Posted on 06/16/2016 9:22:17 PM PDT by ebb tide
Pope Francis, spiritual leader of a billion people, has just informed them that ‘the great majority’ of sacramental marriages are invalid because couples don’t go into them with the right intentions. He was speaking at a press conference in Rome. Here’s the context, from the Catholic News Agency (my emphases):
‘I heard a bishop say some months ago that he met a boy that had finished his university studies, and said “I want to become a priest, but only for 10 years”. It’s the culture of the provisional. And this happens everywhere, also in priestly life, in religious life,’ he said.
‘It’s provisional, and because of this the great majority of our sacramental marriages are null. Because they say “yes, for the rest of my life!” but they don’t know what they are saying. Because they have a different culture. They say it, they have good will, but they don’t know.’
Uh? You can read the full report here but you won’t be much the wiser. The Pope, thinking aloud in the manner of some maverick parish priest after a couple of glasses of wine at dinner, has just told millions of his flock that they are not really married.
Did he mean to say that? What does he really think? What authority do his words carry?
And why should Catholics even have to ask these questions? Francis’s off-the-cuff ramblings on matters of extreme pastoral sensitivity are wreaking havoc in the Catholic Church, as I’ve written here.
Ross Douthat of the New York Times has just tweeted this response:
Screen Shot 2016-06-16 at 23.54.41
I suspect that even the Pope’s most liberal admirers will have difficulty extricating him from this mess.
All I’m saying is that the Incarnation was/is God the Son becoming fully human, experiencing all there was and is to being human. So what I’ve described was part of the Incarnation. What you’ve described is not. What you describe is God not becoming fully man, because what you describe is Jesus not participating in the full human experience. The full human experience is that we each recieve chromosomes from our mother and father equally.
That’s what I describe hence I describe the Incarnation. You do not believe He received any of His chromosomes from Mary hence you do not believe in the Incarnation because you believe there is a portion of humanity Jesus did not share with us. This is just a fact.
Believe what you want I don’t care. I don’t understand why you have to become insulting
I will not respond to this post beyond what I’ve written here because it’s insulting trash.
No. Where did Adam's DNA, his body with nostrils come from? It was immobile, non-functional, until Jehovah Elohim breathed into it and it became a soul with absolutely living eternal life imparted to it to give it motion and ability to communicate abstractly with Jehovah.
You need to take a break and chew on this for a while. Your thesis has no logical or Biblical foundation, whatever depraved fountain of human imaginations it came from.
That is not at all what I said.
What else could you possibly mean by "surrogate mother"? A surrogate mother has no genetic link to the baby.
He was unfallen man — if he had remained unfallen, he would not have died.
I'm sure that if you look at the passage again, you will notice that it de not say anything about God preparing Christ's body "alone." In the sense of the initial Creation, God "alone" made "everything" --- ot just the body of Christ, but yours and mine as well --- .but in the sense of human generation, God's creativity works through true human parenthood.
If He had separately created Christ to be not part of the human race, the human family tree, then Christ would not have been the Son of David, the Son of Abraham, the Son of Man, and the whole architecture of redemption falls apart.
This is very similar to the Muslim doctrine on Isa ibn Maryam (Jesus Son of Mary) whom they recognize only as a great man but strictly a creature, cfreatred my God in Mary's womb just as He created Adam. Before this thread, I had never heard a self-identified Christian espouse this.
(I am assuming you call yourself a Christian. If not, then forgive my error and just ignore the above.)
Frankly, I'm through with this discussion. The drive to make Mary not even the mother of Jesus, renders a major portion of the OT pointless, and is in its inescapable logical corollaries both anti-Semitic (making Jesus a non-Jew and removing Him from the children of Israel) as well as anti-human removing Him from the children of men.
We're done. Finis. God bless you.
Amen.
"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils
the breath of life; and man became a living soul" (Gen. 2:7 AV).
*******
The translators have substituted "LORD" in the text for the transliterated YHVH, which is pronounced "Yehovah."
Strong's number H3068
יהוה
=====
"God" here is translated from the Hebrew "Elohim" the uniplural noun, suggesting that there is more that one manifestation of the Godhesd:
Strong's Number H430:
אלהים
********
Jehovah Elohim = LORD God wherever you find it in the Authorized Version.
I'm not sure what else you're aiming at. Illuminate me.
Was Adam fully human?
No. I don’t think that’s a possibility.
Scripture tells us that Joseph didn’t know her until after Jesus was born. The Holy Spirit in Scripture goes on to identify by name, His brothers and refers to *all His sisters*, which implies more than two.
The only requirement concerning the virginity of Mary was that she be virgin when she conceived and gave birth. Whatever happened after that, is of no consequence.
Most of this supposition by Catholicism about Mary and Joseph and pledges of virginity, sexless marriage, etc, is ONLY to bolster their wish that Mary remained virgin for her entire life, as if there were something to brag about or made her more holy or special or some other nonsense.
Having sex with your legal husband is NOT wrong, it’s NOT a sin, it doesn’t make any woman any less virtuous than she already is.
Sex is a gift to mankind for marriage. It was GOD’S idea and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with it and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with Mary having it and maybe even enjoying it.
God didn't tell us HOW He did it. We don't NEED to know how He did it.
Catholicism puts God in its handy little box explaining how God does everything when there is NO basis for those claims.
It's not *logical* that God *must have* done it that way, therefore it had to have happened that way.
Gone out and gotten a new source for old straw? And you don’t even believe you’re tossing out insults when you insult someone by inferring they are espousing muslim doctrine. Haha! Wadda piece of work.
No, it's not pronounced that way. That form comes from the consonants of the tetragrammaton vocalized in Hebrew bibles with the vowels of Adonai to remind the one reading aloud to read it as "Adonai" (in prayer -- in other contexts such as study one reads it as "ha-Shem") since it's forbidden (except in OT times once year by the High Priest) to pronounce the tetragrammaton.
It most certainly does.
As now practiced, the surrogate host mother gestating the zygote of another man and woman has the same human DNA structure, and with the right immunosuppression cocktail, can quite nicely and profitable bring it to term.
Did the DNA of this baby come from the host mother's egg(s)? No. But the baby is definitelu going to be human, the child of the source parents.
That is, until we manage to gestate a monkey or rabbit in a human host mother, I guess (and hope not). You never know what genetic manipulation is going to lead to, these days, but some imaginative people have quite strange goals.
However, don't ever ignore the factors that the God of the Bible is considered omnipotent and omniscient, in processing your reckonings.
It depends what is meant by “fully human” in your question.
If you are asking “Was Adam ‘fully human’ in the ontological sense”, then my answer is yes.
If you are asking “Did Adam experience all that we humans today experience” then no he did not.
Was Adam born via a womb? No. Was he ever a fertilized egg? No. Etc.
Again, unless you've done a study on this word yourself, you've come up with the wrong conclusion drom fragile arguments of unreliable mentors. You seem to just keep repeating the same pattern of speaking authoritatively on something you do not understand and cannot validate. do your own homework. this thrust is far away from the point in view, so let's stay there.
That’s not the same thing. I suspect you know it.
And now you might think of applying the same notions to the Advent of Jesus, God with us. If you are open to applying your won reasoning, you might find that Jesus can be fully human without ever being a ‘fertilized egg’ (more accurately a fertilized oocyte; humans are not reptiles or chickens). Without using a sex cell from Mary, Mary could be a surrogate for gestating and bearing Jesus, without violating her vows/betrothal to Joseph. Think about 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.