Mary mother of God

[katiemygirl]

So....is what you are meaning when you say "Jesus to be sin", that it was his sins and our sins (or something else)? If it is not his sins, then I would conclude, Jesus did not sin.
I have a feeling your answer is a "fuzzy" something else that I can't seem to understand. That is probably because you don't believe Jesus is God and I do, so we understand the dying on the cross from a totally different perspective.
I see that "Why have you forsaken me" as God preaching from the cross, where as you see it as Jesus talking to God.

I think he is saying Jesus became sin for us. He's not saying Jesus sinned.

When Jesus died on the cross, He had the sins of the world on His shoulders. At that point, the Father in heaven could not look upon His Son. Imho, this is why Jesus cried out, "why have you forsaken me?" In that moment Jesus was alone.

I don't know about you, but that moves me to tears. I imagine it does anyone who loves the Lord, regardless of what church they are affiliated with.

 

[kepha31]

I think he is saying Jesus became sin for us. He's not saying Jesus sinned.

When Jesus died on the cross, He had the sins of the world on His shoulders. At that point, the Father in heaven could not look upon His Son. Imho, this is why Jesus cried out, "why have you forsaken me?" In that moment Jesus was alone.

I don't know about you, but that moves me to tears. I imagine it does anyone who loves the Lord, regardless of what church they are affiliated with.

Can God and sin coexist? The answer is no.
2 Corinthians 5:21 is the crassly literal proof text that Jesus "became sin", invented by Martin Luther, whom you claim you don't follow. Jesus did not literally become sin, or a sinner. He was sacrificed for our sins (Is 53:10) and bore the penalties for our sins and transgressions (Is 53:4-6). But He Himself was without sin, being God, in Whom no sin can dwell. It is not possible for God (even the incarnate God) to "become sin," and it is heresy and blasphemy to make such an outrageous claim. More details here.

"why have you forsaken me?" Jesus is quoting Psalm 22. (in Aramaic) He couldn't recite the whole Psalm because He was dying. I suggest you read the Psalm to the end to get an idea what Jesus was trying to say. He was not forsaken.

 

[kepha31]

Genesis 3:15​

In most editions of the Douay-Rheims Bible, Genesis 3:15, in which God is addressing the serpent, reads like this:

"I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel."

In the New American Bible, as in all other modern Bibles, it reads like this:

"I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel."

The essential difference between these two renderings...concerning who will crush the serpent's head and who the serpent is trying to strike. The Douay-Rheims uses feminine pronouns -- she and her -- implying that the woman is the person being spoken of in this part of the verse. All modern translations use masculine pronouns -- he and his -- implying that the seed of the woman is that part of the verse.

The reason for the difference in the renderings is a manuscript difference. Modern translations follow what the original Hebrew of the passage says. The Douay-Rheims, however, is following a manuscript variant found in many early Fathers and some editions of the Vulgate (but not the original; Jerome followed the Hebrew text in his edition of the Vulgate). The variant probably originated as a copyist error when a scribe failed to take note that the subject of the verse had shifted from the woman to the seed of the woman.

People notice this variant today because the expression found in the Douay-Rheims has been the basis of some popular Catholic art, showing a serene Mary standing over a crushed serpent.

This is because Christians have recognized (all the way back to the first century) that the woman and her seed mentioned in Genesis 3:15 do not simply stand for Eve and one of her righteous sons (either Abel or Seth). They prophetically foreshadow Mary and Jesus. Thus, just as the first half of the verse, speaking of the enmity between the serpent and the woman, has been applied to Mary, the second half, speaking of the head crushing and heel striking, has also been applied to Mary due to the manuscript variant, though it properly applies to Jesus, given the original Hebrew.

This does not mean that the idea cannot be validly applied to Mary as well. Through her cooperation in the incarnation of Christ, so that the Son of God (who, from the cross, directly crushed the head of the serpent) became her seed, Mary did crush the head of the serpent. In the same way, the serpent struck at Christ on the cross, and indirectly struck at Mary's heart as well, who had to witness the death of her own Son (cf. John 19:25-27). As the holy priest Simeon had told her years before:

"Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign that is spoken against -- and a sword will pierce through your own soul also -- that thoughts out of many hearts may be revealed" (Luke 2:34b-35).

Thus Jesus crushed the serpent directly and was directly struck by the serpent; Mary, through her cooperation in the incarnation and her witnessing the sufferings and death of her Son, indirectly crushed the serpent and was indirectly struck by the serpent.

