Mary's sin of unbelief?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Henning
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
We do not have God’s testimony. In both cases an angel spoke.
Angels are messengers of God. And the scriptures are also messengers of God. In both cases they communicate exactly what God wants communicated.
 
Angels are messengers of God. And the scriptures are also messengers of God. In both cases they communicate exactly what God wants communicated.
VociMike,

I am pleased that this important issue is being discussed in detail.

What God says and what an Angel says are different.

Creators and Creator are not the same.

To claim the words of an Angel are the words of God is pantherism.

One might claim,as do Mormons and Muslims, that scriptures are the exact words of God, dictated to a human source.

However Catholics claim the Bible is inspired, but there are human authors.

In this contest it might be of interst to consider St Paul.
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach (to you) a gospel other than the one that we preached to you, let that one be accursed!
(The New American Bible, Ga 1:8).
Why, then, the law? It was added for transgressions, until the descendant came to whom the promise had been made; it was promulgated by angels at the hand of a mediator. Now there is no mediator when only one party is involved, and God is one.
The New American Bible : Ga 3:19,20).
 
VociMike,

I am pleased that this important issue is being discussed in detail.

What God says and what an Angel says are different.

Creators and Creator are not the same.

To claim the words of an Angel are the words of God is pantherism.

One might claim,as do Mormons and Muslims, that scriptures are the exact words of God, dictated to a human source.

However Catholics claim the Bible is inspired, but there are human authors.

In this contest it might be of interst to consider St Paul.
Noel, do you think Paul might have been using a hyperbole when referring to “even an angel from heaven preaching a different Gospel”. That would be impossible, in my opinion, for an angel to speak anything other than what God intends it to speak.
 
NotWorthy

You wrtote:
Noel, do you think Paul might have been using a hyperbole when referring to “even an angel from heaven preaching a different Gospel”. That would be impossible, in my opinion, for an angel to speak anything other than what God intends it to speak.
Lucifer is an angel - a fallen one.

I see in Wikipedia
  • The best-known fallen angel is Lucifer. Lucifer rebelled and was cast out of Heaven and fell to Earth for his offense. According to some traditions, fallen angels will roam the Earth until Judgment Day, when they will be banished to Hell.*
 
VociMike,

I am pleased that this important issue is being discussed in detail.

What God says and what an Angel says are different.

Creators and Creator are not the same.

To claim the words of an Angel are the words of God is pantherism.
If you have any evidence that angels have said things to humans other than what God wanted them to say to humans, I’m open to hear it.
 
Did Mary sin a sin of unbelief ?

Luke 1:18
“And Zacharias said unto the angel,
whereby shall I know this
for I am an old man and my wife well stricken in years ?”

Luke 1:34
“Then said Mary unto the angel,
**how shall this be **
seeing I know not a man ?”

Both verses have similar constructions.
They both question the angel in dismay/disbelief
with respect to their prospects of having a child.
In Zacharias’ case Gabriel ‘dumbs’ him,
“because thou believest not my words (Lk 1:20)”.
Is it correct therefore to say that Mary,
however fleetingly, was also in unbelief
toward God’s announcement via Gabriel,
and therefore in unbelief towards God’s word
which is sin? “for whatsoever is not of faith is sin”
(Rom 14:23). Mary though being given leniency
as opposed to the man Zecharias because of
something to do with her motherhood
(or more simply just because of Jesus) ???

I’m stuck on this…
Your answer is in the Angel’s response. One was punished, one was rewarded. I would not impute sin where the Angel did not. Zechariah questioned what was humanly possible. Mary questioned what was humanly impossible. Gabriel enlightened Mary as to exactly how this was to happen.
 
VociMike
I think we are wandering from the original discussion.

I wrote:
What God says and what an Angel says are different.
Do you agree with this?

You wrote:
If you have any evidence that angels have said things to humans other than what God wanted them to say to humans, I’m open to hear it.
Satan, Lucifer and the Devil (they may differ) are not truthful. They are fallen angels.

I would not expect the father of lies to be truthful.
 
Satan, Lucifer and the Devil (they may differ) are not truthful. They are fallen angels.

