stigmata, Marian apparitions, etc.

The buthchering of Scripture according to CC. What you have described here is indeed heresy and is totally unacceptable to any serious student of the Bible. Did Jesus return in 70 A.D., as you claim? Who saw Him? What evidence do you have? Was there a "resurrection of the spirits in Paradise and the souls on earth here." Those are your exact words Ed? What souls were resurrected? Were their bodies resurrected as well? If not it was no resurrection at all. There is no such thing as "a spirit resurrection." That is a foolish Jehovah's Witness doctrine that doesn't make any sense. Every spirit is "resurrected" when it dies. It is the body that stays in the grave. The resurrection has purely to do with the body and not the spirit. What evidence do you have that Christ returned in 70 A.D. You are the one starting a new cult here. Christ has not returned yet, and all the world knows that, except the cults, and those who claim to be Christ.
DHK

[ November 16, 2002, 02:03 PM: Message edited by: DHK ]

 

The cloud coming of Jesus the Christ:

As Jesus stood before Caiaphas the high priest implored him to dispel their doubts and tell them if he was indeed Messiah. Jesus' response is important to the study of Revelation 1:7,"Thou hast said: Nevertheless, I say unto you, Here after shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power and coming in the clouds of heaven."

In this passage we have the identical elements as in Revelation 1:7. In Revelation we are told that those who pierced him would see him. In Matthew Caiaphas, one of the chief instigators of Jesus' crucifixion is told he would witness Jesus' return. In Revelation the Lord was to return with the clouds. In Matthew Jesus promised to return in the clouds. In Matthew Caiaphas is told he would personally witness the return; in Revelation the event was"at hand" and "Behold,I come quickly."

Just a word here about the coming in the clouds. The mind set which demands a literal return on the physical clouds needs further study in the Biblical usage of the concept.

Clouds are depicted as the"chariots of God" and indicative of his MAJESTY. In Job 22:12ff Job exalts Jehovah as the one who is in the height of heaven and covered with thick clouds. In Psalm 18 which is a highly apocalyptic description of David's deliverance from Saul the former shepherd tells how Jehovah "bowed the heavens...and came down with darkness under his feet, he rode upon a cherub, and flew; He flew upon the wings of the wind. He made darkness His secret place; His canopy around Him was dark waters and thick clouds of the skies." Now one can look but in vain to find a physical event matching these words. Jehovah had acted to deliver his servant and thus he had come. He had acted and his actions had vindicated his righteousness, thus he was depicted as coming in majesty in the clouds. Psalm 68:32-35 also speaks of God who "rides on the heaven of heavens" and "his strength is in the clouds." Again the concept is his majesty and sovereignty. Psalms 104:3 tells us God "makes the clouds his chariots" and "walks on the wings of the wind."

The idea of God's coming in the clouds is also associated with the exercise of his sovereignty in JUDGING his enemies. In Isaiah 19 Jehovah "rides on a swift cloud and will come into Egypt." We know from chapter 20 that it was the Assyrians who were God's instrument of wrath on Egypt, see Isaiah 20:1-4; yet it is said that Jehovah was coming on a cloud. In Zephaniah 1:14-16 we are told the "great day of the Lord is near;" and that it would be a day of "wrath," "distress," and a "day of clouds," when the Lord would come. We know this is a prediction of the impending judgment on Jerusalem, 1:4ff. This judgment came in 606-586 BC. Similar language is found in Nahum in the prediction of Nineveh's fall. Jehovah "has his way in the whirlwind...and the clouds are the dust of his feet." El Shaddai would come, the mountains would melt, the earth would be destroyed at his presence when he came on the clouds. We know that Nineveh was destroyed, not by a literal coming of Jehovah out of heaven on the clouds, but by the invading armies of the Chaldeans and Medes in approximately 612 BC. Homer Hailey's book, A Commentary on the Minor Prophets, is a good commentary to study.

Yet another though related concept of the coming with the clouds is the Messianic motif of Daniel. In Daniel 7 one like the Son of man is depicted as coming in the clouds of heaven. This concept of Messiah on the clouds was certainly one well known in the first century. For John to say in Revelation 1:7 that Jesus would come with the clouds was nothing less than an assertion of his Messianic role as the ruler of the kingdom of God. In his coming in the clouds he was exercising the sovereignty and demonstrating the majesty of deity so well known in the Old Covenant. The idea is not a literal coming with the clouds so much as an identifying factor of the one under consideration. He is to be viewed not just as man but the One, who, like Jehovah, rides on the clouds. The association of Jesus coming in the clouds then was a way for the Biblical writers to IDENTIFY Jesus, in a manner well known to those conversant with Old Testament symbolism, as God's Messiah, as the Judge, worthy of majesty and honor.