This has long been recognized by Catholics. The footnotes provided a couple of hundred years ago by Bishop Challoner in his revision of the Douay state, "The sense [of these two readings] is the same: for it is by her seed, Jesus Christ, that the woman crushes the serpent's head."
IQB: Genesis 3:15 and Mary​

 

[kjv4me2you]

theQUOTE="katiemygirl, post: 4190984, member: 29151"]I am confused by what you are saying. Are you saying New Testament Christians did not share the Lord's Supper? 1 Corinthians 11:20-34, 10:16-21 say they did.

Acts 2:42 does not use the term Lord's Supper, but mostly all reputable scholars believe "the breaking of bread" is a reference to sharing the bread and fruit of the vine in remembrance of Jesus. The phrase is grouped together with other acts of worship in that verse: preaching and prayer.

I do not believe the Scriptures teach transubstantiation, but they do teach that we are commanded to take the bread and wine in remembrance of Jesus. Jesus promised He would drink it with His disciples in His Father's kingdom. His kingdom is here, and every time we have communion, Jesus is right there, communing with us.[/QUOTE]

1 Cor 10:16-21 those five verses do not have the word Eucharist-thank in them and they say nothing about eating the flesh of Christ or drinking the blood Christ because they are not about a RCC Eucharist mass.

BLESSING IN STRONG'S CONCORDANCE MEANS G2129
From the same as G2127; fine speaking, that is, elegance of language; commendation (“eulogy”), that is, (reverentially) adoration; religiously, benediction; by implication consecration; by extension benefit or largess: - blessing (a matter of) bounty (X -tifully), fair speech.

BLESS MEANS G2127
From a compound of G2095 and G3056; to speak well of, that is, (religiously) to bless (thank or invoke a benediction upon, prosper): - bless, praise.

COMMUNICATION MEANS G2842
From G2844; partnership, that is, (literally) participation, or (social) intercourse, or (pecuniary) benefaction: - (to) communicate (-ation), communion, (contri-), distribution,
.......................
THE CUP-FATE of BLESSING-G2129- fine speaking WHICH WE BLESS-G2127-speak well of.

(1 Cor 10:16 KJV) The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

My understanding of 1 Cor 10:16..The cup-fate of blessing is-G2129-fine speaking which we bless-G2127-speak well, is the common union-partnership of communicating-2842 the blood of Christ ( for such a communication read Hebrews 9:1-28) it is that communication of the blood of Christ that we communicate-preach to those we sup with them once a week at the masters supper for the have nots .

THE BREAD WHICH WE BREAK
The bread which we break occurred when they sat together for supper and this could be with two, three or more disciples (Matt 18:20) when they where in common union-communication-preaching in fine speaking and speaking well of the body of Christ of which every believer is a part of as that one bread, the one body of Christ.

We see in (Acts 20:7 KJV) Paul doing this very thing at supper with the disciples at their breaking of bread. Paul preached communicated to the one bread ,the one body of Christ in. (Acts 20:7 KJV ) And upon the first of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.

The disciples in their area would come together ( stay in contact ) with each other weekly by eating a common supper together in common union-sharing-distributing-G2842 their food while blessing-with fine speaking and communications regarding what the blood of Christ did for them including those have not's ( 1 Cointhians 11:22). 1 Corinthian 10:16-21 was not a roman catholic mass nor was there a rcc priest commanding-calling Jesus to come down from heaven to be offered up daily , hourly weekly, monthly, yearly, again and again and again.

This common union supper was not the remembrance supper that the apostles did for 7 or 9 meals, while Jesus was in the grave, but as we can read it was a supper to make sure so that the have nots those poor saints in the one bread, and of the one body of Christ at least would have bread and drink supper at least once a week. It was a communicating supper a way to blessG2127-speak well of the body and blood of Christ that made them beloved by YHWH-YaH and His Son Jesus Christ.
(Jude 1:20 KJV) But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,

(1 Cor 10:17 KJV) For we ( disciples of Christ) being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.

They did not come together as the body of Christ the one bread to eat themselves and neither do these verses say they ate Christ's flesh nor do they say they were drinking the blood of Christ.

(1 Cor 10:18 KJV) Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?

Israel after the flesh is not Israel the Israel of God ( Gal 6:16 ), because they would not be the born again by the Spirit as were those believing Jews who believed Jesus was that Christ the Son of YHWH-YaH the living eternal God.

