R
roselily
Guest
Sure! to ask other blessed souls for the same,
And last sentence is I said, I understand.
- Status
And last sentence is I said, I understand.
R
Richard_Kastner
Guest
Yes it does. Rom.8:3For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
Because they disagree with me [and Paul] does not mean they are right.
C
CopticChristian
Guest
Lets do something simple. Christians believe that Christ is the God/man. Christians place their trust in Christ alone. Christians believe in the trinity, all have read the bible, all believe it is the word of God and all believe that Scripture is God breathed. Are we OK with that for starters?
R
Richard_Kastner
Guest
Sure.Lets do something simple. Christians believe that Christ is the God/man. Christians place their trust in Christ alone. Christians believe in the trinity, all have read the bible, all believe it is the word of God and all believe that Scripture is God breathed. Are we OK with that for starters?
F
Frankk
Guest
The word all isnât used in Rom. 8:3 as you say. Neither is Mary. What it âseemsâ to say you have interpreted as a fact - personal interpretation is always fraught with problems. Why would Paul have anything to say about Mary? There are many things Paul doesnât say. In fact Paul has very little to say about Jesusâ ministry - that doesnât mean he didnât subscribe to his teachings. Indeed there are critics of Christianity who argue that Paulâs teaching contradicted Jesus. A false premise, of course, but such is the danger of private interpretation as mentioned above.
H
Hail_Linus
Guest
I can tell you are a sincere Christian so please take the following as food for thought and not an attack.Personally, I try always to keep in mind that I could be wrong.
Including Mary in the Romans 3 passage is sensible, because itâs the simplest interpretation. Iâve been taught that, when trying to understand Scripture, you should look at whatâs simplest and most straight-forward first. So, when Romans 3 v23 says âall have sinnedâ, I would say it means âallâ, as in everyone (excluding Jesus, because we know from elsewhere that He was without sin). The reason I wouldnât exclude Mary from that is because I donât see anything elsewhere in Scripture that would lead me to believe she is excluded. You use Scripture to interprete Scripture, so any conclusions have to be compatible with the whole of the Bible. If Mary was totally without sin, I would expect that to be mentioned somewhere in the Bible, but as far as I know, it is not. I am willing to be corrected, of course, so feel free.
*]You say âyouâve been taughtâ. That means you follow a hermeneutic TRADITION that is not specifically taught. We can know this because you were taught this tradition; You did not learn it on your own from the scriptures.
*]It is good to look at what is âsimplest and most straight-forward first.â Does that mean you should not read it with other hermeneutic techniques?
*]You say âRomans 3 v23 says âall have sinnedâ, I would say it means âallâ, as in everyone (excluding Jesus, because we know from elsewhere that He was without sin).The reason I wouldnât exclude Mary from that is because I donât see anything elsewhere in Scripture that would lead me to believe she is excluded.â Well others do see it. For example she as you know in Luke she is greeted like royalty and said to be âfull of Grace.â BTW, for Catholics, when an Angel speaks he is speaking for God (Godâs exact words). Additionally (I must admit I did not learn this from the Catholic Church), we know that Jesus is the new Adam. If there is a new Adam it is not unreasonable to conclude there is a new Eve. Although Jesus and Mary are not Husband and Wife as Adam and Eve, they do share one similarity, Eve was made from the flesh of Adam and Jesusâ body was made from the flesh of Mary. Furthermore, the Earl Church Fathers did consider her the new Eve. The original Eve was born with out sin so it is not unreasonable to conclude the new Eve, Mary, was also born without sin. You and I both view Scripture as infallible so how do we figure out what the truth is?
*]You claim âYou use Scripture to interpret Scripture, so any conclusions have to be compatible with the whole of the Bible. If Mary was totally without sin, I would expect that to be mentioned somewhere in the Bible, but as far as I know, it is not.â Yet in Acts 8, the Ethiopian is trying to read Isaiah and and Philip asks him âDo you understand what you are reading?â and the Ethiopian responded, âHow can I, unless someone guides me?â Notice that Philip did not say, âIt is easy, just use scripture to interpret scripture.â
I do not expect to be able to convince you. I was once in your shoes. I just hope you understand that, although you disagree, Catholic beliefs are not unreasonable.
