Posted on 12/31/2015 4:29:48 PM PST by NYer
Spare me the posturing, please; that this be as if I came to yourself asking for you to instruct me.
There is nothing wrong in and of itself with writing out multiple paragraphs either...or else all the mitre-hatted Lucys of the Church of Rome, including additional persons such as the author of the article at the heading of this thread, AND the OP of this thread, have some 'splainin' to do ----like why it's A-OK for any of them to be long-winded, and even to "rant" upon occasion, yet when anyone else near-approaches doing so (or does so in reply) all of a sudden it's a bad thing to do. Phfft. [spit].
There, there's a little bit of rant for you. You asked for it, you got it Toyota. Happy now?
The previous gamesmanship you had just engaged in -- turning towards accusing me of embracing heresy ---utterly failed. I suppose I could otherwise thank you for (by default) acknowledging that in the central portions of remainder of your here latest reply...
Yes, as I asserted.
Yes again -- as I both suggested (if there was any actual real question) and had also more and less asserted.
We can both see there that there was a time (from our own, human, thus limited in time & space perspective) when God did not have what could be referred to as human nature.
Adam was created in the image of God, not God 'made' by man in man's own image...
We do not 'divide Christ' when recognition is made of Christ's own existence prior to the time that He came to earthly realm in form of a man, born of the virgin, Mary. Of that, apparently we have sufficient amount of agreement.
This also, you will (I assume) not have much disagreement toward;
Christ's existence prior to physical birth in the form of a man was what he (Jesus, as a man) was referring to when He (Jesus, while in form of a man) said;
in that way also telling the listeners that He was whom Moses encountered at the burning bush.
In response, they picked up rocks to stone Him. (John 8:57-59)
It is troublesome to many minds even unto this day how it is that God, the Eternal and immutable Creator, can become (if but for a time and season?) a man -- an actual physical human being.
This is just about where many Jewish, and even more Muslims stumble when hearing of/thinking of Jesus.
How can God (they ask themselves) who is Himself The Creator (accept no substitutes!) become what is generally understood (thanks to the Jews) to be a created being?
Going by what is frequently raised in objection to the concept that the one known of in English language as Jesus Christ was; truly the Only Begotten Son of God and thus fully God -- while also -- in that human form was fully human at the same time, is of course is precisely where proper teaching of who Mary was, and how it was that she was conceived (made pregnant) that Emmanuel, God with us is of great importance, for it was in being born in form of a man that He entered into sharing with us our own form of existence, including contemplation towards ourselves being 'created' beings.
That makes Mary to be mother of Christ's earthly & human Incarnation -- still just a wee tad short (and 'different' from) Mary being unreservedly Entitled "Mother of God", the various reasons for that having already been touched upon, if not discussed in some detail.
You hate "Mary"!
And yet neither of you has documented your contention that Catholicism was started sometime after 33 Ad and as late as the 4th century, using legitimate secular sources.
What the book; that Rome assembled; says.
1/3 of the Godhead took on flesh.
The Father is Spirit; and the Holy Spirit is... well... And Emmanuel is...
Can you document that Catholicism existed before 200 AD; using CATHOLIC sources?
Why the blanket exclusion for any other possibility?
She responded that she did not "know a man". She did not say that she had taken a vow to never marry (and thus never "know" a man).
It is obvious enough (in Gospel of Luke, chapter 1) that the Angel was speaking of Mary becoming pregnant.
I noticed in your comment, under listing of the so-called "replies to common objections" (which have aspect of specialized 'special pleading to them, that is far from immune from challenge as for what is plead/asserted -- though I'll leave off from addressing those issues one-by-one for the time being) there was complete and total lack of mention of what is stated in Luke 1, as cited below.
26 Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, 27 to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin's name was Mary.
It does appear there that Luke is describing the moment of the Angel's visitation to Mary (otherwise known as the Annunciation) as certainly not inclusive of anything approaching Mary having previously made some sort of vow to perpetual virginity, but in fact something of the opposite, in that the passage denotes a sense that she was at that time betrothed to Joseph.
What else but a special pleading that it was always intended to be a marriage of convenience -- something of a sham marriage --- will be the 'specialized' explanation? If those kind of pleadings and explanatory truly were the fact of the matter, then the writer of the Gospel of Luke not only skipped entirely over that point, but instead supplied potentially misleading information (while at the same time withholding the [alleged] truth).
How about --- Mary sensed at time of the Angel's visit that what she was being told would come to pass quite soon, perhaps all but immediately -- *right there* on the spot?
That is a possibility that by the rhetoric employed italicized at the topmost portion of this reply too entirely (thus arbitrarily?) excluded.
Luke 1:26-27 is only one among many evidences (including opinions and assertions of some number of early church authors, I can cite some of those for you, if you'd like) which crater illusions of sense of perpetuity needfully be applied to the condition of Mary's virginity. That she be a virgin prior to conception of Jesus, and also up to the very birth of her own firstborn (Jesus) is sufficient.
Acceptance of the distinct possibility (I would say, irrefutable understanding) of herself and Joseph, in times after the birth of Christ having additional children together; takes nothing away from Christ's own divinity; if anything adds to sense of Christ's own humanity; and takes nothing from Mary as she said that she would be called; "...all generations will call me blessed...".
Again, who raised God from the dead??? If you are going to make claims you need to be able to answer the questions that they engender...Or look awful foolish...
This whole thread has been an amazing series of different ways for Protestants who claim to be Christian to pretend their saying, "Jesus Christ is God, but . . .", is a Christian point of view.
That people who choose when Christ is or isn't God based on their personal animosity toward the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church Christ Himself founded revise history without a single fact to back up their assertion isn't really much of a surprise, is it ?
Mary is the Mother of Jesus.
Jesus is God, the Second Person of the Trinity.
Therefore, Mary is the Mother of God, the Second Person of the Trinity.
So you are suggesting that Jesus who was a spirit from time immemorial permanently became attached to the flesh/body that was conceived in Mary and will stay that way forever???
I will show you from legitimate sources, they may not fall within your ridiculous rules. Here are a few more historical facts:
The Roman Emperor Constantine established himself as the head of the church around 313 A.D., which made this new "Christianity" the official religion of the Roman Empire. The first actual Pope in Rome was probably Leo I (440-461 A.D.), although some claim that Gregory I was the first (590-604 A.D.). This ungodly system eventually ushered in the darkest period of history known to man, properly known as the "Dark Ages" (500-1500 A.D.). Through popes, bishops, and priests, Satan ruled Europe, and Biblical Christianity became illegal.Throughout all of this, however, there remained individual groups of true Christians, such as the Waldensens and the Anabaptists who would not conform to the Roman system.
.
The word of God documents it.
The catechism is a rejection of all that the apostles taught, replacing the way of Yeshua with the commandments of men, just like the Pharisees.
Talmud and catechism have similar roots. Neither came from God.
What a stupid question and I NEVER asked it.
I know perfectly well why un- and extra-Biblical phrases and titles are used.
.
>> “But God DID die on the cross!” <<
.
Oh!
Then Satan had a soft moment and raised God from the dead?
If not, then who did raise him?
That's some pretty convoluted logic...If you don't sin, you don't need a Savior...
Mat 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
Well and succintly stated. Of course there will continue to be those contrarians who will reject it out of contrariness. ;o)
They wrote it, they know what it says.
The official Catholic Douay-Rheims Version of the Bible translated by Catholic scholars, uses the word *Nazarene.*
So, no, “they” don’t know what it says because they wrote it. THEY who wrote it have been dead for about 2,000 years.
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.