In Christ and the Blessed Virgin

Hi Ray,

For the third time, I wholly suggest reading this essay at http://carson.boerne.com/catholic/kingdom_eccesiology in which I have shown that the "kingdom of God" is none other than the restoration of the long-awaited Davidic Kingdom.

the understanding that the Kingdom of God is distinct from the Davidic Kingdom

Maybe, perhaps.. you're creating a false dichotomy between the kingdom Christ preaches and the awaited Davidic Kingdom.

You only quoted until verse 30

No, I did not. I only referenced Acts 2:30 in ellipses, but I quoted through 31 where Peter says that David "foresaw and spoke of the resurrection" when David prophesied about this event:

"God had sworn an oath to [David] that he would set one of his descendants upon his throne."

The oath spoken of is the oath that created the Davidic Covenant in 2 Samuel 7. In Jesus' time, the Jews had been awaiting the return of the Davidic King, the Christos or Messiah, who would take up the throne of his father David. And who is Jesus? He is the christened Son of David (Mt 9:27) who takes up the throne of his father David at his resurrection.

And if the resurrection occurred once and for all approximately 1970 years ago, then Jesus has been reigning upon the throne of his father David all of this time, and the Davidic Kingdom has long been established on earth in the form of the Church.

To what position of authority was Jesus exalted ... Answer: ... Jesus was being elevated to the right hand of God exalted

Ray, you're making the same mistake that the contemporaries of Jesus made. You're still seeking an earthly theocratic kingdom.

Please, explain Zechariah chapter fourteen.

I believe you may quite enjoy NT Wright's Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996). Check it out sometime. It's delish. Wright is one of the leading New Testament scholars of this century and has been creating quite a stir in Evangelical circles.

In Matthew 16:28, Jesus tells his disciples, "Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."

This means that in some way, the Son of man came with his kingdom in the generation of the apostles. In some way, Jesus' rule after his resurrection is manifested here on earth.

The Fall of Jerusalem told in Mark 13:1-4 is a story that is symbolically enacted. Jesus seems to intend an allusion to Zechariah 14:4-5; the context is the coming of the divine kingdom (Zech 14:9) and the coming great battle of the nations against Jerusalem (14:1-3). Zech 14:4-5 speaks of Israel's god standing on the Mount of Olives, and Jesus chooses the Mount of Olives as the appropriate place from which to utter his last solemn oracles of judgment upon Jerusalem, and his last solemn predictions of the vindication of himself and his followers.

Here's a taste of N.T. Wright for you:

"We must, however, stress again: as far as the disciples, good first-century Jews as they were, were concerned, there was no reason whatever for them to be thinking about the end of the space-time universe. There was no reason, either in their own background or in a single thing that Jesus had said to them up to that point, for it even to occur to them that the true story of the world, or of Israel, or of Jesus himself, might include either the end of the space-time universe, or Jesus or anyone else floating down to earth on a cloud. They had no yet even thought of his being taken from them, let alone that he might come back; nor did they have any idea of another figure, earthly, heavenly, or something in between, who would one day come down to earth riding on a cloud. Had Jesus wished to introduce so strange an unJewish an idea to them he would have had a very difficult task; as we often find in the gospel, their minds were not exactly at their sharpest in picking up redefinitions even of ideas with which they were already somewhat familiar.

"The disciples were, however, very interested in a story which ended with Jesus' coming to Jerusalem to reign as king. They were looking for the fulfillment of Israel's hopes, for the story told so often in Israel's scriptures to reach its appointed climax. And the 'close of the age' for which they longed was not the end of the space-time order, but the end of the present evil age (ha 'olam hazeh), and the introduction of the (still very much this-worldy) age to home (ha 'olam haba') - in other words, the end of Israel's period of mourning and exile and the beginning of her freedom and vindication. Matthew 24:3, therefore, is most naturally read, in its first-century Jewish context, not as a question about (what scholars have come to call, in technical language) the 'parousia', but as a question about Jesus 'coming' or 'arriving' in the sense of his actual enthronement as king, consequent upon the dethronement of the present powers that were occupying the holy city. The disciples were pressing Jesus to give them details of his plan for becoming king, as David had become king, in the city that was at present still rejecting him. They were longing for their own version of the great event for which all Israel had been on tiptoe." (pp. 343-346)

 

Doesn't that act of obedience to the Pope raise the pope to a level equal to that of the Christ?

