Posted on 01/02/2010 3:32:55 PM PST by NYer
I think that the doctrine is that all scripture is profitable for teaching faith and morals. That does not mean that every teaching you can come up with from scripture is valid.
The classic case is the “Primitive Hardshell Baptist” lay minister who allegedly did a study on the italicized words in the King James version, and had several (to him) key theological truths that he derived from them. Of course the italicized words were the additions thought by the translators to be needed for their standards of grammatical corrections, and are completely missing from the Hebrew/Greek/Latin/French bibles that were used as source by the King James committee.
His theological burblings may be valid, but may not be, but his attempt to use scripture to back them is certainly without merit.
“You are right: in fact it does contradict scripture in
many ways.”
Whoa, please stop right here. Don’t put words into my mouth.
My argument is very clear. The process by which the Church defined the trinity is no different than what happened with the immaculate conception.
Yes, it’s true that there is no explicit reference to her immaculate conception just as there is no explicit reference to the trinity. The trinity as we understand it today, comes from the Athanasian Creed, developed after the Council of Constantinople, explicitly called to settle the issues brought up by Arianism, and Nestorianism and Monophysitism, and Monotheletism.
All of these are deviations from Trinitarian Christianity, in the sense that they deny one part of the question. Where does Scripture say anything about homooisus, or ‘one in being with the father?’ These are all creedal formulas developed by the Church in response to these heresies about Christ’s nature and the relationship between God the Father and God the Son.
This is no difference then what occured WRT to the immaculate conception. The understanding of Mary has not changed, I can find support from Church fathers predating the scripture as we know it today where they say the exact same thing I am here, Mary is the second eve, kept free from Sin.
I have been alluding to passages where this is the case, like the Trinity, where the status of Mary is hinted at and revealed in bits and pieces.
“Although the word “ Trinity” does not exist the
concept is made manifest in many places ( Matthew 28:9
identifies the three persons, and Luke 3:21-22 highlights
the existence of the triune God.”
And what of Genesis 3:15
“And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and hers;
he will crush your head,
and you will strike his heel.”
And 1 Corinthians 15:45-9
“So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven.”
This applies to Mary also. For if Christ is to be the New Adam, he must be purified of the stain of sin, such that his human nature is wholly human wholly man, and yet purified of what we call cuncuspisence, or the desire and temptation to sin.
If we say as you do, that Mary’s immaculate conception is irrelevant, then how do we explain that Christ’s human nature lacked the desire to sin?
The Church fathers answered this question, the way that I am answering it now. The reason he inherited his human nature is because his mother was purified at her conception by Christ himself. Thus, when Christ was born he could inherit his human nature from her pure from sin.
It’s not ‘marian’ theology, it’s got everything to do with the Incarnation.
It is John, and thanks for the correction. I remember the quote but not the disciple!
You mistakenly addressed your post to me. That is not my quote.
You watch too much StarTrek!
I forgot Jesus saying that he could could lay down his life and take it up again and the Mt. where he met up with Moses and Elijah.
Though I am not a Christian, I am constantly and pleasantly impressed with the manners of Christians!
I want to know how his disciples knew who was Elijah, and who was Moses, when they asked if they should build booths for them.
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.