What do you mean she didn't play a big role.... She played one of the absolute biggest.
Did you know that she is the completed representation of Eve? The New Testament is supposed to be the completed half of what the Old Testament left off of and left uncompleted.
Whenever you see depictions and pictures of Eve, you'll always notice that the snake is above her on the branch above her head (this is on purpose). But in depictions of Mary and the snake. The snake is under her foot because Mary's role was to help finally trample evil and the devil once and for all so that no longer would evil be able to have a chance at trumping God's people. Anyone who wishes to be saved, can. Mary played a HUGE role and this is only one example.
>>82182 Well, the rationale goes. That praying to a saint is actually just referring god. Let me explain it this way:
A saint is simply a person who has entered heaven. They're great and holy people, yada yada. When you look at any prayer set for a saint what you are actually praying for is the saint to pray for you! And reference you to god!
It's like when someone in your family has cancer... Many people asked other people to pray for them as they believe in the power of prayer. When you pray to a saint you regard the same thing. You respect a saint for their love of god, they wouldn't wish to be worshipped. If you "worship" a saint. You're following your own doctrine and misinterpretations as a Saint would never wish or admire worship. It makes no sense. (Even in Holy Mary you ask Mary to pray for you, etc etc). I hope this better explains it.
>but why and how did she become such a revered and sacred symbol in almost all branches of Christianity?
Because she's pretty much the closest person to being a nun at the time, and she obviously was important for being chosen to birth Christ. But I guess Protestants don't pay as much attention to her as Catholics for some reason. Probably because of their stance on immaculate conception and all that. As an Orthodude she's pretty significant for us as well.
>>82182 Asking someone alive to pray for you is considered normal, and the saints are alive, in heaven, with God. That means they aren't sinners any more. So it's pretty reasonable to ask them to pray for you.
>>82488 Yes, it's all true. Protestants have many reasons for not regarding Mary. And it all becomes complicated as there are MANY denominations of protestants. It all boils down to their interpretation and wishing to be different from Catholicism, I guess.
>>82527 >Orthodox don't subscribe to immaculate conception either Well yeah I know that, but Cathodox both believe that Mary was sinless, which is a big part of her popularity, but I don't think that's true for most Protestants since they only believe Jesus was sinless (correct me if I'm wrong Protties).
>>82583 Yes, to be a VERIFIED saint. You can't just go around professing your Aunt is a saint. It has to be determined by the Vatican and there is an extensive process and criteria. But we are all called to be saints. We are all called to be apart of heaven.
>>82515 The New Testament is constantly aware and referring back to the Old Testament. Plus, the Jew's were literally waiting for their Messiah to complete the Old Testament and it's works. And Christ did that just not how they expected (aka dying for their sins and whatnot). Also, the Bible uses over 10 different literary devices to convey it's message. That's why its difficult to know when a passage is meant literally or figuratively. And why there are scholars whose life's work is figuring and understanding this shit
>>82683 From the introduction of Pope Pius XI's Ineffabilis Deus:
>God Ineffable—whose ways are mercy and truth, whose will is omnipotence itself, and whose wisdom "reaches from end to end mightily, and orders all things sweetly"—having foreseen from all eternity the lamentable wretchedness of the entire human race which would result from the sin of Adam, decreed, by a plan hidden from the centuries, to complete the first work of his goodness by a mystery yet more wondrously sublime through the Incarnation of the Word. This he decreed in order that man who, contrary to the plan of Divine Mercy had been led into sin by the cunning malice of Satan, should not perish; and in order that what had been lost in the first Adam would be gloriously restored in the Second Adam. From the very beginning, and before time began, the eternal Father chose and prepared for his only-begotten Son a Mother in whom the Son of God would become incarnate and from whom, in the blessed fullness of time, he would be born into this world. Above all creatures did God so lover her that truly in her was the Father well pleased with singular delight. Therefore, far above all the angels and all the saints so wondrously did God endow her with the abundance of all heavenly gifts poured from the treasury of his divinity that this mother, ever absolutely free of all stain of sin, all fair and perfect, would possess that fullness of holy innocence and sanctity than which, under God, one cannot even imagine anything greater, and which, outside of God, no mind can succeed in comprehending fully.