Not any more than the Prime Minister of the Davidic Kingdom was raised a level equal to that of the Davidic King.

 

My understanding is that the Council of Ephesus condemned the Nestorian heresy but did not create a Marian cult. Am I mistaken?

The doctrine of Theotokos, unlike Marian mythology, does not obscure the Gospel because it is focused on Christ and not Mary. The title “Mother of God” is important not because of what it tells us about Mary but because of what it tells us about Christ. There are not two “Christs” as some Protestant sects imagine but one Christ fully God begotten of the Father before all worlds and fully Man made of the substance of His mother in time and for eternity. It was necessary for Son of God to take on human flesh in order to save us all from sin, death, and the devil.

Does the title “Mother of God” mean we should start praying to her, build shrines to her, form a Marian cult, and give her the honor that is due Christ alone. No, prayer is worship. All prayer, worship, and honor should be to Christ our only savior.

 

Carson Weber,

You have skillfully ignored the fact that Jesus will be on His Messianic throne in Jerusalem as duly noted in Zechariah 14:17.

I think we would all agree that all of the Apostolate and the women were already in the kingdom of God, long before His ascension. And yet at His ascension all of these Israelites at the last moment asked their final question. Here was their concern.

'Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the Kingdom of Israel?' [Acts 1:6] These Jewish followers clearly had not seen or experienced Israel's grand day in their nation. The Millennial reign of Christ had not taken place to their chagrin.

Surely, if these Jews were getting off track as to this event, Jesus would have stopped them in their tracks and set them on the straight path. But what was Jesus reply as to whether or not there would be a time when Israel would thrive again as during Old Testament times. For those who do not have their Bible present I will read His profound answer to them.

Brethren, 'It is not for you to know the times and the seasons, which the Father had put in His own power.' Notice did not say, "Brethren, if you are looking for My Messianic reign, forget about it!" He did not deny that it would come, but merely said, in effect, it is none of your business right now.

If any of your brethren have access to any knowledgable Messianic Christians they will explain the future Messianic Kingdom until you see this grand, grand truth.

 

No. It means that Jesus in some way is manifest to those "standing there" on the mount of transfiguration - glorified as He will be at the 2nd coming. Hmm I believe that would be Matt 17 - the very next chapter in the book as it turns out.

Hard to miss.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Hi John,

My understanding is that the Council of Ephesus condemned the Nestorian heresy but did not create a Marian cult. Am I mistaken?

The Marian cult existed long before Ephesus (431 A.D., invoked by Pope St. Celestine I), brother.

One little example would be the Sub Tuum Praesidium (which translates to "Under Your Protection"), the oldest recorded Marian prayer in the Church. This was found on a 3rd century Egyptian papyrus:

We fly to your patronage, O Holy Mother of God:
despise not our petitions in our necessities,
but deliver us always from all dangers,
O Glorious and Blessed Virgin.

Here's an example of another Marian prayer by St. Methodius, written circa 305 A.D.:

"Hail to you forever, you virgin Mother of God, our unceasing joy, for unto you do I again return. . . . Hail, you fount of the Son’s love for man. . . . Wherefore, we pray you, the most excellent among women, who boast in the confidence of your maternal honors, that you would unceasingly keep us in remembrance. O holy Mother of God, remember us, I say, who make our boast in you, and who in august hymns celebrate your memory, which will ever live, and never fade away" (Oration on Simeon and Anna 14).

To sum up much with few words: the Council of Ephesus was followed by an incredible proliferation of Marian devotion throughout the Church universal.

The doctrine of Theotokos, unlike Marian mythology, does not obscure the Gospel because it is focused on Christ and not Mary.

