• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Jesus Repudiates Mariolatry

Status
Not open for further replies.

D28guy

New Member
Matt,

"The ECFs are not on the level of Scripture but the consensus patri solves the problem of sola Scriptura"..."

I know that you are told to believe that, but the truth is that sola scriptura solves the problem of "consensus patri".

"by providing a consensus of correct interpretation of Scripture."

Then how come those who follow "consensus patri" fall into such gross falsehood, error, blasphemy and idolatry?

"That is why we ignore the patristic consensus at our peril."

Actually you ignore the truth of the scriptures to your peril....

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction in rightiousness. That the man of God might be complete, and thoroughly equipped for every good work"

"And these were more fairminded than those in Thessolanica, in that they searched the scriptures daily, to see if these things be so"
(and that is the apostles they where testing against the scriptures)



You ignore the scriptures to your peril. All one has to do is read Agnus Dei's, yours, and others posts to see the evidence.

Thats the reason why DHK and I and others take up so much time trying to help you guys. We love you, and desire only to help you regarding this so very very serious issue.

May God grant you guys "ears to hear",

Mike
 

Beth

New Member
The original question

I'd like to answer the original question....

Reading Luke 11:27-28 last night.

Why don't the Catholics see this? "And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked.
28 But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it."

This, to me, is the strongest signal that we have the the RCC is "in the wrong book."

The reasons most Catholics do not see this is for one, most are ignorant of what the Bible says, and two, they trust their priest/bishop/Pope to interpret doctrine for them.

I know, it is difficult for the saved to understand this, but the average Catholic has no idea of what God has written in His Word.

When I was a Catholic, I was heavily into Mary worship....I was part of the Legion of Mary, a group which would go door to door to entreat people to say their rosaries. We would hand out rosary beads and tracts on how to say the rosary. It was very rewarding, because the priest approved of this activity and other Catholics praised it.I grew up seeing my grandmother say her rosary, the older women walking into church with their beads in their hands..... It just wasn't something I ever questioned until the lord opened my eyes through a television Christian broadcast on, of all topics, idolatry!

For a Catholic to turn from Marionology, she/he will have to want to please God, read their Bibles and be bold enough to walk away from the entrapments of tradition and familial approval. They will have to, as Peter said in Acts, desire to please God more than man....

Many Catholics, I believe, wish to worship God, to please Him, but, like Israel of old, they have a certain zeal yet lack of knowledge!
 

Beth

New Member
Zeal does not save

I just wanted to add that zeal does not save. Only trusting in the Lord Jesus Christ that His Sacrifice on the Cross, that He paid the penalty for your sins, will save you.

You cannot be both saved and remain in the Catholic church.
 

Matt Black

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
D28guy said:
Matt,



I know that you are told to believe that, but the truth is that sola scriptura solves the problem of "consensus patri".
No it doesn't - as has been demonstrated time and time again on these boards



Then how come those who follow "consensus patri" fall into such gross falsehood, error, blasphemy and idolatry?
For the same reason as those who follow sola Scriptura can - human pride - some do, many don't.



Actually you ignore the truth of the scriptures to your peril....
I don't ignore the truth of the Scriptures as properly interpreted.

Beth, not true re your last statement - my grandmother lived and died a Catholic and was undoubtedly saved; I vae two uncles who are Catholic priests and they are undoubtedly saved. There are some in the Catholic Church who are not and some who indulge (often unwittingly) idolatry, just as there are some sitting in Baptist congregations who are not saved. God alone knows the heart - it is not for you or I to judge. I also know many Catholics who are more Biblically literate than quite a few Baptists I've come across...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Agnus_Dei

New Member
D28guy said:
Agnus Dei,



Thats your problem. One of them, at least. Thats one of the primary reasons why you, Matt, and others have drifted into such serious errors and idolatries.

We are not to draw doctrine from church "Fathers", since we have absolutly no guarantee that everything they come up with is true. The writings of the church Fathers can surely be interesting, but never never never are they to be thought of as equal to scripture, or even anywhere remotely close to equal to scripture. They are never to be considered as authoritative.

We are to draw our doctrine from Gods unchanging truth standard...the scriptures. And the scriptures ALONE.
Honestly D28guy, the quote I made below is dangerous language and in the ears of someone that’s not familiar with theosis it can come off as being heretical; which is exactly why we Orthodox read about theosis with the guidance of the Church.

God became man, so that we may become God

The language is confusing, but the author of the quote was not saying that man no longer is a created being, but that when man becomes like God, deified, he enters into uncreated, eternal life. Uncreated in that it is God, His energies, and eternal in that time no longer pertains to this holy Sabbath, the joyous eternal Pascha. But it is not a stasis, but a dynamic growth in perfection and uncreated glory. We shall see God as He is.

Man becomes uncreated, but he is still created. God became created, but He is uncreated, as He always has been. So, what God is by nature, man becomes by grace. Man doesn’t lose his createdness, just as God didn’t lose His uncreatedness.

ICXC NIKA
-
 

bound

New Member
Grace and Peace David Lamb as well as anyone else,

Unlike Zenas I would not suggest that there is overwhelming Scriptural evidence but I would be interesting in knowing what your explanation is that the early Church would suggest that Mary was Ever-Virgin? What was the objective?

What do you make of Genesis 12:5 and 14:16 were brother is used for familial relations outside of actual brothers? Why did Jesus from the Cross commit His mother to the care of John? If truly there were brothers and sisters couldn't they care for Mary? If Joseph was still alive, couldn't he care for Mary? Why was it so important for our Lord to commit Her care over to the Disciples? I've never understood this...

I know that Early Church Consensus taught that Mary's care was committed to John because Joseph had since passed on and that there was no immediate relations to care for Mary. The apparent age of Joseph was also the rationale for believing that the sisters and brothers mentioned in the Scriptures were either extended relations or the sons and daughters of Joseph from a previous marriage. I know these are largely drawn from extra-bibilical sources but they do 'fit' very well together with Early Church Consensus as well as to the rationale that Jesus committed His mother's care to John because there simply was no one else in which to care for her.

I welcome your thoughts on this and I would appreciate your charitableness concerning this very charged and challenging topic.

Be Well.
 

David Lamb

Well-Known Member
bound said:
Grace and Peace David Lamb as well as anyone else,

Unlike Zenas I would not suggest that there is overwhelming Scriptural evidence but I would be interesting in knowing what your explanation is that the early Church would suggest that Mary was Ever-Virgin? What was the objective?

What do you make of Genesis 12:5 and 14:16 were brother is used for familial relations outside of actual brothers? Why did Jesus from the Cross commit His mother to the care of John? If truly there were brothers and sisters couldn't they care for Mary? If Joseph was still alive, couldn't he care for Mary? Why was it so important for our Lord to commit Her care over to the Disciples? I've never understood this...

I know that Early Church Consensus taught that Mary's care was committed to John because Joseph had since passed on and that there was no immediate relations to care for Mary. The apparent age of Joseph was also the rationale for believing that the sisters and brothers mentioned in the Scriptures were either extended relations or the sons and daughters of Joseph from a previous marriage. I know these are largely drawn from extra-bibilical sources but they do 'fit' very well together with Early Church Consensus as well as to the rationale that Jesus committed His mother's care to John because there simply was no one else in which to care for her.

I welcome your thoughts on this and I would appreciate your charitableness concerning this very charged and challenging topic.

Be Well.
Thank you Bound. May I reply to your last point first? I try to ensure that all my messages and replies to the Baptist Board are charitable - if you ever find any uncharitableness, please forgive me, and rest assured that it was not intended that way.

I am afraid I have no idea what could have motivated some in the early church to teach the perpetual virginity of Mary. I do know that we read in the bible about even some of the apostles believing things that were wrong. For instance, Galatians 2.11-13:

11 ¶ Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; 12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. 13 And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.

So the fact that there were some in the early church who began to believe and teach that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus does not make it true.

Your suggestion that the people referred to in the bible as "brothers and sisters" of Jesus were in fact children of Joseph from a previous marriage doesn't seem to work. Joseph was not the father of Jesus, so if your suggestion were true, the "brothers and sisters" would not be related to Jesus at all, for they would have shared neither the same mother nor the same father with Him. If they were "extended relations" (cousins, etc) one might well wonder why they seemed to be so much in the company of Mary.


