Do you agree or disagree with the following statements? If you find issues with the way a statement is written please say so. If, you believe a statement is misleading or unclear please say so. If, you believe that one or more of these statements wrongly divides the scriptures, twist the scriptures, or misreads the scriptures please say so.
(1) There is only one God
(2) Jesus/Yeshua bar Miriam is the promised Messiah/Mashiach(Anointed one)
(2) Jesus/Yeshua was miraculous conceived as is stated in the canonical gospels of Matthew and Luke. Joseph is Jesus adoptive father, but not his father in an ontological way or through DNA.
(4) Jesus/Yeshua is the 'Son of God'
(5) Jesus/Yeshua fulfilled the Law/Torah
(6) Jesus/Yeshua willing suffered for our sins
(7) Jesus/Yeshua was crucified on a cross and died
(8) Jesus/Yeshua died and was buried
(9) God raised Jesus/Yeshua from the grave and/or Jesus was resurrected
(10) Jesus/Yeshua 'sits at the right hand of God' or is God's right-hand man, in other words, Jesus/Yeshua is God's vizier.
(11) All those who trust in (have faith) in Jesus/Yeshua and have accepted him as their Lord shall be shaved(or maybe have already been saved?).
(12) Those who trust in Jesus/Yeshua even shall be resurrected and have everlasting life.
Grace and Peace
@Mitchell asked:
(1) There is only one God
I agree.
(2) Jesus/Yeshua bar Miriam is the promised Messiah/Mashiach(Anointed one)
I agree.
(3) Jesus/Yeshua was miraculous conceived as is stated in the canonical gospels of Matthew and Luke. Joseph is Jesus adoptive father, but not his father in an ontological way or through DNA.
I disagree. I believe Joseph was the biological father of Jesus.
(4) Jesus/Yeshua is the 'Son of God'
I agree, where "Son of God" is the biblical title ascribed to the one of God's choosing.
(5) Jesus/Yeshua fulfilled the Law/Torah
I agree.
(6) Jesus/Yeshua willing suffered for our sins
I agree.
(7) Jesus/Yeshua was crucified on a cross and died
I agree.
(8) Jesus/Yeshua died and was buried
I agree.
(9) God raised Jesus/Yeshua from the grave and/or Jesus was resurrected
I agree.
(10) Jesus/Yeshua 'sits at the right hand of God' or is God's right-hand man, in other words, Jesus/Yeshua is God's vizier.
I agree. [NOTE: An interesting, even provocative choice of words, "vizier"!]
(11) All those who trust in (have faith) in Jesus/Yeshua and have accepted him as their Lord shall be shaved(or maybe have already been saved?).
I agree.
(12) Those who trust in Jesus/Yeshua even shall be resurrected and have everlasting life.
I agree. ("shall be" or "already are")
@Mitchell wrote
(1) There is only one God
I agree ...
Note: I would actually rather say "God is One" since "one God" is often used by those who actually have a God who is three and then claim that He is "one God {trio/triune Godhead/etc}"
(2) Jesus/Yeshua bar Miriam is the promised Messiah/Mashiach(Anointed one)
I agree ...
(3) Jesus/Yeshua was miraculous conceived as is stated in the canonical gospels of Matthew and Luke. Joseph is Jesus adoptive father, but not his father in an ontological way or through DNA.
I agree ...
(4) Jesus/Yeshua is the 'Son of God'
I agree ...
(5) Jesus/Yeshua fulfilled the Law/Torah
I agree ...
(6) Jesus/Yeshua willing suffered for our sins
I agree ...
(7) Jesus/Yeshua was crucified on a cross and died
I agree ...
(8) Jesus/Yeshua died and was buried
I agree ...
(9) God raised Jesus/Yeshua from the grave and/or Jesus was resurrected
I agree ...
(10) Jesus/Yeshua 'sits at the right hand of God' or is God's right-hand man, in other words, Jesus/Yeshua is God's vizier.
I agree ...
Note: I would say that "the position at the right hand" describes figuratively what is meant by the word "vizier"
(11) All those who trust in (have faith) in Jesus/Yeshua and have accepted him as their Lord shall be shaved(or maybe have already been saved?).
I agree ... (note => spelling mistake "shaved" instead of "saved" )
(12) Those who trust in Jesus/Yeshua even shall be resurrected and have everlasting life.
