Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
With certainty? I think jo kus already posted many a thread on that claim of yours, and I don't believe you have shown how that certainty can be demonstrated to you or others.
No there wasn't, FK. You are stuck on creation and can't think God outside of it. God existed before time. His existence cannot be expressed in terms of time, nor in any physical terms. Our mind cannot comprehend God, yet you are saying 'there must have been a time' when this was not so.
God does not fall under physical laws; His presence is not limited by the speed of light. He is ever-present yesterday, today and tomorrow. He is in the Milky Way galaxy and in Andromeda galaxy -- 2 million light years away, and in all the galaxies in the universe, tends of billions of light years away...
The best that we can "explain" is by imagining a well -- or a water fountain. It is hardly even worth discussion at which point the water actually welled up, but well it did from the source, the well.
OK, that's fine. Since I've already admitted I'm a newbie, throw me a bone. What is BEV Mary? :)
OK, this helps me to understand. Thank you.
Oh, FK, you're such a Westerner! Begotten means "gennhqenta"; its quite simple! :)
Kosta, in #3002, has responded in one quite appropriate way to the rest of your confusion. Let me add something. The Cappadocian Fathers were fond of this aphorism: "I believe in God; God does not "exist"." What they meant was that God doesn't exist within any frame of reference available to us. This is because He is "Existence", He is "BEING", for which reason the Fathers call Him "W WN"
Meant to ping you to 3005. Sorry.
In fact your entire theory that God doesn't allow those who believe to fall is proven wrong exactly with the fallen angels, for they surely believe in God, yet they fell.
I thought you were accusing me of not being able to distinguish between "believe of" and "believe in". Of course there is a huge difference. I have no theory that holds that anyone who says "yeah, sure, God exists, I guess" is saved. I don't believe that at all and have never said so. That's what I was responding to. I fully agree that a truly regenerated heart will produce the works you are looking for.
No problem.
I am VERY glad to hear that! :)
... just as the Church dispenses Christ's redemptive graces to us, we believe that Mary is the co-metiatrix of Christ's graces. If Jesus is the Head and we are the Body of Christ, then Mary would be the Neck...
OK, but can Mary forgive sin like a priest can? I am zooming in on what the correct prayer is to Mary. Is the prayer to Mary in a worship sense so that she will procure God's graces and then pass them along, or is the prayer to Mary for Mary's prayer to God to pass the graces through her? I still haven't figured out why all the middlemen? :)
By the way, the Protoevangelism of James is not considered Scripture, so it would be difficult to base infallible beliefs upon it (that Mary didn't receive special graces until she was three).
I'm not sure I understand you. By "scripture" do you mean the Bible? I ask because you appear to hint that infallible tradition is based on scripture, when I know that at least some tradition is not really "based" in scripture, such as infant baptism.
Being that Mary, the Woman of Gen 3:15, was in complete enmity with the devil, it doesn't seem possible that God would even ALLOW Mary to sin.
What? MARY is the woman of Gen. 3:15? I can't buy that. Let's look at the section:
Gen. 3:15-17a : 15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel." 16 To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." 17 To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,' ...
If Mary is the woman in 15, then who is the woman in 16? Are you saying that God switches from Mary to Eve in one verse? In that case, who is Adam really supposed to be in 17? :) This is another perfect example of interpretation being made to conform the Bible to extra-Biblical teaching. I can certainly take an honest disagreement on the meaning of a verse, but this just isn't reasonable.
OK, I think I'm starting to get where you are coming from now, thanks. It's just weird to think of John 3:16 in such a completely different light. I still can't figure out the many, many translations that say "one and only Son". Doesn't that sound like it's referring to the human side? I'm still not sure, but I think I understand you all better, thanks again.
o Wn
"Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new. Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation. Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: 2Cor 5:17-20
I'm not sure how this passage supports your case. Connecting your statement, you appear to be saying that Paul was only talking to Church hierarchy here (i.e. priests). I have found that God only speaking to Catholic hierarchy in scripture is a common theme in Catholic interpretation. Therefore, laymen are not commissioned to be ambassadors for Christ in this passage. It seems like a big waste of willing resources. My side believes that this, and hundreds of passages like it, are really directed to all believers, and not just the tiny few who are actual clergy.
"Your faith has saved you; go in peace" Luke 7:50
[Harley:] Was she saved or did she have to continue to "cooperate" with God throughout her life?
The Scripture doesn't go on to tell us what happened with her in the end. We presume that she "persevered". Just because someone is "saved" or "healed" doesn't mean they will not subsequently get sick again and require the Lord's Healing touch again! Nowhere does Jesus make this "salvation" a permanent issue - thus, he continuously talks about perseverance.
Harley raises an excellent point. Jesus does make this "salvation" a permanent issue with His actual words. He says "Your faith has saved you", not "Your faith only saves you until the next time you sin, and then you must seek a priest who does not exist yet to forgive you of your sin!" Was Jesus speaking to this woman in riddles so that she would not hear and not understand? That doesn't make any sense.
Blessed Ever-Virgin Mary. :)
o Wn
" Oops! "O WN
The "sonship" of the Word comes from the one way begetting. There is no other Word, hence the only-begotten or "one and only."
I think you are confused because of anthropomorphism of the words Father and Son.
The "royal priesthood" never meant general public -- in Judaism or the way the Church, an extension of Judaism, understood it. It is clear from the New Testament that the dignities in the Church (and here I mean ecclesia, gathering of the faithful) is not egalitarian, and that the power to loosen and bind id not given to all.
Your interpretation is, of course, necessary (and convenient) because the Protestants are outside of the Church and therefore have no aposotolic authority. So, the "authorty" is rationalized and arrogated by one's own self -- which is why we say that it is a man-made church.
Here is an exchange of where our Lord Jesus irresistibly calls one but not another. I love this portion of scripture (the whole thing is too lengthy to post here) for it is chock full of God's salvation.
Joh 9:36 He answered, "Who is He, Lord, that I may believe in Him?"
Joh 9:37 Jesus said to him, "You have both seen Him, and He is the one who is talking with you."
Joh 9:38 And he said, "Lord, I believe." And he worshiped Him.
Joh 9:39 And Jesus said, "For judgment I came into this world, so that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may become blind."
Joh 9:40 Those of the Pharisees who were with Him heard these things and said to Him, "We are not blind too, are we?"
Joh 9:41 Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no sin; but since you say, 'We see,' your sin remains.
I read the Protoevangelion of James last night for the first time in many years. There is little or nothing in it regarding the early life of the Theotokos that is not found in the Orthodox accounts.
I found nothing Gnostic or otherwise heretical in it -- at least not that I was sharp enough to pick up on. There certainly is no obvious Gnostic agenda to it. There are some miraculous happenings in it that are unlike the character of other miracles in the New Testament, but they are not unlike some unusual miracles reported in the Old Testament or the Lives of the Saints.
The only thing that really raised my eyebrows a little, wondering if there might be a Gnostic influence, was a part of the account of Christ's birth where Christ's birth seemingly takes place as a flash of light (the birth itself is witnessed by no-one, but Joseph and Salome see this flash coming out of a cloud of light surrounding the cave.) It strikes me as more of a poetic way of expressing the mystery of the Virgin Birth itself, and Orthodox iconography does usually show a light coming down from heaven to the cave.
In short, Kolokotronis was right -- the Protoevangelion can safely be considered to be a document that is a part of Holy Tradition, with the usual caveat that Holy Tradition is not infallible in the sense of the individual patristic writings themselves, but rather in the context of the overall message of the patristic writings, oral tradition, liturgical services, etc...
It was readily apparent why I remembered wrong -- a number of the apocryphal books that are found before and after the Protoevangelion in that particular volume of Eerdman's are indeed Gnostic or otherwise heretical. The editors do not say that the Protoevangelion is Gnostic, but do identify numerous other of the writings as being such (and they are -- as in the "Gospel of Thomas".)