>>82915 Aka, God decided to exclude her from original sin since the moment of her conception. So that she could bear his son in the future. As nothing clean and come and be birthed from something unclean. So Mary had to be saved from original sin in order to give birth to Christ.
>>83073 No, they conceived Mary in the usual way. God in this instant chose to save Mary and divinely intervened and saved her from original sin. Though it is a common misconception that her parents were apart of the immaculate conception. But no they weren't.
>>83158 Continued: That's why Jesus was born without sin(obviously). Because God had preserved and saved Mary from sin and planted God's inevitable perfect seed(lol). And here it was that two clean beings brought forth a clean being.
>>83187 Because we're not talking about historic fact. We're talking about real figures that ended up being deified, and people had to rationalize how their divinity coexisted with their real existence. For Jesus to be the son of God, he needed to be perfect, which meant a sinner couldn't give birth to him, which meant Mary had to be born free of sin.
>>83187 Good question. Lol here is where some people get confused. I know I did. Because he couldn't be born at all with the original sin of Adam. The vessel in which he came in had to be purified, if you were tobsay to come into this world truly "pure". You see Mary, though sinless, still had the option of freewill. She was saved from sin but like Adam and Eve and the rest of humanity she had freewill. She could've chosen to sin, but didn't. God had to make a clean vessel in which to bring forth his version of God- his son on Earth. It's complicated. I get it. Theology and whatnot
>>82851 When you look into history and Jewish theology it's very appearent that Jesus is no sacrifice. If you go searching for the Jewish reasons why Jesus failed as a sacrifice it's very amusing. One of the rules about sacrifice in Judaism, one of the most common ones, is that you cannot sacrifice humans. That's a sin. So it would mean that not only is Jesus invalid as a sacrifice but his willingness to go through with it would constitute a sin. Even if you ignore that, animal sacrifice could only remove unintentional sins. Intentional sins could only be forgiven by charity or good deeds. And to top it off the whole idea of an innocent being sacrificed for the guilty is forbidden in Ezekiel 18:20-23. Add in Jesus's claim that he came to "fufill the law" and you can see he set himself up for failure.
It's rather interesting to read. Sacrifice in Judaism is fairly complex. You can't just throw any a person on a cross and declare that there is no sin.
Thus he needs a human family to be brought to life into to participate in the full context of humanity.
Christianity and Catholicism are all about community, with the family unit and married life forming the focal point regarding it. Jesus' participation in this family life is shown to sanctify and enshrine it as important in forming the human person.
>>83187 Jesus IS God. But he's also "the son of man". Mary is sort of the redeemer of women...not in a way that she redeems their sin, but Mary and Christ are the new Eve and Adam. Eve used to be the representative of women, but now Mary is. Adam used to be the representative of men, but now Jesus is.
>>83358 >it's very appearent that Jesus is no sacrifice.
There are many different aspects as to why his death and resurrection were necessary, but a very consistent frame of description and imagery used with it is that of the sacrificial lamb. The sacrifice that the high priests offered in the Holy of Holies in the temple to atone for the sins of all the people. Jesus did not FAIL as a sacrifice, he was the FINAL sacrifice, the ultimate one that negated the need for any other animal sacrifice to take away sin.
>You can't just throw any a person on a cross and declare that there is no sin
This is not "any person" THIS IS LITERALLY THE SON OF GOD offered up in humanity's place.
>>83338 Even made up shit is ideally logical or comical. >>83366 Why not just make holy twins, if that was the goal? They could rez each other all day. >>83348 So Jesus had no free will. He was a robot.
Correct. John's gospel in particular echoes a lot of the poetic imagery and symbolism regarding the creation narratives in Genesis. Especially in the first chapter leading up to the Wedding of Cana. The description of the passing of days, and the conversations that take place at the wedding are meant to reflect the passage of time as God created the universe originally, and both stories end with God attending and blessing a wedding (Adam and Eve being consecrated to each other in Genesis, and the wedding of Cana that Jesus performs his first public miracle at to start his ministry on Earth). In that sense, John is trying to show the re-creation of the world with his gospel narrative.
