"Devotion" to Mary...

[Marcia]

...Also we have this verse..This verse is used by Catholics often to show how the Catholic Church is to view Mary. That the Apostle John is representative of the Church in this discource.

This take on this passage is eisegesis - reading into scripture something that is not there. There is no reason to think that Jesus' words to John are words to the church!! Or that John is representative of the church in this passage! Absolutely nothing in the text supports that. Catholics use it because they are reaching for straws in this debate on Mary.

...John Cassian who states that Mary had to be Theotokos because to say that she was Christokos lessened the divinity of Jesus. This argument was about Jesus' divinity!

This is true. The term "mother of God" came about as a result of attacks on the deity of Christ. This phrase never meant that Mary was the mother of God the Father but rather that she was the mother of Jesus, who is God.

How has our american world view shaped the Christian faith? Have we gone to the extent that the Greek world view did? And as I see emotional appeals and expensive entertainment that happens in worship service I wonder have we lost the essence of Jesus? His Jewishness. Will we recognize him when he returns or have we made an idol of him. This is how it bothers me on these levels

I don't see how the debate on Mary comes into this at all. I do not think the Greek world has influenced Christianity any more than the authors were influenced by it, which is none. You should read Ronald Nash's The Gospel and the Greeks.

 

[Marcia]

Good because angels can make themselves to look human but are not. And in their natural environment they would be indeed strange to look at. I take that view straight from Ezekiel. (which is in scriptures) And just as Jesus is beyond our bodies in his spiritual body so is heaven. I think rather closely to Lewis on this. The physical world we inhabit (or the world of matter) is the wisp of smoke compared to the spiritual realm. So in the bible when it describes Jesus passing through walls is it he that passes through the walls or the walls pass through him?

Actually, the Bible never tells us that Jesus passes through walls. This is an inference many take from Jesus appearing in the room that had a locked door. But this does not mean he passed through the walls. He could have unlocked the door or just appeared there, as he did on the road to Emmaus.

 

[Matt Black]

Re: the physicality thing (and this is to DHK, webdog and Annsni in particular): I would be wary of putting too much of a modernist, materialist gloss on these passages and concepts. We have to be careful to approach this with the aid of the Spirit (hint!) and not our fleshly, culturally-shaped mindsets.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

This take on this passage is eisegesis - reading into scripture something that is not there. There is no reason to think that Jesus' words to John are words to the church!! Or that John is representative of the church in this passage! Absolutely nothing in the text supports that. Catholics use it because they are reaching for straws in this debate on Mary.


This is true. The term "mother of God" came about as a result of attacks on the deity of Christ. This phrase never meant that Mary was the mother of God the Father but rather that she was the mother of Jesus, who is God.


I don't see how the debate on Mary comes into this at all. I do not think the Greek world has influenced Christianity any more than the authors were influenced by it, which is none. You should read Ronald Nash's The Gospel and the Greeks.

Then why don't you believe in the Eucharist? Or venerate Mary? If the Greeks had no influence on Christianity? How do you determine that every Classical Church does these things if not for the Greek world view. The Roman Catholics, The Orthodox, and the Copts? Even ancient heretical movements held to these consepts such as the Nestorians, Arians, etc... How then did Christianity divert to believe these things? How did these become dogmatic issues for they are old. Tertullian discusses the perpetual virginity of Mary as does Jerome and Augustine. Justin describes the consepts of the Eucharist early in the 2nd Century. These are ancient ideas not modern invention. So how did Christianity get off course until the reformers emerged if not for greek philosophy? there are no writings that reflect the reformers ideas in the 2nd; 3rd; or 4th centuries until we get to the 1100s. I don't believe the Classical churches were so thrurough as to destroy all evidence of the existance of these contrary views until the 1100's. Just like they could not dispence of all traces of gnosticism (which is definately from a greek world view). There was the Nag Hammurabi find there is no such find for reformed ideas until the 1100's. So what must you conclude? Christianity in its infancy was struggeling with certain consepts and went too far in one direction and the Holy Spirit brought the church back through the reformers. What other view is there? Certainly there is no evidence to support Caroll.

