Having some difficulty with accepting the Brown Scapular

[Fair_Lady]

Originally posted by JVD:
But St. Jerome, who was translating the original texts for the Church, was using BOTH the ancient Hebrew, and the Greek Septuagint. In his best judgment, he chose to translate the word: “ipsa” to yield - i.e. “SHE will crush thy head.” To dismiss St. Jerome’s translation as a MISTAKE - is wrong headed since this man was very scholarly and in tune with the source material like no other person on the planet.

There have been many “scholarly men” who have been dead wrong. When what they say is in conflict with what God has said, those “scholarly men” look foolish.

Originally posted by JVD:
Keeping the translation as “her” makes this is an extremely interesting and important passage. The differences are subtle but have profound implications for scripture when it is seen holistically with respect to “the woman” as New Eve. The symmetry is all there between OT Genesis and NT Revelation and the spiritual equations of an ancient wrong are balanced with respect to first transgressor (Eve) and the weaker sex humiliating Satan by crushing his head under foot as new Adam (Christ) has made it all possible. It is probably not meant to be literal but it probably does signal a final eschatological role for Mary.

“It is probably not literal and it probably does signal a final eschatological role for Mary” – I’m glad at least that this is not being presented in an authoritative way because it’s not what we can glean from scripture.

Originally posted by JVD:
And this plays well with what we are seeing in massive numbers of private Marian revelations all over the globe.

Satan can make himself as an “angel of light”. Beware.

Originally posted by JVD:
If you want to get stunned silly - then read the full short article I linked too and see how the approved Guadalupe revelations tie in perfectly with all this. When Mary appeared at Guadulope (aka Coatlaxopeuh) Mary said Her name was, “Coatlaxopeuh”, which means “She who crushes the serpent”. The Indians of Mexico were at that time still clinging on to their Mother goddess, Tonantzin. This goddess is depicted in statues with her head as a combination of loathsome snakes and her garment as a mass of writhing serpents. There is no way this can be coincidental and I’d say from this alone that “she” is the proper translation and St. Jerome is confirmed to be correct.

So now it’s not abiguous anymore. Now “she” is the proper translation and St. Jerome is confirmed to be correct. All because some pagans whose goddess was Tonantzin experienced an “apparition” of Mary?!!! May it never be! Go to God’s word for the truth.

Originally posted by JVD:
Then you are asserting yourself to have a higher pedigree than such giants as St. Jerome and of our popes who have studied scriptures and all the Vatican archives all their lives and also benefited from the apostolic succession and 2,000 years of scholarship and maturation of the faith. Do you really think you have a superior pedigree?

I don’t need a pedigree to be a student of God’s word. I just need the Holy Spirit, some good teachers and the Bible.

Originally posted by JVD:
We need only look at the countless [Catholic images that survived the Protestant destruction of Catholic art during their rampage of Churches] of the Serpent being crushed under the feet of Mary to know who God intended to refer to in Genesis 3:15. God, in his Almighty providence has set this in stone - in hundreds of thousands, if not MILLIONS of images - that have been carved, or cast, for many, many centuries.

So now it’s art that we look to for God’s truths? Can you see how confusion abounds when one doesn’t stick with the true source of truth, that source being God’s Holy Word.

 

[JVD]

Thank you for acknowledging the copyist error.

I didn’t acknowledge a copyist error in the septuagint. The article I referenced mentioned that the Hebrew text had a copist error. But I told you that Jerome used both Hebrew texts and the Septuagint. He elected to use the “she” rendering for very good reasons. Do you ackowledge the publishing error in the non-Catholic bibles that are missing 10% of the full word of God?

Got time for a story? I like analogies – they have a way of drawing out a point that needs to be made.

As you can see, the whole story is totally absurd as it truly is when the same idea is applied to Christ’s work on the cross being applied to Mary (because she was the person who “agreed to become the human channel through which Christ would enter the world in order to crust the serpent’s head (luke 1:38)”. (continued)

No, I don’t have time for your silly story that just confirms my sad suspicions that you didn’t take seriously anything I gave you and which proves you are not willing to break out of the paper-thin theology and the polemically inspired misperceptions about Catholic belief that somone taught you. I am disappointed in you.

Counter to your alarming warnings, Catholics do not try to apply Christ’s work on the cross to Mary. But you seem to think (correct me if I read you wrong) that Christ “did it all” on the cross (even before he rose again from the dead and gave the great commission to teach men all that he commanded). You simply do not see the perfect imagery of Christ as new Adam cast into a deep sleep (for 3 days), having his side opened up with a lance and The Church born out of the water and blood that flowed out (what happens in birth) - a clear sign that should call to mind how Eve was formed from Adam’s side.

But Christ did NOT do “it all” on the cross. He still had to rise from the dead and His People are still each called to carry their own crosses and to baptise and teach all nations how to obey His commandments. Christ only made it possible for men to be saved by making grace available through His Church. We don’t just sit in our “Easy Believism Inc.” branded rocking chairs waiting for the 2nd comming. Christ’s opened the wellspring of grace to those who would come to the well of the Church to partake of it (baptism and in the Eucharistic offering).

One still must claim that grace and use it to build up The Kingdom - not work against it in ignorance, or apathy or willful opposition to it. God’s Divine Providence requires that we each participate in all of His kingdom works. The apostle made it clear that we are partakers in that same cross: “Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church” (Col 1:24 )

Mary participated in the sufferings of the cross more intimately than any other person in the Christian Church ever did or ever will. Christ died and Marys soul was pierced too (Luke 2:35). That is not the same thing as defeating Satan - nor is it wrong to say that her suffering were of less merit than St. Paul’s. To try that is to be unbiblical.

James

 

[JVD]

The whole idea of allowing the “he/she” issue to remain ambiguous can actually be refuted with one verse from the Bible – Heb 2:14 - “Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;”

So then you are admitting that Mary is “the prophesied woman” in Genesis who God put enmity between Satan and herself and her seed?

This is a positive step in the right direction. You are not far from being spiritually awaken to the deeper truths.

Also, you might notice that the verse says “might destroy” and some translations say “He might render powerless”. It is NOT at all contrary to scripture for the The Woman to be the one who “crushes” Satan since the original manuscripts have NO MENTION OF HE OR SHE it is only says “the former”. As well the verse you cite here does not show Christ vanquishing Satan - just dis-empowering or defeating him. Your cited verse does not mean that Christ can not disempower and in His own time (in the last days) turn Satan over to Mary to be humiliated in submission to her as well (“crushing” his head after bowing to her) any more so than it means St. Michael stole Christ’s glory by tossing Lucifer out of heaven. You might want to consider why in antiquity subjects bow to Kings and Queens. It is a sign of submission to authority. By bowing one is placing their lives to the mercy of the royalty. Being outstretched with ones head to the floor gives complete trust in the King’s authority by making oneself defenseless. A person so prostrate could easily be decapitated or their skulls crushed by an attendant to the King at the slightest look of dissaproval. If Satan would not serve God in heaven then we can assume that Satan will be so shot full of pride that he will not willingly bow to Jesus’s throne – much less so Mary as Queen Mother. So we can easily see how the imagery of “crushing the head” of the serpent may be the King forcing Satan to bow against His will and then Satan having made no plea of mercy getting his head crushed (either literally or figuratively) by a subordinate under the direction of the King. It certainly seems fitting that this subordinate should be Mary - Queen mother and new Eve. This is Justice is paying back Satan for all the misery suffered by the Children of Eve. It brings the greatest humility to Satan in having a perfected, godly and obedient descendent of Eve (as first transgressor) be the one to do deliver God’s vengeance.

VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY,” says the Lord (Rom 12:19)

Let’s don’t imagine that God can not exercise vengeance in any way He sees fit.

Jesus alone was the one who bore the sins of the world when He went to the cross.
Jesus alone was beaten and hung on the cross.

Correct

and He alone bore the excruciating pain of each blow for our sins.

Somewhat incorrect. Christ suffered for our sins in a way that merited us our salvation. But Christ was not the only one to suffer on that day. Mary co-suffered through empathetic love in watching her own flesh and blood, her Lord who she loved above all else brutalized. Read Simon’s prophecy “a sword of sorrow shall pierce your heart”. What good is that prophecy to us if Mary’s suffering and sorrow is of no significance to God? Mary was first Christian and first to give penance to Jesus for those too ignorant to know what they were doing (“father forgive them for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:34 - invincible ignorance). Have you given any thought to who might have heard those dieing words of Jesus (and other at the cross accounts) and who originally conveyed all these things to the apostles and scripture writers? Mary was God’s witness in more ways than most people even think to realize.

Ever thought about some of the significance of why Jesus went missing in the temple for 3 days at the age of 12? It was to prepare Mary for the sorrows she always knew that she would have to bear when Christ suffered, died and lay buried as he taught the prisoners in hades for 3 days as his body lay in the tomb. “But Mary kept all these words, pondering them in her heart.” (Luke 2:19)

Jesus alone was the unblemished Lamb who was slain as the perfect sacrifice because we sin.

correct.

How dare we or anyone attribute those things to anyone other than Jesus because He is God and no human being can even come close to sharing the burden of the cross in the capacity that He did.

How dare anyone create a strawman like this and pretend that any Catholic believes this nonsence? Who told you Catholics believe this?

That is like saying the black is white and white is black. Two opposing ideas cannot possibly be true.

No, this is like a person walking into a room with no windows, closing the door then turning off the lights and saying 'its all dark in here and now I can’t find the light switch to find my way out".

You are creating a false dichotomy.

That is only an attempt at trying to cover a doctrinal error. It needs to be seen for what it is.

JVD:

Bottom Line: The Marian devotion is not in any way an attempt by Catholic to usurp Jesus power and honor and give them to Mary.

But it does. (continued

No, it only seems that way to you because you have been taught to see things through your Protestant lens and you are very biased.

James

 

[JVD]

There have been many “scholarly men” who have been dead wrong. When what they say is in conflict with what God has said, those “scholarly men” look foolish.

Correct - both scholarly as well as pompos jack-arsses.
Calvin and Luther come to mind here.

What is foolish is not being able to back your charges with convincing arguments.

“It is probably not literal and it probably does signal a final eschatological role for Mary” – I’m glad at least that this is not being presented in an authoritative way because it’s not what we can glean from scripture.

I think that the 35,000+ Protestant sects have given us a good example of all the different contradictory things one can glean from scripture.

Satan can make himself as an “angel of light”. Beware.

Just as as easily as he can make himself appear as a person seking information about the Catholic faith but then using that as a platform for teaching a different gospel than was handed down to us.

So now it’s not abiguous anymore. Now “she” is the proper translation and St. Jerome is confirmed to be correct. All because some pagans whose goddess was Tonantzin experienced an “apparition” of Mary?!!! May it never be! Go to God’s word for the truth.

Catholics may beleive either case (he/she) since its not critical to our salvation. Personally I believe it is “she” for some of the reasons I have given. You are not required to believe this either - if it causes you difficulty than you don’t have to take it this way - this is a finer detail. If you read some of the accounts of the pagans who had sacrificed 20,000 men from their conquered enemies to their goddess before the Spanish were able to convert them then you might have a different respect for this revelation that was highly verified with tangible evidence - a miracalous image of one of the peasants cloak that bears the image of Mary. There is no way that these people know a thing about Mary before the apparitions. They were unsophisticated and uneducated.


Our Lady of Guadalope
Juan Diego’s Account

I don’t need a pedigree to be a student of God’s word. I just need the Holy Spirit, some good teachers and the Bible.

Correct. The Catholic Church is the only authorized teacher of God’s Word. If you get taught by others then you will get taught a different gospel than what was handed down to us. But the same token you do need some pedigree (at least a confirmed and well catechized Catholic) to teach.

So now it’s art that we look to for God’s truths? Can you see how confusion abounds when one doesn’t stick with the true source of truth, that source being God’s Holy Word.

When you see the rainbow in the sky after a rainstorm you do not see God’s truth in his promise? You have never sung “amazing grace” as if it was a representation of Gospel truth? You do not see the image of God in your fellow man when you look at them and recall God’s truth in this? Do you get confused when you look at a photo of a crucifix?

How do you know that your read of God’s Word is true? This is why God gave us
the pillar and foundation of truth" - the Catholic Church.

James

 

[Fair_Lady]

What is foolish is not being able to back your charges with convincing arguments.

Let’s take another look at Heb 2:14 - “Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;”

What is it about that verse of scripture that allows you to remain unconvinced that it was Jesus who "through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;” was not the one to crush the serpent’s head?

And yes, you alluded to the fact that the resurrection of Christ as a key element of the gospel. I do agree, for as Paul stated in 1 Corinthians 15:14 - “And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.”

 

[JVD]

Let’s take another look at Heb 2:14 …

What is it about that verse of scripture that allows you to remain unconvinced that it was Jesus who "through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;” was not the one to crush the serpent’s head?

It has nothing at all to do with that verse but to your creation of a strawman argument about what Catholics believe. Why do you equate humiliating Satan viz crushing his head as the same thing as Christ’s spiritual victory over him? Also you need to understand that the words in the verse you site are somewhat rhetorical or using hyperbola and passionate speech. The divine author knows that Satan can’t be destroyed in the absolute sense. That is why is said “might destroy him”. What he really means is that Christ might dis-empower Satan in the sense that his power to wage war with The Woman’s Seed is crippled so that those who make use of God’s spiritual weapons can prevail in resisting Satan (i.e. putting on the full armor of God and using prayer and sacramentals as a weapon - word of God, Eucharist, scapulars, rosary prayers, devotions etc.). Satan is never “undone” and removed entirely from existence. That might be how we humans think in terms of “destroy”. But what it really means is that the strongman is tied up or restrained - not utterly destroyed. Satan will exist for all eternity in hell but the elect will succeed in overpowering him and escaping his domain and moving past him and up and beyond him to much bigger things. The least in heaven will be infinitely superior to any soul in hell in Satan’s dominion.

