| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 07/13/2010 2:29:14 PM PDT by Religion Moderator, reason:
Poster’s request |
Posted on 07/06/2010 6:54:33 AM PDT by Brian Kopp DPM
You know what words I came across today... Mother of the Eucharist. She bore the ‘man’, Jesus. She had nothing to do with His Divinity.
IF one can divide the humanity of Jesus from His Divinity in any way other than conceptually, then one can possibly say that the thing in Mary's womb was only the MAN Jesus.
Consequent considerations would include the question of WHEN exactly did Jesus’ divine nature join with His human nature. Presumably it would have to be at parturition if Mary is NOT to be called Theotokos, as the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon called her.
On the other hand, IF one thinks that Jesus, from the moment of His conception, was ONE person with two natures, Divine and human, then Mary is Theotokos.
Then also, she is “dispenser of grace” (which always cracks me up, because it makes a mother sound like a PEZ candy dispenser) AND, certainly (given our thinking on the Eucharist) Mother of the Eucharist.
And then, of course, our opponents do not seem to know what “Queen” means (when there is a king) and do not understand the concept of a “Courtesy Title.” In many monarchies it was (and still is, in a few places) the courtesy to call the mother of the Sovereign “Queen.” She has no intrinsic authority other than that given her by the Sovereign. She has nothing “in her own right” (except that, in earthly monarchies, she may already have had some title of nobility before she was married or gave birth to a sovereign.)
I have no problem calling Mary Queen of heaven, Queen of the Universe, Queen of Saint and Angels, Mother of Grace, blah blah, because I know from where her Queenship comes. Your side seems to think that because some pagans used the term “Queen of Heaven” it cannot be used rightly. But I say some pagans used the phrase “Son of God,” to refer to Hercules, a pagan demi-god. Yet I see no reluctance on the other side's part to use that term. It looks like “special pleading,” to bridle at the ‘baptism’ of one pagan usage while swallowing another whole.
IF one adopts the convention that IHS was born on 12/25, IF one assumes a perfect 9 month pregnancy, then 3/25 would be the day Gabriel announced glad tidings to the maid of Nazareth.
If one denies that Jesus is ONE person with TWO natures, then that is not such a big deal, I guess. But for us who think that Jesus was and is divine and human, the Annunciation is the first day of the incomprehensible miracle of the Incarnation.
So all Mary's titles and gifts come as favors, “graces” from God. One of my mottoes is, “Do not prefer the gift to the giver.” But to despise the gift is intemperate, is going too far.
Parting shot: I do not honor God by refusing to acknowledge the beauty and grandeur of the Grand Canyon. I will happily sing:
(2.) Fair are the meadows, fairer still the woodlands,
robed in the blooming garb of spring:
Jesus is fairer, Jesus is purer
who makes the woeful heart to sing.
(3.) Fair is the sunshine, fairer still the moonlight,
and all the twinkling starry host:
Jesus shines brighter, Jesus shines purer
than all the angels heaven can boast.
Your side seems jealously to insist that I say nothing about meadow, woodland, sun, moon or stars.
But in all those things God has done a beautiful thing, and one reason He did it is for our enjoyment. He at whose right hand are delights for evermore (ps 16) shares His beauty with us for our delight.
And in Mary God did a splendid thing. I will not join those who dourly refuse to give her any honor or praise, because when I thank God for His many gifts, I mean my thanks to spring not only from my delight in Him, but from my delight and wonder at what He has done.
“The Lord has done great things for us and we are glad indeed.”I prefer these words from Scripture to "The Lord has done great things for us, but we ain't gonna say anything about it.""The Lord has done great things for me, and Holy is His Name!"
Do any of the oldest texts have any punctuation at all?
Not only does the care in copying the written word have nothing to say one way or the other about the existence of valid oral tradition, but the alleged care does not explain the variants in the LXX and in the Qumran scrolls.
If one BELIEVES the BIBLE; then MORMONism is a LIE from SATAN!
In discussions -- as opposed, say, to shouting matches -- one does not merely repeat assertions, one does not even confine oneself to one's own arguments. one also looks at and deals with the arguments of the other side.
