In my new book, Behold Your Mother - A Biblical and Historical Defense of the Marian Doctrines, I give eight reasons for belief in the Immaculate Conception:
1. Mary is revealed to be "full of grace" in Luke 1:28.
2. Mary is revealed to be the fulfillment of the prophetic "Daughter of Zion" of Zech. 2:10; Zeph. 3:14-16; Isaiah 12:1-6, etc.
3. Mary is revealed to be "the beginning of the new creation" in fufillment of the prophecy of Jer. 31:22.
4. Mary is revealed to possess a "blessed state" parallel with Christ's in Luke 1:42.
5. Mary is not just called "blessed" among women, but "more blessed than all women" (including Eve) in Luke 1:42.
6. Mary is revealed to be the spotless "Ark of the Covenant" in Luke 1.
7. Mary is revealed to be the "New Eve" in Luke 1:37-38; John 2:4; 19:26-27; Rev. 12, and elsewhere.
8. Mary is revealed to be free from the pangs of labor in fulfillment of Isaiah 66:7-8.
Here, I will present some snippets from three of these biblical reasons for faith. But first, I must say I am sympathetic to my Protestant friends, and others, who struggle with this teaching of the Catholic Faith. Romans 3:23 says, “All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” I John 1:8 adds, “If any man says he has no sin he is a liar and the truth is not in him.” These texts could not be clearer for millions of Protestants: “How could anyone believe Mary was free from all sin in light of these Scriptures? What’s more, Mary herself said, ‘My soul rejoices in God my savior’ in Luke 1:47. She clearly understood herself to be a sinner if she admits to needing a savior.”
The Catholic Answer
Not a few Protestants are surprised to discover the Catholic Church actually agrees that Mary was “saved.” Indeed, Mary needed a savior! However, Mary was “saved” from sin in a most sublime manner. She was given the grace to be “saved” completely from sin so that she never committed even the slightest transgression. The problem here is Protestants tend to emphasize God’s “salvation” almost exclusively to the forgiveness of sins actually committed. However, Sacred Scripture indicates that salvation can also refer to man being protected from sinning before the fact.
Now to him who is able to keep you from falling and to present you without blemish before the presence of his glory with rejoicing, to the only God, our Savior through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and for ever (Jude 24-25).
The great Franciscan theologian, Duns Scotus, explained ca. 600 years ago that falling into sin could be likened to a man approaching unaware a massive 20-feet deep ditch. If he falls into the ditch, he would need someone to lower a rope and save him. But if someone were to warn him of the danger ahead resulting in the man not falling into the ditch at all, he would have been saved from falling in the first place. Analogously, Mary was saved from sin by receiving the grace to be preserved from it. But she was still saved.
The Exception[s] to the Rule
But what about “all have sinned,” and “if any man says he has no sin he is a liar and the truth is not in him?” Wouldn’t “all” and/or “any man” include Mary? On the surface, this sounds reasonable. But this way of thinking carried to its logical conclusion would list Jesus Christ in the company of sinners as well. No Christian would dare say that! Yet, no Christian can deny the plain texts of Scripture declaring Christ’s full humanity either. Thus, if one is going to take I John 1:8 in a strict, literal sense, then any man would apply to Jesus as well!
The truth is—and all Christians agree—Jesus Christ was an exception to Romans 3:23 and I John 1:8. And the Bible tells us he was in Hebrews 4:15: “Christ was tempted in all points even as we are and yet he was without sin.” The real question now is: are there any other exceptions to this rule? Yes, there are. In fact, there are millions of them.
First of all, we need to recall that both of these texts—Romans 3:23 and I John 1:8—are dealing with personal rather than original sin. Romans 5:12 will deal with original sin. And there are two exceptions to that general biblical norm as well. But for now, we will simply deal with Romans 3:23 and I John 1:8. I John 1:8 obviously refers to personal sin because in the very next verse, St. John tells us, “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins…” We do not confess original sin; we confess personal sins.
The context of Romans 3:23 makes clear that it too refers to personal sin:
None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands, no one seeks for God. All have turned aside, together they have gone wrong; no one does good, not even one. Their throat is an open grave. They use their tongues to deceive. The venom of asps is under their lips. Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness (Romans 3:10-14).
Original sin is not something we do; it is something we’ve inherited. Romans chapter three deals with personal sin because it speaks of sins committed by the sinner. With this in mind, consider this: Has a baby in the womb or a child of two ever committed a personal sin? No, they haven’t (see Romans 9:11)! Or, how about the mentally challenged who do not have the use of their intellects and wills? These cannot sin because in order to sin a person has to know the act he is about to perform is sinful while freely engaging his will in carrying it out. Without the proper faculties to enable them to sin, children before the age of accountability and anyone who does not have the use of his intellect and will cannot sin. Right there you have millions of exceptions to Romans 3:23 and I John 1:8.
The question remains: how do we know Mary is an exception to the norm of “all have sinned?” And more specifically, is there biblical support for this claim? Yes, there is. Indeed, there is much biblical support, but in this brief post I shall cite just three examples, among the eight, as I said before, that give us biblical support for this ancient doctrine of the Faith.
1. LUKE 1:28:
And [the angel Gabriel] came to [Mary] and said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!” But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and considered in her mind what sort of greeting this might be. And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.”
Many Protestants will insist this text to be little more than a common greeting of the Archangel Gabriel to Mary. “What would this have to do with Mary being without sin?” Yet, the truth is, according to Mary herself, this was no common greeting. The text reveals Mary to have been “greatly troubled at the saying and considered in her mind what sort of greeting this might be” (Luke 1:29, emphasis added). What was it about this greeting that was so uncommon for Mary to react this way? There are at least two key reasons:
First, according to many biblical scholars as well as Pope St. John Paul II, the angel did more than simply greet Mary. The angel actually communicated a new name or title to her. In Greek, the greeting was kaire, kekaritomene, or “Hail, full of grace.” Generally speaking, when one greeted another with kaire, a name or title would almost be expected to be found in the immediate context. “Hail, king of the Jews” in John 19:3 and “Claudias Lysias, to his Excellency the governor Felix, greeting” (Acts 23:26) are two biblical examples of this. The fact that the angel replaces Mary’s name in the greeting with “full of grace” was anything but common. This would be analogous to me speaking to one of our tech guys at Catholics answers and saying, “Hello, he who fixes computers.” In our culture, I would just be considered weird. But in Hebrew culture, names, and name changes, tell us something that is permanent about the character and calling of the one named. Just recall the name changes of Abram to Abraham (changed from “father” to “father of the multitudes”) in Gen. 17:5, Saray to Sarah (“my princess” to “princess”) in Gen. 17:15, and Jacob to Israel (“supplanter” to “he who prevails with God”) in Gen. 32:28.
In each case, the names reveal something permanent about the one named. Abraham and Sarah transition from being a “father” and “princess” of one family to being “father” and “princess” or “mother” of the entire people of God (see Romans 4:1-18; Is. 51:1-2). They become Patriarch and Matriarch of God’s people forever. Jacob/Israel becomes the Patriarch whose name, “he who prevails with God,” continues forever in the Church, which is called “the Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16). The people of God will forever “prevail with God” in the image of the Patriarch Jacob who was not just named Israel, but he truly became “he who prevails with God.”
An entire tome could be written concerning the significance of God’s revelation of his name in Exodus 3:14-15 as I AM. God revealed to us volumes about his divine nature in and through the revelation of his name—God is pure being with no beginning and no end; he is all perfection, etc.
What’s in a name? A lot according to Scripture!
When you add to this the fact that St. Luke uses the perfect passive participle, kekaritomene, as his “name” for Mary, we get deeper insight into the meaning of Mary’s new name. This word literally means “she who has been graced” in a completed sense. This verbal adjective, “graced,” is not just describing a simple past action. Greek has the aorist tense for that. The perfect tense is used to indicate that an action has been completed in the past resulting in a present state of being. That’s Mary’s name! So what does it tell us about Mary? Well, the average Christian is not completed in grace and in a permanent sense (see Phil. 3:8-12). But according to the angel, Mary is. You and I sin, not because of grace, but because of a lack of grace, or a lack of our cooperation with grace, in our lives. This greeting of the angel is one clue into the unique character and calling of the Mother of God.
Objection!
One objection to the above is rooted in Eph. 2:8-9. Here, St. Paul uses the perfect tense and passive voice when he says, “For by grace you have been saved…” Why wouldn’t we then conclude all Christians are complete in salvation for all time? There seems to be an inconsistency in usage here.
Actually, the Catholic Church understands that Christians are completed in grace when they are baptized. In context, St. Paul is speaking about the initial grace of salvation in Ephesians two. The verses leading up to Eph. 2:8-9, make this clear:
… we all lived in the passions of our flesh, following the desires of body and mind, and so we were by nature children of wrath…even when we were dead in trespasses and sins…(by grace you have been saved)” (vss. 3-5).
But there is no indication here, as there is with Mary, that the Christian is going to stay that way. In other words, Eph. 2:8-9 does not confer a name.
In fact, because of original sin, we can guarantee that though we are certainly perfected in grace through baptism, ordinarily speaking, we will not stay that way after we are baptized; that is, if we live for very long afterward (see I John 1:8)! There may be times in the lives of Christians when they are completed or perfected in grace temporarily. For example, after going to confession or receiving the Eucharist well-disposed. We let God, of course, be the judge of this, not us, as St. Paul tells us in I Cor. 4:3-4:
I do not even judge myself. I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted (Gr.—justified). It is the Lord who judges me.
But only Mary is given the name “full of grace” and in the perfect tense indicating that this permanent state of Mary was completed.
2. An Ancient Prophecy—Genesis 3:15:
Genesis 3:15 is often referred to by biblical scholars as the Protoevangelium. It is a sort of “gospel” before “the gospel.” This little text contains in very few words God’s plan of salvation which would be both revealed and realized in the person of Jesus Christ. Yet, when one reads the text, one cannot help but note that this prophetic woman seems to have what could be termed almost a disturbing prominence and importance in God’s providential plan:
I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed: he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.
Not only do we have the Virgin Birth here implied because the text says the Messiah would be born of “the seed of the woman” (the “seed” is normally of the man), but notice “the woman” is not included as “the seed” of the devil. It seems that both the woman and her seed are in opposition to and therefore not under the dominion of the devil and “his seed,” i.e., all who have original sin and are “by nature children of wrath” as St. Paul puts it in Eph. 2:3. Here, we have in seed form (pun intended), the fact that the woman—Mary—would be without sin, especially original sin, just as her Son—the Messiah—would be. The emphasis on Mary is truly remarkable in that the future Messiah was only mentioned in relation to her. There can be little doubt that a parallel is being drawn between Jesus and Mary and their absolute opposition to the devil.
3. Mary, Ark of the Covenant:
The Old Testament ark of the Covenant was a true icon of the sacred. It was a picture of the purity and holiness God fittingly demands of those objects and/or persons most closely associated with himself and the plan of salvation. Because it would contain the very presence of God symbolized by three types of the coming Messiah—the manna, the Ten Commandments, and Aaron’s staff—it had to be most pure and untouched by sinful man (see II Sam. 6:1-9; Exodus 25:10ff; Numbers 4:15; Heb. 9:4).
In the New Testament, the new and true Ark would not be an inanimate object, but a person—the Blessed Mother. How much more pure would the new and true Ark be when we consider the old ark was a mere “shadow” in relation to it (see Heb. 10:1)? This image of Mary as the Ark of the Covenant is an indicator that Mary would fittingly be free from all contagion of sin in order for her to be a worthy vessel to bear God in her womb. And most importantly, just as the Old Covenant ark was pristine from the moment it was constructed with explicit divine instructions in Exodus 25, so would Mary be most pure from the moment of her conception. God, in a sense, prepared his own dwelling place in both the Old and New Testaments.
In Behold Your Mother, there is much more that I say not only about these three above biblical reasons for the Immaculate Conception, but I give you five more reasons as well. There is only so much I can do in a brief blog post. But if you would like to dive deeper, click here.
I liked your reasons so much that I made a mnemonic to help remember:
GoD CAN BLEss
G- full of Grace
D- Daughter of zion
C- ark of the Covenant
A- most blessed of All women
N- beginning of the New creation
B- Blessed state
L- pangs of Labor
E- new Eve
I hope this can help someone else too.
Very cool, Joel!
I had a professor in the seminary, Fr. Michael Beers, who gave us LEGCAPS for the seven deadly sins. This will stick with me forever!
Lust
Envy
Gluttony
Covetousness
Anger
Pride
Sloth
Love mnemonic devices!
In #2, Daughter of Zion, you seem to cite Zephaniah 14-16. But Zephaniah only has 3 chapters, Zechariah only has 14, and Zechariah 14:16 doesn't appear to mention the daughter of Zion. Could you clarify?
Tim,
You should get a trophy for this, an immaculate trophy preserved from tarnish! ;)
I will buy your book now. I was just wondering, does your book focus on the title of 'Woman' that was given to Eve before her fall (when she was immaculate) and when Our Blessed Lord would call Mary 'Woman' as the New Eve?
God bless you Tim!
Eric
Daniel,
That was a typo. I left out the "3." I now updated my post to read Zephaniah 3:14-16.
Eric,
Oh, yes! I deal with the prophetic title, "Woman," from Gen. 3:15 and Jer. 31:22, in great depth! Let me know what you think when you read it.
Thank You for accepting me. I am happy over the Immaculate Conception. I want to be part of those to preach this Gospel because it will unite all christians if they accept Mary as their mother thereby shunning Satan and receiving Jesus as truly their personal Lord and Savior.
Great
There is great debate on this matter. And we can go back and forth on it for days. One thing is certain (though this is a little off the subject). According to Scripture we are to pray to God only and in Jesus' name.
23 ... Most assuredly, I say to you, whatever you ask the Father in My name He will give you. 24 Until now you have asked nothing in My name. Ask, and you will receive, that your joy may be full. John 16:23-24
I know that Roman Catholics claim that they don't pray to Mary. So what am I to think about those bumper stickers that read "Pray the Rosary"? I can't possibly imagine the Apostle Paul or any of the other apostles saying it's "ok" to exalt someone else's name besides the name above all names Jesus Christ. Mary wouldn't desire any attention to her that would, in turn, take away from the sole praise and glory to Jesus Christ. The "deceiver", on the other hand, loves to do it. So therefore my brothers in Christ we must be very, very careful. Let us keep our eyes fixed only on our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. For we were created, including Mary, to praise and glorify Him and Him alone. God's relentless command that we see Him as glorious and praise Him is a command that we settle for nothing less than the completion of our joy in Him.
11 You will show me the path of life;
In Your presence is fullness of joy;
At Your right hand are pleasures forevermore. Psalms 16:11
In demanding our praise, He is demanding the completion of our pleasure. God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in Him.
Again I say to you. Let us keep our eyes fixed only on our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. John 14:6
5 “I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing. 6 If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned. 7 If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, you will ask what you desire, and it shall be done for you. 8 By this My Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit; so you will be My disciples. John 15:1-9
God Bless
Hello Alonso:
Many get hung up with the word "pray". From Merriam Webster:
"transitive verb
1: entreat, implore —often used as a function word in introducing a question, request, or plea
intransitive verb
1: to make a request in a humble manner"
The word "pray" simply means "to ask". Have you ever asked your friends to pray for you? Then you've "prayed" that they intercede on your behalf. Catholics simply are asking those in Heaven to intercede on our behalf...and who better than the Lord's own mother?