Crushing the Serpent’s head is more symbolic in the sense that the descendants of “The Woman” (Christ, and the elect) will trod Satan under foot like the disciples shake the fouled dust of unbelievers from their feet from our feet. You need ot understand some of the Aramaic and ancient people’s aversion to showing one’s feet to another - its a supreme insult and humiliating gesture. By using the “crushing one’s head” imagery it to demonstrate utter and total dominance over a subordinate creature. Now compare and contrast this concept with the washing of the feet of the apostles that Christ did in the upper room before He gave himself to them at the pascal feast (Eucharist) to get a sense of what’s going on here and how humble Christ made himself in serving: “The greatest among you must be the least”.

Mary’s figurative crushing of the serpent in no way takes anything from Christ’s work on the cross. In fact it demonstrates that power all the elect will have over Satan when Christ works through them.
*
Luke 10:19 19"Behold,** I have given you authority** to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing will injure you.

Psalm 91:13 You will tread upon the lion and cobra, The young lion and the serpent you will trample down.

Acts 28:3-5 But when Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks and laid them on the fire, a viper came out because of the heat and fastened itself on his hand. 4When the natives saw the creature hanging from his hand, they began saying to one another, “Undoubtedly this man is a murderer, and though he has been saved from the sea, justice has not allowed him to live.” 5However he shook the creature [serpent] off into the fire and suffered no harm.

Mark 16:17-18 And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well." *

And yes, you alluded to the fact that the resurrection of Christ as a key element of the gospel. I do agree, for as Paul stated in 1 Corinthians 15:14 - “And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.”

More so than that - Christ’ resurrecting himself was what reopened heaven (the promised land) to human souls. But the keys and the authority had to be still given to His apostles so that they could do the same for all those they converted. Much work remains to be done. It is the premier moment in all of creation where God physically starts building His Kingdom - one living stone after another around the pillar and foundation of truth - His Church.

Isaiah 22:22 *“I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.” *

The cross is that key to the gate of heaven as well as the the door lentil to the narrow door that is sprinkled with the blood of the lamb so that the angel of death could pass over those safe inside (in Christ) who partook of the pascal lamb (Eucharist).

John 6:56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. John 17:11 I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name—the name you gave me—so that they may be one as we are one.

The Resurrection is the supernatural work of Jesus that exemplified God’s power and which made it possible for Jesus to appease God’s Justice and His granting and manifesting His Mercy by giving The Son ALL authority. This divine authority is in turn given to the apostles so that certain selected men may speak in His Name and to forgive sins and the power to turn hearts back to God so that the elect will be saved.

Consider this scriptural vignette which demonstrates the transference of power and authority to Jesus’ specially selected men and how they continue that lineage until Christ returns:

[continued]

James

 

[JVD]

[from prior]

Apostolic succession and continuity of transference of authority from generation to generation.
Daniel 7:14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

[ed: the devil originally had the authority from on high to dominate godless men before Christ won it from the Father]
Luke 4:5 5The devil led him up to a high place and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world. 6And he said to him, “I will give you all their authority and splendor, for it has been given to me, and I can give it to anyone I want to. 7So if you worship me, it will all be yours.”

[ed: but Christ defeats Satan spiritually and The Father gives that authority to Christ.]
Matthew 28:18-20 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

[ed: Christ gives that same authority to his apostles]
John 2);21 Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” 22And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

[ed: The apostles in turn pass that authority on to subsequent generations of disciples as the Church grows]

John 13:20 - Jesus says, “he who receives anyone who I send, receives Me.” He who receives the apostles, receives Christ Himself. He who rejects the apostles and their successors, rejects Christ.

Acts 1:15-26 - the first thing Peter does after Jesus ascends into heaven is implement apostolic succession. Matthias is ordained with full apostolic authority. Only the Catholic Church can demonstrate an unbroken apostolic lineage to the apostles in union with Peter through the sacrament of ordination and thereby claim to teach with Christ’s own authority.

Acts 1:20 - a successor of Judas is chosen. The authority of his office (his “bishopric”) is respected notwithstanding his egregious sin. The necessity to have apostolic succession in order for the Church to survive was understood by all since the commission was given until Christ was to return.

[ed: literally, “one must be ordained” (chosen & blessed ) to be a witness with “us” of His resurrection. Apostolic ordination is required in order to teach with Christ’s authority. ]

Acts 1:22 - beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection."

[ed: apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination). This authority has transferred beyond the original twelve apostles as the Church has grown.
]
Acts 6:6 - They presented these men to the apostles, who prayed and laid their hands on them.

[ed: even Paul, who was directly chosen by Christ, only becomes an ordained minister after the laying on of hands by a bishop. Sacramental ordination is required to be a legitimate successor of the apostles.]

Acts 9:17-19 Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. **Placing his hands on Saul, he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord—Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here—has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” **18Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul’s eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized, 19and after taking some food, he regained his strength.

[ed: apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination). This authority must come from a Catholic bishop and only those who God tells the bishop are called into service]

Acts 13:3 So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them [Barnabas and Saul ] and sent them off.

Many more examples of apostolic succession:

Acts 14:23; Acts 15:22-27; 2 Cor. 1:21-22; Col 1:25 (divine office that does not end at death;1 Tim. 3:1 (“episcopoi” (bishop) which requires an office).; 1 Tim. 4:14; 1 Tim. 5:22 (cautions to call & ordain only those who are worthy); 2 Tim. 1:6 (Paul empathizes the unique gift of ordination); 2 Tim. 4:1-6 - at end of Paul’s life, Paul charges Timothy with the office of his ministry ; 2 Tim. 2:2 (this verse shows God’s intention is to transfer authority to successors [here, Paul to Timothy to 3rd to 4th generation]); Titus 1:5; Luke 10:1; 1 John 4:6 - (whoever knows God listens to us [the bishops and the successors to the apostles]); Exodus 18:25-26; Exodus 40:15;Numbers 3:3; Numbers 16:40; Numbers 27:18-20 (shows God’s intention that, through the “laying on of hands,” one is commissioned and has authority); Deut. 34:9 (Moses laid hands upon Joshua, and because of this, Joshua was obeyed as successor, full of the spirit of wisdom);
Sirach 45:15 (Moses ordains Aaron and anoints him with oil. There is a transfer of authority through formal ordination)
We are now far from the original OP about doubts on the scapular and more into the particulars of core Catholic teaching.

James

 

[Fair_Lady]

[from prior]

We are now far from the original OP about doubts on the scapular and more into the particulars of core Catholic teaching.

James

Yes, and it’s hard to keep up with all the reading. I’d be interested in what you think of this: abideinchrist.com/messages/gen3v15.html

 

[JVD]

Yes, and it’s hard to keep up with all the reading. I’d be interested in what you think of this: abideinchrist.com/messages/gen3v15.html

It starts off ok but then quickly runs into a cascade of troubles and contradictions as it attempts to push its Protestant tradition while posturing against Catholic beliefs. It almost seems as though the man goes out of his way to push every “Catholic Button” he can push - even getting into talking about physical virginity of Mary in a wild excursion away from his original thesis and top-level topic.

Here’s a quick summary of theological errors and faulty logic:

Opening context - mixing metaphors of lost sheep and the Prodigal’s Son is Genesis is just silly. It was sin that brought the Prodigal’ son in search of His Father - not the other way around. The concept he wants to use is valid but its the wrong parable/analogy. The father did not go out looking for his son who was “Dead to Him”. - why should he if he is dead? The errant Son suffering from sin comes in search of the father for help.

The paragraph about God creating enmity is wrong. The enmity is not between Satan’s seed with Satan’s seed (e.g. those who follow the devil) but rather between those who are the seed of the Woman (those who are in the Church and born of the new Eve). There will be an undying opposition between Satan’s offspring and with new Eve’s offspring (Christ is first born then his siblings - Christians). The wicked will of course fight among themselves over power and envy but the true hateful enmity is between the wicked and the Christian’s who are born of the new Eve (and new Adam).

This statement is wrong: “We are all born in sin and this included Joseph and Mary.”
Mary was sinless and had no inclination/concupiscence to sin.

This statement is wrong:
"Mary was a sinner born to sinful parents who came from sinful parents. If Jesus had received a corrupt sinful nature from either Joseph or Mary He could not have been our sinless substitute dying for our sins. He would have been in the need of a redeemer like all other sinful men. "

If we follow the above cause and effect logic then Jesus was born of sinful parents and had to be sinful too - but that’s absurd. Again, Mary was sinless.

These two statements are in error: “Mary’s hymen was broken from within.” and “Jesus was born of God, not by humans”.
Mary was ever virgin in the fullest sense. She maintained physical virginity right through birth. And Jesus was born of woman not God - why we call her “God bearer”.

So much more to say - but no time to grade it further - It’s not worth the paper its written on. I give a grade of D or C-…

James

James

 

[Fair_Lady]

Originally posted by JVD:

Opening context - mixing metaphors of lost sheep and the Prodigal’s Son is Genesis is just silly. It was sin that brought the Prodigal’ son in search of His Father - not the other way around. The concept he wants to use is valid but its the wrong parable/analogy. The father did not go out looking for his son who was “Dead to Him”. - why should he if he is dead?

Here, I would tend to agree with you that there is a mix of metaphors. I wouldn’t have used the term “prodigal” to describe Adam and Eve at that point in time. They were hiding because they felt the guilt of sin. At the same time, though, the Bible is clear that Jesus did come to seek and to save that which was lost (Luke 19:10 - For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.) I think the point the author was making was that God initiates salvation by calling or wooing us into His fold. It is up to us to respond to that call. Too many reject that call or wooing of the Holy Spirit.

Originally posted by JVD:
The errant Son suffering from sin comes in search of the father for help.

There is an implication in verse 20 of Luke 15 that the father was looking for his son. Again, I think this points to the father and son each involved in a role in salvation.

