Posted on 04/09/2008 12:36:13 PM PDT by annalex
That's kind of an accusation. On the internet. I'm not real happy with that. Give me a good explanation, and I may let it drop.
No. I didn’t have an inkling of that, at all.
I just thought you were civil and at least marginally tolerant toward me so I considered you a friend and a Christian sister.
But I’m happy to read it as I trust that you mean what you say as I’ve never observed otherwise.
BTW, what’s your name?
>> You’re putting the cart in front of the horse.
Luke 1;28 says Mary was Blessed
“”And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.””<<
With all due respect, I believe it is YOU that is putting the cart before the horse.
Let me offer an explanation of the scripture with an analogy. Imagine you buy a lotto ticket and the state knows who has what number. Imagine the state has determined you the winner and the representative of the state says “the state is with you, blessed art thou among lotto ticket owners. Does it mean you deserved to win, or that you were the winner?
And what do you suppose “full of grace” means when considering what the word “grace” means within the context of Christianity?
The message from the angel is simple. He is telling her that she has been chosen by God, through his grace, to be the bearer of the Son who will be the savior of the world. Nowhere does it imply she DESERVED it above all other women. She is blessed by His gift, “not of works, lest any man should boast.
You are reading meaning between the lines that is simply NOT there...
>>Rob Roy-Do you think your mother was an incubator so she could produce a know it all son like you that does not square what all of the early Christians who gave up their lives believed?<<
People that think they know it all really annoy those of us who do.
>>Why do you think your scripture interpretations are above over 2000 years of all of the Saints?<<
I don’t. All interpretations I have ever read (that can be taken seriously) agree with the kernel of what I am saying. It is nothing new. Further, the bible is written so that any that believe it and ask God for wisdom can understand it’s meaning.
It is really pretty clear. You have to make some pretty wild inferences to believe otherwise.
Mary was blessed BECAUSE God chose her to bear His son, not the other way around.
Good stuff Quix, I too like most biblically literate protestants have no clue as to why RC’s push Mary so much, in ways so totally unrecognizable to the New Testament. The account in Acts (the Churches’ 1st 30 years or so) give no evidence at all to praying or giving veneration to dead saints, and, as a matter of fact, I believe Acts never once mentions Mary. Odd, since her veneration/worship is supposed to be so essential to the faith.
St. Paul too, in all his letters of central doctrine and advice to the 1st, foundational generation of Christians, never once mentions venerating dead saints, and yes, he like Dr. Luke author of Acts never once mentions Mary—only, and always Christ, our one Lord and Savior, the one Mediator between God and Man.
St. Peter too, in his 2 little books, never finds the paper to mention the vital importance of imploring dead saints (and there were many by then) to go before Christ for them....only, always Christ alone.
St. John, the caretaker of St. Mary from the cross on, in his 5 very profound books, never mentions praying to, or venerating statues of God’s loved ones in Glory. And, after his gospel account, he never mentions Mary again in his books—3 letters and the Apocalypse—either. Christ is all in all, God’s Word made flesh.
Surely Mary, as she herself said, is the most blessed of all women—having God the Son Himself as her son. That doesn’t make her sinless though—as the gospel accounts indicate—and I am sure she is angry, VERY angry, when focus on her obscures her all in all, Christ alone.
>>Are you some kind of prophet who did nothing that we are supposed to follow? I see you as another Jim Jones self loving person who thinks God is guiding him<<
I’m sorry you feel that way. Seriously.
Unlike Jim Jones, I am not asking people to follow me.
Wouldn't that please God more, to do it in person?
>>It’s right there in the Bible. God made your salvation contingent on Mary’s cooperation. He sovereignly chose to do that.<<
No He didn’t. Using that twisted logic you could say that my salvation is contingent on Judas cooperation in betraying him.
You seem to imply that every person mentioned in the bible that did anything that helped lead up to Jesus birth, death or resurrection is a person on who’s actions (cooperation with God’s plan) my salvation is contingent.
Is this some weird “Back to the Future” alternate timeline script?
"For those who believe, no explanation is necessary; for those who do not believe, no explanation will suffice."
>>But I can observe and what I am observing is anger and resentments of the Protestants at the Catholics, that oftentimes reveal more about the insecurities of these various sect members than they do about the Catholic faith and traditions.<<
I have only been reading a few posts here. I did not know this was particularly about Catholics. I was just concerned - REALLY CONCERNED - that someone who was claiming to be Christian was deifying Mary. That is creepy to ANYONE who has actually read the bible.
That Fatima stuff is new to me. ‘Course, I stopped listening to Art Bell back in the 90’s.
Check that. I Just said Fatima and my wife (a VERY STORONG Catholic of almost 50 years before going “prottie”) said I was pronouncing it wrong. She is aware of it.
