The Fundamentals of God, Liberal Sensitivities and the Judgment of Sin

by Perry 50 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Perry
    Perry
    Moses exclusive mediator here?

    Yes. Moses was an exclusive mediator and not a co-mediator as you seem to suggest for the following reasons:

    1. Nowhere is Aaron spoken of as a mediator in the bible that I am aware of.

    2. God spoke to Moses not to Aaron

    36 And the L ORD spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto Eleazar the son of Aaron the priest, that he take up the censers out of the burning, and scatter thou the fire yonder; for they are hallowed.

    3. Moses commanded Aaron's activities:

    47 And Aaron took as Moses commanded, and ran into the midst of the congregation; and, behold, the plague was begun among the people: and he put on incense, and made anatonement for the people.

    4. And the greatest reason that we know for sure that Moses mediatorship was singular is because God says so here:

    Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. Galatians 3: 19

    And yet he taught that it was ok to break the Jewish laws - the laws which He Himself was supposed to have given?

    I thought you said you were a saved Christian on another thread. Is that true? How can you have faith in a Law Breaker if Jesus is a sinner as you accuse him here to be?

  • Perry
    Perry

    A few more facts about Aaron:

    He was to be the "mouth" or "prophet" of Moses, i.e., was to speak for him, because he was gifted speaker (7:1-2, 9-10, 19). He was faithful to his trust, and stood by Moses in all his interviews with Pharaoh.

    While Moses remained on the mountain with God, Aaron returned to the people; and yielded (through fear, or ignorance, or instability of character), to their demands. He made a golden calf and set it up as an object of worship (Ex. 32:4; Ps. 106:19). When Moses returned to the camp, Aaron was sternly rebuked by him for his part in this matter; but Moses interceded for him before God, who forgave his sin (Deut. 9:20).

    Aaron joined with his sister Miriam in murmuring against Moses, "because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married," probably after the death of Zipporah. But the Lord vindicated his servant Moses, and punished Miriam with leprosy (Num. 12). Aaron acknowledged his own and his sister's guilt, and due to the intercession of Moses, God forgave them.

    Aaron was implicated in the sin of his brother at Meribah (Num. 20:8-13). For this reason, he was not permitted to enter the Promised Land. When the tribes arrived at Mount Hor, "in the edge of the land of Edom," at the command of God Moses led Aaron and his son Eleazar to the top of that mountain, in the sight of all the people. There he stripped Aaron of his priestly vestments, and put them upon Eleazar.

    Aaron was a type of Christ by virtue of his office as High Priest.... not as mediator which was exclusive to Moses at that time.

  • Sad emo
    Sad emo

    First I'll address the personal mudslinging:

    And yet he taught that it was ok to break the Jewish laws - the laws which He Himself was supposed to have given?
    I thought you said you were a saved Christian on another thread. Is that true? How can you have faith in a Law Breaker if Jesus is a sinner as you accuse him here to be?

    Yes I am. My faith in Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour is not in any doubt. You might not like my 'liberal' theological views - but I'll requote that Scripture for you, in your beloved Authorised Version - maybe you'll understand it this time!

    Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?

    Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.

    Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

    Now, where did I accuse Jesus of being a sinner?! Perhaps you need to learn some grammar - its all in the question mark at the end. That means I was seeking your viewpoint, through rhetorical questioning - not making a statement of my own personal view! Perhaps if you read the whole section I wrote instead of picking out one sentence and trying to make it personal...

    And yet he taught that it was ok to break the Jewish laws - the laws which He Himself was supposed to have given? He taught of an afterlife - of which there was originally no idea in Jewish thought - which is why the fundamentalist Jews, the Saduccees, didn't believe in an afterlife....
    Christianity was originally a Jewish sect. When and how did it become ok to break away from their 'roots' and go a completely different direction?
    Could it be that 'the light kept getting brighter' during and after the exile, through Jesus' time and then on into the early church?! Those darned liberals introducing all these Greek ideas?!!
    Or has the Bible been corrupted by man?

    So far, you're only indicating to me that you could possibly have a Masters degree in missing the point.

    Now to the other part.

