Are they a great resource to check yourself when writing sermons? Absolutely, if you have an 800 year expanse of guys doing exegesis, it's always great to have that second opinion. But are they the end-all-be-all determining factor concerning doctrine? Heck no lmao
"If your doctrine is true, how come it's not in the Fathers, PROT?" When you come across someone asking this question, seriously please don't go on some wild goose chase trying to find quotes from Augustine or Tertullian to shore up what you believe. It's pointless. The Fathers didn't do systematics the way we do today, and they had completely different battles to wage than we do.
Here's some handy-dandy ways to help people understand that dudes whomst've been dead for 1700 years and also wrote a lot of weird things are not the basis of our faith:
a) God inspired the Scriptures, not the Fathers. Which is good, because a whole lot of people were following Origen until they decided he was anathema for his goofy eternal merry-go-round theology.
b) The Church Fathers did not die for you. Jesus did. Pay more attention to Christ and the words of Scripture which He gave you than whatever Ambrose said.
c) Guess what? Every denomination agrees that some of the Church Fathers got stuff dead wrong. The only determining factor in which Church Father got what wrong is the denomination telling you which one. Orthobros say Augustine's doctrine is le bad. Catholics flat out delete the 28th canon of Chalcedon. Us Lutherans? Yeah, we're going to laugh off that John of Damascus guy and his big long "defense" of kissing pictures.
d) The flip side is also true. Every denomination can find some ancient theologian that says what they want him to say. Namely because there were a lot of them and unlike the inerrant supernatural consistency of Scripture, the Church Fathers disagreed with each other all the time.
d) Also consider that they were sinners too. Don't treat the Church Fathers like bugmen treat Marvel characters, ok? For the most part they were average guys that God assigned to the teaching office, but literally none of them attained some level of infallible perfection in this world. They didn't have superpowers, they still had to go to confession, and they made mistakes all the time.
Consider the Scriptures in contrast though. The Bible is inerrant, does not contradict itself, is authored by the perfect and infinite Deity that created us all, and has caused literal billions of lives to be changed for the better. Compared to the pure Word of God, the Church Fathers are a foundation of sand.
@doctorsex@SuperLutheran Some of the traditions came out of old testament religion practices continued forward, and some were revealed to priests/bishops/etc. in a dream (not a joke). I value tradition, and I see scripture as the most important part of it. It's become hard to separate the two for me, because exagesis is a tradition even if it can exist entirely outside of any one particular church body. Churches have overstepped interpretation many times, and that's not unique to Protestants or Catholics or Orthodox. My favorite church traditions are ascetic, because it's about removing unnecessary things to leave room for God to work in your life and heart. One could certainly derive that from scripture, but practical application is the area I appreciate having more guidance on.
The gordian knot of tradition can be pretty easily cut several ways, one of which is simply pointing out that any tradition at some point was novel- simply doing things because "that's how it's always been done" is insufficient. Trads love to invoke Chesterton's fence but forget that it's predicated on not knowing why the fence is there. If you know why the fence was built and can articulate why it's no longer necessary, or never was to begin with, then there really isn't a good reason to keep it up.
The objection that always bothers me is "well how do you KNOW the Bible is the word of God" like for the first couple of centuries before the canon of made official nobody knew what the fuck they were doing
@doctorsex@SuperLutheran Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom has a lot of cool symbolism that is designed to honor and teach through showing and participation. For example, metal fans called ripidia with pictures of seraphin on them are on both sides of the altar, and they're carried out when scripture is read or holy communion. Allegedly the idea of ripidia came to him (or some other church father) in a dream where he saw angels praying and worshipping God, following the word of God as it was brought out for the reading and body and blood of Christ at communion. The metal fans represent the seraphim and are a physical reminder of the spiritual nature of prayer and worship and of the angels worshipping God with us. The tradition doesn't save you, but it's important for a lot of reasons.
>Some of the traditions came out of old testament religion practices continued forward Not sure which ones you're referring to, but at face value I'm a bit cautious since much of old testament ritual are things either centered around the temple or have been made irrelevant by the cross. I would also be weary of judaizing. Again, I could be way off the mark with those concerns, but that's just my gut reaction when reading that. >and some were revealed to priests/bishops/etc. in a dream (not a joke). I get that there is some process by which these "revalations" are supposed to be tested but we are rather explicitly told that God's word should not be added to. If a tradition requires some external revelation and isn't found "as-is" within scripture, I am incredibly skeptical of it at face value. I do agree that there is value in tradition but not every tradition is valuable, and none rise to the level of scripture.