Alonso - Catholics only worship God. We venerate and honor Mary, plus all great Christian role models from the past (aka the Saints in Heaven).
As Ric Vesely stated above, the word "pray" means "to ask." In American culture, we usually only use the word "pray" in a religious context.
But in England you can often hear in courts "I pray the court will find my client innocent." The lawyer isn't praying or worshiping the court. S/He is humbly making a request.
We Catholic pray to Mary, we are not worshiping her. We are humbly making a request for her to pray for us.
"Hail Mary, full of grace. The Lord is with you. Blessed are you among women and Blessed is the fruit of your womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary, Mother of God,
Pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death.
Amen."
No where in the Hail Mary are we worshiping Mary. We are either citing Scripture, humbly addressing her, and finally asking her to pray for us.
May The Lord Bless you, your family, and the whole world. Amen.
Alonso,
as a former protestant, I appreciate your comment. We should all be careful not to give attention to anyone or anything to the exclusion of Christ. That is idolatry.
It's important to remember in Catholic teaching, honoring Mary and the saints is about honoring God's workmanship. We pray "with" them for the inclusion of Christ rather than exclusion. We hope that by their prayers we can grow closer to Christ.
In spite of that teaching, Catholics need to be on guard that our love for others is truly flowing from our love of God.
Alonso,
First of all I'd like it to say you have an awesome name and you're one of the few privileged ones to have it haha maybe a Biblical passage could help you understand why we as Catholics venerate her. Luke 1:48 "For he has looked upon his handmaid’s lowliness;
behold, from now on will all ages call me blessed."
Here you see Mary's humility which resulted in God choosing her to be the vessel through which Jesus would enter the world to redeem mankind on the cross.
Ever since the Catholic Church has seen fitting to call her blessed and very few protestant churches continue with this practice. The Church acknowledges her importance with this.
God chose the humblest of his creatures and exalted her because she accepted his will and said yes.
Jesus even confirms this later on about those who follow his will.
Matthew 23:12 "Whoever exalts himself will be humbled; but whoever humbles himself will be exalted."
This is even more true about Mary because only she, and no one else, had the honour of being the mother of God and she didn't feel better than others because of this, on the contrary, she accepted it humbly. And now she has been exalted by God forever.
There's much more which can be said about Mary so my advice is that you check the articles here in Catholic Answers.
Tim, another good mnemonic for the 7 deadly sins is PALE GAS that I have learned from Taylor Marshall.
P-Pride
A-Anger
L-Lust
E-Envy
G-Gluttony
A-Avarice
S-Sloth
Very cool, Alonso!
Pray=ask
I get it. The bumper stickers should read "Ask the Rosary".
Seriously, I do understand. That's why Jesus said in John 16:23-24
"23 ... Most assuredly, I say to you, whatever you ask the Father in My name He will give you. 24 Until now you have asked nothing in My name. Ask, and you will receive, that your joy may be full".
You all know very well that when you "Pray the Rosary" you truly pray the rosary. You don't ask the rosary. Please, don't deceive yourselves much less others.
Alonso (great name), God's plan is perfect. Mary had no say, she was part of His perfect plan. Thank God. Read the book of Jonah and you'll see what I mean.
Guys, my point is that we must rely on our Lord our God only. Pick up your Bibles and read the story on king Asa 2 Chronicles chapters 14-16. Allow me to give you a little of that reading on chapter 16:
7 And at that time Hanani the seer came to Asa king of Judah, and said to him: “Because you have relied on the king of Syria, and have not relied on the Lord your God, therefore the army of the king of Syria has escaped from your hand. 8 Were the Ethiopians and the Lubim not a huge army with very many chariots and horsemen? Yet, because you relied on the Lord, He delivered them into your hand. 9 For the eyes of the Lord run to and fro throughout the whole earth, to show Himself strong on behalf of those whose heart is loyal to Him. In this you have done foolishly; therefore from now on you shall have wars.”
Brothers, once again a say to you, we must be very, very careful. Let us keep our eyes fixed only on our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. For we were created, to pray, ask, praise and glorify Him and Him alone.
God Bless
Alonso Salcedo
It might help to talk about what actually goes on during the rosary.
The rosary itself simply doesn't lead to relying on Mary instead of Jesus. The whole thrust of it is Jesus. The only part of it that's actually "to" Mary is "pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death". The rest is to God and dwelling on the life of Jesus when we say the Our Father, and the Glory be ( to the father and the son and the holy spirit...)
Question: Do you think you could get to know someone better by only spending time one on one? Or would knowing that person in the context of their family and seeing how they relate to others add insight and depth to that relationship?
So it is with Mary. At the end of the rosary we focus on the "mysteries" which are different events in Jesus life that involve Mary such as Jesus baptism, the wedding at Cana, and the crucifixion. There are different styles and approaches-some are just scriptural readings, but I've seen some that tell the stories of Jesus through the lens of Mary-in the first person. Experiencing Jesus through the eyes of Mary (or the apostles and saints) adds a level of intimacy that can be missed if we desire a relationship with Jesus "alone".
You know how they say, you don't know a man until you've seen how he treats his mother.
Alonso,
I would encourage you to read my blog post here:
http://www.catholic.com/blog/tim-staples/praying-to-dead-folks
Yes, we pray to saints as Catholic Christians. But not in the same way we pray to God. When we pray to God, we attach adoration (or worship) to that "prayer." When we pray to saints, we honor them and ask for their intercession, but we do not adore them as we adore God.
As I say in my blog post, "Praying to Dead Folks," this is entirely biblical.
Who then is the one who condemns? No one. Christ Jesus who died--more than that, who was raised to life--is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us. Romans 8:34
My dear children, I am writing this to you so that you will not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate who pleads our case before the Father. He is Jesus Christ, the one who is truly righteous.
1 John 2:1
Can someone show me any biblical verses which clearly state Mary or any other saint as interceding as the above verses? Please no opinions just the verses please.
For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus 1 Timothy 2:5
Therefore he is able to save completely[a] those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them Hebrews 7:25
Yes.
All Christians are priests according to I Peter 2:5,9 (a priest is, by definition, a mediator between God and men):
"and like living stones be yourselves built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ... But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's own people..."
All Christians are called to intercede for one another IN CHRIST our one intercessor because we are members of his body:
"First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men, for kings and all who are in high position..." (I Tim. 2:1-2ff)
We are called to bring the forgiveness of sins to people and salvation in accordance with our particular callings, all accomplished in Jesus Christ, of course: See John 20:21-23; I Cor. 9:22; I Tim. 4:16; James 5:19-20; Col. 1:24; II Cor. 1:6; Romans 11:14; I Cor. 7:16; II Cor. 2:10; James 5:16.
These are a few for starters.
Ryan Del,
A simple question, please!
Was Jesus God while he was physically present on earth even when he was lying on the manger wrapped in swaddling clothe?
I will give you answer to your question of comment #18 once you answer this my question. I am in expectation!!!
Dear Ryan,
1st of all if you truely believe that no one, no even those living in Christ, can intercede or mediate then you have to stop praying for other Christians RIGHT NOW. Stop asking other Christians to pray for you and tell them, as forcefully as you're telling us, to stop praying for each other.
2nd, these four Biblical steps can show you intercession / mediation for those living IN CHRIST - not outside, not somehow taking away from Him, but through Him, with Him and in Him:
1) The Church is the Body of Christ: Col 1:18, 1 Cor 12:27 etc
2) Christ has only One Body - not one here on earth and another one in heaven: 1 Cor 12:12 and others
3) Death CANNOT seperate us from Christ: Rom 8:37-38
4) We are COMMANDED to pray for and intercede for the members of the Body of Christ: 1 Tim 2:1-4
That command is nowhere recinded upon death of the body.
Conclusion: The Saints in heaven, Mary being one of them, are still under Christ's command to pray for us here on earth.
This is observed happening in Scripture: Rev 5:8 and Rev 8:3-5 where the Saints and angels are presenting bowls of incense (prayers of us here on earth - Scripture interpreted that for us) and presenting them to the Lord
Heb 12:22-24 says we can approach innumerable angels and the "souls of just men made perfect".
Why? Because as 1 Cor 12 tells us, we, the members of the Body of Christ, need one another. As a body can heal cuts and bruises that occur, we can help each other through prayer.
James 5:16 says, the prayers of the righteous proffit much. Who is more righteous than those in heaven?
Not seperate from Christ, not taking away from Christ, but BECAUSE OF CHRIST!
Final Scriptural note. Matthew 17: We're only doing what Christ showed us at the Transfiguration where He, Himself, talked to two dead guys about His coming deliverence.
Hope this helped,
God Bless,
Nate
Some interesting Scriptures:
1) Jesus said (Mat. 11:11) "I tell you the truth; Among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist.
2) As Jesus was speaking to the crowd someone told him his and brothers wanted to speak to him. He answered ( Mat.12:48) Who is my mother, and who are my brothers? then pointing to his disciples, He said, "Here are my mother and my brothers. Whoever does the will of my Father in heaven."
3) About the woman who poured perfume on Jesus, He said of her (Mark 14:9) "I tell you the truth, wherever the gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her."
4) (Rom.3:11) "There is no one righteous, not even ONE" v23For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."
5) Mary, Joseph and baby Jesus at the temple (Luke 2:24: Mary offered a pair of doves and two pigeons, one for burnt offering and one for Sin offering and atonement for her.
6) In (Luke 1:46-47) Mary sings, " My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my SAVIOR," My savior???
7) (Gal. 4:4) Paul speaks of Mary thusly, "God sent His Son, born of a woman, born under law, to redeem those under the law, that we might receive the full rights of sons,"
Edward,
1. Jesus was "born of a woman" (Gal. 4:4) and he was "greater than John the Baptist." You need to read the rest of the verse to understand it. "... yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven (the church) is greater than he." Mary was the first Christian, so she, along with Jesus and the "least in the kingdom" of heaven on earth, the Church, is greater than he is.
2. Mary is Jesus' mother in two senses. First, she gave birth to him. 2. She "did the will of the Father in heaven" by saying yes to God (Luke 1:37-38).
3. We believe, as Catholics, that "wherever the gospel is preached throughout the world" what she (this woman in Mark 14) did "will also be told, in memory of her."
4. We believe, as a general theological norm that "all have sinned" (Romans 3:23), with Jesus, Mary, children in the womb who cannot do anything either good or evil (Romans 9:11), and the severely mentally challenged who cannot sin, being exceptions to that norm, similar to the way "it is appointed for each man to die ONCE, and then the judgment" (Heb.9:27) has exceptions in people who were raised from the dead by Elijah, Elisha, Jesus, Peter, Paul, etc. These presumably die twice. And then there are those who will never die who are alive when Jesus comes, according to I Thess. 4:16-17, and I Cor. 15:51.
5. Luke 2:22 tells us this sacrifice was for "their" purification, not just Mary's. If you say Mary had sin here, you have to say Jesus had sin as well. The truth is, Jesus had to be "redeemed" (Exodus 13:13), "circumcised," and purified because of the uncleanness associated with the blood presumed by the law in labor. Mary had to be purified as well because of the uncleanness presumed by the law in the shedding of blood in childbirth (Lev. 12:1ff). None of this means Mary or Jesus had actual sin. They had to fulfill the prescriptions of the law out of obedience in order "to fulfill all righteousness" similar to the reason why Jesus had to be baptized in Matt. 3:15-16).
6. Mary "rejoices in God [her] savior" (Luke 1:48) because it was God who saved her from sin so radically so that she never committed even the slightest transgression. Remember, God's salvation not only saves from sin after the fact, but in a more powerful way, it also preserves us from sin (see Jude 25). Mary was saved (preserved) from sin most perfectly. Thus, God is her "savior."
7. We agree that Jesus was "born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those under the law, that we might receive the full rights of sons." Amen!
Tim.
You say this, ". Luke 2:22 tells us this sacrifice was for "their" purification, not just Mary's. If you say Mary had sin here, you have to say Jesus had sin as well. The truth is, Jesus had to be "redeemed" (Exodus 13:13), "circumcised," and purified because of the uncleanness associated with the blood presumed by the law in labor. Mary had to be purified as well because of the uncleanness presumed by the law in the shedding of blood in childbirth "
MY RESPONSE, I think you are wrong when you put emphasis on the word "their" in (Luke 2"22). The sacrifice was only for the mother and not "them" as you make it to be. The Leviticus Law pertains to the two people mother and baby, therefore it's "their" law. However when you read that law nowhere does it say that the doves or pigeons are for the boy/baby's sins too, only for the mother's , therefore what you say about Jesus would then have to have sins too is wrong because the law never included the baby as a sinner.
(Lev.12:7b) "These are the regulations for the woman who gives birth to a boy or girl. v8 If she cannot afford a lamb, she is to bring two doves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering. In this way the priest will make atonement for HER (not them), and she will be clean."
You say this, "None of this means Mary or Jesus had actual sin. They had to fulfill the prescriptions of the law out of obedience in order "to fulfill all righteousness" similar to the reason why Jesus had to be baptized in Matt. 3:15-16).
MY RESPONSE, If that law is about sins, how can you says then it's not about "actual sins"????? Nowhere in that Law does it even mentions "the fulfillment of righteouness" I say that you are wrong in this whole episode.
ED O.
I think what we have here is somebody who only wants to use the parts of the bible that they like. We catholics have the advantage of following the whole bible and the church Jesus founded and gave it His teaching authority. We do not pick and choose what parts of the sacred scripture we like and discard the rest. We take the whole of the bible and we learn and the church teaches from that and the oral Tradition.
God is good and all knowing. May He continue to bless us all.
Tom,
Before you so falsely accuse me, Tim and I both can't be right, so why don't you read what I have posted and you decide whose right and then tell us why.
Ed O.
Edward Osiecki
It is the errors you come to spread in this site that is pricking and accusing your conscience. Stop pouncing on Tom Runkel. Do well to accept the whole of Christ, the man Jesus and his body - the Church he established.
Usulor,
I didn't come here to settle the Reformation vs. the Catholic church.
I say that Tim is wrong on (Luke 2:22) and I posted my reasons why. I gave Tom a chance to correct me if he thinks I'm wrong. Since he did not do so then you try, otherwise leave the debate to someone else whose interested to know the TRUTH about (Luke 2:22) the issue at hand.
I'm sure that Mr. Tim Staples is well qualified to stand alone, without the need of cheerleaders as you proved to be on another blog.
Edward Osiecki
"I have chosen to be abject in the house of my God, rather than to dwell in the tabernacles of sinners". Psalm 83:11. I rather be a cheerleader of truth than mastermind of junk of errors.
I've read all the posts here. And all points have been answered. Who doesn't know the truth.
May God continue to bless us all.
"After a first and second admonition, have nothing more to do with anyone who causes divisions." Titus 3:10
Ed would, in other threads, troll others and I into answering his "questions." These questions are nothing but rhetorical divisiveness. The Truth that the Catholic Church defends will always be a stumbling block to someone who wills against what their intellect may tell them, and especially to those who reject the opportunity to let grace humble their reformed, traditional, prideful hearts.
Ed, please...be cordial, respectful, and charitable on this thread. It's my Mother we are talking here.
Eric
Ed
If "no one is righteous" is absolute literal, then what about:
1) Elizabeth and Zechariah were "righteous in the eyes of God" (lk 1:6)
2) Joseph was "a righteous man" (Mt 1:19)
3) Job was described as "perfect and upright" (Jb 1:1)
Scripture cannot cancel Scripture. "All have sinned" cannot counter "Hail, Full of Grace". "There are none righteous" does not "trump" that Elizabeth, Zechariah, Joseph and Job are all described as "righteous" or "perfect".
Did you know that both Martin Luther and Ulrich Zwingli believed Mary's Immaculate conception? All the early reformers believe that she was bestowed a favor higher than all favors and should be honored.
Could it be you've been so tainted by the traditions of men that say Mary isn't anything special, rather than listen to Scripture?
Are we not supposed to give honor to whom honor is due? Rom 13:7
I pray you keep studying Scripture, including the literary contexts in which it was written. I encourage you also to read how the earliest Christians - the students of the Apostles - interpreted these Scriptures. I think you'd find it very informative.
God Bless you on your journey of faith,
Nate
Ed,
You say, I am "wrong when [I] put emphasis on the word 'their' in Luke 2:22..."
I am surprised that you, who I assume believe in the inspiration of Scripture, can just ignore a text like that. I cannot. I can't just bypass the fact that God says Mary and Jesus were "purified" because it doesn't fit with "Ed's" theology. As a Christian, I have to listen to God's word. And when God's word contradicts Ed's, I go with God's.
The truth is, Jesus had to be "redeemed" (Exodus 13:1-2, 11-13), "purified" (Luke 2:22 - Ex. 13:1-2, 11-13), and circumcised (Ex, 12:3, Gen. 17:14) not because he "needed" any of this because of sin or disobedience in his life, but because he had to fulfill the law. Mary, in the same way, would have had to fulfill the law; otherwise, she would have committed a sin of disobedience.
Also, you say "the sacrifice was only for the mother" and not "them." You are not disagreeing with me; You are disagreeing with Luke 2:22.
Two things to consider: First, the fact that the sacrifice is for the mother does not mean it can't also be for the child. In fact, Leviticus 12 indicates the child affects the uncleanness of the mother because the child affects the duration of the days of purification. It is 40 days for a male, and 80 days for a female. Thus, there is an implication here that the child is "impure" as well. This could be because of the Old Testament's understanding of the child being "born in sin" as Psalm 51:5 puts it (a trace revelation of original sin), or because of the blood of the mother touching the child in childbirth, which would make the child unclean according to the law (Lev. 15:19, 25, etc.).
Also, notice St. Luke refers not only to Leviticus 12 and the purification of the mother as involving the purification of the child as well, but he also refers to the "redeeming" of the child from Exodus 13:1-2, 11-13 as also having a "purifiying" effect.
Anyway you slice it, whether you want to say it was only the "redeeming" of Christ that was the impetus for St. Luke saying he was "purified," or whether it was the sacrifice of Lev. 12, or both, you can't get around the plain words of the text: "And when the time came for THEIR purification according to the law of Moses..." and then St. Luke cites the two texts of Ex. 13 and Lev. 12 to prove his case.
Your problem is not with me; It is with St. Luke, and with God who inspired him.
You then say Levitical Law "pertains to the two people mother and baby, therefore it's 'their' law."
Luke does not say it is "their law," he says "when it came time for 'their purification according to the law..."
I don't know how Luke could be any plainer. Let's face it, if you did not have your theological axe to grind to prove the purification was not for both Jesus and Mary, you know you would believe the text as it says it, "... their purification according to the law of Moses..."
I really think you are trying to change the text in order to make it conform to your theology. As a Catholic, I can't do that because I believe in the inspiration of Scripture. I have to conform to Scripture, not the other way around. If you also believe in the inspiration of Scripture, don't you think it is time for you to conform to the teaching of Scripture?
You continue to say the sacrifice is "for the woman alone," but Leviticus does not say that, nor does St. Luke. It is for the woman, of course, but it is also for the child for reasons cited above. Be careful when you add the word "alone."
And finally, you say, "If the law is about sins, how can you say then that it's not about "actual sins?"
The answer is this: There is a presumption of sin in the Old Covenant sacrifices even when the sacrifice has nothing to do with sin per se, for example, when someone comes into contact with a leper or when a woman gives birth to a child. This does not mean that giving birth to a child is sinful.
Thus, Jesus made very clear to those who had the same misconception that you do about what truly makes one "unclean" that nothing we eat can make us unclean, "But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a man. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery..."
So when you say nowhere does the law mention "the fulfillment of righteousness," you miss the point. The law had to be fulfilled because it was commanded by God. Jesus and Mary could not choose to disobey it or disobey it because they felt like it. They obeyed it "to fulfill all righteousness" just as Jesus was baptized not because he needed to be saved from sin, which is what John's baptism was all about according to Luke 1:77, but in order to "fulfill all righteousness." Those were Jesus' words in Matt. 3, not mine.
Tim - Old Testament: the Hebrew word for 'priest' meant confidential adviser as well as minister of sacred things. Ex 19:5-6 speak of God's people being priests. Later, a special group of Levites (a whole tribe) would be priests who would mediate for Him in the sacrificial system. The OT priests were types of Christ (Heb 8:1), who accomplished the ultimate propitiation for the sins of the people (Heb 2:17). The NT church exhibits a universal priesthood of believers (I Pet 2:5, 9; Rev 5:10). J. Barton Payne, “959 ?????,” ed. R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago: Moody Press, 1999), 432.
Priests were/are mortal men and cannot continue because they die. If priests were COMPLETE in their ability then Christ would not have been needed nor sent ! Their ability was temporary and limited. They are sinful men, too, and have to offer for their own sins before they can offer for those of the people. Thus Christ has become the ultimate mediator who takes away the sins of the people. There is NO LONGER A NEED for someone to be our go between in an earthly sense for salvation. I can go directly through him to the find grace as stated clearly in scripture.
Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has ascended into heaven, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—Yet HE DID NOT SIN. 16 Let US then APPROACH God’s throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need. Hebrew 4:14-16.
Usulor Kenneth- Your comment is as though I made opionated statements. I did not. I posted scripture and asked for scripture. You still have not posted any scritpure as a reply to my post. Are you able ?
Nate Stevens- I posted absolutly nothing about my what I believe. I also did not forcefully tell anyone to do anything. It was a simple request for scripture only, which you still could not do. I recommend you dont make assumptions and put words into my mouth !
***CONCLUSION*******CONCLUSION*****CONCLUSION*****
Interesting Observation: Not a single one of you could post scripture without your conclusion. Are you saying that God's word cannot stand on its own? I wonder, If anyone here can reply with just scripture? Hmm, I guess I will find out.
You search the scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that testify on my behalf. Yet you refuse to come to me to have life. John 5:39-40
Do not work for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures for eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. For it is on him that God the Father has set his seal. John 6:27
Jesus answered them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent." John 6:29
Then Jesus said to them, "Very truly, I tell you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world." They said to him, "Sir, give us this bread always." Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life...But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe."
John 6: 32-37
"Very truly, I tell you, whoever believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life. Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats of this will live forever; and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh." John 6:47-51
The Jews then disputed among themselves...So Jesus said to them, "Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day, for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them. John 6: 52-56
The one who eats this bread will live forever. 58
Because of this many of his disciples turned back and no longer went about with him. 66
Ryan Del,
What is so difficult for you in that my simple question? You requested for a scripture and I promised to give you one or rather to "post a scripture" but on the condition that you answer my simple question. I will be able inasmuch as you answer my question.
I am in expectation of your answer, please.
Ryan,
I don't recall putting words in your mouth, but if I, I apologize.
Where, in Scripture, does it plainly say that we should not interpret? Where in Scripture does it say we must answer eachother in Scripture only and 'no interpretation'?
If it's not plainly in Scripture then you're violating your own request i.e. it becomes a self-refuting statement.
I've posted Scripture, however, because we're 2000 years and 10,000 miles (let alone numerous different languages) removed, interpretation is absolutely necessary and impossible to do without.
The second a human eye sees the words of Scripture, or a human ear registers the word of Scripture, interpretation happens.
The questions then become: "are you interpreting the way GOD wants you to interpret it" and "under what authority do you make that interpretation for ME?"
Don't you believe that I have an "unlimited right" to interpret Scripture myself, as many forms of Protestantism believe (which is unbliblical)?
Case and point would be, "Hail Full of Grace". You immediately interpret that to mean one thing but I interpret it another.
We both claim the Holy Spirit is guiding us in that interpretation of the Scripture we use.
Who decides between us? Scripture? Scripture doesn't say that. That's your 'man-made tradition' that says that.
Mt. 18:15-18 tells us how this is resolved.
I encourage you to continue to study Scripture in it's proper context, including literary, historical and cultural.
God Bless,
Nate
Ryan,
In response to your #36:
A "priest" is, by definition, "a mediator between God and men," not "a confidential advisor." Why are you running from that definition? You try and avoid it, but then when it comes to Christ, you then concede the definition. Interesting. We Catholics simply acknowledge the word for what it means, and then understand that Christ's unique mediation is distributed among his body in accordance with each member's gifts.
This should not be a surprise when we understand that Christ is our unique "pastor and bishop" (I Peter 2:25) and yet he calls men to participate in that which he alone possesses in full (Eph. 4:11; I Tim. 3:1). Christ is our one teacher (Matt. 23:8), and yet he calls men to the office of teacher IN HIM (Eph. 4:11; James 3:1). Christ is our one, unique "leader," (Matt. 23:10), and yet we have "leaders" in the body of Christ (Heb. 13:7, 17). God is our one "father," yet we have many "fathers" among the people of God (Luke 16:24; James 2:21; Romans 4:1-18; I John 2:13; I Cor. 4:14-15; Acts 7:1-2, etc.).
In the same way, Christ is our one priest/mediator/intercessor (I Heb. 7:23; I Tim. 2:5; Heb. 7:24-25), yet, he calls members of his body to do the same, as I said above.
When you say "priests are mortal men and cannot die" you are using the same argument the inspired author of Hebrews uses against the Old Covenant priesthood after the time of Christ. Heb. 7:23 says "The former priests were many in number because they were prevented by death from continuing in office..." He then shows Christ's priesthood is permanent.
But the inspired author of Hebrews does not use this to show Christ did not establish a New Covenant priesthood in him. He obvious did because I Peter 2:5-9 tells us all Christians are priests. You are misusing Heb. 7:23.
You say "there is no longer a need for someone to be our go-between in an earthly sense for salvation."
You are wrong. We Catholics acknowledge that Christ alone could save us in a strict sense because he alone was fully God to appease God's justice, and fully man to make a fitting sacrifice for men. But we also have to acknowledge that Christ uses members of his body in communicating his salvation to the world. As such, members of Christ are "go-betweens in an earthly sense for salvation." The Bible simply cannot be plainer about this in texts like I Cor. 3:5-9, I Cor. 9:22, Rom. 11:14, James 5:19-20, Col. 1:24, II Cor. 1:6, I Tim. 4:16, John 14:12, etc.
One thing we agree about is that if the Old Covenant were "complete in their ability" to save as you said, then Christ would not have had to come. And that would be absurd. Again, the point is, Christ alone can save us in a strict sense. But what you are missing is the fact that Christ can choose to save us, forgive us, in any way he wills. And he wills to communicate his salvation to us through the ministry of the members of his body, the church (Eph. 1:22-23; 3:10; John 20:21-23, and see above for a list of text that show Christians are called to save souls by the power of Christ at work within them).
Thus, apart from Christ, we can do nothing (John 15:5), but "I can do all things in Christ who strengthens me" (Phil. 4:13).
You make the point that "I can go straight to him [Christ]," and of course that is true. But if you are going to be faithful to Him you must go to his ministers because his word tells you that you must (John 20:31-23; James 5:16; Luke 10:16; Matt. 10:40; II Cor. 5:18; I Tim. 3:15; I Cor. 3:5; I John 4:6; Acts 15:24-28, etc.)
As far as you posting a bunch of Scriptures, we Catholics agree with the Scriptures you post. We just don't agree with some of your interpretations of those Scriptures.
It doesn't really do any good to just list a bunch of Scripture. For example, a Jehovah's Witness could post a litany of Scriptures that all say, "Jesus Christ is the Son of God." That would not do any good because we disagree about what "the Son of God" means.
In the same way, there is really nothing to respond to when you just post Scriptures. The only thing we can do is respond to how we know you misuse those texts. And, of course, we have a multitude of your interpretations of these same texts that proves the point. You can quote them, but you don't know what a lot of them actually mean. That's where we Catholics can help you.
Ryan, we do go straight to God, we just go with more petitioners, God did not want us to be isolated individuals, but one body, a communion of saints. We worship a God of inclusion, not a God of exclusion.
Tim,
I was delayed in responding to your sharp uncalled for criticism of me in your post #35. I was busy doing the Lord's work in presenting the gospel by playing in our church's orchestra doing the annual Christmas program which I highly recommend that you watch it on www.centralchurchofgod.org.
My whole point of bringing up (Luke 2:21-24) is to prove that Mary offered doves/pigeons for her SINS all of her life, (Lev.15:30), in order to prove your unscriptural assumption that she was sinless putting her equal to Jesus which is blasphemy. Mary was born of a human mother and father, as a result she too had the same original sin of Adam/Eve as everyone else. While Jesus was born minus a human father. But by heavenly Father which makes Him sinless. There's no comparison.
You say this, "I am surprised that you, who I assume believe in the inspiration of Scripture, can just ignore a text like that. I cannot. I can't just bypass the fact that God says MaryYou say and Jesus were "purified" because it doesn't fit with "Ed's" theology. As a Christian, I have to listen to God's word. And when God's word contradicts Ed's, I go with God's."
MY RESPONSE, This statement is unnecessary. It's very disrespectful. It's "called attack or destroy the messenger first " then you win the debate. From some others on this blog, who I call cheerleaders, it could be expected but from you I was surprised!
You say this,"The truth is, Jesus had to be "redeemed" (Exodus 13:1-2, 11-13), "purified" (Luke 2:22 - Ex. 13:1-2, 11-13), and circumcised (Ex, 12:3, Gen. 17:14) not because he "needed" any of this because of sin or disobedience in his life, but because he had to fulfill the law. Mary, in the same way, would have had to fulfill the law; otherwise, she would have committed a sin of disobedience."
MY RESPONSE, There's no problem about Jesus being redeemed, the problem is He's not being "purified" in (Luke 2:22) as you try to imply with the use of the word "their" purifications. YOU ARE WRONG!
1) The Catholic Douay/ Rhiems as well as the King James Bibles as well as the Latin Vulgate use the word "her" and not "their" purification.
2) If the word "their" is used, it then means Israel's Leviticus Law meaning "their" law.
3) Even the Catholic New American Bible disagrees with your interpretation. In the side bar comments, it states, "Their purification; syntactically, their must refer to Mary and Joseph. ----- AND NOT JESUS!
You say this,"Also, you say "the sacrifice was only for the mother" and not "them." You are not disagreeing with me; You are disagreeing with Luke 2:22." ------ OH! REALLY! I just proved you wrong above.
You say this, "Two things to consider: First, the fact that the sacrifice is for the mother does not mean it can't also be for the child. In fact, Leviticus 12 indicates the child affects the uncleanness of the mother because the child affects the duration of the days of purification. It is 40 days for a male, and 80 days for a female. Thus, there is an implication here that the child is "impure" as well."