>>83358 In addition, to that other guy's response on this. Christ broke rules and grounds regarding Judaism. He literally did not give a fuck and came to speak God's word alone. There were many places where Judaism was wrong in the eyes of Christ. So it wouldn't have mattered if they believed it to be a sin or not.
Kinda like how you couldn't address a woman or speak to her in public? Or else major shit would go down? Yeah he didn't give a fuck. He talked to them regardless and everyone flipped a shit. Or how touching the dead was the equivalent of cursing yourself? Yet Jesus touched a whole lot of sick AND dead people.
Just trying to explain things from the Christian perspective. Of course if you don't believe that Jesus is the Son of God after all, then that conclusion does not follow.
>>83443 >So Jesus had no free will. He was a robot.
What part of "FULLY HUMAN AND FULLY GOD" do you not understand? Go back and read the Agony in the Garden again. Jesus could've turned it down, he could've chosen to use his divine power to stay his execution. But he didn't He accepted his role in the drama of salvation.
As theologians much, much better at this than I am have stated, he was like us in everything except sin.
>>83545 >hat is also why the Resurrection falls on Sunday, the first day.
And also because of how the description of the process of entombing and anointing his dead body is laid out in the gospels, we know that he would've had to have died on a Friday (since they had no time to actually properly treat the body according to custom before the Jewish Sabbath started).
>>83542 NOoo she DID. She had free will just as Adam and Eve and the rest of humanity has free will. God created man with free will as one of his greatest points and greatest gifts upon us. Adam and Eve had freewill even before they sinned. How do you think they sinned in the first place?
But now death is no longer the suffering condemnation that it was before, now that the opportunity to be saved and to be fully reconciled with God exists. That is Jesus' ultimate purpose. He is often described as the mediator between God the Father and us humans, standing on our behalf before God and allowing us the opportunity to repent of sin, be made fully clean again, and able to stand in God's presence in heaven.
A big part of Christianity is also accepting suffering and bearing it gladly, because in doing so we share in Christ's ultimate suffering on our behalf, and it helps us draw closer to him.
>>83728 No they didn't, they thought it would make them more helpful to the god they loved instead of being his pet.
>they knew the consequences No, they clearly believe the snake's deception because they weren't equipped to understand deception in a garden that never changed and had no consequences for untold millennia at that point because they were not given knowledge of truth/lie.
Their bodies are dead only until the second coming when the full, bodily resurrection of the faithful occurs. Those who are saved get to live in the new, perfected creation (the Kingdom of God on Earth, not as disembodied spirits, but as perfected physical, human persons), and those who are not saved get their bodies as well, but instead get thrown into the pit of fire with the Beast and Satan and all of his cronies.
>>83807 They don't have souls in Catholic doctrine.
In some Orthodox theology, humans have three elements: body, soul and spirit. The spirit is a non-corporeal form, like angels have. Humans are the only beings with all three. Angels have a spirit and a soul, but no body. Animals have a body and an immortal soul, but no spirit (they get their bodies back after death on judgement day).
>>83626 I hope I'm understanding this question. I'm not person you replied to BTW.
Jesus died for us , as stated before, so that no other suffering on Earth would be necessary or in vain. His scarification was an atonement to US (mankind). It was him, finally, coming down and giving his hand in the most humble way possible: by living out our lives and our struggles. Stating "there you no longer have to sacrifice yourselves or anything else in vain, for I have done it for you", anyone who wishes to be saved, forever can because he conquered all evil by doing this. And before this there was no for sure way people knew who to reach God.
The Jew's hadn't been saved yet. It was an outcry for centuries "How long will you have us wait Lord?" They were waiting for a Messiah to lead them to salvation. That's what it was all about.. completing that chapter
>>83777 It is just a random part of the emergent phenomena of life and individual self preservation because the universe wasn't consciously made by a benevolent all powerful being that just causes suffering to fuck with the great great grand children of people who didn't understanding the premise of the trick they were never taught until they fell for it the hard way.
>>83872 >They don't have souls in Catholic doctrine.
I was trying to point out that a lot of theologians drew a distinction between different kinds of souls, bro. I know the Catholic church doesn't teach that they have immortal souls that can participate in sin and salvation like we can.
Better just write off the whole human condition then, brother, because we are just walking bundles of contradictions and paradoxes, and shit that doesn't make sense according to our limited, mortal perspectives.
