Posted on 11/05/2009 5:25:39 PM PST by CondoleezzaProtege
That would indicate a weak "God" if Jesus could have imperfection in Him just because Mary was a sinner like the rest of us.
Jesus was in her womb and nothing could have imparted sin unto Him.
He had His own blood, even though some Catholics say the He had Mary's blood in Him.
Jesus totally immersed Himself in a sinful world and He never was infected with the "imperfection" of those sinners he related to.
It's quite obviouis that God wanted Jesus to be born of one like other humans, instead of a sinless God-like human.
"All have sinned and come short of the Glory of God." Some say, Oh then Jesus sinned also. LOL, nope, He is the ONE that breathed that Biblical quote.
There was only one sinless person that walked the earth (after original sin came in via Eve, and then Adam), and that was Jesus.
Mary was a perfect mother for Jesus, but not perfect in the sense of sinlessness.
I have heard many Protestants claim that all of their sins past, present and future were washed away by the Blood of Jesus. It is an indication of a belief in a limited God to believe that He could not do so to preserve Mary from sin from the moment of Her conception.
Peace be with you
Well, the Protestants could very well be correct, and it is enlightening to see that you apparently agree.
As for Mary, of course He could have.
And I'm sure if He did, He also would have considered it important enough to put into the Holy Scriptures.
It can't be found there.
Neither can her "assumption" which is "assumed" by some.
God knew what he was doing, and had COMPLETE control over the situation. After all, she was conceived by the Holy Spirit.
"How good is your Hebrew? Aramaic? Koine Greek? I am willing to bet you’re far from the polyglot necessary to read the scriptures in the original languages."If one knows that it is the Holy Spirit that reveals to us the understanding of scripture, spending years learning languages and reading scriptures in a mess of different languages isn't necessary. If one wishes to be a scholar, yea go for it.
" Thus, you are dependent on your sect leaders or scholars for scriptural translations."
You are sure of that? You can read the poster's mind because of your egregious stipulation???
You’re responding to a post from 3.5 years ago?
“If one knows that it is the Holy Spirit that reveals to us the understanding of scripture, spending years learning languages and reading scriptures in a mess of different languages isn’t necessary.”
I don’t think you’ve thought that all the way through. I said, “Thus, you are dependent on your sect leaders or scholars for scriptural translations. So aren’t you essentially in the same boat as all the groups you mentioned? Didn’t this thought EVER occur to you before?” For some reason you left that part of the quote out. Why?
“If one wishes to be a scholar, yea go for it.”
Is that the point I was making - or even hinting at? No.
Then you quote what you refused to properly quote earlier: “ Thus, you are dependent on your sect leaders or scholars for scriptural translations.”
Then you wrote: “You are sure of that?”
Yes. Hence, Protestantism.
“You can read the poster’s mind because of your egregious stipulation???”
No, I simply use logic. Have you ever used logic? Ever?
Let’s go back to your original claim: “If one knows that it is the Holy Spirit that reveals to us the understanding of scripture, spending years learning languages and reading scriptures in a mess of different languages isn’t necessary.”
Alright then, show me, while relying on the Holy Spirit alone for guidance, that what we commonly call the Gospel of Matthew was:
1) written by Matthew.
2) is actually an inspired book.
Let me know when you have bona fide evidence for your claim from the Holy Spirit there, bud.
While you’re at it, consult the Holy Spirit and ask Him to reveal to you why - not how - but why Lutherans and Baptists can be in complete disagreement with each other over the correctness of infant baptism while both cite scripture for their side.
Syncro, you wrote:
“And I’m sure if He did, He also would have considered it important enough to put into the Holy Scriptures.”
Why? God never provided an inspired Table of Contents for the Holy Scriptures so how do you even know what books belong in the Bible?
Maybe you should have read the whole post and you would see that I split up the quote for ease in commenting on each part. LOL@ REFUSED!
I see you seem to take the Holy Spirit's job lightly.
So you will have to go to the Magisterium for your answers I guess. Bud.
Oops, I should have looked at the date. I think the thread must have been linked to a recent one, My bad.
What a non existant table of contents has to do with what we are discussing is beyond my comprehension.
The last question is not relevant to this discussion, I suggest you start a thread if you want to find that out.
Sorry to resurrect such an old thread, mea culpa.
You wrote:
“Maybe you should have read the whole post and you would see that I split up the quote for ease in commenting on each part. LOL@ REFUSED!”
Maybe you should have just properly quoted me. When you broke the quote in half you destroyed the context of the quote.
“I see you seem to take the Holy Spirit’s job lightly.”
No, you don’t see that at all - unless you have an incredibly active imagination. You know what I see? Someone who didn’t answer the direct questions I put to him - and that’s not my imagination.
“So you will have to go to the Magisterium for your answers I guess. Bud.”
Well, I get more answers from it than I do you. That means either you’re a failure in consulting the Holy Spirit - which automatically exposes the flaw in your original claim - or the Holy Spirit is a failure (which I bet neither one of us believes). Thus, your claim fails.
You wrote:
“What a non existant table of contents has to do with what we are discussing is beyond my comprehension.”
That’s not a surprise. Here, let me help you since this obvious point is apparently so beyond your comprehension:
If there is no inspired table of contents, then how do you know with any assurance what books belong in the Bible? This is important for the most obvious of reasons: If the Bible is to be your guide, you must know that your Bible has what it is supposed to have and that it doesn’t have what it is not supposed to have. If you’re going to claim that the Holy Spirit is your guide to Holy Scripture then when and where did He provide you with a complete and inspired Table of Contents? After all how can you use scripture as a guide if you don’t know what belongs in scripture and how can the Holy Spirit be your guide to scripture if He won’t even tell you what is and is not scripture?
