Posted on 12/08/2014 2:32:24 PM PST by NYer
Safe travels! Will say a prayer for you.
NYer,
Thanks for your patience while I completed my travels. I will apologize in advance for the length it takes to respond to your points. It is easy to make a claim, harder to provide a response. I will skip things that are irrelevant to the conversation...
“Even some Protestant Bibles render it as “highly favored one” (NIV & KJV).”
I would personally translate it as Greetings, highly favored one.
[It is worth noting that the words used rhyme in Greek. I don’t know if angels have a sense of humor, but it appears he is making a play on words.]
“Gabriel uses this participle as a name or title for Mary. “
Here I will disagree, since the Greek is not indicating a formal title or name. You have to enter the room believing this idea in order to “find” it in the Greek words. Is there any evidence in Scripture that Mary was ever addressed this way again during here lifetime by anyone? No.
Mary was chosen to bear Messiah. It is an amazing honor, born of God’s Grace.
Stephen is not a good example to compare. Different Greek word. The only other place this same word is used is Ephesians, as I pointed out up-thread and is used of all believers, who God has “highly graced.” Same word. Same idea - no merit, but favored with grace by God’s free choice. No title or formal name implied in either. The idea remains true, even though it is not a title or name.
“This verse may not prove the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, but it would be an odd greeting otherwise.”
Here we disagree. Again, there was absolutely no evidence or thought of an “immaculate conception” until centuries later. The Greek does not contain it. Further, it is an unusual greeting and you can see Mary’s response. Would you not also think it an unusual greeting, if an angel appeared to you NYer and called you “highly favored one.” The angel goes on to announce she will bear Messiah, which explains fully the words describing her as highly favored. Among all women, she was blessed as the single Jewish woman to bear Messiah.
“In this poetic parallel, Mary’s blessing from God is compared to the blessing that rests on her Son - the fruit of her womb.”
Actually, in Greek, this is incorrect. There is no comparison. The circumstantial clause about Christ is provided to support the main clause in the sentence. In everyday english, this means that the blessed fruit Mary is carrying in her womb - Messiah - is the reason she is blessed among women. Again, Greek can tell us many things. It doesn’t always tell us the one thing a passage means, but it often tells us what it cannot mean. In this instance, Elizabeth is affirming (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, as it says in the text) what the angel said. Mary is blessed. Highly favored among women, because she alone is chosen to bear Messiah.
“Jesus was blessed in His humanity by being sinless (Hebrews 4:15) even while in her womb. Mary was blessed by God as the mother of His Son and in her freedom from sin.”
No. The passage doesn’t say this. In fact, it doesn’t say either of these things. We know from other passages that Christ was sinless. It was and is His eternal nature. He could be nothing less. He wasn’t blessed in his humanity by being sinless. He could be no other. To be sinful would be incompatible with being God. Sin would mean He could not die as a sacrifice for the sins of the world. Sin was never an option.
Mary was blessed in an unmerited way by being chosen by God to bear Messiah. There is nothing in this passage, nor anywhere in all books of Scripture that ever indicates Mary was anything but a human who needed a Savior. She does in fact say, “my Savior.” Needing a Savior implies what is to be expected of all humans - the presence of sin. Christ died for the sin of humanity on the cross - including Mary’s sin.
“The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception developed slowly through the centuries. Some divinely revealed truths take time for us to fully understand.
Best course I ever took was History of Doctrine. Can you imagine the privilege of taking a semester to take each major doctrine and trace its development though each century, using only original sources, from the time of Genesis through today? So I agree with your comment in one and only one sense. It has taken time for some doctrines to develop. Some true and some false. Time isn’t always a good thing. Often doctrines became more honed as the early church was attached from inside (heresy) and from outside (false religion). Doctrines were recast in order to make them clear in the face of error.
Example of true: Trinity. While the word is not found in Scripture, the idea is evident. We know God is one God. We know that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit all have the attributes of God. To claim three God’s violates the first truth - that there is One God. In each step, the argument revolved around what the Scripture revealed and what that meant. Doctrines that took time to develop in this way rest on God’s revealed word.
Example of false: Immaculate Conception. Again, the word is not found in Scripture. In this case, neither is the idea found anywhere from Genesis to Revelation. Not in prophesy. Not in teaching. The doctrine developed much, much later in order to try to support a belief that did not originate in Scripture, but from outside Scripture.
Not only isn’t it present in God’s revelation, it serves no purpose in salvation.
“Its development can be traced back to God’s words to the serpent: “I will put enmity between you (serpent) and the woman and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head and you shall bruise his heel.”[Genesis 3:15, RSV]””
This is false. Nothing in Genesis 3:15 has anything to do with immaculate anything.
“This verse is seen as the promise of the Redeemer. “He” and “her seed” refer to Christ.”
Actually, no. Her seed includes all descendants of Eve. Christ is one of the seed. He is the One who will “crush” satan’s head.
“Woman” and “her” can refer to Eve, but they apply better to Mary (John 19:26).”
No, Mary was in the line of Eve’s seed, but the passage is not about Mary. God is speaking in the presence of Adam, Eve and Satan. He is addressing the serpent - Satan.
Again, nothing immaculate here. Nothing about Mary. It is about what will happen in the contest between good and evil. Satan will be crushed by Christ.
Anytime you have to leave the main point of a passage to try to make it teach a different doctrine, it should flag you that you are not on solid ground.
“Luke’s Annunciation scene (Luke 1:26-38,42) appears to contrast the Eve-serpent scene (Gen. 3:1-7): Mary vs. Eve, Gabriel vs. Satan (Rev. 12:9) as serpent, Fruit of the womb vs. fruit of the tree.”
Appears is the operative word.
I can’t resist saying it... Once I saw a cloud that looked exactly like a goat. Unfortunately, it was not a goat. It was a cloud. Sure looked like a goat. The human mind sees patterns.
Does God’s Word “rhyme?” You bet. Does that have anything to do with someone being immaculate? No.
“In Romans 5:14 and 1 Cor. 15:44-49, St. Paul sees Jesus Christ as the New Adam. In like fashion, St. Justin Martyr in 155 A.D. saw Mary as the New Eve:”
St. Paul wrote under the direct inspiration of God - moved by His Holy Spirit to record His Words. He didn’t “see” Christ as the New Adam. God moved Paul to reveal Christ is the New Adam.
Justin Martyr and Irenaeus wrote what they thought - not what was revealed. Surely you are not arguing their thoughts are equal to The Apostle Paul’s revelation under inspiration of the Spirit?
Unfortunately, their thoughts which are interesting have been seized on in the absence of Scriptural support by those who wish to make Mary into something she was not. It is better to accept what God tells us and not to make more or less of dear Mary than He does.
“The absence of such a statement does not contradict its reality, much like sola scriptura, as has already been pointed out. “
If you truly believe that any doctrine can exist without the revelation of God, then you are in the position of believing whatever feels good and claiming that because Scripture doesn’t teach it, it can still be true by declaration. You can claim that putting pizza in your shoe makes you more spiritual. Sorry. It may make you feel more spiritual. It is simply opinion though and not doctrine. When a church goes off the rails and makes the non-Scriptural into doctrine, there is no longer a standard of Truth.
As for sola scriptura - the belief in the sufficiency of Scripture for salvation and maturity and as the highest standard of Truth. The Bible itself declares all those things about Scripture alone. If you believe Scripture is inspired by God, you will believe those things. Does it matter what name you give that idea? No, like the word trinity, it is a short-hand way of referring to the teachings of Scripture.
In the case of the “immaculate conception,” it is no where to be found in Scripture.
Best to you.
No, the angel told her how it was going to be.
He NEVER asked her permission, just like God never asked the permission of so many others He chose to use for His purposes.
Moses, Gideon, Daniel, Jeremiah, Joseph, Paul, Saul, David, to name a few.
There is simply no need to go about correcting the work of the Holy Spirit.
Your explanation just defeated the point you are trying to make.
No, she is WRONGLY called the *mother of God*.
So are you saying that you only believe that Christ was a man and not God?
That’s the Nestorian heresy.
One of the guys in our Bible Study was raised Catholic. It’s been very enlightening going through Luke 1-2 with him.
It’s interesting that Zechariah thought it was impossible but Mary seemed to know it as a miracle.
We Methodists at Bible Study completely missed that Elizabeth’s baby leaped in her womb at the sound of Mary’s voice.