>I don't understand it, therefore it must be bullshit!
>>83877 >by living out our lives and our struggles Yes, the way all of us struggle to perform thousands of impossible miracles, raise ourselves from the dead, come and go from reality as please, and eventually float off into the sky to meet up with pa and come up with a strategy for destroying the world again.
>>83948 No, it is way more depressing to think this is how a divine plan turned out than to think this is all the result of monkeys rising out of shit goo to terraform an entire planet to their collective liking.
Did you miss literally every single one of his teachings in between those? The miracles are meant to show his authority as the Son of God AND to illustrate larger truths about the nature of God and his relation to us.
Jesus could raise himself from the dead, because, again, Son of God, but we are offered that same chance at resurrection as well through the grace that Jesus offers us.
>>83927 No, at least not from an Orthodox perspective. God isn't found through reasoning, but through spiritual experience. And once you have that experience in paradox, it is beautiful. The central example being Christ as 100% human and 100% God, even though those are mutually exclusive.
I know how it feels on 4chan sometime, and how a lot of people come here because their life is shit and they have nothing better to do with their time other than stew in their anti-social moodiness and bitch about inconsequential matters anonymously.
That is not was humans are called to do. That is not what our lives are intended to be oriented towards. It's not about giving up hope because everything's out of control, it's about seeing ourselves in a context larger than ourselves, in that the universe is not oriented towards humanity suffering, but towards teaching us how to develop in conjunction with it, embracing it and incorporating it into that worldview, rather than rejecting it all as meaningless.
Everything is a part of that story. You, me, this shitty imageboard, all the other anons in this thread, everything. You are exactly where you need to be right now. I can't tell you why though, that's between you and God to figure it out.
>have to get up for work at 6am >still need to get a shower and pack shit for work >mfw I realize that now 4chan has an entire board dedicated to topics that include religious discussion so I'm going to be arguing Soteriology every night now when I need to be sleeping
No, my point was that through this experience you learn something that you can take with you to become a better person. You have to want to make that change of heart, penance or "metanoia" in the first place though. I can't do that for you. Not even God can do that part for you. But if you're suffering where you are, then maybe you need to take a second look at your life and figure out what you're supposed to be learning from the experience, and where God wants you to be.
I wasn't that guy, but participating in the paradox that comprises the central tenets of Christian theology is not the same as BEING God.
Although, hey another paradox here, the Church is both the betrothed bride of Christ, and described as the Body of Christ. It is another play on the matrimonial covenant established between Adam and Eve with the "two becoming one flesh". It is through participation in the Church, in our religious life, and in receiving the sacraments that we enter into that paradox with our own lives and are able to live it out. Resolving the two sides of the equation, if you will.
He died to allow us an avenue to return back to God and reconcile ourselves to Him once more.
That does not preclude suffering. If anything, it involves MORE suffering, because living up to that awesome sacrifice and living it out ourselves involves a lot of suffering on our part. Indeed, Jesus himself said that we cannot follow where he goes unless we are willing to take up our OWN crosses after him.
Kierkegaard argued with the "teleological suspension of the ethical"; in that, faith is absurd, and that is what makes faith such an unreachable goal that many reach for. He's a vehemently religious author, so his existentialist standpoint almost always start off with God and the absurdity of life and faith.
Did we come with a purpose? Maybe, we did, maybe we did not. When I was young and still actually going to Sunday school I was always taught along the lines of "God has a unique plan for you and because he wants you to spread his grace". As I grow up, I know I have not completely shaken off this influence because I am still a little bit religious but not as fanatic as a 10 year old me would be. I still believe that God has a plan for all of us, it's just that since it's unable to be perceived or understood by us we can only follow what we believe. However, you have no way of knowing what is divine and what is not, which in essence is a warped version of Kierkegaard's argument.
There's a reason why the word "faith" is almost always attached with the adjective "blind"; faith is an absurd concept, but that is why a faithful man is at the same time wise and foolish.
I also like Thomas Merton's writings, as he comes at things from a very Eastern spirituality direction, but some of the stuff he writes is a little controversial, theologically speaking. He still has wonderful imagery though, I recommend "The Seven Storey Mountain" which is sort of an autobiography.
