Posted on 03/19/2011 10:57:34 PM PDT by dangus
"My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior." -- Luke 1:47
It is undeniable, that "Savior" in this sense alludes to being saved from sin. So the question is: If Mary had never sinned, or was never guilty of original sin, as the Catholic Church states, why would she need a Savior?
As in English, in Greek word for "Savior" ("soter") comes from the word for "safe" ("sozo"). In modern English, the connection between "safe" and "heal" is largely lost, but "salvation" retains the root, "salv," from "salve," meaning "heal" or "a healing ointment." Thus, the notion of a "savior" being one who restores health, or undoes harm is not a completely incorrect notion. But neither should it overshadow the fundamental meaning that a "savior" is one who prevents harm, as much as one who restores one from harm.
Therefore, it should hardly be surprising that one who has been prevented from original sin should rejoice in her "savior" from original sin.
In fact, the term "savior" in Greek has a connotation of a god who preserves his people. As explained in the Protestant lexicon, Strong's Concordance,:
The name was given by the ancients to deities, esp. tutelary deities, to princes, kings, and in general to men who had conferred signal benefits upon their country, and in more degenerate days by the way of flattery to personages of influence.(Wigram) The word soter was a common Greek epithet for the gods (e.g., Zeus, Apollo, and Hermes), active personalities in world affairs (e.g., Epicurus) and rulers (e.g., Ptolemy Philopator, and later Roman Emporers). (cf. LSJ and BDAG)God certainly was Mary's Lord and Protector, who kept her safe from sin. That does not mean she sinned.
But doesn't Paul state that "all have sinned?" Is Paul wrong?
Not in the least. As Protestant theologian Charles Spurgeon explains (in an alternate context) the meaning of "all," (in Greek, "pas"):
"... 'The whole world is gone after him.' Did all the world go after Christ? 'Then went all Judea, and were baptized of him in Jordan.' Was all Judea, or all Jerusalem baptized in Jordan? 'Ye are of God, little children', and 'the whole world lieth in the wicked one.' Does 'the whole world' there mean everybody? If so, how was it, then, that there were some who were 'of God?' The words 'world' and 'all' are used in some seven or eight senses in Scripture; and it is very rarely that 'all' means all persons, taken individually. The words are generally used to signify that Christ has redeemed some of all sorts—some Jews, some Gentiles, some rich, some poor, and has not restricted his redemption to either Jew or Gentile." (Charles H. Spurgeon, Particular Redemption, A Sermon, 28 Feb 1858).In context, what Paul is saying is that Jews (in general) and Greeks (in general), and every other people (in general) have sinned. To establish that Jews are no better than any other people, he quotes the prophet Isaiah,
What shall we conclude then? Are we any better? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin.In this passage, the prophet is describing the Jews around him, and uses the phrase, "There is no-one righteous, not one." It's been argued that the prophet is describing in a prophetic sense not just the Jews around him, but the universal condition of man, as a result of original sin. It might make sense to say that all we who have committed original sin are not righteous in a sense, since our righteousness is imputed righteousness, earned not by our own effort, but by Christ's sacrifice on our behalf.
As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God.
All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one."
"Their throats are open graves; their tongues practice deceit." "The poison of vipers is on their lips."
"Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness."
"Their feet are swift to shed blood; ruin and misery mark their ways and the way of peace they do not know.
" "There is no fear of God before their eyes."
But that same passage asserts that not one has done anything good at all, that they know not the way of peace, and there is no fear of God among anyone. Even if our righteousness is merely imputed, and our ability to do good relies entirely on Christ acting through us, regenerated Christians do good, know the way of peace and fear God. As such, we know that Paul is using that passage only to establish that Jews need Christ as much as Gentiles, for they have been as wicked as Gentiles, he is not using that passage to describe saved Christians.
But the Blessed Virgin Mary lived (in part) before the Holy Sacrifice, the Resurrection and the Descent of the Holy Spirit? How can she have been saved from sin?
The bible explicitly states that salvation occurred anticipating these events. For the prophet Simeon stated upon seeing the infant Jesus, "Mine eyes have seen thy salvation." How could this be? Whose salvation has he witnessed?
Mary's.
I see someone is completely incapable of a logical syllogism.
>> Butter is yellow...The Sun is yellow...The Sun is made of butter....Try again.<<
The parallel logical structure would be, “The Butter is yellow. That which is yellow is the Sun. The butter is the sun.”
That statement WOULD be a perfectly valid logical statement, aside from the obviously false statement, “that which is yellow is the Sun.”
Mary IS the mother of Jesus. That’s true.
That which is Jesus IS God. That’s true.
Hence, Mary is the mother of God is true.
The sad truth is it is blatantly TRUE! Sources? LOL! How about ANY source from the Vatican???? Here's just ONE for God's sake....I'd be here all day if I posted all of them:
From Vatican Collection Volume 1, Vatican Council II, The Conciliar and Post Conciliar documents. General Editor Austin Flannery, O.P. New revised edition 1992; Costello publishing company, Northport, New York. 1992 pages 420-421 (par. 65) -
65. But while in the most Blessed Virgin the church has already reached that perfection whereby she exists without spot or wrinkle (cf. Eph. 5:27), the faithful still strive to conquer sin and increase in holiness. And so they turn their eyes to Mary who shines forth to the whole community of the elect as the model of virtues. Devoutly meditating on her and contemplating her in the light of the Word made man, the Church reverently penetrates more deeply into the great mystery of the Incarnation and becomes more and more like her spouse. Having entered deeply into the history of salvation, Mary, in a way, unites in her person and re-echeos the most important doctrines of the Faith: and when she is the subject of preaching and worship she prompts the faithful to come to her son, to his sacrifice and to the love of the Father....
