Posted on 04/12/2008 7:19:29 AM PDT by DouglasKC
In our case the final authority is the elite political power mongers affirming themselves as correct AND MOST IMPORTANT, IN !!!!CONTROL!!!!
There—corrected.
EXCEEDINGLY well put. THANKS.
There's no difference between "before" and "without" in this context. If you think Mary was sinless "before" Christ sacrificed then you think Mary was sinless "without" the sacrifice of Christ. If the sacrifice didn't happen yet, then it didn't happen. If I didn't go to the store yet, then eggs still got in my refrigerator without me going to the store. Just because you believe the eggs got there magically doesn't mean I have to buy into your belief.
So Moses is damned? Abraham damned? Adam, David, Solomon - all damned?.
No and again this is where you err because you don't know the scriptures. Scriptures says that they haven't received the promise of eternal life...YET.
Heb 11:39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:
Heb 11:40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.
Paul was discussing Moses and other old testament figures who had faith. He is saying that they did not receive the promise in their faith.
Likewise David has not received the promise of heaven:
Act 2:29 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulcher is with us unto this day.
Act 2:30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;
Act 2:31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.
Act 2:32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.
Act 2:33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.
Act 2:34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
Now here's the thing. All of these people knew the Lord. But all of these people were also sinners, they were under the death penalty for sin. The sacrifice of Christ DID take away the penalty for sin, but these people ARE NOT in heaven. They're in their graves waiting for the return of Christ. That is when they will come to glory:
1Co 15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
Now Mary is in the same boat. She WAS a sinner. She knew and accepted the Lord. BUT her sin could not be atoned for UNTIL the sacrifice of Christ. And she's STILL in the grave waiting the return of Christ to be resurrected to glory.
The simple fact is that Christ’s grace can be applied to anyone he chooses to do so. He is sovereign and all powerful.
"Grace" can be applied, but being in God's grace is different than having your sins atoned for by the death of Christ. No sins were atoned for until Christ died on the cross. This is fundamental Christianity. And being sinless is impossible for any human being even with indwelling of Christ. Only deity's are sinless which is probably why people think you guys consider Mary a deity to be worshiped.
Wrong. You lied about what I believe and what I said.
The religion moderator would say at this point "Discuss the issues all you want but don't make it personal". I don't appreciate you repeatedly calling me a liar. I may disagree with your position and I may misunderstand your position, but characterizing my statements as "lies" is ascribing a motive to my character that just isn't there. You're being quite rude and insulting and I'm doing my best to keep the conversation at a respectful level. I would appreciate the same consideration.
“That’s not Twain making things up, that’s a neutral observation.”
(I’d ping the quoter but I forget his name)
Funny how someone could disrespect and deny the One, Holy, Apostolic and Catholic Church, the very Church which chose with the help of the Holy Spirit, the Canon of the Bible, which holds the Tradition of over 2000 years, with an unbroken line of Apostolic successors, and take Mark Twain’s words as gospel. It is just kind of silly and shallow. I mean, the man was a comedian, he was funny and I love his writing but since when did anyone get their theology from a humorist?
“The problem occurs when the term “Mother of God” is the accepted translation, it implies all kinds of things that just aren’t true.”
Perhaps the problem is not so much implication as inference.
From the article at your link:
The Virgin Mary is the living shrine of the Word of God [...] the shadow of the Most High envelops and penetrates the tabernacle of the New Covenant that is the womb of Mary (cf. Luke 1:35) (Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerant People, The Shrine: Memory, Presence and Prophecy of the Living God).
No, the 'Tabernacle of the New Covenant' is the heart of Man.
1Co 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
1Co 3:17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.
(e-Sword: KJV)
I remain unconvinced. Typology is well and good, but it should not be used for a primary evidence, as it can easily be misleading, as I feel is the case in this matter.
A subject given such iconic veneration, given such a central role, as is the case with Mary among the RCC, should have evidences found in the Scriptures which are declaratory, and many, rather than relying on such evidences as can border upon gnosticism, waiting for centuries to be revealed to men.
I did a study on heretical literature some years back, the subject of which brought to light the intentional misreadings of Scripture and early writings to promote an iconic state for John the Baptist, which are very similar in structure to the nature of the arguments presented to me here...
