Genesis 3:15greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread |
Who is the woman and her "seed" according to catholics?
-- Jamey (jcreel@hcsmail.com), May 03, 1999
Why according to Catholics? It should be the same for all.It is clearly talking about Eve and her 'seed' is her offspring... her children and their chilred, and the children after, and so on so on......
-- Rev. Raymond A. Burkle (cyclist@ncn.net), June 05, 1999.
It's not that "clear." The Catholics still believe that the "woman" in Revelation with 12 stars is Mary, which it is couln't be. Neither could the woman is Genesis "just" be Eve.Woman tend to be representative.
The search for Truth,
-- Jamey (jcreel@hcsmail.com), June 05, 1999.
There are three great Individuals in Rev. 12: the Serpent, the Man- Child, and the Woman. We know that the Serpent is Satan but also represents all the forces of evil. We know that the Man-Child is our Lord Himself but also represents the God-head (three Persons). It breaks the symmetry of the passage to insist that the Woman is exclusively a representative; rather, it fits much better to see her as a primary reference to Mary who represents all the faithful.Of course, the imagery of Rev. 12 hearkens back to Gen 3 where we have the same three characters on the stage: the Serpent (singular), the Seed (singular), and the Woman (singular). I guess Jamey would need to explain why he would want to break this symmetry in order to deny a reference to the Blessed Virgin.
-- David Palm (djpalm64@yahoo.com), June 07, 1999.
David P.The "symmetry" seems not to be in Revelation anway if Mary is supposed to be this "women." First, as "Revelation" says this book is about future events not past happenings. Second, this occurs in chapter 12, in the middle of the book, not the begining at the "birth." Third, the moon, stars, etc are not "under" Mary's "feet" before Jesus was "born."
-- Jamey (jcreel@hcsmail.com), June 07, 1999.
The visions of Revelation jump back and forth between earth and heaven. In heaven there is no time. St. John saw the woman with moon and stars as a heavenly reality, outside of time.But Jamey, you didn't answer my question. If the other characters in this scene are individuals (and they are) then why do you suddenly break the symmetry of the passage to insist that the Woman is exclusively a collective. And if she is an individual after all, who do you suppose she might be?
-- David Palm (djpalm64@yahoo.com), June 08, 1999.
First there is "time" in Revelations. Rev 11:3, it's there for some reason. Then in Rev 12:12 we find the devil has but a short time, so clearly there is time in both heavens realm and earths. The only place to which time is not relevant is when its dealing with The God He aint bound by our time."If the other characters in this scene are individuals (and they are)"
Are your sure? In 12:3 we find a dragon with ten horns. Even in the prophecy of Daniel 8 we know that horns represented different kingdoms. Is this just a coincidence? You decide, your not going to believe me anyway. Just like ragoo its in there. :>)
Now as to the "symmetry", start at the beginning of the equation Gen 3:15
NASB/NAB 15 And I will put *enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; *He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel.;
Now ask who is HE? Who is the Bridegroom? (Mat 9:15; Luke 5:35; John 3:29; Rev 18:23)Then ask, who is His Bride listed in Revelation? Then ask, what is meant by "head" and "heel."
Further, if we follow your symmetry then Mary could not possibly be a perpetual virgin:
Rev 12:17 17 So the dragon was enraged with the woman, and went off to *make war with the rest of her *children, who *keep the commandments of God and *hold to the testimony of Jesus Here she has other children which Ive been told Catholics deny anyway.
The woman of Revelation is not an individual. Even your own NAB thinks it is the nation of Israel - according to the footnotes. But what is it? It is the True "Church (Rev 14:1;20:6) in which Jesus is the cornerstone. The women is the bride of Christ (Rev 21:2,9; 22:17).
The search,
-- Jamey (jcreel@hcsmail.com), June 08, 1999.
Sorry for the confusion, after reading my post above I only answered whom the women / bride OF Christ is. I still did not answer the question as to who the women of Rev 12 was, it has to be the Kingdom of The God per the description of Rev 12:11 AGREAT *sign appeared *in heaven: *a woman *clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars;
A woman with the moon under her feet could only be IN Heaven. And, since Christ said He was not of this world but of Heaven itself, theres only one explanation.
-- Jamey (jcreel@hcsmail.com), June 09, 1999.
"The woman is clothed with the sun"-Adam and Eve after recognizing their sin clothed theirselves. But, God gave them better clothing, animal skins(lamb?)The woman is in the heat (needs to be nourished in the wilderness)(shelter/earth opens up) after being clothed with the sun(SUNDAY perhaps?)"12 stars upon her head"- in her mind she knows/realizes the truth of the God of Israel, will she obey?
"She stands upon the moon"-after recognizing her faults she crushes the head of the prince of darkness(false teaching/deception/a certain church?)revenge is sweet , i have listened to you before but now will obey God.
It was very hard to crush the head of the serpent - "Her heel is bruised" i had to stomp on it's head many times to crush it and in the attempt have been harmed(Reformation)(sunday sabbath)
Her seed is worthy to be the bride after nourishment from.............the words wrote in the little book?...........the message of the three angels in Revelation?...............the seven thunders?
-- Michael(non-catholic) (mdroe@erinet.com), June 09, 1999.
I don't think you have made your case, Jamey. A couple of quick points:The dragon of Rev 12 is clearly an individual (Satan) since verse 9 says exactly that. The Man-child of Rev 12 is also an individual.
Also, there is a clear parallel in Rev 12 to Gen 3 where, again, the Serpent is an individual and the Seed is an individual. So making the Woman exclusively a collective is running against the clear context.
Speaking of the Woman's "offspring" in Rev 12 has no bearing on Mary's perpetual virginity. We are the adopted children of God. Jesus is our brother, by adoption. Mary is Jesus' mother. Therefore we are Mary's offspring, by adoption. QED.
Also, Catholic theology has always seen the Blessed Virgin as a representative of the whole people of God. She is the quintessential disciple, the "handmaid of the Lord", eager and willing to be always obedient and faithful. She is the one selected from all Israel to bear the Messiah. She is the mother of God Incarnate; she brings the Incarnate Word to all of us. Thus she in a very special sense represents God's people. And so it is not an either/or situation in Rev 12 but a both/and. I am simply saying that to deny that the vision has reference to the Blessed Virgin damages the context and the parallelism of the imagery rather badly.
-- David Palm (djpalm64@yahoo.com), June 09, 1999.
While I'm not certain of the meaning of all of the symbols and I believe there is alot of shifting in time (as David Palm pointed out), here's a few thoughts for consideration regarding the woman in Rev 12:"Clothed in the sun" -- a people upon whom the favor of God rests?
"Crown of 12 stars on her head" -- the 12 tribes of Israel?
She gave birth to a male child whom the devil attempted to devour the moment he was born -- the birth of Jesus whom the devil attempted to kill by slaying all the firstborn?
Child was/is to rule ALL nations with an iron scepter -- prophecy regarding Jesus reigning over all of the earth's kingdoms from the New Jerusalem?
Child was snatched up to God and his throne -- again, Jesus regarding his ascension into Heaven to be seated on his throne?
Woman fled into the desert because she is pursued by the dragon to a place prepared for her by God -- now, we shift into the future and see Israel fleeing to Petra from the Anti-Christ?
In my view, the "woman" is clearly not Mary. Just as the church is a group of people personified in scripture as a woman (the "Bride of Christ"), this "woman" in Revelations is also a group of people . . . Israel.
While Jesus was indeed birthed physically by Mary, it can also be said that He was birthed by Israel.
-- David (David@matt6:33.com), June 09, 1999.
I would agree with very much of what David just wrote. I would only add that I think it fractures the parallelism of the passage, as well as its companion passage of Gen 3:15, to insist that the Woman is not in any sense the Blessed Virgin Mary. Serpent = individual, Man- child = individual, Woman = individual, both here and in Gen 3.But it is not an either/or situation; it's a both/and. Notice, for instance, how St. Paul can very naturally refer to two individual women, Sarah and Hagar, as also being representatives of two covenants and two people groups: see Gal 4:24-26. So too with Mary. She is an individual, but as the New Eve she represents the whole people of God.
-- David Palm (djpalm64@yahoo.com), June 09, 1999.
We are the adopted children of God.You may claim to be adopted, I do not. When I pray, as I was taught, my Father not my step dad.
If the other characters in this scene are individuals (and they are)
Here you claim individuals.
Blessed Virgin as a representative of the whole people of God.
Here you have representatives.
You conveniently switch back and forth as the mood suits? The horns and diadems are representative of something and its not just the devil personally. If that's true then all of the other prophecies and their meaning must be ignored - and they were put together for some purpose.
To comment to the David above, I agree the woman is not Mary:
it can also be said that He was birthed by Israel.
I cant see how past happenings can be read into a Book named Revelation. Of things to comes. The rest of the Bible does that for us.
While some people from Israel are part of the Church its not representative of whole. I dont believe Jesus was born of Israel He was from Heaven. Isa 42
As for Mary being a "new Eve", if this is so then since Christ is the new Adam, as the Bible says (new Eve is never stated as being Mary anyway), then, what kind of redneck sense does that make :>).
-- Jamey (jcreel@hcsmial.com), June 09, 1999.
<< You may claim to be adopted, I do not. When I pray, as I was taught, my Father not my step dad. >>"But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba! Father!" So through God you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son then an heir (Gal 4:4-7).
See also Rom 8:22-23.
We are only God's children by adoption. (Unless you are claiming to be diety I don't think you really believe that you are God's begotten child. Do you?) Jesus is our brother (Heb 2:11). Mary is Jesus' mother. Therefore, Mary is our mother by adoption. That is why Catholics speak of the Blessed Virgin as our mother.
I have never heard any adopted child call his father "Step Dad." Have you?
