it should and does in my head and heart, but these are not in the Bible and unacceptable whenever and wherever it suits me to do so , so lets see exactly where your head and heart are - if you were God would you allow your mother to corrupt and die - you just might but God would not [Ps.16:10/Acts.2:27 and 13:35 and in passing note 13:41 - are you prepared to even go so far as to regard Jesus as callous and even worse than you - wincam
Which Came First...Bible or the Church
- Thread starter Voxxkowalski
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
it should and does in my head and heart, but these are not in the Bible and unacceptable whenever and wherever it suits me to do so , so lets see exactly where your head and heart are - if you were God would you allow your mother to corrupt and die - you just might but God would not [Ps.16:10/Acts.2:27 and 13:35 and in passing note 13:41 - are you prepared to even go so far as to regard Jesus as callous and even worse than you - wincam
Tell your seminary friend back at your Alma Mater to go back and study history some more and to quit saying silly things.
I mean, really, we have enough problems trying to exegesis the N.T. without having to get sidetracked by outlandish ideas.
Has this seminarian studied Mathew 16:18-19?
Does he believe Mathew didn't know what he was talking about? It clearly is speaking of Peter.
Your statement is not out of place and it's good you brought it up.
I doubt any forgiveness is necessary, but that's between you and God.
All questions should be removed from our mind so that we could proceed forward to learn what God would have us to learn.
Fran
P.S. I don't mean from the above that I believe Peter was the first Pope.
I mean, really, we have enough problems trying to exegesis the N.T. without having to get sidetracked by outlandish ideas.
Has this seminarian studied Mathew 16:18-19?
Does he believe Mathew didn't know what he was talking about? It clearly is speaking of Peter.
Your statement is not out of place and it's good you brought it up.
I doubt any forgiveness is necessary, but that's between you and God.
All questions should be removed from our mind so that we could proceed forward to learn what God would have us to learn.
Fran
P.S. I don't mean from the above that I believe Peter was the first Pope.
Wincam
It's good if you're Catholic and you believe Mary's assumption into heaven. it's a dogma and you're required to believe it and you should if it's in your heart.
The problem is that you'll have a tough nut to crack by presenting this idea here.
It's not biblical. Some Catholic theology is biblical and can be supported - even if different theologians would have a different opinion. However, the assumption cannot be supported AT ALL by the written word. Mary is not even mentioned after the crucifixion. If something like this had happened, it certainly would have been mentioned - it would have been too spectacular.
The reason Catholics believe in the assumption is because Jesus was born without sin and he ascended into heaven. So, by logical conclusion by them, if Mary was born without sin, then she also would have had to be taken into heaven without decaying.
Since the entire question of Mary being born without sin is an issue - you then cannot jump to the ascension. it will never be accepted.
Fran
It's good if you're Catholic and you believe Mary's assumption into heaven. it's a dogma and you're required to believe it and you should if it's in your heart.
The problem is that you'll have a tough nut to crack by presenting this idea here.
It's not biblical. Some Catholic theology is biblical and can be supported - even if different theologians would have a different opinion. However, the assumption cannot be supported AT ALL by the written word. Mary is not even mentioned after the crucifixion. If something like this had happened, it certainly would have been mentioned - it would have been too spectacular.
The reason Catholics believe in the assumption is because Jesus was born without sin and he ascended into heaven. So, by logical conclusion by them, if Mary was born without sin, then she also would have had to be taken into heaven without decaying.
Since the entire question of Mary being born without sin is an issue - you then cannot jump to the ascension. it will never be accepted.
Fran
Fran - guess what - all I am asking and it seems Jesus also asks is it not just to use the heart or head in isolation or in preference or opposition one to the other but both together - Jesus should have really corrupted and never have made it to heaven with all our filthy sins covering Him but guess what - see Ps.16:10/Acts.2:27 and 13:35 - and by the way in passing pause awhile and seriously consider 13:41 - wincam
Last edited:
Fran - again we must use our head and heart in conjunction and try and understand that maybe there just might have been a very good reason or reasons why Mary is not mentioned and straight away realise the Assumption was long after Pentecost and why the Bible was actually written which it does tell us but only it seems for those with eyes to see and ears to hear
- so where was Mary between the Crucifixion and her Assumption and why is and was it not general knowledge - I will leave this for another post and another topic if anyone is interested - in the meantime try and guess or lets have your takes on this mystery - wincam
I believe it could be discussed here.
You say that it's for those with eyes to see and ears to hear. Okay.
But Jesus told a parable before He would say these words.
So, where in the bible do you think the assumption is mentioned but only those with ears to hear will hear it?
If you check out the CCC, you'll find the assumption at about no. 965...
if you notice there are no footnotes to any of the paragraphs whereas in other cases there are many. The only footnote is 2 Peter 3:10 and it has nothing to do with the assumption.
As to where Mary was at the beginning of the church - we could read CCC no. 965:
965 After her Son's Ascension, Mary "aided the beginnings of the Church by her prayers."[SUP]506[/SUP] In her association with the apostles and several women, "we also see Mary by her prayers imploring the gift of the Spirit, who had already overshadowed her in the Annunciation."[SUP]507
[/SUP][SUP]It would be interesting to know your ideas.
[/SUP]If you prefer to PM it would be fine with me - I'd really like to hear your idea.
Fran
You say that it's for those with eyes to see and ears to hear. Okay.
But Jesus told a parable before He would say these words.
So, where in the bible do you think the assumption is mentioned but only those with ears to hear will hear it?
If you check out the CCC, you'll find the assumption at about no. 965...
if you notice there are no footnotes to any of the paragraphs whereas in other cases there are many. The only footnote is 2 Peter 3:10 and it has nothing to do with the assumption.
As to where Mary was at the beginning of the church - we could read CCC no. 965:
965 After her Son's Ascension, Mary "aided the beginnings of the Church by her prayers."[SUP]506[/SUP] In her association with the apostles and several women, "we also see Mary by her prayers imploring the gift of the Spirit, who had already overshadowed her in the Annunciation."[SUP]507
[/SUP][SUP]It would be interesting to know your ideas.
[/SUP]If you prefer to PM it would be fine with me - I'd really like to hear your idea.
Fran
The Holy One referred to in these verses is Jesus, not Mary. If your argument is that God wouldn't let Mary die because He loved her, then why did God let my own mother die even though He loved her? None of us would physically die if the answer is that God would not allow those He loves to die. In fact, no one on earth would die because Jesus said, "God so loved the world..."
Your "logic" seems to be: I want to believe it, therefore, it must be true. Sorry, but that doesn't cut it.
Seems to me, you have a hard time acknowledging that Mary was human. She was. She sinned just like the rest of us. Personally, I would think that Mary would be appalled at those who would make her out to be more than what she was -- a humble servant of God.
Your "logic" seems to be: I want to believe it, therefore, it must be true. Sorry, but that doesn't cut it.
Seems to me, you have a hard time acknowledging that Mary was human. She was. She sinned just like the rest of us. Personally, I would think that Mary would be appalled at those who would make her out to be more than what she was -- a humble servant of God.
I'm not really sure what you're asking. That phrase is a reference to Jesus, God's Son, so... What's the question?
The angel does say that Mary is highly-favored. Are you trying to imply that because she was highly favored, she didn't die?Again, I see no evidence of that.
And when it comes to chosen -- all who believe are chosen.
The angel does say that Mary is highly-favored. Are you trying to imply that because she was highly favored, she didn't die?Again, I see no evidence of that.
And when it comes to chosen -- all who believe are chosen.