Regarding the age of Joseph, we are, as you say, in the realms of supposition. I know the so-called "Cherry Tree Carol" begins:
When Joseph was an old man, an old man was he,
He married Virgin Mary, the queen of Galilee.


But we would get into a hopeless mess if we relied on carols for our theology :) .

Lastly, we are not told why Jesus committed the care of Mary to John. But then, neither are we told the personal circumstances of any of the brothers and sisters, except that we only read of any of them believing on Him after His resurrection. Would it not have been strange for Jesus to commit Mary to the care of an unbeliever? But now I am beginning to make assumptions. We must rely on the Word of God, and not try to "fill the gaps" for ourselves.


 

Agnus_Dei

New Member
bound said:
Why was it so important for our Lord to commit Her care over to the Disciples? I've never understood this...
Blessings Bound

In addition to the tradition that Mary was a widow and that these “brothers and sisters” were from Joseph’s previous marriage, a more significant claim could be that Christ is establishing a new spiritual relationship with all Christians…Behold thy Mother, Christ says to St. John.

This has always been an interest of mine as a Protestant. Why would Mary need an outsiders home, if she had other Children…isn’t this contrary to Jewish culture? Or could this declaration of the Lord to John, behold thy Mother is to make His Mother the Mother of all Christians.

ICXC NIKA
-
 

bound

New Member
David Lamb said:
Thank you Bound. May I reply to your last point first? I try to ensure that all my messages and replies to the Baptist Board are charitable - if you ever find any uncharitableness, please forgive me, and rest assured that it was not intended that way.
Hi Mr. Lamb,

Actually, I've read a great deal of your post and have always marveled at there charitableness. :applause:

It is much appreciated!

I am afraid I have no idea what could have motivated some in the early church to teach the perpetual virginity of Mary. I do know that we read in the bible about even some of the apostles believing things that were wrong. For instance, Galatians 2.11-13:
11 ¶ Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; 12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. 13 And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.

So the fact that there were some in the early church who began to believe and teach that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus does not make it true.


A reasonable refutation. I will consider it with great care but in all fairness could such a general refutation be used against 'anything' one doesn't agree with in the Early Church Consensual Teaching?


Your suggestion that the people referred to in the bible as "brothers and sisters" of Jesus were in fact children of Joseph from a previous marriage doesn't seem to work. Joseph was not the father of Jesus, so if your suggestion were true, the "brothers and sisters" would not be related to Jesus at all, for they would have shared neither the same mother nor the same father with Him.
With regard to this I would say that everyone who knows me and my brother call us brothers as we call one another brothers eventhough I was adopted and share not biological brotherhood with him. Being in the same household our whole lives have, in effect, created a brotherly bond which allows us and those who know us to call us brothers.

If our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ shared the same kind of bond with Joseph's children, I have great personal difficulting agreeing that they would not call themselves Brothers and Sisters in the same way my brother and I call ourselves Brothers.

I'm not convinced that this refutation merits a great deal of weight but I understand your reasoning.

If they were "extended relations" (cousins, etc) one might well wonder why they seemed to be so much in the company of Mary.
Good question. I don't know if we'd ever be capable of offering an objective answer.

Regarding the age of Joseph, we are, as you say, in the realms of supposition. I know the so-called "Cherry Tree Carol" begins:
When Joseph was an old man, an old man was he,
He married Virgin Mary, the queen of Galilee.


But we would get into a hopeless mess if we relied on carols for our theology. :)


If you ever study the Divine Liturgy of the Eastern Orthodox Church you'd be surprised how much the Liturgy is actually used as a form of Catechesis for the Laity. I have not doubt that Wesley did the very same thing with the writing of Charles' Hymnography.

Lastly, we are not told why Jesus committed the care of Mary to John. But then, neither are we told the personal circumstances of any of the brothers and sisters, except that we only read of any of them believing on Him after His resurrection. Would it not have been strange for Jesus to commit Mary to the care of an unbeliever? But now I am beginning to make assumptions. We must rely on the Word of God, and not try to "fill the gaps" for ourselves.
And yet you, yourself, noted earlier how the brothers and sisters are found always with Mary early on... The question is asked, what happened?