<< Here you claim individuals. . . . Here you have representatives. . . . You conveniently switch back and forth as the mood suits? >>
I said several times that it is both/and, not either/or. Please read my comments above again.
I supplied a very specific example from St. Paul in which an individual woman is also representative of something collective and greater than herself. There's excellent biblical precedent; I'm not just making up the concept, the Bible authors do that. I contend that exactly the same thing is true in Rev 12. It is you who are trying to eliminate completely the individual reference to the Blessed Virgin, thus destroying the symmetry of the passage and its allusion to Gen 3:15.
<< The horns and diadems are representative of something and its not just the devil personally. >>
But verse 9 says specifically that the Dragon is Satan himself, an individual. And yet I agree with you completely that he also represents a greater collective. Both/and, not either/or as you wish to make it.
Put your cards on the table please. Is the Dragon an individual or exclusively a representative? Is the Man-child an individual or exclusively a representative? (We already know that you think the Woman is exclusively representative.)
<< As for Mary being a "new Eve", ... >>
Jesus is the new Moses. Does every parallel fit between Moses and Jesus? Nope. John the Baptist was the new Elijah. Do their lives parallel exactly? Nope. Jesus is the new Adam. Every detail the same? Nope.
Mary is the new Eve in that, as Eve brought death to all mankind through her disobedience and her "no" to God, Mary brought life to all mankind through her obedience and her "yes" to God. The notion that Mary is the new Eve appears so universally in the early Church, so chronologically and geographically ubiquitously, that there is no other plausible explanation than that this was taught to the early Church by the Apostles themselves. It is Apostolic Tradition and it is God's Word just as surely as Scripture is God's Word: "So then, my brethren, hold fast to the traditions I handed on to you whether by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess 2:15).
-- David Palm (djpalm64@yahoo.com), June 10, 1999.
No where in the Bible is Mary said to be a "new Eve." She, because of her loyal faith, was given honor to be the mother of the Son of God - that's all the Bible says.
-- Jamey (jcreel@hcsmail.com), June 10, 1999.
Jamey, I didn't say it was in the Bible. I said it was part of the Apostolic Tradition, handed on by word of mouth. Now, perhaps you will tell us all why you contradict the Scripture by insisting that we only believe what is in the written Word and discard the orally transmitted Word."So then, my brethren, hold fast to the traditions I handed on to you whether by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess 2:15).
Why do you dicard that which is handed on by word of mouth, in violation of this Scripture?
-- David Palm (djpalm64@yahoo.com), June 11, 1999.
Remember David P. not all people could read during that time. If the word "or" was "and" in that verse then you may have a point.As i have stated before a tradition is a thing that happened in the past. You may claim apostolic succession from about 100 A.D. but, what of the 67 years that false tradition and doctrine could have entered the "church"?
-- Michael(non-catholic) (mdroe@erinet.com), June 11, 1999.
Two problems with your position, Michael.First, the Greek text doesn't have the word "or". It uses the word eite, "whether" in both places. Translating very literally it says:
"Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions which you were taught whether by word of mouth, whether by letter."
So clearly St. Paul meant that both modes of transmission of Divine Revelation are binding on Christians.
Second, did everybody suddenly learn to read between the time St. Paul wrote and A.D. 100? Of course not, which only goes to demonstrate my point. Christians have always relied on the orally transmitted Apostolic Tradition; in the earliest centuries they relied on it even more than on Scripture, because they did not know for sure which books even belonged in the New Testament. In fact, they drew on that oral Tradition to know which books belonged in the New Testament.
So, Michael, the same question goes to you as to Jamey. Why do you violate the Scriptures by rejecting the orally transmitted Apostolic Tradition? Paul says you're bound by it. Why do you say you're not?
-- David Palm (djpalm64@yahoo.com), June 12, 1999.
The book of Revelation contains prophecies that are immediate and also fulfilled at a later time. "Write, therefore, what you have seen, what IS NOW and what will take place later" (Rev 1:19). John wrote in a time when certain churches he addresses existed. SOME NO LONGER EXIST! These things were written for them but more importantly for us. There is some indication that John bounces from eternity (timeless) to the future as when he speaks of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world(Rev 13:8) which we know happened roughly 2000 years ago not during the creation of the world :)-.If everything in Revelation is chronological, then the Church or Christian community cannot be in view since Jesus gave "birth" to the Church not vice versa. I do believe that the crown of stars represents dominion over the angels. This is because stars usually represent angelic creatures throughout Revelation (Rev 1:20).
-- Jorge (JTrujillo7203@hotmail.com), June 21, 1999.
David Palm (and others),Hope your still "out there." Just now getting back here, Had a busy couple of weeks.
First, you are unaware of my personality and I probably should not attempt sarcastic humor through writing on the net. I'll try to point it out in the future :>). I would like to offer an apology for my attempt at humor in a previous post and its causes of misunderstanding.
Please consider these thoughts before continuing. There have been many positive attributes and correct teachings promoted by the CC which I have read about. Issues such as slavery in the early 1800's. The pope of the time took the correct stance against the majority on the issue, even though a few years late. But that did help lay some ground work for the final outcome for the USA. Of course, this is when I ask, what of those who followed him? Also, the stance taken in the 1960's and the war then was the correct one. Again, what of those who made the claim to follow the "church" who directly/indirectly fought or "blessed those" in it? Even the pope you have now has done some good things.
There are other positives, many more than I know of I'm sure. The God works His own way using whatever means He chooses. From my point of view the "teachings" portrayed below are not meant to take away from the good service rendered, but the erroneous ones which do go against the principle of what is 'written.' Now, many say, some 'traditions' practiced by individual precincts/converted around the globe are not taught "officially" by the "church." For me that does not negate those who claim membership from doing these things. These traditions" are still practiced - "official" or not. They should be at least corrected by someone "official" and not play into the phrase "it's just for fun" as celebrations as "easter" and "christmas." This is some of the problem I have with the "church" and its promoting itself as Christ' Church and the only way to Truth.
Also consider the words capitalized are not intended for "yelling" but only for emphasis from a point of view.
"My cards":
THE SEED AND THE OFFSPRING As for being "adopted", this is going to probably be 'our' two differing views. As correctly pointed out here on this forum, many "books" of the Bible were written to specific people. The reference to Galatians 4:4-7 and Romans 8:22-23 is representative of a different "class" of which I do not belong to. Paul was writing to the "holy ones" (Rom 1:7) who were in Rome at the time , of which Paul was one. This also holds true for Galations. Paul in using "we" and 'heir" indicates these men were called for more than just 'living' in the new Kingdom, but co-rulers in it as Revelation points out. "Heir" means more than just enjoying then new, but having responsibility, as an "heir" to the throne of Kingship - which these men become (REV 20:4).
I would be curious if you believe that you are one of these? If you do, then, your question to me of being a "deity" (which I am not) would seem to put the same question to you and your being at that same level as these "holy ones" - Adoptive sons. Are you to be "deified" as these men are to become? If you are then so be it. I tend not to believe it, but its not my place to judge. I have never met one of these persons. However, I do believe there are some still on earth. Ones with qualities of teaching, living, writing and conveying thoughts such as Paul are few and far. I have not 'read' these qualities in the words you have used thus far towards many of us non-catholics' here (I fall way short too). I believe this reference is to those of Revelation who are chosen to rule with Christ in the Kingdom of God. The 144,000 - the "Bride of Christ." Whether this is a literal number according to our understanding of literal numbers, I do not know. However, this group is different than most of us' today.
While we all should strive towards those highly esteem characteristics and try to embrace them into our own being, I do not believe to be one of these "adopted" ones. I am a "son" in the sense of The God being my Creator and my connection to Him is in a "spiritual" sense thru His Son and not in having a "Spiritual" body as those in Paul's class are to have (compare John 10:16).
I do not have a desire to be a spiritual being because I was not designed for that purpose and neither is most of the human race. There will be a "new Heaven and new earth". Some aspire to the new heaven (adopted "sons of God" - "Spirit" beings) and some to the new earth (the great crowd in a sense "spiritual" but with physical bodies as original purposed in Genesis 1:28; Rev 21.1). I'm 9th in the USA in a long line of farmers or ones closely connected to the land in some way. I am a "physical" being with inner needs of being close the ground that The God created me from and for. I do not have a desire to be a "spiritual being" with a "spiritual body." Again, maybe you do. If so, then the "airs of superiority" you have portrayed so far aren't in line with those of Paul's writings, imho. We all have the opportunity to become "spiritual" sons of The God, but not in the realm of being Spiritual sons/spiritual beings as those in Paul's class. There are other "sheep" - John 10:16.
I have been told that Catholics (and Protestants, I was raised with this notion) believe that "if you're a Christian" then "your going to heaven." If that where true then who is Christ and His bride (John 3:19; Rev 18:23) to rule over on earth if every one is in heaven?" I believe it is those who have that earthly desire - not the heavenly one. (Gen 1:28; Psalms 37:9,11,22,29; Isa 2:2,3; 45:18; 2 Peter 3:13 )
"Sons of God" are to be spiritual beings in Heaven itself. And the "Holy Ones" adopted as "Sons of God" are bought FROM the earth (REV 5:9) Are those men (such as Peter, Paul, etc) whom Christ "bought." These are the other "seed" in Rev 12:17.
As for perceived contradictions you have charged me with, while some are explained above, further, when Christ called 'us' His brother what does it mean? Is it some connotation to mean "physical" brother? Of course not. It is in the sense of "spiritual" children of The God. True, The God created me, however He is my spiritual Father, not my "adoptive" or physical one. He IS my Father in that I give Him ALL the credit He deserves for creating me through His only begotten Son.
