Posted on 12/10/2014 6:32:20 AM PST by marshmallow
I didn't mean to imply you said there was rationalization for abortion, I just don't understand where you are going with talking about the baby having a "soul" or not. We know from several places in Scripture that God speaks about people (David, for example, also Isaiah) that He "knew" them while they were still in their mother's womb. Every child is a separate, living human being WITH a soul that God created them to be. When that life "gets" his/her soul has been a discussion theologians have had for quite a long time. I believe it is at conception, because at that time a new human life begins. I disagree that the baby's life is coming from the mother's soul, but has his/her OWN soul. I don't think the soul is what "gives" the child life. That is more like what would be the "spirit" of the child. At death, the spirit leaves the body of flesh and the flesh dies, the soul and spirit live on. Animals have a "spirit" but not a soul. IMO. Some call it a "life force". It's different than a soul.
It's for this reason that I am against abortion at any time as well as abortifacient contraceptives. As Christians, we should be leading the way for our nations to recognize and respect unborn life as God is the one who "opens and closes the womb", meaning He is behind every new life that comes into the world. It is ALL sacred to Him and fits into His perfect plan.
It was brought up by another poster...I just added my 2 cents...I guess the only real difference it makes is whether aborted babies go to heaven or they just cease to exist...Many apparently use THAT to justify their position on abortion...But I think most of those who claim that life begins at birth don't believe in souls and spirits anyway...
It's for this reason that I am against abortion at any time as well as abortifacient contraceptives. As Christians, we should be leading the way for our nations to recognize and respect unborn life as God is the one who "opens and closes the womb", meaning He is behind every new life that comes into the world. It is ALL sacred to Him and fits into His perfect plan.
I agree with that regardless of when a person becomes a 'living soul'...
Then what of this which you also packaged here with all the rest --- "nor the fact that she knew He would do the miracle"?
WHEN did she know?
I do not believe nor shall ever believe "Catholics" have things right when (or if) it is read into the text that she went to Jesus requesting a miracle, and he obeyed and performed one, as if on demand.
IF we are to be reading things into the text, considering the overall setting up to that point;
It is more like she was speaking openly of her own concern -- and the reaction that produced in her son, him speaking in a sense somewhat forcibly to her, was not expected by her, and frankly -- took her by surprise. She may have even been thinking --- "you and those you have with you could maybe slip out, and if you hurry -- come back with some wine" for this once-in-a-lifetime for the couple being wed -- event? But that's just speculation, isn't it?
It was if while she was speaking of what was indeed a problem in her own mind and cultural understanding (a wedding party not having enough wine --- in Judaism of that era that would have been something of a big deal, a "bad sign" as it were) was not at the same time consciously herself presenting that before Jesus as deliberate request that he do something to remedy the situation, particularly that he should perform a miracle!
Yet in His reaction --- we can indeed gather a sense from what scanty text we do have concerning this, that it was as if there had been a sudden change of demeanor in her son...he was serious, and did include mention of it being before "His time" (which can hold meaning all it's own, in context of weddings & Israel, and the symbolism towards those subjects which had been used previously in Scripture -- and what He himself would do towards the chosen Bride -- which is Israel & the Church) and it does seem to me, that Mary sensed there was suddenly an impending *something* that would transpire -- she likely as not knew not what precisely, as in He would actually be turning water into wine -- BUT -- she grasped the significance of His manner of reply to her --- herself possibly sensed having stirred within Him a great power, that had until then been largely dormant, still & quiet, until then in His life expressed/demonstrated in more pedestrian and ordinary gracefulness, perhaps.
It was likely as not also by the spirit that she said what she did to the servants, for it is clear enough at that juncture that she was aware of Jesus having been stirred to action -- and by the spirit? -- she became aware that this action would involve or need include the servants -- and that Jesus would be telling them "what to do". Perhaps -- after His response to her, it then became revealed to her that He would be in some way miraculously remedying the lack sufficiency for marriage feast wine -- but it is seriously doubtful she knew beforehand, while this miracle holds hidden blessing for many even unto this day, if they but have eyes to see the continuing promise of it...
That's more the real message here -- not to open the door for later generations inter-act with "Mary" from heavenly realms -- so that she as spirit entity can "show them he Son" or "pray for them, and most certainly not for her to hear prayers-- then answer those from on high, herself -- which is inclusive of the sort of activities in realm of spirit which are often attributed to "Mary" which go far beyond veneration.
