But now, I will say: make mine a
p.s. the legal age was 18, before anyone gets a bee up their bonnet...
Posted on 12/28/2011 5:47:17 PM PST by rzman21
Martin Luther had a very comfortable life. Indeed, he enjoyed “the best beer in all Germany”, homebrewed by his wife Katie.
If Mary had a sinful human nature then she passed this sinful human nature onto Christ.
This means that while christ had a sinless divine nature that he was still subject to original sin. This is contrary to what we know of him, that he was the new Adam.
“But sinlessness has nothing to do with Mary”
Mary is his mother just like your mother is your mother. Her sinfulness would be passed onto him.
The reason it’s not turtles all the way down, so to speak, is because of the immculate conception. It’s like a jacob’s ladder. Christ pulls up his mother and his mother pulls up him.
Didn't know that. Was it dark beer or a pilsner style?
Since you asked :)
“The Beers of Martin Luther”
http://home.earthlink.net/~ggsurplus/beersluther.html
But now, I will say: make mine a
p.s. the legal age was 18, before anyone gets a bee up their bonnet...
Who was Mary’s mom, did she not pass down sin? It is impossible for Mary to have been sinless, she’s human and had a normal birth. Sin is passed by the seed of man is what I was taught.
“It is impossible for Mary to have been sinless, she’s human and had a normal birth.”
This is where the Immaculate conception comes in. Christ protected Mary from sin.
“Sin is passed by the seed of man is what I was taught.”
Which is why Mary’s immaculate conception is the break in the chain. Remember Christ is fully Man. IF sin is inherited AND Christ is fully man, then he inherits a sinful nature.
Both favorites of mine, but since I like to support local businesses, Yeungling Lager is what I drink most often.
If sin is inherited from the father, the Holy Spirits conception of a child in Mary would not have passed on sin as God has no sin.
So I understand Christs sinlessness. But If God could keep Mary from sin, while being born to a human set of parents, there would be no need for Christ in the first place.
So while Christ’s sinlessness I can see the need and fufillment of Gods plan in, the sinless Mary thing is not only not needed, but invalidates Christ.
I think at this point the Mary thing is more a throwback to the incorporation of Ishtar and the child than anything logical or spiritual. It is more mother worship than God worship. While in Rome for a few months I toured many Catholic churchs and noted that there were two basic types, the ones with lots of saint statues and huge pictures of Mary with a little Child, and the ones without all the saint worship, small pictures of Mary and huge pictures of Jesus with the centerpiece a crucifix.
So I suspect even within the Catholic family there is a divide on this issue. Quite interesting really.
“If sin is inherited from the father”
Why do you think this? Is there any evidence that sin is only inherited through the father?
“the Holy Spirits conception of a child in Mary would not have passed on sin as God has no sin.”
True, but there’s no evidence that sin is only passed on through the father.
“But If God could keep Mary from sin, while being born to a human set of parents, there would be no need for Christ in the first place.”
Well, no. You see, remember the other half of the atonement? Christ is the bridge between God and Man. Even if Mary were kept free from sin, she is just a woman. She is not God. She could not serve as the perfect substitutionary sacrifice on the cross.
“I think at this point the Mary thing is more a throwback to the incorporation of Ishtar and the child than anything logical or spiritual.”
If this is so, then when was Mary incorporated?
“So I suspect even within the Catholic family there is a divide on this issue. Quite interesting really.”
No, that’s not the case at all. Most cathedrals, (especially in Rome), go back for quite some time. Each cathedral is dedicated to a peculiar saint, and those saints are usually represented in the iconography.
They will all have Christ in the middle, Mary to the right, Joseph to the left, to represent the Holy Family.
We don’t worship statues, really, we don’t. They are just to honor the men and women who have followed Christ successfully, before our time.
If sin was passed through the mother, then Christ would have had sin. I would say that is evidence. And if sin is passed through the father OR mother Mary would have sin.
That then clearly says that Mary is not sinless.
Thats ok with me, Mary does not have to be sinless to be full of grace, or to be Christs mother.
But sinlessness is not “passed on” or Christ would not have had to die on the cross. The entire theme of the Bible is that the wages of sin is death, so God took the death upon Himself to free us. To negate that to make Mary sinless is pointless, unless you have some personal reason other than the Bible to justify that, it is not logical or respectful of Christs sacrifice.
I have no facination with the mother/child god thing and prefer simple bibilical Christianity.
Thanks for the talk.
“If sin was passed through the mother, then Christ would have had sin.”
That’s a circular argument. You are assuming what we are trying to prove.
Then we should see something about that in scripture, about how the sin of Adam passes through the father. It’s not there. Original sin passes from Adam, through both father and mother.
“And if sin is passed through the father OR mother Mary would have sin.”
Which she didn’t because of the immaculate conception.
“That then clearly says that Mary is not sinless.”
Again, not the case because of the immaculate conception.
“Thats ok with me, Mary does not have to be sinless to be full of grace, or to be Christs mother.”
Yes, she does, because, as I said earlier, she gave her human nature to Christ, and unless she was sinless the sin nature would have passed onto him.
“But sinlessness is not “passed on” or Christ would not have had to die on the cross.”
