Posted on 03/30/2002 7:53:37 PM PST by malakhi
| Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams |
Try not to let this section influence how you read the rest of the Marian stuff, OK?
In other words, we understand she is not the source of infinite power but it is clear that she has the ministrix, dispensitrix, headbossitrix of all the power in the universe. But but but, she is not the source, but but but she is in charge of it all. But we don't worship her, but if you don't accept her you are in major trouble. Yeah I understand perfectly.
Since we are dealign with a miracle, I don't see how you can say "tradition" would result in a girl child.
I do tend to lean that His body was probably cloned from Mary too. I'm guessing though and you are also. Scripture doesn't tell us. But you know what? It wouldn't make any difference to me.
I'm not guessing. It is the consistent teaching of the Church that Jesus was truly Mary's Son. If He did not get His humanity from His mother, where woudl He have gotten it?
And it does indeed make a huge difference, as I have said before, whether God assumes the human nature we already had, or if He started a new humanity. If He was not truly one of us, related by blood, then He could not have bridged the gap between God and man.
Instead He would have bridged the gap between God and this new straing of man, who was already without sin. So that there was no gap to bridge.
No offense intended but you are really being very disrespectful towards Mary here. You are telling her that if Jesus' physical body came from your body then I will worship and adore you and elevate you to a divine status but even though you carried him, birth him, and nutured him and loved Him , if you were just a surragate (isn't that the word you used?) then this changes everything.
No disrespect to surrogate mothers is meant, except for the fact that the idea is abhorrent.
Mary is the mother of Jesus. Truly. And He had to be a human like us. Like I said, I was astonished that anyone would think otherwise.
SD
Um, this is a proof-text for the inability of the Bible to be all-inclusive.
That is correct.
Stating that there is more that was revealed to the Apostles than what was written down.
No, it doesn't say that. It says "so many other things that Jesus did", not "so many other things that Jesus secretly taught the apostles".
this revelation is guarded by the authority of the Church.
A pretty substantial leap.
Sorry, I hadn't been following the thread of your conversation. I didn't realize you "had him".
Two questions for you:
1) If it is refered to as being "born again" or "begotten from above"... what role/choice did you play/have in your own birth? And if "none" why did God choose that example if He didn't want us to "suffer the little children to come unto Me"? And why would you insist on the personal choice aspect of it now?
2) If Baptism replaced circumcision as the rite of initiation into God's covenant family... what choice/role did infants have/play back then? And if God was talking about the same "promise" that is "to you and your children" which was circumcision... don't you think He would have SAID something about changing the rules ("Oh, and no kids anymore, they just make a mess in church")?
I'm not the one who thinks Acts is inspired scripture.
You dropping into Pope-speak? I am-a kinda sorta likea the doora of the sheepa.
Just paraphrasing IMRight.
Can you elaborate?
And Mary has no will outside of the will of God. So there is no thing that God would "have" to do that God didn't want to do, just because Mary "wanted" it.
It's all somewhat circular.
she does not control to whom they go
Then why pray to her for graces?
Popular devotions such as this clearly suggest that Mary distributes the graces.
Yes, that's her job. She distributes the graces. But she does nto operate independently of God.
There is no clash of Wills. No one is getting any graces from Mary that God didn't intend.
SD
Says who?
1) I don't really like chocolate, therefore Heaven must not have any?
2) You have to live by your own rules. If Scripture doesn't mention it??? You wouldn't want to be accused of making up doctrine would you?
You are correct. But it is thrown out without explanation, as I said, in a way that is supposed to make it dismissive of the preceeding passages.
If just one NC would explain what this verse means and why it is used to negate the meaning of the preceeding verses, we would be somewhere. Instead it is a bit of a code.
SD
Reggie was right.
SD
What part of Original Sin, inherited by all since Adam and Eve don't you understand?
It's a congenital condition that everyone is born with. It prevents us from fellowship with God. Baptism is the remedy.
It is not necessary to have commited actual personal sins in order to be baptised. Being born with Original Sin is enough to keep you out of Heaven.
SD
Sure they were. When they went out did they teach others the faith, or did the others teach them?
Did they go out and baptise the nations, or did the nations come in and baptise the Apostles?
Did the Apostles write their stories and write missives to the fledgling Churches? And did the churches consider them worthy, or just one guy's opinion among all others.
Of course the Apostles were in charge.
SD
Being Jewish you may feel circumcision is of some value?
I'm certainly not hot to get it undone here.
There should have been a question mark at the end there.
Essentially, Paul can NOT supercede Genesis... Genesis was misunderstood if it was taken as mandatory for God's people for all time. Jesus is also not "superceding" Genesis... but He IS defeating any notion that it can be interpreted to mean "don't receive Me".
We similarly know that the prohibition against pork was for a purpose and for a time (though it seemed inviolate at the time). I suspect there was a purpose for the "blood" rule. Perhaps the very purpose of reserving it for the One Acceptable Sacrifice.
Of course the Apostles were in charge.
So ... you disagree with JESUS when He said ...... it shall not be so among you." ?
LOL! ;o)
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.