Posted on 11/12/2022 7:44:47 AM PST by lowbridge
The famous Jewish actor and humorist Gad Elmaleh, beloved in France, announced his conversion to the Catholic faith, a process in which he says the Virgin Mary played a crucial role.
Elmaleh, 51, was the partner of Charlotte Casiraghi, the daughter of Princess Caroline of Monaco, with whom they have a son named Rafael.
His conversion to Catholicism is depicted in his new film, “Reste un peu,” (“Stay a while”).
The Jewish actor, who according to the Spanish newspaper El Mundo will take the name of Jean-Marie when he is baptized, has studied theology in Paris, and in 2019 he participated in a musical in London about St. Bernadette Soubirous, the visionary who saw Our Lady of Lourdes.
Elmaleh told the French newspaper Le Figaro that “the Virgin Mary is my most beautiful love” and expressed his surprise that in France the “vast majority of Catholics don’t live their faith openly.”
As a child, he recounted in the interview, he entered a church and saw an image of the Mother of God.
“It wasn’t a vision, just a simple statue, but I was petrified. I began to cry and hid for fear of being discovered by my family, for fear of curses and superstition. I kept it a secret for my entire childhood,” he recalled.
(Excerpt) Read more at catholicnewsagency.com ...
Your random words mean less than your empty religion.
Why do I need to ponder it? We’re not under the Law, you hypocrite.
Give it a try.
Was Mary “under the Law”?
You really are careless.
10For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.” e 11Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because “the righteous will live by faith.” f 12The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, it says, “The person who does these things will live by them.” g 13Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.”
And you dare suggest that the Death of Christ applied to everyone BUT His Mother?
Was Mary “under the Law” at the time of Jesus' death?
Fixed it. I thought you'd understand by context -but now I see you don't DO "context".
And when the time came for their purification according to the Law of Moses, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord 23 (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, “Every male who first opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord”) 24 and to offer a sacrifice according to what is said in the Law of the Lord, “a pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.” Luke 2:22-24
When did Mary stop obeying the Law?
Not necessary.
And WTF is the word "Church-Age"? Show me that term in Scripture, since you lay claim to Sola Scriptura, you hypocritical troll.
Was Mary “under the Law” at the time of Jesus' death?
After His Death, no. See the quote from Galatians from my earlier post.
Or are you suggesting the Death of Christ only began redeeming people from the Law after St. Paul happened to write to the Church in Galatia about it?
When did Mary stop obeying the Law?
As your fellow bigots said on this thread, you're "speculating". The Scripture says nothing of whether she completed the ceremonial purification. Either way.
But in the sight of God the Father, she was no longer required to.
Unless in your blind hatred of Catholics, you extend the hate to His Mother, and suggest that even though the rest of us were set free from obeying the law, she wasn't.
Trash about wildly in a twisty little passage…
She could avoid this - being sinless and all
Good advice
You should try it more often
{ Scripture says nothing of whether she completed the ceremonial purification. Either way.}
Make up your mind to either USE scripture or not!!
____
Since your hermeneutics are so confused, let me make it even harder for you:
You wrote, "But in the sight of God the Father, she was no longer required to.
Show me how you know that Mary was no longer under the Law. (Your earlier remarks do not.)
Regarding Peter, your first "Pope"--
But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.” And the voice came to him again a second time, “What God has made clean, do not call common.” This happened three times, and the thing was taken up at once to heaven. Acts 10:14-16
When did Peter, your first Pope, stop obeying the Law?
_____
Your positions, your personal attacks, your failure to rightly divide the Word, and your general attitude toward the truth are remarkable.
Now, I'm done with you. You will be replying to the wind.
BYE!
LOL - That was the response I expected.
Did you notice it was God Himself (or an angel, holding the scroll) who said, "What God has made clean, do not call common?"
And did you notice that Paul himself attacked Peter in the Scriptures, (Galatians 2:11-12):
11When Cephas came to Antioch, however, I opposed him to his face, because he stood to be condemned. 12For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself, for fear of those in the circumcision group.
You are attempting to force us to live under the law; and attacking even the Mother of Jesus, and Saint Peter himself, all so you continue to live in your own self-righteousness derived from the Law.
And how ironical: you do it by topic-sliding on a thread about a Jew converting.
Get rekt, troll.
How very Catholic is your disgusting accusation. What a piece of twisting work you are revealing yourself to be.
Grey, I’m sure you meant to say Simeon rather than Nicodemus in your post. I want to post the relevant passages to clear up any confusion for those who may come along later and who don’t know Scripture:
Jesus Presented at the Temple
Luk 2:22 And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord;
Luk 2:23 (As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;)
Luk 2:24 And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.
Luk 2:25 And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him.
Luk 2:26 And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord’s Christ.
Luk 2:27 And he came by the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the custom of the law,
Luk 2:28 Then took he him up in his arms, and blessed God, and said,
Luk 2:29 Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word:
Luk 2:30 For mine eyes have seen thy salvation,
Luk 2:31 Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people;
Luk 2:32 A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel.
Luk 2:33 And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.
Luk 2:34 And Simeon blessed them, and said unto Mary his mother, Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against;
Luk 2:35 (Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also,) that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.
Did Mary hold the body of Jesus after His death and before his entombing, or not?
It’s not stated in the Bible.
And you weasel-worded on it, saying “Nobody has suggested Mary couldn’t touch the body etc.”
Except some of your trolls DID.
One of your fellow Catholic-hating trolls has stated if it’s not in the Bible, it’s speculation.
And then another one tried to play a “gotcha” game about whether Mary performed ritual purification after holding the Body of Jesus.
My answer, both honest and defensible, was that I didn’t know about the purification: the Bible didn’t say either way.
Which, by the standard set up by you trolls, should have satisfied you.
But of course it didn’t because as a group, you don’t believe it anyway, it’s merely a convenient weapon to bash Catholics with.
Otherwise, one of you would have given at least a mild “Tut, tut” to the other in mid thread.
The Catholic-hater asking about purification, admitted to another one of you trolls, he was hoping to goad me into saying “Mary is sinless”. But I saw that coming and showed his utter hypocrisy by quoting Scripture at him — from St. Paul, that Jesus redeemed us from the curse of the law, by His crucifixion.
His response was to introduce a new, extra-Biblical term, “post-Pentecost, post-Church Age” even though those definitions are not in Scripture; to put up the feeble diversion that Christ’s sacrifice wouldn’t apply somehow until far after His death.
It takes a great deal of dishonesty, or hatred, to try to pretend that the saving Grace of Jesus, freeing us from the law, would not apply to His own grieving mother *AFTER* His death.
The only thing disgusting is your bigotry and hatred, which drives you to attack Mary herself, on a thread about a Jewish person converting, because of a statue of Mary, which offends your man-made dogma.
Yes, you're right; you may have noticed that Nicodemus was discussed far more than Simeon in this thread; heat of composition error, as this *is* the internet.
{in other words, you’re engaging in sophistry over the word “speculation”.}
It happens...
https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/4110061/posts?page=81#81
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.