MY RESPONSE, that's your out of the "thin air" assumptiom. Your guess is as good as mine as to why 40 days for male and 80 days for female. In birth, the same action take place for both male and female. So when something in Scripture is not clear as this is not, I stick with what the Scriptures says (Prov.30:6) "Do not add to His words. or He will rebuke you and prove you a liar." ----- Rather than to listen to "Tim's "out of "thin air" theology.
You say this,"Also, notice St. Luke refers not only to Leviticus 12 and the purification of the mother as involving the purification of the child as well, but he also refers to the "redeeming" of the child from Exodus 13:1-2, 11-13 as also having a "purifiying" effect."
MY RESPONSE, There you go again, here's another one of your own out of "thin air" assumptions. (Exodus 13:1-2)states, "Consecrate to me every firstborn male." How you can come up with the nonsense that "consecrate means purifying" is beyond my comprehension. ---- Here, I ignore "Tim's" out of "thin air" theology.
You say this,"Your problem is not with me; It is with St. Luke, and with God who inspired him."
MY RESPONSE, Yes indeed, my problem is with YOU. and not with St. Luke and the inspired word of God. You start off your post #35 by slamming me by saying what I had posted as "Ed's" theology, and elevating yourself saying, "As a Christian, I have to listen to God's word. And when God's word contradicts Ed's, I go with God's."
I just proved to you that all of your out of "thin air" assumptions are NOT god's word, so maybe you out to, listen what Ed is trying to tell you so that you'll really know what God's word is.
You say this,"I don't know how Luke could be any plainer. Let's face it, if you did not have your theological axe to grind to prove the purification was not for both Jesus and Mary, you know you would believe the text as it says it, "... their purification according to the law of Moses..."
MY RESPONSE, I have no theological axe to grind, I understand very well according to the Scriptures that the purification was NOT for Jesus but for Mary that's why both of your catholic bibles agrees with me by using the word "her" and not "their."
You say this,"The answer is this: There is a presumption of sin in the Old Covenant sacrifices even when the sacrifice has nothing to do with sin per se, for example, when someone comes into contact with a leper or when a woman gives birth to a child. This does not mean that giving birth to a child is sinful."
MY RESPONSE, a woman doesn't commit a sin when she has her monthly period either, but the (Lev.15:30) law requires a SIN offering, WHY??? Your guess is as good as mine because she's a sinner. If a man has a discharge, a SIN offering is required. WHY??? Your guess is as good as mine because he's a sinner. In either case they are both making offerings for SINS.
If Mary knew that she was sinless as you try to make her out to be, why didn't she then claim the exception to the normal rule as you always bring up. She could have offered only one dove and one pigeon just for the burnt offering instead of two of each which then included the SIN offering? She didn't, so she was a sinner the same as we all are from birth.
You say this,"I really think you are trying to change the text in order to make it conform to your theology. As a Catholic, I can't do that because I believe in the inspiration of Scripture. I have to conform to Scripture, not the other way around. If you also believe in the inspiration of Scripture, don't you think it is time for you to conform to the teaching of Scripture?"
MY RESPONSE, Do you think for a minute that you are some kind of an angel that God sent from heaven so that you can interpret Scriptures for me that twists them to meet your Catholic theology such as Mary was born sinless???? No Way Sir, will I let a bunch of men (popes) tell me what they want me to hear, that's "leaving your brains at the door."
My authority comes from believing in Jesus (period) exactly how the Bibles tells us to be saved per Eph 1:13. I was sealed by the Holy Spirit. I then took it one step further, I was laid hands upon and received the baptism of the Holy Spirit exactly like the disciple did when Paul (Acts 19:6) laid hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues.
If your source of authority is being born again by water baptism, I wish you Good Luck Sir!
ED O.
I have to confess that I have never heard the voice of God. Probably some of you will not believe it, but it is true. I don't know how His voice sounds. It was my grandfather's voice the first one I heard telling me the most marvelous things that I heard during my childhood, and during my adolescence, and... Things that I will never forget. Actually, I was expecting to hear God some day, but it was the voice of my grandfather what was given to me.
And I remember that once he told me (not even in English, dear friends, but in Spanish), beautiful words about the Blessed Virgin Mary. He read them from his Bible. And when he finished, he said: This is God's word. I declare to you: It was beyond my comprehension. And I don't want you to think that somehow I discovered later that it was true by applying my impressing intelligence over those writings. I came to believe what my grandfather believed because he was a loving husband, a loving father, a loving grandfather and a good friend. And all those words that he read to me, were inspiring. But I have never heard God's voice, nor seen Him (not even His shadow, dear friends).
These are the words that he read to me about the Blessed Virgin Mary:
"And Mary said: My soul doth magnify the Lord. And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid; for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. Because he that is mighty, hath done great things to me; and holy is his name. And his mercy is from generation unto generations, to them that fear him."
And I could not help but feel a great joy in my heart. And I said: blessed Virgin Mary, blessed Virgin Mary, blessed Virgin Mary...
I belong to one of those generations in which those words, read by my grandfather, written by Luke, pronounced by the blessed Virgin Mary, and inspired by God, become true: "for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed". And I repeat the same thing with my children, reading to them those fascinating words. It always happens that my children display joy in their faces, and we say: blessed Virgin Mary, blessed Virgin Mary, blessed Virgin Mary... Because we belong to those generations...
Wow!!!
Edward Osiecki,
I cannot believe it! You said "I was busy doing the Lord's work in presenting the gospel by playing in our church's ochestra doing the annual Christmas program which I highly recommend. . . ."
So you (1) get yourself involved in Christmas (Mass of Christ), a Catholic festival of Christ's birth, which is not in the Bible?
(2) Present instead of preach the Gospel in a manner not found the Bible "by playing in" your "church's ochestra". Are all these not additions contrary to your claim in this site of your doing exactly what the Bible says?
The Bible simply says "Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature". Where are "playing" and "church's orchestra" in that words of Christ? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Juan, very beautiful! The things you said reminded me of my grandmother who was very devoted to our Bleesed Mother Mary. She was so loving, kind and gentle, giving and caring, she too was a handmaid of the Lord always trying to imitate the faith and humility of Blessed Mary. One of my fondest childhood memerories is the tenderness in her embrace and the radient love she showed me when giving me a glow in the dark rosary. Years later when my grandmother was diagnosed with cancer she made it known to family and friends that she longed to pass away on one of Blessed Marys feast days. She offered up every bit of her suffering to Christ and never complained about the pain and discomfort. Because of her adoration to Christ and her devotion and reverence to our Blessed Mother, my grandmothers prayers were answered...she passed away on her favorite feast day, THE ASSUMPTION, August 15, 1982!! Thank you Juan for sharing that about your grandfather, it brought back memories and has made my day. The love of Blessed Mary reaches far and she can never be seperated from her Son, blessed be her today and always, and by gosh I'm very proud to be a part of the generation and faith that blesses and treats her with love and honor, there is no mother in the world who has, or ever will do more!
God bless all,
Christopher
The apostles didn't have bibles. They had the fullness of the deposit of true faith in Christ. The Holy Spirit, the Advocate, has protected and guided this deposit of faith within the One, True, Holy, and Apostolic Church established by Jesus. Christ came as the promised Messiah of the old covenant and in doing so he established the new and everlasting covenant. He extended the promise of salvation to all people. His Church is universal and extends to all people who comprise the body of this Church of which Christ is the Head. This Church is not merely a building or a house, it is a family. It is spiritual in the most perfect sense, however it is incarnate in the material world as Christ Himself is enfleshed. Christ, the Eternal Word, who was eternally destined to be incarnate within the womb of a virgin creature, made immaculate by the very grace of God and set aside since all eternity for this one purpose - to bear Christ to the world. It is this eternal purpose that Mary continues to carry out today. Whereas she once bore God to man through her physical motherhood (womb), now she bears God to man through her spiritual motherhood (womb). The mother of God was not used by God - she was loved by God. She was chosen by God as He chose Israel as His people and as He chooses us all as His beloved children. No person is merely used by God, as if we were disposable and replaceable things. We are loved! We are chosen!! Rejoice!!! The beauty of our mother is that she is given to us out of our Father's Divine Love, which she willingly and freely cooperated with. God gives to us the gift of our mother to reveal His love for us and Mary's receptivity of this love reveals God's plan, along with her own love of God and His will that all His children be saved. This is God's divine plan for salvation; not any man or woman's, especially not Mary's. But yet she has a special place in this plan as we all do. She has a special place in our Father's family, a special mission, a special purpose, as do all of God's children. As do you and I. Her special role does not diminish God or take away from God's glory, it magnifies it and makes it more present in the here and now. As do you and I, when we honor our Father.
Honor your Father and your mother. They are different, but united in Christ, who is the Son of God and the Son of Man. Christ who reveals our Father is the one who also reveals our mother. Christ who honors His Father, also honors His mother, who is the one who does the will of the Father. Christ who came to reveal the love of our Father did so upon the cross, which is where he also revealed to us our mother.
This post by Stephen may be the best comment I have seen on this whole site! Amen, amen! I will use this, God bless you Stephen!
Hey Edward,
I have a NAB (St. Joseph Edition).
Luke 2:22 says "their"
Just saying.
I will second that Eric that Stephens post is spot on! How can you deny true love? It isn't a competitiion between Blessed Mary and Jesus, she wants what Jesus wants, and she should receive from us what she received from her Son...lots of love! God included her in His plan for our salvation, and we should too!
Hi Robert,
Here's the chronology of the debate. I brought up the fact that Mary offered doves and pigeons for burnt and SIN offerings. Tim, answered by saying (Luke 2:22) states, they went to the temple for "their Purification." So he claimed that if I say that Mary had sin then Jesus also had sins too because of "their" purifications. But the "their" does not include Jesus. It's only Mary who's being purified according to the (Lev 12:7-8) law which reads, "These are the regulations for the woman who gives birth to a boy or girl. v8 If she cannot afford a lamb, she is to bring two doves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a SIN offering. In this way the priest will make atonement for HER, and she will be clean." ----- There's no burnt or sin offering for the baby boy which in this case is Jesus. So the purification is only for the mother which in this case is Mary.
Upon further research I found this," 1) The Catholic Douay/ Rhiems and the King James Bibles as well as the Latin Vulgate use the word "her" and not "their" purification. Which makes much more sense and is less confusing.
2) If the word "their" is used, it then means Israel's Leviticus Law meaning "their" purification law.
3) The Catholic New American Bible disagrees with Tim's interpretation too. In the side bar comments, it states, "Their purification; syntactically, their must refer to Mary and Joseph." ----- AND NOT JESUS!
The bottom line is, Tim can't apply the purification to Jesus by using the word "their", because the purification is only for the mother, in this case Mary.
My point is Mary's can't be sinless because she's offering two doves and two pigeons for burnt and a SIN. She also must have done so many times prior, when she had her monthly period too. (Lev.15:19) (Lev.15:29-30) ---- The minute we are born we are guilty of a SIN, without committing any sin. So I imagine that's why the Leviticus law is written that way with the offering for a SIN. So whether Mary had committed any sins or not she's was guilty of a SIN by just being born of human parents. That's why she offers two doves for burnt and two pigeons for a SIN offering at the Temple. Tim at times gets carried away with his exemption from normal rule, but if that were the case with Mary, she would have been making only one dove and one pigeon for the burnt offering.
The Leviticus law also states, on the eight day the boy is to be circumcised. Then the mother must wait "thirty-three" days to be purified. If she gives birth to a girl, for two weeks the mother will be unclean, as during her period, Then she must wait "sixty-six" days to be purified. Why the waiting time is doubled for the girl is not specified. Tim, argues by this clause it implies the child had to be purified too, but he does not give any reason why the waiting time is doubled for the girl, also if that would be the case why isn't there any burnt and sin offering for the child being purified? BOTTOM LINE MARY MAKES AN OFFERING FOR HER SIN.
Robert, I hope this helps you understand it all better.
ED O.
The sin offering wasn't for the mothers sins per say, such as what she had done the week before, get that out of your head Ed. The Jews believed the offering should be made to make attonment for bringing another sinner into the world, that is what this particular sin offering is for, that is from Jewish commentary. We all know Jesus was not a sinner, nor did He have to be circumsized or baptized, but he was. The Holy Family obeyed the laws to show they were faithful Jews who were obedient and faithful to God. Once again, the sacrifice wasn't for the mothers personal sins, that's not why this purification and sin offerings were made. If it was a sacrifice for personal sins then more than a bird would have had to been offered, because it was law that the Jewish priest would have adjusted the sacrifice according to the severity of the sin. This sin offering was always the same and never adjusted because it was for the same reason, and that reason was not the mothers sin, but for what she was bringing into the world.
http://www.staycatholic.com/the_immaculate_conception.htm
I know we are talking about Mary and the technical reasoning behind her needing "purified". I would like to put a possible different light on the issue. I agree that Mary was purified even though she didn't need it just like Jesus was baptized when He didn't need it. I believe Mary was following the Jewish custom of the day.
Just my two cents.
Ed,
I applaud your passion for your beliefs. It wasn't log ago (less than a year) that I, too, highly doubted the Catholic teachings attached to Mary. Now, as a Catholic who came into the Church just this past Easter, I have found the love and peace of our Blessed Mother. Much like you, as a Protestant, I looked at Mary as a normal woman who happened to be chosen by God to give birth to God in the flesh (as I type that, I shake my head knowing that I used to think anything about that was just "normal"). The more I studied the Bible, the more trouble I found with my ideology. We know that the Bible cannot contradict itself. So, when the angel came to Mary and said she was FULL of grace, what does that mean to you? It should mean exactly what it says, that she was FULL of grace. Later, we are told that all generations shall call her blessed. What does that mean to you? Do you call her that? If you don't, you're disobeying the Bible. The fact is, no matter if the verse you are hung up on says "her" or "their", you cannot deny that Mary was FULL of grace, and all generations shall call her blessed, thus meaning she is without sin. If you don't see that in the verses, then you are in fact twisting scripture to fit into your ideology. So, the simple question is this. Are you going to allow a hangup on translation/meaning deny that our blessed mother was born without sin, or are you going to take the Bible for its word and agree that she is FULL of grace? You can't have it both ways.
Very logical reasoning Jeff. I like it. Also in the old testament when God declares enmity between the devil and the woman. The woman is Mary.
Was Mary subject to this law of purification?
No, for she had not, like other mothers, conceived in sin, and, therefore, did not need purification; but she placed herself with her divine Child among sinners and fulfilled the law by which these were bound. "Nothing", says St. Bernard, "was impure in her conception, nothing impure in her birth; there was nothing to be cleansed, for the Child itself was the origin of all purity, and came into the world to purify it from sin. Truly, O happy Virgin, thou wast not in need of purification, but thou wouldst pass as a woman among women, as thy Son also passed for a child among children."
Why did Mary comply with the law of purification?
She did this to give us an example of obedience and true humility, for she interiorly thought little of herself and wished externally to be so regarded; to teach us to thank God for the favors He has shown to our ancestors, for the law of the Jews was given to encourage them to gratitude for the preservation of the first-born of their ancestors from the hands of the destroying angel; (Exodus XII. 12.) and in order not to scandalize, by being regardless of this law, those who did not know that she was not required to observe it.
Learn, O Christian, from Mary's example to be truly humble and obedient, to be grateful to God for the benefits which your ancestors and parents have received, and to be on your guard never to give scandal, by failing to observe the commandments of God and His Church.
Certainly Christopher. Please pray for me.
************************************************** *************
It is suitable for our own good, thinking from time to time in the humble origins of our faith. It is very convenient also to develop a sense of wonder (which is also a kind of reflection). If we don't do any of these, it could happen to us that we take the great for the small, or the small for the great, or one thing for another. One might think, for example, that speaking in tongues has a value greater than charity; or that speaking in tongues somehow demonstrates that we are infallible (those who once spoke in tongues still needed instruction and correction from others), or that certain delusional speculation can be called "faith". One can harbor the naive idea that the "pure presentation" of texts is a neutral activity that does not involve any interpretation and, therefore, that those texts preserve an authority that otherwise could have " for themselves " .
I have observed that people who do not have the habit of reflecting (not the habit of thinking, but of reflecting) are able to realize that others "do not understand them", but are unable to realize that they do not understand others; can realize that "they are not being accepted", but are not able to realize that they are not accepting others; may realize that the others "are not getting their tremendous love" but are not able to realize that they are not getting the tremendous love of others. This precarious situation is very common, but I tend to think that a person who says he is a christian (and has been a christian for decades) should show some maturity. He must realize that, by right, there is symmetry in human interactions .
Christopher,
You say this,"The sin offering wasn't for the mothers sins per say, such as what she had done the week before, get that out of your head Ed. The Jews believed the offering should be made to make attonment for bringing another sinner into the world, that is what this particular sin offering is for, that is from Jewish commentary"
MY RESPONSE, (Lev.15:19) states,"When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening. (Lev.15:28) continues, "When she is cleansed from her discharge, she must count off seven days, and after that she will be ceremonially clean, v29 On the eighth day she must take two doves or two young pigeons and bring them to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. v30 The priest is to sacrifice one for SIN offering and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he will make atonemrnt for her before the Lord for the uncleaness of her discharge."
Christopher, I ask you, for child birth, this exact same procedure takes place in (Lev.12:7-8). What SINNER is being brought into the world when a woman has her monthly period???? NONE! Could it be that you should face the fact that since Mary was born like you and I with a human father and mother (contrary to Jesus, who was born by a heavenly Father) that she was born a SINNER too. Why do you try to put her at the SAME level with GOD??? That's blasphemy! I'm not trying to belittle Mary, I'm trying to show you and others that she's not GOD.
From the time Mary was born she lived a normal life as any Jewish woman does. She knew nothing about what was to take place in her life until the angel came and gave her the good news. The Father needed a human body for Jesus to be born, so Mary was chosen for that specific purpose, she then went on with her life like any married woman does having other children (Mat.1:25) Joseph, "And knew her not UNTIL she brought forth her FIRSTBORN son: and He called His name JESUS." (Luke 2:7) Firstborn son. ----- In (Luke 1:14) speaks about John the baptists,"He will be a joy and delight to you, and many will rejoice because of his birth, v15 He will be great in the sight of the Lord. He is never to take wine or other fermented drink, and he will be filled with the HOLY SPIRIT even from birth." Nowhere does it say that Mary was filled with the HOLY SPIRIT from birth.
As I said, I'm not trying to belittle Mary in any way, I'm only trying to show that Mary was born a SINNER as you and I, her chilhood was same as anyone else. The Father needed a body for Jesus to be born and called her for that purpose. ----To me, it seemed like Jesus even tried to keep away from a mother and son relationship as we know it to be, when He referred to her as "woman" and not "mother". In (Mark 14:6:9) Jesus said this about a sinful woman,"I tell you the truth, wherever the gospel is preached throughout the world , what she has done will also be told, in memory of her." Kind of strange for Him to say that about her, when in (Mat.12:40) Someone brought to His attention that His mother and brothers wanted to speak to Him, and He replied,"Who is my mother, and who are my brothers? Pointing to His disciples, He said, Here are my mother and brothers, For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven."
The Encyclopedia Britanica says during the first centuries of the church there was no emphasis of Mary whatsoever. The Catholic Encyclopedia concurs: "There is no ground for surprise if we do not meet with any clear traces of the cults of the Blessed Virgin in the first Christian centuries.: Von Dollinger says, "Neither the New Testament nor the Patristic writings tell us anything about the destiny of the Holy Virgin after the death of Christ. Two apocryphal works of the fourth or fifth century---- one ascribed to St. John, the other to Melito, Bishop of Sardis --are the earliest (suggesting) about her bodily assumption." (J.H. Ignaz von Dollinger, "The Pope and the Council (London 1869 pp.28-29)
ED O.
Jeff,
You say this," We know that the Bible cannot contradict itself. So, when the angel came to Mary and said she was FULL of grace, what does that mean to you? It should mean exactly what it says, that she was FULL of grace. Later, we are told that all generations shall call her blessed. What does that mean to you? Do you call her that? If you don't, you're disobeying the Bible. The fact is, no matter if the verse you are hung up on says "her" or "their", you cannot deny that Mary was FULL of grace, and all generations shall call her blessed, thus meaning she is without sin. If you don't see that in the verses, then you are in fact twisting scripture to fit into your ideology. So, the simple question is this. Are you going to allow a hangup on translation/meaning deny that our blessed mother was born without sin, or are you going to take the Bible for its word and agree that she is FULL of grace? You can't have it both ways."
MY RESPONSE, you state that I'm twisting Scriptures but the TRUTH is, it's you who is doing the twisting of Scriptures by claiming "Full of Grace" means born without out sin. Grace means God found favor in Mary, it does not mean that she's was born without sin. As a matter of fact many translations doesn't say "full of grace" but says "favor" with God. Webster's dictionary definds grace thusly, " the love and FAVOR of God towards man." You have a distorted view of the word Grace by claiming it means born without sin, which is false.
ED O.
Juan,
In your post #59 you mention something about speaking in tongues which caught my eye. However; after reading and re-reading your post a few times over, I'm still puzzled as to what you are trying to say??? Could you make yourself more clear as to what your topic is.
ED O.
Ed, we are not trying to put Blessed Mary on the same level as God, that is your personal perception and not true. What we are doing is giving glory to God for His amazing sanctifying work and honoring the special grace given to His holy mother. Mary did not create herself, she also can not sactify herself, only God can. We believe God created Blessed Mary spotless and without blemish for the sake of His Son. We know she is not God and you will not find a single Catholic teaching saying she is.
What sin would Blessed Mary have to attone for in Luke 2:22? What sin was it you think she had that needed attonment? Her birth? The birth of Christ? Her blood? Something she did in her life? What did she do that was a sin that needed an offering only after the birth of her Son?
I have to ask you Ed, what is more holy, material objects as the stone of the Ten Commandments and the Manna, or the real live and living Body of Christ? Which deserves a better place to reside? When your done pondering that question answer this, if God commanded men to build something so perfect and without blemish for holy objects then how much more perfect can God build an Arc Himself that would carry His own Son, the source of infinite holiness and absolute pinacle of holiness? It can not be that the first Arc of the Covenant had to be absolutely perfect and remain pure inside just to hold and carry holy objects while the TRUE and living Arc of the New and Everlasting Covenant could be blemished and impure. Blessed Mary not only was created and built by God's sacred and perfect Word, it was her DNA, her living cells, her blood, her nourishment from her body would give life to our Salvation! THE living Law and THE True Manna from heaven deserved much better than material objects. Amen!
God bless.
Christopher
Ed,
I know you will probably think I am a "cheerleader", but I know when someone is more knowledgeable than myself in a subject area and I know when to defer to that more knowledgeable person! Mr. Staples has addressed your question before concerning what "full of grace" was in its original Greek form. He states, in his article, "Hail Mary, Conceived Without Sin":
"St. Luke uses the perfect passive participle, kekaritomene, as his "name" for Mary. This word literally means "she who has been graced" in a completed sense. This verbal adjective, "graced," is not just describing a simple past action. Greek has another tense for that. The perfect tense is used to indicate that an action has been completed in the past resulting in a present state of being. "Full of grace" is Mary’s name. So what does it tell us about Mary? Well, the average Christian is not completed in grace and in a permanent sense (see Phil. 3:8-12). But according to the angel, Mary is. You and I sin, not because of grace, but because of a lack of grace, or a lack of our cooperation with grace, in our lives. This greeting of the angel is one clue into the unique character and calling of the Mother of God. Only Mary is given the name "full of grace" and in the perfect tense, indicating that this permanent state of Mary was completed."
Also, Ed, I mentioned that the Bible says all generations shall call her blessed. Do you at least agree that we can call Mary the blessed mother, or perhaps, even OUR blessed mother?
Ed,
For post #60
THE WORD ‘UNTIL’:
"And so Saul's daughter Michal was childless UNTIL the day of her death (2 Sam 6:23)." Are we to conclude that she bore children after her death? How about the raven released from the ark? We read that the raven "flew back and forth UNTIL the waters dried off from the earth (Gn 8:7)." Does that mean the raven returned? Other examples can be seen in Dt 34:6; 1 Macc 5:54 and Ps 109:1 [RSV 110:1].
BROTHER:
Lot, was Abraham's nephew. He was the son of Abraham's brother Haran. Yet in Genesis 14:14, Lot is depicted as Abraham's BROTHER. In Mt 29:15 Jacob is called the BROTHER of his uncle Laban. Again in 1 Chron 23:21-22 the daughters of Eleazar married their brethren. This is not possible because Eleazar had NO SONS. These brethren were really their COUSINS, the sons of Cis. Cis was Eleazar's brother.
James and Joseph are identified in Mt 27:56 as the son of another Mary, probably Mary of Clophas found in Jn 19:25. Simon appears to be Simon the Cananean of Mt 10:4. Judas is called the son of James in Lk 6:16 and Acts 1:13.
The second listing of brothers occurs in Mk 6:3. They are James and Joses and Judas and Simon. James and Joses are identified in Mt 15:40 as the sons of another Mary. This is probably the same Mary discussed above who appears in Jn 19:25. Judas and
Simon appear in Matthew's list (Mt 13:55).
FIRSTBORN:
The ancient Jewish use of the word firstborn. This term clearly refers to the first child WHO OPENS THE WOMB (See: Ex 13:2 and Nb 3:12). The Mosaic law commanded that the firstborn son be sanctified (Ex 34-20). Are we to suppose that parents had to wait until a second son was born before they could call their first son the firstborn, and only then were obligated to carry out the Mosaic provision? This was clearly not the case.
Jesus' action at the foot of the cross, when he entrusted his mother to John, makes no sense if Mary had other sons (Jn 19:26-27). The social customs of the time would have made such an action unthinkable.
Saint Charles Borromeo Catholic Church
Ed,
I don't think you understood what I was saying on a number of things. First, the Douay-Rheims, and King James Bibles do not matter. What matters is what the original Greek text says. The reason why all modern Bibles, both Catholic and Protestant say "their purification" in Luke 2:22 is because that is what the ancient Greek text says. The New Vulgate has also corrected the error. We Catholics go with the inspired Greek text just as just about every scholar I know of among Protestants.
Second, You cannot translate "their" as referring to "the law" because that is not what the text says. "And when the time came for their purification according to the law of Moses" is really very plain. It simply doesn't say "their law;" It says "their purification according to the law..."
You really want to cite "the New American Bible" as your authority? It is simply wrong. St. Joseph is not mentioned in context. It is Mary and Jesus that St. Luke quotes as having to act in accordance with the law. Which law is it that is cited by St. Luke that would apply to St. Joseph?
Ed,
You say:To me, it seemed like Jesus even tried to keep away from a mother and son relationship as we know it to be, when He referred to her as "woman" and not "mother."
Do you know why Christ, the New Adam, referred to Mary as Woman on many occasions?
Eric
Tim.
I'm not a Greek scholar so I can't go there. But what I do know, according the Leviticus law for child birth there's nothing in it that stipulates any kind of purification for the baby. Nothing! Not even any extra offerings for sin. The extra waiting time mentioned there applies to the mother. Why is it doubled for the girl is also not known. Having said all of this, there's nothing in that Leviticus law that pertains to the baby's purification. So regardless what the Greek word stipulates, it's, Her, the mother's purification and not their purifications (plural)
Thanks for your reply,
Ed. O.
Christopher,
You say this, "Ed, we are not trying to put Blessed Mary on the same level as God, that is your personal perception and not true. What we are doing is giving glory to God for His amazing sanctifying work and honoring the special grace given to His holy mother. Mary did not create herself, she also can not sactify herself, only God can. We believe God created Blessed Mary spotless and without blemish for the sake of His Son. We know she is not God and you will not find a single Catholic teaching saying she is."
MY RESPONSE, "The Glories of Mary"by Cardinal and saint Alphonsus de Liguori, is a compendium of what the great "saints" crediting Mary with attributes, abilities, titles and functions that belong to Christ alone: "Mary our Life", "Our Sweetness", "Mary Our Hope", "Mary our Help", " Mary Our Advocate", "Mary Our Guardian", "Mary Our Salvation" ----- This is what some saints say about Mary: "Sinners receive pardon by Mary alone. --- He falls and is lost who has not recourse to Mary.--- Mary is called the gate of Heaven because no one can enter that blessed kingdom without passing through her. --- The way of salvation is open to none otherwise than through Mary. ---The salvation of all depends on their being favored and protected by Mary. He who is protected by Mary will be saved; he who is not will be lost. --- Our salvation depends on thee.---- God will not save us without the intercession of Mary."
Consider "the Holy Father's (pope) Prayer for the Marian Year". The pope asks Mary to comfort, guide, strengthen, and protect "the whole of humanity". To do so she would have to be all-powerful, all-knowing, and everywhere at once. The prayer ends: "Sustain us, O Virgin Mary, on our journey of faith and obtain for us the grace of eternal salvation."
THIS IS BLASPHEMY!
Soul Magazine, the official publication of The Blue Army of Our Lady of Fatima, declares, "Mary is so perfectly united with the Holy Spirit that He acts only through (her) His spouse... all our life, every thought, word, and deed is in Her hands.... at every moment, She Herself must instruct, guide, and transform each one of us into Herself, so that not we but She lives in us, as Jesus lives in Her, and the Father ib the Son
If all of that is true, then Mary is God!..... Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the Holy Spirit acts through Mary. The Holy Spirit acted from eternity past before Mary was even born.
Christopher, from what is said here, it appears that you are wrong again. As I said before, I'm not trying to belittle Mary I'm trying to keep her in the perspective that God had in mind for her and nothing more. It was Mary, herself, who said that, "From now on all generations will call me blessed." (Luke 1:48).
ED O.
Ed, please let me come back to my post #59 later. By now...
*********************************
Dear All:
I guess it is a common experience that when you read a text once and then you read it again some years later your understanding of it has changed. We could say though that the text did not change at all. It was you who changed (but what was the change exactly?). Naturally the same thing happens when you read the sacred texts. However, the sacred scriptures constitute a very special case, a singular one; because we believe they are inspired by God. And I do not intend to discuss here in which sense those texts were inspired by God: if He dictated them to the writers, or if He just prevented any mistake, or..., whatever. I would like to call your attention to another face of this..., situation.
