One Mediator

[onel0126]

http://blog.adw.org/2015/08/answering-those-who-say-there-is-only-one-mediator-2/

 

[Chuckt]

http://blog.adw.org/2015/08/answering-those-who-say-there-is-only-one-mediator-2/

Someone tapping me on the shoulder can't exchange their filthy righteousness for my filthy righteousness and be acceptable before God which is why I have to go to God and exchange my filthy righteousness for Jesus' righteousness. That is what is meant by a mediator.


Romans 8:15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.

Romans 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

Romans 8:17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

God wants to hear from His children and not the butler.
As a joint heir, I don't need you to be a go-between. As a joint heir, I'm glorified with Jesus.

Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.
http://biblehub.com/hebrews/4-16.htm

You're not my mediator because it says "let us" and not "let him for us". The fact is that I can come without you to the throne of Grace.
If I have to wait for a mediator then I can't come boldly.

 

[onel0126]

Someone tapping me on the shoulder can't exchange their filthy righteousness for my filthy righteousness and be acceptable before God which is why I have to go to God and exchange my filthy righteousness for Jesus' righteousness. That is what is meant by a mediator. Romans 8:15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. Romans 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: Romans 8:17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. God wants to hear from His children and not the butler. As a joint heir, I don't need you to be a go-between. As a joint heir, I'm glorified with Jesus. Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need. http://biblehub.com/hebrews/4-16.htm You're not my mediator because it says "let us" and not "let him for us". The fact is that I can come without you to the throne of Grace. If I have to wait for a mediator then I can't come boldly.

Were you a product of common core? I mean your reading comprehension skills are lacking. The author said nothing of having to have a mediator. It's either you're not that bright or as in the case of B23 yesterday, you're just intellectually dishonest.

 

[Chuckt]

Were you a product of common core? I mean your reading comprehension skills are lacking. The author said nothing of having to have a mediator. It's either you're not that bright or as in the case of B23 yesterday, you're just intellectually dishonest.

Yes he did.

we speak of a subordinate mediation

Perhaps someone will reach you through your ears by speaking, or through the sense of touch by tapping you on the shoulder, or visually by waving. Various members of your body facilitate (mediate) interaction with others in different ways, but it is all facilitated through the head of your body, your mind. So, too, do I confidently expect to reach Jesus in different ways: directly, or through one of His members (realizing that He Himself facilitates it).

http://blog.adw.org/2015/08/answering-those-who-say-there-is-only-one-mediator-2/

King James Bible
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
http://biblehub.com/john/1-12.htm

It really has nothing to do with you because if I believe then I have the right to become a son of God.

Salvation is entirely of the Lord:

John 1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

 

[Chuckt]

Were you a product of common core? I mean your reading comprehension skills are lacking. The author said nothing of having to have a mediator. It's either you're not that bright or as in the case of B23 yesterday, you're just intellectually dishonest.

Are you saying that Catholics never argued that Mary was the Mediator with me? Are you saying the Catholic church never taught it? It is on Wikipedia. I don't think Wikipedia is like your etch a sketch though.

The title "Mediatrix" is used in Roman Catholic Mariology to refer to the intercessory role of the Virgin Mary as a mediator in the salvific redemption by her son Jesus Christ, and that he bestows graces through her. Mediatrix is an ancient title that has been used by a number of saints since at least the 5th century. Its use grew during the Middle Ages and reached its height in the writings of saints Louis de Montfort and Alphonsus Liguori in the 18th century.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediatrix

Louis de Montfort's approach (which later influenced Pope John Paul II) emphasized that Mary is the natural path to approaching Jesus, due to the special relationship she has with him.[10] This reliance on the intercession of Mary is based on the general Montfortean formula:[11] "...to do all our actions by Mary, with Mary, in Mary and for Mary so that we may do them all the more perfectly by Jesus, with Jesus, in Jesus and for Jesus..."