I agree ...
Note: What is stated in (12) applies to those who lived and died prior to the coming of the Lord and "the resurrection of the last day / at the end of the age"; those believers in Jesus/Yeshua alive at that time and afterwards will be changed in the twinkling of an eye and receive eternal life in the presence of God .
@Mitchell said:
(10) Jesus/Yeshua 'sits at the right hand of God' or is God's right-hand man, in other words, Jesus/Yeshua is God's vizier.
Mitch,
"Yeshua is God's "vizier'"? I take issue with your word to identify or label Jesus as such. In fact, I resent it! Was this a poor word choice or you were being provocative? If it's the latter, I am appalled of your usage of this word, in light of the denial and the relegation of Jesus, in these forums, by a select few. They are the Twenty-First Century anti-Trinitarian agitators in a big way, here in CD. Unfortunately, there's a third individual waiting in the wings to be activated as soon as he gets an academic break. They have, without verbal declaration, taken up the “mantle” of Michael Servetus, an anti-Trinitarian agitator of the sixteenth century. I'll say more about him in another post, at the appropriate spot, in these forums. Doubters, skeptics, and deniers of Christ, don't need any help, ideas or suggestions to further denigrate Christ in these forums or in the non-christian world. You don't need to help the "Devil" carry his water. Please, don't think I am attacking anyone personally. I am merely addressing the "hard-core" anti-Trinitarian's position (see below). This modern-day "fool-ology" is nothing new in view of history.
Mitch, a man of your intellectual stature, you know a "vizier" could be:
The usage of this term, alone, makes Jesus less than what Scripture said he is. Because Jesus was submissive to his Father's will, it doesn't make him less than what He is. We have a lot to learn about humility. We must avoid reading to much human reasoning into God's relegations and "accommodations" to communicate with humanity.
I am appall by the term because Jesus shares, equally, divine attributes with the Father and the Holy Spirit (See my posting of these around the forums). He is Creator, Savior, Redeemer and "Lord". Jesus is far more than we can express or comprehend. In our quest to be witnesses for Christ and the Word, at least, we are to remember a line from the "Hippocratic Oath" historically taken by new physicians: "first, do no harm” (Classical Latin: [ˈpriːmʊ̃n noːn nɔˈkeːrɛ]) or “primum non nocere,” the Latin translation from the original Greek)". Be a witness for Jesus! You don't have to debate or argue the truth of who Jesus is or the relevancy of the Bible. It's the authority and guide of all men. Just proclaim it! Jesus wants us to be witnesses to name, love, character, grace, mercy, goodness, etc., and not lawyers or debaters.
In the Hebrew Bible the Word of God is creative, active, and powerfully accomplishes the unexpected. It is explicitly stated that God was creating by His Word:
-- “By the word of the LORD were the heavens made, their starry host by the breath of his mouth” (Ps 33:6).
-- The Old Testament speaks of the “Spirit of God” and the “Word of the Lord” in connection with the Creation of life (Gen. 1:1–3).
-- “For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood firm” (Ps 33:6).
God’s creative Word always accomplishes its purpose:
-- “So is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it” (Isa 55:11; see also Jer 23:29).
Jesus Christ is presented in John 1:1–3, 14 as the Word of God in two capacities—as the Creator and as the Word incarnate:
-- “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. . . . The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.”
According to 1 Sam 15:26, Saul by refusing to obey the Word of God actually refused to obey God. Keep studying. CM
The way I understand Jesus is that he is one Spirit without beginning or end extending in all directions forever. And as God he is three persons who eternally relate to each other as the Father person who eternally begets the Son person, who with the Father generates the Holy Spirit person. This is apart from time which God created. So this state of the Godhead always is, was, and will be.
God became incarnate in the Son of man having a perfectly sinless human body and soul. But unlike us who are body, soul, and spirit, the Son of man was body, soul, and God. Speaking in the second person of the trinity as the eternal Son of God.
The name Jesus Christ is the NT equivalent to the OT name YAHWEH.
Jesus Christ spoke as the eternal Son of God at times and as the incarnate Son of man at other times. Who is now forever glorified in his resurrected human body after paying for the sins of all whom he brings to having faith in him.