C
CopticChristian
Guest
Thank you. Then understand that what I wrote can only be applied to those that are Christian. If I take this sentence and say that âallâ believe in the trinity then that is not true. Jehovah Witness and Mormons do not. The whole world has not read the bible and âallâ is not inclusive to the world just to those I wrote about. I qualified this by saying Christians.
Paul is writing to Christians.
And everything in that letter to the Romans is qualified by to whom he is writing. He is trying to make a point. It is a letter to be read to Judaizing Christians trying to engage others in the Old Covenant. The theme is âobedience of Faithâ. Paul is trying to make a point to the Jews in Romans 3 by saying âallâ in the context of those to whom he is writing.
If Paul had been asked, what about Mary? He probably would have answered this question. The main thrust of the letter had nothing to do with what Protestants do with this passage.
The point has been made that âallâ in Romans 3 does not apply to Jesus, the unborn and the exception proves that Paul is not using all in the collective but rather the distributive sense.11(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth
Luther is the hero of the reformation saying Scripture alone and Luther defended and believed that Mary was without sin.
Here is what Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli say about Mary, all agree that Mary should be honored. You accept Luther on Sola Scriptura and Luther disagrees with you on Mary. How can anyone make sense of Sola Scriptura with that approach.
Martin Luther:
"But the other conception, namely the infusion of the soul, it is piously and suitably believed, was without any sin, so that while the soul was being infused, she would at the same time be cleansed from original sin and adorned with the gifts of God to receive the holy soul thus infused. And thus, in the very moment in which she began to live, she was without all sinâŚ"3
John Calvin
"Elizabeth called Mary Mother of the Lord, because the unity of the person in the two natures of Christ was such that she could have said that the mortal man engendered in the womb of Mary was at the same time the eternal God."7
"Helvidius has shown himself too ignorant, in saying that Mary had several sons, because mention is made in some passages of the brothers of Christ."8 Calvin translated âbrothersâ in this context to mean cousins or relatives.
"It cannot be denied that God in choosing and destining Mary to be the Mother of his Son, granted her the highest honor."9
"To this day we cannot enjoy the blessing brought to us in Christ without thinking at the same time of that which God gave as adornment and honour to Mary, in willing her to be the mother of his only-begotten Son."10
Ulrich Zwingli
"It was given to her what belongs to no creature, that in the flesh she should bring forth the Son of God."11
"I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin."12 Zwingli used Exodus 4:22 to defend the doctrine of Maryâs perpetual virginity.
"I esteem immensely the Mother of God, the ever chaste, immaculate Virgin Mary."13
"Christ ⌠was born of a most undefiled Virgin."14
"It was fitting that such a holy Son should have a holy Mother."15
"The more the honor and love of Christ increases among men, so much the esteem and honor given to Mary should grow."16
F
Frankk
Guest
Trying to squeeze unspoken aspects of Mary into the Bible is, perhaps, an interesting intellectual exercise. But it is no more than that. The Catholic Church rests on 3 Pillars: Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Living Magisterium. The Mystery of Mary is found in these three.
Sola Scriptura and/or private interpretation is wholly inadequate to describe her Mystery. Not least because the Bible, itself, tells us that it is incomplete: âBut there are also MANY other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be writtenâ. (Jn 21:25)
Mary was most hidden during her life, which is why she is called by the Holy Spirit and by the Church âAlma Materâ: Mother hidden and secret. God took pleasure in concealing her from the view of almost every human creature at her conception, at her birth, during her life, in her mysteries, at her resurrection and at her assumption.
Jesus chose Mary as his inseparable companion during his life, at his death, in his glory and in his power in heaven and on earth and gave her - by grace - all the same rights and privileges that he possesses by nature; Quid-quid Deo convenit par naturam Mariae convenit par gratiam: that which is proper to God by nature is proper to Mary by grace.