This is precisely the thought Jesus was conveying to Caiaphas when he told him he would see him coming in the clouds. When Jesus said he was going to come in the clouds this was a claim to the Messianic office and divine nature; Caiaphas responded, "He has spoken blasphemy!" Caiaphas was not responding to a claim that Jesus would literally return on a physical cloud. He was responding to the IDENTITY which Jesus was claiming by associating himself as the one to come in the clouds of heaven!

One final thought. We would note the New Testament TIME FRAME for the coming of Jesus in the clouds. Patently Jesus told Caiaphas he would see Jesus' return in the clouds. He did not say he would die and millenia later be resurrected to view the parousia. He was living and was told he would witness Jesus' return, which we hope is now understood to be the exercise of his Messianic sovereignty by an act of judgment.

In Matthew 24:30-34 we are told emphatically that the disciples' generation would see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven. Reader, how can the honest student of the word ignore such emphatic chronological parameters? How can we divorce Revelation 1:7 and the promise of the coming in the clouds, from Revelation 1:1-3 and the prediction it "must shortly come to pass" and was "at hand"?

Summary: We have attempted to demonstrate that Revelation 1:7 has three distinct concepts behind it which mitigate against a futuristic interpretation. First, the Old Covenant backgound as applied by Jesus in Matthew 24 to the destruction of Jerusalem. Second, the coming in the clouds as an identifying factor. The one coming in the clouds was to be associated with sovereignty, majesty, and judgment. A literal coming was not envisioned. Thirdly, the emphatic time limitations of the text. John's vision was to "shortly come to pass"; Jesus said he was coming "quickly," 22:12.

It is strange indeed that such a literalistic interpretation has been imposed on Revelation 1:7 when this violates not only the symbolic context of Revelation but the inspired interpretation (Matthew 24:30-34) of the source of the verse (Zechariah 12:10.) Let us be more careful students of the Word.

Coming on the clouds is language indicating the coming judgement upon Jerusalem and every eye DID see the "cloud coming" when they walked by the barren, trash littered, and burned field that used to be where Jerusalem and the Temple stood.

You need to learn how to study the Bible, DHK. You are way to literalist to be handling such things as Jewish apocalyptic language and trying to make sense of it. That is where you are being decieved into believing in the false idea of a "rapture" of the Church.

If you wish to further study this teaching, type the word Preterist into your search engine and do some objective and unbiased studying.

BTW -- Most Preterists are Protestants and not Catholic or Orthodox. I think this truth will come forward some day in the Church, but it will be a while and will require, ultimately, another Church Council.

Brother Ed

 

I will get back to your post. But I want you to accout for your "spiritual" resurrection. That is the major heresy here. The "souls" that were resurrected. What on earth are you talking about here?
DHK

 

Hi Helen,

Thank you for your reply.

You wrote, "Carson, they are not alive physically. This is the point."

I agree.

You also wrote, "All of them are conscious spiritually."

And that is my point.

When you combine this with the Biblical truth that the Saints in Heaven are witnesses of us here on earth in Hebrews 12:1 with the Biblical truth that the Saints in Heaven offer the prayers of the saints in earth before the throne of God in Revelation 5:8, you have:

The intercession of our brothers and sisters in Heaven on our Behalf before the throne of the Almighty Lamb.

God bless,

Carson

 

Hi Helen,

The book of Revelation is Apocalyptic literature, which is a particular style of writing that employs symbolism to convey theological truths.

If the 24 elders are not the saints, are not angels, nor are the Holy Trinity, then, pray tell, Helen, who are they? Saints, maybe?

You wrote, "Because I have been taught by Jesus to pray directly to the Father and I really don't want anyone in between Him and me, thank you."

So, you bypass the one mediator between God and men, Jesus Christ, and pray directly to the Father? Shame on you!

So, you ask others to pray for you to Jesus, pitting people between Him and you? Shame on you!