I want to thank everyone who has commented so far. Thank you Wolfgang for pointing out my typographical error.
Now, as for my word choice of vizier. I had no intention of being proactive and I apologize if my word choice was disturbing in some way. CM I am very surprised at your understanding of the word 'vizier' and interpretation of what I wrote! But, I thank you very much for proving your opinions and reaction (feedback).
What, I had is basically the following:
(1) Typology: Joseph was the vizier of Egypt according to Genesis and I was always taught that Joseph was a type of the Mashiach/Christ who was to come.
(2) 1 Timothy 2:5 that clearly states that the man Yeshua/Jesus is the mediator between man and God, in other words one of his roles (not his only role!) is that of Royal/Holy vizier. (However, a vizier is something much more than a mediator at least in modern English). And, Hebrews 4:15 that states that Yeshua/Jesus is our high Priest who empathizes with us because he was just like us another Vizier type of role . And, of course Psalms chapter 2 (especially verses 6 ~ 8) where the picture of Messiah as God's holy absolute vizier is painted.
The following two links present the type of concept or Typology I had in mind when picking the word Vizier:
AND
However, since it may be provocative or upsetting for the word vizier to be use to describe one of the roles of Messiah/Christ in your country and/or version of modern English I will refrain from using it.
Grace and Peace
I don't agree with point 10. He does not sit at the right hand of God (He is God) He sits at the right hand of the Father.
Thank you for your input Reformed.
Rather than sitting as both I and you thought according to the account in Acts 7:55-56 Yeshua/Jesus is standing. And according to Acts 7:55-56 he is standing at the right hand of God meaning that statement 10 is at least partial correct.
On. the other hand what you wrote Reformed is partial confirmed by Ephesians 1:20. There Yeshua/Jesus is seated next to the Father, but the Father in this case is identified as God The Father. So, Yeshua/Jesus does sit at the right hand of God (God the father).
@ Reformed said:
@Mitchell said:
(10) Jesus/Yeshua 'sits at the right hand of God' or is God's right-hand man, in other words, Jesus/Yeshua is God's vizier.
Reformed,
Before I comment, what is your understanding of what Mitchell said in the above statement? CM
@reformed said:
I don't agree with point 10. He does not sit at the right hand of God (He is God) He sits at the right hand of the Father.
If the glorified Jesus doesn't sit at "the right hand of God," but rather at "the right hand of the Father," why are there no verses in the New Testament that say so, but rather these verses...
... that say he sits at the right hand of God? In fact, in its larger context, Acts 2.33 seems to make clear that "Father" is simply a synonym for "God," and not a component of a multi-dimensional Godhead: (emphasis added)
Thanks, Mitch, for your reasoning in word choice. Jesus in his quest to reach man at various times and on various levels occupy several roles, as you rightly stated it's not just the one thing. He's much more.
Let me be clear, my response to your use of the "Vizier", "one of the roles of Messiah/Christ" was in light of the context (anti-Trinitarian onslaught) here in CD. If necessary, please re-read, the first paragraph of my posting. What I stated, remains. However, if you feel imposed upon, this I do apologize without reservation. I guess I can't expect you to have the same sensitivity in view of the contextual situation that I do.
On another point: Yes, Joseph was "a type of the Mashiach/Christ", but NOT Christ. Keep in mind:
"... Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it [Or something to be held onto to be equal] robbery to be equal with God, 7 but [emptied Himself of His privileges] made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became [Ps. 40:6–8; Matt. 26:39; John 10:18; [Rom. 5:19] obedient [Heb. 5:8] to the point of death, even the death of the cross." NKJV (Php 2:5–8)
However, I would like to correct a "typographical error", I made in my original posting:
Incorrectly typed in the third paragraph: "We must avoid reading to much human reasoning into God's relegations and "accommodations" to communicate with humanity.
The correct word should have been "revelations" and not "relegations". Therefore, it should have correctly read: "We must avoid reading to much human reasoning into God's revelations and "accommodations" to communicate with humanity. Thanks for your understanding. Happy Sharing! CM
@Mitchell said:
However, since it may be provocative or upsetting for the word vizier to be use to describe one of the roles of Messiah/Christ in your country and/or version of modern English I will refrain from using it.