Again, Christ was both God and man. He had to be both in order to serve as the passover lamb without blemish. Mary, even kept free of sin, could not. Only Christ.
“The entire theme of the Bible is that the wages of sin is death, so God took the death upon Himself”
Yes, and because Mary was not God, she could not have served as the sacrifice. Only Christ.
“To negate that to make Mary sinless is pointless”
It’s not pointless, because otherwise, Christ inherited a sinful human nature from her.
“unless you have some personal reason other than the Bible”
The bible uses the word, “Kecharatomene”, which is only used for her. She is referred, by the Angel as being blessed beyond other women.
“it is not logical or respectful of Christs sacrifice.”
Again, as you have stated, only Christ could be the sacrifice because he was God and he was Man. Mary was not God so even as sinless, could not have served as the sacrifice. You’ve said so yourself.
“I have no facination with the mother/child god thing and prefer simple bibilical Christianity.”
Well, then you have grossly misunderstood what I have said. I have been saying over and over that Mary is not God. It would be nice to see you acknowledge what I am saying rather then simply ignoring me.
Good day.
Ok, so I think I am getting the picture that immaculate conception is the framework that is the sin stopper for you, and the position of man as the picture of Adam is the methodology for me. Interesting.
We both agree on the other points as to Christ as God. So we are not so far off from each other on the things that matter.
Nice to hear it directly from across the isle. Blessings on you, faith in Christ unites us both. Good day to you too!
Yeah, it all fits together.
Remember “the wages of sin are death”
Well, the assumption is where Mary was bodily carried up into heaven.
So I think you can see where it’s all going.
Mary didn’t die - she was carried up like enoch and elijah.
Interesting that you don’t limit God in believing that He can send His Only Son to be born of a Virgin, but you do have problems that He could keep her sinless. I read somewhere that the wood of the Ark of the Covenant was made of “incorruptible” wood.
See this link: http://www.indefenseofourmother.org/index2.html:
“For starters, it should always be noted that Mary’s selection as the dwelling place of God was not random. She had been prepared for him, as the Ark of the Covenant had been specially created to enshrine its sacred contents (Ex. 25:9).
The Ark of the Covenant was made of incorruptible acacia wood, and was laden in and out with the finest gold. A golden lid was placed upon it, and golden angels were mounted atop this. On the lid were gold rings, and golden poles were placed through them so it could be carried by sanctified priests, and for good reason: it was a sacred dwelling.In it was to be found the bread from heaven, the word of God in the commandments, and the staff of Aaron, which was used as an instrument for Israel’s redemption.
However, these were only signs pointing towards the reality fulfilled in Christ. He was the true bread from heaven, the actual Word of God, and the true instrument of our redemption. If God commanded that such a lavish dwelling be created for bread, stone tablets and a stick, how much more would he splurge to make fitting the dwelling of the second person of the Trinity!
Being the New Ark of the Covenant, how could Mary be a worthy dwelling place for the Second Person of the Trinity if she were, as John calls sinners, “of the devil”? (1 Jn. 3:8). If nothing unclean can enter heaven (Rev. 21:27), how could the very holiness of heaven enter something unclean? The Old Testament tells us, “wisdom will not enter a deceitful soul,” or dwell “in a body under debt of sin” (Wis. 1:4). Since Jesus is Wisdom incarnate, it was not fitting that he dwell in a body under debt of sin.”
I’m a recent convert, and looked at all the “stumbling blocks” which disappeared once you study the actual Catechism. A Wonderful Study!
When reading the “New” testament, read it looking for the understanding of how it is the fulfillment of the “Old” because if it is not, either it is wrong or you are.
There is absolutely no reason for Mary to be a Diety, and all reason for the Messiah to be in the “Old”. So, if you were to drop the focus on Mary and put it back on God you would be better off.
Gopher or Acacia wood is not incorruptible, don't know where you get that. She was not prepared, in any description of her in the original language, she was a righteous woman and that is why she was selected, but that does not prepare her.
As sin is passed by the seed of man, Mary would have had the sin of her Dad in the flesh. The only way for Mary to have been sinless is if SHE was born of a virgin, something that is not mentioned in the original scripture.
Christ is the fulfillment of the requirement for blood sacrifice, the fulfillment of the First Covenant. The second covenant does not violate or invalidate the first covenant in any way. Just because you fulfill the speed limit, does not allow you to run red lights. There is no reason to assume that there can only be one covenant active at anytime.
Worshiping Mary as a God could tend to really piss off the real God. Mother goddess with child was a common theme in idolatry, and Catholicism always had a problem with adsorbing the pagans instead of setting them straight.
This bronze idol is from the 8th to 7th century BC Nuraghic.
This Golden Idol, around the 17th century BC is from the Anatolia Hittite Empire in Nigeria
From Babylon we have the Idol Semiramis "Queen of Heaven" with her child Tammruz
What we do not have in the "Old" testament is a female Goddess of any kind. Now one would think that if God says "He" is today, yesterday and forever the same and that "He" is the ONLY real God, it might make it difficult to come up with a female Diety in the "New" testament.
If you stick with the Bible, you will come out ok, if you want the definition of Apostacy, Try adding to or taking away from the written Word.
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.