Originally posted by JVD:
This statement is wrong: “We are all born in sin and this included Joseph and Mary.”
Mary was sinless and had no inclination/concupiscence to sin.

“Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:” Romans 5:12

Originally posted by JVD:This statement is wrong:
"Mary was a sinner born to sinful parents who came from sinful parents. If Jesus had received a corrupt sinful nature from either Joseph or Mary He could not have been our sinless substitute dying for our sins. He would have been in the need of a redeemer like all other sinful men. "

If we follow the above cause and effect logic then Jesus was born of sinful parents and had to be sinful too - but that’s absurd. Again, Mary was sinless.

Except for the fact that Jesus was/is God. That makes Him different.

Originally posted by JVD:These two statements are in error: “Mary’s hymen was broken from within.”

That would have occurred during the birth of Christ because she was a virgin.

Originally posted by JVD:

Mary was ever virgin in the fullest sense. She maintained physical virginity right through birth.

I agree with you here. Even though her hymen would have been broken by the birth, she was still a virgin at that time because she had not yet begun a physical relationship with her husband, Joseph.

Originally posted by JVD:
And Jesus was born of woman not God - why we call her “God bearer”.

Jesus was referred to as Son of God and son of man. The term “God bearer” isn’t a term I would use because it could be confused with the trinity – God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Mary bore God the Son only.

Originally posted by JVD:
So much more to say - but no time to grade it further - It’s not worth the paper its written on. I give a grade of D or C-…

I give it an A- because the document does accurately show that Christ is the One who crushes or bruises Satan’s head, with sufficient scriptural proof. There are a few things the author said that I wouldn’t have expressed as he did so that brought it down from an A+ to an A-.

 

[JVD]

There is an implication in verse 20 of Luke 15 that the father was looking for his son. Again, I think this points to the father and son each involved in a role in salvation.

It takes two to tango - but the son felt sorrow and repented under the whithering effects of sin (which is how sin serves God). The Father was looking for the son’s return but it was the son who DECIDED by freewill to respond to His father’s calling-hope (will) from the son’s distant-recollection of the goodness of his father. I am not saying that God does not call each to Him but only that the article writer misread a lot into the parable that was not there and made a blatant error here.

“Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:” Romans 5:12

This is the danger of literalism. If you look at all of what Paul wrote you will note that he also tells us in other verses that ALL MEN ARE LIARS - yet Paul in so saying never explicitly exempts himself. So do we believe Paul when he tells us the truth that he is a liar or find nonsence in the contradiction??? In the same verse you site Paul never exempts Christ from ALL those that sinned either. Clearly this was a form of hyperbola and not meant to mean all men in every instance have sinned. How is it that a child below the age of reason sins? By definition she can’t sin, since sinning requires the ability to reason and the ability to intend to sin. This is indicated by Paul later in the letter to the Romans when he speaks of the time when Jacob and Esau were unborn babies as a time when they "had done nothing either good or bad" (Rom. 9:11). Paul later goes on to exempt Jesus (Heb. 4:15). You should take literalism in context and understand the actual minds and intentions of the men who wrote sacred scripture - there’s a teaching that goes along with the words and your reference author is no student of an apostolic teaching.

More here: Immaculate Conception & Assumption

Except for the fact that Jesus was/is God. That makes Him different.

Of course Jesus being divine could not sin - but he was tempted like all other men. My point was that the author’s logic was extremely flawed.

[continued]
James

 

[JVD]

That would have occurred during the birth of Christ because she was a virgin.

Not so - Mary’s physical virginity was preserved right through childbirth.
There are NO statements in scripture that speak of Mary ever losing her virginity.
There are however lots of prefiguring topology as well as other written accounts of early Christian thought that support the presumption of perpetual virginity. Read the Protoevangelium of James for detailed descriptions:

*And [the midwife to Mary] said to her: Salome, Salome, I have a strange sight to relate to you: a virgin has brought forth— a thing which her nature admits not of. Then said Salome: As the Lord my God lives, unless I thrust in my finger, and search the parts, I will not believe that a virgin has brought forth.

1. And the midwife went in, and said to Mary: Show yourself; for no small controversy has arisen about you. And Salome put in her finger, and cried out, and said: Woe is me for mine iniquity and mine unbelief, because I have tempted the living God; and, behold, my hand is dropping off as if burned with fire. And she bent her knees before the Lord, saying: O God of my fathers, remember that I am the seed of Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob; do not make a show of me to the sons of Israel, but restore me to the poor; for You know, O Lord, that in Your name I have performed my services, and that I have received my reward at Your hand. And, behold, an angel of the Lord stood by her, saying to her: Salome, Salome, the Lord has heard you. Put your hand to the infant, and carry it, and you will have safety and joy. And Salome went and carried it, saying: I will worship Him, because a great King has been born to Israel. And, behold, Salome was immediately cured, and she went forth out of the cave justified. And behold a voice saying: Salome, Salome, tell not the strange things you have seen, until the child has come into Jerusalem.*

You will no doubt say this is not inspired text in the same breath you give the very deficient author of that silly paper you referenced an -A. :tsktsk:

I give you a -C for arbitrary and inconsistent judgement. wink

Do you think God was capable of the Incarnation but somehow not capable of preserving mere physical virginity in coming into the world?

The understanding of Mary as every Virgin was a very very early Church belief. Read what the Church Father’s taught:
Mary Ever Virgin

BTW, are you familiar with these verses:

[continued]
James

 

[JVD]

BTW, are you familiar with these verses:
Ezek 44:1-3 Then He brought me back by the way of the outer gate of the sanctuary, which faces the east; and it was shut. 2 The LORD said to me, “**This gate shall be shut; it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter by it, for the LORD God of Israel has entered by it; therefore it shall be shut. **3 “As for the prince, he shall sit in it as prince to eat bread before the LORD; he shall enter by way of the porch of the gate and shall go out by the same way.”

Rev 3:7 "To the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: These are the words of him who is holy and true, who holds the key of David. What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open

[ed: prefigurement of the virginal status the God Bearer - the Arc of the Covenant]
2 Sam 6:7 The LORD’s anger burned against Uzzah because of his irreverent act [touching the Arc]; therefore God struck him down and he died there beside the ark of God.

[ed: clear prefigurement of Arc of Covenant to Mary as the Arc of the new Covenant]
2 Samuel 6:9: “However can the Ark of Yahweh (- My Lord) come to me?”
Luke 1:43: “Why should I be honored with a visit from the mother of My Lord?”

2 Samuel 6:11: “The Ark of Yahweh remained for three months in the house…”
Luke 1:56: “Mary remained about three months in the home of Elizabeth.”

Note: there is so much more - please read the Mary in Scripture Link
Here is a pretty thorough exposition of Mary and her prefiguremet in scripture:
Mary in Scripture

I agree with you here. Even though her hymen would have been broken by the birth, she was still a virgin at that time because she had not yet begun a physical relationship with her husband, Joseph.

See above. Mary’s hymen was never broken - it was a simple matter for God to preserve what no man would ever touch from both sin and loss of virginity in the fullest sense. There is no account anywhere in scripture that Mary ever had relations with man. The last thing that is said of it is Mary herself saying “how could this be since I know not man”? The truth is that Mary had taken a vow of virginity before she was even presented to Joseph and God honored that vow.

Jesus was referred to as Son of God and son of man. The term “God bearer” isn’t a term I would use because it could be confused with the trinity – God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Mary bore God the Son only.

No that is not the reason why you would not use the term. The reason you will not use the term is because you’ve been taugh that it is too “Catholic” and because you wish to remain faithful to your Protestant theological teachings even thought it can not rational deny this title except in its obstinancy to reject Catholicism in favor of itself. To refuse to honor Mary with the term “God Bearer” is to in some degree actually deny the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus. There is no way any Christian could ever confuse the term God Bearer as meaning Mary created God the Father. But there is also no way you can claim that Jesus is both divine and human flesh while denying the validity of calling Mary God Bearer.

It’s a term that the most holy men in history used. Mary was seen as the arc of the covenant way back in the early church in many song and hymns. Reference Athanasius’s writings.

I give it an A- because the document does accurately show that Christ is the One who crushes or bruises Satan’s head, with sufficient scriptural proof. There are a few things the author said that I wouldn’t have expressed as he did so that brought it down from an A+ to an A-.

It does not accurately reflect any degree of scholarship. This man who wrote that article is full of error and false teachings. He means well but has no business teaching his nonsence to anyone. You give a man who promulgates heretical ideas an -A at the same time you reject the teachings of The Holy Spirit in His enlightenment of the Marian dogmas. Only one verse here comes to immediate mind as the truth is persecuted by ignorance and darkened intellects:

“Father forgive them for they know not what they do” Luke 23:34.

James

 

[Fair_Lady]

Thank you for all your time and effort, James. Before going on, I need to ask - In what/whom do you place your faith and trust for your salvation?

 

[JVD]

Thank you for all your time and effort, James. Before going on, I need to ask - In what/whom do you place your faith and trust for your salvation?