So that I'm clear about my reaction to your use of the word "vizier," I say now that I was not at all offended or otherwise put off by your word choice. I called that choice "interesting, even provocative" in a previous post only because of its definitional connections to Muslim country leadership structures. Those are connections that don't raise issues for me, in part because I assumed you were employing them for pretty much the reason you have now laid out (as a concept or typology).
@Bill_Coley said:
"... he sits at the right hand of God? In fact, in its larger context, Acts 2.33 seems to make clear that "Father" is simply a synonym for "God," and not a component of a multi-dimensional Godhead: (emphasis added)"
Bill,
It's nice of you to mention a broader view of the text. "In its larger context", Acts 2:33, is closely related to the ministry of the Spirit upon the earth. This is suggested, for example, by the fact that both Christ and the Spirit are called “Parakletos” (Advocate, Counselor—1 John 2:1; John 14:16, 26; 15:26) and that both are said to intercede for us (Rom 8:26, 34; Heb 7:25). The Holy Spirit mediates to the believers upon the earth the benefits of Christ’s heavenly ministry (John 15:26; 16:13-14; Acts 2:33).
It is noteworthy that the interim period between the Ascension and the Parousia is viewed in the New Testament, Christ as a time of intense activity at the right hand of God on behalf of believers. The Savior’s heavenly ministry is described by such human analogies as:
-- “Priest” (Heb 7:15; 8:4; 10:21)
-- “High Priest” (Heb 2:17; 3:1; 4:14; 7:26; 8:1; 9:11)
-- “Mediator” (1 Tim 2:5; Heb 8:6; 9:15; 12:24)
--“Intercessor” (Rom 8:34; 1 John 2:1; Heb 6:20; 7:25; 9:24).
These analogies [Counselor/Intercessor] indicate that the function of Christ’s heavenly ministry at “the presence of God on our behalf" (Heb 9:24) is essentially redemptive. As expressed in Hebrews 7:25, “He is able for all time to save those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.” CM
Good point Bill. He sits at the right hand of God (the Father).
@Bill_Coley Said:
I disagree. I believe Joseph was the biological father of Jesus.
Just curious how do you come to this conclusion? I will say that this does give some insight to your Christology, but curious how you arrived there from the text of Scripture.
Reformed,
I would like to hear Bill's reasoning in his belief "Joseph was the biological father of Jesus" myself. Whatever the rationale the implications will be acutely revealing and most serious.
I can logically conclude, on my own, how he got to his conclusion, but I'll hold my piece and let Bill speak for himself. Until then, I will hold my tongue. I remain. CM
@C_M_ said:
It's nice of you to mention a broader view of the text. "In its larger context", Acts 2:33, is closely related to the ministry of the Spirit upon the earth. This is suggested, for example, by the fact that both Christ and the Spirit are called “Parakletos” (Advocate, Counselor—1 John 2:1; John 14:16, 26; 15:26) and that both are said to intercede for us (Rom 8:26, 34; Heb 7:25). The Holy Spirit mediates to the believers upon the earth the benefits of Christ’s heavenly ministry (John 15:26; 16:13-14; Acts 2:33).
None of the verses you cite makes Jesus the Spirit. Note that the use of "Parakletos" in 1 John 2.1 produces, in every translation I consulted, a phrase that leverages the indefinite article "an" - as in "we have an advocate" (note also the small "a" with which "advocate" begins) while both John 14.26 and John 15.26 reference "the Advocate" (a definite article and a capital "A"at the front of "Advocate"). Likewise, Romans 8.26 refers to "the Spirit" (definite article + capital letter) who intercedes for us. So Jesus is "an advocate," while the Spirit is "the Advocate." I contend those references are consequentially different.
It is noteworthy that the interim period between the Ascension and the Parousia is viewed in the New Testament, Christ as a time of intense activity at the right hand of God on behalf of believers.
Christ's working "at the right hand of God" for believers, in my view, excludes Christ's being God for those believers... unless a being can be at one's own right hand, a state which, by the most common sense definition of the phrase, I consider impossible.
The Savior’s heavenly ministry is described by such human analogies as:
I don't have time to respond to all of the verses you cited, CM, but I need only refer to two of them, for they make my point: (emphasis added)
One God and one mediator between that God and humanity; Jesus is that mediator. CLEARLY, it seems to me, the writer wants us to believe that the mediator between God and humanity (Jesus) is NOT God.