@wgiwf@doctorsex@SuperLutheran The doors of the iconostasis are opened at Resurrection Matins and stay open signifying Christ's resurrection tearing the veil in the holy of holies. It's neat.
@doctorsex@BowsacNoodle@SuperLutheran The continuation of the office of priesthood, the readings and the hours and, with those who follow the Byzantine rites, the separation of the altar from from the rest of the church by the iconostasis where only the priests and deacons can enter in the style of the way the altar of God was in the original tent, then temples.
@doctorsex@SuperLutheran I struggle with devotion to Mary, because it's rather contradictory to most of my upbringing and it's easy for people to overemphasize. I also see her as a great model for all believers because of her attitude that we see at the end of this passage, and it's probably a large part of why she was chosen by God for her role as Christ's mother.
See that kind of stuff, I think it's neither here nor there. I personally prefer a liturgical service, but it isn't mandated by any stretch. Where I draw the line is just stuff that just isn't there, like Marianism
You will not find another soul that lives more devoted to Jesus Christ than the Blessed Virgin Mary. Intercessions granted through prayers to the BVM are, as a rule, powerful. Anyone assiduously seeking her guidance and aid will most assuredly grow in devotion to her Son.
She will not permit herself to be taken as an object of idolatry. From beginning to end she belongs completely and wholeheartedly to God, and she has by grace what He has by nature. She will always direct you to her Love.
@kekkerel@doctorsex@SuperLutheran I've heard this from many people before. Even from a funny tongue in cheek perspective, Mary had enough favor with God to push Jesus to perform His first miracle. That's besides the fact that she is the Theotokos and literally shared blood with Him. Only Arians (heretics) would deny the significance of that last point.
There is nothing in the New Testament about Mary having more clout with God. Luke 1 28 and 30
And having come in, the angel said to her, “Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women!”30Then the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.
I've no interest in quarreling with you over this, but block me rather than mute if the words of The Bible and their obvious meaning bother you so much.
@BowsacNoodle First of all if you want to spread the Gospel please spend a few days learning how to install your OWN Fediverse client - head over to YunoHost.org and plant that. poa.st is full of shit, its reputation going to taint yours.
Second - I do not follow the "messenger", I follow the message.
There is nothing in the New Testament about Mary having more clout with God. The scripture does not function when you start building this sort of "hierarchy", this is why the Roman Catholic "church" is so irremediably fucked.
You need to start sticking to the facts or I mute you!
@FourOh-LLC@kekkerel@doctorsex@SuperLutheran >Yet 33 years later Jesus has NOT elevated Mary BEYOND THE FUCKING PURPOSE to give Him life. The wedding at Cana (John 2)— did Jesus listen to his mother or not? He already had disciples who were invited there with him. And then John 19. >26When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!” 27Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!” And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home.
Yet 33 years later Jesus has NOT elevated Mary BEYOND THE FUCKING PURPOSE to give Him life.
You need to thread this very carefully. Mary has fulfilled the design of God and as such she is no different than all of us fulfilling the designs of God. Do not build a fucking Hierarchy here, its not up to you.
Again, the Catholics fell into this trap of adding to the "scriptures".
Jesus did not write the "New Testament", did not build, did not promote. People did that.
If you are searching for meaning in the scriptures do not forget that every fucking word was written by people. All of it.
They wrote what they BELIEVED, as we write and speak and act what we BELIEVE.
@doctorsex@kekkerel@SuperLutheran Gabriel tells her she is "favored", "blessed", and "highly favored" in Luke 1:26-38. Fairly big deal. I believe it's the only time an angelic messenger uses that type of language in the bible, certainly the only time directed at a woman. One could argue Abraham, but that's different IMO.
Personally I don't have a solid enough grasp on scripture off the top of my head; I do think there is a discussion to be had (and maybe other, more qualified people than I have already had it) on the metaphysics of the conception of Christ. I don't disagree that there is a significance to Mary, the fact that she was chosen to be the worldly mother of the carnation of Christ, but within scripture itself, I don't think there is anything that would elevate her above any number of other unique figures contained within the biblical narrative.
@FourOh-LLC@kekkerel@doctorsex@SuperLutheran >Hail Mary, full of Grace - Luke 1:28 (Hail, full of Grace) >The Lord is with You - Luke 1:28 (The Lord is with you) >Blessed are you among Women - Luke 1:41 (Blessed are you among women) >And Blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus - Luke 1:42 (and blessed is the fruit of your womb) >Holy Mary, Mother of God - Luke 1:43 (And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?) >Pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death - James 5:16 (Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects)
Mary is not a part of the Trinity. If you believe in intercessory prayer, and you had the choice between asking the most sincerely devout believer you know and a random person at a bar, you'd pick the former. If you believe that those who have died as believers are alive in heaven, asking for intercessory prayer from them is not unreasonable. It's also not required for your salvation, and is between you and God. Jesus saves us. You can choose to be whatever type of Christian spiritually satisfies your soul provided you're actually following Christ. I do not believe Orthodox nor Catholics nor Protestants hold some monopoly on Christ's gift of salvation.
So, how all this explains the Roman Catholic dogma, the Hail Mary prayer? The Holy whatever who apparently part of the Trinity yet count as fucking FOUR.
Those of us who follow the message not the messenger have these "issues" with the "Bible".
You go on, and be Catholic or Protestant or tis or tat "Church". But do not forget that the "Bible" is the product of political infighting, and what's ever more important is the message.
I don't disagree- it is absolutely significant. I just think the leap from "Mary was a uniquely suited and gifted individual to serve as the worldy mother of God" to "prayers to Mary carry a unique weight and can compel God to take actions he otherwise would not take" is incredibly far. That isn't to say I think you are making the latter case- you've taken an exceptionally and refreshingly nuanced and patient approach to this discussion- that is just my perspective on the matter
@doctorsex@kekkerel@FourOh-LLC@SuperLutheran I appreciate the discussion on this without jumping to conclusions or accusations. >One key instance / only articulated a single time. True, but we also have Jesus seemingly telling her to not interfere with His ministry in that same story (John 2:4)
>I find this to be far too vague to directly lead to any number of Marian beliefs. One thing worth noting is the NKJV translation and KJV both feel a bit weak in this verse. Neither of them put commas around "behold", which makes it unclear as to whether or not Christ is referring to the discipline or to Himself. Most of the other translations do, which makes it less ambiguous. When I first read that I actually thought it was Christ telling Mary to look at Him. Contemporary English Version (I've never even heard of that one) is : >When Jesus saw his mother and his favorite disciple with her, he said to his mother, "This man is now your son."
>The wedding at Cana (John 2)— did Jesus listen to his mother or not? I can't speak for the other guy, but my contention here would be that we see in the entirety of the gospels one instance that is this strong of Christ being compelled by Mary to take an action on something. If we are to derive the Roman and Orthodox teachings on Mary from scripture, we only have one key instance to point to for that. I attended an OCA church a handful of times out of curiosity and I asked about this stuff specifically, and this was the exact same verse they pointed to. I feel like if our takeaway should be that Mary can intercede and has a particularly strong influence and position to do so, we would have more instances to look towards. I can't think of a single other instance in the entirety of scripture where any core message, let alone something that ought to be that important, is only articulated a single time. >26When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!” 27Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!” And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home. I would have to double check how my particular denomination interprets this verse, but personally I find this to be far too vague to directly lead to any number of Marian beliefs. >I simply see too many people who view her as nothing that couldn't have been replaced with an artificial womb Absolutely true. As a protestant, I see far too many of us deliberately downplaying the significance of Mary being chosen as the mother of Christ, and I do think that deliberately ignoring that or at least not discussing it prevents one from having a full understanding of scripture and the message God intends us to take from it. >and I think it's an anti-Catholic reactionary view at least sometimes Absolutely. It's a tragedy how often worldly issues draw the focus away from the actual message where people become so focused on being anti-x or pro-y that certain things are exxagerated or minimized for the sake of something entirely outside of the scope of scripture.