The Holy scriptures are there, in front of you; no body is reading them!, they are just standing there, on your table. We say broadly that those black stains on the paper are words, and even a message. But more strictly they can become a message until we read them. Think it well, reflect on your own experience: It is us who constitute them as a meaningful message. However, I have to ask: when is it that they become God's words, that is to say, God's message to us? When is it that they become an "inspired message"? You could say that they became so when those texts were written. But you need to think about it case by case. For example, Peter preaches we don't know which words to a multitude in Jerusalem (Acts). I correct myself: We do know some of those words, but not all of them. And the words we know are references to elder scriptures (words that Peter knew, but many of us don't) and to some of Jesus' acts and words (words and acts that Peter knew, but many of us don't). Peter is interpreting. Then, Luke writes Peter's words and describes some of his acts. Luke is interpreting. Someone translates Luke's words. He is interpreting. Then we come and read those texts. We are interpreting (I am certainly missing several intermediations here and there; I have it clear). And, as I said before, if we pay attention to it, we can realize that every time we read them again, we have a different understanding of those texts.
So, again, when do they become inspired messages?
Don't be precipitated trying to answer. Think about this: the multitude that Peter addressed had "direct knowledge" of the old inspired scriptures (I use quotes, because it was no direct knowledge at all; there is not such thing), but it was of no avail to them: They needed an interpreter. And Peter was given to them.
We should never be precipitated in our answers. There is no need, and the first thing that comes to our mind isn't usually good enough. Let me put a couple of fresh examples: a) Ed says that "The Holy Spirit acted from eternity past before Mary was even born." It seems an overwhelming response, right? But Ed is in trouble, because he is using a word ("eternity") that does not express any experience. He uses the word as if it referred to a very long period of time. But within the set of words that we use to talk about God, the word "eternity" is associated to the word "immutability". Then, we have to consider both notions to think about possible relations between eternity and temporality. b) Ed expresses the idea that Mary offered sacrifices for her purification because there was a sin (personal or original; it wasn't clear to me) involved. At any rate, one could conclude that Mary thought there was some sin involved, not that it actually existed; and again, one have to think about possible relations between eternity, temporality, sin and salvation that could exclude the blasphemy that Ed claims to exist. c) Jesus declares he came for the sinners, not for the righteous. How could he express contempt for his mother even assuming arguendo that she was a sinner? It makes no sense.
So, no precipitation, please, and just for personal meditation: When and how does the Sacred Scriptures become an inspired message?
Kind regards
Ed,
I don't think you understand Mariology and I have doubts you've actually read "The Glories of Mary" by St. Alphonsus and are probably taking someone else's opinion on its meaning. If you had read it you'd find that St. Alphonsus attributes our Blessed Lady's power entirely on the grace of God and her Son. Apart from God she is nothing as we are.
It really annoys me when Protestants will misalign and attack wonderful saints like St. Alphonsus without ever reading their works or cherry-picking and removing it from context. Mary isn't God and no Catholic would ever say she is.
The Holy Spirit acts through Mary because her heart is so immaculately united yo the will of God that she wills only what God desires. If you look at Scripture you should find it quite obvious that "God will not save us without the intercession of Mary" because it was through Mary's fiat that God was finally come into the world.
Mary is focused entirely on God and Jesus loves her. Consider that God found no easier or more perfect way to save the world than spending 30 years of His life with her, as opposed to 3 years with his disciples. Who could know God better and more intimately than Mary?
And, no, Mary doesn't need to be God to pray for the entire world. She needs grace and she was already full of grace on earth so how much more on Heaven with God?
Ed, maybe if you would open your heart to a little poetic love instead of aggressivly trying to belittle who Blessed Mary was (and is) and what her role was, then maybe you could see that the things we say about her is because of our hearts are not hardened but filled with joy for the mother whom God loved!!!
I've always loved to write, and when my wife and I were dating I wrote many love letters, I have no doubt I've used such laungage to my wife as "You are my hope," "You are my sweetness," "You are my life," and much more! Does that mean she took the place of God??? No, it was poetic language to express my feelings of love to her and how much she means to me. The love that flows from my heart that I express to my wife comes only from one source, God, it is a grace. How can we as humans ever say any words that are bigger or out does the real love God has for His mother? They are words of love Ed, not worship.
Do you guide people to Christ Ed? I hope you do! Do you comfort those in need?You better! Do you stregthen those around you in their faith in Christ? I pray you do! Do you try and sustain those around you to keep the faith and never lose sight of God! None of this is blasphemy, its love for one another!! Why is it OK for you to lead, stregthen, and guide others to Christ but not Blessed Mary? Where else would Mary take us but to her Son? She will always be the handmaid of God, the spouse of the Holy Spirit, the mother of Christ! She would NEVER do anything but the will of God!
I would like to take this time to thank the Non-Catholic and the Catholic Christians for the heartfelt comments and their love for Jesus, especially you ED. I have read all your comments and respect them. Your questions have made me dive deeper into my faith journey and fall ever more deeply in love with our Blessed Mother. After being away from any type of church for more than twenty years I have come back to the Catholic Faith with zeal and love for souls. In fact after my conversion, I had no idea there were such differences in denominations. I thought they go to their church and I go to mine. I had a protestant friend ask me why we pray to Mary. I had no earthly idea, but I wanted to know. All I did know is Jesus Christ saved me and I want to find out the Truth. (Jn 18:37) On the start of my journey I was not leaning towards Catholic or protestant, I was very open to the Truth and the path it would take me. That meant either becoming a protestant or a Catholic. I have found the Truth through logic, reason, history, and faith. And I found it in the Catholic Church. (1 Tim 3:15) Ed, I can see you as many other protestant Christians do not understand what the Church actually teaches on any doctrine. I mean you made a comment earlier about Tim getting his authority from baptism. Not trying to get off the original subject, but this is what the Church actually teaches about Baptism:
CCC-1213 Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua), and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: “Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water and in the word.”
Ed you say “THIS IS BLASPHEMY!” (They would not be a Saint if they were blaspheming)
Our response is: This is what the Church actually teaches about The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit:
CCC-150 Faith is first of all a personal adherence of man to God. At the same time, and inseparably, it is a free assent to the whole truth that God has revealed. As personal adherence to God and assent to his truth, Christian faith differs from our faith in any human person. It is right and just to entrust oneself wholly to God and to believe absolutely what he says. It would be futile and false to place such faith in a creature.
CCC-151 For a Christian, believing in God cannot be separated from believing in the One he sent, his “beloved Son,” in whom the Father is “well pleased”; God tells us to listen to him.18 The Lord himself said to his disciples: “Believe in God, believe also in me.”19 We can believe in Jesus Christ because he is himself God, the Word made flesh: “No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known.”20 Because he “has seen the Father,” Jesus Christ is the only one who knows him and can reveal him.
CCC-152 One cannot believe in Jesus Christ without sharing in his Spirit. It is the Holy Spirit who reveals to men who Jesus is. For “no one can say ‘Jesus is Lord,’ except by the Holy Spirit,”22 who “searches everything, even the depths of God.... No one comprehends the thoughts of God, except the Spirit of God.”23 Only God knows God completely: we believe in the Holy Spirit because he is God.
Now this is what The Church teaches about Our Blessed Mother:
CCC-148 The Virgin Mary most perfectly embodies the obedience of faith. By faith Mary welcomes the tidings and promise brought by the angel Gabriel, believing that “with God nothing will be impossible” and so giving her assent: “Behold I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be [done] to me according to your word.”12 Elizabeth greeted her: “Blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her from the Lord.”13 It is for this faith that all generations have called Mary blessed.14
CCC-149 Throughout her life and until her last ordeal15 when Jesus her son died on the cross, Mary’s faith never wavered. She never ceased to believe in the fulfillment of God’s word. And so the Church venerates in Mary the purest realization of faith.
It is very easy to research what The Church actually teaches on Mary. Go online and search Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Look up paragraph number 484-511. And one for sure to read is: CCC499
CCC-499 The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary’s real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man.154 In fact, Christ’s birth “did not diminish his mother’s virginal integrity but sanctified it.”155 And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the “Ever–virgin.”
So, even during birth she remained pure, there would be no need to follow the Leviticus law except out of obedience. Read what the Early Church Fathers had to say on the subject of her Immaculate Conception and her being “Ever-virgin.” I could go on and on.
Ed, if you are not a "Greek Scholar" maybe you should do more research on sacred texts before attempting an exegesis of scripture. That's how people are misled. I was a victim of being misled by a so-called non-denominational church (there really is no such thing, in my opinion.) The Holy scripture states "their" and not her.
I applaud Tim Staples once again for a job well done and a great book in Behold Thy Mother. I will also applaud all the faithful Christian Catholics who have defended our Mother so full of grace and love for us. She will never take the glory for herself but direct it to her son, even though in John 17:22 Jesus clearly states that he shares his glory with the body of Christ, "And the glory which you gave Me, I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one."
I once fell prey to the erroneous evangelical teachings that are out there. They seem real and palpable on their face, but after a deeper in-depth study of scripture and a close unbiased look at the early church fathers most of what they teach has no place in salvation history. A perfect example is this argument over "their" and "her." Tim settled it beautifully. In one way, I am very thankful for these erroneous teachings, because they led me back to Christ's Church. It's people like Ed and Calvary Chapel that led me back to the Catholic Church where I am staying forever until the Lord takes me.
For the fellow who suggested that there is no new covenant priesthood, Jesus established and states otherwise in John 20:23: "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained." Of course, this is done in the name of Jesus and not the priest. This is not something that ended with the apostles. Otherwise, why bother replacing Judas in the book of Acts.
Also, for the non-Greek scholars, the word presbyter in Greek means priest.
Happy Holidays to all.
Hey Catholic answers, can we get a like button for the comments? Chris and Thomas as well as all the others are awesome comments.
You might think that a correct interpretation of a text consists in establishing certain relations between the statements that compose it. The more you read the text, your memory becomes able to present simultaneously more fragments to your intelligence, so that you can then establish more numerous relations within the text. No doubt this is part of the explanation for the changes that your interpretation of a text suffers over the time. As the relations that you can establish within the text become more numerous, your "understanding" of it changes.
But establishing internal relations within a text is never enough; not even in the case of a text on mathematics. Any writer will always express in his texts much less than what his experiences would allow him; and his texts will only acquire full meaning within the context of his life. So, we could say that there exist many other statements outside the text that can clarify its meaning. However, most probably you will not know the details of the writer's life. Instead of that, you cannot avoid establishing relations between the statements included in the text and other discourses that you have assimilated or memorized through your own life. As you gain in experience, you will almost inevitably establish new relations between the text and elements external to it. This is another mechanism through which your "understanding" of the text changes.
But establishing internal and external relations with the elements of a text is never enough (unless it is a text on mathematics, or physics, or chemistry...). Because when a writer writes he expresses a hierarchy of values. But such hierarchy is not apparent in the text. There will be some fragments that are more valuable for the writer than others, but most probably you will miss the point. As you are a being who has interests, habits, customs and a set of social interactions you will inevitably project your own hierarchy of values on the text. An important consequence of this is that those fragments that do not resonate with your current values will go unnoticed for you. Your understanding of the text will be strange to the writer's intentions. The way you live ( your interests, your habits, your customs and your set of interactions) should have to change if you want to understand the text and become able to say (if it is the case): I accept it, I adopt it.
But how will your life change in the correct direction?
Kind regards
Thomas,
You say this, "Ed, if you are not a "Greek Scholar" maybe you should do more research on sacred texts before attempting an exegesis of scripture."
MY RESPONSE, I hardly think that Jesus expected us all to be Greek scholars. I did the research on "their" vs. "her." I went to the actual Leviticus law and found that it only pertains exclusively to the mother "her." So the only possible reason for the word "their" is used. 1) It's Israel's Law, "their" child birth law. 2) Because two persons are mentioned in it the baby and the mother, it's "their" after birth law. 3) The Catholic New American Bible in the side bar comments, states, "Their purification; syntactically, their must refer to Mary and Joseph." ----- AND NOT JESUS!
You say this, " That's how people are misled. I was a victim of being misled by a so-called non-denominational church (there really is no such thing, in my opinion.) The Holy scripture states "their" and not her."
MY RESPONSE, You are in ERROR because the Scriptures DOES say "her." 1) King James Bible, (Luke 2:22), "And when the days of "HER" purification according to the law of Moses, were accomplished, they brought Him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord." ---- 2) Duoay/Rhiems Catholic Bible, (Luke 2:22), "And after the days of "HER" purification, according to the law of Moses, were accomplished, they carried him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord:"
The newer translations uses the word "their." However; if the "their" meant Jesus and Mary's purification, it should read "their purifications" (plural) which it does not. So the Leviticus law pertains only to the mother, in this case Mary.
You say this, "I once fell prey to the erroneous evangelical teachings that are out there. They seem real and palpable on their face, but after a deeper in-depth study of scripture and a close unbiased look at the early church fathers most of what they teach has no place in salvation history. A perfect example is this argument over "their" and "her." Tim settled it beautifully"
MY RESPONSE, you may think that Tim settled it beautifully, only because you are ignorant of the Scriptures, like I just proved you WRONG when you say "Her" in not in the Scriptures. ----These are your words, "maybe you should do more research on sacred texts before attempting an exegesis of scripture." I think what you say here pertains more to you than to me, don't you think?
You say this, "For the fellow who suggested that there is no new covenant priesthood, Jesus established and states otherwise in John 20:23: "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained."
MY RESPONSE, Thomas, the fellow who suggested there is no new covenant priesthood is RIGHT! Here's why. In the Old Testament (Exod, 29) there are 45 verses explaining how priests were to be consecrated (ordained). ---(Exod.28) there are 43 verses about what the garments the priests should wear. --- (Exod.39) another 31 verses about garments. --- (Lev.8) another 36 verses about the ordination of Aaron and His Sons. --- (Lev.21 & 22 ) Rules for priests 57 verses. ---- (Num.18) duties of priests 32 verses. A total of 244 verses which explains the priesthood. And you come up with only ONE VERSE (John 20:23)
When you research (John 20:23), you'll find that (Luke 24:33-48) is the same scene but in a more expanded view. You'll find that not only the eleven apostles where there, but Cleopas and his waking partner and many other disciples where there too. If you continue down to verse 47 you'll find the true meaning of "if you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven" It simply means "and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations." Which means when the gospel is presented to a person, if he/she believes and receives it and repents, their sins are forgiven. If they don't believe and receive the gospel, their sins are retained. So (John 20:23) has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with priests having to hear personal confessions of sins.
One step further, with Cleopas and his walking partner and other disciples being there too, they then would have the same right to forgive personal sins as the apostles ( now priests) would have too. So the fellow who tried to tell you that there is no New covenant priesthood was RIGHT. It's you who won't accept God's word so you believe otherwise. Peter in (1Pet.2:9) has it right when he says this of the born again believers, "But you are a chosen people a ROYAL priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God. I'm a Royal priests!
God Bless,
Ed O.
Ed,
You say, "I don't think Jesus expected us all to be Greek scholars"
What, exactly, is that supposed to prove? It doesn't change what the Greek says.
It is also not true that the translation has to read "their purifications (plural)" for it to infer that all three parties are participating. If your family was going on a trip, do you really think we have to say, "They left for their trips?" to infer that all have left on the trip? No, we can assume that "they left for their trip" means that all parties involved have left on the same the same trip, just like all parties involved in the scripture went for their purification.
Also, you challenge Thomas' thinking because he, "came up with only ONE verse". I ask you, Ed, who seems to take the Bible as the inspired word of God, just how many times does the inspired word of God need to say something for it to be true?
Ed,
I appreciate your zeal and your desire to defend the faith. Your responses have caused me to read more of the Bible and think more deeply about what I just read. It's also driven me to read the thoughts of Protestant and Catholic biblical scholars and theologians, all of whom are much smarter than me. So, thank you for taking so much time to post.