Christ now appears in the presence of God on our behalf. The verse doesn't say Christ's IS the presence of God. The presence of God is one Christ must enter into. The language of the verse, in my view, makes it abundantly obvious that the writer does NOT believe Jesus is God.
[And if you want a third one - one not on your list - look at Hebrews 9.14, in which the writer says Christ "offered himself without blemish to God." How can one who is God offer him/herself to God? There is NO suggestion anywhere in the passage that the writer believes Jesus is God, and every suggestion, based on the words of the text, that the writer believes Jesus is NOT God.]
I believe you ascribe to the view that there are no contradictions in the Bible. Great! But if you believe that, then you must believe there are no verses in the Bible that contradict the clear meaning of those three verses when it comes to the distinction between Jesus and God. Their meaning regarding Jesus and God is clear and consistent. Do you believe the rest of the New Testament agrees with those three verses?
I would like to reiterate that on this thread I absolute welcome feedback, reactions, and especially criticism even if I find them a little surprising at first. I want to improve my writing skills and how I think about/through Theology. I have found this thread so far to be honest and very helpful!
My writing is sloppy and rough, And, if anything I write is grammatically incorrect, vague, unclear, could be misleading, hurtful, or wrongly divides the Word please speak up. Politeness definitely has its place, but not at the cost of honesty and truth.
Grace and Truth
@Bill_Coley said:
Bill,
You recently said above the following:
None of the verses you cite makes Jesus the Spirit. Note that the use of "Parakletos" in 1 John 2.1 produces, in every translation I consulted, a phrase that leverages the indefinite article "an" - as in "we have an advocate" (note also the small "a" with which "advocate" begins) while both John 14.26 and John 15.26 reference "the Advocate" (a definite article and a capital "A"at the front of "Advocate"). Likewise, Romans 8.26 refers to "the Spirit" (definite article + capital letter) who intercedes for us. So Jesus is "an advocate," while the Spirit is "the Advocate." I contend those references are consequentially different.
Christ's working "at the right hand of God" for believers, in my view, excludes Christ's being God for those believers... unless a being can be at one's own right hand, a state which, by the most common sense definition of the phrase, I consider impossible.
1 Timothy 2.5 (ESV): For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus
One God and one mediator between that God and humanity; Jesus is that mediator. CLEARLY, it seems to me, the writer wants us to believe that the mediator between God and humanity (Jesus) is NOT God.
Hebrews 9.24 (ESV): For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf.
Christ now appears in the presence of God on our behalf. The verse doesn't say Christ's IS the presence of God. The presence of God is one Christ must enter into. The language of the verse, in my view, makes it abundantly obvious that the writer does NOT believe Jesus is God.
@Bill_Coley said:
In my view, Mary is in heaven.
Yes, in the company of the angels.
Bill, where in Scripture it says Mary was "translated", "resurrected", or "raptured" to heaven?
No. As I understand Catholic thought, Mary is NOT a mediator or co-mediator. She is an additional voice of support Catholics seek out for their prayers. Recall also that in the 1 Timothy text, as "mediator," Jesus negotiates/ratifies/implements a new relationship between God and humanity through his surrender of self on the cross (see also Hebrews 9.15). In Catholic thought, Mary plays NO SUCH ROLE.
Notice also that 1 Timothy 2 opens with a call that "supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people." (1 Timothy 2.1, ESV) So the author of the epistle is clearly not opposed to people praying for - interceding on behalf of - each other.
To my understanding, Catholics pray to Mary as a heavenly intercessor, much the way 1 Timothy 2.1 calls us to intercede for each other on earth.
"... For Catholics, Mary is not a gatekeeper.
Which is it? How do you reconcile man's "mediator between God and humanity"? Is it Jesus or Jesus and Mary? Where is the biblical text for Mary? Jesus is not enough? It says, "one mediator" and "the man". He is identified as Christ Jesus.
"Mary as a heavenly intercessor"; "Christ now appears in the presence of God on our behalf"; recently, you cited: 1 Timothy 2.5 (ESV), "For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus One God and one mediator between that God and humanity; Jesus is that mediator".
