Many times in the old testement as well as in the new we find references to people being assured a place in Gods kingdom. Early prophets were "caught up" into heaven and the disciples of our Lord were given notice that they would sit on thrones, judging.

Jesus gave his word to the criminal who was to die with him that he would be with Jesus that day in paradise. And many other accounts we see. But what of mary? We assume? We say, well of course, she was his mother, a believer! But the scripture is silent on this matter.

Many disciples turned away before the death of Jesus, and after. What of His earthly mother?

-- JohnTheReveale (Heaven@onhigh.glory), January 26, 2004

Answers

"Jesus gave his word to the criminal who was to die with him that he would be with Jesus that day in paradise. "

Hi john.

I think that various versions of the Dismas event may contradict your interpretation of "that day in paradise". Some versions place the comma at a different spot changing its meaning.

BTW, "Sola Scriptura"-"Sola Gratia"-"Sola Fidel" believers would have no problem with Mary being in Heaven. Mary met those prerequisites. But, here we go again, Man puts people in all sorts of places. So, it is the doctrine that does putting.

............................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 27, 2004.

No, scripture is not silent on this matter.

Acts: 1:14 These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with the brethren.

Ever read Mary's magnificat -- "I rejoice in God my Savior."

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 27, 2004.

Genesis 3:15 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.

Apocalypse 12:1 And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.

start to finish.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 27, 2004.

I better clarify myself: Mary is in Heaven.

..................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 27, 2004.

Ha.ha.ha.ha.h..."Sola Fidel". It sounds like the opening number to the Fidel Castro Opera in the Sands Concert. I meant "Sola Fide".

.................................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 27, 2004.

Almost everyone chosen by God for a good purpose is saved.

Abraham, Joseph, Samuel,Elijah, Isaih, Jeremiah, John the baptist, Jesus, Peter, Paul,....

Mary was also chosen.

Thus, she must also have been saved.

The Man of Yahweh

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), January 27, 2004.

You are quite right Gail, and here is the proof!

Luk 1:46 And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, Luk 1:47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.

To which it can be said...

Romans 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

2Samuel 22:4 I will call on the LORD, who is worthy to be praised: so shall I be saved from mine enemies.

In other times and other places many people have spoken words like those that Mary spoke, but in hypocracy and for reasons other than the praising of the Lord. These people do not inherit the promise given in the two verses above because they did not really believe what were saying. But Mary did, and the proof of that is simply our faith in God Himself, that He would not so mislead up by corrupting His word in such a fasion.

Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Psa 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Forgive me for this topic Gail, it was deliberatly prevocative and there was no need for it.

-- JohnTheRevealer (Heaven@onhigh.glory), January 27, 2004.

rod...,

it doesn't matter where the comma goes...the thief is still granted paradise with Jesus. The comma only puts a question as to what *today* meant.

Was Jesus saying that "today* he assures the thief paradise later.., or was Jesus saying that "today* is the day he will be in paradise with Jesus.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 28, 2004.

Hi Faith. Dismas is in Heaven with Jesus. It also doesn't matter if any comas were used in Luke about Mary either, if you catch my meaning. Somethings are logical and need no extra wording or explanations.

.........................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 28, 2004.

a person could do a lot worse than to read this:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/document s/hf_jp-ii_apl_20021016_rosarium-virginis-mariae_en.html

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 28, 2004.

rod??

Did I miss something?

Were you all talking about a comma with Mary?

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 29, 2004.

Metaphoric meanings lose their impact without facial expressions. I agree that the comma is irrelavant in this case because we get the meaning. We can also get the meaning with the Scriptures regarding Mary, even if the Bible seems silent on some "traditions".

..................................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 29, 2004.

Seems silent??

The Bible is silent on most of what the Catholic Church has to say about Mary.

I think your analogy is quite a stretch.

The Bible actually has very little to say about Mary--and in comparrison to the Catholic Church, who has much to say--the contrast is quite striking.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 29, 2004.

Of course you would believe that, Faith. You subscribe to the "Sola Scriptura" system of faith. If it isn't written, it must not exist. If it is written, I must not think about it or I might understand more.