    1. Nowhere is Aaron spoken of as a mediator in the bible that I am aware of.

    What on earth is a priest supposed to be then? Other than a mediator between God and mankind? Aaron, on behalf of the Israelites offered sacrifices and interceded when they sinned:

    Aaron offered the incense and made atonement for them. Hestood between the living and the dead, and the plague stopped.

    It doesn't matter one jot whether it was Moses who commanded him - he was the only one who was able to operate as high priest - not even Moses as 'exclusive' mediator could do that.

    2. God spoke to Moses not to Aaron

    Actually, if you really want to get nitpicky about this, God did speak to Aaron too on a few occasions! Numbers 14 for example.

    3. Moses commanded Aaron's activities

    See comment on point 1. above.

    4. And the greatest reason that we know for sure that Moses mediatorship was singular is because God says so here:
    Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. Galatians 3: 19

    I thought Paul wrote to the Galatians... oooh never mind LOL! In any case, the verse does not prove your statement in any way. It says Moses was a mediator - but it doesn't state he was an exclusive one - the only statement of exclusivity which can be drawn from this verse is that Moses was the one through whom the Law was mediated.

    The whole point I'm trying to make here is that both Moses and Aaron can be regarded as mediators in that they both had their own unique roles/calling from God. You might be surprised to hear me say this now, but I actually agree with you that Moses' role as a mediator was the highest of that time and very special in that nobody else could do it (I cite the same, Numbers chapter 12, like you), just as nobody else could have done what Jesus did... an exclusive role for each, yes.

    Back to the Roman Catholic catechism - this is what they are saying about Jesus and Mary too. It removes nothing from Jesus' unique mediatorship and clearly states so. However, it does acknowledge that Mary also had her unique role in bringing Jesus into the world (wouldn't we all have been up the creek without a paddle if she'd said "no"?!) and is able to intercede for us, perhaps in a better way than other saints (both living and 'dead') simply because she's Jesus' 'mum'...

    I'll stop there cos I need to eat! I hope that you won't just pick out the bits you want to argue about...

    ... but I'm not holding my breath on that!

  • BurnTheShips
    BurnTheShips
    You keep calling me dishonest as well as other names but fail to demonstrate anything of substance.

    I think Sad Emo has demonstrated plenty.

    Questions for Perry.

    Is Jesus our shepherd?

    If so, is he our only shepherd or are there others?

    What is a mediator?

    I think your refusal to honestly answer these questions demonstrates a great deal.

    BTS

  • Perry
    Perry
    First I'll address the personal mudslinging:
    And yet he taught that it was ok to break the Jewish laws - the laws which He Himself was supposed to have given?
    I thought you said you were a saved Christian on another thread. Is that true? How can you have faith in a Law Breaker if Jesus is a sinner as you accuse him here to be?

    Now, where did I accuse Jesus of being a sinner?! Perhaps you need to learn some grammar - its all in the question mark at the end

    Emo,

    Talking to a liberal is certainly invigorating from the general conundrum of daily life. For that I thank you. Liberals almost always feel that a basic understanding of things is a personal attack upon them. To a liberal, what is important is how he or she feels about something, not the substance or content of a thing. The simple dialog I have reproduced above, with your comments in yellow, illustrates how when a liberal says something, the important thing is never to question or disagree with him...that would be "mudslinging", narrow minded, divisive (see my original illustration about a game of checkers in my opening post).

    As fun and exciting as it is to talk to liberals, one never knows what they mean, because what they say isn't what they mean as soon as the context has changed. Neither to accept what they say, or to question what they say is of any consequence. What matters is that their opponent has taken a position on truth, and truth, to a liberal, is something that is fluid, changeable, and maleable to each (liberal) person's feelings at any given time. It is the taking of a position, ANY POSITION other than relativism, that is so repulsive to a liberal and is viewed as hurtful, mean spirited, abusive, mudslinging etc.

    The real study when talking to a liberal, isn't the material that is being discussed. It is the posturing, feigning of reproach, and general outlandish antics that are the real source of enjoyment and intellectual stimulation.

    BTTT, Your statements above are frozen. They cannot be altered. It is your interpretation of your own written words that change according to the position of the current argument.

    I thought Paul wrote to the Galatians... oooh never mind LOL!