Sola Scriptura and/or private interpretation is wholly inadequate to describe her Mystery. Not least because the Bible, itself, tells us that it is incomplete: âBut there are also MANY other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be writtenâ. (Jn 21:25)
Mary was most hidden during her life, which is why she is called by the Holy Spirit and by the Church âAlma Materâ: Mother hidden and secret. God took pleasure in concealing her from the view of almost every human creature at her conception, at her birth, during her life, in her mysteries, at her resurrection and at her assumption.
Jesus chose Mary as his inseparable companion during his life, at his death, in his glory and in his power in heaven and on earth and gave her - by grace - all the same rights and privileges that he possesses by nature; Quid-quid Deo convenit par naturam Mariae convenit par gratiam: that which is proper to God by nature is proper to Mary by grace.
R
Richard_Kastner
Guest
What you wrote about what?
Ok
Acts 9:11And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the street which is called Straight, and enquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul, of Tarsus: for, behold, he prayeth,
12And hath seen in a vision a man named Ananias coming in, and putting his hand on him, that he might receive his sight.
13Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem:
14And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name.
15But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:
After the death of Stephen which marked the last great rejection of the Jews of the Gospel message. The gospel message went out to the rest of the world (the Gentiles). Paul who was one of the first evangalists is shown in the above passage to have been chosen, by Jesus Christ Himself, to bear Jesusâ name before the Gentiles. Now while it is technically true that Paul wrote to Christians, these were new Christians (that Paul himself had evagelised) and Iâm sure the letters were used as evangelical tools.
But Mary was not unborn or Jesus, so she would have been included in the âallâ
What I am having trouble making sense of is your little contrived argument here. What does my disagreeing with Luther on Mary, have to do with SS?
D
David_Castlen
Guest
Luther died with a Rosary; praying the Rosary. I least that is what I heard
C
CopticChristian
Guest
The Partriarch of Sola Scriptura never doubted the sinless nature of Mary and you do.
Paul wrote to the Romans, a Church he did not evanglize and he had not visited.
F
Frankk
Guest
And so it continues. People continuing to argue their own prejudices, perceptions and misconceptions. How tiresome. But carry on if you have nothing better to do.
For the Catholics here please revert to prayer and refrain from pointless dialogue with those who are unable to perceive the Truth
N
Nicea325
Guest
Well it is true. I find it amazing how so many deny the Real Presence of the Eucharist,but have no complaints against God creating the entire universe and Incarnating into man? Amazing!
J
Jshep316
Guest
May I ask Joe or is it Sidebar, why we would leave scripture aside for a while and then come up with conjecture like this? If God created Mary in a sinless state? Is this what underpins the doctrine of mary? I would hope not
R
Richard_Kastner
Guest
Correct.
Your probably right, but the point is that Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles andthe chaurch being very young I am sure He had some part in evangelising the Roman church. His letter to them could be considered such. Anyway is that all you have to say about my reply
F
Frankk
Guest
We might ask, so what? You have an opinion - which is important only to you and no-one else. Your position is understood. Catholics hold different views - on rather firmer ground than mere personal opinion.
So Catholics understand your position; you understand their position. What on earth is the point in going on about it? And on, and on, and on�??
R
Richard_Kastner
Guest
Romans 8:3For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: This as I have pointed out many times says that the Father has sent His âSon in the likeness of sinful fleshâ. The flesh that Jesus came in the likeness of was His mother Mary. This is NOT my opinion. You can read it for yourself in Rom.8:3. I can understand why you donât want me to post this simple fact. You have posted âTrying to squeeze unspoken aspects of Mary into the Bible is, perhaps, an interesting intellectual exercise. But it is no more than that.â I certainly would have to agree with this statement. I have shown you a spoken aspect of Mary directly from holy Scripture. The holy Scripture that Iâm sure we can both agree is the WORD OF GOD. This aspect disagrees with what the CC says about Maryâs sinlessness and I can totally understand why my posting it would make you uncomfortable, but I have found that, when the WORD OF GOD and the word of man conflict, it is the WORD OF GOD that we MUST follow.
F
Frankk
Guest
I am far from uncomfortable with your post; itâs just incredibly boring.