I guess one has to have lived through God having given them revelation which was meant to apply immediately to some real world goings-on to be able to better grasp how inspiration from God does seem to always include necessary or needful information -- suddenly -- one just knows what they just previously did not know, and can be given sense of what to say, or what to do, what others are thinking (if that matters and could effect the outcome) which they lacked organized summary information for previously, with these things coming by way of Spirit and even all at once -- not limited to flesh & blood mind or mental process -- but rather as something of an over-ride of the more usual and mundane thinking processes and results. At least such as that (in rough outline) is along lines of my own experience...
Yet none of the visible elements of the miracle at the wedding of Cana equates with ourselves needing to go through "Mary" unto this day, directing prayers to her by name, for her to then pass those on to Jesus -- who then passes those further on to the Creator, whom was and is Jesus Christ's own Father in every sense of that word Father.
In fact, we are instructed by this same Jesus (whom Mary, it is oft repeated within RCC settings -- said "do whatever He tells you") to in this manner pray ---to who? ---> Our Father.
Jesus included there to pray in his name though still instructing us all that our prayers be addressed to --->Our Father whom is in Heaven.
Then let's do that, and not direct prayers to other entities believed or perceived by ourselves to be in heaven, including angels, or the one individual human being that is mother of His earthly incarnation, whom herself was/is a created being, as are all human beings -- other than Christ Himself who was something of both earthly and heavenly (having come down from heaven) yet in his flesh partaking also of having been "created" after the flesh being son of Mary, but the Only Begotten Son after the flesh & Spirit both, even at the same time.
Yet this Only Begotten Son -- we are not instructed to direct our prayers towards, either.
Jesus told them in John 16:23
Although two chapters previously (as we today encounter those) He is attributed to having said in John 14:16
with the following verse 17
So -- he prays the Father to send us the Spirit of truth, even the Holy Spirit.
Note there -- that He tells of sending none other, not Elijah to prophesy, not John the Baptist to prophesy Christ and then baptize also, not father Abraham to comfort us and visit with us, gaining there for himself also further confirmation of his 'descendents' not only after the flesh, but by the spirit as it were --- being as numerous as the stars of the sky, nor does Christ say he will send king David, or Solomon in his wisdom to directly advise us.
But somehow, now "Mary", other departed saints, and even angels too will do things of that nature?
No, other than in special circumstances, like those times which God the Father sends angels as heavenly messengers -- none of that other type of thing I have just outlined is found precedence for in the OT.
And in the NT --- when (or should I say if) one reaches towards mention of that basket of prayers which in revelatory vision John saw saints presenting to the Most High God (in effort to justify directing prayers towards any other than "Our Father", whom is our Father in Heaven by spirit of adoption) ---- still does not equate with ourselves being instructed or shown to address or direct our prayers to those same saints --- who then present those as second-hand offering of sorts unto God the Father.
They (saints in heavenly realm/kingdom) may hear prayers (some prayers?) and themselves be moved by them, having those prayers be on their own wavelength so to speak --- but we do not know that those saints and that basket of prayers were NOT prayers addressed to the Creator in the first place(!) though it does appear to me that Roman Catholics seem to argue that we should or could address prayers to saints, instead of God, in order for our prayers to find their way into that basket of prayers (being offered not "to saints" -- but to God) which John wrote that he saw in revelatory vision.
For that sort of idea to be valid (pray to saints, in order to have those entities then further pass along the prayers) one would need ignore a great deal which is written of elsewhere in the texts, and is found in Jewish religious tradition of that bygone era, and far too fully set aside all of that which Jesus Christ, when He was walking in the flesh and speaking plainly enough face-to-face, explained.
Set aside the superstitious approach which reads into Hebrew revelatory visions (even those of the Apostle John, if we can accept that he was the one whom wrote the book of Revelation) the religious methodology of Greco-Roman reasoning and understandings, which then cannot escape populating heavenly realms with spiritual entities which can act -- even upon their own authority or get-go.
That sort of thing is the very kind of religious setting that God lead Abram out from, and is contrary to monotheism.
Look around -- is there monotheism to be found anywhere else on the planet among "religions" which does not trace it's root back to the God of the Hebrews?
If one desires to value and lean upon "tradition" then let us not so fully set aside the traditions from which we ourselves (as for our Christian religion) came from.
He sent His disciples not out "into the world" but sent them instead unto the lost sheep of the House of Israel.(Matthew 10: 5-6)
He said of himself that He was not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matthew 15:24)
Monotheism, my FRiend.
Not subtly disguised (all dressed up in 'Christian' clothes!) polytheistic pantheon of spirit beings -- even if there are indeed angels, and saints also, the claims being those other-than-actually God the Father, the Creator of Heaven and earth (themselves created beings) function much as junior god & goddesses themselves, having specialties assigned to them such as particular causes, occupations, endeavors, troubles or worries, etc.
To hear Roman Catholics tell it (some of them, anyway) if the ministering and working of the Holy Spirit be sensed as "feminine", then that's not the Holy Spirit --- but is instead "Mary".
Can you not see the theological problem with persons assigning the workings of the Holy Spirit to Mary?
Other than Christ quite possibly not have been fully "rebuking" his own earthly mother at the wedding in Cana, this "the Catholics have it right" jazza-matazz is not only incorrect -- but leads to even greater and serious theological errors -- with no real end in sight.
The scholastic 11th-thru however many centuries later, "Cathedral of the Mind" can cook up all sorts of 'sounds good' blarney. The results of those endeavors cannot be regarded as truly apostolic -- as taught by Christ and the Apostles.
Something's got to give. And it won't be me giving up to folk-tales and fables, regardless of how such types of thinking have incrementally over the centuries crept in and made place for themselves...
Jesus alone. (one of the five inter-locking, interdependent solas of the Reformation)
As Peter, whom Roman Catholics claim was the first pope declared;
That looks like an "ex-cathedra" statement. How could it NOT be???
In being "politically correct" we are leaving God breathless...(my new tagline)
Christ lives in my heart by faith, not my gut by eating.
Catholics demand the sinlessness of Mary, stating it was necessary for her to be pure in order to carry Jesus in intimate contact of pregnancy.
And yet, they do ahead and teach that sinful humans can eat Jesus, thus having Him in intimate contact with themselves, through passing through their digestive tract and being digested.
So how does that work?
Mary has to be but no one else needs to be to be in contact with Jesus?
The word *Hypocrisy* comes to mind.
Is your question seeking a genuine answer or was it asked for the purpose of seeking an argument?
This is amusing. I suppose he might be "Reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915!"
Bob Jones University graduate, attended Dallas Theological Seminary, etc.
In any case, when I say, "What to me and you?" to my friend he knows immediately from context what it means. No, you do not leave out the "vav" and yes it means "and." The context is not the surrounding area and problem. The context is the relationship between the speaker and hearer. This is obvious when you use this idiom (in Hebrew) with friends, family, and brethren as opposed to using it with acquaintances, adversaries, or those of an unknown relationship.
I find it sad when Gentiles stumble over this idiom. Recognizing, and possessing yourself, a relationship of love and trust with your parent, your spouse, your child, your friend, you are saying "What can I do to help?"
What Catholics get right is having the heart and mind to love Miriam as their own mother. They are in the family, so to speak, and understand the love and trust between this particular mother and son.
To cement the point, I would refer you to a saying of Messiah, which I cannot publish from my heart to your eyes, lest a copyright be thought transgressed. Yet you must know it; it is within reach. When a son asks for a fish he is not served stone soup, as it were.
Just wait until some stumbles over the idiom about hating one's father and mother, wife, siblings, etc. This is why we so need a teaching holy catholic apostolic church.
And do you say to me....?
My Queen, My Mother Metmom, I offer myself entirely to thee. And to show my devotion to thee, I offer thee this day, my eyes, my ears, my mouth, my heart, my whole being without reserve.
Wherefore, good Mother metmom, as I am thine own, keep me, guard me as thy property and possession. Amen.
I don't think so......
In the broadest sense, she knew when Gabriel announced and she believed. She spent her whole heart loving, serving, and believing her only son. She certainly knew when he answered but perhaps she knew when she thought to ask.
I’ve long understood that the FR RC community has a difficult time distinguishing classical Protestantism from it’s liberal exponents, even though similarly liberal elements exist within the RC fold. Oh well. If it amuses you, so be it. But it is a double standard.