    Here you change the authorship from God to Paul to suit your feelings. This makes perfect sense when a person understands how a liberal mind works.

    The scripture:Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. Galatians 3: 19

    The question has never been Aaron's position of High Priest, although you have tried to make it about that. Likewise, the question has never been about Jesus's breaking laws as you first asserted and then later redacted. The point is the exclusiveness of Moses as MEDIATOR OF THE FIRST CONTRACT as GOD himself states above. If you want to say that Moses was a singular mediator when he received the Law but then afterwards was a co-mediator thereafter... go ahead. But, there is zero support for that unless you start blending titles and definitions...which the bible does not do with the term mediator. You cannot change that fact.

    My argument in the original essay wasn't about the eternal truth of the singularity of the mediatorship of Jesus Christ. That issue is forever settled here:

    For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus

    - 1 Tim. 2: 5

    Unless a person has been blessed with a liberal mind, they will know that one minus one equals zero and that one plus one equals two. So when we get to an official statement like the RCC puts out here:

    Catholic Catechism #969 "Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix."

    The issue isn't whether or not Mary, having been given titles of God like Helper (Holy Spirit), Mediatrix (Jesus) is right or not. Mathematics is very precise and 1 Timothy 2: 5 answers this question.

    Rather, the point is why would someone who either has a standing salvific contract from God (as Korah did) or someone who has a contractual offer on the table (as we do) be taken to hell even though we confess Jesus?

    Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them , I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

    Notice how the contract was never ratified for these folks. Jesus never knew them. It's not that they were real born again Christians and then fell away. They only thought they were.... in their own mind.

    In the case of Jehovah's Witnesses, they fit this description because they teach in The February 15, 1991 issue of the Watchtower, pgs. 15-20 paragraph 11:

    Nevertheless, in a preliminary way, the great crowd have already "washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb." (Revelation 7:14) Christ does not act as Mediator of the new covenant toward them, yet they benefit from this covenant through the work of God's Kingdom

    This is a case of one minus one equals zero.

    In the case of Catholics, it is a case of one plus one (or more) equals two. This is a problem because the current contract specifically states:

    For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus

    - 1 Tim. 2: 5

    Since Moses is definitely called a Mediator, and since Korah and others sought to share his position and were swallowed up and taken to hell, it certainly should give all pause to consider exactly why wouldn't you say?

    My argument is that both 1-1 and 1+1 prevents the ratification of a solid contract with God. The arguments that you and BTS have so far put forth are very shaky in my opinion. Certainly not enough for anyone to risk going to hell over.

  • Perry
    Perry
    Questions for Perry. Is Jesus our shepherd? If so, is he our only shepherd or are there others? What is a mediator? I think your refusal to honestly answer these questions demonstrates a great deal.

    BTS,

    People are not on this board to run your errands. If you have a point let's hear it. I have asked you plenty of times to make your point, if you have one. You appear to be fearful of something...what is it?

  • BurnTheShips
    BurnTheShips

    Why don't you answer the question Perry? Your answer would be helpful in this discussion. If you answer, we can proceed.

    Jesus replied, "I will also ask you one question. If you answer me, I will tell you by what authority I am doing these things. John's baptism—where did it come from? Was it from heaven, or from men?"

    They discussed it among themselves and said, "If we say, 'From heaven,' he will ask, 'Then why didn't you believe him?' But if we say, 'From men'—we are afraid of the people, for they all hold that John was a prophet."

    So they answered Jesus, "We don't know."
    Then he said, "Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things.

    Why not answer? What do you have to lose?

    BTS

  • BurnTheShips
    BurnTheShips
    That issue is forever settled here:
    For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus
    - 1 Tim. 2: 5

    Go back a few verses. I already mentioned this on the first page of the thread. 1 Timothy 2:1-4. You chose to ignore it:

    I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone— ..... This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.

