Praying to Mary

And do you also "promise to increase devotions TO the living " and recruit others to do the same in "exchange for favors granted"? Do you say that your living friends are "All powerful"??

And do you suppose that there are a few living Catholics on the planet - with whom you are NOT in direct contact. Did you ever try "Contacting" Mother Theresa while she was "at work"? Phones weren't always the best way. Did you try a prayer to her when the phone access was not available?

No! You will find it much easier to contact the dead via prayer than it is to contact your most popular RC living personality. It would greatly increase your "access" to those living celebrities IF you "could" contact them in prayer. But for now, the RC says that such a convenient medium of communication is only available for contacting the dead (assuming they are the right dead of course - as you say).

No scripture says that anyone in God's presence acquires God's infinite God-power of hearing all the universe's prayers. But it is a fun thing to make up if needed.

Again - that is pure fantasy with only one-part fact. The fact that they WILL not die does not mean that all beings in heaven have acquired God's OWN attribute of having no beginning. It is a fun thing to make up about them - but has not basis in scripture - and NEITHER is the space-time-continueum mentioned in God's Word.

Pretending to have the "physics" of heaven on hand to evaluate is a need of those who pray to the saints - but is not addressed in scripture and not needed by those who pray direction to God.

God is "not ABLE to hear prayers" -- BECAUSE He will live for ever - but rather "BECAUSE" He is God - He is omnipresent and all-knowing. Qualities NOT shared by beings that are NOT God.

An interesting game of "fantasy physics" but certainly nothing more and hardly a basis for "proving" anything.

---------------------------------

So getting back to "real life" -

AGreed - all Christians participate in that.

In forbiding prayers to the dead - God's word is very consistent in calling the saints that die "The DEAD in Christ" 1Thess 4:16 - (instead of "the perfectly ALIVE in Heaven" - this helps us "understand" that not praying to the dead would in fact include not praying to all kinds of dead people including "The Dead in Christ".

In Christ,

Bob

[ December 24, 2002, 11:07 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

You can't demonstrate something that isn't true, but I can't stop you from trying.

I agree with Thayer concerning Matthew 1:25 and "Luke 2:7 -- where, had Mary borne no other children after Jesus, instead of huion prototokov [firstborn], the expression huion monogene [only-born] would have been used..."

Surely you do not believe that God is unable to express the meaning he intends. If Jesus were Mary's only child then the Holy Spirit would have inspired the word (monogene) "only-born" but since He inspired (prototokov) "firstborn" it is as He says.

(Mat 1:25) "And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS."

(Luke 2:7) "And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn."

[ December 25, 2002, 01:27 AM: Message edited by: SolaScriptura in 2003 ]

 

Catholics, especially Catholic women, say that if you go through the mother things get done faster. This is obviously an "old wives' fable" that we must refuse. (1 Tim 4:7) All prayer to Mary is based on this fable, and this fable is based on a rediculous assumption. If you go over my head and tell my momma to tell me to do something, I guarantee you it will not be done faster! And what need have I of asking Jesus' mother for anything when I have that assurance of my Lord "Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you"? (John 16:23) Catholics would fain that Mary is more powerful than the Father? that she is faster than the Father? BLASPHEMERS AND IDOLATERS!

Do I need the intercession of Mary? Do I need the intercession of anyone other than Christ? Nay! For I am able to go "boldly unto the throne of grace." (Heb 4:16) WHY? Because I "have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." (Heb 4:15) I "have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God." (Heb 4:14) Did the Jews under the Old Covenant go to God through the High Priest's mother or through the High Priest himself? Even so, I go through Christ Jesus alone! and I can "enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus"! (Heb 10:19)

[ December 25, 2002, 01:07 AM: Message edited by: SolaScriptura in 2003 ]

 

Interesting. I actually agree with Sola on this post he just made. The idea that one can go to the Blessed Virgin because She is a more powerful intercessor than Jesus Himself, or that She has some kind of clout that He lacks is very disturbing to me.

I do not doubt that the Blessed Virgin prays for the welfare of the Church and its members, but let us remember something, She would never pray out of or against the will of God. If She was in submission to the will of God here on earth, what makes people think that they can go to Her and She will somehow get them what they want if they can't get it from God? Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

Furthermore, as the New Eve, She is indeed ONE with Jesus, the Son of Man, so that they share a cooperative will and desire. This manifests itself in prayers that are completely in sync with the other and the will of God.

Do not despize the prayers of any of the saints, either those here on earth now, those who are Home with the Lord, or the New Eve who is the new mother of all the faithful. Death is not a separator between us anymore than milege here on earth is. And in the mystery of prayer, something is accomplished when we pray.

Brother Ed

 

ABG --

You misunderstand my point --

You are right. Scripture says that we do have access to the holiest. But does that make US high priests? Does that mean that we can offer YOM KIPPUR? No. That remains to Jesus Who is the Great High Priest.

Notice that in verse 21, it clarifies this point, saying that there is a Great High Priest over the house of God

Now, if He is a high priest, then He must be doing the function of a high priest in Heaven, else why would God use that description of Him?

I do think you have raised an interesting point which I intend to meditate upon, i.e. our entrance into the holiest of all and what does that me for us? I certainly cannot mean that we usurp Christ's place there to mediate and offer for the covenant people, but there is something special which has to do with the rending of the veil, which is Christ's flesh.

Very interesting.

Brother Ed

 

CatholicConvert, I'm glad you partially agree with me.

Note the change of subject. None here despise the prayers of the saints but we despise praying to saints. If anyone chooses to pray for me, I'm glad of it, but I will pray TO none but God Himself. What of Daniel who was thrown in the lions' den for praying only to God. It was illegal to pray to God but not to pray to the king. The Catholics would have us believe that he should have prayed to the king rather than God and he would have been ok!

Just as God put a deep sleep on the first Adam and taking a rib from his side built him a wife, God put the deep sleep of death upon the last Adam and taking blood and water from his side built him a wife, the church. So, the church is the "New Eve" -- Mary is not. Mary was neither built out of Christ's side, nor is she his wife! Your doctrine is rediculous!

If your prayer to Mary were like a conversation with a living friend it would not be formal such as "Hail Mary, etc." but "Yo Mary, how's it going? Will you pray for me?" Thus, you condemn yourself and show that you do lie concerning this matter.

First off, Yom Kippur means Day of Atonement and Yom means day -- this makes your sentence strange. Offering a day? What? Regardless, neither we nor Jesus offer any sacrifice of atonement (or Yom Kippur as you put it) today or any other day because "this He did once for all when He offered up Himself." (Hebrews 7:27) "And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God," (Heb 10:11-12) His sacrifice was perfect, therefore no more need to be made. But as High Priest "he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them." (Heb 7:25) Wheras no more sacrifice need be made, intercession does, and he does interceed. Will God hear the intercession of other above or more than that of the High Priest? Certainly not!

[ December 25, 2002, 01:45 AM: Message edited by: SolaScriptura in 2003 ]

 

Hi Sola,

You can't demonstrate something that isn't true, but I can't stop you from trying.

Do you think that it is gratuitous and open-minded to come to conclusions so quickly? You should allow for the possibility that adelphos is used for one's cousin in the Bible; cutting off this possibility without examining the evidence demonstrates a presumption based on preconceived prejudice.

Of the four "brethren" who are named in the Gospels, consider, for the sake of argument, only James (similar reasoning can be used for the other three). We know that James the younger’s mother was named Mary. Look at the descriptions of the women standing beneath the cross: "among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee" (Matt. 27:56); "There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome" (Mark 15:40).

Then look at what John says: "But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene" (John 19:25). If we compare these parallel accounts of the scene of the crucifixion, we see that the mother of James and Joseph must be the wife of Clopas. So far, so good.

An argument against this, though, is that James is elsewhere (Matt. 10:3) described as the son of Alphaeus, which would mean this Mary, whoever she was, was the wife of both Clopas and Alphaeus. But Alphaeus and Clopas are the same person, since the Aramaic name for Alphaeus could be rendered in Greek either as Alphaeus or as Clopas. Another possibility is that Alphaeus took a Greek name similar to his Jewish name, the way that Saul took the name Paul.

So it’s probable that James the younger is the son of Mary and Clopas. The second-century historian Hegesippus explains that Clopas was the brother of Joseph, the foster-father of Jesus. James would thus be Joseph’s nephew and a cousin of Jesus, who was Joseph’s putative son.

This identification of the "brethren of the Lord" as Jesus’ first cousins is open to legitimate question—they might even be relatives more distantly removed—but our inability to determine for certain their exact status strictly on the basis of the biblical evidence (or lack of it, in this case) says nothing at all about the main point, which is that the Bible demonstrates that they were not the Blessed Virgin Mary’s children.

Also, consider how Lot was called Abraham’s “brother” (Gen. 14:14), but really, he was his nephew. (He was the son of Abraham’s brother Haran – see Gen. 11:26-27).

Likewise, Laban called Jacob his “brother,” even though he was his nephew (Gen. 29:15).

In 1 Chronicles 23:21-22, Eleazar’s daughters married their “brothers,” who were really their cousins, the sons of Eleazar’s brother Kish.

Thus, the fact that some people are referred to as brothers and sisters of Jesus does not necessarily mean that these people were children of Mary. Throughout Christian history, even well into the Reformation era, the “brothers” and “sisters” of Jesus were thought to be the children of Joseph from a previous marriage or cousins.

One reason that the “brothers” of the Lord cannot be children of Mary is because the Bible indicates that they were older than Jesus, and He was Mary’s “firstborn”. Now, the Bible never explicitly says that these men were older than Jesus, but it does indicate it. We see these “brothers” giving Jesus advice, and telling him what to do. (See, e.g., John 7:3-4 and Mark 3:21). In the ancient Eastern culture in which Jesus lived, it would have been considered extremely disrespectful, indeed unthinkable, for a younger brother to address his older brother that way. One simply did not speak that way to one’s elders. That’s why Jesus said, “he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger” (Luke 22:26).

Finally, consider the scene at the crucifixion. As Jesus was dying, He entrusted His mother to the apostle John (John 19:26-27), and “from that time on, this disciple took her into his home.” Now, if Mary had other sons, not much younger than Jesus, why would she not have been given to their care? Indeed, the gospel requires believers (which Jesus’s “brothers” became shortly after the Resurrection – see Acts 1:14) to take care of their own family (1 Tim. 5:8). Would Jesus have violated this rule? I don’t think so.

I agree with Thayer concerning Matthew 1:25 and "Luke 2:7 -- where, had Mary borne no other children after Jesus, instead of huion prototokov [firstborn], the expression huion monogene [only-born] would have been used..."

This demonstrates your ignorance of the way the ancient Jews used the term "firstborn". For them it meant the child that opened the womb (Ex. 13:2; Num. 3:12). Under the Mosaic Law, it was the "first-born" son that was to be sanctified (Ex. 34:20). Did this mean the parents had to wait until a second son was born before they could call their first the "first-born"? Hardly. The first male child of a marriage was termed the "first-born" even if he turned out to be the only child of the marriage.

In Exodus 34:20, the Lord says, “Redeem all your firstborn sons.” We see Mary and Joseph doing this in Luke 2:22-24. This took place “when the time of their purification according to the Law of Moses had been completed” (forty days – see Lev. 12:4), long before there would have been time for Mary to have another child. Thus, Jesus was considered the “firstborn” immediately, and the use of this term tells us nothing at all about whether Mary eventually had other children.

Commenting on this, John Calvin, the Protestant Reformer and father of Calvinism, wrote:

"And besides this, Our Lord Jesus Christ is called the first-born. This is not because there was a second or a third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to the precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or not there was any question of the second." (Sermon on Matthew 1:22-25, 1562 A.D.)

God bless you,

Carson

 

Hi Adopted,

You wrote, "do you see why it seems a bit insulting for someone to confess thier sins to other humans[?]"

How could such an action be considered insulting when it is God himself (in human flesh) who gave men the authority and power to forgive sins? See John 20:21-23 (this was only one of two times in all of the Bible when God breathed on man; the other is in Genesis 2:7).

And how can Christ's ministers forgive sin if they have not first heard them through auricular confession?

It is Matthew who records that God "had given such authority to human beings" (Matthew 9:8) - not just Jesus, but human beings. Matthew is able to record the Healing of a Paralytic in such a way as to incorporate the fact that in the churches he was writing to, this same ministry of Jesus (of forgiving sins) continued through his ministers.

When we (Catholics) and individuals of other confessions (Lutheran, Episcopalian, Anglican, Eastern Orthodox, etc.) confess our sins to ministers, we are confessing our sins to Jesus through his minister. It is his minister who acts in the person of Christ sacramentally. And when we hear the words of absolution, we know that we have been forgiven with an assurance that is profoundly powerful. This particular sacrament has had a tremendous impact in my own walk with Jesus, and without it, I do not know where I would be today.

Sacramental confession, FAR FROM taking away from the work of Christ, is the actual application of the infinite merits of the God-Man - who gave himself up for me - in my life whereby any sin, no matter how great, is absolved through His ministers acting in His name for His glory.

We retain many ancient liturgical texts from the Early Church that show us what prayers they prayed in the various liturgies (that is, Masses) throughout Christianity.

Here is a copy of Chapter 3 of the Apostolic Tradition by Hippolytus, which gives to us the Prayer for the Consecration of a Bishop. It was written in 215 A.D.:

"O God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Father of mercies and God of all comfort, Who dwellest on high yet hast respect unto the lowly, who knowest all things before they come to pass; Who didst give ordinances unto Thy church by the Word of thy grace; Who didst foreordain from the beginning the race of the righteous from Abraham,instituting princes and priests and leaving not Thy sanctuary without ministers; Who from the foundation of the world hast been pleased to be glorified in them whom Thou hast chosen; And now pour forth that Power which is from Thee, of the princely Spirit which Thou didst deliver to Thy Beloved Child Jesus Christ, which He bestowed on Thy holy Apostles who established the Church which hallows Thee in every place to the endless glory and praise of Thy Name. Father who knowest the hearts of all grant upon this Thy servant whom Thou hast chosen for the episcopate to feed Thy holy flock and serve as Thine high priest,that he may minister blamelessly by night and day,that he may unceasingly behold and propriate Thy countenance and offer to Thee the gifts of Thy holy Church. And that by the high priestly Spirit he may have authority to forgive sins..."

forgiven by Jesus, in communion with the Early Church, following the Biblical record, and in line with the Apostolic Tradition,

Carson

[ December 25, 2002, 03:39 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

Sola --

Just as God put a deep sleep on the first Adam and taking a rib from his side built him a wife, God put the deep sleep of death upon the last Adam and taking blood and water from his side built him a wife, the church. So, the church is the "New Eve" -- Mary is not. Mary was neither built out of Christ's side, nor is she his wife! Your doctrine is ridiculous!

Not at all. It is quite rational and logical from Scripture.

Go back with me to the Garden. This is where everything was lost, right? What did God create and what was lost?

God created a SON. Adam was the son of God (Luke 3:38). What are sons of kings. Princes. Adam was, in reality, Prince Adam, whose destiny was to become a king himself. How do I know this? By the fact that God gave Adam DOMINION AND AUTHORITY over the Creation. Adam was more than a mere creation a little higher than a worm. He was a sharer of the divine glory and was destined to rule as king over God's Creation.

And Eve was in like manner a princess destined to CO - REGENCY with Adam as his spouse/helpmeet. She would reign as Queen with Adam's Kingship.

Notice that Adam and Eve were HUMAN BEINGS. It was to human beings that this great grace was given.

Therefore, in like manner, to redeem the lost Garden Covenant and restore the king/queenship of HUMAN BEINGS, it was necessary that Christ be born the "Son of MAN" It is a MAN who lived, died, and rose to eternal glory. This is why Jesus is called "The Last Adam". He is the MAN, the HUMAN BEING MALE, who has taken Adam's place and is the new King of Israel -- God's people.

But if there is no FEMALE HUMAN BEING to take the place of Eve, then what was lost in the Garden is not fully restored, is it? You simply cannot try to substitute the Church for the Blessed Virgin because the Church is NOT HUMAN. The New Eve must be like unto the first Eve, human in every aspect.

And like the first Eve, She is the "mother of all living", except that now Her motherhood is that of all who are truly alive in Christ. She is to me what the first Eve would have been IF she had not fallen in sin -- my mother.

If your prayer to Mary were like a conversation with a living friend it would not be formal such as "Hail Mary, etc." but "Yo Mary, how's it going? Will you pray for me?"

You talk to YOUR MOTHER like that???? I think you have forgotten the commandment "Honor thy father and thy mother."

Thus, you condemn yourself and show that you do lie concerning this matter.

Thus you are thunderingly ignorant of how to do type/fulfillment exegesis from OT to NT.

"And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God," (Heb 10:11-12)

Yes, this passage speaks to the fact that there were sacrifices which had to be made daily for PERSONAL and INDIVIDUAL sins. And it is true that Jesus the Christ has made a single sacrifice replacing them, but that single sacrifice has to be applied to my sins when I sin. It is no good if it is not applied.

His sacrifice was perfect, therefore no more need to be made.

Agreed. But it does need to be applied.

But as High Priest "he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them." (Heb 7:25)

It is my opinion that He cannot make intercession without a Blood offering, seeing that this was what a high priest did in the OT.

Jesus is our Great High Priest. You need to stop trying to mix things up by insisting that he performs the function of an ordinary priest. As Great High Priest, made a sacrifice which is serviceable in two ways -- we use that sacrifice to atone for our PERSONAL AND INDIVIDUAL sins, and He, as Great High Priest, offers it continually before the Father for the sins of the corporate nation, the Church, which is the new Israel of God. (Gal. 6:16)

Wheras no more sacrifice need be made, intercession does, and he does interceed. Will God hear the intercession of other above or more than that of the High Priest? Certainly not!

You are setting up a false conflict between the intercession which the saints do for each other and the work of Christ as High Priest. Get your facts straight please, and stop trying to make Jesus something else other than what the Bible says He is.

Brother Ed

 

Chris --

Praise God, Here's more scripture that demonstrates why Christ's sacrifice was so great and so thorough that it put and end to all sacrifices, even Yom Kippur.

What is it about people that when they are even shown Scripture they insist upon having their own way?

Hebrews calls Christ "our Great High Priest". It would be the height of folly for God to call Jesus our Great High Priest if Jesus were not doing the work of a high priest in Heaven. What do you not understand about that?

Heb. 8:5 gives us a very important principle of God's dealings with mankind, i.e., that the things which are done here on earth are shadows and types of the true in Heaven. Therefore, when God established the high priesthood on earth, He was pointing to the eternal high priesthood of Christ which began before the foundation of the world according to Revelation.

Hebrews 7:27

Heb 7:27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's:for this he did once, when he offered up himself.

Note that a high priest does NOT offer up sacrifice for individual sins. The verse you quote says that a high priest offers first of all for his own sins, and then for the peoples -- that is, the NATION as a corporate entity. It was the regular, or mediatorial priesthood, which offered individual offerings for the sins of individuals.

Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself.

Indeed. That is the great thing about Christ's work. It removes the need for continuing sacrifices since it is perfect to do what it is intended to do. But it does need to be applied by faith.

Thats the beauty of the New Covenant. We are under grace and life, not the law of sin and death.

This has NOTHING to do with the high priestly work of Jesus the Christ.

Christ's great and final sacrifice covered all the sins of the the entire world for all times.

No, it did not. That is a demonic lie from the devil who wishes men to ignore the sacrifice and not apply it to their lives. The sacrifice Christ made was on behalf of His people Israel -- that is, God's covenant people, NOT the Jews -- and it restored the broken Garden Covenant and put the Church in a permanent and unfailing covenantal relationship with God.

