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 |
My son, let me explain this to you in a way that can possible penetrate your clouded belief system. There are various legends about pagan deities that claim resurrection. These, however, have no historicity. Jesus, on the other hand, was resurrected and seen by hundreds of witnesses.
Understanding the historical influences of paganism on festivals and regarding is in no way connected with understanding the historical confirmation of the resurrection of Jesus compared with legends of resurrection for pagan deities. The resurrection of Jesus meets all the qualifications (and more) for a clearly historical event, not a legend. Sorry, but your legends about Mary and holidays doesn't cut the paganless mustard.
The reigning answer seems to be "it doesn't matter."
I've got to admit, I'm stunned at this. But so far, at least, your description of their lack of concern seems apt. The best we have -and I knew he'd come through, God bless the Calvinists- is from drstevej who admits, he doesn't "see any textual warrant to view Mary as a surrogate mother only."
On the flip side we have newgeezer's, ""Belief"? I'd be shocked if it's the subject of any doctrinal statements either way."
My heart sinks at such unconcern. Christ's humanity(along with His divinity) would seem to me to be the central point of the entire Gospel. I can't think of an issue more important.
No offense, folks, (and this is to the Protestants) but you all argue over how much water should be applied for baptism to be valid but you can't take just a few moments to maybe consider just who Jesus is?
I really don't know where to begin with this -except to say, I see more clearly than ever the work of the Holy Spirit through Christ's Church in the title, Mary, Mother of God.
Not what I said, Dave; but, then what you twist is hardly as important to you as what you twist it into. Are you so ashamed of spiritual gifts as to poke fun at them?
No, I'm not. He could have. I mean He is God , you know. He doesn't need our permission to do stuff, right?
I am not limiting God to using Mary,
yeah, I kind of think you are or it wouldn't matter so much to you.
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.
Maybe, but not necessarily, because you're limiting God to what we know of our science, aren't you?. Good point though. If it helps I think you are right here but since there isnt any scripture I can find that supports this either way, then as far as I am concerned, we are both just guessing.
I only wish you would realize that while you are trying to 'detract a ton from the RC Mary,' you are also detracting a ton from the Gospel.
One need not be a prophet to understand scripture. Nor is any person little - though their actions may be.
Guess you'll have to do what you always do. Call them heretics and anethmatize them. No possible way Jesus can save them now. /sarcasm.
I appreciate the answer, and the fact that "Biblical authority" for the answers may be difficult to find.
My point was more to the fact that we assert that Jesus is Incarnate through the humanity that existed at that time, through some relative of the original parents.
The opposite side is saying that God simply created a new humanity ex nihilo and became incarnate through this newly created man.
Do you see a theological difference between the two scenarios?
SD
Guess not :'(
You can feel it's presence but you cannot physically see it. You might see it's effect; but, when it's gone you can't see where it went nor can you see where it's been. You can only witness it's presence and appreciate it's effect (or loath it as the case may be). It's stronger than all of us and has no physical form. Wind builds pressure in the ears but the spirit builds pressure within the heart. The spirit isn't heard speaking to the man; but if the spirit effects the man, then the effect of it will be seen in the fruit produced by the ministry. The spirit is unseen but the effect of the coming and going is unmistakeable.
Yeah, that was about what I was thinking and I agree up to a point. That point being the latter part of that verse. Here's the verse again ...
The wind blows where it wills, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know whence it comes or whither it goes;
Up to there, our assessment makes sense. But what of the following ... ?
so it is with every one who is born of the Spirit.
Now, are we (as those born of the Spirit) like the wind? Does no one know from where we come or where we go? Is this relating to Jesus telling the disciples "Where I am going, you cannot follow."
Yes, and you believe these witnesses, thus any cnnection to paganism you ignore.
You are not logically consistent.
Sorry, but your legends about Mary and holidays doesn't cut the paganless mustard.
Which means you don't believe the witnesses and testimonies to Mary's events. Cause they do exist.
This is hypocritical.
SD
Sorry. I've got this little obstacle called Matthew 1:24-25 to overcome.
You should talk to Reggie. I'm not the one confusing it. But then you aren't dealing with issues, you're characterizing them out of context. Sort of a sideswipe and run lest you be betrayed for what you are? Ope, wait, that is already evident. Considering I was noting that there is a difference between spiritual death and physical death precisely because Reggie was attempting to say they are one in the same, you've stepped in it yet again. Please keep up. For one who tries to hold me to the level of a prophet when I've made no such claims, one would at least hope to expect that we can hold you to being able to read for understanding rather than make false characterizations in the face of the evidence. Or is that expecting too much of one who is supposed to be a pinnacle of truth?
Yo geeze, did you want to remind him of where Adam gets his humanity or should I? One of us could also throw in the part about "God can of these stones raise up sons of Abraham".
I've never heard of this but then again I wouldn't classify myself as protestant.
I would think that Jesus had to be physically from Mary. He had to have human flesh or else his sacrifice would have been meaningless.
Unconcern? Who's unconcerned? Whose requirement is it that Jesus be biologically descended from Mary? Can someone please answer that? You and SD and the rest of the RCC are the ones who are dogmatic about it. So, the ball's in your court. Tell me why God could not have had Mary conceive Jesus -- The Last Adam -- in her womb from God's sperm and egg.
I'm willing to listen and learn. Really.
Speaking of gifts ... in the early days of this thread we were on the topic of graven images. You mentioned that you were an artist and the way you described it it sounds as if you are quite good. But you chose not to use this talent because of the graven image issue. Do you not consider your talent a gift from God?
Not trying to be a smart-aleck ... just posing a serious question out of curiosity.
From the RC gospel not from the bible gospel.
It just underscores the difference between those who only go by the Book, and and start anew each generation; and those who are free to work on the ideas of those who came before.
Like you, I was stunned that such a thing would even be questioned. It is ironic that those who think it "obvious" that a man and wife must have sex, can not see the obviousness of a mother being related to her Child.
And, the implications for the Incarnation are perilous.
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.