The problem is not with the WORD OF GOD - it is your interpretation of it. When Luther proposed the concept of Sola Scriptura I doubt he had any idea of what heâd unleashed. Within a relatively few months Zwingli put his own interpretation on the Bible, followed by Calvin, etc⌠And chaos ensued.
The end result is there are now over 20,000 Christian denominations all convinced their interpretation of Scripture is the correct one.
It is also true that these interpretations are of a translation of a translation of a translation. For example, in Jn 6 he uses two words we translate as âeatâ. However âphagoâ only means eat but âtrwgwâ is usually understood as gnaw or chew. To a Greek speaker the difference would be significant - which, perhaps, explains why Jesusâ followers were so horrified by his words. Such are the difficulties of translation - which is why Jesus gave us the Church and the promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against it. He didnât leave us the Bible and tell us to get on with it as best as we can. That way we get all these different and incorrect interpretations (like yours!)
The problem is not with the WORD OF GOD - it is your interpretation of it. When Luther proposed the concept of Sola Scriptura I doubt he had any idea of what heâd unleashed. Within a relatively few months Zwingli put his own interpretation on the Bible, followed by Calvin, etc⌠And chaos ensued.
The end result is there are now over 20,000 Christian denominations all convinced their interpretation of Scripture is the correct one.
It is also true that these interpretations are of a translation of a translation of a translation. For example, in Jn 6 he uses two words we translate as âeatâ. However âphagoâ only means eat but âtrwgwâ is usually understood as gnaw or chew. To a Greek speaker the difference would be significant - which, perhaps, explains why Jesusâ followers were so horrified by his words. Such are the difficulties of translation - which is why Jesus gave us the Church and the promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against it. He didnât leave us the Bible and tell us to get on with it as best as we can. That way we get all these different and incorrect interpretations (like yours!)
R
Richard_Kastner
Guest
Well I find your post very interesting. You start out saying that there is no problem with the WORD OF GOD. That certainly is a relief. But then you say that you have a problem with my interpretation. You donât even say with what verse or passage. I can only assme that it is Romans 8:3For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh. Which says that Jesus came in the âlikeness of sinful fleshâ. This is a quote and not an interpretation. The sinful flesh that Jesus came in the likeness of was the sinful flesh of His mother. Again this is just a fact and not an interpretation. But what I find most interesting about your post is that you provide no alternative explanation for this verse. Instead you go off on some irrelevant tangent.
So whatâs up Frankk/ Whatâs the âofficialâ âinfallibleâ interpretation of this verse?
F
Frankk
Guest
To get a perspective you could try the New Jerome Biblical Commentary (far too long for my typing skills to type out)! (51:71-83)
You could also refer to the Papal Encyclical âRedemptorist Materâ. Your best bet, though, would be âIneffabilis Deusâ.
You claim just to be stating facts.
âThe sinful flesh that Jesus came in the likeness of was the sinful flesh of His mother. Again this is just a fact and not an interpretation.â
This is not a fact; what you have given is your interpretation of the text. It is eisegesis. Nowhere in Romans does it mention the âsinful flesh of his motherâ. Bearing in mind, of course âSola Scripturaâ; you shouldnât add personal words to the Word of God - even if Luther did choose to insert the word âaloneâ in his German translation of Romans - which was the catalyst for the whole sad consequential results.
Personal interpretation (and its catastrophic effects) is hardly an irrelevance: it is core to the discussion.
You could also refer to the Papal Encyclical âRedemptorist Materâ. Your best bet, though, would be âIneffabilis Deusâ.
You claim just to be stating facts.
âThe sinful flesh that Jesus came in the likeness of was the sinful flesh of His mother. Again this is just a fact and not an interpretation.â
This is not a fact; what you have given is your interpretation of the text. It is eisegesis. Nowhere in Romans does it mention the âsinful flesh of his motherâ. Bearing in mind, of course âSola Scripturaâ; you shouldnât add personal words to the Word of God - even if Luther did choose to insert the word âaloneâ in his German translation of Romans - which was the catalyst for the whole sad consequential results.
Personal interpretation (and its catastrophic effects) is hardly an irrelevance: it is core to the discussion.
- Status