G
GreggAlvarez
Guest
Yes.
Why would He delay keeping His own mother from the corruption and evils that stem from sin?
Any non catholic: what is your opinion on Mary the Mother of God?
- Status
Why would He delay keeping His own mother from the corruption and evils that stem from sin?
I agree, Greg. And I think, from my perspective, that this is why Lutherans don’t reject the IC as dogma because it couldn’t be true (it very well could), but because scripture is not clear that it happened in the way the CC teaches. And without scriptural implicitness, we find it concerning to hold the conscience of the believer to it. Does that make sense to you as a Catholic?
Jon
G
GreggAlvarez
Guest
Yeah it makes sense to me.
That is why the Immaculate Conception should be dealt with AFTER providing scriptural support for the authority and Traditions of the Church. Well, for me anyway. It all comes to the authority of the Church and Sola Scriptura. Every single dispute comes down to those two contradictory beliefs.
We are all like brothers and sisters about this. Minus the pulling out hair and such… (Unfortunately, I AM the little brother with the siblings in my family. Ugh…)I agree that it is not explicit in Scripture. But, I disagree that Scripture is not even implicit though.
Why does it concern you? (Honest question.) I believe there is scriptural implicitness and you believe there is no scriptural implicitness. (I would say “much scriptural implicitness” as it would seem more fitting but that would only emphasize the implicit part and therefore be redundant.) I can show you and you will argue it. This is why the Immaculate Conception should be dealt with last.
In Christ,
Gregg
P.S. - I will be back later. Perhaps tomorrow.
I guess it really doesn’t concern me, other than I’m not sure how belief in the IC should effect salvation. Certainly, it makes sense that the Blessed Virgin would be pure, protected by grace, for the purpose of giving birth to the savior.Yeah it makes sense to me.
That is why the Immaculate Conception should be dealt with AFTER providing scriptural support for the authority and Traditions of the Church. Well, for me anyway. It all comes to the authority of the Church and Sola Scriptura. Every single dispute comes down to those two contradictory beliefs.
I agree that it is not explicit in Scripture. But, I disagree that Scripture is not even implicit though.
Why does it concern you? (Honest question.) I believe there is scriptural implicitness and you believe there is no scriptural implicitness. (I would say “much scriptural implicitness” as it would seem more fitting but that would only emphasize the implicit part and therefore be redundant.) I can show you and you will argue it. This is why the Immaculate Conception should be dealt with last.
In Christ,
Gregg
P.S. - I will be back later. Perhaps tomorrow.
I would be curious as to what you think would be scriptural implicitness of the IC. And don’t be too sure I would argue against it.
Jon
C
cruisin
Guest
OK, I have been following along with this thread for sometime now.
It seems to me that the question that is beginning to rise is
" How much of Christ was God and How much of Him was human?"
Then the question must be asked about what John said " … the Logos became flesh and dwelt among us" and what did he intend to convey to his readers, by writing this?
So did God become human and dwell among us?
Did he have some super natural ability to with stand sin while in the flesh? Did his feet really touch the ground when he walked? did he really touch the sick, blind, affirmed and dead? Many of His deeds would have been considered Sin by the letter of the Law and the way the Jews practiced.
Did his flesh get cold at night? did his flesh get week, hungry, thirst etc…??
When he entered Mary, did he not at the moment submit himself to this world? the way I understand it form the Apostles writing, is that Christ( being God) fully and completely, He submitted himself to this world?
From what I am hearing is that he didn’t submit to this world, until after his birth? I disagree.
What else I notice is that the disagreement seems to operating form 2 different camps.
My opinion of the Original O.P. and the title of the thread is that Mary gave birth to
My God…
My Messiah…
My Redeemer…
My Savior…
and…
My Lord.
I believe that she was chosen because of her faith and love for God. That God used her in a mighty way as he did Abraham, Issac and Jacob. King David, Solomon, and the prophets of old.
That she was a mighty woman of faith.
on another note:
Read Hebrews Enoch didn’t get taken up because he did or didn’t sin. Elijah the same thing.
Why God takes some and not others, In the words of " If it is my desire for him to be here till I come back, what is that to you? come yourself after me. meaning God is in control, not you or me. It is not my place to be concerned with all these things that have happen or that will happen. It is only my place to follow and be obedient.
I am done.
It seems to me that the question that is beginning to rise is
" How much of Christ was God and How much of Him was human?"
Then the question must be asked about what John said " … the Logos became flesh and dwelt among us" and what did he intend to convey to his readers, by writing this?
So did God become human and dwell among us?
Did he have some super natural ability to with stand sin while in the flesh? Did his feet really touch the ground when he walked? did he really touch the sick, blind, affirmed and dead? Many of His deeds would have been considered Sin by the letter of the Law and the way the Jews practiced.
Did his flesh get cold at night? did his flesh get week, hungry, thirst etc…??
When he entered Mary, did he not at the moment submit himself to this world? the way I understand it form the Apostles writing, is that Christ( being God) fully and completely, He submitted himself to this world?
From what I am hearing is that he didn’t submit to this world, until after his birth? I disagree.
What else I notice is that the disagreement seems to operating form 2 different camps.
- Is that Sin is passed on from parent to child and therefore the child is born with the stain of sin already on his soul, after his travel through the birth canal.
- the other is that Sin is personnel and each indifidual is responsible for there own mistakes. that being human and part of the world there is a sin nature, meaning the ability to sin, but no sin itself is transferred.
My opinion of the Original O.P. and the title of the thread is that Mary gave birth to
My God…
My Messiah…
My Redeemer…
My Savior…
and…
My Lord.