1 Cor 10:18 is referring to the shambles-the market place where Israel after the flesh daily bought and ate things that the Gentiles offered at the table of devils in Corinth.

I should mention now that to read scripture is to eat scripture. (Jer 15:16 KJV) Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, O YHWH-YaH God of hosts.

(Luke 4:4 KJV) And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.
(Mat 4:4 KJV) But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Luke 4:4 clearly teach man does not live by bread along but by every word of God.
Mat 4:4 teaches where the word of God proceedeth from and that is out of the mouth of God. Like the eagle feeds its young from its mouth the food it needs to live, so YHWH-YaH feeds his sons and daughters from His own the mouth bread of life that is the words of Christ the Son of God is the NEW TESTAMENT. The cup-fate of Jesus Christ was written in his blood of the NEW TESTAMENT.

THE AFTER SUPPER CUP-FATE
(Luke 22:20 KJV) Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup-fate is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

Cup means fate. This FATE is the NEW TESTAMENT in my blood which is shed for you.
When you hold the WRITTEN NEW TESTAMENT in your hands, you are holding the CUP-FATE of Christ and when you read the CUP-FATE-NEW TESTAMENT you say as
(Jer 15:16 KJV) Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, O YHWH-YaH God of hosts.

Well here I am again off thread topic "Mary Mother of God."

I will try and post some of my studies on 1 Cor 11:20-34 later. I will post them in "this do in remembrance of me" thread in scriptural debates.
willyah

 

[kepha31]

The Eucharist in 70 A.D.​

The Didache (means "teaching") or "The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles" was written in Syria between 70 A.D. and 110 A.D. This "Teaching of the Twelve Apostles" contains the oldest Eucharistic prayer, liturgical worship, directions on Baptism, fasting, prayer, and the treatment of bishops and other clergy.

It was used by bishops and priests for the instruction of catechumens. Many early Christian writers have referenced the "Teaching of the Twelve Apostles" or "Didache". The document tells us Catholics about the Mass and Eucharist in 70 A.D.:

"Let no one eat and drink of your Eucharist but those baptized in the name of the Lord; to this, too the saying of the Lord is applicable: 'Do not give to dogs what is sacred'". -Ch. 9:5

"On the Lord's own day, assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks; but first confess your sins, so that your sacrifice may be pure. However, no one quarreling with his brother may join your meeting until they are reconciled; your sacrifice must not be defiled…

…. For here we have the saying of the Lord: 'In every place and time offer me a pure sacrifice; for I am a mighty King, says the Lord; and my name spreads terror among the nations.'" -Ch 14

The Eucharist in 90 A.D.
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans​

“6:6 But mark ye those who hold strange doctrine touching the grace of Jesus Christ which came to us, how that they are contrary to the mind of God.6:7 They (who hold strange doctrines) have no care for love, none for the widow, none for the orphan, none for the afflicted, none for the prisoner, none for the hungry or thirsty.

6:8 THEY (who hold strange doctrines) ABSTAIN FROM EUCHARIST AND PRAYER,6:9 BECAUSE THEY (who hold strange doctrines) ALLOW NOT THAT THE EUCHARIST IS THE FLESH OF OUR SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST, WHICH FLESH SUFFERED FOR OUR SINS, AND WHICH THE FATHER OF HIS GOODNESS RAISED UP."
(snip)
"7:1 They (who hold strange doctrines) therefore that gainsay (“deny” the good gift of God perish by their questionings.
7:2 But it were expedient for them to have love, that they may also rise again.
7:3 It is therefore meet that ye should abstain from such ( people who hold strange doctrines) and not speak of them (these people who hold these strange doctrines) either privately or in public;
7:4 but should give heed to the Prophets, and especially to the Gospel, wherein the passion is shown unto us and the resurrection is accomplished.”

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I don't know about you, but that moves me to tears. I imagine it does anyone who loves the Lord, regardless of what church they are affiliated with.

I like that. Regardless of what church they are affiliated with. Please keep that in mind.

 

[kjv4me2you]

The Eucharist in 70 A.D.​

The Didache (means "teaching") or "The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles" was written in Syria between 70 A.D. and 110 A.D. This "Teaching of the Twelve Apostles" contains the oldest Eucharistic prayer, liturgical worship, directions on Baptism, fasting, prayer, and the treatment of bishops and other clergy.