But, don't listen to me, Kevin has already decided that I know nothing while JohnTheRevealer has decided that I'm nothing. And, your church has nothing for walls--invisible and all that. We aren't gonna agree. I've surrendered to that little fact. So, things become pointless, I guess.

Oh, and you too are a rose. I didn't mean to leave you out.

.................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 29, 2004.

Faith,

Listen to what rod says... I mean don't listen to what rod says. Since according to rod he cannot with any certainty know if he is saved (this is typical of an agnostic) how can he teach someone what they must do to be saved???

It is obvious from his posts concerning Mary that he believes almost the same thing the Catholic Church believes (which is evident in his posts and he also agrees with EVERY Catholic post). He stated that Mary had a part in our salvation process (another thread), but he never bothered to prove this from scripture and this he could not do for the word of God is INDEED SILENT on much of what Catholics teach about Mary.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), January 30, 2004.

Kevin? It isn't an issue of proving anything to you. It is an issue of you believing it or not. The Scriptures are not into proving anything, but into believing. Hello, "Sola Fide". Are you upset because I didn't call you a "rose"? Ok, you are a rose, too.

It may seem that I believe like a Catholic. But, if you've noticed anything about how the Catholics view me, your observations would need some tweaking. Are you fishing for my heretical beliefs against the Church?

Funny, I've never told anyone not to believe what you have to "preach". I think that you may have some valid beliefs, what percentage is true or correct, who knows? Maybe, you are 100% true and correct. Should we all follow you into the desert? Are you that positive about Salvation that we should all climb aboard your Ark?

We still have the problem with "no man is without sin" to weigh against much of the "Sola Scriptura" and "Sola Fide" doctrines.

I don't see a problem honoring Mary. Let's build a monument to her. She is not my Salvation. If you do have a problem with my idea, then let's get rid of George Washington on that evil dollar bill. It is a blasphemy to honor George over Jesus! Ah! feels funny carrying all those treasury notes in your billfold, yes?

Kevin, you keep insisting on "obedience" as the redeeming factor to our Salvation, yet all men sin and it would be impossible to achieve that perfect "obedience". At the same time, you condemn the Catholics for their Sacramnents and Rites. They are being "obedient", but their faith system is more in line with those teachings that go beyond "Sola Scriptura".

Yes, don't listen to rod. Listen to your teachings and weigh them against everyone's words or interpretations of their readings.

............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 31, 2004.

Kevin can you prove that Jesus walked on water? Physically did Jesus walk on water? I can't, but I believe that He did. I may not trust the accounts of that day because men are fallible, yet Jesus is divine. So, logically, Jesus did walk on water. For you, Kevin, the Scriptures are fundamental and if you actually believe it word for word, why do you not drink poison and play with lethal snakes as mentioned in the book of Mark? Are you not sure what the Scriptures mean or are you not sure of your faith?

...............................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 31, 2004.

I would trust in God that we don't have to go around doing stupid things to prove our faith. Also, the book of Mark may actually be flawed. Ouch! and attack of "SS" believers? No, it is an honest acceptance of the possibility that fallible man allowed for some flaws to remain in the Holy Bible. Sorry, I didn't mean to bring up the KJV.

.............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 31, 2004.

Rod, I will say Mark is lacking.

There were two books of Mark: The one we know and secret Mark for those in the faith.

Secret Mark has the story of Lazarus(without mentioning his name) in a shorter version. Mary(not named) as the only sister.

It also has the expanded story of the young man Jesus loved who was with Jesus in the Garden of Getsemane.He left his clothes and ran when the soldiers apprehended Jesus. Only canonical Mark mentions this young man.

These have survived in a letter of Clement from AD 200.

That is why I believe the disciple Jesus loved was not John the brother of James, but John also known as Mark.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), January 31, 2004.

Letter of Clement of Alexandria on Secret Mark Translated by Morton Smith.

From the letters of the most holy Clement, the author of the Stromateis. To Theodore.

You did well in silencing the unspeakable teachings of the Carpocrations. For these are the "wandering stars" referred to in the prophecy, who wander from the narrow road of the commandments into a boundless abyss of the carnal and bodily sins. For, priding themselves in knowledge, as they say, "of the deep things of Satan", they do not know that they are casting themselves away into "the nether world of the darkness" of falsity, and boasting that they are free, they have become slaves of servile desires. Such men are to be opposed in all ways and altogether. For, even if they should say something true, one who loves the truth should not, even so, agree with them. For not all true things are the truth, nor should that truth which merely seems true according to human opinions be preferred to the true truth, that according to the faith.

Now of the things they keep saying about the divinely inspired Gospel according to Mark, some are altogether falsifications, and others, even if they do contain some true elements, nevertheless are not reported truly. For the true things, being mixed with inventions, are falsified, so that, as the saying goes, even the salt loses its savor.

As for Mark, then, during Peter's stay in Rome he wrote an account of the Lord's doings, not, however, declaring all of them, nor yet hinting at the secret ones, but selecting what he thought most useful for increasing the faith of those who were being instructed. But when Peter died a martyr, Mark came over to Alexandria, bringing both his own notes and those of Peter, from which he transferred to his former book the things suitable to whatever makes for progress toward knowledge. Thus he composed a more spiritual Gospel for the use of those who were being perfected. Nevertheless, he yet did not divulge the things not to be uttered, nor did he write down the hierophantic teaching of the Lord, but to the stories already written he added yet others and, moreover, brought in certain sayings of which he knew the interpretation would, as a mystagogue, lead the hearers into the innermost sanctuary of that truth hidden by seven veils. Thus, in sum, he prepared matters, neither grudgingly nor incautiously, in my opinion, and, dying, he left his composition to the church in 1, verso Alexandria, where it even yet is most carefully guarded, being read only to those who are being initiated into the great mysteries.

But since the foul demons are always devising destruction for the race of men, Carpocrates, instructed by them and using deceitful arts, so enslaved a certain presbyter of the church in Alexandria that he got from him a copy of the secret Gospel, which he both interpreted according to his blasphemous and carnal doctrine and, moreover, polluted, mixing with the spotless and holy words utterly shameless lies. From this mixture is drawn off the teaching of the Carpocratians.

To them, therefore, as I said above, one must never give way; nor, when they put forward their falsifications, should one concede that the secret Gospel is by Mark, but should even deny it on oath. For, "Not all true things are to be said to all men". For this reason the Wisdom of God, through Solomon, advises, "Answer the fool from his folly", teaching that the light of the truth should be hidden from those who are mentally blind. Again it says, "From him who has not shall be taken away", and "Let the fool walk in darkness". But we are "children of Light", having been illuminated by "the dayspring" of the spirit of the Lord "from on high", and "Where the Spirit of the Lord is", it says, "there is liberty", for "All things are pure to the pure".

To you, therefore, I shall not hesitate to answer the questions you have asked, refuting the falsifications by the very words of the Gospel. For example, after "And they were in the road going up to Jerusalem" and what follows, until "After three days he shall arise", the secret Gospel brings the following material word for word:

"And they come into Bethany. And a certain woman whose brother had died was there. And, coming, she prostrated herself before Jesus and says to him, 'Son of David, have mercy on me.' But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus, being angered, went off with her into the garden where the tomb was, and straightway a great cry was heard from the tomb. And going near, Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. And straightaway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb, they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do, and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God. And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan."

After these words follows the text, "And James and John come to him", and all that section. But "naked man with naked man," and the other things about which you wrote, are not found.

And after the words, "And he comes into Jericho," the secret Gospel adds only, "And the sister of the youth whom Jesus loved and his mother and Salome were there, and Jesus did not receive them." But the many other things about which you wrote both seem to be, and are, falsifications.

Now the true explanation, and that which accords with the true philosophy ...

taken from Secr et mark

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), January 31, 2004.

For the explanation on this passage I quote Morton Smith's The Secret Gospel from Dawn Horse Press, 1981 http://www.maplenet.net/~trowbridge/secmark.htm

Although Clement states otherwise, it is likely that Secret Mark was written first, and the esoteric passages later removed to form canonical Mark, leaving some strange rifts in the Markan text. For example, Mark 10:46 reads "And they come into Jericho. And when he was leaving Jericho..." Not only is the stop in Jericho entirely pointless to the narrative, the subject shifts from plural to singular. According to Clement, Secret Mark has a passage between these sentences.

The longer pericope from Secret Mark is a parallel of John's Lazarus story, not found anywhere in the synoptics. It appears to be told as a continuation of the lesson in Mark 10:17-22, where a young rich man is loved by Jesus but will not make the sacrifices necessary to follow him. In the secret passage, another young rich man returns his love and reaps the rewards, including the symbolic ressurection.

Finally, the most conclusive evidence for Secret Markan priority is the mention of the required baptismal dress—only a linen cloth. Until now, the presence of the scantily-clad young man in Mark 14:51-52 had always been a bizarre mystery. With the information gleaned from Secret Mark, it is obvious that the youth was being baptized, and that whoever edited the secret gospel to create our canonical Mark failed to completely extract him from the text.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), January 31, 2004.

Hey rod..,

Did you know that when Constatine became pope/emperor-he continued to worship pagan gods and never changed the money which dipicted their pagan sun god?

Constatine is the reason that paganism thrives in the Catholic Church- -for thats worth to you, I don't know.

I thought you were Catholic.

I am glad that you are not.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 31, 2004.

Hi Faith and Elpidio.

Nobody knows what I am when it comes to which "church" I am affiliated with. I think Elpidio may have a better idea, than most. I guess this is why Elpidio and I get along so well, even if our theologies are several pastures apart. I think I'm more Catholic in my thinking than not. But, once again, this doesn't make me Catholic. One thing makes me Catholic, but I ain't telling and I ain't have it quite yet.

Paganism perpetuated in the Catholic Church? I used to believe that; I don't anymore.

............................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 31, 2004.

Elpidio

Extremely interesting post about Mark.

.........................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 31, 2004.

There are a few Gospels I wish could be found , Rod:

The Secret Gospel of Mark The Gospel to the Hebrews The Gospel of the Nazarenes The original form of the Gospel of Thomas.( I believe the way we have was somehow mutilated by Gnostics, eliminating all miracle stories.)

Why? The first 3 preserve the Jewish Christian perspective of Jesus life.

The last one is the oldest form of the gospels. Only the parables have been preserved besides a few other items. 65% of Thomas is in Mark. Only 5% in Luke only. 3% in John only. 75 % in Matthew.\That is why it is the oldest.

-- Elpidio gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), February 02, 2004.

rod,

You wrote, "Kevin? It isn't an issue of proving anything to you. It is an issue of you believing it or not. The Scriptures are not into proving anything, but into believing."

Once again rod you do NOT make any sense at all. ONLY the scriptures can PROVE doctrine and those who do NOT abide in the "doctrine of Christ" do NOT have God. (2 John 9). If the scriptures are "not into proving anything" as you state then God was a LIAR when He said in Hebrews 4:12, "For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart."

Hello Mr. I don't believe that God has given us ALL THINGS that pertain to "life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue" (2 Peter 1:3) and who also does NOT believe that the man of God is NOT "thoroughly equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:17), even though God has already said that His word is SUFFICIENT.

you wrote, "Hello, "Sola Fide" Are you upset because I didn't call you a "rose"? Ok, you are a rose, too."

No, not at all. By the way, I don't believe that one is saved by "faith only".

You wrote, "It may seem that I believe like a Catholic. But, if you've noticed anything about how the Catholics view me, your observations would need some tweaking."

It is interesting that Catholics here do NOT say ANYTHING bad about you now do they rod??? ALL of your statements in this forum have been in line with Catholic doctrine and if I am WRONG in this, please point out how your beliefs DIFFER from the Catholic Church.

You wrote, "Are you fishing for my heretical beliefs against the Church?"

I think I just answered that question above.

You wrote, "Funny, I've never told anyone not to believe what you have to "preach". I think that you may have some valid beliefs, what percentage is true or correct, who knows? Maybe, you are 100% true and correct."

If my beliefs are NOT correct rod, I have yet to see you point out where I have ERRED in my interpretations. If I am WRONG in my beliefs, I WILL CHANGE them IF those beliefs are found to NOT be in accordance with the word of God. It is OBVIOUS that you CANNOT say the same for this has been shown to you on several occasions where your beliefs are NOT in accordance with the word of God and yet you still cling to them even though they are NOT true.

You wrote, "Should we all follow you into the desert? Are you that positive about Salvation that we should all climb aboard your Ark?"

I NEVER said that one was to "follow me into the desert" now did I rod??? I have shown and will continue to show that it is the GOSPEL that is God's POWER to salvation (Romans 1:16), and the TRUTH of the GOSPEL is located in the word of God. Only those who have a good and noble heart and who are willing to DO WHAT GOD SAYS are those who will be saved. Not the "hearers" of the word are those who will be saved, it is the "doers" of the word that WILL BE SAVED. (Romans 2:13, James 1:22).

You wrote, "We still have the problem with "no man is without sin" to weigh against much of the "Sola Scriptura" and "Sola Fide" doctrines."

Who is this "we" that you speak of??? Who is the "no man is without sin" that you speak of??? If you are claiming that Mary was "without sin", then I would like to suggest that you go to the Mary thread and PROVE that Mary was "without sin". Yes, the "faith only" doctrine is FALSE, but the doctrine of "scripture alone" or "Sola Scriptura" as you call it is the TRUTH according to the word of God and I CHALLENGE you to PROVE that something else is required OTHER than His word.

You wrote, "I don't see a problem honoring Mary. Let's build a monument to her. She is not my Salvation. If you do have a problem with my idea, then let's get rid of George Washington on that evil dollar bill. It is a blasphemy to honor George over Jesus! Ah! feels funny carrying all those treasury notes in your billfold, yes?"

No rod, I don't see a problem honoring Mary either, it is when you state that she had ANYTHING to do with our salvation and then don't bother to PROVE this through the word of God that I have a problem with. There you go with your logic again, noone said anything about George Washington, nor did anyone mention that we should get rid of the dollar bill please stay on the subject at hand.

You wrote, "Kevin, you keep insisting on "obedience" as the redeeming factor to our Salvation, yet all men sin and it would be impossible to achieve that perfect "obedience"."

What does God say rod??? Go back and re-read Hebrews 5:8-9 and Romans 6:16-18). No it is NOT impossible to OBEY God. No one EVER said that God requires "perfect obedience" for this is NOT possible. Yes, we all sin and that is why we have an advocate with the Father - Jesus who is at the right hand of God to go to in prayer when we sin and ask forgiveness. The apostle Paul thought it was possible to OBEY and be saved for he said in 1 Corinthians 9:27, "But I discipline my body and bring it into subjection, lest, when I have preached to others, I myself should become disqualified." He also said in Romans 8:13, "For if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live."

You wrote, "At the same time, you condemn the Catholics for their Sacramnents and Rites. They are being "obedient", but their faith system is more in line with those teachings that go beyond "Sola Scriptura"."

Yes, Catholics GO BEYOND what is WRITTEN and that is a TRUE STATEMENT. Please point out for everyone here rod where there is such a thing as "sacraments" and "rites" in the word of God??? Catholics follow the TRADITIONS OF MEN and NOT the word of God.

You wrote, "Yes, don't listen to rod. Listen to your teachings and weigh them against everyone's words or interpretations of their readings."

It is NOT hard to UNDERSTAND the gospel of Christ. Only those who have been truly BLINDED and have their hearts HARDENED against the TRUTH are those who really would rather listen to what a man says instead of what God PLAINLY reveals in His word.

You wrote, "Kevin can you prove that Jesus walked on water? Physically did Jesus walk on water? I can't, but I believe that He did. I may not trust the accounts of that day because men are fallible, yet Jesus is divine. So, logically, Jesus did walk on water."

Yes, I can prove that Jesus walked on water because God said that He did.

You wrote, "For you, Kevin, the Scriptures are fundamental and if you actually believe it word for word, why do you not drink poison and play with lethal snakes as mentioned in the book of Mark? Are you not sure what the Scriptures mean or are you not sure of your faith?"

Because of the FACT that the word of God has ALREADY BEEN CONFIRMED. Go back and re-read Mark 16:20 which states that they were "CONFIRMING THE WORD through the accompanying signs. Amen."

That is NOT hard to UNDERSTAND now is it rod??? This is PROOF that the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit that were available in the first century are NO LONGER given to the church for they are no longer needed. The word of God has been CONFIRMED and we have the New Testament to PROVE IT.

Do you NOW understand???

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), February 02, 2004.