The Assumption of Mary

[mrtumnus]

Oh brother !

I have been reading this thread and this is the most grossly fabricated doctrine I think I have ever witnessed being defended.

I would wager, if I were a wagering man, that those who preach Mary was sinless and the Mother Queen of heaven could also prove Santa Clause and the Easter Bunney as real from God's Holy Word.

Unbelieveable.raying:

I would respond to your statement, but I'm sure it's not meant for me. That's because you addressed it to your brother, which evidently has to mean without a doubt a male son born of your mother, and that's not me.

 

[Amy.G]

I have searched. I am satisified that the doctrines do not contradict Scripture and that they speak to the nature and glory of God first and foremost. I understand there are those who automatically make an assumption that can't be -- if anybody really searches (as they have) it would be clear. I think we all come from pre-disposed beliefs it can be difficult to shake.

Regarding the Trinity, ever read a rebuttal by a JW as to why the doctrine of the Trinity is not revealed in Scripture? Using the Bible alone, they will defend their belief as supported by Scripture without reservation. The clear definition of the nature of the Trinity and of Christ took the church centuries with many heresies along the way, all claiming Scripture as for their side.

But you have yet to post any scripture proving your belief. Why?

 

[mrtumnus]

But you have yet to post any scripture proving your belief. Why?

Which specific one? Perpetual virginity? Sinless? Queen of heaven? All of the above?

Edit -- sorry I misread that. You said "yet" I thought you were asking me to.

Pick one to start with please. And I will be out for a while but back a little later.

 

[Amy.G]

Which specific one? Perpetual virginity? Sinless? Queen of heaven? All of the above?

Edit -- sorry I misread that. You said "yet" I thought you were asking me to.

Pick one to start with please. And I will be out for a while but back a little later.

Ok. How about we start with the sinlessness of Mary?

 

[Bro. James]

With papal bulls, papal infallibility, and not a few apparitions, anything is possible with masters of deception. Now we have a co-redemptrix. And God, eternal, with a mother, who apparently appears only to those quite superstitious, following an admixture of paganism and voodoo mambo jambo. Check out the worship of Mary in Central and South America, also some of the Caribbean Islands.

This is why sola scriptura is such a pivotal doctrine. Most of these doctrines go away without the traditions and commandments of men.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

[mrtumnus]

Ok. How about we start with the sinlessness of Mary?

Ok, first of all, what the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception means, and what it does not mean. Actually stated, it's that "The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin." The bold is pretty key. This is not something Mary accomplished on her own. Nor was it an act of God overriding her will. God in His omniscience knew Mary's response. In His omnipresence He did not have to "wait" in order to save her. It was by the grace and privilege of God, and by virtue of the merits of Christ on the cross.

As for why -- I think there are several reasons.

1) First of all, there is the nature of God as we know Him in the OT. After studying Scripture, I have no doubt that one of the "foreshadowings" of Mary in the OT is the Ark of the Covenant. I think Zenas posted some Scriptures earlier where Luke is obviously drawing this parallel. We’re told in Luke 1:35 that “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee” whereas in Exodus 40:34 Then a cloud covered the tent of the congregation, and the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle.” . Luke 1:43 has Elizabeth asking ““Whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” and in 2 Samuel 6:9 David asks “"How can the ark of the Lord come to me?". In Luke 1:44 John leaps for joy within Elizabeth’s womb when he hears Mary’s voice. In 2 Samuel 6:16 David is leaping for joy before the Ark. In Luke 1:56 we see that Mary stayed with Elizabeth for 3 months. In 2 Samuel 6:11 the Ark remained in the city in the house of Obededom for 3 months.

In the OT the Ark was the 'method' God used to dwell among the people. In the NT, Mary is the way God comes to dwell among us.

What does that mean? Well, in the OT we learn that wherever God dwells is Holy. Sanctified. Moses had to remove his sandals because He was standing on holy ground. Why? The presence of God was there. The Ark is the same way. There is literally chapter after chapter in Exodus with God's explicit instructions for the Ark. Pure gold was to be used. And it was fully sanctified before the glory of the Lord filled the tabnernacle.

