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 |
Let me rephrase my apparent poor choice of words then so they may withstand your meticulous critisism. We try and have a 1st century traditional Jewish passover seder. Its patterned after the one Jesus celebrated for probably about 33 years.
We'll, honestly? I find the information you post very informative, but to me (and I'm not trying to be rude or offensive) I think you are (just a little) puffed up:') You preach, but sometimes don't seem to appreciate the congregation interrupting with questions, esp. if they aren't in line with the sermon. I was sitting here reading your posts and wondering, what a lot of the guys here that were "singing your praises", knew about you, that I didn't. ( actually, last night I was going to phrase it a little different but I'm in control of my "potty mouth" now:') Anyway, with Ventana egging the Mormons to come over, I was just hoping you weren't a calvinist!
Nah, we have two brothers here already lol
Logic isn't that hard to understand. Adam and Eve had no inborn Original Sin. Yet they managed to commit sin.
So who came up with the idea we had to inherit the "original sin" from Adam in order to be sinful?
NOBODY! That is what I am saying. Nobody holds that we must inherit Original Sin in order to be sinful.
As I JUST SAID, Adam and Eve had no OS, yet managed to sin. Please pay attention.
If Adam and Eve had somehow remained perfect until they had their children, are you saying the children would have been born sinless and unable to sin?
They would have been born without Original Sin. They would have been capable of their own sin, though. Just like I said above, Adam and Eve had no OS, yet they were capable of sin.
Perhaps it is the name which throws you off? Think of "Original Sin" not as a "sin" as you think of it. Think of it as a condition. The condition is that of not being in fellowship with God.
Remember when Adam and Eve got thrown out of the garden? They were, then, not in fellowship with God, they could no longer walk with God in the Garden. They had sinned and created a gulf between man and God.
Well, guess what? When they had children, the children did not go back to the garden, did they? No.
The children had inherited this condition. And so on, down to us.
It has nothing to do with a sinful act we do or do not do. It is simply a description of the human condition, that of being seperated from God. We are all born that way.
Then is righteousness and sinlessness, passed on through the parents seed?
Yes.
Eve was human and she sinned, Adam was human and he sinned, and if it had been anyone except Christ, they would have also sinned.
Yes, that is the assumption.
The human nature is passed on from parent to child, not some mysterious microscopic sin cell that Adam created.
Please see above.
SD
I understand you completely, and I am not criticising you for it.
I am instead, making a point about how others look at Catholic claims to have things "understood" among us and to have "overriding themes" to the things we say or do.
SD
I won't, but I hate cats. The last one I had was so mean and evil, that when he died I left him outside under the tree for three days before burying him, caz I wanted to see if he was gonna come back to life :').
You should have named "original sin", "original condition". Your church fathers are responsible for you having to spin in the year 2003.
She was given special favor, all generations will call her blessed. We even believe that she was spared rotting in the grave. But this makes her a perfect human. Not a god. In heaven, she has a special role. This is to help her Son distribute His graces. This does not make her a god.
See, this what I don't understand. I agree shw was special and blessed, but when you start talking about praying thru her, distributing grace, and being imortal (ascending instead of dieing) this troubles me. I see those charteristics as god-like.
Was Elijah "god like"? He, too, was assumed into Heaven. Does that mean Elijah is a god?
As for distributing graces, this is as I tried to show, what role Mary is given in Heaven. Do you not believe that when you get to Heave God will assign you a role, a function?
You may not believe it, but we do. Mary, a human, because of her special place in history as Jesus' mother, is given a special task in Heaven.
Jesus entered the world through Mary's channel. Likewise, Jesus's grace enters the world through the channel of Mary.
This is her role. It does not affirm that she is divine.
SD
Only if you think He doesn't want to become present. If you think He is being made to appear by some human man on command, like a "stupid divinity trick," then you might have a point.
But, instead, we believe that Jesus wants to become present for us, so much that He told us to do so and that He works through even the most unworthy human man to do this.
It's perspective.
SD
Yes, that would have been better.
Your church fathers are responsible for you having to spin in the year 2003.
#1, telling the truth is never "spinning."
#2, having to explain the same thing over and over is not my fault. If the NCs invested a little in even trying to understand what was being said, we might be able to progress.
SD
Becky
You stated that if Mary was the source of Jesus' humanity, that he woudl have to be female. That is, of course, to limit God in how He does His Miracles
. We have already established that this was not my intent, but say it had have been. What's the difference in me limiting God in how he does miracles by saying the above vs you limiting him by saying he had to make Jesus' physical body from Mary's? To me, since He did not tell us, to insist on either one is wrong.
Well, you were arguing (theoretically) that God could not make a man from the biological genes of a woman.
I am not limiting God to using Mary, I am only stating the "fact" that He did. He could certainly have used the genes of any human from history, but there is no evidence for that. The Scripture states that Mary will "convceive," which implies that at least her egg will be used.
But I could see if some other human was used, but like I said we have no evidence for this. There was once a poster here who believed that God took King David's sperm and used that to create Jesus in the womb. But his idea was not supported well by Scripture (to most of us anyway).
The point I am making, the one that I find many here guilty of not understanding is that Jesus had to be a human from the line of Adam. He had to be related to us. Not some new human that God made from scratch.
If Jesus was not related to us, then how did He redeem humanity? HE was the man-God who bridged the gap. But if He wasn't really a human like us, then how does He help us?
SD
That must be why all those people stomped off not getting the parable that Jesus was conveying...
No, the priest is Christ offering Himself to the Father
Is this why you accept everything they tell you? You think they are Christ?
I'll take your question at face value, though it is somewhat offensive.
We are quite capable of understanding that Father Paul or Fahter Bob are not Jesus. They are different persons with different personalities.
However, they are priests. Which means that they all share in the One Priesthood of Jesus Christ. Which means that their function is to act as Christ would act, in service to the Church.
Which means that they should strive to be as Jesus, to live as He would at all times. Of course, no man can do this perfectly. But that is their calling.
No matter how well or poorly the given man emulates the life of Christ, when the priest performs a sacramental function (hearing confessions, annointing the sick, celebrating communion) He is literally doing the work of Christ on earth. He is the hands of Christ in the world. For the sacramental function, the priest stands in for Christ.
The priest becomes a channel whereby the power of Christ works through him. When Father Paul forgives my sins, it is not as himself. It is as Christ that he pronounces the forgiveness. When Father Bob brings about the Body and Blood of Christ on the altar during Mass, it is not because of Bob's power or holiness. It is because Father Bob becomes a vessel for Christ to work His Miracle in this time and place.
SD
Duh. They weren't at the Last Supper. The Apostles didn't get it at the time either. Duh.
SD
You might have missed out on the fact that it is the general consensus of the NCs here that Jesus was joking about that.
You are joking, I hope?
Like I said, no NC came to contradict that interpretation. And since the other interpretation helps the Catholic cause, it is not surprising that y'all want to be silent then, but act like you supported our view now.
SD
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.