>>84510 >However, you have no way of knowing what is divine and what is not, which in essence is a warped version of Kierkegaard's argument.
God created everything in the universe, therefore nothing happens without him ordaining it.
To imply that something happens outside of his control is to imply that God is not omnipotent.
>:There's a reason why the word "faith" is almost always attached with the adjective "blind"; faith is an absurd concept, but that is why a faithful man is at the same time wise and foolish.
I grew up in a very heavily Catholic family, went to Catholic school, and fell out of it a bit in college because I didn't have the passion for it anymore. You know what got me back into attending church and taking the sacraments seriously? Taking Religious Studies courses at the (public, state-funded) University, where I was known as "the Catholic" and was called on to defend myself in class. Started having to read up on what the Church teaches, why the Saints are important, and so on.
If someone asks me now, why I'm religious, I just give the same answer as Peter in the gospels
>>84440 City of God is pretty much required reading for understanding the middle ages - both politically and ecclesiastically. Added bonus of being written by Augustine who is always a pleasure to read.
If you want hard-analytic theology then Aquinas Summa is your place to go. Fantastic text - with City of God it still holds currency even today.
Neither of those are light reading so if you're looking for something more beginner maybe Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis or watch some videos from Word on Fire - pretty good at making complex philosophy and theology easy to understand.
>>84620 >they pray to Mary because if she says something in heaven they believe Jesus will more likely listen to her because she's mom from what I've been told
This has precedent outside of Hispanic tradition too. When Catholic scholars point out the important of Mary as Mediatrix, they point to the Wedding of Cana where she talks Jesus into performing his first miracle.
We pray to all the saints for intercession on our behalf, but Mary, being the mother of God, has a special command of his ear for us.
>>84647 >Neither of those are light reading so if you're looking for something more beginner maybe Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis or watch some videos from Word on Fire - pretty good at making complex philosophy and theology easy to understand.
Bishop Robert Barron (I'll never get used to that title) is a fantastic guy for explaining important theological matters using understandable examples and phrasing, I second this recommendation.
C.S Lewis (despite being an Anglican, I won't hold that against him) also has very good writings on the subject. Mere Christianity and The Screwtape Letters are his most well know, but he's written many others on various theological subjects, in addition to his Space trilogy which looks at the interesting hypothetical about how alien races would fit into God's creation and divine plan.
>>84586 >To imply that something happens outside of his control is to imply that God is not omnipotent. This is a deterministic school of thought though; it's toeing the line very close to saying that free will does not exist, which I'm pretty sure is not what God has intended. If God has determined everything, then why bother with free will?
I could quote some Nietzsche about this but I'm pretty sure I'm reading him wrong completely so I will avoid going down that road (and also because most religious people I met consider him a Devil incarnate).
>>84620 >Jesus will more likely listen to her because she's mom why did I find this so funny
>>84706 >If God has determined everything, then why bother with free will?
Best explanation I've heard for it is that since God exists outside of our perspective of time, he knows what choice we will make before we make it, and can see our lives in the sum totality of each choice we make.
>and also because most religious people I met consider him a Devil incarnate
Completely wrong, yes, introducing dangerous ideas that have led to the mass ritualized suicide of the basis of Western society's moral base, yes. But he was just a man. A very, very, very misguided man.
That was me, different anon. Sorry, this is why it's difficult talking theology, because other anon is right, we are literally taking Jesus' body and blood in the sacrament of Eucharist, and the ther sacraments are experiences with Christ's grace as well. I thought you were coming at it in an egocentric "I am GOD" apotheosis sense.
Because you, right now, as a mortal person experiencing time from this side of eternity, are making the choice RIGHT NOW and only after you pass the point of that choice can observe its outcome from the other side looking back. God is not bound to that single fixed viewpoint in time, and in fact exists at all times in the universe, seeing that choice before we have made it, as we are making it, and after we have moved on and can look back on it.
>>85309 I was coming at it from the perspective of your personal experience per >>84077, so how do you personally experience the paradox during Eucharist of being 100% yourself and 100% christ and 100% god that you claim awakens you spiritually?