    Mediator in context refers to Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. It is not limiting him to the only one who prays for us. In fact, in Romans 8, the Holy Spirit also prays for us. Besides, praying for intercessions from Mary has nothing to do with Jesus' mediation in our salvation (which is what the text of that verse means). So praying to a Saint to request their intercessions for one is in no way contradictory to Christ's role in our salvation. Saints don't save. I think this is part of your misunderstanding. Some non-catholics hear "praying to Mary", for example, means you are praying to her instead of to Christ. Semantics so often seems to be a problem. Since you seem to enjoy quoting from the CCC:

    618 The cross is the unique sacrifice of Christ, the "one mediator between God and men". But because in his incarnate divine person he has in some way united himself to every man, "the possibility of being made partners, in a way known to God, in the paschal mystery" is offered to all men. He calls his disciples to "take up [their] cross and follow [him]", for "Christ also suffered for [us], leaving [us] an example so that [we] should follow in his steps." In fact Jesus desires to associate with his redeeming sacrifice those who were to be its first beneficiaries. This is achieved supremely in the case of his mother, who was associated more intimately than any other person in the mystery of his redemptive suffering.

    Apart from the cross there is no other ladder by which we may get to heaven

    BTS

  • BurnTheShips
    BurnTheShips

    Apparently God breaks Perry's rules:

    After the LORD had said these things to Job, he said to Eliphaz the Temanite, "I am angry with you and your two friends, because you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has. So now take seven bulls and seven rams and go to my servant Job and sacrifice a burnt offering for yourselves. My servant Job will pray for you, and I will accept his prayer and not deal with you according to your folly. You have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has." So Eliphaz the Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite and Zophar the Naamathite did what the LORD told them; and the LORD accepted Job's prayer.

    BTS

  • Perry
    Perry

    BTS says:

    So praying to a Saint to request their intercessions for one is in no way contradictory to Christ's role in our salvation. Saints don't save. I think this is part of your misunderstanding. Some non-catholics hear "praying to Mary", for example, means you are praying to her instead of to Christ. Semantics so often seems to be a problem.

    Oh if only the mis-informed and semantics were the problem as you falsely claim:

    OTHER POPES HAVE SAID THAT MARY IS CO-REDEEMER, MEDIATOR, ADVOCATE

    Many popes have exalted Mary as mediator and advocate. Examples are Leo XIII (1878-1903), Pope Pius X (1903-1914), and Pius XII (1939-1958). During a radio message concluding the Jubilee of the Redemption, April 28, 1935, Pius XI (1922-1939) gave the title Co-redemptrix to Mary.

    One of the respected Roman Catholic authorities on Mariology is Alphonsus Mary de Liguori (1696-1787), who was canonized as a saint by Pope Gregory XVI on May 26, 1839. He was declared a "Doctor of the Church" in 1871 by Pope Pius IX. Liguori has his own special day on the Roman Catholic calendar, that being August 1st. On this day, the official prayer to be made by Catholic people on behalf of Liguori asks God that they may be "taught by his admonitions."

    Liguori, or "Saint" Alphonsus, wrote on many subjects, but he is particularly famous for his admonitions in regard to the Catholic Mary. In 1750, at age 54, he published The Glories of Mary, a book which has been translated into many languages and which has wielded vast influence in the Roman Catholic Church.

    Some will doubtless argue that it is unfair to use a 200-year-old book to define Catholic doctrine. Not so. Liguori's book is authoritative today, and it does represent official Catholic doctrine. Liguori's works underwent a rigorous examination and received the unqualified approval of the Catholic Church. His works were tested 20 times by the rules of Urban VIII and Benedict XIV, and the resulting judgment was that they did not contain "one word worthy of censure." Liguori's book The Glories of Mary was pronounced to be without error by Pope Pius VII in 1803 and by Pope Leo XII in 1825. Pope John Paul II has often acknowledged Liguori's deep influence in his own affection for Mary.

    Pius VII (1800-1823) was so infatuated with Liguori that he had his grave opened and had three fingers of his right hand cut off and taken to Rome, saying, "Let those three fingers that have written so well for the honor of God, of the Blessed Virgin and of religion, be carefully preserved and sent to Rome" ("Some Preliminary Observations by the Editor," The Glories of Mary, St. Louis: Redemptorist Fathers, 1831, p. 20).

    Liguori's book continues to be published today with the official imprimatur [Latin meaning "Let it be printed"] of various Catholic authorities. The edition we have has the Imprimatur of Cardinal Hayes of Brooklyn, New York, and is sanctioned by Patrick Murray, Superior General of the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer, Jan. 1, 1931. Chapter titles include Mary our Queen, Mary our Life, Mary our Hope, Mary our Help, MARY OUR MEDIATRESS, MARY OUR ADVOCATE, Mary our Guardian, Mary our Salvation, and Mary's Immaculate Conception. Consider an excerpt from this book which does not contain ONE WORD worthy of censure by the Catholic Church. The following quotation from the section on Mary, our Mediatress, gives a taste of the entire book--

    "St. Antoninus says the same thing: 'All graces that have ever been bestowed on men, all came through Mary.' And on this account she is called the moon, according to the following remark of St. Bonaventure: 'As the moon, which stands between the sun and the earth, transmits to this latter whatever it receives from the former, so does Mary pour out upon us who are in this world the heavenly graces that she receives from the divine sun of justice. Again, the holy Church calls her 'the happy gate of heaven;' for as the same St. Bernard remarks: 'as every mandate of grace that is sent by a king passes through the palace-gates, so does every grace that comes from heaven to the world pass through the hands of Mary.' St. Bonaventure says that Mary is called 'the gate of heaven, because no one can enter that blessed kingdom without passing through her'" (The Glories of Mary, pp. 159-160).

    The Glories of Mary is filled with citations from various "saints" of the Catholic Church. Its authority is of the very highest order.

    VATICAN COUNCILS HAVE GIVEN MARY THE TITLE CO-REDEEMER, MEDIATOR, ADVOCATE

    Vatican Council II, which was held in the mid-1960s, also referred to Mary as Mediator and Advocate. Note the following citation:

    "Joined to Christ the head and in communion with all his saints, the faithful must in the first place reverence the memory of the glorious ever Virgin Mary, Mother of God and of our Lord Jesus Christ... Because of the gift of sublime grace she far surpasses all creatures, both in heaven and on earth... The IMMACULATE VIRGIN PRESERVED FREE FROM ALL STAIN OF ORIGINAL SIN, WAS TAKEN UP BODY AND SOUL INTO HEAVENLY GLORY, when her earthly life was over, and EXALTED BY THE LORD AS QUEEN OVER ALL THINGS, that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords (cf. Apoc. 19:16) and conqueror of sin and death" (Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, chap. 8, I, 52,53; II, 59, pp. 378,381- 382).

    "Rightly, therefore, the Fathers see Mary not merely as passively engaged by God, but as freely cooperating in the work of man's salvation through faith and obedience. FOR AS ST. IRENAEUS SAYS, SHE BEING OBEDIENT, BECAME THE CAUSE OF SALVATION FOR HERSELF AND FOR THE WHOLE HUMAN RACE. Hence not a few of the early Fathers gladly assert with him in their preaching ...' death through Eve, life through Mary.' This UNION OF THE MOTHER WITH THE SON IN THE WORK OF SALVATION is made manifest from the time of Christ's virginal conception up to his death" (Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, chap. 8, II, 56, pp. 380-381).

    "Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation. By her maternal charity, she cares for the brethren of her Son, who still journey on earth surrounded by dangers and difficulties, until they are led into their blessed home. THEREFORE THE BLESSED VIRGIN IS INVOKED IN THE CHURCH UNDER THE TITLES OF ADVOCATE, HELPER, BENEFACTRESS, AND MEDIATRIX" (Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, chap. 8, II, 62, pp. 382-383).

    The last time a pope made a dogma about Mary was on November 1, 1950, when Pope Pius XII stated that Mary was "preserved free from all guilt of original sin," "taken up body and soul into heaven," and "exalted as Queen of the Universe."

    On December 8, 1854, Pope Pius IX issued the bull Ineffabilis Deus, which proclaimed the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary.

    Those who love the Bible and receive it as the sole authority for faith REJECT Rome for its blasphemous false doctrines which exalt Mary to a position which belongs exclusively to Jesus Christ. Furthermore, Mary is not the Queen of Heaven nor can she hear and answer prayers. On the other hand, those who are not convinced already that Rome is a false church will not be convinced no matter what new thing the pope proclaims in his alleged infallibility.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit