Posted on 12/08/2005 9:35:44 AM PST by NYer
Do tell...what sect do you follow?
Most Catholic haters hide their own sect, as they realize that it's so easy for us to refute and discredit the bizarre things you do.
The Protoevangelium (Gen. 3:15)
I believe it is the errors here that lead to the error of Immaculate Conception. You state quite plainly (and rightly) that normally the "seed" is a reference to the male offspring and not the female. However, I believe this is more than just a reference of convenience to biology. The Scriptures also use this term covenantally. The stain of Original Sin is not a product of biology, but a product of covenant headship. There is no dominant "sin gene" if you will that can be passed from either mother or father.
The Fathers on Mary as Second Eve
Honestly, providing three short quotes from early church fathers is not going to carry much weight with your average Protestant, especially when none of them explicitly declare Mary the "Second Eve." Additionally, there is the fact that Eve is scarcely referred to at all outside of Genesis, and likewise Mary is scarcely referred to at all outside of the Gospels.
The Immaculate Conception
As I said before, I believe this stems from a misunderstanding of Original Sin, how it is transmitted, and what its implications are. At it is this point in the reasoning where I believe the comparisons with Eve and Mary reach an unhealthy level, because it is here where they begin to rely more heavily upon the relationship of Adam and Eve.
I also believe the dismissal of the Protestant understanding of Romans 3 is flawed. While the original context of the verses Paul quoted is important, more important is the context in which PAUL uses them. There were prophesies concerning Christ which, in their original OT context, referred to events of that present time and which were fulfilled in a limited fashion at another point in OT history. And yet the NT authors point to them as also referring to Christ, often because the things they pointed to in their smaller context were types. The context in which Paul quotes these verses establish the universal condemnation of all men under the Law.
I'm sorry I don't have more time to comment. I understand most of where the Catholic Marian doctrine comes from. I simply don't agree with it or the reasoning behind it. I do appreciate your efforts for the explanation in the interest of honest debate.
Been reading an interesting book on early Christian theology. As originally expressed in the Greek, Theotokos can also mean "Bearer of God" (as in she bore a child), which doesn't have quite the same implications in English as "Mother of God".
Mother of God can lead to a lot of misunderstandings unless you know the exact definition and reasons the term was coined in the first place.
Who's indignant? Not me. What you wrote was tacky, that's all, just real tasteless. You have no shame, so you heap abuse on me. Fine. Such shamelessness is just plain tacky.
We just don't believe that she is divine in nature
Or sinless. Or forever virginal. Or snatched up to heaven without dying. Or a mediator between the believer and God. We don't see the BVM every time prophetic or poetic scripture mentions an unnamed virtuous woman.
Okay, I'll bite. What implications does "Mother of God" have that "God-bearer" (in the sense of bearing a child) doesn't?
The only reference in the Holy Word of G-d to a "Queen of Heaven " is Revelation 18:7.
A "Queen of Heaven" is also referred to in Jeremiah, and not in a good way. That queen of heaven was a pagan deity the worship of whom brought God's wrath on what remained of Israel.
Most Protestants who believe literally only in what the Bible teaches, refuse to believe literally that Jesus founded the Church on St. Peter (Matthew 16:17-19), that Holy Communion is truly the Body and Blood of Christ (John 6:32-69)and not just a memorial, that Jesus gave His apostles the power to forgive sins (John 20:21-23), and in the intercession of the saints in heaven (Revelation 5:8; Revelation 8:3-4). As a former Protestant, I am constantly amazed how Protestants who will not believe anything unless it is in Scripture conveniently ignore major teachings in that same Scripture. It can't be any more clear, but most Protestants say, "Oh, He didn't really mean that" when confronted with a point they don't like. One can't have it both ways. One either believes everything in Scripture, or one doesn't. And one can't say "Oh well, Jesus didn't mean that." There is no way to know that He didn't mean whatever He said unless one has some sort of insight into the mind of God. That is the most presumptious thinking imaginable. If Holy Scripture is inspired by God, then the words of Jesus are accurately recorded and He meant exactly what He said. We also know that He meant what He said because the first Christians believed these things, too, and we can read their writings from the first, second, and third centuries.
That's nice, but has nothing to do with Mary. Pagan deities and rulers usurped all sorts of titles for themselves. I believe at one point the Emperor Augustus had himself proclaimed "Lord and Savior of his people". Does that mean we shouldn't call Jesus "Lord and Savior"?
Seems there's a whole lot of "assumin" goin on here.
A "Queen of Heaven" is also referred to in Jeremiah, and not in a good way. That queen of heaven was a pagan deity the worship of whom brought God's wrath on what remained of Israel.
You are absolutely right; I stand corrected!
queen of heaven was a pagan deity the worship of whom brought God's wrath on what remained of Israel.
b'shem Y'shua
NYer>God also regenerated Abraham, obviously in anticipation of Christ (Genesis 15:6, Hebrews 11:8, et al). The same could be said of David, Elijah, Noah, etc., etc.
However I think you will find in the Holy Word of G-d that the L-rd found them Righteous.
Is that also true of Miriam?
b'shem Y'shua
NYer>God also regenerated Abraham, obviously in anticipation of Christ
(Genesis 15:6, Hebrews 11:8, et al).
The same could be said of David, Elijah, Noah, etc., etc.
Thank you, upon further study I find Joseph Husband of
Miriam is found Righteous in Matthew 1:19.
But I can not find Miriam found Righteous in the Holy Word of G-d.
b'shem Y'shua
get it all out saint.
Ps. 19:14 May the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart
be pleasing in your sight, O LORD, my Rock and my Redeemer.
Ps. 28:1 To you I call, O LORD my Rock; do not turn a deaf ear to
me. For if you remain silent, I shall be like those who have gone down to the pit.
Ps. 28:2 Hear my cry for mercy as I call to you for help, as I lift up my
hands towards your Most Holy Place.
Ps. 42:9 I say to God my Rock, “Why have you forgotten me?
Why must I go about mourning, oppressed by the enemy?”
Ps. 62:1 My soul finds rest in God alone; my salvation comes from him.
Ps. 62:2 He alone is my rock and my salvation; he is my fortress,
I shall never be shaken.
b'shem Y'shua
Grow up, kid. Have you stopped throwing spitballs in school?
"If Miriam was born without the stain of Original Sin, she did not need a Messiah."
Baloney. Sinless or not, Mary needed a Messiah just as much as anyone else, because without the grace of God, no one can avoid sin.
I'm not worthy.
It is also simply put,love God--love His Mother.
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.