The title Mediatrix has been used by a number of popes. Leo XIII used it in 1896 and Pius X in 1904. This continued in the 20th century with Benedict XV and Pius XI.[2] However, Pius XII avoided the use of the title, although he urged reliance on the intercession of Mary.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediatrix

 

[Gilligan]

Are you saying that Catholics never argued that Mary was the Mediator with me? Are you saying the Catholic church never taught it? It is on Wikipedia. I don't think Wikipedia is like your etch a sketch though.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediatrix







https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediatrix

Gee wiz Chuckee..you just pointed out how many infallible and biased humans had a hand in shaping the texts you love to refer to. How about that?.

 

[Chuckt]

Gee wiz Chuckee..you just pointed out how many infallible and biased humans had a hand in shaping the texts you love to refer to. How about that?.

Please put onel0126 on the spot. I would like to hear the answer to that one.

 

[Gilligan]

Please put onel0126 on the spot. I would like to hear the answer to that one.

sure. Gee wiz Chuckee..you just pointed out how many infallible and biased humans had a hand in shaping the texts you love to refer to. How about that?.

 

[onel0126]

Please put onel0126 on the spot. I would like to hear the answer to that one.

Once again for the common core and St. Mary's County public school folks...I said that the author of the blog I posted nor the Catholic Church has never taught that a mediator is/was necessary. Good Lord pass the Bushmills.

 

[cheezgrits]

Chuckt, Did you even read the blog? How about this from the comments?Consider the following biblical texts:
– Luke 2:35 (Simeon speaking to Mary): “And you, yourself shall be pierced with a sword–so that the thoughts of many hearts may be laid bare.”
– John 19: 25-27. Mary is present at the Crucifixion and death of Jesus. How do you think she felt? Would she feel like she had been pierced with a sword at the violent death of her Son?
– John 2: 1-11. Jesus has been known to work a miracle at the request of His mother. Do you know any adults who are willing to provide a favor for a third party because their mother asked them to?

Which does NOT mean that we consider any of the saints (officially declared by the Church to be in Heaven, therefore friends of Jesus) nor the Blessed Virgin Mary (the Mother of Jesus) to be the equal of Jesus, Who is (after all) God, the second person of the Blessed Trinity. And if St. Augustine couldn’t understand the Trinity after considerable meditation, I’ll content myself with accepting that God as Trinity, and all Three Persons, exist and are worthy of Adoration and all worship. I don’t have to understand something in order to accept it.

I'm not a follower of any religion, but reading onel's posts, I learn things and can evaluate and ponder them. Chuckt, you're why I find evangelicals hilarious. Credibility counts

 

[Chuckt]

Chuckt, Did you even read the blog? How about this from the comments?Consider the following biblical texts:
– Luke 2:35 (Simeon speaking to Mary): “And you, yourself shall be pierced with a sword–so that the thoughts of many hearts may be laid bare.”
– John 19: 25-27. Mary is present at the Crucifixion and death of Jesus. How do you think she felt? Would she feel like she had been pierced with a sword at the violent death of her Son?
– John 2: 1-11. Jesus has been known to work a miracle at the request of His mother. Do you know any adults who are willing to provide a favor for a third party because their mother asked them to?

Which does NOT mean that we consider any of the saints (officially declared by the Church to be in Heaven, therefore friends of Jesus) nor the Blessed Virgin Mary (the Mother of Jesus) to be the equal of Jesus, Who is (after all) God, the second person of the Blessed Trinity. And if St. Augustine couldn’t understand the Trinity after considerable meditation, I’ll content myself with accepting that God as Trinity, and all Three Persons, exist and are worthy of Adoration and all worship. I don’t have to understand something in order to accept it.

I'm not a follower of any religion, but reading onel's posts, I learn things and can evaluate and ponder them. Chuckt, you're why I find evangelicals hilarious. Credibility counts

Cheezgrits,

I did read the blog. I do think about these things. Have you read my post on Mary?

http://forums.somd.com/threads/300184-Some-Facts-on-Mary?p=5531172&viewfull=1

1 Corinthians 1:2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:

Did you ever notice that the words "to be" are in italics? When you read your Bible and something is in italics, that means it isn't in the original text and the translators were trying to help you out with trying to make it understandable but it didn't work because the words aren't in there. I'm a saint. Every Christian is a saint. Mary isn't any more of a saint than I am. You're either a saint or you ain't.

http://www.blbclassic.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Co&c=1&t=KJV#2

If you read my link it says:

Luke 1:47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.

