Right, but my reason for this thread is to address only the ascension, and why John's epistles written after the fact omit it.
-
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!
John's Gospel & Epistles
- Thread starter Bro. Curtis
- Start date
tragic_pizza
New Member
I think it's a verifiable fact that the ascension of Mary became a part of "tradition" some centuries after the Resurrection of Christ, as part of the struggle to define the deity of Christ.
Surely someone with a little time can Google us some facts on this.
Surely someone with a little time can Google us some facts on this.
But why struggle to define the divinity of Christ ?
Matthew 3:17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
Matthew 3:17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
tragic_pizza
New Member
Well, there was a great division in early Christianity. The struggle was not so much the divinity of Christ, but how He was divine. It all came to a head around 325 AD, and the church was about evenly divided between the following viewpoints:
One side, led by a priest named Arius, believed that Jesus had received His divinity at some definable point. In other words, he wasn't born God.
The problems with this, of course, are that if Jesus received His divinity at some point, how and why? Did He earn it? And if He earned it, can't we do so as well? And if He wasn't born divine, His death could not really be substitutionary, could it? A "natural born man" would still carry Adamic sin. Thus His life serves as an example, and if we follow closely enough perhaps we, too, can earn divinity somehow, but we can't at all depend upon His death and resurrection as anything beyond a promise that if we ourselves are good enough, perhaps we too can rise again.
It was, however, a more "conservative" view to the converted, formerly polytheistic Romans than the view of the Athenasians.
Named for their leader, a bishop named Athenasius, the Athenasians believed that Jesus was God eternally. The difficulties in this line of reasoning was that it was possible to go too far in deifying Christ, thus completely separating Him from the very ones He came to save. Once you "go there," it's almost uncontrollable. More about that in a minute.
The Council of Nicea in 325 AD, convened by Constantine and attended by every important bishop of the time (note the absence of the Bishop of Rome) made the shocking decision that Jesus is eternally God. "Shocking" because the majority of bishops in attendance were Arian in sympathy.
It was, by the way, about 100 years before the whole matter was finally settled and one group stopped excommunicating the other.
In any case, the difficulty inherent in trying to comprehend the divinity of Christ is one of where to stop.
Jesus is God eternally. Mary was His mother. Well, if Mary was the vessel which God chose to birth God, she was certainly special, wasn't she? How special? Could a corrupt vessel hold God? Then she must have been free of corruption. So that means she was born of immaculate conception, right?
You get the idea.
It isn't a new process, though. The Jews went through much the same thing in trying to define the Law. That's why the Talmud is in so many volumes: The Law says we can do no work on the Sabbath. OK, what is work? Work is doing things. How many things? Which things? can I do some things and not others? We need to define these things, because we don't want to get God mad at us...
Hope that helps.
So an argument over whether or not Christ was deity, when the Bible gives us the answer, was the reason for the introduction of this doctrine ?
And why would adding doctrine keep God from getting mad at us ?
And why would adding doctrine keep God from getting mad at us ?
tragic_pizza
New Member
Yes, the Bible gives us the answer. It also, if you choose to interpret certain passages that way, supports the Arian view of Christology: that he is not eternally God.
In the view of the rabbis who developed talmudic law, as in the eyes of those who hold to a view of theology which places equal emphasis on historical as well as Scriptural authority, they aren't developing doctrine, they are defining it.
I know, I know. It's exactly the same language barrier we Evangelicals encounter when we ask about praying to Mary and saints and angels... "We don't pray, we ask THEM to pray. Yes, the saints are dead. So?"
I do not believe the Bible in any way tells any other story than Jesus Christ is Lord. You cannot come away from the Bible with any other message. You don't have to believe it, but the Bible, from beginning to end, paints a complete picture of Christ as redeemer. The only redeemer. To argue about it would only be fruitless.
John probably wrote in the A.D. 90's. He told us why he wrote in the following:
The reason Mary is not mentioned is because John knew Jesus is the giver of life. Mary was a woman born of human parents and she died a human death and her remains are in a human grave waiting like the rest of the saints to meet Jesus in the air some day.