>>85359 Yes, but by that logic you are not making the choice though, you are just sensing one iteration in predetermined outcomes and circumstances that don't matter because you basically just think all the possibilities converge and you become god after you die anyway.
Did you know that "person" in the English language comes from the latin "persona" which refers to the masks first used in Greek plays and adopted by thr Romans? The masks were distinct, defining specific roles for the actor. During the early Church within the Roman Empire they adopted the term to refer to the "persons" of the Trinity, Father Son and Holy Spirit. Now, this is not to say that ther is one god that simply swaps out masks depending on what he's doing at the time (that the Sabellianist heresy), but rather the persons are themselves the masks, that each person is defined by their own unique, distinctive role in the Triune Godhead.
In the same way Christians are to put on the persona of Christ, to bear that role out in the world for others to see and experience. We cannot do that on our own power, we need the grace and blessings that come from the sacraments, such as Eucharist, to have the strength, wisdom, pridence, and other fruits to commit to this mission.
So in recieveing the sacraments we become mor Christ-like, but that doesn't mean giving up our humanity. Rather, himanity was CREATED to live in union with God, to walk alongside him, in his presence, in the garden. Being called to live as Christ did is not contradictory to human nature, rather it is its FULFILLMENT.
>>85483 >We cannot do that on our own power What makes you people so much more intellectually cowardly than people who suffer without needing to pretend they are wearing a Christ mask or are you saying Sacramental Christians are the only people whose suffering means anything?
It's cowardly to admit that human beings fuck up and need help to better themselves? Really?
One way to look at the Old Testament is as a giant lesson in how you CANNOT bootstrap your way out of fallen human nature and be saved ONLY by following the law and doing good things. God lays out simple rules for the Israelites to follow and they fuck it up every. single. time. Without fail. Which is why it was nevessary for Jesus to suffer and die on our behalf.
>>85553 No, in >>85309, you distanced yourself from the previous claim of having a personal spiritual awakening through the direct experience of being christ through the sacraments and in >>85483 you kept distancing yourself going full metaphor and claiming you were just wearing a mask in hope of experiencing god in the future.
>>85640 No, its cowardly to say you can't suffer without sacraments when there are billions of people out there who suffer and don't take your weirdly specific sacraments that are intriguingly profitable to a small nation state and their bankers.
What about Johan, Noah, or Job? Are you saying every single christian church since then hasn't fucked something up and failed to be split into countless fractured systems?
I never said that. What I am trying to say is that now through Jesus we have an avenue of reconciliation with God that involves suffering. That wasn't open to the OT people before Jesus came and literally kicked the doors of hell off their hinges, but it's open to all of us now. And I also said that suffering plays a part in that path. But suffering happens regardless of how you choose how to cope with it.
>>85745 Is that is the exact theological term for old testament characters who did bootstrap their way out of fallen human nature and were retroactively saved ONLY by following the law and doing good things and specific examples of times when Israelites didn't fuck up?
How did Jesus die for our sins if he can't even prevent his modern church from lying and sinning?
>>85825 >Not whom you were responding to, I'm Shut the fuck up with this, you already decided to answer for someone else to a question that was never addressed to any of your post, so just fucking answer with your shitty logic and I can sort it out if I want or they will answer later and I will sort out their stupid bullshit.
>>85836 Yes, but just because you have it doesn't mean you need to use it and the best course to heaven must be to never trust your own will and only trust intuitive divine will that should never be contemplated or questioned.
>>85934 Sounds a lot like bootstrapping their way out of their fallen human nature to me, also the harrowing doesn't even apply to Elijah since he descended from heaven to speak to Jesus before he was sacrificed we know some OT characters made it to heaven on their own accord.
>>85930 >only trust intuitive divine will that should never be contemplated or questioned.
AnonI just said that's not the case. There was a period of about six years in between graduating high school and only recently where I fell away from the church entirely. It was only last year that I came back because I decided I was fucking miserable and needed help getting my shit together. And I found it there. I don't know what else to tell you, I'm not trying to devalue other people and the shit they go through, I'm just trying to say that the Church is where I at least found some peace and a purpose. That's all I can give is my own testimony, if that's not doing it for you, then I'm sorry I don't have the answers you're looking for.