Isn't that wonderful? Christ needs Mary to bring people to Himself, He can't do it on His own. "SHE" prompts....."SHE" is the subject of preaching AND WORSHIP! And this is from the Vatican.
Then there's that wonderful site DungeonMaster posted upthread in Post #162. The juicier parts:
" According to St. Bonaventure, all the angels in heaven unceasingly call out to her: "Holy, holy, holy Mary, Virgin Mother of God."....... while prostrating themselves before her, begging her as a favour to honour them with one of her requests."
The whole world is filled with her glory....
The most blasphemous statement I've ever read. "HER" glory???? What about GOD'S GLORY?!?!?!?
Oh I admit Catholics won't ADMIT to worshipping Mary, but it IS what they do! There is not a blatant untruth here, just a refusal by Catholics to face the real truth.
Catholics worship Mary because they pray to her, kneel before her image, trust in her for salvation and attribute to her titles and honours which belong to God alone!
May God grant them all repentance. Rather than looking unto a creature, we should follow Mary in her godly example and apply ourselves to the LORD for salvation and all spiritual blessings. Anything less is blasphemous as it robs HIM of HIS power, glory, and authority above ALL things.
Uncommon sense. Evidently uncommon, that is.
The proposition (NOT the argument) is: either God has a cause or God is eternal, that is, outside of time and not subject to it (and therefore all times are 'now' to Him).
But we hold the human nature of Christ is united to the Divine nature in one person.
She is not and never has been the source of His divinity.
Agreed, except in so far as his Divinity is inseparable from his humanity.
Jesus, as Paul tells us in the second chapter of Philippians, was as humbled as ever anyone could be humbled. The link between humility and quilt is certainly usually the case. But it is not logically necessary. One can be guilty without being humble and humble without being guilty.
Yours is the common error (as youpoint out) of saying if two things are elements of the same set then they are identical.
Two different forms. We are not saying all things that are yellow are identical. We are saying something more like if a child has brown eyes, the mother of the child is the mother of the brown eyes.
We're not saying she is the mother of all brown-eyed children (be they never so handsome).
My argument was chiefly about your dismissing an argument with the characterization “word games”. In common usage there are two kinds of saving, preventative and rescuing, or prevenient and, um, post-venient. Both are saving, as I said. Not all saving is “post-venient.” That’s not a word-game; it’s how people use the word.
SO some argue.
And one can be humble AND be guilty which is exactly what Mary proclaimed in Luke 1:47 - God MY Savior. Context is everything.
What you said.
Mary is the mother of Christ’s humanity not His divinity.
Saying that Mary is the mother of God is saying that she is the mother of His as God, the mother of His divinity.
That puts her above God and makes God a created being, subservient to her, which fits in very well with the blasphemy that God cannot refuse any requests of Mary, which is why Catholics pray to her. They try to circumvent God by appealing to her figuring that with motherly compassion, she’s won’t deny a request made to her by us lowly humans, and then God can’t/won’t deny her her petition.
It’s just an attempt at blackmailing God into doing what Catholics want Him to instead of saying *Thy will be done*.
I suppose repetition of the thesis and assuming what is to be proved starts out as decided is better than "word games," but it is no more persuasive or informative. Your opinion was already known. Repeating it accomplishes nothing useful.
INDEED.
NOPE.
Folks are not idiots.
Folks realize that the Vatican Cult has been elevating Mary by the insidious implication that she was on a par with Father God in her mothering
. . . for centuries.
Doesn’t wash with Proddys grounded in Scripture.
Pot calling the kettle black?
Your opinion was already known. Repeating it accomplishes nothing useful.
Your repeated opinions duly noted. And CONTEXT is still everything.
statues of mary - About 3,970,000 results (0.21 seconds)
statues of jesus - About 3,440,000 results (0.14 seconds)
BBBBBUUUUUTTTTTTTTTTTTT
THAT’S just because . . .
wellllllllll uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh . . . just because . . . uhhhhh
uhhhhhhhhhhh . . . welllll . . . uhhhhhhhh . . . .
oh, yeah,
whatever the reason is that 60-72% or so of the RC churches in the County of Los Angeles are named after Mary compared to 8-12% or so after Jesus . . . [IIRC]
it’s the same reason as that . . .
uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiggggggght.
Correct, plus it is a true statement. The further heresy is evident today as well by the same cause.
But how the RCC has gone into the other ditch and has devolved itself into Marian heresies. By calling Mary the "Mother of God" she (Mary) has now been raised into divinity
No, Mary is not God according to Catholic teaching. Mary is the mother of God, or theotokos, according to Catholic teaching. Variance from either is in error according to Catholic teaching.
As a corollary there are Nestorian and Arian type heretics among protestants, but this is not in accordance with any mainstream Protestant theology. A lacking in knowledge of who Mary is can result in an erroneous knowledge of Christ. It works both ways.
The answer is not to teach falsely about Mary or Jesus, not to avoid teaching the truth of Mary as the mother of God.
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.