Matt. 28:18-20...Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations,
Luke 10:16...The one who hears you hears me, and the one who rejects you rejects me, and the one who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”
1 Tim. 3:15...if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and.
Maybe I'm a little thick headed here...but just where does what you posted have to do with the passages you listed...
I might add the I can cite lots of RC teaching that are indisputable no true...simply because they have been clarified, adjusted, revised...
How can that be considered "truth" if it changes...
HaHaHa...That about sums it up for the Catholics...
Catholics just love their labels.
Always got to judge someone for something and slap a label on them.
I guess that makes the Holy Spirit a Nestorian or something and Him guilty of heresy as well.
That makes Mary the mother of the Holy Spirit...
1. Mary is revealed to be "full of grace" in Luke 1:28.
2. Mary is revealed to be the fulfillment of the prophetic "Daughter of Zion" of Zech. 2:10; Zeph. 3:14-16; Isaiah 12:1-6, etc.
3. Mary is revealed to be "the beginning of the new creation" in fufillment of the prophecy of Jer. 31:22.
4. Mary is revealed to possess a "blessed state" parallel with Christ's in Luke 1:42.
5. Mary is not just called "blessed" among women, but "more blessed than all women" (including Eve) in Luke 1:42.
6. Mary is revealed to be the spotless "Ark of the Covenant" in Luke 1.
7. Mary is revealed to be the "New Eve" in Luke 1:37-38; John 2:4; 19:26-27; Rev. 12, and elsewhere.
8. Mary is revealed to be free from the pangs of labor in fulfillment of Isaiah 66:7-8.
I might add the I can cite lots of RC teaching that are indisputable no true...simply because they have been clarified, adjusted, revised...
By all means, please cite them.
“1. Mary is ... et al.”
Bogus.
Wrong. Luke 1:42 says AMONG women, not ABOVE women.
Luke 1:42 And she cried out with a loud voice, and said: Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.
2, 3, and 8 are Scriptures wrested from the OT to try to make them fit Mary.
6. Mary is revealed to be the spotless "Ark of the Covenant" in Luke 1.
Verse number?
7. Mary is revealed to be the "New Eve" in Luke 1:37-38; John 2:4; 19:26-27; Rev. 12, and elsewhere.
Nowhere is that analogy made.
Luke 1:37-38 For nothing will be impossible with God.” And Mary said, “Behold, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.” And the angel departed from her. (not even close)
John 2:4 And Jesus said to her, “Woman, what does this have to do with me? My hour has not yet come.”(I guess John forgot to include the reference to Eve in this passage.)
John 19:26-27 When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.(likewise here he forgot to mention Eve.)
Rev. 12 A woman with no name given. It's wishful thinking for it to be Mary or Eve.
and elsewhere
Where?
Radio Replies Second Volume - Nestorianism
Nestorius on Mary as the Mother of God (Ecumenical)
The Day Nestorius Rocked the Church and an Empire
So, no Scripture, eh?
Can’t say as I’m not surprised.
“...That makes Mary the mother of the Holy Spirit...”
How? Mary is the mother of Jesus, the third person of the Trinity, incarnated in Mary’s womb.
Mary is not the mother of the Holy Spirit. This idea is convoluted and reflects a grave misunderstanding of the nature of the actual Trinity.
No...Calling Mary the mother of God is convoluted...Jesus is God yet God is the Father...The Holy Spirit is God...If Mary is the Mother of God, she is Jesus' mother and grandmother...And it get real crazy after that...
“Jesus mother and grandmother...”
What?? The Trinity consists of three completely separate Divine Persons. Those Persons are: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.
Although the Persons are separate, their natures are exactly the same; that is how they are one God, even though they are three Persons.
The Blessed Mother gave birth to the second Person of the Trinity, God the Son. Since Jesus, God the son is both Divine and Human (hypostatic union), then Mary HAS to be the Motherof God the Son. Because of this fact, she is the mother of God; she is clearly without a doubt the mother of God the Son, not all three (of course!). If not, then Jesus is not Divine.
The nature of the Trinity has been known since the first early Christians and has remained unchanged. St. Patrick in the mid 400’s A.D. gave an analogy of the shamrock to help us understand the Trinity correctly. It has three leaves but is the same nature from the same plant.
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.