Posted on 12/07/2011 8:24:20 AM PST by Salvation
and this site http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/04/wobbly-evolution-of-romes-doctrine-of.html.
Thanks for the discussion. Have a good night.
Good night Sister!-God Bless you and keep you! It is an honor to discuss with fellow Freepers! Remember its a Christian belief on both of us. God will always guide us.
I don't claim any special "right" but spoke about what I believe. I read in Scripture that we have ALL sinned and fall short of the perfection of God. That is why Christ came for us and only he was born, lived and died without sin. If he had even one sin he could not have paid the penalty for anyone else's sin. I do not believe that God made Mary sinless from her conception because that would contradict Scripture. There are no exceptions in that "all" but Christ and that is because he was fully God while fully man. The argument often used is that God cannot look upon sin so he had to have a perfect womb in which to be conceived. That is NOT said anywhere in Scripture, it is NOT logical because God became a man and was surrounded by fallible, sinful people his whole life here on earth. Don't you think there would at least be a few prophecies that addressed the issue? As it stands, the early Christians did not hold to that doctrine and the Catholic Church made no definitive statements about the varying thoughts until 1800 years after Mary had died.
I don't understand the ferocity that comes out of some people when this subject is discussed. Nobody is disrespecting Mary. It isn't disrespectful to see her as a very blessed and faithful woman who in spite of her own sinful nature was chosen by God to bring the Messiah into the world. Did you know that every Jewish woman hoped that her child would be the Messiah? I read that even Eve, when she gave birth to her first child, Cain, she said, "I have gotten a man from the LORD" (Gen. 4:1) The Hebrew words say she said "I have gotten a man EVEN Jehovah". She had already been told that God would provide a Savior and, of course, Isaiah hadn't been written yet, but she thought her son was the one to crush the head of the serpent, Satan.
Finally, like I said, to proclaim that Jesus "passed through the door of Mary's womb" like he did through the doors of the upper room after his resurrection, shows two errors. First, Jesus in his resurrection body was changed from his human, physical one. He was in his "glorified" body. But while he was still in the one that could tire, feel pain and die, he was as solid and human as you and I. There is no Scriptural warrant for saying Mary did not give birth the way all women do. Secondly, it DOES play into the Gnostic mindset to imply that Jesus was spirit only and that he did not inhabit real, human flesh, bones and blood.
God choose Mary, but not for the reasons your church says he did. Plus, think about this, if Mary was without sin from the moment of her natural conception and remained so until the announcement of the angel, then you must also admit that Mary did not have free will to accept the will of God. What would have happened if she said no? If she couldn't say no, then where is her sacrifice, her faith, her reasons for honor? She was just a robot? No, I don't think so either.
Your assumption is that Paul meant something more than the simply statement than that men are sinful and cannot be brought to perfection except by through God’s grace. The “contradiction” is only a contradiction of your interpretation of that verse.
I think you are running away from the singularity of the Virgin Birth. God could have chosen to come among men as he perhaps did to Abraham, as an angelic being. He could have been born, as John the Baptist was, to a mother and a father. That would have made him more like us. But Matthew and Luke tells us this was not the case. Mark says nothing about the matter, and John , like Paul, only tells us that he was born of a woman. John does tell us that he was divine, something that Luke tells us only by implication. Luke, however, tells us far more about Mary than any other Evangelist, and we are left with no doubt about her holiness and the most extraordinary nature of the conception of Jesus. Mary was the first Christian, and we believe with the poet, “our tainted natures’ solitary boast.” Calvin, whose harsh doctrine of the utter depravity of man, did not doubt that Mary remained Virgin throughout her life nor her sinlessness.
As to the argument that her immaculate conception derived her of free will, we argue that it made her that much more capable of a free choice. Eve was born without sin. How then could God justly punish her for sinning if she had no free will.
As to the distinction between Jesus before and after the Resurrection:
Whatever weakness he had was a matter of his choice. From time to time, he revealed himself, as when he calmed the story seas, and when he stood on the mount of the transfiguration when the glory of the Lord was shown.
ABSOLUTELY INDEED.
I was being ironic - obviously we are not screwed because as you said Mary is fully alive in heaven - that is the point I was making because another poster stated that Mary is dead.
The Immaculate Conception is the feast day when we celebrate that Mary was conceived without original sin. Her grace is different from ours because we all have original sin and Mary did not.
How do we know? Mary is the ark of the new covenenant - the “ark” where Jesus lived for ninth months.
not universally held by the early Church?
Ignatius, Justin Martyr and Irenaeus all EXPLICITLY SAY THE EUCHARIST IS THE BODY OF CHRIST, all late 1st century to mid 2nd century writers.
NO FATHER SAYS IT IS SYMBOLIC.
DID YOU READ #108?
iF it was “developed” over time, there would have been disagreements between respected orthodox theologians.
find the disagreement in history, IT DOESN’T EXIST!!
for example, suppose this Sunday a Baptist minister taught in a sermon that the Eucharist IS THE BODY OF CHRIST.
how quickly would it be until he was defrocked and fired?? i’d say 5 minutes.
find this type controversy in Church history before the 16th century, it doesn’t exist.