Rufus
The purposes for II and III John are evident.
The reason Mary is not mentioned is because John knew Jesus is the giver of life. Mary was a woman born of human parents and she died a human death and her remains are in a human grave waiting like the rest of the saints to meet Jesus in the air some day.
Rufus
Excellent points, rufus.
I'm sure a lot of Christ's life, that we may want to know about, were never preserved for us. And our curiousity gets the best of us.
But I think it boils down to not trusting in the blood of Christ to wash away all stain of sin. The human, in his limited understanding, cannot fathom salvation.
I'm sure a lot of Christ's life, that we may want to know about, were never preserved for us. And our curiousity gets the best of us.
But I think it boils down to not trusting in the blood of Christ to wash away all stain of sin. The human, in his limited understanding, cannot fathom salvation.
tragic_pizza
New Member
You're preaching to the choir, Curtis, and also looking at Scripture from the standpoint of an orthodox Christian of the twenty-first century. You and I have had nearly two millenia of teaching on an eternally divine Christ. As I previously mentioned, the viewpoint of the Arians seems unfounded, but they were able to find ample Biblical justification for their beliefs. And, again, about half of the Christian faith fo the fourth century held to an Arian Christology.
By the way, can you guess which pseudochurch holds to an Arian Christology today?
Born Again Catholic
New Member
Bro Curtis
Just a few thoughts on Rev 12
In Revelation 12, 4 persons are mentioned, a child(Jesus), a woman, a dragon (Satan), and an angel(Michael).
Is it your position that all the other persons in this battle are absolutely real but the women has to be symbolic? Why?
In Revelation 12, we learn that the child (Jesus) was born of the woman in Rev 12. Again you believe this must be symbolic and can't refer to Mary. Why? What Jesus's being borne of Mary in the Gospel also just symbolic? Was God not truly among us as some ancient heresey contended? The Bible clearly tells us Jesus was borne of Mary in the Gospel, Rev 12 tells us the child (Jesus) was born of the women in Rev 12, but you believe it can't be Mary. Do you see the slightest contradiction there? Who do you believe also gave Birth to Jesus besides Mary?
In Revelation 12 we also learn that the women is the mother of those who keep the commandments.Do you believe John is among those who kept the commandments? When John is at the foot of the cross who does Jesus tell him is his mother. ""Then he said to the disciple "Behold your Mother"". Who wrote Revelations? John. Again although God(Jesus) said it and John recorded it you doubt it. Why?
Immediately proceeding the woman in Rev 12 (these somewhat arbitrary chapter seperations weren't added until centruries later)What do we see the ark of the covenant in heaven.
What did the ark of the covenant carry. 1)The staff of the high priest, 2)the word of God etched in stone (10 commandments) and 3)the manna(bread) sent down from heaven. Then right after that we see this women. Did Mary carry anything similar to this during her pregancy which is discussed right after in Rev 12. Yes coincidently she carried 1)our High Priest, 2)the Word who was God, and 3)the Bread of Life. Again you deny any possible connection to Mary. Why?
So where is this women(Mary)in Rev 12. She is in heaven.
God Bless you
[ February 07, 2003, 02:20 AM: Message edited by: Born Again Catholic ]
Just a few thoughts on Rev 12
In Revelation 12, 4 persons are mentioned, a child(Jesus), a woman, a dragon (Satan), and an angel(Michael).
Is it your position that all the other persons in this battle are absolutely real but the women has to be symbolic? Why?
In Revelation 12, we learn that the child (Jesus) was born of the woman in Rev 12. Again you believe this must be symbolic and can't refer to Mary. Why? What Jesus's being borne of Mary in the Gospel also just symbolic? Was God not truly among us as some ancient heresey contended? The Bible clearly tells us Jesus was borne of Mary in the Gospel, Rev 12 tells us the child (Jesus) was born of the women in Rev 12, but you believe it can't be Mary. Do you see the slightest contradiction there? Who do you believe also gave Birth to Jesus besides Mary?