It is assumed that there is disagreement, or there would be no discussion. But merely to say, however colorfully and with whatever decorative fonts, that one disagrees may be somehow gratifying, but it is neither debate nor discussion.
Further, I don't understand why this turned into a Mormon Bashing session. It seems somehow Islamic to act as though the way to make converts and to show the Truth about God is to beat up on those who disagree with one.
Whether the result of intentional or unintentional ignorance, it is always laughable when those with demonstrably imperfect communication skills attempt to use the imperfect tool of human language to argue and disagree with another's imperfect attempts to describe and define perfection. Equally laughable is the reliance on 21st century American English dictionaries to prove their case.
What does that have to do with whether or not she is a goddess? Make the argument openly, please.
Most realize if you put the time and effort to do just a small fraction of research about Mormonism it does not take long to see their masquerade...worse their deviation from Christianity all together. Others go at length and look at both sides of the issue....I for one came away more than amazed that people could even begin to believe the bizzare and ridiculous claims of Mormonism which diametrically oppose Christianity. They ‘wear’ as a cloak just enough of Christianity to deceive and hide their true intentions....much as satan did in the wilderness temptation and also with Eve. Mormonism’s tactics are much the same verbiage “You will become a God”. ...of which the new spirituality age teaches, as does hinduism, and many other cults and counterfeit religions. The tactics are the same. Those who are ignorant of satans devices can easily fall for the line....but that line has been used since the garden of Eden throughout History. But not surprising to those who know Gods word....
Or you don't want to put the effort into understanding it.
Ah, but would you ever admit you had made a mistake?
I have in the past admitted mistakes - however, no mistake has been proven so far.
See logos - there are others who understand my answers.
I do think that some know that Mary is indeed prayed to and worshipped within the catholic belief system, even though she is dead and unlike Christ she was not raised from the dead. ......But not all SEE their worship as that....the same with praying to dead Saints, and the carved idols throughout their church buildings. They see it as something else...more like another draw or means to accessing Christ...a help so to speak.
Yes, this does fly in the face of the sufficiency of Christ but some appear to need these extra helps. I do know that many of those who find themselves involved in cults often say that they needed more than what the Christian church offers....they needed “experiences” and ‘supernatural happenings’, signs and wonders apart from the Gospel message itself. They need more and evidences of Christ beyond that which is given. Thus many who leave cults do end up in catholic churches because it offers them the extra they believe they need.
No
Excellant post Elsie and says it as it is...scripture references spot on!
A quick glance reveals that Post #1506 is just a contextless conglomeration of cut-n-paste spam, posted in technicolor playskool font. It debunks nothing. Indeed, it means nothing. Bad Job, Quix.
I do think
You can think anything you like. Doesn't make it so. I never cease to be amazed at some folks claims to read others' hearts and minds. It may be allowable on this forum, as the targets are not specifically members of the forum, but it's still ....
How did that go?
Oh, yes:
UNMITIGATED BALDERDASH.
That post had nothing whatsoever to do with mind-reading or hearts. The text is clear and concise....if believed defend it if you can. What do those words mean if not the very fact Mary is elevated beyond what Christ intended?
I don’t know of any specific ones that do, so I’ll say most older Greek manuscripts used no paragraph or sentence breaks and were written in all capitals.
I trust by “texts” you mean manuscripts.
Fact? I wonder if some folks even know what that word means, and whether they are able to distinguish opinion from fact.
Mary is elevated beyond what Christ intended?
Wow ... Are you able, infallibly, to determine what Christ intended in this matter?
Why you, and not us? Hmmm?
From where I sit, it looks like protestantism denigrates the saints below what Christ intended ... an act in which I will not participate.
As for Quix's "text" ... I have learned long ago not to discuss anything substantive with those who use words as bludgeons ... they have never, that I can recall, shown any interest in listening or learning.
I do pray for them ... always.
You say that like it's a bad thing!
I've always preferred my balderash mitigated.
But that's just me.
Thankfully, FOR our sake.
CHRIST CAME FOR SINNERS. PRAISE HIS NAME.
10-4
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.