"co-". with. together. jointly. One that is associated in an action with another: fellow. partner. helper
The God of thy father shall be thy helper, and the Almighty shall bless thee with the blessings of heaven above, with the blessings of the deep that lieth be- neath, with the blessings of the breasts and of the womb. Gen 49:25
And the other Eliezer: For the God of my father, said he, is my helper, and hath delivered me from the sword of Pharaoh. Ex 18:4
This is the blessing of Juda. Hear, O Lord, the voice of Juda, and bring him in unto his people : his hands shall fight for him, and he shall be his helper against his enemies Deut 33:7
And the Lord is become a refuge for the poor: a helper in due time in tribulation Ps 9:9
Thou seest it, for thou considerest labour and sorrow: that thou mayst deliver them into thy hands. To thee is the poor man left: thou wilt be a helper to the orphan Ps 10:14
So that we may confidently say: The Lord is my helper: I will not fear what man shall do to me. Heb 13:6
There are dozens of verses that speak of the Lord as our helper. I see Scripture clearly showing how we cooperate with God's graces.
But haven't you argued that my wife was necessary to actually have the baby?
Your wife wasn't absolutely necessary to have a child. Adam and Eve were created without mothers. God chooses to propagate His creation THROUGH the action of men and women. Is that wrong to believe that God has given us the grace to cooperate in His continuing of creation?
I believe that God is the exclusive creator, as I interpret from your favorite Psalm 139
He is the primary creator of all things. But it should appear quite obvious that your wife was involved in the birth of your child - and without her actions, your child wouldn't have been born. This conversation seems to be bordering on the ridiculous. Your effort to "protect" God's sovereignty by denying that we do anything is not necessary. It should be clear that God ALLOWS us to participate in His work - HIS OWN WILL is that we do.
What power or authority have I to co-redeem?
??? By closing your mouth, rather than spread the Gospel to co-workers who are not Christians, you DO have the power and authority to NOT be a co-redeemer. By acting as a Christian, you are a light to the world of Christ's work.
Is God just blessing Mary by letting her participate as co-mediatrix, even though she really doesn't add anything of real value? The set-up is for Mary's benefit, just as it was for the cookie daughter?
Mary is for our benefit and God's graces are for her benefit. Doesn't she say that in Luke 1:47-48 "My soul doth magnify the Lord. And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid; for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed."?
St. Basil once said that if anyone said that Mary was merely like a pipe through which water ran in regards to our Savior, then that person is impious person. God was not a parasite...
Does God pick the elect because they picked Him first, or do the elect pick God because He chose them first?
How is there a "first" and "last" outside of time? Everything occurs at once. Think outside the box. God sees as if a bird's eye view looking down onto a mountain, seeing all of the representatives of time standing around the mountain. He sees them all in one view.
Simultaneously" is a time-related word!
If all time occurs in one moment, that means it is simultaneous. Time = change. When two events occur during the same point in time, these two events are not changing - at that moment. Now, imagine God sees everything during the same moment.
Clearly you would agree that there was a physical time when God existed and man did not, right?
For us, yes. Within time, that is true. But God is beyond time.
Who makes the first move?
All such questions are considered from the point of view of mankind. God makes the first move in respect to us. Our point of reference is within time. God acts upon time but is not bound by it.
To say that it happens simultaneously throws the whole issue beyond human comprehension. If you agree to that, then it appears that your real answer is that you don't know
More properly, we call it a mystery. We don't know EVERYTHING about God and how He works upon time. But we know something based upon revelation - that God created time and is thus transcendant above it. Thus, theologians explore the total revelation He has given us - Scripture and Tradition.
Then how do you have any confidence that the Bible is infallible? How do you know that none of the writers ever strayed even once from the guidance they received? Do you know because the Church tells you so? Did the writers of the Bible have free will, and just chose to act perfectly?
There is a convergence of evidence that points to the Church and the idea that she is trustworthy and guided by God's Spirit. The community recognized particular writings as inspired from God. Do we believe them? Yes. We can believe the message of the Church because we believe that it was led by a person who resurrected from the dead - clear evidence that His message was from God, who alone can raise the dead. Our belief hinges on the resurrection, as Paul says in 1 Cor 15. As to the inspired writers, it should seem apparent that the writers used different modes of writing, different styles. God did not overwhelm THEIR manner of writing - AND HIS message is found within these human words.
Is that now an infallible teaching? If so, then if I had said in 1949 that "Catholics believe that Mary was assumed", I would be on solid ground, even though it was not, in 1949, an infallible teaching?
It is now an infallible teaching officially defined by the Magesterium. You would be on solid ground saying that "Mary was assumed into heaven" in 1949, but it was not officially defined yet. The community was already celebrating liturgically this as fact. A person could have legitimately questioned that concept - WITH GOOD REASON after exploring the issue, privately. We do not publically dissent (we are not given authority) from the Church's teachings. A theologian who has properly considered all of the knowledge available would be in his right to disagree with the pre-defined belief of Mary's Assumption. We don't usually have such knowledge - most have not examined all of the evidence, so we couldn't legitimately privately dissent. But once it is solemnly declared as such, we assent and obey God's Will (since it is God speaking through the Magesterium).
I think it may have been because God also refers to her progeny. (why Adam was not included in Gen 3:15)
The Old Testament spoke of the MALE as being the bearer of the seed and it was HE whose progeny was considered, not the mother. Rarely does the Scripture speak of the mother's progeny. We are born "dead" to God because of ADAM'S sin, not Eve's.
The Jews of then or now? Why would the Jews care about Mary?
Not Mary, but the mother of the Messiah.
Want to hear something hilarious? The footnote in my Bible actually disagrees with you and says that the virgin referred to in 14 is actually another woman whom Isaiah would later take as his second wife! However, the Spirit does speak to me and leads me to agree with your interpretation that the virgin is actually Mary. :)
First, I don't know if your bible version says the word "virgin" or "young woman" in this verse. If the former, you are using the Septaugint version, the latter is the Hebrew version. As I said, ALL prophesy has multiple meanings. The prophet is speaking directly to someone present during HIS time. The footnote is correct. BUT, prophesy also applies to men of the future. Did the prophet realize he was prophesizing? Who knows. But the Community widely recognized this prophesy as pointing to Mary the ever-virgin.
In your Isaiah example, the only change is in AUDIENCE. The audience may switch from present believers to future believers and then back again. I'm sure lots of prophecy does this. But, that is a world of difference from what your position is in Gen. 3. There, you are saying the SUBJECT magically changes in mid-thought.
The AUDIENCE changed? So you think that Isaiah was talking about a virgin to Ahaz? Oh, no, the meaning changed, too! Do you think that Isaiah was telling Ahaz that a virgin would give birth - a literal woman who did not have sex would give birth?
Sure, if you desire, we can have God speaking to Eve and about Mary. He did it in Is 7:14, as well - speaking to Ahaz and about Mary.
Regards
... There are dozens of verses that speak of the Lord as our helper. I see Scripture clearly showing how we cooperate with God's graces.
Thank you for all of the verses in between these statements. But as you implicitly admit, none of them have anything to do with the concept of "Co-". For "Co-" to apply, BOTH parties would have to help each other. Then it would fit. But as you say, all of your verses only say that God is the only helper, and the person is only the one being helped. There is no "Co-". You give no verses that say we help God.
Is that wrong to believe that God has given us the grace to cooperate in His continuing of creation?
It is only incorrect to take credit for it, just like it would be incorrect for the cookie daughter to take credit for the cookies.
Your effort to "protect" God's sovereignty by denying that we do anything is not necessary. It should be clear that God ALLOWS us to participate in His work - HIS OWN WILL is that we do.
Well, I have to admit that I am one to protect God's sovereignty. :) But, I do not say that we do not participate. Of course we do, and as you said, it is God's will that we do. Otherwise, we would all just sit here and do nothing until we died. :) My "protection" is all about who gets the credit and who makes what happen.
By closing your mouth, rather than spread the Gospel to co-workers who are not Christians, you DO have the power and authority to NOT be a co-redeemer. By acting as a Christian, you are a light to the world of Christ's work.
??? What does this have to do with whether I have the power and authority to be a co-redeemer? In certain cases, I suppose I do have the power to not be a light unto Christ. But even if I did everything right, and I witnessed my little heart out, and then the person came to Jesus, I would not consider myself a co-redeemer at all. I would consider myself a very blessed witness to the sole work of Christ. Here I am, doing the protection thing again. :)
St. Basil once said that if anyone said that Mary was merely like a pipe through which water ran in regards to our Savior, then that person is impious person. God was not a parasite...
Although it's funny, I don't know what is meant by the parasite comment. God uses us as vessels all the time to accomplish His will. Those who love Him are willing. Mary was such. I would even go so far as to say that I don't see Mary as equivalent to the pipe above, because after the water has left the pipe, the pipe is meaningless concerning the water. I think if one could have done a DNA sample on the man Jesus back then, it would have shown that Mary was His mother. Nothing wrong with that, and of course she loved Him and raised Him, etc.
FK: "To say that it happens simultaneously throws the whole issue beyond human comprehension. If you agree to that, then it appears that your real answer is that you don't know."
More properly, we call it a mystery. We don't know EVERYTHING about God and how He works upon time.
OK, that's all I really could have hoped for. :) So, how it is possible that God chooses His elect simultaneously with His elect choosing Him is a mystery. Of course our side would say that from either God's or our POV, He chose His elect first. I can know that because God existed before man, and scripture says He chose us first.
We can believe the message of the Church because we believe that it was led by a person who resurrected from the dead - clear evidence that His message was from God, who alone can raise the dead.(emphasis added)
Acts 9:36-37, 40-41 : "36 In Joppa there was a disciple named Tabitha (which, when translated, is Dorcas), who was always doing good and helping the poor. 37 About that time she became sick and died, and her body was washed and placed in an upstairs room. ... 40 Peter sent them all out of the room; then he got down on his knees and prayed. Turning toward the dead woman, he said, "Tabitha, get up." She opened her eyes, and seeing Peter she sat up. 41 He took her by the hand and helped her to her feet. Then he called the believers and the widows and presented her to them alive."
[Whispering...] Joe, ... come over to the dark side, with me. Believe that this was really the work of Jesus and not Peter. Just like with all the other things we have been talking about. No one has to know, I won't tell. You're right, Joe, no one can raise the dead except God. I can feel the conflict within you. Let go, Joe. With the word, use the force... :)
We do not publically dissent (we are not given authority) from the Church's teachings. A theologian who has properly considered all of the knowledge available would be in his right to disagree with the pre-defined belief of Mary's Assumption.
What is the difference between you and a theologian? Before asking this stupid question, I looked it up in the dictionary and all it said was "one learned in theology". (Thank you Mr. dictionary :) You fit that. Is it an official "office" within the Church?
First, I don't know if your bible version says the word "virgin" or "young woman" in this verse. If the former, you are using the Septaugint version, the latter is the Hebrew version. As I said, ALL prophesy has multiple meanings. The prophet is speaking directly to someone present during HIS time. The footnote is correct.
[On Is. 7:14 :] Well, then thanks for sticking up for my Bible :) In this case, I'm just not sure I buy it. :) As you know it is NIV. The footnotes are by Charles Ryrie. Here's what the verse says:
Is. 7:14 : 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.
How can ALL prophecy have multiple meanings? When Jesus said the temple would be destroyed and then rebuilt in three days, what was the double meaning? What is the double meaning of the person referred to in Is. 53? And this:
Ps. 22:16 : Dogs have surrounded me; a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced my hands and my feet.
How do you explain the double meaning of this, seeing as how crucifixion had not been invented yet?