I basically believe it would be contrary to the nature of God as we learn in the OT to completely dwell within a vessel of sin. I understand there are those who would say that well, we are a vessel of sin, yet Jesus dwells within us. True enough, but I don't think He completely dwells within us or us within Him, or else we could no longer sin, and John so noteably points out. We are still workiing on the completion of that indwelling of Christ.


2) In John 15:10 we learn that Jesus remains in the love of the Father by obeying all of his commandments. One of these is to honor both his Father and his mother. He even places some special emphasis on this commandment when dealing with the Pharisees who taught that it was okay to ignore this command in order to serve God (Matthew 10:13). This is why I so strongly disagree with those who portray the encounters of Jesus and Mary as him ignoring or minimizing her as his mother.

I am not an expert on Hebrew so I must rely on others, but I've read that the Hebrew word kabodah, means bestow glory.

This is a commandment which is unique to his relationship with Mary, not all of us. He did not have a command to honor us. He does have a command to honor his mother. I cannot accept any understanding of this except he followed the commandment, and did it perfectly. The glory which we will all ultimately receive from our sanctification I do not believe was withheld from Mary, but was given to her from the beginning. I can't imagine him doing less than he could to bring glory to his mother. I can only imagine that he fulfilled the command to honor his mother to perfection, which brought his full glory to her with no reservation.

3) Genesis 3:15 makes the first promise to us of a Savior that would redeem us from our sin. It speaks of the "enmity" this Savior will have with Satan and his seed. My opinion is that there are two primary attributes to this "enmity" -- it is eternal, and cannot be breached by sin. If Jesus had yielded to temptation, the enmity promised by God and the resulting salvation would not have occurred.

The promised "enmity" is actually shared with someone else -- "the woman". Most assume this woman is Eve. After all, she is in the garden and God has been addressing her as 'the woman'. However, this is problematic. First of all, we are all technically the seed of Eve. The promise is for the seed of the woman, not "one of" the seed. Second, if you read closely, it is a singular "enmity" that is shared between them both. Eve has already breached any "enmity" she had with Satan by her sin. I think the view that it was her compromises what the "enmity" represents.

Also, it makes no sense why we would be speaking about Eve's "seed" instead of Adam's. Nowhere else I have found in Scripture does it ever refer to someone as being of the woman's seed -- always the man. It is quite a strange use of the word "seed" in general, except when one looks at the Incarnation, when Mary's "seed" is that which gives humanity to Christ.

4) Maybe a minor thing, but while I've seen many places in Scripture where we are told to glorify God, and places where people do so with their lips, their mouths etc, I've never run across anyone else who says like Mary that her "soul" glorifies God.

So those are my reasons. I've listened to all the different reasons why the Bible teaches that Mary sinned. I've never studied one that I felt held up to any real scrutiny at all. My true belief is that God graced her to live in a fallen world that strengthened her personal will, and that she did not sin.

 

[Marcia]

But if they were planning to be married and have a family, why did Mary bring up the topic of her virginity when the angel told her that in the future she would have a child? I can understand her response of "how can this be, I am a virgin" if the angel had said "Oh, by the way, you are pregnant". I can't quite see it as making much sense when she was told she was going to have a son in the future. Why did she not just assume she and Joseph would be having a son?

She brought up her virginity because she wasn't married yet and the angel told her she was going to be with child. Mary clearly took this as something that would happen before her marriage to Joseph.

 

[mrtumnus]

With papal bulls, papal infallibility, and not a few apparitions, anything is possible with masters of deception. Now we have a co-redemptrix. And God, eternal, with a mother, who apparently appears only to those quite superstitious, following an admixture of paganism and voodoo mambo jambo. Check out the worship of Mary in Central and South America, also some of the Caribbean Islands.

This is why sola scriptura is such a pivotal doctrine. Most of these doctrines go away without the traditions and commandments of men.

Selah,

Bro. James

Actually we do not have a co-redemptrix although I would fathom a guess that most are clueless about what the term means nor would make any real effort to understand it.