>If you believe in intercessory prayer, I think this would be the biggest contention for most people. That, and the hail Mary itself as you've laid it out seems to come from butchering other verses; taking out parts from the rest of the verse and their surrounding context and stitching them together as a separate thing. The issue with intercession, for most protestants is, I imagine, as follows: "You ask your friends and fellow congregants to pray for you and you also pray for them, right?" >yeah, of course, the Bible tells us to do this "And the church/congregation is all believers?" >naturally, my friend goes to a different church and we still pray for eachother "And-bear with me here- those who have died in Christ are still living in him, as Christ offers us eternal life within him, right?" >well, sure, scripture tells us as much "So they're still in the body of Christ, right?" >of course "So they could also pray for you?" >well, scripture doesn't seem to make any clear definitive statement on this one way or another, so I don't know for sure, but it's not outside the realm of possibility "Well, here's a guy that tradition says is the patron saint of *xyz* that if you have an issue pertaining to *xyz* if you ask him to pray on your behalf, there's a better chance that God will answer your prayer favorably" >you've lost me
It's possible I'm oversimplifying on that last point, but every time I've asked someone I know who does believe in intercession to explain it, that is more or less what I get. It's absolutely possible that I'm missing something, especially since that's not the background I come from and I'm just not as immersed in that view of things, but going off of how I've always had it explained to me and going off of my own priors, I just feel there is a significant leap from the capacity for those to have died with a saving faith being able to pray for those of us still living to those same saints being able to sway God's decisions on a request
@doctorsex@kekkerel@FourOh-LLC@SuperLutheran I'm a convert myself a lot of Roman Catholics I talk to think it so obvious that Saints pray for you that it's almost silly for anyone to question. I do think the whole concept has been kind of watered down and cargo culted into almost low tier folk superstition over the years, even though it shouldnt be that way. God isn't a vending machine, right? But at the same time, if people have faith in God and proper formation to recognize God as the source, they might have stupendously strong faith that God will use the prayers of Saint Jude to help them with their lost cause. I can't say if that's appropriate or not, but I think it's certainly better than the abandoning the faith in favor of categorically unchristian things, like occultic rituals and the like. As with Mary, you can choose to skip out on praying to saints for their intercession; I do not believe it is a requirement in the RCC and certainly not in ECC. The completely secular taxicab driver who has a large crucifix on his mirror that he uses solely as a sort of good luck charm is not doing much good, I reckon. The biggest thing with all of the saints is they were people who had deep flaws and ultimately overcame them in Christ and did great, often miraculous things in God's name. It is good to recognize them for that reason alone. Just as Christ is the asymptomate divine perfection we can strive to be like and never fully match, the saints were almost all like us at one point in their lives.
@doctorsex@kekkerel@FourOh-LLC@SuperLutheran >My go to is the NIV with commentary from Concordia; I got it as a gift from my parents recently as I've started to lead an independent Bible study on 1 Peter at church. Nice! I grew up with NIV and I've recently taken a liking to BSB. NKJV has a good translation of the Septuagint in it, as does ESV. I typically use Bible Hub now and pull it up a verse for comparison if anything seems confusing. Highly recommend it. As for the verse in question, don't just take my word for it. Look at the attached pic.
>that Mary isn't "changing God's mind" per se- I use that term for the ease of not being exactly sure how else to phrase it at the moment) "An appeal to heaven"😉🌲?
>I appreciate the discussion on this without jumping to conclusions or accusations. Likewise. I'll admit I'm eager to jump the gun and go full hog on trying to score scalps at times, and that is a flaw of mine. I do always appreciate dialogues that at least feel more productive, and it's a lot harder to find those, so thank you for choosing the high road. >True, but we also have Jesus seemingly telling her to not interfere with His ministry in that same story (John 2:4) I think there's a number of ways we could run with this. I just don't feel that, in light of the rest of scripture, the Marian interpretations of this event are more compelling or even *as* compelling as any number of alternative readings. >One thing worth noting is the NKJV translation and KJV both feel a bit weak in this verse. I'll take your word for it. My go to is the NIV with commentary from Concordia; I got it as a gift from my parents recently as I've started to lead an independent Bible study on 1 Peter at church. I've never been much for the KJV. That said, the vagueness is still there to me. There is a *whole* rabbit hole that could be gone down here, ranging from how we are supposed to understand the use of "favorite disciple" to the more topical article here, "this man is now your son". I don't have the text in front of me at the moment, but I'll reiterate my (admittedly gut reaction) issue here: in light of the rest of scripture, it simply is not clear to me that we should read this as Mary serving a particular role as someone with the capacity to influence and sway the decisions of God himself (I understand there may be some nuance here from the Marian perspective- that Mary isn't "changing God's mind" per se- I use that term for the ease of not being exactly sure how else to phrase it at the moment) >Indeed it is. God bless you. As much fun I personally derive from sectarian squabbling, it is not something that, for the most part, gets us where we should be.
Semantic distinction that you as a non-native English speaker are blessed to recognize. I do not mean that as an insult either, for the limits of English happen to shape our ways of thinking and, consequently, how we conceptualize things.
Praying to Mary and thinking she intercedes for you is idolatry.
Mary cannot hear your prayers and certainly cannot intercede for you. That is Christ and Christ alone's job.
Why is she referred to as the queen of heaven? You know who else was referred to as such? The ashtoroth. You know, like semiramas, isis and other "goddesses" like them.
@doctorsex@kekkerel@FourOh-LLC@SuperLutheran >talmudic genie Yeah man it's like the prosperity gospel for Catholics, unfortunately. I know a LOT of Catholics who have statues, and none of them take the weird pseudo idolatry level where they treat it as a good luck charm, but I know for sure it happens. My buddy lives near a lot of Mexicans and said it's extremely folk-magic type vibe from a lot of them, but they have some yucky cultural practices that weren't fully purged by the Spaniards.
>I've actually found that it has made me much more engaged in my devotion across the board. That would've been incomprehensible to me 10 years ago. Praise God! That's awesome brother! Participating in service does make a huge difference. I felt the same way when I learned how to serve during liturgy. Active engagement really helped take my faith up another level.
This whole conversation is reminding me of a chat I had with some buddies from church a while back. One guy was being a bit critical of the more free form prayer from 'low church' fellas and saying it felt cheesy and forced. It reminded me of Luke 9:49 where there's references to people, who I believe were Jewish exorcists, casting out demons in the name of Jesus despite not following Him. >Master,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we tried to stop him, because he is not one of us.” 50“Do not stop him,” Jesus said, “for whoever is not against you is for you.” Something we could all benefit from sometimes. Maybe that's what God wanted to remind me of tonight. Cheers brother :whitemonster:
>I do think the whole concept has been kind of watered down and cargo culted It does happen, and I try to bear that in mind that not everyone who believes in intercession is one of these people who thinks if they buy a statue of some guy and say the right prayer to him in the right way that it forces God to grant their wishes like some sort of talmudic genie. As I've tried to stress, I know there's a lot of room for nuance in this discussion and I think we would all do better to acknowledge that, regardless of personal perspective. >But at the same time, if people have faith in God and proper formation to recognize God as the source, they might have stupendously strong faith that God will use the prayers of Saint Jude to help them with their lost cause. Right, I think having that proper foundation and not straying too far from it is the important point. I genuinely don't know if that prayer to St. Jude is enough to help that person. I don't think there's a strong enough scriptural basis for it, so I wouldn't personally stake my salvation on it, but I also recognize that God is an all-powerful being beyond my comprehension and if for whatever reason that does the job in that instance, then it is what it is. >I think it's certainly better than the abandoning the faith in favor of categorically unchristian things, like occultic rituals and the like. Absolutely. I believe God meets us where we are, and so long as we're not straying too far from the essentials, we're on the right path. I've started playing in this super low-church gospel rock band at my church that they do for the contemporary services because they needed a bass player and I happen to play bass so I just felt like it was something I could do, and I've actually found that it has made me much more engaged in my devotion across the board. That would've been incomprehensible to me 10 years ago. If having saints and intercession serves that same role for someone else, then as long as they aren't letting that get in the way of the foundations of the faith itself, it's not really my place to say they're out of pocket for it. >The biggest thing with all of the saints is they were people who had deep flaws and ultimately overcame them in Christ and did great, often miraculous things in God's name. Absolutely, and that's why even as a protestant I still have a lot of admiration for them and will happily read about them and even try to apply those stories in my own life, because any example of a faith like that *ought* to be imitated by *all* believers. I love Saint Cuthbert, and while I don't believe he can bend God's will towards my requests in a way that Christ can't, I can't help but admire that kind of story.
@Omega_Variant@kekkerel@doctorsex@King_Noticer@SuperLutheran If I may play... exorcists advocate for a minute here (see, I'm not going to be tricked like that 😉), whatever that priest said is probably nonsense. It's also possible that it's true that sounds irritate them, and perhaps it's not a coincidence that multiple faiths have a similar understanding. Some monks wore low hoods so their lips couldn't be read by demons when mouthing prayers, and I don't find that unreasonable. I deliberately avoid reading about exorcists and their process as a spiritual defense mechanism.