It was used by bishops and priests for the instruction of catechumens. Many early Christian writers have referenced the "Teaching of the Twelve Apostles" or "Didache". The document tells us Catholics about the Mass and Eucharist in 70 A.D.:

"Let no one eat and drink of your Eucharist but those baptized in the name of the Lord; to this, too the saying of the Lord is applicable: 'Do not give to dogs what is sacred'". -Ch. 9:5

"On the Lord's own day, assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks; but first confess your sins, so that your sacrifice may be pure. However, no one quarreling with his brother may join your meeting until they are reconciled; your sacrifice must not be defiled…

…. For here we have the saying of the Lord: 'In every place and time offer me a pure sacrifice; for I am a mighty King, says the Lord; and my name spreads terror among the nations.'" -Ch 14

The Eucharist in 90 A.D.
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans​

“6:6 But mark ye those who hold strange doctrine touching the grace of Jesus Christ which came to us, how that they are contrary to the mind of God.6:7 They (who hold strange doctrines) have no care for love, none for the widow, none for the orphan, none for the afflicted, none for the prisoner, none for the hungry or thirsty.

6:8 THEY (who hold strange doctrines) ABSTAIN FROM EUCHARIST AND PRAYER,6:9 BECAUSE THEY (who hold strange doctrines) ALLOW NOT THAT THE EUCHARIST IS THE FLESH OF OUR SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST, WHICH FLESH SUFFERED FOR OUR SINS, AND WHICH THE FATHER OF HIS GOODNESS RAISED UP."
(snip)
"7:1 They (who hold strange doctrines) therefore that gainsay (“deny” the good gift of God perish by their questionings.
7:2 But it were expedient for them to have love, that they may also rise again.
7:3 It is therefore meet that ye should abstain from such ( people who hold strange doctrines) and not speak of them (these people who hold these strange doctrines) either privately or in public;
7:4 but should give heed to the Prophets, and especially to the Gospel, wherein the passion is shown unto us and the resurrection is accomplished.”

The so called epistle of Ignatius is not of the 27 books of the new testament. Why would it be of any spiritual value compared to the authority of the word of God.

Jesus said even the dogs it the crumbs off the table.
(Mat 15:25 KJV) Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.

(Mat 15:26 KJV) But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and cast it to dogs.

(Mat 15:27 KJV) And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.

(Mat 15:28 KJV) Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.

Did Iggy to the Sumerians forget the words of Jesus

willyah

 

[kjv4me2you]

The so called epistle of Ignatius is not of the 27 books of the new testament. Why would it be of any spiritual value compared to the authority of the word of God.

willyah

I like that. Regardless of what church they are affiliated with. Please keep that in mind.

The teaching of the 12 apostles is found in the Holy Scriptures not in the manipulated words of men. Ever hear of historical revision. It was rampant during Roman rule. You know whoever has the gold makes the records and revises history. If the loser wrote history it would read entirely different.

willyah

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Katiemygirl, I was quoting this:

When Jesus died on the cross, He had the sins of the world on His shoulders. At that point, the Father in heaven could not look upon His Son. Imho, this is why Jesus cried out, "why have you forsaken me?" In that moment Jesus was alone.

I don't know about you, but that moves me to tears. I imagine it does anyone who loves the Lord, regardless of what church they are affiliated with.

"I imagine it does anyone who loves the Lord, regardless of what Church they are affiliated with."

Keep that positive thought that any Christian can moved by Jesus' Words regardless of the Churches each Christian disagrees with.

 

[kepha31]

The so called epistle of Ignatius is not of the 27 books of the new testament. Why would it be of any spiritual value compared to the authority of the word of God.

willyah

First, no one is claiming Ignatius is writing an inspired text.
Second, there was no New Testament in 70 A.D.
Third, the writings of the earliest Christians are valuable, their consensus show what was believed and practiced then is essentially the same as it is now.
Forth, the quote is completely in line with Scripture.
Fifth, Ignatius of Antioch trained under the Apostle John, that means he received the word of God orally, as scripture says repeatedly. He should know more about the Eucharist than anyone, unless you think John produces false teachers.
Sixth, Ignatius was the third bishop of Jerusalem, qualified to teach on matters of faith and morals in union with his fellow bishops. (the Magisterium)

Do you dismiss the writings of the Church Fathers because the Church didn't find sufficient support to include them in the Bible? or is it because what they say is totally foreign to your understanding?