>>85978 >Sounds a lot like bootstrapping their way out of their fallen human nature to me, Well, no, or else they wouldn't have gone to hell to begin with (Hades in Orthodoxy)
> Elijah since he descended from heaven Ah, no. Someone's spirit can be permitted to speak on earth with God's permission (the rich man who didn't pity Lazarus asks for this and is denied) from Hades or even hell, and that was the case here.
There is a similar precedent in Catholic theology. It was invoked by Shakepseare in Hamlet, where Hamlet's father suffers in Purgatory (which is a thing in Orthodoxy) during the day, but he can appear as a ghost at night.
>>86266 >Prophet Elijah is taken to heaven alive, but the church teaching says to us, that when in the last times the violation of the law will increase and the love of many will fade, so that the manifestation of people’s zeal about God will exhaust, then will appear the two witnesses, the two olives, two candlesticks (Rev. 11:3-4), which will testify to the divine truth among weakly-believing mankind, putting fresh heart into the minor flock of those, who stayed faithful up to the end, embarrassing and exposing many in number, impudently triumphing enemies of God. On the Divine permission they — these two candlesticks — will be killed by Antichrist and resurrect on the third day. The church teaching says that these two candlesticks-witnesses will be saints Enoch and Elijah, those righteous men of the Old Testament, who did not face death, precisely to fulfill the act of God at the end of ages, when human forces will be exhausted.
>be me >meet a qt girl, says she's a virgin >few months later >notice she's got a big belly >she's pregnant >I didn't fuck her >shamfur_dispray.jpg >still kinda like her >tell everyone she's still a virgin and was impregnated by god >2000 years later >people still believe this >mfw
>>86373 They didn't earn it, they are there because they have to be back before Judgement Day in physical form and then be martyrs. The reason they are in heaven is because it wouldn't be practical to have them live on earth all the way up until that point.
>>86497 Not remotely the way it is in Catholicism. It's not about tit-for-tat. Fasting is the main method of physical purgation, prayer is the main part of spiritual purgation, and both are only efficacious when combined with living the Gospel, but these are about cleaning your glasses, so to speak, as opposed to enduring suffering. Suffering can be part of God's way of giving you purgation, but where it is, it has nothing to do with "paying off" sins, it has to do with healing you.
>>86773 So there was no specific reason he rewarded them, he just picked some random assholes with a decent memory? It was practical to promise Simeon he would live to see the messiah, why all of a sudden is it not practical and why is god suddenly limited by practicalities?
>>86890 He picked them for a reason, but we don't know the logic behind God's plan here necessarily. He chose Paul to play a major role in his ministry, and it clearly wasn't as some sort of "reward" for Paul's prior deed.
>It was practical to promise Simeon he would live to see the messiah, why all of a sudden is it not practical and why is god suddenly limited by practicalities? He's not, but humans are, and living that long, someone would be withered to the point they couldn't move at all.
>>87005 So, Elijah and Enoch are not human or are you saying they will return unable to move because god is gestating literal thousand year old decaying zombies to release to the antichrist, unless they could just be preserved, so why couldn't they just be preserved in some random cave with running water and edible fungus in some shithole country for thousands of years?
>>89535 Nobody was talking about god making decisions thus requiring free will, it was passed off as the only practical solution when there are giant underground lakes that can be preserved as is for over a billion years.
>>81763 She did. The Church Fathers such as Irenaeus referred to her as the "New Eve" paralleling from the OT. With the typological method of interpretation used by the Early Church, the major role of Mary becomes apparent and clear. This is why Marian devotion already emerged during the early stages of Christianity. The Odes of Solomon and Protoevangelium are two documents that show that the Early Christians revere Mary. This is the primitive version of the current Marian Devotion we see in Catholicism and Orthodoxy today.
>>81763 south american here and once my teacher touched this topic and stated that many cultures such as the ones in Mexico and Peru began mixing the catholic teaching of saints with their own female goddesses Because this seemed to make conversion better the Spanish adopted these as virgins etc
i am just repeating what he said though i may be totally wrong
>>81763 She represents all the good and kindness a mother can provide, rather than the stern judgements of a father. Mexicans like me are drawn to that shit, as we're still very much a patriarchal society, that ironically elevates the status of motherhood to near holiness.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.