First, I again commend you for your attitude towards these ideas that are likely new to you. I will try my best to explain all of this to you. Mary does not forgive sins in the sense that a priest could because we don't see Mary. The only reason a priest has been given this power from Christ is that He meant to continue on His ministry of Reconciliation to men in time (see 2 Cor 5:17-20). Through "us", Paul says, God pleads for us to return to Him. Thus, the priest is the hands and voice of Christ. It is important to understand that Catholics (and I think Orthodox) view the Church as the "continuation of the Incarnation". Thus, we see Christ through the actions of the priest during the sacraments. He forgives us, heals us, and offers Himself totally to us during the Eucharist. Thus, Mary doesn't forgive sins as a priest would - because we don't see her.
As to "middlemen", this is God's choosing. He allows us to participate in His work (as I explained during the cookie example). God does not create life directly, but allows His creatures to (He acts indirectly through them, of course). God acts indirectly through our actions to bring other people to Christ - so we can be co-redemptive in our actions. All of this is an expression of love, FK. When you love someone, you share yourself with the other. Thus, God, also, shares in His Divine self with His creation, allowing us to be secondary causes and to continue Christ's ministry of bringing the Kingdom of God to all men throughout the world. Thus, "middlemen" is the wrong way of looking at it. Look at it more like the happy child who is getting to do something with their beloved parent.
By "scripture" do you mean the Bible?
Yes. The Infancy Gospel of James is not Scripture because the early Church either didn't think it was written by an Apostle, or they found things in there that were not "Apostolic" in teaching. This doesn't mean there is nothing of use in that writing.
Infallible teaching is not "based" on Scripture, but is based on the Apostle's teachings - they first came orally. Then, some of the Apostles wrote letters and narratives. These were accepted by the Church as being in line with what they had ALREADY LEARNED. Later, some men wrote down the oral traditions (like infant Baptism) as coming from the Apostles also. This was accepted by the Church and later declared infallibly suited for belief among Catholics under the guidance of the Spirit. The Scripture and this Tradition CANNOT disagree. They work together.
Try not to get confused with Ecclesiastical tradition - such as Catholic priests must be celebate, and Apostolic Tradition - such as infant baptism. The former is a discipline that is subject to change based on the laws of the Church of the time and culture to better support the children of the Church. The latter is considered a revealed truth of God, just as Scripture was.
I know that at least some tradition is not really "based" in scripture, such as infant baptism.
What came first, the oral teachings of the Apostles during the first 20-30 years or the Scripture writings? Think about this for awhile...
If Mary is the woman in 15, then who is the woman in 16? Are you saying that God switches from Mary to Eve in one verse? In that case, who is Adam really supposed to be in 17? :)
Eve is the representive of women in the world, just as Adam is for men. Note in verse 15, it says that "the woman" (singular) will have enmity between "you (serpent) and "her" offspring. This is certainly not refering to Eve, because Eve had JUST SINNED! How can Eve have enmity between herself and Satan? I doubt she remained sinless, either. However, the Church has ALWAYS considered Mary sinless. Also, the Church sees Mary as a symbol of the Church - thus, Mary's offspring, Jesus, would deal Satan a fatal blow (upon the head) while Satan would deal a blow to Christ, but not fatal. This can also apply to the Church - those Baptized into her continue to fight against Satan's "offspring". The Church Fathers have seen this verse as refering to either the Church or Mary, but NEVER Eve! Verse 16, of course, is to Eve and her descendants, who will undergo painful childbirth and be subject to men. Considering this has been a valid interpretation of the Church for a long time, this ceratinly is reasonable - and quite in line with Christ's use of the word "woman" throughout the Gospel of John ("woman" would be an unusual name to call His mother, unless it had some other spiritual meaning. Again, the Church, after years of contemplation, picked up on this).
Regards
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.