Posted on 02/15/2010 9:07:17 AM PST by GonzoII
The problem with your interpretation is several fold.
One, he does not specifically refer to Mary here. Nowhere does Paul say that he is speaking on the issue of Mary.
Two, he is referring to is the congregation of the Jews and Gentiles. In saying that neither Jew nor Gentile, he is giving the general case that all have fallen.
Three, it’s possible that by this time, around 55 or so AD that Mary was no longer there. Therefore the statement that all have fallen short of the law, can be taken to refer to the present.
“It isn’t bearing the Lord Jesus that made Mary blessed.”
True, it is the fact that Christ chose her to be his mother that made her blessed. That’s exactly what it says in Luke.
Here’s what Luke has to say:
“For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.”
It was Christ in choosing her that made her blessed. ‘Regarded the low estate of his handmaiden’.
“This is a fairy tale.”
Is the resurrection a fairy tale?
“There is no scriptural evidence for any of this.”
Neither is there for the Trinity. I find no mention of the Trinity in scripture.
“If God could redeemed Mary from her sin and preserve her from sin from all time, why on earth couldn’t He do that for everyone? God shows no partiality.”
Ahh, and now we get to the crux of the matter.
Matthew 5:45
“He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.”
This is your beef with God and with Mary. How can God bless one person over another? He is partial. He favours the lowly, the weak, the accursed, the sinners over the high and the mighty and the rich.
Who are you to say that God cannot choose his mother? That he could not have blessed Mary and Mary alone? That is his prerogative, not your own.
Whosoever shall not confess that the flesh of the Lord gives life and that it pertains to the Word of God the Father as his very own, but shall pretend that it belongs to another person who is united to him [i.e., the Word] only according to honour, and who has served as a dwelling for the divinity; and shall not rather confess, as we say, that that flesh gives life because it is that of the Word who gives life to all: let him be anathema.
Nestorius: "If any one maintains that the flesh which is united with God the Word is by the power of its own nature life-giving, whereas the Lord himself says, “It is the Spirit that quickens; the flesh profits nothing” John 6:61, let him be anathema. [He adds, “God is a Spirit” John 4:24. If, then, any one maintains that God the Logos has in a carnal manner, in his substance, become flesh, and persists in this with reference to the Lord Christ; who himself after his resurrection said to his disciples, “Handle me and see; for a spirit has not flesh and bones, as you behold me having” Luke 24:39; let him be anathema.]"
Nor does Paul mention HarleyD but I can assure you I'm included.
Two, he is referring to is the congregation of the Jews and Gentiles
Wasn't Mary a Jew? Is there anyone left?
Three, it’s possible that by this time, around 55 or so AD that Mary was no longer there.
Paul is talking in the past tense. If anything you may have been able to make this argument had Mary been born in the future.
True, it is the fact that Christ chose her to be his mother that made her blessed.
Yes, and there were many people chosen of God that were blessed. Was Mary more blessed than Abraham?
Is the resurrection a fairy tale?
The resurrection is clearly document in scripture. The perfection of Mary is not. I find no where in scriptures where the apostles even paid her much attention.
Neither is there for the Trinity.
In all due respect, this is a pretty lame argument. The Trinity is documented in bits and pieces throughout the scripture. There is no mention of Mary after Acts. In fact, in Acts 1:14 we find Mary was joining in the prayer session. Now if Mary was to be prayed to, why wouldn't the prayer session be praying to her?
Ahh, and now we get to the crux of the matter....This is your beef with God and with Mary. How can God bless one person over another? He is partial.
Sorry, I have no beef with God. God will do as He well pleases. All I'm doing is pointing out the inconsistency of the arguments. If God kept Mary perfect and sinless, then He could do the same for everyone. Contrary to your belief, God shows NO partiality:
“Nor does Paul mention HarleyD but I can assure you I’m included.”
Well I don’t think HarleyD was around back then. I could see your point, but the problem is that it was never interpreted as referring to Mary by any of the Fathers of the Church. This argument is a very late and new one.
You would think that if the Fathers knew that this passage referred to Mary, that we would see something to that effect, but we don’t, not until the 16th century.
On the contrary, we have plenty of evidence from the Church fathers that they regarded Mary as sinless. So it seems to me that they understood her to be an exception to that passage.
“Paul is talking in the past tense. If anything you may have been able to make this argument had Mary been born in the future.”
What then about Enoch who walked with God? Etc. I really don’t see Paul thinking about this at the time. He’s hammering the point that everyone who is alive today, is in a fallen state and needs to get their heart right, or else they will perish.
“Yes, and there were many people chosen of God that were blessed. Was Mary more blessed than Abraham?”
Good question. They received different blessings. One, that Abraham’s descendants would be as numerous as the sand by the shore, and that they would have a covenant with God that was immutable.
Mary on the other hand received a blessing where sin was removed from her altogether. Personally, I think Mary received the better blessing for herself, but that the more significant one is the blessing given to Abraham.