As for the rest, all I know is that many people chase the paranormal wherever they think it is and in whatever form. The church investigates thousands of such claims every year, and with a handful of exceptions declares them fraud. As for the others, well yes, we do believe that miracles can and do happen.

And yes, Jesus has a mother. Pretty scriptural, don't you think?

 

[Marcia]

And it also says that Mary is the mother of all the church's members. Not a contradiction.

Yes, you're right. I saw that as I looked through the Catechism this evening.

I find it astonishing that the RCC teaches this - Mary being my mother has absolutely no biblical or rational support. But I consider this to be a lesser problem than other things said about Mary.

The bottom line is that the RCC makes too much of Mary. It's fine to see her as role model, to appreciate her willing spirit and what she went through both for the birth of Jesus and during his crucifixion. But to make her more than that is just idolatry.

Jesus is the Savior; Jesus is the only Mediator between man and God; Jesus is the God-Man; it is in Jesus' name we pray to have access to the throne of God. Mary is not applicable for any of this; there is no need for Mary now - she's dead to us. Yes, she's alive in heaven but we have an advocate and mediator there - Jesus Christ.

 

[mrtumnus]

She brought up her virginity because she wasn't married yet and the angel told her she was going to be with child. Mary clearly took this as something that would happen before her marriage to Joseph.

How is that any clearer than she planned to be a virgin forever?

The early iconography of the church you know all show Joseph with gray hair and as an old man. The apocryphal writings identify him as an elderly widower who agreed to become the protector of Mary who was a pledged virgin to the Lord. It was a societal marriage to provide support and status.

Not in scripture you say? Of course not. However, neither is it ever indicated that Joseph and Mary were two young people in love planning to have a family either. Both are assumptions, although those Christians living about 2000 years closer to the event believed Joseph was old.

There is also an interesting explanation in Numbers 30 about the vow a woman could take to the Lord that her father (if she was young and not married) or her husband could nullify. But if they heard about it and did not nullify it, the vow would stand. It was the regulation that the Lord gave Moses concerning the relationship between a husband and a wife.

 

[mrtumnus]

Yes, you're right. I saw that as I looked through the Catechism this evening.

I find it astonishing that the RCC teaches this - Mary being my mother has absolutely no biblical or rational support. But I consider this to be a lesser problem than other things said about Mary.

The bottom line is that the RCC makes too much of Mary. It's fine to see her as role model, to appreciate her willing spirit and what she went through both for the birth of Jesus and during his crucifixion. But to make her more than that is just idolatry.

Jesus is the Savior; Jesus is the only Mediator between man and God; Jesus is the God-Man; it is in Jesus' name we pray to have access to the throne of God. Mary is not applicable for any of this; there is no need for Mary now - she's dead to us. Yes, she's alive in heaven but we have an advocate and mediator there - Jesus Christ.

I find it difficult to believe one can claim Jesus as brother and therefore God as Father and find it irrational that Mary could be our mother.

I don't disagree with anything you have said about Jesus and his role. Not a bit. Regarding not needing Mary -- I will stand with Paul when speaking of the one body of Christ that the there is no division in the body, and that 'The eye cannot say to the hand, "I don't need you!" And the head cannot say to the feet, "I don't need you!"'

In terms of idolatry, I'm not sure how believing another person can pray for us and help us is idolatry. At any rate, we are specifically told that the role of judge belongs to God. To believe that we are capable of judging another's intent -- that also could be considered idolatry in my view. We have made an idol of ourselves by believing we can judge that which is only God's to judge.

 

[Marcia]

I find it difficult to believe one can claim Jesus as brother and therefore God as Father and find it irrational that Mary could be our mother.

Here's why: Mary was really the mother of Jesus - biologically and genetically. That is why Mary is his mother and not ours. God is our Father when we are adopted as sons through faith in Jesus Christ. So spiritually, we can call God "Father" but there is no genetic, biological or spiritual reason to call Mary "mother."

