I see the usual problem here of not being able to distinguish between the physical and the spiritual state of being.
where did you concocked this lunacy from?
That’s some very ecumenical language you have there.
[501](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/501.htm’)
Jesus is Mary’s only son, but her spiritual motherhood extends to all men whom indeed he came to save: "The Son whom she brought forth is he whom God placed as the first-born among many brethren, that is, the faithful in whose generation and formation she co-operates with a mother’s love."160 - LG 63; cf. Jn 19:26-27; Rom 8:29; Rev 12:17.
maybe not clone but artificial insemination, now a day if they wanted they could do artificial insemination on a virgin, would that mean that that baby would be with out sins since it would not have a man as a father.
Gabriel your post is hard to work with since you quote everything.
**NDfan:, Please Re-read Gen. 3 again? God is talking to the serpent and makes a prophecy about Mary and Jesus, and what Jesus is going to do to the serpent, strick him with a deadly head blow, while he bruises his heel doing so , the crucifixioin is already being prophecised about by God, after the fall, God already puts into creation to correct what Adam and Eve undone for humanity. Now please listen to what the Lord states to the serpent, God is making a prophecy here, then after he makes his prophecy to the serpent, God then speaks to the woman (Eve). followed by the curses for the woman in sin, including Eve herself. Say a little prayer to the Holy Spirit to reveal this to you.
Genesis 3:14 Then the LORD God said to the serpent: “Because you have done this, you shall be banned from all the animals and from all the wild creatures; On your belly shall you crawl, and dirt shall you eat all the days of your life.
15
3 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel.”
16
To the woman he said: "I will intensify the pangs of your childbearing; in pain shall you bring forth children. Yet your urge shall be for your… **
So you are saying that if Jesus was born without sin from Mary who was sinful then you would walk away from Christianity?
**Yes, because it defies all the spiritual aspects of God’s revealed word to humanity. Mary was saved in Jesus from the foundations of the world. God cannot be born of a woman with sin, that is why God put enmity between Mary and the serpent. Enmity means God will save her and protect her from the serpents sin. She will be immaculately conceived without original sin, and remain sinless, this is enmity that God has promised the Woman (Mary) and her seed (Jesus), **
As far as proof. I don’t have to prove she was sinful because the Bible says all have sinned.
Yes, Amen to that, that is why Mary proclaims the Lord is her savior, God saved her before sin can touch her, their is no difference between being saved out of sin, and being saved from sin, Mary was saved from sin, according to God, and his prophets.
You need to prove she was sinless which scripture does not state. If Mary was not sinful then why did she take a sin offering to the Temple after Jesus was born?? The Roman Catholic church says it’s because she was following the law. Since this is GOD’s law then Mary should be exempt from it since GOD made her sinless.
This reasoning applies to John the baptist, when he told Jesus, You must baptise me, you have no need for baptism. Jesus told John the baptist “Allow it now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness” then John baptised Jesus. Jesus had to fulfill every letter of the Law and the prophets, Mary as the ark of the new covenant, participated in our redemption here. God’s old covenant Law did not excempt no one, in order to be exempt you or God had to die. Mary was fulfilling the old Covenant laws God gave to Moses for all the first born male childs. Jesus from his conception began to fulfill prophecies, and the Old Covenant Laws. About the death part to free us from the Natural old covenant law, Jesus the testator of the covenant, fulfilled it in his death, recall the passover being completed, at the crucifixion, Jesus states “It is finished”, Jesus just took the last cup of the Passover meal, and his Todah sacrifice, Jesus did all these things once and for all.
Verse 15: God is proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus and Mary here, and places a hedge aroung the woman (enmity) protectiion from the serpent.
15 I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your offspring [5] and her offspring;
he shall bruise your head,
and you shall bruise his heel.”
The above verse is not Eve, because she was already tainted with sin, so the enmity between Eve and the Serpent in the Garden does not suffice this scripture. The offspring of Eve which is us, are not without original sin here. But this woman and her seed, which means she will be a virgin and have a male child without sin, because He, Jesus will be from her seed.
GOD is giving the serpent his punishment for deceiving EVE. Also the woman here.
Yes he is, now God is speaking to the Woman Eve herself here, he just got done with the serpent, and told him what will happen, that is why history displays Satan always trying to kill the infants of Moses, and Jesus, and failed both times.
Genesis 13:16 To the woman he said,
“I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing;
in pain you shall bring forth children.
Your desire shall be for [6] your husband,
and he shall rule over you.”
Now we’re back to Eve again. She is receiving her punishment for sinning.
Yes, this curse applies to her, and every woman from this point on, will suffer birth pains. Mary did not suffer birth pains.
You’re trying to mix Mary in here where she doesn’t belong.
God speaks to the serpent about the Virgin Mary and Jesus, in a prophecy, not the woman eve, until verse 16.
I hope this makes better sense, Peace be with you
Well of course someday we will all be totally sinless in heaven and everything restored. That is separate. It is a debatable issue whether it is possible to obtain the state of sinlessness in this lifetime.
Good point. Actually I do agree with the proposition.
Actually you missed my point.
Not trying to be arrogant I’m just saying that after years of Bible study I think the Roman Catholic church got some things wrong.
