(Gospel e-Letter - April 2009)
The Lord Jesus tells us, “My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me.” He goes on to give us this wonderful promise, “I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand” (John 10:27, 28). More blessed words of comfort and reassurance have never been uttered!
The security of the sheep is guaranteed by the faithfulness and omnipotence of our Good Shepherd. Since he promised that they shall never perish, we can be sure that not even one of his sheep will ever be lost. There is no stronger creature in the universe that is able to open the protecting hand of the Lord and steal away one of his own.
However some Christians think that a true believer can end up in hell for one reason or another. They reject the assurance of eternal life because they fear that it will encourage presumption and reckless living.
Such fears are not groundless. There are indeed many nominal Christians that shamefully abuse the promise of Christ. They imagine that they will go to heaven even though they live like the devil, because, they say, ‘Once saved, always saved’. On the Day of Judgement, they will discover their delusion and folly when it is too late.
The Lord’s speech is clear and we have no excuse to misunderstand him. He said clearly who are they that will never perish. The Lord does not give assurance on the basis of church affiliation, baptism or some other religious act.
Some members of the Catholic Church will be lost, just as some members in evangelical and Protestant churches. There will be many baptized people in hell, whether they had been baptised as infants or adults, by pouring or immersion. Many who made “a decision for Christ” and prayed “the sinners’ prayer” will never make it to heaven. And many who call themselves “Christians” will be disowned by Christ on that Day.
The sheep that belong to Christ’s flock are characterized by two marks, one on their ears and another on their feet. Jesus said, “My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me.” These then are the characteristics of Christ’s sheep, they hear and follow the Shepherd. They heard his call to repentance and his invitation to come to him for spiritual rest. They continue to hear his Word every day, and consistently walk in obedience to his commandments in holiness and love.
We should not ask whether his sheep can ever be lost; that is an insult to the Shepherd, and a disbelief in his faithfulness and power. We should rather ask whether we are truly his sheep, that is, if we sincerely love him with all our heart. Only then we can be confident that we belong to Christ and that we have life everlasting.
Did Christ die in place of his people to pay the penalty for their sins?
Historically the Catholic Church forbade the laity to read the vernacular translations of the Bible.
Your Comments
28 comments:
Hello,
I think a word of caution is necessary. People often think John 10:27f teaches "Eternal Security", but other Protestants have pointed out that in Greek the words and word-tense indicate actions that are only true as they continue (something hard to translate in English). The Greek is not speaking of a past-tesnse fully completed action.
In other words, in Greek, John is saying the giving of eternal life only exists in so far as you continue to believe and continue to hear and continue to follow.
This fits with the warning of John 13:8 and 15:6 (among other places), which both teach salvation can be lost if you turn to a life of sin. (also note Mat 18:23-35 & 24:12-13; Heb 10:26-29; 1 Tim 3:5; 5:8, etc, etc)
Such a beautiful and powerful promise from our Shepherd!
It makes me think of yet another parable, one conveyed in 3 of the 4 gospels, and relating to the Planter & soils. In Luke 8:1-15 we read about the many "types" that hear the gospel, and again we see that it is only the truly receptive (the sheep) that actually get it ...
v15 "But the seed on good soil stands for those with a noble and good heart, who hear the word, retain it, and by persevering produce a crop."
So we know that goats, and even weeds, will grow up among true believers and amidst His church. Neither has His seal, and will be disowned when the separating process begins.
Thank God He knows! He does all things well.
Be blessed,
Kathleen
We christians well, particularly evangelicals who have a dire anger for the catholic church calling it names of "whore of babylon, pope is anti-christ, etc", have forgotten the real war taking place in the secular world we all live in.
For your info, the Lutheran church in Sweden had already bless same-sex marriage. One by one most of the christian churches in European peninsula and rapidly spreading to America are caving-in to all sorts of secularism, noteworthy like, same-sex marriage, some stage of abortion, artificial contraception, RU-486, embryonic cloning and stem cell and more.
I'm glad that the True Church (not churches) of God is here to proclaim and speak the truth for Christ.
Thank you Lord for your promise and gift...Catholic Church.
By the way,,, if anyone honestly would like to find out the true teaching and interpretations of the Catholic Church compared to most protestant's interpretations (like Mr. Mizzi's articles).
Reader, you decide! (of course with a lot of prayers) and find out which one makes sense in the light of the Scriptures.
Go to catholic apologetic websites like: Catholic Legate and catholic answers(.com)
Jesus will not leave you astray and He will surely lead you to the Fullness of His Truth.
I just have to say "right on" with anonymous' where truth is concerned. Jesus IS truth, and with His indwelling spirit we are made new creations, and our minds are renewed. Bless the Lord!
That's where our agreement ends. My own experience with Catholicism dates back to my youth, where I attended 12 years of parochial school and was deeply involved in all things Catholic. It was there I learned first hand what is taught by the RCC.
I wasn't particularly disenchanted until I began studying God's word for myself. The entre Book of Hebrews was absolutely baffling, as were many other scriptures until I realized that much of the doctrine of the RCC is not only NOT in the scriptures, but is in addition to and/or opposed to it.
Don't take my word for it. Do as the other poster challenges and read their Cathechism, or visit the New Advent website. Here are links to both:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm
http://www.home.newadvent.org/cathen/index.html
There are former Protestants that have made a change opposite my own to become Catholic. It's safe to say it works both ways. But for me, the veracity of scripture weighs in favor of truth above tradition and/or other sources.
It's equally safe to say that we here are not about to undo the breech between Catholics & Protestants. Yet each one gets to study the scripture for themselves and be lead of God's Holy Spirit. As Joe reminds us, the Good Shepherd speaks and His sheep know & respond to His voice.
To God be the glory!
Kathleen
Hey Mark it's not just the Lutheran Church that accepted gay-marriage, there is also the United Church of Christ who voted for it, the Presbyterian Church general synod voted recently only with a hairline margin to not change but most of them say it had opened a crack which would eventually cave-in. Episcopalians and Anglicans have already accepted an openly and practicing (with lover)gay bishop.
Related, a lot of Christian pastors that I will not name, were for the embryonic stem cell which calls for the harvesting of stem cells from human emrbryos and afterwards destroying them.
Now look at the justification of modern-day people who advocate this horrible scheme and even some of our brothers in faith calling the baby or fetus just a "clump of cells" , parasite".
These fall started in the 30's where all Christian churches agreed and declared that arificial contraception was against the Will of God after the caving-in the pandora's box opened.
Thank you Lord, eventhough we are sinners and weak for your True Church never stops to proclaim the Truth.
Again thank you, Lord for the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church!
Come, Lord Jesus!
Good saying, the people who claimed they have read and studied the Scriptures and guided by same Holy Spirit in their interpretations are the ones who deny the Truth of the Gospels without them knowing.
Just look at what is happening now, different christian pastors are using the same Bible you have and would quote from the same Book and interpret to justify their own theology. They don't believe in the Apostolic authority that was being handed down by Jesus to the Apostles and to the Bishops, they just believe in their own understanding and abilities (again claiming the same Holy Spirit), as if the Holy Spirit was confused in its teaching.
Jesus said...the Spirit will guide you to ALL (ALL) TRUTH.
With this present state of christianity started by Luther today's pastors, elders and others are running like little popes of their own churches.
Wow, the sky was beautiful, is it in Malta, Mr. Mizzi?
Mark, you hit it right on the head.