You wrote, "The crucifixion tore open the curtain of division and there is NNE going to put it back up again."

The Paschal Mystery also caused the Jerusalem Temple to cease being "a temple" by ripping the veil from top to bottom, defiling the Temple, causing the Church to become the New Temple where the Spirit of God now resides.

You wrote, "We have -- because of Jesus -- direct access to God ourselves. Why settle for less?"

Exactly! Why have other brothers and sisters pray for you when you have direct access to the Father yourself!

You wrote, "And why put yourself in a position in which you can be so horridly deceived as to thinking these apparitions are not demonic?"

And why put yourself in a position in which you can be so horridly deceived as to think that every single apparition is demonic because you have an anti-Marian prejudice and deny the spiritual motherhood of your Heavenly Queen.

God bless,

Carson

 

Hi Helen,

You wrote, "That means that whomever these 24 are, they are not women."

It does not matter whether they are men or women. The point, Helen, that you refuse to acknowledge, is that these who offer the prayers before throne of God are Saints.

You wrote, "By the way, Jesus is God."

Of course, but Jesus is not the Father.

You wrote, "No, I ask others for their support in prayer because prayer is a very special privilege God has given to us for direct communication with Him."

But, when you ask for someone else to pray for you and they pray for you, you are not directly communicating with God. You have a mediator, which seems to contradict your proof text: that there is one mediator between God and Men (1 Tim 2:5)

You wrote, "But the people I ask are people I know, and they know me, and they are very much alive in their bodies still."

And, as I've shown, Hebrews 11 speaks of saints that we know, they know us because they are witnesses of us (Heb 12:1), and they are very much alive without their bodies in Heaven by being conscious spirits.

You wrote, "Believers are the church being built by Christ."

And any believer indwelt by the Spirit of Christ is united in some way to the Catholic Church, which is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15).

Of course, Paul doesn't completely spiritualize the Church. He recognizes that Jesus came to fulfill the Davidic Covenant, not to abolish it with a spiritualized household.

You wrote, "Hebrews 12:1 states they are only witnesses, not participants."

And Revelation 5:8 states that they are participants in addition to them being witnesses, as taught in Hebrews 12:1.

You wrote, "There is never any indication we should contact them at all."

Jesus contacted Moses and Elijah upon the Mount of Transfiguration, and as Jesus is the model of every believer, I take that as a "go" from God himself.

You wrote, "For instance, I know that Mother Teresa is about to be sainted -- or will be in the next few years. But I am willing to put forward the idea that she may not be in heaven at all. Her goal was to make Hindus better Hindus etc. Her 'peace at any cost' at the moment of death for these people was at the sacrifice of the Truth of Christ. And I'm betting He was not thrilled by that."

I encourage you to read the Interview with Sr. Nirmala, Mother Teresa's Successor that Jude posted on another thread:
___

Sister Nirmala: "We Must Be Prepared to Be Persecuted" Mother Teresa's Successor Tells of Her Own Conversion

CALCUTTA, India, NOV. 6, 2002 (Zenit.org).- Sister Nirmala, superior of the Missionaries of Charity, says she is ready to give up her life if necessary for love of God and of the poor.

Her Nepalese parents were devout Hindus of the highest caste, the Brahmans. Educated in the traditional values of Hindu society, she discovered Christ and his Gospel unexpectedly.

Here, Sister Nirmala spoke with missionary F. Felix Lazcano.

Q: Who is Sister Nirmala?

Sister Nirmala: Sister Nirmala is a child of God.

Q: How did you come to know Jesus Christ?

Sister Nirmala: I did not wish to convert to Christianity. I had no idea what it was about, and I was very happy being a Hindu. However, in my city there was no institute for girls, so I was registered at Patna Women's College, a Catholic institution.

A few days after being there, a Hindu girl, an American student, knelt down and began to pray when the bells rang. I remained standing and looking at her, and something happened: a gentle movement in my soul and I felt that the living Jesus came to me. From then on, I began to ask a lot of questions about Jesus and, after six and a half years I came to Calcutta, met Mother Teresa, and was baptized.

Q: How do you feel about being Mother Teresa's successor?

Sister Nirmala: It is something totally unexpected and unmerited; it is Jesus' grace. I am humble holding the position. It is a gift, so I
accept it.

Q: But your job as superior general must not be at all easy?

