There is only one true church

[RedFan]

No - I’ve acknowledged that Mary’s Perpetual Virginity cannot be explicitly proven from Scripture alone.

Biblical truth come to us is TWO ways: Explicitly and Implicitly.
For example – the fact that Jesus is the Son of God is explicitly taught in Scripture (Luke 1:35, Mark 1:11, 9:7).

The concept of the Trinity is implicitly – not explicitly taught.
That Mary was a perpetual virgin is implicitly taught, as I have amply shown.

You CLAIM that you are not a Sola Scripturist – yet, you demand explicit Scriptural proof for Mary’s Perpetual Virginity.
You can't have it BOTH ways . . .

If anyone can show me explicit Scriptural proof of MPV, I welcome it. I don't "demand" it. (In fact, I doubt it exists. And now I see that you do too.) I have said, and repeat for you now,

I am looking for an argument FOR the PVM. I can't find one in Scripture, although that's not the sole place we should be looking (do you finally hear me, @BOL? I am NOT a sola scriptura guy).

My thesis is, and has always been, that Scripture is equivocal on the subject. Those who point to Jesus's supposed brothers and sisters are wasting their time because the Bible does not prove that any half-siblings existed. Nor that they didn't.

Conversely, proving that Christ had no siblings likewise doesn't prove Mary's perpetual virginity (one can be sexually active without producing offspring). Every time someone mentions Christ telling John from the cross "Behold your mother" as proof of Mary's virginity, it makes me wonder about our educational system. Anyone who cannot distinguish "Mary had no other kids" from "Mary had no sexual relations" needs a refresher course in logic. Or biology.

Your notion that Mary's perpetual virginity is implicitly shown in Scripture is hogwash, and I will debate that one with you until the cows come home. And leave again. Disgusted. But at the end of that discussion, you and I might well agree that her perpetual virginity still ought to be accepted based on church tradition. I actually can see myself getting there some day. But not by twisting Scripture to prove the point. There's been enough of that in the last 2,000 years, thank you very much.

 

[PinSeeker]

I recall St. Pope John Paul II that said that when we tell Christ's truths, His grace accompanies that truth.

Ah, well, I agree... somewhat, anyway. Yes, as Isaiah says, "For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven and do not return there but water the earth, making it bring forth and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater, so shall My Word be that goes out from My mouth; it shall not return to Me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it" (Isaiah 55:10-11).

But in the way that you say this, you seem to be thinking that His grace is not always successful, which is not the case. <smile> With regard to the individual hearers and/or readers, generally speaking, His salvific grace is always present, for sure, but not always given.

And of course Jesus is that truth... "I am the way, and the truth, and the life..." (John 14:6)

Grace and peace to you.

 

[PinSeeker]

No - I’ve acknowledged that Mary’s Perpetual Virginity cannot be explicitly proven from Scripture alone.

Absolutely true.

Biblical truth come to us is TWO ways: Explicitly and Implicitly.

Absolutely true.

For example – the fact that Jesus is the Son of God is explicitly taught in Scripture (Luke 1:35, Mark 1:11, 9:7).

Absolutely true.

The concept of the Trinity is implicitly – not explicitly taught.

Ahhhhh... I would disagree with this. The word 'trinity' is not found, but God existing in three Persons... and both Jesus and subsequently the Holy Spirit being sent ~ which carries far greater meaning than, say, throwing a baseball :) ~ by the Father (John 14) for different but equally important reasons is explicitly taught. In... John 14... :) Among other passages. The three Persons of the triune Jehovah were certainly present at creation (Genesis 1, John 1)... and even now (Matthew 28:20).

That Mary was a perpetual virgin is implicitly taught ...

Disagree. Jesus had siblings. Mary had not yet known a man ~ in the same sense as, for example, Genesis 4, where Adam knew his wife Eve and she conceived ~ at the time of Gabriel's visitation in Matthew 1. Adam certainly knew who Eve was prior to this knowing of Eve in Genesis 4; this 'knowing' is not a mere cognitive knowledge about someone or something. The same is true in the New Testament of Mary, who, after she gave birth to Jesus, was certainly known, and probably many times... :)... by her husband Joseph.

Grace and peace to you, BOL!

