Replies

This was not Noah's first tilt, and he knew the effects of alcohol. He knew that drinking too much could cause one to lose control of one's faculties. Further, he knew that nakedness (in this context) was a sin from the story of Adam and Eve. Therefore, I would apply the felony murder rule here

You can read all this into the story. You can also, with Ping-Pong a few posts down, read incest into it. I simply go by the text: Noah is described by doing the natural thing without any sinful intent. He worked, then he drank wine, and feeling tired went to his tent to sleep, and his clothes shifted. A desire to get drunk is not mentioned, a loss of self control even is not mentioned as attributable to wine. The only person blamed is his son. Cain, in contrast, is described as sinning. The plain text favors Noah and disfavors Cain. You try to attach sin to Noah, and I point out that it is not the natural reading, especially since the law of Moses was not in operation.

Also mind you that my point is not necessarily that Noah is sinless, but that the scripture describes him as a sinless, in another contradiction to the absolute reading of Romans 3..

That's it, no qualifiers. Mary is either part of "Israel" or she is not.

The qualifier is "such great faith". It points to the faith specific to the Centurion, that is faith without familiarity with the person of Jesus.

Do you mean to say that God was standing on the sidelines, waiting for man to be "ready" before Christ was sent?

God was busy giving Israel the Law, which promulgated the concept of purity, which in due time culminated in Mary's exceptional purity, per Luke 1:28.

Why would none of you good Catholics choose to accept such grace?

It is of course same grace; one of the reasons to pray to Mary is to learn form her how to accept divine grace given us.

You can also, with Ping-Pong a few posts down, read incest into it. I simply go by the text:

Annalex, it isn't what I read into it but it is what it means. I was also surprised, to say the least, that it meant that.

Leviticus 20:12 And if a man lie with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
17....he hath uncovered his sister's nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity.

Gen.1:21.And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.
22.and Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.

Seeing your father in a naked state may not be pretty but it wouldn't cause the birth of a child.

....Ping

You can read all this into the story. You can also, with Ping-Pong a few posts down, read incest into it. I simply go by the text: Noah is described by doing the natural thing without any sinful intent. He worked, then he drank wine, and feeling tired went to his tent to sleep, and his clothes shifted.

Your reading of the text appears to have the specific agenda of showing that scripture leads us to believe Noah sinless, for the purpose of discrediting the Protestant reading of Romans 3. :) Your assessment of Noah's situation is most kind. How do you know what his intent was when he started drinking? Scripture doesn't give us his intent. Since Noah was responsible for negligence, for him to be innocent here one must believe that poor Noah was a most naive man, unaware of the effects of alcohol. I already showed scripture disproving that. Scripture does not show Noah to be a stupid man, which he would have had to have been to be innocent here. We are given no scripture showing Noah to be stupid. Therefore, you are not "go[ing] by the text".

And, I'll match your disclaimer with one of my own. I am not sure at all that the Bible details at least one sin for all of God's servants. That does NOTHING to discredit Romans 3. David was a righteous man, and while so he sinned. Romans 3 tells us a complete truth and is not contradicted anywhere, unless one changes the meaning of words. The Bible no where says that so-and-so was sinless. That is only specifically said about Christ, no one else. It is the Protestant reading here that "go[es] by the text".

FK: "That's it, no qualifiers. Mary is either part of "Israel" or she is not."

The qualifier is "such great faith". It points to the faith specific to the Centurion, that is faith without familiarity with the person of Jesus.

That is illogical. What tells you the comparison line is drawn based on whether one has familiarity with Jesus? Obviously scripture does not. By your reasoning it would be equally correct to argue that Jesus meant "of all the wart-faced, 250-pound brutes I've met, your faith is the best". There is simply NO REASON to draw the distinction you are making, from the scriptures. Jesus could have worded what He said in any one of a thousand ways to say what you are looking for. He didn't. He just said "in all Israel". This is not "go[ing] by the text". This is building into the text what isn't there in order to defend extra-scriptural Roman Catholic beliefs.

FK: "Why would none of you good Catholics choose to accept such grace [as Mary accepted]?"

It is of course the same grace; one of the reasons to pray to Mary is to learn from her how to accept divine grace given us.

If it is the same grace that is available to any of us, and if Mary is the only one to have ever accepted it, then I find it interesting that Mary used absolutely ZERO Roman Catholic extra-scriptural Tradition to make her choice. :) She didn't need it. Her knowledge was based on Sola Scriptura, in the sense that she knew nothing else, and that was apparently sufficient for her to accept more grace than any other human who has ever lived (outside Christ).

Plus, given that a reason to pray to Mary is to learn how to accept the grace she did, what does this say about Mary's intercession if more than a billion have been praying to her for 2,000 years and yet she still stands alone in the grace she accepted?