you always!

Leo said...

Daughter of Wisdom said...
I want to apologize to Leo for sounding a little harsh, and to Teresa for sounding a little stern, but these matters are matters of eternity, and our very souls depend upon them - for all eternity.

I know you did not mean any ill will towards me. You were simply trying to watch out for me and I appreciate that. Peace be with you!

Leo said...

Jennie said...
I'm curious, Teresa and Leo, why the catholics are avoiding my two latest posts on the Sabbath Rest. Is it just a boring subject, or some other reason? To me it's fascinating, and is at the center of everything."

Jennie, to me it's a moot point. It is one of the Traditions of the Church, since it changes what was taught about the Sabbath. We don't see it as a big deal because of the day change, but we still view it as a day of rest and worship.

When the Apostles began celebrating Mass, they did it on the Lord's day which is the first day of the week. They referred to the Eucharist as 'the breaking of the bread' and you can find several references to how they gathered on the first day of the week to do this. In fact, the disciples on the way to Emmaus only recognized Jesus in the breaking of the bread, at which time he disappeared from their midst.

It is the Eucharist that is the core of our Faith and, as you said, Mary is a significant issue so I need to address that. As time permits...

Leo said...

Daughter of Wisdom said,"the writers of the New Testament saw it fit to make a distinction in translation between "Petros" and "petra," to differentiate between the two words, as one was masculine and one feminine. It is not unusual in language to have masculine and feminine words. We see the same in Spanish, yet no one thinks that Senor(Mister) is the same as a Senora(Mrs.) or Senorita(Miss).

In the Old Testament we see the same thing in the Hebrew language. Solomon's wife was called Shulamite (Song of Solomon 6:13), yet Shulamite is the female form of the name Solomon; yet no one thinks that Solomon's wife is the same person as Solomon."

Let me explain myself more clearly, since you actually help make my point for me.

'petra' is an actual word and so is 'petros'. When assigning a name to a male, you could not use Petra just by capitalizing it.

Imagine your example and if solomon and shulamite were two ordinary words that had two slightly different meanings. You would still not call the woman, "Solomon" even if that were the closer meaning.

Jennie said...

Leo,
obviously you haven't even looked at my posts on the Sabbath Rest, or you would know I'm not talking about a 'day' but about the true fulfillment of the law of the Sabbath. It has great implications for Catholics, as it hits at the heart of the meaning of salvation by grace through faith, not of works.

Daughter of Wisdom said...

Jennie: I was delighted too when I discovered Solomon's name for his wife. Continue to be a living stone in the temple of Christ.



Leo: I rest my case. I do not wish to argue about this any more. I own the same work by Eusebius, and as I read those references you quoted, I do see a difference of words in my copy of the work and yours. I don't think we can settle this matter using this work, as there are discrepancies in your work and mine. I will therefore continue to trust in the INFALLIBLE Word of God as my Supreme guide and Authority.

"But the rest who accompanied Paul, Crescens was mentioned by him as sent to Gaul. Linus, whom he mentioned in his Second Epistle to Timothy as his companion at Rome, has been before shown to have been the first after Peter that obtained the episcopate at Rome" (Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History Book 3, Chapter 4, verse 8).

I take the above statement to mean that Linus was the first one to obtain the episcopate at Rome, after Peter established the church through his missionary work. I interpret it this way because of all that Eusebius had said before about Peter's work throughout the WHOLE ROMAN EMPIRE, which was that of planting churches, and starting congregations (see verses 1-4 of th same Book and Chapter).

Anyway, I know you love your church, and will do all to defend her. I do not blame you for that. It is hard to just give up or throw away all that you have learned over the years without some strong evidence that points otherwise. I perceive that you are a very loyal and dependable person.

Peace and blessings :-)

Leo said...

Jennie said...
Leo,
obviously you haven't even looked at my posts on the Sabbath Rest, or you would know I'm not talking about a 'day' but about the true fulfillment of the law of the Sabbath. It has great implications for Catholics, as it hits at the heart of the meaning of salvation by grace through faith, not of works."

Jennie, my issue is that this is nothing more than a specious misapplication of Scripture to try to once again sneak in an erroneous base assumption.

Salvation is indeed by grace; we cannot 'earn' it. However, faith without works is also indeed dead.

Now let's talk about why Jesus healed on the Sabbath. He wanted to end the misapplication of Sabbath regulations at the expense of those who were suffering. He said that the Sabbath was made for man and not the other way around.

Let's look at the Gospel of Mark 3:1–6.

" The Pharisees were watching to see if Jesus would heal a man’s withered hand on the Sabbath. Jesus asked:

"Is it lawful on the sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save life or to kill?" But they were silent. And he looked around at them with anger, grieved at their hardness of heart, and said to the man, "Stretch out your hand." He stretched it out, and his hand was restored."

Jesus wanted to show that mercy always comes first. He said that it was always okay to do good, even on the Sabbath.

