Posted on 12/06/2006 4:29:58 PM PST by HAL9000
Excerpt -
ROME (AP) - Vatican archaeologists have unearthed a sarcophagus believed to contain the remains of the Apostle Paul that had been buried beneath Rome's second largest basilica.The sarcophagus, which dates back to at least A.D. 390, has been the subject of an extended excavation that began in 2002 and was completed last month, the project's head said this week.
~ snip ~
(Excerpt) Read more at christianpost.com ...
However, in the Magnificat, Mary clearly refers to her own Salvation in the present tense. Her Salvation was secure BEFORE the Crucifixion.
http://www.catholicapologetics.org/ap080500.htm
Too true. I'm partly to blame. I'm intrigued about by the RCC. If their claim is true, then I'd better get right with God.
This thread was interesting because it started with a joke about Peter, Paul, and Mary (as in the cultural reference) and someone started talking about the assumption. It was inevitable after that...
>>The belief is that she was the only totally pure human being.
Then Mary didn't need her son as a Savior. Correct?
A theological question I'm not prepared to answer. It would seem not.
In fact...it would almost be the opposite. He needed her as a vessel so He could become human.
Anyone more versed that I am?
Excellent question...I guess the answer would be that she is not God.
I am not a practicing Catholic (I was raised as one, however.)
Pope John Paul II was totally devoted to Mary. I would assume he has written on her and I will do some research.
He're's an interesting site:
http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ95.HTM
Martin Luther's Devotion to Mary
As a Lutheran, I hold to the authority of scripture and the theological accuracy of the Book of Concord. Mary was a virgin of David's house. That's all that's required.
God paying Himself back? Strange concept.
Oh, I like these guys. The Catholic church was THE church for quite awhile and fought the good fight.
But these men were only men. They did not walk with Christ and much of what they said was not true. Their words are not to be taken as "gospel" but in the historical context in which they are said.
I just said she was included in "us,"
Actually you did not. You made no mention of the plural pronoun.
none are "just," none are holy but God
This is in the unredeemed state. Joseph had faith so in the context is correctly deemed just...as was Abraham. Along with Mary.
linky-no-worky
Not for anyone familiar with the concept of the Redemption.
It is the unmistakable teaching of Revelation that Christ offered to His heavenly Father His labours, sufferings, and death as an atonement for our sins.Just as the merits of Christ's Passion bring about the redemption of the human race, so do Christ's merits "remit the temporal punishment due to sin that has been forgiven" (indulgences).
" That belief (the Assumption of Mary) was ancient, dating back to the apostles themselves. What was clear from the beginning was that there were no relics of Mary to be venerated, and that an empty tomb stood on the edge of Jerusalem near the site of her death. That location also soon became a place of pilgrimage. (Today, the Benedictine Abbey of the Dormition of Mary stands on the spot.)
At the Council of Chalcedon in 451, when bishops from throughout the Mediterranean world gathered in Constantinople, Emperor Marcian asked the Patriarch of Jerusalem to bring the relics of Mary to Constantinople to be enshrined in the capitol. The patriarch explained to the emperor that there were no relics of Mary in Jerusalem, that "Mary had died in the presence of the apostles; but her tomb, when opened later . . . was found empty and so the apostles concluded that the body was taken up into heaven."
>>Strange concept.
As a conservative Protestant, all this Mary stuff is pretty alarming.
If Jesus Christ had to be born to a sinless mother, would our salvation have been lost if Mary had sinned? On a fundamental level, can't the perfection of God overpower the sinfulness of man? God can and does have contact with His sinful creation and not lose His perfection. In fact, His perfection overpowers our sinfulness. After all, isn't this foundationally the Gospel? Why would God Incarnate have His perfection tarnished by being born to a sinful woman? I have never understood this argument.
God the Father provided Christ's sacrifice for mankind.
Col 1:22 "But now He has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death..."
Don't know much about "the Magnificant". Clearly, Old Testament believers (Jews and some early non-Jews) had saving faith and Hebrews chapter 11 records it from a post-crucifixion perspective. I don't believe that between His birth and crucifixion that the Lord held a moratorium on saving souls.
Most Biblical scholars believe the faith these OT saints had was one of partial understanding but solid faith in the Messiah yet to be revealed. None of them were worthy of God's grace in and of themselves.
Mary may have been saved as was Abraham or she may have been saved as we are. But either way- she had to have come to realize her sinful nature in light of her understanding of Holy God and trust Him in faith to deliver her from her sin.
It's the Magnificat. Are you saying you don't know what it is or that you have never read it?
No, you're right. The lesson throughout the entire Bible is how God makes His plan happen through weak sinners.
Mary was one of many weak vessels.
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.