Do what you can to bring your various sayings and biblical understanding together on the subject of the "mediator between God and humanity", if you can. Others may comment, but I will await your response. Thanks. CM
@C_M_ said:
Bill, where in Scripture it says Mary was "translated", "resurrected", or "raptured" to heaven?
There is no verse that declares Mary's translation into heaven, just as there is no verse that declares most OT characters' translation to Sheol. The fact that there isn't a verse that says "Mary then went to heaven" isn't proof that she didn't go to heaven. To my knowledge, there is no information in the Bible about Mary's post-crucifixion/resurrection years, let alone her death. As the legal aphorism says: Absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence.
Which is it? How do you reconcile man's "mediator between God and humanity"? Is it Jesus or Jesus and Mary? Where is the biblical text for Mary? Jesus is not enough? It says, "one mediator" and "the man". He is identified as Christ Jesus.
"Mary as a heavenly intercessor"; "Christ now appears in the presence of God on our behalf"; recently, you cited: 1 Timothy 2.5 (ESV), "For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus One God and one mediator between that God and humanity; Jesus is that mediator".
Re-visit the words of my post, CM, and I think you'll conclude that I didn't call Mary a "mediator;" I called her an "intercessor," "an additional voice of support Catholics seek out for their prayers." In fact, in one of the sections of my posts that you included in your post, I singled out this important distinction, using the very same 1 Timothy text to which I responded in my previous post in this thread: (emphasis added)
Jesus mediates between God and humanity, enabling and equipping intimacy between God and humanity. As an intercessor, Mary DOES NO SUCH THING in Catholic thought as I understand it. She is a heavenly prayer warrior - she adds her voice to the prayers of those who pray for intercession.
Consequently, there is no "which is it?" issue here. Jesus and Mary perform profoundly different functions in eternally different roles.
How do you explain this contradiction from your own words on this subject matter?
For the reasons just stated, I don't believe there is any contradiction in my words.
Is the Bible mistaken on the subject?
No. The Bible is clear that Jesus is the mediator between God and humanity, and Catholic theology is clear that Mary is NOT the mediator, but rather an intercessor. Those roles are NOT AT ALL the same.
Are your understanding on this matter faulty and evolving?
I see no reason to believe my understanding on this matter is faulty. I hope my understanding of all things is constantly evolving, where "evolving" means growing deeper, richer, stronger, and more complete. I bet you hope for the same kind of evolution in your understanding.
"To my understanding, Catholics pray to Mary as a heavenly intercessor". Is this possible or even necessary?
Catholics believe it's helpful. I don't know whether they believe it's "necessary." I don't believe it's "necessary," but neither do I believe that it's sinful.
How many mediators are there between God and man?
There is one and only one who serves as the mediator between God and humanity as define in the 1 Timothy text. That one is Jesus. Nothing I've said and, to my knowledge, nothing Catholics believe, says there is more than one such mediator.
The mediator, "the man", how can anyone fit Mary in the position? Better yet, is Mary still alive? If so, how? If you can possibly explain it, did her gender changed in heaven? Or, is she Christ?
Mary is NOT the Christ. Nothing I've said and, to my knowledge, nothing Catholics believe, says she is the Christ. With all due respect, CM, why in the world do you even ask this question? Please quote for me the sections of my posts in which I said anything to suggest Mary might still be alive (on earth) or could be the Christ.
Can the dead pray for the living?
I don't speak for Catholics. I respect and celebrate their faith - just as I respect and celebrate yours - but I don't speak for them. I don't pray to anyone other than God, and in no name other than the name of Jesus. I encourage you to ask someone more qualified to address your question.
Can the living pray to the dead?
See my previous answer.
Do you accept the content of l Timothy 2:1-5?
Yes.
Is Mary the advocate ("Parakletos") and counselor for all or some of humanity?
In Catholic thought as I understand it, as an intercessor Mary is an advocate, but not the Advocate (see my discussion of definite and indefinite articles, and the small and capital letters that follow them in THIS POST)
BOTTOM LINE: Your post reflects a great deal of misunderstanding of the views I've expressed in this and other threads, CM. I hope I have clarified matters in my responses in this post.