In any event, I’ve attended very conservative schools and hobnobbed with students who were completely out of sync with the conservative ethos. They paid tuition, and they got the school name on their diploma.
BTW, if you want access, that’s the way to go. When you have nothing better to do, I recommend you read Gary North’s “Crossed Fingers,” detailing how the liberals gutted the mainline Presbyterians by infiltrating the seminaries. The expression “crossed fingers” refers to the manner in which the liberal wing excused their misrepresentation of their personal beliefs in order to get past the confessional standards. So MH turning up such sour theology is no surprise to me. The Lord knows His own.
As for your assertion that the idiom automatically switches sense when used in a familial setting, I understand that the modern usages may have changed from Biblical times, and you may be correct about modern usage. However, please understand the 1) you are asking me to take your word for the modern usage you propose, and 2) you are further asking me to extrapolate from said modern usage to NT usage, which is rather like suggesting I can uncritically import every aspect modern English usage back into Shakespeare. Not logical, and opens one to a host of errors.
So if you really want to convince me, I recommend you 1) document your explanation of the modern usage, and 2) document how that usage is the same as the ancient usage, accounting for the adverse evidence I have already introduced and which you have not taken the effort to refute.
Otherwise, if I built my hermeneutic on the lexical say-so of any random anonymous poster, how credible would that be? :) Yes, I know that sword cuts both ways, which is why lurkers passing this way owe it to themselves to be good little Bereans and see for themselves whether these things be so.
Peace,
SR
You’ve been on FR since ‘04 and have no clue to Moroni???
Forms??
I think the word needed here is disingenuous.
Seriously, I think there are several reasons why you are needlessly disconcerted, and with patience maybe we can disentangle them and come to a better understanding of historic Christian practice.
We need to distinguish between three related but not identical things: style, devotion and doctrine.
First, style. A person from the planet Zorg who read Elizabeth Barrett Browning and Anne Bradstreet might well think that they adored Mr. Browning and Mr. Bradstreet as deities, and maybe worshiped Queen Elizabeth I as the Supreme Being. Just look at the fervent, florid, “totalizing” tone of their devotional expressions to their spouses and their sovereign queen!
We already looked at that. Reviewing some Browning and Bradstreet expressions:
This is not to be accounted blasphemy or polytheism on the part of Browning and Bradstreet. Even the New England Puritans of the 17th century, for example, took into consideration well-recognized standards of poetic hyperbole in Mrs. Bradstreet's romantic and courtly verse. They and we wisely understand Browning and Bradstreet as expressing ardent tribute without confusing it with Divine Worship of the Trinity, properly so defined.
We in the 21st century don’t write love poetry and courtly airs that way anymore, and more’s the pity. Almost all the honors of refined sentiment and ardent devotion have been lost, and it shows only the coarseness and witlessness of our culture. Our Christian FReepers bludgeon each other with the blunt weapon of polemic --with some stiletto-slashes of sarcasm thrown in --- and never share poetry. What does that tell you about FReeper-Christian civilization?
Point two: devotional as distinguished from doctrinal writing.
Much of what you’ll find in Marian piety amounts to fond opinion, sentiment and personal devotion, not doctrine. These are not unrelated, of course, but doctrine is going to be precisely defined, while personal devotion gives way to all the affections.
If I can put this with delicacy, an analogy might be comparing a Court Order for Child Custody with the babbling love-talk of a mom and a new baby. The Court Order defines the “doctrine” of the relation between the mother and the baby; the “I love your little toesies! Oh! My adorable little sweetums, I could eat ‘em up!” is something quite different. It is not definition: it is delirium. It’s the sweet delirium of love.
You being a mother, I ‘m thinking you will understand this, because it’s so womanly. Not that men are cold, but sometimes even the most loving of husbands/fathers don’t quite get this. All this kissing of baby’s hands and feet! All this giggly, babbly talk! You can’t quite share it with people who have never had an ocytocin/prolactin surge or who have a hard time hearing the neonate and higher soprano frequencies.
That’s not exactly the same as Marian devotional reading, of course, but the analogy touches on this consideration: what you have here centers around affectionate emotions. It's more dessert than dissertation. It’s sweet love talk.