When we look for a consensual teaching on these matters within the Early Church we can find answers... to this and many other questions.
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Agnus_Dei said:
In addition to the tradition that Mary was a widow and that these “brothers and sisters” were from Joseph’s previous marriage,
For one who esteem's Mary so highly, this is quite a blow to her marriage status, and brings her right down almost to the unrespectable of the society of that time. To marry a widower?? Why would she do such a thing and bring disrepute upon her own reputation!! Why do you go to such extremes to defend your own warped theology. You read into the Bible things that are not there, and have no way to prove this baseless assertion.
a more significant claim could be that Christ is establishing a new spiritual relationship with all Christians…Behold thy Mother, Christ says to St. John.
This is not a significant claim at all. There is no spiritual relation being established with all Christians. Again you are reading into the Scriptures that which is not there. If you want to allegorize this Scripture, why not allegorize the entire death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. You deny the sufficiency of the blood of Christ anyway, by your heretical belief in purgatory.
This has always been an interest of mine as a Protestant. Why would Mary need an outsiders home, if she had other Children
Because seeing her son crucified was pure anguish for her. It was the most troubling thing that she had ever gone through. At that present time she needed comfort. What would be the reaction of an unsaved half-brother of Jesus, who just a few days earlier mocked Christ, and mockingly urged him to go up to the feast at Jerusalem in hopes that he would be killed. Perhaps her own son would have the reaction: "See I told you so!" She needed comfort, and Christ knew that. She needed the comfort of a disciple, one that was beloved of Jesus, and throughout the gospel of John was known as the disciple whom Jesus loved. Thus the commitment that John had to care at this time of Mary was the right decision, and John, having an acuaintance with the high priest, demonstrates also his place in society. In other words he probably owned a house that he could take her home and adequately care for her.
…isn’t this contrary to Jewish culture?
We are not discussing Jewish culture. John had left Jewish culture behind. He was a Christian not a Jew.
Or could this declaration of the Lord to John, behold thy Mother is to make His Mother the Mother of all Christians.
No, that is pure blasphemy. Mary was simply a vessel that God chose to use at one historical point in the ages of time. She will be remembered for one fact, and one fact only--that she bore the body of Lord when he came into this world--and that is all. God used her for that purpose. God could have used any Godly young virgin for that purpose, but he chose Mary. Why he chose Mary, it doesn't say, and we don't have to speculate about it.
 
Clearly since the Word of God states that Jesus told 'the disciple standing by' "Behold thy mother," He was speaking to that disciple and that disciple alone.

He was not telling the whole crowd there that day "Behold thy mother." There is no cause for anyone to think Jesus was directing that statement to anyone other that 'the disciple standing by."

The Word is not clear in John 19 that 'the disciple standing by' was John. It is wrong to suppose it was.
 

trustitl

New Member
Mariolatry

DHK
Quote:
…isn’t this contrary to Jewish culture?

We are not discussing Jewish culture. John had left Jewish culture behind. He was a Christian not a Jew.


John was not a "Christian" at the time of the crucifixion. Nobody was. He was definitely a follower of Jesus, but he wasn't a Christian. A Christian is "an annointed one". That came later.

Also, John probably never left Jewish culture after he became a believer. He would have left the old covenant behind for sure, but most likely still enjoyed the same foods, music, dress, etc. that made up his culture. Sadly, many Christians today have elevated Jewish culture to be spiritual. It is no more spiritual than "Hot Dogs, apple pie, and Chevrolet". Their is no such thing as a "Christian" culture. Western, perhaps, but not Christian. Influenced by Christian teaching, perhaps, but not Christian.

Many people have been deceived into thinking they are Christians when they have merely been "christianized", ie. do christian things. I'm not saying you were trying to say anything contrary to this, but I felt complelled to write it. :jesus:
 

Aash

New Member
The saints are not an alternate route to God, as opposed to Christ. The fact is there is one sole mediator between God and man and that's the man, Jesus Christ. Paul couldn't make that any clearer than he does to Timothy. He says, "There is one mediator - one and only one mediator - between God and man."