“The resurrection is clearly document in scripture. The perfection of Mary is not. I find no where in scriptures where the apostles even paid her much attention.”
The Apostles took her into their house and cared for her after Christ was crucified. It’s clear to me that they had a great deal of love and respect for her.
“In all due respect, this is a pretty lame argument. The Trinity is documented in bits and pieces throughout the scripture.”
And so is the sinlessness of Mary. This is my point. Your argument that her blessing could not have happened is the sole argument that God could not have chosen her because that’s somehow, ‘unfair’. That’s all you’ve got.
“In fact, in Acts 1:14 we find Mary was joining in the prayer session. Now if Mary was to be prayed to, why wouldn’t the prayer session be praying to her?”
That’s just the answer. Mary isn’t to be prayed to. She is one of the Saints, along with Abraham, etc.
I’m telling you, go read the Catechism. It’s right there. Mary is blessed among women, and was sinless, but she is not God. We do not pray to her. I don’t know how I can make this anymore clear to you.
You are not arguing with me, or with the Catholic church, you are arguing with yourself.
“Sorry, I have no beef with God. God will do as He well pleases. All I’m doing is pointing out the inconsistency of the arguments.”
Then there is no inconsistancy. If God is truly sovereign, then he can bless those whom he choses to bless for His purposes and not ours.
“If God kept Mary perfect and sinless, then He could do the same for everyone.”
Indeed he could. But he chose her. There is no inconsistancy. God can bless any one of us in the same fashion, but he has chosen not to do so. As for Peter, God does not give the same blessings to everyone. :) What Peter means is that God is no respecter of persons. Our titles our fame our nobility is nothing to him.
You can be saved from sin in two ways:
1) By falling into manhole (sin) like all of us and then be saved by being pulled out of the manhole and have yourself cleansed (baptism) - The Lord's work.
2)Or you can be walking along headed right for the manhole (sin) and as you are about to take that final step and descend into it the Lord picks you up and carries you to the other side of it thus saving you. - Also the Lord's work of salvation.
I rest assured that Tim Sataples is not teaching heresy.
The Lord recieved his flesh from the Blessed Virgin Mary I don't see the problem of her also being called an ark.
"but shall pretend that it belongs to another person who is united to him [i.e., the Word] only according to honour, and who has served as a dwelling for the divinity;"
They are condemning the idea that the Lord's flesh was not his own but merely a dwelling place of the Word.
Ah. And in your previous post, #24, you decided that because Jesus called his disciples brothers and mothers, He somehow dismissed His mother as "interrupting" and not declared her our mother.
But His mother did follow as did John, to the Cross and then Jesus called her John's mother. So how is she not the mother of those who follow Him now?
My church sure did—extremely so. The church was even named after Mary. Our focus and worship was on Mary the Co-redemptrix. I found this to be common among the Roman Catholics where I grew up. My husband is Catholic and grew up in another state. He was really shocked by the practices of my home area. Then later in life I lived in New Orleans for 20 years. There I found lots of other Mary worshippers who seemed even more extreme than my home state. I used to see this bumper sticker that said “If you can’t find Jesus, look for his Mother.” Based on my experience, I believe the extremes of Mary worship are regional.
“But His mother did follow as did John, to the Cross and then Jesus called her John’s mother. So how is she not the mother of those who follow Him now?”
Because we are not called to be financially responsible for her wellbeing?
Were they infallible? They disagreed as much as they agreed.. how do you know they were right on this practice?
Don't go Da Vinci Code on us. The Church was founded by Christ through the Apostles.
The church of Jesus Christ was found by Jesus Christ through the apostles..
The foundations that the Catholic church stands on is sand as there is no biblical support for apostolic succession and most of their traditions .
A yes or a no would have the best answer.
Neither could St. John be financially responsible. He was a teenager at the time, following Jesus around, not likely to have a house (John 19:27).
No Scriptural support for apostolic succession? Read Acts 1: 12-26.
And? There are churches named after plenty of different saints. Those parishes choose a particular patron for many different reasons. The diocese may even choose the name.
Our focus and worship was on Mary the Co-redemptrix. I found this to be common among the Roman Catholics where I grew up.
I'm calling you out on this. "Worship" is the Mass or Eucharistic adoration. Its center is the Triune God. Parishes may chose devotions in honor of various saints, especially the Blessed Virgin Mary, but they aren't "worship."
She didn't give birth to them physically, or spiritually.
FWIW, I've encountered a lot of it at job sites in Chicago. It is almost exclusively Hispanic immigrants that are caught up in it.
How do you know it's worship and not over emotional piety.
That is pure speculation ,it was never stated by Christ or the writers of scripture) that she is our mother.
God did not tell them to select another or that they had the authority to do so , this like much of the teachings of the Roman church, was the will of man so they could hang onto a non existent tradition
Jesus never indicated or taught there was to be an ongoing apostolate ... or that it was His will that there be one
Q. Do you keep the Commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.?
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.