 

[RedFan]

Jesus had siblings.

We can't be sure of this.

Mary, who, after she gave birth to Jesus, was certainly known, and probably many times... :)... by her husband Joseph.

We can't be sure of this either.

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

LOL!


Not attacking anything, JT. That you perceive it that way is troubling, and... Well, yes, troubling.


Nope. Only her seed... Jesus. Nothing like that is ever said of Mary, or anyone but Jesus. He and He alone accomplished our redemption and is thus our Savior.


I didn't suggest that. But assigning to Mary any credit for ~ shall we say ~ assisting Jesus in accomplishing the redemption of God's people is just terribly wrong. That she was found favor with and was chosen by the Father for a very special purpose and was blessed in such a magnificent way is absolutely true, but even Mary knew her place as a servant of the Lord (as we all should) and submitted humbly to His will (again, as we all should).


<eye roll>


Was this a comment regarding some quote from some poster other than me? This comment seems a total departure from anything we were really discussing, just a total "where did that come from?" thing...


I do no such thing. <smackback> <smile>


Why? Did you think that's what I was saying? Because I didn't even suggest that.


What I said... Jude Thaddeus... was that Jesus is the Cornerstone, and thus what we might call the Foundation of the foundation. Yes, as Paul says in Ephesians 2:19-22... I'm just going to quote him again here... all we in Christ are "saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the Cornerstone, in Whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. In Him (we) also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit." So, in no way am I even suggesting the apostles and prophets are not the foundation. Of course they are, as Paul says, but, again, I am saying that Christ is the Cornerstone ~ which Paul says ~ and thus, again, the true Foundation ~ you may recall Isaiah 28:16, where Isaiah quotes the Lord God saying, “Behold, I am the One who has laid as a foundation in Zion, a stone, a tested stone, a precious cornerstone, of a sure foundation..." This is Christ Jesus, and is precisely the passage Paul is referring to in the Ephesians passage quoted here. Paul did the same in his letter to the Christians in Corinth, specifically in 1 Corinthians 3:11, saying, "no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ." So was Paul in 1 Corinthians 3:11 contradicting what he said in Ephesians 2:19-22? No, of course not...


LOL!


Well, yes I am, an unapologetic five-point Calvinist. But certainly, John Calvin is not my Savior, nor is he anyone else's ~ but only Jesus.


Apparently not. <smile>


<eye roll>


<eye roll>


That's... literally what I just said... Pointing out Psalm 23:1 and John 10:14...


Hmmm, well the Apostles were certainly a collection of believers... A small collection, but a collection none the less... <smile> But yes, the Apostles certainly were shepherds of the flock... So I say the Apostles were... both... <chuckles> I mean, I chuckle, but I don't mean to make light of any of this.

To that point, though, there are no more Apostles (you agree with that, I think). However, we, as believers, can certainly serve as shepherds of the flock, making use of the gifts of the Spirit ~ one of which is prophecy, which is to say we can relate to others what God has said in His Word... in word and deed ~ which God empowers in everyone, each given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good, apportioned to each one individually as He wills (1 Corinthians 12:4-11).


No, I would say the same thing you have, here, JT, and have.


Hmmm, well, I don't disagree, but people, yes, who make the same confession as Peter did in Matthew 16:16, saying and believing in their hearts, "Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God." And because of this, all believers together are the City of God that Augustine himself wrote about in his great work. An excerpt: “...the division of the earthly city against itself; while the conflict between Cain and Abel displayed the hostility between the two cities themselves, the City of God and the city of men... The whole of history since the ascension of Jesus into heaven is concerned with one work only: the building and perfecting of this 'City of God.'”

As I said, JT, we are the Church of Christ Jesus. To what you say about confessions, though... think of it in this way: A trial attorney makes his or her case in court by compiling and presenting evidence of different kinds, sometimes hard articles (like a weapon, or a document, for example), but primarily testimonies of witnesses, primarily, and together these things are the foundation of his or her case, they are what his or her case is built upon. Peter is an eyewitness... or, at least at the time of what we read in Matthew 16, would be soon, of Jesus's crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension. The rock Christ Jesus is speaking of in Matthew 16:18, is Peter's confession, His belief. Yes, "you are Peter," Jesus says, "and on this rock I will build my church..." That should not be understood as "You are the rock on which I will build my church..." At the very least, He addressed Peter specifically as "you" in verse 15, but then does not in the very same breath refer to Peter as "this" in verse 16.