 

[webdog]

Re: the physicality thing (and this is to DHK, webdog and Annsni in particular): I would be wary of putting too much of a modernist, materialist gloss on these passages and concepts. We have to be careful to approach this with the aid of the Spirit (hint!) and not our fleshly, culturally-shaped mindsets.

I have. I used to think we would be spirits floating around...until I realized that I let Platonism cloud my understanding of Scripture. Never will we cease to be human beings. Human beings are composed of both material and immaterial. To remove one or both would mean we would no longer be humans. The resurrection is moot if we will not have physical bodies one day.

 

[Matt Black]

But God is Spirit and if we are like Him when we die...

Also, if we have physical bodies in Heaven, then why do our earthly bodies decay - why don't they ascend or are assumed like Jesus'? Did Jesus have a physical body before Good Friday and Easter Sunday? Does He have one now (apart from the Church, that is!)?

 

[webdog]

But God is Spirit and if we are like Him when we die...

Also, if we have physical bodies in Heaven, then why do our earthly bodies decay - why don't they ascend or are assumed like Jesus'? Did Jesus have a physical body before Good Friday and Easter Sunday? Does He have one now (apart from the Church, that is!)?

We are told we will be as Christ is...and we know when He ascended He had a physical body that was able to be embraced, touched and was able to eat and drink.
Our earthly bodies are under the curse of sin...hence it is appointed unto man once to die. Upon the resurrection, we will be given spiritual bodies that will never die or decay (like Christ's), and those who are alive at the time will be transformed into these bodies. This is what the Bible teaches, and this is what I believe. Humans have bodies, and we will never cease to be humans.

I would suggest Heaven by Dr. Randy Alcorn, even if you don't agree we will have physical bodies...excellent book.

 

[Matt Black]

We are told we will be as Christ is...and we know when He ascended He had a physical body that was able to be embraced, touched and was able to eat and drink.

Er...that was after the Resurrection not after His Ascension

Our earthly bodies are under the curse of sin...hence it is appointed unto man once to die.

And what then?

Upon the resurrection,

What about in between death and resurrection?

we will be given spiritual bodies

Surely an oxymoron?!

 

[webdog]

Er...that was after the Resurrection not after His Ascension

When He ascended, He had a real body.

And what then?

...the judgement. Point?

What about in between death and resurrection?

Scripture is silent on this, however it appears the rich ruler and Lazarus in Jesus' story both had bodies, and that is prior to the resurrection.

Surely an oxymoron?!

Why? Jesus has a real physical body that is called a spiritual body.

 

[Alive in Christ]

Marcia posted...

"This take on this passage is eisegesis - reading into scripture something that is not there. There is no reason to think that Jesus' words to John are words to the church!! Or that John is representative of the church in this passage! Absolutely nothing in the text supports that. Catholics use it because they are reaching for straws in this debate on Mary."

The Catholics and Orthodox MUST reach for straws. They MUST mangle the scriptures. They MUST read into the scriptures what isnt there.

The Goddess must be worshipped.

 

[Marcia]

Then why don't you believe in the Eucharist? Or venerate Mary? If the Greeks had no influence on Christianity? How do you determine that every Classical Church does these things if not for the Greek world view. The Roman Catholics, The Orthodox, and the Copts? Even ancient heretical movements held to these consepts such as the Nestorians, Arians, etc... How then did Christianity divert to believe these things? How did these become dogmatic issues for they are old. Tertullian discusses the perpetual virginity of Mary as does Jerome and Augustine. Justin describes the consepts of the Eucharist early in the 2nd Century. These are ancient ideas not modern invention. So how did Christianity get off course until the reformers emerged if not for greek philosophy? there are no writings that reflect the reformers ideas in the 2nd; 3rd; or 4th centuries until we get to the 1100s. I don't believe the Classical churches were so thrurough as to destroy all evidence of the existance of these contrary views until the 1100's. Just like they could not dispence of all traces of gnosticism (which is definately from a greek world view). There was the Nag Hammurabi find there is no such find for reformed ideas until the 1100's. So what must you conclude? Christianity in its infancy was struggeling with certain consepts and went too far in one direction and the Holy Spirit brought the church back through the reformers. What other view is there? Certainly there is no evidence to support Caroll.

I think God always keeps a remnant despite corrupted teachings.

When I use the word "Christianity," I mean authentic Christianity. Just because some early church fathers may have been influenced by Greek thinking, this has nothing to do with the Bible and the faith based on that.

 

[Marcia]

But God is Spirit and if we are like Him when we die...

Also, if we have physical bodies in Heaven, then why do our earthly bodies decay - why don't they ascend or are assumed like Jesus'? Did Jesus have a physical body before Good Friday and Easter Sunday? Does He have one now (apart from the Church, that is!)?

I think Webdog gave a good answer to this.

It's important to realize that when the Bible says a "spiritual body" that we must define a "spiritual body" by what the Bible means by it. Let the Bible define its terms. A lot of people put a modern meaning on this and think of a "spirit body," i.e., a ghostly or non-material body.

But since the Bible clearly shows us that Jesus had physicality in his body after his resurrection, that his scars showed, he ate and drank, he had "flesh and bone," then we know that is what we will have.

Our earthly bodies decay because they are the corrupt body affected by sin and so must die (1 Cor 15). From what the Bible tells us, we may have some sort of in-between physical body (though the only passage on this is in Luke 16) but our glorified resurrected bodies will be given later, after Jesus comes back.

The Bible is silent on what type of body Jesus had between Good Friday and Easter Sunday.

Jesus does have a body now - the glorified body he resurrected in.

 

[Matt Black]

Just want to pick up on your last point about the Bible being silent on the state or even existence of Jesus' body between the crucifixion and resurrection. The Bible is indeed silent on the issue, and yet surely this period (Good Friday to Easter Sunday) corresponds to the period between our deaths and ultimate resurrections at the second coming? If the Bible is silent on it, then why are you and webdog so quick to posit the concept of a 'spiritual body' during that period?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I think God always keeps a remnant despite corrupted teachings.

When I use the word "Christianity," I mean authentic Christianity. Just because some early church fathers may have been influenced by Greek thinking, this has nothing to do with the Bible and the faith based on that.

I'm not sure what you mean by authentic. The reason I say that is for the following reason. I like history. I study it often. Especially when it comes to Christianity. The fact is there are tons of material (Christian Writings and archeological evidence) showing the picture of antiquity. From the 1st Century throughout European history until just previous to the reformation there is no documentation of what you are calling "authentic Christianity". It is evident, destpite Carrol POV which is biased, That "Authentic Christianity" resided in the Classical Churches. There is no (and I mean none) evidence of baptist churches existing prior to the reformation. There is no evidence of believers that held to "baptistic" principles at anytime prior to the period just prior to the reformation. The evidence is just not there no matter how hard you look for it. Its a poor argument that the victors write history. This is not entirely true. Surely its the party line. Ie White Europeans took over the americas and the going correct view of history (for many years) was that the Natives were savage beasts that needed taking over because God had a Manifest Destiny to our budding country. That's our history however there is substantial evidence and (writings and archeological evidence) that the fact is on many occassions the Conqurors were savage to the Natives and not all natives were savage. We know in detail about the trail of tears. Yet the victors write history? certainly not in this case. History therefore is self evident. History has not shown baptist churches existant previous to the period I mentioned or any other reformed type churches. So the reminant had to reside in the Classical churches. No one Doubts the faith and commitment of St. Patrick to spreading the Gospel. Certainly we could guess at his salvation. Yet if you read his writings he definately falls under the Classical Churches. So this being the case "authentic Christianity" either was right on the money or it had issues. I chose the later and my explination for it was the "Greek World view".

 

[Revmitchell]

I chose the later and my explination for it was the "Greek World view".

Which means very little to anyone except folks like you who work to place more faith in man than God.

 

[Matt Black]

How so? What do you mean by that?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Which means very little to anyone except folks like you who work to place more faith in man than God.

You probably missed my intent. Either the Classical Churches were right or they They were authentic with issues. I chose the latter POV saying the issues were due to a Greek World view.