He similarly attacked their concept of uncleanness, where one would become unclean by touching one who was unclean. What He did was turn their world upside down by making the unclean, clean. When He touched a leper, He was not made unclean; rather, the leper became clean.

Notice that these were outcasts from society. They were rejected and not allowed fellowship with even their families. He restored their fellowship by making them clean, showing how He would do the same for us spiritually.

He also did not abolish the 10 Commandments. We are to make Sunday a day of rest, just as we once were to do on the Sabbath. Only the man-made law was abolished.

It is not enough to only believe. We must also strive to follow God's law. If one says that he believes, yet obstinately refuses to obey, he will not be saved.

Even Billy Graham , a devout man of faith, was asked not too long ago on 60 Minutes if he would go to heaven after he died. His response was quite telling....
"I hope so..."

I still have computer issues but will continue on Mary and the Eucharist as I am able.

Leo said...

Daughter of Wisdom said,
"Linus, whom he mentioned in his Second Epistle to Timothy as his companion at Rome, has been before shown to have been the first after Peter that obtained the episcopate at Rome" (Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History Book 3, Chapter 4, verse 8).

I take the above statement to mean that Linus was the first one to obtain the episcopate at Rome, after Peter established the church through his missionary work."

How in the world can,"has been before shown to have been the first after Peter that obtained the episcopate at Rome" mean anything but that Peter was the first leader at Rome? Think logically about it. He just would have said, "the first that obtained the episcopate at Rome".

I am indeed sorry, but your interpretation just cannot be correct even in your version.

I could accept that you do not acknowledge the author. Your interpretation is simply untenable. You are forcing it to suit your purposes.

Your mindset against the Church and refusal to be objective is staggering.

What you are proving is why Christ founded a Church to prevent the Truth from being abused and taken out of context.

Daughter of Wisdom said...

As a Spiritual teacher within the body of Christ, I see it as my duty to uphold the Truth and purity of scripture. I therefore seek to use scripture and make a scriptural application in everything. Some may see this as acting contrary to their church, and this is understandable, but my defense is not for any particular earthly church denomination, but rather to uplift the words of scripture for the benefit of the Church invisible (that worldwide community of true believers whose membership are written in heaven).

Jennie said...

Jennie, my issue is that this is nothing more than a specious misapplication of Scripture to try to once again sneak in an erroneous base assumption.
If you read Hebrews 3 and 4 you will see that it teaches the same premise that I have given in the Sabbath posts. See the following passages from Hebrews 4:
3 For we who have believed do enter that rest

10 For he who has entered His rest has himself also ceased from his works as God did from His.

See the old testament story that is referred to in Hebrews, and in my husband's sermon, in Numbers 13 and 14. It shows how the Israelites believed the discouraging report of the 10 spies instead of the encouraging report of Joshua and Caleb, who trusted in God's provision and told the people to trust in God to fight for them and give them the land, instead of being afraid of the natives and refusing to go in because they saw they could not accomplish it themselves. They had seen God's provision of the manna and the pillar of cloud and fore to guide them, but they did not trust Him to save them by His arm alone. They would not step in by faith, so they were sentenced to wander 40 more years and die, and their children would enter in, along with Joshua and Caleb, who had been faithful, and trusted not in themselves, but in God.

Jennie said...

Leo,
Salvation is indeed by grace; we cannot 'earn' it. However, faith without works is also indeed dead.
As I said to another commenter under the Sabbath posts, we are not saved by good works, but we are saved FOR good works by grace through faith. We are not sanctified (made like Christ) by good works, but by grace through faith, as we abide in His word, the Holy Spirit sanctifies us. "Sanctify them by Thy truth. Thy word is truth." See John 15 and 17.

Jennie said...

Leo,
Now let's talk about why Jesus healed on the Sabbath. He wanted to end the misapplication of Sabbath regulations at the expense of those who were suffering. He said that the Sabbath was made for man and not the other way around.

Jesus wanted to show that mercy always comes first. He said that it was always okay to do good, even on the Sabbath.


You really need to post these under the appropriate post, but I will answer you here.

It is correct that Jesus wanted to teach these things, but that is not the only meaning. The sabbath was a day to rest from our labors for ourselves, but works of love are always appropriate. But how can we cease from working for ourselves, for our own salvation, until it is achieved? If we have to work to merit our salvation, then we are never working for only love and mercy, but for ourselves.
Jesus died to take our sin upon Himself and to declare us righteous by giving us His righteousness. Then we can by faith accept it, and then work by faith to show love for God first and then love and mercy for others.
First we must be free of sin by grace through faith, and only then can we do true works by faith, being made holy by the Spirit in us.

Jennie said...

Even Billy Graham , a devout man of faith, was asked not too long ago on 60 Minutes if he would go to heaven after he died. His response was quite telling....
"I hope so..."

Those are not the words of a man of faith. He has no confidence in Christ, but only hopes he has been good enough; and none of us ever can.

Daughter of Wisdom said...

BTW Leo, I think you did a nice scriptural exegesis on the Sabbath.

Peace and Blessings :-)

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 204   Newer› Newest»