To read the Bible the way a Catholic must, is just proof that they are brainwashed by others and have failed to read it themselves. There are so many holes in their orthodoxy its hard to know where to start. Mary was a sinner like everyone else and needed the blood of Christ for her own salvation. Moses did what he was asked, Abraham did as he was aked, as did many others in the Bible. Even Jonah ended up doing what God asked after some prodding. Mary was submissive to the will of God, but she was still a human sinner and condemned to hell had it not been for the sacrifice of Jesus. No human can boast of anything concerning their salvation or they detract from the Grace of God. Even our faith is freely given by God to us. We couldn't force ourselves to have any faith in God on our own without God's intervention. As far as Mary's submission, I don't believe in "Plan B" from God. There was no doubt from the beginning of creation that Mary would be born and submit to the will of God. God knew from the beginning about Moses, Abraham, Ezekiel, Mary, Christ, Pilot, and me. There isn't anything that He doesn't know already. There never was any doubt that Mary would accept the will of God, just as God knew that I would accept Him and be saved when I was 43.
This is a very profound point. If Mary were qualified for special or particular grace, for a veneration above the apostles, and bordering on equality with Jesus Himself, Then why wasn't deference shown to her by those apostles?
Why is it that Christ's role is declared so perfectly as to leave no doubt of the intent of the Author, yet the claims for Mary's expanded role (that being more than the human mother of Christ) must be strenuously milked from hidden bits and pieces in a gnostic fashion?
I do not mean this to be an attack, but a reasonable observation that I would like an RC answer for.
BUMP that.
I have much to contend in the entirety of your post, including context, in some instances, but for the moment, the statements above form the nexus of my objection:
It is contrary to the Bible to suggest that any daughter of Eve is held aside from the curse of the original sin. Likewise, No son of Adam is without sin. If a man is in his flesh, he is subject to, and held hostage by, the curse of the original sin.
It is that sinful nature which sets up the dichotomy- We cannot remain sinless, and any single sin removes us from the grace of God for all time. Our doom is sealed without the Redeemer.
But in that line of thought, it is Christ's conquering of sin that has made him the Redeemer of all mankind. In order to conquer sin, He had to prevail over it, ergo, he must in fact have been born into the same sinful nature of the flesh that all of us have, or He would not have had experienced a sinful nature, and would not have cause to prevail over it.
What is the purpose of tempting Him, if in fact there was no way in which he could be tempted? What does it do to his triumph over Satan in the desert if there was never any risk?
What good is Christ's example, if he was not well and truly a man in the flesh, subject to all of the lusts we endure, yet prevailing perfectly over them all? What purpose for his growing weary, for his anger, for his fear of the cross, if not to show us all that he was indeed as human as you or I?
To suggest that Christ was born without the sinful nature He prevailed against greatly cheapens what He did do in spite of that sinful nature- He did what none of us, before or since has been able to do. He led a sinless life. That act is what broke the bondage of sin.
To consider otherwise would render the need for appearing in the flesh rather pointless, wouldn't it?
And if that is the case, there would then also be no need for Mary to be sinless, to be beyond the reach of original sin, for if it were sins of the flesh He must conquer, he must have gotten that flesh from his mother, by the nature of His immaculate conception.
All interpretations I have ever read (that can be taken seriously) agree with the kernel of what I am saying. It is nothing new. Further, the bible is written so that any that believe it and ask God for wisdom can understand it’s meaning.
It is really pretty clear. You have to make some pretty wild inferences to believe otherwise.
Mary was blessed BECAUSE God chose her to bear His son, not the other way around
= = =
I thoroughly agree.
Every line of yours, imho, is quite excellent. Thanks:
Good stuff Quix, I too like most biblically literate protestants have no clue as to why RC’s push Mary so much, in ways so totally unrecognizable to the New Testament. The account in Acts (the Churches’ 1st 30 years or so) give no evidence at all to praying or giving veneration to dead saints, and, as a matter of fact, I believe Acts never once mentions Mary. Odd, since her veneration/worship is supposed to be so essential to the faith.
St. Paul too, in all his letters of central doctrine and advice to the 1st, foundational generation of Christians, never once mentions venerating dead saints, and yes, he like Dr. Luke author of Acts never once mentions Mary—only, and always Christ, our one Lord and Savior, the one Mediator between God and Man.
St. Peter too, in his 2 little books, never finds the paper to mention the vital importance of imploring dead saints (and there were many by then) to go before Christ for them....only, always Christ alone.
St. John, the caretaker of St. Mary from the cross on, in his 5 very profound books, never mentions praying to, or venerating statues of God’s loved ones in Glory. And, after his gospel account, he never mentions Mary again in his books—3 letters and the Apocalypse—either. Christ is all in all, God’s Word made flesh.
Surely Mary, as she herself said, is the most blessed of all women—having God the Son Himself as her son. That doesn’t make her sinless though—as the gospel accounts indicate—and I am sure she is angry, VERY angry, when focus on her obscures her all in all, Christ alone.
Perhaps you could help explain how it is . . .
That Jonah sailing to Tarsas instead of going as instructed to Ninnevah . . .
would have expected to be blessed vs spanked?
If God tells me to go to San Diego, I don’t buy a ticket for New York.
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.