I was not "born" or produce directly from' Him. Only One is said to have been, Christ (Prov 8:22; Micah 5:2 Jesus has an "origin" (Rev 3:14; Col 1:15; John 1:18 - "begotten God" - remember "son" is not in the original Greek, only the word "God" is, Catholics added "son" and Protestants took out the word "God"; 3:18). The God - Jehovah/YHWH - does not. Mary is not the mother of The God. HE has no mother. HE has no beginning in any sense. And Mary isn't my "mother." She would be a "spiritual sister" in the same way we are all to be spiritual brothers and sisters. Please remember, I do not believe in the trinity. So, 'your' extensions of this concept and it's connections to Mary and 'mine' will not be the same. And so far I have seen no real Biblical reason to believe 'yours' except when the other "traditions" are inlaid (and I can't buy into those). For me the concept of trinity disputes itself throughout the Old and New Testaments (John 17:6, 1 Cor 15:24, 28), especially Revelation 1:1 (Jesus is "given" something He did not have - if He were The God then He should already have it).
THE DEVIL IN REVELATION: I agree with you that the dragon is representative of one being and he is called out as Satan. Still this description is not a person or actual being. Satan is not a literal serpent or dragon. So this is not to be a literal description of him, but representative of what he is and what he represents - "the daaaarrrrk side" (smile). He is a spiritual being.' This is not a literal description. In contrast with this being one beast, it has seven heads and 10 horns. This is still representative of something "from/of" Satan.
What is it? Look at Rev 17. The dragon, head and horns and the reverences to "Babylon" are why so many think the RCC is associated with it. Simply because of the power and political associations the "church" has wielded in the past and what some members in it continue to wield now, albeit more indirect that 100-500+ years ago. Whether that's true or not, I do not know and you, I'm sure, will not agree with. I find the similarities in Revelations descriptions very remarkable though. However, the beast is "representative". It is not the Devil in person doing these things. It is NOT him personally. It is his "body", the beings whom do his bidding. Much as to the positive side of this equation the "congregation" is the "body" of Christ(1 Cor 12:27) accomplishing Jehovah, The Gods, Will (as Jesus said He was doing - "not my own, but Your Will be done"). Or Michael leading an army that accomplishes The God's judgement of Satan's, by casting him out (Rev 12:9; Dan 12:1).
So this "dragon" is not an actual being. It is representative of his "organization." Those past and that one here and that one to come (Rev 17:10). Now the question is, has that other one come?
WOMEN As for Gen 3:15 and the references to the "women" and "seed", if this is just referring to Eve and her "seed" then please integrate for me. Since all of man comes from the original pair, who is the "seed" of Satan from? Is there supposed to be another woman? I don't think so. Was this "woman" both Eve and the Devil's mate at the same time? Is Satan supposed to be another schizophrenic part of Eve in which Satan himself produced "seeds"? Does "seed" actually represent Adam and Eve's physical decedents? If so, that means Satan created Eve in conjunction with The God. And that ain't true. So "seed" is not "physical" decedents. It is the "spiritual" thinking of those who either follow The God or the Devil. So "women" is not Eve. (Compare Gal 4:26) I do not think it is as "simple" as the Reverend above thinks.
Gen 3:15 (NASB) And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall crush you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel.
There are two distinct representatives at Gen 3:15 - "women" (The Gods organization) and "your seed" (Satan's organization)[not in reference to you, David, or the CC]. The "women's seed" - "He," the Leader of The Gods organization, Christ. And, Satan's seed - the beast' of Revelation 13 & 17 as the other.
Now you can explain what "crush his head" and "bruise your heal" means. It ain't in reference to a "snake" slithering on the ground (snakes don't talk and don't pose a threat to humans - if we have the correct knowledge and watch for them). I don't "hate" snakes, nor do I have animosity towards them. I "respect" them. They are still The Gods creation. They are beautiful and miraculous creatures as all are. They have and do serve their purpose very well.
I believe in both Genesis and Revelation the "woman" is a reference to The God's Heavenly organization of which Christ is now King and Him being in subjection to The God, Jehovah (1 Cor 15:28; Rev 5:9,10; 14:3) And 'we' to Christ. While there are similarities in the story line to input the names of Eve and even Mary into these "women", for me there is no real symmetry of the story line to do this when Revelation is considered.
"Seed" in connection with "women" cannot refer to a descending line of people in the sense of Adam begat Seth, Seth begat etc, etc. We know that Cain is said to have Satan as a "father" (1 John 3:12) which would imply Eve as the mother (woman) in the equation, which isn't true in the sense of Satan being a physical father. In John 8:39-47 Jesus tells the Pharisees they are of the devil not of Abraham. However, these "men" WERE direct descendants of Abraham. But, there is an idea of a representative of "evilness" of the true father - Satan. Satan and his falsehoods with those - angels and humans - who follow him, it is representative rather than of actual, physical parenthood. Much as in Revelation where the "woman" is procreating her "seed" cannot, for me at least, be a "revelation" of an actual person, Mary. It's representative of The Gods Heavenly Kingdom as what it is and what it shall come to be. The headship, as it were, to rule over the earth (1 Cor 15:48).
In Prov 8:24; Isa 42:14,19; Col 1:15; John 1:18, The God Himself contrast a "woman's" "pains of birth" in bringing forth His means of salvation - Christ (John 3:31; 6:41,42,51,58). Where is The God "realm"? Where is His rule to be from? Heaven. This seems to be more in harmony with the concept of the 'woman' in "Revelation" than the overlaying of Mary. This type of thinking too easily leads to other improper actions. Many say they do not "worship" Mary, but if this were true then people would not flock to a "piece of warped glass" to adorn it because it resembles a person. The dead can't warp glass. "The dead know nothing." So it is not Mary doing these things.
Jesus was the fulfillment of the Mosaic Law, not a new Moses. He was the reason for the "veil" Moses had to use. Not just that Moses had a face like the sun' that it blinded people. Jesus is the new Adam (1 Cor 15:22, 45). An "Adam" who was perfect and unlike the first Adam, remained perfect and presented Himself to His Father as such. Mary was not perfect. She had other sons and daughters, even though the CC claims the word brother conveniently means 'cousin' else where but at those particular verses - only. She also had daughters. I do not believe there were two immaculate births. If there were then Mary would be before Jesus and that just can't be. There has only been One Perfect man on earth. Even the great Enoch had original sin. That just doesn't fit the whole of the New Covenant and Jesus' purpose on earth to be that sacrifice for us. There's only one mediator. Mary is never said to have this position, only One is at this time. 1 Tim 2:5 - Christ, not Mary - nor you priest.
While Mary may seem to "fit", women is representative, not an individual. Mary is not a new Eve. Information given (stars, sun, moon, etc) can't just be disregarded and "explained away" with the concept of Mary (they would fit better with the concept of Israel than Mary). Especially when this is found in the "middle" of a Book that does has a time line' for the future. I see no symmetry in using your guide. I truly wonder how you do? We will not agree on this point, so I'll leave "Mary" at that for this part.
Now again look at Galatians 4:26:26 (NASB) "But *the Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother. "
TRADITIONS In the traditions you have correctly pointed to at 2 Thes 2:15, who is speaking? Who is he talking to? It's not from some self appointed place In Rome. It's to those in where? Ironic, He is correcting other of the "holy ones" not yet fully understanding of the Truth or those whom are straying. I wish he were here to day to really settle this directly. One day he will be. Again I ask, do you Truly believe to be a "holy one"/adoptive son?
2 Thessalonians 2:15 (New American Standard Bible) So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.
2 Thessalonians 3:6 (New American Standard Bible) Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep aloof from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us.
Note here, these people had DIRECT contact with Paul and those WITH him. Nothing in "us" defines the role 'your church' has assumed. Also remember that Paul refuted Peter's circumcision requirement ('pope' infallibility teaching?). Peter was equal to Paul and vis-versa, there was no 'pope.' There was no "one-over-the-other". There is no "leader" except Christ. And who's head of Christ?
If Peter was the only one to have "keys" (authority), Paul would have had nothing to dispute. So eventhough Paul was called after Peter, Paul had equal authority. Evidenced in the many inspired letters he wrote that make up the Bible.
Paul received his authority directly from Christ. He met Peter afterwards (where was the "laying on of hands" by the bishops?). He was not required to meet a "pope." He received his instruction DIRECTLY from Christ. Does your pope? Did "Vatican II"?
1 Corinthians 11:2 (New American Standard Bible) 11:2 Now I praise you because you remember me in everything, and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.
Notice here Paul says "I delivered", not someone who has assumed his position. Paul was given these traditions directly BY Christ - not indirectly as many of practices in use today that have come about over time and been "thoroughly christianized".
1 Corinthians 4:17 - Paul uses Timothy, DIRECTLY, to teach - not "apostolic tradition."
These are "traditions" Paul himself and those he says were teaching. The ones the CC has added are the contradictions.
And all we REALLY need today IS written. As 2 Tim 3:16,17 at least seems to indicate. Notice the words ALL, EVERY, FULLY, etc. Nothing else here is said to be needed, so all the needed "tradition" must be here, written. The writer must have thought it important enough to say this and indicate there is nothing - no other traditions' - needed. They can be used to promote what Jesus came for. If not against what is written - but not needed.
Now, if all the "traditions" practiced today ARE supposed to be part of these original ones that are written, you are now telling me that Paul walked around carrying a stick with a "cross" on it, that he had some "great flowing rob" with emblems (look that word up and see who else carried "emblems" and their importance) on it He also must have had his rosary beads in his pocket and maybe Paul had his "body guards" (parallel to those Swiss guards at the Vatican) following him right? Oh, I forgot those today are just tradition, they really good for nothing - ain't much you can do with a MUSKET or a PIKE (sarcasm - smile - I know the reasons behind them even though a honorable thought. I believe it to be misguided actions/implementation - much like Peter in the garden with Jesus and the thought "those who live by the sword die by it").