Several people, including Tim have given you reasonable answers. It's ok for you to disagree because these disagreements can help us discover the truth. But you respond with such forcefulness that it makes me wonder if your passion is blinding you.
The "she vs their" argument is a perfect example. You said "You are in ERROR because the Scriptures DOES say 'her.'" When people in this thread refer to Holy Scripture, they are referring to the inerrant original writings, not the translated copies with errors. Would you say that the KJV and the Duoay/Rhiems are inerrant?
Now, lots of biblical scholars discuss and disagree as to what "their" actually refers to. In past translations, "their" was even translated sometimes as "he" because "their" didn't make sense for both Mary and Joseph. The "he" then would refer to Jesus, since Luke may have understood Jesus' presentation at the temple as a type of purification. (Source: the same NAB commentary you cited earlier). You then go on to assert that that if the "their" meant Jesus and Mary's purification, it should read "their purifications." Really? These kinds of arguments make me wonder if you're seeking truth or just trying to prove you're right.
But, why this is even an argument baffles me. Mary was a good Jewish girl. Of course she was going to follow the laws and traditions of Judaism. Even Jesus didn't exempt himself from the law. If Jesus is God, why did he have to get circumsized? Why did he get baptized? Is it unreasonable to think that Mary would have adhered to the traditions even if she didn't have to? She already said YES to God in a big way, it doesn't seem crazy to think that she would have followed the law common to all other Jewish women.
I want to clarify one thing. I am, in no way, saying that Mary or Jesus NEEDED the purification, only that they were obeying the law and participating in it.
Jeff,
You quote me saying this. "You say, "I don't think Jesus expected us all to be Greek scholars"
What, exactly, is that supposed to prove? It doesn't change what the Greek says.
MY RESPONSE, their are plenty good Bibles with side bar commentaries available today. The King James which is the classic standard for Protestants uses the word "her." The Duoay/Rhiems Bible is the classic standard for Catholics uses the word "her." When you go to the Leviticus law and read it you'll find it's speaks only of the purification for the mother. So regardless what the Greek word is, only the mother is being purified so how these modern translations come up with the word "their" is a good question.
You say this, "It is also not true that the translation has to read "their purifications (plural)" for it to infer that all three parties are participating. If your family was going on a trip, do you really think we have to say, "They left for their trips?"
MY RESPONSE, the whole family was going on ONE trip. But here we are talking about the mother and the baby's TWO purifications = their purifications.
You say this, "Also, you challenge Thomas' thinking because he, "came up with only ONE verse". I ask you, Ed, who seems to take the Bible as the inspired word of God, just how many times does the inspired word of God need to say something for it to be true?"
MY RESPONSE, what kind of a stupid argument are you trying to present here???? My point was in the O.T. there were 244 Scripture references to the priesthood. In the N.T. Thomas, presented only one Scripture which had NOTHING whatsoever to do with priesthood. Read what I had posted before you speak. So the difference isn't 244 vs. 1, but 244 vs. 0.
ED O.
Ed,
What or who made you the infallible interpreter of scripture?
Ed,
If I misunderstood your argument pertaining to the priesthood and Thomas' scripture reference, then I apologize. I've appreciated the honest and respectful discord this thread has consisted of. Unfortunately, it looks as if some of the respect from you is waning.
As far as this discussion goes, I'm bowing out. If you want to continue to use translations that are incorrect to make your point, be my guest. The original Greek is obviously having no affect on your beliefs.
I sincerely hope that you are yours have a very Merry Christmas. As I stated before, I appreciate your passion, and I urge you to continue your studies of the scriptures, as will I. God bless.
Ed,
2 Peter 1:20-21: "First of all you must understand this, that no prophesy of Scripture is a matter of one' s own interpretation, because no prophesy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoken from God."
The tone of your responses are not befitting of some one who is holy. I think I will stick to the teachings of the Church that God chose to preserve, compile and organize the bible.
Have you ever studied the rabbinical meaning of the terms "bind and loose" during the times of Jesus? Jesus definitely knew what they meant and he gave that authority to his apostles which was meant to be passed on. Our Lord definitely left us a new priesthood.
God bless all and enjoy your Christmas!
Ed,
Thank you for making my point. In Luke 24 the 11 apostles are clearly distinguished as "the Eleven" and the others as "the rest," which would include Cleopas and his companion. In The text in John 20 Jesus is clearly addressing his disciples who are again referred to in Acts chapter 1 as "The apostles whom He had chosen." They are then named in later in verse 13.
In the NT elders can also be translated as Presbyters which is Greek for priest. JAMES 5:14: "Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins he will be forgiven."
Your interpretation of Scripture is not found in salvation history among the apostolic father's or the early church fathers. This is quite a problem with those who follow the man made unbiblical tradition of Sola scriptura. Jesus nor the apostles followed this belief. In the book of Jude, St. Jude references the Assumption of Moses and the book of Enoch. In 2 Timothy 3:8 St. Paul references the book of Jannes and Jambres. There are even three verses in which St. Paul quotes noteworthy Greek philosophers, which unfortunately I do not have at my finger tips right now. In Matthew 23 Jesus acknowledges the seat of Moses. The seat of Moses was never decreed in the OT, but was a rabbinical tradition. In John 10:22 Jesus was at the temple during the feast of Hanukkah, the history of which can be found in the books of the Maccabees. Why didn't Jesus overturn tables and accuse the Jews of following the teachings of apocryphal writings? All of the other books I mentioned were also considered apocryphal by the Jews. The Jews consider the NT apocryphal. Should we throw them out as well? The Jews still celebrate Hanukkah till this day.
St Paul sums up the Protestant dilemma well in 1 Corinthians 4:15, "For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers."
Jesus and his apostles were practicing Jews and Jesus used rabbinical terminology that they clearly understood. Even if you don't agree with me, you should research what it was meant to hold the keys of the kingdom and to bind and loose before and during Jesus' era.
Ed,
Thank you for making my point. In Luke 24 the 11 apostles are clearly distinguished as "the Eleven" and the others as "the rest," which would include Cleopas and his companion. In The text in John 20 Jesus is clearly addressing his disciples who are again referred to in Acts chapter 1 as "The apostles whom He had chosen." They are then named in later in verse 13.
In the NT elders can also be translated as Presbyters which is Greek for priest. JAMES 5:14: "Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins he will be forgiven."
Your interpretation of Scripture is not found in salvation history among the apostolic father's or the early church fathers. This is quite a problem with those who follow the man made unbiblical tradition of Sola scriptura. Jesus nor the apostles followed this belief. In the book of Jude, St. Jude references the Assumption of Moses and the book of Enoch. In 2 Timothy 3:8 St. Paul references the book of Jannes and Jambres. There are even three verses in which St. Paul quotes noteworthy Greek philosophers, which unfortunately I do not have at my finger tips right now. In Matthew 23 Jesus acknowledges the seat of Moses. The seat of Moses was never decreed in the OT, but was a rabbinical tradition. In John 10:22 Jesus was at the temple during the feast of Hanukkah, the history of which can be found in the books of the Maccabees. Why didn't Jesus overturn tables and accuse the Jews of following the teachings of apocryphal writings? All of the other books I mentioned were also considered apocryphal by the Jews. The Jews consider the NT apocryphal. Should we throw them out as well? The Jews still celebrate Hanukkah till this day.
St Paul sums up the Protestant dilemma well in 1 Corinthians 4:15, "For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers."
Jesus and his apostles were practicing Jews and Jesus used rabbinical terminology that they clearly understood. Even if you don't agree with me, you should research what it was meant to hold the keys of the kingdom and to bind and loose before and during Jesus' era.
Jeff,
I said this in response to your post, "what kind of a stupid argument are you trying to present here????" Your response to that was, "If I misunderstood your argument pertaining to the priesthood and Thomas' scripture reference, then I apologize."
MY RESPONSE, I accept your apology and I'm sorry and I, too, apologize for being so harsh. But when I present my side of the debate and then get a response such as this from Robert Weidner saying, "Ed, What or who made you the infallible interpreter of scripture?" That changes my attitude and I come on strongly in my response, simply because I'm human and how do I respond to a statement such as that?
You say this, "If you want to continue to use translations that are incorrect to make your point, be my guest. The original Greek is obviously having no affect on your beliefs."
MY RESPONSE in my heart I sincerely believe since the Duoay/Rhiems Catholic Bible was translated from the Latin Vulgate which also uses the word "her", and after reading the Leviticus Law its self which pertains only to the mother ("her"), I'm convinced that there is a play of words going on here. Many of the newer translated Bibles contain many errors. For exp. (Acts 8:37) is missing from the newer translations. That verse is skipped altogether but not in the King James or the Dioay/Rhiems Bibles.
Jeff, I sincerely wish you a very Merry Christmas and a very Blessed New Year.
God Bless
Ed O.
Ed wrote:
"Thomas,
You say this, "Ed, if you are not a "Greek Scholar" maybe you should do more research on sacred texts before attempting an exegesis of scripture."
MY RESPONSE, I hardly think that Jesus expected us all to be Greek scholars..."
Yeah! It is true that some of the sacred texts were written in old Greek, but that is precisely why God inspired some individuals -carefully selected by Him-, to translate those texts into other languages; particularly into plain English, because it was destined to be a very important tongue for..., for..., whatever!, it was destined to be very important! And then, when those fine individuals completed the job, God put His mark on it, so that at its view we could know that it was to be trusted (because we should not trust anybody on this kind of things, except God. The communication between God and us is direct or it is not at all, and you know it!). So, now that the work is complete..., or... is there someone still working on it?... I don't know!, but Ed must know, and Ed knows that he is RIGHT, therefore he must be right.
So, now that the work is done you can leave your brain on your desk... Don't misunderstand me!: you should never leave your brain at the door; but once you are inside the house, you can leave it wherever you choose, and move around freely; there is no risk: you don't need brain for that!...
Ok?
Thomas,
You say this, " In The text in John 20 Jesus is clearly addressing his disciples who are again referred to in Acts chapter 1 as "The apostles whom He had chosen."
MY RESPONSE, that's not true! In Acts 1, it clearly states "apostles", but in John 20 it speaks of "disciples".When it speaks of disciples it could include others as well as the apostles. John 20 is the very same scene as Luke 24. The latter makes a clear distinction as to who were all there, by refering to the apostles as the eleven plus all the others.
You say this,"Your interpretation of Scripture is not found in salvation history among the apostolic father's or the early church fathers." This is quite a problem with those who follow the man made unbiblical tradition of Sola scriptura. Jesus nor the apostles followed this belief."
MY RESPONSE, "not found in salvation history?" What in the world are talking about? My interpretation IS very much found in the Scriptures (John 1:12) "Yet to all who received Him (that includes me), to those who believed in His name, He (Jesus) gave the right to become children of God." ( Eph.1:13) " You also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed you were (past tense) marked in Him with a seal, the promise of the Holy Spirit, v14 who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession." Since I have to do absolutely nothing except believe in Jesus, I'm saved. Exactly what Paul told the jailer in (Acts 16:31).
Now show me where in the Scriptures does it say that being baptized in water our sins are forgiven? NOWHERE! Where in the Scriptures does it even give a hint of the sacrifice of the Mass? NOWHERE! Where in the Scriptures does it say that one must earn merits to get saved by saying the rosary, buying indulgences, making novenas etc,? NOWHERE!
You say this, "This is quite a problem with those who follow the man made unbiblical tradition of Sola scriptura."
MY RESPONSE, you call it man made unbiblical tradition of Sola Scriptures. You have it backwards 3,000 people got saved by simply believing in Jesus Christ exactly like the Scriptures say. I ask you. where in the Scriptures does it tell us to add man made unbiblical ideas to the Scriptures as I indicated above? NOWHERE!
You say this, "Jesus nor the apostles followed this belief."
MY RESPONSE, I'm not sure what do you mean here? If you mean that Jesus nor the apostles didn't follow sola Scriptures, you are in error because the Scriptures were not written yet when Jesus walked the earth. But Jesus did say in (John 14:20) "the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will REMIND you of everything I have said to you." NOWHERE, did Jesus speak to them about the Mass and all the other stuff I mentioned above or it would have been written down.
You say this, "Why didn't Jesus overturn tables and accuse the Jews of following the teachings of apocryphal writings? All of the other books I mentioned were also considered apocryphal by the Jews. The Jews consider the NT apocryphal. Should we throw them out as well?"
MY RESPONSE, my question to you, there are fourteen apocryphal books, why did the Catholic church choose only eleven and lists only seven in their Bibles? On what grounds were the three rejected? Could it be because 2 Maccabess favors prayers for the dead from which purgatory is invented, while at the same time 2[4] Esdras opposses prayers for the dead?
Ed O.
Isaiah 6:5
"And I said: Woe is me, because I have held my peace; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people that hath unclean lips, and I have seen with my eyes the King the Lord of hosts."
It was no accident that Isaiah was a man of unclean lips. He was so precisely because he dwelled in the midst of a people "that had unclean lips". He was born there; he was constituted as the Isaiah he was, by them. It was they who gave him their language and with it, their modes of behavior, their customs, their notions about good and evil; their techniques, their understanding of the world, their political vision; it was they who molded his intellect, his will and his sensitivity. It was them, in brief, who enabled him to do a peculiar interpretation of their own texts and discourses, and the texts and discourses of other people. And so, he became a man of unclean lips... Therefore, he could not pronounce God's words (he could, but what would have they meant in his lips?). But he saw God...
I belong to a people of unclean lips too... But I have not seen the Lord (not even His Shadow, my dear friends). You might think: this cannot be true! But it is. Please, pray for me.
Juan, we certainly do live among people of unclean lips, but we do not belong to them, we belong to Christ. We must always remember Abraham's plea to the Lord when he lived among such people. We must also reflect on God's answer to Abraham...(Gen 18:32)" ...for the sake of the ten, He replied, I will not destroy it." I have a very good feeling you are counted among the ten just from reading your posts, most especially #43, 44, & 45. You are in good hands no matter those around you:)
You asked for prayers and I have prayed for you, perhaps that is what has prompted me to tell you this...you have seen more than the shadow of the Lord, you have become one with the Lord, He abides in you! You are never alone or hidden from your Savior, He is front and center, and will always be there for your eyes to behold! Merry Christmas to you Juan!!
God bless,
Christopher
Ed,
In response to your #68:
You said, "I'm not a Greek scholar so I can't go there."
You don't have to be a Greek scholar to know what Luke 2:22 says. The question is: are you going to believe it, or hold on to your tradition that nullifies God's word? The text says "their purification," you say "their Levitical Law," which not only denies the text, but makes no sense at all.
You then say, "But what I do know, according to the Leviticus law for child birth there's nothing in it that stipulates any kind of purification for the baby. Nothing!"
Once again, that is simply not true. Levitical Law gives us clear examples of how the touching of blood or other bodily fluids renders someone unclean and would require sacrifice. This is clearly the case for the baby in childbirth. The text also indicates that the baby affects the uncleanness of the mother because it stipulates 40 days for a boy and 80 days for a girl baby. Thus, Levitical Law presupposes the universal sense of sin that we find in Psalm 51:5, where King David said, "I was brought forth in sin," specifically referring to childbirth. These are reasons why the text of Luke 2:22 says both mother and baby needed to be "purified."
I was amazed, however, at your statement, "... regardless what the Greek word stipulates, it's, Her, the mother's purification and not their purifications (plural)."