I would not expect the father of lies to be truthful.
I stand corrected. Do you have evidence that unfallen angels have ever said anything to humans other than what God wanted them to say to humans?
 
VociMike
You wrote:
I stand corrected. Do you have evidence that unfallen angels have ever said anything to humans other than what God wanted them to say to humans?
No.

However what an angel says is not what God says, since an angel is not God.

Similarly what an ambassador says is not what the president says, since the ambassador is not the president.

Thus if one were to say what an angel said is what God said one is wrong. The simplest thing is to put one’s hand up and say one was incorrect.

Again let us go back to St Paul.

In Gal 3:19 one sees (NAB):
Why, then, the law? It was added for transgressions, until the descendant came to whom the promise had been made; it was promulgated by angels at the hand of a mediator
.

Here clearly Paul distinguishes between what comes directly from God and from an angel.
 
There’s been mention of angel (s) in this topic. I’m pleased to present a snippet of from the HOMILY OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI, Memorial of the three Archangels, St Peter’s Basilica, Saturday, 29 September 2007:

“But what is an Angel? Sacred Scripture and the Church’s tradition enable us to discern two aspects. On the one hand, the Angel is a creature who stands before God, oriented to God with his whole being. All three names of the Archangels end with the word “El”, which means “God”. God is inscribed in their names, in their nature. Their true nature is existing in his sight and for him. In this very way the second aspect that characterizes Angels is also explained: they are God’s messengers. They bring God to men, they open heaven and thus open earth. Precisely because they are with God, they can also be very close to man. Indeed, God is closer to each one of us than we ourselves are. The Angels speak to man of what constitutes his true being, of what in his life is so often concealed and buried. They bring him back to himself, touching him on God’s behalf. In this sense, we human beings must also always return to being angels to one another - angels who turn people away from erroneous ways and direct them always, ever anew, to God. If the ancient Church called Bishops “Angels” of their Church, she meant precisely this: Bishops themselves must be men of God, they must live oriented to God. “Multum orat pro populo” - “Let them say many prayers for the people”, the Breviary of the Church says of holy Bishops. The Bishop must be a man of prayer, one who intercedes with God for human beings. The more he does so, the more he also understands the people who are entrusted to him and can become an angel for them - a messenger of God who helps them to find their true nature by themselves, and to live the idea that God has of them.”
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20070929_episc-ordinations_en.html
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/b...en-xvi_hom_20070929_episc-ordinations_en.html

I have a guardian :angel1:
 
There’s been mention of angel (s) in this topic. I’m pleased to present a snippet of from the HOMILY OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI, Memorial of the three Archangels, St Peter’s Basilica, Saturday, 29 September 2007:

“But what is an Angel? Sacred Scripture and the Church’s tradition enable us to discern two aspects. On the one hand, the Angel is a creature who stands before God, oriented to God with his whole being. All three names of the Archangels end with the word “El”, which means “God”. God is inscribed in their names, in their nature. Their true nature is existing in his sight and for him. In this very way the second aspect that characterizes Angels is also explained: they are God’s messengers. They bring God to men, they open heaven and thus open earth. Precisely because they are with God, they can also be very close to man. Indeed, God is closer to each one of us than we ourselves are. The Angels speak to man of what constitutes his true being, of what in his life is so often concealed and buried. They bring him back to himself, touching him on God’s behalf. In this sense, we human beings must also always return to being angels to one another - angels who turn people away from erroneous ways and direct them always, ever anew, to God. If the ancient Church called Bishops “Angels” of their Church, she meant precisely this: Bishops themselves must be men of God, they must live oriented to God. “Multum orat pro populo” - “Let them say many prayers for the people”, the Breviary of the Church says of holy Bishops. The Bishop must be a man of prayer, one who intercedes with God for human beings. The more he does so, the more he also understands the people who are entrusted to him and can become an angel for them - a messenger of God who helps them to find their true nature by themselves, and to live the idea that God has of them.”
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20070929_episc-ordinations_en.html
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/b...en-xvi_hom_20070929_episc-ordinations_en.html

I have a guardian :angel1:
You remind me of something else. If we were to gaze on God in this mortal life, we would die, according to Scripture. So God sends us angels to tell us things, without killing us… which would sort of ruin the whole intent of what He had to say in the first place…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top