Posted on 08/15/2010 3:56:22 PM PDT by TaraP
I said your arguement carried no weight....
“There is no forgiveness for sin without the shedding of blood”....Mary offered Doves as her sacrifice for her sins. Of course the law rewuired this but it certainly was offered for her sin as was necessary for Jews. Mary certainly understand the meaning of animal sacrifices and why they were instituted...
Implying that she only was following the law without recognizing her need for forgiveness is ridiculous. From your comment it would appear you are saying she was simply trying to save face before the people.....
Zuriel:
I understand you have a high opinion of your interpretation of scripture but I don’t hold it to be the standard for theology.
So my question to you, is can you guarantee that what you are interpreting is orthodox doctrine.
The 2nd Century Church Fathers [St. Ignatius, St. Polycarp, St. Justin Martyr and St. Ireneaus of Lyons being the big 4 of that period] were the ones defending the orthodox Apostolic Tradition from the various Gnostic heretical sects. Thus, they represent legitimate witness of the Faith of the Church that had been received from the Apostles for St. Polycarp was likely a disciple of the Apostle John and St. Ignatius new Polycarp as one of his letters was addresed to him.
Persevero:
So my question to you is which, among the thousands of Protestant Sects is the most representative expression of orthodox Christian Doctrine?
See how easy that is to say?
Mary would have carried out the Law to the letter had she been sinful or not. To NOT obey the law would have been a sin.
Your citing this episode proves nothing. Literally.
If your position (that Mary was just a random girl chosen for the purpose) is true, she would have made the sacrifice.
If my position (that Mary was made sinless by special favor from God) is true, then Mary would have made the sacrifice.
Ergo, (If X, then Z) AND (if Y, then Z) proves neither X nor Y false.
I have logic on my side. What do you have?
Personally speaking I would not use the word insemination as that is a literal term to describe what 'flesh' can accomplish. We are speaking of and attempting to describe a never to have happened before or since miracle, in as the process of the flesh body beginning without the involvement of a 'man'. IT was a miracle the conception took place.
But is NOT a new thing for to be known, some call it 'born again' when in fact from the origin of the language it is 'born from above', and according to John 3:10 Jesus answered and said unto him, "Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?
13 And NO man hath ascended up to heaven, but He That came down from heaven, even the Son of man Which is in heaven.
Mary provided the earth vessel for the flesh body of 'God with us' to come in a flesh vessel, but she had NOTHING to do with the existence and or preexistence of the Spirit that was/is and always be Christ, notice Genesis 3:15 it was already in existence.
No Catholic argues otherwise.
“So my question to you is which, among the thousands of Protestant Sects is the most representative expression of orthodox Christian Doctrine?”
I don’t know that I could possibly investigate each Protestant denomination, and I don’t think God expects me to.
As we see in the New Testament, the Christians gathered locally (in Corinth, hence the letters to the Corinthians, in Rome, hence the letters to Rome, etc.).
I’d use that example and find a church nearby where the Bible is sincerely believed and faithfully taught.
It is pretty easy these days with the internet and telephones. You can find out what most churches believe without actually visiting, or at least narrow it down.
Persevero:
Fair enough if that is what you believe. I don’t as your model of Christianity and the Church distorts who God is. God is One and thus is a perfect communion of Love so the Church as Christ Body takes on the reality of who God is.
For me as a Catholic, and I think Eastern Orthodox would agree, Protestant eccesiology is lacking big-time.
“For me as a Catholic, and I think Eastern Orthodox would agree, Protestant eccesiology is lacking big-time.”
I think some Protestant ecclesiology is. For instance, the local guy who decides he’s a prophet, rents a storefront, and starts to “prophesy.” That’s a load of hokum, totally unBiblical.
But the good Bible-believing churches have solid confessions, accountability, standards for ordination, and church discipline are very sound in my opinion. What did Jesus say? You judge them by their fruits.
I think you will admit the discipline in the RC church is sorely lacking with the Ted Kennedys and Nancy Pelosis of this world getting served the mass, etc. They would not get communion at my church! Also witness the coverup of the child molesters. Please do NOT assume I paint all RCs with the same brush, not at all, I know the vast majority of RCs are not represented by these horror shows; these are just public instances of bad accountability and discipline.