I don't disagree with anything you have said about Jesus and his role. Not a bit. Regarding not needing Mary -- I will stand with Paul when speaking of the one body of Christ that the there is no division in the body, and that 'The eye cannot say to the hand, "I don't need you!" And the head cannot say to the feet, "I don't need you!"'

What does this have to do with Mary?? This passage is talking about the members of the church and how God uses all of us. It does not include dead people (except maybe the men whom God used to write the Bible, in which case, we are reading what they transcribed). It does not mean Mary is playing a role in our lives today - she's dead to us!

In terms of idolatry, I'm not sure how believing another person can pray for us and help us is idolatry. At any rate, we are specifically told that the role of judge belongs to God. To believe that we are capable of judging another's intent -- that also could be considered idolatry in my view. We have made an idol of ourselves by believing we can judge that which is only God's to judge

I am not judging intent - I am judging actions and teachings. We are told by Jesus to use "right judgment" when judging. We are told to be discerning and to evaluate teachings. So anyone who brings forth a spiritual doctrine we are to judge that doctrine against God's word.

We don't need Mary to pray for us, my friend! We can pray directly to God through Jesus Christ! This is one reason he suffered and died for us - to open that veil! You know about the heavy veil in the Temple ripping when he died on the cross, right? Hebrews explains that that this symbolized another veil --the flesh of Jesus, torn for us so we have access to the throne of God. What a wonderful gift!! It seems like ungratefulness to reject this and think one has to have Mary to pray for us!

19Therefore, brethren, since we have confidence to enter the holy place by the blood of Jesus,

20by a new and living way which He inaugurated for us through the veil, that is, His flesh,
21and since we have a great priest over the house of God, 22let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.
Heb. 10:19-22

 

[mrtumnus]

Here's why: Mary was really the mother of Jesus - biologically and genetically. That is why Mary is his mother and not ours. God is our Father when we are adopted as sons through faith in Jesus Christ. So spiritually, we can call God "Father" but there is no genetic, biological or spiritual reason to call Mary "mother."

I'm not sure how one can be adopted into a family and only be adopted by one parent? While I agree that Mary was both biologically and genetically the mother of Jesus -- was there not also spiritual motherhood involved? He was a human baby, a human child, a human person. Fully human would demand more than a biological mother, but a mother in the truest sense of the word.

What does this have to do with Mary?? This passage is talking about the members of the church and how God uses all of us. It does not include dead people (except maybe the men whom God used to write the Bible, in which case, we are reading what they transcribed). It does not mean Mary is playing a role in our lives today - she's dead to us!

It has everything to do with Mary unless you are saying that you believe that we are separated from the body of Christ at death. Yet Scripture says that nothing, not even death can separate us from Christ. Paul does not divide the body into two -- those living here on earth, and those living in heaven. He says there is ONE body. Scripture refers to the "whole family" of God -- those living on earth and those living in heaven. Please provide any scripture that says those members of the family living in heaven no longer play a role in the one body of Christ.

I am not judging intent - I am judging actions and teachings. We are told by Jesus to use "right judgment" when judging. We are told to be discerning and to evaluate teachings. So anyone who brings forth a spiritual doctrine we are to judge that doctrine against God's word.

We don't need Mary to pray for us, my friend! We can pray directly to God through Jesus Christ! This is one reason he suffered and died for us - to open that veil! You know about the heavy veil in the Temple ripping when he died on the cross, right? Hebrews explains that that this symbolized another veil --the flesh of Jesus, torn for us so we have access to the throne of God. What a wonderful gift!! It seems like ungratefulness to reject this and think one has to have Mary to pray for us!

Of course we can pray directly to God. Who ever said we could not? Do we have to have others pray for us? No. But I fail to understand why some think the rules about that are different -- it's okay to have those living on earth pray for us, but not in heaven?

The idea that prayer with the saints is a replacement for prayer to God is unfounded. It isn't an either/or. When I pray, I come to God exactly as Paul describes we now do as Christians -- in the presence of God the judge, Jesus the mediator, the angels and the righteous men made perfect. It is how we as Christians approach God. Not as a single "just me and God" over to one side apart from the rest of the body of Christ. In the presence of all of the New Jerusalem I offer my prayers to God, and yes, I do ask others to pray for and with me. I don't make a division within the body of Christ as to who that can be -- for Scripture says there is no division at all.