"[T]he bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and the cup His blood..."
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV:18,4 (c. A.D. 200).

"He acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as his own blood, from which he bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of creation) he affirmed to be his own body, from which he gives increase to our bodies."
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V:2,2 (c. A.D. 200).

"But what consistency is there in those who hold that the bread over which thanks have been given is the Body of their Lord, and the cup His Blood, if they do not acknowledge that He is the Son of the Creator of the world..."
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV:18, 2 (c. A.D. 200).

"For the blood of the grape--that is, the Word--desired to be mixed with water, as His blood is mingled with salvation. And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord's immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh. Accordingly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; while the other, the Spirit, conducts to immortality. And the mixture of both--of the water and of the Word--is called Eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul."
Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 2 (ante A.D. 202).​

 

[chlotilde]

The so called epistle of Ignatius is not of the 27 books of the new testament. Why would it be of any spiritual value compared to the authority of the word of God.

willyah

Because it answers the question of why we believe the NT IS the authoritative word of God? in IOW, when someone asks why do we believe the Bible is true, we have an answer to point to.
And when Matthew says, in argument, take it three witnesses, and if you still can't agree, take it to the Church...we take it to the (writings of the) Church that formed the NT.

(edit to add clarification)

 

[chlotilde]

The teaching of the 12 apostles is found in the Holy Scriptures not in the manipulated words of men. Ever hear of historical revision. It was rampant during Roman rule. You know whoever has the gold makes the records and revises history. If the loser wrote history it would read entirely different.

So is this your answer for why you believe the Bible is true?

 

[katiemygirl]

Can God and sin coexist? The answer is no.
2 Corinthians 5:21 is the crassly literal proof text that Jesus "became sin", invented by Martin Luther, whom you claim you don't follow. Jesus did not literally become sin, or a sinner. He was sacrificed for our sins (Is 53:10) and bore the penalties for our sins and transgressions (Is 53:4-6). But He Himself was without sin, being God, in Whom no sin can dwell. It is not possible for God (even the incarnate God) to "become sin," and it is heresy and blasphemy to make such an outrageous claim. More details here.

"why have you forsaken me?" Jesus is quoting Psalm 22. (in Aramaic) He couldn't recite the whole Psalm because He was dying. I suggest you read the Psalm to the end to get an idea what Jesus was trying to say. He was not forsaken.

An understanding of the Passover Lamb in the Old Testament provides significant insight on the concept of substitution. For example, the sacrificial lamb had to be “unblemished” (Exod. 12:5; Lev. 4:3, 23, 32). At the time of the sacrifice, a hand would be laid on the unblemished sacrificial animal to symbolize a transfer of guilt (Lev. 4:4, 24, 33). Notice that the sacrificial lamb did not thereby actually become sinful by nature; rather, sin was imputed to the animal and the animal acted as a sacrificial substitute. In like manner, Christ the Lamb of God was utterly unblemished (1 Pet. 1:19), but our sin was imputed to Him and He was our sacrificial substitute on the cross of Calvary. Simply because our sin was imputed to Him does not mean He changed in nature or actually became sinful.

The apostle Paul’s intended meaning in 2 Corinthians 5:21 is that Jesus was always without sin actually, but at the cross He was made to be sin for us judicially. While Jesus never committed a sin personally, He was made to be sin for us substitutionally. Just as the righteousness that is imputed to Christians in justification is extrinsic to them, so the sin that was imputed to Christ on the cross was extrinsic to Him and never in any sense contaminated His essential nature.

 

[Unification]

Genesis 3:15​

In most editions of the Douay-Rheims Bible, Genesis 3:15, in which God is addressing the serpent, reads like this:

"I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel."

In the New American Bible, as in all other modern Bibles, it reads like this:

"I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel."

The essential difference between these two renderings...concerning who will crush the serpent's head and who the serpent is trying to strike. The Douay-Rheims uses feminine pronouns -- she and her -- implying that the woman is the person being spoken of in this part of the verse. All modern translations use masculine pronouns -- he and his -- implying that the seed of the woman is that part of the verse.

The reason for the difference in the renderings is a manuscript difference. Modern translations follow what the original Hebrew of the passage says. The Douay-Rheims, however, is following a manuscript variant found in many early Fathers and some editions of the Vulgate (but not the original; Jerome followed the Hebrew text in his edition of the Vulgate). The variant probably originated as a copyist error when a scribe failed to take note that the subject of the verse had shifted from the woman to the seed of the woman.

