| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 01/03/2007 10:18:06 PM PST by Religion Moderator, reason:
Unacceptable behavior for a religious subject. |
Posted on 01/02/2007 11:46:14 AM PST by pjr12345
Ya mean "father" isn't just another word for "brethren"? lol.
by a special privilege of Divine Providence, has been, from the moment of her conception, “full of grace,” even the “Uncreated Grace” who is our eternal life, namely God the Son, who lived in her heart before he became incarnate in her womb, and thus she was and is “filled with all the fullness of God,”
= = =
imho, all brazen NON-Scripturally supported inference and extrapolation.
Those with axes to grind over denominations are a drag on discussions, imho.
Far-sided interpretations like that it is wrong for a woman to giveherself to a man outside of marriage, or enter into another consumated marriage absent porneia in the first?
Seems bizzare God would promote that right?
Makes much more sense that Mary never consumated any marriage after brithing Christ. In fact this was entirely possible if she'd been betrothed (as scripture tells us) yet never actually completed the wedding process according to Jewish law. In fact only after the time Christ lived the Jews created a law to prohibt this, and make it impossible to legally get betrothed and never end the wedding process according to Jewish law. Seems funny that they'd go an outlaw something like that, coincidentally, right after the time of Christ, when Christianity was spreading and the church teaching the perpetual virginity of Mary...
Those who do not follow 1 Corinthians 14 when praying are praying contrary to the commandments of God...
No. Mary.
"Mother of God" has a whole bunch of tradition etc. built up around it which is, to me, UNBiblical.
Jesus clearly noted that his mother/father/brethren were those who DID HIS WILL. No special status in that. Clearly implied IS THE OPPOSITE OF SPECIAL STATUS.
A Similar attitude was displayed when on the Cross HE turned Mary over to John for care.
Whatever.
JESUS HIMSELF
SAID ONLY THE FATHER WAS GOOD. Quite a statement.
And Mary would rank a lot lower than Jesus in Biblical terms.
And THE FATHER SAYS HE PUT/WILL PUT ALL THINGS UNDER CHRIST.
And the whole counsel of Scripture indicates that adoration misdirected to
ANYONE OR ANYTHING OTHER THAN FATHER/SON/SPIRIT
IS ROBBING GOD . . . and likely idolatry and an abomination.
It's the onlt thing that makes sense.
= = =
NOT AT ALL.
Doesn't even make sense at all.
therefore Christians have always called her “The Blessed Virgin Mary”
Not all Christians grant Mary this title. Not possible to support with Scripture.
She is, therefore, truly the Mother of God, the Mother of that Person who is God the Son, not by generating his divinity, for he was divine before his conception in the womb, but by generating his humanity and carrying him to birth in her womb by the power of the Holy Spirit and not by any human father
Faulty logic. If Mary is the mother of Jesus' human nature and not His divine nature, then she cannot be the mother of God. She is mother of the human being, Jesus. Further, God is infinite and eternal; He could not have had a mother. Again this is human philosophy, unsupported by Scripture.
he Blessed Virgin Mary is the woman who gave birth to him who is to rule all nations with a rod of iron, namely Jesus Christ, and she is, therefore, also the Mother of all Christians,
Your conclusion does not follow your premise. Unsupported by Scripture.
we are bound to honor her, our Mother, the Second Eve, as Jesus Christ honors her
All of this is conjecture. No scriptural support. BTW, your included reference to an apocryphal book for doctrinal issues is completely disallowed.
The Blessed Virgin Mary, in giving birth to Jesus Christ, the head of that body which is his Church, also gave birth into eternal life to the members of that body, all baptized Christians, and she is, therefore, the Mother of the Church and the Mediatrix of All Graces which come to us through Christ. As our Mother, the Blessed Virgin Mary brings forth Christ in our hearts as she brought him forth in her womb
Blessed Mary is holier than the Ark of the Old Covenant, to touch which was death, for she was set apart as the Ark of God the Son for the exclusive use of our Great High Priest Jesus Christ, as his Mother, and she is, therefore, ever Virgin, the “garden enclosed” and, as she contained him whom the heavens cannot contain, she is the Holy of Holies, the Saint of Saints
Wow! Other than the part about Jesus being the head of the body, which is the Church, every bit of this has no Scriptural support. Disallowed.