It happens in Protestant churches, too, witness Ted Haggard, good grief, but in his case he was removed from the pulpit and so forth. To his church’s credit.
So I see ecclesiological shortcomings in both RC and some Protestant denominations.
The same thing that “all” means when Jesus said, “It is appointed for all men to die.”
Obviously, unless Jesus was stupid, he made an unstated exception for Elijah and Enoch.
Yeah, so Jesus, having not included a qualifier, when he said that it is appointed for “all” men to die, meant that Enoch and Elijah died?
If you’d do a bit of language study, you’d learn that words like all can be used in a general sense to indicate generalities that admit of exceptions. If one really wishes to exclude all exceptions, one says so.
Since “all” was not clarified either by Jesus or by Paul in these two instances, it is left to the interpreter to decide whether it was intended to be exceptionless.
You are entitled to your interpretation, namely, that it is exceptionless.
Just don’t go around claiming that it’s a slam dunk clearcut case.
It’s not.
Our disagreements are over how to interpret. But you insist that there’s no room for interpretation.
There is. Elijah is the name of that space for interpetation.
That’s a slam dunk—it’s a slam dunk that the word “all” leaves room for interpretation. Jesus himself used it in a way that left room for exceptions.
Your quarrel is with Jesus. Go pick a fight with Him.
It’s true that Elijah and Enoch haven’t died yet.
And if they are in heaven, they won’t. Ever. People don’t die in heaven. Or do you dispute whether Enoch and Elijah are in heaven? Your smart-aleck response demonstrates the bankruptcy of your argument.
Simmer down. It wasn't a smart-aleck response.
Are you familiar with The Book Of Revelation and the "two witnesses" described in Chapter 11?
Is noticing no scriptural emphasis whatsoever, or even the mention, of Mary the mother of Jesus Christ, by name in the epistles, interpreting or just plain obvious?
To say that the first part of Rev. chap 12 is showing the ‘woman’ to be Mary, has to be labeled ‘interpreting’. Since you put such faith in select theologians, perhaps you can link me to what they say about the ‘woman’ going thru the three and one half years of great tribulation. I believe that Rev. 12 harmonizes with ‘theologian’ Daniel’s prophecy for the nation of Israel.
**...St. Polycarp was likely a disciple of the Apostle John..”
‘likely’?
A good measure would be: Who not just knew one or more of the apostles, but taught the Word exactly as they taught it. If anybody teaches one thing differently than the apostles then they are not reliable sources.
Apollos was mighty in the scriptures, instructed in the way of the Lord, and fervent in the spirit, yet some lowly tentmakers by the names of Aquila and Priscilla expounded to him the way of God more perfectly.
Here’s the deal: Aquila and Priscilla had been born again, They had been baptised in the name of the Lord and had received the Holy Ghost. In other words, they had received the same ‘upper room’ experience as those in Acts chapter 2, which was the beginning of the Church. Peter referred to that beginning, when telling the believing Jews in Jerusalem of the Holy Ghost being poured out on the gentile household of Cornelius (How did Peter know it was genuine? He heard them speak with tongues).
After many years of knowing Christian ‘tradition’, and listening to educated preachers (that seemed to avoid the book of Acts), a lowly witness showed us the Word. My wife and I obeyed Acts 2:38 and received our own ‘upper room’ experience, receiving the Holy Ghost speaking with tongues.
That which I had previously mocked became my surprising new life.
Zuriel:
And I only notice “Zuriel” giving his/her interpretation of scripture. And to that I say, well you can believe what you wrote, but I dont’t and will not ever.
I will go with the theological interpretation of Sacred Scripture given by the Church Fathers. And as for Polycarp being a likely disciple of St. John, I was being diplomatic. St. Irenaeus [See Adverse Heresies III, 3], who herd Polycarp speak is the one who attests that St. Polycarp was indeed a disciple of St. John.
Why is St. Ireneaus and his writings and interpretations more relevant to me, than your views. Well, despite the obvious, he was among the great theologians of the 2nd century and wrote tirelessly against the various Gnostic Heretics of his time and thus is recognized by the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Church as an orthodox Church Father whose writings reflect orthodox Apostolic Tradition.
Are you familiar with the Book of Revelation and the Woman of ch. 12?
Yes.
Now will you answer my question?
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.