The demons also supposedly told a priest that they can't stand certain frequencies of sounds which is why they recommend certain music to keep bad spirits at bay
That is literally eastern mysticism. It's called a mantra. Hindus do it, Muslims do it, Buddhists do it, all of them.
Meanwhile the priest takes it's word for it and actually practices this mystery religion and the demons are all like :
Sometimes I think about that catholic exorcist who said something along the lines of a demon telling him about Mary being a stronger and more oppressive force against demons than invoking Christ himself- and it's like, man, you're just gonna take that face value? A fuckin demon?
@Omega_Variant@kekkerel@doctorsex@SuperLutheran I'm sure some probably are, but I question to what level they knew Christ to begin with, and I put a lot more guilt on the pastors who lead them further astray. The Bible is rather clear about how much worse judgement is on the pastor.
Have you seen what churches worship and practice now days?
Of course they are. They have zero understanding of the Bible and therefore "trust me bro" their way into bad doctrine cause their pastor said it so it must be true
>As for the verse in question, don't just take my word for it. Look at the attached pic. I appreciate it, but I meant more in the sense of interpretation/commentsry. Without going too far into the weeds I have a small background in academic study of Biblical hermeneutics and something they absolutely hammered into us was reading everything as a whole as well as any commentary available from as many perspectives as possible
@FourOh-LLC@kekkerel@doctorsex@BowsacNoodle@SuperLutheran I do not believe Jesus was a slovenly and obscene fellow as the godly care of the physical body is something ordained by God, but neither do I believe he was idealistically comely or particularly vainly splendid as we see with something as the Olympians.
The Bible clearly tells us in Isaiah 53:
1Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?
2For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground:
-he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.-
3He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
His appearance ultimately matters not. I love him for what he did for all of us:
4Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
5But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
6All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
7He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.
8He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
What infuriates me the most is people thinking of Jesus as some healthy, well-fed fellow.
God will love you when you are a disease-ridden starving scarecrow. He will call you precious child and you will not understand or appreciate its meaning.
Jesus might have been that, starved and half-mad by the time he was killed.
@BowsacNoodle@kekkerel@doctorsex@FourOh-LLC@SuperLutheran Jesus listening to his mother is not a good leg to stand on for Mariology, for Jesus listened to other women as well such as Mary and Martha, as well as countless others who sought him.
Luke 11:27-28 27 As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd called out, “Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you.” 28 He replied, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it
This passage alone shows that just being Jesus earthly mother is no worthier a prestige than any believer in the world who has placed their faith in Jesus Christ. Yeah we are called sons of God by the right of the Blood of Jesus wherefore we ourselves can call him Abba Father.
@kf01@kekkerel@doctorsex@FourOh-LLC@SuperLutheran >“Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it." I always thought of that as similar to Jesus' comments to Thomas. Fitting too that it downplays birthright over faith. >29Jesus said to him, “Because you have seen Me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
Holy moly. So you think the 24 elders are interceding for you?
The rest of that doesn't help, it's literally the saints crying our for vengeance to the Lord directly.
Notice they are doing it directly to the Lord, not telling Mary to tell Jesus....
As far as your OT examples all of them are still alive. I mean I can pray for you and you for me. That is a thing but the question is to whom am I praying?
Once again, the saints can't hear or answer your prayers. I mean if you want to interpret that revelation passage literally then they are holding vials that contain prayers so God can smell them. In the context of the OT its like incense, it's a sweet savor that pleases God.
Still implies that he is the one smelling (i.e answering), not the elders. So them prayers again go directly to God.
You are missing a huge point. There is a major difference between me praying for you verses to you...and for me to pray for you I have to be alive.
>You didn't answer the question. Only because you asked nicely.
>The faith of the Church is that the saints are not really dead, but are fully alive in Jesus Christ, who is life itself (John 11:25; 14:6) and the bread of life who bestows life on all who eat his flesh and drink his blood (John 6:35, 48, 51, 53-56). The saints are alive in heaven because of the life they have received through their faith in Christ Jesus and through their eating of his body and blood.
