Posted on 12/23/2010 11:08:38 AM PST by marshmallow
“Jesus called a lot of people blessed. Not an angel.”
What, did he go and say:
Peter, you are blessed, Paul, you are blessed, Judas you are blessed?
Or did he actually say, ‘Blessed are the X.’
The Angel said, all generations will call YOU blessed. To Mary.
“It’s not that complicated. Really. We only complicate it when we try to find things there that are not - like when the early church insisted that earth is the center of the physical universe.”
Ugh, not this garbage. Yeah, we get it the Church was full of anti-science folks, and it wasn’t until the age of the Enlightenment where Luther opened the blind eyes of the backwards medevialists that the world could rise from the muck.
I trust you’ve actually *read* Copernicus. You do realise that he was an aristotelian? His argument boils down to this. That which is true is likely to be the simplest method. A Heliocentric universe explains all the phenomenons in the heavens, as well as getting rid of the epicycles. You tear away at that and you have a simple model, sun at the centre, earth orbitting the Sun, Moon around the earth, Venus and Mercury between the earth and sun, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn on the outside. In perfect concentric spheres.
Lets leave out and ignore the fact that the man was a priest!
I’ll take Christ’s blessing any day period.
And the angel certainly didn’t convey any sinlessness with that statement.
Blessed is blessed is blessed.
So, if Jesus said, “Blessed are the meek....” then the meek are blessed; if he said, “Blessed are those that mourn....” then the mourners are blessed.
And I mourn. I do sincerely mourn for you and those in the RCC.
Hoss
“did the common peasant speak Latin?”
In the early 5th Century?
You do know that the Vulgate was published before the fall of Rome?
When it was commissioned by the Pope, the rationale is that it was more common and widespread than the Greek.
As for the vernacular, do you know the date when Modern English emerged? Not until after Gutenburg. Same with French, Italian, and German. English didn’t become the pre-eminent language that it had until after Napoleon, which is a scant 200 years. Half of which anyone who was considered to be educated had an extensive working knowledge of Latin.
So it’s only a very new and very recent phenemenon that people are well versed in their own language, and not in Latin.
Nice try, but no.
Hoss
“So, if Jesus said, “Blessed are the meek....” then the meek are blessed; if he said, “Blessed are those that mourn....” then the mourners are blessed.”
So one is to read that and impute that they themselves are blessed? No, hardly. That is precisely the opposite point of the beatitudes.
The point is to show that what God wants and desires are different from those of mens desires.
This is different than when the angel says, ‘Blessed are you!” This is very significant. Another significant occurrance is when Christ says, “Blessed are you! Simon-bar Jonah, for this was revealed not by your own understanding but by your father in heaven.”
“Nice try, but no.”
Funny part is that you don’t even know where you are getting your ideas from, and yet you believe they are your own insights.
It’s funny how old ideas sink in and are seized wholesale by others.
So you refute the very words of Christ? I am blessed — I have salvation! I’m blessed daily: with life, health, the love of my family!
No wonder the RCC has such issues! You can’t read the plain and simple words that are before you, but you take the same words and try to twist them into something they’re not. Did the angel say, “Mary, generations shall call you sinless”? NO. Blessed does not equal sinlessness.
Once again, and as before: please show me in scripture where Mary is said to have been born without original sin; where she remains virginal...
Scripture? Please?
Hoss
So you refute the very words of Christ? I am blessed — I have salvation! I’m blessed daily: with life, health, the love of my family!
No wonder the RCC has such issues! You can’t read the plain and simple words that are before you, but you take the same words and try to twist them into something they’re not. Did the angel say, “Mary, generations shall call you sinless”? NO. Blessed does not equal sinlessness.
Once again, and as before: please show me in scripture where Mary is said to have been born without original sin; where she remains virginal...
Scripture? Please?
Hoss
So you refute the very words of Christ? I am blessed — I have salvation! I’m blessed daily: with life, health, the love of my family!
No wonder the RCC has such issues! You can’t read the plain and simple words that are before you, but you take the same words and try to twist them into something they’re not. Did the angel say, “Mary, generations shall call you sinless”? NO. Blessed does not equal sinlessness.
Once again, and as before: please show me in scripture where Mary is said to have been born without original sin; where she remains virginal...
Scripture? Please?
Hoss
and I apologize; I don’t know how I posted this three times.
Hoss
Sigh...
Why wasn’t the Bible allowed to be published in the vernacular?
Council of Toulouse 1229. Fobade the Bible to be had by the laity. Forbade its translation into a “vulgar tongue.”
Council of Terragonna 1234.
And, please... don’t use the old, tired explanation that they were faulty... or too expensive....
Really — why? I bet Quix could answer this with one word: CONTROL.
Hoss
Where does scripture say, “Mary sinned”.
Two words. Should be simple enough because you’ve insisted that Scripture backs you up. I honestly don’t see it.
The only argument you’ve got is from Paul who states that ‘All have sinned and fallen short of the law’. Which doesn’t answer the question. Was Paul asked, “did Mary sin?” No. He was answering an entirely different question. Does he mean to say, “All who are alive today have sinned and fallen short of the Law”, or “All who have ever existed in the history of mankind have sinned and fallen short of the Law”.
Does he digress into a discussion of Enoch, and Elijah? No, nothing of the sort. The very next statement confirms, he is saying that we all require salvation (true of Mary), and that salvation comes from Christ Jesus.
“Why wasn’t the Bible allowed to be published in the vernacular?”
It was never banned from publication in the Vernacular. The Old English Heptateuch is a version from the 10th century, and that’s just in English.
The problem is that anyone who was skilled enough to read Old English at the time was skilled enough to read Latin. So they used the Vulgate. Same with French, German, etc.
Demand for a vernacular translation didn’t really emerge until the early 14th century, after the plague.
Part of the problem is that we no longer understand what things were like in the medieval period. We hear ‘England, France, Germany, Spain’, and they mean something to us. Back then? Half of England was under the Danelaw. And this is in the period that we have fairly substantial documentation.
Our knowledge and understanding of even the rudiments of the kings and rulers, fragmentary as it is, goes back to the 9th century. Then we look at the figures who do stand out. Charlemagne? Adopted Latin, looked to the Pope for authority and helped him rule half of Europe. Why would he have any desire to establish the use of French as opposed to Latin?
The other thing you have to understand is that our oldest copy of the Vulgate in it’s entirety, that we currently possess dates to the 8th century. We don’t have any originals still from the time of Jerome.
So it’s unlikely that we would possess any vernacular bibles from that time. That doesn’t mean they weren’t made, simply that we don’t have them.
Why is this? Well, the entire period from 400 - 800, about the only Christian area that did not suffer sacks, is that of Constantinople. Everywhere else, Huns, Goths, Saxons. Then in the East the Muslims. Muslims seiged Rome.
Nice dodge — again.
And, as I have seen stated, YOU are then arguing from silence. If Mary’s sinlessness is so essential, and this somehow elevates her to “helping” Christ (which I believe is what you said to explain the confusion of “co-” as in co-mediatrix and co-redemptrix on a different thread), then I would HAVE to believe that such an essential issue would be covered. After all, the true, only essentials of salvation were explained and are easily understood. It doesn’t take a bunch of twisting of turning of scripture to see that.
But, regardless — Paul DID speak for Mary. He spoke for you and for me also. He was divinely inspired, no? “For ALL have sinned....” There is no exclusion for Mary. He didn’t need to be asked about Mary; there are “NO” distinctions.
Enoch and Elijah? We’re not talking about them. Why bring this up to try to obfuscate the point?
“Does he mean to say....”
What does “all” mean? For ALL have sinned. It sounds like EVERYONE to me. The only sinless person that has ever existed in this world is Jesus, the Christ. To say or imply anything different is a different gospel. Where in scripture are Mary’s putative offices described?
Hoss
It doesn't say anywhere that Jesus sent an angel to call Mary blessed...In fact, the angel never called Mary blessed anyway...He only said all generations will call her blessed...
And on top of that, when someone did call Mary blessed, JESUS claimed that we are more blessed than Mary was anyway...
There is no argument for your side...
So your argument about sola scripture falls flat...It's not that scripture says one thing and your religion adds to it...It is that scripture says one thing and your tradition says something different...Therefore, we must dump your tradition in favor of scripture...
“It doesn’t say anywhere that Jesus sent an angel to call Mary blessed. In fact, the angel never called Mary blessed anyway. He only said all generations will call her blessed.”
I’m not sure how you can parse that to mean she wasn’t blessed, but I’m not surprised.
“And on top of that, when someone did call Mary blessed, JESUS claimed that we are more blessed than Mary was anyway.”
More blessed? He doesn’t say that at all. He says that his family is all of his Children. He’s God after all. ;)
“It is that scripture says one thing and your tradition says something different.”
Does scripture explicitly say that Mary sinned? No. It only says this because your tradition interprets the passage to mean something other than what is written. That much is clear.
“Therefore, we must dump your tradition in favor of scripture.”
Considering as you already dumped scripture in favour of tradition, this isn’t surprising. You’ll dump the Vulgate for your tradition (vernacular). Then you’ll dump tradition in favour of the new Word (Mary, the saints, confession, communion).
Then you’ll dump the Word for the exultation of self (My interpretion is the most important thing).
Then you’ll adopt the spirit of the age, in homosexuality and abortion.
So that’s your level of interpretation, I see. I’m glad you posted it.
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.