Jesus gave this sacrament to His disciples (and by extension us) so that they would have (and now we have) a visible reminder of Him and what He would do for them in the coming days (and what He has done for us). He said this very thing to them, saying, as Paul relates to the Christians in Corinth, "Do this in remembrance of me... as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes" (1 Corinthians 11:23-26). So, in that sense, I agree with what you say here. But no, the crucifixion was the crucifixion; there was only a need for it to actually happen once, of course.


I'm certainly not doing that, but I'm not making making Mary out to be... well, a bigger part of the picture than she is. <smackback> <smile>


LOL! Well, yeah, I'll say it again... Knowing Mary should help us in knowing ourselves. Her faith was certainly great. She certainly delighted in the Lord, and He directed her paths (Psalm 37:4; 119:47). She certainly delighted to do His will (Psalm 40:8). Oh, to have a faith like hers..


I butcher nothing. And if this discussion is over, I literally do not care. I don't like to have "discussions" with mean-spirited people. Sometimes I have to, but here not so much... <smackback> <smile>

You know, it strikes me as a bit odd that you went to the effort of quoting me but deleting the links to my actual post. Methinks that had to be intentional... in an effort to get the last word, maybe... <smile>

Grace and peace to you, Jude Thaddeus.

I'm enjoying my vacation, and will not take my laptop to the beach. I quit. You win.

64 Critiques Of John Calvin: Introduction & Master List

I literally responded line-by-line to almost all of Book IV of the seminal theological work, "Institutes of the Christian Religion" by John Calvin. It runs about 500 pages. Plus more...

www.patheos.com

 

[Augustin56]

Ah, well, I agree... somewhat, anyway. Yes, as Isaiah says, "For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven and do not return there but water the earth, making it bring forth and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater, so shall My Word be that goes out from My mouth; it shall not return to Me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it" (Isaiah 55:10-11).

But in the way that you say this, you seem to be thinking that His grace is not always successful, which is not the case. <smile> With regard to the individual hearers and/or readers, generally speaking, His salvific grace is always present, for sure, but not always given.

And of course Jesus is that truth... "I am the way, and the truth, and the life..." (John 14:6)

Grace and peace to you.

Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life, no doubt. God's grace is not overwhelming. We always have a free will to reject it. Sadly, many people do. And there are those unfortunate souls who prefer to cling to some pet sin and reject the grace God sends them, in order to remain in their sin.

 

[PinSeeker]

We can't be sure of this.

Jesus's brothers James, Joses (a form of Joseph), Simon, Jude, and some number of unnamed sisters are mentioned in Mark's and Matthew's gospels. Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3, to be specific.

We can't be sure of this either.

See directly above.

Grace and peace to you, RedFan.

 

[PinSeeker]

I'm enjoying my vacation...

Great! Vacations are good, indeed. Relax and enjoy it!

I quit.

Fair enough.

You win.

Ahhhh, now. That's a big part of the problem here; people view these things as some fierce competition, presumably because they take things so personally and so feel as if they are being personally attacked. It's just not a good thing at all. I mean, we all do it from time to time, but it's just sin rearing its ugly head. Pride and idolatry particularly are present. Yeah, just not good... it so easily entangles... We should all strive against these things.

Okay, grace and peace to you, JT!

 

[Augustin56]

Jesus's brothers James, Joses (a form of Joseph), Simon, Jude, and some number of unnamed sisters are mentioned in Mark's and Matthew's gospels. Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3, to be specific.


See directly above.

Grace and peace to you, RedFan.

In Matthew 13:55-56 four men are named as brothers (adelphoi) of the Lord: James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude. It is a mistake, however, to think that adelphoi can only mean "sibling." The New Testament proves otherwise. In John 19:25 we read, “Standing by the foot of the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary of Magdala.” Cross reference this with Matthew 27:56: “Among them [at the cross] were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.” We see that at least two of the men mentioned in Matthew 13 were definitely not siblings of Jesus (although they’re called adelphoi); they were Jesus’ cousins–sons of their mother’s sister.