Sister Nirmala: Yes, if I depend on myself; but if I depend on God, and with the help of my Sisters, I can do it day after day.

Q: What challenges does the congregation face after Mother Teresa's death?

Sister Nirmala: The same: to live totally surrendered to God. This is our daily struggle.

Q: What are the most salient characteristics of your spirituality?

Sister Nirmala: To slake Jesus' thirst on the cross for all of us and to love the poorest of the poor. Love and service. The Missionaries of Charity make a fourth vow, in addition to the traditional ones of poverty, chastity and obedience: the free and wholehearted service of the poorest.

Q: Are persecutions and difficulties frequent for Christians in India?

Sister Nirmala: If we are Christians, we must be prepared to be persecuted. It is a matter of fidelity to what we are. He gave his life for us, and if we are not willing to give our life, what are we doing here?

___

You wrote, "dressed up in ecclesiastical robes."

You may be surprised to find that the dress that the clergy wear today was normal attire in Latin Rome. It is our culture that has changed in this regard, not the church.

You wrote, "The only heavenly queen mentioned in the Bible is an idol."

So the crowned woman in Rev 12:1 is an idol? Interesting.

You wrote, "I do not have an anti-Marian prejudice, by the way."

Of course you do; I call it "Marian minimalism".

You wrote, "But neither will I insult God by promoting her to a position of idolatry"

Me neither.

You wrote, "She is NOT my spiritual mother and NOT my heavenly queen. I totally reject both ideas."

This is the minimalism that I speak of. I would encourage you to read and pray over John 19:26-27.

You wrote, "She was a normal human woman who loved God and was used by Him to bring to birth the body He would use here on earth."

That's the standard Evanglical take: Mary was merely used by God to give Jesus his body.

You wrote, "But she was not born of a virgin"

You're kidding me right? The Catholic Church does not teach that she was born of a virgin.

Are you sure that we're talking about the same Catholicism?

You wrote, "she is no one's queen"

If Jesus is the new Solomon and if Solomon's mother was the Queen Mother (or "Great Lady", "Gebirah" in Hebrew), then Mary is the New Solomonic Queen Mother.

You wrote, "Jesus honored her as his earthly mother, and made sure she was taken care of at the point of His crucifixion."

Oh, right. I'm sure that Jesus was merely taking care of hospitality issues as he died in excruciating pain at the climax of human redemption whereby the salvation of the human race was being accomplished. Uh huh.

You wrote, "we have no record of anyone consulting her for anything."

Where do you think Luke got his info on the Infancy narratives?

You wrote, "And, in addition, the only times apart from childhood and the crucifixion that we see her are when Jesus is specifically denying her right to be special: the feast at Cana where He gently rebuked her for her request, but honored it anyway"

*laugh* - I would suggest going back and reviewing just exactly what Jesus said. Try and fit that into the context of the siutation, and you'll notice that Jesus was in no way disrespecting his mother; John, the Evangelist, is placing a theological thread in his Gospel, namely, the significance of "the hour". I also suggest looking for the different context in which "the hour" appears in his Gospel.

You wrote, "and when, in attempting to see Jesus, Mary had to be announced by the disciples and Jesus then responded that anyone who "does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.""

And who, if not Mary, did the will of the Father? If you didn't notice, Luke includes this narrative in his Gospel. He also includes the fact that Mary will be called blessed by all generations. Why so?

We call Mary blessed because she did the will of God, not because she is his mother by flesh.

God bless,

Carson

[ November 17, 2002, 03:44 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

Your response, Helen, shows why Baptists will never understand Catholic theology. I post SCRIPTURE VERSES which show the use of "Jewish Apocalyptic Language" and how that relates to what Jesus said in front of Caiphas, and all you can do is respond with a rolleyes?

The same must be said for your response to Carson and the veil of the Temple. The Holy of Holies did not have anything to do with individual and personal sins. Those sins were dealt with by the mediatorial priesthood of Aaron. The high priest went into the Holy of Holies, behind the veil, once a year, with the covenant sacrifice for the nation of Israel not for individual sins.

The idea you posit -- that because the veil was torn down, we can now go to the Father directly --breaks that typology and is therefore incorrect. Trying to prove that the prayers and intercessions of the saints and our Blessed Mother is now unnecessary because of this is like trying to prove that computers have been invented, automobiles are not necessary. One is NOT connected in any why to the other.