@Bill_Coley said:
Bill,
Thanks for the time and efforts you've to respond to my post. Unfortunately, clarifying your position on the subject matter and addressing what you perceived as my "misunderstanding of the views I've expressed in this and other threads", raised more questions than answered. Some questions you rightly admitted: "I don't speak for Catholics ... but I don't speak for them. . . I encourage you to ask someone more qualified to address your question". Other questions raised, appear when answered, will have no Scriptural bases for comprehension and practice.
Mary is NOT the Christ. Nothing I've said and, to my knowledge, nothing Catholics believe, says she is the Christ. With all due respect, CM, why in the world do you even ask this question? Please quote for me the sections of my posts in which I said anything to suggest Mary might still be alive (on earth) or could be the Christ.
No, you didn't say or I said, you say. I raised the question to you. Thanks for your response. The question was raised because of certain prerogatives you stated or inferred that Mary has. To pursue the specifics, require greater authority and understanding than you're able to provide. Thanks for your candor.
Perhaps, I will follow-up on your first paragraph, alone, when more time is allotted to this matter.
@C_M_ said: Bill, where in Scripture it says Mary was "translated", "resurrected", or "raptured" to heaven?
Then you responded...
@Bill_Coley said: There is no verse that declares Mary's translation into heaven, just as there is no verse that declares most OT characters' translation to Sheol. The fact that there isn't a verse that says "Mary then went to heaven" isn't proof that she didn't go to heaven. To my knowledge, there is no information in the Bible about Mary's post-crucifixion/resurrection years, let alone her death. As the legal aphorism says: Absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence.
Until then, let's continue to pray for better biblical understanding. CM
@Bill_Coley I know you are probably busy and it is not a quick and simple answer, just wondering if you were going to address the above question.
@reformed said:
@Bill_Coley I know you are probably busy and it is not a quick and simple answer, just wondering if you were going to address the above question.
Thanks for your awareness and sensitivity to my busy-ness. The world is hectic for all of us, I'm sure, and I'm often among the all of us.
Clearly, there isn't much of a biblical record about Joseph, and the only textual indication of even a hint of my belief that he is Jesus' biological father is John 6.42 where a group of Jews seem to testify to a community consensus about the issue. My assumption is that something as controversial as a virgin birth would have found its way into the community's awareness, so Jews' failure to mention it in John 6 offers support for my view, I think.
In addition, I simply don't find the Gospel narratives in Luke and Matthew credible, for a similar reason: The fact of such an astonishing event - a rival to the resurrection as far as Wow! factor - would surely have made it throughout the Christian community; but it didn't make it to Mark or even the later-writing John. As a result, I believe the more likely scenario is that Joseph (or someone else, I suppose) was Jesus' biological father.
And finally, I'll note that my faith in Jesus as the Christ, God's chosen one, is in no way based on the identity of his father.
Such is my view. I'm confident you will disagree. I accept and respect our differences on this question.
Hey, I do not want to take this thread off topic, but after reading your response to reformed (about the Gospel narratives in Luke and Matthew), I am now very curious on which of the various Literary theories/methods the individual forum members favor or apply when engaging in the study of and analysis of their accepted traditions/canons of scripture as well as branch of Epistemology each of us is thinking along the lines of.
The bible is a giant Rorschach test for most all who read it. They don't learn from it, they read into it whatever they think it means. Few if any learn from it by comparing scripture with scripture. Or by studying the creeds that passed the tests of prolonged debate. And it is to this group the trinity and deity of Christ becomes obvious.
Mitch,
In layman's language, you're saying...? CM
I would think that because Joseph married Mary very early into the pregnancy people may not have realized that he was not the biological father.
look earlier when one of the forum members was explaining his position on the identity of Jesus he happened to make an epistemological statement (or maybe a Priori proposition) regarding the veracity (but not directly the canonicity) of the nativity accounts found in the Gospels.
(1) posteriori (Canonicity 2) Priori (3) epistemological (4) prosposition
I found this to be of apologetic interest and to indirectly touch on issues of canon (or rather the various canons) and inspiration. Rather than focus on the individual or the individual's comment I think it would be useful or interesting to have another thread devoted to the topics.
Grace and Peace
@reformed said:
I would think that because Joseph married Mary very early into the pregnancy people may not have realized that he was not the biological father.