“The last question is not relevant to this discussion, I suggest you start a thread if you want to find that out.”
The question is absolutely relevant. I bet you just can’t answer it - which I already knew would be the case.
“Sorry to resurrect such an old thread, mea culpa.”
No, no, it’s been very amusing watching you founder. Perhaps you should just put more thought into what you post before you post it.
No I am not going to answer your loaded questions, where you make demands of me.
Read into it anything you would like, np Bud.
"...your claim fails..." **Warning-Partial Quote!**
My Claim is that the Holy Spirit can lead us into all understanding.
You seem to have a problem with that, so I suggest reading John 16:13. Any translation or language will work just fine.
You wrote:
“I posted the part that was a clear stand alone statement that suggested you knew what the poster was thinking.”
No, I don’t think you did post a “clear stand alone statement that suggested” I “knew what the poster was thinking”. Let me explain English usage to you.
See the word (which is now) in CAPS below?:
“Again, we’re back to scripture. How good is your Hebrew? Aramaic? Koine Greek? I am willing to bet you’re far from the polyglot necessary to read the scriptures in the original languages. THUS, you are dependent on your sect leaders or scholars for scriptural translations. So aren’t you essentially in the same boat as all the groups you mentioned? Didn’t this thought ever occur to you before?”
See how it is right in the middle of my original quote and is the first word of the passage you DID NOT quote? See that? Do you know what “Thus” means or why it is used? Much like “hence” or “consequently” or “therefore”, “thus” tells you that the payoff is about to happen, that the point is about to be made. This is why many a Bible teacher over the years has told his students to always ask - whenever they come across “Therefore” to ask themselves “What’s it THERE FOR?”
Then you wrote:
“My Claim is that the Holy Spirit can lead us into all understanding.”
And yet He is not able to answer the questions I put to you? Is that what you’re claiming? Either He can’t answer them, or your claim just doesn’t work well the way you put it. Which is it?
“You seem to have a problem with that, so I suggest reading John 16:13. Any translation or language will work just fine.”
So, because you’re completely unable to answer the questions I asked you, and apparently you’re not getting any answers from the Holy Spirit, you’re going to cite a verse about what isn’t happening with you?
John 16:13 says, “Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.”
That really was a promise to the Apostles. Are you claiming to be an Apostle now?
Thus denoted a conclusion make, the mindreading that followed.
Don't trip over the semantics in your use of wordy explanations.
John 16:13 says, “Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.”Wow, and you are worried about "'sect' leaders or scholars" and what they teach Christians?That really was a promise to the Apostles.
Apparantly you didn't see where I told you I wasn't going to take your bait with the questions. LOL@ not able!
Please spare me the straw men.
I gotta go to the farmers market, gonna pick up some manure. SYL bud.
you wrote:
“Gosh you are wordy and purposely ignoring the tenants of reasoned debate, by pretending to not understand what I was saying.”
Pretending? Now who is mindreading? And since you are mindreading, and you claimed I was mindreading (when I wasn’t), that would be hypocrisy on your part. This isn’t going well for you.
“Thus denoted a conclusion make, the mindreading that followed.”
The only mindreading is yours.
“Don’t trip over the semantics in your use of wordy explanations.”
Semantics in my use of wordy explanations? That’s hilarious! I asked you several questions. How many answers - how many attempted answers - did I get? How many? None really. Yet you post plenty of nothing. More hypocrisy.
“Wow, and you are worried about “’sect’ leaders or scholars” and what they teach Christians?”
Is there no reason to worry about sects and scholars and what they teach? Are you sure you know what a sect is?
“Apparantly you didn’t see where I told you I wasn’t going to take your bait with the questions. LOL@ not able!”
You can’t answer the questions. That’s the truth. There’s no bait involved, but there sure is some foundering on the dock by what’s been caught.
“Please spare me the straw men.”
I presented none.
“I gotta go to the farmers market, gonna pick up some manure. SYL bud.”
Go and leave. I always knew you would leave without even attempting to answer the questions. You can’t answer them.
I did love Uncle Remus’ tarbaby though.
“Are you sure you know what a sect is?”
Catholicism? There I have answered one of your questions.
“I always knew you would leave without even attempting to answer the questions. You can’t answer them.”
You already know the answers.
It's been fun, but now I'm bored of the repetition.
: > )
PS--I discovered I didn't need any more manure, but went to the farmers market anyway. Had some ice cream made by some local people. It's the best there is.
You wrote:
“Hay bud, what part of I’m not going to play your game don’t you understand?”
This isn’t a game, but it is a major embarrassment for you to fail so badly in any case.
“I did love Uncle Remus’ tarbaby though.”
I did love your complete inability to answer the questions I put before you.
“Catholicism? There I have answered one of your questions.”
No, you have not. What you did was give me an example of what you believe to be a sect. I asked you, “Are you sure you know what a sect is?” Even when you think you’re being clever, you fail.
“You already know the answers.”
What is most important is that you are largely predictable.
“It’s been fun, but now I’m bored of the repetition.”
Yes, your continued failures are certainly a “repetition”.
“PS—I discovered I didn’t need any more manure, but went to the farmers market anyway. Had some ice cream made by some local people. It’s the best there is.”
And failure on your part will continue. It’s all you can do.
So?
Fail. It’s all you can do.
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.