In Revelation 12 we also learn that the women is the mother of those who keep the commandments.Do you believe John is among those who kept the commandments? When John is at the foot of the cross who does Jesus tell him is his mother. ""Then he said to the disciple "Behold your Mother"". Who wrote Revelations? John. Again although God(Jesus) said it and John recorded it you doubt it. Why?
Immediately proceeding the woman in Rev 12 (these somewhat arbitrary chapter seperations weren't added until centruries later)What do we see the ark of the covenant in heaven.
What did the ark of the covenant carry. 1)The staff of the high priest, 2)the word of God etched in stone (10 commandments) and 3)the manna(bread) sent down from heaven. Then right after that we see this women. Did Mary carry anything similar to this during her pregancy which is discussed right after in Rev 12. Yes coincidently she carried 1)our High Priest, 2)the Word who was God, and 3)the Bread of Life. Again you deny any possible connection to Mary. Why?
So where is this women(Mary)in Rev 12. She is in heaven.
God Bless you
[ February 07, 2003, 02:20 AM: Message edited by: Born Again Catholic ]
I believe the woman mentioned is Israel, but I can't prove it, so I don't call it doctrine. Mary's ascension is assumed, with absolutely no proof in history or scripture, alive only in the tradition of the RCC. I do believe that John would have written about the ascension, had it happened. I believe Paul's epistles would have told us to honor Mary, if that were God's will. But he didn't, on the contrary, he gave stern warnings about preaching anything but the blood of Christ.
tragic_pizza
New Member
For additional study, look at 2 Kings 18:4 and what happened to the bronze snake that Moses lifted up in the wilderness.
imho, this is what has occurred in Marian theology, and, in a few cases, with the Host at Eucharist.
The bronze snake story is definately a picture of Christ. Well preserved, as an example of God's free gift of salvation, the moment we trust him.
I don't see Mary at all.
I don't see Mary at all.
thessalonian
New Member
Curtis,
"I do believe that John would have written about the ascension, had it happened. I believe Paul's epistles would have told us to honor Mary, if that were God's will. "
Many times when we present our beliefs you say "that ain't in the Bible". Well tell us where this stuff above is in the Bible. I just don't see these words anywhere in scripture.
"I do believe that John would have written about the ascension, had it happened. I believe Paul's epistles would have told us to honor Mary, if that were God's will. "
Many times when we present our beliefs you say "that ain't in the Bible". Well tell us where this stuff above is in the Bible. I just don't see these words anywhere in scripture.
I took the liberty of paraphrasing your answer....
We have no hope at all of earning divinity. That is coming to us, free of charge, when we join our Lord for eternity. Joint-heirs with Christ.
Second, if Mary was born sinless, so that she could bring forth a sinless son, how did Mary come to us ? For if you follow the RCC doctrine, and believe a corrupt vessel couldn't bring forth God's son, then surely a corrupt vessel could not have brought to us a sinless woman, either. And ad infinitum, so forth, where did Mary's divinity begin ?
And please don't say that the RCC doesn't call her divine, because sinless means divine.
thessalonian
New Member
Curtis,
"I do believe that John would have written about the ascension, had it happened. I believe Paul's epistles would have told us to honor Mary, if that were God's will. "
Many times when we present our beliefs you say "that ain't in the Bible". Well tell us where this stuff you have written above is in the Bible or do you have some external tradition that says these things. I just don't see these words anywhere in scripture. Nowehere in scripture does it say what John and Paul had to write. Seems to me your going beyond what is written here. (Another one of your standards)
"I do believe that John would have written about the ascension, had it happened. I believe Paul's epistles would have told us to honor Mary, if that were God's will. "
Many times when we present our beliefs you say "that ain't in the Bible". Well tell us where this stuff you have written above is in the Bible or do you have some external tradition that says these things. I just don't see these words anywhere in scripture. Nowehere in scripture does it say what John and Paul had to write. Seems to me your going beyond what is written here. (Another one of your standards)
Matthew 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
Psalms 119:105 NUN. Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.
Jeremiah 23:16 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, Hearken not unto the words of the prophets that prophesy unto you: they make you vain: they speak a vision of their own heart, and not out of the mouth of the LORD.
2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: