Posted on 08/27/2019 1:58:22 PM PDT by ebb tide
You on the other hand.....
A great number of Jews did not believe Him even though they walked beside Him and saw Him perform many miracles.
Many confused His message of John 6 as having to literally eat and drink His flesh and blood in spite of His clear meaning regarding believing in Him. Many make the same error today.
You're simply rejecting, without inspecting, the whole collection of OT scholarship which, by clarifying the Mother of the Messiah prophecies there, actually reinforce every doctrine about the nature of Jesus.
Nope. I've read the OT. I've studied it in seminary class.
Mary is not "seen" in the OT unless you read something into it that is not there.
There is no OT insight about Mary that does not reflect, illustrate, strengthen and clarify our understanding of her Divine Son.
Well, yes there is. The whole Roman Catholic understanding of Gen 3:15 is centered incorrectly, as demonstrated already, on Mary and not Christ.
This error is continued to Revelation whereby the RC has to resort to some grammatical gymnastics to justify seeing Mary in Revelation. <
But I won't further expend my energies on the uninterested.
I however, do not mind continuing to explain a proper understanding of these issues. It's what we're called to do.
2preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction. 3For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, 4and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths. 5But you, be sober in all things, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry. 2 Timothy 4:2-5 NASB
I’m flattered you’re so interested in my every post.
dude...please. you have an overinflated sense of your importance.
Head on back to your two post caucus threads.
Quite a stalker, huh?
yes you are. now run along.
It’s obvious two things irritate you immensely; the brown scapular and caucused threads.
Guess what? I also wear a miraculous medal; that should really tick you off.
Guess what? I also wear a miraculous medal; that should really tick you off.
Got bad news for you. Those things don't irritate me at all.
And I'm not surprised you'd wear yet another idol.
The caucus threads are a cop-out. They're for people who cannot debate others who disagree with them. Though I do see you seem to disagree with a great number of people in both caucus and non-caucus threads.
What is sad though is a person is blind to the clear promises of Christ and instead trusts in man-made idols. That person is consigning themselves to the very place they're trying to avoid.
Thanks for proving my observation true.
Dude....you must really be lonely tonight.
Is a cross that many protestants wear around their necks an idol?
Is a soldier’s dog tag an idol?
Is a lifeguard’s whistle an idol?
And I thought the folks at Catholic Answers had poor apologetics. You're making them look down right smart.
Keep trying to justify your idolatry.
Your idol says: WHOSOEVER DIES IN THIS GARMENT SHALL NOT SUFFER ETERNAL FIRE.”
This stands in contradiction of the NT promise from Christ.
24“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. John 5:24 NASB
Do you receive Holy Communion on your tongue or in your paws? If the latter, do you purify your paws over a chalice?
It's just straight exegesis, my friend, inasmuch as everyone who wrote about Jesus being "seen" in the OT, saw Mary there too: not by applying different principles of interpretation, but by applying the same ones; not as His rival, but purely as His Mother, as related to Him and serving Him.
It took a vast deviation for people to take Mary's exulting in the wide, wide story of "God who is mighty has done great things for me," from Abraham and his children and forward into the future to "all generations"--- and reduce it to "It's just wishful thinking, it's eisegesis, its not really there."
You write like a man who never spent a day with the Magnificat.
There is no OT insight about Mary that does not reflect, illustrate, strengthen and clarify our understanding of her Divine Son.
"The whole Roman Catholic understanding of Gen 3:15 is centered incorrectly, as demonstrated already, on Mary and not Christ."
This is so fully and comprehensively wrong-headed I don't even know how to express it. You attribute to me and to the whole Church a Mary-primacy-over-Jesus in Genesis 3:15 which just isn't there.
Jesus is the Seed of the Woman. Her offspring. He is the Promised of Ages. How could she have "centrality" over Him? It's nonsense. He is not only the "center" of Genesis 3:15, He is the center of the Bible, the center of human history, the center of creation, and the center of all reality. How could anybody say we (Catholics) think Mary is the center?
It's absurd. Listen:
It's probably not your fault. I sure don't hold it against you, good man. It's the Six Blind Men and the Elephant thing again. There's this vast and living reality, and one blind man starts out, "Well, I'm sure it's just a wall." "A tree trunk." "Heck, a rope."
Did the angel at Fatima give the three children Holy Communion on their tongues or in their paws?
Most Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Ghost, I adore thee profoundly and offer thee the most precious Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, present in all the tabernacles of the earth, in reparation for the insults, sacrileges and indifference with which he is offended. And through the infinite merits of his Most Sacred Heart and of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, I beg thee for the conversion of poor sinners.
After this prayer, the angel proceeded to give the children holy Communion. Sister Lucia said this was the most important part of the message of Fatima for the children. This drew them closer to God and instilled in their hearts the importance of the Real Presence in the holy Eucharist. The entire message of the angel contains an urgent call to prayer, sacrifice and reparation to the Most Holy Trinity and our Eucharistic Lord.
I receive in the hand. Do you purify your tongue and intestinal tract over a chalice??
"Any human being who has ever had any experience with any edible object based on a milled product knows that crumbling is a natural part of the process of consuming it: loaves, wafers, cookies, biscuits, crackers, tortillas, nachos - it does not matter, fragmentation takes place.
"the Church was traditionally extremely careful regarding the distribution of Holy Communion. That meant reducing to the minimal imaginable level the possibility that any Fragment of the Body of Christ, even the smallest one, might be profaned or lost - which meant only the celebrant himself touched the Body of Christ, that all Fragments could be held under control on the Altar, and that all gestures in the distribution of Holy Communion by the Priest (or Deacon) to the servers and faithful would mean that no Fragment could ever go unaccounted. (And that same process also took place with the distribution under both Species in the East, in a slightly different evolution, but with the same end result: consecrated hands distributing Holy Communion in such a way to make any loss or spillage unlikely and under strict control.)
And these two statements are why the idea of "no fragment lost" is ludicrous. "Fragmentation happens", and holding the host over a chalice or anything else does NOT assure that fragments are "controlled". They aren't. Current practices are simply a realization of the facts of physics.
This is so fully and comprehensively wrong-headed I don't even know how to express it. You attribute to me and to the whole Church a Mary-primacy-over-Jesus in Genesis 3:15 which just isn't there.
Perhaps it's because that is what I read in Roman Catholic literature on this issue.
There are many other RC writers, so called "Doctors" of the church who indicate it is better to go to Mary for answered prayers than Jesus. Some of the same say one cannot be saved unless one is devoted to Mary.
All of which stands in contradiction of Scripture.
I find it very interesting when Jesus was talking to all the folks He did in the NT that not once did He say, "now, you can get your prayers answered faster if you go to mom." Or, you can only come to Me through my mom.
Or, my mom is a co-redemptrix and a fellow mediatrix.
Not. One. Writer. Noted. Those.
But back to our conversation, this stems from the incorrect rendering of Gen 3:15 in the Vulgate, Rome's official bible, which as the Catholic Encyclopedia noted originated after the 4th century and cannot be defended.
Even the mislead folks at Catholic Answers cites the same passage in the same manner.
Staples even continues to cite the Vulgate/DR rendering of Genesis 3:15 while more modern RC translations using better texts render it more in line with the NASB. Oh the horrors for the RC on this issue!
Roman Catholic sources, Mrs. D....Roman Catholic sources.
There is no OT insight about Mary that does not reflect, illustrate, strengthen and clarify our understanding of her Divine Son.
There is not OT insight regarding Mary aside from the prediction He would be born of a virgin.
What the Roman Catholic wants so badly to be in Scripture just isn't there...unless one reads into the text what isn't there.
Even the CE notes the Immaculate Conception is not found in Scripture.
I fear that some see Mary as just a discarded baby-carton. It's so anti-Biblical, my heart hurts.
If anyone sees Mary's role as competing with, rivaling, in danger of overshadowing, or contrary to her Divine Son's role --- well, God help you. That's just unthinkable. May the Lord deal with you as only He knows how. That's all I can say.
I’ll repost the writings of which you’re so familiar with that illustrate my point.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.