Add that to the literary genre of courtly praise, as we were considering before, and you get an insight, maybe, as to where this is coming from.
Third point: doctrine.
Well, let me get to this separately. I have a batch of peanut butter cookies to attend to.
Later, OK? O Most Gloriously to be Admired Metmom?
Just wait until some stumbles over the idiom about "eating my body...
I don’t do Mormon threads.
The Book is SILENT on any 'knowing' by Mary.
Rome fills in the blank once again.
"We worship Jesus Christ, really and substantially present --- Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity--- under the forms of bread and wine.Forms??
I think the word needed here is disingenuous.
That doesn't make immediate sense, but I may have missed something.
Where would you insert the word "disingenuous"?
Under the disingenuous of bread and wine?
Does not compute.
That part comes across as non-answer, for we were speaking directly of the miracle at Cana.
There is no reason for us to assume that she at that time knew much of what her son's own ministry was to be about in close & full detail --- as in herself having foreknowledge of events and sufficient insight as towards His truly divine (yet also truly human) nature -- and just what He would eventually show Himself capable doing of -- beyond what is otherwise written of that she was prophesied to herself about Him (her own son).
We know also (for the scriptures tell us) that Jesus Christ Himself could not very well perform miracles among His own clan and kin (Matthew 6:4-5) and as it was also put when speaking of a short period He was again in Nazareth, after having begun His work of ministry; Matthew 13:58
In your reply you had said also;
Whoa. Stop right there. What's this "when she thought to ask" perhaps business? Perhaps?
I doubt that she "knew" what would transpire, yet at the same time can believe that she was prompted into saying what she did -- much as a great many other individuals spoke of what was within themselves -- to which Jesus would then respond, revealing and teaching us much. But if this 'revealing in the scriptures' process includes that she was deliberately trying to coax some miracle out of him -- the likes of which we do not have reasonable grounds to consider she would have known His capability for, wouldn't that sort of thing fall towards realm of tempting even God?
If you be the Son of God -- then turn these stones into bread -- said the Devil.
Would we now have Mary, herself knowing better than anyone that her son was no ordinary mortal, having been conceived within herself by way of the Spirit having overshadowed her (as that is written) wordlessly communicate to her own son "would you please turn basins full of water into wine?" ?
I do think it best for us to not turn her simple observation "they have no wine" into a purposeful request on her own part.
Wouldn't that sort of assumption (that her observation was a form of request -- look! do something!) if not tend towards comparison of Satan tempting Jesus (to perform a miracle) at least make Mary something of a stereotypical guilt-tripping "Jewish mother"?
When otherwise, she was just pointing something out -- which as I explained, was an aspect which was important to Jewish weddings of that era (and interesting enough still carried over to this day in Jewish traditions).
From wider context we can see that the wedding party had had at least *some* wine previously, or else the comparison to what was brought out later being better would not have been made.
As for assuming that she knew when He answered responded to her statement of observation, that ---> something miraculous would take place, as I took pains to explore possibilities for in previous comment, unless we assume (and one simply must keep track of one's assumptions) that there was something revealed to her by the spirit then, of what would soon occur -- as in he would do *something* related to this issue of the supply of wine for the wedding party having been too soon exhausted, what could be much less of assumption would be for her to have then and there "picking up upon" or sensed an impending move of the Spirit (which does come across in the texts in my own reading of them).
I'm wondering at this point...did you read any beyond a sentence or two which I just wrote out to you -- before having responded as you did? I did touch upon this aspect...
What of the rest of what I had just put before you? You know -- like monotheism? Does that ring a bell?
The miracle of the water being turned to wine at the wedding in Cana is more about the significance of marriage, even the espousal of Israel and the Church as Bride and in realm of Spirit (in God's own economy) that either impending or ongoing(?) realization of that heavenly wedding (which shall endure forever) including those "higher" aspects being showcased in the Hebrew tradition of wine being abundant, that all may have their fill and not want for more during that celebratory gathering and ceremony. L'Chaim --- to Life
Those things...things of that sort are what those passages of scripture would indicate to a Jew whom knew his own religious traditions, including what that tradition regarded as scripture --- without a foremost take-away from those passages of John 2 including --- one should pray to "Mary" in order for her to point to Jesus while saying "do whatever he says".
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.