Very little declares Mary definitively in the Scriptures. What proofs do lie there (at least those offered to me thus far) are exaggerated, or need to be extrapolated, to say the least. Such, indeed, is the case with the comparison of Mary to the Ark of the Covenant. Nary a one of those attributes need apply to Mary at all, and rightly find their place in Christ Himself. He is the Living Testament. He is the fulfillment of the promises in the Old Testament. It is He who is to reside in the Most Holy Place in the New Temple, *not* Mary.
Please forgive me FRiend, if my statements cause offense, as that really is not my intention. My goal is to outline the need for a better proof which, in my opinion, is incumbent upon you (all) to provide.
Physical land promises made to Abraham and to his seed are a part of the New Covenant, so I think it is too simplistic to say that the Tabernacle of the New Covenant is the heart.
Neverthrless this Mary presented as the “shrine” is cerainly not any one of the six Mary’s of the New Testament, who were all as sinful as any other descendent of Adam, and needed a Saviour as much as any other sinner. Mary could have birthed the Son of God (which she did) and died and gone to Hell, had she acted as the majority of her nation did. She had to personally believe upon Him as her personal Saviour and be born-again like any other sinner.
Obviously she is blessed among women for the honour of being chosen to carry and deliver that which had been begotten in her of the Holy Ghost. She is not the only women in the /bible, however, that enjoyed a wonderful beatitude directly from God.
There is no indication in the New Testament that any person ever worshipped Mary; ever thought about worshiping Mary. There is evidence in the New Testament, actually, that one should not.
You are right, of course, in the need for a physical temple, and wrt promises made to Abraham. The spiritual aspect of the tabernacle/temple however, does apply.
There is no indication in the New Testament that any person ever worshipped Mary; ever thought about worshiping Mary. There is evidence in the New Testament, actually, that one should not.
Agreed.
I don't disagree that Jesus is the one who IS the Word, nor that He resides in the New Temple. However, at its most basic level, the old Ark was a holy vessel which contained the Ten Commandments, Manna from Heaven, and the Staff of Aaron. Mary contained all three of these in her womb - the Word of God (made flesh), the Bread of Life, and the authority of the Priesthood.
I understand you may disagree. So be it. The beauty of my faith is that I can also rely on the thousands of years of teachings from holy men. Mary as the Ark was a common theme with the early Fathers, held by the Church. If it was bordering on a heresy as you claim, I cannot believe the Holy Spirit would let it stand for so long.
I am off for the day - God bless!
You wrote:
“There’s no difference between “before” and “without” in this context.”
Yes, actually the two words are entirely different in this context. “Before” is about time and “Without” is about method. Time and method are not the same thing. I can’t believe you are reduced to saying two entirely different words mean the same thing.
“If you think Mary was sinless “before” Christ sacrificed then you think Mary was sinless “without” the sacrifice of Christ.”
No. Mary was saved by Christ. When His sacrifice happened is not related to its power or effect. The TIME of His sacrifice in no way reduced His ability to save.
“If the sacrifice didn’t happen yet, then it didn’t happen.”
Again, when it happened has no impact on Christ for He transcends time and space. He is GOD, in case you didn’t know.
“If I didn’t go to the store yet, then eggs still got in my refrigerator without me going to the store.”
You’re not God. God transcends time and space. You don’t.
“Just because you believe the eggs got there magically doesn’t mean I have to buy into your belief.”
God’s power is not magical. See what you are reduced to? To thwart the power of God you are reduced to making up silly analogies - all wrong - that claim God’s power is magic. How sad for you.
“No and again this is where you err because you don’t know the scriptures. Scriptures says that they haven’t received the promise of eternal life...YET.”
Yet? As in 2008? You’re claiming that they’re not in heaven yet? You’re making less and less sense.
Also, Acts points out that David did not ascend into heaven. Only Christ did. Your idea that the patriarchs are not in heaven is simply bizarre and completely out of touch with reality. You offer no scriptural support either since none of the verses you cite actually say what you claim.
“Now Mary is in the same boat. She WAS a sinner. She knew and accepted the Lord. BUT her sin could not be atoned for UNTIL the sacrifice of Christ. And she’s STILL in the grave waiting the return of Christ to be resurrected to glory.”
No. Mary was saved by Christ’s grace at her conception. His sacrifice was so momentous that it helped her even before Christ’s birth into the world. Christ was all powerful.
The simple fact is that Christ’s grace can be applied to anyone he chooses to do so. He is sovereign and all powerful.
“The religion moderator would say at this point “Discuss the issues all you want but don’t make it personal”. I don’t appreciate you repeatedly calling me a liar.”
Yet what I said was irrefutable. I said one thing and you deliberately claimed I said something entirely different. Now you’re claiming both statements mean the same thing when they clearly can not mean the same thing.
“I may disagree with your position and I may misunderstand your position, but characterizing my statements as “lies” is ascribing a motive to my character that just isn’t there.”
Then why would claim something that is categorically untrue? I said one thing and you claimed I said something entirely different. No matter how offended you claim to be it is still true.
“You’re being quite rude and insulting and I’m doing my best to keep the conversation at a respectful level. I would appreciate the same consideration.”
I am not being rude in the least. Again, I said one thing and you DELIBERATELY said I said something I never said. Now you’re claiming the two statements are the same thing when they are not. As soon as you DELIBERATELY claimed I said something I never said, any hope of this being a “conversation at a respectful level” was dashed. Why claim I said something I never, EVER, said?
no, only God is worthy of worship — we Catholics do NOT worship Mary.
I realize that (at the basic level you describe), and I grant you that linkage. But we would then have to figure out whether that linkage makes Mary the Ark, or if, by some wild and crazy chance, it was the Ark that she carried within her... You know, the first and only container of flesh to ever hold the Spirit of God within it. The first container of flesh to be resurrected, ascended, imbued with the full power of God... You know, just sayin'...
Is Mary the Ark or is Jesus the Ark- As for me, I think it to be the latter.
I understand you may disagree. So be it.
Indeed.
The beauty of my faith is that I can also rely on the thousands of years of teachings from holy men. Mary as the Ark was a common theme with the early Fathers, held by the Church.
I can also rely upon those writings, where they apply. Yet I need not take them for Gospel truth.
If it was bordering on a heresy as you claim, I cannot believe the Holy Spirit would let it stand for so long.
Perhaps one of the reasons in God's great design that led Luther to nail a notice to a door.. ;)
I am off for the day - God bless!
Same to you FRiend.
well, not distraction — it’s more like this, after Luther lead a mostly political split, then Calvin and others led more heretical thoughts, leading to things like Unitarianism and Mormonism.
Are you saying the Jews had a special place in their religion for a container touched by God and bearing his Word? And there was nothing wrong with that even though they adorned it with gold and had it in their temple? Gee, the things you learn on Freerepublic....
And you call Constantine a sun-worshipper when he was the one who fought under the sign of the cross?
315 posted on April 14, 2008 12:49:08 PM MDT by Cronos
He also issued for promulgation the beginning of anti-semitism Constantine was a Pagan throughout all of his life; Constantine convened the Nicene Council in 325 AD and issued this edict: ON THE KEEPING OF EASTER. From the Letter of the Emperor to all those not present at the Council.
from DOCUMENTS FROM THE FIRST COUNCIL OF NICEA [THE FIRST ECUMENICAL COUNCIL] A.D. 325 Or Possibly:
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai
Acts 20:
Constantine the Pagan Pontiff called and presided over the Council of Nicea.
28 "Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock,
among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers,
to shepherd the church of God which He purchased
with His own blood.
29 "I know that after my departure savage wolves
will come in among you, not sparing the flock;
30 and from among your own selves men will arise,
speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them.
31 "Therefore be on the alert, remembering that
night and day for a period of three years I did
not cease to admonish each one with tears.
and the paganism of Sun Day and Easter into the State Religion.
he was baptized on his deathbed by a heretic.