 

[DHK]

I'm not sure how one can be adopted into a family and only be adopted by one parent? While I agree that Mary was both biologically and genetically the mother of Jesus -- was there not also spiritual motherhood involved? He was a human baby, a human child, a human person. Fully human would demand more than a biological mother, but a mother in the truest sense of the word.

When one becomes saved it is GOD that adopts them into HIS family. Are you suggesting that our Heavenly Father is married to Mary, and (like the Muslims) sexually produced Jesus? That is a Muslim belief concerning Christianity when speaking of Jesus as God the Son. When you say: "I am not sure how one can be adopted into a family and only be adopted by one parent," you are suggesting the same thing! This is ludicrous. God the Father is one parent, and thus Mary is the other parent, and Christ is the Child by their sexual union?? This is what I get from your post.
Either that or, like the Mormon belief, God the Father is one parent, and Mary, as Queen of Heaven is another parent, and they give birth to your spirit and you eventually become a god, like they are??
--You are thoroughly mixed up with a heretical theology, and very confused.

At salvation believers are adopted into the family of God. This has nothing to do with Mary. Mary is a sinner, just like the thief on the cross, and has no more power than the thief on the cross. We are one in Christ. Both were sinners. Both were saved. Both were adopted into the family of God.

It has everything to do with Mary unless you are saying that you believe that we are separated from the body of Christ at death. Yet Scripture says that nothing, not even death can separate us from Christ. Paul does not divide the body into two -- those living here on earth, and those living in heaven. He says there is ONE body. Scripture refers to the "whole family" of God -- those living on earth and those living in heaven. Please provide any scripture that says those members of the family living in heaven no longer play a role in the one body of Christ.

Mary is dead. She is not part of the body of Christ. She is dead. The body of Christ refers to the living not the dead. Mary is dead. The Bible does not refer to dead people, but to living people. When speaking of the family of God or the body of Christ it always refers to the living, not the dead. Why are you obsessed with the dead? Do you practice necromancy? The onus is on you to provide Scripture that the dead are part of the family of God. I don't consider my great, great, great, great, grandmother to be part of my family, only my ancestry. At some point in time we were all related to Adam. Paul speaks of the living, not the dead.

Of course we can pray directly to God. Who ever said we could not? Do we have to have others pray for us? No. But I fail to understand why some think the rules about that are different -- it's okay to have those living on earth pray for us, but not in heaven?

The rules aren't different. If you pray TO another person, you are worshiping that person, and it is idolatry.
When you pray to Mary you worship Mary, and that is idolatry.
When you pray TO any other saint you commit idolatry.
God alone is worthy of worship. He alone is to be worshiped. The worshiping of others, other saints, other icons, other dead people is all sinful idolatry.

The idea that prayer with the saints is a replacement for prayer to God is unfounded. It isn't an either/or. When I pray, I come to God exactly as Paul describes we now do as Christians -- in the presence of God the judge, Jesus the mediator, the angels and the righteous men made perfect. It is how we as Christians approach God. Not as a single "just me and God" over to one side apart from the rest of the body of Christ. In the presence of all of the New Jerusalem I offer my prayers to God, and yes, I do ask others to pray for and with me. I don't make a division within the body of Christ as to who that can be -- for Scripture says there is no division at all.

You have already made a division.
First, you are confused about what prayer is. Prayer is communication with God. It is you talking with God. That is all. All this rubbish about "with all the body of Christ" and all the angels, etc. is just garbage. Look at Scripture:

1 Samuel 1:12 And it came to pass, as she continued praying before the LORD, that Eli marked her mouth.
1 Samuel 1:13 Now Hannah, she spake in her heart; only her lips moved, but her voice was not heard:

Her prayer was between herself and God. It was from her heart. Only her lips moved; her voice was not heard. Prayer is from the heart. It is not formal and ritualized or rote and memorized. It is directed to God alone, and comes from the heart alone--from the heart of man to the heart of God.