This is a curious observation to me because its biblical foundation is not obvious to me. In your view, what text(s) report the point in the span of her pregnancy Mary and Joseph were married?
@Bill_Coley wrote
@reformed said: I would think that because Joseph married Mary very early into the pregnancy people may not have realized that he was not the biological father.
This is a curious observation to me because its biblical foundation is not obvious to me. In your view, what text(s) report the point in the span of her pregnancy Mary and Joseph were married?
(1) There seems agreement among most Bible folks that the term "espoused" in Biblical times meant more than today's"engagement", and that in fact it involved a status that was closer to "marriage", except that the actual wedding ceremony with the subsequent "coming together (consummation of the marriage in sexual intercourse)" had not taken place.
(2) The record in Mat 1:18ff makes reference to the fact that the time of the coming together shortly after the wedding ceremony of Joseph and Mary had come and Joseph had become aware of the fact that his wife was already pregnant ... While contemplating his next steps in this situation, the angel appeared to him, encouraging him "to take unto thee Mary thy wife" , that is to consummate the marriage with his wife. Thus, it appears that the record in Mat 1:18ff records events very close to the actual wedding ceremony of Joseph and Mary.
(3) From both Lk 1:35ff and Mt 1:18ff, it seems clear that Joseph and Mary had not already been married and living together as husband and wife for for some time already ... as Joseph would have already have taken unto himself his wife.
(4) From the above, it also seems clear, that Mary had not had any sexual relationship prior to becoming pregnant by God's miraculous working to provide via His holy spirit power what was needed for her to become pregnant, so that one could speak of a "virgin conception", but Mary shortly after the wedding ceremony and the angel's appearance and words to Joseph would have had marital intimate relations with her husband, so that one actually can not speak of a "virgin birth" (and for sure not about some kind of mystique "perpetual virginity" as some unbiblical religious ideas propose.
@Wolfgang said:
(1) There seems agreement among most Bible folks that the term "espoused" in Biblical times meant more than today's"engagement", and that in fact it involved a status that was closer to "marriage", except that the actual wedding ceremony with the subsequent "coming together (consummation of the marriage in sexual intercourse)" had not taken place.
I agree with your assessment of scholars' understanding of the relationship between Mary and Joseph as reported in the Matthew. But my agreement includes your reference to a status of their relationship as being "closer to 'marriage,'" a phrase that to me clearly means their status as what you call "espoused" was not in fact marriage. So their status at the time of the events reported in Matthew 1 does not, in my view, help deduce when in the span of the pregnancy they were actually married.
(2) The record in Mat 1:18ff makes reference to the fact that the time of the coming together shortly after the wedding ceremony of Joseph and Mary had come and Joseph had become aware of the fact that his wife was already pregnant ... While contemplating his next steps in this situation, the angel appeared to him, encouraging him "to take unto thee Mary thy wife" , that is to consummate the marriage with his wife. Thus, it appears that the record in Mat 1:18ff records events very close to the actual wedding ceremony of Joseph and Mary.
Where in the Matthew narrative do you find reference to "the fact of the coming together shortly after the wedding ceremony...had come"? I see nothing in the text that to me suggests anything about the wedding's proximity to the events described. Matthew 1.18 verifies that they were engaged and not married at the time of the chapter's events, but I don't see language that locates the events of the chapter in time relationship to the specific event of the marriage.
I don't understand the meaning of this assertion. To you it seems clear that Joseph and Mary had not already been married "for some time already".. as Joseph would have taken her as his wife? Please explain the meaning of this assertion.
(4) From the above, it also seems clear, that Mary had not had any sexual relationship prior to becoming pregnant by God's miraculous working to provide via His holy spirit power what was needed for her to become pregnant, so that one could speak of a "virgin conception", but Mary shortly after the wedding ceremony and the angel's appearance and words to Joseph would have had marital intimate relations with her husband, so that one actually can not speak of a "virgin birth" (and for sure not about some kind of mystique "perpetual virginity" as some unbiblical religious ideas propose.
Again I ask where in the narrative do you believe we learn about the wedding's location in the timeline of the pregnancy? Your clear suggestion here is that Joseph and Mary were married at the time of Jesus' birth. I suspect that's true, but my suspicion is grounded in common sense and rational observation, not the Gospel narratives. Please cite the specific verses that inform your view.
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