LOL, please everyone read Daniel’s post and see if he tells us where the following are contained in the Bible:
1. where baptism is ever called “water baptism”?
CORRECT ANSWER - NO WHERE
2. where baptism is ever referred to as a symbol?
CORRECT ANSWER - NO WHERE
3. where anyone was ever told to be baptized as a testimony to others?
CORRECT ANSWER - NO WHERE
4. where anyone was ever told to be baptized as a first act of obedience?
CORRECT ANSWER - NO WHERE
indeed, the Bible doesn’t “GO THERE”.
THAT’S WHY NO ONE BELIEVED THESE HERESIES BEFORE THE 16TH CENTURY. EVEN MOST REFORMERS REJECTED THESE DOCTRINES!
1 Cor 10:16 “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the Blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the Body of Christ?” St. Paul continued, 1 Cor 11:27 “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the Body and Blood of the Lord.” St. Paul in these words confirmed Catholic teaching that the “bread of the Lord” is truly Christ’s Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, and that the “cup of the Lord” is the same substance: “Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup will be guilty of profaning the Body and Blood of the Lord.”
1 Cor 11:29 “For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the Body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.”
If we receive the Holy Eucharist without acknowledging, at least in our hearts, that it is His true Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, we send ourselves to hell.
What do you call this from St. Paul, besides scriptural teaching of the real presence? And of course you are throwing away Christ’s teaching recorded in John 6.
It is false to continue to assert that the unbiblical teaching against the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist is unbiblical, when it has been shown many times to be clearly the teaching of both Christ and St. Paul.
But the FACT of the universal sin nature of ALL mankind is not just stated in the book of Romans. My "interpretation" is not at issue since Scripture clearly states repeatedly that no human is without sin. Both the Old and New Testaments speak to this. In fact at the very start when Adam and Eve were cast out of the garden, God spoke about the inherited sin nature. To state that Mary was born without a sin nature AND that she never sinned until the day she died is NOT verified anywhere in Scripture. It was a doctrine that developed over many centuries but was NOT held by the Apostles. Not even John, who took care of her, ever mentioned what would HAVE to have been an extraordinary and miraculous thing.
I think you are running away from the singularity of the Virgin Birth. God could have chosen to come among men as he perhaps did to Abraham, as an angelic being. He could have been born, as John the Baptist was, to a mother and a father. That would have made him more like us. But Matthew and Luke tells us this was not the case. Mark says nothing about the matter, and John , like Paul, only tells us that he was born of a woman. John does tell us that he was divine, something that Luke tells us only by implication. Luke, however, tells us far more about Mary than any other Evangelist, and we are left with no doubt about her holiness and the most extraordinary nature of the conception of Jesus.
I am not "running away" from anything at all. I have no doubts about the very fitting and proper fulfillment of Messianic prophecy. That God would become man, by a miracle of a virgin, is a major prophecy that set apart the true Messiah from all other pretended ones - and, yes, there were false Messiahs then and still. His place of birth, means of conception, his lineage, his town of origin, his trip to Egypt as a baby and many more events were fulfilled exactly in Jesus Christ. But there was not ONE mention of his mother's sinlessness nor her continued virginity after Christ's birth, not in the Old Testament nor anywhere in the New Testament, nor why it would have been necessary. In fact, the New Testament speaks of the brothers and sisters of Jesus multiple times, so why is that ignored?
As to the argument that her immaculate conception derived her of free will, we argue that it made her that much more capable of a free choice. Eve was born without sin. How then could God justly punish her for sinning if she had no free will.
I wasn't the one who said she was deprived of a free will in order to have been the mother of the Messiah. My point was that IF she really was free from sin from her own birth, then that would mean she was NOT given a choice in her bearing the Lord. God could certainly chosen another Jewish virgin, I'm pretty sure Mary was not the only one around those times. My contention is that she did not NEED to be sinless in order to be the mother of Jesus, only that she was a virgin - so that the paternity of Jesus would not be doubted - and that she was from the lineage of David and living in the "right" area of the world. But, as I have said many times, if you want to believe this go ahead. I don't and for salient reasons. I think the Roman Catholic Church erred in making this a part of the faith that MUST be held by all who will be saved.
As to the distinction between Jesus before and after the Resurrection: Whatever weakness he had was a matter of his choice. From time to time, he revealed himself, as when he calmed the story seas, and when he stood on the mount of the transfiguration when the glory of the Lord was shown.
My point for mentioning that was simply to dispute that when he was born, he did not "wisp" through Mary's body like a "spirit" but that he was born fully human with a real flesh and blood and bones body. It was the Gnostics that would declare Jesus was not in a physical body. They would have gladly accepted his birth being so miraculous that Mary remained a virgin after the birth. If we're talking about physical virginity, then she could not possibly have continued to be after giving birth. That is not humanly possible. But it does not make sense to insist she did especially since such was not part of any prophecy. I'm not telling you or anyone else to stop believing what you want, just that if we are discussing the subject, I have a different viewpoint and I give my reasons. At no time am I disrespecting Mary or ascribing disrepute to her. She was truly amazing in her depth of faith that at such a young age she could trust that God would provide for her and protect her. Back then, if you aren't aware, women who were betrothed - for a whole year - could not show up pregnant before the marriage is consummated. To do so would prove adultery and the woman could be stoned to death. If you remember, Joseph, when he found out she was with child, sought to "put her away privately" - meaning spare her life by getting her out of town - but the angel appeared to him in a dream to tell him what was going on and to NOT fear to take Mary as his wife. It took a lot of courage and faith for both of them to continue to honor God and proceed with the birth. Here was Joseph, an innocent man, faced with what looked like a woman who was sexually impure that he was engaged to. What would YOU have done? But he was also a man of faith and he trusted that God would provide and protect them both. They are BOTH wonderful examples of faith for us all. They are BOTH to be honored. And I DO.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2811552/posts?page=2866#2866
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2811552/posts?page=2935#2935
We are still waiting for you to admit that were wrong in contending that forgiveness and regeneration did not precede baptism when it clearly did [(Acts 10:43-47), and thus this a first formal act of obedience was “an outward display of something that has happened inwardly already,” that being the baptism with the Holy Spirit (Acts 11:16; 1Cor. 12:13; cf. Heb. 6:2) which was testimony to others of their acceptance with God] and further exampling your blindness is only another testimony against Romanism and your desperate sophistry.
And once again, until you can at least admit your blindness than you yourself are not worthy of further attempts to dialog. Maybe another RC would like to argue that Acts 10 is not showing regeneration occurring before baptism, and actually argue against what i hold, as stated.
1. If the substances of bread and wine do not physically change into physical human flesh and blood, then IT IS SPIRITUAL. If it is spiritual, then you cannot INSIST that the elements ARE the flesh and blood of Jesus. As Tertullian said: "Taking bread and distributing it to his disciples he made it his own body by saying, "This is my body," that is a "figure of my body." On the other hand, there would not have been a figure unless there was a true body." (Tertullian, Against Marcion IV. 40)
2. When Jesus said whoever "ate his flesh and drank his blood" would have eternal life/never die, then either he meant eating his actual, physical flesh and blood or he was speaking of spiritually receiving him by faith. Augustine said: "To believe on Him is to eat the living bread. He that believes eats; he is sated invisibly, because invisibly is he born again." (Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. VII, St Augustin, Homilies on the Gospel of John, Tractate XXVI.I (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), p. 168.) So, I would ask you again, if you REALLY believe that one must receive the Eucharist as the flesh and blood of Christ in order to be saved, then why is that not enough? Why is this not a "one-time deal"? Why must it be repeated if eating his flesh and drinking his blood GIVES us eternal life? Doesn't "eternal" mean forever?
I'm expressing these points not to get in another purposeless back and forth dialog that has already been repeated ad nauseum, but to perhaps make people think about what specifically they believe and why. I certainly believe we should know WHY we believe what we believe, and saying "because that's what we believe" doesn't cut it with me. I'm surprised that it would be for anyone else.
Wrong. Back then, a pregnant woman betrothed to a man was presumed to be carrying that man's child. Joseph knew Christ was not his child, and did not know He was the Son of God until the angel told him in a dream. That's why he considered putting her away privately. Tradition, which you laugh at, says that Joseph was very old, and not expected to be a father by anyone.
Why?
What is your source for this? The betrothal period of one year was PRECISELY for the reason of ensuring a woman was not carrying another man's child. It WAS custom. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betrothal#Betrothal:
In Jewish weddings during Talmudic times (c.1st century BCE - 6th century CE), the two ceremonies of betrothal (erusin) and wedding usually took place up to a year apart; the bride lived with her parents until the actual marriage ceremony (nissuin), which would take place in a room or tent that the groom had set up for her. Since the Middle Ages the two ceremonies have taken place as a combined ceremony performed in public. The betrothal is now generally part of the Jewish wedding ceremony, accomplished when the groom gives the bride the ring or another object of at least nominal value.[5] As mentioned above, betrothal in Judaism is separate from engagement; breaking a betrothal requires a formal divorce, and violation of betrothal is considered adultery."
"After the marriage covenant had been established, the groom would leave the home of the bride and return to his father's house. There he would remain separate from his bride for a period of twelve months.7 This period of separation afforded the bride time to gather her trousseau and to prepare for married life.8 The groom occupied himself with the preparation of living accommodations in his father's house to which he could bring his bride." http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/jewish_marriage_customs.htm
Joseph, of course, knew the child was not his, but it took the angel in his dream to convince him why he should proceed with the marriage. As far as Joseph being an "old" man - that is NOT based upon anything but legend, myth, conjecture. He was obviously spry and strong enough to travel with a very pregnant Mary on a donkey the entire distance to Bethlehem, wasn't he?
I don't know why you accuse me of "laughing" at tradition. I certainly don't. As to Joseph being too old to father children, that is NOT a tradition in the true sense of the word. Besides, wasn't Abraham a hundred years old when Sarah conceived Isaac? And wasn't Jesus referred to many times as the "son of the carpenter"? Obviously, other people back then didn't think Joseph couldn't be his father. Poor arguments, JA.
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.