That's to create a false dichotomy brother. It's all about Mary. It's also all about Christ. And what is said about Mary effects what is to be said about Christ and vice versa.

Does the title “Mother of God” mean we should start praying to her, build shrines to her, form a Marian cult, and give her the honor that is due Christ alone.

No, the title itself doesn't mean that. But, you're missing the fact that all of these activities you mention here above were present in the Church's life before Ephesus. In fact, the very Church wherein the bishops gathered in Ephesus was named after Mary (It was named Virgin Mary, located next to the Harbor Baths in Ephesus).

Also, we give Mary the honor that she deserves as the Mother of God. Is this kind of honor due to Christ? If so, that's odd. Christ is due the honor of being his own mother?

[ June 15, 2003, 02:08 AM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

Hi Ray,

You have skillfully ignored the fact that Jesus will be on His Messianic throne in Jerusalem as duly noted in Zechariah 14:17.

If you haven't figured me out yet, Ray, I read the prophets in the genre of what they wrote in: apocalyptic imagery. This type of narrative is largely symbolic, yet the symbols symbolize real events, in apocalyptic terms.

It's a fundamentalistic reading of the Bible that you're employing. You're expecting for actual cats and dogs to fall from the sky.

'Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the Kingdom of Israel?'

Ray, have you read my essay yet? For the fourth time, here it is:

http://carson.boerne.com/catholic/kingdom_ecclesiology.html

You continue to bring up key verses that I have addressed in the above paper, and this is one of them:

"In Acts of the Apostles, Luke records that during the forty days after the resurrection, Jesus appeared to his apostles speaking to them "of the kingdom of God" (Acts 1:3), charging them not to depart from Jerusalem and to wait for the Holy Spirit. They asked him, "Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?" to which Jesus responded, "It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has fixed by his own authority. But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and to the end of the earth" (Lk 1:6-8). Jesus affirms the restoration of the kingdom yet conceals the timing established by the Father, and thereafter, we witness the restoration of the kingdom through the ministry of the apostles. At Pentecost, Peter himself describes the resurrection of Jesus as a heavenly enthronement according to Luke’s narrative in the Acts of the Apostles, "Since [David] was a prophet and knew that God had sworn an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants upon his throne, he foresaw and spoke of the resurrection of the Messiah … Exalted at the right hand of God, he received the promise of the holy Spirit from the Father and poured it forth, as you see and hear" (Acts 2:30-31.33). In the New Covenant Kingdom, Jesus is seated and reigns at the right hand of the Father in heaven; exalted in heaven, Jesus pours forth the Holy Spirit upon his Church, drawing believers into one body through missionary outreach."

In Jesus' reply, he creates an outline of the Davidic Kingdom:

1. Jerusalem - the Davidic city
2. Judea - the Davidic tribal territory
3. Samaria - the 10 Northern Tribes
4. the end of the earth - the Gentiles

And in commissioning the Apostles, he is essentially answering their question concerning the restoration. The restoration is to be accomplished through missionary outreach wherein the 12 Tribes are reunited - along with the Gentiles. This occurs through the preaching of the Gospel to Jew and Gentile.

This is Paul's thesis in Romans, Chapters 9 through 11:

11:25-26, "Lest you be wise in your own conceits, I want you to understand this mystery, brethren: a hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles come in, and so all Israel will be saved"

"a hardening has come upon part of Israel" refers to the separation of the Northern 10 tribes in 930 B.C. when the Davidic Kingdom was divided between Jeroboam and Rehoboam; these tribesmen were assimilated into the Gentiles through the systematic deportation into exile by Assyrian hands and replacement with Gentile peoples.

When Paul goes out and preaches to the Gentiles, he is preaching to the 10 lost tribes. Thus, when Gentile converts come into the Church, all Israel is saved because all 12 Tribes hear the Gospel, including the remnant among the Gentiles of the 10 lost tribes.

[ June 15, 2003, 01:54 AM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

That's funny. Why are prophecies concerning the end times symbolic yet other prophecies in the prophets are fulfilled literally? Interesting.

Neal

 

Hi Neal,

Why are prophecies concerning the end times symbolic yet other prophecies in the prophets are fulfilled literally? Interesting.

You're creating vast generalizations. We should interpret Scripture according to the intention of the author. If the author wrote in apocalyptic terms, then that is how we should interpret his writing. If he wrote with literary types that do not employ symbolism, then we should interpret those accordingly.

For instance, the Book of Revelation lies within the genre of Apocalyptic literature. To interpret such literally would serve as a case of anachronistic reading. You'd be reading ancient Jewish literature with 21st c. American eyes.

For example, "I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, with seven horns and with seven eyes" (Revelation 5:6).

Do you really think Jesus, in heaven, is a lamb with seven eyes and seven horns? If you do, then you are reading Scripture as a Fundamentalist without regard for literary type.

 

So are you saying that all apocalyptic literature is symbolic? None of it literal?

Neal

 

Hi Neal,

So are you saying that all apocalyptic literature is symbolic? None of it literal?

Whatever symbolism lies within the apocalyptic genre is symbolic, and the task of the exegete is to determine this symbolism.

In Revelation, it is quite very likely that Patmos is a real island that John was really writing from: "I John, your brother, who share with you in Jesus the tribulation and the kingdom and the patient endurance, was on the island called Patmos" (Revelation 1:9).

This is part of the literature, and yet it wouldn't be symbolic.

Neal, answer me. Do you really think Jesus is a seven-eyed, seven-horned lamb in heaven? Do you really think a literal, sharp two-edged sword issued from his mouth? Do you think he literally held seven stars in his right hand?

 

Carson, no, I do not THINK those things are literal. Of course, we could be wrong. But I do think that some things are literal. I am just asking you because you seem to be implying that if a prophecy deals with the end times then it is automatically symbolic. That is why I am asking you.

Neal

 

Hi Neal,

I am just asking you because you seem to be implying that if a prophecy deals with the end times then it is automatically symbolic. That is why I am asking you.

No, that would not be the case. The genre of a particular piece of prophetic literature is a separate matter than the subject that it addresses.

For instance, Dr. Hahn in The Lamb's Supper has shown how the apocalyptic imagery in Revelation is a portrayal of the Church's liturgy, which is essentially heavenly - yet comes down to us on earth in sign and sacrament.

The subject of much of Revelation is the Church's public act of worship (liturgy), which isn't "end times" material, yet is mostly rendered in symbolic, apocalyptic imagery.

[ June 15, 2003, 06:49 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

Carson Weber repeats what Jesus said. 'They asked him, "Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?" to which Jesus responded, "It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has fixed by his own authority.'

Carson said, Jesus affirms the restoration of the kingdom yet conceals the timing established by the Father, and thereafter,we witness the restoration of the kingdom through the ministry of the apostles. At Pentecost, Peter himself describes the resurrection of Jesus as a heavenly enthronement . . . '

Rays is saying, No one because he might be raised from the dead is automatically elevated to 'enthronement.' Lazarus arose from the dead but did not inherit a throne. If Jesus were only raised from the dead, there would be no salvation for any of us. But, instead He was raised from the dead and after being seen by the 500 He ascended into Heaven and sat down at the right hand of the Father. [Hebrews 1:3] Yes, Jesus has a kingdom and I am in it. He has through the will of the Godhead placed Himself in a rightful place of authority above. Yes. Yes.

You see what you have not allowed to enter your heart is that Jesus is building His church throughout all the world. Your church and many other denominations are actively doing the same. But, notice that the Jewish apostolate did not say, 'Wilt Thou at this time restore again the church or even the kingdom, in and of itself. The Kingdom of Israel, as the Bible states, was in operation until the Israelites aposticized and were dispersed into all of the then known world. So, Jesus is not talking about the church or Jesus taking control at the right hand of God in Heaven. He is telegraphing the fact that at some time beyond the church age, He is going to deal with more fully with His own people, the Israelites. He promised them that they would not recognize the Messianic Kingdom of 1,000 years because they would be dead long, long, long, before His arrival at the Second Coming of Christ. Indeed, they are now with the Lord and have been for some 2,000 years. [II Cor. 5:8] This is our hope too.

And that is why Jesus said directly in their faces, you will not see My theocracy restored again as the Kingdom of Israel.'

Try to keep in mind that its not all about us. We are a few dots on the time line of God's great plan for the ages. More than a thousand years will ride its due course in future history because this is the plan of God. We will be taken to Heaven before this dispensation even starts. [I Thess. 4:16-17]

While Catholics obey church rules and the tradition of the various popes, some of us non-catholics are people of the Book and know these deeper spiritual truths that have never been heard in a homily in your branch of the church.

Acts 1:6-7 and Zechariah chapter fourteen both speak clearly about the yet coming 'kingdom of Israel.' Notice: not the church or the general kingdom that has been being developed even under the Old Testament covenant. God speaking through the Apostle Paul said in Roman 11:24 that at a future time Isral will be 'grafted into their own olive tree.' We might not think the 'kingdom of Israel' [Acts 1:6e] will be grafted into Christ again, but with God all things are possible; or in the words of Paul, 'God is able to graft them in again.' [Romans 11:23d]

 

Hi Ray,

You wrote, "Rays is saying, No one because he might be raised from the is automatically elevated to 'enthronement.'"

I am not saying that the fact that Jesus rose from the automatically means that he is enthroned. I am saying that Peter tells us that Jesus' resurrection and ascension is a heavenly enthronement upon the throne of his father David. This is clear from Scripture:

Peter says, "For David says concerning [Jesus], `I saw the Lord always before me, for he is at my right hand that I may not be shaken; therefore my heart was glad, and my tongue rejoiced; moreover my flesh will dwell in hope. For thou wilt not abandon my soul to Hades, nor let thy Holy One see corruption. Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou wilt make me full of gladness with thy presence.'

Peter continues, "Brethren, I may say to you confidently of the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants upon his throne, he foresaw and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses. Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this which you see and hear. For David did not ascend into the heavens; but he himself says, `The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, till I make thy enemies a stool for thy feet.' Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified."

Okay, let me see if I can make this really simple for you, Ray.

How much clearer can Peter be than to say, "Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants upon his throne, he foresaw and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ"

Scripture is 100% clear on the issue of when Jesus takes up the throne of his father David, thus restoring the Davidic Kingdom: Jesus' resurrection.

It's right there. Peter said it. Don't you see it?

Ray, are we having a dialogue? I've been asking you questions and setting forth arguments, and you neither answer my questions or answer my arguments. I feel like I'm talking to, well, a wall. Am I?

 

Thank-you for sharing how you interpret this book of the Bible.

Neal

 

Or........what would be wrong with just saying "In Christ" without the taglong
"and the blessed virgin" ?

We are told to honor our mothers and fathers too.
Would it then also be appropriate to say:

"In Christ and the blessed virgin and our honorable mothers and fathers" ?

 

I think you are saying, as do Reformed Baptists, that when Jesus was seated at the right hand of God [Hebrews 1:3, that this is the same as Christ fulfilling the Scriptural statement that one day He would be seated on the seat of David.

I'll also keep it simple for you. Was the seat of David in Heaven with glorified saints and angels or did King/Prophet/ David sit in Jerusalem as the second king of Israel?

Christ one day will take the seat of David where he in fact was enthroned. Where? Jerusalem. And we don't have to look to the traditions of the church for this one. Our authority resides in the Bible, the Word of the living God. Straight from God Himself. Zechariah chapter fourteen describes the earth shaking even of the Second Coming of Christ where even the land mass will be adjusted when He comes in His mighty power. And then He will be seated on the seat of David. Where? In Jerusalem. [Zechariah 14:17]

Anyone who remotely thinks that the Second Coming was in 70 A.D. needs to close the catechism and open the real authority for us, the holy Bible. We appreciate what you do know about His program for the ages but their is no premium on spiritual ignorance.