Your post shows the individualistic and autonoumous mindset of Evangelicalism which recognizes no such thing as the Body of Christ, no such thing as our relation to other saints in the Body, no such thing as the headship of the Body on earth through the Holy Father, and no such thing as us working as a unit for the good of mankind and for each other's salvational journey. Salvation is not "me and Jesus and no one else". It is unity with Jesus through the Body of Christ, the Church, which is the totalit of all of us as a "new creature" in Christ Jesus. St. Paul spoke of this in Eph.2: 15 where he says that we are made a "new man" in Christ.

Your response is why I consider Fundamentalism to be the kindergarten of Christian theology. Like such children, you make fun of what you cannot understand, or claim that it is demonic in nature. This is not the response of college age students, who will study the issue to disprove it.

Of course, realizing that such thing may result in your following a long long line of converts into the Church, I can well understand your fear.

 

Sophistry or not, you still have not indicated that you understand the use by our Lord of the Jewish apocalyptic language which Ciaphas and the rest of the Jewish world would have understood perfect.

The post laid it out very clearly for you, yet you dance around it. Are you and DHK dance partners by any chance.

Brother Ed

 

Hi Helen,

You wrote, "If the elders are not women, you have got to eliminate all those women saints."

So, you're claiming that only the men in heaven offer the prayers before the throne of God? To concede even that the men do is to prove my point.

Also, I asked my friend, Michael Barber (whose commentary on the Book of Revelation is about to be published by Emmaus Road) about the 24 elders, and he gave me an exciting answer.

Revelation 5:8 reads, "And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints"

The presbyteroi in Rev 5:8 are numbered in 24 to image David's assignments of the Levites to the Temple.

In 1 Chronicles 23, we read in verses 1-5:

When David was old and full of days, he made Solomon his son king over Israel. David assembled all the leaders of Israel and the priests and the Levites. The Levites, thirty years old and upward, were numbered, and the total was thirty-eight thousand men. "Twenty-four thousand of these," David said, "shall have charge of the work in the house of the LORD, six thousand shall be officers and judges, four thousand gatekeepers, and four thousand shall offer praises to the LORD with the instruments which I have made for praise."

The "house of the Lord", of course, is the Solomonic Temple (First Temple Judaism) in Jerusalem, which is a prototype of the Heavenly Temple in the Heavenly Jerusalem: the Blessed Trinity.

The Book of Revelation is a demonstration of how the liturgy of the early Church mirrors and is a participation in the Heavenly Worship of the Heavenly Jerusalem.

As the presbyteros of the New Covenant use incense in the liturgy of the Early Church, this incense symbolizes the prayers of the saints, which rise (like the incense) to God in heaven. In heaven, the presbyteros of the New Covenant in heaven offer these same prayers before the throne of the Eternal Lamb.

You wrote, "You said Jesus is not the Father, but we have some indications in the Bible that the Trinity may not be as separate as you think"

Your points are well taken, yet the Son is still not the Father as they are distinct persons in the Blessed Trinity; I would also stress that we can pray directly to the Father without invoking Jesus' name literally because we are already "in Christ" by virtue of our baptism. We pray to the Father through Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit.

You wrote, "When I ask someone to pray for me, I do not mean that I ask them to pray in my place. I ask rather that they remember me in their direct prayers to God. It does not stop me from praying to God also!"

And this is exactly my view of the Saints. They do not pray in our place; I ask them to remember me in their direct prayers to God. It does not stop me from praying to God also.

You wrote, "And I will repeat, the faithful of Hebrews 11 are only referred to as witnesses in Hebrews 12, not as participants. A witness is only a witness."

The reason I quote Hb 12:1 is not to show that they are participants in our race on Earth (of course, that's ridiculous; they've completed the race), but that they witness us. If they witness us, then they witness our asking them to pray for us as well. That is my point, and it is irrefutable.

You wrote, "And there is no way I am connected with the Roman Catholic church which I consider pagan at the core, Carson, and built on a lie."

You mean: what you think is the Roman Catholic Church.

You wrote, "I am a Christian, born again in Christ by the power and grace of the Holy Spirit and am connected directly to God through Christ."

If you are, then you are a member of the Body of Christ. If the Roman Catholic Church is the Body of Christ, then you are somehow imperfectly united with her. Now, of course, if the Roman Catholic Church isn't the body of Christ, then you are in no way connected to her.

You wrote, "I am a very tiny part of a very incredible church Christ Himself is building, and it is not the Roman Catholic church, which is an imposter."

The Roman Catholic Church is called "Roman" because it is founded upon the Rock of the Person of St. Peter, the first Prime Minister of the King of the Kingdom, who is Jesus Christ.

Christ says Matthew 16:16-19 in light of Isaiah 22:20-22 because he is the Davidic King (son of David) who has come to restore the Davidic Kingdom and transform it into the heavenly reality that we know of as the Church.

You wrote, "You take Jesus as your model when He was transfigured? What arrogance! Since when have YOU been transfigured that you should do as He, God of gods, did?"

I will be transfigured when I am clothed with my heavenly tent at the general resurrection, just like my forerunner and firstborn of many brethren, Jesus Christ.

You wrote, "And I would ask you also, if you ever pray to Moses or Elijah...!"

I have before, yes.

You wrote, "I was not talking about the dress the simple clergy wear today. I was referring to the robes of the Pope and bishops -- primarily the Pope."

And that is what I am referring to as well.

You wrote, "In contrast, Jesus Himself said that when we welcomed a little one in His name, we welcomed Him. They are much closer to being His representatives than the Pope, if one is to take Jesus' statement to heart."

And Mother Teresa would have much to teach both of us regarding this eternal truth of our Lord Jesus Christ.

You wrote, "The only time Queen of Heaven is mentioned in the Bible is in Jeremiah (7:18; 44:17-25) and it is idolatry."

No, no, no. The Davidic Kingdom is a foretype of the Heavenly Kingdom. I'm speaking specifically of the Davidic Queen Mother.

You wrote, "The crowned woman in Revelation 12:1 is the Jewish race -- it is from them the Messiah came. The 'crown' of twelve stars is actually an astronomical sign pointing to the time when the Savior was born. The sun and the moon at her feet are also part of that. "Revelation 12 depicts the birth of Christ when sun and moon in Virgo. That dates the Nativity as 10th September 3 BC. or 29th September. 2 BC.""

Is this your infallible interpretation to the exclusion of all others?

I would also refer you to verse 17, "Then the dragon was angry with the woman, and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus."

So is this verse telling us that the Jewish race is our mother (or possibly the Church, of which the ecclesiotype is Mary?)?

You wrote, "Nevertheless, we see Jesus concerned about His mother, His disciples, and the thief all during His time on the cross."

Like I said, your Marian minimalism misses the climactic structure of the event. You reduce the passage to mere hospitality, which I find destructive to the sense of the passage.

Youw rote, "And yes, Mary was only used for the gestation and birth of the body of Jesus. He Himself is eternal, and, in fact, Revelation 13:8 tells us He was slain from the foundation of the world. She was not around then."

So, we're speaking about a sort of divine rape? Mary had no say in the matter? Or did, perhaps, her fiat have any value?

Did I ever claim that Mary is eternal? Of course not.

Mary is the Mother of God, and that is a truth that is irrefutable, unless you wish to separate the Son of God into two persons.

Jesus is one person with two natures. The one person is the eternal Son of God and the two natures are human and divine. Mary gave birth to the one eternal Son of God, of which she only gave him his flesh.

To deny Mary as Theotokos is to do harm to orthodox Christology and the personhood of Jesus Christ.

You wrote, "My apologies about the misunderstanding of the term immaculate conception. I just looked it up. Mary was without the stain of original sin according to Catholic dogma."

You see how ignorant you are of Catholic doctrine? You claim to repudiate what you barely understand or even recognize.

You wrot,e "Mary herself did not seem to think so, or did she need a Savior apart from the stain of original sin?"

Mary was saved from original sin at the moment of her conception, therefore she was saved in a more sublime way than any of us considering that we still have the stain of Original Sin even after we're saved. In Mary's case, God is even more Saviour.

You wrote, "and Paul would have been lying about everyone being a sinner."

When Paul says this, he is incriminating Jews against Gentiles, not making a blanket catch-all statement. If the former is correct, then Jesus too was born with sin, for Paul makes no exclusion for Jesus.

You wrote, "Jesus is the new Solomon? Where do you get that?"

You're kidding me, right? The best of Biblical scholarship. It's all over the walls of distinguished Protestant Biblical exegetes and scholars! I refer you especially to Dr. Dale Allison's "The New Moses".

You wrote, "Oh, never mind -- "David's Son", right? That's REALLY twisting things Carson."

No, it's paying attention to the New Testament.

The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. (Mt 1:1)

And as Jesus passed on from there, two blind men followed him, crying aloud, "Have mercy on us, Son of David." (Mt 9:27)

And behold, a Canaanite woman from that region came out and cried, "Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David; my daughter is severely possessed by a demon." (Mt 15:22)

You wrote, "Luke interviewed Mary as a historian. This is a world different from consulting her on matters of the Apostles!"

I do not advocate that Mary was a presbyteros of the New Covenant. I was simply pointing out a truth for the fun of it.

You wrote, "Call it what you will, Jesus was not ready to start His work at Cana, as He clearly told Mary."

Which only bolsters my point! It is through the intercession of Mary that Jesus began his public ministry by performing his first miracle.. now that's Motherly intercession!

You wrote, "Mary is called blessed by all of us. But that is not exaltation to "Queen of Heaven." It is just blessed."

That is to miss the point that Mary is the Mother of the Davidic King, Jesus Christ, who came to fulfill the Davidic Covenant.

You see, Helen, my Biblical theology is not comprised of various proof-texts strung together. It incorporates the whole of salvation history. It recognizes why we have an Old Testament and what exactly Jesus came to fulfill in the Prophets and the Law. I would suggest that you read more on Covenantal theology, esp. the Davidic Covenant.

Such a study will help illumine your mind and bring you to better understand the implications and assumptions of New Testament thought. Namely, why Peter presents Christ's ascension as a Davidic enthronement in Acts, quoting the Psalms.

God bless,

Carson

[ November 18, 2002, 12:29 AM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

I am still waiting Ed, What about these supposed souls that were resurrected when Jesus supposedly came back in 70 A.D.? BTW does Carson believe this Jehovah Witness "spiritual resurrection" doctrine too?
DHK

 

Helen,

Don't sell your personal library just yet--but if you ever do decide to sell and convert to Catholicism--can I have first choice at your books--being as to how your Protestant library books won't do you any good anymore now that you are Catholic?? Shoot, I'll fly into California--rent me a big U-Haul!!

Just kiddin' there--hang in there Helen--Carson will "let his guard down" sooner or later.

My momma grew up Roman Catholic--married a Southern Baptist boy--she'd go to "Mass" early on Sundays--would be back home before daddy would leave for Sunday School and Worship Service--anyway, she started attending Southern Baptist church with him--by and by she was saved--received Jesus as Savior and Lord of her life--she has told me on countless occasions--"That wass the first time someone ever sat down with me and explain to me my lostness and the need to be saved--was when I went to that Southern Baptist church and that preacher sat down with me at my kitchen table--showed me from scripture how I needed to be born-again!! And I got gloriously saved!!"

There was a young fella at my former church who started attending with us--Protestant worship services, that is!! Man, he'd go to early Sunday mass and then cut out from there and join us Southern Baptists for 10 o'clock Sunday School and 11am Worship---he came to me after a while asking what it means to be born-again!! So I showed him what scripture said---well, this went on for a little while and then I started missing this fella---seems word got back to his priest that he was going to a Southern Baptist church---that priest began to threaten this fella--not physically--but emotionally---saying if he quit the catholic church that his momma and daddy and brothers would all go to hell!! Then this priest told his momma that if her son quit the church--that she and her whole family would die and go to hell!! What kind of priest is that?? What kind of church is that?? Dog, if I want to quit being a Southern Baptist tomorrow and decide to be Assembly of God or Methodist--I'd do it and not one time will be threatened or even feel threatened.

Hang in there, Helen, this Southern Baptist boy loves you!!

Your friend,
Blackbird

 

Hi Ed -

The conversation has moved on without me as I was having a few days not posting as much on the board. As such I do not necessarily require any answers to this post but I did not want to leave your last reply to me on page 4 unaddressed.