One may request a friend to pray with or even for them.
But you cannot ask a dead person that. If you communicate with the dead, that is the sin of necromancy, which in the OT, carried a death sentence.
To communicate with the dead was one of the most horrible sins one could possibly commit. This is what you are suggesting: to ask someone who has already died to pray for you. What a horrible sin--praying to the dead! It is called necromancy. It is wrong. It is also idolatry in that it is giving worship to another other than God Himself. How sinful a practice can this be!

 

[mrtumnus]

When one becomes saved it is GOD that adopts them into HIS family. Are you suggesting that our Heavenly Father is married to Mary, and (like the Muslims) sexually produced Jesus? That is a Muslim belief concerning Christianity when speaking of Jesus as God the Son. When you say: "I am not sure how one can be adopted into a family and only be adopted by one parent," you are suggesting the same thing! This is ludicrous. God the Father is one parent, and thus Mary is the other parent, and Christ is the Child by their sexual union?? This is what I get from your post.
Either that or, like the Mormon belief, God the Father is one parent, and Mary, as Queen of Heaven is another parent, and they give birth to your spirit and you eventually become a god, like they are??
--You are thoroughly mixed up with a heretical theology, and very confused.

At salvation believers are adopted into the family of God. This has nothing to do with Mary. Mary is a sinner, just like the thief on the cross, and has no more power than the thief on the cross. We are one in Christ. Both were sinners. Both were saved. Both were adopted into the family of God.

I can tell by the direction your thoughts take that you really do not comprehend what I am saying. But for the record, I do not believe that Christ is the result of their “sexual union”. Utter nonsense. I believe the Holy Spirit ‘overshadowed’ Mary, and she conceived.

And I do not believe that God and Mary give birth to my spirit and that I will eventually become a god. Not at all.

But I do believe that Mary is and always will be the mother of Jesus. I do not believe as some do, that she was just an incubator used by God, but she really was and is his mother. It is part of understanding that Christ does indeed have a full human nature and not simply a human form. So yes, I believe that Mary is and will be his mother for all eternity, and will be honored by him as such. And yes, I do believe she was saved by him. I’m not sure why one must believe he was required to wait until she sinned to do that.

 

[mrtumnus]

Mary is dead. She is not part of the body of Christ. She is dead. The body of Christ refers to the living not the dead. Mary is dead. The Bible does not refer to dead people, but to living people. When speaking of the family of God or the body of Christ it always refers to the living, not the dead. Why are you obsessed with the dead? Do you practice necromancy? The onus is on you to provide Scripture that the dead are part of the family of God. I don't consider my great, great, great, great, grandmother to be part of my family, only my ancestry. At some point in time we were all related to Adam. Paul speaks of the living, not the dead.

Well, at least someone has finally admitted they believe that when one dies they are no longer part of the body of Christ. I think you are wrong there, but at least that makes your position consistent, because if you really do believe that when we die we leave the body of Christ, then it would indeed make no sense to believe they would pray for us. But where is your Scripture that supports your position that the body of Christ refers only to those living on earth and not those living in heaven? Because Christ makes it perfectly clear that those in heaven are living, not dead.

Here’s my contributions. First of all, Jesus makes it perfectly clear that those living with God in heaven as not “dead”. For Abraham, Isaac and Jacob have long since left this earth, but God is still their God, and God is not the God of the dead. To claim that those in heaven are “dead” means to no longer claim God as your God.

Mt 22:32 - 'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? He is not the God of the dead but of the living."

Mark 12 26 Now about the dead rising--have you not read in the book of Moses, in the account of the bush, how God said to him, 'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? 27 He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken!"

Luke 20 37 But in the account of the bush, even Moses showed that the dead rise, for he calls the Lord 'the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.' 38 He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive."

And I’m not sure where you get the idea that in speaking of the family of God is only means those of us here on earth?
Eph 3:14-15 For this reason I kneel before the Father, 15 from whom his whole family in heaven and on earth derives its name.