Maybe the "traditions" your referring to are those gargoyles on the great cathedrals for scaring away evil spirits - but what does the Bible say about this? Who are we supposed to ask? Maybe it's the building "tradition" of using three "3" doors on the front of those cathedrals representing the trinity - yet in the vast majority the center door representing the "Father" is the largest (so much for the three being equal, :>)). Maybe even the "tradition" in which Michelangelo painted the snake (devil) biting the private parts of one of the images, which very interestingly looks like (and represents) the bishop whom he had mutual animosity towards (look it up, it's painted in 'your' Vatican and then read the story behind it). Ask a "scholarly" humanities/history teacher, they should know.
Or maybe the tradition Paul spoke most about was that of ejaculation. "A prayer consisting of only a few words which can be REPEATED easily and frequently"(NAB Bible-Encyclopedia Directory 1985 page 24). Repeating prayers over and over. But what does the Bible say of that? Matthew 6:7. Or turn to that of celebration of Christ' death many have combined with "eggs and rabbits" (sex) and traditionally' labeled "easter". Now ask where did this easter' really come from? Who's names does "easter" represent? Thoroughly "christianized" right? Of course. :>)
Maybe 'your traditions' include the combining of Buddhist and Catholic wedding practices for the ceremony in a "Catholic" church so the "church" can "recognize" the legality of the ceremony in "its" eyes. Then, after the blessing of the "sacraments" and offering to those who wanted to partake, the "priest" turned away from the congregation and gulped down the remaining "blood" (wine). Godly action? Sure. Yes, this happened, I was there. A lot of respect was lost for the catholic faith with my wife and I towards your church'. A co-worker was the Buddhist. Guess he was throughly "christianized." His kids, I'm sure, are required to be raised "Catholic." They'll be ok then right? :>). Baptized 30 seconds after birth, hey Br Rich? Straight to Heaven.:>) If so, it's going to be "hot" up there too! (2 Peter 3:12)
Maybe it's that one about telling a man and women who are getting married, the "church" will recognize their marriage, But, they can't have kids because he's a "Baptist" and will not agree to having his kids raised "Catholic." Of course the CC doesn't do this anymore, so you'll have to ask an older priest.
Are these part of the "apostolic tradition?"
Are you now saying these "traditions": "righteous wars", saying Christ was born in the middle of winter when there is Biblical evidence otherwise, the practice of showing the "wise" men at the manger when they NEVER saw the 'baby' Jesus, implying these 'wise' men were some-sort-of 'kings' when they WERE from Satan - but went a different "way", saying Mary had no other children even though Paul himself refers to James as "brother of our Lord" (Gal 1:19), playing with beads, flowing robes, "glorious emblems of crosses" - which by- the-way I'm still researching and it's very interesting, etc, etc, etc, practiced by the CC came DIRECTLY from Christ as the ones Paul taught? Are all practiced today in harmony with what Christ', Peter, Paul spoke/wrote?
What about that age old tradition' of "hell-fire" that many aspire to control others with the fear of? "Your going to hell' and burn forever if you go against us'!"(sarcasm :>)) If so then compare with 2 Peter 3 (NASB):
10 But *the day of the Lord *will come like a thief, in which *the heavens *will pass away with a roar and the *elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and *the earth and its works will be burned up. 11 Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, 12 *looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which *the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the *elements will melt with intense heat!
"We" might not want to go to heaven after all either?
"Prove" these right according to Bible principles so I'll know (sarcasm). Are these really Paul's, or those who were with him, teachings? Or is this the reason why Paul had to correct those in Rome, Galatia, etc? Would he still be correcting them still today? Is he? Is Christ?
What of the other "traditions" spoke of in the Bible?
Matthew 15:3,9; Titus 1:14; Mark 7:3-9 (New American Standard Bible)
7:7 'But in vain do they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.' 7:8 "Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men." 7:9 He was also saying to them, "You nicely set aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.
Keep this one in mind, refer again to holding the Rosary beads and repeating prayers for Mary to "ask for help". Now compare that thought to the practice of REPETITION. Cause it makes people feel' good about their ethnic/cultural backgrounds. AND who is the actual intercessor to The God. It's not Mary, nor your priest.
Now, compare the "traditions" of having days of 'feast' for the "saints" with (2 Pet 2:13) these actions give undo honor to someone other than the ONE that truly deserves it. You can if you 'need' too. These traditions' can be good for us. But don't let it get in the way of the true purpose, as "christmas" has become or even "St. Patrick's day" in many cases (please note I am not bashing Irish, my name is Irish/Scottish).
1 Timothy 1:4 (New American Standard Bible) nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith.
Now compare this thought with that of successive "popes" who "claim" to have authority, yet people like YOU deny my Faith and tell me I must follow these men instead of God given Faith. Many of whom have been bad, un-Christian like men. Follow if you want. Practice "infallibility." I cannot.
Colossians 2:8 (New American Standard Bible) See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.
Again, traditions DIRECTLY administered BY Christ and those like Paul who were DIRECTLY called by Christ, not by men or some self appointed "church" which has a very long history of the opposite practices of what Christ taught (of course in these cases 'we' get the concept of fallibility/infallibility, who's concept is this? Christ' or men? Did Peter teach the infallibility of his "chair" :>)). Did Peter even have a chair? Is the chair 'you' the many claim had pagan symbols underneath finish when it was redone? What did Christ ACTUALLY teach His apostles about possessing things?
Now, you can say I contradict the Bible if you want? You can put your faith in 'your' men if you want, because of their long history (of playing both sides) and say-so. I cannot. I'll follow Christ because of my Faith in HIS and my God (Isa 42:1; Micah 5:4; Mat 27:46; John 20:17), not your 'men' and their say-so. Now, who is really contradicting what the Bible says?
Your "traditions" I examine in the same context with immortal soul and purgatory. These too are never mentioned in the Bible, yet the CC supports them with "traditions." These further do actually contradict the words of the Bible - Ecc and Psalms, the dead know NOTHING. Or the "soul dies", has to be kept ALIVE - Psalms 104:29;146:4, Ecc 7:1; 9:5,6, John 5:28,29;11:11-14, Isa 25:8, Eze 18:4,20, etc, etc, etc. However, many still hold to them, why? Teaching? False or not, you've made up your own mind and you can believe it if you want. You (like Chris) can say it's from a "blue" man. But, that is IN the Bible the CC claims to have canonized. Which b-t-w the NAB many times replaces "sheol" with "nether world" to help imply purgatory in the OT. Tell me where is the first place we' learn of the "nether world" in college - the Greeks. Now, tell me who is truly contradicting? And you' say agnostics have combined Platonist teaching.
I find nothing but a juxtaposition of silliness combined with sadness in these type of traditions. Much the same as I found your (David Palm) denying my "Faith" in a discussion awhile back (remember the Muslem?). I base my Faith on the Word. Something that can only be described as Inspired of The God - not 'your' traditions.
I examine 'your' words with what is in the Bible and by Faith (Heb 11 - all of it) as it teaches. I follow what IT says - not men made traditions. Surely Not if they contradict the Bible itself.
If Jesus is the new Adam and Mary is the new Eve, then you have a serious conflict in associations of what Adam and Eve where. They were husband and wife - not mother and son. See the picture? This is not the story of Oedipus Rex.
What does the Scriptures say of themselves as compared to verses pulled out for backup of "traditions"? Duet 4:2; Psalms 119:160; Romans 13:4; 16:26; Rev 22:18
Either all (as It says) is needed or not. Either your implying the Bible is contradicting itself by the need of 'your' adding these traditions or your saying it's not ALL that is needed and can make us FULLY prepared - which is does say. Again, who is contradicting? The words that ARE written or those that someone has seen fit to ADD. And what does the Bible say of that? Romans 16:26
People (I once included) naturally assume, from our lofty educations', that the majority of 'common' people of Jesus' day were illiterate. But is that true? Compare NAB (study edition) Isa 8:1 "ordinary letter" - then look at the footnote. Joseph and Mary were 'common', yet we know they were literate from the Scriptures. Jesus "grew". He did not have all the knowledge as a child. He had to learn. Paul tells 'us' to examine the Scriptures to verify his teaching. That tells me those at that time were "educated". For Christ Himself asked questions at the temple when He was only 12. He later taught from the Scriptures. The ones He chose were not kings and noble men. They were fishermen, tax collectors, etc. Common men. Do you not think that those who listened would not have been able to read and verify what they heard? And think about this, whom by at large believed Jesus? "Common" people - many "scholars" did not. The first ones told or Jesus' birth who listened were shepard's. Ironically the first told were not the ones in the town itself.
On a side note: I find it also interesting that in the time of the "Dark Ages" (ca 1100's)is when a lot of people ARE said to have been unable to read. Who or what "body" ruled and controlled the thoughts/actions of people then? Paradoxical I think.
Your "church" may even have been the one that was chosen to start with, much as Israel was The God's chosen. There's no doubt it's being used in some way now. However, there's just too long a history of dissimilar actions by those claiming to lead and those who follow your "church" to believe it is still or ever really was the ONE, and even cast at least some doubt as to whether it is what those proclaim it to be, imho. That said, as mentioned before, there are some good people and good practices we all can learn from. There are some Truth's left in it. There are some teachings I do not and probably never will agree with. I do want to compare those and see 'why'. This is one reason I'm "here."
The search for Truth continues,
Jamey
P.S. Jorge, In your statement,
"There is some indication that John bounces from eternity (timeless) to the future as when he speaks of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world(Rev 13:8) which we know happened roughly 2000 years ago not during the creation of the world :)-. "
There is a slight flaw: From the wording of your statement I assume (please correct if not) you have referenced the King James or some derivative, which is not quite accurate by the standards of most other translations with this particular verse, imho. If you have please refer to your "Catholic" Bible - NAB, NJB. Rev 13:8 doesn't say that the "Lamb was slain from the..", it says the "names were not written from...". Please note : 8 (NASB): "All who *dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone *whose name has not been written *from the foundation of the world in the *book of life of *the Lamb who has been slain."