It’s not 2000 years of interpreting. Many doctrines concerning Mary are newer. And it’s not my own interpretation that I’m relying on. I don’t study the Bible in a vacuum nor do I have pre-conceived notions of what the Bible says. I interpret scripture for what scripture gives us using good theological methodologies which I am well qualified to do. I also studied church history, Jewish culture etc. to get an even fuller meaning of scripture. One cannot understand the passover meal and what Christ was doing unless you fully understand the Jewish seder meal and the afikomen part of that meal.
As a disciple of Jesus I have the right to read and interpret scripture on my own if I wish just as you do. What I can’t do is contradict scripture. This again is why I don’t study scripture alone in a vacuum and why I attended Bible college. I’ve had good discussions with Roman Catholic Priests and on things we disagree on we agree to disagree.
The answer is actually neither. I had no pre-conceived notions about who is right and who is wrong. I don’t look at it that way and that’s not how it’s looked at in Bible college. We’re taught all interpretations that exist including Roman Catholic interpretations. Then taught why certain interpretations can be supported better than others. The interpretations I tend to follow are the ones that match better to other parts of scripture that pertain to the same subject and also to historical events.
Again it’s not a matter of showing errors. It’s making the best interpretation possible. I may say this is how the Roman Catholic church interprets Genesis 3:13-17. This is how some Protestants interpret the same passage. It’s not this is how the RCC interprets it and they are wrong.
Based on this supposition the RCC wouldn’t be able to interpret it either which would imply they could be wrong. Some parts of scripture are easier to interpret than others. That’s why you have to apply systematic theology to interpreting scripture, understand church history, and also understand Jewish culture. You make it seem as if I can’t possibly interpret scripture. That somehow my education amd training is inferior. You certainly are throwing out alot of “what makes you think you can do this statements”.
Who’s he?? When I was Roman Catholic I never took much interest in the Bible. Then I started reading scripture and found certain things to be inconsistent with RCC teachings. Initially I chalked it up to my own misunderstanding. So I became a student of the Bible and attended school for it. I still believe the RCC has errored on certain things. I never said the RCC was completely wrong.
How so?? The Roman Catholic churches in our area have suffered terribly from incompetent Priests. The attendance across all 4 of these has declined dramatically. I prayed for GOD to lead us somewhere so that we could worship and be completely fulfilled. It’s not like I went to Bible college and then said oops I’m leaving the Roman Catholic church now. I’m very proud of my upbringing in the Roman Catholic church. My Faith and morals are strong because of it. I simply believe the church errored on a few points. That doesn’t make them a bad church. Many Roman Catholics who attend our church came from these same 4 churches.
You are taking it as being arrogant. It certainly is not meant that way. Perhaps you are more offended and if you are please accept my apology for offending you. The question of are you missing something can only be answered by you. If you are interested in comparing what you are reading to what I’m interpreting then throw something out and I’ll be happy to show you what I’ve learned. If you disagree that’s OK. The forum is meant to generate good spirited discussion.
What about them?? I believe Roman Catholics that read the Bible tend to see the interpretation only from the RCC point of view. You never think the RCC could be wrong so you will not tend to deviate from their interpretation. I see this alot. I was in a conversation the other day with someone from the RCC and we were having a great discussion on the Eucharist. The only thing stopping this person from believing me was they would not admit that the RCC could be wrong. Notice I said could, not are. The remark made was, “well that’s what we were always taught”. But they flat out admitted I made very good points.
It’s not a matter of being incapable of understanding. It’s a matter of considering that the RCC could be wrong. If you will never consider that then you will always interpret scripture as the RCC does and demand that you are right and everyone else is wrong.
No apologies necessary. Peace and GOD Bless.
Cloning and artificial insemination are completely different methods of regeneration. Cloning of humans does not exist, as far as I know, and I personally believe that God will not allow it to ever happen. The Bible separates the origin of animal life from the creation of man, so the success in animal cloning is no predictor of success in human cloning.
The question now is, “How did you determine that the RCC “context” was best?”
And how did you determine that your personal interpreation is correct?
Which is why Christ founded the catholic Church. Our faith is too important to leave it up to each indivdual to try and figure it out on their own.
In your opinion. But then why should we accept your personal interpreation?
I have read a few of your responses and think they are fairly well thought out. If this was asked and answered before forgive the repeat, but it might help me better understand something as well as explain my views.
I already know the Catholic definition of sin. You asked mine. Just because they are different does not make me insane.
It seems from this post that you agree tradition from the Apostles is just as binding as Scripture (I think, right?) Why do you then assume that God was unable to protect Sacred Tradition if He was able to protect His written Word?
The ECF disagreed on a lot of issues and were just fallible men.
Reread the passage again, Mary was not troubled per se by an angel greeting her, she was troubled by HOW the angel greeted her.
What is your explanation for Mary’s troubled reaction to the angel’s greeting?
It does that, see 2 Thess.2:15.
I NEVER said He couldn’t have done it. Please don’t put words in my mouth. :tsktsk: Just that it meant more that He uses someone as imperfect as me. It meant that I had hope for Him to do wonderful things through me even though I lack perfection.
Yes, I did, very thoroughly actually. However, I don’t believe the whole truth is only in the Bible …
Thats a given-ebvne scripture doesnt claim it contains the whole truth.