Hebrews 12:22-24 22 But you have come to Mount Zion, to the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living God. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, 23 to the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven. You have come to God, the judge of all men, to the spirits of righteous men made perfect, 24 to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.

Death does not change the fact that we are still IN Christ -- his body.
Romans 8: 38 For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, 39 neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

And speaking of Abraham, whom you say is dead:
Romans 4:17 As it is written: "I have made you a father of many nations." He is our father in the sight of God, in whom he believed--the God who gives life to the dead and calls things that are not as though they were

And if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. Sounds to me like they are still part of his body.
1 Corinthians 15:15-18 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost.

The dead are still IN Christ – part of his body.
1 Thessalonians 4:16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.


We live together WITH him whether we are awake or asleep.
1 Thessalonians 5:10 10 He died for us so that, whether we are awake or asleep, we may live together with him.

Death has been destroyed for those who believe – they are not dead.
2 Timothy 1:10 but it has now been revealed through the appearing of our Savior, Christ Jesus, who has destroyed death and has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.

Amazing that heaven rejoices over what happens on earth?
Luke 15:7 7 I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.

So please provide the Scriptural evidence to support your claim that we are no longer part of the body of Christ when we die -- that only those here on earth are part of the body of Christ?

And no, I do not practice necromancy, which I believe is defined as the conjuration of the spirits of the dead for purposes of magically revealing the future or influencing the course of events. As a former Catholic you should know that is something which is expressly forbidden by the church. That you cannot see the difference in such an evil practice and recognizing that when we approach God in the New Jerusalem we are in the presence of the angels and saints is really quite sad.

 

[mrtumnus]

The rules aren't different. If you pray TO another person, you are worshiping that person, and it is idolatry.
When you pray to Mary you worship Mary, and that is idolatry.
When you pray TO any other saint you commit idolatry.
God alone is worthy of worship. He alone is to be worshiped. The worshiping of others, other saints, other icons, other dead people is all sinful idolatry.

I always find it so interesting when people believe they can take a word and re-define it to have only one exclusive meaning and ignore what both the history and what the language says the word means. And then use their limited definition as the basis to judge others (which I would contend is indeed a form of idolatry in believing they have the ability or role of doing so).

Pray -- 1 : to make a request in a humble manner 2 : to address God or a god with adoration, confession, supplication, or thanksgiving

Since when is the word limited to definition #2? It certainly wasn’t in times past, when a person might say to another, “I pray thee grant my request”, when they were asking for a favor. They were not ‘worshipping’ that person. It is certainly the context in which the usage “praying to the saints” originated in the early church. I am sure it was the intent of those early Christians in the catacombs when they scribbled “Peter and Paul, pray for us” all over the walls to be making a humble request of Peter and Paul, not to worship them. Yet some choose to pretend definition #1 does not exist, judge all others by definition #2, even when those people are clear they are speaking about definition #1, but please don’t confuse me with any facts.

 

[mrtumnus]

You have already made a division.
First, you are confused about what prayer is. Prayer is communication with God. It is you talking with God. That is all. All this rubbish about "with all the body of Christ" and all the angels, etc. is just garbage. Look at Scripture:

1 Samuel 1:12 And it came to pass, as she continued praying before the LORD, that Eli marked her mouth.
1 Samuel 1:13 Now Hannah, she spake in her heart; only her lips moved, but her voice was not heard:

Her prayer was between herself and God. It was from her heart. Only her lips moved; her voice was not heard. Prayer is from the heart. It is not formal and ritualized or rote and memorized. It is directed to God alone, and comes from the heart alone--from the heart of man to the heart of God.

One may request a friend to pray with or even for them.
But you cannot ask a dead person that. If you communicate with the dead, that is the sin of necromancy, which in the OT, carried a death sentence.
To communicate with the dead was one of the most horrible sins one could possibly commit. This is what you are suggesting: to ask someone who has already died to pray for you. What a horrible sin--praying to the dead! It is called necromancy. It is wrong. It is also idolatry in that it is giving worship to another other than God Himself. How sinful a practice can this be!

No, I create NO division, for Scripture says there is none. I do not say to another part of the body "I don't need you".