The Bible is simply silent on the exact relationship between Jesus and the other two men, Simon and Jude, mentioned in Matthew 13. This proves two important things. First, it proves that the Greek word for brother is sometimes used to mean something other than sibling, and it proves that Matthew 13:55-56 in no way demonstrates that Mary had other children.

 

[BreadOfLife]

If anyone can show me explicit Scriptural proof of MPV, I welcome it. I don't "demand" it. (In fact, I doubt it exists. And now I see that you do too.) I have said, and repeat for you now,

Correction:

I never claimed to have explicit proof of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity. It is an implicit Scriptural teaching – and YOU haven’t provided ANY evidence to the contrary – explicit OR implicit.

I am looking for an argument FOR the PVM. I can't find one in Scripture, although that's not the sole place we should be looking (do you finally hear me, @BOL? I am NOT a sola scriptura guy). My thesis is, and has always been, that Scripture is equivocal on the subject. Those who point to Jesus's supposed brothers and sisters are wasting their time because the Bible does not prove that any half-siblings existed. Nor that they didn't.

Conversely, proving that Christ had no siblings likewise doesn't prove Mary's perpetual virginity (one can be sexually active without producing offspring). Every time someone mentions Christ telling John from the cross "Behold your mother" as proof of Mary's virginity, it makes me wonder about our educational system. Anyone who cannot distinguish "Mary had no other kids" from "Mary had no sexual relations" needs a refresher course in logic. Or biology.

Your notion that Mary's perpetual virginity is implicitly shown in Scripture is hogwash, and I will debate that one with you until the cows come home. And leave again. Disgusted. But at the end of that discussion, you and I might well agree that her perpetual virginity still ought to be accepted based on church tradition. I actually can see myself getting there some day. But not by twisting Scripture to prove the point. There's been enough of that in the last 2,000 years, thank you very much.

You are as dishonest as they come . . .

FIRST, you say that you’re NOT a Sola Scripturist, while demanding Scriptural proof.

THEN, you say that Scripture is “NOT the sole place” we should be looking, while discounting Sacred Tradition - which Scripture itself tells us is equally on par with Scripture.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Absolutely true.
Absolutely true.
Absolutely true.

Ahhhhh... I would disagree with this. The word 'trinity' is not found, but God existing in three Persons... and both Jesus and subsequently the Holy Spirit being sent ~ which carries far greater meaning than, say, throwing a baseball :) ~ by the Father (John 14) for different but equally important reasons is explicitly taught. In... John 14... :) Among other passages. The three Persons of the triune Jehovah were certainly present at creation (Genesis 1, John 1)... and even now (Matthew 28:20).

Actually, NO.

Whereas, there ARE verses that show that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are God – the definition of the Triune Godhead is not explicitly defined.

The definition of the Triune Godhead is that they are ONE essence (God) manifested in THREE distinct Persons.
I fully believe in this doctrine, which is based on Sacred Tradition, as much as Scripture.

Disagree. Jesus had siblings. Mary had not yet known a man ~ in the same sense as, for example, Genesis 4, where Adam knew his wife Eve and she conceived ~ at the time of Gabriel's visitation in Matthew 1. Adam certainly knew who Eve was prior to this knowing of Eve in Genesis 4; this 'knowing' is not a mere cognitive knowledge about someone or something. The same is true in the New Testament of Mary, who, after she gave birth to Jesus, was certainly known, and probably many times... :)... by her husband Joseph.

Grace and peace to you, BOL!

It can be shown that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant (Jesus) – and I have presented a Scriptural comparison chart of OT types and NT fulfillments with regard to this fact.

YOU have failed to present ANY refutation of these types and fulfillments. Until you DO – your argument is moot.

The Ark could NOT be defiled by anyone’s touch – under penalty of death (2 Samuel 6:6-7).

 

[PinSeeker]

God's grace is not overwhelming.

It is amazing, though (as the hymn goes). And very often really far more amazing than we realize...

We always have a free will to reject it.

If you're getting at the concept John Calvin called "irresistible grace," you should read what Calvin actually said regarding that concept. John Calvin never denied ~ and Calvinists like me do not deny ~ the idea of free will. But God's grace of salvation involves regeneration of a person's heart ~ in this way we are born again of the Holy Spirit ~ which subsequently has an inevitable effect on the will but does not depend on or even involve the will.