People notice this variant today because the expression found in the Douay-Rheims has been the basis of some popular Catholic art, showing a serene Mary standing over a crushed serpent.

This is because Christians have recognized (all the way back to the first century) that the woman and her seed mentioned in Genesis 3:15 do not simply stand for Eve and one of her righteous sons (either Abel or Seth). They prophetically foreshadow Mary and Jesus. Thus, just as the first half of the verse, speaking of the enmity between the serpent and the woman, has been applied to Mary, the second half, speaking of the head crushing and heel striking, has also been applied to Mary due to the manuscript variant, though it properly applies to Jesus, given the original Hebrew.

This does not mean that the idea cannot be validly applied to Mary as well. Through her cooperation in the incarnation of Christ, so that the Son of God (who, from the cross, directly crushed the head of the serpent) became her seed, Mary did crush the head of the serpent. In the same way, the serpent struck at Christ on the cross, and indirectly struck at Mary's heart as well, who had to witness the death of her own Son (cf. John 19:25-27). As the holy priest Simeon had told her years before:

"Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign that is spoken against -- and a sword will pierce through your own soul also -- that thoughts out of many hearts may be revealed" (Luke 2:34b-35).

Thus Jesus crushed the serpent directly and was directly struck by the serpent; Mary, through her cooperation in the incarnation and her witnessing the sufferings and death of her Son, indirectly crushed the serpent and was indirectly struck by the serpent.

This has long been recognized by Catholics. The footnotes provided a couple of hundred years ago by Bishop Challoner in his revision of the Douay state, "The sense [of these two readings] is the same: for it is by her seed, Jesus Christ, that the woman crushes the serpent's head."
IQB: Genesis 3:15 and Mary​

I don't believe in talking snakes. I do believe and know of thinking minds though.

 

[Unification]

Can God and sin coexist? The answer is no.
2 Corinthians 5:21 is the crassly literal proof text that Jesus "became sin", invented by Martin Luther, whom you claim you don't follow. Jesus did not literally become sin, or a sinner. He was sacrificed for our sins (Is 53:10) and bore the penalties for our sins and transgressions (Is 53:4-6). But He Himself was without sin, being God, in Whom no sin can dwell. It is not possible for God (even the incarnate God) to "become sin," and it is heresy and blasphemy to make such an outrageous claim. More details here.

"why have you forsaken me?" Jesus is quoting Psalm 22. (in Aramaic) He couldn't recite the whole Psalm because He was dying. I suggest you read the Psalm to the end to get an idea what Jesus was trying to say. He was not forsaken.

Sure, God dwells in us. Co-existing doesn't mean that God is or can sin.

 

[kjv4me2you]

Because it answers the question of why we believe the NT IS the authoritative word of God? in IOW, when someone asks why do we believe the Bible is true, we have an answer to point to.
And when Matthew says, in argument, take it three witnesses, and if you still can't agree, take it to the Church...we take it to the (writings of the) Church that formed the NT.

(edit to add clarification)

Why would a Bible believer who believes that faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God and who is born again by the Spirit of God need to use the uninspired words of a natural man such as Ignatius to prove that the Word of God is true.

Your saying that the words of natural man are going to explain to the spiritual man who was born again by the word of God that the word of God is true.
(1 Cor 2:14 KJV) But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
(1 Cor 2:15 KJV) But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

He that is spiritual judgeth all things without the need for the natural man sticking the uninspired words of men in as if his words can judge whether something is truly from God as truth.

If someone asks if the Bible is true I point them to the Bible.

(Prov 30:5 KJV) Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.

(Luke 4:4 KJV) And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

(John 17:14 KJV) I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

(John 17:15 KJV) I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.

(John 17:16 KJV) They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

(John 17:17 KJV) Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

(Rom 3:4 KJV) God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

(Psa 119:140 KJV) Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it.

willyah

 

[kjv4me2you]

An understanding of the Passover Lamb in the Old Testament provides significant insight on the concept of substitution. For example, the sacrificial lamb had to be “unblemished” (Exod. 12:5; Lev. 4:3, 23, 32). At the time of the sacrifice, a hand would be laid on the unblemished sacrificial animal to symbolize a transfer of guilt (Lev. 4:4, 24, 33). Notice that the sacrificial lamb did not thereby actually become sinful by nature; rather, sin was imputed to the animal and the animal acted as a sacrificial substitute. In like manner, Christ the Lamb of God was utterly unblemished (1 Pet. 1:19), but our sin was imputed to Him and He was our sacrificial substitute on the cross of Calvary. Simply because our sin was imputed to Him does not mean He changed in nature or actually became sinful.