If you have sin then you need a "saviour" and Mary called “God” her saviour.

Because of original sin, Mary was born into sin and separated from God.
It also denies Biblical doctrine so anytime you are denying Biblical doctrine, you are denying what God said:

Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Circle the word "all" in your Bible because "all" means "all".
The rule in my Church is to say what scripture says. Anytime you make it say something else then you are adding to or subtracting to from the word of God. You're making the Bible say something else.
That is how we know people are false.

We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.
http://biblehub.com/1_john/4-6.htm

You have to choose whether you will hear from the Apostle Paul who was there and helped start the Church or whether you are going to not listen to him and agree with Catholicism.

"...he that is not of God heareth not us."

 

[onel0126]

Cheezgrits, I did read the blog. I do think about these things. Have you read my post on Mary? http://forums.somd.com/threads/300184-Some-Facts-on-Mary?p=5531172&viewfull=1 1 Corinthians 1:2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours: Did you ever notice that the words "to be" are in italics? When you read your Bible and something is in italics, that means it isn't in the original text and the translators were trying to help you out with trying to make it understandable but it didn't work because the words aren't in there. I'm a saint. Every Christian is a saint. Mary isn't any more of a saint than I am. You're either a saint or you ain't. http://www.blbclassic.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Co&c=1&t=KJV#2 If you read my link it says: Because of original sin, Mary was born into sin and separated from God. It also denies Biblical doctrine so anytime you are denying Biblical doctrine, you are denying what God said: Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Circle the word "all" in your Bible because "all" means "all". The rule in my Church is to say what scripture says. Anytime you make it say something else then you are adding to or subtracting to from the word of God. You're making the Bible say something else. That is how we know people are false. We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error. http://biblehub.com/1_john/4-6.htm You have to choose whether you will hear from the Apostle Paul who was there and helped start the Church or whether you are going to not listen to him and agree with Catholicism. "...he that is not of God heareth not us."

Just for clarification skippy, my Bible DOES NOT HAVE ITALICS IN IT. You sure you've been reading the Bible all these years and not Charles Stanley book?

 

[Chuckt]

Just for clarification skippy, my Bible DOES NOT HAVE ITALICS IN IT. You sure you've been reading the Bible all these years and not Charles Stanley book?

This link has it in italics if you look closely enough and don't need glasses. There is also the field on how they translated it:

to be saints, g40 ἅγιος hagios

How do you have three words for one word? It isn't literal because the words were added. The word hagios is saints. There are no other words for "to be" to be in there.

http://www.blbclassic.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Co&c=1&t=KJV#conc/2

The Bibles I own are not the Charles Stanley version. My Bibles from several different publishers do have "to be" in italics.

 

[ProximaCentauri]

I'm not a follower of any religion, but reading onel's posts, I learn things and can evaluate and ponder them. Chuckt, you're why I find evangelicals hilarious. Credibility counts

Really, what "things" do you learn? Significant differences in biblical interpretations perhaps, but are you inferring that you learn more from catholic interpretations versus protestant interpretations? If so, provide some examples.

When you ponder the literal eating of Christ's flesh and the drinking of his blood, through the 'miracle' of transubstantiation, what do you learn when you compare this with the protestant interpretation that the bread and wine are symbolic?

 

[Chuckt]

Really, what "things" do you learn? Significant differences in biblical interpretations perhaps, but are you inferring that you learn more from catholic interpretations versus protestant interpretations? If so, provide some examples.

When you ponder the literal eating of Christ's flesh and the drinking of his blood, through the 'miracle' of transubstantiation, what do you learn when you compare this with the protestant interpretation that the bread and wine are symbolic?