Sadly, many people do.

I agree... except for the grace of God's salvific regeneration by His Spirit. Read on...

And there are those unfortunate souls who prefer to cling to some pet sin and reject the grace God sends them, in order to remain in their sin.

God's purposes cannot be thwarted. (Job 42:2). If folks remain dead in their sin, it is because God has not had mercy on them in the above way, but has rather given them up to themselves, really, "(given) them up to dishonorable passions... (given) them up to a debased mind" ~ so, given them up to their own free will, actually ~ as Paul says in Romans 1, because they are "filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice... full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness... gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless..." and "though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them." All these things are a matter of the will, and God gives them up to it, therefore withholding this salvific grace, not having mercy upon them, per His own free will. As Paul says in Romans 9, "it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy... (God) has mercy on whomever He wills, and he hardens whomever He wills."

So again, it's not a matter of whether our will is free or not; it certainly is, but is first a matter of God's mercy and then a matter of this work of regeneration by (being born again of) the Holy Spirit, which then, because of this change of heart (this is where we get this phrase that we use so often ("change of heart"), even though we often use it in such blase ways), our wills turn from "dishonorable passions" and we then, of our own free will, are no longer ~ back to Romans 1 ~ "futile in (our) thinking" and "honor God and thank Him" and serve Him, even living unto Him rather than living unto ourselves... we die to ourselves and live unto Him.

So then Paul exhorts us in Romans 6 to "consider (ourselves) dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus," and "(l)et not sin therefore reign in (our) mortal body, to make (us) obey its passions," and "not present (our) members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present (ourselves) to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and (our) members to God as instruments for righteousness," because "sin (has) no dominion over (us), since (we) are not under law but under grace." Paul is telling us to use our free wills, here, Augustin, is he not? And why? Well, because of this regeneration by ~ having been born again of ~ the Spirit, we are no longer slaves to unrighteousness but, as Paul says there, "thanks be to God, (we) who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart" and "set free from sin" and "have become slaves of righteousness."

THIS is how AMAZING God's grace is.

********************************************************************************************

It is a mistake, however, to think that adelphoi can only mean "sibling."

Agree. But there, it does, quite obviously.

The Bible is simply silent on the exact relationship between Jesus and the other two men, Simon and Jude, mentioned in Matthew 13.

Well, silent as far as how close their relationship as sons of the same woman (Mary) was, sure. <smile> It's possible that there was some jealousy and resentment and even hatred there on the part of Mary's other sons regarding Jesus... like with Joseph's brothers regarding Joseph, which we can clearly see in Genesis 37, verse 4 in particular, where we read, "...when his..." (Joseph's) "...brothers saw that their father..." (Jacob) "...loved him more than all his brothers, they hated him and could not speak peacefully to him." Now, I do say 'possible,' because we don't know, because again, Scripture is silent on that.

...the Greek word for brother is sometimes used to mean something other than sibling...

Well, those passages in particular prove that ~ yes, sometimes ~ that Greek word can be used in the same context as 'sibling.' Interesting that you don't mention the specific mention of His sisters... But all this conversation is taking place in Nazareth among the people of Nazareth who know the family personally and are speaking of them in a personal, familial manner.

...Matthew 13:55-56 in no way demonstrates that Mary had other children.

Opinion noted. :)

Grace and peace to you, Augustin. And all, of course.

 

[PinSeeker]

Actually, NO.

<smile>

The definition of the Triune Godhead is that they are ONE essence (God) manifested in THREE distinct Persons.

Hmm, okay, fine, but this is explicitly shown in Scripture. As you agree, I think. Is there really any argument or debate here? I mean... my goodness... <smile>

Sacred Tradition,...

You know, against my better judgment... <smile> What exactly do you mean, BreadOfLife, by "sacred tradition"?

It can be shown that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant (Jesus)

As you know, BreadOfLife ~ I hope, anyway ~ Jesus said all of Scripture is about Him (specifically in John 5:46... "if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote of Me... and Luke said the same thing indirectly in Luke 24:27... "beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, (Jesus) interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself"... and again directly in Luke 24:44-45... "(Jesus) said to them, 'These are My words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.' Then (Jesus) opened their minds to understand the Scriptures...").

Never do we read anything in the Old Testament about Mary; the only passages that allude to her in some way are not about her but about Jesus:

• Genesis 3:15, which is about Jesus, not Mary, that He is the offspring of the woman Who will crush the serpent's head; the first part of this verse is really about the serpent, to whom God is speaking in this verse ~ and that he will have ongoing hostility with the woman, which will be perpetuated by their respective offspring; Jesus Himself later refers to the offspring of Satan, the devil, in John 8, saying to a group of Jews, "Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear My word. You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires..."
• Isaiah 7:14, which is about Jesus, not Mary, but that He will be conceived in and born of a virgin (Mary, of course) and named Immanuel, which, as Matthew later says, means "God with us."

The types and shadows of the Old Testament are of Jesus, not Mary. In the story of Noah's flood in particular, the ark is a "type" or "shadow" of Jesus Himself, Who is our Ark, Who metaphorically speaking carries us through the storm, who keeps us from being overcome by the flood. These types and shadows of Jesus are:

• inanimate objects at times ~ like a) Noah's ark in Genesis 6, b) the rock at Horeb, which Moses struck with his staff and water came out of it and the thirsty Israelites drank of it in Exodus 17
• animals, at times ~ like a.) the ram caught in the thicket provided by God for Abram's sacrifice in place of Isaac in Genesis 22, b) the true Lamb without blemish pointed to over and over and over again in Leviticus
• food, at times ~ like the manna from heaven in Exodus 16, Numbers 11, Deuteronomy 8, Joshua 5, Nehemiah 9, and Psalm 78 (John mentions it, too, in John 6)
• people, at times ~ like a.) Joseph, who was in Egypt and placed there by God to save his brothers and all of Israel from the famine, as we read in Genesis 50, and b.) Moses, who led the Israelites to the promised land, and c.) David, who was anointed king over Israel

For the sake of time (yours and mine) I'll stop there, but it goes on and on and on... <smile> It's all about Jesus, BreadOfLife, not Mary... <smile> But this should not be construed as any kind of knock on Mary or the great purposes for which God used her and the ways in which He blessed her. Likewise, though, this should also not be construed in such a manner that Mary deserves our worship or the glory that belongs only to God... Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

I have presented a Scriptural comparison chart of OT types and NT fulfillments with regard to this fact.

Wellllllllll... <smile> See above.

YOU have failed to present ANY refutation of these types and fulfillments. Until you DO – your argument is moot.

Opinion noted. <smile>

The Ark could NOT be defiled by anyone’s touch – under penalty of death (2 Samuel 6:6-7).

Right. And this is another "type"... "shadow"... of Jesus. Christ Jesus is the true Mercy Seat. <smile>

The term ‘mercy seat’ comes from a Hebrew word meaning “to cover, placate, appease, cleanse, cancel or make atonement for.” Here the high priest ~ only once a year ~ entered the Holy of Holies (inside the Tabernacle, where the Ark was kept) and atoned for the sins of all the Israelites (Leviticus 16). The priest sprinkled blood of a sacrificed animal onto the Mercy Seat to appease the wrath and anger of God for past sins committed. In a far greater manner, the Mercy Seat on the Ark was a symbolic foreshadowing of the ultimate sacrifice for all sin ~ the blood of Christ shed on the cross for the remission of sins. Paul knew this concept well and related it to the Romans (Romans 3:24-25) ~ and us, by extension ~ writing, "…and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith." Just as there was only one place for atonement of sins in the Old Testament ~ the Mercy Seat of the Ark of the Covenant ~ so there is also only one place for atonement in the New Testament and current times ~ the cross of Jesus Christ, and Jesus is the One... the only One Who did make, even Who possibly could make... true atonement on our behalf and therefore accomplished our redemption.

I'll say it yet again, concerning Mary, knowing Mary should help us in knowing ourselves, and we should desire a faith like hers. Her faith was certainly great. She certainly delighted in the Lord, and He directed her paths (Psalm 37:4; 119:47). She certainly delighted to do His will (Psalm 40:8). Oh, to have a faith like hers..