JN 16:13 "Yet when the Spirit of Truth comes, he will guide you into all (ALL)truth. He will not speak on his own accord, but will speak whatever he hears and will declare to you the things that are to COME".
Jesus said ALL, not one or two ,or three or four....but ALLLLL Truth.
Jesus didn't leave us with copies of the Bible (400 years later) but left us with 12 sinners to proclaim and preserve ALL Truths.
God Bless to all, my Jesus!
I wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Joe Mizzi (also with Jesus' deity and Holy Trinity).
If you apply it in our daily way of life today, how would you hear the Truth or shall we say the "calling" of Jesus to His sheeps?
If some evangelical pastors say that there is no biblical prerogative against embryonic stem-cell or some pastors say that gay relationship and sex (not the people with homosexual tendencies) have anything against the teaching of the Book? In fact they say that the same Jesus accepted all people regardless of their actions. To them God is all love without justice.
Some pastors agree with this and some don't.
Now if you belong from this particular church how would you hear the Good Shepherd speaks and His sheep know & respond to His voice?
There is a reliable survey that the younger generation of evangelical christians are more prone to liberal interpretation of the Bible.... that in the near future maybe it's ok to have same-sex marriage and "cure" our old age illness' through the destruction of other humans by stem-cell....hopefully God will not allow that to happen.
Anchor yourself with Peter whom Jesus gave His authority.
Most protestants who switch to catholicism were from alive and practicing christian faiths and mostly are Scripturally well versed and some are even intellectually brilliant and the best part they don't hate their former faith affiliations.
On the other side, the catholics who switch to the protestant side were mostly lapsed catholics and indifferent to their church, poorly catechized and that's why most of them had a disdain towards their former faith.
Remember, I said "mostly" (majority)the trend.
Wonder why?
I must say, there's an awful lot of sweeping generalizations here!
First ... protestants (I'm one of them), don't have a market on foolish, ungodly and immoral breaches. I will not point out what the RCC's track record holds. But let's just say there's plenty of unbibilical beliefs and/or practices in all denominations.
Second ... regardless of the church's official position, many Catholic universities and schools (the Jesuits in particular, of which I know well), allow for "many roads lead to salvation", and/or "the scriptures are not literally true" aberrations.
Third ... I was not a marginal, untutored or lapsed Catholic when I made my decision to leave. The doctrinal positions, traditions and sterility I found there in contrast to the truth left me no other choice. It was painful and difficult. Even so, I have never regretted it. Since then, I have come to know hundreds of former Catholics that have done likewise.
Furthermore, they nor I hate Catholics. I have plenty of family (including priests & nuns) that I love dearly. I just happen to believe they are wrong. It's OK with me that they believe likewise about me. We agree, respectfully, to disagree.
Be blessed!
Kathleen
When Jesus said the Spirit of Truth will lead you to ALL Truth and declare to you the things to COME (JN 16:13) it means just like that!
Protestants (including Mr. Mizzi) always have been downplaying the doctrinal issues separating protestantism...yet he tends to forget what Jesus said above..."ALL truth"(ALL-means WHOLE, EVERY ONE in dictionary) and not just "hermeneutic essentials" of the faith that protestants insist.
Noticed too what Jesus said.."declare to you the things that are to COME".
With that said, with all these different beliefs of christian churches there must be only ONE, Apostolic Church that Jesus was refering to that will be guided into ALL truths (no room for unbiblical beliefs/practices).
Again, there's a big difference between separation because of different interpretation-doctrine(protestants) AND following an already declared-promulgated doctrine of the Church (Catholic). The former is doctrinal separation the latter is obedience to declared truth.
Now, it's your choice to seek, look and crave for this Church with Christ's Authority and the FULLLNESS of Him.
Mark ... It's probably safe to say that we couldn't be further apart on the true nature of the Church, and of Truth. No one; absolutely no one on this good earth owns the church. It is (and therefore I am) Jesus' bride. My fullness is in Him. You can find yours wherever else you choose.
I dare say no man, no man-made organization - Catholic OR Protestant is free of error. Humans breed it!
And it's no secret what the origins of Catholicism contain if we want to wander back to the 300s AD.
From gotquestions.com we read succinctly of a few such facts.
Even a cursory reading of the New Testament will reveal that the Catholic Church does not have its origin in the teachings of Jesus, or His apostles. In the New Testament, there is no mention of the papacy, worship / adoration of Mary (or the immaculate conception of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the assumption of Mary, or Mary as co-redemptrix and mediatrix), petitioning saints in Heaven for their prayers, apostolic succession, the ordinances of the church functioning as sacraments, infant baptism, confession of sin to a priest, purgatory, indulgences, or the equal authority of church tradition and Scripture.
So, if the origin of the Catholic Church is not in the teachings of Jesus and His apostles, as recorded in the New Testament, what is the true origin of the Catholic Church?
Constantine “legalized” Christianity at the Edict of Milan in A.D. 313. Later, in A.D. 325, Constantine called together the Council of Nicea, in an attempt to unify Christianity. Constantine envisioned Christianity as a religion that could unite the Roman Empire, which at that time was beginning to fragment and divide. While this may have seemed to be a positive development for the Christian church, the results were anything but positive. Just as Constantine refused to fully embrace the Christian faith, but continued many of his pagan beliefs and practices, so the Christian church that Constantine promoted was a mixture of true Christianity and Roman paganism. He allowed, and even promoted, the “Christianization” of pagan beliefs. Completely pagan and utterly unbiblical beliefs were given new “Christian” identities. Some clear examples of this are as follows:
(1) The Cult of Isis, an Egyptian mother-goddess religion, was absorbed into Christianity by replacing Isis with Mary. Many of the titles that were used for Isis, such as “Queen of Heaven,” “Mother of God,” and “theotokos” (God-bearer) were attached to Mary. The first clear hints of Catholic Mariology occur in the writings of Origen, who lived in Alexandria, Egypt, which happened to be the focal point of Isis worship.
(2) Mithraism was a religion in the Roman Empire in the 1st through 5th centuries A.D. It was very popular among the Romans, especially among Roman soldiers, and was possibly the religion of several Roman emperors. While Mithraism was never given “official” status in the Roman empire, it was the de-facto official religion until Constantine and succeeding Roman emperors replaced Mithraism with Christianity. One of the key features of Mithraism was a sacrificial meal, which involved eating the flesh and drinking the blood of a bull. Mithras, the god of Mithraism, was “present” in the flesh and blood of the bull, and when consumed, granted salvation to those who partook of the sacrificial meal (theophagy, the eating of one’s god). Mithraism also had seven “sacraments,” making the similarities between Mithraism and Roman Catholicism too many to ignore.
(3) Most Roman emperors (and citizens) were henotheists. A henotheist is one who believes in the existence of many gods, but focuses primary on one particular god, or considers one particular god supreme over the other gods. For example, the Roman god Jupiter was supreme over the Roman pantheon of gods. Roman sailors were often worshippers of Neptune, the god of the oceans. When the Catholic Church absorbed Roman paganism, it simply replaced the pantheon of gods with the saints. Just as the Roman pantheon of gods had a god of love, a god of peace, a god of war, a god of strength, a god of wisdom, etc., so the Catholic Church has a saint who is “in charge” over each of these, and many other categories.
(4) The supremacy of the Roman bishop (the papacy) was created with the support of the Roman emperors. With the city of Rome being the center of government for the Roman empire, and with the Roman emperors living in Rome, the city of Rome rose to prominence in all facets of life. Constantine, and his successors, gave their support to the bishop of Rome as the supreme ruler of the church. Of course it is best for the unity of the Roman empire that the government and state religion be centered in the same location. While most other bishops (and Christians) resisted the idea of the Roman bishop being supreme, the Roman bishop eventually rose to supremacy, due to the power and influence of the Roman emperors. When the Roman empire collapsed, the popes took on the title that had previously belonged to the Roman emperors – Pontificus Maximus.
Many more examples could be given.
Hello Kathleen and God Bless you.
You have raised a lot of good points regarding catholic history and doctrines.
With this medium I don't think I could answer adequately all your objections, anyway if we take one point at a time, good example of Mary, why Catholics believed it is Biblical to say she is Immaculately conceived?
If you care to look at these websites: (please copy and paste)
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0510fea5.asp
http://www.apologeticsguidebook.com/mary.shtml
God bless!
Thank you for the resources, Mark. As I've indicated before, I am well-acquainted with the Catholic Church's teachings & doctrines. Even so, I visited the sites anyway.
It disturbs me greatly to read that: Mary was/is
"... conceived without original sin ... preserved from these defects by God's grace."
"... in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence."
"... redeemed by the merits of her son."
"... it stands to reason with a 'new adam', there'd be a 'new eve'."
Absolutely none of these statements are true, nor can they be vetted against scripture. They simply fly in the face of God's own word.
Furthermore, the official position of Mary's "immaculate conception" was not formalized until 1854. That alone ought to say something about the doctrine's formation. No matter how one connects the dots, it simply adds up to unsound teaching, unsound doctrine.
We are going to have to agree to disagree, Mark.
Be blessed,
Kathleen
Kathleen,
God Bless! We catholics regard Mary in these 4 Biblical terms, I'm sorry but I could only rememmber 2: Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant and Mary as the New Eve (I will do separately):
Oh! one of most beautiful topics to discuss after Jesus is the Blessed Virgin Mary. How ironic, we all believed the Bible as Inspired Word of God Himself, but who honours Mary aside from Catholics…only the Eastern Orthodox…." behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed" (Luke 1:48).
The honour that was shouted and proclaimed "Blessed Virgin Mary" from the catholic world from generation to generation , her fiat, purity of heart, humility and obedience to God, has been very faithful to His Word and thus Biblical.
We catholics honour Mary not worship her as some Christian pastors alleged. You was once a catholic you know what I'm talking about.
Kahtleen, before we go further, I just want to discuss to you some very important things about Our Mother (because Jesus is our brother) so you could better grasp what I'm talking about, is that ok?
1. When you go to an art gallery and stumble upon a very impressive and beautiful painting and you asked the curator of the gallery , "whose painting is that? it's very beautiful", the curator said ," it's the work of so and so…. his masterpiece". What had had happen?, you complimented not just the painting but more on the Painter who made the painting so beautiful. Just like Mary, she leads us to the Holy One, Jesus (The Master Painter) which is her Son. Her magnificat, (Luke 1:48).
"My soul magnifies the Lord,
and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior;
Because He has regarded the lowliness of His handmaid;
for behold, henceforth all generations shall call me blessed;
Because He who is mighty has done great things for me,
and Holy is His Name…."
2. Who gave the 10 commandments in Moses time? God. Who is the purest, greatest , most obedient and faithful follower of those commandments? God, which is Jesus Himself, the Word Incarnate.
Agree?
The Fifth commandment, "Honor Thy Father and Thy Mother".
So Jesus honours His beloved Mother to the fullest love of God's heart that we humans just could'nt comprehend..
Now, lets see the relationship of Mary to God, in particular to the Three Persons of the Most Holy Trinity:
1. God the Father……….His Daughter
2. God the Son………….His Mother (of course only the humanity of Christ but we are talking about the whole person. Jesus).
3. God the Holy Spirit…..Its Spouse
I don't think you can find any person in the whole history since the dawn of mankind with that kind of intimate relationship with the Holy Trinity. Ever!
Bottom line in the form of a (4) questions:
1) Should anyone think THE FATHER won't DEFEND His Daughter?
2) Should anyone think JESUS won't DEFEND His Mother?
3) Should anyone think THE HOLY SPIRIT won't DEFEND Its Spouse?
4) Should any one of us think, we are somehow spiritually equal to or greater than the one individual of all time that God Himself chose to have such a triune relationship with? IF SO (me thinks) that person should give some prayerful thought, as to the status, of their own humility and seriously question, the motives behind, the inklings, that may be, causing such thoughts.
I know you are very learnt and you love the Bible, the scriptural typology is very much illustrative of the Old Covenant in relation to the New Covenant established by Jesus…..wherein the old covenant is but a shadow of the REAL things to come in the New covenant. (means it is pointing to the real stuff).
MARY, AS THE NEW ARK OF THE COVENANT
God instructed Moses to build a tabernacle surrounded by heavy curtains (cf. Ex. 25-27). Within the tabernacle he was to place an ark made of acacia wood covered with gold inside and out. Within the Ark of the Covenant was placed a golden jar holding the manna, Aaron's rod that budded, and the stone tablets of the covenant (cf. Heb. 9:4).
When the ark was completed, the glory cloud of the Lord (the Shekinah Glory,breathe) covered the tent of meeting, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle (Ex. 40:34-35; Num. 9:18, 22). The verb for "to overshadow" and the metaphor of a cloud are used in the Bible to represent the presence and glory of God.
It's easy to miss the parallel between the Holy Spirit overshadowing the ark and the Holy Spirit overshadowing Mary, between the Ark of the Old Covenant as the dwelling place of God and Mary as the new dwelling place of God.
God was very specific about every exact detail of the ark (Ex. 25-30). It was a place where God himself would dwell (Ex. 25:8). God wanted his words — inscribed on stone — housed in a perfect container covered with pure gold within and without. How much more would he want his Word — Jesus — to have a perfect dwelling place! If the only begotten Son were to take up residence in the womb of a human girl, would he not make her flawless?
The Virgin Mary is the living shrine of the Word of God, the Ark of the New and Eternal Covenant. In fact, St. Luke's account of the annunciation of the angel to Mary nicely incorporates the images of the tent of meeting with God in Sinai and of the temple of Zion. Just as the cloud covered the people of God marching in the desert (cf. Num. 10:34; Deut. 33:12; Ps. 91:4) and just as the same cloud, as a sign of the divine mystery present in the midst of Israel, hovered over the Ark of the Covenant (cf. Ex. 40:35), so now the shadow of the Most High envelopes and penetrates the tabernacle of the New Covenant that is the womb of Mary
Luke weaves additional PARALLELS into the story of Mary — types that could be overlooked if one is unfamiliar with the Old Testament.
After Moses died, Joshua led the Israelites across the Jordan River into the Promised Land. Joshua established the Ark of the Covenant in Shiloh, where it stayed for more than 200 years. One day the Israelites were losing a battle with the Philistines, so they snatched the ark and rushed it to the front lines. The Philistines captured the ark, but it caused them great problems, so they sent it back to Israel (1 Sam. 5:1-6:12).
David went out to retrieve the ark (1 Sam 6:1-2). After a man named Uzzah was struck dead when he touched the ark, David was afraid and said, "How can the ark of the Lord come to me?" He left the ark in the hill country of Judea for three months. David danced and leapt in front of the ark and everyone shouted for joy. The house of Obededom, which had housed the ark, was blessed, and then David took the ark to Jerusalem (2 Sam. 6:9-14).
Compare David and the ark to Luke's account of the Visitation:
In those days Mary arose and went with haste into the hill country, to a city of Judah, and she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth. And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit and she exclaimed with a loud cry, "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For behold, when the voice of your greeting came to my ears, the babe in my womb leaped for joy. And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her from the Lord" (Luke 1:39-45).
HERE ARE THE PARALLELS:
Mary arose and went to the hill country of Judea. Ein Kerem (where Elizabeth lived) and Abu Ghosh (where the ark resided) are only a short walk apart. Mary and the ark were both on a journey to the same hill country of Judea.
When David saw the ark he rejoiced and said, "How can the ark of the Lord come to me?" Elizabeth uses almost the same words: "Why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" Luke is telling us something — drawing our minds back to the Old Testament, showing us a parallel.
When David approached the ark he shouted out and danced and leapt in front of the ark. He was wearing an ephod, the clothing of a priest. When Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, approached Elizabeth, John the Baptist leapt in his mother's womb — and John was from the priestly line of Aaron. Both leapt and danced in the presence of the ark. The Ark of the Old Covenant remained in the house of Obed-edom for three months, and Mary remained in the house of Elizabeth for three months. The place that housed the ark for three months was blessed, and in the short paragraph in Luke, Elizabeth uses the word blessed three times. Her home was certainly blessed by the presence of the ark and the Lord within.
When the Old Testament ark arrived — as when Mary arrived — they were both greeted with shouts of joy. The word for the cry of Elizabeth's greeting is a rare Greek word used in connection with Old Testament liturgical ceremonies that were centered around the ark and worship.
This word would flip on the light switch for any knowledgeable Jew.
The ark returns to its home and ends up in Jerusalem, where God's presence and glory is revealed in the temple (2 Sam. 6:12; 1 Kgs. 8:9-11). Mary returns home and eventually ends up in Jerusalem, where she presents God incarnate in the temple (Luke 1:56; 2:21-22).
It seems clear that Luke has used typology to reveal something about the place of Mary in salvation history. In the Ark of the Old Covenant, God came to his people with a spiritual presence, but in Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, God comes to dwell with his people not only spiritually but physically, in the womb of a specially prepared Jewish girl.
The Old Testament tells us that one item was placed inside the Ark of the Old Covenant while in the Sinai wilderness:
God told Moses to put the stone tablets with the Ten Commandments inside the ark (Deut. 10:3-5). Hebrews 9:4 informs us that two additional items were placed in the Ark: "a golden urn holding the manna, and Aaron's rod that budded."
Notice the amazing parallels:
In the ark was the law of God inscribed in stone; in Mary's womb was the Word of God in flesh.
In the ark was the urn of manna, the bread from heaven that kept God's people alive in the wilderness; in Mary's womb is the Bread of Life come down from heaven that brings eternal life.
In the ark was the rod of Aaron, the proof of true priesthood; in Mary's womb is the true priest. In the third century, St. Gregory the Wonder Worker said that Mary is truly an ark — "gold within and gold without, and she has received in her womb all the treasures of the sanctuary."
While the apostle John was exiled on the island of Patmos, he wrote something that would have shocked any first-century Jew. The ark of the Old Covenant had been lost for centuries — no one had seen it for about 600 years. But in Revelation 11:19, John makes a surprising announcement: "Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple?'
At this point chapter 11 ends and chapter 12 begins. But the Bible was not written with chapter divisions — these were added in the twelfth century. When John penned these words, there was no division between chapters 11 and 12; it was a continuing narrative.
What did John say immediately after seeing the Ark of the Covenant in heaven? "And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; she was with child" (Rev. 12:1-2). The woman is Mary, the Ark of the Covenant, revealed by God to John. She was seen bearing the child who would rule the world with a rod of iron (Rev. 12:5). Mary was seen as the ark and as a queen.
But does this passage really refer to Mary? Some say the woman represents Israel or the Church, and certainly she does. John's use of rich symbolism is well known, but it is obvious from the Bible itself that the woman is Mary.
The Bible begins with a real man (Adam), a real woman (Eve), and a real serpent (the devil) — and it also ends with a real man (Jesus, the Last Adam [1 Cor. 15:45]), a real woman (Mary, the New Eve [Rev. 11:19-12:2]), and a real serpent (the devil of old). All of this was foretold in Genesis 3:15.
John Henry Cardinal Newman (protestant scholar)wrote about this passage in Revelation:
I would maintain is this, that the Holy Apostle would not have spoken of the Church under this particular image unless there had existed a Blessed Virgin Mary, who was exalted on high and the object of veneration to all the faithful. No one doubts that the "man-child" spoken of is an allusion to our Lord; why then is not "the Woman" an allusion to his mother?
Later in the same chapter we read that the devil went out to persecute the woman's other offspring — Christians — which certainly seems to indicate that Mary is somehow the mother of the Church (Rev. 12:17).
Even if someone rejects Catholic teaching regarding Mary, he cannot deny that Catholics have scriptural foundations for it. And it is a teaching that has been taught by Christians from ancient times.
Here are a few representative quotations from the early Church — some written well before the New Testament books were officially compiled into the final New Testament canon.
Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296-373) was the main defender of the deity of Christ against the second-century heretics. He wrote: "O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O [Ark of the] Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides" (Homily of the Papyrus of Turin).
Gregory the Wonder Worker (c. 213-c. 270) wrote: "Let us chant the melody that has been taught us by the inspired harp of David, and say, 'Arise, O Lord, into thy rest; thou, and the ark of thy sanctuary.' For the Holy Virgin is in truth an ark, wrought with gold both within and without, that has received the whole treasury of the sanctuary" (Homily on the Annunciation to the Holy Virgin Mary).
The early Christians taught the same thing that the Catholic Church teaches today about Mary, including her being the Ark of the New Covenant.
Inside the Ark of the Old Covenant-Inside Mary, Ark of the New Covenant:
The stone tablets of the law — the word of God inscribed on stoneThe body of Jesus Christ — the word of God in the flesh.
The urn filled with manna from the wilderness — the miraculous bread come down from heaven. The womb containing Jesus, the bread of life come down from heaven (John 6:41)
The rod of Aaron that budded to prove and defend the true high priest The actual and eternal High Priest.
Mary, which Jesus gave us as our Mother, Bless us.
Kathleen,
God Bless! The second part:
MARY AS THE NEW EVE
Kathleen, if you have a chance to make your own mother, what would you like her to be ? The best of course. If God could make the first Eve, immaculately conceived why not more to His real Mom?(with God anything is possible, right?)
Definition:
From the earliest centuries of the Church, Christians have believed that as the first Adam had a female helper named Eve, so Jesus the New Adam (I Corinthians 15:45) had a "New Eve" associated with Him: His Mother Mary.
How This Teaching Exalts Christ
It is based on and reaffirms the fact that Jesus is the New Adam, come to undo the Fall of the first Adam.
It also shows the kindness and generosity of Christ. Being God, He could have redeemed the world all alone; but He chose to have a woman associate. As sin came into the world through a woman and a man, so Jesus decreed that a woman would be involved in the work of redemption.
Biblical Basis:
The New Eve is a theme which runs through the entire Bible, from Genesis to Revelation. God first foretold the coming of the second Adam and Eve in the same prophesy: "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise they head, and thou shalt bruise his heel" (Genesis 3:15).
Now the "seed" here is the Messiah, Jesus Christ, the New Adam. Since God calls Jesus the "seed (or offspring) of the woman", this woman must be the mother of the Messiah - the Virgin Mary! Christ is truly the Seed of the Woman because He was born of a virgin (without the seed of a man), and Mary is that Virgin Mother.
Throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, the New Eve is foreshadowed in the figure of Daughter Zion, Israel personified as YHWH's beloved Bride. In the New Testament, the Virgin Mary comes to embody Daughter Zion. The angel Gabriel's words to Mary at the Annunciation parallel the prophet Zephaniah's words to Daughter Zion (compare Luke 1:28, 30-32 with Zephaniah 3:14-17). This humble Jewish maiden is the personification of Zion, God's faithful bride.
Early Christians taught that the Annunciation marks the reversal of the temptation of the first Eve (see below for quotations). In the Garden, Eve believed the lies of a fallen angel, disobeyed God and so became the cause of Adam's Fall (Genesis 3:1-7).
At the Annunciation, Mary believed the words spoken by a holy angel, obeyed God and so became the Mother of the One who would save us from Adam's Fall! Mary's obedience reversed Eve's disobedience; thus Mary is the New Eve for the New Creation in Christ.
St. Elizabeth's inspired reference to Christ as the "fruit of (Mary's) womb" (Luke 1:42) also identifies Our Lady as the New Eve. As the first Eve gave Adam (whose name means "mankind") the forbidden fruit which brought about the Fall, so the New Eve gave all mankind the Fruit of her womb, Jesus, Who brought about the Redemption.
(It's unfortunate that the Protestant NIV translation replaces the word "fruit" here with "child", thus destroying the divinely-intended parallelism. The Greek word here is not teknon, child, but karpos, fruit, the exact word used in the Greek Septuagint translation of Genesis 3 to refer to the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge!)
In the Gospel of St. John, Jesus the New Adam calls Mary "Woman" (John 2:3), even as the first Adam called the first Eve "woman": "She shall be called "woman", because she was taken out of man" (Gen. 2:23). Some of Mary's detractors actually believe that Jesus was disrespectful to His Mother here (as though He would break His own Commandment: "Honour thy father and thy mother"!). In reality, His words have deep significance:
Jesus identifies Mary with the Woman of Genesis 3:15, and Himself with her Seed who will crush the head of the serpent.
St. John's depiction of Calvary clearly parallels the Garden of Eden: there is a tree (the Cross - see Galatians 3:13), a man (Jesus) and a woman (Mary). The New Adam again calls the New Eve "Woman" and declares her to be the Mother of his beloved disciple (and, by extension, of all Christians). As Eve was the "mother of the living" (Gen. 3:21), so Mary is the Mother of all who have eternal life in Christ (see the article on Mary's Spiritual Motherhood for an in-depth discussion.)
If John 19:25-27 clearly parallels the first chapters of Genesis, with Mary in the "Eve-role", in Revelation 12 we find a specific parallel to Genesis 3:15:
And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars...and behold, a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads...stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born. And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron (1-5).
Here, as in Genesis 3:15, we have a woman, a serpent/dragon and a male child who is born of (the seed of!) the woman. The dragon is Satan the "ancient serpent" (Rev 12:9), the woman's Seed/Son is Christ the New Adam, so the Woman is clearly the New Eve, the same Woman whose seed God foretold would crush the serpent's head. So this glorious Woman clearly signifies the Virgin Mary, who gave birth to Jesus the New Adam. Once again, Mary is clearly shown to be the New Eve.
Early Christian Witness
As stated above, early Christians taught that Mary's obedience at the Annunciation reversed Eve's disobedience in the Garden. In 150, Saint Justin the Martyr wrote:
Christ became man by the Virgin that the disobedience which issued from the serpent might be destroyed in the same way it originated. Eve was still an undefiled virgin when she conceived the word of the serpent and brought forth disobedience and death. But the Virgin received faith and joy, at the announcement of the angel Gabriel...and she replied, "Be it done to me according you your word". So through the mediation of the Virgin he came into the world, through whom God would crush the serpent (Apologia, ch. 100; 150 AD).
Later that same century, Irenaeus of Lyons wrote:
The seduction of a fallen angel drew Eve, a virgin espoused to a man, while the glad tidings of the holy angel drew Mary, a Virgin already espoused, to begin the plan which would dissolve the bonds of that first snare...For as the former was lead astray by the word of an angel, so that she fled from God when she had disobeyed his word, so did the latter, by and angelic communication, receive the glad tidings that she should bear God, and obeyed his word. If the former disobeyed God, the latter obeyed, so that the Virgin Mary might become the advocate of the virgin Eve. Thus, as the human race fell into bondage to death by means of a virgin, so it is rescued by a virgin; virginal disobedience is balanced in the opposite scale by virginal obedience (Against Heresies, Book 3 189 AD).
Later quotes:
"Likewise, through a Virgin, the Word of God was introduced to set up a structure of life. Thus, what had been laid waste in ruin by this sex, was by the same sex re-established in salvation. Eve had believed the serpent; Mary believed Gabriel. That which the one destroyed by believing, the other, by believing, set straight." (Tertullian, The Flesh of Christ 17:4; 210 AD)
"(The Lord) was not averse to males, for he took the form of a male, nor to females, for of a female he was born. Besides, there is a great mystery here: that just as death comes to us through a woman, Life is born to us through a woman; that the devil, defeated, would be tormented by each nature, feminine and masculine, as he had taken delight in the defection of both" (Augustine Christian Combat 22:24; 396 AD).
Objections:
1. The Woman of Genesis 3:15 is Eve, not Mary. The posterity of Eve includes the Messiah, in whose power humanity will win a victory over Satan" (1).
Scripture has many senses; the literal sense is only one. This passage has both a literal/historical sense and a prophetic/messianic sense. The Church has always believed that Genesis 3:15 had a deeper, messianic significance beyond what may seem to be the literal sense. Most Protestants acknowledge this, calling Jesus the Seed of the woman and using this passage to prove His virginal conception.
When God first spoke these words in the Garden of Eden, those present may have thought that He was only referring to Eve, since she was the only woman at that time. But God was more truly referring to a later woman who would conceive and bear the Savior while remaining a virgin. This of course is Mary, and her association here with the first Eve indicates that she would be a "new" Eve, a replacement for the original mother of the race
: "The seed of the woman was understood to refer to the Redeemer...and thus the Mother of the Redeemer came to be seen as the woman. Since the second century this direct messianic-marian interpretation has been expounded by individual Fathers".
2. "The literal sense of (Genesis 3:15) is that Eve (not Mary) and her posterity are in moral welfare against Satan and his offspring, culminating in the crushing victory of the Messiah over Satan and his hosts. The "woman" is obviously Eve, and the 'seed of the woman' is clearly the literal offspring of Eve (see Gen. 4:1, 25), leading up to and culminating in the victory of Christ over Satan (Romans 16:20)". (3)
This interpretation of this passage not only contradicts the early Christian interpretation as represented by the Fathers, but also that of many Protestants! It effectively throws away the messianic significance of Genesis 3:15 by arguing that the "seed of the woman" is just Eve's general posterity, not the Messiah!
Is this how far some Evangelicals are willing to go to cut down Mary? They are willing to cut down Jesus in the process?
Here is St. Irenaeus of Lyons explanation of Gen 3:15:
'As thou canst perceive in Genesis that God said to the serpent, "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed...". For from that time, He who should be born of a woman, [namely] from the Virgin, after the likeness of Adam, was preached as keeping watch for the head of the serpent' (Against Heresies).
Irenaeus wrote this in 189 AD! He was the disciple of a Christian named Polycarp, who was a disciple of St. John the Apostle himself! We can safely trust his interpretation.
3. Eve had other children, and fell into sin before having them. If there is any correlation then so did Mary.
This faulty logic could be turned against Jesus, the New Adam, as follows: "The first Adam had a wife and children on earth, and also fell into sin. If there is any correlation then so did Jesus."
The logical errors here are obvious: Jesus the New Adam need not parallel the first Adam in absolutely every single respect, and the same goes for Mary the New Eve. Christ didn't have children or disobey God as Adam did, yet He is still the New Adam; and Mary didn't have multiple children or sin like Eve, but she is still the New Eve.
4. The Woman of Revelations 12:1 is Israel and the Church, not Mary.
The Woman clothed with the sun is a composite image of Israel, Mary and the Church, and hence the totality of the New Eve. Her celestial garments and "birth pangs" relate to Israel (see Gen. 37:9-10), her giving birth to Christ identifies her with Mary (compare Rev 12:5 with Luke 2:7) and her later persecution by the Devil associates her with the Church (Rev. 12:13-17). All three of these feminine entities are combined in the image of the New Eve.
Consider this: there are three in this sign -- the dragon, the child, and the woman. The dragon signifies a person, namely Satan; the child is Jesus Christ, another Person, so consistent exegesis would demand that the woman also be an individual person. Israel and the Church are not individual persons, but Mary is. So this must be Mary. As we saw above, Mary is the personification of Daughter Zion. She is also the Image and Model of Mother Church. So in this vision she stands in for both of them.
5. The Church is the New Eve, since she is the Bride of Christ.
Yes, Mother Church is the New Eve, and Mary is the Image and Model of the Church, as well as her pre-eminent member. So she is the "personal" New Eve, as the Church is the "corporate" New Eve. We parallel Jesus and Mary because both are "persons"; Jesus Christ is not a corporate entity but a Divine Person, and Mary is a human person. Therefore Mary-as-New Eve parallels Jesus-as-New Adam more precisely than does the Church. Yet the Church is not excluded from being the New Eve, the Mother of redeemed humanity.
6. Eve was Adam's wife, but Mary was Jesus' Mother; so Mary could not be the New Eve.
I Corinthians 11:12 says "As the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God". That means that in the beginning the first woman was formed from the first man, but ever since then all men have been born of woman. If that is the current, divinely ordained order of things, it is fitting that the New Adam should be born of the New Eve.
Besides, all members of the Church make up the "Bride of Christ". Since Mary is a member of the Church, she is also the "bride of Christ" in a spiritual sense.
7. The New Adam needs no "New Eve"; He saves us all by Himself.
Mary does not "help" Jesus save the world, nor does Jesus need her help. His death is sufficient to redeem everyone. Yet though He did not need her, He chooses to include a woman in His work because the original Fall involved a man and a woman. So now a Man and a woman are involved in bringing about the Redemption; the Man directly, the woman indirectly and subordinate to Him. Jesus does not need Mary, He freely chose her out of His infinite generosity.
8. Why must a woman be involved in the Redemption?
Because in God's original plan, life - both physical and spiritual - must be transmitted by a man and a woman. Had Adam and Eve not fallen, they would have transmitted spiritual life to their children along with their physical existence. When they fell they lost their spiritual life and so could not give it to their offspring.
Since God had ordained that all life must come from both a man and a woman, he ordained that the restoration of spiritual life to humanity must also occur by a man and a woman. The Man is Jesus Christ, and the woman is the Virgin Mary.
9. So you're saying that as Adam and Eve both sinned, so Jesus and Mary both save us from sin? That's blasphemy! Mary is not our savior!
The Church does not teach that Mary is our savior. Though Adam and Eve both sinned, they did not sin equally. The Bible says "in Adam all die" (I Corinthians 15:22), not "in Adam and Eve all die". It also says "by one man sin entered into the world" (Romans 5:12), not "by one man and one woman"! Eve's sin was not equal to that of Adam. Hers was the first human sin, and the impetus for his disobedience, but his sin actually caused the Fall since he was the first human being and thus the head of the human race.
Because the man's sin caused the Fall, the Savior had to be a man - a "New Adam" to be the head of a new, redeemed humanity. This is why St. Paul writes "As in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive" (I Cor 15:22) and "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous" (Romans 5:19). The first man sinned, the Man Jesus saves us from sin. Paul never mentions Eve in any of the First Adam/Second Adam passages.
The first woman's sin did not directly cause the Fall, but it was the first act of disobedience against God. So God chose to have another woman--Mary--undo that first act of disobedience. As Eve disobeyed God and became the indirect cause of the Fall by giving Adam the fruit (Genesis 3:6), so Mary obeyed God (Lk 1:38) and so became the indirect cause of our salvation by bringing the Savior into the world.
Mary is the indirect cause of the Redemption, not the direct cause. Even as Eve was the indirect, not direct, cause of the Fall. Jesus is the direct cause of our salvation, Who saves us by His Death and Resurrection. Yet He could not have died or risen had he not assumed a human nature, which He got from Mary. Thus she did play a part in bringing about our Redemption, but her role was not equal to that of Jesus, even as Eve's sin was not equal to Adam's. Thus Jesus is our Savior, not Mary.
10. Is this related to the Catholic belief that Mary is the "Coredemptrix"?
Those who use that Marian title (which has not been officially defined by the Church) do use the New Eve concept to support it. Like the title New Eve, Coredemptrix does not mean that Mary is equal to Jesus or redeems the world with Him. The suffix "co" comes from the Latin word cum, meaning "with". So Coredemptrix literally means "Woman with the Redeemer", not "fellow-Redeemer" (as some non-Catholics falsely interpret it). It simply signifies that Mary is the Woman associated with Jesus our Redeemer, not "another Savior" apart from Him.
As stated above, however, the title has not been declared an article of faith, so one does not have to use it.
11. This "New Eve" thing is another Catholic invention fabricated to exalt Mary.
As we saw above, this is a very ancient Christian teaching, based on the Bible and taught by second century Christians. Mary-as-New Eve is not a later concept; it is one of the earliest Christian portrayals of Mary! We Catholics believe it because we are the same Church that existed and taught it in the early centuries.
Just a note, remember what Jesus said about the Church..."it is like a mustard seed and grows into a huge tree".
The church, started by Jesus to the 12 sinners (Apostles)to the first handful group of early chritians to the first church of Jerusalem in Acts and to......Today (1 billion and more). The doctrines develop through the years e.g. the first 100 to 200 years christian leaders were debating the Deity of Christ! and weere not ironed and proclaimed until the second/third century.
The church as from the mustard seed is of the same genetic DNA as of the gigantic tree it became.
Usually doctrines and dogmas are proclaimed when its concept that was being practiced thru the years was challenged at that point in time by some people.
The church acts in order to protect and preserve the orthodoxy and truth.
God Bless!
Mark, with all due respect, there is absolutely nothing in the scriptures to support any of the teachings you've outlined above.
Beyond the fact that Mary was a virgin, a chosen vessel, the mother of Jesus, and a godly woman there is no proof text, no biblical support for her sinlessness, or her assumption. She is not exalted above any mortal.
According to Luke 11:27–28, Jesus Himself denied such views when He taught that those who obey God are actually far more blessed than Mary — than if they had given birth to the Messiah Himself: "As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd called out, ‘Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you.’ He replied, ‘Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.’" He also told us that there was none born of women (Mary included) as great as John the Baptist.
In the Catholic Catechism we read, "Alongside her Son, Mary has become part of this plan [of salvation] by contributing her share to the justification of the human race, beginning with herself and extending to everyone ever justified." That’s blasphemous. She cannot atone for or justify or save anyone. There is but One name by which men are saved (and justified), and that’s Jesus!
Catholic authorities confess that there is no scriptural warrant for their unique teachings on Mary and that Catholic views are a result of the evolution of Church tradition and papal pronouncement. Furthermore, the Church is the bride of the Lord Jesus Christ, not the daughter of Mary. Therefore, to present Mary as the mother of the Church is not mystic, but simply ridiculous. It is also not biblical.
Christ said that whatever we ask the Father in His name, will be given us (John 15:16; 16:23). We can go directly to the Father through the Son; Mary is never presented as a mediatrix or intercessor. No one in the New Testament ever prayed to her.
As for Mary being the “New Eve”, that too is ridiculous as she would have to be Jesus’ bride. The dots do not connect. Again, there is no scriptural support for such a teaching. If it were true as you say, then it's such a vital doctrine that it would be clearly outlined. It's not, and for good reason.
Again, we simply have to agree to disagree. I believe you believe strongly in what you profess, I just happen to believe it’s contrary to God’s own word.
Be blessed,
Kathleen
Kathleen,
Jesus in All!
I hope and pray if you could just read my previous post and my answer to you so you could better understand what my point is.
I'm not selling this to you. I'm merely explaning the Catholic position.
I'm sorry to say but I think I just gave you a lot of Scriptural basis for the Titles of Our Blessed Mother above. I don't know if you missed them, anyways, if you are looking for the EXACT words of Immaculate Conception or Assumption of Mary in the Bible, I agree you can not find it,however, same with the words of Bible or Holy Trinity.
The key to remember is, the concept and idea is expressed explicitly or implicitly in the Scriptures.
You said she is not exalted above any human, wow! You just gave most of the reasons why she is more exalted....being the Mother of Jesus, the chosen Vessel etc., the problem is you had looked at it as if it's just "mere" thing again.
Could you not see the great honor and grace given by her own Son, Jesus!?
To us Catholics the personhood of Mary isn't like a mere vessel where God just used once and afterwards set aside with, NO, NO, that's not the way God works specially to His dear mom.
Just think of this, if God had showed and bestowed more graces to Moses, Elijah, etc compared to other humans...do you honestly think He would make less to His own Mother, which is where His Humanity was derived from? From which He asked a permission first from her to make her body a Holy Sanctuary for His PURE Humanity to reside, which was used to redeemed us with?
Now you quoted Luke 11:27–28, wherein Jesus had seemed like putting down his own mother, as if Jesus would violate His own Commandment,"Honor thy father and thy mother". Yes, Jesus said that the one who hears and obeys the word of God is more blessed. And who is more blessed than His Mother Mary who on the first request from God on the annunciation (could you just imagine from all eternity God choose only her to be His Mom, what an honor and privelege, huh?)Son of God-Messiah-Jesus to be His Mother? and what was her answer to God: the sweet "YES, let it be done to me ACCORDING to your Word" and from then on she faithfully and obediently kept it (Word of God) spiritually and literally by parenting, nursing and keeping the baby Jesus (Word of God)safe by her side!
If you don't see the magnificence of God's love to His mother and the honor He gave her, I honestly don't know how else.
Mary Conceived without sin: (3-parts)
1.Salvation can be both preservative and redemptive. That is why Mary also needs a Savior just like for the rest of us. 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. 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:
(Jude 24-25)"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.
Six hundred years ago, the great Franciscan theologian Duns Scotus explained that falling into sin could be likened to a man approaching unaware a deep ditch. If he falls into the ditch, he needs someone to lower a rope and save him. But if someone were to warn him of the danger ahead, preventing the man from falling into the ditch at all, he would be saved from falling in the first place. Likewise, Mary was saved from sin by receiving the grace to be preserved from it. But she was still saved.
But what about "all have sinned" (Rom. 3:23) and "if any man says he has no sin he is a liar and the truth is not in him" (1 John 1:8)? Wouldn’t "all" and "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 faithful Christian would dare say that. Yet no Christian can deny the plain texts of Scripture declaring Christ’s full humanity either. Thus, to take 1 John 1:8 in a strict, literal sense would apply "any man" to Jesus as well.
The truth is Jesus Christ was an exception to Romans 3:23 and 1 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 question now is: Are there any other exceptions to this rule? Yes—millions of them.
Both Romans 3:23 and 1 John 1:9 deal with personal rather than original sin. (Romans 5 deals 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 1 John 1:8. First John 1:8 obviously refers to personal sin because in the very next verse, 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. (Rom. 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. 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. So, there are and have been millions of exceptions to Romans 3:23 and 1 John 1:8.
2.If you read my post on Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant.
3.When Archangel Gabriel greeted and adressed her not as a name of Mary but as a name of..."Hail FULL of grace the Lord is with you"...(Luke 1:28). St. Luke wrote in greek "kecharitomene" correctly translated as "FULL of Grace" since it's antiquity instead of wash-down and the modern politically correct translation of the Bible today. Now when you have a cup that is full in the truest sense (up to the rim) you don't have any space or room for other stuff (in Mary's case- sins because she was FULL of Grace).
What’s in a name? According to Scripture, quite a lot.
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.
I'm just curious, why do you think Jesus when addressing His beloved mother, called her "woman" 12X times in the Bible? At the foot of the cross where Jesus is about to die and addressed His mom as "woman" and gave her to John as his mother? (kind of odd don't you think? because John's real mother was there also at the cruxifition).
Now:
Do you think Jesus was trying to downgrade or put her down while comparing to His disciples and followers?
Do you think Jesus was thinking she was not that important anymore because she already did her job as "mere vessel"?
Or do you think Jesus was trying to tell us(mortals) that was pointing her to the "woman" prophesized in the first Book (Genesis) and the "woman" in the last Book (Revelation)?
As I said before Jesus said The Spirit of Truth will guide you to ALL (EVERY ONE- WHOLE -FULLNESS) Truth and the things to COME.
Inspite of human (Peter and popes included) sins and weaknesses, God is faithful to His promise.
God Bless.
Kathleen,
The reason why it's not clearly outline in the Bible yet is because we need (specially the early years of christianity, imagine the confusion of the time where a claim was made that a human is God).
They need to established first the Deity of Christ and the nature of God as Three persons in one Godhead, which one Book is not even enough to fit satisfactorily.
Remember when Apostle John said that one Book is not sufficient to contain ALL the truths about Jesus and His redemptive plan and would fill the whole world.
This was the reason why Jesus said the Spirit of Truth will lead you to ALL Truth and declare to you the things to COME (JN 16:13).
The church is the one with Jesus' Authority in his absence
to speak for Him guided by the Spirit of Truth.
So I believed the promise of Jesus, My Savior!
Mark,
On the subject of Mary alone you've provided 11 pages of typed commentary (I know, I've printed it off). I've been perusing it, and I will respond again when at last I can address in some brevity the content.
I must say, though, that even as I read through it I am greatly grieved. More on that later too ...
Also, there is no implicit nor explicit biblical teachings about the doctrines and/or dogma & tradition related to Mary's exalted status, as you say. What hits me straightaway is the convoluted connecting of the dots that form such teachings.
I'll be back with more ...
Be blessed,
Kathleen
Matthew 16:18 "I (Jesus) will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it."
It's pretty clear: Jesus alone is the head of the church.
Ephesians 1:19 "That power is like the working of his mighty strength, which he exerted in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every title that can be given, not only in the present age but also in the one to come. And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way."
Ephesians 3:10-12 His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms, according to his eternal purpose which he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord. In him and through faith in him we may approach God with freedom and confidence."
Ephesians 3:20-21 "Now to him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to his power that is at work within us, to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever and ever!"
Ephesians 5:23-24 "For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything."
Ephesians 5:26-27 "Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless."
Colossians 1:16-18 "For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church;"
The entire Book of Hebrews would be an appropriate place to interject Jesus' mother as His "helper" if there were any intent or truth in that. He stands alone as the sole source of mediation, justification & eternal life. No helper is needed.
Throughout the Book of Acts we read of the various churches, of the gathering of believers as the church (the Body, the very Bride of Christ), yet nowhere is Mary even mentioned, much less exalted as the "mother" of the Church, or even a leader.
Read any of the Epistles, and again she is notably absent. She is never ... not once ... mentioned.
In fact, whenever and wherever the church is identified, it is as Christ's bride, or as Christ's body. He is the head of the church.
If ever there were a place for Mary to be identified as the church's mother, or to be viewed in some exalted capacity, there are plenty of scriptural narratives wherein such a designation would be appropriate, even mandatory. As it is, you have to contrive such doctrine because it simply cannot be supported with scripture.
What's more, such a doctrine degrades the very efficacy of Christ's sacrifice. His atonement alone is sufficient to open the way for all believers to stand directly before the Father, justified. There is absolutely no reason to exalt/deify Mary. "It is finished!" in Christ.
Enough for one day ...
Kathleen
A new day's thoughts as it concerns the Book of Revelation and the "woman" spoken of in chapter 12. Whether this passage or others, I have found that the RCC often allegorizes and/or takes hostage texts in such a way as to make them mean something that was never intended. They also deny the ongoing plan for Israel in God's purposes.
To the "coronation" ...
This brings us to the identity of the woman. Who is this strange woman who appears clothed with the sun and the moon under her feet and twelve stars in a crown around her head? The Roman Catholics say it is Mary, since she was the mother of Jesus, as this account shows the symbolic woman to be. But the problem with that theory is that there is no way you can fit Mary into Verse 6! There we learn that "the woman fled into the desert to a place prepared for her by God where she might be taken care of for 1,260 days."
That never happened to Mary, and it never will. This is not a picture of an individual but rather of a group of people.
Some commentators say she symbolizes the church. The church is pictured at the close of Revelation as the bride of Christ, i.e. as a woman. But it is impossible for this woman to represent the church because the church did not produce Jesus. It is quite the other way around. It was the Lord who produced the church -- the church is born out of the wounded side of Jesus. Therefore that symbolism does not fit the picture here.
We must, therefore, look at the clues that are given us to know the identity of this woman. She is clothed with the sun, the moon is under her feet, and a crown of twelve stars around her head. The only other place where those three symbols are used together in this way is in Genesis 37, the story of Joseph as a young boy who has a dream. He dreamt one night that the sun, the moon and 11 stars came and bowed down before him. He made the mistake of telling his dream to his father and mother and his brothers, and they were very upset by it. His father rightly interpreted it to mean that Joseph was to be exalted in some way, and the whole family would come and bow down before him. We know from subsequent history that this actually did happen. Joseph became the second ruler of Egypt and his father and mother and his 11 brothers all came and bowed down before him.
It is clearly then a description of the nation of Israel. (Joseph would make the twelfth of the stars.) The Apostle Paul says of the Jews in Romans 9:5: "To them is traced the human ancestry of Christ." It was Israel that humanly brought forth the Christ. That is why Jesus told the woman at the well of Samaria, "Salvation is from the Jews," (John 4:22 KJV). It comes to Gentiles by that route. So the woman here is Israel, brought to prominence again. As one commentator well describes it, "Thus she is seen clothed with the glory of the sun -- that is of Christ himself as He will presently appear in supreme power as the Son of Righteousness (Malachi 4:2); for the sun is the ruler of the day. As a consequence, her glory of old before the day -- dawn, the reflected light of her typical system, is like the moon under her feet. Upon her head the crown of 12 stars speaks naturally of her twelve tribes, planets now around the central sun."
Source: http://www.raystedman.org/revelation/4204.html
Kathleen,
Thanks for the reply.
I have wrote the answers to all your objections that are pretty much covered about Our Mother from the Scriptures.
Of course Jesus is the Head of the Church, the Foundation,He IS GOD! We agree with all you have posted about Jesus as Head, Amen. However you missed my point. We are not putting Mary as in equal footing with her Son , No way! We are just following what Jesus in the Bible told us so... honoring her because it is God who "breath" and "overshadowed" her (if you read my post about how GOD "overshadowed" the Old covenant and as well as the New Covenant and more).
Jesus never intended the idea of it's just Jesus and me stuff BUT Jesus and His whole family stuff, it's about the commnity of God!
I guess we are at a point where we cannot agree.
But we as Catholics and Orthodox Christians for 2,000 years will continue to give honor to Mary as Christ did and expressly written in the Scriptures...."behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed" (Luke 1:48).
We proudly follow Our Redeemer and God of calling her Our Mother and "The Blessed Virgin Mary" as part of our calendar and doctrine!
Glory to God! Amen
Kathleen,
You are always asking for "proof text".
You wrote, "What hits me straightaway is the convoluted connecting of the dots that form such teachings."
Do you have any idea of how the Ark of OT was so important, with people of God paying the honor, reverence, and holiness because Jews knew VERY well the presence, power and the word of God is IN the Ark. Look into the Book of Genesis:
Of how's God Holy Spirit had "OVERSHADOWED" the Ark!
Of how's the GLORY CLOUD OF GOD descended to the Ark!
Of how's this guy who accidentally just touched the Ark and GOD struck him DEAD! of only holy priests could touch!
Of how the people of God (Moses, David and the Jews) gave homage, honor to the ARK of GOD in OT!
Of how the people of God treated the ARK with such reverence and holiness!
Of why GOD instructed the Ark to be made PURE GOLD INSIDE and OUT! that gold symbolizes PURITY and Royalty!
Of Why such reverence that GOD HIMSELF demanded from HIS people?
Just think of what is INSIDE of the ARK of OT and the ARK of NT, then you will clearly see why God asked.....you!
Mark,
I read these commentaries on Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant and Mary as New Eve on other catholic sites, which are all very revealing and sublime.
Up to this day I still couldn't fully digest the magnificence of God's grace given to Mary, exalted her above any other creature be that of angels or saints.
So may I suggest, pls. don't believe in these modern day christian leaders who have no idea of what they're talking about the Mother Of Jesus. (which by the way were all from human traditions started by mere humans named Luther and Calvin).
To barrow words from the mouth of Archangel Gabriel may I honor my great Mother..."Hail, Full of Grace!
Truly Biblical! truly amazing!
Thanks Marielle and may the Mother of Our Redemeer, the Chosen Vessel, the Morning Star, the Golden Vase and the Ark of the New Covenant bless you and lead you to Christ, her Son!
Amen! Glory to God in the Highest!
Post a Comment