The apostle Paul’s intended meaning in 2 Corinthians 5:21 is that Jesus was always without sin actually, but at the cross He was made to be sin for us judicially. While Jesus never committed a sin personally, He was made to be sin for us substitutionally. Just as the righteousness that is imputed to Christians in justification is extrinsic to them, so the sin that was imputed to Christ on the cross was extrinsic to Him and never in any sense contaminated His essential nature.

Katie said: Notice that the sacrificial lamb did not thereby actually become sinful by nature; rather, sin was imputed to the animal and the animal acted as a sacrificial substitute.

So, if it is all symbolism, why was the scape goat sent into the wilderness and why was the wilderness the first place Yehoshua went after he was anointed-Christened at about age 30. Yehoshua was driven by the Spirit; because the scape goat really did have the sins of Israel placed upon it once a year and then was sent without the camp into the wilderness. It really did carry the sins of Israel off into the wilderness and Yehoshua really was made sin for Israel.

(Mark 1:12 KJV) And immediately the Spirit driveth him into the wilderness.

(Mark 1:13 KJV) And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him.
.............................


(2 Cor 5:21 KJV) For he ( YHWH-YaH ) hath made him (Yehoshua) to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Isa 53:6 All we ( Israel ) like sheep have gone astray; we (Israel) have turned every one to his own way; and YHWH-YaH hath laid on him (Yehoshua) the iniquity of us all.

Israel was in the wilderness for 40 years.
(Heb 3:17 KJV) But with whom was YHWH-YaH grieved forty years? was it not with them that had sinned, whose carcases fell in the wilderness?

(Isa 53:10 KJV) Yet it pleased YHWH-YaH to bruise him-Yehoshusa; YHWH-YaH hath put him-(Yehoshua) to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of YHWH-YaH shall prosper in his hand.

(1 Pet 3:18 KJV) For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

(1 Pet 4:1 KJV) Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;

he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;

willyah

 

[chlotilde]

Why would a Bible believer who believes that faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God and who is born again by the Spirit of God need to use the uninspired words of a natural man such as Ignatius to prove that the Word of God is true.

Your saying that the words of natural man are going to explain to the spiritual man who was born again by the word of God that the word of God is true.

If someone asks if the Bible is true I point them to the Bible.

For me it is the assurance that the Bible is true. One example, How do I know that Paul's words are true and not some uninspired words of a natural man? The Gospels never mention him. If the (at least 3) Gospels were written after him, those Gospel writers must have surely known him. Why did they never mention him ? Sure, Paul is written about in other places...like Acts. But Acts was not written by an Apostle. How do I assure any of those people are who they claim to be, without turning to other sources, that will back up that belief ?

Also, there are other Codices out there that contain NT writings and include letters such as the Epistle of Barnabus (note: Not the same as the Gospel of Barnabus). Why isn't that Epistle in our NT? How do I know that that isn't the true Bible? but the winds of war let the one I have in my lap be the one that won out, just as you said.

To say the Bible is true because it is true, is to have blind faith in the men who claim to be writing for God. And my faith does not have to be that blind, when I can merely examine history to see how the Bible was formed.
I will admit though, there is a little blindness that does go on because I am not a Bible Scholar. I was just a history buff whose study of history reverted her back to being a Catholic Christian. You could say, that is how the Holy Spirit talked to me. We all take different journeys.

(edit to correct spelling...I am not an english major lol)

 

[kepha31]

Why would a Bible believer who believes that faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God and who is born again by the Spirit of God need to use the uninspired words of a natural man such as Ignatius to prove that the Word of God is true.

This is where you deny the divine characters of the Church, you see her as a mere human institution. Yes, she is made up of sinners, but has divine protection from teaching error. You accept the 27 books of the New Testament as belonging in the Written Tradition, but refuse to acknowledge how they got there. Ignatius is teaching what was taught to him by John against Gnostic heretics (who forbade marriage and fasted excessively, apart from the teachings of Jesus and Paul).