I believe that she was chosen because of her faith and love for God. That God used her in a mighty way as he did Abraham, Issac and Jacob. King David, Solomon, and the prophets of old.
That she was a mighty woman of faith.
on another note:
Read Hebrews Enoch didn’t get taken up because he did or didn’t sin. Elijah the same thing.
Why God takes some and not others, In the words of " If it is my desire for him to be here till I come back, what is that to you? come yourself after me. meaning God is in control, not you or me. It is not my place to be concerned with all these things that have happen or that will happen. It is only my place to follow and be obedient.
I am done.
D
Dokimas
Guest
C
ConsciousCoward
Guest
I’ll be honest, that’s one of my biggest questions regarding this subject.
If Mary had to be born without sin in order to have Jesus, did her mother have to be born without original sin to have her? Did her grandmother have to be born without original sin to have her mother without original sin? Where does the cycle stop?
T
Thesealsareope
Guest
Like many teachings of the Roman catholic Church their teachings on Mary are wrong.
I believe the Holy Bible.It says the dead cease to think.The dead cannot praise God.The dead know nothing.It also teaches that people do not have an immortal soul.
It also teaches that the only one that can intercede to the Father is Jesus the Messiah so I cannot see how praying to Mary can do any good.
And to teach that Jesus is ONLY in the Catholic Church as I have heard many priests teach ,is also contrary to the Holy Scriptures.
To teach they are the only 1 true church is also nonsense and contrary to the Holy Scriptures.
P
pismopal
Guest
If you come before the Lord someday…and I pray that you will…don’t forget to ask Him if Mary is His Mother and what does He think of the Church’s attention to her. We think we know the answer and this is why we pay attention to her.
T
Thesealsareope
Guest
that answer is also contrary to Scripture.When Jesus was told His mother and brothers were there He said “all is my family who keep my commandments.”
E
elvisman
Guest
Consider the Ark of the Covenant - the OT type of Mary. It was made of wood and gold. The ore that gold is derived from is not pure, but when the gold is drived from it - it is pure.
The trees that were cut to make the planks that made up the body of the Ark were not pure and undefiled - but they were made so later.
**The Ark was blessed and purified - so was Mary. It was undefiled - So was Mary. As I already explained to you in a previous post - NT fulfillments are ALWAYS more glorious and perfect than their OT types - ALWAYS. This is without exception in the Bible - in every, single case.
Adam & Jesus, Moses & Jesus, Eve &* Mary*, The Paschal Lamb and* Jesus*, David &* Jesus*, Ark of the Covenant &* Mary*, Joseph &* Jesu*s - the list goes on.**
Bottom line - Mary had to be made pure and undefiled to fulfill all righteousness. Her parents didn’t have to be.
T
Thesealsareope
Guest
Then why not pray to the ark of the covenant as you pray to Mary?
E
elvisman
Guest
Different types of salvation? PLEASE enlighten me.
You agree that Mary carried God in her wom and gave birth to him, yet you state that she is NOT the mother of God?
This is an exercise in contradition.
D
Dokimas
Guest
The Ark was not cleaned without the blood of the Old Covenant sprinkled by the high priest.
That said, I don’t believe you really answered my question. Did Mary’s mother have to be clean for Mary to be clean as, according to a previous poster, Mary had to be clean for Jesus.
E
elvisman
Guest
How do I pray to Mary?
D
Dokimas
Guest
D
Dokimas
Guest
The “Hail Mary” is a prayer isn’t it? Who is it addressed to?
E
elvisman
Guest
Ahhh - just what I though. Failure to understand.
**Protestants often say that to “pray” to somebody in heaven to ask them to for pray for us is idolatry because prayer is reserved for God alone. This is a complete failure to understand the word. **
To pray, in the most rudimentary definition of the word, is to petition – to ask something of someone. We pray to each other daily. Whereas prayers of adoration, worship, confession are reserved for God alone, asking a saint in Heaven to pray for us is no different than asking a saint on earth to do the same. To deny this is to deny the reality that is the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:12-31). We are all parts of the Body of Christ and are more radically joined together than the finger is to the hand because we are joined in Christ – and not by mere flesh.
Heb. 12:1 tells us that “we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses” and that we are to live accordingly. A witness is somebody who sees and hears things (Acts 1:8, 2:32) – otherwise they are not witnesses. Rev. 5:8 shows the Elders in heaven bringing our prayers before God and Rev. 8:3-4 speaks of the Angels in heaven doing the same thing.**
We petition Mary and the saints to pray for us – just like I would ask a brother or sister in Christ to do the same here on earth. The only difference is – those in heaven are perfect and righteous. James 5:16 tells us that "the fervent prayer of a righteous man is very powerful”.
Please be more precise. Which teachings are you referring to?
How do you account for Moses at the Transfiguration? And the theif on the cross (Today you will be with Me in paradise)? And Luke 15:7?
So, you never ask others to pray for you, or for others?
This just isn’t the case.
And much of your assertions here do, too.
Jon
T
Thesealsareope
Guest
The fact is that 99.9% of the teachings of the Church are contrary to Scripture.
I am happy to debate all the teachings and show using nothing but Scripture that not only is the English translations poor translations and in many cases wrong but that the teachings are also.
For example.The Holy Bible in English in Exodus 33 says that moses could not see Jehovahs face.But the ACTUAL hebrew says to look at His face.And to back that up Gen18 clearly says that Abraham saw Jehovahs face ,he even got Him a drink and bread and washed His feet.The scriptures are clear.Jehovah is not the Father.Jehovah and Jesus are one and the same.
- Status