First of all, there is no difference between saying "their purification" and "their purfications," other than "their purifications" would be awkward. Hebrews 2:10, for example, says, "For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through suffering." The text doesn't say "their salvations." But it clearly means the "many sons'" salvation.
At any rate, the above just represents bad grammar on your part, what really amazed me was when you said it doesn't matter what God's word says. To quote you, you said, "So regardless what the Greek word stipulates, it's, Her, the mother's purification and not their..."
Wow!
What matters is what Ed says, not what God says. Once again, I have to go with Luke 2:22 over Ed. And if that is "too harsh" for you, I would only ask this: Can you at least see why I, as a Christian, cannot simply say, regardless of the fact that the text says its "their purification," that it's "her purification?" Can you, at least, see how I cannot reject what God clearly says here in Luke 2:22 because of Ed's understanding of what he thinks Leviticus says?
Ed,
What website are you on? Do you realize that you can search all topics you are inquiring about and get ample scriptures and proper interpretations of these scriptures.
Your argument about Luke 24 and John 20 fails just as much as your argument of "her" and "their" fails. Scripture interprets scripture. Scripture does not cancel out other Scripture. This is made clear in Acts 1. I won't rehash that argument.
Jesus clearly stated that in order to be born again one must be born of water and spirit.
Definition of baptism: To dip, immerse, submerge or wash clean.
1 Peter 3:21: "There is also an antitype which now saves - baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God) through the resurrection of Jesus Chirst.
Acts 2:38: "Repent and let everyone of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and you shall receive the gift of the holy spirit."
Oh my God! Where is the water?
As I said earlier, scripture interprets and edifies scripture. Not one scripture cancels the other out.
Acts 8:36: "Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the enunuch said, "See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?"
Acts 22:16 Ananias to Paul "And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
The Old Testament Septuagint, OT translated in Greek 400 years before Christ, because Greek became the main language, was in use during the time of Christ and was quoted by the Apostles. The old testament that you use is a retranslation by the Jews 700 years after Christ death.
I work in the field of law. It is common tendency when someone loses an argument to begin throwing up all kinds of things against the wall in the hopes of something sticking.
In regards to holy communion, I'm sure you're familiar with the text of John 6 and the Catholic interpretation, but have an erroneous interpretation.
1 Corinthians 10: "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?"
1 Corinthians 11: "For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death till He comes."
I wonder why the Catholic church did not include the Protoevangelum of James. That would have settled all the argument on Mary's perpetual virginity. The truth is they were guided by the Lord then as they are today. My bible and the Church's oral tradition are sufficient.
Sorry if I have not answered all of your questions. I am on my lunch hour and need to get back to work.
Ed, you are incorrect in your count of apocryphal books. There are only four which were not considered inspired. The other seven are deuterocanonical and considered inspired. There is a pamphlet on this website that has plenty NT references as well as OT references for the things you've mentioned. As a matter of fact, I do believe the protestants kept the Deuterocanonical books in their bible for 200 years after the rebellion, but were taken out for the convenience of one's own false theology. If you ever get a chance, get Martin Luther's book "The Jews and Their Lies." It was one of Adolf Hitler favorites. It is used by the white supremists for their church gatherings. My bible and the correct interpretations come from Holy men of God. It was canonized in 382 Ad. Nothing was ever added, only re-affirmed at the Council of Trent. By whose authority were the seven OT books omitted? By what right? In the book of Maccabees we also get a clear picture of the anti-christ in Daniel chapter 8 as well as the beloved Jewish holiday of Hannukah. Where do you think the Menorah comes from?
I am curious to know if you believe in the false rapture doctrine.
Dear Christopher:
Thank you for your prayers, and for your comforting words. Your gesture means a lot to me.
Rudolf Otto described the experience of the sacred as the "Mysterium tremendum et fascinans". Many years ago a priest visited us, and while he was talking to us about religious attitudes he mentioned Otto's description. Then he said: "Jesus Christ eliminated the "tremendum" part. I said: "No!, just the opposite; He made it more apparent. It has been our lack of consciousness what has made us unable to experience it; it has been certain abusive familiarity, which is at the same time certain forgetfulness, what has veiled to us this aspect of the divine". The consideration of God's sanctity will inevitably make us tremble.
Before we even open the Bible, we should pray with fear and trembling; so much the more when we intend to pronounce it or write it. This is why I said before that we necessarily have to develop a sense of wonder. It is not a tiny thing: It is God's word!
The other day my boy told me: "Some say that prayer bring us closer to God; what do you think?"
"You have to do your part, my son", said I, "in prayer you have to become conscious of who you really are. And when you do it, you will surely find yourself unworthy to enter into God's presence; and like the publican you will go back home with great pain in your heart; but God will be with you, because by becoming conscious of yourself you open your doors wide to Him". The "tremendum" turns then into "fascinans".
I should not be telling you all this, because I have the feeling that you are a good christian, one that really knows who he is... but this is anyway the continuation of my post # 90.
Merry Christmas, Christopher! I will remember your name tonight.
Juan Florencio
Tim,
You say this,"You don't have to be a Greek scholar to know what Luke 2:22 says. The question is: are you going to believe it, or hold on to your tradition that nullifies God's word? The text says "their purification,"
MY RESPONSE, The text also says "her" purification. Here, read it for yourself. 1) Duoay/Rhiems Bible, "And after the days of HER purification, according to the law of Moses, were accomplished, they carried him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord. ----- 2) " Kings James Bible, " And when the days of HER purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present himto the Lord." ----- 3) The New King James Bible "Now when the days of HER purification according to the law of Moses were completed, they brought Him to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord." ----- 4) The Amplified Bible "And when the time for THEIR purification [the mother’s purification and the Baby’s dedication] came according to the Law of Moses, they brought Him up to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord-"----- 5) God's Word Bible "After the days required by Moses' Teachings to make a MOTHER clean had passed, Joseph and Mary went to Jerusalem. They took Jesus to present him to the Lord." ---- 6) Good News Bible, "The time came for Joseph and Mary to perform the ceremony of purification, as the Law of Moses commanded. So they took the child to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord." ----- 7) The New Living Bible "Then it was time for the purification offering, as required by the law of Moses after the birth of a child; so his parents took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord." ----- 8) The Message Bible, "Then when the days stipulated by Moses for purification were complete, they took him up to Jerusalem to offer him to God." ---- 9) Today's New International Version Bible "When the time came for the purification rites required by the Law of Moses, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord."----- 10) Wycliff Bible "And after that the days of the purification of MARY were fulfilled, after Moses' law, they took him into Jerusalem, to offer him to the Lord,"
Commentary, "Verses 21-24 Our Lord Jesus was not born in sin, and did not need that mortification of a corrupt nature, or that renewal unto holiness, which were signified by circumcision. This ordinance was, in his case, a pledge of his future perfect obedience to the whole law, in the midst of sufferings and temptations, even unto death for us.
At the end of forty days, Mary went up to the temple to offer the appointed sacrifices for her purification. Joseph also presented the holy child Jesus, because, as a first-born son, he was to be presented to the Lord, and redeemed according to the law. Let us present our children to the Lord who gave them to us, beseeching him to redeem them from sin and death, and make them holy to himself." This makes it pretty clear that it was Mary's purification.
You say this on your post #25, "Luke 2:22 tells us this sacrifice was for "their" purification, not just Mary's. If you say Mary had sin here, you have to say Jesus had sin as well. The truth is, Jesus had to be "redeemed" (Exodus 13:13), "circumcised," and purified because of the uncleanness associated with the blood presumed by the law in labor. Mary had to be purified as well because of the uncleanness presumed by the law in the shedding of blood in childbirth (Lev. 12:1ff). None of this means Mary or Jesus had actual sin. They had to fulfill the prescriptions of the law out of obedience in order "to fulfill all righteousness" similar to the reason why Jesus had to be baptized in Matt. 3:15-16"
MY RESPONSE on post #26, I think you are wrong when you put emphasis on the word "their" in (Luke 2:22). The sacrifice was only for the mother and not "them" as you make it to be. The Leviticus Law pertains to the two people mother and baby, therefore it's "their" law. However when you read that law nowhere does it say that the doves or pigeons are for the boy/baby's sins too, only for the mother's, therefore what you say about Jesus would then have to have sins too is wrong because the law never included the baby as a sinner.
You also say this,"None of this means Mary or Jesus had actual sin. They had to fulfill the prescriptions of the law out of obedience in order "to fulfill all righteousness" similar to the reason why Jesus had to be baptized in Matt. 3:15-16)."
MY RESPONSE, If that law is about sins, how can you says then it's not about "actual sins"????? Nowhere in that Law does it even mentions "the fulfillment of righteouness" I say that you are wrong in this whole episode.
MY RESPONSE to your post #92, When I made the above Bible comparisons, there were several that used the word "their." However; none explained why it's being used.
When you say this above, "The truth is, Jesus had to be "redeemed" (Exodus 13:13), "circumcised," and purified because of the uncleanness associated with the blood presumed by the law in labor. Mary had to be purified as well because of the uncleanness presumed by the law in the shedding of blood in childbirth"
MY RESPONSE, it's not the TRUTH as you say, in plain English it's your "phoney baloney truth" as you can plainly see from all of the above Bible translations that I have presented. I strongly suggest that you read them so that you may learn something from them rather than to spew out the figure of your own imaginations and then have the audacity to call them the TRUTH. Shame on you!
You say this on post #92, "You don't have to be a Greek scholar to know what Luke 2:22 says. The question is: are you going to believe it, or hold on to your tradition that nullifies God's word? The text says "their purification," you say "their Levitical Law," which not only denies the text, but makes no sense at all"
MY RESPONSE, I placed you above others on this blog, but I never thought that you would lower yourself by accusing me of nullifying God's word when in fact you know that God's word says it in TWO ways, "her" and "their" purification. When a baby and a mother are both mentioned in the one same law, that is their law, why doesn't it make any sense to you is behond my comprehension. I must have mis-judged you, that is, when you haven't a good rebutall, you then attack the messenger (me) which makes for a good posting.
You say this,"What matters is what Ed says, not what God says. Once again, I have to go with Luke 2:22 over Ed. And if that is "too harsh" for you, I would only ask this: Can you at least see why I, as a Christian, cannot simply say, regardless of the fact that the text says its "their purification," that it's "her purification?" Can you, at least, see how I cannot reject what God clearly says here in Luke 2:22 because of Ed's understanding of what he thinks Leviticus says?"
MY RESPONSE all of this is nothing more than elevating yourself , as you say,"I, as a Christian," and attacking me (supposedly as a non-Christian) as the messenger. As one can see from all of the above Bible translations that I have presented, they make you look foolish because none of those verses agree with you whatsoever, even the Commentary disagrees with you.
You say this,"Thus, Levitical Law presupposes the universal sense of sin that we find in Psalm 51:5, where King David said, "I was brought forth in sin," specifically referring to childbirth."
MY RESPONSE, There's another one of your erroneous assumptions referring to child birth. Have you ever read (Rom.3:10 ) which states,"There is no one righteous, not even one." (Not even Mary!) (Rom.10:23) "For ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." (Mark 10:18) Jesus says, "No one is good--except God alone."
The bottom line is this, the Leviticus law required purification from blood when a woman had her monthly period (Lev.15:19,29) On the 8th day, she had to offer two doves and two pigeons, One for a burnt offering and one for a SIN offering. Exactly the same offering for after a child birth with the additional 40 day waiting time (Lev 12:8,3). There's nothing in that law about purifying the baby as you try to imply. (read above #4, #5 and #10 Bible translations and the commentary above and you'll see how wrong you are)
Was it a SIN for a woman to have her monthly period, or was it a SIN to have a baby? The answer is NO! Why then does the Leviticus law require an offering for SIN? The answer has to be (Rom.3:10) (Rom.10:23) (Mark 10:18) All have sinned. Tim, tries to imply that Mary was simply being obedient to the Levitical law. That's true which means that she was a sinner too, that's why she made a SIN offering.
ED.O.
Thomas,
In reference to your post #93, you remind me of Rip Van Winkle who woke up after 40 years of sleep, if my mind recalls correctly.
What you posted here was already argued on I believe about 700 posts. Check out "Catholicism is Preferable to Protestantism" to see how wrong you are.
Ed O,
Thomas,
You say something interesting here, "I am curious to know if you believe in the false rapture doctrine."
Yes indeed, I do believe in the True not false rapture doctrine, which is (1Thes.4:15-17) which states, "According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. v16 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. v17 After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the CLOUDS to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever." Please note! We meet Jesus in the CLOUDS!
(John 14:2-3) Jesus says, "In my Father's house are many rooms; If it were not so, I would have told you. v3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back (1Thes, 4:15-17)and take you with me (John 14:2-3) that you also may be where I am."
After we get our room and rewards in heaven (1Cor.3:14) "If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward."---- We will then feast at the wedding banquet (Rev. 19:7-10) "Let us rejoice and be glad and give Him glory! For the wedding of the Lamb has come, and His bride has made herself ready." ---- We will then come back down with the Lord to reign with Him for 1,000 years. (Zech.14:5b) "Then the Lord my God will come and ALL the holy ones with Him." In order for ALL the holy ones to come down with the Lord, they had to go up first in order to be able to come down.
Now the Catholic church claims there is no rapture, simply because it screws up their purgatory theology, that is, the people who go up avoid the purgatory nonsense of having to be purified of sins.
Then they came out with this nonsense, that is, the rapture theology did not come about until 1850 A.D. But they forget that it was in the Bible exactly like I have shown you above since about 100 A.D.
Thomas, if you have any other questions about the rapture I'll be glad to answer them for you. Yes indeed, I believe in the True rapture and you should too according to the Scriptures that I have presented.
ED O.
Ed, why do you not consider Jewish comentary if you want to know what the sin offering was all about for a mother? You have it stuck in your head that the mother was a sinner and that is simply not true. The reason for the sin offering, and pay attention, was for bringing a sinner into the world, NOT for the mothers sins, but for what she was doing, thus the reason this offering was done AFTER every birth. Luke 2:22 does not prove Mary was a sinner, only that her and Joseph were obedient Jews just as Tim has so plainly pointed out to you.
Once again...every Jewish mother made this offering NOT FOR HER SINS, but for the reason of bringing a sinner into the world. We all know Jesus did not have sin, therefore the offering was made as a gesture of obedience to the law, nothing more and nothing less, just like the circumcision of Jesus, wasn't needed, but was done out of obedience.
Romans 3:
"...[6] (I speak according to man.) God forbid: otherwise how shall God judge this world? [7] For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie, unto his glory, why am I also yet judged as a sinner? [8] And not rather (as we are slandered, and as some affirm that we say) let us do evil, that there may come good? whose damnation is just. [9] What then? Do we excel them? No, not so. For we have charged both Jews, and Greeks, that they are all under sin. [10] As it is written: There is not any man just."
"[11] There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. [12] All have turned out of the way; they are become unprofitable together: there is none that doth good, there is not so much as one. [13] Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have dealt deceitfully. The venom of asps is under their lips. [14] Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: [15] Their feet swift to shed blood"...
None, none!
However:
Luke 1:6
"And they were both just before God, walking in all the commandments and justifications of the Lord without blame."
Just, without blame!
And...
Isaiah 41:8
"But thou Israel, art my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend".
Abraham is being called "friend" by God!
What do we have to understand by the word "sin"? How can the fragments above become consistent?