This sheds a somewhat different light on the understanding of this verse and the ramifications of it. This is where the thought of "predestination" comes in.
Further, from another thread there is "a NEW Heaven AND a NEW earth" not just "a New Heaven." The Bible says some are to "reside upon the earth FOREVER." Both are made "new", so I don't see how we are all going to Heaven' from our "start" here on earth? Please explain.
-- Jamey (jcreel@hcsmail.com), June 29, 1999.
Jamey, I know this a awhile after the debate. My 2cents. I'm glad you finally got help with your answers either from a written source or a fundamentalist deeply entrenched in the theology of glory than the theology of the cross and its saving grace. You guys have come full circle and are now regressing. If you believe you are saved in and of yourselves, how well you act, how well you understand all of scripture ripping it into pieces of heresy, instead of God's way. God's way is through the sacraments He first and foremost commanded and also in the sacraments reafirmed even from His Logos from the begining. Your salvation does not depend on you it depends on Him, His Word and Sacraments in which he brings himself and His saving power to us.. You have been brainwashed into thinking that the Humanity of Jesus through Mary is of little importance. Mary was elected before creation to become the Mother of Jesus and the Mother of the Church. She is to be called blessed not because she proved to be loyal , but because God created her that way for His special purpose. The woman spoken of in Gen is Mary and the woman's seed is Christ. This is a type for all of the church to follow by the grace of God. All generations of woman and her seed represents all mothers and the faithful priests of Her church in that age until the fullness of time had come. At that time the prophecy was literally fullfilled in the person's of Mary and Christ. Since that time another type to this prophecy can be seen in the church and the sacrament of the Eucharist, with woman again giving birth to faithful servants of the church to continue the saving works of Jesus. This is about salvation and all salvation stands on Jesus and His two natures. The God-Man through which this important truth is taught in Mary the ever-virgin, Mother of God and so Mother of the Church. Don't disrespect The Virgin Mother of the Church, Christ is not pleased that you despise His Mother.
-- Pamela Brink (Rosylace@aol. com), July 01, 1999.
Jamey,Whew! You come back from a couple of weeks off and dump a whole treatise on us!!! ;-D.
It'll take me a while to get to answering this; there are about eleventymillion charges and allegations in there and there's no way I can answer them all. But, I think our discussion of Scripture, Tradition, and the Church is the key to the whole thing so that's where I'll concentrate my answer. I'll post it in a different thread and let you know in this one.
-- David Palm (djpalm64@yahoo.com), July 01, 1999.
David do make it too long. I'm still busy. I'm making one more post for right no though to P.I'll be waiting :>)
-- Jamey (jcreel@hcsmail.com), July 01, 1999.
Pamela Brink ,
I do not know where you have gotten this thought that I've been brainwashed by someone? I've studied many "religions." "Yours" being one. As I've said many times on this forum I DO NOT belong to one of 'your' man-made religions.
"The woman spoken of in Gen is Mary and the woman's seed is Christ. This is a type for all of the church to follow by the grace of God. "
Written source IS QUOTED - the Bible itself - yours NAB. Remember I'm here asking "you" questions. What I post comes from your' Bible. But, I do not have a Vulgate - can't read Latin anyway.
You accuse me of being brain washed yet it seems you' can't make up your minds who the women' in Genisis is. A Rev tells me it's Eve, then you say it's Mary? David says it's an individual and then a "representative." Please get it straight. You have "my answers."
"Don't disrespect The Virgin Mother of the Church, Christ is not pleased that you despise His Mother. "
Again refer to Galatians 4:26:26 (NASB) "But *the Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother." Mary is never said to be, except in your' traditions. Mary is not Jerusalem. And, again, for me means she is not my mother.
"This is about salvation and all salvation stands on Jesus and His two natures."
I understand that your beliefs must have you divide the Christ further by saying He has two natures. For me that further deny's the trinity' (which I do believe anyway) making it a quadrinity.' And if you add the angel from Moses (as Chris from this forum told me month's back, since the angel was actually The God) or the angle Jacob (Israel) contended with, you now have a "petaginity.' Again, Too confusing for me. "Respect" from my view is what you are denying. So be it. We're both brainwashed. We will not agree on this. However, contrary to you I don't "curse you" or believed you "are damned to hell." I try not to judge people as you ARE doing, because I seriously doubt you've been talking directly to Christ. I pray we'll both be given True understanding.
We will all be corrected DIRECTLY - if we have an honest heart. And keep earnestly seeking Him. Deny my Faith in The God and in His Son if you must. You just like the rest of us are making inferences based on what knowledge we have and the Faith we are given. You believe your' men have passed Truth down to for centuries. I believe they have passed some but not all Truth. If they had ALL Truth then your' Bible would be Perfect and it is not. Not even the Vulgate. Certainly not the Septuagint. I haven't found one' yet. That's why we all keep referring back-in-forth to different ones.
I believe Raphael is a valid angel, but not based on the CC's canonized books because I do not believe all are valid. Simply because in it Raphael is said to have lied to (or at the very least' mislead) Tobit in order to be "accepted." And for me that contradicts what The God is. He can't lie. He is not the Muslum god who can. I accept Raphael on Faith, not because of your' mens say- so. I accept the Bible on the same principle. Remember, I do not accept the CC's full version and I have read some of it.
I further do not believe "sola Scripture." I do believe nothing but the Bible is needed to do "good." The rest of the "tradidition" are not needed. But I do believe we must keep searching for accurate Knowledge as the Bible we have points out. This helps us to refine, to polish, to show our persistence, our love of Truth in what we have and we give Jehovah the ultimate glory.
To achieve that we must refer to other sources to help decipher some of the Bible. This helps to understand the history of some of the practices/ "traditions" used. For example, we know that there are two genealogies for Jesus that do not agree. Yet, when we know why Jewish people listed as the did we know there are no contradictions as many believe the are. Even my own mother-in-law did know that. And she has read the Bible longer and much more in depth that I. Did that lack of knowledge make her a "bad" person?" Of course not. She is a good "hearted" person and has done many good things in her life (but no she's not a Catholic:>)). She is "child-like". As we all must be. Not childish. So it is really "not" needed to accomplish what The God has purposed. And I believe many of the CC's "traditions" are the same. Many are NOT needed. Some ARE contradicting. If you believe Br Rich's theory of everyone not baptized lingering in some "purgatory" then who is correct? It is not in the Bible. Except where the CC has changed the wording. You don't believe this and accuse me of being brainwashed. So be it. Put flowers at the warped glass. Throw coins down a "wishing well."
When you pray "Your Kingdom come" what kingdom are you looking for if your' church is the leadership for that kingdom? So far, imho, it hasn't been doing a very good job for the past 1600 years. So I do not believe it still is, if it ever was, what it says to be. Do you actually believe the earth is just going to be "destroyed?" I do not. If you believe the earth is some "starting point" to achieve heaven the men like Abraham, David, Solomon, Israel, Isaac do not have a chance in your' system. They were better men that any of us are I'll wager. But they were given a PROMISE and it was not "heaven." It WAS the earth - FOREVER.
I am not attacking you. I am not attacking what you say your church says it represents. This is not a siege against any persons'. It is an charge against "actions" and teachings that I believe are incorrect and mislead. The Swiss guards are NOT a correct teaching of Christ.
Many of the things you are accusing me of as being brainwashed theories have been around just as long and longer than many your "church" promotes. Granted your church has buried many others. The Jews were/are waiting for someone to free them so they can live forever upon the earth. They just misunderstood what freedom Christ brought to further The Gods Purpose for that.
Believe in "hell-fire" if you must. But it's not in the Bible. Of course you also must now believe heaven is going to "burned up" too.
Look at the architecture your' church has chosen and study the reasons for it, then tell me it's ALL Truth. It ain't! It a standing monument to what came before it. Roman, Greek, etc. And I hate to tell you the building elements do NOT represent Christians ideals. They have not been "Christianized." Quite the opposite. The'm steeple's on the cathedrals represent something totally different that what has been "redefined." The "egg and dart" motif many use today in building is not for "aesthetics sake." It symbolizes "sex" from the Greek gods.
The Medici's who financed many of the "church's" projects were not all around good people' interested in the good of the "common" mans soul. But they were "catholic." The men who burned that poor Joan of Ark were not interested in how her soul would fare in heaven, they were scared of the power she held over people. And, they were "catholic." Ironically as she was. Brotherly love? I need no brothers like that. Many still exist though.
You can take offense of this history coming from a "non-catholic" if you must. You can accuse me of being brain washed. But it's your' history. I'm not "catholic." "My theories" are just as valid as yours, if not more so, simply because of your' history of opposing what Christ did teach. Not to follow the "letter of law" but to show mercy. That's where I' "coming from." There was no "mercy" in the crusades. Nor in the treating of the "Mexicans" when the Spanish got here' caring "crosses." (They destroyed he Aztecs capital and buries a stone because they were scared of it) Nor in blessing Germans to kill fellow "catholics" on the "opposing side." And visa-versa. These things happened. Don't accuse me of being brainwashed.
Please "remove the Beam out of your own eye before you try to remove the straw from mine."
Again, I am not attacking you personally, even though you believe me to. I see that as some weakness on your part or a lack of some knowledge. This is not meant to be derogatory. It is pointing out my point of view through this limited way of communicating. Please correct any misunderstandings. Do not throw accusations at me. That will only "prove" the point of the contradictions many have accused you of. And please do not send any "private" accusations either. I tend to bring them in the open anyway. If you have no Truth to offer too me, then I'll not ask you' again. But if you do then please share your view.
If so, answer this specific charge - why are the "wise" men held in so high regard when they WERE from Satan? You may have to research the "tradition" in order to answer. As the Catholics have correctly pointed out, not all the specific definitions are in the Bible itself. You need a Lexicon/concordance to muddle through mens confusion.
Another, why do you' say Jesus was born , according to "tradition", in the middle of winter when if FACT He was not - according to the Bible and what I view as common sense.
Now, I ask you the same question, do YOU believe you are a "HOLY ONE" as Paul and Peter were writing to?
The Search,
-- Jamey (jcreel@hcsmail.com), July 01, 1999.
jamey,Does the Church take pagan objects and baptize and radically change them (and their meanings) to make them holy - YES. We do this with everything that is not absolutely incompatible with the Faith. As a matter of fact, this process pretty much describes what the Church did with me. A pagan, baptized and made Holy - it is what the Gospel message is all about.
-- ubi (ubi@petros.com), July 01, 1999.
I know I'm not going to make anyone happy with this one, but here it goes. I have to go along with Jesus on this one. When told that his mother, Mary, was waiting to speak with him, he deliberately downplayed any attempts to exalt Mary by saying "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?" Pointing to his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother."I believe the apostles complied with his direction considering there is but one or two mentions of her outside of the gospels (in the book of Acts). The complete absence of her in any of the epistles regarding the doctrines that we base our faith upon clearly tells me that she has nothing to do with it at all. Indeed, she is forever blessed for the priviledge of giving birth to Jesus. But she is my sister in Christ, not my mother and she is certainly not relevant in regards to my salvation or my walk with the Lord.
And I know that Protestants are not the only ones who share my view. Marian doctrines have been a controversial item throughout Catholic history. Ask yourself this question, considering the modern Catholic Catechism and it's multitude of doctrines and statements concerning Mary, why is she so absent from the apostles letters and the earliest church Fathers writings? Granted, a few latched on to Marianism right away (they were the exception), but over all very little mention of her. Why?
-- David Bowerman (dbowerman@blazenet.net), July 01, 1999.
David B,I agree with you about Mary. That's the reason, as well as the others pointed to, I do not agree with this "tradition."
Ubi,
First, I am not an "object." You do not baptized the objects I spoke of in architecture and say their now Christian. You move beyond them. You dispose of them. You do not keep pagan references in Christian practices and worship of The God. He will NOT allow it. That is the reason many in the nation of Israel got into trouble in the first place. Mixing their True religion with pagans. That's what the architecture of the church is. It is a 'watered' down mix. Just as I believe the practices have become. It's no longer Pure Truth. There are just too many similarities now. It may have been The Truth at one time, but the further I talk and study with Catholics the more I doubt it.
The Search continues
-- Jamey (jcreel@hcsmail.com), July 01, 1999.
David B,I must applaud you for your charitable and reasoned approach in presenting your protest to the Church's Marian doctrines. I have heard others who are less charitable assert that the words of Jesus represented an actual rebuke of Mary.
Respectfully, I submit to you that the words of Jesus represent neither a rebuke of His Mother OR a downplaying of Mary's honor. What Jesus was pointing out was the REASON for honoring Mary. Mary was born without the stain of original sin, and lived her life in perfect union with the Divine Will. It is her faithful obedience as the 1st Christian, and love of Christ that is the reason she is to be honored. The person addressing Jesus was honoring her for giving birth. Right Church, wrong pew. We honor Mary because she is the crown jewel of the Creator, His masterpiece as evidenced by her Faith, Love and Hope that she placed in her Son. Her perfect YES to God's Will is the reason for honor - that is clear in the last part of Jesus's words. (The antithesis is illustrated by the lack of Faith and trust shown by Zechariah - he is chastised, she is honored by God.)
-- ubi (ubi@petros.com), July 01, 1999.
jamey,were you not pagan prior to your baptism? If what you say were true, Paul could not have ministered to the Gentiles. God created nature and it was GOOD, man corrupts. Even a pagan can be baptised and made new - you were not discarded.
-- ubi (ubi@petros.com), July 01, 1999.
Ubi,No, I was not a pagan. I do not hold to symbols. Nor am I now, though many here probably consider me nothing but a heretic. I was raised and baptized Presbyterian when I was 15. I no longer hold the bases of their beliefs. Even though the minister that baptized and performed our marriage, I still hold a deep respect for. Though I believe many things he belives are incorrect and even himself seriously question's since his sister died years back. My dad was baptized in his 30s by the same minister. Neither does he hold to the Presbyterian beliefs. Ive attended many others. My wife is an x- Baptist. Her mother and father still are. But neither believe the trinity.
As for what Paul said and wrote, it has nothing to do with what Ive pointed out. Paul was not an architect and had nothing to do with your symbolisms. Your traditions Ive mentioned did not have anything to do with Pauls ministry or his writing towards gentiles. Nor do the things I've seen in you church. Address those first and maybe you can prove my error, unless you do believe the wise men were some sort of kings or Paul had a pocket full of rosary beads.
I ask you the same question, are you a Holy One to which Paul was writing?
-- Jamey (jcreel@hcsmail.com), July 01, 1999.
David and Jamey, I bet your blood pressure has gotten the best of you. I can tell you that Jesus being sinless did not break the 4th commandment by dishonoring his mother in public or otherwise. Jesus was actually elavating the status of the people he was addressing by showing them they are to be like his Mother and his brothers(disciples). You Protestants twist things around and it bothers me when you despise the Mother of God. that would be one good reason to become Catholic.
-- pamela Brink (Rosylace@aol.com), July 01, 1999.
jamey, You raise too many concepts for me to discuss them all right now. I do not think we will ever agree. However I have read an intersting article about purgatory. It is written by a RC priest. It has to do with the concept of eternal time and finite time. It is true that the baptized are told to pray for the church and each other. The word baptized brings with it an important truth, that is the baptized are a spiritual people. While it is certain that their bodies die, it is equally certain that their souls live. Prayer is a spiritual matter and so to ask the departed baptized souls to intercede for us in prayer to Christ is no different than asking a church friend to pray for you. God made no distinctions of condition, only referring to the baptized. We are talking about a mediation of intercession not a mediation of redemption. Since time is eternal with God and the supernatural realm and even now we who live on this earth are in eternity, determining eternity for our souls and physically living in finite time simultaneously, it is entirely possible that the trials and tribulations of this physical life and death are actually the purgation process itself. Prayers for all people can be prayed at anytime in eternity, and be effective for future time or be affective in retrospect while the person is physically living or not. This is truly remarkable and could reconcile the meaning of purgatory and the refining of trials and tribualtions of our lifetimes to strengthen our faith and conform us to the image of a Holy God. This is only icing on the cake of course because our repentance and belief in the sacrifice of Christ determines salvation, while sanctification conforms us to Christ-like living.(purgation from sin)
-- pamela Brink (Rosylace@aol.com), July 01, 1999.
Jamey,como estas hermano? Regarding your position on Revelation 13:8, please allow me to cite three "not quite accurate" works on this passage. First is the notorious, I agree with you, "not quite accurate" translation, the New World Translation, which reads: "And all those who dwell on the earth will worship it; the name of not one of them stands written in the scroll of life of the Lamb who was slaughtered, from the founding of the world." This verse [at least] agrees with "The Zondervan Parallel New Testament in Greek and English" [literally]: "And will worship him all the [ones] dwelling on the earth, of has not been written the name of him in the scroll - of life of the lamb - having been slain from [the] foundation of [the] world." Again another strictly literal translation, "The Interlinear Bible, Hebrew, Greek, English" agrees as follows: "And will worship it all those dwelling on the earth, of whom not was written the names in the Scroll of Life of the Lamb having been slain from [the] foundation of world." Finally let me transliterate the Greek so that you may interpret as you please: "Kai proskunesousin auton pantes oi katoikountes epi tes ges ou ou gegraptai to onoma autou en to biblio tes zoes tou arniou tou esphagmenou apo kataboles kosmou."
Will God destroy the stars and the sun since He will be the new universe's light (Rev 22:5)? Yahweh is not bound by His creation. Everything created does not need to be eternal to bring glory to Him. A paradise on earth and not just Heaven Jamey? (I have a long day ahead of me at the office tomorrow. I've gotta be in by 5:30 am and will be there well into the evening. Saturday, God willing, I will respond to the second part of your statement including all the uses of the word "paradise" in the Greek Scriptures and what they mean; plus also analyzing Matt 6:10, Psalm 37:9,11,29, and Psalm 115:16.)
God bless and take care.
-- Jorge (JTrujillo7203@hotmail.com), July 02, 1999.
Jorge,My translater's g-grandmother died so she is unavalible, please 'speak' English :>).
If there is not to be a new earth, the I would have to assume you believe The Gods' original creation (the garden and paradise on earth) was/is a failure? I do not believe this. The God cannot fail.
-- Jamey (jcreel@hcsmail.com), July 02, 1999.
Further, by your answer in citing the NWT I'm led to believe you do not agree with the NAB or NJB? So you must agree with the NWT, your calling an error, since this is basically what you quoted in the original statement you made (again, please correct me if I'm wrong) - which was based on a KJV. The Nab doesn't 'say' what you quoted before.As I've said before, I do not believe anyone has a Perfect translation. If there was 'you' Catholics probably would not have need of 'catachisms.' :>) And I wouldn't be asking.
Please answer my original question was your quote from a KJ or not? It does not agree with "catholic" based Bibles.
-- Jamey (jcreel@hcsmail.com), July 02, 1999.
Pamela, I agree that there's some twisting here, but I'm not the one dancing to the Chuck Berry tune here. How can you say that Jesus was elevating everyone else to be like his mother and brothers? Read it for yourself. He was saying that his mother and brothers are simply his disciples, no more, no less. And, yes, Jesus did have brothers. Why would his cousins being hanging around with his mother all of the time? His cousin was John (remember the baptist). They didn't refer to John as Jesus's cousin did they? And yes I'm familiar with the arguments regarding the Hebrew tradition of referring to cousins as brothers and all that. But this was written in Greek, which does have a word for cousin (used to describe Mark at one point). What's the big deal? So he had brothers. Why does that affect Jesus, the author and finisher of your faith?As far as the term Mother of God, I am aware that the phrase was not added to the Catechism until almost the fourth century (386 AD). It was not universally accepted by the church at the time. It was not used by the apostles who preferred to refer to her as the mother of Jesus. Interesting that even the writings of John, the apostle who cared for Mary, did not choose to use that phrase or even to make much reference to her at all apart from her obvious role in birthing and raising Jesus.
To be more accurate, we would have to say that Mary gave birth to the man nature of Jesus. Implying that she birthed his God nature, which the mother of God title does, is heresy. She is the mother of Jesus plain and simple. Who created Mary? Jesus of course. The reason the Mary's title is so important is that is was the basis for the escalating "twisting" that occurred over the centuries.
Don't you ever wonder why it took until the late 1800's to "realize" that Mary was without sin and ever virgin and all that has since been attributed to her? Why weren't these things recognized by the apostles and early church fathers? Think about it.
Oh, and my health is quite excellent. Blood pressure is actually on the low side. But thanks for your concern. Such things don't get me angry or frustrated. I'm quite comfortable with the truth. How about you?
-- David Bowerman (dbowerman@blazenet.net), July 02, 1999.
Pamela,My blood pressure' is just fine too, thank you. Is yours? The only person I could not discuss Scriptural thought's with just happened to be a Catholic. His blood pressure boils every time I mention something. Coincidence? Probably. But very curious. He has his medication :>). The most calm person's I've met were Muslum's - though the "Americanized" ones. One I consider to be a good friend - along with his family.
The "dead know nothing." The soul' must be kept ALIVE - it can die. There is no eternal soul' in the Bible. This is what I'm saying. This is IN the Bible. Integrate this for me, because I have no need of you RC priest writing if it doesn't agree with what's In the Bible. And since you've singled out this issue, I assume it's important to you in some way. Why? Are you truly devoted to your beliefs or are you actually afraid of dying.
For me this concept is contradictory to the Word. Please explain you view, I do not care to reference your RC's writings. If I was really interested in them I'd study the catechisms (but I find them contradictory so I don't too much). I can write a whole thesis from your side' and "prove" your point if I felt a need. I do not. I can extrude your points and combine them into a very readable thing to "convert" others. But, that still doesn't make it "Right." Your purgatory' is not in the Bible. I believe it states quite the opposite. It's concept though is in Greek mythology, imho.
In my own thesis I took an opposing view from most. Was it incorrect? No. It was valid and I proved' "my" point. Though many did not agree. I had a gazillion references to back it up. I'm sure all of your' priest can do the same. Especially your pope, he's proven that :>). I'm more interested in peoples personal view in a sense that what the can pull from their' sources. It's sorta-of a way to actual see if those who say they believe' what their taught or if they are actually holding (even sub-conscience) on to something "cultural." Which I've found many do. An American catholic' and a Hatian catholic' do not think the same way. They also do not hold the same views on some subjects. I went to college with a Hatian Catholic. And, at least according to him, his' people still intermingles voodoo and Catholicism. Maybe not a "church" but certainly in their homes. Worshiping The God? Total faith in your Catholicism? I have my doubts.
As I've said here the actions presented by the church' in the past do not agree with teachings to which they aspire too. You don't "christianize" pagan symbols, then say their ok. If you're a pagan, who converts, you don't then carry your old paganistic idea's along. You discard them. You don't leave Egypt then cast a golden calf. I believe the CC has done this. It stands as record, at least for me, in their architecture. Cast in stone, if you will.:>)
You do not pray brotherly love, then go out and kill him, then ask for forgiveness the next day and receive it. Imho. JFK was a Catholic, right? How many people did he kill? Did He ask for forgiveness? Was he? Did that make it ok when he should have known better in the first place? I couldn't live with myself. One reason I didn't join the army. You cannot train to kill people arbitrary (in the sense of national armies) you don't even know (being already baptized in Christ) and then after you do ask for forgiveness. That's a contradiction anyway you cut it, imho. That is not Christ-like. The officer in the Bible whom servant Christ heal had to have known his un-worthyness in this sense.
Off for the weekend, have a good one! Jamey
-- Jamey (jcreel@hcsmail.com), July 02, 1999.
David, Many doctrines of the church took time in evolving. The creeds on which our church stands was written carefully over a period of years. Why did it not happen right away? Because the church was defining itself against heresy Did you say you are pentecostal? What creed do they stand by or does everyone have their own interpretation? Do you baptize in the Triune God?. Only heresy has a history because RC orthodoxy (right thinking and practice) has no history as a point in time because it is in itself eternal, only practiced primitively. As heresies emerge the Church given the duty by Christ defends herself against the demons of the age. You really need to understand church history better and to realize that we can understand what the church stood for by reading how they defended the common belief held. These beliefs were past down from the apostles. I can guarantee to that John and his disciple Ignatiaus and all others close knew without a shadow of a doubt the life long Virginity of Mary. This to protect the truth of the 2 natures of Christ. The reason that Mary is correctly called the Mother of God is that the natures of Jesus can never be separated. If you try to separate His 2 natures you have been declared a heretic by not only the catholic church , but also many protestant churches. And yes, Jesus was telling the crowd around Him that He wants us to be like His Mother and saints. And that He loves us as His own flesh and blood (MARY). We are His body. You should read the ante-Nicene fathers to understand about the Virginity of Mary. There are letters addressed to John and Mary and Ignatiaus regarding the love people had for Mary (The Face Most Like Jesus). There you can find specific comments regarding how James looked much like Jesus as if they had come from the same womb, as if that was an absurd notion.
-- pamela (Rosylace@aol.com), July 02, 1999.
Pamela, this topic never gets very far. It's always the same back and forth and quite frankly gets tedious. I'm not going to change your mind and vice versa. You can trot out your references and can trot out mine (yes, there were early church fathers who opposed what was considered a fringe movement of the early church to focus on Mary). But to answer a few of your questions/comments:Many doctrines of the church took time in evolving. The creeds on which our church stands was written carefully over a period of years.
1800 years?? That's when most of the questionable Marian doctrines were added.
"Did you say you are pentecostal? What creed do they stand by or does everyone have their own interpretation?"
Actually, we have a very detailed creed that closely resembles your own minus the doctrines that we consider scripturally unsupportable.
"Do you baptize in the Triune God?."
Yes. I currently am a member of an Assemblies of God church. We are not part of the Jesus only movement (which is what I guess is your inference).
"You really need to understand church history better . . ."
True. That is one of the reasons I am here and why I have purchased and am reading several texts from Catholic sources to fill in the blanks.
" . . . defending the common belief held. These beliefs were past down from the apostles. I can guarantee to that John and his disciple Ignatiaus and all others close knew without a shadow of a doubt the life long Virginity of Mary.
Like I have said, your picture of a common belief is not supported in the history texts. Your claim that such traditions were all passed down from the apostles is unsupported. These issues were very much in debate from very respected leaders of the church. There was no "common" belief. If the apostles were indeed the source of such traditions even after leaving them so conspicuously out of their writings, then why was there no mention of such matters in the vast majority of the earliest writings?
"If you try to separate His 2 natures you have been declared a heretic by not only the catholic church , but also many protestant churches."
Let's try this again. Did Jesus as God exist from the beginning? Yes. Was Mary there to give birth to him? NO. In fact, he was not birthed, but begotten. So Mary did not give birth to God and therefore cannot be accurately termed the "mother of God". Did Jesus as the man exist from the beginning, NO. At this point, his incarnate nature did not exist. Mary gave birth to Jesus's incarnate nature (the Word became flesh). Was Jesus as man also God? Yes. But since his God nature preexisted his incarnate nature and Mary herself, the only accurate way to refer to her is as the mother of Jesus.
Gotta go. That's probably too much on this topic anyway. It remains one of the primary issues separating Catholics from Protestants though.
-- David Bowerman (dbowerman@blazenet.net), July 02, 1999.
Two points of clarification.(1) I would not object to the title mother of God (understanding that it was asserted to defend against those claiming that Jesus was not God) so much if it had not been used as the basis for eventually leveraging Mary into a status that is clearly unscriptural (i.e. co-mediator and co-redeemer).
(2) Please do not confuse my opinions with a hatred of Mary, Pamela. I love and appreciate her in the same way I do Peter, Paul, etc. In fact, by defending the truth and trying to keep folks focused on Jesus, I am perhaps demonstrating more love for her and what she stood for than those who use her to promote unscriptural agendas and to detract from our Savior. Jesus alone is our Redeemer, Mediator and Savior.
In an effort to try to keep our dialogues pleasant, I have tried in the past to avoid such subjects. I will now return to that approach.
-- David Bowerman (dbowerman@blazenet.net), July 02, 1999.
If Mary never had intimate relations with her husband Joseph, was their marriage valid in the Jewish culture? My understanding is that consummation was required from a legal standpoint. Is that why Matthew 1:25 says "But he had no union with her UNTIL she gave birth to a son"? It would seem that Matthew was not aware of the perpetual virginity doctrine.It was earlier pointed out that Jesus was "downplaying attempts to exalt Mary". Another example to support that would be when the woman said to Jesus, 'blessed is the woman who carried you in her womb' (or something along those lines) and Jesus re-directed her immediately with a response something like, 'blessed rather is he/she who does the will of my father in heaven'. Jesus seemed to know there would be attempts to glorify Mary and he tried to steer us in the right direction.
-- anon (just@an.observation), July 02, 1999.
Anon, here again we see Jesus not down playing Mary but actually saying that you can be blessed also by doing the will of my Father like Mary had. Mary however according to scripture was to be called blessed among all generations.
-- Pamela (rosylace@aol.com), July 03, 1999.
Since you asked so nicely, I will refrain from using other languages unless it relates directly to an issue at hand (Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, etc.). The work I referenced was the NWT (Rev 13:8) because I noticed that you have a great affiliation to the word "jehovah". Incidently, this invented word was first conjured up by the Catholic Spanish Dominican monk, Raymundus Martini. The first recorded use of this word [name?] was in 1270. Raymundus combined the tetragrammaton (YHWH) and pronounced it with the vowels of "Adonai" thus resulting in "yahowah". This combination has the Latinized spelling "jehovah". This 13th Century invention has been applied to the Diety of the Scriptures by the New World Translation. (see "Aid to Bible Understanding", WatchTower Society, p 885.)You are quite accurate in stating that there is no perfect translation. The Greek language, like French, Spanish, etc., is too rich to be translated into English 100% accurately. This being the case, I do not feel restricted to reading only one version of God's inspired Word. Nor am I restricted to only the NJB or NAB. If you are bound to the NWT, you have the same 'problem.' But I see that you're not because you reference several versions of Scripture in your answers and comments choosing the one that best suits your needs.
Almost every senctence you made on your long response can have a separate thread. Some of your questions/comments have already been treated (for example your "one [heis] mediator" and "the dead know nothing" arguments) on other threads. [Sorry Jamey, but there is to many to reference, please check the threads when time permits.]
You asked if you should assume that I believe that God can fail. You may use your own terminology; however, this is not how this topic is treated in the Scripture. For example, God wills all men to be saved (1Tim 2:4), but Scripture is clear that not all men will be saved (Rom 2:1-11). Do the Scriptures call God a failure in this respect because despite His will some will not be saved? Absolutely not. Therefore, I do not either.
I will address your other comments shortly. Gotta go for a while. I'll be back :).
-- Jorge (JTrujillo7203@hotmail.com), July 03, 1999.
To All,Have not read the entire text of this issue but it is great to see so many involved. For myself in part may I offer Mary is the New Eve and Christ is the New Adam. We were given a chance to start once again by the loving mercy of the Father. P.S. - boy I like this stuff! = Peace = Jean B.
-- jean bouchardRay, (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), July 03, 1999.
[If Mary never had intimate relations with her husband Joseph, was their marriage valid in the Jewish culture? My understanding is that consummation was required from a legal standpoint. Is that why Matthew 1:25 says "But he had no union with her UNTIL she gave birth to a son"? It would seem that Matthew was not aware of the perpetual virginity doctrine.]God is the overseer of Marriage, He created it! Even in the Catholic Church today an uncontested , unconsummated marrisge is valid. Matthew is pointing out that Joseph could not be the father because he had no relations with Mary at any time before the birth. It has no reference as to what happened after the birth. Nothing in the Scriptures states that Mary did not remain a virgin for the rest of her life. Since Protestants only accept the Scriptures for Divine Revelation they can say nothing about the Perpetual Virginity of Mary since the Scriptures say nothing definitive about it.
Br. Rich S.F.O.
-- Br. Rich S.F.O. (repsfo@prodigy.net), July 03, 1999.
Jorge,Thank you taking the time to list the Greek text. I do not translate a Greek. Have hard enough time with English :>). AS Chris here pointed out once, I do look up words and meanings though.
As to my "great affiliation to the word "Jehovah"", I tend to use this rendition more because it better fits in the overall. The same as "Jesus" is the English translation of His True name from Hebrew - Yehoshua (spelling I think). Similar to some of my Spanish friends in college used to call me "Hiamey" because they weren't used to the "J".
So would tend to agree the JW's, if you use "Jesus" then "Jehovah" better fits the overall "scheme." If you must use "Yahweh" as Catholic Bibles tend to do, then I would think it better to use "Yehoshua" instead of "Jesus." And, no one really knows the True pronunciation of YHWH.
You may have missed earlier threads. I said before I'm not a "Jehovah Witness." Though I do believe many things they teach. I am neither bound to use only the NWT. I do have a very nice study NAB, which has been very helpful (given to me by a Catholic friend). This should be relevant in that I typically do not use it here, because many Catholics believe it to be in error anyway and take offense to it.
You did have me thinking your were right about the NWT being in error. However, in actuality the NWT agrees WITH the NAB. Which I find fascinating. In most cases when I've compared them they do. But, comparing them against the KJV they don't. The NWT and NAB are closer in wordage than the NAB and KJV. Except of course in John 1:1 and the "stake" thing :>).
I still believe the ramifications of what you listed before are misleading in saying the "Lamb was slaughtered from the..."
Revelation 13:8 Looking at King James based versions:
KJV 8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
NIV 8 All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast--all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world.
These can be read to imply that Lamb is slain from the ..... Which I believe is not the case as stated it was.
After the King James'ers realized the confusion:
RSV 8 and all who dwell on earth will worship it, every one whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb that was slain.
DARBY 8 and all that dwell on the earth shall do it homage, [every one] whose name had not been written from [the] founding of [the] world in the book of life of the slain Lamb.
Where some of the misunderstanding comes from, imho:
YLT 8 And bow before it shall all who are dwelling upon the land, whose names have not been written in the scroll of the life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world;
You can read this either way and not be "wrong." There is no punctuation and too many prepositions.
Now look at: NASB (NAB/NJB similar) 8 All who *dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone *whose name has not been written *from the foundation of the world in the *book of life of *the Lamb who has been slain.
NWT (again)And all those who dwell on the earth will worship it; the name of not one of them stands written in the scroll of life of the Lamb who was slaughtered, from the founding of the world."
Prepositions are "extraneous" info, used to help "clarify" the nouns and verbs. Notice where the punctuation and preposition are and taking them out: "the name (them)... from the founding..
In conclusion, the NWT and NAB really AGREE. Now you' can tell me what the Septuagint and Vulgate say. I do not have copies of these.
The reason for the need for understanding is this,imho, agreement for the rest of the Bible: compare to Dan 12:1, Mat 25:34, Eph 1:4, Rev 17:8
The other ones' you listed still compare to the KJ misleading thought. I still believe it's the "names" that are "from the founding...". Every body's names "were in the Book". Some get "blotted out." Free Will' comes into play in those cases.
The Search,
-- Jamey (jcreel@hcsmail.com), July 06, 1999.
I find parts of this dialogue amusingly annoying regarding our Holy Mother's " sex " life. So much speculation on her and Joseph's nuptials when what came to mind was the folowing: A doctor asked his patient if she had ever be been bedridden. Her reply was " none of your business!"It is not beyond our compehension that a man and woman completely devouted to God and have been given the direct responsibilty of rearing a very special child would be perhaps celibet in their union.
Remember Joseph did not turn away from Mary when he found out she was with child. Rather he gave the security of life itself. What a guy.
I have read over the years speculation of Christ having natural brothers and sisters born of Mary. What a hoot. There is spculation that a Royal Lineage is existant in the world stemming from this union of Joseph and Mary. Hogwash.
Promethius in the dark of night climbed Olympus and stole the flame. We know his fate - if not read classical Greek Mythology. Christ offered that same flame to us freely to accept or reject due to free will.
All these " secret societies such Knight Templars - Masons and such are hilarious to me for the suffer from the Nietche (help in spelling please) that has permeated man's thoughts these past two centuries being " we are of God we ARE God(s).
Last thougth is: What makes God laugh? When we try to figure what He is doing." =Peace= Jean B.
-- jean bouchardRC, (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), July 06, 1999.
"What makes God laugh? When we try to figure what He is doing."Cute:>) I like it.
Now, hat makes The Father happy? When we succeed according to what He has Purposed. Similar to how we' view our kids when they reach a milestone. When a father sees his son take his first step, what a feeling! What about when he see's that first track race won? How much more must our Father feel?
PS: BTW thnk you very much for your email!
-- Jamey (jcreel@hcsmail.com), July 06, 1999.
To All,Laughter with God not at Him is the sound I think most hated and feared by Satan. Perhaps I may sound nuts to you all but I laugh at the Devil for he has no hold on me. Whatever "friendship" he may feel he has with me is false. I am a simple man like many who turns to my big brother when in trouble He has never - never - let me down.
Sure I cry laugh become angry for that is humanity of which I hope t never lose.=Peace=Jean B.=A Little Brother In Christ=
-- jean bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), July 07, 1999.
Hi Jamey, I haven't forgotten about you. I have been extremely busy with work and have not had the chance to sit down to respond to you at length. A million pardons my good sir. I have put in my 2 cents here and there but no lengthy respones since I do not like to use my work time for personal business. I know you're anxious to know what Catholicism teaches regarding a "new heaven and new earth." For the mean time let me reference you to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Part One, Article 12-"I Believe in Life Everlasting", VI.- "The Hope of the New Heaven and the New Earth", pgs 272-275.By the way, the reason I do hold to "Yahweh" over "jehovah" is that it is more commonly accepted by scholars. Remember, unlike Jesus' name, the tetragrammaton is completely missing all vowels. We can insert any given vowels and create any divine name we want to. We are not 100% what the name/word is. Maybe this is why the Catechism of the Catholic Church simply left the tetragrammaton untranslated - YHWH - for the Divine Name.
I don't feel you can make a case for using "jehovah" by appealing to Jesus' name since Scripture gives us His complete name - "Iesous". The Greek Scriptures give us His entire name vowels and consonants alike. Thus we are not at liberty to assign any name we want to Him. "Jesus" is a valid English equivalent for His Greek name. Now if Jesus' name did not contain vowels, then there would be a problem of translating His name into English since we wouldn't know what it is. But since that is not the case, we can confidently call on Him by His English name - "Jesus" and be assured that He hears us.
When I have more time, I will attempt to respond to your other comments regarding "from the foundation. . .", etc. Hope to "see" you soon Jamey.
-- Jorge (JTrujillo7203@hotmail.com), July 10, 1999.