We read the Early Church Fathers not as inspired like the Bible but because they give us insights as to what the early church believed, how they dealt with false scriptural interpretations, and we look for consistency of faith.
The Fathers of the Church were those saintly writers of the early centuries whom the Church recognizes as her special defenders of orthodoxy. And the Patristic Age is the period during which they lived.
It is generally held that the last of the Western Fathers (Latin) was St. Bede the Venerable (673-735), and the last of the Eastern Fathers (Greek) was St. John Damascene (675-749).

Your saying that the words of natural man are going to explain to the spiritual man who was born again by the word of God that the word of God is true.

Pitting the Early Church Fathers against the Bible? How do you think heresies (spawned by a private Bible-alone approach) were confronted?
Ignatius of Antioch was trained by the Apostle John, ordained by Peter, and the third bishop of Jerusalem and you are telling me he is not "born again" and a mere "natural man" Why? because his views on the Eucharist conflict with your private opinions?

(1 Cor 2:14 KJV) But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
(1 Cor 2:15 KJV) But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

He that is spiritual judgeth all things without the need for the natural man sticking the uninspired words of men in as if his words can judge whether something is truly from God as truth.

If someone asks if the Bible is true I point them to the Bible.

That's circular reasoning; it doesn't wash with skeptics. The Bible is true because the Church says so. We know a church existed before the Written Tradition was formalized. We know this by history, sources outside the Bible, and reason. Only an infallible Church can compile an inspired book. This is not circular reasoning.

 

[kjv4me2you]

the Church, you see her as a mere human institution. Yes, she is made up of sinners, but has divine protection from teaching error. You accept the 27 books of the New Testament as belonging in the Written Tradition, but refuse to acknowledge how they got there

I SEE THE CHURCH IN THE HOUSE.
(Rom 16:5 KJV) Likewise greet the church that is in their house. Salute my wellbeloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia unto Christ.

church= G1577-ek-klay-see'-ah- From a compound of G1537 and a derivative of G2564; a calling out, that is, (concretely) a popular meeting, especially a religious congregation (Jewish synagogue, or Christian community of members on earth or saints in heaven or both): - assembly, church.

house=G3624 Of uncertain affinity; a dwelling (more or less extensive, literally or figuratively); by implication a family (more or less related, literally or figuratively): - home, house (-hold), temple.

CHURCH IN THE HOUSE
(Phile 1:2 KJV) And to our beloved Apphia, and Archippus our fellowsoldier, and to the church in thy house:

(1 Cor 16:19 KJV) The churches of Asia salute you. Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in YHWH-YaH, with the church that is in their house.

(2 Cor 5:2 KJV) For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven:

MARY THE MOTHER OF YEHOSHUA WENT TO CHURCH IN JOHN'S HOUSE
Yehoshua while suffering on the cross saw the church as in the house also. Yehoshua had the apostle John take Mary into his house. Would not John's house be a church also?

(John 19:27 KJV) Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.

Yehosua said in (Mat 18:20 KJV) For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

Yehoshua certainly would be in the midst of John and Mary and not only was Yehoshua in the midst of them but YHWH-YaH and Yehoshua made their abode in them and would be with all believers.

(John 14:23 KJV) Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

No mention by Yehoshua of the Holy Ghost making abode within the believer because there is no trinity.
....................................................................................................................................................................................
[kepha31, post: 4195552, member: 30332"]You accept the 27 books of the New Testament as belonging in the Written Tradition, but refuse to acknowledge how they got there
....................................................................................................................................................................................
I ACCEPT THE 66 BOOKS FROM GENESIS TO REVELATION AS THE WORD OF GOD WRITTEN AND PERSERVED BY YHWH-YaH AND GIVEN TO THE ISRAEL THE FIRSTBORN SON OF YHWH-YaH ( EXO 4:22) AS I HAVE STATED BEFORE IN THIS THREAD.

The Word of God was written by YHWH-YaH before man was created , before man could read or write, before any written tradition or Roman Catholic church existed.

(Exo 32:31 KJV) And Moses returned unto YHWH-YaH, and said, Oh, this people have sinned a great sin, and have made them gods of gold.

(Exo 32:32 KJV) Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin--; and if not, blot me ( Moses )hee, out of thy ( YHWH-YaH'S ) book which thou ( YHWH-YAH ) hast written.

(Exo 32:33 KJV) And YHWH-YaH said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book.

willyah