(Found in Eusebius, Vita Const., Lib. iii., 18-20.) When the question relative to the sacred festival of Easter arose, it was
universally thought that it would be convenient that all should keep the
feast on one day; for what could be more beautiful and more desirable,
than to see this festival, through which we receive the hope of
immortality, celebrated by all with one accord, and in the same
manner? It was declared to be particularly unworthy for this, the
holiest of all festivals, to follow the custom [the calculation] of the
Jews, who had soiled their hands with the most fearful of crimes, and
whose minds were blinded. In rejecting their custom,(1) we may
transmit to our descendants the legitimate mode of celebrating Easter,
which we have observed from the time of the Saviour's Passion to the
present day[according to the day of the week]. We ought not,
therefore, to have anything in common with the Jews, for the Saviour
has shown us another way; our worship follows a more legitimate and
more convenient course(the order of the days of the week); and
consequently, in unanimously adopting this mode, we desire, dearest
brethren, to separate ourselves from the detestable company of the
Jews, for it is truly shameful for us to hear them boast that without
their direction we could not keep this feast. How can they be in the
right, they who, after the death of the Saviour, have no longer been led
by reason but by wild violence, as their delusion may urge them? They
do not possess the truth in this Easter question; for, in their blindness
and repugnance to all improvements, they frequently celebrate two
passovers in the same year. We could not imitate those who are openly
in error. How, then, could we follow these Jews, who are most
certainly blinded by error? for to celebrate the passover twice in one
year is totally inadmissible. But even if this were not so, it would still
be your duty not to tarnish your soul by communications with such
wicked people[the Jews]. Besides, consider well, that in such an
important matter, and on a subject of such great solemnity, there ought
not to be any division. Our Saviour has left us only one festal day of
our redemption, that is to say, of his holy passion, and he desired[to
establish] only one Catholic Church. Think, then, how unseemly it is,
that on the same day some should be fasting whilst others are seated
at a banquet; and that after Easter, some should be rejoicing at feasts,
whilst others are still observing a strict fast. For this reason, a Divine
Providence wills that this custom should be rectified and regulated in a
uniform way; and everyone, I hope, will agree upon this point. As, on
the one hand, it is our duty not to have anything in common with the
murderers of our Lord; and as, on the other, the custom now followed
by the Churches of the West, of the South, and of
the North, and by some of those of the East, is the most acceptable, it
has appeared good to all; and I have been guarantee for your consent,
that you would accept it with joy, as it is followed at Rome, in Africa,
in all Italy, Egypt, Spain, Gaul, Britain, Libya, in all Achaia, and in the
dioceses of Asia, of Pontus, and Cilicia. You should consider not only
that the number of churches in these provinces make a majority, but
also that it is right to demand what our reason approves, and that we
should have nothing in common with the Jews. To sum up in few
words: By the unanimous judgment of all, it has been decided that the
most holy festival of Easter should be everywhere celebrated on one
and the same day, and it is not seemly that in so holy a thing there
should be any division. As this is the state of the case, accept joyfully
the divine favour, and this truly divine command; for all which takes
place in assemblies of the bishops ought to be regarded as proceeding
from the will of God. Make known to your brethren what has been
decreed, keep this most holy day according to the prescribed mode; we
can thus celebrate this holy Easter day at the same time, if it is granted
me, as I desire, to unite myself with you; we can rejoice together,
seeing that the divine power has made use of our instrumentality for
destroying the evil designs of the devil, and thus causing faith, peace,
and unity to flourish amongst us. May God graciously protect you, my
beloved brethren.
I was just going to let this go, but I'm not going to let you deliberately keep misstating my claims and intentions. I got curious about how you ever came to believe this so I went back and looked at my posts. As far as I can tell sir, it was you who created the whole notion that I "claimed" you said something you hadn't. From post 289:
I said: “She could not be made sinless without the sacrifice of Christ. If she did, then Christ was a liar. He did not die for our sins.”
You said: Yet another straw man!!!!!!!!! Who here is claiming that Mary was sinless WITHOUT Christ’s sacrifice? Who? I have never, EVER, claimed any such thing. I really don’t take it personally that you disagree with orthodoxy. I do take it personally when you flat out lie about what I have said or about what Catholics believe. Why lie? And here’s the proof: multiple times I have said Mary was sinless because of Christ’s death on the cross, His sacrifice. Multiple times I have said this! "
I made a statement that Mary could not be made sinless without the sacrifice of Christ. This is absolutely true and I believe it to be absolutely true because I do not believe anyone could have had atonement for any sins BEFORE the sacrifice ever occurred.
You then blustered that I'm a liar BECAUSE YOUR BELIEF IS DIFFERENT. You say that I claimed that YOU SAID that Mary was made sinless without the sacrifice of Christ. I never did that and you know it. I stated my belief about the topic and YOU claimed that I said you said it.
Anyone interested can look back at the entire exchange and see that this was exactly the way it happened. I'm sorry you had to go down this road because I think it took away and distracted from the article and the discussion that followed. But maybe that was your intention all along.
I'm done responding to you on this issue, so have the last word if that's your wish.
Agreed.
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.