Mon Dieu!
Posted on 04/09/2008 12:36:13 PM PDT by annalex
OF OBEDIENCE, ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIORS TOWARD THE FATHER
was
. . .
. . .
. . .
RC magicsterical drum roll . . .
Mind-bogglingly incrdible.
Certainment, mon ami!
L’avion est brisé et fichu! Kaput!
Boom!
Au revoir. Continuez la grande bataille ! Je dois reprendre trais chez Walmart.
Pourquoi pas Target?
C’est Francais!
(tar-ZHAY)
LOL!
Unh...Target...
Puisqu’ils ont tourné ma carte de degré de solvabilité vers le bas la semaine dernière!
I only explained what the scripture, that you made reference to, says: the fact that Mary had the Savior, from which presence of sin does not follow. The Catohlic Church explains that Mary was made sinless since conception through the superabundant mercy of Christ and not in any other way.
Roman 3:23 is not a prooftext for any individual sinning. In Romans 3 St. Paul talks about the human condition prior and without the sanctifying presence of Christ in general terms. As you yourself mention, the Bible speaks of several people as "perfect in every way" (Noah) or righteous, as Patriarch Joseph. If we take "all" in Roman 3:23 literally, we have to take "righteous" and "perfect in every way" literally also, and have a contradiction. But if we examine the ocntext of romans 3 we find horrifying epithets like "full of cursing and bitterness", with "feet swift to shed blood", bent on "destruction and misery". That cannot apply to everyone, not to Christ Himself, or, for example, the children slaughtered by Herod, or to anyone who the scripture describes as saintly people. We must conclude that "all" in Romans 3:23 is a literary device of generalization and not a prooftext for Mary's sin.
thinking Jesus may have been “out of his mind” (Mark 3:31) shows some serious doubt, and can definitely called sin.
But, significantly, Mary is not among them, -- she shows up later.
Mary, like all of fallen humanity who trust God, was and is utterly dependent on and in union with the grace of God given in Jesus Christ.
Yes, of course. This is what Catholic Mariology teaches. there is no indication whatsoever that either he or Mary believed that in 3 days Jesus would be risen, alive and well
Like you said, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. One can also argue that the weakness of faith that the Apostles have is just that, weakness, but not sin. More importantly, the gospels record the moment when the women went to the tomb to take care of Jesus's body, and Mary was not among them. Why? She was with the apostles following the resurrection. This is an indication that she of all people did not expect the body to be there -- she believed in the resurrection.
If God could make a person sinless in their normal conception (like you say He did with Mary), why in the world would He then send His Son to die for our sins? He could just make everyone have an immaculate conception, and the sin problem would be solved, in one generation
Yes -- this is a deep question. There is no doubt that in terms of ability God could have redeemed everyone at any given time, starting for example, with Noah. But he decided to become incarnate with Mary and not sooner. This points to her beign a high point of the preparation of the Jewish race that the Old Testament tells us about, and to the fundamental reason of her veneration as co-Redeemer.
I REALLY
SINCERELY
APPRECIATE
your publicing this to a larger readership.
When certain things begin to happen, it will help a lot more people wake up to the real sobering spiritual truths involved.
No and nowhere did I say that. I was speaking of reasons to emulate Mary in our lives. Is there a preacher or fellow lay Christian you admire. In whose life you see evidence of God’s grace upon a sinner. Does this admiration mean you do not think Christ brings us to the Father?
Christ alone is our Savior, but we are blessed with saints in our lives who by letting the Light of Christ shine in their lives makes it easier for us to find our way to Him.
It is after all His grace alone which can illuminate our life and the lives of others. If a torch is used to light many candles is the fact that I see their light mean I can no longer see the torch?
I see the Glory of God in His creation. Does that mean I can not see Christ? I see the miracle of God in the birth of each child? Does that mean I can not see the miracle of Christ? The lesser always points to the greater. All good in this world whether in persons or in the created order has one purpose. To show us the Truth of God.
Christ died to give us life. Celebrating His grace where ever it is found is one way to say thanks for that.
The points are just as sweet in French.
Scripture is rather clear about
INORDINATE
affections.
If I could suggest a slight correction to your wonderful tagline . . .
HUG YOUR BABIES, TODDLERS, CHILDREN . . . AND TEACH THEM SUCH THAT WHEN THEY ARE TEENS, THEY’LL LOVE HUGS, TOO.
Life is too short for anything less.
And ATTACHMENT DISORDER IS TOOOOO HORRENDOUS to individuals, families and societies.
I have to admit once again be puzzled by what you mean?
Perhaps you mistake admiration for those who show total love of Christ in their lives as inordinate affection? Who knows. I worship the Triune God alone so I have no fear of making idols out of mere mortal creation. I never confuse the two. Maybe you do? I like to think not. But since true Worship has long been abandoned by some Protestant sects it does get easier to confuse the two.
By the way do you sing Happy Birthday or say the Pledge of Allegience or tell your family you love them? I wonder how you keep yourself from the sin of inordinate affections in doing so. Is it because you know Christ alone is savior and would never confuse such acts of affection with the great honor and glory due to Him alone?
Thank you for the suggestion. I am a mom and like all parents my children will always be my babies. Though they do tend to get annoyed when I try to burp them after meals.
Have finally finished breakfast and am determined to haul myself to the carport for my carpentry tasks.
So I won’t respond at length.
I guess I’ll just note that
USURPTION AND DISTRACTION
are very important issues in all this. And, there’s not much likelihood that RC’s and Prottys will see close to eye to eye without some miraculous interventions of Holy Spirit. That happens on an individual case by case basis. But it’s not something one can . . . engineer! Holy Spirit does His thing AS HE WILLS.
All we flawed Prottys can do is play our role as best we can.
The analogy you offer is a bit, to us . . . like saying . . .
Wellllll, imagine that Johnny has been surfing in front of toy boats all morning long. And he asks Dad if he can paddle out further and dart around in front of, play with other boats.
and Dad says—sure, Johnny—the tankers and the QE2 are just boats, too. Have at it. No problem.
It is not. It is the literal Greek word for brother, which was sometimes used for other close kin.
This is circular reasoning, she is either a co-redeemer as the Catholics claim, or she is one of those redeemed.
She can’t be both, that would imply she can redeem herself.
So what is she, a co-redeemer, or one of the redeemed?
INDEED.
The RC’s would have us believe that their egregious and quite ‘arbitrary’ (in a sense) insistence that the word meant cousin was the only possible or plausible meaning.
which, actually,
is 180 degrees opposite of THE LINGUISTIC, USAGE FACTS.
Then they would not have been called his "brothers and sisters" because the Greek word for "brother" is "adelphos" which means literally "from the womb [delphus]". In other words, all brothers [adelphos] and sisters [adelphe] came from the same womb -- in this case -- Mary's womb.
In fact, some of those “brothers” are mentioned elsewhere as children of Mary Cleopas.
No -- those would have been his "cousins" [Greek "suggenes"] since they were not from the same womb.
The Bible does not say one way or the other about Mary having other children — a collective of cousins, second cousins, adopted children, etc. would commonly be referred to as “brothers” in antiquity.
No they wouldn't. They all would have been called "cousins or kinfolk" [Greek: "suggenes"]
If Mary had other children, the belief in her perpetual virginity would not have taken hold, as they would certainly be known to the early Christians.
It didn't take hold amongst early Christians, only amongst fiction writers and apocryphal literature.
Yet, the Early Church referred to her systematically as “the Virgin”.
Only until she gave birth to her first born son. After that as "mother" of brothers and sisters.
I'm glad I could help clear up this issue for you.
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.