1st Timothy, chapter 2 verse 5 says, "There is one God and there is one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus who gave Himself as a ransom for all." Now what conclusions can we draw from that? Can we draw from that the false conclusion that because we've got one mediator, therefore it's undermining the work of Christ to go through the saints and ask them to intercede on our behalf? No, of course not. Forget the fact that saints are the Christians in heaven, we're also aware of the fact that Christians on earth are continually addressed in the New Testament as saints. That's who we are. That's who we must become, and if we continue on and hold fast to the faith, that's what we will be for eternity. But we are saints if we are in Christ right now.

Now saints, if somebody asks you to pray for them, to intercede for them to God on their behalf, do you go around and say, How dare you undermine the sole mediation of Jesus Christ, the only High Priest? Of course not. Why? Because what does Paul say in the first four verses before 1st Timothy, 2:1, "First of all then, I urge the supplications, prayers, intercessions and thanksgivings be made for all men." By Jesus alone? Of course not. By us, "for kings and all who are in high positions in order that we might lead a quiet and peaceful life, godly and respectful in every way. This is good and is acceptable by God our Savior who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and there is one mediator between God and man."

How often did I used to pull that text out of context and use that to undermine the proper veneration of the saints which is rooted in two things, asking them for intercession and supplication and being inspired to follow their example. I could add a third and I am going to; that is, we honor them. We glorify them when we venerate them. But why? Because we're just a little bit bored after ten or fifteen hours of honoring Christ? No. It's precisely because we honor Christ. It's precisely because we imitate Christ. We imitate Christ, and so if we see Him honoring those who have died for the truth, those who have confessed to the faith with much pain, we do what Christ does and we honor those whom He honors. Those whom He blesses, we bless.
 

Aash

New Member
It's rather simple. It's only when we unconsciously reduce the Christian faith to an individualistic, me and Jesus relationship that it becomes a typically American self-centered thing. I mean, let's face it, the American family is not a great example of strong communion bonds these days. And it hasn't been for centuries. Do you know that Daniel Boone was one of the worst fathers? Do you know that I believe it was his brother or one of his neighbors who fathered a child through his wife? Davey Crockett, the same way. Great American heroes, rugged individualists, not great family men. You should hear what John Adams' wife had to say - a radical feminist who was just a died-in-the-wood individualist. She wasn't more concerned about the marriage and about the family and the home and America. She was concerned about individual rights that she could exert and that others could exert and if they couldn't, they could get it by force. That's the American way..

As they used to say in the 18th Century, "We serve no sovereign." No kings, and kings were always father figures. I'm not arguing for political monarchy and natural politics because human sin is what it is. But we've got a supernatural monarchy, a heavenly kingdom, a father figure apart from sin who bestows his pure life and grace upon our older brothers and sisters, his children. And that kingdom is the Kingdom of Heaven. And that inspires us in a much greater way to serve our Sovereign and to serve his cabinet ministers and the princes and the princesses that he appoints over us.

Do you realize how difficult it is for Americans to think and to behave in that way? When everything in our culture goes in the opposite direction? To whom do we bow in our society? Nobody. And when we even say, Your Honor to a judge, it feels kind of unnatural, and we bristle, don't we? It's un-American. Who do you think you are? But the fact is in a family, it isn't the person as much as it's the office that we venerate and honor. And that's what we're doing when we venerate the saints. We're imitating Christ who honors them. We, in turn, want to imitate the saints as they serve Christ.

We are the family of God. So no father is going to feel gypped or ignored or neglected as the brothers and sisters fall in love with each other and inspire each other to the courageous sacrifice and service for the family's name. It's even silly once you put it into those terms, but what other terms suffice for what the Blessed Trinity, the Divine Family, has been doing in all of history? It's the only one that makes sense. It's the only one that pulls the entire Bible together. It's the only reason why Paul in 1st Timothy 2:5 considers one mediator and still says, what he says in 1st Timothy 2:1-4, "Therefore, because there's one mediator, with greater confidence we can pray and make supplication and intercession for everybody," even for the kings and the wealthy and the rich and the corrupt. Why? Because there's one mediator, the God-man, Jesus Christ.

We could go nuts praying like we never could before. Why? Because there's one mediator. Does that mean no other intercessors, no others to make supplication? No That's just not right. There's one mediator and because our mediator is the most awesome mediator we could possibly imagine, we have now the capacity to intercede as priests in the Priest, as sons in the Son, as pastors and shepherds in the one Pastor and Shepherd. We draw our life from him. "No longer I, but Christ who lives in me. Apart from Christ, I can do nothing. But with me, Jesus says, you can do anything. With God, all things are possible."
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Matt Black

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Amen! Thanks for putting it so much better than I can, Aash, and welcome to the BaptistBoard!