 

[Marcia]

I'm not sure what you mean by authentic. The reason I say that is for the following reason. I like history. I study it often. Especially when it comes to Christianity. The fact is there are tons of material (Christian Writings and archeological evidence) showing the picture of antiquity. From the 1st Century throughout European history until just previous to the reformation there is no documentation of what you are calling "authentic Christianity". It is evident, destpite Carrol POV which is biased, That "Authentic Christianity" resided in the Classical Churches. There is no (and I mean none) evidence of baptist churches existing prior to the reformation. There is no evidence of believers that held to "baptistic" principles at anytime prior to the period just prior to the reformation. The evidence is just not there no matter how hard you look for it. Its a poor argument that the victors write history. This is not entirely true. Surely its the party line. Ie White Europeans took over the americas and the going correct view of history (for many years) was that the Natives were savage beasts that needed taking over because God had a Manifest Destiny to our budding country. That's our history however there is substantial evidence and (writings and archeological evidence) that the fact is on many occassions the Conqurors were savage to the Natives and not all natives were savage. We know in detail about the trail of tears. Yet the victors write history? certainly not in this case. History therefore is self evident. History has not shown baptist churches existant previous to the period I mentioned or any other reformed type churches. So the reminant had to reside in the Classical churches. No one Doubts the faith and commitment of St. Patrick to spreading the Gospel. Certainly we could guess at his salvation. Yet if you read his writings he definately falls under the Classical Churches. So this being the case "authentic Christianity" either was right on the money or it had issues. I chose the later and my explination for it was the "Greek World view".

I never said anything about "baptist" or "baptistic."

Authentic means there was a true church and true believers ever since the church started. Christ himself said the gates of hell would not prevail against it. Christ is the head and foundation of the church; it cannot be defeated by any strategy against it. Some may fall way and many have, but the church and authentic biblical faith has always been there, and will be until Jesus comes back.

The creeds show there was authentic faith, defining the essentials of the faith.

Cults always claim the "true church" fell away and they have come to re-establish it (the Mormons, and thousands of Christian cults say this), but the true church has always been there.

 

[Jkdbuck76]

I never said anything about "baptist" or "baptistic."

Authentic means there was a true church and true believers ever since the church started. Christ himself said the gates of hell would not prevail against it. Christ is the head and foundation of the church; it cannot be defeated by any strategy against it. Some may fall way and many have, but the church and authentic biblical faith has always been there, and will be until Jesus comes back.

The creeds show there was authentic faith, defining the essentials of the faith.

Cults always claim the "true church" fell away and they have come to re-establish it (the Mormons, and thousands of Christian cults say this), but the true church has always been there.

Possible thread derailment here: but what does it really mean when Christ said that the gates of hades will not prevail against it? Gates aren't weapons..... I mean, gates are there to keep certain people out and certain people "in". Help a brother out.

Mods: if you want to make this post into another thread, please do so.

 

[Marcia]

Possible thread derailment here: but what does it really mean when Christ said that the gates of hades will not prevail against it? Gates aren't weapons..... I mean, gates are there to keep certain people out and certain people "in". Help a brother out.

Mods: if you want to make this post into another thread, please do so.

The "gates of hell" or "gates of Hades" is an expression of the power of Hades/hell/death. The NET Bible comments:

“and the power of death” (taking the reference to the gates of Hades as a metonymy). sn In the OT, Hades was known as Sheol. It is the place where the unrighteous will reside (Matt 11:23; Luke 16:23; Rev 20:13-14). Some translations render this by its modern equivalent, “hell”; others see it as a reference to the power of death.

Also, this view:

Now, what kind of weapon is a gate? As a part of a wall, it is primarily a defensive weapon (even though it can be opened to let out offensive forces). A gate keeps attackers out of one’s fortress. So, if the gates of Hades or hell cannot prevail against the church, that must mean that the church will mount a successful offense against the powers of evil. J. P. Lange notes that the commentator Meyer understands this sense, “the superiority of the Church over hades, without any allusion to an attack on the part of hades” (The Gospel According to Matthew, 298). In other words, when the gates “will not prevail,” that means that the church, in effect, knocks down the gates.

http://www.answers.org/bible/gatesofhell.html

And this:

The gates of Hades is a familiar Semitic expression for the threshold of the realm of death. The words used here suggest that death itself assaults Christ's church, but death cannot crush us (Ladd 1974b:116). The church will endure until Christ's return, and no opposition, even widespread martyrdom of Christians or the oppression of the final antichrist (compare Jeremias 1968:927), can prevent the ultimate triumph of God's purposes in history.

http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/IVP-NT/Matt/Gods-Plan-Established-Christ