My Faith comes to me by way of the apostolic teachings handed down to me from the 2,000 year old Catholic Church; a church which has had 2,000 years to perfect its insights as illumined by the promised Holy Spirit. I place my complete trust in Jesus and in all He said and commanded and did. At no time does scripture tell us to “have faith in the bible” or in personal faith in discerning it - quite the contrary. Rather it says to have faith in He who comes in the name of the Lord. That person is Jesus as Lord as well as all his appointed apostolic disciples - including His mother who said “do whatever he tells you to do”. We can not rightfully say that we have faith in Jesus if we do not obey the men who he sent to teach us WHO Jesus was and WHAT He taught. A book (the bible) can NOT but give us glimpses into some of those things. It is only through Jesus working through the instrumentality of His Church (that is His Bride and His people) that any of us can truly have faith in Jesus. We must discern the presence of the Lord in The Eucharist to prove our faith in ALL that Jesus told us. There is no other Church on the planet (other than our schismatic Orthodox brethren) where somone can come to the Lord to taste and see that He is good and to commune with Him is the most profound way - trusting Him to be present in the appearances of bread and wine. The person who can discern this in faith is the person who can truly say they have faith in the Lord.

James

 

[Fair_Lady]

My Faith comes to me by way of the apostolic teachings handed down to me from the At no time does scripture tell us to “have faith in the bible” or in personal faith in discerning it - quite the contrary.

But would you not agree that the Bible is “God’s word” or the “word of God”? Also that the Bible is inspired of God?

 

[JVD]

But would you not agree that the Bible is “God’s word” or the “word of God”? Also that the Bible is inspired of God?

The Bible is God’s word when it is read and taught according to how the original authors intended it. It however, becomes man’s words when read, spoken and taught through the mouths of non-apostolic Christians who deliver a nearly completely different gospel that the original apostles would not recognize.

One must live by every word that comes out of God’s mouth. That word exists in 4 ways:

1. written scripture, 2) oral apostolic teaching and tradition, 3) Jesus as living word of God (why we must partake of Eucharist and know Jesus personally in a relationship and 4) God’s word written in our hearts.

A focus on “bible alone” without valid apostolic teaching is to partake of the forbidden fruit - tasting only part of God’s word and then spicing it with mere human ideas and fanciful ideas.

James

 

[LittleSoldier]

But would you not agree that the Bible is “God’s word” or the “word of God”? Also that the Bible is inspired of God?

I apologize for not starting a new thread. I kept getting waylaid by other things. I see this one turned into the very thread I would have started, so why don’t we keep it going?

I’ll re post my posts from before, if that’s OK with you. The poster you were debating with is gone for awhile, so this may help until he gets back. BTW I think he is doing a wonderful job.

The rest of this week is, of course, very important for Christians, and I won’t be able to do anything until Monday. I’m going to spend the rest of the week in prayer and meditation and finally watch The Passion of the Christ.

Holy Mother, please keep
all unborn children safe today.

 

[Fair_Lady]

The Bible is God’s word when it is read and taught according to how the original authors intended it.

I agree with that 100%.

It however, becomes man’s words when read, spoken and taught through the mouths of non-apostolic Christians who deliver a nearly completely different gospel that the original apostles would not recognize.

I agree with that to the extent that the gospel as written in scripture can be twisted to mean something entirely different. But I also believe that while it’s good and important to have excellent teachers to teach us the word, God has also made it possible for us to read and understand His word, even if we’re sitting by ourselves. For instance, I can take a passage like Luke 8: 5 - 15 (the parable of the sower and the seed) and get a good basic understanding of what Jesus is teaching. I’m wondering if you would also find that you would get a good basic understanding of that passage if your read it on your own too? Or would you need the teaching passed onto you or an interpretation by a priest or other Catholic clergy?

One must live by every word that comes out of God’s mouth. That word exists in 4 ways:

1. written scripture, 2) oral apostolic teaching and tradition, 3) Jesus as living word of God (why we must partake of Eucharist and know Jesus personally in a relationship and 4) God’s word written in our hearts.

1. Agree
2. Written word is sufficient.
3. Agree, except for the Eucharist
4. Agree, though it needs further clarification to make sure we’re meaing the same thing here. Just don’t have time for it now.

A focus on “bible alone” without valid apostolic teaching is to partake of the forbidden fruit - tasting only part of God’s word and then spicing it with mere human ideas and fanciful ideas.

The Bible contains apostolic teachings. It is suffiicient.

 

[Fair_Lady]

I apologize for not starting a new thread. I kept getting waylaid by other things. I see this one turned into the very thread I would have started, so why don’t we keep it going?

I’ll re post my posts from before, if that’s OK with you. The poster you were debating with is gone for awhile, so this may help until he gets back. BTW I think he is doing a wonderful job.

The rest of this week is, of course, very important for Christians, and I won’t be able to do anything until Monday. I’m going to spend the rest of the week in prayer and meditation and finally watch The Passion of the Christ.

Holy Mother, please keep
all unborn children safe today.

Good to see you back, LittleSoldier. I know how things can get busy. I’m finally finished my busy time at work. Because we’re getting so far off topic here, I’m thinking we could get locked out anytime soon. Do you suppose we could start a new thread right after Easter? That way we won’t run the risk of being locked out. I’m going away for Easter as well - it’s my mother’s 80th birthday so am decorating a huge cake for her. So I’ll be busy with that too. Have a wonderful Easter!