Jesus Repudiates Mariolatry Volume II

"Fleshly Doors of Heaven"? Where is that term used in Scripture? God chose Mary as His mother? God has NO mother. Calling Mary Theotokos is heresy!

Sir, you have come up with some really strange unbiblical doctrines!

1 Corinthians 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

 

The Greek word 'ekklesia' which comes from two words 'ek' meaning 'out' and 'kaleo' meaning to 'call.' An ekklesia or 'calling out' was not just an assembly. The words agora and paneguris as well as heorte, koinon, thiasos, sunagoge and sunago can all mean an assembly. The word ekklesia was a political term, not a religious term. Jesus was the King and the Bible used the term ekklesia for a good reason. In classical Greek "ekklesia" meant "an assembly of citizens summoned by the crier, the legislative assembly."

Do you really believe the all the Church of the Living God is is a legislative assembly?

Orthodox Christianity predates the 1600's. I encourage you to step out of your box and look around a bit and see.

Again, consensual teachings from multiple sources expressing a continuity which transcends the errors of individuals and region idioms. There is a body of historic consensual teachings available. Take a look at "What does Justification Mean"... it was crafted from the consensual teachings from the earliest fathers to Reformation Professions.

I'm not going to touch that. Perhaps another thread. Leave it to be said that the use of the Scriptures were vigorous on both side of this issue in American history and it ultimately undermined the belief that the Scriptures are sufficient as a rule of faith.

But please note, I don't contend that the Scriptures aren't sufficient for our own moral edification but I do contend that the Apostles exhorted us to hold firm to a body of teachings which included a means of exegesis for the Scriptures.

 

The events recorded by the individuals who wrote the New Testament are 'bigger' and frankly 'richer' than what is confined on paper, word and concept. Although we are privileged to glimpse these truths in the inspired word we are not saved by a thing; but by a someone, Jesus Christ.

We have a rich and full body of consensual orthodoxy and orthopraxy which illuminates and guides us to deeper understandings concerning the Scriptures as well and our Faith. Chief of these would be a unique exegesis not held by the Jews but a sacred trust given to the Apostles who handed them down within the teachings of the Church of Christ. Not a local legislative assembly as some would contend but a spiritual body 'called out' by the Holy Spirit to share in the divine nature of Christ as Sons of God.

As I have posted numerous times, the Fullness of the Godhead dwelt among us. God made Flesh was born of the Virgin Mary and Born, Suffered and Died and on the third day was Risen. God Incarnate did this and it was God Incarnate that was born of Mary. Please read my previous post #318...


That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. ~ John 3:6

From a sermon by Augustine, bishop of Hippo:

Stretching out his hand over his disciples, the Lord Christ declared: Here are my mother and my brothers, anyone who does the will of my Father who sent me is my brother and my sister and my mother. I would urge you to ponder these words. Did the Virgin Mary, who believed by faith and conceived by faith, who was the chosen one from whom our Saviour was born among men, who was created by Christ before Christ was created in her... did she not do the will of the Father?

Indeed the blessed Mary certainly did the Father's will, and so it was for her a greater thing to have been Christ's disciple than to have been his mother, and she was more blessed in her discipleship than in her motherhood. Hers was the happiness of first bearing in her womb him whom she would obey as her master.

Mary isn't the Mother of God because of flesh and blood but of faith 'do unto me what you have said'. Mary's Fiat (i.e. her participation) was to His Glory and her reward.

I can appreciate your convictions but the historical evidence of the consensual teachings weigh against your claim.

So you would argue that flesh is evil?

 

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

I would say Jesus was pretty narrow-minded here. He also said this BEFORE the 1600's.

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

Scripture also predates the 1600's--you should open them up and get back into the "box" of God's Word and study it.

 

Scripture takes precedence over "consenual teachings".

2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

2 Timothy 2:16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

You are twisting God's Word. I never said flesh was evil. The Apostle Paul said:

Romans 7:18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.

Mariolatry is evil.

Joshua 24:15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.

 

No one has denied the nesessity of Jesus Christ for salvation. Where did you get that idea?

If you care to note, Jesus taught the means of this to His own disciples on the Road to Emmaus...

Within the consensual teaching of the Church we are equipped to do just that.

 

From reading your many posts in this thread, it appears to me that you are denying the sufficiency of Scripture by putting more trust in the writings of men and the "consensual teachings" of Orthodox Christianity than in God's Word.

 

The true canon was and is the Holy Spirit not a dead letter. Scripture without the necessary means to interpret it has no life in it at all.Note that Paul is speaking to Timothy would is already well versed it the teachings of the Apostles.

And yet "in him we live, and move, and have our being" (Acts 17:28)...

What the Apostle was alluding to was in His Nature (i.e. human nature) there is nothing divine or a source of goodness. It is only in our spiritual participation that we 'share' in the goodness that is God's alone.

But Marology is not. :laugh:

Again my problem with such proof-texting is that such a passage could be used for anything you or someone else might feel is antithetical. Whether you believe that or not doesn't make it so.

 

God's Word is Jesus Christ, the second person of the Holy Trinity.

What I would tell you is that Scripture doesn't interpret itself but used a 'system' or 'means' or 'measure' in which a proper consensus it drawn by the interpretor. That interpretor thus uses what is outside of Scripture to interpret (i.e. a exegesis).

This is the reason most denominations have Sunday School... they are teaching an interpretation of the Scriptures biased to their own tradition (i.e. think exegesis).

So I am not putting the consensual teachings above the Scriptures because I am using them to aid me in interpreting the Scriptures.

 

Not really. I'm not saying that a properly formed student of the Scriptures wouldn't have a 'sufficient' resource but clearly everyone who has the Scriptures are not properly formed. Even the Disciples on the Road to Emmaus needed Forming.... Perhaps it wasn't 'sufficient' unless one was already formed properly.

The Bereans tested Paul's exegesis to see that his testimony concerning the Prophecies of Jesus Christ were in fact true. I don't deny that Paul wasn't privy to the consensual teachings of the Church of Christ.

 

The Holy Spirit (the third Person of the Triune God) is the Interpreter of Scriptures--not the consensual teachings of men. That same Holy Spirit indwells every born again believer in Christ. Therefore, every born again believer is able to interpret Scriptures through the Holy Spirit.

John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

1 John 2:20 But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.

1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

 

...and whom Linda was Jesus addressing here; you and me or the Apostles?

ICXC NIKA
-

 

The answer should be obvious to you. John was writing his epistle in 90 A.D. at the very eariest. He was the only one of the Apostles alive at that time. It is certain that he wasn't writing to any one of them, and it is obvious that he was writing to believers in general. Again, the answer should be obvious. They were writing to you and me.

 

And having reached such a lengthy thread of 34 pages now, this thread needs to be closed. Please feel free to start another one.