>The book of Revelation shows the saints worshipping God, singing hymns, playing instruments, making requests to Christ to avenge their martyrdom, and offering prayers for the saints on earth (Rev. 4:10, 5:8, 6:9-11).
>In a dream, God commanded King Abimelech to ask Abraham to intercede for him: “For [Abraham] is a prophet and he will pray for you, so you shall live” (Gen. 20:7). When the Lord is angry with Job’s friends because they did not speak rightly about God, he tells them, “Let my servant Job pray for you because I will accept his [prayer], lest I make a terror on you” (Job 42:8).
>Paul wrote to the Romans: “I exhort you, brothers, through our Lord Jesus Christ and through the love of the Spirit, to strive with me in prayers to God on my behalf, that I may be delivered from the disobedient in Judaea and that my ministry may be acceptable to the saints in Jerusalem, so that in the joy coming to you through the will of God I may rest with you” (Rom. 15:30-32).
>James says: “Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects” (James 5:16-17). Thus, according to Scripture, God wants us to pray for one another. This must mean that prayer for one another cannot detract from the role of Jesus Christ as our one mediator with God.
>Second, the reason that Christians have the power to pray for one another is that each person who is baptized is made a member of the Body of Christ by virtue of the Holy Spirit’s action in baptism (1 Cor. 12:11-13). It is because the Christian belongs to Jesus Christ and is a member of his Body, the Church, that we can make effective prayer.
>The reason we pray to the saints is that they are still members of the Body of Christ. Remember, the life which Christ gives is eternal life; therefore, every Christian who has died in Christ is forever a member of the Body of Christ. This is the doctrine which we call the Communion of the Saints. Everyone in Christ, whether living or dead, belongs to the Body of Christ.
>From this it follows that a saint in heaven may intercede for other people because he still is a member of the Body of Christ. Because of this membership in Christ, under his headship, the intercession of the saints cannot be a rival to Christ’s mediation; it is one with the mediation of Christ, to whom and in whom the saints form one body.
Why would God send Michael to tell me to stop waging war against a Babylonian whore? Do you even realize what all the Roman Catholic church has absorbed into it over the years? I doubt you do. You don't seem to be able to even grasp the simple concept of idolatry.
Make no mistake I have beef with other denominations, however the root of all of this is the RC church.
You can't back up anything you say with scripture, period.
My goalpost is the same. Literally the same question I have asked this whole time.
Show me in the Bible where it says to venerate and pray to Mary.
Quit dodging and squirming trying to avoid the question
Let me ask you something. And you don't have to answer because I already know the answer. Should God send the Archangel Michael, defender of His Church, to you with the message, "It is unseemly to loathe the seat of Peter," would it change your attitude?
I have seen enough of this attitude already. You're not a Christian. You are not a Christian. You're an anti-Catholic. You misuse vernacular translations of Holy Scripture, which are the fruits of the Church that Christ Himself founded, as the prosecutor's testimony against His own faithful.
So seamlessly you blend usurpation with persecution. He that did so before you is waging war against the Church still.
@Omega_Variant@kekkerel@doctorsex@SuperLutheran Even a troon is not beyond redemption. One of the first things Christ said to people who He healed was "Go and sin no more". Redemption is not an excuse to continue sinning, and I can only hope that's part of the message that the media selectively ignored in coverage of this. That said, Pope Francis regularly finds ways to disappoint me in ways I didn't think possible.
>Should God send the Archangel Michael, defender of His Church, to you with the message, "It is unseemly to loathe the seat of Peter," would it change your attitude? Should that actually happen and it passes the tests, sure, maybe. However, this has not happened, so my attitude remains
@Griffith@kekkerel@Omega_Variant@doctorsex@SuperLutheran >Didn’t all of those people go and sin though? Some probably earlier than others, but whether it took hours or years isn't the point. Similarly, everyone Jesus healed eventually became ill again in some other way; those He raised from the dead eventually died of something whether natural causes or not. Christ performed miracles as a sign of who He is and as a reminder of God's control over life and death; His purpose was not simply to travel around healing for a few years. He ministered to all who would hear Him, and he was not concerned about clout. He had reformed prostitutes, tax collectors, low status blue collar types, etc. following him. These people were untouchables in their society the way troons are in modern Christianity; it is a delicate line because ministering to them without endorsing their vile behavior is an actively dangerous thing in our current age.