However ~ yet again... <smile> ~ we should not make Mary out to be a bigger part of the picture than she is. Jesus and Jesus alone accomplished our redemption and is thus our Savior. Jesus is the one Mediator between God and man. We should not assign to Mary any credit for "assisting" Jesus in accomplishing the redemption of God's people. That she found favor with and was chosen by the Father for a very special purpose and was blessed in such a magnificent way is absolutely true, but even Mary knew her place as a servant of the Lord (as we all should) and submitted humbly to His will (again, as we all should).

Grace and peace to you, BreadOfLife.

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

​

◄ Numbers 30 ►

Book Sum • Book by Book • Study Que
​

Laws about Vows Upholding Vows: The Importance of Integrity Numbers 30 serves as a powerful reminder of the importance of our words and promises. In our modern context, this chapter can inspire us to be more thoughtful about the commitments we make and encourage us to be reliable in fulfilling them. While cultural norms have evolved since ancient Israelite times, the essence of integrity—keeping one's word—remains a timeless virtue. Verses 1-2: Men's Vows are Binding Moses conveys God's command to the leaders of the Israelite tribes: when a man makes a vow to the Lord or swears an oath to bind himself by an obligation, he must not break his word. He must do everything he has vowed to do. Verses 3-5: Nullifying a Young Woman's Vows The passage then details what happens when a young, unmarried woman living in her father's house makes a vow to the Lord or obligates herself by a pledge. If her father remains silent about her vow, then all her vows stand. If her father disallows her on the day he hears of it, any of her vows or self-imposed obligations will not stand, and God will forgive her. Verses 6-8: The Vows of a Married Woman For a married woman, if she makes a vow or rash promise and her husband hears it but says nothing to her, then her vows will stand. But if her husband disallows her on the day he hears it, then he nullifies her vow that is upon her or the thoughtless utterance of her lips by which she has bound herself, and the Lord will forgive her. Verses 9-12: Vows by Widows and Divorced Women Concerning vows made by widows or divorced women, everything they pledge to fulfill by a vow will stand Verses 13-16: Husband's Authority over his Wife's Vows Finally, any vow or obligation sworn to deny herself will not be binding if her husband nullifies them when he hears about it. If he confirms them later, he must bear the consequences. Numbers 30 is a passage dedicated to vows and their implications within the Israelite community. The chapter addresses men and women separately, emphasizing the importance of maintaining integrity and honor in keeping one's vows. It provides a distinctive insight into the patriarchal society of the Israelites and the cultural norms surrounding vows and commitments. "Biblehub" is not a Catholic source

 

[RedFan]

Correction:

I never claimed to have explicit proof of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity. It is an implicit Scriptural teaching – and YOU haven’t provided ANY evidence to the contrary – explicit OR implicit.

And I never claimed that you did. (Is English your first language?)

Show me the verses you think implicitly support MPV, so we can discuss.

FIRST, you say that you’re NOT a Sola Scripturist, while demanding Scriptural proof.

THEN, you say that Scripture is “NOT the sole place” we should be looking, while discounting Sacred Tradition - which Scripture itself tells us is equally on par with Scripture.

I DO NOT demand Scriptural support (although I welcome it, whether explicit or implicit). And I do not discount Sacred Tradition -- indeed, that is exactly where I said in Post #601 that we might want to look! (Is English your THIRD language?)

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

And I never claimed that you did. (Is English your first language?)

Show me the verses you think implicitly support MPV, so we can discuss.


I DO NOT demand Scriptural support (although I welcome it, whether explicit or implicit). And I do not discount Sacred Tradition -- indeed, that is exactly where I said in Post #601 that we might want to look! (Is English your THIRD language?)

Let me know if you disdain videos (post #614) as I do. I'll try and find a transcript, so we can discuss.

 

[RedFan]

Let me know if you disdain videos (post #614) as I do. I'll try and find a transcript, so we can discuss.

Yes, videos are not my preferred mode.

 

[RedFan]

I'd like to start a fundraiser. Who here will contribute to paying @BOL to go a full day without using a bold, underlined or capitalized word?

 

[PinSeeker]

I'd like to start a fundraiser. Who here will contribute to paying @BOL to go a full day without using a bold, underlined or capitalized word?