Posted on 05/12/2008 8:08:07 PM PDT by annalex
Those verses you quote don’t contradict what I’m proposing at all, really. For example, Joh 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
In spirit, and in truth. “Reason”, is the search for truth.
Similarly for the passage from Romans. Here St. Paul describes how he does things he knows to be wrong. He *knows*, to be wrong. How does he *know* these things are wrong? Certainly from the gift of faith, however, this gift from God must be a fact to him, or else it would be a fantasy, not able to convince him that what he does on occasion really *is* wrong. This fact is probably, at least one aspect, his encounter with Christ on the road to Damascus. However, this only points to the need for a fact (or facts) to base our faith upon, for all of us. That is, unless one believes St. Paul is somehow different than us, somehow, not human.
Facts can be derived from either direct experience or indirect experience (that is, through the witness of another). However, to truly separate fact from fiction using the latter method, “reason” is required. One cannot separate fact from fiction, based on the witness of others, if one does not apply reason.
So, what we have is a need for a fact (from the passage in Romans), but the only way to obtain such fact today (normally speaking) is through indirect knowledge. (unless one actually does encounter Christ physically, in some kind of miracle, like happened to Saul).
This is how I respond to your reply. Basically however, what you’re saying in your post to me is also, that when God created humans, He made a mistake. Or, the only other thing you can say is, that our ability to reason is a result of the curse of the Fall. That is, our ability to reason is a curse.
Pretty contradictory to Scripture, both thoughts really, since Scripture exhorts us to always be ready with a reason for our faith, and also, to strive for maturity in it. How can we strive to be mature in our faith, if we reject reason? We are to expect that God is just going to somehow “zap us” into maturity, with no cooperation and/or action on our part?
Ok! I’m still waiting for that magical zap from Heaven. Of course, what I’m waiting for is something that’s going to change me from a human being (something capable of independent reason) into a robot.
LOL. And you are concerned about someone else's rationality? Who do you think mother of Christ is?
Luke 1:28 says absolutely nothing about any assumption or immaculate conception.
Fullness of grace in the past tense (kecharitomeneh) means Mary had been full of grace prior to the Annunciation. One can speculate whether she was filled with grace at some other than her conception point, but then THAT would be a counterscriptural speculation.
You’re welcome. I strongly recommend everyone (Catholic, non-Catholic Christian, non Christian) attend at least one School of Community, if there is one in one’s area. I believe the charism Fr. Guissani had is something that addresses a need and issue that faces the Church today, which is, a “rediscovery”, if you will, of the broader application of “reason” to the issue of faith. After all, it really is a relatively modern invention that only the scientific could ever be described as “reasonable”.
I am showing you the relevant scripture and explain what it means. If you want to interpret it differently, start your own church, if you haven’t already.
You really must read Rev 12 again.
A simple question is this: Who gets caught up to the throne and who goes into the wilderness?
Right -- "call her blessed" not call her "Our Lady", "Our Lady of Perpetual Help", "Queen of Heaven" and all that other stuff.
His mother saith to the waiters: Whatsoever he shall say to you, do ye.
Excellent advice. Do what he says not what she says --
Woman, behold thy son ... Behold thy mother (John 19)
And who did she go home with??? Just John or the entire Christian Church of that day???
the dragon was angry against the woman: and went to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. (Apoc. 12:17)
Hmmmm??? Have the testimony of Jesus Christ not the testimony of all those Marian visions and Immaculate deceptions.
I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she [some translations say, her seed] shall crush thy head (Gen 3:15)
"15And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; he shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
"16Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
Sola Scriptura shall rule over Mariology despite its desire to the contrary.
You can specualte as day is long, the fact remains, the woman is identified as the physiological mother of Christ.
Christ ascends to heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. Mary goes to fight Satan with her children (the Church) while out of his reach herself, equipped with wings, till Satan is "cast unto the Earth". The river of slander (your handiwork) does not reach her. So where is she?
The Bbile does not say that she went into anyone's home, especially St. John's who was a teenager at the time and had an older brother. The Bible says, St. John took her "eis ta idia", that is with the rest of the disciples.
Hmmmm??? ... Immaculate deceptions
If you want an adult conversation, I am happy to have it; if you'd rather do childish clowning, prepare to be ignored.
I sure thank God for that! Actually, God sent His Son to die and be resurrected, which proves that the Gates of Hades will not prevail against His "called out ones." This is our "blessed hope," right?
But I'm curious...what do you, personally, think that promise means?
The woman who gave birth is taken to the wilderness where she is protected for "a time, times, and half a time." As many know, this is "time" language from the prophet Daniel.
Therefore, if this is the mother of Jesus, then she also has other children, for it identifies a group known as "the rest of her children."
13 When the dragon saw that he had been hurled to the earth, he pursued the woman who had given birth to the male child. 14 The woman was given the two wings of a great eagle, so that she might fly to the place prepared for her in the desert, where she would be taken care of for a time, times and half a time, out of the serpent's reach. 15 Then from his mouth the serpent spewed water like a river, to overtake the woman and sweep her away with the torrent. 16 But the earth helped the woman by opening its mouth and swallowing the river that the dragon had spewed out of his mouth. 17 Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to make war against the rest of her offspring--those who obey God's commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus.
The bottom line is that Jesus Ascends. The woman does not. The woman is also the origin of those children who "obey God's commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus."
She is called a "sign." It would be wise at this point to see the bible by its word choice giving allowance to think symbolically.
I think that is one of the clearer statements in Scripture - His Church is built upon Peter, and it will persevere in Truth until the End, despite the utmost efforts of the Adversary.
Who's clowning? One man's childishness is another man's truth. Ignore away if you wish ---
Mary definitely has other children — the entire Catholic Christian Church is her children. This is based on John 19 and Apoc. 12.
Yes, Mary is given wings to fly to the “desert” where the river of Satan’s vomit does not reach her. It does not say “heaven”. But, these verses show her being assumed somewhere high or at least safe, and it is a place that is not the earth, and they show her very much alive.
I have a rule to respond on substance to every post that looks like it has substance, regardless of poster. If I see what looks like irony or sarcasm, funny spellings, big fonts, cartoon characters, pregnant row of dots, — you know the style, — I tend not to spend much time on these posts, again regardless of poster. I am not trying to censor you or anything, since you are big enough to be an uncle you can figure out for yourself what kind of posts you want to make, but you should know what my reaction generally speaking will be.
So why doesn’t that passage mean women are immortal, since it says death only affects men?
Fair enough. I too pick and choose. Life is too short and and bandwidth too narrow to do otherwise.
Because all women are descended from Adam [and Eve] and thus under the curse of sin as well as all men.
If she has other children, then she’s not a perpetual virgin is she?
The reference in Apoc. 12 is to her children by spiritual adoption, compare John 19. The scripture does not have a reference to Mary’s biological children other that Jesus.
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.