Interesting you chose OT quotes to teach about prayer. A couple of examples from the NT. First of all, Christ tells us to go to our room and close the door to pray to the Father. But interestingly enough, he doesn’t teach us to say “My Father”. He teaches us to say “Our Father”. Who is the “Our”, and why did he choose to express it in this way? It certainly implies we are praying with others to God, even alone behind our closed door.

And Paul is very clear that there is a difference between the way God was approached in the OT and the NT. We have not come to a mountain, trembling in fear. We come to the New Jerusalem, and we come to God and Christ in the presence of the angels and saints. So while I would agree that prayer comes from the heart and is always directed toward God, I would have to say that for Christians, it is always within the body of Christ, not separate from it. Not just me and God, out there by ourselves.

And requesting someone living in heaven to pray for you is not necromancy. It is not conjuration of the spirits of the dead for purposes of magically revealing the future or influencing the course of events. It is making a humble request of them to pray for us. You have once again redefined a word to suit your own purpose.

 

[I Am Blessed 24]

I have read most of the posts in this thread, but not all of them, so I apologize in advance if someone else has already posted this information.

Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this [man] all these things?
Matthew 13:55-56

Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us?
Mark 6:3

There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome;
Mark 15:40

And Mary Magdalene and Mary [the mother] of Joses beheld where he was laid.
Mark 15:47

(Bold is mine.)

These verses prove that Mary was only a virgin until after Jesus was born. She was not sinning by having these other children, she was simply fulfilling God's command, "be fruitful and multiply."

Mary died just like the rest of us. She was not caught up into Heaven. She will remain in her grave just like the rest of us, until the rapture occurs.

Praying to the dead is against God's Word. It does no good anyway. I pray to Jesus. HE IS ALIVE!

What is being espoused here is nothing but RCC false doctrine. I know. I was raised in the RCC church and attended a RCC grade school.

Blessings,
§ue

 

[mrtumnus]

I have read most of the posts in this thread, but not all of them, so I apologize in advance if someone else has already posted this information.

Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this [man] all these things?
Matthew 13:55-56

Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us?
Mark 6:3

There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome;
Mark 15:40

And Mary Magdalene and Mary [the mother] of Joses beheld where he was laid.
Mark 15:47

(Bold is mine.)

These verses prove that Mary was only a virgin until after Jesus was born. She was not sinning by having these other children, she was simply fulfilling God's command, "be fruitful and multiply."

Yes, this has been addressed. These verses prove that Mary was only a virgin until after Jesus was born? It seems to me that the level of 'proof' from a Bible alone perspective is quite variable.

What these verses prove is that people had the perception that Jesus had brothers. Notice also, the "Is this not the carpenter's son"? By your standard, you have just proved that Jesus was actually the biological son of Joseph. Just because that is what people perceived does not mean that they were correct.

These "brothers" could have been anyone from extended family such as cousins (which would be common to consider the whole clan as 'brethren' at the time), or they could have been Joseph's children from a first marriage.

The reality is, Scripture tells us NOTHING about the nature of the relationship of Mary and Joseph. It tells us NOTHING about Mary ever having other children. There is no 'proof' that Mary had other children after Jesus. This is why it is extremely puzzling to me that people who say that they only believe what the Bible teaches would make such a claim.

Mary died just like the rest of us. She was not caught up into Heaven. She will remain in her grave just like the rest of us, until the rapture occurs.

Praying to the dead is against God's Word. It does no good anyway. I pray to Jesus. HE IS ALIVE!

What is being espoused here is nothing but RCC false doctrine. I know. I was raised in the RCC church and attended a RCC grade school.

Blessings,
§ue

Um, they are ALIVE too! Guess what? If they're not, then Jesus is not.

1 Corinthians 15:15-18 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost.

And what exactly is your definition of the word "pray"?

Being raised Catholic and attending Catholic school does not mean you know Catholic doctrine I am afraid. For example, you would know that necromancy is indeed wrong. And you would understand the difference between that and requesting the prayer of someone who is alive in the body of Christ.