David Lamb said:
Agreed, but we do have statements in the New Testament that show that Christians did meet for worship on the 1st day of the week, whereas there is not a single instance of a Christian on earth either praying to, or asking for the prayers of, a Christian in heaven. So it is not extra-biblical tradition that causes us to meet on Sundays for worship.
There is nothing in the NT to say, for example, how often we should have communion, who should preside/officiate at communion, who should 'lead' a service/meeting etc. Yet all denominations make such prescriptions and none in so doing believe that they are being unfaithful to Scripture even though Scripture is silent on such matters.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
standingfirminChrist said:
Clearly since the Word of God states that Jesus told 'the disciple standing by' "Behold thy mother," He was speaking to that disciple and that disciple alone.

He was not telling the whole crowd there that day "Behold thy mother." There is no cause for anyone to think Jesus was directing that statement to anyone other that 'the disciple standing by."

That much is certainly true.

Nor do we find even ONE example in the NT of anyone praying to James after he was killed. Praying to Mary after her death. Referring to Mary as "Queen of Heaven" or "Holy Mother" or "Sinless like Christ" or "All Powerful like Christ" or ...

In fact NO example of praying to the dead in all of scripture.
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
Beth said:
I'd like to answer the original question....

Reading Luke 11:27-28 last night.

Why don't the Catholics see this? "And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked.
28 But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it."

This, to me, is the strongest signal that we have the the RCC is "in the wrong book."

The reasons most Catholics do not see this is for one, most are ignorant of what the Bible says, and two, they trust their priest/bishop/Pope to interpret doctrine for them.

In fact what church praying to Mary today would allow Christ's response above when someone says "BLESSED be MARY" -- to hear the response "on the contrary - blessed are those who hear the Word of God and accept it".

Isn't that the entire issue - "sola scriptura" vs Mariolotry?

in Christ,

Bob
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
An example of the limitless well of mythology spiritism and story telling that springs from the mariolotry of the dark ages can be seen here.

The Transitus Mariæ
The Account of St. John the Theologian
of the Dormition of the Holy Mother of God


AS THE ALL-HOLY glorious Mother of God and ever-virgin Mary, as was her wont, was going to the holy tomb of our Lord to burn incense, and bending her holy knees, she was importunate that Christ our God who had been born of her should return to her.


And I John say to her: Jesus Christ our Lord and our God is coming, and thou seest Him, as He promised to thee. And the holy mother of God answered and said to me: The Jews have sworn that after I have died they will burn my body. And I answered and said to her: Thy holy and precious body will by no means see corruption.
….
And I answered and said: Yes, I heard. And the Holy Spirit said to me: This voice which thou didst hear denotes that the appearance of thy brethren the apostles is at hand, and of the holy powers that they are coming hither to-day. And at this I John prayed.
[b]And the Holy Spirit said to the apostles: Let all of you together, having come by the clouds from the ends of the world, be assembled to holy Bethlehem by a whirlwind, on account of the mother of our Lord Jesus Christ;[/b]


Peter from Rome, Paul from Tiberia, Thomas from Hither India, James from Jerusalem. Andrew, Peter's brother, and Philip, Luke, and Simon the Cananaean, and Thaddaeus who had fallen asleep, were raised by the Holy Spirit out of their tombs; to whom the Holy Spirit said: Do not think that it is now the resurrection; but on this account you have risen out of your tombs, that you may go to give greeting to the honour and wonder-working of the mother of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, because the day of her departure is at hand, of her going up into the heavens.



And Mark likewise coming round, was present from Alexandria; he also with the rest, as has been said before, from each country. [b]And Peter being lifted up by a cloud, stood between heaven and earth, the Holy Spirit keeping him steady.[/b] And at the same time, the rest of the apostles also, having been [b]snatched up in clouds, were found along with Peter. And thus by the Holy Spirit, as has been said, they all came together. [/b]


http://www.comparative-religion.com/christianity/apocrypha/new-testament-apocrypha/6/3.php
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top