In accordance with her title in the Eastern Church, “The All-Immaculate One,” the Blessed Virgin Mary, as the Mother of Our Lord and God Jesus Christ, by a special privilege of Divine Providence, has been, from the moment of her conception, “full of grace,” even the “Uncreated Grace” who is our eternal life, namely God the Son, who lived in her heart before he became incarnate in her womb, and thus she was and is “filled with all the fullness of God,” and she has been preserved unstained by personal sin or by our disordered passions resulting from the original sin of Adam (Luke 1:28; John 1:4; 10:10; Rom. 5:12, 17; Eph. 3:19; James 1:15). For Mary and Satan are enemies; he has no part in her (Gen. 3:15).
Again, outside of the part where you say Mary is "full of grace", every bit of this is man-made sophistry, not Scriptural. Disallowed.
I could go on and on with your posting. However I think you get the point. You make a ton of statements, the majority of which have no Scriptural support, and are nothing more than conjecture and extra-biblical extrapolation.
This image of Mary is disallowed. Nice try, but next time try to stick to Scripture.
We know from the use of the future tense that that "graced" did not refer to the Incarnation, as that was still in the future. So what do you think it referred to, if not that?
The purpose of the grace, I would imagine, is fairly obvious. It was fitting that the mother of the Redeemer--the woman who bore God in her very body--be filled with Grace to carry out this tremendous and awesome task.
The extent and size, yes, is unknown save by God. But whatever size it was, it was completed.
And as for "which nothing more need be added" being an inference, at heart that's really what completed means. You can't finish or redo something that's already done, and the action of "being graced" was, Scripturally speaking, completed in the Blessed Virgin.
+
If you want on (or off) this Catholic and Pro-Life ping list, let me know!
Saying Mary never sinned is not the same as calling her Good. That said she is called full of Grace by those whom practically any church will accept were influenced by the Holy Spirit. She wasn't called saved, or perfect she was called full of grace.
Did Mary lie to her Son, Jesus, in Luke 2:48?
So you are saying that Jesus was born of a SINNER? WOW!! Do you believe that Jesus is God?
What I was trying to say Blogger is that the Canon that the Catholic Church (which Luther, Calvin, Knox and the others in some manner left/rejected) held to the 73 book Canon based on the Greek Septuagint (that were the Scriptures in use in Palestine and especially among the Diaspora Jews at the time of Christ) and the New Testament writings that all Christians agree to be Canonical. The 66 book Protestant Canon is based on the decisions made by the Jews at Jamnia in about AD 90; there the Jews rejected all texts that were written outside of Palestine, in a language other than Hebrew, or written after about 400. One of the main goals of this Council was to declare as uninspired a grouping of texts that were passed around by a particular sect that was calling themselves "Christians"... namely the Apostles and their disciples.
I'm willing to carry on a discussion limited to the 66 book Protestant Canon. But we need to agree on something pretty soon, because this discussion is dying fast. Very soon it won't be worthwhile at all.
The Bible mentions no "little brothers and sisters" in Luke 2, just "relatives and acquaintances".
How is it that when Catholics assert things not explicitly mentioned in the Scriptures, those are "traditions and vain philosophies of men" ... but you can get away with inventing details that aren't in the Bible, thereby adding your own traditions and vain philosophies of men to God's holy word?
an untruth issuing forth from the immaculate one.
What was she supposed to say? "Behold, thy putative foster father not truly related to thee by blood and I have sought thee, sorrowing?"
I agree with you.
Disallowed content? Determining for yourself what is scripture?
Why that sounds like things reserved for God, the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, yet here we have an individual human being claiming to be able to do all these things for himself.
I don't buy it; I don't trust all these inventions by sinful failable humans.
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.