When a sacrifice was made in the Old Covenant, one did not sit around and say, "Well, that's done and I believe in it, therefore, I can go home now." No, sir, they had to APPROPRIATE that sacrifice and make it theirs personally. They had to put their hands on the animal and confess and transfer their sins to it, see it slain, and then, after all was said and done, EAT THE FLESH of that animal!!! "Faith alone" that the priest killed the animal and things were okey-dokey is not found in the rites.

What you are believing in is Luthers garbage theology which removes from mankind the APPROPRIATION of the one sacrifice to make it ours and its forgiveness ours. And once the peasants in Germany believed this nonsense, that the Blood of Jesus covers a man forever and pays for sins for all time, they proceeded, in their simplistic understanding of such teaching, to turn Germany into a moral cesspool before Luther died. After all, if the Blood of Christ has paid it all forever, then what difference does it make what I do, right? At least, that was their thinking, and epistomologically, they are correct!!!

Praise God - I'll never have to attempt to atone for my sins or confess them to anyone, because I am covered by Christs blood.

Only until you sin, my man, and then the dirt and filth of your sin needs a fresh APPLICATION of the Blood of Christ to make you clean again.

Indeed the cost was great - it bankrupt heaven!

Ummmmmm, could you give me either the verse for this or a reasonable piece of exegesis defending this idea?

Given that Christ died for you and me, and the entire world, do you see why it seems a bit insulting for someone to confess thier sins to other humans, rather than to the one whom people truly sin against? the one who payed such a high price?

Given that Jesus Himself ordained the apostles as the first bishops in the Church and gave to them the power to both hear and pardon men's sins, do you not find it a little insulting to Him to set up your own system of religion because you find things with the Catholic Faith that bother you? Who told you that you are the 100% infallible ordainer of what is right and wrong in Christendom?

And as for your last two sentences, we do not confess to "mere humans" when we confess to a priest. A priest is, by virtue of the apostolic power residing in the bishop at ordination, an "alter Christus". It is Christ in the priest to whom we are confessing. It is, in fact, Christ Who is really and truly present in each of the seven Sacraments, which is why they are so special. Our King is not a distant deity, but really and truly present with his people, for where the king is, the kingdom must be also.

Study your types harder.

Brother Ed

 

What is that supposed to mean?

Now, Carson:

Basically, you are saying that if another person in my family has the same name as me that they are me. "And it came to pass, that on the eighth day they came to circumcise the child; and they called him Zacharias, after the name of his father. And his mother answered and said, Not so; but he shall be called John. And they said unto her, There is none of thy kindred that is called by this name." (Luke 1:59-61)

By following this rule of these Jews and naming people after their kindred, many would share the same name in the same family. That does not make them the same person.

One simply should not speak to a rabbi or a prophet that way either! They shouldn't speak to the the Son of God that way, but did they mind doing it? What they should do vs. what they did do is no valid argument.

Lot is truly Abraham's brother, religiously -- Laban Jacob's religiously. Brother is always used in a literal sense, either as fleshly or spiritual brothers. The gospel writers, however, make it plain concerning who Jesus' fleshy brothers are and who the spiritual.

The difference being that they were open to the possibility of other children. If God were not open to allowing Mary to have others, then Jesus would not have been called "firstborn." Note such passages as Luke 7:12 and Luke 8:42 where "only" is used -- such is never said of Jesus concerning Mary.

PS: Do you really think I care what John Calvin says? I'm no Calvinist - in fact Calvin saying it may make me more against it. Calvin was very Catholic in his OPINIONS. He saw nothing wrong with papist baptism, etc. He was no protestant - just a protoCatholic.

[ December 25, 2002, 04:06 PM: Message edited by: SolaScriptura in 2003 ]

 

He was no protestant - just a protoCatholic.

I would betcha a whole lotsa money that if'n you went to conservative Presbyterians and tried to run that by them they would die laughing.

Oh, I see. YOU and your Puritan buddies are the only "real" Protestants, right?

Oh brrrrooooooother!!!!

Brother Ed

 

just feeding the hamster.
She looks so intelligent. Do they go to heaven when they die?
Any thoughts?