Roman Catholics interpret this passage literally and apply its message to the Lord’s Supper, which they title the “Eucharist” or “Mass.” Those who reject the idea of transubstantiation interpret Jesus’ words in John 6:53-57 figuratively or symbolically. How can we know which interpretation is correct? Thankfully, Jesus made it exceedingly obvious what He meant. John 6:63 declares, “The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.” Jesus specifically stated that His words are “spirit.” Jesus was using physical concepts, eating and drinking, to teach spiritual truth. Just as consuming physical food and drink sustains our physical bodies, so are our spiritual lives saved and built up by spiritually receiving Him, by grace through faith. Eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking His blood are symbols of fully and completely receiving Him in our lives.

The most serious reason transubstantiation should be rejected is that it is viewed by the Roman Catholic Church as a "re-sacrifice" of Jesus Christ for our sins, or as a “re-offering / re-presentation” of His sacrifice. This is directly in contradiction to what Scripture says, that Jesus died "once for all" and does not need to be sacrificed again (Hebrews 10:10; 1 Peter 3:18). Hebrews 7:27 declares, "Unlike the other high priests, He (Jesus) does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins ONCE for all when He offered Himself."

http://www.gotquestions.org/transubstantiation.html

 

[onel0126]

http://www.gotquestions.org/transubstantiation.html

Oh yay an S. Michael Houdmann post! Not only is he disliked by Catholics, but many Protestants too.

Gotquestions.com was a former poster's bible on here. Paging Starmann3000!

 

[Chuckt]

Oh yay an S. Michael Houdmann post! Not only is he disliked by Catholics, but many Protestants too.

Gotquestions.com was a former poster's bible on here. Paging Starmann3000!

There are Christians from many different churches that help answer the questions on Gotquestions so you can't make a criticism on one individual.
Way back when, they asked me to answer questions from people and I didn't take them up on it.

 

[cheezgrits]

Really, what "things" do you learn? Significant differences in biblical interpretations perhaps, but are you inferring that you learn more from catholic interpretations versus protestant interpretations? If so, provide some examples.

When you ponder the literal eating of Christ's flesh and the drinking of his blood, through the 'miracle' of transubstantiation, what do you learn when you compare this with the protestant interpretation that the bread and wine are symbolic?

Well, onel usually gives references a tad more credible than Wiki, to start with.

 

[cheezgrits]

Well, onel usually gives references a tad more credible than Wiki, to start with.

Really, Catholics believe you eat flesh and drink blood??? Huh. I've been to several Catholic masses, and was an Episcopalian back in the day, and I'm pretty sure we understand the symbolism of bread and wine.

I am still waiting on chuckt to answer if he literally lives by the bible, since he quotes it for advantage in a forum discussion.

Onel's post about why Greek matters is an excellent example.

 

[Chuckt]

Really, Catholics believe you eat flesh and drink blood??? Huh. I've been to several Catholic masses, and was an Episcopalian back in the day, and I'm pretty sure we understand the symbolism of bread and wine.

I am still waiting on chuckt to answer if he literally lives by the bible, since he quotes it for advantage in a forum discussion.

Onel's post about why Greek matters is an excellent example.

People have been arguing over the meaning for centuries.

a. I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever: Jesus spoke in a figure of speech. The metaphor of eating and drinking was common in Jesus' day, and pointed to a taking within one's innermost being.

i. Some have taken these words more literally, and applied them to communion. From this, the Eastern Orthodox practices the custom of infant communion. They believe infants will not be saved unless they partake in communion.

http://www.blbclassic.org/commentar...orID=2&contentID=20081&commInfo=31&topic=John

And this is what Catholics believe according to Wikipedia:

Transubstantiation (in Latin, transsubstantiatio, in Greek μετουσίωσις metousiosis) is, according to the teaching of the Catholic Church, the change by which the bread and the wine used in the sacrament of the Eucharist become, not merely as a sign or a figure, but also in actual reality the body and blood of Christ.[1][2] The Catholic Church teaches that the substance, or reality, of the bread is changed into that of the body of Christ and the substance of the wine into that of his blood,[3] while all that is accessible to the senses (the outward appearances - species[4][5][6] in Latin) remains unchanged.[7]:1413[8]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation