Posted on 04/01/2008 4:23:02 PM PDT by NYer
First you spoke of me by name and did not give me the courtesy of a ping.
Secondly, “The conclusion you have reached has led you into asserting that Mary and Christ were the same substance. Read Opus’ description again. It’s outlandish to draw these conclusions.”
A conjecture is not a conclusion. Even you might understand that not even Scripture is against scientific inquiry.
“But it is the same procedure the RCC always follows when it takes a simple truth and explodes it into pagan fiction. Like when the RCC refers to Mary as the “Mother of God,” and then procedes to give her all the offices and qualities of God Himself.”
This is your opinion and your opinions are usually couched in ways to be patently offensive.
That says more about you than about your religion. I have enough respect for other people not to base my opinion on the example of one.
I’m firm in what I believe and what I know to be true.
I won’t tolerate the behavior of a poster who insinuates that what I say is teaching with the full power and authority of the Church.
I do not tolerate people who are so stupidly blind that they cannnot appreciate a discovery.
Give those high - 5’s people. Giggle at your coup.
I’ll be giving thanks to God that this discovery has been made.
“Did Jesus grow in His mother’s womb, and was He nourished by her in the ways we associate physiologically with pregnancy?”
“Just a normal girl, bearing a child in the normal way
Mary was blessed by God to carry the Christ child to term in a most extraordinary, earth-changing way.”
So apparently they view Christ as not following normal human gestation.
Probably.
The problem is that from this simple fact you extrapolate all sorts of anti-Scriptural, Trinity-infringing ideas concerning one of God's creatures, in effect turning Mary into a kind of god herself.
Maybe either of you can just answer this and skip the tangential observations of Catholicism.
It's not we who are taking Christ's birth and using it as a banner for Mary's divinity.
That “normal human gestation” was miraculous, and in no way bequeathed divinity on the mother.
Sorry. I forgot your name.
“That “normal human gestation” was miraculous, and in no way bequeathed divinity on the mother.”
When did I say it did? There isn’t one of my posts that said Mary was bequeathed divinity.
Those exact words are yours, not mine. If you extrapolate that is your problem.
But, do not use your own words and attribute them to me.
Nowhere did I say in any post whatsoever that, “Mary was bequeathed divinity.” Your words, not mine.
Your extrapolation is your own.
You wrote:
Mary is the Ark carrying the Lord in her womb. She is not only nourishing Him with her cells and blood, but he is also creating His cells in her.
He is man and God, the Hypostatic Union so those cells within her are the perfect Hypostatic Union of Him.
God couldn’t allow this Ark to be disposed of like anyone else
Please point us to what you believe to be the "conjecture" in those statements.
I’m not a theologian. It’s conjecture.
Please explain how someone can be a "co-redeemer" and not be divine, by definition.
Are we redeemed with silver and gold?
But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God." -- 1 Peter 1:18-21"Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;
The RCC wants it both ways. They want to venerate the creature to "co-redeemer" while insisting they're not really elevating the creature to the status of the Creator.
It doesn't wash.
"For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned." -- Matthew 12:37
They are functionally conceding they have no argument against what we do in fact say. They have to make up something that we did not say, claim (without evidence) that we said it, and THEN they can say we're wrong and pagan and blasphemous and idolatrous and so forth.
Which sugggests that the purpose is not to deal with "what is" but to express outrage at Catholics.
lol. No, "they" are not conceding the argument; "they" are refuting it.
See the above post. I guess I should have pinged you since you're in this discussion and you comment on my posts. I'll try to remember next time to include you.
All better.
Humans are, most of the time able to remain on a topic for, oh, say, more that 60 seconds.
“The conclusion you have reached has led you into asserting that Mary and Christ were the same substance”
In their humanity they are of the same substance, dust. The effects of the birth rendered her ceremonially unclean just like all of the other Jewish mothers and she was required to undergo the purification rites just like the others (luke 2:22-24) “And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord;(As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;) And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.”
For all the blessedness, Mary did not understand who Jesus was or really believe what His purpose was as can be seen in her reaction at His adolescent temple experience (Luke 2:49-50) “And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business?
50 And they understood not the saying which he spake unto them” and later when she and her sons thought Jesus was insane (Mark 3:21-35) “And when his friends heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself........ There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him. And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee. And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren? And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.”
However, God is spirit, (Jhn 4:24) “God [is] a Spirit:”. That’s why Jesus says (John 6:63) “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” When one trusts Christ for salvation one does not become “one flesh” but as Paul states (1 Cor. 6:17) “But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.”
A sentiment is no foundation for an eternal truth.
This is a pathology, Dawg. You are absolutely on point.
“Please explain how someone can be a “co-redeemer” and not be divine, by definition.”
Well, she’s not divine. Live with 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.