 

"If your prayer to Mary were like a conversation with a living friend it would not be formal such as "Hail Mary, etc." but "Yo Mary, how's it going? Will you pray for me?" "

Isn't Scripture good enough for this type of request?

 

Before getting back to the subject of praying to the "Dead in Christ" 1Thess 4:16...


Heb 7:27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's:for this he did once, when he offered up himself.

That is the end of the mass - because the sacrifice was already offered "once" for all.

And as in John 6 - nobody was taking a bit out of Christ's arm - we don't do it today either.


Christ's great and final sacrifice covered all the sins of the the entire world for all times.

You are clearly wrong about that.

1John 2:2 "HE was the atoning sacrifice for Our Sins and Not for Our Sins Only but for those of the Whole World .

In Christ,

Bob

[ December 26, 2002, 06:59 AM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

In forbiding prayers to the dead - God's word is very consistent in calling the saints that die "The DEAD in Christ" 1Thess 4:16 - (instead of "the perfectly ALIVE in Heaven" - this helps us "understand" that not praying to the dead would in fact include not praying to all kinds of dead people including "The Dead in Christ".

In forbidding prayers to all BUT the dead (when speaking of the communion of saints) the RCC is in direct contradiction with the scripture.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Okay Bob --

Besides the fact that you attribute my quotes to Carson (which should insult him greatly, given that he is much schmarter than I am in these matters),

IF

Christ's sacrifice paid for all the sins of the world for all time, then what is the point of repentance? We are ALL, every man woman and child, all covered, forgiven, and free to enter Heaven, right?

Your reply, please?

Brother Ed

 

QUOTE :

Note that a high priest does NOT offer up sacrifice for individual sins. The verse you quote says that a high priest offers first of all for his own sins, and then for the peoples -- that is, the NATION as a corporate entity. It was the regular, or mediatorial priesthood, which offered individual offerings for the sins of individuals.

That is the end of the mass - because the sacrifice was already offered "once" for all.

Unbelieveable. How do you go from the offering of Jesus Blood being YOM KIPPUR for the corporate people, the Israel of God, to it eliminating our personal responsibility to repent and offer an acceptable sacrifice for our sins? They are two totally different concepts. That is why in the OT there was a high priesthood and a regular (mediatorial) priesthood. Neither could do the other's office. You really need to study yer typology better, my man.

1John 2:2 "HE was the atoning sacrifice for Our Sins and Not for Our Sins Only but for those of the Whole World

John is merely saying here that contrary to popular Jewish belief that the forgiveness of sins was limited to the Jews (and even worse, to MALE Jews, since females and Gentiles were said to have no souls) that this atonement was for the whole world. But that does not APPLY IT to the whole world. In YOM KIPPUR, our Great High Priest applies that atonement to the Church, which is the kingdom of God, the "new nation" of God. But that application has NOTHING to do with our PERSONAL AND INDIVIDUAL SINS. The sacrifice is made FOR THE WORLD, as in it is available to every ethnicity and culture of the world, without restriction, but each of us must personally appropriate it for ourselves.

And what I was calling demonic was the way it seemed as if you were dragging out the old cannard about "once saved - always saved". Maybe I misunderstood, but if that was it, then I must reject that thoroughly. The idea that once you "accept Jesus" all your sins past, present, AND FUTURE are forgiven, is a lie, pure and simple. When we sin, we must confess and forsake AND BE CLEANSED. And the Blood of Christ is the only agent that will do that job for us.

Brother Ed

 

Ed - sorry about confusing your post with Carson's. (But I am guessing the view you held on this point is not entirely different from Carson's - just a guess).

If you look at the model of atonement God gives in Lev 16 you will find that although the atoning sacrifice is completed at the start of the service - it is appropriated to the members of the congregation via a process that continues after the atoning sacrifice is made and not until the entire process is complete is the "atonement" made.

God has a sin-suffering economy such that the sufferings of Christ were sufficient to cover all the debt owed by all of mankind. But He still offers it on the basis of "And to As Many as Believe" - "That Whosoever should believe in Him might not perish but have everlasting life".

In Christ,

Bob

[ December 26, 2002, 08:25 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]