I'm not sure that you would number me among the "new crop" of evangelicals or not. I do not pretend to know much about the eschatological writings in the Scriptures and, to be quite frank, it doesn't affect me much. I am a very "in the present" sort of fellow and seek to serve God in whatever capacity I can. It makes little difference to me what phase we are in concerning the end times.
However, I think this forum is evidence that most of us are not "scared" of early Catholic writings, we just don't put our faith in them. It would also appear that the embarrassment is not on our parts, but rather on that of the Catholics. By sticking with a baseline of unchanging Scripture we avoid the drawn out exegesises necessary for supporting our doctrine. The only agenda that is required to meet is that of the Old and New Testament writers (and thus God).

Just so we are clear, you don't owe me any apologies. Also, as of late I have not been discussing the doctrine of Lutherans, Episcopalians, Methodists, Pentacostals, etc. I have been discussing the doctrine of Catholics.

I believe that you are trying to claim the right of "victory" through antiquity. This is not a valid argument. The Catholics have a claim to a long lineage, but that does not make it accurate. Other groups also existed through history that recognized the error of Catholic thought: Monatists, Donatists, Paulicans, Waldensians, Independents, Non-Conformists, Ana-Baptists, etc.
Besides, if antiquity equaled truth, Christianity would be at serious odds with many forms of paganism as they are recorded even in Genesis.

You should pay close attention to those feeling, Ed. You speak so often of Covenant theology. The New Covenant in Jeremiah 31:31-34 says that God would write His Law on our hearts. This is of primary importance when one examines Catholicism. Some of your statements such as "the Church said so, so tough!!!" show that you are not relying on God's faithfulness in certain matters but rather resting on the words of men. The Epistles are also quite clear that "secret" knowledge is not a requirement for understanding the Word of God. Just for a few examples: 2Peter 1:3-9; 1John 4:1-6; 1Corinthians 10:15; 2Thessalonians 2:1-12; Matthew 7:21-23; Luke 21:8; John 10:14-15.

On a side note, I began reading the online book you suggested but stalled out. I have the day off here today and hope to grind out another few score pages so that I can get beack to you on it.

 

Clint --

You have my admiration and applause for being willing to read Ray Sutton's book. I do hope you will find it edifying and thought provoking regarding the Covenant of God and how God through the covenant deals with mankind.

I am not trying to claim victory through antiquity. I am trying to show that there simply were not any organized bodies of the kind who claim that the New Testament Church was of their denomination.

Think with me a second, my friend. IF (and a big if it is) there were Anabaptists in the very first, second, third, and on centuries, do you not think that there would have been a SERIOUS DOCTRINAL CLASH with those who were teaching baptismal regeneration? We know that baptismal regeneration was taught widely at that time because of the writings of the Early Fathers. They are certainly not on par with Scripture, but at the same time, they are HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS which show how the Church interpreted and acted upon the teachings of the Apostles.

Therefore, since such teaching says that by baptism, one recieves the Holy Spirit and is born again, while in Anabaptistry, the teaching is that baptism is a symbol of something that had already happened (accepting Jesus), then you can bet that such a subject, which would literally concern the obtaining of salvation, would rather quickly come to the Church for disputation and council.

Yet right up to the sixteenth century and the reformation, there was no council on baptism. Almost everything centered around either local issues of administration or the nature of Jesus the Christ.

Furthermore, if you read the works of some of the splinter groups whom you cite as proof of antiquite for your side, you will find that you are siding with people who had some rather perverse doctrines which the Church rejected.

And as for the New Covenant -- yes, it is written in my heart, which is why my heart finds no rejoicing in the lusts of the flesh and the sins and wickedness I so enjoyed before my conversion.

Brother Ed

 

That is precisely why baptism does not regenerate, I had some water sprinkled on me as an infant and yet regeneration did not happen and so I continued in the lusts of the flesh and sins and wickedness. Yes, there were many in the early centuries of Christianity that believed in baptismal regeneration, but the doctrine is shown to be false by the fact that it doesn't work. Many of those who believed in baptismal regeneration were most likely baptized immediately after trusting in Christ (as was so often done in the New Testament) and so when they looked back at when they were regenerated, they remembered their baptism and neglected their faith by which they were saved and for which they were baptized in the first place.

 

I am not afraid to answer your posts or questions Ed, why are you so hesitant in replying to this one that you have posted here. What evidence can you give that there was a resurrection of the spirits in Paradise and the souls on earth in 70 A.D., and how in the light of Scripture does that even make sense, since the resurrection always refers to a bodily resurrection, never a "spirit resurrection," as the Jehovah's Witnesses believe?
DHK